Difference between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and Sacrifice. "The difference between the Eucharist as a sacrament and sacrifice is very great, and is two-fold: as a sacrament it is perfected by consecration, as a sacrifice all its efficacy consists in its oblation." All cursed who deny it to be a true and proper sacrifice.-ib. page 231. "With regard to the institution of this sacrifice, the Council of Trent has obviated all doubt on the subject, by declaring that it was instituted by our Lord at his last supper, whilst it denounces anathema against all who assert, that in it is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice; or that to offer means nothing more, than that Christ gives himself to be our spiritual food. [ib. page. 231.

Priests ordained to immolate and offer in sacrifice the precious body and blood of Christ.

"He then, as the holy synod has defined, ordained them priests, and commanded them and their successors in the ministry, to immolate and offer in sacrifice his precious body and blood." [ib. 232.

The Sacrifice of the Mass, the same as that of the Cross. "We, therefore, confess that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross: the victim is one and the same Christ Jesus, who offered himself, once only, a bloody sacrifice on the altar of the cross. THE BLOODY AND UNBLOODY VICTIM IS STILL ONE AND THE SAME, AND THE OBLATION OF THE CROSS IS DAILY RENEWED in the eucharistic sacrifice, in obedience to the command of our Lord: 'This do for a commemoration of me." [ib.232.

The Sacrifice also propitiatory.

"That the holy sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, is not only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross; but also a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious, the pastor will teach as a dogma defined by the unerring authority of a General Council of the Church." [ib. page 233.

*"And since the same Christ who once offered himself by his blood on the altar of the cross, is contained in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, and offered without blood; the holy council teaches that this sacrifice is really propitiatory, and made by Christ himself.". "For this is one and the same sacrifice which is now offered by the ministry of the priests as that which Christ then offered on the cross,, only the mode of offering is different."

[Council of Trent, Sess. XXII. Decree on the Mass. Chap. II. "Whoever shall affirm, that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the mass; or that the offering is nothing else than giving Christ to us to eat: Let him be accursed."-[Ch. IX. Canon 1. Session XXII.

[Et quoniam in divino hoc sacrificio, quod in Missa peragitur, idem ille Christus continetur, et incruente immolatur, qui in ara crucis semel seipsum cruente obtulit; docet sancta Synodus, sacri

ficium istud vere propitiatorium esse, per ipsumque fieri-Una enim eadem que est hostia, idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola offerendi ratione diversa.] Sesi. XXII. Cap. II.

[Canon. 1. Si quis dixerit, in Missa non prium sacrificium, aut quod offerri non sit tum ad manducandum dari: anathema sit.]

offerri Deo verum et proaliud, quam nobis ChrisCap. XI. Canon I.]

That which is offered in sacrifice is entirely destroyed. "All things which in scripture are called sacrifices, were of necessity entirely destroyed, if living they must be deprived of life, &c."

["Et omnia omnino, qua in scriptura dicuntur sacrificia, necessario destruenda erant; si viventia, per occisionem, si in amina solida, ut similia, et sal, et thus, per combustionem, &c."]

Bellarmine Vol. III. Book I. on the Mass, chap. 2, Page 714. Paris Ed. 1608.

"For a true or real sacrifice it is required, that, that which is offered to God in sacrifice should be utterly destroyed, that is, so changed, that it shall cease to be that which before it was.'

["Ad verum sacrificium requiritur, ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium, plane destruatur, id est, ita mutetur, ut desinat esse id quod ante erat."] [ib. chap. II. Page 717.

"The consumption which takes place from the sacrificing priests (in the Mass,) is not so much an eating up of the victim, as the perfection of the sacrifice and properly is thought to refer to the burning, of the holocaust-or burnt offering."

["Consumptio autem, quæ fit a Sacerdote sacrificante, non tam est comestio victimæ, quam consummatio sacrificii; et proprie combustioni holocausti respondere censetur."] [ib. chap. 27. page 791.

Christ is offered in sacrifice, therefore he is entirely destroyed. "In the Mass there is either a true and real slaying and killing of Christ, or there is not. If there is not, there is no true and real sa crifice in the Mass; FOR A TRUE AND REAL SACRIFICE REQUIRES A TRUE AND REAL KILLING, as the essence of the sacrifice is placed in its slaughter. But if there is, THEN INDEED IS CHRIST REALLY AND TRULY KILLED BY Christian (ROMAN) PRIESTS."

["Denique, vel in Missa fit vera, et realis Christi mactatio, et occisio, vel not fit. Si noh fit, non est verum, et reale sacrificium, Missa; sacrificium enim verum, et reale, veram, et realem occisionem exigit, quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificii.-si autem fit; ergo verum erit dicere à sacerdotibus Christianis vere, et realiter Christum occidi: at hoc sacrilegium, non sacrificium esse videtur. [ib. chap. 27. page 793.]

Pause reader-consider for a moment that which the Roman Catholic church firmly holds, as an essential article of faith, as contained in the above extracts. In the sacrifice of the Mass the Priest, daily kills, and destroys by sacrifice, the same body of Jesus our Saviour, that was born of the Virgin, which "with wicked hands the Jews, slew and hanged upon a tree." (Acts 11. 36: v. 80.) This same Jesus, whom we read in the Scriptures, "God hath highly ex

alted," "and given a name which is above every name in heaven and earth." (Acts v. 31. Phil. 11. 6, 10.) This very exalted Saviour, the church of Rome declares, is now sacrificed afresh, every day upon the altar. (Compare Heb. vi. 6.)

Of Christ's sacrifice, we read, (Heb. 1x. 26, 28.) "But now ONCE in the end of the world, hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."-"So Christ was ONCE OFFERED to bear the sins of many." (Heb. x. 12, 14.) "After he had offered ONE SACRIFICE, for sins, FOREVER sat down on the right hand of God.". "For by ONE OFFERING he hath perfected forever, &c." (vII. 27.) "He needeth not DAILY TO OFFER UP SACRIFICE, first for his own sins, and then for the people's; FOR THIS HE DID ONCE, when he offered up himself."

That is the doctrine of Scripture, which declares that Jesus once died, and rose again, and ascended to the right hand of God, where he ever liveth to make intercession for them that come unto God through him, and that from thence he will come to judge the world at the last day. That precious body of his, is never again to suffer; that blood is never again to flow; he is never more to be mocked, spit upon, cruelly treated, persecuted, and put to death. NoBlessed be God-Never-Never again will his body be nailed to the

tree.

He ever lives, and will live till all his enemies are put under his feet. (Acts 11. 35.) So saith the Word of God.

But the church of Rome says, He is really, truly present in the Mass, as when he was on earth-and DAILY, is it the business, and the chief business, of her priests to offer him up, as did those Jews who with wicked hands crucified and slew him. Yes-this from their own works is not only the inevitable conclusion, but almost their own words! See all the quotations above.

What can be the interpretation of any man of common sense, but that the regular, daily business of the priest offering the Mass, is that which was performed by the wicked Jews? If indeed they believe that which they say, they are guilty of greater sin, and inconceivably greater cruelty, than were those murderous Jews. They crucified Jesus, for declaring that he was the Son of God, and because they did not believe him to be the Son of God. But the priests more base, more brutish, and cruel,-declare that they believe him to be Christ, the Saviour, the God man-the Son of God,-and yet day by day, and year after year, attempt to slay him afresh!! Oh! Horrible impiety! Sacrifice their God!!!

But alas! this sacrifice they will perform for fifty cents, and for the poor soul of a priest of this city, Roger Smith, another priest Dr. Deluol, was to sacrifice the Lord Jesus Christ, two hundred times, for one hundred dollars. On such blasphemy, we must forbear. It is too shocking for comment.

This is the doctrine, for rejecting which, papists have burned and murdered, thousands upon thousands, of their fellow men.

23

THE PRINCIPAL REASON FOR DEPRIVING THE LAITY OF THE COMMUNION IN BOTH KINDS.

It is confessed both in the Decrees of the Council of Trent, and the catechism issued by its order, that Christ gave his disciples, bread and wine at the last supper-when he enjoined upon them to eat the one and drink the other in memory, of his broken body and shed blood. Those who have read the last chapter of Revelation, know what will be the portion of those who take from the Word of Life. (19 v.) What must be the condemnation of those who change, add to and take away from the ordinances which Jesus Christ has appointed in his church?

"The Church, no doubt, was influenced by numerous and cogent reasons, not only to approve but confirm by solemn decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid incident or indignity, which must become almost inevitable, if the chalice were administered in a crowded assemblage. In the next place, the Holy Eucharist should be, at all times in readiness for the sick, and if the species of wine remained long unconsumed, it were to be apprehended that it might become vapid. Besides, there are many who cannot bear the taste or smell of wine; lest, therefore, what is intended for the nutriment of the soul should prove noxious to the health of the body, the Church, in her wisdom has sanctioned its administration under the species of bread alone. We may also observe that, in many places wine is extremely scarce, nor can it be brought from distant countries without incurring very heavy expense, and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys. Finally, A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH PRINCIPALLY INFLUENCED THE CHURCH in establishing this practice, means were to be devised to crush the heresy which denied, that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine without the body. This object was attained by communion under the species of bread alone, which places, as it were, sensibly before our eyes, the truth of the Catholic faith."

[Page 228, Cat of the Council of Trent.

Who can read these reasons without being shocked at the high handed, and heaven daring impiety of those who have thus taken from the ordinance of the Lord's Supper? First, "to avoid accident or indignity." Second, "to have it always in readiness for the sick," then "for fear the wine should become vapid by remaining so long unconsumed."-again "many cannot bear the taste or smell of wine." They surely were not priests to whom this referred. But they feared that "it would injure the health of the partaker"-and thus, "THE CHURCH,' "-mark it,-"the church, in her wisdom, has sanctioned," contrary to Christ's institution, "its administration under the species of bread alone." "In many places wine is scarce and it will cost much to get it, &c." This must be an expression of the importance attached by the church to the command of her Head, when they cannot do what he enjoins because it will cost something.

However this is nothing but trifling with the subject, and these are only a sham to cover over and prepare the way for that which did really influence them, "TO CRUSH THE HERESY, WHICH DENIED CHRIST, WHOLE AND ENTIRE WAS CONTAINED UNDER EITHER SPECIES." That is, as they had turned away from the ordinance of Christ, and had taught contrary to his teaching and this error had been exposed, it became them, to declare that this was a heresy. Yes reader the institution of Jesus our Lord, is a heresy in the eyes of that church, and in the language of that very council and church which acknowledges that, Christ did institute this sacrament under both kinds, as we read at the top of the 228th page of this Catechism: "Christ it is true, as has been explained by the Council of Trent, instituted and administered to his apostles at his last supper, this great sacrament UNDER BOTH KINDS."

Bear it ever in mind, that Christ instituted this sacrament in both kinds, the Catholic church, being judge. And then place beside it the following:-THE PRINCIPAL REASON for taking away one and enforcing the other, even by fire and sword.

"Finally, A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH PRINCIPALLY INFLUENCED the church in establishing this practice; MEANS WERE TO BE DEVISED, TO CRUSH THE HERESY which denied, that Christ whole and entire, is contained under either species, &c." directly in opposition to Christ's institution.

TRIAL OF A PRIEST'S FAITH IN TRANSUBSTANTIATION,
by a Lady.

A Protestant lady entered the matrimonial state with a Roman Catholic gentleman, on condition he would never use any attempts, in his intercourse with her, to induce her to embrace his religion. Accordingly, after their marriage, he abstained from conversing with her on those religious topics which he knew would be disagreeable to her. He employed the Romish priest, however, who often visited the family, to use his influence to instil his popish notions into her mind. But she remained unmoved, particularly on the doctrine of Transubstantiation. At length the husband fell ill, and during his affliction, was recommended by the priest to receive the holy sacrament. The wife was requested to prepare bread and wine for the solemnity, by the next day. She did so; and on presenting them to the priest, said, "these sir, you wish me to understand, will be changed into the real body and blood of Christ after you have consecrated them." "Most certainly," he replied. "Then, sir," she rejoined, "it will not be possible, after the consecration for them to do any harm to the worthy partakers; for says our Lord, "my flesh is meat indeed, and my body is drink indeed;" and he that eateth me shall live by me. Assuredly," answered the priest, "they cannot do harm to the worthy receivers, but must communicate great good." The ceremony was proceeded in, and the bread and wine were consecrated; the priest was about to take and eat the bread; but the lady begged pardon for interrupting him, adding, "I mixed a little arsenic with the bread, sir, but as it is now changed