« VorigeDoorgaan »
rests upon part of their history, will yet, it is to be hoped, not be unproductive of benefit, if it shall serve to bring those important documents more under the notice of the members of that Church, in which they were at one time held in high estimation, and of no small authority.*
The expectation entertained by the writer of the following communication, of fuller information from your more erudite, and more favourably circumstanced correspondents, than he could, at a distance from libraries, pretend to offer, or at least to verify by exact reference and quotation, has prevented hitherto his obtruding his own views of the subject upon your pages. He now ventures to submit them with the less hesitation, as he observes there is in your last Number, (for May,) no communication on the subject, and as those in the preceding Numbers are not only unsatisfactory, but as he conceives, to a certain degree erroneous. Of these communications, the substance stands comprized in the three following positions, as expressed in the words of your correspondents themselves : First, That of T. in the Number for February, " that the Library of the University of Dublin, does not contain a copy of Nowell's larger Catechism." Secondly, That of X. in the Number for March, that “the Catechismus Brevis of King Edward VI, is what is meant by Nowell's third Catechism," adding, that "he has never seen a copy of it.” Thirdly, That of G. in the Number for April, that “we have no stated data for establishing Nowell's claim to more than two Catechisms.
To the author of those several positions respectively, it is to be hoped, that the following information will not be unacceptable : First, that the Library of our University does contain a copy of Nowell's larger Catechism, D.D. 22. 35. Secondly, that the short Catechism of Edward VI,, of which your correspondent X. says he has not seen a copy; although, (as will ap
BISHOP RANDOLPH, in his preface to Enchiridion Theologicum, says, choice has been priņcipally directed to such works as had the sanction of public authority."
.” Of this kind, he adds, that is thus publicly received, were Jewell's Apology, and Nowell's Catechism. “ Both these works were publicly received and allowed.
Further, respecting the authority of Nowell's Catechism, Shepberd observes from Strype, page 276, vol 1. that it was intended, not merely for the use of schools, but likewise meant to be a guide to the younger Clergy, at least in the study of Theology, and to aftord to Protestants abroad, a sort of public standard, a systematic summary of the authentic record of the Reformed Religion, as professed in England. Cartwright, in his administration of the Parliament, complains of this, and has in the margin of his book, these words, “ Ministers of London enjoined to read Mr. Nowell's Catechism.” To this, Wbitgist, in his answer to Cartwright repeated, “ that Catechism, which you in derision quote in the Magazine, is a book for you to learn also. And I know no man so learned, but it may become him to read and learn that learned and necessary book.” Some years after, Bishop Cooper, in his admonition to the people of England, written in answer to Martin, then Prelate, said, “ For a Catechism, I refer them to that which was made by that learned and godly man, Mr. Nowell, Dean of St. Paul's, received and allowed by the Church of England, and very fully grounded and established on the word of God. There may you see all the parts of true religion received--the difficulties expounded the truth declared - the corruptions of the Church of Rome rejected. STRYPE.
pear) by no means what is meant by Nowell's third Catechism, is the very first tract in a work which X. has himself referred 10, as containing Nowell's larger Catechism, and other valuable tracts, viz. Randolph's Enchiridion Theologicum. And lastly, that for establishing Nowell's claim to the authorship of a third Catechism, (and one distinct from King Edward's alluded to,) we are enabled to refer to the most satisfactory of all data, viz. copies extant of the third Catechism itself, one in the Library of the University of Dublin,* and another in the Bodleian Library.
The third Catechism is smaller than either of the two others, and is entitled, (as appears from the copy in the Bodleian) Catechismus parvus pueris primum qui ediscatur proponendus in Scholas, gc.
The dedication corresponds with that of the second, or what is called smaller Catechism, in being addressed to the same personages, Matthew Archbishop of Canterbury, Edmund Archbishop of York, and Edwin Bishop of London, and the other prelates. And it also agrees with the dedication of the larger Catechism, in bearing the same form of signature, viz. Nowell's initials, A.N. The author himself thus describes, in the dedication. the purport, design, and contents of this Catechism, as disiinguished from the other two. “ Catechismen illum parvum de sermone vulgari in Latinum converti, ut habeant pueri nostri, statim atque scholam sunt ingressi libellum purum et parvum quem latiné ad verbum ediscant. Quod se quis plerisque in locis prolixe magis responsum quam sit commodum ad captum memoriolam puerilem, is sciat religioni me habuisse de Catechismo ab authoritate publica approbato quicquam movere aut immutare, &c. The last sentence of the dedication is as follows: Initium inde sumere pueri nostri & aliquem gradum aditumque ad majora assequi possunt atque obtinere. From the passage, and from the passages of similar import in the dedications of the other Catechisms t it appears that this third Catechism was intended to form the first step of that series of catechetical instruction which the other two were to carry on and complete. It is, indeed, (as the dedication suggests,) little more than a translation into Latin of the Confirmation Catechism, in the Liturgy of Edward VI., with, however, some enlargements on the relative duties, and an additional part upon the Sacraments; to which, at that time there was no opposition in the Liturgy Catechism. The latter part, however, of the third Catechism upon the Sacraments, is in some respects different from, though clearly the foundation of the corresponding part of our present Liturgy Catechism. It is, in fact, an abridgment of the part of Nowell's larger Catechism on the same subject; the questions, so far as they go, and also the answers,
* Eundem hunc statui Catechismum, edere exiguo libello, quam potest fieri brevissime, in quo magna parvis longa brevibus, lata angustis, multa paucis permutato reperient. -Dedic. Larger Catechism.
+ Unde enim potius Anglice primum legere discent pueri nostri quam ex libello qui pietate etiam teneros interim animos imbuat? Jam vero unde potius ordinetur prudentes et pii Doctores prima Latine loquendi elementa pueris tradere quam a pio aliquo, parvoque, & facili Latino libello, &c. Deinde er den Græce etiam Scripta legere ardebunt.--Dedic. Smaller Catechism.
being most of them literally, and the rest substantially contained in the larger Catechism; but several questions in the larger, and parts of several of the answers being omitted in this third or smaller Catechism.
To do justice to the subject of these Catechisms, it would be requisite to take a view of the third, or smallest Catechism, as the most probable basis of the part on the Sacrament, in our present Liturgy Catechism; and also, to take a comparative view of all three, as forming a series of the several translations of them, and their respective dedications, together with some account of King Edward's Catechism, and other works connected or confounded with Nowell's. For the present, I shall only observe, in concluston, that as Nowell's nephew, Whitaker, translated these three Latin Catechisms into Greek ;* and as Nowell himself informs us, that another of his friends translated them into English,t there are thus, or at least were, no fewer than nine distinct catechetical works, comprized under the head of Nowell's Catechisms. Of these, there are ascertained to be extant, of the third, or smallest Catechism, the Latin, Greek, and English versions. The English, in the Library of the University of Dublin : the Greek, in the Bodleian: the Latin, in both. Of the second, or smaller Catechism also, the Latin, Greek, and English versions : the English, in the Bodleian: the Greek, in Dublin : the Latin, in both. Of the larger Catechism, the Latin is to be found in both the above mentioned Libraries; but in neither any English version, nor a Greek one. Of the former, viz. the English version of the larger Catechism, the writer of this communication has not yet been able to ascertain the existence, any where, of a single copy. Nor of the Greek version of the same Catechism, is he aware of any copy at present extant, one in his own collection alone excepted.
ON THE CELIBACY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY.
To the Rev. J. B. O, S. F.
Rev. AND DEAR SIR—It having been, either freely or reluctantly, admitted by your most approved ecclesiastical historian Fleu
* Εγω δε των υπο σε ρωμαϊσι απακριβωμενων κατηχισμον αριθμων τριτων οντων-δυο
μεν ηδη και προτερον εις την Ελληνικην διάλεκTov peraßeßnka kal vvv Tpitov, &c.— Whitaker's Dedication of Smaller Catechism.
+ Has institutiones Latine a me scriptas, amici duo mei, homines docti, alter in sermonem vulgarem nostrum--ut omnibus, scilicet, essent communes-alter in studiosorum gratiam, Græce etiam converterunt.--Nowell's Dedication of Smaller Catechism.
ry;* by three distinguished Cardinals of your Church, Panormftan, Cajetan, and Bellarmine ;t by your once most celebrated Doctor of Theology, Thomas Aquinas ;# by your most eminent Canonist, Gratian ;ş and also by that Pope, as well as some of his predecessors, to whose symbol of faith you adhere, Pius IV.;ll in a word, by all sorts of ecclesiastical authorities, that the celibacy of your Clergy is not enjoined by any divine law: and no objection having ever, as far as my knowledge extends, been urged against that concurrent admission by any author of note, except that acrimonious, disingenuous, truth-regardless detector of certain presumed errata in the Protestant Bible, the zeal-crazed Ward. And it being, moreover, abundantly evident to all who read the Bible, that an admission of that nature is absolutely unavoidable, I might save myself the trouble of adducing any other authorities to the same effect; and might also decline an examination of those passages of Scripture, which some of your controvertists have resorted to, with affected confidence, for support of that important article in the discipline of your Church. Wishing, however, to throw as much light as possible on it from every quarter, I shall employ this letter chiefly in showing you that the principal passages of Scripture on which your controvertists have relied, really afford it no sanction whatsoever. The
passages alluded to occur in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians; and the more prominent, or reputedly efficient among them, are as follows: “ I say, therefore, to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I”—“ It is good for a man not to touch a woman" -“ He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord."
With regard to these passages, it may be observed in limine, that the Epistle which contains them was not addressed exclusively to the presbyters and deacons of the Church of Corinth, but to the faithful at large, of whom that Church was constituted : and consequently, that these feeble exhortations to celibacy, which, by the way, are prudently qualified by precepts, admonitions, or suggestions, of a different tendency, are directed to the latter, not to the former alone; and, of course, that clerical celibacy can obtain no countenance whatever from them. It is evident that St. Paul does not, in this Epistle, even indirectly allude to the spiritual pastors or ecclesiastical functionaries of the Corinthians. And I presume no one will stupidly dare to insinuate, even with the 10th canon of the 8th session of the Council of Trent under his eyes, that that Apostle was either solicitous to inculcate, or approved of general permanent celibacy among the Corinthian laity. Had any such
* Hist. Eccl. t. 34. p. 174.
+ Panorm. De cler. conjug. Caj. Respon. ad Artic. Paris. opusc. t. 1. Tract. 27. Bellar. de clericis. 1. 1. c. 18. # Secund. secundæ quæst. 88. art. 11. Caus, 26. quæst. 2.
|| P. Sarpi. Hist. Conc. Trent. p. 431.
thing been the case, he would have furnished those whom he addressed with a two-fold unequivocal evidence of his being utterly unfit for acting as an Apostle of our Lord; inasmuch as his doctrine would have been undeniably repugnant to the will of God, and manifestly inconsistent with the sentiments which he entertained when writing his first Epistle to Timothy, in which he announces a prohibition to marry as resulting from the doctrines of devils.
Had he, the only one of the Apostles, or Evangelists, whose writings have been appealed to, in behalf of celibacy, deemed that state either expedient or becoming, in the case of the Clergy, he unquestionably would have taken an opportunity to express sentiments to that effect, either in his Epistle to Timothy, whom he appointed to superintend the Church of Ephesus, or in his Epistle to Titus, whom he placed over that of Crete. In these Epistles, however, wherein he delivers his instructions respecting the conduct and requisites of ecclesiastical functionaries, in a diffuse, circumstantial manner, we do not find a single passage inculcative of celibacy on their part, or even exhortative of occasional abstinence from the sexual intercourse of matrimony; and St. Augustine has somewhere justly observed, that “ when there is a fit place in Scripture for any thing to be said, and it is not said, an argument may be drawn from the authority negatively.”
Enjoining, approving of, or at least fully and expressly assenting to the marriage of Bishops and Deacons, he merely requires that they be not engaged in bigamy-a heathenish and Jewish practice, which the numeral parity of males and females may incline us to regard as irreconcileable with the will of God ;--and that they be “ such as rule well their own houses, having their children in subjection.” Observing, at the same time, that “ If a man know not how to rule his own house, he is unfit to take care of the Church of God.” But, as I have already intimated, in no part of these instructive Epistles does that Apostle, either expressly or impliedly, require or recommend celibacy on the part of Bishops or Deacons, or separation from their wives. And such being the case, I can feel no hesitation in positively affirming, concurrently with the rule of St. Augustine, and in accordance with the dictates of common sense, that he really did not consider celibacy, or separation, as either expedient or becoming, in the case of these ecclesiastical functionaries. Had he been of a contrary opinion, it cannot, I repeat it, with any shadow of reason, be supposed that he would have declined to announce or intimate that opinion when engaged in conveying particular and precise instructions to Timothy and Titus, respecting the eligibility of those individuals whom they might be disposed to place in the offices of Bishop or Deacon; instructions which, by the way, are the only written Apostolic ones, on that subject, which the patrons of Episcopal Churches have to resort to; and to which the reputation of their Churches evidently required them to pay more scrupulous attention than they have hitherto generally done.
The forger of the patch-work Epistle, ascribed to Pope Innocent