our Redeemer gave this direction, none were present with him but his twelve apostles, who were to perform the duties of the priesthood; and to whom it became necessary to consecrate and to receive under both kinds. But if we were to apply this injunction to the laity, the argument would prove too much even in the estimation of the Protestant. For if what is here addressed to the apostles, be extended to the faithful in general, there would be the same reason for allowing the faithful to bless, break, and distribute to each other the sacrament of the Lord's supper; for Christ also said, do this in remembrance of me; and thus the most important functions of the Christian priesthood would be profaned by unhallowed hands. Is the catechist prepared to abide by this inevitable consequence of his doctrine? If he is not, as he cannot be, let him withdraw his absurd objection.

II. In answer to the second number, the public and authorized practice for the first thousand years certainly favours communion under both kinds; but as, agreeably to what has been proved in the leading part of this article, the church allowed, during the whole of that period, the sick, the traveller, the persecuted Christian, to receive under one kind only, it becomes perfectly clear, that the reception of the sacrament by the faithful under both kinds, was never Judged necessary to its existence, but that it was

uniformly considered as a matter of variable discipline.

III. Still the catechist urges, that the practice of communicating under one kind only is a novelty; and that the council of Constance first ventured upon this sacrilege, in opposition to the institution of Christ, and the practice of the primitive church. In answer to these mis-statements, it may be with truth asserted, that the practice of communicating under one kind was no novelty, as appears from the examples already produced. If the catechist wishes for any particular instances of communion under the form of bread only, let him read the interesting story of Serapion, preserved by Eusebius1. Let him recollect, that the great St. Basil and the illustrious St. Ambrose, the distinguished lights of the fourth century were both communicated under one kind only, a little before death, as is recorded by the respective historians of their lives'. If after this, my opponent talks of novelty and sacrilege, let him remember, that this practice is tolerated even by his own church. In the order for administering the sacrament, prepared by certain bishops and clergymen, and enforced by a royal proclamation, issued by King Edward VI. in 1548, it is expressly required, that all persons are to receive under both kinds, except neces

2

'Euseb. Histor. lib. vi. c. 44.

Amphil. de Basil. Paulin. de Ambros. No. 47.

sity otherwise required. Now, catechist, thou man of learning, candour, and impartiality, let me ask if certain individuals, supported by the civil authority only, could pronounce that in cases of necessity, persons might receive under one kind only, does it not follow, that the question is not a matter affecting the essence of the sacrament, but a point of discipline, and that the whole church of Christ, assembled in a general councilassisted by our Redeemer, agreeably to his promises, and taught by the Spirit of God-could alter and modify the practice, according to the existing circumstances of the times? In all discussions of a religious nature, it may at least be demanded of us, that inconsistency and hypocrisy have no part in our proceedings.

IV. Then comes a formidable objection indeed!!! The priests of the church of Rome communicate under both kinds; therefore it must be sinful in the laity not to do the same. Be it known, that the Catholic church regards the holy Eucharist not only as a sacrament, but as a sacrifice; the priest consecrates under both kinds to complete the sacrifice; the layman receives a sacrament only, by complying with the injunction of his Redeemer: He that eats this bread shall live for ever1.

V. The catechist is peculiarly unfortunate, in every instance, in his appeal to the practice of

John vi. 58.

the Eastern churches. For though it is admitted that the general practice of the Greek church is to receive under both kinds, yet there is a splendid exception, which is exhibited during a considerable portion of the year. Through the whole of Lent, there is no consecration performed, except on Saturdays and Sundays; and whenever priests or laymen communicate on other days during that season, they receive under one kind only, and use the consecrated bread preserved for the purpose. A vestige of this discipline is still maintained in the Western church, in the service of Good Friday'. The appeal, therefore, to the Eastern churches proves, that both kinds are not necessary to the use of the sacrament. Besides, amidst all the angry controversies between the Greek and Latin churches, we find not the smallest contention, not even the beginning of any discussion, on this subject.

VI. The fact of Pope Gelasius having required the use of both kinds, proves directly the reverse of what the catechist intends. If that eminent pontiff thought proper to direct that communion under both kinds should be generally adopted, it

'See Card. Bona, loc. cit. Also the most learned work of Leo Allatius de Eccles. Occid. et Orien. Perpet. Cons. lib. 3, c. ix. No. 6, with the Dissertation ad Calc. Oper. de Miss. Prosanc. pp. 1542, et seq.; also Annot. Bartold. Nihus. ibid. pp. 1614, et seq.

must be clear, that communion under one kind only, had, in many instances, before prevailed; and this is well known to those who are versed in Christian antiquity. It is likewise an additional proof, that the discipline on this point was various at different times. But the decree of Pope Gelasius, cited by Gratian', was directed against the Manichees, who styled wine the gall of the devil, and created by the evil principle; and on this account they refused to receive the communion under the species of wine. In order to detect the abettors of that impious system, who sought to propagate their blasphemies by concealment and artifice, the venerable pontiff issued the decree under consideration. But no impression was meant to be excited, that communion under one kind only impaired the integrity of the sacrament. A similar order had been given about fifty years before by St. Leo the Great from the same laudable motive3.

VII. The objection contained in the seventh number, arises altogether from a confusion of ideas, and from blending together the notions of a sacrament and a sacrifice. The holy Eucharist is indeed both a sacrament and a sacrifice; but in a very different manner, or as the schools

1 De Consecratione distinct. 2, comperimus.

2 See Card. Bona, loc. cit.

Vid. Serm. St. Leon. Magn. 4 de Quadras.