« PredošláPokračovať »
“ He led, or rather supported her, to the house it was in a bower in the grove where the scene we have extracted took place), and opening a door on the right hand side of the hall, he whispered to her, “ Let us first thank God for his unspeakable mercies to us, and then I will place the children in your arms.' He drew aside a curtain, and Emma was surprised to find (that) they were in a beautiful little chapel, richly hung with crimson and gold drapery.
of the evening sun played on its marble pavement, tinged with the varied colours of the painted glass window. The blessed sacrament was exposed in a rich expository, and Father Oswald in his vestments was kneeling at the foot of the altar; while the General and the little children were ranged around. Emma sunk on her knees, and covered her face with her hands. Edward knelt by her side. The feelings of all present were too powerful to be described. Father Oswald intoned the · Te Deum laudamus' in thanksgiving for the signal benefits conferred upon the family, and in a minute or two, strains of soft music were heard, and young melodious voices swelled its strains, and sung also the Litanies of the blessed Virgin and the . Tantum ergo Sacramentum ;' while Father Oswald, with feelings of the strongest piety and gratitude to God, gave the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament to the grateful and kneeling group around him.”
Nothing now remained to complete the happiness of this excellent family but the conversion of Harriet Sefton, who, convinced by her brother's recital, resolved to embrace the Catholic faith. she carried her resolution into effect.
We are too much pleased with the object of the work, and the way in which the controversial part of it is managed, to find much fault either with the plan of the story, which is defective, or with the style, which is very loose, and in some respects inaccurate. Father Oswald is, we think, a first essay, and we would strongly recommend to the author, ere he (qu. she ?) again appear in the literary field, to peruse frequently some of our best English writers. But we must not be too hypercritical in noticing a work which has given us much satisfaction.
THE “ BRITISH CRITIC” AND THE “ QUARTERLY
In our last we promised to continue the extracts from the writings of the Anglican divines of the seventeenth century, as quoted by the British Critic, and we now proceed to redeem that promise. The extract we last gave was from Thorndike, in support of the veneration to
relics. Our next quotation shall be from Bishop Montague on the reverence due to images and pictures.
Images are not unlawful unto Christians; the pictures of Christ, the blessed Virgin, and saints, may be made and had in houses, and set up in churches. And the setting of them up, suffering them to stand, using them for ornaments, for helps of memory, of affection, of rememoration, cannot be abstracted, to my understanding, from reverence and honour simply in due kind. Can a man have the true representation of his prince, parents, patrons, &c., without awe, respect, regard, love, reverence, moved by aspect and wrought in him ? I profess my imperfection, or what they will call it; it is so with me. Uncu impacto in Latrinas, in Gemonias, in malem crucemthe pictures, statues, paintings, representations of Christ, the Virgin, apostles, martyrs, and holy men and women; unless the very having and preserving of them do in some sort imply respect, regard, and honour, due unto them.” Appeal, p. 253.
Of the Second Council of Nice, which enjoined due respect to images, Thorndike thus speaks.
“ That the decree of the Council enjoins no idolatry, notwithstanding whatsoever prejudice to the contrary, I must maintain as unquestionable. So far is it from leaving any room for the imagination of any false Godhead, that it expressly distinguisbeth that honour done to the image of our Lord Christ, to be equivocally called worship, i.e. to be only so called, but not to signify the esteem of God. He that believes the holy Trinity can no way attribute the latter, and, therefore, if he puts off his hat and bows the knee to the image of our Lord it shall be no idolatry.” Epilogue iii. p. 363.
The doctrine of purgatory, the British Critic observes, “ meets with the same considerate treatment.” “Let it keep,” says Bishop Andrews, “its place among the opinions of the schools”—he cannot, of course, mean the doctrine, which is older than Christianity itself, but the nature of the sufferings endured. “ Let not Protestants condemn it (the doctrine of purgatory) as impious or heretical,” says Bishop Forbes. The latter even approves of the notion of
“ An expiatory purgatory, a kind of middle place, in which, without the pains of hell, the souls of the saints perfect themselves in the love of God with fervent and deep sighs, enjoying the sight and presence of Christ's humanity, and of the holy angels."
And he quotes with approbation the “ Institution of a Christian Man,” a book published by the authority of Convocation, A.D. 1544.
“ Inasmuch as the book of Maccabees, and the writings of the old doctors of the Church, and common charity, declare that it is a pious and wholesome cus
tom, to pray for the dead, we ought therefore to think that prayers for the dead are pleasing to God, and by no means inefficacious. It is also agreeable to Christian charity, and the custom of the Church, that we should make memorial of our departed brethren, in the celebration of masses, and in funerals, and that alms should be offered for them. For these acts, we must hope, both bring positive advantage to them, and also prove our own love. But the place where the souls of the dead live, and its name, and their state and condition are uncertain.”—Cons. Modest. p. 261.
With regard to the sacrifice of the Mass, Bramhall thinks there is “no difference between the Churches if rightly understood," (Margin, p. 255, old edition.)
“ The Holy Eucharist (he observes), is a commemoration or representation and application of the all-sufficient propitiatory sacrifice of the Cross. If his sacrifice (the sacrifice of the Mass), have any other propitiatory power or virtue in it, let him speak plainly what it is, Bellarmine knew no more.”—Old ed. p. 172.
Bishop Forbes pronounces Transubstantiation by no means impious or heretical supposition, believed by many of the faithful from the earliest times." (Consid. Modest. p. 411.
Many Protestants (he continues), argue, most dangerously and presumptuously, that God could not change bread substantially into the body of Christ. God can do many things above the conceptions both of men and angels ;-nay, many things that we firmly believe are not less impossible and contradictory, on principles of reason, than Transubstantiation, e.g. the resurrection of the body. Let us ever have magnificent, vast, immeasurable conceptions of the ineffable omnipotence of God.”-Ibid. p. 388-396.
Montague observes that, “no man desireth a change, an alteration, a transmutation, a transubstantiation.” Nor, says Cosin, “a conversion.” (Hist. of Transub. p. 61.) And Laud admits the decree of the Council of Trent, as explained by Bellarmine, with only a seemingly secondary exception to the latter's use of the word “ conversion."
“«Whatsoever is concerning the manner and forms of speech,' says Bellarmine, this is to be held, that the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is substantial, but after a secret and ineffable manner, and not like in all things to any natural conversion whatever. Now, if he had left out conversion is Laud's comment, and affirmed only Christ's real presence there, after a mysterious, and, indeed, ineffable manner, no man could have spoke better."--Conference with Fisher, p. 188.
On the subject of the adoration of the Eucharist, Bishop Forbes is quoted, to show that he entirely acquits Catholics of idolatry in worshipping the bread and wine.
His words are:
“ Most Protestants accuse Roman Catholics of gross idolatry in adoring the bread; whereas in this supposition, that the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Christ only,-a supposition by no means impious or heretical,--they are not idolaters ; for the body of Christ is truly to be adored, and that it is which they adore.”—Mod. Con. p. 439.
“I do not charge the Church of Rome with idolatry,” says Bramhall, old ed. p. 172.
“ I suppose (says Thorndike), that the body and blood of Christ may be adored, wheresoever they are, and must be adored by a good Christian where the custom of the Church requires it,--adored in consideration of the Godhead, to which it remains inseparably united. The body and blood of Christ is necessary to be honoured, because necessarily united to that which is honoured, viz.; the Godhead. And the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, is a just occasion to express by the bodily act of adoration that inward honour. I do believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient Church. There is no just cause why it should not be done at present, but that cause which justifies the reformning of some part of the Church without the whole. I do expressly warn all opinions that they imagine not to themselves the Eucharist so mean and simple a sign of the thing signified, that the celebration thereof should not be a competent occasion for the executing of that worship which is always due to our Lord incarnate.”—Epilogue iii. p. 350.
So much for the truth of the sweeping assertion of the writer in the Quarterly Review, of “the concurrent declaration of our own (Anglican) divines, that Rome is guilty of idolatry.”
The writer in the British Critic, proceeds next to show, that in another department of doctrine in which the Anglican Church is generallyunderstood to be in diametrical opposition to us, though she has never spoken in any shape against it-our doctrine relating to “ gelical counsels," considered by “modern theologians," as “ spares of devils, &c.—the divines so often referred to are equally clear and explicit. He quotes Montague and Jeremy Taylor in praise of a life of virginity, and states that Laud wished to encourage celibacy among the clergy, and would have done so had the times allowed him.
“In the late agitations at Woodstock, he let fall some words that were interpreted to the disparagement of the married clergy. He was a single man himself, and he wished, perhaps, as St. Paul once did, that all men else (that is to say, all men in holy orders), would remain so likewise. And some occasion being offered at that time to speak about the conveniences and inconveniences of a married clergy, he made some declaration of himself to this effect :-that in disposing of all ecclesiastical promotions, he would prefer the single man before the married, supposing the abilities of the persons were otherwise equal." Heylin's Life, p. 224.
We must not enlarge these extracts, which have already exceeded our space, and therefore, refer such of our readers as may incline to read more, to consult the British Critic itself. Now when such a near approximation to Catholic doctrines was made by the leading Anglican divines of the seventeenth century, it will not surprise any one, as the author of the article in question remarks, to find them expressing a wish for a union with us. Bramhall expressed a wish to unite with the Church of Rome, as she was, not requiring any change of doctrine in her, but only a certain liberty to other Churches. He knew well that whatever
be done in Protestant Churches in changing doctrines, Rome is immutable,—the same yesterday, to day, and will continue so, till the consummation. He was willing to concede to the Bishop of Rome, the principium unitatis, but would refuse him universality of sovereign jurisdiction, jure divino, a proposition which, it is not perhaps saying too much, he must have known would never be acceded to, and to which, moreover, no Pope could give his consent. But the whole of the Laudian party were for a reconciliation with Rome, according to Heylin; with this view Laud, we are told
“ Introduced some innovations approaching near the rules and forms of Rome: that the Bishop of Chichester, 2 great confidant of his grace, the lord treasurer, and eight other bishops of his grace's party, did most passionately desire a reconciliation with the Church of Rome ; that they did day by day recede from their ancient tenets to accommodate with the Church of Rome.” Heylin's Laud, p. 414.
The above and similar passages, as the writer in the Critic justly observes, prove a different idea of the position of the Anglican Church towards Rone, than what has obtained since. The divines of the times of the first Charles, did not take that fixed view of it-did not consider “our state of separation, (we quote from the Critic), from her (the Church of Rome), as one of those immutable unalterable things—one of those laws of nature, so to say, which people now think it to be; as if the isolation of our Church were so comfortable a position for her as any other—quite an understood thing, and requiring no explanationour way, our privileges, and so forth. They took into account, the force of circumstances, indeed, and submitted to it, but only as a temporary, intermediate, provisionary state-to last until something could be done to alter it.” Has the time then arrived when we may look for a reconcilation of our beloved country with Rome? Perhaps not yet ; but most assuredly there is a growing tendency amongst the pious and