ON BAPTISM. Page 15. Then the priest (3) proceeds to the solemn prayers of exorcisms to cast out the devil from the soul. Then he signs the forehead with the sign of the cross. After these prayers and exorcisms, the priest reaches forth the extremity of his stole, lays it upon the infant, and so introduces him into the Church. Being come into the Church, the priest reads another exorcism. After which he wets his finger with his spittle, and touches first the ears of the catechumen, saying, "Ephphatha; then his nostrils, adding these words, "unto the odour of sweetness." "But be thou put to flight, O Devil, for the judgment of God will be at hand." Then the priest anoints the catechumen with holy oil upon the breast and between the shoulders. Then the god-father and godmother, both holding, or touching their god-child, the priest pours the water upon his head three times in the form of a cross. ON BAPTISM. (3) "Jesus, I know; and Paul, I know; but who are ye?" (Acts xix. 15.) Read 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th verses. See what befell the seven sons of the Chief of the priests who "took upon themselves," &c. All these ceremonies, man's invention, not Christ's ordination, since not one of them is to be found in the Bible, may dazzle, may bewilder the mind, but is it not safer, "to follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth?" What can more fitly represent the washing away of our sins by his most precious blood, than water? the symbol of purification! nay, the very word itself, baptism, signifies washing! Do not the Scriptures testify against all who add to, or diminish ought from the Word of God? Here, then, the way Christ appointed, is thus openly rejected and other paths struck out. Why? Because the simplicity of Christ's ordinance is revolting to the pride of man, and, like Naaman, he refuses merely to "wash and be clean." Produce but one text of Scripture, to prove all these ceremonies, or even one of them, was commanded by our Lord, and practised by St. Peter, or any other of the other apostles; and for this airy unsubstantial nothing, this viewless, shapeless form, tradition! never really existing, or too gladly would the very words be repeated to prove it had more than a mere nominal existence; this is actually brought forward, though manifestly contrary to apostolical practice, as set forth in Scripture. Surely, the severity with which our blessed Lord reprehends all appeals to tradition; and his constant reference to Scripture alone, might have some weight with those bearing his name, and professing to follow Him! might convince them, which he has appointed as our guide; the Holy Scriptures, or tradition. (6) Q. Is that which we receive in this sacrament the same body as that which was born of the blessed Virgin, and which suffered for us upon the cross? A. 'Tis the same body, for Christ never had but one body. The only difference is, that then his body was mortal and passible; 'tis now immortal and impassible. (7) Page 29.-'Tis not incumbent upon us to give a reason why we take these words of Christ, “this is my body," according to their natural and proper sense. (4) ON CONFIRMATION. Sacrament 2d. Not ordained a Sacrament by our Lord; and laying on of hands with prayer, was all that was practised by the apostles,-no anointing, &c. The chrism is a relic of Judaism, in imitation of the ointment ordered to be compounded in the Levitical law, but the Christian understands the Mosaic law was abolished, and gave place to the Gospel. (5) OF THE EUCHARIST. Sacrament 3d. Was the bread broken by our Lord himself, also his body? Because in that case, it would appear there were then present, two Christs! for the Scriptures say, "Jesus took bread," &c., therefore, he was actually sitting at the table with his disciples! How then could the bread be also his body? and farther, "This do in remembrance of me," surely not only implies, but incontestibly proves the corporeal absence of him we are required to remember. "Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." But if received into corruptible bodies, how can this doctrine agree with Scripture? for "his flesh saw not corruption." (6) Is the same body, the apostles saw ascend up into heaven, indeed, brought down thence at the command and invocation of the priest? himself a mortal and a sinner! See Hebrews ix. 24; also Hebrews x. 10 and 12. If Christ, granted of course, never had but one body, how is it on the occasion before specified, he had two? If this body is changed from mortal to immortal, &c., can it be precisely the same? (7) Can the Roman "Catholic Christian" assign a reason for receiving one metaphor and rejecting another, farther than "Christendom and Church!" See 1 Cor. x. 1st to end of 4th verse, where Christ is compared to a rock-" for they all drank of that spiritual rock that fol OF THE EUCHARIST.. has for many ages judged that they ought to be taken without the least scruple to the letter, because the Church of God has authorized the literal interpretation of the words of the blessed sacrament, not so of those other expressions, "I am the door," "the vine." A thing may indeed, by an elegant figure be called by the name of that thing of which it has the qualities or properties, but it would be no elegant metaphor to call bread and wine, without making any change in them, His body and blood, because bread and wine have in themselves neither any similitude, nor quality, nor property of Christ's body and blood; as it would be absurd for the same reason to point at any particular door or vine and say, "this is Jesus Christ." OF THE EUCHA RIST. Page 34.-Christendom lowed them, and that rock was Christ”— shew the "similitude, qualities, and properties" of our Lord's sacred body in the rock: since you say there is none in the bread and wine, though our Saviour evidently considered bread was a fit representative of His body. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven." (John vi. 51; read also from 31st to 58th.) In the bread and wine there is, moreover, readily discerned a "similitude, quality and property of our Lord's body." 1st, because He, our highest authority, compared himself to bread, "I am the bread of life;" and 2dly, because bread is considered the staff or support of life and so called; and, farther, wine, "which maketh glad the heart of man," aptly represents His most precious blood, “This is my blood,” the shedding of which redeems man from death. We are told, "the blood is the life," and our lives being forfeited by Adam's transgression, are redeemed solely by His life or blood being "poured out," "given a ransom for many.' It would be more than absurd to call any door or vine Jesus Christ! for, save one totally bereft of reason, none could surely be guilty of such glaring impiety; therefore so weak an argument makes nothing in favour of the opinion adduced. (8.) Page 40.—But that this Sacrament should be received in both kinds is not a Divine precept, nor was ever understood to be such by the Church of God; which always believes that under either kind, Christ is received whole and entire, and, consequently, that under either kind we sufficiently comply with the precept of receiving His flesh and blood. (8.) How?-not a Divine precept! Was the Divinity of our Saviour suspended when He instituted this sacrament, and commanded both to be received? You could not surely, with the Bible in your hands, venture to make so fearful an assertion? besides, why do you admit of its being received in both kinds by the priests if there is no command for it, and you deem it so perfectly unnecessary? May you not use the words of the Prophet Isaiah and say, "Is there not a lie in my right hand?"-for, though the Romish Church may so understand our Lord's express command, "nevertheless what saith the Scripture?" See St. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, where bread is first broken to represent His body then present, and afterwards the cup presented, and received by them all; to represent the life He was about to give for the sins of the whole world. See Mark xiv. 22, 23; also 24, 25; Luke xxii. 19, 20; also 1 Cor. x. 16; and 1 Cor. xi. 23 to 30. St. Paul says, at the beginning of the 23d verse, “For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you," and proceeds to describe this institution of the Lord, and while insisting upon the necessity of selfexamination before a man "presumes to eat of that bread and drink of that cup,” still farther confirms what he has before so unequivocally stated that both kinds were to be received; and not by the priests alone, for he addresses the whole congregation, church, or assembly. "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." "Full well ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your own tradition!" Mark vii. 7 and 9; see also Isaiah xxix. 13 and 14. Two things appear to be particularly pointed out, by our Lord's so distinctly and separately consecrating both bread and wine; instituting both as memorials of His most precious death, and commanding that all should not only "eat of that bread," but also "drink of that cup." St. John vi. 53 to 57. 1st, That as bread is the staff of life, the nourishment of the body, so Christ "the living bread" spiritually received is the food and nourishment of the soul or spirit. We must "eat His flesh," and we must also, "all drink His blood," or we have "no life in us!" But what is feeding on Christ? Not the mere reception of the sacred elements, whether in a carnal sense according to the faith of Rome, or even spiritual; for if received unworthily, we "eat and drink our own damnation!" to feed on Him, is with lowly self-abasement and deep contrition, acknowledging and deploring our guilt, our utter emptiness of all good, to come to Him, the good Shepherd, for a supply OF THE EUCHARIST. OF THE EUCHARIST. of all those graces and good dispositions, he freely bestows upon those who "hunger after righteousness." He has pronounced them "blessed," and that "they shall be filled." The second thing signified by the equally strong command, "Drink ye all of this," seems to be, that as by thus "eating his flesh," we are made partakers of the blessings purchased for us by his incarnation, viz., "made conformable to his Divine image," enabled to cultivate and practise every Christian grace implanted in us by him, so by "drinking his blood," we acknowledge the necessity of a Saviour's atoning blood being "poured out for us;" "for without shedding of blood there is no remission." This then his most precious blood, is fitly represented by the sacramental wine. Should not those who deem they "sufficiently comply," with the Divine precept of receiving "his flesh and blood," "take heed, lest by receiving only in one kind, and denying the absolute necessity of the other, they are thereby actually refusing the offered atonement, which a dying Saviour positively enjoined all Christians to remember! .... My dear, dear, brethren, think, I beseech you, what it is you are doing! Examine, I earnestly implore you, into what it really is, that you profess to believe. Is it what man has appointed, or rather substituted, or what he who was both God and man, has ordained, that will be accepted by him, who says, "If ye love me, keep My commandments ?" (To be continued.) THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION. "A great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."-ACTS vi. 7. TRANSUBSTANTIATION. To the Right Rev. Dr. French, Roman Catholic Bishop at Gort, Diocese of Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora. REV. SIR,-It is probable that ere this you may have been informed |