The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1863-04-16
PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
AeiOu ". VI. TO =. VI. II uheIe.

ed IN the HOkU o ia PdEfDfEd, you represent Catl
olIcism and Calvinism, az If they were Tvs
I" thieves and in the passage Of your Englis
church between those two 80 thieves" you fine
it appears, the shield of . . truth" IN mcdio tut,
sinus IBIS. That may be SO. Catholicism i.
however, somewhat gratifed in It's coming dow
"direct from the Apostles to this day." by til
admission, in the same number of the PGkipika
Of \. VI. X; but what about Calyinism? 1t j
not a Z" thief thieying in the right" 1t i
Hkened. by this \. VI. X, to Presbyterianism
Unitarianism, Nethodisn, Uniyersalism, Friend
ism, Quakerlsm and Mormonism, among false
prophesies and here~ies. They (the Calvinists)
Will perhaps look out for Themselves and if they
wish to contend with you, my friend, they VIII
not, in my opinion, be defeated.
Do not deceive yourself: 1 have read the his
tory Of the Church by Ven. Bedc, from Vol. l..
to Vol. V; and in Vol. II. Chap. II. of that
history, it is seen that . seven Bishops came TO
meet St. Augustin under an " oak tree and I
highly prize the accuracy of your reference.
But why that? Has it any connection with
Faith? Does it prove the genuineneSs of the
Religion of Peleula ? Were those seven Bishops
right in being unwilling to observe : Easter as
the majority of other Bishops observed it? Do
the Bishops of England at present observe
IS Easter-day'' in accordance with the computa-
ton of those? Has not that computation been
rejected by all the learned Yes, it has and
your English Bishops now observe the Feast of
&" Easter" according to the computation Of the
Pope. In vain do you refer to those seven
Bishops they were, for their obstinacy and dis
obedience, truly guilty, and for that guilt,
Ven. Bede informs us in that very chapter, that
they were, as st. Augustin had foretoId them,
awfully afflicted by God.
You refer again to John l. The Pope's foot,
1t appears, was not put on his head, as you had
first stated, but 50 that John was forced to kneel
in the presence of the Pope's Legate." l deny
this also he was not So forced to kneel.' He
however knelt, as Catholic princes always do in
accusing themselves of their sins but he did not
kneel by command of the Pope he did so by his
own free Will. Do you imagine that the author
ity of kings is abased by their kneeling? If you
think SO, you mistake, for in kneeling they kneel
to God and not to man.
You state that, according to your historians.
the supremacy of the Pope commenced \. d.
600. That has been often refuted see my
answer to A. NJ. KuheIe, in the Ku0koa of Feb.
Z, 1868 and repeat that the :" supremacy of
the Pope did not ommence A.. D. COO" but it
commenced" and was given without limita-
ton, by the words of Jesus Christ to Peter
Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock L will
build my Church, and the gates Of hell shall not
prevail against it-feed my lambs-feed my
will give to thee the keys of the king
of Observation-Disclosures thou shalt bind
lpon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven
md whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it
hall be lOosed also in Heaven-I have prayed
or thee, that thy faith fail not and thou beng
converted, confirm thy brethren" That
vas the time the supremacy of the Pope
commenced, and not in the year GOO.
You also state, . the history of all the Kings
f Europe proves the rejection of the supremacy
f the Pope, from William of Normandy, in
066, to John L. in 12OO-and thence to the
eign of Henry VIII" Yes, this may be so
respect to the history issued from the ink
.aud of your historians but it is not 50 with
aspect to history founded on truth. L see in the
lth, 18th, 18th, Nth and 18th centuries. the
ames of kings enrolled among the Saints by
Are they those who rejected the supre-
of the Pope? L observe that a number of {
lie SOvereigns of Europe assembled at Clermont,
= ID. 1895, by order of Urban H., the Pope of :
rat period, and obeying his voice as that of n {
.ther. Are those they who rejected the supre-
acy of the Pope? And what of the kings
{ the succeeding centuries and their armies :
nited together by Il command of the Pope, to ,
the enemies of the Christian name? Were I
ley those who rejected the supremacy of the {
ope? Do not again affirm that the supremacy |
the Pope was rejected by all the sovereigns 4
Europe Truth remains it will not be up @
t by the Misrepresentation, tergiversltions,
and falsehoods of adversaries. {
l eagerly desire to see you able to show the 2
liiity Of the conservation of Mathew Parker, the :
al of the line of your Bishops. You have indeed c
it, but your effort has been unsuccessful a
and every one, in my opinion, can see the defect L
the attempt. u
l. Your statement is opposed to that Of your -
'torians. They say that VI. Parker was conse- a
the 18th Dec. 1859. and according to you Il
Parker was consecrated the 10Th Dec, 1871. G.
the 10Th day the same rs the 18th Is the year
IL the same as the year 1859? But I will not 3
ell on that-it may be an error Of the printer. ~
2 You give, together with the names of the con- 10
rating Bishops those Of their Sees. Is it so in
Chronicles OF Lambeth No, 1 deny it. II Is OF
even stated in those Chronicles that they were I'll
.
10 ascertain the validity of that conservation, -,
IT witnesses have been often asked to produce the m
yister that proves it. 1t Yves not however pro- tn
ed. After the lapse of so years the Register of
nbeth was produced, but that Register is sup 10y