St. Paul's calling the elements bread and cup. And observe, St. Paul's belief no way follows from that of the other Apostles; for he tells us that what he taught of the Eucharist, he had learned by express revelation from Christ himself: "I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered to you," &c.* He delivered an exact account of the institution of this mystery; and what he says of the use and effects of it, evidently proves that he believed in the real presence of Christ's true body and blood. He declares that the unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. How could that be, if the body and blood were not there? He requires a person to prove himself before he receives, lest he eat and drink his own damnatíon, not discerning the body of the Lord. How could a man be guilty of not discerning the Lord's body if it were not there present? St. Paul uses the words bread and cup it is true; but this makes nothing against his belief or ours in the real presence. Cup merely means the contents of the cup, be they what they may; the container for the thing contained, by a very common figure of speech, as Mr. White knew very well. The Blessed Sacrament may be called bread for many reasons: 1st, because it is consecrated from bread. 2d,-Because it still retains the form and taste of bread. 3d,-Because it is the bread or food of the soul. Because it is the body of Him who is the true bread of life, our daily and supersubstantial bread. But it may still continue to be in reality the true body of Christ; and therefore

* 1 Cor. xi, 23. Ib. v. 27. Ib. v. 29.

4th,

sence.

St. Paul's words prove his belief of the real preMr. White's note, telling his readers that Catholics use a white wafer instead of common bread, in order to remove the appearance of bread, which would be too visible an argument against their doctrine, is too visibly false and ridiculous to merit serious refutation. He knew that it was not done for any such reason; and he would have hard work to prove that a white wafer looks any more like the body of Christ than common bread.

If Transubstantiation were invented by the Pope, how comes it that the Greek Church teaches it? For Mr. White took care to tell us long ago, that the Greeks never acknowledged the Pope, and therefore he cannot suppose that they would adopt his inventions.

We have shewn that the Greeks did acknowledge the Pope up to the ninth century; and if Mr. White means to pretend that Transubstantiation is of later introduction, it rests with him. to shew how the Greek Church came to embrace it; and also how the Ethiopians, Armenians, and others, should profess it, who separated from the Pope much earlier. The well-known fact that these early Separatists have ever believed in Transubstantiation invincibly proves that it is no doctrine invented by any Pope, but taught from the beginning from no other source than Divine revelation.

Mr. White's last attack is the most dishonourable, and withal the weakest he has made against Transubstantiation. "The presence," he says, "is so material, that if a mouse eats up part of the consecrated bread, it certainly eats the body of

Christ," and this he calls "our most irreverent language." Let his readers be well assured, that the irreverence is all his own, and that of the poor objectors from whom he has copied it. No Catholic ever thought so irreverently; it is an old objection which Mr. White has seen refuted over and over again, in all our books of divinity. He has been dishonourable enough to bring forth the objection and suppress the answer; to charge us with the irreverent language of our opponents, and to withhold our own reply." "See," said St. Augustine, " by what arguments human weakness seeks to contradict Divine Omnipotence.' "We should not believe in Christ himself, if we were to be moved by the scoffs of Paganism." We answer, then, to all such objectors: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God:"* we deny that the body of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament can suffer any indignity, such as being devoured by mice or turned to corruption. It was liable to these things while in a state of mortality; but being now risen from the dead, it cannot suffer any more; it is in a glorified state, impassable and incorruptible. Hence, no kind of indignity affects the body of Christ in the Eucharist, but only falls upon the species or outward accidents, under which it is concealed. Thus vanish all Mr. White's groundless assertions about the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation.

The next point of our Faith which Mr. White attacks is Purgatory. His larger work says little

* St. Matt., xxii, 29.

about it. He has a flourish about those five sacraments which the Catholic Church has ever held from the beginning, and which Protestants have rejected, and he amuses himself with calling them Roman sacraments. Unluckily for Mr. White's witty designation, it is well known to him that they are not Roman sacraments alone, but held now, as they ever have been, by the Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, and Coptic Christians; and this puts an end at once to his attempt to call them, in derision, Roman sacraments. The Preservative," as usual, first gives an erroneous account of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, and then derides it.

Catholics are taught, if we are to take Mr. White's account, that the Pope has the power to relieve or release the souls in Purgatory, by means of indulgences.* He calls Purgatory "the offspring of Roman Catholic tradition;" and says that "tradition alone must have been brought to the aid of Purgatory." Also that the idea of Purgatory was first produced by the notion that pain and suffering have the power of pleasing God. Would it not have been far more creditable in Mr. White to state our doctrine fairly, and to oppose it with honourable arguments? There is some excuse for their mis. stating our doctrines, who have never heard them but from prejudiced and illiberal reporters, but we can find nothing to extenuate misrepresentation in a man whose profession obliged him to know them thoroughly. Our belief concerning purgatory is simply this: "That there is a Purgatory and that the souls therein detained * “Preservative,” p. 68.

are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.” The belief is not the offspring of tradition alone: we find it asserted even in the Old Testament that it is" a wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins,"2 Macch.ch. xii. and though Protestants reject the books of Macchabees (perhaps on this very account), they are still obliged to admit, that this passage proves, that the Jews were accustomed to offer sacrifices and prayers for the dead, and that Judas Macchabeus, of the priestly race, would not have ordered such sacrifices, if it had not been a received doctrine that they were beneficial to the departed. In St. Matt. ch. xii. our Saviour speaks of a sin which shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in the next. This clearly indicates that some sins are forgiven in the next world; and if so, there must be a purgatory. In St. Matt. ch. v. and St. Luke ch. xii. mention is made of a prison whence there shall be no deliverance, till the prisoner has paid the last farthing. This prison Tertullian and others understood to be purgatory; and the well known passage (1 Cor. ch. iii.) where it is promised that a man" shall be saved, yet so as by fire," has been understood of Purgatory by St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and many other venerable authorities. Purgatory is also proved by reason itself: God is infinitely just, and must render to each according to his works. Now as some men die in mortal sins, there is hell to punish them; as some few die without any sin, there is heaven for their immediate reward; but as others die in small sins or under the guilt of neglected satisfactions, there must be a middle place of punish