« ForrigeFortsæt »
This denial of the cup to the laity is another of the subtractions from the doctrines of our Saviour, ordained by Popery, we suppose, as a set-off against the denial of marriage to her clergy. In justice to her, however, it is but fair that, in the outset, we should here admit, independent of the miracle itself of blood and flesh being in baked flour and water, we scarcely know what she means by that which we suppose must be taken as her defence of it. The first quotation of Scripture is in proof that Christ can die no more, and which we readily admit; yet, as the Pope says that every individual in partaking of his sacrament “receives CHRIST himself whole and entire,” are Papists thus taught to
, believe they eat up their wafer alive every day!!! This is too contemptible to proceed farther on the subject.
To the next paragraph we agree, viz, that what Papists do is according to the doctrines of the Popish Church; all that we contend for is, that these are directly opposed to the doctrines of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. Our readers have a fair opportunity of judging for themselves, but we must lament that the spirit of rancour is so frequently manifested towards those who take for their Rule of Faith the acknowledged word of God in preference to the dogmas and legends of Popery*.
Why should "a poor worm of the earth,” who calls himself Christ's vicegerent, indulge in such repeated attacks and sneers against those who deny his spiritual authority ? Had the Pope set out openly as a controversialist, it would have been all very fair-so he kept it in mind that the object of his championship had been to refute rather than to abuse: but surely, in writing a “ Profession of Faith" for the direction of his followers, it was not in such a work that (from one declaring himself or his Church to be an infallible ruler over all Christians) we were to expect to learn what are the tenets which proceed from “ Protestant mouths,"? where his business was to prove the truth of his own ? Look at our Protestant prayer-book-wherein does it contain a sneer or a reproof contrary to the language of Christ, towards any men who differ in opinion with those who use it? Wherein does it set forth one single proposition opposed to the Scriptures, from whence the rites of our Church are chiefly taken?. This prayer-book is open to attack (as is every other book) if there can be found in it anything to condemn; but it attacks not any. It clearly expresses what it teaches; and it teaches our ministers to be humble
- not that they have the power to damn, but to pray that they may be illuminated “ with the true knowledge” of the word of God, and their flocks to forgive their enemies; whilst both clergy and laity pray that God will have mercy upon all men” not as is the case, with the Popish approved catechisms which, from infancy, in
Were further confirmation necessary to prove the vast difference between the Popish Church and the Church of Christ, we find it in the reply to the next question proposed. “True-but”—but what? Why, according to the doctrine of Popery we take in both kinds, although we are aware we receive but in one." Is this not the true sense of the passage? We can understand it in no other. We are then informed that the twelve apostles were the “All” who were commanded to drink of the cup, and who drank accordingly. -so were they when the bread was eaten, which might, by the same reasoning, be taken away also. We have already noticed this circumstance, (page 88) and therefore will merely add, that Matthew, (chap. xxvi.) Mark, (chap. xiv.) and John, (chap. vi.) assure us Christ told his disciples, the laity, that they were to drink and eat both, in the language quoted by the Pope himself. The next question is solved in the usual manner; viz. because Popery chooses so to solve it; or rather, as it is a negative inattermobecause she never understood it otherwise. In this, however, she is mistaken, as we will show presently by her own words. It is somewhat thoughtless of her also, we opine, to speak of the antiquity of the denial of the cup-it was ordained to be taken and received by Christ himself-how much earlier were her institutions ?* We are then informed that the priest receives in both kinds in the ceremony of the mass, merely to show
culcate the doctrine of invidious distinetion between Papists themselves and the rest of God's creatures (a).
(a) Q. Who are our neighbours ?
These questions and replies are extracted from the Douay Catechism (chap. 7), entitled Charity Expounded. The following is a further illustration of the charitable tenets inculcated by the Romish Church, and extracted from the same approved
Q. What are the points of faith we are taught by the (Roman) Catholic Church ?
A. Such only as God has revealed to her (!!!) [The Twelve New Articles are here forgotten ?]
And then, in the same (20) chapter :-
Let us see who are those whom Roman Catholic children are taught from earliest infancy" charitably'' to consider in a state of damnation.
Q. In what manner is Christ present in the Eucharist ?
A. By the true and real presence of his divine and human nature, and not in figure only, as heretics would have it.
Thus are infants taught that the comparatively few of God's creatures who prosess Popery are the only beings in existence who can escape eternal perdition ! So much for Papal charity.
a more lively representation"-or, in plain language, for effect; no actual necessity for his doing so is assigned. We are next referred to all such texts as speak of bread only, to prove that Christ did not intend the cup to be received by the laity, although he so clearly commanded it: still these are but negative proofs—Popery cannot show a single passage wherein the cup is forbidden to be taken. Surely one
affirmative witness is worth a dozen negative ones?
When Pope Stephen VIIth dug up the body of his predecessor, Formosus, and threw it in the Tiber, although 5000 men might swear they did not see it, would this statement invalidate the testimony of 500 who swore they did ? The text which we quoted in the last chapter (1 Cor. x. 17.) is adduced here because bread is spoken of: are Papists to take it in a figu
* Far be it from us to pass over the antiquity of those institutions of Popery which she herself declares had been invented many ages before Christianity was known to the world: thus the begging Carmelites gravely insist that the prophet Elias was the founder of their order, and inducted by angels : by the same Popish penmen we are assured that Jonah, Micah, and Obadiah, were his first disciples; and that Pythagoras, also, was a member of this ancient community. That this matter might not be incomplete, we are told that nunneries were formed at the same period by the wife of Obadiah, who, to evade the attacks of impertinence to which she was exposed at the court of king Ahab, “bound herself by a vow of chastity (in the absence of her husband); received the veil from the hands of father Elias, and thus became the first abbess of the Carmelite order of Nuns.” The tonsure, or bald head, by which the Carmelites distinguish themselves, is derived, they tell us, from the prophet, who was mocked by the children (2 Kings, chap. ii. ver. 23.), and who then went to Mount Carmel. Such is the story told of the origin of these sturdy beggars, by themselves :-Papebroch and other much more credible Romanist writers, give a somewhat more rational account of them, when they tell us that, about the middle of the twelfth century, Berthold, a Calabrian, with a few companions, set out for Mount Carmel, where they built a small house with an adjoining chapel ; this little community soon increased, and was formed into a monastic institution by Albert, Patriarch of Jerusalem. Papebroch, though a learned Jesuit, was accused by the Carmelites, for having disputed the antiquity and dignity of their order; and, in 1698, Pope Innocent XII. deemed it prudent to command silence among these lowly members of his infallible church, upon the “antiquity" of this order of dignified begging friars.
rative oria literal sense--as bread, or the real flesh of the apostles? The quotation of St. Paul “ whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup,” &c. is unfortunate ;-we are inclined to attribute this essay rather to the Doctor than to the Pope, inasmuch as the assertion is, by the learned, generally attributed to the Jesuit cardinal Bellarmine, who flourished in the latter end of the sixteenth century, after Pius had been dead several years. To whom, however, the credit is due is of little importance, since if all the ands in the creed may
be " understood”* as ors, instead of believing in this, and this, &c. it will, according to Popish doctrine, be quite sufficient to profess the belief of this, or this, or this, &c. But we beg to refer our readers to the extracts made by the Pope in the last chapter. In treating of his transubstantiation, he required the and in the same sense it is used here—ergo, it is used throughout the chapter; as “except .ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood," &c.
" Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,” &c. &c. (see page 111.) This turning ands into ors is mutilating the scriptures with a vengeance! It is thus that every command of the ALMIGHTY may be evaded, and instead of the declaration of St. James (chap. ii. ver. 10), “ he who offends in one point is guilty of all,” Popery has only to insist that it is a 66. mistranslation,” that it should have been rendered, He who' obeys in one point keeps the whole law; and her votaries will swear she is correct because she must be infallible!
And now, after all these reasons assigned for taking away the cup from the laity, it is asked, “What are the reasons" for doing so ? The five which follow are somewhat curious, and . to which we beg the particular attention of our readers. The first is to avoid “the danger of spilling the Blood OF CHRIST."
* Such is the word used by the Cardinal (De Sacram. Eucharist, lib. iv. c. 25.) We suspect the Doctor to have improved upon it.
But mark the second !-Because WINE soon decays!-We said as much in the last chapter; but if the elements be “ truly, really, and substantially, the BODY and BLOOD, together with the soul and DIVINITY of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,” (chap. iv. p. 110,) how, we ask, are they any longer BREAD and WINE, and what CHRISTIAN can believe the body, soul, and divinity of God is corruptible? Again, we are told, thirdly, that “some constitutions can neither bear the taste nor the smell of WINE ;' and fourthly,-as though to prove
the very essence of contradiction in the absurd and impious doctrines of the Romish Church-it is said, “because TRUE WINE in some countries is very hard to be met with!” Was the wine that Christ and his apostles drank white or red-Rhenish or Falernian? Oh! Popery, Poperyabject in thy presumption, how wretchedly contemptible appear the most gifted of thy followers, who, denied the privilege of exercising their own reason, meanly descend to sacrifice their learning to their prejudices; who prostrate themselves with fanatical adoration before the deity their own hands have created, and which the “Book of Life” would teach them to spurn! But we must not forget the fifth reason, since this we think more curious than its precursors. By this we learn, that the cause of the denial of the cup is-not because Popery herself affects to suppose it to be the doctrine of Christ; not, indeed, that she ever thought it right to withhold it-no-she has “ in fine” so acted, to show her power over MIND, because REASON denied it!
We remember, in the course of our observations upon the last chapter, to have promised a poetical quotation in imitation of the Doctor adducing a couplet from our immortal Dryden; but nothing applicable has fallen under our notice, neither do we wish to break our promise ; and having fairly and literally given Popery's proofs in her own words, we e'en try our hand at a rhyme upon what she could do by the infallibility of her arguments :