« PoprzedniaDalej »
XI. That they are accursed who shall deny that sacramental confession to the priests of every sin was ordained by Christ, and is by divine authority necessary for forgiveness.— Trent, p. 281.
XII. That they are accursed who shall affirm that the sacramental absolution of the priest is a ministerial and not a judicial act.— Trent, p. 283.
XIII. That they are accursed who shall say that the anointing of the sick does not confer grace.-Trent, p. 288.
XIV. That they are accursed who shall say that by the command of God all and each of Christ's faithful people ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist. -Trent, p. 296.
XV. That they are accursed who shall say that the masses in which the priest alone receives sacramental communion, are unlawful.-Trent, p. 311.
XVI. That they are accursed who shall say that the Church has not power to dispense with the Levitical degrees of consanguinity as impediments to marriage.-Trent, p. 327.
XVII. That they are accursed who shall deny that marriage, solemnized but not consummated, is dissolved by the religious profession of one of the parties.--Trent, p. 328.
XVIII. That they are accursed who shall say, that the clergy may contract marriages.—Lateran i. p. 125. Lateran ü. p. 126, 127. Trent, p. 329.
XIX. That they are accursed who shall deny that the saints departed are to be invoked.— Trent, p. 335. Creed of Pius IV. p. xlviii.
XX. That they are accursed who shall deny the utility of indulgences. — Trent, p. 339. Creed of Pius IV. p. xlviii.
The advocates of the Church of Rome are challenged to produce one single Council, General or Provincial, or one single ecclesiastical writer, layman or clerk, in the first seven centuries, who has enforced an assent to any one of these propositions on pain of anathema, or taught an assent to any one of them to be essential to salvation, or require an assent to any one of them as a term of communion.
It is a simple invitation, and may be as simply answered. There needs no lengthened explanation. The plain extract from any Council, or any ecclesiastical writer, with a proper reference, will be sufficient. And let them not attempt to say that the sentiments, affirmative or negative, which are condemned in these propositions, had not been broached in the first seven centuries, and that therefore it is unfair to ask for a condemnation of them during that period. A reference to pages 355—358, 386– 388, 406–410, 417–445, of this work will show the falsehood of such a plea.
I have not made this challenge in ignorance of the learning which the Roman writers have brought to bear upon the subject; but, on the contrary, through confidence in that learning : being sure that, if the records of the Church could furnish any such authorities, they would not have escaped the researches of Goter, nor have been omitted from his
Nubes Testium; nor those of Bayly, nor have been omitted from his “ End to Controversy ;" nor those of Kirke and Berington, but would have found a place in their “ Faith of the Catholics.” But I know also that none of these writers have produced, or pretended to produce any authority of the kind. The utmost they have attempted is to show that in the course of centuries some individuals are to be found who have maintained some one or other of the opinions, or pursued some one or other of the practices which the Church of England has rejected. For instance, that some persons entertained a belief in purgatory, that some called confirmation a sacrament, that some spoke highly of the authority of the Roman pontiff, that some invoked saints. But that any of these persons thought an assent to their opinions or practices to be necessary to salvation, or that such opinions and practices were entertained by the Church at large, or that they were made terms of communion, they have not advanced a syllable to prove; and therefore all their laboured extracts are irrelevant to this, the main point of the controversy. If the Church of England had made a denial of these points a term of communion, as some of her hasty champions have desired, the passages cited by the Roman writers would have availed to convict her of abridging Christian liberty, and violating Christian charity. But as she has not done so, those passages bring as little reproof to her as they do
vindication to the Church of Rome, who teaches an assent to them to be necessary to salvation, and enforces it as a term of communion.
The answer which they shall make to this challenge will serve to show whether I am or am not warranted in viewing the Roman Christians in the light in which, throughout this work, I have uniformly regarded them, namely, that of schismatics. Which term I conceive to be justly applicable in a general sense to the whole body of them, and in a particular sense also to that portion of their body which is to be found in the British dioceses. It is applicable in a general sense to their whole body, on the ground of these simple ecclesiastical truths, to which all Catholics will agree; namely, Ist, that any body of . Christians which interrupts intercourse with the rest of the faithful, and violates Christian unity, by propounding unwarrantable terms of communion, is itself schismatical, and in seeking to cut off others, does nothing else but cut itself off from Catholic fellowship. 2. That those terms of communion are unwarrantable which have not been required, “Semper, ubique, et ab omnibus.”
In whatever instances they can succeed in showing that the sentiments condemned in the foregoing propositions, when broached during the first seven centuries, as was the case with most of them, were condemned by the Catholic Church, in those instances they will vindicate their body from the charge
of schism. In whatever instances they fail of showing this, they fail likewise in their vindication, and the charge will stand unrefuted and unshaken.
But I said that the term schismatical is further applicable in a particular sense to that portion of the Roman Christians which is to be found in the British dioceses. I rest this charge upon the sixth canon of the first Nicene, page 27, the sixth of the first of Constantinople, page 31, and the twenty-second of Antioch, page 39, confirmed by that of Chalcedon; to which, if need be, a multitude of other references might be added, both to the ante-Nicene code, and to the later provincial ones. The portion of the Roman Christians which is to be found in the British dioceses, has done that which was expressly forbidden by the Council of Constantinople, and “ while pretending to confess the sound faith, have separated themselves, and made congregations contrary to our canonical bishops.” Such persons are declared by the council to be heretics. I have thought it sufficient to use the milder term. The persons who exercise the Episcopal functions among them, have done that which is expressly forbidden by the Council of Antioch, confirmed by that of Chalcedon; they have “gone into cities and districts not pertaining to them, and have ordained or appointed presbyters and deacons to places subject to other Bishops, without their consent.” Such persons the Council orders to be punished, and declares such ordinations to be invalid. They can only justify themselves in this