by the Counc?il of Constance. But properly it w'as Innocent ili. who made it a law, for the Council of Constance, as we have seen, did not even act upon the decrees drawn up by the pope, and this candid Rs- man Catholics acknowledge, though some of them may deny it, and others are ignorant of the fact. Afterward the Council of Trent de- creed in fayour of half communion. The pope's faction was so power- ful at that council, that, contrary' to the institution of our Lord, they carried that measure which the Council of Constance had introduced. But members of the Church of Rome in modern t?mes have had re- come to various expedients to meet the arguments brought against them. Some of them maintain, contrary to the decree of their cotm- cils, and contrary to Scripture, that the Scriptures authorize commu- nion in one kind. Others maintain that it is a mere dizciplina? re?.- lation; while others still assert that clmrcA autAority can regulate matter; and a8 the Church of Rome has determined on communion in one kind, the word of God, which sanctions that authority', give8 them a right to reject the cup. So they teach. Now since some of them deny the doctrine to be a novelty*, we will adduce testimonies concurrent with the Council of Constance. Cas- sander affirms "that in the Latin Church, for above a thousand years. the body of Christ and the blood of Christ were soparate? given, the body apart and the blood apart, after the consecration orthe myste- ries. "�Aquinas also affirms: "According to the ancient custom of the church, all men, as they communicated in the body, so they communicated in the blood; which also, to this day, is kept in some churches."t Indeed, there was a law for communion in both kinds; for Pope C, elasius says: "We find that some, having received a por- tion only of the holy body, do abstain from the cup of the holy blood: who doubtless (because they are bound by I know not what supersti- tion) should receive the entire sacraments wholly, or should be driven from the entire wholly; because the division of one and the same mys- tery cannot be without very great sacrilege."?: But this case is so plain, and there are such clear testimonies out of the fathers recorded in their own canon law, that nothing can obscure it, except using too many words in its proof. 7. We shall now produce some of those reasons which the Church of Rome gives for her doctrine, and pass some strictures upon them. They said those who desired the cup were disaffected persons, and not true Catholic8; and if they would condescend to them in this, they would be for farther encroachments, and would be for having their prayers in a known language, the marriage of the clergy*, and such other thhugs as the Roman Church would not allow. They thought the clergy were already in sufficient contempt; and if they would allow the people to enjoy the same privilege in the sa- crament with them, it would make way for farther contempt; for it would make the people and priest equal. Consult., sec. ?. t 0ore. in 6th Jo., sec. 7. "Comperimtm cluod qume, sumpM ?nmm? co?s ? ?o? u ?e ?ri c?orb aht?nt: qui p?uMubio (quo?m n? qua summations d?ent? abstri?) aut ?c?en? in? ?ipi? ?t ab ia? ?tur. Quia ?io unius et eju?em my? ?ne ?n? ? mn ?t pmve?.'*--?t. $ De Co?e?, A.D. 4?.
�
