Burnet on Article XXX: Of both kinds

THere is not any one of all the Controversies that we have with the Church of Rome, in which the decision seems more easie and shorter than this. The words of the Institution are not only equally express and positive as to both kinds, but the diversity with which that part that relates to the Cup is set down, seems 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 arise upon this Head. To all such as acknowledg the Immediate Union of the Eternal Word with the Human Nature of Christ, and the Inspiration by which the Apostles were conducted, it must be of great weight to find a Specialty marked as to the Chalice: of the Cup it is said, Drink ye all of it; whereas of the Bread it is only said, Take, eat; so we cannot think the word all was set down without design. It is also said of the Cup, and they all drank of it; which is not said of the Bread: We think it no piece of trifling nicety to observe 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 so full an Expression, as, Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many, for the remission of Sins. If the surest way to judg of the extent of any Precept, to which a reason is added, is to consider the extent of the Reason, and to measure the extent of the Precept by that, then since all that do communicate, need the remission of Sins, and a share in the New Covenant, the reason that our Saviour joins to the distribution of the Cup, proves that they ought all to receive it. And if that Discourse in St. Iohn concerning the eating of Christ’s Flesh, and the drinking his Blood, is to be understood of the Sacrament, as most of the Roman Church affirm, then the drinking Christ’s Blood is as necessary to Eternal Life, as the eating his Flesh; by consequence it is as necessary to receive the Cup as the Bread. And it is not easie to apprehend, why it should still be necessary to consecrate in both kinds, and not likewise to receive in both kinds. It cannot be pretended that since the Apostles were all of the Sacred 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 Sinners, who were now to be admitted into Covenant with God by the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. They were in that to shew forth his death, and were to Take, eat, and drink in remembrance of him. So that this Institution was delivered to them as they were Sinners, and not as they were Priests. They were not constituted by Christ the Pastors and Governours of his Church, till after his Resurrection, when he breathed on them, and laid his hands on them, ¹ and blessed them. So that at this time they were only Christ’s Disciples and Witnesses; who had been once sent out by him on an extraordinary Commission; but had yet no stated Character fixed upon them.

To this it is said, that Christ by saying, Do this, constituted them Priests; so 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 sort of Tradition that supports this Exposition; nor is there any reason to imagin, that Do this, signifies any other than a Precept to continue that Institution, as a Memorial of Christ’s Death; and Do this, takes in all that went before, the taking, the giving, as well as the blessing, and the eating the Bread: nor is there any reason to appropriate this to the Blessing only, as if by this the Consecrating and Sacrificing Power were conferred on the Priests. From all which we conclude both that the Apostles were only Disciples at large, without any special characters conferred on them when the Eucharist was instituted, and that the Eucharist was given to them only as Disciples, that is, as Laymen.

The mention that is made in some places of the new Testament, only of breaking of Bread, can furnish them with no Argument; for it is not certain that these do relate to the Sacrament: or if they did, it is not certain that they are to be understood strictly; for by a Figure common to the Eastern Nations, Bread stands for all that belongs to a Meal: and if these places are applied to the Sacrament, and ought to be strictly understood, they will prove too much, that the Sacrament may be consecrated in one kind; and that the breaking of Bread, without the Cup, may be understood to be a compleat Sacrament. But when St. Paul spoke of this Sacrament, he does so distinctly mention the drinking the Cup as well as eating the Bread, that it is plain from him how the Apostles understood the words and intent of Christ, and how this Sacrament was received in that time.

From the Institution and Command, which are express and positive, we go next to consider the nature of Sacramental Actions. They have no virtue in them, as Charms tyed either to Elements, or to words: they are only good because commanded. A different state of things may indeed justifie an alteration as to Circumstances: The danger of dipping in cold Climates, may be a very good reason for changing the Form of Baptism to Sprinkling; and if Climates were inhabited by Christians to which Wine could not be brought, we should not doubt but that whensoever God makes a real necessity of departing from any Institution of his, he does thereby allow of such a change as that necessity must draw after it: So we do not condemn the License that is said to have been granted by Pope Innocent the Eighth, to celebrate without Wine in Norway; nor should we deny a Man the Sacrament who had a natural and unconquerable aversion to Wine, or that Communicated being near his last Agonies, and that should have the like aversion to either of the Elements. When those things are real and not pretended, Mercy is better then Sacrifice. The punctual observance of a Sacramental Institution, does only oblige us to the essential parts of it, and in ordinary Cases: The pretence of what may be done, or has been done upon extraordinary occasions, can never justifie the deliberate and unnecessary alteration of an essential part of the Sacrament. The whole Institution shews very plainly, that our Saviour meant that the Cup should be considered, every whit as essential as Bread; and therefore we cannot but conclude from the nature of things, that since the Sacraments have only their effects from their Institution, therefore so total a change of this Sacrament does plainly evacuate the Institution, and by consequence destroy the effect of it.

All reasoning upon this Head is an arguing against the Institution, as if Christ and his Apostles had not well enough considered it; but that 1200 years after them, a Consequence should be observed 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, since it is believed that Christ is intirely under each of the Elements; and therefore it is not necessary that both should be received, because Christ is fully received in any one. But this subsists on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; so if that is false, then here upon a controverted opinion, an uncontroverted piece of the Institution is altered. And if Concomitance is a certain consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, then it is a very strong Argument against the Antiquity of that Doctrine, that the World was so long without the notion of Concomitance; and therefore if Transubstantiation had been sooner received, the Concomitance would have been more early observed. The Institution of the Sacrament seems to be so laid down, as rather to make us consider the Body and Blood as in a state of Separation, than of Concomitance; the Body being represented apart, and the Blood apart; and the Body as broken, and the Blood as shed. Therefore we consider the design of the Sacrament is, to represent Christ to us as dead, and in his Crucified but not in his Glorified state. And if the opinion be true that the Glorified Bodies are of another Texture than that of flesh and Blood, which seems to be very plainly asserted by St. Paul, in a Discourse intended to describe the nature of the Glorified Bodies, then this Theory of Concomitance will fail upon that account. But whatsoever may be in that, an Institution of Christ’s must not be altered or violated, upon the account of an Inference that is drawn to conclude it needless. He who instituted it, knew best what was most fitting and most reasonable; and we must choose rather to acquiesce in his Commands, than in our own reasonings.

If next to the Institution, and the Theory that arises from the nature of a Sacrament, we consider the practice of the Christian Church in all Ages, there is not any one point in which the Tradition of the Church is more express, and more universal than in this particular, for above a thousand years after Christ. All the accounts that we have of the Antient Rituals, both in Iustin Martyr, Cyril of Ierusalem, the Constitutions, ² and the pretended Areopagite, do expresly mention both kinds as given separately in the Sacrament. All the Antient Liturgies, as well these that go under the Names of the Apostles, as those which are ascribed to St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, do mention this very expresly: all the Offices of the Western Church, both Roman and others; the Missals of the latter Ages, I mean down to the Twelfth Century, even the Ordo Romanus, believed by some to be a work of the Ninth, and by others of the Eleventh Century, are express in mentioning the distribution of both kinds. All the Fathers, without excepting one, do speak of it very clearly, as the universal practice of their Time. They do not so much as give a hint of any difference about it. So that from Ignatius down to Thomas Aquinas, ³ there is not any one Writer that differs from the rest in this point; and even Aquinas speaks of the taking away the Chalice as the practice only of some Churches: other Writers of his time had not heard of any of these Churches; for they speak of both kinds as the Universal practice.

But besides this general concurrence there are some Specialties in this matter: in St. Cyprian’s time some thought it was not necessary to use Wine in the Sacrament, they therefore used Water only; and were from thence called Aquarii. It seems they found that their Morning Assemblies were smelt out by the Wine used in the Sacrament; and Christians might be known by the smell of Wine that was still about them: they therefore intended to avoid this, and so they had no Wine among them; which was a much weightier reason, than that of the Wine sticking upon the Beards of the Laity. Yet St. Cyprian condemned this very severely,⁴ in a long Epistle writ upon that occasion. He makes this the main Argument, and goes over it frequently, and that we ought to follow [?]hrist, and do what he did: And he has those memorable words, If it be not lawful to loose any one of the least Commands of Christ, how much more is it unlawful to break so great and so weighty a one; that does so very nearly relate to the Sacrament of our Lord’s Passion, and of our Redemption; or by any Human Institution to change it, into that which is quite different from the Divine Institution? This is so full that we cannot express our selves more plainly.

Among the other Profanations of the Manicheans this was one, that they came among the Assemblies of the Christians, and did receive the Bread, but they would not take any Wine; this is mentioned by Pope Leo in the Fifth Century:⁵ upon which Pope Gelasius hearing of it in his time, appointed that all Persons should either communicate in the Sacrament intirely, or be intirely excluded from it; for that such a dividing of one and the same Sacrament, might not be done without a heinous Sacriledge.

In the Seventh Century a practice was begun of dipping the Bread in the Wine, and so giving both kinds together. This was condemned by the Council of Bracara, as plainly contrary to the Gosp[?]l: Christ gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles distinctly the Bread b[?] it s[?]lf, ⁶ and the Chalice by it self. This is by a mistake of Gratian’s, put in th[?] Canon-Law as a Decree of Pope Iulius to the Bishops of Egypt. It is probable that it was thus given first to the Sick and to Infants; but tho’ this got among many of the Eastern Churches, and was it seems practised in some parts of the West, yet in the end of the Eleventh Century Pope Vrban in the Council of Clermont Decreed, That none should communicate without taking the Body apart,⁷ and the Blood apart, except upon necessity, and with caution; to which some Copies add, and th[?]t by reason of the Heresie of Berengarius, that was lately condemned, which said that the Figure was compleated by one of the kinds.

We need not examine the Importance or Truth of these last words, it is enough for us to observe the continued practice of Communicating in both kinds till the Twelfth Century; and even then when the Opinion of the Corporal Presence begot a Superstition towards the Elements, that had not been known in former Ages, so that some drops sticking to Mens Beards, and the [?]pilling some of it, its freezing or becoming sowr, grew to be more considered than the Institution of Christ; yet [?]or a while they used to suck it up through small Quills or Pipes (called Fistulae, in the Ordo Romanus) which answered the Objection from the Beards.

In the Twelfth Century the Bread grew to be gi[?]en generally dipt in Wine: The Writers of that time, tho’ they justifie this practice, yet they acknowledge it to be contrary to the Institution. Ivo of Chartres says, the People did Communicate with dipt Bread, not by authority but by necessity, for fear of spilling the Blood of Christ. Pope Innocent the Fourth said that all might have the Chalice who were so cautious, that nothing of it should be spilt.

In the Antient Church the Instance of Serapion is brought to shew that the Bread alone was sent to the Sick,⁸ which he that carried it was ordered to moisten before he gave it him. Iustin Martyr does plainly insinuate that both kinds were sent to the absents;⁹ so some of the Wine might be sent to Serapion with the Bread: and it is much more reasonable to believe this, than that the Bread was ordered to be dipt in Water; there being no such Instance in all History;¹⁰ whereas there are Instances brought to shew that both kinds were carried to the Sick. St. Ambrose received the Bread, but expired before he received the Cup: This proves nothing but the weakness of the Cause that needs such supports. Nor can any Argument be brought from some Words concerning the Communicating of the Sick or of Infants. Rules are made from ordinary, and not from extraordinary Practices. The small Portions of the Sacrament that some carried Home, and reserved to other Occasions, does not prove that they communicated only in one kind. They received in both, only they kept (out of too much Superstition) some Fragments of the one, which could be more easily and with less Observation saved and preserved, than of the other: And yet there are Instances that they carried off some Portions of both kinds. The Greek Church communicates during most of the Days in Lent in Bread dipt in Wine; and in the Ordo Romanus, there is mention made of a particular Communion on Good-Friday: some of the Bread that had been formerly Consecrated, was put into a Chalice with unconsecrated Wine. This was a Practice that was grounded on an Opinion that the unconsecrated Wine was sanctified and consecrated by the Contact of the Bread: And though they used not a formal Consecration, yet they used other Prayers, which was all that the Primitive Church thought was necessary even to Consecration; it being thought, even so late as Gregory the Great’s time, that the Lord’s Prayer was at first the Prayer of Consecration,

These are all the Colours which the studies and subtilties of this Age have been able to produce for justifying the Decree of the Council of Constance; that does acknowledge that Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds, ¹¹ and that the faithful in the Primitive Church did receive in both kinds: Yet a Practice being reasonably brought in to avoid some Dangers and Scandals, they appoint the Custom to continue of consecrating in both kinds, and of giving to the Laity only in one kind: Since Christ was entire and truly under each kind. They established this Practice, and ordered that it should not be altered without the Authority of the Church. So late a Practice and so late a Decree canot make void the Command of Christ, nor be set in [?]pposition to such a clear and universal Practice to the contrary. The Wars of Boheme that followed upon that Decree, and all that Scene of Cruelty which was acted upon Iohn Hus and Ierom of Prague, at the first Establishment of it, shews what Opposition was made to it even in dark Ages; and by Men that did not deny Transubstantiation. These prove that plain Sense and clear Authorities are so strong, even in dark and corrupt Times, as not to be easily overcome. And this may be said concerning this Matter, that as there is not any one Point, in which the Church of Rome has acted more visibly, contrary to the Gospel, than in this; so there is not any one thing that has raised higher Prejudices against her, that has made more forsake her, and has possessed Mankind more against her, than this. This has cost her dearer than any other.

Footnotes

1. Joh. 20.22. ↩

2. Apol. 2. Catech. Mist. 4ta. Const. Apost. l. 2. c. 57. Eccles. Hiera. c. 3. ↩

3. Aquin. Com. in 6. Johan. v. 53. In Summa, par. 9. quast. 80. art. 12. ↩

4. Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Cecil. ↩

5. Leo Serm. 4. in Quadrag. Decret. de Consecr. dist. 2. ↩

6. Decret. de Consecr. dist. 2. ↩

7. Concil. Claramont. Can. 28. ↩

8. Eus. Hist. l. 6. c. 44. ↩

9. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. ↩

10. Paulinus in vita Ambros. ↩

11. Conc. Constan. Sess. 11. ↩