without fainting. But the bright light of the Eastern Church, S. John Chrysostom, will refute the Vicar's error, and illustrate this whole matter, far better than I can do. His words are these and S. Ambrose speaks to the same effect: "Whether Peter, Paul, or any other Priest of inferior merit, presents the sacred oblation, it is the same which Christ delivered to his disciples, and which the Priests now perform. The latter possesses nothing less than the former. Why so? Because they are not men, but Christ, who had before consecrated it. For as the words that Christ spoke are the same that the Priests now pronounce, so the oblation is the same."† He elsewhere says: "We always offer the same thing, not one lamb to day and another to-morrow, but always the same lamb. Hence the Sacrifice is always the same: Otherwise, as it is offered in many places, there would be many Christs: but this is not so: but there is one Christ everywhere; and being entire, here and there, he is one and the same body. For as he who is offered is one body and not many bodies, so there is but one Sacrifice. For our High Priest is he who offered the victim, that cleansed us: this we offer now."‡

I cannot leave this subject of the Sacrifice of

*Luke xviii. 1. † Hom. II. on 2d. to Tim.

Hom. 17. on Heb.

the Mass, without mentioning one or two omissions of the Vicar to fulfil his engagement of answering all my principal arguments; which omissions I think he would not have been guilty of, if he had known what to say on those heads. I complained then, that not only B. Porteus, but also the Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Hey, and most Protestant Divines,* incessantly talk of and declaim against what they call The Popish Mass; whereas they cannot be ignorant that the same liturgy is performed, and the same belief of its being a propitiatory Sacrifice, grounded on transubstantiation, is held by all Christians throughout the world, except the comparatively few who inhabit the British Islands, Denmark, Sweden, and certain parts of Germany. I speak of the Greeks, the Russians, the Nestorians, the Eutychians, the Cophs, the Ethiopians, &c.; all these millions of Christians, I say, believe in, and offer up the real Sacrifice of the Mass, no less than Catholics do.

What means, then, the objected to the latter,

term of Popish Mass, unless for the purpose of invidious obloquy? In like manner, what sense is there in requiring Members of Parliament to swear that The Mass, AS IT IS USED BY THE CHURCH OF ROME, is idolatrous," when all the above

.

* End of Controv., Letter xl.

See this proved in detail by Le Brun, in his Explication de la Messe.

named millions of Christians use it and believe in it, just as she does!

In another important point of the present question, I find the Vicar equally wanting to his promise of answering all my principal arguments. You recollect, Dear Sir, my stating that Luther was the first innovator who formally attacked the Sacrifice of the Mass, and that he was induced so to do by the arguments of Satan, who held a midnight conference with him of more than an hour's length on the subject. It is Luther himself who relates the history, and publishes in full detail the five theological arguments the Devil made use of for this purpose. Surely this was a matter worthy the Vicar's attention. He should have told us whether or no he subscribes to the five notable arguments of the infernal theologian against the Mass, which, after all, display much more learning and talent than his own chapter on that subject. If he does admit them, he owns no less than Luther, who is his original preceptor in this matter. If he rejects them, he ought to furnish some better arguments than Satan does, for coming to the same conclusion with him. In the mean time it is an undeniable fact that Satan's arguments against the Mass published by Luther, tom. vii. p. 228, form the earliest treatise extant in support of that impiety.

J. M., D.D.

LETTER XIV.

COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND.

DEAR SIR-Instructed as you are in the doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament, I am aware that nothing can sound more extraordinary in your ears than complaints and reproaches against the Catholic Church, as having "sacrilegiously taken away half of that Sacrament," on the part of persons who themselves have taken away the whole of it! Christ being whole and entire, as to his body, his blood, his soul, and his divinity, in the Blessed Eucharist, and under each species of it, you know that the faithful equally receive Christ whole and entire, whether they receive him under the form of bread, or under the form of wine, whether under one kind or under both; whereas the Vicar, with the Prelates whom he quotes, acknowledging no presence of Christ in the Sacrament, except as to the ubiquity of his Divine nature, and no participation of Christ except by "an act of the mind;"* it is evident that, in this supposition, the whole Sacrament is destroyed, and nothing but an imagination of eating, and a mere ideal food, is left in place of the reality which Catholics receive.

* Reply, p. 143.

The fundamental doctrine of Christ's real and corporal presence in the B. Sacrament having been clearly proved from Scripture, the Fathers, the testimony of the infallible Church, and even from that of all-heretics and schismatics, till within the three last centuries: in like manner it having been clearly proved that, after those words of Christ, of which you have heard the ancient Fathers speak such great things, namely, the words of consecration, there is no bread nor wine, but only the species or accidents, as they are called, left in the Sacrament, and that Christ, whole and entire, exists in their place; it is an evident consequence that the mode of receiving him in this Sacrament is merely accidental and immaterial, as far as regards the effect of it. Hence the person who receives under the form of bread, receives exactly the same as another does who receives under the form of wine, and he who receives under both kinds, receives nothing more than he who receives under either kind for he can receive nothing more than Jesus Christ whole and entire. Hence it follows, likewise, from the nature of the thing itself, as well as from the tradition and the declarations of the Church, that the point in question, namely, the manner of receiving Christ in the B. Sacrament, whether under one or under both kinds, is a matter of variable discipline, to be regulated by the Church, according to existing circum