Maclear and Williams on Article XXX: Of both kinds

The cuppe of the Lorde is not to be denyed to the laye people. For both the partes of the Lordes Sacra- ment, by Christes ordinance and com- maundement, ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike.

i. The Thirtieth Article, like the preceding one, was wanting in the series of 1553, but was introduced by Archbishop Parker in the reign of Elizabeth, at the revision in 15631.

ii. Object. Its object is to vindicate for the laity a

right to Communion in Both Kinds, to the Cup as well as to the Bread. The custom which had arisen in the Western Church of administering to the laity only the consecrated Host, while the Priest alone2 partook of the Chalice, had given rise to much controversy long before the Reforma- tion. It was indeed the cause of terrible wars, especially in Bohemia, where the people rose in a body and protested desperately against being deprived of a part of the Sacra- ment, which Christ had intended for all alike.

[…]

Article x. of the Eleven Articles of Priest who consecrates and dispenses.

1559, Hardwick, Hist. Articles, pp. Other Priests present were Sacerdotes

128, 396, ed. 1859. non conficientes.

iii. Analysis. The Article brings out two main points : —

(i) A statement;

“The Cup1 of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people:”

(ii) A justification of the statement;

” For both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament2, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.”

iv. The Original Institution. That the Chalice was intended for the laity may be proved, (i) from the original institution of the Sacrament as recorded in the New Testament, and (ii) from the writings of the early Fathers. In the account of the original institution we arc told that the words of our Lord to His Apostles were

Drink ye all of this3; and that they complied with His command is clear, for we read in the Gospel of S. Mark

And they all drank of it \ Here we might suppose the argument was at an end. It is urged, however, that the Apostles, forming a conse- crated body of Priests, might receive the Chalice, and so the command does not apply to the laity. But upon this it is to be observed that even if we assume that the Apostles were at the time all Priests, the account of the original institution is not that our Lord received the

1 Calix, from the Greek k6\i£, in classical writers denoted a cup or drinking vessel. In Ecclesiastical writers it is confined specially to the Chalice of ihe Holy Eucharist.

• With “Calix Domini” and “do- minici sacramenti,” comp. i Cor. xi.

21, KvpiaKbv Selirvov, and the phrases Dies Dominica ; Oratio Dominica.

[…]

M.

Chalice and none else, but that He received and they received. Thus there is no justification for withholding the Cup not only from the laity, but even from all the Clergy, except the officiating Priest1.

v. Apostolic Custom. If we ask whether, as a matter of fact, the Apostles administered to themselves and their successors in Both Kinds, and to the lay-members of the Church in One Kind only, an answer is ready to hand from the Scriptures of the New Testament. For

(a) In the Acts we find the members of the Church attending constantly on the breaking of t/ie bread from house to house2 (Acts ii. 42 — 46). This is a form of expression which can hardly be understood except as including lay persons;

(yS) Again, it is impossible to understand how the troubles at Corinth could have originated at all, had the chalice been denied to the laity. If they had no right to it at all, how came it to pass that excesses calling for such stern rebuke from S. Paul accompanied the administration3? Why, again, in rebuking them does he not say that they had done wrong in receiving the Species of Wine at all ? Would not such have been a simpler and more obvious way of check- ing these excesses ? Again, what force would there have been in his argument about the hea- then sacrificial feasts, Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of demons*, except the laity were permitted to drink of the chalice ?

1 See Bp Browne On the Articles, ko.t’ oIkov apron, ii. 46.

p. 735- _ 3 1 Cor. xi. 17—34-

[…]

Unless, therefore, we believe that the Church was mistaken from the very first, it is clear that the Apostolic administration of the Eucharist contemplated the reception of the Species alike of the Bread and of the Wine by all faithful communicants.

vi. Patristic Testimony. Thus Apostolic custom is opposed to reception in one kind only. What is the teaching of the Primitive Fathers ? It is equally decisive. For

(a) We find Justin Martyr saying in his Apology that “the Deacons gave to everyone that was present of the bread, over which thanks had been offered, and of wine mixed with water, and that they carried them also to those not present1;”

(/3) Again, Cyprian speaks of the deacons as “offering the Cup to those present” at the Holy Eucharist without any intimation of a dis- tinction of persons in so doing’2;

(7) Once more S. Chrysostom in his Commentary on the first Epistle to the Corinthians writes, “whereas under the Old Covenant the Priests ate some things and the laymen others, and it was not lawful for the people to partake of those things of which the Priest partook, it is not so now, but one Body is blessed before all, and one Cup*.”

[…]

These quotations, without multiplying others, suf- ficiently justify, so far as early custom is concerned, a practice which obtained in the Church without question for upwards of twelve centuries, and which the Greek Church still maintains, for she always does and always has communicated her many millions of believers in Both Kinds.

vii. The Origin of the practice of communicating in One Kind may be traced to the fear of spilling the Con- secrated Wine at the time of administration. This led to the dipping of the Bread into the chalice, as was done in the early Church in communicating the sick, and as is still done in the Greek Church1, or to the use of a fistula or tube, through which the Consecrated Wine might be drawn. Gradually, however, and especially in the twelfth century, the administration of the chalice began to be forbidden by many Bishops to avoid the risk of irreverence, and of spilling the Sacred Species. The change, however, was not brought about without much opposition, not only from eminent divines, but even from Ecclesiastical Councils. Thus in A.D. 1095 the Council of Clermont decreed that “all, who communicated at the altar, shall receive the Body and Blood of Christ under Both Kinds, if there be no provision to the contrary2.” Moreover it is acknowledged by Cardinal Bona, one of the most eminent liturgical writers of the Roman Communion, that ” the faithful always and in all places, from the beginning of the Church till the twelfth century, were used to communicate under the Species of Bread and Wine3.” Nay, even the Council of

1 See Article Fistula in Smith’s gere.”

Diet. Christian Antiqq. 3 ” There is no gainsaying the

• Canon xxviii. Cone. Clermont. ’ Drink ye all of it,’ especially as

The Third Council of Braga, A.D. 675, interpreted by the practice of twelve

condemns those who were accustomed centuries.” Bp Forbes on the

[…]

Constance, which first decreed on June 15, 141 5, the with- holding of the Cup from the laity1, allows that “Christ Himself administered in Both Kinds to His disciples, and that in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was received in Both Kinds by the people2.” The responsibility for intro- ducing so great a change must lie with those who chose to violate a custom, which has on its side a prescription of twelve centuries, and which was never disputed in the primitive ages of the Church3.

1 “Semper enim et ubique, ab ec- clesise primordiis usque ad sxculum duodecimum, sub specie panis et vini conimunicarunt fideles: coepitque pau- latim ejus soeculi initio usus calicis obsolescere, plerisque episcopis cum populo interdicentibus ob periculum irreverentia: et effusionis.” Bona, AW. Liturg. ii. 18, n. i, quoted by Bing- ham, Eccl. Anlii/q. xv., v. i.

2 Concil. Constant. Sess. xiii.

3 Even Pope Gelasius lays it down

that people ” should either partake of the Sacraments in their entirety or be excluded from the entire Sacraments, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot take place with- out great sacrilege.” See Gratian, Corpus Jur. Can. Deer. iii. pars ; De Consecr. dist. ii. c. 12, quoted by Bishop Forbes, 596; Pope Leo the Great pronounces abstinence from the chalice to be a Manicha;an heresy. Leo Magn. Horn. xli.