Hey on Article XXX: Of both kinds

1. The principal part of the History of this Article consists in shewing, how the Romish custom of not giving the cup to the Congregation arose from the Doctrine? of Transub/lantiation. When the sacramental wine came to be considered as the blood of Christ in a literal sense, and that in an age of weakness and superstition, though reverence for the elements seems to have been excessive before, men became seized with an horrour at the thoughts of any of it being profaned, lost, dropped by the trembling hand, or even lodged upon rhe Beard. I think there are stories of some zudgments coming upon individuals on account of such profanation. How to apply a remedy ? At first the desperate _ expedient of wholly withholding the Cup, did not

occur; the bread was sopped in the wine; the wine was conveyed into the mouth by means of tubes; still, probably, accidents did not cease ; at length, the ordinance of Christ was maimed, through an excessive fear of spoiling a false hape,

into * Middleton’s Letter from Rome, Pref. page lxxix. |

362 BOOK IV. ART, xxx. SECT. 11. 111.

into which it had been tortured :—the Cup was denied to the People; including such Priests as, at any particular communion, made a part of the congregation. For a time, the authority of the ruling Ecclesiastics might be sufficient to prevent the people from murmuring; but the practice was afterwards settled by the authority of a Council: the Council of Constance, begun fo late as the year 1414: a very numerous one, as we have shewn’ before.

11. That the ancient Fathers, and all before the twelfth Century, had no notion of such a thing as preventing the people from receiving the Cup, appears sufficiently from the gradual manner in which the ancient practice was left off. But their expressions are also plain, as taking for granted, and supposing that every man received both bread and wine“; and reprimanding those who wanted to make a change.—The Manicheans, indeed, avoided all wine, on principle, and therefore avoided the Cup, when the liquor in the Cup was wine: at Rome, when they wished to be concealed, they sometimes were discovered by this declining of the cup

12. The Greek Church has no custom of re- fusing the cup to the people*: the Roman custam arose. from the doctrine of Transubstantiation;

which

d Art. xx1. Sect. 11. from Fox 1. 785, Seff. 13 ,—See Labbe’s Councils, col. 100.—Baxter on Councils, page 437, has the Decree. As also has Bishop Burnet on the Article. See Com- ber’s Advice, page 12.17.

© See Burnet on the Article —Bingham, 1

kinds, taking the Bread and the Wine together in a spoon from the ons of the Priest.” Paul Nicaut, page 187.

’ which I do not conceive to be properly a doctrine of the Greek Church: for although Sir Edwin Sandys says*, the Greek Christians do hold Tran- substantiation; yet that seems by no means a settled thing. From Sir Paul Ricaut’s account I judge, that only those Greek Christians who have resided in Italy have favoured it. The Patriarch Cyrill agreed wholly with the reformed Churches in this particular.

iv. As we might be suspected of exaggera- tion if we gave our own account of the Romanists, we will let them speak for themlelves.

The twenty-first Session of the Council of Trent was upon the business of communion 1n one kind, something being annexed about giving any kind of communion to snfanis. The members of the Council do not say, that it is wrong for Christians to receive in both kinds, only that it is not neces- sary: they hold, that though the primitive manner was to receive in both kinds, the Churck has power to alter it, as to anything but the substance of the institution; making allowances for circum- slances, of time and place, &c.—and that the alteration in question was made for weighty and just causes; but those caules are not specified. — It is however said, in the way of argument, that Christ is received whole and intire under one kind; and therefore, that they to whom only one kind 1s administered, are defrauded of no /aving grace, no

beneficial essects.— But in the Council, two ques- tions occurred.

1. Whether

• Speculum Europæ, page 233. | Faul Ricaut, page — There was, however, such a term in the Greek Church as weruoiwo:c, coined on purpose to express the notion which had been brought from Italy. Which might

be used by some to express the change made in the bread and wine by consecration,

364 BOOK IV. iv.

1. Whether the Church’s weighty and just causes, were so strong, that the use of the cup was to be allowed to no persons whatsoever ?

2.. Supposing it might be allowed to some par. ticular nation, whether it should not be on condi. tions; and what those conditions should be? - these questions were left undecided till the next Session; and then they were left by the Council, to“ the decision of the Pope.

The Trent Catechism* directs the People to be taught, That by the Law of the Church it is

ohibited that any one, without the Authority of the Church, (except consecrating Ministers) should take the sacred Eucharist in both kinds.” Some authorities of ancient Fathers are quoted ; and fix reasons are specified.

1. The fear of spilling.

2. The fear of wine growing sour, when kept for the sick. | |

3. The «like which some persons have for the taste or smell of wine,

4. The fear of hurting the health of the com- municants. |

5. The scarcity of wine in some places.

6. Lastly and principally, the desire of opposing those Herelics, who difhouorr Christ by saying, that be cannot be received intire under one kind: that being to deny his Divinity. It is added, that such as have treated on this argument have assigned still more reasons,

The Rrhemists, on* John vi. 58. say, that the Church has only regulated manner, order, and par- ticular points; (that is, has not hurt the substance or essence of the Sacrament ;) that such —

the

d See end of 22d Session.— Voltaire, Vol. 10. quarto, page 160.

Sec 70, &c.

& Fulke’s Rhem. Test, opp. fol. 152. on John vi. 58.

BOOK Iv. ART, Xxx. SECT. v. vi. 365

the Church has authority to make, according to time and place, for the honour of God, reverence to the Sacrament, and profit to the people: (edi- fying).— Then they mention some of the {ame Fathers which are referred to in the Catechism : and some of the same reasons ; assigning moreover the number of communicants ; a © dreadful regard” of “ Christ’s own b100d;” and the practice of some centuries. — To their authorities from the Fathers, and indeed to their arguments, Dr. Fulke seems to me to have given a complete answer.

Though the language of the Council seems to imply an opening for variety and liberty, yet the constant practice of the Church of Rome has been, for no one to receive the cup except the consecrating Priest”. |

In later times, with a view to agreement, Dupiu® declares for mutual toleration in this point ; and for leaving it to be settled by eack Church for itself.

v. One would think, that the practice of ad- ministering to the people in only one kind, might have been deduced from the Lutheran Consubstan- tiation; but the Confession of Wittemberg (which I have presumed to be the work of Luther,) ex- pressly disclaims the deduction. And all other reformed churches seem to oppose it.

vi. The Neceflary Doctrine is not reformed with regard to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Sup- per.—It says, that the Cup is not necessary to Salva- tiow, That receiving in one or both kinds, rather

concerns

1 Dr. Priestley (Hist. Corr. Vol. 2. page 55, from Histoire des Papes, Vol. 4. page 679.) says, that “ Pius IV. granted the Communion in both kinds to those who should demand it, pro- vided they professed to believe as the Church did in other re- spects. The Bohemians also were allowed, with the Pope’s consent, to make use of the Cup.”

n As before.— Third Appendix to Mosheim.

Syntagma, page 160,

—_ r * = r — 8

7 A […] o =_

2. SO IF A a+ —

ITS

366 BOOK Iv. ART. XXX. SECT, vit.

concerns the manner or fashion of the Sacrament than the ęsence; that the main thing is worthiness : —by © ancient custom” I suppose it means the fame as the Rhemists by, © some” centurtes. In a popular calculation a custom of some hundred years standing, is an* ancient one.—It contends, that © by natural reason,” the lively body cannot be without blood.” 6

Archbishop Cranmer is said to have been the Author of this Neceflary Doctrine“, &c.—it must have gone hard with him to exclude the Cup, in composing it; for in the first year of Edward VI. the administration in both kinds was voted, nullo reclamante, in a Convocation where he had pro- bably the chief weight. — This makes me wonder why our present Article was not amongst those of 1552. Neither do I fee the subject in the Reformatio Legum.—I cannot account for these omissions.

P. S. The Article of Edward VI. confirming his very recent Liturgy, made in 1552, takes in this particular ; — this was to be subscribed,

vii. I do not fee that this Article wants any explanation. © Is not to be denied” —seems to answer to the expreshon of the Council of Trent, te petentibus usum * calicis.”

But if it was said, that the Cup is not to be denied to those who / it, would not that imply,

that

o Sterne’s simple and unscholastic Uncle has no idea of any event having happened above 100 years ago.

? Oxford Pamph. on 15th Art. page 32, from Burnet.—Hist, Ref. Vol. 2.—Records, page 238. Where Henry VIII. call» it Cranmer’s own Book. | | 4 Wheatly, page 25. from Strype’s Cranmer, page 157, 158. It appears, page 156, that Archbishop Cranmer 7#troduced tne proposal of having both kinds, at this Convocation, and tha: they were supported by Archdeacon Cranmer, his brother,

Trent, page 152. or Sess. 22. at the end,

BOOK iv. ART. xxx. SECT. VIII. IX 367

that withholding the Cup from such as did not ask it, is 1nnocent ? |

viii. We may proceed therefore to some Proof.

I see but one Proposition in the Article; namely,

By the Ordinance of Christ, both Bread and Wine are to be administered, in the Lord’s Supper.”

Matt. xxvi. 27.—* Drink ye all of it.“

Matt. xxvi. 28.—4/! Christians are in the new Covenant; and all stand in need of © remishon of fins.” — These are assigned as reasons for all drink- ing of the Cup: For this,” &c. |

1 Cor. xi. 26—28. is addrefled to all the Church of Corinth,

1 Cor. xii, 13. puts Baptism and the Lord’s Supper on one and the same footing ; and for the Lord’s Supper uses the term“ drinking: that part for the whole. If the Romanists say either part is, according to them, sufficient, yet all objections to the Cup in particular, are here done away. Dr. Middleton observes, with a view to our present subject, that the absurdities into which the Doc- trine of Transubstantiation leads, should make it to be distrusted*,

Ix The Romanists offer so many arguments, that we must have some indirect proof. — We may observe of them, in general, that they prove fo much; and therefore nothing at all.— Before we mention them, be it observed, that our Saviour, in the Institution of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, makes 0 difference between the Bread and the Wine; of any kind, that I see. — Also, that the Romish doctrine is this ;—the Pries who conse- crates, must consecrate both bread and wine; and

must

Locke on 1 Cor. xii. 13. * Pref, to Letter from Rome, page Ixxx,

368 BOOK IV. ART. xxx. SECT. x. XI,

must receive both himself; though he must adn. nisler only Bread. |

x. Christ at Emmaus®” only broke bread; now if he gave the Sacrament, and bread does not imply wine, then the argument proves too much: jt proves, that the Priest ought to consecrate only bread. - And this applies to all arguments founded on the phrase, breaking of bread, |

Though a name of anything consisting of parts, may be taken from either part, and though St. Paul takes his name for the Sacrament, on one occasion, from drinking (1 Cor. xi. 13.), yet who- ever paints to himself the nature of the Institution, must think, that breaking of bread is another ob- vious and natural name for the whole ceremony : especially as it was a name for any repast.

The 2uakers* (and indeed many of our com- mumon) hold, that breaking of bread does 101 mean the Sacrament;—in some cases it may not, being the name for any meal, but in some cases I think, it does; as where it is joined with dofrine? and prayer; or mentioned as the employment for which the Apostles met on a Lord’s Day. — Barclay argues against this, from eating being joined with breaking“ of bread, and from the company con- tinuing till z7dzzg/t®, or later; but why might not this eating be the Ayaxn? which used to be (some- times at least) held in the evening? I can con- ceive any conferences of Christian leaders in St. Paul’s time, whether begun by an Ayarx, or not, to continue for a part of the night or the whole night. — But to return.

xi. The Romanists say, the Apostles indeed were to drink of the wine, but they were made

Priests.

Luke xxiv. 30. 35.

• See Barclay’s Apology, Prop. 13. Sect. 8.

Y AQs ii. 42. 2 Acts xx. 7. 2 Acts 11. 40. en. 7. .

BOOK IV. XIT—XIV, 369

Priests. This again proves 200 much. — For granting the argument, it follows, that wine ought to be administered 7o all Priests, And the Tons are under no obligation to receive the Bread; for there is no difference in our Saviour’s appointment of bread and wine.

X11. It is urged, Christ is received intixe in his body; every Body contains Hood. We once spoke against inferences in unintelligible doftrines*. This goes to prove, that it was absurd in Christ to insti- tute the Cup; and that it is equally so in the conse- crating Priest to drink it.— By the way, this argu- ment is a consequence of Transubstantiation; which we consider ourselves as having disproved.

x111. But, say the Romanists, the Prie/t receives the Cup in order to © express lively the passion of Christ, and the separation of his blood from“ his body, in the same.” But this goes to prove that all Christians ought to receive the cup; as they are all to shew the Lord’s Death till he come.

xiv. But giving the people the cup, occasions dishonour to the blood of Christ, occasions its being […] corollary from Transubstantia- tion: but moreover it proves 79 much. It proves, that Christ could not foresee these great evils ; he must have forborn to institute anything which true wisdom would wholly remove in order to avoid them. Nay, these evils were not peculiar to distant ages; they must be hable to happen every time the wine was consecrated, in every age. Perhaps an Heretic might be so profane as to say, what real harm could be done by a drop even of the real blood of Christ falling to the ground ? or what real dishonour? his blood must have fallen to the ground when he was alive. Christ is honoured most by a

faithful

© Art, 1. Sect. xvi ii. Rghemists on John vi. 58. VOL. Iv. | A A

370 BOOK IV. ART. xxx. SECT, xv. xvi.

faithful and pious heart; a man may have that with a trembling hand. And as to any corporeal pain, or suffering, on account of what fell, that must be out of the question: the falling of blood never occasions pain to the person by whom it is shed.

xv. But giving the cup, or witholding it, is only manner, | ary fashion; not the substance or essence of the Sacrament. This again proves 700 much, For as Christ made no difference, if the cup be not the essence, neither is the bread.— Therefore, again, the people are under no obliga- tion to receive the bread. — But indeed the manner of instituting the cup has no appearance of mere variable mode and circumstance, And if any change is to be made in an ordinance on account of change of circumstances, 1t should be shewr, that those new circumstances are not voluntary cor- ruptions and abuses.

XVI. But enough. I will trouble you with 10 more arguments; neither does it seem: necessary to make any Application of our reasonings on the pre- sent Article. Bishop Porteus’s Chapter on this subject is well executed.

Notes

• Leo I. in his Serm. 4. de Quadragelimd, N by Lardner, Works, Vol. 3. page 491,—Burnet mentions this, page 438. octavo. | e „The Laity, as well as the Priests, communicate in both