--where there was a repugnance to the taste of wine, the bread also was alone given. It may then, it seems, be said, that, unless on public and solemn occasions, the faithful, in the times of which we are speaking, communicated under one kind alone; while the priesthood, to whom the command of Christ-Do this for a commemoration of me, (Luke xxii.)--we believe, solely applies, and when employed in the duty of their sacred function, received under both. The completion of the mysterious institution demanded this.
But many abuses and accidents, through carelessness or incaution happening in the distribution of the consecrated wine; and the use of the bread alone, on so many occasions, being permitted; and the belief, that Christ was wholly present under each species, authorising the practice; the primitive rite gradually subsided, and communion in one kind very generally prevailed. The rulers of the Church, meanwhile, promoted rather than obstructed the change. And so things continued-no ecclesiastical law intervening -till the followers of John Huss in Bohemia tumultuously contending, that the use of the cup was absolutely necessary, the Council of Constance, which opened in 1414, finally decreed, that, “ as the body and blood
as the body and blood of Christ were wholly contained under each species, the custom, introduced on rational grounds, and long observed in the Church of communicating in one kind, should be received as a law, which no one, without the authority of the Church, might reject or alter.” Sess. xiii. Conc. Gen. T. xii. p. 100.-So just is the observation, that, as circumstances and the manners of men change, where change, under due authority, as in discipline, may be permitted-practices, once good and laudable, should change with them.
In the Greek Church, the ancient practice of receiving in both kinds has been retained, unless in such circumstances, or under such impediments, as I have mentioned ; which, among the Latins, allowed a departure from the established
