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 V1. 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 sup. poses man in a fallen condition."-See Council of Trent disproved by Catholic tradition, p. 97.

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

all the liturgies which Messrs. Kirke and Berrington have cited (in their late volume, entitled “ The Faith of the Catholies,” Lond. 1830), amounting to eleven, only one is to be found, and that of the Nestorian heretics, containing an invocation to a saint for intercession. Thus showing how wide a distinction is to be drawn between the excited expressions of individual writers, and the authorized practice of the Church. All the other liturgies do no more than the Roman canon of the mass, given above, p. 400, namely, 1st, assume, generally, that the saints departed pray for the saints militant, and 2dly, pray to God to hear their intercessions. This is no more tantamount to an invocation of the saints, than a prayer to God for the assistance of the angels, would be tantamount to a prayer to the angels themselves.

ORIGEN, Contra Celsum, V. § 4, 5.-Edit. Wirceb. ii. p. 8. Πᾶσαν μὲν γὰρ δέησιν, καὶ προσευχὴν, καὶ ἔντευξιν, καὶ εὐχαρι στίαν, ἀναπεμπτέον τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεῷ . . . . ̓Αγγέλους γὰρ κατ λέσαι μὴ ἀναλαβόντας τὴν ὑπὲρ ανθρώπους περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπιστήμην, οὐκ εύλογον.

Contra Celsum, viii. § 26. tom. ii. 438.

Μόνῳ γὰρ προσευκτέον τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεῷ, καὶ προσευκτέον γε τῷ μονογενεῖ, καὶ πρωτοτόκῳ πάσης κτίσεως, λόγῳ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἀξιωτέον αὐτὸν, ὡς ἀρχιερέα, τὴν ἐπ' αὐτὸν φθάσασαν ἡμῶν εὐχὴν ἀναφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ Θεὸν ἡμῶν, καὶ πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ πατέρα τῶν βιούντων κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Ibid. § 57, p. 496.

Κἂν ἴδωμεν δὲ μὴ δαίμονάς τινας, αγγέλους δὲ τεταγμένους ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς γῆς καρπῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν ζώων γενέσεως, εὐφημοῦμεν αὐτοὺς, καὶ μακαρίζομεν, ἐγχειρισθέντας ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ χρήσιμα τῷ γένει ἡμῶν· οὐ μὴν τὴν ὀφειλομένην πρὸς Θεὸν τιμὴν τούτοις ἀπονέμομεν.

Ibid. § 67, p. 512.

Ὕμνους γὰρ εἰς μόνον τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι λέγομεν Θεὸν, καὶ τὸν μονο· αὐτοῦ Λόγον καὶ Θεόν.