temporary expiations. If then he should neglect to discharge the obligation here, he must of course pay off the debt hereafter. Consequently, he cannot be acquitted validly on earth, without reaping the advantage of this indulgence also in a future state. If once you grant that the sinner, at his departure hence indebted to the Divine justice for venial offences, is liable to suffer temporary pain, (for none can enter heaven defiled with the smallest stain of sin) and that he may be relieved by the prayers and suffrages of the church, why not allow that they may prove beneficial to his soul, and release him eventually from his sufferings?

Nor have the popes, as some have misconceived, deprived the bishops of the privilege of granting indulgences; but the church has wisely reserved to them exclusively, the power of according plenary indulgences in favor of the entire body of the faithful; because they alone have jurisdiction over the universal church. There are circumstances in which it is meet, that all true believers throughout the universe, concur unanimously in offering prayers and good works, with a view to obtain of Almighty God his abundant graces, in behalf of the whole catholic community. To whom, we wish to know, does it more properly appertain to invite them to this pious harmony, than to the Father and Pastor of the universal church? We do not deny, that there have existed abuses in these latter ages, greater than existed in the primitive times. But, to correct abuses, we must not combat them with the arguments of sophism and false reasoning, nor with observations equally devoid of piety, of justice, and of truth. These, in fact, were the unhallowed weapons with which Luther and Calvin, in declaiming against abuses-attempted to subvert the the unity of the catholic faith. Indulgences, it is true, had been too lavishly dispensed: it was easy to retrench the redundancy: but as their origin was laudable, the things themselves should have been suffered to remain inviolate. General indulgences, like those termed Jubilees, which powerfully recommend to the faithful-the worthy participation of the sacraments, the doing of alms,-fasting and similar public acts of virtue, are indisputably a public good. Even at Paris, the very centre of incredulity and vice, infidel philosophy itself was compelled to acknowledge-the salutary effects of the last christian jubilee.

Nothing can be more reasonable than the decree of the council of Trent relating to indulgences (Sess. 25.) "As the power of according indulgences," says the synod, "was by Jesus Christ entrusted to his church which, from its very origin, has been always in the habit of using this divine commission, the sacred council declares and formally defines, that this usage ought to be preserved as beneficial to christian people, and confirmed by preceding councils; and it pronounces anathema to all those who pretend that indulgences are unprofitable, or that the

church is not authorised to grant them. It desires nevertheless, that in granting them due moderation be observed, conformably with the laudable practice established from time immemorial in the church; lest a too great facility in granting them should enfeeble ecclesiastic discipline. In regard of the abuses which have crept in, and have given a handle to false teachers to declaim against indulgences, the sacred council with the design to correct them, ordains by the present decree, in the first place that every species of sordid profit be removed: it enjoins the bishops to notice whatever abuses they shall discover in their dioceses, to denounce them to their provincial council, and afterwards to the sovereign pontiff," &c.

By an indulgence of forty days, &c. we understand-the remission of a penalty equivalent to a course of penitence for forty days, &c. prescribed by the ancient canons; and by a plenary indulgence the remission of all the punishment prescribed by these penitential canons for every kind of spiritual delinquency. But it is not by any means a releasement from the obligation of doing penance; which is universally binding upon all the faithfulunless you do penance, you shall all alike perish. (St Matt.)

Luther and those who adhere to the confession of Augsbourg, pretend, that the effiacy of the sacraments depends on the faith of the receiver; that they were instituted solely to nourish our faith, and that they do not confer grace even upon those that oppose no obstacle to prevent it. The catholic church has always taught the reverse of this doctrine, and has invariably ascribed to the sacraments a real efficacy; a virtue productive of sanctification: whoever is acquainted with the writings of the fathers, must allow this to be incontestible. Nor is it hard to comprehend that, as the grace which sanctifieth, is a gift of the Holy Ghost, God should have decreed to grant this grace, this gift of the Holy Ghost-to none but the worthy receivers of the sacraments. Thus would sanctifying grace be attached to the application of the sign; and consequently, this sign would of itself produce a sanctifying grace as its instrumental causewhether morally or physically, is a mere scholastic dispute. The church, however, does not teach that proper dispositions are unnecessary in the receiver, but that these dispositions are no more than the conditions required in a person actually to receive grace, and not that grace is annexed to the conditions themselves as to its cause: thus in order to see, it is a necessary condition to have eyes; but although a person have eyes, he sees not in the dark; he must have light too, which alone is properly the cause of vision. This is precisely what we understand by the school terms ex opere operato-in contra-distinction to those others equally in use with theologians-ex opere operantis.

Such is the doctrine of christian antiquity regarding the holy sacraments. The catholic church has always numbered seven;

Luther and his Augsbourg confessionalists only three; the protestants of England two. All the schismatical churches separated from the church of Rome ever since the birth of Arianism, to this present day, maintain seven sacraments with the catholics of all ages, as may be seen in the articles of EUTYCHIANS, NESTORIANS, GREEKS, ARMENIANS, COPHTS, ABYSSINIANS, &c. Consequently, the doctrine of the catholic church touching the sacraments-was not introduced by the Roman pontiffs, as the enemies of catholicity would fain persuade their readers.

Catholics, moreover, ascribe to three of the sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation and order—a character, or kind of indelible mark in the soul, permanently inherent. The disputes of theologians respecting the nature of this character, do not render its existence dubious, as Fra Paolo would insinuate With equal reason might one call in question the existence of any phenomenon in nature, though universally admitted; merely because naturalists disagree in their mode of explaining it. Catholic antiquity also has ever taught the reverse of the reforming doctrine concerning the proper minister of the sacraments. Luther and his followers pretend-not only that each individual among the faithful is the legitimate minister of all the sacraments indiscriminately, but even that those which were administered only in jest, and upon the stage, were not less true and valid sacraments than those conferred with due solemnity in the churches. This palpable absurdity the catholic church in like manner rejected and condemned.

The controversy relating to the sacrifice of the mass, according to the just remark of the great Bossuet, should stand or fall with that of the real presence. For as the votaries of the reformation scruple not to offer to God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ as present to their faith; if they believed him present in reality, they surely would not hesitate to offer him to his eternal Father as really present. Now this true and real presence of our Redeemer in the eucharist is actually admitted by the Lutherans-in opposition to the Sacramentarians: against whom see the article BERENGARIUS. Luther, in abolishing private masses, did not suppress the mass itself. He did no more than introduce a few alterations. The abolition of private masses, if we are to credit Luther himself, was the fruit of a conference which he had with the devil, who, he candidly acknowledges, convinced him of the necessity of abolishing them. See this extraordinary adventure related at large in Luther's own words in his work Upon the Private Mass. If any of our readers wish to have the doctrine of the Real Presence as professed even by the church of England, more fully discussed, the learned Dr Hawarden will give them complete satisfaction in his second volume of the Church of Christ, on the article TRANSUBSTAN

TIATION.

The grounds upon which protestants have separated from the catholic church-inadmissible.

The errors and corruptions which Luther and his fellow reformers alleged against the church of Rome, as the causes of their separation, we have fully proved, were false charges and the grossest misrepresentations; as will appear from the perusal of the present article and those of-CATHOLICS, BERENGARIUS, ZUINGLIUS, AERIUS, JOVINIANISTS, ICONOCLASTS, &c. &c. Even the most enlightened among the protestant writers themselves, have been compelled to acknowledge, that this church taught no fundamental error. See Tillotson's Serm. ii. p. 71; Chillingworth's Protestant Religion, &c.

"But although, by an impossible supposition, it could be proved-that the catholic church was heretical and idolatrous, the reformers still would not be justified in the attempt to establish a new ministry, or to usurp the functions of the ministry already established; the usurpation of the pastoral chargewithout mission either ordinary or extraordinary--being always criminal, and in all circumstances absolutely inexcusable. It is presumptuously arrogating to oneself-that which is the gift of God alone, and which none can lawfully receive but from his hand. Nor has he any where revealed that in the new law, after the first establishment of his church, he would ever communicate the pastoral power by any other way, than by the channel of succession. Consequently, none can be assured of ever having received it, but through the medium of this legitimate succession; and those who have assumed it otherwise, are notoriously usurpers. To be forcibly convinced of this truth, we have only to take a retrospective view of the predicament, in which the reformed were placed, in the ideas of their very ministers it was no other than that of converts from heresy. They had been adorers of the Host: they had invoked the saints, and venerated their relics; they had afterwards relinquished this practice: they were by consequence become orthodox by a change of sentiment; and such precisely are denominated converted heretics. But every heretic by the very profession of heresy forfeits the right-of exercising legitimately the functions annexed to the orders previously received, although he still retains the power of exercising them validly. The lawful exercise of his authority is suspended ipso facto, till his reconciliation with the church. But, to what church have the reformed been ever reconciled? Evidently to none at all. So far from it, they established new raised communions by their own private authority, without giving themselves the trouble to examine -whether there existed not a true church, to which they were Kk

obliged to be united in faith. Nor can their pretensions to an extraordinary mission be, on any warrantable grounds, admitted. An extraordinary vocation must be proved by miracles; and, unfortunately, the reformers can produce no miracles to attest the justice of their claims. Hence the inference is plain as demonstration-they have erected a church without authority; consequently, they are schismatics, since they have relinquished a society which was in possession of the ministry, and from which they have received no mission." Mr Johnson's Vindication, in reply to Dr Porteus.

Of the rule of faith.

Luther and his fellow reformers will have holy scripture to be the sole rule of faith; and "the late Dr Porteus, bishop of London, asserts," says Mr Johnson in his Vindication, "that the scriptures contain a full and clear account of christianity, written by the very apostles and first disciples of our Lord himself, honestly delivered down into our hands." (Page 6 of his pretended Coufutation of the Errors of the Church of Rome.) This would be much to the purpose if clearly proved from scripture alone; but when, for the chief proof of one part of that assertion, we are referred to the general consent of christians to hand down the sacred books to us-with an assurance of their being entire, inspired, uncorrupted and duly translated, (ibid, p. 3, 4, 5, &c.) this looks so very like giving up the assertion, that the confuter wishes to put a bar to the consequences of that way of reasoning, by telling us, that "protestants receive scripture by no means upon the authority of tradition merely." (p. 9.) But if not upon the authority of TRADITION merely; therefore-not upon the authority of SCRIP TURE merely by consequence, scripture alone does not lay the FIRST FOUNDATION of our knowledge of christianity.

How then is it possible the scriptures should contain a full and clear account of christianism? "Protestants," resumes Dr Porteus," receive the scripture partly on account of its own reasonableness, and the characters of Divine wisdom in it; partly from the testimony which one part of it bears to the other;" but if only partly on these accounts, the authority of scripture is not learned from scripture alone. Besides, if this internal evidence of the integrity and the inspiration of scripture, be so glaring, that it is recognisable by every reader of the bible in the eighteenth century; how happened it that several books of scripture now received by protestants, were not accounted canonical by the whole church for some ages-till by a general consent of christians, concentrating the scattered rays of antiquity, they were at length received? (Walton, Prolegom.