he can upon this impossibility so often repeted at last concludes that the party mentioned to whom the Bread alone is given p. 264. to speake properly dos not take with the mouth the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST because this Sacrament is composed of two parts and he receives but one Exam. de l'Euch Tr. 6. sect 7. this he likewise confirmes in the last booke he set forth This is what the Pretended Reformers durst nost that I know of hetherto affirme Verily a Communion which is not a Sacrament is a strange mystery and the Pretended Reformers who are at last obliged to acknowledge it would do as well to grant the consequence wee draw from their discipline seing they can finde no other way to unty this knott but by a prodigy never heard of in the Church But the doctrine of this Author appeares yet more strange when considered with all its circumstances Préservatif p. 266. 267. According to him the Church presents in this case the true Sacrament but neverthelesse what is received is not the true Sacrament or raither it is not a true Sacrament as to the signe but it is a true Sacrament as to the thing signifyed because the faithfull receive JESUS-CHRIST signifyed by the Sacrament and receive as many Graces as those who communicate under the Sacrament it selfe because the Sacrament is presented to him whole and entire because he receives it with heart and affection and because the sole insuperable impossibility hinders him to communicate under the signe What do these subtilityes availe him He might conclude from his arguments that the faithfull who cannot according to his principles receive the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST seeing he cannot receive an essentiall part is excused by his inability from the obligation to receive at all and that the desire he has to receive the Sacrament supplyes the effect But that upon this account wee should be obliged to seperate that which is inseperable by its institution and to give a man a Sacrament which he cannot receive or rather to give him solemnly that which being not the true Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST can be nothing else but meere bread is to invent a new mystery in Christian Religion and to deceive in the face of the Church à Christian who beleeves he receives that which in reality he do's not Behold neverthelesse the last refuge of our Reformers behold what he has writ who writ against me the last of any whose booke is so much spread by the Protestants through France Holland and other parts in divers languages with a magnificent Preface as the most efficacious antidote the new Reforme could invent against this Exposition so often attaqued He has found out by his way of improving and refining of others this new absurdity that what is received amongst them with so much solemnity when they cannot drinke wine is not the Sacrament of our Lord and that it is by consequence a meere invention of humain wi lt which a Church who sayes she is founded upon the pure word of God is not afraid to establish without so much as finding one syllable of it in that word To conclude JESUS-CHRIST has not made a particular law for those wee here speake of Man could not dispense with them in an expresse precept of our Lord nor allow them any thing he did not institute Wherefore either nothing must be given them or if one species be given them it must be beleeved that by the institution of our Lord this single species containes the whole essence of the Sacrament and that the receiving of the other can add nothing but what is accidentall to it §. IV. The third Principle The law ought to be explained by constant and perpetuall Practise An exposition of this Principle by the example of the civill law BUT to come to our third Principle which alone carryes along with it the decision of this question This is it To know what appertaines or do's not appertaine to the substance of the Sacraments wee must consult the practise and sentiment of the Church Let us speake more generally In all practicall matters wee must alwayes regard what has been understood and practised by the Church and as herein consists the true spirit of the law I write this for an intelligent and clearsighted Judge who is sensible that to understand an Ordonance and to discerne the meaning of it aright hee must know after what manner it was alwayes understood and practised otherwise since every man argues after his owne fashon the law would become arbitrary The rule then is to examin how it has been understood and how practised in following which a man shall not be deceived God to honour his Church and to oblige particuler persons to her holy decisions would that this rule should have place in his law as it has in humain lawes and the true manner to understand this holy law is to consider in what manner it has alwayes been understood and observed in the Church The reason of this is that there appeares in this interpretation and perpetuall practise a Tradition which cannot come but from God himselfe according to this doctrine of the Fathers that what is seene alwayes and in all places of the Church cannot come but from the Apostles who learned it from JESUS-CHRIST and from that Spirit of truth which he has given for a teacher And for feare any one should be deceived by the different significations of the word Tradition I declare that the Tradition I alledge here as a necessary interpreter of the law of God is an unwritten doctrine procedeng from God himselfe and conserved in the judgement and practise of the universall Church I have no neede here to prove this Tradition and what followes will make it appeare that our Reformers are forced to acknowledge it at least in this matter But it will not be amisse to remove in few words the false ideas which they ordinarily apply to this word of Tradition They tell us that the authority which wee give to Tradition subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men and declares it imperfect They are palpably deceived Scripture and Tradition make togeather but one and the same body of doctrine revealed by God and so far is it that the obligation of interpreting Scripture by Tradition subjects the Scripture to the thoughts of men that there is nothing can give it more preeminence above them When particular persons are permitted as it is amongst our Pretended Reformers to interpret Scripture every one according to his own fancy there is liberty necessarily given to arbitrary interpretations and in effect scripture is subjected to the thoughts of men who interpret it each one according to his own mode but when every one in particular is obliged to receive it in the sense the Church doth receive and alwayes hath received it there is nothing elevates the authority of Scripture more nor renders it more independent of all particular opinions A man is never
more assured to understand aright the spirit and sense of the law then when he understands it as it has alwayes been understood since its first establishment Never dos a man honour more the Lawgiver the minde is never more captivated under the authority of the law nor more restrained to its true sense never are particular lights and false glosses more excluded Thus when our Fore Fathers in all their Councils in all their Books in all their Decrees obliged themselves by an indispensable law to understand the Holy Scriptures as it has been alwayes understood they were so far fom believing that by this meanes they submitted it to humain phancies that on the contrary they beleeved there was no surer meanes to exclude them The Holy-Ghost who dictated the Scripture and deposited it in the hands of the Church gave her an understanding of it from the beginning and in all ages in so much that the sence thereof which has alwayes appeared in the Church is as well inspired as the Scripture it selfe The Scripture is not imperfect because it has need of such an interpretation It belonged to the majesty of Scripture to be concise in its words profound in its sense and full of a wisdome which alwayes appeared so much the more impenetrable by how much the more it was penetrated into It was with these characters of the divinity that the Holy-Ghost was pleased to invest it It ought to be meditated on to be understood and that which the Church has alwayes understood thereof by meditating upon it ought to be received as a law So that that which is not writ is no lesse venerable then that which is whilst both of them come by the same way Each one corresponds to the upholding of the other seing that Scripture is the necessary groundworke of Tradition and Tradition the infallible interpreter of Scripture If I should affirme that the whole Scripture ought to be interpreted after this manner I should affirme a truth which the Church has alwayes acknowledged but I should recede from the matter in question I reduce my selfe to things of practise and principally to what is of ceremony I maintaine that wee cannot distinguish what is essentiall and indispensable from what is left to the liberty of the Church but by examining Tradition and constant practise This is what I undertake to prove by Scripture it selfe by all antiquity and to the end that nothing may be wanting in point of proofe by the plain confession of our very adversaryes Under the name of ceremony I do here comprehend the Sacraments which are in effect facred signes and ceremonyes divinely instituted to signify and confer Grace Experience shewes that what belongs to ceremony cannot be well explained but by the received manner of practising it By this our question is decided In the sacred ceremony of the Lords Supper wee have seene that the Church has alwayes beleeved she gave the whole substance and applyed the whole vertue of the Sacrament in giving only one sole species Behold what has been alwayes practised behold what ought to stand for a law This rule is not rejected by the Pretended Reformers Wee have even now seene that if they had not beleeved that the judgement of the Church and her interpretation stand for a law they would never have divided the supper in favour of those who drinke no wine nor given a decision which is not in the Gospell But it is not in this only that they have followed the interpretation of a Church Wee shall shortly see many other points where they cannot avoid having recourse to this rule wee propose I establish therefore without hesitation this generall proposition and I advance as the constant practise acknowledged by the antient and moderne Jewes by the Christians in all ages and by the Pretended Reformers themselves that the ceremoniall lawes of both the old and new Testament cannot be understood but by practise and that without this meanes it is impossible to comprehend the true spirit of the law § V. A proofe from the observances of the old Testament THE matter is more surprising in the old Testament where every thing was circumstanced and particularised with so much care yet notwithstanding it is certain that a law written with so much exactnesse stood in neede of Tradition and the interpretation of the Synagogue to be well understood The law of the Sabaoth alone fournisheth many examples of this Every one knowes how strict was the observance of this sacred rest Exod. 16.23.35.3 in which it was forbid under paine of death to prepare their diet or so much as to light their fire In a word the law forbid so precisely all manner of worke that many durst scarce move on this holy day At least it was certain that none could either undertake or continue a journey and wee know what hapned to the army of Antiochus Sidetes Joseph Ant. 13.16 when this Prince stopped his march in favour of John Hyrcanus and the Jewes during two dayes on which their law obliged them to a rest equall to that of the Sabaoth In this strict obligation to remain in rest Tradition and custome alone had explicated how far one might go without violating the tranquility requisite during these holy dayes From hence comes that manner of speech mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles from such a place to such a place is a Sabaoth dayes journey Act. 1.12 This Tradition was established in the time of our Saviour neither did he nor his Apostles who mentioned it ever reprehend it The exactitude of this rest did not hinder but that it was permitted to untye a beast and lead it to drinke Luk. 13.15.14.5 or to pull it out if fallen into a ditch Our Lord who alledges these examples as publick and notorious to the Jewes does not only not blame them but further authorises them though the law had said nothing concerning them and that these actions seemed to be comprehended under the generall prohibition It must not be imagined that these observances were of little or no importance in a law so severe and where it was necessary to take care even to an ïota and the least title the least prevarication drawing down most terrible paines and an inevitable malediction upon the transgressors But behold a thing which appeares yet more important in the time of the Machabees a question was proposed whether it was permitted to defend ones life upon the Sabaoth day 1. Mach. 2.32.38.40.41 2. Mach. 15.1.2 c. and the Jewes suffered themselves to be killed til such times as the Synagogue had interpreted and declared that selfe defence was permitted though the law had not excepted that action In permitting selfe defence they dit not permitt an onsett what advantage soever might thereby arrive to the publick and the Synagogue durst never go so far But after the Synagogue had permitted selfe defence there remained yet one scrupule Joseph Ant. 14.8 viz
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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
which conserves it But as nourishment followes birth if the Church had not known her selfe taught by God she durst not any longtime refuse to Christians regenerated by Baptisme that nourishment which JESUS-CHRIST has prepared for them in the Eucharist For neither JESUS-CHRIST nor the Apostles have ordained any thing left by writing concerning it The Church then has learnt by another way but alwayes equally certain what she can give or take away without doing any injury to her children and they have nothing to do but to rely upon her faith Let not our adversaryes thinke they can avoid the force of this argument under pretence that they do not understand these two passages of the Gospel as wee do I know very well they do neither understand of Baptisme with water this passage where it is said If you be not regenerated or borne again of water and the Holy Spirit nor of the eating and drinking of the Eucharist this other where it is writt If you eat not and drinke not so that they finde themselves no more obliged by these passages to give the Eucharist then Baptisme to little infants But without pressing too close upon these passages let us make them only this demande This precept Eat you this and drinke you all of it which you think is so universall dos it comprehend little children that are baptized If it comprehend all Christians what words of Scripture exclude little children Are they not Christians Woust wee give the victory to the Anabaptists who say they are not and condemne all antiquity which has acknowledged them as such But why do you except them from so generall a precept without any authority of Scripture In a word upon what foundation has your Discipline made this precise law Discip ch 12. art 2. Children under twelve yeares old shall not be admitted to the Supper but for those above that age it shall be left to the discretion of the Ministers 1. Cor. 11.28 c. Your children are they not Christians before that age Do you reject them till that age because Saint Paul has said Let a man prove himselfe and so let him eate But wee have already seene that it is no lesse precisely written Math. 21. Marke 16. Act. 2.38 Teach and baptize he that shall believe and be baptized do pennance and receive Baptisme And if your Catechisme interpret that it ought to be only in regard of such as are capable Dim 50. why shall wee not say as much of the proofe recommended by the Apostle Be it as it will the Apostle dos not decide which is the age proper for this probation One is at the age of reason before he is twelve yeares old one may before this age both sin and practise vertue why do you dispence with your children in a divine precept wherof they are capable If you say that JESUS-CHRIST has remitted that to the Church show me that permission in Scripture or believe with us that all that which is necessary to the understanding and practise the Gospel is not written and that wee must rely upon the authority of the Church § XI A reflection upon the manner how the Pretended Reformers make use of Scripture SAINT Basile advertises us that those who dispise unwritten Traditions do at the same time dispise the Scriptures themselves which they boast to follow in all things Basil de Sp. S. c. 27. This misfortune has arrived to the Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion They speake to us of nothing but of Scripture and boast they have established all the practises of their Church upon this rule Notwithstanding they easily dispence with many important practises which wee read in expresse tearmes in Scripture They have taken away the Extreame-Unction soe expressely ordained in the Epistle of Saint James James 5 1â—.15 tho this Apostle has annexed to it so cleare a promis of the remission of sins They neglect the imposition of hands practised by the Apostles towards all the faithfull in giving the Holy Ghost and as if this divine Spirit ought not to descende otherwise then visibly they dispise the ceremony by which he was given because he is now no more given after this visible manner They have no greater esteeme for the imposition of hands Discip ch 1. art s. Observ by which the Ministers were ordained For although they do ordinarily practise it they declare in their Discipline they do not believe it essentiall and that one might dispense with a practise so clearly set downe in Scripture Poit 1560. Par. 1565. Two nationall Synods have decided there was no necessity of making use of it and neverthelesse one of these Synods adds they ought to make it their businesse to conforme to one another in this ceremony because it is expedient for edification conformable to the custome of the Apostles and to the practise of the antient Church So that the custome of the Apostles manifestly written and in so many places in the words of God is no more a law to them then the practise of the antient Church to beleive ones selfe obliged to this custome is a superstition reprehended in their discipline Ch. 1. art 8. such false ideas do they frame to themselves of Religion and christian liberty But why do wee speake here of particular articles The whole state of their Church is visibly contrary to the word of God I do here with them tearme the state of the Church the society of Pastors and people which wee see there established Conf. de Foy art 31. this is that which is called the state of the Church in their confession of Faith and they there declare that this state is founded upon the extraordinary vocation of their first Reformers In vertue of this article of their Confession of Faith one of their nationall Synods has decided that when the question shall be concerning the vocation of their Pastors who have reformed the Church or concerning the establishment of the authority they had to reforme and to teach it must be referred according to the XXXI article of the Confession of Faith to an extraordinary vocation by which God interiourly pushed them on to their ministery yet in the mean time they neither prove by any miracle that God did push them interiourly to their ministry neither do they prove which is yet more essentiall by any text of Scripture that such a vocation should ever have place in the Church from whence it followes that their Pastors have no authority to preach according to these words of Saint Paul Rom. 10.15 How shall they preach unlesse they be sent and that the whole state of their Church is without foundation They flatter themselves with this vain thought that JESUS-CHRIST has left a power to the Church to give her selfe a forme and to establish Pastors when the succession is interrupted this is what M. Jurieux and M. Claude endeavour to prove without finding any thing that
that the life of Saint Basil is found already translated into Latin in the time of Charles the bald Aeneas Ep. Par. lib. adv Graec. T. IV. Spic p. 80. 81. and cited by Eneas Bishop of Paris renowned in these times for his piety and learning who moreover quotes the very place in this life where mention is made of these Doves and of the Sacrament of our Lord kept therein and hung over the Altar Hereunto may be reduced those Ciboriums mentioned amongst the presents which Charlemagne gave to the Roman Church Anast Bib. vit Leon. III. T. II. Conc. Gal. and all antiquity is full of the like examples And to the end the Tradition of the first and last ages may appeare conformable to each other as wee have seen in the first ages in the history of Serapion and in the Council of Carthage that in communicating the sick under the species of bread only they moistned it in some liqueur so does the same custome appeare in after ages Wee see this above six hundred yeares since in the antient customs of Clugny Ant. Consuet Cluniac l. III. c. 28. Tom. IV. Spicil collected at that time out of most antient memorials by S. Udalricus a Monke of this Order Hist Euch. I. P. c. 16 p. 183. and the Minister de la Roque in his history of the Eucharist cites this booke without any reproche It is remarked in this booke that the infirme Religious received the body only which was given to them steeped in unconsecrated wine There wee finde also a cupp in which it was steeped and thus it was the Religious of the most famous and most holy Monastery in the world communicated their sick By this wee may judge of the custome of the rest of the Church Const Odon Paris Episc c. 5. art 3. T. X. Conc. In fine wee find every where mention of this cupp which was carryed for the communion of the sick Const Episc anon T. XI Syn. Bajoc c. 77. ibid. 2. p. but which was made use of only to give them the consecrated bread moistned in common wine to facilitate the passage of this heavenly food The Greeks also retained this tradition as well as the Latins and as their inviolable custome is not to Consecrate the Eucharist for the sick but upon holy Thursday only they mixe the species of bread wholy dryed during so long a time either with water or unconsecrated wine As for consecrated wine it is manifest it could not be kept so long especially in those hot countryes so that their custome of consecrating for the sick only one day in the yeare obliged them to communicate them under one only species that is under that of bread which they could keepe without difficulty their Sacrifice in leavened bread keeping better them ours in unleavened especially after the drying wee lately mentioned It is true for wee will dissemble nothing that at present they make a Crosse with the pretious bloods upon the consecrated bread which they reserve for the sick But besides that this is not to give the blood of our Lord to drink as it is expressed in the Gospell nor to marke the seperation of the body and the blood which alone perswades our Reformers of the necessity of the two species It abundantly appeares that at the yeares end nothing remains of one or two drops of the pretious blood which they put upon the heavenly bread and that there is nothing left for the sick but one only species To which wee must add that after all this custome of the Greeks to mixe a little of the blood with the sacred Body concerning which wee see nothing in their antient Fathers or Canons is new amongst them and wee shall finde some occasion to make this more clearely appeare in the following discourse Those who deny every thing may deny these observances of the Greeke Church but they do not therefore cease to be indubitable and no one can deny it without a wonderfull insincerity if he be never so little read in the Euchologes of the Greeks or instructed concerning their rights And as for the Latin Church Conc. sub Edg. Rege Can. 38. T. IX Conc. p. 628. Conc. Bitur c. 2. ibid. p. 865. Constit Odon Paris Episc T. X. p. 1802. Constit Episc anon T. XI 1. p. Innoc. IV. Ep. X. ibid. 1. Conc. Lambeth c. 1. ibid. Syn. Exon. c. 4. ibid. 2. p. Synod Bajoc c. 12.77 Conc. Ravenn II. Rub. VII Conc. Vaur 6.85 ibid. the Councils are full of necessary precautions for the conserving of the Body of our Lord the carrying it with respect and a convenient decorum and to cause a due adoration to be rendred to it by the people They speake likewise of the box and linnen in which it was kept and of the care which the Priests ought to have to renew the Hosts every eight dayes and to consummate the old ones before they drunke the holy cup. They ordaine likewise how those Hosts which had been kept too long should be burnt and the ashes reserved under the Altar without so much as ever speaking amongst so many observances either of vialls to conserve the pretious Blood in or of any precautions for the keeping of it although it be given us under a species much more capable of alteration Wee may aledge also upon the same account a Canon which all the Ministers object against us It is a Canon of the Council of Tours which wee finde not in the volumes of the Councils Burch Coll. Can. l. V. c. 9. Yvo dec II. P. c. 19. but in Burchard and Yvo of Chartres collectors of the Canons of the eleaventh age This Canon as well as others sayes that the holy oblation which is kept for the sick that is the species of bread as appeares by what followes ought to be renewed every eight dayes but id adds which wee finde no where else in the West that it must be dipped in the blood to the end it may be said truly that the body and blood is given If this Canon gave us any difficulty Aubert de Euch. lib. II. in Exam. Pii p. 288. wee might say with Aubertin what is very true that Burchard and Yvo of Charters collected many things togeather without choice or judgement and that they give us many peices as antient which are not such But to act in every thing which sincerity it may be said that this Canon so exactly transcribed by these Authors is not false as also that it is none of those which were admitted since wee see nothing like it in all the others Moreover this Canon which does not appeare but in above named collections for certain was not made any long time before and the sole mixing of the body and blood shews sufficiently how far short it is of the first antiquity But let it be in what time it will it is apparent that before it was made it was the custome to name the
body and blood even in giving the body only and this by the naturall union of the substance and the Grace both of the one and the other Wee see neverthelesse that this Council had some scrupule concerning this matter and beleeved that in expressing the two species they ought both of them to be given in some manner In effect it is true that in some sence to be able to call it the body and the blood the two species must be given because the naturall dessine of this expression is to denote that which each of them containes in vertue of the Institution But it will be granted me that to mix them in this manner and let them dry for eight dayes togeather was but a very weake meanes to conserve the two species and how ever it be this part of the Canon which containes a custome so particular cannot be a prejudice to so many decrees where wee see not only nothing resembling it but moreover quite the contrary That which is most certain is that this Canon makes it appeare they did not beleeve the holy liquor could with ease be conserved in its proper species and that their endeavours were cheefely to conserve the consecrated bread As to the other part which regards the mixture what wee have said tooching the Grecians may be applyed here and all the subtility of the Ministers cannot hinder but it will alwayes be certain by this Cannon that they never beleeved themselves bound either to make the person communicating drink or to give him the blood seperated from the body to denote the violent death of our Lord or lastly to give him in effect any liquor at all seing after eight dayes it is sufficiently cleare there remained nothing of the oblation but the drye and solid part So that this Canon so much boasted of by the Ministers without concluding any thing against us serves only to shew that liberty which the Churches thought them selves to have in the administration of the sacred species of the Eucharist After all these remarks wee have made it must passe for constant and undeniable that neither the Greeks nor the Latins ever believed that all that is writt in the Gospell tooching the communion under two species was essentiall and expressely commanded and that on the contrary it was allwayes believed even from the first ages that one sole species was sufficient for a true communion seing that the custome was to keepe nothing for nor give nothing to the sick but one only It serves for nothing to object that the two species were frequently carryed to the sick and more over in generall that they were carryed to those that were absent Saint Justin Just Apol. 1. I owne is expresse in this matter But why do they alledge to us these passages which serve for nothing It is one thing to say as Saint Justin does that the two species of the Sacrament were carryed at the same time as M. de la Roque speaks it was celebrated in the Church Hist de l'Eucharist 1. P. c. 15. p. 176. and another thing to say they could reserve them so long a time as was necessary for the sick and that it was the custome to do so especially in a time when persecution permitted not frequent Ecclesiasticall assemblyes Hier. Ep. IV. ad Rust The same thing must be said of Saint Exuperius Bishop of Toulouze of whom Saint Hierome writ that after he had sold all the rich vessells of the Church to redeeme captives and solace the poor he carryed the Body of our Lord in a basket and the Blood in a vessell of glasse He carryed them sayes S. Hierome but he does not say he kept them which is our question And I acknowledge that when there was any sick persons to be communicated in those circumstances where they could commodiously receive both the species without being at all changed they made no difficulty in it But it is no lesse certain by the common deposition of so many testimonys that where as the species of wine could not be kept with ease the ordinary communion of the sick like that of Serapion and Saint Ambrose was under the sole species of bread In effect Hist Fr. Script T. IV. wee read in the life of Louis the VI. called the Grosse written by Sugerus Abbot of Saint Denis that in the last sicknesse of this Prince the Body and Blood of our Lord was carryed to him but wee see there also that this faithfull Historien thought himselfe obliged to render the reason of it and to advertise that it was as they came from saying Masse and that they carryed it devoutly in procession to his chamher which ought to make us understand in what manner it was used out of these conjunctures But that which putts the thing out of all doubt is that in substance M. de la Roque agrees with us as to the matter of fact in debate There is no more difficulty to communicate the sick under the sole species of bread then under that of wine only a practise which this curious observer shews us in the VII Hist Euch. I. p. ch 12. p. 150. 160. age in the cleaventh Council of Toledo Canon XI He sayes as much of the eleavent age and of Pope Paschalis II. Conc. Tolet. XI Pasch II. Ep. 32. ad Pont. by whom he makes the same thing to be permitted for little infants Hee is so far from disapproving these practises that he is carefull to defend them and excuses them himselfe upon an invincible necessity as if a parcel of the sacred bread could not be so steeped that a sick person or even an infant might swallow it almost as easily as wine But the businesse was that he must finde some excuse to hinder us from concluding from his own observations that the Church believed she had a full liberty to give one species only without any prejudice to the integrety of communion Behold what wee finde tooching the communion of the sick in the tradition of all ages If some of these practises which I have observed concerning that veneration which was payed to the Eucharist astonish owr reformers and appeare new to them I engage my selfe to shew them shortly and in few words for it is not difficult that the originall of it is antient in the Church or reather that it never had a beginning But at present that wee may not quit our matter it is sufficient for me to shew them only by comparing the customes of the first and last ages a continuall Tradition of communicating the sick ordinarily under the sole species of bread although the Church alwayes tender to her children if she had beleeved both the species necessary would rather have had them consecrated extraordinarily in the sick persons chamber Capit. Anytonis Basil Episc temp Car. Mag. cap. 14. T. VI. Spicil as it has been often actually practised then to deprive them of this succour on the contrary she
Alcuinus or in that antient author whose explication of that booke wee have under his name in Amalarius in Abbot Rupert in Hugo de Sainto Victore what wee practise even to this very day that they dit not consecrate upon Good Fryday but that they reserved for communion the Body of our Lord consecrated the day before and that they received it upon Good Fryday in unconsecrated wine It is expressely remarked in all these places that the Body only was reserved without reserving the Blood the reason of which is sayes Hugo de Sainto Victore Hug. de S. Vict. erud Theol. l. III. c. 20. that the Body and the Blood are received under each species and that the species of wine cannot be kept with security This last reason wee finde in one of the editions of Amalarius which is no lesse his then the others this Author having frequently reviewd his book severall of which so reviewed have been preserved to our dayes Such was likewise the practise of Jonas Bishop of Orleans and of many other Authors and without troubling our selves with these criticismes the matter of fact is that Amalarius after divers mysticall reasons which he brings for this custome according to the example of other Authors concludes that it may be said yet more sincerely that the consecrated wine is not reserved because it is more subject to alteration then the bread Which confirmes in short all what wee have shown tooching the communion of the sick under the sole species of bread and shews verry vell that the Eucharist which was constantly kept for them during many dayes according to the spirit of the Church could not be kept for them under the species of wine since they feare even that change which might happen to it from one day to the next that is from Thursday to Good Fryday I might here take notice that the Church endeavours not only to avoid the corruption of the species which change the nature and the necessary matter of the Sacrament but also every change which makes the least alteration in them being desirous out of respect to this Sacrament that all there should be pure and propper and that the least even sensible disrelish should not be suffered in a Mystery where JESUS-CHRIST was to be the banquet But these remarkes being little necessary to our subject are for another place and it suffises us to see here that they reserved at that time as wee do to this verry day do nothing but the sacred Body for the service upon Good Fryday Neverthelesse it is certain by all the Authors and by all the passages wee have lately quoted that the Priest the whole Clergy and all the people communicated this holy day and by consequence communicated under one species only This custome appeares principally in the Gallican Church since most of these Authors were of it so that it ought to finde a particular veneration amongst us but it would be too visable in abusing ones selfe to say that a custome so firmely established in the VIII age had no higher a beginning Wee finde not the originall wherefore if that opinion which beleeves communion under one species to be sacrilegious should be admitted wee must say that the primitive Church had purposely made choyce of Good Fryday the day of our Blessed Saviours death on which she might profane a Mystery instituted in memory of it They communicated after the same manner upon Easter Eve seeing that on the one side it is certain by all Authors that Good Fryday and Easter Eve were dayes of communion for all the people and on the other side it is no lesse constant that they did not Sacrifise during these two dayes A thing which occasions that even at this day wee have no proper Masse in our Missel for Easter Eve So that they communicated under the sole species of Bread kept from Holy Thursday and if wee will believe our Reformers they prepared themselves for a Paschal communion by two sacrilegious ones The Monks of Clugny as holy as they were did no better then others and the book of their customs once already cited in this discourse showes that six hundred yeares since they did not communicate at that holy time but under one sole species These practises let us see sufficiently the universall custome of the Latine Church But the Greeks go yet further They do not consecrate upon fasting dayes to the end they may not mixe the joy and solemnity of the Sacrifice with the sorrowfulnesse of a fast From whence it is that in the time of Lent they do not consecrate but upon Sundayes and on Saturdayes upon which they fast not Upon other dayes they offer the Sacrament reserved on those two solemne dayes which they call the imperfect Masse or the Masse of the Presanctified because the Eucharist which they offer in these dayes had been consecrated and sanctifyed in the two precedent dayes and in the Masse they call perfect The antiquity of this observance cannot be contested being it appeares in the VI. age in the Councile in Trullo Conc. Trull c. 52. where wee see the fondation of it from the IV. age in the Council of Laodicea Conc. Laod. c. 49.91 and there is nothing more remarkable amongst the Greeks then this Masse of the Presanctified If wee would at present know what it is they offerd there wee have no more to do then to read in their Euchologes and in Bibliotheca Patrum the antient Liturgies of the Presanctified Euch. Goat Bibl. PP Paris T. II and wee shall there see that they reserved nothing but the sacred Bread It is the sacred Bread which they carry from the Sacristy it is the sacred Bread which they elevate which they adore and which they incense it is the sacred Bread which they mix without saying any prayer with unconsecrated wine and water and which in fine they distribute to the people In so much that all the Lent that most holy time of the yeare they communicated five dayes of the weeke under the sole species of Bread I know not why some of the Latins have undertaken to blame this custome of the Greeks which neither the Popes nor Councils ever reprehended and on the contrary the Latin Church having followed this custome upon Good Fryday it is manifest that this Office with the manner of communicating practised in it is consecrated by the tradition of both Churches What is here most remarkable is that though it be so apparent that the Greeks receive not any thing upon these dayes but the Body of our Lord yet they change nothin in their ordinary formularyes The sacred guifts are allwayes named in the plurall and they speake no lesse there in their prayers of the Body and the Blood so stedfastly is it imprinted in the minds of Christians that they cannot receive one of the species without receiving at the same time not only the vertue but the substance also both of the one and the
other It is true the moderne Greeks explane thēselves other wayes and appeare not for the most part very favourable to communion under one species but it is in this the force of truth appeares the greater since that in despite of them their own customes their own Liturgies their own Traditions pronounce sentence against them But is it not true will some say that they put some drops of the pretious Blood in forme of a Crosse upon the parcells of the sacred Body which they reserve for the following dayes and for the Office of Presanctified It is true they do it for the most part but it is true at the same time that this custome is new amongst them and that in the substance to examin it entirely it concludes nothing against us It concludes nothing against us because besides that two or three drops of consecrated wine cannot be preserved any long time the Greekes take care immediately after they have dropped them upon the consecrated bread to dry it upon a chafendish and to reduce it to powder for it is in that manner they keep it as well for the sick as for the Office of the Presanctified A certain signe that the authors of this Tradition had not in prospect by this mixture the Communion under both species which they would have given in another manner if they had beleeved them necessary but indeed the expression of some mystery such as might be the Resurrection of our Lord which all Liturgyes both Greeke and Latin figured by the mixture of the Body and the Blood in the Chalice because the death of our Lord arriving by the effusion of his Blood this mixture of his Body and his Blood is very proper to represent how this man-God tooke life again I should be ashamed to mention here all the vaine subtilityes of the modern Greeks and the false arguments they make about the wine and about its more grosse and more substantiall parts which remain after the sollid bodyes with which wine may be mixed bacome dryed from whence they conclude that a like effect is produced in the species of consecrated wine and therefore that the Blood of our Lord may remain in the sacred Bread even after it has been upon the chafendish and is entirely drye By these wise reasonings the Lees and the Tartar orsalt would still be wine and a lawfull matter for the Eucharist Must wee thus argued concerning the mysteryes of JESUS-CHRIST It was wine as properly called so that is a liquid and flowing wine which JESUS-CHRIST instituted for the matter of his Sacrament It is a liquor which he has given us to represent to our eyes his Blood which was shedd and the simplicity of the Gospell will not suffer these subtilityes of the modern Grecians It must also be acknowledged they arrived to this but of very late and moreover that the custome of putting these drops of consecrated Wine upon the Bread of the Eucharist was not established amongst them but since their schisme The Patriarch Michael Cerularius who may be called the true author of this schisme writes notwithstanding in a booke which he composed in defence of the Office of the Presanctified That the sacred Breads Synodic seu Pand. Guill Bevereg Oxon. 1672. Not. in Can. 52. Conc. which are beleeved to be and which are in effect the quickning Body of our Lord must be kept for this sacrifice Trull T. II. p. 156. Leo All. Ep. ad Nihus without sprincling one drop of the pretious Blood upon them And wee finde notes upon the Councils by a famous Canonist who was one of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Constantinople in which he expressely takes notice that according to the doctrine of Blessed John Patriarch of Constantinople The pretious Blood must not be sprincled upon the Presanctified which they would reserve Harmenop Ep. Can. sect 2. Tit. 6. and this said he is the practise of our Church So that let the modern Grecians say what they please their tradition is expressly against this mixture and according to their own authors and their own proper tradition there remains not so much as a pretense to defend the necessity of the two species in the Presanctified mysteries For can any one so much as conceive what Patriarch Michael in the worke by us newly cited sayes That the wine in which they mix the Body reserved is changed into the pretious Blood by this mixing without so much as prononcing upon the wine as appeares by the Euchologes and by Michaels own confession any one of the mystick and sanctifying prayers that is to say without prononcing the words of consecration bee they what they will for it is not to our purpose to dispute here of them A prodigious and unheard of opinion that a Sacrament can be made without words contrary to the authority of the Scripture and the constant tradition of all Churches which neither the Grecians nor any body else ever called in question By how much therefore wee ought to reverence the antient traditions of the Grecians which descend to them from their fathers and from those times whilst they were united to us by so much ought wee to dispise those errours into which they are falne in the following ages weakned and blinded by schisme I need not here relate them because the Protestants themselves do nor deny but that they are great and I should recede too far from my subject But I will only say to do justice to the modern Grecians that they do not all hold this grosse opinion of Michaels and that it is not an universall opinion amongst them that the wine is changed into the Blood by this mixture of the Body notwithstanding that Scripture and Tradition assigne a particular benediction by words as well to it as to the Body Wee are much lesse to beleeve that the Latins who exposed to us but even now the Office of Good Fryday could be fallen into this errour since they explicate themselves quite contrary in expresse words and to the end wee may omit nothing wee must again in few words propose their sentiments It is true then that wee finde in the Ordo Romanus and in this Office of Good Fryday that the unconsecrated wine is sanctifyed by the sanctifyed bread which is mixed with it The same is found in the bookes of Alcuinus and Amalarius upon the Divine Office Alc. de Div. Off. Amal. lib. r. de Div. Off. Bib. PP de Div. Off. But upon the least reflection made of the doctrine they teach in these same bookes it will be granted that this sanctification of the unconsecrated Wine by the mixture of the Body of our Lord cannot be that true consecration by which the wine is changed into the Blood but a sanctification of another nature and of a much inferiour order such as that is of which Saint Bernard speakes when he sayes that the Wine mixed with the consecrated Hoste Bern. Ep. 69. p. 92.
although it be not consecrated by that solemn and particular consecration which changes it into the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST becomes notwithstanding sacred by tooching the sacred Body of our Lord yet of a quite different manner from that consecration which according to this Saint is made by the words taken out of the Gospel That it is of this imperfect and inferiour sort of consecration which these Authors wee explicate do here speake will be acknowledged an undeniable truth if wee finde that these Authors and in the sames places say there cannot be made a true consecration of the Blood of our Lord but by words and by the words even of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe Alcuinus is expresse herein when explicating the Canon of the Masse as wee have it to this day when he comes to the place where wee prononce the sacramentall words which are those of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe This is my Body this is my Blood he sayes these are the words by which they consecrated the Bread and the Chalice in the beginning by which they are consecrated at present and by which they shall be consecrated eternally because JESUS-CHRIST prononcing again his own words by the Priests renders his holy Body and his sacred Blood present by a celestiall bcnediction Amal. l. III. 24. ibid. And Amalarius upon the same part of the Canon sayes no lesse clearly that it is in this place and by the pronunciation of these words that the nature of the Bread and Wine is changed into the nature of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST Lib. I. 12. and he had said before in particular concerning the consecration of the Chalice that a simple liquor was changed by the benediction of the Priest into the Sacrament of the Blood of our Lord which shews how far he and Alcuinus were from beleeving that the only mixing them without any words could produce this effect When therefore they say that the pure wine is sanctifyed by the mixture of the Body of JESUS-CHRIST it appeares sufficiently their meaning is that by tooching the Holy of Holyes this wine ceases to be profane and becomes some thing of holy but that it should become the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST and that it should be changed into his Blood without prononcing the words of JESUS-CHRIST upon it is an errour inconsistent with their doctrine All those who have writ of the Divine Office and of that of the Masse use the same language these two Authors do Isaac Bishop of Langres their contemporary Isaac Lingâ—â—t Specil T. â— p. 151. in his explication of the Canon and place where they consecrate sayes that the Priest having thetherto done what he could to the end he may then do something more wonderfull borrows the words of JESUS-CHRIST himselfe that is to say these words This is my Body Powerfull words says he to which the Lord gives his vertue according to the expression of the Psalmist words which have allvayes their effect because the Word who is the power of God sayes and dos all at a time in so much that there is here made by these words contrary to all humain reason a new nourishment for a new man a new JESUS borne of the spirit an Hoste come downe fro heaven and the rest which makes nothing to our subject this being but too sufficient to shew that this great Bishop has placed consecration in the words of our Saviour Remigius Bishop of Auxerre in the booke which he composed of the Masse towards the end of the ninth age is visibly of the same judgement with Alcuinus seeing he has done nothing but transcribe word for word all that part of his booke where this matter is treated of Hildebertus Bishop of Mans Hildeb eod T. Bibl. PP and afterwards of Tours famous for his piety as well as for his eloquence and learning and commended even by the Protestants themselves because of the prayses he has given to Bengarius yet after he was returned or pretended to be retourned from his errours affirmes in expresse words that the Priest consecrates not by his own words but by those of JESUS-CHRIST that then under the signe of the crosse and the words the nature becomes changed that the Bread honours the Altar by becoming the Body and the Wine by becoming Blood which obliges the Priest to elevate at that time the Bread and the wine thereby to shew that by consecration they are elevated to some thing of a higher nature then what they were The Abbot Rupertus sayes the same thing Rup de Div. Off. l. II. c. 9. lib. V. c. 20. Hug. de S. Vict. erud Theol. l. III. c. 20. and after him Hugo de Sainto Victore Wee finde all these bookes collected in the Bibliotheca of Patrum in that tome which beares the title de Divinis Officiis This Tradition is so constant especially in the Latin Church that it cannot be imagined the contrary could be found in the Ordo Romanus nor that it could have entred into the thoughts of Alcuinus and Amalarius tho they had not explicated themselves so clearly as wee have seene they have But this Tradition came from a higher source These many fore cited French Authors as were preceded by a Bishop of the Gallican Church Euseb Gailic sive Euch. T. 6. Max. Bib. P P. hom V. de Pasch who said in the V. age that the creatures placed upon the holy Altars and blessed by the celestiallwords ceased to be the substance of Bread and Wine and became the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saint Ambrose before him understood by these celestiall words Amb. de init c. 9. the proper words of JESUS-CHRIST This is my Body this is my Blood adding that the consecration as well of the Body as of the Blood was made by the words of our Lord. And the Author of the booke of Sacraments be he whom he will Saint Ambrose or some other neere unto his time Amb. lib. IV. Sac. c. 5. who imitates him troughout who ever he be well known in antiquity speaks after the same manner and all the Fathers of the same time keepe the like conformity in their language and before them all Saint Ireneus laught that ordinary bread is made the Eucharist by the invocation of God which it receives over it Iren. IV. 34. and Saint Justin Just ap 2. whom he often cites said before him that the Eucharist was made by the prayer of the word which comes from JESUS-CHRIST and that it was by this word that the ordinary food which usvally by being changed nourisheth our flesh and our blood became the Body and the Blood of that JESUS-CHRIST incarnated for us and before all the Fathers the Apostle Saint Paul clearly remarked the particular benediction of the Chalice 1. Cor. 10.16 when he said the Chalice of benediction which wee blesse And to go to the very originall JESUS-CHRIST consecrates the Wine in saying This is my Blood as he
has no vocation at all is wholy nul Discip c. XI art 1. observ and the observations drawn from the Synods declare that to the validity of this Sacrament it suffises that these Ministers have an outwardly seeming vocation such as is that of Curates Priests and Religious men in the Roman Church who are permitted to preach Where do they finde in Scripture that this outwardly seeming vocation can conferre a power which JESUS-CHRIST has given only to those whom he himselfe did effectively call JESUS-CHRIST said Baptize that is immerge or dipp as wee have often remarked Wee have also related that he was baptized according to this forme that the Apostles followed it and that it was continued in the Church till the XII and XIII ages and notwithstanding Baptisme by infusion or sprincling is admitted without difficulty by the sole authority of the Church JESUS-CHRIST said Math. 28.19 Mark 16.15.16 Teach and baptize and again He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved The Church has interpreted by the sole authority of Tradition and practise that the instruction and faith which JESUS-CHRIST had united to Baptisme might be seperated in order to little infants These words Discip c. XI art VI. Observ p. 166. Teach and baptize did a long time perplexe our Reformers and occasioned them to say till the yeare 1614. that it was not lawfull to baptize with out a precedent or an immediately subsequent sermon This is what was decided in the Synod of Tonneins conformably to all the precedent Synods But in the Synod of Castres in 1626. they begun to relaxe as to this point and it was resolved not to press the observance of the regulation of Tonneins Lastly in the Synod of Charinton in 1631. in which they admitted the Lutherans to the Supper it was declared that preaching before or after Baptisme appertaines not to the essence of it but to discipline of which the Church has pover to dispose So that what they had beleeved and practised so long as prescribed by JESUS-CHRIST himselfe was changed and without any testimony of Scripture they declared that it was a thing concerning which the Church might ordaine as she pleased As for little infants the Pretended Reformers say verry well that their Baptisme is founded upon Scripture but they cite no expresse passage and they argue from farfetched not to say doubtfull yea and even false consequences It is certain that all the proofes they can draw from Scripture upon this subject have no force and that they themselves destroy those that might have any That which might have force to establish the Baptisme of little infants 1. Tim. 4.10 is that on the one side it is written JESUS-CHRIST is the Saviour of all Math. 19.14 and that he himselfe has said Suffer little children to come unto mee and on the other that he has prononced none can come unto him nor have any part in him if he do not receive Baptisme conformable to these words John 3.3.5 If you be not borne again of water and the Holy Spirit you shall not enter into the Kingdome of God But these passages have no force according to the doctrine of our Reformers since they beleeve it as of faith that Baptisme is not necessary to the salvation of infants Nothing affords them more difficulty in their Discipline Discip c. XI art VI. Observ then to see every day that anxiety of Parents of their communion to have their little children baptized when they are sick or in danger of death This piety of the parents is called in their Synods an infirmity It is a weaknesse to feare least the children of the faithfull should dye without receiving Baptisme One Synode went so far as to permit them to baptize their children extraordinarily in evident danger of death Ibid. But the following Synod reprehended this weaknesse and these strong in faith effaced that clause where they testifyed some regarde to that danger because it gives some ouverture to the opinion of the necessity of Baptisme Thus the proofs drawn from the necessity of Baptisme to oblige the giving of it to little infants are destroyed by our Reformers Let us see those they substitute in their place such as are inserted in their Catechisme in their Confession of faith Cat. Dim 50. Conf. de Foy art 35. Forme d'administrer le Bapt. and in their prayers That is that the children of the Faithfull are borne in alliance conformable to this promis I shall be thy God and the God of thy seede to a thousand generations From whence they conclude that the vertue and substance of Baptisme appertaining to little children they should do them an injury to deny them the signe which is inferiour By the like reason they will finde themselves obliged to give them the Supper togeather with Baptisme for those who are in the alliance are incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST the little children of the Faithfull are in the alliance they are therefore incorporated to JESUS-CHRIST and having by this meanes according to them the vertue and substance of the Supper it ought to be said as of Baptisme that the signe cannot be refused them without injury The Anabaptists maintaine that these words let a man trye himselve and so let him eat have no greater force to exact yeares of discretion to receive the Supper then these hee that shall beleeve and shall be baptised have to exact them in Baptisme The consequence drawn amongst the new Reformers from the alliance of the antient people and from Circumcision mooves them not The alliance of the antient people say they was contracted by birth because it was carnall and upon this account the seale was printed in the flesh by Circumcision immediately after birth But in the new alliance it dos not suffise to be borne wee must be newborne to enter into it and as the two alliances have nothing of resemblance there is nothing say they to be concluded from one sign to another so that the comparaison which they make of Circumcision with Baptisme is voide and of no effect Experience has shown that all the attempts of our Reformers whereby to confound the Anabaptist from Scripture has beene weake and feeble So that at the last they are obliged to plead practise Wee finde in their Discipline at the end of the XI chapter the forme of receiving persons of a more advanced age in t their Communion where they make the Anabaptist who is converted acknowledge that the Baptisme of little infants has its foundation in Scripture and in the perpetuall practise of the Church When the Pretended Reformers beleeve they have the expresse word of God it is not their custome to ground themselves upon the perpetuall practise of the Church But here where the Scripture furnisheth them with nothing whereby to stop the mouths of Anabaptists they were necessitated to support themselves else where and at the same time to acknowledge that in these matters the
exclusion of Deacons and Elders themselves though they seeme amongst them to represent the second order of the Ministers of the Church that is that of Priests who have alwayes constantly offered and distributed not only the Sacred Chalice but moreover the whole entire Eucharist Our Pretended Reformers did not at first arrive to this decision Ibid. Observ p. 184. seq Their first Synods said that the Ministers only should administer the Coupp as far as it might be done This restriction continued under two and twenty successive nationall Synods evento that of alais which was held in our dayes in 1620. There they ordained that these words as far as it might be done should be expunged and the administration of the Cupp was reserved to the Ministers alone Till that time the Elders and the Deacons also had upon occasion administred the Eucharist and principally the Cupp Ibid. p. 186. The Church of Geneva formed by Calvin had this practise and it was but in the yeare 1623. that they there resolved to conforme themselves to the sentiment of those of France This businesse did not passe without contradiction in the Provinces The reason of the Synod of Alais as it is inserted in the discipline is that it appartained only to the lawfully established Pastors to distribute this Sacrament a Maxime which visibly regards Doctrine and which by consequence according to the Principles of the new Reformation ought to be found expressely in Scripture from whence it followes that all the Synods and Pretended Reformed Churches untill that of Alais did grossely erre against the institution of JESUS-CHRIST Or if they answer us that these words were not verry cleare as these variations seeme sufficiently to shew they ought to acknewledge with us that to understand these words a man is obliged to have recourse to the interpretation of the Church and to that Tradition which subjects us to her To be assembled togeather at the same Table is a signe of society and Communion which JESUS-CHRIST would have to appeare in the institution of his Sacrament for he was at Table with his Apostles Ibid. Observ aprés l'art XIV p. 189. Some Churches of the Pretended Reformers to imitate this example and to do all that our Lord had done ranged the Communicants by table-fulls The Synod of Saint Maixent cited in the same place rejects this observance What was there seemingly more opposite to what had been practised at the institution then the custome of carrying away with them the Communion and of receiving it in private Wee have seen notwithstanding that this was practised in the primitive times of martyrdome not to say any thing here of the following ages There appeares nothing in Scripture of the reserving as it should be the Eucharist for the use of the sick neverthelesse wee finde it practised from the very originall of Christianity Those who mixed the two species and tooke them both togeather appeared as much estrainged from the tearmes and designe of the institution as those who received under one only These two articles have had their approbation in the Church and the practise of mixing which displeases our Pretended Reformers the least is that which wee finde the most forbiden It is prohibited in the VII Conc. Brac. IV. T. VI. Conc. c. 2. age in the IIII. Council of Brague It is prohibited in the XI Conc. Clarom C. age in the Council of Clermont where Pope Urbanus the II. was in person with about two hundred Bishops and by Pope Paschalis the II. The Council of Clermont excepts the cases of necessity and precaution Ep. 32. Pope Paschalis excepts the Communion of infants and of the sick This Communion which the West permitted not but with these reservations was infine established there for some time and moreover is become from six or seven hundred yeares the ordinary Communion of the whole East without beeing regarded as a matter of schisme The most important thing in the Sacraments is the words which give efficacy to the action JESUS-CHRIST has not expressely prescribed any for the Eucharist in his Gospel nor the Apostles in their Epistles JESUS-CHRIST in saying Do this only insinuated that they should repete his proper words by which the bread and wine were changed But that which has determined us invincibly to this sense is Tradition Tradition has also regulated those prayers which ought to be joyned to the words of JESUS-CHRIST and it is upon this account Saint Basil in his booke of the Holy-Ghost places amongst unwritten Traditions Basil de Sp. S. 27. the words of invocation which are made use of in consecration or to render it word for word when the Eucharist is shown By the VIII article of the XII chapter of the Discipline of the Pretended Reformers it is left indifferent to the Pastors to use the accustomed words in the distribution of the Supper The article is of the Synods of Sainte-Foy and of Figeac in the yeares 1578. and 1579. And in effect it appeares in the Synod of Privas held in the yeare 1612. Ibid. Observ sur l'art IX p. 185. that in the Church of Geneva the Deacons do not speake no nor even the Ministers in the distribution So that the Sacrament according to the doctrine of our Reformers consisting only in the usage of it it followes that they acknowlege a Sacrament which subsists without words In the same Synod of Privas Ibid. the Deacons who give the Cupp are forbidden to speake because JESUS-CHRIST spoke alone and the Church of Mets is exhorted to conforme in this to the example of JESUS-CHRIST without neverthelesse using any violence The example of JESUS-CHRIST do's not therefore make a law according to this Synod and according to other Synods it is freely permitted to seperate in the celebration of this Sacrament the words which are indeed the soule of the Sacraments as the example of Baptisme may make apparent not to alledge here the harmonious consent of the whole Christian world and of all ages Wee see by these decisions that what JESUS-CHRIST did dos not appeare to be a law to the Pretended Reformers A distinction must be made betwixt that which is essentiall and that which is not so JESUS-CHRIST dit not do it himselfe he only spoke in general Do this It belongs therefore to the Church to do it and her constant practise ought to be an unviolable law But in fine to attache our Ministers in their own fortresse seeing they place the stresse of their argument for the most part in these words Do this let us see when JESUS-CHRIST pronounced them He dit not pronounce them until after he had said Take Luk. 22.19 eat this is my Body For it is then that Saint Luke alone makes him add Do this in memory of me this Evangelist not mentioning that he said the like after the Chalice It is true Saint Paul mentions that after the consecration of the Chalice JESUS-CHRIST said
of this Body and this Blood coming from his death he would conserve the image of this death when he gave us them in his holy Supper and by so lively a representation keepe us alwayes in minde to the cause of our salvation that is to say the sacrifise of the Crosse According to this doctrine wee ought to have our living victime under an image of death otherwise wee should not be enlivened JESUS-CHRIST tells us also at his holy table I am living but I have beene dead Apoc. 1.11 and living in effect I beare only upon wee the image of that death which I have endured It is also thereby that I enliven because by the figure of my death once suffered I introduce those who beleeve to that life which I possesse eternally Thus the Lambe who is before the Throne as dead Apoc. 5.6 or rather as slaine do's not cease to be living for he is slanding and he sends throughout the world the seaven Spirits of God and he takes the booke and opens it and he fils heaven and earth with joy and with grace Our Reformers will not or it may be cannot yet understand so high a mystery for it enters not into the hearts but of those who are prepared by a purifyed Faith But if they cannot understand it they may at least understand very well that wee cannot beleeve a reall presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST without admitting all the other things wee have even now explicated and these things thus explicated is what wee call concomitancy But as soone as concomitancy is supposed and that wee have acknowledged JESUS-CHRIST whole and entire under each species it is verry easy to understand in what the vertue of this Sacrament consists John VI. 64. Cvr. lib. IV. in Joh. c. 34. Ia. Anath XI Conc. Eph. p. I. T. III. Conc. The flesh profiteth nothing and if wee understand it as Saint Cyrille whose sence was followed by the whole Council of Ephesus it profiteth nothing to beleeve it alone to believe it the flesh of a pure man but to believe it the flesh of God a flesh full of divinity and by consequence of spirit and of life it profiteth very much without doubt because in this state it is full of an infinite vertue and in it wee receive togeather with the entire humanity of JESUS-CHRIST his divinity also whole and entire and the very source or fountaine of graces For this reason it is the Son of God who knew what he would place in his mystery knew also very well how to make us understand in what he would place the vertue of it What he has said in Saint John must therefore be no more objected John 6.54 If you eate not the Flesh of the Son of man and drinke not his Blood you shall not have life in you The manifest meaning of these words is there is no life for those who seperate themselves from the one and the other for indeede it is not the eating and drinking but the receiving of JESUS-CHRIST that gives life JESUS-CHRIST sayes himselfe and as it is excellently remarked by the Councill of Trent Sess XXI c. 1. too injustly calumniated by our adversaryes He who said John 6.54 IF YOU EATE NOT THE FLESCH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINKE NOT HIS BLOOD YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU has also said Ibid. 52. IF ANY ONE EAT OF THIS BREAD HE SHALL HAVE LIFE EVERLASTING And he who said Ibid. 55. HE WHO EATES MY FLESH AND DRINKES MY BLOOD HAS ETERNALL LIFE Ibid. 52. has said also THE BREAD WHICH I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH WHICH I WILL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD And lastly he who said Ibid. 57. HE THAT EATES MY FLESH AND DRINKES MY BLOOD REMAINES IN ME AND I IN HIM has also said HE WHO EATES THIS BREAD Ibid. 59. SHALL HAVE ETERNALL LIFE and againe Ibid. 58. HE THAT EATES ME LIVES FOR ME AND SHALL LIVE BY ME. By which he obliges us not to the eating and drinking at his holy Table or to the species which containe his Body and his Blood but to his propper substance which is there communicated to us and togeather with it grace and life So that this passage of Saint John from whence as wee have said Jacobel tooke occasion to revolt and all Bohemia to rise in rebellion becomes a proofe for us The Pretended Reformers themselves would undertake to defend us if wee would against this passage so much boasted of by Jacobel seeing they owne with a common consent this passage is not to be understood of the Eucharist Calvin has said it Cal. Inst IV. c. Aub. lib. I. de Sacr. Euch. c. 30. c. Aubertin has said it every one says it and M. du Bourdieu says it also in his Treatise so often cited Repl. ch VI. p. 201. But without taking any advantage from their acknowledgements wee on the contrary with all antiquity maintaine that a passage where the Flesh and Blood as well as eating and drinking are so often and so clearly distinguished cannot be understood meerely of a communion where eating and drinking is the same thing such as is a spirituall Communion and by faith It belongs therefore to them and not to us to defend themselves from the authority of this passage where the businesse being to explicate the vertue and the fruict of the Eucharist it appeares that the Son of God places them not in eating and drinking nor in the manner of receiving his Body and his Blood but in the foundation and in the substance of both the one and the other Whereupon the antient Fathers for example Saint Cyprian he who most certainly gave nothing but the Blood alone to little infants as wee have seene so precisely in his Treatise De lapsis Test. ad Quir. III. 25.20 dos not omit to say in the same Treatise that the parents who led their children to the sacrifises of Idols deprived them of the Body and Blood of our Lord and teaches also in another place that they actually fulfill and accomplish in those who have life and by consequence in infants by giving them nothing but the Blood all that which is intended by these words If you eate not my Flesh and drink not my Blood you shall not have life in you Aug. Ep. 23. Saint Augustin sayes often the same thing though he had seene and examined in one of his Epistles that passage of Saint Cyprian where he speakes of the Communion of infants by Blood alone without finding any thing extraordinary in this manner of communion and that it is not to be doubted but the African Church where Saint Augustin was Bishop had retained the Tradition which Saint Cyprian so great a Martyr Bishop of Carthage and Primate of Africa had left behind him The foundation of this is that the Body and Blood inseperably accompany each other for although the species which
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 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 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 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 sea-man 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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