death of the Victim: consequently, that which the Romish Church calls a propitiatory Sacrifice, is defective in the very thing which constitutes a propitiatory Sacrifice. Therefore, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper never was, and never can be a Sacrifice.

The Church of Rome maintains, that in the Sacrifice offered by the priest, there is the actual Body and Blood of Christ, and that this constitutes it a Sacrifice. If it be a Sacrifice, then what becomes of the Sacrament? For, what Christ instituted for a Sacrament, is no longer a Sacrament. If the Romish Church will say that it is a Sacrament, we rejoice to hear it, for then it proves that it is not a Sacrifice, because a Sacrifice and a Sacrament must be two distinct things.

There is a mode of defending the Sacrifice of the Mass, which we must not pass by unanswered. It is asserted, that "by the Sacrifice of the Mass, the merits of Christ's death are communicated." To this statement Bishop Jewel offers an unanswerable reply.

It is," he says, "our faith alone, not the act of receiving the Sacrament, that makes the cross and passion of our Saviour profitable for our salvation." St. Augustine bears the same testimony, "We are justified by faith, in the efficacy of the Sacrament, not by Sacraments themselves." Without faith the Sacraments do not profit the living, much less the dead.

Let us proceed to consider some of the practical results of this doctrine.

The Romish Church, we find, divides sins into two kinds--great sins and little sins. Great sins she terms Mortal-Little sins, Venial. The Great Sins send

the offender to Hell, from which there is no redemption; the Lesser Sins send him to Purgatory, from which the sacrifice of the Mass can deliver him. We naturally ask, cannot the blood of Christ cleanse the guilt of venial sins as well as of mortal sins? If it can, why should the soul of man who dies in the faith of Christ be sent to purgatory? What a dishonour to Christ! His blood can cleanse from greater sins, but cannot, or does not, cleanse from lesser ones. His blood can save from going to hell, but not from going to purgatory. Observe this also; the merits of Christ's sacrifice cannot save a soul from going to purgatory, and yet are said to be able to deliver him out of purgatory. According to this view, Christ's sacrifice of himself upon the cross, is of less efficacy than Christ sacrificed by the Priest. We leave the Church of Rome to re

concile these points.

Again, we cannot refrain from asking, If in the Mass there be an actual sacrifice made to God, and accepted by him, on behalf of any soul in purgatory, why is not one Mass sufficient? Why is it repeated daily, for one individual, perhaps many hundreds of years? Is it not related of one of their own Cardinals, that he appointed in his will that 50,000 Masses should be said for his soul? Is the Mass of so little value that 50,000 Masses should be required for one soul? How many Masses then must be required for the whole human race? If the rich are permitted to purchase these Masses, is it not transmuting the punishment of Purgatory into a mere fine upon the purse, the amount of which can be paid when the owner can no longer use his money? This is making money beneficial to the owner for both worlds. This is a mode of obtaining exemption from

punishment very agreeable to a dying offender. Moreover, if it be necessary to purchase these Masses, is it not an injustice to the poor man? Is there not, then, one way of Salvation for the affluent, and another for the indigent?-is not poverty then a very awful misfortune?-and as the far greater portion of mankind must ever be poor, hath not a righteous God dealt harshly with them?-or is it not more probable that some unrighteous seekers after wealth, have, for their own private ends, declared that to be necessary to salvation which God hath never commanded; and which, on the contrary, is opposed to His wisdom, and to His word? Brethren, ponder well these things. Here a question presents itself to our minds. Has the Mass always been the Doctrine of the Church of Rome? We think it has not, and we are strengthened in this opinion, not only by the statements of Ecclesiastical History, but by the words of the Church itself. There is a prayer offered in the Mass, in which the priest prays for the dead who sleep the sleep of peace. This ought to be carefully observed, for it shows, as a Protestant writer observes, that "when this prayer was added to the Mass, there did not exist any belief in Purgatory, for those who are burning in a fiery furnace during many ages, do not sleep in peace."

Mark, also, the difference of her ancient form for the Ordination of her Priests, and that which she has brought forward in more recent times. In the present day she says to her Priests at the time of ordination, "Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses as well for the living as for the dead, in the name of the Lord. Amen." In the 4th Council of Carthage, A. D. 398, we have the

primitive form of ordination, but there is nothing said in it about offering Sacrifice to God, or celebrating Masses; and the reason doubtless was, because such doctrines were not then a part of the Romish Creed.

What could be the origin of the Mass?-it is not Scriptural-it is not Apostolical. The early Christians offered no Masses for the dead-the Primitive Church did not believe that when the priest consecrated the Bread and Wine, they were changed into the Body and Blood, the Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Whence could it arise? Can this be the origin?-An ancient writer says, the most fertile source of error and profanity to the Church in his time, arose from imitating the Rites of Pagans, and blending them with the worship of Christians. On this point, brethren, be ye yourselves the judges. Judge righteous judgment between Rome Papal, and Rome Pagan. Men nurtured in the faith of Rome, are taught that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrifice. of the Mass, is an outward and visible sign, which, when the words of consecration have been uttered, is immediately transformed into the Deity.

Now, the heathens maintained that their Idols were composed of two things; namely, of a visible material, and an invisible Deity dwelling in it. They also taught that consecration was the means whereby the Deity which they adored, was made present in the image. We read of Minutius Felix thus arguing with a Pagan about his image: "Behold, it is melted, forged,

66

fashioned, and yet it is not a God. Behold, it is gild"ed, finished, erected, and yet it is not a God. Be"hold, it is consecrated and worshipped, and then "it is a God." Had the sacrifice of the Mass and its

foundation Doctrine been believed among the early Christians, would not the Heathens have had a tremendous answer? We heathens charge you with the same opinions, and the same practices. "Behold

"your bread in the Mass: it is kneaded and moulded, "and yet it is not God. Behold, it is baked in the "oven, and yet it is not God. Behold, it is consecrated "and adored, and then it is God." If there be any resemblance between Romish doctrines and Heathen practices, judge ye. May we not with great truth say to the Roman Catholics, as our Blessed Lord said to the Samaritan woman, "ye worship ye know not what." If the Romish Church will hold to such doctrines as those implied in the Mass, she does wisely when she discountenances the word of God. Could Popery and the Bible live freely and friendly together? Our Fathers thought they could not, and we ourselves remember reading, that when the Ark of God was brought into the idolatrous Temple of old-DAGON

FELL.

We draw, then, this conclusion; that the sacrifice of the Mass is founded on error-that it has no authority from Scripture; moreover, that it is directly opposed to Scripture; and that from the nature of a true sacrifice, the Mass cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice. We have shewn that it was unknown in the pure ages of the Church. We have shewn that it is unnecessary, unreasonable, and most contradictory. We have shewn that it leads to false doctrines, that it gives a wrong view of the nature of Sin-that it denies the perfection of Christ's work-that it leads persons to regard religion as an act, and not a habit, and leads them to neglect seeking the sanctifying influences of the Holy