Beveridge on Article XXX: Of both kinds

in the administration of it, bread and wine, the one to repre- sent his body, the other his blood. But about four hundred years ago, the church of Rome, for reasons best known to herself, thought good to make a countermand, that bread and wine should not be both administered to all communicants, but that the lay people should be content with the bread only without the wine, yea and the clergy too, if there were any present besides him that consecrated it. So that in few words @they ordained and still use to deny the eup, and to administer the bread only to all the communicants, the priest that consecrates it reserving every drop of the wine for him- self. Now against this wild practice of the church of Rome our church of England is pleased in this article to set herself, determining that the cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people. Neither is this only here asserted, but con- firmed too: so that I need go no further for the proof of the article than to the article itself. And the reason that is here

[…]

Aur. XXX, Of both Kinds. 497

brought is from Christ’s institution and command, For by the ordinance and commandment of Christ, both the parts of the sacrament, viz. both bread and wine, ought to be administered to all Christian men. And to prove this proof of the article, we make take notice of the words of institution themselves. After therefore he had distributed the bread, St. Matthew saith, And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, Matt. xxvi. 27. St. Mark, And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it, Mark xiv. 23. St. Luke, Likewise : also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, Luke xxii. 20. St. Paul, After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me,1 Cor. xi. 25. In all which places we may observe all these things making for our purpose. First, that the bread is never spoken of, but still the cup is brought in after it. Secondly, that as the bread is still brought in to represent his body, not his blood, so is the eup still brought in to represent his blood, not his body. So that neither of them is appointed to represent both; and by consequence, he that is partaker of the bread only doth not partake of his blood; neither doth he that is partaker of the wine only partake of his body; but to partake both of body and blood, we must receive both the bread and wine. Thirdly, that St. Luke ushers in the institution of the cup with the word likewise, Likewise also the cup; and St. Paul, After the same manner also the cup; so that after the same manner that he instituted the bread, he instituted the cup also: now our adversaries themselves acknowledge he insti- tuted the bread so as to be communicated to all ; and there- fore we may well say, he likewise and after the same manner instituted the cup to be administered to all. Fourthly, that in St. Matthew he said, Drink ye all of it, and in St. Mark, They all drank of it, expressions not to be found in the institution of the bread; as if he foresaw this very cor- ruption that the devil would bring into his ordinance, even that though all should be suffered to eat the bread, yet all

498 Art.

should not be suffered to drink the cup. Therefore hath he left a particular command, that all should drink of the cup; so that if either of the parts might be omitted, certainly the bread should be rather omitted than the cup, it being so expressly and in plain terms commanded, that all should drink of the cup; whereas there is no such express command for all to eat of the bread. And our Saviour commanding them all to drink of it, in obeisance to his command they all drank of it; so that though it be not said, They all ate the bread, yet it is said, They all drank of the cup, even all the communicants, as well as he that consecrated it; to shew us that all are to drink the cup as well as eat the bread. Nay, lastly, it is here said, Do this, as oft as ye do it, in remembrance of me. Do this: what? Eat the bread only? No. Drink the cup only? No; but administer and receive both bread and cup, in remembrance of me, who have now administered both unto you. And therefore, Do this, was not brought in till the cup was administered as well as the bread. And therefore it cannot possibly be denied, but that according to Christ’s institution the cup is to be administered to all Christian men as well as the bread, that being an essential part of the sacrament as well as this. And seeing Christ hath joined them both together, it is not for man to put them asunder; but as St. Cyprian observes, >“ We are admonished, that in offering the cup the tradition of the Lord is to be ob- served ; neither is any thing to be done by us, but what the Lord hath done before us.” And afterwards, ©“ If it be not lawful to break the least of Christ’s commands, how much more is it not lawful to infringe such great ones, so mys- terious, so much appertaining to the sacrament of the Lord’s passion and our redemption, or to change it by human tradi-

Of both Kinds.

Admonitos nos scias quod in

[…]

© Quod si nec minima de man- datis Dominicis licet solvere, quanto

magis tam magna, tam grandia, tam ad ipsum Dominice passionis et nostre redemptionis sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infringere, aut in aliud quam quod divinitus institutum est humana traditione mutare? Ibid. [p.155.]

eX: Of both Kinds. 499 tion into any thing else but what was divinely instituted !” And St. Ambrose, 4“ He saith, it is unworthy of the Lord, whosoever celebrates the mystery otherwise than it was deli- vered. For he cannot be devout who presumes otherwise than is given by the Author. Therefore he (St. Paul) admo- nisheth that his mind who comes to the eucharist of the Lord be devout according to the order that is delivered.”

To this institution of Christ, I might add many more reasons to prove, that in the Lord’s Supper both bread and wine are to be administered; but that its very being the Lord’s supper, one should think, might be reason enough for it ; for it is but a bad supper where there is bread only, and not drink. So that to deny the cup to the communicants is to deprive them of one part of their supper; yea, and to deprive the communion itself of the perfect nature of a sacrament, by destroying the analogy betwixt the sign and the thing signified, which, as we have seen, consisteth in the resemblance there is betwixt bread and wine’s nourishing of our bodies, and Christ’s feeding of our souls. Whereas we know that bread without wine, or some liquid thing or other in its stead, is not the whole and perfect nourishment of our bodies ; and therefore not like to Christ, who is alone the perfect food and nourishment of our souls. And seeing there- fore this sacrament was ordained for the spiritual nourishment of our souls, as bread and wine together make up the perfect nourishment of our bodies, neither of them is to be denied to any, but both administered to all communicants.

And if we consult antiquity, we shall find that in the first three hundred years besure the people partaked of the cup as well as bread. In the Liturgy ascribed to St. James it is

e Hoe sacramentum ordinatur ad

spiritualem refectionem que cor- porali conformatur. Ad corporalem autem refectionem duo requiruntur, scilicet cibus, qui est alimentum siccum, et potus, qui est alimentum humidum. Et ideo etiam ad inte- gritatem hujus sacramenti duo con- currunt, scilicet spiritualis cibus et spiritualis potus. Thom. part. 3. q: 73- Art. [2. vol. XII.] KkQ

500 Of both K inds. ArT.

said, f“ And when the deacons take the dishes and cups to distribute to the people.” And Justin Martyr in his second Apology for Christians saith expressly, § “ But the president having given thanks, and all the people praised God, those which are called deacons by us give to every one that is present to partake of the consecrated bread and wine and water ; and they carry it also to those that are not present.” And St. Cyprian, >“ There are some either ignorantly or simply consecrating the Lord’s cup, and administering it to the common people, do not that which Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the author and doctor of this sacrifice, did and taught.” And elsewhere, 1“ Where the solemnities being ended, the deacon begins to offer the cup to those that are present.” Yea, and Ignatius, * “ For there is one flesh of the Lord Christ, and his blood one that was shed for us; one bread that is broken to all, and one cup that is distributed to all.”

Neither did the next three hundred years deny the people what the first, according to Christ’s institution, granted them. 1«‘This is the manner,” saith Athanasius, “of this cup, and no other; this do you lawfully give the people to drink of.” And St. Hilary, ™“ If the faults be not so great, that a man may be excommunicated, he ought not to separate himself

[…]

h Tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in calice Dominico sanctificando et plebi ad- ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor fecit et docuit. Cypriani epist. (63. init.| ad Ceecilium fratrem.

[…]

m Si non sunt tanta peccata ut excommunicetur quis, non se debet a medicina corporis et sanguinis Domini separare. Hilar. apud Gra- tian. de consecrat. distinct. 2 can. Cum omne crimen, [p. 1880.]

XXX.

Of both Kinds. 501

from the medicine of the body and blood of the […] saith St. Chrysostome, “as it was in the Old Testament, the priest ate some things and the people an- other, and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things which the priest partaked of; it is not so now, but one body and one cup is now propounded to all.” Yea, Gelasius saith, °“ The division of one and the same mystery cannot happen without great sacrilege.” To pass by others, as P Leo Romanus and 4Gregorius Turonensis, both of which lived about this time, and gave testimony to this truth, Remigius saith, ’‘‘ The cup itself is also called the communion, as if he should have said the partaking; because all com- municate or partake of it, and receive their part in the blood of Christ.”

To these we may add the next three hundred years too. Gregory the Great saith, s“ His body in the sacrament is taken; his flesh is divided for the people’s salvation; his blood is poured not into the hands of unbelievers, but into the mouths of believers.” And Gregory the Second, t “* The high priests, when any one hath sinned and made confession, when they have chastised and afflicted him enough with hunger, they give him the precious body of the Lord, and make him drink of his holy blood.” Yea, and Gregory the Third too saith, ”“ But to lepers, if they be believing Christ-

[…]

pV. Leon. de quadrag. sermo quart. [5.]

a V. Greg. Turon. de gloria mar- tyrum, c. 10. [p. 833. vol. XI. Max. Bibl. Patr.]

t Appellatur et ipse calix com- municatio, quasi participatio, quia omnes communicant ex illo, partem- que sumunt ex sanguine Domini. Remig. in 1 Cor. 11. [vol. VIII.

Ibid.] v. et Haym. in eund. loc.

[…]

ART.

502 Of both Kinds.

ians, let the participation of the body and blood of the Lord be granted.” And Haymo Halberstatensis saith, * “ In the church believers every day eat his body and drink his blood.”

Anp this was the doctrine also of the church of Christ from the nine hundredth year of his incarnation to the time of the schoolmen, as we may see in Y Bernard, * Fulbertus Carno- tensis, ?Theophylact, and others, that lived within that time. But let these speak for the rest: Anselme ; ¢“* Whoso- ever, whether rich or mean or poor, whether clerk or layman, that shall eat this bread of the Lord and drink this eup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” And Micrologus saith, 4“ That Gelasius writing to certain bishops, commanded him to be excom- municated, whosoever having received the body of Christ should abstain from partaking of the cup.” And in Hugo de S. Victore, ‘The Lord’s supper is received in both kinds, to signify that. the effect of this sacrament is double.”

And though the schoolmen were the first that (as I can find) moved the question, whether it was lawful to receive the body of Christ without the blood; yet even amongst them several, if not most, holding with us, that both kinds ought to be administered, as ‘ Lombard, Bandinus, § Alexander Alensis;

% Preesens ecclesia, in qua quotidie eomedunt fideles ejus corpus et sanguinem bibunt. Haymo in Apocal. ¢. 2. [p. 25. b.]

y Bernard. serm. [3.] in ramis palm.

@ Theophylact. in 1 Cor. 11.

[…]

Domini hunc, et biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini. Anselm. in 1 Cor. rz. [p. 183. vol. H. ed. 1573. ]

€ In utraque sumitur ad signifi- candum, quod duplex est effectus hujus sacramenti. Hugo de S. Victore, spec. de myst. ecclesia, [p. 155, vol. III.] v. Nicet. p. 296.

& Alexand. Alens. p. 4.

Notes

• Indignum dicit Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter presumit quam datum est ab autore. Itaque premonet ut secundum ordinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad eucharistiam Domini. Ambros. in 1 Cor. xi. [27. App. vol. IT.]
• Hjus ibi corpus sumitur, ejus caro in populi salutem partitur : ejus sanguis non tam inmanusinfidelium, sed in ora fidelium funditur. Greg. Mag. dialog. 1. 4. ¢. 58. [p. 472. vol. II.]
• Fulbert. Carnot. de tribus capi- tibus, (vol. III. sacr. bibl. s. patr. Par. 589. |
• Unde et beatus Gelasius, in ordine quinquagesimus primus, scribens quibusdam episcopis, ex- communicari precepit quicunque sumpto corpore Dominico a calicis participatione se abstineret. Microl. de eccles. observat. c. 149. [vol. XVIII. Max. Bibl. Patr.]
• Lombard. 4. sent. dist. 11. [p. 231. par. [V.] Bandin. 1. 4. dist. 11. [p. 367.]