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

§ VIII. A refutation of the History con∣cerning the taking away of the Cupp written by M. Ju∣rieux.

IN the last Treatise that M. Jurieux published, he propo∣ses to himselfe the making an abridgment to the history of ta∣king away the Cupp, * 1.1 where al∣though he gives us for indispu∣table all that he is there pleased to impose it will be easy for us to dectet almost as many falsi∣tyes as he has mentioned mat∣ters of fact.

He proposes nothing new upon the Gospels and the Epis∣tles

of Saint Paul concerning which we have sufficiently spo∣ken. From the Apostles times he passes to the following a∣ges, where he showes with∣out 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 un∣der one only, without any ones complaint. To take away this our defence, and to say some∣thing concluding, it did not suffise to assure us that the use of the two species was fre∣quent but he ought also to as∣sure 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 proo∣ve it, so much did he dispai∣re of succeding in it. Only by a bold, and vehement affirma∣tion, 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 Pre∣tended Reformers beleive a Minister upon his word, and cannot imagin he dars ventu∣re to avouch any thing as not contested when de facto it is. Nevertheless the truth, is that there is not any thing not on∣ly more contested, but also mo∣re false then that which M. Ju∣rieux

gives us here as for in∣disputable 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 spa∣ce of above a thousand yeares, no∣ne in the Church, had ever un∣dertaken to celebrate this Sacra∣ment, and communicate the Faith∣full otherwise then the Lord had commanded it, that is to say un∣der both species; except when to communicate the sick with more facility, some undertooke to mois∣ten 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 ex∣ception are neither the one nor the other made with since∣rity.

The proposition is, that du∣ring

the space of above a thou∣sand yeares none had ever un∣dertaken to celebrate this Sa∣crament, nor to give it other∣wise then under both species. He confounds at the very first two very different things, to celebrate this Sacrament and to give it. None ever celebra∣ted 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 dis∣pute; 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 spa∣ce of above a thousand yeares the Communion was never gi∣ven

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 ma∣ny 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 be∣fore me.

But can any thing be lesse sincere, then to bring here no exception from ordinary com∣munions but only that of the

sick, and with all to finde the∣re no difference but in this that they then mixed the two species togeather: seeing M. Ju∣rieux would relate nothing but what is not contested by Ca∣tholicks, he ought to spea∣ke after another manner. He knows very well wee maintai∣ne 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 Au∣thors 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 al∣ready to much to dare to deny a matter of fact so well esta∣blished:

but to advance this boldnesse to such a height as to say the contrary is not con∣tested, 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 du∣ring the space of above a thou∣sand yeares the Communion was never given otherwise then un∣der both species, except in the Communion of the sick where both the species were given mi∣xed togeather. What a stran∣ge kind of exception is this, Both species were alwayes given, except when they gave them both mixed togeather. M. Ju∣rieux 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 un∣der 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 Com∣munion received contrary to his command. So that he durst not say what naturally occur∣red, 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 Commu∣nion of infants, and domestick

Communion, both which he knows verry well wee alledge as given under one species on∣ly. Why do's he dissemble what our Authors have main∣tained, what I have proved after them by the Decrees of Saint Leo and Saint Gelasius; that it was free to communi∣cate under one or both spe∣cies, I say in the Church it selfe, and at the publick Sacri∣fise? 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 spe∣cies? A man so learned as he, did he not know what was writ concerning this by Amala∣rius and Authors of the VIII. and IX. ages, whom wee ha∣ve quoted? To know these things and to affirme as an in∣dispautable

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 a∣gainst us act with more since∣rity. Calixtus, M. du Bourdieu and the others endeavour to answer those objections wee make. M. Jurieux followes a∣nother method, and contents himselfe to say boldly, That during the space of above a thou∣sand yeares none ever under∣tooke to communicate the faith∣full otherwise then under both spe∣cies, and that this matter is not contested. This is the shortest way; and the surest to decei∣ve 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 Sacra∣ment of JESUS-CHRIST, any more then the Communion which is given in their Chur∣ches in bread alone to those who drinke no wine. In an∣swering after this manner, he would have answered accor∣ding to his principles, I con∣fesse: but after all I maintai∣ne he had not the boldnesse to make use of this answer, nor to impute to the antient Church this monstrous practi∣se where a Sacrament is given which is in reality no Sacra∣ment, but an humain inven∣tion in Communion.

Neverthelesse in a history such as he had promised it was his businesse to have alwayes related these considerable mat∣ters 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 bet∣wixt them and us; and it plea∣sed him to say, that it is a thing which has no need of proofe, and is not contested.

It is true that in another pla∣ce in answering objections, he speakes a word or two of do∣mestick Communion. But he comes of in answering that it is not certain whether those who carried away with them the Eu∣charist after this manner, * 1.2 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 un∣der both species. Behold even in the first ages of the Church an infinite number of Commu∣nions that he himselfe durst not affirme to have been under both species. It was an abuse, sayes he. What then? the pra∣ctise 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 primiti∣ve

Church which practised this domestick Communion.

M. Jurieux cuts of the dis∣course with too much confi∣dence: Is there the least sinceri∣ty (sayes he) to draw a proofe from a practise opposed to that of the Apostles, which is condem∣ned 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 be∣leeve that wee condemne to∣geather with him and his the practise of so many Saints as contrary to that of the Apos∣tles? But wee are far from such horrible temerity. M. Jurieux knows it very well; and a man who boasts thus much of sin∣cerity, ought to have so much of it as to take notice that the Church (as I have showne el∣sewhere) dos not condemne

all the practises she changes; and that the Holy-Ghost who guides her, makes her not only condemne ill practises, but al∣so to quitt good ones, and for∣bid them severely, when they are abused.

I beleeve the falsity of this History which M. Jurieux gi∣ves 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 Transubstantia∣tion during the X. age: that is not to our present subject, * 1.3 and otherwise nothing obliges us to refute what he advances without proofe. But that which is to be remarked is, that he re∣gards

Communion under one kind as a thing which was not introduced but by presuppo∣sing 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 Mar∣tyrs, it can be no more doub∣ted but that Transubstantiation was also at that time establi∣sed; and M. Jurieux himselfe will be obliged to grant this consequence. But let us retour∣ne to what follows in his His∣tory.

He shows us there Commu∣nion under one species, as a thing first thought of in the eleaventh age, after the reall presence and Transubstantia∣tion had been well established:

For then they perceived (sayes he) that under a crumme of bread, * 1.4 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 pre∣vailed in such a manner over the institution of our Lord, and over the practise of the whole antient Church, that the custome of com∣municating under the sole species of Bread was insensibly establis∣hed 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 them∣selves 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 trou∣blesome businesse for our Re∣formers: They have great rea∣son indeed to boast of these insensible changes where in they putt the whole stresse of their cause; they never yet pro∣duced, neither will they ever produce one example of such a change in essentiall matters. That indifferent matters should be insensibly changed and with∣out contradiction, is no such great wonder: but (as wee ha∣ve said) the faith of the peo∣ple, and those practises which are beleeved essentiall to Re∣ligion are not so easily chan∣ged. For then Tradition, the

antient beliefe, custome it selfe, and the Holy Ghost who ani∣mates the Body of the Church oppose themselves to his novel∣ly. 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 conse∣quence; * 1.5 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 im∣mediately after: It was not how∣ever without resistance; the peo∣ple could not suffer without great impatience that they should ta∣ke from them halfe of JESUS-CHRIST; they murmured in all parts. He had said a little before that this change, (ver∣ry different from those which are made after an insensible man∣ner,

without opposition, and with∣out noise) was on the contrary made with great noise and splen∣dour. 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, with∣out 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 af∣ter a consequent manner. This is the state in which M. Ju∣rieux found himselfe. This cus∣tome, says he, that is to say this of communicating under one kind, was insensibly esta∣blished; nothing can be mo∣re quiet and tranquile. It was not neverthelesse without re∣sistance,

without noise, without the greatest impatience, without murmuring on all sides; behold a grand commotion. Truth ma∣de him candidly speake the first, and the adhesion to his cause made him say the other. In ef∣fect nothing can be found of these universall murmurs, of these extreame impatiences, of these re∣sistances of the people; and this induceth to the establising an insensible change. On the o∣ther side it must not be said that a practise which is represented so strange, so unheard of, so evidently sacrilegious, was es∣tablished without repugnance, and without taking any notice of it. To avoid this inconve∣nience a resistance must be i∣magined, and, if none can be found, invented.

But furthermore what could be the subject of these univer∣sall

murmurings? M. Jurieux has told us his thoughts of them: but in this point he coheares as little with himsel∣fe as in all the rest. That which caused these murmurings, is (sayes he) that the people suf∣fered with the greatest impatien∣ce that they should be deprived of one halfe of JESUS-CHRIST. Has he forgot what he even now said, that the reall pre∣sence had made them see that under each crumme of bread the whole Flesh and all the Blood of JESUS-CHRIST were contai∣ned? * 1.6 Dos he reflect upon what he is presently about to say, that if the doctrine of Transsub∣stantiation and of the reall pre∣sence be true, * 1.7 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 (ac∣cording to him) with the highest impatience? If a man will have them make com∣plaints, let him at least afford them matter conformable to their sentiments, and such as carrys a face of probability.

But in reality there was no∣ne. 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 accor∣ding to the relation of M. Ju∣rieux, the custome of commu∣nicating under one sole spe∣cies begun in the XI. age, if they do not begin to complai∣ne, and that in Bohemia only, but towards the end of the

XIV. age; by the acknowled∣gement of this Minister, three hundred whole yeares should be passed, before a change so strange, so bold, if wee belee∣ve 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 bad∣nesse of his cause to disguise truth so many wayes in an historicall relation, that is, in a kind of discourse which a∣bove all others requires can∣dor and sincerity.

He do's not so much as state the question sincerely. * 1.8 The sta∣te 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 drea∣me that wee beleeve Commu∣nion equally vallid and perfect under eather of the two spe∣cies. But beeing willing by the very state of the question to ha∣ve it understood that wee be∣leive more perfection or more necessity in that of the Bread then in the other, or that JE∣SUS-CHRIST is not equally in them both: he would there∣by render us manifestly ridicu∣lous. But he knows verry well that wee are far from these phancyes; and it may be seene

in this Treatise, that wee be∣leeve the Communion given to little children during so ma∣ny 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 ques∣tion wrong. He begins his dis∣pute concerning the two spe∣cies upon that question so sta∣ted: He continues it by a his∣tory 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Exam. de l'Euch. 6. Traité. 5. Sect.
• * 1.2

  Ibid. Sect. VII. 483. 484.
• * 1.3

  Sect. V. p. 469.
• * 1.4

  Ibid. 470.
• * 1.5

  Ibid.
• * 1.6

  Ibid. p. 469.
• * 1.7

  Sect. VI. p. 480.
• * 1.8

  V. Sect. p. 464.