is in the entrails of the papist, where the body and blood of Christ are changed into another substance. This is the usual course of things—one absurdity begets another. After all, I think the evacuated matter ought to be reverenced by a papist. He honours many a relic on account of what it has been, which has not so good a claim to his regard. Look at the fæces, and indulge in pious meditations: "This was once bread-then the body of Christ!—and now a t- -! Take it up; consecrate and enshrine it; and then pray before it it will be a sweet smelling savour! etc. But the most astonishing and alarming circumstance is, that a papist, upon his own principles, has no security that, in worshipping the host, he is not guilty of gross idolatry, in worshipping nothing but a bit of bread. There may be so many defects in the celebration of the mass, that no one can be sure the sacrament is really made. Several of these stated in "Extracts from Authentic Documents," and taken from Rom. Missals, printed in 1822 and 1827, by Coyne, Dublin, I will now put down: "A defect may happen," etc. "If the bread," etc. "If the wine," etc. "If he discover this," etc. "If any one shall have,” etc. "The defects on the part," etc. "If any one does not intend," "If any one shall have said," etc. Let any one of the laity look at these defects, all of which are capital, and then ask himself whether it be possible he should know that a true sacrament is made! And yet if it be not, he is undone for ever; because he worships the creature instead of the Creator. Further. Because he cannot know that the sacrament is made, he ought to conclude that God does not require him to worship it. Since idolatry is so severely denounced in scripture, it must be our duty to avoid what may probably, or even possibly, involve such an act; for God cannot require us to risk our salvation in his service. That there can be no divine obligation to worship the eucharist is plain enough from the example of the apostles and primitive christians, who are never once reported in the sacred writings to have adored it. If the officiating minister have not priestly orders, his ministrations are vitiated. It is a principle with the papists that the priestly office cannot legally be assumed by any one, nor conferred by an heretic, a schismatic, or an excommunicated person. So that no man can be sure that he is a lawful priest, except he can trace his orders back to an inspired Apostle, through a regular succession of duly ordained ministers; and this no man living can do. In different ages many have intruded into the priesthood without any ordination; and thousands who have conferred orders have been in heresy, schism, or excommunication, at the time, and have thus perpetuated a race of priests without any valid title. Besides intention is of as much importance in ordination as in the eucharist: "If any one shall have said," etc., page 8th. Now it is utterly impossible to know with certainty another man's intention. And if in the line of succession from the apostles down to the present priest, intention was wanting in the ordainer, in a single instance, all the remainder in the succession are no true priests. This involves all in uncertainty; and there is not a priest in christendom can prove that he has valid holy orders. This is a subject which must not be left to chance; no, nor even to probability. I ought to have positive certainty, when performing my devotions, that I am not guilty of idolatry. But a papist has not even probability for his faith. For it is every thing but certain that intention has been wanting in some one included in the line of succession; for according to the Romish writers themselves, the priesthood generally, during the dark ages, that is, for several centuries, were depraved in the extreme, being guilty of simony, drunkenness, whoredom, sodomy, etc. etc. Now it is not to be supposed that minds so depraved would in every instance, through many centuries, administer the sacrament of holy orders with a right intention. Further. Not a few both of bishops and priests have been infidels. The popes John XII. and John XXIII. were as clearly convicted of infidelity, as ever guilt was proved in a court of judicature; the former in a council at Rome, the latter in a council of Constance. Leo the X. is commonly reported to have said to Peter Bembus, his secretary, "What profit does the fable of Jesus bring us in?" and his life was in strict accordance with such a confession. Several other popes are suspected to have been no better. There is good reason to believe that a large portion of the Romish priests are disguised infidels. Blanco White affirms that a great part of the clergy, and of the higher classes in Spain, are infidels, and are only restrained by the inquisition from casting off the Romish yoke. And we know that the clergy in France must have been generally sceptical prior to the revolution, or the principal part of them would not, on the dissolution of the government, have openly professed atheism. An infidel cannot believe that any divine virtue is communicated by the sacraments, and therefore cannot have a right intention in administering them; for it is impossible he should intend to convey what he is persuaded he cannot convey. The sacrament of holy orders must have been vitiated in numerous instances by the infidelity of the administrators. All the recipients in such cases, though they actually received no orders, are, notwithstanding, generally under an impression that their orders are valid. These may administer with intention, and yet, not being in the ministry themselves, they cannot initiate others; so that no one can calculate the extent of the mischief. A few generations would be sufficient to invalidate the services of the sincere as well as the vicious. The probabilities therefore are very great against any particular priest being really in the priesthood. Thus in reference to the eucharist, the priest may not be in holy orders, and then his good intention cannot make a sacrament. Or he may be a disguised infidel, or a malignant, or be thinking of something false at the time of consecrating, in all which cases no sacrament is made. The doctrine of intention was invented, no doubt, to bring the people into a state of slavish subjection to the priests. For if the priest be offended, he may purposely withhold intention, and then the recipient loses the benefit of the sacrament; and in worshipping the host, he is involved in the guilt of idolatry. But if there were any truth in the doctrine, the priests would be involved in the same peril as the people, when they receive the sacraments. But this I believe gives them very little uneasiness-they see through the cheat; and while the laity tremble, they laugh in their sleeve! : "If the bread be in any way corrupted, the sacrament is not made." And yet the people have no opportunity of examining it when they do not receive it; and when they do, the worship is performed before it is given them and even then they are required to swallow it, whole, if possible, in which case they cannot detect any corrupt matter that may be in it. And the priest is in pretty much the same uncertainty as the people upon this point. It seems that the making these blessed wafers is a matter of trade among the papists. The following advertisement is copied from the cover of the Laity's Directory for 1827 : "ALTAR BREAD." "Agnes Collison respectfully acquaints the Reverend Clergy, that she made the Altar Bread for her father during his last illness, and for a considerable time before; and that the approbation of the Altar Bread of her late father, published by authority in the Ordo Recitandi, has been graciously continued by his lordship to herself; and that it will be her constant endeavour, by punctuality and fidelity, to merit a continuance of the honourable approbation she has received." From "A New Year's Gift," in the above Directory, by Wm. Bishop, of Halia, Vic. Apos., in the London district: "What does the communicant, on earth, receive in the holy sacrament? He receives truly, really, and substantially, the same Jesus Christ whom the blessed souls behold in his glory in heaven. And in the B B communion, the priest and faithful on earth are really united to the same Saviour, to whom the faithful are united in glory. "Who is he, whom you here receive, not in figure only, but in substance; not in an empty commemoration, but in his real presence under the appearance of bread? It is God the Son made man, truly and really present under the external form. It is Jesus Christ himself, true God, and true man, in all the infinite attributes of his divine nature, and in all the glorious perfections of his human nature. It is Jesus Christ, who, as God, is omnipotent, infinitely good, holy, just, and merciful, as the Father. This is he whom Mary possessed, as God and man, within her sacred womb, for nine months. This is he, whom you possess, as God and man, within you, as soon as you have received the holy communion. You receive the same Jesus Christ, with this difference: that, in the womb of Mary, his body was in a mortal state; but, as received by you, his body is in an immortal and glorious state. "He comes to us in this sacrament, to receive the homage of our love. Let us then offer ourselves wholly to him; our minds filled with the highest esteem of his glory and perfections; our hearts inflamed with the most ardent affections for him; our wills, totally subject and conformable to his will in all things: in such dispositions of benevolent and grateful love, let us approach to Christ, and unite ourselves to him in the sacrament of his love. "Solicit the intercession of the blessed virgin, and of all the angels and saints, that you may worthily and devoutly receive him under the veil of the sacrament, whom they behold in glory. "At the moment of communion, if your eyes were opened to behold the glory that surrounds you, what should you see? Jesus Christ, purer than the whitest snow, brighter than the brightest rays of the sun, in the majesty and glory of the Son of God, attended by heavenly spirits, veiling their faces, as not daring |