Trollope on Article XXX: Of both kinds

The Romish Church withholds the Cup from the Laity. After consecrating hoth the bread and wiue, the oiiiciating priest receives in both kinds himself, but administers the Dread only to the communicants, including likewise the Clergy who may happen to form part of the consecration : for * without the authority of the Church, none but conse-

• crating ministers may partake of the sacred Eucharist in ’ both kinds.’ The practice is one of the many errors which arose out of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Under the impression that Christ was corporeally present in the conse- crated elements, superstitious fears soon began to be enter- tamed lest any portion of them should be lost or wasted.

2. Upon what grounds do the Bomanists defend this practice ?

Admitting that ’ Christ did institute this Sacrament in

• both kinds, and that the faithful in the primitive Church did ’ receive in both kinds,’ they maintain that the Church is empowered to make such a change * for weighty and just ’ causes.’ The Canons of the Council of Trent do not assign these causes : but the Romanists defend the practice by alleging that the Apostles received the cup as prients, not as sinners ; and that the laity do virtually receive the blood, since the blood is with the body.

3. Shew that these reasons are not only unsatis- factory in themselves, but entirely at variance with Christ’s holy institution.

There can be no cause sufficiently weightv to set aside a positive institution of Christ ; and the words of Christ, in relation to this part of the rite, seem to be, as it were, pro- phetically emphatic against the Romish innovation. * Brink *ye ALL of tnis,’ all without exception or reserve. The notion, too, that the Apostles received the cup as priests ^-^ not to mention that the Sacrament was instituted before the^ had received their priestly commission, and that no distinction was made by our Lord ia the manner of de-

142 Qussnons and answsbs on

Romish dootrine also plainly implies a power in the priest to bring down Christ from heaven, and subject him to a continuance of his sufferings upon earth ; for if he does not suffer, it can be no sacrince ; and if he does suffer, the heaven cannot have received him * till the times of the ‘restitution of all things’ (Actsiii.21.). Surely this is both blasphemous and absurd.

11. Why are masses said to be dangerous c2e-