and natural body of Christ sacramentally and no further, as S. Augustine saith; but good men do eat the very true body both sacramentally and spiritually by grace."— Works (Parker Society), p. 246. In these two extracts "sacramentally" is equivalent to "figuratively," or rather eating the body sacramentally is equivalent to "eating the sacrament of the body" (cf. the remarks on the language of the Fathers in the extract from Mozley on p. 671, note 1). This may throw some light on the wording of the "Prayer of Humble Access" in the Book of Common Prayer: "Grant us so to eat the Flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His Blood, that our sinful bodies," etc.

ARTICLE XXX

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.

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.

THIS Article is one of the four which were added by Archbishop Parker in 1563. It was accepted by the Convocation, and has kept its place ever since without any change. In considering it, it will be well to treat separately1. The history of the practice condemned in it. 2. The arguments by which it has been justified.

I. The History of the Denial of the Cup to the Laity.

The evidence for the administration of both th parts of the Lord's sacrament. . . to all Chris tian men alike, whether clergy or laity, during th first eleven centuries, is so full and complete that it is not now even pretended by Roman divines that during this period the administration of the Eucharist in one kind was ever permitted in the Catholic Church, save only in exceptional cases, as (perhaps) to the sick.1

1 This admission was not always so readily made, for Bishop Watson in 1558 says that "the holy Church hath used, even from the time of Christ Himself and His Apostles, to minister this sacrament under the form of Bread only both to laymen and women, and also to priests, «

There is not one word in the New Testament to indicate that the Cup was to be withheld from the laity. On the contrary, S. Paul's language directly implies that he contemplated that all alike would receive both parts of the sacrament, for he says, "Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. xi. 28). The words of Justin Martyr are conclusive for the practice in the second century.1 S. Cyril of Jerusalem 2 and many other Fathers supply evidence for the fourth and later centuries. But it is needless to cite testimonies when it is admitted by Cardinal Bona that "the faithful always and in all places, from the first beginnings of the Church till the twelfth century, were used to communicate under the species of bread and wine, and the use of the chalice began little by little to drop away in the beginning of that century, and many bishops forbade it to the people to avoid the risk of irreverence and spilling.' "3

There is, however, evidence which is very worthy of note, that during this period there was a tendency in some quarters to abstain from receiving the chalice, and that this was severely condemned by the authorities of the Church. Thus Leo I. (440) writes of certain Manichees, and says, "They receive Christ's Body with unworthy mouth, and entirely refuse to drink the Blood of our when they do consecrate and minister to themselves with their own hands."-Serm. viii. p. xlvi (Lond. 1558); quoted in Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica, p. 621 (ed. 1). As Scudamore remarks: "A falsehood more gross and palpable could not be committed to writing."

1 Apol. I. lxv.: "The deacons give to each of those present to receive of the consecrated (eixapiornoévtos) bread and wine and water, and they carry them to those not present."

2 Cat. Myst. v. 22: "Then after having partaken of the Body of Christ, approach also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hand, but bending and saying in the way of worship and reverence, Amen; be thou hallowed by partaking also of the Blood of Christ." 3 Rerum Liturg. bk. II. c. xviii. § 1.

Redemption; therefore we give notice to you, holy brethren, that men of this sort, whose sacrilegious deceit has been detected, are to be expelled by priestly authority from the fellowship of the saints."1

About fifty years later Gelasius I. (490) repeats the condemnation of the practice. "We have ascertained that certain persons, having received a portion of the sacred Body alone, abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred Blood. Let such persons, without any doubt (since they are stated to feel themselves bound by some superstitious reason), either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege.'

"2

From these early testimonies we may pass on to the close of the eleventh century, when the custom was beginning to creep into the Catholic Church, probably from motives of reverence, and anxiety to avoid accidents or scandals. At this time the matter attracted some attention, and the custom of communicating in one kind alone was definitely condemned by the Council of Clermont under Urban II. (1095), as well as by Pascal II. at the beginning of the next century (1118). The twentyeighth Canon of the Council is clear, and states positively that "no one shall communicate at the altar unless he receive the Body and the Blood separately and alike, unless by way of necessity and for caution

1 Hom. xli.

" 3

2 Corpus Juris Canon. Decret. III. ii. 12. The after-history of the decree is curious and instructing. Aquinas boldly says that "Gelasius speaks only in reference to priests, who, as they consecrate the whole sacrament, so ought they also to communicate in it whole."-Summa, III. q. lxxx. art. xii.

8 Conc. Clarom. Can. xxviii.: "Ne aliquis communicet de altari nisi corpus separatim et sanguinem similiter, nisi per necessitatem et cautelam."-Labbe and Cossart, vol. vi. p. 1719.

while the words of Pope Pascal are these: "Therefore, according to the same Cyprian, in receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord, let the Lord's tradition be observed; nor let any departure be made, through a human and novel institution, from what Christ the Master ordained and did. For we know that the bread was given separately and the wine given separately by the Lord Himself; which custom we therefore teach and command to be always observed in the holy Church, save in the case of infants and of very infirm people, who cannot swallow bread." 1

But that which was denounced by Pascal II. early in the eleventh century as a "human and novel institution," and a "departure" from Christ's ordinance, in the course of the next two centuries gradually spread throughout the West; and when the abuses of the Church began to attract general attention, and the cry for reformation of them made itself heard, there was none which was more severely denounced than this. It was one of the abuses for the reform of which much was hoped from the Council of Constance (1415). But instead of abolishing the practice of Communion in one kind, the Council not only ventured to assert that “though Christ instituted and gave this sacrament to His disciples under both kinds, yet the Church has the power of ordering that to the laity it be given under one kind only," but actually proceeded to exercise this "power" by positively forbidding Communion in both kinds to the lay people. The troubles and bloodshed which were due to this decree are matters of history, on which it is

244 Quod nullus presbyter sub pœna excommunicationis communicet populum sub utraque specie panis et vini."-Conc. Const. Sessio xiii. Labbe and Cossart, vol. viii. p. 581.