« PreviousContinue »
OF HOLY ORDERS.
OF HOLY ORDERS. · them; and whose sins thou shalt retain, they are retained.” After which he receives from him the promise of obedience, and gives him the kiss of peace.
(35) ON THE SUPREMACY (35) ON THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.
OF THE POPE. Page 156.- Q. How do The Rock upon which Peter built you prove that amongst his faith was Christ. “Thou art the Bishops one should be head, Christ, the Son of the living God.” See and have a jurisdiction over our Lord's reply to this confession of the rest ?
faith, ending with,“ upon this Rock A. Because Christ has (not upon thee, Peter) will I build my 80 appointed, who gave Church.” A building cannot have two that pre-eminence to St. foundations, “And other foundation can Peter with respect to the no man lay than that is laid, which is rest of the apostles, as ap- Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. ii. 11 ; Gal. ii. pears from Matt. xvi. 18, 9; Eph. ii. 20, to end ; 1 Pet. ü. 58.) 19, and from John xxi. If Peter was sole head of the Church, 15.
how was it that Paul also “went about confirming the Churches ?" and that 66 God wrought special miracles by his hands ?" (See Acts xix. 11 ; also Acts viii. 14.) Here seems to be no distinction between the two apostles. Peter or Cephas was therefore but one of the stones of the edifice that was to be raised upon the immutable foundation-Christ. “Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third
time, Lovest thou me?” When our VI R T99707 Betei Lord thrice asked Peter, not calling him Bogate valve
Peter or Cephas, (" by interpretation, a H 29 Hotliwy stone,”) which is very remarkable, but Entra d as merely, « Simon, son of Jonas, lovest
thou me?” He might have purposed reminding Peter of his instability, that he had thrice denied Him ! and cautioning him lest he should again dissemble, and that that zealous and affectionate apostle did so, St. Paul tells us, “who withstood him to the face,” (Gal. i. 11-15,) because he dissembled, and others with him.” Shall we then build upon so unstable a foundation, in preference to the “Rock of
Ages ?” Page . But ho- Feed the flock of God which is
ON THE SUPREMACY OF ON THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.
THE POPE. do you prove that the Pope among you," &c. “ Neither as being or Bishop of Rome is this lords over God's heritage, but being successor of Peter ?
ensamples to the flock.” (1 Pet. v. A. I prove it, first, be- 2, 3.) “No other ever does, or ever cause the Church never ac- did ?” Not so fast; since it is well knowledged any other for known two Popes have, and more than her chief pastor, and no other once, struggled for dominion, and does, or ever did, put in a reigned at the same time, one at claim to the spiritual supre- Avignon, the other at Rome! as, in the macy in quality of Peter's fourteenth century, Urban and Clement successor ; so that, sup- and, again, Benedict of Avignon, and posingwhat has been proved, Boniface of Rome! ... We have bethat Christ appointed a chief fore seen truth obscured, distorted, nay pastor for His Church, the wholly lost sight of, --here again she Bishop of Rome must be entirely disappears. Moreover Scripthe man. Secondly, I prove ture, in contradiction to the Romish it from the current sense of Church, proves, Christ never appointed the holy Fathers and coun- such a pastor for His Church ; for one cils that have acknowledged who assumes titles belonging excluthis supremacy in the See sively to the Supreme Being,—“Holiof Rome and her Bishops. ness and Infallibility”– is evidently that
man set forth in Scripture as he “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God !” (2 Thess. ii. 4); or rather read the whole chapter. Also, Rev. xiii. Does not the Pope, indeed, receive honours unlawful for man, “whose breath-is in his nostrils !” to receive ?when at times, (at his inauguration especially,) he is elevated upon a high altar, with his feet upon the other, and worshipped, or bowed down to, as “our Lord God !” and thus styled ? Does this look like Christian worship? or does it not rather resemble Pagans, bowing down to and worshipping their heroes, their gods and demi-gods? See Acts xii. 21-24, especially ver. 22, “ And the people gave a shout, saying, it is the voice of a god and not of a man,” “ and the angel of the Lord smote him .... because he gave not God the glory, and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” .... Christians ! what god is this that you
have set up in the place of Jehovah ?” VOL. VIII. -July, 1846.
New Series, No. 7.
ON THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.
ON THE SUPREMACY OF
.... Do you not fear the wrath of that God who, in the commandment you reject, styles Himself “a jealous God?” .... A Church, (but not of Christ, for He is Jehovah ;) holy Fathers, councils may set up this new God, but oh ! my fellow men, be not, I beseech you, thus rebellious, thus ungrateful to the only true God ; He who created, redeemed, and sanctified you. .... Oh! remember, “while you have time,” that “the Lord, He is God.”
(36) ON THE CELIBACY OF (36) ON THE CELIBACY OF THE THE CLERGY.
CLERGY. Page 166.-Q. What is “Let us not, therefore, judge one the reason why the Catho- another any more; but judge this rather, lic clergy are not allowed that no man put a stumbling-block or to marry ?
occasion to fall in his brother's way.” A. Because, at their en- (Rom. xiv. 13.) Not the slightest allutering into Holy Orders, sion to priests marrying, strain the text they make a solemn promise cited as you will, “ the younger widows," to God and the Church to &c. God ordained marriage “as a live continently. Now the remedy” against sin, shall sinful man breach of such a promise presume to contravene God's judgas this would be a great ments ? The breach of a solemn prosin, witness St. Paul, 1 Tim. mise is undoubtedly a sin ; but why v. 11, 12
incur this sin ? why “lade yourselves with heavy burdens” not required in Scripture ? See 1 Tim. iii. 1-14; 1 Tim. iv. 1-8; also Titus i. 5—7. These texts are carefully shunned, and why? .... farther, since priests forswear and prohibit marriage, do they fulfil this « solemn promise” of con
tinency? (37) Page 169.-Q. But (37) Let us examine into the truth of does not St. Paul say (1 Cor. the Roman Catholic objection to the ix. 5,) “Have we not power Protestant translation, and fairly to do to lead about a sister, a so, I cite the same text, (1 Cor. ix. 5,) wife, as well as other apos- “ Have we not power to lead about a tles ?”
sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, • A. The Protestant trans- and as the brethren of the Lord and lation has wilfully corrupted Cephas ;" the latter clause omitted (I the text in this place, it conclude designedly) in the same text, should have been translated cited by the Catholic Christian, proves “ a woman, a sister.” The that the other apostles had wives; apostle speaks not of his though no person who reads the Scripwife, for 'tis visible he had tures will say St. Paul had ; but that ON THE CELIBACY OF ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.
THE CLERGY. none, (1 Cor. vii. 7, 8,) but Peter, whom our Lord called Cephas, he speaks of such pious had a wife, is proved from Mark i. 30, women as, according to the also Luke iv. 38; these passages of custom of the Hebrew na- Holy Writ sufficiently testify which is tion, waited upon the apos- the most correct version, since Peter or tles, and other teachers, Cephas, one of the pillars of the Chrisserving them with neces tian Church, would scarcely have abansaries.
doned his wife “to lead about a sister, a woman,” and thus set an example of immorality to the members of the Church; “ The flock committed to his
charge ?” (38) Page 173.--Q. But (38) The fertility of the Roman Cadoes not Christ say, con- tholic objection as to the corruption of cerning continency, “ All the text, has above been shown ; but men cannot receive this this being a favourite argument, and saying,” (Matt. xix. 11,) calculated to entrap the unwary, (in and St. Paul, (1 Cor. vii. short, all who do not first consult and 9.) “ If they cannot con- study the Scriptures before they reject tain, let them marry; for it or accept any article of faith proposed to is better to marry than them,) requires farther consideration. burn?”
Let us, then, adopt the Roman Catholic A. No; both those texts emendation, and thereby expose and are wilfully corrupted in prove the Protestant corruption ; but the Protestant Testament at the same time remember, in order In the original Christ does fully to comprehend a passage, we must not say, “ All men cannot not leave it unfinished. .... The pasreceive this saying ;" but sage, therefore, runs thus, “ All men He says, “ All men receive receive not this saying, save they to not this saying ;" and St. whom it is given.” This at once solves Paul does not say, “If they the difficulty, and renders it perfectly cannot contain, let them immaterial ! as to whether it be renmarry ;" but, “If they do dered “cannot receive,” or “receive not contain, let them marry.” not,” since those only can receive it,
“to whom it is given.” Again, “cannot” and “ do not” are synonymous, since those who “ do not contain,”.... why do they not contain ? Because they cannot; as St. Paul says, “have not power over their own will ;” and therefore, even by Catholic admission, are free to marry ; at the same time, should their inclinations tend to a single life, they are undoubtedly less likely to be cumbered with worldly affairs by embracing such, even as St. Paul, but as marriage was ordained by God, man must not “tempt God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples.” (Acts
ON THE CELIBACY OF ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. THE CLERGY.
xv. 10.) As Jewish ceremonies and customs have been so often appealed to, Moses, the great Jewish lawgiver, was married, Aaron, the high priest ! Eli, Phineas, Samuel, Ahimelech ; and, in the New Testament, Zacharias and
Caiaphas ! (39) Page 170.-Q. Is it (39) Every one not blinded by prenot said, (Heb. xiii. 5,) judice, and determined to force or “ Marriage is honourable in “wrest the Scriptures,” to countenance
their own notions, must at once see A. The Protestant trans- which is the strained interpretation ; lation has strained the text whether to understand a text in its to make it say more than plain obvious meaning, since here, at the original, which may full least, are no figures of speech, or to as well be rendered in the force from it, one the most ingenious imperative mood, thus: must have been puzzled to discover ; “Let marriage be honour- viz., the celibacy of the clergy! “ Marable in all, and the bed un- riage is honourable in all,” or “let defiled ; for whoremongers marriage be honourable in all,” convey and adulterers God will precisely the same meaning, though the judge.” In the same man- latter be in the imperative, as suggested; ner as in the following not all possible straining can make the verse, which is rendered in text declare otherwise, even taking the the Protestant translation whole verse, than what is there plainly in the imperative, “Let stated. The Church here proves heryour conversation be with- self but a poor interpreter of Scripture, out covetousness," &c. So (not to use a harsher term, fallacious that the true meaning of one,) which gives no such latitude and the text is, that married authority as she assumes. See 1 Tim. persons should not dis- iii. 2–12; where both bishops and honour their holy state by deacons wives are mentioned ! “Let any liberties contrary to the them be the husband of one wife,” not sanctity of it, but not to “having been,” as the Roman Catholic allow marriage to those who translation renders it elsewhere. See have chosen the better part, also Titus i. 5-10. Where is the proand consecrated themselves hibition ?-here is simply an injuction, by vow to God.
to all who enter into that state, “Let
marriage be honourable in all.” (To be continued.)
PRINCE METTERNICH AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
RELIEF ACT OF 1829. THAT unhappy measure opened the floodgates of revolution, it let in upon the well ordered enclosures of the British Constitution a horde of wild cattle, who, utterly regardless of tethers or