men who have rejected his word, hath stricken them with stupidity. For who would ever have believed that Christians were reduced to such a pass as to worship a God that might be stolen, or carried away by the wind, so that it might be said, God is lost,—a God that might be gnawed by mice, or devoured by beasts,- -a God that is besmeared with vomitings and must again be eaten,-a God that may fall but cannot rise,—a God, of whom the doctors* say, that under the host he can neither open his eyes nor move his hands; and that he neither lies, nor sits, nor stands. Our adversaries say, that though mice carry off the consecrated host and eat it, or though a beast devour it, Christ, nevertheless, suffers neither injury nor pain. But they cannot deny that he is thereby exposed to ridicule, and to the sufferance of greater ignominy than what he endured upon the cross; for to be eaten of beasts, to be vomited and besmeared with vomitings, is more ignominious than to be crucified. Turks and Pagans will say, is that the God of the Christians, whom dogs devour, and who cannot defend himself against mice? God assuredly will never subject the glorious body of his Son to such disgrace, unless some great benefit were thereby to result to the Church. But our opponents cannot tell us how Christ's being carried away by mice, and his being devoured by beasts, can be beneficial to our salvation.

Cardinal Tolet the Jesuit affirms, in the "Institution of Priests," (b. ii. c. 25,) that the priest may consecrate several basket-fuls of bread, and a tun of wine. If he may consecrate one, he may also consecrate two, or ten, or twenty, and thus turn all the wine in the market into blood.

Vasquez, in 3 part. Thoma: Tom. 3, Disp. 191, c. 3.)

Moreover, it is necessary to remark, that the Romish Church holds, that by investing with the order of priesthood, an indelible character is impressed upon the soul of the priest, which even the Pope cannot efface; and that a priest, degraded for heresy or other crime, may consecrate and transubstantiate bread into flesh, and wine into blood, in virtue of that character which he retains, though deposed from the priestly office. A priest, therefore, who has renounced the Roman religion, nay, a priest who is a sorcerer and magician, may transubstantiate tuns of wine into blood, and may cause the blood of Christ to be carried about in pints and bottles among all the tippling houses. This certainly is to put Christ into the power of magicians and drunkards, and to expose him to great disgrace. By this doctrine, the priests have got power over Christ, to make him, to lock him up, to carry him about, and to cast him into the fire if they will! The celebrated Doctor, Gabriel Biel, says, in the first Lesson on the Canon of the Mass, that "the priest hath great power over both bodies of Christ" that is to say, over the Church, and over the consecrated host. Wherefore, he adds, "who hath ever seen any thing like this? He who created me, if I may so speak, hath granted me power to create him; and he who created me without me, is created by my means?" Thus, then, the priests can create Jesus the Son of God, and make him what he is already; which is like generating a child already born..

CHAPTER VII.

That the words of the Mass itself are contradictory to Transubstantiation.

Amid the alterations in the institution of the Lord, God

hath permitted some clauses to remain in the Mass, which plainly condemn transubstantiation; for, a great part of the Canon of the Mass consists of prayers which had been inserted before transubstantiation became an article of faith. -Thus, the priest, having the consecrated host and cup before him, says, "we offer unto thy excellent Majesty, of thy gifts and presents, a pure host." By gifts they now understand Jesus Christ himself. Assuredly no man in

his senses ever called Jesus Christ gifts and presents; but, the use of the plural number agrees very well with bread and wine. The priest proceeds, saying, "deign to regard these things with a favourable eye." Is it not mockery to call the Saviour these things? Is it not crowning the abuse, to beseech God that he would regard Jesus with a favourable eye, as if he needed any recommendation of ours?

Further, the priest afterwards entreats God to be pleased to regard these gifts and offerings as equally acceptable as the offering of Abel, that is to say, that God would have as much respect to Christ's sacrifice of himself, as he had to the sacrifice which Abel offered of the firstlings of his flock. This prayer may, with propriety, be offered over bread and wine, but is downright blasphemy when offered in reference to Jesus Christ. This is strikingly manifest in what the priest says, when looking at the consecrated host and cup "God, through Jesus Christ, always creates these good things for us, and sanctifies and vivifies them." Can Jesus be called these good things? Does God eternally create and vivify his own Eternal Son? And since God creates these things by Christ, as saith the Mass, it is certain that they are not Christ. But this language applies very well to bread and wine.

It ought not to be omitted, that when Jesus gave the bread to his disciples, he said simply, Take, eat. But, in

the Canon of the Mass, it is, Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes-let all take and eat of it. Whoever added these

words OF IT, (ex hoc,) did not believe that the Lord's body was really and orally eaten in the Eucharist, for to eat of it, is to eat a part, not the whole of it. This cannot be said of Christ's natural body.

CHAPTER VIII.

Recrimination of our Adversaries.

The prophet Elisha accused the Israelites of idolatry, and of having forsaken the covenant of the Lord. In revenge they called him bald head, a reproach which did not in the slightest affect the doctrine nor office of the prophet. We are in a similar condition with respect to our opponents. We accuse the Roman Church of having introduced idolatry in the Mass, by the adoration of the Sacrament, and a sacrifice of the body of Christ, which was not instituted by the Lord himself,—of having taken away half of the Sacrament from the people,-of having changed the nature of the Sacrament verily, of Jesus Christ himself—which are important matters, and absolutely essential to the Eucharist, and to the Christian religion. But they, by way of recrimination, say to us, that we have also changed many things in the institution of the Lord. For, say they, you celebrate the Supper in the morning, but Jesus instituted it after supper; you celebrate the Supper in Church, but Jesus Christ celebrated it in an upper chamber; you admit women to the communion, but when Christ instituted the Eucharist, there were none present but men. The two first of these charges are matters of indifference, and all the three are

not merely not essential to the Sacrament, but do not even constitute any part of that service.

Jesus Christ furnishes us with an answer to objections of this kind, for he said, "Do this in remembrance of me."He did not say, do it in this or the other place, nor at any particular hour, nor admit only a particular sex or person; but he said, do this, commanding us to do as he did, and to imitate his action. Christ did not exclude women. Had there been any present, worthy of receiving the Holy Supper, he would not have rejected them.

CHAPTER IX.

Of the causes wherefore the Pope will not allow any Change in the Mass, nor conform to the institution of the Lord.

The abuse is very glaring,-nevertheless, the Roman Church and the Pope will not recede one jot, nor suffer any thing in the Mass to be changed, the cause of which, it is not difficult to discover. If the Church of Rome were to consent to the least change, she would overthrow the three maxims that are the bases on which Popery is wholly founded. The first of these is, that the Roman Church cannot err: the second is, that the Pope and the Roman Church are not subject to the Holy Scripture, and are invested with higher authority than the Scriptures: and the third is, that the Pope and the Roman Church have power to change the commandments of God, and to make new articles of faith. This is not only practically evident in the Church of Rome, in that her whole doctrine is opposed to Scripture, but is apparent also from the decrees of Popish Councils, and the avowed profession of the chief Popish