Now then for Blot _two_.
"Monks and nuns the _only_ perfect Christians ... what more?"--p. 9.
A second fault in logic. I said no more than that monks and nuns were
perfect Christians: he adds, _Therefore_ "monks and nuns are the
_only_ perfect Christians." Monks and nuns are _not_ the only perfect
Christians; I never thought so or said so, now or at any other time.
P. 42. "In the Sermon ... monks and nuns are spoken of as the _only
true_ Bible Christians." This, again, is not the case. What I said
is, that "monks and nuns are Bible Christians:" it does not follow,
nor did I mean, that "all Bible Christians are monks and nuns." Bad
logic again. Blot _three_.
2. My Sermon on "Wisdom and Innocence", Being the 20th of
"Sermons on Subjects of the Day"
This writer says, p. 8, about my Sermon 20, "By the world appears to
be signified, especially, the Protestant public of these realms."
He also asks, p. 14, "Why was it preached? ... to insinuate, that the
admiring young gentlemen, who listened to him, stood to their
fellow-countrymen in the relation of the early Christians to the
heathen Romans? Or that Queen Victoria's Government was to the Church
of England, what Nero's or Dioclesian's was to the Church of Rome? it
may have been so."
May or may not, it wasn't. He insinuates what not even with his
little finger does he attempt to prove. Blot _four_.
He asserts, p. 9, that I said in the sermon in question, that
"Sacramental Confession and the celibacy of the clergy are 'notes' of
the Church." And, just before, he puts the word "notes" in inverted
commas, as if it was mine. That is, he garbles. It is _not_ mine.
Blot _five_.
He says that I "_define_ what I mean by the Church in two 'notes' of
her character." I do not define, or dream of defining.
1. He says that I teach that the celibacy of the clergy enters into
the _definition_ of the Church. I do no such thing; that is the blunt
truth. Define the Church by the celibacy of the clergy! why, let him
read 1 Tim. iii.; there he will find that bishops and deacons are
spoken of as married. How, then, could I be the dolt to say or imply
that the celibacy of the clergy was a part of the definition of the
Church? Blot _six_.
And again in p. 42, "In the Sermon a celibate clergy is made a note
of the Church." Thus the untruth is repeated. Blot _seven_.
2. And now for Blot _eight_. Neither did I say that "Sacramental
confession" was "a note of the Church
|