Tag Archives: St Peter

Amoris Laetitia: a Lutheran View

05 Thursday Oct 2017

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Consequences, Faith, Heresies

≈ 37 Comments

Tags

, , ,

I admire tremendously the thought process that Philip Augustine described in his post Support the Pope. It is one of the most reasoned comments I have seen on the matter.

I’m not going to opine on it, it is something for Roman Catholics to settle, except to say that I too think the Pope should answer for the reasons Philip points out. But it does have ramifications for all of us. We Lutherans and Anglicans as well, as well as others, do indeed subscribe to the creed as the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, some who profess Rome are not Christian, and quite a few who do not are, which is something to keep in mind.

I also note that, long ago, although not as long as it seems, our resident Baptist, Geoffrey, wrote about this phenomenon, as well. You’ll find that post here.

This month we will commemorate an Augustinian monk’s posting of ninety-five theses for discussion on reforming the Church, on the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church, 500 years ago. Most of the reforms he called for, eventually happened in my Lutheran Church, but also in the Catholic Church. The Church, founded by the sinner St. Peter, like all organizations of men, is not sinless, and never will be. For all that, it is an institution that we all, Catholic and Protestant, look to often for leadership, not least because it has done better than most of us at preserving the things that we have always done, everywhere.

An observation, one thing that many of us have observed is that sometimes the Church appears, especially to outsiders as a bureaucratic, legalistic maze. It may or may not be, but sometimes it appears so to the rest of us. QVO yesterday said, “Amoris laetitia, in so far as it encourages a perversion of discipline re admission of unrepentant adulterers to Communion has a bearing on the external forum.” He’s  not wrong, but it begs the question of “How does he know whether said sinner is repentant or not? Surely that is for him and his priest to discern, not a legal document that applies to millions around the world. Guidelines, absolutely there need to be, but in the last analysis it is up to him and his God to resolve. Finally it is a matter of the communicant’s free will. I think we should give St. Paul the last word in  the matter.

“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of
the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread
and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing
the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
I Corinthians 11:27-29 (NIV)

The other thing I want you to consider is this.  Like Philip, I urge you to read Amoris laetitia thoughtfully and prayerfully. I suspect you will find it says something very different from what you have seen reported. Again like Philip, I try to eschew terms like ‘liberal/conservative’ or ‘Modernist/traditionalist’ although sometimes we all end up using them, they do not help us to understand, this, after all, is not politics, this is about eternal souls. But for that very reason one cannot trust the media, many of whom are demonstrably Godless people, and as such do not have your, or my, best interests at heart. To take them at their word is neither prudent nor provident. On the other hand, it would be well if the Pope were to refrain from making off the cuff comments to people who may, or may not, have the best interest of the Church at heart. It is considerably more pernicious than President Trump’s Twitter feed,

I’ll leave you with a few words from William Tyndale, whose first translation of the Bible from  Greek into English is the basis of our favorite version. From his “To the reder” of his 1526 rendering of the New Testament.

Note the difference of the lawe/and of the gospell. The one axeth and requyreth/the wother perdoneth and forgeveth. The one threateneth/the wother promyseth all good thynges/to them thatt sett their trust in Christ only. The gospell signifieth gladde tydynges/and is nothynge butt the promyses off good thynges. All is not gospell that is written in the gospell boke: For if the lawe were a waye/thou couldest not know what the gospell meante. Even as thou couldest not se person/favour/and grace/excepte the lawe rebuked the/and declared vnto the thy sinne/mysdede/and treaspase.

Repent and beleve the gospell as sayth Christ in the fyrst of Marke. Applyee all waye the lawe to thy dedes/whether thou finde luste in the bottom of thyne herte to the lawe warde: and soo shalt thou no dout repent/and feale in the silfe a certayne sorowe/payne/and grefe to thyne herte: be cause thou canst nott with full luste do the dedes of the lawe. Apllye the gospell/that is to saye the promyses/vnto the deservynge off Christ/and to the mercye of god and his trouth/and soo shalt thou nott despeare: butt shalt feale god as a kynde and a merciful father. And his sprete shall dwell in the/and shall be stronge in the: and the promises shalbe geven the at the last (though not by and by/lest thou shuldest forgett thy sylfe/and be negligent) and all threatenynges shalbe forgeven the for Christis blouddis sake/to whom commit thy silfe all togedder/with out respect/other of thy good dedes or of thy badde.

And finally, I join  Francis and all people of good will in welcoming theinfiniterally as he joins us on our journey, to the Cross, and beyond.

The Petrine claims

03 Saturday Jun 2017

Posted by in Bible, Catholic Tradition, Early Church, Faith

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

The claims of the Church with regard to the office of the Pope go back to the very words of Jesus Christ himself. In Matthew 16:13–20 we read the famous confession of faith by Peter at Caesarea Philippi. In response to his statement affirming him as the “Son of the Living God,” Jesus tells Peter: “I tell you, you are Peter [Greek: petros] and on this rock [Greek: petra]. I will build my church …” Here we see Jesus change the name of Simon to ‘Rock’, before saying that He would build his Church on that Rock.

Against this Protestants have a number of arguments, one of which is ably summed up here. It is the argument over the Greek words ‘petra’ and ‘petros’. In Greek, nouns have gender.  It is similar to the English words actor and actress.  The first is masculine and the second is feminine.  Likewise, the Greek word “petros” is masculine; “petra” is feminine.  Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros.  But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine “petros” but the feminine “petra.”

There is a perfectly natural explanation for the πέτρος (petros) / πέτρα (petra) construction: πέτρα (petra) is a feminine word. Jesus could hardly have used a feminine noun as the name of Simon Peter—“You are Petrina”?
So, grammatically, we have a problem. On the one hand, one cannot use πέτρος (petros) to describe a suitable foundation for a building project—for that, again as Matthew 7:24 indicates, one must speak of πέτρα (petra). Yet, on the other hand, Jesus can hardly name Peter, πέτρα (petra)—because the word is feminine! Jesus can’t give Peter a feminine name!

In fact, if Jesus wanted to apply the terminology of the πέτρα (petra), i.e., that which the Church is built upon, to Peter, we would expect to find very kind of shift in language we have in Matthew 16:18. The reason for the different Greek form is simply that Peter, as a man, needs a masculine name, and so the form Petros has been coined. But the flow of the sentence makes it clear that the wordplay is intended to identify Peter as the rock.  It is hard to see how any plain reading of the text can make Jesus the object of the sentence.

If there was no connection to Peter then precisely what point was being made by Our Lord when He changed Simon’s name? Jesus could have used the Greek word ‘lithos’ if he had wanted to make it clear there was no connection.

Nor will it do, as the piece I cited above, does to reject the argument that the Aramaic, Kefas/Caphas definitely refers to Peter.  Throughtout the NT the form Kephas is mentioned, so it is clear that there is a significance in the name change. (John 1:42; 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14). Simon’s name was changed to rock for a reason. If Protestantism requires one plays games with words to deny that, then its house is not built on rock.  The deliberate use of the “pevtra-Pevtro” pun in 16:18, the only verse in the entire NT that contains both words, seems to indicate the Jesus specifically singled out the apostle Simon Peter as the “rock” in question. Peter is not given this position because he is inherently worthy; instead, he receives this title because he confessed his faith in the Messiah.

But, even if you grant this argument (and you may not) is that the same as saying that the Roman claims are correct? To show that a number of things would need to be shown: that what Christ conferred on Peter was something that could be passed on only to the Bishop of Rome; and that the powers were as Rome has claimed. It is to those topics we must turn.

The feast of SS Peter and Paul

29 Wednesday Jun 2016

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Faith, St Peter

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

One of the greatest of our Popes was St Leo I, and this passage, from a sermon of his for the occasion of the feast of SS Peter and Paul, is a powerful reminder of what we owe to the two men who, in the power of the Holy Spirit, did so much to spread the Good News in the post-resurrection period.

The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries, and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men’s salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which today’s festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end.

For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ’s gospel shone on you, O Rome, and through whom you, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth. These are your holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave you claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built you under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of your walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave you your name defiled you with his brother’s blood.

These are they who promoted you to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people,   and royal state 1 Peter 2:9, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter’s holy See you attained a wider sway by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although you were increased by many victories, and extended your rule on land and sea, yet what your toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of Christ has conquered.

Leo the Great, Sermon 82

Mark’s Gospel & St Peter

04 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by in Bible, Faith, St Mark's Gospel, St Peter

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

saint-peter-the-apostle1

At the beginning of the liturgical year I offered some comments on Mark’s Gospel as a source for patristic commentaries – mainly to the effect that there were not a great many of them. But that did not mean that the early Church did not value the Gospel, indeed it received it as the best extant record of what St Peter thought and, indeed, as effectively his memoir. As Eusebius of Caesarea (c.262-c.339) – who had access to the best library in Palestine and the traditions recorded therein, wrote:

Mark writes thus, and Peter through him bears witness about himself. For the whole of Mark’s Gospel is said to be the record of Peter’s teaching. Surely, then, men who refused (to record) what seemed to them to spread their good fame, and handed down in writing slanders against themselves to unforgetting ages, and accusations of sins, which no one in after years would ever have known of unless he had heard it from their own voice, by thus placarding themselves, may justly be considered to have been void of all egoism and false speaking, and to have given plain and clear proof of their truth-loving disposition. And as for such people who think they invented and lied, and try to slander them as deceivers, ought they not to become a laughing-stock, being convicted as friends of envy and malice, and foes of truth itself, who take men that have exhibited in their own words good proof of their integrity, and their really straightforward and sincere character, and suggest that they are rascals and clever sophists, who invent what never took place, and ascribe gratuitously to their own Master what He never did?

He concluded, and this was the consensus of the Fathers, that Mark was ‘a written monument of the doctrine which had been [by Peter] orally communicated to them.’ We know that from the earliest days it was read at the Divine Liturgy. We see this tradition at Rome, in Antioch, in Alexandria and Constantinople, and they seem, as far as we can reconstruct them, to be independent of each other – that is to say that everywhere it was known that Mark was Peter’s interpreter and what he wrote was Peter’s, not his own. As Athanasius the Apostolic put it: ‘Mark, the Gospel writer … uses the same voice [as Peter did in his confession of Christ as Messiah], speaking in harmony with the Blessed Peter’ [Sermon on the Nativity of Christ, 28]

That most learned translator and scholar, St Jerome, wrote, in his Lives of Illustrious Men [chapter 8]:

Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to thechurches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son. So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christto his example. Philo most learned of the Jews seeing the first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, wrote a book on their manner of life as something creditable to his nation telling how, as Luke says, the believers had all things in common at Jerusalem, so he recorded that he saw was done at Alexandria, under the learned Mark. He died in the eighth year of Nero and was buried at Alexandria, Annianus succeeding him.

Jerome concluded that, in effect, Mark’s Gospel was the testimony of St Peter himself.

Soon we shall bid farewell to Mark’s Gospel as the subject of the Sunday patristic commentaries, but, for all the occasional frustrations at the slim pickings it offers from that point of view, it has been a privilege to follow it through the year and to walk in the footsteps of St Peter himself.

The Transfiguration

06 Thursday Aug 2015

Posted by in Bible, Faith, Homilies, Petrine Epistles, St John

≈ 12 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

icon-of-the-transfiguration-of-christ-e1419231530906

For the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord. 

God is light, and in him there is no darkness. He is the light which lights the world – the uncreated light. The light, we are told, is sweet, and it is a pleasant thing for the eyes to behold the sun, and the Lord himself tells us that if we walk in the day, we shall not stumble because we see the light of the world: in His light we see light. That uncreated light is the light in whose presence we have to avert our eyes, as did Saints John, Peter and James – the pure goodness, the pure beauty, the fullness of the truth. They fall away even at the reflected light in the transfigured Jesus. The Apostles were granted a sight of what awaits all those who will be reborn in Christ – our sinful bodies will be conformed to his glorious body – and death shall have no dominion. In the face of even the reflection of God, the Apostles cannot stand – like Isaiah they could have said:

Woe is me, for I am undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The Lord of hosts.

This is why we need Christ, this is why we need to be transformed by His saving Grace, for we, too, are men (and women) of unclean lips, and if we were judged according to our merits, then none should escape the lake of fire. On Mount Tabor, as at the baptism in the Jordan, the Father bears witness to the Son. Moses and Elijah bear witness to the Law and the Prophets, but all of those give way to the Word Himself, the Living Word who was present at the beginning, was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, who was made man, was crucified and died, who descended into hell and who rose again on the third day so that we should not die but inherit eternal life. We are not sinless, but we have the means of redemption to hand in the Lord; we are made righteous by His sacrifice. We deceive ourselves if we say we are without sin, and we cannot have fellowship with the darkness if we have fellowship with Him. Fellowship with Him is fellowship with those who also confess Him, and it is to be saved by His blood. But to confess Him, and then not be obedient to Him, is to make liars of our confession, and in His mercy, He will forgive us if we confess our sins and try again.

How do we know these things are true? St John tells us:

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here he bears witness to what he saw on Mt Tabor – the memory of that Grace and Truth remained with him to the end of his long life, and it was in that light that he walked – and his Gospel, like his epistles, are full of the light – he had seen what is given to few to see – no wonder it had such an effect. We see the witness of Peter in the second epistle which bears his name. Writing just before his death, and knowing that men questioned the sources of his teaching, he, like John, had recourse to what he had seen on Mt Tabor:

16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

Even though they had walked and talked with the Resurrected Christ, it was that memory of what we call the Transfiguration to which both Apostles referred as confirmation of the prophetic words they spoke. These words, this testimony, is, for us, our light which shines in the dark places until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Morning star

 

Emerging from silence

16 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Bible, Blogging, Faith

≈ 27 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

redeemed-and-forgiven

First, I am touched by the kindness of the folk here. Taking it alongside a difficult eight months, it supplies me with this text:

But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

I cannot think there are Christians who imagine that a life with Christ is a passport to a life of ease, for we are told that the world will hate us if we are his, and that we shall have to bear our crosses. But if we are in him, and he in us, then we do not lack support when we require help. Perseverance requires hope, and if we have brotherly kindness and love (in my own case, that would be daughterly kindness and love) that makes it all the more bearable. It isn’t easy to explain to non-believers what it means to offer our trials up to Christ, but believers will understand.

Trials are part of life. They remind even the sturdiest individualists amongst us that we are not alone, and if they help us to lean on Jesus, then we may gain an insight into what they bring us other than suffering. They are not ‘barren’ or ‘unfruitful’ in coming to understand more about our relationship with Jesus. Whoever wrote that second epistle of Peter (and I’m not inclined to accept that tradition has it wrong just because some modern scholars cast doubt on it), he was a Christian who had passed through the fires of suffering and come to know Jesus the better for it.

As I emerge from a silence imposed by personal circumstances (as some of you know, Mrs S has been unwell), it is in part to offer encouragement to all who suffer, and to all who feel that the darkness is descending. This world is not our home, but if we will but take the time to talk to God in prayer, then its trials and tribulations are not unfruitful. We may not, and I would not, seek them, but if we believe in him, we have a great high priests who knows our sufferings and loves us, and the one mediator with the Father who will save us.

I can say with Peter:

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts

 

Mark 14:66-72: Peter’s denial

02 Thursday Apr 2015

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Peter's denial

As promised on Sunday, a continuation of the Gospel from Palm Sunday

Chrysostom underlines the ‘strange and remarkable’ turn of events during the time after Jesus’ arrest where Peter moves from ardent promises and slicing off a servant’s ear to denying His master thrice before the cock crows twice. Origen, with his customary keen eye, points out the increasing vehemence of Peter’s denial – which marks his panic, and also his self-loathing at what he was doing; a reminder never to promise more than we can deliver – although, being fallen man, we often do just that.

Eusebius reminds us that Mark was ‘Peter’s interpreter’ and therefore we are getting, here, as close to Peter’s account of events as we can. He notes the honesty of the account. It must have been tempting to have quietly forgotten such moments of shame, and unless the Evangelists had recorded them, then they would have been forgotten. We see here, a testimony to the reliability of the Gospel accounts; they do not spare the founders of the Church nor even the Prince of the Apostles. They candidly report his betrayal by one of his inner circle explicit accusations by dubious witnesses, the insults and blows he received at the hands of his enemies, as well as the events of the crucifixion. These things no one would have invented, for they were, as Paul says, a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the Gentiles. Peter became the leader of the Apostles and a highly-respected figure and a martyr, and yet here, in the words of his closest follower, he is willing to convict himself of sin and bear the same; this is testimony a man can credit. Is there, anywhere, a record of the men who helped create a church recording themselves in such a way? It is a badge of honour to Peter and Mark that they were so unsparing in their depiction of Peter’s faults.

St Augustine reminds us that having denied Christ thrice, Peter would ask forgiveness thrice and be restored to favour – even as King David sinned and was forgiven, so it was with Blessed Peter.

St Gregory the Great wonders why it was that God permitted St Peter to be frightened by the voice of a maid and to deny Christ himself? It was ‘a great dispensation of the divine mercy, so that he who would be the shepherd of the Church might learn, through his fall, to have compassion on others.’

Gospel 22nd Sunday in OT, Year A

31 Sunday Aug 2014

Posted by in Bible, Commentaries, Faith

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

jesus carries

St Matthew 16:21-27

Chrysostom points out that Peter uses human reasoning and understanding to question the will of God; his reasoning is carnal, it is the same reasoning Adam and eve used in the Garden of Eden; it is of Satan. Just as John had hesitated to baptise Jesus, so Peter, also reasoning as men reason, misses the will of God. Jesus does the will of God. Origen remarks that now the Apostles knew the identity of Jesus, they have to begin to face up to the destiny that He will soon face; this they find hard. Peter is, Chrysostom says, overwhelmed and confused; he had learned the truth of the identity of Jesus, but not yet the truth of the Cross. He does not know that the Son of Man must suffer for many, or that the way of the disciple is also to take up the Cross of suffering. The gain of wheat must fall into the earth and doe before it is fruitful; so too must the new man in Christ suffer – and he must do so willingly. Only those willing to lose this earthly life will gain the reward of life eternal. Origen remarks that it is the way of men in this world to cling on to life and to try to avoid suffering, and it is thus that Peter reasons.

St Cyril of Alexandria says it is not surprising that the disciples, so recently enlightened as to the identity of the Lord, should still be confused about what he says. They still expect the Messiah to come to redeem captive Israel, and they are not expecting the Suffering Servant. It is only in the Second Coming that He will come in glory to judge both the living and the dead. The glory of the Father is that of the Son, for they are of one substance. Peter, like all Christians, should look to the life to come, for we are not bound by the chains of death, we have new life in Christ. All that was lost will be renewed, aye, and with profit, and though we are dead, we shall live, and death shall have no dominion, for the Lord is Risen. But first He must pass through the valley of the shadow of death, and He who is without sin must give His life for the sake of sinners. It was for that that he came into the world. It is the way of men to turn aside from suffering to preserve their life in this world, but down that wide road lies only destruction. Only in obedience to the will of God can the Christian triumph; only in the Cross of Christ can life be found; only in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit can we persevere in this life, which is but the preparation for life eternal.

Free Will

27 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by in Anglicanism, Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith, Homilies, Pusey

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

1_peter_title
Pusey’s sermons are, in my view, a fund of good, solid, Christian teaching, and the contain warnings which we would still be well-advised to heed. Here, in prophetic mode, he discusses a topic close to our hearts – free will.
1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;…

Liberty, freedom! The young heart bounds at the thought. It speaks of the unloosing of chains, the free roaming of the uncaged soul. the full freedom of the will. Man was born, created to be free; full freedom is his original endowment, the condition of his nobility of soul, his distinction from the irrational creatures, the image of God in which he was created. As contrasted with necessity, it is as indestructible as in Almighty God who created it. What then is the freedom which the prophets foretold, which Jesus said that He would give the glorious liberty of the sons of God? Christ freed us from the yoke of sin by the freedom of righteousness: He freed us from the dominion of concupiscence by the freedom of the Spirit and the dominion of love and grace.

“Tell me,” says Socrates to a disciple, “thinkest thou that freedom is a great and glorious possession alike to a man and a state?” “Most exceedingly.” “Whoso then is ruled by bodily pleasures and on account of them cannot do what is best, thinkest thou that he is free?” “Not at all.” “For to do what is best seemeth to them to be free; and so then, to have those who should hinder so doing to be unfree?” “Certainly.” “The incontinent seem then to you to be unfree?” “Assuredly.” “And they seem to you not only to be hindered from doing the best things, but to be constrained to do the foulest?” “Both alike.” “But what sort of masters deemest thou those to be, who hinder what is best, constrain to what is worst?” “The worst.” “And what slavery thinkest thou the worst?” “That to the worst masters.” “The incontinent then are enslaved to the worst slavery?” concludes . “I think so.” You know how with one consent heathen philosophers said, “The wise man alone is free.” “He alone is indeed free,” says Philo, “who taketh God alone for his commander.” “The good man alone is free; for the evil man, though he deny it, is the slave of as many lords as he has vices.”

“Lust cometh, and saith, ‘Thou art mine, for thou covetest the things of the body. In such or such a passion thou soldest thyself to me; I counted down the price for thee.’ Avarice cometh and saith, ‘Thou art mine; the gold and the silver which thou hast is the price of thy slavery.’ Luxury cometh and saith, ‘Thou art mine; amid the wine cups I purchased thee; amid the feasts I gained thee.’ Ambition cometh and said to thee, ‘Thou art surely mine. Knowest thou not, that to that end I gave thee command over others, that thou thyself mightest serve me? Knowest thou not, that to that end I bestowed power on thee, that I might bring thee under mine own?’ All vices come, and one by one they chant, ‘Thou art mine.’ He whom so many claim, how vile a slave is he!” From this slavery Christ came to set us free.

“If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” But then are we not still under a law? and, if we are under a law, how have we that freedom which youth especially longs for? Is then lawlessness the only freedom? Men admire what is called “the reign of law,” throughout the boundless realms of God’s creation. So did they idolise the beauty of the conception, that they are jealous even of Almighty God Himself, and would not have Him, by any higher law of His love, suspend His usual modes of His operation, Law then is some thing beautiful. Even in human things, what in sights and sounds so thrills through us, as when many voices or minds through obedience to a law become as one? What are all these deeds of united heroism, when all lay “with their back to the field and their feet to the foe,” or that inscription, “To Lacedaemon tell, that here, obeying her behests, we fell,” but the wills of many, obeying, to the death, minds without them whose will they reverenced? And cannot Almighty God make us love a law, which is the transcript of His perfections, the law of love; a law which responds to the law of our better nature within; which brings our whole being into harmony with itself, with our fellow beings and with Him.