« הקודםהמשך »
resist their own inclination to act otherwise in the midst of temptation--was ever thought of until many ages afterwards, Our Saxon minister, Dunstane, who turned Monk, crowned Edmund, and was afterwards made a saint of–he, at the council of Calne (Wilts), about the year 997, publicly harangued the nobles, monks, and priests against the marriage of the clergy; but so ineffectually, that he (as he had done upon other occasions) found it necessary to work a miracle* to enforce his doctrine. The floor fell in with all his opponents, he having first taken care to stand upon a plank which he had not previously ordered to be loosened. But it was reseryed to the notorious Hildebrand, the Monk of Clugny, after he became Pope, under the title of Gregory VII., to insist on this unscriptural tenet in the latter end of the eleventh century; but which decree was not attended to by the clergy of England, until about a century afterwards. This ambitious tyrant, (now a Saint !) who openly assumed a temporal power over all princes, had his own reasons for condemning marriage in his clergy rather than crimes forbidden by Christ. He was the director of Mathilda, Countess of Tuscany, who, in consequence, separated from her husband ; and, as a reward for his spiritual instruction, at her death bequeathed to him her immense possessionst. After the prohibition of marriage, the clergy became one living mass of impurity; giving a loose to their depravity with the most unblushing impudence.' Æneas Sylvius afterwards Pope Pius II. (after the holy council of Constance, which burned John Huss, and Jerome, of Prague), shamelessly avowed the scandal of his Church, by stating that the sin of fornication is
was an old fault; that he was no better than David or Solomon, and that he knew not one who was free from it." We are not about to write a treatise on the
* See Turner's Hist. of the Anglo-Saxons.
+ Cardinal Benno, who lived in this Popedom, was at enmity with Gregory, and therefore what he says of him is liable to distrust. (What he says of the seven preceding Pontiffs is not calculated to raise Popish infallibility very highly among civilized Papists.) See Mosheim, and the numerous Roman Catholic writers therein quoted upon this subject.
crimes of Popes; they are handed down to us by the Popish writers themselves. We have merely shown that men who, as Pope Pius says (p. 102), “by their office and functions ought to be wholly devoted” to a more worthy service, by affecting celibacy, never were so, and never can be. In our own days, however “ distracting” a married life might be to a Roman Catholic Priest, we should think, with all deference, that it could scarcely exceed the tumult of public meetings, &c. &c., in which we find them constantly engaged ? Although wives might pout, yet do not politicians declaim; and, whether laical or clerical, enjoin perseverance in attaining a political object? And though infants might cry, still we can scarcely think it would more distract the thoughts of pious priests, than the howling of incendiaries over the cabins of heretics they have destroyed ? *
The reasons assigned in the two last paragraphs of this chapter we think very lame indeed. The innumerable ceremonies of the Romish Church are employed, it is said, “ to stir up devotion,”—and certainly a very bustling stir they make. Is crying to a block of wood or marble, thumping the breast, kissing the hem of a priest's robe, dressing and undressing of priests at the altar, sprinkling, crossing, genuflexions, &c. &c. &c., are all these, and a hundred other ceremonies necessary to “ decency,” “ God's honour,” or the “ salvation of souls?” Rather say, the theatrical repre
* Although we have not said, nor intend to say, that every Romish priest is not a perfect Joseph, it must not be inferred that we could not prove to the contrarymaugre infallibility!-Gandolphy, however, who was a Popish priest, speaks thus of himself and brethren, in a holy composition of Sermons (Vol. iv. p. 112), in all humility: the Romish priest, he says, “ Walks among men a miracle of gracemis the rock that pours forth water to the fainting—the manna that yields bread to the hungry.". The humble pastor thus proceeds :-“ My brethren, to the reflecting mind this ministry must, surely, present something divinely sacred, and appears more worthy the nature of angels than of men ? It exalts them above all for which human life has designed them—makes them the agents of God, the vicegerents of Jesus Christ, and the Saviours of MEN In this point of view it ranks them even ABOVE the ANGELIC SPIRITS, and clothes them with the divine character of the MESSIAH HIMSELF!!!”. This holy composition, consisting of four volumes, was declared by the late Pope Pius VII., to be worthy of being “cased in cedar and gold.” But Gandolphy's holiness at length fell off, since a few years ago he was publicly censured by his anathematizing Mother in Spanish Place Chapel.
·sentation of a high mass is calculated to appeal to the external senses of Papists, who are on such occasions permitted to use them until the consecration of the host :-but then the person who serves at the mass is ordered to ring a bell as loudly as he can : this is the signal for ultra devotion,—the “ faithful” then yield up their sober faculties to fanaticism --then is Reason completely dethroned, and, instead of a fervent heart offered up to God with “ a zeal according to knowledge,” (Rom. x. ii.), the very essence of Christianity is lost in the blandishments of Popish superstition !-Is not this true to the very letter?-Nay, as the bell is rung more loudly, so to the more ardent partaker in these “ mysteries,” even respiration appears to become difficult and painful: those who have ever witnessed these ceremonies can confirm our testimony *. The last paragraph of this chapter tells us, that in her extravagant exhibitions, Popery follows ૮૮
the example of Christ, who FREQUENTLY used THE LIKE CEREMONIES”! We are referred to Mark and John to find these proofs ; let our readers contrast them :
Mark vii. 33, 34. “ And he took him [one who was deaf and dumb] aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit and touched his tongue : and, looking up to heaven, he sighed and saith unto him, ' Ephphatha,' that is, Be opened.”
John ix. 6,7. “ When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay; and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam (which is, by interpretation, Sent). He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.”
John xx. 22. “And when he had said this he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.”
* 'The Greeks and Latins seem to have agreed, in the darker ages, that the essence and life of Religion consisted in image-worship: in honouring dead saints, in collecting relics, in enriching the Church,' and other such exertions of piety.” Mosheim, v. ii. p. 417.-Popery may truly boast that she has not changed in these respects.
Such were the “ ceremonies” of Christ-those of Popery are to be seen every day. Our Saviour showed that his spittle the
very dust that he mingled with it-possessed a miraculous power: let us see similar effects proceed from the ceremonies of Popery, and we will believe in her (at present) arrogant and impious assertions.
Such are Popish proofs and Protestant refutation of there having been seven sacraments ordained by our Lord. They were never received by our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, nor was that number decided upon until so agreed by the council of Trent, only between two and three hundred years ago. Bishop Hall tells us that such a number had never been even heard of until Hugo de Victoire contended for it in the twelfth century.*
CHAP. IV.-OF THE REAL PRESENCE AND TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
What is the doctrine of the Catholic Church in relation to this article ?
We believe and profess, that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that there is a conversion (or change) of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood; which conversion (or change) the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.
What proofs have you for this
Ist. Matt. xxvi. 26. “ As they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF Sins.”—Mark xiv. 22, 24. “Take, eat; This is my body—This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many.” Luke xxii, 19. “ This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me-This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you.” i Cor. xi. 24, 25. “Take, eat; This is my body which is broken for you—This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” Which words of Christ, repeated in so many places, cannot be verified, without offering violence to the text, any
* See also Stillingfleet, v. vi.
other way than by a real change of the bread and wine into his body and blood.
2dly, 1 Cor. X. 16. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" Which interrogation of the Apostle is certainly equivalent to an affirmation; and evidently declares, that in the blessed Sacrament we really receive the body and blood of Christ.
3dly, 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29. “ Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD-He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE BODY OF OUR LORD.” Now, how should a person be "guilty of the body and blood of our Lord,” by receiving unworthily; if what he received were only bread and wine, and not “ the body and blood of our Lord ?" Or where should be the crime of “not discerning the body of our Lord,” if the “ body of our Lord" were not there?
4thly, John vi. 51, &c. “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, strove amongst themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. FOR MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, AND MY BLOOD IS
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven, not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
Hence the Protestants, in their catechism in the Common PrayerBook, are forced to acknowledge, “ that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Now, how that can be verily and indeed taken and received, which is not verily and indeed there, is a greater mystery than tránsubstantiation,
The literal sense is hard to flesh and blood;
Dryden's Hind and Panther. Are we not commanded, Luke xxii. 19, to receive the Sacrament in remembrance of Christ ?
Yes, we are: and St. Paul. 1 Cor. xi. 26, lets us know what it is that is to be the object of our remembrance when we receive, when he tells us “ Yedo show (or show forth) the Lord's death till he come.” But this remembrance is no ways opposite to the real presence of Christ's body and blood: on the contrary, what better remembrance