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. (1) 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, and curse those who should take both.' (2) 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.' (3)-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.' (4)-Now I need not observe that, if the use of the cup were, by the appointment 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, (5) or to confer (1) Epist. ad Gasp. Gustol. (2) Form. Miss. t. ii. pp. 384, 386, (3) On the Lord's Supper, c. iii. p. 7. (4) 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. (5) 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 occasion. See Voyage of the ship Duff.

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, &c.

J. M.

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, 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 continued the rite of sacrifice, and transferred it to these 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, that prophecy of Malachi 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. Malac. 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, (1) so they 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 our 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. (2)

(1) St. Justin, who appears to have been, in his youth, contemporary with St. John the Evangelist, says, that Christ instituted a Sacrifice in bread and wine, which Christians offer up in every place,' quoting Malachi i. 19. Dialog, cum Tryphon. St. Irenaeus, 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 Malachi. L. iv. 32. St. Cyprian calls the Eucharist, A true and full sacrifice;' and says, that as Melchisedech offered bread and wine, so 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 or Mass, so do St. Leo, St. Gregory, our Ven. Bede, &c.

(2) 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. Y.

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 sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, the Apostle says, Christ being come 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. He adds, Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the High Priest entereth into the Holies every year. Ver. 25. Again he 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 sacrifi.