40,000, or as others will have it, near 100,000 into the infallible pale, we shall still feel little disposed to accept these triumphs of Jesuitism, as so many manifestations of divine favour towards the Church of Rome, so long as we bear in mind the hollow and fragile composition of these neophytes, and the combination of imposture, falsehood, and perjury employed in their formation. Between the means and the end there was a perfect consistency; that no one can deny. With all such converts and converters, we can afford to dispense, and willingly relinquish the double credit to that cause which needs such support. Again, when we find these hopeful proselytes transformed into thousands and myriads, and occasionally millions* of martyrs, we hope to be excused, if we be found not more credulous than those staunch Romanists, the Capuchins, who by their scepticism in such cases, have taught us to regard these hosts of heroic sufferers as mere poetical figments which "never existed" except in the lively imaginations which personified them. Though the transactions which have passed under review be not very recent, and the scenes of them be somewhat remote, yet this subject suggests a reflection which applies somewhat closely to our own times, and to matters of nearer concern to ourselves. A consideration of the Jesuits' proceeding in India will enable us to calculate the lengths to assertion, Father Bouchet appeared one day in Church in presence of a large assembly of French and Indians, "dressed in his sacerdotal robes, and taking the body and blood of Jesus Christ to witness, he there protested boldly in the presence of the God of truth, that he had obtained from the Pope's own mouth an explicit declaration," to the precise effect above mentioned. Who now but an obstinate heretic could doubt the fact after an attestation so solemn and awful? Let us, however, see the eclaircissement. The Capuchins appear to have fully understood the true value of a Jesuit's oath: one of them, the superintendant of their French Missions, Father Timothy de la Fleche, afterwards Bishop of Berita, determined to apply to the highest authority in order to ascertain the truth of Bouchet's assertions; he accordingly hasted to the Pope, and having stated what a declaration the Jesuit aforesaid and his confreres imputed to him, "and humbly supplicated him (says Father Timothy in a letter to Father Esprit,) to inform me how the case stood, his Holiness immediately took fire and used these very words. Father Bouchet is a liar, and nothing is farther from the truth, than what he has dared to publish." (Norbert's Mem. Hist. Tom. i. pp. 320, 326, 334; Tom. ii. pp. 66, 168; Tom. iii. p. 119.) And so much for the holy Father's veracity, and conscientious horror of perjury. In a persecution alleged to have taken place in Japan, Dr. Milner says there perished "eleven hundred thousand Christians," and adds"Berault Bercastel says two millions." This Gent. was probably some lineal descendant of Ferdinando Mendez Pinto of veracious memory. The reader will have seen sundry reasons to suspect that the Doctor, however averse to musquets, was himself very partial to the use of the long bow. which these emissaries of Rome will go, and the means to which they will resort in prosecution of their constant object-the acquisition of proselytes. And comparing the principles and actions of former agents in this work of intrigue and delusion, with those manifested by the propagandists of the same order now labouring amongst ourselves in the same vocation, we find no reason to believe that these latter will shrink from any thing that their predecessors practiced. Whoever says or pretends to insinuate that modern Jesuits "differ in one iota from their ancestors, either deceives himself, or wishes to deceive others." Every day produces some new evidence that they are identified in principles and views, not less than in name. QUISPIAM. ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. SIR, TO THE EDITOR OF THE PROTESTANT GUARDIAN. PROTESTANTS, in their controversy with the Church of Rome, are under a disadvantage, arising, singularly enough, from the very great superiority of their cause. Some of the doctrines which the Church of Rome maintains, are in themselves so repugnant to scripture, reason and sensation, that a sensible man, hearing them for the first time, would reject them as palpable errors, the very statement of which carried their complete refutation. Other men, however, decide with less justice and promptitude. But when a proposition, the enunciation of which shews it to be opposed to the direct evidence of our senses, is not intuitively condemned, what arguments, according to the laws of strict reasoning, can be brought against it? In general, it is enough to shew that an opinion is necessarily supported by or necessarily opposed to the ideas which we obtain from our sight, our taste, and our touch, and it is received or rejected accordingly. In this present case, it has been shewn that a dogma is contrary to these ideas and yet is believed. What then remains? The connection of the subject in dispute with religion is such, that we dare not use ridicule or contemptuous and peremptory assertion of the apparent truth of our argument; for this way of proceeding, though it may silence an adversary, cannot produce that honest assent to truth which alone a Protestant values. And as deeper reasoning is not in strictness applicable in this case, so we can hardly use it without injustice to ourselves. For when we have fully established truth by incontrovertible arguments, we ought not to allow it to be treated as if it were still matter of controversy. There are two tenets of the Church of Rome to which these observations are particularly applicable, her pretensions to be the only and infallible judge in the interpretation of Scripture, and the doctrine of transubstantiation. At present, however, I only wish to offer a few remarks respecting transubstantiation. The Church of Rome asserts that it is impossible to understand the words which our Saviour used in the institution of the Lord's Supper, and in other passages of Scripture, otherwise than literally; and this is the only argument which she uses to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. Protestants have shewn abundantly that there is no such necessity as she pretends, and that the general tenor of Scripture makes it plain that a figurative meaning is all that the words themselves will bear. We owe it to ourselves to state that all our other arguments are subsidiary to this fair and direct and complete exposure of the errors of the system of interpretation which the Church of Rome would introduce. It may, however, be worth while to state a few passages of Scripture, the literal meaning of which is destructive of the doctrine of transubstantiation. 1. Our blessed Saviour said, Luke xxii. 20, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you." Is it possible even for the Church of Rome to understand these words literally? Does she say that all those intellectual, moral, and religious realities which are intimated by the words "new testament in my blood," are actually a cup? This surely she cannot say, and yet this is only the literal meaning of the expression. If she abandon the literal meaning of these words in the 20th verse, with what consistency can she maintain the literal meaning of the words "this is my body" in the 19th verse, in defiance of equal difficulties and of every rule of criticism. 2. How can the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is supported only by an inadmissible pretence of construing Scripture literally, be made to accord with the literal meaning of St. Paul's words in the 26th, 27th, and 28th verses of the 11th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians ? "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." St. Paul is evidently speaking of that which is eaten by those who partake of the Lord's Supper, and he calls it bread. After it had been made holy by all the means which the Apostol ical Church used, it was still bread. And so again in the 27th verse: Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily:" that which is eaten is bread, literally. And so again in the 28th verse: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." Surely, even if the disciples of the Church of Rome had never heard of the sense in which Protestants understand our Saviour's words "this is my body," yet the 11th Chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians and other passages of Scripture, should have taught them, (and if the Scriptures had not been withheld, would have taught them) the necessity of adopting that figurative and spiritual meaning in which other Christians understand the words of consecration. 3 Our Saviour said (John vi. 53,) "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." These words, asserts the Church of Rome, contain a conclusive prove of transubstantiation, as they must be understood literally of the very body of Jesus Christ. We, who are satisfied with the great Protestant argument which has completely exposed the erroneous nature of this conclusion, may be content with requesting the Church of, Rome to be consistent, and take all the words above quoted literally. But is it possible to understand the words "ye have no life in you," in a sense strictly literal ? Yes, it is possible by neglecting the evidence of our senses, as much as it is neglected by all who believe in transubstantiation. It is in vain for the Church of Rome to say that eternal life is meant, for the expression is general, and taken literally means life of any kind whatsoever. If it be too great an absurdity to understand this part of the text literally, on what pretence of necessity can she insist that we should understand the first part literally? 4. Henry VIII, after deliberate consultation with the lords spiritual and temporal, and other learned men of the clergy in convocation, adopted the following exposition of the doctrine of transubstantiation. "It is to be believed, and not doubted of, but that in the flesh, under the form of bread, is the very blood; and with the blood, under the form of wine, is the very flesh; as well apart, as though they were both together." Indeed, this is but a logical developement of the idea expressed by the word "transubstantiation." It may, however, when thus expanded, present to some people a difficulty which they did not perceive in the more common statement of the doctrine, owing to their long familiarity with it. And it will increase the objections to the manner in which the Church of Rome regards the eucharist, (if these objections can bear any increase) to remark, that she finds in it two administrations of the ordinance, identically the same, except in the outward appearance of the elements. If the doctrine of that Church were the doctrine of Scripture, this remark would be of little consequence; but in addition to other arguments in favour of the figurative meaning of the words of consecration, we may fairly urge, that it gives a propriety and significancy, which the Church of Rome cannot give, to each part of the sacred communion. PROPER SPIRIT OF CONTROVERSY. S. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PROTESTANT GUARDIAN. SIR, YOUR correspondent "Clericus" commented so ably "On the proper Spirit of Controversy," that I should not have obtruded myself upon your notice, but from the idea that many very valuable hints, on a topic so essential to your present investigation, may be gleaned from the celebrated Essay on Truth," by the learned Dr. Beattie. 66 The following extract (with a variety of others that might be pointed out) seems worthy of notice, and of which you will make what use your own prudence shall suggest. "On some occasions," says that sensible writer, "zeal is both decent and natural. When a man is deeply interested in his subject, it is not natural for him to keep the appearance of as much coolness as if he were disputing about an indifferent matter; and whatever is unnatural is offensive. Were he to hear his dearest friends branded with the appellation of knaves and ruffians, would it be natural, would it be decent for him to preserve the same indifference in his look, and softness in his manner, as if he were investigating a truth in conic sections, arguing about the cause of the Aurora Borealis, or settling a point of ancient history? Ought he not to show, by the sharpness, as well as by the solidity of his reply, that he not only disavows, but detests the accusation? Is there a man whose indignation would not kindle at such an insult? Is there a man who would be so much overawed, by any antagonist, as to conceal his indignation? Of such a man I shall only say, that I should not choose him for my friend. When our subject lies near our heart, our language must be animated, or it will be worse |