passage. The portions in italics (the very part most relied upon in our Article) are placed by the Benedictine editors in brackets, and there has been considerable controversy on the point. It was controverted in the days of Archbishop Parker himself. But the Archbishop maintained his point, and alleged other passages in proof. It is the very opposite to probability that such words should be added as a gloss in the Middle Ages; while it is probable that a zealous transcriber might omit them. Moreover they are certainly as old as the days of Bede and Alcuin. This question, however, does not affect the authority of the Article. Whether the words be the genuine expression of Augustine or not, our Church has adopted them and propounded them as containing the true doctrine. OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLE XXIX. This Article is a simple corollary to the last. If faith is the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten, those who have not faith cannot receive and eat it. But, further, this Article categorically denies the possibility of the reception in any wise. Those without lively faith are in no wise' (nullo modo) partakers of Christ. This seems intended to exclude every possible subterfuge which might bring them in as partakers in a subordinate sense. This Article is therefore a great difficulty with those who maintain a real objective presence in or with the consecrated elements. If the body of Christ is in anywise brought into union with the matter of the elements themselves by the act of consecration, then in some sense all who partake of them must be partakers of Christ. So not only the Catechism of the Council of Trent, but most of those who maintain a corporal presence, assert. The difficulties inherent in such an assertion, especially in connection with St. John vi. 54 ('Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day') are felt to be so great, that many able Romanist divines do not interpret $ E.g. Cajetan. 1 Strype's Parker, B. iv. c. 6. 2 II. iv. 48. the expressions in that chapter to mean feeding on Christ in the Eucharist. But the direct application of the chapter to the Lord's Supper is the usual Roman interpretation.1 On this subject the sixth chapter of Waterland on the Eucharist will be found very clear and satisfactory. It contains a brief review of the ancient and modern interpretations of the sixth chapter of St. John. It may be well to add some of the conclusions. 'There have been two extremes in the accounts given of the Fathers, and both of them owing, as I conceive, to a want of proper distinctions. They who judge that the Fathers, in general, or almost universally, do interpret John vi. of the Eucharist, appear not to distinguish between interpreting and applying. It was right to apply the general doctrine of John vi. to the particular case of the Eucharist considered as worthily received, because the spiritual feeding there mentioned is the thing signified in the Eucharist, yea and performed likewise. After we have sufficiently proved from other Scriptures that in and by the Eucharist, ordinarily, such spiritual food is conveyed, it is then right to apply all that our Lord, by St. John, says in the general, to that particular case; and this indeed the Fathers commonly did. But such application does not amount to interpreting that chapter of the Eucharist.' Waterland then proceeds to discuss the language of Ignatius, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, &c. &c., and sums up his comments thus: From this summary view of the ancients it may be observed that they varied sometimes in their constructions of John vi. or of some parts of it; but what prevailed most, and was the general sentiment wherein they united, was, that Christ himself is properly and primarily our bread of life, considered as the Word made flesh, as God incarnate, and dying for us; and that whatever else might, in a secondary sense, be called heavenly bread (whether sacraments or doctrines, or any holy service), it was considered but as an antepast to the other, or as the same thing in the main, under a different form of expression.' 1 E.g. Catechism of Trent, II. iv. 52. The distinction thus drawn between interpreting' and ' applying' a passage is most valuable. It will be the key by which the reader may open the perplexity of some strange apparent contradictions in quotations from the Fathers on other subjects beside this. 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 to be ministered to all Christian men alike. De utraque specie. Calix Domini laicis non est denegandus, utraque enim pars Dominici Sacramenti, ex Christi institutione et præcepto, omnibus Christianis ex æquo administrari debet. NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE XXX. The Latin and English versions of this Article are equally perspicuous, and require no special comment. The Article was added in Elizabeth's time; it appears to have been written by Archbishop Parker. OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLE XXX. Romish advocates after the Reformation used to attempt to show that the administration in both kinds was not universal in primitive times. But the more candid amongst them are compelled to own that in public administration it was so. Cardinal Bona, quoted by Bingham,' says that 'the faithful always, and in all places, from the very first foundation of the Church to the 12th century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine. And in the beginning of that century the use of the cup began by little and little to be laid aside, whilst many of the bishops interdicted the people the use of the cup for fear of irreverence and effusion. And what they did at first for their own churches was afterwards 1 XV. v. 1. confirmed by a canonical sanction in the Council of Constance.' This may be admitted as a sufficient historical account of the matter from the pen of an adversary. It is not much to the purpose whether or not in ancient times private communion was sometimes given in one kind only, as Bona maintains. Supposing such cases made out, still it remains that the public communion of the Church was uniformly, as Bona admits, under both kinds. It will be observed that the denial of the cup arose about the same time as the legal establishment of the doctrine of transubstantiation, to which indeed it is a corollary. Wickliffe, Huss, and other early reformers, brought this abuse prominently forward. The Bohemians, who rose against the decrees of the Council of Constance, demanded the cup, and were hence called Calixtines.1 The denial of the cup is defended by the Council of Trent 2 thus: Cap. I. That Christ instituted the Supper under both kinds, but did not make both binding on all the faithful. Also that in St. John vi. Christ varied the expression, sometimes saying eating and drinking, sometimes eating only. Cap. II. That this is a matter which the Church has power to regulate, according to the text, 'Let a man so account of us as stewards of the mysteries of God.' Cap. III. That under either species, the whole and entire Christ is received, and that, therefore, the communicant under one kind only is not defrauded. The reasons for the denial of the cup are thus stated 3 : 1. To avoid spilling the blood. 2. Because wine reserved might turn acid. very scarce. : 3. Because some cannot bear the smell or taste of wine. 4. Because in some countries wine is 5. In order more plainly to oppose the heresy of those who deny that the whole Christ is contained under either species. It is unnecessary to add anything in refutation of this unScriptural and confessedly non-primitive practice. 1 Mosheim, c. xv. p. ii. 5. 2 Sess. xxi. |