Page:Faithcatholics.pdf/325

 that the body is there under the species of bread, and the blood under that of wine, by virtue of the words of consecration : moreover, that the body is there under the species of wine, and the blood under that of bread, and the soul under both, in virtue of that connection and concomitance, whereby the whole Jesus, who, being now risen from the dead, can die no more, is united in all his parts; and the divinity, by that admirable union with the body and soul, which is called hypostatical. It is, therefore, most true, that as much is contained under either species, as under both: for Christ, whole and entire, exists under the species of bread, and under each (divided) particle of that species; and whole under the species of wine, and under its (separated) parts.” Sess. xiii. c. iii. p.88. [ocr errors]

The above doctrine, contained in the Proposition, and more fully detailed by the Council, having, at all times, been professed in the Catholic Church, the introduction of lay-communion in one kind is easily accounted for, and seems not liable to any serious objection. It is admitted, that, from the earliest time, down to the twelfth century, the faithful of both sexes, laity as well as clergy, when they assisted at the public and solemn celebration of the Christian service, and were admitted to communion, generally received under both kinds. But, during the same period, there seems never to have been any positive ecclesiastical precept so to do: for to infants, we often read, the communion was given, sometimes under one kind, sometimes under another: in times of persecution, or under difficulties, or when long journeys were undertaken, the consecrated bread was permitted to be carried away—the same was taken to the sick