of Clermont, decreed, "that none should com"municate without taking the body apart, and "the blood apart, except upon necessity, and "with caution;" to which the following words are added in some copies : "in consequence of "the heresy of Berengarius, lately condemned, "which affirmed that the figure was completed "by one of the kinds."

6. In the twelfth century, when the opinion of the corporal presence introduced a superstitious veneration of the elements, so that the danger of spilling the wine, of its becoming sour, of its sticking to men's beards," was considered of importance, still they used to drink it through small quills or pipes, in order to obviate these objections. And when the custom of administering bread dipped in wine became prevalent, the writers of that time admit the novelty of this practice. Ivo of Chartres says, "the people communicated with dipped bread, not by authority, but by necessity, for fear of spilling the blood of Christ." And Pope Innocent IV. declared, that all might have the chalice, if they were cautious in using it.

66

C

7. The Greek Church communicates during most of the days in Lent, in bread dipped in

b See Conc. Clar. can. 28.

These were the reasons on which the change was founded— See Bonavent. comment. in Joan. 6.

See Gibson's Preserv. tit. vii. p. 124.

wine; and in the Ordo Romanus, there is mention made of a communion on Good Friday, when some of the bread which had been formerly consecrated was put into the chalice with unconsecrated wine; a practice which originated in the opinion that the wine became sanctified by the contact of the bread.

8. It is admitted in the decree of the council of Constance, by which the communion in one kind was established, that Christ instituted this sacrament in both kinds, and that the faithful in the primitive Church received in both kinds, yet a practice being reasonably introduced to avoid some dangerous scandals, it is ordered, "that the custom should continue" of consecrating in both kinds, and of giving to the laity only in one kind. The wars of Bohemia which succeeded this decree, and the cruelties practised on John Huss and Jerome of Prague, sufficiently prove the opposition that was made to it, even in dark ages, and by men who did not deny the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Some instances, however, are produced in support of the Roman custom.

1. It is related that the bread was sent to Serapion, and that he who brought it was ordered

a See Conc. Const. sess. 11. The same admission is made by the council of Trent.-See Conc. Trid. sess. 5. can. 2. de doct. b See Mosheim's Hist. cent. xv. par. ii. c. iii.

See Euseb. Hist. . 1. 4. c. 44.

to moisten it before he gave it to him. Hence, it is inferred, that the bread alone was usually received. There is no ground for this conclusion; for, as Justin Martyr a states, that both kinds were sent to the absent, it is probable that some of the wine was also sent to Serapion, in which the bread was to be dipt.

2. It is urged, that St. Ambrose," when dying, received the bread and not the cup. But as he expired before he could partake of the wine, no argument can be derived from this instance.

3. The communicating of the sick and of infants is also urged. But as these are extraordinary cases, and as rules are made from ordinary instances, no inference can be made from such circumstances.

4. It is mentioned, that several persons used to carry home small portions of the bread, which they reserved to other occasions; whence it is inferred, that they communicated only in one kind. But this conclusion is not valid. They received in both kinds, but they preserved some fragments of the one, which could be more easily saved than of the other; which is evident from the instances of those who carried home some portions of both kinds.c

a See Apol. 2.

b See Paulinus in vitá Amb.

See Ampiloch, vit. Basil. c. 7.

ARTICLE XXXI.

OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST FINISHED UPON THE CROSS.

THE OFFERING OF CHRIST, ONCE MADE, IS THAT PERFECT REDEMPTION, PROPITIATION AND SATISFACTION FOR ALL THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD, BOTH ORIGINAL AND ACTUAL; AND THERE IS NONE OTHER SATISFACTION FOR SIN BUT THAT ALONE. WHEREFORE THE SACRIFICES OF MASSES, IN THE WHICH IT WAS COMMONLY SAID THAT THE PRIEST DID OFFER CHRIST FOR THE QUICK AND THE DEAD TO HAVE REMISSION OF PAIN AND GUILT, WERE BLASPHEMOUS FABLES AND DANGEROUS DECEITS.

THIS Article asserts, that the sacrifice of Christ, once made, is the only satisfaction for sin.

As the object of this Article is to explain the true nature of the Eucharist, it will be necessary to consider with respect to it, 1st, the doctrine of the Church of England; and 2dly, the doctrine of the Church of Rome.

1st. As to the doctrine of the Church of England.

We admit that the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice in any of these three senses: 1. Sacri

fice is sometimes put for all acts of religious worship, because by them something is offered up to God. Thus, (in Ps. cxli. 2,) "let my prayer "be set forth before thee as incense, and the "lifting up of my hands as the evening sacri"fice." Again, "the sacrifices of God are a broken Spirit," (Ps. li. 15.) Likewise, in the New Testament, we are desired " by him," (that is, Christ,)" to offer the sacrifice of praise to "God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips,

66

giving thanks to his name." (Heb. xiii. 15.) Again, a Christian's dedicating himself to God is called " presenting his body a living sacrifice.” (Rom. xii. 1.) Acts of charity also are called “ a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God." (Phil. iv. 18.) In this sense the Eucharist may be a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, as our Church terms it in the office of the communion. 2. The Eucharist may be called a sacrifice, because in it there is an oblation made of bread and wine, which being sanctified are consumed by those who come to the Lord's table. To this many passages in the writings of the Fathers relate, and though the early Christians were reproached with holding a strange religion, in which there were neither temples, altars, nor sacrifices, yet Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and the succeeding writers of the Church frequently mention the oblations which they made. And

сс