containe particularly the one or the other in vertue of the institution are taken seperately their substance can be no more seperated then their vertue and their grace in so much that infants in drinking only the Blood do not only receive the essentiall fruit of the Eucharist but also the whole substance of this Sacrament and in a word an actuall and perfect Communion All these things shew sufficiently the reason wee have to believe that Communion under one or both species containes togeather with the substance of this Sacrament the whole effect essentiall to it The practise of all ages which have explained it in this manner has its reason grounded both in the foundation of the mystery and in the words themselves of JESUS-CHRIST and never was any custome established upon more sollid foundations nor upon a more constant practise § X. Some objections solved by the precedent Doctrine I Do not wonder that our Reformers who acknowlege nothing but bare signes in the bread and wine of their Supper endeavour by all meanes to have them both but I am astonished that they will not understand that in placing as wee do JESUS-CHRIST entirely under each of these sacred Symboles wee can content our selves with one of the two M. Exam. Tr. VI. Sect. 6. p. 480. 481. Jurieux objects against us that the reall presence being supposed the Body and the Blood would in reality be received under the Bread alone but that yet this would not suffise because t is true this would be to receive the Blood but not the Sacrament of the Blood this would be to receive JESUS-CHRIST wholy entirely really but not sacramentally as they call it Is it possible that a man should believe it is not enough for a Christian to receive entire JESUS-CHRIST Is it not a Sacrament where JESUS-CHRIST is pleased to be in person thereby to bring with himselfe all his graces to place the vertue of this Sacrament in the signes with which he is vailed rather then in his proper person which he gives us wholy and entirely Is not this I say contrary to what he himselfe has said with his own mouth John 6.57.58 he who eates of this Bread shall have eternall life and he who eates me shall live for me and by me as I my selfe live for my Father and by my Father But if M. Jurieux maintaine in despite of these words that it dos not suffise to have JESUS-CHRIST if wee have not in the Sacrament of his Body and his Blood the perfect image of his death as he do's nothing in that but repete an objection alread cleared so I send him to the answers I have given to this argument and to the undeniable examples I have set down to shew that by the avouched confession of his Churches when the substance of the Sacrament is received the ultimate perfection of its signification is no more necessary But if this principle be true even in those very Sacraments were JESUS-CHRIST is not really and substantially contained as in that of Baptisme how much the rather is it certain in the Eucharist where JESUS-CHRIST is present in his person and what is it he can desire more who possesses him entirely But in fine will some say there must not be such arguing upon expresse words Seing it is your sentiment that the VI. chapter of Saint John ought to be understood of the Eucharist you cannot dispence with your selves in the practise of it as to the letter and to give the Blood to drinke as well as the Body to eat seing JESUS-CHRIST has equally prononced both of the one and of the other If you eat not my Body and drinke not my Blood you shall have no life in you Let us once stop the mouths of these obstinate and contentious spirits who will not understand these words of JESUS-CHRIST by their whole connexion I demande of them whence it comes they do not by these words believe Communion absolutely necessary for the salvation of all men yea even of little infants newly baptised If nothing must be explicated let us give to them the Communion as well as to others and if it must be explicated let us explicate all by the same rule I say by the same rule because the same principle and the same authoritè from which wee learne that Communion in generall is not necessary to the salvation of those who have received Baptisme teach us that the particular Communion of the Blood is not necessary to those who have been already partakers of the Body The principle which shews us that the Communion is not necessary to the salvation of little infants baptized is that they have already received the remission of sins and a new life in Baptisme because they have beene thereby regenerated and sanctifyed in so much that if they should perish for want of being communicated they would perish in the state of innocence and grace The same principle shews also that he who has received the Bread of life has no neede of receiving the sacred Blood seing as wee have frequently demonstrated he has received togeather with the Bread of life the whole substance of the Sacrament and togeather with that fubstance the whole essentiall vertue of the Eucharist The substance of the Eucharist is JESUS-CHRIST himselfe The vertue of the Eucharist is to nourish the soule to conserve therein that new life it has received in Baptisme to confirme the union with JESUS-CHRIST and to replenish even our bodyes with sanctity and life I aske whether in the very moment the Body of our Lord is received all these effect be not likewise received and whether the Blood can add thereunto any thing essentiall Behold what regards the principle let us come now to what regards the authority The authority which persuades us that Communion is not so necessary to the salvation of little infants as Baptisme is the authority of the Church It is in effect this authority which carryes with it in the Tradition of all ages the true meaning of the Scripture and as this authority has taught us that he who is baptised wants not any thing necessary to salvation so dos it also teach us that he who receives one sole species wants none of those effects which the Eucharist ought to produce in us From hence in the very primitive times they communicated either under one or under both species without believing they hazarded any thing of that grace which they ought to receive in the Sacrament Wherefore though it be writt If you do not eate my Body and drinke my Blood John 6.54 you shall have no life in you it is also writt after the same manner John 3.8 If a man be not regenerated of water and the Holy Ghost he shall not enter into the Kingdome of God The Church hath not understoud an equall necessity in these two Sentences on the contrary she alwayes understood that Baptisme which gives life is more necessary then the Eucharist
that there is nothing more common in books and ordinary in humain language But I find not that in the matter wee treat of and in the relation which is made of the distribution of the Eucharist he has found in the Fathers any more then Calixte one single example of an expression which according to him should be so common Behold two Ministers in the same perplexity Calixtes finds the body alone mentioned in the communion of the sick and M. du Bourdieu the same in domestick communion Wee are not astonished at it wee beleeve that the body alone was given in both these Communions These Ministers will beleeve nothing of it both of them bring the figure Synecdoche where by to save themselves both of them are equally destitute of Examples in the like cases What therefore remaines but to conclude that their Synecdoche is but imaginary and that in particular if Saint Paulinus speake only of the body in the Communion of Saint Ambrose it is in effect that Saint Ambrose did receive nothing but the body only according to custome If he tell us that this great man expired immediately after having received wee must not here search after subtilityes nor fancy to our selves a figure It is the simple truth and matter of fact which makes him thus plainly relate what passed But to the end wee may compleat the conviction of these Ministers supposing that their Synecdoche is as common in such like cases as it is rare or rather unheard of let us se whether it agree with the passage in question and with the History of Saint Ambrose Paulinus sayes S. Honoratus being gone to repose during the silence of the night a voice from heaven advertised him that his sick man was going to expire that he immediately went down presented him with the body of our Lord and that the Saint give up the Ghost presently after having received it How comes it to pass that he did not rather say that he dyed immediately after having received the pretious blood if the thing hapned really so Were it as ordinary as Calixtus would have it to expresse only the body to signify the receiving of the body and the blood by this figure which puts the part for the whole it is as naturall also for the same reason and by the same figure the blood alone should be sometimes made use of to expresse the receiving under both the one and the other species But if ever this should have hapned it ought to have been cheefly upon the occasion of this Communion of Saint Ambrose and of the relation which Paulinus has left us of it For since he would shew the receiving of the Eucharist so immediately fallowed by the death of the Saint and would represent this great man dying as another Moyses in the embraces of his Lord If he intended to abridge his discourse he should have done it in abridging and shuning in the relation of that part or action wherein this Holy Bishop terminated his life that is to say in the reception of the blood which is alwayes the last and the rather because this supposed the other and it would have beene in effect immediatly after this that the Saint rendred up his blessed soule to God Nothing would have so much struck the senses nothing would have been so strongly printed in the memory nothing would have presented it selfe sooner to the thoughts and nothing by consequence would have run more naturally in discourse If therefore no mention of the blood be found in this historian it is indeed because Saint Ambrose did not receive it Calixtus foresaw verry well Ibid. that the recitate of Paulinus would forme this idea naturally in the readers mindes and it is thereupon that he adds it may verry well be that they carryed to the Saint the pretious blood togeather with the body as equally necessary but that Saint Ambrose had not the time to receave it being prevented by death Oh unhappy refuge in a desperate cause If Paulinus had this idea instead of representing us his holy Bishop as a man who by a speciall care of the Divine Providence dyed with all the helps which a Christian could wish for he would on the contrary by some word have denoted that notwithstanding this heavenly advertissement and the extreame diligence of S. Honoratus a sodain death had deprived this sick Saint of the blood of his Master and of so essentiall at part of the Sacrament But they had not these Ideas in those times and the Saints beleeved they gave and received all in the body only Thus the two answers of Calixtus are equally vaine In like manner M. du Bourdieu his great follower has not dared to expresse eather the one or the other and in that perplexitay whereinto so pecise testimony had thrown him he endeavours to save himselfe by answering only that Du Bourd rép chap. 13. p. 378. Saint Ambrose received the communion as he could not dreaming that he had immediately before said they had given the two species to Serapion and that if it had been the custome it would not have been more difficult to give them to Saint Ambrose Moreover if they had beleived them inseparable as these Ministers with all those of their religon pretend it is cleare that they would raither have resolved to give neither of the two then to give only one Thus all the answers of these Ministers are turned against themselves and M. du Bourdieu cannot fight against us without fighting against himselfe He has notwithstanding found another expedient to weaken the authority of this passage and is not afraid in so knowing an age as this is to write that before this example of Saint Ambrose there is not any tract to be found of the Communion of the sick in any words of the ansients Ibid. The testimony of Saint Justin who in his second Apologie sayes they carryed the Eucharist to those that were absent touches him not Ibid. 382. For Saint Justin sayes he has not expressely specifyed the sick as if their sicknesse had been a sufficient cause to deprive them of this common consolation and not raither a new motive to give it them But what becomes of the example of Serapion Is it not clearly enough said that he was sick and dying T is true but the reason was because he was one of those who had sacrifised to Idols and one that was ranked amongst the penitents He must have been an Idolator to merit to receive the Eucharist in dying and the faithfull who during the whole course of their lives have never been excluded from the participation of this Sacrament by any crime must be excluded at their death when they have the most need of such a succour And thus a man amuses himselfe and thinks he has done a learned exploit when he heaps togeather as this Minister does the examples of dyinh persons where there is no mention made of communion without reflectinh that
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
and such as carrys a face of probability But in reality there was none Nor dos M. Jurieux shew us any in the Authors of that time The first contradiction is that which gave occasion to the decision of the Councile of Constance in the yeare 1415. It begun in Bohemia as wee have seene about the end of the XIV age and if according to the relation of M. Jurieux the custome of communicating under one sole species begun in the XI age if they do not begin to complaine and that in Bohemia only but towards the end of the XIV age by the acknowledgement of this Minister three hundred whole yeares should be passed before a change so strange so bold if wee beleeve him so visibly opposite to the institution of JESUS CHRIST and to all precedent practises should have made any noise Beleive it that will for my part I am sensible that to beleeve it all remorse of conscience must be stifled M. Jurieux must without doubt have some of them to fee himselfe forced by the badnesse of his cause to disguise truth so many wayes in an historicall relation that is in a kind of discourse which above all others requires candor and sincerity He do's not so much as state the question sincerely V. Sect. p. 464. The state of the question says he is very easy to comprehend he will then I hope declare it clearely and distinctly Let us see It is granted adds he that when they communicate the faithfull as well the people as the Clergy they are obliged to give them the Bread to eate but they pretend it is not the same as to the Cupp He will not so much as dreame that wee beleeve Communion equally vallid and perfect under eather of the two species But beeing willing by the very state of the question to have it understood that wee beleive more perfection or more necessity in that of the Bread then in the other or that JESUS-CHRIST is not equally in them both he would thereby render us manifestly ridiculous But he knows verry well that wee are far from these phancyes and it may be seene in this Treatise that wee beleeve the Communion given to little children during so many ages under the sole species of wine as good and vallid as that which was given in so many other occurrences under the sole species of Bread So that M. Jurieux states the question wrong He begins his dispute concerning the two species upon that question so stated He continues it by a history where wee have seene he advances as many falsityes as facts Behold here the man whom our Reformers looke upon at present every where as the strongest defendour of their cause §. IX A reflection upon concomitancy and upon the doctrine of the sixth chapter of Saint Johns Gospel IF wee add to the proofs of those practises which wee have drawn from the most pure and holy source of antiquity and to those solid maximes wee have established by the consent of the Pretended Reformers if wee add I say to all these what wee have already said but which it may be has not been sufficiently weighed that the reall presence being supposed it cannot be denyed but that each species containes JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire Communion under one species will remaine undoubted there being nothing more unreasonable then to make the grace of a Sacrament where JESUS-CHRIST has wouchsafed to be present nor to depend of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe but of the species under which he is hidden These Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformation must permitt us here to explicate more fully this concomitancy so much attaqued by their disputes and seing they have let passe the reall presence as a doctrine which has no venome in it they ought not henceforth to have such an aversion from what is but a manifest consequence of it M. Jurieux has acknowleged it in the places heretofore mentioned Exam. p. 480. If says he the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the reall presence were true it is true that the Bread would containe the Flesh and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST So that concomitancy is an effect of the reall presence and the Pretended Reformers do not deny us this consequence Let them then at present presuppose this reall presence seing they suffer it in their brethren the Lutherans and let them consider with us the necessary consequences they will see that our Lord could not give us his Body and his Blood perpetually seperated nor give us either the one or the other without giving us his person whole and entire in either of the two Verily when he said Take eat this is my Body and by those words gave us the flesh of his sacrifise to eate he know verry well he did not give us the flesh of a pure man but that he gave us a flesh united to the divinity and in a word the flesh of God and man both togeather The same must be said of his Blood which would not be the price of our salvation if it were not the Blood of God Blood which the Divine Word had appropriated to himselfe after a most particular manner by making himselfe man conformable to these words of Saint Paul Heb. 11.14.17 Because his servants are composed of flesh and blood he who ought in all things to be like unto them would partake both of the one and the other But if he would not give us in his Sacrament a flesh purely humain he would much lesse give us in it a flesh without a soule a dead flesh a carcase or by the same reason a flesh despoiled of blood and blood actually seperated from the body otherwise he ought to dye often and often to shed his Blood a thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection where he ought to conserve eternally humain nature as entire as he had at first assumed it So that he knew verry well that wee should have in his flesh his Blood that in his Blood wee should have his flesh and that wee should have in both the one and the other his blessed soule with his divinity whole and entire without which his flesh would not be quickning nor his Blood full of spirit and grace Why then in giving us such great treasors his holy soule his divinity all that he is why I say did he only name his Body and his Blood if it were not to make us understand it is by that infirmity which he would have common with us wee must arrive to his strength And why has he in his word distinguished this Body and this Blood which he would not effectually seperate but during that little time he was in the sepulchre if it be not to make us also understand this Body and this Blood with which he nourisheth and quickneth us would not have the vertue if they had not beene once actually seperated and if this seperation had not caused the violent death of our Saviour by which he became our victime So that the vertue
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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