Sivut kuvina



POINT XVI. PROTESTANTS hold, That communion in one kind is only half of the sacrament, not sufficient for salvation; and that the laity are bound, by our Saviour's institution and command, to receive in both kinds.

Contrary to the Gospel :

1. “ This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die.” John vi. 50.

2. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven : if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever.” Ver. 51. 3. “So he that eateth me, even he shall live by

Ver. 57. 4. “He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” Ver. 58.

Four times is everlasting life here promised by the mouth of our Saviour himself to him that receives in one kind, under the form of bread. For that which is eaten in this sacrament is only one kind, because the other kind, that is, the cup, is drank, not eaten. Yet our Saviour declares that, by what the faithful eat in this sacrament they receive Christ himself, and with him everlasting life. Therefore communion in one kind is sufficient, according to the gospel of Christ.

5. “Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” 1 Cor. xi. 27.

Here Protestants may remark one of the most notorious wilful corruptions of the text that ever was in their English translation of the Testament, where the word and is inserted instead of the word OR.

For in the Greek Testament, in all their own editions, and in all the ancient manuscripts from whence they pretend to have made or corrected their English translation, the word OR is found in the text instead of the word AND ; so that they have made the text false in the translation which they have left true in all the originals, to the eternal disgrace of the translators. The true text then is as follows:

Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread OR drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

It is no hard matter to guess why the English translators corrupted this text and inserted the word and instead of OR; for if they had left the word or standing in the text thus, Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, &c., the plain meaning of it will be, that whosoever receives in either kind unworthily, is guilty both of the body and blood of our Lord. Now, if communion, though in one kind only, makes the unworthy communicant guilty both of the body and blood, then, by a necessary consequence, a worthy communion, though but in one kind, makes the worthy communicant partaker both of body and blood ; and consequently the whole sacrament is received in either kind : which is so strong an argument for communion in one kind, that to conceal it from the eyes of Protestants, the translators of their Bible and Testament thought well to corrupt the text, and put in the word and instead of the word or, that so the word of God may seem to speak in favour of the reformation.

Again : in this, like detriment is threatened to him who receives unworthily in one kind as in both : Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Like benefit is also promised to him that worthily receives in one kind as in both: He that eateth this bread shall live for ever : that is, he that receives worthily in one kind, under the form of bread, shall live for ever. Now if the holy Scripture threatens like detriment to him that receives unworthily in one kind as in both, and promises like benefit to him that worthily receives in one kind as in both, do not Catholics rightly judge from thence, that under each kind the true and entire sacrament is received, and that communion in one kind is sufficient for salvation ?

The true cause of that inveterate childish prejudice, which Protestants from their infancy have imbibed from their parents and nurses, against communion in one kind is, in reality, their want of a true faith in the sacrament itself. For had they but a true faith of it, that the body and blood of Christ is there really present, and not only the body of Christ present, under the form of bread, and the blood only of Christ, under the form of wine ; but that both body and blood, Christ himself entire, true God and Man, is really present, and received the same in one kind as in both; had they, I say, this true belief, they might then without difficulty understand that the sacrament is whole and entire in one kind. For since

grace of this sacrament is wholly derived not from the outward forms and appearances of the elements, but from the real presence of our Saviour Christ; and since our Saviour Christ is really present and received entire the same in


one kind as in both, it must be evident to all who have this true belief of the Eucharist, that the whole sacrament, with all the grace that is essential to it, is received by communion in one kind; and the only reason of the Protestant's persuasion, that communion in one kind is but half of the sacrament, is because they do not believe in the sacrament itself, or that Christ is received in one kind not in both. O how wonderful in this point is the religion of Protestants ! That they who by their ministers have so long been taught to exclaim against the priests of the Church of Rome, for defrauding the laity of the cup, or as they usually term it, of the sacrament of Christ's blood, cannot all this while reflect, that they themselves are by their ministers defrauded both of body and blood! For it is very well known to us, and believed by themselves, that in their sacraments, they have nothing but bread and wine: and since their ministers teach, that the body of Christ is nowhere but in Heaven, and as far distant from their sacrament as heaven is from the earth, it is evident that by this doctrine they have destroyed, as far as in them lies, the whole substance and sanctity of this sacrament, and give their people mere signs, types, figures, and shadows, instead of it; poor elements of bread and wine, more empty, poor, and weak elements, than those that were formerly in use under the old Testament.

Against communion in 'one kind Protestants allege the institution of Christ ; for this sacrament, being by him instituted under the forms both of bread and wine, this they think sufficiently implies a command for all to receive in both kinds.

To this we answer: That the institution of this

sacrament in both kinds is indeed a sufficient instruction to the priests of the Church, how they are to consecrate this sacrament, viz., in both kinds ; but no precept was given by our Saviour at the institution of it, for all the laity to partake in both kinds; which is the point to be proved by Protestants.

They reply, That the words of our Saviour, Drink ye all of it (Matt. xxvi. 27.), contain a positive command for all to drink of the cup.

We answer, That the twelve apostles were all that were present with our Saviour at the last supper, as Ss. Matthew, Mark, and Luke witness (Matt. xxvi. 20. Mark xiv. 17. Luke xxii. 14.); the most, therefore, that can be proved from these words of our Saviour, Drink ye all of it, is that he gave a command to the twelve apostles and to priests to partake in both kinds, as often as they consecrate this sacrament; which is constantly done in the Catholic Church. But no such command is here given to the laity: and Protestants may as well conclude, that the laity are commanded to preach the gospel, to forgive sins, and to consecrate this sacrament, because we find such commissions in holy Scripture were given to the apostles. Matt. xxvii. 19. Mark xvi. 15. John xx. 22.

They reply once more, from the sixth of St. John, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John vi. 53. Here they think is a positive command to all, both clergy and Laity, to the whole Church in general, to receive in both kinds.

Now in answer to this we say, That if here is a precept of communion delivered to the whole

« EdellinenJatka »