Boultbee on Article XXX: Of both kinds

The Latin and English versions of this Article are equally perspicuous, and require no special comment. The Article was added in Elizabeth’s time ; it appears to have been written by Archbishop Parker.

Observations on Article XXX.

Homish advocates ailer the Eeformation used to attempt to show that the administration in both kinds was not universal in primitive times. But the more candid amongst them are compelled to own that in public administration it was so. Cardinal Bona, quoted by Bingham,* says that * the faithful always, and in all places, from the very first foundation of the Church to the 12th century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine. And in the beginning of that century the use of the cup began by little and little to be laid aside, whilst many of the bishops interdicted the people the use of the cup for fear of irreverence and effusion. And, what they did at first for their own churches was afterwards

XV.v, 1.

confirmed by a canonical sanction in the Council of Constance.’ This may be admitted as a sufficient historical account of the matter from the pen of an adversary. It is not much to the purpose whether or not in ancient times private communion was sometimes given in one kind only, as Bona maintains. Supposing such cases made out, still it remains that the public commimion of the Church was uniformly, as Bona admits, under both kinds. It will be observed that the denial of the cup arose about the same time as the legal establishment of the doctrine of transubstantiation, to which indeed it is a corollary. Wickliffe, Huss, and other early reformers, brought this abuse prominently forward.

The Bohemians, who rose against the decrees of the Council of Constance, demanded the cup, and were hence called Calix- tines.^

The denial of the cup is defended by the Council of Trent ’ thus:

Cap. L That Christ instituted the Supper under both kinds, but did not make both binding on all the faithful. Also that in St. John vi. Christ varied-the expression, sometimes saying eating and drinking, sometimes eating only.

Cap. n. That this is a matter which the Church has power to regulate, according to the text, * Let a man so account of us as stewards of the mysteries of God.’

Cap. III. That imder either species, the whole and entire Christ is received, and that, therefore, the communicant under one kind only is not defrauded.

The reasons for the denial of the cup are thus stated • : —

1. To avoid spilling the blood.

2. Because wine reserved might turn acid.

3. Because some cannot bear the smell or taste of wine.

4. Because in some countries wine is very scarce.

5. In order more plainly to oppose the heresy of those who deny that the whole Christ is contained under either species.

It is unnecessary to add anything in refutation of this un- Scriptural and confessedly non-primitive practice.

’ Mosheim, c. xv. p. ii. 5. * Sess. xxi.

» Catechism of Trent, II. iv. 63.

Of the one Oblation of Christ