into which her assumed infallibility betrayed her, she preferred contravening Antiquity, and risking division, rather than abandon any practice which she had established, even though not, as she professes, "sacred Canons and the approved custom of the Church has and "does observe, that this Sacrament ought not to be consecrated "after supper, nor received by the faithful except fasting, except in 66 case of sickness, &c. and in like way, that although this Sacra"ment was in the primitive Church received by the faithful "under both kinds, yet to avoid any perils and scandals, the "custom has with reason been introduced, that it be received by "the officiating priests in both kinds, and by lay people, under "the kind of bread only." Council of Constance, sess. 13. Vasquez (quoted by Bp. Hall, The Old Religion,' c. 8.) says, "We cannot deny that in the Latin Church there was the use of "both kinds, and that it so continued until the days of St. Thomas, which was about the year of God, 1260." "Thus it

66

66

6

was," adds Bp. Hall," in the Roman Church; but as for the "Greek, the world knows it never did communicate but under "both kinds. These open confessions spare us the labour of quoting the several testimonies of later ages."

66

This instance illustrates the difference between the mode in which Anglo and Roman-Catholics view the relation of the Church to Holy Scripture; Anglo-Catholics take the two facts, that the Church never did consecrate after supper, but always did administer in two kinds, as an authoritative interpretation of our LORD's will, and supposes that He willed what He did to be followed in the one case not in the other: the Romish Church regards the former only as a proof of the dispensing power of the Church, and so proceeds to dispense in the other, contrary to primitive practice. Thus, Anglo-Catholics take the Primitive Church in both cases as a witness; Romanists make her a judge, and as establishing a precedent only, which the existing Church may follow out at her own discretion.

matter of faith. Yet she would not depart from her existing customs, or the tradition of two centuries; and so being unable to justify herself on Scripture, as explained by Antiquity, she had recourse to à priori grounds," that it is most firmly to "be believed, and no wise to be doubted, that the "whole Body and Blood of Christ is truly contained

66

1

as well under the form of bread as under the form "of wine." Miserable and rationalistic arguments in Divine Mysteries! as if, where all is subject of Faith, there were any safe rule but to adhere as closely as possible to what seems to be the Divine Ordinance. It seems strange that that misguided Church should not have felt the risk of declaring what the Church Universal had of old esteemed part of the Divine Institution, to be superfluous, and did not dread thus tempting GOD to withdraw His grace altogether, which they thus presumptuously argued about. This rationalistic argument was met in its own way, that if additional grace were not bestowed through the communion of the Cup, then "the administering Priest received no "benefit from it, and (painful as it is to state it) it

66

2

was wholly useless and indifferent." Thus a feigned reverence, (lest haply some accident should befall the consecrated element,) covered a real irreverence;

1 Council of Constance, 1. c.

2

By many Theologians even of the Council of Trent. Sarpi, L. 6. c. 30. where several other arguments are given.

and real unbelief as to the Virtue of the Sacramental Blood was veiled by a scrupulous care for Its protection. So it ever is, when men forget that " to obey " is better than Sacrifice," and would be more jealous for the honour of holy things, than GOD who gave them. The honour of the Eucharist was alleged; the honour of man was the secret motive, lest by concession of the Cup to the laity, the dignity of the Priesthood should be levelled'. But thus Rome, rashly binding itself to the hasty and presumptuous decision of the Council of Constance, has inflicted a grievous privation upon her own members, and placed a mark upon herself, which must ever be a hindrance to her own power, and prevent her recovering her undue sway over our Church. An instinctive devotion will guide and protect the religious members of our Church, who might otherwise have been just the most alive to the splendour of many of her pretensions. They might not be able to disentangle their way amid abstract arguments; but they will feel that it would be a loss to be deprived of their SAVIOUR'S Blood. Those who engage unprepared in abstract controversies may relapse; the devout Communicant will be safe, who argues not but obeys. All which Rome could give them, they have already in the Church wherein they were baptized; and they have more. Not here to mention the risk of forfeiture which might be in

1 Tridentine Theologians, ap. Sarpi, 1. c. especially the Spanish, ib. c. 31.

volved in joining what is here a Schismatic Communion, our Church, though she rightly reject the Sacrifice of Masses, has ever been acknowledged to have that whereof it is the corruption, the true commemorative Sacrifice, representing to GOD the Death and Passion of His Son, and so acceptable to Him, such as the Church Catholic ever held it 1; she has the true Communion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, administered by those ordained by the successors of the Apostles, and that, unimpaired by any "will-worship or voluntary "humility," which pretending a self-invented respect, would deprive the laity of a portion of their inheritance and of GOD's gift. We need not now put ourselves in the position that Rome would concede this, and retain her other corruptions 2; to concede it, Rome must be other than she now is; a strong ground for refusing it was, lest other demands should be made of her. Why then distract ourselves with such gratuitous hypotheses that Rome would concede, what

1 See Catena, No. 4. Tracts, No. 81, "Testimony of writers of "the later English Church to the doctrine of the Eucharistic "Sacrifice, with an historical account of the changes made in the "Liturgy as to the expression of that doctrine." Courayer, Défense de la Dissert. sur la Validité des Ordinations Anglaises, 1. 4. c. 6.

2 Essays on the Church, p. 292.

"This was urged by the Spanish Bishops, and those dependant upon Spain, who were the chief opposers of the concession of the Cup at the Council of Trent, Sarpi, 1. 6. c. 31. and influenced the legates to resist the united applications of the Imperial and French Ambassadors, ib. c. 35.

for above four centuries she has not conceded? Why suppose that what she refused, when pressed by people and Emperors', when she might thereby have retained whole Churches in her Communion, she would now grant in the hope of recovering a few individuals, and thereby own herself doubly in error? Why embarrass ourselves with imagining that what she refused at Trent because she had refused it at Constance, she should now concede, although she has sanctioned by an anathema 2 the à priori ground upon which she refused it? She can concede it only on the supposition that the urgent

1

The Ambassadors of the Emperor and of Bavaria were especially urgent at the Council of Trent, for the restoration of the Cup; they were joined by those of France, Sarpi, 1. vi. c. 35. The Imperial Embassadors urged that there" were Catholics in

66

Council, and the

Hungary, Austria, Moravia, Silesia, Carinthia, Carniola, Styria, "Bavaria, Suabia, and other parts of Germany, who ardently de"sired the cup ;" in Hungary they went so far, as to "oblige the "Priests, by depriving them of their goods, and threatening of "their life, to administer the Cup to them." The Imperial and Bavarian embassadors continued to urge the Pope both during its Session, and after its close. Sarpi, ib. c. 53; vii. 47; viii. 88. Cassander (ap. Bp. Hall, 1. c.) says, "Wherefore not without cause are most of the best Catholics, and "most conversant in the reading of Ecclesiastical writers, in"flamed with an earnest desire of obtaining the Cup of the Lord; "that the Sacrament may be brought back to that ancient custom "and use, which hath been for many ages perpetuated in the "Universal Church." "We need," adds Bp. Hall, no other

"advocate."

2 Sess. 21. can. 3.

66