This Roman liturgy contains some usages which, by reason of the errors which they were cited to countenance, the Church of England has seen fit to discontinue. Of this kind are the prayers for the dead, which, however primitive and Catholic, however grateful to our feelings, and salutary, as serving to exemplify the communion of saints, were reluctantly laid aside, because the perverse Romans, in the teeth of all the evidence of ecclesiastical tradition, made use of them with the ignorant as arguments in favour of purgatory. I say they were reluctantly laid aside, because, not only were the prayers for the dead openly retained in the first Prayer Book under King Edward VI., but in the burial office in the Church of England to this day, he who desires to offer a prayer for the dead, will find one indirectly suited to his purpose in the last collect but one. Another instance of this kind presents itself in the allusion to the intercessions of the saints departed : which, however probable it may be, however reasonable to suppose, however apparently countenanced by the Scriptures, (for if Dives could pray for his brethren, much more might Lazarus in Abraham's bosom), could no longer in safety be permitted when it was found to lead to prayers to the saints and to the imputing to them the attributes of omniscience and ubiquity peculiar to the Godhead, without which, simultaneous addresses to them from all parts of the world became a demonstrable absurdity, to use no stronger language. But while the ancient Roman Liturgy contains practices which the Church of England has seen fit, in prudence, to discontinue, it contains nothing which she has thought necessary to point out as worthy of censure, but affords, as was before observed, satisfactory evidence against many of the modern Roman tenets, which have been introduced since the framing or compiling of the Canon Actionis, which is its ancient title.

PAGE 306, CHAPTER 6.-(Spiritually Communicate.)

Nothing can mark more distinctly the departure of the Roman Church from primitive views than this chapter. Conduct, which, D d

under the former discipline, would have been punished with suspension, is here "approved and commended" as "spiritual communion."-Ante-Nicene Code, 9, 10.

PAGE 106, CHAPTER 7.-(Mix Water with the Wine.)

It must in this point be admitted, that the Church of Rome adheres more strictly to primitive usages, and our Lord's example, than the Church of England. The cup which was used at the feast of the passover by the Jews, was a cup of mixed wine and water; it was therefore a mixed cup that our Lord consecrated. So the Primitive Church appears to have received and practised. As may be seen by reference to the Oriental Liturgies, to the African Canons 37, and Trullan 32; and to Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Cyprian. The English Reformers retained this observance in the first Liturgy of King Edward VI. But it was one, among many other estimable rites, which were removed to satisfy the senseless objections of Calvin and other foreigners. As no valid reason has ever been offered for the omission of this rite, it is impossible not to regret a determination should thus, causelessly, give to our opponents the shadow of an objection.

PAGE 307, CHAPTER 8.-(Common Tongue.)

How greatly this is at variance with the decree of the Lateran Council, may be seen by referring to page 141. Still there is no prohibition of the sacraments in the common tongue and it rests, apparently, with every bishop in the Roman communion, to obey, either the injunction of the former council, which directs the common tongue to be used; or the spirit of this, which intimates a disapproval. In point of fact, the use of the common tongue has been conceded at different times to different countries in the Roman communion, and to this day obtains with the Maronites, who are in full communion with Rome. See La Martine's Pilgrimage, vol. ii. p. 160.

PAGE 312.-(On the Petition for conceding the Cup.)

On this subject see above, page 353, and more in the Appendix. One cannot but admire the singular reverence with which it is left to the Bishop of Rome, our most holy lord, to decide as to whether and where the priests of God's altar shall be allowed to celebrate the highest rite of Christian worship, according to the institution of Christ Himself.

ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER.

PAGE 316, CHAPTER 3.-(One of the Seven Sacraments.)

That ordination is a means of grace, and that it was ordained of Christ Himself, God forbid that any Christian should deny. But grace alone does not constitute a sacrament, to which, according to the definition of both churches, an outward and visible sign, ordained by Him is requisite; where is this to be found in ordination? With the exception of this, and of the anathemas at the end of the canons, we have little or no objection to offer to the decrees on this point.

ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.

PAGE 326, CANON 1.

Of all the rites to which the style of "sacrament" is given in the Church of Rome, that which seems most unworthy of the name, is matrimony: which (as Bishop Stillingfleet well observes,) "having its institution in Paradise, one would wonder how it came into men's heads to call it a sacrament of the New Law, instituted by Christ; especially when the grace given by it supposes man in a fallen condition."-See Council of Trent disproved by Catholic tradition, p. 97.

66

It is curious to observe the shifts to which their catechists are driven to uphold the pretension in the sight of the people. "Where was it made a sacrament of the new law?" Answer. Where and when Christ instituted this sacrament is uncertain, (and yet to be believed on pain of damnation). Some think it done, or at least insinuated at the wedding at Cana in Galilee ; others, more probably, say it was done when Christ declared the indissolubility of marriage." What is the matter of this sacrament?" Answer. "The mutual consent of the parties, and giving themselves to one another." See the late Bishop Doyle's Abridgement of Christian doctrine. According to this, the ministers of this sacrament are the man and woman who are united in marriage. As to outward visible forms significative of and conveying inward grace, which their own definition requires, they can show none. And it is worthy of record that the canonists in general peremptorily denied that matrimony confers grace, without which it cannot be a sacrament. Bellarmine set himself to refute the objections advanced by Durandus on this point. The objections and answers will be found in Bishop Stillingfleet's work above referred to. I will not lengthen this publication, already extended far beyond what I had contemplated, by transcribing them all only one is too remarkable to be passed unnoticed. "The marriage of infidels was good and valid, and their baptism adds nothing to it; but it was no sacrament before, and therefore not after." Bellarmine answers, "That it becomes a sacrament after." So that, as Stillingfleet well observes, there is a sacrament without either matter or form; for there is no new marriage. P. 101.

SESSION XXV.

CONCERNING PURGATORY.

On this question see above, page 354.

ON THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS, AND ON THE SACRED

IMAGES.

PAGE 335.-(To invoke them.)

The Ancient Church, as an act of piety, charity, sacred remembrance, and Christian brotherhood, prayed for the saints, the Virgin Mary, and all. See above, page 355. The Church of Rome prays to them. That is the difference. The first Council which decreed this invocation and intercession, is denounced by the Romans themselves as schismatical and heretical: it was the Council at Constantinople, under Constantine Copronymus. Nor have all the researches of the Roman advocates availed to adduce from the early ages one single writer, layman or ecclesiastic, who has enjoined this practice as a duty. All that they have succeeded in showing is, that in the course of the first five centuries several individual writers are to be found who commend the practice as useful. Against these I will cite the following; and from a comparison of the passages cited on both sides, it will be clear that, although, notwithstanding the reproof of the Apostle (Col. ii. 18.), the invocation of angels, and afterwards of saints, obtained in some places in the Christian Church, it was always an open point which men were free to reject or not, as they might think fit; and that therefore both the Council of Copronymus, in the eighth century, and the Council of Trent in the sixteenth, were violating ecclesiastical tradition, when by their anathemas they sought to abridge Christian liberty by confirming a corrupt and foolish custom; especially when the caution of the Apostle Paul, and the decree of the Council of Laodicea (see above, pp. 40, 55), are taken into consideration. It is a remarkable thing, that among