Now, in the name of common justice, in the name of religion, in the name of truth and of honor, I ask the reviewer whether this is entering into partnership with thieves and plunderers, to whiten their consciences for a share of the plunder?

But why give the money to the Crusade fund? I shall answer, but first I must explain.

It is now clear that it is a principle of Catholic moralists, as it is of common justice, that no person who unjustly retains what belongs to his neighbor can obtain forgiveness from God unless he shall have made restitution. When the owner is known, it cannot be given to any other person except by his express authority. If a man holds ten dollars belonging to his neighbor, whom he knows, and subscribes one hundred and ten dollars towards building a church or for any other good purpose, meaning to give one hundred as his donation, and to pay the ten on behalf of his injured neighbor, he is not thereby exonerated from the debt of that neighbor; because payment to the Church is not payment to him. He not only still owes the ten dollars, but is, moreover, answerable for all the bad consequences of his unjust retaining of that money. Let him build a hundred churches and hospitals, and take fifty Bulls of Crusades, these ten dollars still remain due; and if the injured person, for want of ten dollars, is cast into prison, or loses the fair opportunity of making a good purchase, the church-builder and bull-buyer is answerable before God for all the consequences. Nothing can weaken the force of this immutable principle of right. The duty of the debtor is to pay his creditor; the right of the creditor is to build churches or buy bulls or fling his money into the fire, as he pleases. The man who assumes to be liberal, or charitable, or pious, with money which does not belong to him, is a rogue generally the worst kind of rogue, a hypocrite.

But another principle of justice is equally clear: when you are bound to restore, but cannot find your creditor, this acci

dent does not give you a right to the fruit of your dishonesty. The property is not yours. How is it to be disposed of? In that way which it is reasonably supposed would be most agreeable to the creditor. Give to his children, or to his relations, or to those whom he used to aid and serve. You cannot find any of these; you have used proper though unavailing diligence. Then follow his presumed will: give it to that useful public institution which you believe he would himself prefer: give it to the poor, and the alms will, before God, be received on his account. But if any nation has made a public regulation upon the subject, you are to follow the decision of the law, in preference to your own private judgment. Spain has made this public regulation; and upon that ground the principle in Spain is, "when you have injured your neighbor, repent and restore to him his property; if you cannot find him, pay it to the treasury of the nation, through the commissary of the Bula de Cruzada." The principle in Spain is, "your self-love and your avarice are likely to delude you in estimating the amount that you should restore. Go tell your case to a clergyman who has nothing to gain or to lose, and who must therefore be impartial, who is answerable to God for the decision, and therefore likely to be conscientious, who has studied the principles of justice, and after examination, been admitted to his place, and is therefore likely to be correct. Be guided by him: if you have reason to doubt the correctness of his judgment, go to another, or go to his superior, and remember the admonition, what will it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his own soul?'"

It may, perhaps, be the effect of prejudice, or of partiality in me, but I have always thought this discipline of the Church was better calculated to promote the interests of society and of religion, better fitted to protect the property of individuals, and the morality of the public, than the mere general preaching of the same principles, without the special application of them to individual cases, as practiced in the Church.

The only difference between the Spanish dominions and other portions of the Catholic world on this subject, is, that in Spain and its dependencies the precise mode of making this sort of restoration is pointed out in other places, the person bound to make the restoration has greater room for choice as to what object the money shall be applied; there is no choice as regards the immutable principles of justice.

I have now given to the people of America the true statement of facts, and the correct exhibition of principles, the misrepresentations of both of which formed the groundwork of the flippant abuse and unmeasured language of the reviewer. Let him then look to his own phraseology and say was it deserved, if my statement is correct. For the correctness of that statement I am ready to stand amenable to the tribunal of the candor and investigation of this world, and I stake the salvation of my soul in the next. My asseveration is a solemn appeal to heaven: for we Catholics have been most cruelly ill-treated. Our religion has been accused by those who did not know it, with plundering the people by infamous juggling artifice, to stir up their passions and interests; and even to quicken their crimes, when this could be done with a better prospect of grasping their money. It was accused of "forming a league with the powers of darkness." It was accused "of mocking religion." It was accused of outraging justice." It was accused "of keeping sixteen millions of people in a barbarous and debasing thraldom." Bear with me, fellow-citizens, for awhile. This charge has been ushered forth under the auspices of your most conspicuous literary chieftain. Are we guilty? Read the proofs against us; read our answer. Too long have you formed your judgments of us upon the exclusive testimony, shall we call it? no! vituperation of our opponents. Hear us; examine us. But before you vilify, listen and reflect.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION PROVED.1

A PASSAGE taken from the works of Tertullian, which appears to contradict the doctrine of the Church, on the dogma of transubstantiation, has been sent to me for explanation, by two or three esteemed friends of our communion. It is amongst those adduced by Mr. Ratio, in the Missionary, and has been for some time bandied about by a Protestant clergyman of North Carolina, for whom I entertain sentiments of regard. In general I do not consider myself called upon to devote my time to explanations upon every objection to a particular tenet; for if I were so bound, I would no longer be master of myself. But upon the present occasion, I shall take up the passage which has been now adduced against the doctrine for probably the ten-thousandth time within the last three hundred years, because, as far as I can observe, the answer has not reached the objectors nor the Catholics in the present instance.

I must premise a few remarks. Suppose Tertullian did not believe in the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist, but believed that sacrament to be only a figure of Christ's body and blood, should we therefore believe that all the other writers of the same and of the previous and subsequent ages, who did believe in the doctrine of the real presence, taught differently from the Church, and that Tertullian alone believed with the Church? A single name, how great soever, is not authority. Though the doctrine of Tertullian in regard to the Eucharist was in accordance with that of the Church, still at the latter period of his life he fell into the errors of Montanus, and, so far as they went, he dif fered from the great body of Christians. If, therefore, a passage was found in his works in favor of the figura

1An Article in the United States Catholic Miscellany, vol. iii, 1824.

tive commemoration, it would no more prove that to have been the true doctrine, than the passages which are found in favor of the Montanist heresy prove that heresy to have been the true doctrine. Such a passage would only prove that the writer held and taught that doctrine.

My next remark is, that when the Catholic writers quote passages from the Fathers, they only produce public, competent witnesses, to testify what was the doctrine of the Church in their day. Suppose Tertullian's works favored the figurative commemoration, and that many and unsuspected teachers of the same age testified the doctrine of the real presence, we should decide by the number and the character of the witnesses, and say that the doctrine of the day was to be found by the testimony of the great body and not that of an individual.

Next: The sense of a writer is not to be gathered from an isolated passage, but from the examination of the writer's object and comparison with several other passages. Any person in the least degree conversant with the rules of sound criticism, must at once perceive that an isolated passage taken without reference to its general object, and the circumstances with which it is accompanied, so far from far from giving information, will mislead. This reminds me of the man who insisted he could prove atheism to be a Scriptural doctrine, and turning to the 13th Psalm, (14th, Protestant version,) read very distinctly the following words which are found in its first verse: "There is no God." His half discomfited adversary, however, seizing the book, looked eagerly and found the words, it is true, as they were read, but he exultingly read the preceding passage: "The fool hath said in his heart," and gave his opponent the choice between folly and defeat. The man of the strict letter was not, however, to be so easily put down, for he contended that it was not in his heart he said so, but with his lips. To be serious, however: It is clear an isolated passage will not be proof, unless the sense which it has in its separate state be also that which it has in its conjunction with the context.