Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

God, that if the mass, of itself, should nothing at all hinder godliness, yet worthily, and by the commandment of God, it were to be abolished the which thing is evident, even out of Isaiah only (ch. ii., 18). For our God is a Spirit, and truth, and therefore He cannot abide to be worshipped but in spirit and truth (John iv., 24). And how grievous a thing this unreasonable selling of the sacraments is unto the Lord, our preachers would have men thereby to conjecture, that Christ did so sharply, and altogether against His accustomed manner, taking unto Himself an external kind of revengement, cast out of the temple those that bought and sold (Matt. xxi., 12): whereas they might seem to exercise merchandise only in this respect, that they might further those sacrifices which were offered according to the law.

Therefore, seeing that the rite of the mass, which was wont to be celebrated, is so many ways contrary to the Scripture of God, as also it is in every respect diverse from that which the holy Fathers used, it hath been very vehemently 'condemned amongst us out of the pulpit, and, by the word of God, been made so detestable, that many, of their own accord, have altogether forsaken it; and elsewhere, by the authority of the magistrate, it is abrogated. The which thing we have not taken upon us for any other cause than for that, throughout the whole Scripture, the Spirit of God doth detest nothing so much, neither command it so earnestly to be taken away, as a feigned and false worship of Himself. Now, no man that hath any spark of religion in him, can be ignorant, what an inevitable necessity is laid upon him that feareth God, when, as he is persuaded, that God doth require a thing at his hands. For any man may easily foresee how many would take it at our hands, that we should change anything about the holy rite of the mass; neither were there any which would not rather have chosen, in this point, not only not to have offended your sacred majesty, but even any prince of the lowest degree. But when as here withal they did not doubt, but that, by that common rite of the mass, God was most grievously provoked, and that His glory, for the which we ought to spend

our lives, was darkened, they could not but take it away, lest that they also, by winking at it, should make themselves partakers with them in diminishing the glory of God. Truly, if God is to be loved and worshipped above all, godly men must tolerate nothing less, than that which He doth hate and detest. And that this one cause did constrain us to change certain things in these points, we take Him to witness, from whom no secret is hid.

Such is the summary of Protestant doctrine, as it presents itself to us in the authoritative confessions of the various leading churches of Europe. To say that they are identical, would be to assert more than a comparison of them would warrant to declare them all at variance, and little consistent with each other, would be to hazard an assertion destitute of any foundation in truth. It may fearlessly be asserted that, in all important points, they agree, whether in profession or protestation. They generally agree in what they require and what they reject. This could surely not have been the result of accident; for to suppose that men, far removed from each other, of different nations and of differing speech, should, by some hap-hazard good fortune, come to such agreement, is to ignore all our experience of human affairs. This agreement has been before noticed, not as first existing in the sixteenth century, but in the antecedent succession of ages, when occasions called for confessions and protestations.

It is unnecessary for me to indicate the origin of this common agreement in the positive and the negative of Protestant confessions. That is sufficiently seen in the one only recognised basis of authority among them all; viz., the Holy Scriptures. There may be differences as to the amount of deference to be allowed to Church authority, or the independency of private judgment, and the sophistry of adversaries may make much of such differences; but the proof of the consent of common sense with Church authority, and the absence of practical difficulty, whatever of theoretical men may conjure up, shew that the word of God is a safe guide, not leading to confusion, but to peace and unity in

the churches of the saints. It was a simple knowledge of the Scriptures, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the work of the Reformation, and made it what it is. On the subject of the Lord's Holy Supper, the several expressions are consentaneous, and all fearlessly referred for their authority to the unerring Word. Adhering to the same, whatever verbal alterations the lapse of time may make desirable, or even necessary, no man need be afraid of the divine authority of his faith, nor, if held in sincerity, can such faith be unproductive of good works. Here faith and its fruits have been seen for centuries, in happy combination and vigorous exercise, bringing glory to God and happiness to man, while the system to which our doctrine is opposed has been openly proved the blight of the creature's happiness, and the annihilation of the glory of the Creator. I will now proceed to shew that there were other churches, even in the middle ages, in which the fatal doctrines of Rome had no influence whatever: when the attempt was made to induce or compel uniformity, the effort failed, leaving us a more striking evidence that the decrees of Lateran and of Trent were unknown, in the earlier ages, to churches independent of Italian influences.

CHAPTER V.

THE BELIEF OF THE GREEK CHURCH ON THE ARTICLE OF

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

I HAVE purposely abstained, hitherto, from producing any authorities from the later Greek Church, to shew that it did not agree with the Roman, because I intended to give a brief sketch of its belief on the subject of our enquiry separately. I will now proceed to do so, following, in great measure, Mons. Claude,* in his reply to Arnaud, who has thoroughly examined every branch of the subject, and very satisfactorily shewn that there is more disparity between the doctrine of the Greek and Roman Churches, than between the Greek and English. It will be seen, in short, that the Greek Church has retained most of the phraseology of the very early Greek Fathers, but that the Church of Rome has run from the more sober statements of Augustine, even far beyond the figurative and poetical language of the primitive Greek Fathers, till they have interpreted, with the strictest literalness, every flowery and imaginative expression of the first ages.

Now, the decided difference which exists between the Greek and Roman Church, is plainly seen in the fact, that in no one work of a pure Greek is there any such word as that of μetovoiwois (transubstantiation) ever used, with reference to the sacramental change, notwithstanding that efforts have been perseveringly sustained to bring about a perfect identity of faith and confession by the Church of Rome. The Greeks, however, have adhered to their general terms,

* See Claude's Catholic Doct. of Euch. in all Ages, book iii.

+ Ibid. book ii., c. 5, for instances.

μεταβάλλεσθαι, μεταποιεισθαι, μεταβαίνειν, μεταῤῥυθμίζειν, μετασκευάζειν, &c. Now, when we come to consider this argument, it is of great weight; for there could be no difficulty in the use of a word by the Greek Church, if that word properly expressed their belief,— nay, if it had done so, it could not well have been avoided by their theological writers. But no such word is found in the works of John Damascene, Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, Theophilact, Oecumenius, Zonaras, Germain, Balsamon, Nicetas Choniatus, Cabasilas, Marc of Ephesus, Feremias the patriarch, Metrophanus, and as many others whose works are extant, nor any such expression as supports the idea of transubstantiation. And this will appear much more remarkable, if we call to mind the definite and careful language finally adopted by the Western Church, as it is seen in the decrees and catechisms of councils and popes. This was clearly exemplified in the experience of Mr. Basire, who, being the king's chaplain, visited the Greek Churches about the middle of the seventeenth century. In writing to Mr. Claude, he says, "The Greek Church does nowhere teach transubstantiation. I mean in their public symbols, confessions and catechisms, &c.; several of which I have, upon this account, carefully perused, but could not find in any of them the least trace either of this term of transubstantiation, or the thing itself signified thereby, which doctrine was altogether unknown to the Greek Fathers. I matter not some private doctors amongst them; for I know that a certain monk, of the number of these false Greeks, had secretly inserted METOVσiwois (transubstantiation) in his catechism, which I saw at Constantinople; but he was severely checked for it by the true Greeks." And this difference becomes still more marked, when

Dico in specie Ecclesiam Græcam, transubstantiationem nullibi asserere, neque voce, neque re. De publicis instrumentis, puta symbolis, confessionibus, catechismis, &c., intellegi volo: quorum plurima pervolvi ad indaginem, neque in eorum vel unico, μeTovoiwoews vocis, ut et rei ipsius, priscis patribus Græcis prorsus ignotæ vel vola vel vestigium. Privatos eorum doctores nil moror, quoniam non sum nescius quemdam ipsorum pseudo-Græcorum hieromonachum in suam catechesin quam mili videre licuit Constantinopoli, illam vocem μetovoiwoews intrusisse, qui vel ideo verorum Græcorum censuram haud effugit.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »