The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 38 · Subpart 12
Of taking away the Cup in the holy Supper, or of the Communion vnderunder one kind onelyonly.
Sect. 35 1. Our Lord giuing the Cup to his disciples, said vntounto them, Drinke ye all of this: the Church of Rome correcteth that, and saith, You shall not all drinke thereof, for to drinke at the Masse is the priuiledge of Priests, and of Kings and Princes.
2. They make answer and say, that Iesus Christ spake onelyonly to Pastors, for all those that then were present were Pastors of the Church. But the Church of Rome giuing the Cup to Kings and Princes, sheweth that she doth not beleeue that that commandement was made onelyonly to Pastors of the Church.
3. Moreouer, Iesus Christs disciples being with him, were not as Pastors, but as sheepe and disciples, and in that action are also called disciples.
4. It is manifest, that in the institution of the Supper, the commandement to eate and to drinke was indifferently made to those persons that were present. And if the people are not bound to communicate the cup, because those to whom Iesus gaue it were Pastors; by the same reason the people may disspense with themselues touching the participation of the bread, vnderunder pretence that those were Pastors to whom Iesus Christ said, Eate. And so there is nothing in the whole institution of the Sacrament which bindeth the people to receiue any of the two kinds, nor yet at all to participate this Sacrament. What is he that can iudge or discerne, that these words of our Lord, Take, eate, are directed to the Pastors and to the people, but that these words Drinke ye all of this, are onelyonly directed to Pastors? There is nothing then in the institution of the Supper which directeth the faithfull, and yet the institution of the Sacrament is the rule it selfe. And though we looke elsewhere for the commandement to eate made to the people, we shall alwayes finde that there also is mention made of drinking.
5. Our aduersaries themselues confesse, that Iesus Christ by these words, Do this in remembrance of me, commanded his disciples to do the same to the faithfull that he did to them: He commanded therefore to giuegive the cup to the faithfull.
6. Besides, our Lord administring the cup, said, That it is the new Testament in his bloud, which is shed for the remission of sinnes. Then it appeareth, that to depriue the people of the cup, is as much as to depriue them of the shedding of his bloud for the remission of sinnes. For our aduersaries say that there is no effusion of bloud in the hoast.
7. And when Iesus said, This is my body which is giuen, and broken for you, did he vnderstand that it should onelyonly be giuen for Pastors, or broken for their saluation, and not for the saluation of the people? And if it be impious to affirme that touching the body, why should it be lesse impious to be said touching the cup?
8. S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. cutteth off all euasions; for he writeth to the Corinthians, and as he himselfe saith, cap. 1. verse 2. To all those that call vponupon the name of Iesus, and saith vntounto them, Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of that bread, and drinke of that cup. Euen as the cōmandement to examine himselfe is made to all the faithfull, so the commandement to eate of that bread and to drinke of that cup, is made to all the faithfull. He saith not (as some affirme) Examine your selues before you drink. The Greek hath foreign, Let him eate, which is the Imperatiue moode, and a word of commandement, and not a conditionall word, if he will eate, or when he would eate, let him examine himselfe. If the King ordaineth that a souldier should arme himselfe, and that he should fight couragiously, he commandeth him to arme himselfe & to fight: so when the Apostle saith to the faithfull, that they should examine themselues, and that they should eate and drinke that bread and that wine, he commandeth them both to examine themselues, and to eate that bread and drinke that wine. And if the Apostle had said no otherwise, but that the faithfull must examine themselues before they drinke, he would presuppose thereby that the faithfull dranke, and that in Corinth the people participated the cup.
9. It is true, that it sufficeth to receiue one of the species vnworthily to make a man culpable; whereupon the Apostle saith, Whosoeuer shall eate this bread, and drinke this cup of the Lord vnworthily, shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But that hindreth not the faithfull from participating both the one and the other kind. Yet I am not of opinion, that a man that taketh one of the species vnworthily, can take the other worthily.
10. But the nature of falshood specially appeareth in this, that it contradicteth it selfe. For when Iesus Christ, Iohn 6. said, Except you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, you hauehave no life in you: here our aduersaries expresly affirme and maintaine, that Iesus Christ spake of the Eucharist, and of eating with the mouth: treading the authority of Pope Innocent 3. vnderunder their feete, that determined the conttary, as we hauehave shewed before. Howbeit by this they make a processe against themselues, and testifie, that as much as in them lieth, they depriue the people of life eternall. For it is said, If you drinke not, you hauehave no life in you.
Their answer is, That the bloud is also in the hoast, and that in taking the body we take the bloud also. For to take the bloud vnderunder the hoast, is not to drinke; but Iesus Christ commandeth vsus to drinke, saying, If you drinke not, &c.
If to take the drie hoast, is to drinke, we must say that the Priest drinkes twise in the Masse, once when he takes the hoast, the other when he takes the cup. Which discouereth the childish subtiltie of those that say, that Iesus Christ in this place of Saint Iohn doth not expresse the manner how to communicate, but sheweth the substance of the thing. For he speaketh of drinking, and drinking is the manner of communicating. Is there any hope euer to bring these men to reason, that play with the word of God, and perceiuing themselues to be grounded, hauehave their recourse to such ridiculous defences, as to maintaine that to eate the hoast, is to drinke? If we take eating and drinking for beleeuing (as Iesus Christ in this chapter expoundeth it) it is certaine, that to eate and to drinke are all one thing. But betweene eating the Sacrament with the mouth, and drinking, there is great difference.
11. Adde hereunto, that he which taketh the bloud vnderunder the hoast, taketh it not as being shed for vsus, nor with the Sacrament of the shedding of his bloud, which is the manner whereby Iesus Christ will hauehave eueryevery man to participate the same. The faithfull in eating the bread may remember the shedding of his bloud, but God will hauehave the memory and the exterior signe to go together. And we must not content our selues with the memorie, to abolish a part of the Sacrament, because it is instituted to celebrate the memorie of the shedding of the bloud. For, if the memorie of the shedding of the bloud were sufficient, without participating the Sacrament of the shedding of the bloud, we might also dispence with our selues for participating the Sacrament of the body, for that the preaching of the word might refresh our memories therein.
12. The ambition of the Clergie hath begotten this monster.*Lib. 2. Sacrarum Ceremoniarum cap. 14. Episcopus Cardinalis porrigit calamum quem Papa ponit in calice in manibus Diaconi existente, & sanguinis partem sugit. For by giuing the Cup to none but to Priests and to Kings and Princes, Priests hauehave made themselues companions with Kings: in the same maner as the Pope hath exalted himselfe aboue the Clergie, in disdaining to drinke out of the Chalice, and sucking it by drops out of a quill which is put into the Cup, and giueth the rest to the Deacon. A custome which hauing bene practised in the latter times by some ambitious Prelates, is now reserued for the Pope onelyonly, for a marke of his greatnesse.**Tanta esset dignitas laicorū circa sumptionem corporis Christi sicut & sacerdotum. Gerson in the second Treatise of the Communion vnderunder both kinds, puts this among the causes why the people should be depriued of the Cup, to wit, that thereby the dignitie of lay men would be equall with the Priests. Their onelyonly intent therefore herein is, the honour and exaltation of the Clergie.
The Councell of Constance holden anno 1416. which is the first Councel that forbad the Cup to be administred to the people, vponupon paine of heresie, and punishment to be imposed by the secular powers, confesseth that Iesus Christ did institute the holy Supper vnderunder both kinds, and that the primitiue Church did so practise it. Notwithstanding it saith, that the contrary custome ought to be holden for a law; and declareth all those to be heretickes and punishable which contradict it. You shall see the whole Canon, which (as error loueth darknesse) those Fathers hauehave purposely obscured, promiscuously handling it with the question touching the receiuing of the Eucharist after supper. The words of the Canon are these:
Seeing that in some parts of the world, some men dare rashly affirme, that Christian people ought to receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist vnderunder both kinds, and ordinarily giuegive the Communion to the laitie, not onelyonly vnderunder the forme of bread, but also vnderunder the forme of wine, and that after supper, or otherwise not fasting; and obstinately affirme that it must be so communicated, contrary to the laudable custome of the Church, reasonably brought in, which they damnably seeke to reproue as sacrilegious. For this cause this present sacred generall Councell of Constance, lawfully assembled by the holy Ghost, against this error, seeking to prouide for the saluation of the faithfull, after ripe deliberation had by diuerse Doctors as well spirituall as temporal, declareth, decreeth, and defineth, that although Iesus Christ after supper did institute and administer to his disciples, this venerable Sacrament vnderunder the formes of bread and wine; notwithstanding, the authoritie of the sacred Canons, and the commendable and approued customes of the Church hauehave declared, and do declare, that this Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after supper, nor by the faithful to be receiued but fasting, vnlesse it be in case of weaknesse, or other necessities permitted by law or by the Church. And likewise, that although in the primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithful vnderunder both kinds, neuerthelesse, this custome hath with reason bene induced, that it should be taken, by those that consecrate, vnderunder both kinds, and by the laitie vnderunder the forme of bread onelyonly. For that we must constantly, and without any doubt beleeue, that the whole bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ is truly contained as well vnderunder the forme of bread, as vnderunder the forme of wine. Therefore, seeing that this custome hath bin reasonably induced, and long time practised by the Church and by the holy Fathers, it must be holden for a law, which it is not lawfull to reproue, or to change at our fantasies, without the authoritie of the Church. Therefore to affirme, that to obserue this custome or law, it is sacriledge or an vnlawfull thing, that opinion ought to be held to be erroneous; and those that obstinately affirme the contrary of that which is said before, ought to be banished as hereticks, and grieuously punished by the Diocesans of the places where they reside, or by their Officials, or by the Inquisitors of hereticall peruersities, &c. To speake in this maner, what is it else but to spit in the face of the Sonne of God, and to tread the Gospell vnderunder their feete?