Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

ihe sentence would have been changed, if these were to be the nominative to the verb here understood. My construction is critically correct as the sentence now reads, but it will not bear his construction. But there is yet another great assumption in the quotation of this passage on which I have not yet emphasized. He says, "feed my sheep" means, feed my pastors, and "feed my lambs" means, feed my flock. Mark the assumption, that sheep signifies pastors, and lambs the people! Where does he find authority for this? If "sheep" any where else signified "clergy," and "lambs" laity, there would be some plausibility in it; but with the absence of such usage it is supremely whimsical and arbitrary; and yet the point of this passage rests upon the assumption of sheep for clergy. So far he presses it into his service, for that bishops are to feed the flock is not disputed, but that one of them is before the others is the question in debate.

The gentleman, on Saturday, called my interpretation of this passage a fish story; this mode of treating so holy an institution, so solemn a matter, is not in the true dignity of the subject, nor of the occasion; nor is it very respectful to the great personage on whose words we comment; but the audience have not met it with a laugh, and therefore I presume they felt the incongruity. In the same style are the morning's remarks on the bones, &c. but the bishop might remember there was more in the premises than the spoils of a single meal; there were many fish and all the apparatus before them, but no ono would interpret the words of the question in that style on any othei occasion. It was sustenance in general, and not a particular meal, concerning which the Savior spoke.

The gentleman suggests that, in the 1st chap, of John, Christ in his first interview with Peter changes his name to Cephas; and he assumes "that it was that he might afterwards make him the rock of his church!" It was a very common thing in the history of the patriarchs and Jews to change names. Thus we find from the beginning of their history, various instances of this: "Sarai" is changed into Sarah; "Abram" into Abraham; "Jacob" into Israel. Two of the apostles were called "Boanerges" sons of Thunder; but that did not convert them into thunder; neither did the name Cephas convert Peter into a stone. If I were to give a reason for the addition to Peter's name, (but it was neither change nor addition, rightly considered,) I would say that it was most probably occasioned by the fact, that Daniel spoke of the kingdom of the Messiah under the figure of a stone cut out of the mountain. With an eye probably to this kingdom of the stone, (as Peter was the first convert,) his name is improved by being translated into Syriac; for after all, it is rather a translation of Petros than an addition to it! He was, however, the beginning of this new spiritual edifice, and a foundation stone; but only one among many.

This kingdom of the stone, it is foretold by Daniel, was to commence in the days of the Cesars: but it was to become the kingdom of the mountain. It was, indeed, to become a great mountain, and fill the whole earth. This building is composed of a succession of foundations, provided only that all the popes are successors of Peter, in virtue of his being the rock. To have this whole building at the foundation, or to be always laying. nejHt foundations in every election of a popi of the R(

[graphic]

The bishop observes that a headless trunk is worth nothing, and would seem to think that our argument on that subject leaves the church without a head. Has the church no other head than the pope? Of whatever church the pope is head, that church is the body of the pope: And is it Christ's body too? The Romanists are the body of the bishop's church—cut the head off that body, or annul the pope's assumption and you destroy its organization. The gentleman rightly appreciates my argument: he feels that it makes the church of Rome a headless trunk: but the mistake is in supposing that this annihilation of the pretension annuls the church of Christ. Jesus Christ is independent of the pope. He is head; and the saints of all ages are the component parts of his spiritual, his mystical body.

The gentleman's allusion to the High Priest was peculiarly unfortunate. There never was but one high priest at a time: one in heaven and one on earth is without a single hint or allusion in the Bible. We cannot now descant upon such an incongruity.

The word 'lyvs (Hierus) priest, occurs not once in the New Testament, in reference to christian bishops, or deacons. It is only found once, and that in the apocalyptic style, in all the christian scriptures: for the idea of any one officiating on the earth as a sacrificing priest, or that christian bishops have aught of a priestly character is anti-christian. But Christ is the anti-type of Aaron. The order of Aaron is extinct. The order of Melchisidec is the model of the Christian High Priesthood. Christ is called of God as was Aaron: but he is called to officiate after the order of Melchisidec. The doctrine of Protestants is, that their High Priest made one great sacrifice for sin on earth; and that he offered it in the heavens; and that by one offering of himself, he has perfected the sanctified. "Brethren, consider the high priest of our profession, Jesus Christ." He ever lives and ever intercedes, and is able to save to the uttermost all that come by him to God. We, therefore, need no high priest on earth. The gentleman has told us too often of his love for America, and his love for England. If he repeats these declarations so often, we shall begin to think he loves too much in word, and too little in fact. He tells you of 30,000 English bayonets employed in defence of the papacy. And what of this? England is the cradle of all political freedom. Our notions of free government were all promulged in English books, and taught in English schools before they were imported here. We have, indeed practised upon the science of free government more than our mother country. But as in America, we tolerate all religions: so the British empire in every country where she has territory or subjects, supports and protects all. England tolerates everything. She supports Catholicism in Canada, Episcopacy in England, Presbyterianism in Scotland, and Paganism in the East Indies. Is she not too free and tolerant for my opponent, and for many Protestants 1! She takes no part against any religion. The popular doctrine in England at this moment is, that Church and State ought not to be amalgamated, or consociated under the same earthly head. Indeed, she is disposed to follow her American children very far in this doctrine.

The bishop seems to apply to Peter what was common to all the apostles, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." I remark upon this passage, that when the Messiah gave

the keys to Peter to open the kingdom of heaven to Jews and Gentiles, he did not appropriate to him the sole and exclusive power of binding and loosing: this power he bestowed on all the apostles. For after Peter opened the kingdom, they all introduced citizens into it, as well as he; and had the same official power; for as John says, chap. 20: he addressed them all—"As my Father hath sent me, so do I send you; whose soever sins you remit they are remitted to them, and whose soever sins you retain they are retained !"—This was spoken, in substance, repeatedly to them all. It is therefore asserting too much, to say that Peter alone was gifted with this power. He only used it first. They always exercised it in its true intent and meaning. I shall be glad to resume again the regular order.

We have heard much about the bishops of Rome and how they can be traced back even to Peter, &c, &c. I wish my learned opponent would confine himself to the proposition in debate, and permit me to go through with this argument, for succession. Then I will show of how much value are the traditionary enumerations found in Eusebius, from whose authors I can make out two or three successions. The gentleman brings up the erudition of the 4th century. I would as soon call on people in this room for testimony that the battle of Bunker's hill, or Blenheim was so and so fought—not one of whom lived at that time; as on persons living in one century to prove what happened in centuries before they were born. In the fourth century there is one writer testifies to the succession. What a decisive proof! Is there any testimony for the first two hundred years affirming this succession? I affirm that there is not. All the tradition on earth fails just in this radical and essential point!

Again: tradition is wholly silent on the election of the first popes. No one pretends to tell how Peter and Linus and Clement were invested with the office. Tradition is even in the hands of Catholics ashamed to depose any thing upon this point. We all know how to dispose of tradition three hundred years too late, in other matters; and I think to the matter of fact people of this generation, it must appear preposterous to prove an event by those who lived one, two, and three

Irenasus was introduced as a witness of Peter's having been bishop of Rome: but Irenaeus does not say so on his own responsibility: for he lived at the close of the second century. With him it was only hear-say. Again, his testimony of the church of Rome, having been planted by Paul and Peter is certainly false; and his saying that Polycarp was appointed bishop of Smyrna by the apostles, greatly weakens his traditionary statements concerning the Roman see: for Polycarp must have been ordained in the year 97, as he died in the year 147, having been 50 years bishop of Smyrna. Consequently it was impossible he could have been ordained by the apostles: but of this again. While my opponent speaks so fluently of early fathers, and of the short interval of two or three hundred years from Christ, he seems to forget how long a hundred years is, and how few know much about the events that happened a hundred years ago. Even now, in this age of books and printing, and steam presses, and steam-boats, and railroads, and general reading, how few of us could accurately, from memory relate the history of the American Revolution! And yet the gentleman talks about the opportunities of a person to ascertain these historic facts, one or two hundred years after they occurred, from tradition too, in an age when all these facilities which we enjoy were unknown. Is not this tradition a very loose and uncertain witness ?—[Time expired.]

[graphic]

Twelve o'clock, M. Bishop Purcell rises—

Irenaeus lived in the second century. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the evangelist. Irenaeus, was bishop of Lyons in France. The chain of testimony consists of three links. John the evangelist, Polycarp of Smyrna, Irenaeus of Lyons. John told Polycarp what Jesus did—Polycarp told Irenaeus what John had told him, and Irenaeus bears testimony here. This edition was published by a Protestant divine, named Nich: Gallaisus. It is dedicated to Grindal, bishop of London; and as I do not like to advance any thing merely on Catholic testimony, I prefer the Protestant to the Catholic edition of this father's works. Irenaeus distinctly says: "Since it would be very long to enumerate in this volume the succession of bishops in all the churches, by appealing to the tradition of a church the

GREATEST AND MOST ANCIENT AND KNOWN TO ALL, which Was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; a tradition which she has from the apostles, and the faith which she announces to men, and which comes down to us through the succession of bishops, we confound all those who in any way, either through evil self complacency or vain glory, or blindness and perversity gather otherwise than is meet. For with this church, on account of her more powerful principality, It Is Necessary That Every Church agree, that is the faithful who are on all sides, in which church, the tradition of the apostles has been preserved by the faithful who are on all sides." Iren. lib. Hi. chap. 3, (adversus haereses.)

Eusebius, has preserved for us a letter, written by the martyrs who suffered in Gaul, in the 19th year of Antonius Verus, and who were charged by the Pagans, as they say in their address to their fellowcitizens in Phrygia, "with feasts ofThyestes, {who ate part of his own son,) and the incests of CEdipus, and such crimes as are neither lawful for us to speak nor to think, and such indeed, as we do not believe were committed." In this document the martyrs commend Irenaeus, then a presbyter of the church of Lyons, to pope Eleutherus, whom Irenaeus appealed to on the subject of the Quarto-deciman controversy. I have this letter here in Greek. It may perhaps have more authority if I read the original.

Thus do we perceive that Eleutherus was styled "father and bishop of Rome," by these illustrious confessors of Jesus Christ, and his favor invoked in behalf of their brother.

In book in. chap. 3, (the title of this chapter is, of the apostolic tradition, or the succession of bishops in the churches from the apostles.) "These blessed apostles (Peter and Paul) founding and instituting the church, delivered the care of administering it to Linus, of whom Paul makes mention in his epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, after whom Clement obtains the episcopacy, in the third place from the apostles, who had seen and conferred with the apostles, who had heard their preaching sounding in his ears, and had with his own eyes beheld their traditions. Nor was he the only one— there were many more yet living who had been taught by the apostles. Under this Clement, when no inconsiderable discussion occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the church of Rome addressed to them most forcible letters, gathering them together in peace, repairing their faith, and announcing to them the traditions they had recently received from the apostles. To Clement succeeded Euaristus, and to Euaristus, Alexander; next was Sextus, sixth from the apostles, and after him Telesphorus, who also endured a most glorious martyrdom; then Hyginus, afterwards Pius, and after him again Anicetus. But when Soter had succeeded Anicetus, now in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherus hath the episcopate." There is then the fullest mani festation that one and the same vivifying faith has been handed down in the church and preserved to the present day. I would fain read the rest of this admirable chapter, but enough—here is the volume to which all who are anxious for more proof are invited to refer.

Tertullian, a little later says, confounding the heretics of his day— "letthem produce the origin of their churches, let them display the succession of their bishops, so that the first may appear to have been ordained by an apostolic man, who persevered in their communion." Lib. de praescrip. He then enumerates the pontiffs from St. Peter, to his own time in the Roman see, and concludes by the memorable words, "Let heretics exhibit anything like this." The evidence of Eusebius is also before you. On this subject I have one remark to make, which no one in this assembly who sincerely desires to know the truth, and of such I trust, the number is not small, will hear with indifference. This is, that in the letter of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabius, bishop of Antioch concerning Novatus, which is given in full by Eusebius, and is a faithful exhibition of the doctrines of the whole church at that early period, there is not a single doctrine or usage mentioned, which is not taught and observed in the Catholic church in this very city, at this very hour. Is not this an admirable proof of the apostolicity of our church 1 The supremacy of the pope in the supplying of vacant sees, the sacraments of the holy eucharist, baptism, confirmation, orders, a hierarchy, bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, porters, or janitors; asylums for the needy and afflicted—one bishop in a Catholic church; the right of excommunication, acquiescence of other bishops, personally testified or by letter, in the judgment of the bishop of Rome, &c. &c. &c. In the same letter we see heretics pictured to the life, the errors and evil practices of some modern sectarians described and strongly reprobated, viz: the forcing of communicants to take an oath never to quit a church they have joined. This I know to have occurred in Maryland, and I presume it is not uncommon.

Three o'clock P. M.

Mr. Camprell rises—

The last half hour of the gentleman was spent in culling antiquity to find some collateral evidence in attempting to defend the great point of the succession of pontiffs; and with what success you have all seen. His sensibility on the present occasion is truly gratifying. His conduct here shows that he perceives it to be vital, supremely essential to his system to make Peterbishop of Rome, and to fix the first twen

« AnteriorContinuar »