John Knox, it is well-known, feared one mass more “than if ten thousand armed enemies were landed . . .” Were he alive in 1981 what would he have to say when it is proposed that not only a mass be celebrated but that this particularly abominable relic of Babylonian paganism be celebrated on Scottish soil by none other than the Pontifex Maximus himself. If Popish plans come to fruition Bellahouston Park is to be the particular part of our beloved land desecrated by this event. Cardinal Beaton’s successor at St. Andrews, newly back from Rome, has been boasting that around 300,000 will be expected to attend. In Dublin, it is claimed, that over one million attended the mass which was publicly celebrated by the same person and the same number is confidently expected to be present at Richmond Park, West London, when this priest of Baal arrives by helicopter to preside over what the martyr John Bradford described as “the horriblest and most detestable device that ever the devil brought out by man”. Unutterably sad is the thought that in arriving at this venue the Pope will have flown over the sleeping dust and ashes of hundreds who like John Bradford died bearing witness against Popish doctrines in general but against that of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the so-called sacrifice of the Mass in particular. “On that doctrine, in almost every case, hinged their life or death. If they admitted it, they might live; if they refused it, they must die”. (J.C. Ryle).
This “television spectacular” — the celebration of a “national” public mass — has become the central event of every Papal visit to countries visited so far. Since the mass is the most outstanding rite of the Popish system and a belief in all that it embodies being taught by mother Church as necessary to salvation, this is not to be wondered at. Rome’s anathema is pronounced in no uncertain terms upon all who dare differ with her on the matter. The Council of Trent’s declaration sums up her blasphemous and unscriptural view — a view which the Westminster Divines repudiated as “most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect”. It is as follows: “The sacrifice (in the Mass) is identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is a priest and victim both. The only difference lies in the manner of the offering, which is bloody upon the cross and bloodless on our altars”. Much has been written over the centuries to show how blasphemous, contradictory and inconsistent Rome’s view is, but Satan with unwearied diligence has also meantime been active, through his agents, doing his utmost to suppress the truth. After all, the “Man of Sin”, the “wicked” to be revealed, was to come “after the working of Satan”, and the lie is still believed rather than the truth as the result of the same activity.
The way in which John Bradford, already mentioned, was wont to condemn Rome’s “blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit” may be seen from the following extract from his writings: ‘First, the mass is a most subtle and pernicious enemy against Christ, and that double, namely, against his priesthood and against his sacrifice. His priesthood is an everlasting priesthood, and such an one as cannot go to another. But the mass utterly puts him out of place, as though he were dead for ever; and so God is forsworn which said Christ should be “a priest for ever”, and Paul lieth which affirmeth Christ to live, and to be “on the right hand” of the Father for us, that by him “we may come to the throne of grace to find mercy to help us in our need”: for, if these be true as they be most true, the mass priests are to be put down: for, if they be “of the order of Aaron”, then resume they that which Christ hath abolished; if they be “of the order of Melchisedec”, then be they Christ’s. Other orders of priests I read none, save that which all Christians be, to offer up themselves to God and other spiritual sacrifices by Christ, and the order of “priests of Baal”, whose successors indeed the massers be: for else if they were, as they would be taken, of the order of the apostles, then should they be ministers and not massers, preachers and not traitors, as they be both to God and his church: God amend them. Christ’s sacrifice once made by himself on the tree, on the mount of Calvary, is the full and perfect propitiatory sacrifice, to the sanctification of all them that are and shall be saved, never more to be reiterated and done again, for that signifieth an imperfection. But the mass is called and had for a sacrifice propitiatory, and that such a one as fetcheth pardon a poena et a culpa (“from punishment and from guilt”) for the quick and dead, and for whom Sir John will. In words or syllables the papists will deny this, but in every deed they do no otherwise, and in the latter end of their canon plainly they call it a propitiatory sacrifice. So that the mass, we see, is altogether against Christ alive, that is, against his priesthood, and against his death, that is, his sacrifice, and therefore a detestable evil I trow’.
As might be expected, Alexander Hislop in his “Two Babylons” traces much of what is connected with the sacrifice of the Mass back to where it belongs, that is, to the paganism of ancient Babylon and other nations. It was an unbloody sacrifice that the Babylonian “Queen of Heaven” required also and when the chosen people, in defiance of God, learned the way of the heathen we accordingly find the women of Judah “offering cakes” to her. ‘In the fourth century’, says Hislop, ‘when the queen of heaven under the name of Mary, was beginning to be worshipped in the Christian Church, this “unbloody sacrifice” also was brought it. Epiphanius states that the practice of offering and eating it began among the women of Arabia: and at that time it was well known to have been adopted from the Pagans. The very shape of the unbloody sacrifice of Rome may indicate whence it came. It is a small thin, round wafer; and on its roundness the Church of Rome lays so much stress, to use the pithy language of John Knox in regard to the wafer-god, “If, in making the roundness the ring be broken, then must another of his fellow-cakes receive that honour to be made a god, and the crazed or cracked miserable cake, that one was in hope of being made a God, must be given to a baby his play withal”. What could have induced the Papacy to insist so much on the “roundness” of its “unbloody sacrifice”? Clearly not any reference to the Divine institution of the Supper of our Lord; for in all the accounts that are given of it, no reference whatsoever is made to the form of the bread which our Lord took, when He blessed and brake it, and gave it to His disciples saying, “Take, eat; this is my body: do this in remembrance of Me”. As little can it be taken from any regard to injunctions about the form of the Jewish Paschal bread; for no injunctions on that subject are given in the books of Moses. The importance, however, which Rome attaches to the roundness of the wafer, must have a reason; and that reason will be found, if we look at the altars of Egypt. “The thin round cake”, says Wilkinson, “occurs on all altars”. Almost every jot or tittle in the Egyptian worship had a symbolic meaning. The round disk, so frequent in the sacred emblems of Egypt, symbolised the sun. Now, when Osiris, the sun-divinity, became incarnate, and was born, it was not merely that he should give his life as a sacrifice for men, but that he might also be the life and nourishment of the souls of men. It is universally admitted that Isis was the original of the Greek and Roman Ceres’. Hislop goes on to show that this incarnate divinity was symbolised as the “bread of God” under the representation of a “round wafer” to identify him with the Sun. He then quotes the following description of the embellishments of the Romish altar as given by a certain observer: “A plate of silver, in the form of a SUN, is fixed opposite to the SACRAMENT on the altar; which with the light of the tapers, makes a most brilliant appearance”. ‘What’, asks Hislop, ‘has that “brilliant” “sun” to do there, on the altar, over against the “sacrament” or round wafer? . . . It is manifest that the image of the sun above, or on the altar, was one of the recognised symbols of those who worshipped Baal or the Sun. And here, in a so-called Christian Church, a brilliant plate of silver, “in the form of a SUN“, is so placed on the altar that every one who adores at that altar must bow down in lowly reverence before that image of the “sun“. Whence, I ask, could that have come, but from the ancient sun-worship, or the worship of Baal? And when the wafer is so placed that the silver “SUN” is fronting the “round” wafer, whose “roundness” is so important an element in the Romish Mystery, what can be the meaning of it, but just to show to those who have eyes to see, that the “Wafer” itself is only another symbol of Baal, or the Sun. In regard to the Pagan character of the “unbloody sacrifice” of the mass, we have seen not little already. But there is something yet to be considered, in which the working of the mystery of iniquity will still further appear. There are letters on the wafer that are worth reading. These letters are I.H.S. What mean these mystical letters? To a Christian these letters are represented as signifying, “Iesus Hominun Salvator“, “Jesus the Saviour of men”. But let a Roman worshipper of Isis (for in the age of the emperors there were innumerable worshippers of Isis in Rome) cast his eyes upon them, and how will he read them? He will read them, of course, according to his own well-known system of idolatry: “Isis, Horus, Seb“, that is, “The Mother, the Child, and the Father of the gods” — in other words, “The Egyptian Trinity”. Can the reader imagine that this double sense is accidental? Surely not The very same spirit that converted the festival of the Pagan Oannes into the feast of the Christian Joannes, retaining at the same time all its ancient Paganism, has skilfully planned the initials I.H.S. to pay the semblance of a tribute to Christianity, while Paganism in reality has all the substance of the homage bestowed upon it. When the women of Arabia began to adopt this wafer and offer the “unbloody sacrifice”, all genuine Christians saw at once the real character of their sacrifice. They were treated as heretics, and branded with the name of Collyridians, from the Greek name for the cake which they employed. But Rome saw that the heresy might be turned to account; and therefore, though condemned by the sound portion of the Church, the practice of offering and eating this “unbloody sacrifice” was patronised by the Papacy; and now, throughout the whole bounds of the Romish communion, it has superseded the simple but most precious sacrament of the Supper instituted by our Lord Himself. We have confirmation of the foregoing under Rome’s own hand and seal! The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 was an event too gratifying in Papal eyes to be allowed to pass without a medal being struck at Rome to commemorate it. This action not only showed that Rome approved of the French King’s action (The Pope, Innocent XI, made a TE DEUM be sung at Rome for the conversion of the Huguenots, and sent a special brief to Louis XIV, in which he promised him the eternal praises of the Church, and a special recompense from God for the act of devotion by which he had made his name and reign glorious. — Wylie) but depicts for all time coming the manner in which she gloried in the paganism which the Huguenots, at the time, and all true Christians, before and since, have consistently abhorred. All the embellishments are there. The illustration was taken from the first volume of “The Bulwark” and part of the accompanying information is as follows: ‘On the obverse side there is a likeness of the French King with the inscription LUD. MAGN. FRAN. ET NAV. REX. PAT. PATR. REST. PIET., that is, “Louis the Great, King of France and Navarre, Father of his Country, Restorer of Piety“. On the obverse there is the representation of an altar prepared for the Eucharist, and sustaining the Pope’s tiara, beside which stands Louis, in his royal robes, commanding a female, intended to represent France, to bow down to adore the sacrament, and submit to the tiara; with the legend SACR. ROMANA RESTITUTA, that is, “The Roman rites restored“. This medal proves at least two things; First, that by Rome’s own confession France would have been lost to her had she been left to maintain her hold on it by argument and moral influence alone; and Second, that for a king to break his word with his subjects, and compel them by dragoonades and all sorts of persecutions, to bow down to the Papal tiara, is to merit the highest honours Rome can confer, and to be pronounced by the so-called Vicar of Christ “The Father of his Country and the Restorer of Piety“. Rome’s designs are ever the same. As already noted high on her priority list is the subjugation of Britain to the Papal tiara. For the present she is prevented from making use of the sword and faggot to this end so our national Protestant constitution and character must be destroyed by more insidious but, if the Lord in just judgment permit, none less effective means. From our Jesuit-influenced Foreign Office; the Mass-Media, including national and local radio stations; the Press — from Fleet Street to Broadford — the message is clear: the Pope is to be welcomed to our land and all who oppose his coming are to be regarded as having no more standing than a “lunatic fringe”. They are profoundly mistaken! Pontifex Maximus and his Babylon however exalted by the Mass-Media in our day are to surely fall. As sure as the Papacy has had its glory so surely shall its doom come. Paul before closing his prophecy pauses, and in solemn and awful words foretells the night of horrors in which its career is to end. “That Wicked — whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming“. Paul dispatches it in a single sentence; John expands it into a whole chapter. And in what other chapter of the Bible or of human history is there such another spectacle of judgment — such picture of blended horrors, of awestruck consternation, of loud and bitter wailings, and cries of woe, as in the eighteenth chapter of the Apocalypse? “The kings of the earth shall bewail her and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning: standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas! Alas! That great city of Babylon, that mighty city, for in one hour is Thy judgment come. And they cast dust on their heads, and cried weeping and wailing, saying, alas! alas! that great city for in one hour is she made desolate“. (Rev. XVIII: 9-19). But this dark scene has one relieving feature. It is a scene that will not need to be repeated, for it will close earth’s evil days, and begin the hallelujahs of the nations. “And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all”. “Rejoice over her, thou heavens, and holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her . . . and in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth” (Rev. XVIII: 20, 21, 24). (Wylie).