CORRESPONDENCE.

[We propose to devote a short space in our pages for any letters with which we may be favoured, of general interest; but, in printing such, we do not in any way hold ourselves responsible for the sentiments of our correspondents.]

THE WORK OF RE-UNION.

SIR, It is only quite recently that I became acquainted, through an advertisement in the Dublin Review, either with the existence of the Association for Prayer for Unity, or of your most able and worthy journal the Union Review. Both these are important signs of the times-signs which no Catholic can afford to ignore-signs which indicate a great change of sentiment amongst an influential section of the people of England, and give good hope of the future. I for one, and I am by no means singular, have ever thought that a corporate Re-union between our own Church and the Church of England would be for the benefit of both communions, as well as for the general body of the people of England. And I firmly believe that the Oxford movement not only will result in this, but is surely bringing it about already.

I was much struck with your able and most accurate article on "Religious Parties and Schools of Thought" amongst us. More might have been said, had the writer been half as well acquainted with our own many internal difficulties and dangers as I am. But what was said was sufficient to point out that both Catholics and Church-of-England people would be the sure gainers by a corporate re-union. Of the present strength of the Established Church none can doubt, who are careful markers of the signs of the times. It is growing both in numbers and efficiency, and as regards the nation itself, has a far greater hold over the great body of the people than either the Church of Spain or Italy obtains over the Spaniards and Italians.

That the clergy of the Anglican Church in their Catholic sentiment are more and more prepared for a Re-union, is evident by the fact that many of our bishops are so satisfied with their knowledge and experience, that they obtain places of trust and importance immediately they come over, and are preferred by many to such as myself a Catholic bred and born.

Sooner or later three points will have to be settled by our authorities here; all refer to discipline

1st, As to the advisability of retaining services in a dead language. 2d, As to the question of the compulsory celibacy of the clergy; and

3dly, The reconciling of Catholic claims with national requirements.

As regards the first, such rapid developments as have been witnessed at the Oratory and Monsignor Manning's at Bayswater, prove that vernacular services are taking the place of Vespers and Compline. One of our Bishops is well known to be in favour of services in English; how much, therefore, of the Reformation-controversy on this subject might have been spared, now we seem to be coming to an agreement on the point.

Those of your readers who do not know our great Bishop Milner's "Letters to a Prebendary," in which the Church of England is treated with great respect, should procure the book, as it gives many indications of the existence of a spirit which would be warmly appreciated by members of the Tractarian and Unionist Schools.

Go on, then, sir, in your good work. Great changes have taken place. Greater, may be, are in the womb of Time. I believe myself that the Re-union of the English Established Church with the Catholic Church will surely be accomplished, for the principles of both are to all intents and purposes alike; and if only good men on both sides amongst both clergy and laity-our laity have more influence than you think-would take up the question and ventilate it, our Bishops as well as yours, would soon cease to be obstacles to its accomplishment. A bishop represents the public and general opinion of his diocese. Let the clergy act, and, in due course, the Bishops will follow their example.

I know that many more than you imagine are favourable to Reunion, though of course the leaders of some parties-such as the more extreme and unreasoning of the clerical converts from your Church-are against it. This is natural. But no haste nor indiscretions nor unjust decisions are known at Rome. There is strict impartiality. Ventilate the question of Corporate Re-union there, taking care that what is being done in England be carefully and faithfully reported at Rome by trustworthy friends, and you will do a good work.

I gladly join the excellent Association.

Yours faithfully in Christ,

PRESBYTER CATHOLICUS.

DEAR SIR,-Your article "on Parties in the Catholic Church in England," has, permit me to inform you, given great offence to some of our authorities-as they dislike any public allusion to the differences of opinion and policy which exist amongst us; and therefore complain. For myself, I cannot agree with that line of action which would stifle all difference on matters immaterial by the iron hand of a despotic authority; and therefore I beg to thank you for the paper referred to. Nor am I alone in my opinion.

My first impression on reading it, was that your sources of information must be thoroughly accurate, for there is not a fact nor statement from beginning to end which I should not be prepared to adopt. Nothing could be more accurate than your statements.

Your authorities in the Church of England are, reasonably enough, compelled in some degree to be amenable to the general opinion of members of your Church, and I hold very strongly that if certain of our ecclesiastics (I am by no means referring exclusively to the bishops) were equally subject to a rational, gentlemanly, and impartial criticism from their our community, our Church would be none the worse for it.

Dec. 8, 1863.

Your obedient Servant,

LANCASTRIENSIS.

[We regret to learn, from a valued and distinguished member of the Roman Catholic Church in England, that two of the highest ecelesiastical dignitaries of that communion are annoyed at the article referred to by the correspondents above. We earnestly and sincerely regret that this is so-calculated as it might be to hinder the progress of corporate Re-union-and tender a humble apology should it be found that any of our facts are fictions, or any of our conclusions unjustifiable.—Ed.]

THE SIN, OR BLOOD-OFFERING AND BURNT-SACRIFICE. SIR,-All real Catholics amongst us are now universally agreed as to the paramount necessity which exists for bringing the masses to assistance at the Holy Sacrifice, with a view to making them communicants, and Catholic Christians. The chief obstacle to this Catholic restoration, is the general dread which exists of such an assistance involving the belief in an actual repetition of the Sacrifice of Calvary, or, as the 31st article expresses it, of "the Sacrifice of Masses." Now, I do not think any honest thinker can fail to have been struck with the existence of seeming contradictions on this head, not only in modern Roman Catholic teaching, but in that of the Fathers also. They all deny that the Sacrifice of Calvary is offered over again or repeated, and yet they seem to imply that it is offered daily, by something more than representation or commemoration. Thus S. Angustine speaks of "Christ as slain daily for the people in the Sacrament," (Epis. xc. viii. 9), and S. Chrysostom describes the faithful as "beholding our Lord slain, and lying there, and the priest standing over the sacrifice and praying, (De Sacerdotio, iii. 4.) Now, I have ventured to suggest a very simple solution of this sacred mystery and seeming contradiction, which I believe to be novel, and yet to be quite consistent with the rule of S. Vincen

tius of Lerins, who expects a constant development in clearness of definition in all ages. Two learned Roman Catholic priests I have spoken with on the subject, have thought this view highly valuable and consistent with their Church's teaching. It seems, therefore, at least worthy of patient consideration It is certain that the Ancient Church never defined carefully the nature of that True Sacrifice, which no Catholic Christian ever disputed. But ours are not days of simple Faith, and the existence of controversy, and abuse, and denial, involves a special necessity for clearness. I wish especially to know therefore, if Roman Catholics see anything heretical or reprehensible in the view I am about to state. This view is grounded on the necessary distinction between a blood offering and a burnt sacrifice. The same lamb, every morning and evening in the temple worship, was first slain at the gate, and then slowly consumed on the altar behind the veil. These were two offerings, and yet one; always the same victim, but offered first by blood and then by fire. Now, have we not a complete image here of our Lord's death once for all, and of His entrance into heaven to present Himself as an everliving sacrifice? Is it not most certain that in heaven our Lord remains THE LAMB? not only pleads His death, but continues to yield Himself a Living Spiritual Sacrifice? Does He not still surrender His impassible bliss? Does He not still in some sense limit Himself within His glorified humanity? Is He not to be Judge of all, as "the Man Christ Jesus? Are not the wicked to flee "from the wrath of the Lamb?" Must not the sacrifice consume in some sense till the Son deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and God be all in all ?

It

Now, of course, the Sacrifice of the Altar is commemorative and representative. We there show the Lord's death till He comes. is as it were enacted over again by a lively image, and brought in memorial before God and men. In this sense "Jesus Christ is evidently set forth crucified amongst us." But this is not all the truth. There is, in effect, a renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, which can never be repeated; but there is also a propitiatory presentation of a Present Lord, not, as has been most heretically and shockingly asserted, of a Dead Christ, but of the Lamb that liveth, and was slain. But what is this but the Sacrifice of Heaven itself, -the perpetual burnt Sacrifice? Is it true that our Lord is now touched with the feeling of our infirmities ?-that He now takes away our sins?-that He now mourns with those that mourn? Are these great words of Isaiah applicable to Him,-" When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand?"

If it be so, then here we have surely a reconciliation of all seeming contradictions. There is One Eternal Sacrifice, once offered by blood, and even as by fire, in heaven, and in the kingdom of heaven, -the Christian Church on earth.

I do not wish to enter here upon the nature of the Presence, whether it be by substitution or existence,-whether the elements are transmuted into, or bear our Lord. That is a further question. But I hold it to be manifest in any case that the Body and Blood of our Lord are only offered by way of commemoration of the Sacrifice of Calvary, but that our Lord himself is offered as a Living Sacrifice for quick and dead. Once more I urge the recognised doctors and teachers of the Roman branch of the Church Catholic to say whether they can accept, or whether they are obliged to reject, this theory, and on what grounds. If Catholic Unity is ever to be restored, it must be by agreement on this essential point. They need not therefore, and I am sure they will not, despise this overture.

It is no answer to say that the fathers did not make this distinction between the Blood Offering and the Burnt Sacrifice. That is precisely what is alleged, and hence arises the presumed need for reverential exposition of the whole truth.

Your obedient servant,

ARCHER GURNEY.