A collection of several discourses against popery By William Wake, preacher to the honourable society of Grays-Inn.

ARTICLE XXII. Communion under both Species.

TO prove the lawfulness of their denying the Cup to the Laity, the Vindicator advances three Ar∣guments from the publick Acts of our own Church: The 1st. false; The 2d. both false and unreasonable: The 3d. nothing to the purpose.

1st. He says, the Church of England allows the Communion to be given under one species in case of Ne∣cessity: Art. 30. This is FALSE: The Article esta∣blishes both Kinds; and speaks nothing at all of any Case of Necessity, or what may, or may not be done on that account.

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people, for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament, by Christ's Ordinance and Command∣ment, ought to be administred to all Christian men alike.

2dly.

Edward the sixth, he says, in his Procla∣mation before the order of Communion, ordains, That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, should from thenceforth be commonly de∣livered and administred unto all Persons within our Realms of England and Ireland, and other our Domi∣nions, under both kinds, That is to say of Bread and Wine, except necessity otherwise require.

This, as it is thus alledged by the Vindicator, is both False and Unreasonable: FALSE, for that Ed∣ward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing, but only says, That

Forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westmin∣ster this was ordain'd, viz. That the most blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, should from thence∣forth be commonly Administred to all persons under both kinds, &c.

He for the greater Decency, and Uni∣formity of this Sacred Eucharist, now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Admi∣nistration of it.

‖ It is in the next place UNREASONABLE, to argue as to the present state of the Church of Eng∣land, from what was allow'd only, and that in case of necessity too, in the very first beginning of the Refor∣mation.

It was indeed the singular Providence of God, That in the 2d year of that Excellent Prince, things were so far Reformed from those long and inveterate Errors, in which the Ignorance and Superstition of Several Ages had involved the Church, That they had allow∣ed, nay, commanded the Holy Sacrament to be given under both kinds, when for so many years it had been received only under one. But that labouring still un∣der their former prejudices, they should in case of Ne∣cessity permit that, which had been the universal pra∣ctice of the Church, without any necessity at all before; this is neither to be admired in them then, nor is it reasonable to urge it against us now.

His 3d Argument is not only Unreasonable upon the account we have now said; but were it never so pro∣per, is absolutely nothing to the purpose. In the Rubrick, at the end of the same Order of the Communion, there is this Remark:

Note that the Bread that shall be consecrated, shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed; and every of the said consecrated Breads shall be broken in two pieces at the least, or more by the discretion of the Minister, and so distribu∣ted. And men must not think less to be recei∣ved in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole Body of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

The meaning of which Rubrick is very plain; That whereas the people who had hitherto been accustomed to receive the Wafer entire, were now to have but a part of it given to them; to prevent any mis-conceits upon that account, as if because they did not receive the whole Wafer as they were wont to do, they did not receive the whole Body, i. e. the Flesh of Christ, (for as to the Blood, that they received afterwards in the Cup:) It was thought fit for the prevention of this scruple, to tell them,

That they must not think less to be received in part than in the whole, but in each of them the whole Body of Jesus Christ;

which what it makes for their denyal of the Cup to the Laity, I can∣not very well apprehend.

And now how well this Author has proved it to be the Doctrine of the Church of England, to dispence with the Cup in the Holy Eucharist, in case of necessity, I shall leave it to any indifferent person to judge. Tho' after all, did we indeed, as some others do, believe

that the Church had power to do this; How will this excuse them, who without any necessary or but rea∣sonable cause deny it to the people altogether; and damn all those that will not believe

they had not only power, but just cause and reason so to do?

And why will it not as well follow, that they may take away if they please the whole Sacrament from them, and Damn all those that will not believe that they had just cause and power to do this too; since even that in Case of Necessity may be dispensed with; and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it, prove neither damnable nor dangerous?

Notes

• Vindicat. p. 98.
• See Art. 30. Sparrow's Col∣lect. pag. 102, and 219.
• See Sparrow's Collect. p. 17.
• ‖

  Note, That this order of Communion was the first thing of this kind that was done after the Reformation; The Mass was yet left remaining; and Edward the 6th afterwards published two other Books, in which were considerable Alterations, and where there is no mention of any thing of this kind.
• Sparrow's Col∣lect. p. 24.
• Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 1, 2.