find, that though she is divided from all the Sectaries of the East, on some points of importance, yet, on the subject in question, there exists between them, a perfect union of sentiment and of language.

The documents, to which I allude, are not the hasty and imperfect accounts of individuals who have travelled, and who are often found to receive their accounts from the dubious authority of interested or of ignorant men. They are

not the unsupported and the unauthenticated opinions of persons, who have frequently nothing to guide their judgment, but the treacherous voice of prejudice, or of passion. They are the solemn and attested declarations of men, eminent in society, for their rank and their talents;—of men of different and opposite persuasions in point of religion;-of Bishops, of Ministers, and of Ambassadors;-of men, who were commissioned by the sovereign authority, of their country, to inquire into the truth of those facts, and who possessed every possible means of making the inquiry, with every most certain prospect of success.

Let Mr. **** consult these documents, the originals of which, at the period of the French revolution, were preserved in the Abbey of St. Germain de Pres, at Paris, and he will find, that, on this subject, all the Churches of Muscovy, of Moldavia, of every province of Greece, and all the Islands

of the Archipelago, and all the Sectaries, in those extensive regions, who dissent from the faith equally of the Greek and Latin Churches, are perfectly agreed in opinion with the professors of Catholic Faith.

Mr. **

must know, that many

centuries have elapsed, since the unfortunate schism, which separated the Eastern and Western Churches from each other; and he must also know that a much longer period has elapsed, since the separation of many Sectaries, in those Countries, from them both.

Now by what contrivance, or by what extraordinary powers of magic, is it possible to account for the perfect union which prevails, on this subject, amongst so many people, of habits, of interests, and of religion so different, and in some other respects, so decidedly opposed to each other? The belief of transubstantiation, which is universally established in those countries, must have been introduced amongst their inhabitants, at a period of time, either previous to, or at a period of time, subsequent to the separation of all these Sectaries from the great body of the Catholic Church. If that event occurred previously to the period of the separation, in question, then it is evident, a date must be assigned for its introduction, much more remote, than a Protestant, perhaps, will be willing to allow. On the other hand,

if that event be of a date subsequent to the period in question, then an insuperable difficulty arises, in accounting for the possibility of its introduction at all.

*

In the concluding part of his question, Mr. * * * * * * observes that, If the Bread is converted into the Body, Blood, Soul, &c. why should the other part of the Sacrament have been instituted? By this mode of reasoning, it is evidently this Gentleman's intention to insinuate that, on the principles of a Catholic, there can have existed no reason, for the institution of this Sacrament, under two kinds. In opposition to any idea of this kind, I have to observe, that such and no other has been the establishment of Christ: and even were we incapable of assigning any reason for his conduct, yet in the judgment of any man, who admits the existence of mystery in religion, that circumstance cannot go to form any possible ground, on which it can be rejected. He did thus institute it, and as it is certain, that he acted not, in any instance, without reason, so it is equally certain, that he acted not without it, in this.

I would request this Gentleman, however, to consider, that the Eucharist is regarded by Catholics, not only as a Sacrament of the new law, but also as a Sacrifice, which both represents, and commemorates the event of Christ's death, for our sins, on the cross. This consideration will

naturally lead him to a conviction, that an advocate for Catholic faith, cannot possibly be at any loss for a reason, which will account, in a very satisfactory manner, for its institution under two kinds.

We know, indeed, that the Body of Christ in its present glorified state, is impassible, and that' it can never more be subject to the power of death; and therefore we know, that these divine substances must, of necessity, be, for ever, in a state of existence together. But as we know also, that the institution of this sublime mystery is designed to perpetuate, for ever, amongst us, the remembrance of his sacred passion and death, so it is natural to conclude, that without the establishment of the two kinds, in an apparent state of separation, the object in view could not have been so fully, and so completely attained.

I remain, &c.

J. C.

LETTER XVIII..

MY DEAR FRIEND,

Bath, Dec. 4, 1813.

By what authority, dare Papists separate what God has joined? Note, it is to no purpose to say, that the Sacrament is sometimes spoken of in Scripture, only under the form of Bread (even allowing that it is thus spoken of)-it by no means follows, that the cup was not given, as well as the Bread. A protestant, after receiving the Sacrament, might consequently say; I have this day been drinking the Blood of my Redeemer: would it thence follow, that he had not received the Bread? If one kind be sufficient, why does the Priest receive it under both kinds? Does the Priest require more than is sufficient? Is a Priest's soul more valuable than that of a Laic? If the cup is changed into the Body, does not the Priest drink the Body?

IF Mr. * * had taken the precautions, which every man of candor would have endeavored to take, in order to ascertain the real sentiments of Catholics, on the subjects of the real presence, and transubstantiation, then he would have known, that our practice of communion, under one kind, is not surrounded with all the difficulties,