tween Purgatory and Indulgences; and therefore no wonder at their anxiety to dissolve it. The bare idea of the Church being able, of its own authority, to apply the merits of Christ to remis sion of punishment by fire in a future state, is shocking to reason; but when we come to consider that this remission is actually sold in some cases, the idea is still more shocking. Such, however, really is the case; and the assertion of Messrs. Butler and Milner, that the price of the indulgence is nothing more than a fee of office, is, in Mr. Butler's case, a gross inaccuracy, and in Dr. Milner's (we once more use his own language to Bishop Porteus) an "egregious falsity." egregious falsity." At any rate, if indul gences be not sold, masses are. According to the infallible Coun. cil of Trent, the acceptable sacrifice of the mass accelerates the passage of a soul through purgatory, and the sacrifice of the mass is sold. The rich leave money to buy them, and the poor enter into Purgatorian benefit clubs for the same purpose: contributing, according to their means, 5d. 24d. or 1d. per week; which subscriptions, according to the prospectus of the club, are "faithfully registered and transmitted from the books of the society to the books of eternal life, in order to receive the more ample recompense and more glorious rewards."" When a member dies, masses will be immediately celebrated for the eternal repose of his soul, according to the subscription; on condition the deceased member has given at least a year's subscription, and be a subscriber at death!!" This is an extract of a paper circulated in Dublin, and printed by J. Coyne. We are at a loss to find words to express our feelings at the impiety of those who teach such a doctrine, or the credulity of those who believe it. In granting these indulgences, which have reference to Purgatory also, the Pope, says Bellarmine, "does not absolve the deceased, but offers to God, out of the treasure of satisfac tions, as much as is necessary to free them." These treasures, according to Clement VI. and Leo X. are the superabundant merits of Christ's blood, a single drop of which would have sufficed for the redemption of mankind, and the merits of the blessed mother of God, and the elect. We must refer our readers to the Bulls of these pontiffs, in Dr. Phillpotts' Letters.

The next points considered by Dr. Phillpotts are CONFESSION and ABSOLUTION. Upon these the modern Roman Catholics pretend to see no difference between the Churches of England and Rome; and their Protestant advocates say, that they believe them. First, then, with regard to Confession: the Church of England permits Confession, if the penitent earnestly wishes it; but the Church of Rome commands it on pain of eternal damnation. Si quis dixerit, says the Council of Trent, in

་

sacramento pœnitentiæ ad remissionem peccatorum necessarium non esse jure divino confiteri omnia peccata mortalia, &c. anathema sit. Again: Si quis negaverit confessionem sacramentalem vel institutam vel ad salutem necessariam esse jure divino; aut dixerit modum secreté confitendi soli sacerdoti quem ecclesia catholica ab initio semper observarit et observat alienum esse ab institutione et mandato Christi et inventum esse humanum: anathema sit.

Such are the Canons of the Roman Church; and can any Christian justly say, that there is no difference between such a confession as this, and the confession allowed by the Church of England: that is, between simply allowing Confession, if a penitent earnestly desire it, and commanding him to confess, whether he wishes it or no, under penalty of eternal damnation. But again if this difference were not so glaring and so conclusive, the mode of confession in the Roman Church is so objectionable as to be of itself a source of every thing that is abominable, and corrupting to the soul: a course of self-examination is prescribed in their Penitential Canons, containing particulars, than which nothing more loathsome and polluting could be conceived.

The next subject under review is Absolution, on which similar misrepresentations are advanced by the Roman Catholic. advocates, and complacently admitted by their Protestant patrons. It is gravely asserted, that Absolution in both Churches is pronounced precisely in the same words, and in the same spirit; and a certain Right Honourable Secretary is reported to have expressed himself as follows: "There is a sentence in our own Prayer-book, in the visitation of the sick, where the very same doctrine is asserted in the very same words as those stated by Dr. Doyle before the committee."

Now the two doctrines are as different as light from darkness: the Absolution of the Roman Church is judicial, the same as if it was pronounced by God himself; and any body that denies this, is sentenced, by the Council of Trent, to eternal punishment. The Absolution of the Church of England is merely declaratory, and followed immediately by a prayer to God to consider the sick penitent's contrition. Again, the absolution of the Roman Church is indispensable to salvation. If any one wilfully refuse it, he must be damned. That of the Church of England is only given to the penitent if he earnestly desire it, and is not considered necessary at all. The absolution of the Roman Church is enjoined once a year by the Council of Lateran; that of the Church of England is never recommended, even when earnestly desired, but in the extremity of

sickness; and we dare venture to say, that the generality of the English clergy have scarcely ever administered it in the course of their lives: yet the Roman advocates venture, before a Protestant audience, to assert that the two Absolutions are in spirit and in words the same; and one of the sworn guardians of the church declares, that he believes them! The words of our Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick are certainly objectionable, because they enable our adversaries to misrepresent our doctrine; but our doctrine itself is as perfectly unobjectionable, as it is perfectly different from that of the Church of Rome. The Romish doctrine of Absolution, with its attendant ones of Confession, Purgatory, and Indulgences, is one of the most tremendous engines of priestly power that ever was placed in the hands of men. The true Catholic is taught firmly and implicitly to believe, that if he wilfully refuse to confess his sins to a priest, and get absolution from him, he must inevitably be lost. He is also taught as firmly and implicitly to believe, that if he refuse to perform certain penitential acts, or to commute them by buying an Indulgence, or paying for so many Masses, he must be burned so many years in the fires of Purgatory, before he can be admitted into heaven. What is there of this in the doctrine of the Church of England? and yet we are told they are in spirit the same.

The next doctrine under review is TRANSUBSTANTIATION, on which we are unwillingly obliged to quarrel with the Right Honourable Secretary again: really, as Dr. Phillpotts says,

"There is no parliamentary short cut in the science of divinity, and even honourable and learned members must be content to be ignorant, where they will not take the trouble to be informed; and if they think fit to proclaim their ignorance, they have only to thank themselves for any exposure to which it subjects them."

Mr. Canning is reported to have said, in his speech on the 21st of April:

"What was it which kept the Roman Catholics from taking seats in that house? the oath against transubstantiation. But did the house forget, that there might be men amongst themselves who believed in consubstantiation, the doctrine which had been avowed and taught by Luther? Did they believe that man a traitor, whose creed embraced the one, but rejected the other?"

Now upon this, we would fain ask the Right Honourable gentleman, in the first place, Did he really mean to insinuate, as his words imply, that the Roman Catholics are excluded from Parliament, because they believe in transubstantiation? If so, it could only be to puzzle his auditors. They are excluded, every

one knows, because it is considered that their allegiance to the State cannot be so perfect as that of Protestants; and the oath against Transubstantiation is only used as a test to discover whether they are Roman Catholics or no. If they believed in nothing but Transubstantiation, they would have sat in Parliament long ago. In the second place, we would ask him, Whether he meant to insinuate, that any body in England believes in Consubstantiation; or that the Church of England gives the least colour to such a doctrine? He knows that no one suspects a man of being a traitor for believing in either, but that the oath against transubstantiation is a test for the exclusion of those who, it is believed, would destroy the Church of England if they could, and are bound by their religion to destroy it as soon as they can.

....

"The law," says Dr. Phillpotts to Mr. Butler, "does not exclude you because you believe in transubstantiation, but because you belong to a church whose principles are considered to be such as render it inexpedient to suffer its members to sit in parliament; and it prescribes the denial of transubstantiation only as a test, to ascertain whether those who are required to take it, really do belong to that church. Whether such exclusion or such a test be necessary, is no part of the subject I have undertaken to treat. But I may be allowed to say; that as a test, nothing could be better chosen than the denial of transubstantiation. It is a dogma so intimately interwoven in the system of your Church, that no man can pretend to belong to you who has cast off that most essential article of your creed. For this reason I sincerely lament that any other was ever chosen; much more one marked by so much needless acrimony of invective as the other parts of the declaration exhibit. That there were circumstances in the history of the time when that declaration was prescribed, which account for the harsh language in which it is drawn, does not diminish the regret which moderate men must feel and express that its tone has not long ago been reduced to a point more accordant with charity.”

To these sentiments we heartily subscribe; and wish that the Legislature had in all things followed the moderation of the fathers of the English Church, who merely say, in our 28th Article, "Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given rise to many superstitions."

While we are upon this part of the subject, we cannot help adverting to the endeavours of another senator, statesman, and legislator, to assimilate the doctrines of England and Rome, for the purpose of reconciling John Bull to Catholic emancipation. Upon the subject of transubstantiation, Mr. Plunkett lays down

the following modification of the Roman Catholic doctrine. He says, according to the Report, that the Roman Catholic" does not believe the body of our Lord to be present in the Eucharist in the same sense in which it is said to be in heaven; for he admits that the same body cannot be in two places at the same time, but it is present in a sense: the Council of Lateran says sacramentally present." Now if this be true, in the name of charity, we would fain ask, What have we been disputing about all this time? And whence comes it to pass, as Voltaire says, that so much blood has been spilt, from the shores of the Baltic to the foot of the Pyrenees, for the last three centuries, on account of a word that signifies soft charity-suxagisia? We all believe our Lord's body to be present in a sense, and sacramentally. Calvin maintains, that when the true Christian receives the Eucharist with a lively faith, he is united indescribably but really to. Jesus Christ, insomuch that to him Jesus Christ is really though not corporally present. The Church of England says that Christ is "verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful;" thus maintaining his real though sacramental presence in the bread and wine. If, then, all that the Roman Church requires is a presence in a sense, a sacramental presence, why does she condemn us for believing as we do: because we also believe that Christ is present in a sense, and sacramentally? The answer is, that this is not all that she requires. She is not satisfied with requiring us to believe that Christ is present in a sense, but requires us to define precisely what that sense is. She requires us to believe that Christ is present, not only sacramentally, but corporally; and burnt hundreds of human beings in former ages for refusing to believe it. The divines of the Church of England admit the real presence of Christ sacramentally; but this does not satisfy the divines of the Church of Rome: they require us to believe in the corporal presence substantially, and say that we must perish everlastingly if we do not. Bossuet calls our doctrine of the real sacramental presence an equivocation. The Council of Trent decrees, that any one who denies that the body and blood and soul and divinity of our Lord are truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist, "Vere, realiter, et substantialiter," or says they are only there significantly, figuratively, or virtually, " in signo, figura, vel virtute," shall be damned. And the Cardinal de la Luzerne, in his "Instructions sur le Rituel, art. prem. sur l'Euchariste," says, "the Sacrament contains the body of our Lord, really and truly, not mystically and figuratively, as Calvin says......The bread is destroyed, annihilated, and changed into the body of our Lord, as the wine is changed into his