Section 4
SECTION 4
OF THE SACRAMENTS.
Q. 50. WHAT is a sacrament?
Answer. A sacrament is a sensible thing which by the institution of God hath a power, as well of causing, as of signifying, holiness and righteousness. (Catech. Rom., par. 2, cap. 1, n. 11.)
Q. 51. How many sacraments are there in the Church of Rome? A. There are seven; namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, Can. 1.) Q. 52. Is this number determined to be a matter of faith? A. Whosoever saith, that there are more or fewer than seven instituted by Christ, or that any of the seven are not truly and properly sacraments, is accursed. (Ibid.)
REPLY. Cassander saith, that we shall not easily find any before Peter Lombard, who lived about 1139, that did define the number of the sacraments. (Art. 13., sec. De Num. Sacram.) And St. Austin is very positive that there are but two of divine institution. f28 Now, that there should be sacraments of divine institution, that are neither instituted in the gospel, nor known to be so till 1100 years after our Savior, nor be made a matter of faith till 1500, may be a doctrine received in the Church of Rome, but will not easily be believed by any out of it.
Q. 53. What are the parts of a sacrament?
A. The parts of a sacrament are the matter or element, and the form of words of consecration: So the matter in baptism is water; the form is, “I baptize thee,” etc.
REPLY. That a sacrament should consist of matter and form, and yet either have no form, as confirmation and extreme unction; or have neither matter nor form, of divine institution, as penance and matrimony, is to make them sacraments, and to be none. Our Church rightly affirms of the additional sacraments, they have not any visible sign ordained of God. (Article 25.) Q. 54. Of what virtue are the sacraments?
A. The sacraments contain the grace which they signify, and confer grace ex opere operato, “by the work itself,” upon such as do not put an obstruction. (Concil. Trid., ibid., can. 6, 8.) For these sensible and natural things work by the almighty power of God in the sacraments, what they could not do by their own power. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 27.) REPLY. It is not sufficient that adult persons have no indisposition to receive the grace of the sacraments; for there is also required a mind well-instructed, a sound belief, and a heart well inclined for that purpose.
(2.) The virtue in the sacraments doth not proceed from the mere elements and words, but from the blessing of God in consequence of his promise to such only as rightly partake of them, and are qualified for it.
Q. 55. What is necessary to a sacrament on the part of those that officiate?
A. It is absolutely necessary, that those that make and consecrate the sacraments have an intention of doing at least what the Church doeth, and doth intend to do. (Concil. Trid., ibid., can. 11.)
REPLY. From hence it follows, that if there be no intention, the sacraments are none. And so there is no certainty whether the Priest be a Priest, or whether in the eucharist the elements continue not elements after consecration, and what is taken for the host be no other than bread. For without the intention, neither is the Priest ordained, nor are the elements consecrated.
OF BAPTISM.
Q. 56. Who may administer the sacrament of baptism?
A. It chiefly belongs to Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; but, in case of necessity, men or women, Jews, infidels, or heretics may do it, if they intend to do what the Church doeth. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, De Bapt., can. 4; Catech. Rom., pars 2, c. 2, n. 24.)
REPLY. Our Savior gave commission to the Apostles and their successors, in the office of the ministry, to “teach all nations, baptizing them.” (Matthew 28:19, 20.) So that women, Jews, and infidels, have no more a power to administer baptism, than they have to teach, or to be Priests. Q. 57. What ceremonies are used in the administration of baptism in the Church of Rome?
A. Before baptism, there is,
(1.) Chrism, or oil mixed with water, in the consecration of it. (Catech., ibid., n. 11, 60.)
(2.) Exorcism, composed of certain words, prayers, and actions, for driving away the devil out of the child, and the salt, etc. (Catech., ibid., n. 65.) And the Priest is to blow in the face of the child, after the form of a cross, saying, “Go out of him, Satan,” etc. (Pastorale, Antwerp, 1625.)
(3.) The forehead, eyes, breast, etc., are to be crossed, to show that, by the mystery of baptism, the senses are opened to receive God, and to understand his commands. (Catech., n. 67; Pastor., ibid.)
(4.) Then some exorcised salt is to be put into the mouth, to signify a deliverance from the putrefaction of sin, and the savor of good works. (Catech., ibid., n. 66.) And the Priest in putting it into the mouth, saith, “N, take the salt of wisdom, and let it be a propitiation for thee to eternal life. Amen.” (Pastor., ibid.)
(5.) Then the nose and ears are to be anointed with spittle, and then the child is to be brought to the water, as the blind man to Siloam, to signify it brings light to the mind. (Catech., ibid., n. 60.) After baptism,
(1.) The Priest anoints the top of the head with chrism; (Catech., ibid., n. 72;) and he adds, “Let him anoint thee with the chrism of salvation.” (Pastor., ibid.)
(2.) He puts a white garment on the baptized, saying, “Take this white garment, which thou mayest bring before the judgment-seat of Christ, that thou mayest have life eternal.” (Catech., ibid., n. 73.)
(3.) A lighted candle is put into the hand, to show a faith inflamed with charity, and nourished with good works. (Ibid., n. 74.)
REPLY. It is pleaded for these ceremonies, that they are appointed for the majesty of divine worship; and that the benefits contained in the sacraments may be better imprinted on the mind. (Catech., par. 2, c. 2, n. 59.) But can we think it for the majesty of baptism to have it dressed up like a form of conjuration, that the child must be supposed to be possessed with the devil, and the Priest must blow in his face three times, with, “Get thee out, Satan,” before he can say, “Peace be with thee;” and that he must cross him half a score times, or more, from part to part, in preparation to baptism?
Can we think it for the majesty of it, to have salt exorcised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to be put into the mouth of the child, for a propitiation unto eternal life? Can we think it for the majesty of this ordinance, that the Priest should put some of his own spittle in his left hand, and then taking it thence with the thumb and forefinger of his right hand, touch both ears of the infant, and say, “Ephphatha, be thou opened!” and then his nostrils, and say, “For the odor of sweetness; but thou, O devil, fly;” and then on his right hand, after the manner of a cross, saying, “N, I deliver unto thee the mark of our Lord Jesus Christ, (†) f29 that thou mayest drive the adversary from thee on every side, and have life eternal?” And what are the benefits imprinted on the mind by these fantastical ceremonies? Or when is it such benefits are promised as these are said to signify? Is it not rather a debasing of it, to have such rites and prayers introduced into it, as signify that which baptism was never appointed for? To give an instance in the salt used in it: —
THE EXORCISM OF THE SALT.
“I exorcise thee, O creature of salt, in the name of the Father (†) Omnipotent, and in the love of our (†) Lord Jesus Christ, and in the virtue of the Holy (†) Spirit. I exorcise thee by the living (†) God, by the true (†) God, by the holy (†) God, who hath created thee for the safeguard of mankind, and hath commanded it to be consecrated by his servants for the people that come to believe, that in the name of the holy Trinity thou beest made a wholesome sacrament to put the enemy to flight. Therefore we pray thee, O our Lord God, that in sanctifying (†) thou dost sanctify this creature of salt, and in blessing (†) thou dost bless it, that it may be a perfect medicine to all that take it.”
OF CONFIRMATION.
Q. 58. Is confirmation a sacrament?
A. It is, properly and truly; and whosoever holds otherwise is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, de Confirm., can. 1.)
REPLY. The Roman Catechism saith, that sacraments cannot be instituted by any but God. (Catech., ibid., n. 6.) And yet the great Schoolman, Alex. Ales, saith, “Christ did not institute nor declare confirmation to be a sacrament.” (Pars 4, q. 4, m. 1.) So by their own confession it is none. Q. 59. What is the matter of the sacrament of confirmation? A. The matter is chrism, which is an ointment compounded of oil-olive and balsam, and consecrated by the Bishop (Cate. Rom., par. 2, c. 3, n. 2, 7, 27) upon Monday-Thursday. (Sum of Christian Doctrine, London, 1686.) REPLY. That chrism is either of divine institution, or the matter of a sacrament, may be said, but cannot be proved.
Q. 60. What is the form of consecration?
A. The form is the words used by the Bishop, when he crosses the forehead with the chrism, viz., “I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” (Catech., n. 2, 11.)
REPLY. It is said that Christ instituted the matter and form of confirmation from the authority of Pope Fabian; (pars 4, q. 3, m. 2, n. 3, & q. 9, m. 1;) but Alexander Ales saith, it was ordained by the Meldensian Council. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 6, 12, et Bellarminus de Confirm., c. 2.) And indeed the Roman Catechism, after some pretense to divine institution, thinks it safest to resolve it into the authority of the Church. Q. 61. What ceremonies are used in confirmation?
A.
(1.) In the anointing, the Bishop dips the tip of his finger in the chrism, and, making a cross, saith, “I sign thee,” etc. (Pontific. de Confirm.)
(2.) After confirmation, he strikes the person slightly on the cheek, that he may remember he is to suffer all injuries for the name of Christ, with patience and courage. (Catech., n. 25.)
(3.) Then the person to be confirmed, setting his foot upon the right foot of the godfather, (Pontific., ibid.,) is to have his head bound with a clean headband for some days more or less, with reverence to the holy chrism; which done, the band is to be preserved in the sacrarium, or other clean place, till the following Ash-Wednesday, to be burnt to holy ashes. (Pastorale.)
REPLY. Whether we consider the far-fetched significations of these ceremonies or the virtue put in them, the abuse is intolerable; as, for instance, that in consecration of the chrism, the Bishop blows upon it, to signify the descent of the Holy Ghost for the sanctification of it, (Bellarm. de Confirm., 1. 2, c. 13, sec. Tertio habet,) and that it hath a power of sanctification as the instrument of God. (Ibid., sec. Quarta caeremonia.) So the Bishop prays in the consecration of it, that God “in bestowing spiritual grace upon this ointment, would pour out the fullness of sanctification, and that it may be to all that are to be anointed with it, for the adoption of sons by the Holy Spirit. Amen.” (Pontif. Rom.) OF THE EUCHARIST.
Q. 62. What is the eucharist?
A. It is a sacrament wherein is truly, really, and substantially contained whole Christ, God-Man, body and blood, bones and nerves, (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 4, n. 33,) soul and divinity, under the species or appearance of bread and wine. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 13, de Real. Praes., c. 1; A Sum of Christian Doctrine, printed 1686.)
Q. How do they attempt to prove this?
A. From the words of our Savior, — “This is my body;” which, say they, clearly demonstrate that the same body which was born of the Virgin, and is now in heaven, is in the sacrament. (Catech., par. 2, c. 4, n. 26.) Q. 63. What becomes of the bread and wine after consecration? A. Upon consecration there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of Christ’s body; and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of Christ’s blood; which conversion is usually called transubstantiation. (Concil. Trid. ibid., c. 4; Concil. Later., 4, can. 1.)
REPLY.
(1.) No such change of the substance of the bread into the substance of Christ’s body, can be inferred from our Savior’s words, “This is my body;” (Matthew 26:26;) for it is not said, “This is turned into my body,” but, “This is my body;” which, if it be taken literally, would rather prove the substance of the bread to be his body. Therefore Cardinal Cajetan acknowledges, it is nowhere said in the Gospel that the bread is changed into the body of Christ; but they have it from, the authority of the Church. (Cajet. in Aquin., par. 3, q. 75, art. 1.)
(2.) It is farther evident that the words are not to be taken in their proper sense; for it is called bread as well after consecration as before it. (1 Corinthians 10:17; 11:26-28.) So that what was called his body was also bread at the same time.
(3.) The mystical relation which the bread by consecration has to Christ’s body is sufficient to give it the name of his body. For it is the usual way of Scripture, to call things of a sacramental nature, by the names of those things they are the figure of. (Aug. Epist. 23.) So, circumcision is called the covenant. (Genesis 17:13.) And the killing, dressing, and eating the lamb, is called the passover. (Exodus 12:11.) And after the same manner is the bread in the sacrament Christ’s body; that is, as circumcision was the covenant, and the lamb the passover, by signification and representation, by type and figure. And so the elements are called by the Fathers, “the images,” (Orig. Dial. 3, Contr. Marcion.,) “the symbols,” (Euseb. Dem. Evang.
1. 1, c. 1. et ult.,) “the figure,” (Aug. contr. Adimant., c. 12,) of Christ’s body and blood.
Q. 64. What is then that which is seen and tasted in the eucharist? A. The things seen and tasted are the accidents only of bread and wine; there is the savor, color, and quantity of bread and wine, without any of their substance; but under those accidents there is only the body and blood of Christ. (Catech. Rom., n. 37, 44.)
REPLY. Our Savior appealed to the senses of his disciples: “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39.) Take away the certainty of sense, and there is no discerning a body from a spirit; and grant transubstantiation, and we take away the certainty of sense.
Q. 65. Is the body and blood of Christ broken when the host is broken and divided?
A. No, because Christ is impassable; (Abridgment of Christ. Doctrine, c. 11, sec. Euchar.;) and, besides, there is whole and entire Christ under either species or element, under the species of bread, and under every particle of it; under the species of wine, and under every drop of it. (Conc. Trid., ibid., c. 3.)
REPLY. If every particle of the host is as much the whole body of Christ, as the whole host is before it be divided, then a whole may be divided into wholes; for, divide it and subdivide it, it is still whole. Whole it is before the division, whole it is in the division, and whole it is after it. Thus unreasonable, as well as false, is the doctrine of transubstantiation. Q. 66. Do they administer the sacrament in both kinds of bread and wine?
A. No; the people are permitted to receive it only in one kind, and are denied the cup. (Trid., Sess. 21, c. 1.)
REPLY. It is acknowledged that our Savior instituted and delivered the sacrament in both kinds; (Concil. Constant., Sess. 13; Trid., Sess. 21, c. 1, 2;) and that it so continued even in the Church of Rome for above one thousand years after. (Consult. Cassandri., art. 22.) And yet with a non-obstante to both, they forbid the people to drink of it; and declare, whoever thinks it necessary to receive in both kinds, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., ibid., can. 1.)
Q. 67. For what reason doth the Church of Rome deprive the people of what our Lord is granted to have instituted?
A. For just and weighty causes, (Con. Trid., ibid., c. 2,) such as these:
(1.) Lest the blood of Christ should be spilt upon the ground.
(2.) Lest the wine, by being kept for the sick, should grow eager.
(3.) Because many cannot bear the taste or smell of wine.
(4.) Because in many countries there is such a scarcity of wine, as it is not to be had without great charge and tedious journeys.
(5.) To disprove those that deny whole Christ to be contained under each species. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 66.)
REPLY These are the “just and weighty causes” for their overruling the plain precept of our Savior: “Drink ye all of this.” (Matthew 26:27.) And yet whosoever shall say they are not just and sufficient reasons, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., ibid., can. 2.) As if it was sufficient to forbid wine in the sacrament to all, because some few cannot bear the taste or smell of it; and it was a just cause to deprive all countries of it because some have not wine, or cannot obtain it without difficulty!
Q. 68. What is the mass?
A. In the sacrifice of the mass, the same Christ is contained, and unbloodily offered, who bloodily offered himself upon the altar of the cross. (Conc. Trid., Sess. 22, can. 1.)
Q. 69. Of what virtue is the sacrifice in the mass?
A. It is truly a propitiatory sacrifice, and is available, not only for the sins, punishments, and satisfactions of the living, but also for those of the souls in purgatory. (Ibid.)
Q. 70. Is this necessary to be believed?
19. Yes; and whosoever denies any of this, is accursed, (Conc. Trid., Sess. 22, can. 1,) and incapable of salvation. (Bulla Pii IV.)
REPLY. The Scripture when it extols the perfection and infinite value of Christ’s sacrifice, doth infer from it, that there needed not therefore any repetition of it: “He needeth not daily, as those High Priests, to offer up sacrifice, etc.; for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” (Hebrews 7:27.) But if the same Christ is offered in the mass as was on the cross, and that unbloody sacrifice is alike propitiatory as the bloody, there is then a repetition of the same sacrifice, and he is daily offered. And what is it to say, the one was bloody and the other is unbloody, when the unbloody is of the same virtue, and is applied to the same end, as the bloody? So that, as, if Christ had again been bloodily offered up, there had been a repetition of that sacrifice; so there is a repetition of it when he is offered up unbloodily. To have then a perfect sacrifice daily repeated, and a sacrifice without suffering, and a propitiation and remission without blood, are alike irreconcilable to the Apostle. (Hebrews 9:22, 25, etc.) Q. 71. May the Priest communicate alone, though there be none besides to communicate?
A. Yes; the Church of Rome doth approve and commend solitary masses, and accounts them a communion; partly because the people do spiritually communicate in it, and partly because it is celebrated by a public Minister, not only for himself, but also for the people. (Conc. Trid., ibid., cap. 6.) REPLY. The Apostle calls the Lord’s supper a communion, and saith, “All are partakers of that one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:16, 17.) And Cassander saith, “It cannot properly be a communion unless many partake of it;” and adds from the Council of Nants, that “it is absurd to say, Lift up your hearts, when there is none communicates with the Priest.” (Consult., art. 24, De Solit. Miss.) And yet the Council of Trent declares, whosoever shall say such masses are unlawful, and to be abrogated, is accursed. (Sess. 22, Can. 8.)
Q. 72. What honor is to be given to the consecrated host? A. Latria, or the same sovereign worship which is due only to God; (Concil. Trid, Sess. 13, cap. 5;) adore it; (Missale Rom., cap. Missae;) pray to it. (Brev. Rom., Hym. in F. Corp. Ch.) And whosoever holds it unlawful or idolatrous so to do, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., ibid., Can. 6.) REPLY. We freely own that Christ is to be adored in the Lord’s supper; but that the elements are to be adored, we deny. If Christ is not corporally present in the host, they grant their adoration to be idolatry. (Coster. Enchir., c. 8, n. 10.) And that he is not corporally present anywhere but in heaven, we are taught, Acts 1:11, 3:21, whither he went, and where he is to continue till his second coming to judgment.
Q. 73. What are the ceremonies used in the mass?
A. The ceremonies in the mass respect either things, actions, or words. Among the things, are garments, places, time, vessels, cloths, incense, lights, etc. (Bellarmin. Doctr. Trid. de Sacr. Miss.)
Q. 74. What are the garments used by the Priest in the mass, and what is their signification?
A.
(1.) The amice, or white veil, which he puts over his head, signifies mystically, either the divinity of Christ covered under his humanity, or the crown of thorns; and morally, contemplation, or hope. In putting it on, he saith, “Put on, O Lord, the helmet of salvation upon my head, that I may overcome all diabolical temptations.”
(2.) The alb, or long white garment, signifies mystically, the white robe put on our Savior; and morally, faith and innocency. In putting it on, he saith, “Make me white, O Lord, and cleanse my heart, that, being whitened in the blood of the Lamb, I may enjoy everlasting gladness.”
(3.) The girdle signifies mystically, the cords wherewith our Savior was bound; and morally, (being turned up on both sides,) the two means to preserve chastity, namely, fasting and prayer. When he puts it about him, he prays, “Gird me, O Lord, with the girdle of purity, and quench in my loins the humor of lust, that there may remain in me the virtue of continency and chastity.” The like account is given of the maniple, vestment, and stole, and of the divers colors of the furniture used in the several seasons, in the “Manual of the Poor Man’s Devotion,” chap. Of the Ornaments of the Mass.
REPLY. The Council of Trent saith, that the ceremonies of the mass, such as mystical benedictions, lights, incensings, garments, etc., are from Apostolical tradition; (Sess. 22, c. 5;) or, as others, were instituted by the Holy Ghost; (Bellarminus, cap. de Sacr. Mis.;) and that they serve for the majesty of that sacrifice, and to raise the mind to the contemplation of the divine things concealed in it; so none of them are superfluous and vain. (Catech., par. 2, c. 4, n. 81.)
But how shall we reconcile this to the numerous crossings and sprinklings, used in the celebration of the mass? For example: When the Priest is clothed with the garments rehearsed before, he comes to the altar; and, standing on the lowest step, just against the middle of it, he makes a profound reverence to the altar and crucifix. Then he ascends, and, having placed the books, etc., in order, he descends to the lowest step, and, turning himself to it, with his hands joined before his breast, and making a reverence to the altar or crucifix, he begins the mass, standing upright, and drawing with his right hand (his left hand laid on his breast) the sign of the cross from his forehead to his breast. Then he joins his hands before his breast; the Minister standing on his left hand behind him, bowing, saith, Ad Deum, etc. Then the Priest, with the Minister, say the psalm, Judica me, with Gloria Patri, at which he is to bow his head to the cross. Then he repeats the Introibo, making with his right hand the sign of the cross from the forehead to the breast. Then he bows his head and body to the altar, and there he stands bowing till the Minister saith, Misereatur. When he saith, Mea culpa, he smites thrice upon his breast with the right hand; and thus the Missal proceeds in its ceremonies in all the remaining parts of the service.
OF PENANCE.
Q. 75. What is the matter and form of the sacrament of penance? A. The matter is contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The form is, “I absolve.” (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 5, n. 14, 15.)
REPLY. We are told, that the matter of a sacrament is somewhat sensible; (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 1, n. 11;) then how is penance a sacrament, which has no such matter? For where is the matter that is sensible in contrition? The Council, to avoid this, call it, Quasi materia, — “A matter after a sort.” (Concil. Trid., Sess. 14, can. 3.)
Q. 76. What is confession?
A. Confession is a particular discovery of all mortal sins to the Priest, with all their circumstances that increase or diminish the sin, as far as can be called to mind; (Concil. Trid., Sess. 14, c. 5, & Catech., ibid., n. 48;) without which neither forgiveness nor salvation is to be obtained. (Trid., ibid., Can. 6, 7; Catech., n. 44.)
REPLY. We grant confession to men to be in many cases of use; public, in case of public scandal; private, to a spiritual guide for disburdening of the conscience, and as an help to repentance. But to make auricular confession, or particular confession to a Priest, necessary to forgiveness and salvation, when God has not so made it, is apparently to teach for doctrine the commandment of men; and to make it necessary in all cases, is to make, of what may be a useful means, a dangerous snare, both to the confessor, and those that confess.
Q. 77. Of what kind is the absolution which the Priest grants upon confession?
A. The absolution is not only declarative, but judicial; and the sentence pronounced by the Priest is as if pronounced by the Judge himself; (Concil. Trid., ibid., c. 6, & Can. 9;) he perfecting what God causes. (Catech., par. 2, 5, n. 17.)
REPLY. To pardon sin, and absolve the sinner judicially, so as the conscience may rest firmly upon it, is a power reserved by God to himself So: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9.) And therefore the authority of the Priest is only ministerial, declarative, and conditional. “Men show a ministry in the forgiveness of sins, but do not exercise a right of power. They pray, but it is God forgives,” saith St. Ambrose. (De Spir.,
1. 3, c. 19.)
Q. 78. What is the benefit of absolution?
A. Although a sinner is not so affected with such grief for his sin, as may be sufficient to obtain pardon; yet, when he has rightly confessed to a Priest, all his sins are pardoned, and an entrance is opened into heaven. (Catech., ibid., n. 38.)
REPLY. The grief which is sufficient to obtain pardon, is contrition; and so the grief which is not sufficient to obtain pardon, must be attrition; and the meaning then is, that attrition, with absolution, is as effectual as contrition. Q. 79. What is satisfaction?
A. It is a compensation made to God, by prayer, fasting, alms, etc., (Catech., ibid., n. 75,) for all sins committed against him; (Bellarminus de Satisfact.; Bellarm. de Indulg., 1. 1, c. 7, sec. Quarta propositio;) so that the offender is thereupon purged from the defilement of sin, and discharged from all temporal punishments due to him, either here or in purgatory. (Catech. Rom., ibid., n. 65, 66.)
Q. 80. How do these works become thus satisfactory?
A. They are meritorious and satisfactory, (Catech., ibid., n. 72, 73,) as they are united to the satisfaction of Christ. (Bellarm. de Forma Satisfact.; Bellarm. de Indulg., 1. 1, c. 4, sec. Respons. non est quidem.) REPLY. The giving satisfaction to the Church in case of scandal, and the imposing penances upon notorious offenders, is an useful part of ecclesiastical discipline. But to make that a satisfaction to God which is given to the Church; and to make our works to satisfy, though but as an appendant to the satisfaction of Christ, we can by no means allow. Not the former, because it is derogatory to the justice of God; not the latter, because it is derogatory to the merits of our Savior. For what can make a satisfaction to God, but the obedience and suffering, of his Son? Or what need is there of another satisfaction after that of our Savior? “By one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:14.)
THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION.
Q. 81. What is the matter of the sacrament of extreme unction? A. Oil of olive-berries, (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 6, n. 5,) consecrated by a Bishop; which aptly signifies the grace of the Spirit with which the soul of the sick is invisibly anointed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 14, de Extr. Unct., c. 1.) Q. 82. What is the form of it?
A. The form is, “By this holy anointing, God pardon thee, by whatever thou hast offended by the fault of the eyes, nose, or touch.” (Catech., ibid., n. 6.)
Q. 83. What are the parts anointed?
A. The eyes, because of seeing; the ears, because of hearing; the mouth, because of tasting, or speech; the hands, because of touching; the feet, because of motion; the reins, because the seat of lust. (Catech., ibid., n. 10.)
Q. 84. When is this anointing administered?
A. It is to be administered only when persons are supposed to be near the point of death; (Concil. Trid., ibid., c. 3; Bellarm. Extr. Unct., 1. 1, c. 2, sec. Accedit;) whence it is called extreme unction. (Catech., ibid., n. 2, 14.)
REPLY. We read, when the twelve Apostles were sent forth, they “anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them;” (Mark 6:13;) making use of that anointing, not as a natural means, but as a mystical sign of the miraculous cure to be wrought by the power of Christ. And as long as this power continued in the Church, so long there was a reason for continuing this rite. Accordingly, the Apostle directs, “Is any sick? Let him call for the Elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick.” (James 5:14,15.) But when the power ceased, there was no reason for the continuance of this sign. And yet this ceremony of anointing is not only continued in the Church of Rome without any pretense to the power, but the nature and the use of it is wholly perverted from what it was in apostolical times. For,
(1.) This rite was then used in curing the sick, but was not necessary to it; for we find them also cured by imposition of hands, (Mark 16:18; Acts 9:17,) or by a word. (Acts 9:34.) But in the Church of Rome it is made absolutely necessary.
(2.) In apostolical times it was a mere rite; but in the Church of Rome it is made a sacrament, and whosoever saith it is a mere rite is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 14, Can. 1.)
(3.) It was used in apostolical times properly for corporal maladies; but in the Church of Rome properly for the soul, and but accidentally for the body. (Bellarm. de Extr. Unct., l. 1, c. 2, sec. Probo igitur.)
(4.) It was used then for the recovery of the sick; but here it is to be applied only to those that are judged to be past it.
OF THE SACRAMENT OF ORDERS.
Q. 85. Is ordination a sacrament?
A. It is truly and properly a sacrament, and doth confer grace; and whose denies this, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 7, Can. 1, 23, cap. 3, Can. 3.) REPLY. We account ordination to be of divine institution, and that by it a ministerial commission is conveyed; but how necessary soever this office is to the Church, and grace for the exercise of it, yet as that grace is not promised to it, we cannot admit it to be properly and truly a sacrament. Q. 86. What are the several orders instituted for the service of the Church?
A. The orders always received by the Catholic Church are seven, — the greater and less: The greater are the Priest, Deacon, and Sub-Deacon: The less are the Acolythus, who is to carry the candle and assist the Sub-Deacon; the Exorcist, who is to attend and pray over them that are possessed with the devil; the Reader, and the Ostiarius, or door-keeper. (Catech., par. 2, c. 7, n. 12, 1 5, etc.)
REPLY. We know of no authority there is for any order under a Deacon, so as to anathematize them that do not receive them. (Concil. Trid., ibid., Can. 2.) We know of no authority for the forms used in the ordination of those lower orders; as, when the Bishop admits any to that of Exorcists, he reaches to them a book in which the exorcisms are contained, and saith, “Receive, and commit to memory, and take the power of laying on of hands upon the possessed, or baptized, or catechumens.” (Catech., ibid., n. 17.)
We know of no authority for this kind of procedure, for those forms of conjuration contained in those books, or for the use of those rites therein prescribed, for exorcising persons, houses, cattle, milk, butter, fruits, etc., infested with the devil. (See the Pastorale Mechlin, and the Manual of Exorcisms, Antwerp, 1626.)
OF THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE.
Q. 87. Is marriage truly and properly a sacrament?
A. Yes; and whosoever denies it so to be, is accursed. (Concil. Trid., Sess. 24, Can. 1.)
REPLY. St. Austin saith, that signs, when applied to religious things, are called sacraments. (Epist. 5.) And in this large sense he calls the sign of the cross a sacrament; (in Psalm. 141;) and others give the same name to washing the feet, (Cypr. de Lotione Pedum,) and many other mysteries. But then matrimony doth no more confer grace, than washing the feet, or using the sign of the cross; which Bellarmine, after all the virtue he ascribes to it, will not allow to be properly and truly a sacrament. (De Imag., 1. 2, c. 30, sec. Dices ergo.)
Q. 88. May those that are in holy orders marry, or those that are married be received into orders in the Church of Rome?
A. No; these that; are married may not be admitted; (Concil. Later. 1, Can. 21, et Later. 2, Can. 6;) those that are admitted may not marry; and those that, being admitted, do marry, are to be separated.
Q. 89. If marriage is a sacrament, and so confers grace, how comes it to be denied to those that are in holy orders? (Catech. Rom., par. 2, c. 8, n. 17.)
A. Those in holy orders are the temple of God, and it is a shameful thing that they should serve uncleanness. (Later. Concil. 2, Can. 6.) REPLY. The Apostle, on the contrary, saith, “Marriage is honorable in all;” (Hebrews 13:4;) and gives a hard character of that doctrine which forbids it. (1 Timothy 4:1-3.) And how lawful it was, the direction of the Apostle about it (1 Timothy 3:2) doth show. And how convenient it is, is manifest from the mischiefs attending the prohibition of it in the Romish Church, which wise men among themselves have lamented. (Polyd. Virgil. de Invent., l. 3, c. 4, et Cassander Consult., art. 23.) THE CONCLUSION.
I might have added the Fifth Section about the jurisdiction which the Church of Rome challenges over Princes, and about their canonization of saints, their consecration of Agnus Deis and beads, etc., and the use these and the like are applied to. I might have further considered their notes of a Church, and showed how many of them are not true, or, however, do not belong to the Church of Rome; but that would be too large a subject to enter upon: And what has been said will be sufficient to show how far that Church hath erred from truth and reason. For if we set their Councils, Missals, Breviaries, Rituals, and Catechisms on one side, and Scripture and antiquity on the other, we shall find their doctrines and practices as well opposite to those as they are opposite to ours; and may be assured that persons may sooner lose their eyes, than find there such a primacy of St. Peter as they contend for, or their Vicarship of the hope, the invocation of saints, the worship of images, service in an unknown tongue, transubstantiation, purgatory, and the rest that we contend against. Scripture and indubitable antiquity are the authority we appeal to; thither we refer our cause; and can heartily conclude with that of Vincentius Lyrin, “That is to be held, which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” (Contr. Haer., c. 3.)