OF CONFIRMATION.

PAGE 223, CANON 1.

Two things are wanting to render confirmation a sacrament according to the Roman (which is the same as the English) exposition of one. 1. It cannot be proved to be an ordinance of Christ's institution. 2. It has no visible sign. As to the first, in point of fact, it is admitted by the Roman bishops themselves. In the late Bishop Doyle's Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, Dublin, 1828, in the exposition of confirmation, the question is asked, "When did Christ ordain this sacrament? A. The time is not certain; but divines most probably hold, it was instituted at Christ's last supper, or between his resurrection and ascension." But, as if it were not enough to affirm, on pain of anathema, the fact of an institution which they are confessedly unable to prove, the Catechismus ad Parochos, makes it a lie with a circumstance, in order to gain it more credit. "A pastoribus explicandum est Christum Dominum non solum ejus auctorem fuisse; sed, sancto Fabiano Pontifice teste, chrismatis ritum et verba, quibus in ejus administratione Catholica Ecclesia utitur, præcepisse." And because this barefaced accumulation of unwarranted statements might stagger the simple priests, who would be at their wit's end to make good their assertion, the Catechism suggests how this may be done; "Quod quidem iis facilè probari poterit, qui confirmationem sacramentum esse confitentur: cum sacra omnia mysteria humanæ naturæ vires superent, nec ab alio quam a Deo possint institui." (De Confirmat. Sacram. § 5. Lugd. 1676, p. 166.) Ordinary mortals would have said, the institution proves the sacrament: no, says the Roman Catechism, the sacrament, (which we assume) proves its own institution, which was the point in dispute. As to the second point, the visible sign, which

is wanting in this rite, the Church of Rome has declared the chrism or anointing which they use, to be the sign, or as they speak, the matter of it. But however ancient the use of oil in this service may be, it is so far from having been instituted by Christ, that their own writer Estius, (cited by the learned Bingham), says, "Communior sententia est, Apostolos initio suæ prædicationis non usos fuisse Chrismate in administratione hujus sacramenti," in Sent. lib. iv. dist. 7. sect. 7. Duaci, 1616. p. 88. And Bishop Stillingfleet has collected the testimonies of William of Auxerre, Cardinal Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, Cardinal de Vitriaco, Cajetan, and Sirmond the Jesuit, upon this point, who all declare that chrism has been added to the rite of confirmation by the authority of the Church, since the time of the Apostles. See his "Council of Trent disproved by Catholic tradition," pp. 77-80.

OF THE EUCHARIST.

PAGE 225, CHAPTER 1.

Notwithstanding all the strictness with which the Tridentine Fathers endeavoured to tie up men's minds relative to the doctrine of transubstantiation, which forms, with them, the most prominent feature in this subject, they have yet contrived to leave loopholes enough for any one, so-minded, to escape from the obvious force of their definitions. For, after all, it appears from this first chapter, that all they contend for is a sacramental presence of our Lord, not a natural one. There is a remarkable

discrepancy observable in this chapter between the Tridentine bishops and the earlier writers, who were deemed very good Catholics; for it is stated here, that the mode of Christ's existence or presence in the sacrament can be understood in the thoughts by

faith; this is what St. Bernard' and many other writers have uniformly denied.

PAGE 228, CHAPTER 3.

Observe 1st, that from the first chapter it appears that by the true body of our Lord, and His true blood, together with His soul and divinity, they merely mean His true sacramental body and blood, and soul and divinity. Observe, 2, that in Roman theology, a part contains the whole. That the body, ordinarily, contains the blood, we know; and, unless our Lord had enjoined the receiving of both elements, we might have supposed that a man in receiving the body had sufficiently communicated in both. But here they affirm that the blood contains that body, within the veins of which, when not forcibly separated, it flows.

PAGE 230, CHAPTER 4.

In speaking of the deep mysteries of our religion, it is well not to seek to be wise above what is written, but to bear in mind the saying which the wise King of Israel applied to another purpose, "God is in heaven and thou upon earth, therefore let thy words be few." Eccl. v. 2. I will therefore content myself with observing that the mode of our blessed Saviour's presence in the holy Eucharist, which, in the first chapter, was denied to be natural, and limited to sacramental, is in this chapter declared to be substantial. I would fain leave these apparent inconsistencies in the obscurity in which I find them. One thing they satisfactorily demonstrate, namely, the folly of Christ's servants attempting to define what their Master has left undetermined.

PAGE 231, CHAPTER 5.

It is a curious expression they have here, and not easy to be understood, when they affirm that men are to offer divine Latria

1 "Nolite, itaque, nolite quærere quomodo fiat."-Colon. 1641. v. p.

268.

(not to the bread or wine, which have ceased to exist; not to the sacramental body and blood of which they first spake, nor to the substantial body and blood according to their second theory, but) to the sacrament; now a sacrament, according to them, is a visible form of invisible grace: but the only visible thing, according to their own acknowledgment and the evidence of all men, is that which they call the accidents of bread and wine. It is then, in strictness of speech, to the accidents of bread and wine, that divine worship is enjoined, by the decrees of the Roman Church.

PAGE 233, CHAPTER 6.

This is purely a matter of discipline, for the regulation of which, according to their discretion, the bishops of every Church have clear warrant, so it be to edification. That it was practised early, as early as the second century, we learn from Justin Martyr; but transubstantiation had not been then invented. How the Romans can recommend it, (those among them who receive the second definition of the Council of Trent and reject the first,) it is not easy to understand; for thus, according to their second theory, the substantial body and blood of the Lord Himself is exposed to mildew and decay, to mice, and slugs and other vermin. The Church of England, finding that, after the introduction of the doctrine of transubstantiation, the custom had given rise to many superstitions, which are not even yet eradicated from the minds of the people, has wisely dispensed with it.

PAGE 34, CHAPTER 7.

If the advice in this chapter respecting those in mortal sin had been in the way of recommendation, instead of peremptory injunction, no exception could have been taken to it.

PAGE 236, CHAPTER 8.

An admirable and excellent exhortation! Pity that men who

could thus invite to Christian unity, should have gone out of their way to put an effectual bar to it, by anathematizing the Fathers of the Church, and all who follow in their steps. See Appendix.

It is worthy of remark, that that which in chapter four they designated as the substance of the body of Christ, is here styled supersubstantial food. Can it be both? If not, which do they

mean?

PAGE 238, CANONS 1 and 2.

For the Fathers of the Church anathematized by these canons. See Appendix.

PAGE 240, CANON 4.

In making this assertion they anathematize the authors of the ancient Liturgies, where the conversion of the sacramental elements from common bread to holy and spiritual food is prayed for, for the use of the communicants, not abstracted from the use. Nay, their own canon of the mass is a witness against them, that they have departed from the ancient doctrine held by the compilers of it. For all that is prayed for there is, that the oblation may be made unto us the body and blood of Thy most beloved Son" that is, clearly for the use of the communicants. More than this is not said.

PAGE 241, CANON 6.

This is somewhat different from Chapter 5. There, divine worship was to be paid to the sacrament, i. e. to the visible form of invisible grace, in strictness of speech, to the accidents of bread and wine which are all that are visible in the matter.

Here it is

to our Lord Himself. No doubt He is to be adored everywhere and at all times-the very celebration of the sacrament is an act of adoration to Him, then present among His people. But, alas!