Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and HE IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John iii. 1, 2.) CHRIST HATH REDEEMED US from the curse of the law. (Gal. iii. 13.)-Christ being come an High Priest of good things he entered in ONCE into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb. ix. 12.)-ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Heb. ix. 26.)-By ONE OFFERING he hath perfected FOR EVER them that are sanctified. (Heb. x. 14.) to come But the ROMISH CHURCH daily renews the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the celebration of the mass; and teaches "that in the mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick," or living, "and dead." (Creed of Pius IV. Art. 17.) "If any one say, that in the mass there is not a true and proper sacrifice offered unto God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but for Christ to be given to us to eat, let him be anathema." (Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. de Sacrificio Missæ, Can. 1.) This sacrifice of the mass, as it is called, not only contradicts the two passages above-cited, but is also destructive of all the arguments contained in the seventh, eighth, and ninth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews. VI. OF JUSTIFICATION AND THE PARDon of sin. 1. The SCRIPTURE declares that there is NO MAN that sinneth not. (1 Kings xviii. 46.); that the WHOLE WORLD lieth in wickedness (1 John v. 19.); that the Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek after God. They are ALL gone aside, they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good; no, not one, ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Psalm xiv. 2, 3. Rom. iii. 10-18, 23.) ALL we, like sheep, have gone astray. (Isa. liii. 6.) But the COUNCIL OF TRENT declares" that it is NOT their intention to comprehend the blessed and unspotted Virgin Mary, the mother of God, in this decree, where it treats of original sin." (Conc. Trid. Sess. 5.) 2. The SCRIPTURE asserts that we are justified, or accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, through faith, and not meritoriously by our own works. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of God is BY FAITH of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference: for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being JUSTIFIED freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law. (Rom. iii. 22-24, 27, 28.) By grace are ye saved, through FAITH, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. ii. 8, 9.) Consequently, there can be no such thing as merit in any thing that we can say or do. When, says our Saviour, ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are UNPROFITABLE servants. (Luke xvii. 10.) But the COUNCIL OF TRENT teaches, that the good works of justified persons are truly and properly meritorious, and fully worthy of eternal life, by denouncing an anathema against all who hold a contrary doctrine! (Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 16. Can. 22.) VII. OF THE SACRAMENTS. 1. Number of the Sacraments.-Jesus Christ instituted only Two sacraments, viz. Baptism, (Go ye, and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them, &c. Matt. xxviii. 19), and the Lord's Supper (See Luke xxii. 19, 20, and the parallel passages.) But the ROMISH CHURCH teaches that "there are truly and properly SEVEN Sacraments of the new law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and are necessary to the salvation of mankind (although all the sacraments are not necessary to every person), viz. Baptism, Confirmation, the Lord's Supper, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony." (Creed of Pius IV. Art. 15.): and the Tridentine Council denounces a curse against any who say, that these were not all instituted by Christ, or that any of the seven is not truly and properly a sacrament. (Sess. 7. Can. 1.) Peter Lombard, a writer of the twelfth century, was the FIRST who reckons seven sacraments, adding to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, these five, viz. Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction. Pope Eugenius IV. about the middle of the fifteenth century, pronounced that these five, as well as the other two, ought to be considered as sacraments; and in the following century, the Council of Trent and Pope Pius IV. declared them to be equally sacraments. Consequently, not one of these five were or could have been constituted sacraments by Jesus Christ; though the Council of Trent has been pleased to assert the contrary. 2. Of Communion in both kinds.-The SCRIPTURE teaches us, that Jesus Christ instituted the communion in both kinds (that is, bread AND wine), and so commanded that it should be celebrated. Jesus took BREAD and blessed it, and gave it to THE DISCIPLES, and said, Take, eat; this is [represents, according to the oriental idiom] my body. AND he took the cur, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink YE ALL of it:' for this is [represents] my blood of the new testament.' (Matt. xxvi. 26-28.) But the CHURCH OF ROME has changed what Christ appointed, and has deprived the laity of the cup; and has anathematized any who say "that, from the command of God and the necessity of salvation all and every believer in Christ ought to receive both kinds of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist." (Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 1.) —“I do also confess that under either kind or species only, whole and entire Christ and the true sacrament is received." (Creed of Pius IV. Art. 18.) The Council of Constance, held in the year 1416, was the first that sacrilegiously deprived the laity of the cup in the sacrament, in direct contradiction to Christ's command, and the practice of the primitive Church. (The testimonies of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, for thirteen or fourteen hundred years, are collected by Bp. Beveridge on the Articles. Art. XXX.) 3. The SCRIPTURE teaches us that the consecrated bread and wine are the communion of the body and blood of Christ. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the COMMUNION of the blood of Christ? The BREAD which we break, is it not the COMMUNION of the body of Christ? (1 Cor. x. 16.) But the ROMISH CHURCH affirms "that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is REALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood, which conversion the [Roman] Catholic Church calls TRANSUBSTANTIATION.” (Creed of Pius IV. Art. 17.) This term was not invented until the thirteenth century: the first idea of Christ's bodily presence in the eucharist was started in the beginning of the eighth century; the first writer who maintained the doctrine, was Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century, before it was firmly established: and the first public assertion of it was, at the third Lateran Council, in the year 1215, after it had been for some time avowed by the Popes, and in obedience to their injunctions inculcated by the clergy. But the term transubstantiation was not known until the thirteenth century, when it was invented by Stephen, Bishop of Autun. "This doctrine of transubstantiation subverts the very foundation, on which the credibility of the Christian religion is built, viz. our Saviour's miracles; and not only does it contradict the Scripture, which says that we eat bread after the consecration of it (1 Cor. xi. 27); but it is also contrary to reason, which teaches that the same body cannot be in two places at the same time: and it is contrary to the report which our senses make about their proper objects. So that transubstantiation contains many gross falsehoods, and is incredible to all who consult the word of God, their own reason, and common sense." (On this subject consult Archbp. Tillotson's Discourse against Transubstantiation.) We are compelled to postpone the completion of this article till our next number; the subjects remaining to be considered are-VIII. MARRIAGE. IX. OF PURGATORY AND INDULGENCES. X. AURICULAR CONFESSION. XI. (1) DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE. (2) NO FAITH TO BE KEPT WITH HERETICS. FUNERAL HYMN. THOU art gone to the grave! but we will not deplore thee, THE PRAYER FOR THE HIGH COURT OF PARLIAMENT. MR. EDITOR,-To the third edition of L' Estrange's "Alliance of Divine Offices," printed in 1699, are added, together with some other curious articles, one entitled, "Additions and Alterations made in the Litany and Prayers of the Church, by the command of his Majesty, (King Charles I.) particularly in the form for the Fast, (November 10, 1643,) for the averting of God's judgments, for the ceasing of the Rebellion, and restoring peace to the kingdom. And in the form for the Fast, on the 5th of February, 1664, and 15th of September, 1648, for a blessing upon the Treaties at Uxbridge and Newport." Amongst these "Additions, &c." is "A Prayer for the High Court of Parliament," which is given, after the manner observed in the "Alliance," with the corresponding Prayer from our Liturgy, in parallel columns. It is not necessary for my present purpose to transcribe the latter, as your readers may readily turn to it. But the Prayer, as used by command of King Charles I. runs thus :— "Most Gracious God, we humbly beseech thee as for this Kingdom in general, so especially for the High Court of Parliament, under our most Religious and Gracious King at this time assembled; that thou wouldst be pleased to bless and direct all their consultations to the preservation of thy glory, the good of thy Church, the safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and his Kingdoms. Lord, look upon the humility and devotion with which they are come into thy Courts: And they are come into thy house in assured confidence upon the merits and mercies of Christ (our blessed Saviour) that thou wilt not deny them the grace and favour which they beg of thee. Therefore, O Lord, bless them with all that wisdom, which thou knowest necessary to make the maturity of his Majesty's and their counsels, the happiness and blessing of this Commonwealth. These and all other necessaries, for them, for us, and thy whole Church, we humbly beg in the name and mediation of Jesus Christ, our most blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen." I trouble you, Sir, with this communication, in consequence of an Article in your Number for October last. And with reference to that Article, I would observe, first, that this extract may probably have been the ground of Archbishop Secker's statement, that the Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, which forms part of our present Liturgy, "was composed and originally used in the reign of a prince, acknowledged to be unfeignedly religious, King Charles the First:"-secondly, that the Archbishop's statement is, by this extract, unquestionably proved to be accurate, so far at least as it relates to the exordium of the Prayer, which was the particular part immediately under his Grace's consideration:-and, thirdly, that this extract affords an ample warrant for Bishop Mant's note, in his edition of the Book of Common Prayer, that "the first and last parts of this Prayer are taken from one with the same title, among the additions and alterations made in the Litany and Prayers of the Church, by the command of King Charles the First;"-whilst "the intermediate part appears to have been new at the Restoration." With reference to the same Article, Sir, I would further observe, that whilst Bishop Mant's note sustains the accuracy of Archbishop Secker, so far at least as relates to the particular part of the Prayer, with which his Grace was immediately concerned, it does not impeach the accuracy of Collis, who states, that "the Prayer was composed at the last review;"-the word "composed" being understood as denoting the complete arrangement of the Prayer in its present form: still less does it impeach the accuracy of Dr. Nicholls, who states that the present Prayer was added to our Liturgy by the two Houses of Convocation, and received the sanction of an Act of Parliament, in the reign of King Charles the Second. As to the authority of Bishop Burnet, who says that at that time "a Collect was drawn for the Parliament, in which a new epithet was added to the King's title," the readers of the foregoing extract from L'Estrange's book will have grounds for forming their own opinion, and thus deciding between the accuracy of Archbishop Secker and Bishop Burnet in asserting the epithet to have been originally added, the former to the title of the First, the latter to that of the Second, Charles. Nov. 13, 1826. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your very obedient Servant. OBSERVATIONS ON ROSE'S COMMENCEMENT SERMON. MR. EDITOR.-I have just read with great pleasure a Sermon preached before the University of Cambridge on last Commencement Sunday, by the Rev. Hugh James Rose, Vicar of Horsham. With Mr. Rose's general argument, and the prevailing tenor of his observations, I can find no fault; they deserve indeed unqualified praise: but from some parts of the reasoning, or rather of the representations on which that reasoning is grounded, I dissent altogether. The subject is one of great extent, and well deserves a more particular examination than your space will allow but the following remarks will sufficiently explain the view I take of it. Mr. Rose's main argument is this:-Man is a being destined for eternity; consequently all things which concern him only in reference to the present life are worthless compared with those which have a connexion with his eternal interests:—an argument in which it is needless to say I entirely coincide with him. Hence he proceeds to argue that those studies and pursuits which tend most, by their slow and gradual influence on the mind and habits, to improve the whole moral and intellectual being of man, and thereby have a connexion with his eternal interests, are those which are alone worthy the attention of a rational and immortal being,-to the exclusion of those which only tend to immediate utility and temporal advantages. Here again I am well disposed to agree: that is, allowing so much attention to be paid to these last as may be necessary for a man's discharging his duty, and maintaining himself in that sphere of life in which the divine providence has placed him. In noticing the amazing extension of commercial enterprize in the present age, and the tendency which it generates to make men estimate |