Page images
PDF
EPUB

a sacrifice to God, as they affirm; and afterwards, as all admit, offered himself on the cross, then He twice offered himself; and, if so, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was under a great mistake, for he says, "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." "We are

sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb. ix. 28, and x. 10.) Here is a contradiction. Which shall we believe? The Apostle of the Gentiles, or the Romish church? If Christ really offered himself in the eucharist-on the table, as the Roman Catholics contend-there was no need of his offering himself on the cross. His twice offering himself was quite unnecessary, If "in the mass there is offered up a true and propitiatory sacrifice,” what need of another on Calvary? One "true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice," is all that is wanted.

But, if the Roman Catholic doctrine be true, Christ has been offered not twice only, but innumerable times. In every mass that ever has been said, He has been offered. He is offered to-day, as really as He was on the day of His crucifixion. He is offered on earth, while He is interceding in heaven. Both parts of the priest's office, the propitiation and the intercession, are going on at the same time-a thing unheard of in the history of the priesthood! Did the Jewish high priest, the type of Jesus, our great high priest, execute both parts of his office at the same moment? Moreover, according to this doctrine, there was no propriety in Christ's saying on the cross, "It is finished; for it is not finished yet, nor will it be, till the last mass is said. It depends on the will of the priest when it shall be finished. This, to me, is shocking doctrine. What! Can a priest cause Christ to be offered just when he pleases? My mind recoils from the notion. There is what, by a figure, is called the "crucifying of the Son of God afresh;" but this appears like doing it literally. I know the Romanists make a distinction here. They say, and let them be heard, that Christ in the eucharist is offered in an unbloody manner, while the sacrifice on

[ocr errors]

the cross was bloody. And this distinction they lay great stress on. But I wonder that they do no not see the consequence of this explanation-that, if the sacrifice 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. ix. 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 selfcontradiction.

[ocr errors]

The reader sees, that this doctrine of the Roman 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, not 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 antiquity 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 Romanist should ever appeal to the Old Testament for authority in favour of relics. The reader probably knows, that no relics are more common among the Roman Catholics, and none more highly valued, than the bones of deceased saints and martyrs. Now, if Numbers xix. 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 he had to submit to a tedious process 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 Roman 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.

But with respect to the mass. 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 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 to see if it makes in favor of the doctrine. The principal passage which the Roman 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. É. 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 any other Scripture more appropriate and more to the point than this, they would quote it. I have no doubt that the intelligent Roman 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 the 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 his exercise of his priestly office he blessed Abraham. To bless, we know, was one part of the priest's office. (Numbers vi. 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 Romish 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 is manifest, he brought forth bread and wine, not in the exercise of his office as priest, but as a king, it overturns the Roman 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 hungry and weary from the toils of conflict, with a sacrifice-a propitiatory sacrifice, too-the mass- with bread and wine, not to be eaten and drunk, 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.

*This is exceedingly well put by our author. The argument is cogent, and well stated in this paragraph.

A. S. T.

« EelmineJätka »