Ghost; and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is given thee by the imposition of our hands, for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, love, and soberness." In like manner the form of ordaining the parsons is now altered, and is as follows: "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands, whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." Here the object is defined, and the Holy Ghost professedly imparted for a specific purpose of giving the character and office of a bishop or priest in the Church of God. And I direct the reader's attention to the looseness of the former ordinal, as a proof of the looseness of the ideas of the

concoctors of the former ordinal respecting the character of a bishop or priest, and that it fully agrees with Barlow's assertion, that consecration was a useless ceremony, and a king could make a bishop by his royal license. And it was upon this principle that Barlow and the rest told the queen, that, as head of the church, she could supply every defect in Parker's consecration. Here, then, is the origin of the English Church: it has no root in the Catholic hierarchy, but is a fungus of Parker's dunghill; it is a new Church, teaching a new religion; a sect established by certain reformers in the 16th century its ministers were not, and are not "called of God, as Aaron was ;" and the assertion is true, that Dr. Hook's Church was founded at the reformation, and they cannot answer the Catholics at all.

HE discussion between Bishop Whit

Ttingham and Rev. Mr. Johns, although

it may be thought by some to turn upon a mere question of names, and to involve no discrepancy of opinion relative to the eucharist, has elicited a very dictinct assertion on the one side that the Christian minister is not "an offerer of sacrifice," and on the other that in the Christian sacrifice the body and blood of Christ are not truly and substantially present. It remains for us, therefore, to prove that the minister of Christ is an offerer of a sacrifice, properly so called, and that this sacrifice consists in the oblation of the body and blood of our Divine Redeemer. By establishing these two points we shall demonstrate fully that the Protestant Episcopal clergy have no claim whatever to the title of priests, because, as we stated in our last article, they do not offer the sacrifice instituted by our Saviour, and consequently their ministerial office is a mere phantom of the Christian priesthood: they have not the worship that belongs to

the religion founded by Christ; therefore they are not priests or ministers of that religion.

That the subject may be better understood, we shall premise a few observations on the doctrine of the Church and the nature of sacrifice.

In the first place, the Catholic doctrine teaches, that the virtue and efficacy of the bloody sacrifice, in which Christ once offered himself to his Father on the altar of the cross, sufficed for cancelling the sins, not only of the people of that age, when he hung a victim on the cross, but likewise of all mankind, born into the world from the beginning to the end of time. For the Scripture saith: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself."* And again it saith: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world."+ "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the

whole world."* Now the world comprises persons not of one period only, but of all ages. Of this oblation, which alone sufficed for the reconciliation of the whole human race, the apostle Paul says: "For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”+ And again: “Because in him it hath well pleased the Father, that all fullness should dwell: and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven." From this it is not to be inferred that there was not before, or is not now, any other sacrifice save that of Christ completed on the cross; but that of all the other sacrifices, this is the only one which appeases God by its intrinsic merit, and which may, therefore, be called, by antonomasia, the peculiar and pre-eminent sacrifice.

Secondly, the Catholic doctrine teaches, that, from the beginning of the world, when man lived under the law of nature, God impressed on the human mind, by means of divine inspiration, the rite of sacrificing; in order that all men might be made partakers of this most efficacious oblation, which has been now offered and accepted as the full, sufficient and entire price of the salvation of the world—and that they might transfer to themselves the saving fruits thereof. It also teaches that, immediately on the law being given, God ordained different sacrifices. The use of which was not to reconcile man to God, and purchase his salvation; but to awaken constantly within the mind of man, by means of these external sacrifices, the recollection of the promised sacrifice; to confirm his faith therein; and to enable such as should believe and hope in its virtue, to apply to themselves the fruit of the future sacrifice, whereby God had promised to redeem the world. Another object for instituting those sacrifices was, that, as often as they should be celebrated, man might gratefully call to mind the manifold favors bestowed on him by the unceasing liberality of God, and also reflect on his own salvation, which

* 1 John ii, 2. † Heb. x, 14. Col. i, 19, 20.

was to be obtained through the promised Redeemer.

In the law of Moses, there were three sorts of sacrifices; sacrifices of holocaust, eucharistical sacrifices and propitiatory and impetratory sacrifices. In the sacrifices of holocaust, the victim was entirely consumed, to show the sovereignty of God, and to impress on the mind of man a more lively idea of God's infinity. The eucharistical sacrifices were ordained in order to praise God for his favors and graces conferred upon his creatures. Lastly, the propitiatory and impetratory sacrifices were appointed to obtain pardon of God for our sins and other necessary blessings and graces men stand in need of. Now all these represented the great sacrifice of the new law, but the eucharistical sacrifices, in particular, were an admirable figure of it.

Though sacrifice in general is every rational, Christianlike, and moral act of man, whether internal or external, offered to God with the intention to worship him, the Supreme Being, prayer, praise, adoration, supplication, sorrow for sin, in a word, every thought, word, and deed, may be made a sacrifice to God. Still, sacrifice, in the proper sense and meaning, is an “external offering of some one or more things visible and perceptible, made to God by a lawful and duly appointed minister, attended with the destruction or change of the thing or things offered and sacrificed." By this destruction or total change, the sovereign and absolute power and dominion of God over man and the whole creation is acknowledged as to life and death, also his wisdom, and goodness, and mercy to man, and man's total dependence on God, his Creator and Sovereign Lord.

Hence, to effect properly a sacrifice, the act of offering, and the thing offered must be

1. External and perceptible by the senses. Hence, acts, purely internal and occult, are not a sacrifice in the appropriate meaning.

2. The sacrifice must be made to God alone, for to him alone is sacrifice due and permitted to be offered. "The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt

thou serve."*"I the Lord, this is my name, I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to graven things." Wherefore, at

no time did any man or set of men offer sacrifice except to God the Supreme Being; or, as the infidels did, to an object that they blindly and erroneously conceived to be the Supreme Being, and would set up and honor as such.

3. Sacrifice true and proper must be offered by a minister lawfully appointed to that purpose by a lawful ruler, divinely authorized and empowered to ordain and appoint the person to perform that ministry. "Do this for a commemoration of me," said Christ to his apostles, "and to no others." "Neither doth any man take the honor of the ministry to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was."

4. The victim, or thing offered in sacrifice, must be either destroyed, or at least undergo some change.

Having laid down these principles, we shall proceed to establish our proposition that Christ instituted a sacrifice in the true sense of the word.

In the first chapter of the Prophet Malachy we read the following words: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For 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, for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."

In this text of the prophet, three things are conspicuous: 1. The pointed rejection of the ancient sacrifices, accompanied with a severe reproach of the Jewish priests: "I have no pleasure in you, and I will not receive a gift at your hands." 2. The substitution of a new and better sacrifice in their stead: "And in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean offering." 3. A plain intimation or prediction, that this one new and clean sacrifice should be offered in every place: "And in every place," &c.

But a Protestant may say with Calvin * Matt. iv, 10. + Isaiah xlii, 8. + Luke xxii, 20, and St. Paul, Heb. v, 4.

and Chemnitz, that we are to understand this sacrifice, not in the real and absolute meaning of the term, but only of a spiritual sacrifice. This, however, cannot be the case, for the prophet uses the same word mincha in both places (or, according to the Parkhurstian method, menché), where he speaks of the sacrifices rejected, and the new sacrifice to be instituted.

Besides, the word he uses is invariably found, in other parts of the Scriptures, to express the ancient sacrifices, properly so called; but, when the spiritual sacrifice of prayer and good works is mentioned, there occurs on every occasion an additional word, which either expressly, or by implication conveys the intended meaning. Again, how can this clean oblation, which was to be introduced in opposition to the sacrifices of the law, be understood of the performance of good works, when this latter kind of sacrifice, figuratively so called, had been already enforced in the strongest terms, both by the law and the prophets? Had not the Mosaic dispensation already required a love of God which was to regulate every faculty of the soul, and to control every action of the creature? Had not the' prophets continually enforced the necessity of good works in the strongest and most energetic language? Is there a single virtue or perfection which can adorn the soul of a Christian to the attainment of which the most earnest exhortations may not be found in the immortal strains of David or in the venerable remains of the other prophets? How, therefore, can we, by any possibility, understand the promised oblation of the new law as referring to good works, when such works of every description had been before so powerfully recommended? The words of the prophet must then be understood of the great sacrifice of the new law, the mass.

The second scriptural passage which we shall adduce, is from the one hundred and tenth psalm, where we read this prediction relating to Christ the future Messiah: "The Lord hath sworn and he will not repent: thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedec." St. Paul confirms this text in Hebrews (vii, 17).

The apostle says, that he was not "called a priest according to the order of Aaron" (Ibid. 11), intimating of course that he would not offer sacrifices such as were prescribed by the Levitical law; but "according to the order of Melchisedec." Now of Melchisedec it is recorded in the Holy Scriptures that he offered sacrifice in bread and wine: "But Melchisedec, the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the Most High God, blessed him." (Abraham.)* If Christ, therefore, was to be a priest according to the order of Melchisedec, it is plain that he must have offered sacrifice with the same external symbols used by Melchisedec; namely, bread and wine. Now he did not offer in this manner upon the cross, but only at the last supper. In the eucharist, therefore, the eucharistical sacrifice is a true sacrifice offered by Christ, a priest according to the order of Melchisedec. Moreover, he was to be a priest forever, according to the same order, therefore he was to continue to offer sacrifice with the outward symbols of bread and wine; and this he cannot be said to do, but by the great sacrifice of the new law offered continually in his Church, Christ being always the great High Priest, thereof as well as the victim.

But let us refer to the very words of the institution. They unquestionably prove of themselves that he did offer a true sacrifice, and with the outward symbols of bread and wine. Our Saviour said, according to Luke (xxii, 19, Protestant version), "This is my body which is given for you," and 20, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." And St. Paul relates it in the Greek, "which is broken for you." And St. Matthew has it, "this is my blood which is shed." Our blessed Saviour did, therefore, at the last supper, offer a real sacrifice of his body broken and his blood shed. For how can the body of Christ be said to be given for us, how can this sacred blood be shed for

us, unless we understand this most sacred and solemn action as a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice? But, then, it may be said that there was a real offering of Christ before his offering on the cross, a real atonement before the real atonement of Calvary. I answer first, "The Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world."* Secondly I refer to St. Matthew,† where we read, "And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun; and his garments became white as snow." Christ is here transfigured and glorified in the days of his afflictions. If, therefore, Christ could be transfigured and glorified in the days of his patience and of his sorrowings, before his glory was consummated after his ascension, why, in like manner could not Christ offer himself in a mystical, but after a real manner, before that grand, and visible, and bloody offering on the cross, by which all things were consummated? See, kind reader, how faith and revelation lead us Catholics out of all the difficulties which sophistry, the fruit of a weak, yet arrogant reason, may throw in our way. But to return. When he uttered the ever memorable words, "this do in remembrance of me," he commanded his apostles, and in their persons the priests of his Church, to do the same; namely, to offer the same sacrifice with the outward symbols of bread and wine, in commemoration of him.

It may be objected that the present tense is, in the words of institution, used for the future; but even so, the text will only prove that as the real body was then offered under the appearance of bread, and the real blood under that of wine, in representation of the future bloody sacrifice upon the cross, so the words foretold, that the body should continue to be really offered under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, to the end of the world, in the unbloody sacrifice of the eucharist or the mass. For which reason nothing can be thence deduced against the reality of our Saviour's sacrifice at the last supper. It only differed from that of the cross, as our mass differs; namely, in the manner of offering." + St. Matt. xvii, 2.

* Apoc. xiii, 8. Luke xxii, 19.

Were it necessary we might quote the sentiments of numerous fathers of the Church who lived in the early days of religion, and interpreted the scriptural passages avove cited, in the same sense which we have attached to them. They all allude to the eucharistic offering as a sacrifice, and make use of language which can only be applied to a true and real sacrifice. We shall mention only a few.

St. Justin, who wrote about fifty years after St. John the apostle, thus speaks of the victims which, he says, are everywhere offered among the Christian people. "These victims he (God) accepts from his own priests alone. Wherefore, shewing preference to all those who through his name offer the sacrifices which God ordained to be offered, that is, in the eucharist of bread, and the chalice, which in all places of the earth are celebrated by the Christian people, God declares that they are well pleasing to him," &c. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 209.

St. Irenæus, who flourished in the second century, is equally explicit on the subject. "Giving advice to his disciples, to offer their first fruits to God, not as if he stood in need of them, but that they might not seem ungrateful, he took bread into his hands, and giving thanks, said: This is my body. Likewise he declared the cup to be his blood, and taught the new oblation of the New Testament, which oblation the Church receiving from the Apostles, offers it to God, over all the earth-to him who grants us food-the first fruits of his gifts in the New Testament, of which the Prophet Malachias spoke: I will not accept offerings from your hands. For from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean sacrifice. Manifestly hereby signifying, that the first people (the Jews), will cease to offer to God; and that in every place, a sacrifice, and that clean, will be offered to him, and that his name is glorified among the Gentiles.* Adv. Hær. Lib. iv, c. xvii, p. 249.

On this passage, the learned editor of Irenæus, Dr. Grabe, observes: "It is certain that Irenæus and all the Fathers-either contemporary with the apostles, or their immediate successors, whose writings are still extant-considered the blessed eu

Therefore the offering of the Church, which the Lord directed to be made over all the world, was deemed a pure sacrifice before God, and received by him; not that he stands in need of a sacrifice from us, but because he that makes the offering, if his gift be accepted, is thereby rendered worthy of praise. As then in simplicity the Church offers, her offering is accepted by God as a pure sacrifice. It is our duty to make an offering," &c. See p. 209. Ibid. c. xviii, p. 250, 251.

Tertullian, who wrote towards the end of the second century, frequently alludes to the eucharist as a sacrifice. At one time he declares that "sacrifice is offered for the preservation of the emperor" (Lib. ii, ad scap. c. 2); at another, that "women are not permitted to teach, baptize, or to offer sacrifice in the Church.” (Lib. de vel. virg. c. 9.)

St. Cyprian, writing to the clergy and people of a certain district in Africa, laments that, contrary to an established rule, a brother clergyman had been appointed, by will, an executor or guardian, when it was the sole duty of the ministers of the gospel "to attend to the altar and sacrifices, and to prayers and supplications." Such likewise, he observes, was the view of the Almighty in the establishment by Moses of the Levitical order, and then adds: "The same disposition holds good now, that they who are promoted by clerical ordination, be not called away from the service of God, nor perplexed by worldly business; but, receiving aliment from their brethren, they withdraw not from the altar and from sacrifices, day and night intent on heavenly things." He next remarks, that, in a case like this, it had been decreed, that for no brother, who by will had made such a disposition, "any offering should be made, or sacrifice celebrated for his repose; because he merits not to be named at the altar in the prayer of the priests, whose wish it was to withdraw them from the altar."

charist to be the sacrifice of the new law, and offered bread and wine on the altar, as sacred oblations to God the Father; and that this was not the private opinion of any particular church or teacher, but the public doctrine and practice of the Universal Church, which she received from the apostles, and they from Christ is expressly shewn in this place, by Irenæus, and before him, by Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome."-Nota in Irenæum, p. 323.