brand, and it is important to find him "forbidding to marry," and commanding to "abstain from meats." An Extract from Sigebert, as quoted by Usher in the same work. Pope Gregory, having called a council, anathematized the simoniacal priests, and removed the married priests from the divine office, and forbade the laity to hear their masses, by a new example, and, as it seemed to many, an inconsiderate prejudice, contrary to the opinions of the holy fathers, &c. At which thing so serious an offence was taken, that never in the time of any heresy was the church rent with a more grievous schism. Concilium Romanum 5, sub Quia dies Sabbathi apud sanctos patres nostros in abstinentiâ celebris est habitus, nos eorundem auctoritatem sequentes, salubriter admonemus, ut quicumque se Christianæ religionis participem esse desiderat, ab esu carnium eadem die, nisi majore festivitate interveniente, vel infirmitate impediente, abstineat. Sigebertus, citante Ussere. Gregorius Papa, celebrata synodo, simoniacos anathematizavit et uxoratos sacerdotes a divino officio removit, et laicis missam eorum audire interdixit, novo exemplo, et (ut multis visum est) inconsiderato prejudicio contra sanctorum patrum sententiam, &c. Ex quâ re tam grave oritur scandalum, ut nullius hæresis tempore sancta ecclesia graviori schismate discissa est. Although the temporal power of the popes is almost a nonentity at the present day, it has never been disavowed by them, as is admitted by Mr. Butler. The Book of the Roman Catholic Church. Letter 16. Oath of Allegiance-p. 281. As to the oath of allegiance, some transalpine divines carried their opinions in favour of the papal power so high, as to maintain that the pope possesses by divine right, and, directly, supreme power, both in temporal and spiritual concerns: others lowered this pretension considerably, by maintaining that the pope, by divine right, possessed directly no temporal power; but that, when the great good of any state, or any individual required it, he might exercise temporal power, or cause it to be exercised over that state or individual. This gave him indirectly, temporal power in spiritual concerns. The latter was a general opinion of Roman Catholics when James proposed his oath of allegiance; it is now abandoned in every part of the world, except the precinct within the walls of the Vatican. TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The doctrine of transubstantiation is as much opposed to the true interpretation of Scripture, as it is to the evidence of the senses. The spiritual and figurative sense of the texts upon which it is contended that it reposes, cannot for an instant be mistaken by any one who is conversant with the contents of the Bible. The figure introduced by our blessed Saviour in the 54th verse of the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John, is precisely similar to those by which the operations of the inner man are so often signified by our blessed Redeemer, and by the prophets and apostles. In holy writ the birth and infancy of the child of God are described, his hunger and thirst, &c. Thus it is written (John, c. iii. v. 3), " Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;" (1 Pet. c. ii. v. 1), As new-born babes desire the rational milk without guile." The spiritual man is described as growing (2 Pet. c. iii. v. 18): "Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." He is spoken of (Acts, c. xi. v. 31), as walking (Prov. c. xxiv. v. 16), as falling (1 Cor. c. ix. v. 24), as running a race (Eph. c. iv. v. 13); he is set forth as a perfect man (Eph. c. vi. v. 14); he is pictured as a warrior furnished with armour from the armoury of God-" Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace." In perfect unison with the above figures the spiritual man is spoken of as eating and drinking spiritual food-(Isai. c. lv.) " All you that thirst come to the waters, and you that have no money, make haste, buy and eat ; " I come ye, buy wine and milk without money and without any price;" (1 Pet. c. ii. v. 1) " As new-born babes desire the rational milk ;' milk to drink and not meat;" gave you (1 Cor. c. iii. v. 2) (Psalm xvii. vi. 2) "Thy words are sweeter than honey and the honey-comb." In other passages, and they are still more in point, the believer is said to feed spiritually and by faith upon his Creator (Psalm xli. v. 3), "My soul bath thirsted after the strong living God;" (Psalm lxii. v. 2); " For thee my soul bath thirsted" (1 Pet. c. ii. v. 3), "If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious;" (1 Cor. c. x. v. 4), “ And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, the Romanist To all of these passages and that rock was Christ." equally with the Protestant assigns a figurative sense. Again, why is the passage in question to be interpreted literally, and the following passage figuratively? (John, c. vi. v. 35)-" I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." It will avail nothing to say that the church of Rome is infallible, and that her interpretation must be received. The church of Rome has given no interpretation of this passage, nor can she give one consistently with her own rule of interpreting Scripture, as set forth in the creed of Pope Pius 4th, viz., accordAll that the council of ing to the unanimous assent of the fathers. Trent affirms is, that the duty of receiving in both kinds is not imposed upon the laity by this text; and in doing this she admits that the fathers and doctors differ in their interpretation of it. Hence every beneficed priest and every consistent Romanist is precluded the privilege of assigning to the passage either the literal or figurative meaning. But in the absence of the interpretation of the church of Rome, we have the interpretation of an expositor, whose infallibility is recognised both by Romanist and Protestant, I mean Christ himself, who says (v. 63), "It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life." If the Roman Catholic disputant is still unconvinced, it will be advisable to try his literal interpretation by two cases in point. If we are to adhere strictly to the letter, it is obvious that every one who partakes of the Eucharist must be saved, and that no one who does not partake of it can attain eternal life. Now the thief on the cross partook not of it, and yet he went to Paradise; Judas did partake of it, and he went to his own place, he was the son of perdition, he lost his soul. Again, infants who have been baptized, and little children who die in the love of God, are held by the church of Rome to attain salvation: reprobates, on the other hand, who unworthily partake of the sacrament, are denounced by her as eating and drinking to their own damnation. The next passage upon which we are required to comment is (Matt. c. xxvi. v. 26), "This is my body." Here we have, it is true, an interpretation on the part of the church of Rome; but it is one which is utterly at variance with her interpretation of all similar texts. The above mode of expression, it is well known, is com repre→ mon to all languages. When we point to a map, for instance, we say this is France, or this is England; and the same of a picture. But the Jews were more peculiarly familiar with this phrase. It is in fact an Hebraism, there being no word in the Hebrew tongue which is synonymous with the verb to "represent," and thus a Hebrew writer was compelled to say this is, instead of this sents. The Jews, therefore, in speech and in writing, made use of this phrase even when the language admitted of a more correct form of speech. Thus (Matt. c. viii. v. 2) it is written, "The seed is the word;" (Apoc. c. 1, v. 20), "The seven candlesticks are seven churches," (Apoc. c. xvii. v. 18), "The woman whom thou sawest is the great city which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth." In the Old Testament there are many passages of a similar kind. The patriarch Jacob says (Gen. c. xlix. v. 9), "Judah is a lion's whelp," (Isaiah c. xl. v. 6), All flesh is grass;" (Ezek. c. v. v. 5), God says of the lock of hair in the hands of the prophet-" Thus, saith the Lord God, This is Jerusalem." The church of Rome does not pretend that these passages imply any transubstantiation; that Judah had the accidents of a man and the substance of a lion; that all flesh was transubstantiated into grass; that the lock of hair was transubstantiated into Jerusalem; that the woman in the Apocalypse was transubstantiated into Rome, or vice versâ : with what colour, then, can she pounce upon the one passage which her priesthood are interested in perverting, and say, you shall violate our own common rule of interpretation, you shall discredit the evidence of your senses, and, merely upon the ipse dixit of the church of Rome, you shall believe that every priest, good or bad works, when he intends it, and then only, a most stupendous miracle, albeit it is one which is offensive to the majesty of the glorified Saviour, and at variance with all received notions of the nature of things? We find nothing defined or even hinted respecting accidents and substances in holy writ. The church of Rome is indebted to the exploded philosophy of Aristotle for this absurdity, which implies that there may be taste without anything to be tasted, colour without any-thing to be represented, tangibility without any-thing to be touched, roundness without any-thing that is round, corruptibility without any-thing that is corrupt, &c. Again, what a heap of contradictions to the nature of things is contained in the literal interpretation of this text! We must believe of the natural body of Christ, that it was visible and invisible at the same instant; that Christ held his whole body in his hand, which was a part of the same body, that at one and the same moment of time there was one visible body and twelve invisible bodies of Christ, and yet only one body visible and invisible, and that in each of these bodies there was complete the human soul of Christ, and yet only one soul in all of them; in fine, that there were thirteen entire persons, and yet only one person. The Romanist retorts, it is true, by reminding us of the mystery of Trinity. But this reply is of little service to him, for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not three and one in the same sense. They are three in person, and one in all the essen tial perfections, attributes, and prerogatives of Deity. The council of Trent indeed denies a natural presence, and contends only for a sacramental presence; but she admits that the sacramental presence is inexplicable, and indeed when analysed it is any thing but a bodily presence. But by the above admission she is herself convicted of retreating from the literal meaning of the passage in question. Again, the words "This is my body," if taken literally, imply that the bread is changed into the body only of Christ; whereas the church of Rome adds to the body, the blood, soul, and divinity; and to the blood, the body, soul, and divinity; and if it be argued that the body contains the blood, it is very certain that the blood does not contain the body. We are told, however, by the Romish doctors, that when our blessed Saviour pronounced the words "This is my blood of the New Testament" (Matt. c. xxvi. v. 28), the wine was instantly transubstantiated into his body, blood, soul, and divinity. But here again we have an infallible commentator, who gives a decision completely adverse to the judgment of the church of Rome. Christ continues (v. 29), " And I say unto you, I will not hereafter drink of this fruit of the vine." He called the contents of the cup the fruit of the vine, after he had spoken the words which are said to have transubstantiated it. If then you believe Christ, you must reject the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. The texts which are selected from Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians present the Romish advocate with similar difficulties. C. x. v. 16, it is written, "The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of Christ?" Here the letter, taken strictly, implies the transubstantiation of the chalice or cup. St. Paul continues (v. 17), "For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread." The church of Rome, who cannot contend that all believers are transubstantiated into bread, and are only the accidents of men, and the substance of bread, is here again constrained to reject the letter. C. xi. v. 25, "This chalice is the New Testament in my blood." These words import the transubstantiation of the cup. (v. 26.) "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord until he come." It is here affirmed of the faithful, that they eat bread, which is denied by the council of Trent; and it is called bread again, ver. 27, 28. It is further added, "until he comes," words which imply the bodily absence of Christ; whilst the Romish doctors on the other hand affirm a bodily presence. To one half of St. Paul's expressions, therefore, whether we hold or reject transubstantiation, a figurative meaning must be appended. Which then acts with the better judgment, the reformed church which rejects the letter, which is repugnant to reason, the nature of a sacrament, and the now exalted station of Christ in glory; or the church of Rome, which acts conversely? The Roman advocates, indeed, insist upon the force of Paul's expressions, and ask us with an amiable naivetè and a most admirable simplicity, how can a man |