« PredošláPokračovať »
be not she which is extended throughout the entire world, which alone is one, which alone can glory in the title of CATHOLIC——a title which she has borne from the apostolic times, which her enemies themselves concede to her, and which, if arrogated by any of them, serves only to expose their shame.
“ In this Church, dearly beloved brethren, you possess the fountain of all true knowledge, and the tribunal where God himself presides. He speaks to you by the mouths of all her pastors, whom, when you hear, you hear him.9) Never deviate from her decisions, they are the decisions of the Holy Ghost, who governs her, and always preserves the purity of her doctrine. Never attend to any voice but to her's, she is the tender mother who has brought you forth, who has nursed you in her bosom, fed you with milk from her breasts in your infancy, and now furnishes you with strong food. She watches unceasingly over the deposit of the faith which has been confided to her by her heavenly spouse; she is always armed against every error, against every impiety, always shining in the midst of the disorder and confusion of this world, like the morning star from the midst of the clouds, to direct her children in the ways of truth and salvation. Watch,
(9) Luc. 10. v. 16.
therefore, we again beseech you by the mercy of God, remain firm, do not fall from your stedfastness, be constant in the faith ; repel with meekness, but with the zeal of God, all the assaults of those who would seduce you ; be strengthened and animated with the aid of divine grace against all the ungodly, against all enthusiasts and impostors; watch, stand in the faith, act manfully, and be comforted.”- 1 Cor. ch. 16. v. 13.
II. In the second place, I can neither conform to Protestantism, nor take the Oaths required, because both call upon me to profess, testify, and declare, solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, not merely that I do not believe in Transubstantiation, but that I believe there is no such thing as Transubstantiation; and moreover, that what I do believe on this point, I believe in the sense in which it is commonly understood by English Protestants : not after the definition of any Christian Church; not in any precise terms, such as might be intelligible to the understanding; not from any authority remote or recent, but according to the sense in which it is commonly understood by a body of men who own no authority in matters of faith, but their own judgment; who
(a) Reply to the Most Reverend Dr. Magee, by J. K. L. pp. 35-56.-See also a learned Examination of the Supremacy of St. Peter, in Dr. Lingard's Tracts, in answer to Dr. Burgess, bishop of St. David's.
think on all controverted points as their fancy may dictate; and who have no standard of orthodoxy to refer to for the explanation of their doctrine. The thirty-nine articles, and the Church Catechism, are both incompetent to the purpose, since, in this case, it appears to remain quite undetermined whether we are to believe the body and blood of Christ truly and really present in the sacrament, or not. At least, I think no one will be bold enough to
mpt to define, in any thing like intelligible terms, what is the doctrine of the English Protestants on this head. Is it not then most unreasonable to require us to swear to a belief in doctrines, the exposition of which we really know not where to find? While the thirty-nine articles and the Church Catechism leave us quite in the dark as to what we really are to believe, the Prelates of the establishment do not at all elucidate the matter by their discordant and contradictory opinions, leaving us still to guess at what is the common belief of English Protestants upon the doctrines to which we are required to swear. If we look to the earlier periods of the history of English Protestantism, we shall find some of its most distinguished Divines holding the following opinions:")
“ We agree as to the object,” says Dr. Andrews
("} See The Faith and Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church proved by the Testimony of the most learned Protestants. Dublin, 1813.
of Winchester, “the whole difference respects the modus or manner of the presence.... We believe a real and a true presence, no less than you do. The King too (James I.) believes Christ not only really present, but truly adorable in the Eucharist, and I myself do adore the very flesh of Christ in the
Dr. Lawrence thus expresses himself: “As I like not those who say he is bodily there, so I like not those who say his body is not there: because Christ says it is there; St. Paul says it is there; and our Church says it is there, really, truly, and essentially, and not only by way of representation or commemoration. For why would our Saviour bid us take what he would not have us receive? We must believe it is there. We must know what is there. Our faith may see it: our senses cannot.”(8) Archbishop Laud says,
“ The altar is the greatest place of God's residence on earth : yea, greater than the pulpit; for there it is, Hoc est corpus meum : in the pulpit it is, at most, Hoc est verbum meum.
And a greater reverence is due to the body than to the word of the Lord; and to the throne where he is usually present, than to the seat where his word is preached.”(6)
(7) Answer to Card. Bellarmin's Apology, chap. 1, p. 11, and chap. 8, p. 194.
() Lawrence's Sermon, p. 17-18.
And yet the Bishop of Peterborough tells us, that at this very time (in the reign of Charles I.], the Church of England professed the same true religion which it professes at present.")
Concerning the point of the real presence,” says Dr. Montague, “there need be no difference, if men were disposed as they ought to peace; for the disagreement is only de modo Presentiæ; the thing being yielded to on either side: viz. that there is in the Eucharist a real presence.”(*) Bishop Bramhall writes thus :
“ No genuine son of the Church Cof England] did ever deny a true, real presence. Christ said : This is my body, and what he said we steadfastly believe,” &c.”
Bishop Cosin is not less explicit in favour of the Catholic Doctrine. He says:
“ It is a monstrous error to deny that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist,” &c.(s)
Hooker thus expresses himself: “Sith we all agree that Christ, by the sacrament, doth really and truly perform in us his promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions, whether by consubstantiation or else by transubstantiation." ()
(0) Charge, p. 16.-1827. () Appeal to Cæsar, p. 289.
y) Answer to M. de la Militère, p. 74. (8) Hist. of Transubstantiation, p. 139. (6) Eccles. Polity, B. v. 67.