any one, as injurious to the institution, or destructive of the integrity of the Sacrament.:

I am not, however, so ignorant, as not to know, that, in some cases, this Sacrament was administered, even to the sick, under both kinds. But an attentive consideration of the subject will convince us, that this method prevailed only on occasions, when it could be done, with perfect convenience, immediately after the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries.

Though it should be found, however, that sometimes; and though it should be found, that even, in general, the communion was administered, under both kinds, yet that circumstance would not, by any means, go to establish any conclusive argument, against the present practice of the Catholic Church. I am not contending that communion, even in cases of sickness, under one kind only, was the invariable practice of the primitive Church. I am only contending that it was then considered as a matter of indifference whether the communion was administered under one or under both kinds: And if it be in my power to produce a few instances only of communion under one kind, and those instances known and uncondemned by the judgment of the Church at that time, my purpose will be fully and fairly attained.

It is, moreover, a fact, which is well known, that in the early ages of Christianity, a custom

prevailed of administering this Sacrament to the people, on the solemnity of Good Friday: And it is a fact equally well known, that on that day no consecration was ever allowed to take place, On that day, therefore, it is evident, the mode of communion, under the form Bread only, must have been the established practice of the Church.

As an additional proof, not only of the antiquity, but also of the general prevalence of this practice, I may, farther remark, that it has been the invariable custom of the Greek Church to suspend the sacrifice of the mass, on every day, excepting the Saturdays and the Sundays, during the solemn season of Lent. On the other days of the week, it is the established rule of that Church, both for the priest and the people to communicate only under one kind; and this practice, as it appears from the councils of Laodicea and of Trullo, can be traced up to a period of the remotest antiquity.

From the testimony of St. Cyprian, it also appears, that, in his time, it was usual to admit even children to a participation of the sacred Mysteries; and the communion was administered to them, sometimes under one kind, and sometimes under the other, according to the respective circumstances of their ages.

The conviction, which must arise in every mind, which is impartial, from a view of all these cir

cumstances, nothing can be sufficient to destroy, but some opposite and positive commandment of the Saviour himself. Now, can any such commandment be produced either from the Gospels, or from any other part of the Scriptures? If we consult the sacred volume from one end to the other, we shall discover no more than two passages, which can, by any construction, be made to convey this idea: And, after the view, which we have been taking of the usages of antiquity, respecting this subject, I may be securely permitted to remark, that those passages were not thus understood, at that time.

The first of these passages occurs in the Gospel of St. Matthew*, and a correct understanding of the term ALL, which is employed by our Saviour, on the occasion in question, must determine its genuine sense. In opposition to the ideas, which some protestants have ventured to establish on this text, it may be observed, that, on the occasion of its utterance by Christ, none were admitted to be present, but the Apostles themselves; -that our Saviour was then employed, not only in instituting a Sacrament, which a Sacrament, which men, in general, were commanded to receive;-but that he was employed in conferring on themselves, some

Matth. xxvi. 27.

distinctive privileges, which it is universally allowed, were designed to be peculiar to themselves; -and whether the mode of communion, under both kinds, was destined to be one of that number, the Apostles, and those who followed them in immediate succession, must naturally be admitted to be the most competent judges. From what has been already said, on this subject, you must have been enabled to see, what were the ideas of Christians, respecting this question, at a period of time, which approached near to that of the Apostles; and the man, who is really impartial, will easily, and safely be led by that circumstance, to a knowledge of the ideas of the Apostles, and, of course, to a knowledge of what was the intention of the Saviour himself.

The parliament of Great Britain, assembled, in the reign of Edward the Sixth, it is evident, did not attach, to the words, in question, any idea, like that of a positive commandment. By that parliament a statute, which I believe yet remains unrepealed, was enacted, respecting the adminis tration of this Sacrament to the people, which proceeds on a supposition, that cases of emergency may occur, in which it may be advisable to deviate from the present established practice of the protestant church.

and Mr.

This parliament knew, indeed, and ! ** * himself cannot be ignorant, that

the conduct of Christ, in every instance, was not destined to be a necessary rule of conduct, in every age, for his Church. Our Saviour, on the very occasion of his instituting this Sacrament, broke the Eucharistic Bread, before it was presented to his Apostles;-from his own hands, he transferred the chalice, into their's;-he administered the Sacrament to them, in the course of the evening, and at the conclusion of supper. These circumstances, however, though supported by the commanding authority of his own sacred example, are neither now observed, nor ever were thought necessary, any more by protestants than by Catholics themselves.

This observation I have not introduced with any view, either of displaying the inconsistency, or of imputing blame to the conduct of our protestant Brethren. My object is only to awaken your attention to the necessity of some authority, independent of Scriptural language, and to show you, that the judgment of tradition is requisité, on almost every subject, for the secure regulation both of our opinions, and of our conduct.

The other passage of scripture, which exhibits the appearance of conveying an injunction of administering the communion, under both kinds, is found in the Gospel of St. John;* and if there

* John vi. 54,