« ForrigeFortsæt »
stand high in the estimation of John Fox, and, of course, his modern editors likewise. Of this number we must rank St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in the third century. This great divine is one of Fox's martyrs, and recounted by him an eminent prelate, and a pious ornament “ of the church. His doctrines were ORTHODOX and PURE," Fox says; "his language easy and elegant; and his manners graceful." Well then, surely such an ornament of the church must be better qualified to expound the scripture, and understand its right sense, than Robert Oguier's son, or Robert Oguier himself, and as St. Cyprian's doctrines were orthodox and pure, neither Fox nor his modern editors can dispute them. Let us then see what St. Cyprian says of the mass.
Although I am sensible,” he writes, “ that most bishops, set over the “ churches of God, hold to the maxims of evangelical truth and divine “ tradition, and depart not, by any human and innovating discovery, “ from that which Christ our master taught and did; yet as some,
through ignorance or simplicity, in the sanctification of the cup of “the Lord, and in delivering it to the people, do not that, which Jesus “ Christ, our Lord and God, the teacher and founder of this sacrifice, “ himself did and taught; therefore, I judge it necessary to write to
you, in order that, if there be any one still in that error, when he “ sees the light of truth, he may return to the root and fountain of “ Christian tradition.” Then proceeding to the point, hesays: "Be “then advised, that, in offering the cup, the rule, ordained by Christ, “ be followed, that is, that the cup, which is offered in commemoration
of him, be wine mixed with water. For as he said: I am the true vine; not water; but wine, is the blood of Christ. And what is in “ the chalice cannot be thought the blood, by which we obtained re“demption and life, if wine be wanting, whereby that blood is shewn, “which, as all the scriptures attest, was shed.” Ep. Ixiii. p. 148. "In “ the priest Melchisedech we see prefigured the sacrament of the “ Christian sacrifice, the holy scriptures declaring: Melchisedec king of “ Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most
high God, and he blessed Abraham. (Gen. xiv.) And that he bore the resemblance of Christ, the Psalmist announces : Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec. (Ps. cix.) This order thus comes and descends from that sacrifice; that Melchisedec was the
priest of the Most High; that he offered bread and wine; and that " he blessed Abraham. And who was so much a priest of the most
high God, as our Lord Jesus Christ? He offered sacrifice to God the “ Father; he offered the same as did Melchisedec, that is, bread and “ wine, his own body and blood : and the blessing given to Abraham,
now applies to our people.” But, in the book of Genesis, that the
blessing given to Abrahain might be properly celebrated, the repre“ șentation of the sacrifice of Christ, appointed in bread and wine, pre“ cedes it; which our Lord perfecting and fulfilling it, himself offered “ in bread and wine; and thus he who is the plenitude, fulfilled the “truth of the prefigured image." Ibid. p. 149. He afterwards adds : “If Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, be himself the high priest of his
Father; and if he first offered himself a sacrifice to him, and coma “ manded the same to be done in remembrance of him; then that priest “truly stands in the place of Christ, who imitates that which Christ
« did, and then offers in the church a true and complete sacrifice “ to God the Father, doing what he ordained. For the whole disci
pline of religion and of truth is subverted, if that which was “ commanded be not faithfully complied with.” Ibid. p. 155.Here then we find this orthodox martyr of the third century declaring that Jesus Christ, our Lord and GOD, was the teacher and founder of this sacrifice, and consequently the mass was of divine institution, and an ordinance of our blessed Saviour. What then becomes of Robert Oguier's doctrine ? Could he be right and St. Cyprian too? Is there not a great inconsistency between these two expounders of scripture ? Who then are we to believe ? Common sense will tell us, he who had the testimony of the apostles and their successors received in all ages and all nations, and not the fanciful reveries of a no one knows who.
FARTHER ACCOUNT OF THE PERSECUTIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES."
PERSECUTIONS IN BOHEMIA AND GERMANY."
« The se
We are now going back to the fourteenth century, for “the few plain Christians seem to pay as little regard to order as they do to truth. The preceding book treated on the real and pretended enormities of the sixteenth century in France; the present takes us into Bohemia and Germany two centuries prior to the reformation so called, when printing too was not invented and the records of passing events very circumscribed. Nevertheless the statements are made with aś much precision, but with as little regard to truth as in the former case. Before we proceed with our remarks we will here give the opening account of the Book of Martyrs of this part of church history.
verity exercised by the Roman Catholics over the reformed Bohe“ mians, induced the latter to send two ministers and four laymen tó “ Rome, in the year 977, to seek redress from the pope. After some “ delay their request was granted, and their grievances redressed. “ Two things in particular were permitted to them, viz. to have divine
vice in their own language, and to give the cup in the sacrament “ to the laity. The disputes, however, soon broke out again, the suc
ceeding popes exerting all their power to resume their tyranny over • the minds of the Bohemians; and the latter, with great spirit, aiming " to preserve their religious liberties.
“ Some zealous friends of the gospel applied to Charles, king of “ Bohemia, A. D. 1375, to call a council for an inquiry into the abuses “ that had crept into the church, and to make a thorough reformation.
Charles, at a loss how to proceed, sent to the pope for advice; the " latter, incensed at the affair, only replied, 'Punish severely those “ presumptuous and profane heretics. The king, accordingly, ba“nished every one who had been concerned in the application, and to
show his zeal for the pope, laid many additional restraints upon the “ reformed Christians of the country.
The martyrdom of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, greatly in“ creased the indignation of the believers, and gave animation to their
These two great and pious men were condemned by order " of the council of Constance, when fifty-eight of the principal Bohe" mian nobility interposed in their favour. Nevertheless they were “burnt; and the pope, in conjunction with the council of Constance, “ ordered the Romish clergy, every where, to excommunicate all who
adopted their opinions, or murmured at their fate. In consequence “ of these orders, great contentions arose between the Papists and “ reformed Bohemians, which produced a violent persecution against " the latter. At Prague it was extremely severe, till, at length, the " reformed, driven to desperation, armed themselves, attacked the “senate-house, and cast twelve of its members, with the speaker, “out of the windows. The pope, hearing of this, went to Florence, "and publicly excommunicated the reformed Bohemians, excit“ing the emperor of Germany and all other kings, princes, dukes, “ &c. to take up arms, in order to extirpate the whole race; promising, by way of encouragement, full remission of all sins to the most " wicked person who should kill one Bohemian Protestant. The re“sult of this was a bloody war; for several Popish princès undertook “ the extirpation, or at least expulsion, of the proscribed people : “ while the Bohemians, arming themselves, prepared to repel them in " the most vigorous manner. The Popish army prevailing against “ the Protestant forces at the battle of Cuttenburgh, they conveyed " their prisoners to three deep mines near that town, and threw seve“ ral hundreds into each, where they perished in a miserable manner.”
We have here as gross and confused a misrepresentation of history as we ever recollect to have met with, even in our research through this mass of lies and slander. The reader is here told by Fox, that the reformed Bohemians were induced, as early as the year 977, to send a deputation to Rome to obtain redress from the pope against the severities exercised on them by the Roman Catholics. But how came the reformed Bohemians to think of seeking redress from the pope ? Did they acknowledge his supremacy? If so, were they not Roman Catholics as well as those who persecuted them? The grievances complained of and redressed, Fox says, were, “to have divine servicein “their own language, and to give the cup in the sacrament to the
laity.” Now it does not appear, from the authorities within our reach, that the receiving of the cup was a matter of dispute at the period named, and Fox has wholly mistaken the time regarding the liturgy. The Bohemians were converted to the Catholic faith somewhere about the latter end of the ninth century, by SS. Cyril and Methodius, who, says the Rev. Alban Butler, in his account of the lives of these two saints, “ translated the liturgy into the Sclavonian tongue, 4 and instituted mass to be said in the same. The archbishop of Saltz“burg, and the archbishop of Mentz, jointly with their suffragans, “ wrote two letters, still extant, to pope John VIII. to complain of this “ novelty introduced by the archbishop Methodius. Hereupon the
pope, in 878, by two letters, one addressed to Tuvantarus, count of “Moravia, and the other to Methodius, whom he styles archbishop “ of Pannonia, cited the latter to come to Rome, forbidding him in the
mean time to say mass in a barbarous tongue. Methodius obeyed, Os and repairing to Rome, gave ample satisfaction to the pope, who
“ confirmed to him the privileges of the archiepiscopal see of the Mo“ ravians, declared him exempt from all dependence on the archbishop “ of Saltzburg, and approved for the Sclavonians the use of the liturgy “and breviary in their own tongue, as he testifies in his letter to count
Sfendopulk, still extant. It is clear from the letters of pope John; “ and from the two lives of this saint, that this affair had never been “ discussed either by pope Nicholas or pope Adrian, as Bona and some “ others have mistaken. The Sclavonian tongue is to this day used in “ the liturgy in that church. The Sclavonian missal was revised by an “ order of Urban VIII. in 1631, and his brief and approbation are pre“fixed to this missal printed at Rome in 1745, at the expense of the
congregation De Propaganda Fide. By the same congregation, in 1688, was printed at Rome, by order of Innocent XI. the Sclavonian
breviary, with the brief of Innocent X. prefixed, by which it is ap“proved and enjoined. The Sclavonians celebrate the liturgy in this
tongue at Leghorn, Aquileia, and in other parts of Italy.”
As this is a very interesting subject, and little known to the generality of readers, we will here give a few further extracts from Mr. A. Butler's work, by which it will be seen how careful the church bas ever been to preserve the purity and consistency of her liturgy in all ages. “ The Sclavonian tongue," writes Mr. B. in a note to SS. Cyril, &c. " is used in the liturgy by the churches of Dalmatia and Illyricum “ who follow the Latin rite; and by those of the Russians, Muscovites, “ and Bulgarians, who follow the Greek rite. And by this the Russian “and Sclavonian rites are distinguished. The use of the Sclavonian “ language in the liturgy and office of the church is approved in the
synod of Zamosci in 1720, under Clement XI, confirmed by Innocent “ XIII. and by Benedict XIV. Inter Plures Const. 98, datâ an. 1744 in “his Bullary, (t. i. p. 376.) The sacred use of that tongue both in “ those Sclavonian churches which follow the Greek, and in those “ which follow the Latin rite was approved by John VIII. Urban VIII. “ Innocent X, and by Benedict XIV. Const. 66. Esti dubitare non
possumus. an. 1742, in his Bullar, t. i. p: 217. Whence in Moravia, Dalmatia, and Illyricum, in some places mass and the divine offices
are celebrated in the Sclavonian tongue; in others in Latin, but in “ several of these, after the gospel has been read in Latin, it is again “ read to the people in a Sclavonian translation. (See Jos, Assemani “ Præf. in t. iv. comm. in Kalendaria Univ. t. iv. par. 2, c. 4. p. 4416.)
Pope Benedict XIV. confirms this approbation of the Sclavonian li
turgy. Const. Ex pastorali munere. anno 1754. As he had before “ confirmed the use of the Greek tongue in the liturgy and divine of“ fices to the Italian Greeks, and Greek Melchites. Const. 57. Et si
Pastoralis, and Const. 87. Demandatum cælitus, in his Bullary, (t. i. p. 169 and 290.) A synod held at Spalatro, under John the archbi
shop of Salona, (which see was soon after translated to Spalatro) and “Maynard, the pope's legate, about the year 1070, forbid the use of “ the Sclavonian tongue in the divine office, which decree was con“firmed by Alexander II. but this must be restrained to the churches
lying toward Poland and Moravia, or it was never carried into execu“ tion. Even in the diocess of Spalatro itself ten chapters and colle“giate churches, besides thirty parishes, celebrate mass and the divine
« office in the Sclavonian tongue, as we are assured by Orbinus, (n. 32.) co quoted by Caraman, the learned archbishop of Jadra, Diss. De Lin
guâ Sclavicâ literali indivinis celebrandis, (n. 32.) The same is tes“tified by Robert Sala, (Observations ad card. Bona Rer. Liturg. 1. i.
c. 9. § 4. p. 152.) who adds, that in the aforesaid diocess only eight “parishes use the Latin tongue in the church. Pope Gregory VII. “ forbid the use of the Sclavonian tongue in the mass, but to the Bo“hemians, (1.7. ep. 2. ad Uratislaum Bohemiæ Ducem.) The grant “ of John VIII. for the sacred use of this tongue was obtained by St. “Methodius after the death of his brother Cyril, and was never ex“ tended to Poland' and Bohemia. Whence it was prohibited when
some began to introduce it there, probably Moravian priests, whose kingdom was extinguished by the Turks, that is, Hungarians in the “tenth age, as Constantine Porphyrogenetta relates.
“ Cardinal Bona, among other mistakes on this head, calls this Scla“ vonian the Illyrican tongue. (Liturg. 1. 1. c. 9. § 4.) Whereas this “ name can only be given to the modern dialect of the Sclavonian now “ in use in that country. The Sclavonian which is allowed in the “ liturgy, is the ancient Sclavonian, mother of the modern dialects, and “ called the Sclavonian language of the schools or of the learned. “Idio
mate, quod nunc Sclavum literale appellant.' says Benedict XIV.
which Urban VIII. and Innocent X. &c. also express. Caraman, af“terwards archbishop of Jadra, revised the breviary and missal of this
rite, printed at Rome in 1741, according to the rules of the ancient Scla“ vonian tongue, of which a dictionary is extant for the use of their cler
gy, called Azbuquidarium, that is, Abecedarium. There is also a grammar of the same, composed by Smotriski, a Russian Basilian monk,
printed at Vilna in 1619, and at Moscow in 1721, &c. How much the “ ancient Sclavonian, or that of the Litterati, differs from all the modern
dialects derived from it, appears from specimens of them exhibited “ from the different translations of the bible given by Le Long, (Bibl. “ Sacra. t. 1. art. 6. sect. i. ii. iii. iv. v. p. 435, &c.) and of the Lord's
prayer given in thirteen dialects of the Sclavonian tongue, (ibid.) and “ in Reland, (ad calcem partis iii. diss. Miscell.)
"The learned cardinal Stanislas Hosius, bishop of Warmia in Poland,
(Dial. De Sacro. Vernacule Legendo) observes, that though the Bo“hemians, Moravians, Poles, Muscovites, Russians, Bosnians, Servi
ans, Croatians, Bulgarians, and some other nations use the Sclavo“nian tongue, (which is extended through one quarter of Europe,) yet “ these dialects differ so much, that a Pole understands no more of the
language of a Dalmatian than a high German, or a native of Switzer
land, understands the low Dutch. This author thinks the Sclavonian “ the most extensive of all languages; but the Arabic reaches much
farther, being used not only by the Christians who inhabit Arabia,
Syria and Egypt, but also by the Mahometans in Asia, Africa, and a “ considerable part of Europe. The church, to prevent the frequent
changes to which the modern languages are subject, allows in her " office only the Chaldaic or modern Hebrew, which is the ancient sa5 cred language; the Greek, the language of the philosophers and all " the Oriental schools ; Latin, the language of the learned in the West, " and the Sclavonian. Herbinius (de Religiosis Kioviensibus Chryp