« PredošláPokračovať »
until they be corrupted, after- rium projiciantur. Quod si speterwards let them be cast into the cies non appareant, comburatur sacristy. But if the accidents are vomitus, et cineres in sacrarium not apparent, let the vomit be
mittantur. burned, and the ashes placed in the sacristy.
As in an animated substance there are the flesh and the animating principle, so in the Levitical law there was the letter, which was inielligible to the most carnal understandings, and the spirit or ulterior design of the institution, which for the most part eluded notice, and by an easy metaphor, in speaking of any system or body of instruction, the terms spirit and flesh may be substituted for spirit and letter. Indeed we learn from Philo, vol. 2, p. 483 (quoted by Micaelis Anneck ad locum), that the Essenes actually used this illustration with regard to the Mosaic law.–Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 356, John vi.
Two of the Romish Miracles re
lated by Bellarmine.
De Sac. Euch. lib. 3, c. 8.
Bellarmine, book 3, c. 8, on the
Quintum est. S. Antonii de
The fifth is of St. Anthony
It is described in his life by Describitur in ejus vita apud Surius in the third volume, and Surium, tom. 3, et a S. Antonino by St. Antoninus in bis Historical in summâ bistoriali, p. 3, tit. 24, Summary, p. 3. tit. 24. c. 3. St. e. 3. Disputante S. Antonio de Anthony being engaged in a dis- veritate corporis Domini in Eupute concerning the truth of the charistia cum hæretico quodam Lord's body in the Eucharist with in partibus Tolosanis (si quidem a certain heretic in the neighbour- eo tempore Albigenses vexabant hood of Toulouse (for at this ecclesiam, qui cum aliis plurimis time the Albigenses, who were hoc etiam errore invecti erant) led astray by this as well as many petiit hæreticus ab Antonio, quem other errors, vexed the church) noverat dono miraculorum præthe heretic demanded of Antho- ditum esse, ejusmodi signum ; ny,
whom he knew to be endowed habeo, inquit, jumentum cui per by God with the gift of miracles, integrum triduum cibum non a sign of this sort. I have a horse, dabo. Exacto triduo adsis tu cum he said, to whom for the space of sacramento, ego adero cum ju
three whole days I will give no mento, atque ante illum hordeum food. When the third day is fi effundam : si jumentum hordeo nished, do you come with the sa derelicto ad sacramenti veneracrament, and I will come with tionem acceperit, credam. Facthe horse, and will pour out be tum est ut ille voluit, et triduo fore him some corn ; if the horse exacto S. Antonius, turbis fideleaving the corn goes and vene lium comitatus, et venerabile sarates the sacrament, I will believe. cramentum manu tenens, sic ad It was done as he desired, and jumentum locutus est. In virwhen the third day was finished An tute et nomine Creatoris tui,quem thony accompanied with a crowd in manibus, licet indignus, veof the faithful, and holding in his raciter teneo, tibi dico animal, et hand the venerable sacrament, ad- præcipio, ut confestim venias hudressed the horse. In the virtue, militer modo tuo et ei reverenand name of thy Creator, whom tiam exhibeas : ut ex hoc cogposI truly hold in my hands,although cat hæretica pravitas, quod omnis unworthy of it, I command and creatura subditur Creatori, quem enjoin you, O animal, immedi sacerdotalis dignitas jugiter tractat ately to come with bumility and in altari. His verbis prolatis, to revere him, that this heretical jumentum, hordei ante se effusi wickedness may hence learn, that et famis oblitum, ad sanctum ocevery creature is subject to the currit, et capite inclinato, ac Creator, whom the sacerdotal genibus curvatis, eo modo quo dignity continually handles on the potuit Dominum adoravit et hæaltar. Having uttered these words, reticum confutavit. the horse, unmindful of the corn poured out before him and his hunger, ran to the saint, and, inclining his head and bending his knees, he adored bis Lord in the best manner he could, and confuted the heretic.
Thomas Waldenses, an eye Sextum narrat Thomas Walwitness, relates the sixth miracle, denses, testis oculatus, tom. 2, c. vol. 2, c. 63. He writes that a
63. Scribit enim sartorem queucertain heretical tailor, being pub- dam hæreticum publicè in eclicly brought to judgment in the clesiâ S. Pauli Londini in judicio church of St. Paul's, London, be coram archiepiscopo et aliis præ. fore the archbishop and the other latis constitutum, dixisse, digprelates, declared, that a spider niorem esse araneam cultu ac re
more worthy of worship verentiâ, quam Eucharistiam : et and veneration than the Eucha continuo de alto tecti culmine rist: and immediately from the horribilem araneam directo filo lofty roof of the building a hor- ad os ejus properasse, ac vix rible spider hastened in a direct multorum manibus prohibitum, line to his mouth, and was only ne ingrederetur. prevented from entering it by the hands of many persons present.
Dr. Delahogue's Treatise on the Delah. Tract. de Euchar. p.214,
Eucharist, p. 214, art. 2 art. 2" Utrum necessarium " Whether it is necessary to re
sit Eucharistiam sub utraque ceive the Eucharist in both specie sumere .2" kinds ???
Secondly. It appears that from 20. Constat ab ipsis apostolorum the very days of the apostles temporibus 12m. usque seculum, until the twelfth century the cus
in ecclesia Latina morem obtom prevailed that the Eucharist tinuisse ut a laicis sub utraque should be received by the laity specie Eucharistia sumeretur, in both kinds, as is observed in sicut etiamnum observat ecclesia the Greek church at the pre- Græca. A seculo autem duosent day. But from the 12th decimo Eucharistiam sub una century the custom of distri- panis specie fidelibus distribuendi buting the Eucharist to the faith
usus apud Latinos sensim inful in one kind only was gradually valuit, et nemine reclamante. confirmed, no one opposing it.(Third Edition. Printed at Dublin, by Richard Coyne. 1828.)
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
To constitute a sacrifice pleasing to God it is necessary that it should be appointed by God, or agreeable to his revealed will. According to this simple principle we try all those services which men call religious; and as they are in accordance with it or not, so are they acceptable or otherwise with God. Thus all the beathen sacrifices are rejected, and even amoug the professors of Christ's religion we may decide that “ the sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination unto God.” Prov. C. xv. v. 8.
There are three kinds of sacrifice acceptable with God-typical, propitiatory, and grateful.
The first were confined to the Old Testament; they are called legal or typical, because found in the Mosaic dispensation. Their chief feature is set forth in Lev. c. xvii. v. 11, 22. Hence the bloodshedding of animals. They were to a certain extent useful, as shadows or types, Heb. c. ix. v. 9, 10, and yet essentially imperfect, proved by their nature, Heb. c. x. v. 4, by their repetition, Heb. c. X. v. 1, 2.
Secondly, The sacrifice of Christ. This is ricarious, Isai. c. lii.; propitiatory, 1 Pet. c. ii. v. 24, Heb. c. ix. v. 26; and efficacious, John c. i. v. 29, Heb. c. ix. v. 14. All under the law were conniected with this as their antitype; all under the gospel must be colinected with it, as the fountain of pardou and peace.
* This sketch of the Mass' is from the pen of the Rev. W. Dalton,
Thirdly. The sacrifices of the Christian are those of gratitude, not propitiatory. Some of these we merely refer to, Psalin c. cxlia v. 2, Heb. c. xiii. v. 15, Rom. c. xii. v. 1. If this view be correct, the mass can have no existence.
Let us examine its credentials.-I. State, the doctrine according to the documents of the church of Rome, session xxii, cap. 1, (Council of Trent), can. 2, 3, General Catechism, and Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, p. 84. Compare this with Article xxxi. of the Church of England.
Grounds of opposition fourfold.-1. The foundation, viz., transubstantiation is unsound. (See the argument on this, p. 324.)
II. Their proofs deficient.–1. They say that it was instituted by Christ at the last
Luke c.xxii, v. 19, 20, in this there is no reference to sacrifice, as a propitiation or atonement. They answer, that the words, “ shall be shed,” (see Douay Bible), should be rendered " is shed.” Hence they give a wrong translation, and fly to the Protestant version; but if so, the blood was shed at the last supper, and the mass then is a bloody, not an unbloody sacrifice, as it is called by the Trent doctors. The apostle's comment on the design of the Lord's Supper is decisive, 1 Cor. c. si. v. 26.
2. They cite Gen. c. xiv. v. 18—20, and contend that Melchizedec offered the bread and wine in sacrifice, rendering the word and in v. 19 by for, as if illative; but this is opposed to the context, as the circumstance of Abraham's return from the battle is consistent with the use of bread and wine as a refreshment, not as a sacrifice; and to the apostle's view, Heb. c. vii., where he dwells on the nature of his priesthood, v. 6—8, but never alludes to this sacrifice.
3. They cite Mal. c. i. v. 11, and argue that this offering or sacrifice could not be a legal one, nor Christ's bloody sacritice, for this was offered in one place nor yet the Christian's grateful, because tbey are not in themselves purembence it must be the mass. We reply, that if this is not proved to have a scriptural existence, the deduction is false. Nor does the last assertion stand examination ; for the believer's service as well as person are pure, because he is found in Christ. To this we add, that the apostle gives us a satisfactory comment on this, Rom. c. xv. v. 8, 9, 15, 16.
III. The doctrine is opposed to the clear testimony of Scripture. The Epistle to the Hebrews seems prophetically to meet this error. The sacrifice of Christ is set forth as once offered, and this word is continually repeated, Heb. c. vii, v. 27, Heb. c. ix. v. 12, 25-28, Heb. c. x. 10-12, 14. How then can the mass. be true, which professes to be a repeated offering ? These testimonies are so plain that Romanisis invent many substitutions to avoid their force. They say that this does not oppose the sacrifice of the cross, because it is unbloody, hence they proclaim its inutility, see Heb. c. ix. v. 22. To call it a continuance of the sacrifice of the cross is senseless, because there is an essential difference between them-one is bloody, and the other unbloody. Again, ibere is no priest to offer it; there are only two orders of sacrificing
priests- the first under the law, of the order of Levi; the second under the guspel, of the order of Melchizedec, who is Christ, Heb. C. vii.
The ininisters of the gospel are never called cepeic--they minister in holy things, they preach the word, but do not sacrifice.
Romanists say that Christ is the priest in the mass, represented by bis ministering servants; but this is impossible ; Christ is the high priest within the veil, Heb. c. vii. v. 19, 20, ix. 24; and it would destroy the type to suppose that he was occupied without the veil at the same time. Thus we conclude, that as Christ's bloody sacrifice was perfect, an unbloody one cannot exist. As Christ's priesthood continues, no one can share in it. The mass therefore is weighed in the balance and found wanting.
IV. The pernicious effects of this doctrine.-. It is an insult to the Triune God. The Father gave his Son for the salvation of men. And according to his determinate counsel he was delivered unto death, Acts c. ii. v. 23. The mass declares that this was not sufficient, and by its repetition throws a darkness on this one great gift. It insults the Son, since it declares that all the sorrows of Gethsemane, and all the horrors of Calvary, did not make a sufficient atonement for man. How horrible then to make light of the precious blood of Christ! It insults the Spirit, who has given his clear testimony that by the one great sacrifice of Christ, sin was taken away, Heb. c. ix. v. 26.
2. It introduces idolatry. The council of Trent declares that the host should be worshipped at the offering of the mass with latria, or the highest degree of worship; see can. 5, sess. 12. If no transubstantiation, and no offering up of Christ, then do the people worship a wafer. How solemn this thought, how destructive this sio ! Rev. c. xxii. v. 15.
Lastly. It deludes men. The worshippers crowd to their chapel, with the hope of enjoying the benefits of this propitiation ; but if none is made, and nothing but bread offered up, they are grievously deceived. They pray the priest to deliver the souls of relatives from purgatory, Yet no recompense can follow, for this is a mere mockery. Christ is offered up at random!! Christ is offered up again and again to deliver from purgatory, though his one offering delivers from hell. How delusive for time and eternity!
The doctrine of the reformation is, that Christ by one oblation made a full and perfect sacrifice for man. This exhibits God's holy and gracious character. It gives peace to the guilty conscience of those who come to Christ; it gives a solid foundation of confidence, and constrains men to live to God. 2 Cor. c. v. v, 14, 15.