Our laws are not those of the Medes and Persians, which cannot alter. No. They may be changed. They may be changed from good to bad. The powers which framed, may also repeal the law, and enact in its place something the very opposite. It has been well observed, that in a free country, that which does not stand well with public opinion, will not stand long. A Roman Catholic journal of Saturday, August 13, The Tablet, has the following: "We are in possesion of names and facts, but we have no wish to go a hair's-breadth beyond that which is demanded by ordinary prudence, to drag individuals before the public in discussions of this unpleasant kind. Still, it is our duty to make known to the Irish clergy, and in particular to the rulers of the Irish Church, that of which they, or some of them, may chance not to have heard. "There is, then, an Irish ecclesiastic, now labouring to go between the English Government and the Holy See, in an endeavour to establish an English Embassy in Rome. This well meaning, but somewhat officious ecclesiastic, is in correspondence with Lord Seaton, the commissioner of the Ionian Islands, on the one hand, and with the officials of the Holy See on the other; and through this channel some sort of preparatory preliminaries are even now being attempted to be settled. The ecclesiastic in question is supposed to stand well with the present Prime Minister as well as with Lord Seaton. He makes his little suggestion to the Holy See, and when he gets an answer, this is duly indorsed over to Lord Seaton. Lord Seaton makes his comments in return, and the comments are duly reported to the Holy See. Through this roundatory channel the Papal Court is becoming duly informed, no doubt, of the good intentions of the English Government, and the English Government is, no doubt, made partaker of the moderate requirements of the Papal Court. far the intrigue has as yet advanced we know not, but for its existence we can vouch; and when we get permission from our informants, we shall have no difficulty in publishing names." But why, it is said, should we object to have here a Minister from Rome, to represent the Pope, and why object to send to Rome a Minister from St. James's, to represent the Queen? We reply, by asking, What good is anticipated from the change? What evil has resulted from the present course of things? Changes should not be effected without, at least, some prospect of beneficial results following from them. Here, however, we see no such prospect. On the contrary, such a step would tend to invigorate the power of Rome in this country, and make our Court the arena where the Italian monk shall more powerfully and successfully carry on his intrigues, for gaining an entire ascendancy and influence in the arrangements of our foreign, colonial, and even it may be, our domestic policy. [FROM A CORRESPONDENT.] THE TEST; OR, WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE? BY X., A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. (Continued from page 350.) THE ROMAN CATHOLIC THE PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN; OR "WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?" CHRISTIAN. (52) ON THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. Page 239. Q. What is the meaning of the beads? A. 'Tis a devotion consisting of a certain number of "Our Fathers," and “Hail Maries,” directed for the obtaining of blessings from God through the prayers and intercessions of our lady. Q. But is it not highly absurd that according to the common way of saying the beads there are repeated ten Hail Maries, for one Our Father? A. It would be absurd, indeed, and blasphemous too, if the meaning of this were to signify that the Blessed Virgin is either more powerful or more merciful than her Son; or that we have a greater confidence in her than in him; but we are far from such notions. (53) ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF THE VIR GIN. Page 327.-Q. But what do you think of those that say she had children by St. (52) ON THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. "And when ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the Heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." (St. Matt. vi. 7.) These prayers addressed to the Virgin for her intercession, this worshipping the creature instead of the Creator, cannot but be highly displeasing to the Divine Majesty; who will be addressed only through "our only Mediator," the Lord Christ, as the Scripture commands. Is it not, indeed, blasphemous to compare a mortal with God? Το esteem her evidently as powerful and as merciful as the Judge of quick and dead! Here again is our only Mediator set aside, though the perfect silence of the Scriptures with regard to her, save in what relates to our Lord's incarnation, sufficiently proves she was not admitted to a participation of Christ's Godhead, though the mother of his fleshly nature. "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." I would fain know, since this practice so decidedly militates against Scripture, whether such misplaced devotion to "the Queen of Heaven," be she Astarte, or the Virgin Mary, is not idolatry? (53) ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF THE VIRGIN. The Jewish marriages were always preceded by the betrothment or espousal which took place some time before the ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF THE VIRGIN. Joseph after the birth of our Saviour? A. This was a heresy condemned by the Church, near 400 years ago, as contrary to apostolical tradition, and to the very creed of the apostles, which styles her virgin. And that, indeed, she had determined by vow, never to know man, the Holy Fathers gather from her words to the angel, “St. Luke i. 34, “How shall this be, for I know not man ?" (54) ON THE USE AND VE NERATION OF RELICS IN Page 242.-Q. What reasons has the Church for showing this respect to the dead bodies or bones of the saints? A. 1. Because they have been the victims and the living temples of God, in which his Divine Majesty has in a particular manner inhabited, and which he has ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF THE VIRGIN. parties were actually married. The Scriptures say, "she was espoused to Joseph, and "after the birth of our Saviour, they came together," therefore it is not "contrary to the apostle's creed,” to believe what the Scripture asserts, that she "was a pure virgin,” and “knew not man till after the birth of her firstborn Son." See St. Matt. i. 18, to end; St. Matt. xiii. 55–57; Matt. xii. 46, which appear to nullify the decision of "the Fathers," who have discovered a discrepancy where none exists! Farther, is this necessary to salvation? Or is not the drift of it clearly perceptible? To deify the Virgin! though our Lord knowing the disputes and “heresies" that should spring up, shewed his marked disapprobation of her attempted interference with his Godhead, and consequently of her being thus invoked or worshipped when at Cana in Galilee, he said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?" again, in the temple, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" and though he afterwards "went down with them into Nazareth, and was subject unto them," surely he thereby proved, she was only an honoured (and how highly honoured) instrument of his incarnation! And, (54) ON THE USE AND VENERATION OF RELICS IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. “Wherefore my dearly beloved flee from idolatry." (1 Cor. x. 14.) I cannot see in that hair-splitting difference, of devotion or "relative honour," paid to the Virgin and saints what is to be understood? save worship, which we are expressly forbidden to render to any, save the Triune God! He it was, who appeared to Moses in Horeb, and who, when he died, “buried him, and no man knoweth of his sepul ON THE USE AND VENERA TION OF RELICS IN THE sanctified by his presence and grace; and therefore, if God required of Moses, Exod. iii. 5, and of Josh. v. 15, " to loose their shoes from off their feet," in respect to the ground on which they stood, being rendered holy by his presence, or that of his angels, we must conclude that it is agreeable to his Divine Majesty that we should testify the like honour to that venerable earth of the bodies of his saints which he in such an extraordinary manner has sanctified by abiding in them as his temple. 2dly. We know the bodies of the saints are pre-ordained to a happy resurrection and eternal glory, and upon this account deserve our respect. 3dly. The bodies and other relics of the saints have been and are daily the instruments of the power of God for the working of innumerable miracles; which God, who is truth and sanctity itself, would never have effected, if it had not been agreeable to him that we should honour and respect these precious remains of his servants. have (55) Page 244.-Q. But you any instance in Scripture of miracles wrought by the bones of God's saints or other things belonging to them? A. Yes; we read second (alias 4th) Kings xiii. 21, of a dead man raised to life by the touch of the bones of chre unto this day." Why?... lest the Israelites, prone to idolatry, should “ revere or worship his remains. Το Joshua appeared also, in the form of man, "the captain of the Lord's host," even he who is "the Captain of our Salvation," the Lord Christ. That he was not a created angel is proved from his employing the same words as when God appeared in the burning bush, and farther not reprehending Joshua for offering him worship, which, had he been a created angel he would have refused, as when St. John twice fell down "to worship at the feet of the angel," &c., "Then, saith he, see thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant," &c., "worship God." (See Rev. xix. 10; Rev. xxii. 9.) Therefore, since the angels themselves refused to be worshipped, wherever this prostration or "veneration" was accepted and approved, Scripture, in many other places I could cite, proves beyond controversy, it was because it was God Himself who thus deigned to manifest himself; but after the Lord had disappeared we read of no subsequent adoration or veneration paid to the earth. ON THE USE AND VENERATION OF RELICS IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the prophet Elisha; and, Acts xix. 12, that "from the body of Paul were brought unto the sick, handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." (56) Q. What kind of honour does the Catholic Church allow relics? A. An inferior and relative honour as to things belonging to God's saints, but by no means Divine honour. Q. But are not candles allowed to burn before them, and are they not sometimes fumed with incense? A. These are honours indeed, but such as we may give to one another; as in effect we incense in the Church, both clergy and people, and burn candles to our princes upon occasions of joy; for since these honours are no way appropriated to God either by the nature of the things themselves, or by any Divine ordinance, why may not the Church of God allow them to the relics of the saints, not as Divine honours, but as tokens of our love and respect to them, and our joy for the triumphs of Christ in his saints, and as emblems of their eternal life, light, and glory. (57) Q. But if the Church has so much zeal against false relics, how comes she to tolerate them. ON THE USE AND VENERATION OF RELICS IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ful perversion of Scripture, and why? If not to countenance what have been termed "pious frauds," no marvel the Scriptures are sealed to the community! (56) See page 64, where I have already touched upon this "inferior and relative honour," to avoid prolixity. Something very near akin to Divine honours must be intended though thus boldly denied. The word incense is thus defined, "perfume offered to some deity!" if not offered to God, "by any Divine ordinance," (though I am surprised Jewish ordinances are not again appealed to) to whom? For we do not incense each other in our houses? should not "the Church of God" fear lest in doing what is not commanded, she should "provoke him to jealousy!" by shewing this "relative honour," to his saints, men, and not gods, and thereby subtracting from the reverencé due to God alone? Does Scripture warrant this practice? or is not this rather "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?" ... Oh! let not our Redeemer say to you or me, 66 Howbeit, in vain do ye worship me!" "It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." St. Matt. iv. 10; St. Luke iv. 8. (57) Does not common sense as well as Christianity point out the absurdity of thus worshipping, or if you will "venerating" the relics of frail hu |