Page images
PDF
EPUB

IV.

19. So that in all their divisions and controversies, CHAP. the contending parties could appeal to the same fathers and general councils with the Papists, and alternately boast of having on their side, the decrees of the council of Nice, of Chalcedon, or Constantinople; or the ancient writings of Origen, St. Ambrose, or St. Augustin.*

20. And while each made their appeal to their blind and dumb test of truth for the orthodoxy of their sentiments, and laboured hard to determine what the faith of another should be, an impartial spectator, might appeal to the judgment of common sense, to prove that their systems and practices were all a perfect labyrinth of senseless jargon.

21. The Antichristian contentions and bitter animosities, that were carried on, first by the Papists, and then by the Protestants, concerning the manner in which the body and blood of Christ were present in the eucharist, make up a great part of the history of the Reformation.

22. These contentions, concerning the body and blood of Christ, were carried on by the Protestants for many years, which finally terminated in a grand division between the reforming parties, one of which claimed MARTIN LUTHER, as the established founder of their church, and the other JOHN CALVIN; and with all the natural sagacity of their divines, and all the force of their earthly princes and civil magistrates, they have never been able to heal the division from that day to this.

23. It is well known by all who are acquainted with the conduct of the first reformers, that about this one particular doctrine, (concerning Christ's body and blood,) there have been more contentions, bitter animosities and bloodshed, than about any other.

24. In order that these superstitious debates about their eucharist, may appear in their true colours, it will not be improper to take some notice of their rise and progress, which may serve as a further evidence that the first reformers taught no new religion, but

By the writings of this bitter and bloody fanatic of Africa” (from whom proceeded 232 pamphlots) did Luther, Oecolampadius, and other reformers expound scripture. See Eccl. Researches, p. 102.

IV.

CHAP. the same that was taught by the corrupt church of Rome.

Ecel.His

25. The controversy concerning the manner in which tory, vol. the body and blood of Christ were present in the eup. 330. charist, was first set on foot by one Radbert, a monk. He in a treatise maintained, "that, after the conse"cration of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, "nothing remained of these symbols but the outward "figure, under which the body and blood of Christ 66 were really and locally present; and that the body "of Christ thus present-was the same body that was "born of the virgin, that suffered upon the cross, and 66 was raised from the dead."

fbid.

D. 331.

bid. P. 332.

ibid.

26. This treatise was composed in the year 831, at a time when universal history declares the church of Rome to have been the most abominable sink of corruption, and her rites and ceremonies a motley spectacle of superstition, when the papal power is proved to be Antichrist, and the church the mother of abominations.

27. Until about the middle of the eleventh century, those jarring opinions were proposed on both sides, unrestrained by the despotic voice of authority. The emperor CHARLES the BALD ordered Ratramn and Scotus to draw up a clear explication of that important doctrine which Radbert seemed to have so egregiously corrupted.

28. "It is remarkable (says Mosheim,) that in this 'controversy each of the contending parties were al6 most as much divided among themselves as they " were at variance with their adversaries."-Scotus, p. 35. from his philosophical genius, declared plainly that the bread and wine were the signs and symbols of the absent body and blood of Christ. The disputants mutually charged each other in their turns with the most odious doctrines: and so it went on.

bid. p.

548, 544.

29. Berenger, a scholastic disputer, and afterwards archbishop of Angers, and a subtle genius, maintained publicly the doctrine of Scotus, in the year 1045, and opposed the doctrine of Radbert. No sooner was the doctrine of Scotus published by Berenger, than it was opposed by certain doctors in France and Germany; and pope LEO IX. attacked it with vehe

mence and fury in the year 1050; and in two councils had the doctrine of Berenger condemned, and the book of Scotus, from which it was drawn, committed to the flames.

CHAP.

IV.

30. This example was followed by the council of Paris, and one party, for a while, reduced the other to silence, by threatnings and deprivations of revenues, and fines, and synodical decrees. But after the Eccl. death of LEO IX. the flame of their religious dis- tory, vol. cord rekindled, and the popes strove in vain to put an end to their antichristian debates.

. p. 545.

vol. ii. p.

31. Pope INNOCENT III. in the year 1215, had the honour of introducing the term transubstantiation. 236. That is, in the eucharist there is a conversion (or change) of the whole substance of the bread and wine; Grounds so that it is truly, really, and substantially, the very p.24. body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

of C. Des.

tory, vol.

32. The grand dispute, however, continued. For Eccl. His although the pope had placed transubstantiation p.201. among the avowed doctrines of the church, yet the authority of this decree was called in question by many. Some adopting the doctrine of Berenger, considered the bread and wine as signs or symbols of the absent body and blood of Christ. Others thought it ibil. sufficient to acknowledge, what was termed a real P.252. presence, and explained the manner of this presence quite otherwise than the pope had defined it. Among these was one Pungens Asinus, a subtle doctor of the university of Paris, who, towards the close of the thirteenth century, had the honour of substituting consubstantiation in the place of transubstantiation.

33. Thus we see where, and when, and in whom, that superstitious rite and pernicious error took its rise, invented by subtle philosophers, and scholastic disputants, and brought forth from the prolific womb of the Mother of Harlots, the sink of every abomination and all sorts of wickedness.

p. 351.

34. Luther and his followers, it is said, rejected vol. iv. p. the monstrous doctrine of the church of Rome with 63 and respect to the transubstantiation, but were nevertheless of opinion, that the partakers of the Lord's Supper received, along with the bread and wine, the real body and blood of Christ." This, (says Mosheim,)

[ocr errors]

CHAP.

IV.

Eccl. His

tory. vol.

av. p. 62.

Note [z]

ibid. p. 306.

Note [b.]

ibid.

[ocr errors]

in their judgment, was a mystery, which they did not pretend to explain."

35. But Maclaine says, "Luther was not so modest as Dr. Mosheim here represents him. He pretended to explain his doctrine of the real presence, absurd and contradictory as it was, and uttered much senseless jargon on this subject. As in 'red-hot iron, said he, two distinct substances, viz. iron and fire, are united, so is the body of Christ joined with the bread in the eucharist." This Maclaine very properly calls the "nonsensical doctrine of • consubstantiation," which was first invented by that subtle popish doctor Pungens Asinus.

36. Wherein then lay the difference? It can be found only in a slight variation of high sounding words, calculated to impose upon the credulity of a blinded multitude, and to add the greatest number to the party who could use the most cunning deception, in explaining the most pompous sounds of nonsense. 37. Carlostadt, who was Luther's colleague and p. 62. companion, and whose doctrine was afterwards confirmed by Zuingle, maintained, "That the body and 'blood of Christ were not really present in the eucha'rist; and that the bread and wine were no more than external signs, or symbols." This was the doctrine of Scotus just mentioned, who had invented it by the special order of the emperor, who was then under the dominion of Antichrist: for so the Protestants call the pope.

bid. P. 63.

I Cor. x. 16, 15.

38. This opinion of Zuingle was received by all the friends of the Reformation in Switzerland, and by a number of its votaries in Germany. But Mosheim says, "Luther maintained his doctrine, in relation to this point, with the utmost obstinacy; and hence arose, in the year 1524, a tedious and vehe'ment controversy, which terminated, at length, in 'a fatal division."

39. Was Christ ever divided? He was the bread of life that came down from heaven, and the church, his true followers, by their fellowship, union and communion, became that one bread, and were partakers of that one body, and one blood; which Antichrist, with all his learning and philosophy, could never yet discern.

CHAPTER V.

The Subject continued.

V.

HOSE vehement controversies among the first CHAP. reformers, which finally terminated in a fatal division between them, were the effects that naturally flowed from a corrupt ambition. Diotrephes-like, a sordid thirst for pre-eminence, and works directly contrary to the precepts of the gospel, were distinguishing characteristics in those great ones upon whose jarring systems the reformed churches were finally established.

2. Carlostadt, in the year 1522, carried on the Reformation by taking down some images, while LuTHER Concealed himself from the rage of the pope, in the castle of Wartenberg. But no sooner did he hear of it, than he flew from his retreat, and had Carlostadt banished.

Eccl. His tory, vol. iv. p. 58,

[ocr errors]

Note [t]

3. "It is evident (says Maclaine,) from several ibid.p.58. 'passages in the writings of Luther, that he was by < no means averse to the use of images.-But perhaps the true reason of LUTHER'S displeasure at the proceedings of Carlostadt, was, that he could not bear to see another crowned with the glory of 'executing a plan which he had laid, and that he was 'ambitious of appearing the principal, if not the only conductor of this great work. This is not a mere conjecture. Luther himself has not taken the least 'pains to conceal this instance of his ambition.”

ibil.

p. 306,

4. But the violent rupture between these two first reformers, who had been expelled from the commu- Note[] nion of the church together, first arose from a more important point. Carlostadt could not believe as Luther did, that the body of Christ was in the bread of the eucharist as fire was in red-hot iron,

ibid.

5. Such were the divisions and animosities among the reformers, concerning the eucharist, that to terminate this controversy, PHILIP, landgrave of Hesse, p. 73, 74. invited, in the year 1529, to a conference at Marpurg, Luther and Zuingle, together with some of the more eminent doctors, who adhered to the respective parEe

« PreviousContinue »