« PreviousContinue »
OF PENANCE, ETC.
OF PENANCE, ETC., you mean by the sacrament penance ? Certainly not in the holy of Penance?
Scriptures, the Christian's rule of faith A. An institution of and practice! for, as we shall hereafter Christ, by which our sins see, they are most decidedly opposed to are forgiven which we fall it; therefore, this “sacrament,” or instiinto after baptism.
tution, must be sought for in some other scriptures, as it has no place in the
Word of God! (18) Q. In what does (18) We undoubtedly cannot feel too this institution consist ? much contrition ; but what satisfaction
A. On the part of the can guilty man render? Had not Christ penitent it consists in these alone made “full satisfaction for the sins three things, viz., contrition, of the whole world;" what! what must confession, and satisfaction, have been the doom of man? If full and on the part of the minis- satisfaction is already made for believers ter in the absolution pro- in the efficacy of the atonement, why nounced by the authority would man seek to make farther satisof Jesus Christ. So that faction ? What is already complete, penance is a sacrament by perfect, entire, " lacking nothing," needs which the faithful that have no addition! Could man's works of fallen into sins, confessing penance satisfy the justice of an offended the same with a true repent- God, then, surely, the Redeemer need ance, and a sincere purpose not have “ tasted death for every man.' of making satisfaction to See Acts iii. 19, “ Repent" (not “Do God, are absolved from their penance !") and be converted, that your sins by the minister. sins may be blotted out when the times
of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;” in other words, “ blotted out," not by the minister! himself also a sinner, but “the Lord.” St. Paul telis
us, “works do not justify, but
are the fruits of faith." (19) Q. Are Christians (19) Where do you find this nice disthen obliged to confess all tinction between mortal and venial sins their sins to the ministers of in Scripture ? “We are all born in sin," Christ?
and all sin is hateful to God and punishA. They are obliged to able, or where is his justice? If we conconfess all such sins as are fess them all to God, to whom alone all mortal, or of which they are known, “ he will abundantly pardon ;' have reason to doubt lest for in his sight there are no small or venial they may be mortal ; but sins, or where is his purity ? May we they are not obliged to con- not, then, rest satisfied if God forgives 2 fess venial sins, because they St. John (1 John iii. 17) says, do not exclude eternally righteousness is sin," and since it is only from the kingdom of heaven, God's prerogative to forgive sin, “ If we so there is not a strict obli- confess our sins (to God, not man,) he gation of having recourse is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, for the remission of them and to cleanse us from all unrighteousto the keys of the Church.
(20) Page 120. - Q. (20) Prove from Scripture this barter,
" All un
OF PENANCE, ETC.
OF PENANCE, ETC. Would it be a crime to this exchange," between the mighty neglect the penance or God” and his creatures, for I find it not satisfaction enjoined by the in the whole Bible! priest ?
While upon this subject, I will here A. Yes, it would; the advert to the erroneous and unscriptural more because we ought to doctrine works of supererogation. regard the penance enjoined Open your Bible, “ For the Word that I as an exchange which God speak (says Christ) the same shall judge makes of the eternal punish- him at the last day!” " Thou shalt love ment which we have deserved the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and by sin into these small peni- with all thy soul, and with all thy '
mind. tential works.
This is the first and great commandment.” “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." I will not here stop to prove that in your scheme this second commandment, which concerns man and man, invariably appears to take precedence of the first, which comprises man's duty to God! But I ask, can you, or I, or any man, I do not except the patriarchs and apostles of old, -lay his hand upon his heart and say, “ I have done more than this comprehensive law requires?” I again ask, can we conscientiously, with the Word of God open before us, make such a declaration ? and, can we stand to it in
the day of judgment ? (To be continued.)
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.-HOSTILE INDICATIONS
AGAINST THE IRISH CHURCH.
To the Editor of the Protestant Magazine. It appears to me desirable that the following conversation in the House of Commons in relation to the Irish Church should not pass unnoticed. The subject was brought forward by Mr. Stafford O'Brien, in consequence of an opinion said to have been expressed by the Earl of Lincoln, at the election for Nottinghamshire, which was considered satisfactory to a Whig-Radical elector, known to be no friend to the Irish Church. Mr. S. O'Brien alluded in his speech to the sentiments which had been declared by Lord John Russell in reference to this question. Sir James Graham took upon him to defend his noble friend, stating that he did not know that Lord John Russell entertained any sentiments unfriendly to the Irish Church. Now, Sir James Graham could not be ignorant that the Noble Lord had actually recommended in that House Vol. VIII.-April, 1846. M
New Series, No. 4.
the maintenance of the Irish Roman Catholic Clergy by the State. Any act more prejudicial to the Protestant Establishment in Ireland cannot well be conceived.
Lord John Russell, in answering for himself with reference to the Irish Church, said, that he thought that a portion of that Church’s revenues were misapplied. He thought that a part of those revenues ought to be otherwise applied.
Then came forward Mr. O'Connell. He said that the Protestants of Ireland had as much right to maintain their Church in Ireland, as the Roman Catholics had to maintain theirs, which they did by their own exertion. Would that the Protestant Church were on the same footing! The temporalities were another affair. He could not allow that they formed any part of the Irish Church, and he begged to press on the House their ALLOCATION !
There is quite enough in the above discussion and the declaration of the several parties to excite alarm in the minds of Protestants for the safety of the Irish Church. APPROPRIATION was the term used by the Melbourne Administration when the attempt was made in their day to rob that Church of her possessions. Allocation is Mr. O'Connell's phrase now, by which he no doubt intended, if he had fully spoken his mind, the transfer of a part at least of those possessions to the Church of Rome. And on this head it will be seen that the sentiments of Lord John Russell quite coincide with those of Mr. O'Connell. Nor can it be supposed that Sir James Graham differs much from those two, after his gratuitous and uncalled for vindication of the opinions held by Lord John Russell.
But for O'Connell to talk of alienating or disturbing the temporalities of the Church of Ireland, after having taken an oath as a Member of Parliament to do nothing to weaken or disturb the settlement of the property of the Church in the United Kingdom, is the most outrageous and unprincipled conduct that ever was heard of. It is time that the House of Commons was called
upon to enforce the observance of this oath, and I would beg leave to request the attention of the Protestant Association to the subject. It is also time that all Protestants should come actively forward in defence of the persecuted Church in Ireland.
The obsequiousness of Her Majesty's Ministers to O'Connell, and their readiness to meet his demands, ought not to be overlooked.
I beg therefore to suggest the following Petition on behalf of the Irish Church :“ To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland in Parliament Assembled. 6. The humble Petition of showeth,
“ That your Petitioners feel the greatest apprehension for the safety of that part of the Church of the United Kingdom established in Ireland, not only from the dangerous and criminal conspiracy now carried on in that country for the avowed Repeal of the Union, but also from opinions extremely hostile to that Church held and expressed by persons in high public situations, some of them of the Romish persuasion.
“ In these alarming circumstances, your petitioners earnestly intreat your Honourable House to enforce with respect to Roman Catholic Members the strict observance of that oath, whereby they solemnly pledge themselves to do nothing to weaken or disturb the settlement of the property of the Established Church of Great Britain and Ireland.” This or a similar Petition might be productive of great good.
I remain, your obedient servant,
Debate on the Second Reading of Mr. Watson's Bill for the Relief
of Roman Catholics from Certain Disabilities. Sir,-- In the absence of Mr. Watson, the Bill was advocated by Mr. Bickham Escott. It was opposed by Sir R. H. Inglis, on the ground that the Bill went to repeal the Act of Supremacy, the Act for expelling the Jesuits, and the Act for prohibiting the Roman Catholic Clergy from assuming the titles of sees of the Established Church. In fact, that it would take away the securities and safeguards of the Act of 1829.
Sir James Graham said that he thought a partial repeal of the Act of Supremacy advisable. He thought that it should not be any longer a matter of penalty for affirming the Pope's ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy.
Mr. O'Connell defended the Jesuits. He called them an illustrious order. They had been greatly persecuted, but now, thank God, they were in a different position. They were now enabled to dispense their utility over vast parts of the globe. Within the last year no fewer than forty Jesuit Missionaries had been sent to Corea, to China, and to Cochin China. He ventured to hope that double that number would go forth in the course of next year.
The question here occurs, whether Mr. O'Connell himself is not a Jesuit. Lord John Russell expressed his wish that the penalties for corresponding with the Pope were repealed.
This debate shews with what rapid strides Romanism is making its advances.
NO PEACE WITH THE IDOLATROUS CHURCH OF ROME.
"I would go into the Mass-house, where that minister of Idolatry, a Papal priest, takes a thing like this in his hand (holding up a wafer), this idol of paste with an image stamped on it-and while he blasphemously mocks the incarnation of the Son of God mocks that wondrous Mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the flesh, pretending to embody in this, at bis fiat, the whole body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ'-I would tell him that this idol is, like other idols, the work of men's hands, “having eyes, it sees not ; having ears, it hears not; neither is there any breath in its mouth : they that make it are like unto it, and so are all they that put their trust in it.' I would tell him this. I would warn him to turn from this accursed idol, to serve the living God, and in the name of that God I would shout out, NO POPERY.” “What a dreadful superstition it is to call a wafer Jesus Christ, and say it is an offering for sin! The very fact of saying so, putting the idolatrous worship out of the question, proves that the man who says so can know nothing whatever of the salvation that is revealed in the Gospel ; he has a plan of salvation for himself, but it is not the plan of salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ.
“In reflecting on this tenet of the Romish Church, I can hardly persuade myself that a Roman Catholic ever really thinks with sober reflection on the subject. I take a piece of flour and water and make paste of it, I suppose a Roman Catholic himself to supply me with it, he has sown the wheat, he has reaped it, he has made the flour, and he has made the paste; he can prove, if necessary, on his oath, with a clear conscience, that it grew last harvest in such a field, and that it is now a plain honest piece of wheaten flour and water.
The priest pronounces a few words over it—will any Roman Catholic take the same thing that he proved one minute ago to be a bit of flour and water and apply, in the presence of the Being that has endowed him with reason and senses, the word of his creed to that?—is that thing now the only Son of God ?-was that thing, which he can swear grew in a corner of his own field, actually born of the Virgin Mary?-did that thing walk about nearly 1800 years ago in Judea ? perform miracles ?—is that the thing that spoke all the words he reads in the Testament, if he ever does read them ?- was that thing transfigured on the mount ?is that thing He whose mighty voice silenced the winds and waves ? -did that thing heal all the sick ?--did that thing speak the almighty word that raised the dead, · Lazarus, come forth ??-did that thing stand in Pilate's judgment-hall ?—was that thing crowned with thorns, scourged, buffeted, crucified ?--is that thing He whose garments they parted among them, and on whose vesture they did cast lots ?—is that thing the mighty God, at whose crucifixion the sun was darkened, and the earth quaked, and the rocks rent, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose ?—is that thing He who was sealed up in the tomb, and who burst the gates of death, and rose triumphant from the grave ?—is that He who conversed with His disciples going to Emmaus ?—is it He who appeared to them and said, Peace be unto you,' and showed them his hands and his feet?' Finally, is that He who ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; and is that thing the Creator of the heavens and the earth ? You believe now, O Roman Catholic, before God, that this is the identical thing that has done all this, and five minutes ago you would