Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Head, Lord and Master. And therefore, when He, whose sole prerogative it is to institute the Sacrament, gave the positive command, " Drink ye ALL of this," and the whole Catholic Church, for more than twelve centuries together, interpreted it as including the laity: we utterly deny your right to contradict both the Saviour and the Church by taking one-half of the Sacrament away from the people.

It was not until the year 1415 that the Council of Constance, which you hold to be General, and therefore infallible, ventured to legalize this crying innovation. The reader will find a statement of your own historian, Fleury, on the subject, with some accompanying remarks; but here I shall set down the very language of the decree, by which it will be plainly seen that the Council acknowledged the change from the institution of Christ and the primitive sys

tem :

"ALTHOUGH CHRIST INSTITUTED THIS VENERABLE SACRAMENT," saith the decree, "UNDER BOTH THE SPECIES OF BREAD AND WINE, AND ALTHOUGH IT WAS RECEIVED UNDER BOTH THE SPECIES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH,-nevertheless, in order to avoid certain dangers and scandals, it was AFTERWARDS received by the administrators under both species, and BY THE LAITY ONLY UNDER THE SPECIES OF BREAD, as it is to be most firmly believed, and in nowise to be doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are contained as well under the species of bread as under the species of wine. Wherefore, as this custom has been reasonably introduced by the Church and the holy fathers, and observed for a very long period (diutissimé), it is to be taken for the law, which must not be censured, nor changed without the Church's authority. Therefore, it should be held

* Pages 174, 175.

erroneous to say that the observance of this custom is unlawful or sacrilegious; and those who pertinaciously assert the contrary to the premises shall be imprisoned as heretics, and heavily punished (tanquam hæreticii arcendi sunt et graviter puniendi), by the diocesans of the places, or their officials, or by the inquisitors of heretical pravity.'

[ocr errors]

Thus, we have the distinct testimony of the Council of Constance itself that the Eucharist was received in both the species of bread and wine in the primitive Church. But afterwards they say that the laity received it only under the species of bread. It may be well to show how long afterwards it was before the old rule was done away, and the new change was introduced, which grew, by degrees, into a

custom.

Beginning about the year 450, we find Pope Leo the Great severely censuring those who, being influenced by the error of the Manicheans, received the Bread of the Sacrament, but refused the wine, because flesh and wine were both forbidden by the discipline of those heretics. This, by the way, is another proof that the Bread was not then supposed to be transubstantiated into flesh, for otherwise they would have refused that also. The other point, however, is the only one which concerns our present subject. And here it is evident that the established rule of the Church was to give both the species to the laity, since the communicants whom the Pope reproves could not have been exposed to censure for refusing the wine, unless it had been offered to them.†

About the same time, viz., at the great Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, we have an interesting case of an

*Hard. Con., Tom. 8, p. 381. Concil. Constant., Sess. xiii.
† Leonis Op., p. 106. Serm. xli.

The Council of Bracara.

187

accusation brought by three Presbyters of the Church at Edessa, against their Bishop, Ibas, in which the tenth charge was, "that wine was not furnished to distribute to the people at the sacrifice of the altar, except in very small quantity, bad and muddy, as if it had been fresh from the vintage; that the clergy who were appointed to admin-· ister were obliged to bring from the tavern almost six measures, which did not suffice them, so that those to whom they gave the sacred body made signs and went out, because the blood was wanting."* This clearly shows that the people not only received the wine, but expected to be supplied well and liberally.

Again, in the Council of Bracara, held A. D. 675, we have this full instruction on the subject:

"We have heard," saith this Council, "that certain men, influenced by a schismatical ambition, offer milk instead of wine in the divine sacrifices, contrary to the divine orders, and the institutions of the Apostles; that others give the people a dipped Eucharist as the performance of the Communion; that some even do not offer expressed wine in the sacrament of the dominical cup, but communicate the people with the grapes. But how contrary this is to the evangelical and apostolical doctrine, and to the custom of the Church, is easy to prove from that fountain of truth, from whom the mysteries of the sacraments have proceeded. For when the Master of truth commended the true sacrifice of our salvation to His disciples, we know that He blessed and gave to them not milk, but bread and the cup, in this sacrament. And as to those who in the performance of the Communion give a dipped Eucharist to the people, neither does this accord with the testimony taken from the Gospel,

* Hard. Con. Gen., Tom. 2, p. 519, Con. Chalcedon.

for our Lord delivered both His body and His blood to the Apostles, and the commendation of the body separately, and of the blood separately, is recorded. But that the people should communicate from the unexpressed grapes, is quite disorderly. For, according to the rule which every teacher sets forth, wine and water mixed together should be offered, because we see the people to be understood by the water, while the wine shows the blood of Christ. Therefore let no one hereafter offer in the divine sacrifices, except according to the sentence of the ancient Councils, bread only, and the cup of wine and water mixed; and any who acts otherwise than it is commanded, shall cease from sacrificing, until, being corrected by the satisfaction of penitence, he may return to the office which he had lost."*

Here we see, distinctly, that the primitive rule was insisted upon, until near the 8th century; but there are other proofs that it continued much longer. For in the Council of Clermont, A. D. 1095, the 28th Canon reads as follows:

"Let no one communicate at the altar, but in the body separately, and the blood in like manner, except it be from necessity and caution."+

This brings us to the 11th century, and still we can carry the testimony yet later. Thus, in the constitutions of Richard Poore, Bishop of Salisbury, in A. D. 1217, we have this passage, addressed to his clergy:—

"You ought, moreover, to instruct the laity how often they should communicate, that they may not doubt in any manner of the truth of Christ's body and blood. For without doubt they receive, under the species of bread, that which hung for us upon the cross: they receive from the cup

* Hard. Con., Tom. 3, 1032-3, Concil. Bracarense, cap. 2.
† Ib., Tom. 6, p. 2, 1719, Concil. Claramont., Can. xxviii.

Constitution of the Bishop of Durham.

189

that which was effused from the side of Christ; they drink that, believing, as said Augustine, which they had first shed

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

This was the period when Transubstantiation was fully established as the prevailing doctrine of the Church, and the danger of spilling any portion of what was now believed. to be the actual blood of the Redeemer, gave rise to some new laws, of which the following is a specimen :

"We command," saith the Constitution of Walter de Kirkham, Bishop of Durham, A. D. 1255," that if by negligence anything of the blood of Christ shall drop upon the ground, it shall be licked up with the tongue, the table shall be scraped on which it fell; if there was no table, the place must not be trodden, but scraped and consumed in the fire and the ashes buried within the altar, and the priest shall penance five days."t

do

Thus we learn what the Council of Constance meant by "certain dangers and scandals" having given rise to the custom of withdrawing the cup from the laity entirely. The danger and the scandal referred to the spilling of the supposed actual blood of Christ, which was chiefly to be apprehended in handing the wine to the people. The necessity imposed upon the priest in such a case, requiring him to lick up the consecrated wine from the ground, was a new and by no means an acceptable sort of discipline, and in order to avoid it, the custom was introduced, for a time, of sucking the wine through a tube. But, finally, the more complete remedy was adopted of giving only the bread to the laity, and thus the superstitious and idolatrous figment of Transubstantiation produced an inexcusable departure from the primitive doctrine and practice, in open despite of

*Hard. Con., Tom. 7, p. 99.

† Ib., Tom. 7, p. 493.

« ElőzőTovább »