ARTICLE THE TWENTY-NINTH.

OF THE WICKED WHICH EAT NOT THE BODY OF CHRIST IN THE USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively Faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their Teeth (as St. Augustin saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they Partakers of Christ, but rather to their Condemnation do eat and drink the Sign or Sacrament of so great a Thing.

THIS Article is connected with the preceding, and follows from it; it was probably directed against the Papists, who contend that the mere receiving the Lord's Supper procures remission of sins ex opere operato, as it were mechanically, whatever may be the character and disposition of the communicant. And indeed, if with the church of Rome we believed the actual presence of Christ's body in the eucharist, then all persons, good and bad, who received the sacrament, would equally receive the body of Christ. But we have shown in the preceding Article, that he is present only in a spiritual manner, and that "the mean, whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten, is faith;" consequently, they who have not faith do not receive Christ, that is, THE WICKED AND SUCH AS BE VOID OF A LIVELY FAITH, ALTHOUGH THEY DO CARNALLY AND VISIBLY PRESS WITH THEIR TEETH (AS ST. AUGUSTIN SAITH) THE SACRAMENT OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF

CHRIST; YET IN NO WISE ARE THEY PARTAKERS OF CHRIST. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a federal act, and if men neglect to perform the conditions required of them by due preparation and suitable disposition of mind, they will derive no benefit from eating and drinking the bread and wine, THEY WILL IN NO WISE BE PARTAKERS OF CHRIST, that is, they will have no share whatever in those blessings which Christ purchased by his death.

BUT RATHER TO THEIR CONDEMNATION DO EAT AND DRINK THE SIGN OR SACRAMENT OF SO GREAT A THING.

The unworthy receiving of this holy sacrament must necessarily be a sin; it is a mark of presumption and insincerity; it dishonours God, and profanes his institution; and St. Paul assures us that it will draw down punishment upon us, as has been noticed at the end of the twenty-fifth Article; but we are not to suffer unfounded scruples upon this subject to deter us from the performance of an essential duty.

The doctrine of this Article is clearly asserted in the ancient fathers: Origen says, "Christ is the true food: whosoever eats him shall live for ever; of whom no wicked person can eat; for if it were possible that any, who continue wicked, should eat the Word that was made flesh, it had never been written, Whoso eateth this bread shall live for And again, "The good eat the living bread which came down from heaven; but the

ever." a

a Comment. in Matt. xv.

wicked eat dead bread, which is death." Jerome says, "They that are not holy in body and spirit, do neither eat the flesh of Jesus nor drink his blood; of which he said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life."" And Augustin, in the passage alluded to in the Article, after quoting this verse in St. John's Gospel, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him "," adds, "to dwell then in Christ, and to have him dwelling in us, this is to eat that food, and to drink that drink. And he who by these means does not dwell in Christ, and in whom Christ does not dwell, without doubt neither spiritually eats his flesh, nor drinks his blood, though he carnally press with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; but rather to his own condemnation he eats and drinks the sacrament of so great a thing, because he has presumed to come impure to the sacrament of Christ, which none receive worthily but they who are pure, of whom it is said, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." "

a In cap. lxvi. Isaiæ. b John, vi. 56.

Tractat. 26. in Joan.

ARTICLE THE THIRTIETH.

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.

It appears from the unanimous testimony of the fathers, and from all the ancient rituals and liturgies, that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was, in the early ages of the Church, administered in both kinds, as well to the laity as to the clergy. It is therefore unnecessary to quote authorities upon a point which has never been called in question; but I will just state that Pope Gelasius, in the fifth century, whom I mentioned under the twenty-eighth Article, having heard that the Manichæans attended the assemblies of the Christians, and partook of the bread, but not of the wine, in the Lord's Supper, decreed, 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 could not be done without a heinous sacrilege."

a

The practice of denying the cup to the laity arose out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The belief that the sacramental bread and wine

a It was a principle of the Manichæans never to taste wine upon

were actually converted into the body and blood of Christ, naturally produced, in a weak and superstitious age, an anxious fear lest any part of them should be lost or wasted. To prevent any thing of this kind in the bread, small wafers were used, which were put at once into the mouths of the communicants by the officiating ministers; but no expedient could be devised to guard against the occasional spilling of the wine in administering it to large congregations. The bread was sopped in the wine, and the wine was conveyed by tubes into the mouth; but all in vain; accidents still happened, and therefore it was determined that the priests should entirely withhold the cup from the laity. It is to be supposed that a change of this sort, in so important an ordinance as that of the Lord's Supper, could not be effected at once. The first attempt seems to have been made in the twelfth century; it was gradually submitted to, and was at last established by the authority of the Council of Constance, A. D. 1414; but in their decree they acknowledged 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 introduced 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," thus presuming to depart from the positive command of our Lord respecting the manner of administering the sign of the covenant between