Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Lord grant and impart the most plenary and complete indulgence, remission, and pardon of ALL their sins, to all the faithful in Christ of both sexes, who are truly penitent and have confessed, and who have refreshed themselves with the holy communion, provided, if Romans, or inhabitants of the city, they shall have devoutly visited these churches of the city, that of the blessed Peter and Paul, of St. John Lateran, and of St. Mary Maggiore (or the greater), at least once a day for thirty days, whether successive or interrupted, natural or even ecclesiastical; but if foreigners, or in any other respect strangers, they must have devoutly visited these churches at least fif teen days: provided also, that they shall have poured forth pious prayers to God for the exaltation of the holy church, the EXTIRPATION OF HERESIES, the concord of the Catholic princes, and the salvation and tranquillity of Christendom." "Pro sanctæ Ecclesiæ exaltatione HÆRESIUM EXTIRPATIONE, Catholicorum Principum concordia, et Christiani populi salute," are the identical expressions of the Papal bull (p. 32. Paris edit. chez Adrien le Clerc, imprimeur de N. S. P. le Pape et de Mgr. l'Archevèque de Paris, 1824).

[ocr errors]

"It is curious to see how the clause for the extirpation of heresies appears in the Directions and Instructions, addressed to all the faithful in the London District, published by the R. R. the Vicars Apostolic." In the fourth condition required for gaining the Jubilee (p. 22) is the visiting of certain churches, and offering up prayers "for the exaltation of the holy Catholic church throughout the world; for bringing back all straying souls to the ways of unity and truth; for the peace and concord of Christian princes; and for the general welfare of all Christian people, both for time and eternity." Query. Did his holiness, "the Sovereign Pontiff," in his bull, dated December 25, 1825, for extending the Jubilee, soften the original language above cited, in order to accommodate himself to the genius of Englishmen? Or, was the clause for the EXTIRPATION of heresies differently translated, lest it should offend better educated members of the Romish church in the London district?

"That indulgences have been sold since the time of Leo X., for the commission of the most profligate crimes, has been proved by the unimpeachable testimony of Romish writers; and, that they have been sold, and the proceeds thereof applied in aid of rebellion against the lawful sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland, the following anecdote from the history of the sister island will sufficiently attest. From the evidence communicated before a committee of the Irish Parliament by father John Hennesey, it appears that his holiness, Pope Benedict XIII., in compliance with the request of the Romish Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland (who had conspired with others of the Romish communion, to exterminate King George II. and the royal family, and to place the Pretender on the throne), issued his bull to facilitate their pious intention, and sent them an indulgence for ten years, in order to raise a sum of money to be speedily applied to restore James III. to his right. This bull further enjoined "that every communicant, confessing and receiving upon the patron days of every respective parish, and any Sunday from the first of May to September, having repeated the Lord's Prayer five times, and once the Apostles' Creed, upon paying two-pence each time, was to have a plenary indulgence for his sins." Under this holy bull, it appears that the sum of fifteen hundred pounds sterling was ready to be remitted to the Pretender's agent in Flanders, at the time the treasonable conspiracy was detected by the vigilance of the Irish government. (See the Journals of the House of Commons of Ireland, vol. iv. part ii. Appendix, pp. xlvi, xlvii. Proceedings on 19th December, 1733, fol.) That the scandalous traffic in indulgences has been carried on in later times will be evident from the following facts:"In the year 1709, a Bristol privateer captured a vessel from

* The testimonies of Romanist writers to the sale of indulgences, may be seen in Bishop Philpott's Letters to Mr. Butler, pp. 151-153; or in Dr. Hale's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii., part ii., pp. 1019-1022; and especially in "Taxatio Papalis; being an Account of the Tax-books of the United Church and Court of Modern Rome."- (8vo. London, 1825.)

Spain on her passage for America, which had on board upwards of three millions of these bulls of indulgence, which were to be sold to the people in America, at various prices, from twenty pence for the poor, so high as eleven pounds for the rich; and Captain Dampier told Bishop Burnet, that they were so numerous that his sailors used them in careening the ship. In the year 1800, a Spanish ship from Europe was captured near the coast of South America by Admiral Harvey, then captain of the Southampton frigate. There were on board large bales of paper, valued in her books at £7500. It was a matter of surprise to him to see them rated so high, and to hear the master of the captured vessel speak of them with great admiration: he examined them, and found them all filled with large sheets of paper, printed, some in Spanish, and some in Latin, but all sealed with the seals of ecclesiastical courts in Spain or at Rome. These were indulgences or pardons for various sins mentioned in the Catholic rubric, and the price, which varied from half a dollar to seven dollars, was marked upon each. They had been bought in Spain, and were intended for sale in South America. At Tortola, some Dutch merchants bought the whole for £200, with the hope of being able to smuggle them among the Spaniards in America." (Hamilton's Tracts on some leading Errors in the church of Rome, p. 68.)

The Novelties which Disturb our Peace: Four Letters addressed to the Bishops, Clergy and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. By John Henry Hopkins, Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont. One vol., duodecimo. Philadelphia, H. Hooker, 1814. Bishop Hopkins is one of the ablest theological writers of the present day, and is preeminently distinguished for his profound acquaintance with the dogmatic history of the first centuries, and all the subjects of controversy between the Roman and the Christian churches. In the letters before us he discusses the unlawfulness of rebaptizing in the Episcopal church; the denial of the term CHURCH to other orthodox communities; the teaching of the Oxford divines in regard to the

Eucharist; condemns the recent ordination of Mr. Carey, and sustains the Protest of Drs. Smith and Anthon. On all these themes Bishop Hopkins reasons with his usual calmness, dignity and strength; and nothing recently issued from the religious press in this country is more deserving than his letters of serious and earnest attention. We have space to quote only the statement of the subject of the third letter-the doctrine of the holy Eucharist.

"For the purpose of stating the question with all reasonable clearness, I shall first mention, briefly, the principal varieties of doctrine existing amongst Christian divines with regard to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; next show which amongst them is the chosen doctrine of the new Oxford theology; thirdly, point out the objections to it, from the Standards of our mother Church, the writing of the fathers, and, above all, the Scriptures; and, fourthly, explain my meaning in saying, that it is but little less open to animadversion than

Transubstantiation itself.

"The lowest view of the holy Eucharist, (passing over the Socinians,) is that which owes its origin to Zuinglius, the celebrated Reformer of Switzerland. He taught that the consecrated Bread and Wine were merely symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, in

tended to be received in memorial of his death and sacrifice, but without any peculiar sacramental efficacy beyond the divine grace which is accorded to every act of pious devotion.

"The opposite extreme to this is the doctrine of the Romanists, so familiarly known by the name of Transubstantiation. They maintain that the Bread and Wine, by virtue of the priestly act of consecration, is converted into the natural, real and material Body and Blood of the blessed Redeemer, nothing of their for mer substance remaining, but only the outward appearance, which they style, the species. From the conversion of the substance of the elements into the substance of our Lord's Body and Blood, they significantly derive their term Transubstantiation. They further hold, that this is now the living Body of the Savour, which is inseparable from his Soul and his Divinity, and hence the act of adoration is, of course, due to it. In the service of the Roman

Mass, therefore, as the language is Latin, a lit

tle bell is rung to give the people notice that the consecration is complete; and then the priest lifts up the bread, and all bow down to it in worship, as to the very person of Christ. The term Hostia (or Host,) which signifies the sacrifice, is now appropriated to it, and in those countries where the papal religion prevails, and the Host is carried through the streets, (either to be given to the sick, or else in procession, on the day which they call Corpus

Christi,) every one without exception is compelled to kneel down as it passes; and thus the consecrated bread or wafer is regarded, not as a figure or emblem, but as an actual Deity. The priest, accordingly, holds in his hands, as they suppose, the incarnate Creator and Redeemer. When he breaks the Bread or wafer, each separate piece or even crumb, becomes the whole Body, Soul and Godhead of the Saviour; and when he puts the particle into the mouth of the communicants, each one receives it as being the actual, entire, and glorified Humanity and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. I need not say to you, my brethren, that our Church holds this to be formal idolatry, and that sooner than acknowledge it, the Reformers of England welcomed the flames of martyrdom. "A third doctrine of the holy Eucharist is that of the Lutheran Church, which adopted the tenet of Consubstantiation. Their great leader Luther maintained, that on the act of consecration, the material Flesh and Blood of the blessed Redeemer become united with the Bread and Wine. He agreed with the Romanists, in the notion of a real, carnal or corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament; he differs from them, however, in holding that the Bread and Wine did not become converted into the Body and Blood of the Saviour, but remained as they were before; and hence the term con-subsantiation, which was appropriated to his doctrine. Nevertheless he discarded the Romish practice of adoring the Host, and to show more plainly that no worship was intended, he directed that the Communicants should receive it standing.

"The fourth view of the Eucharist is that which I have received as the doctrine of our mother Church and of our own. According to this interpretation, the elements of Bread and Wine, by virtue of the act of consecration, become the holy SYMBOLS of the Body and Blood of our crucified Lord, being appointed to bear this emblematic character by his own express commandment, in solemn remembrance of his Cross and Passion for the redemption of mankind. Thus far, we hold the same view with Zuinglius. But in the more important question of the inward and spiritual gruce received in the Sacrament, we go incomparably farther; believing that in the due reception of the representative Body and Blood, the faithful com municant is made, by the Holy Spirit, a partaker, verily and indeed, of the Body and Blood of Christ, after a heavenly and Spiritual manner, so as to become mystically one with his Divine Lord, and to strengthen the bands of that glorious incorporation more and more, with each repetition of the Holy Communion; provided he approach with genuine repentance, lively faith, and fervent charity, and thus 'come holy and clean to the heavenly feast, in the marriage garment required by God in Holy Scripture.'

"This view of the sacred Eucharist, how

ever, does not satisfy our Tractarian brethren. For they contend that the power of priestly consecration converts the elements, not merely into the emblematic, symbolical, figurative, or representative Body and Blood of Christ, but into his actual and real Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. They do, indeed, carefully refuse to define the mode of this presence, so as to differ, in terms, from the Church of England, and they condemn the attempt at such definition, whether it be according to the tenet of Transubstantiation, or that of Consubstantiation. But although they censure these doctrines yet they seem to accord with the Romanists in many important particulars, believing that the Body and Blood of Christ, (after a heavenly and spiritual manner) together with his Soul and Divinity, become present on the altar by virtue of the prayer of consecration, that the Redemer is there offered up by the priest as a real though unbloody sacrifice, and that the Lord is received, whole and entire, (although still uncorporeally) by every faithful communicant, from the hands of the officiating minister.

"Now it will be easily perceived that if this doctrine be true, there would be no idolatry whatever in adoring the consecrated elements, because the Lord Jesus Christ is supposed to be actually in those elements, locally present under the sacramental veils, in all respects except the material or carnal one of Flesh and Blood, included in the theory of Transubstantiation. It is evident, however, that this difference could not affect the question of worship, because it was not on account of his Flesh and Blood that our blessed Redeemer was worshipped when he was on earth, but on account of his essential Deity as the co-eternal Son of God: and, therefore, if the priest is able to cause that the Deity of Christ be present in the elements, it would not be idolatry, but true piety, to prostrate ourselves before him. As manifest it must surely be, that every particle of the sacred Eucharist becomes as divine, upon the Tractarian, as upon the Roman theory; the same fear of awful profanation if a crumb or a drop should fall, the same solemn reverence for the holiness of the altar and the vessels, the same genuflexions on approaching them, the same veneration for the priesthood to which such a marvellous prerogative is given, and-if the express law of the Church did not forbid it-the same reservation in the consecrated Pyx, and the same homage to the Corpus Christi, in public procession, would consistently follow. Nor am I able to discern what there would be left worth contending for, between the doctrine of Rome and our own; for assuredly, after granting that the eucharistic bread and wine contain the present Deity of Christ, it would be very idle to quarrel about the question, whether they were not transubstantiated into the very substance of his flesh and blood also."

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

66

It has ever been a prominent feature in the policy of the Romish Church to prevent the reading of the word of God even by her priests, and much more so by her laymen. Instead of saying, "Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me," the language of her action has been, Bury the Bible, for it testifies against us." When it was found impossible to prevent the gratification of the curiosity of the learned, the Latin version was permitted to be read in the convents and in the universities; and in later periods the layman, also, by payment of a price, could have liberty to open the sealed book in his own language. When concealment was no longer practicable, the printing of the Bible was allowed, but with gross corruptions and unwarrantable additions, and with notes embodying the Roman doctrines and perverting the meaning of such passages as were most palpably opposed to them.

During the discussion of the Reform Bill in the British Parliament, this subject was brought prominently before the people by the English and Irish Protestants, and many startling developments were made which it behoves us Americans to ponder in the present crisis, when the Romanists are seeking to drive VOL. I.-9

from our public schools the Book which is the Magna Charta of the world's liberties, and to introduce in its stead their until they may finally, as in all the counown corrupted and perverted editions, tries under their full dominion, banish it altogether from the popular mind. Among the most earnest and eloquent opponents of the papistical party in Great Britain, was the Rev. Robert J. M'Ghee, an Irish clergyman, who, in a speech delivered in Exeter Hall on the eleventh of July, 1835, made such statements of the principles held by the Roman hierarchy in Ireland as will be exhibited in this article. Priests denied, bishops abjured, senators declaimed, and the press alternately ridiculed and raved, but his charges were not disproved. One year after, at the anniversary meeting of the Protestant Association in London, Mr. M'Ghee reasserted and re-proved all his statements; presenting fact upon fact, evidence upon evidence, until no man in the empire, no matter what his politics or religion, could call his positions in question.

Before the first meeting of the Association a document had been published, signed by twenty of the clergy of Ireland, several of them dignitaries of the Episcopal church, informing the Roman bishops of the nature of the charges to be made, and inviting them to appoint any persons they might select to defend their proceedings. This was unnoticed. Before the second meeting, a letter was addressed personally to Dr. Murray, the Romish bishop, re

[ocr errors]

questing him to send any individual he pleased to meet the case. This was also disregarded. Dr. Murray's secretary, Mr. Woods, the compiler of the Priests' Directories," complained, that though an invitation was given, no provision was made to pay the expenses of any Roman Catholic priest who should attend. An offer was immediately made to pay the expenses of any person authorized by Dr. Murray to represent him in Exeter Hall. No such person appeared. Mr. Woods also wrote to the committee, stating that an accusation had been made, and that he had not had an opportunity to defend himself. The committee replied, inviting his presence, and offering to defray his expenses. The invitation and the offer were disregarded. Dr. Murray then complained that his opponents were at a distance; and every charge which had been made was recapitulated and condensed, in a letter addressed to him in the public gazettes. He was told that the gentlemen who brought the charges were ready to meet any individuals whom he would appoint, in Dublin, in the midst of his own diocese. The letter was unanswered.

The persons who had made these charges were denounced in the House of Cominons; denounced from a quarter from which they had a right not to expect denunciation, and in the most illiberal language. All the accusations that had been preferred were again recapitulated, in letters addressed to the nobleman from whom denunciation had emanated in the Parliament; he was invited to bring the persons who made the charges against the Roman bishops, with their documents, to the bar; as the liberties, properties and lives of British subjects were at stake. His lordship took no notice of the letter. He did not abstain from so doing on account of any tenderness to the accusers; perhaps his sympathies were awakened for the accused. After recapitulating these circumstances, Mr. M'Ghee proceeded in his speech as follows:

"Though last, not least, Mr. O'Connell has been invited to come here this day, to meet the charges which have been distinctly specified and distinctly stated to him in the letter, and to defend not only his church, but himself, who is personally

implicated in them; and the honourable and learned member has thought proper to decline the invitation. I submit, therefore, to my Roman Catholic friends who may be here, I submit to my Roman Catholic friends in Ireland, whether any unfair charge has been made against their instructors, and whether they have not had the fullest and most ample opportunity of meeting every one of them. I call on them, as a Christian minister, solemnly to reflect, that the persons who have propagated these doctrines among them, as with the authority of God, have refused to stand forward and answer for them, even before the judgment of their fellows; and I suggest to my dear countrymen, my Roman Catholic country men, whom I love in my soul, and whom, in proportion to the love which I bear them, I mourn over, when I see them the victims of iniquity such as this-I call on them to lay their hands on their hearts, to retire into their secret chambers, and to think, as in the presence of the Judge of heaven and of earth, how doctrines and principles shall stand before the bar of God, which those who inculcate them dare not bring to the tribunal of human opinion.

[ocr errors]

"Mr. O'Connell was informed of the object of this meeting; he was told that certain facts respecting Dens' Theology' were to be mentioned; he was told that the Rhemish notes were to be spoken of; he knew all the facts concerning them; he was deeply implicated in them; and he confessed, as you shall hear, their vast importance; he was warned on what he would have to answer; he was allowed abundant time to prepare, and he has refused to appear: he has suffered, as they say, judgment to go by default. The honourable and learned gentleman has given his reasons in a letter to the committee.

[ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »