ARTICLE XXIX.

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. Austin saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, pet 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 arises naturally out of the former, and depends upon it for if Christ's body is corporally present in the Sacrament, then all persons good or bad, who receive the Sacrament, do also receive Christ: on the other hand, if Christ is present only in a spiritual manner, and if the mean that receives Christ is faith, then such as believe not, do not receive him. So that to prove that the wicked do not receive Christ's body and blood, is upon the matter the same thing with the proving that he is not corporally present: and it is a very considerable branch of our argument, by which we prove that the Fathers did not believe the corporal presence, because they do very often say, that the wicked do not receive Christ in the Sa

crament.

Here the same distinction is to be made, that was mentioned upon the article of Baptism. The Sacraments are to be considered either as they are acts of church-communion, or as they are federal acts, by which we enter into covenant with God. With respect to the former, the visible profession that is made, and the action that is done, are all that can fall under human cognizance: so a Sacrament must be held to be good and valid, when as to outward appearance all things are done according to the institution: but as to the internal effect and benefit of it; that turns upon the truth of the profession that is made, and the sincerity of those acts which do accompany it : for, if these are not seriously and sincerely performed, God is dishonoured, and his institution is profaned. Our Saviour has expressly said, that whosoever eats his flesh, and drinks his blood, has eternal life. From thence we conclude, that no man does truly receive Christ, who does not at the same time receive with him both a right to eternal life,

and likewise the beginnings and earnests of it. The Sa- ART. crament being a federal act, he who dishonours God, and XXIX. profanes this institution, by receiving it unworthily, becomes highly guilty before God, and draws down judgments upon himself: and as it is confessed on all hands, that the inward and spiritual effects of the Sacrament depend upon the state and disposition of him that communicates, so we, who own no other presence but an inward and spiritual one, cannot conceive that the wicked, who believe not in Christ, do receive him.

In this point several of the Fathers have delivered themselves very plainly.

Origen says, Christ is the true food, whosoever eats him Comment. shall live for ever; of whom no wicked person can eat; for ifin Matth. it were possible that any who continues wicked should eat the Word that was made flesh, it had never been written, Whoso eats this bread shall live for ever. This comes after a discourse of the Sacrament, which he calls the typical and symbolical body, and so it can only belong to it. In another place he says, The good eat the living bread, which came down from heaven; but the wicked eat dead bread, which is death.

d'Achery.

Zeno, bishop of Verona, who is believed to have lived Tom. ii. near Origen's time, has these words: There is cause to fear .Spicil. Sacr. that he, in whom the Devil dwells, does not eat the flesh of our Lord, nor drink his blood; though he seems to communicate with the faithful: since our Lord has said, He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.

St. Jerome says, They that are not holy in body and spi- In cap. 66. rit, do neither eat the flesh of Jesus, nor drink his blood; of Isaiæ. which he said, He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, hath eternal life.

St. Augustin expresses himself in the very words that Tract. 26. are cited in the Article, which he introduces with these in Joan. words: He that does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, certainly does not spiritually eat his flesh, nor drink his blood, though he may visibly and carnally press with his teeth the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: but he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a matter to his condemnation. And in another place he says, neither are they (speaking of vicious persons) to be said to Lib. xxi. de eat the body of Christ, because they are not his members: to Civ. Dei, which he adds, He that says, Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him, shews what it is not only in a Sacrament, but truly to eat the body of Christ, and to drink his blood. He has upon another occasion those frequently cited words, speaking of the difference

c. 25.

ART

XXIX.

Tract. 54.

in Joan.

between the other Disciples and Judas, in receiving this Sacrament: These did eat the bread that was the Lord (panem Dominum); but he the bread of the Lord against the Lord (panem Domini contra Dominum). To all this a great deal might be added, to shew that this was the doctrine of the Greek Church, even after Damascene's opinion concerning the assumption of the elements into an union with the body of Christ, was received among them. But more needs not be said concerning this, since it will be readily granted, that, if we are in the right in the main point of denying the Corporal Presence, this will fall with it.

ARTICLE XXX.

Of both Kinds.

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to Lay People. For both Parts of the Sacrament, by Christ's Drdinance and Commandment, ought to be ministred to all Christian Men alike.

THERE is not any one of all the controversies that we

have with the Church of Rome, in which the decision seems more easy and shorter than this. The words of the institution are not only equally express and positive as to both kinds, but the diversity with which that part that relates to the cup is set down, seems to be as clear a demonstration for us, as can be had in a matter of this kind; and looks like a special direction given, to warn the Church against any corruption that might arise upon this head. To all such as acknowledge the immediate union of the Eternal Word with the human nature of Christ, and the inspiration by which the Apostles were conducted, it must be of great weight to find a specialty marked as to the chalice: of the cup it is said, Drink ye all of it; whereas of the bread it is only said, Take, eat; so we cannot think the word all was set down without design. It is also said of the cup, and they all drank of it; which is not said of the bread: we think it no piece of trifling nicety to observe this specialty. The words added to the giving the cup are very particularly emphatical. Take, eat, This is my body which is given for you, is not so full an expression, as, Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. If the surest way to judge of the extent of any precept, to which a reason is added, is to consider the extent of the reason, and to measure the extent of the precept by that; then since all that do communicate, need the remission of sins, and a share in the New Covenant, the reason, that our Saviour joins to the distribution of the cup, proves that they ought all to receive it. And if that discourse in St. John concerning the eating Christ's flesh, and the drinking his blood, is to be understood of the Sacrament, as most of the Roman Church affirm, then the drinking Christ's blood is as necessary to eternal life, as the eating his flesh; by consequence it is as necessary to receive the cup as the bread. And it is not easy to apprehend, why it

ART. should still be necessary to consecrate in both kinds, and XXX. not likewise to receive in both kinds. It cannot be pre

tended, that since the Apostles were all of the sacred order, therefore their receiving in both kinds is no precedent for giving the laity the cup; for Christ gave them both kinds, as they were sinners, who were now to be admitted into covenant with God by the sacrifice of his body and blood. They were in that to shew forth his death, and were to take, eat, and drink in remembrance of him. So that this institution was delivered to them as they were sinners, and not as they were priests. They were not constituted by Christ the pastors and governors of his Church, Joh. xx. 22. till after his resurrection, when he breathed on them, and laid his hands on them, and blessed them. So that at this time they were only Christ's disciples and witnesses; who had been once sent out by him on an extraordinary commission; but had yet no stated character fixed upon them.

To this it is said, that Christ, by saying, Do this, constituted them priests; so that they were no more of the laity, when they received the cup. This is a new conceit taken up by the Schoolmen unknown to all antiquity: there is no sort of tradition that supports this exposition; nor is there any reason to imagine, that Do this, signifies any other than a precept to continue that institution, as a memorial of Christ's death; and Do this, takes in all that went before, the taking, the giving, as well as the blessing, and the eating, the bread; nor is there any reason to ap propriate this to the blessing only, as if by this the consecrating and sacrificing power were conferred on the Priests. From all which we conclude both that the Apostles were only disciples at large, without any special characters conferred on them, when the Eucharist was instituted, and that the Eucharist was given to them only as disciples, that is, as laymen.

The mention that is made in some places of the New Testament, only of breaking of bread, can furnish them with no argument; for it is not certain that these do re'late to the Sacrament; or if they did, it is not certain, that they are to be understood strictly; for, by a figure common to the Eastern nations, bread stands for all that belongs to a meal; and if these places are applied to the Sacrament, and ought to be strictly understood, they will prove too much, that the Sacrament may be consecrated in one kind; and that the breaking of bread, without the cup, may be understood to be a complete Sacrament. But when St. Paul spoke of this Sacrament, he does so distinctly