A treatise of Communion under both species by James Benigne Bossuet.

§ V. Fourth Custome.

Communion at the Church and in the ordinary Office.

I Place therefore as the fourth practise, that in the Church it selfe and in the assemblyes of Christians it was free for them to receive either both species or one only. The Ma∣nicheans abhorred wine which they beleeved was created by the Devill. The same Mani∣cheans denyed that the son of

God had shed his Blood for our redemption, beleeving that his Passion was nothing but an illusion and a phantastical appearence. These two reasons gave an aversion from the pre∣tious Blood of our Lord which was received in the Mysteryes under the species of wine: And as, to hide themselves the bet∣ter, sayes Saint Leo, and to spread more easily their venom, they mixed themselves with Ca∣tholicks even to communicate with them, so they received the Body of our Lord only, avoiding to drink the Blood by which wee were redeemed. This fraudulent proceeding of theirs could hardly be discovered because Catholicks themselves did not all of them communicate un∣der both species. At the last it was taken notice of that these Hereticks dit it out of affe∣ctation:

in so much that the Holy Pope S. Leo the Great would that those who were known as such by this marke, should be expelled the Church; and Saint Gelasius his disciple and suc∣cessour was obliged to forbid expressely to communiacte any other wayes then under both species: a signe that the thing was free before, and that they would not have thought of making this ordinance, but to take from the Manicheans the meanes of deceiving.

This practise is of the V. * 1.1 age. M. de la Roque and others relate it togeather with the jud∣gement of these two Popes, and take their advantage from it. But on the contrary this pra∣ctise shews clearly that there was need of a particular rea∣son to oblige the faithfull to a necessity of communicating

under both species, and that the thing was indifferently pra∣ctised both wayes before: o∣therwise the Manicheans would immediately have too much exposed themselves, and could not have expected to be suffe∣red.

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

Tis true that this liberty being allowed, there must ha∣ve

been time and a particular vigilance to discerne these he∣reticks from amongst the faith∣full. And this was also the rea∣son of the long continuance of their deceit, and that which caused a necessity at last, in the time of Saint Gelasius, of ma∣king an expresse ordre to ta∣ke equally the body and the blood, under paine of being deprived of them both.

M. * 1.2 du Bourdieu conceales here from us with a great dea∣le of artifice the motive indu∣cing this Pope to make that prohibition. See here the words of the Decree. * 1.3 Wee have disco∣vered that some persons in ta∣king the sacred Body only, ab∣staine from the holy Chalice, which persons truly, (because they see∣me to adhere to I know not what superstition) let them either ta∣ke the Sacrament under both spe∣cies,

or let them be entirely de∣prived of the one and the other. This particle because of Pope Galasius, which shews mani∣festly that the superstitious ab∣stinence of these Hereticks was the particular reason why he obliged them to both species, is left out by this Minister; for se what he makes this Po∣pe say: I know not what super∣stition they are addicted to: ei∣ther let them receive the entire Sacraments, or let them be de∣prived of the entire Sacraments.

He durst not let that parti∣cle appeare in his translation by which this Pope shews ex∣pressely that his prohibition had a particular motive, for feare it might be too easily concluded against him, that there was nothing in it selfe more free then to communica∣te without receiving the Blood,

since that there was need of reasons and a particular occa∣sion to oblige the doing of it.

There is likewise another crafty artifice, but verry feeble in the translation of this Mi∣nister. For insteed of what the Pope sayes (as I have above translated it) Which persons tru∣ly, * 1.4 becanse they seme to adhere to I know not what superstition, that is to say indefinitely, as is ma∣nifest, to some certain supersti∣tion, which he will not vouch∣safe to expresse; * 1.5 this Minister makes him say both precisely and more strongly: I know not what superstition they are addi∣cted to, to the end he might conclude a little after that this did not concerne the Mani∣cheans, whose errours, sayes he, this learned Bishop was not igno∣rant of, nor of those which were in vogue in his time.

Calixtus had endeavoured be∣fore him to distinguish the pra∣ctise of Hereticks mentioned by Saint Leo from this prohi∣bited by Saint Gelasius, there∣by to hinder any one from be∣leeving that the Decree of this last Pope in favour of the two species was to be regarded as in relation to the errors of the Manicheans. What dos this pittifull refuge availe him? Seeing that it appeares clearly by the tearms of this Decree, that it had a particular moti∣ve, what dos it import us whe∣ther it were the Manicheans er∣rour, or some other such like superstition? And is not this alwayes sufficient to let us see, (take it which way you will) that it was necessary the Church should have some particular reasons to oblige them to both species?

But as to the whole it can∣not be doubted but this super∣stition of which Saint Gela∣sius speakes here was that of the Manicheans, seing that Anastasius the Bibliothecarian sayes expressely in the life of this Pope, * 1.6 that he discovered the Manicheans at Rome, that he sent them into exile, and that he caused their books to be burnt before the Saint Marys Church. Wee do not in effect see what other superstition besides that of the Manicheans could have inspired a horror to wine and that of the Blood of our Lord. On the other side it is mani∣fest that these Hereticks had unheard of artifices to insinua∣te themselves secretly amongst the faithfull, and that there was in their prodigious discourses such an efficacy of errour, that it was a most difficult thing to

efface wholy those impressions they left in the minde. None therefore can doubt but that these superstitious people of whom Saint Gelasius speakes, were the hidden remainders of those Manicheans that Saint Leo his predecessor had disco∣vered thirty or forty yeares be∣fore; and whereat Saint Gela∣sius has said they are addicted to I know not what superstition, it is not that he did know verry well their errours, but he spea∣kes this out of contempt, or rather, because this obscure sect changed it selfe into a thousand shapes, so that what remained of this poison was not alwayes known, or it was not alwayes thought conve∣nient to explicate it to the people.

But behold the last refuge of these Ministers. They main∣taine

wee are in the wrong in searching a particular rea∣son of the Ordinance of Saint Gelasius, since he establishes it manifestly upon the nature of the Mystery. Let us once more therefore relate the words of this Pope already cited, and let us add thereto their whole consequence. Wee have disco∣vered, sayes he, that some per∣sons take only the sacred Body, and abstaine from the sacred Blood, which persons truly (be∣cause they seeme to adhere to I know not what superstition) let them take both parts or let them be deprived of both, because the division of one and the same mys∣tery cannot be done without a great sacrilege.

To understand aright the consequence of these words, wee finde that the division which he accuses of sacrilege

was that same grounded upon the above mentioned supersti∣tion where the Blood of our Lord consecrated under the species of wine was regarded as an object of aversion. In∣deed it is a deviding of the mystery to beleeve that there is one part of it which JESUS-CHRIST did not institute, and which ought to be rejected as abominable. But to beleeve that JESUS-CHRIST has e∣qually instituted both parts, and not withstanding to take but one, not out of contempt to the other (God forbid) but because wee beleeve that the vertue of both is received in either, and that in them both there is but one sole fondation of Grace: if this be to divi∣de the mystery, the primitive Church dividid it when they communicated the sick, little

children, and generally all the faithfull in their houses under one sole species. But as wee cannot have such an opinion of the antient Church wee must of necessity avouch that to di∣vide this mystery some thing more must be beleeved and practised then that which is beleeved and practised by all Catholicks.

Notes

• * 1.1

  I. Part. ch. 11. p. 144.
• * 1.2

  Ibid. p. 283.
• * 1.3

  Qui procul∣dubio (quo∣niam nescio qua supersti∣tione docentur adstringi) aut integra Sacra∣menta perci∣piant, aut ab integra ar∣ceantur. Gel. ibid.
• * 1.4

  Nescioqua su∣perstitione de∣centur adstrin∣gi.
• * 1.5

  Du Bourd. ibid. p. 283.
• * 1.6

  Vit. Gel. T. IV. Conc.