Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

loquy upon the members of a church, who did not interfere in their concerns, and who are now as ready to permit the troubled waters to subside, as they are to use that liberty which the constitution affords of contradicting their calumniators. We repeat, there can be no use, that we can discover, in continuing the attacks and the explanations. We have not commenced, we have declined polemic discussions. We have not singled out an individual for our personal attacks. We now lay our pen aside unless we shall be compelled to resume it.

Since writing the above, we have received the Missionary of October 18, which contains the following passage:

"The Miscellany has given several specimens of the Roman Catholic translation of the Scriptures to show how mightily deceived we all are who depend upon the versions in common use. The comparative merits of these translations we shall not attempt to examine, but shall simply add a specimen or two, that our readers may see how artfully they make them speak the language of their Missals and Breviaries.' To countenance beatifying or making saints, they translate James v. 11, not as it ought to be: • Behold how we account those blessed;' but, Behold how we beatify those who have suffered with constancy.' To favour their processions, instead of reading, (Heb. xi. 30,) 'The walls of Jericho fell down after they compassed it about seven days;' they read, After a PROCESSION of seven days around it.' And to give a better colour to their pilgrimages, Paul, according to their version, requires it as the qualification of a good widow,' that she had lodged Pilgrims.' (1 Tim. 10.) And John praises 'Gaius' for having dealt faithfully with PILGRIMS.' What the Protestant version renders 'repentance,' the Catholic version renders penance,' and hundreds of other places could be selected where the object of the translators is equally obvious."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

We would take it as a favour if the editor

of the Missionary would add to the justice which he has latterly done to us by inserting the following correction:

Catholic Version, James, v. 11. “Behold we account them blessed who have suffered," &c. Given by the Missionary as Catholic, v. 11. "Behold how we beatify those who have suffered with constancy.' 93

Protestant Version, v. 11. "Behold we count them happy which endure," &c.

[ocr errors]

Catholic, 1 Tim. v. 10. If she have exer

cised hospitality, if she have washed the saints

feet, if she have ministered to them that suffer tribulation," &c.

Imputed, v. 10. "That she have lodged pilgrims."

Protestant, v. 10. "If she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted," &c.

Catholic, 3 John, v. "Dearly beloved, thou dost faithfully whatsoever thou dost for the brethren and that for strangers."

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Catholic, Heb. xi. 30. "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, by the going round them seven days."

Imputed, 30. "After a PROCESSION of seven days around it."

fell down after they were compassed about seven Protestant, 30. "By faith the walls of Jericho days."

The Catholic version is that published first by the English College in Rheims, 1582, which is the standard English version of the church. The Protestant version which we use, is the English standard version of King James, printed by the privileged Oxford press, and distributed by the British Association. Now if there be question of the fact as to what is meant by compassing in that version, we state that it means going round, so that both versions do really agree. To prove that compassing Jericho means going round Jericho, we refer to the description of the fact referred to. We copy the Protestant version:

Joshua, vi. 3. "And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.

"4. And the seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets."

"7. And he said to the people, Pass on, and compass the city, and let him that is armed pass on before the ark of the Lord."

"11. So the ark of the Lord compassed the city, going about it."

Thus, in fact, in those passages, there is no difference whatsoever between the Catholic version and the Protestant version.

knowledged that we do not look upon With respect to our idolatry, it is now acimages to be God. The whole difficulty is reduced to the meaning of the word worship. In the sense in which that word is used by the Missionary, we do not worship anything but God. We shall procure for him the statute of the State of North Carolina, and our worship is expressed by its enactment. Roman Catholics are neither required nor permitted by the church to worship images.

"In taking our leave of the editor of the Miscellany, we can assure him that we harbour not the least animosity towards him or any other member of the Roman Catholic communion. That we may be deceived on some of those points on which we have been at issue, is possible. But it has been, and is still, the uniform conviction of our minds, that there are many and radical errors both in the faith and in the practice of the Roman Catholic Church."

Such is his farewell: we reciprocate it, and have only to request that when he attacks, what he is pleased to call our errors," he will quote our Councils or our Catechisms, and not make for us tenets which neither we nor our fathers ever held.

SECTION XIX.

WHICH IS IT? MISTAKES OR WORSE.

OUR old friend, the Missionary, treats us occasionally with some of his shots, though he retreated gladly in the smoke, as he called it, of our fire upon the North American Review. Whether it was exactly one hundred, or one hundred and one falsehoods of his that we exposed, we cannot now say. One should think he should at least have kept a solemn promise deliberately made; not to notice us, or any person connected with our paper, unless greatly provoked. Our readers can testify that we gave him no provocation. Yet he has more than once broken his promise.

The following delectable morceau appears in the publication of Mount Zion, of Monday, March 14:—

"THE HEBREWS.—We learn, from Annapolis, that on Friday the bill for the relief of the Hebrews, in Maryland, came up in the House of Delegates, and, on the votes being taken, they stood 30 affirmative and 30 negative.-Several members were sick who would have voted for the bill. The Senate, on the same evening, passed the bill, and on Saturday it was again to come before the House of Delegates."-Nat. Intelligencer.

Upon which the Missionary furnishes the following comment:

"It is known that the Jews in Maryland have not enjoyed the franchises of citizens. An at. tempt was made two or three years ago, if our recollection serves us, to alter the constitution of that state, so as to remove this odious restriction, but without success. A similar attempt is made again, as will appear from the following extract, with what success we cannot predict. This is Catholic Maryland-free Catholic Maryland of which Bishop England boasts so much; -the only state in the Union where a religious test law is in force."

Now for the facts:-Catholic Maryland established equal rights for all Christians upon its settlement; the Hebrews were not known in the country, and were not adverted to, we should suppose, merely upon that ground. Puritan New England persecuted Episcopalians. Episcopalian Virginia persecuted Puritans. Both persecuted Catholics. The Catholics of Maryland received the refugees from each; gave them equal rights with Catholics. The refugee Puritans and Episcopalians were elected into the legislative councils of Maryland; they formed a majority, we will not now say in what manner: they excluded the Catholics; THEY SUBJECTED THEM TO THE PENAL LAWS. The Catholics not only were stripped of their power, but also of their property by the men, and the descendants of the men, whom they saved from murdering each other under the pretext of religion. Maryland became the stronghold of Protestantism. It is at present more Protestant than Catholic. At the revolution it was much more so than it is now. The present Constitution of Maryland was framed at the time that the state was Protestant, or nearly Protestant. Some of the old Catholic settlers had preserved some of their property, others had taken refuge in Pennsylvania, in which the Quakers permitted them to live unmolested. Be the present Constitution good or otherwise, it is not the work of Catholics. Maryland frequently has had legislatures since the revolution without two Catholics in its houses; we doubt if the number of Catholic members ever amounted in any session to eight. The legislature of Maryland has been and is Protestant.

We do join Bishop England in boasting that Catholic Maryland exhibited the spirit of our religion in its first Constitution. The Missionary may, if he will, boast of the spirit of his religion as exhibited in that state. Will he have the honesty to correct his calumny?

Does he forget New Jersey, with its Protestant restrictions?

Does he forget North Carolina, with its Protestant restrictions?

We advise him to rest content with the exposure which he has already had.

ON PENANCE AND PENITENTIAL AUSTERITIES:

IN REPLY TO ARCHDEACON PALEY.

[The following Essay was written in reply to a Letter from a Protestant correspondent requesting an answer to the reasoning of Dr. Paley, in his "Evidences of Christianity," respecting austerities, and appeared in the columns of the "United States Catholic Miscellany," Vol. III., for 1824.]

SECTION I.

We did not, in establishing this Miscellany, give, directly or indirectly, any pledge that we would admit into its columns attacks upon the doctrines or practices of the Roman Catholic Church; nor did we promise to take up for explanation such doctrines or practices as we might be called upon to explain or to defend. We left ourselves at perfect liberty to take up what doctrine we pleased, and at such time as we may think proper; for though we trust we should be able to defend any of our tenets at any moment, considerations of delicacy or of prudence may suggest to us reasons for postponement. We are led to these remarks, in order that the insertion of the following letter should not be quoted as a precedent to oblige us on future occasions to comply with a like request. We must, in all such cases, be considered at full liberty to use our own discretion.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Charleston, July 28, 1824." "Extract from Paley's Evidence of Christianity, Part ii. chap. ii. 3d division, paragraph ii. "Our Lord enjoined no austerities. He not

only enjoined none as absolute duties, but he re

commended none as carrying men to a higher degree of Divine favour. Place Christianity in this respect, by the side of all institutions which have been founded in fanaticism, either of their author, or of his first followers; or rather compare, in this respect, Christianity as it came into other hands; with the extravagant merit from Christ, with the same religion after it fell very soon ascribed to celibacy, solitude, voluntary poverty; with the rigours of an ascetic, and the vows of a monastic life; the hair shirt, the watchings, the midnight prayers, the obmutescence; the gloom and mortification of reli"To the Editor of the United States Catholic gious orders, and of those who aspired to religious perfection."

Miscellany.

"SIR-I am a Christian from conviction, an Episcopalian from choice. I have found much pleasure and great improvement in reading the works of Dr. Paley. To his enlightened and rational piety, I hope you would not object. He, sir, has had opportunities of knowing the prac. tices of your communion; yet, sir, no one of your divines has ever, that I could learn, attempted to answer his clear, dispassionate, and dignified condemnation of many of your errors. I take the liberty of sending you one of many passages of his, which I have marked, as finely illustrating true, sober, rational, and devotional Christianity: such, sir, as I find it in the Reformed Episcopalian Church; and reproving in a clear and dignified way, void of asperity, and evincing truth, the changes which men have made in the doctrines of God. Believe me, sir; I am actuated by no hostile feeling, nor am I led to this by any idle curiosity. Should you think that publishing or noticing the passage, or this letter, would be productive of any unpleasant altercation, you would oblige me by your silence; should you think otherwise, may I beg of you to publish the passage and your answer, for I am impelled by more than curiosity to ask, is it possible that anything can be clearer than the Doctor's reasoning?

We have thus far complied with the wish of our correspondent, for we confess ourselves to be of opinion, that all our differences admit of friendly discussion; and from the style of his letter, we do believe he is not influenced by any hostile feeling. We shall now proceed to comply with the second part of his request, namely, to give our answer. The desire of his concluding paragraph has been religiously attended to.

We must premise that frequently a short objection requires a long answer, and Dr. Paley's charge upon our church, in this paragraph, though comprised in a few will require many paragraphs in return. words, contains a great deal of matter; it We do not recollect to have seen any work by a Catholic divine in answer to the Doctor's charges. We have not for the Doctor all the respect which our correspondent appears to feel. But the question for examination is not, whether Paley did or did not know the practices of our communion-nor whether the Church of England, or the

Protestant Episcopal Church of America, is more rational, more pious, more sober than ours: the only question to be examined, we believe, is, whether the Doctor's assertions are true in fact. To that we shall confine ourselves.

We take Dr. Paley's first assertion, "Our Lord enjoined no austerities," to be so extremely vague, that we must lay it aside for the present, until we shall come to its precise meaning, after having examined other portions of his sentence. We then proceed to the second assertion: "He not only enjoined none as absolute duties, but he recommended none as carrying men to a higher degree of divine favour." These two assertions are all that he has regarding our divine Lord. Now, our object is to in-1 quire what the Doctor means by "austerities." We believe we are correct when we say that he ranks "celibacy," "solitude," "voluntary poverty," &c., under the head of "austerities." Let us then ask, did our blessed Lord not recommend celibacy to some persons? We take the Doctor's own version of the Bible,—that is King James's version, as it is usually styled,—and we say that it puts us upon very inferior ground, on account of the imperfection of its translation, especially in those very passages which we now want. Still, we will not shrink from using those very passages, incorrect as we believe the translation to be.

In chapter xix. of St. Matthew's Gospel, the Pharisees consult our blessed Lord upon the subject of marriage. After his answer we read:

"V. 10. His disciples say unto him, if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11. But he said unto them, all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. "12. For there are some eunuchs which were

so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Now, we believe the meaning of the passage to be this. Our blessed Lord had brought back marriage to its original state, the indissoluble union of one man with one woman. Upon which, some of his hearers said this was so difficult a situation from its bond, that it would not be good to marry; of course whoever remained unmarried, was to continue in a state of celibacy. Our Lord proceeds farther, and shows that some persons are obliged to remain in this state from natural causes, some from their defective birth, others from subsequent injury. Thus, he shows that it is not an unusual,

nor, perhaps, an unhappy state. But he had already informed them that all could not, or, as our translation has, would not enter upon this state in preference to a married state, which was not only lawful, but sanctified; there would, however, be exceptions, and the exceptions would consist, amongst others, of those who would remain in as perfect a state of celibacy as they who had been previously alluded to; but would, themselves, voluntarily choose this state for a special reason, viz., the kingdom of heaven's sake; and he recommends it in these words, according to that version, in stronger according to ours: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

[ocr errors]

Thus, it is clear that our Lord did state, without condemnation, the fact that persons did, for the kingdom of heaven's sake," that is for a high degree of divine favour, place themselves in a state in which others were not placed; there was a distinction drawn by our Lord between two classes, v. 11, "All cannot receive this saying;" that is, all cannot do this which we speak of. He does not say, "no one can do it," but he says, "all cannot do it." Then some can do it; yes, for he shows the exception, v. 11, "save to whom it is given." Then some can do what all cannot do. What is it they can do which all cannot? V. 10 informs us, "It is not good to marry." Yes, says the Lord, all cannot avoid marriage, but some to whom it is given can avoid it; the distinction is then clear. But why will they refrain? v. 12 informs us, "there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Thus, these persons do not abstain from such causes as the other two enumerated before, but voluntarily "they made themselves so;" not by unjustifiable injury to themselves, but by voluntary abstinence, for obtaining a higher degree of divine favour. If they were not to obtain a higher favour for a higher sacrifice, the act would be irrational. Our Lord distinctly approves and recommends it by his permission, we would almost call it a command, to those some to whom it is given. V. 12, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Let those who feel that it is given to them to abstain from marriage, live in celibacy-all cannot, some can. Let those who can do so, remain in that state, for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

With respect to translation, we feel the objection much stronger in the next passages which we shall produce, but we shall waive that. Our correspondent will

not, we trust, think that we go too far in saying, that we have reason to believe our Lord did recommend to some persons, though certainly not to all, a state of celibacy-nor will he think us unreasonable, we presume, in our belief, that when to those he held out a special prospect, the kingdom of heaven's sake, it was to carry them to a higher degree of the divine favour, without undervaluing the state of marriage.

We purposely abstain at present from adducing many arguments, from various other topics which would, we have no doubt, materially aid in establishing the fact, that our Lord did recommend celibacy to some persons, upon the very ground that the Doctor writes he did not, as we wish to be as concise as possible. But we shall adduce one from the first Epistle of St. Paul

to the Corinthians.

The Doctor informs us in his Hora Paulinæ, chap. iii., No. 1: "It appears that this letter to the Corinthians was written by St. Paul, in answer to one which he had received from them; and the seventh and some of the following chapters, are taken up in resolving certain doubts and regulating certain points of order concerning which the Corinthians in their letter had consulted him." We differ with the Doctor in the exposition which we next quote, but shall suppose him to be perfectly correct. Enumerating the doubts, &c., he writes, "the rule of duty and prudence relative to entering into marriage, as applicable to virgins and widows." We merely beg leave to observe what, if the Doctor could answer, we believe he would admit, that the context makes it plain, virgins of both sexes are meant.

[blocks in formation]

forms us that there is no command of the Thus, we say, the Apostle distinctly inLord for celibacy; no command for marriage. Therefore a life of celibacy is not forbidden by our Lord. Indeed, unless we mistake, we have before shown from his own words, that he recommended it to some, not to all. But the Apostle now proceeds to give his "judgment," and in what capacity? We see that he gives it as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.-That is as a public interpreter of God is a faithful interpreter thereof. the divine will, who, through the mercy of

"26. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress. I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

27. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28. But, and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

"29. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none.

30. And they that weep as though they wept not; and they that rejoice as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy as though they possessed not;

"31. And they that use this world as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

44

32. But I would have you without carefulNow, it will be admitted that St. Paulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things knew the spirit of our Lord's precepts and that belong to the Lord, how he may please the advice. Let us then hear what he answers:

[ocr errors]

1 Cor. c. vii., v. 25. Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."

Upon this we shall merely remark that it is plain the Apostle testifies that there was no command to marry. Hence that entering into the marriage state, or leading a life of celibacy are equally within the free choice of every Christian. This, we believe, is the meaning of the Apostle in v. 28.

"But, and if thou marry thou hast not sinned, and if a virgin marry she hath not sinned."

And also of the following verses, viz., 36 and 37:

"But if any man think that he behaveth him

Lord.

66 33. But he that is married careth for the

things that are of the world, and how he may please his wife.

34. There is this difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

36. But if any man think that he behaveth, &c.," as above, and 37.

"38. So then he that giveth her in marriage, doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage, doeth better.

her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, 39. The wife is bound by the law as long as she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »