Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

was born in Nazareth, he took no pains to correct the error, though it would seem that a single word would have decided the case. He knew what manner of spirit they were of, and never said once; I was not born in Nazareth; but in Bethlehem. But to conclude, the subject of discussion in John vi. is about receiving him-coming to him, believing him to be the Messiah, &c., and was addressed to ambitious obstinate Jews. The subject in Matth. xxvi. and 1 Cor. xi. is his Savior's death, sacrifice and the commemoration of it, addressed to his disciples. It is, then, every way illogical to reason from the one to the other, as parallel cases.

But I would ask, how is a man to believe the same sense at one time, and disbelieve it at another, when in reading Paul or Matthew he sees the words, "this is my body," and when looking on the table, he sees not flesh but bread, why should he believe what he sees in the former case, and disbelieve what he sees in the latter case. That he sees bread is certain; why not then believe his eyes? Or, if he rejects them here, why not reject them there, on the words, "This is my body?" and believe that it reads, "this represents my body!" But even after the consecration, and after Jesus had said, "This is my blood," he clearly teaches, that he spoke in a figure: for, adds he, "I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine with you," &c. And Paul, after consecration says, "He that eateth this bread, and drinketh this cup unworthily"-&c.

Were it, however, converted into flesh, we would have to ask, what sanctifying power in flesh? or, what spiritual food would there be in the human flesh of the Son of God? And were it omnipresent, how would the eating of it as a sin offering, take away sin from the conscience?! The virtue was in the altar, on which the sacrifice was offered for "it is the altar that sanctifies the gift." And had it not been for the true and proper divinity of the Son of God, his flesh as a sin offering, could in no sense profit any person. But the priest can bring down the divine Savior from heaven, and offer him, body, soul, and divinity, as often as he pleases; and have the people adore both him and the miracle in his hand!! He that can believe all this, is not to be reasoned with.

66

The gentleman's remarks on, "I am with you," even after so many hours' reflection since I expounded them, have not the slightest reference to any thing I have said. I could not have thought it possible for a child to have so misunderstood and misapplied them. I need not again repeat them. They are wholly misrepresented. He has "defied heaven and earth." What a daring logician! Yes; he "defied heaven and earth," on what? To weaken his argument on infallibility! It would be hard indeed, to weaken that, which has no strength.. Perhaps he might defy Omnipotence to weaken what does not exist. But the bishop is just as fallible as your humble servant; and his church (I may with confidence say) is even more fallible than the Protestant church: for, our rule of faith is perfect and complete his rule, as I have shown, is imperfect and immoral.

"But Protestants are better than their principles!" Indeed! Their principles are the bible alone. Their acknowledged principles, certainly, are those to which my friend refers! A good argument! I read the other day something like this" Bad as human nature is, there is no man on earth bad enough to make a good papist." "The system cannot be carried out fully by any person." Would my learn

ed antagonist call this a good argument against his system? And is it not as logical as that which he has just alleged?

The bishop accuses Mr. Smith of ingratitude. I have something more to do than to defend Mr. Smith from such groundless imputations. Every one who abjures Catholicism, is a wretch: for Protestants are all heretics! The best return Mr. Smith or any person can make for favors received, is to disabuse the minds of his benefactors from error, if they happen to entertain it. The best and most grateful return that I could make to a Roman Catholic benefactor, for any benefit conferred, would be, if possible, to convince and save him from the most ruinous and destructive heresy that time records, or ever will record.

Next comes the Secreta Monita; for we must circumnavigate another circle in this speech also. The Secreta Monita, then, is just as accurate and fair a view of the spirit, design, and policies, of that order, as can be given. Such is our faith: and that on no mean testimony either.

We shall give some account of the discovery of this said book:

:

"We are indebted for this "terrible book" of Jesuits' secrets, to the parliament of Paris. They passed the act to abolish the Jesuits society and the execution came on the Jesuit college like a thunder stroke. Their palace was surrounded by troops, and their papers and books, and these "Secret Instructions" were seized before they had, heard that the parliament had taken up their cause!"

The reasons which the parliament of France, in 1762, gave for extirpating this order, which has thirty-nine times been proscribed, speak volumes :

"The consequences of their doctrines destroy the law of nature: break all the bonds of civil society: authorizing lying, theft, perjury, the utmost uncleanness, murder, and all sins! Their doctrines root out all sentiments of humanity: excite rebellion: root out all religion: and substitute all sorts of superstition, blasphemy, irreligion, idolatry."

Other reasons for the suppression of this order, will be found in the following extract from their oath :

"In the presence of Almighty God and of all the saints, to you, my ghostly father, I do declare that his holiness, pope, is Christ's vicar-general, and the only head of the universal church throughout the earth: and that by virtue of the keys given him by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths, and governments: all being illegal, without his sacred confirmation; and that they may safely be destroyed. Therefore I, to the utmost of my power, shall and will defend his doctrine, and his holiness' rights and customs against all usurpers," &c. "I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, state, named Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates, or officers."

"I do further promise and declare that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the mother church's interest, to keep secret and private, all her agent's counsels," &c.

"All which I, A. B. do swear by the blessed Trinity, and the blessed sacrament, which I am now to receive. And I call all the heavenly and glorious hosts above, to witness these my real intentions, to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most blessed sacrament of the eucharist, and set my hand and seal."

Such is the order of men restored by Saint Pius VII., who, for restoring them and the inquisition, ("the vice of the dark ages!!") has been beatified, and enrolled in the Roman heavens, as a saint of the first order! Is it not in striking and thrilling harmony with the genius of our institutions, to have priests of this order, all over the land

in charge of the souls and consciences of American citizens?!! So much for Jesuitism.

I ought not to have called errors" lies," as the apostle John, and the other apostles, have done. Why? All errors are lies; and all who propagate them are, by the same apostle, John, called liars. "All liars," says he, (teachers of error,) shall have their part in a certain lake. Was it not impolite for the apostle, thus to use such a vulgar style? I must, then, have fallen into bad company, when I said, the man of sin stands upon two cardinal lies!

Next comes the doctrine of majorities; and these are every thing with a Romanist. They are the root, and reason, and illustration, and proof of infallibility. The man who seeks the truth by the tests of sincerity, majority, and antiquity, will never find it on earth. This is amply true of the present and all past ages. There are sincere Turks, Jews, pagans, infidels. There are very ancient errors, heresies, and sects. And, as for majorities, from Enoch till now, they have generally, if not always, been wrong in religion. Where was the majority, when Noah was building his ark? when Abraham forsook Urr of the Chaldees? when Lot abandoned Sodom? when Moses forsook Egypt? when Elijah witnessed against Ahab? when Daniel and his companions were captives in Babylon when Malachi wrote? when the Baptist preached? when Christ was crucified? when the apostles, and many of the first Christians, were persecuted?!

And, compared with paganism, when had Roman Catholicism the majority? Strange, indeed, that infallibility, after all this, should come to be the attribute of majorities ! But the bishop, in his speech against Luther, delivered here in October last, said there were one hundred and fifty million Roman Catholics. I cannot find them on the earth, unless I count many millions of atheists and pagans along with them. But, after a more accurate search, I find there are in all, but one hundred and ten millions of professed Roman Catholics, and amongst these, millions of sceptics of Protestants, there are seventyfive millions; and of the Greek church, above forty millions; making at least one hundred and fifteen millions of Protesters against the man of sin. If, then, there be anything in majorities, the Romanists have it not. Infallibility is somewhere else. The time comes, (and may heaven speed its flight!) when the kingdom, and the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, when all dominions shall serve and obey him. But Babylon will never see that day; for she will be buried in her own ruins before it comes. And when the angel, with the trumpet of everlasting good news, shall sound the hour of her judgment as come, and announce the triumph of the gospel; then, but not till then, will the majority be on the side of God, and Christ, and heaven.

I am only now at the place where I left off in my former speech, and my half hour is almost expired. I cannot again condescend to such a sacrifice of time to so many points.

I was showing, when I sat down, that the theory of spiritual despotism always precedes the practical display of it; and that the theory of the terrific and appalling despotism of papal Rome, is to be found in principles and theories promulged, and believed, and taught, before the reign of darkness and terror began.

The fact of putting the bible under a bushel, of forbidding the read

ing of it, of swearing for ever to interpret it as it has been interpreted, of not permitting men to think or speak for themselves on religion, of teaching them the power of the priests to work miracles, to create a god out of bread, that the people might adore it and them, of making a supreme judge of controversy out of one of the parties, or combining the legislative, executive, and judicial powers in one person, (the model of the most cruel despotism,) is the paragon of supreme tyranny, never surpassed, never equaled on earth.

How any person can, from such a system, elaborate a single element of free government, or of civil liberty, I cannot imagine. Indeed, the radical ideas of papal supremacy, are as antipodal to republican doctrine and American institutions, as are the zenith and the nadir! But my time has fled.

BISHOP PURCELL rises

Twelve o'clock, M.

I have only to stand here for half a minute, and to open the bible, to reduce to dust the arguments which it costs my opponent such a waste of time and labor to construct. Was not Civil and Ecclesiastical power united in the high priest, by the Almighty God, himself? Is not this recorded in Deuteronomy, and admitted by my worthy antagonist? What says the scripture.

"If you perceive, that there be among you, a hard and doubtful matter in judgment, between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy; and thou see that the words of judgment within the gates, do vary; arise and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time; and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall shew thee the truth of the judgment. And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee according to this law: and thou shalt follow their sentence, neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand. But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel." -Deut. xvii. 8, et seq.

Here is civil power, and ecclesiastical authority blended in one tribunal, of the presiding priest and of the Levitical ministry, and the penalty of death ordained by God, against him who contends for private judgment and refuses to obey.

Now, my friends, if Mr. C. seriously intends to employ reason and argument, instead of the calumny and abuse too often employed in religious discussions heretofore, why does he rake up from a pile of rubbish, sad memorial of the havoc made by the enemies of the Jesuits, and exhibit the tattered, and sordid, documents found there, for proof? I expected “honor bright" from my friend, when we began this debate, and I still expect it. Have I not dealt fairly myself? Have I gone to the sewers and streets, as he has done to those of Cracow and Paris for the Secreta Monita, for evidence against the Protestants ? No! I have quoted their most respectable authorities-I have taken up Southey, and Waddington, and such writers. I do not think it honorable to stoop down, and pick up from the gutter, all the vile trash, that Protestants have written against one another; much less that, which the enemies of Protestants may have invented; and I do not expect this course from my friend, in his attempt to fasten upon Catholics, the sins which they abhor. "Why did the parliament of Paris destroy the society of the Jesuits?" I will tell the gentleman. Because they

had become the disciples of the man, who boasted that "he was tired of hearing it said, that twelve men had been able to convert the world from paganism to christianity, for that he would let it be seen that one man was able to unchristianize it." This was the boast of Voltaire, who, at the head of his letters to the infidel conspirators leagued with him against revelation, was accustomed to write the words; "Ecrasons l'in fame," Let us crush the wretch, meaning Jesus Christ and his holy religion. These anti-christian machinations could never succeed, and their authors were too wide awake in their hostility to the christian faith, not to be aware of the fact, as long as religion commanded the services of so learned and exemplary a body of men as the Jesuits. In all the entire world, in China and in France, in America and in Europe, society, as well as pure religion was their debtor. In every language they wrote the most admirable treatises on the mathematics, on medicine, on geography. Their historians, orators, poets, missionaries, have never been surpassed. Mr. Secretary Cass and Richard Peters of Philadelphia, recorder of the Supreme Court, will inform you, for they have examined it, how perfectly accurate is their map of Lake Superior with its 1500 miles of coast, which one or two of these fathers, while seeking the red man, for Jesus Christ, in their frail canoe, found time to survey. In a word the Jesuits were ornaments to human nature, but they had, at the same time, the misfortune to be the ornaments and the pillars of Religion. This Voltaire knew. His infidel colleagues knew it. And as they were conscious that the lives of the Jesuits defied their malice, and the learning of the Jesuits would continue to confound their sophistry, they had no resource but to op press them by calumny. Hence they spared no pains to render them ob noxious to the Parliament of Paris, and reproduced the Secreta Monita. fabricated by some anonymous calumniator in 1612. The spuriousness of this paper has been every where admitted by the critics. Let not any one who reads this controversy on the theatre of its exposure, learn from it that erudition and honor are at so low an ebb in the United States, as to admit as argument, an appeal to so contemptible a slander. As to the oath of the Jesuits, it is taken from the same book! There is no Jesuit that ever takes such an oath. Every Jesuit in the United States, who is not a native of the country, and intends to reside in it, has taken the oath of allegiance to our government. And in Georgetown, in the District of Columbia, in Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, are native American Jesuits, some of the most whole-souled and tho rough-going republicans in the world, prepared, at any moment, to imi tate the patriotic example of the first of their order in the United States, Arch-bishop Carroll, the friend and associate of Washington. In this spirit they are rivaled by the rest of our clergy. That venerable old priest, now before you, has done for half a century, and specially in those perilous times that tried men's souls, when a formidable enemy was on our frontier, within our borders-nay in our very capital, and committing our noblest monuments to the flames, more for freedom, happiness and THE UNION, than any other living man, perhaps, of the clerical profession. The Latin poems, which he published during the war, breathing the energy and spirit of the songs of the Greeks, when they struck down the tyrants, were translated into English, and widely circulated. General Harrison, if he were here to-day, would inform you, as he has informed me, by my fire-side, what loyal men

« AnteriorContinuar »