would contradict in the clearest and most unanswerable manner, the doctrine of transubstantiation. I answered him, the Lord Jesus, in giving the eucharist to his disciples, said to them, Do this in remembrance of me. Now, I added, how could they do this in commemoration of the Saviour, if the Saviour himself were present in the eucharist? Do we talk of remembrance with regard to one, who is actually present with us? I do not know, Sir, if this passage will convince you; but I know that it was perfectly satisfactory to, him who had asked me the question ?

III. THE MASS.

P. In this manner you do away with the holy sacrifice of the mass? E. Will you have the kindness to explain to me what it is: for I am but a stranger here.

P. The eucharist was instituted for a two-fold purpose; first, that our souls may be nourished with the heavenly bread; and secondly, that by it the Church should have a perpetual sacrifice, to make atonement for those daily sins which we commit. The eucharist is therefore more than a simple sacrament; it is an oblation also. And this oblation is not only meritorious, it is expiatory for this sacrifice which takes place in the holy mass, which is the celebration of it, is absolutely the same as that of the cross; with this difference alone, that it is unbloody. The sacrifice therefore is not made but renewed.*

E. The sacrifice of Jesus renewed ! No, Sir, no, that can never be true so long as the Bible exists. Jesus Christ is God, and the immutable accomplishment of all things is in Him. If in former times it was necessary that the types and figures which represented him, and which were but shadows, could be often repeated; and that

*Conc. Trid. Sess. XXII.

No,

thus the sacrifice of the passover, and all other sacrifices ordained of God, should be constantly offered up in the temple; those weak and beggarly elements, which all were to perish with the using, vanished away when the sacrifice of the Lamb of God had been offered up, and the blood of the everlasting covenant had been shed for the remission of sins. Ah! Sir, it was not a half-love that the Saviour felt for this church, when He was wounded for her transgressions, and bruised for her iniquities, and when the chastisement of her peace was upon him. when he redeemed His people from the curse of the law, by being made a curse for them, it was not for some of them only. The priest who offered up the sacrifice was infinite : the victim offered was also infinite and the expiation wrought was that which the blood of God himself was to accomplish: it was infinite as God is infinite. Jesus therefore has not been a mere help to his Church, but an infinite Saviour; for nothing was wanting in his sacrifice, either as regards amplitude or extent. And thus, to suppose that this sacrifice must be repeated, is to deny that it is infinite, and consequently, that it is the work of God himself. It is in fact virtually to deny the eternal divinity of the Lord Jesus. And after what you have told me, Sir, I cannot but fear, that the Church of Rome, by celebrating what you denominate the sacrifice of the mass, does in reality, deny that Christ is come in the flesh. For if Jesus Christ is again to be offered, it is evident that his first oblation of himself was not sufficient. And if this first work was insufficient, it must have been, because He who wrought it was himself insufficient. It follows therefore that he was not God; for every work of God

* Heb. x. 8-10. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. Heb. xiii. 20. Matt. xxvi. 28.

+ Isaiah liii. 1 Pet. ii. 24. Gal. iii. 13. 1 John iv. 1-3.

is perfect. And this, Sir, does indeed appear frightful to me; for such an error is a heresy, which directly attacks the very foundation of our faith.

P. You speak vehemently, Sir; but I think I can answer you, by asking in my turn, if we do not commit sin every day of our lives; and if such is the case, do we not every day need that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, by being prolonged at least, (since the expression repeated frightens you) should wash away these fresh pollutions ? *

E. Thus, then, the Church of Rome brings the one, only, and allperfect sacrifice of the Son of God, to the same level as those earthly sacrifices of which it is written, that being only a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, they can never make the comers thereunto perfect. They were to be constantly repeated, that each time they might cleanse from fresh pollutions contracted! How little does the Church of Rome understand the nature of the types under the law, or how they were all fully accomplished in Jesus Christ.

P. But I said that the sacrifice of the mass was but in some sort a prolongation, or rather a continuation of that of Jesus Christ.

E. Whatever may be the expressions you employ, you speak differently from what God himself does; and I will prove it to you. 1st, You affirm that the sacrifice of the mass is expiatory; but the word of God denies it for it says that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins; § you yourself say, that your sacrifice of the mass is unbloody. Therefore, according to Scripture, it cannot be expiatory; neither can it remit sin, nor cleanse from sin. And in every thing it must be illusive. 2ndly,

*Catech. Trid. Pars. II.
† Heb. x. 1.

Heb. x. 3, 11. Lev. xvi. 34. Abridgement of the Cate. Lesson 37. § Heb. ix. 22.

JULY, 1840.

You speak of a renewal, or a prolongation, or a continuation of the sacrifice of our Saviour. But the Bible contradicts you here also, by declaring two things; the first of which is that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was offered once for all,* and therefore cannot be repeated and secondly, that He finished the work↑ He had to perform, fully, and of himself; and therefore that it can neither be prolonged, or continued.

:

P. The question is, whether the Church gives this interpretation to the Scriptures; for if every one may put his own meaning upon it, what becomes of truth?

E. Will you then, Sir, yourself see what the Church of Rome says of the passages I am about to bring forward. As to myself, if their meaning is plain, I shall begin by understanding them, and then with adoring faith I shall fully and simply believe what the Bible says. The Bible says to Christians, Your great High Priest has offered himself once as a sacrifice for your sins. Not often; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world. I think that as regards the repeating the sacrifice of Christ, this is clear and distinct. When therefore your church talks as she does of the daily sacrifice of the mass, as being the same as that offered upon the cross, surely she deceives herself strangely.

And as to the continuation of the sacrifice of Jesus, of which you spoke just now, it equally comes to nothing when tested by these other Scriptures. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. || And again, Jesus Christ once in the end of the world hath appeared to put away sin. You hear, Sir, to put away sin. It is therefore im

* Heb. x. 10.

† See John xix. 30; xvii. 4. Heb. ix. 25, 26; vii. 27, Heb. x. 14, 15.

possible that the sacrifice of Jesus can either be repeated, or prolonged, or continued, since it was perfect, and has put away sin. The Bible then is absolutely opposed to the doctrine you uphold.

P. It appears then, that according to your Bible, you do not believe that I, as a priest, have either the power nor the right to change the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist, into the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

E. It is written that Christ offered himself. * You have heard this. And is it to be imagined that man could ever make such an oblation; that a poor miserable sinner, like one of us, should be able to offer up in sacrifice his God, the eternal Jehovah. To imagine this, is, in my judgment, a conception, the existence of which we can only admit, by thinking of the depths of Satan. † No, I cannot understand how any creature, especially how a poor lost sinner, should dare to suppose that such a thing is possible.

P. But if Jesus Christ himself has given me the command and the power to do so-when he saysDo this, am I not performing my duty in obeying him?

E. But are you in earnest when you speak thus, or do you not in fact see, that those words, Do this in remembrance of me, are an invitation to the disciples to celebrate the Lord's Supper, and not to a priest to sacrifice God?

P. I am to conclude then once for all, that you condemn the adoration of the host, and ...

E. But do you, in reality, adore the host?

P. Does not adoration belong to God? and is not the host God indeed ?

E. Now, Sir, I can at this moment understand the meaning of what Scriptore tells us about rending the garments upon hearing any *Heb. ix. 14.

+ Rev. ii. 24. Conc. Trid. Less. XXII.

thing very dreadful. Oh, I could rend mine to hear your words; for they make me shudder. You adore the host...... Was this then the reason that when a Romish priest passed carrying a vase, I saw the people fall down upon their knees in the streets and squares of the city?

P. In that vase was the consecrated host. It was therefore before Jesus Christ that the faithful knelt down.

E. But how can the people be sure that Jesus Christ is in the host? I have heard say, (I may ' be mistaken,) that among other things, if the host is not made of pure wheat, if the priest does not possess all the requisite qualities to consecrate; if the person who baptized him had no intention to baptize him; if the bishop who ordained him had no intention to ordain him; if the priest who celebrates mass, had no intention of consecrating the elements; if, by mistake, he forgot to pronounce the sacramental words, &c. &c. that in all these cases, the host is not consecrated, and that consequently Jesus Christ is not in it, it is nothing but paste. * How then can the people ever be sure, that they are not in fact worshipping a fragment of bread?

P. In such a case their intentions would be accepted, and they would not be counted guilty.

E. Poor people, from whom not only the memorial of the Saviour is taken, but who are besides, exposed to the danger of gross idolatry......And this is not all; for I perceive that those who partake of the Eucharist in the Romish church, are dead, and that in its celebration care is even taken to do away with all brotherly commu→ nion among themselves.

P. I entreat you to speak out plainly; for I hear nothing but riddles.

E. I will explain my meaning. * Pictet. Theol. chr. liv. XV. chap. 34.

The Gospel tells me that the believer has Christ dwelling in him, * by faith, and that for this reason, namely, because he is quickened by Christ being in him, he communicates. He does not therefore come to the Holy Communion in order to be united to Christ, since Christ is already in him; but he does so to give this new life more power, to render still closer the union which subsists between Christ and his soul, and to return thanks to God.

The Romish church on the contrary tells you, that you must come to the Holy Communion, that Christ may come to your soul and quicken it. Therefore Jesus cannot be in you before you receive the Eucharist; and therefore your soul must be spiritually dead; for it is writtenIf any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.†

But besides this, I perceive, that you Romanists do not communicate with the body of Christ; for each person apart, and for himself alone, receives Jesus entire, body and blood, soul and divinity.‡ So that one communicant, side by side with another communicant, receiving another host, receives in fact another Jesus, as entire, and as complete. These two communicants have therefore each received their own, but they do not share it between them, for it is impossible that Christ should be divided.

P. But, Sir, what strange reasoning is this! When you and I breathe the same air, or bask under the same sun, are we not in communion of air, of light, and of warmth ?

E. The difference is, that none of us enjoys apart, or for himself alone, either the air, or the entire sun, substance, properties, and power. We all share these blessings, but the idea of taking them, wholly and entirely, each for our

* 2 Cor. xiii. 5. Rom. viii. 1-10. Gal. ii. 20.

Rom. viii. 9. 1 John v. 12.
Abridg. of Catech. p. 53.

selves, is never thought of. In the same way, in the Supper of the Lord, in that memorial of his love which he has left to his church, the broken bread is shared among the disciples of the Saviour; and thus as they are, through the Holy Spirit, though many, one bread, and one body, so they are all partakers of that one bread. *

And in like manner, as they believe that the blood of the only and perfect sacrifice of the Son of God has washed them from their offences, and has for ever delivered them from the curse, in this faith, which is that which God once delivered to the saints, they, according to the commandment of Jesus, take the same cup, from which all drink. This, Sir, is what the Holy Spirit calls communion, which means enjoying the same thing in common with others. †

Compared with this brotherly communion, what name can you give to the Eucharist as you celebrate it in your church, where every one is for himself; and where neither the cup of blessing, nor the memorial of a finished salvation are to be found? In using the expression, the communion of the body and the blood, the Scriptures teach us, that the bread which is broken, and the wine which is poured out, and partaken of by believers, are to them the image of their mutual enjoyment of life and every other benefit which comes from their Saviour. And therefore, together with thanksgiving, in the same faith, and by the same Spirit, they break that bread, and they take and drink of that cup. How different to your celebration of the Eucharist!

With you it is even in your own eyes, an incomplete, fearful, disjointed work, and one in which brotherly communion has no part: on the other hand, do you not see * 1 Cor. x. 16, 17.

† 1 Cor. i. 9. 2 Cor. xiii. 13. 1 John i. 3, 6, 7.

the liberty of grace, and the joy of gratitude in the Gospel Eucharist, which the faithful disciple celebrates in remembrance of all that his Lord had done for him.

P. And for the purpose of appeasing God as well, I suppose.

E. And is not God already appeased? When the Israelite celebrated the passover each year, it was not to obtain of God that the exterminating angel should pass over their house without touching it; but it was as a remembrance of the deliverance long since obtained, and for which they rendered thanks. In the same way it is not to appease our kind and heavenly Father, that we his children, break the bread, and drink the cup in the holy communion; but it is to render thanks to our God, because, He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all,† to suffering and death upon the cross; and at the same time that we may exhort and encourage one another to devote ourselves in sincerity to the service of our God. It is therefore in love and not in fear that we celebrate the Supper of the Lord. Yes, as those who have been redeemed by his precious blood we

* Abridg. of Catech. Lesson 37.
Rom. viii. 32.

together bless his holy name; and in partaking of the cup of salvation, we magnify the tender mercies of our heavenly Father, which are from everlasting to everlasting, and his loving-kindness, which is better than life.*

:

P. So then, if understand you aright, you look upon the Eucharist which the church of Rome celebrates, as an anti-apostolic institution upon transubstantiation as a subtilization of the word of God; and upon the holy sacrifice of the mass, as contrary both to the divinity of Jesus Christ. and to the doctrine of free grace.

E. I am singularly obliged to you, Sir, for the attention with which you have evidently listened to me. In those few words you have summed up the whole substance of what I have been saying.

The service having concluded, we were here interrupted by the entrance of several priests into the vestry. I therefore took my leave and left the church, hoping that what had been said might by the blessing of God lead to reflections and further inquiry on the part of the priest who had so patiently and courteously listened to me.

*Ps. cxlv. 19. ciii. 17. liii. 3.

IN the next place I proceed to observe, that our doctrine, whether of faith or practice, must be drawn from the primitive fountain of truth-the Holy Scriptures. To these it was that St. Paul directed Timothy to go as his all-sufficient treasury of doctrine. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly

furnished unto all good works." And thither will every well-instructed scribe have recourse when he would procure materials for instruction.

Not that I would disparage human authorities. Well authenticated Church History, the writings of the early Fathers, as far as they are in accordance with scriptural truth, all the documents of our apostolic church, her admirable Articles, her incomparable liturgy,