The improved antidote, supposed to be more active in expelling poison, than a late invention, by the Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees, Bart. in which the Catholics are vindicated from his abuse, and their claims for unrestricted emancipation, consideredPhilodemus
Religion
The improved antidote, supposed to be more active in expelling poison, than a late invention, by the Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees, Bart. in which the Catholics are vindicated from his abuse, and their claims for unrestricted emancipation, considered
Secondly, “He wishes to know whether a Papist does not pray to Saints
and Angels, and invoke their intercession, thereby making Gods, not
only of Angels, but even of dead men, although expressly informed, by
God himself, that there is but one mediator with the Father, not only
of redemption but of intercession also, which is our blessed Saviour,
and in doing so is he not guilty of idolatry?” That the Roman Catholics
intreat of Saints and Angels to forward petitions in their behalf, for
obtaining the divine mercy, is acknowledged, but that, in doing so, they
mean to worship them as Gods, or to incur the guilt of idolatry, is as
confidently denied:—they dread through an humble confidence of their own
demerits, to offer from themselves an immediate address to the Deity:—and
as Christ himself has given an example of praying for others, even his
persecutors, in those memorable words, “Pardon them O Lord, for they know
not what they do;” so the Catholics may probably imagine that the Saints
and Angels whom they address, will petition in their behalf, and as they
are pure in comparison with themselves, these petitions will have greater
effect, than the immediate addresses of a polluted sinner—we think also,
that the answer to the first, is a sufficient answer to this question.
Thirdly, “He is induced to enquire whether a Papist does not pay divine
adoration to a mixture of flour and water, made up by the hands of an
illiterate and possibly profligate priest, contrary to the figurative
sense and meaning of the Holy Scripture, and in direct opposition to
reason and common understanding? does he not believe that a Popish Priest
has the power of making a God? and does he not bow down and worship
this worse than golden image?”—It may be asked the Revd. Baronet if
he ever enquired before administering the holy Communion to his own
flock, whether the bread provided for the purpose, were made by pure
and undefiled hands, whether the wine were genuine, or brewed by some
rascally vintner;—and is not the term profligate, equally applicable to
a minister of the establishment, as to a Popish Priest, particularly, if
the minister devotes much of his time to the joys of the chase, and (we
may naturally suppose) its consequent festivity; whilst the Priest is
laboriously and almost constantly employed in the conscientious discharge
of his sacred functions? as to the adoration paid to the Host, the
Catholic believes that the Body and Blood of Christ (acknowledged to
partake of the Godhead) are actually present, and can he justly be called
idolatrous for paying adoration to the presence of Divinity?—the learned
gentleman may also be requested to explain what he means to impress
upon the mind of a Catechumen, by the following words: “the Body and
Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful
in the Lord’s Supper.”—Let it be understood, that we by no means,
recommend these doctrines, they may possibly give occasion of offence
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account