R. 60. It is said that Christ instituted the matter and form of confirmation from the authority of pope Fabian; but Alex. Ales saith, it was ordained by the Meldensian council. + And indeed the Roman catechism, after some pretence to. divine institution, thinks it safest to resolve it into the authority of the church.. Par. 4. Q. 3. M. 2. N. 3. & Q. 9, M. 190 ↑ Catech. Rom. ibid. N. 6. & 12. & Bellarminus de confirm. c. g. R. 61. 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, ‡ and that it hath a power of sanctification as the instrument of God.|| So the bishop prays in the consecration of it, "That God "in bestowing spiritual grace upon this ointment, would (6 pour out the fulness 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." Bellarm. de confirm. 1. 2. c. 13. § Tertio habet. Pontif. Rom, Of the EUCHARIST. " R. 62, 63. No such change of the substance of the bread; (1.) into the substance of Christ's body, can be inferred from our Saviour's words, This is my body, Matt. xxvi. 26, for it is not said this is turned into my body, but This is my body; which if to be taken literally, would rather prove the substance of the bread to be his body.. Therefore cardinal Cajetan acknowledges it is no where VOL. XV. M Q. 62. How do they attempt to prove this? 4. From the words of our Saviour, 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. A Sum of Christian Doctrine, printed 1686. 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. C. Trid. ibid. c. 4. Concil. Later. 4. Can.. 1. 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 savour, colour, 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. Q. 65. Is the body and blood of Christ broken, when the host is broken and divided? A. No, because Christ is impassible; † 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. + + Abridgment of Christ. Doctrine, c. 11. § Euchar. Conc. Trid. ibid. c. 3. 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. 3 par. 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 Cor. x. 17. xi. 26, 27, 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 name of those things they are the figure of.* So circumcision is called the covenant, Gen. xvii. 13. And the killing, dressing, and eating the Lamb is called the passover, Exodus xii. 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, + the symbols, the figure, §' of Christ's body and blood. * Aug. Epist. 23. Evang. 1. 1. c. & ult. † Orig. dial. 3. contr. Marcion. Euseb. dem. R. 64. Our Saviour appealed to the senses of his dis ciples, Luke xxiv. 39. Handle and see me, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have.". 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. R. 65. 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 sub-divide it, it is still whole. Whole it is before the di vision, 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. lki 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, 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 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, t * Con. Trid. ibid. c. 2. Q. 68. What is the mass? + Catech. Rom, ibid. n. 66, 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. c. 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? t A. Yes, and whosoever denies any of this is accursed,* and incapable of salvation.+ R. 66. It is acknowledged, that our Saviour instituted and delivered the sacrament in both kinds. * And that it so continued even in the church of Rome for above 1000 years after. 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. Constant. Sess. 13.---Trid. Sess. 21. C. 1, 2. + Consult. Cassandri. Art. 23. Concil. Trid. ibid. Can. 1. R. 67. These are the just and weighty causes for their over-ruling the plain precept of our Saviour, Matt. xxvi. 27, Drink ye all of this; and yet whosoever shall say they are not just and sufficient reasons, is accursed.§ 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! Concil. Trid. ibid. Can. 2. R. 68, 69, 70. 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. Heb. vii. 27, He needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to offer up sacrifice, &c. for this he did once, when he offered up himself.' 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 sacrificè daily repeated, and a sacrifice without suffering, and a |