the

the body; but to us, Catholics, who possess, reality of them both, their species or outward appearance is no more than a matter of changeable discipline.

It is the sentiment of the great lights of the Church, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustin, St. Jerome, &c. and seems clear from the text, that when Christ on the day of his Resurrection, took bread, and blessed and brake, and gave it to Cleophas and the other disciple, whose guest he was at Emmaus, on his doing which their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight, Luke xxiv. 30, 31. he administered the holy communion to them under the form of bread alone. In like manner, it is written of the baptized converts of Jerusalem, that, they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the BREAKING OF BREAD, and in prayer, Acts ii. 42.; and of the religious meeting at Troas: ou the first day of the week, when we were assembled to BREAK BREAD, Acts xx. 7, without any mention of the other species. These passages plainly signify, that the Apostles were accustomed, sometimes at least, to give the Sacrament under one kind alone, though Bishop Porteus has not the candour to confess it. Another more important passage for communion under either kind, he entirely overlooks, where the Apostle says: "Whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unnorthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." (1) True it is, that in the English Bible,

(1), or drink, 1 Cor. xi. 27. The Rev. Mr. Grier, who has attempted to vindicate the purity of the English Prɔtestant Bible, has nothing else to say for this alteration of St. Paul's Epistle, than that in what they falsely call "the parallel text of Luke and Matthew," the conjunctive and occurs!

the text is here corrupted, the conjunctive AND being put for the disjunctive OR, contrary to the original Greek, as well as to the Latin Vulgate, to the version of Beza, &c.; but as his Lordship could not be ignorant of this corruption, and the importance of the genuine text, it is inexcusable in him to have passed it over unnoticed.

The whole series of Ecclesiastical History proves, that the Catholic Church, from the time of the Apostles down to the present, ever firmly believing that the whole Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, equally subsist under each of the species or appearances of bread and wine, regarded it as a mere matter of discipline, which of them was to be received in the Holy Sacrament. It appears from Tertullian, in the second century, (1) from St. Dennis of Alexandria (2) and St. Cyprian, (3) in the third; from St. Basil (4) and St. Chrysostom, in the fourth, &c. (5) that the Blessed Sacrament, under the form of bread, was preservGrier's Answer to Ward's Errata, p. 13.-I may here notice the horrid and notorious misrepresentation of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Eucharist, of which two living dignitaries are guilty in their publications. The Bishop of Lincoln says, "Papists contend that the mere receiving of the Lord's Supper merits the remission of sin ex opere operato, as it were, mechanically, whatever may be the character or disposition of the communicants." Elem. of Theol. vol. ii. p. 491. Dr, Hey repeats the charge in nearly the same words. Lectures, vol. iv. p. 355. That Catholic will not lift up his hands in amazement at the grossness of this calumny, knowing, as he does, from his catechism and all his books, what purity of soul, and how much greater preparation, is required for the reception of our sacrament, than Protestants require for receiving theirs. See Concil. Trid. Ses. xiii. c. 7. Cat. Rom. Douay Catech, &c. (1) Ad Uxor. 1. ii. (2) Apud. Esueb. 1. iv. c. 44. (3) De Lapsis. (4) Epist. ad Cesar, (5) Apud Soz 1. viii. c. 5.

ed in the oratories and houses of the primitive Christians, for private communion, and for the viaticum in danger of death. There are instances, also, of its being carried on the breast, at sea, in the orarium or neckcloth. (1) On the other hand, as it was the custom to give the B. Sacrament to baptized children, it was administered to those who were quite infants, by a drop out of the chalice. (2) On the same principle, it being discovered, in the fifth century, that certain Manichæan heretics, who had come to Rome from Africa, objected to the sacramental cup, from an erroneous and wicked opinion, Pope Leo ordered them to be excluded from the communion entirely; (3) and Pope Gelasius required all his flock to receive under both kinds, (4) It appears that, in the twelfth century, only the officiating Priest and infants received under the form of wine; which discipline was confirmed at the beginning of the fifteenth century by the Council of Constance, (5) on account of the profanations, and other evils, resulting from the general reception of it in that form. Soon after this, the more orderly

(1) St. Ambrose, in obit Frat. It appears, also, that St. Birinus, the Apostle of the West. Saxons, brought the Blessed Sacrament with him into this Island in an Orarium. Gul. Malm Vit, Pontif. Florent. Wigorn, Higden, &c.

(2) St. Cypr. de Laps.

(3) Sermo. iv. de Quadrag.

(4) Decret. Comperimus Dist. iii.

(4) Dr. Porteus, Dr. Coomber, Kemnitius, &c. accuse this Council of decreeing, that notwithstanding," (for so they express it) "our Saviour ministered in both kinds, one only shall. in future, be adminis the laity :" as if the Council opposed its authority to of Christ; whereas it barely defines, that some circumstances of the institution, (namely, that it took place, after supper, that the Apostles received without being fasting, and that both species were consecrated) are not obligatory on all Christians. See Can. xiii.

sect of the Hussites, namely the Calixtins, professing their obedience to the Church in other respects, and petitioning the Council of Basil to be indulged in the use of the Chalice; this was granted them. (1) In like manner, Pope Pius IV., at the request of the Emperor Ferdinand, authorized several Bishops of Germany to allow the use of the cup to those persons of their respective dioceses, who desired it. (2) The French Kings, since the reign of Philip, have had the privilege of receiving, under both kinds, at their coronation and at their death. (3) The officiating deacon and subdeacon of St. Dennis, and all the monks of the order of Cluni, who serve the altar, enjoy the same. (4)

From the above statement, Bishop Porteus will learn, if not that the manner of receiving the sacrament under one or the other kind, or under both kinds, is a mere matter of variable discipline, at least that the doctrine and the practice of the Catholic Church is consistent with each other. I am now going to produce evidence of another kind, which, after all his, and the Bishop of Durham's anathemas against us, on account of this doctrine and discipline, will demonstrate, that, conformably with the declarations of the three principal denominations of Protestants, either the point at issue is a mere matter of discipline, or else, that they are utterly inconsistent with themselves.

To begin with Luther: he reproaches his disciple Carlostad, who in his absence had introduced some new religious changes at Wittenberg, with having "placed Christianity in things of no

(1) Sess. ii. (2) Mem. Granv. t. xiii. Odorhainal. (3) Annal. Pagi. (4) Nat. Alex. t. i. p. 430.

account, such as 'communicating under both kinds,' fc. (1) On another occasion he writes: "If a Council did ordain or permit both kinds, in spite of the Council, we would take but one, or take neither, and curse those who should take both.” (2) Secondly, the Calvinists of France, in their Synod at Poictiers, in 1560, decreed thus: "The bread of our Lord's Supper ought to be administered to those who cannot drink wine, on their making a protestation that they do not refrain from contempt." (3) Lastly, by separate Acts of that Par-` liament, and that King who established the Protestant Religion in England, and, by name, Communion in both kinds, it is provided that the latter should only be commonly so delivered and ministered; and an exception is made in 66 case necessity did otherwise require." (4)-Now, I need not observe, that, if the use of the cup were by the appointment of Christ, an essential part of the sacrament, no necessity can ever be pleaded in bar of that appointment; and men might as well pretend to celebrate the Eucharist without bread as without wine, (5) or to confer the Sacrament of Baptism without water. The dilemma is inevitaEither the ministration of the Sacrament, under one or under both kinds is a matter of

ble.

(1) Epist. ad Gasp. Gustol.

(2) Form. Miss. t. ii. pp. 384, 386.

(3) On the Lord's Supper, c. iii. p. 7.

(4) Burnet's Hist. of Reform, Part ii. p. 41. Heylin's Hist. of Reform, p. 58. For the Proclamation, See Bishop Sparrow's Collection, p. 17.

(5) The writer has heard of British made wine being frequently used by Church Ministers in their Sacrament for real wine. The Missionaries, who were sent to Otaheite, used the bread fruit, for real bread, on the like occasion. See Voyage of the Ship Duff.