200 a? coamm?. [Boo- 11. ? ? ?e? i8 M?iv? wh?e ? ? u?er ?e epe?e8 ? b? ?one, ?c? he is n? receiv? ?der ? s?cies, ?co? to ?e ?tug? of J?us C?st, n ?me falsely ?n?n; let him ? aCC?. *? 2. It wu not enough for ?e Ch?ch of ?me "to m?e ?e c?- m?dm?t of none effect by ?on ;"she h? ?so ?? ? ex- ?e? o?nce. The ?unc? of Trent, imitat?g ?e e?mple of ? Connc? of Cons?ce, c?fesses ?t C?st i?mt? the ?c?ont ? ? ?, ?d deUve?d it ? to ?e ?es, ?d ? ?e and ?e pd?five ch?ch pracfi?d ?co?g]y; ?d then it ? ?t ?e ch?ch ? ? ? ?t ? for ?ng the &?e ?- s?m?on, ? if ?e church was wiser th? Ch?. Thus C?st o?ns comm?on in ? Muds; the Chu?h of Rome f?i? it. It w? ? cm? of ?e pdmi?ve chu?h m obey C?st in ?s; a lair ?d ?- ? c?m ? ?uc? by ?e Church of ?me; ?d ? novel custom she has painted not only into a law, but also into an article of faith. If this be not teaching for doctrines the conunandmenta of men, nothing else can be. The question is not whether titis doctrine and practice be an innovation, but whether it be not better it should be so; whether it be not better to obey man than Christ. But although the Council of Constance, and that of Trent also, confesses the Scriptural authority u well as antiquity of communion in both kinds, yet since the times of these councils the doctors of the Church of Rome have ondeavoured to maintain that half communion was always more or less the practice of the most ancient times. They* even go so far as to adduce Scripture testimony for half communion, when they cannot deny the doctrine of the present Church of Rome is, that the Scriptural in- stitution was in both kinds. But this is only ore out of the mmuy instances in which she rejects the testimony of Scripture. 3. The usage of half communion is evideudy contrary to the institu- lion of Christ himself. "Drink ye ALL of this," is the language of our Saviour, according to St. Matthew. And Mark says, "And they ?LL drank of it." Luke represents our SaNdour as saying, "Divide it among yourselves.'* Here, then, when Christ himself instituted the eucharist, he himself alone consecrated the bread and w?ne, and ? disciples received it in both kinds; but in the modern Church of Rome none o! the priests, how many soever may* be present, except the one who con* socrates, receive in both kinds; and therefore the Church of Rome is opposed to Christ's institution. Again: that the eucharist was admi- nistered, according to our Saviour's institution, in both kinds to the "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup," I Cor. xi, 25. But Roman Catholics acknow- �,, Cease 1. Si quis dixerit, ex Dei prmcepto, vel necessitate rodntis, stones et ain? Christi fideleo utmmque apeciera nnc;i?mi euchrbtm ncramenti miraera debere; anatheum nit. "2. Si quio d?x.e?.'t, sancram EccleoJam Catholicam non jtmtb causis et mtionibna ductam fuime, ut laicos, a.tquo etiam clericos, non cou?cienteo, sub ? tantummod6 specie communicaret, But m es orzusu; anathema "3. Si quis nepverit, totran, et intesrdm Ckrbtum suminto grathtrum foetom et auctorem sub una -l?ni, specie p?*?;? quia ut quidam ftls5 amerunt, non sede?ndbn shin Christi Jnotitu-tionem sub utraque specie mmatur; anathema tit."--?mc. 7?., .cm. S1. I 19' ' oigitize? by Goodie
�
