Reims Against Rome, Propositions · Proposition 23
XXIII. Propoſition. That the Lords Supper is to be adminiſtred to the people in one kinde onelyonly:
Confuted by their owne Bible.
1. IT teacheth vsus, that Chriſt, inſtituting this his laſt Supper, adminiſtred it in both kinds: giuing a commandement to take and eate, and alſo to drinke, Mat. 26. 26, 27. Luk. 20. 20.
Secondly, the Apoſtle Saint Paul, repeating the inſtitution, mentioneth both the Bread, and the Chalice, 1. Cor. 11. 24, 25. And firſt he tels them, that this hee receiued of the Lord. Secondly, that he deliuered the ſame vntounto them, verſe 23. Thirdly, he, in verſe 28. plainely preſcribeth the eating of the Bread, and drinking of the Chalice; and that to eueryevery one that commeth prepared, and proueth himſelfe, ſaying, Let him eate of that bread, and drinke of that Chalice. Out of which place it is euident, that the drinking of the Chalice is of equall extent with the duty of prouing our ſelues, before wee come vntounto this Sacrament. But the duty is generall and belongeth vntounto all indifferently. The drinking of the Chalice therefore may not be denied vntounto any.
Thirdly, the Church then in his dayes did receiue it in both kindes, 1. Cor. 11. 26. For it is ſaid there, So often as you ſhall eate this bread, and drinke this Chalice, you ſhall ſhew the death of our Lord vntill hee come. By both they ſhew his death. And this place ſhews clearely that ſo often as they receiued, they did eate the Bread, and drinke the Chalice.
Fourthly, the Apoſtles and Miniſters of Chriſt did adminiſter in both. For the Apoſtle ſaith, 1. Cor. 10. 16. The Chalice of benediction, which we doe bleſſe, is it not the communication of the bloud of Chriſt? and the bread which wee breake, is it not the participation of the body of the Lord? Here the Apoſtle firſt mentioneth both the Chalice and Bread. Secondly, by the word we, he vnderſtands himſelfe and other, which did bleſſe the Chalice, and breake the Bread. Thirdly, he ſaith, that by the Chalice we communicate of Chriſts bloud; and by the bread, wee participate of his bodie: and not by one of them, of them both. Saint Paul would hauehave Chriſts bloud out of his bodie in theAgainſt concomitancy. See D. White his laſt booke, pag. 460, 466. Chalice repreſented, and not by the bread onelyonly both his body and bloud. Fourthly, Chriſt is perfect food: wee muſt therefore eate him, and drinke him. Drinke alone preſerues not life, nor onelyonly to eate; but both to eate and drinke; therefore Chriſt inſtituted both to be receiued. If the Aduerſaries ſay that this receiuing was of the Apoſtles, and as they by conſequent wouldSee an anſwer to this there alſo. pag. 488, 489, 492. inferre of Prieſts onelyonly, which may receiue in both kindes, but not the Laitie:
I anſwer, firſt that the Apoſtles, receiuing the Sacrament from Chriſt, were then and there for the whole Church. They receiued alone, becauſe they were Chriſts family, to receiue together the Paſſeouer.
Secondly, the Apoſtles were not as yet fully ordained, till Chriſt breathed on them after his Reſurrection, Ioh. 20. 21. as ſome euen of Papiſts affirme.
Thirdly, if, becauſe they onelyonly were preſent at the inſtitution, they therefore ſhould onelyonly receiue in both kinds: then what warrant hauehave they to admit any, but Prieſts, to the Lords Supper? What warrant to admit women to it, ſo much as to receiue the bread? Yea, why are any Lay-men admitted to the bread, or to the Sacrament at all? for no Lay perſons did receiue with the Apoſtles, no not Chriſts Mother.
Fourthly, touching the 1. Cor. 10. 16. there is (vnderunder the word we) meant the Apoſtles, and other Miniſters of the Word and Sacraments, that they bleſſed and brake, that is, conſecrated and adminiſtred the Lords Supper vntounto other, to wit, the Laitie. For in verſe 21. he plainly ſheweth how the Corinthians did drinke of the Chalice, and did partake of the Table of the Lord, though they could not receiue worthily ſo doing, if they went vntounto the Idol Temples. Thus are they confuted by their owne Bible.
Contraried by Antiquitie.
Ignatius in Epiſt. 6. ad Philadelp. giueth vsus to vnderſtand, that in his time, the Cup was diuided to the whole Church.
Iuſtin. Martyr, Apol. 2. telleth vsus, that it was the manner of the whole Congregation, to receiue both the Bread and Wine.
The firſt Councell of Nice, ſpeaking of the holy Table, mentioneth both the Bread and Cup.
Theophyl. on 1. Cor. 11. ſaith, that the Cup was in like manner deliuered vntounto all. See more for this, Athanaſius 2. Apolog. Chryſoſtome Hom. 27. in 1. Cor. and Ambroſe in 1. Cor. 11. Cyprian in 2. Epiſt. ad Cornelium, in Epiſt. 63. & 54. Cyril Catech. myſtag. 5. Auguſtine in Ioh. tract. 27. Tertul. dereſurrect. Clem. Alexand. 2. pedagog. cap. 2. See Doctor White his laſt Booke, pag. 482. citing Iuſt. Martyr, Chryſoſt. Haymo.Anſw. to Fiſher
Gaineſaid by themſelues.
Gelaſius the Pope, decret. part. 3. diſt. 2. ca. comperimus, calleth it a fond ſuperſtition to abſtaine from the Cup: and ſatih, that ſuch a diuiſion cannot bee done without great ſacriledge.
Alex. Hales, 4. q. Art. 2. ſaith, that whole Chriſt is not contained vnderunder each kinde, by way of Sacrament, but onelyonly his fleſh vnderunder forme of Bread, and his bloud vnderunder the forme of Wine: and that there is more power of grace in Communion in both kinds, then in one, q. 11. in 2. Art. 4, 5, 3.
Lorichius lib. 5. Hoſpinian. calleth them falſe Catholikes, which hinder reformation of this point.
The Church of Rome for aboue a thouſand yeeres after Chriſt, vſed both the kinds in adminiſtring this Sacrament. See this at large proued by Maſter Perkins, in his demonſtratiue of the Probleme out of Papiſts themſelues.
To which adde the opinion in this point of receiuing in both kinds, Lyra in 1. Cor. 11. Durand. in national. lib. 4. alſo Greg. de Ʋalentia de legit. vſu Enchar. cap. 10. who confeſſeth, that the cuſtome began, not much before the Councell of Conſtance. Caietan. 3. part. Thom. q. 80. Art. 12. q. 3. Ouand. 4. p. 221.See Doctor White, pag. 497. Fiſher the Ieſuite acknowledgeth the Lay people in the Primitiue Church, to hauehave frequently receiued in both kinds.
Scriptures obiected, anſwered.
Ioh. 6. 51. If any man eate of this bread, he ſhall liue for euer, and the bread which I will giuegive him, is my fleſh.
Anſw. 1. This is not ſpoken of the Sacrament. For firſt, ChriſtSo hold many Papiſts, Doctor White, pag 495 had not as yet inſtituted it. Secondly, he ſpeaketh of ſpirituall bread, then preſent, I am the liuing Bread, in the former part of the verſe: to which the relation is in theſe words here, This bread, to wit, himſelfe, the liuing Bread; I am the bread of life, ſaith he, verſe 48. The Sacramentall bread was not as yet, when thus he ſpake. Thirdly, the bread here was that, which (when he ſpake) came downe from heauen, verſe 50. 58. But the bread which Chriſt adminiſtred at his laſt Supper, neuer came from heauen. Fourthly, this bread whoſo eateth, maketh him that eateth it, to liue for euer: but ſo doth not the Sacramental bread which may be eaten by the wicked. Fiftly, he himſelfe expoundeth what he meaneth by this Bread, euen his owne fleſh, which he giueth for the life of the world, and which he did giuegive vponupon the Croſſe. But the Sacramentall bread is not his owne fleſh. As for that errour of tranſubſtantiation, the vanitie of it ſhall be confuted in the next queſtion. Sixtly, if this bee ſpoken of the Sacrament, then all that receiue it not, hauehave no life in them, verſe 53. as Infants, and other, before they come to ripe age: which they will not affirme. And yet will it vndeniably follow, if this be properly meant of the Sacrament.
II. If it were granted, that Chriſt ſpake here of the Sacrament, which hee would inſtitute: yet this place helpeth not our Aduerſaries, but rather maketh hue and cry after their the eueryevery, for preſuming to rob the people of the Cup. For firſt, in verſ. 53. Chriſt plainely ſaith, Vnleſſe yee eate the fleſh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you ſhall not hauehave life in you. And in verſe 54. he ſaith, He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my bloud, hath euerlaſting life. So he bindeth life to both, and ſecludeth life from ſuch as receiue not both. Secondly, therefore both being ſo neceſſarie, it followeth, that when he onelyonly mentioneth the eating of bread, there is a figure, one part for both. Elſe ſhould the diuine Oracles of our Sauiour thwart one the other, in preſſing both eating and drinking, affirmatiuely, to the obtaining of life, in receiuing both; and negatiuely, to loſſe of life, in not receiuing both. Thirdly, Chriſt goeth about to declare himſelfe to be ſufficient food for the life of his, which beleeue in him. Now, a man cannot liue by onelyonly eating, nor onelyonly drinking, but by both. Therefore, ſaith he, My fleſh is meat indeed, and my bloud is drinke indeed, verſe 55. He ſaith not, that his fleſh is both meate and drinke. He knew that his body had fleſh and bloud: yet he willeth to eate, and drinke. Now, the fleſh is to be eaten, and the bloud to be drunke. In eating his fleſh, wee cannot be ſaid to drinke his bloud. For that which is to be eaten, cannot bee ſaid to bee drunken too; theſe being two diſtinct and differing actions, for two things. If one would hauehave ſerued, the vrging of two had beene needleſſe. Fourthly and laſtly, hee mentioneth Bread, not to exclude Wine; and eating, not to exclude drinking: but becauſe hee had ſpoken of Manna, the Iſraelites bread in the Wilderneſſe, and ſo called himſelfe Bread, keeping the ſubiect and occaſion of which hee had begun to ſpeake. So in Ioh. 4. ſpeaking with the Woman of Samaria, occaſioned by the drawing of water out of the Well, hee promiſeth to giuegive her water to drinke. Would any therefore hence conclude, that onelyonly water were ſufficient, and no need of eating bread? As we cannot conclude ſo, from the one, no more can we from the other.
Luk. 24. 30, 35. He tooke bread, bleſſed, and brake, and did reach to them.
Anſw. 1. This is not meant of adminiſtration of the Sacrament. Chriſt once did inſtitute and adminiſter it, but no more for ought wee finde. For note here: firſt, that the two Diſciples went into a common Inne, to take their ordinary food, at night, where they meant to hauehave lodged; they met not together for the Sacrament.
Secondly, it was in the night time, no neceſſitie vrging for the Sacrament. The Paſſeouer was already paſt, which was indeed receiued in the Euening.
Thirdly, he ſate downe at a common table with them, verſe 30. If this were the Sacrament: then why ſpeake our Aduerſaries of an holy Altar, and a holy place? For here, the place was an Inne; the Table, a common boord, for ordinarie repaſt.
Fourthly, they came not prepared to the Sacrament; they ſate downe after a common manner, to eate common meat.
Fiftly, he had not reuealed himſelfe vntounto them, neither knew they what he was. Is it likely, that hee would ſo ſuddenly deliuer the Sacrament? or they bee ſo careleſſe of right receiuing Gods holy Sacrament, that they would, without knowledge of him, what hee was, and what he went about, admit him to adminiſter the Sacrament to them? For they knew him not, but in breaking the bread; in the time of that Act, and not before. As if Chriſt would ſteale vponupon them with the holy Sacrament, and make them know him in the adminiſtration, and not before? Is this likely?
Sixtly, here is no mention of the word of Inſtitution, This is my body: which being left out, maketh the breaking of the bread to be no Sacrament.
Seuenthly, here is neither holy prayers before, nor after, nor any other holy dutie mentioned, fit to be performed at ſo holy an action.
Eighthly, theſe knew him onelyonly by breaking of bread, verſe 35. but this muſt bee vnderſtood of his ordinarie breaking of bread, bleſſing, and diſtributing, as he did in Math. 14. 19. which theſe Diſciples ſaw. But for his bleſſing of the Sacrament, and breaking of the bread, theſe two men had not as yet ſeene. For onelyonly the twelue Apoſtles were there then, and not any of the ſeuenty Diſciples, of which were theſe two. How then could they know him by ſuch an Act as they neuer ſaw him doe?
Ninthly, the Rhemiſts dare not affirme it, indeed to bee the Sacrament, but with an if it be the Sacrament, and as it is moſt probable; When the Reaſons before ſhew, that it is altogether improbable.
Tenthly, there be of themſelues which take this place for ordinarieD. White, pag. 507. repaſt. Enthymius, Dionyſ. Carthuſ. Greg. hom. 23. in Euang. Lyra, Caietan, Gagueus, Ianſen, Barradius, and other moe.
Eleuenthly, If it was the Sacrament, then Chriſt being the Prieſt, he vſed onelyonly the bread, he conſecrated onelyonly bread, hee adminiſtred onelyonly bread, which was contrary to his firſt inſtitution, and contrarie to the Popiſh Prieſts practice, who conſecrate both, and receiue both. But is it probable that Chriſt would croſſe his former adminiſtration? for Wine hee drunke no more, Luk. 22. 18. Math. 26. 29.
Twelfthly, if it were granted to be the Sacrament, yet hence would it not follow that the Sacrament ſhould bee adminiſtred in one kinde, becauſe Bread is onelyonly mentioned. Firſt, becauſe thē Chriſt ſhould adminiſter contrary to his own inſtitution, but few nights before: when hee adminiſtred in both kinds, and had commanded, both to take, and eate the Bread, and all to drinke of the Cup. Secondly, breaking bread, and to eate bread, is an vſuall Hebrew phraſe, for to expreſſe whatſoeuer is ſet before men, to eate or drink, Luk. 14. 1. Lam. 4. 4. Eſa. 58. 7. Here bread then is both for Bread and Wine. Thirdly, Theſe two Diſciples were of the ſeuentie, and ſo in Orders. Are theſe then to receiue in one kinde, as the Layicks? Fourthly, if to adminiſter in one kinde be ſufficient, why not to conſecrate in one kinde too? If by their owne iudgement, it be vnlawfull to conſecrate in one kinde, but in both; why not alſo to adminiſter in both? Fiftly, the Apoſtle telleth vsus, that the Chalice of Benediction is the communication of the bloud of Chriſt, 1. Cor. 10. 16. By the Cup then we partake of Chriſts bloud. Let this be diligently conſidered of. Sixtly, the Rhemiſts on Ioh. 6. 98. ſect. 11. ſay, that the Prieſts ſhould alwayes receiue both kinds. Mark the reaſons: Firſt, to expreſſe liuely the Paſſion of Chriſt, and the ſeparation of the bloud from his body, in the ſame. Secondly, to imitate the whole action and inſtitution. And muſt not Chriſts Paſſion be liuely expreſſed to the people? Muſt the Prieſt imitate the whole action & inſtitution, and not the people? Hath the Prieſt more right in Chriſts death, thē the people? Seuenthly, the conſtant practice of the Catholike Church from Chriſts time, from aboue a thouſand yeeres till now of latter times, telleth vsus, that the places ſpeaking of the bread, as Act. 2. 42. & 20. 7. are to bee taken for the Sacrament adminiſtred in both kindes. For the conſtant practice ſheweth, that the Church, all that ſpace, tooke it to bee ſo. Eighthly, and laſtly, it was the practice of thoſe Hereticks, the Manichees, to receiue vnderunder one kinde, of whom the Papiſts are followers; as they be in many other things, of other Heretikes.