until they be corrupted, afterterwards let them be cast into the sacristy. But if the accidents are not apparent, let the vomit be burned, and the ashes placed in the sacristy.

rium projiciantur. Quod si species non appareant, comburatur vomitus, et cineres in sacrarium mittantur.

As in an animated substance there are the flesh and the animating principle, so in the Levitical law there was the letter, which was intelligible to the most carnal understandings, and the spirit or ulterior design of the institution, which for the most part eluded notice, and by an easy metaphor, in speaking of any system or body of instruction, the terms spirit and flesh may be substituted for spirit and letter. Indeed we learn from Philo, vol. 2, p. 483 (quoted by Micaelis Anneck ad locum), that the Essenes actually used this illustration with regard to the Mosaic law.-Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 356, John vi.

Two of the Romish Miracles related by Bellarmine.

Bellarmine, book 3, c. 8, on the
Holy Eucharist.

The fifth is of St. Anthony
of Padua.

It is described in his life by Surius in the third volume, and by St. Antoninus in his Historical Summary, p. 3. tit. 24. c. 3. St. Anthony being engaged in a dispute concerning the truth of the Lord's body in the Eucharist with a certain heretic in the neighbourhood of Toulouse (for at this time the Albigenses, who were led astray by this as well as many other errors, vexed the church) the heretic demanded of Anthony, whom he knew to be endowed by God with the gift of miracles, a sign of this sort. I have a horse, he said, to whom for the space of

De Sac. Euch. lib. 3, c. 8.

Quintum est. S. Antonii de
Padua.

Describitur in ejus vita apud Surium, tom. 3, et à S. Antonino a in summâ historiali, p. 3, tit. 24, c. 3. Disputante S. Antonio de veritate corporis Domini in Eucharistia cum hæretico quodam in partibus Tolosanis (si quidem eo tempore Albigenses vexabant ecclesiam, qui cum aliis plurimis hoc etiam errore invecti erant) petiit hæreticus ab Antonio, quem noverat dono miraculorum præditum esse, ejusmodi signum; habeo, inquit, jumentum cui per integrum triduum cibum non dabo. Exacto triduo adsis tu cum sacramento, ego adero cum ju

Dr. Delahogue's Treatise on the
Eucharist, p. 214, art. 2
"Whether it is necessary to re-
ceive the Eucharist in both
kinds?"

Secondly. It appears that from the very days of the apostles until the twelfth century the custom prevailed that the Eucharist should be received by the laity in both kinds, as is observed in the Greek church at the present day. But from the 12th century the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful in one kind only was gradually confirmed, no one opposing it.(Third Edition. Printed at Dublin, by Richard Coyne. 1828.)

Delah. Tract. de Euchar. p. 214,

art. 2-" Utrum necessarium sit Eucharistiam sub utraque specie sumere ?"

2o. Constat ab ipsis apostolorum temporibus 12m. usque seculum, in ecclesia Latina morem obtinuisse ut a laicis sub utraque specie Eucharistia sumeretur, sicut etiamnum observat ecclesia Græca.

A seculo autem duodecimo Eucharistiam sub una panis specie fidelibus distribuendi usus apud Latinos sensim invaluit, et nemine reclamante.

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.*

To constitute a sacrifice pleasing to God it is necessary that it should be appointed by God, or agreeable to his revealed will. According to this simple principle we try all those services which men call religious; and as they are in accordance with it or not, so are they acceptable or otherwise with God. Thus all the heathen sacrifices are rejected, and even among the professors of Christ's religion we may decide that "the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination unto God." Prov. c. xv. v. 8.

There are three kinds of sacrifice acceptable with God-typical, propitiatory, and grateful.

The first were confined to the Old Testament; they are called legal or typical, because found in the Mosaic dispensation. Their chief feature is set forth in Lev. c. xvii. v. 11, 22. Hence the bloodshedding of animals. They were to a certain extent useful, as shadows or types, Heb. c. ix. v. 9, 10, and yet essentially imperfect, proved by their nature, Heb. c. x. v. 4, by their repetition, Heb.

c. x. v. 1, 2.

Secondly. The sacrifice of Christ. This is vicarious, Isai. c. liii.; propitiatory, 1 Pet. c. ii. v. 24, Heb. c. ix. v. 26; and efficacious, John c. i. v. 29, Heb. c. ix. v. 14. All under the law were connected with this as their antitype; all under the gospel must be connected with it, as the fountain of pardon and peace.

* This sketch of the Mass' is from the pen of the Rev. W. Dalton,

Thirdly. The sacrifices of the Christian are those of gratitude, not propitiatory. Some of these we merely refer to, Psalm c. cxli. v. 2, Heb. c. xiii. v. 15, Rom. c. xii. v. 1. If this view be correct, the mass can have no existence.

Let us examine its credentials.-I. State, the doctrine according to the documents of the church of Rome, session xxii. cap. 1, (Council of Trent), can. 2, 3, General Catechism, and Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, p. 84. Compare this with Article xxxi. of the Church of England.

Grounds of opposition fourfold.-1. The foundation, viz., transubstantiation is unsound. (See the argument on this, p. 324.)

II. Their proofs deficient.-1. They say that it was instituted by Christ at the last supper, Luke c. xxii. v. 19, 20, in this there is no reference to sacrifice, as a propitiation or atonement. They answer, that the words, "shall be shed," (see Douay Bible), should be rendered " is shed." Hence they give a wrong translation, and fly to the Protestant version; but if so, the blood was shed at the last supper, and the mass then is a bloody, not an unbloody sacrifice, as it is called by the Trent doctors. The apostle's comment on the design, of the Lord's Supper is decisive, 1 Cor. c. xi. v. 26.

2. They cite Gen. c. xiv. v. 18-20, and contend that Melchizedec offered the bread and wine in sacrifice, rendering the word and in v. 19 by for, as if illative; but this is opposed to the context, as the circumstance of Abraham's return from the battle is consistent with the use of bread and wine as a refreshment, not as a sacrifice; and to the apostle's view, Heb. c. vii., where he dwells on the nature of his priesthood, v. 6—8, but never alludes to this sacrifice.

We

3. They cite Mal. c. i. v. 11, and argue that this offering or sacrifice could not be a legal one, nor Christ's bloody sacrifice, for this was offered in one place-nor yet the Christian's grateful, because they are not in themselves pure-hence it must be the mass. reply, that if this is not proved to have a scriptural existence, the deduction is false. Nor does the last assertion stand examination; for the believer's service as well as person are pure, because he is found in Christ. To this we add, that the apostle gives us a satisfactory comment on this, Rom. c. xv. v. 8, 9, 15, 16.

III. The doctrine is opposed to the clear testimony of Scripture. The Epistle to the Hebrews seems prophetically to meet this error. The sacrifice of Christ is set forth as once offered, and this word is continually repeated, Heb. c. vii. v. 27, Heb. c. ix. v. 12, 25—28, Heb. c. x. 10-12, 14. How then can the mass be true, which professes to be a repeated offering? These testimonies are so plain that Romanists invent many substitutions to avoid their force. They say that this does not oppose the sacrifice of the cross, because it is unbloody, hence they proclaim its inutility, see Heb. c. ix. v. 22. To call it a continuance of the sacrifice of the cross is senseless, because there is an essential difference between them-one is bloody, and the other unbloody. Again, there is no priest to offer it; there are only two orders of sacrificing

priests the first under the law, of the order of Levi; the second under the gospel, of the order of Melchizedec, who is Christ, Heb. c. vii. The ministers of the gospel are never called pes-they minister in holy things, they preach the word, but do not sacrifice.

Romanists say that Christ is the priest in the mass, represented by his ministering servants; but this is impossible; Christ is the high priest within the veil, Heb. c. vii. v. 19, 20, ix. 24; and it would destroy the type to suppose that he was occupied without the veil at the same time. Thus we conclude, that as Christ's bloody sacrifice was perfect, an unbloody one cannot exist. As Christ's priesthood continues, no one can share in it. The mass therefore is weighed in the balance and found wanting.

IV. The pernicious effects of this doctrine.—1. It is an insult to the Triune God. The Father gave his Son for the salvation of men. And according to his determinate counsel he was delivered unto death, Acts c. ii. v. 23. The mass declares that this was not suffi cient, and by its repetition throws a darkness on this one great gift. It insults the Son, since it declares that all the sorrows of Gethsemane, and all the horrors of Calvary, did not make a sufficient atonement for man. How horrible then to make light of the precious blood of Christ! It insults the Spirit, who has given his clear testimony that by the one great sacrifice of Christ, sin was taken away, Heb. c. ix. v. 26.

2. It introduces idolatry. The council of Trent declares that the host should be worshipped at the offering of the mass with latria, or the highest degree of worship; see can. 5, sess. 12. If no transubstantiation, and no offering up of Christ, then do the people worship a wafer. How solemn this thought, how destructive this sin! Rev. c. xxii. v. 15.

Lastly. It deludes men. The worshippers crowd to their chapel, with the hope of enjoying the benefits of this propitiation; but if none is made, and nothing but bread offered up, they are grievously deceived. They pray the priest to deliver the souls of relatives from purgatory. Yet no recompense can follow, for this is a mere mockery. Christ is offered up at random!! Christ is offered up again and again to deliver from purgatory, though his one offering delivers from hell. How delusive for time and eternity!

The doctrine of the reformation is, that Christ by one oblation made a full and perfect sacrifice for man. This exhibits God's holy and gracious character. It gives peace to the guilty conscience of those who come to Christ; it gives a solid foundation of confidence, and constrains men to live to God. 2 Cor. c. v. v. 14, 15.