of this sacrament, there is a peculiarity of expression observed with respect to the cup, which is not used with respect to the bread. Of the latter it is said, "take, eat;" but of the former, "drink ye all of this ;" and again, "they all "drank of it." The use of the word "all" adds considerable force to our argument. 2. It is said, "drink ye all of this, for this "is my blood of the New Testament, which is "shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. xxvi. 28.) Now when a reason is annexed to a precept, the precept must extend to all, to whom the reason can be applied. But all persons need remission of sins; consequently all should receive the cup in the sacra ment. 3. If the discourse in St. John (c. vi.) be understood of the sacrament, according to the opinion of Roman Catholic writers, it follows that the drinking Christ's blood is as necessary to eternal life as the eating his flesh; consequently the cup should be administered to all as well as the bread. 4. It is admitted that it is necessary to consecrate in both kinds. This admission implies that it is necessary to receive in both kinds. To these arguments, however, it is objected,2 1. that since the Apostles were all of the sacred a See Bellar. de Euch. 1. 4. c. 25. p. 683. d. order, their receiving in both kinds can be on precedent for giving the cup to the laity. But this objection may be thus refuted; (1.) Christ gave them both kinds, in their character of sinners who were now to be admitted into covenant with God by the sacrifice of his body and his blood; for by partaking of these they were to "show forth his death," and "to take, eat and "drink in remembrance of him." This institution, therefore, was delivered to them as they were sinners, and not as they were priests. (2.) Again, the Apostles were not constituted by Christ the pastors of his Church, till after his resurrection, when "he breathed on them, and "laid his hands on them, and blessed them." (John, xx. 22.) At this time, therefore, they were only his Disciples. In opposition to this, however, it is said that the words "do this," constituted them priests, so that they ceased to be laymen when they received the cup. But this exposition is unsupported by any of the early writers. The words evidently include the taking, giving, blessing, and eating of the bread, and convey a precept of continuing the institution as a memorial of Christ's death.a 2. It is objected that the words "breaking "of bread" are frequently used in the New Testament without any mention of the cup, and as a See Whitby's Comment. in loc. 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." 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. 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 delibe-: rate 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 See Apol. 2. Catech. Mist. 4 ta: Const. Apos. 1. 2. c. 57. and Eccles. Hier. c. 3. |