The Second Part: Principles upon which are Established the Judgement and Practise of the Church

Such hath been the practise of the Church. The Principles upon which this practise is founded are no lesse certain then the practise has been constant.

To the end that nothing of difficulty may remain in this matter, I will not alledge any one Principle that the Reformers can call in question.

§ I. First Principle. There is nothing indispensable in the Sacraments, but that which is of their substance or essentiall to them.

The first Principle I establish is, that in the administration of Sacraments wee are obliged to do not all that which JESUS-CHRIST hath done, but only that which is essentiall to them.

This principle is without contest. The Pretended Reformers do not immerge or dipp their infants in the water of Baptisme, as JESUS-CHRIST was immerged or dipped in the river of Jourdan when Saint John baptised him, neither do they give the Lords Supper at table or during Supper, as JESUS-CHRIST did; neither do they regard as necessary many other things which he observed.

But must especially it imports us to consider the ceremonyes of Baptisme, which may serve for a ground to many things in this matter.

To baptise signifies to dippe or immerge, and herein the whole world agree.

This ceremony is drawn from the purifications of the Jewes; and as the most perfect purification did consist in a total immerging or dipping in water, JESUS-CHRIST who come to sanctify and accomplish the antient ceremonyes, was willing to choose this as the most significative and the most plane, to expresse the remission of sins, and the regeneration of a new man.

The Baptisme of Saint John, which served as a preparative to this of JESUS-CHRIST was performed by dipping or immerging.

That prodigious multitude of people who flocked to this Baptisme,¹ caused Saint John to make choice of the borders of Jordan, and amongst those borders, of the country of Annon neere to Salim, because there was much water there, and a great facility to immerge or dipp the men who came to consecrate themselves to Pennance by this holy ceremony.

When JESUS-CHRIST came to Saint John to the end that by receiving Baptisme he might elevate it to a more wonderfull effect,² the Scriptures say that he ascended out of the waters of Jordan to denote that he had been wholy and entirely immerged, or dipped.

It do's not appeare in the Acts of the Apostles that the three thousand, and five thousand who were converted at the first Sermons of Saint Peter were baptised after any other manner: and the great number of these converts is no proofe that they were baptised by sprinkling, as some would conjecture. For, besides that nothing obliges us to affirme they were all baptised upon the same day, it is certain that Saint John Baptist who baptised no lesse then they, since all Judea flocked to him, did notwithstanding baptise them by immersion or dipping, and his example has showed us that to baptise a great nomber of man they were accustomed to make choice of a place where there was much water: to which wee may further add that the baths and purifications of the antients, and principally those of the Jewes rendred this ceremony facile and familiar in this time.

In fine wee read not in the Scriptures of any other manner of baptising, and wee can shew by the acts of Councils, and by antient Rituells that for thirteen hundred yeares the whole Church baptised after this manner as much as it was possible.

The very word also which is used in the Rituells to expresse the action of Godfathers and Godmothers when they say that they elevate the child from the font of Baptisme, shows sufficiently that it was the custome to immerge or dipp them in it. Though these truths be without dispute, yet neither wee nor the pretended Reformers regarde the Anabaptists who hold that this immersion is essentiall and no wayes to be dispensed with, and neither the one nor the other of us have any difficulty to change this plunging (if I may call it so) of the whole body, into a meere sprinckling or a powring upon some part of the body.

No other reason can be given for this change, but that this immersion or dipping is not essentiall to Baptisme; and the pretended Reformers agreeing herein, the first principle wee have layd must be also without contest.

§ II. Second Principle. To know the substance or essence of a Sacrament, wee must regarde the essentiall effect.

The second principle is, that to distinguish what appertaines or do's not appertaine to the substance of a Sacrament, wee must regard the essentiall effect of that Sacrament.

Thus, though the words of JESUS-CHRIST, Baptise, signify immerge or dipp, as has beene already said yet it was beleeved that the effect of the Sacrament was not restrained to the quantity of the water: so that Baptisme by infusion and sprinckling or by immersion or dipping appearing in substance to have the same effect, both the one and the other manner is judged vallid.

But (as wee have said) no essentiall effect of the Body distinct from that of the Blood can be found in the Eucharist: so that the Grace both of the one and the other in the ground and in substance can be no other but the same.

It is nothing to the purpose to say, that the representation of the death of our Lord is more exactly expressed in the two species; I grant it, in like manner the representation of new birth of the faithfull is more exactly expressed by immersion or dipping, then by meere infusion or sprinckling. For the faithfull being dipped or plunged in the water of Baptisme is buryed with JESUS-CHRIST,³ according to the expression of the Apostle; and the same faithfull coming out of the waters, comes out of the Grave with his Saviour, and represents more perfectly the mystery of JESUS-CHRIST that regenerated him.

Immersion by which water is applyed to the whole body and to all its parts, do's also more perfectly signify that a man is fully and entirely washed from his spotts. And yet Baptisme given by immersion or plunging is of no more vallue then Baptisme given by meere infusion and upon one only part: it suffises that the expression of the mystery of JESUS-CHRIST and of the effect of Grace be found in substance in the Sacrament, and that an ultimate exactnesse of representation is not there requisite.

Thus, in the Eucharist, the signification of the death of our Lord being found in substance when the Body delivered for us in given to us, and an expression of the Grace of the Sacrament being also found when under the species of Bread the image of our spirituall nourishment is administred unto us, the Blood which dos nothing but add to it a more expresse signification, is not there absolutely necessary.

This is what is manifestly proved by the very words of our Lord and the reflection of Saint Paul, when relating these words,⁴ Do this in remembrance of me, he immediately after concludes, that so often as wee eat this Bread and drinke this Cupp wee shew forth the death of our Lord. Thus, according to the interpretation of the Disciple, the Masters intention is that when he ordaines wee should be mindfull of him, wee should be mindfull of his death. To the end therefore wee may rightly understand wheather the remembrance of this death consists in the sole participation of the whole mystery, or in the participation of either of its parts, wee need but consider that our Saviour dos not expect till the whole mystery be ended and the whole Eucharist received in both its parts, before he sayes,⁵ Do this in remembrance of me. Saint Paul remarked that at each part he expressely ordained this remembrance. For after having said, Eat, This is my Body, do this in remembrance of me, in giving the Blood he again repeates, As often as you shall drinke this, do it in remembrance of me; declaring unto us by this repetition that wee shew forth his death in the participation of each kinde. From whence it followes that when Saint Paul concludes from these words, that in eating the Body, and drinking the Blood wee shew forth the death of the Lord, wee must understand that this death is not only shown forth by taking the whole, but also by taking either part, and the rather because it is otherwise apparent that in this mysticall separation which JESUS-CHRIST has signifyed by his words, the Body seperated from the Blood, and the Blood seperated from the Body have the same effect to shew forth the violent death of our Lord. So that if there be a more distinct expression in receiving the whole,⁶ it dos not cease neverthelesse to be true, that by the reception of either part his death is wholy and entire represented, and the whole Grace applyed to us.

But if any here demande, to what purpose then was the institution of both species, and this more lively represention of the death of our Lord which wee have here remarked, it is that they will not reflect of one quality of the Eucharist, well known to the antients though rejected by our Reformers. All the antients beleeved that the Eucharist was not only a nourishment but also a sacrifice, and that it was offered to God in consecrating of it before it was given to the people: which is the cause why the table of our Lord, so tearmed by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians,⁷ is called Altar by the same Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes. It is not our businesse here neither to establish nor explaine this sacrifice the nature of which may be seene in our Treatise of the Exposition,⁸ and I shall only say, because my subject requires it, that JESUS-CHRIST has made this sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist in the most perfect representation of the sacrifice on the Crosse that could be imagined. Whereupon it is that he said expressely, This is my Body, and This is my Blood, renewing mystically by these words, as by a spirituall sword, togeather with all the wounds he received in his Body the totall effusion of his Blood; and although this Body and this Blood once seperated ought to be eternally reunited in his Resurrection to make a perfect man perfectly living, he would notwithstanding that this seperation once made upon the Crosse should never cease to appeare in the mystery of the holy table. It is in this mysticall seperation that he would have the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist to make it a perfect image or representation of the sacrifice of the Crosse: to the end that as this later sacrifice consits in the actuall seperation of the Body and Blood, this likewise which is the perfect image of it should consist also in this representative and mysticall seperation. But whether JESUS-CHRIST has seperated his Body and his Blood either really upon the Crosse, or mystically upon the Altars, yet can he not seperate the vertue, nor effect that any other Grace shall accompany his Blood shed then that same in the ground and in substance which accompanyes his Body immolated: which is the cause that this so lively and so strong a resemblane or expression, necessary to the sacrifice, is no more so in the reception of the Eucharist, it being every whit as impossible to seperate in the application the effect of his Blood from that of his Body, as it is easy and naturall to represent to the eyes of the faithfull the actuall seperation of the one from the other. For this reason it is that wee have found upon so many occasions in antiquity the Body given without the Blood, and the Blood given without the Body, but never one of them consecrated without the other. Our Forefathers were perswaded that the faithfull would be deprived of some thing too pretious if the two species were not consecrated in which JESUS-CHRIST had made togeather with the perfect representation of his death the essence of the sacrifice of the Eucharist to consist; but that nothing essentiall was taken from them in giving them but one, because one only containes the vertue of both, and the minde once preoccupayed by the death of our Lord in the consecration of the two species, receives nothing from the Altar where they were consecrated which do's not conserve this figure of death, and the character of a victime: in so much that whether wee eate, or whether wee drinke, or whether wee do both togeather, wee allwayes apply the same death, and receive allwayes the same Grace in substance.

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

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

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

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

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

This argument proposed at first by the great Cardinall Richelieu intangled very much the Pretended Reformers. I have endeavoured in my Exposition to solve some of the answers they give thereto,⁹ and I have carefully related what their Synods have regulated in confirmation of that article of their discipline. The matter is left without contest: those who have writ against me have all of them with one accord acknowledged it as publick and notorious; but they do not likwise agree in the manner of answering it.

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

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

M. Jurieux who writ the last against my Exposition in his book entitled, Le Préservatif,¹⁰ after having seen the answers of all the others, and after having given himselfe much trouble sometimes in being angry at M. de Condom, who amuses himselfe (sayes he) like a petty Missioner in things of so low a nature and in these old kind of cavils, sometimes in putting as much stresse as he can upon this impossibility so often repeted; at last concludes that the party mentioned to whom the Bread alone is given,¹¹ 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:¹² 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.¹³ 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 wilt, which a Church who sayes she is founded upon the pure word of God, is not afraid to establish without so much as finding one syllable of it in that word.

To conclude, JESUS-CHRIST has not made a particular law for those wee here speake of. Man could not dispense with them in an expresse precept of our Lord, nor allow them any thing he did not institute. 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,¹⁴ 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,¹⁵ 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.¹⁶ 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,¹⁷ 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;¹⁸ 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;¹⁹ (viz) whether it were permitted to repaire a breach upon the Sabaoth. For although it had been decided that they might defend their lives when they were immediately attaqued, yet they doubted whether that permission extended to those occasions where the attaque was not so immediate. The Jewes beseeged in Jerusalem durst not extend the dispensation so far, and let themselves be taken by Pompey. The scruple appeared a little to nice, and I bring this Example to shew how many cases might happen in which the law had not provided, and where the declaration of the Synagogue was necessary to the quiet of there consciences.

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

I will not speake of the sacrifises,²⁰ nor of the other ceremoneyes which were performed upon the Sabaoth day according to the law, because the law having regulated them, wee might say it had made an exception in this point: but there are many other things which were to be done on the Sabaoth day in cases which the law had not regulated.

When the Passover fell upon the first day of the weeke, which is our Sunday, there were divers things to be done for the preparation of the Paschall sacrifise. The victime was to be chosen, it was to be examined by the Priests if it had the qualification requisite, it was to be led to the Temple and to the Altar, to be immolated at the hower prefixed. All these things with many others were done upon the vigil of the Passeover. The levained bread was likewise to be cast away, which according to the precise tearmes of the law,²¹ ought not to be found throughout all Israel, when the day of the Passeover begun. The law might have regulated that these things should be done upon the Fryday, when the Passeover fel upon Sunday; or otherwise dispense with the observance of the Sabaoth to accomplish them. It would not do it: Tradition alone authorised the Priests to do their functions; and wee may say in these cases, as well as in those which our Blessed Saviour has noted,²² that the Priests violate the Sabaoth in the Temple, and are without reproach.

And do's he not also approve what David did,²³ when pressed with hunger he eat the Bread of proposition contrary to the law,²⁴ and followed the interpretation of the High Priest Achimelec, though it were no where written.

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

Neither could it also be determined by the precise tearmes of the law what was that time betwixt the two Vespres, which is ordained for the Passeover in the Hebrew text of Exodus,²⁵ and Tradition alone had explicated that it was all that time which was comprehended betwixt the declining of the Sun, and its setting.

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

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

If wee stick to the precise termes of the law of Moyses,²⁶ wee finde no mariage with strangers forbidden but only those which were contracted with the daughters of the seaven Nations so often detested in the Scripture.²⁷ It was these abominable Nations which were to be exterminated without mercy. It was the daughters of these Nations who should seduce the Israelites, and allure them to the worship of false Gods; and it was for this reason that the law forbid to marry them. There was nothing of this kind said, neither of the daughters of the Moabites and Ammonites, nor of those of the Egyptians, and so far was marriage from being forbidden with the daughters of the Moabites,²⁸ that Booz is praysed by the whole Council and by all the people for marrying Ruth who was of that Country. Behold what wee finde in the law, and neverthelesse wee finde that in the time of Esdras it was a thing established amongst the Jewes to number the Egyptians,²⁹ the daughters of the Ammonites and Moabites, and in a word of all strangers in the same ranke vith the Chananites: in so much that they broke all the marriages contracted with these women as abominable. From whence comes this, if not that since Salomons time a long experience having taught the Israelites that the Egyptians and other strangers did no lesse seduce them then the Chananites, they beleeved they ought equally to exclude them all, not so much by the letter and propper tearmes, as by the spirit of the law; which they also interpreted contrary to the precedent practise in respect of the Moabites, the Synagogue alwayes beleeving herselfe to have received from God himselfe a right to give decisions, according to occurring necessityes?

I do not beleeve that any one will persuade himselfe that they observed according to the letter and in all sorts of cases,³⁰ 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,³¹ 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:³² 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:³³ 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,³⁴ is mentioned in the writings of the Apostles as a day of assembly for Christians, and that it is also called in the Revelations,³⁵ 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,³⁶ that JESUS-CHRIST gave the charge of administring Baptisme:³⁷ notwithstanding the whole Church has understood, not only that Priests, but Deacons also yea even all the faithfull, in cases of necessity, were the Ministers of this Sacrament.

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

In the XI. chapter of the Discipline of the Pretended Reformers, and first article, it is said that Baptisme administred by him who has no vocation at all is wholy nul;³⁸ 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,³⁹ 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,⁴⁰ 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,⁴¹ is that on the one side it is written JESUS-CHRIST is the Saviour of all,⁴² 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:⁴³ 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,⁴⁴ 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.⁴⁵ 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,⁴⁶ 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 int their Communion, where they make the Anabaptist who is converted acknowledge that the Baptisme of little infants has its foundation in Scripture and in the perpetuall practise of the Church.

When the Pretended Reformers beleeve they have the expresse word of God it is not their custome to ground themselves upon the perpetuall practise of the Church. But here where the Scripture furnisheth them with nothing whereby to stop the mouths of Anabaptists, they were necessitated to support themselves else where, and at the same time to acknowledge that in these matters the perpetuall practise of these Church is of an unviolable authority.

Let us come now to the Eucharist. The Pretended Reformers boast they have found in these words, Drinke ye all of it,⁴⁷ an expresse command for all the faithfull to participate of the cupp. But if wee tell them that these words were addressed to the Apostles only who were present, and had their entire accomplishment when in effect they all drunke of it, as Saint Mark says,⁴⁸ What refuge will they finde in Scripture? Where can they finde that these words of JESUS-CHRIST, Drinke ye all of it, are to be applyed to any others then to those to whom the same JESUS-CHRIST said, Do this?⁴⁹ But these words, Do this, regard only the Ministers of the Eucharist, who alone can do what JESUS-CHRIST did, that is to say consecrate and distribute the Eucharist as well as receive it. By what therefore will they prove that these other words, Drinke ye all of it, have a further extent? But if they say that some words of our Lord regard all the faithfull, and others the Ministers only, what rule will they finde us in Scripture whereby to distinguish which appertaine to the one and which to the others, seeing JESUS-CHRIST speakes every where after the same manner, and without distinction? But in fine let it be as it will, say some of them, these words of JESUS-CHRIST. Do this, addressed to the Holy Apostles, and in them to all Pastors, decide the question, seing that in saying to them, Do this, he ordaines them to do all that he did, by consequence to distribute all that he distributed; and in a word to cause to be done by all succeding ages what JESUS-CHRIST had caused them to do. This is in effect the most plausible thing they can say; But they are nothing the wiser, when wee shew them so many things done by JESUS-CHRIST in this mystery, which they do not beleeve themselves obliged to do. For what rule have they to make the distinction? And since that JESUS-CHRIST comprehends all he did under this same word, Do this, without explicating himselfe any further, what other thing remaines, except Tradition, to distinguish what is essentiall from what is not? This argument is without answer, and will appeare so much the more to be so, by how much wee shall more exactly descended to particulars.

Jesus-CHRIST instituted this Sacrament in the evening, at the beginning of the night in which he was to be delivered.⁵⁰ It was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us:⁵¹ To consecrate at that same hower would be to render the memory of his passion more lively, and with all to represent that JESUS-CHRIST was to dye at the last hower, that is to say, in the last period of times. Notwithstanding none beleeve these words, Do this, binde us to an hower so full of mysteries.

The Church has made a law to take that fasting which JESUS-CHRIST gave after Supper.

If wee regard Scripture only, and the words of JESUS-CHRIST which are asserted in it, the Pretended Reformers will never have any thing of certain as to what relates to the Minister of the Eucharist. The Anabaptists and other such like sects, beleeve each Faithfull may give this Sacrament in his family without necessity of another Minister. The Pretended Reformers can never convince them by Scripture only. They cannot proove against them that these words, Do this, were addressed to the Apostles only, if these, Drinke yee all of it, prononced in the following part of the same discourse, and with as little distinction, were addressed to all the faithfull, as they tell us every day. And on the other side it will be answered that the Apostles to whom JESUS-CHRIST said, Do this, assisted at his holy Table as simple communicants, and not as persons consecrating nor distributing or as Ministers: from whence it may be concluded that these words do not confer upon them any Ministry in particular. And in short it could not be decided but by the help of Tradition that this Sacrament had any Ministers specially established by the Son of God, or that these Ministers ought to be those to whom he has committed the charge of preaching his word.

This is that which made Tertullian say in his booke De corona militis,⁵² that wee learne from unwritten Tradition only, that the Eucharist ought not to be received but from the hands of Ecclesiasticall superiours,⁵³ althoug the comission to give it (if wee regarde precisely the words of JESUS-CHRIST) was addressed to all the faithfull.

The same Tradition which declares the Pastors of the Church sole Ministers of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, teaches us that the second order of these Ministers, that is to say, the Priests have part in this honour, although JESUS-CHRIST said not, Do this, but to the Apostles only, who were the heads of his flock.

Wee do not read that our Lord gave his Body or his Blood to each of his Disciples; but only that in breaking the Bread he said to them, Take and eate; and as for the Cupp, it is likely that having placed it in the midest of them he ordained them to partake of it one after the other. The Synod of Privas, one of the Pretended Reformation,⁵⁴ mentioned in the IX. Article of the XII. chapter of their Discipline, sayes, that our Lord permitted the Apostle to distribute the Bread and the Cupp one to the other, and from hand, to hand; But though JESUS-CHRIST did do it after this manner, constant practise has interpreted that the consecrated Bread and Wine should be given to the faithfull by the Ministers of the Church.

Conformably to the example of our Lord and the Apostles some of the Pretended Reformers would have Communicants to give the Cupp to one another;⁵⁵ and it is certain this Ceremony was a solemne signe of union. But the Synods of the Pretended Reformers did not judge it necessary to follow herein what they acknowledged to have been practised by JESUS-CHRIST and his Apostles in the institution of the Supper, and on the contrary they attribute to the Pastors only the distribution of the Cupp, as well as of the Bread.

All Antiquity allowes to Deacons the distribution of the Cupp,⁵⁶ though neither JESUS-CHRIST nor his Apostles ordained any thing of this nature that appeares in Scripture: None ever opposed it, and the Pretended Reformers approve this practise in some of their Synods quoted amongst the observations upon the IX.⁵⁷ article of the chapter concerning the Supper.

They have since that changed this practise,⁵⁸ and attributed to the sole Pastors the distribution of the Eucharist, yea even that of the Cupp to the exclusion of Deacons, and Elders themselves though they seeme amongst them to represent the second order of the Ministers of the Church, that is that of Priests, who have alwayes constantly offered and distributed not only the Sacred Chalice, but moreover the whole entire Eucharist.

Our Pretended Reformers did not at first arrive to this decision.⁵⁹ 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.⁶⁰ 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.⁶¹ 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.⁶² age in the IIII. Council of Brague. It is prohibited in the XI.⁶³ 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.⁶⁴ 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,⁶⁵ 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 1612.⁶⁶ 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,⁶⁷ 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,⁶⁸ 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,⁶⁹ Do this in remembrance of me so often as you shall drinke. But after all, this discourse of our Saviour, to take it in rigour and in its precise tearmes, imports only a conditionall ordre, to do this in remembrance of JESUS-CHRIST as often as one shall do it, and not an order absolutely to do it: the which I could prove by Protestant interpreters, if the thing were not of it selfe too cleare to neede a proofe.

And thus the words, Do this, would be found absolutely applyed to these words only, Take, eate, and the Protestants would loose their cause.

But if they say, as some of theirs do, that these words attributed to the reception of the Body, Do this in remembrance of me. have the same force as these which are saide after the Chalice, As often as you shall drinke do it in remembrance of me, the one as well as the other ordaining only to do it in remembrance: and not absolutely their cause will be but the worse, because on that account there will not remaine in the whole Gospel any absolute precept (contrary to their doctrine) to receive either of the species much lesse both.

It serves them for nothing to answer that the institution of JESUS-CHRIST suffices them, seeing the question alwayes retournes to know what appertaines to the essence of the institution, JESUS-CHRIST not having distinguished it, and all the foregoing examples demonstrating invincibly that it cannot be learnd but from Tradition.

If they add, that in all cases they cannot be deceived in doing what is written, and what JESUS-CHRIST did: this is with a seeming reason to leave the difficulty untouched, because on the one side they have seene so many things which ought to be observed though they be not regulated in Scripture; and on the other part they see also so great a number of those that are written and done by JESUS-CHRIST, which are not observed amongst themselves, without finding any thing in Scripture which can assure them they are lesse important then others.

So that without the assistance of Tradition wee should not know how to consecrate, how to give, how to receive, nor in a word how to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist, no more then that of Baptisme; and this discussion may aide us to understand with how much reason Saint Basil said, that in rejecting unwritten Tradition the Gospel it selfe is attached and Preaching is reduced to meere words,⁷⁰ the meaning of which is not intelligible.

In effect all the answers and all the reasonings of these Ministers do manifestly produce nothing but new difficultyes, and the sole meanes to disentangle themselves, is to search, as wee do, the essence of our Lords institution, and the right understanding of his commands in the Tradition and practise of the Church.

If therefore she has alwayes beleeved the grace of the Eucharist was not restrained to both species; if she has beleeved that Communion under one or both species was a saving Communion; if the Pretended Reformers have followed this sentiment in a certain case not mentioned in the Gospel, that is to say, in regard of those who drinke no wine: what difficulty can be founde in a thing regulated by such certain principles and by so constant a practise?

§ VII. Communion under one Species was established without contradiction.

We see also that Communion under one species was established without noise, without contradiction, without complaint, in the same manner as Baptisme was established with bare sprinkling, and other innocent customes.

The feare they had to spill our Saviours Blood in the midst of a multitude which approached to Communion with much confusion, was the reason why the faithfull being always persuaded that one sole species was sufficient, insensibly accustomed themselves to receive in effect but one onely.

There was so great difficulty not to spill this precious Blood in those Churches where there were but few Ministers; and where there was a numerous Congregation the precautions which were necessary in distributing of it rendred the service so long especially on great solemnities, and in great assemblies, that for that reason they easily brought themselves to the usage of one sole species.

In the conference held at Constantinople in the yeare 1054. under Pope Leo the IX.⁷¹ between the Latins and the Greeks, Cardinall Humbert Bishop of Sylva candida produced a custome of the Church of Jerusalem, attested by a passage of an antient Patriarke of this Church. This custome was to communicate all the people under the species of bread solely and seperatly, without mingling it with the other according to the practise of the rest of the east. There it is expresly noted that they reserved what was remaining of the consecrated Bread of the Eucharist for the Communion of the day following, without giveing there the least intimation of the sacred Chalice; and this custome was so antient in that Church that it was attributed to the Apostles, I am willing to acknowledgd that those of Jerusalem were mistaken in that point, seeing there are none but those customes that are as well universall as immemoriall which according to the rule of the Church, ought to be referred to that originall. Neverthelesse by this means we see the antiquity of that custome. It was received in the holy city, and throughout the Province that depended upon it, as the Cardinall affirmed. Nicetas Pretoratus his Antagonist dos not in the least contradict him: The wholl world resorted to Jerusalem, and went with a holy zeale to communicate in those parts where the Mysteries of our salvation were accomplished. It was with out doubt the vast multitude of communicants which made the custome to communicate under one species be embraced: not one person complained of it; and Cardinal Humbert who appeared concerned at the mixture, sayes not a word concerning the Communion under one species.

There are many other reasons which induce us to think, that the usage of one sole species bigan on great festivalls, by reason of the multitude of Communicants; and however it was, it is certain the people without the least reluctancy conformd to that manner of communicateing, grounded on the antient faith which they had embraced (viz) that they received under one sole, and under both the species, the same substance of the Sacrament, and the same effect of grace.

The most certain mark that a custome is held as free, is when it is changed without any trouble, so when they defisted either to administer the Communion to little infants, or to baptise them by immersion, not one person was disturbed at it: just so they brought themselves to communicate under one species; and for many ages the people communicated not but in that manner, when the Bohemians bethought themselves to say that it was ill done.

I doe not find that Wiclef their cheif Leader as rash as he was, did yet condemne that custome of the Church: at least it is certain, there is nothing to be seen of it neither in the letters of Gregory the eleveinth,⁷² nor in the two Councils held at London by William of Courtenay, and by Thomas Arundel Archbishops of Cantorbury, nor in the Councill at Oxford, celebrated by the same Thomas under Gregory the XII. nor in the Councill at Rome under John the XXIII.⁷³ nor in the third Councill of London under the same Pope, nor in the Councill of Constance, nor finally in all the Councils, and all the Decrees, where the condemnation of that Arch-Heritick and the Catalogus of his errors are registred: by which it appears, that either he did not insist upon that point, or that there was no great stir made about it.

Calixtus agrees with Aeneas Sylvius an Author neere those times,⁷⁴ who writ this History, that the first who mooved that Question was one named Peter Dresde School-Master of Prague, and he made use against us of the authority of that Passage in S. John: If ye eat not the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink not his Bloud you shall have no life in you. This Passage missed Jacobel de Misne who caused the whole Church of Bohemia, towards the end of the XIV. age to revolt. He was followed by John Hus in the begining of the XV. age so that the contest between us about the two species has no higher an originall.

Moreover it must be remorked that John Hus did not presume at first to say that Communion under both species was necessary:⁷⁵ It suffised him that they should grant it was permitted and expedient to give it; but he ditermined not the necessity of it: so certaine and established a thing it was, there was no such necessity.

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

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

So when John of Pick ham Archbishop of Cantorbury in the XIII.⁷⁶ age with so much care caused his people to be taught, that under that one sole species they had distributed to them, they received JESUS-CHRIST whole and intire, it past without the lest difficulty, and not one persone in the least contradicted it.

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

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

From whence it comes that in beleiving the reall presence, one is carried to beleive the full sufficiency of communion under one species. We see also that Luther was naturally induced to this opinion, and a good while after he had made a publick revolte from the Church, it is certain that he had the matter still as indifferent, or at least of small importance, highly censuring Carlostadius, who had, contrary to his advice established Communion under both kinds, and who seemed,⁷⁷ said he, to place the whole reforme in these things of nothing.

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

In effect he approoved the same year the common places of Melancton, where he putts amongst things indifferent Communion under one or both species. In 1528.⁷⁸ in his visitation of Saxony he left them expressy the liberty to receive but one only, and persisted still in that opinion in 1533. fiveteen years after he had erected himselfe as a Reformer.

The whole Lutheran party supposes that nothing either essentiall or necessary to salvation is lost, when one doth not communicate under both species, seeing that in the Apologie of the Confession of Ausbourge (a treatise as authentique with that party, as the Confession of Ausbourge it self, and equally subscribed to by all those who embraced it) it is expresly set downe,⁷⁹ That the Church is worthy of excuse for not having received but one sole species, when shee could not have both. But the case is quite otherwise in regard to the authors of this injustice. What a notion of the Church is this which they represent to us before Luthers time as forced to receive but halfe of the Sacrament by the fault of her Pastors! as if the Pastors themselves were not by the institution of JESUS CHRIST, a part of the Church. But in fine it appears from hence (by the concession of the Lutherans) that what distroyed the Church, according to them, was not absolutly essentiall, seeing it can never be excusable nor tolerable to receive the Sacraments, upon what account soever contrary to the essence of their institution, and that the right administration of the Sacraments is no less essentiall to the Church, then the pure preaching the word of God.

Calixtus who relates carefully all these passages,⁸⁰ excuses Luther, and the first authors of the Reformation, upon this account that haveing undertook (see here a memorable acknowledgment, and a worthy beginning of the Reformation) upon this account (sais Calixtus) that the first authors having undertaken it (the Reformation) rather by the violence of others then by any voluntary motive, that is to say rather out of a spirit of contradiction, then out of a sincere love of truth, they could not at first discover the necessity of the precept to communicate under both kinds, nor reject that custome, behold what Calixtus saith, and he sees not how much himselfe over throwes the evidence he attributed to this precept in makieng it apparently unknown to the first authors of that new Reformation, and by those whom they beleeved chosen from God for this worke. Could not they have perceived a thing, which Calixtus findes so cleare? or has not Calixtus overdone it, when he gives us that for so clear and manifest which is not at all perceived by such Doctors?

But to say no more of them, Calixtus himself, that very Calixtus who has writ so much against the Communion under one kind, in the end of the same treatise where he hath opposed it so much, is so far from treating of it as a matter where on salvation depends that he declares,⁸¹ he does not exclude from the number of the truely Faithfull our ancesters who communicated under one kind above five hundred years since, and that which is much more remarkable now those who communicate so at this very day seing they candoe no better, and concludes in generall that whatever we think or what ewer we practise concerning the Sacrament, cannot put any obstacle to our salvation, nor a warrantable matter of separation, becaus the reception of this Sacrament is not of essentiall obligation. Whether this principle of Calixtus be true and the consequence rightly drawn from it is not our present dispute. It is sufficient fore that this zealous defender of the two kinds is forced at last to grant, that a man may be le saved in that Church where there is but one kind only received: by which he is obliged to aknowlegd, either that a man may obteine salvation out of the true Church, which certainly he will not grant, or, which he will mentaine as little, that the true Church may remainsuch, and yet want a sacrament, or, which is more naturall, and what we also in effect doe affirm, that Communion under both kinds is not essentiall to the Sacrament of that Eucharist.

Behold whether these great disputes against Communion under one kind tende. And after having exercised all his subtelty he is comes at last by all these efforts to acknowledg tacitely that which he had endeavored to oppose by such studied and elaborate treatises.

§ VIII. A refutation of the History concerning the taking away of the Cupp written by M. Jurieux.

In the last Treatise that M. Jurieux published, he proposes to himselfe the making an abridgment to the history of taking away the Cupp,⁸² where although he gives us for indisputable all that he is there pleased to impose it will be easy for us to dectet almost as many falsityes as he has mentioned matters of fact.

He proposes nothing new upon the Gospels and the Epistles of Saint Paul concerning which we have sufficiently spoken. From the Apostles times he passes to the following ages, where he showes without difficulty, that the use of the two species was ordinary. But he soon perceived that he brought nothing against us if he said nothing else: for he knows very well we mentain that at the same time the two species, were in practise they were not beleived so necessary but that they communicated as often and as publickly under one only, without any ones complaint. To take away this our defence, and to say something concluding, it did not suffise to assure us that the use of the two species was frequent but he ought also to assure us that it was regarded a indispensable, and that they never communicated after any other manner. M. Jurieux found that he ought to say this: he has said it in effect; but he has not so much as offered to proove it, so much did he dispaire of succeding in it. Only by a bold, and vehement affirmation, he thought he might supply the defect of a proof which he wanted: It is (saye he) a thing notoriously known, and that as no need of proof, tis a matter not in the least questioned. These affirmative manner of speeches impose upon men: the Pretended Reformers beleive a Minister upon his word, and cannot imagin he dars venture to avouch any thing as not contested when de facto it is. Nevertheless the truth, is that there is not any thing not only more contested, but also more false then that which M. Jurieux gives us here as for indisputable as equally confessed by both parties.

But let us consider his words as they lye with what followes. This is (sayes he) an affaire which is not contested. During the space of above a thousand yeares, none in the Church, had ever undertaken to celebrate this Sacrament, and communicate the Faithfull otherwise then the Lord had commanded it, that is to say under both species; except when to communicate the sick with more facility, some undertooke to moisten the bread in the wine, and to make them receive both the one and the other kinde at the same time.

The proposition and the exception are neither the one nor the other made with sincerity.

The proposition is, that during the space of above a thousand yeares none had ever undertaken to celebrate this Sacrament, nor to give it otherwise then under both species. He confounds at the very first two very different things, to celebrate this Sacrament and to give it. None ever celebrated it but under both species; wee grant it, and wee have shown a reason for it drawn from the nature of a Sacrifise: but that none ever gave the two species, is what wee dispute; and good ordre, not to say sincerity, dit not permitt that these two things should be equally joyned togeather as indisputable.

But that which seemes most intolerable, is that it should be asserted that during the space of above a thousand yeares the Communion was never given but under both species, and that this also should be a thing notorious and publick, a thing which needs no proofe, a thing which is not contested.

Wee ought to regard publick faith, and not to abuse these weighty expressions. M. Jurieux knows in his own conscience that wee deny all he here sayes: the sole titles of the articles of the first part of this discourse show clearly enough how many occasions there are where wee uphold that Communion was given under one kinde: I am not the first that have said it (God forbid) and I do nothing but explicate what all other Catholicks have said before me.

But can any thing be lesse sincere, then to bring here no exception from ordinary communions but only that of the sick, and with all to finde there no difference but in this that they then mixed the two species togeather: seeing M. Jurieux would relate nothing but what is not contested by Catholicks, he ought to speake after another manner. He knows very well wee maintaine that the Communion of the sick consisted not in giving them the two species mixed, but in giving them ordinaryly the sole species of bread. He knows very well what our Authors say upon the Communion of Serapion, upon that of Saint Ambrose, upon others which I have remarked; and that in a word wee say the ordinary manner of communicating the sick was to communicate them under one sole species. It is already to much to dare to deny a matter of fact so well established: but to advance this boldnesse to such a height as to say the contrary is not contested, is what I know not how M. Jurieux could resolve upon.

But what is it he would be at, when he affirmes, as a thing not contested by us, that during the space of above a thousand yeares the Communion was never given otherwise then under both species, except in the Communion of the sick where both the species were given mixed togeather. What a strange kind of exception is this, Both species were alwayes given, except when they gave them both mixed togeather. M. Jurieux would willingly have said much better then he did. But in affirming, as he does, that during the space of above a thousand yeares they never gave the Communion but under both species, he saw verry well that he ought at least to except the communion of the sick. He would have done it had he proceded candidly, but at the same time he foresaw by this exception alone he lost the fruict of so universall a proposition; and otherwise, there was not any likelihood the antient Church sent dying persons to the Tribunall of JESUS-CHRIST after a Communion received contrary to his command. So that he durst not say what naturally occurred, and fell into a manifest labarynth.

In fine, wherefore speakes he only of the Communion of the sick? Whence comes it that in this relation he has said nothing of the Communion of infants, and domestick Communion, both which he knows verry well wee alledge as given under one species only. Why do's he dissemble what our Authors have maintained, what I have proved after them by the Decrees of Saint Leo and Saint Gelasius; that it was free to communicate under one or both species, I say in the Church it selfe, and at the publick Sacrifise? Was M. Jurieux ignorant of these things to say nothing of the rest? Was he ignorant of the Office of Good Friday, and of the Communion then and there under one sole species? A man so learned as he, did he not know what was writ concerning this by Amalarius and Authors of the VIII. and IX. ages, whom wee have quoted? To know these things and to affirme as an indispautable practise, that during the space of above a thousand yeares the Communion was never given but under both species: is it not manifestly to be tray the truth, and defile his own conscience?

The other Authors of his Communion who have writ against us act with more sincerity. Calixtus, M. du Bourdieu and the others endeavour to answer those objections wee make. M. Jurieux followes another method, and contents himselfe to say boldly, That during the space of above a thousand yeares none ever undertooke to communicate the faithfull otherwise then under both species, and that this matter is not contested. This is the shortest way; and the surest to deceive the simple. But wee must beleeve that those who love their salvation, will open their eyes and not suffer themselves to be any longer imposed on.

M. Jurieux has but one only remaning refuge: to witt, that these Communions so frequent in the antient Church under one species were not the Sacrament of JESUS-CHRIST, any more then the Communion which is given in their Churches in bread alone to those who drinke no wine. In answering after this manner, he would have answered according to his principles, I confesse: but after all I maintaine he had not the boldnesse to make use of this answer, nor to impute to the antient Church this monstrous practise where a Sacrament is given which is in reality no Sacrament, but an humain invention in Communion.

Neverthelesse in a history such as he had promised it was his businesse to have alwayes related these considerable matters of fact. He says not one word of them in his narrative I wonder not at it, for he could not have spoken of so many important practises, without showing that there was at the least a great contestation betwixt them and us; and it pleased him to say, that it is a thing which has no need of proofe, and is not contested.

It is true that in another place in answering objections, he speakes a word or two of domestick Communion. But he comes of in answering that it is not certain whether those who carried away with them the Eucharist after this manner,⁸³ carried not also the wine, and that this later is much more likely. It is not certain: this last is much more apparent. Certainly a man thus positive as he is diffides verry much of his cause when he speakes at this rate; but at least, seing he doubts, he ought not to say that it is a matter without contestation, that no body ever undertooke during above a thousand yeares to communicate the Faithfull otherwise then under both species. Behold even in the first ages of the Church an infinite number of Communions that he himselfe durst not affirme to have been under both species. It was an abuse, sayes he. What then? the practise was to be related; the question concerning the abuse would come after, and wee should then see whether or no it were fitt to condemne so many Martyrs, so many other Saints, and the whole primitive Church which practised this domestick Communion.

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

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

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

I have no neede to speake of the manner how he relates the establishment of the reall presence and Transubstantiation during the X. age: that is not to our present subject,⁸⁴ and otherwise nothing obliges us to refute what he advances without proofe. But that which is to be remarked is, that he regards Communion under one kind as a thing which was not introduced but by presupposing Transubstantiation. All in good time: when therefore it shall henceforth appeare (as wee have invincibly shown) that Communion under one species was practised even in the first ages of the Church, and in the times of the Martyrs, it can be no more doubted but that Transubstantiation was also at that time establised; and M. Jurieux himselfe will be obliged to grant this consequence. But let us retourne to what follows in his History.

He shows us there Communion under one species, as a thing first thought of in the eleaventh age, after the reall presence and Transubstantiation had been well established: For then they perceived (sayes he) that under a crumme of bread,⁸⁵ as well as under every drop of wine, the whole Flesh and all the Blood of our Lord were included. What happened upon it? Let us heare: This false reason prevailed in such a manner over the institution of our Lord, and over the practise of the whole antient Church, that the custome of communicating under the sole species of Bread was insensibly established in the XII. and XIII. ages. It was insensibly established; so much the better for us. What I have said then is true, that the people reduced themselves without contradiction and without difficulty to the sole species of Bread, so well were they prepared by the Communion of the sick, by that of infants, by that which was received at home, by that which was practised in the Church it selfe, and finally by all those practises wee have seen, to acknowlege a true and perfect Communion under one species.

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

M. Jurieux saw this consequence;⁸⁶ and after having said that the custome of communicating under the sole species of bread was establised insensibly in the XII. and XIII. age, he adds immediately after: It was not however without resistance; the people could not suffer without great impatience that they should take from them halfe of JESUS-CHRIST; they murmured in all parts. He had said a little before that this change, (verry different from those which are made after an insensible manner, without opposition, and without noise) was on the contrary made with great noise and splendour. These Gentlemen answer things as best pleases them: the present difficulty transports them; and beeing pressed by the objection, they say at that moment what seemes most to disentangle them from it, without much reflecting whether it agree, I do not say with truth, but with their own thoughts. The cause it selfe demands this, and wee must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner. This is the state in which M. Jurieux found himselfe. This custome, says he, that is to say this of communicating under one kind, was insensibly established; nothing can be more quiet and tranquile. It was not neverthelesse without resistance, without noise, without the greatest impatience, without murmuring on all sides; behold a grand commotion. Truth made him candidly speake the first, and the adhesion to his cause made him say the other. In effect nothing can be found of these universall murmurs, of these extreame impatiences, of these resistances of the people; and this induceth to the establising an insensible change. On the other side it must not be said that a practise which is represented so strange, so unheard of, so evidently sacrilegious, was established without repugnance, and without taking any notice of it. To avoid this inconvenience a resistance must be imagined, and, if none can be found, invented.

But furthermore what could be the subject of these universall murmurings? M. Jurieux has told us his thoughts of them: but in this point he coheares as little with himselfe as in all the rest. That which caused these murmurings, is (sayes he) that the people suffered with the greatest impatience that they should be deprived of one halfe of JESUS-CHRIST. Has he forgot what he even now said, that the reall presence had made them see that under each crumme of bread the whole Flesh and all the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST were contained?⁸⁷ Dos he reflect upon what he is presently about to say, that if the doctrine of Transsubstantiation and of the reall presence be true,⁸⁸ it is true also that the bread containes the Flesh and the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST? Where then was this half of JESUS-CHRIST taken away, which the people suffered (according to him) with the highest impatience? If a man will have them make complaints, let him at least afford them matter conformable to their sentiments, and such as carrys a face of probability.

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

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

He do's not so much as state the question sincerely.⁸⁹ The state of the question (says he) is very easy to comprehend. he will then I hope declare it clearely and distinctly. Let us see. It is granted (adds he) that when they communicate the faithfull, as well the people as the Clergy, they are obliged to give them the Bread to eate: but they pretend it is not the same as to the Cupp. He will not so much as dreame that wee beleeve Communion equally vallid and perfect under eather of the two species. But beeing willing by the very state of the question to have it understood that wee beleive more perfection or more necessity in that of the Bread then in the other, or that JESUS-CHRIST is not equally in them both: he would thereby render us manifestly ridiculous. But he knows verry well that wee are far from these phancyes; and it may be seene in this Treatise, that wee beleeve the Communion given to little children during so many ages under the sole species of wine, as good and vallid as that which was given in so many other occurrences under the sole species of Bread. So that M. Jurieux states the question wrong. He begins his dispute concerning the two species upon that question so stated: He continues it by a history where wee have seene he advances as many falsityes as facts. Behold here the man whom our Reformers looke upon at present every where as the strongest defendour of their cause.

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

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

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

M. Jurieux has acknowleged it in the places heretofore mentioned.⁹⁰ If (says he) the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the reall presence were true, it is true that the Bread would containe the Flesh and Blood of JESUS-CHRIST. So that concomitancy is an effect of the reall presence, and the Pretended Reformers do not deny us this consequence.

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

Verily when he said, Take, eat, this is my Body, and by those words gave us the flesh of his sacrifise to eate, he know verry well he did not give us the flesh of a pure man, but that he gave us a flesh united to the divinity, and in a word the flesh of God and man both togeather. The same must be said of his Blood, which would not be the price of our salvation, if it were not the Blood of God; Blood which the Divine Word had appropriated to himselfe after a most particular manner by making himselfe man, conformable to these words of Saint Paul:⁹¹ Because his servants are composed of flesh and blood; he who ought in all things to be like unto them, would partake both of the one and the other.

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

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

According to this doctrine, wee ought to have our living victime under an image of death; otherwise wee should not be enlivened. JESUS-CHRIST tells us also at his holy table: I am living but I have beene dead;⁹² 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,⁹³ 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.⁹⁴ 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:⁹⁵ 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,⁹⁶ too injustly calumniated by our adversaryes: He who said,⁹⁷ 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:⁹⁸ IF ANY ONE EAT OF THIS BREAD, HE SHALL HAVE LIFE EVERLASTING. And he who said,⁹⁹ HE WHO EATES MY FLESH, AND DRINKES MY BLOOD, HAS ETERNALL LIFE,¹⁰⁰ 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.¹⁰¹ HE THAT EATES MY FLESH, AND DRINKES MY BLOOD, REMAINES IN ME AND I IN HIM, has also said: HE WHO EATES THIS BREAD,¹⁰² SHALL HAVE ETERNALL LIFE; and againe:¹⁰³ 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,¹⁰⁴ Aubertin has said it, every one says it, and M. du Bourdieu says it also in his Treatise so often cited.¹⁰⁵ 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,¹⁰⁶ 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.¹⁰⁷ Saint Augustin sayes often the same thing, though he had seene and examined in one of his Epistles, that passage of Saint Cyprian where he speakes of the Communion of infants by Blood alone, without finding any thing extraordinary in this manner of communion; and that it is not to be doubted but the African Church, where Saint Augustin was Bishop, had retained the Tradition which Saint Cyprian so great a Martyr Bishop of Carthage, and Primate of Africa had left behind him. The foundation of this is that the Body and Blood inseperably accompany each other, for although the species which containe particularly the one or the other in vertue of the institution are taken seperately, their substance can be no more seperated then their vertue and their grace: in so much that infants in drinking only the Blood, do not only receive the essentiall fruit of the Eucharist, but also the whole substance of this Sacrament, and in a word an actuall and perfect Communion.

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

§ X. Some objections solved by the precedent Doctrine.

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

M.¹⁰⁸ Jurieux objects against us, that the reall presence being supposed, the Body and the Blood would in reality be received under the Bread alone, but that yet this would not suffise, because, tis true, this would be to receive the Blood, 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,¹⁰⁹ 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,¹¹⁰ you shall have no life in you; it is also writt after the same manner,¹¹¹ 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,¹¹² 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,¹¹³ &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,¹¹⁴ 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,¹¹⁵ 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.¹¹⁶ 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,¹¹⁷ 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,¹¹⁸ 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.¹¹⁹ 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,¹²⁰ 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:¹²¹ 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,¹²² 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 ressembles it in Scripture, seing on the Contrary JESUS-CHRIST has said, As my Father sent me,¹²³ so send I you, and Saint Paul an Apostle by JESUS-CHRIST did establish Titus so as that he might afterwards establish others,¹²⁴¹²⁵ in such sort that the mission came wholy from JESUS-CHRIST sent from God. Behold what wee finde in Scripture; and what they would say at present of the authority of the people is but a meere illusion.

The same errour induces the Ministers to say the Church has the liberty to fraime Ecclesiasticall government as she thinkes fitt; to take away or retaine Episcopacy; to make Antients and Deacons for a time,¹²⁶ that is to say, send them back at pleasure to a common secular life after having consecrated them to God; to give them power to decide what concernes doctrine togeather with the Pastors in equality of suffrages, that is to say, to admit them without being Pastors (for they are not so upon any account in the new reforme) to a function the most essentiall to Postorall authority: all which wee finde in their discipline and in their Synods, without so much as one sole text of Scripture, to second them either in these or in the power it selfe which they vainly attribute to themselves of disposing all things according to their own phancy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to begin with this objection which seemes the most plausible: who on the other side dos not see more cleare then the day that it is in the power of the Church to make choice of one part in things which are free, and that when she has chosen that, it ought not to be permitted to contemne her decrees?¹²⁷ Saint Augustin has very often affirmed, it is an insupportable folly not to follow what has been regulated by a generall Council or by the universall custome of the Church. But if our Reformers be not disposed to believe Saint Augustin in this; will they themselves allow that any one of theirs who, under pretense that Baptisme was so long given by immersion, should doubt with the Anabaptists of the validity of his Baptisme, and should be so obstinate as either to make himselfe be rebaptized, or at the least to make his children be baptized according to the antient practise? But if he should require the Communion should be given his son but yet an infant under pretence, that it was given to little children during a thousand yeares, would they esteeme themselves obliged to condescende to his desire? On the contrary would they not treat such an one and all like him, as unquiet and turbulent spirits who trouble the peace of the Church? Would they not tell them with the Apostre: If any one amongst you be contentious,¹²⁸ wee and the Church of God have not this custome; and, if they have never so little ingenuity, would they not finde in this sole passage enough to make them submit to the authority of the customes of the Church? Nay further, it is certain that the antient Church, although she baptized little infants which were presented to her, yet did not alwayes with the outmost rigour oblige their parents to present them at that age, upon condition they baptized them when in danger; and the Ecclesiasticall history lets us see many Catecumens of a more advanced age without the Church having forced them to be sooner baptized. The Pretended Reformers who believe not the necessity of Baptisme, and cannot produce any divine precept which obliges it to be given to infants, are much more free in this matter.¹²⁹ This freedome has it hindred the severe regulations of their Discipline, which obliges parents under the paine of the most rigourouse censures to present their little children to be baptized? Let them grant with us that the Church can make lawes in indifferent matters; and if they acknowledge from so many examples that Communion under one or both species is of this kind, let them cease to cavill with us, and to give themselves an uselesse trouble about this matter.

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

Wee must therefore at length examin once again what is essentiall to the Eucharist, and prescribe our selves a rule to understand it aright. This is what these Gentlemen will never do, if they come not back to our principles and to the authority of Tradition. M.¹³⁰ Jurieux goes too far when he proposes for a rule according to the principles of his Religion, to doe universally all that JESUS-CHRIST did, in such sort that wee should regard all circumstances he observed, at being of absolute necessity. These are his own words. He alleges to this purpose the antient Passeover of the Jewes, where after having cut the throat of a lambe in the morning,¹³¹ another was to have his throat cutt in the evening, to be roasted, to be eaten with bitter hearbs, to be consumed the same night, and nothing of it to be reserved till the following day. He represents the necessity of all these ceremonyes, and not only the substance but all the circumstances. This word of JESUS-CHRIST, Do this, makes him conclude the same of the Eucharist. So that wee should be restrained, according to his principles, to all that JESUS-CHRIST did, and not only to bread and wine, but moreover to the hour, and to the whole manner of receiving it;¹³² and the rather because (as wee have seene) every one had its reason, and mistery, as well as that which Moyses ordained concerning the antient Passeover. Neverthelesse how many things have wee remarked which neither these Ministers nor wee observe?¹³³ But beholde one which I omitted, and which may in this place give great light.

Amongst other things which our Lord observed in the last Supper, one of those which the Calvinists believe as most necessary, is the breaking of the bread. The Lutherans are of a contrary opinion, and make use of round breads which they breake not. This is a matter of great contest betwixt these Gentlemen. The Calvinists lay much stresse upon this that the Evangelists and Saint Paul do of one common accord write that the same night JESUS CHRIST was delivered to the Jewes,¹³⁴ he tooke bread, blessed it, brooke it, and gave it. They insiste much upon this breaking of the bread, which according to them represents that the Boby of our Lord was broken for us upon the Crosse, and remarke with great care that Saint Paul, after having said that JESUS broke bread,¹³⁵ makes him say according to the Greeke text, This is my Body broken for you; to shew, as they pretend, the reference this Bread broken has to the Body immolated. So that this breaking appeares to them necessary to the mystery; and this is it which makes those of Heidelberg say in their Catechisme much esteemed by those of their party,¹³⁶ that as truly as they see the bread of the Supper broken to be given to them, so truly has JESUS-CHRIST been offered and broken for us.

There was a proposall made for an accord or union with the Lutherans,¹³⁷ and a conference was held for this about twenty yeares since, that is in the yeare 1661. The Calvinists of Marpourg hereupon found quickly a distinction, and in the declaration which they gave to the Lutherans of Rintell, they said, that the breaking appertained not to the essense but only to the integrity of the Sacrament, as beeing necessary because of the example and command of JESUS-CHRIST: so that the Lutherans ceased not to have, without this breaking of the Bread, the substance of the Supper, and thus they might mutually tolerate one another. The Calvinists have not beene, that I know of, reprehended by any of theirs, and the union which was made had on their side its entire effect: in so much that they cannot hereafter insist upon the words of the institution seing one may by their own acknowledgement haye the substance of the Supper without entirely subjecting himselfe to the institution, example and expresse command of our Lord. What would they say if we should make use of such an answer? But as all is permitted to the Lutherans so all is insupportable amongst Catholicks.

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

The concomitancy upon which the Roman Church grounds Communion under one species is not (say you) found in antiquity. First what I have drawn from the antient Church to establish this Communion, is matter of fact; and if Communion under one species suppose concomitancy togeather with the reality, it followes from thence that both the one and the other were believed in antiquity where Communion under one kind was so frequent. Secondly, Gentlemen, open your own bookes, open Aubertin the most learnest defendor of your doctrine:¹³⁸ you will finde there in almost every page passages taken from Saint Ambrose,¹³⁹ from Saint Chrysostome, from the two Cyrilles and from many others, where you may read that in receiving the sacred Body of our Lord they received his person it selfe, seing they received (say they) the King in their hands: they received JESUS-CHRIST and the Word of God; they received his Flesh as living; not as the flesh of a meere man, but as the Flesh of a God. Is not this to receive the Divinity togeather with the Humanity of the Son of God, and in a word his entire person? After this what would you call concomitancy.

As for those precautions used least the Eucharist should be let fall upon the ground, there needes only a little fincerity to acknowledge they are as antient as the Church her selfe. Aubertin will shew you them in Origines:¹⁴⁰¹⁴¹ in S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and in Saint Augustin not to mention others. You will see in these holy Doctors (expressions strange to the ear of Reformere viz) that to let full the least particles of the Eucharist, is as if one should let fall gold and pretious stones, is as if one should prejudice even his owne limbes; is as if one should let slip the word of God which is annonced to us, and wilfully loose this seede of life, or rather the eternall truth it brings us.

There needs no more to confound M. Jurieux.¹⁴² 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.¹⁴³ 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.¹⁴⁴ 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.¹⁴⁵ 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 seaman or soldier were lesse considerable in the eyes of God then other men. If this unseasonable buffoon had remarked in the antient Fathers with what decency and respect they approched to the Eucharist; if he would have regarded in Saint Cyrill after what manner the faithfull at this time tasted the sacred Cupp,¹⁴⁶ 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,¹⁴⁷ 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,¹⁴⁸ 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?¹⁴⁹ 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.

Footnotes

1. Math. 3.5.6. Luk. 3.3. John. 3.23. ↩

2. Mat. 3.16. Mark. 1.10. ↩

3. Rom. 6.4. Coloss. 2.12. ↩

4. 1. Cor. 11.25.26.
   ↩

5. Ibid. 24.25. ↩

6. Representation more pressing. ↩

7. 1. Cor. 10.21. Heb. 13.10.
   ↩

8. Exp. art. 14. ↩

9. Exp. art. XVII. ↩

10. Préservatif, art. XIII. p. 262. & suiv. ↩

11. p. 264. ↩

12. Exam. de l'Euch. Tr. 6. sect. 7. ↩

13. Préservatif, p. 266. 267. ↩

14. Exod. 16.23.35.3. ↩

15. Joseph. Ant. 13.16. ↩

16. Act. 1.12. ↩

17. Luk. 13.15.14.5. ↩

18. 1. Mach. 2.32.38.40.41. 2. Mach. 15.1.2. &c.
    ↩

19. Joseph. Ant. 14.8. ↩

20. Levit. 2 4.8. Num. 28.9. ↩

21. Exod. 12.15. ↩

22. Math. 12.5. ↩

23. Ibid. 4. ↩

24. 1. Kings. 21.4.
    ↩

25. Exod. 12.6. ↩

26. Deut. 7.1.2.3. ↩

27. Ibid. 2. Ibid. 4. ↩

28. Ruch. 4. ↩

29. 1. Esd. 9.[…].10.19. 2. Esd. 18.1.2. &c.
    ↩

30. Exod. 21.24.28. Lev. 24.19.20. Dont. 19.21. ↩

31. Math. 15.3. Mark. 7.7. &c. ↩

32. 2. Mach. 11.43.46.
    ↩
33. 1. Cor. 15.29.
    ↩

34. Act. 20.7. 1. Cor. 16.2. ↩

35. Apoc. 1.10. ↩

36. Math. 28.19. ↩

37. Tertull. de Bapt. Concil. Illid. c. 38. &c. ↩

38. Discip. c. XI. art. 1. & observ. ↩

39. Math. 28.19. Mark. 16.15.16. ↩

40. Discip. c. XI. art. VI. Observ. p. 166. ↩

41. 1. Tim. 4.10.
    ↩

42. Math. 19.14. ↩

43. John. 3.3.5. ↩

44. Discip. c. XI. art. VI. Observ. ↩

45. Ibid. ↩

46. Cat. Dim 50. Conf. de Foy art. 35. Forme d'administrer le Bapt. ↩

47. Math. 26.27. ↩

48. Mark. 14.23. ↩

49. Luk. 22.19. ↩

50. 1. Cor. 11.23.
    ↩

51. Luk. 22.19. ↩

52. De cor. mil. c. 3. ↩

53. Et omnibus mandatum à Domino. ↩

54. Disc c. XII. art. IX. ↩

55. Syn. de Privas, ibid. Syn. de Saint Maixent. Disc. c. XII. Observat. aprés l'art. XIV. ↩

56. Conc. Carth. IV. c. 38. &c. ↩

57. Disc. c. XII. Observ. sur l'art. IX. ↩

58. Ibid. ↩

59. Ibid. Observ. p. 184. & seq. ↩

60. Ibid. p. 186. ↩

61. Ibid. Observ. aprés l'art. XIV. p. 189. ↩

62. Conc. Brac. IV. T. VI. Conc. c. 2. ↩

63. Conc. Clarom. C. ↩

64. Ep. 32. ↩

65. Basil. de Sp. S. 27. ↩

66. Ibid. Observ. sur l'art. IX. p. 185. ↩

67. Ibid. ↩

68. Luk. 22.19. ↩

69. 1. Cor. 11.23.
    ↩

70. Basil. de Sp. S. cap. 27. ↩

71. Disp. Humb. Card. apud Bar. app. T. XI. ↩

72. Tom. XI. Conc. ↩

73. Tom. XII. Conc. ↩

74. N. 24.25. an author about those times. ↩

75. Ibid. ↩

76. Conc. Lameth. C. I. T. XI. Conc. ↩

77. Ep. Luth. ad Casp. Guttol. Tom. II. Ep. 56. ↩

78. Visit. Sax. T. VI. Ihen. ↩

79. Apol. Aug. Cons. ↩

80. N. 199. ↩

81. De Communione sub utraque n. 200. & jud. n. 76. ↩

82. Exam. de l'Euch. 6. Traité. 5. Sect. ↩

83. Ibid. Sect. VII. 483. 484. ↩

84. Sect. V. p. 469. ↩

85. Ibid. 470. ↩

86. Ibid. ↩

87. Ibid. p. 469. ↩

88. Sect. VI. p. 480. ↩

89. V. Sect. p. 464. ↩

90. Exam. p. 480. ↩

91. Heb. 11.14.17. ↩

92. Apoc. 1.11. ↩

93. Apoc. 5.6. ↩

94. John. VI. 64. Cvr. lib. IV. in Joh. c. 34. Ia. Anath. XI. Conc. Eph. p. I. T. III. Conc. ↩

95. John. 6.54. ↩

96. Sess. XXI. c. 1. ↩

97. John. 6.54. ↩

98. Ibid. 52. ↩

99. Ibid. 55. ↩

100. Ibid. 52. ↩

101. Ibid. 57. ↩

102. Ibid. 59. ↩

103. Ibid. 58. ↩

104. Cal. Inst. IV. &c. Aub. lib. I. de Sacr. Euch. c. 30. &c. ↩

105. Repl. ch. VI. p. 201. ↩

106. Test. ad Quir. III. 25.20. ↩

107. Aug. Ep. 23. ↩

108. Exam. Tr. VI. Sect. 6. p. 480. 481. ↩

109. John. 6.57.58. ↩

110. John. 6.54. ↩

111. John. 3.8. ↩

112. Discip. ch. 12. art. 2. ↩

113. 1. Cor. 11.28.
     ↩

114. Math. 21. Marke. 16. Act. 2.38. ↩

115. Dim. 50. ↩

116. Basil. de Sp. S. c. 27. ↩

117. James 5.1[…].15. ↩

118. Discip. ch. 1. art. s. & Observ. ↩

119. Poit. 1560. Par. 1565. ↩

120. Ch. 1. art. 8. ↩

121. Conf. de Foy art. 31. ↩

122. Rom. 10.15. ↩

123. John. 20.25. ↩

124. Gal. 1.1. &c. ↩

125. Tit. 1.5. ↩

126. Ch. 3. des Anciens & Diacres. art. 6.7. & Observ. ↩

127. Ep. ad Jan. lib. de Bapt. &c. ↩

128. 1. Cor. 11.16.
     ↩

129. Discip. ch. XI. de Bapt. art. XVI. & Observat. ↩

130. Exam. T. VI. sect. s. p. 465. ↩

131. Ibid. Sect. 6.474.475. ↩

132. Sup. 2. p. art. VI. p. 296. ↩

133. Ibid. ↩

134. 1. Cor. 11.24.
     ↩
135. 1. Cor. 11.24.
     ↩

136. Catech. Heid. qu. 75. ↩

137. Colloq. Cassel an. 1661. ↩

138. Aub. lib. III. p. 431. 485. 505. 539. 570. &c. ↩

139. Amb. lib. I. in Luc. Cyr. Hieros. Cat. 5. myst. Greg. Nyss. orat. Cathec. Cyr. Alex. lib IV. in Joan. c. 3. 4. Chrys. hom. 51.83. in Mat. lib. 3. de Sacerd. 4. &c. ↩

140. Orig. in Exod. hom. 13. ↩

141. Cyr. Hier. Cat 5. myst. Aug. 50. homil. 26. Aub. lib. II. p. 431. 432. &c. ↩

142. Exam. T. VI. sect. 5. p. 469. ↩

143. Ibid. Sect. 7. ↩

144. Ibid. 469. ↩

145. P. 485. ↩

146. Cyr. Hier. Gat. 5. myst. ↩

147. 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. ↩

148. Hist. Euch. III. p. ch. 4 p. 541. & seqq. ↩

149. Chrys. lib. VI. de Sacerd. &c. Theod. loc. cit. &c. sup. ↩