]gS ?il,-a? m ems?.,L. [Boo? 11 r. but it bto be mmght in the divine i?-?tution, and the proper ramfro and end of the ncrtments themselvse. Besides, though we do not deny, nay, we believe, that the internal grace of' Christ, which can be called, in a sober sense, a apirimal mark or character impressed on the soul, my be con?erred by the Spirit of' God, in administering ncrumems, yet we believe that this apirittml energy' does not accompany one ncrament to the exclusion o; the other. Bellarmine e supports the eight following pmposiLious in treating on ?r: 1. That it is a certain spiritual mark impremind on the soul in some sacraments. 2. It is not a relation, but an absolute quality. 3. It hath three offices, namely, it fits us for divine worship, it con= forum us to Christ, and distinguishea us from others. 4. It exists in the soul only as in its subject. 5. It is indelible. �t is impressed only in three sacraments. 7. The sacraments of the old law did not impress a character. 8. No character was created in Christ. �et us now see how Roman Catholics prove their doctrine character. It is to be ranged among their anicles of faith, and no proof short of' direct, uneq?vocnl .Scripture authority ? say it is in.?/mmr? in Scripture, con? by the fathom, and at !enl?t? ?n?J nnd e?m?r? by the councils,? and ought to be admitted 88 doAmM , or article of' faith. But we will survey their proofs. (1 .) ,?c?pt?r? .proofs. The following texts are quoted to support the doctrine of the indelible character: "Now he which establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also seale? us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts," 2 Got. i, 2 "In whom also, after that you believed, ye were sealed with the Holy' Spirit of promise," Eph. i, 13, ?c. Some quote the name texts to prove that, in baptism and confirum- tion, this character is impressed: for orders their divines generally* find not even an insinuation to prove their dogma. (2.) 7'r?/on. The doctrine which was in.y?ntm?d in Scripture is said to be e?n? by tradition, a8 being prSnm?y of more authority than Scripture itself. So Liebermnnn says,? alter declaring that Scrip- ture was not wanting which could (commo(?) conven?e?Jy be employed to provo the poipt, accedente imprimis trad?tionis auctoritate, riry of tr?j?r?g of a? aa?'?ein?'. And after quoting Eph. i, 13; iv, 30, and 2 Car. i, 21, he says: Verum gravissimum pondus, ut ? mus, in ecclesim traditione eat: Bu? zb 8rear. rag we?A?, a,v we Aave so/ds ?g ks t/? gradit/mJ of tJ? e, Am'?. Much might be said here to show that the authority from the ancient f.ather? for the popish indelible character is se slight as that which can be derived from Scripture.? The senti- ment of Liehermann is that of the church, though st d?erent one is sometimes divines. in (o?3.r) Tb? some The testimony o� these has been given already quotations from the decisions of Trent and Florence. To Re* manisM their decision must pass for infallible; to Protestants it will palm f.or nothing. �Xd?). it, de heram., c. 19. See Gerhtn], de her., p. ?9. t Collet, de Sacram., c. 5, art. 2. Iilud dogmina tdm:tti debet, qued et in ris ilminu?um, et confirmsturn �traditione, tandem dermature eat ab ecclemia. ?Tom. iv, !m?t i, p. S81. ? Sea tbir quotmmms in Odlet, Baiily, Liebermnn, 1
�
