Gibson on Article XXX: Of both kinds

This Article is one of the four which were added by Archbishop Parker in 1563. It was accepted by the Convocation, and has kept its place ever since without any change. In considering it, it will be well to treat separately —

1. The history of the practice condemned in it.

2. The arguments by which it has been justified.

I. The History of tlie Denial of the Cup to thc Laity, The evidence for the administration of both the

parts of the Lord’s sacrament … to all Christian men alike, whether clergy or laity, during the first eleven centuries, is so full and complete that it is not now even pretended by Roman divines that during this period the administration of the Eucharist in one kind was ever permitted in the Catholic Church, save only in exceptional cases, as (perhaps) to the sick.^

• This admission was not always so readily made, for Bishop Watson in 1558 says that “the holy Church hath used, even from the time of Christ Himself and His Apostles, to minister this sacrament under the form of Bread only both to laymen and women, and also to priests, save

Tbere IS not one word in the New Testament to indicate that the Cup was to be withheld from the laity. On the contrary S. Paul’s language directly implies that he contemplated that all alike would receive both parts of the sacrament, for he says, ” Let a man prove Wmself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup” (1 Cor. XL 28). The words of Justin Martyr are conclusive for the practice in the second century.’ S. Oynl of Jerusalem « and many other Fathers supply evidence for the fourth and later centuries. But it is needless to cite testimonies when it is admitted by Qirdmal Bona that ” the faithful always and in all places from the first beginnings of the Church till the twelfth century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine, and the use of the chalice began little by little to drop away in the beginning of that century, and many bishops forbade it to the people to avoid the risk of irreverence and spilling.” »

There is, however, evidence which is very worthy of note, that during this period there was a tendency in some quarters to abstain from receiving the chalice, and tnat this was severely eondemrud hy the authorUies of the Church. Thus Leo i. (440) writes of certain Manichees and says, « They receive Christ’s Body with unworthy mouth, and entirely refuse to drink the Blood of our

[…]

fMui SudiarvUzca, p. 621 (ed. 1). As Mr. Scudamore remarks: “A fa^^oc^ more gross and palpable could not be committed to writing ”

Jpa. I. Ixv. : “The deacons give to each of those present to receive of the consecrated {,ixapiaT^i,To,) bread and wine and water, and thev carry them to those not present” ^

•CW. J/j,< T. 22: “Then after haying partaken of the Body of Chrut, approach also to the Cup of His Blood ; not stretching forth thine hmd, but bending and saying in the way of worship and reretence Amen ; be thou hallowed by partaking also of the Blood of Christ ”

[…]

Redemption ; therefore we give notice to you, holy brethren, that men of this sort, whose sacrilegious deceit has been detected, are to be expelled by priestly authority from the fellowship of the saints.” ^

About fifty years later Gelasius I. (490) repeats the condemnation of the practice. “We have ascertained that certain persons, having received a portion of the sacred Body alone, abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred Blood. Let such persons, without any doubt (since they are stated to feel themselves bound by some superstitious reason), either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege.”*

From these early testimonies we may pass on to the close of the eleventh century, when the custom was beginning to creep into the Catholic Church, probably from motives of reverence, and anxiety to avoid accidents or scandals. At this time the matter attracted some attention, and the custom of communicating in one kind alone was definitely condemned by the Council of Clermont under Urban ii. (1095), as well as by Pascal n. at the beginning of the next century (1118). The twenty-eighth Canon of the Council is clear, and states positively that ” no one shall communicate at the altar imless he receive the Body and the Blood separately and alike, unless by way of necessity and for caution ” ; ^

• Horn, xli.

• Corpus Juris Canon, Decret, III. ii. 12. The after-history of the decree is carious and instructing. Aquinas boldly says that “Gelasius speaks only in reference to priests, who, as they consecrate the whole sacrament, so ought they also to communicate in it whole.” — Summa, III. q. Izxx. art xii.

’ Cone. Clarom. Can. xxviii. : ” Ke aliquis communicet de altari nisi corpus separatim et sanguinem similiter, nisi per necessitatem et cautelam.” — Labbe and Cossart, vol. vi. p. 1719.

while the words of Pope Pascal are these: “Therefore, according to the same Cyprian, in receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord, let the Lord’s tradition be observed; nor let any departure be made, through a human and novel institution, from what Christ the Master ordained and did. For we know that the bread was given separately and the wme given separately by the Lord Himself; which custom we therefore teach and command to be always observed in the holy Church, save in the case of infants and of very infirm people, who cannot swallow oreaa. ’■

But that which was denounced by Pascal ii. early in the eleventh century as a « human and novel institution, and a « departure ” from Christ’s ordinance, in the course of the next two centuries graduaUy spread throughout the West; and when the abuses of the Church began to attract general attention, and the cry for reformation of them made itself heard, there was none which was more severely denounced than this It was one of the abuses for the reform of which much was hoped from the CouncU of Constance (1415) But instead of abolishing the practice of Communion in one kind, the CouncU not only ventured to assert that ” though Christ instituted and gave this sacrament to His disciples under both kinds, yet the Church has the power of ordering that to the laity it be given under one kind only,’ but actually proceeded to exercise this ” power ” by positively forbidding Communion in both kinds to the lay people.* The troubles and bloodshed which were due to this decree are matters of history, on which it is

[…]

Labbe and Cossart, vol. viii. p. 681.

unnecessary to enter here.* The restoration of the Cup to the laity was insisted on in the Confession of Augsburg (1530) in the first of the Articles concerning abuses ; ^ and though in this country nothing could be done in this direction so long as Henry viii. was alive, yet after his death one of the earliest Acts was to provide an English form for communicating the people in both kinds (1548), and to put an end to the abuse of ” half-commimion,” which had grown up. As far as the history of the practice is concerned, it is only needful to add that at the thirteenth session of the Council of Trent (October 1551) the doctrine of “concomitance” (on which the theological defence of the practice of communicating in one kind is based) was distinctly asserted, and that at the twenty -first session held in July 1562, shortly before the promulgation of our own Article, the practice was more definitely considered by the Council.

^ See Creighton’s History of the Papacy ^ vol. ii. p. 37 aeq, ’ “D« utraque specie. Laicis datur utraque species sacramenti in coena Domini, quia hio mos habet mandatum Domini, Matt. xxvi. Bihite ex hoc amnes, ubi manifeste prsecepit Christus de poculo, ut omnes bibant, et ne quis possit cavillari, quod hoc ad sacerdotes tantum pertineat, Paulus ad Corinth, exemplum recitat, in quo apparet totam ecclesiam utraque specie usam esse. Et diu mansit hie mos in ecclesia, nee constat quando aut quo auctore mutatus sit, tametsi Cardinalis Cusanus recitet, quando sit approbatus. Cjprianus aliquot locis testatur populo sanguinem datum esse. Idem testatur Hieronymus, qui ait, sacerdotes eucharistiae ministrant, et sanguinem Christi populis dividant. Imo Gelasius papa mandat ne dividatur sacramentum, Dist. II. de consecratione, cap. Comperimus. Tantum consuetudo non ita vetus aliud habet. Constat autem, quod consuetudo, contra mandata Dei introducta, non sit probanda, ut testantur canones, Dist. VIII. cap. Veritate, cum sequentibus. Haec vero consuetudo non solum contra Scripturam, sed etiam contra veteres canones et exemplum ecclesise recepta est. Quare si qui maluemnt utraque specie sacramenti uti, non fuerunt cogendi. ut aliter facerent cum offensione conscientice.

It was determined to uphold the existing custom ; btit it was an awkward one to defend, and the decrees of the Council concerning it are more remarkable for the boldness of their assertions than for any arguments oJBfered in support of them. At the outset it is laid down dogmatically ” that laymen and clergy when not consecrating, are not obliged by any Divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds ; and that it cannot be by any means doubted, without injury to faith, that Communion in either kind is sufficient for them unto salvation; for although Christ the Lord, in the last Supper, instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament in both kinds, of bread and wine, yet that institution and delivery do not therefore reach so far as that all the faithful of the Church be bound by the Lord’s institution to receive both kinds.”* It is added that no inference can rightly be drawn from S. John vi. 53 seq. that our Lord enjoined Communion in both kinds. It is next declared that in the dispensation of the sacraments, so long as their substance remains untouched, the Church has power to ordain or change whatever things might be deemed expedient, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places; and that, therefore, ” holy mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both kinds has, from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been unfrequent, yet in

’ “Sancta ipsa Synodus … declarat ac docet, nuUo divino pnecepto laicos, et clericos, non conficientes, obligari ad Eucharistiae sacramentum «ub utraque specie sumendura ; neque ullo pacto, salva fide, dubitari posse quin illis alterius speciei Communio ad salutem sufficiat. Nam etsi Christus Dominus in ultima coena venerabile hoc sacramentum in panis et vini speciebus instituit, et apostolis tradidit, non tamen ilia institutio et traditio eo tendunt, ut omnes Christi fideles statute Domini ad utramque speciem accipiendam astringantun’—Ccwic. Trid. Sess xxi «»p. i.

process of time that custom having already been widely changed — has, induced by weighty and just reasons, approved of this custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed that it should be held as a law, which it is not lawful to reprobate or change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself.” ^ To this is added a reassertion of the doctrine of ” Concomitance,”* as well as the following three canons on the subject : —

i ” If any one shall say that by the precept of God, or by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist : let him be anathema.”

IL ” If any one shall say that the holy Catholic Church was not induced by just causes and reasons to communicate under the species of bread only, laymen and clergy when not consecrating; or has erred therein: let him be anathema.”

iiL “If any one shall deny that Christ, whole and entire, the fountain and author of all graces, is received under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert. He is not received according to the institution of Christ Himself under both kinds : let him be anathema.”*

[…]

’ Cap. iii.

[…]

“Si quis dixerit, sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis et

But, finally, at the close of the canons a section is added, holding out a promise that on ” the earliest opportunity that shall present itself,” the Council will further consider whether some relaxation of her rules might be permitted, and the use of the chalice conceded in some nations or kingdoms under certain conditions.^

It only remains to add that though exceptions have been made by special privilege, yet, as far as the great body of the faithful are concerned, this ” opportunity ” appears never to have come, and that the Roman Church remains to the present day bound by the Tridentine decrees upon the subject.

II. The Arguments by which the Practice 1ms been justified.

These are of two kinds, (a) theological, and (h) practical.

(a) The theological ones are two in number, (1) the doctrine of concomitance, and (2) the Church’s power to decree rites or ceremonies. The former of these, the doctrine of concomitance, is the belief which was definitely laid down at the thirteenth session of the Council of

rationibus adductam fuisse ut laicos, atque etiam Clericos non conficientes, sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret, aut in eo errasse : anathema sit.

“Si quis negaverit, totum et integrum Christum omnium gratiarum fontem et auctorem, sub una panis specie sumi, quia, ut quidam falso asserunt, non secundum ipsius Christi constitutionem sub utraque specie sumatur: anathema sit.”

[…]

Trent, that ” as much is contained under either kind as under both, for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and likewise whole Christ is under the species of wine, and under its parts.” ^ It must be said, however, that this doctrine, that ” whole Christ,” both body and blood, is received under either kind, is theologically most uncertain. There is no trace of any belief in it in the early Church. It only makes its appearance in connection with the growth of the doctrine of Transubstantiation,^ and comes into prominence when a theological justification for the practice of Communion in one kind is wanted. There is but a single passage of Scripture which can with any show of reason be quoted in its favour : ” Whosoever shall eat the bread (yr drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. xL 27). But it is rash in the extreme to infer the doctrine from this text, when the words of the institution are remembered, as well as S. Paul’s comment upon them : ” Jesus took bread … and said, Take, eat ; this is My lody. And He took a cup … and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it ; for this is My Uood” (S. Matt. xxvL 26, 27). “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the Hood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. x. 16).

[…]

» Hildebert of Tours (1124) is ” perhaps the first to affirm that the entire Christ is in either species taken by itself.” Gore, Diisert. p. 266, where is quoted Dt Cctiia Domini-. “In acceptione sanguinis totum Christum, verum Deum et hominem, et in acceptione corporis similiter totum.” Migne, vol. clxxi. j). 535.

Gas

Where the gifts are so carefully distinguished by our Lord and His Apostle, it seems the height of presumption to assert that “whole Christ” is so contained under either species that ” they who receive one kind alone are not defrauded of any grace necessary to salvation.”^

Next, with regard to the Church’s power to decree rites or ceremonies, we cannot admit that it extends to the alteration of a Divine command. Our Lord’s words are express: “Drink ye all of it”(S. Matt, xxvi 27). The limitations to the Church’s legislative power have been already stated under Article XX It was there shown that she may not ” ordain anything contrary to God’s word written”; and, with every desire to be charitable, it must be said that to order the celebrant alone to partake of the Eucharistic chalice is to ordain something that is directly contrary to Scripture.

Q)) If the theological arguments thus fall to the ground, no weight whatever can be assigned to the practical ones. These are drawn mainly from convenience, the fear of accidents, and the desire, from motives of reverence, to do all that can be done to minimise the possibility of their occurring. As a matter of fact, we deny that the dangers are really serious. With due care

• ” Insuper declarat, quamvis Redemptor noster ut antea dictum est in

suprema ilia ccena hoc sacramentum in duabus speciebus instituerit, et

[…]

totum atque integrum Christum, verumque sacramentum sumi ; ac prop-

terea, quod ad fructum attinet, nulla gratia, necessaria ad salutem, eos

[…]

cap. iii. In connection with this the admission of Vasquez (quoted in

[…]

opinion of those who say that greater fruit of grace is acquired from both

species of this sacrament than from one only, has always appeared to me

the more probable. … We grant that, according to this our opinion,

the laity, to whom one species is denied, are defrauded of some grace

indeed, yet not of any necessary to salvation ; and that the Council did

not mean to deny this.”— Com. in Thorn. Aq. P. III. q. Ixxx. dist. ccxv.

€. U. 111.

they can in almost every case be guarded against. But even if they were far more important than they are, we could not admit that they would justify the Church in departing from a plain direction of her Lord ; for, if Holy Scripture is to have any weight with us, it is most certain

that both the parts of the Lord’s sacrament, by Christ’s ordmance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

■4

Notes

• • £t quia divisio sacramenti non convenit cum institutione Christi, solet apud nos omitti processio, quae hactenus fieri solita […] AugyuL Pars II. art. i. Sylloge Conftssianum^ p. 135,