صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

"2

Rome, saith," the fathers of the council of Chalcedon were they who offered his predecessors the title of universal bishop, which yet they accepted not:"" and, to convince us that this universal supremacy is a late device, it is evident that it was not only unknown to others in the first age, but to the very Popes themselves, as these few instances will show: Liberius Bishop of Rome, an. 350, sending the confession of his faith to Athanasius, desireth his approbation thereof," that I may know (saith he) whether I am of the same judgment with you in matters of faith, and that I may be more certain, and readily obey your commands." And when the Bishop of Constantinople began to call himself universal bishop, Pope Gregory, in his epistle to Mauritius the emperor, saith, " he admires at the arrogance of assuming this new title, which none of the Bishops of Rome had ever accepted of, a title blasphemous to Christian ears;" and with many other words he inveighs against this title, as unfit for any Christian bishop, as may be seen at large in his epistles. And in his epistle to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, he is displeased that Eulogius writes to him "by the proud title of universal bishop, desiring him wholly to forbear that language, for (saith he) that is a diminution to you which is afforded to another beyond what reason doth require;" and he there tells Eulogius" that the council of Chalcedon had offered this title to the old Bishops of Rome, but they would not accept it ;" of which he gives this reason in another epistle, "because if one patriarch be called universal, the name of patriarch is taken from the rest." And so little did Pope Boniface think of deriving his supremacy from Christ, that with entreaty he obtained of the intruding Emperor Phocas to decree "that the Roman Church should be head of all Churches, as the ancient historians witness.”” But this imperial constitution will scarce justify the supremacy and jurisdiction which the Pope now claimeth over all the world, and it utterly destroys the pretences of a divine right to it. It would be too tedious to relate at large all the steps by which the Bishops of Rome attained to their present grandeur; I shall, therefore, only note that the first ages began early to complain of his encroachments and ambition; and all succeeding times frequently opposed the Pope's pretences herein. The sixth council of Carthage allowed not his claim of appeals. The bishops of France complain of his sending a legate to dedicate a church there, as an undue act, contrary to the ancient canons and all primitive constitutions," for though (saith, the historian) the Bishop of Rome, for the dignity of his apostolical seat, be more venerable than other bishops, yet it is not lawful for him in any thing to transgress the tenor of canonical rules; and, as every bishop of the orthodox church is the spouse of his own see, and represents the person of our Saviour, so it cannot agree to any bishop boldly to act any thing in the diocess of another;" 10 the like checks the Popes frequently received for meddling in France, from the princes of that nation.11 About that time also, the bishops of Italy com

1 Gregor. Epist. lib. 7, Ep. 30.

2 Athanas. Ep. ad Epictet.

3 Gregor. Epist. lib. 2, ad Maurit. Epist. 32, 36, 38.

4 Gregor. Epist. lib. 7, Ep. 30.

6 Beda, de Sext. Ætat. Mundi.

5 Idem, lib. 7, Epist. 36.

Paul. Diacon. Rer. Rom. lib. 18. Histor. Longob. lib. 4, cap. 11.-Anastas. Bibl. Vit. Bonif. Tertii.-Ado Ætat. Sext. Reg. Chron. 1. 1.-Aimon. de Gest. Franc. 1.4,

c. 4.

• Firmilianus ad Cypr. Ep. 75.

10 Glaber. Rodulph. Hist. lib. 2, cap. 4.

9 Concil. 6, Carthag. An. 419.

11 Vita Ludov. Pii à P. Pithæo edit. An. 863.-Annal. Franc. à P. Pithæo. eod. an.

8

plained of the Roman usurpation to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as appears by Photius's letter, in answer to that complaint, extant in Cardinal Baronius. And there are many like examples in the historians of those ages, wherein this bold jurisdiction began first to be exercised in this western part of Europe.2 And to this very day the churches of France do little value the Pope's supremacy, though, in other opinions, they agree with the Roman Church, as may be seen in the French writers.3 And it is not long since the king of France was about to take away his nation's dependence from Rome, by erecting the archbishopric of Bourges into a patriarchate.

And, now, why should you be awed into the belief of evil and inconvenient doctrines by a pretended supremacy-not given by Christ,-not challenged by the best Popes,-not acknowledged by the first Christians. -not much regarded by some Catholic countries? Why should you be enslaved by an authority gained by fraud and policy,-confirmed by force and cruelty, enlarged by dividing Christian princes, by the undermining the empire and oppressing many ecclesiastical and temporal persons in their just rights? Why should you fear to renounce an usurped jurisdiction, since "what is unjustly seized on at first can never be legally enjoyed, nor is it confirmed by the longest prescription of time,' as the civil law speaks? I must confess that I cannot see that any Christians without the pale of his own diocess are obliged to own him farther than by the respect due to a bishop of an ancient patriarchal see; nor so far neither if he be not content with his own, and keep not close to the primitive faith.

[ocr errors]

ON THE CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH.

By the Right Rev. HERBERT MARSH, D.D., F.R.S., late Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

THE ceremonies of our church to which the principal objections have been made, are those of kneeling at the altar, the making the sign of the cross at baptism, and the use of the ring in the marriage service.

Now if kneeling at the altar implied the worshipping of the consecrated elements, the practice would be undoubtedly superstitious; for it would then resemble the worship which the Church of Rome requires for the host. But since this worship is founded on the belief that, as soon as the wafer is consecrated, Christ himself is corporeally as well as spiritually before them, and this corporeal presence is wholly rejected by our Church, the kneeling in the one case has no similarity to the kneeling in the other. That the simple elements of bread and wine, detached from the corporeal presence, are objects of adoration, was never pretended even by the Church of Rome. Consequently there

1 Photius Constant. Ep. Encycl. ap. Baron. An. 863. § 42.

2 Constit. Imper. à Godalsto. Tom. 1. page 24, 25.-Luitprand. Ticin. Hist. lib. 6, cap. 9, 10. 3 Bochellus, 1. 5, de Decret. Eccles. Gallic. tit. 20.-Pithæus de Lib. Eccles. Gallian. c. 3, §3, n. 13.

LL. Basilic. 1. 10, tit. 1; and Balsamon Not. in Concil. Ancyran, p. 378.

can be no ground for the imputation that our kneeling at the altar implies a worshipping of the bread and wine.

It is an act of reverence due to the founder of that holy sacrament, at whose very name St. Paul declares (Phil. ii. 10) that every knee should bow. Surely then it is not superstituous to kneel during that most solemn act of devotion, when we partake of the bread and wine in remembrance that Christ died for us. Nor is it superstition to prefer at the altar our prayers and thanksgivings to Christ himself, who from his divine nature must be spiritually though not corporeally omnipresent. If it is not superstitious therefore to pray to him on our knees in one place, it cannot be superstitious to pray to him on our knees in another. Unless then it is superstitious to pray at all on our knees, it is not superstitious to pray on our knees at the altar. But no one can maintain the former position without the impiety of imputing superstition to Christ himself. For Christ himself, on the very night on which he had instituted that holy sacrament, "kneeled down and prayed." Luke, xxii. 41. Indeed the act of kneeling is so congenial with those feelings of humility which cannot fail to be excited in us when we address ourselves to God, that it was common both to the prophets of the Old Testament, and to the apostles of the New. 2 Chron. vi. 13. Ezra, ix. 5. Daniel, vi. 10. Acts, ix. 40; xx. 36.

Nor are we superstitious at the sacrament of baptism, when we use the sign of the cross. In the figurative language of Scripture, we are told by Christ himself that we must take up our cross and follow Him. Matt. xvi. 24. In the same figurative language we are told also by St. Paul, that the preaching of Christianity is the preaching of the cross; that the enemies of Christianity are the enemies of the cross; that persecution for Christianity is persecution for the cross; and that our glory in Christianity is our glory in the cross. 1 Cor. i. 18. Phil. iii. 18. Gal. vi. 12, 14. Since then both Christ himself, and his apostle St. Paul, have represented the cross as the very badge of Christianity, it is surely an appropriate ceremony, when persons are admitted into fellowship with Christ, as they are at baptism, to express by the sign of the cross that the badge of Christianity is conferred on the persons so admitted. If this is superstitious, it is superstitious when we are admitted to an order of mere human institution to receive the badge of that order. Nay, it is superstitious, in an act of reconciliation, to give the right hand of fellowship.

Lastly, with respect to the use of the ring in marriage, it is simply a token of honour, of which we find various examples in Scripture itself. When Pharaoh proposed to confer a mark of honour on Joseph, he " took off his ring from his right hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand." Gen. xli. 42. In like manner Ahasuerus "took his ring from his hand and gave it to Haman ;" and, when Mordecai had found favour in his sight, "the king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai." Esther, iii. 10; viii. 2. Again, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the father ordered on his return, as a token of regard and favour, a ring to be put upon his hand. Luke, xv. 22. We have, therefore, the authority of Scripture for using a ring as a token of honour ; and that nothing more was meant in the marriage service, is evident from the form of words with which the giving of the ring is accompanied.

THE EUCHARIST, A COMMEMORATIVE SACRIFICE.

SIR,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EPISCOPAL MAGAZINE.

IN your December number, Mr. Pinckard has fulminated a bull against me, in defence of his position that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice. *I wish he had confined himself to that point, instead of introducing so many things unconnected with the subject. He says, "that (the propitiatory nature of the Eucharist,) is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, I know; but that it is either popish, or unsound, or unscriptural, or not the doctrine of the Catholic Church, I have yet to learn." Nevertheless he appears to have some misgivings on the subject, for he fairly admits, page 751, that the doctrine of the Church of England is entitled to consideration :-" " It is a commemorative sacrifice,' says T. S.; and it must be admitted that this opinion is entitled to more consideration."

[ocr errors]

I cer

on the

This makes the way more easy, and I regret that the task of pointing it out has not fallen into hands better able to do it justice. tainly did not call upon your correspondent to review his opinion intercession of saints," as the subject was not mentioned in my letter, although I think it were, perhaps, as well if he did.

Adam was created in innocency, and placed in Paradise, with whom God entered into covenant; one condition of which was that he should abstain from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Although in the highest state of grace, yet he suffered himself to be overcome by temptation, broke the condition, and forfeited for himself and posterity all the privileges to which he had been entitled. After his fall from grace, he was subjected to the power of the devil, and deprived of the divine Spirit or Image of God in which he was created. In consequence, his understanding was darkened, the fleshly lusts and appetites prevailed over his reason, and he became subject to death. God did not, however, utterly abandon him; but, out of his own free grace and mercy, with the condemnation at the same time promised him a Redeemer. To fit and prepare the world for the advent of this Redeemer, he established several preparatory dispensations by types and prophecies, and animal sacrifices. "As we find," says Bishop Jolly, the worship by sacrifice well pleasing to God immediately after the Fall; so, after the Flood, Noah, as soon as he came out of the ark, built an altar unto the Lord, and offered sacrifice. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour,' the incense of his Son's merits, in whose sacrifice and intercession he absolutely acquiesces; and through him, whom Noah and his sacrifice represented, he established his Covenant, the effect of

6

which tends to comfort and raise the human race from its ruins.'

"1

In the fulness of time God sent the promised Redeemer, who became a mediator of the new and everlasting covenant between God and man. As a prophet, he revealed the whole will of God; and by

VOL. II.

1 Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist, p. 20.

his Spirit he continues to teach the same to his church. As a priest, he offered himself up a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. As the penalty of sin, he underwent death, and made satisfaction to the divine justice, not only for Adam's transgression, but also for the actual sins of all his posterity. By this all-sufficient sacrifice, perfect oblation, and full satisfaction, he established a new covenant betwixt God and man; and, in virtue of it, now makes continual intercession for us as an everlasting priest. He himself was both the priest and the sacrifice:" he offered himself without spot unto God:" "now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself:"1 "he gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." 2

As Adam was our head under the covenant made with him, so Christ, who is the second Adam, is our head under the new or evangelical covenant, of which he is the mediator. The benefits of Christ's purchase extend to all mankind, on condition of their becoming members of his mystical body the Church, by holy baptism, in which we are created anew in Christ, or regenerated, and receive spiritual life, the eyes of our understandings are enlightened, and "we are made members of Christ, the children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven." On condition of keeping the obligations of our baptismal covenant, God is pleased to grant to us remission of the sin of Adam, and to promise, on the condition of faith and repentance, to pardon all our actual sins, to give us the assistance of his Holy Spirit and the assurance of immortal happiness in heaven. Having been buried with Christ in baptism, regenerated by a new creation, and, farther, made the temple for the Holy Spirit's residence, in confirmation, as living members of the Church, we have access through him to the Father, and may join with the Church in offering the Christian sacrifice. "Such offering of bread and wine," says Bishop Jolly, " is expressly called sacrifice, as distinguished from slain beasts, in St. Stephen's sermon before the Sanhedrim. Indeed, we need not hesitate to assert that there were many more unbloody than bloody sacrifices presented at God's altar."

In the same night in which Christ assumed his Melchisedechian priesthood, he offered himself a free and voluntary sacrifice to God the Father, under the symbols of bread representing his body, and wine representing his blood. After having blessed these symbols of his body and blood, he gave them to his disciples as a memorial or commemoration of that sacrifice of himself which was to be slain on the cross the following day. Christ instituted the sacrament of the Lord's supper, of which bread and wine were the signs, symbols, or memorials, before he made the propitiatory atonement on the cross; consequently it is a commemorative and not a propitiatory sacrifice. He offered the propitiatory sacrifice, and made atonement for the sins of the whole world the next day on the cross, after which, when he declared, "it is finished," animal and typical sacrifices ceased. The propitiation being once made cannot be repeated. The blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world was the con

1 Heb. ix. 14 and 26.

2 Eph. v. 2.

« السابقةمتابعة »