himself, I cannot see. Ah, but they say the Scriptures are so obscure. And are the fathers so very clear? Why cannot we understand the Greek of John and Paul, as well as that of Chrysostom?

The thing which next attracted my observation in the book was the following: "In the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." The Mass! and what is that? The Bible could not tell me. So I had to resort to the

A.-Because the whole Gospel of Christ is nothing else but an exhortation to do good and avoid evil, than which nothing were more vain, if it be not in the free election and power of man, assisted by God's grace, to do or not to do such things."

Now, dear reader, what do you think of that? The whole Gospel of Christ nothing else but an exhortation to do good and avoid evil!!! What then is the difference between the Law

66

and the Gospel? The whole Gospel nothing else but this!!! Gospel means good tidings. What good tidings is it, or can it be, to a poor perishing sinner, to set before him an exhortation to do good, and avoid evil," when he finds, by daily and hourly experience, that he can do neither the one nor the other? Even Paul the Apostle cries out, "The good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.' (Rom. vii, 19-21.) Must not they be in far worse than Egyptian darkness- "darkness which may be felt," (Ex. x, 21) who teach, that "the whole Gospel of Christ is nothing else but an exhortation to do good, and avoid evil?" But if it be proclaimed to me, as it is in the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, that "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost; " (Luke xix, 10.) "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace;" (Eph. i, 7), and that He has promised, that our Heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him," (Luke xi, 13) and that as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," (Rom. viii, 14). This is good tidings indeed. Here is Mercy to forgive us all our sins, and Grace to enable us to bring forth "the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God." Here are indeed good tidings of great joy!" And if any one can read the New Testament, and not see for himself, without any need of going to the fathers, the light of this glorious Gospel shining in its pages, must he not be blind indeed? A. S. T.

66

66

Dictionary. It is the name which the Roman Catholics give to the Sacrament of the Lord's supper; or rather to half of it; for you know they divide it, and, giving the bread to the people, do with the wine I cannot tell what. They say that it is perfect in one kind; and they anathematize all who say it is not. Their curse is on me now while I am writing. Nevertheless, I must ask, If it was perfect in one kind, why did Christ institute it in both kinds? Why did he not stop with the bread, reserving the cup ? Was it to make the sacrament more than perfect? But this is reasoning. I forget myself. The Roman Catholics don't hold to reasoning.

An idea occurs to me here which I beg leave to express. If the sacrament is perfect in either kind, why do not the priests sometimes give the people the cup; Why do they always give them the bread? And why originally did they withhold the cup rather than the bread? Some persons may imagine a reason, but I will content myself with asking the question.

But to proceed. They say that "in the Mass there is offered to God," &c. Why, what do they mean? There is nothing offered to God. What is offered is to men Christ says, offering to his disciples the bread, "Take eat," and reaching out the cup, he says, "Drink ye ALL of it.' There is something offered to men in this sacrament, even the precious memorials of the Saviour's propitiatory death: but every one, who reads the account, sees that there is nothing offered to God. Yet the Roman Catholics, leaning on tradition, say, there is in it "a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice" offered to God. A sacrifice included in the sacrament! How is that? And a propitiatory sacrifice too! I always supposed that propitiatory sacrifices ceased with the offering up of the Great Sacrifice-when the Lamb of God bled and died. Do we not read (Heb. x. 14), that "by ONE offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; "Now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself?" "Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins

of many," (Heb. ix. 26, 28,)—and it is said of his blood, that it "cleanseth from ALL sin." (1 John i. 7.) I don't know what we want, after this, of those unbloody sacrifices, which the Roman Catholics talk of as offered continually in the service of the mass. What is the use of them,if they are unbloody, as they say ;-since "without shedding of blood is no remission"? (Heb. ix. 22.)

According to the Roman Catholics, it must have been premature in Christ to say on the cross, "It is finished." They deny that it is finished. They say it is going on still that Christ is offered whenever mass is said. Once Christ was offered, the Bible says; but the Roman church affirms, that he is offered many times daily, whenever and wherever mass is said!

It

I do really wonder that this religion has lasted so long in the world. How the human mind can entertain it for a day, I do not know. See how at every step it conflicts with reason. See in how many points it does violence to common sense. See, in this case, how boldly it contradicts the dying declaration of the Saviour. is a religion unknown to the Bible; and yet still in existence, aye, and they say, making progress; and that even in this home of freedom! If it be so, which I question, I blush that I am an American, and am almost ashamed that I am a man.

18. The Pope an Idolater.

It may seem a very uncharitable title I give this article. What, some will say, charge the Pope with being an idolater! What do you mean? I mean just what I say, that this boasted head of the church, this self-styled vicar of Christ, residing at Rome, ascribes divine attributes and pays divine honors to a creature, even to a human being, a partaker in our mortality and sin!-and if that is not idolatry, I don't know what idolatry is. If that is not idolatry, the worship of

the golden calf was not-the worship of the host of heaven was not the worship of the gods of Hindooism is not. What truer definition of idolatry can be given, than that it is an ascribing of divine attributes and a paying of divine honours to a creature? It does not matter what the creature is; whether it be the angel nearest the throne of God, or an onion that grows in the garden, such as they of Egypt once worshipped. It is its being a created thing-it is its being not God, that makes the service done to it idolatry.

But can I make good this charge against the successor of St. Peter, as they call him? If I cannot, I sin not merely against charity, but against truth. But I can establish it. Nor will I derive the proof from the Pope's enemies; nor will I look for it in the histories of the Papacy. The Pope himself shall supply me with the proof. Out of his own mouth will I judge him. If his own words do not convict him of idolatry, believe it not. But if they do, away with the objection, that it is an offence against charity to speak of such a thing as the Pope's being an idolater. My charity "rejoiceth in the truth." The charge can be uncharitable only by being untrue. It is too late in the day, I trust, for idolatry to find an apologist. But to the proof. Perhaps you suppose it is some obscure Pope of the dark ages, that I am going to prove an idolater. No, it is a Pope of the nineteenth centurythe present reigning Pope, Gregory XVI. He is the idolater; and here are his own words in proof of it. They are part of the circular, or encyclical letter, sent forth by him on entering on his office, and addressed to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops. The letter may be found in the Laity's Directory, 1833, and has been extensively published, without any of its statements being contradicted. In it the Pope calls upon all the clergy to implore "that SHE (the Virgin Mary) who has been, through every great calamity, our Patroness and Protectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our mind by her heavenly influence, to

those counsels which may prove inost salutary to Christ's flock!" Is comment necessary? Observe, he recognizes not God as having been their defence, but her as having been their protectress in past calamities, and directs the clergy to pray to her to continue her watch over them! As contrast is one of the principles on which ideas are associated, I was reminded on reading this, of the 121st Psalm, in which the writer speaks of the one 66 that keepeth Israel." It is not she, according to the Psalmist, but He, the Lord which made heaven and earth, that keepeth Israel. But, according to the Pope, it is the Virgin Mary that keepeth Israel; and he speaks of her as exerting a heavenly influence on the mind. I always thought it was the exclusive prerogative of Jehovah, to have access to the mind, and to exert "an immediate influence on it; and I cannot but think now, that the Pope must err in this matter, though he speaks ex cathedra. I cannot believe he was exactly infallible when he wrote that letter.

cr

But you have not heard the worst of it yet. In the same letter he says: "But that all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our greatest hope, yea, THE ENTIRE GROUND of our HOPE!" The capitals are mine, but the words are the Pope's. Now, just look at this. Did you ever hear anything like it? Observe what Mary is said to be and to do; and what the clergy are exhorted to do. The Pope's religion cannot be the oldest, as they pretend. It is not the religion of the Psalms. In the 121st Psalm the writer says, "I will lift mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the Lord." And in the 123rd, "Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O Thou that dwellest in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy upon us." But the Pope says, "Let us raise our eyes to the most blessed