ART.
XXX.

ARTICLE XXX.

Of both Kinds.

The Cup of the Lozd is not to be denied to Lap Prople. For both Parts of the Sacrament, by Chriff'sOrdinance and Commandment, ought to be ministąed to all Christian Men alike.

TH

HERE is not any one of all the controverfies that we have with the Church of Rome, in which the decision seems more easy and shorter than this. The words of the inftitution are not only equally exprefs and pofitive as to both kinds, but the diverfity with which that part that relates to the cup is fet down, feems to be as clear a demonstration for us, as can be had in a matter of this kind; and looks like a special direction given, to warn the Church against any corruption that might arife upon this head. To all fuch as acknowledge the immediate union of the Eternal Word with the human nature of Chrift, and the infpiration by which the Apoftles were conducted, it must be of great weight to find a specialty marked as to the chalice of the cup it is faid, Drink ye all of it; whereas of the bread it is only faid, Take, eat; fo we cannot think the word all was fet down without defign. It is alfo faid of the cup, and they all drank of it; which is not faid of the bread: we think it no piece of trifling nicety to obferve this specialty. The words added to the giving the cup, are very particularly emphatical. Take, eat, This is my body which is given for you, is not fo full an expreffion, as, Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament which is fhed for many, for the remiffion of fins. If the fureft way to judge of the extent of any precept, to which a reafon is added, is to confider the extent of the reason, and to measure the extent of the precept, by that; then fince all that do communicate, need the remiffion of fins, and a fhare in the New Covenant, the reafon that our Saviour joins to the diftribution of the cup, proves that they ought all to receive it. And if that difcourfe in St. John concerning the eating Chrift's flesh, and the drinking his blood, is to be understood of the facrament, as most of the Roman Church affirm, then the drinking Chrift's blood is as neceffary to eternal life, as the eating his flesh; by confequence it is as neceffary to receive the cup as the bread. And it is not eafy to apprehend, why it fhould ftill be neceflary to confecrate in both kinds, and not likewife to receive in both kinds.

XXX.

It cannot be pretended, that fince the Apoftles were all of the AR T. facred order, therefore their receiving in both kinds is no precedent for giving the laity the cup; for Christ gave them both kinds as they were finners, who were now to be admitted into covenant with God by the facrifice of his body and blood. They were in that to fhew forth his death, and were to take, eat, and drink in remembrance of him. So that this inftitution was delivered to them as they were finners, and not as they were priests. They were not conftituted by Chrift the pastors and governors of his Church, till after his refurrection, when he breathed on them, and laid his hands on them, and bleffed Joh. xx. 22. them. So that at this time they were only Chrift's difciples and witneffes; who had been once fent out by him on an extraordinary commiffion; but had yet no ftated character fixed upon them.

To this it is faid, that Chrift, by faying, Do this, constituted them priests; fo that they were no more of the laity, when they received the cup. This is a new conceit taken up by the Schoolmen unknown to all antiquity: there is no fort of tradition that fupports this expofition; nor is there any reason to imagine, that Do this, fignifies any other than a precept to continue that inftitution, as a memorial of Chrift's death; and Do this, takes in all that went before, the taking, the giving, as well as the bleffing, and the eating the bread; nor is there any reafon to appropriate this to the bleffing only, as if by this the confecrating and facrificing power were conferred on the Priefts. From all which we conclude both that the Apostles were only difciples at large, without any special characters conferred on them, when the eucharift was inftituted, and that the eucharift was given to them only as difciples, that is, as laymen.

The mention that is made in fome places of the New Teftament, only of breaking of bread, can furnish them with no argument; for it is not certain that thefe do relate to the facrament; or if they did, it is not certain, that they are to be underftood ftrictly; for, by a figure common to the Eastern nations, bread ftands for all that belongs to a meal; and if these places are applied to the facrament, and ought to be strictly understood, they will prove too much, that the facrament may be confecrated in one kind; and that the breaking of bread, without the cup, may be understood to be a complete facra

But when St. Paul fpoke of this facrament, he does fo diftinctly mention the drinking the cup as well as eating the bread, that it is plain from him how the Apoftles understood the words and intent of Christ, and how this facrament was received in that time.

From the inftitution and command which are exprefs and pofitive, we go next to confider the nature of facramental ac

Ff4

tions.

ΧΧΧ.

ART. tions. They have no virtue in them, as charms tied either to elements, or to words; they are only good becaufe commanded. A different ftate of things may indeed juftify an alteration as to circumftances: the danger of dipping in cold climates, may be a very good reafon for changing the form of Baptifm to fprinkling; and if climates were inhabited by Christians to which wine could not be brought, we should not doubt but that whenfoever God makes a real neceffity of departing from any inftitution of his, he does thereby allow of fuch a change, as that neceffity muft draw after it: fo we do not condemn the licence that is faid to have been granted by Pope Innocent the Eighth, to celebrate without wine in Norway; nor fhould we deny a man the facrament who had a natural and unconquerable averfion to wine, or that communicated being near his last agonies, and that should have the like averfion to either of the elements. When those things are real and not pretended, mercy is better than facrifice. The punctual obfervance of a facramental inftitution, does only oblige us to the ellential parts of it, and in ordinary cafes: the pretence of what may be done, or has been done upon extraor-. dinary occafions, can never juftify the deliberate and unnecesfary alteration of an effential part of the facrament. The whole inflitution fhews very plainly, that our Saviour meant that the cup fhould be confidered every whit as effential as bread; and therefore we cannot but conclude from the nature of things, that fince the facraments have only their effects from their inftitution, therefore fo total a change of this facrament does plainly evacuate the inftitution, and by confequence destroy the effect of it.

All reafoning upon this head is an arguing against the inftitution; as if Chrift and his Apoftles had not well enough confidered it; but that 1200 years after them, a confequence fhould be obferved that till then had not been thought of, which made it reasonable to alter the manner of it.

The Concomitance is the great thing that is here urged; fince it is believed that Chrift is intirely under each of the elements; and therefore it is not neceflary that both fhould be received, because Chrift is fully received in any one. But this subsists on the doctrine of Tranfubftantiation; fo if that is falfe, then here, upon a controverted opinion, an uncontroverted piece of the inftitution is altered. And if Concomitance is a certain confequence of the doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, then it is a very strong argument against the antiquity of that doctrine, that the world was fo long without the notion of Concomitance; and therefore, if Tranfubftantiation had been fooner received, the Concomitance would have been more eafily obferved. The inftitution of the facrament feems to be so laid down, as rather to

make

XXX.

make us confider the body and blood as in a ftate of feparation, ART. than of concomitance; the body being reprefented apart, and the blood apart; and the body as broken, and the blood as fhed. Therefore we confider the defign of the facrament is, to reprefent Chrift to us as dead, and in his crucified, but not in his glorified ftate. And if the opinion be true, that the glorified bodies are of another texture, than that of flesh and blood, which feems to be very plainly aflerted by St. Paul, in a difcourfe intended to defcribe the nature of the glorified bodies, then this theory of concomitance will fail upon that account. But whatsoever may be in that, an inftitution of Chrift's must not be altered or violated, upon the account of an inference that is drawn to conclude it needlefs. He who inftituted it knew beft, what was moft fitting and most reasonable; and we must choose rather to acquiefce in his commands, than in our own reafonings.

Catech.

Mist. 4ta.

Ecclef.

If, next to the inftitution and the theory that arifes from the nature of a facrament, we confider the practice of the Christian Church in all ages, there is not any one point in which the tradition of the Church is more exprefs, and more univerfal, than in this particular, for above a thousand years after Chrift. All the accounts that we have of the ancient rituals, both in Juftin Martyr, Cyril of Jerufalem, the Confti- Apol. 2. tutions, and the pretended Areopagite, do exprefsly mention both kinds as given separately in the facrament. All the ancient li- Conft. turgies, as well thefe that go under the names of the Apoftles, Apoft. 1. ii. as those which are ascribed to St. Bafil and St. Chryfoftom, do c: 57. mention this very exprefsly; all the offices of the Western Hiera. c. 3. Church, both Roman and others; the miffals of the latter ages, I mean down to the twelfth century, even the Ordo Romanus, believed by fome to be a work of the ninth, and by others of the eleventh century, are exprefs in mentioning the diftribution of both kinds. All the Fathers, without excepting one, do fpeak of it very clearly, as the univerfal practice of their time. They do not fo much as give a hint of any difference about it. So that from Ignatius down to Thomas Aquinas, there is not any one writer that differs from the rest Aquin. in this point; and even Aquinas fpeaks of the taking away the Com. in chalice as the practice only of fome Churches; other writers 6. of his time had not heard of any of thefe Churches; for they fpeak of both kinds as the univerfal practice.

But befides this general concurrence, there are fome fpecialties in this matter in St. Cyprian's time fome thought it was not neceffary to use wine in the facrament, they therefore ufed water only; and were from thence cailed Aquarii. It seems they found that their morning affemblies were smelled out by the wine ufed in the facrament; and Chriftians might

be

Johan. v.

53. In Summa. par. 9

quest. 80.

art. 12.

XXX.

ad Ceci.

AR T. be known by the smell of wine that was ftill about them; they therefore intended to avoid this, and fo they had no wine among them, which was a much weightier reafon, than that of Cyp. Ep. 63. the wine fticking upon the beards of the laity. Yet St. Cyprian condemned this very feverely, in a long epiftle writ upon that occafion. He makes this the main argument, and goes over it frequently, that we ought to follow Chrift, and do what he did and he has thofe memorable words, If it be not lawful to loofe any one of the leaft commands of Chrift, how much more is it unlawful to break fo great and fo weighty a one; that does fo very nearly relate to the facrament of our Lord's paffion, and of our redemption; or by any human inflitution to change it, into that which is quite different from the divine inftitution. This is fo full, that we cannot express ourfelves more plainly.

Among the other profanations of the Manicheans, this was one, that they came among the affemblies of the Christians, and did receive the bread, but they would not take any wine: Leo Serm.4. this is mentioned by Pope Leo in the fifth century, upon which in Quadrag. Pope Gelafius hearing of it in his time, appointed that all perfons fhould either communicate in the facrament intirely, or be intirely excluded from it; for that fuch a dividing of one and the fame facrament might not be done without a heinous facrilege.

Decret. de
Confecr. dift

2.

2.

In the feventh century a practice was begun of dipping the bread in the wine, and fo giving both kinds together. This Decret. de was condemned by the Council of Bracara, as plainly contrary Confecr.dift. to the Gospel: Chrift gave his body and blood to his Apoftles diftinctly, the bread by itself, and the chalice by itself. This is, by a miftake of Gratian's, put in the Canon-Law, as a decree of Pope Julius to the Bithops of Egypt. It is probable, that it was thus given first to the fick, and to infants; but though this got among many of the Eaftern Churches, and was, it seems, practifed in fome parts of the Weft; yet in the end of the eleConcil. Cla- venth century, Pope Urban in the Council of Clermont decreed, that none fhould communicate without taking the body apart, and the blood apart, except upon neceffity, and with caution; to which fome copies add, and that by reafon of the herefy of Berengarius, that was lately condemned, which faid that the figure was completed by one of the kinds.

ramont.

Can. 28.

We need not examine the importance or truth of these laft words; it is enough for us to obferve the continued practice of communicating in both kinds till the twelfth century; and even then, when the opinion of the corporal prefence begot a fuperftition towards the elements, that had not been known in former ages, fo that fome drops fticking to men's beards, and the fpilling fome of it, its freezing or becoming four, grew to be more confidered than the inftitution of Chrift;

yet