fice is unbloody, it cannot be propitiatory, which, nevertheless, they say it is. Unbloody, yet propitiatory! Who ever heard of an unbloody propitiatory sacrifice? What Jew? What Pagan? A propitiatory sacrifice, be it remembered, is a sacrifice for atonement—a sacrifice with a view to the remission of sins. This all acknowledge. But "without shedding of blood is no remission," Heb. 9: 22-consequently no propitiatory sacrifice. Now here is no shedding of blood, they say; yet remission is effected by it! It is a propitiatory sacrifice, notwithstanding. Who does not see the contradiction? They must take back their admission that it is unbloody, or else acknowledge that it is not propitiatory. They cannot hold to both without self-contradiction.

The reader sees that this doctrine of the Catholic church subverts that great principle in the divine government, that "without shedding of blood is no remission". -a principle not merely inscribed on the page of the Bible, but written with the finger of God on the mind of man. The conscience of the veriest pagan reads it there? If a sacrifice may be propitiatory, though unbloody, never a victim that bled under the Jewish economy, need have been slain; and Christ need not have died! The doctrine of the mass therefore, that a sacrifice may be propitiatory, though bloodless, undermines the Gospel.

One inference more from their doctrine I must not forget. It is this. If in the eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice is offered, then a propitiatory sacrifice may be effected by mere action. No passion whatever is necessary to it-expiation is made without any suffering-made by a mere doing! Is this truth? Can an

די

tiquity be pleaded for this doctrine? Can that be the oldest religion which cherishes and teaches it?

There is no sacrifice in what is improperly called the mass-least of all a propitiatory sacrifice. The doctrine is error-error in a capital particular-on a fundamental point-gross and most pernicious error. What then shall we think of a church which not only inculcates it, but gives it the greatest prominence, and makes the service connected with it the main thing in its religion? I have my thoughts. The reader must have his.

I reserve some things on the mass for a future communication.

35. More about the Mass.

But before I proceed to the Mass, I wish to add a word about relics. In my communication on that subject, I referred to Bellarmine as quoting from the Old Testament in support of the doctrine of relics. Since then, I have recollected a fact which makes me wonder that a Catholic should ever appeal to the Old Testament for authority in favor of relics. The reader probably knows that no relics are more common among the Catholics, and none more highly valued than the bones of deceased saints and martyrs. Now, if Numbers, 19: 16, be consulted, it will be found that under the Jewish dispensation, if a person so much as touched the bone of a man, he was ceremonially unclean for seven days, and had to submit to a tedious pro

cess of purification before he could be restored to the privileges of God's worship, from which he had been 'temporarily excluded in consequence of that contact. This being the case, it is pretty certain that the bones of the dead were not handled and cherished as relics by the pious Jews, as they are by our Catholics. There was nothing which the Israelite more carefully avoided than some of those very things which are now carried about and shown as relics. Therefore, I say, it is not best to go so far back as the Old Testament for testimony in favor of relics.

Now let us to the mass again. It is known, I suppose, that they quote Scripture in favor of the mass. That circumstance however proves nothing. Scripture is not always aptly quoted. It should be remembered by those who are prone to think it in favor of a doctrine, that its abettors appeal to the Bible in its support, that Scripture was once quoted by a celebrated character to prove the propriety of the Son of God casting himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. It is always advisable to refer to the quotation, and see for ourselves if it makes in favor of the doctrine. The principal passage which the Catholics adduce in support of their mass, is that concerning Melchizedek, in the 14th chapter of Genesis. Abraham and his armed servants were on their return from "the slaughter of the kings," when they were met by this distinguished personage. The record of the occurrence is as follows: "And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him.... And he gave him tithes of all." Here is the text, reader. Now the doctrine deduced from it is this that

"in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead.” Q. E. D.

Do not smile at the incongruity of the text and the doctrine-the distance of the conclusion from the premises. Sacred things are to be handled seriously. I know the reader only smiles at the logic of the thing. But he should remember that they do the best thing they can, when they quote this passage in favor of their mass. If there were other Scripture more appropriate and to the point than this, they would quote it. I have no doubt the intelligent Catholic is ashamed of this reference to the Bible in behalf of the mass. He sees that it has no bearing on the case, It is not to compare in point of appropriateness with the tempter's quotation referred to above.

Just observe first, that it was as king, not as priest, that Melchizedek brought forth the bread and wine. "Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine." It was an act of royal bounty—an exercise of kingly hospitality. True, it is said immediately after, that he was a priest as well as a king; but that is said in reference to what follows, not what precedes. "And he was priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him." In his capacity of king he brought forth bread and wine. In the exercise of his priestly office he blessed Abraham. To bless, we know, was one part of the priest's office. Numbers, 6: 23. His bringing forth bread and wine had nothing to do with his being a priest. What proves this view of the passage correct is, the manner in which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to it. In his seventh chapter he introduces Melchizedek as a priest,

and in that character as the model of Christ's priesthood; and he speaks of his blessing Abraham, but says not a word about his bringing forth bread and wine. Why is not this circumstance—this most material circumstance, according to the Catholic notion, alluded to, if in it he acted as a priest and as the sacerdotal type of Christ? Why does the apostle, when speaking of him as a priest, mention only his benediction of Abraham? Now if, as I think it is manifest, he brought forth bread and wine not in the exercise of his office as priest, it overturns the Catholic argument

at once.

But secondly, consider what in all human probability was the object of the bread and wine. Would any one, in reading the passage, suppose it could have been for any other purpose than refreshment? What an idea! to come out to a people returning famished and weary from the toils of conflict, with a sacrificea propitiatory sacrifice too-the mass-with bread and wine, not to be eaten and drank, but to be offered to God! What more unnatural than such a supposition! On the other hand what more natural, and proper than to bring forth, for those fatigued soldiers, "wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart," to refresh them? It was just what, under the circumstances, they needed.

In further proof of the correctness of this view of the passage, we find that Abraham recognized the priesthood of Melchizedek, not by receiving bread and wine at his hands, but by giving him tithes. "And he gave him tithes of all."

We see then there is no proof of any sacrifice in this transaction. There was nothing offered to God.