The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. The first Argument, drawne from Christs Precept and example in the celebration of this Sacrament.
WHatsoeuer Christ commanded and did in the first celebration of this Supper, ought continually to be obserued and practized in the Church:
But Christ in the first celebration of the Supper, gaue the Cup, and commanded it to bee giuen to all there present, that before had receiued, the bread:
Therefore the giuing of the Cup to all Communicants at the Supper, ought perpetually to bee obserued, and practised in the Church.
The proposition is gathered out of Luk. 22. 19. This doe ye in remembrance of me: and 1. Cor. 11. 25. This do ye as oft as you drink in remembrance of me: and ver. 26. as oft as you eate of this bread, and drinke this Cup, you shew the Lords death till he come. In which words, the Apostle euidently implyeth, that the Commandement, this doe in remembrance of me, extends euen to Christs second comming. And verily, if Christs precepts and actions in the first celebration of this Sacrament, were not a law binding the Church to doe the like in all succeeding ages; neither the Apostles themselues, nor the Church after them should hauehave had any warrant at all to celebrate the Lords Supper after his death. Which to affirme were absurd impietie, or as Saint Augustine speakes in a case of farre lesse importance, most insolent madnesse.
The assumption is set down in the very letter, totidem verbis, Mat. 26. 27. He tooke the Cup, and gaue it to them, saying; Drinke you all of this. Mark. 14. 23: And he tooke the Cup, and when hee had giuen thanks, he gaue it them, and they all drank of it. Certainely, I perswade my selfe, that our Sauiour expressed the note of vniuersality, viz. in deliuering the Cup to all, saying: Drinke you all of this, and not so in giuing the bread, of set purpose, to preuent that abuse, which the Romish Church of late hath brought in, by taking away the Cup. As in like manner the Apostle saith of marriage: It is honorable in, or amongst all men. Heb. 13. 4. and he saith not so of virginity, or single life; although it bee most true, that single life, or virginity is, foreign, that is, pretious, or honorable; because the holy Ghost foresaw, that some heretikes would denie marriage to bee honourable amongst all, and prohibite it to some men, viz. the Cleargie. Which two texts of Scripture the Romanists lewdly peruert, and ridiculously contradict themselues in the interpretation of them, extending all to the Laietie in the one, and excluding the Cleargie; and extending all to the Cleargie in the other, and excluding the laietie. Marriage is honorable among all, say they, that is, all, saue Priests; Drink you all of this, that is, all, saue the people. In restraining all in both places, they make of omnes, non omnes, and so contradict the text, and by expounding all sometimes of the people, not Priests, sometimes of Priests, and not people, they contradict themselues. For the restriction of all in this place to Priests administring onelyonly, I forbeare the further refuting of it; because all the arguments, that follow in generall, ouerthrow it, and in particular, and expressly it is refelled in the Conference annexed hereunto.
This whole argument is confirmed by the testimonie of Pope Iulius, set downe in the Canon Iul.Law, and therefore deliuered aMagister veritatis &c. nulli lac, sed panem tantum, & calicem sub hoc sacramento cognoscitur dedisse. Ab ips… sonte veritatis probabi… à quo ordinata ipsa sacramentorum mysteria precesse…ant.ex Cathedra. De consecrat. dist. 2. There hee proues, that bread and wine onelyonly ought to be giuen in the Sacrament, and not milke; because Christ the master of Truth, when he commended the Sacrament vntounto his Disciples at his last Sup…er, gaue milke to none, but bread & the cup only. The contrary practice viz. of them that giuegive milke in the Sacrament, how repugnant it is to the Euangelicall, and Apostolicall Doctrine and custome of the Church, will easily bee proued from the fountaine of truth; from whom the ordination of these mysteries did proceed. The Pope in this place drawes an argument from Christs institution, and practice at his last Supper both affirmatiuely, and negatiuely. Christ gaue bread and wine to his Disciples, therefore wee ought so to doe, he gaue not milke, therefore wee ought not. Christ is the Fountaine of truth, he is the Master of truth, hee is the Author of the Sacrament; therefore inferreth the Pope, and in this particular infallibly; nothing must bee done in the administration of this Sacrament, otherwise then Christ did, and commanded at his last Supper. The Romanists cannot confirme the Popes argument, but they must needs confirme ours in this point, they cannot infirme, or weaken ours, but they must needes weaken his, and not his onelyonly, but that renowned Doctor, and glorious Martyr, Saint Cyprians also; who fighteth with the same weapon against the heretiques called bEpist. 63. Nec ab eo, quod Christus magister & praecepit, & gessit, humana & nouella institutione discedere.Aquarij, wherewith we doe against the papists: No man may vnderunder colour of new, or humane constitutions depart from that which Christ our Master did and taught: and a little after: If in the Sacrifice which Christ offered, Christ alone is to be followed, it behooueth vsus to obay and doe that, which Christ did, and commanded to be done, seeing he himselfe saith, in the Gospel, if ye doe that which I command you, I will not say, that you are seruāts, but friends, &c. Yet some out of ignorance, or simplicity in sanctifying the Lords Cup, and ministring to the people, doe not that which Iesus Christ the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice did and taught. If any Cauill, against this argument, that Christ sate, or leaned at his last Supper, gaue the Sacrament after supper, and that vntounto 12, and those men, and no women, and yet we are not bound so to doe; and consequently, that the argument from Christs example is not of absolute necessity for vsus to follow, but may be dispensed with by the Church:
I answer; first, that the argument proceedes vponupon substantiall acts, and not circumstances, such as are the time, and the place, and the number of communicants. Now that the Cup is a substantiall part of the Sacrament, appeareth both by Christs blessing, and consecrating it, and the words of the institution: This Cup is the new Testament in my blood: neither can the aduersaries deny it, who account it no lesse then cSee infrà. c. 7.sacriledge in a Priest to consecrate, or receiue the Sacrament in one kind onelyonly. 2. Our argument is not grounded onelyonly vponupon that which Christ did, but vponupon that which Christ did, and taught, or commanded should bee done. Now as Christ tooke the bread, and broke it, and said; Doe this: so in like manner he tooke the Cup, and said: Drinke ye all of this, but Christ said not in like manner, sit you downe, or lye, when you take the sacrament, or receiue it late at night, or administer it to such a number of men onelyonly. What he did and taught, as Saint Cyprian soundly collects, must be perpetually obserued in the Church; the circumstances vsed at his last Supper hee did not command vsus to vse; but the substantiall acts of administring the Sacrament in both kinds. Fecitet Docuit, he both did, and taught vsus to doe. Wherefore as Saint dConfess. lib. 9. c. 2. Contradictionibus flatus inflammare acrius possit, non extinguere.August: speaks in a like kind. All the contradictions of our aduersaries cauilling breath serueth rather to kindle more, then blow out or quench the fier of truth in this argument burning vp the stubble of Popish Canons and constitutions, repugnant to Christs Doctrine and practice at his last Supper.