believer received it as a matter of course; we have likewise seen that it conferred the Holy Ghost; and from various incidental observations in the writings of Tertullian, we have discovered, that the meaning of " receiving the Holy Ghost" in his day, was receiving the principle of sanctification, or, in other words, receiving sanctifying and vivifying grace. We are, therefore, entitled to ask the question-What did this ceremony want of being in the most strict sense a sacramental rite? It was visible and significative of benediction and strength. It was operative and productive of its effect, irrespective of the positive acts of the receiver. It was proclaimed by the Apostles, and no doubt instituted by Almighty power. It was so far perpetual. It conferred sanctifying grace. It consequently wanted nothing to realize the definition commonly given of a sacrament of the new law; scil., "an external, visible ceremony, instituted by Christ, signifying grace and conferring it—perpetual, and producing its effect by virtue of its due performance." The sacrament of confirmation, as administered at the present day, is the imposition of hands of the Churches of Rome and Africa, in the third century. The resemblance is not in the general features of both ceremonies: but if we look into the matter, we shall find them alike in the minutest details. Thus: 1st. Confirmation is now conferred by a bishop only: we are told, by the writers of the third century, that " by the imposition of the bishop's hands, the Holy Ghost is given to every believer."1 2nd. In the ceremony of confirmation there is an imposition of hands, invoking the Holy Spirit to come, just as in the age when Tertullian said, "The hand is imposed, summoning by a benediction and inviting the Holy Ghost." 2 3rd. The form of words used in the administration of confirmation is, "I sign thee with the sign of the cross and confirm thee with the chrism of salva 1 See previous quotation. 2 Ibid. tion, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Tertullian joins the signing of the flesh with the ceremony of the imposition of hands, when he says, "The flesh is signed, that the soul may be fortified; the flesh by the imposition of hands is overshadowed, that the soul may be enlightened by the Spirit." 1 4th. The signing in confirmation is, anointing the forehead with a chrism composed of oil of olives and balsam, and blessed by the bishop. In the Church of the third century, Tertullian associated the anointing of the flesh with its being signed and overshadowed by the imposition of hands. "The flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed, that the soul may be fortified; the flesh by the imposition of hands is overshadowed, that the soul may be enlightened by the Spirit;" while the council of Carthage, held under St. Cyprian in the year 255, not only reiterates the sentiments of Tertullian, but gives unmistakable evidence of the custom of solemnly blessing oil at the time that it was held. Here are its words: "It is likewise necessary that he who has been baptized be anointed, that having received the chrism, that is the unction, he may be the anointed of God and have in him the grace of Christ. Now, it is a ceremony of thanksgiving [eucharistia] by which the baptized are anointed with oil sanctified on the altar." 3 2 There can be no reasonable doubt that the "imposition of hands" of the Churches of Rome and Africa, in the third century, was identical in all its essential circumstances with the sacrament of confirmation as now administered in the Church; it was likewise identical with a rite administered by the Apostles. It was always administered to every Christian believer, in the apostolic times, in the third century, at the present day. Call it what you will" confirmation" or "imposition of hands” — it 1 See previous quotation. 2 Ibid. * Reliquiæ Sacræ, No. 11, p. 1040, tom. iii. Curs. Compl. Patrol.: Paris, 1844. makes no difference. But one thing is perfectly clear, that, if all these facts be put together and considered impartially, an unprejudiced mind must come to the conclusion that the "rite" by which the Holy Ghost has been given to the faithful from the time of the Redeemer to the present day, is and always has been a sacrament. Nor can it be objected that Tertullian, on this subject, exhibits to us the faith and practice of a portion of the Church only; for in his book on "Prescriptions," he tells us that the "doctrine" of all the particular orthodox Churches of his time coincided in all respects with the teaching of the Apostles." Forthwith then," he says, "the Apostles (whom this appellation is understood to designate the sent') having assumed by lot Matthias as the twelfth in the place of Judas, by the authority of prophecy, which is in the Psalms of David, having obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost unto miracles and language, having proclaimed faith in Jesus Christ, and having established Churches, thence going out into the world, promulgated the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations, and in due course founded churches in every city; from which the other Churches in succession borrowed, and that they may be Churches, daily borrow, the branch of faith and the seed of doctrine; and by this they are reputed apostolic, as being the offshoots of apostolic Churches. Every species is to be necessarily assigned to its original. Wherefore, of so many and so great Churches, one is the first, the apostolic, from which all have come. So all are first and apostolic, whilst all by one evince (their) unity; whilst they have the communion of peace, and the appellation of brothers, and the connecting bond of hospitality, which observances are swayed by no other consideration than one tradition of the same symbol [sacramenti]." 1 If, therefore, the doctrine of these Churches was in all respects identical, as Tertullian seems to affirm, it is not too much to say, that they could not 1 Tertul. Liber de Præscrip., cap. xx. p. 32, tom. ii. Curs. Compl. Patrol. Paris, 1844. differ as to the nature and form of a rite so public, so essential, so pre-eminently apostolic as was that of the imposition of hands. §3. Eucharist.-We must travel back half a century, to take up the thread of tradition as it regards the sacrament of the Eucharist, for, where testimonies, clear and significant, occur, evidences, in the form of allusions to the dogma, which put the belief of the Church regarding it in a clear light, it is worth while to retrace our steps a little in order to gather them, and place them side by side with the teachings of the old African Church of the third century. The real difficulties of the Eucharist in the Protestant view are--1st. The real presence, and 2nd. Transubstantiation. The two difficulties in reality are so far identified that one supposes the other. They lean upon each other. They depend upon each other. If one be solved the other is solved. If one be insurmountable, the other is a barrier that cannot be passed-a stumbling-block that prostrates its assailants. This is evidently the case as regards arguments from authority, whether this authority be the inspired words of sacred Scripture or the sayings of ancient historians and fathers, or others who may be said to have weight as chroniclers of the Church's belief. Authority is against both the Protestant positions, and it carries them both, and by the very assault through which it demolishes the obstacles to the real presence it is put in possession of transubstantiation as an accomplished and admitted fact. As regards the authorities which we are about to adduce, then, it must be admitted that they are taken up with affirming and repeating the dogma of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, while they rarely refer to the mode or manner in which this presence is effected. Of course, the word transubstantiation is not in their vocabulary. Christ is present in the Eucharist, they say; his body and blood are there. The same body and blood that he had on earth are there present. Not having X been there before, he came to be present, after the bread and wine had received the blessing of the consecrating priest. Then the bread and wine are not bread and wine after the consecration, but the body and blood of Christ. So far the fathers; so speak Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian. So far the fathers; and here they stop. But we go a little farther, and surely our argument is legitimate; scil., if one substance, that of bread or wine, has ceased to be present; if another substance, that of the body of the Lord, occupies its place, and assumes its form; if the change has taken place in consequence of the use of a form of words "this is my body,' "this is my blood"which signify it and operate it—it is evident that one substance has been converted into the other, which is all that Catholic doctrine means, when it designates this change by the word transubstantiation. The fathers of the second and third centuries affirm the doctrine of the real presence. St. Justin (Anno Domini 150) thus refers to the Eucharist in his first apology. He has been speaking of the meetings of Christians for religious worship. He goes on: "Then bread and the cup of water and wine are brought to him who presides over the brethren, which having taken, he pours forth praise and glory to the Father of all, through the name of his Son and of the Holy Spirit, and performs at length the Eucharist, or giving of thanks for the gifts received from him. When he has finished prayers and the Eucharist, all the people cry out, Amen. Now, amen in the Hebrew tongue is the same as, be it so. Thus when he who presides has finished the prayers and all the people have cried out, they who are called with us deacons distribute the bread and wine and water, in which thanks have been given, to each of those present to partake of them, and they [the deacons] carry them to the absent." 1 The passage thus far does not touch upon the real presence. So far from supporting this doctrine, it would appear 1 Just. Apol. I. No. 65, p. 219, tom. i. Sanctorum Patrum. Opp. Polemic. Wirceburgi, 1777. |