Rhemes against Rome: or, The remoouing of the gagg of the new Gospell, and rightly placing it in the mouthes of the Romists, by the Rhemists in their English translation of the Scriptures. Which counter-gagg is heere fitted by the industrious hand of Richard Bernard ...

XXIII. Proposition. That the Lords Supper is to be administred to the people in one kinde onely:

Confuted by their owne Bible.

1. IT teacheth vs, 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. Se∣condly, that he deliuered the same vnto them, verse 23. Third∣ly, he, in verse 28. plainely prescribeth the eating of the Bread, and drinking of the Chalice; and that to euery one that com∣meth 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 vnto this Sacrament. But the duty is generall and belongeth vnto all in∣differently. The drinking of the Chalice therefore may not be denied vnto 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 admini∣ster 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 men∣tioneth both the Chalice and Bread. Secondly, by the word we, he vnderstands himselfe and other, which did blesse the Cha∣lice, and breake the Bread. Thirdly, he saith, that by the Cha∣lice 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 haue Christs bloud out of his bodie in the* 1.1 Chalice represented, and not by the bread onely both his body and bloud. Fourthly, Christ is perfect food: wee must there∣fore eate him, and drinke him. Drinke alone preserues not life, nor onely 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 would* 1.2 inferre of Priests onely, 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 recei∣ued 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 onely were present at the institution, they therefore should onely receiue in both kinds: then what warrant haue they to admit any, but Priests, to the Lords Sup∣per? What warrant to admit women to it, so much as to re∣ceiue 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 (vnder the word we) meant the Apostles, and other Ministers of the Word

and Sacraments, that they blessed and brake, that is, consecra∣ted and administred the Lords Supper vnto 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 vnto the Idol Temples. Thus are they confuted by their owne Bible.

Contraried by Antiquitie.

Ignatius in Epist. 6. ad Philadelp. giueth vs to vnderstand, that in his time, the Cup was diuided to the whole Church.

Iustin. Martyr, Apol. 2. telleth vs, 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, men∣tioneth both the Bread and Cup.

Theophyl. on 1. Cor. 11. saith, that the Cup was in like manner deliuered vnto all. See more for this, Athanasius 2. Apolog. Chrysostome Hom. 27. in 1. Cor. and Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. Cy∣prian 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.* 1.3

Gainesaid by themselues.

Gelasius the Pope, decret. part. 3. dist. 2. ca. comperimus, cal∣leth 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 con∣tained vnder each kinde, by way of Sacrament, but onely his flesh vnder forme of Bread, and his bloud vnder 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.* 1.4 Fisher the Iesuite acknowledgeth the Lay people in the Primi∣tiue Church, to haue 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 giue him, is my flesh.

Answ. 1. This is not spoken of the Sacrament. For first, Christ* 1.5 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 expoun∣deth what he meaneth by this Bread, euen his owne flesh, which he giueth for the life of the world, and which he did giue vpon 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, haue 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 Sacra∣ment,

which hee would institute: yet this place helpeth not our Aduersaries, but rather maketh hue and cry after their the euery, 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 haue 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 onely 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 pres∣sing 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 him∣selfe to be sufficient food for the life of his, which beleeue in him. Now, a man cannot liue by onely eating, nor onely drin∣king, 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 ea∣ten, cannot bee said to bee drunken too; these being two di∣stinct and differing actions, for two things. If one would haue serued, the vrging of two had beene needlesse. Fourthly and lastly, hee mentioneth Bread, not to exclude Wine; and ea∣ting, 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 giue her water to drinke. Would any therefore hence conclude, that onely 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 Sacra∣ment. 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 haue 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 in∣deed 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 Aduersa∣ries 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 vnto them, neither knew they what he was. Is it likely, that hee would so suddenly de∣liuer the Sacrament? or they bee so carelesse of right recei∣uing Gods holy Sacrament, that they would, without know∣ledge 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 vpon 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 onely 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 Sacra∣ment, and breaking of the bread, these two men had not as yet seene. For onely 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 or∣dinarie* 1.6 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 onely the bread, he consecrated onely bread, hee administred onely bread, which was contrary to his first institu∣tion, and contrarie to the Popish Priests practice, who conse∣crate 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 onely 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 ad∣minister in one kinde be sufficient, why not to consecrate in one kinde too? If by their owne iudgement, it be vnlawfull to con∣secrate in one kinde, but in both; why not also to administer in both? Fiftly, the Apostle telleth vs, that the Chalice of Be∣nediction 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. Se∣condly, 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 peo∣ple? 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 vs, 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 vnder one kinde, of whom the Papists are followers; as they be in many other things, of other Heretikes.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Against con∣comitancy. See D. White his last booke, pag. 460, 466.
• * 1.2

  See an answer to this there also. pag. 488, 489, 492.
• * 1.3

  Answ. to Fisher
• * 1.4

  See Doctor White, pag. 497.
• * 1.5

  So hold many Papists, Doctor White, pag 495
• * 1.6

  D. White, pag. 507.