« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
or wafer of flour and water, be the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, that the Son of God has had as many different bodies as the Catholic priests during six centuries, have made cakes; and that every new cake, is a new body!* Now I read, that God's Son Jesus had a body that was born of the Virgin Mary-and He ascended with that body from the Mount of Olives, out of the sight of his disciples; who were the last that ever saw the body of Jesus Christ on this earth; and that was more than 1800 years ago. And, subsequently, certain men assumed to be a sacred hierarchy, at Rome; and chose one of their number for their pope, or holy father; and authorized him to assume the right to be the successor of Peter, and to take into his possession the key of the door of heaven; and himself to make, or delegate a power to others to make gods of flour and water, and bake them; whenever he or they so pleased.
I call Heaven and earth to witness my sincerity, when say, that I would as soon bow my knee to the Caffre's wooden-monkey, or to the Egyptian god Apis' progeny, a calf, or to a stock or a stone, as to this Roman cake. I will never bow my knee, save in the name of that JESUS who sits at the Right Hand of the MAJESTY ON HIGH; and to that MAJESTY ON HIGH, the LORD OF HOSTS! And I say, as said SHADRACH, MEESHACH, and ABED-NEGO, I am not careful, O orthodoxy, (whatever form you shall assume) to answer thee in this matter. If it be so my GOD, whom I serve, is able to deliver me from your burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver me out of thine hand, O orthodoxy: but, if not, be it known unto thee, O orthodoxy, that I will NOT serve thy gods, nor worship the cakes that thou shalt set up. AMEN.
* I will presume so far as to say, that no well-informed Catholic, who is acquainted with the ancient history of his church, and also acquainted with, and a believer in the adage, that " honesty is the best policy," will venture to affirm, that the popes, and their priests, in the early ages of the Catholic church, either knew of, or believed in, "the doctrine of transubstantiation." Look at the simple fact as it is: Where, I ask, can impartial evidence be found, that will prove that the Roman Catholic church, previously to the tenth century, pretended to the power of changing bread, by a transformation, into flesh, and wine into blood; into the very flesh and blood of the body of the Man Jesus Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified by the Jews, under Pantius Pilate?
APPENDIX TO SERMON XX.
It should be known and remembered, that what is called the Eucharist, or, more frequently, the Sacrament, or "Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is, the term Sacrament, derived from an oath administered by the heathen Romans, under the Empire, to soldiers that enlisted into the Roman armies! And that what is known in the Evangelists as the Lord's Supper, is the Jewish Passover, viz:—Пáoxa, etc, the passover, i. e a sparing, immunity, from the Hebrew verb pasach, to pass over, to spare. The paschal lamb was typical of Jesus Christ, "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world ;" and was killed in commemoration of the destroying angel passing over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt; the doorposts of their houses being sprinkled with the blood of the lamb, that each family had killed, the evening previous to the destruction of the first-born of the Egyptians. See Exod. xii. 1-14. This festival of the Jews was celebrated on the 14th day of the month Nisan, which began with the new-moon of April, or, according to the Rabbins, of March, between the evenings, i. e. días, in ovons rìs ŵpas, it being now late evening-as 'ové, late, i. e. after a long time. The Hebrews reckoned two evenings, viz: the first from the ninth hour (3 o'clock P. M.) until sunset; the other from sunset onward. Consequently, the phrase between the evenings, designates the time of sunset, as the time for killing the passover. The paschal lamb was a lamb, or a kid of a year old, slain as a sacrifice between the evenings of the 14th of Nisan. According to Josephus the number of lambs provided at Jerusalem in his time, was 256,500, which were slain between the ninth and eleventh hour, i. e. between 3 and 5 o'clock, P. M., before the evening or commencement of the 14th day of Nisan. This supper commenced the seven days' festival of unleavened bread, rà ǎ (vua, Exod. xii. 15. (See Prof. Rob. Grk. and Eng. Lex.)
It should be specially noticed, that the time limited by the Lord Jesus Christ's apostle Paul, for eating bread, and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ, was, until Christ should come, (as he had affirmed he would come during that generation, at the end of the second azonos !) Also, that eating BREAD, and drinking WINE, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus Christ, is one thing; and a Catholic priest making a petite cake, and dubbing it a holy Christ, or god, and eating this priestly creation, in the sense of his christening, (or manufacture!) and eating FLESH and BLOOD!
quite another thing. See 1 Cor. xi. 19-27. Also, remember, that the Lord Jesus Christ, in person, taking BREAD and WINE, and consecrating it, (How? Why, by giving thanks to God, the Father, the Giver of the bread,) was not the consecration of bread and wine by Christ's apostle Peter, under whose flag the Roman pope sails. PAUL, the Great Apostle of the Gentiles, next to JEHOVAH and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is our paramount authority. The Pope, and his tribe of priests, cardinals, and bishops, are welcome to urge their claim to Peter, so far as Peter's authority goes for the transubstantiation, by a Roman Catholic hocus pòcus, into a new body of flesh and blood for Christ, of flour and water and wine. And the dupes to this impious mummery, shall have our pity and advice; viz: To read their Bibles for themselves, and trust in JEHOVAH, and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ; and let the pope and his priests eat their cakes themselves, for their own exclusive benefit.
Reader, this warfare against the Scriptures of truth, and against reasonand common sense, waged by popes, priests, and bigots of all names, and all colours, has been carried on too long already. It is high time for the common lay people to wake up; (anasta, arise;) eat their own bread, and drink their own wine, for their own benefit, under their own vines and fig
trees; and not be so foolish as to let wicked and designing men deceive them, and make them afraid! Hear the word of truth, and listen to the voice of Inspiration-" WHATSOEVER YE DO IN Word or deed, do ALL IN THE NAME OF [not little cakes, but,] THE LORD JESUS, [not Peter nor pope,] GIVING THANKS TO GOD EVEN THE FATHER BY HIM." Col. iii. 17. I have, as brother Paul has set me an example, "used great plainness of speech." Therefore, understand ye.
Dr. J. N. CAMPBELL, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Albany, (N. Y.) in his work entitled "Papal Rome identified with the Great Apostacy," contrasts the Roman dogma of Transubstantiation, and the common orthodox dogma of the Trinity, etc., to explain a difference, etc. Dr. C., in his attempt to exhibit a distinguishing mark between truth and error (viz Mystery vs. Contradiction,) says
"For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, to which the Romanists ingeniously attempt to assimilate the doctrine of Transubstantiation, is a mysterious doctrine. The proposition that the Divine Being so exists as, in one sense, to be three, and, in another and different sense, to be one, is level to our reason, and we believe it, because it is revealed in a volumo bearing unequivocal marks of divine inspiration." But, "how" this unity and trinity can exist, Dr. C. acknowledges that he cannot comprehend; giving an excellent reason, viz:-"Because it is not revealed, [!] and reason cannot fathom it." Therefore the Dr. sagaciously remarks, "Consequently, we believe only the revealed fact which we understand, the unrevealed how is no part of our faith." And then this blind sophist exclaims, "Yet you perceive that this doctrine involves no contradiction;" etc. This Dr. C. never read and understood John xvii. 21. If the Roman Catholics do not batter the Dr's. fortress with his own Ram, it will be because they do not understand logic.
However, although I differ, when Dr. C. insists upon it, that three and one are the same thing, theologically considered, I most heartily agree with him, that a cake is a cake, whether made by a Catholic priest, or by our New York Bakers: and I further dissent, and say, that a cake made of flour and water, with the adjunct of caloric, can no more be flesh, than THREE can be one, or ONE three. I put the two monstrosities together, in a holy-juxtaposition; but with the express proviso, that, of the two abominable absurdities, "the Trinity in Unity" has the pre-eminence; and a little cake, after swallowing the greater abomination, should be taken in, with any, or all the condiments of relics, etc., in the Catholic Church, without making wry-faces.
Wonderful to relate, Dr. C. contends, that a chemical analysis proves the Roman cake to be cake! Good, Dr.; hold fast where you are, thus far; and remember, that common sense, common honesty, and reason, have analyzed "the Trinity in Unity;" and it has fared no better in the crucible of truth, than the Roman cake in the hand or crucible of the chemist!
Hear the Dr. again-Dr. C. says, (p. 60.) " Almighty power cannot make two parallel lines meet, because the moment they converge they cease to be parallel lines. And for a similar reason, Almighty power cannot make a substance which possesses every peculiar quality of bread, and no other quality whatever, flesh, for it would at once cease to be flesh."
Ah, Dr., caught at last, and in your own trap! So the bait found in your own church, has covered the hook of absurdity, and you have taken it, and must now flounder, for the edification of your neighbours. Behold the issue: The argument is conclusive-Almighty power can make parallel lines-but, (here's the rub,) the moment the lines that are made par
allel, converge (alter their direction and relative position,) they cease to be parallel lines. Very good, Dr., only this little difference in the beginning-Methinks Almighty power, is always directed by Infinite wisdom and knowledge; also, goodness is numbered with the affined attributessurely a consistent, and Infinitely wise, powerful, and good Being, will never pronounce converging lines a parallel. O the blindness of orthodoxy! Answer, who can-If when parallel lines converge, they, then, by converging or varying, cease to be parallel in their direction, must follow, that when numbers disagree, or vary in their numerical magnitude, they cannot be the same in unity! And the Roman Catholic will beat the Dr's. brains out, with his "How." So, Dr., you don't understand how! Well, neither do I understand how, will be the Catholic's reply. And, say I, stick to him, Catholic-no man under heaven can perceive or understand, when your cake undergoes its transformation from a cake to flesh, that there is any change effected! For the life of me, reader, I can see no difference-A cake, yea, a little cookie! for all the world, looks as much like flesh as a numeral 3 looks like a numeral 1. But, says the Catholic priest, It is a great mystery. Ay, says the Presbyterian Doctor, Your cake is a cake, after all the fuss you have made about it; and no mystery at all. Why, you can buy them any where of the Bakers-but my Trinity-this is a great mystery-three and one are the same thing! Reader, listen to these theological belligerents
Roman Catholic priest-If you don't believe my cake is really flesh, and my wine is blood, you shall be endlessly damned.
The Protestant orthodox Doctor-If you don't believe that three and one are the same thing, you shall burn, world without end, in a future Hell.
first to the Catholic-Sir, your cake is no better than any
To the Protestant Doctor--Sir, Your logic contradicts all the rules of Arithmetic, that I learned when I was a schoolboy.
I will cheerfully award to Dr. C. a meed of praise, as justly due him, for manifesting a tolerant spirit, and exhibiting much shrewdness in his arguments; also, in the array of his testimony against the Catholic dogmas. The sore spot, is, as I have shewn, the Dr's. contrast between the Trinity, and the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation. But the Dr. having his eye on the Roman pope, etc., and all his energies concentrated to this single point, has established a position which will oblige him either to endorse the doctrine of the salvation of all men, or to reject the foundation of his argument; viz:
In pp. 80, 86, he reiterates the principle laid down by him, that among no religious sect of Christians whatsoever, who receive the Scriptures and acknowledge Jesus Christ, etc., will his allegations apply, save to the Roman Catholic church, as follows:-"Besides, it must be remembered, that, according to one of the principles laid down in the first discourse, in order to identify any communion professing Christianity with the APOSTACY, WE MUST be able to fix upon it not only one or two, but ALL of the marks laid down in the text."
Now, I say, man's-cake.
I recommend this little book of 105 pp. 18 mo., as a work far exceeding in its merits, the ordinary productions of our orthodox clergy. It contains three Sermons-text, etc., 2 Thess. ii. 1-9; 1 Tim. iv. 1-3; Dan. vii. 25; entitled " Papal Rome identified with the Great Apostacy," etc. By J. N. Campbell, D. D. Published by E. H. Pease, No. 82 Statestreet Albany, 1838. I will just add, that the Dr. is madly orthodox in p. 76, and is there guilty of a very large-sized orthodox fib!
MAN'S LAST HOPE.
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 COR, iii. 11.
THE celebrated English Poet expressed a just sentiment, in beautiful and appropriate imagery, when he said,
Hope springs eternal in the human breast,
Man in the aggregate, the sentient kosmos, or ktisis, was made in subjection to vanity, or a sinful state; but in a subjection that is a copartner with hope. Hope is the handmaid of man, and cheers him on his way, while he passes through the pilgrimage of his mortal career, nor quits him until he arrives at the last stage of his ephemeral existence. The cheatings of imagination are all taken in good part, so long as man is the dupe of the chimeras of his own begetting. If, in a moment of exasperation, when his ill-blood shall be excited by the failure of the hope of yesterday, man vexes himself, he will soon rally under cover of a fresh deception; and console himself with an expectation, that the future will smile more propitiously on the new creation, that his insatiate mind has given birth to. And stubborn habit, when nature has almost yielded to the frowning aspect of a gloomy future, will prop the tottering fabric of expectation, and spur the sufferer on to some inviting, because untried, adventure.
In vain does the moralist lecture on the folly of unreasonable expectations. It strikes me, that the design of the moralist, if he imagines that his dull prosing can stem the torrent that has rolled with unceasing and irresistible energy for hundreds of generations, sweeping with the tide of human existence, every fragment of mortality, save hope itself, that clings to every suggestion in the