XXX. not in his glorified state. And if the opinion be true, that ART. the glorified bodies are of another texture than that of flesh and blood which seems to be very plainly asserted by St. Paul, in a discourse intended to describe the nature of the glorified bodies, then this theory of concomitance will fail upon that account. But whatsoever may be in that, an institution of Christ's must not be altered or violated, upon the account of an inference that is drawn to conclude it needless. He who instituted it knew best what was most fitting and most reasonable; and we must choose rather te acquiesce in his commands, than in our own reasonings. Catech. Mis. 4 ta. Eccles. If, next to the institution and the theory that arises from the nature of a sacrament, we consider the practice of the Christian church in all ages, there is not any one point in which the tradition of the church is more express and more universal than in this particular, for above a thousand years after Christ. All the accounts that we have of the ancient rituals, both in Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, the Con- Apol. 2. stitutions, and the pretended Areopagite, do expressly men- Ma tion both kinds as given separately in the sacrament. All Const. the ancient liturgies, as well these that go under the names of Apost. 1. ii. the apostles, as those which are ascribed to St. Basil and St. c. 57. Chrysostom, do mention this very expressly; all the offices Hiera. c. 3. of the western church, both Roman and others; the missals of the latter ages, I mean down to the twelfth century, even the Ordo Romanus, believed by some to be a work of the ninth, and by others of the eleventh century, are express in mentioning the distribution of both kinds. All the fathers, without excepting one, do speak of it very clearly, as the universal practice of their time. They do not so much as give a hint of any difference about it. So that, from Ignatius down to Thomas Aquinas, there is not any one writer that differs from the rest in this point; and even Aquinas speaks of the Aquin. taking away the chalice as the practice only of some churches; Com. in other writers of his time had not heard of any of these 53. InSumchurches; for they speak of both kinds as the universal ma. par. 9. practice. some 6.Joban.v. quæst. 80. art. 12. But besides this general concurrence, there are specialties in this matter: in St. Cyprian's time some thought it was not necessary to use wine in the sacrament; they therefore used water only, and were from thence called Aquarii. It seems they found that their morning assemblies were smelled out by the wine used in the sacrament; and Christians might be known by the smell of wine that was still about them; they therefore intended to avoid this, and so they had no wine among them, which was a much weightier reason, than that of the wine sticking upon the beards of the laity. Yet St. Cyprian condemned this very severely, in a Cyp. Ep. long epistle writ upon that occasion. He makes this the main argument, and goes over it frequently, that we ought to 63. ad Cecil. ART. follow Christ, and do what he did: and he has those meXXX. morable 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 a one; that does so very nearly relate 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 institution. This is so full, that we cannot express ourselves more plainly. Among the other profanations of the Manicheans, this was one, that they came among the assemblies of the Christians, and did receive the bread, but they would not take any Leo. Ser. 4. wine: this is mentioned by pope Leo in the fifth century; in Quadrag. upon which pope Gelasius, hearing of it in his time, appointed that all persons should either communicate in the sacrament entirely, or be entirely excluded from it; for that such a dividing of one and the same sacrament might not be done without a heinous sacrilege. Decret. de Consecr. dist. 2. In the seventh century a practice was begun of dipping the bread in the wine, and so giving both kinds together. Decret. de This was condemned by the council of Bracara, as plainly Consecr. dist. 2. contrary to the gospel: Christ gave his body and blood to his apostles distinctly, the bread by itself, and the chalice by itself. This is, by a mistake of Gratian's, put in the canon-law, as a decree of pope Julius to the bishops of Egypt. It is probable, that it was thus given first to the sick, and to infants; but though this got among many of the eastern churches, and was, it seems, practised in some parts of the west; yet, in the end of the eleventh century, pope Urban in the council of Clermont decreed, that none should Claramont. communicate without taking the body apart, and the blood apart, except upon necessity, and with caution; to which some copies add, and that by reason of the heresy of Berengarius, that was lately condemned, which said that the figure was completed by one of the kinds. Concil. can, 28. We need not examine the importance or truth of these last words; it is enough for us to observe the continued practice of communicating in both kinds till the twelfth century; and even then, when the opinion of the corporal presence begot a superstition towards the elements, that had not been known in former ages, so that some drops sticking to men's beards, and the spilling some of it, its freezing or becoming sour, grew to be more considered than the institution of Christ; yet for a while they used to suck it up through small quills or pipes. (called fistula, in the Ordo Romanus), which answered the objection from the beards. In the twelfth century, the bread grew to be given generally dipt in wine. The writers of that time, though they justify this practice, yet they acknowledge it to be contrary to the institution. Ivo of Chartres says, the people did com municate with dipt bread, not by authority, but by necessity, ART. for fear of spilling the blood of Christ. Pope Innocent the XXX. Fourth said, that all might have the chalice who were so cautious that nothing of it should be spilt. 1. vi. c. 44. Ambros. In the ancient church, the instance of Serapion is brought Eus. Hist. to shew that the bread alone was sent to the sick, which he that carried it was ordered to moisten before he gave it him. Justin Martyr does plainly insinuate that both kinds were Just. Mart. sent to the absents; so some of the wine might be sent to Apol. 2. Serapion with the bread; and it is much more reasonable to believe this, than that the bread was ordered to be dipt in water; there being no such instance in all history; whereas there are instances brought to shew that both kinds were carried to the sick. St. Ambrose received the bread, but Paulinus expired before he received the cup: this proves nothing but in vita the weakness of the cause that needs such supports. Nor can any argument be brought from some words concerning the communicating of the sick, or of infants. Rules are made from ordinary, and not from extraordinary practices. The small portions of the sacrament that some carried home, and reserved to other occasions, does not prove that they communicated only in one kind. They received in both, only they kept (out of too much superstition) some fragments of the one, which could be more easily, and with less observation, saved and preserved, than of the other and yet there are instances that they carried off some portions of both kinds. The Greek church communicates during most of the days in Lent, in bread dipt in wine; and in the Ordo Romanus there is mention made of a particular communion on Good Friday; when some of the bread that had been formerly consecrated was put into a chalice with unconsecrated wine: this was a practice that was grounded on an opinion that the unconsecrated wine was sanctified and consecrated by the contact of the bread; and though they used not a formal consecration, yet they used other prayers, which was all that the primitive church thought was necessary even to consecration; it being thought, even so late as Gregory the Great's time, that the Lord's Prayer was at first the prayer of consecration. These are all the colours which the studies and the subtilties of this age have been able to produce for justifying the decree of the council of Constance; that does acknowledge, Conc. * The following is the decree of the council of Constance on the subject of half communion : Cum in nonnullis mundi partibus, quidam temerarie asserere præsumant, populum Christianum debere sumere eucharistiæ sacramentum, sub utraque panis et vini specie suscipere, et non solum sub specie panis, sed etiam sub specie vini, populum laicum passim communicent, etiam post cœnam, vel alias non jejunum, &c. &c. hinc est, quod hoc presens concilium sacrum generale Constant. in spiritu sancto legitime congregatum, adversus hunc errorem saluti fidelium providere satagens, matura plurium doctorum, tam divini quam humani juris, deliberatione præhabita, declarat, decernit, et diffinit, quod licet Christus post cœnam instituerit, Const. XXX. ART. that Christ did institute this sacrament in both kinds, and that the faithful in the primitive church did receive in both kinds: yet, a practice being reasonably brought in to avoid some dangers and scandals, they appoint the custom to continue, of consecrating in both kinds, and of giving to the laity only in one kind: since Christ was entire and truly under each kind. They established this practice, and ordered that it should not be altered without the authority of the church. So late a practice and so late a decree cannot make void the command of Christ, nor be set in opposition to such a clear and universal practice to the contrary. The wars of Bohemia that followed upon that decree, and all that scene of cruelty which was acted upon John Huss and Jerom of Prague, at the first establishment of it, shews what opposition was made to it even in dark ages, and by men that did not deny transubstantiation. These prove that plain sense and clear authorities are so strong, even in dark and corrupt times, as not to be easily overcome. And this may be said concerning this matter, that as there is not any one point in which the church of Rome has acted more visibly contrary to the gospel than in this; so there is not any one thing that has raised higher prejudices against her, that has made more forsake her, and has possessed mankind more against her, than this. This has cost her dearer than any other. et suis discipulis administraverit, sub utraque specie panis et vini, hoc venerabile sacramentum, tamen hoc non obstante, sacrorum canonum auctoritas laudabilis; et approbata consuetudo ecclesiæ servavit et servat, quod hujus modi sacramentum non debet confici post cœnam, neque a fidelibus recipi non jejunis, nisi in casu infirmitatis, alterius necessitatis, ajure vel ecclesia concesso vel admisso. Et sicut hæc consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta, quod licet in primitiva ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, postea a conficientibus sub utraque, et a laicis tantummodo sub specie panis, suscipiatur, &c. Unde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab ecclesia et sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, et diutissime observata sit, habenda est pro lege, quam non licet reprobare, aut sine ecclesiæ auctoritate pro libito mutare. Quapropter dicere, quod hanc consuetudinem aut legem observare, sit sacrilegum aut illicitum, censeri debet erroneum : et pertinaciter asserentes oppositum præmissorum, tanquam hæretici arcendi sunt, et graviter puniendi per diæcesanos locorum, seu officiales eorum, aut inquisitores hæreticæ pravitatis, in regnis seu provinciis, in quibus contra hoc decretum, aliquid fuerit forsan attentatum, aut præsumptum, juxta canonicas et legitimas sanctiones, in favorem catholicæ fidei, contra hæreticos et eorum fautores, salubriter adinventas.' Labb. and Coss. vol. xii. p. 99, &c. Par. 1672. The above decree is thus confirmed by the council of Trent : - 'Si quis dixerit, sacram ecclesiam catholicam, non justis causis et rationibus, adductam fuisse, ut laicos atque etiam clericos non conficientes, sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret; aut in eo errasse; anathema sit!!! Sessio xxi. canon 2.-[ED.] ART. XXXI. 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 in 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. 15. Ir were a mere question of words to dispute concerning the term sacrifice, to consider the extent of that word, and the many various respects in which the eucharist may be called a sacrifice. In general, all acts of religious worship may be called sacrifices: because somewhat is in them offered up to God: Let my prayer be set forth before thee as Ps. cxli. 2. incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening Ps. li. 17. sacrifice. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.' These shew how largely this word was used in the Old Testament: so in the New we are exhorted by him (that is, by Christ) to Hebr. xiii. offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name.' A Christian's dedicating himself to the service of God, is also expressed by the same word of presenting our bodies a living sacrifice, Rom.xii.l. holy and acceptable to God.' All acts of charity are also called sacrifices, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, Phil.iv.18. well-pleasing to God.' So in this large sense we do not deny that the eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving:' and our church calls it so in the office of the Communion. In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a sacrifice. One is, because there is an oblation of bread and wine made in it, which being sanctified are consumed in an act of religion. To this many passages in the writings of the fathers do relate. This was the oblation made at the altar by the people and though at first the Christians were reproached, as having a strange sort of religion, in which they had neither temples, altars, nor sacrifices, because they had not those things in so gross a manner as the heathens had; yet both Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and all the succeeding writers of the church, do frequently mention the oblations that they made and in the ancient liturgies they did with particular prayers offer the bread and wine to God, as the great Creator of all things; those were called the gifts or offerings which were offered to God, in imitation of Abel, who offered the |