they ought to consider that the wine was intended to be a memorial of the blood shed out of the body; and therefore they who do not receive the cup, do not make this memorial which Christ commanded. Besides, why did Christ institute the cup? If his disciples, in receiving the bread, had received both the body and blood, what need was there afterward in giving them the cup, and calling it the new testament in his blood? Again: if partaking of the bread be the communion both of the body and blood of Christ, why did Paul make such a distinction between the bread and the cup, calling one the communion of the body of Christ, and the other the communion of his blood? Lastly, if both the body and blood are received in the bread, what does the priest who administers receive when he takes the cup?

They also urge, "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever," John vi, 51. But they must first show that this verse, and indeed the context at large, relates to the Lord's supper. And this they

cannot do, according to the principles of their church, which require that they "receive and interpret Scripture not otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." Now the Council of Trent (sess. 21, c. 1) acknowledge that the fathers and doctors gave various interpretations (varias interpretationes) of this portion of the sixth of John. We also insist that bishops of Rome, cardinals, bishops, and other doctors of their church, upward of thirty in number, deny that their doctrine with respect to the eucharist is to be collected from this chapter.

From the phrase, as often as ye drink it, they argue that the cup in the eucharist may sometimes be omitted. But it should be remembered that the same phrase, as often as, is applied to the bread as well as to the cup.

n

From the passage, "Whosoever shall eat this bread AND drink this cup unworthily," (1 Cor. xi, 27,) Roman Catholics complain that the Protestants have corrupted the text, as both the Greek and Vulgate, instead of kat and et, AND, have 7 and vel, OR: "Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily." To this we reply, 1. This criticism gives no countenance to communion in one kind, because their own Greek, Latin, and English Testaments (1 Cor. xi, 26, 28, 29; x, 16, 17) no less than five times use kat, AND, in joining the bread and cup together, to be both received in remembrance of Christ. Therefore, to say the cup is not necessary, is to make the apostle contradict himself, as well as our Lord's institution. 2. That kai, and, is the true reading, and not 7, or, both MSS. and versions sufficiently prove; and that et, not vel, is the proper reading of the Vulgate, original editions formed by Roman Catholics themselves prove. See these points established by Dr. A. Clarke on 1 Cor. xi, 27, at the end of the chapter. 3. Besides, whatever may be the true reading, the doctrine of half communion gains nothing; because the apostle plainly teaches that EITHER to eat or drink unworthily was wrong. And that the Corinthians did drink of the cup, and that some of them did drink unworthily, or in an irreverent manner, is plainly declared in the context.

4. The very intention and nature of the sacrament require that both kinds should be employed in order properly to celebrate it. Two reasons are obvious for the distribution of the cup to the whole body of the church. 1. Because it is the blood of the new covenant, which

belongs as much to the laity as to the clergy. It is the blood shed for the remission of sins, not only of the priests, but of the laity. 2. By the drinking of the cup, they remembered Christ's blood shed for them, and which showed forth his death. Now since these reasons do equally concern all Christians, the drinking of the cup, by which this commemoration is to be made, must equally concern them, for certainly the means which Christ appointed for such an institution ought to be pursued by all who are obliged to pursue that end. And if St. Paul reproved the Corinthians for varying from the original institution in their manner of celebrating it, what would he have said to them had they varied as the Romanists do, in leaving out altogether one half of this

sacrament?

5. Without the cup there can be no sacrament at all, and therefore the eucharist is not, strictly speaking, celebrated in the Church of Rome. The following admirable quotation from Dr. Adam Clarke on the eucharist will set this in a very clear light: "With respect to the bread, he had before simply said, Take, eat, this is my body; but concerning the cup he says, Drink ye all of this; for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, namely, the blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should have a particular application of it; therefore he says, Drink ye ALL OF THIS. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord's supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against God's institution; and they who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could, without mortal prejudice, be omitted, it might be the bread; but the cup, as pointing out the blood poured out, that is, the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a popish priest under heaven who denies the cup to the people (and they all do this) that can be said to celebrate the Lord's supper at all; nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament! All pretension to this is an absolute farce, so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange it is, that the very men who plead so much for the bare literal meaning of, This is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to, Drink ye all of this cup, in this verse! And though Christ has in the most positive manner enjoined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it! O what a thing is man! a constant contradiction to reason and to himself. The conclusion, therefore, is unavoidable. The sacrament of the Lord's supper is not celebrated in the Church of Rome. Should not this be made known to the miserable deluded Catholics over the face of the earth?" 6. As it regards the practice of the primitive church, nothing is more clear than that this sacrament was constantly administered in both kinds. We might except, however, the Manichean heretics, who considered the wine in the sacrament as abominable, because they believed that wine was not created of God, but was made by the devil. It therefore appears that the corrupted Church of Rome, with all their claims to infallibility, have adopted at least a part of the Manichean heresy.

The first introduction of this innovation in the Church of Rome, and that is the only church in which it is tolerated, was in the year 1415,

by the Council of Constance. But properly it was Innocent III. who made it a law, for the Council of Constance, as we have seen, did not even act upon the decrees drawn up by the pope, and this candid Roman Catholics acknowledge, though some of them may deny it, and others are ignorant of the fact. Afterward the Council of Trent decreed in favour of half communion. The pope's faction was so powerful at that council, that, contrary to the institution of our Lord, they carried that measure which the Council of Constance had introduced. But members of the Church of Rome in modern times have had recourse to various expedients to meet the arguments brought against them. Some of them maintain, contrary to the decree of their councils, and contrary to Scripture, that the Scriptures authorize communion in one kind. Others maintain that it is a mere disciplinary regulation; while others still assert that church authority can regulate this matter; and as the Church of Rome has determined on communion in one kind, the word of God, which sanctions that authority, gives them a right to reject the cup. So they teach.

Now since some of them deny the doctrine to be a novelty, we will adduce testimonies concurrent with the Council of Constance. Cassander affirms "that in the Latin Church, for above a thousand years. the body of Christ and the blood of Christ were separately given, the body apart and the blood apart, after the consecration of the mysteries." So Aquinas also affirms: "According to the ancient custom of the church, all men, as they communicated in the body, so they communicated in the blood; which also, to this day, is kept in some churches." Indeed, there was a law for communion in both kinds; for Pope Gelasius says: "We find that some, having received a portion only of the holy body, do abstain from the cup of the holy blood: who doubtless (because they are bound by I know not what superstition) should receive the entire sacraments wholly, or should be driven from the entire wholly; because the division of one and the same mystery cannot be without very great sacrilege." But this case is so plain, and there are such clear testimonies out of the fathers recorded in their own canon law, that nothing can obscure it, except using too many words in its proof.

7. We shall now produce some of those reasons which the Church of Rome gives for her doctrine, and pass some strictures upon them.

They said those who desired the cup were disaffected persons, and not true Catholics; and if they would condescend to them in this, they would be for farther encroachments, and would be for having their prayers in a known language, the marriage of the clergy, and such other things as the Roman Church would not allow.

They thought the clergy were already in sufficient contempt; and if they would allow the people to enjoy the same privilege in the sacrament with them, it would make way for farther contempt; for it would make the people and priest equal.

"Comperimus quod quidam, sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione, a calice sacri cruoris abstineant: qui proculdubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur abstringi) aut sacramenta integra percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur. Quia divisio unius et ejusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire."-Dist. 2 De Consecratione, A. D. 492.

Alphonsus Salmeren, as pope's divine, at the Council of Trent, said: "It was certain that the church could not err, because it is the basis and pillar of truth; and consequently, since the cup has for a considerable time been forbidden to the laity, pursuant to the Councils of Constance and Bazil, it was certain that communion under both kinds was not of divine obligation." Thus, in order to maintain the infallibility of their church, they have divided the institution of Christ.

The Council of Trent says there were weighty reasons for administering this sacrament in one kind: "Wherefore, though from the beginning of the Christian religion the use of both kinds was not unfrequent, yet when in process of time that practice was, for weighty and just causes, changed, holy mother church, recognising her acknowledged authority in the administration of the sacraments, approved the custom of communion in one kind, and commanded it to be observed as law to condemn or alter which, at pleasure, without the authority of the church itself, is not lawful.”*

The following are the just reasons which the Roman Catechism gives for half communion: "The church, no doubt, was influenced by numerous and cogent reasons, not only to approve, but confirm by solemn decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greater caution was necessary to avoid accident or indignity, which must become almost inevitable if the chalice were administered in a crowded assemblage. In the next place, the holy eucharist should be at all times in readiness for the sick; and if the species of wine remained long unconsumed, it were to be apprehended that it might become vapid. Besides, there are many who cannot bear the taste or smell of wine; lest, therefore, what is intended for the nutriment of the soul should prove noxious to the health of the body, the church, in her wisdom, has sanctioned its administration under the species of bread alone. We may also observe, that in many places wine is extremely scarce, nor can it be brought from distant countries without incurring very heavy expense, and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys. Finally, a circumstance which principally influenced the church in establishing this practice, means were to be devised to crush the heresy which denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. This object was attained by communion under the species of bread alone, which places, as it were, sensibly before our eyes the truth of the Catholic faith."t

Thus, lest the clergy should not be honourable enough, and for fear of impeaching the infallibility of the church, to put a stop to the inquiring laity, the Council of Trent presents mere fanciful reasons for withholding the cup from the laity; and that too in opposition to Christ's institution, the apostles' practice, and the usage of the Catholic Church for so many ages; and have ordered that "none, in a public sacrament, shall communicate in both the elements of bread and wine, but only the priest that consecrates."

*Conc. Trid., sess. 21, c. 2

+ Catechism, p. 228.

1

CHAPTER VII.

WORSHIP OF THE HOST.

1. Their doctrine stated. Council of Trent quoted: 2. The primitive church had no such worship: 3. It is idolatry to worship that for God which is not God: 4. All the marks and reproaches of idolatry apply to the adoration of the host. Minutius Felix cited: 5. The adoration of the host is peculiarly absurd: 6. Their eating their supposed God in the wafer is notably absurd: 7. Their plea, that they worship only Christ, is not valid: 8. They say their good intention screens them from idolatry. Absurdity of this: 9. Their practice in this adoration. Mode of adoration. Processions. Practice in Spain. Litany of the sacrament: 10. The feast of Corpus Christi.

same.

1. WE come now to inquire, whether Roman Catholics have not greatly erred, and are not guilty of a gross corruption, when they worship the wafer in the sacrament with the same honour with which they worship God, and oblige all the members of their church to do the That this is their practice, none can deny; that it is the doctrine of their church, the Council of Trent plainly declares. After that council hath declared, that after consecration the bread and wine in the sacrament are changed into our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man; and that though our Saviour always sits at the right hand of God in heaven, he is, notwithstanding, in many other places sacramentally present, we have the following decision: "There is, therefore, no room to doubt but that the faithful of Christ should adore his most holy sacrament with that highest worship due to the true God, according to the constant usage in the Catholic Church. Nor is it the less to be thus adored, that it was instituted by Christ our Lord to be eaten." "If any one shall say that this holy sacrament should not be adored, nor solemnly carried about in procession, nor held up publicly to the people to adore it, or that its worshippers are idolaters; let him be accursed."* This worship they give the host (the round wafer) not only at the time of receiving it, but whenever it is carried about in the streets. All persons are, by the sound of a bell, admonished to worship the passing God; and if any refuse to do so, and say the practice is wrong, he is pronounced accursed. So all are accursed who do not offer supreme adoration to the host, which a mouse may run off with and eat, or the priest himself may eat and vomit, and eat again!!

2. The Catholic Church of Christ, in the first ages, had no such worship. That it is a novelty, not known till 1216, is plain: 1. Because it was in 1215 that transubstantiation, by the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent III., was made an article of faith, as Scotus, Tonstal, and others write. 2. In the Roman canon law we find that it was Pope Honorius who ordered, in the following year, that the priests, at a certain part of the mass service, should elevate the host, and cause the people to prostrate themselves in worshipping it.

Besides a profound silence of antiquity concerning it, we have this

"Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Christi fideles, pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto, latriæ cultum qui vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo sacramento in veneratione exhibeant; neque enim ideo minus est adorandum, quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institutum." "Si quis dixerit non solemniter circumgestandum in processionibus, vel non publice ut adoretur proponendum, aut ejus adoratores esse idolatras; anathema sit."-Con. Trid., sess. xiii, c. 5, can. 6.