tive OR, contrary to the original Greek, as well as to the Latin Vulgate, to the version of Beza, &c.; but as his lordship could not be ignorant of this corruption, and the importance of the genuine text, it is inexcusable in him to have passed it over unnoticed. The whole series of ecclesiastical history proves, that the Catholic Church, from the time of the apostles down to the present, ever firmly believing that the whole body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, equally subsist under each of the species or appearances of bread and wine, regarded it as a mere matter of discipline, which of them was to be received in the holy sacrament. It appears from Tertullian, in the second century, from St. Dennis of Alexandria,† and St. Cyprian,+ in the third; from St. Basil§ and St. Chrysostom, in the fourth, &c. that the blessed sacrament, under the form of bread, was preserved in the oratories and houses of the primitive Christians, for private communion, and for the viaticum in danger of death. There are instances, also, of its being carried on the breast, at sea, in the orarium or neckcloth.¶ * On the other hand, as it was the custom to give the blessed sacrament to baptized children, it was administered to those who were quite infants, by a drop out of the chalice.** On the same principle, it being discovered, in the fifth century, that certain Manichæan heretics, who had come to Rome from Africa, objected to the sacramental cup, from an erroneous and wicked opinion, Pope Leo ordered them to be excluded from the communion entirely; and Pope Gelasius required all his flock to receive under both kinds.‡‡ It appears that, in the twelfth century, only the officiating priest and infants received under the form of wine; which discipline was confirmed at the beginning of the fifteenth century by the council of Constance,§§ on account of the profanations, and other evils, resulting from the general De Lapsis. Apud Soz. 1. viii. c. 5. *Ad Uxor. I. ii. + Apud Euseb. 1. iv. c. 44. Epist. ad Cæsar. St. Ambrose, in obit. Frat.-It appears, also, that St. Birinus, the apostle of the West Saxons, brought the blessed sacrament with him into this island in an Orarium. Gul. Malm. Vit. Pontif. Florent. Wigorn, Higden, &c. ** St. Cypr. de Laps. tt Sermo. iv. de Quadrag. # Decret. Comperimus Dist. iii. §§ Dr. Porteus, Dr. Coomber, Kemnitius, &c. accuse this council of decreeing, that "notwithstanding" (for so they express it)" our Saviour ministered in both kinds, one only shall, in future, be administered to the laity :" as if the council opposed its authority to that of Christ; whereas it barely defines, that some circumstances of the institution (namely, that it took place after supper, that the apostles received without being fasting, and that both species were consecrated) are not obligatory on all Christians. See Can. xiii. reception of it in that form. Soon after this, the more orderly sect of the Hussites, namely the Calixtins, professing their obedience to the church in other respects, and petitioning the Council of Basil to be indulged in the use of the chalice; this was granted them.* In like manner, Pope Pius IV., at the request of the Emperor Ferdinand, authorized several bishops of Germany to allow the use of the cup to those persons of their respective dioceses, who desired it. The French kings, since the reign of Philip, have had the privilege of receiving, under both kinds, at their coronation and at their death. The officiating deacon and subdeacon of St. Dennis, and all the monks of the order of Cluni, who serve the altar, enjoy the same.§ From the above statement, Bishop Porteus will learn, if not that the manner of receiving the sacrament under one or the other kind, or under both kinds, is a mere matter of variable discipline, at least that the doctrine and the practice of the Catholic Church are consistent with each other. I am now going to produce evidence of another kind, which, after all his, and the Bishop of Durham's anathemas against us, on account of this doctrine and discipline, will demonstrate, that, conformably with the declarations of the three principal denominations of Protestants, either the point at issue is a mere matter of discipline, or else, that they are utterly inconsistent with themselves. To begin with Luther: he reproaches his disciple Carlostad, who in his absence had introduced some new religious changes at Wittenberg, with having "placed Christianity in things of no account, such as 'communicating under both kinds,""&c.|| On another occasion he writes: "If a council did ordain or permit both kinds, in spite of the council, we would take but one, or take neither, or curse those who should take both." Secondly, the Calvinists of France, in their synod at Poictiers, in 1560, decreed thus: "The bread of our Lord's supper ought to be administered to those who cannot drink wine, on their making a protestation that they do not refrain from contempt."** Lastly, by separate acts of that Parliament, and that king who established the Protestant religion in England, and, by name, communion in both kinds, it is provided that the latter should only be commonly so delivered and ministered; and an exception is made in case "necessity did otherwise require."+t-Now, I need not observe, that, if the use of the cup were by the appointment * Sess. ii. + Mem. Granv. t. xiii. Odorhainal. + Annal. Pagi. Form. Miss. t. ii. pp. 384, 386. ** On the Lord's supper, c. iii. p. 7. tt Burnet's Hist. of Reform. Part ii. p. 41. Heylin's Hist. of Reform. p. 58. For the proclamation, see Bishop Sparrow's Collection, p. 17. of Christ, an essential part of the sacrament, no necessity can ever be pleaded in bar of that appointment; and men might as well pretend to celebrate the eucharist without bread as without wine,* or to confer the sacrament of baptism without water. The dilemma is inevitable. Either the ministration of the sacrament, under one or under both kinds is a matter of changeable discipline, or each of the three principal denominations of Protestants has contradicted itself. I should be glad to know which part of the alternative his lordship may choose. I am, yours, &c. JOHN MILNER. LETTER XL-TO JAMES BROWN, ESQ., &c. ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE NEW LAW. DEAR SIR THE Bishop of London leads me next to the consideration of the sacrifice of the new law, commonly called THE MASS, on which, however, he is brief, and evidently embarrassed. As I have already touched upon this subject, in treating of the means of sanctification in the Catholic Church, I shall be as brief upon it here as I possibly can. A sacrifice is an offering up, and immolation of, a living animal, or other sensible thing, to God, in testimony that he is the master of life and death, the Lord of us and all things. It is evidently a more expressive act of the creature's homage to his Creator, as well as one more impressive on the mind of the creature itself, than mere prayer is; and, therefore, it was revealed by God to the patriarchs, at the beginning of the world, and afterwards more strictly enjoined by him to his chosen people, in the revelation of his written law to Moses, as the most acceptable and efficacious worship that could be offered up to his Divine Majesty. The tradition of this primitive ordinance, and the notion of its advantageousness, have been so universal, that it has been practised, in one form or other, in every age, from the time of our first parents down to the present, and by every people, whether civilized or barbarous, except modern Protestants. For when the nations of the earth changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds and four-footed beasts, Rom. i. 23, they * The writer has heard of British made wine being frequently used by church ministers in their sacrament for real wine. The missionaries who were sent to Otaheite, used the bread fruit for real bread, on the like occa. sion. See Voyage of the ship Duff. continued the right of sacrifice, and transferred it to those unworthy objects of their idolatry. From the whole of this, I infer, that it would have been truly surprising, if under the most perfect dispensation of God's benefits to men, the new law, he had left them destitute of sacrifice. But he has not so left them; on the contrary, nrophecy of Malachy is evidently verified in the Catholic Church, spread as it is over the surface of the earth: "From the rising of the sun, even to the going down thereof, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is SACRIFICE; and there is offered to my name a clean oblation." Mal. i. 11. If Protestants say: we have the sacrifice of Christ's death; I answer, so had the servants of God under the law of nature, and the written law; "for it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away." Nevertheless, they had perpetual sacrifices of animals to represent the death of Christ, and to apply the fruits of it to their souls. In the same manner Catholics have Christ himself really present, and mystically offered on their altars daily, for the same ends, but in a far more efficacious manner, and, of course, "a true propitiatory sacrifice." That Christ is truly present in the blessed eucharist, I have proved by many arguments; that a mystical immolation of him takes place in the holy mass, by the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine, which strikingly represents the separation of his blood from his body, I have likewise shown. Finally, I have shown you, that the officiating priest performs these mysteries by command of Christ, and in memory of what he did at the last supper, and what he endured on Mount Calvary: DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. Nothing, then, is wanting in the holy mass to constitute it the true and propitiatory sacrifice of the new law; a sacrifice which as much surpasses, in dignity and efficacy, the sacrifices of the old law, as the chief priest and victim of it, the incarnate Son of God, surpasses, in these respects, the sons of Aaron, and the animals which they sacrificed. No wonder then that, as the fathers of the church have, from the earliest times, borne testimony to the reality of this sacrifice,* they * St. Justin, who appears to have been, in his youth, contemporary with St. John the Evangelist, says, "Christ instituted a sacrifice in bread and wine, which Christians offer up in every place," quoting Malachy, i. 19. Dialog. cum Tryphon. St. Irenæus, whose master, Polycarp, was a disciple of that evangelist, says, that "Christ, in consecrating bread and wine, has instituted the sacrifice of the new law, which the church received from the apostles, according to the prophecy of Malachy." L. iv. 32. St. Cyprian calls the eucharist "a true and full sacrifice ;" and says, that "as Melchisedech offered bread and wine, só Christ offered the same, namely, his body and blood." Epist. 63. St. Chrysostom, St. Augustin, St. Ambrose, &c., are equally clear and expressive on this point. The last-mentioned calls this sacrifice by the name of missa, so do St. Leo, St. Gregory, our Venerable Bede, &c. should speak in such lofty terms of its awfulness and efficacy: no wonder that the church of God should retain and revere it, as the most sacred, and the very essential part of her sacred liturgy—and I will add, no wonder that Satan should have persuaded Martin Luther to attempt to abrogate this worship, as that which is most of all offensive to him.* The main arguments of the Bishops of London and Lincoln, and of Dr. Hey, with other Protestant controvertists, against the sacrifice of the new law, are drawn from St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, where, comparing the sacrifice of our Saviour with the sacrifice of the Mosaic law, the apostle says, "That Christ being become a high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation: neither by the blood of goats or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption." Heb. ix. 11, 12. "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the Holies every year," v. 25. Again, St. Paul says, "Every priest standeth indeed, daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man offering one sacrifice for sins, sitteth at the right hand of God," chap. x. 11, 12.-Such are the texts, at full length, which modern Protestants urge so confidently against the sacrifice of the new law, but in which neither the ancient fathers, nor any other description of Christians, but themselves, can see any argument against it. In fact, if these passages be read in their context, it will appear that the apostle is barely proving to the Hebrews, (whose lofty ideas and strong tenaciousness of their ancient rites, appear from different parts of the Acts of the Apostles,) how infinitely superior the sacrifice of Christ is to those of the Mosaic law; particularly from the circumstance, which he repeats, in different forms, namely, that there was a necessity of their sacrifices being often repeated, which, after all, could not, of themselves, and independently of the one they prefigured, take away sin; whereas the latter, namely, Christ's death on the cross, obliterated at once the sins of those who availed themselves of it. Such is the argument of St. Paul to the Jews, respecting their sacrifices, which in no sort militates against the sacrifice of the mass; this being the same sacrifice with that of the cross, as to the victim that is * Luther, in his Book de Unct. et Miss. Priv. tom. vii. fol. 228, gives an account of the motive which induced him to suppress the 'sacrifice of the mass among his followers.-He says that the Devil appeared to him at midnight, and, in a long conference with him, the whole of which he relates, convinced him that the worship of the mass is idolatry. See Letters to a Prebendary, Let. v. |