OF THE EUCHARIST

without giving his disciples. any warning beforehand of his meaning to speak figuratively, and without their considering beforehand the bread and wine as signs and representations of any thing else, should have abruptly told them, "This is my body," "This is my

blood," had he not meant they were so indeed. For abstracting from the change which Christ was pleased to make by his almighty word, a bit of bread has no more similitude to the body of Christ than an oak tree has to Alexander the Great; so that nothing but the real presence of Christ's body and blood could verify his words at his last supper, or vindicate them from being highly absurd and unworthy the Son of God.

(11) Page 63.-Q. Why should Christ, at the first institution of the sacrament, consecrate and give it in both kinds, if all Christians were not always to receive it in both kinds?

A. Because, according to the faith of the Catholic Church, it is a sacrifice as well as a sacrament, and particularly requires the exhibiting to God the body and blood of his Son under the veils that represent the shedding of his blood and his death, and therefore the nature of the sacrifice requires the separate consecration of both kinds; which, being consecrated, must be received by some one, and by no one more properly than by the minister.

OF THE EUCHARIST.

(11) If Christ consecrated and gave it in both kinds as here admitted, it must be, as I have before shewn, a "divine precept" to receive it in both kinds. Still, if, even contrary to your present admission, you persist in your fearful denial, suffer me to remind you, our Saviour said not, "This bread contains (or, if you prefer it is) both my body and blood;" but of the bread alone he said, "This is my body," then of the cup, "This is my blood." None were excluded by our Lord; nay, all were commanded to receive in both kinds. Why does the Romish Church differ so widely from Scripture? Where are we "required to exhibit to God the body and blood of his Son?" ... "under the veils, &c.," whereby it appears to be both the thing signified and the representation of that thing!

Impotent reasoning, and more impotent conclusion!

(12) OF THE SACRIFICE

OF THE MASS.

Page 78.-Q. What do you mean by the mass? A. The mass is the Liturgy of the Catholic Church, and consists in the consecration of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and the offering up of this same body and blood to God by the ministry of the priest, for a perpetual memorial of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, and a continuation of the same till the end of the world.

(13) Page 79.-Q. Have the servants of God, from the beginning of the world, been always accustomed to honour him with sacrifices?

A. Yes, they have; witness the sacrifice of Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Job, and the many different kinds of sacrifices prescribed in the law of Moses.

(14) Page 80.-Q. Why are all these sacrifices abolished now?

A. Because they were but figures of the sacrifice of Christ, and therefore were to give place to his sacrifice as figures to the truth.

Page 81.-Q. What is then the sacrifice of Christians under the new law?

A. We have no sacrifice but that of Christ, which he once offered upon the cross, and daily offers by the ministry of his priests upon the altar, in the Eucharist.

(14) If abolished, because but figures of the Truth (Christ), how, when he who is the Truth has offered himself 66 once for all," shall sinful man presume to offer again, and command to descend from heaven the Son of God? Alas! alas! "Behold to obey is better than sacrifices, and to hearken than the fat of rams." Saul offered a sacrifice not commanded. Was it accepted? Disobedience cost him his kingdom! May we not be endangering our precious souls? Prove from Scripture that Christ commanded his apostles to offer him up, after "he had laid down his own life,' and then I say the mass is not-" an idolatrous sacrifice."

(15) OF SAYING MASS IN

LATIN.

Page 107.-'Tis not only not necessary that the people should hear or recite the same prayers with the priest, but that even the very seeing of him is more than God was pleased to require in his law.

(16) Q. But does not St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv.) condemn the use of unknown tongues in the Liturgy of the Church?

A. He has not one word in that whole chapter of the Liturgy of the Church; but only reprehends the abuse of the gift of tongues which some amongst the Corinthians were guilty of, who, out of ostentation, affected to make exhortations or extemporary prayers, in their assemblies in languages utterly unknown, which, for want of an interpreter, could be of no edification to the rest of the faithful.

(15) OF SAYING MASS IN LATIN.

Judaism again!

The law of Moses! when we have seen "the end of the law in the person of Christ." Our Saviour was seen "when in the synagogue he stood up for to read, and the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him." See St. Luke iv. 15 to end of 22; and so were the apostles. Produce higher authority.

(16) It is true, St. Paul does not mention Liturgy, that is the word Liturgy, neither do I find "extemporary prayers; but since, in the very chapter cited, he speaks of praying, singing, exhorting, and blessing, in an unknown tongue, and that "thereby the other is not edified," we may, indeed, not merely "reasonably conclude," but be persuaded, the whole Church service is included, though he uses not the word Liturgy! Wherein consists the service of the Church? ("The public form of prayer"-as the word Liturgy is defined by our best lexicographer.) For St. Paul mentions each part separately, viz., the speaking in an unknown tongue (verse 13), "Let him pray that he may interpret.' For praying in an unknown tongue (verse 14), "If I pray in an unknown tongue my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." Singing (verse 15), "That it should be with the spirit and the understanding also." Blessing (verse 16), "So that he that occupieth the room of the unlearned may say, Amen." certainly do not find mentioned, either prayer-books or missals, nor consequently the word Liturgy, but here, in this very chapter, is laid down the whole Church service as among the primitive Christians, and this practice in every separate part totally condemned! Is not this "wresting the Scriptures?"

We

FESSION, AND ABSOLU

TION.

Sacrament 4th.

Page 109.-Q. What do

ABSOLUTION.

Sacrament 4th.

But where found the institution of

OF PENANCE, ETC. you mean by the sacrament of Penance?

A. An institution of Christ, by which our sins are forgiven which we fall into after baptism.

(18) Q. In what does this institution consist?

A. On the part of the penitent it consists in these three things, viz., contrition, confession, and satisfaction, and on the part of the minister in the absolution pronounced by the authority of Jesus Christ. So that penance is a sacrament by which the faithful that have fallen into sins, confessing the same with a true repentance, and a sincere purpose of making satisfaction to God, are absolved from their sins by the minister.

(19) Q. Are Christians then obliged to confess all their sins to the ministers of Christ?

A. They are obliged to confess all such sins as are mortal, or of which they have reason to doubt lest they may be mortal; but they are not obliged to confess venial sins, because they do not exclude eternally from the kingdom of heaven, so there is not a strict obligation of having recourse for the remission of them to the keys of the Church. (20) Page 120.. Q.

OF PENANCE, ETC.

penance? Certainly not in the holy Scriptures, the Christian's rule of faith and practice! for, as we shall hereafter see, they are most decidedly opposed to it; therefore, this "sacrament," or institution, must be sought for in some other scriptures, as it has no place in the Word of God !

(18) We undoubtedly cannot feel too much contrition; but what satisfaction can guilty man render? Had not Christ alone made "full satisfaction for the sins of the whole world;" what! what must have been the doom of man? If full satisfaction is already made for believers in the efficacy of the atonement, why would man seek to make farther satisfaction ? What is already complete, perfect, entire, “lacking nothing," needs no addition! Could man's works of penance satisfy the justice of an offended God, then, surely, the Redeemer need not have "tasted death for every man.' See Acts iii. 19, "Repent" (not "Do penance !") and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;" in other words, "blotted out," not by the minister! himself also a sinner, but "the Lord." St. Paul tells us, “ works do not justify, but are the fruits of faith."

(19) Where do you find this nice distinction between mortal and venial sins in Scripture? "We are all born in sin,” and all sin is hateful to God and punishable, or where is his justice? If we confess them all to God, to whom alone all are known," he will abundantly pardon ;" for in his sight there are no small or venial sins, or where is his purity? May we not, then, rest satisfied if God forgives? St. John (1 John iii. 17) says, « All unrighteousness is sin," and since it is only God's prerogative to forgive sin, "If we confess our sins (to God, not man,) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous