Page images
PDF
EPUB

RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.

IMPORTANT BIBLE DISCUSSION AT

CARRICK ON SHANNON.

IRELAND.

An interesting discussion took place by appointment at Carrick on Shannon, in Ireland, Nov. 9, between three Roman Catholic priests and three Clergymen of the Established Church, in the presence of a highly respectable assembly. This discussion arose from circumstances which occurred a short time previously, at a Bible Meeting at the same place, where the Rev. Dr. M'Keon, the PAPAL LEGATE in Ireland, objected to the indiscriminate perusal of the Sacred Scriptures. Not being a member of the Bible Society, it was, very properly, decided that he could not then be permitted to proceed; but a special meeting was in consequence appointed. After suitable arrangements, J. R. Payton, Esq. was called to the Chair, and the discussion commenced; the speakers, on the Roman Catholic side of the question, being the Rev. Messrs. M'Keon, Browne, and O'Beirne, who were respectively answered by the Rev. Messrs. Bushe, Digby and Hamilton; when the thanks of the meeting were unanimously voted to the Chairman, and the parties quietly withdrew. It was not intended that any resolutions should be proposed, or any decision pronounced; but we are persuaded the effect must prove in the highest degree beneficial. The more this one question between Catholics and Protestants is fairly discussed, the more certainly will the cause of Scriptural instruction prevail.

After the Chair was taken, Dr. M'Keon rose" I trust that a sense of duty has this day convened us all. I rise not in the spirit of party, but in the spirit of the greatest liberality-a liberal Catholic is free from bigotry; he loves all mankind, Protestants as well as those of his own communion. The Catholic church has the strongest and greatest veneration for the sacred Scriptures, and ever wished that they should be circulated with proper restrictions-with the notes and comments of the church, and accompanied with the explanation of those who were appointed by the church to be the Scriptural teachers of the people. But considering that the Scriptures of themselves, unless accompanied by such notes and explanations, lead directly to every species of fanaticism and infidelity, the Catholic church oppose their indiscriminate circulation. The Catholic church never interdicted the use of the Scriptures to the laity until the evil consequences of their indiscriminate perusal had been manifested when a set of coblers and tailors, who took upon themselves to explain their meaning, were spreading their blasphemies DEC. 1824,

But

over the land, and convulsing the earth. with their seditions. But that the perusal of the Bible is not the only means of attaining salvation, will be seen by referring to Matt.xxviii. 19. "Here there is not a word mentioned about distributing Bibles. In fact, our Saviour knew very well, that ninety-nine out of every hundred could neither procure a Bible, nor read one if they had it. are we to suppose that the patriarchal families were in a state of ignorance concerning the Sabbath, or their various moral dutics, for 2500 years, from Adam to Moses? Surely not; and yet during that time they had no written law."-Dr. K. then referred to the African churches; to the mission of St. Patrick, St. Austin, &c.; inferring that the distribution of Bibles was not necessary because good had been done without such distribution." We fully admit the necessity of education, and we also acknowledge that it should be accompanied with Scriptural instruction; but we differ here: Protestants think that every man is competent to explain or interpret the Scriptures for himself. We say, that God has appointed a living speaking tribunał, which is alone competent to explain or interpret their meaning, and to decide what is right. Our Saviour himself says, "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten in the chair of Moses; whatsoever therefore they shall say to you, observe.' And when Hered made inquiry relative to the birth of our Saviour, do we find him applying to the readers of the Scriptures? No, but to the magi, the wise men of the East. But words cannot be more expressive, than where our Saviour says, And lo! I am with you to the consummation of the world.' That promise is not confined to the Apostles, but to their successors, canonically ordained. It was for the comfort of the faithful to the end of time; for he is as fond of us as he was of them. Again, he says of his Church, that it is built on a rock,' and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”—

[ocr errors]

As the living Father hath sent me, so send I you;' and St. Paul says, Obey your pastors, for they have the charge of your souls;' and, obey the Church, for it is the pillar of truth,' to which the faithful are every where directed to have continued access; and these Scriptures prove incontestably, that a living speaking tribunal has been appointed, to which is to be referred any differences of opinion which may occasionally arise."

Dr. M'Keon, having closed, was answered by the Rev. William Bushe; who, after adverting to Dr. M'Keon's introduction, and expressing his surprise at that inter

3 T

ference with the Bible Society which had occasioned the meeting, proceeded to touch upon the professed veneration of the Roman Catholics for the Scriptures. “We had read much, and we had heard much, as you have heard this day, of the great veneration which the Roman Catholic clergy entertain for the Scriptures; and we foolishly conceived that a veneration for the Scriptures necessarily implied entire and unreserved submission to the authority of those Scriptures; and when that authority gave strong and equal command for universal publication, we confess we did expect that that veneration would have produced obedience. We find, that veneration means a seclusion of the sacred oracles in the recesses of the temples, and only to be consulted, even then, by consecrated persons; that veneration for the Scriptures demands that they should be concealed from the people at large, so that the profane vulgar might never hear the very words in which God spoke to the people, but only as much of them as it might please certain persons to give at their own discretion. We find that, by veneration for the Scriptures, they would teach that God speaks in them as he did of old, from Sinai, in thunders,

amidst darkness, blackness, and tempest ;' and they would have such awe impressed upon the people, that, like affrighted Israel, they should exclaim, 'Let not God speak with us, or we die;' and as Israel turned to Moses, saying, 'Do thou speak with us,' so should the people turn to their priesthood, and entreat of them to mediate, to intercede, and to interpose between God and man. Whether this be a veneration for the Scriptures, judge ye. But, again, we were surprised at the opposition which has been given to us by the clergy of the Roman Catholic church, seeing we brought no hostility towards them: we were merely circulating the word of God, without note or comment; we gave no finger-post or private hint, to mark this or that particular passage. We did not give partial extracts, but the entire volume, as the Almighty was pleased to give it to us. Did we give but partial extracts from that book, a suspicion might lie that the part selected for disgutation was favourable to our cause, and the part withheld favourable to the cause of the other party. We came not proselyting, although we find this accusation has been broadly and generally brought against us. But even here we have our answer. If the mere circulation of the sacred Scriptures, without note or comment, be considered proselytism, and that the simple reading of them is calculated to cause a separation from the Catholic church, it is a plain admission, that the principles and doctrines of that church are not to be found in the Bible, and that the Catholic

religion is not the religion of the Bible. This is the fair inference; and the gentlemen opposite must either admit this conelusion or give up their charge."

6

Mr. B. then admirably described the nature and character of the sacred Scriptures, and the high treason against the Majesty of Heaven, implied in withholding from man the Gospel proclamation of mercy. "If our benevolent Monarch was to send a proclamation of pardon to some of his rebellious subjects, and invoke them, with affectionate tenderness, to return to their allegiance to his government, and obedience to the laws;-what should we think of any body of men who would hold counsel to deliberate whether that proclamation should be given or not to those to whom it was addressed. Would you not call the very act of daring to deliberate upon it a treason to the King? And what less is it than treason against the King of Kings,' to dare to waver or hesitate in respect to the giving of God's proclamation of grace to those to whom he sent it? But my reverend antagonist would not, he says, go the length of withholding the sacred Scriptures universally. He would be content to give them under certain guards and provisions; but without the safeguard of the church's accompanying comments, he would in no wise give them. But, thus guarded and fenced, he would give them to those who he thought would make a proper use of them. He would give them to the pious, the welldisposed, and the faithful, as he says. Now, Sir, how is he enabled to discover all those necessary qualifications, before he can venture to intrust them with the Bible? Has he got the power of discerning of spirits,' that he will try and search the hearts of men? Has he got, as was given to St. Peter, in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, the power of entering into the mind, and detecting its hidden spirit? And until that power is given us to discover the hidden man, and until we have such a spiritual insight, it is a vain pretext to withhold the Bible on any such ground."

[ocr errors]

Mr. B. then ably, refuted the objections made to the free circulation of the Bible on the ground of its being abused; exposed the fallacy of Dr. K.'s reasonings with reference to those who lived prior to the coming of Christ, and to the state of the Church after Christ's death, before the writing of the New Testament. "The argument he builds on, on these two points, falls to the ground. There was divine communication in the first period, and divine inspiration in the second alluded to.. He has said, that Christ never any where desired his Apostles to write his words; and infers that there was no necessity they should ever be writteu; and so, by construction, no reason why they should ever be read. Does the

Reverend Gentleman mean to say, then, that the Apostles had not the mind of Christ, when they wrote the Scriptures, that they went contrary to the will of Christ in so doing? and yet he must admit this, or his argument goes for nothing. But what does my reverend antagonist mean by the observation, that Christ did not sanction the reading of the Word of God? He must know, on the contrary, how forcibly he sanctioned the written word, by his frequent appeals to it-saying, Thus it is written.'"

Mr. B. here referred to Deut. vi. 7.; Ps. lxxviii. 1-7; and particularly pressed on his opponents the case of the Bereans, Acts, xvii. "Here there is an Apostle preaching to a people; and so far from rebuking them for trying his doctrines by the written Word, he commends them for it; if, then, we find that when St. Paul preaches, his doctrines are brought to the test of Scripture, and that instead of rebuking the people he commends them for it; say, what are we that we shall say, "The Word of God shall not try our doetrines, but our doctrines shall try the Word of God."

Mr. B. concluded by affectionately and fervently pressing on all those assembled the necessity of searching the Scriptures

for themselves.

[ocr errors]

The Rev. Mr. Browne then rose. regret, Sir, that we should have been constrained to meet here this day, for the discussion of a subject on which I feel convinced, that, were we to debate from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, we should not agree. The difference of sentiment which exists amongst us, as to the meaning of the different texts of Scripture which we can quote, is one of the strongest arguments which could be adduced to show that poor, weak, fallible man cannot of himself come to the proper understanding of their intent; and proves, beyond a question, the obscurity of the Word of God, I perfectly agree in the praise which has been bestowed upon the Word of God, and I should be a heretic from my own church, were I to say, you are not to read the Scriptures; I would say, read them with a docile and humble heart, but do not enter too deeply into their mysteries; receive the word from your spiritual pastors who are appointed to expound it. If the pastors be not appointed to expound Scripture, why does St. Paul say he has appointed the bishops to rule the Church, and that he has given some to be bishops, some pastors, and some teachers. The Catholic priesthood of Ireland are charged with being hostile to education; with keeping the peasantry in ignorance, and keeping from them the word of God. The charge is false, and such is not the intention of the priests; nor do we

prevent the reading of the Scriptures, as the Reverend Gentlemen opposite suppose, because we fear that the peasantry would become Protestants. It is not Protestantism, but Infidelity, that we dread; and Infi delity most assuredly would follow the indiscriminate reading of the Scriptures, were people deprived of the fostering care of their pastors, whose duty it is to expound the sacred volume for them." Mr. B. then contended, that the ancient and modern heretics, and even Satan himself, when tempting our Saviour, derived their arguments from the Bible-that God had given an authority to pastors to guide the faithful -that the indiscriminate circulation of the Bible would bring it into the hands of the people, who would extract from it the most pernicious poison, referring to 2 Peter, iii, 16. He then insisted on the collective infallibility of pastors-op the poverty of the Catholics-on the rebellions, &c., of the Protestants, and then proceeded: -" We ought to be aware, that we are all liable to error; and, therefore, I would call upon the Reverend Gentlemen opposite to pause in their career, and deliberate upon what may be likely to ensue if they continue in it. I am afraid it will not end here, but that other uses will be made of this day's discussion than those originally contemplated. I would, therefore, advise the Gentlemen opposite to avoid all public disputations of this nature. I came here in opposition to my own judgment, which was and is, that no good whatever can result from it. I think it would be much wiser to discuss questions of this nature through the medium of the public press, and then leave the public to judge which party is in the right. If meetings of a similar nature should be again held, I am afraid sentiments might be uttered, calculated to produce the worst possible effects.-Let the Protestant Clergymen instruct the children belonging to their flocks. Let them read the word of God and explain it to them, and we will not interfere with them; and in like manner, let the priests instruct their flocks, and, in obedience to the Council of Trent, expound the Scriptures to them; but let there be no prose¬ lyting system pursued by either. Let the Gentlemen opposite give us the Douay Testament with the notes and comments of our Church, and we will pledge ourselves to give them to our people, and to expound, explain, and teach them the morality they inculcate."

Archdeacon Digby-In reply to an observation of the Rev. Gentleman who has just sat down, I beg leave distinctly to state, we met here this day, by desire of the Gentlemen opposite, for the purpose of amicably, honestly, and fully discussing the propriety of circulating the sacred Scripe tures; and we may take as a thesis for our

argument, the decree of the Council of Trent

"Indiscriminata lectio sacræ Scripturæ interdicta est,'

The indiscriminate reading of the Scriptures is interdicted.' We take the negative of this proposition, and propose to prove our case to the satisfaction of this meeting, from reason," and from the word of God; and after that, we shall also show that we have the authority of antiquity on our side. I would premise, that no objection against the circulation of the sacred Scriptures, arising out of their abuse, can be considered as admissible or legitimate argument; for it is a rule in reasoning, that what proves too much proves nothing at all. They must first prove whether the thing in itself be right or wrong. If the Scriptures ought to be circulated, we are irresponsible for their abuse. Were we to adopt a contrary principle, to what absurdities would it lead us? Knowledge may be abused, therefore away with knowledge. Civil liberty may be abused, therefore away with civil liberty, and let us all be slaves; and in a similar way, all the common blessings of Providence may be abused. To what monstrous conclusions the admission of such a principle would lead, must, therefore, be evident to all. There is no one who deplores more than I do, or who would set himself in opposition to fanaticism and extravagance more than I would: but, considering the infinite value of an immortal soul, I would even revert to history, and, admitting all the evil that has ever been charged to the circulation of the Scriptures, I would say, that if they have been the means of saving one immortal spirit, let them go forth, be the consequences what they may. Our Saviour, in the Gospel, has forewarned us, that it is impossible but that offences must come, and woe unto that man by whom the offence cometh. But by whom cometh it in this case? Is it by him who circulates the Scriptures? Certainly not. The Gentleman opposite has referred to 2 Pet. iii. 16. St. Peter says, that the unlearned and unstable do wrest those passages even to their own destruction. But why do they so wrest them? Because being unstable. And why unstable? Because unlearned. Unlearned in what? In profane literature and science? No: but unlearned in the sacred Scriptures. The word in the original is arabeis; this word has a reference to panens, which signifies a disciple, and yet the word is to be put into their hands. They are to grow in grace, and in THE KNOWLEDGE of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

The venerable Archdeacon thren, referring to the decree of the Council of Trent, des monstrated, front reason, experience, and

expediency, that the indiscriminate reading
of the Holy Scriptures ought NOT to be
interdicted. He enlarged upon the posi-
tive injunctions both of the Old Testament
and the New, and especially alluded to the
Epistles being addressed to the saints as
well as the bishops and deacons, and to the
blessing pronounced on those who read the
book of Revelations. He then pressed
upon his opponents some extracts from a
work entitled, 'A Consideration of the al-
leged Antiquity of the Church of Rome
compared with the Novelty of the Protest-
ant Church,' solving the question, "Whe-
ther the Scripture be easily understood, or
be most obscure; and whether, in all essen-
tial points, it do not interpret itself; so that
what is hard in one place, is openly set
forth in another?" and then summed up
his former argument: "And now, my Ca-
tholic friends, you see such was the prac-
tice of the people of God of old, to trans-
cribe for themselves and their families as
much of the Scriptures as they were able;
and from these they learned to believe, to
love, and to suffer. This appears from
Eusebius, who tells us that he frequently
saw the word of God torn from the hands of
the people by the tyrant Dioclesian, and
Julian, the apostate, and burnt in the Ro-
man forum. There was no public decree
of a council, condemning the venerable
practice of searching the Scriptures, for
more than one thousand years after the
establishment of Christianity; in fact, not
until the year 1229, when a Synodical, not
a General Council, assembled at Toulouse,
for the purpose of counteracting their cir-
culation; and then the people heard with
astonishment, that a Christian Association
was the first to interdict the reading of the
Scriptures. In the first days of the Roman
Catholic Church, the Scriptures were pub-
lished in Latin, which was originally the
vernacular tongue; but when this became
a dead language, in consequence of not
being the tongue spoken by any European
nation, darkness covered the earth, and
men were compelled to have recourse to
those who had retired into monasteries for
spiritual consolation. After a lapse of a
considerable period, a citizen of Lyons,
named Peter Waldo, first procured its
translation into a modern European lan-
guage, for the benefit of the inhabitants of
Savoy and Piedmont. And then came forth
the decree, against which we this day
argue: Christian. Councils having once
done wrong, those subsequently convened
persevered in error, and at last came that
Council of Trent. I call those Councils
modern; I call Toulouse modern; I call
Trent modern; and I call Constance mo-
dern; as none of those Councils were held
for a length of time after the establishment
of Christianity. Against this innovation of

modern Councils, as a Catholic and a Bible Christian, I lift up my protesting voice, and say, in this matter of giving circulation to the Scriptures, we must obey God, commanding the practice, rather than man, forbidding it, and in this we follow the example and precedent of the apostle Peter, who put it to the Jewish Council, to which he stood opposed, to answer the question themselves for him, "Whether it be right in the sight of God, that we should hearken to you more than God, judge ye; for we cannot but speak these things, which we have heard and seen." (Acts, v.) We cannot consent to behold the people perishing in ignorance, without making an offer, to as many as will receive it at our hands, of "that Word which is able to make them wise unto salvation." We want not to proselyte any, but to enlighten all. I would say to the Gentlemen opposite-We wish not to rob you of the fruits of your labours, of your emoluments, or of your honours. We only wish you to agree with us in circulating, if not our Bible, at least your own. To oppose the march of knowledge is a dangerous experiment, especially the knowledge of God as communicated by the means of his Word. This is that "stone upon which whosoever falls he shall be broken, and upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him into powder." But if you will not act thus, and concur in the work with us, at least take the advice which we offer you nearly in the words of Gamaliel to the Jewish council: "Refrain from these men, who are labouring to disseminate the Bible, and let them alone: if the work be not of God, it will come to nought, but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; beware, therefore, lest haply ye be found even fight ing against God."

The Rev. Mr. O'Beirne then rose in a somewhat querulous strain, but added little to what had been before advanced on his side of the question. He was triumphantly replied to by the

"Much has

Rev. George Hamilton. been said by the opposite party of the reluctance with which this discussion was entered upon, and great regret has been professed that it ever took place; but I must say, Sir, that it was not called for by the friends of the Bible Society. Such meetings have not been coveted by the Protestant party. This meeting was convened at the desire of the Reverend Gentlemen opposite, in consequence of some opposition which they offered at a recent meeting in this town; an opposition which I am glad to have an opportunity of saying, was far different indeed from that which took place in other quarters. I feel great satisfaction that this has been the case; and I think it reflects great credit upon the Reverend Gentlemen opposite, and forms a striking

$

contrast to a most disgraceful scene which took place in the diocese (Tuam) where I reside. The argument of the Reverend Gentlemen opposite rests, as I conceive, upon this principle, that there is a living speaking tribunal established, by which alone the Scriptures can be judged, and from whose judgment there is no appeal; and that the circulation of the Scriptures is an infringement upon their prerogatives. This position I deny; and it is not alone denied by me, but by the whole Christian world, save only by the Church of Rome. The three Gentlemen had severally quoted our Lord's commission to his Apostles, Matt. xxviii. 20. Now, with whom was it he promised to remain? Not with the Apostles, for they soon finished their course, but with those who were the successors of the Apostles. But how was this to be determined? They were those who should teach "all things whatsoever he commanded." The Gentlemen opposite must be aware that all Christendom charges their communion, not only with not teaching all things which our Lord commanded, but with teaching many things which he did not command; therefore, they cannot expect that we will allow them to be the persons to whom our Lord's promise applies. So that here is a second of their pillars totally demolished."

Mr. H. then showed how utterly unfounded was the assumption of the unity of the Catholics in a case which had recently occurred.

"If a pious person went to Mr. Shearman or Mr. Esmond, another Reverend Gentleman, who agreed with Mr. Shearman, and told him that his wife was dying, this Reverend Gentleman would say, "Your wife, it is true, is a Protestant, but she is a most exemplary woman, and I only regret that she should not belong to our Church; but do not be cast down, there is another world where you may meet: she may be saved; and on this point the Reverend Gentleman used a remarkable expression, 'I would not dare to limit the mercy of God.' But if this man were to go to Callen, he would be told differently. There he would be informed by the Rev. Mr. Furlong, that dying without the pale of the Church, she dies without hope. This disagreement of doctors has appeared in the public press. The Reverend Gentleman

.

must first reconcile Mr. Shearman and his brother Jesuit (so he called him) Mr. Esmond, with the Reverend Mr. Furlong, before they or their brethren in any part of the world can venture to assert, that unity of sentiment is a mark exclusively belonging to their Church."

Mr. H. adverted also to the falsehood of the assertion, that Christianity was first planted in Ireland by St. Patrick, it being

« PreviousContinue »