XVII. The Communion of Two kinds

There remains still another consequence of this doctrine, into which we will now examine, which is that Jesus Christ being really present in this sacrament we do not attach either grace or blessing to the visible elements, but to the very substance of His Flesh, which is living and life-giving, by reason of the Divine essence which is united to Him. Therefore all those who believe in the Real Presence ought not to have any difficulty about receiving in one kind only ; since they take in it all that is essential to this sacrament with an entireness the more certain, that the separation of the Body and Blood not being really so, as has been said, they thus receive wholly and without division Him who alone is able to satisfy them. The Church, interpreting on this solid foundation the Institution of the Eucharist, has declared that we may receive all sanctification from it under one kind only ; and if she has confined Christians to this one kind, it has not been from any slight, or neglect of the other, since it was as much from reverence as any other feeling, to avoid a recurrence of the confusion and negligence which some were guilty of, in later times, keeping to herself the power of re-establishing it under two kinds, whenever she may deem it expedient for peace and unity so to do.

Catholic theologians have brought forward many interpretations similar to this from Protestant Writers on this very subject of administering this sacrament, but most especially one drawn from the xii. chapte-r of their rules, entitled " Of the Lord's Supper," art. 7., where these words are found : " The Bread is to be administered to those who are not able to drink Wine, mentioning that it is not out of any slight or neglect, and making semblance merely, presenting the Cup as nearly as possible to the lips to avoid scandal." They have shewn by this article, that the two kinds are not essential to the Communion according to the institution of Jesus Christ. Otherwise they should have refused the Sacrament entirely to those who were able to receive it in one kind only, and not have given it in a manner differing from that in which Jesus Christ intended it ; in this case their inability would have been a valid excuse. But our adversaries thought it too severe to deny both kinds to those who could only receive in one ; and as this kind of indulgence has no warrant in Scripture, they must acknowledge with us, that the words in which Jesus Christ proposes the two kinds to us are subject to an interpretation, and that this interpretation is best made by the authority of the Church. Besides, it would seem likely that this article of their faith, which dates from the Synod of Poitiers in 1560, would have been amended if necessary at the next held at Vertueil in 1567, where we find the following : " That the Society are of opinion that they should not deliver the bread to those who would not receive the cup." These two synods are, however, no how opposed. That of Vertueil speaks of those who " would not receive the cup," that of Poitiers of those who " could not." And, in fact, notwithstanding the synod of Vertueil, the article continues in their code of rules, and has even been approved of by a later synod than that of Vertueil, by the synod of La Rochelle in 1571, where this article was revised and put into the words in which we now quote it. But even had these Reformers changed their sentiments on this article, it would only prove that the subject on which it treats is not a matter of faith, and, as such, the Church, according to them even, has full power to dispose of it.