penance. First, That for the most part the holy fathers addressed themselves to the gentiles, or catechumens, whom it was expedient to instruct in the first place concerning baptism and not penance. Secondly, Another reason was the golden felicity of the primitive times, so that those who had once given their names to Christ, almost all persevered in the innocence received by baptism. Thirdly, Another followed close upon this, namely, that perhaps the holy fathers feared lest the convenience of the remedy should become an incentive to sin: which, indeed, Tertullian forcibly insists upon in his book on penance. patres verba dirigebant ad gentiles vel catechumenos, quos non de pœnitentia sed de baptismo prius doceri oportebat. 2°. Altera ratio fuit aurea primorum temporum felicitas, ita ut qui Christo nomen suum semel dederant, in innocentia per baptismum accepta pene omnes perseverarent.3o. Huic alia ratio proxima fuit, quod forte vererentur patres ne remedii opportunitas incentivum peccati fieret: quod quidem Tertullianus energicè exponit in libro de pœnitentiâ. Tractatus de Pænitentia, p. 28. Auct. L. E. Delahogue. Articulus 2. An absolutio in sacramento pænitentia data, cere et propriè peccata remittat, vel solummodo remissa declaret. Circa præsentem controversiam triplex est sententia. Prima heterodoxorum, &c. Secunda est magistri sententiarum (Petri Lombardi Parisiensis episcopi qui floruit sæculo 12), scilicet l. 4, dist. 18, principii instar supponens in pœnitentibus requiri contritionem perfectam, ut a sacerdote validè absolvantur, hinc deducit quod sacerdotes peccata dimittunt vel retinent, dum dimissa a Deo vel retenta fuisse, judicant. Idem sensere S. Bonaventura, Gabriel, them to have been remitted or retained by God. St. Bonaventure, Gabriel, Major, Alensis, and other theologians not a few, nor of little note, have been of the same opinion. Hence arises a double question. 1st. Whether the opinion of Peter Lombard differs from that which is held by the heterodox? 2ndly. Whether it so differs that it can be exempted from the anathema of the council of Trent? With respect to the first doubt, the innovators vainly boast of this opinion of the scholastics, as if it were the same as theirs. For these teach with Peter Lombard that penance is a true sacrament of the new law, whose minister does not only officiate as the herald of the divine mercy, but also of a judge, who having heard the confession, juridically declares that sins are remitted. Secondly, they acknowledge that contrition, although perfect, does not blot out sins except with reference to the keys delivered to the church. And Srdly, that absolution produces a second grace, or an increase of sanctifying grace. It must be confessed, however, that this opinion, although it materially differs from the error of the innovators, does not enough agree with the council of Trent, where it contends that absolution does not remit the fault, but declares that it is remitted. Hence most theologians at the present day reject it as rash and erroneous, with Vasquez in his Treatise on Penance, qu. 84, doubt 2; with Suaresius, disput. 19, sect. 2; with Estius, in 4 dist. Major, Alensis, aliique nec parci nec infimi nominis theologi. Inde duplex emergit dubium. 1o. an Petri Lombardi sententia, ab ea quam tenent heterodoxi sit diversa. Et 2°. an satis ab ista differat ut anathemati Tridentino subtrahi possit. Quod ad primum dubium spectat, immeritò prorsus novatores hâc scholasticorum opinione gloriantur, quasi eadem cum suâ foret. Namque isti cum Petro Lombardo docent pœnitentiam verum esse novæ legis sacramentum, cujus minister non solum agat partes meri divinæ clementiæ præconis, sed etiam judicis, qui audita confessione juridicè declaret peccata esse dimissa. 2°. Agnoscunt contritionem quantumcumque perfectam, non delere peccata nisi in ordine ad claves ecclesiæ traditas; et 3°. absolutionem producere secundam gratiam, seu augmentum gratia sanctificantis. Fatendum tamen hanc opinionem, licet a novatorum errore insigniter discrepet, hand satis cum concilio Tridentino congruere, qua parte contendit absolutionem non remittere culpam, sed remissam declarare. Hinc nunc plerique theologi eam ut temerariam imo et erroneam rejiciunt, cum Vasquezio de pœnitentiâ quæ. 84, dubio 2o. Cum Suaresio, disput. 19, sect. 2. Cum Estio in 4, dist. 18, 3. Et hanc partem amplexa est sacra facultas Parisiensis, cum anno 1638. censura notavit opus sub nomine Claudii Seguenot. 18,53; and the holy faculty at Paris took this side in the year 1638, when it censured a work published in the name of Claudius Seguenot. The Book of the Roman Catholic Church, by C. Butler, Esq. 1825. P. 47. Controversy on Miracles. Dr. Milner rejects in the wholesale, the miracles related in the Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine; those related in the "Speculum," of Vincentius Belluacensis; and those related in the saints' lives of the patrician Metaphiastes: no Roman Catholic gives credit to those which rest on Surius, or Monbritius. Dr. Lingard calls Osbert, the biographer of St. Dunstan, and the writer of his life, "an injudicious biographer, whose anile credulity collected and embellished every fable." Dr. Lingard, also, while he asserts that there are many miracles in the Anglosaxon times, which it would require no small ingenuity to disprove, and incredulity to discredit, admits that there are also many, which must shrink from the frown of criticism; some which may have been the effect of accident or imagination; some that are more calculated to excite the smile than the wonder of the hearers; and some, which, on whatever ground they were originally admitted, depend at the present day, on the distant testimony of writers, not remarkable for sagacity or discrimination. INDULGENCES. The hours of the most blessed Virgin Mary according to the prescribed ritual of the church of Salisbury, with fifteen of the blessed Bridget's prayers, and many other most beautiful prayers and indulgences.*—(Printed at Paris, 1533.) Hail, O most holy Mary, mother of God, queen of heaven, gate of paradise, mistress of the world, &c. Horæ beatissimæ Virginis Mariæ ad legitimum Sarisburiensis ecclesiæ ritum, cum quindecim orationibus beatæ Brigittæ, ac multis aliis orationibus pulcherrimis et indulgentiis.-Parisiis, 1533. Ave, sanctissima Maria, mater Dei, regina cæli, porta paradisi domina mundi, &c. Fol. 51.-Our holy father Sixtus, the 4th pope, hath granted to all them that devoutly say this prayer before the image of our lady, the sum of eleven thousand years of pardon. If the authenticity of this work or of the extracts is called in question, I shall be happy to forward it for inspection to any deputation. Folio 60.-These be the fifteen OOs, which the Holy Virgin Saint Brigitt was wont to say daily before the holy rod in St. Paul's church at Rome: whoso says this a whole year, he shall deliver fifteen souls out of purgatory of his next kindred, and convert other fifteen sinners to good life, and other fifteen righteous men of his kind shall persevere in good life. And what ye desire of God ye shall have it, if it be the salvation of your soul. O Domine Jesu Christe, &c. Folio 62.-To all them that before this imaget of pity devoutly say five Pater Nosters, and five Aves and a Credo, piteously beholding these arms of Christ's passion, are granted thirty-two thousand seven hundred and fifty-five years of pardon, and Sixtus the 4th, Pope of Rome, hath made the fourth and fifth prayers, and hath doubled his foresaid pardon. Folio 73.-These three prayers be written in the chapel of the holy cross in Rome, otherwise called Sacellum Sanctæ crucis Septem Romanorum. Who that devoutly say them shall obtain ninety thousand years of pardon for deadly sins, granted of our holy father John 12, pope of Rome. Folio 75.-Who that devoutly beholdeth these arms of our Lord Jesus Christ shall obtain six thousand years of pardon of our holy father Saint Peter, first pope of Rome, and of 30 other popes of Rome successors after him, and our holy father Pope John 22 hath granted unto all them very contrite and truly confessed that say these devout prayers following in the commemoration of the bitter passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, three thousand years of pardon for deadly sins, and other three thousand for venial sins, and say first a Pater Noster and Ave Maria. DEMONIANA. Luther's character is impugned by Romanists upon four counts1. Intemperance of language: the only palliation of which is the character of the times in which he lived, and the virulent abuse of his enemies. 2. His assent to the marriage of the Landgrave of Hesse to a second wife, his first wife being alive. This cannot be defeuded. Luther's consent was given, however, with the greatest reluctance; and the best mode of parrying this attack, is to remind Romanists that Pope Clement 7th also offered Henry 8th a dispensation to Each of the fifteen prayers begins with the letter O, O Lord, or O Jesus, &c. The prayers are unexceptionable. The indulgences are given in English, and are printed in red ink, the prayers are in Latin. + An image of Christ. marry two wives. (See Burnet's Reformation, book 2.) 3. The breach of his vow, and his marriage with a nun. Luther wrote a treatise upon this subject, in which he contends that vows made to God ought to be observed; but that the monkish vows of celibacy, silence and mortification, constitute a false gospel, that such vows can only be made to the devil, and consequently that they are not binding. 4. His frequent conferences with the devil. Of these the greater part are fictions, and are extracted from an apocryphal work entitled "Table Talk," which he never wrote. In his essay on private masses, he represents the devil as suggesting to him the arguments by which the wickedness of singing private masses is admirably exposed. But he does not pretend that Satan was personally visible; he only concludes that it was the devil who suggested these arguments to his mind, because they almost induced him to despair of salvation. He says, "But perhaps some will wonder that the devil should speak the truth;" and he adds that " he did it for the same reason that he spoke the truth to Judas, when he reminded him that he had betrayed his Master," viz. that he might despair and hang himself. At all events if it could be proved that Luther was too superstitions upon this head, was not this infirmity the natural result of his monkish devotions? Are not the lives of the saints filled with the most extraordinary narratives of the same kind? and, consequently, if Luther believed that the devil presented himself to him in a thousand shapes, may not this justly be ascribed to the disadvantages of his monastic education? I have appended a few specimens of saintly rencontres with the devil, extracted from the "Acta Sanctorum." I need hardly observe that they should be reserved for defence, and that it would be a violation of good taste to introduce them when not imperatively required. From the Acts of the Saints, May, Acta Sanctorum Maii, tom. 6. tom. 6. Printed at Antwerp, 1688. On the 26th of May. From the Life of St. Philip Nerius, Founder of the Congregation of Priests. About the year 1555, when Philip, who had many followers, journeyed to the place where are the baths of Diocletian, he saw standing upon a wall, which had fallen down from age, the devil in the form of a man, and when he observed him more closely, he beheld him at one Antverpiæ, 1688. Die Vigesima Sexta Maii. Anno Domini circiter millesimo quingentesimo quinquagesimo quinto, cum iter Philippo esset, quem multi sequebantur, eum in locum, ubi extant thermæ, quas Diocletianas appellamus; vidit, in quodam pariete vetustate collapso, dæmonem hominis. specie; quem cum attentius inspi |