least they are to observe continence after their priesthood till death." After this let the reader judge of the degree of confidence to be reposed in the assertions of the catechist.

II. Then, adds the catechist, St. Paul says to all men in general, it is better to marry than to burn. I must correct the statement of this writer, by a short but necessary distinction. St. Paul unquestionably allows all men to marry, provided they have not contracted any previous obligation to remain single; and in the absence of a sacred engagement, it is surely better to employ the remedy provided to allay human concupiscence, than to indulge passion in opposition to the divine will. But where a solemn engagement to observe continence has been contracted, as is practised by the Catholic clergy, St. Paul no more allows marriage, than he does to the wanton widow, whom he consigns to damnation, for betraying her first faith; or, in other words, for violating an obligation precisely of the same nature and description as that, which is contracted by the clergy of the Catholic church3.

III. Then, says the catechist, St. Paul calls

1 Apostoli vel virgines, vel post nuptias continentes. Episcopi, presbyteri, diaconi, aut virgines eliguntur, aut vidui; aut certé post sacerdotium in æternum pudici. St. Hier. Epist. 50. Vid. etiam Origen. Hom. 17 in Luc. et St. Epiphan. hæres. 59. 1 Cor. vii. 9. 3 Loc. cit.

T

forbidding to marry, the doctrine of devils'. To thee, O catechist, I reply; shame and confusion on the man, who can thus distort the divine oracles for his own malignant purposes. St. Paul, in his passage referred to, is speaking of some who were to rise in latter times, alluding to the Manichees, Marcionites, and others, who broached doctrines subversive of civil society; which, by anticipation, are justly stigmatized by St. Paul. But if prohibition to marry, directed to those who are bound by vow to observe continence, is to be denominated the doctrine of devils, St. Paul himself, in the estimation of the catechist, will be guilty of this atrocious offence, by forbidding the faithless widow to marry2.

IV. Then, says this writer, so deeply versed in biblical learning, St. Peter was a married man, and a Pope. Truly so; but has the catechist yet to learn, that he left ALL to follow Christ? Let him open the gospel, and read attentively the passage here referred to3.

V. The same observation may be extended to the conduct of the eminent personages in the primitive church, if the authority of the learned and illustrious St. Jerom, the ornament of the fourth age, may be allowed to possess more weight, than the unsupported assertions of an anonymous catechist in the nineteenth century*. 11 Tim iv. 1. 3.

St. Matt. xix. 27, 28, 29.

2 Vid. loc. cit.

4 Vid. St. Hier. loc. cit.

VI. Then the catechist refers to the practice of the Greek church on the subject. Let him know, that it was never the discipline of either the Latin or Greek churches to suffer the clergy to marry after ordination; and that the ancient Greek church was fully as rigorous in enforcing clerical celibacy as the Catholic church is at this period1. As to the practice of the Greek church, at a later date, it certainly became more easy in allowing clergymen to cohabit with wives, whom they had espoused before their entrance into holy orders. But this is no rule for the members of the Catholic church, until the present discipline shall be altered or modified by competent authority.

VII. The conduct of Paphnutius, as might be expected, is not accurately stated by the catechist. He did not assert that clergymen should generally be permitted to cohabit with their wives; on the contrary, he was of opinion, that those who came unmarried into the clergy, should always remain single, agreeably to the ancient discipline of the church. What he insisted upon with so much force was, that where clergymen were permitted by the custom of certain places to cohabit with wives whom they had espoused before ordination, they might not be obliged to separate by any new law. But what his own

Vid. St. Epiphan. loc. cit.

practice had ever been appears from the historian Socrates; and what was at that time the practice of the great patriarchal churches of the East, appears from the authorities before produced1.

1 See and compare Socrates, lib. 1. c. xi. C, 13. with St. Hier. St. Epiphan. loc. cit. Eccles. liv. xi. No. 17.

Sozomen, lib. 1,

also Fleury Hist.

QUESTION XXIII.

Why do not you believe that the Church of Rome is infallible?

ANSWER.

1. Because her, infallibility is only a pretence, founded neither in Scripture, nor reason, nor antiquity.

2. She hath actually erred, both in doctrine and the worship of God, and very grossly.

3. God hath no where promised to make any one particular church infallible.

4. Themselves are not agreed where this infallibility lies, whether in the Pope, or in a general council, or in the diffusive body of Christians.

5. This pretence of infallibility in that church, is nothing but a device to uphold their temporal dominion and grandeur. 6. Both their Popes and general councils have notoriously contradicted one another, and therefore neither of them can be infallible.

7. Whereas it is pretended, that an infallible judge is necessary, in order to decide controversies, we deny it. 1. Because controversies may be decided without an infallible judge, as they were in the primitive church; the bishops meeting in council, argued and determined controversies against heretics, from the word of God.

2. There is another way of determining controversies, without any infallible judge, and that is, a meek, humble, peaceable, and charitable temper: and therefore such a judge is not necessary.

3. We do not find, that when there were infallible judges in the world, such as Christ and the Apostles, that all controversies ceased or ended. There were schisms and heresies in St. Paul's time, 1 Cor. xi. 19; and if an infallible judge cannot rid the world of controversies, why should it be thought necessary for that purpose?