Tomline on Article XXX: Of both kinds

It appears from the unanimous testimony of the fathers, and from all the antient rituals and liturgies, (bat the Sacrament of die Lord’s Sup- per was, in the early ages of the church, admi- nistered in both kinds, as weD to the laity as to the clergy. It is dierefor unnecessary to quote authorities upon a point which has never been called in question ; but I will just state that Pope Gelasius, in the fifth century, whom I mentioned under the twenty-eijith article, having heard that the ManichflBans (a) attended the assemblies of the Christians, and partook of the bread, but not of the wine, in the Iords Supper, decreed, that ’ all persons should either communicate in the

Sacrament

(a) It was a principle of the Manicbsans never iM taste win« upon any occasion.

K K 2

50O ExpbsHidn iff the [pARTirr,

Sacrament entirely or be entirely excluded from it ; for that su( tt dividing of : one and tii same sacrament could not be done without a hemoos sacril.” ’ * ’

The’ |)i^tice of denying the cup to the laity arose out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The belief that the sacramental bread and wine were actually converted into the body and blood of Christ, naturally produced, in a weak and su- perstitious age, an anxious fear lest any part of them should be lost or wasted. To prevent any thing of this kind in the breads small wafins were used, which were put at once into the mouths of the communicants by the officiating ministers ; but no expedient could be devised to guard against the occasional spilling of the wine in administering it to large congregations. The bread was sopped in the wine, and the wine was conveyed by tubes into the mouth; but all in vain ; accidents still happened, and therefore it was determined that the priests should entirdy withhold the cup from the laity. It is to be sup- posed that a change of this sort, in so important an ordinance as that of Ae Lord s Supper, could not be effected at once. The first attempt seems to have been made in the twelfth century; it was gradually submitted to, and was at last established by the authority of the Councflof

Constance,

A^T. XXX,] Thirly-ninc Articles. 501

Constaisce, A. B. 1414 ; but in their decree they acknowledged thajt * Christ did institute this Sa- crament in both kinds, and that the faidiful, in the primitive church, did receive in both kinds ; yet a practice being xeasonaMy introduced to aivoid some dangers and scandals, they appoint the custom to continue of consecrating in both kinds, and of.ving to the laity only in one kind,” thus presuming to depart irotn the posi- tive command, of our Lord respecting the manner of achninisterkig the sign of the covenant between himself and mankind. From thftt time ithas’heenthe invariable practice of thednirch of. Ranm Lto : confine the • cup to the 4riests. And: it’ was Again admitted at the CouiAit of IVent, that the IxxdV Supper was formerly adibinistered/in both lands to air the commu- nicants but it was openly - contended, that the church ‘had power to make the alteration, ’ and that they !had done it for weijty and just causes. These: causes are’ not stated in the canons of the council. : The. reformed churches, even the liutheian, which maintained the doctrine of con- substantiation, restored die cup to the laity. In a convocation, held in the first year of Edward the Sixth’s reign, it was unanimously voted that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper should be lieceiyed in both kinds by the laity as well as the

clergy ;

KK3

[…]

deigy; and tliereforeit is very Te&mrkaUe Aat there was nothing upon this subject in the articles of 1553 : both this, and the preoedinqg article, were added in 1562.

If we look at the institution of die Loid’s Supper, as recorded by the evangdists, we shall not only find the same express and positive coni mand to die Apostles to partake equally of both kinds, but we may observe a difierenoe with respect to the cup, wfaidi must be dedova upon the question in the judgment of all who allow the Scriptures to be the rule of their &ith and practice, and which (fiflference is so mariced, that it seems as it were a waning to the diuicfa against any eonruption of this sort Aceoidmg to St Matthew, when Christ ddivered the hiead he said, Take, eat, this is my body;” but when be gsive the cup to th he said, ’ Drink yt of it (ay And St Mark, after relating that Christ gave the cup totiie Apostles, adds, ’ And they aU drank of it (b) ;” but he says nothing of the same kind concerning their eating the broui, although it is implied. Besides this appfication of the word a//, to the wine and not to die bread, in these two instances, we may farther observe that the words used upon giving the bread ars not so full as those used upon giving the wine ;

in tue former case Christ says, ” Take, eat, tiiis

•

IS

” (a) C. a6. V. 27. (b) C. 14. V, 33.

[…]

is ny body ;” but in tbe btter he 8ay, Drink ye all of it, lor tbia it my bk)od of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remis- sion of sins (a)” It is material to notice the rea- son assigned by our Saviour, why all the Apostles were to drink of the cup, for this is my bbod of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remisiQn of sins:” all, therefore, who stand in need of rasiissipn of sins, are to drink ( the cup, that is, all mankind, bdty as wdl as cleigy. And St* Paul writes to die Corinthians as being, accustomed to nceive the Lord’s Sup- per in both kinds: As often as ye eat this fomad and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s doatb till he come. ‘Whadbre, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and saiethaa eat of that bread, and drink of that cup (h) And again, in the same epistle, h? aays, ’ By one spirit we are all baptized into one body and have been all made to drink uto cme spirit (c) ;”’ whence it is evidnit that all the Corinthians bad partaken of the cup. And whenever Scripture is thus explicit, wf fadd ourselves bound to obey and follow it, and

maintain

(m) Matt c ^6. v. a8. (b) 1 Cor. c. 1 1« v. 8&-^28* . (c) 1 Con c la. V. 13.

K K 4 ^

504 Ej^posUhn of the [part ni.

maintain that it Cannot be superseded vby ^any authority of man. It is incumbent upon us to administer the Sacrament as prescribed by Christ; and it is impious either to alter the institution or question its propriety.

It i, perhaps, scarcdy necessary to maition a conceit of the Papists, who, finding it impossible to deny that the Apostles received the t Lord’s Supper in both kinds, pretend that they re- ceived it as priests, and not as sinners ; but this assertion is contradicted by our Saviour’s own words, just now- quoted from St IdUlhew’s Gospel, in which he commands them toi drink the cup ’ for the remission of sins ;” and in any case this could never justify the distinction made by the Papists between the bread and the wine. And, besides, the Apostles did not receive their permanent commission to preach the Grospet till after the resurrection of Christ, and the Lord’s Supper was instituted the night before the cruci- iikion. There is, in short, no one tenet of the church of Rome in more direct oppositicm to Scripture, nor has any one of its doctrines or practices given greater ofieiice, than the denial of the cup to the laity.’ Even many who believed in transubstantiation contended for the necessity of giving the Lord’s Supper in both kinds to all communicants.

In

ART, XXX J Thktjf^nine Articles. 505

In a few passages of. the New Testament (d) the bieakmg of bread is mentioned with re*- ference to the Lord’s Supper, without any no- tice beikig taken of the wine. This arises from the conciseness with which the writers of the ^ew Testament are apt to express themselves : and it by no means proves that the breaking of bread was not accompanied by the drinking of wine ; it rather shews diat they so constantly and necessarily accompanied each other, that to men- tion one was thou^t sufficient; but it is im- possible to contend that these passages authorize the practice of denying the cup of the lord TO THE LAY PEOPLE, We may therefore con- dude, that both PARTS Of the lord’s sacra- ment, BY Christ’s ordinance and com- mandment, OUGHT TO BE ADMINISTERED TO

It was, for a short time, the custom of some churches to mix water with the wine in the Lord’s Supper ; and in the third century some few persons thought that it was not necessary to use any wine in the administration of this Sacra- ment; they used water only, and were thence called Aquarii; but these people were severely censured by Cyprian : ” if it be not lawful,” ^ays he, ** to loose any one of the least com- mandments (d) Acts. c. 2. V. 42 & 46. c. 20. T« 7.

5o6 Expasitum of the [paet iii.

mandments of Christ, how much more is it un- lawful to break so great and so wei^ty an one, which so very nearly relates 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 institu- tion (e) ? ” And in the seventh century it was the practice to dip the bread into the wine, and so to give both kinds together ; but this mode was condemned by the Council of Bascara, as being plainly repugnant to the Goq)d; for Christ when he instituted the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper gave the bread and the wine se« parately to his Apostles, with a separate . com- mand to eat and to drink. In. none of these variations was there any distinction made between the laity and the clergy.

(e) Ep. 63. ad Caec.

AnT« XXXI.] Tkirty-nme Articles. 507