the transaction, that the writer is giving an account of the first mass that was ever said!

But they may call it mass, if they please, and they may speak of Christ's instituting the ordinance as his saying mass. Words are nothing, though it is certainly best that they should be well chosen and fitly applied. If they mean by their mass what we mean by the Lord's Supper, that is the main point. But the truth is, they mean by it as different a thing as you can well imagine. Just hear what "the Christian's Guide" says on the subject: "I profess likewise, that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.” Christ offered it first when he said mass, and every priest now offers it when he says mass. Well, reader, you and I must not judge rashly. We will look again at the account given of the matter in the Bible, and we will see if we can find in it any thing of the nature of a sacrifice. He "took bread and blessed, and brake and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat." And then he took the cup and gave it. Where is any sacrifice here, and especially where is any propitiatory sacrifice? Does the account we have of sacrifices in the Old Testament, and in the epistle to the Hebrews, accord with what was done on this occasion? The Catholics say that when Christ performed these actions with the bread and wine, he offered himself to God as a propitiatory sacrifice. How does what he did, bear even the least resemblance to the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice? There was no bloodshed-no life taken, as was the case in all propitiatory sacrifices under the law, and in the sacrifice which Christ made of himself on the cross, and which

has always, by Pagans, as well as the disciples of the true religion, been considered as essential to a propitiatory sacrifice. I confess there was something offered. Bread and wine were offered. These might constitute a eucharistic sacrifice, but never a propitiatory one. If things of this kind can constitute a propitiatory sacrifice, then I do not see why Cain, who offered," of the fruit of the ground," was not accepted equally with Abel who brought to the Lord "of the firstlings of his flock." But whatever was offered, it was not offered to God. A sacrifice, to be a sacrifice, must be offered to God, as even the quotation from the Christian's guide recognizes. But what was offered in this case was offered to the disciples. "Take, eat," he said to them. It is true the bread and wine were offered them as the memorial of a sacrifice in which the body of Christ was to be broken and his blood shed; but the memorial of a sacrifice is not a sacrifice. The emblematical representation of a thing is not the thing itself. Plainly there was no sacrifice in this transaction.

But again: if Christ in the eucharist offered himself a sacrifice to God, as they affirm; and afterwards, as all admit, offered himself on the cross, then he twice offered himself; and if so, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was under a great mistake, for he says, "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,'

we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Heb. 9: 28, and 10: 10. Here is a contradiction. Which shall we believe? The apostle of the Gentiles or the Catholic church? If Christ really offered himself in the eucharist-on the table, as Catholics contend-there was no need

of his offering himself on the cross. His twice offering himself was quite unnecessary. If "in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice," what need of another on Calvary? One "true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice" is all that is wanted.

But if the Catholic doctrine be true, Christ has been offered not twice only, but innumerable times. In every mass that ever has been said, he has been offered. He is offered to-day as really as he was on the day of his crucifixion. He is offered on earth while he is interceding in heaven. Both parts of the priest's office, the propitiation and the intercession, are going on at the same time-a thing unheard of in the history of the priesthood! Did the Jewish high priest, the type of Jesus, our great high priest, execute both parts of his office at the same moment? Moreover, according to this doctrine, there was no propriety in Christ's saying on the cross, "It is finished," for it is not finished yet, nor will it be, till the last mass is said. It depends on the will of the priest when it shall be finished. This to me is shocking doctrine. What! Can a priest cause Christ to be offered just when he pleases? My mind recoils from the conviction. There is what by a figure is called the "crucifying of the Son of God afresh," but this appears like doing it literally.

I know the Catholics make a distinction here. They say, and let them be heard, that Christ in the eucharist is offered in an unbloody manner, while the sacrifice of the cross was bloody. And this distinction they lay great stress on. But I wonder they see not the consequence of this explanation-that if the sacri

fice is unbloody, it cannot be propitiatory, which, nevertheless, they say it is. Unbloody, yet propitiatory! Who ever heard of an unbloody propitiatory sacrifice? What Jew? What Pagan? A propitiatory sacrifice, be it remembered, is a sacrifice for atonement—a sacrifice with a view to the remission of sins. This all acknowledge. But" without shedding of blood is no remission," Heb. 9: 22-consequently no propitiatory sacrifice. Now here is no shedding of blood, they say; yet remission is effected by it! It is a propitiatory sacrifice, notwithstanding. Who does not see the contradiction? They must take back their admission that it is unbloody, or else acknowledge that it is not propitiatory. They cannot hold to both without self-contradiction.

The reader sees that this doctrine of the Catholic church subverts that great principle in the divine government, that "without shedding of blood is no remission "- -a principle not merely inscribed on the page of the Bible, but written with the finger of God on the mind of man. The conscience of the veriest pagan reads it there? If a sacrifice may be propitiatory, though unbloody, never a victim that bled under the Jewish economy, need have been slain; and Christ need not have died! The doctrine of the mass therefore, that a sacrifice may be propitiatory, though bloodless, undermines the Gospel.

One inference more from their doctrine I must not forget. It is this. If in the eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice is offered, then a propitiatory sacrifice may be effected by mere action. No passion whatever is necessary to it-expiation is made without any suffering-made by a mere doing! Is this truth? Can an

tiquity be pleaded for this doctrine? Can that be the oldest religion which cherishes and teaches it?

There is no sacrifice in what is improperly called the mass-least of all a propitiatory sacrifice. The doctrine is error-error in a capital particular-on a fundamental point-gross and most pernicious error. What then shall we think of a church which not only inculcates it, but gives it the greatest prominence, and makes the service connected with it the main thing in its religion? I have my thoughts. The reader must have his.

I reserve some things on the mass for a future communication.

35. More about the Mass.

But before I proceed to the Mass, I wish to add a word about relics. In my communication on that subject, I referred to Bellarmine as quoting from the Old Testament in support of the doctrine of relics. Since then, I have recollected a fact which makes me wonder that a Catholic should ever appeal to the Old Testament for authority in favor of relics. The reader probably knows that no relics are more common among the Catholics, and none more highly valued than the bones of deceased saints and martyrs. Now, if Numbers, 19: 16, be consulted, it will be found that under the Jewish dispensation, if a person so much as touched the bone of a man, he was ceremonially unclean for seven days, and had to submit to a tedious pro