« AnteriorContinuar »
the see of Rome:—the former deputed perhaps immediately by it ; the latter exulting always in their union with it as the best proof of the apostolicity of their own delegation."
[ The above quotation was read in parts, in two different speeches; but it has been thought proper to insert it entire, here.]
I close here, To-morrow is the sabbath of our God. Let us devote the remainder of the day to the preparation of our souls for its holy duties.
MONDAY, JANUARY 16TH, Half past 9 o'clock, A. M. MR. CAMPBELL rises,
It is a trite and a true observation, that the material universe is resolvable into a very few elementary principles. And not a few of our wisest philosophers suppose that the time may yet come, in the progress of chemical science, when material nature will be resolved into some two, or three rudimentary elements. The sciences, too, mental and moral, are all resolvable into a few great cardinal principles.
The papal empire itself depends also upon a few points, indeed, upon one great point, and that relates to the office upon which the whole superstructure rests. The most fundamental question is not whether the apostle Peter was invested with the office of pope, or vicar of Christ; but rather whether there ever was such an office at all. On this question we have not proceeded in the most logical manner. I have been compelled to approach it at different times, and by different avenues. My opponent has not adverted to the rules of this discussion. I am compelled to lead, and he to follow. He can only lawfully reply to such matter as I introduce. But instead of replying to my arguments, already offered, he read you some dissertations upon succession to an office, not yet canvassed and established. This reading of foreign discussions instead of replying to me is contrary to our rules and most illogical. I hope we shall have no more of it. What was read on Saturday afternoon on the question of succession is clearly irrelevant. Before we contend about succession, the question is, What is to be succeeded to ? We have had seven presidents, and the succes: sion is indisputable; yet the office depends not upon the seven incumbents, nor upon their rightful succession ; but upon what is written in the constitution—upon the positive and express institution of the office.
If it is not found in the constitution, succession is of no virtue: however unbroken and orderly it may be, the present incumbent has no power. The grand question then is, Is there in the constitution of the Christian church, in the New Covenant, or last Testament, a chair of primacy, or superintendency? This is the logical and the cardinal question. On this single point rest all the fortunes of the papacy in an enlightened community. I wish all to perceive it, and I will present it in different forms. The first question is, Has Jesus Christ appointed the office of pope? The second, Who was the first officer? Third, Was there a succession ordained ? and fourth, Has that succession been preserved uncorrupt to the present day? In this way our reason, or common sense, or logic arranges the matter; and in this way only can it be rationally and script ly decided. With all men of sense, the controversy will hang on the point. A failure here is ruin to the
cause. If this point cannot be proved, it is as useless to contest others, as it would be to finish a house that is built upon the ice. Strike off the head and the body perishes. Yet this capital point rests upon an inference !
How would an American like to be told that the office of president depended upon an inference ? that there was no provision for it in the constitution that it was inferred from twenty clauses, scattered here and there in as many sections ? Could it be possible, that the greatest office in this nation—the very head of this government, should rest on the construction of these clauses; that there is no chapter in the constitution, expressly creating the office ? Yet, this is precisely the case with the pope. The gentleman does not claim for him a positive grant in the New Testament. He must acknowledge that there is no such office distinctly asserted—that it depends on the reasonings of fallible men to ferret it out. Here I must expose the nakedness of the land and sweep from the arena the dust of tradition, which blinds the eyes of implicit believers.
It is said by the Romanists that a belief in the supremacy of the pope is essential to salvation. Boniface VIII. decrees in his canon law in the words following:
“ Moreover we declare, and say, and define, and pronounce to every human creature, that it is altogether necessary to salvation to be subject to the Roman
It appears, if not pedantic, at least awkward to read Latin to an English audience. However, my learned opponent, so often sets me · the example, that he will allow me to quote this important decree :
“ Subesse Romano Pontifici, omnis humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse necessitate salutis."
It is then solemnly decreed that a belief in, and submission to, the Roman pontiff is essential to salvation. Ought not, then, his authority to be as clearly pointed out in the Bible as the mission of Jesus Christ? for the person and mission and sacrifice of Christ are to us useless, without faith in the pope. Again, of what use is the Bible, without this belief; and especially, if so important a matter is so oba scurely expressed in it as to rest upon a mere inference? Does the person and office of Christ depend on a mere inference? Is it not as, serted and re-asserted, a hundred times by the voices of all the pro, phets and apostles of both Testaments? In the Jewish economy, the high Priest was on earth: but in our economy he is in Heaven. There was truth in the type, and there must be truth in the anti-type. Yet every thing concerning that priesthood was positively and expressly ordained. The office, the officer, the succession, and the means of keeping the blood pure. For, No man dare “take that office upon himself, but he that was called of God, as was Aaron.” Aaron then was distinctly called to be a high priest. Now we argue that if we had a high priest on earth under our high Priest in heaven, and if salvation hang upon obedience to him: it ought to be as clear as that of Aaron.
But in reference to the Old Testament priesthood, we find every thing distinctly and unequivocally stated, Exodus xxviii. 1. “Take Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel, that he and they may minister to me in the priest's office.” Again, xl. 13. “And thou shalt sanctify Aaron and his sons, that he may minister to me in the priest's office; and their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.” How often in the books of the
law, and in the subsequent history of the Jews, as it is in 1 Chron. 23d and 24th chapters, do we find the unequivocal institution and records of this priesthood!
But it is not only in a distinct and unequivocal call and consecration, but in the subsequent care evinced in sustaining this appointment, that we see the necessity of such a positive and express covenant and understanding. The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and the destruction, by a miraculous interposition, of themselves and of their company, together with two hundred and fifty princes of Israel, for seeking to invade the office, is another solemn attestation of the divine erection of this office, and the certain call of Aaron's family.
Again: The appointment of God to select an almond rod for each tribe, and to inscribe the name of each of the twelve families upon those rods, every tribe's name upon a separate rod, and the miraculous budding and blossoming and almond-bearing of Aaron's rod, in the course of a single night, was another settlement of this matter, so special, supernatural, and divine, as to put it to rest for ever. Here we ought to read in full the 16th and 17th chapters of Numbers ; but we have only time to refer to them. Thus by a positive call, and two splendid and awfully glorious miracles, was the office of the high priesthood established in Israel.
And may we not ask, that if as Boniface has defined, and all Roman Catholics believe, that there is no salvation, but in the admission of the divine call of the popes of Rome;' ought not the institution of a new order to be as clearly pointed out, and sustained in the new law, as it was in the old ?!
But my opponent has to concede that there is no such positive or express institution of St. Peter's chair, nor of his call and consecration, nor any law of succession whatever in the New Testament; and that it rests wholly upon inference. Now, if no man can take this honor upon himself, but lie that is called of God, as was Aaron, where is the office and the authority of the popes of Rome?! There is for it no such call. Or will my friend say that mere inference or assumption is a proper foundation for such a call and office ?
On Saturday evening I began the examination of the premises from which is inferred this high and responsible office; and so far, I think, proved that he cannot even find a good logical inference for it. In Matthew xvi. we found no support to the idea that the church of Jesus Christ was to be built upon the flesh and blood and bones of Peter; neither upon his person nor office. We saw that every rule of grammar—that the construction of language forbade such a transition as was necessary to the hypothesis. To have addressed Peter in the second and third persons as both present and absent, in the same breath, is wholly unprecedented. To have spoken of him, and to him at one time, in one period, and on a matter so cardinal as making him the foundation of his church, is not to be admitted on the authority of mere assumption, without a single case parallel in all holy writ to lay along side of it.
The 'case in no rational point of view will endure such violence. ; Jesus asked for a confession, Peter gave it. The conversation turned upon that confession, and not upon Peter. The comment ought to have been upon the text, and not upon him that gave it. It was upon the text and not unon the preacher.
We Protestants say that the church is founded on the thing confessed. Christ himself is, indeed, the rock; but figuratively the truth which represents him. I was struck with astonishment when I heard my worthy opponent say, that Peter was the rock, and Christ only a stone in this spiritual temple!
[Bishop PURCELL here explained, that he had said that Christ was the corner stone which was to strengthen and give consistency to the foundation; and Peter the rock which was to strengthen and give consistency to the superstructure.'] Mr. CAMPBELL proceeded :
Christ the corner stone! and Peter the rock!! Does this help the matter?
What says 1 Cor. iii. “Other foundation can no man lay than what is already laid," —very Peter!! No, indeed; but Jesus Christ himself is the corner stone, the rock, the foundation? Then Peter is but a stone, as his name imports. But there were eleven other stones of equal value : for, says the Holy Spirit, the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles—all the apostles; and of the prophets too! When, then, all these stones are at the foundation, and Christ the chief corner, where is the room for Peter the rock?
But, we have other expressions that illustrate Matthew xvi. Looking at the temple one day, Jesus said to those before him, “Destroy this temple and I will build it again in three days." Were the persons he addressed in the second person and the temple the same thing? Here, then, are the persons addressed, the subject of conversation, and himself-you, the addressed,) and the temple, (himself.) So have we Peter, his confession, and Christ the builder of the church, in the passage before us. They understood by his question that he spoke of his body; but his body was not himself: neither was the confession of Peter, Christ himself; nor Peter's person, the rock of ages. Surely the papal rock is not as our rock; our enemies themselves being judges.
But petros and petra sound alike, and therefore, though of different gender, case, and person, they must be identical! Of the person and case we have said enough, (for my friend has not attempted to refute it.) of the difference in gender, he will tell us, that it was written in Syriac, and that the word signifying stone in that language is of no gender. This is gratuitous. He can produce no copy of Matthew in Syriac; the only authentic copy we have is that before me. It is the Greek version of Matthew : “ Thou" is in the second person, and "this” is in the third. Petros is masculine and Petra is feminine. It is impossible for language to do more to prevent mistake; and he that would attempt to explain away these three-gender, person and case, is not subject to the laws of language, neither indeed can be.
It is commonly observed that Peter seems not to have been any better qualified after than before the confession, to be the foundation of the church: for he is reproved for his worldly notions of the Messiah and his kingdom, in these words ; " Get thee behind me, adversary; for thou relishest not the things of God; but the things of man.” The word satanas signifies adversary. Jesus calls him not ho satanas, Satan ; but simply opponent. Stand aside thou who opposest me in this matter : Thou dost not understand these divine things.
There is another of the bishop's texts to which, out of courtesy, I must allude: “ Peter, when thou art converted, confirm your brethren.” The meaning of which is,-Peter, as you have experienced the bitterness of repentance, you can hereafter comfort and strengthen your penitent brethren. My learned opponent interprets it thus; Peter, when you are converted, you shall be my vicar and prince of the apostles !
John xxi, “Lovest thou me more than these,” is again before us. The bishop will have these to refer to the apostles. My audience will remember that when I read the Greek of the passage, he quoted Latin (plus quam hos,) as if to correct the Greek by deciding that these was masculine and not neuter, the very point in debate that when he was challenged to sustain his Latin comment by the original, he immediately after taking up the Greek Testament laid it down.
It will elucidate this passage to read the whole in the original, verse 13th.
Ερχεται ο 'Ιεσους και λαμβάνει τον άρτον, και δίδωσιν αυτοίς, και το ύψάριον ομοιως. In reference to which Jesus says, Elcan Iwvl, agaràs us TieLOV TOUTWY; The grammatical antecedent to τουτων must be τον άρτον and το éfágrov, which makes it neuter. Now, I ask, on what grammatical authority does the Vulgate convert these into the masculine ? Ought a translator to judge for his readers, or ought he to give the same latitude of inquiry to his readers which the original gives to him. The latter, certainly. So decides the highest tribunal in the commonwealth of letters. And neither my opponent nor his Latin nor Greek supplements, nor interpolations, have any right to make that masculine, which the original makes at least doubtful, himself being judge : and according to my judgment, on the laws of language, certainly, neuter.
On what precarious, inferential and illogical grounds rest the proud aspirations of the pope of Rome! He out-rivals the proudest monarchs of the east. He that styles himself - brother to the sun and moon,” and “ disposer of Asiatic crowns,” is modest compared with the vicar, who claims dominion over angels and saints in heavenover all the spirits in the wide domains of purgatory; who styles himself, or permits others to address him as a God on earth-as “his holiness, Lord God the Pope," as holding the keys of heaven and hell, and the two swords of ecclesiastic and political justice; and all this mighty empire resting upon the words, “petra,” “ strengthen thy brethren, “ lovest thou me more than these," " feed my sheep and lambs,” &c. Was there ever so proud a superstructure reared upon so many and so baseless assumptions ?!
The gentleman quoted yet another verse from the Vulgate ; 1 Pet. v. 3, “ Be not lords over the clergy." Hence he infers, the apostle Peter had the clergy under him. But the apostle says, “not as lords over the clergy," there then, was a plurality of lords,--not one supreme head! Although this passage - was quoted at an early period of the discussion, by my opponent, I reserved my remarks upon it till now. It reads in the original and the common version, “ not as lords over the heritage, lot, or people of the Lord.” Kangos, the word here translated clergy, occurs twelve times in the New Testament, and in nine of these it is translated lot. In Acts, xxvi. 18, and in Col. i. 12, it is translated inheritance, and in the passage before us, it may be either lot, heritage, or inheritance : but clergy is most whimsical and arbitrary. As well might the Vulgate have said to Simon Magus, “thou hast neither part nor clergy in this matter:" or, in Col. i. 12, 66 he has fitted us to partake in the clergy of the saints.” In both