ANSWER TO W. J. NAPIER.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 274, 24 August 1872, Page 3

ANSWER TO W. J. NAPIER.

To the Editor of the THAMES GUARDIAN. Sir, — I noticed in yesterday’s issue of your paper, a letter signed W.J. Napier, in which the writer attempts to correct Old Catholic in several mistakes which he fancies Old Catholic has made. On this letter of W. J. Napier’s, with your permission, I will make a few remarks. Firstly, in attempting to prove that the authority to expound the word of God was given to the Pope and his clergy only, he quotes Matthew 16th, and John 21st. Well, the mere fact of our Lord saying, “ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and 1 will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, feed my lambs, feed my sheep,” does not prove that Peter was to be the only one to preach or read God’s word, for' does not the Bible say, “ Search the Scriptures,for in them ye have eternal life.” It does not say the Pope or his priests are to search them for you, but bids you search for yourselves. I will defy W.J.N. to quote a passage in the Bible where St. Peter, or anyone else, receives authority from God to forgive and remit sins. So it will be seen that Old Catholic’s idea is not such an absurd one after all, and that W.J.N. trying to correct what he fancies is a mistake, has made one himself. Again W.J.N. speaking of what Old Catholic had said with regard io taking from, and adding to, the word of God, brings forward as an argument the circumstance of the Protestant Bible being revised, and advises Old Catholic to try and deter the revisers from so doing, as by doing so they will take away from the word of God. Now this, I must say, is a rather shallow argument. If W.J.N. is so ignorant as not to be aware of the difference between revising a book and altering the sense of it, the soonerheknows the better. And if ho is aware of the difference, his letter will speak as little for his candour as it now does for the soundness of his arguments.—l am, &c., Protestant. To the Editor of the TIIAMKS GUARDIAN. Sir, —I, on the part of the unlucky portion of the general public of the Thames, desire to place before you a plain statement, and request your opinion on the matter. Some short time back, several judgments were obtained in the local R.M. Court against a private citizen. In due course the law was put in force by a bailiff taking possession. The defendant, finding it impossible to meet his engagements, very properly filed his schedule in bankruptcy, the consequence whereof was that the myrmidon of the law had immediately thereafter to skedaddle. But, a week after, they walked in again under the authority of someone in power, and took re-possession of everything. It does seem hard thus to so materially add to the costs already incurred, and 1 ask you, as the public educator, if such an oppressive measure is allowed by the liberal laws of New Zealand ?—I am, &c., Enquirer.