« AnteriorContinuar »
and true were the Catholic missionaries of Indiana and Missouri, in auld lang syne. How they exerted all their influence, and it was not inconsiderable, to keep the Indians faithful to the cause of free government. My friends, if I must have an opponent, let me have an honorable one: let me have facts and proofs, instead of slanders and insinuations. And, to say all in one word, in answer to the charges against the Jesuits, Why did the parliament of Paris restore the order in France? Ay, that is the question. I will tell the gentleman. Because they discovered their blunder, and the injustice they had committed in suppressing them, and the prostrate state of education, after the Jesuits had been expelled the colleges. Then, with the magnanimity of the corporation of London, a few years ago, who honorably chipped off the inscription from the pillar, which, like a tall bully, raised its head and lied, by attributing the conflagration of 1666 to the Roman Catholics, did the parliament of Paris make partial atonement for the wrong done to the Jesuits. These are examples worthy of our imitation in a free and happy republic, where the iron heel of religious bigots should not be allowed to bend so much as a blade of grass!
I continue my argument for the real presence. I shall first produce the sequel of the scripture evidence, and then reply to the objections of my friend. The institution of the eucharist is related by three evangelists, and by St. Paul; by St. Matthew, who wrote his gospel, in India, seven years after the death of Christ; by St. Mark, who wrote his gospel in Rome, two years later, under the direction of St. Peter; by St. Luke, whose gospelwas written in the nineteenth year of the Christian era, in Asia; and by St. Paul, from Macedonia, in Greece, fifty years later than St. Matthew, and who had learned what he teaches, not from the other evangelists, but from the revelations made to himself by Jesus Christ in person; all writing at different times, and in different places, and yet all using the self-same words, the plainest in the languages in which they wrote, or in any other, and the best adapted to the poor and illiterate, who had the gospel preached to them. All these tell us, with one accord, in the Holy Ghost, that the Lord, the night before he suffered, took bread into his venerable and creating hands; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, (to heaven, to show us whence that power was derived, that goodness emanated,) he blessed and brake, and gave it to his disciples, to whom he had made the promise of his body, saying: "Take, and eat. This is my body." In like manner, the chalice, saying: "Drink you all of this. This is my blood of the New Testament." Now, these words are so intelligible, and so clear, that if ever the principle, that every one can interpret the bible for himself, should be admitted, and enforced, and insisted on, it is surely here; for there is scarcely a possibility that words so plain, and so frequently repeated in their plainness, should lead us into error. We may even safely ask, in the hypothesis that Jesus Christ had really wished to leave us his body and blood in the eucharist, what other words he could have used, to signify more clearly the real presence in the sacrament? He has, however, in his incomprehensible wisdom and love, found something plainer still; for he not only said, "This is my body," but, as he was then making a law, a will, where nothing should be left, in the slightest manner, ambiguous, he added, "This is my body, which is
SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU."
Was it a figurative body, that was delivered for us t Was it by figurative blood, that we were redeemed? Then are we yet in our sins, and Jesus Christ has deceived us. This it were, in the last degree, impious to suppose; and, therefore, steadfast in the truth of what the Son of God has done for us, we may say, as Tertullian said, on a different occasion, to the innovators of his time: Under what pretence do you come? and why do you remove the landmarks. The estate is ours: we have the ancient, the prior possession of it: we are the heirs of Jesus Christ: he made his will in our favor; and, eternal praise be given to him, he himself, the original proprietor, has delivered to us the title deeds (laying our hands on the bible.) Here is the pillar, the fast anchor of our faith in the eucharist. But it is not yet expedient to lay aside these texts, without conferring on them one mark of attention more. In the twenty-second chapter of St. Luke, 18th, 19th, and 20th verses, we read of the institution of the eucharist, as a sacrament, and as a sacrifice, in a manner more and more explicit. "This," says the benefactor of the world, taking leave of it, "this is my body, which is given for you;" and in the Greek text of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, "which is broken for you:" "this is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you;" and in the Greek text, "which is shed for you, for the remission of sins: do this in commemoration of me." Here, then, is every thing essential to a true sacrifice, clearly prescribed. The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and offered, and ordered to be offered to his heavenly Father, for the remission of sins. Now, hear how St. Paul, whose authority, upon what I have already remarked of the circumstances in which he was called to the apostleship, is entitled to special respect, speaks on this subject, in his Epistle to the Corinthians: "Wherefore," says he, "my dearly beloved, I speak to you as to wise men; judge ye yourselves what I say. The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they who eat of the (Pagan) sacrifices, partakers of the altar? But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. You cannot drink of the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and the table of devils." Who does not see, in a text so plain, that St. Paul contrasts the table of Christ with the altar of the Jews, and the table of devils, which the Gentiles frequented. So that, in the same manner as the Jews partook of what was offered on the altar, and the Gentiles of what was placed on the table after having been first sacrificed to the idols, so do the Christians partake of the table of the Lord, eating of that flesh which had been offered for them, and with whose blood they had been sprinkled and purified. But this argument would be weak and utterly inconclusive, if the faithful, like the Jews and the Heathens, were not partakers of something really offered by them in sacrifice. Again, St. Paul, not only here, but also in the Ep. to the Hebrews, speaks of an altar, "of an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the Tabernacle." Now it is altogether an abuse of terms, a wilful leading of others into error, to call that an altar on which sacrifice is never offered; and when St. Paul said we have an altar, whereof they cannot eat, who remain attached to the Jewish religion, he meant, no doubt what was then understood by every one, that there was a victim offered by christians at that day, 36 years after Christ, and eaten by priest and people. This is the victim of the eucharist, of which Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul speak so clearly, and so forcibly, and which we must either now admit on the evidence of scripture, or fling the sacred volume into the flames. My opponent may talk of Christ's saying; "I am the vine;" "I am the door;" "destroy the temple;" the ten lean kine, and the ten years of famine; but, my friends, does not the scripture explain its meaning, so as to leave no doubt as to the sense of these, and twenty such texts besides. The dream of Pharaoh, and his butler's were most minutely interpreted and perfectly explained. The evangelist expressly informs us, Christ spoke of the temple of his body; lest this expression should leave any doubt on the mind of the reader as to the Savior's meaning. But where is the parity between these passages and the words of Christ: "this is my body—this is my blood." "My flesh is meat indeed—my blood is drink indeed." Our Lord does not say of the vine, "this vine shall be hung up for you," he does not say of the door, this door shall be hung up for you, he does not say of the temple, or of the vine, "they shall be offered for you;" but he says all this as I shall shew, when I come to speak of the institution when speaking of the divine food which he gives us in the Eucharist. "This is my body which is offered for you, this is my blood, which is shed for you"—and as he was then at the last hour of his life, and speaking heart to heart to his friends, it was no time for parables and figures. The traitor was nigh; the hour was at hand, when he was to pass out of this world to the Father. He knew how this doctrine would be contested, that the Vast Majority of christians would believe in it, as they do at this day, according to the obvious and literal meaning of the text, and yet he speaks not one word to induce us to believe in a figurative presence. Why? Because he meant it to be understood literally, with faith in his almighty power and his infinite love. Because as God, he operates his greatest wonders, by the simplest words. "Let there be light;" '.' Thy son liveth;" "Lazarus, come forth," "/ will, be thou cleansed.-" "Take up thy bed and walk;" "Peace! Be still" .' This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,." "This is my body, this is my blood." This Luther himself was forced to admit. He tells us how very desirous he was, and how much he labored to overthrow this doctrine, knowing how much he could, thereby, annoy the pope: 'but,' says he, 'I found myself caught, without any way of escaping; for the text of the gospel, was too plain for me." Epist. ad Argintenses, t. 4. fol. 502. Ed. Wittemberg. In another place, he says, condemning those who denied the corporal presence; "The devil seems to have mocked those to whom he has suggested a heresy so ridiculous, and contrary to scripture, as that of the Zuinglians who explained away the words of the institution in a figurative way." He elsewhere compares these glosses with the following translation of the first words of the scripture: In principio Deus creavit caelum et terrain.-—In the beginning the Cuckoo ate the sparrow and his feathers. Def. verb. Dom. On one occasion he calls those who deny the real and corporal presence; "a damned sect, lying heretics, breadbreakers, wine-drinkers, and soul-destroyers." In parv. catech. On other occasions he says, "They are endevilized, and superdevi
lized." Finally he devotes them to everlasting flames, 'and builds his own hopes of mercy at the tribunal of Christ, on his having with all his soul condemned Carlostad, Zuinglius, and other believers in the symbolical presence. Bishop Bramhall thus writes: "No genuine son of the church (of England) did ever deny a true, real presence. Christ said—This is my body,—and what he said we steadfastly believe. He said neither Con, nor Sub, nor Trans: therefore we place those among the opinions of schools, not among articles of faith." Ans. to Mihliare, p. 74. Bishop Cosin is not less explicit, in favor of the Catholic doctrine. He says, "It is a monstrous error to deny that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist. We confess the necessity of a supernatural and heavenly change; and that the signs cannot become sacraments, but by the infinite power of God. If any one make a bare figure of the sacrament, we ought not to suffer him in our churches." Hist, de Transub. Lastly the profound Hooker expresses himself thus; I wish men would give themselves more to meditate in silence, on what we have in the sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how; since we all agree that Christ, by the sacrament, doth really and truly perform in us his promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions whether by consubstantiation or else by transubstantiation?" Eccles. Polit. B. v. 67.
My opponent says that when we meditate any doctrine, we eat it. So, then, when we meditate on hell we eat it and all its contents! He says we eat it spiritually, but this is nonsense. I want not the stomach or the mind, such orthodoxy requires.
My friend observes, that the doctrine of transubstantiation is contrary to the testimony of our senses. We have nothing but our senses to guide us. This is the scepticism of Thomas Tanew: "Unless J shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my fingers into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.', The Savior condescended to give the requisite proof of the senses, to the doubting apostle, but he replied to the confession "My Lord and my God," "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed. Blessed Are They That Have Not Seen, And Have believed." The consequences of the doctrine of the real presence are not unworthy of God. Every pretended absurdity is as justly chargeable on the Incarnation as on the Eucharist. In Pope and McGuire's discussion, one of these is to be found, where my friend got the foregoing. It is that of a mouse, that is said to have once run away with the sacrament, while the priest had his eyes shut saying his prayers. But is this ridiculous story an argument? Then deny that sin could be committed, for sin is a greater insult than this, to Jesus Christ. Deny that his sacred person was outraged with blows and spittle; that he was dragged through the streets of Jerusalem, with the halter of ignominy around his neck; that he was scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified; that his blood trickled to the ground; that his executioners trampled upon it; that insects and quadrupeds partook of it! all these adorable scandals are the consequences of the infinite love with which Jesus Christ loved us. The more he is humbled for our sakes, the dearer should he be to us. But if the scandal of his humiliations shake our faith, let the wisdom and the power of the Godhead, displayed in the midst of these humiliations, sustain and animate it. Behold! the earth that receives that falling blood, trembles to her very centre; the sun, unable to behold the bloody tragedy, withdraws his light, and leaves the world in darkness and mourning and terror, for its author's dissolution; the rocks are rent asunder; the graves give up their dead; the pagan centurion strikes his breast and exclaims "Truly this man was the Son of God." Let us also believe and adore !—[Time expired.]
Three o'clock, P. M.
Mr. Campbell rises—
Knowing, my fellow-citizens, how much depends in such a discussion, as that now in progress, on having authentic documents, I determined from the beginning to rely on none which could, on proper evidence, or with justice be repudiated. I knew that in all debates so far back as the very era of the Reformation this party have been accustomed to deny authorities, to dispute versions, translations, &c. even of their own writers who were so candid as to give a tolerably fair representation of themselves. And as all their historians, good and bad, frequently tell the truth, they are all occasionally to be censured, when that truth is quoted by a Protestant and turned to its proper account. I have not then, to my knowledge or belief, introduced an unworthy author. And so long as my opponent can disprove nothing which I have quoted, either from Du Pin, or Ligori, his frequent allusions to them, with such unqualified censures, only shows how much he feels the truth of their testimony.
The Jesuits, that standing army of the pope, are revived, and are inundating our country. Other fraternities are but the militia: but these are the trained band life-guards of the papacy. Their oath is full proof of the spirit of the corps. My worthy opponent says, that they are a very learned body of men, and that he is not now a Jesuit. So much the worse. How then can he defend the order from the doctrines of the Secreta Manila; and affirm that they do not now take the oath which I read to you ?—He would represent me as picking out of the streets, or out of the ruins of some fallen edifice the oaths and books of the Jesuits. If that were the fact, would it disprove the contents of these documents? It would not. Truth is truth, wherever found, in the street or in a temple—in a cellar, or in a mountain. But I did not so seek or find them. They are public and authentic documents, and my opponentcan only deny or dispute, but he cannot disprove them.
Here is another document, not from the ashes of a monastery. I do not know the writer of this article: but it is from an Encyclopedia.
Bishop Purcell. Is it the book of Fessenden & Co.?
Mr. Camprell. It is from their press. Bishop Purcell. Ah! I know it!Mr. Campbell reads:
"In 1801 the society was restored in Russia by the emperor Paul; and in 1804 by king Ferdinand, in Sardinia. In August, 1814, a bull was issued by pope Pius VII. restoring the order to all their former privileges, and calling upon all Catholics to afford them protection and encouragement. This act of their revival is expressed in all the solemnity of the papal authority; and even affirmed to be above the recall or revision of any judge, with whatever power he may be clothed; but to every enlightened mind it cannot fail to appear as a measure altogether incapable of justification, from any thing either in the history of Jesuitism, or in the character of the present times.
"The essential principles of this institution namely, that their order is to be maintained at the expense of society at large, and that the end sanctifies the means, are utterly incompatible with the welfare of any community of men. Their system of lax and pliant morality, justifying every vice, and authorizing