3. The sacraments of' the New 8ucoeed those o; the Old Teotament as baptism in the place of' circumcision, and the eucharist instead the passover. But they cannot show any sacraments under the old law to which their sacraments of continuation, penance, extreme unc- tion, orders, and matrimony succeed. There are other argument8 which are direcdy against their five sacraments in particular; but these will be referFed to the places where etch sacrament is particularly discussed. �I. Tb ?r?Aor of r? s?zcr?t,,?. Roman Catholics maintain that neither the apostles �ormerly, nor the church now, hath authority* to institute sacraments; that this power is only in Christ* and that the apostles, in proclaiming the sacraments, announced barely what Christ had previously instituted. But, then, they refuse to be guided in this by the express words of Scripture, and resort to tradition, which they call the unwritten word of (]ed. And as a specimen of' their reasoning we will quoto the ex- press arguments by which they attempt to prove that the sacraments were instituted by Christ. They affirm strongly that Christ did insti- tote them, but they endearour to prove this without giving the words of institution from the written word. � Liebermann, one of their modern divines,* in attempting to prove that Christ instituted the sacraments, quot?s for authority the Council ot ? Trent :t "If any one shall say that the sacraments ot' the new law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ... let him be ac* cursed." And this assumption of. the council, though no Scripture is quoted, is supported by the following arguments: 1. Scripture. For this is openly professed by the apostle when writing to the Corinthi- ans, Eplst. i, ver. 4. He says: "Let a man so esteem us as ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the m?teries of (]ed." 2. Tr?.?r?. For it was the constant pevsusaion of the church that all the sacraments were (trad/ta) delivered by tradition from Christ, and that nothing re- specting their number or anbstance could be changed. 3. R?a.vo?; which, when once it understands the nature and definition of a sacra- ment, acknowledges that no sacratnent is ordained without divine appointment. From the foregoiug it is plain that tradition, not the written word, constitutes the ?n? ourAo?ty on which Romanism found the ?st/tution .of their sacraments. And therefore, alter all, they support their peculiar sacraments not by Scripture, but by tradition. [k, ns, Bailly, Collet, the Roman catechism, as well as Liebermann and their greatest divines, support the institution of their sacraments by the same process of reasoning. Nevertheless there are some of their the- ologians, as Hugo and Peter Lombard, who deny that all their sacra- meats were institmed by Christ. The following is their principal argument to support their position: "Baptism and the eucharist were instituted without express Scripture warrant, for at the time of their institution the l?ew Testament was not w,ltten." To this we reply, 1. The traditions of our Saylout to a?d apostles, concerning these two sacraments, were ai?erward written expressly set down in Scripture. But the Roman Catholic tradi- tions, not being committed to writing, are justly suspected. 2. The Olnstitutiouew, c. 8, IkAu?torehcmm.,tom. iv, ptmi, p. ?S?. t Se?.v?i, mm. 1. 1
�
