sacrament is destroyed: for it is a representation of our Lord's death, and how can that death be represented, without representing the separation of his flesh and blood? And how can they commemorate this separation, without receiving them separated?

OBSERVATIONS.

On the subject of receiving the holy communion under one kind only, the catechist, with the whole host of reformers, raises an indecent and an irrational clamour. With what consistency can they arraign the practice of the Catholic church, in the dispensation of the sacred mysteries, who have rejected five sacraments out of seven, and who have reduced the most holy and dignified of all these sacraments to a mere commemorative rite? How can that be termed a sacrilegious robbery, which, according to their belief, deprives the laity only of the advantage of drinking a drop of wine, in honour of the sufferings of our Redeemer? In fact, the charge brought against the Catholic church on this subject, is altogether unnatural and inconsistent; and we have to place this discussion on a fair and substantial ground, by asking, if Christ has clearly and imperatively required, that the laity should communicate under both kinds, or whether communion under one kind only, be really all that is essentially enjoined.

In determining this question, it appears, that no rational doubt can be entertained. For

though our Redeemer consecrated under both kinds, and directed his apostles, as priests, to imitate his example, he has left no precise order, by which the laity are bound to follow the same mode. He who says', except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, clearly refers to the substance of the thing, not to the mode; for, on the same occasion, he declares in precise terms, if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and again3, this is the bread that came down from heaven, not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead: he that eateth this bread sha'l live for

ever.

Here then we have the promise of eternal life, made to those who partake of the sacrament under the form of bread only and agreeably to the narrative of St. Luke', we find the same practice of communicating under one form, ascribed to the apostles and the first disciples. They are there represented, as persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, in the communication of the breaking of BREAD, and of prayer. This is understood by the best commentators to refer to the eucharistic bread, which the first Christians not unfrequently received under that form only.

St. Augustine, speaking of the fact recorded

1 John vi. 53.

3 Ibid. v. 58.

2 Ibid. v. 51.

4 Acts ii. 42.

by St. Luke, concerning the two disciples going to Emmaus1, and of the circumstance of their knowing Christ in the breaking of bread, unhesitatingly understands it of the eucharistic bread, or of the body of Christ under the form of bread. His words are too remarkable to be omitted. "Non autem incongruenter accipimus, hoc impedimentum in oculis eorum a Satana factum fuisse, ne agnosceretur Jesus: sed tamen a Christo est facta permissio usque ad SACRAMENTUM PANIS; UT UNITATE CORPORIS EJUS PARTICIPATÂ, removeri intelligatur impedimentum inimici, ut Christus possit agnosci."-"We may not unseasonably suppose, that Satan raised this impediment to the sight of these disciples, that they might not recognise Jesus Christ, however, permitted it, till the reception of the sacrament of bread; that having partaken of the unity of his body, they might clearly understand the impediment, raised by the enemy, to be removed, that Christ might be acknowledged." The authority of St. Augustine thus directs us to believe, that these disciples received from the hands of our Redeemer himself the holy sacrament under the form of bread alone; and however a contrary practice may have prevailed in his church, for more than a thousand years, yet we find, in various instances, even during that

1 Luke xxiv. 13, et seq. 2 St. Aug. de Consensu Evangelist lib. 3, c. 25, tom. iv. p. 195, edit. Paris.

period of time, that the faithful adopted, by the connivance and with the consent of their pastors, the practice of communicating under one form only.

Those who possess the slightest knowledge of Christian antiquity, must be aware that during the period referred to, it was usual to communicate the faithful, in the church and during the sacrifice, under both kinds; but that, as it was necessary to attend to the wants of the absent, and particularly of the sick, it was customary to reserve, for that purpose, particles of the consecrated bread only. Of this practice relating to the sick, to children, to persons on journies, and to those who lived in times of persecution, there are incontestible and innumerable monuments beyond calculation'. Hence the great St. Thomas of Aquin, deservedly styled the angel of the theological school, remarks, that the perfection of the sacrament of the Eucharist, consists not in the use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter; and that therefore it is no derogation from the perfection of this sacrament, that the people should receive the body without the blood, provided the priest, who consecrates, receive under both kinds".

See this clearly established by the pious and learned Cardinal Bona, Rerum Liturgic. lib. ii. c. 18.

' 3 Par. quest. 80, art. 12, ad 2.

In fact, this practice of Christian antiquity, the existence of which no man of learning ever called in question, demonstratively shews, that the custom of receiving under one or both kinds, is a mere matter of discipline, which of its own nature, is ever variable and subject to fluctuation, agreeably to such circumstances as induce the pastors of the church to alter or modify established rules. In all the changes which take place in this particular, where is the detriment suffered by the faithful ? Our Redeemer, according to the doctrine of the apostle' is in a state of immortality, and no longer under the dominion of death; consequently where he bestows his sacred body, he by a necessary and inevitable concomitance, imparts his blood with all his treasures to a soul well disposed. Those, therefore, who annul the very essence of the sacrament, are the sacrilegious robbers who deprive the faithful of real blessings ; not the pastors of the Catholic church, who suit the discipline to the variable circumstances of the times. But let us listen to the catechist, and give him a fair and impartial hearing.

I. The catechist insists, that all are to drink of the cup, because Christ says not only, take and eat, but drink ye all of this?.

The answer to this is extremely simple: when

Rom. vi. 9.

2 Matt. xxvi. 27.