ON THE SUPREMACY OF (36) ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. Page 166.-Q. What is the reason why the Catholic clergy are not allowed to marry? A. Because, at their entering into Holy Orders, they make a solemn promise to God and the Church to live continently. Now the breach of such a promise as this would be a great sin, witness St. Paul, 1 Tim. v. 11, 12. (37) Page 169.-Q. But does not St. Paul say (1 Cor. ix. 5,) "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles ?" ON THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 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." 66 (36) ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 66 as a "Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or occasion to fall in his brother's way." (Rom. xiv. 13.) Not the slightest allusion to priests marrying, strain the text cited as you will," the younger widows,” &c. God ordained marriage remedy" against sin, shall sinful man presume to contravene God's judgments? The breach of a solemn promise is undoubtedly a sin; but why 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 continency? (37) Let us examine into the truth of the Roman Catholic objection to the Protestant translation, and fairly to do so, I cite the same text, (1 Cor. ix. 5,) "Have we not power to lead about a 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 none, (1 Cor. vii. 7, 8,) but he speaks of such pious women as, according to the custom of the Hebrew nation, waited upon the apostles, and other teachers, serving them with necessaries. (38) Page 173.-Q. But does not Christ say, concerning continency, "All men cannot receive this saying," (Matt. xix. 11,) and St. Paul, (1 Cor. vii. 9.) "If they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than burn ?" A. No; both those texts are wilfully corrupted in the Protestant Testament. In the original Christ does "All men cannot not say, receive this saying;" but He says, "All men receive not this saying;" and St. Paul does not say, "If they cannot contain, let them marry;" but, "If they do not contain, let them marry." ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. Peter, whom our Lord called Cephas, had a wife, is proved from Mark i. 30, also Luke iv. 38; these passages of Holy Writ sufficiently testify which is the most correct version, since Peter or Cephas, one of the pillars of the Christian Church, would scarcely have abandoned his wife "to lead about a sister, a woman," and thus set an example of immorality to the members of the Church; 66 The flock committed to his charge?" (38) The fertility of the Roman Catholic objection as to the corruption of the text, has above been shown; but this being a favourite argument, and calculated to entrap the unwary, (in short, all who do not first consult and study the Scriptures before they reject or accept any article of faith proposed to them,) requires farther consideration. Let us, then, adopt the Roman Catholic emendation, and thereby expose and prove the Protestant corruption; but at the same time remember, in order fully to comprehend a passage, we must not leave it unfinished. The passage, therefore, runs thus, "All men receive not this saying, save they to whom it is given." This at once solves the difficulty, and renders it perfectly immaterial! as to whether it be rendered "cannot receive," or "receive 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 inclination 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 Y 2 99 ON THE CELIBACY OF (39) Page 170.-Q. Is it not said, (Heb. xiii. 5,) "Marriage is honourable in all ?" A. The Protestant translation has strained the text to make it say more than the original, which may full as well be rendered in the imperative mood, thus: "Let marriage be honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; for whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." In the same manner as in the following verse, which is rendered in the Protestant translation in the imperative, "Let your conversation be without covetousness," &c. So that the true meaning of the text is, that married persons should not dishonour their holy state by any liberties contrary to the sanctity of it, but not to allow marriage to those who have chosen the better part, and consecrated themselves by vow to God. ON THE CELIBACY OF 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 ! "let (39) Every one not blinded by prejudice, and determined to force or "wrest the Scriptures," to countenance their own notions, must at once see which is the strained interpretation; whether to understand a text in its plain obvious meaning, since here, at least, are no figures of speech, or to force from it, one the most ingenious must have been puzzled to discover; viz., the celibacy of the clergy! “Marriage is honourable in all," or marriage be honourable in all," convey precisely the same meaning, though the latter be in the imperative, as suggested; not all possible straining can make the text declare otherwise, even taking the whole verse, than what is there plainly stated. The Church here proves herself but a poor interpreter of Scripture, (not to use a harsher term, fallacious one,) which gives no such latitude and authority as she assumes. See 1 Tim. iii. 2-12, where both bishops and deacons wives are mentioned ! "Let them be the husband of one wife," not having been," as the Roman Catholic translation renders it elsewhere. See also Titus i. 5-10. Where is the prohibition?-here is simply an injuction, 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 boundaries, have ridden roughshod over all those cherished plots fostered and matured by the exemplary care of generations. Thus have compacts been set at nought, thus have institutions been desecrated, and thus have the forebodings of the Conservatives been fulfilled. Nor was this opinion confined to British Protestants, as appears from an excellent work on Austria lately published. "Prince Metternich," says Mrs. Trollope, "has repeatedly expressed to me, with all the strength and clearness of his adamantine intellect, that any revolution, tending to change the spirit of our Constitution, would be equally destructive to the happiness and prosperity of Great Britain. I am a Catholic,' said he to me on one occasion, and I trust a good one, yet did I deeply deplore your Emancipation Bill; for I saw that it must tend to loosen and shake the foundation upon which your well-timed and justly approved Constitution was founded.'"-["Vienna and the Austrians," &c. By Frances Trollope. Vol. ii., p. 413.] Here we have the opinion of a statesman entitled to rank among the greatest who have ever appeared. Of the perfect wisdom of that opinion no one can, with our present experience, doubt. - From "A Disclosure of the Principles, Designs, and Machinations of the Popish Revolutionary Faction in Ireland." By John Ryan, Esq. THE CHALLENGE OF THE REV. In the early part of the present year, That letter appeared in the " Dublin Evening Mail," and was also sent round to each of the parties, accompanied with a tabular form, pointing out the antiquity of the creed of the Protestant or Christian Church, and the novelty of the errors which are particularly embodied in the creed of the modern Church of Rome, and stamp on her the mark of apostasy. They were also specially invited to meet him to discuss the points referred to in his letter, and Mr. M'Ghee offered to conform to the Church of Rome, on the simple condition that they could prove the creed of the Romish Church to have been ever heard of as the creed of the Christian Church, previous to the year 1564, but they took no notice of his letter, and when he subsequently held his great Meeting at the Rotunda, though the platform was divided into two equal sections, one with a chair and seats for the clergy of the Established Church, and the other with chair and seats for the priests of the Church of Rome, yet none of the latter attended. Mr. M'Ghee, however, proceeded to deliver his lecture, which was most enthusiastically received, and has since been published with some of the documents referred to, including the creeds of the two Churches, in a tabular form.* To the whole is appended a letter, thus introduced by Mr. M'Ghee, p. 46: the four Roman Catholic archbishops, "The following letter, addressed to is necessary to conclude the writer's *This has been published separately, and is called "The Old Creed of the Christian Church, and the New Creed of the Church of Rome." It may be had at No. 11, Exeter-hall, price ld. "Most Rev. Sirs,-It is to be sincerely hoped that any attempt, however humble, to promote peace and concord in our unhappy country will be received by you with complacence if not with encouragement, and that if you feel you can conscientiously cooperate in any measure that has this laudable object in view, you will be anxious and ready to do so. "There can be no doubt you will admit the following principles as just and true : "First-The faith of Christ must necessarily promote peace and love amongst those who sincerely profess and follow it. "Secondly-It is a fact it did so promote these blessings in the days of the apostles, and among the primitive Christians. 66 Thirdly-We must conclude that when this happy effect is not produced, the cause does not exist; in other words, that those who are not taught by their religion to live in peace, and love one another, have not the Apostolic faith in Christ, but must necessarily have departed from it. "Now, we do not love one another as we ought to do in Ireland. See what contentions there are between Protestants and Roman Catholics; therefore I conclude there must be somewhere a departure from the true profession of the primitive faith; either the Church of Rome has departed from it, or the Church of England has departed from it, or both have departed from it. 'Surely, then, it is the plain duty of those who have departed from it to retrace their steps, and return to the faith of the Catholic Church. "If Protestants have departed from it let them return. If Roman Catholics have departed let them return. Let us agree to meet in the unity of the faith of the ancient holy Catholic Church. The profession of faith in which the ancient Church was saved, is one in which we may be saved, yea, the only one in which we can be saved-for if men do not hold it in word or in principle, beyond all question they shall surely perish. "The Roman Catholics believe that Protestants have departed from this profession of faith of the ancient holy Catholic Church. We say that they have departed from it. Šurely this point can be settled. It is for this purpose I take the liberty of addressing you. "I wish to bring this question to a conclusive issue, and so I venture to address the four archbishops of the Church of Rome, in the four provinces of Ireland, that the Roman Catholics of every province may see how the case stands, and how totally they have been deceived in supposing that the Church of England has departed from the faith of the ancient Catholic Church. I lay down these two facts which I humbly submit to you, Most Rev. Sirs, as not to be contradicted. "If any person desires to join himself to the Church of England, we propose to him to subscribe and abide by our profession of faith; and this profession of faith is not only the same which was propounded by the four first general councils, but it is the same which the Council of Trent, in her third session, February 4, 1546, declared to be 'That summary in which all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agreed, and that firm and only foundation against which the gates of hell should never prevail.' "If this be true, it must be clear as the sun that the Church of England has not departed from the pure faith of the ancient holy Catholic Church. "Now, if a person desires to join himself to the Church of Rome, you propose to him to subscribe your profession of faith, which is not only |