Church in general, no wonder if communion in both kinds be mentioned; because in the whole Church the priests are included as the principal part, whose office it is to consecrate and receive in both kinds as often as they consecrate. But much more probable it is that our Saviour, in the place above sited, had no intention to deliver any precept at all to the Capernaumites concerning the manner of receiving this sacrament, whether in one kind or in both; but only concerning the substance of it. For as to communion in both kinds, that was not the dispute between him and them, but concerning the substance of the sacrament; the real presence of his body and blood was their strife. They strove among themselves, saying: how can this man give us his flesh to eat? To whom he immediately replied: Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. A command, indeed, here is, to the Capernaumites-and, if you will, to the whole Church, clergy and laity to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and to believe the real presence, too, of his body and blood; which being the very point by the Capernaumites denied, is consequently the point by our Saviour affirmed, not the communion in both kinds, which only regarding the manner of receiving this sacrament, and not being the point disputed, we have no reason to believe was the thing our Saviour here intended to determine. Now as to the precept here given to the Capernaumites, to communicate of the body and blood of Christ, and to believe the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in this sacrament, by whom is this precept fulfilled? By Catholics, who

believe that the body and blood of Christ, Christ himself, God and Man, is really present and received entire under each kind; or by Protestants, who by the principles of their religion are taught to believe, that the body and blood of Christ are neither really present nor received either in one kind or both?

But why does Scripture in so many places (John vi. 53, 54, 55, 56. 1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 29) mention both the bread and the cup together? Is not this a good argument that both are to be received?

"A most weak and insufficient argument. As if mentioning a thing were commanding it. how easily might this logic of Protestants be turned against themselves: for both several other places of Scripture mention the bread alone, and that very chapter of St. Paul (1 Cor. xi.), which mentions both kinds so often, mentions also in verse the twenty-seventh, either the bread or the cup a plain argument, according to the Protestant's way of arguing, that the bread alone, or either the bread or the cup, is to be received. The truth is, that from the places of Scripture which mention both kinds it is neither a consequence that there is a command for every one to receive both, nor is it a consequence from the places of Scripture which mention but one, that there is a command of receiving but one. But whereas the Scripture mentions sometimes both, and sometimes one, the only natural consequence is, that this sacrament may be taken sometimes in one kind, sometimes in both, as it seems proper and expedient to the Church, which is certainly left at liberty to order and dispose such matters (as to the manner of receiving or administering sacraments), whenso

G

ever the Scripture or God himself does not otherwise determine. (See Catholic Answer to Mr. Barret's Sermon, sec. 15, p. 38. Acts ii. 42. Acts xx. 7. Luke xxiv. 30. John vi. 51, 58). And hence we may gather, that the holy Eucharist was received sometimes in one kind and sometimes in both in the times of the apostles; which is the true reason why the Scripture sometimes mentions only one kind, sometimes both, in speaking of this sacrament; it being usual for writers to mention things according to the custom when they write. That sometimes, even in the age of the apostles, this sacrament was received in one kind, may also be gathered from these words of St. Paul: Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 1 Cor. xi. 27. Which proves that the faithful then might receive either the bread or the cup. The same truth may be gathered from the Acts: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.' Acts ii. 42. As also from chap. xx. ver. 7: "And upon the first day of the week (Sunday) when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight." It is highly probable that this breaking of bread was no other than the eucharistical bread otherwise why is it joined with preaching and prayer, and said to be done in the religious assemblies of the primitive Christians on a Sunday? From these texts then it is more than probable that the faithful, even when the apostles were living, did sometimes communicate in one

kind. And certain it is, and a thing well known to all learned Protestants, that in the second and third age of the Church, the holy Eucharist was frequently given to the sick and others in one kind only.

Protestants themselves, notwithstanding their exclamations against communion in one kind, are conscious that it is the true and entire sacrament, and by no means contrary to the institution and command of Christ. For there are decrees in the reformed churches abroad, that the holy communion may be administered in one kind, in cases of necessity, when any person, through sickness, or antipathy to wine, is incapable of receiving both kinds. And as to the Church of England, by a statute of Edward the Sixth (1 Ed. VI. c. 1), which was confirmed by another of Queen Elizabeth, it is enacted, That the holy communion shall be commonly administered to the people in both kinds, with this exception, unless necessity_do otherwise require. A very fair confession that communion in one kind is an entire sacrament; or else in every case it would be an entire sacrilege. Nor can it be said by Protestants to be contrary to the institution and command of Christ, unless it be said too, that the Protestant Parliament of England, with the supreme governess of the Church of England, the glorious Queen Elizabeth, at the head of them, did by a solemn act dispense with the people of England to receive the communion in some cases in one kind, contrary to the institution and command of Christ; which I really believe every English Protestant will be ashamed

to cwn.

POINT XVII.

PROTESTANTS hold, That the holy Eucharist was ordained by Christ to be partaken by us only as a sacrament; nor can it be offered to God on the altar as a propitiatory sacrifice without injury done to Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Contrary to the Gospel:

1. "For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. xxvi. 28.

66

2. This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." Mark xiv. 24.

66

3. This is my body which is given for you. This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke xii. 19, 20.

It is still plainer in the Greek, "Which cup is shed for you." Ver. 20. Now if that which was then in the cup was shed for us, it is a clear consequence, First, That the true and real blood of our Saviour was in the cup, because no other but his true and real blood was shed for us. And, Secondly, That the holy Eucharist, or body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, was by our Saviour offered as a propitiation for sin; and consequently the Eucharist is truly and properly an offering or sacrifice as well as a sacrament: as the Paschal lamb, or passover of the old law, was both a sacrament and a sacrifice.

4. “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech." Ps. cx. 4.

According to St. Paul to the Hebrews, this was spoken of our Saviour Christ, who, as the Apostle says, was made an High Priest for ever, after the