they are supposed to allude to the sacrament, it is inferred that it was the custom of the Apostolic times to communicate only in one kind.a To this it may be answered, (1) it is not certain that these words relate to the sacrament. (2.) Though they did, they cannot justify the conclusion derived from them; for the word "bread " constantly includes all parts necessary to a meal. (3) If the words be understood literally, they prove too much, that the sacrament may be consecrated in one kind, and that the breaking of bread without the cup may constitute a complete sacrament. (4.) It is evident from the distinct mention made by St. Paul, of drinking the cup and eating the bread, that the sacrament was in his time received in both kinds. 2nd. The assertion made in the Article is supported by a consideration of the nature of a sacrament. Sacraments derive their value only from their institution. Since then it appears plainly from our Saviour's words that the cup should be considered as essential as the bread, it follows that the denial of the cup annulls the institution, and consequently destroys the effect. a See Boileau Disquis. Theol. p. 192 and Bell. de sac. Euch. 1. 4. c. 24. b This consequence was perceived and forcibly urged at the council of Trent, by Antony Mandulf, of the diocese of Prague. See Sarpi's Hist. du Conc. de Trent. 1. 6. p. 207. Ed. Courayer It is true that extraordinary occasions may justify a departure from the exact observance of the sacrament. Thus the danger of immersion in cold climates is a reasonable ground for substituting sprinkling instead of it in baptism. Pope Innocent VIII. was excusable in allowing the Eucharist to be celebrated without wine in Norway, since it could not be procured there, and if a man had a real and constitutional aversion to wine, the sacrament might nevertheless be administered to him. In such cases it is not criminal to alter the original institution. But the pretence of what may be done on extraordinary occasions can never justify the deliberate and unnecessary alteration of an essential part of a sacrament. a Here, however, it is urged, that since, according to the doctrine of concomitance, the entire body and blood of Christ are contained in each of the elements, it is therefore unnecessary that both should be received, since he is fully received in one. But this argument is devoid of force; for (1) the doctrine of concomitance is founded on that of transubstantiation. Since therefore the latter has been disproved, the former also must be false. Besides, if the one necessarily involves the other, it is unaccountable a See Bell. de Sac. Euch. 1. 1. c. 2. that the early ages never mention the doctrine of concomitance. This silence is a strong argument against the antiquity of that of transubstantiation. (2.) In the words of the institution, the body and blood are considered as separated; the one being broken and the other shed, which opposes the opinion of concomitance. (3) In the Roman Church, the sacrament is considered as representing Christ in his glorified state. Now the description given by St. Paul of glorified bodies, implies that they are of a different texture than that of flesh and blood. Hence there can be no foundation for the notion of concomitance. (4) No arguments derived from apparent consequences can be a sufficient ground for a change in the original institution. For they imply an imputation upon Christ and his Apostles, as if they had not duly considered the subject; but than an inference was discovered twelve hundred years afterwards, which made it necessary to alter his command. 3rd. The assertion of the Article is supported by antiquity. 1. All the accounts that we have of the ancient rituals both in Justin Martyr,a Cyril of Jerusalem, the Apostolical Constitutions, and the works of the pretended Areopagite, expressly mention both kinds as given se 2 See Apol. 2. Catech. Mist. 4 ta: Const. Apos. 1. 2. c. 57. and Eccles. Hier. c. 3. a parately in this sacrament. The same distinction is observed in all the ancient liturgies, those ascribed to the Apostles, and those of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom; in the offices of the western Church, and in the Ordo Romanus. Finally, even Thomas Aquinas, the first who mentions the taking away of the chalice from the people, speaks of it only as the practice of some Churches, of which some of his cotemporaries were ignorant, since they assert that the administering in both kinds was the universal custom. 2. Besides this general concurrence, there are also particular instances which lead to the same conclusion. In St. Cyprian's time, some persons, hence called Aquarii, used water instead of wine in the sacrament, in order to prevent the discovery of their assemblies, which were easily detected from the smell of the wine. Yet St. Cyprian condemns this departure from the institution, and uses the following words: "If it be not. "lawful to loose any one of the least commands "of Christ, how much more is it unlawful to "break so great and so weighty an one, that so 66 nearly relates to the sacrament of our Lord's 66 passion and our redemption; or by any human "institution to change it into that which is quite "different from the divine institution.” 2 See Aquin. Comm. in 6. Joan. v. 53. In summa. par. 9. qu. 80. Art. 12. See Cypr. Ep. 63. ad Cecil. 3. Pope Leo mentions that it was one of the peculiar practices of the Manicheans to be present at the assemblies of Christians, and eat of the bread, while they refused to partake of the cup. On this subject Pope Gelasius decreed that "all persons should either communicate "in the sacrament entirely, or be entirely ex"cluded, since such a separation of the same sacrament could not be done without sacrilege." 4. In the seventh century the practice of administering bread dipped in wine was begun. This was condemned by the council of Bracara,b "as contrary to the Gospel, since Christ gave his body and blood distinctly, the bread by itself, " and the chalice by itself." 66 5. It is probable that it was 'given in this manner to the sick and to infants; yet though this custom was generally adopted in the East, and some parts of the West, yet in the end of the eleventh century, Pope Urban, in the council a See Leo. Serm. 4 in quadrag. dec de consec. dist. 2. b See Conc. Brac. can. 1. This council was held in the year 675.-See Dupin's Hist. cent. vii. p. 80. In the original our author says, that "this decree is by a mis"take of Gratian's put in the canon law as a decree of Pope Julius to the Bishops of Egypt." This accusation, however, against Gratian is unfounded. The fact is, Pope Julius in the third century condemned the practice of using bread dipt in wine, which had then commenced; and the council of Bracara, in the seventh century, having occasion to condemn the same error, used precisely the same words. Hence arose Bishop Burnet's mistake. |