throughly furnished unto all good works."* This is well expressed by the Reformers in the 6th article of the Church of England, "Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." In that age they were by solemn council, ay of the heads of the then professedly christian church, declared insufficient; and that the whole of the will and mind of God, as touching salvation, were not there, but had to be supplied by tradition, fathers, councils, and the judgment of the church. That men are to search the word of God, it having been given for that purpose. The law said, "Ye shall lay up these my words in your heart and soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall teach them, your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down and when thou risest up."+ Nor was this to be viewed as an ordinary precept, or one to which small importance was attached; for when Moses had made an end of speaking to all Israel, he again pointed attention to it, saying, "It is not a vain thing for you, because it is for your life. "§ Jesus Christ concurs in this sentiment, and enforces the same practice, when he says, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they which testify of me." Up to the period in question, or nearly so, they were in an unknown tongue, and therefore could not be read by the bulk of the people; and they were moreover, by the rulers and highest authority of the church, forbidden, on principle, to read them. That the merits of Christ alone can or do avail with God, in the behalf of men, for their present salvation and eternal life. "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." At the time referred to, the merits of Christ were not denied; but it was said that Mary and the departed saints, also had merit, arising from a superabundance of good works, or, "voluntary works besides, over and above God's commandments." These were § Ib. xxxii. 47. *2 Tim. iii. 15-17. + Deut. xii. 18, 19. 1 Cor. iii. il. termed "works of superorogation."* The people were taught that on this account saints could and did mediate and intercede with God in behalf of men, and should of necessity be applied to accordingly; and we find that as co-mediators they were not only placed by the side of Christ, but in the prayers of many were preferred to Him—at least, took the precedency, the form of the petition being, "To the blessed Virgin and her Son Jesus Christ." That men are "accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings;" and this doctrine of "justification by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort.”† This evangelical tenet, is systematically established in the first eleven chapters of the epistle to the Romans, and is thus summed up by him who was "an apostle-not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead "§—“ To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness;" and we cannot express our opinion of its importance better than in the words of the great German reformer-“ It is the grand doctrine by which a church stands or falls." The then church, notwithstanding, said and declared, that “If any man said so, let him be accursed," since men were justified, i.e., obtained forgiveness of sin, by works as well as faith. 66 That God only can forgive sin; and that it is an inherency in the Divine prerogative to exercise and dispense this grace. Even the pharisees thought the contrary to be blasphemy, saying of Christ, "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only ?" And so far were the apostles themselves from claiming, in any shape, such power, that, on one occasion, they told their deeply prejudiced and criminal audience, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."** At the time now referred to, the divine prerogative was not denied in the abstract; but it was declared, even as an article of faith, that this power, "the power to forgive mortal sin,"* was, in visible exercise, given to the clerical order, as the "second special faculty of the priesthood," and actually and apostolically vested in the pretended head of the church: and that therefore he could in the legitimate exercise of his vicarship, and in the plenitude of his vicegerency, forgive men as often, for what time, and for such causes, as to his ghostly wisdom appeared fit. That there are two sacraments instituted by Christ-baptism and the eucharist; gospel ordinances, to be perpetually observed in his church [Matt. xxviii., 19, and 1 Cor. xi., 25, 26,] the one being a sign and seal of an inward grace, and the other, "the shewing forth the Lord's death, till he come again." These are consistent with the simplicity, spirituality, and purity, of the dispensation of the fulness of times." But to these, there were added five sacraments, viz., confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction; and that these additional sacraments "confer grace"-a point which was solemnly determined by the council of Florence, in 1439. That to perform these rites christianly, there must be (besides a fitting disposition of mind in an adult, for,) an external conformity with their prescribed order, viz., in the first, the simple application of water "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" and in the second "bread" and the "cup." Farther than this, would verily have been to "turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, and to desire again to be in bondage." The church at that time was not, content with the water in baptism, but added and enjoined canonically the items following: 1. Blessing the water in the font every year on the vigils of Easter and Pentecost; 2. Taking (in the case of an adult) the name of the saint whose virtues they might imitate; 3. Breathing three times on the person to be baptized; 4. Signing him with the sign of the cross; 5. Blessing some salt, and putting a little into the mouth of the baptized, to signify the secret of wisdom and discretion of grace; 6. Exorcism, i.e., the form of abjuration by which evil and malignant spirits were driven away; 7. Touching the nostrils with a hittle spittle; 8. Anointing on the breast and between the shoulders with oil previously blessed by the bishop. After these preparatory rites, followed the baptism; but still the ceremonies attending it were not over: for there were performed 1. Anointing on the crown of the head with holy chrism; 2. Covering with a white robe; and 3, and lastly, a lighted candle put in the hand of the baptised. While, however, it thus superstitiously added to the rite of baptism, it unwarrantably took from that of the eucharist, the cup; declaring that the laity should only eat of the bread. This was even decreed in the council of Constance, held in 1414-18, in which there were present, an Emperor, the Pope, twenty Princes, one hundredand forty Counts, more than twenty Cardinals, seven Patriarchs, twenty Archbishops, ninety-one Bishops, six hundred other clerical dignitaries, and about four thousand priests. That assembly granted that Christ instituted and dispensed the eucharist under both kinds, and that it was likewise so administered by the primitive church, but for the avoiding some dangers and scaudals it prohibited the use of wine to the lay-people. It says, "For although Christ instituted and administered to his disciples, this venerable sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine; and although in the primitive. church it was received by the faithful under both kinds; yet notwithstanding, for the avoiding of some dangers and scandals, this custom is, upon reasonable grounds, introduced, that it be received by laypeople under the kind of bread only." "It may be presumed," observes Dr. Stratford, "that the scandals were great, and the reasons weighty that moved the council to make a decree in plain defiance to Christ's institution. I shall therefore mention them, and leave them to the judgment of the reader. John Gerson, who was himself present at the council, in a treatise which he wrote in defence of that decree, tells us what they were: 1. The danger of spilling the wine; 2. The danger in carrying it from place to place; 3. In defiling the vessels (which ought to be kept as sacred things) by being touched and handled by lay-men; 4. In the long beards of the laymen; 5. In keeping the consecrated wine for the use of the sick; because vinegar may be generated in the vessel, and so the blood of Christ would cease to be there, and pure vinegar would be administered for the blood of Christ. Besides, in summer, flies may be generated, and sometimes it may putrify and become loathsome; and some may loath to drink of it, because others had drank of it before; 6. Wine would be chargeable, especially in such places where it is scarce. There would be moreover danger of freezing in winter; and there would be farther danger in giving occasion many ways to the people to believe that which is false-as, that lay-men, as to the receiving of the sacrament, are of equal dignity with priests."* You will readily perceive, that it follows, (notwithstanding the decree of the council of Trent, which began to sit in 1545, "that under either kind alone, Christ whole and entire, and the true sacrament is received,") that where this sacrament is not administered "according to Christ's ordinance and commandment"+ the eucharist is not, and has not been for ages, scripturally observed. That the elements of bread and wine in the eucharist, remain the same after as before the "giving of thanks; "§ and that the benefit of receiving depends on the "self examination" and the "worthiness" of the receiver. This was then resolutely denied; and it was said that "in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood; which conversion the catholic church calls transubstantiation."|| And the argument employed to convince people of this, was the figure of speech which Christ made use of in the institution of the rite-"This is my body"¶"This is my blood,”** for, this represents. The principle of "worthily" receiving was changed for one of mere bodily service-the sacrament conferring grace;' for it was said that since the receiver, by partaking the wafer of bread from the hand of the priest, ate and drank "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ," he then enjoyed the grace of Christ and partook of his merits. And-That death by terminating the probation of men, fixes their eternal state of the righteous, in that being "absent from the body" they are "present with the Lord;" and of the wicked, that they “in hell lift up their eyes:" but it was, at the time in question, taught as gospel, that there were two reasons which prevented, even just men, from * Gers. Contr. Hær.; Pres. agt. P. vol. i. + Art. xxx. Creed of Pius. Sup. + Vs. 28 and 29. § 1 Cor. xi. 24. Matt. xvi. 26. ** lb. v. 28. |