A Roman Catechism, Faithfully Drawn Out of the Allowed Writings of the Church of Rome. With a Reply Thereto.

By John Wesley

Preface.

It has been a frequent complaint among some of the Romish Church, that the Protestants have misrepresented the doctrine of their Church. On the other side, the Protestants accuse the writers in that Church, of concealing, disguising, and palliating their doctrines. The latter justify their charge by producing such authors as have in several ages not only taught that doctrine, but taught it as the doctrine of their Church; the former deny the charge, by appealing from particular authors to an higher authority, to Councils and public acts and decrees, to Missals, Breviaries, and Catechisms.

Now, though those Protestants are not to be blamed, when the authors they quote have been first licensed and approved in that Church, and were never afterward condemned by it; yet in composing this Catechism, to avoid contention as much as I can, I have generally observed their directions, and have seldom made use of particular authors, but when it is for the explication of a doctrine that is not sufficiently explained, or for confirmation of a doctrine generally received. I am very confident that the quotations throughout are true, having again and again examined them; and I have been as careful as I could not to mistake the sense of them; that I might rightly understand and truly represent the doctrine which I profess to censure; for without a faithful and impartial examination of an error, there can be no solid confutation of it.

Section I — Of the Church, and Rule of Faith.

Question 1. What is the Church of Rome?

Answer. The Church of Rome is that Society of Christians which professes it necessary to salvation to be subject to the Pope of Rome, * as the alone visible head of the Church. †

* Dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus absolute necessarium ad salutem, omni humanæ creaturæ subesse Romano Pontifici. Extravag. c. Unam sanctam de Majoritate et Obedientia.
“We say, define, and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary to salvation, for every man to be subject to the Pope of Rome.”
† Bellarm. De Eccles. milit. 1. 3, c. 2, sec. Nostra autem sententia; et cap. 5, sec. Respondeo neminem.

Reply. Christ is the Head, from whom the whole body is fitly joined together. And the holding to that Head (Coloss. ii. 19) is the one great note of the Church, given by St. Austin.

(De Unit. Eccles. c. 3, 4.) But there is neither in Scripture nor antiquity any evidence for a visible head, and much less for the visible head, the Pope; and, least of all, that it is necessary to salvation to be subject to him.

If it is necessary to salvation to be subject to him, it is necessary to know who is the Pope; but that the world hath often been divided about, when there were sometimes three, and for about forty years together two, Popes. — Vide Theod. Niem. de Schism. Univers.

Q. 2. How comes subjection to the Pope to be necessary to salvation, and an essential note of the Church?

A. Because the Pope is Christ’s Vicar, St. Peter’s successor, (Concil. Trid. Sess. 6; Decret. de Reform. cap. 1; Bulla Pii IV, sup. Form. Juram.,) and hath the supreme power on earth over the whole Church.  (Con. Trid. Sess. 14, c. 7.) “The Church is called one, as it has one invisible Head,–Christ; and one visible, who doth possess the chair at Rome, as the lawful successor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles.” (Catech. Rom. par. 1, c. 10, n. 11.)

Reply. If Christ gave no such power to St. Peter, or the Pope be not St. Peter’s successor, then the Pope has no pretence to this power. Now, we read that “Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, for the work of the ministry and the edifying the body.” (Eph. iv. 11, 12.) But that he gave one Apostle pre-eminence above the rest, much less absolute power over them, we read not. This power they were forbidden to attempt or desire ; (Matt. xx. 26;) and St. Paul was so far from acknowledging it, that he challenged an equality with the rest of the Apostles, (Gal. i. 15, 17,) and, upon occasion, withstood St. Peter. (Gal. ii. 11.)

To this we may add the judgment of St. Cyprian: “The other Apostles are the same St. Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power.” (Epist. de Unit. Eccles.)

Q. 3. What authority doth the Church of Rome challenge?

A. She declares that she is the mother and mistress of all Churches; (Concil. Later. 4, can. 2; Concil. Trid. Sess. 7; De Bapt. can. 3, &c.;) and that to believe her so to be is necessary to salvation. (Bulla Pii IV, super. Form. Jur.) Pope Innocent III. thus decreed : “As God is called universal Lord, because all things are under his dominion; so the Church of Rome is called Catholic, or universal, because all Churches are subject unto her. ” (Apud Baron. Annal. 1199.)

Reply. As it was foretold, so it was fulfilled: “Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah ii. 3.) There the Church began; and therefore, in the Synodical Epistle of the Second General Council of Constantinople, Jerusalem is called “the mother of all Churches.” (Baron. A. D. 382, p. 461.)

If she is the mistress because she is the mother, (as Pope Innocent I. would have it, Epist. 1, Concil., tom. 4, p. 5,) then Jerusalem was the mistress. If the mistress because she was once the imperial city, then Constantinople was so likewise; and accordingly it was decreed in the Fourth General Council, that of Chalcedon, can. 28, “That the Church of Constantinople should have equal privileges with that of Rome, because she is the imperial seat.”

And if she claims this sovereign authority upon any other reason, she never had, nor can ever prove, a right to it.

This is confirmed by Pope Pius II., (when a Cardinal,) who saith, that ” before the time of the Nicene Council, little regard
was had to the Church of Rome.” (Epist. 288.)

Q. 4. What use doth she make of this authority?

A. She requires all persons, upon her sole authority, to receive and believe the doctrines she proposes to be received
and believed, * and without the belief of which she declares there is no salvation. †

* Sacrosancta synodus omnibus Christi fidelibus interdicit, ne posthac de sanctissima Eucharistia aliter credere, docere, aut prædicare audeant, quam ut est hoc præsenti decreto explicatum, atque definitum. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13, Decret. de Euchar. So again, Sess. 25, Decret. de Purgatorio. And there are above a hundred anathemas in that Council in point of doctrine against such as do not so believe.
† Hanc veram catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest: That is, “This is the true Catholic faith, without which no man can be saved.”–Bulla Pii IV. , super Form. Juram.

Reply. “The gospel which was preached of me, is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal. i. 11, 12.) “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.” (Verses 8, 9.)

The Church of Rome cannot avoid St. Paul’s anathema, when she requires to bow down before an image, which the Scripture forbids; and forbids to read the Scripture, which it requires. And without doubt the text of the Apostle holds as much against any other, as against himself or an angel from heaven.

Q. 5. Doth not the Church of Rome acknowledge the holy Scripture to be a sufficient rule for faith and manners?

A. No: For there are some doctrines proposed by that Church as matters of faith, and some things required as necessary duty, which are by many learned men among themselves confessed not to be contained in Scripture.

Reply. We read in Scripture of “the faith once delivered to the saints;” (Jude 3;) and “all” or the whole “Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. iii . 16, 17.)

The Scripture, therefore, is a rule sufficient in itself, and was by men divinely inspired at once delivered to the world; and so neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition.

So Tertullian: “Let Hermogenes show that this thing is written. If it be not written, let him fear the woe pronounced against them that add to, or take from, Scripture.” (Contra Hermog. , c. 22.)

Q. 6. What doctrines of faith and matters of practice are thus acknowledged not to be in Scripture?

A. The doctrines of transubstantiation, (Scotus in 4 Sent. Dist. 11, q. 3, et Yribarn in Scot.,) of the seven sacraments, (Bellarm. 1. 2, de Effectu Sacram., c. 25, sec. Secunda probatio,) of purgatory, (Roffens. contra Luther., art. 18,) and the practice of half-communion, (Concil. Constan., Sess. 13, Cassander, art. 22,) worshipping of saints and images, (Bellarm. de Cult. Sanct., 1. 3, c. 9, sec. Præterea. Cassand. Consult., art. 21, sec. 4,) indulgences, (Polyd. Virg. de Invent., 1. 8, c. 1,) and service in an unknown tongue. (Bellarm. de Verb. Dei, 1. 2, с. 26.)

Reply. On the contrary, St. Augustine writes, “If any one concerning Christ and his Church, or concerning any other things which belong to faith or life, I will not say if we, but (which St. Paul hath added) if an angel from heaven, preach unto you besides what ye have received in the Law and Evangelical Writings, let him be accursed.” (Contr. Petil., 1. 3, c. 6.) For as all faith is founded upon divine authority, so there is now no divine authority but the Scriptures; and, therefore, no one can make that to be of divine authority which is not contained in them. And if transubstantiation and purgatory, &c., are not delivered in Scripture, they cannot be doctrines of faith.

Q. 7. What doth the Church of Rome propound to herself as an entire rule of faith?

A. Scripture with tradition; and she requires that the traditions be received and reverenced with the like pious regard and veneration as the Scriptures; and whosoever knowingly contemns them, is declared by her to be accursed. (Concil. Trid. Sess. 4; Decret. de Can. Script.)

Reply. “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men; ” (Matt. xv. 9;) forbidding that as unlawful which God hath not forbidden, and requiring that as necessary duty which God hath not required. So St. Hierom: “The sword of God,” his word, “doth smite those other things, which they find and hold of their own accord, as by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture.” (In Cap. 1, Aggæi.)

Q. 8. What do they understand by traditions?

A. Such things belonging to faith and manners as were dictated by Christ, or the Holy Ghost in the Apostles, and have been preserved by a continual succession in the Catholic Church, from hand to hand, without writing. (Concil. Trid. ibid.)

Reply. But St. Cyril affirms, “It behoveth us not to deliver, no, not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of faith, without the holy Scripture. That is the security of our faith, not which is from our own inventions, but from the demonstration of the holy Scriptures.” (Catechis. 5.)

Q. 9. What are those traditions which they profess to have received from Christ and his Apostles?

A. The offering the sacrifice of the mass for the souls in purgatory, (Conc. Trid. Sess. 22, c. 2,) the mystical benedictions, incensings, garments, and many other things of the like kind, (c. 5,) salt, spittle, exorcisms, and wax candles used in baptism, &c., (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 2, n. 59, 65, &c.,) the Priests shaving the head after the manner of a crown. (Ibid. c. 7, n. 14.)

Reply. “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” (Mark vii. 8.) “It is necessary even for novices to learn the Scriptures, that the mind may be well confirmed in piety, and that they may not be accustomed to human traditions.” (St. Basil in Reg. Brev. Reg. 95.)

The Church of Rome hath no more to show for their holy water, and incensings, and salt, and spittle, &c., than the Pharisees for their traditions; and since they no less impose them as divine than the other, they are alike guilty with them.

Q. 10. Doth the Church of Rome agree with other Churches in the number of canonical books of Scripture?

A. No: For she hath added to the canonical books of the Old Testament, Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two Books of Maccabees, * and a new part of Esther and Daniel; which whole Books, with all their parts, † whosoever rejects as not canonical, is accursed. (Concil. Trident. Sess. 4, Decret. de Scriptur.)

* These books are so sacred, as that they are of infallible truth. — Bellarm. De Verbo, 1. 1, c. 10, sec. Ecclesia vera.
† Wherefore doth the Council add, ” with all their parts ; ” unless that all should understand those parts also, about which there was some time a dispute, to belong to the sacred canon of the Bible? — Ibid. c. 7, sec. Denique.

Reply. These apocryphal books were wrote after prophecy and divine inspiration ceased, and so were not received by the Jewish Church, (to whom “were committed the oracles of God,” Rom. iii. 2,) nor by the Christian Church, as the Sixtieth Canon of the Council of Laodicea shows, where there is a catalogue of the canonical Books, without any mention of these.

“As therefore the Church doth read Tobias, Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees, but doth not receive them into the canonical Scriptures; so it doth read the two volumes of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not to establish the authority of ecclesiastical principles.” St. Jerome. (In Prologo Proverb. ) — See Bellarm. de Verbo, 1. 1, c. 10 init.

Q. 11. Are the people of the Church of Rome permitted to read the Scripture in a tongue vulgarly known?

A. No; they were for a time permitted to read it, under the caution of a license, where it could be obtained; (Reg. Ind. Libr. Prohib. Reg. 4;) but since they are forbid it, or to have so much as any summary or historical compendium of it in their own tongue. (Index Libr. Prohib. Auctor. Sixti V., et Clem. VIII. Observat. circa 4 Regulam.)

Reply. Under the Law, the people had the Scriptures in a tongue vulgarly known; and they were required to read the law, and to be conversant in it: “These words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart,” &c.; (Deut. vi. 6;) and accordingly our Saviour sends them thither: “Search the Scriptures.” (John v. 39.) So St. Paul requires that his “Epistle be read to all the brethren;” (1 Thess. v. 27;) and, if so, it was wrote in a language they understood. And so it was in the primitive Church; therefore St. Chrysostom exhorts his hearers, though secular men, to provide themselves Bibles, the medicines of their souls, to be their perpetual instructers. (Comment. in Coloss. iii . 16.)

Q. 12. For what reason is the Scripture thus prohibited among them?

A. “Because,” say they, “if it be permitted to be read every where, without difference, there would more prejudice than profit proceed from it.” (Reg. Ind. Libr. Prohib. Reg. 4.)

Reply. In the Apostles’ times there were some that “wrested the Scriptures to their own destruction;” and yet the Apostle thought of no other expedient than to give the Christians a caution, that they were “not also led away with the error of the wicked.” (2 Pet. iii. 16, 17.) The way to prevent this, therefore, is, not to keep the Scriptures from the people, which “were written for our learning,” (Rom. xv. 4,) but to exhort them to a diligent perusal of them: “Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures.” (Matt. xxii. 29.)

“The sheep should not cast away their skin, because wolves sometimes hide themselves under it.” (St. Austin de Serm. Dom. in Monte).

Q. 13. Since the Scripture may be misunderstood, have they no judge to determine the sense of it?

A. They say, “It belongs to the Church” (of Rome)” to judge of the sense of Scripture, and no one may presume to interpret the Scripture contrary to the sense which Mother Church hath held and doth hold.” (Concil. Trid. Sess. 4. Decret. de Edit. et Usu Script.)

It cannot be called the Church of God where the legitimate successor of St. Peter in the Roman Chair, and the undoubted vicar of Christ, doth not preside: What the Church doth teach is the express word of God; and what is taught against the sense and consent of the Church, is the express word of the devil. (Cardinal Hosius de expresso Dei verbo, p. 642, 643.)

Reply. While the Apostles were alive, the Churches of Christ, in matters of dispute, applied themselves to them, as in the point of circumcision; (Acts xv. 2;) but since they of the Church of Rome can never prove the like infallibility in their Church, nor direct us where it is, we think ourselves as well in our Church as they can be in theirs; and that as long as we have the Scripture, the Church is to be referred to the Scripture, and not the Scripture to the Church; and that, as the Scripture is the best expounder of itself, so the best way to know whether anything be of divine authority, is to apply ourselves to the Scripture.

“If I would have the Church demonstrated, it is not by human teachings, but by the divine oracles.” (St. Aug. de Unit. Eccles. cap. 3.)

“The way for understanding the Scriptures, is to demonstrate out of themselves, concerning themselves.” (Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 7. p. 757.)

Section II — Of Repentance and Obedience.

Question 14. What doth the Church of Rome teach concerning repentance?

Answer (1.) It teacheth that contrition, which is a sorrow for sin past, and a purpose of not committing it for the future, though perfected with charity, is not sufficient to reconcile a person to God without penance, or confession to a Priest either in act or desire. (Concil. Trid. Sess. 14, c. 4. Catech. Rom. Pars 2, de Sacrament. Pænit. n. 38.)

A. (2.) She teacheth that attrition, or imperfect contrition, proceeding merely from the fear of hell, is equivalent to contrition, by virtue of confession; and that attrition doth dispose to receive the grace of the sacrament of penance, and leads to justification. (Sess. 14, cap. 4. Bellarm. de Pænit. 1. 2, c. 18, sec. Sed sciendum est.) — See Question 77.

Reply. Contrition is but another word for repentance; and repentance is a qualification for pardon and reconciliation: “A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” (Psalm li. 17.) “Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” (Acts iii. 19.) The same texts which make contrition sufficient, without confession to the Priest, make attrition insufficient without there be contrition. And as the former doctrine of the insufficiency of contrition without confession, makes that necessary which God hath not made necessary; so this latter of the sufficiency of attrition upon confession to the Priest without contrition, makes that unnecessary which God hath made necessary.

Q. 15. What is the judgment of the Church of Rome as to good works?

A. The Church of Rome doth affirm that the good works of justified persons do truly deserve eternal life; (Concil. Trid. Sess. 6, c. 16 ;) and if any one say that such works do not truly deserve an increase of grace here, and eternal life hereafter, let him be accursed. (Ibid. Can. 32.)

“Our good works do merit eternal life, not only by virtue of God’s covenant and acceptation, but also by reason of the work itself.” (Bellarm. de Justif. 1. 5, c. 17.)

Reply. Truly to deserve is to make God our debtor: “Το him that worketh” (that is, that meriteth)” is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” (Rom. iv. 4.) “But can a man be profitable to God?” (Job xxii. 2.) Our Saviour teaches us otherwise: “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants ; we have done that which was our duty to do.” ( Luke xvii. 10.)

A command to do it, and grace to obey that command, and a “far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,” as a reward, (2 Cor. iv. 17,) will shame the pretence of real merit, and turn the anathema upon themselves. And they may as soon reconcile light and darkness, as the grace of God and merit of Christ to this doctrine.

Q. 16. But is there no allowance for such as have not good works of their own sufficient to merit for themselves?

A. Yes; there are indulgences to be obtained, by which persons may be discharged from the punishment of sin here and in purgatory; and if any affirm these indulgences to be useless, or that the Church hath no power to grant them, he is accursed. (Concil. Trid. Sess. 25, Decret. de Indulg.)

The Popes and Prelates of the Church are judges appointed by God to remit faults and punishments in his name by an indulgence, if so be justice be satisfied through the application of the satisfaction of Christ and his saints. (Bellarm. de Indulg. 1. 1, c. 5, sec. Jam vero.)

Reply. What God binds, no person can untie; and what he unties, no man can bind. But this course of indulgence, still upheld in the Church of Rome, doth untie what God doth bind; it makes sin easy and cheap, and prostitutes the strict rules of Christianity to the basest purposes. For when a person can have a plenary indulgence for so trivial a satisfaction as the standing before the doors of St. Peter’s Church at Rome, when the Pope blesses the people at Easter, it makes sin as easy to be committed as pardoned.

Q. 17. How far do those indulgences extend?

A. Sometimes to days, sometimes to years, nay, some of them were plenary indulgences; * some were for a discharge from punishments here, others from the pains of purgatory, † and some granted an eternal reward.

* Bellarm. de Indulgent. 1. 1, c. 9, init. “Plenary indulgence doth take away all the punishment due to sin.” Ibid. sec. Indulgentia Quadragen.
+ Ibid. c. 7, sec. Et quidem.

Q. 18. Upon what terms were those indulgences to be obtained?

A. By money, ‡ pilgrimages, § assisting the Pope, || reciting certain prayers. ¶

‡ This is implied Concil. Trid. Sess. 21 , c. 9, though it is called by the soft name of alms.
§ So many are granted to particular churches in Rome, for the benefit of pilgrims
|| So those that upon his motion took up arms against the Albigenses, had by an indulgence the promise of an eternal reward. Baron. ad A. D. 1179, n. 7.
¶ So Pope Alexander VI. granted to those that recited this prayer to the blessed Virgin, and St. Ann her mother, 30,000 years’ indulgence.

Reply. The scandal given by them was so notorious, that order was given by the Council of Trent for reforming the abuses of them; but when the Fathers thought fit not to discover those abuses, and only forbad wicked gain, (Sess. 25, Decret. de Indulg.,) they left a large scope for making a gain of them. And two of the Popes under whom that Council sat, viz., Paul III., and Julius III., (A Bull of Indulgence to the Fraternity of the Altar, Paris, 1550, v. B. Taylor’s Defence, Part II., 1. 2, p. 8,) proceeded in the same course as their predecessors, if they did not exceed them; for by their Bulls, there is granted to all such of the Fraternity of the Holy Altar, as visit the Church of St. Hilary of Chartres, during the six weeks of Lent, 775,700 years of pardon, besides fourteen or fifteen plenary indulgences. And since that, Urban VIIІ., (Bullar. to 3., p. 74,) and Clement X., (A.D. 1671. Bull upon the Canonization of five Saints,) have granted by their indulgence a plenary remission of sins.

Q. 19. Upon what pretence or reason is the doctrine and practice of indulgences founded?

A. Upon works of supererogation, * that is, the overplus of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints, which is a treasury, (Concil. Trid. Sess., 21, c. 9,) committed to the Church’s custody, † and to be disposed of as she sees meet. (Bellarm. Ibid. c. 3.)

* “That supererogation is necessary to indulgence, no one can deny,” saith Bellarm. de Indulg. 1. 1, c. 2, init.
† So Pope Clem. VI., Constit. Extrav. in Bellarm. ibid. sec. ult. VOL. X.

Reply. “The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us;” (Rom. viii. 18;) so 2 Cor. iv. 17. “Every one of us shall give an account of himself to God.” (Rom. xiv. 12.) If there be no comparison betwixt the reward and our sufferings for it, then no one has merit to transfer to another; and if every man must give an account of himself, then no man can be saved by the merits of another. But suppose there is a superabundance of satisfactions in the saints; yet what need is there of them, when there is such an infinite value in the sufferings of Christ, who “by one offering hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified;” (Heb. x. 14;) or who gave the Church the power so to apply them?

“Hail Mary! full of grace! The Lord be with thee, thy grace with me! Blessed be thou among women; and blessed be St. Ann thy mother, from whom, O Virgin Mary, thou hast proceeded without sin and spot; but of thee hath Jesus Christ been born, the Son of the living God. Amen.”
Thesaur. Var. Exercit. in Grat. Sodal. B. V. M. Bruxel. Edit. 2 An. 1658, р. 287.

Q. 20. Whither do the souls of those go that die in a state of grace, but are not sufficiently purged from their sins, or have not had a plenary indulgence for the remission of them?

A. Such go to purgatory, a place of torment in the other world, near to hell, (Bellarm. de Purg., 1.2, c. 6, sec. Quinta est,) where they are to continue till they have made full satisfaction for their sins, and are throughly purged and prepared for heaven, whereinto no unclean thing can enter. (Catech. Rom. , par. 1, c. 6, n. 3.)

Q. 21. How come those persons to be punished in the other world, who depart in a state of grace out of this?

A. Because they have not here fulfilled the penance imposed upon them, or due from them to God. (Bellarm. de Indulg. , 1. 1, c. 6, 7.) — See Quest. 19.

Reply. That those that die in a state of grace are yet in a state of torment, and are to be purged in the other world, is contrary to Scripture and antiquity. “There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. viii. 1.) “Whom he justified, them he also glorified. ” (Verse 30.) “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth: Who is he that condemneth? (Verses 33, 34.) As justification and condemnation are here opposed by the Apostle, so are condemnation and glorification; and he that is justified, upon the same reason that he cannot be condemned, shall be glorified. Now, the elect are justified before they go out of this world; and consequently shall have nothing laid to their charge in the next.

“The servants of God then have peace, then enjoy quiet rest and security; when, being drawn from these storms of the world, we arrive at the haven of our everlasting habitation and security; when, this death being ended, we enter into immortality.” (St. Cypr. de Mortal., sec. 2.)

“To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke xxiii. 43.) Paradise is acknowledged to be the seat of the blessed. (Bellarm. de Sanct. Beat., 1. 1, c. 3, Testim. 4.) Now, if there was a purgation necessary for sinners, he that believed and repented not till the last moment of his life, might be well supposed to need it; and should have been sent rather to purgatory than paradise.

After the night of this life there is no purgation; and “it is better to be corrected and purged now, than to be sent to the torment there, where the time of punishing is and not of purging.” (Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 15, in Plag. Grand.)

Q. 22. Of what continuance is the punishment of that state?

A. It is but for an appointed time; and the person is to continue in it till he is purged from his sin, and has suffered the punishment due to it. (Catech. Ibid.; Bellarm. De Purg., 1. 2, c. 8, sec. Quantum ad primum.)

Reply. The state that believers immediately enter upon after death, is said to be “life” for the comfort, and “everlasting” for the continuance, of it.

“He that believeth on Him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” (John v. 24.)

So St. Cyprian: “The end of this life being completed, we are divided into the habitations of everlasting, either death or immortality.” (Ad Demetr., sec. 16.)

Q. 23. Is there no way by which the souls of those that are in purgatory may be delivered out of that prison, and their time of torment shortened?

A. They may be helped and delivered by the suffrages of the faithful that are alive; that is, by prayers, alms, and masses; and other works of piety, such as indulgences. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 25, Decr. de Purgat.; Sess. 22, can. 3. Bellarm. de Purgat., 1. 2, c. 16, sec. Ad hæc.)

Reply. “Betwixt us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that they which would pass from hence to you” (to relieve you) “cannot.” (Luke xvi. 26.)

As the state in which Abraham and Lazarus were, needed no relief; so that in which the rich man was, could not obtain it.

“After death is no help to be gotten by godliness or repentance. Lazarus doth not there go to the rich man, nor the rich man unto Lazarus. For the garners are sealed up, and the time is fulfilled.” (Epiphanius contr. Cathar., Hær. 59.)

And if a man’s own repentance cannot help him, much less can another’s good works profit him.

So St. Jerome: “While we are in this world, we may be able to help one another, either by our prayers, or by our counsels: But when we shall come before the judgment-seat of Christ, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah, can intreat for any one; but every one must bear his own burden. ” (Lib. 3, Com. in Galat., c. 6.) And he elsewhere saith: “What shall be to all in the day of judgment, this is accomplished to every one at the day of death.” (In Joel, c. 2.)

Q. 24. Is the doctrine of purgatory a matter of faith, and necessary to be believed?

A. Yes: For whosoever shall say that there is no debt of temporal punishment to be paid, either in this world or in purgatory, before there can be an admission into heaven, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 6, Can. 30, & Sess. 25, Decret. de Purg.) And whosoever shall say, The sacrifice of the mass is not to be used for the dead, is accursed. (Ibid., Sess. 22, Can. 3.) This is one of the principles, without the belief of which there is no salvation. (Bulla Pii Quarti.)

Reply. Bishop Fisher saith, that there is none or very little mention of purgatory among the ancients. (Roffens. Lutheri Confut., Art. 18; & Polyd. Virg. de Invent. 1. 8, c. 1.) It is then no little encroachment on the Christian world, to make it now a doctrine of faith, and to require it, upon pain of damnation, to be believed.

Q. 25. In what place were the souls of the Patriarchs, and other good men, before the coming of Christ?

A. Before the death and resurrection, (Catech. Rom., par. 1, c. 6, n. 3, 6,) or ascension of Christ, (Bellarm. de Christ., 1. 4, c. 11,) the gates of heaven were open to none; and the souls of good men departed were detained in a certain place called Limbus Patrum, which is the uppermost part of hell; the lowermost being the place of the damned; next above that, purgatory; next to that, limbus infantum; above that, limbus patrum. (Bellarm. de Purg. 1. 2, c. 6, sec. Quod autem.)

Reply. We read that Elijah was taken up into heaven, (2 Kings ii. 11,) and he and Moses appeared in glory. (Luke ix. 30; Matt. xvii. 2.) And Abraham is represented as in paradise, the blessed abode of good men in the other world. (Luke xvi. 23.)

So St. Austin expounds it: ” The bosom of Abraham is the rest of the blessed poor, whose is the kingdom of heaven, into which, after this life, they are received.” (Quæst. Evangel., 1. 2, с. 38.)

Q. 26. In what condition were they while thus detained in limbo?

A. They are not agreed in the nature and condition of the place: For the Catechism saith, “They were sustained by hope, and were without any sense of grief.” (N. 3.) And presently, that, “although they were without other sense of grief, yet, being kept in suspense, they were tormented with the hope of that blessed glory which they did expect.” (N. 4.)

Reply. But the Scripture tells us, that the state where Abraham was, was not only a state of rest, but also of comfort. (Luke xvi. 25.)

Q. 27. How and when were they delivered thence?

A. They were delivered by Christ at his descent into hell; (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 5, 6 ;) so that ever since that place remains empty. (Bellarm. de Purg., 1. 2, c. 6, sec. Octava est.)

Reply. The Scripture says not one word of this.

Q. 28. What use do they make of this doctrine?

A. Hereby they give a reason why there is neither precept nor example in the Old Testament for the invocation of saints departed, (Bellarm. de Sanct. Beat. , 1. 1, c. 19, sec. Item Exod.,) because they were, for their punishment, enclosed in this place, and were there held bound by the devils, till delivered by Christ. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 5.) And so the people of those times only prayed to God; and did not use to say, “Holy Abraham, pray for me.” (Bellarm., ibid.)

Reply. There is neither precept nor example for the invocation of saints in the New Testament; and if that be a reason for a limbus before Christ, it may be a reason for a limbus still; and they may as well exclude the saints from heaven now as then, if there be no more for their invocation in the New Testament than was in the Old. Thus Salmero, a learned disputant in the Council of Trent: “Invocations of saints have no express ground in all the Scriptures.” (Ad 1 Tim. 2, Disp. 7, sec. Sed cum autem et nec obstat.)

Section III — Of Divine Worship.

Question 29. Of what doth the service in the Roman Church consist?

Answer. It consists of prayers and hymns offered to God, angels, and saints; of lessons taken out of the Scriptures, and legends; and of profession of faith in the creeds.

Reply. Cardinal Quignonius, at the instance of Pope Paul the Third, reformed the Breviary; and instead of legends, set Scriptures for the lessons. But Pope Pius Quintus, who afterward undertook to reform it also, prohibited that of Quignonius, (Bulla Prefixa Breviar. Rom. Jussu Pii V. Edit.,) and instead of the Scriptures, placed legends again; and so it continues.

Q. 30. In what language is their service performed?

A. It is performed in all places among them in the Latin tongue, which is in no place vulgarly understood.

Q. 31. Is the having the service in an unknown tongue enjoined in the Church of Rome?

A. Yes: It is required that it should be celebrated in the Latin tongue; and whosoever shall say that it ought only to be administered in the vulgar tongue is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 23, c. 8, & Can. 9.) Hence, when of late years the Missal, or Mass-book, was translated into French, it was declared, by Pope Alexander the Seventh, to be a “seed-plot of disobedience, rashness, and schism;” and he calls them that did it, “sons of perdition;” and doth “condemn, reprobate, and forbid” that Missal.

Reply. In divine worship, (as in all other actions,) the first thing to be considered is the end, and the next thing is the means conducing to that end. The end is the honour of God, and the edification of the Church; and then God is honoured, when the Church is edified. The means conducing to that end, are to have the service so administered as may inform the mind, engage the affections, and increase devotion: But that cannot be done, where the tongue it is celebrated. in is not understood.

Thus we are taught by the Apostle: “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men.” (1 Cor. xiv. 2.) “If I know not the meaning of the voice, he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.” (Verse 11.) “If thou shalt bless with the Spirit,” (by the gift of an unknown tongue,) “how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks?” (Verse 16.) How can the people be attentive to the lessons, answer at the responses, be devout in the prayers, profess their faith in the creeds, when they do not understand what is read, prayed, or professed? Thus St. Ambrose, on 1 Cor. xiv.: “It is evident that the mind is ignorant where the tongue is not understood. The unskilful person, hearing what he doth not understand, knows not the conclusion of the prayer, and doth not answer, Amen.”

Q. 32. What are the objects of worship in the Church of Rome?

A. Besides the blessed Trinity, angels, the Virgin Mary, and saints.

Reply. Our Saviour says, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matt. iv. 10. ) As divine worship is due to God, so it is not lawful to give it to any other.

The Church of Rome doth acknowledge this, but says the worship they give to saints and angels is not of that kind (Catech. Rom., par. 3, c. 2, n. 8, par. 4, c. 6, n. 3.)

But what worship is peculiar to God, if prayer is not? So thought St. Ambrose: “Thou only art to be invocated.” (De Obitu Theodos.)

For God alone can receive our prayer, or can give what we pray for, or be the object of our faith and trust.

Q. 33. What honour do they give to the angels?

A. (1.) The Church of Rome teaches that angels are to be worshipped, (Catech. Rom., par. 3, c. 2, n. 8, 9, venerari, adorare, colere,) invoked, and prayed to. (Ibid., n. 10.) And they have litanies and prayers composed for this purpose. (Litaniæ, sec. Angelorum, vid. Horologium Tutelaris Angeli a Drexelio. p. 84, Duac. 1623.)

A. (2.) They teach, that as every particular person hath a guardian angel from his birth, (Catech. Rom., par. 4, cap. 9, sec. 1, n. 4, 6,) so it is fit to commit themselves more particularly to him, (Horolog. Drex., p. 108,) after this manner: “Blessed angel! to whose care our loving Creator hath committed me, defend me this day, I beseech you, from all dangers, and direct me in the way I ought to walk.” (The Child’s Catechism, 1678.)

Reply. We honour the holy angels, as they are God’s ministers, and are “sent forth to minister unto them that shall be heirs of salvation.” (Heb. i. 14.) But, to worship or pray to them, we dare not, as it is what they themselves refuse and abhor, (Rev. xix. 10,) and the Scripture doth condemn as “a sign of a fleshly mind, vainly intruding into those things which we have not seen.” (Col. ii. 18.) Theodoret, upon this text, saith, that the practice of worshipping angels continued a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia; wherefore the Synod of Laodicea doth forbid praying to angels: “For Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart aside and invocate angels, which are things forbidden.” (Conc. Laod., Can. 35.)

Q. 34. What religious honour do they give to the saints?

A. They pray to them as their intercessors, make confessions to them, offer incense, and make vows to them, venerate their images and relics.

Q. 35. For what reason do they pray to saints?

A. That by their help they may obtain benefits from God, (Concil. Trid., Sess. 25, de Invocat.,) who doth confer many favours upon mankind, by their merit, and grace, and intercession. (Catech. Rom., par. 3, c. 2, sec. 12.-Missal. Rom. proprium Missarum de Sanctis.)

Q. 36. After what manner do they pray to saints?

A. They pray to them as favourites with God, that they would take them into their protection, and would obtain those things of God for them which they want. Therefore they plead that they have two different forms of prayers; for to God they properly say, “Have mercy upon us, hear us:” To a saint, “Pray for us.” (Catech. Rom., par. 4, c. 6, n. 3.)

Q. 37. But have they not those forms in their Missals, Breviaries, and common books of devotion, which are particularly and immediately applied to the saints for obtaining what they want?

A. Yes; it is too manifest to be denied; and though they have been more sparing of late years, yet nothing formerly more frequent. As, for instance: In a Missal printed at Paris, an. 1520, fol. 51, there is this prayer to St. Agnes: – “O Agnes, woman of the Lamb, do thou enlighten us within! Destroy the roots of sin, O excellent Lady. After the grievances of the world, do thou translate us to the company of the blessed!”

Reply. “There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all.” (1 Tim. ii. 5, 6.)

“Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (Rom. viii. 34.)

As there is but one God to us, though “there are gods many, and lords many;” (1 Cor. viii. 5;) so to us there is but “one Mediator,” or Intercessor, though we should grant there are many intercessors and mediators. For though the angels and saints may intercede for us in heaven, that no more makes them such intercessors as we may pray to, than because there are gods many, we may pray to them, as we do to the true God.

The Scripture knows no difference between a Mediator of intercession and redemption: He alone makes intercession for us that died and rose, and is at the right hand of God. And He alone has a right to our prayers, and to Him alone may we address them.

So Origen: “All prayers, and supplications, and thanks- givings, are to be sent up to God the Lord of all, by that High Priest who is above all angels, being the living Word of God.” (Lib. 5, Cont. Cels., pp. 233, 239.)

So again: “We ought to pray only to the God over all, and his only Son, the first-born of every creature, who, as our High Priest, offers his prayers to his God, and our God.” (Lib. 8, pp. 395, 402.)

To have other mediators and intercessors is “not to hold the Head,” (Coloss. ii. 19,) in the judgment of the Apostle, and the Council of Laodicea, where it is said, “Christians ought not to forsake the Church and invocate angels. If any man, therefore, be found to give himself to this privy idolatry, let him be anathema; because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus, the Son of God, and betaken himself to idolatry.”

Q. 38. What is the worship they give to the Virgin Mary?

A. They fly unto her as the advocatrix of the faithful, the mother of God; that by prayer to her they may obtain help through her most excellent merits with God. (Catech. Rom., par. 4, cap. 5, n. 8.).

Reply. We honour this blessed Virgin as the mother of the holy Jesus, and as she was a person of eminent piety; but we do not think it lawful to give that honour to her which belongs not to a creature, and doth equal her with her Redeemer.

Q. 39. Have they not some singular forms of devotion to her?

A. Yes; for apprehending her to be in glory superior to all created beings, they offer a service to her, beyond what they give either to angels or saints.

Q. 40. After what manner do they apply themselves to her?

A. According to some Missals, they ask her to command her Son, by the right and authority of a mother; (Missal. Paris. Anno 1520, folio 65;) or, as it is in the Breviaries used at this day, “Show thyself a mother.” (Brev. Rom. Fest. Assump.) They pray to her, that she would loose the bands of the guilty, bring light to the blind, would make them mild and chaste, and cause their hearts to burn in love to Christ. (Officium B. M. in the hymn called Planctus B. M., Antwerp, 1641. )

In a book printed lately in London, the author saith, that “whatever gifts are bestowed upon us by Jesus, we receive them by the mediation of Mary; no one being gracious to Jesus that is not devoted to Mary; that the power of Mary in the kingdom of Jesus is suitable to her maternity; and though the condition of some great sinners may be so deplorable, that the limited excellency and merits cannot effectually bend the mercies of Jesus to relieve them; yet such is the acceptableness of the mother of Jesus to Jesus, that whosoever is under the verge of her protection, may confide in her intercession to Jesus;” that the person devoted to her, is to beg of her to accompany him as his “sacred guide, advocate, and champion, against the assaults of sin and sensuality.” (Contemplations of the Life and Glory of Holy Mary, &c., pp. 7-9, 14. Printed anno 1685.)

Much after the fore-cited manner did the Council of Constance invoke the blessed Virgin, as other Councils used to do the Holy Ghost, calling her the “mother of grace, the fountain of mercy; ” and they call on her for “light from heaven.”

Reply. We cannot but wonder at the applications made to the blessed Virgin in the Church of Rome, whose acts on earth, and whose power in heaven, the Scripture doth very sparingly relate, or is altogether silent in. We read nothing there of her bodily assumption into heaven, nor of her exaltation to a throne above angels and archangels. (Brev. Rom. Æstiv. Fest. Assump.) We read nothing there of her being the mother of grace and mercy, (Officium parvum B. M. ad Matutin., Catech. par. 4, c. 5, n. 8,) the queen and gate of heaven, the advocatrix of sinners; (Completor. Catech. par. 4, c. 5, n. 8 ; ) and of her power in destroying all heresies in the world, (Fest. Assump.,) and being all things to all. (Missale Paris. ibid. & Le Psaultier de Jesus. Paris, 1620, p. 126.)

When we read so much of the blessed Virgin in books of this kind, and so little of her in the divine writings, we cannot but reflect upon what is said by Epiphanius, of acertain sect of women that in his time offered cakes to the Virgin Mary, which he calls an “impious thing,” and altogether “contrary to the doctrine of the Holy Ghost.” (Hæres. 78, p. 1054. Par. 1622.) And he further adds, “This the Holy Ghost doth warn us of, in that Christ saith, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ where he calls her woman, and as it were prophesying, to refute those schisms and heresies which he knew would arise in the world; and that no one, being moved by a certain admiration of the blessed Virgin, might turn himself to those dotages of heresies.” And he adds, “Let the Virgin Mary be honoured, but the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be adored.” (Hæres., 79, n. 4, 7, &c.) Much more hath that Father there to this purpose.

But what would this Father have said, if, instead of a chair adorned and set forth in honour of the Virgin Mary, (as those women did,) he had found her advanced to a throne of a mediatrix in heaven? What, if instead of cakes, there had been litanies and prayers offered to her, and that in more abundance than to Christ himself? What, if he had found them praying, “O holy mother, succour the miserable, help the weak, comfort those that mourn?” (Breviar, Rom. Æstiv. Suffragia.) I doubt not but he would have said of this, what he doth of the other, that they “would obtrude her upon us for God;” and have called it “heresy and idolatry.”

Q. 41. What external representations or memorials have they in the Church of Rome, which they give veneration and worship to?

A. They have the relics and images of the Virgin Mary and saints. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 25, de Invoc.)

Q. 42. What do they mean by relics?

A. The bodies or remainders of them, or particular things belonging or relating to them when alive, as an arm, or thigh, bones, or ashes; (Ex Decret. Regist. Præfix. Brev. Rom.;) and the part in which they suffered; (Catech. Rom, par. 3, c. 2, n. 15;) or the things by which they suffered; as the chains with which St. Peter was bound. (Brev. Rom. Par. Æstiv. Aug. Fest. Petri ad Vinc.)

Reply. “He” (God by Michael) “buried Moses; but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.” (Deut. xxxiv. 6.) S. Barradas the Jesuit, upon the place, saith, “It is the common opinion of Lyra, Abulensis, Cajetan, and others, that the sepulchre was hid, lest the Israelites, who were inclined to the worship of idols, should worship Moses as God. For they say, that when the devil would for that reason have showed the grave and the body of Moses to the Israelites, St. Michael hindered; and this was the contention spoken of Jude 9.” (Seb. Barrad. Itinerar. Fil. Israel.)

They could give no greater honour to the body of Moses, than is given to relics in the Church of Rome; and if that was idolatry, and Moses’s body was concealed to prevent it, then there is as much reason to think it unlawful now in this case, as it was then in that.

Q. 43. For what cause do they show this regard to relics?

A. By the veneration of them they obtain the help of the saints (Concil. Trid., Sess. 25, de Invocat.) whom the relics relate to; and many benefits are thereby conferred by God upon mankind; for by these the dead have been raised, the infirm cured, and devils cast out. (Catech. Rom., ibid.; Breviar. Rom., ibid.)

Reply. We read of Hezekiah, (2 Kings xviii. 4,) that he “brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made:” And the reason was, because the children of Israel did burn incense to it. The brazen serpent was of God’s own institution; (Num. xxi. 8;) by looking up to which, the people were formerly cured. And though it was preserved as a memorial of that divine operation; yet, when abused to idolatry, he cut it in pieces. And were these truly relics of saints, and did work those miracles they pretend, it would be no reason for that reverence and worship they give to them; but the reverence and worship given to them should, according to good King Hezekiah’s practice, be a reason to give them a decent interment.

Q. 44. What kind of reverence or worship is required to be given to images and pictures in the Church of Rome?

A. They kiss them, uncover the head, and fall down, before them; offer incense, and pray to them, and use all such postures of worship as they would do to the person or persons thereby represented, (whether Christ, the Virgin Mary, or other saints,) if they were present: And whosoever doth think otherwise, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess . 25, de Invocat. Catech. Rom., par. 4, c. 6, n. 4.) And accordingly, the Priest is to direct the people to them, that they may be worshipped. (Ut Colantur, Catech. Rom., par. 3, c. 2, n. 24.)

Reply. On the contrary, the Second Commandment teaches us, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,” &c. ” Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. ” In which there are two words to be considered: The one, pesel, which we rightly translate graven image; for it properly signifies anything carved and cut out of wood or stone; and so it is about forty times rendered in the Greek translation, γλυπίον, “a graven thing.” So that an idol and an image are there forbidden. The next word is themunah, which doth properly signify a similitude or likeness, (as is confessed,) and is always so translated. And thus it was understood by the Fathers. So Justin Martyr, when he recites this law, saith, “God forbad every image and similitude,” εικονα και ομοιωμα. And therefore Cassander grants that the ancient Christians “abhorred all veneration of images.” (Consult., art. 21, de Imayin.) Indeed, the command is so express against this practice, that there has been a kind of self-condemnation in the Church of Rome; whilst they commonly either altogether leave out this Commandment, (The Child’s Catechism, printed 1678,) or render it imperfectly and by halves: “Thou shalt not make to thee an idol.”

Q. 45. What do they profess is their intention in the reverence they give to images and pictures?

A. They declare that the honour given to images and pictures is referred to the prototypes, (Concil. Trid., ibid.,) or the persons represented by them, whether God the Father, Christ, angels, or saints; and when they fall down before the image or picture, they worship God, or Christ, the angel, or saint.

Reply. If an image be a representation of a divine person, and worship be due to the image for the sake of the person represented in it; then, such as the person is, such must the worship be that is due to his image; and what is due to the person, if present, is due to the image in his absence. For to give one honour to the person, and another to the image ; a superior to the person, and an inferior to the image; is to terminate the worship in the image, and not pass it from thence to the person, as Gretser, the Jesuit, argues: (De Cruce, 1. 1, c. 49, sec. Secundo itaque:) But if it be to pass from the image unto the person, then we know what they do when they kiss, and uncover their heads, and bow down to, and worship, an image ; and have reason to remember the Apostle’s advice: “Keep yourselves from idols.” (1 John v. 21.)

Q. 46. What regard have they to the material cross or crucifix?

A. ( 1.) They ascribe peculiar virtue to it, and pray that God would make the wood of the cross to “he the stability of faith, an increase of good works, the redemption of souls.” (Pontificale in Bened. Novæ Crucis)

(2.) They use all expressions of outward adoration, by kissings and prostrations, &c. (Missale Fer. 6, In Parasc.)

(3.) They pray directly to it, to ” increase grace in the godly, and blot out the sins of the guilty.” (Ibid., Sub Ante Domin. Pass. et Fest. Invent. Crucis.)

(4.) They give latria to it, which is the sovereign worship that is peculiar to God. (Pontif. Rom. Ordo ad Recep. Imper. Rubr. 1, et Gretser de Cruce, 1. 1, с. 49.)

Reply. The Church of Rome, though without any authority from Scripture, (which uses the words promiscuously,) * makes a distinction between latria and doulia: The former is the worship they give to God; the latter the worship they give to saints. Now, they grant, that to give latria, or sovereign worship, to any besides God, is idolatry; and that, were not the host the very body and blood of Christ, it would be no less than idolatry to give that honour to the host, which they give to Christ: We understand, then, how to call that worship they give to the cross: They themselves call it latria; so we may, by their leave, call it idolatry. For whatever the host is, the cross is but a representation, and not the person worshipped.

* Εδελευσατε, “Ye did service to them that were no gods.” (Gal. iv. 8.) Ελατρευσαν, “They served the creature.” (Rom. i. 25.)

Q. 47. Do they think it lawful to represent God and the blessed Trinity by pictures and images, and to worship them?

A. Such pictures are not only almost everywhere received in the Church of Rome, but universally tolerated; (Bellarm. de Imag., 1. 2, c. 8, sec. Ultimo probatur;) and are both recommended as expedient for the people, (Concil. Trid., Sess. 25, de Sacr. Imag. Catech. Rom., par. 3, c. 2, n. 20,) and proposed to them to be worshipped. (Cajetan. in Aquin., q. 25, art. 3.)

Reply. There is nothing more expressly forbidden in Scripture, than the making any image or representation of God: “Take ye good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no manner of similitude,) lest ye corrupt yourselves; and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure.” (Deut. iv. 15, 16.) If it had been acceptable to God, he would have chosen a similitude to appear in; but seeing he did not, they were not to presume to make one for him. This is to “change his glory.” (Rom. i. 21, &c.) And “to place such an image in a Christian temple is abominable,” saith St. Austin. (De Fide et Symb., c. 7.) And “thus to describe the Trinity, is a deformation of it,” saith Cassander. (Art. 21, sec. de Imag.)

Q. 48. Upon what pretence do they make such representations of God?

A. They say, they thereby represent not God, but some of his properties and actions, after the manner they are described in Scripture; as when “the Ancient of days” is said to “sit on a throne, having the books opened before him;” (Dan. vii. 9, 10;) thereby signifying his eternity and infinite wisdom. (Catech. Rom., ibid.)

Reply. But what is this to those images and pictures used by them which have no resemblance in Scripture? Such are their descriptions of the Trinity in Unity, as of God the Father like an old man, having the Son lying in his bosom, and the Holy Ghost over his head like a dove.

(2.) God himself never appeared in any form; and so the resemblance in Daniel was only a prophetical scheme, and did no more belong to God than the eyes and ears that are ascribed
to him in Scripture.

(3.) God cannot be represented at all, but by such properties and effects: But if an image of God be forbidden to be worshipped, then the image, even by such properties and effects, is forbidden to be worshipped.

Q. 49. But are not such descriptions of God, the way to represent him, as if he was like unto one of us?

A. Such pictures are not without danger to be exposed to such as cannot read the Scriptures, if they are not taught that they are to be taken metaphorically. (Bellarm. de Imag., 1. 2, c. 8, sec. Respondent.)

Reply. Cassander saith, “I wish those from whom this information is to be received, were not the authors of these superstitions; ” and he adds, “That the teaching is not enough, without the occasions be removed.” (Art. 21, de Imag.) This he saith of all images, but more especially of such as are made to represent God.

Section IV — Of the Sacraments.

Question 50. What is a sacrament?

Answer. A sacrament is a sensible thing which by the institution of God hath a power, as well of causing, as of signifying, holiness and righteousness. (Catech. Rom., par. 2, cap. 1, n. 11.)

Q. 51. How many sacraments are there in the Church of Rome?

A. There are seven; namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, Can. 1.)

Q. 52. Is this number determined to be a matter of faith?

A. Whosoever saith, that there are more or fewer than seven instituted by Christ, or that any of the seven are not truly and properly sacraments, is accursed. (Ibid.)

Reply. Cassander saith, that we shall not easily find any before Peter Lombard, who lived about 1139, that did define the number of the sacraments. (Art. 13., sec. De Num. Sacram.) And St. Austin is very positive that there are but two of divine institution.* Now, that there should be sacraments of divine institution, that are neither instituted in the gospel, nor known to be so till 1100 years after our Saviour, nor be made a matter of faith till 1500, may be a doctrine received in the Church of Rome, but will not easily be believed by any out of it.

* “Our Lord Jesus Christ,” saith he, “hath knit Christians together, with sacraments most few in number, most easy to be kept, most excellent in signification; as are baptism and the Lord’s supper.” — Epist. ad Januar. 118.

Q. 53. What are the parts of a sacrament?

A. The parts of a sacrament are the matter or element, and the form of words of consecration: So the matter in baptism is water; the form is, “I baptize thee,” &c.

Reply. That a sacrament should consist of matter and form, and yet either have no form, as confirmation and extreme unction; or have neither matter nor form, of divine institution, as penance and matrimony, is to make them sacraments, and to be none. Our Church rightly affirms of the additional sacraments, they have not any visible sign ordained of God. (Article 25.)

Q. 54. Of what virtue are the sacraments?

A. The sacraments contain the grace which they signify, and confer grace ex opere operato, “by the work itself,” upon such as do not put an obstruction. (Concil. Trid., ibid., can. 6, 8.) For these sensible and natural things work by the almighty power of God in the sacraments, what they could not do by their own power. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 27.)

Reply. It is not sufficient that adult persons have no indisposition to receive the grace of the sacraments; for there is also required a mind well-instructed, a sound belief, and a heart well inclined for that purpose. (2.) The virtue in the sacraments doth not proceed from the mere elements and words, but from the blessing of God in consequence of his promise to such only as rightly partake of them, and are qualified for it.

Q. 55. What is necessary to a sacrament on the part of those that officiate?

A. It is absolutely necessary, that those that make and consecrate the sacraments have an intention of doing at least what the Church doeth, and doth intend to do. (Concil. Trid., ibid., can. 11.)

Reply. From hence it follows, that if there be no intention, the sacraments are none. And so there is no certainty whether the Priest be a Priest, or whether in the eucharist the elements continue not elements after consecration, and what is taken for the host be no other than bread. For without the intention, neither is the Priest ordained, nor are the elements consecrated.

Of Baptism.

Q. 56. Who may administer the sacrament of baptism?

A. It chiefly belongs to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; but, in case of necessity, men or women, Jews, infidels, or heretics may do it, if they intend to do what the Church doeth. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, De Bapt., can. 4; Catech. Rom., pars 2, c. 2, n. 24.)

Reply. Our Saviour gave commission to the Apostles and their successors, in the office of the ministry, to “teach all nations, baptizing them.” (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.) So that women, Jews, and infidels, have no more a power to administer baptism, than they have to teach, or to be Priests.

Q. 57. What ceremonies are used in the administration of baptism in the Church of Rome?

A. Before baptism, there is, (1.) Chrism, or oil mixed with water, in the consecration of it. (Catech., ibid., n. 11, 60.)

(2.) Exorcism, composed of certain words, prayers, and actions, for driving away the devil out of the child, and the salt, &c. (Catech., ibid., n. 65.) And the Priest is to blow in the face of the child, after the form of a cross, saying, “Go out of him, Satan,” &c. (Pastorale, Antwerp, 1625.)

(3.) The forehead, eyes, breast, &c., are to be crossed, to show that, by the mystery of baptism, the senses are opened to receive God, and to understand his commands. (Catech., n. 67; Pastor., ibid.)

(4.) Then some exorcised salt is to be put into the mouth, to signify a deliverance from the putrefaction of sin, and the savour of good works. (Catech., ibid., n. 66.) And the Priest in putting it into the mouth, saith, “N, take the salt of wisdom, and let it be a propitiation for thee to eternal life. Amen.” (Pastor., ibid.)

(5.) Then the nose and ears are to be anointed with spittle, and then the child is to be brought to the water, as the blind man to Siloam, to signify it brings light to the mind. (Catech., ibid., n. 60.)

After baptism, (1.) The Priest anoints the top of the head with chrism; (Catech., ibid., n. 72 ;) and he adds, “Let him anoint thee with the chrism of salvation.” (Pastor., ibid.)

(2.) He puts a white garment on the baptized, saying, “Take this white garment, which thou mayest bring before the judgment-seat of Christ, that thou mayest have life eternal.” (Catech., ibid., n. 73.)

(3.) A lighted candle is put into the hand, to show a faith inflamed with charity, and nourished with good works. (Ibid. , n. 74.)

Reply. It is pleaded for these ceremonies, that they are appointed for the majesty of divine worship; and that the benefits contained in the sacraments may be better imprinted on the mind. (Catech., par. 2, c. 2, n. 59.)

But can we think it for the majesty of baptism to have it dressed up like a form of conjuration, that the child must be supposed to be possessed with the devil, and the Priest must blow in his face three times, with, “Get thee out, Satan,” before he can say, “Peace be with thee;” and that he must cross him half a score times, or more, from part to part, in preparation to baptism?

Can we think it for the majesty of it, to have salt exorcised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to be put into the mouth of the child, for a propitiation unto eternal life? Can we think it for the majesty of this ordinance, that the Priest should put some of his own spittle in his left hand, and then taking it thence with the thumb and forefinger of his right hand, touch both ears of the infant, and say, “Ephphatha, be thou opened!” and then his nostrils, and say, “For the odour of sweetness; but thou, O devil, fly;” and then on his right hand, after the manner of a cross, saying, “N, I deliver unto thee the mark of our Lord Jesus Christ, (†) * that thou mayest drive the adversary from thee on every side, and have life eternal?”

And what are the benefits imprinted on the mind by these fantastical ceremonies? Or when is it such benefits are promised as these are said to signify? Is it not rather a debasing of it, to have such rites and prayers introduced into it, as signify that which baptism was never appointed for? To give an instance in the salt used in it:-

The Exorcism of the Salt

“I exorcise thee, O creature of salt, in the name of the Father (†) Omnipotent, and in the love of our (†) Lord Jesus Christ, and in the virtue of the Holy (†) Spirit. I exorcise thee by the living (†) God, by the true (†) God, by the holy (†) God, who hath created thee for the safeguard of mankind, and hath commanded it to be consecrated by his servants for the people that come to believe, that in the name of the holy Trinity thou beest made a wholesome sacrament to put the enemy to flight. Therefore we pray thee, O our Lord God, that in sanctifying (†) thou dost sanctify this creature of salt, and in blessing (†) thou dost bless it, that it may be a perfect medicine to all that take it.”

* N.B. Where this mark (†) stands, the sign of the cross is made.

Of Confirmation.

Q. 58. Is confirmation a sacrament?

A. It is, properly and truly; and whosoever holds otherwise is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, de Confirm., can. 1.)

Reply. The Roman Catechism saith, that sacraments cannot be instituted by any but God. (Catech., ibid., n. 6.) And yet the great Schoolman, Alex. Ales, saith, “Christ did not institute nor declare confirmation to be a sacrament.” (Pars 4, q. 4, m. 1.) So by their own confession it is none.

Q. 59. What is the matter of the sacrament of confirmation?

A. The matter is chrism, which is anointment compounded of oil- olive and balsam, and consecrated by the Bishop (Cate. Rom., par. 2, c. 3, n. 2, 7, 27) upon Maundy-Thursday. (Sum of Christian Doctrine, London, 1686.)

Reply. That chrism is either of divine institution, or the matter of a sacrament, may be said, but cannot be proved.

Q. 60. What is the form of consecration?

A. The form is the words used by the Bishop, when he crosses the forehead with the chrism, viz., “I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” (Catech., n. 2, 11.)

Reply. It is said that Christ instituted the matter and form of confirmation from the authority of Pope Fabian; (pars 4, q. 3, m. 2, n. 3, & q. 9, m. 1;) but Alexander Ales saith, it was ordained by the Meldensian Council. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 6, 12, et Bellarminus de Confirm., c. 2.) And indeed the Roman Catechism, after some pretence to divine institution, thinks it safest to resolve it into the authority of the Church.

Q. 61. What ceremonies are used in confirmation?

A. (1.) In the anointing, the Bishop dips the tip of his finger in the chrism, and, making a cross, saith, “I sign thee,” &c. (Pontific. de Confirm.)

(2.) After confirmation, he strikes the person slightly on the cheek, that he may remember he is to suffer all injuries for the name of Christ, with patience and courage. (Catech., n. 25.)

(3.) Then the person to be confirmed, setting his foot upon the right foot of the godfather, (Pontific., ibid.,) is to have his head bound with a clean head-band for some days more or less, with reverence to the holy chrism; which done, the band is to be preserved in the sacrarium, or other clean place, till the following Ash-Wednesday, to be burnt to holy ashes. (Pastorale.)

Reply. Whether we consider the far-fetched significations of these ceremonies or the virtue put in them, the abuse is intolerable; as, for instance, that in consecration of the chrism, the Bishop blows upon it, to signify the descent of the Holy Ghost for the sanctification of it, (Bellarm. de Confirm., 1. 2, c. 13, sec. Tertio habet,) and that it hath a power of sanctification as the instrument of God. (Ibid., sec. Quarta cæremonia.) So the Bishop prays in the consecration of it, that God “in bestowing spiritual grace upon this ointment, would pour out the fulness of sanctification, and that it may be to all that are to be anointed with it, for the adoption of sons by the Holy Spirit. Amen.” (Pontif. Rom.)

Of the Eucharist.

Q. 62. What is the eucharist?

A. It is a sacrament wherein is truly, really, and substantially contained whole Christ, God-Man, body and blood, bones and nerves, (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 4, n. 33,) soul and divinity, under the species or appearance of bread and wine. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 13, de Real. Præs., c. 1; A Sum of Christian Doctrine, printed 1686.)

Q. How do they attempt to prove this?

A. From the words of our Saviour,-“This is my body;” which, say they, clearly demonstrate that the same body which was born of the Virgin, and is now in heaven, is in the sacrament. (Catech., par. 2, c. 4, n. 26.)

Q. 63. What becomes of the bread and wine after consecration?

A. Upon consecration there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of Christ’s body; and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of Christ’s blood; which conversion is usually called transubstantiation. (Concil. Trid. ibid., c. 4; Concil. Later., 4, can. 1.)

Reply. (1.) No such change of the substance of the bread into the substance of Christ’s body, can be inferred from our Saviour’s words, ” This is my body; ” ( Matt. xxvi. 26 ;) for it is not said, “This is turned into my body,” but, “This is my body; ” which, if it be taken literally, would rather prove the substance of the bread to be his body. Therefore Cardinal Cajetan acknowledges, it is nowhere said in the Gospel that the bread is changed into the body of Christ; but they have it from the authority of the Church. (Cajet. in Aquin., par. 3, q. 75, art. 1.)

(2.) It is farther evident that the words are not to be taken in their proper sense; for it is called bread as well after consecration as before it. (1 Cor. x. 17; xi. 26-28.) So that what was called his body was also bread at the same time.

(3.) The mystical relation which the bread by consecration has to Christ’s body is sufficient to give it the name of his body. For it is the usual way of Scripture, to call things of a sacramental nature, by the names of those things they are the figure of. (Aug. Epist. 23.) So, circumcision is called the covenant. (Gen. xvii. 13.) And the killing, dressing, and eating the lamb, is called the passover. (Exodus xii. 11.) And after the same manner is the bread in the sacrament Christ’s body; that is, as circumcision was the covenant, and the lamb the passover, by signification and representation, by type and figure. And so the elements are called by the Fathers, “the images,” (Orig. Dial. 3, Contr. Marcion.,) ” the symbols,” (Euseb. Dem. Evang. 1.1, c. 1, et ult.,) ” the figure,” (Aug. contr. Adimant., c. 12,) of Christ’s body and blood.

Q. 64. What is then that which is seen and tasted in the eucharist?

A. The things seen and tasted are the accidents only of bread and wine; there is the savour, colour, and quantity of bread and wine, without any of their substance; but under those accidents there is only the body and blood of Christ. (Catech. Rom., n. 37, 44.)

Reply. Our Saviour appealed to the senses of his disciples: “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke xxiv. 39.) Take away the certainty of sense, and there is no discerning a body from a spirit; and grant transubstantiation, and we take away the certainty of sense.

Q. 65. Is the body and blood of Christ broken when the host is broken and divided?

A. No, because Christ is impassible; (Abridgment of Christ. Doctrine, c. 11, sec. Euchar.;) and, besides, there is whole and entire Christ under either species or element, under the species of bread, and under every particle of it; under the species of wine, and under every drop of it. (Conc. Trid., ibid., c. 3.)

Reply. If every particle of the host is as much the whole body of Christ, as the whole host is before it be divided, then a whole may be divided into wholes; for, divide it and subdivide it, it is still whole. Whole it is before the division, whole it is in the division, and whole it is after it. Thus unreasonable, as well as false, is the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Q. 66. Do they administer the sacrament in both kinds of bread and wine?

A. No; the people are permitted to receive it only in one kind, and are denied the cup. (Trid., Sess. 21, c. 1.)

Reply. It is acknowledged that our Saviour instituted and delivered the sacrament in both kinds; (Concil. Constant., Sess. 13; Trid., Sess. 21, c. 1,2;) and that it so continued even in the Church of Rome for above one thousand years after. (Consult. Cassandri., art. 22.) And yet with a non obstante to both, they forbid the people to drink of it; and declare, whoever thinks it necessary to receive in both kinds, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., ibid., can. 1.)

Q. 67. For what reason doth the Church of Rome deprive the people of what our Lord is granted to have instituted?

A. For just and weighty causes, (Con. Trid., ibid., c. 2,) such as these: (1.) Lest the blood of Christ should be spilt upon the ground. (2.) Lest the wine, by being kept for the sick, should grow eager. (3.) Because many cannot bear the taste or smell of wine. (4.) Because in many countries there is such a scarcity of wine, as it is not to be had without great charge and tedious journeys. (5.) To disprove those that deny whole Christ to be contained under each species. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 66.)

Reply. These are the “just and weighty causes” for their overruling the plain precept of our Saviour: “Drink ye all of this.” (Matt. xxvi. 27.) And yet whosoever shall say they are not just and sufficient reasons, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., ibid., can. 2.) As if it was sufficient to forbid wine in the sacrament to all, because some few cannot bear the taste or smell of it; and it was a just cause to deprive all countries of it because some have not wine, or cannot obtain it without difficulty!

Q. 68. What is the mass?

A. In the sacrifice of the mass, the same Christ is contained, and unbloodily offered, who bloodily offered himself upon the altar of the cross. (Conc. Trid., Sess. 22, can. 1.)

Q. 69. Of what virtue is the sacrifice in the mass?

A. It is truly a propitiatory sacrifice, and is available, not only for the sins, punishments, and satisfactions of the living, but also for those of the souls in purgatory. (Ibid.)

Q. 70. Is this necessary to be believed?

A. Yes; and whosoever denies any of this, is accursed, (Conc. Trid., Sess. 22, can. 1,) and incapable of salvation. (Bulla Pii IV. )

Reply. The Scripture when it extols the perfection and infinite value of Christ’s sacrifice, doth infer from it, that there needed not therefore any repetition of it: “He needeth not daily, as those High Priests, to offer up sacrifice, &c.; for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” (Hebrews vii. 27.) But if the same Christ is offered in the mass as was on the cross, and that unbloody sacrifice is alike propitiatory as the bloody, there is then a repetition of the same sacrifice, and he is daily offered. And what is it to say, the one was bloody and the other is unbloody, when the unbloody is of the same virtue, and is applied to the same end, as the bloody? So that, as, if Christ had again been bloodily offered up, there had been a repetition of that sacrifice; so there is a repetition of it when he is offered up unbloodily. To have then a perfect sacrifice daily repeated, and a sacrifice without suffering, and a propitiation and remission without blood, are alike irreconcilable to the Apostle. (Hebrews ix. 22, 25, &c.)

Q. 71. May the Priest communicate alone, though there be none besides to communicate?

A. Yes; the Church of Rome doth approve and commend solitary masses, and accounts them a communion; partly because the people do spiritually communicate in it, and partly because it is celebrated by a public Minister, not only for himself, but also for the people. (Conc. Trid., ibid., cap. 6.)

Reply. The Apostle calls the Lord’s supper a communion, and saith, “All are partakers of that one bread.” (1 Cor. x. 16, 17.) And Cassander saith, “It cannot properly be a communion unless many partake of it;” and adds from the Council of Nants, that “it is absurd to say, Lift up your hearts, when there is none communicates with the Priest.” (Consult., art. 24, De Solit. Miss.) And yet the Council of Trent declares, whosoever shall say such masses are unlawful, and to be abrogated, is accursed. (Sess. 22, Can. 8.)

Q. 72. What honour is to be given to the consecrated host?

A. Latria, or the same sovereign worship which is due only to God; (Concil. Trid., Sess. 13, cap. 5;) adore it; (Missale Rom., cap. Missæ;) pray to it. (Brev. Rom., Hym. in F. Corp. Ch.) And whosoever holds it unlawful or idolatrous so to do, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., ibid., Can. 6.)

Reply. We freely own that Christ is to be adored in the Lord’s supper; but that the elements are to be adored, we deny. If Christ is not corporally present in the host, they grant their adoration to be idolatry. (Coster. Enchir., c. 8, n. 10.) And that he is not corporally present anywhere but in heaven, we are taught, Acts i. 11, iii. 21, whither he went, and where he is to continue till his second coming to judgment.

Q. 73. What are the ceremonies used in the mass?

A. The ceremonies in the mass respect either things, actions, or words. Among the things, are garments, places, time, vessels, cloths, incense, lights, &c. (Bellarmin. Doctr. Trid. de Sacr. Miss.)

Q. 74. What are the garments used by the Priest in the mass, and what is their signification?

A. (1.) The amice, or white veil, which he puts over his head, signifies mystically, either the divinity of Christ covered under his humanity, or the crown of thorns; and morally, contemplation, or hope. In putting it on, he saith, “Put on, O Lord, the helmet of salvation upon my head, that I may overcome all diabolical temptations.”

(2.) The alb, or long white garment, signifies mystically, the white robe put on our Saviour; and morally, faith and innocency. In putting it on, he saith, “Make me white, O Lord, and cleanse my heart, that, being whitened in the blood of the Lamb, I may enjoy everlasting gladness.”

(3.) The girdle signifies mystically, the cords wherewith our Saviour was bound; and morally, (being turned up on both sides,) the two means to preserve chastity, namely, fasting and prayer. When he puts it about him, he prays, “Gird me, O Lord, with the girdle of purity, and quench in my loins the humour of lust, that there may remain in me the virtue of continency and chastity.” The like account is given of the maniple, vestment, and stole, and of the divers colours of the furniture used in the several seasons, in the “Manual of the Poor Man’s Devotion,” chap. Of the Ornaments of the Mass.

Reply. The Council of Trent saith, that the ceremonies of the mass, such as mystical benedictions, lights, incensings, garments, &c., are from Apostolical tradition; (Sess. 22, c. 5;) or, as others, were instituted by the Holy Ghost; (Bellarminus, cap. de Sacr. Mis.;) and that they serve for the majesty of that sacrifice, and to raise the mind to the contemplation of the divine things concealed in it; so none of them are superfluous and vain. (Catech., par. 2, c. 4, n. 81.)

But how shall we reconcile this to the numerous crossings and sprinklings, used in the celebration of the mass? For example: When the Priest is clothed with the garments rehearsed before, he comes to the altar; and, standing on the lowest step, just against the middle of it, he makes a profound reverence to the altar and crucifix. Then he ascends, and, having placed the books, &c., in order, he descends to the lowest step, and, turning himself to it, with his hands joined before his breast, and making a reverence to the altar or crucifix, he begins the mass, standing upright, and drawing with his right hand (his left hand laid on his breast) the sign of the cross from his forehead to his breast. Then he joins his hands before his breast ; the Minister standing on his left hand behind him, bowing, saith, Ad Deum, &c. Then the Priest, with the Minister, say the psalm, Judica me, with Gloria Patri, at which he is to bow his head to the cross. Then he repeats the Introibo, making with his right hand the sign of the cross from the forehead to the breast. Then he bows his head and body to the altar, and there he stands bowing till the Minister saith, Misereatur. When he saith, Mea culpa, he smites thrice upon his breast with the right hand; and thus the Missal proceeds in its ceremonies in all the remaining parts of the service.

Of Penance.

Q. 75. What is the matter and form of the sacrament of penance?

A. The matter is contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The form is, “I absolve.” (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 5, n. 14, 15.)

Reply. We are told, that the matter of a sacrament is somewhat sensible; (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 1, n. 11;) then how is penance a sacrament, which has no such matter? For where is the matter that is sensible in contrition? The Council, to avoid this, call it, Quasi materia,–“A matter after a sort.” (Concil. Trid., Sess. 14, can. 3.)

Q. 76. What is confession?

A. Confession is a particular discovery of all mortal sins to the Priest, with all their circumstances that increase or diminish the sin, as far as can be called to mind; (Concil. Trid., Sess. 14, c. 5, & Catech., ibid., n. 48;) without which neither forgiveness nor salvation is to be obtained. (Trid., ibid., Can. 6, 7; Catech., n. 44.)

Reply. We grant confession to men to be in many cases of use; public, in case of public scandal; private, to a spiritual guide for disburdening of the conscience, and as an help to repentance. But to make auricular confession, or particular confession to a Priest, necessary to forgiveness and salvation, when God has not so made it, is apparently to teach for doctrine the commandment of men; and to make it necessary in all cases, is to make, of what may be a useful means, a dangerous snare, both to the confessor, and those that confess.

Q. 77. Of what kind is the absolution which the Priest grants upon confession?

A. The absolution is not only declarative, but judicial; and the sentence pronounced by the Priest is as if pronounced by the Judge himself; (Concil. Trid., ibid., c. 6, & Can. 9;) he perfecting what God causes. (Catech., par. 2, 5, n. 17.)

Reply. To pardon sin, and absolve the sinner judicially, so as the conscience may rest firmly upon it, is a power reserved by God to himself. So: ” If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John i. 9.) And therefore the authority of the Priest is only ministerial, declarative, and conditional. “Men show a ministry in the forgiveness of sins, but do not exercise a right of power. They pray, but it is God forgives,” saith St. Ambrose. (De Spir., 1. 3, c. 19.)

Q. 78. What is the benefit of absolution?

A. Although a sinner is not so affected with such grief for his sin, as may be sufficient to obtain pardon; yet, when he has rightly confessed to a Priest, all his sins are pardoned, and an entrance is opened into heaven. (Catech., ibid., n. 38.)

Reply. The grief which is sufficient to obtain pardon, is contrition; and so the grief which is not sufficient to obtain pardon, must be attrition; and the meaning then is, that attrition, with absolution, is as effectual as contrition.

Q. 79. What is satisfaction?

A. It is a compensation made to God, by prayer, fasting, alms, &c., (Catech., ibid., n. 75,) for all sins committed against him; (Bellarminus de Satisfact.; Bellarm. de Indulg., 1. 1, с. 7, sec. Quarta propositio;) so that the offender is thereupon purged from the defilement of sin, and discharged from all temporal punishments due to him, either here or in purgatory. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 65, 66.)

Q. 80. How do these works become thus satisfactory?

A. They are meritorious and satisfactory, (Catech., ibid., n. 72, 73,) as they are united to the satisfaction of Christ. (Bellarm. de Forma Satisfact.; Bellarm. de Indulg., 1. 1, с. 4, sec. Respons, non est quidem.)

Reply. The giving satisfaction to the Church in case of scandal, and the imposing penances upon notorious offenders, is an useful part of ecclesiastical discipline. But to make that a satisfaction to God which is given to the Church; and to make our works to satisfy, though but as an appendant to the satisfaction of Christ, we can by no means allow. Not the former, because it is derogatory to the justice of God; not the latter, because it is derogatory to the merits of our Saviour. For what can make a satisfaction to God, but the obedience and suffering of his Son? Or what need is there of another satisfaction after that of our Saviour? “By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (Heb. x. 14.)

The Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

Q. 81. What is the matter of the sacrament of extreme unction?

A. Oil of olive-berries, (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 6, n. 5,) consecrated by a Bishop; which aptly signifies the grace of the Spirit with which the soul of the sick is invisibly anointed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 14, de Extr. Unct., c. 1.)

Q. 82. What is the form of it?

A. The form is, “By this holy anointing, God pardon thee, by whatever thou hast offended by the fault of the eyes, nose, or touch.” (Catech., ibid., n. 6.)

Q. 83. What are the parts anointed?

A. The eyes, because of seeing; the ears, because of hearing; the mouth, because of tasting, or speech; the hands, because of touching; the feet, because of motion; the reins, because the seat of lust. (Catech., ibid., n. 10.)

Q. 84. When is this anointing administered?

A. It is to be administered only when persons are supposed to be near the point of death; (Concil. Trid., ibid., c. 3; Bellarm. Extr. Unct., 1. 1, c. 2, sec. Accedit;) whence it is called extreme unction. (Catech., ibid., n. 2, 14.)

Reply. We read, when the twelve Apostles were sent forth, they “anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them; ” (Mark vi. 13;) making use of that anointing, not as a natural means, but as a mystical sign of the miraculous cure to be wrought by the power of Christ. And as long as this power continued in the Church, so long there was a reason for continuing this rite. Accordingly, the Apostle directs, “Is any sick? Let him call for the Elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick.” (James v. 14, 15.) But when the power ceased, there was no reason for the continuance of this sign. And yet this ceremony of anointing is not only continued in the Church of Rome without any pretence to the power, but the nature and the use of it is wholly perverted from what it was in apostolical times. For, (1.) This rite was then used in curing the sick, but was not necessary to it; for we find them also cured by imposition of hands, (Mark xvi. 18; Acts ix. 17,) or by a word. (Acts ix. 34.) But in the Church of Rome it is made absolutely necessary. (2.) In apostolical times it was a mere rite; but in the Church of Rome it is made a sacrament, and whosoever saith it is a mere rite is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 14, Can. 1.) (3.) It was used in apostolical times properly for corporal maladies; but in the Church of Rome properly for the soul, and but accidentally for the body. (Bellarm. de Extr. Unct., 1. 1, c. 2, sec. Probo igitur.) (4.) It was used then for the recovery of the sick; but here it is to be applied only to those that are judged to be past it.

Of the Sacrament of Orders.

Q. 85. Is ordination a sacrament?

A. It is truly and properly a sacrament, and doth confer grace; and whoso denies this, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, Can. 1, 23, cap. 3, Can. 3.)

Reply. We account ordination to be of divine institution, and that by it a ministerial commission is conveyed; but how necessary soever this office is to the Church, and grace for the exercise of it, yet as that grace is not promised to it, we cannot admit it to be properly and truly a sacrament.

Q. 86. What are the several orders instituted for the service of the Church?

A. The orders always received by the Catholic Church are seven,–the greater and less: The greater are the Priest, Deacon, and Sub- Deacon: The less are the Acolythus, who is to carry the candle and assist the Sub-Deacon; the Exorcist, who is to attend and pray over them that are possessed with the devil; the Reader, and the Ostiarius, or door- keeper. (Catech., par. 2, c. 7, n. 12, 15, &c.)

Reply. We know of no authority there is for any order under a Deacon, so as to anathematize them that do not receive them. (Concil. Trid., ibid., Can. 2.) We know of no authority for the forms used in the ordination of those lower orders; as, when the Bishop admits any to that of Exorcists, he reaches to them a book in which the exorcisms are contained, and saith, “Receive, and commit to memory, and take the power of laying on of hands upon the possessed, or baptized, or catechumens.” (Catech., ibid., n. 17.)

We know of no authority for this kind of procedure, for those forms of conjuration contained in those books, or for the use of those rites therein prescribed, for exorcising persons, houses, cattle, milk, butter, fruits, &c., infested with the devil. (See the Pastorale Mechlin, and the Manual of Exorcisms, Antwerp, 1626.)

Of the Sacrament of Marriage.

Q. 87. Is marriage truly and properly a sacrament?

A. Yes; and whosoever denies it so to be, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 24, Can. 1.)

Reply. St. Austin saith, that signs, when applied to religious things, are called sacraments. (Epist. 5.) And in this large sense he calls the sign of the cross a sacrament; (in Psalm. cxli.;) and others give the same name to washing the feet, (Cypr. de Lotione Pedum,) and many other mysteries. But then matrimony doth no more confer grace, than washing the feet, or using the sign of the cross; which Bellarmine, after all the virtue he ascribes to it, will not allow to be properly and truly a sacrament. (De Imag., 1. 2, с. 30, sec. Dices ergo.)

Q. 88. May those that are in holy orders marry, or those that are married be received into orders in the Church of Rome?

A. No; these that are married may not be admitted; (Concil. Later. 1, Can. 21, et Later. 2, Can. 6;) those that are admitted may not marry; and those that, being admitted, do marry, are to be  separated.

Q. 89. If marriage is a sacrament, and so confers grace, how comes it to be denied to those that are in holy orders? (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 8, n. 17.)

A. Those in holy orders are the temple of God, and it is a shameful thing that they should serve uncleanness. (Later. Concil. 2, Can. 6.)

Reply. The Apostle, on the contrary, saith, “Marriage is honourable in all;” (Heb. xiii. 4;) and gives a hard character of that doctrine which forbids it. (1 Tim. iv. 1-3.) And how lawful it was, the direction of the Apostle about it (1 Tim. iii. 2) doth show. And how convenient it is, is manifest from the mischiefs attending the prohibition of it in the Romish Church, which wise men among themselves have lamented. (Polyd. Virgil. de Invent., 1. 3, c. 4, et Cassander Consult., art. 23.)

The Conclusion.

I might have added the Fifth Section about the jurisdiction which the Church of Rome challenges over Princes, and about their canonization of saints, their consecration of Agnus Deis and beads, &c., and the use these and the like are applied to. I might have further considered their notes of a Church, and showed how many of them are not true, or, however, do not belong to the Church of Rome; but that would be too large a subject to enter upon: And what has been said will be sufficient to show how far that Church hath erred from truth and reason. For if we set their Councils, Missals, Breviaries, Rituals, and Catechisms on one side, and Scripture and antiquity on the other, we shall find their doctrines and practices as well opposite to those as they are opposite to ours; and may be assured that persons may sooner lose their eyes, than find there such a primacy of St. Peter as they contend for, or their Vicarship of the Pope, the invocation of saints, the worship of images, service in an unknown tongue, transubstantiation, purgatory, and the rest that we contend against. Scripture and indubitable antiquity are the authority we appeal to; thither we refer our cause; and can heartily conclude with that of Vincentius Lyrin, “That is to be held, which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” (Contr. Hær., c. 3.)