sure I do, please your reverence," replied the man promptly. The priest's countenance and tone expressed any thing but that gentleness with which Paul commanded Timothy to administer reproof, as he vociferated, "You lie, you don't-you rascal!" This ended the controversy; for the poor turnkey sneaked off as fast as he could, observing, in a subdued tone, "Sure your reverence knows best."*

We adduce this anecdote chiefly to illustrate the readiness with which the mind of the ignorant worshipper seizes hold of the object presented to it by the Romish church, and thus avoids the necessity which the Bible lays upon him, of seeking God, who is a Spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth, through the alone mediation and intercession of Christ. The Romish controversialist may define what he calls latria, and what he calls dulia; but the poor mechanic or the simple child knows only one thing, which is worship. This worship he pays to a wafer, when uplifted by the priest at what he calls "the altar." He pays it again before the image of the virgin, so soon as the "mass" is over. He then returns home, and before he sleeps, he says his rosary, which includes a vain and senseless repetition of the Lord's Prayer ten times; but a still more senseless address to the virgin of fifty prayers. All that is really accomplished by this idle ceremony, is the offering an insult to God, by elevating Mary to greater honour than her Creator and Redeemer! But ask this poor deluded votary touching the difference between his prayers to God and to the virgin. What can he tell you, beyond the verbal distinction, that one is latria and the other dulia? Practically, however, there is no real difference; or if there be any, it consists in a greater degree of faith and hope, exercised with respect to his addresses to Mary, than with reference to those to God or to Christ. He believes, he is taught to believe, that Mary's ears are more open to his cry, that her heart more readily

*Protestant Magazine, vol. i. p. 150.

sympathizes with his wants and his sorrows, than does the heart of his Saviour. And therefore it is that this idol-worship is so universally a favourite among these poor people. "The rosary," says Mr. O'Croly, "which should be called their devotion to the virgin, forms the sum total of their religious worship." And, placed in this elevated rank, as hiding the Saviour almost wholly from the sinner's view, it can not be otherwise than dreadfully offensive to God, even were it less sinful and unscriptural in itself. But when we remember that this worship, which, it is thus admitted, absorbs and swallows up the whole soul of devotion among the people, is in itself altogether opposed to the word of God, to reason, and to common sense, and can rank no higher, with any rightly judging man, than the worship of Juno or of Minerva among the ancient heathen, how frightful does the view become! The whole church, falsely called "Catholic," bowing down with one consent before the effigy of a poor human creature! Men and women, called Christians, addressing, from the four quarters of the globe, prayers to one who cannot hear them! Priests and laity, in all parts of the world, calling upon her as "the Queen of heaven," "the Empress of the universe;" their Life, their Hope, "the great Mediator between Christ and sinners!" And as the result of the whole, that result which is Satan's grand aim, the Saviour disregarded; scarcely ever addressed in prayer, or when so addressed, insulted with the petition, that he will do so and so, in respect to the merits of St. Clementina, or St. Carlino, or some other poor creature, whose salvation, if achieved at all, was solely his own work, and the reward of his own sufferings! No! it is impossible for any calm and unbiassed mind, to contemplate seriously the habitual worship of the poor Romanists, without being convinced, that the worship of God has been superseded and pushed aside among them; and that it is replaced by another worship, the worship of dead men and women, which is neither more nor less than IDOLATRY.

320

XVII.-ROMISH DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

We have now arrived at the consideration of that grand corruption of the Romish church, which closed and completed her career of apostasy; which gave the last and finishing stroke to the work of Satan; and which constituted the chief ground of contest throughout all the struggles of the church's regeneration. The simple rite of the Lord's Supper, the canon and order of which is comprehended, in Scripture, in three or four verses in each gospel, and as many in one of Paul's epistles, is to be considered on the one hand; and on the other, that immense mass of ceremonial, and that alleged awful import and value, which is assigned in the Romish church, to what is termed "the Sacrifice of the Mass.”

But as this seems rather a large subject,-in what form or order shall we conduct the inquiry?

Probably the natural order will be this:-first, to deal with the main question of Transubstantiation, or the alleged change in the sacramental elements; and then to pass on to the remaining question, the sacrificial nature of the rite, and its alleged worth and power.

Now in dealing with the first of these questions, it may seem that it is only necessary for any one to take the plain text of either of the evangelists, and if he does but address himself to the investigation with an humble and submissive mind, he cannot be long at a loss as to a doctrine so clearly and so positively stated.

But do not let us anticipate the argument, or imagine that we can dispose of a question in half a sen

tence, which has occupied the minds of some of our greatest theologians for their whole lives. Let us begin the subject with method and order; and these will be best consulted by comparing authoritative statements of the opposing churches, on both sides of the question.

In the first place, let us notice the solemn decree or canon of the Council of Trent, on this subject. "If any shall deny, that in the sacrament of the holy eucharist, there is contained, truly, really, and substantially, the blood, together with the soul and body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so whole Christ; but shall say that he is only in it in sign or figure, or power-let him be ACCURSED.'

"If any shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and remarkable conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, while only the appearance of bread and wine remain; which conversion the Catholic church most aptly styles transubstantiation; let him be ACCURSED. 99

Such is the doctrine of the church of Rome on this subject. Now let us look at the decision of the church of England:

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of the bread and wine) in the supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions."

"The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper, is Faith."*

Thus is the issue joined. Now let us inquire into

Similar is the language of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, vid. Ch. xxix. Of the Lord's Supper.-[Aм. ED.]

the grounds on which the church of Rome has adopted her view of the matter.

We have already remarked that the Scriptural proofs on this subject are very limited. The whole number of passages of Scripture which bear on this question are only three or four, and about twenty verses comprehend the whole. The Romanist, however, asserts that his case finds its strength in its simplicity. He rests the whole on the plain words of the Lord himself, "Take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY. Drink ye all of this, for THIS IS MY BLOOD of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many." (Matthew xxvi, 26.)`

"To construct an argument on these words," says Dr. Wiseman, "is difficult; simply and solely for this reason, that it is impossible to add strength or clearness to the expressions themselves. It is impossible for me, by any commentary or paraphrase that I can make, to render our Saviour's words more explicit, or reduce them to a form more completely expressing the Catholic doctrine than they do of themselves. This is my body-this is my blood.' The Catholic doctrine teaches that it was Christ's body and that it was his blood. It would consequently appear as though all we had here to do, were simply and exclusively to rest at once on these words, and leave to others to show reason why we should depart from the literal interpretation which we give them.”*

Now this is certainly a very simple and easy way of conducting the argument. But it can hardly be imagined that this superficial view of the question will suffice, when addressed to those who have the Bible in their hands. Such will be sure to recollect the frequent use of figurative language in the New Testament, and the consequent uncertainty that must exist, until a careful consideration has been had, whether these words of Christ are to be taken in a literal or in a figurative sense.

Dr. Wiseman had before remarked, that "the

* Wiseman.-Lect. xv. p. 174.