« AnteriorContinuar »
the flesh and blood of the Son of God are specifically given, and are real food."
St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, says:
"Since Christ himself affirms thus of the bread, This is my body; who is so daring as to doubt of it? and since he affirms, this is my blood; who will deny that it is his blood? At Cana in Galilee, he, by an act of his will, turned water into wine, which resembles blood, and is he then not to be credited when he changes wine into blood? Therefore, full of certainty, let us receive the body and blood of Christ; for under the form of bread, is given to thee his body, and under the form of wine, his blood."
St. Ambrose thus argues with his spiritual children:"You will say, why do you tell me that I receive the body of Christ, when I see quite another thing? We have this point therefore to prove. How many examples do we produce to show you, that this is not what nature made it; but what the benediction has consecrated it; and that the benediction isof greater force than nature, because by the benediction, nature itself is changed! Moses cast his rod upon the ground, and it became a serpent; he caught hold of the serpent's tail, and it recovered the nature of a rod. The rivers of Egypt, &c. Thou hast read of the creation of the world: If Christ, by his word, was able to make something out ofnothing, shall he not be thought able to change one thing into another."
My friend spoke of the period at which this doctrine was introduced, and quoted Scotus. I venture my life, that he does not know who Scotus was, or when he lived. I ask my friend to tell me, who is this Scotus, to whom he referred.
Mr. Camprell.—I presume he was a father of the church.
Bishop Purcell.—I do not speak disrespectfully of my friend, but I do not like this index learning:
"Which turns no student pale, Yet holds the eel of science by the tail." There were two individuals whom he his confounded. The first, called Scotus Evigena, lived in the ninth century, and wrote a treatise against the real presence, which was condemned in many councils. The second flourished in the fourteenth century, and taught theology in Oxford and Paris. Or, instead of either of the foregoing, does the gentleman quote Soto, the theologian, sent by Charles V. of Germany, to the council of Trent? Of which of them does the gentleman speak? I pause for a reply. (Pauses.)
Mr. Camprell.—You may proceed. Bishop Purcell.—I will proceed to settle this point.
Mr. Camprell. That is not the question before us. Bishop Purcell. Well, then, my friends, I will take up the subject of indulgences, against which my friend had directed his batteries. An indulgence is no license to commit sin. The Catholic church anathematizes the doctrine that any man, or set of men, can grant a license to commit sin. She teaches that an indulgence is nothing more nor less than a remission of the temporal punishment, which often remains attached to sin, after the eternal guilt has been forgiven to the sinner, on his sincere repentance. Before proving this doctrine both scriptural and rational, and that the church is guilty of encouraging no immorality by the power which she exercises in the granting of indulgences, I must shew that the charge of immorality presses heavily on my opponent's doctrine, and not on mine, for he teaches that the distinction between greater and lesser sins is not found in scripture. He has advocated the monstrous, and insupportable doctrine, that the child who tells an untruth, to save itself from punishment, is as guilty as the parricide who cuts his father's throat! and accuses Catholics of being immoral, because they do not subscribe to such a doctrine as this! What is the effect of this doctrine, that all sins are equal? Why, it is this: that the man who has committed the slightest sin, is as guilty in the sight of God, and as deserving of being damned, as if his sins were ever so enormous. "If this be my lot," is his spontaneous reasoning, "I see no cause why my passions should not have all the advantage of this doctrine. I will, therefore, continue to sin. No natural law, no divine legislation, no civil convention, or moral restraint, shall debar me of my pleasures." This is revolting; it is horrible. Scripture, reason, and Catholicism, anathematize it. I now resume the proof of my position, touching indulgences, and maintain that after the eternal guilt is remitted, a temporal pain is often inflicted for the satisfaction of divine justice. Thus, when Adam and Eve had sinned in paradise, when they had incurred the Divine displeasure, and heard the dread sentence pronounced against them and their posterity, even in his wrath the Almighty remembered mercy. They were driven from Eden, but not into hell. In other words, the eternal guilt of their sin was forgiven, but the temporal punishment still remained to be endured. (There is some doubt whether Eve partakes of her consort's happiness in heaven, or not; but Adam, we are assured by scripture, is in heaven.) "In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat thy bread," said tjSl.drd, "the earth shall be accursed in thy toil, briars and thorns," &c. We are bearing a part of their punishment. We feel the effects of this primeval prevarication. The whole earth is a hospital. Poverty, crime, disease, war, pestilence, and famine; physical, moral, and mental afflictions, and evils; all the quarreling; all the differences of opinion; this very controversy; all this is a part of the temporal punishment of our first parents' transgression. This shews the difference between the temporal and eternal punishment of sin. Behold another illustration. David takes Uriah's wife—he orders Uriah into the front of the battle that he might be killed. The Almighty, incensed at his double crime, sends his prophet to rebuke him, and David trembles before his wrath. God is moved, and pardons him. He remits the eternal guilt of his sin, but not its temporal punishment. "The child that is born for thee shall die." We know all the evils that followed; Absalom, &c. The doctrine of indulgences is this:
WHEN A HUMAN BEING DOES EVERT THING IN HIS POWER TO ATONE FOR
Sin, God has left a power in the church, to remit a part or the entire of the temporal punishment due to it. It is always understood, that.no matter what the church does, the indulgence is of no effect, if the repentance be not sincere. I will give you a striking example from scripture. It is the case where St. Paul absolved the incestuous man of Corinth, 2d Cor. ii. 6, 8, who had been guilty, even in the early age of the church, of a crime which struck the hearts of all the church with dismay. St. Paul wrote to Corinth and said, when he heard that the man was overwhelmed with contrition, and shunned by all the people, "To him that is such a one this rebuke is sufficient, that is
fiven by many. And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also or what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it In The Person Of Christ." One text is worth twenty arguments. The obedience rendered to St. Paul on this occasion, by the church of Corinth, my friend denounces. But the early christians were more humble, and Paul was guilty of no assumption in demand
ing it. "In the person of Christ,"—mark those words—that he, in the person of Christ, forgave—what ?—not the eternal guilt of the incestuous man—God alone could forgive that; hut the temporal punishment; to restore him to the privileges of the church and of christian society. Nothing is more frequent in the ecclesiastical history of the early ages, than the narrative of the acts of the martyrs; and this, among others, of their being visited in prison, or met in their way to execution, by persons condemned to perform public penances, according to the discipline of the church in those days, and supplicated for a ticket, or other intimation of intercession in their behalf, with the pastors of the church, that the term of these penances might be abridged, in consideration of the martyr's generous sacrifices. One drop of Christ's precious blood was sufficient to ransom a thousand worlds. He left this treasure and its keys to the church, saying, "Whatever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven," &c. But I will give you other examples to illustrate the doctrine of indulgences. The English church grants indulgences. Luther granted them, of an extraordinary kind too. Our government grants indulgences. An insolvent debtor hangs his head with shame; there is nothing he would not do to pay his debts. The law takes him to jail—he gives a schedule of his property, and upon surrendering all he possesses in the world, upon oath, he is allowed to take the benefit of the act. This is what the church does to sinners, who sincerely repent and do all they can, first, to pay the spiritual debts that stand against them. Shew me that there is anything wrong in the insolvent laws, and then you may find fault with the practice of the church. As for the pope, or bishop, giving a license to sin, I will repeat as often as it is repeated, that the Catholic church reprobates it. If all the bishops in the world, and the pope were to sign such a license, the sinner would not be forgiven, if he remained in sin. God himself does not pardon sin upon these terms. But I cannot consent that the gentleman should force down our throats doctrines that we abominate.—[Time expired.]
Four o'clock, P. M. Mr. Campbell rise»—
Really, my friends, it would seem as if I ought to go back some two or three days to help my opponent forward to the subject now before us. But I will not. There is no person in this house, with the exception of my ingenious opponent, who believes that I represent all sins as equal as respects man. Though as respects the divine law, as already observed, they are equally transgressions of it. Hence, as James the apostle avers: "He that offends in one point" though he should keep every other, "is guilty of all"! The gentleman, then, may defend his "white lies," and other violations of God's law, as he pleases; but God will show the universe that, as respects his character, as Lawgiver and King, the least infraction, as respects man, is the highest insult that can be rendered to the Lawgiver. Eve's "little sin," as the infidels call it, is the best exposition of the logic of Roman theology. Though it differs much in the estimation of man from. t)te treachery of Judas: yet, does not every page and letter in man's sad history, bear witness, that even the pulling off an apple against the law of God, is an offence that justifies the Governor of the Universe for having suffered the whole creation on our
planet to groan and travail together in pain and death for thousands of years.
To the unpropitious destiny of my opponent I attribute all his remarks on my saying that I read no tracts in confutation of transubstantiation. Does that prove that I cannot refute—or that I have not refuted his defence of it. The bible alone qualifies me to expose all his sophistry, or that of any man, on that grossest and most unfeasible of all the impostures that have, in any age or nation, been obtruded on mankind.
The gentleman has spoken of various natural transubstantiations! Astonishing! Who ever thought any thing else, but that all organized bodies, all earthly substances, nay, indeed, that all matter was susceptible of real changes, and new combinations and transubstantiations t But where is the analogy? They are real and apparent, visible and sensible transubstantiations. But the universe affords no transubstantiation, similar to that for which the Bishop contends— Nothing transubstantiated, and yet the same to all our sense and reason.
But in the name of reason itself, what distress or pressure of misfortune has induced this learned gentleman to appeal to the miracle in Canaof Galilee—to the transubstantiation of water into wine? That was really a transubstantiation. It did not look like water—taste like water, smell like water, nor operate like water. It was real wine, in color, taste, smell, and all its sensible properties. What a refutation has the gentleman found in his own illustration!!
The Bishop's remarks upon "eating the word,'' &c. &c, are equally unhappy, and extravagant. He has not done himself any honor on this occasion. Jesus said, "it is my meat and my drink to do the will of him that sent me." Truth is an aliment of the soul, and doing the will of heaven is a feast to every christian. But can the soul feast on literal flesh and blood?! 'Tis an outrage on common sense!
I was glad to hear him even quote the words, "Judge you what I say:" any appeal to reason, any word favorable to examination, coming from that quarter, falls on my ear like the sound of the dulcimer. Jesus says, "Why do you not of yourselves judge what is right;" and Paul says, "Judge what I say;" and John commands, "Believe not every spirit; but try the spirits, for many false prophets are gone forth into the world." Now all these commands are addressed to the common mass of christians. Well, then, says Paul, "The loaf for which we give thanks, is it not the communion of the body oi Christ," &c.; "and the cup which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood V &c.: and the whole is called the Lord's table, the Lord's supper—an institution in remembrance of one that is absent, « T1LL HE Come :"—not the eating of one present, but the memorial of one absent. "You then," says Paul, "do show forth the Lord's death till he come."
The Corinthian abuses show, that they had no notion of a wafer and no wine—of a mass, a transubstantiation. Paul reproved them for their irregularities, and said this was not to eat the Lord's supper, (not to partake of a mass): for some had eaten and even drunk to excess. The rich had brought a large supper, and put the poor to shame, who had no supper to bring. These were abuses which could never have arisen out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. In one word, there was as much transubstantiation in the passover, because it is called the "Lord's passover," as there is in the institution of the supper, because it is called the "Lord's body:" and he that cannot thus "discern the Lord's body," in this institution, is not to be reasoned with on any religious question.
Next comes the gentleman's splendid episode on the identification of the unfortunate Scotus, whose peculiar age and country I am no more bound to remember, or to tell here, than I am to relate the personal or family history of every individual I quote. How many authors are daily quoted, whose age and country, not one in a hundred, may be able to relate with historic accuracy! Are those who cite Copernicus, Zoroaster, Euclid, or even Newton, obliged to tell when or where they were born, lived and died? It is, however, on the authority of Bellarmine I quoted this celebrated Roman Catholic author, and ought I not, on such an endorsement, to regard Scotus as of high authority in the Roman church t
Time is becoming very precious, and as I have only two speeches after to-day, I shall not go farther into the details of the proposition, now under discussion, especially as I have not been met by the Bishop on the two grand errors which nourish and sustain the baseless dream of purgatory and the sacraments of penance, auricular confession, the mass, &c. &c.
Indulgence is not identical with absolution, as my opponent seems to argue. Indulgence, as the term imports, is a licence to sin: absolution is the forgiveness of sin. An indulgence gives licence to sin, because it promises the person prospectively an exemption from the
Sunishment; and even to remain, in full force, in the moment of eath! My seventh proposition says:
"The Roman Catholic religion, if infallible and insusceptible of reformation, as alleged, is essentially anti-American, being opposed to the genius of all free institutions, and positively subversive of them, opposing the general reading of the scriptures, and the diffusion of useful knowledge among the whole community, so essential to liberty and the permanency of good government."
"Essentially anti-American."—This I have so far proved, as reference has already been made to those doctrines, which make the Roman Catholic population abject slaves to their priests, bishops, and popes— to that hierarchy, which has always opposed freedom of thought, of speech, and of action, whether in literature, politics, or religion. Such are the laws of mind—such the intellectual and moral constitution of man, that if in religion the mind be enslaved to any superstition, especially in youth, it rarely or ever can be emancipated and invigorated. The benumbing and paralizing influence of Romanism is such, as to disqualify a person for the relish and enjoyment of political liberty. For in all history, civil liberty follows in the wake of religious liberty; insomuch, that it is almost an oracle of philosophy, that religious liberty is the cause, and political liberty an effect of that cause, without which it never has been found. Compare not Protestant America with the republics of Greece or Rome; for there is scarcely any point of coincidence in this respect. There never was on earth so free and so equitable an institution as the Protestant institutions of these United States.
We shall now exemplify the spirit and tendency of Romanism, taken from the five hundred years in which it was most triumphant. As a specimen of that abject slavery of Romanists to their superiors,