« PoprzedniaDalej »
the whole Greek Church, and the Latin up to the thirteenth century; and having cut off in particular, Chrysostom and Ambrose by the seventh canon, proceed to do more execution with the ninth. Hear Jerome on Matt. xvi. 19. “ Istum locum episcopi et presbyteri non intelligentes, aliquid sibi de Pharisæorum assumunt supercilio: ut vel damnent innocentes, vel solvere se noxios arbitrentur : cum apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed reorum vita quæratur. Legimus in Levitico de leprosis : ubi jubentur, ut ostendant se sacerdotibus : et si lepram habuerint, tunc a sacerdote immundi fiant; non quo sacerdotes leprosos faciant et immundos, sed quo habeant notitiam leprosi, et non leprosi : et possint discernere qui mundus quive immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit ; sic et hic alligat, vel solvit episcopus et presbyter : non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxii, sed pro officio suo, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, qui solvendus.”
Hear Clemens Alexandrinus, Pædag. lib. i. c. 8. Edit. Lugd. 1616, p. 86, speaking of our Lord : “Alà toūto póvoc oúroç oiós τε αφιέναι τα πλημμελήμματα υπό του πατρός τών όλων, ο ταχθείς παιδαγωγός ημών, μόνος και της υπακοής διακρίνει την παρακοήν dvvapevoç." Ambrose, De Spir. Sanct. lib. iii. c. 18. Venet. 1781. ii. 479. “ Ecce quia per Spiritum Sanctum peccata donantur. Homines autem in remissionem peccatorum ministerium suum exhibent, non jus alicujus potestatise xercent.” Cyprian, De lapsis. Edit. Wirceb. i. p. 334. “Nemo se fallat, nemo se decipiat. Solus Dominus misereri potest. Veniam peccatis, quæ in ipsum commissa sunt, solus potest ille largiri, qui peccata nostra portavit, qui pro nobis doluit, quem Deus tradidit pro peccatis nostris. Homo Deo esse non potest major ; nec remittere aut donare indulgentia sua servus potest, quod in Dominum delicto graviore commissum est.” Optatus, book v. Edit. Wirceb. tom. i. 86–93. “ Cum ergo videatis, omnes, qui baptizant, operarios esse non dominos, et sacramenta per se esse sancta, non per homines, quid est quod vobis tantum vindicatis ?” “Non enim potest id munus ab homine dari quod divinum est.” “Videte Deum esse datorem: videte Deum unumquemque mundare. Sordes enim et maculas mentis lavare non potest, nisi Deus, qui ejusdem fabricator est mentis.” “Nolite vobis majestatis dominium vindicare.” Christi vox est invitantis, Venite, benedicti patris mei : veniunt gentes ad gratiam. Exhibet ille, qui invitare dignatus est : ministerium exercet turba famulorum.”
Page 290.—(Communion in One Kind.) The Council has done well to keep out of sight the real question ; which is not whether the people are bound to receive in both kinds, for that rests with the clergy, and the people can receive no more than the clergy are willing to give. But the question is, whether the priests are or are not bound to administer in both kinds. On this the council says nothing ; and wisely, because as the Church of Rome grounds the commission of priesthood upon the words, “Do this in remembrance of me," it is clear that where the cup is not administered, that commission is violated. For it was in reference to the cup, as well as to the bread, that our Lord spoke these words. Do this--do what? Do as I have done; offer bread and wine to God, consecrating them by prayer and thanksgiving, and then distribute them to the faithful who are present, that they may be partakers in my body and my blood. The Catholic writers condemned by the anathemas of the first and second canons, will be found in the Appendix. There being no dispute between the Churches of England and Rome in the matter of infant communion, considered in the fourth chapter, and fourth canon ; there is no need here to enter into a consideration of it.
Page 298.-(Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.) The service of the Holy Eucharist being two-fold, a sacrifice and a sacrament, care must be taken, lest in explaining the nature of it, or opposing errors concerning it, we so magnify one portion as to put the other out of sight ; “lest of two parts we have but one.” Our quarrel with the Church of Rome in this matter, is not that she has termed this holy rite a sacrifice, but that, in defining the nature of that sacrifice, she has countenanced errors of the most fearful kind. I say countenanced, rather than inculcated; because, notwithstanding all that has been said upon the subject, the definitions of the Council of Trent will, upon examination, be found to be so vague, so inconsistent, so self-contradictory, as to afford latitude for almost any explanation ; and in point of practice, the most different opinions upon the point have been broached and openly maintained by different individuals in the Roman communion.
Thus, while Harding the Jesuit, contends that “ Christ was twice immolated,” has twice shed his blood, once in the Encharist, and once on the cross; and that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a reiteration of that upon the cross : while Le Quien maintains that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a real sacrifice, and a continuation of that upon the cross. (Tom. ii. p. 274, cited by Courayer in his defence, ii. 146.) Cardinal Perron, du S. Sacr. de l'Eucharistie, Paris, 1622, p. 348, declares that the Christian sacrifice is a figure or pattern (figure ou exemplaire) of that upon the cross : Cassander, that Christ is there offered by mystical representation and commemoration ; “idem illud corpus Christi ex ipsius mandato, quotidie offerunt per mysticam repræsentationem et commemorationem sacrificii semel peracti . . . Sacrificii Christi in imagine repræsentatio, quo non efficitur nova propitiatio et remissio peccatorum, sed ea quæ semel sufficienter in cruce facta est, nobis quoque efficax esse postulatur:” (Op. p. 998, Paris, 1616, cited by Courayer, defence of his dissertation, ii. p. 177). and Cardinal Richelieu, that a mystical and figurative death is sufficient to establish the essence of a true sacrifice.
That these and many more varieties of opinion may all find shelter and excuse in the Tridentine decrees, will be plain to all who consider that the Fathers in that council declare Christ's presence there to be not natural, but only sacramental ; yet at the same time substantial, but so that it is also supersubstantial ; that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is only representative of that
upon the cross; and yet that at the same time it is of itself propitiatory, for that the same Christ is contained and offered up in it, and that the difference between the two is only in the manner of the offering : but that notwithstanding it is only applicative of the saving virtue of the others. The decision which we have seen above, that that which is upon the altar or in the priest’s hands, or carried on their shoulders, is the God who is to be worshipped with Latria, might seem conclusive evidence that the sacrificing of our Lord in the Eucharist was intended to be real and actual, were it not that in the fourth chapter and sixth canon of this Session, they maintain with anathema the orthodoxy of their Eucharistic service, which they call the canon of the mass, than which nothing can be more directly opposed to such blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. For the prayer of oblation in that canon, is in effect the same as that which is to be found in all the ancient liturgies, and is simply an oblation of the elements of bread and wine.
“ Oblation. Wherefore, O Lord, we Thy servants, and also Thy holy people, having in remembrance (not repeating it, or doing it over again like Harding and Bossuet,) both the blessed Passion of the same, Thy Son, Christ our Lord, as also his resurrection from the dead, and likewise his triumphant ascension into the heavens, offer unto thy glorious majesty of Thine own gifts and presents, a pure Host, an holy Host, an immaculate Host, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of everlasting salvation.” And lest any should think that the terms "pure Host,” and “immaculate Host,” are more than could be applied to the simple elements, they will find in the continuance of the prayer, the selfsame terms applied to the offering of Melchisedech : and I suppose not even Harding himself, nor Le Quien, ever imagined that transubstantiation had taken place then, or that Melchisedech actually sacrificed our Lord. In the Oriental liturgies the same thing is to be observed : I mean that the highest imaginable terms are used to that which Irenæus calls the new oblation of the New Testament, the offering of the creatures of bread and wine, as a thanksgiving memorial of the death and passion of the Lamb of God. In the liturgy of St. James it is styled “ the tremendous unbloody sacrifice;" in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, “ this reasonable and unbloody sacrifice.” And that in the Oriental liturgies these high terms are applied to the elements previously to their sacramental conversion, is plain from this, namely, that it is not till after the act of oblation with these expressions, that the prayer of consecration or sacramental conversion follows, for the descent of the Holy Spirit, that he may make the gifts the body and blood of Christ for the blessing of the partakers; and that a repetition of the offering is not to be found. So utterly are the novel dogmas of Rome without shadow of countenance from their own and other ancient liturgies, into the imagination of the compilers of which the idea of actually sacrificing our Lord Himself never seems to have entered. Nor do I think that a man can need higher and more convincing evidence against the doctrines of transubstantiation, as taught by the Council of Trent, and that of the sacrifice of the mass, as understood by Harding and Le Quien to be taught by the same, than is afforded by these liturgies.
Page 299, CHAPTER 1.-(Offered to God the Father, His body
and His blood, under the species of bread and wine.)
If this be so, it is conclusive evidence against the Roman fiction (not uncountenanced by our own liturgy, but destitute of all countenance whatever from any other,) that the conversion of the elements, be it substantial, or be it sacramental, is effected by the words, “This is my body:" for the act of oblation was prior to the utterance of these words, which were used by our Lord at the distribution of that which had been already offered and consecrated : the order being, He took bread, blessed, gave thanks, brake, distributed, and said, this is my body. But if they prefer abiding by the Hoc est corpus change, then it is clear that our Lord merely offered bread and wine in prefiguration of