It will be my birthday next month. Last year, some of you kindly purchased some items from my Amazon wishlist. No one is expected to do so, but if you wish to support the blog and/or YT channel, you can do so via:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Alt.:
Thanks!
Bountiful: This is Pan
Cha’lib’, rendered “Panchalib” in the texts, which is located three
kilometers southwest of the center of the Quiché town of Joyabaj (Acuña 1975:114,
Brenton 1994:328, 334). To get there Cawek would have traveled eastward from
Earthquake. According to two sixteenth-century Quiché documents, Joyabaj (or Xoyab’aj)
was a Rabinal citadel until it was taken by the Quiché during the reign of
Quicab (Carmack and Mondloch 1989:84, 179). The inhabitants still speak a
dialect of K’iche’ similar to that of Rabinal (Campbell 1877:14-15), Cha’l
is “abundance” (FX, TC). (Dennis Tedlock, Rabinal Achi: A Maya Drama of War
and Sacrifice [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003], 292)
The following comes from:
Dennis Tedlock, Rabinal Achi: A Maya Drama of War and Sacrifice
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
Examples from Rabinal Achi:
Has Sky really given you up?
Has Earth given you up?
So now you’re under the power of my weapon
under the power of my shield
and my upraised ax handle
my upraised ax blade
my snail-shell bracelet
my armband (p. 30)
I have thrown a lasso
I have thrown a lariat
with my henequen rope
my henequen cord
and my upraised ax handle
my upraised ax blade (p. 75)
if he has fallen
under the power of your weapon, sir
the power of your shield, sir (p. 77)
I must therefore leave
my weapon here
my shield here. (p. 81)
Translator’s notes:
. . . in range of my weapon /
in range of my shield. The literal meaning of chupam ral nuch’ab’ /
chupam ral nupakob’ is “inside the weight (or power) of my weapon) / inside
the weight (or power) of my shield,” and in other contexts I have chosen “power”
or “strength” instead of “range.” Al is “weight” (DB, FX, FV, MX, AG) or
“power,” as in “the power of God” (DB); ralib’al is “lasso” and ralim
is “tied together” (FT). “Weapon” translated ch’ab’, which is “arrow”
or “dart,” while ch’ab’ij is to shoot with the same (FX, FV, TC).
(pp. 280-81)
before the helmet / before the
lance: “Helmet” is to’j, which appears as “too” in the texts
(including o followed by a glottal stop); my reading is based on a
dictionary entry for to’j, “helmets of war” (DB). “Lance” translates ch’amiy,
which is usually glossed as “staff” but also means “lance” (PG). (p. 317)
The following comes from:
William Palmer, A Treatise on the Church of Christ:
Designed Chiefly for the Use of Students in Theology, 2 vols. (3d ed.;
London: J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1842), 1:65-67
It may be collected from these
passages, that when any professing Christian is guilty of heresy, idolatry, or
other crimes, it is the duty of believers to separate themselves from him at
once, even before the cause has been brought to the ordinary tribunals of the
church ; and this appears to be a general rule, applicable even in cases where
bishops or other ecclesiastical superiors are guilty of crime.
Of this rule of catholic
communion we find innumerable examples in the history of the church. Thus St.
Cyprian, in many places, condemns bishops and other members of the church, who
received to communion without any canonical penance, those who had fallen away
in the time of persecution, and had performed acts of idolatry; [1] assuming
throughout, that such offenders had been at once, by their own acts, and
without any sentence, separated from communion ; these lapsed, according to
him, had ceased to be members of the church. " A number of lapsed,"
he says, " cannot be called a church, since it is written, 'God is not the
God of the dead, but of the living, [2] He commends the clergy of Carthage for
refusing communion to Gaius and another, who " by communicating with
the lapsed, and offering their oblations, were discovered to be in their
wicked errors. [3] When a bishop who had committed idolatrous actions attempted
to resume his ministry in the church, Cyprian declared that " those who
have committed grievous sins, that is, who have offered sacrilegious sacrifice
in sacrificing to idols, cannot assume to themselves to be priests of God, nor
make any prayer before Him for the brethren ;" and that " no oblation
can be sanctified where the Holy Spirit is not, nor can any blessing from the
Lord come through the prayers and supplications of one who hath injured the
Lord." [4] The synod of African bishops, with Cyprian, in an epistle to
the clergy and people of Leon and Merida, in Spain, whose bishops had committed
idolatry, declared, that under such circumstances, " the people should not
flatter themselves that they could be free from the contagion of guilt when
in communion with a wicked bishop, and consenting to his unrighteous and
unlawful rule." [5] A people obedient to the Lord's commands, and fearing
God, ought to separate itself from a bishop that is a sinner, and not partake
in the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest." [6] The synod afterwards
exhorts them " not to be united in sacrilegious communion with profane and
defiled bishops.” [7]
This rule applied even in the
case of the bishops of the principal sees. Thus Antonianus, a bishop of
Numidia, would not hold communion with Cornelius, bishop of Rome, who had been
accused of communicating with the lapsed, and restoring a lapsed bishop to his
office, until St. Cyprian showed him the injustice of those accusations. [8]
St. Jerome refers with approbation to the acts of the monks and many of the
brethren who separated from the communion of John, bishop of Jerusalem, because
he would not clear himself from the errors of Origen, with which he was
strongly charged. [9] The monks of Cappadocia separated themselves from the
communion of the elder Gregory, bishop of Nazianzum, because he had subscribed
the creed of Ariminum, and was suspected of Arianism. [10] From all these cases
it is plain, that in the primitive ages it was considered right to separate
from the communion even of bishops, however, eminent in station and dignity,
when they were guilty of heresy or idolatry.
Notes for the
Above:
[1] Cyprian, Epist. x. xxvii. Lxiv.
&c. ed. Pamelii.
[2] "Absit enim, nec Domini
mise- ricordia, et potestas ejus invicta patiatur, ut Ecclesia esse dicatur lapsorum
numerus; cum scriptum sit, Deus non est mortuorum, sed vivorum."-Epist.
xxvii. p. 55, ed. Pamelii.
[3] "Integrè et cum
disciplinâ fecistis ... quod consilio collegarum meorum qui præsentes erant,
Gaio Diddensi presbytero et diacono ejus censuistis non communicandum : qui
communicando cum lapsis, et offerendo oblationes eorum in pravis erroribus suis
frequenter deprehensi," &c .- Epist. xxviii. p. 56.
[4] Epist. lxiv. Ad Epictetum et
plebem Assuritanorum.
[5] "Nec sibi plebs
blandiatur ; quasi immunis esse à contagio delicti possit, cum sacerdote
peccatore communicans, et ad injustnm atque illicitum præpositi sui episcopatum
consensum suum commodans."–Epist. Ixviii. p. 165.
[6] "Propter quod plebs
obsequens præceptis Dominicis, et Deum me- tuens, à peccatore præposito sepa-
rare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi sacerdotis sacrificia miscere.”--Ibid.
p. 166.
[7] "Quantum possumus
adhorta- mur litteris nostris, ne vos cum profanis et maculatis sacerdotibus
communicatione sacrilega misceatis."–Ibid. p. 166.
[8] Cypr. Epist. lii. ad Antonianum.
[9] Hieron. Epist. xxviii. Col.
308.
[10] Vita Gregorii Naz. a
Gregorio presbytero, tom. i. Oper. Naz .; Orat. xii. De Pace, p. 191, &c.
I shall first consider the
character of the temporal rulers as affecting the reformation of the church of
England. That men of unsanctified characters have frequently been made
instrumental in performing works beneficial to the church, must be admitted by
Romanists themselves. The character of Constantine the Great was stained by
serious offences, yet he established Christianity in the Roman empire. Clovis,
the first Christian king of the Franks ; Phocas, who conferred on the Roman
patriarch the title of oecumenical bishop ; the empress Irene, who established
the worship of images ; many of the Roman pontiffs themselves; and even some of
those who were most zealous to extend their jurisdiction, were all guilty of
great and terrible crimes. The emperor Napoleon restored Christianity in
France, yet it will not be pretended that his character was one of much
sanctity.
There is no impossibility that
God should cause evil men to benefit the church, for in the occasional
employment of such instruments, He only glorifies His own supreme power and
wisdom, which can educe good from the very evils he permits; and it may be
designed to lead His people rather to contemplate the truth itself, than the
personal characters of its promoters, which if it were regarded as the
invariable test of truth, would even open the way for heresy, because it has
been remarked that the founders of heresies are usually men of great external
sanctity. Bossuet himself admits that God has made use of very evil princes to
accomplish great works*. The evil character then of Henry VIII., of Somerset,
or of any other temporal or spiritual promoters of reformation in the church,
affords (even if it were not exaggerated) no proof that the Reformation was in
itself wrong. The objection only applies in a case supposed by Bossuet: when
" God desires to reveal to men some truth, important, and unknown for many
ages, or entirely unheard of:" in such a case he deems it impossible that
God should have employed such agents as Henry VIII. or Cranmer. We will go
further than this. If such a truth as had been entirely unheard of before,
or condemned in all past ages by the catholic church, had then been
propounded by “an angel from heaven,” he would have been “anathema.” (William
Palmer, A Treatise on the Church of Christ: Designed Chiefly for the Use of Students
in Theology, 2 vols. [3d ed.; London: J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1842],
1:326-27)
The adoration of the host,
practised in the Roman church, is grossly idolatrous, and as every one is
compelled to unite in this act, the whole Roman church must be idolatrous and
apostate, and cannot be a part of Christ's church.
I answer, First, that although
the council of Trent declares that " the worship of latria, due to the
true God," ought to be paid " to this sacrament” from which it
may be inferred, that the elements of bread and wine are to be
worshipped; the same council elsewhere directs this worship to Christ
himself; and accordingly, Roman theologians maintain, without any
censure, that the worship " is wholly referred to Christ himself,
not to the signs and outward appearances, which although they be honoured with
the same religious worship, yet are not honoured with that supreme one of
latria. It is impossible to maintain that there is any idolatry in this.
If Christ be in a special and
mysterious manner present in these " holy mysteries,” as the infinite
majority of Christians have at all times firmly and fervently believed,
according to the more simple and unrestrained interpretation of Holy Scripture
; the truly religious man cannot but be profoundly impressed with sentiments of
awe and veneration in the more immediate presence of the Divine Saviour of the
world, He will feel with the patriarch : " How dreadful is this place !
this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.” Nor
will he need the voice of God to say: " Put off thy shoes from thy feet ;
for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.”
Since, therefore, the members of
the Roman communion are not obliged to worship the bread and wine
with divine honours, that church cannot be fairly said to be wholly idolatrous
or apostate; and notwithstanding her practical corruptions, may still remain a
part of the Christian church.
Secondly, it is not to be denied
that the elements themselves are, in many cases, made the object of
superstitious and even idolatrous worship; as has been shown by various writers
from the works of Gregory de Valentia, Bellarmine, Coster, Vasquez, &c. But
it does not seem that these corruptions are universal; though they certainly
prevailed so much, that it was extremely necessary to remove the elevation and
other rites which led to such serious evil in the church.
It would seem that the elevation
and its accompanying rites were not always understood as acts of worship to the
elements, or to Christ present in the sacrament. (William Palmer, A Treatise
on the Church of Christ: Designed Chiefly for the Use of Students in Theology, 2
vols. [3d ed.; London: J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1842], 1:239-40, italics in
original)
ON
INDIFFERENCE IN RELIGION.
One of the common objections of
Romanists against the church of England is founded on the existence of
religious indifference among some of her members, or the persuasion that all
sects and doctrines are equally secure, and that no particular belief or communion
is necessary to salvation. Bossuet, Milner, and others, have asserted that this
system is extensively prevalent amongst us, and have employed it as a proof
that our churches are not Christian.
The origin of religious
indifference may be traced indirectly to the denial of all church authority,
and the assertion of the unlimited right of private judgment, which arose among
the Socinians, and were sometimes incautiously maintained even by members of
the foreign reformed societies; whence the Independents and dissenters also
derived them. It is plain however, that although, in the imagined exigencies of
controversy for defence of the truth, some individuals during the time of the
Reformation may have let fall expressions, which, in their legitimate
consequences, might actually remove the necessity of adhering to particular
tenets, those consequences were not known or allowed by them ; for all the
reformed communities subscribed and imposed confessions of faith, in which the
absolute necessity of believing certain doctrines is asserted, and heretics are
consigned to perdition. There can be no doubt indeed, that in the sixteenth
century, any one who had advanced openly the doctrine of indifference, would
have been regarded by the reformed as an infidel, and most probably experienced
the fate of Servetus. Chillingworth, in practically denying to the church
all authority in matters of faith, leaving each man to form his own religion
from the Bible only, by his independent inquiries, removed some of the
strongest barriers against the intrusion of heresy; and his doctrine, that
Scripture was so clear in all necessary matters, that he who received it as his
rule of faith, could not be a heretic, opened a way for the doctrine of
indifference. Still, as he did not draw the conclusions which led to this
result, his principles were unsuspectingly adopted by many, who would have
shrunk with horror from the conclusions which others afterwards deduced from
them. The history of indifference, in England, properly begins with Hoadly;
who, in the early part of the eighteenth century, first rendered this system
known. The doctrines maintained by him and his disciples, were as follows:–
I. That the true church of Christ
being invisible, it is not a matter of necessity to be of any particular
visible church.
II. That Christ being the only
lawgiver and judge in his church, there is no other authority in the church in
matters of faith and practice, affecting salvation. That it is therefore
needless to hold any particular creed or interpretation of Scripture, and
sinful to require from others the belief of any.
III. That sincerity, or our own
persuasion of the correctness of our opinions (whether well or ill-founded), is
the only condition of acceptance with God.
IV. That the apostolical
succession of the clergy, ministerial benedictions, and generally the
sacraments and rites of the church, are trifling, ridiculous, or unnecessary.
V. That Christ's kingdom not
being of this world, all temporal support of the church is contrary to the
Gospel. (William Palmer, A Treatise on the Church of Christ: Designed
Chiefly for the Use of Students in Theology, 2 vols. [3d ed.; London: J. G.
F. & J. Rivington, 1842], 1:207-9, emphasis in bold added)