Chapter V. Of Communion in One Kind

What is the doctrine of the Church as to this point?

We profess “ that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.”

What proof have you for this?

in one Kind. 33

Because, as we have seen in the foregoing chapter, the bread, by consecration, is truly and really changed into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood: now both faith and reason tell us, that the living body of the Son of God cannot be without his blood, nor his blood without his body; nor his body and blood without his soul and divinity. It is true, he shed his blood for us in his passion; and his soul at his death was parted from his body; but now he has risen from the dead immortal and impassible, and can shed his blood no more, nor die any more. “ Christ being raised from the dead,” says the apostle, Bom. vi. 9, “ dieth no more, death has no more dominion over him.” Therefore whosoever receives the body of Christ, receives Christ himself whole and entire; there is no receiving him by parts.

But does not Christ say, John vi. 53, “ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you V*

True. But according to the Catholic doctrine we do this, though we receive under one kind alone, because under either kind we receive both the body and blood of Christ; whereas our adversaries that make this objection receive neither one nor the other, but only a little bread and wine. Besides, this objection does not sound well in Protestant mouths, because they say those words of Christ were not spoken of the sacrament, but only of faith.

Are all Christians commanded to drink of the cup, Matt. xxvi. 27, “Drink ye all of it?”

No: that command was only addressed to the

84 Of Communion twelve apostles, who were the all that were then present, u and they all drank of it," Mark xiv. 23.

. How do you prove, that those words are not to he understood as a command directed to all CJiristians?

Because the Church of Christ, which is the best interpreter of his word, never understood them so; and therefore from the very beginning, on many occasions, she gave the holy communion in one kind, for instance, to children, to the sick, to the faithful in time of persecution, to be carried home with them, &c., as appears from the mosf certain monuments of antiquity.

But are not the faithful thus deprived of great part of the grace of this sacrament f

No: because under one kind they receive the same as they would do under both, inasmuch as they receive Christ himself whole and entire, the author and fountain of all graces.

Why then should the priest in the mass receive in loth kinds any more than the rest of the faithf ul?

Because the mass being a sacrifice, in which, by the institution of our Lord, the shedding of his blood and his death was to be in a lively manner represented; it is requisite that the priest, who as the minister of Christ offers this sacrifice, should, for the more lively representing of the separation of Christ's blood from his body, consecrate and receive fh both kinds as often as he says mass. Whereas at other times, neither priest, nor bishop, nor the Pope himself, even upon their death-bed, receives any otherwise than »he rest of the faithful, viz. in one kind only.

in one Kind. 35

H'lve you any texts of Scripture that favour communion in one kind?

Yes. 1st, all such texts as promise everlasting life to them that receive, though but in one kind; as John vi. 51, “ The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world/' Yer. 57, “ He that eateth me, even he shall live by me." Yer. 58, “He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

2ndly. All such texts as make mention of the faithful receiving the holy communion, under the name of breaking of bread, without any mention of the cup; as Acts ii. 42, “ they continued sted-fastly in the apostolic doctrine of fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Ver. 46, “ Continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house." Acts xx. 7, “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread." Luke xxiv. 30, 31, “ He took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to them, and their eyes were opened and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight." 1 Cor. x. 17, “ We being many, are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread."

3rdly. 1 Cor. xi. 27. Where the apostle declares, that whosoever receives under either kind nnwf-thily, is guilty both of the body and blood of Christ. “Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink (f/ 7ro7/) this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord.". Where the Protestant translators have evidently corrupted the text, by putting in “ an] drink," instead of “or drink*” as it is in the original.

30 Of the Mass

What are the reasons why the Church does not glee the communion to all her children in loth kinds?

1st. Because the danger of spilling tLe blood of Christ, which could hardly be avoided if all vere to receive the cup. 2ndly. Because, consilering how soon wine decays, the sacrament could aot well be kept for the sick in both kinds. 3rdly. Because some constitutions can neither endure the taste nor smell of wine. 4thly. Because true wine in some countries is very hard to be met with. 5thly. In fine, in opposition to those heretics who deny that Christ is received whole and entire under either kind.