Bicknell on Article XXX: Of both kinds

§5. There is no evidence whatever to support the present Roman custom of denying the cup to the laity either in Scripture or in the use of the primitive Church. At the Last Supper those present all drank of the cup (Mk. 147%). At Corinth all alike received in both kinds. St. Paul could write, ‘ Let a man prove himself and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup’ (1 Cor. 1128). The account of Justin Martyr is conclusive for the custom of the Church in the second century. Indeed, it is admitted by Roman theologians that till the twelfth century communion in Church was always given in both kinds.* The only possible exception was when the sacrament was reserved for the absent or the sick. But even here it is doubtful whether there is any decisive evidence for communion in one kind only. Justin Martyr makes it quite clear that in his day the deacons carried both elements to those who were not present. Jerome at the end of the fourth century speaks of a certain bishop who carried about ‘ The Lord’s body in a wicker basket and His blood in a vessel of glass.’ + Whether this refers to his practice when visiting the sick or when on a journey, we cannot tell. The more common custom was to consecrate wine afresh for the communion of the sick by adding to it a particle of the conse- crated bread. Sometimes the consecrated bread that was reserved for this purpose had been moistened before reservation with consecrated wine from the chalice. More often it was reserved by itself. But in either case the fresh wine was deemed

to be consecrated by the intinction of the consecrated bread. Usually the sick man’s communion was made in a single act. We find words of administration for this purpose, such as ‘ The Body and Blood of the Lord be unto thee remission of all thy sins.’ It is going too far to say that we can prove that in early days communion was always given in both kinds. But the pre- valence of such customs as these proves that such was the desire of the Church where possible. They have been retained in the Eastern Church.*

Further, communion in one kind, so soon as it appeared, was vigorously denounced by the highest authorities of the Church. In the middle of the fifth century certain Manichaeans refused to drink of the cup and Pope Leo commanded that they should be excommunicated. At the close of the same century Pope Gelasius, hearing that some after receiving the Body, from some motive not explained, ‘abstained from the cup,’ ordered that they should ‘ either receive the Sacraments entire or be repelled from them altogether because the division of the one and the same Mystery cannot take place without a huge sacrilege.’ This utterance was inserted in Gratian’s collection of canon law and at a later date had to be explained away. The Schoolmen were equal to the task, and Aquinas boldly refers it to the conse- crating priest alone.

At the close of the eleventh century the custom of communi- cating in one kind only began to be adopted unofficially. The motive was probably convenience, the avoidance of any danger of spilling the wine. It was condemned by the Council of Clermont in 1095, and again by Pope Paschal IT in 1118. But the practice spread during the next two centuries and was defended by ecclesi- astical writers. The change was made gradually. Aquinas, who died in 1274, only speaks of it as the custom of many churches. Evidence of the survival of primitive practice is found as late as the middle of the fourteenth century. When the Council of Constance met in 1415 it was widely hoped that the abuse would be checked. Unhappily communion in one kind was formally adopted as the official practice of the Church. The Council claimed for the Church the power of ordering that the sacrament should be given to the laity in one kind only. . ‘ Though in the primitive Church this Sacrament was received under both kinds,

yet has this custom been introduced … that it should be taken by the celebrants under both kinds and by the laity under the kind of Bread only. … Wherefore since this custom has been introduced by the Church and the holy Fathers on reasonable grounds and has been very long observed, it is to be accounted for a law.’

The reason alleged for the denial of the cup to the laity was commonly the risk of irreverence. Another reason was the danger of giving the simple occasion to ‘think that Jesus is not entire under each species.’ When the practice had become general, this last was the theological defence attempted for it. It was held that ‘as much is contained under either kind as under both,’ for the whole Christ both body and blood is received under both. This doctrine, known as ‘ Concomitance,’ is, to say the least, the purest speculation. It makes assertion about matters that are clearly outside our knowledge. It can claim no support from Scripture or early teaching.

At the Reformation the restoration of the cup to the laity was demanded in the Lutheran Confession of Augsburg. In England it was restored immediately after the death of Henry VIII. But the Roman Church refused to abolish the existing custom. At the Council of Trent the doctrine of ‘ Concomitance’ was distinctly affirmed. It was asserted that communion in one kind was sufficient and that the Church had power to ordain it. All who denied these assertions were anathematized. It is true that a section was added to the canons on this subject promising that at the earliest opportunity the Council would consider whether some relaxation of the rule might be allowed. But the opportunity has never arrived. At this day the Church of Rome is fettered by the decrees of Trent.

The practice is utterly indefensible. Not only does it rest on a precarious theological speculation, but it is in open dis- obedience to the express command of Christ. It is defended as a useful ecclesiastical regulation. The Church has, indeed, authority to decree rites and ceremonies, but not in contradiction to Scripture and to our Lord’s own words. It cannot be denied that the practice has a certain practical convenience. But we cannot set that against the plain direction of Christ. The danger of irreverence can be reduced to a minimum. The Church of England in company with the Churches of the Hast is content

to hold fast to the primitive and Scriptural practice.* Both paris of the Lord’s Sacrament by Christ’s ordinance and command- ment ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Notes

• H.g. Cardinal Bona, quoted by Wordsworth, Holy Communion, p. 268. + Hp. 125, § 20.
• For evidence see Wordsworth, Holy Communion, p. 263 ff.