« AnteriorContinua »
having taken place in it, siyce the time of Urban, except the insertion of additional services for a few saints, who have since been canonized, or have had offices allotted to them.
“ The value observes Mr. Blanco White, in his inestimable Practical and internal evidence against Catholicism,' "which the Church of Rome sets upon the Breviary, may be known from the strictness with which she demands the perusal of it. Whoever enjoys any ecclesiastical revenue ; all persons of both sexes who have professed in any of the regular orders ; * all subdeacons, deacons, and priests, are bound to repeat, either in public or private, the whole service of the day out of the Breviary. The omission of any one of the eight portions of which that service consists, is declared to be a mortal sin, i. e. a sin that, unrepented, would be sufficient to exclude from salvation. The person guilty of such an omission loges all legal right to whatever portion of his clerical emoluments is due for the day or days wherein he neglected that duty, and cannot be absolved till he has given the forfeited sums to the poor ; or, in Spain, redeemed the greatest part by a certaip donation to the Crusade *
The Breviary, therefore, must be reckoned the true standard to which the Church of Rome wishes to reduce the minds and hearts of her clergy, from the highest dignitary to the most obscure priest. It is in the Breviary that we may be sure to find the full extent of the pious belief, to which she trains the pastors of her flock; and the true stamp of those virtues which she boasts of in ber models of Christian perfection. By making the daily repetition of the Breviary a paramount duty of the clergy, Rome evidently gives it the preference over all other works ; and, as far as she is concerned, provided the appointed teachers of her laity read her own book, they may trouble themselves very little about others. Nay, should a Roman Catholic clergyman, as is often the case, be unable to devote more than an hour and a half a-day to reading; his Church places him under the necessity of deriving his whole knowledge from the Breviary."
. “Some orders have a peculiar Breviary, with the approbation of the Pope. There is no substantial difference between these monkish prayer books and the Breviary which is used by the great body of the Roman Catholic clergy.” Note by Mr. Blanco White. [The difference chiefly consists in the additional Propria Sanctorum, or Proper Lessons for the Saints Festivals of the respective orders.]
§ Practical and internal Evidence. p.p. 159—161.. We may here adduce in confirmation of the above statement, what is related of St. Francis Xavier by his biographers, “that he set out on his Indian mission without any other equipage than the clothes on his back, and the Roman Breviary. Vid. Tursellini, Vita S. F. Xaverii lib. 1. p. 5! and Bouhours's Life of do. p. 40, of Dryden's translation.
We abstain from transcribing any part of the masterly analysis of the contents of this Romish task-book, which immediately follows the above extract, as it is our intention to pursue this branch of the subject at greater length, and to give in a regular series, the histories of the Saints, as they stand in Pius Fifth’s Breviary, without alteration or abridgement, comparing them with the parallel accounts as revised by Clement and Urban, and occasionally with those contained in the ancient Roman Breviary, and the Salisbury Portiforium. We shall also now and then treat our readers with some peculiarly choice morsels from the Propria Sanctorum of the different monastic orders, and point out, in transitu, the sources from wbich the various Darratives are derived, thus laying before our readers an authentic exposition of the doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, shewing what sort of virtues she teaches ber spiritual subjects to cultivate, and what sort of facts she recommends to their belief. By producing these edi- . fying narratives at full length, we shall deal fairly with the Řomish Church, and give her the entire benefit of the wisdom as well as the folly, of the truth (whenever there happens to be any,) as well as the falsehood which they contain. The more inquisitive among the Roman Catholic laity may have access to some of those treasures, which their spiritual mother so carefully locks up in a dead language, the enquiring or wavering Protestant may “prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good," and the candid and impartial dissenter may discover what quantum of truth is contained in the assertion, so often and so confidently repeated, that in her public offices of devotion, so the Church of England symbolizes with Rome.” And they, who without caring much about polemical theology, have nevertheless a taste for the marvellous, may here regale themselves with stories, as wonderful as any in their favourite romances, and just as le.
Reserving a variety of incidental remarks on the nature and tendency of the Breviary, for the illustration of particular passages, we proceed to the account of the life and death of St. Andrew, which is the first narrative in the Pars Hiemalis, or winter portion of the Saints Festivals.
November 30. St. Andrew. “Andrew, the Apostle, born at Bethsaida, which is a town in Galilee, the elder brother of Peter, and a disciple of John the Baptist, when he had heard him saying of Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God,' he followed Jesus, and also brought his brother to him. Afterwards when he was fishing with his brother on the shore of Galilee, they
were both called by our Lord Christ who was passing by, before any of the other apostles, in these words, 'Follow me, I will cause you to become fishers of men,' and without any delay, they left their nets and followed him. After his passion and resurrection, Andrew, having visited European Scythia, which was his allotted district for disseminating the faith of Christ, and travelled through Thrace and Epirus, converted' innumerable persons to Christ, by his teaching and miracles. He afterwards visited Patrae in Achaia, and having brought many to the truth of the Gospel, Aegeas, the Proconsul, who opposed the preaching of the word, was severely rebuked by him, because while he himself wished to be regarded as a judge of men, being deluded by evil spirits, he would not acknowledge Christ, who is God and judge of all. Then Aegeas angrily said Cease to make a boast of Christ, who was not saved by words of this sort from being crucified by the Jews. Nevertheless, when Andrew continued to preach freely that Christ had offered himself to be crucified for the salvation of the human race, Aegeas interrupted him with impious language, and at last bid him ensure his own safety, by sacrificing to the gods. To whom Andrew replied, 'I sacrifice daily to the only, true and Almighty God, not the flesh of bulls nor the blood of goats, but the immaculate Lamb upon the altar, whose flesh being eaten by the whole body of believers, the lamb which was sacri. ficed remains entire and alive,' Aegeas being enraged at this, orders him to be thrust into prison, from which the people would willingly have rescued him, if Andrew himself had not appeased the multitude, earnestly beseeching them that they would not hinder him while hastening to the much desired crown of martyrdom. He was therefore shortly after brought to the tribunal, when Aegeas, not being any longer able to bear his extolling the mysteries of the cross, and upbraiding him with his own impiety, commanded him to be suspended on the cross, and to imitate Christ in his death. When Andrew was brought to the place of martyrdom, and saw the cross, he began while yet at a distance to exclaim, 'O precious cross, which hast gained honour from the members of the Lord, long wished for, earnestly loved, sought for without intermission, and at length prepared for the longing soul, take me from men and restore me to my master, that by thee he may receive me, who by thee redeemed me.'. He was therefore fastened to the cross, on
hich he hung alive for two days, never ceasing to preach the faith of Christ, and then departed to him, the likeness of whose death he had coveted. The Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia, who wrote the account of bis passion, bear witness that they saw and heard all these things, accordingly as they have been related. His bones first were brought in the time of the emperor Constantine to Constantinople, and were afterwards translated to Amalfi. In the time of Pope Pius II., his head was brought to Rome, and placed in the Church of St. Peter."
REMARKS. On that part of the above narrative which is taken from Scripture it is not necessary to make any observation. That St. Andrew preached the Gospel in Scythia is declared by two highly respectable authors, Origen and Eusebius, which latter collected with great diligence whatever was known in bis time respecting the proceedings of the Apostles. He seems, however, to have heard nothing of his visiting Epirus or Greece, but we are not inclined to quarrel with any one who chooses to believe it on the authority of Gregory Nazianzen, and some other writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Whether Andrew was ever at Patrae in Achaia or not, is, to say the least, very uncertain, and as to the whole narrative of his martyrdom there, as related in the Breviary, there are many reasons to believe it to be false, and not a single good one
to regard it as true. Without stopping to point out its thoroughly fabulous and legendary aspect, or to enquire whether it was the practice of the Apostles wantonly to throw away their lives when they could save them without dishonor to themselves or to the religion which they taught, we may briefly observe that the pretended epistle of the Presbyters of Achaia, on the credit of which the whole story rests, is a spurious document unknown to any ancient author, and rejected, or at least vehemently suspected by all Roman Catholics who have any pretensions to learning and candour.* No Roman proconsul called Aegeas (which every school-boy can discover to be a Greek and not a Roman name) is known to have existed in the days of the Apostles, and moreover, Sophronius, who seems to be the first author who has mentioned him, does not call him a proconsul but king of Edessa!
See particularly Dupin, (a learned Doctor of the Sorbonne.) Histoire Ecclesiastique. Centur. 1. p. 47–8. who justly observes that it is quoted by no authors except such as lived after the seventh or eighth centuries, that the doctrine of the Trinity is explained in it, in language never used before the Nicene Council, and especially that it contains the error of the modern Greeks, respecting the procession of the Holy Spirit: a plain proof that it was fabricated after the seventh century. It is true that Paulinus, Damasus and Chrysologus say that Andrew suffered martyrdom at Patrae, but they are supported by no author of the three first centuries, and moreover contradict the legend and each other, The passage
Though this piece was never of much value, the com. pilers of the Breviary, in order to suit their own purposes, have taken the pains to make it still worse. where St. Andrew is made to say “I sacrifice daily-the immaculate Lamb upon the altar,” has been quoted as an irrefragable testimony in favor of transubstantiation by some scores of controvertists, among whom we may instance Arnauld in his “Defence of the Perpetuity of the Faith against Claude,” and to come nearer our own times, 'Mr. Burke, Roman Catholic Bishop of Nova Scotia, in a tract* which he wrote against the Rev. Mr. Stanser. It proves, however, nothing but their own bad faith, and that of their spiritual rulers. The true reading of the passage, both in the pretended epistle of the Presbyters and in the older Breviaries is—“I sacrifice daily the immaculate Lambon the altar of the cross ;+ but as this unlucky mention of the cross could not be so easily reconciled with the idea of the priestly celebration of mass, the honest correctors of the Breviaries took care to omit it altogether, in order that the passage might be qualified to take its place among the thousand and one testimonies, which by dint of a little addition or subtraction have been brought to the standard of Romish orthodoxy ;-and it is precisely in this reformed shape that Messrs. Arnauld, Burke, and Co. take care to produce it for the confusion of all heretics who deny trans substantiation.
The account here given of the first translation of St. Andrew's relics, is another excellent specimen of the good faith of our papal correctors. The assertion “that his bones were brought to Constantinople in the time of the emperor Constantine" is certainly and demonstrably false, but it was found convenient to make it for the sake of the countenance which it gives to a favorite and very profitable superstition of the Church of Rome. Towards the middle of the fourth century, an opinion of the sanctity and miraeulous virtues of relics began to prevail, in consequence of which, the tombs where the bones of the saints had hitherto quietly rested, were every where ransacked, and not unfrequently relics were made when they could not be found, About twenty years after the death of Constantine, his
* Printed at Halifax in 1805. He has the modesty to assert that "the authenticity of this testimony has never been disputed!!" and that “this is a specimen of that 'tradition by which Catholics evince the truth of their doctrine.” So it undoubtedly is, and a very choice specimen too!
† So that passage stands in the "Portiforium ad usum Sarum," which was the Breviary in general use in this country before the Refore mation. The Latin is “Immolo quotidie, non taurorum carnes, nec bircorum sanguinem, sed immaculatum agnum in altari crucis."