domination to be abandoned by the Church of Rome, even in the face of the fourteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Accordingly the Council of Trent1 decreed that it was not expedient that the mass should be everywhere celebrated in the vernacular tongue.' The mode of defending this practice usually employed by Romanist writers appears to be of the following nature: 1. The canon of the mass is peculiarly sacred and perfect, and translations would naturally vary, and risk imperfections which might vitiate the whole. 2. Priests could only officiate in their own country if accustomed to the vernacular only. 3. The mass is a sacrifice, a thing done, which the worshipper is to contemplate and adore with all the powers of his heart. The words used do not, therefore, concern him. 4. In fact, the priest utters the canon of the mass in a low voice to God, and not to the people. Hence the language used is, to them, a matter of no consequence. It is, however, customary now in England, and probably in other countries of similar enlightenment, to place in the hands of the people vernacular books of devotion, explaining the nature of the services, and containing translations of some portions of them, and meditations and prayers in harmony with other parts.

It will be scarcely needful to point out that the Scriptural mode of dealing with the subject of this Article may be thus classified:

I. Direct Scripture examples.

II. The nature of prayer, and its true requisites.

III Direct Scripture precepts.

'Session XXII. chap. viii.

ARTICLE XXV.

ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: But they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith.

mur, et in his duntaxat qui digne percipiunt salutarem. habent effectum: Qui vero indigne percipiunt, damnationem (ut inquit Paulus) sibi ipsis acquirunt.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE XXV.

The following equivalents may be noted: 'Badges or tokens,' Latin, nota; 'effectual signs,' Latin, efficacia signa; 'penance,' Latin, pœnitentia; 'nature,' Latin, rationem, as in Article IX. &c. Quicken,' Latin, excitat; not applied, therefore, to the first quickening or bringing to life. Duly,' Latin, rite, not recte:—that is in due manner and order, as opposed to gazing upon them, &c. In such only,' Latin, in his duntaxat.

The word Sacrament not being found in the Scripture, and being of Latin origin, owes its theological meaning to ecclesiastical writers. It is disputed whether this use arose from sacramentum in its sense of a military oath, or of a thing sacred. The word was very loosely used by early Christian writers, instances of which may be seen in Bingham.1

There is a very clear explanation of this absence of precision in the use of the word in the Homily on Common Prayer and the sacraments: 'In a general acceptation the name of a sacrament may be attributed to anything whereby a holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments; but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like; not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the same signification that the two forenamed sacraments are.' The Homily proceeds to refer to passages in St. Augustine 1 Antiq. xii. i. 4.

Р

speaking expressly of the sacraments of the Gospel as only two in number. The Homily moderately says of other things that no man ought to take them for sacraments, in such signification and meaning as the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are.' The danger of confusing ideas in the popular mind by using the same name for religious ceremonies of different origin and degrees of obligation is obvious.

For this reason our Church has avoided giving the name of sacrament to any ordinance excepting the two instituted by Christ. The Homily has noticed the absence of precision in the early use of the word. It is in the Catechism that our Church gives the definition of the word sacrament.

'Q. How many sacraments has Christ ordained in His Church?

'A. Two only as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of our Lord.

'Q. What meanest thou by this word sacrament?

'A. I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.'

According to these statements there are three essential constituents of a sacrament, which are these :—

1. It has an outward sign.

2. It has an inward grace of which it is the pledge and

means.

3. It was ordained by Christ.

The Article gives no definition, but its statements are in perfect harmony with that obtained from the Catechism, and presuppose the above three essential parts of a sacrament.

The effect of the above definition is not only positive, but also negative and exclusive; for by necessary consequence it denies the name of sacrament to every rite excepting the two. This is obviously the safer course, as tending to perspicuity, and excluding the confusion of ideas which follows on the confusion of terms.

The corresponding Article of 1552 (the Twenty-sixth) differed considerably from the present form. It ran thus: 'Our

Lord Jesus Christ hath knit together a company of new people with sacraments, most few in number, most easy to be kept, most excellent in signification, as is Baptism and the Lord's Supper, The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect and operation, and yet not that of the work wrought, as some men speak, which word, as it is strange, and unknown to Holy Scripture, so it engendereth no godly, but a very superstitious sense. But they that receive the sacraments unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.' To this is appended what is now the first clause of the Article, and which is, therefore, not transcribed here.

There are sufficient verbal coincidences between this Article and the Thirteenth of the Augsburgh Confession, to prove that the latter formula was before the compilers of our Articles, but not sufficient to justify an assertion of the one being to any great extent taken from the other. For instance, we have the expressions notæ professionis-signa et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos-proposita ad excitandum et confirmandum fidem-which are common, with slight differences, to both documents.

THE FIVE REJECTED ROMISH SACRAMENTS.

That the word sacrament was loosely used in the early ages has been seen. It is said that Peter Lombard in the twelfth century was the first who precisely enumerated the mystic number of seven sacraments. His Book of Sentences was a text-book in theology until the Reformation, and his enumeration became regarded as Catholic.1

It is a material point for consideration whether in our difference with the Church of Rome on this subject we are contending about words or facts and doctrines. The following passage will illustrate this.2

1 See Hagenbach, History of Doctrines;' Clark's edit., § 189. Also Hey on this Article.

2Council of Trent,' Session vii. Canon i.