he speaks of " the cup of blessing," i. e., the cup which has been blessed, or consecrated by prayer to a sacred use ; as is explained by the following words, " which we bless."
Breaking the Bread.
This is the second of the prescribed sacramental actions. It is an important, because it is a significant, part of the service. Christ broke the bread which He gave to his disciples. The bread is the symbol not merely of Christ's body, but of his body as broken for us. " The bread which we break," says the Apostle, thereby showing that the breaking was a constituent part of the service. So significant is this act that it was used as a designation of the sacrament itself, which was called the " breaking of bread," Acts ii. 42. The breaking of the bread en- ters into the significancy of the ordinance not only as referring to the broken body of Christ, but also as the participation of one bread is the symbol of the unity of believers. There is one bread, and one body. This significance is lost, when separate wafers are distributed to the communicants. Above all it is ex- pressly commanded. It is recorded that Christ blessed, broke, and gave the bread ; and then added : " This do." The com- mand includes the blessing, the breaking, and the giving.
This important part of the service continued to be observed in the Church until the doctrine that the bread after consecration is the real body of Christ began to prevail. Then the use of the wafer was introduced, which is placed unbroken in the mouth of the communicant. This is clearly a departure from apostolic usage, and evinces a departure from apostolic doctrine.
The Distribution and Reception of the Elements.
It is recorded that Christ after having blessed the bread and broken the bread, gave it to his disciples, saying: " Take, eat." And in like manner after having blessed the cup, he gave it to them, saying : " Drink ye all of it." All this is significant. Christ gives ; the disciples, each one for himself, receive and partake of the offered gifts.
From all this it is clear, (1.) That it is contrary to the rule prescribed in Scripture when the communicant does not for him- self, receive with his own hand the elements of bread and wine. (2.) That it is utterly inconsistent with the nature of the sacra- ment, when, as in the private masses of the Romanists, the offi- ciating priest alone partakes of the consecrated bread or wine.
£20 PART m. Ch. XX. — the means of grace.
(3.) That it is against the nature of the sacrament, when instead of the two elements being distributed separately, the bread is dipped into the wine, and both are received together. This mode of administering the Lord's Supper, was, it is said, introduced at first, only in reference to the sick ; then it was practised in some of the monasteries ; and was partially introduced into the par- ishes. It never, however, received the sanction of the Roman Church. In the Greek and the other oriental churches it became the ordinary method, so far as the laity are concerned. The bread and wine are mixed together in the cup, and, by a spoon, placed in the mouth of the recipient. Among the Syrians the usual custom was for the priest to take a morsel of bread, dip it in the wine and place it in the mouth of the communicant. From the East this passed for a time over to the West, but was soon superseded by a still greater departure from the Scriptural rule.1 (4.) The most flagrant violation of the integrity of this sac- rament is that of which the Church of Rome for the last seven hundred years has been guilty, in withholding the cup from the laity. This is inconsistent not only with the command of Christ, and the example of the Apostles, but also with the practice of the Universal Church for eleven hundred years. This is not denied by Romanists themselves. They do not pretend to claim the authority of antiquity for this custom. They fall back on the authority of the Church. They deny, indeed, that the words of Christ include a command that the wine as well as the bread should be distributed in the Lord's Supper ; but they affirm that after consecration, the whole substance of the bread is trans- muted into the substance of Christ's body ; and that as his body and blood are inseparable, they who receive the bread do thereby receive his blood ; and, therefore, that the whole benefit of the sacrament is experienced by the laity although the cup be with- held from them. This being the case, they maintain that it is wise in the Church, for prudential reasons, especially to avoid the danger of the blood of Christ being spilled and profaned, to confine the administration of the cup to the clergy. On the prin- ciple that the whole Christ is in the bread, the language of the Council of Trent is : 2 " Si quis negaverit, in venerabili Sacra- mento eucharistiaB sub unaquaque specie, et sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus, separatione facta, totum Christum contineri ;
1 Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, ut supra, vol. ii. p. 1127. Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, ut supra, pp. 614-618. a Seas. xiii. canon 3; Streitwolf, Libri Symbulici, vol. i. p. 61.