Jones on Article XXX: Of both kinds

” As I may touch but one of the least abuses, you minister it not in both kinds as ought you to do, but ’ keep the one half from the people, contrary to Christ’s institution… …I believe

not so,” (that there is as much contained in one kind as in both,) ” for if it had, Christ would have given but one kind only ; for he instituted nothing superfluous ; and, therefore, you cannot say that the whole effect of the sacrament is as well in one kind as in both, since the Scripture teacheth other- wise.”— Eleventh Examination.

” And because I see in the use of the Latin mass the sacra- ment of the blood abused, when it is denied unto the lay people, clean contrary unto God’s most certain word ; for why, I do beseech thee, should the sacrament of Christ’s blood be denied unto the lay Christians more than to the priest ? Did not Christ shed his blood as well for the lay godly man as for the godly priest ? If thou wilt say, yes that he did so ; but yet that the sacrament of the blood is not to be received without the offering up and sacrificing thereof unto God the Father, both for the quick and for the dead ; and no man may make oblation of Christ’s blood unto God but a priest ; and therefore, the priest alone (and that but in his mass only) may receive the sacrament of the blood; and call you this, my

masters, mysterium fidei ? Alas ! Alas ! I fear me, this is before God mysterium iniquitatis, the mystery of iniquity.” — Bed. of the Lord’s Supper.

” As concerning the both kinds of the Sacraments, it was not forbidden in the time of the Master of the sentence, who lived anno 1182, Frederico Suevo Imperatore Augusto, nor in the

time of Thomas Aquinas For in a certain hymn he

spcaketh thus of the distribution of the sacrament unto the whole Church :

Sic sacrificium istud instituit,

Cujus officium committi voluit

[…]

Ut sumant et dent ceteris.”

(’ Thus did he institute that sacrifice, the administration of which he willed to be committed to priests, whom thus it beseemeth that they should take and give it to others.’) ” If the priest gave unto the people that he received himself, there was no part of the sacrament taken from them as it is at this day.” — Ansicer to Winchester’s Book.

■ARCHBISHOP SANDYS.

” This sacrament was delivered to the Corinthians in both kinds. As Christ saith so Paul saith, ’ Bibite ex hoc ouines,’ ’ drink ye all of this,’ That the whole sacrament should be received of the people and no mutilation permitted, the ancient writers are most clear; as Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gelasius, Cyprian, &c.” — Ser. 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.

” Christ ordained both the kinds as well for the laymen as for the priests ; and that to be eaten and drunken at all times. What enemies be you to all laymen and to yourselves also, to refuse to drink of Christ’s cup, which he commanded all men to drink upon saying, ’ Take and divide this among you,’ and

’ drink ye all of it !’ But what need any more be brought for the reproving of this article, than your own first article where you will have kept all decrees and councils? Now in the decrees De Consecrat. Di. 2, there is one decree that com- mandeth all men to receive the communion at least thrice in

the year, at Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas and the

decree of Gelasius, that the receiving under one kind is great sacrilege.” — Answer to the Fifteen Articles.

” Where, in the parliament lately holden at Westminster, it was, amongst other things, most godly established, that accord- ing to the first institution and use of the primitive church, the most holy sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should be distributed to the people under the kinds of bread and wine, &c.” — Letter Missive from the Council to the Bishops of the Realm, fyc.

” Did not Christ give his body to be crucified and his blood to be shed for the salvation of the layman so well as he did for the minister ? Are not the lay people also members of Christ’s Church ? And the Lord Jesus instituted his holy supper to be re- ceived of his whole church, I mean, so many as are able to dis- cern this mystical meat from the common food, and to prepare

themselves worthily to come unto it But here it is objected,

Christ spake these words to his disciples, which were conse- crate priests, and not to laymen ; and, therefore, the priests alone ought to receive the cup of the mystery of Christ’s blood. So likewise spake Christ of the mystery of his body, these words

only to his disciples : ’ Take ye, eat ye.’ If ’ take and eat ’

belong to the common people, so likewise doth take and drink

appertain unto the common people For who knoweth not

that the apostles of Christ in that holy supper represented the

whole church of Christ? As St. Paul saith, ’ So oft as ye

shall eat this bread and drink of this cup, ye shall shew the Lord’s death till he come.’ And thus did both the Apostles of Christ and Christ’s primitive church, and all the ancient fathers many hundred years after, understand, take, and use

the Lord’s supper, as both divine and human letters manifestly

declare See we that the apostle entreating of the Lord’s

supper, joineth always the bread and the cup together, to declare that it cannot be the Lord’s supper except there be distribution both of the bread and of the wine. And hereof may we learn that the Corinthians, which, I am sure, were not all consecrate priests, but the greatest part of them were lay people, received in the days of St. Paul the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, under both kinds, and not under the kind of bread alone.” — Catechism of the Sacraments.

BISHOP COVEPvDALE.

” It is past all doubt by every man that Christ in the holy

supper gave his disciples both the kinds And methinketh

the other do err sore that- hold the contrary : and specially because they put such difference between priests and lay people, not considering the priestly office that is committed

unto all faithful believers St. Paul also writing of this holy

supper of the Lord to the common congregations at Corinthium, maketh mention not only of the bread, but also of the cup. If the cup then at that time was common unto all Christian men, why is it now withdrawn from the lay people ?” — Defence of a Certain Poor Christian Man.

” And to impress the same” (transubstantiation) “deeply into the hearts of all men and women they have withholden from the laity many years Christ’s cup, for fear, as they say, of

shedding his blood Christ our Master commandeth all men

and women to drink of his cup ; which commandment the apostles observed, as long as they lived, making no promise nor tradition to the contrary. And the universal church followed and observed religiously the said precept for the space of a thousand years after Christ.” — Ser. on the Lord’s Supper.