The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 12
Twelfth Controverſie, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK. OF The Communion under one kind. And of the Power which Cardinal Du Perron aſcribeth unto the Church, that is to the Pope, to diſpenſe from the Commandment of Chriſt.
THE laſt Queſtion which Cardinal du Perron treats in his Book againſt the King of Great Brittain, is the queſtion about the interdiction of the Chalice.
He begins by a remonſtrance to his Majeſty, ſaying, His Majesty might have diſpenſed himſelf (if it had pleaſed him) to touch that objection, which brings no obſtacle to the re-union of the Church: ſince (a)Conc. Trid. Seſſ. 22. c. 11.the Council of Trent referreth to the Pope that ſhall ſit when ſome Nation or Kingdom ſhall demand the uſe of the Chalice for them that do not celebrate (that is for Lay-people and inferiour Clerks) to provide for that.
To which I anſwer, That the Council indeed referreth to the Popes power to judge of that buſineſs, whether it may be expedient to grant the uſe of the Chalice to ſome Nation or Kingdom that ſhould require it, but giveth not any hope of it. For the ſame Council in the 2x. Seſſion, in the 1. and 2. chap. declareth,(b)Cap. 1. Sancta Synodus declarat & docet nullo divino praecepto laicos et Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Euchariſtiae Sacramentum ſub utraque ſpecie ſumendum. That although Chriſt hath conſtituted and given the Euchariſt under the two kinds, yet the Laity and the Clerks that celebrate not, are not thereby obliged to receive the two kinds.
And in the 2. chap. it is declared(c)Cap. 2. Major Eccleſia progreſſu temporis latiſſime jam mutata illa conſuetudine gravibus & juſtis de cauſis adducta hanc conſuetudinem ſub altera ſpecie communicandi approbavit, et pro lege habendam decrevit. that the cuſtom of communicating under one kind was approved for juſt and great cauſes, and muſt be held for a Law. Beſides, the experience of ſo many years ſince, that Council hath made it known, that in vain any change in that point is hoped for from the Pope. And it is a very ſmall comfort to thoſe among the French that deſire that the communion of the Chalice be reſtored unto them, that this Council giveth them hope that ſome kingdom may one day require that priviledge, and that the Pope then ſhall conſider whether the requeſt may be granted. For the Council referreth not the judgement of that point to the Pope, but in caſe that a Nation or a whole Kingdom demand the reſtoring of the Chalice, leaving it to the Popes diſcretion to judge whether it ſhall be expedient to grant the uſe of the Cup, not to Chriſtians in general, but only to ſome people or kingdom, that ſhould be urgent for it: for as for the general of the Chriſtians, they give no hope at all of that reſtitution. As indeed, if any of the people in our days asked for the priviledge of participating the cup, he ſhould become ſuſpect of Hereſie, as one that would pick a quarrel, and control the Laws of the Church.
But in that obſcure hope given by the Council there is a lurking impiety. For if the Pope had given to ſome man a permiſſion to have the uſe of the cup (as it was given to the Bohemians in the Council of Baſil) it would be an impious permiſſion; for thereby he ſhould permit the man to obey Gods commandment, and grant him out of grace and ſpecial priviledge leave to do that which God hath commanded, as if God could not be obeyed without the Popes leave. So that if God get ſome ſervants, he ſhall be obliged for it to his Holineſs, which might by an expreſs prohibition hinder him from being obeyed, declaring (as that Council doth) that Chriſts inſtitution is not binding, and that Chriſtians are not obliged to ſubject themſelves to it.
The Cardinal goeth on, and ſaith in ſumm that participating the two kinds ſerveth indeed for the integrity of the ſignification, which is more expreſs and entire when the two kinds are received, btcauſe (ſaith he) every one of them that take the body and blood of Chriſt under the two kinds, is more expreſly and particularly admoniſht that his body was divided from the blood in the ſufferings of the Croſs. But he ſaith, that this ſerveth not for the integrity of the Communion; becauſe whole Chriſt is received as well with one kind as with two.
The Reader is deſired to obſerve this with care; for this is a great conceſſion, that in the Roman Church the ſignification of the Euchariſt is diminiſht, and is not in its integrity. For when a Chriſtian takes the Cup, it repreſents to him, and aſſureth him that the blood of Chriſt was ſhed for him. And the receiving of the two kinds, repreſents and ſignifies to us, that in Chriſt dead for us our ſouls find a moſt entire food. Since then the word Sacrament is as much as a Sacred ſign, when the ſignification of the Sacrament is diminiſht, the Sacrament alſo is diminiſht, and becomes leſs a Sacrament, ſince it is leſs ſignifying. For the Sacrament as a Sacrament is ſignifying, and was inſtituted by Chriſt to be the remembrance or commemoration of him. So by the Cardinals confeſſion the Sacrament is mutilated, and the integrity of the ſame diminiſht in that very thing for which Chriſt did inſtitute it. And theſe words of Cardinal du Perron ought to be graven in braſs for a memorial to poſterity(d)Pag. 1108. that Chriſts inſtitution that we ſhould take the Sacrament diſtinctly under the two kinds, belongs to the integrity of the ſignification. A Prelate ſo famous freely acknowledgeth that Chriſt hath inſtituted that we ſhould take the Sacrament diſtinctly under the two kinds. What can we ask more? For who can diſpenſe us from the command of the Son of God? Why ſhall not the command of Chriſt remain firm about the integrity of the ſignification as well as about the integrity of the Communion, ſeeing that the integrity of the ſignification ſerveth for the integrity of the Spiritual communion by faith, which is the only ſaving communion? For the inſtruction of the underſtanding ſerveth to ſtrengthen the faith by which Chriſt is apprehended unto ſalvation.
Here then the Cardinal puts two commandments of Chriſt, the one concerning the ſignification, the other concerning the Communion; and ſaith, that the firſt commandment injoyneth all Chriſtians to communicate under the two kinds, but that the ſecond which concerns the Communion, obligeth not all Chriſtians to take the two kinds. Wherefore he ſaith, that of thoſe two precepts of Chriſt the one is diſpenſable, the other indispenſable; And that unto the Church to which the dispenſation of the myſteries of Chriſt doth belong, it belongs alſo to judge which myſteries of Chriſt are dispenſable. Upon which I ſay firſt, that it is a fault againſt common ſenſe to find in theſe words, Drink ye all of this, two commandments, ſeeing that it is but one ſingle commandment; one and the ſame commandment may ſerve for many ends. If this precept, Thou ſhalt not kill, ſerveth to preſerve the life of our neighbour, and to maintain humane ſociety, and to honour the Image of God ſhining in our neighbours, it followeth not that therefore they are three precepts.
But that doctrine which giveth unto the Church (that is, to the Pope) the power of diſpenſing with Chriſts commandments, is the higheſt degree of impiety and of the ſpirit of pride, which ſpits againſt heaven, and attempts to pull Chriſt down from his Throne. Whoſoever hath lawfull power and authority to diſpenſe the French from the Kings command, is greater then the King. He that can ſay unto Chriſtians, Chriſt hath commanded you that, but I dispenſe you from it, and make a contrary Law, muſt be greater and of more authority then Chriſt.
Is not that Church which the Cardinal ſpeaks of, ſubject to Chriſts commandment? And if ſhe be ſubject to him, doth it belong to ſubjects to diſpenſe themſelves, or others, from Gods commandments? What obedience can a King hope from his Subjects, if the Subjects have power to tell him, Thou haſt indeed made us ſuch a commandment, but we are judges of the ſenſe, and of the ſtrength of thy commandments? It belongs to us to judge which of thy commandments are diſpenſable.
But yet what is that Church but the Pope alone, to whom the Council referreth that power, to conſtitute what he ſhall think good concerning that point? And why ſhall the Roman Church have the power alone of diſpenſing with Gods commandments, rather then the Greek and the Syrian, more ancient then the Roman? Theſe Churches as well as the Ethiopian hold themſelves tyed by the Commandment of Chriſt, and give the Communion unto the people under the two kinds. When we ask where, and when, and upon what terms, God gave to the Roman Church the power of diſpenſing with Gods Commandment, and to judge what Commandments of God are diſpenſable; they bring nothing to the purpoſe.(e)Joh. 14. They alledge ſome text where Chriſt promiſeth to his Apoſtles, to lead them into all truth; and where it is ſaid to Peter, (f)Luk. 22.I have prayed that thy faith fail not: But there it is not ſpoken of the Pope, nor of the Roman Church, nor of diſpenſing from Gods Commandments.
Hence the Cardinal paſſeth to the Fathers.(g)Pag. 1109. He ſaith that the primitive Church admitted in many caſes the Communion under one of the two kinds, namely in them that carried the Euchariſt upon the Sea; And in them that kept it at home, or ſent it into a forraign Land; a cuſtom condemned by the Council of Laodicea 14. ch.(h)foreign. He addeth ſick perſons: But this Prelate doth according to his cuſtom, which is never to anſwer directly, and to baulk the queſtion, ſpending words upon that which is not in diſpute. When we diſpute of this point by the Fathers, the queſtion is, whether in the Church, or in the Aſſembly of Chriſtians, the Euchariſt was celebrated without adminiſtring the Cup to the Chriſtians that are preſent; Or if ever the Cup was denied to any of the people that asked it, and preſented himſelf to receive it; Or if in the aſſembly of Chriſtians met together to celebrate the Euchariſt, the Prieſt drunk alone, the people looking on without participating the Cup; Of that the Cardinal brings no example of Antiquity, but ſome extraordinary actions, made without the celebration of the Euchariſt in the Church, which actions the Roman Church hath rejected, and approveth them not; And yet after all, that which he ſaith is falſe. For why could they not participate the two kinds in a Ship? Why could not thoſe men and women that carried the Sacrament from the Church to their home, bring wine to their houſes as well as bread? The paſſage of Gregorius Nazianzenus alledged before, ſheweth it. If ſhe had (ſaith he) laid up ſomewhere as a treaſure ſome part of the venerable body and blood, ſhe mingled it with her tears.
That it was the ancient cuſtom everywhere, and without exception to receive the people to the participation of the Cup, it is undeniable. The Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 1.28. ſpeaking to the people of Corinth, Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat this bread, and drink this cup. And 1 Cor. 10.17. the verſion of the Roman Church hath theſe words,(i)Omnes qui de uno pane et uno calice participamus. We all participate the ſame bread, and the ſame cup. Ignatius in the Epiſtle to the Philadelphians. (k)foreign.The ſame bread was broken to all, and the ſame cup was diſtributed to all. Juſtin Martyr in his ſecond Apologetick;(l)foreign. They that among us are called Deacons, diſtribute to every one that is preſent the bread, over which thanks were given, and the wine with water. Cyprian in the 63. Epiſtle chideth thoſe, Qui in calice Domini ſanctificando & plebi miniſtrando, who in conſecrating the cup, and adminiſtring it unto the people, do not that which Chriſt did. (m)Cum frangitur hoſtia, cum ſanguis de calice in ora fidelium infunditur.The Canon Cum frangitur in the 2. Diſtinction of the Conſecration; When the hoſt is broken, when the blood is poured out of the cup into the mouth of the faithfull, &c.(n)Ibi vos eſtis in menſa, et in calice nobiſcum vos eſtis; ſimul enim ſumimus; ſimul bibimus, quia ſimul vivimus. And in the Canon Quia paſſus, Auſtin ſpeaks thus unto the people, You are at the table, and are with us in the cup; for we take together, we drink together, becauſe we live together. (o)Paſchaſ. lib. de corpore Chriſti, cap. 15. Tam Miniſtri quam alii credentes.Paſchaſinus, Drink ye all of this, that is, both the Miniſters and other believers. Many teſtimonies of Fathers to this purpoſe might be heaped up. I will add but one of Pope Gelaſius, who writ in the year 496. of Chriſt.(p)Diſt. 2. de Conſecr. Can. Comperimus. Comperimus quod quidam ſumpta tantummodo corporis ſacri portione à calice ſacrati cruoris abſtineant. Qui procul dubio (quoniam neſcio qua ſuperſtitione docentur aſtringi) aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut integris arceantur. Quia diviſio unius ejuſdem que myſterii ſine grandi ſacrilegio non poteſt provenire. We have been informed that ſome having taken ſome part only of the ſacred body, abſtain from the cup of the conſecrated blood. Who without doubt (becauſe they are ſaid to be retained by ſome ſuperſtition) muſt either receive the whole Sacraments, or be altogether excluded from them, becauſe the diviſion of the ſame myſterie cannot happen without a great ſacriledge. (q)Baron. An. 496. Sect. 20. 21. At revera nullo ibi de ſacerdote ſacrificante mentio habetur, ut plane quod generaliter eſſe dictum apparet, ad ſacerdotes minime reſtringi debere ſatis intelligi-poſſit. Rejicimus igitur frigidam ejus modi ſolutionem,Cardinal Baronius maintains with us that this Ordinance of Pope Gelaſius is made as well for the people as for the Clergy, and ſaith that by this mark the Manicheans were diſcerned from the Orthodox: For the Manicheans abſtained from wine; they fell into the ſame abuſe as the Roman Church of theſe days, though upon another ground. And truly the word arceantur, which ſignifieth, let them be put by, ſheweth that Gelaſius ſpeaks of the people that preſent themſelves to the Communion. Had that Ordinance of Gelaſius been made only for the Prieſts, it had been uſeleſs: For Antiquity ſpeaks not that ever any Prieſt made a ſcruple of drinking the cup. Let our Adverſaries ſhift as much as they can, yet this remains that giving the bread without the cup, is a ſacriledge and a diviſion of the Sacrament, and that by the judgement of one of the moſt famous Popes. Aquinas in the ſeventh Leſſon upon Ioh. 6. makes here a free Confeſsion; According to the cuſtom of the ancient Church, as all communicated to the body, ſo all did communicate to the blood, which is kept ſtill in ſome Churches.
Cardinal du Perron himſelf pleadeth here guilty; for he ſaith, that the firſt place where this cuſtom already paſt into uſe by the Catholick Church (meaning the Roman) was turned into a Law, was the Council of Conſtance. Now that Council ſate in the year of Chtiſt, 1414. So well nigh 1400. years paſt before the Roman Church had that Law. Of that Council, the impiety goeth ſo far as to declare thoſe Hereticks that would follow the example of Chriſt, and confeſſing that Chriſt hath inſtituted that the faithfull ſhould receive the Communion in the two kinds, and that the ancient Church did ſo practiſe it, yet conſtituteth that the contrary be held for a Law, and that all that contradict it be puniſht by the ſecular arm. Theſe are the words of the Council.(r)Conc. Conſt. Seſſ. 13. Quod licet Chriſtus poſt coenam inſtituerit et ſuis diſcipulis adminiſtraverit ſub utraque ſpecie panis et vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum, &c. Licet in primitiva Eccleſia hoc Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus ſub utraque ſpecie, &c. That although Chriſt inſtituted and adminiſtred this venerable Sacrament under the two kinds unto his Diſciples, &c. And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithfull people in both the kinds, &c. Yet the Council ſaith, that in ſome parts of the world ſome perſons raſhly preſume that the Chriſtian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Euchariſt in the two kinds. And conſtituteth that(ſ)Conſuetudo rationabiliter introd…cta habenda eſt pro lege, Pertinaciter aſſerentes oppoſitum, tanquam haeretici arcendi ſunt et graviter puniendi, &c. invocato etiam auxilio brachii ſecula…is. the cuſtom of communicating in one kind, brought in with good reaſon be held for a Law, and that ſuch as maintain the contrary be expelled as hereticks, and grievouſly puniſht, &c. ſo far as to call the help of the ſecular arm. Whether theſe Fathers were led by the Spirit of God, or by the ſpirit of blaſphemy, and whether they put not Chriſt in the rank of Hereticks, that deſerve to be puniſht, let the Reader judge.
Our difference then with the Romaniſts, is not, whether Chriſt hath inſtituted that Chriſtians, both Paſtours and People, receive the communion in the two kinds, nor whether the ancient Church did ſo practiſe it; for our adverſaries confeſs both; But whether the Roman Church might, or ought to have changed Chriſts inſtitution; or (to ſpeak with the Cardinal) whether that commandment of Chriſt be diſpenſable, and whether the Roman Church can diſpenſe with it, and exempt the Chriſtian people from it. The Cardinal goeth about to prove that the Church hath that power, and proveth it by examples.
He ſaith that Chriſt inſtituted the holy Euchariſt after Supper. That Baptiſm in the beginning was done by immerſion and dipping, not by aſperſion, and ſprinkling. Whence he gathereth that if in thoſe points the Church had the authority to alter Chriſts inſtitution; the ſame Church might alſo alter his commandment concerning the cup, by not giving it to the people.
I anſwer, that we have the Lords commandment, both clear and expreſs, which ſaith, Drink ye all of it, and that of the Apoſtle, who ſpeaking to the people of Corinth, will have them to examine themſelves, and ſo to eat that bread and drink that cup. But we have no command for celebrating the Communion after Supper. Chriſt celebrated the Euchariſt after Supper upon occaſion, becauſe he did ſubſtitute it unto the Paſſeover, which at the ſame time he ate for the laſt time. But for the hour of that celebration he gave no command: Had he given any, we ſhould have been bound to obey it, and to tie our ſelves to the hour preſcribed by him, as Auſtin ſaith, Epiſt. 118.(t)Nam ſi hoc ille monuiſſet ut poſt cibos alios ſemper acciperetur, credo quod eum nemo variaſſet. Had Chriſt given us that order that the Sacrament ſhould be always taken after other meats, I believe that no man would have altered that cuſtom. Herein then the Church hath not changed Chriſts inſtitution, becauſe this is not of his inſtitution: By the ſame reaſon one might ſay, that the Church celebrating the holy Communion in a Temple, changed the Lords inſtitution; for he inſtituted this holy Sacrament in an upper room.
It is certain that when the Apoſtle Paul, Act. 20. celebrated the holy communion in an upper room(u)Act. 20.9. foreign. on the third loft: he did it not to follow Chriſts inſtitution, nor to conform himſelf to his example, but becauſe ſuch was the conveniency of the place. The like we may ſay of the hour; ſince there is no hour appointed by Chriſts inſtitution for this holy celebration; no wonder that the Church uſed the Liberty of chooſing ſuch an hour as was judged moſt convenient.
Neither is either the hour or the place part of the Sacrament, or eſſential to it. But the participation of the cup is part, yea the juſt half of the Sacrament, and of the eſſence of the ſame. And by conſequence one cannot deprive the people of the cup, without depriving them of the half of the Sacrament, and without diminiſhing the ſignification thereof, as the Cardinal himſelf acknowledgeth.
The ſame we ſay of Baptiſm. No command can be …ound for dipping the whole bodies of baptized perſons …o more then for h… …prinkling them. In vain it is alledged that baptizing ſignifieth dipping, not b… …prinkling; for that word ſignifieth waſhing alſo, as Mark 7.4. it is ſpoken o… the waſhing of pots there is in the Greek, the baptizing of pots. And in the ſa…e place it is ſaid, that the(w)foreign. Phariſees when they come from the Market, e…ot, foreign, except they waſh; for it is not credible that every time th…t a Phariſee had paſt through the Market, or through the croud of the people, he thought himſelf obliged to dip himſelf whole in water before he ate. For this cauſe baptiſm is alſo called waſhing, (x)foreign.Tit. 2.5. And Scripture affords us examples of perſons baptized without dipping. For it is more like that the Eunuch of Queen Candace, Act. 8. was baptized by Philip in a brook where he could not be dipt; for in the road where he was travelling, which was from Jeruſalem to Gaza, there is no River. The ſame may be ſaid of St. Pauls baptiſm, who was baptized by Ananias. It is not credible that Ananias brought him out of the houſe to the River, or had prepared a Bath to baptize him. In the ancient Church many would receive Baptiſm(y)Clin…ci. on their death-bed; among others, the Emperour Conſtantine, who being in that caſe, would not have ſuffered himſelf to be dipt whole in water. And hardly can we believe that in cold Countreys, as Pontus and Bulgaria, they ever dipt whole children in the Winter time to baptize them.
Obſerve alſo, that the Apoſtle Peter calls the purgation of our ſins in Chriſts blood(z)1 Pet. 1.2. foreign. an aſperſion, alluding to the cuſtom of making an aſperſion of water in baptiſm.
Here the Cardinal muſt not be pardoned a groſs fault:(a)1. Book in the 2. Inſtance. p. 961 He ſaith, that St. Paul, Tit. 3. calls Baptiſm the Bath, or Laver of regeneration: This Prelate confounds foreign with foreign. The firſt ſignifieth waſhing, the other, a laver, or bathing tub: The firſt ſignifieth in Latine, Lotio ſeu ablutio, the other labrum, balneum: St. Paul calls Baptiſm a waſhing, not a laver, as the Cardinal thinks.
But although the Church in the Apoſtles time had made ſome alteration in the inſtitution made by Chriſt (which yet we do not grant at all) it would not follow that the Pope and the Roman Church of this time have the like authority. If the ancient Church in the firſt Ages tyed her ſelf as much as ſhe could to the dipping of the whole perſon, after the example of Iohn the Baptiſt, who dipt in Iordan thoſe whom he baptized; yet Chriſt gave no command that bind the Chriſtians to that cuſtom: Which if he had done, that command ought to be kept inviolably. But as for the communion under the two kinds, both for the Paſtors and the people, the Cardinal acknowledgeth that Chriſt hath commanded it; but he maintains that the Church, that is the Pope, can diſpenſe from that command.
To the foreſaid reaſons the Cardinal adds ſome inconveniences and difficulties, which moved the Roman Church to make that alteration. Namely, that they feared that the cup ſhould ſpill: Then the length and difficulty to give the communion to a great multitude in one only cup. And the loathing of drinking after ſo many perſons, eſpecially in the time of contagion. And the difficulty of getting wine in ſome countreys, as at Calecut and Goa, where a Hogs-head of wine coſts eight hundred or a thouſand crowns. Others add that the cup was taken from the people, becauſe men dipt the hair of their upper lip in the cup; whence it happened that Chriſt remained whole, hanging on every hairs end of ſo many beards. Others that this was done to honour the Clergy, and give them a priviledge above the people.
To all theſe I anſwer, that when Chriſt and his apoſtles commanded that the people ſhould drink the cup, they knew all theſe inconveniences, and had at the leaſt as much foreſight as the Roman Church.
If it be a… evil to let the wine fall, it is a worſe evil to fall from the obedience due unto Chriſts …mmand. In the time of the four firſt Councils, when the Chriſtian Church was infin…ly populous in great Cities, as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Conſtantinople, the …ltitude of the people did not hinder them from participating the cup. They di… …ot hold it neceſſary that there ſhould be but one cup, it being ſufficient that the pe…le ſhould drink of the ſame wine; for it is not the cup that we participate, but t…t which is within.
We read, Act. 6. that Deacons …ere created to ſerve the Tables; if there were many tables, there were many cups. …r the Agapes were made at the ſame Tables, upon which the holy Communion was a…iniſtred.
As for the loathing, and the contagion, experience ſheweth the contrary. For in our Churches, where many thouſands of perſons participate the cup together, we never ſaw or heard of any inconvenience, no more then in the ancient Church.
As for Countreys where there is no wine, it were better to follow the example of the Churches of Ethiopia, who make uſe of another drink uſed in that Countrey, then to want the cup in the Lords Supper. As in Countreys where there is no bread, we doubt not but that the Church might uſe that which is uſed for bread. For the eſſence of the Sacrament conſiſteth in the relation between the ſigns and the thing ſignified. Now the end and eſſence of the Sacrament is to aſſure us, that the body and blood of Chriſt are the whole food of our ſouls, To ſignifie that the moſt common food is the moſt proper.
As for dipping ſo many beards in the blood of Chriſt, if there be profanation in it, we muſt ſay, that the Church of the Apoſtles, and that of the firſt ages was profane; for the people drunk in the cup without ſhaving their upper lip. They were not ſo ſtupid as to think that when the beard was dipt in the cup, the body of Chriſt remained hanging at every hair. The opinion of the Tranſubſtantiation is imployed to breed that vain fear, and one errour ſerveth to propagate another. To which I add that it were better to be without a beard on the upper-lip, then to violate Chriſts inſtitution.
But theſe are not the true reaſons that moved the Pope and his Prelates to make that alteration, but the pride of the Clergy to exalt themſelves above the people. This appeareth in that the Pope admitteth Kings to the Chalice, and yet obligeth them not to ſhave their upper lip. For by that means Prieſts are become Kings fellows. As alſo the Pope to exalt himſelf above the Clergy, and above Kings,(b)Lib. 2. Sacram. Cerem. cap. 14. Epiſcopus Cardinalis porrigit Papae calamum quem Papa ponit in calice, in manibus Diaconi exiſtente, et ſanguinis partem ſugit. hath reſerved to himſelf that cuſtom, which in old time was practiſed in divers places, to drink out of a covered Chalice, held by a Cardinal Biſhop on his knees, ſucking part of the drink with a ſmall reed or pipe.
Here then, as in all things, we muſt return to Chriſts commandment, who adminiſtring the cup ſaid, Drink ye all of this, and, Do this in remembrance of me, commanding his Diſciples to do to others, what he had done unto them, and by conſequent to adminiſter the two kinds unto others. It is obſervable, that Chriſt ſaid not, Eat ye all of this, but ſpeaks more expreſly of the cup, as foreſeeing the abuſe that ſhould follow. And if theſe words, Drink ye all of this, are not a command, to the obedience whereof the people be obliged; the ſame muſt be ſaid of theſe words, Take eat. So there will be nothing in the inſtitution of this Sacrament that obliges the people to take either the bread or the cup.
Or if theſe words, Drink ye all of this, are addreſt only unto Paſtors, becauſe they to whom Chriſt ſpake were Paſtors and Apoſtles, I will ſay the ſame of theſe words, Take eat; for both the Commandments are made to the ſame perſons: yet it is certain, that the Diſciples hearing the words of the Lord, and receiving the Sacrament from his hand, did not keep the rank of Paſtors, but of ſheep, and were to be conſidered as Diſciples.
That which the Cardinal ſaith, is moſt falſe, that Chriſt did not ſay, Eat ye all of this; becauſe he gave to each of his Diſciples the bread ſeparate and divided. For they being thirteen perſons at the table, his arms could not reach to the other end of the table, and it was neceſſary that the diſh where the bread was, ſhould be given from hand to hand.
But we have Pauls expreſs words,(c)1 Cor. 11. who contents not himſelf to ſay to the people of Corinth, As often you eat this bread, and drink this cup; but adds a pregnant injunction, Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat this bread, and drink this cup. As the examining of ones ſelf before receiving the Sacrament, ſo the receiving of the cup is equally commanded to all.
Alſo we ask the Romaniſts, whether Chriſts ſpeaks of the Euchariſt, when he ſaith, Joh. 6. Except you eat the fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you? If the Euchariſt be not meant there, why do they uſe that text to prove tranſubſtantiation? If the Euchariſt is meant in that Text, why do they deprive the people of life, by denying them the cup? The Cardinal anſwereth, (d(Pag. 1118.that he that takes the body, drinks his blood, as for the effect, not as for the manner; for tht blood is not ſevered from the body. This anſwer, that to take bread is drinking, expreſſeth either a deſperate cauſe, or an abuſive mind. If that be true, the Prieſt drinks twice in the Maſs, once when he takes the Hoſt, another time when he takes the cup: And to ſpeak with this Prelate, once as for the manner, twice as for the effect. Beſides drinking is the manner of participating: Chriſt then ſaying, Except ye drink, preſcribes to us the manner of participating; and thus the Prieſt tranſgreſſeth the commandment of Chriſt, who by ſaying, Drink, inſtituted the manner of the Sacramental Communion.
The Cardinal uſeth another ſhift, ſaying that when Chriſt ſaid, Except you eat my fleſh, and drink my blood, he meant, Except you eat my fleſh, Or drink my blood: But that being an alteration of Chriſts words, and a depravation of Scripture, deſerveth no anſwer. By the ſame reaſon one might abſtain from the bread, and participate the cup only.
It is to be noted, that 1 Cor. 10.17. the Vulgar verſion, the only approved and authorized by the Council of Trent, hath theſe words, We all are partakers of the ſame bread, and of the ſame cup; which words ſhould be falſe, if the people of Corinth had not participated the cup.