On Communion under one kind, I shall also extract the evidence and observations of the same learned writer. "The above doctrine [that Christ is whole under each species] having at all times been professed in the Catholic Church, the introduction of lay-communion in one kind is easily accounted for, and seems not liable to any serious objection. It is admitted that, from the earliest time, down to the twelfth century, the faithful of both sexes, laity as well as clergy, when they assisted at the public and solemn celebration of the Christian service, and were admitted to Communion, generally received under both kinds. But, during the same period, there seems never to have been any positive ecclesiastical precept so to do: for we often read that the Communion was given to infants sometimes under one kind, sometimes under another:-in times of persecution, or under difficulties, or when long journeys were undertaken, the consecrated bread was permitted to be carried away; the same was taken to the sick, and where there was a repugnance to the taste of wine, the bread also was alone given. It may then, it seems, be said, that, unless on public and solemn occasions, the faithful, in the times of which we are

and understanding Chaldaic: and so it was, in a still more decided manner, during the mission of Christ, who, though he frequently assisted in the Temple, was never known, in any way, to have condemned the practice.

speaking, communicated under one kind alone; while the priesthood, to whom the command of Christ-Do this in remembrance of me, (Luke, xxii.)—we believe, solely applies, and when employed in the duty of their sacred function, received under both. The completion of the mysterious institution demanded this.

"But many abuses and accidents, through carelessness and incaution, happening in the distribution of the consecrated wine; and the use of bread alone, on so many occasions, being permitted; and the belief that Christ was wholly present under each species, authorising the practice; the primitive rite gradually subsided, and Communion in one kind very generally prevailed. The rulers of the Church, meanwhile, promoted rather than obstructed the change. And so things continued ;— no ecclesiastical law intervening, till the followers of John Huss, in Bohemia, tumultuously contending that the use of the cup was absolutely necessary, the Council of Constance, which opened in 1414, finally decreed that, As the body and blood of Christ were wholly contained under each species, the custom, introduced on rational grounds, and long observed in the Church, of communicating in one kind, should be received as a law, which no one without the authority of the Church, might reject or alter.'-(Sess. xiii. Conc. Gen. T. xii. p. 100.) So just is the observation that, as circum

stances and the manners of men change-where change, under due authority, as in discipline, may be permitted-practices, once good and laudable, should change with them.

"In the Greek Church, the ancient practice of receiving in both kinds has been retained, unless in such circumstances, or under such impediments as I have mentioned; which, among the Latins, allowed a departure from the established rite. But what is peculiar among the modern Greeks is, that they distribute the sacred bread, not separately, but dipped in the wine, and placed in a spoon. From its being allowed by them, that the bread, unless at the times principally of solemn Communion, may be given separately, it is plain, if any proof were wanted, that their belief of the real presence of the whole Christ under each species, is the same as that of the Western Church. And another proof of the same is, that neither at the time of the schism in the ninth century, when minds were most exasperated, nor since, has it been made a subject of complaint against the Latins, that, in the administration of the Eucharist, they had departed from the precept of Christ, or violated any established rule of general discipline. Some of their charges against us were sufficiently frivolous; and as, among these, one was that we celebrated the Eucharist in unleavened bread, contrary to the practice of their Church; they, certainly, could

not have overlooked the more important point of Communion in one kind, had they judged it reprehensible: or, in other words, had not their own practice, on certain occasions, been the same, and their general faith the same.

"The Council of Trent, following the judgment of the Church (as pronounced at Constance) and its usage, declares and teaches, 'That neither laity nor unofficiating clergy are bound, by any divine command, to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both species; and that it cannot be doubted, without a breach of faith, that Communion in either kind suffices for them. For though Christ, at his last supper, instituted this venerable Sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, and thus delivered it to his Apostles, yet that institution and that delivering do not show that all the faithful, by the command of Christ, are bound to receive both kinds. Nor can it be fairly collected, from the discourse of our Saviour (John, vi.) that Communion in both kinds was commanded by him; however, according to the various interpretations of the holy Fathers and other learned men, that discourse be understood. For He who there said: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (54); -also said: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever (52). And He who said: He that cateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath ever

lasting life (55); likewise said: The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world (52). He, in fine, who said: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him (57); said, notwithstanding: He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever (59).'—(Sess. xxi. c. 1, p. 174.)—' Therefore though, in the early ages, the use of both kinds was not unfrequent, yet the practice, in process of time, being widely changed, the Church, for weighty and just reasons, approved the change, and pronounced it to be a law, which no one, without the authority of the Church, is allowed to reject or to alter.'-(Ibid. c. ii. p. 175.)—It must be acknowledged, that the whole and entire Christ, and the true Sacrament, are taken under either kind; and therefore, that as to the fruit, they who thus receive are deprived of no necessary grace.'"(b) — (Ibid. c. iii. p. 176.)-(Faith of Catholics, pp. 246-249.)

(b) The proofs that communion under one kind was always partially admitted, are to be seen in Pope Leo, Serm. iv. de Quad. tom. i. p. 217; Eusebius, Hist. lvi. c. 44. p. 200; the eleventh Council of Toledo, Concil. tom. vi. Can. 11; St. Cyprian de Lapsis, p. 133; St. Augustine, Epist. 98, olim 23; Paulinus, Vit. Sti. Ambrosii, No. 47; Tertullian ad Uxor. lib. xi. c. 5. p. 169.

In the time of Edward VI. the Church of England also held that the sacrament might be fully and lawfully administered under one kind only. It was then enacted, "That the most blessed sacrament be hereafter commonly