« ForrigeFortsæt »
is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; thou shalt not adore them nor serye them.
Thus, are the first and second commands coupled together for the reason assigned above. 5 Q. What are we commanded by the fourth (the third] commandment?
A. By the fourth commandment we are commanded to love, honour, and obey our parents in all that is not sin. » However sinful parents may be, it must be rare, we trust, that parents literally teach their children, from seven to ten years of
to commit sins--nor can we approve of thus constituting children of such an age, judges, whether or not their parents are right or wrong. - Q. Do you not desire the prayers of all saints ?
A. Yes, of all saints, and in particular of the saint of my own name, and of my guardian angel. 0 Q How many are the commandments of the Church?.
A. Chiefly six. [See Professions of Faith, p. 16, 17.] ma Q, What is the ninth (tenth) commandment?
A. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. AQ. What is forbidden by this?
A. All lustful thoughts and desires; and all wilful pleasures in the irregular motions of the flesh.
In another examination, "What a christian is,” &c., are the following:
Q. Has Jesus Christ always been God?
A. Not by human generation, but by the power and virtue of the Holy Ghost.
These are the kind of expositions to which we object; and in these catechisms for children is plainly expressed in their
vulgar tongue, the crimen inter christianos non nominandum.-Are such examinations as these proper for children? We cannot soil our pages with further extracts of this description, and leave it to Roman Catholics themselves, whether they think their approved “ Garden of the Soul” between pages 181 and 187, fit for the perusal of any respectable member of society? We are perfectly aware that there are parents in England who are particularly cautious in expunging from the Popish books such passages as they deem it improper for their children to peruse; but where this occurs, is it not a direct disapprobation of what their “Church” approves : for priests to condemn-in practice, at least,--any destructive errors of their church is out of the question.
Our remarks on this important article of auricular confession have exceeded our usual limits; and as we are referred to texts of the Old Testament-which make no allusion to such a practice--we wish our Roman Catholic readers by all means to “search the scriptures.” The reference to James, when the elders are to be called, is in cases where the penitents are sick; but there is not one word of “confession to a priest.” “Confess your faults one to another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed,” says St. James, in the chapter referred to: but “God fora giveth all thine iniquities,” (Psal. ciii. 3.) not a priest : for “ who can forgive but God alone ?” (Mark ii. ver. 7.) “If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John i. ver. 9.) Sins, we are repeatedly told, were confessed openly, but we are nowhere in the Scriptures commanded to confess them privately to a priest : and from these, Protestants are taught it is their greatest blessing to commune with the Almighty; and as Christians are commanded to do, they offer up a public acknowledgement of their unworthiness, as set forth in their liturgy.
The practice of auricular confession originated in the time of the persecution of the early Christians, when they were compelled to meet in secret : at that period their pastors heard the confessions in these small assemblies, which led to the abuse of the private confessional in the fifth century. The practice was not determined until the council of Lateran, in the thirteenth century, under Innocent III.-it was confirmed by the council of Trent.
What do you mean by Extreme Unction?
You have both the full description and proof of it. James v. 14, 15. “ Is
sick among you, let him call for the elders (argeaburipes, the priests) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”
What is Holy Orders ?
A sacrament instituted by Christ, by which bishops, priests, &c. are consecrated to their respective functions, and receive grace to discharge them well.
When did Christ institute the sacrament of Holy Orders ?
At his last supper, when he made his apostles priests, by giving them the power of consecrating the bread and wine into his body and blood, Luke xxii. 19, “Do this in remembrance of me." To which he added, after his resurrection, the power of forgiving the sins of the penitent, John xx. 22, 23.
What scripture proof have you that Holy Orders give grace to those that receive them worthily ?
The words of St. Paul to Timothy, whom he had ordained priest by imposition of hands, 2 Tim. i. “Stir up the gift (rò xáguopće) of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands;" and 1 Tim. iv. 14. “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” It may, perhaps, strike our readers that the Church of Rome is always, as in the present case, much better able to give a full description" of some minor ceremony, than of matters which, according to her own account, are actually necessary to salvation. Here are eight lines of scripture quoted on the subject of “Extreme Unction;" whilst for her supremacy she chiefly relies upon two (“thou art Peter, &c.). But let the pastor be called in, and let the oil be applied,-—will Papists—in the very teeth of the scripture they have quoted-deny that it is “the prayer of faith,”-and not the oil nor the priest--that “shall save the sick ?” We have already shown (page 90) how necessary Protestants deem the presence of their Clergy upon such occasions ; but they do not believe in consecrations as though they were charms as do the Romanists, and therefore they trust to God's mercy, to be obtained through their repentance and faith in Him alone, rather than to the opus operatum, or works wrought, as taught by Popery* Protestants believe only in spiritual means of grace, to be conferred by HIM who alone can bestow it ; but let a Popish priest merely consecrate his own night-cap, and his penitent—the more ignorant, the more assured-would gladly envelope his head in it as a certain means of grace, and close his eyes for ever, satisfied of its spiritual efficacy. Strange as this assertion may appear to some of our readers, we repeat that it is true ; let those who doubt it look to the pontifical which consists of the forms of consecration of almost every thing we can think of; as palms, ashes, oil, salt, water, bells, books, candles, old clothes,-even children's napkins, &c. &c. &c. The Protestant believes that spiritual Grace can only be bestowed by the Holy Ghost, and therefore relies upon his God.
* We have shown (Note, p. 85) the veneration in which Popery holds the genuine chrism of her own manufacture, even when compounded in England ;' but it cannot be denied that France possesses the original recipe. In the fifth century, Clovis was baptized by Remigius, Bishop of Rheims (hence deriving the title of “ Most Christian King.”) However, when they arrived at the font, the person intrusted with the “holy cream,” with which the king was to be anointed, was missing. What was to be done ?—Remigius prayed-and down flew a white dove, with a phial full of the oil tied round its neck; Clovis was anointed; and, from the same phial, all his successors, until 1793, when Philip Rhul, a member of the Convention, went to Rheims to preach the hatred of monarchy; and determining to destroy every thing he could, connected with it, he seized upon the Sainte Ampoule, or holý phial, —which was carefully deposited in the custody of the prior of Rheims, - and broke it in the public square, amidst the unsanctified shouts of “ Vive la République !" It might have been supposed that thus ended the remaining stock-in-haud of this holy cream;-but miracles are miracles all the world over, and France was determined not to lose her papal patent. M. Suraine, we are told, a municipal officer, dipped the point of a needle into the phial before he delivered it to Rhul, and thus obtained a small (we should think very small) portion of the balsam; and although the latter picked up the fragments of the beatified bottle, and sent them to the Convention where they were destroyed, yet, it seems, he did not gather up every particle of it, and those particles which escaped him were collected by the “ faithful adherents of Popery; and which, with the portion saved by Suraine on the point of his needle, has increased to a quantity sufficient for the anointing fifty (Popish) princes.
Holy orders, we are told, is a sacrament instituted hy Christ: Christ never did institute different sacraments for different orders of people; and therefore we deny it to be a sacrament at all; it is an ordinance of the Church of Christ, of which the apostles set the example : (Titus i. 5.) “For this purpose I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee.” Had holy orders been a sacrament ordained by Christ at his last supper, how could it be “wanting” for half a century after his death?
We now turn to the Pope's scriptural proofs of what he has said; but we cannot understand how the words of our Saviour, “Do this in remembrance of me,” can be interpreted into an institution of holy orders? What a religion must that be, which is ever under the miserable necessity of declaring that the scriptures mean the opposite of what they express ; thus, indeed, making them “of none effect by the commandments of men."
Those who do their “duty in that state of life to which it has pleased God to call them," do it “ worthily;" but we are not to make so great a merit of our bare duties as to claim spiritual graces for their performance, although such a correct attention to them in this world may be a means of assisting us to win those graces. Christ himself tells his disciples (Luke xvii. 10), “ So, likewise, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants ;-we have done that which was our duty to do.”
When Paul desires Timothy to “stir up the gift of God," &c. it is a proof that he possessed that gift ; and, in the verse following, he says that God had given them the spirit of his power.-What proof is this of the grace of the Popish priests? The succeeding text quoted (1 Tim.) clearly expresses that, on Paul laying his hands upon him, he (Timothy) received the gift of prophetic revelation :--how