Truth and Falsehood, Book · Chapter 15
That the Cup ought not to be denied vntounto the lay people, which thing the Papiſts do. CHAP. 15.
THE PROTESTANTS
BEcauſe it is needeful for the nouriſhment of our bodies, to hauehave, not meate onelyonly, to ſatisfie our hunger, but drinke alſo to quench our thirſt in. And that Chriſt would repreſent vntounto vsus in his Sacrament, the perfect nouriſhment of our ſouls, wherevnto nothing could be added, becauſe that nothing ſhould be wanting: For this cauſe did our Sauiour Chriſt inſtitute his ſacrament of theſe two partes of our nouriſhment, and gaue as well the one of them as the other vntounto his Apoſtles: Commanding them alſo aſwel to take & drinke of the cup, as to eate of the bread. And the Church alſo did practiſe this more than a thouſand yeeres. But of late, the councel of Conſtance, Anno 1415.Seſſ. 13. did forbid it, and commaund the Sacrament to be receiued but in one kinde.
THE PAPISTS
SO that the church of Rome, not regarding the expreſſe commandement of our Sauiour Chriſt, neither the practiſe of Gods Church, much more then a thouſand yeeres after Chriſt, neither that fulnes of comfort that wee learne by the bread & wine, that Chriſt is vntounto vsus both meate and drinke, that is, the perfect and ſufficient foode of our hungry and thirſtie ſoules, hauehave robbed the lay people of the one halfe of the Lordes ſupper, proclaming thereby vntounto the world, that they are diſobedient against Christes commaundement, iniurious to his people, and that in ſteede of the continuall and auncient practiſe of the Primitiue Church, they eſtabliſh their owne new deuiſe. Lo, what cauſe hauehave they to bragge of their ancient faith?
And for the vpholding of this their doing, againſt both Trueth and Antiquitie, they bring ſome reaſons. Fiſher ſometime biſhop of Rocheſter in his booke againſt the aſſertions of Luther, Artic. 16.to defende that it was lawfull for the church to alter the inſtitution of Chriſt, and therefore to take awaie the cup from the lay people, alleadgeth the example of the Apoſtles, who are ſaide to baptiſe in the name of Chriſt only, whereas the ſacrament of baptiſme,Acts 8.16. & 10.48 Matth. 28.19. was commaunded, In the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holie Ghoſt. But, to biſhop Fiſher the papiſt, I oppoſe Bellarmine the Ieſuite, and a papiſt who writing of the ſacrament of baptiſme,Lib. 1. cap. 3. plainelie denieth, that the Apoſtles baptiſed in the name of Chriſt only, and largely proueth it: and ſheweth, that where it is ſaide, that they baptiſed in the name of Ieſus, or in the Lordes name, the meaning is, that they baptiſed in the faith of Ieſus, or by his authoritie, or with baptiſme which he inſtituted, or in his name, but not in his name only. So that this reaſon which Fiſher maketh for to proue the authoritie of the church heerein,De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 28. is verie ſufficiently anſwered by Maſter Bellarmine. It is therefore needefull, hee ſhoulde make a ſupplie of ſome other argument, to proue that, ſeeing hee hath taken that weapon out of their handes. Let vsus therefore ſee how hee mendeth the matter. The church (ſaith hee) may ordaine, and preſcribe thoſe thinges, that belong not to the ſubſtaunce of the ſacramentes, and are not ordered by the word of God: But the rite of eating vnderunder one kinde, or vnderunder two, is ſuch: Therefore it maie bee ordered and preſcribed of the Church. Theſe are his verie wordes: this is his argument, whereof the maior or firſt propoſition, (as himſelfe ſaith) is moſt true, and therefore wee graunt it: but the minor, which is, that to eate in one kinde, or in both kindes, is not of the ſubſtaunce of the ſacrament, or ordered by the word of God, that is moſt falſe. And becauſe it containeth two pointes, I will brieflie touch them both. Where he ſaith it is not of the ſubſtance of the ſacrament, whether we receiue in one kinde or in two: it is in my iudgement, euen againſt all reaſon and teſtimony of antiquity, and the very nature of a ſacrament. For the ſacrament muſt needes conſiſt of matter and forme. The matter is the bread and wine (I ſpeake of that which Irene calleth the earthly matter.Iren. li. 4. ca. 34) To the forme of this Sacrament belong theſe wordes, He brake breade, and gaue them, and ſaide: take, eate, Math. 26.26 27this is my bodie. Hee tooke the cup, bleſſed and ſaide, drinke yee all of this &c. Yea and neither of theſe can be wel omitted, but that therby we are the leſſe occaſioned to meditate, of the efficacy of Chriſts death & paſſion. For, as the breaking of the bread that it might be giuen to vsus, yt our bodies might be nouriſhed thereby, is a repreſentation of Chriſtes body which was for vsus tormented: ſo the drinking of the cup is the repreſentation of the ſhedding of Chriſts bloud for vsus. Moreouer let vsus conſider, what is that which they would hauehave the material part or rather a ſubſtantial part in this ſacramēt. To receiue the ſacrament as appeares by ye cenſure of Collen,Expl. dialog. 9 expl. Theol. lib. 7. and Andradius, but in what kinde it is receiued is not materiall (ſay they:) Marke their boldeneſſe. In the inſtitution there is not one word that willeth vsus in ſuch generall termes to receiue the Euchariſt or Sacrament, but expreſſe wordes to will vsus, to Take and eate the bread, and to drinke of the cup: and yet that which God doth not mention, they will hauehave to be of the ſubſtance of a ſacrament: and that which is expreſly ſet downe in the word, they may chuſe whether they wil doe it, or not.
But how doth Bellarmine prooue, that the rite of communicating in on or two kindes,De Euch. li. 4. cap. … 8. belongeth not to the ſubſtance of the ſacrament. The vſe of a thing (ſaith he) that is permanent, is not the ſubſtance of it: but, the communicating is the vſe of the ſacrament, which ſacrament is a thing permanent: Therefore the communicating in one or two kindes is not the ſubſtance of it. The whole force of this argument conſiſteth in that which is chiefly in queſtion amongſt vsus, that is, whether the ſacrament is a thing permanent, or not. And we vponupon iuſt cauſe deny it. And therefore his argument is a plaine fallacie, called the begging of the thing that is in queſtion, and can bee no ſtrong reaſon againſt vsus. By a thing permanent they vnderſtand, that the Euchariſt is not onelyonly a Sacrament (as they ſay their other ſacraments are, and as baptiſme is in reſpect of the vſe and receuing of it) but alſo that it being conſecrated once to be a ſacrament, continueth ſo to bee, whether it be receiued or not. Which opinion they holde ſtiffely for the maintenance of their adoration, and carrying it about. For they teach it ſtill to bee a ſacrament, howſoeuer they vſe it. Out of which abſurde principle hee gathereth this falſe and deteſtable doctrine, that they may change this point of Chriſts inſtitution, as they will.
But wee knowing, that the Sacraments are onelie helpes for our infirmities, and inſtituted to ſupply our wants, and that the eating of the bodily foode in the Sacrament, and ſo applying it to the nouriſhment of our our bodies, is that which repreſenteth vntounto vsus moſt liuely our receiuing of Chriſt by a true faith, to the nouriſhment of our ſoules: deteſt and deſpiſe thoſe captious and curious ſubtilties whereby the papiſtes doe ſeeke to defend their wonderfull boldneſſe, in changing the very inſtitution, and in breaking the expreſſe commaundement of Chriſt. Wherein wee hauehave for our warrant, the worde of Chriſt, which biddeth vsus eate and drinke (and therefore it can not be but arrogant preſumption for man to forbid that which Chriſt hath commaunded, howſoeuer hee will pretend, that it is not of the ſubſtance of the Sacrament.) We hauehave alſo the practiſe in the primitiue church, which is teſtified by Iſichius, In Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8.which vſed for to burne that which remained of the ſacramēt: Origen alſo reporteth the ſame. Which they would not hauehave don, if they had thought as do the papiſts, that it had beene tranſubſtantiated into Chriſts body, or elſe that it had beene, as heere they affirme, a ſacrament, although it be not receiued as Chriſt commaunded it ſhould be.
Seeing therefore theſe men that would ſeeme pillars in the church of Chriſt, doe picke quarrelles at his ordinance, and make exception to his commaundement, and all to writhe their neckes out of his yoke, and to free themſelues from his lawes, like lewd ſeruauntes, which will not frame themſelues to doe that which woulde beſt pleaſe their maiſters, but that onelyonly which they muſt bee forced to doe whether they will or not: let vsus nowe ſee how in the ſecond point, they do ſeeke to peruert the verie decree it ſelfe that Chriſt ſet down concerning this matter, to make men beleeue, that hee meant no ſuch thing, as in trueth he did.
The ſecond part of his aſſertion is, that it is not ordered by the word of God, what ſhall be done in that point. This is an intollerable boldeneſſe. Doth not our ſauiour Chriſt take order, as well for the cup, as for the bread? Doth not he that ſaieth, Take, eate, ſay alſo, Drinke ye all of this? If any man will anſwere as Bellarmine doth in one place,De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 27. that they were not both giuen at one time, and therefore that properly to ſpeake, the Supper of the Lord conſiſteth but of one kind, he ſhould plainly declare, that he hath rather a deſire to contend than to knowe the trueth. For what is it to vsus how long time was betweene the one commaundement and the other, ſo that we know, that both the one and the other is inſtituted of Chriſt. Yea the Apoſtle ſaint Paul very plainely telleth vsus,1. Cor. 11. that the order both for the cup and the bread is deliuered to him of the Lord, That which I receiued of the Lord, I deliuered vntounto you. And then hee ſheweth Chriſts inſtitution for the bread and alſo the cup. But with full mouth, and one conſent they tell vsus, that that commaundement belongeth to the Apoſtles onelyonly, and not to all the diſciples. And yet ſaint Mathew ſaith,Math. 26.26 he gaue it to his diſciples. Yea, and Chriſt commaundeth, Drinke yee all of this: And hath not ſaide concerning the bread, eate ye all of this (although wee deny not, that eueryevery one hauing prooued themſelues ſhould eate of it.) But ſeeing God hath giuen a more expreſſe commaundement vntounto all for the cup, than for the bread, why ſhould they rather reſtraine lay men from receiuing the cup, than from the bread? Againe, doeth he not ſay to all them, Drinke yee all of this, to whome before hee ſaide, Take eate? Yes verily, for the text is plaine, both in the Euangeliſts and ſaint Paule. But the bread muſt be giuen to al, they confeſſe, therefore why not the cup alſo? And that which ſaint Paule wrote concerning the vſe of the Sacrament, it is plaine he wrote vntounto all the church of Corinth (not onelyonly by that place which Kemnitius alleadgeth,1. Cor. 1.2. To all that call vppon the name of the Lorde, and that hee writeth vntounto the church of Corinth,De Euchar. lib. 4. cap. 25. which Bellarmine doeth ſeeke to anſwere, rather leaſt he ſhould ſeeme to ſay nothing, than that in truth, he ſaith anie thing worth the ſetting downe) but alſo by the puniſhment that followed the abuſe of the ſacrament. For this cauſe many are weake and feeble amongſt you, and many ſleepe. Which came vponupon them, not that did eate of that bread onelyonly, but alſo that drunke of that cup vnworthily. And it cannot be imagined, that either the miniſters were ſo bad at that time ſo generally, that ſo many of them would hauehave offended therein: or if the fault had beene in them, the Apoſtle would more particularly hauehave reprooued them: neither were they then ſo many in one place, that it could hauehave beene truely ſaide of them, that many are weake, and many ſleepe, or are dead. Therefore, whereas many were puniſhed amongſt the Corinthians for vnworthily receiuing both the bread and the cup, and this word (Many) cannot, as I hauehave prooued be there referred to their Teachers onelyonly, it followeth that this puniſhment was amongeſt the lay men, as well at the laſt, as amongſt their miniſters: and therefore that the lay men in the church of Corinth receiued the cup.
And thus much of that wicked aſſertion, wherein they doe affirme, that it is lawfull for the church to alter this part of Chriſtes inſtitution, and alſo to take away the cup.
Nowe to a ſecond, and as wicked a propoſition as the other. Wherein they teach, that it is needeleſſe to be receiued in both kindes. And to prooue this, Bellarmine taketh ſome paines in three whole chapters.De Euch. lib. 4. cap. 21, 22, 23 In the firſt two he ſheweth, that the whole ſacrament may be receiued vnderunder one kinde: and therefore in the laſt hee teacheth, that no more good is to be gotten of the ſacrament vnderunder both kindes, than vnderunder one. And although we can not allowe of that concomitance, as it is termed, that is, that inſeparable coniunction of the body and blood vnderunder either of the ſignes, which eſpecially hee prooueth in the firſt chapter of thoſe three, namely, the one and twentieth, that the whole ſubſtance of a ſacrament is found in either kinde, as hee teacheth in the two and twentieth chapter: yet if we ſhould grant thoſe two points, that which maſter Bellarmine would conclude in the three and twentieth chapter can not follow. For what if Chriſt may bee wholy receiued vnderunder one kinde? Yet it ſhould not follow, that vnderunder one as effectually he may be receiued, as vnderunder both. For, as before I ſhewed, his death is more liuely repreſented by the bread, and his bloudſheding by the wine. And that which more effectually repreſenteth it, is more profitable than that which leſſe repreſenteth the ſame. And it is too much ſawcineſſe ſo to controll the wiſedome of God, that when hee ſaith, Drinke yee all of this, which is a plaine commandement, any fooliſh man dare ſay: It is to no profite: it can do you no good. As for the cauſes that are alleaged by Gerſon and other, why the popiſh church thought good to take away the cup from the lay people, they are ſo fooliſh and friuolous, that a man would think rather that they ieſted, than ſpake in earneſt. But what cauſe ſoeuer man can pretend to alter yt which Chriſt hath ordained, it doth but teſtifie, that he thought not Chriſt wiſe enough to preuent ſuch inconueniences, as hee by his wiſedome hath prouided for.
Seeing therfore the church cannot forbid that that God commaundeth (whatſoeuer cauſes they will pretend, and if they might, yet the cauſes ſet downe by the Romiſh church, either are blaſphemous, or at the leaſt friuolous) it is a ſure way for vsus, rather to regard gods holy commaundement, and follow the inſtitution of our ſauiour Chriſt, than to follow any the deuiſes of man. And when he commandeth, drinke you all of this, it is a great ſinne, and dedeſerueth Gods wrath, for any man to anſwer, I will not receiue the cup, becauſe the Pope and the Popiſh church of late hath forbidden it.