with the "ancient traditional names of the holy "mysteries of the Eucharist, the sacrifice of salvation, "and the immolation of the host." With respect to the liturgies of the primitive church—if you mean the Irish church, I have never seen or heard of, nor do I know or believe that there exist, any that contain the sentence which you say occurs so frequently in them; and if you intend by them those ancient ones of the foreign Roman Catholics, we have nothing to do with them here. 66 I proceed to the writings of the first Irish Christians. I cannot prove a negative; I can only challenge you, and I do so with great confidence, to produce one sentence from them, of an earlier date than our limit of A.D. 600, in which "the phrase of making the "body of Christ" occurs-you have given us no instance; for Adamnan was a writer of the year 700, or thereabouts. But you say, that "In LATER Irish "writers numerous passages to the same purport may "may be found"--I fully admit this to be probable, but they make nothing to our question. You conclude with saying that, "confining yourself to those only "of the earlier period," you will add the " strong "testimony" of Sedulius; then follow five verses from the Carmen Paschale of that poet, in which there is not one word of "the making of the body "of Christ;" and whether they be "to the same "purport," or not, depends upon the opinion which he had of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and of the manner in which communicants feed upon His body and blood. In order to explain the views of Sedulius upon this subject, it is to be regretted that you did not let him also, as well as Usher, speak more fully for himself, and that you withheld from us the following verses, which occur in the same poem from which you quoted the five former ones. (lib. 4.) 66 Denique Pontificium princeps, summusque sacerdos, Here it is said, as every Christian believer must hold, that Christ, "the prince of pontiffs and great 'High Priest," is present in the sacrament; but whether spiritually or corporeally in the mind of Sedulius will appear from the sequel, where he calls our Lord "the author of the double libation; of the order of "Melchisedech; to whom are always given gifts "which are his own-the fruit of the corn, and the "delights of the vine."-Here surely there must be a strange transubstantiating power operating in the imagination, before we can discover either truly really and substantially, the body and blood of Christ; or indeed in any way a sacrifice of Him, whether bloody or unbloody; but solely that offering of "the sacrifice of thanksgiving," of which Usher speaks; and which was rendered by the devout believers, in obedience to their dying Lord's command, "Do this in REMEMBRANCE of me.* *The sentiments of the Irish divines upon this subject continued to a late period unchanged by the innovations of the But I have promised to advance the authority upon the subject of one, whose opinion you will acknowledge to be decisive, at least where you are party to a controversy I must introduce him to the public, although he is already well known to your readers. In writing of John Scotus Erigena, in your 305th page, where you mention his denial of the real presence, you express yourself thus-"In stating, "however, as he is said to have done, that the sacrament of the Eucharist is not the true body "and true blood,' he might have had reference solely "to the doctrine put forth then recently by Paschasius "Radbert, who maintained that the body present in "the Eucharist was the same carnal and palpable body which was born of the Virgin, which suffered 66 66 on the cross, and rose from the dead; whereas the "belief of the Catholic church, on this point of "doctrine, has ALWAYS been, that the body of "Christ is under the symbols, not corporeally, or "carnally, but in a spiritual manner." And to this you have added, in a note" Thus explained, in perfect consonance, as he says, with the doctrine "of the council of Trent, by the celebrated missionary 66 modern Roman Catholics-Claudius, one of the founders of the University of Paris, and an Irishman, expresses himself thus, about the year 815-" Because bread doth confirm "the body, and wine doth work blood in the flesh, therefore "the one is MYSTICALLY referred to the body of Christ, "the other to his blood."—And Henry Crumpe, a monk of Baltinglass, A. D. 1384, says-" The body of Christ in the "sacrament of the altar is only a looking-glass to the body of "Christ in heaven." (Ush. Rel. &c. p. 43.) "Verron - Ergo corpus Christi, seu Christus, est "in symbolis, spirituali modo seu spiritualiter, et non corporali seu carnali, nec corporaliter seu car"naliter.' Regula fid. Cath. c. 2. §. 11." 66 You are therefore, yourself, sir, in this sentence, the authority by which we shall decide this point. Believe me I do not mean merely to jest; I think it quite clear, either that you do not understand the subject upon which you write, or are ignorant of what Protestants assert in their protests concerning it. You have stated what you allege to have always been the belief of the Catholic church, and of course, in your opinion, to have been that also of the early Christian church, founded by St. Patrick in Ireland— but far from denying the fact, that the early Irish Christians did think thus of the Eucharist, it is my great object to prove it. We are therefore agreed in every thing but one, and that is, that I think this doctrine to be exactly that of the modern Protestant, while you consider it to be precisely that of the now Roman Catholic church. This part of the question, however, is easily decided; and a placing together of the several views, will enable the simplest reader to form an immediate judgment for himself. Concerning the doctrine "of the real presence in the Eucharist" What has always been" in your judgment, "the belief of the Catholic church in Ireland. "That the body of Christ is, under the symbols, "not corporeally, or carnally, but in a SPIRITUAL "manner." p. 305. 28th Article of the Church of England-" To "such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, re"ceive the same, the bread which we break is a "partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the "cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of "Christ.”—The body of Christ is taken, and eaten in "the supper, ONLY after an heavenly and SPIRITUAL "MANNER." "Ita definit Concilium Tridentinum, Sess. 13 66 can 1." the Council of Trent thus decides-" Si "quis negaverit in sanctissimæ Eucharista sacra"mento contineri, veré realiter et substantialiter, corpus et sanguinem, unâ cum animâ et Divinitate "Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum "Christum; sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo, ut in "signo, vel figurâ, aut virtute-anathema sit." "If any one shall deny that there is contained "in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, truly, really, and SUBSTANTIALLY, THE BODY AND 66 BLOOD, together with the soul and divinity of our "Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the entire Christ; "but shall say that they are only in it as in a sign or "figure, or virtually-let him be accursed." See Den's Theology, V. v. p. 278. Ed. Dub. 1832. N. 20. De reali Christi præsentia," &c. It is quite unnecessary to make any further comment here; but it surely does afford some proof of the folly of this tenet, that it presents itself to a mind intelligent as yours, in such a manner, that you cannot but couple it with the idea of heresy. The doctrine of transubstantiation is indeed one, as Dean Swift says, "the |