An exposition of the doctrine of the Catholic Church in matters of controversie: by the Right Reverend James Benigne Bossuet ... ; done into English from the fifth edition in French.

SECT. XVII. Communion under both kinds.

THere remains one other Consequence of this doctrine to be examined, which is, that JESƲS CHRIST being really pre∣sent in the Sacrament, The Grace and Benediction is not annexed to the sensible species, but to the proper substance of his flesh, which is living, and life-giving, because of the Divinity which is united to it. Upon which account, all those, who believe the real pre∣sence, ought not to have any difficulty to communicate under one sole species, because they there receive all that is essential to this Sacrament, together with a plenitude so secure, because there being now no real seperation betwixt the Body and the Blood, (as hath

been said) we receive entirely, and without division him, who is solely capable to satiate us.

This is the solid foundation, upon which the Church, interpre∣ting the precept of Communion, as declared, we may receive the Sanctification, which this Sacrament carries with it, under one sole species, and if she have reduced her Children to this sole species; it was not out of disesteem of the other, seeing, on the contrary, she did it to hinder those Irreverences, which the confusion and negli∣gence of people had occasioned in these later ages, reserving to her self, the re-establishment of communion under both kinds, ac∣cording as it should become more advantagious to Peace and Unity.

Catholic Divines have made it appear to those of the pretended Reformation, that they have themselves made use of several such like Interpretations, in what belongs to the use of the Sacrament; but above all they had reason to remark this which is taken out of the 12 chap. of their discipline, Title of the Lords Supper, art. 7. where we find these words: The Bread of the Lords Supper ought to be administred to those who cannot drink wine, upon their making pro∣testation, that it is not out of contempt, and endeavouring what they can possibly, to obviate all Scandal even by approaching the cup as neer their mouths as they are able. They have judged, by this regulation that both species were not, by the institution of JESƲS CHRIST, essential to the Communion: otherwise they ought to have abso∣lutely refused the Sacrament to those, who could not receive it whole and entire, and not to give it them after a manner contrary to that which JESƲS CHRIST had commanded; in which case their disability would have been their excuse. But our adversaries conceived it would be an excessive rigour, not to allow at least one of the species to those, who could not receive the other; and as this condescendence has no ground in Scripture, they must acknow∣ledge with us, the words, by which JESƲS CHRIST proposes to us the two species, are liable to some interpretation, and that this interpretation ought to be declared by the authority of the Church.

But it might seem as if this article of their discipline, which was made in the Synod of Poitiers held in the year 1560, had been re∣formed by the Synod of Vertueil held in the year 1567. where it is said the company is not of opinion, the bread should be administred to those who would not receive the Cup. These two Synods neverthe∣less are no ways opposite. That of Vertueil speaks only of those

who will not receive the Cup; And that of Poitiers of these only who cannot. In effect, notwithstanding the Synod of Vertueil, this ar∣ticle remains in their discipline, and has been also approved by a latter Synod then that of Vertueil, by the Synod of la Rochell in 1571, where this article was review'd, and put into that stare in which it now is.

But supposing the Synods of the pretended reform'd Religion had differed in their sentiments, it would only follow that the matter in question regards not Faith, and that it is of the number of those, which are at the Churches disposal according to their own Principles.