This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
WEe should here have fi∣nish this discourse, if charity which urges us to pro∣cure the salvation of these Gentlemen of the Pretended Reformed Religion, did not oblige us to remove some scru∣ples,
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 con∣comitancy, upon which wee establish the validity of Com∣munion under one species, is a mystery unknown to the an∣tient Church, where none e∣ver 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 con∣comitancy being, according to us, a necessary sequell of the reall presence, it may be beleeved that this reall pre∣sence was unhnown where they know not this concomi∣tancy.
The Ministers retort upon us
those precautions wee alledge in our own behalfe. Wee do not finde, say they, in the an∣tient Church any of these pre∣cautions now established in these later ages for keeping the Eucharist, for exciting the people to adore it, for hin∣dring least it should be let fall upon that ground. This feare (add they) was no impedi∣ment for so many ages to the giving the Communion in botk kinds to all the people; and these new precautions ser∣ve for nothing but to let us see they have a different opi∣nion 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 ob∣jection 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 con∣temne her decrees? Saint Au∣gustin has very often affirmed, it is an insupportable folly not to follow what has been re∣gulated by a generall Council or by the universall custome of the Church. But if our Re∣formers be not disposed to be∣lieve Saint Augustin in this;
will they themselves allow that any one of theirs who, un∣der pretense that Baptisme was so long given by immersion, should doubt with the Ana∣baptists 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 in∣fant 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 Apos∣tre:
If any one amongst you be contentious, 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 au∣thority of the customes of the Church? Nay further, it is cer∣tain that the antient Church, al∣though she baptized little in∣fants 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 ba∣ptized them when in danger; and the Ecclesiasticall history lets us see many Catecumens of a more advanced age with∣out the Church having for∣ced them to be sooner bapti∣zed. The Pretended Reformers who believe not the necessity of Baptisme, and cannot pro∣duce
any divine precept which obliges it to be given to infants, are much more free in this mat∣ter. This freedome has it hin∣dred the severe regulations of their Discipline, which obliges parents under the paine of the most rigourouse censures to pre∣sent 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 Commu∣nion under one or both spe∣cies is of this kind, let them cease to cavill with us, and to give themselves an uselesse trou∣ble about this matter.
But it may be they would say, that in these practises I have re∣lated, those who communica∣ted sometimes under one spe∣cies, communicated also some∣times under the other; which
suffices in the whole to accom∣plish the precept of our Lord: as if our Lord would at the same time inspire us with a fir∣me 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 es∣sentiall to the Eucharist, and prescribe our selves a rule to understand it aright. This is what these Gentlemen will ne∣ver do, if they come not back to our principles and to the authority of Tradition. M. Ju∣rieux goes too far when he pro∣poses for a rule according to the principles of his Religion, to doe universally all that JE∣SUS-CHRIST did, in such sort that wee should regard
all circumstances he observed, at being of absolute necessity. The∣se are his own words. He al∣leges to this purpose the an∣tient Passeover of the Jewes, where after having cut the throat of a lambe in the mor∣ning, 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 re∣served till the following day. He represents the necessity of all these ceremonyes, and not on∣ly the substance but all the cir∣cumstances. This word of JE∣SUS-CHRIST, Do this, ma∣kes him conclude the same of the Eucharist. So that wee should be restrained, accor∣ding 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; and the rather because (as wee have seene) every one had its reason, and mistery, as well as that which Moyses or∣dained concerning the antient Passeover. Neverthelesse how many things have wee remar∣ked which neither these Mi∣nisters nor wee observe? 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, he tooke bread, blessed it, brooke it, and gave it. They insiste much u∣pon this breaking of the bread, which according to them repre∣sents that the Boby of our Lord was broken for us upon the Crosse, and remarke with great care that Saint Paul, after ha∣ving said that JESUS broke bread, 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 ne∣cessary to the mystery; and this is it which makes those of Heidelberg say in their Cate∣chisme much esteemed by those of their party, 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, and a confe∣rence 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 appertai∣ned not to the essense but only to the integrity of the Sacrament, as beeing necessary because of the example and command of JE∣SUS-CHRIST: so that the Lu∣therans 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, repre∣hended by any of theirs, and the union which was made had on their side its entire effect: in so much that they cannot hereaf∣ter insist upon the words of the institution seing one may by their own acknowledgement haye the substance of the Sup∣per without entirely subjecting himselfe to the institution, e∣xample 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 Com∣munion, is matter of fact; and if Communion under one spe∣cies suppose concomitancy to∣geather with the reality, it followes from thence that both the one and the other were be∣lieved in antiquity where Com∣munion under one kind was so frequent. Secondly, Gentle∣men, open your own bookes, open Aubertin the most learnest defendor of your doctrine: you will finde there in almost eve∣ry page passages taken from Saint Ambrose, 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 per∣son 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 li∣ving; not as the flesh of a meere man, but as the Flesh of a God. Is not this to receive the Divi∣nity togeather with the Huma∣nity of the Son of God, and in a word his entire person? After this what would you call con∣comitancy.
As for those precautions used least the Eucharist should be let fall upon the ground, there nee∣des only a little fincerity to ac∣knowledge they are as antient as the Church her selfe. Auber∣tin will shew you them in Ori∣gines: in S. Cyrill of Jerusalem, and in Saint Augustin not to mention others. You will see in these holy Doctors (expres∣sions strange to the ear of Re∣formere viz) that to let full the least particles of the Eu∣charist,
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 con∣found M. Jurieux. At that ti∣me, sayes he, that is to say in the eleaventh age when, accor∣ding to him, Transsubstantia∣tion was established, they be∣gun to thinke of the consequen∣ces of Transsubstantiation. When men were persuaded that the Bo∣dy of our Lord was contained who∣le and entire under each little dropp of wine they were seized with a feare least it should be spilt. If then this feare of effu∣sion 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 a∣mongst dust and dirt, without a possibility of taking it up. If the Fathers have trembled to thin∣ke 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 ef∣fusion as a necessary consequen∣ce of the beliefe of the reall presence. This reason (sayes he) that is to say that which is drawn from the feare of effu∣sion, may be proper for them, that is to say for the Catho∣licks: but it is of no account to us who do not acknowledge that the Flesh and Blood of our Sa∣viour 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 presen∣ce: the Fathers then once mo∣re 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. In an age (sayes he) when men were not as they are at present ashamed to carry upon their faces the cha∣racter or marke of their sexe, they dipped a great beard into the sa∣cred 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 plea∣sed him. I am in paine (sayes he in another place) to concei∣ve how the Faithfull of the an∣tient 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 hand∣kerchief, and the Body of our Lord put into the pocket of some seaman or soldier? As if a sea∣man or soldier were lesse con∣siderable in the eyes of God then other men. If this unsea∣sonable 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 man∣ner the faithfull at this time tasted the sacred Cupp, and how they were so far from suffering one drop of it to be lost that with respect they tou∣ched that moistnesse which re∣mained upon their lipps to
applye it to their eyes, and the other organs of the sen∣ces which they believed to be sanctified thereby: hee would have found it a thing more worthy himselfe to have can∣didly set forth this act of piety, than to make his party laugh by the ridiculous description wee have now heard. But these seof∣fers 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 ar∣rive 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 ef∣fect to speake humanly and ac∣cording to the flesh, the pave∣ment is perhaps a place as much or more proper then our sto∣macks; and to speake accor∣ding to faith, the glorious sta∣te of JESUS CHRIST at pre∣sent dos equally elevate him above all: but respect and de∣cency will have it, that as far as lyes in us, wee should pla∣ce 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 re∣lation 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, endea∣vour to hinder whatever may derogate from the veneration due to the Body and Blood of our Master; and without fea∣ring any accident should hap∣pen prejudiciall to JESUS-CHRIST, wee avoid what∣ever might shew in us the least want of respect. But if our pre∣cautions 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 do∣ctrine: but wee are so far from blushing at it, that wee blush for those who do not remem∣ber that those railleries they make use of against our precau∣tions reflect upon the Holy Fa∣thers
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 rela∣xed 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 belie∣ve that amidst the order, the silence, the gravity of antient Ecclesiasticall assemblyes, it sel∣dome or never arrived, that the Blood of our Lord was spilt: it was only in the tu∣mult 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 incon∣veniencies; 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 a∣nimated, 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 il∣lustrious testimonyes til after
hereticks had denyed their di∣vinity. The mistery of the Eu∣charist 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 adora∣tion, what necessity is there that I should speake of it af∣ter so many passages of the Fa∣thers, cited even by Aubertin, and since him by M. de la Ro∣que in his history of the Eucha∣rist? Do not wee see in these passages the Eucharist adored, or rather JESUS-CHRIST a∣dored in the Eucharist, and adored by the Angells them∣selves whom Saint Chrysostome represents to us as bowing before JESUS-CHRIST in this myste∣ry, and rendring him the same respects which the Emperours Gards rendred to their Master.
It is true, these Ministers answer, that this adoration of the Eucharist is not a souveraine adoration rendred to the Divi∣nity, but an inferiour adoration rendred to the sacred Symboles.
But can they show us the li∣ke adoration rendred to the water of Baptisme? What can be answered to those Passages where it appeares the adora∣tion rendred here is like to that which is rendred to the King when present? that this ado∣ration is rendred to the myste∣ryes, 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 for∣mall, 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 divi∣ne 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 re∣lation 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 propor∣tion of parts which compose the beauty and solidity of a buil∣ding.
Ep. ad Jan. lib. de Bapt. &c.
1. Cor. 11.16.
Discip. ch. XI. de Bapt. art. XVI. & Observat.
Exam. T. VI. sect. s. p. 465.
Ibid. Sect. 6.474.475.
Sup. 2. p. art. VI. p. 296.
Ibid.
1. Cor. 11.24.
1. Cor. 11.24.
Catech. Heid. qu. 75.
Colloq. Cassel an. 1661.
Aub. lib. III. p. 431. 485. 505. 539. 570. &c.
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 Sa∣cerd. 4. &c.
Orig. in Exod. hom. 13.
Cyr. Hier. Cat 5. myst. Aug. 50. ho∣mil. 26. Aub. lib. II. p. 431. 432. &c.
Exam. T. VI. sect. 5. p. 469.
Ibid. Sect. 7.
Ibid. 469.
P. 485.
Cyr. Hier. Gat. 5. myst.
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.
Hist. Euch. III. p. ch. 4 p. 541. & seqq.
Chrys. lib. VI. de Sa∣cerd. &c. Theod. loc. cit. &c. sup.