accompaniment as the blessing of the habit; and the ceremony of induction, or reception, or enrolment among the various confraternities and sisterhoods of Carmelites, of St. Francis, of St. Augustine and St. Dominick, ever superinduces a grateful commission for saying masses, which are offered up at once for the benefit of the individuals contributing, and for the confraternities at large, of which they then become members. This they call the communion of saints. The friar is the certain gainer in all these pious transactions.

"The doctrine of purgatory has an intimate connection with the traffic in masses, which, in the church language, are offered up for the quick and for the dead. The piety of the living seeks to mitigate the sufferings of their departed friends. This piety is carefully nurtured by the interested clergy. The feast of All Souls, or the beginning of November, as we have said elsewhere, is the critical riod for the performance of this neighbourly and philanthropic duty. Nothing then is left untried to interest the faithful in behalf of the suffering souls in purgatory, who, it is said, can be most efficaciously relieved or extricated altogether, by the aid of masses, which are at once impetratory, propitiatory, and expiatory. This is a portion of the second of November doctrine, which is inculcated by every means that avaricious ingenuity can devise. Money was formerly raised by the sale of indulgences, and it used to be said, that the deposit of the money in the holy box, or on the holy plate, suddenly threw open the gates of purgatory for the enlargement or escape of the poor suffering inmates. It was

this and other ridiculous doctrines that first provoked the zeal of Luther, and prepared the way for the Reformation. Substitute for the old indulgences masses for the dead, and you have the same solemn

farce acted over again. So much for the theory and practice of masses.”*

Now all this is very lamentable, as well as very absurd ;-for it is impossible to imagine that one priest out of a hundred can be so senseless as to imagine that any of these wonderful effects will really follow the repeating of a parcel of Latin prayers, although the whole hundred are constantly taking money for all these false cures ! The whole system, therefore, is, from beginning to end, a system of fraud, chicanery, and plunder, and all under the garb of religion!

But let us take the best possible view of the question. Let us only investigate the most plausible point in the papist's case, namely, that the mass is a real offering up of Christ's body, for the appeasing the wrath of the Father, and that by the application of one of these sacrifices to a believer's own individual case, his sins will be blotted out. This is the least offensive view of the question; and yet, even in this mild and moderated form, we shall be obliged to denounce it-1st, as utterly destitute of all foundation in scripture; and 2ndly, as directly opposed to many plain declarations in the inspired word.

1. We turn over all the statements of the sacred writers, which refer to this observance; and we find not one single word to support the assumption, that our Lord intended herein to institute a perpetual sacrifice for the remission of sins. In the Romish church, this one fact is made, in truth, the very centre of their system. If their representations might be taken, it would almost seem that the whole Bible was written to establish the Mass-that Christ, in fact, died, chiefly to establish the Mass; and that the Mass is the very alpha and omega of all true Christianity. And yet, strange to say,

* O'Croly's Inquiry, 8vo. p. 107-110.

you may read the whole New Testament straight through; and neither in prophet, apostle, evangelist, or even in the injunctions of our Lord himself, can a single outline or feature of the Mass be found!

"In the divine sacrifice," says the Council of Trent, " which is performed in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, who, on the altar of the cross offered himself with blood once for all." And, "the Lord being appeased by the offering of this, and granting grace and the gift of repentance, remits crimes and sins, even great ones."

"I profess likewise," says the Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, "that in the Mass there is offered unto God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead."

Now, where is a single word of all this to be found in the Scripture account of the institution of this sacrament? Jesus, sitting at table after supper, "took bread and gave thanks, and bruke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you: this do in REMEMBRANCE of me." The same words are repeated twice by St. Paul, who then adds, "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, YE DO SHEW THE LORD'S DEATH till he come." In the plainest possible language, therefore, the institution is declared to be a " commemorative festival," but not a single syllable is said, of any "sacrifice" being so much as thought of.

2. The idea, however, of a perpetual sacrifice, is not only not countenanced by Scripture, but it is utterly opposed to its plainest declarations.

It has been well observed, that if the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews had been expressly written against the Mass, supposing it to have been then inDECEMBER 1838.

vented and palmed upon the church, they could not possibly have been more explicit or emphatic in their language. In fact we cannot doubt that the Divine Author had a double object in view-the denouncing the false doctrine then maintained by the Jewish teachers in the church, and the equally false doctrine which he foreknew would be introduced by the Romish teachers some centuries afterwards.

The assumption of these latter, is, that the work of a sinner's salvation is not completely effected, even by the one offering made on Calvary, the application of that blood to his soul by the Holy Spirit, and the perpetual intercession and mediation of the Saviour in heaven on his behalf. All this is not enough. The Father yet remains unpropitiated, until another sacrifice is offered up on earth, by a priest of the Romish church, who takes a piece of wafer, pronounces some Latin words over it, declares it to be thus changed into Christ's own body and blood, and holds it up to God the Father, at the sight of which that wrath is appeased which not all the pains of Calvary, nor the personal intercessions of the Saviour himself at the right hand of the throne, had been able entirely to abate!

The blasphemy of all this is shocking; but we must not permit our disgust to turn us away from the calm consideration of the truth of the case. It is not the tone of our feelings, but the declarations of Scripture, that must decide the whole question. Now these declarations are such, as to render it scarcely possible to doubt, that they were chiefly intended to apply to this great abomination.

"For such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens ; who NEEDETH NOT DAILY, as those High Priests, to offer up

3 Q

sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did ONCE, when he offered up himself. (Heb. vii. 26, 27.)

"Nor yet (was it necessary) that he should offer himself OFTEN, as the High Priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men ONCE to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Heb. ix. 25-28.)

Read also the first ten verses of the 10th chapter, the whole argument of which is, that the Levitical sacrifices were often offered, simply because they were shadows, and had no innate value; but that if any one of them could have put away sin, the repetition would at once have "ceased." The Apostle then proceeds

For

"And every Priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. by ONE OFFERING he hath perfect ed for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN. (Heb. x. 11-18.

Is it possible for language to go

66

beyond this? Had the Mass existed in the Apostle's days, and had he wished to denounce it, could he possibly have found language more clear or decisive? In fact, the Mass can only be defended at all, by directly denying the truth of all the Apostle's statements. The Romanist must assert, plainly, that "by one offering Christ hath not 'perfected for ever them that are sanctified;” that "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" does not sanctify the believer in Him; and that it is necessary that Christ “should offer himself often," for that he hath not "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." All this must the defender of the Mass affirm, and when he has gone thus far, it is certainly by no means surprising that he should wish the Bible put out of sight. It is impossible for him not to be conscious that to a plain honest student of God's word, the opposition between his statements and those of St. Paul must appear altogether total.

Such is the Scriptural view of this question. In conclusion, I have wished and endeavoured to state as fairly as I could, such proofs and arguments as I could find in any Romish writers, in defence of their view. But in truth, their array is so scanty as to be almost invisible. They quote Malachi i. 11-" In every place incense shall be offered unto thy name, and a pure offering." They also quote the case of Melchisedec, who offered bread and wine, and who is said to be a type of Christ.

Nothing, however, can be clearer than that the use of these texts in such a cause is a reversal of the true laws of interpretation. We are to interpret figurative and obscure passages by such as are plain and beyond doubt. But in this case the Romanists require us to interpret the plain and explicit language of our Lord, and of St.

Paul, by reference to the figurative language of Malachi, and the typical language applied to Melchizedec! Into such an argument it would be a waste of time to enter.

66 our

Their only remaining prop is found in their usual resort to the Fathers. Several of these have called the Lord's Supper "a sacrifice." We admit it; but in what sense do they use the term? Clemens Alexandrinus says, earthly altar is the assembly of such as join together in prayer, having as it were a common voice and mind. For the sacrifice of the church is the word ascending as incense from holy souls, their sacrifice and their whole minds being open to God."* And Tertullian interprets the very passage in Malachi on which they so greatly rely, thus," Here spiritual sacrifices are meant, and a contrite heart is shewn to be an acceptable sacrifice to God.Ӡ

Never, then, surely, was so strong a case on the one side, opposed by so weak an one, on the other. Take the plain narrative of Scripture, and it exhibits to us "the Lord's Supper" of the Protestants; but nothing in the least resembling the Mass" of the Papists. Turn to the records of the early church, and again we find a simple commemorative festival, without the least trace of the

* Stromata. Lib. vii. p. 717. + Adversos Judæos. Ch. 5. p. 188.

gorgeous ceremony in which in-
cense, and bell-ringing, and lighted
candles, and genuflections without
number, deck out a service in
which the laity, in place of bread
and wine, receive a fragment of a
wafer, while the priests profess
to be offering
66 a sacrifice for the
sins of the living and the dead.”
Look, then, to the doctrine of the
Apostles touching sacrifices, and
we find that "by one offerING
Christ" HATH perfected for ever
them that are sanctified.'
"" No
refuge remains, then, for the doc-
trine of the Mass, save in the last
resort of the Romanists, the grand
magazine of all kinds of opinions,
the countless tomes of the fathers,
whence sentences of every hue,
and proving or disproving, in turn,
every doctrine and every practice
of the Church, may at any time
be found. The main argument,
however, derived from this source,
is, that the Supper is often called
a sacrifice. We admit this with-
out hesitation; but we shew, in
reply, that the term "Sacrifice"
is so vaguely and indiscriminately
used in their writings, as to render
it absurd to base any doctrine on
this single expression. And so
ends the discussion, which I think
you will be inclined to admit, ter-
minates, however imperfectly con-
ducted on my part, in favour of that
mode of observing our Lord's last
command, which approaches the
nearest to his own practice and
example.

I remain, your's, &c.
R.

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

IN our former paper of remarks on these volumes (see p. 345) we noticed somewhat fully the tactics by means of which the sentiments of the New Oxford School are propagated but much was necessarily left unsaid, respecting the matter of their opinions. We

resume the subject of REGENERATION, and propose to consider-I. The scriptural doctrine on that subject-II. The conformity of the Church of England herein to Scripture-and, III. The little help which the Tract Writers have gained from the early Fathers, towards the support of their own opinions.

66

I. The doctrine of Scripture on the subject of Regeneration is most comprehensively referred to in the well-known words of our Lord to Nicodemus, John iii. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The other passages in the New Testament, which speak of Regeneration, may easily be classed under this one; so that the explanation of this text will be virtually the explanation of the rest. We cannot however agree with Professor Pusey when he says, in pp. 16, 17, of his Tract on Baptism:

Combined with the consent of antiquity, our Saviour's meaning becomes so clear, that, with one who loves his Saviour, I would gladly rest the whole question of baptismal regeneration on this single argument. It is confessed that the Christian church uniformly, for fourteen centuries, interpreted this text of baptism; that on the ground of this text alone, they urged the necessity of baptism; that upon it, mainly, they identified regeneration with baptism.

We do not agree, first, with the tone and temper of that opening expression, with one who loves his Saviour; a phrase, which

throws a spiritual contempt, in the most cool and therefore most

offensive manner, on those who differ in opinion from the writer, and tends to excite religious selfconceit in those who follow his opinion. It is precisely in that style which we should have expected to find in religious writers of the lowest grade. Neither can we agree with his argument as being perfectly good. The necessity of Baptism rests on direct precept, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," &c. (Matt. xxviii. 19.) The passage in the conversation with Nicodemus has been generally considered and may well be regarded as pointing to the then-future institution of Baptism, and, by natural consequence, to the necessity of observing it but it was the actual institution itself, just before our Lord's ascension into heaven, that determinately fixed the necessity of that holy sacrament.

The question, What is Regeneration?' is to be answered from John iii. 5. Is it water-baptism? Is it the Spirit's baptism alone? Is it the new-birth of water and of the Spirit conjointly? If it be the first, then is Regeneration identified with Baptism:' we use the phraseology of Dr. Pusey. That is, water-baptism and regeneration are one and the same thing so we construe identified.' And this opinion we hold to be the main error, by which the spirituality of the professing Christian church has often been, and generally speaking must be extinguished. Is Regeneration the Spirit's baptism alone? If it be thus, and thus only, then a mem