Christ instituted the
sacrament of his body and blood in both kinds. To break Christ's institution is
a damnable error.
The works of the Most
Reverend Father in God, William Laud [1573-1645],
sometime Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, vol 2: Conference with
Fisher, 288. The doctrine of concomitance is specifically rejected on pages
338–39.
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 ... 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.
The whole works of the Right
Rev. Jeremy Taylor [1613-1667], vol. 13: Containing
a Continuation of the Rule of Conscience (1839), 28–29. He also
insists that “the effect of a sacrament is not imparted by a half-communion,”
comparing this to dipping a child in water without invoking the Trinity.
We do not indeed wish to
deny that those who, in faith and ignorance, receive a mutilated Sacrament, may
receive the full blessing...But this does not prevent us from saying, that the
Eucharist without the cup is not the Eucharist ordained of Christ.
Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the
Thirty-nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal (1874). “Mutilation”
language was already used by John Cosin and is found in other Anglican writers.
The context makes it clear that “Eucharist without a cup” means a Eucharist in
which only the priest drinks from the cup, see pages 738–43.
Where the gifts are so
carefully distinguished by our Lord and His Apostle, it seems the height of
presumption to assert that “they who receive one kind alone are not defrauded
of any grace necessary to salvation.”
Edgar C. S. Gibson, The Thirty-Nine
Articles of the Church of England: Explained with an Introduction (1896),
page 685.
The practice [of denying the
cup to the laity] is utterly indefensible. Not only does it rest on a
precarious theological speculation, but it is in open disobedience to the
express command of Christ. It is defended as a useful ecclesiastical
regulation. The Church has, indeed, authority to decree rites and ceremonies,
but not in contradiction to Scripture and to our Lord’s own words. It cannot be
denied that the practice has a certain practical convenience. But we cannot set
that against the plain direction of Christ.
E. J. Bicknell, A Theological Introduction
to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 3rd ed. rev. by H. J.
Carpenter (London: Longman, 1955), 408-409.
We take our stand on the
institution of Christ, and both in the Catechism and in the Articles this is
emphasised. It is impossible to argue that the custom [of withholding the cup]
is permissible because the context of St. Paul’s words is conclusive in support
of Communion in both kinds (1 Cor. xi. 26, 27). The answer in the Catechism is
as follows: “Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received.”
This simple statement is a striking illustration of the way in which our Church
safeguards the true position by teaching positively, apart from the
controversy, as well as in the Article, that our Lord’s ordinance and
commandment settle the question.
Nor can we for a moment
allow that the Church’s power suffices to alter a Divine command. We fully
recognise that the Church has “power to decree rites and ceremonies” (Article
XX), but this cannot be extended to authorise anything “contrary to God’s Word
written,” and Holy Scripture is too clear on this point to admit of any
question (Matt. xxvi. 27).
W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, 6th ed. (London: Vine Books, 1976), 413
For citations from earlier Anglican writers, see conveniently An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles by the Reformers – the Rev. Thomas R. Jones (1849), 195-98
it cannot be the Lord’s
supper except there be distribution both of the bread and of the wine.
Thomas Becon (1511-1567)
