Images de page
PDF
ePub

cuous to any person who shall consult the original Greek. Let him open also the Latin versions of Eusebius, and he will find that even Protestants dare not support Fulke's translation. I have consulted Valesius, and he translates the passage as I have done. I have also consulted the Protestant translators, Musculus and Grynæus, and they render it in the same manner. I contend, therefore, that in the first ages, when the sentiments of the Apostles were well known, before the expiration of one hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the rule of faith was not Scripture only, but also the unwritten word. It was the same in the century following. Tertullian thus expresses himself concerning a certain difficulty which had

arisen :

"If Scripture has herein defined nothing, surely usage has, which usage has arisen from tradition." De Corona, c. 3. p. 101. Ed. Rigalt. 1675.

Some objected, however, that even tradition ought to rest on written authority. In reply, Tertullian writes, that he will allow the force of the objection

"If no other practices can be adduced, which we maintain on the exclusive title of tradition, without any written authority whatsoever." L. c.

And he proceeds to enumerate several such practices, observed upon the authority of tradition only, amongst which were prayers and sacrifices for the dead, which I am sure our adversaries will not say are matters of mere discipline, but appertaining to doctrines of faith. Therefore, by these two Fathers (in the course of my arguments I have quoted others, and could produce many more, did not want of time restrain me), the practice and doctrine of the first ages directly in contradiction to the Protestant doctrine, which has been established during 300 years only. Assuredly the first ages were much better qualified to judge of the real meaning of the Apostolical doctrine than those who came into existence 1500 years after the establishment of the Rule of Faith.

is

REV. JOHN LYONS.

MR. CHAIRMAN,-Ladies and Gentlemen,—I should not have come forward to answer Mr. Brown, were I not obliged immediately afterwards to leave this meeting, in order to return to my own ministerial duties.

The Rev. Gentleman has given me much matter to answer, and at the same time has given a singular picture of tradition. You heard it often declared by my Rev. friend, Mr. Tottenham, that tradition was placed above Scripture by the Church of Rome, and I think my Rev. opponent has given you a very happy commentary on that expression. I find my Rev. opponent saying, and he quotes Scripture in support of his assertion, that he has learned that repentance must precede baptism," and "that teaching must go before baptism." He says that he is taught these things out of Scripture; but then tradition teaches him that a person is not to be taught before baptism here are tradition and Scripture clashing one with the other. Scripture, Mr. Brown says, teaches one thing, the tradition of his Church teaches another: by Scripture he is taught that repentance should go before baptismfrom tradition he learns that it should not. How can the Rev. Gentleman reconcile these contradictions, and make Scripture and tradition both the word of God? But again he tells us that there was no manner "of baptism lawful according to Scripture but by immersion." It appears by the Church of Rome's practice that she sprinkles infantspours water on them-and here again we have tradition and Scripture directly opposed the one to the other. But the Rev. Gentleman tells us that baptism by immersion was practised even down to the 13th century: here we have the Church of Rome acting contrary to the practice of the Church during 13 ages; so that it appears that the tradition by which she learned that infants were to be sprinkled, and not immersed, lay hid in the dust of ages for 13 centuries. Here then we have tradition opposed to the Holy Scriptures-opposed to the primitive Churchand opposed to the practice of 13 centuries.

But the Rev. Gentleman put a question respecting the proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity being contained in the Old Testament. It is rather singular to put questions of this kind, when it is well known to all persons acquainted

with Jewish Synagogues, where the Law is read every Sabbath-day, that the descendants of Abraham believe that there is a Trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead that doctrine is acknowledged to this day amongst them. But we shall come to the word of God. In the prophecy of Isaiah, at the 48th chap. you find three persons distinctly mentioned, and these three persons bearing the name of JEHOVAH. In the 16th verse it is said :

"Come ye near unto me, and hear this, I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me, and his Spirit."

Here we have three persons,-the Lord God-his Spiritand the Being who was sent.

Revert to the 12th verse, and you will learn who the Being is who was sent :

[ocr errors]

"Hearken to me, O Jacob, and thou Israel whom I called, I am he-I am the FIRST and I am the LAST"

-The title of JEHOVAH in the Old Testament, and the title of the Lord Jesus Christ in the book of Revelations ;-and yet here"the first and the last," is said to be sent by the Lord God, and by his Spirit. Here then we have the Three Persons clearly revealed to us in this chapter. But again I must send the Rev. Gentleman to the 18th of Genesis, and let him turn to St. Augustine's commentary on that chapter, where he will find that Father saying that the three angels were the three persons of the God

head.

Rev. T. J. BROWN.-Please to give it correctly. He does not say so.

Rev. JOHN LYONS.-I should say, to Cyril of Alexandria's first book against Julian, where that Father thinks that there was a representation of the Trinity;-for Abraham speaks to them in verse 3 as if "the three were but one."

Mr. Brown says that the procession of the Holy Ghost is not to be found in Scripture. It is very odd, that when it is written in the Douay Bible, he could not discover it. In the Gospel of St. John, chap. 15, verse 26, it is said :

"But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who PROCEEDETH from the Father, he shall give testimony of me."

There is the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The Rev. Gentleman says, "it is not to be found in Scrip

ture," and here we find it written in his own Bible; and the note appended to it is this::

"This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son as well as from the Father: otherwise he could not be sent by the Son."

Here is the procession of the Paraclete from the Father;-the text asserts he is sent by the Son, and therefore the argument is he must PROCEED from the Son also. In the Douay Bible we have thus the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and from the Son.

The Rev. Gentleman also adverted to the "courtesy" of certain Popes, who acted most courteously indeed towards the Emperors. They received from the Emperors as much money as they required, and when by means of this largess they obtained power, they then put the Emperors under their feet, and trampled upon them, and this was "the courtesy" which the Emperors received from them in after ages.

Mr. Brown asked yesterday, and he has frequently asked the same at different times of this discussion, that we should produce the command of the Lord Jesus Christ that Holy Scripture was to be written. I produced several commands in the book of the Revelation from the Lord Jesus to John that he was to write; but all these quotations were "mere childish arguments"-unworthy of being answered. I can only reply in the words of Holy Scripture, as contained in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that

"God chooses the foolish things of this world that he may confound the wise: and the weak things of the world hath God chosen that he may confound the strong and the base things of the world and the things that are contemptible hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his sight."

:

But I am afraid that I misunderstood Mr. Brown yesterday, when, after I sat down, and he had disposed of all my assertions, in a moment of time, he then declared that no such persons as Jansenists

Rev. T. J. BROWN.-That is not the way you pronounced it.

Rev. JOHN LYONS.-Then it is a mere play upon words?

Rev. T. J. BROWN.--I said not only that there were no such persons as Jangenists, but that no such persons were members of the Catholic Church.

Rev. JOHN LYONS.-If I said Jangzenists, it was a mis

take in the pronunciation, and I am sorry that I offended Mr. Brown's delicate sense of hearing by such an error; but when I coupled them with Jansenius, a Romish Bishop, he must have known what I meant, the more especially as two or three Popes were engaged in the controversy,-as Jansenius was Bishop of Ypres, and the controversy was carried on so long, that it required several Papal Bulls to put a termination to it. I am sorry, however, that I offended him by a mispronunciation.

Mr. Brown has asked me to produce some doctrinal corruptions in the Douay Bible;-he says those I produced yesterday were mere verbal variations. I produced them yesterday to shew the great value attached to the authorized version by members of the Church of Rome, in making their own version so closely resemble ours. Now I shall bring him to some corruptions in his own book, and corruptions in doctrines, not in words.

In the 3rd chap. of the book of Genesis, and the 15th verse, it is said: :

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed, SHE shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for HER heel."

There is a word inserted here that is not to be found in the Hebrew text, and yet the title-page tells me that this Bible is translated from the Latin Vulgate diligently, compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in different languages. In the Hebrew, the word signifies "IT," or "HE," referring to "seed," and not "SHE." It is in this Bible, "SHE shall crush thy head." Here is a doctrinal corruption; for what is the use generally made of this translation of the word in the Church of Rome? It is to exalt the power of the Virgin Mary, and make her as the last Papal Bull hath made her, "the sole foundation," "the patroness" and protectress of the Church of Rome. But it is here said, "she shall bruise thy head;"-whose head was to be bruised? it was Satan's head—that is, it was "the works of the devil that were to be destroyed," for the devil had brought the creature into subjection under him, and never could man rise against Satan, and crush his head by creature power. It is a prophecy concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, declaring that the God-Man,—he who is God over all," should take our nature upon him, and come into this world "to destroy the works of the devil," "to make an end of sin," and "to bring in an everlasting righteousness" for his own people.

« PrécédentContinuer »