1250, in some churches, to leave out all use of the chalice, excepting to the priests, and some great men who would be careful not to spill. This was but in some churches,' said Aquinas; and it was permitted to all the priests present, "de quibus præsumitur quod magis sint cauti:" and to some grandees of the people too for the same reason, as we find in Richard Middleton, Innocent IV. and Petrus de Tarantasia. 21. (8) But by little and little the abuse went further, and grew confirmed, and miracles pretended and invented, as Alexander of Ales reports, to stop the outeries of certain religious, who were extremely troubled at the loss of the chalice: and now at last it became the general custom of the western churches; and it grew scandalous to desire it; and it was established into a doctrine in the council of Constance, and the institution of Christ and the custom of the primitive church were openly defied, taken notice of, and so laid aside, and anathema pronounced on them that should insist upon their right, or deny whole Christ to be under each kind, in the council of Trent; and so it abides at this day. 22. The question being now reduced to this short issue;— 'whether under each kind whole Christ be received;'-it is not unworthy a short inquiry, concerning the truth, and concerning the consequence of it. 23. (1.) For the truth.-I consider that the effect of external rituals and ceremonials cannot be disputed philosophically; as we inquire into the portions of effect, which every herb hath in an infusion; but we are to take and use them in the simplicity of their institution; leaving them under that secrecy of their own mysteriousness, in which they were left in their first appointment and publication. The Apostle explicating the mysteries of our religion, saith, that "Christ was delivered" (meaning unto death)" for our sins, and was raised again for our justification ;" and yet that "we are justified by his blood." Upon these accounts we can say, that, by Christ's death and by his resurrection, we are justified,—and therefore we are to be partakers of both; but because we are justified by faith in his blood,' it will at no hand follow, we may let alone our faith, • S. part. sum. q. 80. art. 12. 4. lib. Sent. dist. 11. art. 2. q. 1. or neglect to procure our part in his resurrection. So it is in the symbols eucharistical: supposing it had been said of the bread, "This is Christ,' or, 'This is the death of Christ,' and the same said of the chalice; yet one alone is not sufficient to be received, when both are instituted for as all the mysteries of our redemption are effective to our pardon and salvation; so are both the symbols of the eucharist to our reception of Christ; and baptism or absolution may better be pretended to the exclusion of the whole eucharist, than the sufficiency of bread to the exclusion of the chalice; for remission of sins is perfectly the grace of baptism; and those sins return not, but in the case of apostasy: but what is the effect of bread alone, is no where told; but that it is the commemoration or remembrance of the broken body of Christ, and the communication of that body: but then the chalice is also the remembrance of Christ's blood poured forth, and the exhibition of that which is for the remission of sins and how these two do work that in us which we hope for, we know not, but that they work as mysteries and sacraments do work, but not as herbs, or natural agents, that we may believe. 24. (2.) I consider, that, when Christ appointed to the two symbols two distinct significations, and that we believe that the sacraments exhibit to worthy communicants what they represent to all,-it must be certain that all Christ, that is, that all the benefits of Christ, are not conveyed by each, which are conveyed by both,-because, as they signify, so they exhibit; but they do not each signify what both together do. The breaking of the body does not signify the effusion of the blood; neither does the shedding of the blood signify the breaking of the body and to think that the reduplication of the symbols is superfluous, is to charge Christ with impertinency; and if it be not superfluous, then there is something of real advantage by both, that is not in each. I will not venture to assign to each their portion of effect: for what they have, they have not naturally, but by divine donation and appointment; and therefore I will not take notice, that the same chalice is representative and effective of union and charity (though that is usual enough in societies and friendships, Pylades, Marce, bibebat idem'), r Mart. vi. 11. but this I shall observe, that the whole effect of the sacrament is equally attributed to the worthy receiving the chalice as to that of the bread; and therefore St. Remy caused these verses to be written on the chalice, Hauriat hinc populus vitam de sanguine sacro, Inflicto æternus quem fudit vuluere Christus: "Let the people from hence draw life issuing from the wounds of Christ:"-now whatsoever effect is attributed to one, is not in exclusion of the other, but in concomitance with it: and therefore, as it would be a strange folly to dispute what benefit we receive by Christ's flesh distinctly, and how much of our redemption is wrought by his blood, and it could have no use and no certainty ;-so it would be as strange to say there is so much distinctly in the holy bread, so much in the wine; and it is worse to attribute to one that which can be employed to exclude the other: and it is certain there can be nothing said of advantage that either one or the other hath; and therefore the chalice may exclude the bread, as well as the holy bread the chalice, both alike, that is, indeed neither. 25. But it is to be observed, that, in this inquiry, the question cannot be concerning the receiving Christ; but of receiving the sacraments of Christ, of his body and of his blood. For we receive Christ in baptism, and we receive Christ by faith; and yet nevertheless we are to receive the sacraments of Christ's body and blood: and therefore suppose we did receive Christ in the holy bread, yet that bread is but the sacrament of his broken body; and therefore we must also receive the sacrament of his blood spilt for us; or else we omit to receive the one half of the sacrament.-And if the question were only about receiving Christ, we might pretend the whole sacrament to be needless; because a spiritual communion and faith alone will do that work; but yet faith alone, or the spiritual communion, does not give us the sacrament, nor obey Christ in this instance, nor commemorate and represent his death, which is the duty here inquired of, and here enjoined. 26. (1.) And therefore the dream of the church of Rome, that he that receives the body, receives also the blood, because, by concomitance, the blood is received in the body,—is neither true nor pertinent to this question. Not true, because the eucharist being the sacrament of the Lord's death, that is, of his body broken, and his blood poured forth, the taking of the sacrament of the body does not by concomitance include the blood; because the body is here sacramentally represented as slain and separate from blood: and that is so notorious, that some superstitious persons A. D. 490, refused the chalice, because, said they, the body of Christ represented in the holy sacrament "exangue est," "it is without blood;"' but now the Romanists refuse the chalice, because the body is not without blood. They were both amiss; for it is true the body is represented sacramentally as killed, and therefore without blood, which had ran out at the wounds; and therefore concomitance is an idle and an impertinent dream: but although the body is without blood in his death, yet, because the effusion of the blood is also sacramentally to be represented, therefore they should not omit the chalice. 27. But as to them of the Roman church; if the blood be in the body by concomitance, and therefore they who receive the body, receive also the blood;-then they who sacrifice the body, do also sacrifice the blood; and then it will be no more necessary to celebrate in both kinds than to communicate in both. And indeed though the Roman schools will not endure that the sacrifice', as they call it, or the consecration should be in one kind, yet Volaterranus says that 'Pope Innocent VIII. gave leave to the Norwegians to sacrifice in bread only:' certain it is the priest may as well do so, as the people receive in one kind; for the people do, in their manner, as much celebrate the death of Christ as the priest, -nor he alone, nor they alone, but the whole action is the due celebration: however, the argument of the concomitance concludes, equally, against the celebration in both kinds, as against the participation; and why the priest should be obliged to drink the chalice, and cannot be excused by concomitance, and yet the people are not obliged, but are excused by that pretension, abating the reasons of interest,cannot easily be imagined. 28. Certain it is, they had other thoughts in the council. of Turin; for when they considered the necessities of sick and dying people, they appointed the consecrated bread to be sopped in the consecrated chalice; adding this reason, "ut veraciter presbyter dicere possit, Corpus et sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi proficiat tibi in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam :"""that the priest may say truly, The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be profitable unto you for the remission of your sins and unto life eternal.'" If they had then understood the device of concomi tance, they would have known, that the priest might have said so truly, without sopping the holy bread in the chalice: but the good fathers had not yet learned the new metaphysics. 29. (2.) Now for the consequence of this pretension; I consider that let the thing be as true as the interested persons would have it, yet it is not well, that we should dispute against a divine institution upon a pretence of our vain arguings. The apostles, with great simplicity, took in both kinds at that time, in which only the device of concomitance was or could be true; for then when they received it, the blood was in the body of Christ; but it was sacramental of the blood to be poured out the next day; however, they obeyed with simplicity and without inquiry, and never feared spilling, nor argued, nor sought excuses; such simplicity would equally become us: and as to the usefulness of receiving in both kinds, although it will ill become any man to argue concerning the usefulness of a divine institution,—and to pretend excuses against Christ, upon the account of a philosophy of their own invention, is very much unlike the spirit of humility and wisdom and obedience, which ought to be the investiture of a Christian's heart and the tiara of his head; yet I observe, that, even in this particular, the disadvantage is not little. 30. For if receiving the sacrament be of any advantage to souls, then it is certain he that does not receive it, is a loser; and yet he that does not receive the chalice, does not receive the sacrament, but a piece of it only; now, in sacraments, half is as good as none: as he who should only dip a child in pure water, and yet not invocate the Trinity,→ should do nothing at all with his half-baptism; so it is certain, that the effect of a sacrament is not imparted by a half communion, And therefore Alexander of Ales said well, "Sumpto hoc sacramento digne in utraque specie, major est effectus unius corporis mystici cum capite, quam sumpto |