« PreviousContinue »
and yet he was thereby nothing hindered, neither to discharge his duty, nor to any other godly purpose. Tertullian was a priest and married, as appeareth by his own book written to his wife. Gregory, St. Basil's brother, was bishop of Nyssa, yet married.
Another Gregory was bishop of Nazianzene, yet married, and nevertheless a faithful servant and steward of the mysteries of God. Hilary was bishop of Poictiers, yet married. All these were holy and godly, and chaste in body and in spirit, and yet were married. Gregory Nazianzene saith, marriage is worthy of praise, for the quietness and contentation that is in it. And Clemens Alexandrinus saith, “ As well marriage, as also chastity, have their peculiar offices pertaining to God.' And Chrysostom saith, Marriage is void of fault, and is no hindrance to virtue.' Again: "So precious a thing is matrimony, that with the same thou mayst be promoted even to a bishop's chair.'
• What are they, then, that call marriage uncleanness, filthiness, a work of the flesh ? that say it defileth a man, and therefore God's ministers may not be married ? How can they thus speak that have any knowledge of that which God hath spoken? May we not worthily say unto such despisers of lawful marriage, that which St. Bernard in like case said, “They bear us in hand that they speak these things for love of chastity ;' whereas, indeed, they have devised the same to
the end, to nourish and to increase their filthiness. Or, as St. Augustine some time said to the Manichees, “Ye forbid not copulation ; but, as it was long ago forespoken by the apostle, ye forbid
* Jewel, on the Sacraments.
THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Church of Rome.
Church of England. “ I further profess, that in the “ The Supper of the Lord is mass is offered unto God a true, not only a sign of the love that proper, and propitiatory sacri. Christians ought to have among fice for the living and the dead; themselves one to another ; but and that in the most holy sacra- rather is a sacrament of our ment of the Eucharist, there is redemption by Christ's death: really, truly, and substantially insomuch that to such as rightly, the body and blood, together worthily, and with faith, rewith the soul and divinity of ceive the same, the bread which our Lord Jesus Christ; and we break is a partaking of the that a conversion is made of the body of Christ; and likewise the whole substance of the bread cup of blessing is a partaking of into his body, and of the whole the blood of Christ. substance of the wine into his “ Transubstantiation (or the blood, which conversion the Ca- change of the substance of bread tholic church calls Transub- and wine) in the Supper of the stantiation."— Trent. Prof. Lord, cannot be proved by holy
writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
“ The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.
“ The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."- Art. xxviii.
There is no one article of faith in which there appears a greater difference of opinion in the two churches we are comparing, than the one which forms the leading subject of the articles given above. The Romish doctrine of transubstantiation exhibits the most fearful perversion of the divinely appointed, and “ most comfortable sacrament of the body and blood of Christ." “ Next to the doctrine of infallibility,” says Bishop Burnett, “ this is the most valued of all their other tenets; this is the most important in itself, since it is the main part of their worship, and the chief subject of all their devotions. There is not any one thing in which both clergy and laity are more concerned, which is more generally studied, and for which they pretend they have more plausible colours, both from Scripture and the Fathers; and if sense and reason seem to press hard upon it, they reckon that, as they understand the words of St. Paul, every thought must be captivated into the obedience of faith.” In her decided protest against this doctrine of the church of Rome, the church of England declares-—“ Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath occasion to many superstitions."
The doctrine of the church of Rome on transubstantion is thus stated in the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, to which the priests of that church are required to subscribe, even to this day.
“ Forasmuch as our Redeemer Christ has said, that was truly his body which he offered under the appearance of bread; it has, therefore, always been believed in the church, and this holy council now afresh declares, that by the consecration of bread and wine, there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread, into the substance of the body of our Lord Christ; and of the whole substance of the wine, into the substance of his blood; which conversion is fitly and properly called by the holy Catholic church, transubstantiation."*
“ If any one shall deny, that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are contained,
* “ Quoniam autem Christus redemptor noster, corpus suum id, quod sub specie panis offerebat, verè esse dixit: ideò persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit, id que nunc denuò sancta hæc Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiæ panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri, et totius substantiæ vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus. Quæ conversio convenienter et propriè à sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transsubstantiatio est appellata."-Sess. xii. c. iv.