or rather to the half of it; for you know they divide it, and giving the bread to the people, do with the wine I cannot tell what. They say that it is perfect in one kind, and anathematize all who say it is not. Their curse is on me now while I am writing. Nevertheless I must ask, if it was perfect in one kind, why did Christ institute it in both kinds? Why did he not stop with the bread, reserving the cup? Was it to make the sacrament more than perfect? But this is reasoning. I forget myself. The Catholics don't hold to reasoning.

An idea occurs to me here which I beg leave to express. If the sacrament is perfect in either kind, why do not the priests sometimes give the people the cup? Why do they always give them the bread? And why originally did they withhold the cup rather than the bread? Some persons may imagine a reason, but I will content myself with asking the question.

But to proceed. They say that "in the Mass there is offered to God," &c. Why, what do they mean? There is nothing offered to God. What is offered is to men. Christ says, offering to his disciples the bread, "take, eat," and reaching out the cup, he says, "drink ye all of it." There is something offered to men in this sacrament, even the precious memorials of the Savior's propitiatory death; but every one who reads the account, sees that there is nothing offered to God. Yet the Catholics, leaning on tradition, say there is in it "a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice" offered to God. A sacrifice included in the sacrament! How is that? And a propitiatory sacrifice too! I always supposed that propitiatory sacrifices ceased with the offering up of the Great Sacrifice

when the Lamb of God bled and died. Do we not read, that “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," 99 66 now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself?" "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many"—and it is said of his blood that it "cleanseth from all sin." I don't know what we want after this, of those unbloody sacrifices which the Ca. tholics talk of as offered continually in the service of the Mass. What is the use of them, if they are un-bloody, as they say, since "without shedding of blood is no remission?"

According to the Catholics, it was premature in Christ to say on the cross, 66 it is finished." They deny that it is finished. They say it is going on still— that Christ is offered whenever Mass is said. Once Christ was offered, the Bible says; but the Roman church affirms that he is offered many times daily, whenever and wherever mass is said!

I do really wonder that this religion has lasted so long in the world. How the human mind can entertain it for a day, I do not know. See how at every step it conflicts with reason. See in how many points it does violence to common sense. See, in this case, how boldly it contradicts the dying declaration of the Savior. It is a religion unknown to the Bible—and yet still in existence, aye, and they say, making progress, and that even in this home of freedom! If it be so, which I question, I blush that I am an American, and am almost ashamed that I am a man.

18. The Pope an Idolater.

It may seem a very uncharitable title I give this article. What, some will say, charge the Pope with being an idolater! What do you mean? I mean just what I say, that this boasted head of the church, and self-styled vicar of Christ, residing at Rome, ascribes divine attributes, and pays divine honors to a creature, even to a human being, a partaker in our mortality and sin! and if that is not idolatry, I don't know what idolatry is. If that is not idolatry, the worship of the golden calf was not-the worship of the host of heaven was not the worship of the gods of Hindooism is not. What truer definition of idolatry can be given than that it is an ascribing of divine attributes, and a paying of divine honors to a creature? It does not matter what the creature is, whether it be the angel nearest the throne of God, or an onion that grows in the garden, such as they of Egypt once worshiped. It is its being a created thing-it is its being not God, that makes the service done it idolatry.

But can I make good this charge against the successor of St. Peter, as they call him? If I cannot, I sin not merely against charity, but against truth. But I can establish it. Nor will I derive the proof from the Pope's enemies; nor will I look for it in the histories of the Papacy. The Pope himself shall supply me with the proof. Out of his own mouth will I judge him. If his own words do not convict him of idolatry believe it not. But if they do, away with the objection that it is an offence against charity to speak of such a thing as the Pope's being an idolater. My chaPopery

rity "rejoiceth in the truth." The charge can be uncharitable only by being untrue. It is too late in the day, I trust, for idolatry to find an apologist. But to the proof. Perhaps you suppose it is some obscure Pope of the night of times—the dark ages, that I am going to prove an idolater. No, it is a Pope of the nineteenth century-the present reigning Pope, Gregory XVI. He is the idolater; and here are his own words in proof of it. They are a part of the circular, or encyclical letter, sent forth by him on entering on his office, and addressed to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops. The letter may be found in the Laity's Directory, 1833, and has been extensively published without any of its statements being contradicted. In it the Pope calls upon all the clergy to impiore "that SHE, (the Virgin Mary,) who has been, through every great calamity, our Patroness and Protectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our mind by her heavenly influence, to those counsels which may prove most salutary to Christ's flock!" Is comment necessary? Observe, he recognizes not God as having been their defence, but her as having been their protectress in past calamities, and directs the clergy to pray to her to continue her watch over them! As contrast is one of the principles on which ideas are associated, I was reminded in reading this, of the 121st Psalm, in which the writer speaks of the one that keepeth Israel." It is not she, according to the Psalmist, but He, the Lord which made heaven and earth, that keepeth Israel. But, according to the Pope, it is the Virgin Mary that keeps Israel; and he speaks of her as exerting a heavenly influence on the mind. I always thought it was the exclusive prerogative of Je

66

hovah to have access to the mind, and to exert an immediate influence on it; and I cannot but think now that the Pope must err in this matter, though he speaks ex cathedra. I cannot believe he was exactly infallible when he wrote that letter.

But you have not heard the worst of it yet. In the same letter he says: But that all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies, who is our greatest hope, yea, THE ENTIRE GROUND OF OUR HOPE!" The underscoring is mine, but the words are the Pope's. Now, just look at this. Did you ever hear any thing like it? Observe what Mary is said to be and to do; and what the clergy are exhorted to do. The Pope's religion cannot be the oldest, as they pretend. It is not the religion of the Psalms. In the 121st Psalm the writer says: "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the Lord.” And in the 123d, "Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy upon us." But the Pope says: Let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary." There is the difference between the Pope and the Psalmist. Protestants in this case side with the Psalmist; and in this particular our religion is not only older than Luther, but older even than the Pope.

66

I would inquire of the reader whether these prayers which the Pope would have the whole church address to the Virgin Mary, are not precisely such as are pro