M i. 
 
 
 V"- 
 
 ^"' 1 
 
 / ■ i 
 
 •t.. 
 
 V ' ' 
 
 
 
 
 -'^A'" • "" ' 
 
 .■,1 ■, 
 
 
 
 •'•^ x^ *• 
 
 ^7 ^^/^i 
 
 
 
 :V^t-5 
 
 .1 V r?" ~ 
 
 ■■*>• P.- 
 
^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 •■ff 
 
 
 <c 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 x.'^ 
 
 
 _Q. 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 nS 
 
 
 
 •<«-^ 
 
 , 
 
 71^ 
 
 
 
 ^i«» 
 
 (-3 
 
 JC 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 Q_ 
 
 
 
 •ds^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 -fci 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 *** 
 
 J25 
 
 o 
 
 <D 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 r 1 
 
 •< 
 
 , 
 
 B 
 
 H 
 W 
 
 "aj 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 3 
 £ 
 
 CO 
 
 t 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ph 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 -Q 
 
 « 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 "D 
 
 <:i 
 
 ><. 
 
 
 <U 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 •<#> 
 
 5 
 
 (A 
 
 V. 
 
 Ql 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ! 
 
 
ANTICHRIST 
 
 AND 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ROME 
 
 IDENTIFIED AND EXPOSED BY THE WORD OF GOD: 
 
 IN A TREATISE ON THE 
 
 SEVEN POPISH SACRAMENTS. 
 
 THE REV. T.^'KENZIE, A.M., 
 
 A LICENTIATE OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 
 W. WHITE & CO.; WAUGH & INNES; J. LINDSAY & CO.; 
 
 AND ELDER & OGILVY : W. COLLINS; M. OGLE; AND 
 
 \V. R. m'PHUN, GLASGOW : L. SMITH, ABERDEEN : 
 
 AND W. CURRr, JUN. & CO., DUBLIN. 
 
 MDCCCXXXV. 
 
EDINBURGH: 
 J. Johnstone, Printer, 104, High Street. 
 
CONTEN'imJ^u-. -^< 
 
 Q 
 
 FAGE. 
 
 Of the Scriptural Sacraments, . . . . .1 
 
 Inferences. 
 
 The Old and New Testament Sacraments are virtually the 
 same, ......... 23 
 
 The Old Testament Sacraments were fulfilled in the death 
 of Christ, 28 
 
 There are only two New Testament Sacraments, . .30 
 
 None of the Popish Sacraments can stand the test of Reve- 
 lation, ......... 33 
 
 Of Popish Baptism. 
 
 Doctrines of Popish Baptism stated, . . . . 35 
 
 These doctrines refuted, ....... 38 
 
 Of Popish Confirmation. 
 Doctrine stated and ceremony described, ... 60 
 
 Refutation of this doctrine, . . . . . .61 
 
 Of Popish Penance. 
 Popish Penances, Auricular Confessions, Absolutious, Sa- 
 tisfactions, Indulgences, Excommunications, and the Holy 
 Inquisition described, ...... 65 
 
 Penance is not a Scriptural Sacrament, . . . .86 
 
 Auricular Confession is not Scriptural, .... 87 
 
 Popish Absolution is not Scriptural, . . . .95 
 
 Popish Satisfactions are not Scriptural, . . . 100 
 
 Popish Excommunications are not Scriptural, . . .105 
 
 Of the Popish Sacrament of Marriage. 
 
 The nature, Scriptural doctrine, and Popish doctrine of 
 Marriage stated, . . . . . . .133 
 
 Marriage is not a Scriptural Sacrament, . . . .141 
 
 The matrimonial is not an unchaste state, . . .144 
 
 Marriage does not unqualify men for the holy ministry, . 147 
 Popish doctrine of Affinities is not Scriptural, . . 154 
 
IV. CONTENTS. 
 
 Of Holy Orders. 
 Popish doctrine of Holy Orders stated, .... 159 
 
 Ordination is not a Scriptural Sacrament, . . .160 
 
 The Indelibleness of the priestly character is absurd even on 
 Popish principles, ....... 161 
 
 The ceremonies of Popish Ordination are not Scriptural, 162 
 Popish Ordination is not Apostolical, . . . . 163 
 
 The character thereby conferred is not Apostolical, . .166 
 
 Mass- Priests are of no Scriptural Order, . . . 180 
 
 Of Extreme Unction. 
 The Popish doctrine of Extreme Unction stated, . . 184 
 This ceremony is not a Scriptural Ordinance, . . 185 
 
 Of the Mass. 
 
 The Sacrifice of the Mass fully described, . . . .194 
 
 The term Mass renders the ceremony suspected of being 
 Antichristian, . . . . . . . .211 
 
 The Mass is not of Apostolical antiquity, .... 225 
 
 The ceremonies of the Mass are not Scriptural, . . 228 
 
 Transubstantiation is most repugnant to revelation, reason, 
 and common sense, ....... 234 
 
 The mass is not Scriptural, because Christ cannot be oflfered 
 more than once, ....... 308 
 
 The Mass is not Scriptural, because it is administered in one 
 
 kind, .319 
 
 The mode of administering the Mass is not Scriptural, . 326 
 The Mass is not Scriptural, because it is administered pri- 
 vately, ......... 346 
 
 The Mass is not Scriptural, because it is vendible, . . 349 
 The Adoration of the Host is the most gross idolatry, . 353 
 The variety of Masses proves that the ceremony is not Scrip- 
 tural, 363 
 
 The Mass is not the Lord's Supper, because it may be cele- 
 brated in behalf of irrational animals, . . . . ib. 
 
 The MasT is not Scriptural, because Popish miracles have 
 been v.rought by means of it, . . . . . 364 
 
 The Mass is not Scriptural, because it requires sacrificing 
 priests, ......... .369 
 
 The Mass is not Scriptural, because it requires an altar of 
 sacrifice, ......... ib.^ 
 
 The Mass is not Scriptural, because it is the principal ordi- 
 nance of a Church which is the Daughter of Antichrist, and 
 called in Scripture the Mother of Abominations, . . 375 
 
I 
 
 '- ■*■■ 
 
 ^^: . 
 
 PREFACE. ^''^ 
 
 Having resided for four years in a district of Ireland 
 chiejBy inhabited by Papists, my attention could not but 
 be ali^e to Popish subjects. The books also which I 
 then read, heightened my repugnance to the principles of 
 that religion; and in the frequent conversations I had 
 with the people, I seldom or never lost an opportunity 
 of explaining to them our- Protestant opinions respecting 
 them. Having carefully read the celebrated debate be- 
 tween the Rev. Mr Macguire, Popish priest, and the 
 Rev. Mr Pope, a Protestant, who certainly was entitled 
 to the palm of victory, I not only perceived that the 
 former would have been more easily and perfectly van- 
 quished, had he been treated more according to his own 
 pugnacious mode of debate, but also conceived that were 
 even I to be engaged with him, I should have little to 
 fear, notwithstanding, as I learned from himself, (having 
 been once accidently in company with him,) he is con- 
 sidered by the priests of Ireland, as the champion of 
 their church. This conception readily excited in me 
 the desire of an opportunity of engaging him, which was 
 greatly heightened by noticing in the papers of the day 
 
VI, PREFACE. 
 
 his bold and daring challenge to the Bishop of Exeter, 
 who had stated in the House of Lords, A. D. 1832-33, 
 that the Mass was gross Idolatry ; and who was, there- 
 fore, challenged to discuss that subject. Being fully as- 
 sured that he was convinced that the Rev. Prelate would 
 not deign to notice him, and afraid lest, with impunity, 
 he should boast of having defied a leader of those whose 
 banners display the cross of Christ supported by Divine 
 Revelation, I became so interested, that I immediately re- 
 solved to oppose the gigantic man myself. I according- 
 ly wrote to him, stating my resolution and the mode of 
 warfare I intended to observe, with a request that he 
 would except of me in the room of the Rev. Bishop. 
 He, however, no doubt having good reason for his want 
 of courtesy, neither accepted my challenge nor answered 
 my letter. Trusting, however, that it would either ob- 
 lige him to accept of me as an opponent, or teach him 
 to be more humble in future, I published the following 
 paragraph in an Irish paper, from which it was after- 
 wards copied into several others. 
 
 " In consequence of the letter lately published by 
 the Rev. T. Macguire, of Innismagarth, to the Bishop 
 of Exeter, the Rev. T. M'Kenzie, a licentiate of the 
 Church of Scotland, has written to Mr Macguire, re- 
 questing to be allowed the honour of discussing the sub- 
 ject of the Mass with him. Mr M'Kenzie undertakes 
 to prove, from the Word of God alone, that the Mass is 
 all that the Rev. Bishop said of it ; and the method he 
 proposes, is to write a treatise showing the absurdity and 
 iniquity of the ceremony: — Mr Macguire, at the same 
 time, writing in its favour, and no otlier authorities to be 
 
PREFACE. Vll. 
 
 used than the Scriptures ; both papers to be of such a 
 length as may be agreed on, and to go to the printer 
 without the one having an opportunity of seeing the 
 other's production, till after their publication." 
 
 My reasons for confining myself and opponent to the 
 Word of God exclusively, for proofs of the truths of our 
 arguments are the following : 1^^, It appears to me, that 
 if this, or any other strictly religious controversy, cannot 
 be satisfactorily settled from the Word of God, it cannot 
 in any other way. '2dly, I conceive that the Word of 
 God warrants me to believe that this is the only way 
 which Christ, the alone Head of the Christian Church, 
 desires all religious controversies to be determined. 
 And, ^dly, It appears to me, who am a Protestant, 
 and, therefore, perhaps more intimately acquainted with 
 the Scriptures than the other authorities of Popery, to 
 be the safest way ; for were I to have allowed Mr Mac- 
 guire to have fled for refuge to the authority of the 
 Fathers of the Popish Church, or of its legendary tradi- 
 tions as often as he apprehended danger from the Scrip- 
 tures, and to have followed him thither, I might perhaps, 
 in the act of expelling him thence, have been dashed to 
 pieces, not however against the rock upon which the 
 Church of Christ is built, but against that upon which 
 the Antichristian Church of Rome is built. 
 
 By giving publicity to my letter, I hoped that Mr 
 Macguire would feel himself obliged, at least, to offer 
 me an explanation of his motives for declining to discuss 
 this subject with me ; but I hoped in vain, and have not 
 heard of him since, which to me has been a matter of 
 considerable vexation, knowing that my ability to debate 
 
Vlll. PREFACE. 
 
 with him successfully, must now be a matter of public 
 opinion. Depending, however, on my acquaintance with 
 the Scriptures, the Divine assistance of Him who deliv- 
 ered his servant from the jaws of the Lion ,and the bad- 
 ness of this Goliah's cause, I still believed that I must 
 come off triumphantly ; and, therefore, shortly after the 
 publication of the letter alluded to, I commenced the 
 following Treatise on the Seven Popish Sacraments, 
 which, from obstacles in the way of publication while 
 in Ireland, was laid aside and little more thought of 
 until my return to Scotland. Having shewn it to sev- 
 eral of my friends, I have now, by their advice, been 
 persuaded to send it forth to the public ; and I do so in 
 the hope that every unprejudiced Reader will clearly 
 perceive that it has, at least, been my earnest endeavour 
 to prove that the doctrines by which Popery maintains 
 and supports, not only the sacrifice of the Mass, but the 
 whole of the Seven Ceremonies falsely called Sacraments, 
 are most repugnant to the word of God, sound reason, 
 and common sense. 
 

 
 ANTICHRIST EXPOSED ' J* 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SEVEN POPISH SACRAMENTS. 
 
 OF A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 For the purpose of raising a standard by which the 
 scriptural verity of the Seven Popish Sacraments may 
 be legitimately tried, and hence of exposing more 
 fully their want of divine authority, I deem it ex- 
 pedient, first of all, to show from the word of God 
 what a true sacrament is. 
 
 We affirm, then, that a " scriptural sacrament is 
 a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by 
 sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the New 
 Covenant are represented, sealed, and applied, to 
 believers;" and this we shall now endeavour to 
 prove ; 
 
 1st, Of the term Sacrament, — Though this is not 
 a scriptural term, yet there are words in the original 
 scriptures which exactly correspond to it. It is 
 
 A 
 
2 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 radically a Latin word ; and, therefore, only a trans- 
 lation of the original term. The Hebrew word, 
 rendered sacramentum by the Popish church, lite- 
 rally signifies an oath, as is evident from Gen. 
 xvii. 11, where it is rendered by the term covenant, 
 which literally signifies the coming together of two 
 parties, for the purpose of entering into a mutual 
 agreement and engagement upon oath ; thus : " And 
 ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and 
 it shall be for a token of the covenant between me 
 and you." In Rom. iv. 11, it is rendered ^niimv^ 
 where we read thus of Abraham : " And he re- 
 ceived the sign (irjf^sm) of circumcision, a seal 
 (2^gay/5a) of the righteousness of the faith which he 
 had, being yet uncircumcised." Both Beza and the 
 translators of the Vulgate New Testament have ren- 
 dered these two words signum (a sign) and sigillum 
 (a seal) respectively. The word sacramentum being 
 derived from sacrare, and which signifies to conse- 
 crate, or make holy, the Latins used to signify the 
 oath by which their military bound themselves to the 
 general of their armies, and devoted themselves to 
 martial pursuits. Hence it is, that some suppose 
 that it has been adopted by the Church, as being 
 the most suitable for expressing that most solemn 
 engagement into which Christians voluntarily enter 
 with God, and by which, like good soldiers, they 
 devote themselves to the service of the Great 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 3 
 
 Captain of salvation, when communicating at his 
 holy Table. 
 
 But, instead of having it from its military use 
 among the ancient Romans, it is more probable 
 that we are obliged to the translators of the Vulgate 
 scriptures for it, whom we frequently find falsely 
 rendering the word (iverTjotov by the term sacra- 
 mentum, thus leading many of the ancient Latin 
 Christian Fathers to call a mystery a sacrament, to 
 believe that many things are sacraments which are 
 not, and hence to be the authors of at least a part of 
 the foundation of Popery. Though all Protestants 
 allow that scriptural names for scriptural ordinances 
 are preferable, yet we do not generally consider that 
 it is absolutely necessary to reject the term sacra- 
 ment, knowing that the thing which is thereby sig- 
 nified is so clearly revealed in the word of God, that 
 none can be apt to mistake it, except those whose 
 eyes have been blinded by the unction of antichrist. 
 From Gen. xvii. 11, and Rom. iv. 11, where we 
 read of circumcision, into the place of which the 
 New Testament ordinance of Baptism has come; 
 from Exod. xii. 1 3, where we read of the passover, 
 into the place of which the ordinance of the Lord's 
 Supper has come; and from 1 Pet. iii. 21, and 
 Heb. viii. 5, it appears that the scriptural names of 
 both the Old and New Testament Sacraments, are 
 signs, figures, shadows, examples, patterns, and 
 
4 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 seals, of the promised blessings of the grace of God ; 
 therefore the term sacrament is a good name for 
 the ordinance of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
 
 2d, Of the Author of a Scriptural Sacrament. — 
 The Deity is the only author of a scriptural sacra- 
 ment. From Gen, xvii., and Acts vii. 8, it is evi- 
 dent, that it was God who, with Abraham, instituted 
 the covenant of circumcision. From Exod. xii. it 
 is evident, that it was the same divine Being who in- 
 stituted the Old Testament sacrament of the pas- 
 sover. And from Matth. xxvi. and xxviii. it is evi- 
 dent, that it was the Deity in the person of Christ 
 who instituted the two New Testament sacraments, 
 viz.. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
 
 That none but God has sufficient authority to 
 institute a sacrament, and that this was the opinion 
 of the Jews, is evident from Matth. xxi. 25, where 
 Christ asks the Jews : " Whether the baptism of John 
 was from heaven, or of men ?" John the Baptist 
 acknowledges that a proper sacrament is a divine 
 institution, saying, John i. 33 : " He that sent me to 
 baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon 
 whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and re- 
 maining on him, the same is he which baptizeth 
 with the Holy Ghost." And the apostle Paul evi- 
 dently acknowledges the same truth, in his first 
 epistle to the Corinthians, xi. 23, saying, concerning 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 5 
 
 the institution of the Lord's Supper : " That which 
 I have received of the Lord, I have delivered unto 
 you." 
 
 But revelation does more than barely prove 
 that none but the Deity has sufficient power and 
 authority to institute a proper sacrament, for it also 
 assig-ns reasons sufficient to convince anv candid 
 mind that his right and authority are exclusive. 
 One of these assigned reasons is, as we may learn 
 from Isa. xliii. 25, where it is said : " I, even I, am 
 He that blotteth out thy transgressions ;" and also 
 from Rom. vi. 23, where we ai»e told, that "the gift 
 of God is eternal life," that it is the Deity only who 
 can give to the receiver of the sacraments the things 
 signified and sealed by them. Another of the as- 
 signed reasons is, according to Ezek. xx. 18, 19, 
 where it is said : " Walk not in the statutes of your 
 fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile 
 yourselves with idols : I am the Lord your God, 
 walk in my statutes and keep my judgments, and do 
 them ;" and also according to Matth. xv. 9, where 
 our Saviour says : " In vain do they worship me, 
 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men ;" 
 that the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments 
 form a principal part of that religious service which 
 none but a divine person can institute. And a third 
 scriptural reason is, that as it is God only who can 
 erect a covenant with his Church, it consequently 
 follows, that no other than He, not even the highest 
 
6 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 angel in heaven, has any right, power, or authority 
 whatever, to institute in it those ordinances which 
 signify and seal those spiritual blessings which he 
 has promised to it. Then, since it hence appears 
 that the Deity, " who is holy in all his works," is 
 the alone author of a scriptural sacrament, it is evi- 
 dent, that it is, therefore, a holy ordinance. 
 
 3</, Of the Si^ns and Seals of a Scriptural 
 Sacrament. — The word of God authorises us to 
 affirm, that all scriptural sacraments are visible and 
 holy signs and seals, which God has appointed to 
 represent and seal something different from them- 
 selves. A sign is something that brings to our 
 remembrance another thing, to which, in some re- 
 spects, it has analogy ; or in other words, it is the 
 means by which our understandings apprehend 
 something different from that which we apprehend 
 by our external senses. All scriptural signs are not 
 sacramental. That natural sign, mentioned in 
 Matt. xvi. 2, where we read thus: "When it is 
 evening ye say it will be fine weather, for the sky is 
 red," is not a sacramental sign. Nor are such signs 
 as those mentioned in Gen. xxxi. 52, where Labati 
 says to Jacob : " This heap be a witness, that I will 
 not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou wilt 
 not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, 
 for harm," sacramental, being merely of human 
 ^tuthority. Nor are such signs sacramental, as that 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 7 
 
 mentioned in Gen. ix. 12, where God says, con- 
 cerning the rainbow, " This is the covenant which 
 I make between me and you and every Hving 
 creature that is with you, for perpetual generations ;" 
 because the covenant here spoken of, is not the 
 covenant of grace in Christ. Neither are those 
 signs sacramental, though they are both of divine 
 institution and of a miraculous nature, of which we 
 read in 1 Kings xviii. 24, where it is thus spoken : 
 " Call ye on the name of your gods, and I will 
 call on the name of the Lord ; and the God that 
 answereth bv fire, let him be our God»" In 2 Kings 
 XX. 8, 9, where Hezekiah asks Isaiah : " What 
 shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and 
 that I shall go up to the House of the Lord the 
 third day ?" and Isaiah replied, " This sign shalt 
 thou have from the Lord, shall the shadow go 
 forward ten degrees, or backward ten degrees?" 
 and in Judges vi. 37, where it is thus stated, con- 
 cerning the sign required by Gideon from God, 
 that he would save Israel by his hand : " Behold 
 I will put a fleece of wool in the floor, and if the dew be 
 on the floor only, and if it be dry upon all the earth be- 
 sides, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by 
 mine hand, as thou hast said." These and other scrip- 
 tural signs that are of a similar nature, are more or 
 less special and extraordinary ; whereas, those which 
 are properly denominated sacramental, are the signs 
 
O A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 of the signification, use, and design of the common, 
 ordinary, and standing ordinances of the Church, 
 viz., of the ordinances of circumcision and the 
 passover under the Old Testament dispensation, 
 and of baptism and the Lord's Supper, under the 
 dispensation of the Gospel. 
 
 That the sacraments of both dispensations are, by- 
 divine appointment, signs of something different from 
 themselves, is evident from Gen. xvii. 11, where God 
 says: " And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore- 
 skin, and it shall be for a token of the covenant be- 
 tween meandyou." That theyare holy signs, inasmuch 
 as they are instituted by God, who is infinitely holy, 
 set apart by him for holy purposes, and are the signs 
 of things that are holy, as I shall show in its proper 
 place, is evident from Ex. xxix. 33, where, con- 
 cerning the eating of the sacrifices by Aaron and 
 his sons, we read thus : " And they shall eat those 
 things where the atonement was made to consecrate 
 and sanctify them, but the stranger shall not eat 
 thereof, because they are holy." And that they 
 are with great propriety denominated " visible signs," 
 is evident from Ex. xii. 13, where, concerning the 
 blood of the passover, we read thus : " And the 
 blood shall be to you for a token upon the house 
 where you are ; and when I shall see the blood, I 
 will pass over you, and the plague shall not come 
 upon you to destroy you, when I shall smite the 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAM'ENT. 9 
 
 land of Egypt :" and also from Rom. ii. 28, where, 
 concerning circumcision, it is said : " For he is not 
 a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that cir- 
 cumcision which is outward in the flesh." 
 
 That the sacraments are not only signs of some- 
 thing different from themi*elves, but also seals which 
 God has given to assure the worthy receivers 
 thereof, that the things signified by them as signs, 
 will be conferred upon them as their covenant right, 
 is evident from Rom. iv. 11, where the apostle 
 Paul calls the sign of circumcision " the seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith, which Abraham had, being 
 yet uncircumcised :" and also from Ex. xii. 13, 
 where we may learn that the blood of the passover 
 when sprinkled upon the doors of the Israelites, 
 assured them that the destroying angel would pass 
 over them unhurt ; or, in other w^ords, it sealed to 
 them their exemption and salvation from that dread- 
 ful calamity. 
 
 But before I leave this particular, I must farther 
 observe, that the word of God does not confine the 
 sacramental signs and seals to the mere substance 
 of the elements, viz., to the mere act of circumcision, 
 to the blood of the passover, to the water used in 
 baptism, and to the bread and wine used in the 
 celebration of the Lord's Supper. On the con- 
 trary, it authorises us to affirm, that the ceremonies 
 necessarily attending circumcision, the washing with 
 
10 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 water, the breaking of the bread, and the drinking 
 of the wine, together with all the other concomitant 
 circumstances which are mentioned in scripture, as 
 necessary to the proper administration of the sacra- 
 ments, are, if not signs and seals of themselves, 
 adjuncts without which the signs and seals would 
 be then neither perfect nor complete. For instance, 
 the consecrated wine is not a perfect and complete 
 sacramental sign, considered apart from the pouring 
 of it out into the cup, and the giving, receiving, 
 and drinking it out of the same. And neither is 
 the consecrated water a perfect and complete sacre- 
 mental sign, considered apart from the act of using 
 it in the sacrament of baptism, as I shall more fully 
 show in its proper place. 
 
 Ath, Of the tilings Signified and Sealed by these 
 Signs and Seals. — The terms sign and seal naturally 
 infer, that there is something to be thereby signified 
 and sealed ; and the word of God fully informs us 
 what the things are that are signified and sealed by 
 those sacramental sio^ns and seals which he has 
 appointed in his Church. Were there nothing 
 signified and sealed by the sacraments, they con Id 
 not, in any respect, benefit the receivers of them, 
 however worthy of them they might be. That the 
 signs and seals and things thereby signified and 
 sealed, are parts of a sacrament, is evident from 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 11 
 
 Eph. V. 26, where, concerning the love of Christ 
 for his Church, we read thus : " That he might 
 sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by 
 the word." And were the opinions of the ancient 
 Christian Fathers of unobjectionable authority in 
 this work, I would gladly state that of St. Augustine, 
 who, in accordance with the last quotation, says, 
 *' The word comes into an element, and it becomes 
 a sacrament." 
 
 Now, that the remission of sin is one of the things 
 signified and sealed by the sacramental signs and 
 seals, is manifestly evident from Matt. xxvi. 28, 
 where we thus read : " This is my blood in the new 
 testament, which is shed for the remission of sin." 
 That imputed righteousness is another of the things 
 thereby signified and sealed, is evident from Rom. 
 xi. 4, where the apostle Paul tells us, that " Abraham 
 received the sign of circumcision, (as) a seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being 
 uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all 
 them that believe, though they be not circumcised, 
 that righteousness might be imputed to them also." 
 From 1 Cor. iv. 1 0, where, speaking of the Israel- 
 ites in the wilderness, the apostle Paul says : *' And 
 they did all drink of the same spiritual drink ; for 
 they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, 
 and that rock was Christ," it is evident that others 
 of the things thereby signiHed are, spiritual refresh- 
 
12 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 ment, spiritual strength, and growth in grace. From 
 1 Cor. V. 7, where, referring to the Old Testament 
 sacrament of the passover, the same apostle says : 
 " For Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us," 
 it is evident that another of the thinors thereby 
 signified and sealed is, that salvation, of which 
 that of the Israelites from the destroying angel was 
 the figure, viz., the spiritual and eternal salvation 
 of our souls from everlasting destruction. But why 
 should I go on to enumerate more, since enough 
 has been already stated to convince any ordinary 
 mind, that the things thereby signified and sealed are 
 all the blessings which God has promised to believers 
 in the covenant of grace ; namely, all the benefits 
 which Christ purchased to them at the infinite ex- 
 pense of his shed blood; or, in other words, the 
 things signified in a sacrament is, Christ himself 
 offered up an atoning sacrifice unto God upon the 
 cross, as he is described in 1 Cor. i. 30, where the 
 apostle Paul says : " That he is made of God unto 
 us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, 
 and complete redemption." 
 
 5^A, Of the union of Sacramental Si^ns, and 
 thinf/s thereby signified. — The word of God autho- 
 rises us to affirm, that there is a certain union of the 
 sacramental signs and the things thereby signified, 
 but it does not authorise us to affirm that it consists 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 13 
 
 either in the transubstantiation of the Church of 
 Rome, or of the consubstantiation of the Lutherans ; 
 that is, either in an essential change of the sign into 
 the thing thereby signified, or in such a mutual con- 
 tact and local connection of these, that the thing 
 signified should be either in or under the sign, in 
 an invisible state. Indeed, were the sacramental 
 signs in the Lord's Supper transubstantiated into 
 the real body and blood of Christ, they, as soon as 
 the change had taken place, would cease to be signs 
 and seals ; for if it be a sign, it cannot be the thing 
 signified, as has already been proved ; but as such 
 is their doctrine, it thence follows that their defin- 
 ation of a sacrament, — which is, that it is the sign of 
 an invisible grace, — contradicts their doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation. Different, however, is the scriptural 
 doctrine concernins^ this union. It teaches that it 
 consists in the obsignation or sealing up of the thing 
 signified, the strength of which is as great as the 
 veracity and faithfulness of God is infinite. As it is 
 necessary, as well as the general practice of man- 
 kind, for obsignees to have something resembling, 
 or characteristic of, themselves upon the seals which 
 they set to any will or deed, so the sacramental 
 signs bear a certain resemblance to the things there- 
 by signified and sealed — which is Christ, or the ob- 
 
 signee of the benefits of his purchased redemption. 
 
 Thus, the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision 
 
14 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 is the emblematical sign or figure of that spiritual 
 circumcision of the heart, which is effected by the 
 application of the word, blood, and Spirit of Christ, 
 which consists in the change of our nature from an 
 inwardly unregenerate state, and an outwardly wicked 
 life, to a state in which our corruptions are morti- 
 fied, our minds renewed in the spirit, and our hearts 
 disposed to the service of God ; and which, in Ezek. 
 xliv. 7, is therefore called " the circumcision of the 
 heart and of the flesh." Thus, the washing with 
 water in baptism is very emblematical of the wash- 
 ing away of our sin and guilt in the spiritual water 
 of regeneration ; or, in other words, of the washing 
 of the garments of our conversation in the blood of 
 Christ, and of our depending upon his alone right- 
 eousness for a covering to all the guiltiness of our 
 lives, and for our acceptance with God in the day 
 of judgment. Thus, the breaking of bread in the 
 sacrament of the Supper, is a lively representation of 
 the wounding of our Saviour's body upon the cross 
 bv the nails with which he was thereunto nailed, and 
 the spear of the. soldier with which his side was 
 pierced ; and the wine poured out into the sacra- 
 mental cup bears a very strong resemblance to the 
 blood which, upon the cross, he poured out from 
 his wounded side for the remission of our sin. 
 " Yea," to use the language of an ancient author, 
 *' it is evident that if the sacraments had no resem- 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 15 
 
 blance to the things of which they are the sacra- 
 ments, they could be no sacraments." 
 
 As seals, then, by being stamped or engraven with 
 the image, or some other mark which characterises the 
 person who seals with them, are most suitable instru- 
 ments for putting others into the right of possession of 
 the goods which belong to himself, so the sacramental 
 elements, by their resemblance to the things signi- 
 fied, are most suitable instruments for sealing up 
 and conveying to the worthy receiver of them all 
 the spiritual blessings that are mentioned in the 
 promises of God. And as seals are annexed to 
 wills, not merely to settle upon the assignee the 
 goods therein mentioned, but also to assure him 
 that he has thereby a legal, and, in every sense of 
 the term, a proper right to them, so the sacramen- 
 tal seals not merely declare the gracious will of the 
 Saviour, not merely settle upon the worthy receiver 
 of them the blessings therein promised, and not only 
 give him a covenant-right to them, but, in addition 
 to all this, they assure him, through his faith in the 
 veracity and faithfulness of God, that they shall be 
 fulfilled in him, and towards him, for his eternal 
 salvation. Is not all this, I would ask, agreeable 
 to Gen. xvii. 11, where God says: ''My covenant 
 shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant ;" 
 to Rom. iv. 11, where we are told: " That Abra- 
 ham received the sign of circumcision for a seal of 
 
16 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 the righteousness of faith;" to Acts xxii. 16, where 
 it is said : " Be baptized, and wash away your sins ;" 
 and to 1 Cor. xi. 23, and following verses, to which 
 I must refer the reader ? 
 
 Now, since the union of the sacramental sigfus 
 and things thereby signified, consists, as hence ap- 
 pears, in the obsignation, or sealing up of the things 
 thereby signified, it is evident that the worthy re- 
 ceiver, as soon as he has received the sacramental 
 signs and seals, can say that he has really and truly, 
 though spiritually and sacramen tally, received the 
 things thereby signified and sealed, and that they 
 are his. None, we presume, will deny that God, 
 in a certain sense, is really and truly in his word ; 
 the sacraments, as we have been endeavouring to 
 show, are his visible, tangible, and tasteable word, 
 or word addressed to the sense, sight, touch, and 
 taste ; and, therefore, we conclude that God is as 
 really and truly (and in a manner most analogous 
 too) in his sacraments, as in his written word. 
 
 Now, if the worthy receiver of the sacramental 
 signs and seals, thereby receives Christ, and the 
 benefits of his purchased redemption, exactly in the 
 same way, (viz., by faith,) and by the same means 
 that he receives them from the written word of 
 God, it consequently follows that he neither re- 
 ceives them by means of the work done by him — 
 that is, by means of the merits of him who receives 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 17 
 
 them — as Popery affirms, and which it calls opera 
 operantis^ — nor because the things signified are in- 
 cluded in the signs, as something in a chest, nor 
 because the sign is transubstantiated into the thing 
 signified, but, on the contrary, by virtue of the 
 secret opemtion of the Holy Spirit working in our 
 hearts, and of that faith of the receiver coming be- 
 tween, which assures him that all the promises of 
 God, or rather, that all the blessings contained in 
 these promises, which are the things signified by the 
 sacramental signs, are yea and amen in his behalf. 
 The Holy Spirit, according to Eph. ii. 8, where it 
 is said : "By grace are ye saved through faith, and 
 that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God," evi- 
 dently worketh that faith in our hearts by which, in 
 virtue of his secret though powerful operation, he 
 unites us to Christ in the sacraments ; and in thus 
 receiving Christ, we certainly receive all things that 
 are in him, viz., all the great and glorious blessings 
 of his purchased redemption . Surely we are taught 
 this doctrine in Titus iii. 5, 6, where it is said ; 
 " Not by works of rio-hteousness which we have 
 done, ' (not by the opera operantis of Popery,) " but 
 according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing 
 of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost.'* 
 
 But what, perhaps, most strongly and clearly 
 proves that this is the proper union of the sacramental 
 
 B 
 
18 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 signs, and things thereby signified, and hence, that 
 the above is the only way in which the worthy re- 
 ceiver receives the things signified, is that fourfold 
 mode of figurative language which is made use of by 
 the inspired writers, v/ith a peculiar reference to sa- 
 craments of both the Old and New Testament. 
 One of them gives the name of the thing signified 
 to the sign, as is evident from 1 Cor. x. 4, where we 
 read thus : " And they did all drink the same spi- 
 ritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual rock that 
 followed them, and that rock was Christ ;" and also 
 from Matt. xxvi. 26, where we thus read : " And 
 as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed 
 it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and 
 said : Take, eat, this is my body." Here we see 
 that the figure of speech is the same in both quota- 
 tions, and as it evidently could not be used in the 
 former, except such a union be granted, we infer 
 that the same kind of union exists between the con- 
 secrated bread and the body of the Lord in the sacra- 
 ment of the Supper. Another of these modes of 
 speech is, that the name of the sign is often given 
 to the thing signified, as appears from 1 Cor. v. 7, 
 where we thus read : " Purge out, therefore, the 
 old leaven ; for Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for 
 us." Now, as Christ is here called a passover, we 
 infer, that the washing away of sins mentioned in 
 Acts xxii. 16, is not a Uteral washing away of sin, 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 19 
 
 but a spiritual one ; and hence, that the water in 
 baptism is the sign and seal of the washing away uf 
 sin by the spiritual water of regeneration ; or, in 
 other words, of the sanctification of the soul by the 
 power of the Holy Ghost ; and hence, that the figure 
 of speech is the same in both verses. A third mode 
 of figurative language, is that which attributes the 
 property of the thing signified to the sign of it, as 
 appears from Titus i. 5, where it is affirmed, that 
 the water used in baptism regenerates the soul, wliich 
 I have proved it can do only as a seal of the pro- 
 mised influences of the Holy Ghost, which sanctify 
 the soul. The fourth of these modes of fiourative 
 language is, that the property of the sign is attributed 
 to the thing signified, as appears from I Cor. xi. 24, 
 where breaking, which is figurative when applied to 
 Christ's body, but which is proper when applied to 
 bread, is affirmed of the body of Christ, thus : " He 
 took bread and break it, and said, Take, eat, this is 
 my body, which is broken for you." 
 
 6^/i, Of the use of the Sacraments. — The uses of 
 the sacraments are clearly pointed out in the word 
 of God. One of these is to signify and seal to the 
 worthy receiver thereof the invisible grace of God ; 
 or, in other words, the blessings contained in the 
 promises of God, as is evident from Rom. iv. 11, 
 where it is affirmed, that Abraham received the sign 
 
20 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 of circumcision for a seal of the righteousness of 
 faith. Another use of them is, that they may 
 serve as the means by which, in a special manner, we 
 may hold communion with Christ, as is evident from 
 1 Cor. X. 16, where the apostle Paul says : " The 
 CUT} of Messing which we bless, is it not the com- 
 munion of the blood of Christ ? and the bread which 
 we break, is it not the communion of the body of 
 Christ ?" A third use of the sacraments is, to keep 
 the people of God in remembrance of his mercies, 
 as we mav learn from Ex. xii. 24, where it is said 
 concerning the passover : " This day shall be unto 
 you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to 
 the Lord throughout all your generations." And 
 also, from 1 Cor. xi. 24, 26, where the apostle Paul, 
 citino- the words which Christ used at the institution 
 of the Supper, says : " Do this in remembrance of 
 me ; as often as ye eat of this bread, and drink of 
 this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death until he 
 come." A fourth use of the sacraments is, that we 
 thereby testify our duty to God, as is evident from 
 1 Cor. X. 21, where we read thus : " Ye cannot 
 drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils ; ye 
 cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table 
 of devils." A fifth use of the sacraments is, to assist 
 us to remember, consider, and confess our sins unto 
 God, as we may learn from Acts xxii. 16, where it 
 is said : " Be ye baptized and wash away your sins, 
 
A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 21 
 
 calling upon the name of the Lord." A sixth use 
 of the sacraments is, that we thereby demonstrate to 
 each other our mutual love and spiritual communion, 
 as is evident from 1 Cor. x. 17, where, referring to 
 the sacrament of the Supper, the apostle Paul says : 
 " We are one bread and one body, for we are all 
 partakers of that one body ;" from the same Epistle, 
 xii. 13, where, referring to the sacrament of bap- 
 tism, he says : " For by one spirit we are all bap- 
 tized into one body ;" and also, from his Epistle to 
 the Ephesians, iv. 3, 4, 5, where he says : " Endea- 
 vour to keep the unity of the faith in the bonds of 
 peace. There is one body and one spirit, even as 
 we are called in one hope of your calling. One 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism." And a seventh use 
 of the sacraments is, to serve as marks of our Christ- 
 ian profession, whereby we are distinguished from 
 Jews, Turks, Heathens, Papists, and all whom we 
 are warranted by scripture to believe unsound in the 
 faith of the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, as may be easily inferred from what has been 
 now stated. 
 
 1th, Conclusion. — Thus have I endeavoured to 
 prove, from the word of God, that the doctrine which 
 we Protestants hold concerning those religious or- 
 dinances which are known in the Church by the term 
 " sacraments," — and if I have been successful, if I 
 have not mistaken the proper meaning of the pas- 
 
22 A SCRIPTURAL SACRAMENT. 
 
 sages which I have quoted as proofs from the word 
 of God, — you must now perceive that the following 
 are the proper characteristics of a scriptural sacra- 
 ment, viz : — that they must all be instituted by God ; 
 that they must all have one or more external and 
 visible signs ; that they must all have a promise of 
 saving grace in Christ ; that they must all have a 
 certain analogy, convenience, or agreement between 
 them and the things thereby signified ; and that, be- 
 cause the thinofs sio-nified are common to all believ- 
 ers, they also must be common to all believers ; and 
 therefore you must now be assured that the follow- 
 ing is the proper definition of a scriptural sacrament, 
 viz., " A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by 
 Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the 
 benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, 
 and applied to believers ;" which was the thing to be 
 proved. 
 
 Now, since the word of God warrants us to be- 
 lieve and affirm that the above is the proper defini- 
 tion of a scriptural sacrament, it is evident that the 
 following inferences are justly inferred . — 
 
 1st, That the Old and New Testament sacra- 
 ments are, in virtue, the same. 
 
 2d, That the Old Testament sacraments had their 
 fulfilment, not in those of the New Testament, but 
 in the death of (Christ. 
 
 Sd, That there are only two New Testament sa- 
 craments. 
 
INFERENCES. 23 
 
 4jfA, That there is not one sacrament in the 
 Church of Rome that will bear the test of God's 
 holy word. 
 
 INFERENCES. 
 
 First Inference. — The Old and New Testament 
 sacraments are virtually the same. Papists, how- 
 ever, hold a contrary doctrine. They maintain that 
 those of the Old Testament were mere shadows, 
 dark figures, and without virtue ; and that those of 
 the New Testament only are true and efficacious. 
 To those of the Old, they assign only temporal pro- 
 mises ; but to those of the New, they assign spiritual 
 promises. The Old, say they, afforded servitude 
 only, whereas the New afford perfect liberty. They 
 do not assign grace to the operation of the Holy Ghost, 
 signified and sealed in the sacraments of the Mosaic 
 dispensation, but to the alone merits of the person 
 who received them, which they call opera operantis^ 
 or, in English, the loork of the worker ; whereas they 
 say, that under the Gospel dispensation the sacra- 
 ments are the cause, ex opera operato^ or, in English, 
 from the icork torought, by which they signify, that 
 the sacraments, when rightly administered, procure, 
 as efficient causes, the grace of regeneration, right- 
 eousness, and all manner of holiness in us, by means 
 of their own internal, proper, inherent, and infused 
 power, without the faith, or any other good disposi- 
 
24 INFERENCES. 
 
 tion of him who receives them. But as this doc- 
 trine will not agree with the definition which I have 
 proved to be that of a true sacrament, we con- 
 clude that it is entirely false and absurd. The sa- 
 craments of the Old and New Testaments, w^e allow, 
 are, in several respects, not exactly alike. They 
 differ in respect of their signs and ceremonies, — of 
 the obscurity of the Old and clearness of the New, 
 — of Christ considered as to come, and as having 
 already come, — of the narrowness of the limits of 
 the Old, which excluded all but Jews, and the ex- 
 tensiveness of the limits of the New, which include 
 believers of whatsoever people or nation ; and also, 
 in respect of their duration. But what are these 
 respects ? They are only such as arise from the 
 different states of the same gospel ; I say of the same 
 gospel, because it is evident that the gospel of 
 Jesus Christ, though in figure, was the religion of 
 the Jews. As their religion did not differ essentially 
 from that of Christianity, so neither did their sacra- 
 ments differ essentially from those of the gospel. 
 Yea, we say, that in all essential points, they are 
 virtually the same ; and what we here affirm, as an 
 obvious inference from what has been already stated, 
 we shall further prove to be true from the word of 
 God. 
 
 As we have already proved, they have all the 
 same divine Author, who, according to Heb. xiii. 8, 
 
INFERENCES. 25 
 
 " is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." 
 They have all the promise of the remission of sin, 
 and of the gifts of the Holy Ghost annexed to them, 
 as is evident from Acts ii. 38 and 39, where the 
 apostle Peter says to the Jews : " Repent and be 
 baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
 Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost ; for the promise is made 
 unto you, and to your children, and to all that are 
 afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
 call ;" and also, from Gal. iii. 29, where it is said : 
 " And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
 and heirs according to the promise." They have all 
 the promise of eternal life annexed to them, as is 
 evident, both from Gen. xvii. 7, where it is said : 
 " I will establish my law between me and thee, and 
 thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever- 
 lasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy 
 seed after thee;" and Eph. ii. 12, where the apostle 
 Paul, speaking of the state of the Gentiles during 
 the Mosaic dispensation, says : " At that time ye 
 were without Christ, being aliens from the common- 
 wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of 
 promise, having no hope, and without God in the 
 world." They have all the promise of imputed 
 righteousness annexed to them, as is manifest from 
 Rom. iv. 11, where w"e read : " That Abraham re- 
 ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the right- 
 
26 INFERENCES. 
 
 eousness of the faith which he had, being yet uncir- 
 cumcised, that he might be the father of them that 
 beheve, though they be not circumcised, that right- 
 eousness might be imputed to them also." And 
 they are all the means of that grace which inspires 
 the heart with love towards God, as is evident from 
 Deut. XXX. 6, where it is thus stated : " And the 
 Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the 
 heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, with 
 all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou may- 
 est live." 
 
 But, Secondly, I observe that the truth of this 
 inference is still more evident from the mutual inter- 
 chano^e of the names of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment sacraments in the word of God. 
 
 From 1 Cor. x. 2, 3, where we read thus of the 
 Israelites : " They were all baptized unto Moses in 
 the cloud and in the sea ; and did all eat the same 
 spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual 
 drink, for they drank of that spiritual rock that fol- 
 lowed them, and that rock was Christ," it is manifest- 
 ly evident that the apostle Paul here affirms, that 
 the Israelites, under the shadows or signs, of the 
 cloud, the sea, the manna, the water, and the rock, 
 enjoyed all that is signified and sealed in the New 
 Testament sacraments. And from Col. ii. II, where 
 the apostle says : " In whom also ye are circumcised 
 with the circumcision not made with hands ;" from 
 
INFERENCES. 27 
 
 1 Cor. V. 7, where he says : " Christ, our passover, 
 is sacrificed for us ;" and from Phil. iii. 3, where he 
 also says : " For we, z. e. Christians, are of the cir- 
 cumcision which worship God in spirit, rejoice in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and have no confidence in the 
 flesh ;" it is manifestly evident that that inspired 
 author attributes the Old Testament sacraments of 
 circumcision and the passover to Christians, as he 
 also attributes, (by the rule of conversion,) as we 
 have already seen, those of the New Testament to the 
 Jews, neither of which he could have done, unless 
 they were all signs and seals of the eternal Covenant 
 of Grace, and looked to Jesus Christ crucified for 
 sin, and imputed righteousness through faith in Him : 
 Yea, were they not in all essential respects virtually 
 the same, viz., the same in signification and obsig- 
 nation. 
 
 But as Romanists may object to this doctrine, 
 saying that this mutual interchange of sacramen- 
 tal names arises merely out of the mutual resem- 
 blance of the signs and concomitant ceremonies, I 
 must farther observe, that these differ too much to 
 admit of such an interchange, and that it is solely on 
 account of the thing signified, that it can be admit- 
 ted. In Col. ii. 11, the apostle Paul, referring to 
 the thing signified by the sacrament of circumci- 
 sion, which is the spiritual circumcision of the heart, 
 says, in refutation of this Popish objection : " In 
 
28 INFERENCES. 
 
 whom also ve are circumcised with the circumcision 
 made without hands, in putting off the body of the 
 sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of the spirit ;" 
 and in Rom. ii. 28, 29, he, as it were with the same 
 particular end in view, says : " For he is not a Jew 
 that is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision 
 which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which 
 is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, 
 in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is 
 not of men, but of God." 
 
 But why do they object? Evidently that they 
 may thereby invalidate those scriptures, and even 
 wrest them out of the hands of Protestants, which, 
 out of the Old Testament, can be brought against 
 these seven unscriptural rites and ceremonies of 
 Popery, which they falsely denominate sacraments. 
 But if the sacraments of the Old and New Testa- 
 ments are of the same force, as I have now proved 
 them to be, it consequently follows, that all those 
 portions of the word of God which teach concern- 
 ing them, must be of the same force also, and, there- 
 fore, those of the Old Testament must be allowed 
 to be both relevant and most pertinent to the subject 
 of this controversy. 
 
 Second Inference. — It follows, from the definition 
 which we gave of a scriptural sacrament, and which 
 we also proved in Chapter I. to be true, that 
 
INFERENCES. 29 
 
 the Old Testament sacraments had their fulfilment, 
 not in those of the New Testament, as Romanists 
 would have us to believe, but in the death of Christ. 
 The truth of this inference we shall now further 
 prove. We affirm, then, that circumcision, the 
 passover, Noah's ark in the deluge, the passing of 
 the Israelites through the Red Sea, their being 
 under the cloud, the manna with which they were 
 fed in the wilderness, the water which flowed to 
 them, and followed them from the rock which Moses 
 smote with his rod, their purifications, and their 
 offerings, had all that reference to Christ which 
 shadows have of their substances, and which signs 
 have to the things thereby signified. Now, if all 
 these were shadows of Christ, he, and not the New 
 Testament sacraments, which are also mere repre- 
 sentations, is their substance ; and consequently, they 
 were fulfilled in him. The same conclusion evi- 
 dently may be drawn from 1 Cor. vii. 19, where we 
 are told : " That circumcision is nothing, and that un- 
 circumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the com- 
 mandments of God," because none can keep these 
 properly, excepting through faith in the Blood of 
 Atonement; from Gal. iv. 9, where we are told, 
 that the Old Testament sacraments " were weak 
 and beggarly elements," evidently because they were 
 only types of Christ, the antitype; from Gal. vi. 15, 
 where it is affirmed : " That in Christ Jesus neither 
 
30 INFERENCES. 
 
 circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth anything, 
 but a new creature ;" evidently because it is through 
 faith in him crucified for sin, that sinners become 
 new creatures. And from Hebrews x. 1, and Col. 
 ii. 1 7, where they are called " shadows," evidently 
 from the scope of the apostle's reasoning, both be- 
 cause they were abrogated in Christ, whose blood 
 {he knew) had made an atonement for sin, and who 
 had sent the Holy Ghost to regenerate the soul, to 
 circumcise the heart, and to wash away our sins, thus 
 making us new or spiritual creatures, and because 
 the false prophets, many of whom were judaizing 
 teachers, ascribed grace to them in a way not un- 
 similar to that in which Roman Catholics ascribe 
 crrace to those of the New Testament. 
 
 Third Inference, — Though it is evident from Chap- 
 ter I., that there are only two New Testament sacra- 
 ments, we shall, in this chapter, make the truth of 
 this inference still more manifest by the following- 
 scriptural arguments : — 
 
 \st^ Our Saviour, we are assured, instituted no 
 more than two New Testament sacraments, viz., 
 the sacrament of baptism, mentioned in Matt, 
 xxviii. 1, and the Lord's Supper, mentioned in Matt, 
 xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And it is evident, from Gal. iii. 
 15, where the apostle Paul, arguing from the less 
 to the greater, says : " Though it be but a man's 
 
INFERENCES. 31 
 
 covenant, yet, if it be confirmed, no man disannuU- 
 eth or addeth thereunto," that the apostles neither 
 did, nor would attempt to institute any other ; and 
 hence we conclude, that there are only two New 
 Testament sacraments. 2d, The apostle Paul, 
 proving to the Corinthians, in his 1st Epistle, x. 1, 
 &c., that Christians have no pre-eminence above the 
 Jews, in respect of the things signified and sealed by 
 the sacramental signs and seals, mentions these two 
 sacraments only, viz., baptism, and the eating of 
 spiritual meat, and the drinking of spiritual drink, 
 thereby referring to the Lord's Supper. Now, we 
 say it is evident, that if the Corinthians had either 
 heard of, or enjoyed more than these two, they would 
 not have been convinced of the truth of the apostle's 
 doctrine, but most probably would have objected, 
 saying : " We know that there are other New Testa- 
 ments whereby we shall be preserved from the judg- 
 ments of God, and therefore, Paul, we will not be- 
 lieve your doctrine." But we hear of no such 
 conviction or objection, and, therefore, we conclude 
 that the Corinthians acknowledged only two New 
 Testament sacraments, which, one would think, 
 should be the acknowledgment of all Christian 
 churches in after times. 3d, The same conclusion 
 evidently may be inferred from I Cor. xii. 13, where 
 the same apostle, referring to these two sacraments 
 only, and thence shewing the communion of believers 
 
32 INFERENCEwS. 
 
 with Christ, the benefits of redemption, the means 
 by which, as members, they are united with Christ, 
 the Head, and their own mutual fellowship in Christ, 
 says : " By one spirit we are all baptized into one 
 body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, or bond or 
 free, and have all been made to drink into one 
 spirit." ^th, It appears from John xix. 34, where 
 it is thus stated : " One of the soldiers pierced his 
 side with a spear, and forthwith came thereout blood 
 and water," that only these two sacraments belong 
 to Christ ; for, in the water we have the sacrament 
 of baptism, and, from the blood we have the sacra- 
 ment of the communion of his blood, which is a part 
 of the sacrament of the Supper, and in his body, 
 which was pierced, we have the other ; and, there- 
 fore, we again conclude, that there are only two New 
 Testament sacraments. bth, The same conclu- 
 sion may be inferred from the plenitude, or fulness, 
 or sufficiency of these two. In baptism, we have, in 
 a sacramental manner, a spiritual birth, called " re- 
 generation ;" a spiritual garment to hide our spirit- 
 ual nakedness, called both the "robe of Christ's right- 
 eousness," and the "wedding garment;" and spiritual 
 water to cleanse our hearts, to purify our souls, and 
 to wash away our sins, called " living water;" and in 
 the Lord's Supper, we have spiritual meat to strength- 
 en our souls, spiritual drink to refresh and invigorate 
 them, when faint and filled with longing desire, and 
 
INFERENCES. 33 
 
 spiritual medicine to renew their spiritual health, 
 when they are cast down, languid, and sickly. Now, 
 what more, I would ask, is there necessary to make 
 a perfect and strong man in Christ? what more 
 is there necessary for enjoyment of a spiritual life ? 
 or what more is there necessary for preserving the 
 soul even to everlasting^ salvation ? Nothino-. The 
 blood and the water which flowed from the side of 
 the crucified Saviour, and which, therefore, are by 
 some called sacramenta geminata^ together with his 
 body, contain all the blessings and benefits of Christ's 
 redemption ; and as all these are signified and sealed 
 by the elements of the sacraments of baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper, we say, away with the anti- 
 christian complaints of Popery concerning the im- 
 perfections of the New Testament scriptures ! Yea, 
 away with them even to mystical Babylon, and let 
 them be told to the mother of abominations ! We as- 
 suredly will listen to none of them. We know too 
 well the spirit from which they arise. Yea, we 
 know that they arise from a sorrowful conviction that 
 they do not contain a greater number of sacraments 
 than two, to the praise and glory of antichrist. 
 
 Fourth Inference. — Our 4th inference from Chap- 
 ter I. was, that there is not a scriptural sacrament in 
 the Church of Rome; which we shall now endeavour 
 to make still more evident. " A scriptural sacra- 
 
 c 
 
34 INFERENCES. 
 
 ment is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, where- 
 in by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the 
 new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to 
 believers. 
 
 Hugo de Victoire, and Peter Lombard, about the 
 year 1144, first taught that there are seven sacra- 
 ments in the Church of Rome. The Council of 
 Florence, A. D. 1438, ratified this number. The 
 Council of Trent, A. D. 1545, to 1563, pronounced 
 an anathema on all who should say that there were 
 either a greater number, or fewer than the follow- 
 ing seven, viz.. Baptism, Confirmation, Auricular 
 Confession, Holy Orders, Marriage, Extreme Unc- 
 tion, and the Mass. All these seven sacraments, 
 (sess. 7, can. 8,) confer grace ex opere operato^ 
 viz., from the work wrought. Three of these, viz., 
 Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Order, cannot 
 (sess. 7, can. 9,) be repeated, because they leave an 
 indelible character on the person who receives them. 
 And the efficacy of each of the seven, (sess. 7, can. 
 11,) depends on the proper qualification and inten- 
 tion of the person who administers them. 
 
 Therefore, since all this is so contrary to the 
 above definition, it must be granted that there is not 
 a scriptural sacrament in the Church of Rome. 
 Q. E. D. 
 
 But to shew the truth of this inference still more 
 clearly, I shall briefly state and refute every one of 
 them in the order I have now named them. 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 35 
 
 OF POPISH BAPTISM. 
 
 When I said that the Church of Rome had not 
 one scriptural sacrament in it, I must not be under- 
 stood to have affirmed that they have no form of 
 baptism in it, but that this ordinance, as administered 
 and viewed by Popery, is so grossly abused, that 
 it will not stand the test of the word of God, as I 
 shall now show, first by stating what Popish baptism 
 is, and then by proving it to be an unscriptural 
 ceremony, from the word of God. 
 
 1^^, The priest, previous to the administration of 
 this ceremony, conjures the devil to go out of the 
 child, by reading something out of a book for that 
 purpose. He makes a great number of little crosses 
 over the child's forehead, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, 
 breast, and shoulders. He slabbers the child's nose 
 all over with spittle. He anoints it twice with oil, 
 and gives it a white garment and, a burning candle, 
 which its god-parents receive in its name. 2d, 
 Holding that baptism is absolutely necessary to sal- 
 vation, they are at a loss to know whether it be 
 lawful, where there is no water, to baptize with ale, 
 wine, milk, or any other harmless liqour. They 
 even go so far as to say, that in case of necessity, 
 any person whatever who can sprinkle the water, 
 and pronounce the form with meaning, and an in- 
 tention to do what the Church does, may lawfully 
 
36 POPISH BAPTISM. 
 
 baptize, endeavouring to prove this doctrine from 
 Ex. iv. 25^ where we are told, that " Zipporah took 
 a sharp stone and cut the foreskm of her son." 3^/, 
 Maintaining that baptism is absolutely necessary to 
 salvation, they deny to all unbaptized persons Chris- 
 tian burial, and send the souls of such infants a 
 lurking under round leaved blades of plants, to a 
 place called "limbo," somewhere in the vicinity of 
 hell, and, when hardly put to it, even to hell itself. 
 They say it is wrong to pray for them, and that 
 in the last judgment they will be found on the left 
 hand of Jesus Christ. This doctrine which seems 
 horrible, they endeavour to prove from John iii. 5, 
 where it is said, " Except a man be born of the water 
 and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of 
 God." Ath^ Though Popery does not maintain 
 that this sacrament has in its own nature an inherent 
 power, (as bread has to feed, or as water to refresh 
 and cleanse,) or power by art, (as an iron sharpened 
 by art is thereby fitted to cut,) to produce grace ; 
 yet it affirms, that divine grace is thereby produced 
 in the soul, in a way similar to that which a hot iron 
 produces warmth in water into which it has been 
 put. It therefore believes, that there is a power in 
 baptism which it calls the power of washing away 
 sin, believing that this is, as by infusion, its natural 
 effect, ex opere operato, without respect to the re- 
 pentance or faith of the person to whom it is ad- 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 37 
 
 ministered, bth. Popery teaches, from Acts xxii. 
 16, where it is said, " Be baptized and wash away 
 thy sins," that baptism takes away original sin, 6^A, 
 Popery countenances the baptism of bells. The 
 priests bless them, apply to them, by way of exorcism, 
 ointment, salt, water and spittle, and clothe them 
 with a white garment. Every bell is required to 
 have its godfather and godmother. So sacred is 
 the baptism of bells considered by them, that none 
 bat a bishop, or his suffragan, (as if they were more 
 holy men than common priests,) is allowed to ad- 
 minister this ordinance to the extellis'ent bell. The 
 bishop, or suffragan, asks the bell several very ap- 
 propriate questions, and addresses it in such a 
 manner, that its sponsors can say. Amen. And 
 then the bishop, or his suffragan, proceeds to ad- 
 minister this sacrament to the bell, saying, tentina- 
 bulum, (or some other word by which bells are 
 usually called,) I baptize thee in the name of the 
 *******!!! All this is done, it would seem, 
 that the bell tongue may not "set on fire the bell's 
 course of nature," have the holy sound of a Chris- 
 tian bell, and hence be qualified to drive away evil 
 spirits, still thunder, extinguish lightening, calm 
 tempests, and help the souls of the departed out of 
 purgatory, for which they are always considered 
 better qualified, if the deceased be a rich person, 
 and has ordered the clerk to be handsomely re- 
 
38 REFUTATION OF 
 
 warded. The lord of St. Aldegonda, in his Bee- 
 hive, goes much farther concerning the baptisms of 
 this pecuUar people, saying, that "when the Spaniards, 
 even those first-born and dear children of the scarlet 
 wh — e, came first to Groningen in Friesland, they 
 christened their regimental colours by reading over 
 them, using exorcisms upon them, sprinkling them 
 with water, and giving them names." 
 
 REFUTATION OF POPISH BAPTISM. 
 
 Refutation of Article \st, With respect to the 
 conjuration of the devil out of infants previous to bap- 
 tism, I observe, that the onusYies with Popery to prove 
 that children previous to baptism are really possessed 
 of evil spirits, before they either trouble themselves to 
 conjure them to come out, or us to prove that they 
 are not more possessed previous to baptism than after 
 it. As it is not very probable that Popery will en- 
 deavour much to get rid of this burden, though it is 
 a much heavier one than either Christ, or any of his 
 apostle, ever imposed, I shall forthwith proceed to 
 disprove that which they affirm concerning this, for 
 mothers, not very pleasant doctrine. 
 
 Now, we say it is evident, from Gen. xvii. 7, 
 where God says to Abraham : "I will establish my 
 covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
 thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenants 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 39 
 
 to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee," 
 that children previous to baptism, are not possessed 
 of the devil. I ask whether the follov^^ing scriptures 
 do not strongly confirm the conclusion I have drawn 
 from this : — Does not the apostle Peter in Acts ii. 
 39, strongly confirm it ? where he says : " For the 
 promise is to you and to your children, and to all 
 that are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall 
 call." Does not the apostle Paul strongly confirm 
 it in Rom. xi. 16 ? where he savs : " For if the first 
 fruits be holy, the lump is also holy, and if the tree 
 be holy, so are the branches." Does not the pro- 
 phet Ezekiel strongly confirm it in Chap, xvi. 20, 
 21? where he says to the Jews : " Moreover thou 
 hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom thou 
 hast born unto me, and thou hast sacrificed unto 
 them, (viz., to Moloch and other idols,) to be de- 
 voured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, 
 that thou hast slain my children, and delivered them 
 to cause them to pass through the fire for them ?" 
 Do not those words of our Saviour, as stated in 
 Mark x. 14, where he says : Suffer little children 
 to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of 
 lieaven," not still more strongly confirm the same 
 conclusion. Yea, certainly say both reason and 
 common sense, for the kingdom of heaven cannot 
 be supposed to be made up of children possessed of 
 the devil; but those, of whom our Saviour said, "of 
 
40 REFUTATION OF 
 
 such is the kingdom of Heaven," were not baptized 
 into the faith of the gospel ; and therefore it follows, 
 that the children of the promise, who are those of 
 believing parents, (and such only have a right to be 
 baptized,) are not possessed of the devil prior to 
 baptism ; and hence we conclude, that the Popish 
 practice of using exorcisms upon them for the pur- 
 pose of conjuring the devil to come out of them, is 
 antichristian in the extreme. 
 
 But supposing, for the sake of argument, that pre- 
 vious to baptism they were really possessed of the 
 devil ; is it probable, we ask, that he could be driven 
 out of them by the virtue of any such heathenish 
 incantations and spells ? No, it is Almighty power 
 only that can dislodge evil spirits, or, in any other 
 matter render them obedient ; and as there is no 
 promise given of its exertion by any such means as 
 Popish exorcism, in the whole word of God, it is 
 evidently without the authority of the word of God, 
 and hence very sinful to expect it. It is usurping 
 the name of God, rashly to invoke his aid where it 
 cannot be done according to his word of promise ; 
 and, therefore, we are authorised by the third com- 
 mandment of the Decalogue, to conclude, that the 
 Lord will not hold them guiltless who do so, nor 
 suffer them, unless they repent, to pass with im- 
 punity. 
 
 Protestants may safely defy Roman Catholics to 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 41 
 
 prove from the word of God, that there was any 
 other thing except water used either in the baptismal 
 washings of the Jews, of John the Baptist, of the 
 Apostles, or even of apostolic men ; yea, we do 
 defy them to prove that they learned their exorcisms, 
 crossings, and other superstitious ceremonies ob- 
 served in their baptisms, from either the Bible or 
 the primitive history of the Church, and tell them, 
 that we are left at liberty to conjecture from whom 
 they learned them, and even to conclude against 
 them that they learned them from a lady who came 
 finely dressed from mystical Babylon to sacred Rome, 
 to teach the docile and pious children of that com- 
 munity how to dye scarlet, to drink mannerly out of 
 cups, (one of which, we are told in the word of 
 God, she brought along with her,) and also how, 
 by means of oil, spittle, and charms, and other 
 abominations, to usurp the prerogative of the Holy 
 Spirit, who, according to Matt. iii. 11, "baptizes 
 with fire." 
 
 Refutation of Article 2d. — With respect to the 
 first part of this article, viz., to the lawfulness of 
 using wine, bear, milk, or any other harmless liquid, 
 in baptism, in case of necessity, I make bold to 
 affirm that in the word of God, there is not a single 
 text, which authorizes us to believe that the baptism 
 of children who may have been baptized with such 
 
42 REFUTATION OF 
 
 elements, are valid ; and that there are many from 
 which it may be inferred that they are invahd. Bap- 
 tism with water is the only one that is of divine 
 authority, and which has the word of promise annex- 
 ed to it. If any, therefore, baptizes with any other 
 liquid than water, it is evident that he acts without 
 either the divine command or word of promise ; but 
 where there is neither of these, there can be no pro- 
 per authority to believe, that the person baptized 
 will be blessed with any of those spiritual blessings 
 of which the element of water is the divinely author- 
 ized sign and seal. As no person can have faith 
 in the will of another which was conveyed to him 
 under any other seal than that of him whose will it 
 was ; so no man can have a proper faith in, or de- 
 pendence upon, the promises of God, except they 
 are conveyed to him under God's own seal, which, 
 in the case before us, is water only. It follows, 
 therefore, that the person who trusts that the pro- 
 mises of God will (I do not say can) be conveyed to 
 any who are baptized with such insignificant signs, and 
 false seals as wine, bear, milk, &c., trusts on a princi- 
 ple which is very different from the faith of the gospel ; 
 and, therefore, it must be evident to every one who 
 knows what the faith of the gospel is, that such 
 baptisms cannot be agreeable to the word of God. 
 
 In refuting the other particular of this article, viz., 
 the lawfulness of the administration of this ordinance 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 43 
 
 by laics, women, or any who can pronounce the 
 words of the ordinance properly, and intends to do 
 thereby all that the church does, I observe, ^rsf, that 
 it is a gross profanation of the ordinance of baptism, 
 a worse than heathenish practice, and a proof that 
 those who permit it have not a proper sense of the 
 sacredness of religion. We learn from the scholi- 
 asts upon these words of Horace, " vide profanum 
 vulgus," how careful the priests of Ceres were to 
 preserve her mysterious rites ; but the Church of 
 Rome permits and even countenances her profanum 
 vulffuSf that is her profane rabble, to profane her most 
 mysterious rite called baptism ; and, therefore, it 
 follows, that the Popish priesthood has not such a 
 proper sense of the sacredness of religion, as the 
 priest who celebrated the Eleusian mysteries of the 
 goddess Ceres. Romanists in support of this prac- 
 tice, advance the example of Zipporah who cir- 
 cumcised her son. But it requires very little reason 
 to be assured that it is not proper to judge of the 
 lawfulness of any thing by examples, where the laws 
 and precepts of God and they would be at variance 
 with each other ; and certainly there is no accord- 
 ance between the action of Zipporah referred to, 
 and the command that our Saviour gave to the 
 apostles, saying as in Math, xxviii. 19, 20 : " Go ye 
 and teach all nations, baptizing them, in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 
44 REFUTATION OF 
 
 Ghost." And as it can be proved that none in the 
 days of the apostles considered themselves commis- 
 sioned to administer this holy ordinance except the 
 apostles themselves, to whom the command was 
 given, we must conclude that the Popish Church 
 is guilty both of the profanation of the sacrament of 
 baptism, and of perverting the sense of the word of 
 God in support of it ; seeing, that it, for this pur- 
 pose endeavours to make an example and a precept 
 to agree, which it is impossible to reconcile. 
 
 But, secondly^ I observe that, though it were 
 proper in this case to judge by example, that of 
 Zipporah will not support this Popish argument ; 
 because it is impossible to infer from it, that it is 
 lawful for laics and women, &c. to administer the 
 sacrament of baptism, as I shall now briefly prove. 
 Instead of having any command or authority to 
 circumcise her son, Zipporah, so far as can be 
 learned from the circumstance, took upon herself 
 the administration of this ordinance out of incon- 
 siderateness ; but inconsiderate acts are not proper 
 examples of imitation, and therefore it is not proper 
 for Popish Catholic laics and women to administer 
 baptism, because Zipporah circumcised her son. 
 
 2^/, In the days of Zipporah, the tribe of Levi was 
 not set apart from the other tribes of Israel to the 
 service of God ; but ordination into Holy Orders is 
 one of God's ordinances, and therefore, she was not 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 45 
 
 guilty of the sin of intruding herself into an office 
 rendered sacred bv Divine command and leg"al con- 
 secration, which cannot be said of those laics and 
 women, who, in the Church of Rome, intrude them- 
 selves into the office of the holy ministry of the holy 
 ordinance of baptism, and hence it is farther evident 
 that her thoughtless act should be no precedent to 
 Christians. 
 
 3c?, In the days of Zipporah, circumcision, as ap- 
 pears from Gen. xvii. and Ex. xii., was enjoined 
 only upon the fathers of their families, respectively, 
 and as she was the child's mother, she probably sup- 
 posed that she was thereby in some degree author 
 ised to administer to her child the rite of circumci- 
 sion ; but the administration of baptism is enjoined 
 upon men only who are found to be duly qualified, 
 and regularly set apart, by the laying on of hands 
 to the public services of true religion ; and, there- 
 fore, it cannot be considered that her inconsiderate 
 action was recorded for the purpose of being an ex- 
 ample to laics and women for taking upon them the 
 performance of this sacred duty. 
 
 \th^ Zipporah circumcised her son at a time when 
 he had no appearance of death ; but Popery allows 
 laics and women to officiate only for the sake of the 
 dying, and therefore, so far as they have different 
 ends in view, Zipporah is no example to them. 
 
 5^A, Zipporah did not circumcise her son from the 
 
46 REFUTATION OF 
 
 supposition that his eternal salvation thereon at all 
 depended, but only for the purpose of redeeming 
 her husband from temporal death ; but Popery per- 
 mits laics and women to officiate, from the belief 
 that eternal salvation depends on baptism, and there- 
 fore it cannot plead that it has embraced this error 
 from the design which Zipporah had in circumcising 
 her son. 
 
 But I observe, in the third place, that the word 
 of God almost expressly forbids both women and laics 
 to baptize. St. Paul says to Timothy, first Epistle, 
 ii. 12: " 1 suffer not a woman to teach;" and to 
 the Corinthians, first Epistle, xiv. 34 : " Let your 
 women keep silence in the churches." Now, since 
 they are prohibited both from teaching and speaking 
 in the churches, it is evident that they are virtually 
 forbidden to administer this church ordinance, since 
 it cannot be administered without both speaking and 
 teaching. And that laics are virtually forbidden to 
 baptize is evident from Matt, xxviii. 19, Mark xvi. 
 15, and also from 1 Cor. iv. 1, where we may learn 
 that it is only the ministers and stewards of the mys- 
 teries of God who have any scriptural authority to 
 administer the holy ordinance of baptism ; there- 
 fore we would admonish Roman laics and wo- 
 men, to beware of meddling with the administra- 
 tion of the sacred ordinances of God, lest a still 
 greater evil than the profanation thereof be the con- 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 47 
 
 sequence of their temerity. Upwards of fifty thou- 
 sand of the men of Bethshemish were struck dead 
 merely for looking into the Ark of the Testimony 
 of God at that place ; and surely the profanation 
 of this holy ordinance cannot be reasonably sup- 
 posed to be a less sin. 
 
 Refutation of Article 3d, — It is no wonder that 
 Popery permits and countenances the antichristian 
 practices above-mentioned, when we consider that 
 it teaches that baptism is absolutely necessary to 
 salvation, which is the doctrine now to be refuted. 
 The text of scripture by which Popery confirms 
 this doctrine is, as I formerly stated, John iii. 5, 
 where our Saviour says : " Except a man be born 
 of the water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God." Now, if we can make it 
 appear that this text does not teach this Popish doc- 
 trine, we trust that it will be admitted that we have 
 proved it to be false, and, with this end in view, I 
 observe, first, that if water, per se, has power to 
 regenerate the soul, it, when applied in baptism, 
 would supersede the necessity of the regenerating 
 influences of the Holy Ghost ; but from the words of 
 the text, it is evident that it is necessary to be born 
 of the Holy Ghost as well as of the water, and, 
 therefore, we conclude that both cannot be necessary 
 in the same sense of the word. But, secondly, if 
 the power of water upon the soul be influentially the 
 
48 REFUTATION OF 
 
 same as that of the Holy Ghost, it must be a divine 
 power ; but any object to which we can truly attri- 
 bute divine power is most worthy of our most so- 
 lemn worship, and hence it follows, that the wa- 
 ter used in baptism is worthy of our most solemn 
 worship; which would be gross idolatry, even with 
 Romanists themselves in this case, though not in 
 that of the host, notwithstanding it is a very simi- 
 lar one. But if this would be idolatry, it is evi- 
 dent, that water does not possess, in baptism, the 
 power of regenerating the soul, (which the Holy 
 Ghost does,) and therefore it cannot be necessary 
 to salvation any other way than sacramentally, viz., 
 than as being the sign and seal of the thing thereby 
 signified and sealed, which is spiritual regeneration. 
 But, thirdly, I observe, that if it can be proved 
 from scripture that the Holy Ghost, like the wind 
 that bloweth where it listeth, operates upon whom, 
 where, and when he pleaseth, regenerating some w^ho 
 were never baptized with water, and leaving many 
 unregenerated who have therewith been baptized; 
 and we think that the case of the thief upon the cross, 
 who, as we may learn from Luke xxiii. entered the 
 kingdom of heaven without the baptism of water, 
 should serve as a proof of the former, and that the 
 case of Simon Magus, the sorcerer, should serve 
 as a proof of the latter ; it will thence follow that 
 baptismal water does not regenerate the soul, and 
 that we may be saved without it. But, fourth, if 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 49 
 
 baptism, which we have proved (in Chap. I.) to be 
 a sacramental sign and seal of spiritual regeneration, 
 is absolutely necessary to salvation, it will follow 
 that the sacrament of circumcision, which also we 
 have proved to be a sign and seal of spiritual cir- 
 cumcision, which is the same thing as regeneration, 
 was also necessary to salvation, prior to the time 
 of the fulfilment of the legal dispensation by our 
 Saviour upon the cross ; from which it necessarily 
 follows that all the male children of the Jews who 
 died before the eighth day, are bearing the unbap- 
 tized children of Roman Catholics company in those 
 uncomfortable places which, in their imaginations, 
 they have found out for them ; which is a conclusion 
 no less horrible than it is unscriptural. What David 
 says in 2 Sam. xii. 18 — 23, concerning his child 
 that died upon the seventh day, surely favours no 
 such Popish opinions. There it is said : " And it 
 came to pass that on the seventh day the child died, 
 and David said, I shall go to him, but he shall not 
 return to me ;" but surely David, " the man accord- 
 ing to God's own heart," did not wish to be under- 
 stood that he would go for a season to lurk among 
 the leaves of plants, after that into the Popish limbo, 
 and, after the final judgment, into hell, to mingle 
 with the enemies of God, which is the lamentable 
 fate of all unbaptized children according to this false 
 doctrine of Popery. But, lastly, I observe, that 
 
50 REFUTATION OF 
 
 though we may be saved without baptism, though 
 the privation of it neither condemns us to, nor 
 brings upon us, the supposed miseries of Popish 
 superstition, we know and acknowledge that baptism 
 is nevertheless necessary; necessary by reason of 
 the positive command of Christ ; necessary, as being 
 the instituted sign and seal of the sanctifying in- 
 fluences of the Holy Ghost ; and necessary also for 
 confirming us in the faith of the remission of sin by 
 the blood of Christ, the regeneration of the soul by 
 the Holy Ghost, and of those unseen and eternal 
 blessings through the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, 
 of which it is the substance. 
 
 Refutation of Article Ath. — I now proceed to the 
 refutation of that Popish doctrine which teaches 
 that the sacraments of the New Testament are 
 the cause of grace in the soul of the receiver, 
 ex opere operato, that is, the work wrought ; or, 
 more particularly, that the sacraments, when re- 
 ceived in right administration, do procure a new 
 quality, or grace of holiness, in the soul, by virtue 
 of their own internal, infused, and inherent power, 
 as true and efficient causes, in such a manner that 
 neither the faith nor other good disposition of the 
 receiver is required in procuring it. 
 
 Now, as this Popish doctrine has evidently arisen 
 from the mistaken notion that, under the Mosaic 
 dispensation, all the grace which, in the sacra- 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 51 
 
 ments, we ascribe to the agency of the Holy Ghost, 
 arose from the (ex opera operantis) merits of the 
 person who received them, 1 observe, that if that can- 
 not be disproved which I proved to be true in Chap. 
 I., and more fully in Inference 2d, where I shewed 
 that the sacraments of both the Old and New Tes- 
 taments are essentially the same, it thence follows 
 that neither the Popish ex opera operantis merit of 
 the Old Testament sacraments, nor its ex opere 
 operato merit of the New Testament sacraments, 
 are consistent with the word of God ; and, therefore, 
 we conclude that the New Testament sacrament of 
 baptism, and the Old Testament sacrament of circum- 
 cision, take away sin exactly in the same manner. But 
 circumcision was only the sign and seal of the cove- 
 nant which God made with Abraham ; and, therefore, 
 the water in baptism is only the sign and seal of the 
 same covenant (renewed, as it were) with Abraham's 
 spiritual children. Circumcision signified and sealed 
 the sanctifying influences of Christ's blood to be 
 shed ; and, therefore, the water in baptism represents 
 and seals to the worthy receiver the sanctifying in- 
 fluences of the same blood already shed. Now, if 
 asked how we receive these gracious influences, or 
 things signified and sealed, we answer : " Not either 
 by the Popish ex opera operantis merit, or the ex 
 opere operato merit, not by the faith which either 
 circumcision or baptism works in us, (for they work 
 none,) but by the faith which the Holy Ghost works 
 
52 REFUTATION OF 
 
 in us, by means of this sacrament, and thereby 
 unites us to Christ, which is our effectual caUing 
 from our ahenated state from God into a state in 
 which we have a covenant-right to all the blessings 
 of those who are born externally of the water, and 
 internally of the Spirit of regeneration." That this 
 is the doctrine of the gospel, though not of Popery, 
 is evident from 1 Cor. i. 9, where it is said : "God 
 is faithful in whom ye were called into the fellowship 
 of his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord ;" from 2 Thes. 
 ii. 13, where it is said: " Because God hath from 
 the beginning chosen you to salvation, through the 
 sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth ;" 
 from Rom. vi. 4, 5, 6, where it is said : " There- 
 fore we are buried with him by baptism into death, 
 that, like as Christ was raised from the dead by the 
 glory of his Father, even so we also should walk in 
 newness of life ; for if we have been planted together 
 in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the 
 likeness of his resurrection ; knowing this, that our 
 old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin 
 might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not 
 serve sin ;" from 1 John i. 7, where we are told that 
 it is the " blood of Jesus Christ his Son that cleanseth 
 from all sin ;" and from Rev. i. 5, 6, where it is said: 
 " Unto him that loved us and washed us from our 
 sins in his own blood, be glory and dominion for 
 ever and ever. Amen." 
 
 Refutation of Article bth, — I proceed now to re- 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 53 
 
 fute that Popish doctrine which teaches that baptism 
 not only removes the guilt of actual transgressions, 
 but even extinguishes every principle of original sin, 
 and which Popery confirms from Acts xxii. 16, 
 where we thus read : "Be baptized, and wash away 
 thy sins." And I observe, firsts That if we are to 
 understand that text of scripture according to the 
 letter, it certainly proves this Popish doctrine, but 
 then, it at the same time contradicts what we know 
 from experience, and the examples of others, to be 
 true ; it is also contrary to many portions of the 
 word of God. The experience of every person may 
 teach him *'that there is a law in his members that 
 warreth against the law of his mind ;" that he is 
 naturally prone, though baptized, to that which is 
 evil, and backward to that which is good ; and, con- 
 sequently, that this Popish interpretation of that 
 text is false. The apostle's account of Simon 
 Magus, who both believed and was baptized, in 
 Acts viii. 21, where Peter said to him: " Thou hast 
 neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart 
 is not right in the sight of God," also proves it to 
 be false. It is repugnant to Matt. iii. 11, where 
 it is said : "I indeed baptize you with water unto 
 repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier 
 than I, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost 
 and with fire;" to 1 Cor. vi. 11, where it is said : 
 *' But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye 
 are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and 
 
54 REFUTATION OF 
 
 by the Spirit of our God ;" and also, to Heb. ix. 14. 
 where it is said : " How much more shall the blood 
 of Christ, who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered 
 himself, without spot, unto God, purge your con- 
 science from dead works to serve the living God." 
 But the inefficiency of water in baptism is further 
 evident from Rom. vi. 7, where Paul says : " He 
 that is dead is freed from sin," for it hence appears 
 that even the blood of Christ, as applied by the 
 Holy Ghost, does not as long as we live entirely take 
 away our sins. But though neither the sacrament 
 of baptism nor the Holy Ghost either eradicates the 
 principles of our natural depravity out of our hearts, 
 or therein extinguishes their emotions, (as appears 
 from Rom. vi. 10, where St. Paul says to the be- 
 lieving and baptized Romans : " Let not sin reign 
 in your mortal body,") yet the latter so diminishes, 
 or keeps under, the power of sin in the soul, that 
 it cannot reign supreme over the will and the affec- 
 tions, out of which are the issues of life. 
 
 Now, since it thus appears that original sin is 
 never taken away, or extinguished, till death ; and 
 as it is the blood of Jesus only that can sanctify, 
 and as the Popish interpretation of Acts xxii. 16, 
 is supported neither by experience, observation, nor 
 other portions of the word of God, we conclude 
 against Papists, that the language of that text is 
 figurative, ascribing the thing signified to the sign, 
 that their interpretation is a wretched one, and that 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 55 
 
 the element of water in baptism in no respects what- 
 ever washes away sin. Nor let Papists at any time 
 run for shelter into that half Popish city, where men 
 are taught, " that the grace of regeneration so far 
 depends on the ceremony of baptism, that all who 
 are externally baptized with water are internally 
 baptized or regenerated by the power of the Holy 
 Ghost." For be assured they will find it neither so 
 strong a hold, nor place so safe, but that it may be 
 successfully stormed and taken by any whose loins 
 are girt with gospel truths, whose head is covered 
 from Popish combustion and darts by the helmet 
 of salvation, and whose arm can wield at all times 
 the two-edged sw^ord of God's eternal truth. Now, 
 as there are only four gates of this spiritual city, and 
 as each of these opens by virtue of a spirit within it, 
 as soon as it hears certain portions of the word of God 
 pronounced, we shall endeavour to open each to shew 
 all foes to gospel truth the vanity of fleeing thither. 
 Well, let me try one of these gates : " The wind blow- 
 eth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound there- 
 of, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it 
 goeth ; so is every one that is born of the Spirit." 
 Well, I have been successful, I have opened even 
 the strongest of them, and heard it, as it turned upon 
 its hinges, as if saying in appropriate reply : " The 
 Holy Ghost regenerates freely, and without re- 
 straint, w4iom, when, how, and by what means so- 
 ever he pleases; he gives (Matt. xiii. 11) to some to 
 
56 REFUTATION OF 
 
 know the mysteries of the kingdom, and from others 
 he withholds the knowledge of his grace ; and also, 
 as in the case of Lydia, Acts xvi. 14, he opens the 
 hearts of some to attend to the word of life, while 
 the carnal hearts of others, to all human appearance 
 equally as good, he allows to remain for ever shut." 
 But let me try another gate : What shall I say 
 from the book of God that will open it? Even this, 
 from 1 Pet. iii. 21: *' The like figure whereunto 
 baptism doth now save us (not the putting away the 
 filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con- 
 science towards God) by Jesus Christ." Now, per- 
 ceive it opening, and also hear it harmoniously re- 
 sponding to the words of Peter, thus : " External 
 baptism is only a washing away of the defilements 
 of the body ; and, therefore, it cannot wash away the 
 spiritual defilements of the soul." But let me proceed 
 to a third, since I have been so successful with two of 
 them. What shall I say from the book of God that 
 will open it ? Let me consider ; O yes, even that 
 which Peter said to the sorcerer in Acts viii. 21 : 
 " Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter." 
 Well, it has at least opened half-way, and seems to 
 say : " All who are externally baptized are not re- 
 generated." But what shall I say that I may set it 
 open wide ? Even this which the Spirit said to Philip 
 concerning the (eunuch, and what the eunuch said 
 in reply, in Acts viii. 29, 37 : " Go and join thy- 
 self to his chariot." And the eunuch answered and 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 57 
 
 said : "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 God." Now it widens, and says, as it opens up : 
 " Many have had the Spirit of regeneration," as 
 CorneUus also, prior to baptism ; and, therefore, it is, 
 that many who are properly baptized are not re- 
 generated; that many, who have never been baptized, 
 are born of the Spirit ; and that there are many who 
 can say from experience that they were not regener- 
 ated till long after they had been baptized. O now 
 that I could say something from the book of God, 
 that would open the fourth gate ! for then would they 
 be all opened, the city would be taken, and the 
 keepers of this half Popish fortress would be forced to 
 exclaim : " Woe, woe unto us, opposers of the truth, 
 for the sword of the Lord is amongst us !" Well, what 
 shall I say from the book of God for this purpose ? 
 Even that which our Lord, as in Luke xxiii. 43, 
 said to the thief upon the cross : " Verily to-day 
 shalt thou be with me in Paradise." Behold the 
 gate is already opened wide; and so quick it has turned 
 that it had only time to say in reply : " Men may 
 be saved without baptism;" and, therefore, it is not 
 the efficient cause of man's salvation, as many from 
 Rome, newly let loose from Popish bondage, have er- 
 roneously taught within these sacred walls since 
 the time of the Reformation. 
 
 Refutation of Article 6th, — Refutation of what ! 
 Of the Popish doctrine which teaches concerning 
 
58 REFUTATION OF 
 
 the baptism of bells, and other inanimate objects ! 
 It requires none, it is Popery without a mask. It 
 carries the number 666 on its forehead ; and, there- 
 fore, we shall only exclaim against it, saying thus: — 
 " O dreadful abuse of this divine ordinance ! O ter- 
 rible profanation of Christian baptism ! O blasphe- 
 mous profanation of the Holy Trinity ! surely thou 
 art the device of her who held in her hand the cup of 
 mingled abominations." Let neither Irish nor British 
 Papists offer to deny this antichristian practice of their 
 Popish Church, which, though perhaps practised nei- 
 ther in Britain nor Ireland, has been common in other 
 countries, forms a part of Popery. But what filth may 
 men expect to drink from a stream whose fountain has 
 become so corrupted as the Popish doctrine of bap- 
 tism ! Wlien we consider its antichristian spirit, no 
 wonder that the poor, ignorant, and deluded peasantry 
 of Ireland should be so anxious to betake themselves 
 to holy water, blessed wells, and sacred lakes, for 
 spiritual purification. No wonder that St. Catherine's 
 well at Killybegs is so much frequented, and so thick 
 set round with ridiculous offerings ; and no wonder 
 that the far famed Loch Derig should be held in such 
 great repute. The only wonder is, that the poor 
 priest-ridden creatures do not drown themselves 
 therein by way of offering, as many of the Hindoos 
 do in the sacred stream of the Ganges. Is this 
 Christianity ! is it not paganism ? or rather, is it 
 not paganism adorned with the fair robe of Christ- 
 
POPISH BAPTISM. 59 
 
 ianity ? Are such Popish baptisms much better than 
 those of their ancestors, the Celts, who bathed on Sa- 
 turday to sanctify themselves for the worship of the 
 sun on Sunday ? — than the religious washing of the 
 New Mexicans ? or, than the baptisms of the New 
 Zealanders, who take their children to their priest 
 to be baptized, in the Popish belief, that the neglect 
 of it would be the cause of death, or of a progres- 
 sively increasing depravity, and of some other baneful 
 consequences to the child? But no wonder that Popish 
 baptism should so greatly resemble those of the hea- 
 thens, when we consider that they are so short-sighted 
 as to be obliofed to have recourse to the liofht of wax 
 candles, to shew them the Popish meaning of divine 
 truth ; whether, in the consecration of the mass, the 
 priest has been so fortunate as to convert his wafers 
 into so many incarnate saviours ; and whether, too, 
 the salt which they use upon several occasions, and 
 which a priest in the neighbourhood of Donegal, in 
 the year 1833, blessed, and sold in sixpence-worths, 
 as a special preservative from cholera, has so far lost 
 its savour, as to be good for nothing " but to be cast 
 out and trodden under foot, " the meaning of which 
 words, (as appears from the Rev. T. Macguire's 
 remarks against the Rev. Mr. Pope,) mass priests 
 do not rightly understand, applying it to prove the 
 infallibility of the Popish Church, whereas, any per- 
 son acquainted with the nature of the salt referred to, 
 (which is, that it very soon becomes vapid, and was 
 
60 POPISH CONFIRMATION. 
 
 anciently used in that state for sand upon the floor 
 of the Temple of Jerusalem,) knows that, if it proves 
 anything of that church at all, it proves that she has 
 become so vapid as to be good for nothing, but to 
 make men wonder at its superstitions, pity its folly, 
 lament the spiritual state of its members, and detest 
 its thousand abominations. 
 
 Thus have I endeavoured to prove, from the word 
 of God, that Popish baptism is not a sacrament 
 according to the scriptures ; and trusting, though not 
 on the principle of infallibility, that neither the Pope, 
 the cardinals, the bishops, the priests of Rome, nor 
 the Rev. T. Macguire himself, will be able to dis- 
 prove from the word of God what I have advanced 
 against this Popish sacrament, I shall now proceed to 
 consider the second of the seven Popish sacraments, 
 which, according to the order above stated, is that 
 called confirmation. 
 
 POPISH SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION. 
 
 " Confirmation," says Popery, is "a sacrament that 
 strengthens and enables Christians to profess the 
 faith of the gospel." It can only be administered by 
 a bishop or his vicar. The ceremony is as follows : 
 The administrator besmears the forehead of the per- 
 son confirmed, in the form of a cross, with olive oil 
 and balsam, mingled together, and consecrated by a 
 church prayer, which is composed for that particular 
 
REFUTATION. 61 
 
 purpose. Then he gives him a blow on the cheek, 
 after the manner of the ancient Romans, in the 
 manumission of their slaves. And, lastly, he binds 
 up his forehead, pronounces upon him a solemn 
 benediction, and lets him go, praying that he may 
 be strong in the faith of the Catholic Church, mean- 
 ing Popery. The person confirmed must have a 
 god-father, and a god-mother ; and, according to 
 their ecclesiastical canons, he must not be younger 
 than seven years of age. The strongest scriptural 
 authority which Popery claims for this Popish sacra- 
 ment, is in Acts viii. 17, where it is spoken of the 
 apostles thus : " Then they laid hands upon them, 
 and they received the Holy Ghost." 
 
 REFUTATION. 
 
 Such, then, being the nature, administration, and 
 design of this Popish sacrament, and such also being 
 the strongest proof from the word of God that 
 Popery can adduce in support of it, we affirm, firsts 
 That it is not a scriptural sacrament ; and, secondly^ 
 That it is not a scriptural ceremony of any kind. 
 
 That it is not a scriptural sacrament we prove thus; 
 — \sty We proved from the word of God, both in our 
 general proposition, and third Inference, thatthere are 
 only two New Testament sacraments ; but, if this be 
 a scriptural sacrament, there must be a third, which 
 is absurd. 2rf, In our general proposition, and more 
 
62 REFUTATION OF 
 
 fully in our first Inference, we proved that the Old 
 Testament sacraments are virtually the same as 
 those of the New Testament ; but they are in 
 no respect the same as Popish confirmation, and, 
 therefore, it cannot be a New Testament sacra- 
 ipent. Sd, In our general proposition we proved, 
 from the word of God, that Christ instituted both 
 the Old and New Testament sacraments ; but it 
 cannot be proved, from the same inspired records, 
 that Christ instituted Popish confirmation ; and, 
 therefore, it cannot be an institution of Christ. 4th, 
 In our general proposition, we proved from the 
 word of God, that all the signs and seals of a scrip- 
 tural sacrament must be scriptural ; but there is no 
 mention made in the word of God of either a blow 
 upon the cheek, the sign of the cross, olive oil, or 
 balsam, which are the only signs of this Popish sac- 
 rament, and, consequently, it cannot be a scriptural 
 sacrament. 5th, Both in our general proposition 
 and in our 2d Inference, we proved from the word 
 of God, that all scriptural sacraments have a direct 
 reference to the body of Christ crucified for sin, and 
 to the blood of Christ as shed for sin ; but Popish 
 confirmation has not a direct reference to the body 
 and blood of Christ, as crucified and shed for sin ; 
 and, therefore, it cannot be a scriptural sacrament. 
 6th, In our general proposition, we proved from the 
 word of God, that the grace which is communicated 
 to the worthy receiver of the sacraments through 
 
POPISH CONFIRMATION. 63 
 
 them, neither depends on the intention of the admin- 
 istrator, nor on any internal power of the sacraments, 
 but the grace which is supposed to be communicated 
 by means of Popish confirmation, depends on both 
 of these, and, therefore, it cannot be a scriptural 
 sacrament. Having now, we think, clearly proved 
 that Popish confirmation is not a scriptural sacra- 
 ment, we proceed to prove, that it is not a scriptural 
 ordinance of any kind. 
 
 Popery would prove it to be a scriptural ordinance 
 from Acts viii. 17, where we read: " That the 
 apostles laid their hands upon them, and theyreceived 
 the Holy Ghost ;" but they endeavour to do so in 
 vain ; for it is evident from the scriptures, that the 
 laying on of the hands of the apostles was, instead of 
 beinof a standing- ordinance of the Christian Church, 
 altogether an extraordinary rite. Miraculous gifts, 
 such as the speaking with tongues, prophesying, de- 
 cerning of spirits, even such as Simon the sorcerer 
 saw manifested in the Samaritans, on whom the 
 apostles laid their hands, and which he wished to 
 procure by means of his money, were thereby con- 
 ferred ; but the same powers are not manifested in 
 those confirmed by the laying on of the hands of a 
 Popish bishop ; and, therefore, we have just reason 
 to conclude, that no Popish bishop, though his in- 
 tention to confirm be ever so great, has either apos- 
 tolic authority for attempting it, or any sufficient 
 power whatever to accomplish it. It does not ap- 
 
64 REFUTATION OF 
 
 pear from Acts xiv., where we read that Paul con- 
 firmed the disciples in Lystra, Icorium, and Antioch, 
 nor from any other portion of the word of God, that 
 he confirmed, either by giving a blow upon the 
 cheek, making the sign of the cross with olive oil 
 and balsam, or using any other Popish ceremony ; 
 and, therefore, we conclude, that Popish confirma- 
 tion is quite different from apostolic confirmation. 
 The word of God makes no mention of god-fathers 
 and god-mothers, even in the sacrament of baptism, 
 and certainly it is reasonable to suppose, that there 
 is much less need of them at confirmation, when the 
 person to be confirmed not only acknowledges that 
 he understands what it is to be a Christian, but also 
 undertakes the performance of every part of the 
 duties, which, in his behalf, his sponsors vowed to 
 perform ; but Popery requires these at confirmation 
 also ; and, therefore, in this respect, it is a more 
 unreasonable ceremony than even Popish baptism. 
 The earliest confirmations which we read of in the 
 history of the Christian Church, were performed 
 imm.ediately after baptism, whether it was an infant 
 or an adult that was baptized ; but Popery allows 
 none to be confirmed till they are seven years of 
 age ; and, therefore, it cannot be the same as confir- 
 mation in the early ages of Christianity. 
 
 But, lastly, I observe, that the word of God coun- 
 tenances no other mode of confirmation than the 
 reading and preaching of the word, administering 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 65 
 
 the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, 
 and the exercise of prayer, all which the Holy Ghost 
 renders effectual for strengthening, comforting, and 
 establishinof believers in the faith and obedience of 
 Christ. This is evident, Jirst, from 1 Cor. i. 8, 
 where Paul, speaking of the grace of Christ, says ; 
 " Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye 
 may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ;" secondly, from Rom. xv. 8, where it is thus 
 stated: " Now, I say, that Jesus Christ was a min- 
 ister of the circumcision, for the truth of God, to 
 confirm the promises made unto the fathers ;" and 
 thirdly, from 1 Pet. v. 10, where that apostle says ; 
 ** But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto 
 eternal glory by Jesus Christ, after that ye have suf- 
 fered awhile, make you perfect, estabUsh, strengthen, 
 settle you." 
 
 POPISH SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 
 
 Popery, according to the Council of Trent (Sess. 
 14, can. I.) has expressly decreed, that every one 
 is accursed who shall affirm that Penance is not 
 truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ 
 in the universal Church, for reconciling those Chris- 
 tians to the Divine Majesty, who have fallen into 
 sin after baptism. It has further declared, that this 
 sacrament consists of two parts, namely, the matter 
 and the form ; that the matter, which is the act of 
 
 B 
 
66 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 the penitent, includes, Contrition, Confession, and 
 Satisfaction ; and that the form is the act of abso- 
 lution on the part of the priest. Accordingly, 
 Popery enjoins, that it is the duty of every man who 
 has fallen into sin after baptism to confess his sins, 
 at least once a year, to a priest ; that this confession 
 is to be secret, exact, and so particular as to include 
 every kind of sin, with all its concomitant circum- 
 stances ; and that when the penitent has done con- 
 fessing, the priest must pronounce absolution, which 
 is not conditional and declarative, but, on the con- 
 trary, absolute and judicial, as the form, which is as 
 follows, testifies : — " May the Lord Jesus Christ 
 have mercy on thee, and absolve thee by the merits 
 of his most holy passion. And I, by his authority, 
 that of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and of 
 the Holy Pope, granted and committed to me in 
 these parts, do absolve thee from all ecclesiastical 
 censures in whatever manner they have been incur- 
 red ; then from all thy sins, transgressions, extrava- 
 gancies, and excesses, how enormous soever they 
 may be, even from such as are reserved for the cog- 
 nizance of the holy See ; and as far as the keys of 
 the Holy Church extend, I remit to you all punish- 
 ment which YOU deserve in purgatory on their ac- 
 count ; and I restore you to the holy sacraments 
 of the Church, to the unity of the faithful, and to 
 the innocency and purity which you possessed at 
 baptism ; so that when you die, the gates of punish- 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 67 
 
 ment shall be shut ; and if you shall not die at 
 present, this grace shall remain in full force when 
 you are at the point of death. Given in the name 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." 
 
 But Popery not only pardons sins already com- 
 mitted, but also grants indulgences to commit others ; 
 or, in other words, it grants a remission of those 
 which have not yet been performed. These were 
 first invented by Urban II, about the year of our 
 Lord 1086, as a recompense to those who went in 
 person upon the enterprize of conquering the Holy 
 Land. They were next guaranteed to those who hired 
 soldiers for that same glorious enterprize ; and, in 
 process of time, they were bestowed upon all who 
 would give money for accomplishing any pious pur- 
 pose enjoined by the Pope. Pope Leo X, that he 
 might be able to carry on the building of St. Peter's 
 Church at Rome, published indulgences to all who 
 would contribute money towards it. Finding that 
 the project was well received, he granted the benefit 
 of the indulgences of Saxony and neighbouring 
 provinces, to Albert Elector of Mentz, and arch- 
 bishop of Madgeburgh ; and farmed out the benefits 
 of those of other countries to the highest bidders, 
 who, to make the best of their bargain, procured 
 such preachers as were best qualified for extolling 
 their supposed value. The terms in which these 
 retailers of indulgences described their value, bene- 
 fits, and necessity, -were so extravagant as almost to 
 
^8 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 appear incredible, " Whoever," said they, " will 
 purchase these indulgences, may rest at ease with 
 respect to his salvation." They maintained that the 
 souls for whose redemption out of purgatory indul- 
 gences had been purchased, had escaped out of 
 that place of torment and had ascended to heaven. 
 They declared that their efficacy was so great, that 
 even the most heinous sins, even that of violating 
 (and with abhorrence be it spoken) the Virgin Mary, 
 were it possible, would be thereby expiated and for- 
 given ! They farther maintained, that the cross 
 erected by them, was equally efficacious with the 
 real cross of Christ. " Lo !" said they " the heavens 
 are open, if you do not enter now, when will you 
 enter ? For the low price of twelvepence you may 
 redeem the soul of your father out of purgatory, and 
 are you so ungrateful that you will not rescue the 
 soul of your parent from torment ? If you had but 
 one coat you ought to strip it off, and immediately 
 sell it to purchase such a benefit as is now offered." 
 Secret or auricular confession, was first decreed 
 and established a. d. 1215, in the fourth Council 
 of Latern, under Pope Innocent III. It was after- 
 wards confirmed and enlarged in the Councils of 
 Florence and Trent, which latter declares, that this 
 mode of confession was instituted by Christ, that it 
 is necessary to salvation, and that it has always 
 been practised in the Christian Church. There are 
 five conditions assigned by Popery as necessary for 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 69 
 
 receiving this sacrament, viz., self-examination, true 
 sorrow for havinof offended God, strong- resolution 
 to offend him no more, confession to a priest, and 
 satisfaction to God and to man. 
 
 Satisfaction to God, according to Popery, con- 
 sists of those penances which are usually imposed 
 by the Church, viz., of paternosters, ave Marias, 
 alms, fasts, hearing of masses, pilgrimages, wear- 
 ing shirts made of hair, loading the body with 
 irons, Sfoino^ almost naked, lashino- the bodv, the 
 temporary pains of purgatory, and the payment of 
 certain sums of money. In the text-book of the 
 Roman Catholic Chancery, you will find the Popes' 
 estimation of sins, the Popish value of some of which is 
 as follows: — For symony, 10s. 6d. ; sacrilege, 10s. 
 6d. ; procuring abortion, 7s. 6d. ; perjury in cri- 
 minal cases, 9s.; robbery, 12s.; house-breaking, 
 12s. ; defiling a virgin, 9s. ; incest, 7s. 6d. ; mur- 
 der of a layman, 7s. 6d. ; laying violent hands upon 
 the clergy, 10s. 6d., &c. 
 
 Of Popish Excommunications. — If the person 
 accused will not submit to obey, and thus confess, 
 the Church proceeds to excommunication with him, 
 of which there are three kinds ; viz., the minor, 
 which falls upon those who have any correspon- 
 dence with an excommunicated person ; and which 
 is evidently calculated to burst asunder every tie 
 of relationship and every bond of human society ; 
 the major, which fall upon those who disobey 
 
70 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 the holy See, or certain points of Church dis- 
 ciphne ; and which, as it were with a key, shuts 
 the gates of heaven against the excommunicated, and 
 opens those of hell for their reception and everlasting 
 abode; and the anathematical, which being the curse 
 of the Pope against heretical princes, was once so 
 powerful as to dethrone kings, and discharge subjects 
 from their allegiance to their lawful sovereigns. 
 
 But to be more particular concerning this most 
 important part of this Popish sacrament, I observe, 
 that the Pope expels from the Popish Church all 
 who do not please him, by means of Bulls ; and, 
 having thus driven them out, he then, by means of 
 a key which he says was given him through the 
 apostle Peter, by Christ, locks the door so fast 
 against them, that they can never get in again with- 
 out humbly submitting to all and the whole of his 
 pleasure. This key having been used in the Church 
 for many centuries, appeared at length to many of 
 the Popes to be so worn as to be entirely unfit to 
 turn the lock of the great door, which had been 
 previously hung up in the limina of the Church. 
 As soon, therefore, as Pope Paul III. (a, d. 1545) 
 had mounted the chair of St. Peter, and clapt the 
 triple crown upon his head, to make men think that 
 he, like Christ, was both a prophet, priest, and king, 
 he determined to have the said key so thoroughly 
 repaired as to be fit not only to lock and unlock the 
 door of St. Peter's church, but even to open and 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 71 
 
 shut St. Peter's wicket, in the crystal wall of hea- 
 ven. So having thus resolved, he, like another vul- 
 can, summoned his Christian Polyphemus, Brontes, 
 Steropes, Puracmon, and others of the most skilful 
 of the purgatorial fire-bearing cyclops, not to ^tna, 
 but to Trent, not only to advise, resolve, and deter- 
 mine how this important key might be repaired, but to 
 erect a foro^e, and set about the work without delav. 
 1'his task enjoined, ,these workmen soon executed the 
 trust reposed so well, that the key pleased the Pope as 
 well as the shield made by the lame god pleased the 
 great Achilles. We may conceive what a fine thing 
 they made it from what these artificers said of it 
 when they returned it to His Holiness, which was, 
 we may well suppose, as follows : — " May your 
 Holiness be pleased to receive back the key with 
 which you intend to lock out from both the Church, 
 militant and triumphant, all who will not implicitly 
 submit to yield obedience to all the superstitious 
 trifles of your Holiness. We have remedied it 
 anew. It has now three wards, viz., the minor, major, 
 and the maximus ; and we trust that, by means of 
 these you will find it most answerable for all your 
 excommunicating purposes- When your Holiness 
 wants to enforce the law of the minor excommuni- 
 cation, you have only to push the key into the lock 
 of the church door the length of the minor or fore- 
 most ward, and to turn it round, and then you may 
 rest assured that you have made a complete separa- 
 
72 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 tion between husbands and wives, parents and child- 
 ren, brothers and sisters, masters and servants, 
 merchants and customers, clergymen and their 
 flocks, and kings and their subjects, yea, that you 
 have broken many a tie and solemn engagement in 
 society. The child will be thereby separated from 
 his excommunicated father, unless he can steal out 
 to him by the window, which he will not dare to do 
 for fear of having to suffer pains ^and penalties simi- 
 lar to those of his father, and the affectionate father 
 will not dare to visit his excommunicated child, lest 
 on his return to the church he should find the door 
 fast locked against him, until he has fulfilled, by 
 way of satisfaction, penances most dire. And, more- 
 over, the faithful will hence learn more perfectly 
 not to keep faith with heretics, which, by the bye, 
 was pretty well understood by those who burned to 
 death John Huss and Jerome of Prague, notwithstand- 
 ing the safe conduct of the Emperor, which set them 
 free, if not from Church censure, at least from death. 
 " When your Holiness intends to exercise your 
 divine derived authority and power in inflicting that 
 punishment which is denominated major excommu- 
 nication, and which (Matt. xvi. 19) excludes from 
 the Church, both militant and triumphant, all 
 whom you wish, and sends (1 Tim. i. 20) to the 
 devil and his angels all who directly disobey the 
 commands of your holy See, you have only to push 
 this key into the lock of the door of the church up 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 73 
 
 to the second, or major ward, and to turn it fairly 
 round. Then it is that you have made a final sepa- 
 ration between Monks and Hussites, Canons and 
 Wickliffites, Knights of all orders and Lutherans, 
 Friars (black and grey) and Calvinists, Mendicants 
 and Zuinglians, Benedictines and Hugonots, Je- 
 suites and Methodists, yea. Popish orders of every 
 kind, with all who have apostatized from the Popish 
 faith and practice of your Holiness. 
 
 " And when your Holiness finds it necessary to ex- 
 ercise your prerogative and power of cursing, or that 
 anathematical excommunication which dethrones he- 
 retical princes, and relieves their Popish subjects from 
 their allegiance, you have only to push the key up to 
 the third, or anathematical ward, turn it about, and 
 give a great curse, as loud as the bellowing of the 
 bull which fought with Jason, and then down goes 
 the crown from the head of every heretical sovereign 
 within your sacred domains and holy jurisdiction." 
 
 The history of Popery proves that this ward of 
 the said key has all this power. The Council of 
 Latern (Sub. Inn. iii. a. d. 1215, can. 3, De Heret.) 
 passed a decree of deposition against heretical princes, 
 and such as should be remiss in prosecuting those 
 whom the Church should mark out for heretics. 
 The words of the Council are the following: — 
 " If the temporal governor, being required by the 
 Church, shall neglect to purge the country of here- 
 tics, let this be signified to the Pope, that from 
 
74 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 henceforth he may declare his subjects free from 
 their allegiance, and give away his lands to be pos- 
 sessed by Catholics." And to shew that Popery was 
 in good earnest in this determination, it has given the 
 world instances, in the deposition of 
 
 Childreck, King of France, by Pope Zachart I. 
 
 Philip, King of France, „ Urban II. 
 
 Henry IV., Emperor, „ Gregory VII. 
 
 William, King of Sicily, „ Adrian II. 
 
 Philip, Emperor, „ Innocent III. 
 
 Fredrick II., „ Gregory. 
 
 John, King of England, „ Innocent IV. 
 
 Alphred, King of Sicily, „ Urban IV. 
 
 Charles, King of Sicily, „ Nicholas III. 
 
 Peter, King of Arragon, „ Martin IV. 
 
 Henry V., Emperor, „ Clement V. 
 
 LoDovicK, Emperor, „ John XXII. 
 
 Wincelaus, Emperor, „ Gregory IX. 
 
 Henry VIII., King of England, „ Paul III. 
 
 Philip the Fair, „ Boniface VIII. 
 
 Boniface, to justify his conduct upon this occasion, 
 published in his Bull the following decree, which is 
 now a part of the canon laws of the Popish Church: 
 " We declare and pronounce it necessary to salva- 
 tion, that all mankind be subject to the Roman 
 Pontiff," which is indeed very reasonable, on the 
 supposition that the apostle Peter is the rock upon 
 which the Christian Church is built, and that the 
 Popes are really the successors of that apostle. 
 
 Pope Martin V. declared to the Duke of Lithu- 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 75 
 
 ania, that he sinned mortally if he kept his faith with 
 heretics. Pope Paul V., by his Bull of 4th April 
 1613, solemnly excommunicates and anathematizes 
 all Hussites, Wickliffites, Lutherans, Zuinglians, 
 Calvinists, Hugonots, Anabaptists, and apostates from 
 the Christian faith, (meaning, I suppose Popery,) 
 by what name soever they may be called ; as also, 
 their receivers and favourers, together with all who, 
 without the authority of the apostolic See, knowingly 
 read, keep, print, or in any other way defend their 
 rehgious books. He also interdicts all universities, 
 colleges, and schools, that appeal from the orders 
 and decrees of the Popes of Rome, for the time 
 being, to a general council, and those also by whose 
 aid the appeal was made. This bull of excommuni- 
 cation was affixed to the door of the Latern, and of 
 St. Peter's church in Rome, it is therein pro- 
 nounced on a certain Monday annually, and it has 
 been ratified by more than twenty Popes. 
 
 Hereby all Protestants in the world, of whatever 
 rank and degree, stand condemned, and are to be 
 cut off by every possible method, whether by deceit 
 or violence. According to this Popish doctrine, 
 " Alnus (Apol. Stanleiana Proditionis) maintained, 
 that since Queen Elizabeth was both a heretic and 
 an excommunicated person, her subjects were bound 
 in conscience to deliver up her armies, cities, castles, 
 &c., to the king of Spain ; and that the queen had 
 no longer property in anything." Bellarmine says : 
 
76 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 " That Christians may tolerate a king that is a here- 
 tic." Massovius says : " He that reigns contrary to the 
 Pope's mind, is a tyrant." Bannis having declared for 
 the deposingof a heretical king, says: " If there be suf- 
 ficient force, &c., otherwise, to attempt it might ex- 
 pose the Catholics togreat danger:" and then, he adds, 
 " On which account the Catholics of England and 
 Saxony were excused from rising up in arms against 
 their Protestant princes, because they were not power- 
 ful enough to carry on war against them ; but when- 
 ever it can be done, the Catholics are to depose 
 them." Carsewell says : " They are to do it at the 
 peril of their souls." Mariana, in addition to this, 
 says : " That kings who renounce the Popish religion 
 are to be treated like mad dogs, and that he is to be 
 commended, who, at the peril of his life, shall pro- 
 cure the public (Popish) welfare." When Campion 
 and Parsons came into England, (a. d. 1580,) the 
 Pope indeed sent a dispensation to the Catholics to 
 submit to Queen Ehzabeth, in temporal matters, 
 (because he knew that at that time they found them- 
 selves obliged to submit,) but as soon as an oppor- 
 tunity was offered, (it is supposed that he looked for- 
 ward to the Spanish Armada, which was fitted out 
 in the year 1588,) then they are discharged from 
 their allegiance to their queen, which discharge 
 Allen signified to the nobility of England, when he 
 admonished them to engage in the old cause. 
 
 There was a time, probably about the year 1 204, 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 77 
 
 when the Pope's arm became so weak, that before he 
 could turn the said key, when up to its third ward in 
 the lock, properly round, he was obliged to have re- 
 course to the aid of the Inquisitorial band of Spain, 
 and their faithful familiars ; but, with their assist- 
 ance, he turned it as it had never been turned be- 
 fore. It was then that he made an Act of Faith, so 
 glorious, that it has ever since been known through- 
 out the civilized world, and honoured with the ap- 
 propriate name of Auto-da-fe, concerning which I 
 shall mention a few particulars extracted from the 
 Rev. C. Buck's Theol. Diet. 
 
 " The Inquisition was, for many centuries, an ec- 
 clesiastical tribunal in the Popish Church. It was 
 invented by Dominic, a Spaniard, sometime before 
 the year of Christ 11 90. It was first patronised by 
 Pope Innocent, who issued orders to excite Catholic 
 princes and people to search out, by means of this 
 court, the number and quality of heretics, to extir- 
 pate them out of their respective countries, and to 
 transmit a faithful account thereof to Rome,- — hence 
 the name of this formidable tribunal. It was first 
 employed against the Albigenses, about the year 
 1204, and by means of it, about 60,000 of them 
 were destroyed. About a. d. 1233, it was intrusted 
 to the Dominican Friars in Spain, against the 
 Saracens and Moors. It was afterwards confirmed 
 by Pope Sextus IV., and has been practised with 
 great success in Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, and 
 
78 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 the Netherlands. To render it more formidable 
 and tremendous, the Popes persuaded the European 
 princes, and more especially Fredrick II., and Lewis 
 IX. of France, not only to enact the most barbarous 
 laws against heretics, and to commit to the flames, 
 by the ministry of public justice, all who were pro- 
 nounced such by the Inquisition, but also to main- 
 tain the Inquisitors in their office, and to grant them 
 protection in the most open and solemn manner. 
 To render this holy court most effectual in advanc- 
 ing the prosperity of Popery, another order of men 
 was called in to assist the Inquisitors in their spirit- 
 ual inquiries, which is well known in some provinces 
 of Italy, by the title of the Cross-bearers ; in others, 
 by that of the Scholars of St. Peter ; but generally 
 throughout Christendom by the name of Familiars of 
 the Inquisition, because they belong to that peace- 
 able family. They wear a cross before them, on the 
 outside of their garment. They are properly the 
 bailiffs of the Inquisition, and though vile is their 
 office, it is esteemed so honourable, that in Portugal, 
 even noblemen are ambitious of belonofinof to it. 
 But no wonder, when we consider that Pope Inno- 
 cent III. granted to them very large indulgences 
 and privileges. To every single exercise of this 
 office, the same plenary indulgence is granted to 
 them by the Pope, that was granted by the Latern 
 Council to those who succoured the Holy Land. 
 When there are several persons to be apprehended 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 79 
 
 at the same time, these chasseurs — these blood- 
 hounds — are commanded to order matters so that 
 their game may know nothing- of one another's 
 being caught. It is related, that a father, his three 
 sons, and three daughters, all living in the same 
 house, were carried before the Inquisition, without 
 knowing anything of one another's being there, till 
 seven years after, when those alive were fortunately 
 relieved. 
 
 But to return to the Inquisition, this diabolical 
 tribunal takes cognizance of heresy, Judaism, Ma- 
 hometanism, polygamy, and sodarny ; and the people 
 stand in such great awe of it, that parents deliver up 
 •their children, husbands their wives, and masters their 
 servants to its bailiffs, without daring to murmur 
 in the least. The prisoners are kept for a long 
 time, that they may turn their own accusers, and 
 declare the cause of their imprisonment ; for when 
 apprehended, they are generally neither told their 
 crime, nor confronted with witnesses. As soon as 
 they are imprisoned, their friends go into mourning, 
 and speak of them as dead, not daring to solicit their 
 pardon, lest they themselves should be brought in as 
 accomplices, and caused to suffer a similar punish- 
 ment. When there is no shadow of proof against 
 the pretended criminal, he is discharged, after having 
 suffered the most cruel tortures, a tedious and dread- 
 ful imprisonment, and the loss of the greatest part 
 of his property. The sentence against prisoners is 
 
SP POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 pronounced publicly. In Portugal they erect a 
 theatre, capable of holding three thousand people, in 
 which they place an altar and raise seats on each side 
 in the form of an amphitheatre. There the prisoners 
 are placed, and over against them is a high chain, 
 whither they are called to hear their doom from one 
 of the Inquisitors. The prisoners know what they 
 have to suffer by the clothes they are caused to wear 
 on that day. Those who appear in their own clothes 
 are discharged on paying a fine, those who have a santo 
 benito and a St. Andrew's cross upon it, have their 
 lives spared, but forfeit their effects ; those who have 
 the resemblance of flames upon their santo henito 
 without any cross, are pardoned, but threatened with, 
 burning if ever they relapse, but those who, besides 
 their flames on their santo henito, have their own 
 picture surrounded with devils, are condemned to ex- 
 pire in flames. The Inquisitors, being ecclesiastics 
 do not pronounce the sentence of death ; but what 
 amounts to the same thing, they form and read an 
 act, (perhaps of faith,) in which they say, that the 
 criminal, being convicted by his own confession of 
 the crime, is with much reluctance delivered to the 
 secular power to be punished according to his merits ; 
 and this paper they give to the senior judges, who 
 attend at the right side of the altar and immediately 
 pass sentence, which I suppose is another act of faith, 
 and this brings me to show what the greatest of all 
 Popish acts of faith is. 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 81 
 
 The greatest of all Popish acts of faith, is their 
 Auto-da-fe. The day on which it is made is there- 
 by rendered the most solemn in the Popish Church. 
 It consists in the absolution of the innocent accused, 
 and the punishment of those found guilty of heresy by 
 the Holy Inquisition. The Church always makes this 
 act of faith upon a Sunday, and generally on some 
 great festival, that the execution may pass with more 
 awe. This act of faith n^ay be called the last act of 
 the inquisitorial tragedy. It is a kind of jail delivery, 
 appointed as often as a competent number of prison- 
 ers are convicted of heresy. The manner of per- 
 forming this Popish act of faith may be thus des- 
 cribed. In the morning, the prisoners are brought 
 out into the great hall, having on those habits which 
 they are to wear in the procession to the act, and by 
 which they know the painful part they are to take in 
 it. The procession is led up by Dominican Friars. 
 Then come the penitents, clad in black coats with- 
 out sleeves, barefooted, and with wax candles in 
 their hands. Then follow the penitents who have 
 narrowly escaped being burned, with flames, having 
 the points turned downwards, painted upon their 
 black coats. Next come those who are to be burn - 
 ed, having painted on their habits, flames, with the 
 points turned upwards. After these come such as 
 profess doctrines contrary to the Popish faith, having, 
 besides flames pointing upwards, their pictures paint- 
 
82 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 ed on their breasts, and these surrounded with open 
 mouthed dogs, serpents, and devils. Every prisoner 
 is attended by a FamiUar ; and those who are to be 
 burned have also a Jesuite on each hand, who keep 
 beseeching them to abjure. Behind the prisoners 
 comes a troop of Familiars on horseback. Behind 
 these the Inquisitors and other officers of the court, 
 on mules. And last of all comes the Inquisitor-ge- 
 neral, on a white horse, which is led by two men 
 with black hats and green hat-bands. A scaffold is 
 erected, large enough for two or three thousand peo- 
 ple, at the one end of which are the prisoners, and 
 at the other the Inquisitors. After a sermon, which 
 is composed of encomiums on the Inquisition, and 
 invectives against heretics, has been preached, a 
 priest ascends a desk near the scaffold, and having 
 taken the abjuration of the penitents, recites the final 
 sentence of those to be burned, and delivers them to 
 the secular power, at the same time earnestly be- 
 seeching them not to touch their blood, and put their 
 lives in danger ! The prisoners, now in the hands of 
 the civil magistrate, are presently loaded with chains 
 and carried to the secular jail, and, in an hour or 
 two, they are taken from thence before the civil 
 judge, who, after having asked in what religion they 
 intend to die, pronounces sentence, on such as de- 
 clare that they die in communion with the Church 
 of Rome, that they shall be first strangled, and then 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 83 
 
 burned to ashes ; but on such as die in' any other 
 faith, that they shall be burned alive. Both are im- 
 mediately carried to the place of execution, where 
 as many sticks are set up, with quantities of dry furze 
 about them, as there are persons to be burned. The 
 stakes of the professed, i, e.^ of such as persist in 
 heresy, are about four yards high, having a small 
 seat for the prisoner at the top. The negative and 
 relapsed being first strangled and burned, the pro- 
 fessed mount their stakes bv a ladder, and the Jesu- 
 ites, after repeated exhortations to be reconciled to 
 the Church, part with them, saying, that they leave 
 them to the devil, who is standing at their elbow, to 
 receive their souls, and carry them away to the flames 
 of hell. Then it is that a great shout is made ; 
 then it is that the cry is, " Let the dog's beards be 
 made." This is done by thrusting flaming furzes, 
 fastened to long poles, against their faces, till they 
 are burned to a coal, which is accompanied with the 
 greatest acclamations of joy. At last the fire is set 
 to the furze at the bottom of the stake, over which 
 the professed are chained so high, that the top of the 
 flame seldom reaches higher than the seat upon which 
 they sit, so that they are rather roasted than burned. 
 There cannot be a more lamentable spectacle. The 
 sufferers continually cry out while they are able : 
 ' Pity us for the love of God ;' yet it is beheld by 
 all ages and sexes with transports of joy and satisfac- 
 tion." 
 
84 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 O merciful God ! is this the benign rehgion of 
 the meek and the lowly Jesus, who brought from 
 heaven glad tidings of great joy to the children of 
 men ? Surely not. If such were the spirit of Christ- 
 ianity, it surely would be no honour to be a Christian. 
 Let us rejoice, however, that the power of antichrist 
 is on the decline. Buonaparte, the scourge of the 
 land, caused the Pope to come into France to him> 
 instead of him going to Rome to the Pope. Let us 
 pray also that the time may soon arrive, when the 
 demon of persecution shall be banished from the 
 world, and when the Christian spirit which the gos- 
 pel breathes, shall pervade the universe ; when, in- 
 stead of hurting and destroying, the earth shall be 
 filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters 
 cover the channels of the sea, which never will take 
 place so long as there is a Pope in the Church of 
 Rome. 
 
 Here, then, is a building, which, by reason of the 
 materials, and these Popery would have us to believe 
 are scriptural, with which it is built, is deemed so 
 strong by Papists, that they defy the gates of hell to 
 prevail against it. But no wonder, says Popery, 
 since it is a building of confessions, absolutions, sa- 
 tisfactions, and excommunications, minor, major, 
 and anathematical. It is a building which is found- 
 ed upon John xx. 23, where it is said : " Whose 
 sins ve remit they are remitted unto them, and whose 
 
POPISH PENANCE. 85 
 
 sins ye retain they are retained ;" upon Matt. X\i. 
 19, where we read thus : " I will give unto thee," 
 (Peter) " the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and 
 whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound 
 in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
 shall be loosed in heaven ;" upon Gal. v. 24, where 
 St Paul, commending the Galatians, says: " They 
 that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the 
 lusts thereof;" upon Matt, xviii. 17, where it is said : 
 " If he neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church ; 
 but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be un- 
 to thee as a heathen and a publican ;" upon Rom. 
 xvi. 17, where St Paul says : " Now, I beseech you, 
 brethren, to mark them which cause divisions, and 
 offences, contrary to the doctrine ye have learned, 
 and avoid them ;" upon 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14, where 
 the same apostle says : " Now I command you, 
 brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walk- 
 eth disorderly, and not after the tradition which he 
 received from us ;" upon 1 Cor. v. 5, where the 
 same apostle declares ; " That those who are worthy 
 of major excommunication, are to be delivered over 
 to Satan ;" upon 1 Tim. i. 20, where he also says : 
 " Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I 
 have delivered over to Satan, that they may learn 
 not to blaspheme ;" and upon Num. chap, xvi, where 
 we read : " That Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, were 
 
86 POPISH PENANCE. 
 
 expelled from the camp of Israel, and swallowed up 
 by the earth, which opened to receive them, though 
 they were rulers in the camp." 
 
 Having thus illustrated this wonderful subject, it 
 must now be evident, that the following is a proper 
 definition of the Popish sacrament of penance, viz., 
 '* Popish penance is an unholy ordinance, instituted 
 at different times by several Popish prelates, where- 
 in by means of auricular confessions, judicial abso- 
 lutions, indulgences, satisfactions, excommunications, 
 inquisitions, punishments, and an Auto-da-fe, the 
 head of the Popish Church, and the benefits derived 
 from him, are represented, sealed, and applied, by 
 the intentions of the priest, and their own virtue, 
 (opera operato,) to the faithful and dear children of 
 the Pope, when they become disobedient and refrac- 
 tory." 
 
 But, " a scriptural sacrament," as we fully proved 
 in our general proposition, " is a holy ordinance in- 
 stituted by Christ, wherein by sensible signs, Christ 
 and the benefits of the covenant of grace are repre- 
 sented, sealed, and applied by the Holy Spirit to 
 believers in Christ." 
 
 Therefore, we must be allowed to conclude, that 
 the Popish sacrament of penance is not a scriptural 
 sacrament, till Popery proves that our definition 
 thereof is not scriptural, and that time will never 
 come. 
 
POPISH CONFESSION REFUTED. 87 
 
 Having now proved that Popish penance is not a 
 scriptural sacrament, I proceed to prove, that it is 
 not a scriptural ordinance of any description. And, 
 First : — 
 
 POPISH CONFESSION REFUTED. 
 
 Though we know that it is our duty and our pri- 
 vilege to confess our sins unto God, and even to one 
 another, yet we will not admit that auricular con- 
 fession to a clergyman, is either our duty, our privi- 
 lege, or our interest. That it is our duty to confess 
 our sins unto God, we may learn from Ps, xxxii. 5, 
 where we read thus : " I acknowledge my sin unto 
 thee, and my iniquities have I not hid ; I said I will 
 confess my transgressions unto the Lord ;" that it is 
 our privilege to confess them unto God, we may 
 learn from 1 John i. 9, where it is said : "If we 
 will confess our sins unto God, he is just and merci- 
 ful to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all 
 iniquity ;" that we should also confess them to one 
 another, is evident from James v. 16, where that 
 apostle says : " Confess your faults to one another, 
 and pray for one another, that ye may be healed ;" 
 and that the sins of church members should be told 
 to the Church, if these members will not listen to 
 private admonition, is evident from Matt, xviii. 17, 
 where it is said : " If he shall neglect to hear them, 
 
88 POPISH CONFESSION REFUTED. 
 
 tell it to the Church ;" but we do not admit that 
 either James v. 17, or Matt, xviii. 17, authorises 
 auricular confession to a priest, as is the custom in 
 the Popish Church. 
 
 First, The original Greek word for faults in James 
 y. 16, is ira^nTTTCfiiMc^la, and literally signifies a pro- 
 lapsus, or a falling forth ; and it is well known, that 
 when we fall forth, we are apt to come into contact 
 with something, which, if it be a sentient being, or 
 in any way belongs to a sentient and rational being, 
 will be thereby offended ; and thus we come to the 
 figurative use of the term in the scriptures, where it 
 signifies sins committed both against God, offences 
 against the Church, and the private faults of indivi- 
 duals. But though we admit that it has this three- 
 fold signification in the word of God, yet it is evi- 
 dent from the context, that the apostle James is not 
 only referring to those private offences which church 
 members are apt to commit against each other, but 
 referring to them in contradistinction to what he says 
 in the two preceding verses, concerning the prayers 
 of the elders, who were endued with the miraculous 
 gift of healing bodily diseases. The language of 
 the verse proves the design of the apostle, which 
 was, " that they might be healed," by the miracu- 
 lous cure performed by the power of the Holy 
 Ghost ; and knowing that, by reciprocally confess- 
 ing their faults, and praying for one another, their 
 
POPISH CONFESSION REFUTED. 89 
 
 minds, and, consequently, their bodies, would come 
 into the most suitable state for being thus healed, he 
 exhorts them to confess their faults to one another, 
 and to pray for one another, that they might be 
 healed. But the desio-n of auricular confession is, 
 that the confessed may have his sins pardoned, and, 
 therefore, we conclude, that the design of the apostle 
 and of Popery, are herein very different, and hence, 
 that there is no foundation in this text for auricular 
 confession to a priest. 
 
 But, secondly, if the words, " one another " are 
 to be understood of the people and the priest, it 
 proves more, I am afraid, than what any of the 
 priests will either thank the apostle for, practise, or 
 admit. If this be meant, it evidently proves, that 
 the priests should confess and acknowledge all their 
 offences, lapsus, delicta, and peccata, to the people, 
 which we are assured, they neither do, will do, nor 
 dare do, for many reasons best known to themselves. 
 But we know that if an argument proves too much, 
 it proves nothing at all, and, therefore, it is evident, 
 that the words " one another " in the text, do not 
 refer to the people and the priest. 
 
 But, thirdly. Popery allows that the prayers which 
 are commanded in this text, were the mutual prayers 
 of the laity only, and yet it will not admit that the 
 faults here mentioned, though they are so closely 
 connected with the prayers, that the design of both 
 
90 POPISH CONFESSION REFUTED. 
 
 is evidently the same, are to be confessed in the 
 same reciprocal manner by the laity also ; which 
 obstinacy proves that Popery is either spiritually 
 blind, deficient of skill in biblical criticism, or, what 
 is much worse, of a spirit strongly opposed to the 
 truth as it is in Jesus, which is that of antichrist. 
 
 But, in the fourth place, the scriptures no where 
 impose the law of telling either private faults or 
 private sins to the Church, and the reasons which 
 are obvious, are these, viz., as long as they are pri- 
 vate they do not sensibly offend against the Church, 
 they do not injure the interests of the Church, they 
 are not recognizable by the Church. But though 
 the nature of the case proves all this to be true, we 
 freely admit, that many private faults, as soon as 
 they are known, are censurable by the Church ; 
 because as soon as they are known they are no 
 longer private ; but we do not admit that the person 
 who committed them is bound to reveal them to 
 his own disgrace and confusion of face. How 
 could any person pray thus in faith who has reveal- 
 ed the secrets of his bosom to a priest : — " Grant 
 O Lord that my sins and iniquities may never rise 
 against me in this world, either to my confusion or 
 condemnation ?" It is not imposed by Matt, xviii. 
 17, where it is said : "If he shall neglect to hear 
 them, tell it unto the Church ;" for this verse evi- 
 dently teaches that private sins are first recognizable 
 
POPISH CONFESSION REFUTED. 91 
 
 by private friends and neighbours, that it is the duty 
 of these, as being members of the same community, 
 as well as by the authority of the word of God, first to 
 warn such of their danger and to admonish them ; and 
 then, if the person thus warned and admonished will 
 not lend obedient ears, to tell it to the Church, that 
 its interests may not in any respect be thereby injured. 
 
 But, in the Jifth place, I observe, that the word 
 " Church," in Matt, xviii. 17, signifies neither an 
 individual priest, bishop, cardinal, nor pope, as 
 Popery would have us to believe, but that body of 
 Christians to whom the ruling and edification of 
 the Church have been committed by Christ, who is 
 the great and only Head of the Church. The 
 general appellation of these considered individually, 
 instead of being either priest, bishop, cardinal, or 
 pope, is, according to Acts xiv. 23, and ii. 17, 
 simply (crgggCurg^o/) elders, and according to Acts 
 ii. 28, simply (e^ggjcoTro/) overseers, or such bishops 
 as were in the Church in the days of the apostles. 
 And the apostle Paul, when speaking of these 
 elders or overseers met together, calls their assembly 
 in 1 Tim. iv. 14, (^^sg^vTs^itv) eldership or presby- 
 tery. 
 
 But I observe, in the sixth place, that the scrip- 
 tures authorise us to affirm that no individual, what- 
 ever may be his station, authority, and power in the 
 Church, has a right to sit as sole judge upon any 
 
92 POPISH CONFESSION REFUTED. 
 
 of its members, either for the purpose of giving him 
 absolution, or for condemning him. Surely this is 
 evident from 1 Cor, v. 3, 4, 5, where the apostle 
 Paul says : " For I verily, as absent in body, but 
 present in spirit, have judged already, as though I 
 were present, concerning him that hath so done this 
 deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when 
 ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the 
 power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an 
 one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that 
 the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 
 And surely it is also evident from 2 Cor. ii. 6, 
 where we thus read : " Sufficient for such a man is 
 this punishment which was inflicted of many." But 
 if the word of God requires an assembly of rulers 
 in the ministration of Church discipline, it is evident 
 that the term "Church," in Matt, xviii. 17, does not 
 signify an individual of the Church, and hence it 
 follows, that lay members are not obliged to confess 
 their faults to any individual ruler in the Church. 
 
 But I observe, in the seventh place, that the fol- 
 lowing arguments still farther prove, that it is the 
 elders that is signified by the term " Church," in Matt, 
 xviii. 17. First, it would be next to impossible for 
 all the members of a large congregation to assemble 
 regularly for the purpose of assisting in its govern- 
 ment ; and even though they could all meet, it is 
 evident from 1 Cor. xii. 29, where it is said : " Are 
 
POPISH CONFESSION REFUTED. 93 
 
 all apostles ? are all prophets ^ are all teachers ? are 
 all workers of miracles ?" that God has neither set 
 all to be judges and rulers in the Church, nor quali- 
 fied all for those important purposes." The young, 
 we know, on account of their youth and inexperience, 
 are evidently unfit ; the old are generally not old 
 enough in wisdom for sitting as judges in an eccle- 
 siastical court ; females, according to 1 Cor. xiv. 
 34, are to keep silence ; and an individual, as I 
 proved before, has no right to sit as sole judge ; and, 
 therefore, it is hence evident that the term " Church," 
 in Matt, xviii. 17, must signify the rulers of the 
 Church, as in 1 Tim. iv. 14. But 2^?, What would 
 be the consequence, supposing it to signify both the 
 rulers and the ruled ? Would net witnesses, in that 
 case, frequently be for becoming also accusers ? 
 would not accusers be sometimes witnessing against 
 the accused ? would not disorder and confusion in- 
 evitably ensue ? and would not this be contrary to 
 1 Cor. xiv. 40, where it is said : " Let all thinofs be 
 done orderly in the Church ?" yea verily, and there- 
 fore we conclude that the collective term " Church," 
 must be so far limited as to signify, in Matt, xviii. 
 17, only its governors. But 3d, The term " Church" 
 is frequently employed, in the word of God, to sig- 
 nify its rulers only. This is evident from 1 Chron. 
 xiii. 12, where we are informed that " David the 
 king of Israel, consulted with the captains of thou- 
 
94 POPISH CONFESSION REFUTED. 
 
 sands of hundreds, and with every leader ; and said 
 unto all the congregation of Israel, (that is, all the 
 Church of Israel,) let us send abroad unto our 
 brethren everywhere that are left in the land of 
 Israel, and with them also the priests and Levites 
 w^hich are in the cities and suburbs, that they may 
 gather themselves unto us ;" and also, from Rev. ii. 
 1 — 7, where our Saviour commands the apostle to 
 write to the angel of the Church at Ephesus, and to 
 conclude his epistle in these words, (as in verse 7th,) 
 " He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what 
 the Spirit saith to the Churches." And hence, we 
 again conclude, that the term " Church," in Matt, 
 xviii. 17, does not mean the whole body of the people. 
 But I observe, in the eighth place, that it is evident 
 from the occasion of Christ's saying, " tell it to the 
 Church," that he was referring neither to an indivi- 
 dual of the Church, nor to the whole congregation, 
 but to the rulers of the Church only. Our Saviour, 
 upon that occasion, was addressing himself to the 
 Jews, who, as he well knew, had their sanhedrin, 
 which was a church assembly, treating of ecclesias- 
 tical affairs ; and therefore, it is but reasonable to 
 suppose, that upon this occasion, he spoke with a 
 reference to their institutions, and opinions concern- 
 ing them. And this is the more evident, from the 
 following words : viz., "If he neglect to hear the 
 Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a 
 
POPISH ABSOLUTION REFUTED. 95 
 
 publican," who, according to their laws, were debar- 
 red from the enjoyment of their religious privileges. 
 From the whole, then, we think we have abun- 
 dantly proved that the Popish interpretation of James 
 V. 16, and of Matt, xviii. 17, is a false interpreta- 
 tion, and having proved this, we have also proved 
 that auricular confession to a priest is an unscriptu 
 ral ordinance, which was the thing to be proved. 
 
 POPISH ABSOLUTION REFUTED. 
 
 It is God alone who can forgive sins ; 
 But no Popish priest is God ; — 
 Therefore, no Popish priest can forgive sins. 
 
 Now as the truth of my conclusion entirely de- 
 pends on that contained in my premises, I proceed 
 to prove what I have affirmed in them ; and to prove 
 that it is God only who can forgive sins. I observe, 
 in the^r^^ place, that we find the Lord claiming this 
 prerogative to himself m Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7, where we 
 thus read : " The Lord God, merciful and gracious, 
 long suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, 
 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, 
 transgression and sin ;" and also in Is. xliii. 25, 
 where we read thus : " I, even I, am he that blotteth 
 out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will 
 not remember thy sins." 2dly, Our Saviour, as 
 God, proves this, where he says to the sick man of 
 
96 POPISH ABSOLUTION REFUTED. 
 
 the palsy, as in Matt. ix. 2, 3 : " Son, be of good 
 cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee." The Psalmist, in 
 Psalm xxxii. 2, where it is said : " Blessed is the 
 man to whom the Lord impute th not iniquity, and 
 in whose spirit there is no guile," acknowledges the 
 truth of this proposition. Zdly, According to Psalm 
 li. 6, where we thus read : " Against thee only have 
 I sinned and done this evil." None other than 
 God is sinned against, and, therefore, we hence 
 conclude, that it would be folly to look to any other 
 for the pardon of our sins. 4f/i, According to Jas. 
 iv, 12, " It is God only, that is the lawgiver, who 
 is able to save and to destroy ;" and hence it is evi- 
 dent, that as the absolution of any other cannot save 
 us from destruction, it must be given in vain, bth. 
 Believers, according to Rom. viii. 33, where we 
 thus read : " Who shall lay anything to the charge 
 of God's elect? It is God that justifieth," are 
 the elect of God, who only can justify them ; and 
 therefore, not being the elect of a Popish priest, it 
 is hence evident, that a Popish priest cannot justify 
 them, or in other words, free them from sin. 6t/(f, 
 It was the belief of the Pharisees, who accused our 
 Lord of blasphemy, for saying to the sick man of 
 the palsy, " Son, thy sins be forgiven thee," that 
 none but God could forgive sin ; and from the con- 
 text it is evident, that our Saviour acknowledges, 
 that in this they had a proper belief; and, therefore, 
 
A POPISH OBJECTION, &C. 97 
 
 Popish priests, by pretending that they can forgive 
 sin, virtually maintain that they are God. 
 
 But " No Popish priest is God," according to our 
 proposition. That this is true, is hence evident : 
 No Popish priest created the world. No Popish 
 priest preserves and governs the world. No Popish 
 priest has the laws of nature in his hands. And no 
 Popish priest, whatever they may say of their power 
 to transubstantiate bread and wine into the real body 
 and blood of Christ, can open the eyes of the blind, 
 cleanse the leporous, heal the sick, raise the dead 
 ahve from their graves, and perform all miracles, 
 either in his own or any other name, though many 
 of them have pretended that they were able to do so ; 
 and, therefore, none of them being God, it must be 
 granted, that none of them, not even the Pope him- 
 self, can either pardon the least sin or absolve any 
 individual from its penalty ; which was the thing to 
 be proved. 
 
 A POPISH OBJECTION STATED AND ANSWERED. 
 
 To this conclusion, which we have properly in- 
 ferred. Popery objects, saying, as in Matt, xviii. 18, 
 and John xx. 23 : " Verily I say unto you, what- 
 soever ve shall bind on earth shall be bound in hea- 
 ven; whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be 
 loosed in heaven." " Whose soever sins ye remit, 
 
98 A POPISH OBJECTION 
 
 they are remitted unto them : and whose soever sins 
 ye retain, they are retained." 
 
 Now we freely admit, that it is evident from these 
 words, that there is a certain extent of power com- 
 mitted to the rulers of the Christian Church, but 
 we bv no means allow that it is to be inferred from 
 them, that that power extends to an absolute and 
 judicial absolving from sin and its penal consequences. 
 The nature and extent of the power referred to in 
 these verses, is evident from 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 20, 
 where the apostle Paul says : '* God has given to us 
 the mystery of reconciliation, to wit, that God was 
 in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not 
 imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath com- 
 mitted unto us the word of reconciliation. Now 
 then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God 
 did beseech yoti by us; we pray you in Christ's 
 stead, be ye reconciled unto God." Now, since the 
 nature and extent of the power of the apostles, as 
 rulers in the Church, is evident from these verses, 
 which is not to forgive sin, as Popish priests pre- 
 tend to do, but to declare in Christ's name, that 
 God will forgive the sins of believers being penitent 
 for Christ's sake only ; they also shew us the nature 
 and extent of the power of every Christian ruler in 
 the Church, which certainly cannot be greater than 
 that of the apostles. For a stronger confirmation 
 of this truth, we quote 1 Tim. iv. 16, where Paul 
 says to him : " Take heed unto thyself, and unto the 
 
STATED AND ANSWERED. 99 
 
 doctrine ; continue in them : for in doing this thou 
 shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." 
 Yea, that a minister of Christ can condemn or bind 
 refractory and impenitent offenders only by way of 
 declaration, just as an ambassador declares the will 
 of his sovereign, is still farther evident from John 
 ix. 45, where it is said : " He that accuseth you is 
 Moses ;" and also from John xii. 48, where the 
 same apostle says : " The word that I have, the 
 same shall judge him in the last day." Now since 
 it hence appears, that Popish absolution is so re- 
 pugnant to the word and spirit of the gospel, are we 
 not entitled in the jealousy of our minds, to ask the 
 following questions concerning it ? Has it not arisen 
 from the insolent pride of him, " who," (2 Thess. 
 ii. 4,) " opposeth and exalteth himself above all that 
 is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he, as 
 God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing that he 
 is God ?" Is it not the work of Simon the sorcerer, 
 who, (Acts viii. 18,) seeing " that through the laying 
 on of the apostles' hands, the Holy Ghost was given, 
 offered them money ?" Are not all the sluices of sin 
 thereby set widely open ? Are not the ignorant 
 thereby taught to sin ? Are not the timid thereby en- 
 couraged to commit sin ? Are not the rich thereby 
 allowed to wallow in sin ? Yea, could Satan with 
 all his hellish cunning, have invented a more in- 
 genious plan for ensnaring and catching the souls 
 of poor deluded mortals, than Popish absolution ? 
 
100 POPISH SATISFACTION REFUTED, 
 
 POPISH SATISFACTION REFUTED. 
 
 I proceed now to the arduous task, as Popery may 
 suppose, of overturning that high built tower, which, 
 throughout the Pope's sacred dominions, is known, 
 not by the humble name of repentance, but by the 
 proud appellation of "satisfaction." God, indeed, did 
 plant a vineyard at Rome, and built a tower for its 
 defence, and also put into it a wine press, with the ex- 
 pectation of having his heart gladdened with the fruit 
 of the vine ; but the vine-dressers, in the pride of 
 their hearts, broke down its fences, destroyed the 
 tower which God had built, and, like men of older 
 times, erected another, which, when finished, reach- 
 ed not only to heaven, not only to the highest of the 
 heavenly thrones, of principalities and powers, but, 
 wonderful to think, even higher than the mercy-seat 
 itself of God ! This superstructure, though with 
 materials bad, and though not allowed by God, they 
 impiously did raise, and, by many a herald glad, pro- 
 claimed its name so loud, that there was not a re- 
 sounding hill, or echoing stone, in all the now de- 
 fenceless vineyard, but with many repetitions most 
 distinct, sent back to the new lord of the vineyard, 
 the welcome name of satisfaction. They laid its 
 foundation deep on that hidden strata called by men 
 of science free-will. Then, of moral' works, and 
 human merits, they built the ground or first story 
 of the tower. Then, v/ith works of faith much finer 
 
POPISH SATISFACTION REFUTED. 101 
 
 than the moral law, by reason of the superior quahty 
 of their component parts, they erected a second story 
 which reached higher than any building of angels, 
 and called it supererogation. And now requiring 
 materials fit for finishing the building, they collected 
 from Trent and many other places, all the paternos- 
 ters, ave-marias, prayers of saints, fasts, lents, feasts, 
 masses, pilgrimages, holy waters, oil, balsam, relics 
 of wood, stone and lime, crosses feigned, agni dei of 
 all sorts, sizes, and materials, wax candles, holy wells, 
 sacred lakes, stations, bathings, lashings, scourgings, 
 lacerations, cells, caves, dens, and pains of purga- 
 tory, and with these they finished the third story, in 
 their imagination now as high as the eternal throne 
 of the infinitely just God. 
 
 Such, then, is the Popish babel we have now to de- 
 molish, though deemed by Popery so strong that the 
 gates of hell shall never be able to prevail against it. 
 Well, we shall now see what the force of divine truth 
 can do against its base or lowest story. " If it be by 
 grace (Rom. ii. 6,) it is no more work, otherwise 
 grace is no more grace ; but if it be of work, then it 
 is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work," 
 Do you perceive the given shock ? Do you see the 
 fabric totterinof- on its base ? Do vou not see that I 
 have loosened every stone of its human merit story ? 
 If not plainly, know that the apostle is not opposing 
 one sort of works to another, nor grace to the foolish 
 and often immoral works of Popery, but even to the 
 
102 POPISH SATISFACTION REFUTED. 
 
 holiest works of faith and charity which ever were 
 performed by the hohest saints upon earth. Where, 
 then, deceiving Popery, is the merit of all thy boast- 
 ed righteousness, by which, to satisfy thy Maker, and 
 to render thy salvation not of grace, but debt due to 
 thee by God, on account of thy great works and 
 penances severe performed, thou hast often commit- 
 ted nearly suicide ? Know that God, who is in- 
 finitely holy, cannot be so easily satisfied as to grant 
 salvation to sinners on any other terms than those of 
 the infinite merits of Christ's perfect righteousness. 
 Oh, then, believe that by grace alone are ye saved, 
 and leave this devoted babel which is now about to 
 tumble, and to overwhelm in its ruins all who remain 
 within its already shattered walls. The word of the 
 Lord is : *' Come out of her O my people;" " To- 
 day if you will hear my voice harden not your hearts." 
 Having thus shattered the human merit story of 
 this penitentiary building, I shall now direct the force 
 of another portion of divine truth against its story 
 of supererogation, which, we trust, shall widely rend 
 its walls even from top to bottom. Tit. iii. 5 : 
 " Not by words of righteousness which we" (saints) 
 " have done, but according to his mercy and grace 
 hath he saved us." See, O falsely secure Popery, 
 the force of this truth. It has so shattered the walls 
 of thy supererogatory story, that through each rent, 
 one may distinctly read these corroborating words of 
 God : " By the works of the law (Gal. ii. 16,) shall 
 
POPISH SATISFACTION REFUTED. 103 
 
 no flesh be justified." " Enter not into judgment 
 with thy servant; (Ps. cxliii. 2,) for in thy sight shall 
 no man be justified." Rom. iii. 10, 19: " There 
 is none righteous, no not one. Whatever the law 
 saith, it saith to them that are under the lav/, that 
 every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may 
 become guilty before God." Rom. iv. 5 : "It is 
 God that justifieth the ungodly." Gal. iii. 10: 
 " For as many as are of the law are under the curse," 
 viz., of the law. Now, as Romanists, according to 
 the tenets, doctrines, and practices of Popery, are 
 of the law of even superstitious penance, which is an 
 infinitely worse law than the holy law of Moses, they 
 are evidently under a curse infinitely heavier than 
 that which God has annexed to the violation and 
 neglect of the law of Moses. 
 
 Having been so far successful, we shall now ele- 
 vate the force of divine truth against the highest 
 story of this penitentiary building, even against that 
 turret on which the Rev. Dr Reilly has set up a 
 pendant, proudly displaying these words, most dis- 
 honourable to the divine and perfect satisfaction 
 which our Saviour rendered to God in behalf of sin- 
 ful man, viz : " Satisfaction is made to God by ful- 
 filling our penance, by fasting, prayer, alms, deeds, 
 and patiently bearing whatever crosses come in our 
 way." The truths I aim at it are these. Acts xx. 28 : 
 '' God hath purchased a church with his own blood." 
 1 John ii. 2 : " Christ is the propitiation for our 
 
104 POPISH SATISFACTION REFUTED. 
 
 sins." 1 John i. 7 : " The blood of Christ clean- 
 seth from all evil." Tell now, proud teacher of 
 Popery, what are the effects of the force of these 
 harmonious truths. Observe the demolition there- 
 by wrought. See, thy antichristian pendant is now 
 the sport of winds ; and the turret where it was dis- 
 played, together with the whole story, is tossed into 
 purgatory, where it may lie till its leporous walls are 
 purified by fire. Yea, see how the whole fabric of 
 Popish satisfaction has fallen, and how, in the vast- 
 ness of its ruins, it has deeply overwhelmed both the 
 Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, exorcists, 
 readers, acolyths, and door-keepers, much to their 
 own dissatisfaction. 
 
 O that they had obeyed the voice of God, when 
 thereby warned to come out of this antichristian su- 
 perstructure, this lair of the leopard of the seven 
 hills, this temple of the idol-host. Then would 
 they have been saved from this dreadful destruction ; 
 then would they have had more time to repent of 
 their sins. Then, perhaps, they would have learned 
 to repent with that repentance which is not to be re- 
 pented of. Then, perhaps, they would have found 
 grace to understand what the Spirit means, where he 
 desires sinners to bring forth fruits meet for repent- 
 ance. Then, perhaps, they would have paid more 
 attention to the meaning of the Greek verb Msravosco 
 in the New Testament, which signifies not to do 
 penance, but to think often, to change the mind, to 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 105 
 
 come to a right understanding, to be wise^ after a 
 foolish or sinful deed. Then, perhaps, they Xould 
 have experienced that it is the spirit of God oh^ 
 that can operate on the mind, so as to effect such a 
 change as is here referred to. Yea, then, perhaps, 
 they would have believed that evangelical repentance 
 is a saving grace, (Acts xi. 18,) whereby a sinner, 
 out of a true sense of his sin, (Acts ii. 37, 38,) and 
 apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, (Joel 
 ii. 12,) doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn 
 from it unto God, (Jer. xxxi. 18, 19,) with full pur- 
 pose of, and endeavour after new obedience, accord- 
 ing to 2 Cor. vii. 11, and Js. i. 16, 17. 
 
 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 I proceed now to prove, by several scriptural ar- 
 guments, that Popish excommunication is not con- 
 sistent with the word of God. 
 
 First Argument. — Our Saviour did not, in his 
 promise of the key of church discipline, confer a 
 stronger or better right to it upon the apostle Peter, 
 than upon the other apostles. 
 
 In Matt. xvi. 19, where it is said, " I will give 
 unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and 
 whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound 
 in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
 shall be loosed in heaven," we freely admit that our 
 Saviour was addressing Peter only. But then it is 
 also evident, from Matt, xviii. 17, 18, where we read 
 
i06 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 thus, " And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it 
 fo the church ; but if he neglect to hear the church, 
 then let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publi- 
 can. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall 
 bind on earth," &c., that the same key or power 
 that was promised to Peter was also promised to the 
 Church ; and hence it is evident, that Peter had no 
 exclusive ri^ht to it. The truth of this inference is 
 strongly confirmed from John xx. 19 — 23, where it 
 is thus stated, " Then the same day at evening, 
 being the first day of the week, when the doors were 
 shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of 
 the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and 
 saith, peace be unto you. Whosoever sins ye re- 
 mit, they are remitted unto them ; and whosoever 
 sins ye retain, they are retained ;" because it is hence 
 obviously manifest, that the same power that was 
 promised to Peter in Matt. xvi. 19, and in Chap, 
 xviii. 17, is here equally promised to all the dis- 
 ciples, even to all whom the Saviour commissioned 
 and qualified to preach the glad tidings of the gos- 
 pel. As an additional confirmation of this argu- 
 ment, I may further observe, that as the words 
 •jfLiig and vfi/v in Matt, xviii. 18, must be taken ac- 
 cordinsf to their literal siornification ; and as there 
 is nothing either in the conclusion of the 17th verse, 
 or beginning of the 18th verse, from which it can be 
 inferred, that our Saviour was not addressing the 
 Church in the 17th verse, it is obvious that the 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 107 
 
 words of the 1 7th verse must be taken according to 
 their Kteral signification ; and if so, the collective 
 term " church" there must have a plurality of ideas, 
 which it cannot properly have, unless there is a direct 
 reference made to the governors of the Church, act- 
 ing either in concert, or as individual rulers, as time, 
 place, and circumstances might render it necessary. 
 
 Now, since it hence appears that the key of 
 church discipline was promised to the Church, as 
 well as to the apostle Peter, and since the other 
 apostles constituted the main pillars of the Church, 
 both when the key was promised, and when it 
 was delivered, viz., when Jesus breathed upon the 
 apostles, and they received the Holy Ghost, it con- 
 sequently follows, that it was promised to Peter only 
 as representing, at the time, the other apostles ; or, 
 in other words, that it was promised to the Church 
 through him ; and hence it is evident, that he had 
 no better right to it than the other apostles ; and, 
 therefore, as we cannot believe that he acted dishon- 
 estly, we cannot admit that he gave it to the Popes 
 of Rome, even allowing, for the sake of argument, 
 that they were really his most legitimate successors, 
 which they cannot prove themselves to be. 
 
 Second Argument. — Our Saviour intended the 
 key of discipline, which he promised to the Church, 
 to be employed in a very different business from that 
 in which the Pope employs his key of discipline in 
 the Popish Church. 
 
108 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 The business in which the Pope's key of discip- 
 hne is employed, is, as we have already seen, coer- 
 cion and cruel tyranny. The business in which 
 our Saviour's key of discipline is to be employed, is 
 to prevent confusion in his Church, — the disgrace of 
 his covenant with his Church, — the profanation of 
 his holy sacraments, — the pollution of the ministry 
 of his holy word, — his wrath against his Church for 
 its demerits and impenitency, — the increase of scan- 
 dal against its members, among those that do not 
 belong to it, and blasphemies against himself, its 
 glorious Head. Therefore, we hence conclude, that 
 our Saviour intended the key of discipline, which he 
 promised and gave to his Church, to be employed in 
 a very different business from that in which the Pope's 
 key of church discipline is employed. 
 
 But as it would be unreasonable to desire his 
 Holiness the Pope to grant the above conclusion on 
 the bare statement of the premises, I shall now 
 prove the truth of my minor proposition, which, I 
 am sure, is the only one his Holiness can, with any 
 shadow of consistency, deny. 1^^, then. It is evident 
 from Matt. xiii. 30, where we thus read of both hy- 
 pocrites and sinners : " Let both grow together until 
 the harvest ; and in the time of harvest, I will say 
 to the reapers, gather first the tares, and bind them 
 into bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat in- 
 to my barn," that it is not to be employed against 
 hypocrites. 2^/?/, It is evident from 1 Cor. v. 11, 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 109 
 
 where it is said : " Now I have written unto you not 
 to keep company ; if any man that is called a brother, 
 be a fornicator, or a covetous, or an idolator, or a 
 railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an 
 one do not eat," that it is to be employed against 
 such professed brethren as continue impenitent and 
 contumacious, after having been proved guilty of 
 the above crimes, and after having been admonished 
 according to the direction of Christ, ^dly. It is 
 evident, from Titus iii. 10, where it is said : "A 
 man that is an heretic, reject after the first and se- 
 cond admonition," that it is to be emploj^ed against 
 all who wilfully continue strangers to the doctrines, 
 despisers of the precepts, and transgressors of the 
 commandments of Christ ; and certainly these are, 
 in a special manner, Romanists, if the Evangelists 
 tell the truth as it is in Jesus. Athly, It is evident, 
 from 2 John i. 10, where it is said: " If any man 
 come unto you, not having this doctrine, receive 
 him not into your house, neither bid him God speed," 
 that all teachers of false doctrines fall under the 
 power of the key which was promised and given by 
 our Saviour to his Church. And bthly^ It is evi- 
 dent, from 2 Thess. iii. 6 — 14, where we read thus : 
 " Now, we command you brethren, in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves 
 from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not 
 after the tradition which he hath received from us ; 
 and if any man obey not our word by this epistle. 
 
no POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED* 
 
 note that man, and have no company with him, that 
 he may be ashamed," that all such characters as are 
 here referred to, as long as they continue impenitent, 
 are to be separated from the Church by the power of 
 this key, not however by Popish violence, and cruel 
 expositions, but rather by means of the Church's 
 withdrawing itself from them. 
 
 Having thus proved the truth of my minor pro- 
 position, the truth of the conclusion is evident, viz., 
 that our Saviour intended the key of church discip- 
 line, which he promised and gave to his Church, to 
 be employed in a very different business from that 
 in which the Pope's key of church discipline is em- 
 ployed. Now, since the Pope uses his key, or in 
 other words, exercises his power, for purposes differ- 
 ent from those intended by Christ, according to the 
 Scriptures, it is evident that the power promised to 
 the Christian Church by Christ, and that exercised 
 by the Pope in the Church of Rome, are not the 
 same, either in respect of authority, or effects pro- 
 duced. But if they are not the same in neither of 
 these respects, they must be different, which was the 
 argument to be proved. 
 
 Third Argument, — Our third argument against 
 Popish excommunication is, that the Pope's key 
 of church discipline is not essentially the same as 
 that which our Saviour promised and gave to the 
 Church. 
 
 The power which the Pope exercises in his 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUJJICATION REFUTED. Ill 
 
 Church, being partly civil and partly spiritual, is 
 of a mixed nature, but that which was promised and 
 given by Christ to the Church is purely and entire- 
 ly of a spiritual nature ; therefore, the power which 
 the Pope exercises in his Church is not essentially 
 the same that our Saviour promised and gave to his 
 Church. 
 
 Now, as the truth of my major proposition is abun- 
 dantly evident, both from the well known canons, and 
 history of the Popish Church, and what I have stated 
 above concerning Popish excommunication, I have 
 only to prove the truth of my minor proposition to 
 establish the truth of what I have affirmed in my 
 conclusion, which, if I mistake not, is properly in- 
 ferred. Now, Christ himself says, in John xviii, 36 : 
 " My kingdom is not of this world ;" but the king- 
 doms of the world are civil and political kingdoms ; 
 and, therefore, Christ's kingdom is neither a civil 
 nor political kingdom. The kings of the earth govern 
 their kingdoms by human pohcy, but Christ is a 
 spiritual and divine king, and therefore the policy 
 by which his kingdom is governed is spiritual and 
 divine. The laws by which the kings of the earth 
 govern their kingdoms are human laws, but the 
 King of the Gospel Zion is a spiritual ruler, and 
 therefore his laws are spiritual and divine. Rulers 
 and magistrates under kings of the earth are, (Rom. 
 xiii. 4,) " Revengers, to execute wrath upon him 
 that is evil," but rulers under Christ are commis- 
 
112 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 sioned by him to deal so with the wicked as to be 
 the means of brinffins" them back to a state of re- 
 pentance, to an amendment of life, and to the re- 
 enjoyment of those religious ordinances from which, 
 by their wickedness, they had excluded themselves, 
 and therefore rulers and magistrates under kings of 
 the earth have no jurisdiction (as such) in the king- 
 dom of Christ. Civil magistrates, as appears from 
 Rom<, xiii. 4, where it is said : " He beareth not the 
 sword in vain," have a commission from God to 
 force and compel transgressors of the laws of civil 
 society, but it is evident, from 1 Cor. v. 5, where, 
 concerning delivering the wicked over to Satan, we 
 read thus : " That the spirit may be saved in the 
 day of the Lord Jesus," that a spiritual ruler's com- 
 mission respects the inner man only, and his state as 
 a member of a spiritual society, and therefore civil 
 magistrates, as such, have no authority in the 
 Church. The spiritual sword only, which, 2 Cor. 
 X. 4, 5, is the word of God, belongs to rulers in 
 the kingdom of Christ, but the civil sword is not 
 the word of God, and therefore it is not to be used 
 by rulers in the kingdom of Christ. It belongs to 
 civil rulers to punish transgressors of the civil law 
 according to their demerit, even after they have con- 
 fessed, but it belongs to rulers of the kingdom of 
 Christ upon earth to re-admit all who have acknow- 
 ledged and confessed to them the sins of which they 
 were accused and proved guilty, to all the rights 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 113 
 
 and privileges of their spiritual community, and 
 therefore the function of a civil magistrate, in all 
 such cases, is directly opposed to that of a spiritual 
 ruler. The attention of the civil magistrate is, by 
 his commission, chiefly directed to the execution of 
 human justice, and the peace and prosperity of civil 
 society, to the praise and glory of the king of the 
 realm, but Christ is the king of the gospel kingdom, 
 and therefore the attention of rulers in the gospel 
 kingdom is, by their commission, chiefly directed 
 to the conversion, spiritual prosperity, and everlast- 
 ing salvation of its members, to the praise and glory 
 of its divine Governor and King. Yea, it appears, 
 from John viii. 5 — 11, where we read, that our 
 Saviour freed the woman taken in adultery, not- 
 withstanding that, according to the law of the Jews, 
 she ought to have been stoned to death, that it is 
 often the duty of the civil magistrate to punish, 
 when it is that of the spiritual ruler to forgive, and 
 of the duty of a spiritual ruler to punish as the 
 spiritual law directs, when it is that of a civil magis- 
 trate to forgive. 
 
 Having now proved that the power promised to 
 and conferred by Christ upon the apostles, was 
 purely and entirely of a spiritual nature, the truth 
 of the conclusion of the above syllogism is also con- 
 firmed, which was : " That the power which the 
 Pope exercises in his Church is not essentially the 
 same that our Saviour promised and gave to his 
 
 H 
 
114 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED, 
 
 Church. Now, since they are not essentially the 
 same, it consequently follows, that the operation 
 and effects of that power cannot be scriptural. 
 
 Fourth Argument. — Our fourth argument against 
 Popish excommunication is, that the Pope's key of 
 church discipline locks malefactors out of the Church 
 triumphant as well as militant, whereas that which 
 our Saviour conferred upon his Church locks them, 
 out only from the Church militant. 
 
 Popery maintains that the key which Christ confer- 
 red upon the Christian Church has this antichristian 
 power, from Matt. xvi. 19, where it is said: "I will 
 give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
 bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose 
 on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 
 
 Now, in refutation of this Popish doctrine, it is 
 necessary to find out the origin and ancient use of 
 the peculiar phraseology which our Saviour makes 
 use of in this portion of his Holy Word. In order 
 to this, then, we find among the emblematical repre- 
 sentations which are painted on Egyptian mummies, 
 many deities, who are supposed to be in attendance 
 at the judgment tribunal of Death, and among the 
 rest, their principal goddess, Isis, with a key in one 
 of her hands. Now if this key, which is undoubtedly 
 emblematical of some species of power, was in the 
 hand of a mortal, it might reasonably be supposed 
 to be the hieroglyphical key of the river Nile ; but 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 115 
 
 as it is in the hand of a heavenly deity, it must be 
 allowed to be a symbolical representation of divine 
 power, even of that omnipotent power by which 
 deity opens up the seasons, looses the storms, re- 
 strains the planets in their courses, reveals all things, 
 and, in short, carries on the government of the 
 world. Now, in confirmation of what we have here 
 affirmed of this hieroglyphical key, we offer the fol- 
 lowing arguments : — First, The word which the 
 Arabians, even to this day, use as one of the most 
 sacred names of God, is " Al-Fettah," which is by 
 interpretation, " The All- Opener." Secondly, In 
 Eusebius, by Calmet, concerning the origin of idola- 
 try, we are told, that there was on the pillar of Isis 
 which stood in Nysa in Arabia, the following in- 
 scription : " I, Isis, am Egypt's Queen, instructed 
 by Mercury. No body will be able to loose what 
 I have bound." " Here you see," says the author, 
 '* we have the power to bind pronounced, and b\ 
 the key in her hand, her power to loose also is ex- 
 pressed." Thirdly, It is evident from the Orphic 
 Hymns, where the keys of the earth are assigned to 
 Pluto, those of the sea, to Proteus, those of the 
 universe, to Cupid, that of sorrow and joy, to the 
 Good Spirit, and (Nonnus ix. 86.) those of the 
 calm of the sea, to Lencothea ; that keys are not 
 only representations of divine power exercised in the 
 government of the world, but also that the idea of 
 them as such, passed from Egypt into Greece. And, 
 
116 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 Fourthly, It is evident from Rev, i. 18, where our 
 Saviour says of himself: " I have the keys of hell 
 and of death," which is as if he had said, I am Lord 
 over both life and death, that St. John knew that 
 keys are emblematical of power and might. 
 
 Now, when we consider the great proximity of the 
 Holy Land to Arabia and Egypt, the great proneness 
 of the Jews to idolatry in the early period of their 
 history, that the apostle John knew that they were 
 emblematical, that the phrase, "to loose and to bind," 
 was a sacred phrase, that it was admirably well cal- 
 culated for a law phrase, and that the Jewish scribes 
 and doctors always greatly respected Egyptian litera- 
 ture, we say, it is more than highly probable that the 
 phrase " to loose and to bind," whence it was derived, 
 its proper meaning were well known to the Jews ; 
 that it was used by them to express their condem- 
 nation and acquittal of persons accused before their 
 Sanhedrim ; and hence that the apostles understood 
 our Saviour to be referring only to the condemnation 
 and acquittal of persons accused by the Church, and 
 to the power of shutting and re-opening the door of 
 the Church militant, that is, of ecclesiastical excom- 
 munications. 
 
 And this conclusion is still more strongly con- 
 firmed by the three following remarks : \st. It is 
 generally admitted by men of learning, that the ac- 
 cused persons whom the judges of the Jews freed, 
 were said to be loosed, and that those whom they 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 117 
 
 found guilty and condemned, were said to be bound. 
 2rf/y, The phrase " to loose and to bind," is also 
 an expression in the Armenian language, signifying 
 to permit and to forbid, which also refers to authority 
 and power. And, ^dhj. The same phrase referring 
 to civil authority and power, is to be found in Gre- 
 gorii Bar. Hebr. Chron., p. 593, where it is thus 
 spoken of a Jewish ruler : " The Jew who was yes- 
 terday supreme ruler, who could loose and bind, and 
 who wore royal apparel, wore to-day a jacket, he was 
 a beggar and no ruler." 
 
 Now, since it is hence evident that our Saviour 
 used this phrase among a people who knew that it 
 referred to the highest ci\il and ecclesiastical power, 
 it is evident that he, in the use of it, only designed 
 to express the highest power of rulers in his militant 
 Church ; viz., the power of excommunicating from 
 it its unworthy members. Therefore, we conclude, 
 that the Popish Church wrests this portion of the 
 word of God in order to maintain their unscriptural 
 excommunications. 
 
 But whether does the Popish interpretation of 
 these words lead us ? even to the absurd and im- 
 pious conclusion, that the Popish Inquisition was 
 agreeable to the will of God ; that while the familiars 
 were binding a man upon earth, there are also celes- 
 tial familiars binding him in heaven ; that when by 
 a terrestrial Inquisition he is thrown into a dungeon 
 upon earth, he is, by a celestial Inquisition, thrown 
 
118 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 into a dungeon in heaven ; that, when loosed from 
 his chains upon earth, after a seven years dark and 
 loathsome confinement, he is also, after the same 
 length of time, loosed from his chains in heaven ; 
 that, when he is tortured by the rack and wheel 
 upon earth, he is at the same time enduring the same 
 torment in heaven ; and that, when they are per- 
 forming an act of faith with him upon earth, viz., 
 when they are setting the dogs' beards about him 
 and roasting him to death, he is at the same time 
 suffering the same anguish and pain in heaven, even 
 in that place where every inteUigent being is re- 
 plete with happiness and joy. O Heaven ! if what 
 Popery says of thee be true, what would thou be ? 
 even hell ; but hell thou shalt never be, as long as 
 God is stronofer than the devil, Christ than anti- 
 christ, and the Lion of the tribe of Judah than the 
 leopard whose den is in the city of the seven hills. 
 Objection Answered. — In refutation of the Pro- 
 testant interpretation of Matt. xvi. 19, Popery says, 
 as it is evident from 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, where it is said : 
 " In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are 
 gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan, 
 for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be 
 saved in the day of the Lord Jesus ;" and also, from 
 I Tim. i. 20, where we thus read : " Of whom is 
 Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered 
 unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme f 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 119 
 
 that the Church has power to deliver impenitent of- 
 fenders against the Church, unto Satan, it follows, 
 that it has likewise power to shut them out of heaven. 
 
 Now, in answer to this objection, we say, that the 
 Popish interpretation of these words also is a false 
 one, and we disprove it thus. Knowing that the 
 crime of the person referred to in 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, 
 was that of incest, and that the punishment which 
 the apostle desired to inflict upon him, was intended 
 to be the means, under divine grace, of saving his 
 spirit, we perceive a congruity between the crime, 
 and the punishment of excommunication, and the end 
 proposed, but none between putting him, soul and 
 body, into the power and keeping of the devil, and 
 the saving of his spirit. And knowing likewise, that 
 the unhappy persons mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 20, had 
 fallen from the faith, and also, that their punishment 
 was inflicted for the purpose of teaching them not to 
 blaspheme, we again see an agreement between their 
 crime, and their excommunication from the Church, 
 and the end proposed ; but none between their punish- 
 ment, according to the interpretation of Popery, and 
 the end proposed, which was, that they might there- 
 by learn not to blaspheme. 
 
 But, again, the end proposed in both cases, is the 
 everlasting salvation of these unhappy men ; but it 
 is evident from the word of God, that none can be 
 saved unless they repent with that repentance which 
 is not to be repented of ; and, therefore, it follows, 
 
120 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 according to the interpretation of Popery, that the 
 apostle Paul would have all such offenders as there 
 referred to, to be delivered unto Satan, that they 
 may, by his skilful tuition, be brought to a state of 
 evangelical repentance, which, at least, infers the 
 three following equally absurd particulars : l6f,That 
 the devil was, by preaching repentance, or in some 
 other way, a means of grace to graceless men ; 2rf, 
 That the apostle Paul taught the unscriptural doctrine 
 of universal redemption ; and, ^dly, That Roman 
 Catholics believed that terrible heresy, the truth of 
 v/hich is more evident, when we consider the strong 
 analogy and close connection which subsists between 
 the doctrine of the salvation of sinners, by means of 
 infernal punishment by the devil, and the purification 
 of the soul by means of the penal fire of purgatory. 
 Therefore, instead of admitting that the apostle 
 Paul either delivered the souls of Alexander and 
 Hymeneus into the power and custody of the devil 
 entirely and for ever, or put their bodies for a season 
 into care of his satanic majesty, that he might inflict 
 them v/ith diseases, plagues, and death, as some not 
 knowing the scriptures have erroneously supposed, or 
 gave them up to him in any way, and for any pur- 
 pose whatever, I say, that instead of admitting any 
 of these absurd notions, we, from their absurdity, 
 conclude, that the apostle merely excluded them from 
 the use of Church privileges, or, in other words, 
 excommunicated them from the visible Church of 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 121 
 
 Christ ; and this conclusion we still more strongly 
 confirm by the following arguments. 
 
 First, The Popish interpretation of 1 Tim. i. 20, 
 is repugnant to the mild spirit and gracious design 
 of the gospel, which breathes love, mercy, and com- 
 miseration towards all, offers salvation even to the 
 chief of sinners being penitent, and condescends even 
 to beseech them to accept of it, as appears from the 
 following portions of the word of God. In 2 Cor. 
 ii. 6, 7, we read these antipopish words : " Sufficient 
 for such a man is the punishment which was infficted 
 by many, so that contrary wise ye ought rather to for- 
 give and comfort him ; lest perhaps such an one 
 should be swallowed up with too much sorrow." In 
 Gal. vi. 1, it is thus spoken against the Popish in- 
 terpretation of 1 Tim. i. 20 : " Brethren, if a man 
 be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore 
 such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering 
 thyself, lest thou also be tempted." But how could 
 he be restored after having been delivered to Satan ? 
 Could the Pope deliver him ? If he is able, it may 
 be yet well with many souls in hell, to whom, when 
 thence redeemed, its fire will not be everlasting ! 
 And in Isa. i. 18, it is said to the same purpose : 
 " Come now and let us reason together, saith the 
 Lord, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as 
 white as snow, though they shall be as crimson, they 
 shall be as wool." 
 
 Second, Visible corporal punishment is nowhere 
 
122 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 in the word of God called a deliverino^ over to Satan, 
 and, therefore, " the destruction of the flesh," men- 
 tioned in 1 Cor. v. 5, is not to be understood of vi- 
 sible corporal punishment. The word flesh, in scrip- 
 ture, is often used to signify our corrupt nature, or, 
 in other words, the old man ; and we know, from 
 scripture, that unless this is destroyed, the spirit, or 
 new man, is thereby often so overpowered, as to be 
 both apparently, and in reality, upon the very verge 
 of spiritual death ; and, therefore, to save the spirit, 
 or new man, it is necessary so to treat the offender, 
 that his corrupt nature — his old man — his flesh, may 
 be destroyed or mortified ; and we know, that that 
 excommunication, which is according to the scrip- 
 tures, is one of the means of grace which God has 
 appointed for this gracious purpose. 
 
 Thirds But even admitting that something more 
 was meant in Matt, xviii. 17, 18, than church dis- 
 cipline, and in 1 Tim. i. 20, than excommunication, 
 it can only refer to that power which Christ confer- 
 red upon the apostles, viz., to the power of discerning 
 spirits, of healing the bodily diseases of such as they 
 thereby perceived had faith to be healed, as in the 
 case (Acts xiv. 8, 9, 10,) of the cripple at Lystra, 
 and of inflicting corporal punishment upon those 
 whom they thereby knew to be guilty of hypocrisy, 
 as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira ; or of en- 
 mity to Christ and the gospel, as in the case of 
 Elymas the sorcerer. 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 123 
 
 Fourth, The apostle Paul reproves the Corinth- 
 ians, 1st Epistle V. 2, for not having put away from 
 them the incestuous person there referred to, and, 
 throughout the chapter, directs that Church thus to 
 censure and punish him : And why ? The only os- 
 tensible reason is, that he might not have cause to 
 come among them to exercise his apostolical power. 
 Because, then, as hence appears, they could have 
 done to the incestuous person what the apostle there 
 desired them, and since it is evident from scripture 
 that they had not at that time that power which Peter 
 exercised upon Ananias, and Paul upon Elymas, it 
 consequently follows, that he is there reproving them 
 for not having performed the ordinary duty of ex- 
 pelhng him from the Church, to do which, they cer- 
 tainly had both sufficient authority and power, without 
 any supernatural assistance. 
 
 Fifth, The relation which a person thus punished 
 stood in to the Church, was (Matt, xviii. 17,) to be 
 that of a heathen and a publican ; but the apostles, as 
 appears from 1 v. where Paul says: "For what have I 
 to do to judge them also that are without," had neither 
 right nor authority to judge heathens and publicans, 
 as they were without the pale of their Christian 
 jurisdiction; and hence, also, it is evident, that the in- 
 cestuous man was not to receive corporal punishment, 
 either by the agency of the Corinthians or of Satan. 
 
 Sixth, The Pope's delivering of refractory subjects 
 over to Satan, is not an actual delivering of them 
 
124 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 up. To disprove this assertion, he must find proper 
 means to get himself out of the following dilemma. 
 The person whom he pretends to have delivered over 
 to Satan, is either worthy of this punishment, or un- 
 worthy of it.. Well, if he is really worthy of it in 
 the sight of God, it is evident that he belonged to 
 the devil from all eternity ; for otherwise, God is a 
 changeable beings, and has not decreed from eternity 
 whatsoever comes to pass, and therefore the Pope 
 can neither honestly give that which did not belong 
 to him, nor be properly said to deliver over to Satan 
 what was Satan's own. And if, on the other hand, 
 the person is unworthy of such a punishment in sight 
 of heaven, God will certainly not give him up to 
 eternal woe and pain, because the Pope, in the hard- 
 ness of his antichristian heart, has declared him to 
 belong to the devil. 
 
 But, in the last place, I observe, that this Popish 
 doctrine not only oppugns the doctrine of the eternal 
 decrees of God, but also infers, that the Pope, in 
 virtue of his prescience, is able to discern the spirits 
 of men, to judge their hearts, and to perceive whe- 
 ther the wicked will repent of their sins, and, in the 
 spirit of one whose old man, or flesh, has been de- 
 stroyed, turn unto God ; but these, however, are 
 perfections, which, instead of belonging to the Pope, 
 who, according to some, can neither err nor fall, be- 
 long only to the Deity, and such as can heal all 
 manner of diseases ; and, therefore, we conclude. 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 125 
 
 that the Pope is a most daring usurper of the power 
 and authority of Him, who, according to Rev. i. 8, 
 has the keys of hell and of death ; and also, that he 
 is a most cruel and unmerciful tyrant over all who 
 are under his awful power. 
 
 But as Papists may desire us to shew them the 
 principles upon which excommunication from the 
 Church is called by the apostle Paul a delivering 
 over to Satan. I observe, that as there are but two 
 spiritual kingdoms in this world, viz., the visible king- 
 dom, or Church of Christ, and the visible kingdom 
 of the devil, it follows, that as soon as any person is 
 legally expelled from the former, he is necessarily 
 forced into that of the latter, and hence it is that the 
 apostle calls it a delivering unto Satan, from whose 
 dominion the expelled cannot return into the visible 
 kingdom of Christ, without the visible signs, at least, 
 of being a penitent. Yea, in the language of the 
 penitent prodigal, (see Luke xv. 19,) he must re- 
 turn, saying : " I have sinned before heaven and in 
 thy sight, and I am no more worthy to be one of thy 
 members ; but my old man — my flesh, is now de- 
 stroyed by the misery I have experienced in the 
 kingdom of Satan, where I could find nothing to 
 exist on but the bitter ashes of remorse ; and, there- 
 fore, I pray to be received again into the kingdom 
 of Christ, that my spirit also may not die, which I 
 am sure must be my fate, unless you have mercy 
 upon me, and feed me with the bread of life." 
 
126 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 Fifth Argument, — Our fifth argument against 
 Popish excommunication is, that the minor ward of 
 the Pope's key of church disciphne is not so formed 
 as to answer Christian purposes. 
 
 As we have seen above, its formation is such, that 
 when the key is turned by the anointed hand of a 
 priest, it crushes and destroys all the endearing 
 effects of those reciprocal charities which subsist 
 between husband and wife, parent and child, brother 
 and sister, yea, even all the ties and bonds of do- 
 mestic and friendly society, which prove it to be a 
 very unchristian ward, as will appear from the fol- 
 lowing portions of the word of God. Our Saviour 
 rebukes the Jews, in Mark vii. 9, 10, 11 thus: 
 " Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye 
 may keep your own tradition : for Moses said, honour 
 thy father and mother, and whoso curseth father or 
 mother, let him die the death; but ye say, if a man say 
 to his father or mother, it is Corban, (that is to say, a 
 gift dedicated to the temple-service of God,) by 
 whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, he shall 
 be free." But the minor excommunications of the 
 Popish Church, prohibit as much as possible all 
 communications between those in the church, and 
 the excommunicated, whatever may be their rela- 
 tionship ; and, therefore, our Saviour in these verses, 
 rebukes Popish priests for their minor excommuni- 
 cations. The apostle Paul, in 1. Cor. v. 10, says : 
 '' Yet not altogether with fornications of this world, 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 127 
 
 or with covetous, or extortioners, or idolators ; for 
 then ye must needs go out of the world." But the 
 minor excommunications of Popery prohibits as 
 much as possible all intercourse with such, the 
 priests will tell their flock from their altars to have 
 no manner of business with ; and, therefore, this doc- 
 trine of Popery, and that of the apostle, are opposite 
 doctrines. The minor excommunications of the 
 Popish Church cuts off the excommunicated from 
 all social intercourse with the flock. But the apostle 
 Paul says, in Cor. x. 27 : " If any of them that be- 
 lieve not, (that is, of the heathens, like to whom the 
 excommunicated become,) bid you to a feast, and 
 ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you 
 eat, asking no questions for conscience sake." And 
 here again as far at least as permission to associate 
 is concerned, the Pope and the apostle are at com- 
 complete variance. But, Secondly, No ceremony 
 of religion must exclude men from performing the 
 duties of the moral law, as we may learn from David's 
 eating the shew-bread, from Christ allowing his dis- 
 ciples to rub the ears of corn on the Sabbath, and 
 from Matt. ix. 13, where it is said: " Go ye and 
 learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not 
 sacrifice." But the minor excommunication of the 
 Popish Church is a religious ceremony, and, there- 
 fore, it should not, according to the above quotations, 
 exclude men from performing labours of love, or in 
 other words, the duties of the moral law ; nor should 
 
128 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 it in any way break up our commercial correspon- 
 dence with each other, as is evident from a compari- 
 son of Matt, xviii. 17, with Neh. xiii. 19, where it 
 is manifest, that the people of God were permitted 
 to buy and sell with the heathens around them, like 
 to whom, by means of excommunication, men be- 
 came in the estimation of the Christian Church. 
 
 But Popery may object, thus, St. Paul says, in 
 1 Cor. V. 11 : " With such an one no not to eat;" 
 that the apostle John, 2d Epistle, i. 10, says : "Re- 
 ceive him not into your house, nor bid him God 
 speed ;" and that our Saviour says, in Matt, xviii. 
 17, " Let him be unto thee as a heathen and a pub- 
 lican," but if we are not to eat with such, nor re- 
 ceive them into our houses, nor bid them God 
 speed, &c., we are to behave towards them just as 
 the minor excommunication of the Church directs, 
 and therefore it must be consistent with the word of 
 God. What ! O Popery, will you be so bold as to 
 make the words of the apostle Paul inconsistent with 
 those of our Saviour, and those of our Saviour with 
 others of his own, in order to prove that your minor 
 excommunication is agreeable to scripture ? Know, 
 that the apostle Paul says, in 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13 : 
 " If a man hath a wife that believeth not, and she 
 be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her 
 away ;" but an excommunicated wife stands in the 
 same relation to the Church that an unbeliever 
 does ; and, therefore, we are here taught by the 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 129 
 
 apostle, that if a man has a wife who is excommuni- 
 cated from the Church, he is not to forsake her on 
 that account. Yea, know that, as both the apostle 
 Paul and our Saviour did eat, the former with hea- 
 thens, as is evident from Acts xxviii. 7, 8, and the 
 latter with pubHcans and sinners, as is evident from 
 both Matt. ix. 10, and Luke vii. 37, your interpre- 
 tation of 1 Cor. V. 1 is not the true one, and hence, 
 that your minor excommunication is not agreeable 
 to the word of God. 
 
 Sixth Argument, — Our sixth argument against 
 Popish excommunication is, that the major ward of 
 the key of Popish discipline is not formed agreeably 
 to the word of God. 
 
 The major ward of this key is so formed, that 
 when the Pope turns it, (and it is he only who has 
 power to turn it,) he thereby performs the greatest 
 of all Popish acts of faith, viz., an auto-da-fe. But 
 an auto-da-fe is contrary to all that is required of us 
 to be observed in the sixth command of the Deca- 
 logue, which says : " Thou shalt not kill ;" and 
 therefore the major ward of this Popish key is so 
 formed, that when the Pope turns the key it crashes 
 and destroys, by way of inquisitions, all that is re- 
 quired of us in the sixth commandment. Now, to 
 be assured of the truth of my conclusion, it is only 
 necessary to compare the above description of an 
 auto-da-fe with the duties required of us in the sixth 
 commandment, which, as even Popery allows, are 
 
 I 
 
130 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 all lawful endeavours to preserve the life both of our- 
 selves and others, quietly defending ourselves and 
 others against violence and oppression, forgiving the 
 injuries of others, requiting good for evil, comfort- 
 ing and defending the innocent, and performing 
 works of love, piety, compassion, gentleness, kind- 
 ness, patience, and charity, as far as in our power 
 hes, to all, whether they be heathens or Christians, 
 publicans or sinners, Mahomedans or Hottentots, 
 Papists or Protestants. 
 
 But no wonder that the spirit of Popery is so greatly 
 opposed to the spirit of this commandment, and that 
 Papists are so much set against performing to others 
 the duties required in it, when we consider that they 
 are so much opposed to the performance of those 
 which relate to themselves, and which, therefore, are 
 more natural; that, like the priests of Baal, (1 Kings, 
 xviii. 28,) who " cut themselves with knives and 
 lancets till the blood gushed out upon them," and 
 also, like the heathens of old, who, in honour of their 
 gods, "suffered their flesh to be stabbed and torn," 
 they scourge, cut, and lacerate their flesh, saying : 
 " If it can do no good it can do no harm," and that 
 '' both Christ and the apostles suffered the same 
 punishment ;" all which is superstition and unscrip- 
 tural, as we may learn from both Eph. v. 29, where 
 it is said : " No man ever hated his own flesh," and 
 Lev. xxvi. 5, where we read, that the children of God 
 are prohibited from making cuttings in their own flesh. 
 
POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 131 
 
 Seventh Argument — My seventh and last argu- 
 ment against Popish excommunication is, that the 
 third, maximus, or anathematical ward of the key, by 
 which the Pope disciplines his Church, is not formed 
 so as to answer Christian purposes; for when the Pope 
 puts this key of Church discipline into the door of his 
 Church as far as the third ward, and turns it fairly 
 round, every heretical emperor, king, prince, duke, 
 and lord, has to suffer himself to be cursed, and ex- 
 cluded from his dominions, and to have his subjects 
 freed from their oath of fidelity to him ; all which we 
 shall now prove to be contrary to the word of God. 
 
 We have already proved that no private person is 
 to be deprived, by Church authority, of his goods, 
 privileges, or estates; but an empire, kingdom, 
 dukedom, &c., is the property of the emperor, 
 king, duke, &c.; and, therefore, no emperor, king, 
 duke, &c., is to be cut off from his property by the 
 authority of the Church. This conclusion we sup- 
 port thus : Paul to the Romans, xiii. 1, says : " Let 
 every soul be subject to the higher powers ;" and 
 these in his days were heathens. Peter, the Pope's 
 pretended predecessor, says, in First Epistle, ii. 13, 
 " Be subject, submit yourselves to every ordinance 
 of man, for the Lord's sake ;" and surely the ordi- 
 nances referred to were those of heathens. The 
 same apostle, in First Epistle, ii. 17, says: "Ho- 
 nour the king ;" which certainly is not done by de- 
 throning him. Paul to the Romans, xiii. 7, instead 
 
132 POPISH EXCOMMUNICATION REFUTED. 
 
 of teaching subjects to abalienate the possessions of 
 their kings, as the Pope did the subjects of Queen 
 Ehzabeth, when he was for all her armies, towns, 
 and castles, delivered over to the King of Spain, 
 teaches them to pay tribute to them, — even though 
 they were heathens ! By the bulls of the Pope we 
 are taught to curse heretical kings, and other gover- 
 nors, whereas we are taught by the apostle Paul, 
 in 1 Tim. ii. 12, "to pray for kings, and all in 
 authority over us ;" from Matt. xvii. 27, where it is 
 said : " Take that piece of money and give for me 
 and for thee ;" and from Matt. xxii. 21, where it is 
 said : " Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's," 
 it is evident that it is our duty to give tribute even 
 to governors who rule by right of conquest. Kings 
 who reign by right of conquest are, by Rom. xiii. I, 
 " powers ordained of God." Popery teaches that 
 such should be resisted and deposed ; and, therefore. 
 Popery teaches us to resist the ordinance of God ; 
 Popery teaches subjects to curse heretical kings in 
 their hearts, and to speak evil of them, but Solomon, 
 in Eccles. x. 20, forbids them " to curse the king, 
 even in thought," Moses, in Ex. xxii. 28, forbids 
 them to " revile the gods, and to curse the ruler of 
 the people ;" but Paul, in Acts xxiii. 5, teaches 
 them not to " speak evil of the rulers of the people;" 
 and, therefore. Popery teaches a doctrine which is 
 contrary to that of Moses, Solomon, and the apostle 
 Paul. Popery teaches that subjects are free from 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 133 
 
 their oath of allegiance to a king who has been ex- 
 communicated, and to equivocate and have reserva- 
 tions in swearing oaths of fidelity to such, but God 
 says, in Num. xxx. 2 : " If a man vow a vow unto 
 the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a 
 bond, he shall not break his word, but do all that 
 proceedeth out of his mouth ;" and, therefore, what 
 Popery teaches concerning oaths of allegiance is 
 contrary to what God teaches. Thus have I proved, 
 as briefly as the nature of the subject would admit, 
 that Popish penance, instead of being a sacrament, 
 is, in all its parts, an ordinance most repugnant to 
 the word of God. 
 
 POPISH SACRAMENT MARRIAGE. 
 
 I proceed now, against the Church of Rome, to 
 discuss the subject of marriage, which it holds to be 
 a sacrament ; and the method I propose, is, ^rst, To 
 shew from the word of God, and other resources, 
 what marriage is ; secondly. To state briefly, a few of 
 the principal errors which the Romish Church holds 
 respecting it ; and, in the the third place, to refute, 
 from the word of God, the arguments which Popery 
 offers in support of these errors. 
 
 According to this method, I observe, in the first 
 place, that it does not appear from scripture what 
 the marriage ceremony of the ancient people of God 
 really was. The following, however, is that which is 
 generally observed by the modern Jews. With them 
 
134 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 it is generally celebrated in the open air, on the 
 banks of a river, or, when convenient, in a garden. 
 The parties, each veiled with a black veil, and with 
 another square veil with four hanging tufts on their 
 hand, are placed under a canopy. The rabin of the 
 place, the chanter of the synagogue, or the nearest 
 relation of the bridegroom, takes a cup full of 
 wine, and, having blessed and thanked God for the 
 creation and marriage of the sexes, causes the parties 
 to taste a little of the wine. Next, the bridegroom, 
 by putting a ring on the hand of the bride, weds her 
 to be his wife. Then the marriage contract is read, 
 and the bridegroom delivers it over to the relations 
 of the bride. Lastly, Wine is brought forth in a 
 brittle vessel, of which, after it has been six times 
 blessed, the married couple drink a part ; and then, 
 in token of joy, cast the remainder of it, together 
 with the vessel, on the ground, and thus ends the 
 ceremony of the marriage service. 
 
 The nature of the marriage union is beautifully 
 illustrated by an allegorical representation of it on an 
 antique gem in the collection of the Duke of Marl- 
 bourgh, which thus describes the marriage of Cupid 
 and Psyche. " 1^^, Both are represented as winged, 
 to show the alacrity with which the husband and 
 wife should help, comfort, and support each other, 
 preventing as much as possible the expression of a 
 wish or want on either side, by fulfilling it before it 
 can be expressed. 2d, Both are veiled, to show 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 135 
 
 that modesty is an inseparable attendant on pure 
 matrimonial connections. 3c?, Hymen, or Mar- 
 riage, goes before them with a lighted torch, lead- 
 ing them by a chain, of which each has a hold, 
 to show that they are united together, that they are 
 bound to each other, and that they are led to this 
 by the pure flame of love. 4<A, This chain is neither 
 iron nor brass, which would intimate that the mar- 
 riage union is a state of thraldom and slavery ; but 
 it is a chain of pearls, which intimates that is a pre- 
 cious, beautiful, and delightful union, bth. They 
 hold a dove, the emblem of conjugal fidelity, which 
 they appear to embrace affectionately, to show that 
 they are faithful to each other, not merely from duty, 
 but from affection ; and that this fidelity contributes 
 to the happiness of their lives. Qth, Love winged, 
 is represented as having gone before them to prepare 
 the nuptial feast, to intimate that active affections, 
 and warm and cordial love are to them a continual 
 source of happiness and joy. Ith^ Another cupid 
 comes behind, and places on their heads a basket of 
 ripe fruit, to intimate that such a union will gene- 
 rally be blessed with children who will be as pleasant 
 to all their senses, as ripe and delicious fruit is to 
 their smell and taste. 8^^, The cupid that follows 
 them has his wings shrivelled up, or all his feathers 
 curled, so as to render them entirely unfit for flight, 
 to intimate that love is to abide with them, and that 
 there is to be no separation in affection." 
 
136 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 Marriage is a covenant between a man and a wo- 
 man, in which they promise mutual cohabitation, 
 and a continual care to promote the comfort and 
 happiness of each other ; or, in other words, it is a 
 society between two persons, of different sexes, 
 chiefly for the procreation and edification of children. 
 
 The law of Moses prohibits (Lev. xviii. 1 — 20) 
 marriage between persons more nearly related than 
 cousins. This law was never rescinded either by 
 our Saviour or his apostles. There are instances, 
 however, in scripture, of a departure from this rule : 
 I refer to the marriages of Adam's children, of 
 Abraham, who married his neice, of Amaram, who 
 married his aunt, and of younger brothers who mar- 
 ried the widows of their elder brothers. 
 
 In times of persecution and public distress, the 
 scriptures allow that marriage is inconvenient, though, 
 even then, St. Paul says, " It is better to marry than 
 to burn." None who are capable of marriage are re- 
 stricted from it by the word of God ; but, on the con- 
 trary, the apostle Paul says in Heb. xiii. 14, " Mar- 
 riage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled." 
 
 " Mamage is to be in the Lord," according to 
 1 Cor. vii. 39, and the reason is given in 2 Cor. 
 vi. 14, where we read thus : " Be ye not unequally 
 yoked together with unbelievers ; for what fellow- 
 ship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and 
 what communion hath light with darkness." 
 
 Polygamy, which is also contrary to the laws of 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 137 
 
 right reason, and which never fails to bring along 
 with it its own punishment, is forbidden in Lev. 
 xviii. 18, where it is thus stated: " Neither shalt 
 thou take a wife unto her sister to vex her, to un- 
 cover her nakedness, besides the other, in her life- 
 time ;" in 1 Cor. vii. 2, where Paul says : " Let 
 every man have his own wife;" and in Gen. ii. 
 23, 24, where Adam is represented saying thus : 
 " For this is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my 
 flesh ; she shall be called woman, because she was 
 taken out of a man : therefore shall a man leave his 
 father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and 
 they shall be one flesh." 
 
 Though the marriage contract cannot be dissolved 
 by the mutual consent of the parties, like civil con- 
 tracts, yet it is so dissolved by the death of one of 
 the parties, that the survivor is at full liberty to marry 
 again. This is evident from Rom. vii. 3, where it is 
 thus spoken : " but if the husband be dead, she is 
 free from that law, so that she is no adulteress 
 though she be married to another man ;" and also 
 from 1 Cor. vii. 39, where the apostle repeats nearly 
 the same words. In case of fornication, however, 
 the marriage union may be disannulled previous to 
 the death of one of the parties, as we may learn from 
 Matt. xix. 9, where it is thus spoken: "Whosoever 
 putteth away his wife, except for the sin of fornication, 
 and shall marry another, committeth adultery." In 
 case of fornication, the law of divorce must dismiss 
 
138 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 the guilty : and, in case of wilful desertion, it is evi- 
 dent that the guilty is self-dismissed. And in both 
 cases, it is evident that the guilty remains in a state 
 of wedlock, by virtue of the marriage vow, so that 
 none can marry that person, from Matt. xix. 9, where 
 it is said ; " Whosoever marrieth her that is put away 
 doth commit adultery ;" and also from Rom. vii. 4, 
 where the apostle says : " But if she depart, let her 
 remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." 
 Having thus, for the sake of illustration, briefly noticed 
 these things, concerning the nature and laws of mar- 
 riage, I shall now, in the second place, state a few of 
 the principal errors of the Popish Church respecting it. 
 
 First, The Church of Rome maintains that it is a 
 sacrament, from Eph. v. 31, 32, where it is thus 
 spoken: "For this cause shall a man leave his father 
 and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and 
 they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mys- 
 tery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church." 
 
 Second, The Church of Rome does not admit that 
 marriage is honourable in all, whether the bed be 
 defiled or not. From its Popish interpretation of 
 Rom. viii. 8, where it is said : " They that are in 
 the flesh cannot please God," it maintains that mar- 
 riage is a work of the flesh, and hence concludes 
 that the matrimonial state is so unchaste, impure, 
 and shameful, that it entirely unqualifies a man for 
 performing the sacred duties of its holy priesthood. 
 
 Third, The Church of Rome prohibits its clergy 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 139 
 
 from marrying, and forces a vow of perpetual celi- 
 bacy upon them. It maintains that this vow, as a 
 condition of ordination, was required in the ancient 
 Church even from the days of the apostles ; that it 
 is directed to this law of the Church by the gospel 
 by Mark xix. 27, where Peter says to our Saviour : 
 " Behold we have left all and followed thee," and 
 also by St. Paul in 1 Cor. vii. 38, where he says : 
 " So he that giveth her in marriage doeth well, but 
 he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better," 
 that it is a state in which clergymen cannot properly 
 serve the Lord ; and it defends itself when closely 
 pressed by Protestant arguments, by saying: " They 
 that vow, do it freely, we force no man." 
 
 Fourth, The Church of Rome, with respect to mar- 
 riage, observes affinities which it calls spiritual, to dis- 
 tinguish them from those that are natural, such as those 
 which god-fathers and god-mothers, and the children 
 whom those present in baptism bear to each other ; 
 these may not, according to Popery, intermarry. 
 
 Fifth, The Church of Rome marries many of its 
 females to Christ, as if he was actually a mere man 
 living upon the earth and bodily present at the wed- 
 ding ; as is evident from the ceremony which is per- 
 formed at the making of a nun. When a nun is to 
 be made, the habit, veil, and ring which she is to 
 put on, are carried to the altar ; and she herself, ac- 
 companied by her nearest relations, is conducted to 
 the bishop, who, after mass and an anthem, (the 
 
140 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 subject of which is, " That she ought to have her 
 lamp hghted, because the bridegroom is coming to 
 meet her,") pronounces the benediction ; then she 
 rises up, and the bishop consecrates the new habit 
 with holy water. When the candidate has put on 
 her religious habit, she presents herself before the 
 bishop and sings on her knees : " Ancilla Christi 
 sum,'' &c. Then she receives the veil, and afterwards 
 the ring by which she is married to Christ. And 
 lastly, she receives the crown of her corporal virgi- 
 nity, and thus she becomes one of the spiritual wives 
 of Christ. 
 
 Sixth, The Church of Rome does not permit 
 the innocent party, in case of a lawful divorce, to 
 marry again. It does not permit any to be pro- 
 moted to any spiritual order who has married a 
 second time. It maintains that divorce is lawful 
 when one of the parties goes into a monastery or 
 nunnery ; and also, that if a nun happens to escape 
 and get married, she must be divorced and returned 
 immediately to her convent, maintaining that God 
 has ordained in the policy of Moses, that a bill of 
 divorcement should be given her for this purpose. 
 
 Seventh, By a decree of Pope Gregory III, the 
 Church of Rome allows a husband, in case of his wife's 
 infirmity, to marry another if he has not the gift of 
 continency, provided that he allows the first a pro- 
 per maintenance. 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 141 
 
 I might state many otlier Popish errors concerning 
 marriage equally as inconsistent with the word of God 
 and pernicious in their consequence, but hope that 
 these, when proved, will be sufficient to convince even 
 Papists themselves that their doctrines respecting it are 
 both unscriptural and most pernicious in their effects. 
 
 Refutation of article First The Church of Rome, 
 
 in m^mtaining that marriage is a sacrament, reasons 
 thus from Eph, v. 31, 32 : " These two shall be 
 one flesh, this is a great mystery ;" but a mystery is 
 a sacrament, and, therefore, marriage is a sacrament. 
 We know, however, that this reasoning is false, and 
 repugn it thus : \st. In marriage there is no exter- 
 nal sign by which the promises of the gospel are 
 signified and sealed; but we have proved in our 
 general proposition, that there are several in a scrip- 
 tural sacrament; and, therefore, we conclude that 
 marriage is not a sacrament. 2d, If marriage be a 
 sacrament, either of the Old or New Testament, 
 then there are three sacraments either in the Old or 
 New Testament ; but we have proved in Inference 
 Third, that there are only two in each Testament ; 
 and hence again we conclude, that marriage is not a 
 sacrament. 3g^, There was no sacrament prior to 
 the fall of Adam ; but there was a marriage, for Adam 
 was a married man when he fell ; and hence also it 
 is evident that marriage is not a sacrament, ^th. 
 Marriage is common to both believers and unbe- 
 lievers ; but a sacrament is common to believers only 
 
142 POPISH marhiage. 
 
 and, therefore, marriage is not a sacrament. 5M, 
 Marriage is a moral and civil institution ; but a sac- 
 rament is a religious ceremony instituted by Christ ; 
 and hence also it is evident, that marriage is not a 
 sacrament. 6^A, Marriage being, according to Po- 
 pery, a work of the flesh, is unlawful for such spiritual 
 men as mass priests are ; but scriptural sacraments 
 are not unlawful for any order of spiritual riien to 
 partake of; and, therefore, marriage is not a sacra- 
 ment. 1th, The word "mystery," as applied to 
 marriage in Eph. v. 31, 32, refers to Christ's union 
 with his Church ; but this union is not a sacrament ; 
 and hence it is evident, that these verses do not 
 prove marriage to be a sacrament. That the apostle 
 Paul, in Eph. v. 31, 32, is referring solely to the 
 union which subsists betv/een Jesus Christ and God 
 the Father in him, and the Church, is evident from 
 the two preceding verses, where we thus read : " For 
 man never yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth 
 and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church ; 
 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of 
 his. bones." This union, by way of analogy, is cal- 
 led a marriage in Matt. xxii. 1 — 14, where Jesus 
 Christ is represented as the husband, and the saints, 
 or in other words, the Church, as the spouse ; which 
 also is agreeable to Isa. liv. 5, where the Old Testa- 
 ment Church is thus addressed : " For thy maker 
 is thine husband ; the Lord of Hosts is his name ; 
 and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel : the 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 143 
 
 God of the whole earth shall he be called." From 
 eternity the Church has been beloved by Christ, 
 chosen by him, and betrothed to him in the ever- 
 lasting covenant of peace. In time the Church is 
 invited by him, consents to be his, (not as nuns,) 
 and is united to him by the gracious operation of 
 his Holy Spirit. By this same Spirit, the Saviour 
 and the Church have a mutual interest in each 
 other's persons and concerns, a mutual love for each 
 other, and a mutual and familiar intimacy with each 
 other, especially in the heavenly state. While 
 Christ, as a husband, rules over the Church, pro- 
 tects it, and provides for it both by his providence 
 and grace, it is a dutiful spouse, not only loves him, 
 trusts in him, but also listens attentively to his word, 
 and obeys all his commands, which is a proof, among 
 many others, that the Popish Church is not his 
 spouse ; for so far is it from obeying him, that his 
 second commandment is not in any of the many 
 catechisms that I have seen. 
 
 Refutation of article Second. — Popery, according 
 to its interpretation of Rom. viii. 8, where it is said : 
 ** They that are in the flesh cannot please God," 
 maintains that marriage is not honourable in all, 
 whether the bed be undefiled or not. The Popish 
 mode of reasoning concerning this subject is thus : 
 
 Marriage is a work of the flesh ; 
 
 They that are in the flesh cannot please God ; — 
 
 Therefore, the married cannot please God, 
 
144 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 and hence, the matrimonial state is too unchaste and 
 impure for any clergyman to be in. 
 
 Now, to refute this sophistry, it is only necessary 
 to prove that the apostle Paul is not referring to 
 marriage in Rom. viii. 8. In order to do this, we 
 say, that if their interpretation of this passage be 
 the true one, the apostle Paul is the author of doc- 
 trines which are evidently opposed to each other ; 
 for, in Heb. xiii. 4, he says, that " Marriage is ho- 
 nourable in all, and the bed undefiled ;" and, cer- 
 tainly, an impure, unchaste, and shameless state, 
 cannot be an honourable one. Now, as neither 
 party will allow that the doctrines of Saint Paul con- 
 tradict each other, it follows that, either we Protes- 
 tants do not understand the apostle in Heb. xiii. 4, 
 or that Papists falsely interpret Rom. viii. 8. But 
 that our doctrine, which is, that the matrimonial 
 state is so chaste, pure, and holy, that the holiest of 
 men may enter into it without thereby sinning, if they 
 are in all respects qualified for it, is agreeable to that 
 of the apostle in Heb. xiii. 4, will be evident from 
 what follows. 1st, Certainly God would not impose 
 an unchaste and impure institution upon the pure and 
 holy Adam and Eve, for such they were before the 
 fall; but it is evident, from Gen. ii. 18, 21, 22, 
 where we thus read ; " And God said, it is not good 
 for man to be alone, I will make him an help meet 
 for him ; and the Lord God caused a deep sleep to 
 come upon Adam, and he slept, and he took one of 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 145 
 
 his ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof ; and 
 the rib which the Lord God had taken from the 
 man he made a woman, and brought her unto the 
 man," that God did institute marriage for our first 
 parents ; and, therefore, we conclude, agreeably to 
 the apostle's doctrine, that the married is a chaste, 
 pure, holy, and hence honourable state. 2d, Mar- 
 riage is a chaste, pure, holy, and honourable state, 
 as well after the fall as before it, as we shall now as 
 briefly prove. We are told in the gospel by John, 
 (Chap, li.) that our Saviour honoured a marriage in 
 Cana of Galilee, both by his divine presence, and the 
 performance of his first miracle ; but certainly the 
 pure and the holy Jesus would not thus in any way 
 have countenanced an impure and unholy institution ; 
 and, therefore, we conclude, that marriage is a pure, 
 chaste, and holy state, after the fall as well as before 
 it. 3d, To the Thessalonians the apostle Paul says, 
 in First Epistle iv. 3, 4 : " It is the will of God, 
 even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from 
 fornication ; that every one should possess his own 
 vessel in sanctification and honour ;" but the apostle 
 is here addressing the whole Church in that place, 
 which, without doubt, was composed of members 
 both single and married ; and hence, we again con- 
 clude, that the matrimonial is not a state which un- 
 qualifies a man, either for the work of the gospel 
 ministry, or the private service of God. 4th, Paul 
 says, in 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17 : " Know ye not that ye 
 
 K 
 
146 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 are the temple of God, and that the spirit of Go(f 
 dwelleth in you ? If any man defile the tem])le of 
 God, him shall God destroy ;" but many of those to 
 whom these words were addressed by him, were, 
 without doubt, married men ; and hence, also, it is 
 •fc^ident, that the matrimonial state does not unqualify 
 men for being the temples of the Holy Ghost, how 
 much soever it may unqualify the Pope for being 
 Vicariusfilii Dei^ and his mass-priests for sacrificing 
 Filium Dei upon their unscriptural altars. 
 
 Now, if I have fully proved that this, our Protes- 
 tant doctrine, is agreeable to Heb. xiii. 4, I have 
 fully disproved the Popish interpretation of Rom, 
 viii. 8, and as this is the principal foundation of their 
 doctrine concerning marriage, I shall take the liberty 
 of hence inferring, that it is not of God; and of tell- 
 ing the Pope, that whether it be of the Council of 
 Trent, of antichrist, or the devil, we will raise the 
 Protestant song of the now mute Milton, against it& 
 unscriptural and discordant sounds, and thus sing : 
 
 Whatever hypocrites austerely talk 
 
 Of purity, and place, and innocence, 
 
 Defaming as impure what God declares 
 
 Pure, and commands to some, leaves free to all. 
 
 Our Maker bids increase ; who bid abstain 
 
 But our destroyer, foe to God and man 
 
 Hail wedded love ! mysterious law, true source 
 
 Of human offspring, sole propriety 
 
 In Paradise of all things common else. 
 
 By thee, adulterous lust was driven from men 
 
 Among the beetial herds to range : by thee. 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE, 147 
 
 rounded on reason, loyal, just, and pure, 
 Relations dear, and all the charities 
 Of father, son, and brother, first were known. 
 Far be it that I should write thee sin or blame, 
 Or think thee unbefitting holiest place. 
 Perpetual fountain of domestic sweets, 
 Whose bed is undefiled, and chaste pronounced, 
 Present or past, as saints and patriarchs used. 
 
 Refutation of Article Third. — Popery, (accord'- 
 ing to the Council cf Latern, can. 6,) prohibits the 
 marriage of ecclesiastics, saying : " That since they 
 ought to be called the temple of God, the vessals of 
 the Lord, the shrine of the Holy Ghost, it is un- 
 worthy that they should become slaves to chamber- 
 ing and uncleanness." In consequence of this prohi- 
 bition, the Church of Rome requires a vow of 
 perpetual celibacy from all its clergy, as a condition 
 of ordination to holy orders. 
 
 In defence of this unnatural prohibition, it main- 
 tains, that they are warranted to do so both from ec- 
 clesiastical history and the word of God ; and, more- 
 over, that those who vow do it freely. Now, we 
 affirm, that both the history of the ancient Church, 
 the word of God, and the confessions and deer eta of 
 the Church of Rome, prove, that these arguments 
 are inconsistent with truth ; and, consequently, that 
 Popish celibacy is both an unscriptural and inina- 
 tural prohibition, and what we affirm we prove thus : 
 
 Firsts The history of the primitive Church, in- 
 ■^tead of proving that this vow was required in the 
 
148 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 Church from the days of the apostles, proves, that mar- 
 riage was not forbidden to the clergy in the Eastern 
 Church, till nearly the close of the seventh century, 
 and that the prohibition was not imposed upon the 
 Western till about the end of the eleventh, though 
 many attempts to do so had been made long before. 
 Second^ The word of God proves that it is unscrip- 
 tural. Numerous instances can be produced, both 
 in the Old and New^ Testament Churches, of mar- 
 ried ecclesiastics, without any prejudice whatever, 
 either to their ordination, or functions in the Church. 
 Moses and Aaron are not the only instances that can 
 1)6 produced. The Jewish law, which prohibited 
 heiresses from marrying out of their own tribe, ex- 
 cept it was to a Levite, proves that marriage was 
 lawful for all the Jewish priesthood. The continued 
 existence of this sacred tribe is of itself a proof suffi- 
 cient to set the matter at rest for ever. Neither our 
 Saviour nor any of the apostles laid the least re- 
 straint on the connubial union. We defy Popery 
 to prove the contrary, either from the New Testa- 
 ment or any well authenticated history. Our Sa- 
 viour often spoke concerning marriage, and yet he 
 never mentions such a prohibition. St. Paul, on 
 the contrary, says in Heb, xiii. 4 : " It is honour- 
 able in all and the bed undefiled." The apostle 
 Peter, on whom Popery says it has built its Church, 
 was himself a married man, as we may learn from 
 Luke iv. 38, where we are told, that " Simon's 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 149 
 
 wife's mother was taken ill of a great fever." If 
 Popish legends do not lie, he also had a daughter, 
 whose name was Petronella, from that of her father. 
 And, 1 Cor. v. 9, proves that other apostles besides 
 Peter were married men ; for there the apostle Paul 
 says, referring to himself and his companion, Bar- 
 nabas : " Have we not power to lead about a sister 
 or a wife as well as the other apostles, and as the 
 brethren of the Lord, and of Cephas." 
 
 Thirds But this Popish doctrine is not more repug- 
 nant to history, and the word of God, than to nature, 
 reason, and common sense. Is it contrary to any of 
 these principles, I would ask Popish priests, to love 
 and to be loved tenderly ? Is it inconsistent with 
 any of them to be faithful to a beloved woman, 
 whom you know to be faithful to vou ? Is it wronor 
 according to any of these principles, to bear with 
 the infirmities of one who bears patiently with yours 
 on the principle of love ? Would it be either un- 
 natural or unreasonable in a priest to study to please 
 and to cherish a woman, whom he knows to be most 
 studious to please and to cherish him ? Would it 
 be wrong in a priest to provide for one whom the 
 Lord has declared to be bone of his bone, and flesh 
 of his flesh, and one, too, who is most willing to 
 provide for him ? Yea, would a priest act contrary 
 to any of these principles, in fulfilling all the duties 
 which a husband owes to his lawful wedded wife ? 
 Popery must answer. No ; or else prove that what 
 
150 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 St. Paul says to the Ephesians, (Chap, v.,) is con- 
 trary to these principles ; — the Pope must answer. No : 
 or else prove that what the same apostle says to the 
 Colossians, (Chap, iii.,) is contrary to these princi- 
 ples ; — Popish priests, too, unmarried though they 
 must remain, must answer, No; or else prove that 
 what the apostle Peter says, (in First Epistle, Chap, 
 iii.,) is contrary to nature, reason, and common sense. 
 A 71 Objection Answered. — Popery, agreeably to 
 its interpretation of Mark xix. 27, objects to the 
 above arguments, saying, though some of the apostles 
 were married when they became apostles, yet they 
 left all (and consequently their wives) and followed 
 Jesus. In answer to this objection, which we con- 
 sider as one of the most triflinof and childish which 
 Popery has ever raised, we observe that what St. 
 Paul says (1 Cor. ix. 5) concerning the power of 
 leading about a sister or a wife, proves that the 
 other apostles, to whom he there refers, instead of 
 abandoning their sisters and wives, took them, at 
 times, along with them, from place to place. The 
 evangelist Luke, in Chap. iv. 38, 39, proves that 
 the apostle Peter, who was a married man, had a 
 house after he had become an apostle, and hence 
 we conclude, that it is highly probable that he had 
 his wife in it. The apostle John, modestly refer- 
 ring to himself, says, in Chap. xix. 27 of his Gos- 
 pel, " And from that hour, that disciple took her to 
 his own house," which proves that he also had a 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 151 
 
 •house, after he had become a follower of our Lord ; 
 and, consequently, that Popery does not properly 
 interpret these words in Matt. xix. 27, " Behold 
 we have forsaken all, and followed thee." What ! 
 O Popery, are we, by thy false interpretation of the 
 scriptures, to believe that the holy and righteous 
 Jesus, who taught the Jews that a man could not 
 lawfully put away his wife, except for the sin of for- 
 nication, would permit men to be his apostles, who 
 were guilty of the unnatural crime of abandoning 
 them, without any cause whatever. Such a belief 
 is that of antichrist ; and, therefore, O forbid it hea- 
 ven, that ever it should be that of anv Protestant ! 
 
 A Second Popish Objection answered, — Popery 
 objects again, saying, " that those who vow to live 
 in a state of celibacy, do it freely, and of their own 
 accord." Now, in answering this objection, I ob- 
 serve, 1*^, That it can be easily proved that there 
 are many who are by some means or otlier con- 
 strained to go into a cloister, and to take upon them 
 the vow of a monastic life, before they have arrived 
 at the years of puberty. But, before the age of pu- 
 berty, it is impossible to know whether he has that 
 principle of nature which will enable him to keep 
 his vow ; and hence it is evident that he is virtually 
 forced to live a life of celibacy. 2^?, It can be 
 proved that many have been made even dignatories 
 in the Popish Church when they were mere child- 
 ren ; but children cannot understand anv thino^ of 
 
152 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 this principle of nature, — they do not then know 
 themselves ; and, hence it is evident, that they are 
 virtually forced to vow a life of perpetual celibacy, 
 and that too perhaps against the principle of nature 
 given them by God. 3d, It can be proved that 
 many are intended for the church, and trained up to 
 it by notions imbibed from their infancy, that they 
 never think of objecting, till at last they are sent to 
 college ; but at college they are soon rendered unfit 
 for any other profession than that which requires a 
 vow of perpetual celibacy ; and hence it is evident, 
 that it is virtually forced upon them. Now, the prin- 
 ciple of nature being the same in priests as in other 
 people, it is not to be supposed that none of them 
 ever burn; but the apostle Paul says, in 1 Cor. vii. 9 : 
 " If they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is 
 better to marry than to burn ;" hence it is evident, 
 that the vow of celibacy in the Popish church is, in 
 general, contrary to both nature and the word of 
 God. 4:th, But what manifestly proves the vow of 
 celibacy to be virtually forced upon the Popish 
 clergy is, the lamentable effects it produces in both 
 their doctrines and conduct. One of its baneful 
 consequences may be inferred from the following 
 immoral lesson which is taught to every priest and 
 monk as soon as he is initiated. - " Si non casti^ 
 saltern caute" &c. Does not that Popish decretum, 
 which says, " He that has no wife must," or as it is 
 in some copies^ "may have a concubine," prove that 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 153 
 
 it is virtually forced upon them ? Is it not from 
 this unnatural and unscriptural prohibition, that 
 Popish doctors have become so depraved as to affirm 
 that it is less sinful for a priest to have a concubine 
 than a lawful wedded wife. Yea, is it not from 
 this antichristian restraint upon the Popish clergy, 
 that emboldened Navarius to teach in his manual of 
 confession, (cap. 27, No. 249,) that as muta pec- 
 cata do not make a man irregular, they do not un- 
 qualify him for performing the sacred functions of a 
 minister of God. O mother of abominations, surely 
 this unnatural doctrine has flowed from thy cup of 
 poison. O Popery, surely the apostle Paul knew 
 well thy character when he foretold, that in the 
 latter times, there would come seducing spirits, for- 
 bidding to marry. O antichrist, it is thou who for- 
 biddest them, even for the sake of the pleasure, 
 honour, and profit of thine own unchristian spirit. 
 But why so severe against this law of the Popish 
 Church? Perhaps all the priests and monks are 
 able to contain ; perhaps not one of them burns ; 
 perhaps some of them are eunuchs from their births ; 
 perhaps others of them have been made eunuchs at 
 the time of their ordination ; and perhaps the rest of 
 them have made themselves eunuchs for the king- 
 dom of heaven's sake. 
 
 Refutation of Article Fourth, — The Church of 
 Rome, with respect to marriage, observes spiritual 
 affinities, viz., those in which god-fathers and god- 
 
154 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 mothers, and the children for whom they answer at 
 baptism, bear to each other ; these, according to 
 Popery, may not marry. 
 
 Now, in refutation of this Popish error, I observe, 
 that as the ordinance of god-fathers and god-mothers 
 is not founded on the word of God, it follows that 
 we have no scriptural authority to believe that the 
 Holy Spirit acknowledges any affinity which can 
 arise from them ; and hence, we conclude that none 
 such can be a lawful hinderance to the intermarriage 
 of the parties. We admit that the word of God gives 
 us ideas of affinities which may be called spiritual ; 
 but, at the same time, we maintain that the language 
 is metaphorical. But allowing, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that the language was not figurative, it is 
 evident that Popery is not consistent with itself. It 
 is evident, from Matt. xii. 50, where our Saviour 
 says : " Whosoever shall do the will of my Father 
 who is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, 
 and mother," that the spiritual relationship of brothers 
 and sisters to Christ extends to all believers ; but if 
 all believers are the spiritual brothers and sisters of 
 Christ, they are spiritually brothers and sisters among 
 themselves, and hence, if Popery was consistent with 
 itself, no believers in Christ, however lawful their 
 natural relationship might be, could lawfully inter- 
 marry ; which conclusion Popery is not yet foolish 
 enough to admit. Though the scriptures represent 
 the Saviour as the bridegroom of the Church, and 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 155 
 
 the Church, collectively, considered as the bride of 
 the Saviour, yet they never speak of an individual 
 female as being the bride or spouse of Christ, and 
 therefore a nun, when spiritually married to the 
 Saviour, assumes spiritual relationship to Christ, 
 which is unscriptural. But further, if all believing 
 females are the spiritual suitors of the Saviour, how 
 does it happen that nuns are allowed to be spiritually 
 married to the Saviour ? Is that not, according to 
 Popish principles, the spiritual marriage of those who 
 are spiritually brother and sister? Is not the after-life 
 of a nun, according to Popery itself, that of spiritual 
 incest ? Should not her punishment be spiritual ston- 
 ing till she die a spiritual death ? Are not the results 
 of these doings most dishonourable to the Saviour ? 
 Yea, verily, and therefore the Saviour will not bless 
 her for one of them, but, on the contrary, will con- 
 sider them as the works of the " mother of abomi- 
 nations," who is a spiritual " harlot." Such, forsooth, 
 are the dames who have lately come to our Scottish 
 metropolis, to teach our Presbyterian ladies virtue and 
 religion ; but they need not, until they know what 
 the one is, and have learned to practise the other ! 
 Ladies of Edinburgh, — of Scotland, — of Britain, the 
 snare is laid, therefore beware, and you shall be safe. 
 But it is no wonder that the Church of Rome errs 
 so egregiously concerning spiritual affinities, when we 
 consider that it cannot, consistently with itself, deter- 
 mine the boundaries of natural affinities within which 
 
156 POPISH MARRIAGE. 
 
 it is lawful to marry. Pope Julius I. decreed that 
 none of either sex should marry within the seventh 
 degree of consanguinity, whereas Innocentius III., 
 perhaps with a view to prove the infallibility of his 
 predecessor, decreed that marriage should be ex- 
 tended to the fourth decree of both consanguinity 
 and affinity. Now, if Innocentius determined justly, 
 it follows, that all the intermarriages of the fifth, 
 sixth, and seventh degrees, which took place from 
 the time of the former Pope to that of the latter, 
 were unlawful, and hence, that the parties lived in 
 an incestuous state, which, according to the seventh 
 commandment, is a damnable sin ; yet Popery says 
 the Church is infallible, though she thus teaches 
 men to damn their own souls. 
 
 Refutation of Article Fifth. — The Church of 
 Rome, as I have before observed, does not permit 
 the innocent party, in case of a lawful divorce, to 
 marry again ; which prohibition is evidently contrary 
 to the words of our Saviour, as stated in Matt. xix. 9, 
 where we thus read: " Whosoever shall put away 
 his wife, except for the sin of fornication, and shall 
 marry another, committeth adultery ; and whosoever 
 marrieth her which is put away committeth adultery." 
 2g?, It does not permit any to be promoted to any 
 spiritual order who has married a second time, which 
 prohibition is contrary, if the person was freed from 
 his former marriage by death, to 1 Cor. vii. 39, 
 where the apostle says : " The wife is bound by law 
 
POPISH MARRIAGE. 157 
 
 as lontT as her husband hveth, but if her husband is 
 dead she is at hberty to marry whom she will, only 
 in the Lord ;" and, if freed by a lawful divorce, it 
 is contrary to Matt. xix. 9, — which see above. 3d, 
 It maintains, agreeably to its unscriptural doctrine 
 of spiritual affinities, that divorce is lawful when one 
 of the parties goes into a nunnery or a monastery, 
 and that, if a nun should happen to get married, 
 she must be divorced, and return to her nunnery ; 
 and, in support of this practice, it says, that God, 
 in the policy of Moses, has ordained that a bill of 
 divorcement should be given her for this purpose, 
 which is contrary to Matt. xix. 8, where we read 
 these reproving words of the Saviour : " Moses, for 
 the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away 
 your wives ; but from the beginnmg it was not so." 
 
 Nor are the evil results of this Popish doctrine 
 unperceivable even in this enlightened age. We 
 have an instance of them in the misery and suffer- 
 ings of a poor woman in the neighbourhood of 
 London, an account of which, as copied from the 
 " London Evening Packet" of October 28, 1833, 
 I shall here take the liberty of stating: — '* A poor 
 woman was some years ago married to her cousin- 
 german by a Protestant clergyman, both being Ca- 
 tholics. His father was subsequently taken ill, and, 
 when supposed to be dying, the priest was sent for, 
 but his Reverence refused to administer to him the 
 rites of the Church, unless the daughter-in-law 
 
158 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 should be separated from her husband. The poor 
 woman, for the sake of her father-in-law's soul, as 
 she conceived, complied with the priest's demand, 
 and left her husband. Her husband was afterwards 
 married to another woman, in the same neighbour- 
 hood. It is generally thought that this event will 
 ultimately be the cause of her death, for she has be- 
 come subject to fits, and while in one of them she fell 
 into the fire, and is now lying in the utmost agony !" 
 I might proceed to prove that many other Popish 
 doctrines respecting marriage are both unscriptural 
 and pernicious in their practical results, but I trust 
 that enough has been already stated to convince 
 even Romanists themselves, that all their doctrines, 
 instead of proving marriage to be a sacrament, are 
 repugnant both to the word of God and the moral 
 feelings of every unprejudiced mind. 
 
 POPISH SACRAMENT HOLY ORDERS. 
 
 In Theology, the term " Orders," and, by way 
 of eminence, " Holy Orders," denotes a character 
 peculiar to ecclesiastics, by which they are set apart 
 for the ministry of the Church. In the Church of 
 Rome there are seven orders of ecclesiastics, all of 
 which the Council of Trent enjoins to be received 
 and believed, on pain of anathema. These seven 
 Popish orders are distinguished into petty or secular, 
 and major or sacred orders. There are four of the 
 former class ; viz., that of door-keepers, exorcists. 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 159 
 
 readers, and acolyths ; and three of the latter, viz^ 
 that of deacon, priest, and bishop. 2c?, The Church 
 of Rome holds the conferring of ordination to be a 
 sacrament. 3d, It maintains that the peculiar cha- 
 racter conferred by ordination is indelible, and there- 
 fore not to be repeated. 4th, When Popish priests 
 are ordained, they are anointed on the palms of the 
 hands, they touch the flaggon, the chalice, and the 
 mass-book, in a manner peculiar to the ceremony, 
 and are consecrated by the imposition of the hands 
 of an individual bishop, bth, The Popish clergy 
 derive their ordination from the institution of the 
 Lord's Supper, and maintain that the apostles were 
 ordained clergymen, when he said to them : " Do 
 this in remembrance of me." 6th, According to 
 the Council of Trent, Popish priests are men who 
 are ordained by a bishop to offer up Christ a propi- 
 tiatory sacrifice (for the sins of both the living and 
 the dead) unto God, in the sacrament of the mass. 
 7th, Though the Church of Rome does not seem to 
 be altogether certain as to the order her clergy are 
 of, yet, when insisted on to tell, she says they are of 
 the order of Melchisedec. Having thus briefly de- 
 scribed the Popish doctrine of ordination, I shall 
 now endeavour so to refute it, as to make it appear 
 that Popish ordination is neither a scriptural sacra- 
 ment, nor scriptural ceremony of any kind, and, con- 
 sequently, that there is not a Christian minister in 
 tlie Romish Church. 
 
160 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 Argument First. — That ordination is not a scrip- 
 tural sacrament, is evident from its total disagree- 
 ment with the general proposition and inferences at 
 the beginning of this book. There we proved that 
 the New Testament sacraments are common to all 
 believers, whether laics or clergy ; but ordination 
 belongs only to the clergy, and therefore it cannot 
 be a sacrament. In a scriptural sacrament, we 
 proved that the promises of the gospel are both sig- 
 nified and sealed ; but, according to the scripture, 
 they are neither signified nor sealed in the ceremony 
 of ordination ; and, therefore, it cannot be a sacra- 
 ment. The scriptures only make mention of the 
 setting apart of evangelists, pastors, teachers, dea- 
 cons, elders, and episcopi for the service of the 
 Church ; but Popery sets apart janitors, exorcists, 
 and sacrificing priests ; and, therefore. Popish ordi- 
 nation especially cannot be a scriptural sacrament. 
 A scriptural sacrament is a holy ordinance of Christ's 
 institution, but Popish ordination is not of Christ's in- 
 stitution, as shall be hereafter proved ; and, therefore, 
 Popish ordination especially cannot be a sacrament. 
 Argument Second. — The indehbleness of the 
 priestly character is absurd, even according to Popish 
 principles. If, as the Council of Trent affirms, or- 
 dination into holy orders leaves a character which 
 can be neither entirely obliterated nor defaced ; and 
 if, in consequence thereof, it may be transferred and 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 161 
 
 handed down from one generation to another ; it is 
 hence evident, that neither heresy, departure from 
 the Popish Church, excommunication out of it, nor 
 even apostacy from the faith of the gospel, can de- 
 prive the person ordained, of the peculiar character 
 which has been thereby conferred upon him. But 
 if none of these thing^s can destroy this character, it 
 follows, that all those clergy whom the Church of 
 Rome supposes guilty of heresy, all whom it has ex- 
 communicated, and all who have voluntarily left that 
 Church on account of its gross apostacy from the 
 doctrines of the gospel, are as properly ordained, and 
 as much clergymen, after having left that commun- 
 ion, as before ; and hence, that all those clergymen 
 who have been ordained by them, are as properly 
 ordained as if the ceremony had been performed by 
 them prior to their separation from the Popish 
 Church. But this conclusion, though justly infer- 
 red. Papists will not admit ; and, therefore, it is ma- 
 nifestly evident, that the indelibleness of the priestly 
 character is, according to Popish principles, most 
 absurd, which was the thing to be proved. 
 
 Argument Third, — Our third argument against 
 Popish ordination is, that the ceremonies observed 
 at the ordination of Popish clergy are not according 
 to the word of God. 
 
 Where is the authority of the Church of Rome, 
 either for anointing the palms of the hands of those 
 who are ordained, for making them touch, in any 
 
 L 
 
162 
 
 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 manner, the flagon, the chalice, and mass-book, or 
 for consecrating them by imposing the hands of an 
 individual bishop upon them ? Nowhere in the 
 bible is it to be found. From no passage of the 
 word of God can it be either directly or indirectly 
 inferred. We defy the Church of Rome to shew us 
 the least authority for any of them from any autho- 
 rised version of the scriptures extant. The word of 
 God, instead of authorising any of these ceremonies, 
 even the imposition of the hands of an individual 
 bishop, is manifestly against them, as is evident from 
 Acts xiii. 2, 3, where we thus read concerning the 
 ordination of Saul and Barnabas : " Now as they" 
 (that is, the certain prophets and teachers mentioned 
 in the preceding verse,) " ministered to the Lord, 
 and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, separate me Saul 
 and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called 
 them ; and when they had fasted and prayed, they" 
 (viz., the same prophets and teachers,) " laid hands 
 on them and sent them away." Neither was the 
 apostolical Timothy ordained to the work of the mi- 
 nistry by Popish ceremonies and the imposition of 
 the hands of one bishop only, or of a certain number 
 of bishops, according to the Popish acceptation of 
 the term ; but, on the contrary, simply by the laying 
 on of the hands of the presbytery, as appears from 
 1 Tim. iv. 14, where we thus read: " Neglect not 
 the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by pro- 
 phecy, with the laying on of the hands of the pres- 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 163 
 
 bytery." The original words m Tr^io^vli^ns which ht- 
 erally signify " of the assembly of elders," the trans- 
 lators of the Douay New Testament have rendered 
 " of the priesthood," which betrays either a very 
 great ignorance of the Greek language, or an unpar- 
 donable audacity in behalf of Popish principles. 
 
 Thus, then, the word of God proves, that the or- 
 dination of the Popish priesthood is as different 
 from that which Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and even 
 Peter himself received, as the anointing of the palms 
 of the hands is from the want of it, the touching the 
 flagon, the chalice, and the mass-book, from fasting 
 and prayer, and the imposition of the hands of one 
 bishop only, from that (I refer to the ordination of 
 Paul,) of Simeon Niger, Lucius the Cyrenean, and 
 Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod, who, 
 instead of being either apostles or bishops, were 
 merely secondary officers of the Christian Church. 
 
 Argument Fourth. — Popish ordination is not found- 
 ed on that of the apostles. Popery maintains, that 
 our Lord ordained the apostles clergymen, made 
 them men of holy orders, and gave them power and 
 authority to administer the mass, when, at the Last 
 Supper, he said unto them, " Do this in remem- 
 brance of me." 
 
 Now, since Popery claims no other scriptural 
 foundation for the validity of the ordination of its 
 priests in holy orders, we presume, that it will be 
 evident from the following arguments, that it has no 
 
164 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 scriptural foundation for it whatever. 1*^, Ordina- 
 tion into holy orders, as we have already shewn, in- 
 fers both the imposition of hands, and a command 
 given to perform the work to which they are or- 
 dained ; but when our Saviour said to his disciples, 
 " Do this in remembrance of me," he neither laid 
 hand on any one of them, nor gave them any other 
 command than these words literally signify ; and, 
 therefore, the disciples were not then ordained clergy- 
 men. 2c?, If Christ ordained the apostles by these 
 words, " Do this in remembrance of me," and if 
 Popish priests are of the order of the apostles, it 
 necessarily follows, that Christ instituted sacrificing 
 priests, without giving them the keys of absolution : 
 for these were not given till after the Saviour had 
 arisen from the dead, — even till a little before he as- 
 cended up into heaven ; for, John xx. 22, 23, it was 
 then that " He breathed upon them, and said. Re- 
 ceive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye 
 remit, they are remitted ; and whose soever sins ye 
 retain, they are retained." But this with the Church 
 of Rome, corrupted though it be, is considered ab- 
 surd ; and, therefore, they were not then made men 
 of holy orders, even according to Popish principles. 
 3fi?, If Christ by saying, " Do this in remembrance 
 of me," ordained the apostles clergymen, it is evi- 
 dent, that with the same words, he instituted two or- 
 dinances, viz., ordination, and that of the Lord's 
 Supper, which to suppose, would be as foolish as to 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 165 
 
 suppose, that with these words, " Baptize in the 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," he in- 
 stituted both the sacrament of baptism, and the Po- 
 pish rite of extreme unction. Ath, If the apostles 
 were then ordained priests, it is evident that there 
 would have been no laity in the Church at that time ; 
 but the Church was never without one or more lay 
 members ; and hence, also, we conclude, that the 
 apostles did not then enter into holy orders, bth, 
 Had the apostles at that time been ordained mass- 
 priests, they might, in virtue thereof, been offering 
 up the body of Christ without blood, which they say 
 they do in the sacrifice of the mass, at the very time 
 chat Christ, through the Eternal Spirit, (with whom, 
 in this and several other respects, Popish priests im- 
 piously compare themselves,) was offering himself up 
 upon the cross a bloody sacrifice for the sin of the 
 world ; which conclusion is not less unscriptural than 
 it is absurd and blasphemous. 6^A, It is evident 
 from Popish principles, that the apostles were as 
 much ordained priests when they had eaten the sa- 
 cramental bread as when they had drunk the sacra- 
 mental cup; because, according to Popery, the bread, 
 by means of consecration, is transubstantiated into the 
 blood, as well as into the flesh and bones of Christ ; 
 and hence, in receiving the flesh and the bones of 
 Christ into their stomachs, theyalso, at the same time, 
 received his blood, which Catholics themselves allow, 
 saying, that is a sufficient reason for withholding the 
 
166 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 cup from the laity, who are so apt to drink too much 
 blood, or to spill it, thus shedding Christ's blood in vain ! 
 
 Thus, then, we see that Popish ordination has 
 not this passage of the word of God for its founda- 
 tion ; and as Popery claims no other basis of its va- 
 lidity, it must be concluded against Popish ordina- 
 tion, that it is not founded on that of the apostles. 
 
 Argument Fifth. — The peculiar character thereby 
 conferred, is not that which was conferred upon the 
 apostles, and other Christian ministers of the primi- 
 tive Church. 
 
 According to the Council of Trent, the character 
 it confers is that by which the Popish clergy have 
 power and authority to offer up Christ as a propitiatory 
 sacrifice unto God for the sins of both the hving and 
 the dead, in the sacrament of the mass, as often as 
 they please ; but this character is not to be found in 
 the word of God ; and, therefore. Popish ordination 
 confers an unscriptural character. The Jewish priests' 
 ordination did not confer this character upon them ; 
 and, therefore, it cannot be the same as Jewish or- 
 dination into holy orders ; and as there is no text in 
 the New Testament that proves that Christian or- 
 dination confers such a character, it follows, that it 
 is not a scriptural character in any respect. In 
 1 Corinthians xii. 28, we find that " God has set 
 some in the Church, first, apostles ; secondarily, 
 prophets; thirdly, teachers ; after that miracles ; then 
 gifts of heahngs, helps, governments, diversities of 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 167 
 
 tongues ;" but we do not find one word there of the 
 pecuhar character conferred by Popish ordination. 
 In Eph. iv. 11, 12, we find that " God gave some 
 apostles, some prophets, and some evangelists, and 
 some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the 
 saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying 
 of the body of Christ ;" but we do not find there, 
 that any men were given to the Church for the pur- 
 pose of transubstantiating the sacramental bread and 
 wine into the body and blood of Christ. In 1 Tim. 
 iii. 1, we find that God has set ixi^Koxoi in the 
 Church ; but whatever that term may mean, it can- 
 not signify men who eat the real flesh, and drink the 
 real blood of the Redeemer. In Phil. i. 1, we find 
 that God has set deacons in the Church ; but the 
 character conferred by their ordination, we are sure, 
 was not to minister to the necessities of the poor out 
 of funds collected from pardons, the sale of masses, 
 and from tribute-money imposed upon stews. ( See 
 Bellar de amiss, gratiae, and statu peccati, lib. ii. 
 cap. 18.) And, in Rev. ii. 1, we find that God has 
 rulers in his Church, who are called angels, as being 
 sent as messengers by him, to publish his message 
 to his people, and as embassadors, to beseech them, 
 in Christ's stead, to be reconciled unto God ; but 
 not for the Popish purpose of offering Christ, who 
 sent them up a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of 
 those who are out of the world, as well as those who 
 are in it, that is, for the living and the dead. 
 
168 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 But, I observe further, that there is not even a 
 single term in the New Testament which signifies 
 such a character as Popish ordination is said to con- 
 fer. In Matt. viii. 4, we have, indeed, the term 
 I t^ivg^ which signifies a sacrificing priest ; but then, 
 unfortunately for mass-priests, who would have us to 
 believe that they are Christian priests, it refers to 
 Jewish priests, or those who were after the order of 
 Aaron. In 1 Pet. ii. 5, it is indeed said : " Ye 
 also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, 
 an holy priesthood, (<g^«rgy^ot,) to offer up spiritual 
 sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ ;" but 
 neither will this term nor verse avail the Popish 
 priesthood anything ; because, it is evident that the 
 apostle does not include himself, and is addressing 
 the Church in general ; viz., all who offer up the 
 spiritual sacrifices of prayer, thanksgiving, and praise, 
 unto God by Jesus Christ, as from an altar of in- 
 cense ; which altar, under the Mosaic dispensation, 
 prefigured Christ, as the altar from which all our 
 prayers and other spiritual sacrifices must arise, to 
 render them a sweet smelling savour, and well- 
 pleasing unto God. In Rom. v. 10, where we read 
 thus : " And hast made us unto our God kings and 
 priests, and we shall reign on the earth," the term 
 li^ivg is evidently applied to saints in heaven. Po- 
 pish priests maintain, that the term x^x^i^^^g in 
 Heb. V. I, refers to the apostles ; and hence, by the 
 way of Peter, to them. But any person who atten- 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 169 
 
 lively studies the passage, may perceive that they 
 are therein greatly mistaken. The apostle's words 
 are these : " For every high priest (ec^x^s^ivg) taken 
 from among men, is ordained for men in things per- 
 taining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sa- 
 crifices for sins, who can have compassion on the 
 ignorant and on those that are out of the way ; for 
 that he himself is also encompassed with infirmity, 
 and, by reason hereof, he ought, as for the people, 
 so for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh 
 this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, 
 as Aaron was ; so also Christ glorified not himself 
 to be made a high priest, but he (viz., God the 
 Father) said unto him, ' Thou art a priest for ever, 
 after the order of Melchisedec." It is, moreover, 
 evident, that if this passage proves any thing for the 
 peculiar character which is said to be conferred by 
 Popish ordination, it proves too much to be of any 
 service to them ; for it is not a common priest of 
 whom the apostle is speaking ; and as the mass- 
 priests do not pretend to so great a dignity, it can- 
 not, therefore, do any thing for the vindication for 
 their claims. But though this passage refers to the 
 high priesthood of the Jews, for the sake of shewing 
 what the necessary qualifications and requisites of a 
 high priest are, it principally refers to Jesus Christ, 
 our great high priest, in whom all the necessary qua- 
 lifications and requisites of a high priest are found to 
 exist in a manner most divine. That the priesthood 
 
170 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 here spoken of does not refer to any class of Christ- 
 ian ministers, and least of all to mass-priests, is fur- 
 ther evident, from the account which is here given 
 of the finished work of our redemption, by our great 
 high priest, in offering himself up upon the cross 
 unto God, a sacrifice for sin. This work, says the 
 apostle, was then finished " once for all." That the 
 apostle is here principally referring to Christ, and 
 not to the high priest of the Jews, is still further 
 evident from the last five verses of the ninth chapter, 
 and the beginning of the tenth chapter of this epistle, 
 where the difference between the offerings of the 
 Jewish high priests, and that which Christ offered up 
 on the cross, is stated so as to be clearly distinguished. 
 Though the Rev. Mr Macguire, who is allowed 
 by all to be the champion of the Popish Church in 
 Ireland, was obliged to admit, in Dublin, that in the 
 strict sense of the word, there were no sacrificing 
 priests in the gospel dispensation ; yet he absurdly 
 adds, but Christ who is at once the priest and the 
 victim, and who is offered up a perpetual sacrifice to 
 fulfil the prophecy of Malachi, which was, " that in 
 all parts of the world a sacrifice shall be offered up 
 to the Lord," by which he means the Popish mass, 
 I say he absurdly makes this addition, and I prove 
 the absurdity thus : In saying that " Christ is both 
 the priest and the victim," he must be understood 
 to signify either that, in the sacrifice of the mass, 
 Christ is at one and the same time both the saeri- 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 171 
 
 ficing priest and the victim slain ; or, to be referring 
 to Christ's voluntary sufferings and death upon the 
 cross. Now, if he is referring to the sacrifice of the 
 mass, it is certainly the same thing as if he had said, 
 that Christ in the sacrifice of the mass, mactat se, 
 sacrifices himself, or kills himself; and would prove 
 that, the Saviour of the world was the destroyer of 
 himself; that he, who commands that "Thou shalt 
 do no murder," was himself guilty of suicide ; that he 
 who knew no sin, was one of the most unnatural of 
 all murderers ! O impious thought ! O blasphe- 
 mous saying, O accursed Popish ordination, to give 
 men power and authority to cause the righteous 
 Judge of murders to be in the mass, the murderer of 
 himself; absurd, absurd ! Well but, Mr Macguire, 
 you were perhaps referring to Christ's voluntary 
 sufferings on the cross when you said that " Christ 
 is both the priest and the victim." Be it so ; was 
 Christ, I ask, when dying upon the cross, guilty of 
 suicide ? By your expression, you say that he was ; 
 but by the expression of those that passed by and 
 said, reviling him upon the cross. Matt, xxvii. 40. 
 " If thou be the Son of God, come down from the 
 cross;" and also by the expression of the chief priests, 
 scribes, and elders, who said, mocking him. Matt. 
 xxvii. 41. " He saved others, himself he cannot 
 save," I say that he was not guilty of suicide ; and 
 consequently, that he was not both the sacrificing 
 priest and the victim, in the sense Popery attiiche^ 
 
172 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 to these words. Was Christ, I ask again, the worst 
 of the three characters which were at that time upon 
 the cross, which certainly he was, if he was the mur- 
 derer of himself, for the other two were only thieves ? 
 By your expression, viz., that '* Christ was both the 
 priest and the victim," you undoubtedly give us to 
 understand that he was. But the saying of the thief 
 who was crucified along with him, proves that you 
 are telling that which is false, for, according to St. 
 Luke xxiii. 41, he said : " But this man hath done 
 nothing amiss," and prayed to him thus : verse 42, 
 " Lord remember me when thou comest to thy king- 
 dom." " O excellent theologian ! O antichristian blas- 
 phemer ! Theology ! why. Sir, your doctrine is the 
 very essence of demonology — the very doctrine of 
 devils. O I am sorry to think. Sir, that a man of 
 your parts and learning, should have drunk so much 
 out of the cup of Popish abominations as to become 
 so spiritually blind. But down. Sir, with that dark- 
 ening glass called the mass-book ; up with the optic 
 tube of the gospel ; and, holding it straight between 
 your eye and Mount Calvary, look through it, with 
 an eye of faith, and tell me if you can distinguish 
 what I shall now point out to you. Do you there 
 perceive the Saviour of the world bleeding and dying 
 for sins not his own ? You answer. Yes, and very 
 correctly. Do you there perceive his hands and his 
 feet nailed to the tree, which though accursed, pa- 
 pists nevertheless venerate so greatly ? You answer. 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 173 
 
 Yes, and very correctly. Do you perceive a wound 
 in his side, and his life's blood flowing out thereat ? 
 You answer, Yes, and again I say, very correctly. 
 Now, I ask, whether Christ nailed himself to the 
 tree, and thrust the weapon into his own side, or was 
 thus nailed and wounded by some others ? You say 
 by some others ; and, once more, I say very correct- 
 ly. Well then, since you say, by some others, you 
 must admit, that he did not sacrifice himself as a 
 priest sacrifices a victim at the alter ; and, therefore, 
 what you said by way of subterfuge, when hardly 
 pressed by the Rev. T. Pope, concerning the Po- 
 pish priesthood, is, according to your own admission, 
 most absurd. Go, Sir, to Christ instantly, and sup- 
 plicate his pardon, for thus abusing his holy name. 
 Go immediately, after this act of contrition, to 
 Dublin, and with a loud voice acknowledge your 
 blasphemy and confess your error, yea confess it to 
 your church too, on pain of a v/orse punishment than 
 either the penance of being sent to loch Derg, of 
 excommunication, of an Auto-da-fe, or of purgatory, 
 even on pain of everlasting misery in that place, 
 whither the late priest of Killybegs told his learned 
 flock, in my hearing, all protestants go, viz., in hell. 
 Objection Stated and Ansicered, — But perhaps, 
 in the proper spirit of the character conferred upon 
 you by ordination, you object thus : Christ died 
 voluntarily. But whosoever dies voluntarily is guilty 
 of his own death ; therefore, Christ is guilty of his 
 
174 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 own. But we deny your premises, and prove your 
 blasphemous conclusion to be false ; thus : Christ 
 died with a willing obedience, but his willing obedience 
 does not imply guilt ; therefore, he was not guilty of 
 his own death ; and hence he is not both the priest 
 and the victim, in the sense of Popery. This con- 
 clusion, Sir, you will perhaps more readily admit, 
 after havino- read what follows : God the Father and 
 God the Son willed from eternity the redemption 
 and salvation of the human race. Beinof of one 
 mind in respect thereof, as well as in all others, they 
 entered into a covenant of grace in behalf of man- 
 kind. God the Father, in this covenant, gave a 
 promise to God the Son, that, if he would become 
 incarnate and die in the stead of sinners, " he should 
 have a portion with the great, a division of the spoil 
 with the strong, an everlasting seed to praise his 
 glorious name, and a throne that should be as the 
 sun before God." Christ, in virtue of this eternal 
 transaction between him and the Father, became 
 man in the fulness of time, and, consequently, a 
 person of two distinct natures ; viz., human and 
 divine. Now since in Christ there are two distinct 
 natures, it is evident both from reason and revelation, 
 that there was a two-fold will, the one always in 
 accordance with that of deity of whom it was, and 
 the other always in accordance with that of humanity 
 of which it was, as is evident from Matt. xxvi. 39, 
 where our Saviour says, when addressing the Father : 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 175 
 
 " O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass 
 from me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt," 
 Having thus established the two wills of Christ, 
 it is easy to perceive that it was in virtue of his 
 divine nature that he voluntarily entered upon his 
 vicarious sufferings and death. That it was his 
 divine will that took him to the mount of olives, is 
 evident by contrasting that action with these words : 
 " O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from 
 me." That it was his divine will which made him 
 go along with the multitude, that the scribes and 
 pharasees sent to apprehend him, is evident from 
 a comparison of the 39tli and 53d verses of this 
 same chapter, in the latter of which, he says to Peter : 
 " Thinkest thou, that I cannot now pray to my 
 father, and he shall give me more than twelve legions 
 of angels." And that it was the divine will which 
 disposed him to lay down his life, is then further 
 evident from John x. 18, where he says : "No man 
 takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself ; I have 
 power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up 
 again." The truth of this doctrine is abundantly 
 confirmed from John vi. 4 — 6. In the former of 
 these verses, the sacred historian says : "Jesus know- 
 ing all things that should come upon him, went forth 
 and said unto them, whom seek ye ?" from which it 
 is evident that the account of his knowledge, which 
 was divine, is closely connected with the account of 
 this his voluntary act; and in the latter of these 
 
176 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 verses, he informs us not only that Christ voluntarily 
 acknowledged that he was the person of whom they 
 were in quest, but also, that the effect of the infor- 
 mation upon those to whom he discovered himself 
 was so great, that " they went backwards and fell 
 to the ground ;" as if his design was to inform us, 
 that it was because the cause was divine which made 
 the effect so singular and strange. The truth of 
 this doctrine is still more strongly confirmed by the 
 Apostle to the Heb. (x. 7,) where speaking of the ad- 
 vent of our Saviour, he says of him : " Lo, I come 
 to do thy will, O my God, in the volume of the 
 book it is written of me." And the reason of all 
 this willingness of the Saviour, is given in Ps. xl. 
 7, 8, where the Saviour is represented saying : "I 
 delight to do thy will, O my God ; yea thy law is 
 written in my heart," — even the law which brought 
 him to the cross — the law for which he suffered and 
 died — the law, which, by his sufferings and death, 
 he magnified and rendered honourable. 
 
 But though Christ, in virtue of his divine nature, 
 suffered and died voluntarily, yet, in virtue of his 
 human nature, he did nothing more than yielded a 
 passive obedience. Yea, though in obedience to the 
 eternal decrees of God, in accordance with the eter- 
 nal covenant, and agreeably to the unchangeable 
 will of his heavenly Father, he voluntarily drank the 
 cup of his Father's wrath, even to the very bottom ; 
 yet, in the humanity of his human feelings, he wish- 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 177 
 
 ed that, if it were possible, it might pass from him, 
 as is evident from the following portions of the word 
 of God : The prophet Isaiah liii. 8, represents him 
 as being passively obedient, thus : " He was op- 
 pressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his 
 mouth ; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, 
 and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he 
 opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison 
 and from judgment ; and who shall declare his gene- 
 ration ? He was cut off out of the land of the living ; 
 for the transgression of my people was he stricken." 
 The apostle Paul also, (Rom. Vo 19,) expresses him- 
 self thus concerning Christ's passive obedience: " So 
 by the obedience ofoneshall manybe made righteous." 
 It appears that the human nature of the Saviour 
 felt reluctant to encounter his sufferings and death, 
 from Luke xii. 50, where it is said : " But I have 
 a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I strai- 
 tened till it be accomplished." Yea, it appears from 
 John xii. 27, that he was so troubled in his soul at 
 the thoughts of his sufferings and death, that, with 
 the voice of the most humble supplication, he ex- 
 claimed : " Father save me from this hour." There- 
 fore, we say, that though as God, he died willingly, 
 yet as the humbled Redeemer — as the man Christ 
 Jesus, he was only obedient to the death, and would 
 have sunk infinitely below the degree of fortitude 
 and patience which he manifested in the last hours 
 of his hfe, had it not been that his humanity was all 
 
 M 
 
178 POPISH ORDINATION, 
 
 the while sustained, and rendered fit to endure them 
 by his divine nature, and the dependence which he 
 constantly had in the promise of his heavenly Father. 
 Christ, therefore, instead of being both the priest 
 and the victim, as Mr Macguire affirmed, died by the 
 wicked hands of the Jews, and the unjust judgment 
 of Pontius Pilate the Roman Governor. Even the 
 apostle Peter himself flatly contradicts this Popish 
 doctrine in Acts ii. 23, where, charging Christ's 
 sufferings and death upon the Jews, he says : " Him, 
 being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore- 
 knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked 
 hands crucified and slain." 
 
 But, I observe further, that the text of scripture 
 with which Mr Macguire endeavoured to support this 
 Popish doctrine, renders its absurdness still more ap- 
 parent. That text of scripture, (Malachi i. 11,) 
 that Reverend gentleman evidently does not under- 
 stand either in its literal or spiritual signification. 
 When taken literally, it respects offerings of fine flour 
 and oil ; but the offering, in the Popish mass, is, ac- 
 cording to Papists, the real and substantial body and 
 blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ ; and, there- 
 fore, the sacrifice of the mass cannot be the fulfil- 
 ment of that prophecy, according to its literal signi- 
 fication. And if it be taken spiritually, as indeed it 
 must under the gospel dispensation, the offering in 
 the mass is still less the fulfihnent of it ; for, in that 
 sense, it refers to, and is fulfilled by, the spiritual of- 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 179 
 
 ferinofs of those who believe that the Saviour was once 
 for all offered up upon the cross unto God for the sins 
 of his people. And v/e know what these offerings 
 are from Romans xii. 1, where it is said : " That ye 
 present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and accept- 
 able unto God, which is your reasonable service ;" 
 from Heb. xiii. 15, where we read of the Christian 
 " sacrifice of praise ;" from 1 Peter ii. 5, where we 
 thus read : " To offer up spiritual sacrifices ;" and 
 also from Rev. viii. 3, where we read of the smoke 
 of the incense which came with the prayers of the 
 saints, and ascended up before God out of the hand 
 of the angel. 
 
 The history of the Church also proves that that 
 Reverend gentleman does not understand that pro- 
 phecy. The prophet says : "In every place, in- 
 cense and a pure offering shall be offered unto my 
 holy name ;" but Mr Macguire says, that the sacri- 
 fice of the mass is the offering here referred to by 
 the prophet, and hence concludes, that in every place 
 the mass shall be offered up unto God, which is a 
 conclusion that the history of the Church, during a 
 period of now 1834 years, proves to be false. The 
 history of the Church prior to the glorious era of the 
 Reformation, proves that the Popish mass was not 
 offered up unto God in every place ; and since that 
 glorious explosion of the Church's darkening cloud, 
 her history informs us, that the name of the mass, 
 instead of becoming greater among the Gentiles, and 
 
180 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 of extending its honour from the rising of the sun to 
 the going down of the same, is becoming gradually 
 less honourable even in Popish lands ; and, therefore, 
 the mass cannot be the fulfilment of that prophecy. 
 If the prophet had said : " Incense and a pure offer- 
 ing shall be offered up to my name in Italy, Spain, 
 Portugal, France," and a few other countries, over 
 which the spirit of ignorance still sits brooding and 
 hatching ecclesiastical oppression, and misery, under 
 the one wing, and superstition, which is misery's 
 antidote, under the other, Mr Macguire would have 
 had some shadow of reason for supposing that this 
 prophecy has a reference to the mass ; but as the pro- 
 phet is evidently referring to the world at large, the 
 history of the Church plainly contradicts him. 
 
 Having thus proved that Christ is not offered up 
 a propitiatory sacrifice unto God for the sins of both 
 the living and the dead, in the sacrifice of the Po- 
 pish mass ; and as the peculiar character conferred 
 by Popish ordination on the priests, gives them this 
 power over the Saviour as often as they please, I have 
 proved that this peculiar character is not that which 
 either the ordination of Christ conferred upon the 
 apostles, or that of the apostles upon other Christian 
 ministers of the primitive Church : But if it confers 
 any other character than that which the ministers of 
 the primitive Church received, it cannot be a Chris- 
 tian character, which was the subject to be proved. 
 
 Argument Sixth, — Popish ordination does not 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 181 
 
 confer upon its priests any order of priesthood men- 
 tioned in the word of God. 
 
 The Church of Rome will not admit that it con- 
 fers upon its priests the order of Aaron, knowing that, 
 if they were of that order, they would not be Chris- 
 tian clergymen, of whom they proudly, though false- 
 ly, maintain themselves to be the chief. The\ will 
 not allow themselves to be after the order of New 
 Testament ministers, because they know, that all of 
 these, instead of being sacrificing priests — men who 
 have power to sacrifice the Saviour as often as they 
 please to say, over a piece of bread or a wafer : 
 " Hoc enim est corpus meum^^ — are either apos- 
 tles, prophets, teachers, presbyters, ambassadors for 
 Christ, or men who labour in the word of reconcilia- 
 tion, and the doctrines of the gospel. And they can- 
 not prove that it . confers upon them the order of 
 Melchisedec ; after which, for want of a more scrip- 
 tural order, they vainly suppose themselves to be 
 reasoninof thus : " Christ is after the order of Malchi- 
 sedec ; but we are after the order of Christ ; there- 
 fore, we are after the order of Malchisedec. And 
 as he was so religious as to offer an offering (as the 
 vulgate has it) of bread and wine unto God in the 
 presence of Abraham and his followers : it hence fol- 
 lows, that we, who offer up unto God the thing there- 
 by typified, are after the same priestly order." But 
 Isif, They cannot prove that Malchisedec, at that time, 
 performed any act of devotion to God, or of his 
 
182 POPISH ORDINATION. 
 
 priestly function, or did any other thing than simply 
 brought forth bread and wine, in order to shew his 
 friendship to Abraham, and humanity to his weary 
 and hungry followers ; and, therefore, their conclu- 
 sion, whether it be true or false, is without proof. 
 But, 2c?Zy, Even supposing that the Church of Rome 
 could prove that Malchisedec did therein offer up a 
 sacrifice unto God, they cannot thence infer, upon 
 any principle of reasoning, that their priests belong 
 to his order, unless they can likewise prove that they 
 are his successors in his priestly office, and this they 
 have never been able to do. It cannot be inferred 
 from Christ's being after the order of Malchisedec 
 that Christian ministers are. Christ is after the 
 order of Malchisedec only in as much as the antitype 
 and type are of the same order ; but certainly Popish 
 priests are not the antitype of that most eminent type 
 of our Saviour ; and, therefore, it is evident that they 
 are not after his order. But, ^dly^ Malchisedec, 
 supposing that he did offer a sacrifice to God at that 
 time, offered up only bread and wine ; but, according 
 to Popery, mass-priests offer up the very flesh and 
 blood of Christ, and that too made by their own 
 priestly power, which did not belong to Malchisedec ; 
 and, therefore, they are evidently not after his order. 
 But, 4//i, Malchisedec was priest in Salem, which 
 word signifies "peace," but Popish priests are of a 
 Church whose walls are stained with the blood of 
 saints innumerable ; and, therefore, they are not after 
 
POPISH ORDINATION. 183 
 
 his peaceable order. But, bth^ Malchisedec, it must 
 be granted, worshipped the Most High God only ; 
 but Popish priests, besides being worshippers of 
 the Most High God, worship saints and angels, 
 and bread also ; and, therefore, they cannot be after 
 his holy order. But, 6^A, Malchisedec was king as 
 well as priest in Salem, which proves that Christ is 
 both king and priest in the Christian Church, to the 
 exclusion of the whole Popish priesthood, even of the 
 Pope himself, who, instead of being king in Salem, 
 that is of "peace," is kingof fires, faggots, wars, mas- 
 sacres, depositions of kings, prescriptions, banish- 
 ments, exiles, imprisonments, racks, tortures, auto-da- 
 fe^ and of purgatory : and hence it is evident, that 
 they are not after the order of Malchisedec. 
 
 Now, since it hence appears that Popish priests are 
 neither of the order of Aaron, of Malchisedec, or of 
 Christian ministers ; it follows that their ordination 
 does not confer upon them any order mentioned in 
 the scriptures, unless, perhaps, it be that of that 
 beast, which, in Rev. xiii. 2, is called a leopard, 
 which is very probable ; because we know that no man 
 can buy and sell (Rev. xiii. 17,) but he that hath the 
 mark of the beast, or the number of his name, which, 
 to say the least, is very characteristic of the Popish 
 clergy, as they sell both pardons, indulgences, and 
 masses, — as their nature is both crafty and cruel, — as 
 their priestly dress is as splendid as the skin of a 
 leopard, — and as the number of the beast, and of their 
 
184 POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 chief priest is exactly the same, viz. 666, as shall be 
 proved in its proper place. 
 
 Thus, then, I have endeavoured to prove that 
 Popish ordination is not agreeable to the word of 
 God in any respect ; and if I have been successful, I 
 have, at the same time, proved, that there is not a 
 scripturally ordained clergyman in the Church of 
 Rome ; for as all its bishops, archbishops, primates, 
 cardinals and popes, have no other ordination into 
 holy orders than that of a common priest, it conse- 
 quently follows, that not one of them is ordained ac- 
 cording to the word of God ; and hence, their ordi- 
 nation is not of God, and hence also they are not his 
 ministers, which was all that I intended to prove. 
 
 POPISH SACRAMENT EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 Extreme Unction is one of the seven sacraments 
 of the Roman Catholic Church. It is so called, 
 because it is to be administered only to the dying, 
 the afflicted with some mortal disease, and to those 
 who are in decrepit old age. Its use, according to 
 Popery, is to strengthen the spirits of those anointed, 
 at the hour of death, against the temptations of the 
 devil, and to help them to die well. It is to be ad- 
 ministered neither to impenitent persons, nor to cri- 
 minals. The parts of the body which the officiating 
 priest anoints, are the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, 
 hands, feet, and reins. The laity are anointed on 
 the palms of the hands ; but the priests on the backs 
 
POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 185 
 
 of the hands only, because the palms of their hands 
 were anointed and consecrated by ordination, which, 
 as we have already observed, leaves an indelible cha- 
 racter, and proves that their palms were previously 
 more holy than the backs of their hands. The ad- 
 ministration of this Popish rite is accompanied with 
 an appropriate prayer. The oil with which the re- 
 cipient is anointed, represents, according to Popery, 
 the grace of God poured down into the soul ; and 
 the prayer of the priest expresses the remission of sin 
 thereby supposed to be granted to him. The prayer 
 then used is the following : " By this holy unction, 
 and his own pious mercy, may the Almighty God 
 forgive thee whatever sins thou hast committed," — by 
 the sight, when the eyes are, anointed ; by the hear- 
 ing, when the ears are anointed ; and so of the other 
 senses and members. Popery maintains that ex- 
 treme unction, like their other sacraments, confers 
 grace (opere operato) by reason of the work wrought ; 
 and, because this is a mystery, it concludes, that it 
 is a Christian sacrament. Popery believes that there 
 is sufficient authority for the administration of this 
 rite in James v. 14, 15, where that apostle says : " Is 
 any sick among you, let him call the elders of the 
 Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him 
 with oil in the name of the Lord ; and the prayer of 
 faith shall heal the sick, and the Lord shall raise him 
 up, and if he shall have committed sins, they shall 
 be forgiven him." And in support of this interpre- 
 
186 POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 tation of these words, it also adduces Mark vi. 13, 
 where we read, that the twelve " cast out many 
 devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, 
 and healed them," Having thus explained what this 
 Popish ceremony is, we shall now prove that it is not 
 a Christian sacrament. 
 
 It has been already proved from scripture, that a 
 Christian sacrament is " a holy ordinance instituted 
 by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the 
 benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, 
 and applied to believers ;" but it cannot be proved 
 from scripture that extreme unction is an institution of 
 Christ, — that the ceremonies performed in the admin- 
 istration of it, refer either to the body or to the blood 
 of Christ, or that they are signs and seals of the pro- 
 mises of the gospel ; and hence it is evident that it 
 is not a Christian sacrament. If extreme unction has 
 any reference to the Deity at all, it must be to the 
 Third Person of the Trinity, viz., to the Holy Ghost, 
 whose unction, we know from 2 Cor. i. 21, Ps. xxiii. 
 5, and xcii. 10, endues those who believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, with the gifts, graces, and com- 
 forts, of his Holy Spirit. But that it has no reference 
 to the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, is evident 
 from 1 John ii. 27, where, it is said, " But the 
 anointing which ye have received of him abideth in 
 you ; and ye need not that any man teach you : but 
 as the same anointing teacheth you all things, and is 
 truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, 
 
POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 187 
 
 ye shall abide in him," for here we are taught, that 
 the children of God are separated from the service 
 of the world to his service ; that they have their 
 natures and works thereby rendered such, that they 
 may be well-pleasing in his holy sight, and that they 
 may thereby be enabled to fight the good fight of 
 faith, and to proceed in the ways of God, with per- 
 severance therein, even to the end ; but extreme 
 unction is not administered to a patient that he may 
 be enabled to do the will of God in this world, but 
 that, like a coward, he may be enabled to leave it 
 with safety ; and, therefore, it can have no reference 
 to the unction of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 That the interpretation which Popery gives of 
 Ja. V. 14, 15, in support of its doctrine of extreme 
 unction, is false, will be evident from the four follow- 
 ing arguments : 1st, The apostle, in these verses, 
 is informing those addressed, how the sick among 
 them may be healed ; but the Popish doctrine of ex- 
 treme unction teaches men how they may die well ; 
 and, therefore, the Popish interpretation of them is 
 as different from that of the apostle James, as life is 
 from death, or as dying well, is to living well. 2d, 
 But even supposing that the apostle was referring 
 to death, and not to hfe, as Popery foolishly believes, 
 it would not follow, that extreme unction, and the 
 ceremony recommended by the apostle, were the 
 same. The apostle says, " Let him call in the el- 
 ders of the Church, and let them pray over him ;" 
 
188 POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 but Popery says : Let him call i-i a single individual, 
 a priest, a mass-priest forsooth, who, ls I have al- 
 ready proved is not a legal minister of Christ's Church, 
 and let him pray over him ; and, therefore, the Po- 
 pish rite of extreme unction is not the ceremony of 
 the apostle James, inasmuch as they differ from 
 each other, both in respect of the number and qua- 
 lity of administrators. 3d, The substance, with 
 which the apostle commands sick persons to be 
 anointed, is oil merely ; but that with which Popery 
 commands sick persons to be anointed, is a peculiar 
 composition, which it calls chrism ; and, therefore, 
 extreme unction is not the ceremony referred to by 
 the apostle, inasmuch as the one differs from the 
 other in respect of the substance of ointment. 4th, 
 The apostle gives no direction to the elders what 
 parts of the body they were to anoint ; but Popery or- 
 dains, that the eyes, nose, mouth, ears, feet, reins, 
 palms of the hands of the laity, and the backs of the 
 hands of the clergy, are the parts to be anointed ; and, 
 therefore. Popery, in its doctrine of extreme unc- 
 tion, ordains what the word of God did not ordain, 
 for the recovery of the sick, in the days of the apos- 
 tles, and hence they cannot be the same ceremony. 
 Having now, I think, fully proved, that extreme 
 unction, and the anointing referred to by the apostle, 
 James v. 14, 15, are in no respects the same, it con- 
 sequently follows, that the Popish interpretation of 
 these verses, instead of beino^ accordinor to the truth 
 
POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 189 
 
 therein contained, is a wresting of the scriptures to 
 the glory of Antichrist. Popery, however, endea- 
 vours to support its interpretation of these verses, by 
 what the evangehst Mark says in Chap. vi. 13, though 
 in vain, as 1 shall now briefly prove. ]st. It cannot 
 be granted, according to the 7 th verse of this same 
 Chapter, where it is said : "Andhecalleth unto him 
 the twelve, and began to send them forth two by two ; 
 and gave them power over unclean spirits ;" that the 
 principal design of the powers and gifts which were 
 then conferred upon the apostles, was, that they might 
 be thereby qualified to promulgate and establish the 
 doctrines of the gospel in the world. Now, as the 
 principal doctrines of the gospel, are the remission of 
 sin, and eternal life in heaven, through faith in 
 Christ, it cannot be reasonably supposed, that they 
 were sent to establish the grand doctrine of eternal 
 life through faith in Christ by performing the cere- 
 mony of extreme unction, which, according to Popery, 
 has a direct reference to the horrifying event of death. 
 2d, Extreme unction would not have answered the 
 purpose, even supposing it to be the means of making 
 people die well ; because, by the dying well of indivi- 
 duals, the apostles could not have proved to the peo- 
 ple, that they were divinely commissioned to envan- 
 gelize the world, whereas by performing miraculous 
 cures upon them, they evidently could prove that they 
 were men sent by God. When the people saw them 
 healing the sick in the name of Christ, they had the 
 
190 POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 strongest evidence of the truth of their doctrines which 
 nature could give. 3d, There is no analogy between 
 extreme unction in any respect, and the promises of 
 the gospel ; but there is a very great analogy between 
 healing the body, and healing the soul, — raising the 
 body up from a sick bed, and the resurrection of the 
 body from the grave at the last day, — and restoring 
 life to the body, and conferring eternal life in hea- 
 ven upon the soul. And the people perceiving this 
 analogy, would, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, 
 reason from it thus : What these men teach concern- 
 ing the salvation of the soul from eternal death, and 
 granting to it eternal life in heaven, through faith in 
 Him who sent them, must certainly be true, since we 
 see them, in his najne, heahng the sick, and perform- 
 ing many other preternatural wonders ; and, there- 
 fore, we will believe, in his name, to the saving of our 
 souls. 4th, The prophets, the apostles, and even 
 our Saviour himself, often performed cures upon the 
 people, in testimony of their divine mission ; and, 
 therefore, it is not to be supposed, that any of them 
 performed Popish extreme unction in proof of it. 
 ^th. The apostles, w^hen anointing the sick, did not 
 use oil as the means of healing them, but merely as 
 an emblem of health in the name of the Lord. Had 
 they used it as the means of healing them, the cures 
 which they performed would not have been miracu- 
 lous ; and had they not been miraculous, they would 
 not have served the purpose of a convincing evidence 
 
POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 191 
 
 of the truth of the gospel. Qth, But even supposing 
 that Popish extreme unction is founded on scripture, 
 and is the very same ceremony which the apostles 
 performed, it does not follow, that it should now 
 be used in the Church, unless it can be proved, 
 that the extraordinary powers of the Holy Ghost 
 have not been withdrawn, as being no longer neces- 
 sary for the purpose for which they were conferred 
 upon the apostles ; and that Popery cannot prove 
 this, is manifest from the numberless instances of 
 fraud and impositions of Popish prie:stcraft. 
 
 But, as it may be asked, by the enemies of undefiled 
 religion. Do the Churches now receive no anoint- 
 ing of the Holy Ghost? we remark farther, that they 
 do ; but, instead of being either that which the Apos- 
 tolic Churches received, or that which the Church 
 of Rome falsely pretends to be in possession of, it is 
 only the effectual application of the word of God, by 
 his Holy Spirit, as it is contained in the books of the 
 Old and New Testament, as is evident from Zech. 
 iv. 11, 14, where it is thus written: " Then answer- 
 ed I and said unto him, what are these two olive trees 
 upon the right side of the candlestick, and upon the 
 left side thereof? And I answered again and said 
 unto him, what are these two olive branches which, 
 through the golden pipes, empty the golden oil out 
 of themselves ? And he answered me and said, 
 knowest thou not what these be ? And I said. No, 
 my Lord ; These, said he, are two anointed ones 
 
192 POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 that stand by the Lord of the whole earth." Here, 
 the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, are 
 evidently represented as the two anointed ones which 
 stand by the Lord of the whole earth, and as the 
 two branches, or pipes, which empty the golden oil, 
 not of extreme unction, but of the truths contained 
 in revelation, empty themselves. Therefore, every 
 person, who has got the eyes of his understanding so 
 opened as to understand the gospel savingly, is anoint- 
 ed by the oil referred to in the above verses ; and, 
 his prayer is, " Lord, sanctify me, not by Popish ex- 
 treme unction, but by thy word, for thy word is true." 
 
 But, where is the wonder that Popery teaches, 
 that extreme unction will ward off the influence of 
 the devil, preserve them anointed with it, and help 
 them to die well, when we consider that, according to 
 Wierus, (De Praestig. Daem.lib. v.p. 54,) it teaches 
 Popish ecclesiastics to anoint their bells with the 
 same holy chrism, not only to render them fitter for 
 their priestly purposes, but also to prevent them from 
 being carried away into caves, bogs, and lakes, by the 
 Devil, where, according to Papists, he delights to ring 
 them upon Christmas night at twelve o'clock, that 
 those passing by may have their souls so charmed 
 with the devilish music that they may die soon after. 
 
 Nor is it to be counted strano^e, that it should in- 
 fuse so much grace (opere operato) into the hearts 
 of those anointed, as to deliver them from the fear 
 of death, since it is evident from the above, that its 
 
POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 193 
 
 efficacy is so great as to reach the very heart of a 
 bell, and fill it with such a load of sanctity, that even 
 the very devil has not sufficient strength to convey 
 it away. 
 
 But, after all, it must be confessed, that Popish 
 priests, manifest, in this unscriptural rite, great learn- 
 ing, science in the art of healing, and affection to- 
 wards the dying. By anointing their eyes, they en- 
 able them to perceive clearly what to shun in the 
 dark valley of Death. By anointing their ears, they 
 enable them to hear at a much greater distance the 
 approach of the Devil. By anointing their nostrils, 
 they enable them much sooner to feel the smell of 
 the sulphurous flavour of purgatory, where they are 
 sent to dwell. By anointing their mouths, they en- 
 able them to speak the Devil so fair, as to restrain his 
 roaring, which, they know, would terrify them as 
 much as the bulls of the Pope. By anointing their 
 hands, they enable them, without being burned, to 
 cling fast to the posts of the gate, which opens for 
 those whom Popery has captivated with its pictures, 
 relics, beads, baubles and toys. And by anointing 
 their feet, they enable them to run nimbly, steadily, 
 and without pain, though they are all the time tread- 
 ing upon live coals, till they find themselves farther 
 from hell than the utmost confines of that place, 
 where they say all unbaptized persons live, and which 
 they call limbo. Alas ! for poor Protestants, Pa- 
 pists may say, how preferable are our circumstances 
 
194 POPISH EXTREME UNCTION. 
 
 to theirs ! Not having" the benefit of this blessed 
 unction, they have nothing to preserve them from the 
 evils which inhabit the dark valley of death, and, 
 therefore, they must fall a prey to the Devil, and go 
 to that bad place, whither all go, who are out of 
 Christ, and all are out of Christ, that are not of our 
 Popish Church. Silence, Popery, thou liest like 
 the father of lies! God says, " beheve on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," and we Pro- 
 testants believe in Him, yea, that he is our Shepherd, 
 arid that by his rod and staff, he will preserve us from 
 every danger in the valley of Death ; and, therefore, 
 we fear less evil than you can possibly do, whose re- 
 ligion is only a system of Christianity and Paganism 
 mingled together. 
 
 Thus have I proved, that six of the seven Popish 
 sacraments are unscriptural, and, trusting, though I 
 am by no means infallible, that both the Pope, the 
 cardinals, the bishops, the priests, and the Rev. T. 
 Macguire, are quite ashamed of their anti christian 
 appearance, I shall now proceed to prove, that the 
 seventh, and greatest of the Popish Sacraments, viz., 
 the Mass, is both an antichristian, and an idolatrous 
 ceremony. 
 
SACRAMENT OF THE MASS. 
 
 The method which I purpose to observe in dis- 
 cussing this subject, is, 1st, To give a fair, honest, 
 and particular statement of the nature of the mass, 
 as we find it given by the Church of Rome, and 
 explained by Popish writers; and then, 2dl^, To 
 endeavour such a refutation of its being a scriptural 
 sacrament, as, we trust, shall clearly prove, that it is 
 not only all that Dr Philpots, the very Rev. Bishop 
 of Exeter, said of it in the British House of Lords, 
 in 1833, but also, a fulfilment of Daniel, (7th chap.,) 
 where it is prophesied, that a beast should arise, 
 " Which would be terrible and exceeding strong ; 
 which would have iron teeth and nails of brass; which 
 would devour and break in pieces, and stamp the re- 
 sidue with its feet ; which would speak great words 
 against the Most High ; which would change times 
 and alter laws ; and which would make war with the 
 saints for a time, times, and a half time ;" that is, for 
 360 natural years, +720 + 180=1260, which is ex- 
 actly the duration of the reign of antichrist upon the 
 earth. 
 
 First, With respect to the signification of the 
 term Mass, we observe, that Popish writers are not 
 perfectly agreed. One says it is derived from the 
 Hebrew word massa, which signifies a burden or a 
 
196 POPISH MASS. 
 
 curse. Another says it is from the Hebrew word 
 mahoz, which signifies a force, and in the plural, 
 forces. Den Berge, in his Catechism, says it is de- 
 rived from missa, the participle of the Latin verb 
 mittere, and signifies sent ; as, in the sacrament of 
 the mass, the sacrifices of Christ's bodv and blood 
 are sent to God the Father to reconcile him and ob- 
 taip his grace. Others also, who allow that it is derived 
 from missa, say that it signifies sent, because God 
 the Father sends an anofel from heaven, who brinofs 
 along with him the body of Christ, to be offered up 
 again upon the altar. And others still maintain that 
 it is a scriptural term, because they find these words, 
 " They administered the mass," in Acts xiii. 2, of 
 a French New Testament, which was published up- 
 wards of 150 years ao^o. 
 
 Second, Of the antiquity of the Mass. — The 
 Church of Rome maintains, that the institution of 
 the mass is of a much more ancient date than that of 
 the Protestant doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and 
 that it was reofularlv administered lono- before there 
 was any such thing as a Protestant Church heard of. 
 They will ask Protestants when, where, and by whom 
 the first mass was instituted, r,nd if they are not sa- 
 tisfactorily answered, they will exultingly reply, thai 
 the doctrine of the mass is the primitive doctrine of 
 the Christian Church. 
 
 Third, Of the ceremonies observed at the cele- 
 bration of the Mass. — There must be two wax can- 
 
POPISH MASS. 197 
 
 dies burning upon the altar, and bones somewhere 
 below it. The priest must pronounce the words of 
 consecration with a whisper. He must have on his 
 priestly robes, which are the amect, the alb, the 
 girdle, the maniple, the stole, and the surplice. 
 When a bishop officiates, he must have on a certain 
 kind of socks, a peculiar kind of coat, a crucifix, 
 gloves, a mitre, a ring, and a staff. The Dalmatic 
 habit is considered to be absolutely necessary. The 
 priest, how hungry soever he may be, must be fast- 
 ing when he consecrates the bread and wine : he 
 must not even have tasted any thing since the mid- 
 night of the preceding evening. The words of con- 
 secration must be pronounced in Latin. The cup 
 that contains the wine, must be either of gold or sil- 
 ver. When consecrating, he must begin by turning 
 himself first to this side and then to the other. Then 
 he must walk forwards, halt, stand still for a little, 
 and then return to the altar. Then he must become 
 as silent as one that is asleep. Then he must make 
 a bow, which any one would be apt to suppose he 
 had learned either in Spain or in Italy. Then he 
 must make the sign of the cross with his hands. 
 Next he must breathe over the bread and wine. 
 Then he must mutter something to himself, and in 
 a little, he must sing aloud. Then he must lift the 
 bread above his head, and having held it there for a 
 little he must replace it on the altar. Next he must 
 drink the wine in the cup. And, lastly, after some 
 
198 POPISH MASS. 
 
 other unscriptural ceremonies, he must sprinkle the 
 audience with holy water. 
 
 Fourth, Of the change made upon the bread and 
 wine hy virtue of consecration. — This change which 
 the priest makes upon the bread and wine, by virtue 
 of his ceremonies, and muttering with intention these 
 five words : " Hoc enim est corpus meum^' is not 
 that which we Protestants understand by the term 
 sacramental, but an essential change, even a change 
 from bread and wine into the real body and blood of 
 Christ, so that the bread is no longer bread, and the 
 wine is no longer wine. That we may not seem to 
 misrepresent this Popish doctrine, we shall here state 
 four of the canons of Trent respecting it, as we find 
 them translated by an author not to be suspected 
 either of the want of ability or honour. 1^^, " If any 
 shall deny, (cess. 13, can. 1,) that in the sacrament 
 of the Eucharist, there is contained truly, really, and 
 substantially, the body and blood, together with the 
 soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c., let 
 him be accursed." 2c?, " If any shall say, (can. 2,) 
 that, in the sacrament, there doth remain the sub- 
 stance of the bread and wine, together with the body 
 and blood of Christ, and shall deny the conversion 
 of the whole substance of the bread into the body, 
 and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, 
 (of Christ,) the species and accidents only of the 
 bread and wine remaining, which conversion or 
 change the Catholic Church doth most aptly call by 
 
POPISH MASS. 199 
 
 the name of Transubstantiation, let him be accursed." 
 3d,'' If any shall deny, (can. 3,) that in the sacrament, 
 the whole Christ is contained in either kind, nay, and 
 in every part of either kind, when one part is separ- 
 ated from another, let him be accursed." 4th,'' If any 
 shall say, that, in the sacrament, after the words of 
 consecration are said, there is not the body and blood 
 of Christ, save only in the present use of them while 
 they are taken and received, but that they are not 
 there either before or after ; or that the true body of 
 Christ doth not remain in the consecrated wafers that 
 are left, or that are reserved after the communion, 
 let him be accursed." 
 
 Such is the doctrine of Popish Transubstantiation; 
 and, if it be true, it certainly authorises a priest to 
 affirm, that he has power to perform a divine work, — 
 even to create Him who was conceived in the womb 
 of the Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Ghost; 
 yea, to convert all the loaves in a baker's shop into 
 so many real bodies of Christ, and all the wine in a 
 cellar into his sacred blood. 
 
 Fifth, Of the adoration and oblation of the host, — 
 Having, as they would have us to believe, cram- 
 med the whole body of the Saviour into a wafer, 
 which they call a host, and which literally signifies a 
 sacrifice for a victory obtained over enemies, they 
 worship it as Christ, true God and true man ; and 
 then they either shut it up in a little box, which, in 
 some places, they have for this purpose, or offer it 
 
200 POPISH MASS. 
 
 up immediately to God the Father, as a propitiatory 
 sacrifice for the sins, not only of the living, but also 
 of the dead, as is evident from the little canon of the 
 mass, where may be read the following prayer : — 
 " Holy Father, Almighty and Everlasting God, ac- 
 cept of this immaculate sacrifice which I, thy un- 
 worthy servant, offer up unto thee for my innumer- 
 able sins and transgressions, for all bystanders, and 
 for all believing Christians, living and dead, that this 
 may further me and them to salvation and eternal 
 life. Amen." 
 
 Sixth, Of withholding the cup from the laity. — 
 According to the decrees of the Councils of Con- 
 stance and Trent, the Church of Rome withholds 
 the cup of blessing from the laity, and administers 
 the sacrament of the mass to them in one kind only. 
 It maintains in its apology for doing so, that the 
 words, " Drink ye all of it," in Matt. xxvi. 27, refer 
 only to the priests. It would assure us from Luke 
 xxiv. 30, where no mention is made of the cup, that 
 our Saviour commanded the priests to partake of the 
 wine. Some of the priests, however, maintain, that 
 whether the Church's interpretation be right or 
 wrong, it ought to be withheld ; Jirst, Because the 
 laity have the blood of Christ in the transubstantia- 
 ted wafer, which is the Popish doctrine of concome- 
 tancy ; and, secondly. Because the laity may happen 
 to spill some of the blood out of the cup when re- 
 ceiving it. Van Den Berge says, (cat. less. xxix. 
 
POPISH MASS. 201 
 
 quest. 12,) that it is administered in both kinds ; but, 
 then, he adds, that the wine, which is not consecrated, 
 is given only for the purpose of assisting the receiver 
 to swallow the host. 
 
 Seventh, Of the mode of receiving the host. — The 
 communicant is first desired to kneel mannerly be- 
 fore the place where the priest is giving this holy sa- 
 crament, with his hands folded together, and his eyes 
 cast down. ^dli/, He is desired to hold his head 
 upright, to lay his tongue out upon his under lip, 
 and thus, in humble devotion, to swallow down the 
 sacrament without chewing it. Sdlt/, When the 
 whole host is thus got down, perhaps by the assist- 
 ance of a little wine to wash down the relics which 
 may be adherinof to the mouth, the receiver is de- 
 sired to rise up mannerly, and to shew honour to the 
 sacrament. 4thli/, The receiver is desired, on the 
 principle of decency, to abstain from spitting for a 
 certain length of time, after he has received the sa- 
 crament ; but as there is no specified time mention- 
 ed by the Church, Popish authors are not unanimous 
 respecting it. Van Den Berge says, that the receiver 
 should abstain from spitting at least a half an hour ; 
 whereas Christianus Faber, in his Catechism, says, 
 that he should not spit for at least a full hour. 
 
 Eighth, Of Private Masses. — Popery authorises 
 masses, in which none but the officiating priest com- 
 municates. It authorizes him, though there should 
 be a thousand, either of laity or of priests present at 
 
202 POPISH MASS. 
 
 the service, to consecrate the sacrament, then to offer 
 it up to God, and then to receive it in both kinds 
 himself. All that the congregation has to do, is to 
 behold and to adore. The council of Trent, whose 
 decrees have the same authority among Papists that 
 the word of God has among Protestants, greatly 
 commends these private masses. Her words are 
 these : " The holy synod doth not condemn those 
 masses in which the priest only communicates, as if 
 they were private and unlawful, but doth approve of 
 them, and commend them. It is a damnable sin to 
 say that those masses are wrong. Whoever affirms 
 that the masses in which the priest only doth sacra- 
 mentally communicate are unlawful, and, therefore, 
 to be abolished, let him be accursed." 
 
 Ninth, Of the Sale of Masses. — Masses, in some 
 places, are bought and sold like any other commo- 
 dity. Though they are generally sold for about a 
 shilling each, the price varies a little according to 
 the sumptuousness of the altar. The poorer sort of 
 priests, in many places, even loiter about the church 
 doors for the purpose of being engaged to sing a 
 little mass, which they often are by laics, when en- 
 tering upon a journey, or any other more than or- 
 dinary occasion. If the priest, who has engaged 
 himself to perform a mass, cannot find time to fulfil 
 his engagement, he transfers it to another who will 
 perform it for him generally at half price. A little 
 mass, which has been kept and said for two or three 
 
POPISH MASS. 203 
 
 persons, is not considered to be so efficacious as it 
 would have been if it had been used for one person 
 only ; and, therefore, it does not in general bring so 
 good a price. This practice explains, not only the 
 meaning of the old proverb " Brass money, brass soul 
 mass," which is as much as to say, if the money be 
 silver, the mass will be of a finer quality ; but also 
 the following distich, viz., " If the bells be well rung 
 the mass is half done." 
 
 Tenths Of the carrying the host. — In those coun- 
 tries which are most enlightened with the wax candles 
 of Popery, the host is carried about in procession. 
 As it passes, the spectators fall upon their knees and 
 worship it. If they hear the little bell ring before 
 they get out of their houses, they will immediately 
 fall upon their knees and cause their children to do 
 so likewise, saying to them : "Our dear Lord is com- 
 ing." On the lids of the boxes in which they keep 
 the host, these words are written, viz. : " Here call 
 upon God ;" and also the following rhyme : — 
 
 " Within this box may every one 
 Find Christ, God-man, and God's own Son, 
 As he was born of Mary pure ; 
 Believe this or be damned sure !" 
 
 which evidently proves, that they believe that all Pro- 
 testants will most certainly be damned, knowing that 
 not one of us believes that Christ can be thus in- 
 carcerated. 
 
 Eleventh^ Of the variety of Masses. — Popery, in 
 the extravagance of its superstition and fondness of 
 
204 POPISH MASS. 
 
 variety, admits of a great many different kinds of 
 masses. The principal of these are known by the 
 names of high masses and low masses, great masses 
 and little masses, wet masses and dry masses, bis- 
 hop masses and priest masses, ship masses and pope 
 masses, which last are certainly the most wonderful, 
 as in them there is more honour done to the Pope 
 than to the idol of wheat he offers up and they adore. 
 They have masses also in white, black, red, blue, 
 green, and violet, which perhaps constitute the masses 
 of St. Iris of all hues, alias of the rainbow. Though 
 the colour of the mass, according to Popery, is not 
 essential to the offering, yet the laws concerning it 
 cannot be transgressed without committing a mortal 
 sin. They have masses also in honour of their saints, 
 as that of St. Barbara, St. Nicholas, St. Vitalas, 
 &c. ; and, wonderful to be told ! they offer up the 
 body of Christ, which was once crucified for sin, to 
 the praise of the immaculate conception of Mary 
 without sin. They have also masses for the dead, 
 even for those who have died four or five hundred 
 years ago, which in them is certainly very considerate 
 and obliging. These, which they call masses de 
 requiem, are used to redeem souls out of a place by 
 them called Purgatory, but whose locality and nature 
 are known to none, either in heaven, earth, or hell, 
 but themselves. These masses are considered by 
 Papists to be more powerful in redeeming souls out 
 of this imaginary place, than either holy water, 
 
POPISH MASS. 205 
 
 wax candles upon the coffin, incense, vigils, or any 
 kind of satisfaction. But no wonder, since it is able 
 to draw money out of the fast locked coffers of the 
 most miserly Papists. Though for some souls they 
 may have performed a thousand masses, yet if their 
 friends be rich, they will not be assured of their hav- 
 ing got to heaven. When a Pope dies, they will 
 perform two hundred masses before he is taken from 
 the Vatican, and two hundred more on the day of his 
 interment, which is certainly very benevolent, when 
 we consider how much need he has of them, being 
 Vicarius Jilli Dei. But what seems to us Protes- 
 tants to be the most wonderful thing of all, is, that 
 they should have forgotten to have instituted a mass 
 for the Holy Ghost till lately ; but such an over- 
 sight with them is of no consequence, since, in their 
 opinion, their Church is infallible and cannot err. 
 
 Twelfth^ Of Masses for domestic animals. — Po- 
 pery allows the celebration of masses not only for 
 the dead, but also for domestic animals, as if they 
 had souls to be in danger of purgatory ; viz., those 
 of St. Anthony, whom they believe to be the patron, 
 protector, and malioz of swine ; and of St. Hu- 
 brecht, whom they believe to be the tutelary saint 
 and hundred-eyed Argus of hogs, horses, sheep, and 
 dogs. When any of these fall sick, they perform 
 the mass of its respective saint, in the faith and hope 
 that he will cure it, though it is not known whether 
 either the one or the other of these saints understood 
 
206 POPISH MASS. 
 
 the medical when upon earth, either for man or beast. 
 The masses of St. Rochus and St. Talentinus are 
 considered to be the most powerful against the plague, 
 from the idea, perhaps, that these are very importu- 
 nate saints at a throne of grace. They also per- 
 form masses that they may procure bodily health, 
 success in merchandise, hunting, war, journeys, &c. ; 
 and also inbehalf of Turks, heathens, infidels, but none 
 for us poor Protestants, although we are Christians. 
 Thirteenth, Of the miracles performed hy means 
 of the Mass. — If Popish legends speak the truth, 
 these are both great, many, and various. One of 
 the more celebrated is that which happened to St. 
 Francis in his garden. The story is the following ; 
 and I trust you will believe it, if you can, even for 
 the sake of the mass, if not for that of the truth : — 
 " When brother Francis," says the legend, " held 
 a mass in his garden, he drunk and swallowed a 
 spider along with the blood, which had fallen from 
 a tree into the chalice. After some time, finding 
 his thigh itching, he scratched it ; and wonderful to 
 be told, the spider came out at the place without 
 having received the least injury, a circumstance, 
 which, without doubt, was entirely owing to the pro- 
 tection of what he had eaten and drunk at that time !" 
 There is now however a decree or law in the Popish 
 Church, which ordains that, in such cases as that of 
 St. Francis, the spiders must be burned to ashes, 
 and that the ashes must be kept as a holy thing and 
 
POPISH MASS. 207 
 
 in a holy place, and that upon Ash Wednesday, 
 they must be put on the heads of the more than or- 
 dinary devout Catholics in the form of a cross. A 
 rat, or a mouse, or any other vermin that may have 
 eaten a whole or a part of the host, or as the law 
 may be interpretated, the whole or only a member of 
 the body of Christ, must be dealt with after a simi- 
 lar manner, even though they may have vomited up 
 the same. 
 
 But this is not the greatest miracle which Popery 
 affirms to have been wrought in confirmation of 
 the efficacy of the mass; for it is maintained by 
 Papists, that the bread and the wine have been so 
 transubstantiated by the greater than angelic power 
 of the priests, as to appear to the senses to be the 
 real flesh and blood of Jesus. But, as it would di- 
 vert me from my purpose to relate more of the won- 
 derful miracles that have been wrought by means of 
 the mass, I must refer the curious reader to the fifth 
 part of the Bee-hive, chap. 12th, where he will cer- 
 tainly find similar legends, and lies without number. 
 
 Fourteenth^ Of Mass-Priests. — These belong, as 
 I have fully shewn, when treating of Popish ordi- 
 nation, to that which the Church calls the sacred or 
 major order. They are generally denominated mass- 
 priests, because their power and authority is most 
 conspicuous in the sacrament of the mass. Their 
 power and authx)rity is not only greater than that of 
 kings and apostles, but even than that of angels. 
 
208 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Neither Aaron, Malchisedec, nor any minister of 
 the New Testament, could ever pretend to be pos- 
 sessed of such power and authority. They can create 
 even the Creator of the world, bring his body down 
 from heaven, cram it into a wafer, carry it whither- 
 soever they please, tread it under foot, reduce it to 
 a bolus, and eat it up at one bolt. They endeavour 
 to confirm the institution of their priesthood, and 
 to prove that they are after the order of Malchisedec, 
 from these words of the Saviour : " Do this in re- 
 membrance of me," but with what success may be 
 seen by turning to the Popish sacrament of ordination. 
 
 Fifteenth^ Of Popish altars In the Romish 
 
 Church there are altars for the express purpose of 
 offering up Christ in the mass. In St. Peter's at 
 Rome, we are creditably informed, that there are 
 twenty-tive altars, and that each of them is twenty-five 
 hands hig^h, which seems as if there was some connec- 
 tion between their number, dimensions, and the square 
 root, of the number 666, concerning which, I shall 
 have occasion to say more in its proper place. These 
 altars are supposed by Papists to have been typi- 
 fied by those of the Jews ; and, consequently, they 
 are, by them, considered to be much superior. On 
 those of the Jews, say they, were offered only bloody 
 sacrifices and other oblations ; whereas on ours, 
 Christ is offered up without the shedding of blood, 
 for the remission of the sins of both the living and 
 the dead. 
 
\ POPISH MASS. 209 
 
 Sixteenth, Of the principal Popish ground of belief 
 of the doctrine of the mass. — The Popish Church 
 maintains that, even though all the particulars of the 
 doctrine of the mass were still less creditable, they 
 are worthy of being believed on its own authority, 
 because it is that infallible Church which Christ pro- 
 mised to build on the apostle Peter, according to 
 Matt. xvi. 18, where it is said : " Thou art Peter, 
 and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against her." 
 
 Thus, O mass, have I set thee up, and shewn 
 that thou art a monstrous mass, a shapeless shape — 
 a collection of distortions — a Proteus — a Dagon — 
 yea, a mass of all that is amiss in nature, reason, 
 and revelation. If thy inert bulk, O mass ! permit, 
 stand up erect, till with thee I make good sport, 
 and cause thy voteries to laugh with smiles Sar- 
 donic, and put to shame thy worse than heathen 
 priests; for I intend to ply thy dough-stopp6(|v ears 
 with heavenly tempered steel, and to cause thy 
 wheaten carcass to writhe with pain by bread un- 
 felt before. Do not think, O mass, of flying into 
 the darkened hemisphere of tradition, as if thou wert 
 an owl, or a bat ; for be assured that I could send 
 such trusty messengers-at-arms after thee, as could 
 thence drag thee back to light again as easily as they 
 could a wafer. Do not dream of screening thy shape- 
 less form, and veiling thy oven-burned countenance 
 
 o 
 
210 POPISH MASS. 
 
 with the skirts of the ancient fathers ; for many of 
 them cannot, and more of them will not, save thy 
 deformity and ugliness, exposed by the light of the 
 glorious Sun of Righteousness. Do not think of hid- 
 ing thy doughy carcass behind the high altar of St. 
 Peter's, for by the force of divine truth, I shall 
 shortly overturn it and overwhelm thee in its ruins, 
 there to see corruption and be adored by vermin, 
 thy proper race of worshippers. Nor, least of all, 
 trust thyself to the vain protection of him who tends 
 thy voracious worshippers of Innismagarth, for he 
 cannot save thee even from my small power. It was 
 merely a bravado, natural to his spiritual tribe, that 
 he made when he offered to advocate thy cause 
 against the Right Reverend Bishop of Exeter. His 
 strength is only weakness when compared with mine, 
 not being armed with spiritual armour from above 
 as I am ; and his shifts will avail him as little as those 
 of Proteus served him, when entangled in the net of 
 the wise king of Ithaca ; for even Christ, a wiser than 
 Solomon, shall seize him, and force him to confess 
 that consecrated bread is still but bread, that sacra- 
 mental wine is not blood, and that all who say otherwise, 
 are either not honest men, or poor deluded mortals. 
 I proceed now to refute the doctrine of the Po- 
 pish mass; and the order I shall observe in my 
 arguments, is the same that I have now observed in 
 shewing what the Popish mass is. 
 
POPISH MASS. 211 
 
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MASS. 
 
 Argument First, — There is great reason for sus- 
 pecting that the doctrine of the mass is not scrip- 
 tural from its name. 
 
 Scriptural doctrines have scriptural names; but 
 the term mass is not a scriptural term ; and, there- 
 fore, we have reason to be suspicious that it repre- 
 sents a doctrine which is not scriptural. 
 
 Thouofh we allow that the nature of thinofs mav 
 differ so much from every thing that their names 
 can reasonably be supposed to signify, that it may 
 be affirmed that there is not the slightest analogy 
 between them ; yet it must be granted that there is, 
 in general, such resemblance between the name and 
 the thing named, that the knowledge of the one 
 assists us in formino" Droper notions of the other. 
 
 o 
 
 prope 
 
 This is particularly the case with scriptural names : 
 redemption, repentance, faith, atonement, reconcilia- 
 tion, predestination, reprobation, election, vocation, 
 justification, adoption, sanctification, circumcision, 
 passover, baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and the 
 doctrines which these names represent. There is 
 ofood reason for believinof that Adam did not name 
 things arbitrarily, (what he might have called the 
 mass, had it then existed, I do not know,) but ac- 
 cording to their respective natures ; and when we 
 trace names perhaps through three or four languages, 
 up to the primitive word, we generally find, that we 
 
212 POPISH MASS. 
 
 have still g-ood reason for believino;' that there is 
 some resemblance between the sign and object sig- 
 nified. We find that general names are still cha- 
 racteristic of some natural quality, or property which 
 is common to a class of objects ; that specific names 
 are characteristic of some quality or property be- 
 longing to a species ; and that individual names, and 
 especially those called surnames, represent some 
 distinguishing feature in the natural or acquired 
 characters of an individual. We are in no small 
 degree guided by the resemblance of the sign to the 
 thing signified, in our intercourse especially with 
 strano-ers. As soon as the name of a strano-er is 
 announced, the mind, on the principles of analogy 
 and association, immediately becomes conscious of 
 a sentiment respecting the person thereby repre- 
 sented. If the name be that of a family or of an 
 individual generally approved of, our first sentiment 
 towards the person named will be both pleasant to 
 us and favourable to him ; but if it should be that of 
 a family or of an individual known for ill, if we never 
 heard of the person before, or if it be a name in any 
 way connected with what the mind conceives to be 
 ill, the first impression it makes on us will neither 
 be pleasant to us, nor favourable to the person 
 named. Yea, so afraid are mankind in general, of 
 being imposed on by strangers, that it becomes a 
 matter of prudence arising from a sense of justice, both 
 to ourselves and to them, to put many and perhap 
 
POPISH MASS. 213 
 
 painful questions to them, before admitting them to 
 our familiarity and friendship. 
 
 Now, as Protestants, in general, cannot be reason- 
 ably expected to be familiarly acquainted, either 
 with the name or nature of the mass, we trust that 
 none of its worthy friends will take it amiss, if, in 
 our imagination, we transubstantiate it into a man, 
 suppose him to be a stranger arrived at our own 
 gate, ask him a few such questions as are generally 
 put to strangers, and necessary to be known, and in 
 the spirit of Protestant patience and charity, allow 
 him to make the best answer his unlearned tongue 
 possibly can. 
 
 A DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE MASS AND A PROTESTANr. 
 
 Prot. Who is there? Mass. A stranger, sir. 
 P. What do you want? M. Your favour, sir. 
 P. Whence have you come ? M. Direct from 
 Rome, sir. P. Who are you ? M. A noble lord, 
 sir. P. Of what family are you, my lord ? M. My 
 mother, sir, is a lady of Babylonian extraction ; and 
 my father, who is the greatest man in all Italy, and 
 whose name is Vicarius Filii Dei, derives his name 
 and authority from the Apostle Peter. P. What 
 was your mother's family in Babylon, my lord ? 
 M, Even the hio^h renowned family of the noble 
 mysteries, sir. P. What was your mother's name, 
 my lord? 3/. Mystery the great, sir, P. Since 
 your father's name is Vicarius Filii Dei, he mus 
 
214 POPISH MASS. 
 
 certainly be the Pope, my lord ? M. Yes, sir, he 
 has that honour. P. But how could the Pope be 
 your father, my lord, since he is not a married man ? 
 M. They were spiritually married, sir. P. Were 
 they pubUcly married, my lord? M. since you 
 seem so curious to be informed concerning my father 
 and mother's marriage, know, that he no sooner saw 
 her at the gate of the city, sitting upon the leopard 
 which had carried her from Babylon, and richly 
 adorned with a veil, and presenting him with the 
 cup out of which her ancestors had drank for many 
 generations, that he became enamoured, even to 
 madness, with her beauty, vowed to her an inviolable 
 vow of constancy, then lived with her spiritually, and 
 received from her seven children, the very picture 
 of themselves, and of whom I, your humble servant, 
 have the happiness to be their best beloved. P. How 
 old are you, my lord ? M. I was born, sir, in the 
 most famous year of the council of Trent, even upon 
 the very day that my father manifested to the world 
 that he could, by the device of my mother, convert 
 bread into flesh, and wine into blood. P. Were 
 many present, my lord, when you were born ? 
 M, Yes, sir, there were hundreds of the most skilful 
 doctors from all parts of Europe. P. Was your 
 mother so ill, my lord ? M. I have been told, sir, 
 it was a very cross case. P. Did they allow her 
 any wine, my lord ? M. After a long and very sharp 
 debate with respect to her treatment, they resolved 
 
POPISH MASS. 215 
 
 not to give her a drop ; for which I am exceedingly 
 sorry, being on that account, according to many even 
 of my friends, a very dry-looking man, and disposed 
 often to be unpleasantly crusty. P. Are you a 
 Christian, my lord ? M. A true Christian, sir ? 
 P. What is your name, my lord ? M, Mass, sir. 
 P. Why, my lord Mass, that is the strangest name 
 that ever v\'as given to a Christian, it appears to be 
 neither a Jewish nor a Christian name ; but, per- 
 haps you may have been called after some of your 
 Babylonian relations. M, No indeed, sir, for my 
 father, the Pope, who is never wrong, says it is de- 
 rived from massah, mahoz^ missa, mess, or some 
 such word in the sacred scriptures. P, I do not 
 think that any of these are Christian names, my 
 lord ; and not iiaving a Christian name, who knows 
 but that you may be the son of the Mother of 
 Abominations and of Antichrist. M, Yes indeed, 
 sir, my name is a Christian name ; you know, sir, 
 there is the word massah in the prophets. P. I 
 know there is, but that word signifies a burden or a 
 curse ; and surely, neither my lord Mass, nor any 
 other Christian, would like to be called a burden or 
 a curse. M, But you know, sir, there is also the 
 word massah in Exodus xvii. 7, and perhaps my 
 name may be derived from that, as some of my 
 learned friends maintain. P. The word massah in 
 Exodus xvii. 7, signifies trial and temptation, and is 
 ihe name of the place in the wilderness, where the 
 
216 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Israelites tempted the Lord ; but certainly it cannot 
 be applied to you, unless you are a tempter of the 
 Lord some way or other, perhaps as Popish priests 
 when they tempt the Lord to come down from 
 heaven and to go into a wafer, by muttering " Hoc 
 enim est corpus meiim" which wickedness, I trust 
 my lord Mass would not be guilty of. M. Ah ! sir, 
 dont, I pray, mention these words again ; for they 
 are the very same that my father pronounced im- 
 mediately before I first saw the light, (and caused 
 my mother such a severe throw, that she has been 
 distorted ever since.) But I have heard some of 
 my most learned friends say that I was called mass 
 from mahoz, one of my ancestors ; and that I was 
 so named, because I was so like him : Is not that 
 very probable, sir ? P. I will not positively say at 
 present, my lord Mass, but I shall illustrate the 
 meaning of that term in your own hearing, my lord, 
 and leave you and others to judge whether your 
 friends have informed you correctly. 
 
 The word, then, from which you would now de- 
 rive your name, is mahoz, "force," the plural of which 
 is mahuzzim, " forces," and this is mentioned by the 
 prophet Daniel xi. 38, where we read thus : " In 
 his estate shall he honour the god of forces, (i. e.^ 
 mahuzzim,) and a god whom his fathers knew not 
 shall he honour with silver, and gold, and with pre- 
 cious stones, and with pleasant things." But, sir, 
 we are told more of the same character in chap. 
 
POPISH MASS. 217 
 
 xxxix. 37, where we thus read : " And the king 
 shall do according to his will, and he shall exalt 
 himself, and magnify himself above every other god, 
 and shall speak marvellous things against the God of 
 gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be ac- 
 complished ; for that that is determined shall be 
 done. Neither shall he reo^ard the God of his fa- 
 thers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god ; 
 for he shall magnify himself above all." Now, my 
 lord Mass, instead of giving you my comment upon 
 these words, I shall tell you what the author of the 
 Signs of the Times says upon them ; and then, as I 
 said before, I shall leave you to judge whether your 
 friends have informed you correctly, and whether 
 you will own the king whom the prophet here men- 
 tions as your ancestor. 
 
 " The king who did according to his will," says 
 the Signs of the Times, " was not an athiest, or one 
 who abjured the forms of religion : for although he 
 did not honour the God of his fathers, he honoured 
 the god of forces — a god whom his fathers knew not 
 — a strange god." The term "god of forces," in our 
 version, conveys scarcely any definite meaning. The 
 Septuagint, Vulgate, Geneva, and several other ver- 
 sions, retain the original word mahuzzim. Mahoz, 
 in the singular, signifies strength, — a fortress, — a 
 strong tower, — a rock. The use of the plural here 
 denotes, that instead of the pure worship of God 
 there would be a plurality of objects honoured, and 
 
218 POPISH MASS. 
 
 worshipped, and trusted in, as divine protectors. 
 " The Lord is my strength," {rnahoz) Ps. xxvii. 1 ; 
 " The Lord is my saving strength (mahoz) of my 
 salvation," Ps. xxviii. 6 ; "Be thou to me a rock of 
 strength," (inalioz) Ps. xxvii. 2 ; and in verse 5th, 
 *' Thou art my protection." {mahoz,) In each of 
 these instances, the word mahoz is translated in the 
 Septuagint and Vulgate,by a word that literally signi- 
 fies defender and protector ; and mahuzzim, in the 
 plural, defenders and protectors. " And how think 
 vou," asks Mr Mede, " after citing these passages, 
 are not saints and angels mahuzzim ? True Christ- 
 ians have their mahoz ; but apostate Christians have 
 their mahuzzim." Mede says, (p. 670,) that even 
 the fathers and others, even at the beginning of saint 
 worship, used to call their saints and relics towers, 
 walls, bulwarks, fortresses, z. e. mahuzzim. Basil, 
 Bishop of Caesarea, who died a. d. 379, concludes 
 his oration on the martyr Mamas, with praying that 
 God would protect the Church thus " fortified with 
 the great towers of the martyrs." On the forty 
 martyrs, he says : " These are they, who, having 
 taken possession of our country, offers us safety from 
 our enemies," and then addresses them thus : " O 
 ye keepers of mankind — the best companions of our 
 cares — coadjutors of our prayers — most powerful — 
 ambassadors of God." Chrysostom (Hom. 32,) 
 says, that the body of St. Paul fortifies the city of 
 Rome more strongly than any tower, or ten thousand 
 
POPISH MASS. 219 
 
 ramparts, as likewise does the body of St. Peter. 
 Upon the Egyptian martyrs, he says, (Horn. 70,) 
 " The bodies of the saints fortify our city more 
 strongly than an impregnable wall of adamant ; and 
 also overthrow and defeat the ambassadors of invisible 
 tiends, and all stratagems of hell." 
 
 The full and literal import of mahuzzlm, is pre- 
 served in the common designation of tutelary saints. 
 They are ordinarily called protectors, guardians, and 
 defenders, and invoked as such, both in common 
 conversation and solemn prayer, by Papists. And 
 while the origin of invoking saints as defenders and 
 intercessors can be traced as far back as the earliest 
 corruptions which tarnish a pure and holy faith, the 
 custom is still prevalent in that apostate church which 
 glories in the idea of offering up Christ unto God 
 the Father, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of 
 both the living and the dead, as we shall now shew. 
 
 In the litany of the saints, (Key of Heaven, Dub. 
 1824,) fifty-four saints are invoked by their names, 
 at the head of which, and before the archangels, 
 stands, " Holy Mary pray for us." The prayer to 
 our guardian angel includes the following petitions ; 
 viz., " I conjure thee, O amiable guide, to defend 
 me against my enemies, and to protect me, particu- 
 larly at the hour of death." In the prayers entitled 
 a prayer to the Blessed Virgin, the litany of our 
 Blessed Lady of Loretto, the thirty days prayer to 
 the Virgin Mary, &c., we find the following suppli- 
 
220 POPISH MASS. 
 
 catory expressions : " O Blessed Virgin, mother of 
 God, I come to implore thy aid and protection." 
 " Most powerful Virgin, tower {mahoz) of David, 
 tower of ivory, refuge of sinners, help of Christians, 
 queen of heaven, queen of angels, queen of saints, 
 we fly to thy patronage; dehver us from all dangers ; 
 assist and comfort me in all my infirmities and mi- 
 series. Thou art the mother of mercies, and the 
 only refuge of the needy. Hear my prayer ; for 
 whither can I fly for more secure shelter, than un- 
 der the wings of thy protection." 
 
 But these Popish mahuzzim^ or tutelary saints, 
 form also a multitude of most acceptable intercessors 
 for them. In one of their prayer-books w^e read 
 thus : " I beseech the blessed Mary our Virgin, the 
 blessed Michael the archangel, the blessed John 
 Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and all 
 saints, to pray to our Lord for me." The repeated 
 prayers of Romanists to our guardian angel, to the 
 Virgin, to St. Joseph, as well as their continual in- 
 vocations, are confutations, drawn from their own 
 prayer-book, of their assertions, when they deny that 
 they pray to saints. In one of their prayers, their 
 mahoz, St. Joseph, is thus implored : ''Be touched 
 with the confidence we have in thee, and graciously 
 accept these testimonies of our devotion." Under the 
 title of the canon of the mass, we thus read: " Com- 
 municating with, and honouring in the first place, the 
 memory of the Blessed Virgin Marv, as also, of the 
 
POPISH MASS. 221 
 
 apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, 
 James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, 
 Matthew, Simon, Thadeus, Linnus, Cletus, Cle- 
 ment, Xystus, Cornelius, Cyjjrian, Laurence, Chry- 
 sogonus, John, Paul, Casas, Damian, and all saints, 
 by whose merits and prayers, &c., grant that we may 
 be always defended by the help of thy protection." 
 Now, my lord Mass, is not the above practice an 
 avowed confirmation of the prophecy of Daniel ? 
 M. So it appears, sir. P. Well, then, if your 
 name be derived from mahoz^ does it not go far 
 to prove that my lord Mass is a very near re- 
 lative of the person spoken of by the prophet ? and 
 if you be, you cannot be a true Christian ; for 
 a true Christian worships the true God only, re- 
 gards marriage as an institution of God, fit for the 
 holiest of men and women, and honours and obeys 
 the powers whom God has ordained to rule over us, 
 and whom, therefore, the scriptures call gods. But 
 indeed, my lord Mass, if your name was to be 
 found in the Old Testament, it would most pro- 
 bably be found in the New also, like the words, 
 pascha. Circumcision, and many others, which shew 
 both the connection and the difference between the 
 legal and the gospel dispensations of the true reli- 
 gion ; but, indeed, it is to found in neither ; and, 
 therefore, my lord Mass, I begin very much to 
 suspect that you are not a Christian. M. Certain- 
 ly, sir, you wrong me very much, for I could 
 
222 POPISH MASS. 
 
 shew you my name in Acts, xiii. 2. P. I know, 
 my lord, to what you refer ; it is to a French 
 New Testament, that was pubhshed about 150 
 years ago, in which (Acts, xiii. 2) we read thus : 
 " They administered the mass ;" but they who 
 informed your lordship that this was the proper 
 rendering of the original greatly deceive you. If 
 that was the proper rendering of A8/Toygy8]&>» ^g 'avTat 
 rS Kv^(a, then Beza is wrong when he translates it 
 thus ; " Quem autem ii administravit Domino ;" 
 then we should say that the angels say mass, for the 
 same verb in Heb. i. 14, is written also of them 
 also thus : Ov^^i 7rut% e<«r* xiflit^yiKXf -Trnvficcix, and pro- 
 perly rendered thus : " Are they not all ministering 
 spirits?" If " They administered the mass" were 
 the proper rendering, then might the Old Testa- 
 ment priests, mentioned in Heb. viii. 2, be called 
 ministers of the mass ; for there the original words 
 are, t«» ccyim Mfla^yog^ which are properly translated: 
 " A minister of the sanctuary." Yea, if "they ad- 
 ministered the mass" were the proper rendering, 
 then Zacharias, the husband of the mother of John 
 Baptist, also might be called a mass-priest, for the 
 same word, in Luke, i. 23, is written of him thus : 
 
 Kcci tyivijo ug iTTXYidvia-uv ui vtf^l^ eci rvig X^fia^yietg uvla^ and IS 
 
 translated in our authorised version thus : " And it 
 came to pass, that as soon as the days of his ad- 
 ministration were accomplished." But, my lord 
 Mass, many of your relations, knowing that the ar- 
 
POPISH MASS. 223 
 
 gument of your name being a scriptural one is both 
 false in itself and against your interest, agree with 
 me in saying, that it is derived from the Latin word 
 missa, which signifies " sent,"" though they differ 
 both from me and among themselves in respect of 
 your being so called. Some of your more ignorant 
 friends say, that it is derived from missa, " sent," 
 because an angel is sent from heaven with the body 
 of our Saviour (perhaps in his arms, or on his back, or 
 in the bright chariot "with living wheels, distinct aUke, 
 with a multitude of eyes") to every mass-house, there 
 to be in readiness to spring into a number of wafers, 
 and to be whole in every one of them, by these com- 
 manding words of an officiating priest : " Hoc enim 
 est corpus meum.'' But that this is not the proper 
 reason is hence evident : If the angel does not come 
 down when called upon, there can be no right mass 
 celebrated ; if the body of Christ is not perceived, 
 bv at least one of the external senses, there can be 
 no certainty of his bodily presence ; and if Christ 
 does come down, it follows, that all the prophets 
 since the world began are false prophets, and that 
 the apostle Peter affirms of Christ what is false, in 
 Acts, ii. 21, where he says : " Whom the heavens 
 must receive till the restitution of all things, which 
 God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy pro- 
 phets since the world began." Others, not much 
 better informed, say, that you were called Mass on 
 account of the offerings that were sent to the Church, 
 
224 POPISH MASS. 
 
 and alms that were sent to the poor, at the time when 
 your lordship is offered up to God upon the altar. A 
 better informed class, however, sav, that vou were 
 called Mass, because, when the whole service of the 
 day was over, the officiating priest, or deacon, dis- 
 missed the congregation with these words : *' Ite, 
 missa est" and that he had herein respect to Luke, 
 ii. 29, where we thus read : " Now, lettest thou thy 
 servant depart in peace." But this appears to be a 
 wrong supposition, for the original word (wTrcXvuv) 
 should be rendered bv the word absolvere. rather 
 than either dimittere or liberare. But those who 
 speak the truth, and these are your friends, Bellar- 
 mine, Binius, Salmeron, Durand, and others, say, 
 that you were called Mass from " Ite missa est" 
 which were the words that the officiating priest, or 
 deacon, used at the dismissal of the catechumens, 
 and all, except those who communicated in vour 
 celebration. That this is the true reason of your 
 name, my lord, is further evident from old rituals of 
 the Popish Church, in which we find, that peculiar 
 officers were appointed to turn all out of the con- 
 arreoation who did not intend to communicate. And 
 here, allow me to observe, that it is hence evident, that 
 the old Roman Church never dreamed of masses in 
 which the priest alone should communicate, — those 
 private masses of their Popish descendants, which are 
 so highly extolled by those skilful doctors who attend- 
 ed your mother at Trent, when you were born. 
 
POPISH MASS. 225 
 
 Thus, my lord Mass, have I proved to you that 
 your name, instead of being a scriptural name, is de- 
 rived from a word which was used at the celebration 
 of Pagan rights, even from ^'missa est;" and, since 
 it is so, I trust that you will not think me uncharitable 
 in dismissing you from my gate, in telling you that I 
 have no need of such a mahoz as you to defend me, 
 and of advising you never to leave " Babylon" again, 
 where you are so much beloved by " Mystery," your 
 mother, who, we are told in Rev. xvii. 5, is the 
 " Mother of Abominations ;" — home ! home ! I say, 
 thou abominable mass ! 
 
 Argument Second. — The doctrine of the mass is 
 not more true on account of its having been taught 
 prior to the Reformation. Popery, when maintain- 
 ing that the doctrine of the mass is the scriptural 
 doctrine of the Lord's Supper, reasons thus : " The 
 Protestant doctrine of the Lord's Supper is only 
 since the Reformation; but the doctrine of the mass 
 is prior to that era ; and, therefore, it must be the most 
 ancient doctrine of the Christian Church." 
 
 Now, to refute this argument, it is only necessary 
 to observe, that its whole strength and force entirely 
 depends upon the antiquity of the doctrine, and not 
 upon its veracity and agreeableness to the word of 
 God ; and that it proves by far too much to be of 
 the least service to Popery ; for it must be admitted 
 hat, if antiquity without verity be the test of the 
 truth of any Christian ordinance, it may be thereby 
 
 p 
 
226 POPISH MASS. 
 
 proved that the unholy rites of Paganism are those of 
 Christianity. But will Romanists admit that Pagan 
 rites are the ordinances of God, notwithstanding that 
 they are of a more ancient date than those of Christ- 
 ianity? We know that they will not; and, therefore, 
 they must allow us their own principle of reasoning, 
 and permit us thereon to deny that the doctrine of 
 the mass was taught either by Christ, the apostles, 
 or the primitive Christian Church, notwithstanding 
 it was taught prior to the Reformation. 
 
 Secondly, Popery, in maintaining against unskil- 
 ful Protestants, that the mass was instituted by our 
 Saviour, will ask them, when, by whom, and in what 
 manner, the first mass was instituted ? and because 
 they may not, perhaps, be able to asnwer satisfac- 
 torily and readily, it will falsely conclude against 
 them that it was instituted by Christ. Now, this 
 mode of reasoning we affirm to be unfair, false, and 
 most dangerous. It is employed only against the 
 common people, because Popery knows that it is 
 they only who are apt to be ensnared by it. That 
 it is false, is evident from this single consideration, 
 that Leo I. is the most ancient author who speaks of 
 the mass ; and he lived at a time when Christianity 
 was greatly disfigured by Paganism. And that it is 
 most dangerous is manifest from the consideration, 
 that it may be thereby proved that theft is a good 
 action, where the thief is not detected ; that tares 
 are wheat, when it cannot be discovered who sowed 
 
POPISH MASS. 227 
 
 them ; and that falsehood is truth, when it cannot 
 be proved to be false. Errors are no less errors, 
 though they may not be immediately discovered. 
 The seed from which the luxuriant crop of the mass 
 have sprung may, like the tares which (Matt. xiii. 25) 
 were sown in the night, have been sown in the vine- 
 yard of the Lord at different periods ; some, when 
 the husbandmen were becoming drowsy with the in- 
 toxicating draughts they had drank from the " cup 
 of abomination ;" some, when they were fast asleep 
 therewith, and dreaming of nothing except how they 
 might best adorn " Mystery the Great ;" and some, 
 even when they were beginning to bestir themselves, 
 and to awake from their long and deep state of 
 Popish dormancy ; and, therefore, it does not follow 
 that the mass is not a crop of tares, because it can- 
 not, perhaps, be shewn when, and by whose impious 
 hand, that antichristian seed was sown. 
 
 But, were this a proper place, we could perhaps 
 tell more of the spring, growth, and cultivators, of 
 these tares, than many Papists are aware of. How- 
 ever, let it suffice the reader for the present to know, 
 that they were sown by Popery, and that the seed- 
 time was complete before the Council of Latern, 
 A.D. 1215, when Innocentius III. assumed the anti- 
 christian title of " Vicarius Filii Dei^'' that is. De- 
 puty, or Vicar, of the Son of God ; and to be as- 
 sured that the only sure tests by which religious 
 truth can be tried, are the doctrines of Christ, of the 
 
228 POPISH MASS. 
 
 apostles, and of the primitive Christian Church, all 
 which, as I hope to be able to shew, prove that the 
 mass is quite a different rite from the Lord's Supper, 
 and without the least scriptural authority. 
 
 Argument Third. — The ceremonies observed at 
 the celebration of the mass, are not authorised by 
 the word of God. 
 
 Since the word of God, and the standards of 
 every Christian Church, oblige Christians to observe, 
 and keep pure and entire, all such religious worship 
 and ordinances as God has appointed in his word, 
 we may certainly desire Romanists to shew us by 
 what scriptural authority they observe so scrupulous- 
 ly the ceremonies of the mass. 
 
 First, Where is their scriptural authority for having 
 two wax candles burning upon their altars ? If they 
 say it is in Zeph. i. 12, they are wrong; for the 
 candles mentioned there, have a particular reference 
 to Jerusalem, and they teach us, that God has a per- 
 fect knowledge of all our actions ; that, by convic- 
 tions, and awakening providences, he will search our 
 consciences : and that he will punish us for our most 
 secret faults : — All the wax candles of Popery, could 
 not emit the light of those referred to by the pro- 
 phet. If, however, referring to Job. xxix. 3, they 
 say, that they are used for spiritual direction, and 
 comfort; or, if referring to Ps. cxix. 105, they say, 
 that they are used as lamps unto their feet, and lights 
 unto their paths, they are wrong ; for the favour and 
 
POPISH MASS. 229 
 
 blessing of God are the candles to which Job refers, 
 and the word of God, is the light referred to by the 
 Psalmist. If they say, that they are told in Matt. 
 V. 15, not to put their lighted candles under a bushel, 
 but in a candlestick'; we will advise them, as wise 
 men, and as professing Christians, to attend also to 
 the 16th verse, and to let their light so shine before 
 their congregations, that they may perceive such 
 works to be done by them, as will cause them to glo- 
 rify God in heaven, and not the consecrated bread 
 upon the altar. If still maintaining their cause, they 
 plead the candlestick in the Jewish tabernacle ; we, 
 in charity, will inform them, that that was typical ot 
 the Saviour's fulness of the light of the Holy Ghost, 
 and also of the light of the gospel in his church, 
 though not of the candle-light of a mass-house. But 
 why should they trouble themselves to seek for au- 
 thority for their lighted candles, where it is not to be 
 found. It they would apply to the author of the His- 
 tory of the Heavens, he, perhaps, would advise them 
 to seek for it rather in Egypt, or at Elusis in Greece, 
 where the mysteries of Ceres were celebrated, 
 who, they say, first taught men to sow and reap? 
 that they might have bread instead of acorns to eat, 
 but, certainly, not to transubstantiate it into a Divinity, 
 by performing gestures before lighted candles, which 
 would be more modestly performed in the dark. 
 
 But Popery has as little scriptural authority for its 
 robes, as for its candles. Where, we would ask, is 
 
230 POPISH MASS. 
 
 their authority for their socks, coats, gloves, Dahna- 
 tic habits, amects, albs, girdles, maniples, stoals, sur- 
 plices, &c. ? If they try to find it in the word of God, 
 they will not prove successful ; but, if they seek for it 
 in Popish legends, they perhaps may find it. The 
 Jewish priests, we know, had sacred robes ; and for 
 any thing we know to the contrary, so also had Mel- 
 chisedec ; but these having robes, is no argument in 
 favour of those of mass-priests, who are neither of the 
 order of Aaron, nor Melchisedec. But, even sup- 
 posing that they did belong to the one or the other 
 of these orders, that would not, in the least, prove 
 more favourable to theirs, since they could not prove, 
 that the robes of Aaron, or Melchisedec, prefigured 
 theirs. The sacred robes of the Jewish priests were 
 "all typical of that Divine High Priest, " whose gar- 
 ments smell of myrrh, aloes, and cassia, out of the 
 ivory palaces whereby they make him glad :" that is 
 of Christ, whose mediatorial office, humanity, right- 
 eousness, and salvation, have the most refreshing in- 
 fluence upon his people, — an influence far superior 
 to the fragrant smell of such garments as have been 
 perfumed in wardrobes lined with ivory ; and whose 
 heart is gladdened in heaven above, and also in his 
 Church and ordinances below, with the scriptural 
 worship of his people. If they endeavour to find it 
 in Ps. cxxxiii. 18, let them be told, that the only 
 clothing they will find there, is a clothing of shame 
 and cursing, which, we have good reason to suppose 
 
POPISH MASS. 231 
 
 they will not put on, as long as antichrist, their king, 
 reigns upon earth. If they endeavour to find it in 
 Matt. xxii. 1 1, they will not be able, as there is none 
 there but the wedding garment, to which they have 
 no claim, since they will not receive the sacramental 
 seals of the Christian's spiritual marriage with the 
 King's Son, for fear perhaps that they would be ob- 
 liged to honour and worship him according to his 
 holy will and pleasure. But, perhaps, they will en- 
 deavour to find it in Matt. vii. 15, believing that they 
 have a special right to the clothing mentioned there, 
 being, according to their own exposition of these 
 words of our Saviour to Peter, " Feed my sheep," 
 the sheep of the Pope ; but, if they do, we will tell 
 them, that, if the Popish vestments be the clothing 
 mentioned there, they who wear it are false teach- 
 ers, — teachers who, by their craftiness, pretended in- 
 nocence, hypocritical holiness, aud Jesuitical useful- 
 ness, draw men from the light of the gospel, by their 
 ignis fatuus light of wax candles, and land them in 
 regions of ignorance, climates of superstition, and 
 pits of misery. 
 
 But to add, as it were, to the solemnity of scene. 
 Popery ordains that the priest must celebrate the 
 mass in Latin, which, at least to the generality of the 
 congregation, is an unknown tongue. Now, where, 
 we ask Papists, is there either a command or a per- 
 mission for this in the word of God. Our Saviour, 
 when instituting the Holy Supper, we know, spake 
 
232 POPISH MASS. 
 
 in a language which his disciples understood. Per- 
 haps they will say, in 1 Cor. xiv. 14, but they 
 are wrong ; for the apostle there says : " If I pray 
 in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my 
 understanding is unfruitful." If they say that speak- 
 ing in an unknown tongue will be a sign to the peo- 
 ple, that the priests have a divine commission to in- 
 struct them in the knowledge of the mass, they are 
 wrong again ; for, in verse 19, the apostle says: 
 " That tongues are for a sign, not to them that be- 
 lieve, but to them that believe not." If, in reply to 
 this, they say the people cannot believe till they are 
 thus taught, they are wrong once more ; for the same 
 apostle affirms, that such a mode of teaching is bar- 
 barous, and the general ignorance of the Popish 
 Church proves what he affirms to be true ; for the 
 only answer that the generality of the Popish laity 
 can give, when asked what they believe, is, that they 
 believe what the Church believes ; and, when asked 
 what the Church believes ; they say that the Church 
 believes what they believe. Alas ! for a Popish " act 
 of faith," not to mention their " Auto-da-fe,'' 
 
 But, though it is evident from the Holy Scriptures, 
 that God will not have his people taught in any other 
 than their vernacular tongue, yet far be it from us to 
 suppose, that the Popish Church, in this, acts in- 
 consistently with its antichristian principles. It may 
 be afraid that, if the wiser sort of people confessing 
 their suis to saints, and beseeching them instead of 
 
POPISH MASS. 233 
 
 the only Mediator between God and man, they would 
 be so greatly offended as to leave off honouring these 
 canonized Mahuzzim. Perhaps it knows, that if the 
 laity heard the priest addressing inanimate things, 
 in words which they fully understood, many of them 
 would feel such loathings towards the host, as would 
 for ever prevent its gutteral descent. Perhaps it is 
 from the Church's consciousness, that many of the 
 laity would readily perceive, that, in the ceremony 
 of the mass, more honour was conferred upon saints 
 than upon Him who said, " Do this in remembrance 
 of me." Perhaps it is because it knows that many 
 of the laity would fall from the Popish faith once de- 
 livered to his Church by the Council of Trent, 
 when, in well-known sounds, they heard the priest 
 desiring God " to command that these things," (viz., 
 the body of Christ, which is but one thing,) "be car- 
 ried by his angel upon the high altar which is in the 
 presence of his Divine Majesty ;" and then, without 
 waiting to see whether the angel will come, behold 
 him eat up the whole carcass. Perhaps antichrist 
 is afraid that the gates of hell might prevail against 
 his Church, were the laity to hear the priest, when 
 communicating alone, saying in their own tongue, 
 " pray for me my brethren," and " for us all," and 
 commanding to eat. Yea, perhaps it is because he 
 knows that the people would more easily perceive, 
 that according to the mass, Christ was sacrificed to 
 the honour of saints, and sanctified of his Father 
 
234 POPISH MASS, 
 
 through the merits of sinful men, and that they would 
 thereby become so horrified and enraged, as to bring 
 down the Popish Church, notwithstanding its infalli- 
 bility. But why this exposure of these unscriptural 
 ceremonies ? It is not necessary. Christ never used 
 them. The apostles never used them. Apostolical 
 men never used them. The Church, for many cen- 
 turies, never used them. We defy Popery to prove 
 that they are Christian ceremonies. 
 
 Argument Fourth,— The doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation is a false doctrine. This doctrine is false, 
 \st. Because it is repugnant to the common sense of 
 mankind ; ^d, Because it is repugnant to the incarna- 
 tion of Christ; ?>d, Because it is repugnant to Christ's 
 manner of speaking ; Ath^ Because it disqualifies 
 Romanists from holding properly the words of the 
 institution, viz., " Hoc enimest corpus meum;^ bth, 
 Because it is repugnant to Christ's glorification; 
 6th, Because it is repugnant to Christ's ascension ; 
 7th, Because it is contrary to Christ's sitting and 
 glory at the right hand of his heavenly Father ; 8th, 
 Because it is contrary to the scriptural doctrine of 
 his communion with his saints upon earth. 
 
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 Argument First It is a doctrine repugnant to 
 
 common sense. The common sense of mankind 
 consists in those general notions arising in the minds 
 of men, by which they apprehend things in a similar 
 
POPISH MASS. 235 
 
 manner. Mr Locke, on the Human Understanding, 
 has proved that man has no innate ideas ; and that all 
 our ideas, and hence all our knowledge, are acquired 
 by means of our bodily powers, mental faculties, or- 
 gans of sense, and powers of perception. These 
 being the same in number, and very similar in all 
 men, it follows, that the same ideas, and hence know- 
 ledge, are common to all our race ; and, moreover, 
 that those ideas are true and consistent with the na- 
 ture of things. The first impressions which the mind 
 receives of external objects, are acquired through the 
 medium of the five external organs of sense, which 
 are impressed, not by the substances of the objects, 
 but by their qualities or accidents only. These im- 
 pressions, or sensations, are preserved in the mind 
 by that faculty called the memory, until others are 
 received, and then that faculty called the judgment 
 distinguishes between the former and the latter, and 
 gives notice to the mind of the result, which is called 
 a perception. It is true that the idea does not al- 
 ways agree with the nature of the thing from which 
 it is acquired, but whenever this takes place, the one 
 or other of the following must be the cause of the 
 deception ; viz., the fault must either be in the 
 thing itself, the organ of sensation, or the judgment, 
 which frequently passes sentence on the object with- 
 out sufficient evidence ; as, for instance, when it 
 judges any object by the evidence of one sense, 
 where that of two or perhaps more is required, or in 
 
236 POPISH MASS. 
 
 some other way not consistent with the laws of a just 
 perception. Now, as there is no other way by which 
 our primary ideas of external objects can be acquired, 
 and as the senses, powers, and faculties which are 
 employed in acquiring them, are common to the 
 human race ; it follows, that the knowledge thus ac- 
 quired either is, or may be, the common property 
 of mankind. 
 
 Now, this certainly proves, that the doctrine of 
 transubstantiation, which teaches that, after conse- 
 cration, there is nothing left of what was bread and 
 wine previous to consecration, except the accidents, 
 is a false doctrine, inasmuch as it is repugnant to the 
 common sense of mankind, which affirms, that they 
 are the same, in all natural respects, after consecration 
 that they were before. 
 
 The Rev. T. Macguire, in favour of this Popish 
 doctrine, says, that the senses often contradict each 
 other, which we readily admit ; but this does not help 
 his cause in the least ; for it is not to the sense of 
 any individual, or class of indi\iduals, we appeal, and 
 least of all to that of Popish priests, as it is not alto- 
 gether improbable, that, by means of unctions and 
 chrisms, &c., they may differ in their returns from 
 those of the rest of mankind ; but that to which we 
 appeal is the common sense of our race. Mankind 
 in general affirm, that consecrated bread and wine 
 feel, smell, taste, and appear to the sense of sight 
 the same as before consecration, on the common 
 
POPISH MASS. 237 
 
 evidence of their perceptive powers ; and, therefore, 
 they conclude it is substantially and essentially the 
 same as before ; and hence, that they w^ho teach 
 otherwise, virtually charge the Deity with having 
 given us powers and faculties which are good for 
 nothing but amusing us with deceptions, which is 
 blaspheming his infinite goodness. Again, the same 
 gentleman, after having admitted that a wafer is 
 known to be a wafer, " by smelling and tasting," and 
 that there is " no self-evident proof of the truth of 
 its being transubstantiated," says, " that it must be 
 believed against all the senses except that of hearing, 
 because none of them have any thing to do with it, 
 as it is an object of faith only ; ' which faith (says 
 he) Cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
 God.' " Nov/, as the refutation of this sophistical 
 jargon falls more properly under another of our ar- 
 guments, suffice it for the present to say, that we 
 freely admit that the faith of the doctrines of the 
 gospel comes by hearing the word of God ; but un 
 til that gentleman proves that the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation is either a doctrine of the gospel, (and 
 we are sure he never can, for want of evidence,) or 
 that it is not concerning our belief of an object that 
 comes under the cognizance of even four of our ex- 
 ternal senses, we shall conceive ourselves at liberty 
 to say, that in this instance, he is "a wrester of 
 the scriptures ;" and, therefore, that he should be der 
 prived of them ; lest, like all the ignorant laics of 
 
238 POPISH MASS. 
 
 his communion, he should therewith " destroy him^ 
 self." But, however this may be, we affirm, that 
 the Deity, neither in the volume of revelation, nor 
 in that of nature, which, as far as it is able, teaches 
 the self-same doctrines, though in a manner which is 
 infinitely harder to be understood than any of those 
 to which the apostle Peter is supposed to be refer- 
 ring, desires us to believe any thing concerning any 
 sensible object, but what is agreeable to the laws of 
 perception, which are those of nature, and hence, of 
 nature's God. For instance, we are nowhere in the 
 Bible desired to believe that a body can be without 
 its proper quantity, qualities, place, and space ; but 
 the body of Christ has its proper quantity, qualities, 
 place, and space ; and, therefore, even supposing that 
 he were in the wafer after consecration, we are not 
 desired to believe it, because such a belief is repug- 
 nant to the common sense of mankind. What would 
 be the consequence of such a belief on those rational 
 principles which God has given us, and against which 
 there is not a word said in revelation ? Evidently 
 absurdity upon absurdity ! If Christ was substantially 
 in the consecrated bread, there must be the quantity 
 of his body, the quality of his body, the place of his 
 body, and space for his body. There must be his 
 two eyes, beholding the manoeuvres of the priest 
 previous to his ingurgitation ; or, perhaps, those more 
 innocent manners of a rat or a mouse, previous to 
 his capture and devoration by it. There must be 
 
POPISH MASS. 239 
 
 his ears, conveying to his soul, which must be there 
 also, the words of the priest, most reproachful to the 
 merit of his sacrifice upon the cross. There must 
 be his legs at full length, and yet as fast bound as 
 when nailed to the accursed tree. And, besides all 
 his other members and senses, there must be his 
 sense of touch, to relish the saliva of the receiver 
 sent forth (like that of a hoa-constructor when about 
 to sicallow a stag perhaps) to assist his conveyance 
 into the stomach, there to be humbled with even 
 more unnatural humiliation than when a corpse in 
 the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. 
 
 But Mr Macguire affirms, that " the doctrine is 
 not contrary to reason, though it may be above it.'^ 
 Well, we shall presently see if he affirms truly. His 
 Church affirms, that after the consecration of the 
 bread, the accidents thereof, that is, the colour, the 
 smell, the taste, and the touch, remain unaltered 
 from what they were before. Now, we ask him to 
 answer the following question, viz., whether the 
 whiteness, the roundness, the smell, the taste, and 
 the touch of the bread, without the substance of the 
 bread, can produce a substance, and even encrease 
 it ; or, in other words, produce and feed worms ? If 
 he answers negatively, we will answer, that worms 
 have been produced and fed in the host ; and, if he 
 answers affirmatively, we will tell him, his answer is 
 false and absurd on every principle of reason. The 
 accidents, either of bread or of any other thing, are 
 
240 POPISH MASS. 
 
 nothing in themselves ; but that which is nothing can- 
 not produce a something ; and, therefore, the acci- 
 dents of the consecrated bread can produce nothing ; 
 but the supposed accidents of the host have produced 
 something ; and, therefore, there are more than bare 
 accidents in the consecrated bread, viz. ; the sub- 
 stance and essence of the bread is there also. 
 
 Neither is the wine transubstantiated by means of 
 consecration. It loses none of its former properties. 
 Notvvithstanding consecration, these, to all sense, re- 
 main the same ; and, because we know nothing of 
 pure essence, or matter, except by means of its pro- 
 perties, — nothing of wine but by means of the well- 
 known properties of wine, the common sense of man- 
 kind warrants us to conclude, that consecration does 
 not change its substance. After consecration, it has 
 the property of intoxication ; and, therefore, common 
 sense says it is not blood. Can blood make a man 
 drunk ? No ; and the reason is, that intoxication is 
 none of its essential properties. Can wine inebriate ? 
 Yes, Noah would reply, were he here ; and it is be- 
 cause wine possesses the property of inebriation. 
 Can consecrated wine inebriate ? Yes, say they 
 who have taken too much of it, our experience can 
 testify. But suppose a priest should get drunk with a 
 great chalice of consecrated wine, what would be the 
 consequence ? he could not be punished by the 
 bishop, he could not be called a wine-bibber, he could 
 not be supposed to be intoxicated with blood. O no, 
 
POPISH MASS. 241 
 
 one might say he was not drunk at all, his head was 
 only giddy with the intoxicating fumes of mere acci- 
 dents ; — absurd ! absurd ! ! 
 
 But, Romanists may raise another objection from 
 the omnipotence of God ; saying, that, as he can so 
 easily do with the bread all that the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation teaches that he does do, it is hence 
 probable, that he really does it. Now, whoever con- 
 siders the principle of this objection, will readily per- 
 ceive, that it manifests a gross ignorance, not only of 
 natural theology, and not only of school divinity, but 
 also of many plain truths contained in the Bible. 
 There we are taught, that there are many things 
 that God cannot do, because, the supposition that he 
 can do them, involves other suppositions contrary to 
 the nature and perfections of Deity. It is contrary 
 to the nature and perfections of God, for instance, 
 to deny himself, to lie, to die, to perish, to make 
 that which is done, undone, to overthrow the 
 truth, to sin, to create another God, &c. But, 
 whether God can or cannot do these things, does 
 not respect our present argument. The question is 
 not, whether God has absolute power to do these 
 things, but whether he will do them ? We must not 
 argue from the absolute power of deity, to the being 
 of a thing, but to his will, as we are taught in Ps. 
 cxv, 3, where we read thus, " Our God is in the 
 heaven, and doeth whatsoever he will." The will, 
 and the ordinate, or actual power of deity, can never ^ 
 
 Q 
 
242 POPISH MASS. 
 
 be supposed to be at variance with each other ; and 
 hence we affirm, that it is contrary to the will, 
 ordinate power, nature, and perfection of deity, to 
 make accidents without subjects, subjects without 
 their proper qualities, a body to be in many and dif- 
 ferent places at the same time, or to make a body 
 again that which it was before. Could it be proved, 
 on either rational or religious principles, that God 
 could do such things as these, it might be proved 
 that he could be the author of confusion. 
 
 Argument Second. — It is repugnant to what the 
 word of God teaches concerning the incarnation of 
 Christ. The word of God teaches, in 2 Sam, vii. 
 14, Ps. Ixxxii. 2, Jer. xxiii. 5, Jer. xxxiii. 15, and 
 Acts ii. 30, that God promised to the Psalmist Da- 
 vid, that Christ should become man from his seed ; 
 but Popery teaches, that Christ has become, and will 
 become man from bread. The word of God teaches, 
 in Acts ii. 30, Rom. i. 3, and in several other places, 
 that this promise of the Messiah to David, was fully 
 accomplished by the incarnation of Christ ; but the 
 word of Popery teaches, that it has been a thousand 
 times fulfilled, and is to be yet a thousand times ful- 
 filled, by the power of a transubstantiating priest. 
 The divine word teaches, in Phil. ii. 7, Heb. ii. 14, 
 John i. 14, 1 Tim. iii. 16, and in many other places, 
 that Christ took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh ; 
 viz., that he assumed not only the human nature, 
 abstractedly considered, but also all the properties, 
 
POPISH MASS. 243 
 
 infirmities, and liabilities, sin only excepted, there- 
 unto belonging ; but the Popish word, teaches that 
 Christ, by the power of transubstantiation, assumes 
 the likeness of bread; and hence, though most 
 absurdly, that, in that likeness, he is subject to all 
 the feelings and infirmities of sinless humanity. The 
 word of God teaches, in Heb. ii. 17, and iv, 15, 
 that Christ assumed the likeness of sinful flesh, part- 
 ly, that we, in him, might have a merciful and faith- 
 ful High Priest ; but the word of Popery teaches, 
 that he has assumed, does assume, and will assume, 
 the likeness of bread, and the form of a wafer, that 
 he may be first offered up unto God a propitiatory 
 sacrifice ; and then sent down the human gutter 
 into the alvum, by the cruel assistance of that offi- 
 cious member called the tongue, on which, for this 
 purpose, he is, with as much ceremony as if a victim 
 of a Popish auto-da-fe, or act of faith, previously 
 placed. O Popish tongue, thou art surely a much 
 greater enemy to Christ, than any Protestant tongue ; 
 and surely, therefore, thou hast proportionally more 
 to answer for ! Protestant tongues are, indeed, un- 
 ruly members, and often set on fire the whole man ; 
 but Popish tongues are, moreover, cruel tongues, yea 
 cruel in assisting Papists to devour their Saviour 
 and their Lord. The word of God teaches, in Gal. 
 iv. 4, that Christ was made of a woman, and under 
 the moral law, that, as we are elsewhere taught, 
 he might redeem those that are under the law from 
 
244 POPISH MASS. 
 
 the miserable state in which, by nature, all its trans- 
 gressors are ; but the word of Popery, in addition to 
 this apostolical doctrine, teaches, that Christ is also 
 made of a piece of bread, and under the canon law 
 of Popery, that he may redeem souls out of purga- 
 tory, and reconcile offending Papists to the Pope ; 
 and, moreover, by a natural and obvious inference, 
 that Christ is made both of a woman, and of bread, 
 and also both under the moral law of God, and the 
 canon law of Popery, which is every way absurd. 
 Mennon, after he had left the Popish communion, 
 erroneously taught, that such a noble and glorious 
 fruit as Christ, could not be plucked from such a 
 stinking elder tree, — such a stinking thorn bush, as 
 the seed of the woman ; but, previous to his recanta- 
 tion of the Popish faith, he, like the rest of his 
 brethren, the priests, taught a doctrine equally as 
 false, a great deal more absurd, and infinitely more 
 dishonourable to Christ, viz., that the pure and the 
 holy Jesus, could be made, wonderful to be told 
 from the flour of wheat ! The word of God teaches, 
 in Luke i. 35, that Christ was conceived by the 
 power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin 
 Mary ; but Popery teaches, that he is also conceived 
 by the priest's breathings over the bread and wine, 
 and muttering, " Hoc enim est corpus meum^^ in the 
 bread. The word of God teaches, that Christ was 
 manifested in the flesh ; but Popery teaches that, 
 besides this manifestation, he is, or at least should 
 
POPISH MASS. 245 
 
 be, were it possible, also manifested in the conse- 
 crated bread. The word of God teaches, that Christ 
 was conceived against nature, carried in the womb of 
 his virgin mother the whole time which nature has 
 prescribed to human gestation, and born of her ac- 
 cording to the course of nature ; but Popery, on the 
 contrary, teaches, that Christ can be conceived by 
 virtue of the transubstantiating power of a mass- 
 priest, that the time of his gestation may not be more 
 than that occupied by a priest in pronouncing these five 
 short words, " Hoc enim est corpus meum^^ that, like 
 the goddess Minerva, who is fabled to have sprung 
 forth a perfect goddess, and armed with a shield, from 
 the brain of Jupiter, he is no sooner made, than he 
 has arrived at full manhood, and that he is not de- 
 livered by any manner of birth, from the accidents 
 of the Popish womb in which he has been conceiv- 
 ed. And, lastly^ the word of God teaches, that 
 Christ, whose mother was the sister of Mary Cleo- 
 phas, who was the mother of James the less, of Jose, 
 and of Salome, was the cousin, and improperly called 
 the brother of these men ; but,, transubstantiation 
 teaches, what ! shall I express it ? will the subject 
 permit me, without subjecting me to violate, not 
 only the rules of taste, but also those which teach 
 how men should write on such a serious subject ? 
 yes, says truth in my behalf, you may ; yes, says ab- 
 surdity, I should always be exposed when blasphem- 
 ing the Saviour ; yes, say even Papists themselves, 
 
246 POPISH MASS. 
 
 for we would expose you ; well, then, since I am 
 thus at liberty, I say, that transubstantiation teaches, 
 that the Christ that is made of bread, is the cousin of 
 loaves, rolls, muffins, pies, and all the rest of the 
 crusty and tarty offspring of his uncle and aunt, by 
 his mother's side, even the good Mr and Mrs Baker, 
 Reader ! tell me now, whether the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation is repugnant to that of the incarnation 
 of Him who was first promised in paradise, conceived 
 by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the 
 Virgin Mary, while she was living in Nazareth, and 
 born of her, without sin, in the city of Bethlehem of 
 Judah, which was that of David, to whom he was 
 promised. 
 
 Argument Third, — It is repugnant to the figure of 
 speech which the words of the institution contain. 
 The figure which is contained in the words of the 
 institution, is that which attributes to the sign, the 
 name of the thinof sis'nified. 
 
 Popery maintains that the words : " This is my 
 body," and " This cup is the New Testament in my 
 blood," being the words of a sacrament, a testament, 
 a covenant, a command, and of a point of faith, must 
 be spoken, not figuratively, but according to their 
 literal signification ; otherwise they would be too 
 dark to be understood. The Rev. T. Macguire, at the 
 same time that he acknowledges that he does not 
 see with what consistency the words of the institu- 
 tion should be literal and figurative at the same time. 
 
POPISH MASS. 247 
 
 says, but with what consistency of argument I know 
 not : " Shall we have recourse to types and figures to 
 explain away the word of the Lord ?" But who does 
 not see that this is merely a begging of the question ; 
 and, therefore, we shall proceed to prove, that the 
 words of the institution contain a figure, and that in 
 them the thing signified is attributed to the sign. 
 
 And I observe in the Jirst place, that figurative 
 language is frequently used in scripture for the sake 
 of explication, when speaking of sacraments, cove- 
 nants, testaments, commands, and also of points of 
 faith. Of the sacrament of the Supper, it is said in 
 Luke xxii. 20 : " This cup is the New Testament 
 in my blood." Is this, we ask, literally to be under- 
 stood? No ; for it obviously contains the figure where- 
 by the cup is put for the wine contained in the cup, 
 and this cup is also called the New Testament in 
 Christ's blood, certainly not meaning that it was the 
 New Testament itself, but only the seal of it, and 
 the sign or memorial of that blood which was shed 
 upon the cross to confirm it. Of the Testament sacra- 
 ments or covenant of circumcision, it is said in Gen. 
 xvii. 10 : " This is my covenant which ye shall keep 
 between me and you, and thy seed after thee, that 
 every male child among you shall be circumcised." 
 Here again it is obvious that the sign is put for the 
 thing thereby signified, viz., circumcision for the co- 
 venant, or sacrament, thereby instituted ; and hence 
 it is evident, that the Rev. T. Macguire affirmed 
 
248 POPISH MASS. 
 
 falsely when he said that the words of a testament, 
 or of a covenant, must be taken in their literal sio^- 
 nification. Again, concerning the passover, which 
 was the other Old Testament sacrament, it is said, 
 in Exod. xii. 11, that "it is the Lord's passover;" 
 which language every body knows to be figurative 
 who knows that the paschal lamb with which the 
 Jews celebrated this sacrament, called the " feast of 
 the passover," was not God's actual passing over the 
 Israelites when he slew all the first-born of the Egypt- 
 ians. Concerning the sacrament of baptism, we read 
 thus, in Tit. iii. 5 : " The water of regeneration ;" 
 which, because the water in baptism does not rege- 
 nerate, is evidently figuratively spoken of. Concern- 
 ing testaments, much figurative language is also used 
 in 49th chap, of Gen., 33d chap, of Deut., 23d 
 chap, of 2d Sam., and in the 2d chap, of 1st Kings. 
 Of covenants, we, moreover, read this figurative lan- 
 guage, in Gen. xvii, 21, 23 : " But I will establish 
 my covenant with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto 
 thee at this time next year. And Abraham took 
 Ishmael, his son, and all that were born in his house, 
 and all that were bought with his money, every male 
 among the men of Abraham's house, and circum- 
 cised the flesh of their foreskins, in the self same day 
 as God had said unto him." Of commands, we read 
 thus figuratively, in Isa. i. 16 : " Wash you, and 
 make you clean ; in Jer. iv. 3 : Break up your fal- 
 low ground, and sow not among thorns ; and in Joel, 
 
POPISH MASS. 249 
 
 ii. 13 : " Rend your hearts, and not your gar- 
 ments." And, of points of faith, or doctrine, we read 
 this figurative language, in Deut. xxx. 6 : " The 
 Lord will circumcise thine heart ;" in John iii. 3, 5 : 
 " Except a man be born again he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God : verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now, I 
 would ask any Romanist who has read and studied 
 the import of these portions of the word of God, to 
 say whether the Rev. T. Macguire, who is con- 
 sidered by the Papists of Ireland as the champion of 
 their religion, spoke according to the word of God 
 or the word of Popery, when, in behalf of the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation, he affirmed, in Dublin, 
 " that the words of a sacrament, a testament, a co- 
 venant, a command, and of a point of faith, must be 
 literally spoken, or otherwise, be too dark to be un- 
 derstood ;" and also, to say whether, according to 
 Popish tenets, the scriptures should be withheld 
 from every man, priest as well as laic, whose under- 
 standing is so little as not to know a scriptural figure 
 of speech when it is held up before him. For my 
 own part, I heartily excuse the man, and that for 
 these particular reasons, 1^^, Because I know that 
 his alma mater prefers Aristotle to the Bible ; 2dly, 
 Because I know how fond the tribe of the den (which 
 is that also of Dens) is of worshipping Lord Bacon's 
 idol thereof; and, 3c?/y, Because I know that all con- 
 
250 POPISH MASS. 
 
 sistent Papists, if such there be, think they cannot be 
 wrong as long as they adhere to the unscriptural de- 
 crees of the Council of Trent. But I further ob- 
 serve, that such figurative language vi^as very fre- 
 quently, and also variously, employed by our Saviour. 
 He makes use of the same figure of speech that he 
 used in the institution of the sacrament of the Supper, 
 in John x. 9, where he says : " I am the door;" in 
 the same gospel, (ch. xiv. 6,) where he says : " I am 
 the way, the truth, and the life ;" and again, in the 
 same gospel, (ch. xv. 5,) where he says : " I am the 
 vine, ye are the branches : he that abideth in me, and 
 I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit." In 
 the parable of the tares also, he says, figuratively : 
 " The field is the world ; the good seed are the 
 children of the kingdom ; the tares are the children 
 of the wicked one ; the enemy that sowed them is 
 the devil ; the harvest is the end of the world ; and 
 the reapers are the angels." And, moreover, he 
 says, figuratively, in John vi. 48 : "I am that bread 
 of life ;" in the 51st verse : " The bread that I will 
 give is my flesh ;" and also, in the 56th verse : "He 
 that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwell- 
 eth in me, and I in him." Now, since it must be 
 hence obvious that the word of God so frequently, 
 and upon such various occasions, uses the very figure 
 of speech that, as we contend, he uses in the words 
 of the institution of the sacrament of the Supper, and 
 as all other senses involve so many and such great 
 
POPISH MASS. 251 
 
 absurdities, as we have both already shewn, and shall 
 yet shew. Why should he not be thought to be then 
 also speaking figuratively ? We can see no good 
 reason why he should not, but many bad ones why 
 he should ; but perhaps the reason of our short-sight- 
 edness in this matter is, that our eyes have not been 
 anointed by a priest with the chrism of Popery pre- 
 vious to our baptism. 
 
 But, I observe, in the third place, that the parti- 
 cular occasion of the meetinof of our Lord and his 
 disciples, prove still more strongly, that the language 
 our Lord used, when instituting the sacrament of the 
 Supper, was figurative. They were convened in an 
 upper room for the express purpose of celebrating a 
 feast in commemoration of a past deliverance. It 
 was the feast of the passover. It was the custom of 
 the Jews, that, as soon as the paschal lamb was set 
 upon the table, that the master of the house, or of 
 the feast, addressed the company in figurative lan- 
 guage, saying, " This is the passover which we there- 
 fore eat, because God passed over our houses in 
 Egypt." As Christ was the master of that feast, it 
 must be allow^ed, that he used that form of words 
 upon that occasion. Well, now, the question is, did 
 the disciples understand this figurative language? 
 we say, they did, perfectly. The words of the gos- 
 pel by Matt. xxvi. 17, where it is said: " Where 
 wilt thou, that we prepare for thee to eat the pass- 
 over," prove, that they understood him perfectly • 
 
252 POPISH MASS. 
 
 And they knew that, the lamb upon the table, was 
 not really the Lord's passover over their houses in 
 Egypt ; and, hence, that it was only a memorial of 
 that deliverance, and a sacrament instituted by God, 
 to keep them in remembrance of that passover. 
 Well, the disciples having heard our Saviour saying 
 to them : " This is the Lord's passover, and the 
 breadof affliction which our fathers |did eat in Egypt ;" 
 and having finished this paschal sacrament, saw him 
 take of the same bread again, and bless it, as he had 
 done before, for the purpose of instituting a sacra- 
 ment, to commemorate a deliverance of which, the 
 passover deliverance was the type, and the death of 
 himself, which he, the gospel paschal lamb, was soon 
 to suffer upon the cross, in procuring for his people 
 that deliverance, and then hear him bid them eat of 
 it, saying, not as Papists say, " This is my body," 
 which is only a part of the words, but " This is my 
 body broken for you." Now, I appeal to any man of 
 common sense and reason, to say, whether it is more 
 natural, and more consistent with reason to believe, 
 that the disciples understood our Saviour to signify, 
 that the bread which he had again blessed, broken, 
 and given them to eat, was his body, exactly in the 
 same sense, that the flesh and bread, of which they 
 had been eating in the feast of the passover, were the 
 Lord's passover, and bread of affliction, eaten by 
 their fathers in Egypt ; or whether they understood, 
 that he thereby really signified, that the bread in his 
 hands, and which he had blessed, had become his 
 
POPISH MASS. 253 
 
 broken body, by the power of transubstantiation. 
 Nav, we will go farther, and say, that if any man of 
 sound judgment, who is not prejudiced by Popish 
 principles, will solemnly affirm, that the latter is the 
 more reasonable, we will give up this argument 
 ao-ainst the doctrine of transubstantiation. 
 
 Yea, when the paschal feast was ended, our Sa- 
 viour took the sacramental bread into his hands, 
 blessed it, brake it, and gave it to his disciples, say- 
 ing, after this manner, I appoint this bread to be 
 henceforth a memorial of my body, as being broken 
 by terrible suffering in your stead, as being freely 
 given up to death for your redemption, and as being 
 made over to you for your everlasting salvation : 
 from this time forward, till my second coming from 
 heaven to this world, which shall not be till the res- 
 titution of all things, eat ye of this bread of my ap- 
 pointment, with faith, thankfulness, and joy, in perpe- 
 tual remembrance of my dying for your redemption 
 from eternal death, even as ve have hitherto eaten the 
 passover in commemoration of Israel's deliverance 
 from Egyptian miseries. And who, after the paschal 
 cup was drunk, and after he had said : " I will no 
 more eat of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom 
 of heaven shall come," (which is, as if he had said, I 
 shall not again have an opportunity of drinking the 
 paschal cup, until this divine institution, the pass- 
 over, shall have been superseded by a redemption 
 from all spiritual and eternal evils, and also by 
 
254 POPISH MASS. 
 
 another ordinance in the gospel state, which shall 
 commemorate that redemption, and which was pre- 
 figured by that deliverance of Israel, in remembrance 
 of which, the passover was appointed, and which has 
 been joyfully observed to this day ; and from hence- 
 forth, I will not rejoice with you in any other salva- 
 tion, than that which ye shall enjoy with me in the 
 kingdom of my glory,) having spoken thus, I say, he 
 took the cup, even the sacramental cup of the New 
 Testament, saying, as in Matt. xxvi. 27 : " This is 
 the New Testament in my blood, drink ye all of it ;" 
 which is, as if he had said, I appoint, that from this 
 time forward, your drinking wine in this sacramental 
 ordinance, shall be a perpetual memorial of the con- 
 firmation of the New Testament, by my blood, as 
 shed for the remission of sins, instead of drinking 
 wine at the paschal supper, or at the feast of the 
 passover. Now, if this most natural, most simple, 
 and most easy account of this sacramental institution, 
 be the true one, it must be allowed to overthrow ef- 
 fectually all the imaginable absurdities, and direct 
 contradictions with which the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation is so fully fraught. 
 
 But, methinks, I hear the Rev. T. Macguire 
 saying, in behalf of transubstantiation, and against 
 me, as he said in Dublin : " The paschal lamb was 
 a figure of Christ's body and blood ; and, hence, in- 
 ferring, that, if the body and blood of Christ be not 
 present, there is no fulfillment of the figure in the 
 
POPISH MASS. 255 
 
 * New Testament law.' Ought not, says he, the 
 thing typified to exceed in substance and reahty the 
 type itself? There was real blood in the passover. 
 The blood of the paschal lamb was spilled at the 
 door, and it was the type of the blood of Christ (in 
 the host.) If the type was the real blood of the ani- 
 mal, it follows, of course, that the blood of the anti- 
 type is more important, which is the blood of Christ. 
 The t}^e itself is a confirmation of the thing, viz., 
 as we understand him, of the doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation." Now, what shall we say to all this jargon of 
 sophistical nonsense? Shall we say, " O excellent lo- 
 gician, O wonderful theologian," as he said to the 
 Rev. T. Pope, his opponent in debate ? No, but in- 
 stead thereof, we shall say, " Were you. Rev. Sir, 
 never taught at Maynooth, or elsewhere, that the 
 paschal lamb was the type of Christ, not substantial- 
 ly in the consecrated elements of the sacrament ot 
 the Supper, but upon the Cross, there suffering and 
 dying to redeem his people from sin and everlasting 
 misery ? Were you never taught, that while the 
 paschal lamb was roasting whole upon the spit, it 
 typified the agonizing sufferings of the whole hu- 
 manity of the incarnate son of God, the son of the 
 Virgin Mary, (but not the son of bread,) for the sin of 
 a guilty world upon the cross ? Were you never 
 taught, that the paschal lamb, in its not having a 
 bone of it broken in either the killing, roasting, or 
 eating, was typical of Christ's not having a bone of 
 
256 POPISH MASS. 
 
 him broken upon the cross, of his being our com- 
 plete Saviour from the wrath of God, and of his be- 
 ing the appointed, yea, the anointed means of destroy- 
 ing sin, Satan, and death ? Were you never taught, 
 the paschal lamb's being eaten by circumcised He- 
 brews, circumcised slaves bought with their money, 
 and circumcised proselytes, along with unleavened 
 bread, and bitter herbs, was t\^ical of the unfeigned 
 faith, the sincere candour, and the bitter grief for sin, 
 which is necessary to render communicants really 
 worthy of partaking of the holy sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper ? Yea, were you never taught, that 
 the feast of the passover, whose design was to com- 
 memorate the deliverance of the children of Israel 
 from their Egyptian miseries, was typical, not of the 
 feast of the Eucharist, but of the design of that feast, 
 which is to commemorate the spiritual deliverance of 
 the people of God from an infinitely worse than 
 Eg}'ptian bondage, by the sufferings and death of 
 Jesus Christ, who is our paschal lamb, and also the 
 lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 
 Papists, however, will still farther object to this 
 our doctrine, saying, that it is as proper to say, 
 " Look, here is Christ," pointing to the consecrated 
 bread, as it is to say, " look, there is a child," point- 
 ing to a cradle ; " look, there is money," pointing to 
 a purse ; or " look there is wine," pointing to a ves- 
 sel." But their conclusion does not follow. Such 
 forms of speech are proper only when we certainly 
 
POPISH MASS. 257 
 
 know, that those things are included in the things 
 pointed at ; and they are figurative expressions in all 
 other cases, even in those where the thing pointed 
 at may contain the thing affirmed to be contained in 
 it. Now, as no man can be assured, that Christ is 
 in the consecrated bread, by their own knowledge, 
 (because, no man can be assured that there has 
 been fit matter, a lawful priest, a sufficient intention, 
 a proper aim, and a proper utterance of the words: 
 " Hoc enim est corpus meum^^ which things, by that 
 Church, are all considered to be absolutely necessary, 
 that there may be a proper consecration, without 
 which there cannot be a true substantiating change 
 of the bread and wine produced,) it follows, that no 
 man can say in faith, when pointing at a piece 
 of consecrated bread, " Look, there is Christ ;" 
 though any such poor deluded mortal may be then 
 assured, that he worships he knows not what, and, 
 that, moreover, not in a proper act of faith, which is 
 sinful, according to the apostle who says : " What is 
 not of faith is sin." But, even supposing, that the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation might be true, it would 
 not follow, that, " Look, there is Christ," pointing 
 to a piece of consecrated bread, is a proper expres- 
 sion ; because, bread is neither a suitable place for 
 Christ to be in, nor does it appear, by the testimony 
 of any one of our senses, that he is in it. There- 
 fore, it is not so proper to say : *' Look, here is 
 Christ," pointing to a piece of consecrated bread, as 
 
 R 
 
258 POPISH MASS. 
 
 it is to say : " Look, here is wine," pointing to a 
 wine-vessel, even though we knew that there was no 
 wine in it. Are not these Papists the wisest, who 
 say of the host, " I worship thee, if thou be Christ ?" 
 Yea, would they not all be wiser, if they would all 
 say of the consecrated bread, as the old mouse in the 
 fable of Phaedrus, said to the weasel that lay rolled 
 up in meal for the purpose of catching it, " Sic va- 
 leas, ut farina es quae jaces. 
 
 But, methinks, I hear these Christiphagi, in their 
 hungry growling for the flesh and blood, not only of 
 the saints, with which the maw of " Mystery," their 
 mother, has often been delighted ; but even of the 
 " King of Saints, and of Glory," asking, in the 
 words of the champion of Irish Popery : "Is there 
 nothing left us, but a bit of mere bread, and a cup of 
 pure wine ?" Now, to this question, which seems 
 rather to express their heart-felt desire of flesh and 
 blood, than of their knowledge of the gospel, we will 
 reply, though we know that our answer, which is 
 neither of a fleshy nor bloody nature, will not per- 
 fectly satisfy the grossness of such carniverous and 
 blood-thirsty appetites, we will reply, I say, that 
 Christ did leave us more for the celebration of the 
 sacrament of the Supper, than a bit of mere bread, 
 and a drop of pure wine. If we may believe the 
 word of God, rather than the canons of Popery, he 
 left us the signs and seals of the New Testament 
 covenant, which is thus expressed, " Beheve in the 
 
POPISH MASS. 259 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved ;" the 
 sacramental emblems of Christ's passion upon the 
 cross, the appointed memorials of his vicarious death, 
 and the external elements of that spiritual nourish- 
 ment with which he feeds his saints, and by which 
 they grow in grace, have their communion with him 
 confirmed, which is spiritual ; yea, by which, they 
 testify and renew their thankfulness to Christ for the 
 several benefits of his purchased redemption, renew 
 their engagement of faithful dutifulness to God, and 
 testify their mutual love and fellowship, as brethren 
 of the same household of faith, and members of the 
 same mystical body. 
 
 When Christ said to his disciples: "This is my 
 body, broken for you," he did not conceive it neces- 
 sary to express the manner in which the bread was 
 his body, but only the truth of the existence of the 
 thing ; viz., that it was his body. Yea, we Protes- 
 tants unfeignedly believe, (and this I am sure many 
 Papists do not suppose of us,) that the bread in the 
 sacrament of the Lord's Supper, by virtue of the af- 
 firmation of Christ, (which he expressed by the word 
 *' IS," in the sense of " represents,") is truly the bddy 
 of Christ, and that the wine, by virtue of the same 
 affirmative, is truly his blood ; but mark me, O ye 
 of superstitious faith, not by any essential change 
 of, or co-existence in, with, or under, the bread 
 and wine, but only by a sacramental signification, 
 common to all sacraments ; that is, as truly as Christ 
 
260 POPISH MASS. 
 
 is the door, the way, and the vine ; as truly as cir- 
 cumcision is the covenant of circumcision ; as truly 
 as the water in baptism is regeneration ; as truly as 
 the paschal lamb is the passover ; yea, as truly as a 
 piece of broken sacramental bread is the body of 
 Christ which was broken on the cross, and is now in 
 heaven, to whom be glory, &c. 
 
 Argument Fourth, — It does not permit Romanists 
 to hold the words of the institution thereof properly ; 
 or, in other words, though this doctrine teaches that 
 the words of the institution must be understood liter- 
 ally, it does not allow them to be literally understood, 
 without doing great violence to the sense, both of the 
 words of the institution understood literally, and of 
 other portions of the word of God. The words re- 
 ferred to are these : " This is my body, broken for 
 you ;" and, " This cup is the New Testament in 
 my blood." The Rev, T. Macguire, 1 observe for 
 the sake of explication, says, in behalf of transub- 
 stantiation, that the words " is broken," and " is 
 shed," is one of the strongest proofs in support of 
 that doctrine. If the expression, says he, was " shall 
 be shed," it might militate against that doctrine ; but 
 the expression " is shed," proves that Christ offered 
 himself to the Father before he had actually suffer- 
 ed, and that he had applied the graces annexed to 
 that sacrament, before he had actually suffered upon 
 the cross. " The graces," says he, " which were 
 to flow from that offering on the cross, Christ here 
 
POPISH MASS. 261 
 
 applied in the sacrament ; and," continues he, " if 
 Christ apphed the graces (of his death) before 
 his death, in the sacrament, I am at a loss to know 
 why the action (of application, I suppose) having 
 taken place previous to his death, should form any 
 bar to the doctrine of transubstantiation !" Now, in 
 reply to all this unscriptural and unphilosophical 
 nonsense, 1 have only to say, that I shall give that 
 Rev. gentleman the remainder of his life to prove, 
 from the word of God, the truth of these several 
 propositions, promising to become Papist as soon as 
 he has done so ; and that, in the meantime, I shall 
 proceed to prove the truth of our argument, which, 
 if I am able to do it, will prove that he will never be 
 able to do that which I have here given him both' 
 time, liberty, and the promise of a great sacrifice on 
 my part, to accomplish. Yea, I do more ; for I 
 would encourage him in this to try his ability, say- 
 ing, in the appropriate words of the apostle Paul to 
 the Corinthians, chap. ix. 24, " So run that ye 
 may obtain." 
 
 Now, as Romanists maintain that the words of 
 the institution must be understood literally ; and as 
 it is universally admitted by them, that no change 
 has been made in either the bread or the wine, till 
 after all the words of consecration has been pro- 
 nounced, even though it should have been pro- 
 nounced upon fit matter, by a lawful priest, with a 
 proper aim, and with the strongest intention, we say, 
 
262 POPISH MASS 
 
 that thev cannot hold the words of the institution 
 without a figure of speech, even a much more un- 
 natural one than that which we plead for. 1^^, The 
 word " Ti/Io," " hoc" or " this" according to their 
 doctrine, can have no signification whatever, and 
 must, therefore, be considered as a body without a 
 member; or, as schoolmen express themselves, an 
 individuum vagum. But as the words of the insti- 
 tution do not make sense without it, it must there- 
 fore signify something ; and hence, we must con- 
 clude, that that word which signifies something, also 
 signifies, at the same time, and in the same place, 
 nothing, v/hich is absurd. But, again, the original 
 word »*s7o is a pronominal adjective in the neuter 
 gender, and, therefore, grammatically speaking, it 
 must have a substantive of the same gender, num- 
 ber, and case implied, which word, both according 
 to Popish principles, and, indeed, the principles of 
 grammar, which are those of common sense, must 
 be the original word "o-ft^^af," and this, when supplied, 
 will make the sentence to stand thus : t»/<» (ru(<,ct, ift 
 6Jtt,t f>cu, that it is by interpretation, " This body is my 
 body." But, Roman Catholics do not admit that 
 any change takes place till after all the words of con- 
 secration have been pronounced ; therefore, accord- 
 ing to their doctrine, " This body" at the same time 
 signifies both " This body" and not " This body," 
 which we again say is absurd ; so much for the Po- 
 pish holding of the first word of the institution. 
 
POPISH MASS. 263 
 
 But, 2dly, I observe, that the word " enim," or 
 *' for," (the Greek word "7«g" is not in the ori- 
 ginal proposition,) which is a casual conjunction, and 
 shews the cause or reason of the existence, &c., of 
 the thing' or things affirmed of in its own member of 
 the sentence, and which, consequently, in this sen- 
 tence, shews the cause or reason of the "This" being 
 the body of Christ ; I say, this word, according to 
 the doctrine of Romanists, can signify nothing, and 
 yet, according to that same doctrine, it cannot be 
 left out of the words of consecration, which are : 
 *' Hoc ' enim est corpus meum ;" and hence, ac- 
 cording even to Popery itself, it follows, that a word 
 which is absolutely necessary, both for expressing 
 the proper sense of the sentence, and procuring the 
 change of the bread and wine, signifies nothing, which 
 also is absurd. 
 
 But, 3^/?/, I observe, that the word of affirm- 
 ation "j5-<," " est," or " is," when literally taken, 
 represents the present time, and must signify, that 
 as soon as our Saviour had pronounced the word 
 " «f<," or one of the same import, the bread which 
 he had blessed was his real body. But Roman- 
 ists, though they plead for the literal signification 
 of the words of the institution, will not allow that any 
 change takes place in the bread and wine, till after 
 the last syllable of the five words, ''Hoc enim est 
 corpus meum " has been pronounced, which is the 
 syllable " um " ; and so with them, the present time 
 
264 POPISH MASS. 
 
 must signify the future; viz., the word "is" with 
 them must signify " shall be." But if it must mean 
 " shall be," it is the same to them as if it had been 
 so WTitten ; and as it is not so written, they, instead 
 of keeping by the literal signification of the words, 
 have recourse to a figure; yea, to a figure, too, 
 much more unnatural and unusual than that which 
 we plead for in the proposition, which is absurd ac- 
 cording to their own principles, and notwithstanding, 
 to preserve the unpreservable literal signification of 
 the words, they make the truth of transubstantiation 
 depend on the last syllable of the word ^'meum^ 
 so much, that were the '' um" not pronounced, 
 there could be no transubstantiation. 
 
 But in the fourth place, I observe, that Papists do 
 not hold the words, " My body which is broken for 
 you " properly. Taking the words of the institution 
 according to the letter, their sense of them must be 
 this ; viz.. The bread which I have blessed and bro- 
 ken, and commanded you to eat of, is not bread, 
 but really my body dead, broken, and sacrificed for 
 you. But they are forced to allow at the same time, 
 that Christ was then alive, that his body was not 
 then broken for sin, and that he was not sacrificed 
 till offered up upon the cross. And, therefore, it 
 consequently follows, that, according to them, Christ 
 was both alive and dead, whole and broken, sacri- 
 ficed and not sacrificed, when he instituted the Sup- 
 per; or, in other words, that our Saviour at that 
 
POPISH MASS. 265 
 
 time spoke both literally and figuratively, which is 
 most absurd. As the Rev. T. Macguire makes an 
 extraordinary assertion for extricating this Popish 
 doctrine from this great absurdity, saying : " Christ 
 offered himself to the Father before he had actually 
 suffered," we would ask him whence he came to 
 know that Christ's offering himself for sin, and suf- 
 fering for sin, were two distinct actions ? Who 
 taught him that sin would be remitted to the sinner 
 without Christ's sufferino- and sheddino' of blood ? 
 and also, whether the offering which he here absurdly 
 mentions, may not, with more than equal propriety, 
 be referred to that eternal transaction, which took 
 place between God the Father and God the Son in 
 behalf of future man, before all worlds, to which 
 Milton, on scriptural grounds, refers (in B. iii. of 
 Paradise Lost,) where he represents Christ speaking 
 to the Father in these gracious words : 
 
 Behold me then, me for him, life for life 
 I oflPer ; on me let thine anger fall. 
 Account me man. 
 
 But, bth, I observe, that Papists understand by the 
 "bread," of which the apostle Paul speaks three dif- 
 ferent times in 1 Cor. xi. 23, &c., " The real body 
 of the Saviour;" evidently to make them agree with 
 their falsely interpretated words of the institution. 
 Now as this seems to be a kind of knowledge of the 
 word of God superior to any which a Protestant will 
 venture to arrive at, we would fain know by what means 
 
^G6 POPISH MASS. 
 
 these ingenious men came to this knowledge. Is it be- 
 cause the interpretation of these words of their in- 
 falhble Church is a better expUcation of the words 
 of Christ, than that of the divinely inspired apostle 
 Paul ? We doubt their answer will be : It is be- 
 cause such is our opinion. Behold then, Reader, 
 the explication of these words by the apostle Paul, 
 and the Church of Rome, and candidly confess 
 which you think the preferable. The apostle Paul 
 says: (1 Cor. xi. 23, &c.) "The Lord Jesus, the 
 same night on which he was betrayed, took bread ; 
 and when he had given thanks, he brake it and said. 
 Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you ; 
 this do in remembrance of me." "As often as ye eat 
 this bread, ye do shew forth the Lord's death till 
 he come." " Whosoever shall eat oHhis bread un- 
 worthily, shall be guilty of the body of the Lord." 
 "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat 
 of that bread." Observe now that of the Church 
 of Rome ; it is this, and I am sure it does her great 
 honour : " The Lord Jesus, the same night on which 
 he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given 
 thanks, he broke the bodi/, (for it was not then 
 bread having been consecrated,) and said, Take 
 my bodt/, eat my body just now, this is my bod^ 
 which I have now broken for you ; eat this bodi/ in 
 remembrance of me ; viz., of my bod^, soul and 
 divinity ; as often as ye do eat this bodT/, ye do shew 
 the Lord's death, till he come with this bodi/, which 
 
POPISH MASS. 267 
 
 I command you to eat in the absence of this body. 
 Whosoever shall eat this body unworthily, shall be 
 guilty of the body of the Lord, which is this very 
 body which is now speaking to you, and which I 
 have in my hands. But let a man examine him- 
 self, and so let him eat of this body as often as he 
 pleases, even all the while that I, who am this very 
 body^ shall be in heaven ! ! ! " 
 
 But, ^thly^ I observe, that neither do Papists 
 hold properly the words of the institution of the 
 sacramental cup. These words of the apostle Paul, 
 (in 1 Cor. xi. 2 — 5 :) " He took the cup, and said 
 this cup is the New Testament in my blood," they 
 interpretate thus : " The cup which is first men- 
 tioned, signifies the wine in its natural and un- 
 changed state ; because it had not then been con- 
 secrated. But the cup which is mentioned the second 
 time, signifies the real blood of Christ; because it 
 has then been changed by virtue of consecration." 
 Now, since this is their belief, it necessarily follows, 
 that they must take the first cup in a literal sense, 
 and the second cup figuratively, which their own 
 principles do not admit of; and, therefore, according 
 to their own principles, it is absurd ; being at the same 
 time both literal and figurative. But farther, again, 
 they interpret Matt. xxvi. 28, where our Saviour 
 says : " This is my blood, the blood of the New Tes- 
 tament," thus, saying, that the New Testament 
 here-mentioned is the covenant itself; but when 
 
268 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Luke and the apostle Paul says : " This cup is the 
 cup of the New Testament in my blood," they 
 maintain, that these apostles mean, that the New 
 Testament is Jesus Christ himself. Now, if the New 
 Testament signifies both the covenant, or word of pro- 
 mise, and Christ, who is the testator himself; it con- 
 sequently follows, that the testament and the testator 
 are the same, which is grossly absurd. But, farther 
 still, with respect to the same words, viz. : " This 
 cup is the New Testament in my blood." I observe, 
 that they will have us to understand, that the " cup " 
 here means the blood of Christ in the sacrament of 
 the Supper ; and that the words, " my blood," mean 
 the blood of Christ shed upon the cross ; but from 
 this, it consequently follows, that Christ's blood is 
 shed in Christ's blood, which is so manifestly absurd 
 that it requires no explanation. 
 
 But instead of exposing the abominations of " Her 
 that sits on the beast" any further at present, let us 
 now shew Papists how properly and exactly we Pro- 
 testants can hold the words of the institution, viz., 
 " This is my body." By the particle, mlo " Hoc," 
 or " This,'' we understand, " Hoc negotium," or 
 " This bread," which is the same thing ; and we do so 
 because we are told in Matt. xxvi. 26, that " he took 
 bread," that "he blessed it," that he "brake it, and 
 gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is 
 my body ;" — because, in 1 Cor. x. 1 6, the apostle 
 Paul says : " The bread which we break, is it not 
 
POPISH MASS. 269 
 
 the communion of the body of Christ?" and also, 
 because in 1 Cor. xi. 2, 3, &c., the same apostle in- 
 forms us, that " on the same night on which he was 
 betrayed, Jesus took bread," &c. Hence the words 
 " This is my body" mean as if they had been ex- 
 pressed thus : " The bread which I brake, and give 
 unto you, to be eaten by you, is my body ;" not, how- 
 ever, according to the letter, but figuratively, viz., 
 not transubstantially, but truly and sacramen tally, 
 as is evident from these following words : " Do this 
 in remembrance of me." According to the nature 
 and manner of sacraments, (concerning which see 
 the first part of this Essay,) it is evident also that 
 the sentence following expresses the sense of the 
 words of the institution, viz. : " The bread which I 
 break, and give unto you to eat, is a memorial of 
 my body, broken for you." 
 
 Papists allow that it is a commemorative act, " be- 
 cause," say they, " St. Paul clearly explains what our 
 Lord meant by the words "Do this in remembrance 
 of me," when he says : " As often as ye do this, ye do 
 shew forth the Lord's death until he come." The 
 reality, therefore, of Christ's presence in the sacra- 
 ment of the altar," they farther add, "by no means 
 excludes the idea of a commemoration ; for though 
 the present sacrifice be truly a sacrifice, yet, as it is 
 not a bloody sacrifice, it may justly be entitled a 
 commemoration of the bloody one upon the cross." 
 But is not this low cunning and vile shuffling ? Is 
 
270 POPISH MASS. 
 
 it not also a very bold shuffling ? It is, however, 
 neither a dexterous nor a successful shufflinof. We 
 can overturn the whole of it with a few words from 
 the decrees of the Council of Trent, which give 
 them the lie who say that it is not a bloody sacrifice. 
 Hear what the Council says against them, cess. xiii. 
 con. 2 : "If any one shall say, that in the sacrament 
 there doth remain the substance of the bread and 
 wine, or shall deny the conversion of the whole sub- 
 stance of the bread and wine into the body and blood 
 of Christ, let him be accursed." Now, how can it 
 be a bloodless sacrifice ? If the real body of Christ 
 be there, his blood and bones, soul, and divinity, 
 must be there also ; and, therefore, it is a bloody 
 sacrifice which, according to the Church of Rome, 
 is offered up in the sacrifice of the mass unto God. 
 Some of them, in their ca'villations, say that it is 
 only his glorified body from heaven that is therein 
 offered up. But therein they do not speak accord- 
 ing to the scriptures, for even that which is in hea- 
 ven is the self-same body that was crucified, as we 
 learn from what Christ says to the apostle Thomas, 
 after his resurrection. But our Saviour, when in- 
 stituting the sacrament, does not say it was his glori- 
 fied bodv, but onlv that it was his bodv ; which words, 
 on Popish principles, prove that it was his body as it 
 was then speaking to the disciples. Now, since all 
 this is so, we conclude that, according to Popish prin^ 
 ciples, it is absurd to consider it a commemorative act. 
 
POPISH MASS. 271 
 
 But, moreover, it is impossible to affirm, with 
 propriety of speech, that two things wholly and es- 
 sentially different in their natures, such as bread and 
 fleshy and wine and hlood^ are the same things ; 
 and, therefore, when this is done there must be a 
 figure of speech in the proposition ; yea, if the lan- 
 guage of the institution is not figurative, it evidently 
 intimates to us that Christ, while sitting at the table 
 with his disciples, and circumscribed as to his hu- 
 manity, said to them : " This bit of bread which I 
 hold in my hand is my body ; I give this, my body, 
 to you ; that is, I give myself from myself, to be 
 eaten by you before my eyes ;" — a greater absurdity 
 than this never was imagined. But, supposing the 
 disciples had understood the Saviour thus, they 
 neither would have believed him, nor eaten it, nor 
 supposed that he was in a sound state of mind, be- 
 cause they believed the testimony of their senses, 
 knew that they were forbidden by their law to eat 
 blood, and beheved that those who would desire 
 them to do so, were either wicked men, or had been 
 led into that error by some degree of insanity. And 
 to prevent the Popish objection, that " it might 
 be eaten, as it had not the appearance of flesh 
 and blood," I again observe, that if they believed it 
 to have been such, like Papists, it would have been 
 unlawful for them ; and, therefore, they would not 
 have eaten it. O ye Papists, I wish you were not 
 worse than Jews ; they would eat no blood, but you. 
 
272 POPISH MASS. 
 
 in the loupishness of your nature, will drink even the 
 innocent blood of the incarnate Son of God ! 
 
 Argument Fifth, — It is repugnant to the scriptural 
 doctrine of Christ's oflorified state. — The word of God 
 informs us, that when Christ arose from the dead, he 
 did not divest his human nature of those properties 
 which belono-ed to it in his state of humiliation. He 
 was both God and man prior to his death upon the 
 cross, and both God and man after his resurrection. 
 Though in his resurrection he divested himself of 
 weakness, baseness, mortality, and corruptibility, and 
 clothed himself with strength, immortality, incorrup- 
 tibility, and glory, it was, nevertheless, the self-same 
 body that was raised, as is evident from Luke xxiv. 
 39, where we are told that he said : " Behold my 
 hands and my feet, that it is I myself;" from John 
 XX. 27, where he saith to the unbelieving Thomas : 
 " Reach hither thy fingers, and behold my hands ; 
 and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my 
 side ; and be not faithless, but believing ;" and also 
 from Rom. vi. 9, 10, where the apostle Paul says : 
 " Knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, 
 dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion over 
 him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once : 
 but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God." Such 
 is the doctrine taught in scripture concerning Christ's 
 glorification ; but such is not that which the doctrine 
 of trans ubstantiation teaches. Teaching, that " ex- 
 cept (in the literal sense of the words) ye eat the 
 
POPISH MASS. 273 
 
 flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye 
 have no hfe in you," it teaches that the glorified 
 body of the Saviour is reduced in the mass, to a 
 lower than even his low state of humiliation. It re- 
 presents the priests coming against him, though now 
 glorified, with long wax candles, instead of swords 
 and staves, as the insignia of their authority, again 
 to take him prisoner. It represents him captive led 
 by priests into a breaden hall, or into a place all 
 plastered round with the pasty properties and acci- 
 dents of bread, which is infinitely more unworthy of 
 him now, in his glorified state, than that of Pilate 
 was of him in his state of humiliation. It teaches, 
 that by their saliva upon him in the host, by their 
 holding out the top of their tongue to receive the 
 host, and by their drawing in of the tongue in the 
 act of ingurgitating him down, that they dishonour 
 him, though glorified, by spitting upon him ; that 
 they set their tongues against him, say'.ng : " Thou 
 art worthy, O Lord, to be sent into our stomachs ;" 
 which is more approbrious language than any the 
 persecuting Jews ever spoke against him ; and that 
 they gnash upon him with their teeth ; they eat his 
 flesh, drink his blood, as often as they offer what 
 they falsely call the sacrifice of the mass. Now, 
 does it not hence appear that every Papist who re- 
 ceives the sacrament in the belief of this doctrine is 
 guilty, not only of killing the Saviour, and drinking 
 his blood, in his state of humiliation, but, which is 
 
274 POPISH MASS. 
 
 infinitely a greater undertaking, and hence an in- 
 finitely greater aggravation of sin, " of crucifying the 
 glorified body of the Lord afresh ?" We ask Papists 
 for their opinion, — which must go far with us, as 
 we know they belong to, and are part of, an infal- 
 lible Church, 
 
 Inference, — It hence appears that the evidence 
 which the apostle Thomas, and the other disciples, 
 had of the Saviour in his glorified state, was that of 
 the external senses ; or, in other words, that the ex- 
 ternal senses, and particularly that of touch, was the 
 foundation of that Apostle's belief, that the person 
 then addressing him was really and corporally the 
 Christ. And hence we conclude, against those who 
 believe the doctrine of transubstantiation, that they 
 thereby destroy the best, yea, the only, evidence of 
 the truth of the Christian religion ; and also, that 
 their belief in the real presence of Christ in the con- 
 secrated bread, (even supposing that it was conse- 
 crated with as fit matter, with as good an aim, with 
 as strong an intention to transubstantiate, and with 
 the words of consecration as well pronounced as ever 
 they were in the Church of Rome,) is more the result 
 of faith in the truth of the decrees of the Council of 
 Trent, than of the truth contained in the Bible : 
 yea, that it is the effect of mere delusion, and 
 entirely without any foundation. The Rev. T. 
 Macguire, in his championship for Popery in Ire- 
 land, says, against the above arguments : " That all 
 
POPISH MASS. 275 
 
 the senses so contradicted themselves when our Sa- 
 viour walked on the water that the disciples thought 
 that he was a vision ; and that if one sense contradicts 
 another in natural things, how much more likely are 
 they to do so in things which are supernatural." 
 
 Now, to this unphilosophical, unscriptural, yea 
 childish objection, we consider it only necessary to 
 oppose what St. John says in the first chapter of his 
 first epistle, where we read thus : " That which we 
 have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which 
 we have looked on, and which our hands have 
 handled of the word of life : for the life was mani- 
 fested : and we have seen, and do bear witness, and 
 declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the 
 Father, and hath appeared unto us : that which we 
 have seen and heard, we declare unto you, that you 
 also may have fellowship with us, and that our fellow- 
 ship may be with the Father, and with his Son, 
 Jesus Christ." Our Saviour, it is true, added, 
 when addressing the apostle Thomas, " Blessed are 
 they that have not seen, and yet have believed ;" but 
 he did not say, " Blessed are they that have seen, 
 and have believed." The blessing, as the Rev. T. 
 Pope observes, was not to those who, having the op- 
 portunity of seeing, disregarded- the testimony of 
 their external senses ; but it was to them who, though 
 not seeing, yet believed, — who, when the evidence 
 of the senses was wanting, nevertheless believed. 
 The Church of Rome, in opposition to this our 
 
276 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Protestant doctrine, would prove, from the words of 
 St. Paul, in Rom. x. 17, where he says, with a re- 
 ference to the preaching of the Old Testament pro- 
 phets : " Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by 
 the word of God," that the sense of hearing only is 
 necessary for the belief of the real presence of 
 Christ in the consecrated bread : but in vain, as any 
 one may perceive, who understands any thing of the 
 apostle's argument in that chapter : he is not there 
 discoursing concerning the sacraments ; but, on the 
 contrary, concerning the appointed means by which 
 the grace of saving faith is produced in the soul, 
 which, according to the apostle, and against Papists, 
 is by hearing men, who have been sent by God, 
 preach, neither the decrees of the Council of Trent, 
 and the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the word 
 of God concerning Jesus Christ ; for it is they, and 
 not priests of the mass, who bring glad tidings of 
 good things, who preach the gospel of peace, and 
 whose feet, therefore, according to the prophet, are 
 beautiful. 
 
 A son of that Church, in behalf of the orthodoxy 
 of his Mother's interests in Ireland, I mean my Re- 
 verend friend Macguire, says : that it *' Remains 
 with those who do not believe in transubstantiation, 
 to shew, either that it is not a mystery, or that faith 
 cometh not by hearing the word of God, for no sense 
 is allowed to judge of the truth of mysteries." Well, 
 I disbelieve that doctrine ; and, therefore, as called 
 
POPISH MASS. 277 
 
 upon, I reply, that it only remains with us Protes- 
 tants to rid ourselves out of this ill-formed Popish 
 dilemma; and, thanks be unto God, by the as- 
 sistance of the revelation he has given us, our com- 
 mon sense is not only able to do that, but also to ex- 
 tricate ourselves out of any Popish dilemma, which 
 either Dens, he, or his philosophical Alma- Mater can 
 propose to us ; and would, were it necessary. How- 
 ever, not to appear boastful, I rid myself of the above 
 dilemma, thus; viz., by proving, that the apostle Paul, 
 in Rom. x. 17, instead of referring to the Eucharist, 
 refers to that faith which receives Christ as the lamb 
 of God, that taketh away the sin of the world, and 
 causes the soul to rely upon his merits for salvation ; 
 and also by proving, that the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation, is not a scriptural subject, which, I trust, 
 I am doing, with, at least, more success than the 
 Pope will thank me for, as it is by such craft he 
 gets his bread. 
 
 But now, that we are hence put in mind of what 
 our worthy friend, the priest, said concerning the 
 distinction between a mystery and a miracle — since 
 he said against the Rev. T. Pope, whom he seemed 
 to dread as a leveller of Popes, " I am sorry to 
 perceive that he is unable to distinguish between the 
 nature of a miracle and a mystery ;" and also be- 
 cause he exclaimed ag^ainst him thus : " Because 
 Christ performed a miracle, of which the senses were 
 able to judge, of course, it follows, that the senses are 
 
278 POPISH MASS. 
 
 able to pronounce upon a mystery/' Oh ! profound 
 argument ! Oh ! able logician ! Since he spoke 
 thus, I say, I shall tell him, and the Pope too, if he 
 will be so kind as to carry his Holiness the intelli- 
 gence, what common sense and the word of God say 
 concerning the nature of a miracle and a mystery. 
 The greatest miracle that ever was heard of, either 
 in heaven, upon earth, or in hell, is the conversion 
 of a bit of bread, and of a cup of wine, into the 
 real body and blood of Christ. And a mystery, 
 says common sense, is that power of the words, 
 " Hoc enim est corpus meuni^^^ which brings the 
 Lord of glory down from heaven, hampers him into 
 the inside of a case composed of nothing more ma- 
 terial than mere accidents, and there binds him so 
 strait with a chain, composed of shape, size, colour, 
 taste, smell, and touch ; that he cannot move him- 
 self, but must lie still till is he engulphed in the belly 
 of a rat, a mouse, a laic, or a priest, the most vora- 
 cious and cruel animal of the four. Such, my good 
 sir, is the nature of a miracle and a mystery in the 
 eye of common sense; but as it may probably be 
 jaundiced for want of the chrism, which, according 
 to some, is the best of eye-salves, I shall now tell 
 you what the word of God says concerning myste- 
 ries, viz. f^vtfimu, qu<2 sunt res arcance^ clauses, ab- 
 struscs, et qucB nos latent* The word of God, then, 
 in Dan. ii. 28, says : " There is a God in heaven 
 who revealeth secrets," viz., fAv^mx ; but what have 
 
POPISH MASS. 279 
 
 these to do with transubstantiation, which is a doc- 
 trine that never was revealed by God. In 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 2, it is said of him that speaks in the church in 
 an unknown tongue : " Howbeit in the spirit he 
 speaketh mysteries," ^v(rlyi^ior, meaning the doctrines 
 of the gospel, but what has this to do with transub- 
 stantiation ? Nothing, though it certainly has with 
 priests. In 1 Cor. xv. 15, the same apostle says : 
 " Behold I show you a mystery, (jfiv^mov) we 
 shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." 
 But instead of this having any reference to the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation, it manifestly refers to 
 what shall happen to those who shall be found alive 
 upon the earth in the morning of the last day. In 
 Eph. V. 32, it is said, " This is a great mystery 
 (fcvcrlmov;) but, instead of this referring either to 
 transubstantiation or to marriage, it evidently refers 
 to the communion of Christ with the church ; for the 
 apostle himself declares this, saying : " But I speak 
 this concerninof Christ and the church." In Rom. 
 xvi. 25, St Paul says : " According to the revelation 
 of the mystery ((/^v<7l^tov) which was kept secret 
 since the world began ; but instead of referring to 
 the never-revealed mystery of Popish transubstantia- 
 tion, he is referring to the hidden mystery which was 
 long veiled under types and shadows, which was gra- 
 dually revealed under the Old Testament, which is 
 still unknown to heathens, and which is worse com- 
 prehended in the Church of Rome than in any other 
 
280 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Church in Christendom. In Eph. i. 9, we read 
 thus : " Having made known to us the mystery 
 (ltcv(r%^m) of his will." But what was his will ? 
 Not, certainly, that Christ should become bodily 
 present in the sacramental bread, else it would have 
 been revealed; but, as we read in the 10th verse, 
 that " He might gather together in one all things in 
 Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on 
 the earth, even in him," viz., the church militant and 
 triumphant. In Col. i. 25, 26, we read thus : 
 " Whereof," (viz., of the Church,) " I am made a 
 minister, according to the dispensation of God, 
 which is given to me for you to fulfil the word, even 
 the mystery {fiv(r%^ic6) which hath been hid for 
 ages, and from generations, but now is made mani- 
 fest to the saints." But, instead of this referring to 
 the unscriptural doctrine of transubstantiation, the 
 apostle evidently refers to what is mentioned in the 
 27th verse, viz., to " Christ in the saints, the hope 
 of glory ;" or, in other words, the principles of 
 Christian doctrine, the knowledge of which neither 
 nature, nor the Romish Church, does reveal to 
 man. In 1 Cor. iv. 1, it is said : " Let a man ac- 
 count of us as of the ministers of Christ, and ste- 
 wards of the mysteries {^v^lviPix) of God ;" here we 
 Protestants freely acknowledge that the apostle is 
 referring to the word of God and the sacraments ; 
 but what has this to do with the real presence of 
 Christ in the consecrated bread? It is a mere peti- 
 
POPISH MASS. 281 
 
 tio principii to say that it does. But there is yet 
 another sense in which I recollect the word mystery 
 is taken in the scriptures, viz., a mystery of iniquity. 
 In 2 Thess. ii. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, we read thus : " The 
 mystery of iniquity doth already work ; only he who 
 letteth will let until he be taken out of the way ; and 
 then shall the wicked be revealed whom the Lord 
 shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall 
 destroy with the brightness of his coming ; — even 
 him, whose coming is after the working of Satan 
 with all power, (to dethrone kings, &c.,) and signs 
 and lying wonders, (with all the legends of Popish 
 miracles,) and with deceivableness of unrighteous- 
 ness (Mystery the Great, weareth a veil) in them that 
 perish, (at least from the truth,) because they re- 
 ceived not the love of the truth that they might be 
 saved. And for this cause, God shall send strong 
 delusions, that they should believe a lie," (probably 
 that of the real presence of Christ in the consecrated 
 bread.) But who is this Mystery of Iniquity, this My- 
 stery of Secret Iniquity, this Mystery of Veiled Ini- 
 quity, but She who is mentioned in the book of the 
 Apoc. (chap. 17,) even that Babylonian meretrix, 
 " who sitteth upon many waters, arrayed in purple 
 and scarlet colour, (even that of cardinals,) and 
 decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, 
 having a golden cup in her hand full of abomina- 
 tions and filthiness of her fornications, (with those 
 that despise marriage,) who is the mother of harlots. 
 
282 POPISH MASS. 
 
 and whose number is 666, which is that also of the 
 church Lateinos, as well as of him who pretends to 
 be Vicarius Filii Dei, i. e., the Pope, as I shall 
 show more fully by and bye. 
 
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MASS, RESUMED. 
 
 Argument Sixth. — It is repugnant to the scrip- 
 tural doctrine of Christ's ascension. Concerning 
 Christ's ascension, we are thus taught by the word 
 of God. " Me," says the Saviour, in Matt. xxvi. 
 11, "ye have not always." — " I," says he, accord- 
 ing to John xvi. 28, " leave the world, and go to my 
 Father." The Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, iv. 8, 
 speaks thus concerning Christ : " If he were on 
 earth, he should not be a priest, seeing there are 
 priests that offer gifts according to the law," (though 
 none that offer them according to the gospel but 
 those who believe in transubstantiation, and they are 
 Popish priests.) And in Acts, iii. 21, we are taught 
 to believe that the heavens must receive Christ till 
 the times of the restitution of all things. 
 
 But though we are thus taught by Christ and his 
 apostles, the Church of Rome would teach us a very 
 different doctrine in behalf of that of transubstantia- 
 tion. It would have us believe, that by virtue of 
 the words, " Hoc enim est corpus meum^^ pronounced 
 by a mass-priest, when he really intends to transub- 
 stantiate, we may have the Saviour, body, soul, and 
 divinity, as often as we please ; — that he is not cor- 
 
POPISH MA.SS. 283 
 
 poraliter always with the Father ; — that Saint Paul, 
 in Heb. viii. 4, tells a manifest falsehood, for which 
 Papists are certainly much obliged to him ; — ^and 
 that the Apostle Peter himself, notwithstanding that 
 he is the great ancestor of the Pope, talks erroneous- 
 ly, when he says, in Acts, iii, 21 : " Whom " (that 
 is Christ,) " the heaven must receive till the resti- 
 tution of all things." Hence, then, it is evident 
 that the word of God and that of Popery contradict 
 each other. That God cannot lie is the belief of 
 Protestants, that the Church of Rome cannot lie in 
 matters of doctrine, at least according to Macguire, 
 is the belief of Popery. Both doctrines being oppo- 
 site to each other, cannot be true ; and, therefore, he 
 who espouses the one, must of necessity hold the 
 other to be false. Methinks I hear the sober in- 
 quirer after truth, saying : " I wonder that any one 
 in his sober senses can believe a doctrine that so 
 flatly contradicts the word of Him who is truth itself. 
 I do the same ; and would wonder greatly that Popish 
 priests can do it, were it not that I know that their 
 spiritual sobriety has entirely evaporated in the fumes 
 of that delusive liquor, with which, by the eminent 
 skill of the doctors who assembled at Trent, the 
 Mammce of their spiritual Alma-Mater have ever 
 since been so full, so captivating, and so exhilerat- 
 ing, that no force, except that which is divine, is 
 able to drive these sheep of the Pope (the laity are 
 the lambs) from them. 
 
284 POPISH MASS. 
 
 One of these sheep, which the Pope has allowed 
 to suck his dam, till he has become a bidens, and so 
 sportive, as to run with the velocity of a race-horse, 
 and so fond of butting, as to attack even the digni- 
 taries of other folds, one day, by the permission of 
 heaven, left off his accustomed bleating, which no 
 lambs either of his, or any other fold, can rightly 
 understand. This sheep of the Pope, I say, went, 
 one day, astray, and wandered so far that he got 
 himself surrounded with sheep as different in colour 
 as those of Jacob were from those of Laban, and be- 
 came so closely beset, that, mirabile dictu ! he spoke 
 in pretty good English, and exclaimed in behalf of 
 flesh and blood : " Will opposers presume to call 
 the omnipresence of Christ in question ?" And then, 
 anon, but with more of his natural voice, thus : " If 
 Christ's humanity be hypostatically united to his 
 divinity, does not he, who circumscribes the one, by 
 implication circumscribe the other ?" 
 
 Now, as there are two very serious questions, and 
 of some importance in this argument, I reply, that 
 Protestants do not call in question the omnipresence 
 of Christ's divinity, but that they deny that his 
 humanity is omnipresent; and they would assure 
 Romanists that this doctrine, even supposing it to be 
 true, is more against the doctrine of transubstantia- 
 tion than for it. What is meant by the Omnipre- 
 sence of Deity ? It is that divine attribute by which 
 God, without mixture of parts with the creature, 
 
POPISH MASS. 285 
 
 without division, and without multiplication, is, not 
 only in his power, but, essentially, at the same time, 
 present in heaven above, and in the earth beneath ; 
 yea, by which he surrounds, fills, and pervades the 
 universe. In Jas. ii, 11, we read thus of the omni- 
 presence of God : " The Lord your God is in 
 heaven above and in the earth beneath." In 1 
 Kings viii. 27, Solomon speaks thus of the divine 
 omnipresence : " But will God, indeed, dwell on 
 the earth ? Behold, the heaven of heavens cannot 
 contain thee." And in Psalm cxxxix. 7, 8, the 
 Psalmist says : " Whither shall I go from thy spirit, 
 or flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into 
 heaven, thou art there ; or if I make my bed in hell, 
 (i. e, in the grave,) thou art also there." 
 
 Now, if Christ's humanity be everywhere present, 
 it follows that, according to the w^ords of the last 
 quotation, his body is even in the grave ; and hence 
 that the Christian religion is false, as it teaches us to 
 worship a risen Saviour ; and hence, also, that Jews, 
 Turks, and other infidels, are much indebted to the 
 Church of Rome for that welcome information. 
 2dlt/, If Christ's body be everywhere present, it is 
 evident that we cannot flee from his bodily presence ; 
 but he himself asked his disciples when many of the 
 Jews left him, saying: " Will ye go away also ?" 
 And, moreover, the scriptures teach us, that he as- 
 cended from mount Olivet to heaven, where we are 
 sure we are not at present ; and hence we again 
 
286 POPISH MASS. 
 
 conclude that Christ is not corporaliter everywhere 
 present. But, again, if Christ's body is everywhere 
 present, he must be corporaliter in the sun, moon, 
 planets, comets, and fixed stars, and there, according 
 to his mediatorial function, preparing places for his 
 people ; and hence it follows, that these heavenly 
 bodies are to be colonized by terrestrial saints at the 
 day of judgment ; and consequently, that if the des- 
 tined place of Papists is to be in the sun, as is not 
 improbable, being lovers of hot climates, they will 
 perhaps find the atmosphere not much cooler there 
 than they formerly did in purgatory ; if in the moon, 
 they will then literally be all lunatics ; if in the 
 planet Venus, they will all cease to be Popish priests, 
 being then under the influence of that amiable queen, 
 whose beauty inspires all her subjects, whether Pop- 
 ish priests or Protestants, with the desire of mar- 
 riage, which, to the sheep of the Pope's fold espe- 
 cially, would be considered a strange event. Well, 
 notwithstanding all these absurdities, Romanists still 
 maintain that Christ's body is everywhere present ; 
 well they may ; only we must remind both them and 
 Protestants, that the doctrine of transubstantiation 
 teaches, that the whole body, soul, and divinity of 
 Christ, is contained in the consecrated bread ; and 
 that it hence consequently follows, that either the 
 one or the other of the following statements must be 
 false, if not both, viz., either that the consecrated 
 bread is omnipresent, or that that which surrounds 
 
POPISH MASS. 287 
 
 the universe, fills all space, and pervades all things, 
 may, with a " Hoc enim est corpus meum^" be cooped 
 up within the narrow limits of a wafer ; — absurd ! ! ! 
 But, again, let us suppose that the body of Christ is 
 omnipresent ; well, if so, it must be so without mul- 
 tiplication, mixture, or division of parts ; but transub- 
 stantiation teaches, that if a priest properly conse- 
 crates a thousand wafers, Christ is in every one 
 of them wholly; and, therefore, it follows, that 
 that which cannot be multiplied, may, by a Popish 
 priest, be multiplied to as high a ratio as he pleases, 
 which, to say the least of it, is a very strange kind of 
 absurdity. Thus have I answered the former of 
 these two questions, put in behalf of transubstantia- 
 tion ; and, trusting that I have done it so much to 
 the satisfaction of the sheep referred to, (when I use 
 the word sheep, I do it out of the highest respect, 
 and would not have dared to call any priest a sheep, 
 unless the Douay Testament, and the late priest of 
 Killybegs, had taught me, by proving to my satisfac- 
 tion, that the priests were the sheep, and the laity 
 the lambs, which were given in charge to the Apostle 
 Peter, and hence to the Pope, to be fed ; and we all 
 know that they are well fed, even so fully with flesh 
 and blood, that their nature is almost changed from 
 that which are herbivorous to that which is carnivo- 
 rous,) as to leave no doubt in his mind, that he is, 
 without controversy, a very theological sheep, I shall 
 now proceed to try if I can as satisfactorily answer 
 his latter question, which was : " Whether, if Christ's 
 
288 POPISH MASS. 
 
 humanity be hypostatically united to his divinity, he 
 who circumscribes the one, does not, by imphcation, 
 circumscribe the other?" Now, as I do not know 
 whether he holds the personal union of the divine and 
 human natures of Christ from his incarnation, which, 
 according to the erroneous opinions of Ubiquists, is 
 an equation or equaUzation of his human nature with 
 his divine ; or, which I think to be more probable, 
 (from the difficulty of bringing the Saviour down from 
 heaven, when they are going to offer the sacrifice of 
 the mass,) from the ascension, which, they say, is to 
 be understood spiritually, being only a knowledge of 
 heavenly mysteries, or being only a change of state 
 and condition, or consisting in a vanishing and invi- 
 sible omnipresence of Christ ; I say, since I do not 
 know from which of these our reverend opponent 
 holds the omnipresence of the body of Christ, I shall 
 take the liberty of telling him, that he is unable to 
 hold it from either the one or the other upon any prin- 
 ciple of reasoning whatever. If he holds it from the 
 Incarnation, the Council of Chalcedon, which express- 
 ed the manner of the assumption and union of the two 
 natures of Christ against the Nestorians and Euty- 
 chians, is against him, thus : 1st, It is a union with- 
 out mutation ; that is, the one nature is not changed 
 into the other. 2d, It is a union without separation, 
 that is, they shall never be separated to all eternity ; 
 and hence it follows, that even in his death, though 
 soul and body were separated, they were not sepa- 
 rated from the person, now was the union of the two 
 
POPISH MASS. 289 
 
 >iatures broken. Sd, It is a union without division ; 
 that is, there are not two several persons in Christ, 
 but one only. 4th, It is a union without mixture ; 
 that is, neither the natures, nor the natural proper- 
 ties of the natures, are mixed, but they remain dis- 
 tinct, and each nature retains its own peculiar pro- 
 perties, (for, if they were mixed, Christ would then 
 be neither true God nor true man, contrary to Acts 
 ii. 20, Rom. i. 3, 4, and ix. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 18, and 
 iv. 1, and 2 Cor. xiii. 4, 5,) will, and operations. 
 Now, since the union of the two natures of Christ is 
 without change and mixture, it is evident that his 
 omnipresence cannot be imputed to his human na- 
 ture ; and hence we conclude that Christ's body is 
 not omnipresent ; and, therefore, if a mass-priest can 
 put his body into a piece of bread, that body cannot 
 be at the same time in any other place ; and hence 
 the absurdity of the doctrine of transubstantiation. 
 
 But perhaps it is from the ascension of Christ 
 that he infers his omnipresence, preferring rather to 
 espouse the doctrines of Ubiquists, and other apos- 
 tates from the truth as it is in Jesus, than give up 
 the hope of eating his real flesh and blood. Con- 
 cerning the ascension of Christ, the scriptures give 
 us this information. In the gospel by Luke, xvi. 
 19, we are told that, after Christ had spoken to 
 the disciples, " He was received up into heaven." 
 In chapter xxiv. ver. 51, of the same gospel, we are 
 told that, " While he blessed them, he was parted 
 
 T 
 
290 POPISH MASS. 
 
 from them, and carried up into heaven." In the 
 same gospel, (xxiv. 50,) we are informed that he as- 
 cended from the Mount of Ohves, which, accord- 
 ing to chap. xxiv. 50, and Acts i. 12, is situated 
 near the village of Bethany, and about a Sabbath 
 day's journey from Jerusalem, or, as we learn else- 
 where, about a half a mile to the south of Jerusa- 
 lem. And in Acts i. 9, 10, 11, we are told that, 
 ** When he (viz., Christ) had spoken these things," 
 while they " Beheld, he was taken up ; and a cloud 
 received him out of their sight. And while they 
 looked on stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, 
 behold, two men stood by them in white apparel ; 
 which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye 
 gazing up into heaven ? This same Jesus, which 
 is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in 
 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." 
 Now, from these passages of scripture, it is evident 
 to us, and we believe to every sober mind which 
 understands the literal meaning of words, that the 
 ascension of Christ was, instead of his only be- 
 coming invisible, a local, a visible, and proper ascen- 
 sion : and that the place to which he ascended, was 
 not to a different state or condition, but, according 
 to 1 Peter iii. 22, to heaven ; that heaven, accord- 
 ing to Eph. iv. 10, which is far above all heavens. 
 Not to a heaven which is omnipresent, as Ubiquists, 
 and, as I have reason to suppose, our Reverend 
 opponent would have it, but to a heaven which, as 
 
POPISH MASS. 291 
 
 appears from Eph. iv. 10, is a certain finite place, 
 a heaven that is far above all heavens, viz., all the 
 celestial circles described by the Ptolemean system 
 of astronomy. Heaven, according to John xiv. 2, 
 3, is the house of our Almighty Father, a house 
 consisting of many mansions, a place which is no^ 
 a preparing to be the everlasting abode of believers, 
 a place which is locally distinct from the lower or 
 visible heavens, from earth and from hell, yea, a place 
 where Christ's body will remain till the restitution 
 of all things. Now since it is evident from the 
 divine testimony, that such is the ascension of Christ, 
 and the heaven to which he ascended, we conclude 
 that those who say, Lo here, that is, in this desert, 
 or this wafer, is Christ, tell a manifest falsehood ; 
 and that the man who would argue in behalf of the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation, that Christ's body is 
 omnipresent from his ascension, must surely have 
 quaffed large draughts from the intoxicating cup of 
 Her whom St. John calls the Mother of abominations. 
 And moreover, the decrees of the second Council 
 of Nice strongly confirm our arguments, for in one 
 of them, it anathematizes all who hold that Christ is 
 not circumscribed as to his humanity, though it make 
 his non-omnipresence, alas ! a proper and sufficient 
 reason for the worshipping of images ; but there is 
 the less reason to wonder at this inconsistency, when 
 it is considered, that it was held at a time (viz., a. d. 
 
292 POPISH MASS. 
 
 787,) when the leaven of Popery had visibly begun 
 to inflate the minds of the clergy^ 
 
 But no wonder that our Reverend opponent talks 
 thus of the omnipresence of Christ, seeing that he 
 has the effrontery forsooth, to affirm in the presence 
 of an assembled multitude of the most learned in 
 Ireland, that the Devil, who is one of God's crea- 
 tures, can be present at the same time in many 
 places. O profound Theologian I O ignorance ! 
 perhaps best befitting the peat bogs of Roscommon ! 
 Alas, for such a teacher ! and twice alas, for those 
 who are thus taught ! No wonder that Papists can 
 believe that transubtantiation is a true doctrine, when 
 they have so much skill as to infer the omnipresence 
 of Christ, from the circumstance of his having passed 
 throuo^h the door of a house after his resurrection. 
 Believing that the Devil is an omnipresent being, no 
 wonder that they pray to saints in heaven ; because, 
 having proved that the Devil is everywhere present, it 
 can be no great absurdity to conclude, that the saints, 
 though not in the mediatorial office, are everywhere 
 present to lend attentive ears ioiheir pater nosters upon 
 the beads, and be delighted with the parrotical sounds 
 of ave Maria, gloria tihi, Domine nenos inducas in ten- 
 tationem. Fine learned words forsooth, for the laics of 
 Roscommon, and of the Popish laics in general ! 
 
 Argument Seventh. — It teaches a doctrine con- 
 trary to the scriptural doctrine of Christ's sitting and 
 glory at the right hand of the Father. 
 
POPISH MASS. 293 
 
 As a spirit has neither flesh nor bones, and as 
 God is not only a spirit, but an infinite spirit, it fol- 
 lows, that, properly speaking, he can have neither 
 riofht hand nor left. But thouo^h this is true, mem- 
 bers are nevertheless ascribed unto God in the holv 
 scriptures, for the purpose of making known unto us 
 his infinite power, and incomprehensible majesty, ac- 
 cording to our capacity, but certainly not, that we, 
 like Papists, may represent him in a picture as an 
 old man ; and thus, as St. Paul says to the Romans, 
 i. 23, " Change the glory of the uncorruptible God 
 into an image made like to corruptible man." The 
 scriptures afford us sufficient information concerning 
 Christ's sitting and glory at the right hand of God, 
 to know that the doctrine of the mass teaches what is 
 repugnant to it. In Ps. cxviii. 16, where we read 
 thus, " The right hand of the Lord is exalted," it is 
 to be understood, that his power and dominion are 
 exalted, and that the Psalmist takes the simile from 
 the right hand of men, who, by the power of their 
 right hand, effect any thing, and help one another. 
 It appears from Ps. ex. 1, and Heb. i. 3, that, by 
 the right hand of God, mentioned there, we are to 
 understand it as meaninof the Iwhest deofree of 
 honour with God ; and, therefore, when w^e read in 
 scripture, that Christ sat down, or sitteth, or standeth, 
 at the right hand of God, we are to understand that, 
 in heaven, he is now enjoying the highest majesty 
 and glory, viz., the glory and majesty of being Lord 
 
294 POPISH MASS. 
 
 of all things, the glory and majesty of being Head of 
 the Church ; and, in our world, the glorious admi- 
 nistration of his kingdom ; as is evident from Eph. i. 
 20, where it is stated, that, "God set him at his 
 own right hand in heavenly places, far above all 
 principalities and power, and hath put all things 
 under his feet, and gave him to be head over ail 
 things to the Church." But Christ is not only thus 
 at God's right hand in his divine nature, but in his 
 human also, as appears from Phil. ii. 8, 9, where we 
 read thus ; " And being found in fashion as a man, 
 he humbled himself, and became obedient unto 
 death, even the death of the cross, wherefore, God 
 hath highly exalted him," &c. ; and as appears also 
 from John v. 27, where we read thus : " The Father 
 hath given him authority to execute judgment also, 
 because he is the Son of Man. 
 
 Having thus briefly shewn from scripture, what 
 we are to believe concerning Christ's sitting and 
 glory at the right hand of his heavenly Father ; ob- 
 serve, now, what the Popish doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation teaches concerninof the risen Saviour, and 
 mark its repugnance to the word of God, — yea to 
 common sense and good feeling. The doctrine of 
 transubstantiation teaches, that, instead of Christ's 
 being exalted to the right hand of his heavenly Father, 
 there to remain till the restitution of all things, he is, 
 with a " hoc enim est corpus meum' brought down 
 to earth, and then exalted to the right hand of a 
 
POPISH MASS. 295 
 
 mass-priest. It would fain prove, were it able, that 
 Christ, instead of then enjoying the highest degree 
 of honour, worship, and glory, that heaven can be- 
 stow upon him, is subjected in the mass to such 
 glory, honour, and worship, as hungry rats, mice, 
 and vermin are, in their analogous religion, wont to 
 pay to a piece of bread, consecrated or unconse- 
 crated. Instead of teaching, that Christ is set far 
 above all principalities and power, that he has all 
 things put under his feet, and that he is the glorious 
 administrator of his heavenly kingdom, it teaches, 
 that his kingdom is a wafer, that his jurisdiction 
 extends not much farther than an inch, that he is 
 under the power of the vilest creature, that he is un- 
 der the dominion of the bislinguent tongue of him who 
 brought him out of heaven to behold a more wonder- 
 ful miracle than ever he himself performed on earth ; 
 and that, if he is not immediately devoured whole, 
 he is apt to be drowned, roasted, boiled, gnawed by 
 rats and mice, worried by dogs, lacerated by hogs, 
 put into a place of confinement called a box, just as 
 the Diana of the Ephesians was by them encased 
 in little shrines, not for the convenience of private 
 masses that they might eat her, but of worship, in 
 which, perhaps, they might say, " Mea Diana quam 
 magna es" Yea, it teaches, that Christ, instead of 
 having authority now in heaven to execute judgment 
 on man especially, as he himself is the son of man, is 
 a fit object for a dentical jury, a stomatical advocate, 
 
296 POPISH MASS. 
 
 and n ventrical jiuloe, to try him by their hivv, ami 
 bring him in guilty of being a crusty piece of breail, 
 if they are in any degree out of humour, or otl'end- 
 ed with his obduracy and passive resistiuice. 
 
 Mr Macguire says, by way of objection to what 1 
 have now stated, "• That when the species began to 
 decay, Christ could extricate himself therefrom, and 
 ascend to his heavenly Father piu-e as are the rays 
 of the sun, after having pjissed through an impure 
 medium." But who is there that does not perceive, 
 that he is calculating here both without his host, and 
 against his host. What does the man mean by the 
 term ''' species," as here employed ? Surely, he does 
 not call the shape, smell, feeling, taste, and colour 
 of anv thinij, abstractedly considered, the constituent 
 parts of a species. If he does, we, for his own sake^ 
 would advise him to go back to his ahna mater, and 
 not to leave her nursery till his beard grow, lest his 
 unskilfulness of abstracts and concretes, should be a 
 cause of shame, both to himself, his alma mater, and 
 his brethren. Till I read the Notes of his learned 
 debate with jNlr Pope, I never heard, read, or knew, 
 that a species consisted of mere qualities and acci- 
 dents. The doctrine of transubstantiation tells us, 
 that after the consecration of the bread, there is 
 nothing of it left, but mere accidents ; and as these 
 are not bread, they can never constitute a species of 
 bread, except, perhaps, such as will feed ghosts, with 
 which kind of light folk, I have been told Papists. 
 
POPISH MASS. 297 
 
 are well acquainted. I really wonder, that any man 
 who pretends to have received a hberal education 
 would either himself believe, or have us to believe, 
 that mere nonentities can constitute a species of what 
 is substantial. But I would be still more amazed, 
 were it not that I know it is the very genius of 
 Popery to lead the mind into a world of fancy, ex- 
 travagance, and ridiculous absurdities. But I ex- 
 cuse the man from my heart, as I verily believe, that 
 when he spake thus, he had got only a breakfast of 
 accidents, and hence was esuriens ; and that feeling 
 that his gasteric juice was not quite so willing to put 
 up with nonentities as he was, he forgot what he 
 wished to say concerning the human nature of 
 (yhrist, 'and, in his mazy error, lighted upon the 
 above old scholastic expression concerning the omni- 
 presence of divinity, which is not the human nature 
 of Christ. 
 
 Nor will it answer Mr Macguire any good pur- 
 pose to respond to what I have here stated, saying : 
 " That the term species also signifies representa- 
 tions, or appearances, and that this was the sense in 
 which he then used it;" for we know, that, among 
 many others, it has this more literal signification. 
 But, if this be the sense in which he used it, it makes 
 his argument, instead of better, by many degrees 
 worse, as is evident from the following statement of 
 it : " Christ can easily extricate himself from repre- 
 sentations or appearances." Now, we ask, What 
 
298 POPISH MASS. 
 
 are the representations or appearances of bread, but 
 mere shadows, signs, or indications of the presence 
 of the substance; and, if they are only shadows, 
 signs, and mere indications of the bread, they are in 
 themselves nothing substantial, and, therefore, there 
 can be no extrication, there being nothing from which 
 to be extricated. I really wish that this powerful 
 extricator would endeavour to extricate himself, body, 
 soul, and spirit, out of the absurd and ridiculous en- 
 tanglements of Popery, and " become such as I am," 
 that is, a protestor against the unscriptural, unreason- 
 able, and impious doctrine of transubstantiation. 
 
 Argument Eighth. — It teaches a doctrine, which 
 is opposed to the scriptural doctrine of Christ's union 
 and communion with the saints upon earth. 
 
 Popery, taking the words of the institution in their 
 literal sense, maintains that Christ's union and 
 communion with the saints in the Sacrament of the 
 Supper, is of a carnal nature. , There are several 
 passages of scripture, which, according to its inter- 
 pretation thereof, confirm Romanists in this belief. 
 They say that our Saviour says, (John vi. 51,) " The 
 bread that I will give you is my flesh for the life of 
 the world;" and, " Your fathers did eat manna in the 
 wilderness, and are dead;" " If any man eat of this 
 bread, he shall live for ever ;" and hence that he 
 extols what he was about to give at his Last Supper 
 far beyond the bread which descended from heaven. 
 Many of them that were present, say Romanists, and 
 
POPISH MASS. 299 
 
 some of them were disciples, were shocked at the 
 expression, and asked how it was possible that he 
 could give them his flesh to eat ? And that our 
 Lord, who neither could deceive nor be deceived, 
 instead of representing to them their mistake, or cor- 
 recting their error, if it were one, says : " Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of 
 the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life 
 in you;" and hence they conclude, that the Jews 
 were right when they understood him to be speaking 
 of his real body and blood, from which it follows, 
 that the union of the saints with Christ in the Sacra- 
 ment is not a spiritual, but a carnal union. 
 
 Now, we maintain, on the contrary, that this union 
 and communion is not a carnal, but a spiritual one ; 
 and, to prove that we are right, we observe, in the 
 first place, that to eat the crucified body, and to 
 drink his shed blood, is not to be taken literally as 
 the Capernites did, and Romanists still do understand 
 it. We so far agree with the Capernites, who, accord- 
 ing to John, vi. 52, strove among themselves, saying : 
 " How can this man give us his flesh to eat," as to 
 say with them, if Christ's words, in the verses refer- 
 red to, are to be taken literally : " It is a hard saying, 
 who can bear it ?" But, while we concede this much, 
 we say that both the Capernites and Roman Catho- 
 lics, though somewhat differently, do not rightly un- 
 derstand what our Saviour meant by eating his flesh 
 and drinkino^ his blood. This is evident, from a 
 
300 POPISH MASS. 
 
 comparison of the 35th, 40th, and 47th verses, with 
 the 50th, 51st, 53d, and 54th verses. In the three 
 former verses we read thus; viz. in the 35th : "Jesus 
 said unto them, I am the bread of hfe ; he that 
 Cometh unto me shall never hunger ; and he that 
 believeth on me shall never thirst." In the 40th 
 verse, he says ; " Every one that seeth the Son and 
 believeth on him, may have everlasting life ; and I 
 will raise him up at the last day ;" and in the 47th, 
 he says : " Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that 
 believeth on me hath everlasting life." Now, com- 
 pare these with the other four verses, and tell me, O 
 ye Romanists, the result. In the 50th, Christ says : 
 " This is the bread (meaning himself ) which cometh 
 down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and 
 not die." In the 51st, he says : " I am the living 
 bread w^hich cometh down from heaven. If any man 
 eat of this bread, he shall live for ever ; and the 
 bread that I shall give him is my flesh, which I will 
 give for the life of the world." In the 52d, we are 
 told: " That the Jews, therefore, strove among 
 themselves, saying. How can this man give us his 
 flesh to eat?" In the 53d, we are told, that " Then 
 Jesus said unto them. Except ye eat the flesh of the 
 Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
 you." And in the 54th, Christ says : " Whoso 
 eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
 life ; and I will raise him up at the last day." Now, 
 what is the result ? Is it not hence evident, that what 
 
POPISH MASS. 301 
 
 Christ calls " Believing on him," in the three former 
 verses, he calls " Eating his flesh, and drinking his 
 blood," in the four latter verses. If, then, it is hence 
 evident, that " Believing in Christ," and " Eating 
 his flesh, and drinking his blood," signify the same 
 thing ; these two inferences consequently follow : 
 \st, That what our Saviour affirms in these verses, 
 has no reference whatever to the Sacrament of the 
 Supper, which was not instituted for a year after, 
 but, instead thereof, to that which, in that Sacra- 
 ment, is signified and sealed to believers ; and, 2d, 
 That to eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, 
 is nothing else than a spiritual eating and drinking, 
 both in faith and by faith ; or, in other words, a re- 
 ceiving and embracing with a believing heart the 
 whole passion and death of Christ for salvation ; and 
 hence we conclude, that the union and communion 
 of Christ with his saints upon earth is not carnal, 
 but spiritual ; and that, because the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation is opposed to it, it must be false. The 
 following scriptures confirm us still more strongly in 
 the behalf of this conclusion. St. John, (1 Epis. i. 
 3,) says, in behalf of it : " That ye also may have 
 fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus 
 Christ." Saint Paul to the Eph. iii. 17, says: 
 " Christ dwelleth in the hearts of the saints by faith," 
 which proves that the Old Testament believers had 
 communion with Christ in their worship as well as 
 those of the New Testament ; which also is further 
 
302 POPISH MASS. 
 
 evident from 1 Cor. x. 3, 4, where Paul says : 
 " They did all eat the same spiritual manna, and did 
 all drink the same spiritual drink." And the 17th 
 verse of the same chapter, where it is said : " For 
 we being many are one bread and one body ; we are 
 all partakers of one bread," proves very strongly that 
 Christ cannot be substantially present in the conse- 
 crated bread, because if he were so, all who partook 
 of the sacramental elements, whether saints or un- 
 worthy communicants, might speak thus, which of 
 the latter would not be true. 
 
 But methinks I hear Romanists, by way of ob- 
 jection, saying : " How is it possible that there 
 can be a real union between the human nature of 
 Christ in heaven and saints upon earth ?" Well, in 
 answering this question, we will ask them another, 
 which is this : Can there be a real union between 
 husband and wife, however distant they may be 
 living from each other ?" Or, in other words, would 
 husband and wife not be one flesh even though they 
 were living from each other at the distance of one- 
 half of the earth's circumference ? Methinks I hear 
 them answering in the affirmative, and saying, that 
 notwithstanding the distance, they would certainly 
 be still one flesh. Well then, since this is conceded, 
 we farther ask them : How much closer and stronger 
 may be the union between Christ's human nature 
 in heaven, who is an omnipresent deity, and his be- 
 lieving people, his Church, his spouse upon earth, 
 
POPISH MASS. 303 
 
 whom be has espoused in righteousness, in judgment, 
 in faithfulness, in loving-kindness, in mercy, and 
 with an everlasting covenant, so that neither time, 
 sin, nor any other evil can disannul the espousals, 
 or marriage covenant, and whose members, accord- 
 ing to St. Paul, are flesh of his flesh and bone of 
 his bone, which is indeed a great, even an incom- 
 prehensible mystery, though it is nevertheless true. 
 
 The Scriptures exhibit to the view of our under- 
 standings this spiritual union between Christ and 
 his Church, in the clearest and the most attractive 
 manner that we can possibly desire. Whatever kin- 
 dred, affinity, love, friendship, and benevolence, there 
 is among men ; whatever compacts and agreements 
 are made for good among them ; whatever bond, 
 connection, and agreement, exist among even in- 
 sensible creatures ; yea, whatever is the means of 
 quickening, of loving, of nourishing, of strengthen- 
 ing, of upholding, and of making us happy ; all these 
 are presented to us in the scriptures, for the pur- 
 pose of making us comprehend, and taste as it were, 
 this spiritual union and communion between Christ 
 and his Church in the sacrament of his Last Sup- 
 per. This union is represented by marriage in Hos. 
 ii. 19, where we read thus: "I will betroth thee 
 unto me for ever ; yea I will betroth thee unto me 
 in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving- 
 kindness, and in mercies." And also, in Eph. v. 
 31, 32, where it is said : "For this cause shall a 
 
304 POPISH MASS. 
 
 man leave father and mother, and shall be jomed 
 unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh : 
 this is a great mystery, but I speak concerning the 
 Church." It is represented by that natural bond 
 of union which constitutes kindred; in Heb. ii. 11, 
 where says : " For both he that sanctifies and they 
 that are sanctified are all one, for which cause he is 
 not ashamed to call them brethren." It is represented 
 by that connection which subsists between the head 
 and the body with its members, in Eph. iv. 15, and 
 in Col. i. 18, where the apostle says: "And he, 
 i. e.y Christ, is the head of the body, that is, of the 
 Church." In John xv. 5, it is represented by that 
 natural connection which subsists between a vine and 
 its branches, where these words of our Saviour are 
 recorded : " I am the vine and ye are the branches, 
 he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same 
 bringeth forth much fruit." It is represented also 
 bv the connection which subsists between an olive- 
 tree, and living and healthy grafts growing from it 
 and depending upon it for nutriment, in Rom. xi. 
 17, where the apostle writes thus : " And if some 
 of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a 
 wild olive-tree, wert graffed in among them, and 
 with them partakest of the root and fatness of the 
 olive-tree." In 1 Cor. xv. 20, where the same 
 apostle, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, and 
 thence assuring the Church of its resurrection on 
 account of its union to Him, says : " But now Christ 
 
POPISH MASS. 305 
 
 is risen from the dead, and is become the first fruits of 
 them that slept ;" it is represented by the connection 
 which subsists between the first-fruits which were 
 offered up to the service of God by the Jews, and 
 which sanctified the remainder of the harvest : Christ 
 is the first-fruits of the saints that sleep, in as much 
 as he was before all things, has the pre-eminence 
 in all things, sanctifies his people unto God by the 
 €onsecration and oblation of himself, and ensures 
 their resurrection from the dead by his own, on the- 
 second day of unleavened bread. It is also set forth 
 under the idea of that connection which subsists be- 
 tween a king and his true and faithful subjects, in 
 Ps. ii. 6, where the Psalmist says : " Yet have I 
 set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." In Matt. 
 XXV. 34, where we thus read : " Then shall the 
 king say unto them on his right hand : Come ye 
 blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared 
 for you ;" and in Rev. xvii. 14, where St. John, 
 speaking of the war which the ten kings should 
 make with the Lamb, and of their defeat, says : 
 " Then shall they make war with the Lamb, and the 
 Lamb shall overcome them, for he is the Lord of 
 lords and King of kings ; and they that are with 
 him are called, and chosen, and faithful." And 
 who does not see the beauty of the analogy and re- 
 joices to think, that his Redeemer has, as a Lord 
 and King, been appointed from everlasting to his 
 kingly office ; that having all power in heaven and 
 
 u 
 
306 POPISH MASS. 
 
 upon earth conferred upon him, he is even now, yea, 
 even while priests are pretending that they have got 
 him into a wafer or other piece of bread, subduing 
 his enemies, governing his subjects, defending them 
 from evil, promoting their welfare, and restraining 
 and conquering their enemies ; and that, at the 
 last day, he will pass sentence upon the whole world, 
 and before it manifest his union with those, who, 
 when upon earth, lived upon his flesh and blood, 
 not after a corporal and carnal manner, but spi- 
 ritually and by faith, and that his sufferings and death 
 upon the cross satisfied divine justice and propitiated 
 the wrath of God in behalf of sinful man. 
 
 Now, then, O ye Romanists, since such is the 
 union with Christ which believers enjoy, you may 
 hence understand how it is that the cup of blessing, 
 which the servants of the Lord bless, is the com- 
 munion of the blood of Christ, — how it is that the 
 bread which they break is the communion of the 
 broken body of Christ, — how it is that by one Spirit, 
 all believers, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, bond 
 or free, are baptized into one body, and have all been 
 made to drink into one Spirit, — how it is that, as 
 Augustine remarks, " if we believe we have eaten," — 
 yea, how it is, that, as the same author expresses i%; 
 " Whole Christ is head and body, bridegroom and 
 bride, two in one flesh." But, lest these apostates 
 and carnal Christians should object, (for men may 
 object to any thing, and we know that Papists will 
 
POPISH MASS. 307 
 
 to the plainest parts of scripture, for the sake of flesh 
 and blood,) to the above doctrine, which, I think, 
 contains little more than the words of God, saying, 
 if believing on the Saviour, and eating his flesh, 
 signify the same thing, it consequently follows, that 
 we keep the sacrament of the Supper, as often as we 
 perform what they call an act of faith, we observe, 
 that between receiving Christ in the sacrament, and 
 performing an act of faith on him, through belief of 
 the gospel, there is a manifest difl'erence ; yea, as 
 great a difference as there is in beholding the sun 
 through different mediums. In the Lord's Supper, 
 the means of receiving him are bread and wine, used 
 sacramentally ; that is, as holy pledges and divine 
 signs of Christ's broken body and shed blood, which 
 he himself instituted and gave unto us, to be used 
 according to the use and design of the institution 
 thereof; whereas the other is a receiving of Christ 
 by faith, without signs, as he is represented to us in 
 the gospel, which is the word of reconciliation. 
 
 Having now, by these eight scriptural arguments, 
 (and as many more, were it necessary, could be ad- 
 duced,) endeavoured to prove that the doctrine of 
 transubstantiation is directly contrary to the scrip- 
 tural doctrine of the Lord's Supper, we trust, that 
 all who may study them for the sake of distinguish- 
 ing between religious truth and error, and hence, of 
 the glory of God, will, by the power of divine grace 
 
308 POPISH MASS. 
 
 oe hence convinced, that we have fully proved that 
 it is an antichristian doctrine. 
 
 Argument Fifth. — It teaches that Christ can be 
 offered up unto God as a propitiatory sacrifice as 
 often as a mass-priest pleases. 
 
 Now, to disprove this Popish doctrine, I observe, 
 in the Jirst place, that there are some things which 
 man can do, or suffer only once. For instance, he 
 can be born and die only once. Now, since man can 
 suffer death only once, and as Christ was truly man 
 as well as truly God, we therefore conclude, that his 
 death cannot be repeated ; and since he could die 
 only once, he could offer himself for sin only once, 
 since, without the shedding of blood, there is no remis- 
 sion of sin. Therefore, it consequently follows, that, 
 unless mass-priests can prove that they have power 
 to put a man to death after that he has died, or to 
 put the risen Saviour to death a second time, they 
 cannot offer him up a propitiatory sacrifice. If 
 Christ could be offered up more than once, it follows, 
 that he could suffer for sin more than once, which is 
 contrary to the word of God, in Heb. ix. 25, 26, 27, 
 to which scripture we must refer the reader. 
 
 But, I observe, in the second place, that this doc- 
 trine blasphemes both the infinite justice of Deity 
 and the merits of Christ's death. The covenant 
 which God made with Adam, the federal head of the 
 human race, was this, viz. : " In the day thou eatest 
 
POPISH MASS. 309 
 
 thereof, thou shalt surely die," This covenant being 
 broken, the Son of God, according to the eternal 
 covenant of grace, took upon him our nature, sin 
 excepted, that hy his sufferings and death, he might 
 satisfy divine justice, and hence redeem us from the 
 penal consequences of the broken covenant of works. 
 Now, as Christ has died for the sin of the world, is 
 it not evident that the Popish doctrine of offering 
 him up as often as a mass-priest pleases, argues that 
 either Christ's death upon the cross was not in itself 
 worthy to satisfy divine justice, or that God the 
 Father would not stand by the articles of the eternal 
 covenant which he entered into with his only Son 
 our Saviour; and hence, that the Deity is not a just 
 God ; yea, that God the Father is unjust even to his 
 only begotten and well-beloved Son ; all which fair- 
 ly-inferred conclusions are not only unscriptural, but 
 extremely blasphemous. 
 
 But, I observe, thirdly, that Romanists, in offer- 
 ing up Christ a propitiatory sacrifice unto God, and 
 offering him often, virtually charge the sacrifice of 
 Christ u}X)n the cross, with the same weakness that 
 those of the Levitical law were chargeable with, 
 which is contrary to the following plain and uncon- 
 trovertible portions of the word of God. In Heb. 
 vii. 11, 23, we read against this Popish doctrine and 
 practice thus : " If, therefore, perfection were by 
 the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people 
 received the law,) what further need was there that 
 
310 POPISH MASS, 
 
 another priest should arise after the order of Mel- 
 chisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron ?" 
 *' And (ver. 23) they truly were many priests, be- 
 cause they were not suffered to continue by reason of 
 death." In Heb. viii. 7, it is said : " For if that 
 first covenant had been faultless, then should no 
 place have been found for the second." And in 
 chap. X. 17, 18, we read thus : " And their sins and 
 their iniquities will I remember no more. Now, 
 where remission of sin is, there is no more offering 
 for sin," which proves the error of the Popish 
 Church in offering up Christ (were it possible) a 
 propitiatory sacrifice for the sins not only of the liv- 
 ing, but also of the dead. O pure Church ! O 
 divine theology ! O sacred priests ! ye are worthy of 
 her whose sons ye are, and from whose polluted cup 
 ye have imbibed your unscriptural and antichristian 
 abominations. But these are not the only scriptures 
 which contradict the Popish doctrine, which teaches 
 that Christ can die and be offered up for sin more 
 than once ; though the Pope will not believe that 
 he may not offer up applicatory sacrifices, thus au- 
 daciously usurping the office of the Holy Ghost, 
 which he professedly does, in setting himself up as 
 Vicarius Filii Dei. We are told in Heb. vii. 27, 
 that " Christ needeth not daily, as those high- priests, 
 to offer sacrifice, first, for his own sins, and then for 
 the people's ; for this he did once, when he offered 
 himself up upon the cross." And in chap. x. 14, we 
 
POPISH MASS. 311 
 
 are further told : " That by one offering, he hath 
 perfected for ever them that are sanctified." And 
 here, by way of inference, we may take the Uberty 
 of affirming, that, if Romanists are not perfected by 
 the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, they are not 
 sanctified, (the Pope's sanctifying influence will do 
 them no good ;) and, if they are not sanctified, they 
 are not justified ; and, if they are not justified, they 
 are not believers ; and that, if they are not believers, 
 they do not belong to the household of faith, which 
 is the true Church of Christ. And, moreover, we 
 may take the liberty of telling them, by way of a 
 second inference, that we Protestants, who know that 
 we have Christ, an high-priest over the household of 
 God, who hath shed his blood for that house, will 
 thereby draw near unto God in the full assurance of 
 faith, having our hearts thereby sprinkled from an 
 evil conscience, and our bodies washed, not in Popish 
 holy water, not in water of St. Catherine's well at 
 Killybegs, which the inhabitants of that place hold 
 sacred, not in the perhaps more sanctifying and far- 
 ther famed water of Loch Derig, but with the spi- 
 ritual water, even the water of that spiritual well of 
 salvation, which God, of his infinite mercy and grace, 
 opened up in the house of David for all the people, 
 not of the Mother of abominations, but of the Holy 
 One of Israel. Indeed, it is evident from Heb. ix. 
 24, 25, 26, to which I refer the reader, that those, 
 who desire to offer up Christ again for sin, and those 
 
312 POPISH MASS. 
 
 are both followers of the beast, and those who obey 
 the beast, virtually deny that he has entered into the 
 Holy Place not made with hands, and that he will 
 there remain an advocate and intercessor with the 
 Father till the restitution of all thinjjs. 
 
 But we observe, in \\\e fourth place, that, if Catholic 
 priests really offer up Christ in the sacrifice of the mass, 
 it follows that they are both able and worthy to do 
 that which neither men nor angels are either able or 
 worthy to do, as is evident from Heb. ix. 14, where 
 the apostle affirms, that " Christ offered himself 
 through the Eternal Spirit." But I observe, in the 
 last place, that Romanists, in order to maintain this 
 false doctrine, prevent the obvious meaning of va- 
 rious passages of the word of God. They would 
 have us to believe that the prophet Malachi, in chap. 
 i. 11, refers to their massical sacrifices, saying: 
 " From the rising of the sun to the going down of 
 the same, my name shall be great among the Gen- 
 tiles ; and in every place, incense and a pure offering 
 shall be offered up to my name." But if we con- 
 sider that this is a prophecy concerning the pros- 
 perity of the King of Saints, and of his kingdom in 
 this world, it v/ill appear to be ridiculous nonsense to 
 suppose that the offering here mentioned can be 
 Christ himself; because it will appear to be an 
 offering of himself to himself, which is as absurd 
 as any Popish absurdity. But, to overlook this 
 absurdity, it is evidently a false interpretation of 
 
POPISH MASS. 313 
 
 the text, from the following consideration ; viz., be- 
 cause, if the sense of the verse be taken in its lite- 
 ral signification, it refers to offerings consisting of 
 flour and oil, and not to propitiatory sacrifices ; and 
 if it is to be understood spiritually, as indeed it must, 
 it respects the prayers and other reasonable services, 
 which the apostle Paul, in Rom. xii. 1, beseeches 
 the saints to offer, saying : " I beseech you, brethren, 
 by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies 
 a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, 
 which is your reasonable service." In Heb. xiii. 15, 
 these offerings are called sacrifices of praise, which 
 surely is not one of the names of the Popish mass. 
 The apostle Peter, against his pretended descend- 
 ants, calls them spiritual sacrifices, which title is not 
 applicable to the sacrifice of the mass, since, accord- 
 ing to Popery, it is a sacrifice of the flesh and blood 
 of Christ. We read of these offerings in Rev. viii. 
 3, thus : " Incense with the prayers of all saints ;" 
 but surely the offering of the mass is not incense ; 
 and, verily, mass prayers are not of all saints, but to 
 them in the Popish belief, that they are all ready to 
 hear them, and to carry them to the throne of the 
 Eternal, and there to plead, with a powerful advo- 
 cacy the case of their clients out of the combined 
 merits of the faithful. And in Ps. cxli. 2, we read 
 of these offerings, thus : " Let my prayer be set forth 
 before thee, with the incense, and the lifting up of 
 hands, as the evening and the morning sacrifice," 
 
314 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Now, as Popish priests pervert the proper mean- 
 ing of these, and many other passages of the word of 
 God, in order to maintain the doctrine of the mass, 
 they are evidently guilty of wresting them, in the pro- 
 per sense of the word. 
 
 Romanists, according to their shuffling manner in 
 debate, object, saying, that although they cannot offer 
 up Christ a bloody sacrifice, they can, nevertheless, 
 offer him up a bloodless one, which objection we refute 
 thus : If they are able to do this, they must allow, 
 that the apostles, to say the least of it, were fully as 
 well qualified ; and, hence, it follows, that they were 
 able to offer up Christ without blood, at the very 
 time in which he was offering himself with blood 
 upon the cross, which is vastly absurd. But, ac- 
 cording to their own principles, it cannot be a blood- 
 less sacrifice, for they maintain, that the whole per- 
 fect Christ, as he lived in the flesh, is contained in 
 the bread alone, in their apology for withholding the 
 cup of blessing from the laity ; now, if the whole 
 perfect Christ, as he lived in the flesh, be in the con- 
 secrated bread, it follows, that, when the body is of- 
 fered up, the blood is offered up also. But, even 
 supposing they could offer up Christ a bloodless 
 sacrifice, what good purpose would it serve either the 
 living or the dead ? we answer. None ; because it 
 would be an offering in vain, according to Heb. ix. 
 22, where we are told, and would to God, that every 
 ignorant Papist knew it savingly and to profit, that 
 
POPISH MASS. 315 
 
 " Without the shedding of blood, there can be no 
 remission of sin." 
 
 The Popish Church, knowing that the sacrifice 
 of the mass cannot, according to the scriptures, be a 
 propitiatory offering, shifts wonderfully for its main- 
 tenance, saying, " That it is a sacrifice to apply 
 unto us the sacrifice which Christ offered up unto 
 God for us upon the cross." They grant that 
 Christ's oblation upon the cross was all-sufficient to 
 procure the pardon of the whole world ; but, this sa- 
 crifice is nevertheless to be every day repeated, in 
 order to apply to particular persons the benefits that 
 were at first obtained by it. 
 
 Now, to this, we observe, ^^''^^j that the scriptures 
 authorize us to believe, that a propitiatory sacrifice 
 procures the pardon of all sins to the offender ; and, 
 therefore, if Christ's sacrifice did that, and this the 
 scriptures assure us of, there can be no need of any 
 other. If the debt be once paid, there is no justice 
 that can exact it again. Christ paid this debt for us 
 by the shedding of his blood ; and, therefore, divine 
 justice is fully satisfied ; and, hence, every sinner is 
 pardoned and received again unto the favour of his 
 Maker, who will, with a believing heart, repent of his 
 sins, and turn from them unto God, with full pur- 
 pose of, and endeavour after new obedience. The 
 gospel, the sacraments, and faith, are all that is ne- 
 cessary to apply the sacrifice of Christ to particular 
 persons, as we may learn from 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, 
 
316 . POPISH MASS. 
 
 where it is said, to every individual present: " Take, 
 eat, this is my body which is broken for you, this do 
 in remembrance of me;" from 2 Tim. iii. 15, where 
 we read these words of Paul to Timothy, " From 
 a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which 
 are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through 
 faith, which is in Christ Jesus." 
 
 But, we observe, secondly^ that no sacrifice can 
 be applied to men by means of offering up another 
 sacrifice. Were it possible, it would thus follow, 
 that the satisfaction of God could be applied to men, 
 by satisfying still more ; which, besides being absurd 
 in itself, argues that God was not satisfied with the 
 offering of Christ upon the cross, which is false, ac- 
 cording to the scriptures. Again, were this possible, 
 it would follow, that the payment, by Christ, of that 
 debt, which we, by nature, owe unto God, and can- 
 not pay, is to procure the discharge of the debtor, 
 by paying the same amount again and again, which 
 infers either the injustice of God the creditor, or the 
 inadequacy of the first payment, both of which are 
 impiously false according to the scriptures. And, 
 again, were this possible, it would follow, that the 
 reconciliation of God can be applied to man only 
 by reconciliation, which (if it is true) proves, 
 that the blood of Jesus did not make peace be- 
 tween God and man ; and hence that his atoning 
 blood was shed in vain, which is contrary to the word 
 of reconciliation. Hence, we see that it is as foolish 
 
POPISH MASS. 317 
 
 to suppose that any thing can be applied unto men, 
 by being applied unto God, as to suppose that a 
 patient could be benefited by applying the prescribed 
 medicine to the doctor. 
 
 But I observe, in the third place, that in the 
 Popish Secreta of the office of the Dead, (" Miss. 
 Ser, in Offic. mort.,") Romanists pray thus : " Re- 
 ceive, O Lord, for the soul of thy servant, the Host 
 which thou didst offer to God the Father for us 
 bountifully." Now, is it not evident, that, if the 
 Host be the very body of Christ, they offer up 
 Christ to himself, and pray that he would receive 
 himself? Yes ; and it is most absurd. And again, 
 in the canon of the mass, they pray, that God would 
 accept the things offered, as he accepted the sacri- 
 fice of his holy child Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, 
 and the offering' of Melchisedec ; but is it not ex- 
 tremely blasphemous to compare the sacrifice of 
 Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedec, (supposing that 
 the last made the offering referred to,) however holy 
 they might be, with the sacrifice of the body and 
 blood of Christ ? 
 
 But I observe, lastly^ that the sacrifice of the 
 mass is no real mystery ; and hence we conclude on 
 Popish principles, that it is no real sacrifice. The 
 mystery has been cleared up by the reflected rays 
 of the gold and silver which it has brought into the 
 treasury of St. Peter's. The sacrifice of the mass 
 is for applying the merits of Christ's first sacrifice to 
 
318 POPISH MASS. 
 
 particular persons ; but this sacrifice the priests have 
 entirely in their own hands ; and therefore, they can 
 either apply it to the benefit of particular persons or 
 not as they please; for if they do not intend to apply 
 it to any individual, it is not applied ; and if they do 
 intend to apply it, then it is applied. That the 
 efficacy of the mass depends upon the priest, is evi- 
 dent from their own authors. One of them says : 
 " It belongs not to God alone, but also to the priest, 
 to distribute the benefits gotten by the sacrifice ; be- 
 cause it is in his power to determine his intention 
 whether he will offer for this or that man ; so it be- 
 longs to him to determine to whom he will com- 
 municate what is gotten by virtue of that sacrifice." 
 Thomas Aquinas expresses it more briefly thus : 
 " The mass is beneficial to them to whom the priest 
 hath an intention to apply it." Now, this being the 
 case, it may be easily supposed how convenient it is 
 for the getting of the priest's good intentions to ap- 
 ply the benefit of the sacrifice that is offered to us 
 to make good application to him before hand. 
 
 Hence it appears, then, that whosoever offers up 
 another sacrifice, either by way of application, or 
 propitiation, than that which Christ offered upon the 
 cross, and by which the sins of believers are taken 
 away, thereby teaches that contrary to Gal. v. 2, 3, 4, 
 tkat we may hope for redemption and reconciliation 
 with God some other way than through faith in 
 the blood which was shed upon the cross ; that the 
 
POPISH MASS. 319 
 
 whole passion of Christ is insufficient for salvation ; 
 and, consequently that his sufferings and death were 
 in vain and of none effect, — which God forbid ! 
 
 Argument Sixth. — Our sixth argument against 
 the sacrament of the mass, is, that it is administered 
 to the laity only in one kind. None but the priest 
 who consecrates, has the benefit of the cup; and 
 this the Popish Church holds so indispensable and 
 necessary, that the Council of Constance excom- 
 municated all those ministers who give the cup to 
 lay members ; and in pursuance of what this Coun- 
 cil decreed concerning this, the Council of Trent 
 has made the two following canons, viz. : " If any 
 one shall say, that all the faithful people of Christ 
 are bound by any commandment of God, or as ne- 
 cessary to salvation to receive the sacrament, of the 
 Eucharist in both kinds, let him be accursed ;" and, 
 " If any one shall say, that there were not just 
 causes and reasons moving the Church to administer 
 the sacrament to the laity under one kind only, that 
 of bread, or shall say, that the Church hath erred 
 therein, let him be accursed." Such is the law and 
 practice of the Popish Church. In the Council of 
 Trent there were many who opposed the passing of 
 this decree. The ambassadors both of the emperor 
 of Germany and king of France, and many of the 
 provinces of Germany also, did very earnestly in the 
 name of their masters petition the Council against 
 it, and represented the dangerous consequences of 
 
320 POPISH MASS. 
 
 withholding the cup from the laity. But notwith- 
 standing all their endeavours, they could not prevail. 
 So strong was the Pope's faction in that Council, 
 that they carried the continuance of the sacriligious 
 denial of the cup which the Council of Constance 
 had brouofht in. One of the cardinals was so zea- 
 lous for the Mother of abominations, that he pro- 
 tested, saying: *' That he would never give his con- 
 sent that the people should have a cup of such deadly 
 poison administered to them, as that cup was which 
 they desired ; and it was better that they should die 
 than have such a remedy." The greatest reasons 
 which they assigned for withholding it, were the 
 three following; — They said, " That those who were 
 for the cup, were disaffected persons, and not true 
 Catholics ; and if they should condescend to them 
 in that particular, they would be asking next for the 
 service performed in a known tongue, and such 
 other thing's as the Church of Rome could not al- 
 low." 2fi?/y, They said, " That the clergy were 
 already in sufficient contempt, and if they should let 
 the people enjoy the same privileges in the sacra- 
 ment with them, it would, in a manner, render the 
 priest and the people equal, and thus they would be 
 brought into further contempt." And, Zdly^ They 
 said, " That the Church of Rome cannot err. But 
 that Church, in the Council of Constance, had taken 
 away the cup from the people, and had given good 
 reasons for it. If, therefore, they should grant it to 
 
POPISH MASS. 321 
 
 them again, it would be a shrewd argument to 
 heretics that the Church had been before in a mis- 
 take ; which to suppose was intolerable. 
 
 Now, we say, that whether it be tolerable or not, in 
 this affair, the Popish Church did egregiously err, as 
 we shall now prove from the word of divine inspiration. 
 And we observe,^r5^. That it is evident from the end 
 and design of this sacrament, that the Church of Rome 
 egregiously errs in withholding the cup of blessing 
 from the laity. This ordinance, even according to 
 the Church of Rome itself, is a commemorating or- 
 dinance in remembrance of the Redeemer as of an 
 absent friend, of his friendship and love, and of his 
 sufferings and death for our redemption : " Do this," 
 says the Saviour, " in remembrance of me :" " As 
 often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup," says the 
 apostle, *' ye do shew forth the Lord's death until he 
 come." It is evidently a confessing ordinance, for 
 when communicating, it is our duty to confess that 
 we are a spiritual, a peculiar people, zealous of good 
 works — Christians not in name only, but also in 
 spirit — the servants and soldiers of Christ to the 
 end;of our lives, in faithfulness and all manner of 
 holiness — not ashamed of his cross, of our depend- 
 ance upon, and confidence in him — and that he is 
 our prophet, our priest, and our king, according to 
 our baptismal vow, and the words of the gospel. It 
 is evident, that it is also a communicating ordinance. 
 In it, gospel truths are offered to us by God, and ac- 
 
 X 
 
322 POPISH MASS. 
 
 cepted by us by faith. The apostle Paul, in his 
 explication of it, says, " The cup of blessing which 
 we bless," (meaning, which we beseech God to bless 
 for us, with and for which we bless God, and in 
 which we hope and trust, and expect, that God will 
 bless us,) is the communion, or, in other words, 
 communication of the blood of Christ; and the 
 bread which we break, is the communion of the body 
 of Christ," " which was broken for you ;" meaning, 
 which was not only broken for us upon the cross 
 when it was an offering for sin, but which is also 
 broken to us, as the children's bread is broken in the 
 word of reconciliation, in which word, or gospel, it 
 is made the food of souls. But, it is, moreover, a 
 covenanting ordinance. Our Saviour, himself, says, 
 that the sacramental cup is the New Testament in 
 his blood. It is, therefore, a thing which is not only 
 of, or belonging to the New Testament, but a thing 
 which contains it, just as much as a parchment, on 
 which any human testament or will is written, con- 
 tains that testament. It contains not only a part or 
 explanation of the New Testament, but the whole 
 sum and substance of it. The original word AiecSv^Kn, 
 signifies both a testament and a covenant. In gene- 
 ral, it signifies that instrument by which a right 
 passes and is conveyed from one person to another, 
 and by which a title to something good is given by 
 one person to another. Accordingly, therefore, the 
 revelation of God's grace and will is both a testa- 
 
POPISH MASS. 323 
 
 ment and a covenant ; and the Lord's Supper has a 
 reference to it, yea to every part of it, as being both ; 
 and, consequently, it must be a covenanting ordi- 
 nance. The tenor of the covenant of grace, is, 
 " Beheve on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt 
 be saved." Salvation, therefore, on the part of God, 
 is the great promise in the covenant; and believing 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ, on the part of sinners, is 
 the condition of the covenant and necessary qualifi- 
 cations in the person receiving. Now, as the cup 
 in the sacrament, is both the sign and seal of this 
 covenant of grace, it necessarily follows, that he 
 who drinks out of it, in faith, viz., saying, with a 
 willing mind and an obedient heart, as in Exod. 
 xxiv. 7, " All that the Lord hath said will we do," 
 receives the blessings of that gracious, infinitely 
 wise, and divinely ordered covenant. 
 
 Now, since, as hence appears, this sacrament is 
 a commemorating, confessing, communicating, and 
 covenanting ordinance, we would ask Romanists 
 whether the whole church, or the clergy only are 
 to commemorate the love and friendship, the suf- 
 ferings and death, of Christ, their absent Lord? and, 
 whether it be necessary for the clergy only thus 
 to keep in remembrance the promise of his second 
 coming? and, moreover, whether they can prove 
 that the laity ought not thus to commemorate Christ? 
 and would tell them, that, until they can prove 
 that the laity ought not, we will protest against 
 
324 POPISH MASS. 
 
 their withholding the cup of blessing from them. 
 Since this sacrament is a confessing ordinance, we 
 farther ask Romanists, whether the whole Church, 
 or the clergy only, are to confess themselves 
 to be Christians, faithful followers of Christ, de- 
 pending upon, and confiding in him for salvation ? 
 and tell them, that, if they admit that the whole 
 Church is bound to confess these things, they err 
 egregiously in withholding the sacramental cup from 
 the laity. Again, since it is hence evident, that the 
 sacrament of the Supper is a communicating ordi- 
 nance, we still farther ask Romanists whether the 
 whole Church, or a part of her only, whether the 
 laity or the clergy only, are to hold communion 
 with Christ in the sacrament of the Supper ; and 
 whether the laitv have not need, as well as the 
 clergy, of the blessings therein communicated to the 
 faithful ; and whether, they may not have more need 
 of it as a means of grace, as, perhaps, to them a 
 more lively sign of the shed blood of Christ, espe- 
 cially as they are generally most illiterate ? and, if 
 they cannot answer against the whole Church, then, 
 we say, that they act a very sinful and audacious 
 part in withholding the cup of blessing from the 
 laity. And, lastly^ since it hence appears, that 
 the sacrament is a covenanting ordinance, we ask 
 Romanists whether the whole Church, or the 
 clergy only, in the sacrament of the Supper, are re- 
 quired to enter into covenant with God, saying, 
 
POPISH MASS. 325 
 
 accordinof to Exod. xxiv. 7, " All that the Lord 
 hath spoken, will we do ?" and, if they cannot 
 answer against the whole Church, we will continue 
 our protest against their withholding of the cup of 
 blessing from the laity ; because, according to 
 Christ's institution of this sacrament, it is one of the 
 two seals of the new covenant, which is, " Believe in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." 
 
 But I observe, in the second place, that Ro- 
 manists cannot defend the impropriety of withhold- 
 ing the sacramental cup from the laity from the 
 words of the institution. The Apostle Paul applies 
 the words of our Saviour, as recorded in Matt. xxvi. 
 27, to the whole Church, and not to the clergy only ; 
 the words are these : " He took the cup, and gave 
 thanks, and gave it to them, (that is, to the twelve 
 disciples,) saying : ' Drink ye all of it.' " Now, if this 
 was not the proper interpretation of our Saviour's 
 words, he never would have said, as he says in 1 Cor. 
 X. 16, " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it 
 not the communion of the blood of Christ ?" Nor 
 could he have said, as in chap. xi. 26, " So often 
 as ye drink of this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death 
 until he come." Nor could he have said, as in verse 
 28th of the same chapter, " Let a man (that is, any 
 man, whether he be a clergyman or a laic,) so ex- 
 amine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and 
 drink of this cup." Nor could he have said, as in 
 chap. x. 11, 12, " Now all these things happened 
 
326 POPISH MASS. 
 
 unto them for ensamples ; and they are written for 
 our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world 
 are come. Wherefore, let him that thinketh he 
 standeth take heed lest he fall." We say the Apostle 
 Paul could not have thus expressed himself, unless 
 it had been to teach the Church, that every member 
 belonging to it had an equal right to participate of 
 the cup of blessing in the Sacrament of the Supper ; 
 and hence we conclude, that both the design of the 
 institution and the words of it, authorise us to protest 
 against the withholding of the cup of blessing, as a 
 practice that is quite Antichristian, 
 
 Argument Seventh, — The mode (which see in 
 the explication) in which the mass is administered 
 is unscriptural. 
 
 And, Jirst, We observe, that this may be inferred 
 from the names which the apostles gave to the Lord's 
 Supper. This New Testament Sacrament, in 
 1 Cor. xi. 20, 21, is called the Lord's Supper, evi- 
 dently from the time of the day (Matt. xxvi. 20,) in 
 which it was originally instituted, which was on that 
 memorable night when our Lord, after having eaten 
 the passover with his disciples, w^as betrayed into the 
 hands of sinners. But though this is the proper ap- 
 pellation of this sacrament, the primitive Christians 
 gave it several others. In 1 Cor. xi. 20, 23, it 
 is called Coming together ; because, in order to 
 the celebration of it, the Church assembled, which 
 argues that Popish priests, who celebrate it in a cor- 
 
POPISH MASS. 327 
 
 ner, have apostatized from the primitive practice of 
 the Church. It is called the Eucharist^ which v^^ord 
 signifies thanksgiving, on account of the blessing at 
 the time of consecrating the elements, as we learn 
 from Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, and 1 Cor. xi. 24. It was 
 called Agape, that is, love-feast ; because, upon a 
 certain day, after partaking of it, the Church met at 
 a common feast ; the rich, even after the equality 
 of property had ceased, bringing along with them 
 provisions both for themselves and the poor, all of 
 whom were invited ; and it seems that they had 
 therein respect to Acts ii. 42, where we are told, 
 " That they continued in fellowship, and breaking 
 of bread;" and also to 1 Cor. x. 17, where the 
 apostle says : " We being many, are one bread and 
 one body." They gave it, from Acts xiii. 2, the 
 name of Liturgy, w^hich signifies a public service, or 
 word ; and, as the Church of Rome calls it the mass, 
 and makes a private work of it, we hence infer, that 
 it either does not understand the meaning- of that 
 term, or has found a new light, which shows it 
 neither to do nor to say as the primitive Christian 
 did. The ancient Christians called this ordinance 
 the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, 
 from its being a sign of a holy thing, with a promise 
 annexed to it, that is, from its being a visible sign of 
 an invisible grace, which cannot be applied to the 
 sacrifice of the mass, as is evident from the doctrine 
 
328 POPISH MASS. 
 
 of transubstantiation. In the primitive days of the 
 Church, it was also called an Offering^ not because 
 they supposed that they therein offered the real flesh 
 and blood of Christ, but on account of the bread, 
 wine, alms, prayers, thanksgivings, and devotions, 
 which they brought and offered (thinking of the of- 
 fering of Christ upon the Cross) to God, for the 
 benefit of the whole congregation or church. And, 
 lastly, it came to be called the Sacrament of the 
 Altar, from the custom they had, not of offering 
 thereon the real body and blood of Christ, but of 
 putting the things offered by the people, and belong- 
 ing to the sacrament, upon an elevated place, which, 
 in the Church of Rome, if not taken in the Old 
 Testament sense, is nevertheless taken in a very cor- 
 rupted one, as we shall prove when come to our ar- 
 gument against Popish Altars. The Apostle Paul, 
 whether from its being- at first both instituted and 
 celebrated at a table, (which, I think, was his motive,) 
 or from its being in his time always celebrated at a 
 table, or from the analogy which subsists between the 
 end and design of this ordinance and feasts at tables, 
 calls it the " Table of the Lord'' in 1 Cor. x. 21, 
 where he says : " Ye cannot be partakers of the 
 table of the Lord and the table of devils." Hence, 
 we infer that there is neither scripture nor apos- 
 tolical practice for teaching what Popish priests 
 teach their communicants, viz., " That thev should 
 
POPISH MASS. 329 
 
 kneel mannerly, fold their hands, and cast down their 
 eyes before the place where the priest is giving the 
 sacrament." 
 
 But, secondly, I observe, that it may be inferred 
 that the mass is not administered according to the 
 scriptures, from the character of its administrators. 
 
 The administrators of the mass are not of the 
 order of those, who, in the primitive Church, admi- 
 nistered the Lord's Supper. This, I know, I proved 
 in my last argument, but, for the sake of exposing 
 Antichrist still farther, I shall briefly state a few 
 things applicable to our present argument. While 
 it is evident, from Matt. xxvi. 26, and 1 Cor. xi. 
 23, that it was Christ himself that instituted this 
 sacrament, it is also evident, fron. many passages of 
 the word of God, that no other than he could be the 
 author of it, and that for these three scriptural rea- 
 sons : 15^5 Because no other than Christ (John xliii. 
 25, and Rom. vi. 23,) can give us the pardon of our 
 sins and eternal life, which are the things signified 
 by it. ^dly. Because, according to Ezek. xx. 18, 
 19, and Matt. xv. 9, it is a part of that religious ser- 
 vice which none but Christ has authority to institute. 
 And, 3c?/y, Because no other than Christ could 
 erect a covenant with his Church, it must be He 
 only that can institute ceremonies to signify and seal 
 the promises contained in that covenant, which are 
 those of mercy and grace to every one that believes 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ according to the scriptures. 
 
330 POPISH MASS. 
 
 But though Christ himself was both the author 
 and first administrator of this New Testament sacra- 
 ment, he could not, on account of his leaving the 
 world, continue the administration thereof; and 
 hence it w^as necessary that he should appoint and 
 authorise others in the Church to administer it in 
 his stead. That there were none others than the 
 apostles at that time, and since the days of the 
 apostles, there have been none others than teachers 
 and preachers of the gospel, ambassadors for Christ 
 only, ministers of Christ only, and stewards of the 
 mysteries of God, yea those who are duly called to 
 the holy ministry, and by the administration of this 
 ordinance, seal the word of reconciliation ; I say, 
 that none others than these were appointed and 
 authorised by Christ, is evident from 1 Cor. iv. 1, 
 where St. Paul says : " Let a man so account of 
 us as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the 
 mysteries of God;" and also from 2 Cor. v. 20, 
 where he says : " Now then we are ambassadors for 
 Christ, as though Christ did beseech you by us, we 
 pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled unto 
 God." Now as the Roman clergy are sacrificing 
 priests, teachers of traditionary legends, preachers of 
 saints and angels, stewards of the mysteries of My- 
 stery the Great of Babylon, beseechers that men 
 would be reconciled unto the Pope who is Antichrist ; 
 we hence infer that they, instead of being the suc- 
 cessors of the apostles, are the successors of the 
 
POPISH MASS. 331 
 
 Pope's faction in the Council of Trent, even of 
 those who gave St. Paul the lie in all things relating 
 to this ordinance ; and conclude that, as far as the 
 character of the administrator can effect the admi- 
 nistration of this ordinance, it is not administered 
 according to the word of God in the Church of 
 Rome. The ordinances of God, to be properly 
 administered, must not be administered by idolaters, 
 which Popish priests themselves say they are, if 
 they cannot convert bread and wine into flesh and 
 blood ; and that they cannot, is the strange admis- 
 sion of Mr Macguire himself, who says : " Christ 
 alone can be called the sacrificing priest." " He is 
 the assistant Pontifex," " Christ is both the priest 
 and the victim ;" or, as Augustine has it : " Christ 
 is both the priest offering and himself the victim." 
 *' A priest pronounces the words of consecration, 
 Christ performs the action ; therefore, the priest 
 does not transubstantiate." Now, since the priests 
 cannot, and since it would be absurd to suppose that 
 Christ makes that to be himself, who was conceived 
 by the power of the Holy Ghost about eighteen 
 hundred years ago ; it follows that there is no tran- 
 substantiation of the bread and wine at all; and 
 consequently that the celebration of the mass is an 
 idolatrous act, and that those especially who admi- 
 nister it, are spoken against by St. Paul, where he 
 tells the Corinthians, that " They cannot be par- 
 takers of the Lord's table and the table of devils." 
 
332 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Indeed, we can see no method by which Popish 
 priests can evade the charge of being administrators of 
 an idolatrous ordinance at the table of devils, than 
 by denying that there is any such thing in their 
 Church as a communion table at all, which, if they 
 do, it is manifest that theirs is not a Christian Church. 
 Is not Mr Macguire in this instance, a heretical 
 priest? Yes, certainly, but we hope his Church 
 will excuse him, knowing how difficult it is to be 
 consistent in behalf of Popish falsehood and traditions. 
 
 But, thirdly, I observe, that it is evident that the 
 mass is not administered according to the scriptures, 
 from what we are thence informed concerning the 
 elements of the Supper. 
 
 1*^, The species which the Popish clergy employ, 
 are little things made of flour in the form of wafers, 
 called hosts, oblets, and by some, owlets. They 
 are called hosts, from the Latin word hostia, which 
 properly signifies a sacrifice for having obtained the 
 victory over a conquered enemy ; and which is de- 
 rived from the verb hostire, which, being compound 
 of hostem and Jirere, literally signifies to strike the 
 enemy ; and therefore, we may hence infer, that the 
 host is so called with a reference to the wounding of 
 the body of Christ in the sacrament of the mass. 
 They are called oblates, from the Latin word qfferre, 
 because they are offered up to God in the sacrifice 
 of the mass, both for the living and the dead. And 
 they are called owlets, or ovelties, from the English 
 
POPISH MASS. 333 
 
 word to owe, perhaps to teach us that they are as 
 due to divine justice, as was the sacrifice of Christ 
 upon the cross, and that God will be as well satis- 
 fied with the payment of the one as with that of the 
 other, which is rank Popery. 
 
 But these little hosts, both reason, the Church, 
 and the word of God, reject as the base offspring of 
 Mystery the Great of Babylon. Reason says, that, 
 as they do not resemble bread of any kind, they are 
 not proper signs of the promises of the gospel. The 
 Church maintains on the authority of her well au- 
 thenticated history, that she was not forced to eat 
 them for many centuries, even until she was sent 
 into the wilderness by Antichrist, to make room in 
 Rome for his scarlet lady, where she became so 
 hungry, that she was fain to eat them instead of the 
 " bread of life that cometh down from heaven ;" to 
 say too and endeavour to believe, which was impos- 
 sible, that they were both flesh and blood ; yea, to 
 own her thankfulness for them, though they often 
 stuck in her throat for want of the " cup of salvation." 
 And the word of God rejects them, saying, as in 
 Matt. xxvi. 26, 27 : " Jesus took bread ; and he 
 took the cup ;" concerning which expressions, we 
 observe the three following particulars : viz.. That 
 by Christ's " taking " bread and wine and applying 
 them to this sacramental ordinance, he signified 
 that, as had been foretold of him in Isaiah liii. 
 8, he was to be taken from among men ; — that 
 
334 POPISH MASS. 
 
 as the Lamb of God, he was to be offered up upon 
 the cross for the sin of the world ; — that he was to 
 be sent to the Father to be our great High Priest 
 and advocate, and that he was thence to be received 
 as the spiritual meat and drink of our souls by the 
 hand of faith. 
 
 But, 2^/z/, with respect to the particular sort of 
 the bread and wine which Christ employed in the 
 institution of this sacrament, we observe, that he 
 took of the same sort of bread and wine which thev 
 had been using in the paschal feast. Though we 
 are not certain what kind of wine they had been 
 using, yet from its being sacramental wine, and 
 hence an emblematical sign of the promise of the 
 gospel, it is reasonable to suppose, that its colour 
 was the nearest to that of blood, and that it bore the 
 greatest resemblance to that now generally used of 
 any that the Holy Land produced. With respect 
 to the bread, however, we say, that though we are 
 certain, that it was unleavened bread, it does not ap- 
 pear from scripture that it either concerns the sa- 
 crament what sort of bread is used, or that the 
 Church is bound to use any kind of it rather than 
 another, provided that it is common bread, and so fit 
 for the nourishment of our bodies, that the sacra- 
 mental analogy between the sign and the thing sig- 
 nified may be fully preserved. Our authority for 
 saying this, will be found in 1 Cor. xi. 23, &c., where 
 it is said, not that he took unleavened bread, but 
 
POPISH MASS. 335 
 
 simply, that " he took bread," which he would not 
 have said, if the Church had been restricted to the 
 use of a particular species of it. In Acts xx. 7, it is 
 said, " when the disciples came together to eat, not 
 unleavened bread, or any other particular kind of it, 
 but simply to eat bread ; and, hence, as well as from 
 many other expressions in the word of God, relative 
 to the sacramental bread, we confirm the truth of the 
 above conclusion. But the same thing may be 
 proved from the fact, that particular churches may 
 be so circumstanced, that it would be impossible to 
 procure either bread or wine of any kind ; now, if the 
 Church were limited to the use of a particular sort 
 of bread and wine, it is evident, that, in that case, 
 the local circumstances of the Church would prevent 
 its members from assembling to celebrate the Lord's 
 Supper, which from 1 Cor. x., appears to be wrong, as 
 long as they had good and wholesome meat and drink 
 among them to use for signs in the sacrament of the 
 supper. In 1 Cor. x., where the apostle compares 
 the manna of the Israelites, with our bread, and the 
 water with which they were supplied from the rock 
 Meribah, with our wine, he calls them, in verses 4th 
 and 5th, " the same meat, and the same drink," 
 without doubt, meaning, that they were the same in 
 use and signification. Now, because these were the 
 same in use and signification, we, by converting 
 the terms, may certainly say, that the sacramental 
 bread and wine, is the same with the manna and the 
 
336 POPISH MASS. 
 
 water of the rock; and as these, though miracu- 
 lously given, were the common meat and drink of 
 the Israelites in the wilderness, we may substitute 
 the common meat and drink of any other people, 
 and say, that the sacramental bread and wine, are 
 the same with the common meat and drink of any 
 people, in a sacramental use and signification. And 
 this being admitted, we may hence conclude, that 
 the Church of Rome cannot, consistently with her 
 own principles, be a universal Church, because she, 
 in the doctrine of transubstantiation, require " fit 
 matter," that is, according to her opinion, wheat 
 ground into flour, and that flour baked into wafers, 
 before it needs be expected that transubstantiation 
 will take place, without which there can be no sacrifice 
 of the mass, and, consequently, no Popish Church. 
 But, Zdly, we observe, that though it is enough 
 for us to know that our Lord and Saviour did con- 
 stitute this sacrament with bread and wine, and hence 
 that the Church is bound to use the same emblems 
 where it is possible to procure them, yet, we say, 
 that a better reason can be given by Protestants why 
 he used them, than can be assigned by Romanists. 
 They say that he took bread and wine, that he might 
 convert them into his own flesh and blood, which is 
 absurd ; we say, on the contrary, that he took bread 
 and wine, as being the most emblematical of the 
 things signified, and that they wculd not otherwise 
 have been considered by our Lord fit to be used. 
 
POPISH >iAss. 337 
 
 It is evident that there is the strongest and most 
 beautiful analogy subsisting between a common and 
 a spiritual feast. As bread and wine are fully suffi- 
 cient to satisfy our corporal hunger and thirst, to 
 nourish us, and hence to maintain and increase 
 our bodily strength and vigour, so the body and 
 blood of Christ, spiritually considered, are fully suf- 
 ficient to satisfy our spiritual hunger and thirst, (that 
 is, our hungering and thirsting after righteousness,) 
 to feed and nourish babes in Christ, to increase the 
 strength and vigour of those that are strong in the 
 Lord, and to bring all to the stature of perfect men 
 in his saving knowledge. Our Saviour, I say, know- 
 ing all this infinitely better than either men or angels, 
 used bread and wine, as also did the Apostle Paul, 
 according as he had received, as signs and seals of 
 the benefits of the covenant of grace in the Sacra- 
 ment of the Supper. But another design which our 
 Saviour evidently had in employing bread and wine 
 in the Sacrament of the Supper, was, that he might 
 thereby shew that the faith of both the Old and New 
 Testament saints was the same in respect of its ob- 
 ject ; that between the law and the gospel there is a 
 harmony that may be said to be in unison ; that the 
 Jewish and Christian dispensations of religion are es- 
 sentially the same ; that he himself is the person on 
 whom their identity depends ; that the Old Testament 
 saints, by means of t}^ical sacrifices and other 
 figures, worshipped a Saviour to come; and the New 
 
 Y 
 
338 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Testament saints, by means of the gospel and gospel 
 ordinances, which are also emblematical, worship a 
 Saviour that has already come, suffered, died, risen 
 from the dead, and ascended into heaven, there to 
 carry on his mediatorial work till the restitution of 
 all things ; and, finally, that that Church which be- 
 lieves otherwise may be thence assured, that, in- 
 stead of being either a Patriarchal, Levitical, or 
 Christian Church, is an antichristian assembly, and 
 hence a synagogue of Satan. 
 
 But, Athly, I observe, that it is evident from what 
 the word of God informs us of the consecration of 
 the sacramental bread and wine, that the consecra- 
 tion of the mass is not according to scripture. 
 
 To consecrate anything, is to dedicate it, to devote 
 it, and to set it apart from a profane or common use, to 
 one that is sacred and holy. When the sacramental 
 elements, therefore, are consecrated, they are set 
 apart to a sacramental use. They are, in virtue 
 thereof, so hallowed in use and signification, that 
 they become a sacrament of the body and blood of 
 Christ, as is evident from 1 Cor. x. 16, where the 
 apostle says : " The cup of blessing which we bless, 
 is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? and 
 the bread which we break, is it not the communion 
 of. the body of Christ ? " 
 
 Popish priests consecrate (if such, according to 
 their principles, it may be called,) their wafers and 
 wine, by breathing over them, signing them with the 
 
POPISH MASS. 339 
 
 sign of the cross, crying or singing to them, stand- 
 ing, walking, and bowing before them, Hfling the 
 bread over their heads, kissing the cup, speaking to 
 them in an unknown tongue, and by saying : " Hoc 
 enim est corpus meum" the last syllable of which 
 being finished, the consecration is completed, and 
 the bread and wine are then, in their opinion, the 
 very flesh and blood which constituted the human 
 nature of Christ previous to his death upon the cross, 
 and which constitutes it still in heaven. Such being 
 the Popish mode of consecrating the sacramental 
 bread and wine, I shall now shew the Protestant 
 mode thereof, which, I am happy to think, is the 
 same that the apostle Paul and our Saviour himself 
 observed. From the words of the institution, in 
 Matt. xxvi. 26, we learn, that Jesus took bread and 
 blessed it ; in the 27th verse, we are informed, that 
 he took the cup, and gave thanks ; and, in 1 Cor. xi. 
 23, 24, we are told that " Christ took bread, and 
 when he had given thanks, he brake it." Now, the 
 question upon which the argument turns, is this : 
 What are we to understand by the expressions. He 
 blessed it, and He gave thanks? Surely not the 
 Popish mode of consecration ? By no means ; but, 
 on the contrary, we are to understand, that in conse- 
 crating the sacramental elements, we are to bless God 
 for the institution, by repeating the words of it, by de- 
 claring the promises which are made by our Saviour 
 to all that worthily partake of the sacrament, by 
 
340 POPISH MASS. 
 
 invoking the name of God, by giving him thanks 
 for the benefits bestowed on us by his well-beloved 
 Son, and by praying that he would assist us, by his 
 grace, to realize the spiritual blessings of the com- 
 munion of the Lord's broken body and shed blood. 
 
 But, in the consecrating of the elements, some- 
 thing more is signified than a mere change of the 
 bread and wine from a common to a sacred use. 
 There is in the very act of consecrating something 
 sacramental. It is a sign of something referring 
 to Christ, whose sufferings and death we in that 
 sacrament commemorate. Blessing the elements, 
 and thus setting them apart, signifies the conse- 
 cration and setting apart of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, 1 6'^, To the work of our redemp- 
 tion in the eternal decrees of God, or covenant 
 of grace ; and, 2dly, As it were, by his suffer- 
 ings and death, to be our great High- Priest and 
 Advocate with the Father, which gospel mystery the 
 sacrifice of the mass cannot embrace : because it 
 teaches, that Christ leaves the Father, comes down 
 to earth, waits upon a priest till he has pronounced 
 the last syllable of the word " meum^' and then slips 
 in, or, in some other way, fills up all of a wafer that 
 is contained in its fairy case of accidents. 
 
 But, Stilly, I observe, that it is evident from what 
 the word of God teaches us concerning the distribu- 
 tion of the elements, that the mass is not administered 
 according to the scriptures. 
 
POPISH MASS. 341 
 
 In the Church of Rome there is no scriptural 
 distribution of the elements. These words of the 
 Institution, " he gave unto them," and " take" do 
 not apply unto the mass, unless, it be meant by "he 
 gave unto them," that he put his body into their 
 mouth, or held it to their mouth, and that by the 
 expression, " take," he desired them to receive it as 
 dogs receive crumbs from their master's table. 
 When the sacrifice of the mass is administered, the 
 priest is at the altar, (if such it can be called,) at 
 which the communicant " kneels mannerly," folds 
 his hands, casts down his eyes for some time, then 
 holds up his head upright, lays his tongue on his un- 
 der lip, upon which the priest lays the host, or con- 
 secrated wafer ; all which ceremonies Romanists be- 
 lieve to be most consistent with the mode of giving 
 and receiving the sacramental bread and wine at the 
 last supper of our Lord, and in the primitive 
 Church, which to say the least of it, is a Popish 
 mistake. In all Protestant Churches, however, 
 there is a scriptural distribution of the elements. 
 No officiating minister in them gives a whole piece 
 of bread, little or large to each of the communicants ; 
 but, on the contrary, and for the following reasons, 
 he breaks it in their presence, and communicates it, 
 in this broken state, to the receivers, who take it in 
 their hands, and distribute it among themselves, the 
 deacons of the Church assisting them, and supply- 
 ing with more as need requires : Firsts Because he 
 
342 POPISH MASS. 
 
 finds he has the example of Christ for so doing, in 
 Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, in Mark xiv. 22, in Luke xxii. 
 19, 20, and in 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25. His second 
 reason is, because the apostles, after the pattern of 
 Christ, did the same, as is evident from 1 Cor. x. 
 16, where Paul says : " The bread which we break;" 
 and also from Acts xx. 7, where we are told, " That 
 when the disciples, upon the first day of the week, 
 came together to break bread, Paul preached unto 
 them, (viz., to them of the Church at Troas,) ready 
 to depart on the morrow ; and continued his speech 
 till midnight." His third reason is, that it was 
 for many centuries the custom of the Christian 
 Church to break the sacramental bread previous to 
 its distribution among the communicants, as can be 
 proved from ecclesiastical history. And his fourth 
 reason is, that he knows, that the distribution there- 
 of among the communicants, signifies, that Christ, 
 with all his benefits, is freely bestowed upon all peni- 
 tent and believing men, even upon every one in par- 
 ticular. And \\\sjifth reason is, because he knows 
 that communicants are, by that part of the ceremony, 
 particularly reminded of the crucifying and breaking 
 of Christ's body upon the cross for our sins ; and 
 that they are enabled, by the assistance of the Holy 
 Spirit, who enables whom he will to lay hold, by the 
 hand of faith, and by means of these words of Christ, 
 " This is my body which is broken for you," to say 
 " I believe that the body of Christ was broken and 
 
POPISH MASS. 343 
 
 offered up, and that his blood was shed for me upon 
 the cross, as certainly as I perceive the signs there- 
 of, viz., the bread broken, and the wine poured out, 
 and communicated to me by his servant in his stead." 
 
 But, lastly^ I observe, that it is evident, from 
 what the word of God informs us concerning eating 
 and drinking the sacramental elements, that the mass 
 is not administered according to the scriptures. 
 
 In the Catholic Catechism of Van den Berge, 
 we are told, that the host must be laid on the top of 
 the receiver's tongue ; that it must be thereby swal- 
 lowed down without chewing it ; and that a little 
 wine unconsecrated, (for were it consecrated it 
 would transform every communicant into a sacri- 
 ficing priest,) may be given to get off the relics of 
 the host, (the accidents, I suppose,) which may be 
 sticking to the mouth ; which certainly argues, that 
 it is no uncommon thing for Papists to lacerate with 
 their teeth, and toss about in their mouths, the mang- 
 led carcass of the falsely supposed body of Christ ; 
 and, consequently, to shed his blood ; thus, literally, 
 putting to death the Lord afresh. 
 
 But, instead of following out these absurd conse- 
 quences of this Popish doctrine any farther at pre- 
 sent, I shall now briefly state what the word of God 
 says concerning eating and drinking the sacramental 
 bread and wine. In Matt. xxvi. 26, and 1 Cor. xi. 
 24, it teaches, that we must not stop with receiving 
 the elements into our hands, and putting them into 
 
344 POPISH MASS. 
 
 our mouths, but that we must forthwith proceed to 
 eat of that bread, and to drink of that wine. But, 
 what are we to understand by the eating and drink- 
 ing here mentioned ? evidently from the proper sig- 
 nification of the terms, eating and drinking in the 
 common way. The word, " eat," in the original is 
 6xyecli derived from a Hebrew word ns which signi- 
 fies the mouth, which word is used in a great multi- 
 plicity of places in the New Testament, and invari- 
 ably signifies to eat in the common way, viz., by 
 masticating or chewing the food eaten. 
 
 If the Popish mode of eating the host, which is 
 by swallowing it whole without chewing, were scrip- 
 tural, we would, instead of the word ixyecle have had 
 the compound Greek word ¥.c[\x(pxyec\t, which pro- 
 perly signifies to devour, to swallow down greedily, 
 or that species of eating which is practised among 
 the peasantry of the Venta Belgarienses, and which 
 they call bolting, but which, when compared with 
 the whole-like-bolting of Romanists, appears to be 
 almost unworthy of the name ; because, they bolt 
 only bits of flesh, whereas Romanists (horreo dum 
 refero) swallow, as they suppose, at one gulp, 
 (mirabile factu,) the whole body of the man Christ 
 Jesus, who is, all the while, in heaven. I wonder if 
 they are empowered to do this wonderment in ful- 
 filment of the typical swallowing of Jonah by the 
 whale ! If they say that they are, all that I have to 
 respond is, that they are certainly whalers. But these 
 
POPISH MASS, 345 
 
 Hampshire bolters are said to have the power of 
 ruminating ; with which power, perhaps, Romanists 
 are favoured also, as they certainly stand in much 
 greater need of it ; and if they have this power at the 
 time of bolting the host, it is but reasonable to sup- 
 pose, that it will not have been long in the stomach 
 till it is brought up again, to be chewed as cud, and 
 then devoured afresh. O that Romanists would 
 ruminate on the absurdness and vileness of the doc- 
 trine of tran substantiation and the mass, till, in dis- 
 gust therewith, they, protesting against them, would 
 return to the truth as it is in Jesus. 
 
 But, to return from this apparent digression, we 
 observe, that though we Protestants eat only bread 
 and drink only wine in this holy ordinance, we do 
 not therefore eat and drink them as we would in a 
 common meal, or at a common feast, which, accord- 
 ing to 1 Cor. xi. 22, are not to be celebrated in the 
 Church. On the contrary, we eat the bread and 
 drink the wine, discerning the Lord's body, that is, 
 sacramen tally; for we thereby signify, that we therein 
 receive the body and blood of Christ broken and 
 shed upon the cross for our soul's salvation, not after 
 a corporal and carnal manner, as Romanists suppose 
 they do, but in the most suitable manner, (for the 
 flesh profiteth nothing, and Christ is now in glory,) 
 that is, spiritually, and by faith in the word of pro- 
 mise ; and the end of our doing so is, that we may 
 thereby grow in grace, and at length arrive at the 
 
346 POPISH MASS. 
 
 stature of perfect men in the knowledge of Christ, 
 and attain the full assurance of hope and of everlast- 
 ing life in the realms of bless and glory. And this 
 we do, because, in Matt. xxvi. 27, 28, Mark xiv. 
 22, 23, 24, Luke xxii. 19, 20, I Cor. x. 16, 17, 
 xi. 23, 25, and xii. 13, we are both commanded to 
 do so, and taught that the soul of every worthy com- 
 municant is as certainly fed unto eternal life with the 
 broken body and shed blood of Christ, as he receives 
 and tastes with his bodily mouth the sacramental 
 signs of the body and blood of the Lord, viz., the 
 bread and wine rendered the sacrament thereof by 
 blessing and thanksgiving. Now, if I have satisfac- 
 torily proved that our Protestant manner of celebrat- 
 ing the Lord's Supper, viz., of taking the bread and 
 wine, of consecrating them, of breaking the bread, 
 and pouring out the wine, of giving them to the com- 
 municants seated at a sacramental table, and of their 
 eating and drinking them, is agreeable to the word 
 of God, it must be hence evident, that the Popish 
 mass is not celebrated according to the scriptures, 
 which was the thing to be proved. 
 
 Argument Eighth, — Our eighth argument against 
 the mass is, that the Church of Rome allows masses 
 to be celebrated, in which none communicates but 
 the priest. (See Explication, No 8.) 
 
 That this is a very great abuse of the Sacrament 
 of the Supper, is evident both from the word of God, 
 from the doctrines of the fathers, and also from the 
 
POPISH MASS. 347 
 
 very name which Romanists give to this their Popish 
 rite. 1st, It is evident from the words of the insti- 
 tution of the Sacrament of the Supper, that the 
 manner in which our Lord celebrated it entirely con- 
 demns it. In Matt. xx. 26, 27, 28, we are informed, 
 that our Saviour gave the bread and the wine, after 
 he had consecrated them, to all the disciples, saying : 
 " Eat ye all of it," and " Drink ye of it." Saint 
 Paul, when discoursing on this sacrament, informs 
 us, that one of its principal ends was to unite all 
 Christians into one common body, society, or frater- 
 nity, in 1 Cor. X. 17, saying : '' We being many, are 
 one bread and one body, because we are all partak- 
 ers of that one bread;" m 1 Cor. xii. 13, where he 
 says : " By one Spirit we are all baptised into one 
 body ;" and in chap. xi. 20, where he says : " When 
 ye come together therefore into one place." Now, 
 if we are to imitate the example of Christ in the 
 celebration of this sacrament, and if the doctrines of 
 the Apostle Paul are true, and if we understand these 
 doctrines, which, indeed, are so plain, that a child 
 might almost comprehend their meaning, it is evident 
 that private masses, even though in all other respects 
 they should be scriptural, are contrary to the word of 
 God, and therefore cannot be proper sacraments. 
 
 But, 2dli/, This Popish practice is not only con- 
 demned by the word of God, but also by the unani- 
 mous voice of antiquity. Antiquity, instead of giving 
 the least countenance to any such Antichristian prac- 
 
348 POPISH MASS. 
 
 tices as private masses, sharply reproves all those 
 who, having the opportunity, did not communicate in 
 the Church. The ancient canons are so severe 
 against people who attended the other public ordi- 
 nances of religion, that they declare them excommu- 
 nicate for the neglect of it. There is not one single 
 instance can be given of any Sacrament of the Supper 
 being performed in the Church, in which none but 
 the priest alone received the sacrament, for more than 
 at least six hundred years after Christ. Yea, so sure 
 are we of the truth of this assertion, that we promise 
 submission to the Pope (provided only that he will in 
 all things submit to Christ,) if Romanists can prove 
 it to be false ; but we defy them. 
 
 But, Srf/y, The very name by which Romanists 
 calls this ceremony, proves that private masses are 
 a modern invention of Antichrist. The word mass 
 (Missa) is the name by which the ancients distin- 
 guished the communion service from the other services 
 of the Church. And, as I observed in a former part 
 of this work, it was so called, because, previous to 
 its celebration, the deacon told all who did not intend 
 to communicate, to leave the congregation. Now, 
 if all of them went away, the clergyman must have 
 been left alone, which, therefore to suppose, is ab- 
 surd ; and if they did not all go away, those who 
 remained, undoubtedly remained for the purpose of 
 communicating with the minister. And hence we 
 conclude, that both the Holy Scriptures, the voice 
 
POPISH MASS. 349 
 
 of antiquity, and the name of the mass itself, con- 
 demn the ceremony on account of this Antichristian 
 practice, even supposing that it was, in all other 
 respects, agreeable to the truths contained in the 
 Bible respecting it. 
 
 Argument Ninth, — Our ninth argument, accord- 
 ing to the order in which we stated, them in the 
 explication, (which see,) is that masses are sold by 
 the priests, and bought by the laity in the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 As the priests do not deny the charge of selling 
 masses, though they endeavour to extenuate the 
 crime, we say that it is evident from Rev. xviii. 17, 
 that they are very great merchants ; because, be- 
 sides dealing in offices, dignities, relics, indulgences, 
 pardons, and many other such precious commodi- 
 ties, they deal in masses, selling them for the sake 
 of both the living and the dead, as a doctor does his 
 medicine. They once had a very good stock of 
 evangelical truth in their warehouses, and also the 
 two New Testament Sacraments ; but, having fallen 
 in with a meretricious sharper from Babylon, who 
 threw such a glamary over their eyes, that they 
 could no longer distinguish between truth and false- 
 hood, they tossed out at their windows many of the 
 truths, and much of the ordinances of the gospel ; 
 and, instead of them, by her advice, (for she pre- 
 sided in the Pope's faction at the Council of Trent,) 
 laid in a plentiful supply of traditions, decrees, can- 
 
350 . POPISH MASS. 
 
 nons, and Popish rites. And what is much in their 
 favour, they have a charter, in virtue of which they 
 enjoy the whole monopoly of the trade, as is evident 
 from Rev. xviii. 17, where, in reference thereunto, 
 it is said, " For no man might buy and sell, save 
 he that had the mark, or name of the beast, or the 
 number of his name, which is six hundred three 
 score and six," and which is the mark, name, and 
 number of the Church of Rome, as we shall show 
 in our last argument. But no wonder that they are 
 thus favoured, since they deprived the Lord of a 
 part of his due, that they might worship therewith 
 both saints, angels, pictures, statues, (one of which 
 in Rome is almost worn off its legs with kisses,) and 
 little things which they call saviours, and sell for 
 about a shilling each, in the shape and size of wafers. 
 Now, what shall we say to all this buying and 
 selling, and bartering of masses and other abomi- 
 nations in the Church of Rome ? We shall say, 
 \st, That Papists may say, as Demetrius and the 
 other silver smiths of Ephesus said, when the trade 
 of making shrines for Diana was likely to be taken 
 from them, " by this craft we get our bread." 
 2dl2/, We will say, that the apostle Peter himself, 
 who is the great Mahoz of the Popish Church, in 
 the condemnation of Simon Magus the sorcerer, 
 condemns the venality of Popish masses, and all the 
 other saleable abominations of that corrupt Church. 
 Though Simon was a believer, and a baptized per- 
 
POPISH MASS. 351 
 
 son, yet, because he thought to purchase the Holy 
 Ghost with money, " Peter said unto him," (Acts, 
 viii. 20, 21,) " thy money perish with thee ; thou hast 
 neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is 
 not right in the sight of God." But if the offering 
 of money on the part of Simon, who was a laic, 
 manifested so great a depravity of heart, how much 
 greater depravity of heart would the receiving of it 
 have manifested on the part of Peter, who was a 
 clergyman at that time. Now, as the Popish clergy, 
 in their selling of masses and other Popish abomi- 
 nations, act a part quite contrary to that which Peter 
 acted in the case before us, it is evident that their 
 sin therein, is to that of the laics who purchase them, 
 as the sin of Peter would have been, had he re- 
 ceived Simon's money, to the sin of Simon for offer- 
 ing it. And, moreover, we are hence warranted to 
 say to them, both priests and laity, as Peter said to 
 Simon, " your money perish with you," (because 
 you sell and buy your masses,) " you have neither 
 part nor lot in this matter ; for your hearts are not 
 right in the sight of God." Repent, therefore, of 
 this your wickedness; (I do not advise you to do 
 Popish penance,) and pray to God, if perhaps this 
 your sin of buying and selling your abominable 
 masses may be forgiven you. 
 
 But, 3o?/y, We say, that Popish priests, in the 
 sale of their masses, even supposing them to be the 
 very thing our Lord instituted at the Last Supper, 
 
352 POPISH MASS. 
 
 are very far from being honest dealers. What they 
 sell is not their own but Christ's ; for on this sup- 
 position they belong to that church which he pur- 
 chased with his own blood ; and which, therefore, 
 he intended to be free to all believers, without money 
 and without price, and which, moreover, he will per- 
 mit none to sell or barter with impunity. 
 
 O what pity ought we Protestants to have for 
 Papists on account of this their illicit traffic. Know- 
 ing that, however rich they may become, either in 
 purse, or in the spirit of Popery, " this very night 
 their souls may be required of them ;" and that, as 
 soon as they go hence, they must either prove their 
 right to the spiritual commodities in which they 
 dealt, and also produce all the accounts of their 
 trade, or else be filed off to the left, and led to a 
 prison in which the words of an act in behalf of in- 
 solvent Popish merchants were never heard ! O that 
 Popish priests, before it is too late, would sell, or 
 cast all that they have, even all their other abomina- 
 tions to the moles and the bats, instead of to the 
 poor ignorant and deluded laity ! and O that the 
 laity would anoint their eyes with that spiritual eye- 
 salve, that would cause them to see that Christ is 
 not in the host, and hence be no longer cozened out 
 of their money, nor duped out of the salvation of 
 their souls by believing the words of crafty priests, 
 instead of " Him who is both the way, the truth, 
 and the life." And O that both priests and laics, 
 
POPISH MASS. 353 
 
 in a proper sense of their need of Christ, with evan- 
 gehcal perceptions of his divine excellency, and with 
 a heavenly inspired reliance upon his infinite fulness 
 to enrich them with all blessing, would come unto 
 Him alone, and (Is. Iv. 1) buy wine and milk of him 
 without money and without price ; and gold tried in 
 the fire that they may be rich, and white garments, 
 that the shame of their superstitious ignorance may 
 no longer appear against them. 
 
 Argument Tenth. — Our tenth argument, accord- 
 ing to the order of explication, (which see,) is that 
 Romanists are guilty of the sin of idolatry in the 
 adoration of the host. 
 
 Romanists, when pressed more closely than usual 
 concerning their worshipping of the host, endeavour 
 to extenuate the sin thereof by apologising thus : 
 " Supposing" say they, "that we should be mis- 
 taken in believing the doctrine of transubstantiation, 
 though we hope that we are not, our meaning and 
 intention will clear us of the guilt of the sin of ido- 
 latry, which we hate equally as much as Protestants. 
 We intend only to worship Christ in the host ; and 
 if Christ is not there as we believe him to be, we 
 are no more idolators on account of our mistake, 
 than a man is a traitor to his prince, who, through 
 ignorance, should mistake a courtier for his prince, 
 and render him the homage that was due to his 
 sovereign." 
 
 Now, whoever seriously considers the principles 
 
 z 
 
354 POPISH MASS. 
 
 of this plausible apology, will easily perceive that 
 they are in all respects inconsistent with both reason 
 and revelation. I wondered very much, (and do 
 still,) that there was none either in the House of 
 Commons, or elsewhere, (a. d. 1833,) who offered 
 to shew Daniel O'Connell the falseness of his rea- 
 soning, when he made use of a similar argument, 
 concerning the Popish procession in Malta. Their 
 argument is reducible to this, viz. ; men are not 
 idolators, if, through ignorance and mistake, they 
 worship that which is no deity, instead of the only 
 living and true God ; than which nothing is more 
 contrary to both reason and revelation. Were this 
 argument true, it would prove that there never was 
 a serious man an idolater in the world, which is 
 contrary to the word of God. Idolatry, as we may 
 learn from 2 Chron. xvi. 12, Phil. iii. 19, Gal. iv. 
 8, Eph. ii. 12, and Eph. v. 5, is to invent, or to 
 have any other thing instead of the only living and 
 true God, and to repose hope and confidence in that 
 thing ; and, as all pagans were guilty of this sin 
 through their ignorance, and as their ignorance did 
 not excuse them, (as we may learn from 1 Peter 
 iv, 3, where it is said : " For the time passed of our 
 lives may suffice us to have wrought the will of the 
 Gentiles when we walked in abominable idolatry ;" 
 from Acts xiv. 15, and from 1 Thess. i. 19,) how 
 much greater reason have Romanists, who have the 
 light of revelation to guide them, and who moreover 
 
 I 
 
POPISH MASS. 355 
 
 profess to have embraced it, to dread the wrath of 
 God for worshipping one of the meanest of his crea- 
 tures, even a wafer, instead of himself the Almighty 
 Creator. Let not Romanists, therefore say, that 
 they are not idolaters, if through ignorance and mis- 
 take they worship that which is no God, even a 
 piece of bread, instead of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 There is no comparison between mistakmg a piece 
 of bread or a wafer for God, and a countryman's 
 mistaking a courtier for his prince. Papists have 
 the evidence of deduction, of demonstration, of the 
 laws of nature, the testimony of the senses, the his- 
 tory of the primitive Church, and the word of God 
 to assure them that a consecrated wafer is not the 
 Lord ; whereas the countryman referred to has no 
 such evidence that the courtier is not his prince. 
 
 But Idly, I observe, that even supposing the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation to be true, Romanists can- 
 not be certain that every time they worship the host 
 they are free from the guilt of idolatry. By the 
 confession of their Church, the bread and wine can- 
 not be transubstantiated mthout due consecration ; 
 and that there can be no due consecration, unless 
 there be fit matter, a lawful priest, meaning and in- 
 tention on the part of the priest to make the body 
 of Christ, and a proper pronounciation of the words : 
 " Hoc enim est corpus meumr If any one of these, 
 I say, be a wanting, there can be no consecration ; 
 if there is no consecration, there can be no transub- 
 stantiation ; if no transubstantiation, there can be no 
 
356 POPISH MASS. 
 
 body of Christ; and if no body of Christ, the worship of 
 the host is given to a piece of bread only. There- 
 fore since, as is hence evident, no man, at any time, 
 and much less when he is present at mass and wor- 
 shipping the host, can certainly know whether the 
 consecration has been duly performed, upon which, 
 by supposition, the w^hole depends, it is impossible 
 that he can be certain whether, in the adoration of 
 the host, he worships Christ or only a piece of bread. 
 If Romanists would think of these things previous 
 to their adoration of the host, I could lay my life, 
 that they would not be sincere worshippers of it, even 
 for one day more. 
 
 But as this argument may not be so convincing 
 to the priest-ridden laics of that communion, as we 
 could wish, we will ask anyof them whether, a laic hav- 
 ing begun his adoration of the host, would continue 
 to the end, if he saw a mouse come out of its hole 
 and swallow it ? For my part I am inclined very 
 much to believe that it would at least give him a 
 new idea concerning the breaden god, if it would 
 not make him virtually a Protestant. But to be 
 still more convincing, suppose that the mouse was 
 €aught and put into a cage, I ask any Romanist 
 whether he would conceive it justifiable to worship 
 the host there, even supposing that the mouse was 
 sanctified by holy water and chrism ? (which it cer- 
 tainly would be more worthy of than a bell, w^hich 
 has nothing more divine in it than its cold and hard 
 tongue i) I am sure, moreover, that it would be a very 
 
POPISH MASS. 357 
 
 con^'enient little shrine to carry him about in pro- 
 cession on Corpus- Christi-day; and a very pretty 
 little shrine too, especially if it was a white mouse ? 
 But whence is derived the Popish custom of en- 
 shrining the host, but from the pagans who knew 
 not God. The silver shrines which Demetrius and 
 other craftsmen of Ephesus made for Diana, (Acts. 
 xix. 24,) were small models of her temple with her- 
 self within. " The <sg« of the Greeks," says Clark, 
 in Travel, vol. iii., p. 447, " as well as the taber- 
 nacles of the eastern nations, were sometimes not 
 only portable, but they were so small, that the x.i{lett 
 h^xt used for enclosing them during journeys scarcely 
 exceeded the size of the fashionable snuff-boxes now 
 used by the petit maitres of Paris and London. 
 They are particularly common in Russia and other 
 countries professing the religion of the Greek Church. 
 They are made either of wood or metal with two 
 little folding doors which are thrown open when the 
 idol is worshipped. The custom of using them has 
 been retained among the Roman Catholics." Now 
 as many of the Ephesians burned their books of 
 magic and divination at the preaching of Paul, who 
 preached against their idolatry and shrines, I trust 
 that Romanists will, at this preaching against their 
 shrines, and other idolatrous worship, bring togethef 
 all their amulets, exorcisms, charms, masses, relics, 
 and other sacred works, for curing pains, healing 
 diseases, expelling demons, preserving from evil. 
 
358 POPISH MASS. 
 
 and according to Mr Macguire, (First Speech on 
 transubstantiation in Dublin,) driving evil spirits from 
 cattle, and, in the spirit of repentance of having so 
 long wrought the will of the Gentiles, return unto 
 God, that they may find mercy. 
 
 But, ^dly, 1 observe, that, from their own writers, 
 we have every reason to consider it idolatry, and not 
 that of the lesser kind either. Caster, the Jesuite, 
 affirms, that if the Church of Rome be mistaken in 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation, they do, ipsofacto^ 
 stand guilty of such a piece of idolatry, as v/as never 
 before known in the world. Now, then, we see, that 
 they themselves admit, that, if the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation be not true, they are idolaters. But 
 we have already proved, that it is a doctrine contrary 
 to all sense, reason, revelation, and the history of the 
 Christian Church for many centuries, yea, against 
 all evidence, except that, perhaps, of Popish tradi- 
 tion, (which cannot be depended on, even though a 
 Papist should make his affidavit, because we know 
 that he believes that a priest can pardon his sins,) and 
 hence, that it is not a true doctrine ; and, therefore, 
 since it is proved that transubstantiation is a false 
 doctrine, the worship of the host, either in the sacra- 
 ment of the mass, or at any other time, is, in every 
 sense of the word, idolatry. 
 
 But, if the word of God be true, we say it is more 
 than mere idolatry ; that, like all others, it is accur- 
 sed idolatry. In Deut. xxvii. 15, it is said: " Cursed 
 
POPISH MASS. 359 
 
 is the man that maketh any graven or molten image, 
 or other abomination unto the Lord, a work of the 
 hands of the craftsman." And in Isaiah xh. 24, it 
 is also said : " Behold, ye are of nothing, and your 
 work is of nought ; an abomination is he that chooseth 
 you ;" therefore, because that Romanists, in the 
 adoration of the host, do not only worship an image 
 as the representative of another thing, but even a 
 wafer, believing it to be the body, soul, and divinity 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ, their worship thereof is, in 
 the fullest sense of the term, accursed. 
 
 But the worship of the host is not only the most 
 accursed idolatry, but also the most gross that ever 
 was heard of. Caster, the Jesuite, himself, says : 
 " If the doctrine of transubstantiation (which I have 
 proved to be false,) be not true, the errors of those 
 were more tolerable who worshipped a red cloth hung 
 upon the top of a spear, (as is reported of the Lap- 
 landers,) than of those who worship a piece of bread, 
 as hitherto Roman Catholics have done all over the 
 world for many years." But the worship of the host 
 is not only the most accursed and the grossest idola- 
 try that ever was heard of, but also the most reproach- 
 able. If Laban (Genesis xxxi. 30,) was reproached 
 for serving gods which were stolen away, certainly 
 Romanists may be reproached for adoring that which 
 is not only liable to be stolen by the hands of men, 
 but even by rats, mice, and all such vermin. If the 
 Egyptians were reproached by the prophet Isaiah 
 
360 POPISH MASS. 
 
 (chap. ii. 20,) for worshipping gods, which must at 
 last be " cast to the moles and the bats," are not Pa- 
 pists infinitely more reproachable for worshipping that 
 which rats and mice are not only apt to convey to 
 their holes, but there to swallow up in an instant ? 
 If the gods of the Babylonians were proved to be 
 idols, by being carried upon men's shoulders, (Isaiah 
 iv. 6,) and by their being liable to be carried away 
 captive in the time of calamity, may we not with cer- 
 tainty thence infer, that the carrying about of the 
 host — the god of Romanists — on Corpus- Christi-day, 
 proves it to be an idol also. But the worship of 
 the host is not only the most accursed, gross, and 
 reproachable idolatry that ever was heard of, but it 
 is also the most ridiculous. The Persians worship- 
 ped the sun, " the noblest image of his Maker." 
 The Tartars worshipped the moon, whose beauty 
 and other good offices led them to believe that she 
 was the queen of heaven, and protectress of their 
 nation. The Assyrians worshipped both the sun and 
 the moon. The Syrians worshipped Dagan and 
 other false deities. The Egyptians worshipped cats, . 
 dogs, cows, calves, crocodiles, onions, and garlic. 
 And Romanists, a people who call themselves Chris- 
 tians, as if they wished to be the most ridiculous idol- 
 aters in the world, worship, what ? ne ride, doctissime 
 sacerdos, dum tibi refero — even a piece of bread ! ! ! 
 But the worship of the host is not only the most ac- 
 cursed, gross, reproachable, and ridiculous idolatry 
 
POPISH MASS. 361 
 
 in the world, but also the most strange. The gods 
 of the Egyptians grew and increased, which was cer- 
 tainly very strange. The idols of other heathens 
 were considered only gold, silver, wood, or stone, 
 till they were consecrated, and even then, they onlv 
 supposed that they contained the deity which they were 
 made to represent, as the body (not as its accidents) 
 contains the soul ; and also, that, if any accident, 
 such as the loss of an eye, or a finger, &c., happened 
 to it, the deity would instantly leave it, after which 
 it would be no more worshipped, all which is very 
 wonderful and strange. But, behold what is infinite- 
 ly more wonderful, infinitely more unaccountable, 
 and infinitely less reasonable, Romanists, by the 
 power of these presto-pass words, " Hoc enim est 
 corpus meum^' which few that hear them are able to 
 understand, can, in broad day-light, in the additional 
 light of two or more candles, and in the presence of 
 a whole congregation, out of a piece of bread, and 
 that not bigger than a wafer, and in the shape of it, 
 create the very body, soul, and divinity of Christ unto 
 themselves in an instant, and then fall down and wor- 
 ship it ! ! ! But the worship of the host is not only 
 the most accursed, gross, reproachable, ridiculous, 
 and wonderful idolatry that ever was heard of between 
 Nootka Sound and Table Bay, but it is also the 
 most horrible and cruel. Cicero, who was himself 
 a heathen, aad who was perhaps the best acquainted 
 with the nature of paganism of any man that ever was 
 
362 POPISH MASS. 
 
 in the world, says, when speaking of the nature of the 
 gods, (hb. i. 3, de Nat, Deor.) " Think you that any 
 man would be so mad as to pretend to eat his god." 
 Romanists, however, who are professionally Chris- 
 tians, are so mad, for they think that they could not 
 properly worship the god whom they adore in the 
 size and shape of a wafer, unless they got him upon 
 the top of their tongues, and thence conveyed him 
 down their throats, and lodged him safe in their sto- 
 machs, there to undergo digestion, or thence to 
 extricate himself either one way or other as he finds 
 it most convenient. 
 
 But the worship and usage of the host in the 
 sacrament of the mass, is not only the most accursed, 
 gross, reproachable to the worshippers, ridiculous, 
 wonderful, horrible, and cruel, that ever was heard 
 of in the world, but it is also both most disgraceful 
 to Christianity, and hostile to the kingdom of Christ 
 in the world. How can mass-priests, with a good 
 grace, or upon proper grounds, reprove pagans for 
 their idolatry, seeing that their own is infinitely more 
 abominable ? If they were to reprove a pagan for his 
 idolatry, might not he, with much reason, thus retort 
 upon his reprover : " If we worship gods of gold, 
 silver, wood, or stone, you mass-priests worship a god 
 of bread, and when you have adored him, you forth- 
 with devour him. You are worse than the worst of 
 cannibals, for with your mouths you set upon the very 
 god, who, as you say, is your saviour from everlast- 
 
POPISH MASS. 363 
 
 ing misery. O cruel mass-priests ! is this your gra- 
 titude to your Saviour ? Devils could not be more 
 ungrateful. You have every reason to be ashamed 
 of your cannibal feast ! No wonder that you celebrate 
 your Luperculia in an unknown tongue, ' I would 
 rather be a dog, and bay the moon, than such a 
 Roman.' If there be no other Christianity than 
 yours, O ye cruel eaters of your God ! it is infinitely 
 better that we should continue in our own religion, 
 whatever it may be, for yours is nothing but an in- 
 vention of the Evil Spirit." Yea, says the Protestant 
 and Bible-taught Christian, the god whom Romanists 
 worship in the sacrament of the mass, is neither re- 
 cognizable by the senses, reason, nor the word of 
 God ; and the worship they give it, is only a mystery 
 of iniquity, a mass of idolatry, and an invention of 
 Antichrist, to render the sacrifice of Christ upon the 
 cross null and void ; and hence to delude and ruin 
 immortal souls. 
 
 Argument Eleventh. — The number and variety of 
 the masses of the Church of Rome, prove, that it is 
 not the ordinance that our Saviour instituted, or that 
 his apostles received from him and celebrated ; but 
 since it so evidently has the " mark of the beast," 
 viz., the number ^^'o^ on its front, we shall pass it 
 by in silent contempt. 
 
 Argument Twelfth. — The Popish clergy perform 
 this ceremony, as we have already observed, in be- 
 half of domestic animals. But, the Lord's Supper 
 
364 POPISH MASS. 
 
 was neither instituted for the sake of such creatures, 
 nor ever celebrated in their behalf. And, therefore, 
 the mass can neither be that holy ordinance which 
 our Saviour instituted when he said : " Do this in 
 remembrance of me ;" nor that which the apostle 
 Paul celebrated among the Corinthians, to whom he 
 said, in 1 Epistle xi. 26 : " For as often as ye eat 
 this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's 
 death till he come." 
 
 Argument Tliirteenth. — The infinite number of 
 miracles which, according to Popery, have, in all 
 ages of Christianity, been performed by the mass, 
 prove, that it is not a Christian ordinance. Protes- 
 tants believe in miracles, properly so called only ; 
 whereas Romanists believe in the lying wonders of 
 Popery also. Protestants believe, that God perform- 
 ed miracles in attestation of the truth of his revealed 
 will; and that Popish priests perform lying wonders to 
 attest what they knew to be false. Protestants believe, 
 that the miracles which God performed, were ad- 
 dressed to our knowledge of the laws of nature, and 
 that the wonders of Popery have always been ad- 
 dressed to the ignorance and superstitious fears of 
 those that behold them. Protestants believe, that 
 the miracles which God performed, are so suffi- 
 ciently attested, as to be fully credited ; and that 
 there is no better evidence of the truth of the lying 
 wonders of Popery, than the " on dW of the most 
 superstitious people in Christendom, and the pre- 
 
POPISH MASS. 365 
 
 varications of a priesthood rendered designing by 
 the spirit of avarice, falsehood, and Antichrist. Pro- 
 testants beUeve, that the miracles that God perform- 
 ed by Moses, our Saviour, and the apostles, were the 
 most transcendent in their nature and object that the 
 mind can conceive, and that the pretended wonders 
 of Popery were trifles in themselves, and unworthy of 
 the interposition of the Deity. Protestants believe, 
 that the miracles which were wrought by the Al- 
 mighty, were performed in confirmation of the most 
 exalted and benevolent system of religious doctrine 
 and laws that ever was known in the world ; and that 
 the lying wonders of Popery, are only to confirm 
 ignorant Papists in the truth of a system of super- 
 stitious observances, and keep them in the power 
 and authority of the minions of the Pope. Protes- 
 tants believe, that the miracles which God perform- 
 ed, took place, against, above, or by a suspension of 
 the laws of nature ; and that the wonders of Popery 
 were performed by the deceptive jugglery of knavish 
 mass-priests. Protestants believe, that Christ per- 
 formed miracles to make men believe, that he was 
 the Son of God, that he was come to redeem them, 
 by offering himself up upon the cross ; and that these 
 pretended to be wrought by priests, are to make men 
 believe, that they offer him up a propitiatory sacri- 
 fice in the sacrament of the mass for both the living 
 and the dead. Protestants believe, that the power 
 of working miracles was given to the apostles, and 
 apostolic men, to make men believe that Christ 
 
366 POPISH MASS. 
 
 had died, had risen, and was now in heaven, where 
 he will continue as our advocate and intercessor 
 with the Father till the restitution of all things ; and 
 that Popish wonders are performed to make priests 
 be believed when they say, " Look, here is Christ," 
 in this piece of bread, " Look, there he is," in that 
 wafer, " Behold him in this little shrine," on the lid 
 of which the following verse is written, viz. : 
 
 " Within this lock may every one, 
 
 Find Christ, God-man, and God's own Son ; 
 
 As he was born of Mary pure, 
 
 Believe this, or be damned sure. " 
 
 Protestants believe, that miracles had ceased to be 
 performed in the Church of Christ, long before An- 
 tichrist durst venture to astonish and set agape the 
 profanum vulgus of the Popish Church with his 
 lying wonders. Protestants believe, that the mira- 
 cles which were performed by MoseSj Christ, the 
 apostles, and apostolic men, challenged the strictest 
 scrutiny of the most learned men in the world ; and 
 that the whole number of Popish wonders are afraid 
 to stand the examination and scrutiny even of curious 
 children. Protestants believe, that the miracles 
 which God performed, were harbingers of that di- 
 vine light " which shineth more and more even to 
 the perfect day ;" and that the wonders of Popery 
 are only harbingers of the light of wax candles, which 
 shineth only to the wick's end, and which is sur- 
 rounded with the foul fungus which arises from Po- 
 
POPISH MASS. 367 
 
 pish superstitions. Protestants believe, that the 
 miracles mentioned in the word of God, may be 
 compared to the tuneful larks, which, gladly in the 
 return of the new-born-day, soar aloft to meet its 
 glorious orb in the eastern clime, rejoicing in his hori- 
 zontal rays ; and that the wonders mentioned in the 
 traditionary legends of Popery, may be compared to 
 owls, these birds of unlucky omen, which, hating the 
 light, withdraw themselves therefrom into the dark- 
 est thicket of the grove, till the return of wished-for 
 darkness. Protestants believe, that no Popish mira- 
 cles have been performed in Britain for more than a 
 hundred years, even since the reforming days of the 
 illustrious Knox ; and that hundreds have been per- 
 formed in Ireland, this blessed land of candle-light, 
 in Spain, Portugal, Italy, and other such enlighten- 
 ed countries, within the last twenty years. Protes- 
 tants believe, that as the light of the gospel increases 
 in Ireland, or any other Popish country, the candle- 
 light miracles of Papists, and the power of perform- 
 ing them, will decrease. Protestants believe, that 
 the light of the glorious sun of righteousness always 
 drives the lying wonders of Popery at least six hours 
 before it ; and that, as it is now three hours high 
 even to the inhabitants of Donegal, it is to Popish 
 wonders there about three post meridian ; and, there- 
 fore, that they may soon expect to see them supping 
 with the ocean, and mingling with the wonders of the 
 deep. And, Jinall?/, Protestants beheve, that many 
 
368 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Romanists will wonder at our belief, when they read 
 this confession of our faith ; but why should they ? 
 since we are always ready to give a reason of the 
 faith that is in us from the word of God, which, 
 with respect to this part of our creed, speaks thus : 
 " If any man, (says our Saviour in Matt. xxiv. 24,) 
 shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ, or there, do not 
 believe him ; for there shall arise false Christs, and 
 false prophets, and shall shew great signs and won- 
 ders, inasmuch as to deceive, if possible, even the 
 elect : behold I have told it to you beforehand." 
 In 2 Thess. ii. 9, 10, 11, the apostle Paul says, 
 with respect to the man of sin, " Whose coming is 
 according to the working of Satan, with all power, 
 and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceiv- 
 ableness of unrighteousness in them that perish ; be- 
 cause they received not the love of the truth, that 
 they might be saved : and for this cause God shall 
 send them strong delusion that they should believe a 
 lie ; that all may be damned who believe not the 
 truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." And, 
 with respect to the working of miracles, as being 
 characteristic of one of the beasts, the apostle John, 
 in Rev. xiii. 11-17, says: "And I beheld another 
 beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two 
 horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon, and he 
 exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, 
 and causeth the earth, and them that dwell therein, 
 to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was 
 
POPISH MASS. 369 
 
 healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he 
 maketh fire come down from heaven, on the earth, 
 in the siMit of men. And he deceiveth them that 
 dwell on the earth, by the means of those miracles 
 which he had the power to do in the sight of the 
 beast ; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that 
 thev should make an imao^e to the beast, which had 
 the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power 
 to give life unto the image of the beast, that the 
 image of the beast should both speak, and cause that 
 as many as would not worship the image of the beast 
 should be killed. And he caused all, both small 
 and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive 
 a mark on their right hand, or in their foreheads. 
 And that no man might buy, or sell, save he that had 
 the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number 
 of his name." . 
 
 Argument Fourteenth, — Those who administer 
 the mass are not Christian ministers ; but having, 
 we trust, sufficiently proved this in two other parts 
 of this work, we shall refer the reader to them, and 
 proceed to our next argument against this anti- 
 christian ceremony. 
 
 Argument Fifteenth. — Our fifteenth argument 
 against the mass, is, that as it requires an altar 
 whereon Christ may be offered, it cannot be a Christ- 
 ian ceremony. 
 
 We are certain from the word of God, that there is 
 no other altar in the Christian Church than Christ 
 
 A 2 
 
370 POPISH MASS. 
 
 himself, and that as he cannot be offered on himself, 
 there can be none on which he is offered. Altars 
 are edifices on which offerings, and especially bloody 
 sacrifices, were, previous to the gospel dispensation 
 of the true religion, presented to God. They took 
 their rise from that gracious promise, which is re- 
 corded in Gen. iii. 15, and which may be stated 
 thus : " That the heel of the seed of the woman 
 should bruise the head of the serpent ;" or, in other 
 words, that Christ, by becoming incarnate, and dy- 
 ing in the room and stead of guilty sinners, should 
 deliver them from the curse of the broken law, pro- 
 pitiate the wrath of God to which they were exposed, 
 make reconciliation between them and God, and at 
 last bring them to glory. To elucidate this impor- 
 tant truth, or the graciousness of this promise, and 
 to keep it in their remembrance, sacrifices were de- 
 voted, altars were erected, blood flowed and fires 
 blazed ; all which prefigured the great sacrifice of 
 Jesus Christ upon the cross. Moses made a brazen 
 altar for sacrifices, thirty-seven feet in length and 
 breadth, and half as many in height. It stood 
 in the open court at a small distance from the east 
 end of the tabernacle. On it were offered the 
 evening and the morning sacrifices, and many other 
 oblations, and to it also criminals were wont to flee 
 for protection. It was solemnly consecrated to the 
 service of God by blood and unction of holy oil, 
 and it prefigured the divine altar of the Christian 
 
POPISH MASS* 371 
 
 temple, even Jesus Christ, as our all-sufficient atone- 
 ment and place of refuge from the wrath of God to 
 which we must flee, if we hope to be saved from 
 everlasting misery. At the dedication of the temple 
 at Jerusalem, Solomon consecrated or hallowed the 
 middle of the court of the temple to serve the pur- 
 pose of an altar, whereon to burn large offerings ; 
 and which certainly was a figure of the seed of the 
 woman, even of Jesus Christ, in his firmness and 
 self-sufficiency to endure his Father's wrath, and also 
 in low debasement and trouble ; and it moreover 
 signified, that God is infinitely better pleased with 
 purity and affection in his worshippers, than their 
 outward pomp and show. 
 
 There was another emblematical altar in the 
 temple of Solomon, called the altar of incense. It 
 measured about two and twenty inches in length and 
 breadth, and forty-four inches in height ; it stood 
 within the veil of the sanctuary, and on it nothing but 
 the sacred incense was put, which was offered and 
 burned every morning and evening. This altar pre- 
 figured, not Popish altars, but according to Heb. 
 ix. 4, Christ himself within the veil, not of the 
 temple made with hands, not in a wafer, but within 
 that veil which screened him from the view of his 
 disciples as he ascended from their sight up into 
 heaven, where now, as our all-prevailing Intercessor, 
 he appears in the presence of God, even the holiest 
 place of all, for us. Now, since all the Jewish altars 
 
372 POPISH MASS. 
 
 prefigured Christ in the office of Mediator between 
 God and man ; viz., both as an atoning sacrifice 
 offered up upon the cross, and as our all-prevailing 
 Intercessor at the right hand of his and our heavenly 
 Father ; it is evident, that he himself is both the 
 only priest, sacrifice, and altar of his Church, both 
 militant and triumphant. That he is the only altar 
 in the Church militant, is farther evident from Heb. 
 xiii. 10, where the apostle says : " We have an altar 
 (referring to Christ) whereof they have no right to 
 eat which serve the tabernacle." And that he is 
 the only altar in the Church above, even that altar, 
 at which, as the great High Priest of all saints be- 
 low, he continually stands in perpetual readiness and 
 constant activity, offering up the fragrant incense of 
 his own merits a sweet smelling savour unto God, 
 and pleading that our cause may be graciously heard, 
 and that our souls may be saved for the sake of the 
 sacrifice which he offered up unto God upon the 
 cross, is evident from Rev. viii. 3, where it is said : 
 " And another angel came and stood at the altar 
 with a golden censer ; and there was given unto 
 him much incense, that he should offer it with the 
 prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which 
 was before the throne." 
 
 Now, if we were asked by Romanists the reason 
 of this particular of the faith that is in us, we would 
 briefly answer thus : Christ, in his divine nature and 
 person, was the altar on which he presented his 
 
POPISH MASS. 373 
 
 humanitv as an atoning- sacrifice unto God the Father 
 for the sins of his people : on this, as if upon an 
 altar, he supported it under all its agonizing and 
 sorrowful sufferings, and thereby rendered the ob- 
 lation of his humanity an offering of infinite value 
 in the sight of his heavenly Father. And moreover 
 we would answer, that as he still presents his hu- 
 manity bruised and wounded before the throne, as 
 an altar of incense; and, as a priest praying for 
 his people at the altar, renders his intercession and 
 advocacy prevalent, we must present our persons, 
 prayers, praises, and other good works, through him 
 unto God, that they, as if from an altar of incense, 
 may arise perfumed with the odour of his infinite 
 merits, before the throne a sweet smelling savour unto 
 God, and be acceptable unto his Infinite Majesty. 
 
 Now since, as hence appears, the two altars of the 
 temple prefigured the two distinct natures of Christ, 
 and as these two distinct natures constitute one 
 person only, it is evident that these two altars 
 may be considered as one only in signification ; and 
 as Christ is personally now in heaven, it consequently 
 follows, that Romanists believe what is both false 
 and contrary to the word of God, in believing that 
 there is any other altar in the Christian Church than 
 Christ himself; and hence, that those Churches 
 which have altars in them on which to offer Christ 
 a propitiatory sacrifice unto God, are not Christian 
 
374 POPISH MASS. 
 
 Churches ; and consequently, they must be anti- 
 christian assemblies and synagogues of Satan. 
 
 But we may arrive at the same conclusion by pur- 
 suing a way, which, though equally as good, is never- 
 theless somewhat different. In Matt. xxxi. 19, we 
 have these words of the Saviour : " Ye fools, whe- 
 ther is greater the gift, or the altar which sanctifieth 
 the gift ;" and if they teach us any thing, it is this ; 
 viz., that in the Old Testament Church which was 
 a figure of the New Testament Church, the oblations 
 and sacrifices were consecrated, set apart, or sanc- 
 tified, by placing them upon the altar. And if this 
 be the lesson we are there taught, we see how it is 
 that the oblation of Christ's humanity was infinitely 
 valuable in the sight of God ; even because it was 
 offered up upon the altar of his divine nature, (we 
 are also elsewhere told, that he offered himself 
 through the Eternal Spirit,) in virtue of which, 
 what he offered was, as it were by consecration, 
 rendered so holy, that it was esteemed by the Father 
 a sufficient ransom for sinners ; which, had Christbeen 
 merely a sinless man, such as Adam was previous to 
 his fatal apostacy, it could not have done. Now, 
 because Romanists, in the sacrament of the mass, 
 offer up Christ upon their altars as a propitiatory 
 sacrifice for the sins of both the living and the dead, 
 they must have the power of putting him there, and 
 if they have this power, they must have the power 
 
POPISH MASS. 375 
 
 of doing that which he did by virtue of his divine 
 nature, or, in other words, through the Eternal Spirit; 
 and if they can do that, (and that according to their 
 principles they can, otherwise their altars are no 
 altars, and their sacrifices no sacrifices,) they have 
 the power of the Eternal Spirit, which is not only 
 absurd, but blasphemous in the highest degree. 
 But methinks I hear Romanists retorting thus : 
 " What is all this ado about altars in the Christian 
 Church, surely there are both altars and altar-ser- 
 vices among Protestants, let them deny it if they 
 can." Now we answer, that though there is such 
 a thing as an altar and such a service as an altar- 
 service in some Protestant Churches, for which the 
 generality of the most enlightened and pious Pro- 
 testant Churches are sorry, as it is a remnant of 
 Popery and a reproach to the Protestant profession, 
 yet it is only the names of these that are foolishly 
 retained ; for there are no such things as Popish 
 altars, neither can there be in Protestant Churches. 
 
 Argument Sixteenth. — The main support of the 
 doctrine of the mass is the pretended authority of the 
 Popish Church. But this authority is arrogantly 
 assumed, from its false interpretation of Matt. xvi. 
 18 ; and therefore its main support cannot uphold it. 
 
 The Church is always the place whither Romanists 
 betake themselves for refuge, whenever they find 
 themselves driven from the field of controversy by 
 Protestants. Though it is generally their dernier 
 
376 POPISH MASS. 
 
 place of resort, yet, believing their interpretation of 
 Matt. xvi. 18, where our Saviour, addressing Peter, 
 says : " Thou art Peter ; and upon this rock will 
 I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not 
 prevail against it;" and hence inferring that their 
 Church is not only the only true Church in the 
 world, but also that it is infallible, they think that 
 they will always find a safe retreat within its walls. 
 
 All in communion with the Church of Rome main- 
 tain, that the person of the Apostle Peter is the rock 
 to which our Saviour here refers ; and all other de- 
 nominations of Christians agree in maintaining, that 
 our Lord was here referrinof to himself. The com- 
 ment upon this verse in the Douay New Testament, 
 is expressed in the following words : " The words of 
 Christ spoken to Peter, in the vulgar language of 
 the Jews, were the same as if he had said in English, 
 ' Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build 
 my Church ;' so that, by the plain course of the 
 words, Peter is here declared to be the rock upon 
 which the Church was promised to be built, Christ 
 himself being both the principal foundation and the 
 founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, 
 by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a 
 rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and 
 floods, like a wise master-builder/' Now, if this in- 
 terpretation of our Saviour's words be the true one, 
 we could, perhaps, the more easily grant, (though 
 even then we would not,) that Romanists have some 
 
POPISH MASS. 3/ / 
 
 grounds for believing that he constituted the Apostle 
 Peter chief pastor and supreme governor of his 
 flock at that time ; that his alleged successors, the 
 bishops, and after them, the Popes of Rome, have 
 a similar charge transmitted to them ; that their 
 Church is in their own sense of the word infalli- 
 ble ; and that the mass and all the. other doctrines 
 of their creed, are consistent with, and founded upon, 
 the truths of God's most holy word. But if the Pro- 
 testant interpretation thereof be the true one, it conse- 
 quently follows, that Peter had no such supremacy 
 conferred upon him as Romanists plead for ; that he 
 was not the rock upon which our Saviour promised to 
 build his Church ; that the Church of Rome, more 
 than any of the seven Churches of Asia, or any other 
 Christian Church in the world, is, in no part, and in no 
 sense of the word, infallible ; that it has become woe- 
 fully corrupted ; that it since has been standing on a 
 foundation of sand ; that, ever since it fell from its 
 primitive purity, and especially since the Council of 
 Trent, it has been liable to be prevailed against, not 
 so much by the gates of hell, as by the force of truths 
 and, consequently, that there is no other Church 
 than that which is founded on the Rock Jesus Christ, 
 against which the gates of hell shall never be able to 
 prevail, which Church now, and for many ages, is not 
 the Popish Church ; as, in further discoursing from 
 these words, we shall now endeavour to prove. 
 Argument First agaiiut the Popish Interpretation 
 
378 POPISH MASS. 
 
 of Matt. xvl. 18. — Romanists cannot prove their 
 pretended supremacy of the apostle Peter over the 
 other apostles. 
 
 Instead of finding any solid grounds for believing, 
 with Romanists, that our Lord appointed the apostle 
 Peter to sovereign authority and universal jurisdic- 
 tion in the Christian Church, more than the other 
 apostles, we find, from reason, revelation, and well- 
 authenticated ecclesiastical history, what is sufficient 
 to warrant us to deny that he had any such supre- 
 macy. 1^^, It appears to us reasonable to suppose, 
 that if any such commission had been given to the 
 apostle Peter, it is necessary that it should have been 
 given in the most absolute and perspicuous terms ; 
 but no such commission is recorded, either in the word 
 of God, or any other history, . than perhaps Popish 
 legends, which are worse than none ; and, therefore, 
 we conclude that it was never given, ^dly. It ap- 
 pears to us, that, if an office so illustrious had been 
 instituted by our Saviour, it is but reasonable to sup- 
 pose, that it would have been somewhere mentioned 
 in the apostolical writings or history of the Church ; 
 but it is not, and therefore we conclude that it never 
 was mentioned. 3c?Zy, If Peter had been instituted 
 primate of the apostolical senate, it appears to us, 
 that his office and station would have been so very 
 different in nature and kind from that of the other 
 apostles, that it is but reasonable to believe that he 
 would have been distinguished from them by some 
 
POPISH MASS. 379 
 
 such name or title, as Arch-apostle^ Arch-pastor, 
 Vicar of Christ, or the hke ; but as no such name or 
 title was ever either given to him, or assumed by 
 him, in the word of God, we therefore cannot be- 
 lieve that he ever held any such office. Ath, In 
 Ephesians iv. 11, where it is said: " And he gave 
 some apostles, and some prophets, and some evan- 
 gelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the per- 
 fecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for 
 the edifying the body of Christ ;" and again, in 
 1 Cor. xii. 28, where it is said : " And God hath 
 set some in the Church, first, apostles ; secondly, 
 prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; after that miracles ; then 
 gifts of healings, of helps, of governments, of diver- 
 sities of tongues ;" it is evident that no office above 
 that of apostle was known either among the apostles 
 or in the primitive Church ; and hence, it is evident, 
 that Christ never instituted an office in the Church 
 higher than that of an apostle, bth. In Luke xxii. 24, 
 25, 26, and in Mark x. 42, we find our Lord, in- 
 stead of instituting such a primacy among the apostles, 
 or even permitting to affect, seek after, assume, or 
 admit a superiority of ecclesiastical power, one above 
 the others, declaring against it in the plainest terms, 
 and prohibiting them from it ; and, therefore, we be- 
 lieve that Peter never had it, never desired it, and 
 never would have assumed it, even though he had 
 been permitted to do so by the unanimous consent of 
 his apostolical brethren. Qt]i, In the word of God, 
 
380 POPISH MASS. 
 
 we do not find any peculiar administration or privi- 
 lege that was conferred upon Peter, that was not 
 also conferred upon the other apostles ; but we find 
 what is contrary to this, in Mark xvi. 15, where it is 
 said unto all the apostles, " Go ye into all the world, 
 and preach the gospel unto every creature." And 
 in John xx. 23, where it is said : " Whose soever 
 sins ye remit, (that is, any of you remit,) they shall 
 be remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye 
 retain, they are retained." 1th, In neither of Peter's 
 two catholic Epistles does there appear any intima- 
 tion of, or least pretence to, this arch-apostolic power; 
 and, therefore, we cannot believe that he had it. 
 Hth, In all the relations which occur in scripture, or 
 other well-authenticated history of the apostles, con- 
 cerning controversies either of doctrine, practice, or 
 discipline, there is neither any appeal made to Peter's 
 judgment, allegation of its being decisive, nor any 
 argument built on his authority ; and, therefore, we 
 do not believe that he had any authority in the 
 Church above that of the other apostles, ^th. No- 
 where, either in sacred or profane history, does Peter 
 appear to intermeddle, as a judge or governor, with 
 the affairs of the other apostles ; and even when deal- 
 ing with heretics and disorderly persons, instead of 
 proceeding as a Pope decreeing, he does it by warning, 
 arguing, and persuading, as the other apostles ; and, 
 therefore, we do not believe that he had any right to 
 act otherwise than the other apostles acted. 10^^, 
 
POPISH MASS. 381 
 
 The consideration of the other apostles' proceedings, 
 who, in the conversion of the people in the founda- 
 tion Churches, and in the administration of their 
 spiritual affairs, went about, not by virtue of any or- 
 der or license from Peter, but by the special direction 
 of God, entirely excludes the probability of his hav- 
 ing- any control over their proceedings, llth. From 
 Gal. ii. 11, where Paul says : " But when he (Peter) 
 was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, 
 because he was to be blamed," referring to the rebuke 
 which he gave to the apostle Peter for his dissimula- 
 tion, and encouragement which he had given to some 
 sticklers for Judaism, to impose the Jewish ceremo- 
 nies upon the new converts, and which rebut Peter 
 received with the humility of one convinced of his 
 error, and sorry for his fault ; it is hence e\ident, we 
 say, that Paul neither acknowledged any dependence 
 upon Peter, nor considered himself, in respect of au- 
 thority, his inferior. Lastly, It is evident, that if 
 Peter had been appointed sovereign of the Church, it 
 would have been requisite that he should have outlived 
 the other apostles ; for, if he did not, the Church 
 would have been without its proper head, and there 
 must have been an unextricable controversy among 
 the surviving apostles, concerning him who was then 
 that head ; but all agree that Peter died long before 
 the apostle John, and perhaps several of the other 
 apostles ; and, therefore, according to Popish prin- 
 ciples, his next successor should have been one or 
 
382 POPISH MASS. 
 
 other of the surviving apostles, concerning all which 
 the scriptures, and all other well-authenticated histo- 
 ries of the apostles are silent ; and, therefore, we have 
 hence no authority to believe that Peter had any pri- 
 macy in the Church above that of the other of his 
 apostolical brethren. Now, if these twelve argu- 
 ments, thus briefly stated, prove that there is no scrip- 
 tural grounds on w^hich to raise the apostolical primacy 
 of Peter, and as that primacy is founded upon, and 
 alleged from, the Popish interpretation of Matt. xvi. 
 
 18, reason forces us to conclude, that that inter- 
 pretation is not the true one. But if it is not the 
 true one, the Church of Rome has no scriptural 
 foundation ; and since it has no scriptural foundation, 
 it can have no authority to challenge the belief of 
 any, either concerning the mass or any other thing. 
 
 Argument Second. — The Popish interpretation 
 of Matt. xvi. 18, cannot be the true one, since to 
 uphold it, it requires the obvious perversion of the 
 meaning of the context, and of many other of the 
 most important passages of the word of God. 
 
 The Church of Rome having, as we have already 
 shewn, erroneously settled the meaning of this verse, 
 perverts, as appears from the Douay Testament, 
 the plain and obvious meaning of Matt, xxviii. 18, 
 
 19, 20, to the upholding of the infallibihty of that 
 already fallen Church, which, in the proud language 
 of the comment, asks : " How then could the Ca- 
 holic Church go astray, having always with her 
 
POPISH MASS. 383 
 
 pastors, as are here promised, and Christ himself, 
 who is both ' the way, the truth, and the hfe ;' " 
 which, is plainly a mere begging of the question ; 
 viz., " Whether the Popish Church, as she now 
 stands, be the Church of Christ, or not? And 
 having settled the infallibility of the Church, by the 
 perversion of the above and other according passages 
 of scripture, it, in virtue thereof, determines what 
 books are canonical and what are not ; obliges 
 Christians to receive or reject them accordingly ; 
 and endeavours to make them believe that bread is 
 flesh, and that wine is blood. It gives authority 
 to the word of God, instead of the w^ord of God 
 giving authority to it ; and it assigns and fixes that 
 sense thereof, which, all in its communion, must re- 
 ceive on pain of everlasting damnation. It decrees 
 whatever it considers necessary for salvation, though 
 not contained in the word of God. And it also 
 takes upon itself to decide all controversies, especially 
 in matters of faith. If we ask Papists what corner 
 of their Church is infallible, or in what part of her 
 lies their dreamed of all manner of power, they can- 
 not answer in the unity of their Popish faith. The 
 Italians believe that it is placed in the Pope. Bel- 
 larmine accordingly says, that if the Pope could, or 
 would so far err, as to commend the practice of 
 vice, and forbid the practice of virtue, the Church 
 were bound to believe vices to be £ood, and virtues 
 to be bad; and Zarabelli accordingly says, that 
 
384 POPISH MASS. 
 
 the Pope can do all things whatsoever he pleases, 
 even unlawful things, and that he is more than 
 God ; and to the same purpose Massonus says, 
 that the Pope cannot even sin without praise. Others 
 however believe that the Church's infallibility is 
 placed in her general councils ; others again, in 
 the Pope and general councils conjoinedly : and 
 others still, in the Churches throughout the world, 
 or, which is the same thing, the whole body of 
 believers collectively considered. 
 
 Now, to prove that those are wrong who maintain 
 that the infallibility of their Church resides in the 
 Pope alone, we have only to prove to them, that 
 many Popes have been heretics, and that for the 
 same reason, they liave been deposed, which we do 
 thus : The Council of Constance deposed their 
 Popes and declared that the Papal authority was 
 subject to a general council. 
 
 They who maintain that it is placed in a general 
 council, are also wrong, as is evident from the his- 
 tory of the Church, which testifies that general 
 councils have actually erred, both with regard to the 
 morals of the Church and its discipline : The 
 Council of Latern (Con. 6.) prohibits the marriage 
 of ecclesiastics, saying : " That since they ought to 
 be called the temple of God, the vessels of the Lord, 
 the shrine of the Holy Ghost, it is unworthy that 
 they should become slaves to chambering and un- 
 clean ness ;" which is contrary to the obvious mean- 
 
POPISH MASS. 385 
 
 ing of Heb. xiii. 4, where it is said : " Marriage is 
 honourable in all and the bed undefiled ;" which 
 shews, that the prohibition of that Council and the 
 word of God, are at variance with each other ; and 
 hence, that the Church of Rome is not only fallible, 
 but that it has actually fallen. The Sd Council of 
 Latern (Con. 27.) recommends the persecution of 
 heretics, which is not only contrary to Scripture, 
 but devilish in the extreme ; and the same 3d Coun- 
 cil (Con. 16.) says, that oaths are not to be regarded 
 as perjuries which militate against ecclesiastical 
 utility and the institutes of the holy Fathers. Hellish 
 morality forsooth ! Nothing more devilish ever passed 
 the gates of pandemonium ! Neither are they who 
 place her infallibility in the Pope and general coun- 
 cils conjoinedly nearer the truth, since it is evident 
 that two fallibles can never make an infallible. Nor 
 is the opinion of those who place it in the Roman 
 Church diffusive less foolish, since it is evident that 
 the whole Church can never be communed, and 
 that less than the whole (according to them) could 
 not claim the authority of governing and uphold- 
 ing the Church, so as to render it infallible. 
 
 But the Popish interpretation of this text, is not 
 more at variance with the true sense of Matt, xxviii. 
 18, 19, 20, than it is of John xxi. 17, and all those 
 passages of the word of God, which are in accord- 
 ance with it, to the consideration of which I must 
 now turn the Reader's attention. 
 
 B 2 
 
386 POPISH MASS. 
 
 The Popish comment upon this verse, stand* 
 thus in the Douay Testament. " Our Lord pro- 
 mised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter, and here 
 he fulfils his promise, by charging him with the su- 
 perintendency of all his sheep without exception, 
 and consequently of all his flock, viz., of his whole 
 Church ;" and their catechisms ays : " That by the 
 sheep mentioned in St. John, xxi. 15, 16, 17, is 
 meant the priests ; and by the lambs, is meant the 
 laity." Now, if this be the just interpretation of 
 these verses, it is evident that of Ps. xxiii. 1, where 
 it is said, " The Lord is my shepherd," must sig- 
 nify that the Lord was the shepherd of the Jewish 
 priesthood only ; and as this was a psalm of David, 
 and as he is here speaking of himself, it would fol- 
 low, that he was one of the Jewish priests; but 
 David, though a king, was only a layman ; and, 
 therefore, we conclude, that as the Lord was the 
 shepherd of laymen under the Old Testament dis- 
 pensation, he is the same to laymen under the New. 
 But if the Lord is the shepherd of laymen under 
 the New dispensation, laymen under the New are 
 the sheep ; and hence the Popish comment of the 
 above verse is manifestly, yea, triflingly, absurd. 
 Again, it is said in the 100th Psalm, " Know that 
 the Lord he is God; it is he that made us, and 
 not we ourselves, we are the people and sheep of his 
 pasture." Now, the Church of Rome, to be con- 
 sistent with herself, must interpretate this verse thus : 
 
POPISH MASS. 387 
 
 *' Know ye, mass-priests, that the Lord he is God ; 
 it is he that made us mass-priests, and not we our- 
 selves : we mass-priests are the only people and sheep 
 of his pasture," &c. But, according to this inter- 
 pretation, which is in itself absurd, the laity are 
 neither desired to know that the Lord is God, nor 
 to make a joyful noise unto him, nor to come into 
 his presence with singing, nor to be thankful unto 
 him, nor to bless his holy name, which makes the 
 psalm to contradict itself; for, in the first verse, we 
 find that it was addressed to all the " lands," that is, 
 to the whole of the children of Israel without excep- 
 tion. Therefore, we conclude that the laity, under 
 both dispensations of the gospel, are as much the 
 ' sheep of the Lord as the clergy ; and hence again 
 appears the absurdity of the Popish interpretation 
 of the above verse. But, ^dly, we read in 1 Peter 
 ii. 25, as follows : " For ye were as sheep going 
 astray, but are returned unto the shepherd and bishop 
 of your souls." Now, if the Church of Rome either 
 observes consistency, or desires to preserve the 
 harmony of the scriptures, she must interpretate this 
 verse thus : " For ye priests were as sheep going 
 astray from me who am appointed by Christ to be 
 your pastor, your guide, and your governor, but 
 now you are returned (converted in the Douay Test.) 
 unto me, Peter, the shepherd and bishop of the 
 souls of you my priests." But this interpretation is 
 evidently false; for the first verse of the epistle 
 
388 POPISH MASS. 
 
 proves that, instead of its being addressed to the 
 apostles, it was addressed to the strangers, that is, to 
 the Christian converts, who were scattered through- 
 out Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Byth- 
 inia ; and the verse immediately preceding the one 
 under consideration, proves that the shepherd and 
 bishop of souls here mentioned, is Jesus Christ him- 
 self. But, in the Ath place, that Church, if con- 
 sistent with herself, must also pervert the obvious 
 meaning of Luke, xv. 4, 6, in her interpretation 
 thereof, which must be substantially the following : 
 " What cardinal or bishop of you having an hun- 
 dred priests under you, and if he lose one of them, 
 doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and go into 
 the wilderness, and seek that priest which was lost' 
 until he find him ; and when he has found him, and 
 come home with him, he calleth together his friends, 
 viz., his brother cardinals, bishops, and other dig- 
 nitaries, saying, ' rejoice with me, for I have found 
 my.priest which was lost ;' " but as this interpretation 
 carries the mark of the beast on it, we conclude, 
 that so must the interpretation of any portion of scrip- 
 ture that renders the above necessary. But, lastly, 
 if the Popes of Rome be the feeders of the sheep, 
 if the sheep be the priests, and if the lambs be the 
 laity, it may be justly inferred, from Is. xl. 11, 
 where it is said : *' He shall gather the lambs in his 
 arms, and carry them in his bosom ;" that the laity 
 are more the objects of the Pope's care than the 
 
POPISH MASS. 389. 
 
 priests are, which we cannot believe for these three 
 reasons ; 1^^, Because we know that the Pope sets 
 the sheep to feed the lambs, which no sensible shep- 
 herd ever did. ^dly^ Because he seldom minds the 
 lambs, excepting at the time when he intends to 
 celebrate an auto-da-fe, which is always done with 
 " dogs beards," and burnt sacrifices of such lambs 
 as have gone astray; and ^dly. Because we know 
 that the sheep of that fold are sprung from, and pos- 
 sess the nature of, that two horned animal which is 
 mentioned in Rev. xiii. 11, and which usurps the 
 place of the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin 
 of the world. Now, since as we have fully proved, 
 the Popish interpretation of Matt. xvi. 18, requires 
 the obvious and gross perversion of the meaning of 
 many passages of scripture to uphold it, it cannot be 
 the true one ; and as the Romish Church claims no 
 other foundation, it consequently follows that she 
 is worthy of being believed in nothing except in this 
 that she is the storehouse of spiritual abominations. 
 
 Argument Third, — The Popish interpretation of 
 Matt. xvi. 18, is directly opposed to that of some of 
 the ancient Fathers. 
 
 This argument against Romanists, I would gladly 
 have passed over in silence, had it not been, that 
 several quotations from the writings of those, whose 
 comments upon Matt. xvi. 18, have been preserved, 
 have been adduced to prove the scriptural foundation 
 of the Church of Rome as she now stands. A quo- 
 
390 POPISH MASS. 
 
 tation from the writings of St, Chrysostom, has 
 been adduced by the Reverend champion of Irish 
 Popery, to prove the infaUibihty of that Church : 
 The words are these, " If you wage war against 
 men, you may conquer, or be overcome ; but no 
 force shall overcome the Church. It is stronjSfer 
 than the earth — even stronger than heaven ; for 
 heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall 
 not pass away, which, in respect of the Church are 
 these : ' The gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 her.' " " But, if you doubt the word, give credit to 
 the facts. How many tyrants have assailed the 
 Church of God ? How many torments ? What 
 persecution ? What fires ? They could effect no- 
 thing." Now, to prove that St. Chrysostom's ideas 
 of the foundation and authority of the Christian 
 Church were very different from, yea opposite to, 
 those of Romanists in general, and of the Hibernian 
 champion thereof in particular, I shall now state 
 what Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Pentecost, 
 (Op. vol. vi. p. 223,) upon Matt. xvi. 18 : " Christ, 
 says he, did not build his Church upon Peter, but 
 upon the faith of himself, upon that faith which was the 
 foundation of all St. Peter's hopes of salvation, upon 
 that faith which he expressed when he said. Thou 
 art Christ, the Son of the living God, upon that 
 faith which all Christians possess, and by which they 
 are rendered lively stones in the spiritual building." 
 Again, to prove that the power and authority of the 
 
POPISH MASS. 391 
 
 Popish Church is absolutely supreme, the same 
 Hibernian champion adduces a quotation from St. 
 Augustine, which stands thus : " This is the holy 
 Church, the one Church, the Catholic Church, 
 which, contending against all heresies, may herself be 
 assailed, but cannot be overcome. I would not be- 
 lieve the gospel, if the authority of the Catholic 
 Church did not move me thereunto." But this, like 
 the former quotation, can prove nothing for Ro- 
 manists, unless they can prove, that the Church 
 which Augustine was speaking of, was the same 
 Popish Church that it has been especially since the 
 Council of Trent, to do which we defy them. Such 
 quotations, therefore, are merely a begging of the 
 question. That St, Augustine's ideas of the Ca- 
 tholic Church were totally different from those of 
 modern Romanists, is evident from the 206th page 
 of the 9th vol. of his works, where he says : " That the 
 Church is not founded upon the rock whence Peter 
 derived his name, that the rock was not so called 
 from Peter, but Peter from the rock, just as Chris- 
 tian is derived from Christ, and not Christ from 
 Christian ; that the reason of our Lord's saying to 
 Peter, ' Upon this rock I will build my Church, 
 was because Peter had said, * Thou art Christ, the 
 Son of the living God,' and that Christ himself was 
 the foundation upon which Peter himself built all 
 his faith, and all his hope." Now, since it is evident, 
 that these Fathers, unless they wrote manifest contra- 
 
392 POPISH MASS. 
 
 dictions, had very different ideas of the Christian 
 Church from those of Romanists, we must conclude, 
 that their authority is either worthy of being trodden 
 under foot hke salt that has lost its savour, or that 
 their comments upon Matt. xvi. 18, prove, that the 
 Popish Church is not built upon St. Peter ; and that, 
 as it claims no other scriptural authority, it has none : 
 and is, therefore, unworthy of being believed, either 
 concerning the mass or any other thing. 
 
 Argument Fourth. — The Popish interpretation of 
 Matt. xvi. 18, must be false, because it makes the 
 Pope by succession, and not the Holy Ghost, which 
 is by procession, the vicar, that is the deputy, or lieu- 
 tenant of the Son of God in his Church, which is 
 contrary to both reason and revelation. — Whether 
 the Popes of Rome have ever endured to be styled 
 vice-deus, divine majesty, the uttermost corner stone, 
 the Lion of the tribe ofjudah, the bridegroom of the 
 Church, the saviour of Zion, the omnipotent, as some 
 of the most creditable historians report, we shall not 
 here affirm ; but there is one thing, I may safely affirm, 
 and which we can easily prove, viz., that every Pope 
 arrogates to himself both the title and office of vicar of the 
 Son of God, as the mitre which he wears on particular 
 days and at festivals testifies, by having printed or en- 
 graved on it these Latin w^ords, " Vicarius Filii Dei'' 
 
 Now, if the Pope is the vicar-deputy or lieutenant 
 of the Son of God in his Church, he must be the 
 head of the Church, both visible and invisible, as 
 
POPISH MASS. 393 
 
 well as the pastor, guide, and governor, of all its 
 members ; that is, be must be the Holy Ghost ; 
 which arrogation, therefore, is not only contrary to 
 the word of God, but even it is that blasphemy that 
 constitutes the unpardonable sin. But that the Pope 
 is not the proper head of the Christian Church, either 
 visible, or invisible, will, I trust, appear from the fol- 
 lowing scriptural arguments, l^if. The Pope is not 
 the head of the Christian Church, because, it appears 
 from Eph. i. 12, that " Christ is given to be head 
 over all things to the Church ; that is to the Church 
 visible and invisible. 2f/, If the Pope be the head 
 of the Christian Church, then Christ is not, because 
 the Church can have one head only, as is evident 
 from Eph. v. 23, where it is said, " For the husband 
 is the head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the 
 Church. 3d, The Pope cannot be the head of the 
 Church ; because, a visible head taken from among 
 men cannot be every where present to rule over that 
 spiritual body : but Christ can, by his word and spirit. 
 4M, Were the Pope the head of the Christian Church, 
 itwould be a monstrous body, since it would then have 
 two heads, viz,, Christ and the Pope ; but the Christ- 
 ian Church is a most beautiful superstructure, without 
 any thing unseemly in any part of it; and, therefore, 
 the Pope is not its head, bth, If the Church has 
 any other head than Christ, it must then be the body 
 of some other than Christ, which is contrary to Rom. 
 xii. 5, where the apostle says ; " So, we being many, 
 
394 POPISH MASS. 
 
 are one body in Christ." 6th, It appears from St. 
 Luke xxii. 20-26, where it is said, " The Kings of 
 the Gentiles exercise dominion over them ; but ye 
 shall not be so ; but he that is greatest among you, 
 let him be the younger," that Christ will have no 
 supreme headship in his Church. "Jth, As we may 
 learn from Matt, xxviii. 18-20, Christ will not ad- 
 mit of any vicar, deputy, or lieutenant under him in 
 his Church, because these are only necessary to such 
 as cannot manage their own business, by reason of 
 distance, other business, or impotence, &c., which 
 is not true of Christ. Sth, It is evident from I Cor. 
 iv. 1, 2 Cor. V. 20, and 1 Peter v. 1, that those whom 
 Christ gave to the Christian Church are not popes, 
 cardinals, and sacrificing priests ; but ministers, apos- 
 tles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, preachers, and 
 fellow presbyters. Thus, then, have we proved 
 from the word of God, that the Pope is not the 
 head of the Church, either visible or invisible ; and 
 thus shall we prove also, that, by pretending to be the 
 vicar of the Son of God, he blasphemously usurps 
 the divine office and dignity of the Holy Ghost. 
 The Pope, in pretending to be the vicar of the Son 
 of God, assumes the office of pastor, guide, and go- 
 vernor of all the sheep and lambs of Christ's fold ; 
 that is, of the whole Popish Church ; but the Holy 
 Ghost is the only pastor, guide, and governor, of the 
 Christian Church ; and, therefore, we conclude, that 
 the Pope, by pretending to be the vicar of the Son of 
 
POPISH MASS. 395 
 
 God, assumes the office of the Holy Ghost, which 
 conclusion, it shall now be our business to disprove. 
 First, It is necessary, that, in the vicar, deputy, or 
 lieutenant of the Son of God, there should be ability 
 to produce in every member of the Church a saving 
 knowledge of the truth of the gospel, to quicken 
 their souls from the deadness of spiritual corruption 
 to a newness of life, and to present them thus rege- 
 nerated, and thus sanctified, before the throne of 
 God, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. 
 Secondly, It is also necessary that he should be qua- 
 lified to dwell in their hearts, to witness with their 
 spirits that they are the children of God, to enable 
 them to discern spiritual things, and to produce in 
 their hearts the comfort and joy which result from 
 believing. And, Thirdly, It is necessary that the 
 vicar of the Son of God should be qualified so to 
 influence the mind and heart of every member of 
 the Church, that he will love the law of God, learn 
 it diligently, obey it willingly, and observe it with 
 his whole heart. 
 
 Now, since the Pope pretends to be the vicar of 
 the Son of God, he must arrogate to himself all 
 these necessary abilities and qualifications for the due 
 discharge of his office in the Church. But the Holy 
 Scriptures inform us, that none possesses these 
 powers but the Holy Ghost. In John xv. 26, our 
 Saviour says : "When the Comforter is come whom 
 I will send from my Father, he shall testify of me." 
 
396 POPISH MASS. 
 
 In John xiv. 16, he says : " I will pray the Father, 
 and he will give you another Comforter." In John 
 xvi. 13, he says: "He shall shew you things to 
 come." In 1 Cor. ii. 10, the apostle says : " God 
 hath revealed them to us by his Spirit." And in 
 1 Cor. iii. 16, he says : " Know ye not that ye are 
 the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwell- 
 ethin you." In John xvi. 33, our Saviour says : " He 
 (the Holy Ghost) shall lead you into all truth." And 
 in ch. vi. 63, he says: "It is the Spirit that quicken- 
 eth." In 2 Cor. iii. 18, Paul says: "We are changed 
 into the same image from glory to glory, even as by 
 the Spirit of the Lord." And in Rom. viii. 28, he 
 says : "And likewise the Spirit itself helpeth our in- 
 firmities." Therefore the Pope, by pretending to be 
 the vicar of the Son of God, usurps the power and pre- 
 rogative of the Third Person of the Di\ine Trinity, 
 which is unpardonable blasphemy if there be any such. 
 And, moreover, St. Peter himself was indebted to the 
 Holy Ghost for his apostolical qualifications which 
 he had in common with those of the other apostles ; 
 and, therefore, we conclude, that the popes of Rome, 
 of those falsely-pretended successors of the apostle 
 Peter, instead of being worthy of the title of Vicar 
 the Son of God, are only worthy of being called by 
 the name of him only who has blasphemously usurped 
 the title, office, and dignity of the Holy Ghost. And 
 who, it may now be asked, is he that usurps the title, 
 office, and dignity of the Holy Ghost ? I answer, 
 
POPISH MASS. 397 
 
 that, according to the language of St. John in Rev. 
 xiii. 18, he hath a number, that that number is six 
 hundred three-score and six ; and he that hath wis- 
 dom is free to count his, and hence to discover who 
 it is that usurps the title, office, and dignity of the 
 Holy Ghost. Now, by the permission of my readers, 
 and perhaps for the instruction of some, we shall try 
 our skill in counting this number, in order to detect this 
 blasphemous person, for it is the number of a man. 
 Well, then, there are four words whose signification is 
 most necessary to be known, in finding out the person 
 who makes himself equal with the Highest. These are, 
 Romiith, in Hebrew, by which the Jews understood 
 the city and empire of Rome ; Lateinos^ by which 
 the Greeks understood the Latin Church ; Sethur, 
 which is a Hebrew word, and signifies Mystery ; and 
 Vicarius FlUi Dei, which signifies the Vicar of the 
 Son of God ; the numerical letters of each of them, 
 it is said, amounts to the number of him who usurps 
 the title, office, and dignity of the Holy Ghost. 
 Well, let us try the word Romiith : — 
 
 1 
 
 1 R or resh, stands for . . 200 
 1 oc or waw, stands for . . 6 
 
 D M or mem, stands for . . 40 ! ^^"^' 
 
 > 
 
 ^ I or lod, stands for . . ^^ ( fifif 
 
 1 I or lod, stands for . . 10 I 
 
 n Th or Thou, stands for . . 400 J 
 
 Thus, then, we see that the word Romiith stands 
 exactly for ^QQ ', and thus we are brought to the city 
 
398 
 
 POPISH MASS. 
 
 > 
 
 equal 
 
 to 
 
 666 
 
 of Rome as the place of him who usurps the title, 
 office, and dignity of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Well, let us next try whether he Hves in Rome 
 civil, or Rome sacred ; that is, whether he be a lay- 
 man or a clergyman. Now, the Greek word for 
 the Latin Church, remember, is Lateinos : — 
 
 A Lambda, or L stands for . 30 ^ 
 
 A Alpha, or A stands for , 1 ' 
 
 T Tau, or T stands for . 300 
 
 E Epsilon, or E stands for • 5 
 
 I Iota, or I stands for , 10 
 
 N Nu, or N stands for . 50 
 
 O Omikron, or O stands for . 70 
 
 S Sigma, or S stands for . 200 , 
 
 Hence, then, we find that the Grecian designation 
 of the Latin Church is exactly 666 ; and thus we are 
 directed to the Church of Rome for him who usurps 
 the title, office, and dignity of the Holy Ghost. Having 
 thus conducted the reader to Rome sacred in quest of 
 him who usurps the title, office, and dignity of the Holy 
 Ghost, let us now, and in the same manner, endea- 
 vour to find out the name, seat, and character of that 
 Church, that we may see whether it will agree with 
 the Greek designation of that Church. Now, the 
 Hebrew word Sethur signifies Mystery ; and the ap- 
 pellation Mystery, according to Rev. xvii, 5, is the 
 name of her whom St. John saw drunk with the 
 blood of the saints, and sitting upon a scarlet-coloured 
 beast. Now, then, if Mystery be her name, if the 
 
POPISH MASS. 399 
 
 word Sethur signifies Mystery, and if the numerical 
 letters of this Hebrew word amount to 666, it must 
 be the Hebrew name of the Church of Rome, and, 
 consequently, it must be she who is the Mother of 
 Abominations, whom St. John saw drunk with the 
 blood of the saints, and sitting upon a scarlet-coloured 
 beast. The word is Sethur, therefore, let us try : — 
 
 D S or Samech, stands for . 60 ■>« 
 
 n Th or Thou, stands for . 400 [ ^^"^^ 
 
 > to 
 1 00 or Waw, stands for . 6 } ggg 
 
 *i R or Resh, stands for . 200 J 
 
 Thus, then, we find that she, whose name is Mys- 
 tery — she whose cup is full of the abominations of the 
 earth — she whose veil covers her ugliness — she who 
 paints her face with the hypocritical dye of holiness, 
 for no other purpose than seducing many into her 
 meretricious practices, — yea, she, whom St. John 
 saw sitting on a scarlet-coloured beast, is the same 
 Church that the Greeks called Lateinos. 
 
 Trusting that you are hence convinced that she 
 whose name is Mystery, or QQQ, is the Popish Church, 
 let us next endeavour to find out the number, name, 
 or title of that scarlet-coloured beast, upon which the 
 apostle saw that Church sitting, and if that number, 
 name, or title agrees with the assumed title of every 
 Roman Pontiff, I hope you will thereby be convinced, 
 that he who blasphemously usurps the title, office* 
 and dignity of the Holy Ghost, is that same scarlet- 
 coloured beast, and that that beast is no other than 
 
400 
 
 POPISH MASS. 
 
 the falsely-pretended successor of St. Peter. Well, 
 then, the number of the beast which carries her 
 whom I have now proved to be the Church of Rome, 
 being, according to Rev. xiii. 18, exactly 666 ; and 
 the title which the Pope has marked on the mitre 
 that he wears on more particular occasions, being 
 Vicarius FiUi Dei^ it will follow, that, if the nume- 
 rical letters of these words, according to the Roman 
 mode of notation, is exactly 666 \ that the Pope and 
 the Beast mentioned in Rev. xiii. 18, is the same 
 person. Well, we shall try 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 100 
 000 
 
 000 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 000 
 000 
 
 1 
 
 50 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 500 
 
 000 
 
 1 J 
 
 V 
 
 V stands for 
 
 I 
 
 I stands for 
 
 c 
 
 C or Centum, stands for 
 
 (a) 
 
 ^ does not enter 
 
 (r) 
 
 r does not enter 
 
 I 
 
 I stands for 
 
 V 
 
 V stands for 
 
 («) 
 
 s does not enter 
 
 (0 
 
 f does not enter 
 
 I 
 
 I stands for 
 
 L 
 
 L stands for 
 
 I 
 
 I stands for 
 
 I 
 
 I stands for 
 
 D 
 
 D stands for 
 
 (E) 
 
 e does not enter 
 
 I 
 
 I stEmds for 
 
 > 
 
 equal 
 
 to 
 
 666 
 
 Then, since the sum of these numerical letters is 
 exactly 666^ we hence see that the Pope of Rome is 
 
POPISH MASS. 401 
 
 the Beast mentioned in Rev. xiii. 18 ; and since he is 
 so, how is it possible for him to give any other inter- 
 pretation to " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock 
 I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall 
 not be able to prevail against her," than one becom- 
 ing the wildness and fierceness of his nature, which 
 is that of the Leopard, whose den is in the seven hills 
 of Rome. Are you now, O reader, convinced that 
 the Pope and the Beast referred to, are one and the 
 same person ? If you are, be still more so, then, by 
 what I have still to tell you concerning this myste- 
 rious number. It is very nearly a square number, 
 of which, if the root be extracted, it will turn out to 
 be 25 and a small fraction, which small fraction pro- 
 bably represents all of pure Chtistianity that remains 
 in the Church of Rome, or the religion of the Beast. 
 Now, the number 25 answers exactly a great number 
 of things in the religion of the Beast, for so we may 
 now call the head of the Popish Church, which has 
 exactly 25 articles of faith ; the Council of Trent, 
 which was established by it, had 25 sessions ; it was 
 begun with 25 prelates ; its acts were subscribed by 
 25 bishops. In St. Peter's Church, it is said, there 
 are 25 altars ; each altar, it is said, is 25 hands high ; 
 on each side of each altar, as I am informed, there 
 are 25 marks of our Saviour's wounds. The year 
 of their jubilee is reduced to every 25th ; and the 
 
 c 2 
 
402 POPISH MASS. 
 
 25th of every month is by them pecuUarly marked 
 with their abominable superstition. 
 
 But why, some curious Papist may ask, is the 
 number of the Beast six hundred three score and six, 
 rather than any other number ? Now, we say, one 
 obvious reason is, that it may serve to identify the 
 Beast and Her who sits thereon, with these four mys- 
 terious words, Romiith, Lateinos, Sethur, and 
 Vicarius Filii Dei, Another probable reason is, 
 that it was perhaps in the year QQQ that Pope Vitel- 
 lius restricted the public liturgy to the Latin lan- 
 guage, thus bringing the western Churches entirely 
 under the Roman Pontiff. A third probable reason 
 is, that the number 666 is perhaps the exact number 
 of years which elapsed from the time that St. John 
 had his visions in the Island of Patmos, till the year 
 756, when the Popes of Rome became also Princes 
 of Italy, thus confounding Rome civil with Rome 
 sacred. And a fourth probable reason is, that Q^^ 
 may denote the vast number of officers, errors, and 
 corruptions of that Church, after she had fled into 
 the wilderness of ignorance, and clothed herself with 
 the scarlet garb of Popish superstition. 
 
 Having now proved that the Popish interpretation 
 of Matt. xvi. 18, is false, we have thereby proved that 
 the Church of Rome, even though she possessed the 
 power, has no authority whatever to demand the 
 
POPISH MASS. 403 
 
 assent of the mind of any individual to her false doc- 
 trines. I say, even though she possessed the power, 
 which neither she nor any other Church does further 
 than what is contained in the key of knowledge. 
 Believing and disbelieving are simple acts of the 
 mind ; and, therefore, no power upon earth can make 
 a man believe that to be true which he perceives to 
 be false. Belief being the result of evidence or tes- 
 timony, it follows, that the belief of transubstantiation 
 and the sacrifice of the mass, in spite of the Church, 
 must result from the same principle, or it can be no 
 proper faith. Now, we have shewn that this subject 
 may be tried, by nearly all the kinds of evidence, 
 which reason and the nature of things furnish us, 
 and that, by the testimony of the whole, it is worthy 
 of condemnation. We have proved it to be false by 
 the evidence of divine testimony ; we have shewn 
 that it is repugnant to the evidence of the external 
 senses ; and we have shewn that it is contrary to the 
 laws of nature. The only evidence of the truth of 
 the mass is human testimony, even the testimony of 
 those who composed the Pope's party in the Coun- 
 cils of Constance and Trent, and of such like men. 
 But we reject their evidence, 1*^, Because we know 
 that their circumstances are such, that in religious 
 matters, they are prejudiced, vain, given to subtraction, 
 addition, and mutation, under the power of the Church, 
 and more willing to be guided by the doctrine of their 
 
404 POPISH MASS. 
 
 corrupt Church, that by the word of God. 2c//y, We 
 reject the evidence of the Church of Rome, because we 
 know that it is the temporal interest of the followers 
 of the Beast to teach the antichristian, idolatrous, and 
 beastlv doctrine of the mass. It raises the sacrificiniof 
 priest in the estimation of the poor ignorant worship- 
 per of bread. It makes men believe that they have 
 power to create the eternal Jehovah. Yea, it makes 
 them revered and looked upon as demi-gods. This 
 doctrine was established in the dark ages of the 
 world, when men seemed to have lost their reason, 
 when abuses overran the Church, and when priests 
 domineered over the intellects of men with impunity. 
 The more ignorant the country is, the grossness of 
 the Popish religion is in proportion, though its spirit 
 in all is the same. If you wish to see it in its pleni- 
 tude of strength and glory, go to Italy, Spain, and 
 Portugal, where the people in general are in a worse 
 state than that of pagan barbarism. If you want to 
 see it in a more refined state, go to France, where 
 it has to breathe the atmosphere of at least human 
 learning and philosophy. If you want to see it, as 
 if ashamed of its deformity, scarcely obtruding itself 
 on the nature of any, till night comes, when, like a 
 leopard thirsting for blood, it rages and devours, go 
 to the north of Ireland, where the light of divine 
 truth shews it in its ugliness, and where the force of 
 that truth restrains its mischievous power. But even 
 
POPISH MASS. 405 
 
 there, the second commandment of the Decalogue 
 is altogether left out in Dr Reilly's Catechism, 
 which is not so with any I have seen, either in Eng- 
 land or Scotland, where the Popish religion is very 
 different, externally at least, from what it is even in 
 the north of Ireland. But why is it left out ? The 
 reason is obvious, even that it may not prove a 
 stumbling-block to the followers of the Beast, when 
 they are bowing the knee and wringing their hands, 
 and smiting their breasts in the worship of their 
 images. Dr Reilly, however, to make up the loss 
 of the second commandment, has been so good as to 
 put in the following eight of the Church in its stead, 
 which are these : — 
 
 1. Sundays and holidays mass thou shalt hear, 
 
 2. And holidays sanctify throughout the year. 
 
 3. Lent ember days and vigils thou shalt fast. 
 
 4. Fridays and Saturdays thou shalt not taste. 
 
 5. Lent and Advent nuptial feasts forbear. 
 
 6. Confess your sins at least once every year. 
 
 7. Receive your god about great Easter day. 
 
 8. And to the Church neglect not dues to pay. 
 
 But having proved by my last argument, that the 
 Popish Church especially has no authority what- 
 ever to make its members believe the doctrine of 
 the mass ; I have driven it from this its dernier place 
 of refuge to receive the contempt, scorn, and de- 
 rision which it merits, and which common sense, 
 reason, and the word of God orive it the following 
 
406 POPISH MASS. 
 
 appropriate lines, taken from the Gentleman's Ma- 
 gazine for 1755 : — 
 
 Among the pagans, there were little odds 
 
 Between their fuel and their wooden gods. 
 
 The log that in their woodyard lies, may prove, 
 
 As the chance hits a billet or a Jove ; 
 
 'Tis as it haps, he 's worshipp'd, or he 's burned, 
 
 Or to a god, or to a gate-post turn'd. 
 
 Of the like folly we may Papists blame. 
 
 Their deity and dumpling are the same. 
 
 The wafer 's God, they say, or something better, 
 
 Then on its fellow spit or seal a letter. 
 
 The god of wood 's by much to be preferr'd. 
 
 There 's nose and eyes, and cheeks and chin, and beard. 
 
 He makes at least a figure in a house ; 
 
 The wafer 's scarce a morsel for a mouse. 
 
 Yet Papists say, he 's here at once and there, 
 
 God, wafer, every thing, and every where. 
 
 And if the Deity it must be so, 
 
 A god in bread, a billet in the dough ; 
 
 'Twill serve to cram a pullet or a saint, 
 
 A Papist save and damn a Protestant. 
 
 But the dispute will be, the god who makes ? 
 
 Or he who blesses it, or he who bakes ? 
 
 The baker in this god-bread has a share. 
 
 For while 'tis dough, the god-ship is not there. 
 
 And " Hoc est enim " by the friar said, 
 
 Divinity 's transferr'd into the bread. 
 
 Thus priest and baker must together join. 
 
 And dough be bak'd, and bless'd, to be divine. 
 
 The priest has great advantage of the baker. 
 
 The one makes bread, the other makes his Maker. 
 
 All Protestants are worse than infidel. 
 
 Not to believe what is impossible. 
 
POPISH MASS. 407 
 
 It cannot be, and that is reason good, 
 For Catholics to swear 'tis flesh and blood. 
 That faith 's not worth a fig which can't dispense 
 With things that give the lie to common sense. 
 'Tis against reason, is it ? that's enough, 
 A Popish creed demands no better proof. 
 Have you not seen at fair of Barthol'mew, 
 High Germans with light fingers wonders do 
 With cups and balls ? Beneath the conjuring cup 
 He puts a buckle, and a ball turns up : 
 So here the Popish priest by trick as odd, 
 Puts in a wafer and pulls out a god. 
 
 But in our last argument, we have done infinitely 
 more than driven the mass from its last place of re- 
 fuge, for by proving that the Popish interpretation 
 of Matt. xvi. 18 is false, we have caught a crafty, 
 cruel, and blood-thirsty Leopard in the meshes of di- 
 vine truth ; conquered the Beast with seven heads and 
 ten horns with the two-edged sword of the Lord ; 
 unmasked the Mother of Abominations, and shewed 
 her ugliness in the mirror of heavenly light ; battered 
 down, with the hammer of divine truth, the strongest 
 pillar in St. Peter's, falsely so called ; and with the 
 breath of inspiration, blown the whole fabric of the 
 Popish Church, "ten leagues awry, into the devious 
 air," with all her unscriptural trumpery of popes, car- 
 dinals, lordly bishops, village bishops, patriarchal 
 thrones, arch -presbyters, priests, arch-deacons, sub- 
 deacons, exorcists, canonic singers, friars, ermites, 
 pilgrims, temples, altars, monasteries, nunneries, 
 
408 POPISH MASS. 
 
 feasts, masses, canticles, antephonies, litanies, pro- 
 cessions, lents, fasts, oblations, purgatories, celeba- 
 cies, bastard sacraments, holy-waters, chrisms, unc- 
 tions, images, visions, miracles ; cowls, caps, hoods, 
 habits, girdles, robes, beads, crosses, agnus del 
 crosses, indulgences, pardons, bulls, curses, and a 
 thousand other abominations which Popery hath built 
 on the antichristian interpretation of (Matt. xvi. 18,) 
 " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build 
 my Church." 
 
 THE END. 
 
 EDINBURGH s 
 
 J. Johnstone, Printer, 104, High Street.