The buckler of the faith: or, A defence of the confession of faith of the reformed churches in France, against the obiections of M. Arnoux the Iesuite Wherein all the principall controuersies betweene the reformed churches and the Church of Rome are decided. Written in French by Peter du Moulin minister of the word of God in Paris: and now translated into English.

Of taking away the Cup in the holy Supper, or of the Communion vnder one kind onely.

[Sect. 35] 1. Our Lord giuing the Cup to his disciples, said vnto 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 one∣ly 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 onely 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 dis∣spense with themselues touching the participation of the bread, vnder pretence that those were Pastors to whom Iesus Christ said, Eate. And so there is nothing in the whole institu∣tion of the Sacrament which bindeth the people to receiue any of the two kinds, nor yet at all to participate this Sacra∣ment. 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 onely di∣rected to Pastors? There is nothing then in the institution of the Supper which directeth the faithfull, and yet the institu∣tion 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 giue 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 onely be gi∣uen 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 wri∣teth to the Corinthians, and as he himselfe saith, cap. 1. verse 2.

To all those that call vpon the name of Iesus, and saith vnto 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 him∣selfe 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 cou∣ragiously, he commandeth him to arme himselfe & to fight: so when the Apostle saith to the faithfull, that they should ex∣amine 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 pre∣suppose 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 haue 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. vnder their feete, that determined the conttary, as we haue shewed before. Howbeit by this they make a pro∣cesse 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 haue 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 vnder the hoast, is not to drinke; but Iesus Christ commandeth vs 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 com∣municate, but sheweth the substance of the thing. For he speaketh of drinking, and drinking is the manner of commu∣nicating. Is there any hope euer to bring these men to rea∣son, that play with the word of God, and perceiuing them∣selues to be grounded, haue 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 Sacra∣ment with the mouth, and drinking, there is great difference.

11. Adde hereunto, that he which taketh the bloud vnder the hoast, taketh it not as being shed for vs, nor with the Sa∣crament of the shedding of his bloud, which is the manner whereby Iesus Christ will haue euery man to participate the same. The faithfull in eating the bread may remember the shedding of his bloud, but God will haue 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 Sacra∣ment, 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 Sacra∣ment 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 memo∣ries therein.

12. The ambition of the Clergie hath begotten this mon∣ster. For by giuing the Cup to none but to Priests and to Kings and Princes, Priests haue made themselues compani∣ons 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 am∣bitious Prelates, is now reserued for the Pope onely, for a marke of his greatnesse.** Gerson in the second Treatise of the Communion vnder 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 onely 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, vpon paine of heresie, and punishment to be imposed by the secular powers, confesseth that Iesus Christ did insti∣tute the holy Supper vnder 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 dark∣nesse) those Fathers haue 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 af∣firme, that Christian people ought to receiue the Sacrament of the Eucharist vnder both kinds, and ordinarily giue the Communion to the laitie, not onely vnder the forme of bread, but also vnder 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 pre∣sent sacred generall Councell of Constance, lawfully assem∣bled 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 de∣fineth, that although Iesus Christ after supper did institute and ad∣minister to his disciples, this venerable Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine; notwithstanding, the authoritie of the sacred Canons, and the commendable and approued customes of the Church haue declared, and do declare, that this Sacrament ought not to be celebrated after supper, nor by the faithful to be re∣ceiued but fasting, vnlesse it be in case of weaknesse, or other necessi∣ties permitted by law or by the Church. And likewise, that al∣though in the primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithful vnder both kinds, neuerthelesse, this custome hath with reason bene induced, that it should be taken, by those that consecrate, vnder both kinds, and by the laitie vnder the forme of bread onely. For that we must constantly, and without any doubt beleeue, that the whole bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ is truly contained as well vnder the forme of bread, as vnder 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 fan∣tasies, 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 Dioce∣sans of the places where they reside, or by their Officials, or by the In∣quisitors 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 vnder their feete?

Notes

• Lib. 2. Sacra∣rum Ceremoni∣arum cap. 14. Episcopus Car∣dinalis porri∣git calamum quem Papa po∣nit in calice in manibus Dia∣coni existente, & sanguinis partem sugit.
• **

  Tanta esset dignitas laico∣rū circa sump∣tionem corporis Christi sicut & sacerdotum.