« PreviousContinue »
We will mention but one more of the glorious army of martyrs, who suffered under the Antipapal but no less Antiprotestant king. This is Thomas Frith. He has the credit of being the first in England who plainly denied the corporeal presence in the Eucharist. He was a good scholar, and a pious humble-minded mạn. Sir Thomas More wrote against him, and with considera. able power of verbiage and wit, but of course straight-forward argument was wanting; and Frith's plain artless book immeasurably surpassed it in effect, because an unvarnished statement of the case, according to Scripture and common sense. By the way, his book was written in gaol, and at a time when he was loaded with chains, so that scarce could he sit upright. Well says John Calvin, in his Institutes, “ Attilius Regulus shut up in a barrel studded with sharp nails may have a will no less free than Augustus Cæsar ruling with Imperial sway over the earth." And still better, as William Cowper sings :
“He is the freeman whom the truth makes free,
And all are slaves besides. There's not a chain
The oppressor holds
Whom God delights in, and in whom He dwells." William Frith, writing for God's truth in a gloomy dungeon, with chains crushing the hand that guided, firm of grasp, the pen of a ready writer, is a fine illustration of these noble lines. With him was martyred a poor illiterate youth named HewET, and it is affecting to read that when examined he denied the corporeal presence, but was unable to argue against it, and " resolved to do as Frith did.” Surely he had the witness in himself, and felt the liberty wherewith Christ makes free his peculiar people. When at the stake, Frith expressed great joy at his opportunity of witnessing for Jesus, and in ecstacy of spirit hugged the faggots which were to feed the flame of death. Precious in the Lord's sight is the death of his saints ! Bayswater, Jan. 1846.
ed to do as he liberty w stake, Frichs, and in ec of death.
[From A CORRESPONDENT.]
(Continued from page 80.) THE ROMAN CATHOLIC THE PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN; OR, CHRISTIAN.
“WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE ?” ON BAPTISM.
Sacrament 1st. Vide page 12 – Q. Are For the baptism of our Lord the the ceremonies of baptism founder of the Christian religion and very ancient ?
Head of the Church, water only sufA. They are all of them ficed. “And Jesus, when he was bapvery ancient, as may be tized, went up straightway out of the demonstrated from the writ- water.” (St. Matt. iii. 16.) “And was ings of the holy Fathers; baptized of John in Jordan.” (St. Mark and as we know no begin- i. 9.) “I indeed baptize you with waning of them, we have. ter.” (St. Luke iii. 16.) - And I knew reason to conclude that they him not, but he that sent me to baptize come from apostolical tra- with water.” (St. John i. 33.) Having dition.
thus the most ancient practice and its Q. In what order, or concomitant authority from the four manner, does the Catholic Evangelists, let us farther inquire what Church proceed in the ad. was the apostolical practice? for traministration of baptism? dition, if apostolical, must surely accord
A. Having asked the with apostolical practice; otherwise can name, and what dost thou it be true ? demand of the Church of “And he commanded the chariot to God ?-Ans. “ Faith.” stand still; and they went down both
The priest blows three into the water, both Philip and the times upon the face of the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (Acts person that is to be bap- viii. 38.) Read also 36, 37, and 39, tized.
: especially note, that “when they were This ceremony was prac- come up out of the water, the Spirit tised by the Universal of the Lord, caught away Philip," &c. Church long before St. Au. “Then answered Peter, can any man gustine's days, who calls it forbid water, that these should not be a most ancient tradition. baptized, which have received the Holy
Then the priest makes the Ghost as well as we.” (Acts X. 47.) sign of the cross on the forehead and on the breast. Then the priest (2) blesses (2) True. But we are not under the some salt, and puts a grain law ! but under the Gospel dispensation. of it into the mouth of the
SETELL person that is to be bap
.:,. tized; it was commanded in the law (Lev. ii. 13), that salt should be used in every sacrifice, or oblation made to God.
ON BAPTISM. Page 15. — Then the (3) “ Jesus, I know; and Paul, I know; priest (3) proceeds to the so- but who are ye?” (Acts xix. 15.) Read lemn prayers of exorcisms 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th verses. See to cast out the devil from what befell the seven sons of the Chief the soul. Then he signs of the priests who “took upon themthe forehead with the sign selves," &c. of the cross. After these All these ceremonies, man's invention, prayers and exorcisms, the not Christ's ordination, since not one of priest reaches forth the ex- them is to be found in the Bible, may tremity of his stole, lays it dazzle, may bewilder the mind, but is it upon the infant, and so not safer, “ to follow the Lamb whitherintroduces him into the soever he goeth?” What can more Church. Being come into fitly represent the washing away of our the Church, the priest reads sins by his most precious blood, than another exorcism. After water? the symbol of purification ! nay, which he wets his finger the very word itself, baptism, signifies with his spittle, and touches washing! Do not the Scriptures testify first the ears of the cate. against all who add to, or diminish chumen, saying, “ Ephpha- ought from the Word of God ? Here, tha;” then his nostrils, then, the way Christ appointed, is thus adding these words, “unto openly rejected and other paths struck the odour of sweetness." out. Why? Because the simplicity of “ But be thou put to flight, Christ's ordinance is revolting to the O Deyil, for the judgment pride of man, and, like Naaman, he re. of God will be at hand.” fuses merely to “ wash and be clean.?. Then the priest anoints the Produce but one text of Scripture, to catechumen with holy oil prove all these ceremonies, or even one upon the breast and be- of them, was commanded by our Lord, tween the shoulders. Then and practised by St. Peter, or any other the god-father and god- of the other apostles; and for this airy mother, both holding, or unsubstantial nothing this viewless, touching their god-child, shapeless form, tradition ! never really the priest pours the water existing, or too gladly would the very upon his head three times words be repeated to prove it had more in the form of a cross than a inere nominal existence; this is
· Page 18.- Then the actually brought forward, though mani. priest anoints the person festly contrary to apostolical practice, as baptized on the top of the set forth in Scripture. Surely, the sehead, in the form of a cross, verity with which our blessed Lord rewith holy chrism, a com- prehends all appeals to tradition; and his pound of oil and balm ; constant reference to Scripture alone, which ceremony comes from might have some weight with those bearapostolical tradition. Af- ing his name, and professing to follow ter which, the priest puts Him! might convince them, which he upon the head a white has appointed as our guide; the Holy linen cloth, called the chry- Scriptures, or tradition. som. Then he puts a lighted candle into the hand of the person baptized, or of the god-father.
(4) on CONFIRMATION.
(4) on CONFIRMATION. Sacrament 2d.
Sacrament 2d. Page 25.-- The bishop Not ordained a Sacrament by our makes the sign of the cross, Lord; and laying on of hands with with holy chrism, upon the prayer, was all that was practised by the forehead of each one of apostles,-no anointing, &c. The chrism those that are to be con- is a relic of Judaism, in imitation of the firmed. After which he ointment ordered to be compounded gives the person a little in the Levitical law, but the Christian blow on the cheek, saying, understands the Mosaic law was abo" Pax-tecum."
lished, and gave place to the Gospel.
(5) OF THE EUCHARIST.
(5) OF THE EUCHARIST. Sacrament 3d.
Sacrament 3d. Page 27.-Q. Is it then was the bread broken by our Lord the belief of the Church himself, also his body? Because in that that Jesus Christ himself, case, it would appear there were then true God and man, is truly, present, two Christs! for the Scriptures really, and substantially say, “Jesus took bread," &c., therefore, present in the blessed sacra- he was actually sitting at the table with ment?
his disciples ! How then could the A. It is ; for where the bread be also his body ? and farther, body and blood of Christ “ This do in remembrance of me,” are, there his soul also, and surely not only implies, but incontestibly his Divinity, must needs be; proves the corporeal absence of him we and, consequently, there are required to remember. “ Thou wilt must be whole Christ, God not suffer thy Holy One to see corrupand man. There is no tion.” But if received into corruptible taking him in pieces. bodies, how can this doctrine agree with
Scripture? for “his flesh saw not cor
ruption.” (6) Q. Is that which we (6) Is the same body, the apostles saw receive in this sacrament the ascend up into heaven, indeed, brought same body as that which down thence at the command and invowas born of the blessed cation of the priest? himself a mortal Virgin, and which suffered and a sinner! See Hebrews ix. 24; al-. for us upon the cross ? so Hebrews x. 10 and 12. If Christ,
A. 'Tis the same body, granted of course, never had but one for Christ never had but body, how is it on the occasion before one body. The only dif- specified, he had two ? If this body is ference is, that then his changed from mortal to immortal, &c., body was mortal and pas, can it be precisely the same? sible ; 'tis now immortal and impassible.
(7) Page 29.- 'Tis not (7) Can the Roman “Catholic Chrisincumbent upon us to give tian" assign a reason for receiving one mea reason why we take these taphor and rejecting another, farther than words of Christ, “this is —“Christendom and Church I” See 1 my body,” according to Cor. x. 1st to end of 4th verse, where their natural and proper Christ is compared to a rock_" for they sense.
all drank of that spiritual rock that fol
OF THE EUCHARIST...
OF THE EUCHARIST. Page 34.- Christendom lowed them, and that rock was Christ”has for many ages judged shew the “similitude, qualities, and prothat they ought to be taken perties” of our Lord's sacred body in the without the least scruple rock: since you say there is none in the to the letter, because the bread and wine, though our Saviour Church of God has au- evidently considered bread was a fit reprethorized the literal inter- sentative of His body. “I am the living pretation of the words of bread which came down from heaven.” the blessed sacrament, not (John vi. 51; read also from 31st to so of those other expres- 58th.) In the bread and wine there is, sions, “I am the door," moreover, readily discerned a “similitude, " the vine." A thing may quality and property of our Lord's body." indeed, by an elegant figure lst, because He, our highest authority, be called by the name compared himself to bread, “I am the of that thing of which it bread of life;" and 2dly, because bread has the qualities or proper- is considered the staff or support of life ties, but it would be no and so called ; and, farther, wine, “which elegant metaphor to call maketh glad the heart of man,” aptly bread and wine, without represents His most precious blood, making any change in “ This is my blood,” the shedding of them, His body and blood, which redeems man from death. We because bread and wine are told, “the blood is the life,” and our have in themselves neither lives being forfeited by Adam's transany similitude, nor quality, gression, are redeemed solely by His life nor property of Christ's or blood being " poured out,” “ given a body and blood; as it would ransom for many.” It would be more be absurd for the same than absurd to call any door or vine reason to point at any par- Jesus Christ ! for, save one totally bereft ticular door or vine and of reason, none could surely be guilty of say, “this is Jesus Christ." such glaring impiety; therefore so weak
an argument makes nothing in favour of
the opinion adduced.. (8.) Page 40.—But that (8.) How ?—nota Divine precept! Was this Sacrament should be the Divinity of our Saviour suspended received in both kinds is not when He instituted this sacrament, and a Divine precept, nor was commanded both to be received? You ever understood to be such could not surely, with the Bible in by the Church of God; your hands, venture to make so fearful which always believes that an assertion ? besides, why do you admit under either kind, Christ is of its being received in both kinds by the received whole and entire, priests if there is no command for it, and and,consequently, that under you deem it so perfectly unnecessary ? either kind we sufficiently May you not use the words of the Procomply with the precept of phet Isaiah and say, “Is there not a lie receiving His flesh and in my right hand?"_for, though the blood.
Romish Church may so understand our Lord's express command, “nevertheless what saith the Scripture ?” See St. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, where bread is first broken to represent His body then