too, as well as no good at the sacrament, the same father expresseth it elsewhere, saying, Dost thou not fear to communicate of the body of Christ when thou comest to the eucharist, as if thou wast clean and pure, as if thou hadst nothing of unworthiness in thee? And in all these things, dost thou think thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Dost not thou remember what is said, "For this cause many are weak and sick, and many sleep amongst you?" Why are many weak? Because they do not judge nor examine themselves, nor understand what it is to communicate with the church, nor what it is to come to such and so great sacraments. They suffer what they that are sick of fevers use to suffer, whilst they presume to eat of the meat of the healthful, bringing destruction to themselves.'

To this purpose makes that of Cyprian : The sacraments, as much as in themselves is, can never be without their proper virtue, neither doth the Divine Majesty any way absent itself from, the mysteries. But though the sacraments suffer themselves to be taken and touched by unworthy persons, yet they cannot be partakers of the Spirit, whose infidelity and unworthiness contradict so great piety. Therefore to some these gifts are the savour of life unto life, to others the savour of death unto death.' And elsewhere,

He that is down threatens them that stand, and the wounded such as are whole; and because he may not presently receive the body of the Lord with his polluted hands, or drink the blood of the Lord with his defiled mouth, the sacrilegious fellow is angry at the priests. But oh, thy exceeding madness, thou furious person! Thou art angry at him that strives to turn the wrath of God from thee! Thou

* Sacramenta quidem, quantum in se est, sine propria esse virtute non possunt, nec ullo modo divina se absentat majestas mysteriis. Sed quamvis ab indignis se sumi vel contingi sacramenta permittant, non possunt tamen Spiritus esse participes, quorum infidelitas vel indignitas tantæ sanctitudini contradicit. Ideoque aliis sunt hæc munera odor vitæ in vitam, aliis odor mortis in mortem.-Cyprian. de Cana Domini. Jacens stantibus et integris vulneratus minatur, et quod non statim Domini corpus inquinatis manibus accipiat, aut ore polluto Domini sanguinem bibat, sacerdotibus sacrilegis irascitur. Atque ô tuam nimiam furiose dementiam! irasceris ei qui abs te avertere iram Dei nititur! ei minaris qui pro te Domini misericordiam deprecatur, qui vulnus tuum sentit, quod ipse non sentis! - Id. Serm. de Lapsis.

threatenest him that beggeth the mercy of God for thee, who is sensible of thy wound, which thou thyself art not sensible of!"'

But I need not search the fathers for the confirmation of this Article, for it is indeed almost word for word taken out of a father, Augustine by name, who is quoted in it; for he, in his comment upon the Gospel of St. John, hath this passage: And by this, he that doth not dwell in Christ, and in whom Christ doth not dwell, without all doubt doth not spiritually eat his body nor drink his blood, though he may carnally and visibly press with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; but rather to his judgment or condemnation eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing; because being unclean, he presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no one can worthily receive but he that is clean.' In which passage the sense of this Article being so fully contained, and it being the place I suppose cited in the Article itself, I shall not add any more to it, but only conclude with that of Basil', 'Let us therefore cleanse ourselves from all defilements, and so let us come to these holy things, that we may escape the judgment of those that killed the Lord. For that whosoever eateth this bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'

Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem ejus nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licèt carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi. Sed magis tantæ rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit, quia immundus præsumpsit ad Christi accedere sacramenta quæ aliquis non dignè sumit nisi qui mandus est.-Aug. in Joh. Tract. 26.

Καθαρεύσωμεν τοίνυν ἀπὸ παντὸς μολυσμοῦ, καὶ οὕτως προσέρχωμεν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἵνα φύγωμεν τὸ κρίμα τῶν φονευσάντων τὸν Κύριον· διότι ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον, ἢ πίνη τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναξίως, ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου. -Basil. de Baptismo, lib. ii. quæst. 3.

ARTICLE XXX.

Of both Kinds.

THE CUP OF THE LORD IS NOT TO BE DENIED TO THE LAY-PEOPLE, FOR BOTH THE PARTS OF THE LORD'S SACRAMENT, BY CHRIST'S ORDINANCE AND COMMANDMENT, OUGHT ΤΟ BE MINISTERED ΤΟ ALL

CHRISTIAN MEN ALIKE.

6

WHEN Our Lord Christ instituted the sacrament of his supper, he was pleased to ordain two signs to be used in the administration of it, bread' and wine,' the one to represent his 'body,' the other his blood.' But about four hundred years ago, the church of Rome, for reasons best known to herself, thought good to make a countermand, that bread and wine should not be both administered to all communicants, but that the lay-people should be content with the bread only without the wine, yea, and the clergy too, if there were any present besides him that consecrated it. So that in few words they ordained and still use to deny the cup, and to administer the bread only to all the communicants, the priest that consecrates it reserving every drop of the wine for himself. Now against this wild practice of the church of Rome our church of England is pleased in this Article to set herself, determining that the cup of the Lord is not to be denied to lay-people. Neither is this only here asserted, but confirmed too: so that I need not go any further for the proof of the Article than to the Article itself. And the reason that is here brought is from Christ's institution and command. For by the ordinance and commandment of Christ, both the parts of the sacraments,' to wit, both bread and wine, ought to be administered to all Christian men.' And to prove this proof of the Article, we may take notice of the words of institution themselves. After,

a Quod verò ad communicandi ritum pertinet, doceant parochi sanctæ ecclesiæ lege interdictum esse ne quis sine ipsius ecclesiæ autoritate, præter sacerdotes corpus Domini in sacrificio conficientes, sub utraque specie sacram eucharistiam sumat. · Catechism, ad Parochos.

therefore, he had distributed the bread, St. Matthew saith, "And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it," Matt. xxvi. 27. St. Mark, "And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it," Mark, xiv. 22. St. Luke,"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you," Luke, xxii. 20. St. Paul, "After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: This do ye, as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me," 1 Cor. xi. 25. In all which places we may observe these things making for our purpose. First, That the bread is never spoken of, but still the cup is brought in after it. Secondly, That as the bread is still brought in to represent his body, not his blood, so is the cup still brought in to represent his blood, not his body. So that neither of them is appointed to represent both; and by consequence he that is partaker of the bread only, doth not partake of his blood; neither doth he that is partaker of the wine only partake of his body; but, to partake of both body and blood, we must receive both the bread and wine. Thirdly, That St. Luke ushers in the institution of the cup with the word, 'likewise,' "Likewise also the cup ;" and St. Paul, "After the same manner also the cup;" so that after the same manner that he instituted the bread he instituted the cup also. Now our adversaries themselves acknowledge he instituted the bread, so as to be communicated to all; and therefore we may well say, he likewise,' and' after the same manner,' instituted the cup too to be administered to all. Fourthly, That in St. Matthew he said, "Drink ye all of it;" and in St. Mark it is said, "They all drank of it:" expressions not to be found in the institution of the bread, as if he foresaw this very corruption that the devil would bring into his ordinance, even that though all should be suffered to eat the bread, yet all should not be suffered to drink the cup. Therefore hath he left a particular command, that all should drink of the cup; so that if either of the parts might be omitted, certainly the bread should be rather omitted than the cup, it being so expressly and in plain terms commanded, that all should drink of the cup; whereas there is no such express command for all to

eat of the bread.

6

And our Saviour commanding them all to drink of it, in obeisance to his command they all drink of it; so that though it be not said, They all ate the bread,' yet it is said, They all drank of the cup,' even all the communicants, as well as he that consecrated it; to show us that all are to drink the cup as well as eat the bread. Nay, lastly, it is here said, Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me.'" Do this." What? Eat the bread only? No. Drink the cup only? No; but administer and receive both bread and cup, in remembrance of me, who have now administered both to you. And therefore, Do this,' is not brought in till the cup was administered as well as the bread. And therefore it cannot possibly be denied, but that according to Christ's institution, the cup is to be administered to all Christian men as well as the bread, that being an essential part of the sacrament as well as this. And seeing Christ hath joined them both together, it is not for man to put them asunder; but, as Cyprian observes, We are admonished that in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord is to be observed; neither is any thing to be done by us, but what the Lord hath done before for us.' And afterwards, But if it be not lawful to break the least of Christ's commands, how much more is it not lawful to infringe such great ones, so mysterious, so much appertaining to the sacrament of the Lord's passion and our redemption, or to change it by human tradition into any thing else but what was divinely instituted? And Ambrose, He saith it is unworthy of the Lord, whosoever celebrates the mystery otherwise than it was delivered. For he cannot be devout who presumes ⚫ otherwise than is given by the author. Therefore he (St. Paul) admonisheth that his mind, who comes to the

Admonitos nos scias quòd in calice offerendo Dominica traditio servetur, neque aliud fiat à nobis quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit. – Cyprian. Epistolarum, lib. ii. Epist. S. ad Cæcilium Fratrem. Quòd si nec minima de mandatis Dominicis licet solvere, quanto magis tam magna, tam grandia, tam ad ipsum Dominicæ passionis et nostræ redemptionis sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infringere, aut in aliud quàm quod divinitus institutum est humanâ traditione mutare? - Ibid.

Indignum dicit Domino, qui aliter mysterium celebrat quàm ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse qui aliter præsumit quàm datum est ab autore. Itaque præmonet ut secundùm ordinem' traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad eucharistiam Domini.-Ambros. in 1 Cor. 11.