9th chapters. Perhaps this is one of the most plausible objections he could have started, and yet it has no solidity, nor is there any room for infidels to establish a discrepancy in this case. The word translated "the heavens" (ovpavov) means, not merely what we attach in common language to the term, but every thing that surrounds the earth; and all I want to contend for from this passage is, that Christ's body is not to be present ON EARTH until the times of the restitution of all things. It may be in any portion of the heavens Mr. Brown chooses, and he may give it whatever name he pleases; all I am called on to establish is, that Christ's body is to be absent from earth till a certain period, yet future; and it remains for Mr. Brown to prove that, in the case of St. Paul, Christ descended on earth. He might have been seen without being actually on earth; and bear in mind that this is expressly stated in the case of Stephen, which has also been cited by my opponent, where it is said (in direct contradiction to his supposition) that he "saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." Acts vii. 55, 56.

There is nothing else of consequence to be answered in what has been advanced on the other side. Three portions of Scripture have been adduced this day in support of Transubstantiation. You have heard the passages from the 6th of John, you have heard the words of the Institution, and also the passages from the 11th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Answers to these have been given, and difficulties and objections started, and it will be for you to consider on which side the strength of the argument lies.

All that has been hitherto said is, however, little more than preliminary to the important subject which has been announced, namely, the SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. There is an awful character in the whole matter. Though we disbelieve and argue against the doctrine of the bodily presence, yet it is not, after all, so much on account of the doctrine itself (for, if viewed simply and alone, it might be comparatively harmless), but on account of the consequences that are made to result from it. It is because the Sacrifice of the Mass is built upon it; it is because the worship of the host is made to follow from it; it is because that, as a matter connected with it, sacrilege is committed with regard to the sacrament by taking away the cup from the people. It is on these grounds especially, I say, that we ontend against Transubstantiation, believing that it opens

the way to what we consider to be alike dishonourable to God and ruinous to man.

I shall, therefore, urge, as a portion of my time still remains, one or two points respecting the Sacrifice of the Mass. Mr. Brown, in his definition of the doctrine held by the Church of Rome, dwelt very much, you will remember, on the fact that the sacrifice of the Mass is a commemorative sacrifice, and one instituted for the purpose of applying the merits of Christ to the soul of man. Now I do not mean to charge Mr. Brown with actually denying that his Church holds it to be a propitiatory sacrifice. He has certainly said that he was misrepresented at the Bath Meeting on this point. I happened to be the individual who, at that meeting, adduced the Council of Trent's anathema, fulminated against any one who should deny that the Sacrifice of the Mass is truly propitiatory (see Concil. Trid. Sess. 22. Can. 3. de Sac. Miss.); but I did not use the canon in reference to Mr. Brown individually, but in reference to any man who denied the propitiatory nature of that sacrifice. It had been stated previously, that Mr. Brown had denied its propitiatory nature. My statement, then, was founded on this, and the sum of what I said was, that if Mr. Brown or any other person chose to make such a denial, he was opposed to, and under the anathema of, a General Council of his own Church.

However, he has not formally denied the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice of the Mass this day; but at the same time he has laid much greater stress on the fact that the sacrifice is commemorative, and was also instituted for the purpose of applying the merits of Christ to the soul of man. Let me observe, that it is a most extraordinary way to get out of a difficulty, by saying that the Sacrifice of the Mass was instituted for the purpose of application. I am persuaded Mr. Brown will not find a single instance of a sacrifice being instituted for such a purpose. The purpose of a sacrifice is not application to man, but oblation to God. God has appointed his Spirit, and other means subordinately, by which he will apply the merits and blood of Christ to the soul of man; but he has never appointed any literal sacrifice for that purpose; and it rests with our antagonists to prove, and not merely to assert, that the Sacrifice of the Mass was instituted with such an intention. I think they will find it difficult to give one text of Scripture to bear them out in their assertion.

Now you will perceive that the Sacrifice of the Mass rests upon the truth of the bodily presence of Christ in the

Eucharist, and therefore if we disprove the latter, we disprove the former. Without, however, viewing the subject in this connection at present, I shall content myself with advancing in this address one independent argument to shew that the Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be what the creed of Pope Pius IV. (which every Roman Catholic admits) terms it, namely, a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead." My argument is, that it cannot be such, BECAUSE IT IS DESTITUTE OF THE ESSENTIALS OF A PROPER AND PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE. There are certain things which must absolutely exist, in order to constitute a sacrifice a proper and a propitiatory one. contend that these are wanting in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore there can be nothing propitiatory in that sacrifice. I shall consider this lack of essentials in reference to two particulars:

I

FIRST.-I say that THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VICTIM is necessary to a proper and propitiatory sacrifice. The necessity of this is proved from the 9th chapter of Hebrews and 22nd verse, in which it is declared- "WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION." From this passage it appears that the blood-shedding or death of the victim is necessary in order that a sacrifice be proper and propitiatory. But there is no such blood-shedding or death in the Sacrifice of the Mass; for who is said to be the victim in that sacrifice? The Council of Trent tells us that,

"Since in this divine Sacrifice, which is performed in the Mass, the same Christ is contained, and is bloodlessly immolated, who once offered himself bloodily on the cross; the holy Council teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, &c."-Concil. Trid. Sess. 22, de Sac. Miss.

Here the Council, while it looks upon the sacrifice as "truly propitiatory," yet confesses that Christ is offered unbloodily in it; and what says the Scripture of Christ? In the 6th chapter of Romans and the 9th verse we read, "Knowing that Christ rising again from the dead dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him."

Now, if Christ, being raised from the dead, "dieth no more," and if he be the supposed victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass, it is manifestly plain that he does not die in the offering of that sacrifice. The argument, therefore, stands thus:

The blood-shedding, or death, of the victim is necessary, in order that a sacrifice should be propitiatory, as testified in Heb. ix. 22. There is no such blood-shedding, or death, of the supposed Actim (i. e. Christ) in the Mass, as declared by Rovi. 9; and admitted in Session 22 of the Council

t.

THEREFORE, The Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice.

AGAIN. I don't know how our friends on the other side will be pleased, when I endeavour to point out that another essential thing required to constitute the Mass a proper and propitiatory sacrifice is no less than A SACRIFICING PRIEST TO OFFER IT. With all due deference to the gentlemen opposite, I beg to state that there is no such officer under the New Testament dispensation as a sacrificing priest, except Christ himself. The English term " priest," may be sometimes used as being a corruption, or contraction, of the term "Presbyter" (Greek, peoßurepos), which means simply an Elder or Minister, and is quite a different word from that which would be translated sacrificing priest. I contend for the position I have laid down, and I ask for proof that the term sacrificing priest (iepevc) is ever applied to any single individual, except Christ, under the New Testament dispensation. But, besides speaking negatively, I speak also positively; and I call your attention to the 7th chapter of Hebrews, and the 23rd and 24th verses, where you will find a very expressive and remarkable passage. The Apostle says,—

"The others, indeed (i. e. the priests of the Levitical dispensation), were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue; but this (Jesus) for that he continueth ever, HATH AN EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD."

Our opponents will recollect what is the original word in the last clause of this passage. The expression is strong enough, if we merely take the words of the Douay Bible, Christ hath an everlasting priesthood;" but the more accurate rendering of the word (añaрáßarov) is, he hath a priesthood WHICH CANNOT PASS FROM ONE TO ANOTHER. If, then, Christ has a priesthood which cannot pass from one to another, that is, which is confined to himself, I ask, what authority have the clergy of the Church of Rome for the office of sacrificing priests, which they profess to hold? They are intruding into the office which belongs solely to Christ, "because he continueth for ever," instead of contenting themselves with the ministerial offices which Christ has really appointed. Now if there be such an office, as I contend there is not, let the gentlemen remember that I ask for proof; if proof cannot be adduced, they are destitute of another essential requisite to make the Mass available as a propitiatory sacrifice.

The Meeting then adjourned.

FIFTH DAY.-Thursday, March 6th, 1834.

SUBJECT:

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS (continued.)

THE CHAIRMAN took his seat at the usual hour.

THE REV. T. J. BROWN.

Yesterday, my Christian friends, I invited you to attend to this discussion with calm and dispassionate minds. I beg to repeat to-day the same request; and I repeat it with the more earnestness, because dishonourable attempts have been made to disseminate those prejudices which ought not to accompany any one hither. It is with regret I inform you, that yesterday, after the discussion, tracts were thrown out from one

or

more carriages, tending to create violent prepossessions against the cause which I advocate; and every person who has a feeling of honour must, at least during the continuance of this discussion, condemn such conduct as highly reprehensible. I hold in my hand one of those tracts which was picked up, entitled, "The Mass Service of the Popish Church proved to be Unscriptural;" and, in p. 7, there are two quotations, said to be from a work written by a Roman Catholic priest, which quotations are entirely false and calumnious. There is nothing in the original to authorise them.

At this solemn time, when we ought to support our cause only by strict argument on each side, I am sorry to observe, that by the Gentlemen opposite, attempts have been made during this latter part of the discussion, as there were during the former part, to create false impressions against us, by appeals to books, and by stories extracted from them, which have nothing to do with the question. I was asked by Mr. Lyons whether I believe in the Breviary. I told him some days ago that my belief in any thing recorded in any part of those narratives or legends from

Y