il 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 OF THE QUESTION 
 
 IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, 
 
 .|n ang or m all its principles ox glottriitcs, 
 INIMICAL TO CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY? 
 
 AND OF THE QUESTION, 
 
 IS THE PRESBYTERIAN RELIGION, 
 
 |ir HnjT or in: all its principles or J ortrips, 
 INIMICAL TO CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY? 
 
 BY THE 
 
 eeVeeei^d joim hughes, 
 
 OF THE BOMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, 
 
 KEYEEE^^D JOHF BEECKEmroGE, 
 
 OF THE PKESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 PUBLISHED BY JOHN MURPHY & CO. 
 
 No. 178 MARKET STREKT. 
 PITTSBURG....GEOKGE QUIGLEY. 
 
 Sold by Booksellers generally. 
 
 1867. 
 
<* 
 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S36, by 
 
 OllCT, LEA & BLANCHARD, 
 
 ia the Clerk's Office o»' *he District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Copyright purchased by Wiluam Dickson. 
 
 STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSOX * CO. 
 PHILADELPHIA, JIAY, 1855. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 The following brief statement of the origin of this Discus- 
 sion, and of the measures adopted for its publication, seems 
 necessary. The question, " Is the Roman Catholic Religion, 
 in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, inimical to Civil 
 or Religious Liberty?" was adopted, January, 1835, as a 
 topic of debate in the Union Literary and Debating Institute. 
 The object in view, was in accordance with the general design 
 of the Institute — the improvement of its members. The So- 
 ciety, consisting of Roman Catholics and Protestants of 
 various denominations, whilst it disclaimed all sectarian mo- 
 tive, entered on the discussion in that bold spirit of inquiry, 
 conducted by candour, which characterized its debates, and 
 without the slightest expectation that any but subscribing 
 members would take part in the discussion. 
 
 So interesting and exciting, however, did this question 
 prove, that after the debate had been continued three even- 
 ings, during which the Rev. Messrs. Hughes, M'Calla, and 
 Breckinridge, Honorary Members of the Society, were the 
 principal speakers, arrangements were made, by a Com- 
 mittee of the Society, for a continuance of the discussion, 
 between the Rev. Messrs. Hughes and Breckinridge, for six 
 evenings. It was further agreed, that at the expiration of 
 the six evenings, the word "Presbyterian" should be sub- 
 stituted for the words "Roman Catholic," and an equal por- 
 tion of time should be devoted to the new question. 
 
 According to the articles of agreement between Messrs. 
 
 H. and B. and the Society, a Reporter was to be employed 
 
 by the Society, and a report of the speeches furnished. The 
 
 Society were disappointed as to the services of the Reporter 
 
 on the first three evenings of the debate. The concluding 
 
 speeches were also retained in the hands of the Reporter for 
 
 some months after its close. In consequence of these diffi- 
 
 3 
 
 756939 • 
 
culties, and others appertaining to the mode and extent of 
 correction, an arrangement was entered into by the dispu- 
 tants to fill up the deficiency in the Report, and to correct 
 the speeches, as each might think proper. The time neces- 
 sary to re-write the Discussion, added to the previous delays, 
 has protracted the publication to a whole year after the close 
 of the oral debate. 
 
 These delays, though attended with some inconvenience 
 to the Society, have, at least, given the disputants an oppor- 
 tunity of doing justice to themselves, respectively, in giving 
 their own report of their speeches. The only disagreement 
 between them now is, as to the amount of matter : — the 
 one contending, that only one-third of the number of 
 speeches delivered in the oral discussion are produced in 
 their written report ; — and the other maintaining, that each 
 of the written speeches 6ontains the matter of three, as they 
 were spoken. It is not for us to decide, but to leave, as we 
 do, the gentlemen themselves, and the public, to form their 
 own opinion on this point. This misunderstanding, how- 
 ever, between the disputants, required the action of the So- 
 ciety, which was had in the annexed resolutions. In ac- 
 cordance with instructions from the Society, the Committee 
 have disposed of the work to the present publishers, and we 
 trust that the importance of the questions discussed, will 
 cause it to meet with an extensive circulation. 
 
 The Letters, referred to in the subjoined resolutions, are 
 appended, and will fully explain the views of the reverend 
 gentlemen as to the publication. 
 
 In justice to the Society, it is necessary to state, that to 
 have sanctioned a continuance of the debate for publication 
 by them, would have so increased the size of the volume, as 
 to have prevented the Committee from carrying out their 
 views as to its immediate disposal. 
 
 THOMAS BROWN, M. D. 
 WILLIAM DICKSON, 
 
 Committee on Publication. 
 May 20th, 1836. 
 
RESOLUTIONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNION LITERARY AND DEBATING INSTITUTE, 
 
 Passed April 4:th, 1836 
 
 Whereas, The Union Literary and Debating Institute has 
 become involved, beyond the extent of its means, in conse- 
 quence of providing a Reporter for the Lite Discussion be- 
 tween the Rev. Messrs. Breckinridge and Hughes : and 
 whereas, the report of the stenographer, and the manuscripts 
 furnished by him, were, after this expense incurred by the 
 Institute, condemned as unsatisfactory and incorrect, and 
 another mode, viz., rewriting the whole, agreed upon, and a 
 satisfactory arrangement entered into to that effect: and 
 whereas, another difficulty has now arisen relative to this 
 affair, and the Institute can see no prospect of an event 
 promised in the beginning, and are weekly at more expense 
 and trouble on this account ; therefore — 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee of Fublication are hereby 
 instructed, forthwith, to dispose of the manuscripts of the 
 Discussion in their hands for immediate publication, and 
 report final action on the next evening of meeting ; and that 
 all the letters which have passed between the parties be in- 
 cluded in the publication. 
 
 Resolved, That both clergymen be permitted to continue 
 the work, under the sanction of the Society, but at their 
 own expense. 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2007 witin funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 littp://www.archive.org/details/discussionofquesOOhughrich 
 
DEFINITIONS AND CONDITIONS. 
 
 DEFINITIONS. 
 
 I. Religious Doctrines. 
 
 Those tenets of faith and morals which a denomination 
 teaches as having been revealed by Almighty God. 
 
 11. Religious Liberty. 
 
 The right of each individual to worship God according to 
 the dictates of his own conscience, without injuring or in- 
 vading the rights of others. 
 
 III. Civil Liberty. 
 
 The absolute rights of an individual restrained only for 
 the preservation of order in society. 
 
 CONDITIONS. 
 
 1. That when the question, "Is the Roman Catholic Re- 
 ligion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, opposed 
 to Civil or Religious Liberty?" shall have been discussed, 
 for any number of evenings not exceeding six, the question 
 then shall be, " Is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or in 
 all its Principles or Doctrines, opposed to Civil or Religious 
 Liberty ?" which shall be discussed for an equal number of 
 evenings. 
 
 2. That, in both cases, it shall be the duty of the affirma- 
 tive to prove, that what he calls a doctrine, is really such, 
 before he can use it as an argument. 
 
 The decree of a General Council, the brief or bull of a 
 
 7 
 
8 
 
 Pope^ or the admitted doctrines by a Pope, shall be admitted 
 as proof on the one side : the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith, of the Presbyterian Church in America, shall be ad- 
 mitted as proof on the other side. 
 
 4. The discussion to take place before the Union Literary 
 and Debating Institute, with one hundred Catholics and one 
 hundred Presbyterians, to be invited by the reverend gen- 
 tlemen. 
 
 5. All questions of order shall be decided by the Presi- 
 dent; and no person whatsoever to be permitted to take 
 part in the debate, but the Reverend Messrs. Hughes and 
 Breckinridge. 
 
 6. The President shall prevent any manifestation of ap- 
 probation or disapprobation, and enforce perfect silence in 
 the meeting. 
 
 7. That a stenographer shall be engaged by the Institute, 
 to take an impartial report of the proceedings and debate, 
 and that no unauthorized report be given by the Society. 
 
 JOHN HUGHES, 
 JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
LETTERS, ETC. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 14</i, 1836. 
 
 To THE President op the Young Men's ] 
 Literary and Debating Society. J 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I HAVE had the honour, within a short time, of receiving a re- 
 solution from the Society over which you preside, requesting the 
 respective parties, in the discussion which they are now preparing 
 for the press, to condense the matter, as much as practicable, con- 
 sistently with the end in view. 
 
 In reply to this communication, T am prepared promptly to say, 
 that the wishes of the Society are entirely in accordance with my 
 own; and that it will give me much pleasure to do all in my 
 power, without a sacrifice of the object in view, to reduce the 
 size, and hasten the appearance of the intended work. 
 
 It is well known to the Society, that it was esteemed by me a 
 violation of my rights, and a departure from the original agree- 
 ment among the several parties concerned, to adopt the present 
 mode of preparing the debate for the press. It pleased the So- 
 ciety, however, to indulge Mr. Hughes, and I yielded my wishes 
 to his. There were three methods of accomplishing the publica- 
 tion of the Discussion within our reach, viz. — 1, the putting of 
 the stenographer's report to press; 2, debating the whole anew; 
 3, writing it out anew, as the disputants might choose. The first 
 and second were declined by Mr. Hughes ; and the third adopted. 
 I had preferred the first or second — but acquiesced in the third; 
 and by mutual agreement between Mr. H. and myself, the Society 
 approving, we have been, for some time, engaged in reducing the 
 debate to manuscript form. In proof of this, I beg leave to refer 
 the Society to the correspondence in the hands of your Secretary, 
 and to the testimony of the Publishing Committee. 
 
 I have just been informed, however, by one of the members of 
 that Committee, that Mr. Hughes declines the continuance of the 
 Controversy, after the completion of the third part of the nights 
 
 9 
 
10 
 
 originally set apart for the debate. Upon what ground he ven- 
 tui^s tu'Js to abandon the Discussion, it is not my business to de- 
 clare. Surely it cannot be with the approbation of the Society; 
 and it must be at the entire sacrifice, if persisted in, of his cause, 
 his honour, and my rights. I hereby, therefore, utterly protest 
 against giving such a course the sanction of the Society, if, by 
 such sanction, it be understood that it shall be expected, or re- 
 quired of me, now to close the Discussion ; and I cast myself on 
 the justice of your honourable body, claiming of them, very re- 
 spectfully, the full protection of my equal rights. Nay, more, I 
 may appeal to the magnanimity of the young gentlemen of the 
 Society, as they must remember, that the very plan which Mr. 
 Hughes now seeks to defeat, by a premature close, was accepted 
 by me, in order to oblige the Society, and to indulge Mr. 
 'Hughes. 
 
 As, however, I am very desirous to bring this vexed question 
 to an amicable termination, I offer to the Society, (for I can no 
 longer permit myself to have any direct intercourse with Mr. 
 Hughes,) the following propositions : — 
 
 I. I will agree to complete six evenings of the debate — three 
 on each question, and then put the work to press. As the writr 
 ten speeches exceed those spoken in length, about eight evenings 
 of the former might probably embrace the substance of what was 
 spoken in twelve; and six might, with condensation, present the 
 chief part of the Discussion. 
 
 In this event, I propose to pursue the subject hereafter on my 
 own responsibility. 
 
 II. I will agi-ee to publish eight nights, and for i\\Q present, at 
 least, giving no additional matter — to the public — present the de- 
 bate as in SUBSTANCE complete. 
 
 III. If Mr. Hughes declines both these propositions, I shall 
 stand prepared to furnish my part of the entire debate, with the 
 confident expectation that the Society will publish all that Mr. 
 Hughes ma^ have contributed ; and, stating his withdrawal, pub- 
 lish the matter furnished by the other party. 
 
 IV. In the event of the Society's consenting to sustain Mr. 
 Hughes, in the very extraordinary course proposed by him, which 
 appears to me wholly impossible, I must seek another channel to 
 the public ; and, at the same time respectfully ask of the Society 
 to refund to me the sums of §10, and of §150, advanced by me, 
 (the first, as a donation, the second, as a loan, borrowed by me 
 for that end,) to pay the stenographer. If / had refused to abide 
 by the stenographer's report, then there might be some justice in 
 my contributiug so largely to pay him ; as that refusal, hy prevent- 
 ing the publication of the work, has dried up one chief source of 
 your revenue. But so far was this from the fact, that my advance 
 to the stenographer was made after I had failed to bring his work 
 to press; and on the faith that the present arrangements would be 
 
11 
 
 enforced by the Society, so as to complete the debate, and secure 
 its sale. Whereas, Mr. Hughes, who vilified the stenographer's 
 report, paid nothing toward defraying the expense of it; and is 
 now seeking to mutilate the matter, and, as I believe, to defeat 
 the publication of the manuscript. 
 
 With much respect, I am, dear sir, 
 
 Your friend and servant, 
 
 JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 March 22c?, 1836. 
 
 To Messrs. Brown and Dickson, Committee^ dec. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 I HAVE now finished the correction of my speeches, and my 
 part of the Discussion. The matter is equivalent to more than 
 eighteen hours' public speaking, and consequently it is time to 
 stop. If the Society had, according to agreement, held a steno- 
 grapher engaged, and thus taken down the arguments, in the 
 words of the speakers, much trouble and labour would have been 
 saved to all parties. But the first three nights of the Discussion 
 were blanks, as to any report. Then came Mr. Stansbury, under 
 the auspices of Mr. Breckinridge, to take notes of arguments, and 
 fill up the supposed thoughts of the speakers in language, as near 
 as might be to that which they employed. This did not give my 
 arguments — except as Mr. Stansbury conceived them. Conse- 
 quently, the report was imperfect; — the reporter was not em- 
 ployed at the expense of the Society, as appeared — 1st, by the 
 fact, that Mr. Breckinridge proposed to compensate him by a 
 public collection ; and 2d, by the fact, that he neglected the report, 
 until after he had attended to business in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. 
 Hence, it follows, that the Society, having failed in that part of 
 our understanding on which their claim to my speeches depended, 
 could not have any right to expect them. But, least there should 
 be the shadow of legitimate complaint, I have, by my own labour, 
 supplied the defects of their mismanagement, and will hand them 
 my part of the Discussion, authenticated by my signature, to be 
 published for their benefit ; — provided, that not a single page, in 
 the printed copy, shall be allowed more to one side than to the 
 other. If the aggregate number of pages, to be occupitd by my 
 speeches, should exceed that required by Mr. Breckinridge's ma- 
 nuscripts, I shall curtail. If his should exceed mine, he rau.«t 
 curtail. I ask nothing but what is right ; I shall submit to nothing 
 that is wrong. I trust, gentlemen, that you, and the independent 
 portion of the Society, will discover, in this proposal, that I ask 
 
12 
 
 nothing but that the scales of justice he held even. I am aware, 
 that there may be, in the Society, a few little spirits, who, not 
 having strength to burst the nutshell of bigotry in which they are 
 confined, are accustomed to prefer what is expedient to what is 
 only just. Now, I cling to justice. 
 
 If this just proposition should be defeated, then I shall hold 
 myself as having done every thing honourable and fair to lay the 
 merits of the Discussion before the public, and let the Society en- 
 joy the benefits arising from it ; but then, too, I shall use my ma- 
 nuscript as I think proper. The individual, or party defeating, 
 or attempting to defeat the publication on this basis of justice and 
 equality, must be responsible to the Society for the consequences. 
 As to myself, I have not the slightest doubt but the public will 
 see through the whole matter, and, with the exception of the little 
 spirits in the nutshell, form a just judgment. 
 
 I have the honour to be, gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 PhiladeJpMaj March 29th, 1836. 
 
 To THE President of the Young Men's ) 
 Literary and Debating Society. j 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Having been informed, that the young gentlemen of the So- 
 ciety have delayed the final decision of the painful question now 
 pending, in regard to the publication of the debate, until this 
 evening, I take the liberty of making an additional communica- 
 tion through you to the Society. 
 
 As no little time has passed since the debate began, and many 
 changes have taken place in our arrangements, a rapid retrospect 
 of the circumstances may not now be amiss. The following facts 
 will not be disputed, it is supposed, by any member of the So- 
 ciety ; or if disputed, are capable of ample proof. 
 
 1. Mr. Hughes re/used, on the third night, to proceed without 
 a reporter — yet he afterwards rejected the reporter's work. 
 
 2. Mr. Hughes selected the present method of preparing the 
 debate for the press ; and he pledged himself to complete it in this 
 way; and he proposed no limits or terms at the commencement 
 of this plan of preparation : on the contrary, he found fault with 
 the former Publishing Committee for seeking to restrict him; 
 and a new committee was appointed by the Society to carry the 
 new plan into effect. 
 
 3. The Society did thus and otherwise sanction the present 
 
13 
 
 plan, and agree to carry it into effect. And it was on the faith of 
 Mr. Hughes's pledge, and theirs, that I gave up the stenographer's 
 report, and adopted Mr. Hughes's plan. And it was on the faith 
 of the same united pledge, that the debate should be completed, 
 sold, and published, that I advanced a considerable sum of money 
 to pay the Society's debt to the reporter. 
 
 4. Mr. Hughes first set the example of enlarging the form of 
 the original debate; for when the first Publishing Committee op- 
 posed his additions to the report of the stenographer, he said he 
 was to be the judge of how much or how little should be added. 
 Acting on this principle, we began, afterward, to rewrite the 
 whole, each having full liberty. When, therefore, Mr. Hughes 
 complains of the dilation of the Discussion, he should remember 
 that he is not only the sharer, but author of the practice. 
 
 5. Though more matter has been written than was spoken on 
 the same number of nights, yet a considerable portion of the 
 topics, presented in the oral debate, have, as yet, not been touched 
 in the manuscript; as, for example, the supremacy of the Pope; 
 the doctrine of the Roman priestJwod; the order of the Jesuits; 
 the monastic institutions; the immoral tendency of the system of 
 popery ; the Inquisition; the papal conspiracy abroad against 
 the liberties of our country, are all yet to be examined, and was 
 all gone over in the debate. This, Mr. Hughes well knows. 
 Yet he seeks now to stop short, and exclude all that yet remains. 
 Besides all this, there are allusions in the discussion of the second 
 general question, to the discussion of the first, which first will 
 not appear, if we arrest the debate here. How absurd will this 
 appear; and to me, how palpably unjust ? Mr. Hughes, contrary 
 to the order of the debate, contrived to alternate, very absurdly, 
 one speech on one question, and one speech on the other. And 
 now we have each question half discussed ; yet he insists on pub- 
 lishing now, and publishing no more ! 
 
 In view of all these facts, I can hardly think it possible for 
 your honourable body to do such violence to my rights, as now to 
 force a close of the Discussion on me. Being, however, unfeign- 
 edly anxious to bring every part of the Discussion, as speedily as 
 possible, before the American people, I have conceded much to 
 the wishes of others, as will be seen in my last letter, to which I 
 respectfully refer the Society. 
 
 That there may be no room left to complain of my terms, I 
 here add, to the proposals of that communication, the following, 
 viz : — 
 
 As Mr. Hughes refuses to go farther in the debate, let it be 
 agreed, that, for this reason, we will now publish four nights of 
 the manuscript debate : let me then complete my argument on the 
 papal question, and publish it under the sanction of the Society, 
 accompanied by an explicit avowal of the fact that Mr. Hughes 
 declines to pursue the Discussion. I will publish the second 
 
14 
 
 fart at my own risk, and ask no more than what is stated above, 
 f Mr. Hughes asks more, his country must see why ; and his 
 best friends must blush for him, when he shall not only abruptly, 
 and after all his pledges, withdraw from the Controversy, but even 
 seek to silence me midway the question. 
 
 I feel well assured, sir, that the honourable young gentlemen, 
 of all names and sects, over whom you preside, will esteem my 
 wishes reasonable ; and will unite to sustain me in my obvious 
 rights. 
 
 But if not, then I must appeal to the American public ; and 
 reverting to the alternative, the painful alternative, stated in my 
 former letter, I must seek shelter from injustice, before a larger 
 and better tribunal, who love liberty, who will do justice; and be- 
 fore whom, if God give me help, I am resolved to spread out the 
 whole of the debate, and the history, as well as the matter of it, 
 if my stipulated rights should now be so seriously invaded. 
 With full confidence in the candour and justice of the Society, 
 remain, dear sir, very respectfully. 
 
 Your friend and fellow-citizen, 
 
 JOHN BRECKINKIDGE. 
 
 P. S. I understand it has been alleged, that inasmuch as I called 
 on the audience to aid in paying the fees of the stenographer, at 
 the close of the debate, therefore, he was confessedly my reporter. 
 It is well known, as I then avowed, that the reason of the call 
 was the poverty of the Society, (which had no funds,) and the 
 pressing wants of the reporter who expected to leave the city the 
 next morning. Besides, it is fully known, that, for three nights, 
 the Committee had failed to get a reporter ; and Mr, Hughes re- 
 fused to proceed without one. Then, at the request of the Com- 
 mittee, I wrote for Mr. Stansbury — the faithful reporter of the 
 American Congress for some dozen years. And yet, after all, 
 Mr. Hughes rejects his reports. Then, when we yield to his 
 wishes, give up the reporter's manuscript, and begin, at his re- 
 request, to write aneio, he proceeds but /m//*way through; when 
 lo, again, and of a sudden, without consultation, or agreement 
 with the other parties, he resolves to stop. Will the Society sus- 
 tain such a course? It was on the faith of Mr. Hughes's repeated 
 pledge, to complete the debate, and on the faith of the Society's 
 pledge, to cause it to be completed, and sold, and published, that 
 I advanced money to pay the debt of the Society. Will the So- 
 ciety now permit, nay, aid in a continuance to defeat the publica- 
 tion? 
 
 J. B. 
 
15 
 
 Philadelphia^ April bth, 1836. 
 
 To Messrs. Browx and Dickson. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I AM sure you must be weary, as I am, most heartily, of the 
 interminable contests which have been going on about the publi- 
 cation of the debate. It seems apparent that Mr. Hughes will 
 not, 071 any terms, publish the entire debate; and my friends have 
 urgently solicited me to consent to publish the four nights, which 
 will be complete, on my furnishing my reply to his sixth speech 
 on the Presbyterian question. I hereby, then, signify to you my 
 consent to this course, whicb I pray you to make known to the 
 Society this evening. 
 
 In thus waiving my rights so entirely, I hope you will under- 
 stand that it is intended as a testimony of my high respect for the 
 Society which I am unwilling longer to embroil, even in doing 
 me justice; and that it is my purpose to go on, through the press 
 on my own responsibility, to complete the Discussion. For theii 
 desire, and their long continued efforts to issue the whole debate, 
 I owe them my sincere thanks; and I am consoled by the thought, 
 that the young gentlemen have had so practical a proof, that it is 
 not Protestantism, but Popery, which shuns the light. 
 
 The only condition wliich I feel at liberty to make, is that the 
 correspondence which relates to the publication of the dabate, 
 shall be published with it. 
 
 I know not, after this, what else Mr. Hughes can require of the 
 Society, or of me, than that I should be bound to write and de- 
 hate no more on popery, as the condition of his publishing any 
 part of the debate. 
 
 I am, gentlemen, very respectfully. 
 
 Your friend and fellow-citizen, 
 
 JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Philadelphia, April Wth, 1836. 
 
 To THE President of the Union Literary \ 
 AND Debating Society. j 
 
 Sir, 
 In certain letters of Mr. Breckinridge, which he wishes to have 
 prefixed to the publication of our Debate, there are statements 
 which are calculated to mislead those who are not acquainted with 
 the facts of the case, and to which I have been indulged with the 
 privilege of replying. In his letter of the 14th ult. he complains 
 
16 
 
 • 
 
 of the " present mode of preparing the Debate for the press." To 
 this I reply, that owing to our not having a stenographer the first 
 three nights of the discussion, and owing to the manner in which 
 the remainder, or at least portions of it, continued in the hands of 
 the stenographer for months after the debate closed, there was no ' 
 other mode left in which to prepare it. After having attended the 
 General Assembly, and the trial of Dr. Beecher, the reporter 
 wrote to your Committee, on the 24th of June, that *'his next 
 business would be to resume the report," &c. By whose fault 
 did this happen ? Mr. Breckinridge says, there were ^' three 
 methods :" 1. ^' Putting the stenographer's report to press." This 
 is absurd. That report was but three-fourths of the discussion, 
 and not the whole. It contained none of the citations of authori- 
 ties, which were numerous. It merely referred to them, and left 
 it to the speakers to fill up. Would it not have been absurd, then, 
 to put it to press in this condition ? His second method was, 
 " debating the whole anew." This, indeed, would be a new me- 
 thod of preparing the debate for the press. The third was that 
 which has been adopted. He says this was done to " indulge 
 Mr. Hughes." The statement was incorrect ; — it was done be- 
 cause no other, in the circumstances of the case, was practicable. 
 I called on him through the Committee, and on the Committee 
 themselves, to point out any other practicable method ; — and when 
 they could not, he, and they, and I, agreed, by mutual consent, 
 to adopt the present mode. This is the simple history of the 
 whole matter; and shows, that so far, if Mr. Breckinridge has any 
 reason to complain, it is not of me, but of the Society — for not 
 having a stenographer from the first, and not obliging him to at- 
 tend to the business for which he was supposed to have been en- 
 gaged, consecutively and in season. 
 
 2. He complains in the same letter, that I discontinued the de- 
 bate after the completion of "the third part of the nights origin- 
 ally set apart for the Discussion. To this I reply, that each of 
 the written speeches, one with another, contains as much matter 
 as three of those that were spoken. Both parties spoke one hour 
 and a half every evening ; which, for the twelve evenings, makes, 
 for each, eighteen hours speaking. In each half hour there must 
 have been a waste of two or three minutes, by interruptions, look- 
 ing for references, &c., which would take off more than an hour 
 of the whole time, making it for each, less than seventeen hours. 
 Now, let Mr. Breckinridge take his twelve written speeches, and 
 attempt to deliver them, with that solemnity, and those graces of 
 elocution, for which he is so distinguished, and he will find that 
 twenty hours will not be sufiicient. Consequently, the written 
 speeches, though fewer in number, contain more than those that 
 were spoken. But who began these long speeches ? Mr. Breck- 
 inridge himself ! Look at the speech with which he opened ; — 
 and according to which I was under the necessity of regulating 
 
17 
 
 my reply. Here, therefore, is my reason for stopping — at the 
 conclusion. Another reason was, that the Society had requested 
 that the matter should be condensed as much as possible. A 
 third reason was, that if the two parts, out of three which Mr. 
 Breckinridge says are wanting, were added, it would swell the 
 work to six or seven volumes, which would frighten any pub- 
 lisher in the city. It is on all these grounds that I have allowed 
 Mr. Breckinridge to call it only the tliird part of the Discussion, 
 knowing, that if he says he spoke more in the time allowed for 
 speaking J than what he has written out, no one, who reflects a 
 moment will put any belief in the assertion. 
 
 In his letter of the 29th of March, Mr. Breckinridge complains 
 that, owing to the pretended abridgment of the Discussion, there 
 are a great many subjects which he has not had an opportunity to 
 introduce. To this I reply, that he had the privilege, in common 
 with myself, of correcting the report in any manner, and to any 
 extent he might think proper. If, then, instead of adhering to 
 the original substance, he thought it more serviceable to fill up 
 his space with new and apocryphal matter, he must not blame 
 me for the consequences of his choice. He introduced, for in- 
 stance, the subject on which the Eev. Murtoch O'Sullivan has 
 been holding forth in Exeter Hall, viz., Dens's Theology. I 
 did not blame him for this ; on the contrary, I approved it, by 
 following his example in other instances. 
 
 But, besides, the very topics which he says he has been ob- 
 liged to omit, are to be found in his speeches in tedious repeti- 
 tion. For the correctness of this statement, I refer to his speeches 
 in connection, or rather, in contrast with his letter. He has intro- 
 duced, into his written speeches, wliole columns of printed matter 
 from his own former writings, and from the writings of others ] 
 and this fact shows that he ought not to complain of want of space. 
 He was uncontrolled in the choice of his matter and argument. 
 The interchange of speeches on both questions at the same time, 
 was merely to expedite the work according to the wish of the So- 
 ciety. From all this, it is evident, that the matter of the correct- 
 ed, or written speeches, is fully as much as that of the entire Dis- 
 cussion; and, secondly, that the introduction of new topics was a 
 matter of clioice, and not of necessity, with Mr. Breckinridge. 
 
 He says, in his letter of the 29th, that, in reference to the 
 lengthened speeches, I was not only " the sharer, but author of 
 the practice.'' This is a mistake. The first speech — the rule for 
 others, was His. It is true, that when the former Committee at- 
 tempted to prescribe the length of ray first speech on the Presby- 
 terian Question, I resented their interference, because I would 
 not consent to be deprived of any privilege which had been 
 allowed to Mr. Breckinridge. 
 
 He says that I *' refused on the third night, to go on without 
 a reporter — and yet I afterwards rejected the reporter's work/' 
 
18 
 
 The first part of the statement proves that I wished the Discus- 
 sion to be published. And the second is not correct. I never re- 
 jected the stenographer's work ; but, as it was avowedly incom- 
 plete, I claimed to correct it; and, as no rule could be pointed out 
 to obviate dispute about the correction, I suggested that he should 
 correct his speeches, and I mine, as we pleased. 
 
 He says that, at the commencement, I ^' proposed no limits or 
 terms.'' This is true ; but it does not follow, that the Discussion 
 should become endless on this account. The time employed by 
 each speaker would determine the limits, and, by this rule, I main- 
 tain that the Discussion, as now presented, is larger than if every 
 word uttered in debate had been taken down and preserved. If 
 Mr. Breckinridge thinks that he has not done justice to the sub- 
 ject, he may write as long as he can find ink and paper; but 1 
 must be at liberty to follow him or not, as I may think proper. 
 This matter is quite simple. I allow him page for page with my- 
 self; and if he require an appendix to help him out, then, — to 
 borrow a phrase from his own letter, — " his country must see 
 why; and his best friends must blush for him." 
 
 In his letter of April 5th, Mr. Breckinridge speaks of his hav- 
 ing "waived his rights," &c. Sir, he has waived no rights. To 
 every thing that has been done, he has been a free, voluntary 
 party. I never dictated to him. I never submitted to his dicta- 
 tion. In the whole matter I never knew or felt but one princi- 
 ple, implied by the words justice, honour, impartiality — and, 
 above all, "do unto others as you would that they should do unto 
 you." But I knew my own rights, and have had both power and 
 fortitude enough to resist and repel their invasion. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge, in the same letter, sets forth, that it is not 
 " Protestantism but Popery that shuns the light." If, by the 
 phrase, " shuns the light," he means, that I have not wished to 
 see the Discussion published, nothing can be more untrue. I en- 
 tertain, after all, too high an opinion of Mr. B.'s sagacity and 
 judgment, to suppose, for a moment, that he seriously entertains 
 any such opinion. What he has said of the Catholic religion, has 
 been often, and better said before. What / have said on the other 
 side, will remove prejudice from every candid mind, and, as re- 
 gards the genius of Presbyterianism, will exhibit the motives 
 which should induce every lover of civil and religious liberty to 
 watch its movements, and be prepared to resist its grasping spirit 
 of sectarian domination over all other creeds. The question, on 
 the other side, has been, not of " Protestantism," but of ^'Pres- 
 byterianism'' alone. Against the Episcopalians, Methodists, 
 Baptists, Friends, Lutherans, or other denominations of Protest- 
 ants, I have said nothing. 
 
 In the same letter, Mr. Breckinridge says, " I know not, after 
 this, what else Mr. Hughes can require of the Society, or of me, 
 than that I should be bound to write and debate no more on 
 
19 
 
 popery, as the condition of his publisliing any part of the debate." 
 Now, I entreat the Society, not to ''bind" the gentleman under 
 any such cruel obligation. 13y it, his usefulness to himself and 
 the country would be destroyed. But though I do not wish to 
 bind him in any sense, yet I cannot help expressing the opinion, 
 that to preach peace and good will among men, would be a holier 
 employment of his time. "Blessed are the peace-makers, for 
 they shall be called the children of God." 
 
 3. He refers, in his P. S. of the 29th of March, to the fact of 
 his having undertaken to remunerate the stenographer, not from 
 the funds, or by the credit of the Society, but from the pockets of 
 the guests — by a collection. 
 
 Now, let him give any explanation he may think proper of that 
 proceeding : it proves that the reporter bad been employed by Mr. 
 Breckinridge, and looked to him for compensation. And here I 
 must refer to the position lately assumed by the Society, claim- 
 ing as a matter of justice, an arbitrary right to indemnify them- 
 selves by virtue of an agreement which they never fulfilled. If 
 they had provided a stenographer, and he had taken down the 
 debate from beginning to end, in order, then, indeed, the report 
 should be theirs — because they would have fulfilled the conditions 
 on which alone their title, injustice, depended. But failing to do 
 this, they have thrown upon us the labour of reporting, de novo, 
 the whole debate. This debate was theirs, inasmuch as I am con- 
 cerned, because I intended to give it to them, on the conditions of 
 a fair and impartial publication. But it was not theirs on any 
 other title; and it has been with deep regret that I have observed 
 the Protestant member of their Committee, in obedience to the ad- 
 vice of intrigue, setting up a pretension to detain my manuscript, 
 forcibly, unjustly, illegally. I had placed it in the hands of that 
 gentleman on deposit, until it should pass into the hands of the 
 publisher. I treated him with confidence by placing my manu- 
 script in his hands, when I might have put it in the hands of his 
 Catholic colleague. I have been disappointed, and I regret it. If 
 I had ever violated my word of honour, in my whole intercourse 
 with the Society, or its Committees, there might have been some 
 pretext for this dishonourable proceeding to which I refer. But I 
 defy any member of the Society to point out a single instance in 
 which, so far depended on me, I did not comply with my engage- 
 ment, and fulfil my promise. Have the other j)a)'ties done the 
 same? It seems to have been a favourite object, with Mr. Breck- 
 inridge, to make it aj)pear that I was forced to publish. To refute 
 this gratuitous and unworthy suspicion, I refer to the whole history 
 of jny proceeding. I insisted that a stenographer should be in at- 
 tendance. I took upon me to supply, by my own hand, the de- 
 ficiencies and corrections of his report. I had the whole copied 
 at considerable expense. I had never refused to publish; but on 
 
a,^ 
 
 20 
 
 the contrary, desired it in thought, word, and deed. But T never 
 should have given it to the Society, if the terms of publication had 
 not been fair^ equitablej iind impartial. And to prove to the So- 
 ciety that I have given it, not only willingly, but freely, / 
 have had a copyright secured according to laiu. This precaution 
 was rendered necessary in order to remove all ground for the im- 
 putation which was attempted to be cast on my honour and in- 
 tegrity. 
 
 Thus, sir, whilst I acted honourably with the Society and its 
 Committees, — refusing, with frankness, to do anything that I re- 
 garded as unfair, — but fulfilling, to the letter, whatever I had once 
 promised, — I never left myself in their power. And when, by an 
 attempted violation of my rights, a member of your Committee, 
 in obedience to the voice of intrigue, would detain my property, 
 I qualified myself to laugh the pretension to scorn, and to teach 
 him that I proceed to publication, not by the coercion of petty 
 artifice, but by the moral obligation of my own word, freely 
 pledged, and freely redeemed. 
 
 li^-aj n, an American citizen — not hvc hance^ — but by choi ce. 
 When circumstances seemed to make it a duty, I threw myselFln 
 the breach, to vindicate the principles of my fellow-citizens of the 
 Catholic religion throughout the United States, I have done so; 
 and, by carrying the war into the camp of the enemy, 1 have 
 taught one of the ablest representatives of that Presbyterian com- 
 bination, which is attempting to destroy the.,_ciyil, anil.xeligious 
 reputation of Catholics, that if any denomination of Christians are 
 to ^e eapeUed for tlia-crime of persecution, it would be the lot of 
 Presbyterianism — to march first. In doing this I have submitted 
 to the sacrifice of much personal feelings, much labour, incon- 
 venience, and anxiety. And the reason why I retained my just 
 dominion over my manuscript, was, least if passed into other 
 hands, it might never find its way to the public. If it belonged 
 to the Society, the consequence would be, that, as their property, 
 they would have a right to burn it if they thought proper. I 
 have taken care that it should have a better destination. 
 ^^^But, sir, I am not only an American citizen, but also a Roman 
 ' t TCatholic. I ^p° ^^'^" "'^dfir ^ he scourge o f Protestant persecu- 
 / tion, of w hich my fathers, in co mmon witlTlitetg^-^^trtiiotic coun- 
 / try men, had been the victims for ages. Henee, Hi now the value of 
 ^— that civil and religious liberty which our happy government secures 
 to all; and I regard, with feelings of abhorrence, those who would 
 eacrilegiously attempt, directly or indirectly, immediately or re- 
 motely, to deprive any citizen of those inestimable blessings. 
 God alone is the lord of conscience. As a Catholic, I trust I 
 should be ready to renounce liberty, and even life, sooner than 
 renounce one doctrine of the faith of the Church — for without 
 faith it is impossible to please God. But what is faith without 
 
2r 
 
 charity? And is not charity the love of God, as God; — and the 
 love of our neighbours as ourselves ? Let other men endeavour 
 
 to serve God, and save their souls, in whatever religion they be- 
 
 lieve to be true — their rights are as sacred as mine. 
 
 Finally, sir, in taking leave of the Union Literary and Debating 
 Institute, permit me to return my thanks for the personal courte- . 
 sies, and honourable and impartial treatment, which I have expe- 
 rienced from the majority of its members, Protestants as well as 
 Catholics. In my intercourse with them, I trust that, if I have 
 manifested a reasonable measure of independence, I have never 
 been deficient in courtesy and respect. I have never, by under- 
 hand measures, attempted to bias one member, or control one 
 measure in your proceedings. As to the under-current of petty 
 intrigue and prejudice, by which the best and^post impartial mea- 
 sures of the Society have been sometimes turned aside, I, at this 
 moment, think of those who have been engaged in the direction 
 of its various courses, as persons to be only pitied and forgotten. 
 I am, with great respect, 
 
 Your friend and fellow-citizen, 
 
 JOHN HUGHES. 
 
 P. S. The following is the letter of Mr. Breckinridge, to which 
 reference is made more than once in the progress of the Discus- fy 
 sion. He knew I disliked personal contention with any one, and 
 most of all with him, for reasons which I have not concealed. He 
 knew that I had been invited, not to dispute, but to deliver an 
 address, before the Society, on the subject referred to in his let- 
 ter : and he had 'privately engaged Mr. M'Calla to attend. All 
 this was before he left Philadelphia. He goes to New York, and 
 after three or four days, writes me the following modest, vera- 
 cious, but to me, extraordinary and unexpected letter. I give it 
 as my apology and justification for the pain which my exposures 
 of Presbyterianism must inflict on the feelings of many worthy 
 persons of that denomination. J. H. 
 
 New York, January 21s^, 1835. 
 
 To THE Eev. John Hughes. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I HAVE just been informed that you are expected to address a 
 Society to-morrow evening, on a question of which the following 
 is the substance, viz.: " Whether the Roman Catholic Religion is 
 favourable to Civil and Religious Liherti/?^' 
 
 I write a few lines, in order to say, that I will meet you, on the 
 evening of the 29th instant, before the same Society, Providence 
 
22 
 
 permitting, on that question : — or, if that be not agreeable to you, 
 in any other place where this vital question may be fully dis- 
 cussed before our fellow-citizens. 
 
 As I shall not be present, I request that you will yourself make 
 the necessary suggestions to the Society to-morrow evening, and 
 give me as early a reply as convenient. I can conceive of 
 only one reason for your refusing, and I hope time has overcome 
 that. 
 
 I remain, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN BEECKINRIDGE. 
 
PART I. 
 
 "j& the Raman Catholic Beligion, in any or iyi all its 
 Principles or Doctrines^ opposed to Civil or Re- 
 ligioiLs Liberty?" 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 ''is tlie Roman Catholic Religioriy in any or in all its principles 
 or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty ?^^ 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE L— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Eefore I enter on the discussion of this important question, I 
 wish to say to this society, that I hold in my hand a Roman 
 Catholic paper, published in New York, called ^'■Tke New York 
 Weekly Register and Catholic Diary, No. 21, Vol. III., Feb. 21, 
 1835" — which purports, in a letter signed R. C. W., to give a 
 true report of our preliminary discussion, held in this hall some 
 evenings since. — This letter is a tissu^e of uncandid statements, 
 and is most scandalously and injuriously /a/se. As a committee 
 of this society has publicly corrected the representations made in 
 a Protestant paper of this city, concerning a previous debate between 
 the Rev. Mr. M'Calla and the Rev. Mr. Hughes, so I now demand, 
 in the name of truth and equal rights, that a similar notice be 
 taken of this base production : — and as the author has avowed in 
 the course of his statement, that he waited on Mr. Hughes, and 
 received from him "a copy of the conditions on which the debate 
 is to be conducted" — so I have demanded of the Rev. gentleman 
 the name of the author, as^ it must be known to him ; and I shall 
 hold him responsible for the letter and its contents until he gives 
 it up. 
 
 [The Rev. Mr. Hughes said — I did not come here to listen to 
 newspaper articles, but to debate the question before us; and no 
 other business is in order.] 
 
 Mr. B. — I lay this publication on the table, and pronounce the 
 author guilty of base and divers falsehoods, which I will prove by 
 one hundred witnesses whenever he will venture to avow him- 
 self. — Till then, I hold Mr. Hughes responsible. 
 
 In advocating the affirmative of this question it is not meant to 
 be asserted, that all the principl es of the R omish religion are op- 
 posed to civil and religious liberty — ^but th^t'Uiany, very many of 
 them are; and that the system of which they make a vital part is 
 opposed both to civil and religious liberty. — Here it is worthy of 
 remark, that the efforts of the gentleman to tie up the discussion 
 by peculiar definitions drawn from his own views, are both unusual 
 and highly characteristic of himself and the gentlemen with whom 
 
 83 
 
34 
 
 he is associated. A definition should be found in the terms of the 
 question — and if terms are fixed, defining the limits of debate, 
 they should be technically accurate, and entirely impartial. The 
 definition offered by the gentleman on a former occasion was sin- 
 gular enough, and goes very far to show his whole system of belief 
 as to the rights of man. He gravely proposed to you the adoption 
 of the following definition oi civil liberty, viz., "?Ae right of each 
 individual to advance the good of the people, hy every constitutional 
 and honest means." Now, sir, this is the definition of a duty, and 
 not of a right. But when you compare this definition with what 
 the gentleman said in our preliminary discussion, you will see how 
 the parts of the system explain each other. On that occasion he 
 contended that the majority had in all cases the right to rule; and 
 of course, as in Spain, the majority had a right to compel the 
 minority to receive the Roman Catholic religion as the religion of 
 the state, and the only religion to be tolerated. The minority 
 here must submit. What rights had they? Why to promote the 
 ^'public good" — viz., to be as "good Catholics" as possible; to 
 help on the system as much as possible — their right is to submit! 
 
 [Here Mr. H. said, — I defined it to be the right of every indi- 
 vidual to do all the good he could, in promoting public happiness.] 
 
 Mr. B. — I repeat it, this is a duty. But we are speaking of 
 rights. The explanation alters not the case. If, as the gentleman 
 said on the last evening, the majority has the right to ride — then 
 if the majority did wrong, it followed that it was right to do wrong. 
 And then, if the day should ever come, when Roman Catholics 
 will compose the majority in this country, they may of right 
 establish their religion by law. This is the broad and ruinous 
 principle of the gentleman; and we see what it is, and where it 
 leads. Hence his indilFerentism as to the liberty of other lands; — 
 and his views about other governments. Now I contend that there 
 are certain rights which lie aback of all conventions among men. 
 That, according to our ever memorable Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence, there are certain inalienable imprescriptible rights derived 
 from God, of which a man cannot deprive himself, or be deprived 
 — such as no majority can deprive him of, and no possible state 
 of society weaken or destroy. 
 
 I would give the following constitutional definition of liberty, 
 (religious, especially as that enters peculiarly into this debate,) 
 derived from the Constitutions of Pennsylvania, (1790); Ken- 
 tucky, (1799); Ohio, (1802); Tennessee, (1796); Indiana, (1816); 
 Illinois, (1818); Missouri, (1820); almost in identical terms. This 
 definition is a compact among the citizens of these states. The 
 Rev. gentleman is not a Pennsylvanian or an American if he re- 
 jects it; I will show he is not true to his holiness if he adopt it. 
 It is this: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to 
 worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own 
 consciences) no man can of right be compelled to attend^ erecty or 
 
35 
 
 support avy place of loorsJu'p, or to maintain any ministri against 
 his consent; no human authority can in any case whatever control 
 or interfere with the rights of conscience ; and no preference shall 
 ever he given hy law to any religious estahlishments or modes of 
 worship J' This is the right of all men, laitj as well as clergy — 
 everywhere; at Rome, as in North America — the indefeasible, 
 natural right; that is, a right by the law of nature, or in better 
 language, by the gift of the God of nature; and therefore a right 
 coeval with the race of man, and not repealed but confirmed and 
 illustrated by the gospel, to worship God according to the dictates 
 of his own conscience. This right is indefeasible — that is, impre- 
 scriptible — not subject to alienation; it cannot be repealed, or 
 abridged, or impaired, by power or numbers, nor divested by per- 
 sonal renunciation. It is a right indelibly impressed on each 
 individual man by God himself; so that he cannot malce himself, 
 or he made less free than God has made him in this respect. It 
 is an essential element of his free agency, and indispensable to his 
 voluntary worship, which alone is worship in truth. It is ^^ac- 
 cording to the dictates of his own conscience f^ not that of the 
 priesthood; and therefore each has a right to inform his conscience, 
 by all means in his power; by reading the Bible, and, if he sees 
 fit, by making it the rule of his faith and practice. Hence the 
 translation, and printing, and free circulation of the Bible is law- 
 ful, is his unalienable right ; and therefore all restraints upon the 
 press as practised by the general councils of the Romish Church, 
 in this and other respects, is an invasion of this natural and inde- 
 feasible right. (1) 
 
 According to this definition, churches established by law, by 
 kings or pontiffs, and maintained by coercion, are an invasion of 
 the natural liberties of man ; and therefore the Romish hierarchy 
 was an usurpation in the days of Luther, and is so now^ wherever 
 its power is felt, as in South America, in Spain, and in the tem- 
 poral dominions of the Pope. All territorial precincts, such as 
 parishes, dioceses, and the assigning by the authority of law of 
 the inhabitants within them to the jurisdiction of an ecclesiastic, 
 and the exaction of tithes, or other rateable stipends for ecclesi- 
 astical uses, upon pretence of ecclesiastical or temporal power, is 
 an invasion of the rights of man; and therefore the government 
 of the Pope, within his own dominions, and in the dominions of 
 those sovereigns who acknowledge his pretensions, is an usurpa- 
 tion ; and for the same reason all societies established by ecclesi- 
 astical authority, the object of which is to govern the temporal 
 affairs by means of the spiritual, (the Jesuits for example,) 
 are irreconcilably repugnant to free institutions. 
 
 And our definition, (on which I dwelt more largely the last 
 evening,) declares, that this right belongs to all men. It goes 
 beyond the exigencies of a mere social compact. It is uttered in 
 (1) Seo Constitution of the United States, Amendments, Act 1st. 
 
36 
 
 the name of the human race. It is an universal truth, evei*y- 
 "where, and at all times, true. 
 
 In its nature the proposition of this article is as liberal as it can 
 be, but as a compact it necessarily excludes those who cannot ex 
 amino assent to it; and hence Protestants and Roman Catholics 
 cannot concur in it, not because of the illiberality of the rule, but 
 on account of the scruples of Roman Catholics, who, as a matter 
 of conscience, ascribe to the Pope lawful authority to invade a 
 portion of their natural liberties; their conscience forbids them to 
 assert their own freedom, or to allow to Protestants the measure 
 of freedom which they claim. Hence the South Americans, not- 
 withstanding their high notions of political liberty, in no instance 
 have reckoned religious liberty among their political rights. They 
 dared to throw off the yoke of the King of Spain, but not the 
 yoke of the Roman Pontiff. The spirit of Luther did not pass in 
 the direction of Spain : this shows why Spanish America is papis- 
 tical and not free. It did pass in the direction of England; hence 
 the United States are free. Had a Luther never lived, the United 
 States might have been as Spanish America. The religion, or 
 rather the religious principle of the American constitutions, is 
 traceable under God to Luther, as an effect to its instrumental 
 cause. This principle of the American constitutions is Protes- 
 tantism. The liberties and intelligence, and the manifold bless- 
 ings enjoyed by the citizens of the United States are its effects — 
 which can properly be appreciated only by contrast with the con- 
 dition of the vicious, ignorant, superstitious, and priest-ridden 
 inhabitants of South America, Spain and Italy. The contrast 
 shows also the natural tendencies of Romanism upon the civil 
 and religious liberties of men. 
 
 There is a common sophism on this question, which consists in 
 confounding the term voluntary with the term free. In this spe- 
 cious way a voluntary slave^ (which is by no means a solecism,) 
 may be proved to be a free man. A kindred sophism consists in 
 confounding the freedom of government, or constitutional liberty, 
 with individual or personal freedom. If a man were to be robbed 
 of his property he would be esteemed poor; the manner by which 
 he is divested of his property does not alter the fact or the true 
 character of his condition. For the same reason, a man who re- 
 nounces into the hands of another his natural liberties can with 
 no more propriety be called a free man, than he could be if he 
 were deprived of them by the hand qf arbitrary and irresistible 
 power. In truth a voluntary slave is more a slave than one who 
 resists his oppressor, or who desires to throw off his chains. A 
 voluntary slave is the lowest and most ignoble of all slaves. Sup- 
 pose the people of Pennsylvania were, with one consent, to choose 
 a governor or prince as their ruler, who should have absolute 
 pgwer to make and execute such laws as he saw proper. Could 
 the government with propriety be called free? Yet the case 
 
37 
 
 supposes the people voluntari/ in making the change, and not 
 constrained in submitting fo it. They would voluntarily part 
 with their natural liberties, but they would no more continue to 
 be free, than a man who should voluntarily part with all his pro- 
 perty would continue to be rich. Nor could the government with 
 any propriety be called free, relatively to the governments of the 
 other states, which are founded upon the principles of natural right. 
 
 For the same reason those who surrender voluntarily the natural 
 rights of conscience, the rights of free worship to a qnritual 
 prince or pontiff, do not continue to be free in these respects — nay, 
 they cannot be said to be fred'in ant/ respect. A man who is chained 
 by one limb only is restrained of his natural freedom, as truly and 
 almost as effectually, as to all useful purposes, as if he were chained 
 by every limb. It is like a semi-paralysis of the body. 
 
 Now in view of the above definition and necessary inferences, 
 which no true American can deny, it is apparent in how many 
 respects the "doctrines" of the Church of Kome are directly 
 . opposed to human and especially to religious liberty. 
 
 With these great principles in view, I will proceed to specify 
 more in detail the proo/* against the Roman Catholic religion. 
 
 What I said more fully at the preliminary meeting — and what 
 the gentleman then scarcely pretended a reply to — I now repeat — • 
 that as soon as a child is horn into the world., the '^indelible 
 brand of slaveri/," as it has been justly called, is stamped upon 
 him, by the Church of Rome, in what she calls baptism. The de- 
 crees and canons of the Council of Trent on this subject, eternize, 
 in their self-styled — and unchangeable infallibility — the tyranny 
 of Romanism. Thus, for example, the fourteenth canon on baptism 
 is as follows — viz : " Whoever shall affirm that when these bap- 
 tized children grow up they are to be asked whether they will con- 
 firm the promises made by their godfathers in their name, at their 
 baptism ; and that if they say they will not, they are to be left to 
 their own choice, and not to be compelled in the mean time to lead 
 a Christian life, by ani/ other jninishment than exclusion from the 
 eucharist and the other sacraments, until they repent: let him be 
 accursed." 
 
 Here it is evident that the doctrine of force is distinctly taught; 
 and not moral force, but physical; for moral means, or ecclesi- 
 astical discipline, such as " exclusion from the eucharist and other 
 sacraments" — is expressly stated in the above canon as not the onl;^ 
 punishment meant. The Latin word also used in the original is 
 COG KN DOS, which every scholar knows, especially in such a con- 
 nexion, means the application of coercion, superior power, force. 
 
 Besides : the practice of the church, in every country, where it 
 has the power, and even at this day, is in accordance with this 
 interpretation. Now here we say is a doctrine leading to a p)ractice 
 in the Church of Rome, which is directly and avowedly destructivo 
 of religious liberty. 
 
38 
 
 Again; I referred on the last evening to the doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome on auricular coiifefision, as an invasion of personal 
 liberty, and in the highest sense dangerous to the freedom and 
 safety of states. In the fourteenth session of the Council of Trent, 
 under the decrees on 'penance^ it is thus written : *' The universal 
 church has always understood that a full confession of sins was 
 instituted by the Lord, as a part of the sacrament of penance." — 
 *' It^is plain that the priests cannot sustain the ojfice of judge, if 
 the cause be unknown to them ; nor inflict c(imi-dh\Q lyunishments, 
 if sins are only confessed in general; and not minuteli/ and in- 
 dividually described.^' — " Those who do otherwise, and knowingly 
 conceal any sins, present nothing to the divine goodness to be for- 
 given by thej^riest." Again, the sixth canon is as follows : '^ Who- 
 ever shall deny that sacramental confession was instituted by 
 divine command, or that it is necessary to salvation ; or shall 
 afl&rra that the practice of secretly confessing to the j^riest alone, 
 as it has ever been observed from the beginning by the Catholic 
 Church, and is still observed, is foreign to the institution and com- 
 mand of Christ, and is a human invention : let him be accursed.'' 
 
 Now we say this is usurping the peculiar prerogative of God. 
 It is blasphemously setting up a priest as judge in God's stead, 
 Sind forcing the poor subject, as the condition df pardon, to unveil 
 the secrets of the heart to a priest, when this is due to God alone ! 
 Never, perhaps, was such a device found out to rule with a rod of 
 iron a subject world. No secrets from the priests, or else no sal- 
 vation ! and that, too, with the priest alone ! Hence it is called 
 auricular. Think of your daughter, your sister, your wife, thus 
 secretly opening to a priest alone, all her feelings — on all subjects — 
 as the medium of pardon. Think of the confessor of a prince ! 
 think of that great army of priests located all over the world, 
 prying into all the secret thoughts, feelings, acts, intentions, de- 
 sires, of all their subjects. Think of the power it gives. Was 
 there ever such a scheme of espionage : such a system of omnipre- 
 sent police ? Can there be liberty under such a regime ? It is 
 easy to be seen how, on this plan, 3, priest can restore stolen goods; 
 and why we poor Protestants neither Jcnow nor can do any thing 
 like it ? They know all the secrets of all the villains, connected 
 with their church; and can, by a nod, compel restitution, or hand 
 them over to hopeless perdition! It may well be conceived also, 
 what must be the habitual state of every priest's mind, being made, 
 as it is, the receptacle of all the sins of all his people — the common 
 »ev)er of iniquity ! Now, under the operation of such a system, 
 must not vt, pure priest or 2, free mind be almost a miracle ? Is not 
 the destruction of all liberty necessarily involved in the application 
 of such a system ? We commend this subject to the audience, and 
 call for a reply from our reverend friend. 
 
 Without dwelling at present upon the other sacraments of the 
 Church of Rome, as constructed and administered for the destruc- 
 
39 
 
 tion of human liberty, I draw my next argument from her tyrannic 
 cat interference with the freedom of the press — of readingy &c. 
 The freedom of the press has justly been called the palladium of 
 our independence. It is the glory, the pledge, and, under God, 
 one of the chief securities of our liberties. Unlimited freedom of 
 printing and reading has never been permitted by the Roman 
 hierarchy, where she had power to prevent it. Speaking of 
 printing, one has racily said, "Hereby tongues are known, know- 
 ledge groweth, judgment increaseth, books are dispersed,' the 
 Scriptures are seen, the doctors be read, stories be opened, times 
 compared, truth discerned, falsehood detected, and with finger 
 pointed, and all through the benefit of printing. Wherefore I 
 suppose, that either the Pope must abolish printing, or he must 
 seek a new icorld to reign over ; for else, as this world standeth, 
 printing doubtless will abolish him." 
 
 The great Council of Lateran, held at Rome, A. D. 1515, under 
 Leo X. session 10th, (1) thus enacted : " We ordain and decree 
 that no person shall presume to print, or cause to be printed any 
 book or other writing whatsoever, either in our city, (Rome,) or 
 in any other cities and dioceses, unless it shall first have been 
 carefully examined, if in this city by our vicar, and the master of 
 the holy palace, or if in other cities and dioceses by the bishops 
 or his deputy, ivlth the inquisitor of heretical pravity for tlie dio- 
 cese, in which the said impression is about to be made ; and un- 
 less also it shall have received under their own hand, their written 
 approval given without price, and without delay. Whosoever 
 shall presume to do otherwise, besides the loss of the books, which 
 shall be publicly burned, shall be bound by the sentence of ex- 
 communication.'' Caranza, from whom the above is extracted, 
 more wisely than honestly omits several parts of this decree, such 
 as, " That |he transgressing printer was to pay 200 ducats, to help 
 in building St. Peter's Cathedral at Rome;" "be suspended for 
 a year from his trade," &c. 
 
 By authority of the Council of Trent, this decretal, and all 
 others of a similar kind, are thus confirmed, viz. Rule I. "All 
 books condemned by the supreme pontiiFs or general councils, be- 
 fore the year 1515, and not comprised in the present index, are 
 nevertheless to be considered as condemned. '^ The creed also, as 
 adopted by every Roman Catholic, requires all " to receive un- 
 doubtedly all things delivered, defined and declared by the sacred 
 canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council 
 of Trent." These decretals, &c. being thus confirmed by the last 
 council, stand to this day, and bind every Roman Catholic on 
 earth. That same last council, thus sealed with its last act the 
 destruction of all liberty of printing, reading, and of thought itself, 
 among all its subjects, viz. "Concerning the index of books, the 
 most holy council in its second session under our most holy lord 
 (1) See Caranza, p 670. 
 
40 
 
 Pius IV. entrusted it to certain select fathers, to consider what 
 was needful to be done in the case of divers censures, and hooks 
 either suspected or pernicious, and then report to the holy council; 
 and having heard now, that their labours are completed, but yet 
 seeing that on account of the variety and number of said books, 
 the holy council cannot minutely, and with convenience, judge in 
 the case; therefore it is decreed, that wbatever may be determined 
 by them, shall be laid before the most holy Pope of Rome, so that 
 it may be completed, and published according to his judgment 
 and authority/' Here then is the decree of the council sanction- 
 ing the acts of the committee and Pope. Accordingly, the 
 ^'committee on the index" proceeded to draw up a list of ^'p)ro- 
 liihited hoohs,'' which makes a large volume ; [here Mr. B. ex- 
 hibited the book, adding, that there was another copy in the 
 Philadelphia Library,] and they prefixed many ''rules" to it, which 
 received in full the sanction of the Pope ; they were published by 
 his authority, and have since been received by the church, and re- 
 peatedly sanctioned by subsequent Popes. The work, therefore, 
 is binding on every Roman Catholic on earth ; to reject it is rebel- 
 lion ; to deni/ its existence reckless falseJiood. To show the op- 
 pressive character of this system, we give some of its rides, (they 
 are ten in number.) The second rule is : ''The books of heresi- 
 archs, whether of those who broached or disseminated their here- 
 sies prior to the year above mentioned, or of those who have been, 
 or are, the heads or leaders of heretics, as Luther, Zuingle, Calvin, 
 Balthasar, Pacimontanus, Swenchfeld, and other similar ones, are 
 altogether forbidden, whatever may be their names, titles or sub- 
 jects." 
 
 The fourth is as follows: "Inasmuch as it is manifest from ex- 
 perience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tonguQ 
 be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerUy of men 
 will cause more evil than good to arise from it; it is, on this point 
 referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, 
 by the advice of the priest or confessor, perynit the reading of the 
 Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to 
 those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be aug- 
 mented and not injured by it; and this permission they must have 
 in writing: but if any one shall have the presumption to read or 
 possess it without such written permission, he shall not receive ab- 
 solution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordi- 
 nary. Booksellers, however, who shall sell, or otherwise dispose of 
 Bibles in the vulgar tongue, to any person not having such per- 
 mission, shall forfeit the value of the books, to be applied by the 
 bishop to some pious use, and be subjected by the bishop to such 
 othci penalties as the bishop shall judge proper according to the 
 quality of the offence. But regulars shall neither read nor pur- 
 chase such Bibles without a special license from their superiors." 
 
 The fifth rule allows books of heretics containing but little of 
 
41 
 
 their own to be used by Catholics, after having been corrected hy 
 their divines. By the sixth rule, " books of controversy^ betwixt 
 the Catholics and heretics of the present time, written in the vulgar 
 tongue, are not to be indiscriminately alloioed, but ore to be sub- 
 ject to the same regulations as Bibles in the vulgar tongue." 
 
 The tenth rule is as follows : *'//i the printing of books or other 
 writings, the rules shall be observed which were ordained in the 
 tenth session of the Council of Lateran, under Leo X. Therefore, 
 if any book is to be printed in the city of Rome, it shall first be 
 examined by the Pope's vicar and the master of the sacred palace, 
 or other persons chosen by our most holy father for that purpose. 
 In other places the examination of any book or manuscript intend- 
 ed to be printed, shall be referred to the bishop, or some skilful 
 person whom he shall nominate, and the inquisitors of heretical 
 pravity of the city or diocese in which the impression is executed^' 
 
 ^' Moreover, in every city and diocese, the house or places where 
 the art of printing is exercised, and also the shops of booksellers, 
 shall be frequently visited by persons deputed for that purpose by 
 the bishop or his vicar, conjointly with the inquisitor of heretical 
 pravity, so that nothing that is ptrohibited, may be printed, kept, 
 or sold." *'If any person shall import foreign books into any 
 city, they shall be obliged to announce them to the deputies." 
 ^^ Heirs and testamentary executors shall make no use of the 
 books of the deceased, nor in any way transfer them to others, 
 until they have presented a catalogue of them to the deputies, 
 and obtained their license, under pain of confiscation of the books." 
 
 ^'Finally, it is enjoined on all the faithful, that no one presume 
 to keep or read any books contrary to these rules, or prohibited 
 by this index. But if any one keep or read any books composed 
 by heretics, or the writings of any authors suspected of heresy or 
 false doctrine, he shall instantly incur the sentence of excommuni- 
 cation, and those who read or keep works interdicted on another 
 account, besides the mortal sin committed, shall be severely pu- 
 nished at the will of the bishops." 
 
 Now if this be not restraint of human liberty, I know not what 
 restraint is. Here the conscience, the intellect, and the means 
 of knowledge — printing, selling, circulating, holding, importing, 
 reading books, are, by the decree of an infallible council, and 
 their authorized rules, trampled in the dust. But, in fine, look 
 once more to the decrees of the Council of Trent on the editions 
 of God's Holy Word itself In the fourth session of that conven- 
 ticle, is this open decree; '^Moreover the same most holy council, 
 considering that no small advantage will accrue to the church of 
 God if, of all the Latin editions of the sacred book which are in 
 circulation, some one shall be distinguished us that which ought 
 to be regarded as authentic, — doth ordain and declare, that the 
 same old and vulgate edition, which has been approved by its use 
 in the church for so many ages, shall be held as authentic, in all 
 
 3 
 
42 
 
 public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions; and that 
 no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any 'pretence what- 
 soever." In order to restrain petulant minds, the Council further 
 decrees, "that in matters of faith and morals, and whatever re- 
 lates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one, confiding 
 in his own judgment, shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to 
 his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held and 
 still is held hy Holy Mother Church, tchose right it is to judge of 
 the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred Word ; or con- 
 trary to the unanimous consent of the fathers; even though such 
 interpretations should never be published. If any disobey, let 
 him be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to 
 law. Being desirous also, as is reasonable, of setting bounds to 
 the printers, who, with unlimited boldness, supposing themselves 
 at liberty to do as they please, print editions of the Holy Scrip- 
 ture with notes and expositions taken indifferently from any 
 writer, without the permission of their ecclesiastical superiors, 
 and that at a concealed or falsely designated press, and, which is 
 worse, without the name of the author, — and also rashly expose 
 books of this nature to sale in other countries; the holy council 
 decrees and ordains, that for the future, the sacred Scriptures, 
 and especially the old vulgate edition, shall be printed in the 
 most correct manner possible; and no one shall be permitted to 
 print, or cause to be printed, any books relating to religion, with- 
 out the name of the author; neither shall any one hereafter sell 
 such books, or even retain them in his possession, unless they 
 have been first examined and approved by the ordinary, under 
 penalty of anathema, and the pecuniary fine adjudged hy the 
 last Council of Lateran." — Here the vulgate, or old Latin ver- 
 sion, known by every scholar to abound in errors, including also 
 the fables and falsehoods of the Apocrypha, and to the contempt 
 of the original languages of the Bible, is Jhrcibly made the exclu- 
 sive standard; printers of all sorts, in all places, are forbidden 
 to print the Bible, with notes — as in the former extract they were 
 forbidden to print it in any way, without permission, under heavy 
 pains and penalties, spiritual and temporal ; and all persons are for- 
 bidden to think for themselves. Putting all these decrees together, 
 there never was perhaps such a system of high-handed oppression. 
 In faithful keeping with these decrees, the index which I hold 
 in my hand, on its thirtieth page, actually forbids the reading of 
 the Bible, and not the Protestant Bible, (as my Rev. friend tried 
 in the late controversy to make appear,) but the very Roman 
 Bible, with all its parts, sanctioned by the church, in every pos- 
 sible translation, is prohibited; as follows: "Biblia Vulgari quo- 
 cunque Idiomate conscripta." That is. The Bible in what- 
 ever IDIOM AVRITTEN, (^is jjrohibited.) Finally, 1 have before 
 me a decision fresh from Rome, viz. the Encyclical (circular) 
 letter of the present reigning Pope, Gregory XVI., addressed to 
 
43 
 
 the faithfvil all over the world, and written at his coronation, 
 dated August 5th, 1832. The following are extracts: 
 
 ^^ Towards this point tends that most vile, detestable, and never 
 to he sujficientlj/ execrated liherti/ of booksellers, namely, of pub- 
 Ushijig writings of whatsoever kind they please; a liberty uhich 
 some persons dare with such violence of language to demand and 
 promote." 
 
 " Far different was the discipline of the church in extirpating 
 the infection of bad books, even in the days of the Apostles; 
 who, we read, publicl?/ burned a vast quantity of books." 
 
 ''Let it suffice to read over the laws passed on that point in 
 the Fifth Council of Lateran, and the constitution which subse- 
 quently was published by our predecessor of happy memory, Leo 
 X. Let not that which was happily invented for the increasing of 
 the faith, and spread of good learning, be converted to a contrary 
 purpose, and bring harm to the salvation of faithful Christians.'' ' 
 
 "This matter also occupied extremely the attention of the 
 fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy to so great an evil, by 
 publishing a most salutary decree, for compiling an index of 
 books, in lohich improper doctrine was contained. Clement XIII., 
 our predecessor of happy memory, in his encyclical letter on the 
 suppression of noxious books, pronounces — "We must contend 
 with energy such as the subject requires, and with all oiir might 
 exterminate the deadly mischief of so many books; for the matter 
 of error will never be effectually removed unless the guilty ele- 
 ments of depravity be consumed in the flames." 
 
 "So that by this continual solicitude, through all ages, with 
 which the Holy Apostolic See has ever striven, to condemn sus- 
 pected and noxious bdbks, and to wrest them forcibly out of men's 
 hands; it is most clear how false, rash, and injurious to the said 
 Apostolic See, and fruitful of enormous evils to the Christian 
 public, is the doctrine of those, ivho not only reject the censor.nhip 
 of books, as too severe and burdensome; but even proceed to that 
 length of wickedness, as to assert, that it is contrary to the p)rin- 
 ciplcs of equal justice; and dare deny to the church, the right of 
 enarting and employing it." 
 
 Now perhaps my Reverend friend may say, these are only 
 opinions of the Pope. Well — but the universal church has 
 seemed for three years to approve them, and of course they 
 become laio. If not, does Mr. Hughes denounce and condemn 
 them? Does he deny their truth, their wisdom, their righteous- 
 ness, or their authority? Besides, will not his reply be also an 
 opinion? Who are we to credit? the Pope or the priest? If they 
 differ, where is infallibility? If they differ, who is to be fol- 
 lowed? If they differ, the Pope is surely the more excathedra, 
 impartial, authorized expounder of the doctrine and discipline of 
 the church; — and especially as he quotes general councils to sus- 
 tain him. / 
 
44 
 
 ''Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its ^yTinciples 
 or doctrines J o2'>posed to civil or religious liherti/f" 
 
 NEGATIVE I.— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President: — The gentleman commences his argument by 
 an attack on the liberty of the press. The article of which he 
 complains, is a true statement of the facts ^ although it is inaccu- 
 rate in a few details of a merely circumstantial character, the cor- 
 rection of which, would, in ray opinion, tend rather to irritate than 
 to soothe his wounded feelings. The Society were witnesses of 
 what occurred, and of course competent to specify the pretended 
 misstatements. If they cannot do this, it is unreasonable to re- 
 quire the reparation that is demanded. For this, neither is it 
 necessary that the gentleman should be made acquainted with the 
 name of* the writer; and the gentleman's demand to have that 
 name given up to him, is a pretty fair sample of what Presbyte- 
 rians understand by civil and religious liberty. 
 
 If it be said that the paper called the Presbyterian, gave the 
 correction of misrepresentation in regard to a previous debate — 
 the answer is, that the cases are entirely dissimilar. There, the 
 falsehoods were specif. cally attested by the Society, — here, they 
 have not been pointed out; because they do not exist. There, 
 they were acknowledged, — here, they are denied. There, the 
 author of the acknowledged /a/s/y^ca^to?! of facts, was not inquired- 
 after ; — here, though the falsification has not been specified, and 
 cannot be proved, still the author is peremptorily demanded, as if 
 the object were to inflict upon him a personal chastisement. Let 
 the gentleman show wherein he has been injured, except by the 
 statement of truth, and I pledge myself that he shall have reparation. 
 
 His next topic is my definition of civil liberty, which has been 
 rejected as willingly by myself as by him. He has stated my 
 motives for having oifered it. They were, of course, such as the 
 eyes of a Presbyterian can always discover in the breast of a 
 Catholic. The public must judge whether their baseness is to be 
 ascribed to their supposed origin, or to the medium through which 
 they are made to pass, in the gentleman's analysis of my tlioughts, 
 which was never revealed to him. There has been nothing in 
 my conduct to justify such insinuations; and I shall dismiss the 
 topic with the single remark, that a mind conscious of its own 
 rectitude, is slow to indulge in the gratuitous imputation of bad 
 motives to others. 
 
45 
 
 Before I proceed to lay down the principles involved in the dis- 
 cussion of the present question, I must briefly advert to some of 
 those assumptions, which the gentlemen has selected yb?- the occa- 
 sion, and would dignify by the appellation of " principles." He 
 has charged on me, as an error sanctioned by Catholic authority— 
 " that the majority shall rule." Of course the true Presbyterian 
 doctrine must be, that the right of ruling belongs to the minority. 
 Now, I maintain, as a general principle of all free and popular 
 government, the very doctrine which this gentleman has here 
 condemned. I hold it to be self-evident ; — and I say that the op- 
 posite doctrine is suited to the meridian of despotism all over the 
 world. It is the majority that rules in this country, from the 
 chief magistrate down to the township constable. In Russia, it 
 is the minority. The gentleman's first principle, so called, is ad- 
 verse to the fundamental principle of our republican government — 
 ^nd furnishes the very text by which kings and tyrants govern. 
 Neither does it follow, as he pretends, that, admitting my princi- 
 ple, the majority would have ''a right to do vv^rong." There is no 
 such RIGHT, in either the majority or the minority. ^'And then" 
 says he, ^' if the day should ever come, lohen Roman Catholics 
 will compose the majority in this country, they may, 01' RIGHT, 
 establish their religion by laic." Why, if the minority are to rule, 
 as the gentleman seems to maintain, there is no reason why the 
 Presbyterians might not do now, what it is pretended the Catholics 
 could do " if ever they should come," &c. &c. In the first place, 
 it is to be observed, that the right of the majority to rule, is cir- 
 cumscribed in a free government by the boundaries of civil juris- 
 diction. It means that the laws passed by the majority for the 
 civil well-being of society, are to be obeyed by the minority, and 
 by all. But it does not mean that the majority have any right to 
 be tyrants, by making a religion, as when the Westminster As- 
 sembly met; or daring to rule for the minority in relation to 
 another world, as well as this. The question of religion does not 
 appertain to state majorities: it is a spiritual concern between 
 man and his God. So that the consequence, which the gentleman 
 pretends to derive from my principle, is the legitimate offspring 
 of his own bad logic. The Catholics are but as one to twenty-six 
 of the population-; and if we suppose with the gentleman, that they 
 should become a majority, and establish their religion by law, they 
 would be still only imitating an example which the Presbyterians 
 have set to all denominations, whenever tlcey had the power. The 
 history of his own sect furnishes the true shades to the false lights 
 of his picture. Does it follow, from my principle, recognising the 
 right of the majority to rule, that because the Presbyterians were 
 the majority in Scotland and New England, they had therefore the 
 right to take away the lives of men who difi'ered from them in re- 
 ligious opinion? No : it only follows that they had the power — 
 and we all know what use they made of it. Now it is singular that 
 the gentleman should have entered, nay, forced himself, on this 
 
46 
 
 discussion, without having taken pains to clear up, in his own mind, 
 the very important distinction between right and power. 
 
 Thus, the action of the majority-principle, is restricted by the 
 sphere of the purely civil and social relations. It has nothing to 
 do with those "natural and imprescriptible rights which lie aback 
 of all conventions. '' These belong to another category, and shall 
 be treated of in their proper place. ThaJ; the gentleman should have 
 confounded them with cfyiYand social rights, is the more surprising, 
 as the constitution has expressly excepted them from the opera- 
 tion of the principle, which that same constitution has sanctioned, 
 for the regulation of social rights ; and this exception the gentle- 
 man has quoted, without seeming to comprehend its meaning. 
 ^^AU men have a NATURAL and indefeasible right to worship 
 Almighti/ God according to the dictates of their own consciences : 
 no man can, OF RIGHT, he compelled to attend, erect, or support, an^ 
 place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent : 
 no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere 
 with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever he given 
 BY LAW to any religious establishment or any modes of worship." 
 
 Here are the rights which the constitution recognises, as inde- 
 feasible and natural — especially beyond the reach of the majority 
 and minority. These, then, have no reference to the civil or fo- 
 litical rights, secured by the national instrument in question, but 
 to religious, spiritual rights, which are to be inviolable. And yet, 
 it was for fV»p nvAvalg^ nf ih\^ Drero^^ative, Unde r the faith of that 
 constitution, tha t the Con vent w as burnca do\v57-at»44liat a Pres- 
 by tt^nnrLJ^fiTOrrt p IS jinw^ronTaimnd thron"HfonF the land' agai n st 
 Catholic citizens. It was by the violation of these principles, that 
 the same Presbyterians, in former days, shed the blood, and seized 
 the property of other denominations of Christians, whenever they 
 were possessed of political power to do so. And since the gentle- 
 man tells us, that these principles " are confirmed and illustrated 
 by the Gospel :" — it follows, on his own showing, that for their 
 knowledge of the gospel, Presbyterians are indebted to the consti- 
 tution, which took from them the power of oppressing men for 
 conscience sake. Now, these are the imprescriptible rights of man. 
 My argument leaves them precisely where the constitution places 
 them : and when the gentleman represents me as advocating their 
 infringement, on the ground that the '^ majority has the right -to 
 govern," he only furnishes another specimen of his vicious rea.son- 
 ing. They are inalienable : and therefore every Catholic, and 
 every Protestant, worships God " according to the dictates of his 
 own conscience," and not that of the priesthood, nor of the pres- 
 bytery. The gentleman reckons among these natural rights, trans- 
 lations, printing, and the unbounded freedom of the press. By 
 this we can discover how much attention he has not paid to the 
 subject. Natural rights are rights derived from nature, common 
 to all men ; and printing is as much a right as steam navigation, 
 or the use of gunpowder. These are all acquired rights — and the 
 
47 
 
 freest government is that wliicli puts the least restraint on their 
 exercise. If printing be a natural right, why did the gentleman 
 complain of its exercise in the New York Diary? He tells us 
 that to circulate the Bible is a ''natural and inalienable right j'^ 
 I answer, that if each one has the right "to worship God accord- 
 ing to the dictates of his own conscience/' it is just as natural a 
 right and as inalienable, not to circulate the Bible. 
 
 From the moment the gentleman read, without seeming to un- 
 derstand, the doctrines of the American Constitution, on both 
 social and natural rights, he becomes, at once, inspired and ora- 
 cular. Hence we find him breaking out in the following rhapsody, 
 which contains about as much solemn nonsense as it is possible 
 to express in so many words. The reader who is acquainted with 
 the history of the Presbyterian Church, and knows how it tram- 
 pled on older rights, in Geneva, Holland, Scotland, and England, 
 graciously betrothing itself to the Laws of the State, ''for better 
 and for worse," will smile at the gravity with which the gentle- 
 man gives in the following catalogue of "usurpations on the natu- 
 ral rights of men." 
 
 "According to this definition, churches established by law, by 
 kings or pontiff's, and maintained by coercion, are an invasion of 
 the natural liberties of men." (This is a good hit at the present 
 churches of England and Scotland, and Denmark and Sweden and 
 Holland. All of them were established as the gentleman describes. 
 But mark his logical conclusion.) "Therefore the Roman hier- 
 archy was an usurpation in the days of Luther, and is so now 
 wherever its power is felt, as in South America, Spain, and the 
 temporal dominions of the Pope." (That is, the Presbyterians 
 claim your property, and therefore you hold it by "usurpation.") 
 "All territorial precincts, such as parishes," (or presbyterial boun- 
 daries by geography^ "dioceses, and the assigning by the autho- 
 rity of law of the inhabitants within them to the jurisdiction of 
 an ecclesiastic, and the exaction of tithes, or other rateable stipends 
 for ecclesiastical uses, upon pretence of ecclesiastical or temporal 
 power, is an invasion of the rights of man; and therefore the 
 government of the Pope in his own dominions, and in the domi- 
 nions of those sovereigns who acknowledge his pretensions, is an 
 usurpation," (that is, Mr. Breckinridge heing Judge,) "and for 
 the same reason, all societies established by ecclesiastical autho- 
 rity, the object of which is to govern the temporal affairs by 
 means of the spiritual," (as the Presbyterian parsons are now 
 doing,) " the Jesuits for example, are irreconcilably repugnant to 
 free institutions." When the gentleman adduced the "Jesuits 
 for example," he falsifies absolutely the object of their institution. 
 For the rest, he wounds as many friends as foes. 
 
 In short, the gentleman might have been more concise, and 
 told us at once, that all jurisdiction both in Church and State 
 is a usurpation on the natural rights of men, save and except that 
 which is exercised by Congress and by the Getieral Assembly/ 
 
48 
 
 of the Presbyterian Church. As this conclusion is founded 
 on false premises which have already been exposed, it would be 
 wasting time if we were to enter on tke exposition of its special 
 absurdities. He proceeds to speak of something which he calls 
 "this article/' ana says that "Roman Catholics cannot concur in 
 it, who, as a matter of conscience, ascribe to the Pope lawful au- 
 thority to invade a portion of their natural liberties; their con- 
 science forbids them to assert their own freedom, or to allow to 
 Protestants the measure of freedom which they claim.'' Without 
 pretending to know what the "article" is to which the gentleman 
 makes such pointed allusion, I shall reply to the reason which he 
 assigns for his opinion. That reason is utterly false. He'calum- 
 niates Catholics when he says they ascribe any such "lawful au- 
 thority" to the Pope, or that their "conscience forbids them" in 
 the matter described. The gentleman thinks the South Ameri- 
 cans are still slaves, because they did not throw off the profession 
 of their religion at the same time when they asserted their politi- 
 cal freedom. The same might be said of the North Americans 
 for not having at the revolution burst the fetters of their ecclesi- 
 astical bondage. The only difference I can see, is, that in the 
 one case, the people, if the gentleman will have it so, chose to be 
 ridden by priests; in the other, they preferred to be ridden by 
 parsons and their families. The people of South America have 
 the lighter burden. The gentleman ascribes the freedom of the 
 United States to Luther. I say that Faust, by inventing print- 
 ing, contributed, under God, much more to it than Luther. 
 "The condition of the vicious, ignorant, superstitious and priest- 
 ridden inhabitants of South America, Spain, and Italy," is a very 
 opprojyriate and consoling phrase on the lips of the Presbyterian 
 parsonhood, when they are pressing on their own followers with 
 a weight of spiritual and temporal domination, whose little finger 
 is heavier than the loins of Catholic bondage in any country 
 under the sun. The tithes in most Catholic countries are but a 
 trifle, compared with the enormous amount of money which is 
 extorted, for one object or another, from the religious portion of 
 American Presbyterians. It is true the parsons do not send the 
 constable to collect it, but they send forth what seems to answer 
 the purpose just as well, a picture of the premonitory symptoms 
 of "election and reprobation." 
 
 Next comes a "sophism," which the gentleman undertakes to 
 expose for the good of posterity. It consists in confounding the 
 term "voluntary" with the term "tree." We must pass 
 over his illustrations. If they have not the merit of being appo- 
 site or profound, they have, at least, that of being diversified and 
 numerous. The whole meaning, however, breaks out in the 
 object for which they were adduced, which is to show "that 
 those who surrender voluntarily/ the natural rights of conscience, 
 the rights of free worship to a spiritual prince or pontiff, do not 
 continue to be free in these respects; nay, they cannot be said to 
 
49 
 
 be free in any respect/' Now it is to be observed, in the first 
 place, that the gentleman's notion of freedom would place the 
 human mind in the position of the animal between two bundles 
 of hay, where the inducements should he as strong on the one 
 side as the other. Any deviation towards either might be " volun- 
 tar?//' but it would not, on that account, he tells us, be ^'/ree." 
 Secondly, according to his distinction all laws, in Pennsylvania 
 and elsewhere, are compj^tible with "volunfari/ submission," but 
 not with "freedom." So that the sons of the commonwealth 
 have the honour of being classed by him, in the principle of their 
 subjection, with the ''most ignoble of all slaves, voluntary slaves/' 
 Thirdly, if the gentleman, in striking out one distinction, had not 
 overlooked another, he would not have confounded the rights of 
 society with those which are natural and personal to every man.» 
 Fourthly, neither would he have talked of '•^surrendering'' rights 
 which cannot be surrendered. The rights of conscience, in their 
 personal relation, are as inalienable as the rights of rnemory: and. 
 it is just as absurd to talk of " surrendering" the one as the other. 
 As to the rights of "free worship," they are of that ord er which V^v5 
 the Prf^^bytprinn^ drniod tf^T^tihnlicr inTtl, iittTinl n4r^n thrjnndr y 
 it DEATH to have i^T U^or liearct mass three times, and denied / 
 to the Episcopalians, when they putlT'sire d thom -by- civil penalties/^ 
 for READING the common prayer-hook, even in private families. 
 These rights may be taken away by the power of bigotry and 
 despotism united; but to talk of their being " surrendered," either 
 "freely" or "voluntarily," is too absurd. Finally, supposing the 
 thing possible, the charge stands as pointedly against those who^ 
 ''surrender" these rights to the spiritual junto, called the Gene- 
 ral Assembly, as if they were resigned to the ''spiritual pontiff"." 
 
 Having thus briefly exposed the absurdity of some of what the 
 gentleman calls first principles, his inferences perish with the 
 mistaken premises on which he thought them established. Before 
 I advert to what he calls "t]isJ^xaiiny of llomanism," it is pro- 
 per to lay down the true principles, by which the merits of the 
 present discussion can alone be tested. The question is, whether 
 the "religions" called the "Roman Catholic" and "Presbyterian" 
 are opposed in any or all of their doctrines or principles to civil 
 and religious liberty. The gentleman and myself have, by a writ- 
 ten agreement, determined and fixed the meaning of the terms 
 employed. If he had adhered to his engagement, and abided by 
 his own definitions, the question would be extremely simple ; but 
 such an instance of good faith was more than my experience 
 should have taught me to expect. 
 
 Accordingly, in the very first speech, we find him quitting the 
 definition which he could understand, and plunging into the mys- 
 ticism of universal ethics, far beyond his 'depth; — confounding 
 all rights, personal and social, human, and divine, m order to ex- 
 tract from the confusion, materials for the unhallowed purpose 
 of Presbyterian zeal, which is, to excite odium against Catho- 
 
50 
 
 lie citizens, under pretence of advocating ^' civil and religious 
 libert3^" 
 
 Let us endeavour to introduce order into the chaos of his specu- 
 lations. Rights arc 'privileges either inherent in our nature, or 
 derived from some extrinsic source. The former class are termed 
 NATURAL, INDEFEASIBLE, imj^rescrijitible and eternal. The lat- 
 ter are classed under various heads; — those which are derived from 
 God by revelation, are termed divine rights; those which result 
 from the social compact, are called civil oy ])olifical rights; when 
 that compact secures us in the privilege of exteRx\ally *' wor- 
 shipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience," 
 it guarantees our religious rights. The immunities of the stand- 
 ing which we hold in the ecclesiastical body to which we belong, 
 are termed our ecclesiastical rights. Let us explain. 
 
 1. Natural Right. If every man were living by himself, 
 having no connexion with his fellow-beings, he would have a natu- 
 ral right to do whatever he chose, except only what God would 
 have forbidden him. He might be a king without subjects, or a 
 slave without a master. He might print treason and preach 
 sedition. And the reason is, that he alone would be aifected by 
 his proceedings. But the moment he enters into society, the natu- 
 ral rights must be restrained. Let the society be composed but 
 of three persons, he has no right to league with the second, in 
 order, by calumniating, to oppress the third. In proportion as 
 the interests of society would become more complex and diversified, 
 in the same proportion the natural rights of each individual should 
 have to yield to the paramount good of the whole. At one period 
 of mankind it was a natural right for a brother to marry a sister 
 — for a man to have several wives at the same time; ^t another 
 period, society has prohibited the exercise of this right, and yet 
 I trust the gentleman will not adopt the conclusions to which his 
 pretended principles lead, and accuse society of being guilty of 
 "tyranny" by invading the natural rights of man. When indi- 
 viduals offend against the rights of society, society robs them of 
 the natural rights — freedo^si, life. Is this tyranny? 
 
 2. Divine Right. This is the authority with which God has 
 in-vested certain men and conditions of life, for some purpose of 
 good. Thus, Moses, after his appointment, had the right to com- 
 mand the people of God. The Jewish priesthood had the right 
 to offer sacrifices. The apostles had the right to establish Chris- 
 tianity, and their legitimate successors have the right to perpetuate 
 it, both by the preaching of the word and the administration of 
 the sacraments. These rights are peculiar to those onli/, to whom 
 God has given them, and in this they differ from natural rights, 
 which are common to all men. Now rights and duties are core- 
 lative : and therefore it was the duty of the people of God to obey 
 Moses, and it is the duti/ of men to hear (and practice) the doc- 
 trines of Christianity from those who have the right to preach 
 them. This right is not derived from nature; neither is it, nor 
 
51 
 
 can it be, derived from civil authority. And consequestly those 
 ■who have not received the divine appointment to exercise it, do 
 not possess it at all. The sphere, and direct object of this righty 
 is spiritual. It is degraded by those who wield it for base, tem- 
 poral purposes. " My kingdom is not of this world." The exer- 
 cise of this right is no usiuyation, except by those who do not re- 
 ceive it ffbm God, and could not receive it from any other source. 
 
 3. Political, or Civil Rights, are ^^that residuum o/ na- 
 tural liberty lohich is not required hy the laws of society to he sac- 
 rificed to public convenience : or else those civil privileges, which so- 
 ciety has engaged to provide in lieu of those natural liberties so given 
 up by individuals. Tliis definition is from a Protestant jurist. It 
 distinguishes properly between those natural rights which the laws 
 of society do not require us to sacrifice, and those conventional rights 
 which result from society itself. Hence the constitution of the 
 United States guarantees the citizen in the enjoyment of i\\Q former 
 as well as the latter division of those rights. It recognises the pri- 
 vilege of every man *'to worship God according to the dictates of 
 his own conscience" as among the natural rights of man. It pledges 
 the faith of the nation to recognise no distinction between the pro- 
 fessors of one creed and those of another; because it understands 
 that religion is a matter between man and God. In this, it differs 
 from many of the civil constitutions in Catholic states ; and from 
 ALL the civil constitutions that were ever drawn up or administered 
 by Calvinists. In short, it secures unbounded "liberty of con- 
 science." Again, it secures in lieu of the natural liberties, which 
 it abridges, all the advantages of social assistance : whicli could 
 not be realized except by the legal imposition of j9crso«a/ restraint. 
 
 The idea of •' compelling'' a man to believe this doctrine, or that, 
 is an absurdity. Hence the privilege of believing, as an act of the 
 mind, bids defiance to all external power. But the right io prac- 
 tice the doctrines that one believes, must be exercised in harmony 
 with the rights of others. Thus, for example, the Presbyterians 
 believe that God has commanded' them to " remove d\\ false wor- 
 ship." Now, they can believe this in despite of the Constitution : 
 they may even preach and publish that God has commanded them 
 to ''remove all false worship;" but the Constitution interposes 
 between the belief n.nd practice of the doctrine, and says, " whether 
 God has commanded it or not, you shall NOT do it.'' And why ? 
 Because what Presbyterians believe to be ^^ false worship," other 
 denominations believe to be ^Urue worship;" and to allow the 
 Presbyterians to practice their belief on this point, would be to al- 
 low them to invade the rights and tyrannize over the consciences 
 of their fellow-citizens, to whom the same measure of religious 
 rights is secured as to themselves. The same rule would apply 
 to Catholics, or Methodists, or Episcopalians. 
 
 Finally : Ecclesiastical Rights are those privileges secured 
 to individuals according to their stations, and resulting from the 
 ecclesiastical constitution, or usages of the religious society to which 
 
52 
 
 lie belongs. Thus, for instance, if the gentleman should be accused 
 of heresy, like some of his brethren, he would have a right to a 
 trial according to the usual forms among Presbyterians. He would 
 be arraigned before his presbytery, and if the majority pronounced 
 him innocent he would be acquitted. He might refuse the trial — 
 tell his peers that he must " worship God according to the dictates 
 of his own conscience, and not that of the presbytery -J' '^ that if 
 he submitted to their authority he would not be 2, free man, but a 
 voluntary slave, and therefore a most base and ignoble slave.'' He 
 might tell them that *' aback of all conventions,'' &c. These are 
 the rules, which in his pretended principles he has laid down for 
 Catholics ; and yet he knows that if he insisted on them, in such 
 circumstances, he would soon feel the weight and the smart of the 
 discipline — Calvinistic. 
 
 Thus, Mr. President, you perceive that there are rights of va- 
 rious and distinct orders. That the application of those rights 
 must be in the order of the subjects to which they are applicable. 
 That to confound them in one common mass, and then apply the 
 principles of one order of rights to the circumstances of (mother 
 order, as the gentleman has attempted to do, would be just as ab- 
 surd (though perhaps not so striking in the minds of this audience) 
 as if he undertook to prove the mysteries of the Christian religion 
 by the axioms of mathematics, or to prove the problems of Euplid 
 by texts of Scripture. 
 
 These principles are so clear, that they cannot be denied consis- 
 tently with sense or reason. They are in the nature of things ; 
 and constitute tbe pulse of civil and religious organization. The 
 individual who would exempt himself from the discharge of either 
 social or ecclesiastical duties, as established in the state by lawful 
 authority, or in the religious body of which he is a member, by an 
 appeal to his pretended natural rights, would justly be regarded 
 as unworthy to participate in the advantages of either. The cul- 
 prit at the bar might, if this were not so, appeal for his 7-ights to 
 the tribunal of the '^ general assembly;" and the individual, de- 
 posed or condemned by that body for heresy, might carry his griev- 
 ance before congress. All, to escape punishment, might reject the 
 jurisdiction of society, and proclaim that there is no power on earth 
 that has a right to rob them of their natural liberties, or make them 
 " less free than God has made them free." Mankind could not 
 exist under the shock of such doctrine. The frame of the social 
 edifice would be broken to pieces by its application. 
 
 Now, the gentleman has himself argued that every man has a 
 ''right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his 
 own conscience, without invading or injuring the rights of others." 
 Therefore if my conscience dictates to me that the worship of the 
 Catholic religion is that which is most pleasing to Almighty God, 
 I have the absolute right to embrace and profess that religion. 
 Having the right to profess that religion, it becomes my duty to com- 
 ply with the terms of its communion yro??i tlic moment when I wish 
 
53 
 
 to he admitted a member. How far this compliance abridges my 
 natural rights is a question which is personal to 3IE, and on which 
 I am not to be dictated to by otliersr_J_t_is a-piiTt of thlTJxtdgment 
 which all acknowledge the right in every man to form for himself. 
 
 The question, then, before this Society is, whether ''that religion 
 in any or all of its principles or doctrines is opposed to civil or 
 religious liberty. '^ By doctrines you are to understand " those 
 tenets of faith and morals which it teaches as having been re- 
 vealed by Almighty God.'* 
 
 The gentleman has taken it for granted that he has proved the 
 affirmative of this proposition ; and when we know with what en- 
 tire satisfaction of mind, men sometimes adopt the falsest conclu- 
 sions, we may find charity to believe him sincere. What he con- 
 ceives to be Catholi'C doctrine may, and no doubt is, opposed to 
 what HE conceives to be civil and religious liberty. But if his 
 ** conceptions" be erroneous; if his information be but partinl and 
 unsound; if his reasoning, even on the materials he has, be de- 
 fective; and, in fine, if he be uiLconscious of all this, then his 
 arriving at a false conclusion can be accounted for without the 
 necessity of impeaching his sincerity. He has selected "Bap- x. 
 tism," "Auricular Confession," and the "Liberty of the Press," /^ 
 as the triple foundation of his argument and inference. Here, 
 then, it is manifest that the gentleman's information is not sound; 
 otherwise, he would have known that Catholics do not teach that 
 God made any revelation whatever on the subject of the "riiESS," 
 and consequently that the ^^llbertij, or the restraint of i\\Q press," 
 forms no "principle or doctrine" of the Catholic religion. Com- 
 mon sense tells us that the press can be employed for the corrup- 
 tion of morals and the destruction of Christianity, and every vir- 
 tuous mind would condemn such an abuse of it. But beyond 
 this the Catholic Religion has no "doctrine" on the subject. 
 
 The decision of the Council of Trent, on the subject of baptism, 
 merely defines, as an article of Catholic doctrine, that persons 
 baptized in infancy, are bound to discharge the duties of a Chris- 
 tian life, the same as if tliey had been baptized in adult age. And 
 that the Church has a right to employ other means to enforce this 
 obligation, besides "exclusion from the eucharist and the other 
 sacraments." I presume that the gentleman does not deny the 
 right of the Church to exclude heresy. He seems to have studied 
 the Catholic religion just as Tom Paine studied the Bible. But 
 let us, to show the nature of his argument, suppose him to carry 
 his doctrine into some Presbyterian pulpit. Let him tell the young 
 persons who were baptized in infancy, that they are free to remove 
 the "indelible brand of slavery," and to become Jews or Mo- 
 hammedans, as they prefer. And suppose a number of them to 
 adopt this doctrine, what would be the course of the Presbyterian 
 Church in relation to the matter? — It would ^^ compel" him and 
 them to renounce the heresy. How? — By suspension from the 
 Lord's Supper. But would this "punishment" be all the means 
 
54 
 
 of coercion within the power of the Church? — No: '^ Excommu- 
 nication" might and would follow, in case of obstinacy. How 
 then, I ask, can he advocate, in this place, a doctrine which he 
 dare not preach in a Presbyterian pulpit? Shall the Catholic 
 Church be restricted in the employment of censures, to suspension 
 from the sacraments, — and the Presbyterian Church indulged 
 with the right of employing the sword of excommunication? By 
 virtue of Church censures, Presbyterians claim the power "to 
 shut" and to "open" the kingdom; and shall it be "liberty" 
 to exercise this power among them, and "slavery," tyranny, to 
 exercise it among Catholics? Let the gentleman consult his own 
 "Confession of Faith." (1) 
 
 But he has told you that in the canon, the "doctrine of force 
 is distinctly taught; — and not moral force, hut physical.'' This 
 assertion I pronounce to be emphatically false. iVnd I give it 
 that designation, not out of any desire to offend, but to throw him 
 on the necessity of furnishing the proof. The Council asserted 
 the right of the Church to employ other means besides "exclusion 
 from the eucharist and other sacraments;" and it does not follow, 
 that those other means must he "physical." 
 
 His whole argument, then, may be stated in a few words ; as 
 follows : — 
 
 "The Council of Trent teaches, that '''■physical force' ^ is to be 
 employed to compel persons baptized in infancy, to lead a Chris- 
 tian life, as soon as they have grown up." 
 
 "Therefore this doctrine of the Church of Rome is directly 
 and avowedly destructive of religious liberty." 
 
 The answer and the refutation are — that his premises are em- 
 phatically FALSE ; — and the conclusion is like the premises, false. 
 
 I am surprised that the gentleman's mind did shrink back, 
 affrighted at the absurdity of its own prejudice. At the period 
 of the Council of Trent, when the standard of apostasy was raised 
 on every side — when the pure light of the Gospel, as the apostates 
 from the ancient faith were pleased to call their notions, was beam- 
 ing in its morning brilliancy — when the echoes of Luther's coarse 
 thunder were still reverberating throughout Europe — when Calvin 
 was bringing up another reformation, and Socinus another still, — 
 then it was, the gentleman tells you, that the Council of Trent 
 decreed that the Church should employ "physical force," io com- 
 pel men to be holy ! If this be a doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
 it has never been taught, and would have remained a secret to 
 eternity, if he had not discovered it in a canon of the Council — 
 where it is not to he found I And he would denounce his Catholic 
 fellow-citizens, because he accuses them falsely, of holding a doc- 
 trine, which they abhor, and which exists only as a phantom in 
 his own brain, if it exists even there ! 
 
 From baptism he goes to confession. Here, again, if the gen- 
 tleman had stated our doctrine as it is, and saved himself the 
 (1) Chapter xxx. p. 129, On Chukch Censurbs. 
 
J^' 
 
 55 
 
 trouble of inventing a creed for us, his apprehensions for the 
 safety of '' civil and religious liberty/' from the dangers of '' con- 
 fession," would have dissolved into thin air. The question is not 
 whether our doctrine on this subject is true; — it is enough that 
 Catholics believe it to be so. It is then an article of our faith, 
 that when Christ, speaking to his apostles, said, '•'- Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven ; 
 and whose sins ye shall retain^ they are retained f' they and their 
 successors, the bishops and priests of the Catholic Chuueh, re- ^ 
 
 ceived power to absolve any truly penitent sinner from his sins. ^'v 
 
 God ITaving thus given them the ministry of reconciliation, and !W>' 
 made them Christ's legates, (2) Christ's ministers, and the dispen- 
 sers of the mysteries of Christ, — and given them promise, that 
 ^^ whatsoever they should loose on earth, woidd he loosed in hea- 
 ven." — (3) It is an article of Catholic faith, that whoever comes 
 to them, making a sincere and humble confession of his sins, with 
 a frm j^urpose of amendment, and a sincere reso^H^io/i of turning 
 from his evil ways, may, and does, through their ministry, receive 
 absolution and release from his sins. It is equally an article of 
 faith, that whoever comes without the due preparation — without re- 
 pentance from the bottom of his heart, and a sincere intention of 
 forsaking his sins, receives no benefit from absolution, but adds sin 
 to sin, by a high contempt of God's mercy, and abuse of the sa- 
 craments. Hence, the sacrament of penance, for the reception of 
 which confession by the penitent is a condition, is the oj^posite of 
 whatever is sin. The bishop or priest to whom the confession is 
 made, is said to act in the capacity of Judge. — 1st. Because he 
 has to judge from the signs of repentance, whether the sins are to 
 be " forgiven" or " retained," i. e. not forgiven. 2dly. Because 
 he judges of the penance which the sinner should undergo in this 
 life, by acts of piety or self-denial. This confession is made to the 
 minister of the sacrament alone, because, although in some in- 
 stances in the early ages of the Church it was made in public, yet 
 the danger of producing more scandal than edification by such pub- 
 lic confession, has been considered as a sufficient reason for making 
 the discipline uniform. The penitent must confess all his sins; for 
 his concf-aling any of them knowingly, would indicate a want of sin- 
 cerity, and render him unworthy of that mercy and forgiveness, 
 which Jesus Christ exercises by the ministry of his priests. The 
 Council of Trent observes, that without knowledge of the sins com- 
 mitted, the priest could not observe equity "in enjoining the pe- 
 nance." " ^quitatem servare in poenis injungendis," — the gen- 
 tleman's ignorance of 'our doctrine, has made him, on the miscon- 
 ception of these words, represent the priest as ^'inflicting equita- 
 ble punishment." And though there may, in his case, be some 
 excuse for a mis-translation, yet we know not how to account for 
 his putting in the English quotation, a phrase which has no ori- 
 ginal in the Latin of the Council; as in the quotation from the 14th 
 (2) 2 Cor. T. 18, 19. (3) Matt, xviii. 18. 
 
56 
 
 session, the words ^'as a part of the sacrament of penance." The 
 gentleman may, if he choose, take his learning at second-hand, but 
 he himself must be accountable for the errors which it contains. 
 
 In the doctrine here stated, my opponent thinks he discovers 
 "usurpation on the prerogatives of God," ''blasphemy," "forcing 
 the subject," &c. If God has appointed the sacrament of penance 
 as the means of reconciliation ; if he has imparted to the ministers 
 of his church the power of absolving penitent sinners ; if confession 
 be a condition for the exercise of that power, as Catholics believe; 
 then, according to his reasoning it is "blasphemy," "usurpation," 
 tyranny, slavery, and what not, to do what God has commanded ! — 
 to comply with the conditions on which forgiveness and pardon de- 
 pend ! The children of fore-ordination and fatality may, as "Ameri- 
 can freemen," hold God obliged to pardon their sins, in the way 
 most agreeable to themselves. Catholics are happy to receive that 
 pardon in the way that God himself has appointed, although the 
 means may be humiliating to the pride of the corrupt heart. 
 
 If, then, as the Catholics believe, and are able to prove, Christ 
 appointed the sacrament of penance as the nieans of reconciliation 
 between the repentant sinner and God, it is the duty of the " wife," 
 the " sister," the " daughter," to have recourse to it as often as their 
 rT?anscience reproaches them with having violated the divine law. It 
 ^ is their right to do so — their inalienable right, and none but a tyrant 
 would interpose to prevent them. Yet this is what the gentleman's 
 
 i argument goes to authorize, ybm??^/ their conscience. If this be a 
 doctrine of revelation, as Catholics believe, then it is as compatible 
 with freedom as any other doctrine of revelation. The gentleman 
 is utterly mistaken when he says that priests know all the "secrets 
 of all the villians connected loith their church." These persons, for 
 the reason that they are villains, never go to confession. They 
 unite Catholic theory with Presbyterian practice, and their restoring 
 ill-gotten property to Protestants, is a sign of their conversion — that 
 they have been at confession and mean to be " villains' no longer. 
 As for the " state of every priests' mind," in consequence of their 
 having to listen to the confessions of the penitent, the gentleman 
 need not be at all uneasy. There have been, and there still may 
 be bad priests. But as a class, they will not shrink from a com- 
 parison with the Presbyterian clergy, for purity, zeal, learning, 
 charity, and disinterestedness. And in confirmation of this remark, 
 it is sufficient to observe, that the corrupt ViW^ fallen priest, who is 
 cast forth from the sanctuary he has profaned, is nevertheless hailed 
 as a trophy, if he can descend to turn Presbyterian. 
 
 The argument, then, on this subject may be stated as follows : 
 le doctrine of penance is a system of ^usurpation,' ^e^pionage^ 
 hla^jhemy,^ " and " ''tyranny.' " 
 " Therefore, it is opposed to civil and religious liberty." 
 Answer and refutation. The doctrine of penance is a revelation 
 of Christ. In administering or receiving that sacrament Catholics 
 are " worshipping God according to the dictates of their conscience" 
 
57 
 
 — doing what Christ commanded. And since in doing what Christ 
 has commanded there is neither ^^usm-pation," nor ^^ espionage," 
 nor ^^hlaiiphemi/,^^ nor ^^fyranny,^' therefore, in the doctrine of 
 penance there is ?io/7i.ry?^ opposed to either civil or religious liberty. 
 The gentleman would not have hazarded such an argument, had he 
 not been ignorant of our doctrine; his conclusion is not sustained 
 by arguments drawn from Catholic theology, but must have rested, 
 in his mind, o n those absurd Pres byterian .preiudices which he im- 
 bibed in the nursery, and from who^e thr aldo m his subsequent 
 education was not cnhrutated to emancipate him. 
 
 It is true, thjit'ttrenJocfrinGror penance may be abused, but in 
 this, it is like every best gift of heaven to men. But the stern 
 discipline of the church degrades for life the fiiithless minister, 
 who would sacrilegously pervert it to any other end, save that for 
 which it was instituted. 
 
 The third argument on which the gentleman would make it ap- 
 pear that the doctrines of the Catholic church are opposed to '* civil 
 and religious liberty,'^ is the freedom of the press. Now the free- 
 dom of the press is as much a doctrine of the church as Symmes* 
 Theory of the Poles. Hence, the objection on this ground has no 
 force. There is not in the whole creed, a doctrine which forbids 
 me, as a Catholic priest, to advocate the most unbounded freedom 
 of the press. 
 
 If the gentleman knew a little more of the history of printing, as 
 an art, it would not be necessary to inform him, that the popes, 
 and cardinals, and bishops, were its patrons, and the first use to 
 which it was applied was the publication of the Scriptures. If he 
 will consult the writings on bibliography, of Le Long, or of Cle- 
 ment, a Protestant, he will discover that there had been published 
 in the Italian lamjuage alone, forty different editions of the Scrip- 
 tures, before the first Protestant version of Geneva, which was in 
 1562. There had been ten editions of the Italian Bible of Mal- 
 hermi, printed between the years 1471 and 1484. These facts 
 ought to shame the ignorancc,Vind.%\\(i\\Q,e\.\\Qhereditari/ slanders, 
 of those who, like the gentleman, pretend that printing, and the pub- 
 lication of the Holy Scriptures are against the doctrine of the church. 
 One single Italian city, within thirty years after the invention of the 
 pre<s, and before Protestantism tvas horn, publishes the Bible in the 
 Italian language, at the rate of an edition every year, of eight out 
 of ten years, and yet it is said that this was against the doctrine 
 of the Catholic church, and credulity swallows the falsehood ! 
 
 The'object of all the regulations made in regard to the printing, 
 publishing, and reading of books, was to preserve the faith of Christ 
 from the admixture of errors, introduced at the apostasy of the 16th 
 century. It was to check the licentiousness, not to destroy the 
 liberty of printing, publishing, and reading. The church, as the 
 depository of the true doctrines, has a right to condemn and exclude, 
 by the exercise of spiritual authority, all heretical and impious 
 
 4 
 
58 
 
 books, those of Calvin as well as those of Voltaire. Wherever this 
 right has been maintained bj temporal penalties, the penalties are 
 for the violation of the laws of the state. The rules of the Index 
 from which the gentleman has multiplied quotations, never took 
 effect, except where the civil power had adopted them. There were 
 many Catholic nations in which they were nevej published or heard 
 of, — a sufficient proof that they constitute no portion of Catholic 
 doctrine. 
 
 The gentleman says that, in page 30, the Index " actually for- 
 bids the reading of the Bible, and not the Protestant Bible, (as 
 my reverend friend tried in the late controversy to make appear,) 
 but the very Roman Bible with all its parts, sanctioned by the 
 church, in every possible translation is prohibited, as follows : 
 Biblia vulgari quocunque idiomate conscripta," that is, ''The Bi- 
 ble IN WHATEVER IDIOM WRITTEN, (is prohibited.)" I have not 
 seen his copy of this Index, but I have no hesitation to pronounce 
 the statement here made to he false, and unwarranted by the ori- 
 ginal. I challenge the proof. He must furnish it, or stand ac- 
 countable to public opinion for having falsified the text, and 2idi- 
 diMGQdi forged documents to prop his cause. 
 
 Finally, he adduces the Encyclical letter of the present Pope. 
 Well, what does he find in it, except a praiseworthy solicitude to 
 preserve the truth of God pure, in hooks of doctrine as well as preach- 
 ing ; complaints that the world is inundated with had hooks, to the 
 corruption of faith and morals, and the destruction of souls. The 
 Pope asserts that those wh.o..j:e,cognise the spiritual authority of the 
 church, are vTicked^injdenyino: her right to exercise censorship 
 over books. He denounces the conduct of those men who labour 
 to seduce the faithful into the mazes of error and doubt, by circu- 
 lating among them mutilated and spurious copies of the Scripture, 
 and telling them to reject the church of Christ, and to become their 
 0wn guides. He warns the flock over which Christ has placed him, 
 against those who come among them in sheep's clothing, or when 
 they cannot do this, send their errors of doctrine most innocently 
 bound up in calf-skin. He has a right to do all this — he is bound 
 to do it, as he will have to appear before Grod, to answer for the 
 discharge of his duty. 
 
 But it does not follow that he has any right, or temporal autho- 
 rity, to punish by civil disabilities, those who are not subject to the 
 civil laws of his own state, for the violation of those principles. 
 He does^ot pretend to have any. And hence the gentleman may 
 discover that the "Pope and the Priest'' do not "differ." That 
 both recognise the right to denounce counterfeit copies of the Scrip- 
 ture, the writings of Calvin, those of Voltaire, Thomas Paine, and 
 all works contrary to pure morals and sound doctrine. Neither 
 does it follow that they are enemies of the " liberty of the press/' 
 unless by liberty, the gentleman means licentiousness. 
 
59 
 
 ''Js the Roman Catliolic Relif/ion, in any or in all its principles 
 or doctrines, opposed to ciiTil or religious Vibertyf^ 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE IL— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 The gentleman began his reply by charging me with attacking 
 tlie liberty of the press , because, forsooth, I demanded the name of 
 a scurrilous writer, who has anonymously assailed me in the "Ca- 
 tholic Diary," and who refers to the Rev. gentleman as the per- 
 son from whom he got apart of his information. Of course Mr. 
 Hughes knows who he is, and whether he did not get the whole 
 from the same quarter. Now, if calling for the name of a libeller 
 be an invasion of the liberty of the press, (as the gentleman says 
 it is,) can any one believe him in earnest when he attempts to ex- 
 cuse and even defend the present reigning Pope, for his open 
 attacks on the frecdoin of the press, read by me when I last ad- 
 dressed this audience ? 
 
 The object in calling for the name was not '^personal chastise- 
 ment," as the gentleman intimates; but such associations of mind 
 are, I allow, very natural to his system ; and especially from the 
 nearness of the author to the gentleman, I can excuse him for de- 
 siring to shelter him. But I repeat the charges already uttered, 
 and pledge myself to make them out to the full, whenever the 
 name of the author is announced. In the mean time, and espe- 
 cially since the gentleman has become the advocate of the writer, 
 I here publicly lay the article on the table, and hold the gentle- 
 man responsible for its contents. 
 
 The distinction which the gentleman has striven to make between 
 this piece and that which appeared in the Presbyterian, is not a 
 little remarkable, especially when we remember that he opposed the 
 society's acting on it this evening, as out of place, — and now makes 
 their not acting on it a ground of fault ! Is this consistent, or can- 
 did ? But in due time they loill act on it, as we are assured, and 
 give to the author good reason to continue in a darkness which 
 wisely shuns exposure. I dismiss this subject, with the remark, 
 that i\\Q fahome compliments -paid to iMr. Hughes in that piece, is 
 another reason why the name is withheld ; and really, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, they are in such strong contrast with the history of the evening, 
 which was so mortifying to his friends, that I should have mistaken 
 the praises for irony, but for other parts of the production. 
 
 And here allow me, thus early in the debate, to say, that nothing 
 but the love of liberty as an American, and of truth as a Protestant 
 
60 
 
 Christian, could induce me to subject my feelinp^s to the coarse and 
 ill-bred impertinence of a priesthood Avhose temper and treatment 
 toward other men alternate between servilit}'^ to their spiritual so- 
 vereigns and oppression of their unhappy subjects. I can and will 
 bear, for the sake of the (jreat cause, whatever may be made neces- 
 sary — though, thank God, I am not forced to do it either as a minion 
 of tjie P ope, or the subject, of nn arrog ^iTUnml \u]gSir_Jcs7iitum. 
 The ffrst thingi notice is, the gentleman' s qiiTFble on my state- 
 ment of the rights of minorities. On the first evening of our meet- 
 ing, (which, happily for him, was not a part of the series of regular 
 debates,) he had said that a man did not drop down from theclomh, 
 — hut grew vp under an existing state of societf/ : and finding a 
 certain governmeiit established by the majority of the 2)cople, who 
 had a right to rule, that he had no right to interfere icith the order 
 of society already established. Now my principle, as stated this 
 cveniDg, is, that the majority have no right to rule in violation of 
 certain rights of the minority. He pertly replies, " of course the 
 Presbyterian doctrine must be, that the right of ruling l)e]ongs to 
 the minority." I answer, no. That is as in-ong as the other — that 
 is aristocracy, that is despotism. — Both are wrong. There are cer- 
 tain rights aback of all minorities and majorities, which are not law- 
 fully in i\iQ power of man, such as the rights of conscience. For 
 example : the Pope of Rome has established by laio the Jtoman 
 Catholic religion, and no subject is allowed to exercise any other 
 icorship. Allowing that a majority of the people wish it to be so, 
 I contend, that, in this case, the majority have no right to enforce 
 such a regidation. — The minority (and we have good evidence, 
 from year to year, that even in Home there exists a minority) have a 
 right to worship God as Protestants, if they so please. But it will be 
 replied, this cannot be done without violating the laws of the land. 
 The gentleman has said, *' Tlie individual tcho woidd exempt him- 
 self from, the discharge (f either socidl or ecclesiastical diities, AS 
 ESTABLISHED IN THE STATE BY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, or in the re- 
 llgiouiii body of which he is a member, by an appeal to hispjretended 
 natural rights, would justly be regarded as unworthy to partici- 
 pate in the advantages of either." This is truly a candid admis- 
 sion. Then, " by lawful authority^ civil and ecclesiastical duties 
 may be established in a state !" Yes, and so it is established at 
 Rome at this day, that every child born there, and every .vubject, 
 must be a Catholic! Now I say, this law, if passed by a maj</rity, 
 (which, however, is only a majority of Austrian bayonets,) makes 
 the majority voluntary slaves, and oppresses the minority. The 
 minority have no right to enj'orce, but to eujoy their religion ; so 
 with majorities. If this be not so, we ask the gentleman, does he 
 approve or condemn the Pope's enforcing his religion at Rome? Is 
 it consistent with freedom of conscience '/ Is not the temporal power 
 by which he enforces it an usurped and tyrannic exercise of power ? 
 If he were in this land, and a constitutional majority of the states 
 
61 
 
 were to alter the constitution, so as to make the Pope temporal and 
 spiritual head of tlie nation for life, and his successor eligihle for 
 life bj a few Cardinals, would it not be an evasion of our rights? 
 Of the rights of the minority ? And would not the majority be 
 voluntary slaves ? But this is the way the Pope rules ; ana this 
 is the way he is elected. We beg, then, a candid, direct answer 
 to these questions. If they be evaded, we shall readily know why 
 it is; and you, gentlemen, will please to remark it well. 
 
 Now my principle is this : there are certain rights which no ma- 
 jority or minority can give or take away, or interfere with, except 
 to prevent men, in their exercise, from invading the rights of other 
 men. Of these, as most important, I selected, as a specimen of 
 the rest, the right of icorship, which God confers on every man 
 as a natural, indefeasible right. This right is sometimes called a 
 religious right; but our admirable constitution justly regards it as 
 a civil right: that is, though it refers to religion, it is a right be- 
 longing to man in civil society. The constitution does not confer, 
 and no constitution can take away this right. It does not except 
 it; but on the contrary adopts it, declares it, and secures it, as a ci- 
 vil right to all American citizens in the following noble language : — 
 
 ^^All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Al- 
 mighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences. 
 No man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any 
 place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his con- 
 sent; no human authority can in any case whatever control or in- 
 terfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever 
 be given by law, to any religious establishment or any rriodes of 
 worship." But at Rome, in Spain, and in every Roman Catholic 
 country upon earth, this is denied; and even in the Spanish Ame- 
 rican States, the rights of conscience are trampled in the dust. The 
 gentleman himself also on the first evening took the same ground 
 in substance, when he vested all rights, civil and religious, in the 
 majority. Frightened by the consequences of his own principles, 
 he has half receded and half retains this ground, in the last speech. 
 It is indeed a curious offspring of a Roman conscience, trying to 
 speak American principles. He denies, for example, that the ma- 
 jority-principle, as he calls it, has any thing ^Uo do with those na- 
 tural and imprescriptible rights which lie aback of all conven- 
 tions." But if the right of worship be secured to us by the con- 
 stitution as a civil right, then the majority principle has much to 
 do with it. It has to protect it. It would at Rome put down the 
 tyrant called the Pope. It would in South America put down 
 Popery as the established religion. It would not erect another ui 
 its stead. It would protect it, while it did not burn heretics. It 
 would close the inquisition. It would say to Jew, Protestant, Pa- 
 pist, we protect you all, while you mind, your own business. In 
 England, and Scotland, and Ireland, it would break down the 
 Episcopal and Presbyterian establishments; and expelling the 
 
62 
 
 word toleration from the earth, would put in its place protection 
 to all, — equal rights to all. So far, therefore, the majority-p/-?'ri- 
 ciple ^'does belong to this category," and so far do these rights 
 which "lie aback of all conventions/' enter directly into the ques- 
 tion of civil liberty. 
 
 But again : the gentleman says that ''the righto/ the majority 
 to rule, is circumscribed in a free government by the boundaries 
 of civil jurisdiction. True : but in a government not free, how 
 is it ? What is the gentleman's view of the rights of a people 
 having a sovereign like the Pope? What is the governing power 
 there? And what are the rights of the minority? Have they 
 any on the gentleman's principle hut submission ? And he seems 
 quite to forget his usual discretion in avoiding the disclosure of 
 his true principles, when he says, — ''In short, the gentleman 
 might have been more concise, and told us at once, that all ju- 
 risdiction, both in church and state, is a usurpation on the natural 
 rights of man, save and except that which is exercised by Con- 
 gress, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.'' 
 It is surely no small throw at our American principles to speak 
 just so of the national congress ! Yet let the gentleman tell us 
 where entire freedom, civil or religious, is enjoyed, " save and ex- 
 cept^' in that land which receives its laws from " Congress.^' 
 
 The gentleman seems strangely at a loss to understand the mean- 
 ing of " voluntary slave ;^^ and infers from my principle, that all 
 subjection to law (e. g. to the laws of Pennsylvania) is voluntary 
 slavery. Not so. But this is the principle : — ^Jhe papacy, by 
 restrainin g libert y of conscience, is a system of oppression. iA? 
 doctrines. aixeZJ^Tx^d'inrrttiTn-^'^^ fbr example,) on every sub- 
 
 ject; and they who reject them are punished civilly, and tempo- 
 rally, and 0BcejS3LQ-jmnxiaUy-^--^kf¥-^Qmsj^wa»-d€€U by the law. 
 Now all good Catholics choose to submit. As the church excludes 
 from salvation all who reject her doctrines, so her true followers 
 abandon their rights of conscience, rather than expose themselves 
 to her wrath, and damnation. This is vohmtary slavery. This 
 too will- explain "the article" (wnicli" the "genTtt'man cannot dis- 
 cover, though it stares the world in the face) in the American con- 
 stitution, in which Protestants and Roman Catholics cannot concur. 
 The article is "that no hiiman authority can in any case whatever 
 control or interfere with the rights of conscience.^' This isan 
 American, Protestant, Bible principle. Now eorfscientious papists 
 do not, and cannot believe this ; for they ascribe to the Pope the 
 right and the poiver to dictate their creed, and to enforce obedi- 
 ence to it', and they are voluntary slaves by giving up their rights 
 of conscience ; and in all Catholic countries, they concur by civil 
 and if necessary by military force, to compel submission in others. 
 Hence no good Catholic can be a consistent American. 
 
 Now whereas the gentleman thinks, on my view, the human 
 mind were like the ass — between two bundles of hay — I must 
 
63 
 
 own that between the gentleman and his incognito friend, (at whom 
 we now and then get a glimpse,) the poor American constitution 
 is like a bundle of hay between two such animals. And then as 
 to all that he has said in abuse of Presbyterians in this and other 
 lands and ages, though but about one hundredth part of it is 
 true, we have never hesitated to own that our fathers very imper- 
 fectly understood the rights of conscience. Our principles strike 
 at the root of all establishments, everywhere, Protestant as well 
 as Papal. Our fathers learned to persecute from the Church of 
 Rome ; but happilij we are not professedly infalUhle, and there- 
 fore not unchangeable. PnjiPr y^ nn liAr nwn prinf^iplpH, faillV^ ^ 
 
 chamje; but is the same persecuting power now, and everywhere 
 s'hecan be, that she ever was. The question (whose terms how- 
 ever i\\Q gentleman very little respects) limits his investigation 
 "to the Presbyterian Church in the United States, in connexion 
 with the General Assembly J' This church has never persecuted — 
 no, never ; and so little candour is there in stating her principles, 
 tliat in quoting from her standards on\y four words i\\Q gentleman 
 has transposed even a part of them; has put a false phrase in, 
 and left the ^rweone out; as he once extracted a, j^^^'ccgraph from 
 another confession and published it as ours. When we pass how- 
 ever to that form of the question which concerns the Presbyterian 
 Church, it will be time enough to begin her defence. In the mean 
 time, why does he leave his own unhappy communion so unshel- 
 tered; and while weaving subtle distinctions to entangle the un- 
 wary, pass untouched all the difficulties of his system ? And 
 even allowing, for the sake of argument, that Presbyterians do 
 persecute, does that prove that Catholics do not ? 
 
 It is needless to pursue the gentleman through his learned and 
 pointless definition of "rights natural,'' " rights political/' "rights 
 divine," " rights ecclesiastical." 
 
 We may take an example of his confusion of ideas, and see 
 even through his effort to conceal his principles, their anti- 
 American, and (as we hold) anti-Christian character. Speaking of 
 "divine right," (a favourite term \v\i\i kings and Romish priests,) 
 he says, " this is the authority with which God has invested cer- 
 tain men, and conditions of life, for some purpose of good." He 
 then refers to Moses, to the apostles, and their putative succes- 
 sors, viz.: the priesthood of Rome. " These rights are peculiar 
 to those only to whom God has given them" — " now rights and 
 duties are correlative"— of course we are all bound to obey the 
 priesthood of Rome. But the American constitution allows 
 diversity of religions ; and the gentleman has said " the individual 
 who would exempt himself from the discharge of either social or 
 ecclesiastical duties as established in the state by LAWFUL 
 AUTHORITY, or in the religious body of which he is a member, by 
 an appeal to his pretended natural rights, would justly be re- 
 garded as unworthy to participate in the advantages of either." 
 
64 
 
 These things united give a stronger squinting at the rights of 
 Romanum than might have been expected from so wary a dis- 
 putant in North America. This is the (jcrm of the canon law — 
 thiit vilest, shrewdest of all human tricks, — to mingle things 
 temporal with things spiritual; to enthrone kings on the necks 
 of the people, by divine right; and, by still diviner rights, the 
 jfriesthood on the necks of the kings. He says divine rights 
 *' are not natural." Nor, says he, "can they he derived from 
 civil authority." What are they? Our constitution makes 
 rights of conscience a part of the civil rights of every man, and 
 guards Jew, and Christian, and Gentile, and Mohammedan 
 equally, in their proper exercise. But it owns no peculiar 
 divine rights claimed exclusively by the Pope, and "/o which 
 duties are correlative." We reject the canon law. Whatever 
 God in his blessed revelation has made known to man, enters 
 under the broad banner of the rights of conscience; and it is no 
 contradiction of natural right, or departure from it, to receive it, 
 and exercise it as divided between a ministry of p^rs?/asi"o«, and 
 a laity voluntarily associated to be instructed and directed in cer- 
 tain duties, without the surrender of any original right. , But 
 how diflferent from papal domination, and papal doctrine about 
 the Pope, and priesthood, and confession, and the rule of 
 faith, &c. &c. &c. 
 
 But we will meet the gentleilaan's wish for a more specific 
 examination of civil liberty. The definition adopted by us is 
 this, viz.: 
 
 ^' The absolute rights of an individual restrained only for the 
 preservation of order in society." 
 
 ^^ Absolute" — not in respect to the Creator. As it respects 
 him, all human rights are precarious and dependant. He may 
 take away life, liberty, and happiness. " In him we live, and 
 move, and have our being," is the language of a heathen, but 
 adopted and commended by an inspired apostle. In respect, 
 therefore, to God, the absolute rights of an individual can mean 
 no more than his natural rights. But these may be called abso- 
 lute in respect of the laws of men. They are absolute in essence 
 so far as they are indefeasible. And they are absolute in fact so 
 far as they are not divested by the just powers of government. 
 
 '' Restrained." The Declaration of the American Independence 
 will show us in what sense restraint is lawful. 
 
 The second paragraph of that instrument reads thus: — We 
 hold these truths to be self-evident — that all men are created 
 equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
 inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the 
 pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments 
 are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the 
 consent of the governed." 
 
 From this it appears, that the end of government is to secure 
 
65 
 
 to individuals tlie enjoyment of their inalienable rights, and that 
 the foundation of all just government rests upon the consent of 
 the governed; and, therefore, if our definition is just, the restraint 
 intended must be self- Imposed j or such as rests upon consent 
 freely given. . 
 
 ^' Order in society.''^ This phrase cannot be intended to apply 
 to the actual forms of government, if the preceding remarks are 
 just; for if we should so understand it, civil liberty would be a 
 variable quantity, ranging between the. extremes of a pure demo- 
 cracy and an absolute despotism. In the United States it would 
 be one thing — in England another — in France another; in Aus- 
 tria another — in Russia another — in Italy another — alia Rom de — 
 alia Athenis: yet this is the very ground that the gentleman has 
 already taken. It would be any thing or nothing. Civil liberty, 
 therefore, is not the residuum of freedom, after making such de- 
 ductions or subtractions from the absolute or natural rights of 
 man as are necessary to preserve the ^)a?-^/ci</t/r order established 
 in the country where he happens to be, or to be born ; but it is 
 the residuum of freedom, after making such deductions only from 
 his natural rights, as the social condition, in its best form, re- 
 quires. These deductions are few, and consequently the re- 
 siduum is large — such at least were the views of the signers of 
 the Declaration of Independence; such cannot be the gentleman's. 
 They declared that the object of the institution of government is 
 to preserve the inalienable rights of individuals, comprising in 
 this class life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But we are 
 not left to inferences — they declared in express terms, that when 
 any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is 
 the right of the people to alter and abolish it. If this sentiment 
 be just, it puts an end to the doctrine of legitimacy and the divine 
 right of kings; and it shows that civil liberty is much more than 
 that miserable pittance of freedom, which the established order 
 of society throughout the whole, or almost the whole, of Eu- 
 rope allows. It proves the right of expatriation, notwithstand- 
 ing the claims and pretended rights of monarchs to the persons 
 of their subjects; it proves the right of revolution — the instru- 
 ment itself is professedly a revolutionary paper, and justifies that 
 as a right, ichich legitimacy denominates rebellion and treason j 
 and we should like to know whether the gentleman thinks our re- 
 volution was rebellion, our resistance, treason? The instrument 
 asserts that the people are the source of all just government — 
 that the rightful continuance of it in any form depends upon 
 their will — that they have the right " to alter or abolish it, and 
 institute a new government, laying its foundation on such princi- 
 ples, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall 
 seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." It is evi- 
 dent therefore that by order in society, cannot bo intended the 
 established order, unless civil liberty may consist with acts of dea- 
 
66 
 
 potism ; for such acts are consistent with the order of society in 
 despotic states ; and they may be necessary to maintain the esta- 
 blished order of society in such states. The tenants of the Bastile 
 and of the Inquisition may have suffered according to law — the 
 law of the state to which it was their misfortune to belong. Indul- 
 gence to the full measure of the rights of man, only duly restrained, 
 might often result in a dethronement and a revolution. The laws 
 of England would have condemned Washington and Hancock and 
 their associates to the gaUows, and the Prince of Orange would 
 doubtless have suffered a similar fate from the hands of Philip 11. 
 
 And if such a fatality had befallen the cause of libert}^, it would 
 have contributed no doubt to preserve the estahlishcd order of 
 society. But the right to punish such men for disturbing the esta- 
 blished order of society, is no better or greater than the right of the 
 robber to murder or imprison his victims for the preservation of 
 his plunder. No : in arbitrary governments (by which I mean all 
 governments not founded and dependant for their continuance on 
 the consent of the governed) the original wrong is the usurpation, 
 and that cannot be rightfully defended. Despots, like Zaccheus 
 the publican, ought to make restitution of their extortions. If they 
 refuse to do it, their suffering subjects have a right to compel it. 
 If they attempt it without success, the event proves nothing as to 
 the right, but only the comparative ybrce; it only shows that fetters 
 may be forged which are too strong for the victim. These are the 
 principles of the American governments. They are too repugnant 
 to the ideas of order in society, as defined by legitimacy, to be po- 
 pular at St. Petersburg, Vienna, Madrid, and Rome. They indi- 
 cate also a reason for the preference entertained by the Holy Al- 
 liance for Louis XVIII. over Napoleon ; although, in truth, the 
 claims of Napoleon were at least as well founded as those of the 
 head of the Bourbon race. They also show a reason for the con- 
 cern which the advocates of legitimacy manifest for the diffusion 
 of European notions of order in society; and their deadly opposi- 
 tion at Ptome, at Vienna, at St. Petersburg and Madrid to the dif- 
 fusion of American principles. 
 
 Now if the gentleman will apply these principles to that strange 
 mixture of vulgarisms, affected American principles, and Popish 
 enmity to human freedom, which, in verbose confusion, undulate 
 through his reply, he will find it possibly no easy matter to escape 
 from their application. 
 
 But it is time for us to pass to a brief review of the gentleman's 
 reply to my specifications against " the principles or doctrines" of 
 Romanism. 
 
 I. As TO Baptism — beginning, as it does, with the beginning of 
 life — I asserted and brought proof that the doctrine of Popery ou 
 this point was destructive of liberty. The gentleman denies it. 
 The passage to which I especially referred, was the fourteenth ca- 
 non of the Council of Trent on this sacrament. As the gentle- 
 
man has not answered the argument already presented, we need not 
 dwell here. The word in the origiual is cogendos. Now we assert, 
 that the plain, obvious, and conuuon meaning of this word, is the 
 applicalLon of force ; not implying choi(3e, or leaving an alterna- 
 tive. Ainsworth gives for the meaning of the word ^^to he forced j' 
 and in the common use of the term among classical authors, this 
 is the idea where it is applied to this or kindred subjects : e. g. Ci- 
 cero, cogendua est armU — ''Ho be forced hy arms." And then the 
 connection of this word as used by the council. It anathematizes 
 those who say ^Hhat when these baptized children grow up they 
 are to be asked ivhether they will confirm the promises, &c. &c.; 
 '^ and that if they say they will not, are to be left to their own 
 choice" &G. Here the freedom of will is forced — it is slavery down- 
 right. Now the Presbyterian Church does not at all proceed as the 
 gentleman supposes, with baptized children. It is wholly a false 
 and gratuitous statement. But when we do discipline adult mem- 
 bers, they are visited only with spiritual punishments, such as sus- 
 pension, excommunication. There we stop. Not so in the Catho- 
 lic Church. Where they can and dare, as at Rome, " they are not 
 left to their own choice," — no, but ''are to be compelled to lead 
 a Christian life by other punishment thari exclusion from, the 
 sacraments 1" This is very plain to a candid mind. And why 
 is the gentleman so cautiously silent about the practice of the 
 church ; go to those who have left this church ! go to the history 
 of this system, and this, better than a criticism on words, by the 
 comment of fticts, will confirm my construction, and seal my proof. 
 II. On the head of auricular confession, the gentlema'n is so 
 feeble, though so verbose, that I think really he has shown what he 
 cannot do, and left little need of reply. The question now is not 
 on the truth of the doctrine, but its tyranny. He adduces Christ's 
 commission to his apostles, and assuming that Romish priests are 
 their successors, and owning that auricular confession was the in- 
 vention of his church, yet infers the propriety oi it, from \kiQ failure 
 of proving it. Now who made any man, and above all a Roman 
 priest, ''judge" of sins, and lord of conscience ! Is it not anti- 
 Christian tyranny to say as the catechism of this council does, 
 ^^ that the jjriests hold the j)lace, and POWER, and AUTHORITY OP 
 God on earth?" Is it not blasphemy, and unbounded oppres- 
 sion? Is it not saying, through me you pass to heaven, or without 
 me to hell? In vain does the gentleman quibble and explain. 
 ^^ Judges" and of men's sins and consciences, and in Christ's stead, 
 and in the exercise of \\\s power ! He charges me with misunder- 
 standing his doctrine. Is it not written near at hand — '^Poenam 
 quam opportet pro illis j)oenitentibusimponere?" i. e. 'Hhe punish- 
 ment which ought to he inflicted on the penitent;" which a Jesuit 
 would soften into ^^penance enjoined." As to the translation of 
 which he last complained, I followed the faithful Cramp, and the 
 gentleman well knows it: he also knows that the more literal 
 
68 
 
 translation is even worse for his suffering cause ; and that the sense 
 is not varied bj the expletive term which the translator has em- 
 ployed, as will be seen by reference to the original. 
 
 The syllogisms of tlie gentleman are so profoundly absurd, I 
 see not their bottom or intent; but, like circumvallations of mud, 
 they must be left as proof against all logic, and a terror to all 
 ^^ clean and goodli/ arms.' ' 
 
 When he argues so profoundly-, " If God has appointed the sa- 
 crament of penance ;'' — ^^If he has imparted to his ministers the 
 power," &c.; "7/" confession be a condition^' &c.; "i/J" &c. &c. 
 And what if I 
 
 " Said Paddy with a hop, 
 If I liad a horse, how'd ye swaj}?" 
 
 Pardon my poetic impulse, gentlemen. I feel inspired by this 
 battalion of i/s; by argument without reasoning; and triumphs 
 without the toils of ratiocination. 
 
 The practical effect of the doctrine of confession has been to 
 make the priesthood the most corrupt of all men, and to put all 
 men, all kings, all power, of all who confessed to them, at their 
 disposal. Can such effects flow from divine doctrine? Are such 
 demands compatible with human rights ? 
 
 III. In reply to my argument so largely dwelt on, concerning tlie 
 freedom of the press, of reading, &c., the gentleman says: '^Nbw 
 the freedom of the press is as much a doctrine of the church as 
 Symmes's Theory of the Poles. Hence the objection on this ground 
 has no force." This is surely an ominous confession ! Do her 
 doctrines assert no liberty of thought ? Do her Scriptures enjoin 
 no inquiry after the will, and into the word of God ? Has she not for- 
 bidden, in the manifold citations just given by me from councils and 
 popes, the free printing and reading of books in general, and espe- 
 cially of God's holy word? Does her system hold no doctrine 
 which would forbid such tyranny on the soul, and such daring re- 
 straint on the Bible ? Then does not that omission ruin her system? 
 Or will the gentleman tell me it is only discipline ? Then can that 
 church regard the rights of God or man, which will tolerate, nay, 
 which will enact and enforce, such discipline? and with such tem- 
 poral and spiritual pains and penalties ? — Impossible ! The gentle- 
 man says that ^ forty editions of the Scripture were pidjlished in the 
 Italian language,before the year 1562 !'' Admitting it true, (which 
 however is not,) and what then ? Does this disprove what the La- 
 teran and Trent Councils did, and what a host of popes did against 
 the printing, and reading, and circulating the Bible, and of other 
 books ? Bibles were printed — therefore the popes and councils did 
 not oppose reading them! But, sir, here are decrees of councils, 
 and bulls of popes ! No matter ! forty editions of Bibles were printed 
 in Italy before 1562 ! But, sir, the decrees /briat/e any to print or 
 read without the Popes license ! Had the church a right to make 
 such decrees ? Oh they were only discipline ! Then you own that 
 
69 
 
 the discipline was wrong, and repressed freedom ; and that no doc- 
 trine of your churcdi forbids such discipline ? No ! doctrine has 
 nothing to do with it. But what is doctrine ? will you please give 
 me an infallible definition of doctrine? I find, when you speak 
 of the Presbyterians of Scotland as punishing those who read the 
 prayer-book, you consider it doctrine. How are similar things in your, 
 church only discipline ? How is it so wrong for Scotch Presbyte- 
 rians (as it was, I think, very wrong) to hold such a principle as 
 to restrain free inquiry, and yet is no error in the Church of 
 Home to do infinitely more, and greatly worse things, under the 
 same 'principle ? 
 
 The gentleman says the '•'■ ohjcct of all such regulations, made 
 in regard to printing, puhlishirig, and reading of books, was to 
 preserve the Church of Christ from the admixture of e7'rors," 
 &c. I know it; so Christ told his disciples the object some men 
 would have in view in putting them to death, would be '' to do 
 God service." But was it right? The gentleman then owns 
 *' that the end justifies the means ?" Was it compatible with 
 the civil and religious rights of Roman Catholics to pass such 
 regulations? Were they not ^^ voluntary slaves'^ to suhniit to it? 
 Did they submit willingly? Were they not forced? 
 
 Again. He says, ''The church, as the depository of the true 
 doctrines, has a right to condemn and exclude, by the exercise of 
 spiritual authority, all heretical and impious books — those of 
 Calvin as well as those of Voltaire." Ah ! "« right to exclude!" 
 This is a full admission of the whole thing in debate. Here we 
 might end the question, for we know what " spiritual autho- 
 rity" means in the Church of Ptome. 
 
 The gentlemen still further says, " Whenever this rignt has 
 been maintained by temporal penalties, the penalties have been 
 for the violation of tlie laws of the state." 
 
 That is, the Church of Rome can so unite with despotic states, 
 as to permit and encourage such states to enforce her spiritual 
 laws with temporal pains and penalties. The church makes laws 
 for her subjects : and then, " whenever" she can, she influences 
 the state to enforce them. Now at Rome the temporal and spi- 
 ritual power are united in the same sovereign head — the Pope. 
 
 Query. When he, as prince, by civil penalties, and military 
 power, if need be, enforces the laws, or, as the gentleman is pleased 
 to call them, "regulations," against the freedom of the press, 
 does not the church, in him, exercise temporal poicer to enforce 
 " the spiritual ?" I beg for a direct answer. Is it not tyranny ? 
 and do not the general councils sanction it? Has the church 
 ever forbidden it? Has she not legislated on it, with command 
 to enforce the oppression ? Will the gentleman deny it ? If the 
 Pope were here, with like power, would he respect our rights^ 
 when he does as we have seen in Italy? Are our rights of one 
 sort, and those of Rome of-another? What makes the differ- 
 
70 
 
 ence? If no difference, is it not clear that the church, by her 
 acts, and this her heady '^ 2cherievcr she can," o2)jjoses the civil 
 and religious rights of man. But, says the gentleman, printing 
 is like *' the use of gunpowder , or of steam-navigation — an ac- 
 quired right." Then, of course, according to his own principles, 
 ''the majority-principle" may alienate it! He says, "it is as 
 natural and unalienable a right, not to circulate the Bible, as to 
 circulate it." True, I have a riglu to do it, or to omit it. . But 
 have the Pope and general councils a right to ^^forhid me to do 
 it" if I please to do it? Or, have they a right to forbid me 
 *' steam-navigation," as they once did forbid all Europe to furnish 
 the Saracens with ships, arms, «&c. &c. The gentleman more 
 than hints that the?/ have ! And, worst of all, the gentleman 
 calls the tyrannic acts of the present Pope against the press, "a 
 praiseworthy solicitude." He says, '' The Pope asserts that 
 those iclio recognise the spiritual authority of the church, ARE 
 WICKED IN DENYING HIS RIGHT to exercise censorship over the 
 press." * * ^ '^ He has a RIGHT to do all this — he is BOUND 
 to do it," &c. Here he admits then, that the Pope has a right and 
 is boimd to restrain the liberty of all Catholics ; and all men 
 ought to be Catholics. Is not this slavery ? Is not this con- 
 ceding fully the point in debate ? Is not this surrendering a part 
 of their liberty ? And then can a good Catholic be a consistent 
 American citizen ? But the gentleman goes still further : '* But 
 it does not follow that he (the Pope) has any right, or temporal 
 authority, to punish, by civil disabilities, those who are not sub- 
 ject to the civil laws of his own state, for the violation of those 
 principles 1" His own state ! Who made him a ruler I A few 
 cardinals ! Not the people ! Who passed " the civil laws of his 
 state" against the freedom of the press ? General councils of the 
 church ! and popes elected by cardinals, who were created by 
 popes ! Yet the gentleman owns that the Pope, the head of the 
 church, " does enforce by civil disabilities," the laws against a 
 free press " in his own state." What if a papal majority should 
 make France or America a part of '' his state," will he not '^have 
 a right," and " be bound" to enforce the same laws ? And the 
 gentleman ventures so far as to say, speaking of himself, " The 
 ' Pope' and the ' priest' do not differ !" In this confession 
 he yields up the question ; finally exposes his indefensible princi- 
 ples, and insults the feelings of his injured country. As to the 
 index, whose testimony he questions, here is the book, and here 
 the very words. It was printed at Rome, too ! and forbids the 
 readirig in the vulgar tongue of the Catholic Bible, no matter 
 in what idiom ! How much, pra}", were the forty editions of 
 Italian Bibles worth to an oppressed and benighted people? 
 
 lA^. I next proceed to show from various decrees of professedly 
 infallible councils embodying principles on all the leading rela- 
 tions of man, 'Uis to life, liberty, a7id the pursuit of happiness^* 
 
71 
 
 that the Church of Rome is opposed in many of her doctrines to 
 civil and religious liberty. 
 
 And first, from the Fourth General Council of Lateran held at 
 Rome, A. D. 1215, under Pope Innocent III. — Present 2 patri- 
 archs ; 70 metropolitans ; .400 bishops ; 812 abbots, priors, &c. 
 with imperial ambassadors, strumpets, &c. &c. 
 
 We give entire the whole of the third chapter. Concerning 
 Heretics. — We have the original on the table, and it may be re- 
 ferred to by the gentleman, if he has any doubt of the justness of 
 the translation — which we endeavour to make very accurate. 
 
 " We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy extolling 
 itself against this holy, orthodox, catholic faith, which we before 
 expounded, condemning all heretics, by whatsoever names called, 
 having indeed different faces, but having their tails bound together 
 by a common agreement in falsehood, one with another. And be- 
 ing condemned, let them be left to the secular powers present, or 
 to their bailiffs, to be punished with due animadversion ; if clergy- 
 men, let them be first degraded from their orders, so that the goods 
 of persons thus condemned, if of the laity, maybe confiscated; if 
 of the clergy, they may be devoted to the churches from which 
 they have received their stipends. But if any shall be found, who 
 are notable by suspicion alone, let them be stricken with the sword 
 of anathema, and shunned by all, until they have rendered full 
 satisfaction ; unless they shall have proved their innocence by a 
 clearing of themselves, suitable to the degree of suspicion and the 
 quality of the person ', but if they continue under excommunica- 
 tion for a year, they shall after that be condemned as heretics. 
 And let the secular powers be warned and induced, and if need 
 be, condemned by ecclesiastical censure, what offices soever they 
 are in ; that as they desire to be reputed and taken for believers, 
 so they publicly take an oath f .r the defence of the faith, that they 
 will study in good earnest to exterminate to their utmost power, 
 from the lands subject to their jurisdiction, all heretics devoted 
 by the church; so that every one that is henceforth taken into 
 any power, either spiritual or temporal, shall be bound to confirm 
 this chapter by his oath. But if the temporal lord, required and 
 warned by the church, shall neglect to purge his territory of this 
 heretical filth, let liim by the metropolitan and corn-provincial 
 bishops be tied by the bond of excommunication ; and if he scorn 
 to satisfy within a year, let that be signified to the Pope, that he 
 may denounce his vassals thenceforth absolved from his fidelity, 
 [allegiance to him,] and may expose his country to be seized by 
 Catholics, who, exterminating the heretics, may possess it without 
 any contradiction, and may keep it in the purity of the faith; 
 saving the right of the principal lord, so be it he himself put no 
 obstacle thereto, nor oppose any impediment ; the stime law not 
 withstanding being kept about them that have no principal lords. 
 
 " And the Catholics that taking the badge of the cross, shall 
 
72 
 
 gird themselves for the extermination of heretics, shall enjoy that 
 indulgence and be fortified with that holy privilege, which is 
 granted to them that go to the help of the Holy Land. 
 
 '' And we decree to subject to excommunication the believers 
 and receivers, defenders and favourers of heretics, firmly ordain- 
 ing that whenever such person is noted by excommunication, if 
 he disdain to satisfy within a year, let him be vp?,o jure made in- 
 famous; nor let him be admitted to public offices or councils, nor 
 to aid in electing such, nor to bear testimony. Let him also be 
 intestate, so that he shall neither have power to bequeath or in- 
 herit. Besides — no one shall be required to answer him about 
 any business — but he shall answer all others. If he be a judge, 
 his sentence shall be null ; nor shall any causes be brought fgr a 
 hearing before him. If an advocate, he shall not be permitted to 
 plead. If a public register, his instruments shall have no force, 
 but be condemned with their condemned author. And we com- 
 mand the like to be observed in like cases. But if he be a cler- 
 gyman, he shall be deposed from all office and benefice; because 
 the greater the offence the heavier should be the punishment, 
 (vindicta.) But if any persons shall contemptuously refuse to 
 shun those whom the church has devoted, (as heretics,) let them 
 be smitten with the sentence of excommunication, until they have 
 made full satisfaction. Moreover, let not clergymen administer 
 to such pestilent persons the sacraments of the churph ; nor let 
 them presume to bestow on them Christian burial ; nor to accept 
 their alms or offerings; but on the contrary, let them be deprived 
 of their office, and not restored without a special grant from the 
 Holy See. In like manner all regulars, on whom the same shall 
 be inflicted, shall lose their privileges in that diocese in which 
 they have committed said excesses. 
 
 " And because some, under ' tlie form of godliness, but deny- 
 ing its power,' as the apostle saith, have assumed the authority 
 to preach, although the same apostle saith, ^Hoio shall tlicy preach 
 except tliey he sent.' Therefore, let all who presume to preach 
 without the authority of the Holy See, or of a Catholic bishop, 
 either publicly or privately, he bound with the chain of excom- 
 munication ; and unless they quickly repent, let them be visited 
 with other condign punishment. 
 
 *' We enjoin, in addition, that every archbishop and bishop, 
 either in person, by his archdeacon, or by fit and honest persons, 
 shall twice, or at least once a year, make the circuit of any parish 
 in which heresy is reported to exist, and there compel three or 
 more men of good report, or if it is thought expedient the whole 
 neighbourhood, to swear that if any one shall thereafter know of 
 any heretics therein, or any holding secret conventicles, or any 
 differing in life and morals from the conversation of the faithful, 
 that he shall studiously point them out to the bishop. And the 
 bishop shall call the accused to his presence, an-d the accused shall 
 
73 
 
 be canonically punished, unless they do clear themselves from the 
 suspected guilt; if after a show of being cleared, they relapse 
 into their former perfidy, or if any such despising the sacredness 
 of an oath, shall with damnable heresy refuse to swear, let them 
 for that thing be reputed heretics," 
 
 Such is the '^ Magna Charta'' of Papal righU — the great infal- 
 lible Black Letter Commentary on the power of the priesthood — 
 the germ of the inquisition — the tender mercies of the only true 
 church, out of which there is no salvation, in which there is no 
 liberty. In vain did Draco write his laws in blood — or heathen 
 Rome legislate against Christians. This is the masterpiece of 
 spiritual and temporal despotism. But, as I need some respite, 
 I reserve my analysis and comments for the last hour of the even- 
 ing. We shall now be entertained by the gentleman's skill in 
 showing that there is not a %cord of doctrine in it; and if men 
 were destroyed in millions by the disciples of the church, why, 
 that was not to be charged upon her principles ; for she never 
 touched a heretic — she only handed them over to the civil power 
 — that did the business. 
 
 Her doctrines are those of perfect freedom ! And as for the 
 heretics, they deserved to die; and if discipline put them out of 
 the way, the world was well rid, while doctrine is still full of love 
 and full of liberty to man. 
 
 " Jesuitism," says De Pratt, ^^embarrasses itself very little 
 with the means — scruples are trifles. This is what Mirabeau 
 called la grande morale; leaving what he disdainfully termed la 
 petite morale to the commonalty.'' The church killed millions 
 by discipline, leaving c?oc^mie reposing in the higher, parts of the 
 system. See now how skilfully her chosen son will exemplify 
 the tactics of his school and the ethics of Rome in explaining 
 away this tremendous decree. 
 
74 
 
 "/& .At, xCuiaan CatJioUc Keligion, in any or in all its pri«ci- 
 f)lt% or KWctrineSf ojpjposed to civil or religious liberty?^* 
 
 NEaATIVE II.— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President, — I am glad that, in demanding the name of the 
 writer in the Diary, the gentleman's object is not to inflict "per- 
 sonal chastisement." If the name could be of any use to him, 
 for any other puipose, I should have no hesitation in making him 
 acquainted with it. His memory seems to be sore in relation to 
 the subject, and I really cannot imagine why. He considers 
 himself as having triumphed over me on that occasion, and why 
 does he repine ? The writer in the Diary spoke of him in terms 
 of great respect, called him a gentleman, &c., but he has just dis- 
 covered that the writer was " ironical " throughout. The gentle- 
 man's manner of referring to this, will have the effect to make per- 
 sons doubt the soHdity of his own convictions on the subject. 
 For if he can prove it to be a libel, (which it is not,) an assault 
 on him, (which it is not,) then people will say, ''why does he 
 not do so ?'^ '* Why does he pretend that the name of the author 
 is necessary, when every one of common sense sees that it has 
 no more to do with the statements, than the size of the town 
 clock ?'^ 
 
 As to the society's acting on it, it was for them to do so, not 
 in the hour of discussion, but afterward, when they are on busi- 
 ness. Let them treat its statements as they did those of the Pres- 
 byterian, — point out and specify the falsehoods; if they do not 
 this, the legitimate inference is that there are none. The gentle- 
 man might be consoled for the " fulsome compliments " that are 
 paid to me by the discovery, of which he is the author, that the 
 •writer spoke ''ironically." But all will not do — lateri hacret 
 arundo. 
 
 The sweet contemplation of the laurels which the article would 
 wickedly dispute his right to w^ur, must* have inspired him with 
 the following ^90?is7iec? specimen of Christian meekness, and lite- 
 rary refinement : " Nothing hut the love of liberty^ as an Ameri- 
 can, and of truth as a Protestant Christian, could induce him 
 to subject his feelings to the coarse and ill-bred impertinence of 
 a priesthood, whose temper and treatment toicard other meUj 
 alternate between servility to their spiritual sovereigns, and op- 
 pression of their unhappy sidyjects. He can and will bear, for 
 the sake of the great cause, whatever may be made necessary; 
 
75 
 
 thoughy thanh God, he is twf forced to do it, either as the minion 
 of the Pope, or the suhject of ever-arrogant arid vulgar Je- 
 suitism.'^ 
 
 Do you not, sir, pity the gentleman ? The Chesterfield of the 
 Presbyterian church — the magister elegantiarum — to be exposed 
 to the retorts of a Catholic priest ! But, for sake of 'Uhe great 
 cause" he is willing to be a martyr. — Still it is hard to have his 
 fine, delicate feelings exposed to such rude treatment! He ought, 
 however, to remember, that aiming at the immortality of an au- 
 thor, he must be prepared to encounter the trials to which his am- 
 bition has exposed him. When he uses language in reference to 
 his present position, which is a violation of the most common po- 
 liteness, he must not expect that it can be allowed to pass unno- 
 ticed. Is not every term, in the foregoing extract, chosen — is not 
 every sentence arranged, for the express purpose of gross insult ? 
 He would now claim sympathy as the reward of a position which 
 he has sought with assiduity. He it was who kept up a standing 
 advertisement, challenging me to an "oral discussion." He it 
 was who rudely, as I conceive, thrust himself between me and 
 my relation to this society. He it was who addressed to me 
 the most unwarrantable letter I ever received in my life, praying 
 that I would give him the opportunity to meet me in this discus- 
 sion. And now, forsooth, his truly delicate feelings are exposed, 
 'not by his own seeking, of course : — Oh no ! but for " the great 
 cause." Give him sympathy, then, all ye that love '' the great 
 cause." 
 
 The gentleman knew that I disliked to have any thing more to 
 do with him, after the close of our late controversy ; and I leave 
 it to the connoisseifrs in good breeding to determine how fi\r his' 
 forcing himself on my notice can be reconciled with those 
 tensions to refined feelings which he has set forth. He pron 
 himself immense glory from an oral discussion. He drew infer- 
 ences from my reluctance to meet him, which the case did not 
 warrant. It was not that I dreaded his arguments, nor distrusted 
 my own. But I had been obliged to expose the gentleman during 
 the controver^sy, in a way so disagreeable to myself, and necessa- 
 rily discreditable to him, that I regarded him as having suffered 
 literary shipwreck. 
 
 When a writer affects to be learned, and quotes from an author 
 something as evidence, he ought to know for certain the truth of 
 his quotation. When the sense of the author is perverted, either 
 by additions, or omissions, or garhlings, then the proceeding is 
 entitled literary forgery. And when this is exposed in a contro- 
 versy, either political, literary, or religious, the individual who is 
 convicted is regarded, by men of hig}i honour, as hors dc coinbat. 
 He is done. — Neither is it enough to say that the forgery wa.s 
 copied, and not original. The man who is necessarily at the 
 mercy of second-hand authority , ought not to rush into a discus- 
 
 pre- / 
 
 lised , 
 
i 
 
 76 
 
 sion where the fountains are to be consulted. In the course of 
 that controversy, and in the duty of defending my religion against, 
 reckless and unfounded assertion, I was compelled to ofler a pre- 
 mium of five hundred dollars to any professor who should find a 
 certain quotation, by Mr. Breckinridge, in the place in which he 
 professed to find it, hut where it did not exist. The advertise- 
 ment is still on record — and the premium unclaimed. (1) While 
 the gentleman stands in this position before the public, he will 
 see a reason why I desired to have nothing more to do with him, 
 in the way of controversy. Others, too, will discover that the gen- 
 tleman's claim to fine, sensitive feelings (refuted, however, by the 
 very gross language in which he asserts it) comes too late. His 
 position, as one who trifled with authors, and made them speak 
 falsehoods to support his argument, was a much harder trial for 
 his honour, than to encounter the viva voce, refutation of his ar- 
 guments. I recommend patience under contradiction. When- 
 ever he errs in history, philosophy, logic, theology, it will be my 
 duty, if lean, to advise him of it ; and this, I am aware, will be 
 hardly borne by one who has been accustomed to have his 'ij)se 
 dixit received as the gospel. 
 
 As to the points of his speech which relate to the argument, 
 and not to himself, I am happy to perceive that his views on prin- 
 ciples of civil government are much improved since he last spoke. 
 He had censured my argument for maintaining the right of the' 
 majority to rule. In reply I retorted that, since he denied this 
 right to the majority, he must, of course, ascribe it to the minority; 
 and, in that case, there is no reason why the Presbyterians might 
 not now begin to rule for the nation at large. Startled at the evi- 
 dence of this consequence, he turns back in his last address, and 
 states that his principle is " that the majority have no right to rule 
 in violation of certain rights of the minorifi/." Now this is 
 common sense; and if the gentleman had stated his proposition 
 thus qualified, in his first speech, there would have been no disa- 
 greement on the matter. He is mistaken, therefore, when he re- 
 presents me as replying ^^perlJij,^' or otherwise, to what did not 
 exist. This is a new proposition. I agree with him, that in re- 
 lation to certain rights of the minority, no majority has a right to 
 rule. And this doctrine I have stated at large in my answer to his 
 first speech. 
 
 . I had laid down as a principle, that the man who, as a citizen, 
 refuses to discharge the duties lawfully imposed on him by that 
 relation ; or, as a member of a church, refuses to comply with the 
 regulations of the religious society to ichich he belongs, "by an 
 appeal to his pretended natural right, would be justly regarded as 
 unworthy to participate in the privileges of either :" viz. of the 
 government, or of the church to which he belonged. 
 
 (1) S(ie Controversy, p. 411, Johnson's edition. 
 
77 
 
 There is not in the community, a man of common sense, to 
 whom this proposition is not self-eyident ; and yet my opponent, 
 struck apparently with its novelty or extravagance, calls it a '' can- 
 did admission." It was not candid in him, however, to suppress 
 a portion of my statement, in order to misrepresent me by the other 
 portion. He makes me say, that ''by lawful authority, civil and 
 ecclesiastical duties may be established in a state;'' as if I recog- 
 nised in the state the right to appoint ecclesiastical duties. I 
 spoke distinctly of civil duties as established in the state ; and of 
 ecclesiastical duties (as established) '' m the religious body of 
 which one is a memhe?-." The gentleman's artifice, therefore, in 
 suppressing a portion of the statement, and perverting the rest, 
 must redound to the glory of Presbyterianism. On this perversion 
 he builds a series of inductions, which, inasmuch as they are 
 built on n. false imputation, deserve no reply. |-Ie winds up, how- 
 ever, with the following question, which contains the cream of 
 his logic : '^1/ he (the Pope) wer^e in this la7id, and a constitu- 
 tional majority of the States were to alter the constitution, so as 
 to make the Pope a temporal and spiritual head of the nation for 
 life, and his successor eligible for life by Cardinals, would it not 
 he an invasion of our rights?'' Answer — IT WOULD. And we 
 
 SHOULD BE GREAT DUNCES IF WE SUBMITTED TO IT. " Would it 
 
 not be an invasion of the rights of the minority?" Yes, MOST 
 DECIDEDLY. " And icould not the majority be voluntary slaves ?" 
 I think not; since the case supposes them to act ''constitution- 
 ally,'' and by the impulse of their own free and sovereign 
 CHOICE. Th e principle of the hypothesis ist he same, no matter ^— ^ 
 on whoin the choice should fall However^T^tey Wiire to"^' alter ->^ 
 the con stitut Fo n ,^^^d a pp oi n t " the Pope and all his successors," ^ 
 they wouTd^ in my humble "opmTon, do a very foolish thing. It *" 
 would exceed, in abamidJly^-fgiLej^ l^he liypothesis'itsc lfr ^-- 
 
 The gentleman has undertaken to prove that the'doctrines of 
 the Catholic religion are opposed to civil and religious liberty. In 
 order to refute his position, it is sufficient to show, that Catholics 
 can be the most strenu ous prom oters__of_biith civil andj^ligious 
 liberty, with out violatin g any doctrine of their creed. To assert 
 a propositiou7 and maintain it agalnat tlie-Tioc trine of the Church, 
 is regarded as heresy ; and such Catholics as do so, are permitted 
 to become Presbyterians as soon as they wish. Therefore, if 
 there were any doctrine, in the Catholic Church, opposed to civil 
 and religious liberty, it would be heresy to advocate the principles 
 of civil and religious liberty. Now, this principle has been advo 
 cated by Catholic individuals and Catholic nations, and in th 
 they have never been accused of violating any doctrine of thei 
 religion. France is certainly a Catholic nation ; and yet all reli 
 gions are equal. Poland is a Catholic country ; and yet Catholic 
 Poland has always been conspicuous among the nations for its 
 advocacy of civil and religious liberty If, therefore, Catholic 
 
 I? 
 
78 
 
 nations and individuals can be, and have been, the advocates of 
 civil and religious liberty, it follows that the most unbounded free- 
 dom, both political and religious, is perfectly compatible with the 
 principles and doctrines of the Catholic religion. 
 
 Now, the gentleman's reference to the political and religious 
 condition of the Papal dominions, must be intended only for the 
 ignorant portion of his hearers. His argument betrays itself the 
 moment you bring it to the test of reason. Supposing that I were 
 to grant him all he requires, and agree that the subjects of the 
 Papal dominion are oppressed by an arbitrary and absolute govern- 
 ment, his inference that, therefore, the doctrines of the Catholic 
 religion are opposed to civil and religious liberty, is a non scqui- 
 tur in reasoning, and a contradiction of history in point of fact. 
 The opposition which the political vi'eics of popes have had to 
 encounter from Catholic governments in past ages, is a sufficient 
 evidence that tlie political creed of the Roman States constitutes 
 no part of the Catholic religion. If the gentleman would conde- 
 scend to read history on the subject, he would learn, that the only 
 connection between Catholics and the Pope, is the connection be- 
 tween the visible head and the visible members of the Church — 
 Christ, its founder, being the supreme invisible head. He would 
 learn that the object of this connection is the unity of belief in 
 one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. He would learn that in 
 ■^ the Bishoj) of Rome, Catholics have always distinguished be- 
 "^^ tween the legitimate authority of the Pontiff, appertaining to a 
 
 ^'^ kingdom, which is not of this world, and the. pretensions of the 
 
 Y^M-y, temporal prince. An^^while the doctrine of the Catholic religion 
 fl^V taught them to besub missivo to ihu Li7<fc!,tr1eTnh"eni the right not 
 
 ^ only to resist, Kut^^a-tQ.£hastise7th^e''temerity of the other. In 
 
 short, any man who is acquainted with history, and honest in the 
 use he makes of it, will discover in the religious nnitij between 
 Catholic nations and the see of Eome, and in the iwlitical re- 
 sistance to the pretensions of various popes, when they undertook 
 to meddle in the civil concerns of other states, the broad historical 
 evidence, that, as regards civil and religious liberty. Catholics are 
 as unshackled in their doctrines as any other denomination. 
 This the British nation have acknowledged, by restoring the 
 Catholics to their political rights. And it is worthy of the Pres- 
 byterian parsonhood, to take up the cud of bigotry and perse- 
 cution — which even England had thrown away, after having 
 chewed it for three centuries — and present it to the palate of 
 
 AMERICANS. 
 
 But the gentleman tells us, that he recognises, '' as a natural 
 and indefeasible right, the right of worship which God confers on 
 every man." This he calls his principle : to which I reply, that 
 it is as much my principle as his. Yet it does not follow, that I 
 have " a natural and indefeasible right" to SAY MASS in the halls 
 of the Princeton Theological Seminary, under the -plea of wot- 
 
79 
 
 ship. Neither does it follow, that he has a right to preach Calvin' 
 ism under the Pope's window, denouncing the civil head of the 
 Koman States, as a '^usurper," and the supreme Bishop of the 
 Catholic Church, as ^' Anti-Ciirist." This would be not merely 
 an act of worship — it would be preaching sedition : and if the 
 doctrine took effect, bloodshed must be the consequepce. To say 
 mass, however, is an act of mere worship, having no other effects 
 or relations, than those which relate to God, and the consciences 
 of the worshippers. And yet, the Presbyterian laws of Scotland 
 held it enacted, that the individual who should be convicted of 
 performing or assisting at this act of mere worship, "three 
 TIMES," even in the caves of the mountain, SHOULD BE put TO 
 
 DEATH. 
 
 Now the gentleman himself disclaims this article of Scotch 
 Presbyterianism, and contends for the unbounded freedom of con- 
 science and right of worship. Let me, then, ask him a question, 
 (an*d I beg you, gentlemen, to mark his answer well :) Supposing 
 that the wife or daughter of a Presbyterian minister should 
 claim the right of worshipping God according to the doctrines of 
 the Catholic Chufch — I ask the gentleman, whether that Presby- 
 terian minister is hound to grant her the right which she demands, 
 in the name of conscience and of God ? Let him answer that. 
 Is he bound to allow her to go to confession, when her conscience 
 prompts her to do so ? If he answers in the negative, then, you 
 will understand how hollow are his professions of zeal for tho 
 '^rights of worship and of conscience," which he calls "/as prin- 
 ciple." This will test all he has said on this subjec't. 
 
 The gentleman misrepresents me, when he charges me with 
 having "vested all rights civil and religious, in the majority." 
 Whenever I spoke of the majority, I spoke of them in connection' 
 with those things in which the principles of a free government ac- 
 knowledge their right to rule ; and already it becomes manifest, 
 that the success of his cause will depend on the success with 
 which the arguments of his opponent can be misrepresented. The' 
 rights of conscience, and of worship, are 'older than all civil go* 
 vernment. They are coeval with the human mind ; their exist- 
 ence is independent of civil laws — which have only the power to 
 recognise or 7iot recognise them. Catholic constitutions have 
 sometimes recognised them — Presbyterian constitutions, never. 
 
 In the oracular mood of his last speech, the gentleman had 
 gone into a very minute detail of the " usurpations" in church 
 and state, with which the world is afflicted. The Congress of the 
 United States, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church, were the only two sources of authority that did not enter 
 into his catalogue. I took the liberty of observing, that he 
 might have saved a tedious enumeration, if he had said at once, 
 that ^^ AIAj jurisdiction is an usurpation, except what is exercised 
 hi/ Congress and the General Assemblj/." He intimates that I 
 
80 
 
 have spoken disrespectfully of Congress, by associating it with 
 the General Assembly. This was not my meaning; and he would 
 again mistake me, if he were to suppose that I ascribe to the said 
 General Assembly any of. those blessings of "civil and religious 
 freedom," which he very properly ascribes to another source. 
 Yet, though it is my privilege to regard the authority exercised 
 by the General Assembly, as "usurpation,'' still I must say, with 
 every man acquainted with the mode in which it is organized, that 
 for the purposes of popular and political government, its structure is 
 little inferior to that of the Congress itself. In any emergency 
 that may arise, the General Assembly can produce a uniformity of 
 action among its adherents to the farthest boundaries of the land. 
 It acts on the principle of a radiating centre, and is without an 
 equal or a rival among the other denominations of the country. 
 
 Catholics, in the adoption and profession of their religion, are 
 actuated by the power of the evidences that establish, in their 
 mind, the truth of their creed. Whenever men profess a creed 
 from other motives, they become hypocrites, and are incapable of 
 rendering worship to God, who is a Spirit, and who desires to be 
 adored in spirit and in truth. Hence it is as absurd, as it is ty- 
 rannical, to att^empt to force the consciences of men. 
 
 The faculty of the human mind, which decides on the question 
 of creeds, is the judgment, which cannot be coerced by civil laws. 
 Civil governments would be as well employed in passing laws to 
 regulate the will and memory of the subject or citizen, as in 
 attempting to regulate the understanding. I submit to all the 
 duties of religion prescribed by the Catholic Church, because, in 
 the unfettered exercise of my understanding, I have come to the 
 conviction that the doctrines of that church are the doctrines pro- 
 mulgated by Jesus Christ and his apostles. The motive, therefore, 
 which induces me to be a Catholic, is as much superior to all hu- 
 man authority, as God is superior to man, or as mind is superior to 
 matter. Why then, if the gentleman holds these principles, does 
 he associate himself with those, who, in contempt of the American 
 constitution, are, as far as they can with safety, persecuting Ca- 
 tholics for conscience sake? Are not the misguided fanatics, 
 who are covering the Catholic name with the slime of vulgar ca- 
 lumny, low invective, and mere Billingsgate argument — who are 
 passing-from town to town, and from city to c ity, 'appgnhn ^ to the 
 worst passion^ of ignorance and prejudiue — and stooping from 
 their prete^ionB as ministers of Christ, to the office of mere poli- 
 tical haranguers, are not these trying to induce " human authority 
 to interfere with the rights of conscience?'' As a specrmen 
 of ^eir "Style, i have only to quote from the gentleman him- 
 self. He says that Catholics must believe in the right of human 
 authority to interfere with the rights of conscience. This is a 
 gross calumny. I am a Catholic, and I have repeatedly asserted 
 the contrary. He says that they " ascribe to the Pope the right 
 
81 
 
 and the power to dictate their creed and to force obedience to it.'* 
 This is another gross calumny; the Pope has no such right, and 
 the proposition would he condemned hy the Pope himself, and the 
 whole Catholic Church, as HERETICAL. He says that Catholics 
 *' are voluntary slaves by giving %ip their rights of conscience." 
 This is equally a calumny. They worship Almighty God "ac- 
 cording to the dictates of their conscience," and this is their 
 crime in the estimation of the Presbyterian bigots, who persecute 
 them now, as they have ever done, because they refuse to give up 
 these rights. It was natural that, having made the foundation of 
 his argument of "gross calumnies," his conclusion, that " Aoice 
 no good Catholic can be a consistent American," should be what 
 it really is, — a gross libel. Let the gentleman inscribe it on the 
 tomb of Charles Carroll of Carroilton, and the very marble will 
 blush for him, if he cannot blush for himself. — ■ 
 
 The gentleman admits that persecution was a part of Presbyte- 
 rianism in all other countries, but he says that the "question 
 limits my investigation to the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States, and in connexion with the General Assembly." This is 
 not the fact. The limits of the question are, the " Presbyterian 
 RELIGION IN ANY OR ALL OF ITS DOCTRINES." Under the protec- 
 tion of the American Constitution it is no great merit to say that 
 the Presbyterian Church has not persecuted other denominations; 
 and this is about as far as the gentleman feels authorized to go. 
 For the rest, he says that the Presbyterians learned-^rseeution 
 from the Church of Rome; and if so, it must be confessed that 
 they remembered" the lesson a long while, and practised it so uni- 
 formly, that it never would have been forgotten, had they not been 
 obliged, in the development of national events, to submit to the 
 influence of extrinsic liberality. He says, however, that the Pres- 
 byterian Church is not infallible, of which, indeed, there is sufficient 
 evidence. Now when it shall be my privilege to investigate "the 
 doctrines and principles of the Presbyterian religion," I pledge 
 myself to provet^aJL-persecution, for conscience sake, has been 
 their doi^jEme^. And asl^ey iire fdllibk', Theyinay discover in due 
 time, that in disavowing this doctrine out of compliment to the 
 American Constitution, they were guilty of a departure from 
 the "faith once delivered to the saints." Hence, then- fallibility 
 in doctrine is a very suspicious argument to prove that they will 
 never relapse into their old habits. The gentleman says that the 
 Catholic Church is, or claims to be infallible. This is true. She 
 claims to have received the doctrines of Christianity fvom Christ 
 and his apostles. She claims to have received divine commission 
 to teach and transmit these doctrines, unchanged as she received 
 them. Hence she claims to have been constituted a ivitncss of 
 what they are — with authority to expel from her communion those 
 who would add, or diminish, or per cert. She makes no doctrine; 
 she repudiates none that was originally committed to her testi- 
 
c 
 
 82 
 
 mony. In givini^- that testiinony, she claims to be protected /ro?;i 
 the attcstatiou of fahehood, by the promise of him who said, "I 
 am with you all days -till the consummation of the world." In this 
 sense, therefore, and in this sense ai:one, she claims to be ''infal- 
 lible." If she teach as "A tenet of faith or morals revealed 
 BY Almighty God" that "civil and' religious liberty,^' or either 
 of them, is sinful, then I am bound as a Catholic to believe accord- 
 ingly, and I shoidd be {juilty of heresy were I to deny it. 
 
 Now it is known that all Catholics repudiate this charge; and 
 consequently, that either their faith disclaims this imputed doctrine, 
 or else they sin against their faith, and fall into heresy. But Catho- 
 lics, it may be said, Itave ojjj^osed civil and religious liberty. Yes, 
 and other, and perhaps better Catholics have advocated civil and re- 
 ligious liberty ; their doctrines leaving them at perfect liberty to 
 exercise their own discretion in the matter. The inhabitants of 
 South America have vindicated their liberty by revolution — have 
 they ceased to be Catholics on this account ? And they might 
 declare equal protection and privilege in the state, to the professors 
 -fif every other religion, without violating one iota of the doctrines 
 of the Catholic Church. They might follow the example of the 
 Catholic colony of Maryland, who were the first to teach the Pu- 
 ritans of New England, and the bigots of the world, that no hu- 
 man authority has a right to interpose between the conscience of 
 man and his God; and yet bo even better Catholics than they 
 are. All this pri^ves that there is no doctrine in the Catholic creed 
 opposed to ''civil and religious liberty," and it proves that no such 
 doctrine can ever become a portion of that creed, which would 
 forfeit its claims to infallibility, the moment it should teach as a 
 *' tenet revealed by Almighty God," any article that had not been 
 taught and believed from the beginning of Christianity. 
 
 The gentleman says, that in quoting from his standards, I ^^piit 
 in a false -phrase and left a true one out^ I deny the fact, and 
 challenge him for the proof. Until he furnish the proof, I pronounce 
 the charge unfounded in truth. It is a habit which I have had 
 too much reason to despise in others, to be guilty of it myself. 
 
 My opponent finds himself unable to controvert any of my dis- 
 tinctions of "RIGHTS," or the definition given of them. Another, 
 finding them just and logical, would have passed on. But not so 
 the gentleman. He has discovered that I include the legitimate 
 ministers of the Christian religion as persons exercising functions 
 by "divine right." I gave Moses, and the apostles and their suc- 
 cessors, as instances. He has not thought it too petty to insinu- 
 ate that I was advocating the pretensions of " kings" to rule by 
 ''divine right." His motive for this little artifice cannot be mis- 
 taken. Now I shall show that every Presbyterian parson pretends 
 to be a minister of Christ by "divine right." They are not born 
 ministers. The government could not make them ministers. 
 How then ? By what right do they exercise the ministry ? By 
 
83 
 
 divine right, as they say. They were called of God as they pre- 
 tend, but not exactly "as Aaron was." This is their doctrine; 
 and if I am mistaken I shall be glad to hear the correction, in the 
 acknowledo-ment of the gentleman, that he is a Presbyterian 
 minister, but not by divine right. If, therefore, this doctrine 
 "squints," as he has elegantly expressed it, in favour of "kings/' 
 and against the Constitution, it follows that he is as much com- 
 mitted by it as I am. But the thing was aliAost too little to have 
 deserved any notice. 
 
 We now pass to the gentleman's long commentary on the defi- 
 nition of " CIVIL LIBERTY." By this we agreed to understand 
 ^^the absolute rights of the individual, restrained only for the 2)re- 
 servation of order in society ^ This definition, his own, must 
 be very obscure, when four pages have been wasted in commen- 
 taries on it, which, however, only wrap it up in thicker folds of 
 obscurity. It is much easier to understand the text than the com- 
 mentary. The whole seems to be intended as a high-wrought 
 panegyric of the principles set forth in the Constitution, of which 
 I am as fond an admirer as the gentleman can be. Yet I must 
 say, that this perpetual stooping to flatter the republican feelings of 
 the audience, is but a lame way of maintaining an argument, while 
 it is any thing but complimentary to their understandings. Now'i 
 it is a singular fact, that while the gentleman affects to be almost 
 an idolater of the American Constitution, other Reverend gentle- 
 men, regarded by Presbyterians as sound in the faith, and as 
 learned as my present opponent ir^ Pj-esbyterian theology ,J:ii 
 denounced that Constitution as a Godless instrument. The 
 General Synod of the Reformed I:*resbyterian Church, held in 
 Pittsburg, in the month of October, 1834, in two Overtures pub- 
 lished as an appendix to its proceedings, contains the following 
 propositions against the United States and State Constitutions. 
 In the first Overture we find the following propositions explicitly 
 laid down : — 
 
 " We proceed now to establish the charge of immorality 
 against the Constitution of the United States." (1) 
 
 " 1. It does not acknowledge or make any reference to the ex- 
 istence or providence of a Supreme Being." 
 
 " 2. The United States Constitution does not recognise the re- 
 vealed will of God." 
 
 " 3. The Constitution of the United States acknowledges no 
 subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ." (2) 
 
 Again, (3) " The Constitution of the United States contains 
 the infidel and anti-ciiristian principle, that a nation, as such, 
 ought not to suj^port nor even recognise the religion of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. Congress shall make no law respecting the es- 
 tablishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 
 
 (1) Overture, p. 5. (2) Page 6. (3) Page 8. 
 
 f. 
 
^^ 84 
 
 The gentleman will tell you, that these are the doctrines fiot of 
 the Presbyterians, but of the i^f/ormecZ Presbyterians in the United 
 States. But do not these kindred denominations exchange pulpits? 
 Do they not exchange the right hand of Christian fellowship ? 
 And if they do, does it not follow that, in the judgment of the 
 Presbyterian Church, there is no essential heresy in this doctrine 
 of their reformed brethren ? These are matters which it is diffi- 
 cult to reconcile with the " blarney^' with which the gentleman 
 treats the American Constitution, which his brethren denounce as 
 containing ''infidel" and '' anti-christian'' principles. 
 
 Neither can I help believing that the gentleman has perverted 
 the meaning and spirit of the American Constitution, when he 
 tells us that '' it justifies as a right that ichich legitimacy de- 
 nominates rebellion and treason." This is injudicious praise. I 
 -presume the advocates of ''rebellion and treason" against this 
 government, would find themselves mistaken in appealing to the 
 Constitution for their right to perpetrate rebellion and treason. 
 The gentleman wishes to know whether I think " our revolution 
 was rebellion, our resistance treason ?" I answer, that, in my 
 opinion^ our revolution was a successful experiment of popular re- 
 sistance against unjust and tyrannical oppression, justified, not by 
 the broad principles of anarchy laid down by him, but justified by 
 the particular grievances to ivhich it owed its origin. I believe 
 it was so understood by the immortal men who wrought out the 
 experiment and constructed the fabric of our national independ- 
 ence. They had no idea that the Constitution would ever come 
 to be considered as the patent-right of what " legitimacy denomi- 
 nates rebellion and treason;" or that it should ever be denounced 
 as containing "immorality," "infidel," and "anti-christian" prin- 
 ciples. This is quite enough on the gentleman's four pages of po- 
 litical casuistry — for in the correction of his speech it extends to 
 four pages. 
 
 His next matter is a return to, and repetition of, what he had 
 said on baptism in his last speech, and what I had refuted in mine. 
 He goes to Ainsworth's Dictionary for the meaning of what Catho- 
 lics understand by the word " cogendus," in one of the canons of 
 the Council of Trent. He does not adduce any fact to support 
 liis misapprehension of its meaning. I leave the explanation given 
 in my last speech, as a sufficient reply to 'the vapid declamation, 
 without either fact or argument, with which he has thought pro- 
 per to return to it. It is a maxim of logic, that " what is gra- 
 tuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied." When the gen- 
 tleman adduces facts instead of assertions, to prove his construc- 
 tion, I shall be prepared to meet him. 
 
 There is one remark of his, however, which shows that his 
 knowledge of the history of his own church is somewhat defect- 
 ive. I showed that Presbyterians themselves claim the right to 
 "compel" members to lead Christian lives, by other penalties 
 
85 
 
 '^besides exclusion from the sacraments" — such as suspension 
 and excommunication. He informs me, however, that tlicse are 
 the only punishments by which Presbyterians "discipline their 
 adult members." The Council of Trent prescribed no other. 
 But I would beg leave to oppose to the gentleman's assertion, the 
 authority of the historian Gilb. Stuart, who tells us that one of the 
 ways in which they (Presbyterians) " disciplined their members," 
 for breaking the fast of Lent, loas wliipping in the church. (1) 
 
 On the head of Auricular Confession, the gentleman still thinks 
 and says it is *' tyranny," "voluntary slavery," "blasphemy," 
 " unbounded oppression," &c. &c., though he modestly abstains 
 from producing any new argument against it, except what I shall 
 notice presently. I refer the reader to my explanation of this doc- 
 trine in the last speech. Cath!.ilics believe that auricular confes- 
 sion, as the?/ understand it, is a part of the religion of Christ. In 
 practising this duty, therefore, they only exercise the rights of 
 conscience like other cleno ml nations. They can pity the blind- 
 ness, and pardon the bigotry, of those who denounce them, for the 
 exercise of this rigJit, and who yet pretend to be advocates of 
 freedom of conscience. I had, indeed, charged the gentleman, 
 not only with " misunderstanding " our doctrine, but also with per- 
 verting the language in which it wds expressed. By way of vin- 
 dicating himself from this charge, he makes a show^ of appealing 
 to the original Latin: — "J*- it not ivritten,'" says he, ^^ near at 
 hand — poenum qiiam ojjportet pro illis jjoenitotfibus imp)onere." 
 And what will be the reader's disgust to learn that this beautiful 
 specimen of Latinity, put forth as a quotation from the Council of 
 Trent, is a fabrication — a forgery ! The only sentence at all 
 like if, (and the likeness is very remote,) is this .... neque 
 sequitatem quidem in pocnisinjungendis scrvare poiuisse .... to 
 which I referred in my last speech. The Rev. gentleman must 
 have become quite rusty in his grammar, when he ventured on 
 giving, as Latin, a phrase which is a most palpable violation of all 
 syntax. He says he follows the "faithful Cramp," — author of the 
 " Text Book of Popery " — and if so, I can only say that the mas- 
 ter and the disciple are worthy of each other. The Scripture tells 
 us, that "if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit." 
 
 But if the gentleman, in making the fathers of the Council of 
 Trent responsible for his own spurious and ungrammatical Latin^ 
 has given proof that he has forgotten his grammar, it does not fol- 
 low that he has forgotten \\h poetry. His success in this depart- 
 ment will surprise you the less j as, according to Horace, to be a 
 poet does not depend on education — jweta nascitur non jit. The 
 following beautiful lines, therefore, will gratify those who are sen- 
 sible to the delicate and sublime : — 
 
 (1) Vol. ii. p. U. 
 
" Said Paddy with a hop, 
 
 .Jti ow'd yo swani !!. 
 
 After having thus proved that he had not perverted our doctrine 
 of confession, (and such a proof!) he returns to the freedom of 
 the press, in reference to which I beg again to direct the reader to 
 my last speech. I am content with the judgment which people of 
 common sense — united with common candour — will pronounce 
 upon the objection and the reply. I stated a fact, in regard to the 
 printing of the Bible, viz., that in Italy, where all are Catholics, 
 under the notice, and with the approbation of popes, and cardinals, 
 and bishops, no less than forty editions of the whole Bible, in the 
 Italian language, had been published and in circulation before the 
 Jirst Protestant Italian copy was published. I stated this on the au- 
 thority of a Protestant minister, the Rev. David Clements, in his 
 Dissertation on Ancient Bibliography. The gentleman says, on 
 his own ipse dixit authority, that the statement is not true ! He 
 despises the labours of literary research, as something beneath the 
 dignity of an ''American freeman." You state an historical fact, 
 on the authority of an unimpeached historian, and the gentleman, 
 because he never heard of it before, tells you ^'itisnot true," with- 
 out giving a single reason for his assertion. Still I must say, 
 that, under this head of the discussion, the gentleman makes up 
 for the want of knowledge by a superabundance o^ curiosit}/. In 
 three pages of his corrected speech, 1 have taken the pains to 
 count no less than thirty different questions, followed by as many 
 notes of interrogation — a proof that his mind is at length smitten 
 with the love, or the lack of information. 
 
 On the discovery of printing as an art, all encouragement was 
 given to it by the dignitaries of the church. It was employed to 
 multiply copies of manuscripts in every department of knowledge. 
 The Holy Scriptures were the first ; the Greek and Latin classics, 
 works of science, and elegant literature followed in order. This 
 undeniable fact is a proof that printing in itself is by no means op- 
 posed to the doctrines of the church. But when the press became 
 the irresjjonsihle agent of mischief in the hands of wicked men, 
 who employed it to corrupt the Scriptures, to excite the people to 
 sedition, to disseminate FALSEHOOD instead of truth, the natural 
 law of self-preservation, both in church and state, dictated the ne- 
 cesssty of restricting the freedom of the press within such limits 
 as would render it compatible with the safety of society. The 
 object was to prevent the ahuse of the press, and Protestant, Pres- 
 byterian governments were as prompt and as unrelenting in prose- 
 cuting this object as Catholic governments. 
 
 The Pretvbyterian parliament of England, on the 12th of June, 
 1648, (just two days before the calling of that Westminster Assem- 
 bly which framed the gentleman's Confession of Faith,) published 
 an act, commanding " inquiry after private presses, and to search 
 
87 
 
 all suspected shops and icarcliouses for UNLICENSED BOOKS and 
 pamphlets, and to commit offenders against this order to PRISON, 
 to he PUNISHED as the parliament shall direct." (1) Even at this 
 day, Presbyterians hinder, as much as they can, the reading^ and, 
 if they could, would hinder the printing of Catholic books. The 
 Pope, as the chief visible pastor of the Catholic Church, has a 
 right, and it is his duty, to warn, exhort, entreat the whole flock, 
 and every member of it, against the danger of printing, publishing, 
 selling, circulating:, or reading books, calculated to destroy their 
 faith or corrupt their morals : this is a right exercised by every 
 Presbyterian minister in the country. The civil restraints and 
 penalties appointed by governments, whether Catholic or Pro- 
 testant, are chargeable to those governments, and not to the doc- 
 trines which they profess. Th e Pope_j 3Uis-«o--authuiitv to inflict 
 civil punishments out of hi sjowP- dominions. I pass, then, from 
 this head, by flinging 'Back the consequences which the gentleman 
 aff"ects to draw from my arguments, but which are to be ascribed, 
 not to my language, but to his garbling' and misrepresentation of 
 it. When he will condescend to dispense with abusive declama- 
 tion, and substitute something like positive information, I shall be 
 prepared to close with him. The gentleman can hardly expect to 
 impose on his audience by these flourishes of stump oratory and 
 grandiloquent assertion, when the question in debate is a matter 
 of historical evidence — a positive matter of fact. 
 
 As to his assertion in his former speech, '' that the Bible, in 
 whatever idiom written, is prohibited" — I said, and I repeat, that 
 it is false. — That it is not warranted by the original. The index 
 has it, "Biblia vidgari quocunque idiomate conscripta.'' There- 
 fore, it was not in ^'whatever idiom," as the gentleman said, but 
 in whatever '' vernacular idiom." Again, in the fourth rule of the 
 index, the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue is expressly 
 allowed, under the. prescribed qualifications set by the index. 
 Therefore, the statement that it was ''prohibited,'' even in the 
 vernacular idiom, is false. Again, still the authority of the index 
 was never recognised beyond the limits of a few provinces. And, 
 therefore, even if the gentleman's statement were true, ichere the 
 index prevailed, which it was not, as we have seen, it would be, 
 and is totally false, in regard to all the other Catholics of the 
 earth. 
 
 The gentleman concludes with a republication of the third 
 can(»n of the fourth Lateran Council, enacted specifically against 
 the Albigcnses. Having been obliged to convict him of garbling 
 this c.iuon in the written controversy, I shall not now take the 
 trouble to examine his translation. It is probable that he follows 
 the " faithful Cramp;" and if so, we know what is to be e^spected. 
 But there are a few questions involved in the subject. 1. Who 
 
 (1) Neal, Hist, of Purit., vol. iii. p. 72. 
 
 7 
 
88 
 
 were these Albigenses? 2. What was their doctrine ? 3. What 
 were its effects on society ? 4. What was the Lateran Council ? 
 and, 5. What was the origin arid author iiy of the canon in ques- 
 tioii? The Albigenses were the religious descendants of the 
 jVCoiuoh co^;jil£m&y . Their principal establishment was in Bul- 
 gariar~"*Tlience their horrible doctrines were translated into France, 
 Italy, and Spain, in the tenth and eleventh centuries. They were 
 called by different names — Poblicoli, Paterini, Cathari, Bogomili, 
 Zurlupins, Beghardi, Brethren of the Free Spirit, &c. ; but their 
 general appellation was Albigenses. Their doctrines were, that 
 th^re are two first principles or deities ; one of them the creator 
 of devils, of animal flesh, of wine, of the Old Testament, &c.; the 
 other, the author of good spirits, the New Testament, &c. ; tlmt 
 unnatural lusts were laic/ul, hut not the jpropagation of the 
 human species. (1) 
 
 These deluded and abandoned people, supported by the Counts 
 of Thoulouse, Comminges, and Foix, had set their sovereigns at 
 defiance, carrying fire and sword through their dominions, slaugh- 
 tering their subjects without distinction "of age or sex, and by 
 their conduct^ as well as their doctrine^ waging open war against 
 Christianity, morality, society, and human nature. As far back 
 as the year 1022, Bobert, King of France, had been obliged to 
 take measures of safety against their doctrines and their crimes. 
 The infamous name, which, even at this day, is given to unnatural 
 lusts, is derived from their appellation — " Paterini et Bugares de 
 quorum errore male tacere quam loqui." (2) Knowing the errors 
 and the infamy of the Albigenses, the man who is acquainted 
 with ecclesiastical history must feel amused or shocked to behold 
 them ranked, as they sometimes are, by ignorant advocates on the 
 gentleman's side of the question, among the religious progenitors 
 of Protestantism. 
 
 We must now turn to the Council of Lateran. The errors of 
 the Albigenses were referred tio, and condemned in the first and 
 second canons. The object of the third canon, now in question, 
 was to check the spread of those errors, and the progress of 
 slaughter and desolation, which the Albigenses, on every oppor- 
 tunity, for two hundred years before, had not ceased to perpetrate. 
 It was also to maintain the rights of sovereigns against the factious 
 lords, who encouraged the excesses of the 'Albigenses, for their 
 own political jmrpo^es. Besides the bishops and abbots, there 
 were at the council ambassadors representing the temporal sove- 
 reigns of Germany, Constantinople, England, France, Hungary, 
 Arragon, Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus; besides those of many 
 other inferior states. Now the wording of the canon shows its 
 
 (1) See Bossuet's Variations, Book XI. — Acta Concil. iii. Lat. — Fleury, 
 Ilistoire Eccles. L. 58, g 54.— Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 328, 329— et 
 alibi pagsim. 
 
 (2) Matt. Paris, An. 1244. 
 
89 
 
 limitation; first, to the Albigensian heretics alone; and, secondly, 
 to the ^^ secular powers present'' at the council. The gentleman 
 on a former occasion thought it advisable, in making the quota- 
 tion, to suppress the word '^preseiit." Having been exposed for 
 this, he now inserts it, and thereby mars his whole purpose, 
 which was to extend the meaning of the text to all secular 
 powers, whether absent or present. Now the fact is, that so far 
 from its being the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and so far from 
 its being an enactment of universal approbation, it never was put 
 in force against any other heretics besides the Albigenses, nor 
 even against them, except in the departments of the three counts 
 mentioned above, who encouraged the outrages of these enemies 
 of the human species. Its origin was owing to the crimes of 
 those against whom it was specifically and exclusiveli/ enacted. 
 And it is dishonest to charge on Catholics of the present day, a 
 responsibility, which must rest, in time and in eternity, on those 
 who were concerned in its enactment. But in all this I have ad- 
 mitted, ybr sake of argument, that it was enacted by the council, 
 and this I have done, because, as respects the point at issue, it is 
 of no importance by whom it was enacted. 
 
 The fact is, however, that the best critics, who have not been 
 under the influence of the anti-Popery mania, have regarded this 
 canon as spurious — an interpolation in the genuine acts of the coun- 
 cil. In the Mazarine copy of the council, it is not found in either the 
 Greek or Latin. In the earliest editions of the councils, it is not 
 found. For two hundred and twenty years after the council, this 
 canon was not known as one of its enactme^its. In the first edition 
 of the councils, by Crabbe the Franciscan, published by John 
 Merlin in 1530, it is not found. The first and only person who 
 discovered it was John Cochleus, in 1537. By him it was sent 
 to John Bincus of Cologne, and published in Crabbe's second 
 edition of 1538. Some have ascribed it to Pope Innocent him- 
 self Some have regarded it as a fragment of the imperial con- 
 stitutions of Germany, probably the work of Frederick II., whose 
 zeal against heretics and rebellious barons is well known. In 
 support of these conjectures, it will be sufficient to mention such 
 authorities as Platina, Bigordus, Gregory IX., Matthew Paris, (1) 
 Nanciarus,(2) the monk Godfrey, &c., all of whom maintain 
 that, whatever was its origin, it was not an act of the council. 
 But as the gentleman is, probably, not acquainted with these 
 authors, and probably never will be, I shall refer him to Dupin, 
 vol. x. Bibliot. p. 104; or if he refuses the authority of this half 
 Protestant writer, I refer him to Collier's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 
 424. Collier was a Protestant, but a learned one; he pronounces 
 this can<?n spurious. And the gentleman's authority, in opposi- 
 
 (1) Ad. An. 1215. 
 
 (2) Chron. Ad. An. 1215. 
 
 6 
 
90 
 
 tion to that of Dr. Collier, would not weigh a feather, in regard 
 to a matter of history. But at all events. Catholics of the present 
 day, have no more to do with what is called the third canon of 
 the Council of Lateran, than with the burning of Servetus. 
 
 In view of these historical facts, of which the gentleman seems 
 to be most blessedly ignorant, I think he cuts a \eTj ridiculous 
 figure, when, in relation to this canon, he breaks out in the fol- 
 lowing strains of impassioned eloquence: ^' Such is the Magna 
 Charta of Papal rights — the great iv fallible Black Letter Com- 
 mentary/ on the power of the priesthood — the germ of the inqui- 
 sition — the tender mercies of the only true church, out of which 
 there is no salvation; in which there is no liberty. In vain did 
 Draco write his laws in blood — or Heathen Rome legislate 
 against Christians. This is the masterpiece of spiritual and 
 temporal despotism." Here the gentleman gets out of breath, 
 and, as he says, "needs a little respite." He is just able, before 
 sitting down, to avow his ignorance of the difference between 
 ^^ doctrine and discipline." He should have reflected on this 
 state of his mind before he rushed into the discussion. If he is 
 serious in wishing to know what doctrine is, I refer him to his own 
 definition. It is any *' tenet of faith or morals which a denomi- 
 nation teaches, AS HAVING been revealed by Almighty God." 
 Let him consult larger treaties of theology, when his leisure will 
 permit. He had bound himself in relation to any disputed point, 
 to show that it was taught by a General Council, or the bull of a 
 Pope, as a "doctrine" — i. e. as a tejiet of faith and morals re- 
 vealed by Almighty God," or else not to adduce it in argument. 
 You all have seen how he redeems his pledge. You all have 
 seen, that he insists on making Catholics admit as a doctrine of 
 their religion, whatever nonsense or impiety he may think proper 
 to ascribe to them. Now, it so happens, that neither Pope nor 
 General Council possesses this right. They have the right to 
 attest and explain what is the doctrine, but they have no right to 
 create and impose new tenets. The gentleman, however, is de- 
 termined to make us hold whatever doctrines he pleases. He 
 first repeats the calumnies that were invented for political pur- 
 poses, in days of bigotry and rapine, and then he denounces us 
 for having been calumniated. It is with this view, that the slan- 
 ders of every outcast from our communion, are put on file against 
 us. It is with this view that De Pratt is quoted. I make the 
 gentleman a present of him. Having the "faithful Cramp," and 
 the infidel renegade, De Pratt, as his monitors, the gentleman is 
 in a fair way of being correctly informed on the subject of the 
 doctrines of the Catholic religion. Still, even under their guidance, 
 I would advise him not to write any more Latin for the fathers of 
 the Council of Trent. 
 
91 
 
 '*is the Roman Catlwlic Religion^ in any or in all its principles 
 or doctrines J opposed to civil or religious liberty ?'^ 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE III.— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Mr. President : — The reason why I was so desirous to have the 
 name of the anonymous writer in the " Catholic Diary," (better 
 called Noctuary,) is the same which makes my Reverend friend 
 so anxious to conceal it. Its loud, long praises of the Rev. John 
 Hughes, (these praises it was that I said might seem irony^ they 
 were so unapt, had they not been meant for emphatic,) make it a 
 curious document — since there is now so much reason to believe 
 him the author of it. I am happy to say, that this society in a 
 dignified letter to the editor of the Diary, has exposed the false- 
 hoods of said piece — and demanded the publication of their reply 
 to it. His refusal to do so is the proper, as it is the expressive, 
 finale of this matter. 
 
 There is one very curious circumstance about this piece, which is 
 worthy of notice before dismissal. The author says, ^^ I called on 
 the Rev. Mr. Hughes the next evening j to obtuin a copy of the con- 
 ditionson which the debate is to be continued, which I send herewith.'^ 
 Having stated that the " Presbyterian Religion" was to be examined 
 as the first question, he adds, on Mr. Hughes's information — 
 ^' The Westminster Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church 
 in America, shall be a proof on the other side." Every member 
 of the committee of arrangements knows this to be the case; — so 
 does the whole society. — And yet the gentleman ventures to assert, 
 " that the question does not limit his investigation to the Presbyte- 
 rian Church in the United States, and to that in connexion with 
 the General Assembly." I appeal to the written rules, signed 
 by the gentleman himself, in contradiction of his assertion. "■ Oh, 
 honour! thou hast fied to brutish beasts." 
 
 His reason For this course is very ohvious. He says — " The gen- 
 tleman admits that persecution ivas a part of Presbyterian ism, in 
 all other countries." If so, then it is to be supposed that I would de- 
 fend it? I did say that our forefathers in different ages, even Calvin 
 himself, had some false views of religious liberty : and were to a 
 certain extent intolerant ; and that so far I condemned them — and 
 that so far our church in the United States of America differed 
 from them. The gentleman knows it to be so. He finds nothing 
 in us to condemn, — and flies to other churches, and other lands, in 
 quest of matter. This is, in fact, giving up the question, as to 
 Presbyterians. He says truly, therefore, when quoting from the 
 ^^ General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church" — a df- 
 nunciation of the American Constitution — '' the gentleman will 
 
92 
 
 tell you these doctrines are not of the Presbyterians/' They are not 
 our doctrines. — Far, far from them. When the gentleman, a little 
 before, charges me with " afccting to he an idolater of the American 
 Constitution,'^ HE answers the question. When he asks — " Do not 
 these kindred denominations exchange pulpits ?" I answer — No. 
 
 But we are now looking a little into Popert/, ivhich is unchanr/e- 
 aJjIe, the samd n^er^'ivhere, and in ev^Tyxige. It cannot change. 
 And if, as he says, we may relapse into the intolerance of our fa- 
 thers, Rome can never (h?/ her own confession) he reformed from 
 her 2)ersecuting spirit. When we come to the Presbyterian ques- 
 tion, it will be the time to show that there are almost as many errors 
 as paragraphs in the gentleman's attacks. But he cannot divert me, 
 with all his arts, from probing Popery. I know it is a sore, and 
 therefore sensitive, spot. But he must endure it ; — for it is not 1 
 ^^ who have come and rudely thrust myself between him and his re- 
 lation with (to) this society." It is he who came, with unmanly offi- 
 ciousnes s, and thrust himself hctwe&n the y^tithtul dis ptutants ; — 
 it is he w'ho quajledjhefore tht^ IW. IVlr. IvrCallnj wh^n he icnex- 
 pectedly^TWSritrm, on that occasion ; — it is he who retreated from 
 a half-finished debate of a former day — who, with the constancy 
 of a martyr declined my reiterated call, for years — and whom I 
 now meet by invitation of those very youths. He who has vitiated 
 the stenographer's report after being beaten in oral debate ; — he 
 who yet refused to discuss it orally again — who was on the eve pi 
 a retreat to Mexico, had not the publication of the debate been 
 pressed at the point of his honour, as well as the hazard of his cause; 
 and who, (after six months of evasion and delay,) will now defeat the 
 pubjication of this debate, without an almost superhuman patience, 
 sagacity, and firmness, on the part of your publishing committee. 
 
 Sir, you have heard the audacity and coarseness of personal 
 attacks. No Christian, no gentleman, can retaliate such language. 
 Here, at least, I allow myself wholly his inferior. I yield the palm 
 of blackguardism, to him. He has entirely the advantage of me 
 here. I make no pretensions to the title which he has conferred on 
 me, ''of the Chesterfield of the Presbyterian Qhurch." But, sir, 
 when we hear him wielding wnth such coarse and vulgar imperti- 
 nence, the terms ^falsehoml," ''fabrication," "artifice," "for- 
 gery," et id. omne genus, I cannot but be reminded of the origin, 
 habits, breeding, and pretensionsof the Jesuit priesthood, as the true 
 explanation of the fact, that neither Chesterfield nor Elijah has 
 largely cast his mantle over them. The fact is, they are used to so un- 
 questioned a supremacy, that they cannot brook contradiction, or 
 dissent. Their religion deifes each pope ; and each priest is a 
 parish-pope, a "household god," without the tiara and the tem- 
 poral sword. The Catechism of the Council of Trent declares, 
 ^^that in the minister of God, who sits in the tribunal of penance, 
 as his legitimate Judge, he (the penitent) venerates the power and 
 person (awful profanity!) of our Lord Jesus Christ:" and " ice?'e 
 even thi: lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still ivithin 
 
93 
 
 Tier pale J and therefore lose no part of the power with which her 
 ministry invests them.'\V) 
 
 The canon law makes it sacrilege to strike a priest; nn^forhids 
 every one from bringing a bishop or priest before a secular judge 
 for accusation of crime; — it exempts them from taxes, &c. &c. 
 No wonder, then, a Protestant heretic is so illy borne with — and so 
 much impatience discovered, under the freedom of American in- 
 quiry, and at the tribunal of public opinion. But, still, we must 
 advance with the discussion, and we shall set down every ungen- 
 tlemanly epithet, as so much conceded to unanswerable argument. 
 These remarks will not appear too strong, when the gentlemen of the 
 Society recall the following very insulting sentence of the reverend 
 gentleman, — ''I had, indeed, charged the gentleman not only with 
 misunderstanding our doctrine, but also, with perverting the lan- 
 guage in which it was expressed. By way of vindicating himself 
 from this charge, he makes a show of appealing to the original Latin. 
 * Is it not written,' says he, ' Poenam quam opportet pro illis poeni — 
 tentibus imponere?' And what will be the reader's disgust, to learn 
 that this beautiful specimen of Latinity, put forth as a quotajbion 
 from the Council of Trent, is a fabrication, a forgery.'' If the 
 gentleman were ignorant, we mi^ht account for, if not excuse, the 
 reckless audacity of this charge. But he is not ignorant. I leave it 
 for you, gentlemen, to imagine a reason for such a charge, especially 
 when you hear that every word of my quotation is in the 5th chap- 
 ter, 14th session, of the Council of Trent. ' I have been at the 
 trouble to get another edition of the decrees of the Council, which 
 exactly agrees with my former citation. The passage adduced by 
 me, is part of a very long sentence, from which I extracted that for 
 which the proof called. I own it is harharous Latin. It appears 
 in the following connexion, viz.: — " Ut de gravitate criminum recte 
 cersere Y)0ssmt,-et j^cena^n opportatpro illis poenitentibus imjyonere." 
 
 We may better now explain a sentence in a former speech of the 
 gentleman's, that not one in ten thousand of the people understood 
 the language in which the decrees, &c. &c. of his church were 
 written. Hence he ventures, trusting to this ignorance^ to vitiate 
 my quotations and assail my honesty. But happily, there are some 
 men in the community beside the Jesuits who can read a little La- 
 tin, and who have in their hands the decrees of the councils. And 
 now we ask, where does the charge of ^fabrication^' rest, and on 
 whom must the "reader s disgust" fasten ? 
 
 There is one part of this tirade which is truly diverting. He says 
 of the passage quoted by me, it is "a phrase lohich is a most palpa- 
 ble violation of all syntax:" and at the close of his potential ha- 
 rangue adds, "I would advise him not to write anymore Latin 
 for the Fathers of Trent" It certainly is a curious fact that the 
 infallible fathers of the Council of Trent should have written bad 
 Latin; and <Hhe Dutch have taken Holland," when the son thus 
 laughs at the syntax of the inspired fathers. How he will settle 
 
 (1) Eng. Trans., pp. 242, 95. 
 
94 
 
 this matter with his master at Rome I am at a loss to determine. 
 But his corrections are two hundred years too late ; and it is one of 
 many proofs that the gentleman has arisen on the earth in the wrong 
 age. But I think he will not venture again ''to make Latin for the 
 fathers of the Council of Trent;'' and from this w^iole case we learn 
 how far to trust the assertions of one who continues to illustrate the 
 papal maxim, th at "theend JvMiJies the means." You may measure 
 his charges of" artilice/' ''nibri cation/' &c. &c* by this specimen, and 
 you will clearly see that he not only considers such things "■venial 
 sins/' but that any man who will practise these arts, shall still find 
 himself a learner in the deeper counsels of my 7>iore practiced friend. 
 
 I have been thinking that it might be well to divide my answers 
 to his speeches into tv^'oparts — one for the irrelative and indecent 
 of the gentleman's remarks, viz. : the Billingsgate,' the abusive, the 
 "pathetic," the provocative, &c.; the other for the argumentative 
 part : or perhaps if we could give him an entire evening to dis- 
 gorge, he might feel better after it, and save us the trouble of so 
 often exposing him. 
 
 There is another sample of candour and lojic blended, which I 
 must not omit to notice. He says, in reference to the III. canon 
 of IV. Lateran, " Now the wording of the canon shows its limita- 
 tion to the secular powers present at the council." Now, so far is 
 this from being true, that there is not a schoolboy in America who 
 has read the colloquies of Cordery that does not know better. The 
 passage in the original reads thus : — Daranati vero, saecularibus 
 potestatibus praesentibus aut eorum balivis relinquantur animad- 
 versione debita puniendi. But being condemned, let them (the 
 heretics) be left to the secular poivers present, or to their bai- 
 liffs to be punished by due animadversion. lie charges me with 
 fraudulently omitting the word " present," and for this reason, 
 that I thus make the persecuting canon apply to all secular 2^0 w- 
 ers, whereas, he says, it applies only to those "present" in the 
 council. Can the gentleman be in earnest in this translation ? 
 (The charge I despise.) The decree is defining the place and the 
 powers for punishing "heretics" at a future day; and orders that 
 the secular powers in whose territory they should be found , should 
 punisJuf them. The terms ssecidaribus p)otestatibus praesentibus 
 are equivalent to "the powers that be." Just b^low, in the 
 same canon, the same "powers" are named without "prsese7itibus," 
 and Caranza, the Popish author, in giving the contents of this ca- 
 non, thus writes : — Punitiohasreticorum ssecularibusj)Otestatib'us 
 committenda. " The punishment of heretics TO BE committed to the 
 secular power." "Praesentibus" is omitted; and in a just and pure 
 translation not the least change in the sense is made by its presence 
 or absence. Still the omission was an inadvertence, for I am accus- 
 tomed to translate this barbarous Latin in almost a babarously literal 
 way, knowing that I have to do with a Jesuit. 
 
 But allowing that "praesentibus" does refer to the powers pre- 
 sent in the council, has not the gentleman told us that the council 
 
95 
 
 embraced '' ambassadors representing the temporal sovereigns of 
 Germany, Constantinople, England, France," &c., or as he says, in a 
 former controversy, ^^a general congress of Clivhtendom in which 
 the states and sovereigns tvei-e rej^resented for thej^urpose of con/er- 
 ring together on such matters as concerned the general welfare." 
 
 Now, who was not represented here? Were not the '[secular 
 powers jyresent from all Christendom?" Then wherever the decree 
 went it would find thnB-^M*6ii*??y6' " of those very minions of the Pope 
 who, in this "mingled theocracy and civil policy," 'Hhls church and 
 state" in which the Pope was liead, had allowed heresy to be de- 
 nounced as a "civil oifence" and as such to be devoted by the 
 church of Rome, (the Pope presiding,) and through "all Christen- 
 dom" doomed to extirpation by fire and sword. 
 
 These dexterous efi"orts of his are made to evade the powerful proof 
 of E-oman Catholic persecution found in the terrible canon of the IV 
 Lateran, quoted by me at the close of my last speech. He first 
 tries to distort its meaning, by telling us that its force is " limited," 
 by the "wording of the canon," " to the Alhigcnsian heresy alone." 
 It is truly incredible that he could believe so with the following 
 words staring him in the face in the very first sentence : — "' TFe ex- 
 communicate and anathematize EVERY HERESY (omnem hasreisni) 
 extolling itself against this holy orthodox Catholic faith, which 
 (faith) we before expounded, condemning Al,!, HERETICS by what- 
 soever 7iame called." If these terms have any limitations save 
 heresy and earth, I cannot see them. "All heresy," "by whatever 
 name called." But I ask, what if it icere limited to the Albigenses f 
 Admit it to be so. What does the gentleman gain ? Why this. The 
 infallible council, headed by the Pope, only persecuted one people^ 
 not all. But what right had they to persecute o?ie people ? Or if 
 one, why not all, when said church shall please ? What right had 
 Catholics to punish them with death for their opinions ? Who put 
 the sword into the Pope's hand? Who formed this "Congress of 
 Christendom ?" The Pope called it, headed it, drew up all the ca- 
 nons, and then confirmed them, published them, and ordered their 
 execution in the name of the Holy Catholic Church, and by the 
 authority of God ! Yet the gentleman dares, in the light of this 
 age and land, to defend this theocracy and fearful persecution ! 
 
 But he says, " the Albigenses were very, very ■wicked, not only in 
 their doctrines but their lives, by lusts and bloodshed. There are 
 almost as many falsehoods as sentences in the account he gives of 
 this persecuted people. You will remember, gentlemen, that he 
 produced Moshcim's Testimony, and read, from his 3d vol., page 
 283, some sentences calling the Albigenses " wretched enthusi- 
 asts," charging them with "abominable lusts," "going naked" 
 &c. &c. I was much shocked at the statement ; declared it false, 
 and a perversion of the historian ; and promised to expose it? as 
 such. I had hoped to find it a forgery of the Jesuits; and thus 
 the gentleman would escape. But as you will remember, on turn- 
 ing to the passage, it appeared that the gentleman had omitted the 
 
96 
 
 real name of the people denounced by Mosheim, (though but one 
 sentence above,) and had made him say all those shocking things 
 of the poor Albigenses. Now, how strange must it seem, when I 
 tell you that the historian was there speaking of one of the sects 
 classed with a people "called Brethren of the Free Spirit." Of 
 the Albigenses he gives a most opposite account, and in a different 
 part of the work I This author says : (2) they were the same with 
 the Faulicans; that "even their loorst enemies acknowledrjed the 
 sincerity of their piety ; hut they were blackened by accusations 
 'khich loere evidently false ; and that the opinions for which they 
 were punished, differed widely from the Manichsean system." 
 He adds, in the same page, a narrative of the character, vices, and 
 errors of those whom my reverend friend made the slandered and 
 perverted writer call Albigenses. I pronounce him 2i falsifier of 
 Mosheim, and call on him to clear his character. If he will^hear 
 more of Mosheim, the historian goes on to say: (3) "During the 
 whole of this century (the 13th) the Roman pontiffs carried on 
 the most barbarous and inhuman persecution against those whom 
 they branded with the denomination of heretics ; i. e., against all 
 those who called their pretended authority and Jurisdiction in 
 question, or taught doctrines different from those which were 
 adopted and propagated by the Church of Rome." Also, (4) he 
 says of the Inquisition, "That nothing might be wanting to ren- 
 der this spiritual court formidable and tremendous, the IIoman 
 PONTIFFS PERSUADED the European princes, and more especially 
 Frederic II," (the very prince on whom our priest would fasten 
 the persecuting canon in question, and of whom he says, "whose 
 zeal against heretics and rebellious barons is loell knoivn,") "and 
 Lewis IX., king of France, to enact the most barbarous laws against 
 heretics, and to commit to the flames, by the ministry of pu))lic 
 justice, those who were pronounced such by the inquisitors." 
 When the proper time comes, I will show, by Catholic historians^ 
 that there is not one word of truth in what the gentleman has said 
 of the Albigenses. 
 
 But allow it true. I ask again : What has the head of Christ's 
 church, and the holy council, to do with burning heretics, with 
 oaths of allegiance, with ruling, punishing, deposing princes ? The 
 gentleman's argument, is: the Albigenses were loicked and mur- 
 derous; therefore the church might lay hold on them. Princes 
 were represented in the council, and these heretics had devastated 
 their realms ; therefore the church had a right to order a crusade 
 against them, and promise a "full remission of sins" to all who 
 fought against them, and to depose and punish all who refused. 
 His argument admits that the Church of Rome has been, and of 
 course, as she cannot charige, is a persecuting church. 
 
 But the gentleman says this dreadful canon has nothing to do 
 tcith doctrine. "It is so far from having any thing to do with 
 
 (2) Vol. ii. p 580-2. (3) Vol. iii. p. 266. (4) P. 272. 
 
97 
 
 doctrine" &c. Ah ! it is only discipline. It is hard to see (as 
 he tells us) how it is doctrine in Scotland to cut off men's ears 
 fqr heresy, and only discipline in the Catholic churcli to cut off 
 men's heads for the same thing? Poor discipline! she has a hard 
 time of' it. She is the scapegoat of all her infallible sister doc- 
 trines sins. No wonder the gentleman refused so stoutly to dis- '' 
 cuss the hearings of Catholic discipline. But it will not all avail. 
 That part of discipline which flows from doctrine, and for whose 
 exercise the doctrine is pleaded, is doctrine in amount. For ex- 
 ample : it is a part of discipline to take the cnj) from the people ^ 
 in the Lord's Supper. But it rests on the doctrine of the real 
 presence. So here: It is a doctrine of the Church of Home that 
 heretics are in the power of the church, and to be punished by her. 
 This decree announces the same doctrine, and directs its application. 
 The gentleman, in a former controversy, (such writers need good 
 memories,) said, ''The secular representatives had nothing to do 
 with the definition of doctrines and morals.'' But the canon says ; 
 ''This holy, orthodox, catholic faith which we have before e.x- 
 poundedj" Of course, it was the pure doctrine — making council 
 with no secular admixture. And then the decree proceeds to an- 
 nounce the sum of such doctrines as that those who "extol them- 
 selves against the Catholic church" are heretics: that God has 
 empowered the church io p>unish heretics with spiritual pains and 
 penalties, and to order the civil power to superadd temjwral ones; 
 that the civil power must be bound by oath to do it; that if it re- 
 fuse it is to be excommunicated, and the subjects of said power ab- 
 solved from their allegiance by the vicar of Christ; that indulgences, 
 including great sphitual good, are purchased by going as cross'-"" ~ 
 bearers to exterminate the heretics, &c. «&c. Not one of these but 
 rests on a doctrine, or is a doctrine. Or else does the Church of 
 Home say there is no revealed doctrine about the right of men to 
 life and thought ? Or did the holy council err ? There is no escape. 
 This the genUeman finding, makKs a last strng o 'lo (jis^ f con- 
 scious that this temB'ie canon and his c ause cannot bot h stand) to 
 vitiate the awffer>^ficiV^T>1^thT^"^6c'urnentTtseTf. This nexc light has 
 unfortunately come too late. It is a pity the gentleman had not 
 received it before the first controversy. It would have saved hini 
 the trials of his long and sad defence of this canon. But he had 
 not even heard of it while the debate which we are now writing 
 out was going on, else why defend it then and discard it now? 
 He says : " The best critics have regarded this canon as spurious; y 
 an interpolation in the genuine acts of the council.'' Truly, if y/^ 
 the authenticity of the iv fallible decrees be so uncertain, (as alK.^^^ [/ y 
 this would seem to say,) that such a document could have been ^"^ ^ 
 interpolated so as to deceive the infallible church, then her ad- 
 vocates may forever close their lofty speeches about an unerring 
 guide, and the faithful tradition of the Church of Rome ! But 
 hear him : "In the Mazarine copy of the council it is not found 
 in either Greek or Latin." This is false. It is only u. part, not 
 
98 
 
 the v:Jwlc of the canon that is wanting in that manuscript. Labbe, 
 who foHows it, gives the u-liole of the canon in Latin; and where 
 he onjits the Greek, he observes, in a marginal note : De est liic 
 folium in codice Mazarino. '•'■Here a leaf is iccmting in the Ma- 
 zarine majiiisci-ij^t." But this leaf contained only the michlle por- 
 tion of the canon, while both the hcginniiuj and end are 2yrescrvcd. 
 This looks more like excidon than interpolation. It is either too 
 much or too little for the gentleman's purpose. And again ; the 
 second paragraph of this canon, as taken from the same manu- 
 script, points out the pujiishment to be injlicted on those who 
 should he convicted of heresy. Since, then, t\\Q frst part and the 
 last part, and the punishment to be injlicted are all retained by 
 that MS., it is clear that only a leaf was wanting, not the whole 
 as the gentleman ventures to say; and therefore we have the ex- 
 terminating part at least. The rest I care not for. Again : the 
 Rev. gentleman says, '^ Collier (a Protestant) pronounces this 
 canon spurious." This too, I regret to say, is false. He barely 
 states the above-named fiict of its mutilation. Mr. Hughes says, 
 again : "In the first edition of the Councils, by Crabbe the Fran- 
 ciscan, published by John Merlin, in 1530, it is not found." But 
 why does the gentleman not tell us, that the vSaid Crabbe after- 
 tcards published three editions of the Councils in which the said 
 canon is found; and that the edition of 1530 contained oione of 
 the fourth Late7'an's canons? Is this candid? to suppress the 
 ona fact and use the other, so as to make all who do not know 
 better, think that the edition of 1530 had all the other canons of 
 that council ? But still farther. The gentleman claims Du Pin 
 and Matthew Paris as rejecting it. But it is still not true. Du 
 Pin says :(5) " Matthew Paris says that those canons seemed 
 tolerable to some of the prelates and grievous to others. His 
 words are these: farto prius, &c.; i. e. an exhortatory discourse 
 having frst been delivered by the Pojye, the seventy chajHers [capi- 
 tula] were then read in a full council, which seemed tolerable to 
 some, grievous to others. Let the case be how it will, it is cer- 
 tain that these canons were not made by the council, but by In- 
 nocent III., who presented them to the Council ready drawn up, 
 and ordered them to be read; and that the prelates did not enter 
 ^^ into any debate upon them, but that their silence was taken for 
 \ *' an approbation." Here then is a falsification of the gentleman's 
 r^ ^ey statement by his otvn authorities. (6) And here, by the way, we 
 see ichat sort of a thing infallihility is. The Pope draws up arti- 
 cles; the trembling prelates receive them in silence. Some think 
 them tolerable, some intolerable; none satisfied, yet none speak ! 
 Dr. Crotty, Catholic President of Maynooth College, thus testi- 
 fied before the British Commissioners of Education Inquiry, — (7) 
 <<I acknowledge that in the Councils of Lateran and Constance, 
 
 (5) Vol. xi. cent. xiii. p. 95. 
 
 (0) See on this whole subject the learned Grier's Epitome, p. 190-6. 
 
 (7) See Sth Report — note, p. 87, in Grier. 
 
99 
 
 laws were enacted injlicthuj severe temporal jnmisJiments on per- 
 sons who at those periods were hibouring to subvert the Catholic 
 Faith in Europe : that temporal lords who connived at, or favoured 
 the heresy, should be excommunicated ; and if within a year, they 
 did not give a satisfactory account of their conduct, they should in 
 addition, forfeit the allegiance and duty of their vassals." Will 
 Mr. Hughes call this an opinion? Pray, is his better? Is not it 
 as good as his? — yea, better. Yet what does it say? 
 
 Finally, (on this topic,) the Council of Trent has affirmed some 
 of the Canons of the fourth Lateran; for example, its Canon on 
 Confession : which it has adopted on its authority, and as its own. 
 Yet it has not said one word of the sj)U7'io2isness of any of the other 
 canons. It has not repealed any of them. Yet it met since the 
 other — and its decisions are law with all true Catholics. Then, 
 here is the broad seal of the last, the (jreat Council, set to the 
 authenticity of this third canon : and to the authority of all of 
 them. And every Catholic on earth is under the following obliga- 
 tion : " I also profess and undoubtedly receive all other things, de- 
 livered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general 
 Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent."(8) 
 
 I regret to have spent so much time on a single document. But 
 the discussion was important on many accounts. And now the ter- 
 rific decree returns to us, as one of the "sacred canons" of the 
 " Holy Catholic Church,'^ — to be received by all. Never was such 
 a decree passed by any assembly secular or sacred, before or since. 
 Consider for a moment its contents, as spread out at the close" of 
 my last speech. — 1. Heretics are those who differ from Home; 
 and 2. She is to denote them. 3. The civil power is to take oath 
 to inflict due punishment on them : ,4. Which is to exterminate 
 them, if they remain contumacious ; and give their lands to Ca- 
 tholics. 5. If the civil power refuse, it is to be reported to the 
 Pope; and 6. lie absolves the siihjccts from the oath of allegiance, 
 and excommunicates the prince, giving his lands to Catholics, and 
 the throne to another. 7. All favourers of heretics were to lose 
 all civil as well as all religious rights: as the right of inherit- 
 ance, bequest, suffrage, &c. &c. 8. Great indulgences were, on 
 the contrary, bestowed on their persecutors. 
 
 Is not^his at war with all liberty — and with l ife, a nd the race 
 itself, as weft -ft»-with -iI^gli "Eeaven? But this decreeTTs only as 
 ^' one o/ a thousand.'^ 
 
 The 27th canon of the third Lateran, (which was also a general 
 Council, held a. d. 1179,) is almost equally odious and persecut- 
 ing. This the gentleman has not tried to vitiate ; — but stoutly 
 charged me with garbling it, in a former controversy, because I 
 followed Faber in citing its substance. The Acta Ecclesisc give 
 still less, I think, than Faber. This is the unlucky decree which 
 the gentleman, during the debate, 7nade one say icas in Caranza; 
 when, unfortunately, by turning to the page, I had just said the re 
 (8) Creed of the Church called Pius IV. 
 
100 
 
 verse ; viz.: that Caranza " with filial care had omitted the whole." 
 Baronius himself does not give it continuously. I gave a full page; 
 but because I omitted the nicknames and pretended sins of the 
 heretics, he, as usual, charged me with *' garbling;" for his great 
 first resource is to taint the documents. Now, then, I refer you 
 to his acknowledged edition of it in the late controversy. 
 
 This persecuting canon, in the name of God, ^^ curses the here- 
 tics and their favourers with an anathema.'' It " enjoins on 
 all the faithful for the remission of sins," " to take up arms." 
 It enforces " confiscation of their goods;" and worse than all, adds, 
 *' Let it be freely permitted to princes to reduce men 
 OF SUCH STAMP TO SLAVERY.'' It " relaxes two years of enjoined 
 penance, to those faithful Christians, who shall take up arms" 
 and to ^^ longer time — longer indulgence;" and those who re- 
 fused, ^^ were inhibited from the hodi/ and hlood of the Lord." 
 
 Surely this is doctrinal, ecclesiastical, and persecuting? Surely 
 it relates to morals, to faith, to duty? AVe commend it to the 
 gentleman's scissors ! Let it but pass his alembick, and it will 
 
 ?come out pure and ethereal, refined from '^ slavery," *' persecu- 
 tion," and all that is opposed to civil or religious liberty! 
 , t Let us pass from these decrees of Councils to the Catechism of 
 
 the Council of Trent — a source of proof recognised by the gentle- 
 r man. In naming those who are excluded from the Church, it is 
 \ said, " Heretics and schismatics, because they have separated from 
 o the Church, and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army 
 from ichich they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied, 
 7\ that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, as those 
 t\ liable to have her judgment passed" [the English translation re- 
 ^ commended by the Reverend clergy in this country, here forges a 
 ^v word, which is not in the Latin — as if only ojmiions were to be 
 V judged — and puts in, " 07i their opinions," whereas it is] " on them, 
 ^ to be punished byher;" [another forgery, for the translator inter- 
 polated [ spiritual,' but the Latin is simply 'puniantur,'^ '^and de- 
 VA nounced with anathema." Now, here is a claim full of despotism, 
 "^ which the translator's frauds could not conceal. It most fitly com- 
 [^ pares the Roman Church to an army, and us poor heretics to de- 
 ^^ serters, who are still subject to her. Yet does the gentleman talk 
 about freedom of conscience, and of worship ! But how is this ? 
 " Subject to her judgment still — like deserters." So they act it out 
 in Italy and Spain ; no thanks to them for freedom here ! " To be 
 PUNISHED by her." Not "spiritual" alone, though that were 
 destructive of liberty; but it is more than this, as any one will 
 perceive who consults either the force of the icords, or the history 
 and practices of the Church of Rome. 
 
 We may learn what is meant above by referring to other testi- 
 mony. For example, Dens' s Theology, adopted by the Roman Ca- 
 tholic Bishops of Ireland, since 1808, as a standard book. What 
 does it say? — " Although Heretics nvc without the church, never- 
 theless, they remain by reason of baptism, subject to the church, 
 
101 
 
 whence she justly seizes them as desertervS from the camp of the 
 church, and so they are under the obligation of returuing/'(9) 
 
 Under the question, " Is it lawful to tolerate the rites of unhe- 
 lievers f he replies, *^ The rites of other unbelievers, viz. of Pa- 
 gans and Heretics, are not in themselves to be tolerated ; because 
 they are so bad, that no truth or utility can fron^ tjc^cp be derived 
 to the good of the church." (10) ' -' - '' ^ - 
 
 *' Unbelievers who have been baptized, f>s' heretics, .and, apos- 
 tates generally, and also baptized schis7naiics^ ^cani'^elcpTripelvcd 
 by corporal punishments, to return to the Catholic faith, and unity 
 of the Church." 
 
 " The reason is, that they, by baptism, are made sid>jects of the 
 Church, and therefore, the church has jurisdiction over them, and 
 the power of compelling them by the ordained means to obedi- 
 ence, to fulfil the obligations contracted in their baptism^' 
 
 '^ This also obtains in the case of those who have been baptized 
 in their infanci/" [I pray the gentleman to remember what I said 
 of 'cogendos,' and of baptism as 'a brand of slavery;'] *' as the 
 Council of Trent teaches, sess. 7, can. 14," [the very proof ad- 
 duced by me,] "and the fourth Council of Toledo, canon 55, vol. 
 ii. pp. 79-81." The Toledo canon (11) is ^'that even those who 
 by force or necessity adopted the faith, should be forced to hold 
 it.'' ^' Opportet ut fidem, etiam quani vi vel necessitate suscepe- 
 runt, tenere cogantur." 
 
 " Heretics that are known to be such are infamous for this very 
 cause itself, and are deprived of Christian burial." 
 
 *' Their temporal goods are, for this very cause itself, confiscated ; 
 but before the execution of the act, the sentence declaratory of 
 their crime ought to proceed from the ccclosiastical judge, because 
 the cognizance of heresy lies in the ecclesiastical tribunal." "Fi- 
 nally, they are also justly afflicted with other corporal punish- 
 ments, as exile, imprisonment," &c. 
 
 " Heretics are justly punished with death, because God, in the 
 Old Testament, ordered the false prophets to be slain; and in 
 Deut. xvii. 12, it is decreed, that if any one will act proudly, and 
 will not obey the commands of the priest, let him be put to 
 death. See also 18th chapter." 
 
 "The same is proved from the condemnation of the 14th article 
 o{ John ITuss, in the Council of Constance." (12) That article de- 
 nies the right of handing one over to the secular power for heresy. 
 
 Here is proo/ which he that runs may read. Will the gentleman 
 tell me it, too, is opinion ? Is his any more ? Dens's is, to say the 
 least, as good as his. But this is under the seal of the Irish pre- 
 lates. Is it still opinion? When I adduced the Pope, it was still 
 opinion! Either then you must call a general council to repeal, 
 or rest in the fearful and full proof we have adduced. But again: 
 
 (9) Vol. ii. p. 114. (10) Vol. ii. pp. 82, 83. (11) S^ Caranza, paoje 55. 
 (12) Dens's Theo, vol. ii. pp. 88, 89. See also Reports I. and II. of Protest- 
 ant Meeting at Exeter Hall, London, 1835. 
 
102 
 
 We have the testimony of the onnofators of the Rhemish Nno Tes- 
 tamc7it, with full notes, prepared with much care, as an exhibit of 
 papal doctrines. Note on Luke ix. 55, 56, " The Church or Chris- 
 tian Princes, are not hlamed for putt imj Heretics to death." Note 
 on Revelations xviii. 6, '^ The blood of Ileretics is not the blood of 
 saints j nq mqrcj than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other 
 malefactors-^'ib.r the shedding of which blood, by order of justice, 
 no commonwealth shall answer." llev. ii. 6, 20, 22, *' He [Christ] 
 warneth bishops to be jealous and stout against the false j9roj;Ae^s of 
 U)hat sort sofivcr, by alluding covertly to the example of holy Elias, 
 that in zeal killed four hundred and fifty false prophets." John 
 X. 1, " Arius, Calvin, Luther, and all that succeeded them in room 
 and doctrine, are thieves and murderers." Acts xix. 19, [Please 
 in each case refer to the Scripture-passage,] "A Christian man is 
 hound to burn or deface all wicked books, of what sort soever, es- 
 pecially heretical books. Therefore the Church has taken order 
 against all such hooks.'' 
 
 Here then is another collateral testimony full to my purpose. It 
 is the declaration of a long accredited commentary that the doc- 
 trines of the Catholic Church not only justify but command perse- 
 cution. But again. . Besides this testimony from annotators, what 
 says the GREAT Bossuet ? Of the power of the sword in matters 
 of religion he says, " It cannot be called in question without weak- 
 ening or maiming the public authority or power." ^^ No illusion 
 can he more dangerous than malting toleration a mark of the time 
 church." No ; the church's holy severity, and her holy delicacy 
 forbade her such indulgence, or rather softness. (12) 
 
 We have also testimony to the intolerance of Romanism from Bel- 
 gium as well as from France. As soon as the king of the Nether- 
 lands took possession of his dominions, the papal prelates made an 
 effort to re-establish throughout Flanders the aneient despotism of 
 the church over conscience. They addressed a letter to the king, to 
 be found in the Annual Register, (London,) and portions of jt in the 
 History of the Jesuits, which is a reply to Dallas's Defence of them. 
 They say, '* Sire, the existence and privileges of the Catholic 
 Church in this part of your kingdom are inconsistent with an ar- 
 ticle of the new constitution, by which equal favor and protecitiou 
 are promised to all religions." *' Since the conversion of the Bel- 
 gians to Christianity such a dangerous innovation has never been 
 introduced into these provinces, unless by force." 
 
 '' Sire, we do not hesitate to declare to your Majesty that the 
 canonical laws which are sanctioned by the ancient constitutions 
 of the country, are incompatihle with the projected eonstitution 
 which would give in Belgium equal favour and protection to all 
 religions." The '^ canonical laws, say the Popes, ought to be 
 received everywhere." But wherever they are received, say these 
 bishops (and truly) toleration is out of the question. ^' The 
 
 (12) (Euvres de Boss, Tom. III. p. 411. Paris, 1747. 
 
103 
 
 canonical laws have always rejected schism and hersey from the 
 bosom of the church." Does Mr. Hughes deny this, or condemn 
 the effect, if admitted by him to be true? 
 
 " The Council of Trent, all whose resolutions were published in 
 these provinces, and have the force of ecclesiastical Law, com- 
 manded the bishops carefully to watch not only over the mainte- 
 nance of the sacred pledge of the faith ^ but also that of the laws 
 which concern the essential discipline of the Catholic Church, and 
 secure the consistency and inviolability of its government." One 
 of these resolutions of the Council of Trent, and the object of the 
 bull of Pope Paul the III. (observes the refuter of Dallas) which 
 issued in consequence, was the ^^extirpation of heresy." 
 
 The bishops proceed to say ^^ Securing the same protection to all 
 religions would he incompatible with the free and entire exercise 
 of our official duties." That is, wherever Popery really and fully 
 exists there can be no toleration, for toleration "?s incompatible 
 with the free and entire exercise of the official duties of its bishops/' 
 In fine, they say, "We are bound, sire, incessantly to preserve the 
 people intrusted to our care from the doctrines which are in opposi- 
 tion to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, We could not release 
 ourselves from this obligation without violating our most sacred 
 duties; and if your majesty, by virtue of a fundamental law, pro- 
 tected in these provinces the p)uhlic profession and sjyreading of 
 these doctrines, the progress of which vje are boui\d to oppose with 
 the care and energy which the Catholic Church expects from, our 
 office, we should be in formal opposition to the laws of the state, to 
 the measures which your Tnajesfy might adopt to maintain them 
 ainong us, and in sjnte of all our endeavours to secure union and 
 peace, the public traniiuillity might still be disturbed." Here is 
 a bold, honest position taken; without disguise they declare that 
 whenever the laws of the state shall tolerate any other religion, then 
 the papal prelates and the Catholic system are necessarily opposed 
 to those laws and to the government which should maintain them. 
 Here observe, they do not say that as Popery was the Religion of 
 the state, therefore Protestantism was against the law. But they 
 say whenever the law of the state shall so change as to tolerate 
 Protestants (or heresy and schism) then Popery will be opposed 
 to the laws and government. That is. Popery is in its own neces- 
 sary nature intolerant, opposed to liberty. 
 
 It is a proper place here to introduce the Pope's letter to the 
 cardinals universally, dated February 5th, 1808, declaring his 
 dissent to Buonaparte's proposal to grant the free public exercisq^ 
 of religious worship to dissenters from Popery, He says, "/^ is A /- 
 jirojjosrd that all religious persuasions should be free, and their I / 
 worship publicly exercised ; but we have rejected this article as y y^ 
 contrary to the canons, and to the councils, to the Catiiolic RELI- i ^ 
 GION, and to the welfare of the state, on account of the deplorable I 
 consequences which ensue from it."(13) Here is the whole mattej,*.^ 
 
 (13) See Hist. Jesuits. \ a /jl/^T^ 
 
 (rJ^ 
 
 9af- 
 
!<y 
 
 ^\ 
 
 104 
 
 out. Toleration is agaivst " canons," against ^^ COUNCILS," 
 against the ''Catholic religion." Is not the Catholic reli- 
 gion, as a system, and in maoiT/of its doctrines, opposed to liberty ? 
 Let the gentleman settle with popes, bishops, commentators and 
 councils. 
 
 How well does the reigning Pope agree with his predecessor 
 '^ of happy memory." He, as cited by me already, calls " the 
 liberty of the press' an evil never sufficiently to be execrated and 
 detested, and " liberty of conscience a pestilential error." It is 
 a most striking fact, worthy of record, that even the index to the 
 decrees of councils on the word ^^ heretic' shows the persecuting 
 and oppressive character of the church. 
 
 Hteretici, Judcei, ethnici, cum iis preces habere communes 
 vetatur. 
 
 Templorum haereticoruni ingressus prohibetur 
 
 Conjugium Catholici cum ethnicis, haereticis, schismaticis, pro- 
 hibitum. 
 
 Commercium cum iisdem omne vetitum. 
 
 Quomodo coercendi. 
 
 Hasretici pervicaces exterminentur. 
 
 Damyiati potestafibus ssecularibus relinquantur. 
 
 Multa circa eos qui favent haeriticis. 
 
 Poenae haereticorum et illorum fautorum. 
 
 Incarcerentur usque ad mortem. 
 
 Relapsorum poena. 
 
 Domus in qua inventus est hasreticus dirautur.(14) 
 
 TRANSLATION. 
 
 It is prohibited to pray with heretics, Jews, and heathens. 
 It is forbidden to enter houses of worship used by heretics. 
 Catholics are prohibited to marry with heretics^ Jews, and 
 schisraatists. 
 
 All intercourse with them is forbidden. 
 
 By what methods they are to be coerced. 
 
 Pertinacious heretics are to be exterminated. 
 
 Being condemned they are to be left to the secular power. 
 
 Many things touching those who favour heretics. 
 
 The punishments of heretics and their favourers. 
 
 They are to be imprisoned even unto d-eath. 
 
 Punishment of the relapsed. 
 
 The house in which a heretic is found is to be pulled down. 
 
 The great and good Baxter says : "SmitJiJield confuted the Pro- 
 testants, ivhorn both the Universities could not confxite. Their In- 
 quisition is a school where they dispute more advantageously than 
 in academies. Though all the learned men in the world could not 
 confute the poor Albigenses, Waldenses, and Bohemians, yet by 
 these iron arguments they had men who presently stopped the 
 mouths of many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of them, 
 
 (14j Acta Ecclesiae, torn. ii. 
 
105 
 
 even as the Mohammedans confute the Christians. A strappado is 
 a knotty argument. In how few days did they convert 30,000 Pro- 
 testants in and about Paris, till they left them not (on earth) a word 
 to say ? In how few weeks' space did the ignorant Irish thus stop 
 the mouths of many thousand Protestants ? Even in Ulster, alone, 
 as is strongly conjectured, by testimony on oath, about 150,000 men 
 were mortally silenced. There is nothing like stone-dead with a 
 papist. They love not to tire themselves with disputes, when the 
 business may be sooner and more successfully despatched. "(15) 
 
 Before closing, there are some multifarious matters which the 
 gentleman has thrown in by way of " filling up," that I maybe ex- 
 pected to notice. 
 
 As to the "premium of $500," I produced the book, and my 
 friend, at the place appointed, met with it. But wo premium has 
 appeared, though I agreed to lay it out in Bibles for the worship- 
 pers of St. John's. Or, if the gentleman pleases, we will build with 
 it confessionals for priests to confess their sins in. 
 
 As to " the majority principle," it is he who Xms, changed, not I. 
 On the first evening of this discussion, as also in the former Con- 
 troversy, he avowed that the majority had the right (without mak- 
 ing any qualifications) to rule the minority. Thus, (16) he says: 
 ^^Iioould ask, had not they the right, as the MAJORITY hy a million, 
 to one, to take measures for the common welfare? The doctrine 
 of Christ teaches submission to * the powers that be ;' " and adds, 
 ^' No repuhlican, I should think, would deny it." Will the reader 
 believe that this is in d(fence of the cruelties practised by the said 
 Fourth Lateran Council, whose bloody canon we have so largely ex- 
 amined ? Now apply the principle. In Italy, in Spain, the ma- 
 Jorityhaye established the Catholic religion hy law. Now I ask him, 
 again, i^had the majority a right to do so?'' Let him reply : yes, 
 or no. He will not venture to do either. You will see that he 
 will evade it. Yet the above has answered it. His shield was 
 then on the other side, and he left his principles exposed. 
 
 That this is his principle, see Cardinal Bellarmine,(17) where he 
 says distinctly, that when Catholics have the majority they have 
 not only the right to rule, but to extirpate heirtics. He who shall 
 see a majority of our people pnrpis/s shall stand at the tomb of li- 
 berty in this land. As to "voluntary slaves," bethinks the Ame- 
 rican people would not be such, though they shoidd elect the Pope 
 their head for life, and alter the Constitution to justify it ? Could 
 a Roman monarchist say more ? 
 
 As to the charge of " artifice" in my statement of his ^'candid 
 admission^' " of the established order of civil and ecclesisastical 
 duties in a state," I am willing to leave the matter to be judged 
 
 (15) Key for Catholics to open the juggling of the Jesuits. 
 
 (16) Page 72, IXth Letter of the late Controversy. 
 
 (17) Book iii. chap. 23, of Laics. 
 
 7 
 
106 
 
 of by every honest reader. The testimony of the Belgian bishops, 
 given above, shows the gentleman's real system. 
 
 He denies that the doctrines of his church' are opposed to liberty, 
 because Catholics, as in France, Poland, &c., have sought and 
 maintained liberty. The French conquered their liberty from the 
 •priesthood. And as to Poland, noble, bleeding Poland ! if she had 
 expelled the Jesuits a little sooner ! ! — Poland is but semi-papal — 
 and she is the nursery of freedom and now its martyr, not in con- 
 sequence, but in spite of popery. 
 
 '' The cud of persecution will do for the quid Jiuncs of Jesuit- 
 ism. But the doctrine, that '■^Catholics can he submissive to the 
 bishop of Rome," and yet have nothing to do with him "as tem- 
 poral prince," is hard of digestion, and especially in America. 
 For example : He, as bishop, in the name of God, denounces "li- 
 berty of conscienee," and, as '■'■ temporal prince, ^^ uses an army to en- 
 force uniformity of worship. As bishop, all Catholics approve, and 
 must approve of the jjrinciple; but yet the 2^ractice they condemn. 
 Now can any man consistently hold to a bishop of such principles, 
 and yet reject the principles ; or, consistently uphold him as head of 
 the churdh, when as a prince he is so foul a tyrant as to rest his throne 
 on the hired bayonets of Austria. When (as the gentleman owns) 
 the Pope, as prince, "meddles in the civil concerns of other states," 
 and they resist him, as "prince," what becomes of the bishoj) ? can 
 you separate them ? He asks, "Is a Presbyterian minister bound 
 to grant his daughter, if she demand it, the right to be a Catholic ?" 
 Surely ; or a Mohammedan, or an atheist, if she be " of age" to 
 j^udge — and even in her minority he has no right to offer force. 
 But what then ? If she should exercise the right of becoming a 
 papist, and then the priest should deny her the Bible, make his 
 pardon the means of her salvation, require her to confess her most 
 secret sins to him, and she consent, that were "voluntary slavery.'* 
 
 I ask, in turn, if our " General Assembly" be, as he says, "a ra- 
 diating centre," (which, by the way, he predicted some time ago, 
 about to fall to pieces,) what is Rome 'I De Pratt says, " Catholicism 
 is not organized like other wo7'ships. The latter have no common cen- 
 tre, no exclusive source from whence flows power in every religious 
 society. They have no Ptome, nor precedents of Rome, nor preten- 
 sions of Rome. The exaltation or depression of these worships is of 
 no importance in the political order of states. Is it not so with 
 Rome ^ every thing in Catholicism tends to Rome. The Pope is 
 chief of 120,000,000 of followers." " Catholicism cannot have less 
 than 400,000 ministers. This worship and its ministers are spread 
 everywhere." " The Irish and the American priests (my friend 
 is both) are more obsequious to Rome than the German or French 
 priests who are placed nearer to her. Reverence is increased with 
 distance. Rome, viewed at a distance, is a Colossus." "The Pope 
 counts more subjects than a sovereign, more even than many sove- 
 reigns together. These have subjects only on THEIR OWN TERRI- 
 
107 
 
 TORY. The Pope counts subjects on the territory of all 
 SOVEREIGNS. These command only the exterior. The Pope pene- 
 trates deeper. He commands the interior. The seat of his empire 
 is placed in the conscience itself. If the lohole world were Catholics 
 the Pope would command the world — what a power? — what would 
 it leave to others? In a word, he would shake the world ! He did 
 iV for ages in respect to Europe. Not to know how to foresee is not 
 t:) know how to govern or to judge the world." This man was 
 once an Ahhe of the Pope. He knew what he was sa^^ing. Yet 
 can Mr. Hughes talk honestly of the "radiatinn; centre" of our Ge- 
 neral Assembly as dangerous to the land with Rome in his eye ? 
 
 What the gentleman says of the forty Italian editions of the 
 Scripture needs proving. I have searched extensively where such 
 evidence should be found, and it is not to be had. Let us have the 
 proof. Let us see the book. 
 
 But supposing it true, and also the gentleman's translation of 
 "The Index" to be just, then what after all is the mighty bene- 
 fit? Publish forty editions of the Bible, and then forbid the peo- 
 ple to read them ! Does he intend to insult our feelings by 
 making a farce of this subject, or our reason by such logic ? By 
 the way, the gentleman denied that the Index contained what I 
 asserted it did. He called for the book; I produced it. Pray 
 has he had the justice to own that he was mistaken ? I ask, did 
 it or did it not contain the passage ? 
 
 There is near the close of his speech this admission. ^^The civil 
 restraints appointed hy governments, ivhether Catholic or Protest- 
 anty are chargeable to those governmcntSj and not to the doctrines 
 which they p)r of ess." Then why does he just before charge ^^ the 
 Presbyterian parliament (f England" with restraining the freedom 
 of the press? '* Was it not chargeable to the government, and not to 
 the doctrines which they professed ?" In the same page he defends 
 popery and assails Presbyterians by a most palpable inconsistency 
 for doing the same thing. In the former C(>ntroversy(18) he said, 
 "Caesar never was in the power of (Presbyterian) your church but 
 once." Yet he has, during this controversy, again and again charged 
 Presbyterians with abusing civil power for many ages and in many 
 lands. 
 
 The gentleman ridicides my thirty questions ; yet strange to 
 tell he answers none of them. 
 
 I only notice in the last place this admission of the gentleman, 
 "that the doctrines of Catholics leaves them perfect liberty to exr 
 ercise their oion discretion about civil and religious liberty." Is 
 this not allowing that the civil and religious rights of man aro 
 not sufficiently regarded by Romanism to be a part of their reli- 
 gion? What, does not the Bihle define the rights of conscience 
 and of personal as well of civil liberty? Presbyterians hold that 
 
 (18) Letter 9, near close. 
 
108 
 
 God has revealed a clear code ofriglits in his word, and that " there 
 is no discretion" as to the matter of liberty. That wc are not at 
 ^ liherty to destroy or repress the liberty of others, or alienate our 
 \i own; in a word, that the Gospel is the charter of freedom to man. 
 I have, in conclusion, only to beg the gentleman's pardon, that my 
 poetical couplet, derived from his own native land, did not please 
 him, and my only reparation possible is to furnish him a better. 
 
 Well-spring of grief, and J5erce wrath's hospital. 
 The school of error, temple of Heresy, 
 Once Rome, now Babylon most wicked, all 
 With sighs and tears bewail thy piteous fall ; 
 Thou mother of Deceit, bulwark of Tyranny : 
 ' Truth's persecutrix, nurse of Iniquity, 
 The living's HELL; a miracle it will be, 
 If Christ in fury come not against thee 
 Most shameless w*"**e. 
 
 Petkarch, Sonnet 149. torn. IV. 
 
 Or thus, 
 
 The Inquisition, model most complete 
 Of perfect wickedness, where deeds were done, — 
 (Deeds ! let them ne'er be nam'd,) and set and planned 
 Deliberately and with most musing pains, 
 How to extremest thrill of agony 
 The flesh, the blood, and souls of holy men, 
 Her victims might be wrought, and when she saw 
 New tortures of her labouring fancy born. 
 She leapt for joy, and made great liaste to try 
 Their force, well pleased to hear a deeper groan. 
 The supplicating hand of innocence, 
 That made the tiger mild, and in its wrath 
 The lion pause — the groans of suffering most 
 Severe were naught to her. She laugh'd at groans ! 
 No music pleased her more, and no repast 
 So sweet to her, as blood of men redeemed 
 By blood of Christ. Ambition's self, tho' mad, 
 And nursed in human gore, with her compared was me^ci^ I. 
 
 J. BRECKINRIbtlE. 
 
109 
 
 "is the Roman CatlwUc Religion, in any or all its princi- 
 ples or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty^" 
 
 NEGATIVE III.—MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President: — You have been told by the gentleman who 
 has just concluded, that "this Society, in a dignified letter to the 
 editor of the Catholic Diary, has exposed the falsehoods of the 
 piece" published in that paper. Now I have taken the pains to 
 procure a copy of the letter referred to, and it turns out, that the 
 Society have not exposed one single " falsehood." They merely 
 complain (apparently to soothe the gentleman's feelings) that some 
 of the remarks were " i7i a great measure untrue.'' This is 
 supposing falsehoods. But to suppose them, and to "expose" 
 them are two different things. On what authority, therefore, has 
 the gentleman ventured to assert that any falsehoods were " ex- 
 posed" by this Society, when the statement is discovered to be un- 
 supported by facts? The editor gave his reasons at the time, 
 for not publishing the letter of the Society — and the fact of their 
 not having " exposed" the pretended misstatements, was one of 
 those reasons. I know — for I was an eye and ear witness, 
 •as well as the Society — that the statements are substantially 
 correct. 
 
 The gentleman pretends to discover a departure from the rules, 
 when I go to other lands and other ages, to show the character of 
 Presbyterianism. This inference is not just. I am at liberty to 
 quote history, not indeed for the proof of Presbyterian doctrine, 
 but for the illustration of Presbyterian intolerance. When I come 
 to treat of the question of doctrine, I shall show, by the Westmin- 
 ster Confession of Faith, that the Presbyterians hold now, in the 
 United States, some of ,tJie..v&ry~ doctcijiCs^wh Tch oo u otitu-ted their 
 warrant for persecution in Qther-Cdun tries. "He'^ought to know, 
 that I establis^h my point by sliowing -that the creed of his church 
 retains the dojcirinal theory of persecution, in despite of the 
 American Constitution, whTclTTias^on'Iy takeiLj^Wirjrthc right to 
 put it'm pract^e. AgainsTthe Catholics, he goes back a thousand 
 years before-Pi^esbyterianism existed, and although his sect is only 
 three hundred years old, I, forsooth, must not go back more than 
 fifty years, — must not go bejond the boundaries of the United 
 States, in which the government had taken from them the power 
 to persecute. This is unjust and ungenerous. All that is required 
 
/. 
 
 110 
 
 by the rules, is, that when he denies a doctrine, in the name of his 
 church, I should prove by the Confession of Faith now adopted 
 that it is a " doctrine ;" and he is at liberty to establish any 
 point against me, by showing that such a point has been set forth 
 as a " doctrine" of the Catholic Church, in some canon of a 
 general council, or bull of a Pope. 
 
 If, therefore, I go to other lands ''for matter," I only show 
 what is, and has been, the practical operation of the doctrines 
 ioJiich are undeniahli/ in the Confession of Faith. To restrict the 
 argument, then, to the United States, since the Revolution, is as 
 absurd as it would be to restrict the inquiry respecting a man's 
 moral character, to the period during which he was deprived of 
 liberty by incarceration . His principles of dishonesty, his 2>cr verse 
 nature are the same, as when he enjoyed liberty to indulge them ; 
 and it would be a poor vindication to say that he never has in- 
 dulged them, since the power to do so was taken from him. And 
 yet this is the defence which the gentleman sets up, by anticipa- 
 tipn, for the Presbyterians. 
 
 The gentleman says, that there is no right-hand of fellowship 
 between the Reformed Presbyterians and the General Assembly 
 Presbyterians. This assertion is denied by membei-s of both 
 churches. Do the General Assembly look on their reformed 
 brethren as heretics ? The laUer, it is known, 'reject the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, as not Ferng~lir~mDraLcrdinance of 
 God; and yet the gentleman himself has pronouiiced them "as 
 among the purest JPreshf/terians that ever lived I" How is all 
 this to be accounted for ? 
 
 Before entering on the main question, I must clear up a point 
 in which my personal integrity is interested. It refers to my re- 
 marks on the gentleman's quotation from the Council of Trent. 
 In order that the matter may be understood, it is necessary for 
 me to remind you, that in a former speech he gave, as a transla- 
 tion from the Council of Trent, a passage setting forth that thS 
 priest, as the minister of the sacrament of penance, was to ''in- 
 flict punishment." These are the words. Knowing the charge 
 to be false, I replied, that the words in the original were "poenam 
 injungere;" which is, "to enjoin a penance." When a priest 
 tells the penitent in confession to recite some of the Psalms of 
 David, he " enjoins a penance." This is the true meaning of 
 "poenam injungere;'^ but the translation given by the gentle- 
 roan, " to inflict punishment," might mean personal castigation ; 
 and there is little doubt but that he, or the "faithful Cramp," 
 whom he followed, intended that it should be so understood by 
 Protestants. On these evidences I charged him with having per- 
 verted our doctrine; and that charge still stands against him. 
 For, in his reply, he flics from the original and translation, on 
 which my charge was founded. He gives the same translation , 
 and presents another ^ different^ sentence of the Latin, which we 
 
Ill 
 
 shall presently examine. But in order to do perfect justice, I shall 
 give the whole passage, as furnished in the corrected speech. 
 
 " Is it not written near at hand, — ' panam quam opportet pro 
 illis poenitentibus imponere?' i. c.j 'the punishment which ought 
 to be inflicted on the penitents.' " Now I pronounced this Latin 
 a "fabrication, a forgery." 'According to the letter, I was mis- 
 taken ; and according to the letter, I retract the expressions. And 
 now I must explain, how far, and why, I was mistaken. 1st. The 
 words " near at hand,'' did not signify the passage in dispute, as I 
 supposed, but another, which had not been previously referred to. 
 2d. The English expresses the point in dispute. 3d. I supposed 
 that the Latin was intended to express the same idea conveyed by 
 the English. 4th. I saw that, on this ht/pothesis, it was such 
 Latin as the fathers of Trent never would have used. It was a 
 violation of all syntax : 1st, by putting the verb " iraponere" in the 
 infinitive mood, without any word to govern it; 2d, by writing 
 the " oportet" with two p's instead of one, thereby putting it out 
 of the Latin language; od, by putting the pronoun '' illis" as an 
 adjective; 4th, by putting the word '* pcenitentibus," under the 
 conflicting government of the verb " imponere," which requires 
 the dative case, and the preposition " pro," which requires the 
 ablative. Let any Latin scholar take the sentence, as the gentle- 
 man quotes it, and see whether it is not a flagrant violation of 
 syntax, in all the particulars that I have pointed out. The 
 Latin of the Council of Trent is not highly classical, it is true, 
 but yet it is at least grammatical, as will be seen by the con- 
 nexion in the original, on which the sense as well as the grammar 
 depends. 
 
 " CoUigitur praeterea, etiam eas circumstantias in confessione 
 explicandas esse, qua) speciem peccati mutant, quod sine illis pec- 
 cata ista neque a puenitontibus integre exponantur, nee judicibus 
 innotescant, et fieri nequeat, ut de gravitate criminum recte cen- 
 'sere possint, e.t poinam quam oportet pro illis poenitentibus imjjo- 
 nere." Here, there is nothing barbarous or ungraramatical; 
 whereas the garbled words, marked in italics, when presented by 
 themselves as they were by the gentleman, make complete non- 
 sense. It is directed here, that those circumstances which alter 
 the species of the sin should be confessed, as well as the sin itself; 
 and among the reasons assigned, the last is, that otherwise the 
 priests cannot "judge of the grievousness of the crimes, nor en- 
 join, on the penitents for them (pro illis) the penance that ought 
 to be enjoined." This ij^ very different from " the punishment 
 which ought to be inflicted on the penitents." And this, too, as 
 a translation of " poenam quam opportet (oportet) pro illis poeni- 
 tentibus imponere." 
 
 I may as well here, as elsewhere, notice a few of the gentle- 
 man's scattering reniarks. He says, for instance, that I "retreated 
 £ix)m a half-finished controversy of a former day." I wrote the last. 
 
112 
 
 as well as the^rs^ letter of that controversy; and this is what the 
 gentleman calls "retreating." He says, I was ''beaten in the 
 oral discussion/' Still, for sake of appearances, he should let 
 others celebrate his victory. I am perhaps less than his equal as 
 to talents, but a good cause gives me advantages in every discus- 
 sion involving the respective characters of Catholicity and Pres- 
 byterianism. If the gentleman wishes to triumph, there is but one 
 way, in which he can succeed — let him carry on the controversy 
 — alone. 
 
 In my last, I showed, by facts, that the sympathy which he 
 claimed for his suffering in the "great cause," was unmerited. 
 I detailed 2i few facts, which made it clear, that his 02071 pen had 
 furnished the hardest trials, to which his feelings could be sub- 
 jected. Instead of meeting my facts with even an attempt at re- 
 futation, he very politely charges me with " audacity and coarse- 
 ness," and then says that he is a mere novice in abuse, or, as he 
 elegantly terms it, " blackguardism." 
 
 He says, I " refused stoutlj^ to discuss the bearings of disci- 
 pline." I say, that the offer was never made to me, and conse- 
 quently I had not the chance to refuse it. But the charge proves 
 that he was not quite so ignorant of the difference between doc- 
 trine and discipline, or what is termed canon law, as he pretended 
 at the opening of the debate. The one is of Divine institution, 
 and consequently unchangeable. The other is of ecclesfastical 
 enactment — liable to be changed by the authority that ordained 
 it, or like obsolete laws to pass into desuetude, when the object of 
 it does not exist, or its application becomes injurious. 
 
 The gentleman, ^/J'er denying that the Catholics had published 
 forty editions of the Bible in Italian, before the Protestants had 
 published one, now begins to hesitate, and wants to " see the 
 book." Let him deny or admit the fact first, and then I shall 
 consider of his request. For he goes on to say that, even if true, it 
 was still nothing. " Publish forty editions of this Bible, and then * 
 forbid the people to read them ! Does he intend to insidt our feel- 
 ings by making a farce of this subject, or our own reason by such 
 logic P" Sure enough! If I had said that the translators had 
 been allowed to translate the Bible into Italian, and the booksellers 
 of the different cities to publish forty editions of it, with the ex- 
 press understanding, that none of them should ever be read, the 
 gentleman would discover nothing " farcical" in the statement. 
 The logic would be exactly like his own — reasonable, of course. 
 As for the index, I have already disposed of it in a former 
 speech. We shall now pass to the investigation of other matters. 
 
 The gentleman has returned to the canon of Lateran, against 
 the Albigenses, although the remarks of my last speech, on that 
 subject, should have been sufl&cient to satisfy any candid man. 
 The growing light, and decaying bigotry of Great Britain, had 
 wrung from king, lords, and commons, the public acknowledg- 
 
113 
 
 nient, that the gentleman's interpretation of this canon was a 
 libel, — invented, as a pretext, for placing on the necks of the 
 Catholics, that millstone of persecution which has been so re- 
 cently removed. Still, as the creed of Calvin wraps its votaries 
 in that mantle of " inamissible^' intolerance, which is impervious 
 to the rays of light and of liberality, the gentleman, as might 
 have been expected, contends that his interpretation of the fourth 
 canon of Lateran is the true one, and, of course, that the wisdom 
 of the British senate was confounded, in blotting the infamous 
 libel from the statute book. It remains for me, then, to show the 
 true bearing of the case — not, indeed, in the hope that it will have 
 any effect on the mind of those men, who, as a preliminary mea- 
 sure, conducive to the attainment of ulterior ends, have formed the 
 unholy combination which is now in existence, for the destruction 
 of the Catholics — but for the honest men of the country, in whose 
 breasts justice, humanity, respect for equal rir/hfs, and liberty of 
 conscience, prevail over blind attachment to the dictates of secta- 
 rianism. 
 
 I said in my last speech, that the canon in question related, ex- 
 clusiveli/, to the Albigenses, and those who should profess their 
 heresy. Before I proceed to establish this proposition, it is pro- 
 per to show, more at large, who were the Albigenses, and what was 
 the nature of their heresy, from the testimony of contemporary 
 writers. 
 
 The origin of the errors maintained by the Albigenses, is traced 
 to the Manicheans. They were introduced into Bulgaria, shortly 
 after the conversion of that province to Christianity. (1) The acts > 
 of the Council of Orleans (2) inform us, that under King llobert, 
 their doctrines were discovered at Orleans, and were adopted by 
 two canons of that church, named HeribeH and Lisoius. At the 
 same time their disciples appeared in Aquitaniaand at Toulouse. (3) 
 They are expressly caUed '' Manicheans," and "rejected baptism, 
 the sign of the cross, the church, the Redeemer, (together with the 
 incarnation and passion,) the veneration of the saints, the lawful- 
 ness of marriage, and the use of flesh meat. "(4) Glaber, and the 
 Chronicle of Saint Cibard, cited by Vignier, call them Mani- 
 cheans. Renier, who had been one of their disciples for seven- 
 teen years, tells us that the errors of these sects, both in France 
 and Italy, were derived from the ManiclLean churches of Bulga- 
 ria.(5) And Vignier says also, that the Albigenses were called 
 Bulgarians. (6) 
 
 By these and other authorities, it is manifest, both in their de- 
 scej^t and their doctrines, that the Albigenses were Manicheans. 
 
 (1) Petr. Sic. initio libr. (2) Labbe. t. IX.: col. 8.^6. 
 
 (3) Baron, t. XL: an. 1017. 
 
 (4) Fragtn. Hist. Aquit. edita a Petro Pithon, ibid. 
 
 (5) Rem. Cont. Vald. c. 6. t. IV. Bibl. P. P. part ii. p.' 759. 
 
 (6) Bib. His. part ii. an. 1022. p. 672. 
 
114 
 
 They were discovered at Goslar in Suabia, under Henry IV., by 
 the determination wi(h which they abhorred all animal flesh (1) 
 The Cathari, about Cologne, held the same abominable doctrines 
 on the incarnation, and on marriage, as well as the other promi- 
 nent characteristics of Manicheism.(2) Instead of water, they used 
 li(jhted torches, and gave what they regarded as the "baptism of 
 fire. "(8) They held that all flesh was the creation of the devil, 
 and consequently, that the propagation of the human species was 
 aidino^ the devil in perpetuating his work. (4) St. Bernard went 
 among them to recall them from their errors, by preaching and 
 exhortation. He instructed himself thoroughly in their doctrines, 
 in order to confute them ; and besides their condemnation of the 
 baptism of infants, the invocation of the saints, prayer for the 
 dead, he numbers also their condemnation of marriage, and of 
 whatever resulted from the union of sexes. (p^ It is acknow- 
 ledged by a Protestant historian, that the heretics whom Peter the 
 Venerable labored to refute, were "Albigenses, under the name 
 of Petrobrussians.''(6) In their exposition of their doctrine at 
 the Council of Lombez, near Albi, in 1176, they acknowledged 
 that they rejected the "Old Testament," and refused to acknow- 
 ledge the lawfulness of baptism or marriage. (7) Guy de Nogent 
 says of them, in like manner, that they rejected all flesh meats, and 
 all that resulted from the union "of the two sexes. (8) Another 
 historian of the eleventh century, gives the same account of them, 
 and adds expressly their belief in "two creators. "(9) William 
 of Neudbridge, in England, and all other historians, give the same 
 general account of their doctrine. 
 
 The authors of the time distinguish between the Albigenses and 
 the Waldenses, who were entirely a distinct sect, and who were 
 •not even charged with leaving held the abominable doctrines which 
 rendered the Albigenses so unspeakably infamous. Such were 
 the origin, descent, and anti-human tenets of the Albigenses, as 
 set forth by all the contemporary historians that ever wrote of 
 them. They were, indeed, called by diff"erent names, as I men- 
 tioned in my last speech. And it is a mere quibble, to say, as the 
 gentleman does, that they are to be considered as acquitted of these 
 charges, on the ground that Mosheim does not call them Albigen- 
 ses, when he is detailing their infamies. They are known by the 
 generic term Albigenses, just as the descendants of the pretended 
 Reformation are spoken of as Protestants. And to say that they 
 
 (1) Centuriat. in Cent. XL e. 5. 
 
 (2) Eckbert, Serm. XIIL Adv. Cath. t. IV., Bibl. P. P. part ii. 
 
 (8) Serm. I. VIII. XI. • 
 
 (4) Eckbert, Serm. IV. 
 
 (5) St. Bern. Serm. LXVI. in Cant. No. 9. 
 
 (6) Laroc; Hist, de I'Euch. 452, 453. 
 
 (7) Acta Con. Lumb. t. X. Labb. Con. col. 1471. 
 (8; De vita sua, lib. III. c. 16. 
 
 (9) lludulphus Ardens, Serm. in Dom. VIII. past. Trin. t. ii. 
 
115 
 
 were not Albigenses, hecause Moshcim speaks of tliem as "Breth- 
 ren of the Free Spirit," &c., is the same as to say that the mem- 
 bers of the Church of Scotland are not Protestants, hecanse they 
 are called Presbyterians. Besides, Mosheim was their apologist. 
 The Protestants wanted an appearance of ecclesiastical descent 
 from the Apostles, and as the Albigenses had j^rotested against the 
 Church of Rome, they were considered a very important link in 
 the chain of ecclesiastical ancestry. Mosheim, therefore, as was 
 natural, was tender on the horrible vices of his religious fore- 
 fathers ; and when he speaks of their unnatural tenets, and the 
 crimes which resulted from them, he calls them by some specijic 
 name, and sinks the general appellation by which they are known 
 in contemporary history. 
 
 Let any man apply the doctrines of the Albigenses, simply on 
 two points, viz. the tenet that the devil was the creator of the 
 visible world ; and that, in order to avoid co-operation with the 
 devil in continuing his work, the faithful should take measures 
 by which the human race should come to an end ; and then say 
 whether those errors were merely speculative. They were, on the 
 contrary, pregnant with destruction to society. Was it persecu- 
 tion, or rather, was it not self-preservation, to arrest those errors? 
 We shall see presently, however, that these men, like the Cal- 
 vinists in France at a later period, took up the sword of sedition, 
 and wielded it against the government under which they lived. 
 We shall see, that long hefore the canon of Lateran was passed, 
 their course was marked with plunder, rapine, bloodshed. And 
 if so, it follows that their crimes against society^ springing from 
 their doctrines, constitute the true reason of the severity of the 
 enactment against them. 
 
 Their existence was known from the year 1022. If, then, the 
 extermination of heretics had been a doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church, why were they not exterminated from the first? If it was 
 not a doctrine of the church in 1022, it was not a doctrine in 
 1215; for the gentleman himself admits and proclaims that our 
 doctrines never change. Why then did not the Catholics exter- 
 minate them at once ? Is it that they were not able ? No : for 
 at first the heresy had but few supporters. But why were they 
 afterwards persecuted ? The reason is, that in the interval they 
 had proceeded to sustain and propagate their infernal principles, 
 by violence. They had placed themselves under the patronage of 
 factious and rebellious barons, and had fought in pitched battles 
 against their sovereigns. In the former controversy, the gentle- 
 man garbled the twenty-seventh canon of the third Council of 
 Lateran, to show that these poor heretics were condemned to aw- 
 ful penalties, for nothing at all but protesting against the errors of 
 the Church of Rome. This he did by quoting the beginning and^ 
 conclusion of the canon, and, without indicating any omission, 
 suppressing the crimes of these proto-martyrs of Calv'nism. It 
 
116 
 
 was proved, by the very document from which he quoted, that these 
 lambs of the Albigensian fold were " exercising such cruelty 
 
 ON THE CHRISTIANS, {l. e. CATHOLICS,) THAT THEY PAID NO RE- 
 SPECT TO CHURCHES OR MONASTERIES, SPARED NEITHER VIRGINS 
 NOR WIDOWS, NEITHER OLD NOR YOUNG, NEITHER SEX NOR AGE, 
 BUT AFTER THE MANNER OP PAGANS DESTROYED AND DESOLATED 
 
 EVERY THING." — When I discovered the fraud, and asked him to 
 account for it, his defence is that he copied from the Rev. Stanly 
 Faber! — or rather, in his own words, "Faber quotes just as I 
 have done ;" as if he and Faber were joint partners in the glory 
 -of the fraud! At all events the crimes of which they were con- 
 victed, show that the penalties enacted against them,- a quarter of 
 a century afterwards, at the fourth Council of Lateran, were 
 founded on other reasons besides the mere fact of their heretical 
 doctrine — blasphemous and shocking as this was. 
 
 Now, I leave it to the common sense and candour of any un- 
 biassed man in this assembly to decide, even on the strongest case 
 of supposed persecution recorded in ecclesiastical history — the 
 case of the Albigenses — whether that case, adduced to prove that 
 intolerance and persecution is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
 does not prove, in fair reasoning, the very reverse. Here is a sect, 
 beginning, as all sects do, with a few individuals, appearing in 
 the very heart of Catholic Europe, and, on the gentleman's hypo- 
 thesis, creating a public, notorious sin — as extensive as the Church 
 — viz. the sin of permitting these heretics to live and increase for 
 two hundred years previous to the fourth Lateran Council, in open 
 violation of their own supposed doctrine ! If their extermination 
 had been a doctrine; if, like the Presbyterians at this day, and in 
 the United States, the Catholic Church had taught as the command- 
 ment of God, the obligation "to remove all false worship," "ac- 
 cording to each one's place and calling/' binding the conscience 
 of every man, from the Pope down. to the acolythe, and from the 
 king down to the peasant — I ask whether the Albigensian heresy 
 would not have been extinguished in the blood of its first profes- 
 sors ? Was it regarded as a sin, a violation of Catholic doctrine, 
 to have let them live ? Never. Was there any example in those 
 ages, of what Presbyterians have since done, when, with hearts 
 steeled by Calvinism, and faces bent upwards, they were appeas- 
 ing offended Heaven for their "sin ;" and that of the English go- 
 vernment, in " conniving at Popery V Never. Were the Albigen- 
 ses condemned to suffer death for an act o^ private worship, as the 
 Catholics were by the Presbyterian laws of Scotland? Never. 
 Did the Catholics destroy the Presbyterian " churches," " spare 
 neither virgins nor widows, neither old nor young, neither age 
 nor sex," "but after the manner of Pagans destroy every thing?" ' 
 Never. — And yet, more than a quarter of a century he/ore the 
 fourth Council of Lateran, the Albigenses had committed all these • 
 excesses against the Catholics. Here then is a sect, in the midst 
 
117 
 
 of the dark ages, and in the midst of Cathoh'c nations, and instead 
 of being extinguished on its first appearance, it is allowed to grow, 
 swelling its numbers, until it is able to set public authority at de- 
 fiance, and to become the persecutor of those Catholics to whose 
 toleration ov forbearance it was indebted for its numbers, and even 
 its existence ! Will the gentleman say that the heretics were too 
 numerous? But their very numbers is a refutation of his argu- 
 ment. To what were they indebted for their numbers, but to that 
 forbearance which he^ays it was contrary to Catholic doctrine to 
 exercise. Power for their extermination was not wanting at any 
 time. And if that power loas exercised finally, it was not until 
 after their excesses, the result of their errors, had made it manifest 
 that either thei/, or the Catholics^ must yield to the superiority of 
 force, instead of laws which they trampled on. 
 
 It was in this state of things, two hundred years after the first 
 appearance of the Albigensian heresy, and twenty-five years after 
 the third Council of Lateran in 1179, in which their crimes against 
 public rights are specified, that the fourth General Council of 
 Lateran was convened in 1215. Now the decree of that council, 
 which the gentleman and his illiberal colleagues would manufac- 
 ture into a Catholic doctrineh'\n^mg on all Catholics, and applica- 
 ble to all heretics, was directed, so far as it was penal in its enact- 
 ments, against the Albigenses alone. Every other means had 
 been resorted to, during the period of two hundred years, and the 
 growing desperation of the disease seemed to require strong mea- 
 sures for the purpose of arresting its progress. Hence the am- 
 bassadors from almost all the governments of Europe concurred 
 in, and probably instigated, the provisions of the canon, which 
 were regarded as essential to their security. 
 
 In order not to be misunderstood, I deem it proper to state, that 
 in detailing the facts and circumstances of the canon against the 
 Albigenses, passed in the Council of Lateran, my object is not to 
 vindicate the measure, but to submit the information that may 
 enable this audience and our readers to form their own judgment 
 and conclusion on the whole premises. The case will afford me 
 an opportunity of establishing the distinction between the acts of 
 a general council, which the doctrines of the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion oblige every member of the communion to receive, as a 
 ** tenet of faith and morals revealed by Almighty God," — and 
 other acts, which have no such claim to our belief or obedience. 
 ^ The Fourth General Council of Lateran was assembled espe- 
 cially for the purpose of pondemning the errors of the Albigensian 
 heresy. In this capacity, it was infallible — because, as the repre- 
 sentative organ of the church, it was discharging the duty for which 
 the church was divinely instituted — namely, " teaching all truth," 
 and consequently, condemning all error. But when they pass 
 from the definitions of doctrines to the enactments of civil or 
 hodilij penalties, their decisions are sustained by no promise of 
 
^ 118 
 
 infallibility, and by no authority derived from God for that pur- 
 pose. Whatever ru/lit they may have derived from other sources 
 or circumstances to inflict c/r// punishment, it is certaiu that they 
 have derived none from their vocation to the holy ministry or the 
 imposition of hands. If Gregory XVI. were a wanderer on the 
 Alps or Apennines, and like his divine Master, not having where 
 to lay his head, he would be as much the supreme pagtor of the 
 Catholic Church, as he is, beneath the lofty dome of St. Peter's. 
 It is not because he is the temporal ruler of a portion of Italy, 
 that the eyes of the Catholic, world are turned to him as the suc- 
 cessor of St. Peter, and visible head of Christ's Church on earth. 
 Hence the important distinction to whicli I have alluded. The 
 power which God imparted to his church is sjjii'itual. The exer- 
 cise of temporal or civil power is of human origin, and constitutes 
 no part or portion of the Catholic religion. 
 
 Here the gentleman ought to make a show of great surprise at 
 the boldness of my assertion. He ought to pretend that I am 
 guilty of heresy in making it. In fact, the assertions are not 
 mine. They are the assertions of the Universities of Paris, Douay, 
 Louvain, Alcala, Salamanca, and ValLadolid, in reply to the ques- 
 tions put by Mr. Pitt in 1798. Does the gentleman wish a higher 
 authority? Then I give him that of the Pope himself, Pius VI., 
 in his rescript to the archbishops of Ireland ir^ 1791.(1) 
 
 The principal question now is, whether the canon of the fourth 
 Lateran was directed against all heretics and heresies, or whether 
 it was, in its penal enactments, pointed again&'t the Albigenses 
 alone. Let us see. Here are the whole acts of the council on 
 the table, and I challenge the gentleman to the investigation. 
 Now the text of the council shows the nature of the heresy which 
 it condemned. It defines the existence of one God or first prin- 
 ciple, the creator of all things, and teaches that the devils were 
 not from all eternity evil, but fell by sin ; and it goes on to teach 
 that persons are saved in the state of marriage, &c. Why define 
 these DOCTRINES ? Because the heretics, against whom the third 
 canon was directed, held the errors o]pj)osed to these definitions. 
 They believed that there were two first principles — God and the 
 devil. They believed that hotli were eternal. They believed that 
 God, the good principle, was the author of souls and of the New 
 Testament; and that the devil, the evil principle, was the author 
 of the Old Testament, creator of the material world, and of the 
 human body ; and hence, that marriage, with its consequences, 
 was a co-operation with the principle of evil, and rendered salva- 
 tion impossible. 
 
 Now I say that the provisions of the canon, of which there is 
 now question, had reference to the believers in these ahominahlc 
 
 (1) See the wliole in the Appendix to "Catholic Question in America/* by 
 William Sampson, Esq., of New York. 
 
119 
 
 impiefies, and the evidence is found in the text itself, where the 
 words ^'hsGC hsGreticii/aedUas/' "ihi.s heretical ^//A," are expressly 
 used. Again, where the words " universi haeretici, quibuscunque 
 nominibus censeantur," — '* all heretics, under whatever name they 
 may come," are employed ; the same limitation is found in the con- 
 text, in the words, ''adversus hanc sanctam, orthodoxam, catholi- 
 cam fidem, quam superius exposmmus." That is, " in opposition 
 to this holy, orthodox. Catholic faith, loliich ice have exposed 
 above.'^ What was that faith ? The faith of one only eternal God 
 — creator of all things, &c. Consequently, the extension of the 
 third canon is restricted to those who held the opposite errors. 
 Now, if the gentleman will only condescend to distrust his know- 
 ledge as a production of instinct or inspiration, and just take the 
 trouble to examine the text, he will see all I have said. But, says 
 he, they are not called Albigenses ; and Mosheim speaks of them 
 as connected with the brethren of the spirit. Now, if he will again 
 condescend to examine the text, he will find that they are spoken 
 of as haviag "different faces," but as yet being "joined together 
 by the tails." That is, they had different appellations derived 
 from their different "faces," but in the doctrines which constituted 
 their boml of union, " hasc hseretica foeditas," one appellation was 
 applied to them all — Albigenses. It was on this accoiint, that in 
 my last speech I remarked, that men of information must laugh or 
 blush, as the matter may affect them, to hear ignorant advocates 
 numbering the horrible Albigenses among the religious ancestors 
 of Protestantism. I have now established the first fact, in opposi- 
 tion to the gentleman's hypothesis, according to which the canon 
 of Lateran extends to all heretics that ever were, or ever will be.. 
 It is, in its very language, restricted to the Albigenses. The gen- 
 tleman and all his anti-Catholic colleagues are sadly mortified to 
 discover that the Catholic religion will not be as bad as they wish. 
 If it would only accommodate them, by becoming all that malevo- 
 lence has invented, and ignorance believed, it would suit their pur- 
 pose exactly, and they could say what they do say of it, without the 
 inconvenience of uttering calumnies. 
 
 We have seen secondly, by the highest Catholic authority, the 
 Universities of France, Belgium and Spain, supported by the tes- 
 timony of the Pope himself, that neither pope, nor cardinal, nor 
 bishops, nor altogether have any right resulting from the doctrines 
 of the Catholic religion, to dispense with oaths, release subjects 
 from fidelity to their governments, depose rulers on account of dif- 
 ference of religion, or to exercise any civil authority over Catholics, 
 by virtue of their ecclesiastical office. If, therefore, the canon in 
 question confiscated the goods, and punished the bodies of the Al- 
 bigensian heretics, my answer is, that the doctrines of the Catholic 
 Church do not recognise or admit the right of a general council 
 to either conjiscate goods or punish bodies. If the gentleman can 
 show me the " canon of a General Council, or the bull of a Pope, 
 
120 
 
 setting forth as 'an article of faith or morals revealed hi/ Al- 
 mightf/ God' " that such a right exists, or did exist in any age 
 of the church, I give up the argument. But if he cannot, let him 
 give up the attempt to prove it. Again, is it not surprising that 
 the gentleman has not been struck with the absurdity of the con- 
 clusion to which his argument would lead ? He makes us hold a 
 doctrine, as he pretends, a canon which we never could comply 
 with, until Protestants come to hold the abominations of the Al- 
 bigenses, and till the world returns to that identical condition of 
 civil governments, in which it was in the year 1215. Kings and 
 feudal barons, vassals, and all gradations of the feudal system 
 must return, before the provisions of this canon coidd he put in 
 practice ! 
 
 But when the gentleman is bent on carrying an argument, ab- 
 surdities do not affright him, and impossibilities are but as straws 
 in bis way. 
 
 Having disposed of the substance of the gentleman's argument, 
 I shall now proceed to take him on the small points with which it 
 is surrounded. 
 
 He says, that in translating the words '^saecida'irihuspotestatihus 
 j)rsesentihus," the ^^ secular powers present" at the council, I 
 committed a mistake which " every schoolboy that has readyCor- 
 dery could correct.^' Now, between "present" and "absent,'* 
 there is no medium, and since he and the schoolboys have deter- 
 mined that praesentihus means " absent" or 'hwt present," of 
 course, I have only to bow submission to their authority. He 
 says I charge him with having omitted the word '■ 'jJ r assent ih us'' 
 on a former occasion. I did; and he does not venture to say that 
 the charge was unfounded. He says I qualified the charge by the 
 word "fraudulently." I deny it, and call for his proof. Child 
 of Antichrist although he supposes me, I have too much charity 
 to suppose him under the influence of knowledge and malice at 
 the same time. Another reason why our critic thinks " prassenti- 
 bus" ought to be translated "not present," is that although 
 expressed when the reference is Jirst made to the " secular 
 powers," it is not repeated at every subsequent reference — as 
 if the original determination of the sense, did not render the 
 repetition superfluous. 
 
 But admitting, as he does, for argument sake, that the word 
 " pra3sentibus" means " present," he arrives at the conclusion, 
 even by my own showing, that there was a "church and state" — 
 as if this point of history were a new discovery. 
 
 The gentleman calls me a "falsifier of Mosheim." I fling the 
 imputation back upon him, and call for his proof. I have already 
 pointed out the reason of any apparent discrepancy, between my 
 account of the Albigenses, and that given by Mosheim. I have 
 access to the originals, and can see in every page of Mosheim the 
 struggle between the Protestant and the historian. In his estima- 
 
121 
 
 tion, to have opposed the church, was, like the virtue of charity, 
 enough to cover a " multitude of sins/' But even Mosheim ad- 
 mits enough to sustain all I have said. He tells us that the term 
 "Albigenses" was used in two senses. He states, on the autho- 
 rity of Petrus Sarmensis, that the general appetlation of all the 
 various kinds of heretics, who resided in the southern parts of 
 France was Albigenses. He tells us that this term, "in its more 
 confined sense, was used to denote those heretics who were 
 inclined to the 3famchsean si/stem, and who were otherwise 
 known by the denominations of Catharists, Publicans, or Pauli- 
 cians and Bulgarians.''(l) And pray have not I identified them 
 by their " Manichaean doctrines" — their descent from the "Pauli- 
 cians," who were Manichseans — and their having come from Bul- 
 garia? Mosheim does not give any name to those " fanatics,^' as 
 he calls them, whose " shocking violation of decency,^' he tells 
 us, ''was a consequence of their pernicious system." What was 
 this but the Manichaean system ? And since those who held or 
 inclined to this system, were called, even in the stricter sense of 
 the term, Albigenses, as Mosheim tells us, was I a "falsifier" 
 in calling them by that name ? When Mosheim tells us, notwith- 
 standing their " Manichasan system," that the Albigenses were 
 very " sincere in their piety," he speaks as a partisan, giving his 
 opinion ; whereas the facts stated by himself, as an historian, are 
 sufficient to prove their abandoned principles both in doctrine and 
 morals. To talk about their " sincerity," is not to the purpose. 
 He admits, and the gentleman quotes it as a vindication, that they 
 were the same as the Paulicians ; and this settles the question. 
 The Paulicians being the name of the Manichaeans in Armenia, 
 from whence their doctrine passed into Bulgaria, and thence into 
 Italy, France, and Germany, as we have seen above. Finally, 
 Mosheini's testimony against the principles of these sects, is that 
 of a friend ; and it was on this account that I quoted him at all. 
 For the rest, I have the contemporari/ witnesses of their abomi- 
 nable doctrines and practices ; and who are the only sources of 
 information on which modern writers, including Mosheim him- 
 self, have to draw. 
 
 When the gentleman tells us, on the authority of Mosheim, 
 that the Pope ''persuaded Frederic II. and Louis IX. to enact 
 barbarous laws against heretics," he furnishes the refutation of his 
 own argument, and I am surprised that he had not sagacity enough 
 to see it. For since the Pope had to persuade them, it is evident 
 that, to this persuasion hy the Pope, and not to t^ie doctrine of 
 the Catholic Church, the persecution is to be ascribed. If it had 
 been a doctrine, the Pope, instead of persuading them to do itj 
 would have excommunicated them for having left it undone. 
 
 He charges me with having said that it was " doctrine in Scot- 
 
 (1) Mosh. Bait. ed. Vol. II. p. 375. Note. 
 
122 
 
 land to cut men's ears off." He mistakes ; it was New Eng- 
 land, I said. In ''Scotland'^ something more than the "ears" 
 was required as the penalty of worshipping God according to con- 
 science. But he wonders why such things were '' doctrine" 
 among Presbyterians, and not doctrine among Catholics. I will 
 inform him. The Presbyterians held that their right to do so, 
 was a ^^ TENET REVEALED BY ALMIGHTY GoD." Consequently 
 with them it was a *' doctrine." The Catholics never held, that 
 their right to do so was a '< tenet of revelation;" but invariably 
 derived their right, so called, from either the destructive nature 
 of the heresy, the crimes of the heretics, the will of the govern- 
 ment, or the dictates of self-preservation, which the almost uni- 
 form seditious spirit of heresy often called into operation. Does 
 the gentleman now understand the difference ? 
 
 I said, in a former controversy, as he remarks, that "the 
 secular representatives (at the Council of Lateran) had nothing to 
 do with the definitions of doctrine and morals." I say so still, 
 and the fact is as universal as the history of the church. Has he 
 discovered any thing to the contrary? In consequence of my 
 having said so, he remarks "such writers need good memories." 
 What does he mean? Oh! I perceive. The "secular ambassa- 
 dors" of Christendom were at the Council of Lateran — major. 
 But the pronoun "we" is found in the third canon against the 
 Albigenses, in connection with the faith which had before been 
 " expounded," — minor. And therefore we means the secular am- 
 bassadors, helping to "expound" the faith, — conclusion. This 
 seems to be the gentleman's logic, and though it may pass in the 
 anti-popery schools, it cannot pass wherever common sense is per- 
 mitted to wield the ferrule. He uses also the term "doctrine- 
 making council." Now you all recollect that the doctrine ex- 
 pounded was the existence of only one God, and the sanctity of 
 marriage, and you see how far the council deserves to be called a 
 " doctrine-making" council — whether with or without the help of 
 the "secular ambassadors." No; the titne for these things was 
 reserved for the minority of Presbytcrianism, when orthodoxy was 
 to be looked for in acts of parliament, and in oaths, leagues and 
 covenants ; and when the civil magistrate, good man, was to see 
 that whatever should be done in ecclesiastical assemblies should 
 be "according to the mind of God."(1) 
 
 I stated that the authenticity of this canon was disputed by 
 Brotestant as well as Catholic historians. The gentleman, as we 
 shall presently see, has not been able to controvert the truth of 
 the statement. But, he says, admitting it, what becomes of the 
 ^'unerring guide, the faithful tradition of the Church of Rome?" 
 I answer, that the "unerring guide" and "faithful tradition" would 
 
 (!) See [Genuine] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 23,- "Of Civil 
 Magistrates." 
 
123 
 
 be no more affected by it, than the gentleman's identity would be, 
 by his inability to tell whether a certain button on his coat, had 
 been sewed on by his tailor, or by his laundress. 
 
 Now we come to the criticism on the authenticity of the canon 
 in question. Before I notice what he has said on this subject, it 
 is necessary to state, that what is commonly called the third canon 
 of the fourth Lateran, is composed of five chapters or sections. 
 Each of these has its own specific import, and in Caranza its own 
 specific heading. The second, under the heading " Quod jura- 
 mentum debeant praestare saeculares potestates,'' is the portion of 
 whose authority there is a doubt among critics. And it was of 
 this sectionj which is more properly a chapter than a " canon,'' 
 that I said, it is regarded by critics as " spurious — an interpola- 
 tion in the genuine acts of the council." This chapter is neither 
 the beginning, " middle," or e'nd of the canon ; it is distinct and 
 by itself — having no necessary connexion with what goes before 
 or comes after. This is the section that is considered spurious. 
 This is the section which is wanting in the Mazarine copy, " in 
 Latin" as well as Greek. Here the gentleman has betrayed him- 
 self. He professes to quote the marginal note of Labbe, '' Be est 
 hie folium in codice Grseco et Latino ,' and leaves out the words 
 *^ et Latino." He must have seen with his eyes, therefore, that 
 the same leaf which was wanting in the Greek of the Mazarine 
 copy was wanting also in the Latin copy. And yet he says that 
 ^^Lahhe follows the- 3Iazarmc copy," in giving that part of the 
 canon which Labbe himself says does not exist in that copy, either 
 in the Greek or Latin ! If it does exist in Latin, why dues Labbe 
 say that it does not; if it does not exist, as the gentleman saw hy 
 the martjinal 7iote, why does he say that ^' Labbe followed it?" 
 Let him answer that question. 
 
 He says, that independently of this omitted section, we have 
 the ''^exterminating part at least." I deny the truth of the as- 
 sertion. Here are the acts of the council, and I call on him fur 
 the proof. Collier, the gentleman has told you, onlt/ states that it 
 is wanting in the Mazarine copy; and this was one of Collier's rea- 
 sons for doubting its authority. Does not even this determine the 
 truth of what my opponent has ventured to assert was " not true?" 
 But why select Collier, and pass over the other authorities adduced 
 in my last speech? I bring a host of witnesses, and instead of 
 rebutting their evidence, he challenges the testimony of one, and 
 he a Protestant, who sustains me nevertheless, whilst all the others 
 remain unanswered, undisputed. 
 
 The gentleman represents me as '' uncandid" for not stating 
 that '^ Crabbe's edition of the councils published in 1530 oione of 
 the four Lateran's canons." There might be some foundation 
 for the charge, if I had not assigned the reason why the portion 
 of which I was speaking, could not have been published in 1530 : 
 namely, that it was not known as a part of what is called the 
 
124 
 
 third canon " until 1537." This seemed to me a sufficient reason 
 wliy it should not be in the edition of 15o0; and I was not speak- 
 ing of the other canons. 
 
 He says that " the said Crabhe published afterwards three edi- 
 tions of tlae councils in which the said canon is found.'* If this 
 be true, the fact cannot be explained except by taking it for 
 granted that Crabbe published two editions after his death, just 
 for the gentleman's accommodation. 
 
 We now come to Matthew Paris and Du Pin. I claimed these 
 as rejecting the canon. He says this " is not true." And yet, he 
 himself establishes the fact, by the very passages he brings to dis- 
 prove it. Matthew Paris, even as quoted by the gentleman, says 
 that the whole seventy chapters on being read in the council, 
 " seemed tolerable to some, and grievous to others." Does this 
 prove that the section of the third canon, now under consideration, 
 was then incorporated in the seventy chapters? No. It leaves 
 that question untouched. Docs it prove that the seventy chapters 
 themselves were the "genuine acts of the council?" No such 
 thing. If it proves any thing, it proves the contrary. The docu- 
 ment was read to the council — it "seemed grievous" to some, 
 and only "tolerable" to others; — therefore it was the genuine 
 act of the council, and Mr. Hughes says that which is " not 
 true" when he asserts the contrary! Du Pin says, "Let the 
 case be as it will, it is certain that these canons were not made 
 h?/ the council, but by Innocent III." Therefore, says my logical 
 friend, Mr. Hughes said what is " not true" when he quoted Du 
 Pin as not admitting these to be the genuine acts of the council ! 
 But his commentary on Du Pin is worthy of his text. He tells 
 us that on hearing them read " none were satisfied" — and 
 yet he maintains that they were the genuine acts of the council ! 
 When he contradicts himself, it is not strange that he should 
 contradict me. 
 
 But Dr. Crotty, the gentleman says, had admitted the substance 
 of these canons to be the acts of the council — in his examination 
 before the commissioners of parliament. Granted. So far as the 
 doctrines of the Catholic Church are aifected by them, I have no 
 objection to make the admission myself. But it does not follow, 
 that Dr. Crotty could not, or that I should not, give good reasons 
 to prove that the documents, or at least a portion of them, which 
 have been made a pretext for the persecution of Catholics in Great 
 Britain for three hundred years, are of doubtful authenticity. My 
 argument, however, does not require that I should avail myself of 
 this circumstance. My allusion to it was merely incidental. 
 
 The gentleman betrays great want of information in what he 
 says about the Council of Trent, as adopting the acts or reputed 
 acts of the Council of Lateran. The Council of Trent adopts all 
 the " tenets of faith and morals" that had been held as such by 
 any, and by all the general councils that preceded it. To these 
 
125 
 
 '' tenets" also, and to these alone, refer the words " delivered, de- 
 fined and declared'^ in the creed of Pius IV. Thus the whole 
 argument falls by knocking away the prop of ignorance by which 
 it was supported. 
 
 As for Dens's Theology^ which I have never seen, it is, I pre- 
 sume, like nearly all other treatises on the same subject, in which 
 the prejudices of the author pervade the discussion of such ques- 
 tions as do not belong to the substance of faith. The gentle- 
 man has seen, or should have seen, that the Catholic Archbishop 
 of Dublin, in the name of the Irish Prelates, had disavowed it. 
 That it was published as a speculation by an ordinary bookseller, 
 that it was not the standard or school book of theology in Ireland, 
 that it was only referred to as a rule for the order or succession, 
 in which the conferences of the clergy were to take up questions 
 to be investigated. But the ebullitions of religious spleen, and 
 the researches of reckless apostasy, furnished by Murtogh O'Sul- 
 livan, Mr. M'Ghee, dee, dee, and the rest of the " Fudge Family" 
 at Exeter Hall, have come to the gentleman's aid, too late indeed 
 for the discussion, but yet in time for the correction of his 
 speeches. In quoting the real or pretended sentiments of Dens, 
 my opponent deals in false premises, and absurd conclusions — by 
 assuming, that the work called Dens's Theology contains nothing 
 but Catholic doctrine, which is false; and by concluding from 
 this false position, that therefore Catholics are bound to believe 
 all that Dens has written ; which is absurd, and consequently no 
 argument. 
 
 As to the Rheraish Testament, I have no objection that he has 
 referred to it. The notes put to it by the publisher are objection- 
 able, and were condemned by the Catholics of England from its 
 first appearance — a sufiicient evidence that these notes are any 
 thing but Catholic doctrine. The work was almost out of print 
 when the clique to which the gentleman belongs, brought out an 
 edition in New York, in order to make the Catholics of this 
 country answer for the sins of the Rhemish note-makers. But 
 iniquity lied to itself. For, in publishing the notes, they publish 
 also the text; thereby refuting their own calumny about the 
 Scriptures being forbidden. 
 
 Bossuet says, " there is no illusion more dangerous than to 
 assign suffering as a mark of a true church." His words are 
 these — " II n'y a point d'illusion plus dangereuse, que de donner 
 * LA souffrance' pour un charactere de vraie eglise." As the 
 gentleman does not know the French language, I can pardon him 
 for supposing that " la souffrance" means '^ toleration." But 
 Faber, no doubt, has *' quoted it just as he has done." 
 
 The Belgian bishops quoted the ancient constitution of the 
 country for their pretensions, and certainly neither English, 
 French, Irish, Scotch or American Catholics, have any thing to 
 do with the Belgic Constitution, ancient or modern. 
 
126 
 
 The case of the Pope's letter to the cardinals, dated February 
 5, 1808, deserves a little explanation, which, for the gentleman's 
 instruction in history, I will supply. The Pope was a prisoner 
 in Rome, and Napoleon had proposed to alter the civil constitu- 
 tion of the Papal States, by which the Catholic religion had 
 been exclusively recognised, from time immemorial. The Pope 
 protested against this change, as being contrary to the "canons," 
 ''councils," and the ''Catholic religion" — just as the Bishop of 
 London would say, that it was against the "canons," "acts of 
 parliament," and "the Church of England," as hj law established, 
 to admit the dissenters to take degrees ^n the Universities. 
 
 In a word, the gentleman may heap together scraps of books, 
 five words from one plac"e, and fifteen from another; — he may in- 
 voke the spouters at Exeter Hall, the apostate De Pradt, and one 
 thousand other helps ; — he may show what was done, but still he 
 comes short of proving his proposition — which is, that the doc- 
 trines, that is, those " tenets of faith and morals which Catholics 
 hold as having been revealed by Almighty God," are opposed to 
 " civil and religious liberty." He knows well, that the Catholic 
 Church cuts off* from her communion those who reject hef doc- 
 trines. Thus it is a doctrine, that marriage lawfully and validly 
 contracted, is indissoluble ; and for the maintenance of this doc- 
 trine, she suff'ered Henry VIII. and his adherents to depart from 
 the Church. In this respect she is perhaps inimical to liberty^ 
 as she would not allow his majesty the liberty of having two 
 wives at the same time. But Catholic France and Catholic 
 Poland made all religions equal, and there was no excommunica- 
 tion; because, in the exercise of civil sovereignty, they had the 
 right to do so, and because, in so doing, they violated no doctrine 
 of the Catholic Church. The gentleman, however, thinks that 
 Poland did nothing, so long as she did not " expel ;" in other 
 words, persecute " the Jesuits." This shows his standard of re- 
 ligious liberty. His knowledge of the history of Poland seems 
 to be as extensive as the article on that subject in the Encyclo- 
 paedia Americana. 
 
 Let the gentleman now come on to " Huss," " the Council of 
 Constance," "the massacre of St. Bartholomew," "the Inquisi- 
 tion," and the other stereotype topics of reproach ; and whilst I 
 pledge myself to prove that the religion of Roman Catholics has 
 no necessary connexion with them, I pledge myself also to show 
 that the gentleman, like nine hundred and ninety-nine Protestants 
 out of every thousand, is ignorant, or what is worse, misinformed 
 on these subjects. I pledge myself to show that Presbyterianism 
 has been more cruel in its laws than the inquisition itself In the 
 mean tipie, we are on the subject of the decrees, real or fictitious, 
 as he may choose to consider them, of the Council of Lateran 
 against the Albigenses. I have proved that they were confined to 
 the Albigenses alone. 2. That it depended on the civil authority 
 
/ 127 
 
 of the state, at whose instance they were probably enacted, to put 
 them in force or not. 3. That they never were put in force ex- 
 cept in one or two provinces in France. 4. That they were 
 neither enacted nor enforced for two hundred years after the first 
 appearance of the Albigenses. 5. That it was not for their specu- 
 lative errors, but for their crimes against human nature — the 
 '^ consequence of their pernicious system," as Mosheim expresses 
 it, and not for these only, but for their ravages on the rights of 
 society, in the destruction of life and property. 6. That the law 
 for their suppression did not even pretend to rest for its authority 
 on any doctrine of the Catholic Church, but upon the reward of 
 confiscated lands and promised indulgences. And finally, that 
 not only the political condition of society, which tlien existed, 
 must be restored, but the Protestants must agree in " doctrine and 
 practice" with the Albigenses, before the gentleman, with all his 
 anxiety to do so, can biijng himself and his brethren within the 
 meaning of the obsolete politico-ecclesiastic enactments of the 
 Council of Lateran. He may say that the council, as such, had 
 nothing to do with the enactment of civil penalties. This is 
 another question, on which I shall not enter further than by 
 stating, in opposition to what the gentleman has undertaken to 
 prove, that the doctrines of the Catholic Church gave them no 
 authority to do so. He may say that the Albigenses have been 
 calumniated, and get some Bancroft to give them a character, as 
 he did the Calvinists. This will not do. I have stated the facts 
 and contemporary authorities. Let the gentleman meet my posi- 
 tion as a scholar and as a logician, by going to the original autho- 
 rities. He mistakes the character of the public judgment, if he 
 supposes that his declamation will pass for history, or his rhapso- 
 dies for reason. 
 
 The gentleman in quoting the index of what he calls the Acta 
 Ecclesias, shows great fecundity of resources, if not depth of re- 
 search. For, if he can make arguments from having perused 
 merely the index, what would be able to resist him if he had 
 made himself acquainted with the body of the work ? He seems 
 to think that every thing written by a Catholic is an article of 
 faith; and that every action that was done by a Catholic, the 
 more wicked the better for his purpose, was a defined tenet of 
 Catholic morality. He is mistaken. The time allotted me, is too 
 brief for me to refute his arguments, and point out to him the 
 diflference between canon law and Catholic doctrine. 
 
 But let him read some treatise, even Hooker's Ecclesiastical 
 Polity, and he will find that there is a difference. Or to make the 
 illustration more familiar, I would say, that ''Acta Ecclesia3," or 
 the " Canon Law" of the Presbyterian Church, are the sat/ings 
 and doings of the General Assembly; but the doctrines of the 
 Presbyterian Church, are the Westminster Confession of Faith, as 
 "revised" "corrected" and "amended," to suit the political con- 
 
128 
 
 dition of the country for the time heing. But when I come to 
 treat the Presbyterian question, I am prepared to show that what 
 is at most only canon law with us, is doctrine with them. For 
 instance, in the index of the Acta Ecclesia3, as quoted by him, it 
 is forbidden to pra^ or marry with heretics; a proof that, at least, 
 it was not forbidden to let heretics live, as the gentleman has been 
 labouring to persuade us. Now, in contrast with this, let us place 
 the mild, liberal, charitable doctrine of the Presbyterian Church — 
 ^'Such as profess the true reformed religion, should not marry 
 with infidels, papists, or other idolaters : neither should the <jod.ly 
 be unequally yoked." (1) 
 
 I had stated that Catholics exercise their own discretion on the 
 subject of civil and religious liberty — that their religion leaves 
 them free on the matter. I know that St. Paul was not a preacher 
 of insurrection to the slave. In reply to this, the gentleman ex- 
 claims, "What! does not the Bihle definethe rights of cor\sciencef 
 and of personal as well as civil liberty ? If we look at the black 
 ruins of the convent near Boston, we should infer not; for the 
 Boston people, and, indeed, the New England people generally, 
 are great Bible readers. ^^ Presbyterians,^* he says, ^^hold that 
 God has revealed a clear code of rights in his word," and that 
 there is " no discretion as to the matter of liberty." Now the 
 magnanimous sacking of the convent was in strict accordance with 
 this acknowledged "doctrine'^ of the Presbyterian Church. The 
 midnight torch was applied, and, sure enough, there was "no dis- 
 cretion" — there was no alternative, but to perish in the flames, or 
 go to enjoy "liberty" with the houseless beasts of the field. The 
 consequences of this Presbyterian doctrine, which, I repeat, is not 
 the doctrine of St. Paul, begin to be felt in the South, as well as 
 in the North, making the master a criminal against God, for hold- 
 ing slaves, and the slaves criminals against God, for submitting 
 to their condition. The Presbyterians hold, that according to the 
 word of God, "there is no discretion on the matter of liberty." 
 
 (1) Coufessioii; p. 108. 
 
129 
 
 ''is the Roman Catholic Relujion^ in any or in all its principles 
 or doctrines^ opposed to civil or i^eligious liherti/f 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE IV.— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Mr. President, — 
 
 I HOPE the gentleman has recovered his composure after the 
 discussions of the last night. If theyo/?iY,s of his armour crach 
 under the power of the truth, it is not my fault ; nor his : for he 
 is the "prmce of dodgers." If his cause could be defended, he 
 could do it. It fails — not for want of an able, advocate — but from 
 its own evil nature. How aifecting a spectacle it is, to see a mind 
 possessed of powers fitted to bless his country and his age, stoop- 
 ing to every unworthy art, to defend a system on which God and 
 man has written ^Uekel," as with a sunbeam, and whose final and 
 speedy overthrow is as certain as its dominion has been destructive 
 of the best hopes of the race ! 
 
 The gentleman denies that this Society has '•'-exposed" the men- 
 dacious writer in "The Catholic Diary.'' Yet the Society (he 
 owns) has said that some of the writer's remarks were "m a great 
 measure untrue." This looks no little like saying that the author 
 had told ^falsehoods;" though I know the Jesuits draw a distinc- 
 tion between lying in whole, and lying in ^^ a great measure ;" 
 and I am willing that the gentleman should proy?/" by his cnsuistry. 
 Yet why did the editor of the Diary refuse to publish the Society's 
 letter? And why did he not call for i\iQ proofs, if he desired jus- 
 tice, or doubted the statements made in trie letter ? 
 
 It is really enough to excite the compassion of the audience, to 
 see how the gentleman retreats from the charge which he made 
 against me, of ^forging a quotation" from the Council of Trent. 
 He said, in so many words, ^^And leliat will be the reader's dis- 
 gust, to learn that this beautifd specimen of Latinity^put forth 
 as a quotation from the Council of Trent, is a FABRICATION, a 
 FORGERY*" In my reply, I produced conviction, even on his mind, 
 that this Latin, at which he had laughed, and in regard to which 
 he had so impertinently charged me, is indeed the very Latin, ver- 
 bum verbo, word for word, of the holy council ! Yet he called it 
 "fabrication." You may see how much credit is due to his 
 charges, by this example, for he is compelled to own "that his per- 
 sonal integrity is interested in this point," and with disingenuous, 
 but forced acknowledgment, says, ^^according to the letter, I ivas 
 mistaken; and according to the letter j I retract " But how coidd 
 
130 
 
 he be '^mistaken," with the Latin before him, and in the very 
 saiiie chapter, a few sentences below! Aud (/ ini'staken in his 
 own decrees, what shall we say of his knowledge of his cause ! If 
 not, what shall we think of such outrageous charges against the 
 true citation of the document ? 
 
 Having failed "in the letter," he flies for refuge to the "doc- 
 trine," which I am still charged with " perverting/! In my first 
 speech, I translated "injungere poenas," to "inflict punishments/' 
 In his reply, he charged me, as usual, with /a/^//}//??^ the sense by 
 this translation. To make it plain that this was the true sense, I 
 referred, in my second speech, to a passage in the same connexion, 
 just below, where the words imponere poenani occur, and I quoted 
 that member of the sentence which contained them. Then he de- 
 nied that there was such a passage ; but, corrected by my last 
 speech, owns it was there ; makes a ludicrous apology for ridicul- 
 ing the Latin of the holy infallible council, and flies at me for a 
 miiitrandation. ]^o\f poena means punishment, as m}'' same little 
 schoolboy will say : "injumjere" means "to join with," " to lay 
 on," "to enjoin;" and "imponere" "to impose," "toenjoiii," 
 " to inflict," "to lay vpon one." Poenitentia signifies "penance j" 
 hxit poena, "punishment." But the gentleman says, "to inflict pu- 
 nishment, miijht mean piersonal castigation." So it might ! and so 
 it often does ! Has this not been the fact in every age of the 
 "Catholic Church," that she has enjoined and claimed the right 
 to order, and even to inflict "personal castigation," by way of 
 penance. Devoti, Vol. HE., Book IV., § 21, tells us, "that the 
 church had prisons in former days, in which offending clergymen 
 were cast," and he enumerates "castigation, exile, fines, and 
 other punishments inflicted by the church ;" or, as the gentleman's 
 Latinity is so pure, I will give him the nut to crack. " De ver- 
 beribus, exilio, mulctis pecuniariis, caeteris que PCENis, qu£e ab 
 ecclesia dabantur, sequenti libro, suus erit agendi locus." 
 Again, Book IV., §§ 9, 10, he discourses at large on the same 
 subject, and tells us, among other things, that there are prisons 
 in monasteries, for this very use. In the ninth section he 
 honestly avows that the church has poiver to coerce the laity as 
 well as the clergy, with temporal punishments. And this author 
 has the sanction of the Pope as late as A. D. 1792 — saying that 
 there is nothing in the book contrary to faith and good morals. 
 (But more of this hereafter.). Is any man a stranger to the 
 fact, that all sorts of personal chastisements have been enjoined, 
 some selfinfiicted, as penance, and some inflicted by authority 
 of the " holy mother," as tender mercies, to reduce the sinner 
 to repentance ? 
 
 In vain, therefore, does the gentleman struggle in his toils. His 
 bad Latin is with him and his fathers of Trent. His criticisms, 
 be on his guides; his "forgeries" on his own head! As to 
 Bossuet — and French — I own "/ do not know as much about 
 
131 
 
 the French" as I do of ^Uhe Jesuits." But with my little, I 
 proceed to expose his wretched 2'>erversion of Bossuet. The gen- 
 tleman makes him say, ^' there is no illusion more dangerous than 
 to assign SUFFERING as a mark of the true church." ^^La 
 souffrance" may mean either " suffering" or " toleration." The 
 author is speaking of the exercise of the power of the sword in 
 matters of religion and conscience; and he says that "it cannot 
 BE CALLED IN QUESTION WITHOUT Weakening, and, as it were, 
 maiming, the j^ublic authority or power,"(V) (then follows the 
 passage before cited :) so that there is no illusion more dangerous 
 than to make TOLERATION a mark of the true church." It would 
 be pure nonsense to translate this word '■^ siffering ;" for he is 
 defending the power to enforce religion; and is opposing "la 
 souffrance" or " toleration." Now, if it be rendered " suffer- 
 ing,^' then you make him say that the power of the sword in 
 matters of religion is right, therefore "suffering" is not a mark 
 of the true church ! But the same author elsewhere settles the 
 question. " It is this," the holy and inflexible incompatibility of 
 the Catholic Church, " indeed which renders her so unconcilia- 
 TORY, and consequeittly so odious to all sects separated from her; 
 most of which at the beginning desii'cd only to he TOLERATED hy 
 her, or at least not to be anathematized by her. But her HOLY 
 SECURITY, and the holy delicacy of her sentiments, for- 
 bade HER such indulgence, OR RATHER SUCH SOFTNESS. "(2) 
 
 AVill the gentleman then reapply his knowledge of the language 
 "of the great nation," and tell us whether Bossuet really believed 
 it right to tolerate a false religion? So far is he from this, that 
 he admits that the Church of Rome is the most intolerant of all 
 Christian sects, while quoting and affirming (on the previous 
 page) the words of M. Jurieu. 
 
 The allusion of the gentleman to "marriage" is peculiarly 
 unfortunate. For, on that subject alone, it were, easy to show 
 that the doctrines of his church are directly at war with the civil 
 law of the land, as well as convey the most horrible intimations 
 on the legitimacy of all Protestant issue. 
 
 " The Belgian bishops" are not to be put aside with a ivord. 
 They quoted "the canonical laws" as opposed to the new consti- 
 tution, and for the reason that the new constitution tolerated all 
 religions, which the canon laws forbade. They say " toleration 
 is incompatible with the free exercise of their of&cial duties." 
 
 (1) Chose ausi qui ne peut Stre revoquee en doute, sans enerver et comme, 
 estropier la puissance publique. 
 
 (2) C'est en effect ce qui la rend si severe n insociable, et ensuite si odieuso 
 a toutes les sectes separees, qui la plflpart au cemmencement ne deniondoient 
 autre chose si non qu'elle voulut bien les tolerer ou du moins. ne lo frapper 
 par de ses anathemez. Mais sa sainte severite et la sainte delicatesse des ses 
 sentimens ne lui permettoit pas cette indulgence, ou pliitot cette moUesse.— 
 Sixieme Avertisment, sect. 115; CEuvres, torn. iv. p. 426. 
 
132 
 
 They declare that their duty to the church will put them " in 
 formal opposition to the laws of the State," viz.: to ^^ universal 
 toleration." Now, if the bishops of a lohole nation are right; if 
 they understand the Council of Trent, the canonical law, and their 
 duties to the Catholic religion, toleration of any other religion is 
 against all these! Hence they call on the king to establish the 
 Catholic religion again, by law, as before, or else threaten to op- 
 pose the " laws of the state/' So would the bishops and priests 
 do here if they had equal candour ! Therefore, ^^ English, French, 
 Irish, Scotch, and American Catholics HAVE much to do with" 
 this matter; and so have American Protestants; and they will 
 understand it so ! 
 
 We notice next the gentleman's confused and awkward account 
 of the Alhigenses. I see he would willingly detain me from the 
 exposure of Popery, on the question of their heresies and immo- 
 ralities. But this cannot 1)e; though he is peculiarly open to ex- 
 posure in their history. Now, allowing all he says of their cha- 
 racter and doctrines to be tnie, what does it amount to? To 
 this : — that they loere so wicked, so heretical, and such enemies to 
 the human race, that the Pope and Council icere compelled, after 
 two hundred years of patience, to order their extermination! 
 We know that laymen never vote in popish councils. That is a 
 Presbyterian heresy, to admit the representatives of the people 
 to vote on the doctrines and discipline of the church. Of course 
 it was by the clergy that this persecuting canon was passed. 
 Therefore, the clergy, headed by the Pope, resolved that it was 
 the duty of the church to take up arms against such offenders. 
 This is confessing the whole point in debate. For, we repeat it, 
 the civil power alone had a right to declare war against their civil 
 transgressors. But the holy council did it. But the geotlemau 
 says, " the Fourth General Council of Lateran was assembled 
 especially for the purpose of condemning the errors of the Albi- 
 gensian heresy. In this capacity it was infallible." They did 
 condemn the errors. But what next? They then proceeded to 
 order the punishment of these heretics. Let it be remembered, 
 the gentleman admits that they had been in existence for two 
 centuries — and out of Rome's communion. Yet the holy coun- 
 cil were determined, as they were like '■'' deserters from an army, 
 they were still subject to the jurisdiction of the church, and, as 
 such, were liable to have judgment passed on them, and to be 
 punished and denounced with anathema." (V) Accordingly, the 
 gentleman admits they had the right to inflict punishment, but 
 denies that in doing it they were infallible, or derived the right 
 from their priestly office. " Whatever right they may have 
 derived from other sources or circumstances to inflict civil punish-^ 
 ment, it is certain they have derived none from their vocation to 
 
 (1) See Cat. Counc. Trent, p. 95. 
 
133 
 
 the holy ministry or the imposition of hands. '^ " When they 
 pass from the definitions of doctrine to the enactments of civU or 
 bodily penalties, their discussions are sustained by no promise of 
 infallibility." How strange a picture ! An intermittent infalli- 
 bility ! The same identical man, passing three decrees — the first 
 and second on doctrine — the third ordering the punishment of 
 those who held these doctrines, and who were enemies to society, 
 &c. In the two former they were infallible: in the latter, not. 
 They had right from God to do the two former, i. e. to denounce 
 the errors and sins: in the latter, they had a right from "other 
 sources and circumstances" to order their extermination ! In a 
 word, these holy butchers marked the victims, and then set their 
 bloQclhounds on them. When arraigned for it, they say, we 
 condemned doctrines, as infallible priests ; we ordered the exter- 
 mination of the heretics, as men. Truly this is a terrific sort of 
 defence? But this is the best that even Mr. Hughes himself can 
 say. Now, to show the fraud as well as fully of such a distinc- 
 tion between the definition and discip)line of the council, let me 
 ask, is this bloody discipline contrary to any doctrine, or to any 
 bull ever uttered by the Church of Rome? Of all the general 
 councils that have met since A. D. 1215, (of which the gentleman 
 admits no less than six,) and of all the bulls of all the Fopes 
 for so many hundred years, not one has in one line, or word, 
 denounced, or in any way recalled or altered, this bloody canon ! 
 I call on the gentleman to produce one sentence which in the 
 least goes to condemn it ! If he cannot produce it, will it not 
 follow that there is nothing in 2^c^'secution against the doctrines 
 of his church ? The same remarks oppli/ with auginentcd force 
 to the twenty-seventh canon of the Third Lateran, against which he 
 has no exception to make; only that I left out (in a former contro- 
 versy) the middle of the canon, and gave the first and last. But I 
 gave full proof of its persecuting character. I gave a full page of 
 it; and gave all but the narrative of their pretended crimes. I did 
 not know before that Mr. Hughes conceded that the council had 
 jurisdiction over them; and, as the celebrated Faber set the ex- 
 ample, I suppose that I shall be considered as at least in as good 
 company, and under as hopeful direction, as if following a wily 
 Jesuit. But now for the whole canon, crimes and all ! I)oes he 
 admit that to be genuine? He has already done so ! It dooms 
 its victims to slavery! It even hires men to slaughter the heretics 
 for their errors and crimes, with heavenly gifts ! and denounces all 
 who refuse to take up arms against them ! Has this canon of the 
 third Lateran ever been repealed, or its persecution and bloodshed 
 denounced, by pope or council ? Yet it was passed as early as 
 A. D. 1179 — six hundred and fifty-six years ago ! 
 
 But again , the gentleman, desperate in resource, and trusting 
 to the chance of my not having the canons of the Fourth Lateran 
 before me, says that the council was " assembled especially for 
 
134 
 
 the purpose of condemning the errors of the Albigensian heresy." 
 Now Du Pin tells us, (on the 13th Cent., page 95,) ^Hhe Fope, in 
 his Letters of ludiction, gives his reasons why he thought the 
 council necessary, viz. * the recovery of the IIoli/ Land, and the 
 reformation of the Catholic Church,' '' It passed no less than 
 seventy canons — one of these^ the bloody third, of which we are 
 treating. They were on the Greek Churchy on the drunken- 
 ness and bastards of the clergy — forbidding states to tax the 
 clergy — regulating relics, excommunications, revenues, &c., and 
 they end with a decree on the crusade for the recovery of the 
 Holy Land, for which the remission of sins was promised; 
 excommunication is threatened to those who voiced to go, and 
 then failed ; the holy army is ordered ichen to start, and ivhere 
 to convene, and such like thincjs, well becoming *' Christ's 
 vicar" and Mr. Hughes's infallible head! Yet he says the 
 Albigenses were the chief object ; nay, " the exclusive" one I 
 Again ; he says, that the heretics denoted in the third canon, and 
 the heretics denounced in i\iQ first and second, were Albigensian, 
 and restricted to them. Strange ! In the creed expressed in the 
 first canon, the doctrine of transidjstantiation is specially named, 
 and the impossibility of salvation out of the Catholic Church. 
 Now, I ask, were the Albigenses the only sect who opposed 
 these, even in that age ? But he owns that the penal canon was 
 against all those who did not or should not hold what is defined 
 in the first canon. But do not all modern, as well as ancient 
 Protestants, reject and abhor the said defined doctrines of tran- 
 substantiation, and no salvation out of the Catholic Church? 
 Then the canon applies to them, and to all of them, as well to 
 the Albigenses. Besides, in the second canon, the council con- 
 demns the errors of Joachim, Abbot of Flora, and the errors of 
 Amaury. After this broad and various definition, covering every 
 Protestant, then or now on earth, the council proceed to say, 
 (in the third canon,) ^^we excommunicate and anathematize every 
 heresy extolling itself against this holy orthodox faith, which we 
 have before (as above) expounded." And yet the gentleman tella 
 us it only means these wicked Albigenses ! 
 
 His motive in this is plain ; but his weakness is plainer still. 
 He cannot restrict the curses of that bloody act, and the crimes 
 and murders which flowed after it, to the poor Albigenses. It 
 has no limits less than all ages of the world, and all Protestants 
 against Rome; or if there be a limit, it is in i\\Q poicer of Rome 
 to carry it out. But once more : he says, if perseciition were a 
 doctrine of their church, why did they bear with the Albigenses 
 so long? Answer. They did not bear ivith them. In 1179, as 
 we have seen, the Third Lateran enacted its bloody twenty-seventh 
 canon against heretics. The Council of Tours in 1163, that of 
 Toulouse in W\S^, ke., passed persecuting canons. As soon as 
 they dared, the popes and councils began their persecution. 
 
135 ^ 
 
 Du Pin says, (Thirteenth Century, p. 154,) "The Popes and 
 prehitcs [perceiving that the notorious heretics contemned the 
 spiritual power, and that excommunication and other ecclesiastical 
 penalties were so far from reducing them, that they rendered them 
 more insolent, and put them upon using violence] were of opinion 
 that it loas lawful to make use of force^ to see whether those who 
 icere not reclaimed out of a sense of their salvation, might be so 
 hi/ the fear of punishments, and even of temporal death. There 
 had been ALREADY several instances of heretics condemned to 
 fnes, to banishments, to punishments, and even to death itself; 
 but there had never been any war proclaimed against them. In- 
 nocent III. \»as the first that proclaimed such a war against 
 THE Albigenses [a fine business for the head of the Church!] 
 and Waldenses, [Mr. Hughes says, it was '^ restricted to the 
 Albigenses," and that the AValdenses were a very different peo- 
 ple,] and against Raymond, Count of Toulouse, their protector. 
 War might subdue the heads, and reduce whole bodies of people, 
 but it was not capable of altering the sentiments of particular per- 
 sons, or of hindering them from teaching their doctrines secretly. 
 "Whereupon, the Pope thought it advisable to set up a tribunal of 
 such persons, whose business should be to make inquiry after 
 
 heretics, and to draw uj) their processes And from 
 
 hence this tribunal was called the Inquisition.'^ My hearers 
 know what it is. Du Pin was a Papist. We see, then, the gentle- 
 man is confuted, and exposed by his own historian. And when 
 the gentleman asks, ^^If their extermination had been a doctrine 
 — / ask whether the Albigensian heresy would not have been 
 extinguished in the blood of its first professors?'' I answer, it 
 was finally almost literally thus extinguished, in the blood of an 
 immense multitude, until at length they were nearly blotted out 
 from under Heaven; though, as the gentleman says, they were at 
 one time exceedingly numerous. 
 
 But lastly : The gentleman has falsified the 'history of this peo- 
 ple, both as to their doctrine and lives. I cited Mosheim, because 
 he first quoted him, and by omitting the name of one sect, which 
 Mosheim denounced, and inserting falsely the name of Albi- 
 genses, whom Mosheim defends, made him seem to sustain 
 Mr. Hughes's slanders, in utter variance with the author's whole 
 history, 
 
 Mr. Hughes utters almost as many falsehoods as sentences, 
 when he charges the Albigenses with being Manichees; and I 
 pledge myself to prove on him an ignorance which has disgraced 
 the Bishop of Meaux, (and which disgraces \\\^ follower now,) be- 
 fore I have done with this discussion. But allowing all he has 
 said of their errors and their vices, does not this j9?ca for persecu- 
 tion, on that ground, (for it is no less,) prove that Catholics think 
 it .a favour to let others exist who differ from them, and that they 
 claimed and exercised the right to denote^ as vicious heretics, those 
 
136 
 
 whose opinions and lives they disliked; that when society was in 
 their judgment disturbed by such persons, especially if they be- 
 came numerous, the Church claimed and exercised the right, to 
 declare religious wars against them, to confiscate their jiroperty, 
 forbid the exercise of aU civil riglitSj order their exterinination, 
 give their lands to others, and depose their rulers, if they refused 
 to submit to it; and, finally, to pay the murderers with ^indul- 
 gences,'' (of which the Church is exclusive depository,) by the 
 act of the spiritual head, the Pope ! ! ! 
 
 The defence which the gentleman makes of his vain attack on 
 the authenticity of the canon, is both awkward and uncandid. In 
 the former speech he had said, " the best critics have regarded 
 this canon as spurious, and an interpolation in the genuine acts 
 of the council.'' Now, driven from this ground by my convicting 
 testimony, he says, the canon ''is composed oi Jive chapters or 
 sections;'' ''the second section is the portion of whose authenti- 
 city there is a doubt among critics." But in the former speech 
 he had said, "this canon is regarded as spurious.'' This is there- 
 fore a CHANGE from five sections to only one section ! But he goes 
 on — ^^ and it was of this section, which is more properly a chap- 
 ter than a 'canon,' that I said it is regarded by critics as spurious." 
 This, I regret to say, is false. He said expressly, that " the canon 
 was considered spurious;" not merely this one section. The 
 whole five sections make one canon. He said the whole was spu- 
 rious; now he denies it : and confounding section\f\i\\ canon, tries 
 to confuse the subject. He has finally, however, owned, that only 
 one of five sections is supposed spurious. Then my remark re- 
 turns — allow it so. It is not the "beginning," nor the "end;" 
 yet he denies it is the " middle." It may be the " hlind side,'' 
 for aught I care. But take it out, and what remains ? Hhe first 
 section, as he calls it, denounces all heretics, ordering them to be 
 delivered to the secular powers; their goods to be confiscated, &c.: 
 the third section (as divided by Caranza, though it is all one 
 canon, and chiefiy on one great subject) ofi'ers indulgences, such 
 as were given to crusaders to the Holy Land, (WHICH WERE IM- 
 MENSE BLESSINGS,) FOR EXTERMINATING HERETICS; and i\\Q first 
 
 denounced canonical vengeance against the bishops who should 
 neglect to purge their territories of this heretical filth. And this 
 is only what Caranza's abridgment gives — I have the lohole be- 
 fore me. He has left out nearly half, and some of the icorst 
 parts too; such as that the whole country was to be jmt under 
 oath to inform on heretics; and those refusing to swear, were to 
 be treated as heretics; depriving lawyers. Judges, clerks, voters, 
 heirs, &c. of their civil rights. Now I ask, even if the second 
 section were spurious, is there not here persecution enough for- 
 ever to expose the spirit of the council, and of the church? The 
 third section expressly rewards those'' who exterminate heretics — 
 (ad haereticorum exterminium.) Yet, gentlemen, can you believe 
 
137 
 
 it, he denies ^^ that independent of this omitted section, we have 
 the extenninating clause." He says *'/ deny the truth of the 
 assertion." This is to me inexplicable. I do from my heart 
 pity the position of the gentleman. The gentleman charges me 
 with quoting Labbeus falsely, thus, *' Deest hie folium in codice 
 Grraeco." — This is a falsification of my citation. I quoted it 
 thus "Deest hie folium in codice Mazarino." — "A leaf is here 
 wanting in the Mazarine manuscript." As the leaf wsiS wanting 
 in the Mazarine manuscript, of course, allit contained icas want- 
 ing; and yet the gentleman would make me say, though the leaf 
 was ivantingj yet Aa7/the leaf was not wanting. 1 said Labbeus 
 followed that manuscript ; yet the fact that he also gives the Latin 
 of the canon, shows that he believed it to be genuine, though the 
 leaf was wanting. The gentleman ought to have more sense, or 
 more candour, than thus to quibble. This then is my " answer" 
 to his most profound "question." 
 
 Again : in the last speech th(5 gentleman said, " Collier (a Pro- 
 testant) pronounces this canon spurious." I replied, it is not 
 true; he only says, it is loanting (as above) in the Mazarine manu- 
 script. *Does the gentleman, in answer to this, pr<]>ve what he had 
 before said ? No. He hegs the question, and shuns all proof, 
 saying, " This was one of Collier's reasons for doubting its 
 authenticity." '^Doubting!" But before it was, "pronounced 
 it S2)urious." The nerves crack, and give way, from certainty to 
 doubt. Now I again pronounce it false ; and if not, give us the 
 proof These are specimens of his " host of witnesses ;" you may 
 measure the rest by them. 
 
 As to Crabbe, history tells us he published editions of the 
 councils in 1538, 1551, 1558. Du Pin and Matthew Paris were 
 claimed by the gentleman against the authenticity of the third 
 canon. But lo! when I adduce their 7'eal testimony, it is directly 
 against him. All he says, in reply, is, if Matthew Paris repre- 
 sented the council as of various opinions and feelings about the 
 seventy canons, does that prove that they passed, and that the 
 third is genuine? Answer. Matthew Paris was cited by the 
 gentleman to prove the canon spurious. I proved, from Matthew 
 Paris, that all he really said, was that the council murmured over 
 the whole seventy ; and Du Pin (though quoted by Mr. Hughes as 
 on his side) expressly says the council did not debate th« canons, 
 but passed them in silence, which was received as approbation. 
 
 Mr. President, I regret this tedious discussion. But it was 
 called for — and will be useful. I will here say, that never in my 
 life did I know so many literary frauds in so short a compass as 
 this gentleman has practised. I blush, sir, to have to expose 
 them. There is one article in the Confession of Faith which the 
 gentleman ought by this time to believe, even if he should not like 
 it. He will find it in the 25th Chap. 6th Section, which identi- 
 fies the man of sin. 
 
 9 
 % 
 
138 
 
 The smart play upon the word ^^ prsesentihus^* will not pervert 
 my meaning; which was, that it referred to the secular powers 
 present, when and where the decree should be executed ; and 
 hence, "secular powers," or secular powers present, or lu the 
 spof if you please, meant, in that instance, the same thing. 
 
 The gentleman quotes the names {not a word of their testimony) 
 of the Universities of Paris, Douay, Louvaire, &c. &c., to dis- 
 prove the authorities I brought. But pray did not the gentleman 
 in the same speech discard the opinions of whole tribes of com- 
 mentators and bishops, &c. ? He also refers to Pope Pius Sixth's 
 rescript to the archbishops of Ireland in 1791 ; and sends us to the 
 appendix of the work of William Sampson, Esq., "on the Catho- 
 lic Question in America." But why not give us "at least ^ve or 
 fifteen words'' of this rescript on liberty. What is it? We can- 
 not take his opinion, or ipse dixit. If his word will do, then (as 
 is usual at Rome) we may save much trouble; and settle the ques- 
 tion by authority. 
 
 The gentleman seems not at all pleased with Dens' s Theology. 
 Yet he is a standard icriter; and noio he is of special value, in 
 evidence, because the "Catholic" prelates of Ireland have jnihUcly 
 endorsed him. It was proved by unanswerable testimony, at the 
 said meeting of Protestants in Exeter Hall, London, June 20th, 
 1835, that as early as A. D. 1808, "a^ a meeting of the Roman 
 Catholic prelates of Ireland, it was unanimously agreed that Dens' s 
 Complete Body of Theology was the best book on the subject of the 
 doctrines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, as a se- 
 cure standard for the guidance of those clergymen who had not 
 access to libraries." The work is therefore full authority. 
 Now from this book I made ample (and they were surely startling) 
 quotations in my last address. Has the gentleman denied that 
 they were the author s belief of Catholic doctrine ? Who is right ? 
 Mr. Hughes, or the learned Dens and the prelates of six millions 
 of Catholics? I ask you, gentlemen, to review my citations from 
 Dens, in the light of the above facts; and I beg leave here, by way 
 of refreshing the subject, to say that Dens declares " all Protest- 
 ants, as Lutherans, Calvinists, &c., worse heretics than Jews and 
 pagans; that baptism brings them in the power of the church, 
 (for they allow our baptism to be valid,) and that* it is the right 
 and duty of the church to compel heretics, by corporeal punish- 
 ments, to return to the faith, or if they will not, that confisca- 
 tion of property, exile, imprisonment, and death, are to be de- 
 nounced against them.'\ And now I invite the gentleman's at- 
 tention to the contents of the book, and the proo/s of the sanction 
 of it by the prelates of Ireland. That the gentleman should com- 
 plain of my introducing tiew pi-oofh strange, when he it was who 
 vitiated the report of the stenographer; and who insisted on re- 
 writing the entire debate, after his own plan; and who has not 
 
139 
 
 ceased to desert his old ground on many points, and to introduce 
 new topics and new matter. 
 
 But I will introduce an old acquaintance. Joannes Devoti, hav- 
 ing the Pope's imprimatur to his Canonical Institutes; a late 
 oracle from Rome ; and pledged to contain nothing contrary to 
 sound faith and good morals. (1) " Actiiis Jirst attempted to take 
 from the church all ecclesiastical jwisdiction and legislative 
 power; and the Waldenses, John Huss, Marsilius Patavinus, 
 Jandunus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, have followed his errors, 
 having falsely thought that the church had no juvisdictlon^ but 
 that all her authority consisted in government and PERSUASION. 
 After their example, all Protestants ivho maintain the right of the 
 prince, in sacred things, deny JUDICIAL POWER to the church. 
 These, with Puffendorf, contend that the church is not A distinct 
 republic or state, as they say, but only a collegium; and with 
 Mosheim, Bohemer, Budseus, and others, deny to the church all 
 judicial power ; and thinking it to p>er tain to the right of majesty 
 in the secular prince, attribute only a collegiate right to the 
 church. . . . In the same mire sticks (in eodem lato hcesitat) 
 P. Laborde, who, in his small work entitled 'Principles concern- 
 ing the Nature, Distinction, and Limits of the Tivo Powers, 
 Temporal and Spiritual,' endeavours to undermine and take away 
 the power given by Christ to the chu?'ch, not merely of govern- 
 ment by councils and persuasion, but also of decreeing by laws, 
 and of compulsion, and of coercijig with punishment those who 
 are worthy of it, [cogendique, et poena coercendi eos, qui poena 
 sunt digni;] and who subjects the ecclesiastical ministry in such 
 a way to the secular poioer, as to insist that to it belongs the 
 cognizance and jurisdiction of all external and sensible govern- 
 ment. Benedict XIV., (Pope,) condemned this depraved a)id j^er- 
 nicious treatise in Const, ad Assiduas, 44., t. 4, &c. &c.; and 
 the like error of Patavinus and Jandunus was long before con- 
 demned by John XXII., Const, licet juxta doctrinam.'^ Here we 
 have an honest Roman ! He has no prevarication; but freely tells 
 the whole truth, and brings the authority ex cathedra of two Pon- 
 tiffs to sustain his doctrine of the judicial and coercive power of 
 the church with penal sanctions. The incidental testimony in be- 
 half of Protestant ojnnions in the case of Luther, Calvin, the 
 Waldenses, Huss, and " the Protestants," is very striking; and 
 as much contradicts Mr. Hughes on that side, as his papal claims 
 do on the other. Huss was condemned to the stake by the Coun- 
 cil of Constance, for holding such doctrines as "That the papal 
 dignity savors of Caesar; and the institution and headship of the 
 Pope was derived from his power;" ''that the doctrine o^ hand- 
 ing over to the civil arm those who, after ecclesiastical censure, 
 refused to retract, was like the high priests, scribes, nndpharisees, 
 
 (1) Book III., tit 1, sec. 3. " On the Judicial Poioer of the CJntreh." 
 
140 
 
 who delivered Jesus to Pilate, saying, it is not lawful for us to 
 put ani/ man to death; and those who handed over such persons 
 were worse homicides than Pilate :" '' that excornmunicatwns, 
 interdicts, &c. degraded the laity, exalted the clergy,' and pre- 
 pared the way for Antichrist ;" and the like. To these the author 
 quoted above refers. The converse of these is poperi/ ; so Huss's 
 sentence declares, and its execution seals it. 
 
 It is worthy of remark also, that the doctrines attributed by 
 Devoti to Protestants in the previous extracts, though retaining a 
 taint of chu/H-h and state, are so far heloiu the claims of popery, 
 that thei/ were denounced as pulling down the rights and judicial 
 poicer of the church ! How lofty, then, must her pretensions be ! 
 But we are not left to conjecture. The same author tells us.(l) 
 ^'that the church has of right the power to pun ish clergymen, and 
 of herself inficts on offenders lashes, fines, imprisonment, exile, 
 and other punishments." Now, when we collect the testimony 
 of Bossuet, and Dens, and the Rhemish annotators, and Du Pin, 
 and Devoti, (and to name no more,) the reigning Pope, it is clear 
 they all concur in the doctrine that the Catholic Church has a 
 right to punish temporally ; that she is intolerant of false reli- 
 gions or heresies ; and that all modern Protestants are such here- 
 tics. If Mr. Hughes says, these are their o2nnions, we ask, is he 
 infallible? Are not his too opinions? Shall we believe him 
 against so many, and so able witnesses, on the other side? And 
 besides, they bring abundant proofs ! What shall we say in re- 
 ply to them? Were they all mistaken in ihoiY proofs? Is Mr. 
 Hughes wiser than all these ? The answer is very simple. He 
 that runs may read. TJicy lived in Rome, France, Belgium, Ire- 
 land. He lives in the United States ! • 
 
 We have now given several decrees of " infallible councils," 
 which directly prove that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic 
 religion are oj)j)osed to civil and religious liberty ', and we have 
 given abundant testimony from commentators, a multitude of 
 Belgian bishops, and divers authors of successive ages, and vari- 
 ous nations, showing that the meaning attributed to these decrees 
 by us, was the common and received sense of Catholic Europe for 
 ages. Surely it were a singular accident, that they should all 
 concur to slander their own church! Yet if Mr. Hughes be 
 right, they do. Now, if he may cite modern universities, I may 
 adduce cill those authorities, with some claim to be proof in the 
 case. And if jMr. Hughes expects his declarations to have ueight, 
 why discard their overwhelming testimony — when so many are 
 against him, (including the now reigning Pope,) and when they 
 were in circumstances so much better fitted to give an unbiassed 
 and true statement ? 
 
 Reserving other councils for future use, I proceed to obey the 
 
 (1) Lib. IV., tit. 1, sec. 10. 
 
141 
 
 gentleman's call for a hull of a pope in wliicli presecution is 
 taught, — I cite the bull in Coena Domini. Of this memorable 
 bull the PARLIAMENT OF Paris, in its proceedings, (as extracted 
 from its Registers,) A. D. 1688, upon the Pope's bull on the 
 franchises in the city of Home, &c. &c., thus speaks: — ''And to 
 give some colour to so scandalous an innovation, he (the Pope) 
 refers to that famous bull styled In Coena Domini, because it is 
 read at Rome every Thursday of the holy week. True it is, that 
 if this decree, whereby the popes declare themselves sovereign 
 MONARCHS OF THE WORLD, be legitimate, the majesty royal will 
 then depend on their humour ; ALL OUR liberties will be 
 ABOLISHED, the sccular judges will no longer have the power to 
 try the possession of benefices, nor the civil and criminal causes 
 OF ecclesiastical persons, and we shall quickly see our- 
 selves BROUGHT under THE YOKE OF THE INQUISITION." Here 
 is a great nation^'s parliament — I suppose the gentleman will again 
 call it infidel; yet it may be presumed to know evils which it so 
 grievously /e^if. The bull is taken from the Bullarium of Laertius 
 Cherubinus, Rome, 1G38, tom. iii., p. 183, the sixty-third con- 
 stitution of Paul V. '•''The excommunication and anathema- 
 tizing of all heretics &c. <Ssc.^ which is wont to he puhlished 
 on Maunday Thursday. As for almost all the chapters of 
 this bull [besides the third Extrav. of Paul II., and the first 
 Extrav. of Sixtus IV. in the title of Penance and Remissions] 
 you have them hefore ordained in the first constitution of 
 Urban V., f 215; in the twenty-fifth constitution of Julius II., 
 f. 482; in the tenth constitution of Paul III., f. 522; and in the 
 eighty-first constitution of Gregory XIII., f 348, lib. 2. Other 
 bulls of this nature, called bulls in Coena Domini, I have pur- 
 posely omitted, (says the compiler,) being content with these; 
 from which it may appear that the popes have made some varia- 
 tion in them — according to the exigency of the times. Yet I 
 would not omit those which follow, as being especially necessary, 
 and particularly published upon the several chapters of this bull. 
 There is extant, therefore, in this collection, a particular edict of 
 Nicholas III., about the first section of this bull, in the Second 
 Constitution, sup. fol. 143. Concerning section second there is 
 extant Constitution fifth of Pius II., f 290, lib. 1. Concerning 
 section fourth there is extant Constitution seventh of Pius V., 
 f. 137, 1. 2. Concerning section seventh is extant Constitution 
 third of Nicholas V., f 283, 1. 1. Concerning section ten is ex- 
 tant a canon of Callistus in CXXIIL, Constitution twenty-fourth, 
 q. 3." And thus the compiler proceeds to fortify, by twice as 
 many authorities as we have here recited, all the grevit principles 
 of this infamous bull. He adduced the acts of not less than 
 EIGHTEEN popes, and some of them again and again, to prove that 
 it rests on cumulative, undisputed, infallible authority ; and I recite 
 these otherwise disgusting details, to show that an army of popes 
 
142 
 
 will meet Mr. Hughes at every step of his denials and evasions. 
 Truly this is a cluster from the vine of Sodom and the grapes of 
 Gomorrah ! 
 
 Here follows some material parts of the document itself: — 
 ^'Paul, bishop y servant of the servants of God, in perpetual 
 memory of the thing now decreed^ 
 
 The introductory paragraph tells the faithful that the unity of 
 tlie whole church doth flow from the ^^ Roman Pontiffs who is 
 Christ's vicar and St. Peter's successor:" — That ^' the Pop)es of 
 Rome, his predecessors, on the day dedicated to the anniversary 
 commemoration of our Lord's Sujjper, have been accustomed an- 
 nually to exercise the spiritual sword of ecclesiastical discipline, 
 and the icholesome weajwns of justice, by the ministry of the su- 
 preme apostolate, and to the glory of God, and the salvation of 
 
 Here it is proved that this was an annual service. 
 
 Sect. 1. *' We excommunicate and anathematize, in the name of 
 God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and by the authority 
 of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and by our own, all 
 Hussites, Wicldiffi,tes, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, Ana- 
 baptists, Trinitarians, and apostates from the Christian faith, 
 and all heretics by lohatsoever name they are called, or of what- 
 soever sect they be. Also their adherents, receivers, favourers^ 
 and generally any defenders of them ; together with all whoj 
 WITHOUT OUR AUTHORITY, (sine nostra auctoritate,) and that of the 
 Apostolic See, knowingly READ, KEEP, PRINT, or any way, for 
 any cause whatever, publicly, or privately, on any pretext or co- 
 lour, DEFEND THEIR BOOKS CONTAINING HERESY, Or TREATING OP 
 
 RELIGION, a$ also schismatics, and those who withdraw them- 
 selves and RECEDE OBSTINATELY FROM THE OBEDIENCE OF US, Or 
 
 the Popes of Rome for the time being." Here surely more than 
 " the wicked Albigenses" are meant ! All, all out of the Roman 
 Church are cut off, and doomed to eternal woe ! And the liberty 
 of printing, reading, and even of thought itself, is levelled to the 
 dust. 
 
 The second section curses, as above, and interdicts " all uni- 
 versities, colleges, and chapters, by whatsoever name they may 
 be called, who appeal from the orders and decrees of Popes to a 
 General Council;" and curses also, ^^ all who favour or aid the 
 appeal." This usurps the empire of letters, and forbids all 
 appeals. 
 
 The third section goes to sea, not content with ruling all lands, 
 and curses ''all pirates" — that is, who trouble "owr seas." 
 
 The fourth legislates against '' wreckers" in all seas. These 
 laws are good : but, who ever set Pefcr and his successors over 
 the sea ? Ah, I forget ! Peter was a fisherman ! therefore, all 
 seas are subject to the Pope. 
 
 Fifth. '' Also we excommunicate and anathematize all who im- 
 
143 
 
 pose or augment any new tolls, or gables, (excise taxes,) in their 
 dominions, except iu cases permitted to them by law, or by special 
 leave of the apostolic see, or who impose or exact such taxes for- 
 hidden to he imposed or augmented." Here he takes the ket/ of 
 the treasury into his own harids; as before, he had grasped the TRI- 
 DENT, the spiritual sword and the "ket/s of JSt. Feter." 
 
 Seventh, curses all who furnish to ^^ Saracens, Turks, and 
 other enemies arid foes of the Christian religion, or to those who 
 are expressly and by name declared heretics," (as Hussites, Luther- 
 ans, Calvinists, &c. &c.) ''by the sentence of us or this holy see — 
 horses, arms, iron, icire of iron, tin, steel, and all kinds of metal 
 and warlike instruments, timber, Jiemp, ropes made as well of any 
 other matter,'' &c. &c. Here he becomes Head of Hosts, and 
 commissary-general to the holy war against all foreign^and dO' 
 inestic foes; for there were domestic as well as foreign crusades; 
 and he expressly includes ^^all heretics named by us." 
 
 There are no less than thirty of these sections, in which this 
 ''gi'eai hunter of men" raves through the world and lays his curse 
 and his claim on all the civil and religious rights of man — leaving 
 not even a grave for a lieretic ! 
 
 We must select some specimens. 
 
 Section thirteen curses those who carry spiritual causes before 
 secular tribunals, by appealing from the Pope's letters, ''to LAY- 
 POWER," even though the civil power should require it. 
 
 Fourteen, curses those who "by their own authority and de 
 facto," ''Hake away the cognizance of tithes, benefices," &c. and 
 ^from ecclesiastical judges," even though the person doing it 
 *' should be presidents of councils, chanceries, parliaments, chan- 
 cellors, &c. of any secular princes, whether emperors, kings, 
 dukes, or any other dignitary." 
 
 Fifteen, curses those loho draw, or cau.se to be drawn, ^'di- 
 rectly or indirectly, upon any pretence whatsoever, ecclesiastical 
 persons, (as Mr. Hughes,) chapters, convents, &c. &c. before them 
 to their tribunal, audience, chancery, council or parliament, 
 AGAINST THE RULES OF THE CANON LAW. Here, on the authority 
 of the canon law, all ecclesiastical causes and persons are declared 
 by the Pope to be exempted from civil courts, and he excommuni- 
 cates and anathematizes all who oppose his will ! Did Presbyte- 
 rians ever make such demands ? 
 
 The sixteenth curses those who hinder these ecclesiastical judges 
 in their jurisdiction, and rests their claims on "the canons and sa- 
 cred ecclesiastical constitutions and decrees of general councils, es- 
 pecially that of Trent." Here is "infallible" proof! 
 
 Eighteen, curses all who impose, (without permission of the 
 Pope,) even with the consent of the clergy, any taxes of any kind 
 on the clergy of Rome or on the rents of churches, monasteries, &c., 
 and he renews against them the canons of the last Lateran, 
 as well as other general councils, with the censures and pu- 
 
144 
 
 nishments contained in them. Here is complete exemption of 
 the clergy. 
 
 Twentieth, curses all who dare to interfere, in any way with St. 
 Peter's patrimmii/, and the lands, cities, &c. subjp:ct TO THE JU- 
 RISDICTION OF THE Church of Rome." This is the heart of 
 Italy, and a temporal dominion over millions of subjects, whose 
 emperor, the Pope, is elected for life by cardinals ! Is this not op- 
 to liberty^ 
 
 Twenty- first. These acts, not to be recalled, except by the 
 Pope, (Jie has never done it,) and to continue in force and be put 
 in execution. (They are now binding upon Mr. Hughes and 
 every Catholic on earth.) 
 
 Twenty-sixth announces their publication, " that those whom 
 these processes concern may pretend no excuse or allege ig- 
 norance." 
 
 Twenty-seventh orders their publication, by Patriarchs, 
 Archbishops, Ordinaries, and Prelates, directly or by others, once 
 every year, or oftencr, (semel in anno — aut etiam pluries,) ^Hf 
 they see fit, when the greater part of the people shall be met for 
 divine service — AND TO THE FAITHFUL, THEY are to be told, de- 
 clared, and kept before their minds." 
 
 Thirtieth. The wrath of Almighty Grod, and of Peter and Paul, 
 is denounced against all who dare to oppose these excommunica- 
 tions, curses, interdicts, &c. &c. Such is this terrific system, 
 sustained by the authority of a crowd of Popes, and resting its 
 claims on divine right, as expressed by constitutions, general coun- 
 cils, and the canon law. 
 
 Well did the French Parliament call the Popes "the declared 
 MONARCHS OF THE WORLD." These Popes now head one hun- 
 dred and twenty millions of people ! We may now understand 
 one of their mottoes : Urbis et orbis. " The city and the 
 WORLD." The mistress of the world. If this bull be not pub- 
 lished in Rome or in America at this day, it is still unrepealed, 
 and still in force and lying in the Vatican, 
 
 ^'Hushed in grim repose, 
 Exjpecta its evening prey." 
 
 Let the day come which will make it prudent to republish it, 
 and the nations will again hear this Monarch's voice. 
 
 With ''Ate hy his side come hot from hell, 
 Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs ofxcar." 
 
 Before I close, a few things in the gentleman's reply must be 
 briefly noticed. 
 
 In my last speech I quoted from the index of the Acta Ecclesix 
 to show how rife persecution is in the Church of Rome, when the 
 
145 
 
 Tieads of chapters were thus hedged with damnation of all 
 sorts, temporal, social, spiritual, against heretics such as we. He 
 answers it with a sneer and a mild extract from our standards, 
 stating the duty of Christians to marrij Clwistians. He has fur- 
 nished, without intending it, a most striking co?i?ra,s^ between the 
 two religions, as any one may see, who will refer to the quotations 
 from that index, given by me in the last speech. 
 
 He also attempts to fasten the abolition odium on Presbyte- 
 rians. In the former Controversy, (1) when he supposed the pub- 
 lic mind felt a little differently on this subject, he insulted the na- 
 tion after the coarse and ribaldrous manner of Daniel O'Connell, 
 and actually retailed one of Garrison's anecdotes, as follows: 
 " But when you wish to pay a compliment to ^our memorable De- 
 claration of Independence^ were you not rather unfortunate 
 in coupling it with an allusion to slavery? It reminds me of 
 the negro slave, who, on his way to Georgia tha'ough Washing- 
 ton, shook his manacled hands at the capitol, and began to sing, 
 'Hail Columbia, happy land.' " But now, he says, "the conse- 
 quences of this Presbyterian doctrine, (which I repeat is not the 
 doctrine of Paul,) begin to be felt in the South as well as in the 
 North ; making* the master a criminal against God for holding 
 slaves, and the slaves criminal against God for submitting to the 
 condition.'' Now, slavery, African slavery, originated (in 
 this hemisphere) with a Catholic, the good Las Cassas ; and in 
 the 27th canon of the Third Lateran, heretics are doomed to 
 ^^slavery,'' if not ^^exterminated ;^' and now the papal champion 
 squints at its defence. The Presbyterian Church has often pub- 
 licly avowed the doctrine, that slavery is a great evil, and as such, 
 to be mourned over and removed .so soon as the highest interests 
 of the respective parties will allow. But we do not approve the 
 ferocious spirit and false doctrines of modern abolitionists, any 
 more than the slavery doctrines of the Council of Lateran, Las 
 Cassas, or in Bohemia, and the conquest of South America. (It is 
 strange that Garrison and Priest Hughes are the most violent in 
 their attacks on Presbyterians.) The following very recent decla- 
 ration of the Synod of Philadelphia may serve to show our views 
 on this whole subject : 
 
 " In this day of public excitement and fanatical excess, the Synod 
 feel called upon to warn the churches against the agitators of the 
 public mind, who, reckless of consequences, and desperate in spirit, 
 are endangering the integrity of the American Union, and the 
 unity of the Presbyterian Church, by the unchristian methods 
 which they adopt to advance the cause of abolition. The Pres- 
 byterian Church, through her supreme judicature, and other 
 bodies, has often and freely expressed her views of the evils of 
 slavery. But at the present crisis, it is earnestly recommended 
 
 (1) Letter 19. 
 
146 
 
 to all our people, to discountenance the revolutionary agita- 
 tions and unrighteous plans and doctrines of the sdf-iifijled aboli- 
 tionists, who it is firmly believed are retarding, more than all other 
 causes combined, the progress of universal emancipation. If they 
 succeed, they must rend the Church and the Union in twain, deluge 
 the land in blood, and destroy the best hopes of the unhappy slaves. 
 The Synod would be very far from even appearing to excuse the 
 spirit of misrule and lawless violence which has been exhibited of 
 late in almost every part of our beloved country. But when such 
 a spirit is known to be rife and abroad in the land, the friends of 
 Christ are called on in a special manner to shun the occasions of 
 such excitements; and to sustain, by every proper available influ- 
 ence, the dominion of law and public order. We cannot forbear 
 to add, that those who take advantage of such a crisis to agitate 
 the land, assume a terrible responsibility for 511 the consequences; 
 and the guilt of such a system is aggravated by the consideration, 
 that it seems to be a part of the design to produce public excesses^ 
 and then profit hi/ them.'' 
 
 The above reference to slavery grew out of the gentleman's per- 
 version of an important principle before asserted and i}ow main- 
 tained by me. He had said in a former speech, *'That the 
 
 DOCTRINES OF CATHOLICS LEAVE THEM PERFECT LIBERTY TO 
 EXERCISE THEIR OWN DISCRETION ABOUT CIVIL LIBERTY." I 
 
 replied that it was not so with Presbyterians. Their principles 
 
 PLEDGED them TO BE FREE, and tO HOLD TO THE EQUAL, UNI- 
 VERSAL, CIVIL, AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF ALL OTHER MEN, DE- 
 NOMINATIONS, AND people; ami that the gospel is the charter 
 of freedom to man. With these doctrines our standards are erect 
 and replete. But a papist may be a tyrant or submit to be ruled 
 by spiritual and temporal tyrants without violating his doctrines. 
 So says Mr. Hughes : '' May exercise his own discretion.'' Hence, 
 when I call on him to show one doctrine against oppression, or one 
 oppressive decree or bull that has been rescinded .^ he is dumb. He 
 cannot show one article in all his creed, councils, catechism, or 
 bulls, that tolerate, any religion but his own, much less that asserts 
 *' all are equally to be protected.'' Now, this is really giving up 
 the question in debate. 
 
 Again. He says the creed of Pius IV., (which binds all Catho- 
 lics,) in avowing that it "receives cdl other things delivered, de- 
 fined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils,'* 
 means only "tenets of faith and morals." But how obviously 
 false ! It is written "csetera item, omnia" — "all other things;" 
 not " tenets" merely, but all other things, delivered, defined, and 
 declared by the sacred canons. I ask, is not the third canon of 
 Fourth Lateran,and the twenty-seventh canon of Third Lateran, 
 a sacred canon? and were they not "delivered by general coun- 
 cils?'' And all the oihev persecuting canons are included in this 
 "'deception." This is made clear by the next clause : " and I like- 
 
147 
 
 wise also condemn, rrjecf, and anathematize all tilings contrary 
 thereto, and all heresies ichatsoever,'' &c. Here two ideas are 
 presented : 1, all things contrary to the sacred canons and 
 general councils are condemned in general ; 2, and particularly 
 "«// heresies." If the gentleman reply, then some things besides 
 heresies are here condemned I True ; and some things besides what 
 the gentleman calls ^'doctrines delivered" are here received; viz., 
 discipline, which persecutes and forbids to tolerate any other re- 
 ligion ; and, by the authority of God, requires that heretics shall 
 he exterminated. This is " received;" and call it '* doctrine" or 
 ^^ discipline," to this Mr. Hughes is bound this night by a solemn 
 oath, and denies it at the risk of papal displeasure. Between his 
 religion, his conscience, and his country's Constitution, I do most 
 sincerely pity him. 
 
 The Rhemish Testament. Then he abjures it. But it had 
 great favour in Europe. What he says " of the text," ex- 
 posing the American publishers, is laughable. The history of 
 the book (ray copy is European) is this: When it was found 
 that it was impossible to keep the people from having "Me text" 
 in English, the papists at Rhdims, in 1584, got up a translation at- 
 tended by the horrid notes of which I gave some specimens. No 
 wonder the gentleman recoils. But the notes speak the opinions 
 of very learned papists about Roman TJatholic doctrines. And 
 pray, did the Pope ever condemn the notes? 
 
 The gentleman says, "the law for their (the Albigenses) sup- 
 pression did not even pretend to rest for its authority on any doc- 
 trine of the Catholic Church, hut upon the reward of confiscated 
 landsj and promised indidgences." 1. Who passed the law^ 
 Answer. The " infiillible council !" 2. Who confiscated the 
 lands ? The " infallible council." Laymen, in both cases, were 
 silent. The Pope and clergy did it. 3. Who promised " the re- 
 ward of indulgences P" The infallible council. "The power of 
 granting indulgences has been bestowed by Christ upon his 
 church." (1) Indulgences take away the punishment (in this 
 world and in purgatory) due for sins ; they are to be granted for 
 reasonable causes, out of the superabundant merits of Christ and 
 his saints. Here then, for the reasonable cause o^ butchering 
 multitudes of men, women and children, the Church of Rome, 
 as Mr. Hughes tells us, ^^ promised indulgences;" and " on this the 
 laiD for the supression of the Albigenses rested for its authority." 
 Then it seems the church does persecute! and pays out of "the 
 merits of Christ" for it? Only CALL IT NOT A doctrine! Oh ! 
 tell it not in Gath ! publish it not in the streets of Askelon ! ! ! 
 
 The gentleman denies he charged me with ^^fraudulently" 
 abridging the twenty-seventh canon of Third Lateran ! It is well 
 he can yet blush ! But in the very last speech he twice uses the 
 
 (1) See 25 Sess. Counc. Trent. 
 
148 
 
 same term as to Faber and my ].ioor self; so that he makes me 
 Faber's/e/Zo2i7, though, he condemns me for putting our names in 
 juxtaposition. 
 
 Let me ask the gentleman if, as he allows, (in the case of the 
 Pope and Napoleon,) ^^it he contrary to the Catholic religion 
 to alter the civil constitution of the papal states, hy which the 
 Catholics had been exclusively recognised,'^ to what part of the 
 Catholic religion it was contrary? And is not Xhdit part which 
 is violated by brealiing down a church-establishment, contrary to 
 civil and religious liberty ? Let the gentleman reply. Here the 
 Pope, the principle, and the priest, are all involved; and the dis- 
 cussion is brought to a very point ! 
 
 At the close of the last address, I asked the gentleman a ques- 
 tion, which I then predicted he would not answer. Even so it is, 
 But I repeat it once more. " Had the majority in Italy, or 
 Spain, a right to establish the Catholic religion by law?'^ 
 We now expect an answer ! 
 
 I close with a word as to his " retreating from" the last Contro- 
 versy. When our second limits expired, he insisted on writing the 
 last letter, as he had i\\Q first. On my return to the city I proposed 
 to renew and f7iish the discussion. He declined. I went on alone for 
 many weeks. I invited him to oral debate. He declined. I finished 
 the discussion in public assembly, calling for him. He declined. 
 I left a standing invitation for him in the newspapers, as he has 
 heretofore told you. He declined. x\.nd you, gentlemen, know 
 how he came to meet me here ! And you also know, how ha^'d 
 it was to hold him to the point. And the public will know how 
 much he has striven to shun the publication of the debate ; by re- 
 fusing the stenographer's report, '' going to Mexico," &c. I 
 think all this looks like retreating: or if the gentleman calls this 
 courage, we see his standard: But I really wish to encourage 
 him. I am glad he feels bravely. We shall like him all the bet- 
 ter, if his heart be the heart of a man. For my own part, I won- 
 der that he can look his countrymen in the face, and advocate the 
 principles of the papal hierarchy. I should run away from the 
 first onset. It requires a good cause to inspire a firm purpose. 
 The militia captain who told his heart to his general, was a reso- 
 lute, brave confessor, after the gentleman's own school. ''Sir," 
 said he, "if you were frightened half as much as I am, you 
 woukl run away from the enemy." 
 
149 
 
 ^^Is the Roman CatJioUc Religion, in any or in all its prin- 
 ciples or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liherty ?'' 
 
 NEGATIVE IV.— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President, — 
 
 Whenever a disputant becomes the judge in his own cause — 
 whenever the advocate assumes the office of umpire — you may take 
 it for granted that he, himself, has but little confidence in the quality 
 of his arguments, or in the character of the evidence by which he 
 supports them. I refer you to the speech which you have just 
 heard, as a striking illustration of this remark. The tribunal at 
 which we stand is that of public reason; it expects us to furnish 
 evidence in the case ; and the gentleman, instead of being a pleader 
 at the bar, becomes an oracle on the bench, and dictates the sen- 
 tence. He will save the public from the trouble of forming a 
 judgment, and leave it only the easy task of admiring the man 
 who is at once his own hero, — his own judge, — and his own trum- 
 peter. From all which, I am inclined to infer, that the experience 
 which he has already acquired, has hinted to him the necessity of 
 usurping the ermine, and anticipating the sentence. 
 
 He had said that this Society had exposed the falsehoods of a 
 communication to the Catholic Diary, For this he had no au- 
 thority in fact, and consequently has failed to produce any proof. 
 But he makes no apology. 
 
 With regard to the Council of Trent, I am content with the ex- 
 planation I have given in my last speech. Where I was mis- 
 taken, I had the candour to acknowledge it; and consequently, to 
 vindicate my personal integrity in the opinion of honourable men. 
 The manner in which I was led into the mistake does no cre'dit to 
 my opponent. A different sentence had given rise to the dispute, 
 and instead of defending the passage which he had^rs^ perverted, 
 he tears seven words out of their connexion in another sentence, 
 (containing above forty,) repeats the translation " the punishment 
 which ought to be inflicted on penitents," and gives for the Latin 
 of this translation " poenam quam opportet pro illis poenitentibu.s 
 impo!iere." Out of these seven words, one (opportet) is a barba- 
 rism; and the whole, as a translation of the ivords " the punish- 
 ment which ought to be inflicted on the penitents," is ungramma- 
 tical — nonsense. Its sense and grammar depended on its con- 
 nexion with the whole sentence, out of which the gentleman was 
 pleased to garble it, and in which it escaped my notice, when I 
 
150 
 
 looked over the canon the first time. The matter being explained, 
 then, according to the facts, I make him a present of all the glory, 
 which the whole affair, including my mistake, is calculated to re- 
 flect on him in the minds of scholars. 
 
 The meaning of the word " imponere," as used by the Council 
 of Trent, is to be determined by the sense in which Catholics un- 
 derstand it. Of that sense the practice of the church is the best 
 interpreter. According to this, " injungere poenam" means to 
 "enjoin penance;'^ and ''imponere pcenam" means the same 
 thing. The gentleman thought it would help his argument with 
 the ignorant, to translate the word, " injungere,'^ by " inflict." But 
 even the Dictionary refused to sustain him. The other verb, 
 " imponere," has among its meanings " to inflict," thereft.^re it 
 does not mean " to enjoin." This is his logic. But the Diction- 
 ary itself refutes him. 
 
 His statement respecting the difi^erence between " poenitentia," 
 " penance," and " poena," " punishment," shows that he requires 
 instruction. ** Sacramentum poenitentia" is the form of expres- 
 sion used by theologians to designate " the sacrament of penance." 
 In the administration of this sacrament, the priest exercises that 
 ministry which Christ instituted, when he said, " Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven," &c. 
 But it is not enough that the priest should be invested with this 
 power, the penitent must have the proper dispositions, to receive 
 the benefit of this ministry. He must be sincerely sorry for hav- 
 ing ofi'ended God ; and firmly resolved, by the assistance of Divine 
 grace, nevgr to ofi"end him more. This is called contrition — the 
 first and most essential disposition to receive the sacrament of 
 penance. The next is confession of the sins he has committed. 
 The third is satisfaction, and consists in repairing, (as far as he 
 can,) the injury which he has done to his neighbour, and the of- 
 fences he has committed against God. If he has wronged his 
 neighbour, he must retract the calumny, and restore the ill-gotten 
 goods, before he can receive the benefit of the sacrament. Now 
 all this third part, or condition, is prescribed, or " enjoined" by 
 the priest, and is expressed by " poena" in Latin, by " penance" 
 or ^' satisfaction" in English. Hence, in the quotation from the 
 Council of Trent, ''injungere poenam," " imponere poenam," 
 means simply to '' enjoin penance" — to '' prescribe the satisfac-^ 
 tion." Hence it sometimes happens, that restitution is made 
 through the priest. It is a part of the '' penance," " satisfaction" 
 — " pcenam" — that is enjoined, as an essential condition of the for- 
 giveness of sin. This the gentleman may call " inflicting punish- 
 ment," if he chooses. It is a condition, however, entirely foreign 
 to the process of Presbyterian regeneration ; although it would not 
 be amiss, if the saints, in their ways of righteousness, would some- 
 times look a little to the past, as well as the present, and the 
 future. To require them to do so, as a necessary condition of 
 
151 
 
 Divine forgiveness, might, indeed, be considered as "inflicting 
 punishment," but it would not be *' corporeal castigation/' not- 
 withstanding the assertion of their minister. 
 
 The gentleman flies to Devoti for the proof, which, notwith- 
 standing his talent at both garbling and perverting, cannot be made 
 out from the Council of Trent. I meet him in l3evoti. His first 
 reference is to " Vol. III. Book IV. § 21." I have examined the 
 reference, though there is no " Book IV." to be found. Devoti's 
 work is on canon law, comprising civil and ecclesiastical Juris- 
 prmlencc, as it existed in countries where the church and state 
 were united. It is chiefly historical. He speaks of laws and 
 usages; he traces them to their origin; he shows what punish- 
 ments the church inflicted hy her own divine constitution, as dis- 
 tinguished from those which the state authorized her to inflict on 
 ecclesiastics, or others. To the state belonged the power by 
 which the church was authorized to punish ecclesiastics, by im- 
 prisonment or otherwise. He refers to the constitutions of the 
 empire, and the code of Theodosius, for the proof. • The gentleman 
 must have seen this in the note; and a disposition to avoid de- 
 ceiving his readers, should have induced him to say so. 
 
 Every one, who has read even a moderate course of history, 
 must be familiar with the fact, that during the Middle Ages eccle- 
 siastical ofiienders were tried not hy civil but by ecclesiastical 
 judges. This was by the concession of the state. And the same 
 principles which authorized the church to try clerics for offences, 
 authorized it also to j^nnish them, when guilty, by civil penalties. 
 It is in connexion with this state of things that Devoti speaks of 
 '^prisons, exile, pecuniary fines, &c." as having been used by the 
 church. The gentleman's knowledge of history must have been 
 very imperfect, if he remained ignorant of all this until he saw it 
 in Devoti. 
 
 But this is not the question. The question is, does the Catho- 
 lic Church claim, by virtue of any tenet of faith or morals revealed 
 by Almighty Grod, the right to \i\^\Q,i physical punishment on any 
 one 1 Devoti settles this question in the very paragraph to which 
 the gentleman referred. He states distinctly, in that paragraph — 
 ^^Scd, ecclesiasticse coercitionis summus estgradus EJECTIO eorum, 
 qui in religionem, vel in societatem peccarunt. Si quis reli- 
 giojiem violare ausns fuerit crimine, schismati, heeresi, neque 
 m^onitus rcdicrit in honam mentem, eum sive clericus, sivc laicus 
 sit,eC(Jesia EJICIT A SACRIS,ET SOCIETATE CllRISTJAisORUM, projDter 
 potestatim, et officium quod hahet in omnes Christianos curandiy 
 regendique cuncta, quae ad religionem pertinent." (1) " But 
 the highest grade of ecclesiastical coercion, is the expulsion of 
 those ivho have offended against Religion or society. If any one 
 has dared to violate religion hy crimes^ schism^ heresy, and hav- 
 
 (1) Vol. III. p. 20, 21. 
 
152 
 
 ing been admonished, does not return to a good mindj him the 
 chiirch casts forth from her sacred things^ and from the society 
 of Christians, luhc.tlier he he a cleric or a lay person, hy the power 
 and office which she has in reference to all Christians, of guard- 
 ing and governing all things appertaining to religion." Here, 
 therefore, is Devoti stating that excommunication is the ''highest 
 grade" of " ecclesiastical coercion" in the church. With this 
 means of coercion Christ invested her; any other means of co- 
 ercion, with which her Laws have been enforced, at any time, were 
 exercised or sanctioned by the civil power of the state, for the time 
 and place being, and were revocable at the will of the civil govern- 
 ment. When the civil constitution of states exempted the clergy 
 from civil jurisdiction, it did not mean that their offences against 
 the laws shoidd go unpunished. It placed the authority to punish 
 them, at the disposal of their ecclesiastical superiors. Otherwise 
 they might claim impunity in defiance of both the civil, and eccle- 
 siastical, governments. They might plead their privileges, as eccle- 
 sia-stics, at the civil tribunal — and their rights as subjects of the 
 civil state, at the bar of their ecclesiastical judges. They might 
 say to the state, " I am not subject to your jurisdiction ;" and to 
 the church, " you have no right to punish me." But the fact 
 was, that the state, in relinquishing its jurisdiction, authorized 
 their ecclesiastical superiors, in certain cases, to exercise over 
 them, its own powers of civil punishment. The dishonesty of the 
 gentleman's attempt, therefore, consists in his representing this as 
 a doctrine of the Catholic Church, ivhen he had before his eyes, 
 and in the same paragraph, the author^ s statements to the con- 
 trary. I shall have occasion to speak again of this in the case of 
 John Huss, of which there is so much misapprehension. 
 
 I now turn to another quotation from Devoti which the gentle- 
 man has produced, and the purport of which he has most shame- 
 fully attempted to pervert. It is Vol. III. tit. 1, §3. '' On the 
 Judicial Power of the Church." (1) 
 
 All Catholics hold, as a doctrine, that the church, inasmuch as 
 it is a visible society, is invested by its Divine author with all 
 powers necessary for its own government; that it has jurisdiction 
 over all its own members ; that it has authority to make laws, and 
 require obedience to them; that it has authority to judge in con- 
 troversies ; condemn new doctrines ; cast out heretics by excommu- 
 nication, and do all other things necessary to the purity of doc- 
 trine and unity of faith, by the exercise of those spiritual weapons 
 which Jesus Christ bequeathed for her defence, preservation, and 
 government. Devoti lays this down as the Catholic principle of 
 church government. Be shows, or assumes, that the church has 
 this power from Jesus Christ, abd not from the authority of men. 
 He then speaks of those who denied that the church has this 
 
 (\) See his last speech. 
 
153 
 
 power — generally all those, who, from the beginning of Chris- 
 tianity until now, had been cast out of the church. 
 
 In opposition to this Catholic principle, he places ^Hn the same 
 mud/' — "in eoduni luto" — Luther, Calvin, the Waldenses, Huss, 
 and a few others, who maintained that the church had '' no juris- 
 diction," but that all her authority consisted in "direction and 
 persuasion." '■'■After their example/' he adds, ^^ all the Protest- 
 ants who admit TEiE RIGHT OF THE Prince in sacred things, 
 take from, the church all judicial power." Here are the two 
 antagonistic principles. The one asserting that Jesus Christ in- 
 vested the church with the right to judge, make laws, require 
 obedience to them in all ecclesiastical or spiritucd m^atters, and 
 by penalties of the same spiritual order, to enforce their observ- 
 ance. The other denying all "judiciary power to the church," 
 and ascribing it to the civil " magistrates'' — " those nursing 
 fathers to the church," as the gentleman's Confession of Faith 
 has it. The one asserting that there is a spiritual pjoicer in the 
 church, for the coercion of those who violate its laws. The 
 other maintaining that the ministers have a right to make laws, 
 and that the magistrates are bound, or at least authorized, to 
 enforce them. This is the origin of the two great ordinances of 
 Presbyterianism — ministry and magistracy — of which I shall 
 have occasion to speak in the next question. The reader can 
 judge which of these two principles is the most dangerous to 
 civil and religious liberty — the Catholic, which teaches that in 
 the church itself, resides all necessary authority, jurisdiction, 
 legislative, and judicial -power for its own government — and the 
 Presbyterian, which places the execution of ecclesiastical laws in 
 the hands of the civil riders. This is precisely the point of view 
 in which Dcvoti discusses the question — as one of principle. Of 
 those who would convert the magistrates of the commonwealth 
 into mere constables of the church, for the execution of its laws, 
 he says they SiW^' stick in the same mud together." Why? Be- 
 cause, acknowledging that in their church there is no authority 
 that could produce a sense of obligation in the consciences of men, 
 they require nevertheless that the civil magistrate should be the 
 executive of their church, to regulate those consciences in accord- 
 ance with their loill. I again refer the reader to the quotation 
 from Devoti, for evidence that the gentleman has made as gross a 
 perversion of a writer's meaning, as ever disgraced the annals of 
 polemical disputation. 
 
 On the perversion of Bossuet, by translating the word " souf- 
 france" " toleration," I must make a few remarks, although the 
 matter does not affect the main question. 
 
 Bossuet sets out(l) by showing that /;// the doctrine of Luther^ 
 Calvin, Melancthon and the Genevan Church, the prince has a 
 
 i(l) Histoire des Var., liv. x. § Ivi. 
 10 
 
154 
 
 right to use the sword against the enemies of the church. On 
 this question, he says, there was no dispute between him and 
 them. Calvin had reduced their doctrine to bloody practice, by 
 putting Servetus and Gentilis to death. He then goes on to say, 
 that this right of the prince was admitted by the Calvinist author, 
 who had most bitterly accused the Catholic Church of cruelty. 
 He says, that to deny this right, would be to paralyze the public 
 power — and concludes, " de sorte qu'il n'y a point d'illusion plus 
 dangereuse que de donner LA souffrance pour une caractere de 
 vraie eglise;" by which it would seem that the Calvinists, whilst 
 suffering under the ojieration of their own principles, acting in 
 the. French government, would represent their sufferings as a 
 mark of their being the true church. Bossuet takes this plea from 
 them, by showing that the descendants of the cruel Calvin, and 
 the professors of his intolerant creed, could not avail themselves 
 of it; that, if it were a true mark, it would be in favour only of 
 the " Socinians and Baptists," icho denied the magistrate's right 
 to punish offences against religion. Hence, he says, in the words 
 following: " et je ne connois parmi les Chretiens que les Soci- 
 niens et les Anabaptistes qui s'opposent a cette doctrine.'' 
 
 He had just proved that there was no dispute between him and 
 the Calvinists on the question of toleration ; that their doctrine 
 was clear, from their own books, and Calvin's Commentary, writ- 
 ten in the blood of his victims. The?/ could not assign " tolera- 
 tion" as a mark of their church, but they might have assigned 
 their sufferings. So that the gentleman shows his ignorance of 
 the French language, when he says that " souffrancp:" in this 
 place, means " toleration," and produces the very nonsense which 
 he affects to avoid. If Bossuet vindicates the magistrate's right to 
 employ the sword, he does it by virtue of doctrines held by those 
 against whom ho was writing. It was the " argumentum ad homi- 
 nem." He told them " you teach that right, and therefore ?/c»it 
 cannot complain of its exercise by the government." 
 
 The gentleman then quotes and perverts another passage of 
 Bossuet, to support his perversion of the word '' souffrance" in 
 this. The reference is Six. Avert, sec. 115, tom. iv. p. 426. In 
 this passage Bossuet speaks of toleration, and uses the French 
 word proper to express it. He does not speak of it, however, in 
 the sense in which it is understood in our discussion. He speaks 
 of it in the sense in which truth must ever be intolerant. The 
 author was assigning the reasons why the Catholic Church was 
 so much hated by tlie Protestant denominations, who had sepa- 
 rated from her. He says that at the beginning they only desired 
 that the church would abstain from condemning their doctrines. 
 But she was intolerant; she condemned their heresies, and would 
 not allow their authors to propagate theni^, within the pale of her 
 communion. It was in this sense that she would not tolerate 
 them, just as the Synod of York, to which the gentleman has 
 
155 
 
 thought proper to refer, wouJd not tolerate the Rev. Albert 
 Barnes. And with equal truth may it be said, in the words of 
 Bossuet, that the ''holy severity and the holy delicacy" of the 
 old school party "forbade such indulgence, or rather such soft- 
 ness. '^ The Catholic Church couM not admit heresy to be ortho- 
 dox doctrine. She was the original depository of the truths of 
 revelation; and when men oppose them, she brands their opinions, 
 and will not allow truth and falsehood to coalesce within the pale 
 of her communion. In this sense, she is as intolerant as truth. 
 In this sense, Protestant denominations mai/ he more tolerant, 
 because their doctrines being matter of opinion all round, they are 
 in perpetual dispute as to ichat is true, and ivhat false. But 
 to pervert this into an evidence that, according to Bossuet, the 
 Catholic religion would not allow " toleratioii' to persons sepa- 
 rated from her communion, is one of those bold and desperate 
 attempts to deceive the public which merit the reprobation of 
 every honest man. But I ascribe it to the gentleman's imperfect 
 knowledge of the French. 
 
 The Catholic "marriage," as a civil contract, is every thing that 
 the laws of the land require. As a religious rite, it is in har- 
 mony with the goi^pel. So it has always been. 
 
 The Belgian bishops may quote canon law in favour of into- 
 lerance, yet they, with one exception out of four, voted the appro- 
 priation of money for the support of the Protestant ministers and 
 churches; a very certain proof that their religion does not make in- 
 tolerance an article of faith. Can the gentleman show a parallel ? 
 
 In my last speech I exposed the case of the Albigenses; — the 
 nature of their doctrine; their crimes against church and state, 
 and human nature itself; — the measures that were then, Jusf/y or 
 otherwise, deemed necessary to be taken against them. At this 
 day there is no state, Catholic or Protestant, that would not sup- 
 press them. To that speech I refer the reader. They had set 
 public authority at defiance, by their violence, and public autho- 
 rity put them down by the same means. The gentleman says I 
 only wished to decoy him away "from the exposure of pop^'ry." 
 I know he is abler at abusing popefy than at discussing points of 
 history, and therefore I give him credit for his ingenuity. He 
 knows his forte. According to his view, it would appear, that 
 the Albigenses 'had onliy to profess that all human bodies were 
 tt\e creation of the devil, and then, under the protection of their 
 heresy, commit what crime ^. they would. He wonders that I 
 should assert the infallibility of the council, in condemning the 
 doctrine, and deny that infallibility in denouncing the persons, of 
 the Albigenses. This puzzles him. " What a strange picture!" 
 he exclaims. " An interinittent infallibility I" The quack, be- 
 cause he is a quack, is deceived in the symptoms. The educated 
 physician knows that there is nothing " intermittent" in the case 
 The Council of Trent decreed that the ground on which a duel 
 
156 
 
 had been fought should be forfeited. None but a quack would 
 look for "infallibility" in any such decision. So it was with 
 that of Lateran, in appointing civil penalties against the Albi- 
 geiises. It depended on the civil government in which they lived, 
 to make war on them, or not, as their interests might direct. It is 
 an abuse of language — a contempt of history — to represent the 
 case of the Albigenses as a persecution for ivorshipjjtng God 
 according to the dictates of their conscience. 
 
 The gentleman, unable to find, anywhere, persecution recog- 
 nised as a doctrine of the Catholic Church, except in the calum- 
 nies of her enemies, or in the perversion of what may have been 
 said by her friends, as Bossuet, calls on me, as last, to show a con- 
 demnation of that principle. He set out to prove the charge; 
 and now he calls on me to prove that he cannot do it. I am pre- 
 pared to do this; but, in the mean time, let him look for the evi- 
 dence, in the doctrines of the Catholic Church, to support the 
 calumny which he and his associates in the anti-Catholic crusade 
 have uttered. Let him find one tenet of faith and morals in the 
 whole creed of the Catholic Church which is opposed to civil and 
 religious liberty, as we have defined them. Let him show from 
 any bull of a pope or decree of a general council that any such 
 tenet has been proposed to the belief of Catholics, and then he 
 will prove his proposition — not before. But if he cannot do this, 
 let him retire with that portion of shame which ought to cling to 
 those who bear "false witness against their neighbours.^' 
 
 He may prove that Catholics persecuted. This is not the ques- 
 tion. Did. they persecute in obedience to any tenet of doctrine 
 held by their Church? If they did, let the gentleman point oxxithat 
 doctrine which required them to persecute. He refers to the '27th 
 canon of the Third Lateran, in the quotation which I convicted him, 
 and Mr. Faber by his testimony, of garbling to make out their 
 cause. He makes a jest of the circumstance. In his mind, gar- 
 bling and exposure for it, are not associated with dishonour. He 
 has neither the courage to deny the fact, nor the humility to ex- 
 plain how it happened. He says, that canon "dooms its victims 
 to slavery." The words of tjie council refute him. After enu- 
 merating their crimes, it simply states, " liberum sit principibus 
 hujusmodi homines subjicere servituti," — "/e^ it j^ciniittrd, or 
 free, for princes to reduce such men to slarery." Will he say 
 that to "doom them to slavery," and to '^ leave it free for princes 
 to reduce them to slavery," is the same thing. If not, the gentle- 
 man is convicted of another instance of false testimony. He asks, 
 was the canon ever repealed? I answer, that it become extinct, 
 when the Albigenses ceased from their warfare on "virgins and 
 WIDOWS, OLD AND YOUNG, sex and age, and their destruction and 
 desolation of every thing after the manner of pagans,'^ as the 
 canon asserts; and as Mr. Faber and the gentleman thought 
 proper riot to assert^ whilst they professed to give the canon. It 
 
157 
 
 became extinct then — or else when princes had reduced " such 
 men'' to slavery. And being extinct, it was not susceptible of 
 repeal. 
 
 I stated, that the object for which the Lateran Council was 
 '^ especially" convened, was the condemnation of the Albigensiaa 
 heresy. And because they condemned other heresies, he affects 
 to discover contradiction. They defined the doctrine of tran sub- 
 stantiation, and the gentleman hints, that in this, they had a 
 prophetic reference to the Protestants, who were to come into 
 being some three hundred years afterwards. They even excom- 
 municated, and anathematized evei'i/ heresi/, extolling itself against 
 this holy, orthodox faith which they had before expounded. And 
 the gentleman thinks, after all this trouble, it is hard that the 
 Protestants should not be included in the canon against the Albi- 
 genses. But he cannot be gratified. He is puzzled equally to 
 account for the fact, that the Albigenses had been so long borne 
 with in the midst of Catholic Europe. And he accounts for it, by 
 saying, that " as soon as they dared ^ the popes and councils did 
 begin their persecution." One would suppose that they might 
 have '^ dared," when the Albigenses were few, instead of waiting 
 tiir they perpetrated such outrages. Besides, there never was a 
 period when popes did not ''dare" to proclaim and practise everi/ 
 article of Catholic faith. Of the character and doctrines of the 
 Albigenses, I said only what contemporary writers mention ; and if 
 the gentleman can refute my authorities, I beg him not to with- 
 hold his knowledge, until the last night of the discussion. It is 
 possible, that my corrected speech has been sent to college, and 
 if so, we all understand why the answer to it has been postponed 
 for the present. The assertion, that Du Pin was a Catholic, is not 
 to be depended on. His private correspondence with Archbishop 
 Wake of Canterbury, proves that he was quite ready to be a Pro- 
 testant. 
 
 As to the section of the canon, which I said was spurious, the 
 gentleman cannot involve me in a contradiction, except at the 
 sacrifice of truth, about which (to return his expression of " re- 
 gret") I am sorry that he seems to entertain but little scruple. 
 I did say, '^^ this canon," when, in strict hair-splitting accuracy y 
 I should have said '■'■ this section of the canon." This I did in 
 my subsequent speech ; and because I did so, he charges me as 
 having intended to designate under the words, '' this canon," the 
 whole five sections, considered as different sections, as being 
 spurious. It is in this that he sacrifices truth. I have a right, 
 at least, to know my own meaning. 
 
 It is, however, of no importance in which section of the canon 
 "the exterminating clause" may be found. The gentleman 
 would have found it equally in the second, if I had said it was 
 in the third, and not in the second. 
 
 He does not yet answer my question about the Mazarine copy. 
 
158. 
 
 Neither did I do injustice to his citation of the marginal note. He 
 now admits, that the section referred to, was wanting in hoth lan- 
 guages of that manuscript. Yet his former assertion was, that 
 Labbe followed the Latin ; and the insinuation, that the leaf had 
 heen torn out, proves his meaning. Now, he settles the matter, 
 "of course.^' "As the leaf was wanting in the Mazarine manu- 
 script, of course, all it contained was wanting." What next ? 
 "And yet the gentleman would make me say, that though the 
 leaf was wanting, yet half the leaf was not wanting." No, 1 did 
 not make him say any such thing. But since Labbe states, that 
 hoth languages are wanting in the Mazarine copy, I wish to 
 know how Labbe could follow the Latin of that copy, as the 
 gentleman asserted ? If we believe the gentleman, Labbe followed 
 the text, which Labbe himself says, did not exist. The difficulty 
 remains; and the gentleman, instead of agitating the "leaf," will 
 do well to meet it fairly. 
 
 Let me humour the gentleman in regard to Collier. That his- 
 torian does not " say,^' that this section is spurious ; he only re- 
 jects it for want of evidence to prove that it was the authentic act 
 of the council. This is all I want. Now, if it was not the authen- 
 tic act, was it not, ipso confesso^ spurious? 
 
 As to Du Pin and Matthew Paris, I proved, in my last speech, 
 that even by the use made of them by the gentleman, they sustain 
 all I said on their authority. Du Pin gave the Pope himself credit 
 for making the whole seventy canons ; and M. Paris says, they 
 were "read," and, as the gentleman affirms, "the cou^XIL mur- 
 mured OVER them." This is the gentleman's own admission. 
 But to make them " the genuine acts of the council," they should 
 have been suhmitted for deliheration — they should have been ap- 
 proved — they should have been adopted. So far fjom this, on 
 hearing them "read," "the council murmured over them ;" and 
 therefore, says Mr. Breckinridge, they are the genuine acts of the 
 council; and, because they "murmured over them," they were 
 " bloody butchers." The gentleman's intellects must be be- 
 wildered, or he would not refute himself so palpably. Having 
 granted me all that I contended for, and more than was sufficient 
 to sustain my position, he says he " blushes lor having had to 
 expose them." He exposed himself, and his " blushes" become 
 him. 
 
 My reference to the decision of the universities on the question in 
 debate, was for those who wish to know the truth, and gain cor- 
 rect information. As its citation was more than my argument re- 
 quired, I have postponed it for the present. But I may give it 
 entire hereafter. 
 
 The document which I am bound to admit as evidence of 
 Catholic doctrine, is the decree of a General Council, or the bull of 
 a Pope — setting it forth as a " tenet? of faith or morals revealed by 
 Almighty God." Unless it come under this definition, it is not a 
 
159 
 
 doctrine of the Roman Catholic religion ; and unless it be a doc- 
 trine of the Roman Catholic religion, I am not hound to defend 
 it. Catholics are to be judged by their doctrines — in which they 
 all agree ] and not by the opinions of individuals — which must be 
 different and contradictory, according to the age, the country, the 
 government, &c., in which they lived. The ''learned Dens" is 
 one of these writers. And when the gentleman asks " who is 
 right ? Mr. Hughes, or the learned Dens," I answer, that, as re- 
 gards persecution, Mr. Hughes is right in condemning, and Mr. 
 Dens was wrong in approving it. I answer, secondly, that, as re- 
 gards the doctrines of the Catholic religion, there is no disagree- 
 ment between Mr. Hughes and the " learned Dens." Both are 
 agreed — and both are right. Has the gentleman ever seen Dens's 
 Theology ? I imagine not. But the tories in England, the men 
 who will not allow Presbyterians to receive the honours of the 
 UNIVERSITIES, founded and endowed by Catholics ; these men, in 
 order to check the progress of free priociples and popular rights, 
 have returned to the stale expedient of crying " NO POPERY." 
 The chorus had died away for some years, and, in order to renew 
 it, there was a congregation of the ''Fudge Family" at Exeter Hall 
 — headed by Murtagh O'Sullivan, and Patrick Maghee, dee, dee, 
 — appropriate instruments to do the dirty work of political bigotry, 
 by the excitation of religious hatred. These men made speeches 
 on the subject of Dens's Theology, and to those speeches the gen- 
 tleman appears to be indebted for all he knows of that work. He 
 says it was approved of by the Irish bishops. It may have been, 
 so, so far as it treats of those " tenets of faith and morals which- 
 the Catholic Church holds as having been revealed by Almighty 
 God ;" I. e. so far as Catholic doctrine is concerned. That the 
 opinions of the author, in support of persecution, were approved of 
 by them is utterlij false. For three hundred year?, the Irish 
 Catholics have be6n the victims of Protestant persecution ] and 
 neither they, nor their bishops, would, or could, or did approve of 
 the sophistry by which Dens would recommend the cursed prin- 
 ciple. The whole matter w^as this : — a bookseller had published 
 it as a matter of pecuniary speculation ; he laboured " to make 
 money by it ; and the bishops made it the rule, not for the de- 
 cision, but for the order of such subjects as the clergy had to dis- 
 cuss in their conferences. The gentleman came here to show 
 " those tenets of faith and morals held by Catholics" which are 
 opposed to "civil and religious liberty;" and to prove the exist- 
 ence of such tenets by the " bull of a Pope, or the decree of a General 
 Council." This he cannot do. But he quotes a canon of a Ge- 
 neral Council in which wo doctrine is proposed, but in which per- 
 mission is given, encouragement is held forth, to the governments 
 in which the Albigenses existed, to drive them from their territo 
 ries respectively ; not as persons simplj/ exercising the rights of 
 conscience^ but as public enemies, who, by their excesses against 
 
160 
 
 the rights of others, had forfeited every claim to have their own 
 respected. He has quoted the supposed opinions of Dens ; and 
 the spouters at Exeter Hall arc his witnesses even for their exist- 
 ence. And his reasoning is, that since Dens hold those opinions 
 — therefore they are doctrines of the Catholic Church, and are 
 binding on all Catholics ; for it is their boast that their doctrines 
 never change ! ! The premises are false, and the conclusion is ab- 
 surd. The gentleman, in quoting Dens, Bossuet, the Ilhemish 
 annotators, admits that they only give their opinions. But, he 
 says, ''are not their opinions as good as that of Mr. Hughes? 
 Is Mr. Hughes iciser than all these ? The answer is very simple. 
 He that runs may read. They lived in Rome, France, Belgium, 
 and Ireland. He lives in the United States." I thank him for 
 the admission. Then he acknowledges, that, in accusing the 
 Catholics of the United States of holding the same opinions which 
 have been put forth by writers in Rome, France, Belgium, and Ire- 
 land, he, and his colleagues, have been bearing "false witness 
 against their neighbour." He acknowledges that Mr. Hughes can 
 be a Catholic in the United States, without holding the ojjinions 
 of Mr. Dens. In other words, he acknowledges that the anti- 
 Catholic crusaders, with whom he is associated, first calumniate 
 the Catholics, by charging on them tenets which they do not hold ; 
 and then denounce them for doctrines which they disclaim, at 
 least in '' the United States." I thank him for his candour, though 
 I do not believe it was intentional. 
 
 Let the gentleman show me one of those writers teaching per- 
 •secution as a Catholic tenet of faith or morals. Now, Mr. 
 Hughes states, that it is not a doctrine. By what Catholic 
 writer, then, has Mr. Hughes been contradicted ? By Bossuet ? 
 No. By Dens? No. By the Pope? No. By the Rhemish 
 annotators ? No. Not one of them has ever said that persecu- 
 tion is a doctrine of the Catholic Church I ]5ut they advocated 
 the principle. If they did, it was in their own name, and on 
 their own authority ; not by any requisition of their religion, a3 
 Catholics. If it were a doctrine, Mr. Hughes dare not deny it 
 in the name of his Church. Such a denial would be heresy, and 
 would entitle him to a seat in the Synod of York. If it were a doc- 
 trine, the Catholic wife would have to make an act of contrition 
 every evening, for not having poisoned her heretical husband, 
 during the day ; and those Catholics in France and other coun- 
 tries, where they are ahle to do it, would be living in a perpetual 
 state of mortal sin, so long as they abstained from killing their 
 Protestant neighhours. In a word, the doctrine would lead to 
 the same consequences among Catholics, which it produced 
 among Presbyterians; and like them, we too should be asking 
 God's pardon for the sin of tolerating a false religion. 
 
 The gentleman has taken snsjncious pains to make it appear, 
 that the bull In C(ENA Domini rests on ''accumulative and infalli- 
 
161 
 
 ble authority." A few facts will suffice to prove the contrary. In 
 1510 the Provincial Council of Tonrs rejected this hull iu the 
 name of the French nation. (1) And in 1778, Pope Clement XIV. 
 suspended the publication of it. (2) It is still read, however, in 
 Rome every Thursday in holy week, as it had been long before 
 the Reformation, so called. Out of one single church in Rome, it 
 has not been read for more than sixty years. Since, therefore, it 
 has hcen rejected by Catholics, it follows, that its rejection was 
 not inconsistent with the doctrines of the Catholic re.li(jion. And 
 since it has been suspended by the Pope himself, it follows that, 
 if it ever had any authority, it has none now. It is another in- 
 stance to show on what grounds the calumniators of the Catholics 
 are obliged to build. 
 
 That Pope Paul should excommunicate the heretics and here- 
 sies, that were just springing into being, during his pontificate, 
 1536, is nothing wonderful. The Synod of York, for a mere 
 difference of opinion, suspended the Rev. Mr. Barnes in 1835. 
 And the gentleman himself instigated the General Assembly at 
 Pittsburg to excommunicate the " wliole Catholic Church," which 
 they did accordingly. The '^ bishops,'' at his instance, con- 
 structed an artificial Vatican inlhe Western city, and with artificial 
 thunder, that reverberated along the surrounding hills and valleys, 
 for a considerable distance, cut oif from the communion of the 
 "Christian Church" nearly two hundred millions of as good 
 Christians as themselves. Had not the Pope, iu 1536, as good a 
 right to excommunicate the Calviuists, as the General Assembly,- 
 in 1835, had to-excommunicate the whole Catholic world of pre- 
 sent and past generations ? 
 
 After enumerating, with double emphasis on the word curses, 
 of which I shall speak presently, all the clauses which he deems 
 most suited to his purpose in the bull In Ccena Domini, he is 
 forced to admit that "some" are good. But most of them had 
 reference to times, and customs, and laws, with which we are alto- 
 gether unacquainted. The world has changed, and it is probable 
 that, at the period of their i^romulgation, these clauses Avere not 
 at variance with the civil laws of any country that could be af- 
 fected by them. But, at all events, the document is, in the Catho- 
 lic Church, of no kind of authority ; the state of things, in which 
 it might be even tolerable, having passed away from every civil- 
 ized nation, Catholic as well Protestant, in the world. 
 
 Making allowance for the age in which they were passed — let 
 us see, after all, whether those clauses are^so full of mischief. 1 
 shall just follow the gentleman, and we shall see. 
 
 The 1st section denounces heretics; and it is not for a member 
 of the Synod of York to find fault with this. 
 
 (1) Bergier, vol. i. p. 475. (2) Ibid. 
 
162 
 
 The 2d section denounces those who, to gain, time for the pi-o- 
 pagation of liere^y, or schism, or any thing else that might injure 
 religion, appeal to a future general council. Does the gentleman, 
 himself an enemy to heresy, find fault with this? 
 
 The 3d section denounces all '^pirates." Was this wrong? 
 
 The 4th section denounces all ''wreckers;" and pray was it 
 wrong for the Pope to come with all the influence of his authority 
 to the aid of the shipwrecked mariner, on whatever coast he might 
 be cast? 
 
 The 5th section denounces the authors of oppression by the lYZe- 
 (/aZ imposition of taxes. Was this very inhuman? 
 
 The 7th section denounces those who assisted the Saracens in 
 their wars against the Christians. Was there any thing so very 
 bad in this? The gentleman makes it put the Hussites, Lutherans, 
 Calvinists, &c. in the same predicament as the Saracens. This 
 part of the bull, however, had existed a few hundred years before 
 there were any Calvinists. 
 
 The 8th section denounces those who should appeal to secular 
 tribunals, in spiritual matters.. Was this a great crime ? especially 
 as the time had not yet come, when, as the Presbyterian Confes- 
 sion of Faith has it, the "magistFate had to provide, that what- 
 ever 'is done in Si/ nods, be according to the mind of God." 
 
 The 14th section denounces those who should take the cogni- 
 zance of ecclesiastical affairs from ecclesiastical judges, to whom 
 it belonged by the laws of the state, as then existing. Was 
 this so very unnatural? 
 
 The 15th section denounces those who should invade the per- 
 sonal immunities of the clergy, as then recognised, both by canon 
 and civil law. Is there any thing so shocking in this? 
 
 The 18th section denounces the invaders of their immunities 
 in jjroperti/, as equally secured by general laws. 
 
 The 20th section denounces those who should invade the papal 
 states. 
 
 The 21st section directs, that these acts shall not be recalled, 
 except by the Pope. And the Pope has recalled them; and with 
 this item of additional information, I hope the gentleman will 
 sleep sound, and not be disturbed by any apprehensions of the 
 bull ''In Coena Domini." 
 
 In following him, I have used the word "denounced," while 
 he uses the word "curses." This suits his purpose better, be- 
 cause it conveys the idea imprecation. As a Greek scholar, he 
 must know, that the intrinsic force of the word " anathema" is 
 not "imprecation;" and, as an ecclesiastic scholar, he ought to 
 know, that in ecclesiastical usage, it has not that meaning. 
 
 But it follows, on the gentleman's view of the case, that the 
 Pope was not, even in the Middle Ages, that omnipotent monarch, 
 who, by the frown of his brow, could lay nations prostrate in the 
 
163 
 
 dust, that he might trample on them. On the contrary, he had 
 no means, it appears, to defend his own immunities and those of 
 the Church, but anathenjas, or, as the gentleman will have it, 
 ''curses." Which shall we believe? Again; since the Presby- 
 terians hold, that the Pope is anti-Christ, they ought to rejoice, 
 that he has excommunicated them; and be satisfied, that the 
 '' curses" of anti-Christ will only help them on their way to 
 heaven. 
 
 The gentleman misrepresents me, when he says, I wish to 
 fasten the "abolition odium" on Presbyterians. His own ex- 
 pose of Presbyterian doctrine, setting forth that on the " subject 
 of liberty, there is no discretion," is the only thing in this discus- 
 sion, that can fix that odium. According to his own statement of 
 the doctrine, it follows, as a consequence, that both slave and 
 master are involved in guilt; since there is '' no discretion on the 
 subject of liberty." The uncalled-for disclaimer of the Synod of 
 York will not remove the "odium," which I have no wish to 
 fasten. 
 
 Of Garrison's writings on the subject of slavery, I have never 
 read a line; and Daniel O'Connell goes out of his sphere, as I 
 conceive, whenever he touches on the subject. From all I have 
 seen of his writings, he seems to be, on this point, an orthodox 
 Presbyterian, believing, in the gentleman's own words, that where 
 liberty is concerned, God has left "no discretion." 
 
 The effort, the last struggle of the gentleman's argument, shows 
 the desperate condition to which he is reduced. I explained, in 
 my last speech, the meaning of the creed of Pope Pius IV. Still, 
 he contends, that if not by "doctrine," at least by "discipline," 
 all Catholics are bound to kill and exterminate heretics wherever 
 they meet them. Poor man ! To this (for it amounts to this by 
 his construct ioii) he says, "J/r. Iliujhes is BOUND tliis night by 
 a SOLEMN OATH, and denies it at tlie risk of papal disjyleasure." 
 The Catholics, throughout the world, the gentleman has told you, 
 amount to 120,000,000; and the Pope would be quite angry, if 
 they did not subscribe the creed of Pius IV., just for the pleasure 
 of committing perjury by living in the perpetual violation of its 
 doctrine and discipline. He will be equally displeased, if, after 
 having sworn to it, they do not commit apostasy, as well as 
 perjury, by denying it, as "Mr. Hughes does this night." 
 
 I say nothing of his charging me with perjury. Coming from 
 any other, I should resent it as an insult — but from him, it is 
 precisely what I expected — I know him to be capable of. When 
 the gentleman has so far forgotten himself as to use such language 
 to an opponent whom he himself selected, he authorizes that op- 
 ponent to consider him as having forfeited that moral attribute 
 which is essentially connected with even \Siq power to insult. I, 
 therefore, present him with carte blanche. But the fact of his 
 
164: 
 
 having used sucli language^ will explain, more clearly still, my 
 motive for shrinking from any "oral discussion" with a gentle- 
 man, whom I judged so well to be capable of using it. 
 
 He admits that the notes on the Rhemish Testament are only 
 the opinions of ''very learned papists" — but he asks whether the 
 " pope ever condemned them ?" I really cannot answer the 
 question, as I am uncertain whether the pope ever. saw them. It 
 would keep the pope too busy to read all the " opinions" that 
 may be uttered and published by 120,000,000 of men. The book 
 in which he would record the ''opinions" that he approved; and 
 the other book in which he would record the " opinions" that he 
 condemned, would be too large and unwieldy. And tf he were 
 to do so, the gentleman would be among the first to accuse him of 
 tyrannizing over, not only the "doctrines of the church," but the 
 "opinions" of men. He must underrate the common sense of 
 the audience and the public, when he asks such questions. 
 
 He has found out that ^^ induhjenccs take aicai/ the punishment 
 (in this world and in purgatory) due for sins, they are to he 
 granted for reasonable causes, out of the superabundant merits 
 of Christ and his saints." This -he has discovered in the 
 Council of Trent. I am glad that he has lived long enough to 
 prove, with his own pen, that when, in the recent controversy, 7ie 
 stated that "indulgences were a bundle of licenses to 
 COMMIT SIN," he was deceiving the public by his testimony. He 
 finds now that they are NOT licenses to commit sin, but simply 
 the "taking away of temporal 2:>unishmcnt due for sins" committed. 
 He finds that they must be gjf-anted for "just causes." 
 
 And now, for the use he makes of this discovery. Inasmuch 
 as indulgences were offered to those who should aid in suppress- 
 ing the Albigenses, he infers that the third canon of the Fourth 
 Council of Lateran rested on the "doctrine of indulgences." This 
 is his last resource for a doctrine to support it. Well, let us see 
 how his argument will stand. "Indulgences are the taking 
 away of temporal punishment due for sins, and must be granted 
 for reasonable causes." Therefore, Catholics hold the third 
 canon of the Fourth Council of Lateran as a tenet revealed by 
 Almighty God. This logic will not do. But then, the suppression 
 of the Albigenses, provided for in the canon, was deemed a suffi- 
 cient, "reasonable cause," for granting indulgences — therefore 
 the canon, going before, was founded on the indulgences that 
 were to come after. This will not do either. If, as historians 
 write, the Albigenses were the destroyers of churches and monas- 
 teries — persons " who spared neither sex nor age, neither 
 VIRGINS NOR WIDOWS ;" those who risked their lives in defence of 
 these, might be considered as furnishing " reasonable cause" for 
 the application of indulgences. If, on the other hand, the Albi- 
 genses were those innocent lambs which the gentleman has pro- 
 
-165 
 
 mised to make them appear — ihen, it was an abuse of the doctrine 
 to grant or promise an indulgence for their immolation. But in 
 neither case can the doctrine be brought to sustain the canon. 
 
 The gentleman, copying after Faber, suppressed the middle of 
 the twenty-seventh canon of the Third Lateran, and brought the 
 other portions together, as if nothing had been omitted. This 
 he calls ''abridging." In speaking of it, I gave him the merit of 
 a copyist, and on that ground excused him of " fraud," — but not of 
 culpable ignorance — considering his office. Rather than acknow- 
 ledge that he had been deceived bi/ cop)i/in(j, he stated that, "i^a- 
 her had quoted it as he had.'' On which I hinted to him that 
 he seemed to be ambitions of a partnership in the " fraud" with 
 which Faber is chargeable — for in him it could not have been 
 ignorance. 
 
 The gentleman enumerates the efforts by which he endeavoured 
 to engage me in controversy ; to all of which the same monotonous 
 result is ascribed. "He declined. He declined. He declined." 
 I am not sorry that he should boast, except always where he 
 goes beyond the facts. For, whilst it pleads my apology for the 
 freedom with which I shall have to speak of Presbyterian doc- 
 trines; it will show, on the other hand, his want of title to that 
 sympathy which be would otherwise claim for his suffering "in 
 the great cause," if I should make a whip of his ecclesiastical 
 ignorance, to chastise his anti-popery zeal withal. One thing I 
 promise, however, that the gentleman himself, personally, shall but 
 seldom engage my attention. As a gentleman he has entitled him- 
 self to impunity. 
 
 Finally, he asks me my opinion about the right of "the MA- 
 JORITY IN Spain, or Italy, to establish the Cataolic reli- ■ 
 GION BY LAW." I answer that, in my opinion, if the majority in 
 Italy and Spain, by doing so, violated no civil or religious right of 
 the minority, they had, in that case, the right to " establish the 
 Catholic religion by law." 3ut if, in order to establish it, they 
 violated a7iy right, sacred' or civil, of the minority, then, in that 
 case, they had no right to "establish the Catholic religion by law." 
 They had no right to do evil, that good might come. 
 
 And now, having answered his question, I ask in turn. Whether 
 
 HIS RELIGIOUS FORKFATIIERS, IN SCOTLAND, WHILST YET A MI- 
 NORITY, ARE TO BE BLAMED FOR PULLING ALTARS, IMAGES, AND 
 OTHER MONUMENTS OF IDOLATRY, FROM PLACES OF PUBLIC WOR- 
 SHIP AT THE IIeformation ? "We now expect an answer." 
 
 The gentleman has quoted some of the doctrines of John Huss, 
 and especially on the subject of handing heretics over to the civil 
 arm for corporal punishment. It is a little unfortunate for his 
 argument, however, that Huss himself was an adv^^cate for the 
 corporal punishment of heretics; and this too, whilst he himself 
 was under the imputation of heresy. Connected with the case of 
 
166 
 
 Huss, is the supposed evidence on which Mr. Wesley constructed 
 his famous syllogism, to prove that Catholics ought not to be 
 tolerated among even ''Turks or Pagans." The Rev. Mr. Night- 
 ingale, a Protestant clergyman, says, that Mr. Wesley wrote under 
 "a mistaken impression;" and that if he were living ''^ at this 
 time^'" he would use his talents and influence in favour of " the 
 cause of liberty and justice;" that " no man was ever more ready 
 to acknowledge an error, of which he was once convinced, than 
 was Mr. Wesley." I subscribe freely to these observations in fa- 
 vour of Mr. Wesley's sincerity and candour — at the same time I 
 shall proceed to show that he was under a " mistaken im- 
 pression." 
 
 His argument, in his letter of January 12, 1780, prochiims it as 
 a '■^ Roman Catholic maxim, estahlislied not hij private men, but 
 hy a public council, that ^ no faith is to be kept icith heretics.^ 
 This has been openly avoioed by the Council of Constance, but it 
 has never been openly disclaimed, Therefore they (^Catho- 
 lics) omjht not to be tolerated by any government, Protestant, 
 Mohammedan, or Pagan." The whole of this argument depends 
 on the fact, whether or not the Council of Constance "publicly 
 avowed the maxim" ascribed to it by Mr. Wesle3^ If it did not, 
 then it was impossible to '•'■recalV^ what it had never published. 
 If it did NOT — then, under a "mistaken impression," Wesley, too, 
 has borne "false witness against his neighbour." 
 
 Mr. Wesley is dead — but Mr. Breckinridge has adopted his as- 
 sertion ; and I call on Mr. Breckinridge, here present, to show, in 
 the acts of the Council of Constance, now open before us on the 
 table, the ^^ maxim avowed ' that no faith is to be kept with here- 
 tics.' " If he cannot, I call on him, as he professes to hate a 
 falsehood, to aid me in denouncing the calumny. There is no 
 retreat. He shall not have the plea, in his biography, that he 
 wrote under "a mistaken impression." Here are the original 
 documents. 
 
 A few words will be sufficient to explain the supposed founda- 
 tion of this cruel slander. In the nineteenth session of the Coun- 
 cil of Constance, it is laid down, that the spiritual authority of the 
 church, being of Divine origin, cannot be impeded, or hindered, 
 by any safe-conduct of any p>rince, emp>eror, king, or secidar 
 power whatever, from the just exercise of its function, in con.' 
 demning the errors of those loho are sidgect to its jurisdiction. 
 It asserted the right of the church to judge of heresies or errors 
 that might corrupt the purity of the faith, in despite of all the safe- 
 conducts that might be given by all the princes in the world. It 
 asserted this right and jurisdiction, even where the culprit de- 
 pended on his safe-conduct in such a manner as that he would not 
 have come to the place of judgment without it. It asserted that 
 princes had no authority to give a safe-conduct which would 
 
1()7 
 
 trench on the judiciary powers of tiic sjjiritual trihunal, over 
 which princes, as such, have no control. And finally, that sup- 
 posing they did give such a safe-conduct, it could not bind them, 
 only to the extent of civil jurisdiction, beyond which no«safe-con- 
 duct can be admitted as of any effect. Otherwise a heretic might 
 appear before the council, argue his case, propagate his errors, 
 and laugh at his spiritual judges, because he had a safe-conduct 
 from the civil government. Let us make the illustration. 
 
 Supposing the llev. Mr. Barnes, at the Synod of York, had 
 pleaded, in bar of his suspension, that he had a safe-conduct from 
 the governor of the state, promising that he should return to his 
 congregation as he left them. What would Father Green and the 
 " bishops" say ? They would say, ''>S^/>, no safe-conduct can 
 take from Synod the power to judge and punish you for heresy, 
 in your notes on the Romans. But suppose the governor were 
 to appear, and say, ''I have promised to see that Mr. Barnes shall 
 return to his congregation unsuspend.edy and uncondemned." 
 They would tell him, that, as to civil rights, he might protect him 
 as the laws directed, but if he promised to prevent Synod from 
 suspending Mr. Barnes, the obligation was mdawful, and he was 
 not obliged to fulfil it — inasmuch as it was out of his power. 
 And supposing that, on this decision, we should build an argu- 
 ment to prove that '^ it is a Presbyterian maxim, established not 
 by private men, but by the Synod of York, that ' no faith is to be 
 kept with heretics,' and that, therefore, Presbyterians ought not 
 to be tolerated by any government, Catholic, Mohammedan, or 
 Pagan ;" what would the gentleman say ? 
 
 To prove that I have fairly stated the case, and fairly esta- 
 blished the parallel, I shall quote the original in the words of the 
 council. 
 
 *' Praesens sancta synodus ex quovis salvo conductu per impe- 
 ratorem, reges et alios seculi principes haereticis, vel de haeresi 
 diff'amatis, putantes eosdem sic u suis erroribus revocare, quo 
 cunque vinculo se astriuxeriut, concesso, nullum fidei Catholicae 
 vel jurisdictioni ecclesiasticae prsejudicium generari, vel impedi- 
 mentum pracstari posse, seu debere declarat, qua minus, dicto 
 salvo conductu non obstante, liceat judici competenti ecclesiastico 
 de hujusmodi personarum erroribus iuquirere, et alias contra eos 
 debite procedere, eosdemque punire, quantum justitia suadebit, si 
 suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint, etiam si de salvo 
 conductu confisi, ad locum venerint judicii, alias non venturi ) nee 
 sic promittentem, cum alius fecerit quod in ipso est, ex hoc in 
 aliquo remansisse obligatum.^'(l) 
 
 iW Acta Ccnc. Const., Sess. XIX. 
 
168 
 
 TRANSLATION. 
 
 ^^TTie present sacred synod declares, tJiaf, out of any safe- 
 conduct whatever, granted to heretics or persons accused of 
 heresy hy the eiujjeror, kings, or secular princes, by ichatever 
 tie they may have hound themselves, thinking thus to recall 
 those persons from their errors, no prejudice to Catholic faith 
 can or ought to arise, nor any obstacle be thrown in the way of 
 ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, by which it might be less lauful for 
 the competent and ecclesiastical Judge, notwithstanding said 
 safe-conduct, to inquire into the errors of such persons, and 
 otherwise proceed against them, and punish than, as Justice 
 shall direct, if they obstinately refuse to retract their errors — 
 even though they come to the place of Judgment, trusting to 
 their safe-conduct, and otherwise would not have come : nor is 
 he who makes the j>romise, when he has done what is in his 
 power to do, bound by any further obligation." 
 
 I call upon the gentleman now, either to say that the " maxim'' 
 that " no faith is to be kept with heretics/' is avowed in this 
 passage, or that it is not. If it is, let him tell in which part of it. 
 He has both languages before him. Let him quote from either. 
 If it is not, (as is manifest to every Latin reader,) then let him, as an 
 honest man, denounce the calumny, as a false and wicked charge, 
 and let him undeceive the American people so far as he has con- 
 tributed to lead them astray by aiding in its propagation. But 
 no retreat — no shuffling. 
 
 But did not, it will be asked by Protestants, the Council of 
 Constance burn Huss, at the stake ? No. Did it not solicit that 
 he should be burned? No. But did it not condemn him as a 
 heretic ? Yes ; and it had, at least, as much right to do so as the 
 Synod of York had to condemn Mr. Barnes, as a heretic. But 
 did it not ''hand him over to the civil power?" It degraded 
 him from his office as a priest, which it has a right to do, when 
 he had rendered himself unworthy of that character by his anti- 
 Catholic doctrines of heresy and sedition. How, then, came he 
 to be burned ? The civil law of the country contained the bar- 
 barous enactment which authorized it. By condemning Huss 
 as a heretic, the church or council necessarily exposed him to the 
 law of the state. But by not condemning him the council would 
 have been under the necessity of approving heretical doc- 
 trines. Now, the church could not allow Huss to preach heresy 
 in her name, as a Catholic priest, for any consideration that might 
 follow his suspension and excommunication, more than the Synod 
 of York could allow Mr. Barnes to continue to preach heresy in 
 the name of the Presbyterian Church, on the ground that the loss 
 of his salary and the sujfering of his character ^ might be the 
 consequence of his suspension. 
 
169 
 
 That Huss maintained heretical and seditious doctrines the 
 gentleman himself will allow. One of his doctrines condemned 
 in the council, was, that the '■^authority of the magistrate, pre- 
 late, or bishop is null, when he is in mortal sin." 
 
 G-oing to the council, IIuss proclaimed his willingness, in case 
 of conviction, to " submit to all the pains of heretics." He 
 knew by the laws of the land what they were. He had apijcaled 
 to the council, and desired to be tried by it. He had obtained 
 his safe-conduct from the emperor, as going to the council, only. 
 And yet almost all Protestants, deceived by their writers and 
 ministers, assert that the emperor had bound himself to bring him 
 safe back. I call upon Mr. Breckinridge to meet me in this 
 question ; and if he denies one single statement made hy me in 
 relation to it, I promise to furnish the evidence on the most indis- 
 putable authority. But let him state his argument, and refer to 
 something better than jMjndctr prejudice for his proof. The peo- 
 ple will find out how their credulity has been imposed on, in re- 
 lation to these matters. 
 
 It is not at all improbable that he will assert, or at least insi- 
 nuate, that Mr. Hughes is an apologist for the Council of Con- 
 stance, and of course approves of ' the burning of a heretic. The 
 council will require no apologist ; it did only what it had a right 
 to do J and what is ascribed to it, over (ind above, is properly to 
 be charged to the calumnies of p)olitical or religious enmity to 
 Catholics. As to the burning of Huss, as a Christian, a Catholic 
 and a man, I reprobate the barbarous and inhuman statute of 
 which it was the execution. But to make the church accountable, 
 either for the existence of that law, or for its execution, is as false 
 in history, and as absurd in reasoning, as to make it accountable 
 for not having invented printing in the tenth century. 
 
 Another of the stereotype calumnies which the gentleman and 
 his associates, in the present crusade against the Catholics, labour 
 to make as immortal as truth, is, that the Inquisition is a part of 
 the Catholic religion. And whilst, witli affected scrupulosity of 
 conscience, they call our religion ''popery," they become polite 
 in their libelliugs of it, and say the " Holy Catholic Inqui- 
 sition." 
 
 I do not mean to enter into defence of the Inquisition ; and none 
 can have a deeper abhorrence of the cruelties, real or supposed, 
 of which it was made the instrument. But I mean to show that 
 Protestants are, for the most part, perfectly deceived in relation 
 to it. They suppose that it is, or was, a part of the Catholic 
 religion. In this they are deceived. First, because it was un- 
 known during the first twelve hundred years of the church. 
 Secondly, because in very many Catholic countries it never 
 existed. Of these, it will be sufficient to mei^tion England, the 
 kingdom of Naples, in Italy, and France, where an attempt was 
 
 11 
 
170 
 
 made to establish it, but without any lasting success. In Spain 
 it was what the civil government made it. In no place did it 
 exist except by the permission, often at the request, of the civil 
 government. Those Catholic nations that rejected it, were as 
 sound in their faith as the others that admitted it. Therefore, it 
 was no part of the Catholic religion. The representative of the 
 nalumnies, that have been uttered against Catholics in relation to 
 the Inquisition, is here present, and let him show from history 
 that I have here made one single statement that is not true. 
 If he docs attempt it, I pledge myself to refute his argument. 
 But if he does riot, then let him aid me in denouncing the first 
 great calumny which he has helped to circulate, viz. that the 
 Inquisition is a part of the Catholic religion. 
 
 The next great calumny which he has aided in circulating, is, 
 that there are dungeons of, or for, the Inquisition under the 
 Catholic Churches in this country; thereby exposing them to share 
 the fate of the Convent at Boston. Now the Aict is, and it argues 
 great ignorance not to know it, that, at this day, out of the city of 
 Rome the Inquisition does not exist either in fact or in name — 
 either civilly or ecclesiastically — in any country under the sun. 
 Does he deny this ? Then let him point to the spot on the map 
 of the world where it does exist. 
 
 And now I propose to show that, apart from the form given to 
 it by the state, the substance of the Inquisition exists in every 
 Protestant denomination. The word inquisition is derived from 
 the duty of inquiring into the real or supposed errors which 
 might corrupt the true faith. Thus when Mr. Barnes appended 
 Notes to the Ilomans, Dr. Judkin became his accuser, and his 
 Presbytery constituted the tribunal of Inquisition — to inquire 
 whether these things are so. This tribunal decided in the nega- 
 tive; but a higher tribunal of Inquisition reversed the decision. 
 The gentleman himself was one of the inquisitors. In this sense, 
 all clergymen of all denominations, that hold tenets of doctrine, a 
 denial of which tliei/ regard as lieresy, are by office and profession 
 inquisitors. The gentleman will not, .so far, deny one word of 
 this. Where, then, is the difference, in i^rinciple, between the 
 Catholic and the Protestant Inquisition ? So far as the inquiry 
 into errors, and condemnation of heresies is concerned, it is 
 common to both; and in principle, there is not a particle of 
 difference. 
 
 The gentleman may tell me that, here there are no civil jwnal' 
 ties attaching to the crime of heresy. True. But would this 
 have been the case in Scotland, Holland, or Geneva? Thanks 
 to the liberality of the age, and the freedom of our institutions, the 
 inquisitors of all denominations are circumscribed within their 
 proper sphere. Here men may be heretics, without kissing the 
 6take that Calvin fixed for Servetus, or going through the ordeal 
 
I 
 
 171 
 
 of a Spanish auto de fe. There are heresy-hunters in every de- 
 nomination that has a creed which they call orthodox; but it is to 
 be hopVd that the times have gone, forever, when there can be 
 found herefi'c-burners'm any. 
 
 The appointment of inquisitors, as a special and distinct officCy 
 was, if any thing, an encroachment on the inherent prerogatives of 
 the episcopacy, whose special office it was and is to watch over 
 the purity of the faith. As an ecclesiastical tribunal, their office 
 was to inquire after heresy, and to judge whether those who were 
 accused of it, were guilty, or not guilty. When they had done 
 this, the power which their office gave them, so far as it icas 
 derived from the Church, was at an end. Now here is a state- 
 ment that will startle the victims of the delusion which the gen- 
 tleman has laboured to perpetuate, touching the *• Holy Catholic 
 Inquisition.'' But I make it, in order to bring him to the proof- 
 He must not say that he can prove it, and yet withhold the testi- 
 mony. 
 
 If, therefore, the ecclesiastical authority terminated at the same 
 point, to which it extends in all denominations, even in this age, 
 and in this country ] if it neither exacted, nor required, nor en- 
 joined any penalty in life or property, I ask him, is it Christian, 
 is it JUST, is it true, or rather, is it not shamefully calumnious, 
 to charge on the Catholic religion the punishments which the 
 CIVIL LAWS of Spain and Portugal had enacted against those who 
 should be found guilty by the tribunal of the Inquisition. Let the 
 gentleman not mistake the question. Let him not undertake to 
 prove what I do not deny, but what I do deny. 
 
 Of all the blood that ever was, or was supposed to have been 
 shed, let him show that the Catholic religion, or the authority of 
 the Church, ever expected, or required, or enjoined, that so much 
 as one drop should be shed for the crime of here>ii/. If he cannot, 
 how will he stand before the American public, whom he has so 
 much contributed to deceive? If he cannot, how will he answer 
 to God, who is the source and lover of truth; and who rejects 
 the aid which men think to render to his cause, by the employ- 
 ment of CALUMNY and "false witness against their neighbour." 
 
 "But the Church could have prevented it." Neither is that so 
 clear. The Church had no jurisdiction to establish civil laws in 
 France, and just as little to annul them in Spain. She judged of 
 heresy as a crime before God; and so Presbyterians, as well as 
 Catholics, regard it. When she had condemned it as such, her 
 jurisdiction terminated. The civil laws of nations claimed the 
 right to determine offences, and assign their punishment, and this, 
 not as Catholics, but as nations exercising the rights of notional 
 sovereignty. Hence the Inquisition which was adopted in Catho- 
 lic Spain, was rejected by Catholic France, on the giound that it 
 would be consistent with the welfare of neither the church, nor the 
 
172 
 
 state. Neither was it established in the kingdom of Naples, be- 
 cause the Pope and King could not agree as to which should have 
 the right to appoint the Inquisitor-General, and as neither would 
 yield to the other, the Inquisition was never established in that 
 kingdom. Will the gentleman contradict any of these facts ? If 
 he does, I shall cite the authorities to convince him and the public, 
 how little he has read of the true history of the Inquisition. 
 
173 
 
 "is the Roman Catliolic Religion, in any or all its princi- 
 ples or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty f" 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE V.— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Mr. President : — It ill becomes me to retort Mr. H.'s vulgar 
 and unchristian assaults ; for the sacred Scriptures forbid us to 
 ^^ render railing for railing.'* The low abuse and indecent per- 
 sonalities of the gentleman, if I can consent to call him so any 
 longer, reflect most unhappily on his spirit and his origin, and 
 confirm, what I have long known, that he is really ignorant of 
 what gentlemen owe to each other and to themselves. 
 
 I consider this a sufficient answer (and more than he deserves) 
 to all his scurrility. Poor St. John's ! It has set up for the fa- 
 shionable and the refined world who wished to go to heaven with- 
 out the trouble of being holy ; and the priest at the altar was sup- 
 posed by some to have sprung from a band-box. As for breed- 
 ing, they would have found a real gentlemen in the Rev. Charles 
 Constantino Pise. As it is, (if any of that people venture on the ma- 
 la prohihita of a controversy with heretics, or if, like the devouter 
 papists, they read Mr. Hughes's argument alone,) I am sure they 
 will find in his last speech that his breeding is skin-deep, and it is 
 only want of resolution that keeps him from the frequent and free 
 use of the ecclesiastical shillelagh. After all the gentleman's 
 struggles about ''the Latin of the Council of Trent," it ends in 
 . Mr. Hughes's conviction and uncandid confession of a flat mis- 
 statement ! As to my had Latin, I gave the Latin of the holy /a- 
 thers, and gave in full the member of the sentence which the dis- 
 cussion called for ; and he now makes the presence of a superflu- 
 ous loord, in that member, an apology for daring to charge me with 
 "fabricating" and "forging" Latin for the Council of Trent, and 
 then saying "what will be the reader's disgust," &c. &c. If I 
 had left out that word, then he would have charged me with crimi- 
 nal omissions affecting the sense. 
 
 If this were a solitary misstatement of the gentleman, or if, being 
 the repetition of the off'ence, he had with Christian candour ac- 
 knowledged it, I should have said no more about it, for I do from 
 my heart pity him. But you remember, gentlemen, that during 
 the debate he produced Caranza, and represented me as having 
 
174 
 
 said that a certain passage was in Caranza, and told us that it was 
 NOT in Caranza, and gloried in the apparent triumph over my 
 character ! When la! on my turning to my letter in the former Con- 
 troversy, (on which he charged the falsehood,) 1 found and 2^roved 
 before the ichole society, that he had utterly falsified my letter, that 
 I had distinctly declared that Caranza omitted the passage! And 
 how did he excuse himself? By saying that when he first asserted 
 it, I had been silent, and therefore he thought it true and admit- 
 ted by me. But does the silence of a slandered man make the 
 dander true? And pray, icliy did he say it the first time? Does 
 one falsehood excuse two ? I refer you also to his treatment of 
 Mosheim, which made a shiver of involuntary horror run like u 
 "wave over this assembly when it was first exposed. 
 
 As to the " infiict'ion o/punishment" in the sacrament of penance 
 if (as he says) " satisfaction consistsin repairing (as far as he can) 
 the injury which he (the penitent) has done to his neighbour," 
 I would say that it is high time for him to seek a confessor him- 
 self, and recall his slanders, and confess his false statements in this 
 debate. I do not wonder that he ridicules the doctrines of " re- 
 generation," which even the dark mind of Nicodemus, amidst his 
 marvel at its mysterious character, durst not despise. When we 
 come to show that " immorality is necessary to the very nature of 
 papal penance," we shall also prove that '■'' indidgences are a bun- 
 dle of licenses to comrnit sin;" as we have in the last speech 
 showed, without any reply but a denial from the gentleman, that 
 punishment is supposed in penance, and that corporeal punishment 
 is often included. Sometimes, it is perhaps walking barefoot, at 
 an early hour before St. Johns; sometimes, it is to pray for a 
 long time, each day, for many days, (for j) ray er is a great punish- 
 ment to some people;) sometimes, self-castigation; sometimes, 
 walking on the knees so many times around a holy well, or idol, or 
 altar ; or it may be pecuniary fines, (these are precious to priests,) 
 or exile, or imprisonment in the dungeons of the monastery. It 
 is from this very word, and this very use of it, that our laYm peni- 
 tentiary is derived. 
 
 It is pleasant to me, though vain for the gentleman, that he has 
 at length attempted to look at the testimony of Devoti. He tells 
 us gravely^ that Devoti in speaking " of tlie jwwer by ivhich the state 
 authorized the church to j^untsh ecclesiastics by imprisonme7it or 
 otherwise," (the otherwise — covers fines, exile, castigation, &c.,) 
 or in other words, that the author did not claim for the church any 
 original power to inflict such punishments. But this is directly 
 false; for in the very passage before his eyes, cited in my last 
 speech, Devoti says, ''P. La Borde endeavours to undermine a.nd 
 take away the power given by Christ to the church, not 
 merely of government, by counsels and persuasion, but also decree- 
 ing by laws awtZo/ compulsion, and o/ COERCING WITH PUNISH- 
 MENT those WHO ARE WORTHY OF IT." Here is a flat contradic- 
 
175 
 
 don of Mr. Hughes, and the author cites two popes (V) who con- 
 demned this very principle I 
 
 The gentleman proceeds — ^'■During the Middle Ages, ecdesi' 
 astical offenders icere triedj not hy civil, but by ecclesiastical 
 judges.^' Yes, this is by the canon lawy (which is the text-book of 
 popish doctrine on the poicer of the church,) 7wt used as " the con- 
 cession of the state,'' but claimed as the right of the church, and 
 those are denounced who dare to do otherwise ! Yet Mr. Hughes 
 says it '^wasby concession of the state." Query. If the United 
 States were to concede this to Roman Catholics, does their religion 
 forbid it? The^ Presbyterian Church ybriu/s this as contrary to 
 the word of God. '"'And the same p)ri7iciples which authorized 
 
 the church to TRY CLERICS FOR OFFENCES, AUTHORIZED IT ALSO TO 
 PUNISH THEM WHEN GUILTY OF CIVIL PENALTIES. It is in connec- 
 tion with this state of tilings, that Devoti speaks of '■prisons^ 
 exile, pecuniary fines, &c. as having been used by the church." 
 
 But Devoti expressly says, ^Hliis power is given by Christ to the 
 church," and is, of course, inalienable and perpetual. If it fails to 
 exercise it, then it is for want of ability, not want of right. And 
 pray, i67ie?i did the church cease to use them ? — never, till forced by 
 the state. Where did she ever cease to use them ? — nowhere, till 
 she was compelled to do it ! 
 
 He next cites and translates a passage from the same author, 
 to prove that " the highest grade of ecclesiastical coercion is ex- 
 pulsion" from the Church, But, unhappily for the gentleman, in 
 the next sentence to the one so pompously quoted by him, the 
 author goes on to say — "Bat he tcho off'ends against society by 
 any crime, if a clergyman, is subject to the Judgment of the Church, 
 not on account of the thing itself, which is proper to the civil com- 
 monicealth, but on account of the person, because, forsooth, he is 
 a citizen of the ecclesiastical commonwealth. Wherefore, the 
 Church proceeds against him, by imprisonment, or other corp)oral 
 punishment; and if the crime be still more weighty, for which the 
 lenity and mildness of the church has no adequate punishment, 
 (poenam,) .^he degrades him — that is, permits him to be no longer 
 a citizen of her commonwealth ; but subjects him, like other laics, 
 to the civil j)ower. It (the civil power) therefore exercises the 
 jurisdiction over this man who is now a citizen of its common- 
 wealth, which it has over its other citizens; and visits him loith 
 death or other punishments, appointed by civil law." (2) 
 
 (1) See the whole extract in my last speech. 
 
 (2) Qui aliquo crimine societatcm laesit si clericus sit ecclesias judicio subest, 
 non propter rem ipsam, qua; propria est civilis reipublicae, sed propter personam, 
 quia silicet ecclesiasticae reipublicie civis est. Itaque in euni ecclesia animad- 
 vertit carcere, aut alia poena corporali ; et si gravius crimen sit cui non parem 
 habeat poenam ecclcsiie coraitas et mansuetudo eum de gradu dejccit; hoc est 
 non amplius suie rcipublicaj eivem esse sinit, sed ad instar caiterorum laieorum 
 subjecit civili potestati. Ipsa vero in hunc hominem, qui jam suae reipublica? 
 civis est imperium e.\ercet quod habet in reliquos cives suos, eura que coercet 
 morte, cajteris ve poenis qua) sunt a civilibus legibus constitutas. 
 
176 
 
 Here it clearly appears, that Devoti holds the doctrine, that the 
 clergy are punishable, temporalli/ and corporally, hy the Churchy 
 {which he says derived this power from Christ, as quoted hy me 
 above, and not from the State, as Mr. ITuf/hes falsely says;) that 
 the fact of being a clergyman gives the Church this ^Mwer ; that 
 lie must be degraded, i. e. cease to be a clergyman in order to be 
 reached by the civil power. How strangely must the gentleman 
 feel to be thus caught in the same page, and in his own papal 
 theology ! 
 
 The gentleman "mired*"' "in the same mud," (to use the ele- 
 gant figure of Devoti,) struggle;g to prove that I have perverted 
 the author, and denies that he claims any thing for the Church, 
 but spiritual jurisdiction. Yet, in the sixth page of the same 
 book, § 5, he says — " For those who are placed over a common- 
 wealth, in authority, have power over all the things which pertain 
 to that commonwealth, viz. over the j^ersons of which it consists; 
 and the things ichich these persons use and enjoy in j^rolonging 
 life. Wherefore, also the magistracy (magistratus) of the Clturch 
 ought tb have judicial power over the things and persons of her 
 commonwealth, ichich other magistrates have over theirs." 
 
 When we come to present theproo/ from the Inquisition, that 
 the institutions of popery (embodying and expressing her doc- 
 trines and her morals) are opposed to liberty in all its lovely 
 forms, then we will show how fir the gentleman s defence of, or 
 at least, apology for, ''a good thing abused," has any claim 
 to our regard by its weight, or any title to our credence by its 
 truth. * 
 
 In the mean time honest Devoti shall again speak. lie surely 
 knows what the Inquisition is. He wrote in sight of it. His work 
 is franked from Home itself Let honest men compare the follow- 
 ing statement with what Mr. Hughes says : — 
 
 Under the head "Inquisitors of heretical j^r a vity," he gives the 
 following statements : " The cause of instituting the tribunal 
 called the Inquisition, was this. At first every bishop in his own 
 diocese, or a number of bishops assembled in a provincial council, 
 made inquisition of those errors which arose in the diocese or 
 province ; but the more weighty matters were always referred to 
 the apostolical see, (Rome,) and thus every bishop or provincial 
 council took care to bring to its proper issue whatever was decreed 
 by the apostolical see. But in process of time, when greater evils 
 pressed, it became necessary for the pope to send legates into 
 those regions in which heresy had long and widely spread, that 
 they might assist the bishops in restraining th<5 audacity of aban- 
 doned men, and in deterring Christians from foreign and depraved 
 doctrines. But when new errors daily sprung up, and the num- 
 ber of heretics was greatly increased, seeing that the legates could 
 not always be at hand nor apply the proper remedy, it was deter- 
 mined to INSTITUTE A STANDING TRIBUNAL that should alwavs be 
 
177 
 
 present, and at all times and in every country should devote their 
 minds to preserving the soundness of the f\iith, and to restraining 
 and expelling heresies as they arose. Thus it was that the in- 
 quisitors were first aj^pointed to jperform the ofiice of vicars to the 
 Holy See. But as in a matter so weighty as the preservation of 
 the purity of the faith, the inquisitors needed that close union of 
 mind and sentiment which is proper to the apostolical see, as 
 the centre of unity, there was instituted at Rome, hy the Popes, 
 an assemhly or congregation of cardinals in which the Pope pre- 
 sides. This congregation is the head of all inquisitors over the 
 whole world, to it they all refer their more difiicult matters, and its 
 authority and judgment are final. ''^ 
 
 '■'■ It is rightly and wisely ordered that the pope's office and 
 power should sustain this institution, for he is the centre of unity 
 and head of the church; and to him Christ has committed plenary 
 power to feed, teach, rule and govern all Christians. "(1) 
 
 Surely one of these gentlemen has been guilty of no small de- 
 partures from historical and doctrinal truth ! 
 
 The same author (2) says expressly : "And since the power of 
 the church is twofold, the one wholly spiritual given separately 
 by Christ, which is exercised both in the inner and outer court, the 
 other which she has in common with every perfect and distinct 
 commonwealth, and which is called temporal, it follows that 
 there are two kinds of punishment ordained hy her. That is, one 
 kind is spiritual, which is to ajfflict the soul ; the other TEMPO- 
 RAL, WHICH IS TO CASTIGATE THE BODY. She exercises the right 
 to inflict spiritual punishments on all who by baptism 'are admitted 
 among the children of the church, and who sin against religion. 
 The church also has set up temporal punishments for all, 
 but the laity and clergy in an unequal degree." now, 
 if the gentleman ventures again to deny that this writer claiips 
 for the church the right to inflict temporal and bodily punish- 
 ments, I will expose him in a way which he must deeply regret. 
 
 I am willing to leave the long contest about Bossuet to speak 
 for itself; and so also that about the third canon of Fourth Late- 
 ran. The hearer and reader must have perceived that at every 
 step the gentleman has given ground. First he tried to defend 
 the canon, as being only discipline against murderers. Then, 
 driven from that, he assailed the authenticity of the canon — the 
 whole canon ; and lo ! in the last speech he is finally forced to own 
 that it is only one of five sections of that canon which he can 
 assail J and in a Jesuitical way is constrained to confess, after 
 being exposed, thaff he did misstate in condemning the whole 
 canon. 
 
 I think, gentlemen, he will attempt to sp/Z^c no more of these 
 canons. 
 
 (1) Devoti, book iv., title 8, passim. (2) Book iv., § 8, p. 12. 
 
178 
 
 The gentleman scolds about Matthew Paris, but wisely forgets 
 ^'Dens's" Theology, and my clialleuge on that hook^ which has 
 opened the e^'^es of millions on the other side of tlie icaters to new 
 evidences on the persecuting doctrines of the Church of Rome.* 
 
 The reason why all the European authorities quoted by nie are 
 more impartial than Mr. Hughes, is not ^' that Mr. Hughes (as 
 the gentleman says) can be a Catholic in the United States," with- 
 out holding doctrines opposed to liberty; but because Mr. Hughes 
 has proved to us that he dares not honestly avow what the true 
 doctrine of his church is, in the United States ! The gentleman's 
 defence of the Bulla In Coena Domini, is a concession of the ques- 
 tion in debate. I need not, therefore, dwell much more on it. 
 For example, he says, was it wrong for the Pope to condemn pi- 
 rates? Was it '^ iiihuman to condemn the illegtd imposition of 
 taxes f Why, Mr. Hughes! These taxes, says the Pope, were 
 imposed in ''dominio)is" of others, '^without the sj^ecial leave of 
 the apostolic see !" Of /course Mr. Hughes thinks it not against the 
 liberty of states for the pope to interfere with their taxation of 
 their own subjects! And so of all the invasions in this Bull, of 
 the rights of sovereign states ; he defends them, says they were 
 according to the canon law, &c. &c. Yes ! and for that very rea- 
 son, since the Pope's bull, sustained by the canon laiv, thus claims 
 jurisdiction over sea and land, armies, navies, battles, treasuries, 
 coasts, &c. &c. ; and since Mr. Hughes defends the acts and 
 claims, he concedes being unable to defend the question in 
 debate. 
 
 Oi Anathema we shall speak, in its place, and too soon for the 
 gentleman. 
 
 The gentleman in reply to my question — ^'•Ilad the Tnajority in 
 Spa in or Italy the right to establish the Catholic religion by law?" an- 
 swers, ^'in my opinion, if the majority in Italy or Spain, by doing so, 
 violated no civil or religious right of the minority, they had in that 
 case the right!' This is allowing that the Catholic religion may 
 be in certain cases established by law, ivithout violating the right 
 of the minority. This is again conceding the whole question. 
 For when can a majority do this, without such a violation of the 
 rights of the minority ? I ask the gentleman when, or how can 
 this be done ? The American principle, the Bible doctrine, is, 
 that it is violating the rights of a minority to establish any re- 
 ligion by law! That no majority can, in any possible case, of 
 rigid, do such a thing! That if all were of the same religion, it 
 were anti-Christian and anti-liberal to do it! Here we see leaking 
 out the gentleman's majority rights — which he exposed the first 
 night of our debate, then tried to retract; and now again, drawn 
 by the debate and by his other principles, is compelled to admit ! 
 
 As to our Scotch fathers, I say, unequivocally, that they had. no 
 right, however great a majority they may have composed, to ^^pull 
 down the monuments of papal idolatry by force." It was wholly 
 
179 
 
 wrong ! Mr. Wesley ''being dead, yet speaheth.^^ I am happy to 
 honour the memory of that great and good man ; and when Mr. 
 Hughes answers, or even attempts to answer his arguments, as 
 quoted by me, I will, on the ground stated when I cited his re- 
 marks, meet Mr. Hughes, and all the college of priests who help 
 him, in and about St. Johns, and the library of St. Augusfine. 
 
 In the very t«rms of the gentleman's citation from the Council 
 of Constance, the doctrine is avowed that the faith, the 2)lc<Jged 
 faith (of the emperor) that IIuss should return in safety from the 
 Council, was not binding. 
 
 But we will hereafter, at large, put this matter in the light to 
 make "the defender of the Council of Constance's crimes" blush 
 once more, if that faculty has not been lost by him. 
 
 Having now disposed of the gentleman's despairing attacks on 
 my authorities, I proceed to adduce others: — 
 
 We have seen from the disclosures of my former speeches how 
 far the llev. Mr. Hughes permits his zeal in defence of the 
 papacy to carry him in denying the existence and obligation of 
 documents, which make a part of the history of the world, and 
 which are known to every well-informed man in Europe and 
 America. 
 
 We have still stronger illustrations of the same reckless spirit 
 for the present one. 
 
 In letter No. 15 of the Controversy, the Rev. Mr. Hughes said, 
 "Show me then the decree of any Council, or the Bull of any 
 Pope, proposing persecution as a part of our religion, and let that 
 document be the proof of your charge." In answer to this call, 
 I produced copious extracts from the Bull of Pope Innocent VIII. 
 for the extirpation of the Vadois (or Waldenses) given to Albert 
 de Capitaneis, A. D. 1477, stating at the same time, in proof of 
 its authenticity, that the original was preserved in the University 
 of Cambridge, England. And how did he meet its terrific con- 
 tents? Why in this extraordinary way : " Pope Innocent VIII. 
 was elected in the year 1484, and it is not usual with our Popes 
 to issue Bulls seven jears before their election : such Bulls come 
 from another quarter." Here he implies that the Bull has been 
 forged; that it was never issued from Borne; and the proof is 
 drawn from an error of ten years in the date ! But in my next 
 letter, I corrected the date, which was 1487, instead of 1477, and 
 which had been a misprint in the work from which I had extract- 
 ed it. I then added : '''do you deny that there was such a Bull ? 
 If you have any doubts on this subject, I refer you to Baronius's 
 Annals, Vol. XIX., page 387, section 25th." 
 
 And now, guileless hearer, can you divine how any art could 
 evade such testimony ? He replies : " The Annals of Baronius 
 come down only to the year 1198, and yet you quote his author- 
 ity for a fact which should have taken place in 1487 ! ! ! How is 
 this?" But Raynold, the accredited continuator of Baronius, 
 
180 
 
 brings down the history of the church to the year 1534 ! The 
 reply then was, there is no such Eull, because Baronius died be- 
 fore it was issued? On such shallow evasions he ventures flatly 
 to deny the existence of the Bull. In Letter 19, he says : ^' You 
 ask rae, do I deny it? and without waiting for my answer, you 
 reply, that ^ I dare not!' Now, I reply that I dare, and do deny it 
 fiatlj/." And now see what Baronius's continuator, Mr. Hughes's 
 authentic historian, says: 
 
 "By which indignity Innocent, much excited, ordered the 
 Gauls, Savoyes, and Germans, within whose territories the impiety 
 still remained firmly rooted, to take up arms for the destruction of 
 the heretics ; and he smote the favourers of the heretics with 
 heavy punishments ; at the same time he commissioned Albert de 
 Capitaneis, Archdeacon of Cremona, with ample powers to pub- 
 lish a crusade for the extermination of the Waldenses, and to stir 
 up Princes and Bishops against them. The date of this docu- 
 ment is as follows : Given at Rome at St. Peter's, in the year of 
 our Lord's incarnation 14:S7 , ^th of Kallends of May, and of our 
 Pontificate the 3J.'' 
 
 Having then been brought to such sad issues with his own his- 
 torian and with notorious facts, his last vain struggle was this : 
 "Does he say that such a Bull exists? No. The quotation 
 merely testifies that Albertus Capitaneis was commissioned to 
 preach a crusade against the Waldenses, &c. &c." Was there 
 ever such evasion ? was evasion ever more unavailing and palpa- 
 ble? ^^Commissioned!'' But who commissioned him? Why 
 the Pope! But icliat was the commission? A Brief? a Bull? 
 Letters Patent? an Edict of Blood? The name matters not. It 
 is the thing we look to? The historian tells us of this thing; 
 and it was a commission with ample powers from Innocent VIII. f 
 the Pope to preach a crusade against the Waldenses for their ex- 
 termination, and to stir up Princes and Bishops against them. 
 And yet Mr. Hughes says the historian "merely testifies that 
 Albertus was commissioned to preach a crusade against the Wal- 
 denses." " Merely a crusade ! ! !" Do we need any more proof 
 of Mr. Hughes's secret feelings on this subject; or of the Papal 
 system ? Merely a crusade ! in which, by authority of the Pope, 
 a great army, headed by preZa/es, a7id priests, and princes in- 
 vaded a territory over which the Pope had no civil control, and in 
 the name of God, butchered thousands of men, women and chil- 
 dren, because they held doctrines in religion which the Pope 
 called heresy? In order to show the spirit of this Bull, as well 
 as the recklessness of our American defender of the faith, I here 
 spread it out in full for the use of Mr. Hughes, and of all our 
 readers; and when we get a copy of the original Latin (as we 
 expect soon to do) from the archives of Cambridge University, we 
 will give it to the American people : 
 
 "Innocent the Bishop, serva7it of the servants of God, to our 
 
181 
 
 well-beloved son Albcrtusde Capitaneis, archdeacon of the Church 
 of Cremona, our nuncio, and commissary of the Apostolical See, 
 in the dominions of our dear son the noble Charles, duke of Savoy, 
 both on this side and that side of the mountains, in the city of 
 Vienne in Dauphiny, and in the city and diocese of Sedon, and 
 the places adjacent; health and apostolic benediction. 
 
 '' The chief wishes of our heart demand that we should endea- 
 vour, with the most studious vigilance, to withdraw those from the 
 precipice of errors, for whose salvation the. sovereign Creator of 
 all things himself choosed to suffer the greatest of human mise- 
 ries, and carefully to watch over their salvation ; we, to ivhom he 
 hath been pleased to commit the charge and government of his 
 flock, and who most ardently desire, that the Catholic faith should 
 prosper and triumph under our pontifical reign, and that heretical 
 pravity should be extirpated from the territories of the faithful. 
 
 " We have heard, with great displeasure, that certain sons of 
 iniquity, inhabitants of the province of Ambrun, &c., followers of 
 that most pernicious and abominable sect of wicked men, called 
 poor men of Lyons, or Waldenses, which long ago hath most un- 
 happily ((lamnahililer) risen up in Piedmont, and the other places 
 adjacent, by the malice of the devil, endeavouring, with fatal in- 
 dustry, to ensnare and seduce the sheep dedicated to God through 
 winding, devious paths, and dangerous precipices, and at last to 
 lead them to the perdition of their souls; who, under a deceitful 
 appearance of sanctity, and delivered up to a reprobate sense, 
 have the utmost aversion to follow the way of truth, and who, ob- 
 serving certain superstitious and heretical ceremonies, say, do, 
 and commit very many things contrary to the orthodox faith, 
 offensive to the eyes of the Divine Majesty, and most dangerous 
 in themselves to the salvation of souls. 
 
 "And whereas our well-beloved son Blasius de Mont Royal, of 
 the order of preaching friars, professor in theology, inquisitor- 
 general in these parts, transported himself into that province, in 
 order to induce them to abjure the foresaid errors, and profess the 
 true fiith of Christ, having been formerly apj)ointed for that ser- 
 vice by the master-general of that order, and afterwards by our 
 beloved son Cardinal Dominic, styled Preshyter of St. Clementj 
 legate of the Holy See in these places, and at last by Pope Sixtus 
 ly., of happy memory, our immediate predecessor; but so far 
 from forsaking their wicked and perverse errors, like the deaf 
 adder that shuts its ears, they proceed to commit yet greater evils 
 than before, not being afraid to preach publicly, and, by their 
 preachings, to draw others of the faithful in Christ into the same 
 errors, to contemn the excommunications, interdicts^ and other cen- 
 sures of the said inquisitor, to demolish his house, to carry off and 
 spoil the goods that were in it, and those of other Catholics: to 
 kill his servant, to Wage open war, to resist their temporal lords: 
 to destroy their property, to chase them, with their families, from 
 
182 
 
 their parisbcs, burning or demolishing their houses, hindering 
 them to receive their rents, doing to them all the mischief in their 
 power, as also to commit innumerable other crimes, the most de- 
 testable and abominable. 
 
 '^ We therefore, as obliged hjj the dutt/ of our pastoral charge, 
 being dtairous to pluch up and ichollij root out from the Catholic 
 Church that execrable sect, and those impious errors formerly men- 
 tioned, lest they should spread farther, and lest the hearts of the 
 faithful should be damnably corrupted by them, and to repress 
 such rash and audacious attempts, we have resolved to exert every 
 effort for this purpose, and to bestow hereupon all our care, and 
 we putting our special trust in God as to your learning, the ma- 
 turity of your wisdom, your zeal for the faith, and experience in 
 aifairs ; and likewise hoping that you will execute, with honesty 
 and prudence, all that we have judged proper to commit to you for 
 extirpating such errors, we have thought good to appoint you, by 
 these presents, our nuncio, and commissaiy of the Apostolic See, 
 for the cause of God and of the faith, in the dominions of our dear 
 son Charles, duke of Savoy, &c., to the intent that you may cause 
 the said inquisitor to be received and admitted to the free exer- 
 cise of his office, and that by your seasonable remedies, you may 
 prevail with these most wicked followers of the Waldensian sect, 
 and others delEiled with the infection of any sort of heresy what- 
 ever, to abjure their errors, and obey the orders of the said in- 
 quisifor ; and that you may be able to effect this with so much 
 more ease, in proportion to the greatness of the power and author- 
 it 1/ whereicith you are vested by us, we, by these presents, grant 
 to 3'ou a full and entire license and authority to call and instantly 
 to require, by yourself or by any other person or persons, all the 
 archbishojjs and bishops in the duchy, in Dauphiny, and in the 
 parts adjacent, (whom the Most High hath appointed to be part- 
 ners with us in our travail,) and to command them, in virtue of 
 holy obedience, together with the venerable brethren our ordina- 
 ries or their vicars, or the officials general in the cities and dio- 
 ceses wherein you may see meet to proceed to the premises, and 
 to execute the office which we have enjoined you ; and with the 
 foresaid inquisitor, a man of great erudition, established in the 
 faith, and of ardent zeal for the salvation of souls, that they be 
 assisting to you in the things mentioned, and with one consent pro- 
 ceed, along icith you, to the execution of them; that they take arms 
 against the said Waldenses and other heretics, and, with common 
 counsels and measures, crush and tread them as venomous ser- 
 pents ; and that they provide with care, that the people committed 
 to their inspection persist and be confirmed in the confession of 
 the true faith ; and that, in a worlc so holy and so very necessary 
 as the extermination and dissipyation of these heretics, the}' apply 
 all their endeavours, and willingly bestow all their pains as in duty 
 bound ; and, in tine, that they neglect nothing which may in any 
 ■way contribute to that design. 
 
188 
 
 "Moroever, to entreat our most dear son in Christ, Charles the 
 iUustrioiis king of France, and our beloved sons the nohlemen, 
 CharlcH duke of Savoy, the dukes, j)?'Ui<';es, earhy arid temporal 
 lords of cities, lands, and the universities of these and other 
 places, the confederates of higher Germai)y, and in general all 
 others who are faithfid in Christ in these countries, that they may 
 take up the shield for defence of the orthodox faith, of which they 
 made profession in receiving holy baptism, and the cause of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, by whom kings reign, and princes rule ; and 
 that tliey afford help to the said archbishops, bishops, to you, to 
 their vicars, or officials, and to the inquisitor, by suitable aids, 
 and hy their secular arm, according as they understand to be 
 needful for executing such a necessary and salutary per qidsition ; 
 and tliat they vehemently and vigorously set themselves in oppo- 
 sition to these heretics, for the defence of the faith, the safety of 
 their country, the preservation of themselves and of all that be- 
 long to them, that so they may make them to j^erish, and entirely 
 blot them out from the face of the earth. 
 
 ''And if you should think it expedient, tliat all the faithful in 
 thos:i places should carry the salutary cross on their hearts and on 
 their garments, to animate them to fight resolutely against these 
 heretics, to cause, preach, and publish the croisade hy the proper 
 preachers of the word of God, and to grant unto those who take 
 the cross, and fight against these heretics, or who contribute 
 thereunto, the privilege of gaining :i plenary indulgence, and the 
 remission of all their sins once in their life, and likewise at the 
 point of death, by virtue of the commission given you above; 
 likewise to command, upon their holy obedience, and under the 
 pain of the greater excommunication, ^XX fit irreachers of the word 
 of God, secular and regular, of whatever order they be, mendicants 
 not excepted J exempt and non-exempt, that they excite and iufianie 
 (exotiare et iufiammare~) these faithful to exterminate, utterly hy 
 force and hy arms, that plague, so that they may assemble with all 
 their strength and powers for repelling the common danger; fur- 
 ther, to absolve those who take the cross, fight, or contribute to 
 the war, from all ecclesiastical sentences and pains, whether ge- 
 neral or particular, by which they may in any manner be bound, 
 excepting those which shall be specially inflicted hereafter, from 
 wliich the oftenders are only to be loosed by previous satisfaction, 
 or the consent of the party; as likewise to dispense with them as 
 to any irregularity they may be cliargeable with in divine things, 
 or by any apostasy, and to agree and. comj)ound with them as to 
 goods which they may have clandestinely or by stealth acquired, or 
 which they dishonestly or doubtfully j^ossess, applying them only 
 for the support of the expedition for extirpating the heretics; in 
 like manner to commute all vows whatever, though made with an 
 oath, of pilgrimage, abstinence, and others, (excepting only 
 those of chastity, of entering into a religious life, visiting the 
 
184 
 
 Holy Land, the sepulchres of the apostles, and the church of St. 
 James in Compostella,) to those who come forth to this warfare, 
 or who contribute thereto, or who only give as much as the per- 
 formance of their vows of pilgrimage might probably have cost 
 them, having a respect to the distance of the places, and the 
 condition of the persons, according as shall appear proper to you, 
 or to the confessors deputed by you for that purpose ; in the mean 
 time to choose, appoint, and confirm, in our name, and in the 
 name of the Romish Church, one or more captains or leaders of 
 the war over the crossed soldiers, and tbe army to be convened, 
 and to enjoin and command, that they undertake that charge, and 
 faithfully acquit themselves in it for the honour and defence of 
 the faith, and that all the rest be obedient to him or them ; to 
 grant, further, to every one of them a permission to seize and free- 
 ly possess the goods of the heretics whether movable or immovable, 
 and to give them, for a prey, whatever the heretics have brought 
 to the lands of the Catholics, or, on the contrary, have taken or 
 caused to be taken from them; to command likewise all those 
 who are in the service of the said heretics, wherever they be, to 
 depart from them within a limited time which you shall prescribe 
 to them, under whatever pains you shall judge proper; to admo- 
 nish and require them, and all persons, ecclesiastical or secular, 
 of whatever dignity, age, sex, or order they be, under the pains 
 of excommunication, suspension and interdict, reverently to 
 obey and observe the apostolical mandates, and to abstain from 
 all commerce with the aforesaid heretics ; and, by the same au- 
 thority, to declare, that they and all others, whoever they be, 
 who may be bound and obliged by contract, or in any other man- 
 ner whatever, to assign or pay any thing to them, shall not hence- 
 forth be obliged to do so, nor can they be compelled in any man- 
 ner of way to it ; moreover, to deprive all those who do not obey 
 your admonitions and mandates, of whatever dignity, state, de- 
 gree, order, or pre-eminence they be, ecclesiastics of their dig- 
 nities, offices, and benefices, and secular persons of their honours, 
 titles, fiefs, and privileges, if they persist in their disobedience 
 and rebellion ; and to confer their benefices on others whom you 
 shall account worthy of them, and even on those who may be 
 already possessed of, or expecting any other ecclesiastical bene- 
 fices, in whatever number, or of whatever quality soever they 
 may be ; and to declare these deprived as aforesaid, forever infa- 
 mous, and incapable, for the time to come, of obtaining the like 
 or any others ; and to fulminate all sorts of censures, according 
 as justice, rebellion, or disobedience, shall appear to you to re- 
 quire; to inflict an interdict, and, when inflicted, either to re- 
 move it finally, or only to suspend it for a time, according as it 
 may be found expedient, on good reasons and consideration, as 
 you may know to be useful and necessary ; but chiefly on those 
 days on which perhaps indulgences are to be published, or the 
 
185 
 
 croisade to be preached ; and to proceed directly and simpUciter, 
 loithout the noise and form o/*yit6-^ice, having only regard to truth, 
 against those who carry to these heretics, or their accomplices, 
 provisions, arms, or other things prohibited, and other aiders, 
 abettors, advisers, or entertainers of them, whether open or se- 
 cret, or who by any means hinder or disturb the execution of such 
 a salutary enterprise ; and to declare all and every one of the 
 transgressors to have incurred the censures and pains, both spi- 
 ritual and temporal, which are inflicted, of right, upon those who 
 do such things; as also to restore and absolve those who are peni- 
 tent, and willing to return again to the bosom of the church as 
 formerly, even though they should have taken an oath to faVour 
 the heretics, or had received their pay to light for them, or had 
 supplied them with arms, succours, victuals, and other things 
 forbidden ; providing they promise by taking an oath of a different 
 kind, or otherwise give sufficient security, that for the time to 
 come they will obey our mandates, those of the church, and yours, 
 whether they be communities, universities, or particular persons, 
 of whatever state, order or pre-eminence they be, or in whatever 
 dignity, ecclesiastical or civil, they may be elevated ; and to re- 
 establish and put them in possession of their honours, dignities, 
 offices, benefices, fiefs, goods, and other rights, of which they 
 were formerly possessed ; and^ in fine, to concede, dispose, esta- 
 blish, ordain, command, and execute, all and evert/ other mat- 
 ters necessary or in any respect conducive to this salutary business, 
 even though they should be such as require a particular order, 
 and are not comprehended in your general commission ; and to 
 check and restrain all opposers thereof, by ecclesiastical censures, 
 and other suitable and lawful remedies, without regard to any 
 appeal whatever; and, if need he, to call into your assistance the 
 aid of the secidar arm. And our will is, that all privileges, ex- 
 emptions, apostolical letters, and indulgences of any kind, grant- 
 ed by us, in general, or particular, or iu manner aforesaid, under 
 any form of words or expressions, shall be held void, and as let- 
 ters not granted, so far as they are inconsistent with, and tend 
 to hinder or retard these presents, we hereby deprive them of all 
 force, together with all other things whatever that are contrary, 
 though the Holy See should have granted to any, either* gene- 
 rally or particularly, that they could not be interdicted, suspended 
 or excommunicated and deprived of their dignities and benefices, 
 or smitten with any other apostolical pain, if in the apostolical 
 letters there be not full and express mention made, word for word, 
 of such an indulgence. 
 
 ^'■Thou, therefore, vfiy dearly beloved son, undertaking icith a 
 devout mind the charge of such a meritorious ivork, show yourself 
 diligent, solicitous, and careful in word and deed to execute it, so 
 that, from your labours, attended, with the divine favour and grace, 
 the expected success and fruits may follow, and that by your so- 
 
 12 
 
 » 
 
186 
 
 Ucitude you may 7iot only merit for reward the glory which is 
 bestoived on thos^e who are employed in designs and affairs of 
 piety J hut also that you m,ay obtain, and not undeservedly, the 
 more abundant commendations from us, and from the Apostolic 
 See, an account of your most exact diligence and faithful integ- 
 rity. And, because it may be difficult to transmit these present 
 letters to all places where they may be necessary, we will, and by 
 apostolical authority appoint, that to a copy which may be taken 
 and subscribed by the hand of any public notary, and attested by the 
 subscription of any ecclesiastical prelate, entire faith may be given, 
 and that it should be held as valid, and the same regard paid to 
 it as to the original letters, if they had been produced and shown. 
 Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the incarnation of 
 our Lord 1487, the 5th of the kal. of May, in the 3d year of our 
 pontificate.'' 
 
 Sm-li is the document! ^ECas earth ever seen such outrages? 
 Did heathen Rome herself ever issue and enforce such edicts of 
 blood and terror, as " Holy Mother Church'' belched forth upon 
 the trembling tribes of men as they melted before her wrath ! 
 Well did the Fifth Council of Lateran, 1516, session 11th, forbid 
 her priests " on any account to presume to fix, or in their sermons 
 assert, any certain time of the evils to come, or of the coming of 
 Anti- Christ.*' (Tempus quoque praefixum futurorum malorum, vel 
 
 Antechristi adventum praedicate, vel asserrere, nequaquam 
 
 prsesumant.) The denial of Mr. Hughes is its own best comment 
 on the character of Papism, and the means of its defence. 
 
 We see in this decree from the head of the church, the claim of 
 power over all things temporal and spiritual, as having charge 
 from God to govern his Jiock by such means. The Inquisition is 
 here authoritatively set up in the dominions of a foreign prince ; 
 kings invoked to sustain the work of crushing the vipers, the he- 
 retics — in the name of their baptism, and of the faith, and of God ; 
 Archbishcps, and other ministers of peace and love, ordered to take 
 uj) arms against them, and tread them AQVin,^x\6. exterminate them; 
 and all to unite in blotting them from the earth. We have also, as 
 usual, the '-'■plenary indulgence*' for murdering by wholesale : and 
 the good morals of ^'- compounding'' ' with thieves and robbers, so as to 
 apply the goods fraudulently gotten, to the extirpation of heretics; 
 also " commuting voics, though made wUh an oath," for tho.se who 
 aid the crusade by hand or purse, and the like holy things, show- 
 ing how ^'Iloly Mother" loved heaven and the rights of men ! 
 This document alone is enough to settle the question at issue, 
 with every candid man. The only possible apology which is at- 
 tempted for this diabolical instrument is, that these heretics (Wal- 
 DENSES TOO, SO that it was not only the Alhigenses whom the 
 popes slaughtered) were public enemies of all Catholics, and of 
 all states. This, if wholly true, (it is wholly false, ^ is in fact,"*giv- 
 ing up the question in debate; for it is saying, that according to 
 
187 
 
 the Catliollc relifjion^ whenever a people arise in a country, who 
 are thought at Rome to be public enemies to all Catholics and all 
 governments, then the Pope may order their extermination by a 
 crusade — no matter whether in France, Portugal, or Italy, — whe- 
 ther in Europe or America I This is no less than claiming uni- 
 versal supremacy over church and state everywhere, for the support 
 of the Catholic faith. It is claiming the right in the name of 
 God, and as head of Plis church, to put men to death (or which is 
 the same thing, order it to be done) for crimes ar/ainst the state, 
 and departure from the doctrines of the Catliolic church. 
 
 While Mr. Hughes gives it as iiis opinion, that the Roman 
 Catholic reli(jion is not opposed to civil and religious liberty, we 
 may surely ask what other and abler men say, even allowing that 
 they only give their opinion of Catholic doctrine on this subject. 
 And if the Pope of Home should endorse such ojyiniojis, (which 
 he has never done for Mr. Hughes's opinion,) then the testiuiony 
 would seem conclusive in favour of the truth of these opinions. 
 Now, suppose Cardinal Bellarmine to be in Priest Hughes's place, 
 and discussing this question, and should, under the Pope's sanc- 
 tion, argue for the fact and the right of persecution, in the fol- 
 lowing terms: — (1) 
 
 " That heretics condemned by the church may be pu- 
 nished WITH temporal penalties, AND EVEN WITH DEATH. 
 
 We will briefly show that the church has the power, and it is 
 HER DUTY, to cast off incorrigible heretics, especially those who 
 have relapsed, and that the secular power ougeit to inflict 
 on such temporal punishments, and even death itself. 1st. 
 This may be proved from the Scriptures. 2d. It is proved 
 from the opinions and laws of the emperors, which the church has 
 alioaijs approved, od. It IS PROVED BY THE LAWS OF the 
 church. 4th. It is proved by the testimony of the fathers. 
 Lastly. It is proved from natural reason. For, Jirst; it is owned 
 by all, that havetic^ may of right he excoinmuiiicated — of course 
 they may he put to death. This consequence is proved because 
 excommunicatioii is a greater punishment than temporal death. 
 Secondly ; experience j^roves that THERE IS NO OTHER REMEDY; 
 for the church has, stej) hy step, tried ALL REMEDIES ; 1st, excom- 
 munication alone; then pecuniary pena/^ics; afterwards, banish- 
 ment ; ajid lastly, HAS been forced TO put them to death, 
 TO SEND THEM TO THEIR OWN PLACE. Thirdly; all allow that 
 forgery deserves death, but heretics are guilty of forgery of the 
 Word of God. Fourthly; a hreach of taith hy man toward 
 God is a greater sin than of a ivife with her hushand. But a 
 iDomans unfaithfulness is punished ivith death; why not a he- 
 retic s? Fifthly; there are three grounds on which reason 
 shows that heretics should he put to death. The first is, lest the 
 
 (1) Chap. XXL Lib. iii. On Laity. 
 
188 
 
 wicked should injure the righteouH; second, that by the p?/???^^- 
 oncnt of a few, many may bs reformed. For many who were 
 
 MADE TORPID BY IMPUNITY ARE ROUSED BY THE FEAR OF PU- 
 NISHMENT : AND THIS WE DAILY SEE IS THE RESULT WHERE 
 
 THE Inquisition flourishes. F In ally ; it is a benefit to o<^.s^i- 
 nate heretics to remove them from this life^for the longer they 
 live the more errors they invent, the more persons they mislcadj 
 and the greatest damnation do they ti'easure up to themselves. 
 
 *' Chapter XXII. — Objections Ansioered. 
 
 '^ It remains to answer the objections of Luther and other here- 
 tics. Argument 1st, From the History of the Church at 
 Large. The Church, says Luther, //-o??! the beg inning even to 
 this time, has never burned a heretic. Therefore it does 
 not seem to he the mind of the Holy Spirit that they slioidd be 
 burned I I reply. This argument admirably proves, not the sen- 
 timent, but the IGNORANCE or impudence of Luther. For as 
 
 ALMOST AN INFINITE NUMBER WERE EITHER BURNED OR OTHER- 
 WISE PUT TO DEATH, Luthcr either did not know it, and was there- 
 fore ignorant ; or, if he knew it, he is convicted of impudence and 
 falsehood, for that heretics were often burned by the church, may 
 be proved by adducing a feio from, many examples. {lie instances, 
 Donatisfs, Manicheans, and Albigenses.) 
 
 "Argument 2d, Experience shows that terror is not useful (in 
 such cases). I reply, experience proves the contrary — 
 FOR the Donatists, Manicheans, and Albigenses were 
 
 ROUTED and annihilated BY ARMS. 
 
 ** Argument 13th. The Lord attributes (says the Protestant^ 
 to the church, the sword of the Spirit, which is the ^Vord of God, 
 but not the material sicord. Nay, he said to Peter, who wished 
 to defend him with a material sword, '^)?^< up thy .sicord into the 
 scabbard:' John xviii. I answer: As the church has eccle- 
 siastical and SECULARPRINCES, WHO ARE HER TWO ARMS, SO SHE 
 HAS TWO SWORDS, THE SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL; AND THEREFORE 
 WHEN HER RIGHT HAND IS UNABLE TO CONVERT A HERETIC WITH 
 THE SWORD OF THE SpIRIT, SHE INVOKES THE AID OF THE LEFT 
 HAND, AND COERCES HERETICS WITH THE MATERIAL SWORD. 
 
 "Argument 18th. The Apostles (says the Protestant) never 
 invoked the secular arm against heretics. Answer, (according to 
 St. Augustine, in Letter 50, and elsewhere :) The apostles did 
 
 IT NOT, because THERE WAS NO CHRISTIAN PRINCE WHOM THEY 
 COULD CALL ON FOR AID. BUT AFTERWARDS, IN CoNSTANTINE's 
 TIME, THE CHURCH CALLED IN THE AID OF THE SECULAR ARM." 
 
 Luther denied that the true church had ever burned a heretic. 
 He often convicts the Clturch of Rome of such acts. Bellarmilie 
 here frankly awows persecution, yea, the right and the duty of 
 
189 
 
 THE CHURCH TO PUT HERETICS TO DEATH, and pleads the Scrip- 
 ture for the authority ; and appeals to history for the fact that the 
 church had put to death, before his day, " almost an ineinite 
 
 NUMBER." 
 
 It is this same writer who thus explains the stillness and peace 
 of Catholics where they are not the majoriti/ of a community, in the 
 very next chapter: " But when in reference to heretics, thieves, 
 and other wicked men, tlicre shall arise this question in par- 
 ticular, 'SHALL THEY BE EXTERMINATED V it is to he considered 
 according to the meaning of our Lord, whether that can he done 
 tvithout injury to the good, and if that he possihle, they are without 
 DOUBT TO BE EXTIRPATED; hut if that he not possible, either he- 
 cause thvy he not sufficiently hnoicn, and then there would he dan- 
 ger of putrishing the innocent, instead of the guilty ; OR BECAUSE 
 
 THEY ARE STRONGER THAN OURSELVES, AND THERE BE DANGER, 
 LEST IF WE MAKE A WAR UPON THEM, MORE OF OUR PEOPLE THAN 
 OF THEIRS BE SLAIN, THEN WE MUST KEEP QUIET." 
 
 Hence, in the United States, we may expect life while wo have 
 numhers. You see, gentlemen, what our friends at Rome (not 
 jjriests, but CARDINALS, whose works are sanctioned hy the Pope, 
 and in this case a nephew of the Pope) think of the rights of mi- 
 norities/ they are summed up in this — they may die hy the hands 
 of papists I 
 
 Now, with these declarations of a great cardinal, we may com- 
 pare the bulls of popes, and decrees of councils, already adduced 
 — and see how forcibly they illustrate and confirm each other. 
 
 One of the most striking proofs of the opposition of popery, as 
 a system, to civil and religious liberty, is found in the interference 
 of the popes as the avowed head of the church, icith sovereign 
 states of Europe. There was scarcely a form of oppression which 
 they did not practise, or a right, civil or religious, on which they 
 did not encroach. A system is often best known by its p)ractical 
 operation; and when the effect is not only such as the system 
 might be expected to produce, but such as the system fearlessly 
 avows, no one can refuse to it a ch"Uracter which it openly assumes. 
 What follows will explain itself. 
 
 We present to our readers a chapt<ir from Du Pin, a Roman Ca- 
 tholic historian, which gives a most striking picture of the spirit of 
 papism in the 17th century. It is a detailed history of an outra- 
 geous assault made by the Pope on the Republic of Venice. For 
 the fidelity of the narrative we have not merely the character of 
 Du Pin, (who as a papist would hardly do the Pope injustice,) but 
 the confirmation of contemporary writers. The events are too no- 
 torius to be denied, at least in their essential parts. It may be 
 proper here to say a word of the Inderdict which the Pope fulmi- 
 nated against the State of Venice, for daring to assert rights which 
 are inseparable from every government, and which no ruler but 
 the Pope ever had th*- audacity to question. 
 
190 
 
 The papal Inderdict was designed to shut Heaven against the 
 offending people; and to expose them as heathen to the wrath of 
 God until they submitted to the Pope. I have before me a large 
 folio, Jus EccLESiASTicUxM Universu3i; or The Universal Eccle- 
 siastical Law of the Church of Rome, in which a whole chapter is 
 taken up on the nature, form, force, &c. &c. of an Interdict. The 
 following is a part of the form there given, which has been often 
 used in other days and other lands : 
 
 " Bind the whole land of with the bond of public excom- 
 munication, so that no one, except a clergyman, or poor mendi- 
 cant, or stranger, or infant of two years or under, be allowed bu- 
 rial in the whole territory . No one shall be permitted to 
 
 marry a wife, or to salute another; nor clergy, nor laity, nor inha- 
 bitants, nor strangers in all the land shall be permitted to eat flesh 
 or any other food, except what is allowed in Lent, while the In- 
 terdict continues. Let no layman or clergyman be shorn of his 
 hair or shaven, until the rulers are subdued, and the leaders of 
 the people are made obedient. But if any one shall be detected 
 in the violation of this bond, in any way, he shall not be restored 
 without condign punishment.'' 
 
 This is a part of the terrific sentence passed by the Pope only 
 two centuries ago, against a sovereign state, and that a republic, 
 over wdiich he had no more right to lord it, than over our own. 
 
 Now, I ask, why should the minions of the Pope in the United 
 States be believed when they talk of liberty? Can any man be- 
 lieve the Rev. Mr. Hughes, when he j^ro/esses to be subject to the 
 Pope, and yet love liberty? One or other of the.se must be given 
 up. Let Mr. Hughes tell us why in the 17th century the Pope 
 oppressed Venice, and yet in the 19th century sjmr-es usf 
 
 The History of the Inderdict of Venice, fulminated by 
 Pope Paul V. (1) 
 "The difference of the Republic of Venice with Paul V. is one 
 of the most important points of the ecclesiastical history of the se- 
 venteenth century; not only by reason on the subject of the dis- 
 pute, but also much more on account of the great number of 
 questions which were agitated on occasion of that difference, by 
 the most able divines and lawyers of that time. The Senate of 
 Venice made two decrees in the beginning of that century ; by 
 the first of which it was forbidden under severe penalties, to build 
 hospitals or monasteries, or to establish new convents or societies 
 in the State of Venice, without the permissioa of the senate. By 
 the othef, which was made the 26th March, 1605, a law made in 
 1536 was renewed, confirmed and extended over all parts of the 
 State, forbidding all the subjects of the republic to sell, alienate, 
 
 (1) From Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. viii. Book ii. Chap. 1, Cen- 
 tury 17th. 
 
191 
 
 or dispose in any manner whatsoever, of immovable goods in per- 
 petuity, in favour of ecclesiastical persons, without the consent of 
 the senate : upon condition nevertheless, that if any legacies of 
 immovable goods were bequeathed, those goods should be sold 
 within two years after, and the purchase given to discharge those 
 legacies. There happened at the same time two criminal affairs, 
 which concerned the ecclesiastics. Scipion Sarrasui, canon of 
 Vicenza, who had taken off the seal of the magistrates, affixed to 
 the Episcopal chancery, at the request of the chancellor, the see 
 being vacant, was seized by the senate, and put into prison for 
 having insulted one of his kinswomen, whom he intended to de- 
 bauch ; and some time after, Count Baldolin Valde-marino, Abbot 
 Feveza, being accused of many enormous crimes, (1) was impri- 
 soned by order of the senate. The Pope Paul V. being persu^^ded 
 that the decrees and enterprises against the clergy, encroached 
 upon ecclesiastical jurisdiction, complained of them to the am- 
 bassador of Venice, and demanded of the senate by his nuncio, 
 that the decrees should be revoked immediately, and the ecclesi- 
 astics, imprisoned by the authority of the senate, delivered into 
 the hands of his nuncio, to be tried by ecclesiastical judges ; 
 threatening to interdict the republic, if he was not obeyed imme- 
 diately. The senate answered, the 1st of December, 1605, that 
 they could not release prisoners accused of crime which belong to 
 the recognisance of the secular judges, nor revoke the laws which 
 they had a right to make, and which they believed necessary for 
 the good of the state. The Pope having received this answer by 
 letters from his nuncio, and by word of mouth from the ambassa- 
 dor of Venice, despatched on the 10th of December two Briefs; 
 the one addressed to Marin Grrimani, Doge of Venice, and the 
 other to the republic by way of monitory, exhorting the state to 
 revoke their decrees, which he thought contrary to the canons, 
 and prejudicial to the liberties of the church; declaring that they 
 who made these laws, or caused them to be executed, had incurred 
 ecclesiastical censures, from which they could not be freed but 
 by revoking those statutes, and re-establishing affairs in their for- 
 mer state. He commanded them under the penalty of excommu- 
 nication, latm seutentias, to revoke theui, which, if they refused, 
 he protested that he should be obliged to put in execution the pe- 
 nalties annexed to such offences, without any other citation; being 
 not willing that God should call him to account one day for having 
 thus failed in his duty; and not being able to dissemble, when he 
 saw the authority of the holy Apostolic See infringed, the eccle- 
 siastical immunities trampled under foot, the canons and holy de- 
 crees neglected, and the rights and privileges of the church sub- 
 verted." 
 
 The Pope sent these briefs to his nuncio at Venice, with orders 
 
 (1) Oppression, incest with his sister, and murder. 
 
192 
 
 ^Ho present and publish them," and acquainted the cardinals in a 
 consistory held the 12th of that montli, with the subject of com- 
 plaint he had against the republic of Venice, and with what he 
 had done thereupon. Nevertheless the republic appointed Leo- 
 nardo Donato, procurator of St. Mark, to go express, and treat of 
 this affair in the quality of ambassador at Rome. The nuncio 
 not having received those briefs till the day after Donato had been 
 chosen ambassador, thought he ought to put off the publication 
 of them, and wrote to the Pope, who ordered him to present them. 
 The nuncio received this order on Christmas-eve, and presented, 
 the day following, the briefs to the counsellors assembled to assist 
 at a solemn mass, in the absence of the Doge Grimani, who was 
 extremely ill, and died the day following. His death was the rea- 
 son why the briefs were not opened, the senate having ordered 
 that no affair should be transacted, but that of the election of a 
 doge. The Pope on his side wrote. to the nuncio, to protest to the 
 senate that they ought not to proceed to a new election, because 
 it would be null, as made by excommunicated persons. The nun- 
 cio pressingly demanded audience to make this declaration ; but 
 the senate would not give it him, it being not customary to re- 
 ceive any memorials from the ministers of foreign princes during 
 the interregnum, but compliments of condolence. The electors 
 were not a long time in choosing a new doge. The 10th of Janu- 
 ary, 1706, Leonardo Donato was advanced to that high dignity. 
 All the ambassadors went immediately, according to custom, to 
 visit the new doge, and pay him their compliments. But the 
 nuncio would not visit him. The doge did not omit in writing to 
 the Pope according to custom, to notify his election to him ; and 
 the Pope received his letter. The first affair which was transacted 
 at Venice after the election of the doge, was the difference of the 
 republic with the Pope. It began with nominating the Chevalier 
 Duodo in the place of Leonardo Donato (who was elected doge) 
 ambassador at Home. After this the briefs were opened; and 
 when the senate saw what they contained, before they returned 
 an answer to the Pope, they determined to have the advice of some 
 divines and lawyers. The lawyers whom they principally consult- 
 ed were Erasmus Gratian of Udina, and Mark Antonio Pellegrin 
 of Padua; and the famous Fra-Paolo Sarpi of the order of the 
 Servites, was appointed the divine of the republic. It was also 
 resolved not only to consult the doctors of the university of Padua 
 and of Venice, but also the most able lawyers of Italy and Europe, 
 who sent them their opinions, with the laws of the other kingdoms 
 and churches of Christendom, wdiich had any relation to the affair 
 in question. Then the senate, after having understood the opi- 
 nion of the doctors, returned this answer to the Pope the 28th of 
 Januar}^ : " That they heard with a great deal of grief and as- 
 tonishment, by letters from his holiness, that he had condemned 
 the laws of the republic, (observed with success for many ages, 
 
193 
 
 and with which his predecessors had found no fault,) as contrary 
 to the authority of the holy apostolic see ; and that he regarded 
 those who had made them (who were men of piety, and had well 
 deserved of the see of Rome) as persons who broke the ecclesi- 
 astical immunities; that according to the admonition of his holi- 
 ness, they had caused to be examined their ancient and modern 
 laws, and that they had found nothing in them which could not 
 be ordained by the authority of a sovereign priuce, or whjch in- 
 fringed on the power of the Pope; because it is certain that it 
 belongs to a secular prince, to take cognizance of all societies 
 which are founded within his own jurisdiction, and to take care 
 that no edifices may be raised whicli may prejudice the public 
 safety, when there are in a state as great a number of churches 
 and places of devotion as is sufficient. That they never refused 
 giving leave to build them ; the republic even contributing there- 
 to very liberally on her part. That the law prohibiting the aliena- 
 tion of the goods of the laity forever in favour of the ecclesias- 
 tics, regarding nothing but temporal affairs, it cannot be pretended 
 that they have done any thing by that against the canons. That 
 if the Popes had power to forbid the ecclesiastics to alienate in 
 favour of secular persons the goods of the church without her con- 
 sent, it might be lawful for princes to prohibit seculars also to 
 alienate theirs in favour of the ecclesiastics without their permis- 
 sion. That the ecclesiastics lose nothing by their decrees, because 
 they receive the value of the immovable goods which are given or 
 bequeathed to them. That this alienation weakening the state, 
 is not less prejudicial in spiritual than temporal concernments. 
 That the senate cannot believe they have incurred any censure 
 by making these laws, since princes have by a divine law, from 
 which no human authority can derogate, the power of making 
 laws in temporal affairs. That the admonitions of his holiness 
 have no effect but in matters that are purely spiritual, and not in a 
 temporal affair, which is in all things separate, and wholly exempt 
 from the pontifical authority. That the senate does not believe 
 his holiness, who is full of piety and religion, will persevere with- 
 out knowledge of the cause, in his menaces. That these were an 
 abridgment of the senate's reasons, which their extraordinary 
 ambassador would give him to understand more largely. 
 
 *' The Pope having received this answer of the senate, declared 
 to the ambassador that he could not relax his severity if they did 
 not revoke their laws, and deliver into the hands of his nuncio 
 the prisoners. He complained still more of another decree they 
 had made upon the emphytheoses,(l) and caused his complaints to 
 be delivered by his nuncio to the senate. As he knew they would 
 give him no satisfaction thereupon, he gave orders for another 
 brief to be presented, the 10th of December, to the senate, 
 
 (1) A term of law for a long lease, from ten to a hundred years. 
 
194 
 
 whereby he required that the two prisoners should be delivered to 
 his nuncio, under the penalty of excommunication. The senate 
 answered, that they would not divest themselves of the right which 
 they had to punish the crimes of their subjects, which they had 
 always enjoyed from the establishment of their state, with the con- 
 sent of the sovereign pontiffs. The extraordinary ambassador of 
 the republic came to Home, and represented to the Pope the rea- 
 sons of their proceedings ; but nothing was able to move his ho- 
 liness. He caused a monitory to be drawn up against the Repub- 
 lic of Venice, and having communicated it to the cardinals in 
 consistory the 15th of April, he ordered it to be published and 
 fixed up in the public places at Rome. This monitory imported 
 that the Senate of Venice being not willing to revoke the laws 
 which they had made in prejudice of the ecclesiastical authority, 
 nor to deliver their prisoners, he declared these laws to be null, a^d 
 pronounced the doge and Republic of Venice excommunicated, 
 if within the space of twenty-four days, to begin from the day of 
 the publication, they did not revoke, break, and annul the afore- 
 said laws, and actually deliver the canon and the abbot into the 
 hands of his nuncio. That till such time as they should pay 
 obedience to this order, he forbade them to bury in consecrated 
 ground those who happened to die ; and that if, within three days 
 after the twenty-four were expired, they did not comply, he laid 
 the whole state under an interdict; and forbade all masses and 
 divine offices to be celebrated, except in such cases and places as 
 were privileged by common law. And that he deprived the doge 
 and senate of all the goods which they possessed in the Roman 
 Church, or in other churches, and of all the privileges or indultos 
 which they had obtained from the holy see, and especially from 
 those which they had to proceed against clerks in certain cases. 
 The monitory was addressed to the patriarchs, archbishops, 
 bishops, their vicar-generals, and to all the clergy, secular and 
 regular, having ecclesiastical dignity in the State of the Republic 
 of Venice. 
 
 '^ The senate being informed that the monitory bull was pub- 
 lished, recalled their extraordinary ambassador; forbade all ec- 
 clesiastical prelates to publish or set up the bull of the Pope, and 
 commanded that all the}'^ who had copies of it should carry them 
 to the magistrates of Venice. The Pope on his side recalled the 
 nuncio who was at Venice, and dismissed the ordinary ambassa- 
 dor of the republic. At the same time the chiefs of the Council 
 of Ten sent for the superiors of monasteries, and of the other 
 churches of Venice, and declared the intention of their sovereign 
 to be that they should continue to perform the divine offices, and 
 that no one should leave the ecclesiastical state without leave, as- 
 suring those who stayed of protection ; and declaring, that they 
 who departed should not carry with them any of the goods and 
 ornaments of the churches. They commanded them, in case any 
 
195 
 
 brief was sent to tlicm from Rome, or order from their superiors, 
 to send it to the magistrates before they read it. And the govern- 
 ors of all the cities of the state were enjoined to give the same 
 orders in the places of their jurisdiction. The superiors immedi- 
 ately all promised to obey the orders that had been given them, 
 and to perform divine service as before. A council was held upon 
 what was proper to be done concerning the monitory of the Pope. 
 Some gave their advice to appeal from it, as many princes, and the 
 republic itself had done on the like occasion. But others believed 
 there was no occasion for having recourse to this remedy, pretend- 
 ing that the briefs were notoriously null of themselves. This 
 opinion was followed, and nothing was done, but a mandate made 
 in the niame of the doge, addressed to all the ecclesiastics of the 
 republic, wherein he declared, that, having received advice of the 
 publication, April 17th, at Home, of a certain brief fulminated 
 against him, and the senate, and sovereignty of Venice, he thought 
 himself obliged to employ his cares in maintaining the public 
 tranquillity, and supporting the authority of the prince. That he 
 protested before God he had not omitted any means of informing, 
 and laying before the Pope, the strong and convincing reasons of 
 the republic. But that having found his ears closed, and seen the 
 brief he had published against all kind of reason and justice, in 
 opposition to the doctrine of the Holy Scripture, the fathers and 
 canons, and to the prejudice of the secular authority which God 
 has bestowed upon sovereign princes, the liherti/ of the state and 
 the public repose, and to the great scandal and ofFence of the 
 whole Christian world; he held that brief to be not only unjust, 
 but also null, unlawfully fulminated in fact, and contrary to the 
 rules of law, and that he would use the same remedies which his 
 predecessors and other princes have used against the popes who 
 abused the authority which God had given them to edilication, and 
 passed the bounds of their power. And this he was the more 
 inclined to do, forasmuch as he was certain that this brief would 
 be looked upon in the same light, not only by all the subjects of 
 the republic, but also by the whole Christian world. That he was 
 persuaded they would continue, as before, to take care of the souls 
 of the faithful, and to perform the divine offices, being fully re- 
 solved to persevere in the Catholic and apostolic faith, anei the 
 respect which is due to the holy Boman church. This mandate, 
 dated the 6th of May, 1606, was immediately published and set 
 up at Venice, and in all the cities of the state. 
 
 " As the term of twenty-four days allowed by the briefs approach- 
 ed, and the Jesuits, who had received particular orders from the 
 Pope, showed plainly, that they were inclined to observe the inter- 
 dict, and would at least abstain from saying of mass, they were 
 commanded on the 10th of May, to give an express declaration of 
 the measures they designed to take. They acknowledged then, 
 that they could not celebrate mass during the interdict, and that if 
 
196 
 
 the senate obliged them to do it, thej chose rather to retire from 
 Venice. Upon this answer, the senate resolved to send them 
 away, and appointed the grand Vicar of the Patriarch to receive 
 the ornaments of their churches, and gave them order to depart 
 immediately. They went out that evening, carrying each of them 
 a consecrated host about their necks; and being put into two 
 barks, retired to Ferrara. The Jesuits in the convents which 
 were in the other cities of the republic departed also. As it was 
 manifest that the Capuchins, Theatins, and other regulars, after 
 the example of the Jesuits, were resolved to observe the interdict, 
 the senate published a decree the last day of the term, by which 
 all those who refused to celebrate the divine offices, in the accus- 
 tomed manner, were enjoined to retire out of the jurisdiction of 
 the republic ; upon which the Capuchins and Theatins departed 
 also, and the other Religious were placed in the government of 
 their churches. The Capuchins of the Territories of Brescia and 
 Bergamo stayed, and continued to perform divine offices, like the 
 other ecclesiastics, secular and regular, of the republic. 
 
 ''The nuncios of the Pope who were in the courts of Catholic 
 princes of Europe, endeavoured to exclude from divine service, 
 the ambassadors and envoys of Venice; but their attempts were 
 fruitless. They continued to be treated as they used to be, and 
 were admitted to prayers, assemblies, and the ecclesiastic ceremo- 
 nies, as heretofore, in France, Spain, Italy, and Poland. The 
 ambassador of the republic assisted in person at Vienna, in the 
 first solemn procession of the Holy Sacrament, which was made 
 by the Jesuits. But the nuncio, who was not present for fear of 
 meeting the ambassador, gave out such menaces, that the am- 
 bassador did not think fit to be present at the two following ones. 
 Though the interdict was not observed in the States of Venice, it 
 occasioned tumults and seditions in several places, which the se- 
 nate, having attributed to the suggestions of the Jesuits, made a 
 decree the i4th of June, whereby they declared, that the Jesuits 
 should nevermore be received for the future in any place of the 
 State of Venice, and that this decree should never be revoked, be- 
 fore there had been first read the whole process in presence of all 
 the senate, which should be composed at least of a hundred and 
 four score senators, and unless there were five for one who voted 
 for the revocation. 
 
 ^'Nevertheless the Christian princes interposed to accomodate 
 the difi"erence between the Pope and the Venetians. But these 
 would not hear any proposition of accommodation, before the 
 Pope had taken away the interdict, and the Pope demanded be- 
 fore all things the revocation of the decrees. The ambassador of 
 the most Christian king exerted himself more strongly and effica- 
 ciously than any one else in bringing matters to an accommodation, 
 and at length eflfected it. The king of Spain assured the Pope 
 that he would assist him with all his forces, and that he had given 
 
197 
 
 orders for that purpose to his ministers in Italy. But these pro- 
 mises had no other effect, than to retard the acconiniodation, and 
 had like to have kindled a war in Italy. Some unknown persons 
 having set up in the state of Venice a placard by which the re- 
 public was exhorted to separate herself from the Roman Church, 
 the senate commanded, that search should be made after the 
 author of it, and protested that their intention was, never to de- 
 part from the Catholic religion, nor the obedience due to the Holy 
 See. They published afterward several orders to maintain a war 
 in case they should be attacked. The Pope on his side solicited 
 the princes of Italy to put himself into a condition to attack the 
 Venetians, or to defend himself, if he should be attacked by them. 
 On each side preparations of war were made, but the dispute never 
 came to an open rupture. It was not so in the war which was 
 carried on by the pen, for a very great number of writings were 
 published on both sides, with heat, vivacity, and learning. Though 
 the affair had a lowering aspect, and all things threatened a rup- 
 ture, the ambassadors of France did not cease, nevertheless, to 
 negotiate an accommodation." 
 
 The above passage from a Roman Catholic historian, is the 
 narrative of a transaction which is full of interest to the American 
 people. From it we learn that the Pope only two centuries ago, 
 when his claims were asserted without disguise, excommunicated 
 a whole poop'e, for daring to extend the jurisJiction of the state 
 to the p/ni/,sA»ieH^ of ecclesiastics, to the erectiBn of convents, 
 monasteries, &c. &c. The clergymen were arrested by order of 
 the Republic of Venice, the one for debauch, and the other for 
 incest and murder. These are offences against the state; they 
 are cognizable in civil courts, and in them alone. The courts of 
 the church cannot inflict temporal punishment, or try civil cases, 
 without infringing the liberty of the state, and violating the order 
 which God has established. No Papist will venture to deny this 
 in this country, though in Spain and Italy it is far otherwise. But 
 the P*»pe diuuanded these criminals of the republic, to be tried 
 by him in his ecclesiastical court; and threatened an interdict of 
 the republic, if instant obedience was not shown to his mandate! 
 What would the American people say if a certain priest who not 
 many years since, in a neighbouring town, attempted a similar 
 offence to the one mentioned above, (instead of flying the country,) 
 had been arrested by the civil magistrate, and had been demanded 
 by the Pope, with the threat of an interdict, if we refused to give 
 him up? 
 
 In the other case, the republic forbade convents, monasteries, 
 &c. &c. to be erected without the permission of the senate, and 
 passed salutary laws regulating the bestowing of property on 
 ecclesiastics. Monasteries were filling, and ruling the land ; and 
 the clergy (as in South America, and once in Great Britain) 
 were getting possession of the wealth and even the soil of the 
 
198 
 
 commonwealth. These salutary laws w^ro intended to restrict 
 their encroachments. But the Pope had no idea of permitting a 
 free state to govern his subjects, though thej lived in that state ! 
 Let the reader refer to the first part of this chapter from Du Pin, 
 and then read these remarks — and he will see how the Pope 
 claims temporal, as well as spiritual power, over all his followers, 
 everywhere. 
 
 The next note we make t)n the above narrative is that the his- 
 torian tells how faithful the Jesuits (whom the Rev. Mr. Hughes 
 so much admires and lauds) were to the Pope. IViei/ left the re- 
 public, and publicly espoused the cause of the Pope, as a military 
 foe, against their native and free state ! ! And the oath of alle- 
 giance of every Jesuit, bishop and priest, if faithfully observed, 
 will lead to the same results, in the same circumstances. 
 
 Again: ^'-The Pope," (says our Catholic historian,) "solicited 
 the Princes of Italy to put himself into a condition to attach the 
 Venetians, or defend himself, if he should he attacked hy themJ' 
 A very Christian attitude truly for the Head of the Church ! 
 Heading an army to crush a republic I And that for daring to 
 punish priests who had been guilty of incest and murder ! How 
 would it sound to say — The Apostle Peter raised an army in Je- 
 rusalem to rescue James from prison ? Peter once did try the 
 sword, and in how just a cause ! But his master rebuked him ! 
 ''Put up thy sword; they that use the sword shall perish by the 
 sword." Yet this is the vicar of Jesus and the successor of Peter ! 
 The Pope is indeed the successor of Peter in his follies and sins — 
 in using the sword, and in denying his Lord; but not in repent- 
 ance, obedience, and the ministerial office. 
 
199 
 
 *'Is the Rovian Catholic Religion, in any or all its princi- 
 ples or doctrines J opposed to civil or religious liberty T' 
 
 NEGATIVE v.— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President : — Nothing is more disagreeable than to be 
 obliged to argue with a man who trifles with those rules ctf reason- 
 ing, on the observance of which, the soundness of an argument 
 depends. Logic is to reasoning what grammar is to language, 
 with this difference, that the principles of logic are founded in 
 common sense, and derive but little authority from usage : where- 
 as, those of language are frequently sustained by usage alone. 
 All men reason, and yet there are few who pay attention to the 
 rules of reasoning. Now I will take up iho: prominent points of 
 the gentleman's last speech, in order to show that they are what 
 logicians term '' FALLACIES." 
 
 FIRST. What had he undertaken to prove ? He had under- 
 taken to prove, that there are doctrines in the Catholic religion 
 which are hostile or opposed to civil and religious liberty. This 
 is his proposition. As long as he does not prove this proposition ^ 
 he beats the air.' But what are we to understand by "DOC- 
 TRINE ?" Any ^^ tenet of faith or 7noraIs which Catholics hold 
 as having been revealed by Almighty God." Consequently, the 
 'first step to be taken, is to select the '^ doctrine." If it is admit- 
 ted as such, then he has only to proceed with the argument. If, 
 what he imputes as a " doctrine," be denied by his opponent, then 
 he must either abandon it, or show that it was taught in the acts 
 of a general council, or the Bull of a Pope, " AS A tenet of faith 
 
 OR MOHALS that HAD BEEN REVEALED BY ALMIGHTY GOD." 
 
 When h(! has proven this, then he may again proceed to build his 
 argument on it, notwithstanding the denial of his opponent. 
 
 SECOND. His next duty, as a logician, is to show in what 
 manner, the " DOCTRINE" is opposed to civil and religious 
 liberty, according to the admitted definition of these words. If, 
 instead of this, he trusts to popular prejudices in the minds of his 
 audience, and substitutes declamation instead of logic, then he 
 appeals to the tribunal of passion, and reason will assuredly dis- 
 claim the verdict. 
 
 THIRDLY. I shall now proceed to show wherein the "FAXr- 
 
200 
 
 LAClEs" of the gentleman's argument consist. The foundations 
 on which he builds are the sayings and doings of popes, cardinals, 
 canonists, and Catholic writers. Now, this is fundamentally illo- 
 gical; for, there are many things .s(7?W, and written, and done, by 
 these, which are not Catholic doctrines. Thus the interdict of 
 Venice does not pretend to be either a '^ tenet of faith Or morals." 
 
 In making this iha foundation of an argument, therefore, he as- 
 sumes FALSE PREMISES, by assuming as a "doctrine," what is not 
 doctrine, and he arrives at a false conclusion. Herein is the 
 fallacy. 
 
 If it were true, that Catholics hold the Interdict as " a tenet of 
 faith or morals," then, the argument would be logical. But, as 
 this is false, so the reasoning which is founded on it, is false, so 
 far as regards the question in debate. If I had asserted that the 
 Pope had never issued an interdict, the case of Venice would 
 have beAi in point, to refute me. But the question is not about 
 INTERDICTS, but about DOCTRINES. The Same remarks are appli- 
 cable to the other facts, real or pretended, adduced in his speech. 
 They may be true in themselves, but it does not follovi that, 
 therefore, they are doctrines of the Catholic religion. The Synod 
 of York, or the Assembly at Pittsburg, may have said very foolish, 
 and done very naughty things; but it does not follow that, there- 
 fore, the Confession of Faith is a book of heresy. This must be 
 proved by other arguments. Now, when I shall come to show 
 what doctrines of the Presbyterian religion are inimical to civil 
 and religious liberty, I shall begin by proving, that they are held 
 by that denomination, as "having been revealed by Almighty 
 God." Whenever the gentleman disclaims the doctrine, I shall 
 point it out to him, put his hand 'upon it, and " compel" him, as a 
 Presbyterian, to acknowledge it. His introduction of the acts 
 and opinions of individuals, instead of stating the acknowledged 
 "doctrines" of the Catholic religion, as evidence in the case, is 
 a FALLACY in argument, which proves, either that he knows not 
 the laws of sound reasoning, or, that he believes his hearers and 
 readers to be ignorant of them. 
 
 FOURTHLY. The case of Venice furnishes a few facts which 
 \^o to refute the gentleman. Venice was a RJCPUBLIC. And 
 Venice was CATHOLIC. Therefore, "the Catholic doctrines 
 have nothing in them inconsistent with repvhlicanism. Here 
 then, is a fact which refutes the slanders of the whole tribe of 
 anti-Catholic crusaders, who are going about disturbing the har- 
 monies of society bv their malevolent zeal. Again, the CATHO- 
 LICS of THAT REPUBLIC, when the POPE attempted, as 
 they conceived, to govern the temporal, which belonged to the 
 state, by means of the spiritual, which belonged to the church, 
 they resisted him, and were prepared to resist him at the point op 
 the bayonet. Were they heretics for this ? No : they were 
 never accused of it, and this proves that they violated no "doc- 
 
201 
 
 trine" or principle of the Catholic religion. The gentleman in 
 his comments on this, confounds the •' interdict" with the " ex- 
 communication," but this I ascribe to the defectiveness of his his- 
 torical and theological information. 
 
 FIFTHLY. The pretended Bull of Incocent VIII. I hj^ve long 
 since pronounced spurious. It is not in the Bullarium Magnum, 
 ■which contains others quite as objectionable. It is not to be found 
 in Rome. But Mr. Breckenridge promised, more than eighteen 
 months since, to procure its authentication from '' Cambridge, 
 England." He has not redeemed his promise. Why ? He 
 knows, and let him tell why. He wants the "original Latin." 
 This will be no proof; for a document may be spurious in Latin, 
 as well as in English. Yet he gives the document, under all 
 these circumstances, as if it were genuine. But even if it icere 
 genuine, it would be no proof; because it does not constitute any 
 doctrine of the Catholic religion. This is the point which the 
 gentleman overlooks, and on which the FALLACY of his induc- 
 tion rests. It purports to be a letter of "■ Innocent, the Bishop," 
 to his " well-beloved son Albertus," « Commissary, &c. both 
 on THIS SIDE aud on THAT SIDE of the mountains," &c. 
 Now, what I have to defend, are the DOCTRINES of the Catho- 
 lic religion ; and as this is no such thing, even if it were genuine, 
 and as be.sides it is spurious, I have nothing to do with it. The 
 gentleman has first to prove, that it is authentic in history; se- 
 condly, that it is regarded as containing doctrines, and then I 
 shall recognise it as an argument. 
 
 He first said it was issued in 1477. This was before Innocent 
 was elected. I sent him back to his authorities. Then he found 
 he had ante dated the document ten years, and charged me with 
 *' evasion" for having detected the error. Then, he quoted 
 Baronius. I told him, that Baronius wrote only as far down as 
 1198. He then says, it was " Ilaynold" (Raynaldus) who con- 
 tinued the work of Baronius, and instead of thanking me, for com- 
 pelling him to be more exact in his information, he again charges 
 me with evasion. Finally he finds in Raynaldus, reference to a 
 document on the subject, Rome, 1487, and concludes that, 
 THEREFORE, this is that document ! ! Now, I deny its 
 authenticity, and I call for the proof. I know that it is worthless, 
 for his argument, even if it were cvuthentic. But as a matter of 
 historical criticism, I demand his proof. Oh! says he, the " La- 
 tin original" is in " Cambridge, England ?" What proof have we 
 for that either? I deny the fact, and pronounce the document 
 spurious, and worthy of the cause which employs it. There is no 
 difficulty in admitting that the Waldenses, as well as the Albi- 
 genses, were persecuted by the Catholics. This is not the ques- 
 tion. But the question is, did ever Catholics persecute by virtue 
 of any "tenet of faith or morals held by them as having 
 BEEN revealed BY Almighty God ?" I answer boldly, NEVER. 
 
 13 
 
202 
 
 And I call upon their accuser to point out the TENET or DOC- 
 TKINE in their religion that requires of them to persecute. He 
 is bound to do this, at the risk of being looked upon as a public 
 CALUMNIATOR of their civil and religious character. 
 
 SIXTHLY. Bellarmine was an advocate for the punishment of 
 heretics by the state, and it is a remarkable fact, that he was so far 
 from pretending that any doctrine of the Catholic Church required 
 this, that his principal authorities for his views, were the writings 
 of the infallible Calvin himself. Now, my obligation in this con- 
 troversy is not to defend all that was ever done, or said, or written 
 by Catholics. I am here to defend the doctrines of the Catholic reii- 
 ff'ion, and not the opinions of its members. The Doctrines are 
 BINDING ON ALL CATHOLICS ; the opinions of individuals are bind- 
 ing ON NOBODY. Here, then, is the FALLACY again, which per- 
 vades the whole of the chapter. Let Bellarmine answer for himself; 
 I do not hold his sentiments on the subject of heretics. I prefer the 
 more humane views of the other individuals, and if Bellarmine 
 had attempted to put forth these views as the DOCTRINES of 
 the church, and not as his own opinions, he would have been un- 
 questionably called to account for them. Does he lay them down^ 
 as tenets of Catholic faith? Not he; and yet the gentleman 
 would have his readers believe, that the speculations of an author 
 and the DOCTRINES which Catholics " hold as having been re- 
 vealed by Almighty God,'' are the same thing! Silly artifice! 
 He knows that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are no 
 more affected by the writings of individuals, giving their opinion 
 as individuals, than the Constitution of the United States is affected 
 by the babblings of a pettifogger. His system of logic would 
 make the ravings of Garrison a part of the American Constitution, 
 and those of Doctor Ely, or Mr. M'Calla,a part of the Presbyterian 
 creed. Catholics, as such, are accountable for doctrines held by 
 the church as having been revealed by Almighty God. 
 
 SEVENTHLY. He asked me, whether the majority in Italy 
 and Spain had a right to establish the Catholic religion by law. 
 To this, I replied that, if in doing so, they violated no right of 
 the minority, they had, in that case, but not otherwise, the right 
 to establish it. He says, the case can jiever occur, and I reply 
 that, if it can never occur, it can never be right for any majority 
 to establish any religion by law. I asked him in turn, whether 
 his Scotch forefathers had a riglit, being a minority, to pull down 
 by force the altars and religious emblems of the Catholics, who 
 were the majority. To this he replies, " it was wholly wrong.'' 
 This flat denial of Presbyterian DOCTRINE is what I expected. 
 Any book, which is used as a catechism, with the approbation of 
 the church, is to be regarded as a standard; and such a book is 
 Fisher's Catechism, which answers the question very diiferently. 
 In explaining the gentleman's Confession of Faith, it has this 
 " Question. Arc our forefathers to he blamed for pulling down 
 
I 
 
 203 
 
 altars, images, and other monuments of idolatry, from places of 
 public worship, at the lleformation ? Answer. No. They had 
 Scripture precept and warrant for what they did. (1) 
 ' Ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their 
 images, and cut down their groves, and burn their 
 graven images with fire.' "(2) Here we see the heresy of 
 the gentleman's reply when he says it was '< wholly WRONG." 
 This identical Scripture is quoted or referred to in his Confession 
 of Faith, and shows the '' SCRIPTURE WARRANT" for 
 burning the Convent at Boston. 
 
 EIGHTHLY. The gentleman admits, that Devoti proclaims 
 expulsion from church communion, to be the '' highest grade of 
 ecclesiastical coercion." Now, this settles the question, so far as 
 the present discussion is concerned. The same means of " ec- 
 clesiastical coercion," is used by every 'petty seet^ in existence. 
 This belongs to doctrine, and all the rest is touching what is 
 called canon law, or rules that were observed in states where the 
 ecclesiastical law was so mixed up with the civil, as to be part and 
 portion of the law of the land. Is it honest then, I would ask, 
 to take advantage of the ignorance of those who are unacquainted 
 with the political conditions of other times, and by a perversion 
 of truth, represent as portions of Catholic doctrine, those things 
 which Devoti himself, shows to have been the result of positive 
 state and church laws ? If the author in question says, that Ca- 
 tholics are hound by the obligation of their religion, to do what 
 he tells us has been done, then I want to know, in what part of 
 his work the assertion is found. The whole speech, being a la- 
 boured effort to compel Catholics to believe, what they would in 
 fact be heretics in believing as tenets of revelation, — 
 shows how the accuser in straitened for evidence. He must tirst 
 swear, that Catholics believe it as a principle or tenet of their re- 
 ligion — and when they swear, that they do not, — he must then 
 swear in reply, that they are not to be believed on oath. He 
 bound himself in the agreement, to confine the question to their 
 DOCTRINES, and yet he never touches' a DOCTRINE, but 
 selects out the history of eighteen hundred years, and of the 
 Christian world, such portions as would prove his point, IF it 
 were not CALUMNY of the grossest kind, to call them doc- 
 trines, or hold Catholics of the present day accountable for 
 them. 
 
 NINTHLY. I have explained the circumstances, connected 
 with these times, as much as the limits at ray disposal would ad- 
 mit. I have shown, that in no case, has the gentleman met 
 the question at issue. I defy any man to fix on any single 
 doctrine, proved to be such, which is opposed to civil and 
 religious liberty. I have^ in former speeches, pointed out what 
 
 (1) Numbers xxxiii. and Deut. vii. 6. (2) Page 66, 67. 
 
204 
 
 are the principles of Catholic doctrine. They are tenets, held 
 by the church, as havinii: been revealed by divine authority — 
 are believed by ALL CATHOLICS— in ALL TIMES— in ALL 
 PLACES — and which it would be HERESY TO DENY. 
 These, and these only, are Catholic ''DOCTRINES/' And 
 these are what the gentleman shuns, although it was in these that 
 he bound himself to discover hostility to civil and religious liberty. 
 I shall argue the case for him, by taking up some of those grounds, 
 which the calumnies of Protestant writers have assigned, as evi- 
 dence in the case. But, before I do this, I have to call upon the 
 gentleman, to explain a few points, in which he has had the in- 
 jirmity to sin against truth, without having the grace or humility 
 to acknowledge it. I have been under the necessity of admonishing 
 the audience, that his statements were not to be depended on, and 
 as this implies a very serious charge, it becomes necessary foi 
 me, to establish, and to prove it. And here I must protest 
 against unfounded accusation of " abuse and personality." If I 
 were to go out of the record, to examine his 'private affairs, that 
 would be "personality." If I were to imitate his example, 
 by retorting on htm epithets of contempt and odium, such as he 
 has applied to me, "Jesuit," "papist," "foreigner," "minion 
 of the pope," &c. &c., that would be "abuse" — too vulgar, I 
 trust, for my imitation. But I have done nothing of this kind. 
 I have been invited expressly to controvert lih statements, to ex- 
 amine his authoriti/, and expose him, whenever he uses bad logic 
 or false assertion. I hope he did not expect me to come here, at 
 his invitation, to sanction hy 7111/ silence, the calumnies hy which 
 the public^ (to an almost incredible extent,) liave been so long 
 deluded, on the subject of the Catholic religion, and its doctrines. 
 If he did, he is mistaken. He stands forth as a PUBLIC 
 ACCUSER, and he must expect that his claim to veracity will 
 be scrutinized. He who tries to take away the character of a 
 large body of his fellow- citizens, must not complain, when his 
 unamiable zeal pushes him to the daring experiment of risking 
 his own. If he makes a false statement — and I prove that it is 
 a false statement, has he any right to complain, that I am " abusive 
 or personal r' I should think not. If he were scrupulous, he 
 would never leave such an advantage in my power. I have al- 
 ready given some instances, in my former speeches, in proof of 
 the fact, that his statements are not to be depended on. I shall 
 now give a few more. 
 
 In page 89, (Johnson's edition,) of our written Controversy, he 
 gives a quotation from the " Third chapter" of the Fourth Council 
 of Lateran, as divided by Caranza. He says, at the head of it, "/ 
 have the original he/ore me, hut for want ofspace^ I give the trans- 
 lation." In regard to this translation, the following questions 
 were put by me. ^^ First, do you give it as a literal and con- 
 tinuous translation? Second, do you affirm, that in the origi- 
 
205 
 
 nal, it has the same general MEANING that it seems to have in 
 the translation P" (p. 100.) His answer to the first question is 
 — ^^ I answer unhesitat'mqly^ I Do/' And yet, the fact is, that it 
 WAS NOT CONTINUOUS! The truth is, that no two sen- 
 tences of this " continuous" translation, follow each other in the 
 original, without words or sentences intervening, wbich he omit- 
 ted. He had '' the original before him." And if he had — he 
 must have known that it was not continuons. How then, and I 
 ask him for a reply, how could he soj/, that it was continuous? — 
 First instance. Again, having the original before him, how could 
 he say in reply to the second question, ^' I consider the second 
 question an indignity offered to the feel irnjs of any honest man." 
 (p. 106.) This second question was, '^ Whether, in the original^ 
 it had the same GENERAL MEANING, that it seems to have in the 
 quotation." His reply is an indignant mode of asserting, that it 
 had. And yet the TllUTH IS, that it HAD NOT. The ori- 
 ginal had it, " the secular powers PRESENT ;" which limits 
 the meaning, by the word ''present," — qualifying the "secular 
 powers," to whom ^he execution of the decree was entrusted. 
 To make the " meaning general," Mr. Breckinridge OMITS 
 the word "present," in the translation, "having the original be- 
 fore him," — and yet affects to be indignant, that I should have 
 suspected him of having done so ! He denies it, and regards the 
 question as an insult. And yet, what HE denied, was true. 
 Second "instance." 
 
 Again still, he says, (same page,) " I answer, that it is from 
 your own ' Caranza's Summa Conciliorum,' that I quote." Now, 
 the]) roof that this is not to be depended on, is, that the last sen- 
 tence of the quotation is not in Caranza — at least not in the part 
 from which the rest was taken. Third " instance." 
 
 He says, (same page,) "I omitted the original for want of space 
 alone." This could not be the fact, if, as we have seen, he had 
 " space" left /or ichat loas not in the original at all. Fourth 
 "instance." Now, I challenge the gentleman t*o deny one sin- 
 gle statement here made. If he does deny one, I shall quote the 
 omitted passages, and show that the denial is to be regarded as 
 another "instance." If he does not deny one, then he admits 
 the facts, and I call upon him for the explanation. I might add 
 many more, but I shall reserve them for future occasion, not wish- 
 ing to press too much, at once. 
 
 This may be as convenient a place as any other, to notice the 
 gratuitous, and unmixed "abuse and personality," with which 
 Mr. Breckinridge introduced his last speech. If he 'can show, 
 that my statements are unfounded in truth, I shall not complain 
 But when, nnahle to do this, he travels out of the discussion, to 
 treat of matters that have nothing to do with the question in de- 
 bate, then I maintain, that the "low abuse, and indecent 
 personalities" are Ids own. His reference to what he calls, my 
 
206 
 
 " SPIRIT and origin/' — to " St. John's," " the fashionable 
 congregation/' the "hand-box," the ''Priest AT the altar/' 
 
 the '' BREEDING SKIN-DEEP/' the " ECCLESIASTICAL SHILLELAGH/' 
 
 &c., all on the same page, are specimens (I will not say, of mere 
 personality/, but) of grossness, for which no parallel can be 
 found in my writings. I ask, what have these things to do with 
 the question ? If I were disposed to retort, I should say, that 
 there are some men, in whom vulgarity and pride are insepara- 
 bly blended, — alternately betraying each other; — in whom, this 
 complex quality is so innate and constitutional, as to bid defiance 
 to the influence of education, good manners, and even religion 
 itself. I might quote the gross and abusive epithets, which 
 the Rev. John Breckinridge has applied to' his opponent, during 
 this discussion, to prove, that the gentleman himself (if to use 
 his own words, '^ I must call him by that name any longer") is 
 one of those men. But, such retorts do not edify. HoAvever, 
 lest the gentleman should mistake my motive for abstaining, I 
 wish him to know, that, as to family, origin, good-breeding, 
 
 EDUCATION, PRIVATE HISTORY, PUBLJC CHARACTER, I have no 
 
 reason to shrink from a comparison with HIM, the said Rev. 
 John Breckinridge. 1/ he brint/s on the discussion, he will find 
 me as competent to rebuke arroijant pretensions, as he has found 
 me to refute bad logic. I shall hold myself ready to balance tlie 
 account, as soon as he may think proper to present it. But, let 
 the responsibility be on him. The first, and most essential ingre- 
 dient in the moral composition of a WELL-BRED MAN, is a strict 
 and scrupulous regard /or truth. There are violations, however, 
 of truth, which have no evil consequence, except to the speaker 
 himself. But when truth is violated, ybr the purpose of by^fa^ia- 
 TION, then it admits of no palliation. 1 shall here give one adrli- 
 tional ''instance," in which the gentleman ha.4 violated truth, 
 precisely in this way. It is found in the written Controversy, 
 p. 325, (Johnson's edition,) where he gives, or professes to give, 
 a note from the Rhemish Testament^ and bad as those notes are, 
 he falsifies the citation, in order to make it appear even worse 
 than they are. The note is on Hebrew v. 7. 
 
 The note is this : As falsified by Mr. Breckin- 
 
 ^^But if the good reader ridge : 
 
 hneiu for what point of doctrine ^^ The translators of the 
 
 they {the Protestant transla- Enrjlish (^Protestant) Bible 
 
 tors) have thus FRAMED THEIR OUGHT TO BE abhorred to 
 
 TRANSLATION, they would ab- the depths of hell." 
 hor them to the depth of hell." 
 
 Here the gentleman makes that a positive and universal propo- 
 sition, which is in the text, only conditional — " if the good 
 reader knew," &c. 2. He makes that a duty, which the authors 
 
207 
 
 say, would be a consec Aice. 3. He falsifies fhe text absolute- 
 hj, by inserting the words, ''OUGHT TO BE," which arc not 
 in the original. 4. By his omission of the tnic^ and inserting of 
 the untrue, the citation would make it appear, that the crime of 
 translating the Bible into English, was tliaf, for which the trans- 
 lators " ought to be abhorred," &c. Now the truth is, that the 
 annotators were censuring them for pre verting the Bible, after 
 the example of Calvin. They are censuring that preversion, by 
 which these translators, would have Christ to have " suffered 
 THE PAINS OF THE DAMNED IN HELL." And the Rhcmish an- 
 notators say, that ^^ if the good reader' knew this, he would 
 abhor them to the depth of hell. Now, Mr. President, the pub- 
 lic must determine, how far this gentleman is sustained by ho- 
 nour, in thus CORRUPTINa the INTEGRITY, and AL- 
 TERING the language of his witnesses, for the PATRIOTIC 
 purpose of hlackening the reputation of Catholics, and helping a 
 . desperate cause. 
 
 During that controversy, it became necessary for me to point 
 out so many instances of a sinfilar kind, that, as it would seem, 
 his friends became a little alarmed. Accordingly, shortly after 
 its close, there appeared a volume of the usual slander and ca- 
 lumny against Catholics, under the insulting and hjiug tide of 
 ''A HISTORY OF POPERY." The author appears to have 
 been ashamed to put his name to it. But he got Doctor Miller to 
 eydorse the ribaldry. 
 
 The venerable Professor in an " Introductory Essay," to that 
 compilation of falsehoods and buffoonery, took occasion to allude 
 to the controversy, in language that shows how necessary lie must 
 have considered it to repeat the charges, and support them on hir 
 own authority, when they had been found to rest on no other. I 
 do not pretend to judge of his heart or motives, but speaking of 
 his language in as much as it can be considered apart from its 
 author, I venture to assert that it is impossible to find in so small 
 a compass, a larger quantity of condensed malignity, slander, and 
 sanctimoniousness. Of the sanctimonious portion, I shall quote 
 at present two sentences, which I recommend to the serious con- 
 sideration of the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. Speaking of the contro- 
 versy, the venerable Professor gays, ^'Misrepresentations the most 
 gross icere not only made, hut after their FALSEHOOD icas DEMON- 
 STRATED, was persevered in ivith a recklessness truly astonishing^ 
 Yes, we have just "demonstrated" the ''falsehood" of some of 
 thcui. " With such adversaries," he continues, " it is difficult for 
 men of TRUTH and of DELICACY, to carry on a contest."(5) 
 Yes, it is extremely " difficult" when their OAvn statements, and 
 even their citations, as we have seen, are not to be depended on : 
 and when their language becomes surcharged with scurrilous 
 
 (5) Ibid. p. 16. 
 
208 
 
 epithets and indelicate figures, such as graced the introduction of 
 Mr. Breckinridge's last speech. This smooth moral of the Doc- 
 tor's was intended as a charge against the Catholic side of the 
 controversy; but facts prove that its application properly belonged, 
 and belongs to the other. 
 
 • It is in this *' Essay," that this meek Professor denounces the 
 Catholics — those who in the exercise of the rights of conscience, 
 prefer the religion of Carroll, of La Fayette, of Kosciusko, and of 
 Gaston — as the "foes of God and man." Think you, sir, that 
 the spirit of Calvinism, which inspired liim with this language, 
 would not impel his followers to actions corresponding, if the Con- 
 stitution did not interpose ? 
 
 But enough of Doctor Miller for the present. As to the slan- 
 ders with which his Essay is crowded, I shall take another occa- 
 sion of placing them in company with those which I am now 
 engaged in refuting, so far as they belong to this question. 
 
 I shall now take up such of the small points of the gentleman's 
 speech, as deserve notice. As to the seven words torn out of a 
 sentence in the Council of Trent, and applied as a translation of 
 an English pretended quotation, I have already established the 
 fact, that, as the gentlemen used tliem, they comprised bad gram- 
 mar, barbarism, and nonsense ; although in the context from 
 which they had been taken, they are exactly correct. The gen- 
 tleman never attempted to meet me on that head. I said they 
 were a forgery ; but as soon as I discovered my mistake, I retractgd 
 the expression. Notwithstanding this, contrary to all parliament- 
 ary usage, he avails hi'mself of my candour to accuse me of in- 
 justice. Now, the fact is, that the analogies of the ca.se are, as 
 if A had charged B with forging the name of C : And as if B 
 should aifect to triumph, o?i the ground that he had not forged, 
 but had only cut out and transferred the signature. This would 
 not be exactly forgery, but it would be almost as disreputable; 
 at all events, it would be nothing to be boasted of. He says that 
 this is not a ''solitary misstatement." I assure him and the au- 
 dience, that I will retract every '' misstatement" that he can prove 
 to be such, if he will have the goodness to point it out. I chal- 
 lenge him to convict me of any "misstatement," which I am not 
 ready to correct. The side of the discussion which rests on truth, 
 requires no other support ; and though it is possible that I may 
 commit mistakes, I only wish to have them pointed out. It is by 
 this purpose of honesty, that I have escaped, and always shall 
 escape, those straits into which the gentleman has betrayed him- 
 self by his rashness, or readiness, to assert what is not tfue: and 
 his obstinate reluctance in correcting it, when pointed out and 
 proven to a demonstration, as in the foregoing "instances," 
 
 As to Caranza, I have already furnished evidence which ought 
 to make Mr. Breckinridge wish to forget his name. He states, 
 that in reference to this author, I " gloried in the apparent tri- 
 
I 
 
 209 
 
 umph over Lis (Mr. B's) character." Now, from what I have 
 already established in this speech, the audience will judge whether 
 the " triumph" was not real and complete. But to me it is no '■'■ tri- 
 umph," — truth alone claims the vicfory. I understood distinctly 
 the gentleman to account for tlie iniquitous suppression in the Twen- 
 ty-seventh Canon of the Third Council of Latcran, by stating, when 
 charged with it, in the debate, that he followed Caranza; and the 
 PROOF that I understood him correctly, was the silence with which 
 he admitted the charge. It appears that afterwards he discovered 
 his mistake, by a reference to the written text of the Controversy, 
 and then attempts to hold nie alone accountable for a position, 
 which he created hy his assertion, and confirmed hjj his silence, 
 when called upon for an explanation. And to show how strong 
 his propensity is to use abusive language, and how weak the pre- 
 texts on which he indulges his taste, ho asks : ^^But does the 
 silence of the slandered man make the slander true? And jrraij, 
 why did he (Mr. 11.) say it the first timef Does one falsehood 
 excuse two?" No : but if Mr. Breckinridge, in the debate, gave 
 Caranza as his guide, and I took the excuse which he gave, and 
 whilst I used it in argument, he urns silent as he admits, thereby 
 showing that I had not misunderstood him, then he himself was 
 positively, hy his assertion, and negatively, hy his silence, the 
 WITNESS against himself. It was on his authority and admission 
 that I argued; and the gentleman overreaches himself a little, 
 when he applies the words "slander" and "falsehood," to what 
 was said on his own testimony. He may keep these precious 
 phrases where they belong. 
 
 But the gentleman is mistaken if he thinks that he can escape the 
 charge of faithless citation, in regard to the Twenty-seven ih Canon 
 of the Third Lateran,by any such silly flourish, as that which I have 
 just exposed. And since he did not fullow Caranza, in citing the 
 canon, 1 CALL UPON IIIM to say from whom he copied. I demand 
 HIS AUTHORITY. He cites the beginning and end of the canon, 
 conceals the middle hy suj^j^ression, which contained a narrative 
 of the crimes and cruelties of the Albigenses, and makes it appear 
 that the punishment which was awarded for their crimes, was 
 simply /or their speculative heresies. The object of all this ma- 
 lignant artifice, and dishonest citation, was to blacken the Catholic 
 name, and excite hatred founded, in so much at least, on decep- 
 tion, in the minds of Protestants. If he says he translated from 
 the original, then I charge him directly with the fraud. If he 
 says HE DID not copy from the original, then I demand the name 
 of the author, from whom he did, copy — that Protestants who love 
 truth, may know in what geometrical progression are propagated 
 from generation to generation, those calumnies which are invoked 
 to prove that Catholics owjlu to he hated. The name MUST BE 
 GIVEN, otherwise the falsification must rest at ihe gentleman's 
 own door. Supposing I were to quote a documeut to show tha> 
 
210 
 
 Presbyterians put heretics to death, and anpprcas the part of the 
 document which attested that these hci-etics were guilty of mur- 
 der and violence of every description, what would honest and 
 honourable men say ? I may be told, that this does not justify the 
 canon ; — that is not the question. ♦! want to know who it wa.s, 
 that cited it dishonestly, for the first time : whether it was Mr. 
 Breckinridge himself, or another from whom he copied. 
 
 The gentleman had stated that there were only four words of 
 the second commandment, in the catechism of the Council of 
 Trent, followed by an exjn-essive " et castera." I showed by no 
 less than five different editions of that work, that it contains every 
 word of the ichole decalogue, and you may recollect, gentlemen, 
 how he blanched under the testimony — how, on standing up, he 
 spoke of his character, and promised that, if '' God would spare 
 his life," he would go to New York, and procure the copy of that 
 work, on which he depended for his vindication. He brought 
 it from New York ; and after a long dissertation on the injury 
 that had been offered to his feelings, he exhibited the work. 
 He was courteous enough to trust it into my hands., that I might 
 examine it, when lo ! the entire of the second commandment was 
 found in it, the same as in all the rest! He spoke no more about 
 his "feelings;" but with great coolness said, that it was not all on 
 the same page, which contained the first sentence ! The com- 
 mandments are all divided in that work, and explained clause by 
 clause. Now, I call upon the gentleman to do homage to the 
 truth, under this head, and to undeceive the public by acknow- 
 ledging that the catechism in question, contains not only " four 
 words," but the WHOLE OF the second COMMANDMENT. 
 Will he have the moral courage to do it ? I fear not. He repre- 
 sents me as ridiculing the ''doctrine of regeneration." I protest 
 against the charge. I am not conscious of having employed 
 " ridicule," but if I did, it was in reference to that mockery of 
 regeneration, which allows men to consider themselves holy from 
 the moment when they become conspicuous in contributions to 
 present or future schemes of benevolence towards others, without 
 first going back to make straight the crooked ways of past, private, 
 and personal transactions. 
 
 I have had occasion already to observe that Devoti's work is 
 not a work on the doctrines of Catholicity, but a Treatise on the 
 External Policy of the Ecclesiastical Laws and Usages, as exist- 
 intj in Catholic countries. He speaks of the church as a VISIBLE 
 SOCIETY, having within itself, and from the very nature of its con- 
 stitution, all the powers of self-government, implying authority to 
 make laws, and the right to punish those who violate them. Now 
 these punishments, so far as they result from the constitutional 
 powers of the church, were necessarily given by Christ. They con- 
 sist of ecclesiastical censures, suspensions, and finally excommuni- 
 cation, which the author calls "the highest grade of coercion." 
 
211 
 
 These are the punishments, (poena),) or penalties, by which men 
 are to be '' compelled (cogendos) to the observance of the laws 
 and obligations of church membership." These are the powers 
 which Devoti says were given by Christ — as I proved in the argu- 
 ments of my last speech. I then stated, that Devoti did not claim 
 by virtue of any power given b}'' Christ to the church, the right 
 to punish hij fines, imprisonment, or otherwise, in a civil sense. 
 The proof was, that Devoti, to support that right, referred ex- 
 presslj/ to the *' constitutions" of the empire, and the code of 
 Theodosius. The gentleman says this is " false, directly false." 
 And what proof does he give that it is so ? He says that Devoti 
 claimed for the church, as a ipower f/iven hy Christ, the right, not 
 merely of governing by counsel, and persuasion, but also of de- 
 creeing by laws, and of compulsion, and of coercing with punish- 
 ment, those who are worthy of it. Mr. Hughes says the same, 
 provided that the ''decreeing laws," the "compulsion," ''coer- 
 cing," and " punishment," be in the spiritual order such as the 
 Synod of York has exercised in "punishment," of Mr. Barnes, 
 when they could not " coerce" him, to fall down and worship their 
 infallibility. Devoti nowhere says, that 'the use of corporeal 
 punishment, by prisons, fines, exile, or otherwise, was by virtue 
 of a " power given by Christ." This is the proposition which the 
 gentleman says is " directly false ;" and I repeat his words to 
 show another " instance" in which his statements are not to be 
 depended on. There was no dispute between Devoti and La 
 Borde, on the subject of hodilj/ or civil ptunishments. The for- 
 mer wrote in opposition to the principles laid down by the Re- 
 formers, so called, which La Borde's treatise favoured. What 
 were those principles ? That the "judiciary power" in the church 
 belongs to the civil magistrates, under the pretty title of "nursing 
 FATHERS TO THE CHURCH." And tlius was formed that coalition 
 between ecclesiastical apostasy and political ambition, of which 
 the thousand and one religions, called the Reformation, were the 
 amphibious offspring. 
 
 I refer the audience to my remarks, in my last speech, for the 
 circumstances in which Devoti speaks of " prisons, fines, banish- 
 ment, &c.," as having been used by the church. The gentleman, 
 after quoting my words, tells us in his corrected speech, that De- 
 voti expressly says " this power is given by Christ to the church." 
 It is not true. And to show that it is not true, I pledge myself 
 to make a public apology, if he can produce the words of the 
 author, stating " expressly that the power of ' imprisoning,' ' banish- 
 ing,' or ' imposing pecuniary fines,' WAS given by Christ to the 
 CHURCH." If he cannot, his inability will convict him of another 
 "instance" in which his statements are not only not to be depend- 
 ed on, but are absolutely false and unfounded. From these, his 
 false statements, he may draw what inferences against Catholics 
 he pleases, the public will understand the true consequence. 
 
212 
 
 His quotation from Devoti, beginning ^^But lie loho offends 
 against societf/, &c./' (which he gives in Latin too,) is another 
 attempt at establishing a false conclusion, on the belief of false 
 premises. Devoti is speaking of the rights of the " ecclesiasti- 
 cal tribunal/' to judge those who were subject to its jurisdic- 
 tion, being clergymen, and in those cases not subject to the civil 
 judge. But does he say that the right to judge and punish them 
 had been conferred on the church BY Christ ? Not at all. On 
 the contrary he refers expressly, in the note, to tbe LAWS OF 
 THE EMPIRE, for the source of that jurisdiction which the 
 church, he says, exercises over the '' persons" of the clergy, who 
 had been guilty of crimes. Whenever these ctimes, he says, 
 were so great that the lenity of the church had no adequate 
 punishment -for them, then the clergy were degraded, and the 
 state punished them directly as laij persons. Did the gentle- 
 man see this ? If he did, how could he honestly suppress it? If 
 he did not, it only proves that he reads Devoti as the deist reads 
 the Bible. But whether he saw it or not, it furnishes another 
 ''instance" still, to prove thafc his statements are not to be depend- 
 ed on. I may now address him in the language which he applies 
 to me. He says that Devoti speaks of the power by which the 
 church inflicted hodily punishment on the clergymen ivho had com- 
 ,mitted any civil crime against society , as ''given BY CllRlST to 
 the church:^' whereas Devoti, first, does 7iot say this — but, second- 
 ly, he states that it was derived from the civil laws of the empire, 
 to which he expressly refers. The gentleman asserts what is not 
 true, and suppresses what is true. " How strangely then must 
 he feel, to be thus caught," making Devoti speak falsehood 
 to support a Calvinistic argument. His reasoning, when founded 
 on false premises, falls of itself. 
 
 Now, for his last quotation from Devoti, it is what every body 
 acknowledges in every sect. The Church, as a spiritual com- 
 monwealth, has governors, or magistrates, and has power, in the 
 order of its constitution, o\er all persons who are its members, 
 and all things that belong to it, for its use. This is all true, not 
 only in the Catholic Church, which received it from Christ, 
 the original proprietor, but also in the Presbyterian Church, 
 which claims it without a title, and exercises it most graciously, 
 as Mr. Barnes knows. 
 
 With regard to the INQUISITION, I proved, in my last speech, 
 that it is, and ever was, as much unconnected with the Catholic 
 religion, and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, as the trial 
 BY JURY. I have said and proved, that the essence of the inquisi- 
 tion is in every church that has a creed which it calls orthodox; 
 and that the gentleman himself, and his " orthodox" brethren, 
 have been but recently discharging the genuine functions of in- 
 quisitors. As long as he does not assert that such or such a doc- 
 trine of the Catholic religion requires the existence of the Inqui- 
 sition, he shrinks from his proposition. He may abuse it as much 
 
213 
 
 as he pleases, and he will accomplish nothing. " The question" 
 is about the DOCTRINES of the Catholic Church, and unless he 
 can make it appear that the Inquisition is one of them — to which 
 I challenge him, as the representative of all the calumniators that 
 have ever said it was — he proves nothing to the point in debate. 
 Dovoti gives an account of its institution, and the gentleman con- 
 cludes that either ^^Dcvoti or myself has hecn guilty of no siwxll 
 departures from historical and doctrinal triith." He will again 
 have to excuse nie, for saying that his .statement is not to he de- 
 pended on, until he will have the goodness to point out in lohat 
 these '' DEPAKTURES" consist. ' 
 
 After this unfounded statement, he goes back from the Inquisi- 
 tion to the commencement of the volume, as if he had forgotten 
 something very important. Devoti speaks there, as he speaks 
 throughout, of the church, as she existed in conjunction with the 
 ancient imp)erial laws. He speaks of her " twofold power" of 
 punishment. The ONE " wholly sriRlTUAL, given separately 
 by Christ." Now if the gentleman were not bent on making his 
 attempt at argument infinitely ridiculous, he would have stopped 
 here. He had accused Devoti of saying that the ''power" to 
 punish "■ by fines," " imprisonment," " castigation," "exile," &c., 
 had been given by Christ to the Church. Now, however, the 
 truth has leaked out, and he is convicted by his own showing. 
 The Church has a " twofold power." After telling us what was 
 the nature of the power given by Christ — that it is " WHOLLY 
 SPIRITUAL," exercised in " tbro intimo" — the conscience, and 
 in " foro externo," laws and censures; he, Devoti, tells us that 
 she has ''another powkr" which she has in common with every 
 perfect republic, and which "is called temporal." '' It folloicSf 
 says he, that there should be a twofold kind of punishment:" 
 AVhat is this "other" power that was not given by Christ; — and 
 " is called temporal?" Precisely that which he had traced to the 
 imperial statutes, with a fidelity of reference which the gentle- 
 man icould not notice, and with a depth of erudition which the 
 gentleman could not fathom. 
 
 1 thank him, however, for having at length done justice to 
 Devoti, at the expense of his own statements. When the imperial 
 laws allowed " ecclesiasticW offenders to be judged and 
 punished by the "ecclesiastical tribunal," then the church, 
 or the authorities of the church " inflicted bodily punishment." 
 But by what power? By power given by Christ? No; that was 
 " WHOLLY SPIRITUAL." By what "power" then ? By the 
 power of those imperial laws which Devoti has most abundantly 
 cited. Here again the gentleman has convicted himself; when, 
 contrary to the truth, he asserted, and repeatedly asserted, that 
 Devoti had claimed for the church, "AS A power given her by 
 CHRIST," the right to inflict bodily or ciril punishment. He says, 
 that for denying his assertion he will " expose me in a way which 
 
214 
 
 I must deeply regret." His assertions and arguments have in- 
 spired me with every feeling but respect for the cause that could 
 employ them; and I can assure him that his threats shall not de- 
 ter me from my duty to truth, and its opposite : 1 shall continue to 
 defend the one, and expose the other. I have no doubt, however, 
 but he will verify the words of the poet, '"furor arma ministrat/' 
 
 He is willing to '^ leave the long contest about Bossuet to speak 
 for itself. It has spoken, and the gentleman is wise in his silence. 
 And also, he says, *' that about the Third Canon of the Fourth 
 Council of Lateran." Not exactly, sir. The gentleman mu^t Jirst 
 tell us why he said he quoted from " our own Caranza," literally 
 and continuously, when the fact ivas not so. He says that, in re- 
 lation to this canon, ^^ at every step I have (jiven ground. First 
 I tried to defend the canon, as being only discipline agaiJist mur- 
 derers." This is not the fact; I never said it was " discipline," and 
 never '^ defended" it at all. I showed that it was no "doctrine;" 
 and then the gentleman represented me as wishing to make it 
 '^ discipline." I showed that the Albigenses, through whom Cal- 
 vinism is claimed to have descended from the apostles, were a 
 sect whose doctrine and practices could not be tolerated in any 
 country or age; and then, lie said, that I " defended" the canon. 
 As to its authenticity, 1 assailed it, but not after having been 
 '' driven" from what he incorrectly calls my '' defence" of it. I 
 showed that he had nothing to reply, except that he shoidd reply 
 in time; from which I inferred that my speech had been sent to 
 college for an answer. I showed that, admitting its authenticity, 
 it proved nothing for the affirmative of the question. I proved 
 that I MIGHT HAVE AVAILED MYSELF of its spuriousncss, as es- 
 tablished by numerous evidences. I drove the gentleman oft" on 
 this point; and by a kind of delusion which appears to be natural 
 to him, he has mistaken his own flight for mine. It is true that, 
 taking the division of Caranza, I used the word " canon," when I 
 should have said "chapter" of the canon; I corrected myself, and 
 then the gentleman " exposed" me. The only difi'erence, there- 
 fore, between the gentleman and myself is, that, whilst I have 
 ^^ spiked" the canon efiectually, after its mischief against the Albi- 
 genses, he has been sponging it with the leaves of Caranza, to 
 make it shoot Presbyterians. And unfortunately his hands have 
 not been as yet purified from the operation. 
 
 The gentleman's authorities return periodically, like the arms 
 of a windmill. He tells us that " Dens," an author which neither 
 of us hnve ever seen, ^' has opened the eyes o/ MILLIONS, on the 
 oilier side of the ivaters, to the new evidences of the jyersecuting 
 doctrines of the Church of Rome." He does not give any authority 
 for the statement, however, not even "our own Caranza." A book 
 that has been for sale, for thirty years on the shelves of the Pro- 
 testant booksellers in Dublin, has at length been miraculously dis- 
 covered, and "has opened the eyes of millions," yes; notj how- 
 
215 
 
 ever, to see what the gentlemen supposes, but to see by what low, 
 base, and contemptible tricks Protestantism in England tries to 
 sustain itself on the crutches of Mammon, conscious that it can- 
 not walk, nor even stand without them. " Opened the eyes of 
 millions;" yes, to see that the "no popery" tricks will avail no 
 more. " Othello's occupation's gone," and Murtagh O'Sullivan, 
 and Dr. Maghee, dee, dee, cannot recall it. The ghost of Peter 
 Dens will frighten nobody. The people of England are looking 
 for freedom, not because they love Catholic doctrines, but because 
 they are disgusted with Protestant oppression. 
 
 The gentleraair says, I HAVE proved that I dare not 
 
 HONESTLY AVOW WHAT THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF MY CHURCH IS, 
 
 BEING IN THE UNITED States.'' How he found his way into 
 the cabinet of my thoughts, is more than I can conjecture. Or 
 WHY I SHOULD BE AFRAID to avow the doctrincs of my church 
 " in the United States," is a question which would hardly have 
 occurred to any citizen, except a Presbyterian, familiar with the 
 secrets and designs of the anti-Catholic conspiraci/, which has 
 begun to show itself in bigotry and DARKNESS, except at Boston^ 
 ichere its darkness was turned into light. ' 
 
 He says, I ^'defend the Bull In Caena Domini." This is not 
 true. I stated that it had been suppressed; and that was surely 
 not defending it. Can he show where I "defended" it? Does 
 he not perceive that he injures not only his cause, but himself, by 
 such assertions. And, on this unfounded assertion, he builds 
 almost a page of very confused and vapid declamation. 
 
 The gentleman promises to speak of "Anathema," in its place, 
 and " too soon for me." He cannot take it up too soon for him-, 
 self, however; for he has said that it means " CURSE," and I 
 have proved that it does not. And, consequently, that he has 
 " borne false witness aijainst his neighbour." 
 
 The gentleman tells us, that the "Bible doctrine" forbids the 
 estabHshment of any religion by law. I shall prove from his own 
 " CONFESSION OF FAITH," that his asscrtiou is not the doctrine 
 of his church. Was not the Jewish religion established by law ? 
 And is not this the Bible ? Ay, and that very portion of the 
 Bible which Presbyterians, as the "people of God," in "New 
 Testament times," have ever been ready to imitate. 
 
 I had refuted Mr. Wesley's false charge against the Council of 
 Constance, in a way that bids defiance to my respondent. I proved 
 that l\x. Wesley, supposing him to have been sincere when he 
 asserted the calumny, had been deceived; and the arguments 
 adduced by me for that purpose, have left the gentleman without 
 auy future pretext for the wilful malignity that would repeat the 
 charge of Wesley; knowing, as he now does, that the charge was, 
 and is, and shall ever be, an atrocious calumny! He has no reply 
 to my facts ; no answer for my proofs. The original documents 
 have confounded him. As for " help from priests," I do not re- 
 
216 
 
 ceive it; and the gentleman knows that I do not stand in need of 
 it. If, instead of meetinp^ the '^ College of Priests," he will only 
 meet my arguments, it will be much more to his credit. By those 
 arguments I have proved that the man who asserts ^'tJiat if is a 
 Roman Catholic maxim," or '' doctrine, '^ ^' that nofailh is to be 
 kept with heretics,'' is a slanderer of the Catholic body. Now 
 this has been asserted by Mr. Wesley, Dr. Miller, and the Rev. Mr. 
 Breckinridge; I call upon the last-mentioned individual, there- 
 fore, to prove the charge, or, like a man who loves truth, to ac- 
 knowledge THE SLANDER, and uudcceive his countrymen. 
 
 He says, that ^' in the very terms of mi/ citation from the Coun- 
 cil of (Jonstance, the doctrine is avowed, thai the FAITII, the 
 PLEDGED FAITH (of the ICmperor) that HUSS SHOULD return 
 
 IN SAFETY FROM THE COUNCIL, WAS NOT BINDING." Now this 
 is not true. And the proof is, that no such faith had been pledged 
 by the Emperor. The Passport was a common passport, to 
 protect Huss, travelling through Germany, where he had many 
 private and personal enemies. The Emperor told him, that if he 
 did not retract, *' he, with his own hands, would kindle the fire 
 to burn him."(l») He says, again, the Emperor's conduct was 
 not so much violated by the execution of Huss, as by his imprison- 
 ment. For if after an examination, according to the due 
 course of law, the Council had found John Huss a heretic, 
 
 THEY WERE IN THE RIGHT, ACCORDING TO THE USAGE OP 
 THOSE TIMES, to Sentence him to the flames, and deliver him over 
 to the secular arm." (2) 
 
 I shall now proceed to a more criViVa^ examination of the Presby- 
 terian ccdf which the gentleman sets forth as the Bull of Innocent 
 VIII. I have already stated, that there is no external evidence 
 of history to prove that it is authentic. Now, I purpose to show, 
 that it bears in its bosom the intrinsic evidences of spuriousness 
 and falsehood. 1st. It enjoins on " archbishops and bishops to 
 take up arms." Whereas, by a law of the church, the shedding 
 of blood, even accidentally, or in a just war, disqualifies a man 
 from becoming a clergyman — unless by a special dispensation. 
 There never was a case, in which it was allowed for clergymen, 
 by either pope or council, to shed human blood, in war or other- 
 icise. This commnnd for ^' archbishops and bishops to take up 
 arms," is alone sufficient to stamp the character of the document. 
 2d. After having ordered all the ecclesiastical and civil poicers, 
 to " make the heretics perish, and entirely blot them out from the 
 face of the earth," — as we read in the middle of the document, — 
 this '''beloved son, Albertus," is "PERMITTED/' towards the 
 close, " if need be, to call into his assistance, the aid of the secu- 
 lar arm." This i.^ the second evidence, that it is spurious — and 
 that the imposture is a bungling concern. 3d. But what seals the 
 
 (1) L'Enfant, B. III. No. 6. (2) lb. B. IV. No. 32. 
 
217 
 
 eyidence, is, the susjncion whicli the Pope is made to have had 
 about its being regarded as spurious, and for which he takes 
 prophetic measures. ''And because/' he is made to say, ''it 
 mai/ he difficult to transmit these present letters, to all places 
 xohere they may he necessary, we will, and hy apostolical au- 
 thority appoint, that to a copy which may he taken and subscribed 
 by the hand of any public notary, and attested by the subscrip- 
 tion of any ecclesiastical prelate, entire faith may be given, and 
 that it should be held as valid, and the same regard paid to it, 
 as to the original letters, IF THEY HAD BEEN PRODUCED 
 AND SHOWN." 
 
 This was rather overdoing the business. But with all due re- 
 spect for Innocent VIII., and his calumniators, I would prefer 
 to see the j' original letters,'' or an ATTESTED copy of them. 
 Mr. Breckinridge is not a '^notary public," — and he has not 
 procured the "subscription of any ecclesiastical prelate;" there- 
 fore, I cannot " pay the same regard to it," as if it were authentic, 
 notwithstanding the orders of his holiness. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I call on the gentleman to give me the 
 SOURCE from which he derived this document. From whom did 
 he copy it? I demand his answer to that question. Was it from 
 the Rev. Dr. Brownlee ? Or Mr. M'Calla ? What proof has he, 
 that it was ever treated as genuine, by any respectable writer ? 
 What then, will the audience and public think of the cause that 
 requires, and the man who could produce such a document in 
 e\jidence ? Must he not have a delicate sense of literary pride, — 
 a high respect for the understandings of his audience, — a sincere 
 disposition to confer honour on the Presbyterian Church, the 
 American name, and human nature? A document surrounded 
 with external, and surcharged with internal, evidences, of spu- 
 riousness — produced by a man who tells us, that there is a " Latin 
 translation" of it in " Cambridge, England." I have a right to 
 demand his authority, and to consider it, what it is, a vile attempt 
 at imposture, until he shall have furnished us with its history, 
 and the proofs of its authenticity. The inference and comment- 
 ary are worthy of the document; founded on falsehood, they 
 perish with its exposure. 
 
 When the gentleman introduced Bellarmine discussing, as an 
 individual in the exercise of his private opinion, the proposition — 
 "That heretics condemned by the Chiwch, MAY BE punished 
 with tenijjoral punishment, and even with death," he should have 
 stated one fact, which the Cardinal sets out with, viz. that HE 
 and Calvin were agreed on that poiet, — a pretty strong evidence 
 that he was not arguing an article of Catholic doctrine. He 
 proves his opinion by various arguments, whicli were no doubt 
 satisfactory to his own mind — but though he quotes imperial stat- 
 utes, and facts to show that heretics had been put to death, and 
 though he quotes Calvin to prove, that they ought to be put to 
 
 14 
 
218 
 
 death, — he never attempts to prove it, by any reference to the 
 DOCTRINE OF HIS OWN CHURCH, that sucli a principle of ''belief 
 or of MORALS," is a part of the Catholic religion. The gentle- 
 man aifects to say, that he (Bellarmine) was giving on this head, 
 his opinion " of Catholic doctrine/' This is not true. He 
 was giving his own opinion, and the reasons why he entertains 
 it. His opinion is of no authority ; — no man's opinion, not even 
 the Pope's, is of any authority in the Catholic Church, farther 
 than as an opinion. But the gentleman knows, that where '' doc- 
 trines," *' tenets of faith or morals revealed by God," — are in 
 question, there are NO OPINIONS among Catholics. Christ 
 made a revelation of facts, truths, — Catholics believe them as 
 FACTS and truths, — whilst Protestants make opinions of them. 
 When Bellarmine lays down the rule to be observed with " he- 
 retics, thieves, and other wicked men," when they are not known 
 distinctly enough, or when they are too powerful and numerous, 
 he remarks, that he gives the answer given to the same question 
 hy St. Augustine, who is in high veneration among the Calvin- 
 ists. Why did the gentleman suppress this ? — Since the blame 
 which he would throw on Bellarmine, belongs equally to St. Au- 
 gustine. Another deception in this passage is, the meaning at- 
 tached to the word "extirpate." He is speaking of the text, in 
 the gospel of St. Matthew, in which the Saviour was explaining 
 the parable of the *' good seed," and " the cockle," — the one 
 representing the good, the other the wicked ; — and Bellarmine 
 following out the figure, contended, that the " cockle" in the 
 field of the Lord, were the heretics, thieves, and other wicked 
 men, who were to be rooted or plucked out, (extirpandi,) unless 
 in the cases which he excepted, after St. Augustine, and St. 
 Chrysostom. This is the fact, and the gentleman must have 
 known it, if he ever saw the work. He takes up this case, sup- 
 presses the circumstances that explain it, metamorphoses Bellar- 
 mine's private sentiment, into a doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
 carries it from Home to America, — makes the Catholic citizens 
 of the republic adopt it, against their creed and conviction, and 
 with a logic worthy of the school he belongs to, infers on this 
 evidence, that Catholics are bound to cut the throats of all here- 
 tics, as soon as they find themselves in the majority! Are they 
 not the majority in France, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, and 
 in short, in the whole Christian world? If this had been their 
 doctrine, could they not have destroyed the Pteformers, in any 
 stage of their increase, from Martin Luther, up to millions ? Does 
 the gentleman not see how ridiculous, in presence of these uni- 
 versal FACTS, — public, notorious, and obvious to common sense, 
 — he renders himself, when supported by his perversion of Bi^lar- 
 mine, he draws the following sweeping conclusion, discreditable 
 to his* feelings, and to the understandings of the audience: 
 "HENCE," says he, "iVi the United States we may expect\A^Yi, 
 
i 
 
 219 
 
 while we have numbers. You se^.y r/enflemen, ichat our friends at 
 Rome (not priests, but cardinals, whose works are sanctioned by 
 the Pope, and in this case nephew of the Pope^ think of the rights 
 of the minorities; they arc summed up in this, — THEY MAY DIE BY 
 THE HANDS OF PAPISTS," This is sillj slander, founded on yet 
 more silly reasoning. 
 
 The gentleman says, that Luther, in maintaining " that the 
 church had never put a heretic to death," meant, not the Catho- 
 lic Church, but some other. That he, after, even ^'convicts the 
 Church of Rome of such acts." I thought he entertained more 
 respect for the character of Luther, than to charge him thus, with 
 a palpable equivocation. I call upon him, therefore, for the re- 
 ference in Luther's works, for the authority on which he makes 
 these two statements. 1st. In which he states, that '^ THE 
 CHURCH NEVER BURNED A HERETIC," — and 2d, in which he 
 
 '' CONVICTS THE CHURCH OF ROME OF THESE ACTS." I SUSpCCt 
 
 that something is wrong here, as usual. My reason is, that 
 history is entirely silent, touching the existence of TWO 
 CHUllCHES, previous to Luther. And I do not like to hear 
 the gentleman, imputing to Luther, a contemptible equivocation 
 on that subject. At all events, I wish to see his authorities for 
 the statement. 
 
 He says, that Bellarmine " here frankly avows persecution j yea, 
 the right and the duty of the church to put heretics to death, — 
 and pleads to Scripture for the authority, — and appeals to history 
 for the fact, that the church before his day, had put an almost 
 infinite number to death.'' Now, although Bellarmine's opinidn, 
 on the matter has nothing to do with the question in debate, yet 
 I cannot hear such atrocious imputations falsely made against 
 Bellarmine, more than against Luther. The question was, whe- 
 ther " heretics, condemned by the church, might be punished 
 by temporal punishments, and even death." Bellarmine contend- 
 ed, that they might, and should, — in opposition to IIuss and 
 Luther, who having been liable to this consequence in their own 
 persons, contended, very naturally, that they should not. Hence, 
 Bellarmine begins his chapter in these words. '* Joannes Huss, 
 art. 14, in Concilio Constantiensi, .sess. 15, recitato, asseruit, non 
 licere lisereticum incorrigibilem TRADERE SiECULARl POTESTATI, et 
 PERMlTTERii comburendum. '•Idem Lutherus in art. 33, et in 
 assertione ejusdem." '•^Jolui Huss, in article 14, in the 15 ses- 
 sion of the aforesaid Council of Constance, asserted, that it is 
 not lawful to DELIVER a?i incorrigibleheretic TO THE CIVIL POWER, 
 and PERMIT HIM to be burned. Luther asserted the same, in 
 article 33, and in his defence of that article." The first witness 
 adduced by Bellarmine, to refute both Huss and Luther, was 
 JOHN CALVIN. But what does he undertake to prove ? He 
 undertakes to prove, that it is lawful for the church, to *leave in- 
 corrigible heretics, to the civil laws of the state, even ivhere the pu- 
 
220 
 
 nisTnnenf of heresy is hurning. This was the onli/ point in dispute, 
 between hira and Huss or Luther. 
 
 He lays down the proposition which he is about to prove, in 
 these words : — 
 
 ^^Nos igitur hrcvifer ostcndcmus, hsereticos ivcorrigihiles, ac 
 praesertim relapsos, posse ac dchere ab ecclesia rpjicij et a ssecida- 
 rihus potestatihus, temporalihus poenis atque ipsa etiam morte 
 midrfari." 
 
 "■ We, therefore, shall hriejiy show, that incorrigible heretics, 
 and especially those who have relapsed, MAY AND OUGHT TO "BE 
 CAST OUT FROM THE CHURCH, AND BE PUNISHED BY THE 
 
 SECULAR POWERS, with temporal punishment, and ivith 
 death itself." 
 
 Here, then, are the two points of his thesis : — 
 1st. That heretics may and ought to be cast out of the 
 church; and 
 
 2d. That (being cast out) they may and ought to be punish- 
 ed AVITH CIVIL pi;nalties, a,nd even death, (not hy the church, as 
 Mr. Breckinridge states in opposition to BeUarmine's own words, 
 but, BY THE CIVIL POWER. That first part of the proposition is 
 held by the gentleman himself, viz, " That heretics may and 
 ought to he cast out of the church.'^ Bellarmine, then, turning 
 to the CIVIL POWER, says, that the state (ssecularibus potestatibus) 
 " may and ought" to put them to death even, or lesser punish- 
 ments. The arguments by which he attempts to prove this part 
 of the proposition, are those from which Mr. B. presents the gar- 
 bled quotations, which he shamefully perverts. Bellarmine says, 
 that it is the right and the duty OF THE STATE to pu- 
 nish heretics, with civil penalties and even death. Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge, contrary to this, charges him with ''avowing the right and 
 the duty of the church to put them to death." In which he 
 only furnishes another " instance" to prove that his statements 
 are not to be depended on. Every instance adduced by Bellar- 
 mine of this, is an instance by th^j authority of the state or by 
 some Emperor; but, inasmuch as the civil rulers, who made and 
 executed, these laws against heretics, icei^e Catholics, and the 
 church had '' cast those heretics out," he speaks of it as if the 
 church itself had executed the laws. Does he say that there is 
 any doctrine of the church, any laiu of the church, requiring he- 
 retics to be put to death ? No ! Does he say the church ever 
 put them to death except by not shielding them under the eccle- 
 siastical laws ? No ! Does he say that she ever claimed the 
 rigid to put them to death, that she exercised it, that she ever 
 put any one to death for heresy, except by leaving them exposed 
 to the law of the state, the secular power ? No ! Has not the 
 gentleman accused Bellarmine ftilsely ? He will probably say, 
 that I " defend" Bellarmine — yes, from unfounded accusatiolfny 
 but as to his opinion on the right and duty of the magistrate, or 
 
221 
 
 temporal powers to punish heretics, I hold it imlcfensihle ; and 
 the only way I can account for his having attempted to maintain 
 such an opinion, is, by supposing that his judgment had been 
 twisted into obliquity of vision by the sophistries of Calvin and 
 Beza, on the same subject — for he places their works and example 
 at the head of the chapter. 
 
 Such, Mr. President, are the amount and detail of the gentle- 
 man's speech; a compound of false premises, supporting false 
 logic, and giving occasion to that kind of wholesale assertion and 
 bloated declamation which constitute the very acme of eloquence 
 and evangelism, in the anti-popery meetings which have been 
 organised by the propaganda of bigotry in New York. Any thing, 
 sir, that is said to blacken popery, being, of course, Protestant doc- 
 trine, must he true. This delusion has lived too long, and spread 
 too far. It may be convenient for the gentleman, whenever 
 he shall think proper to make good his promise of " carry- 
 ing on the controversy hy himself." But it will not suit 
 here. He has invited me to come and examine the quality 
 of his information and the character of his reasoning. It is in 
 obedience to this invitation that I make so free in my ana- 
 lysis of both. The child of his anti-popery zeal would be, per- 
 haps, adniired elsewhere ; but when he sends it forth Itere^ as a 
 young giant, that is to slay the man of sin in the United States, 
 I have only to bring it near the light, and hold it up. The first 
 ray that falls upon it from the lamp of truth in history, and of logic 
 in debate, proves it to be a little monster of moral deformity, which, 
 instead of killing the pope, will only disgrace its parentage. 
 
 By the way, there is one thing that has struck me as somewhat 
 extraordinary. It is, that the gentleman, after having been in the 
 field publicly against the Catholic religion these several years, is 
 evidently unprepared for the facts of the question. He was un- 
 prepared for the case of the Albigenses, and the facts connected 
 with it. He was unprepared for the facts regarding Huss and 
 the Council of Constance. He was unprepared for .the meaning 
 of ^'anathema," according to the facts. He was unprepared for 
 the character of the Inquisition, according to the facts of history. 
 He was familiar with the calumnies which are founded on all 
 these subjects, and made abundant use of them. But the facts ^ 
 which he had never condescended to examine at the original 
 source, took him by surprise; and he adjourned the topics with 
 a — promise. A gentleman who has kept himself so long adver- 
 tised as the champion, should have been better prepared : one 
 who had so long and so often instructed the 2nthlic, should not 
 have been obliged to wait for information on subjects with which 
 he had professed himself so well acquainted. The unexpected- 
 ness of the position should have been an excuse for me, if I were 
 found unable to meet the gentleman at every point. It was im- 
 possible for me to have made any special preparation ; and yet, to 
 
222 
 
 my surprise, mj arguments on the very topics on which the gen- 
 tleman has been so clever, wlien there teas no one to oppose him, 
 are obliged to wait unansicered till the advent of " new li(jht.** 
 And as I never wish to make an assertion without supporting it 
 by proof, I give an additional instance of a topic for which I ven- 
 ture to predict that not only he, but the authorities at Princeton 
 are unprepared. Has he ever asserted in public, or proclaimed in 
 print, that in the Catholic Church the Scriptures in the vernacular 
 la/nguage are xcithheld from the laity ? If he has, he has aided in 
 perpetuating the calumny, without taking pains to know, or make 
 known the facts. Doctor Miller has this very calumny in his In- 
 troductory Essay, coupled wirh others "whose name is legion." 
 *' Does she not," says he, "after all her multiplied denial of the 
 fact, continue to LOCK UP the Scriptin-e from common p)eoj)le f No, 
 Doctor, not at all ; you are misleading the public (^unintentionally, 
 Ihop)e) when you say so. Do you ask for proof? Then I give it. 
 It consists of tiie following facts, which you sho^dd have known. 
 
 The Catholics in this country have published more editions of 
 the Scriptures in the English language than any other denomina- 
 tion, during the same time. They have one in folio, four in quarto, 
 one in octavo, — making six different editions of the whole 
 BIBLE. Of the New Testament, there have been published sepa- 
 rately, one in 4to, two in 8vo, two in 12mo, and two in 32mo, 
 making seven editions of the Testament separately — thir- 
 teen EDITIONS in all, and one in French, for the French Catholics, 
 puhlished under the auspices, and by the direction of Bishop Vheve- 
 rus. Protestants do not buy them, — the clergy do not require 
 tbem in English, having them in other languages, especially the 
 Latin. Who bought them, and paid the publisher for printing, 
 and even stereotyping them ? The " COiVlMON PEOPLE," 
 from whom. Doctor Miller says, falsely, that " they ark kept 
 locked up." Is the gentleman prepared to meet me on this 
 topic, in regard to which he has so often asserted the calumny ? 
 Shame on the men who can thus bear " false witness against their 
 neighbour." 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge may say that in this country the Scriptures 
 could not be kept out of the hands of the people ; and thnt though 
 the charge is false, as regards American and English Catholics, 
 yet it is true where the power of the church prevails, as in Italy. 
 This is equally false, and the proof is the letter of Pope Pius VI. 
 addressed to Martini, in ap)probation of his labours as translator 
 of the Bible into Italian, for the use of the " common people.'* 
 For this, and other service to religion, said Martini was made 
 archbishop. This reference to the Italian Bible reminds me of a 
 pledge given by me in presence of the society, which it is fitting 
 that I should redeem. 
 
 You remember, Mr. President, the evening on which DOC- 
 TOB BBOWNLEE honoured the meeting with his presence, I 
 
223 
 
 had to answer the young gentleman who opened the debate with 
 so many beautiful figures of speech. I had to answer the llev. 
 Doctor Brantley, who thought that it was possible and incumbent 
 on me to^" prove the negative." 1 had to answer the gentleman 
 himself, who had come prepared. In his speech, he brandished 
 the usual calumnies around the head of " popery." Among others, 
 this very one of Doctor Miller's, about keeping the Scriptures 
 '^ locked up from the common peopled' In my answer to his speech, 
 I mentioned as a refutation of this particular calumny, that the 
 Catholics had published FORTY EDITIONS of the Scriptures 
 in Italian, before the first Protestant edition came out, which was 
 that of Geneva in 1562. This was something new to the bench 
 and to the meeting. Dr. Brownlee, as you recollect, stood up to 
 interrupt me, and on being informed that he must address himself 
 to the chair, he slated that he wished to ask a question "/or in- 
 formation,^' and on leave being granted, he inquired, " whether 
 
 THOSE EDITIONS OP THE SCRIPTURES WERE IN THE VERNACULAR 
 
 LANGUAGE?" I replied that they were; to which his rejoinder 
 was, ''I DENY IT." Then, sir, I promised to prove it, and show 
 that the Doctor ought not to deny the existence of facts, after 
 having avowed his ignorance of them, and his desire to be "in- 
 formed." Now for the PROOFS. 
 
 1st. In the year 1471, sixteen years after the first hook icas 
 printed with type, and FIFTY years before that fusion of doctrine 
 into private opinion, which is called the "Reformation," and 
 twelve years before the birth of Martin Luther, the Bible was 
 printed and published in the Italian language, in VENICE. This 
 edition was published in August, as appears by the title-page; 
 ^^impressofi questo volume nel Valma patria di Venitia negP an- 
 nide la salutefera incarnatione del Figliolo de Veterno et omnipo- 
 tente Deo, 1471, in Kalende di Augusto; per Vindelino iSpira." 
 It was the translation of Nicholas Malhemi, a monk. Another 
 edition was published in October of the same year, in the same 
 city, and a third in Rome, making three editions in large folio in 
 the year 1471. In 1475, a fourth was published "mi Pignerolo, per 
 Gio de Rossi.'' Fifth, sixth, and seventh editions in Venice, all 
 three in 1477, of different type, and the last being an " improve- 
 ment" on the translation of Malhemi, by Squarzatico, as stated in 
 the preface. Eighth, VENICE, in 1481. Ninth and tenth, VE- 
 NICE, in 1484, when Martin Luther was a hahy of about one 
 year old. Eleventh, VENICE, in 1487, a curious and elegant 
 edition, a copy of which David Clement saw in the biblical col- 
 lection of the Duchess of Luneburg, ^'■nitide et accurate excussa." 
 The twelfth and thirteenth have disappeared entirely. The four- 
 teenth and fifteenth editions are of the years 1502 and 1507. The 
 latter is the first edition of the celebrated GIUNTI. The editions 
 of 1517, '25, '32, '35, '46, '53, '58, all of Malhemi, in folio, bring 
 the number to twenty-one. The editions from twenty-two to 
 
224 
 
 thirty-five, both inclusive, were the translation from the Hebrew, 
 of Bruccioli, published by Giunti, VENICE, with t\\e privilege of 
 the senate; the first appeared in 1532. A version by another 
 translator, Marmochini, a Dominican, which he professed to have 
 made from the Hebrew, and Glreek, was published by Giunti, 
 first in 1538, and again in 1546, making editions thirty-sixth and 
 thirty-seventh. Edition thirty-eighth, was by another translator, 
 with Si poetical version of Job and of the Psalms, in 1547. 
 
 The 39th and 40th editions were published in 1541 and 1551, 
 being the translation of Bruccioli with some alterations. Eleven 
 years after the date of the last, and ninety-one years after that of 
 the first edition of the Bible in Italian, the Calvin ists altered 
 the version of Bruccioli to suit their purpose, as the editor declares 
 in the preface, and published in Geneva, the eirst Protestant 
 edition of the Scriptures in the Italian language. But on what 
 authority does all this rest ? Must I send for ^' Latin to Cambridge, 
 England," to prove it ? No, sir. The proof is the testimony of 
 Pavid Clement, A CALVINISTIC MINISTER, and libra- 
 rian to the king of Prussia, in his " Bibliotheque ciirieuse, ov 
 catalogue raisonne de livres difficilcs a trouver," in ix vols. 4to, 
 published at Gottingen, 1750-60. (See letter B.) What will 
 the gentleman say for his fanatical associate. Doctor Brownlee, 
 who DENIED this fact? What will he say for his own calumnies, 
 and those of Doctor Miller, in maintaining that the Catholic re- 
 ligion is hostile to the Scriptures, and ^^ locks them up from the 
 common people?" Sir, these gentlemen ought to instruct them- 
 selves before they teach others, and if they really are ignorant of 
 these facts, it is a disgrace to the age that they should labour as 
 they do in regard to this matter, to engraft their own ignorance 
 of the fact, on the American mind, as a j^art of knowledge and 
 education. 
 
 What was true of Italy, was equally true of German}^, France, 
 Spain and Belgium. Does the gentleman deny it, like Doctor 
 Brownlee ? If he does, I pledge myself to prove it. But I took 
 Italy, the heart of the Catholic Church. Will the gentleman, 
 therefore, as he loves truth, aid, with the pen that has contributed 
 to lead the uneducated astray on this subject, to undeceive them? 
 Will not GOD approve of such a course, proceeding from such a 
 motive? 
 
 But why was a partial restriction put to the reading and cir- 
 culation of the Scripture afterwards ? The reason is obvious. The 
 religious wars in Germany, France and Switzerland — the crimes 
 and fanaticism that had been witnessed, and for a.11 which was quot- 
 ed, some text of Scripture, as authority, had pve?^n/^ed a new and 
 alarming view of the case. When the demagogue? of the refor- 
 mation, in order to seduce the people from allegiance, t-o aU powers 
 but themselves, taught them that they could understand the Scrip- 
 tures without difficulty, and engaging them in wars and ssd:ti»»n 
 
225 
 
 against their governments, applied the principle of Mohammed with 
 more subtlety, but with equal effect, to persuade them, that in 
 doing so, they were contending " for the gospel," then it was 
 deemed prudent to regulate the circulation of the Scripture in 
 the vernacular language, until the delirium of the social and 
 religious condition, which the abuse of the Scripture and the 
 degradation of its character had produced, should have subsided 
 or passed away. 
 
 The regulation was restrictive, local, temporary. And never 
 was PROHIBITORY, UNIVERSAL, or PERPETUAL, as Protcstaut 
 misrepresentation has asserted. The facts of the immense circu- 
 lation of the Scriptures in the various languages of Europe, 
 before the Reformation, (considcrmg hoio recent/^ printuuj had 
 been inveuted,) are such as should make these false accusers 
 ashamed of their vocation. The circulation of the Scriptures in 
 the United States, where the Catholics, few as they are, have 
 had them in every size and form, is a direct refutation of the 
 calumny, by facts, against which it is ridiculous for them to 
 reason. Even the Spaniards, in whose country the Inquisition 
 was most jealous and oppressive, have their Spanish Bible, by the 
 Bishop of Segovia, a copy of which, mutilated by the Bible 
 Society of New York, I now hold in my hand. It is regarded 
 as the word of God, and yet it is sent by the ]3ible Society to the 
 ignorant Spaniards of South America, with a falsehood printed 
 on the title-page. It purports to be from the Vulgate, as trans- 
 lated by the Bishop of Segovia, in order not to startle the preju- 
 dices or suvspicions of the Spaniards. And yet the books, which 
 Protestants call "Apocryphal," but which Catholics believe to be 
 inspired, are all omitted. ^V\th this omission, of which 
 nothing is said, it is no longer the Bible of the Bishop of 
 Segovia; and, consequently, it 'carries on its title-page a false- 
 hood. Now, let not the gentlemen say that in this, I calumni- 
 ate the Bible Societij, or the gentlemen who compose it. I state 
 the FiVCT. It is a fraud, known as such to its authors, who- 
 ever they may be, and ought to be denounced by every honour- 
 able member of that society. They ought not to associate, nor 
 allow their agents to associate, with the circulation of the 
 " WORD OF GOD," so legitimate an evidence of their holding, 
 or at least jpractising the maxim, that the ^'^ end justifies the 
 means." 
 
226 
 
 "is the Roman Catliolic Reliylony in any or in all its principles 
 or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty f 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE VI.— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. ' 
 
 Mr. President, — After holding the copy of my speech about 
 thirty days, the gentleiiian has returned me his windy response. 
 During half of that time, he also had in his possession my reply 
 on the alternate question also, though, by agreement, his reply 
 was due on the delivery of my speech on the afhrmative. I do 
 not wonder at his delay. I shall wonder, if he ever permits this 
 debate to see the light. But I here notice these facts to show 
 the public in what a position the man stands who complains that 
 I am never p>rcpared to meet him. Was I not prepared to meet 
 him in the discussion ? Did I not meet him on all the points as 
 they arose ? And after the debate was brought to a close, is not 
 the whole Society witness to the fact, that he re/used to publish 
 the rejiorts of the stenographer ; and insisted on delaying even 
 the writing out aneio of the debate, as we are now doing, until 
 he should go to Mexico ? 
 
 No, sir, the fact is this. The gentleman finding his cause 
 pressed sorely, tried first to divert me from its exposure, by 
 shifting the grounds of the discussion. But I chose to pursue my 
 own course, as it is my right and duty to do, while in the afiirm- 
 ative. I did not choose to discuss the character of the Inquisi- 
 fion, till I had finished the direct proof o^ the enmity of his Church 
 to liberty. He then tried the virtue of attacking my reputation 
 through the contents of a former controversy. I then turned aside, 
 for the greater part of one evening, to meet and expose his malig- 
 nity and falsehoods, to the satisfaction, I am sure, of every candid 
 mind ; and afterward resumed the line of my discussion. In the 
 writing out of this debate, he has bespangled every part of it with 
 these personal attacks, and these vain eiforts at diversion from the 
 main question. Besides having met these personalities in my 
 late controversy with him, and besides, having exposed them in 
 the oral debate, I have met them as they have been brought up by 
 him in the manuscript. Some of them reappear, in meagre and 
 dejected forms, in his last speech, evidently showing that the 
 author, having little to say for his cause, wishes to do all he can 
 against his adversary. Pascal, a Catholic, but a Jansenist, has 
 explained all this in his fifteenth Letter, (Provincial Letters,) of 
 
t 
 
 227 
 
 wbich the heading is this : " the Jesuits omit calumny in their 
 catalogue of crimes, and make no scruple of using it against 
 tlieir enemies^ Pascal, whom JMr. Hughes has denounced, ex- 
 poses the Jesuits, whom Mr. Hughes has praised, for wickedly 
 justifying horrible calumnies known to be so, in self-defence. 
 *'It is certain," says Caramuel,(l) "it is a probable opinion that 
 it is no mortal sin to bring a false accusation for the sake of 
 preserving ones honour, for it is maintained by ticenty grave 
 doctors, Gaspar, Hurtado, Decastillus, &c. Hence, if this doc- 
 trine be not probable, there is scarcely any one that is so in the 
 whole system of divinity." Well might Pascal exclaim, ^^ Oh, 
 what an execrable system is this .'" This is the morality of the 
 school which the gentleman sustains; which is head of popery 
 in this country; and which adequately explains all Mr. Hughes's 
 calumnies. 
 
 By these attacks the gentleman compelled me to hold up three 
 cases q1 fraud committed by him before the whole society, viz.: 
 1. The case of Mosheim, where he omitted t\iQ first sentence, and 
 read what the historian had said of a set oi fanatics, and told us 
 it was a description of the Albigenses, who were not named there; 
 and of whom the same writer gives a totally different account. 
 2i. The case in which he took one sentence of mine from a certain 
 page, and another, some fifty pages off; and by putting them to- 
 gether, made me say the very reverse of what I had really said, 
 and then charged it on me as falsehood. 3. The case in which 
 he omitted whole pages of a manuscript which he was reading as 
 part of his speech, and yet handed it in to be reported, thus rob- 
 bing me of my time, (for we spoke by portions of time alternately,) 
 and thus dishonourably charging Presbyterians with horrible 
 principles and crimes, which I did not know were in the paper, 
 and which would have gone before the public unknown, and, of 
 course, unanswered by me, if I had not demanded a copy from 
 the stenographer. These were openly exposed, and charged upon 
 him publicly. They have not been, they cannot be explained. 
 When they occurred, I should have left the discussion, but for the 
 sake of the cause : for since that moment he can have no claim to 
 my respect; nor can I own him as an equal, or a gentleman. I 
 once tried to explain Mr. Hughes's conduct by the apology of his 
 bad breeding and ignorance of the decent proprieties of life. Now, 
 we must refer all to the morality of Jesuit is^n. And now let the 
 gentleman explain, if he can ; deny, he dare not; and even should 
 he be unable to do it, if he will repent, and reform, I vfiW forgive. 
 
 As to Caranza ; I have already, and fully explained, as he well 
 knows, the omission of a single word, ^^ prsesentibus,^' by mistake, 
 which he knows did not in the least affect the sense. And I call 
 on him to tell me publicly, whether the extract, from the third 
 
 (1) N. 1151. 
 
228 
 
 chapter of Fourth. Lateran, contains one word that is not in the 
 oriymal. He says, the translation overruns Caranzajfrom whom 
 I quote. If, then, what I give in English, is not in the original 
 Latin, here will be the way to detect me. If he will say that 
 translation is not faithful ; if, what overruns Caranza, is forged, 
 let him say so. If he will, then I will tell him what translation I 
 followed. By his declaration, that Caranza's Latin is overrun 
 by my English, he either asserts that I fabricate matter, or else 
 that Caranza has not given all. The former he dare not say. 
 The latter is the fact. Caranza suppresses much of the decree. 
 I gave ajmge of his abridgment, and gave the continned sense of 
 the decree; following him as far as he 2vent, and then continuing 
 it from other sources. This Mr. H. knows. Let him venture to 
 deny it. Yet he charges me with garbling the decree; and jus- 
 tifies Caranza for doing the very same thing. And now I chal- 
 lenge Mr. H. to show that, in my long extracts from Caranza, I 
 have at all affected the continued sense, or mistranslated, in the 
 smallest measure, a single word. My citations were taken 
 largely from consecutive portions of the infamous decree, to prove 
 the persecution of the Church of Rome. I have given the whole 
 chapter in my second speech, first night. Let any reader refer 
 to the former Controversy. I challenge Mr. Hughes to cite the 
 passage in his next speech, and show that my said extracts altered 
 the sense of the canon. If not, his charges are base. If I did, 
 let him show it. 
 
 Mr. H.'s evasion about the false charge of '^forging Latin for 
 the Council of Trent," which he so ludicrously urged against me, 
 is too palpable to call for any thing but my pity at his embarrass- 
 ment. When, by accident, I omitted one word in a page of Latin, 
 he says I ^^ suj)pressed f' when I cite a passage, and'^give a icord 
 too much, he says it is ^^ 2^, forgery. ^^ I then refer to the passage 
 with new p)foofs of its genuineness ; he says I am right in the 
 letter, but wrong in the spirit. When, of a decree covering 
 several pages, I give the substance in one page, he says, I supjjress 
 a 2^c(i'f' Yet, at the end, I overrun a papal abridgment, and 
 give an additional sentence from another and fuller work, he 
 charges me with doing wrong again. Because I say I follow the 
 abridgment, (as far as it goes,) I sin if I go any farther, though 
 every word I add is a part of the decree which the popish 
 abridger had left out ! ! For such attacks, there is no explana- 
 tion but the desperation of the man. 
 
 His explanation of his fraud on my quotation, I cannot receive. 
 It will not do, Mr. II. Your character calls you to try it once 
 more ! 
 
 Pie rings new changes on the old charge, and the true one 
 made by me, tltat the Catechism of the Council of Trent gives only 
 four iDords of the second commandment. The copy to which I 
 referred is in i\iQ pjubl^c library of New York. When he called 
 
229 
 
 up the subject, on the rostrum, two years after I had asserted the 
 fact, (in the first Controversy with him,) I promised to get the 
 book, and exhibit it. In due time I did so. It was just as I had 
 said. The four words were given ; the rest, instead of being 
 announced, were suppressed, and brought up maiiy jyaqes after, 
 in the tailo^ the exposition, and kept out of view as much as pos- 
 sible ! That the gentleman produced some copies of one or more 
 editions, in which the whole was honestly announced on one 
 page, is only a proof, that Rome is wise. She gives out the 
 word of God as she must; and has different degrees for different 
 regions of the earth. Sir, every scholar Ivuows that (he Church 
 of Rome is guilty in this thing. She even mistranslates the words 
 of the Bible, which forbid us " to bow down" to graven images; 
 falsely TendGYiug them ^' adore," &c.; for you know her people 
 do how down to graven images. But in most cases the Church 
 has suppressed the true second commandment, after merging it in 
 another, and splitting the unique tenth, so as to make two of it; 
 and thus covers the fraud. That Church has different editions of 
 her standards for different countries; and whenever she dare, she 
 suppresses the commandment which forbids idolatry. I will 
 prove what I say. The most Bev. James Butler's Catechism, 
 revised, enlarged, improved, and recommended by the four Roman 
 Catholic Archbishops of Ireland, printed at New York in 1826, 
 at pnge 21, has the following question and answer : — 
 
 '' Lesson XIV. On the Commandments. 
 
 '^Ques. Say the ten commandments of God. 
 
 ^'x\ns. I. I am the Lord, thy God; thou shalt not haVfe strange 
 Gods before me, &c. 
 
 ''II. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in 
 vaia. 
 
 " III. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." Is 
 there any thing here about images? Not a word ! Surely, they 
 who keep the Bible from the people, ought, at least, to give them the 
 ten commandments in full ! The next proof is from a Philadelphia 
 edition, published by authority, by Eugene Cummiskey in 1827. 
 Not one word is here about graven images. Next — 3Ir. Cum- 
 miskey, four years after, gives another edition. There was time 
 ioT repentance. But still the same ^/iz'»<7. Fourth proof . ''The 
 Christian Doctrine,'^ composed by Father Lederma, Priest of the 
 Society of Jesus,- and printed " by permission of the superiors," 
 A. D. 1609 and 1624,(1) gives the following version of the com- 
 mandments : 
 
 "I. I am the Lord, thy God; thou shalt have no other Gods 
 but me. 
 
 " II. Thou shalt not take the name of G-od in vain. 
 
 " III. Remember to sanctify the holy days." Is there any 
 thing here SLbont graven images? Yet, while suppressing the 
 
 (1) See Preface to Via. Tuta. 
 
230 
 
 law of God against idolatry, he adds, (icichcdly,) a charge to 
 keep Roman lioly days! 
 
 Again ; the version used in Ireland has not one word of the 
 second commandment. 
 
 And again ; the version used in the Highlands of Scotland (1) 
 wholly suppresses the second commandment. And now, no one 
 need be at a loss to understand the reason, to estimate the guilt, 
 or know the fact of this svjijji'ession. I ask now, who is the 
 calumniator P And as / have no Jesuit-morality to shelter me, 
 I wish the calumny to attach where it belongs. I know, however, 
 that it is hard for Mr. Hughes to ex2:)lain, or disprove this terrible 
 iniquity. 
 
 As the gentleman's ideas fluctuate in elegant confusion, through 
 his pages, it matters little in what order the reply to them be ar- 
 ranged. We make the order of imjwrtance our guide; and next 
 return to Cardinal Bellarmine. He says, that I " introduce Bel- 
 larmine discussing as an individual, in the exercise of his j^rivate 
 opinion, the proposition, ^that heretics may he punished with 
 temporal punishments, (^penalties,') and even with death.' " But, 
 sir, the gentleman well knows that Bellarmine speaks, like De- 
 VOTi, under the Pope's expressed sanction, and utters the true 
 Catholic doctrine ! The Pope did hang him up in the Index for 
 one error, viz.: for saying, that the Pope had only indirect tem- 
 poral POWER, whereas he ought to have said, he has DIRECT 
 temporal power. The rest is approved, and declared to contain 
 no doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith. It is no private 
 op in ion, then ; but the publicly approved, avowed doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome ! If Calvin agreed with Bellarmine, then Calvin 
 was so far wrong. But Calvin spoke his tenet; Bellarmine spoke 
 for the Pope, his master, and his Church. Mr. Hughes says, 
 that infamous passage which directs to kill heretics, if Catholics 
 have the majority, was derived from Augustine, by the author. 
 Yes, and that is another proo/, that it is Catholic doctrine; 'Hhe 
 consent of the father s.^' Chrysostom, also, says the same. Mr. 
 Hughes says, again, that I " suppress the circumstances which 
 explain it." What are they? The above is one of them ! Another 
 is 'Uhat Bellarmine is speaking of the text (passage) in the Gos- 
 pel of St. Matthew, in which the Saviour was explaining the 
 parable of the good seed and the cockle; the one representing the 
 good, the other the wicked ; and Bellarmine following out the 
 figure, contended that the cocJdes in the field of the Lord, were 
 the heretics, thieves, and other wicked men, who were to be 
 rooted or plucked out, (extirpandi,) unless in the cases which he 
 excepted, after St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom." Now, if this 
 be not enough to prove, that Bellarmine thought it a papal doc- 
 trine to extirpate heretics, unless, to use his own words, *' THEY 
 
 (1) See M'Gavin on this subject. 
 
231 
 
 ARE STRONGER THAN OURSELVES," I know not the force of words. 
 But see how Mr. Hughes and Bellarmine reason. The Lord said, 
 '■^Ict the wheat and the cockle groiv together till the harvest;^' i. e. 
 ^Hhe end of the world.'' Bellarmine says no! Pluck them up 
 now, if you can! Mr. Hughes says, that I '' suppress circum- 
 stances." What circumstances? Does Bellarmine say, it is his 
 opinion ! No. He says, in the same chapter, (in answer to the 
 objection, that it was contrary to the mercy of the Churchy to 
 loish the death of heretics,) " THE Church HAS TRIED Aljh other 
 methods, before she could be induced to inflict this extreme 
 punishment, (death;) for, at first, as we have said before, she 
 only excommunicated ; but afterwards, seeing this would not suf- 
 fice, she added pecuniary penalties; then confiscation of goods; 
 afterwards exile; at length she reached this, (death;) as is suffi- 
 ciently apparent from the various laws of the ancient emperors, 
 in the chapter entitled De Heretics." Here is no opinion; but 
 a fact; viz., that as soon fts the emperors allowed her, the 
 Church did fne, rob, banish, and kill heretics! 
 
 But ^Ir. Hughes asks, ''Are not Catholics in the majority in 
 France?" No. Protestants and infidels are now! . Once they 
 were. And what then ? Has Mr. Hughes forgotten the edict of 
 Nantz, and St. Bartholomew's day? ''In Austria?" But are 
 Protestants tolerated in Austria? So as to have room to increase? 
 " In Belgium ?" But she goes with France. Have you forgotten 
 the Belgian bishops, who said, that it was anti-Catholic to tolerate 
 any other religion? "In Ireland?" It has been tried there! 
 Force alone has hindered it! " In Italy?" Are Protestants tole- 
 rated in Italy, Mr. Hughes? "And the Reformers?" Why, yes? 
 The Reformers lived only because the wars of near half a century 
 could not extinguish them. No, Mr. Hughes; it is not from the 
 Carrolls, and Gastons, and Careys, and other patriots, that we look 
 for the.se things, as you try to make me say, concerning the wicked 
 and polluted hands of the Jesuit priesthood, under their names. 
 No. The Catholic laity, such as these, are not Roman Catholics! 
 on the question of liberty. The priesthood is the Church; the 
 hierarchy of Rome is the despotic power; and they must change, 
 or fall from the confidence of American citizens. But if the priest- 
 hood can but rally from the dark papal states of Europe, a full 
 band of their unlettered and deeply subjected militia, then may 
 we see this land ruled by a papal mob ; and then these slumber- 
 ing doctrines will awake for new carnage in this confiding nation. 
 But vve proceed. Mr. Hughes, in the face of Bellarmine's own 
 words, says, that "they" (heretics) "may, and ought to be pu- 
 nished with civil penalties, and even death, not by the Church, 
 as Mr. Breckinridge states, in opposition to Bellarmine's own 
 words, but by the civil power." Now, see the truth. In this 
 very chapter, Bellarmine says, "It is proved; [the proposition, 
 that the civil power ought to punish, even with death, the IN- 
 
282 
 
 CORRIGIBLE HERETICS CAST OFF BY THE CHURCH.] I. By THE 
 
 Scriptures. II. It is proved, from the opinions and laws of the 
 emperors, which the Church has always approved." Is this 
 an OPINION of Bellarmine? He appeals to history. III. "It is 
 proved by the laws of the Church!" Is this an opinion? 
 Do the ImDS of the Church ever violate her doctrines? If 
 these lains were anti-Catholic, would ^^tlie Church always ap- 
 prove them," and pass them, and never to this day repeal them ? 
 IV. "//! is proved by the testimony of the fathers.'' Were these 
 fathers heretics? Their opinions make part of the rtde of faith 
 in the Roman Church! He afterwards says, ''That heretics 
 were often burned by the Church, may be proved by ad- 
 ducing A FEW FROM MANY EXAMPLES;" and he names " DoNA- 
 TISTS, Manicheans, AND Albigenses, who Were routed, and an- 
 nihilated hy arms:" nay, he says, ''AN almost infinite num- 
 ber (of heretics) were either burned, or otherwise put to 
 DEATH," (by the Church.) But Mr. Hughes ventures to say, 
 " every instance, adduced by Bellarmine, of this, is an instance 
 by the authority of the state," (but, he says, the Church approved 
 this! Is it not then her doctrine?) or by some emperor; but in- 
 asmuch as the civil rulers, who made and executed these laws 
 against heretics," (but, Mr. Hughes ! Bellarmine says, "the laws 
 of the Church called for it !") " were Catholics, and the Church 
 had cast these heretics out; he speaks of it as if the Church her- 
 self had executed the laws." But Bellarmine says, " The apostles 
 did not invoke the secular arm against heretics, because there was 
 no Christian prince whom they could call on for aid. But after- 
 wards, in Constantino's time the Church called in the 
 
 aid of the secular arm." And he here quotes Augustine again. 
 And more; he says, (all in Mr. Hughes's face, in the self-same 
 chapter,) "As the Church has ecclesiastical and secidar princes, 
 who are her two arms, so she has two swords, the sp>iritual and 
 material; and, therefore, when her right hand is unable to con- 
 vert a heretic, with the sword of the Spirit, she invokes the aid of 
 thelefthand, and coerces the heretics with the material (/crreo — 
 iron^ sword." Here he makes the Church the head; and the 
 state, "the left arm, with the iron sword" moving at her will; 
 and as soon as ever the emperors would, she set them to work to 
 burn heretics ! Yet, Mr. Hughes has the rashness, I use no 
 stronger term, to say, " every instance, adduced by Bellarmine, 
 
 is AN INSTANCE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE !" Oh ! shame, 
 
 where is thy blush ! As well say, that the man loho kindled the 
 fire that burned them, did it, and. not the emperor ; .for the em- 
 peror did not touch the match! The Church cut off the heretic; 
 she then ordered, or begged, according to her ptower, the state to 
 hum him; the state ordered the executioner to do it! Pray who 
 did it? And yet Mr. Hughes gravely asks, " Does he say there 
 is any law of the Church requiring heretics to be put to death .''" 
 
233 
 
 Yes. He says, " It is proved by the laws of the Church !" 
 What is proved ? Why, that when the Church casts oif incorri- 
 gible heretics, the civil power should inflict on such temporal 
 punishments, even death itself. He quotes, in proof, no less than 
 four chapters from the canon law, which I will spread out in my 
 next speech, if Mr. Hughes dares deny these proofs again. How 
 futile, how childish, then, his quibbles on the assertion of doctrine 
 in form? How reckless, and how impotent his foul, vulgar 
 charges against me, as the perverter and corruptor 6f this author ! 
 But I think we shall next hear him say, Bellarmine is not a 
 standard author! "The grapes are sour," said the wily fox, 
 when he reached for them in vain. I know not where the gen- 
 tleman gets the phrase, which he charges on me, ''that I carry 
 on the controversy hy myself." This ''lingo" is familiar at 
 home with him, I suppose. But truly, if his defence of his 
 Church falters hereafter, as it has done of late, after thirty days 
 delay, and then such replies, I shall almost cease to believe what 
 others say, that he has helj^s at hand. 
 
 The gentleman cannot forget "the barbed'^ arguments of Dr. 
 Miller ! Adapting my figure to my present associate, I have only 
 to say "the galled jade winces." 
 
 Next he assails the able Dr. Brownlee, and calls him Vi. fanatic ! 
 Strange that Vi fanatic routed the banded triumvirate of the New 
 York priesthood. You remember, Mr. President, that on the 
 preliminary evening of the debate, Dr. Brownlee, Dr. Brantley 
 and his son, as well as Mr. Hughes and myself, took spme very 
 small part in the debate. The terms had not finally been agreed 
 on. Young Brantley, with great modesty, dignity, and effect, 
 according to the rules of your society, opened the debate. Dr. 
 Brantley stated a single point, and "proved" Mr. Hughes a 
 " ne;:ative" for the evening; Dr. Brownlee denied the assertion 
 made by Mr. Hughes, as to forty editions of the Italian Bible 
 being printed before one Protestant edition. Now Mr. Hughes 
 drags him and the other gentleman in, and very rudely insults 
 them. The truth was, we had much difficulty in getting Mr. 
 Hughes to the meeting ] in keeping him at it, (for his canonical 
 hours came on early that night;) or in drawing him out in it. — 
 Hence it was an irregular meeting; though the gentleman gave 
 himself a good share of glory, and us a terrible awful defeat, in 
 his communication to the " Catholic Diary." I am thus minute, 
 that those who may read this Discussion (having not witnessed 
 the debate) may know the history of that scene. 
 
 And now, as to the forty Italian editions of the Bible. I say 
 first, I demand better proof than Mr. Hughes's word. Let us 
 have it in full. Second, I ask Mr. Hughes if he will assert that 
 there was no restriction on the reading of the Bible before the 
 Council of Trent ? Third, Will he say that these editions of Ita- 
 lian Bibles circulated freely, and were by their cost, kcj in the 
 
 15 
 
234 
 
 reach of the mass of the people ? Fourth, how large were the 
 editions ? But allowing^his foi'ttj editions, let us see his reasoning. 
 Forty editions of Italian Bibles 2vere jyrinted hy Catholics, before 
 the first Bible tvas printed by Protestants : therefore the Svrip- 
 titres loere not, and are not forbidden to the laity ! Surely there 
 is ^VQ^t profundity here. It seems to be thought by Mr. Hughes 
 of no consequence to the argument to know, whether there was 
 not a restriction on the use of these books. But the facts shall 
 speak by the side of his logic. First fact. In 1515, about 
 half a century after the first use of types, when printing began 
 to frighten the Church of Home, the Council of Lateran under 
 Leo X. muzzled the press, when, by Mr. Hughes's own showing, 
 only fifteen of his /b;'(y editions had appeared; and when know- 
 ledge had begun to spread, and Luther was on the point of ap)- 
 pearing as a Reformer, the Council forbid any book to be 
 printed anywhere under heavy penalties, unless examined and 
 approved, by the Papers vicar, or some inquisitor. Second fact. 
 The first rule of the Index of prohibited books prepared by order of 
 the Council of Trent, informs us that books were condemned 
 before the year 1515, by Popes and Councils. Third fact. 
 The Index prepared by authority of the Council of Trent, which 
 I exhibited to the society during the debate, and which Mr. 
 Hughes has examined at his own house, in so many words for- 
 bids the use (not of the Protestant but) of the Roman Catholic 
 Bible, in every vulgar tongue. (1) Biblia vulgari quocunque 
 Idiomate conscripta ! Pray, of what use then, were, the fo?-fy 
 editions in the Italian language, except to the priesthood? 
 Fourth fact. . The fourth rule of the Index foi-bids the Bible, 
 (the Catholic Bible) translated into the vulgar tongue to be 
 indiscriminately used, because it was manifest from experience 
 [these forty editions had begun to do "Tnischief it seems !] that 
 such use would cause more evil than good; and therefore no 
 man without a, written permission from a bishop or inquisitor, 
 s\oidd read or possess a copy of the Bible, and offenders loere 
 punished — the possessors and readers — by refusing absolution to 
 them, fill they gave up the book; and the venders by fines and 
 forfeitures, and other penalties. These rules I produced at large 
 on the first night of the debate. Now I ask of what use were 
 these Bibles, these "forty editions," under such restrictions? 
 And is it honest, with these /owr facts in his house, in his hand, 
 in his eye, to make so great a flourish with his^or^y Italian edi- 
 tions ? It were just as fair, and as fitting, to give us the history of 
 ^^ the forty thieves !" Fifth fact. Uven this license has since 
 been recalled. I have before me, and will give, from the Index, 
 the order of Pope Clement VIII. recalling the license-giving 
 POWER mentioned ABOVE ; and extending the prohibition to 
 
 (1) In page 30. 
 
235 
 
 the READING or KEEPING OP THE BiBLE, OR ANY PART, EVEN A 
 COMPEND OR SUMMARY OF IT, IN ANY IDIOM. If Mr. Huglies 
 
 questions it, I will give the passage in the original. 
 
 Now where are your /orf?/ Ikilicm editions? They are buried 
 in your convents — used us pillows under the heads of lazy monks, 
 hid from the sight of men — forbidden to God's creatures, as hurtful 
 to the hierarchy of that "man of sin" who would take God's place, 
 and full well knows that darkness is his Jit dwelling-place, and 
 his only defence! 
 
 In truth — -the gentleman owns that there was a ^'partial re- 
 striction^' afterwards! I ask why? Who dare do it? Is not this 
 against human liberty? He says it was ''local,'' ''temporary." 
 I pronounce it utterly, deliberately false; and defy the author of 
 so outrageous a perversion of facts to show me, in all the above 
 citations, one proof that these restrictions were not '^prohibitort/," 
 "universal," and "perpetual." Let him but give me one rebut- 
 ting fact or word. His knowledge is too large to acquit his 
 character. It is the height of reckless audacity and folly. 
 
 And now a word of the bull of Innocent VIII. Not for hi5< 
 impertinence, will I give my authority — but for the informati(Mi of 
 the country — for the confusion of the man, who knows, while he 
 denies it, that there is such a bull. He will find it spread out at 
 large in "Free Thoughts on Popery," by Bruce, of Great Britain. 
 He will find an abstract of it in Jones's History of the Christian 
 Church, Vol. 'II. Chap. 6. He will find it in Morland's Churches 
 of Piedmont, pp. 188-198; and in Alixs liistorjj of that perse- 
 cuted people against whom the "infernal machine", was levelled. 
 The original, Mr. 11. once called for. I promised to send for it 
 to the Cambridge library, England. I have done so. It may yet 
 make him blush. He evidently fears it; for now, he says, if it 
 comes, it may be ^ forgery . He thus makes a bull^ in deinjimj 
 one. In the continuation of Baronius's Annals, as proved in the 
 late Controversy, the fact, that such a bull was given, is distinctly 
 stated. I now ask, does Mr. H. deny that x\.lbert de Capetaines 
 was commissioned by the Pope to carry on the crusade, as stated 
 in the bull ? By what authority did he execute his commission ? 
 Let us have honest answers to these two inquiries. Let the 
 reader also observe, that the bull is so horrible that the gentleman 
 finds his only safety in denying its authenticity. To its contents 
 he will never venture a reply. 
 
 And you see all he says, or can say, of the Pope's treatment of 
 the Republic of Venice! Venice was a Republic; therefore 
 Catholics are not opposed to liberty ! profound ratiocination 1 But 
 what did the Jesuits — the Pope's soldiery, do ? Why, impelled 
 by the doctrine, that the Pope is head of the church, and the 
 church over -the state, they left their country to join the Pope, 
 who was in arms against it ! And so would it be with Jesuits in 
 America, in the same circumstances. Venice, like Poland, and 
 
2S6 
 
 Switzerland and France, had some noble spirits — some deep-laid 
 principles of liberty, not in consequence — but in spite of popery. 
 Popery has well nigh ruined them all. But, in so far as they 
 were//r^^, did they find the Pope trying to oppress them. Spain 
 had good Catholics — hence Spain was enslaved: so Portugal. In 
 each, as liberty rises, popery sinks. The liberal party in both 
 cou'.itries has the priesthood against them. The thousand monas- 
 teries and nunneries, lately annihilated in Spain and Portugal, 
 show what the lovers of the rights of the people, and of a more 
 free constitution, think of Popery, and its anti-liberal fruits. The 
 Pope's bull against the government of Portugal, and his sympathy 
 with his dear son, Don Carlos, show how he feels towards liberal 
 institutions, and the destruction of church-power and priestly 
 domination. So it was in Venice; ask Father Paul — ask Du Pin 
 — ask De Thou, (Thuanus;) you have denounced them as Pro- 
 testants. They were Catholics, but in Venice and France 
 stood up for liberty. I say not, that all Ccttholics are in doctrine or 
 in spirit, enemies to liberty. Far from it. All men love it. But 
 ihiG priesthood xidiQ on the necks of men. They keep them de- 
 based, ignorant, oppressed, by doctrines and discipline opposed 
 to all liberty. The most enlightened rise up to resist; and at last 
 the hierarchy will fall ; and all people will be free. Then there 
 will remain the Catholicism of truth, which now lies neutralized 
 under the weight of despotism, as the Alps under eternal snows. 
 But the system is constructed to darken, enslave, corrupt, and 
 govern the world. Not all the doctrines; not all the discipline; 
 but the systcvi is tyrannic. It refuses to reform — it must then 
 expire. God speed the day ! 
 
 In the case of Devoti, the gentleman feels himself to be on 
 perilous ground. I \i^\Q forced him to admit that Devoti, (a 
 WTiter approved at Rome late in the eighteenth century,) says, 
 that the Church of Rome did directly inflict bodily punishments, 
 and fine and banish men. This is enough. Does Mr. Hughes 
 deny this to have been the fact? Did the Church of Rome do it 
 or not? Let him reply. I defy him to deny if. You will see 
 he dare not. She did. Then there was a time when the Church 
 of Rome held no doctrine which forbid this tyranny. But, she 
 says, she changes not. Then she is still the same; and can, 
 without any violation of her doctrines, do it still. If, then, she 
 gets the power in America, is she to be trusted ? Are not her doc- 
 trines as ready for it as ever^ Now, the American Protestant 
 churches say, that it is anti-Christian, anti-liberal for them to do 
 it. If the gentleman can show any such declaration of his church, 
 let him do it. If not, that settles the question. But, he says, 
 Devoti only claimed the church's right to do these things from 
 the constitutions of emperors. Suppose it to be so. If the 
 American Constitution should give to the Catholic Church the 
 power to fine, imprison, banish, castigate men, is there any thing 
 
23Y 
 
 in Tier doctrines wJiich forhlds it? No. If tlxere be, let it be 
 stated, chapter and verse. But the American Protestant Churches 
 — the Presbyterian Church, for example, in her standards, de- 
 clares, that it is not right, not Christian, not competent to her, or 
 any church of Christ, to have, or to hold, or to exercise, such 
 power. Here is the grand difference. But the author Devoti 
 goes farther, and distinctly says, (in a passage quoted at large by 
 me in my first speech, second night,(l) to which I refer the reader,) 
 
 ^'Labarde endeavours to undermine and take away 
 
 THE roWER given BY Christ TO THE CHURCH, not only of govern- 
 ment hi/ councils, and persuasion, but also of decreeing hy laws, 
 and of compulsion, and of coercing with jy^^^shment, those loho 
 are worthy of it, andwho SUBJECTS THE ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTRY 
 IN SUCH A WAY TO THE SECULAR POWER, AS TO INSIST THAT TO IT 
 BELONGS THE COGNIZANCE AND JURISDICTION OF ALL EXTERNAL 
 AND SENSIBLE GOVERNMENT.'^ 
 
 Again, § VIII. "And since the power of the church is two- 
 fold, the one wholly spiritual, given separately (i. e., to her alone) 
 by Christ, which is exercised both in the inner and outer court j 
 the other, which she has in common with every perfect and dis- 
 tinct commonwealth, and which is called temporal, it follows that 
 there are two kinds of punishments ordained by her : the one kind 
 is spiritual, which is to afflict the soul ; the other temporal, which 
 is to castigate the body: she exercises the right to inflict spiritual 
 punishment on all who, by baptism, are admitted among the chil- 
 dren of the church, and who sin against religion. The church 
 
 HAS ALSO SET UP TEMPORAL PUNISHMENTS FOR ALL; BUT THE 
 LAITY AND CLERGY, IN AN UNEQUAL DEGREE." In § X. he SayS, 
 
 ^' So long as she (the church) has punishments equal to their (the 
 clergy's) offence, she inflicts them by that right which every re- 
 public has over its citizens, and punishes a guilty clergyman 
 with lashes, fines, imprdsonment, and other inflictions, with this 
 end, that the offenders may be reformed, and others may, by the 
 example of their punishment, be induced to abstain from crime." 
 It is in illustrating this section, (as well as in^Book III. tit. 1, 
 sec. 21,) that he gives the account of the prisons of the church, in 
 monasteries, for example. [Are our nunneries thus furnished ?] 
 Now, we ask, is not here a right claimed to exercise temporal 
 power f Whence is it derived ? Not from the s^a^e.? No. For 
 he says each power, civil and religious, has its distinct preroga- 
 tive ! It is "eo»ywre," by that right which every republic exercises 
 over its citizens." This Dens contends for, over all baptized per- 
 sons, as I have already showed — the gentleman not disputing his 
 testimony. Bellarmine, also, as I have just shown, claims this 
 power, not as the gift of the state, but possessed before the state 
 permitted the church to exercise it; and says, it was exercised aa 
 soon as it was in the power of the church to do so. When I 
 (1) Page 139. 
 
238 
 
 said, then, in my last speech, ^^this icriter claims for the church 
 the right to inflict temporal and hodilj/ punishments," I said 
 just the truth; and my promise to expose Mr. H. is so far ful- 
 filled, that I am well assured his friends will feel it, if he does not. 
 
 But to end the dispute. Devoti says, § V., ''•Peace having 
 been given to Christians, [in Constan tine's reign, and afterwards,] 
 the church passed Judgment on crimes, not only hy llER OWN 
 RIGHT, (suo jure,) hut hi/ the laics of the emperors.'* Here, 
 plainly, she claimed the right before the emperors conceded and 
 confirmed it. But what were these crimes and judgments? 
 *'And truly these judgments were not only about crimes against 
 religion, hut they also comprehended all causes in which the 
 clergy icere convicted, of any crime against the republic,'* (or 
 state.) He proceeds through the whole title, or chapter, to dis- 
 tinguish, or more properly to confound, the two republics, as he 
 calls them, namely, the church and the state; and comes to the 
 result, that the essential nature of the church's constitution as a 
 republic, gives her temporal power over all, in certain respects, 
 but especially over the clergy ; whom she fines, whips, imprisons, 
 banishes; and, if all will not do, then hands them over to the last 
 vengeance of the civil arm, by excommunication. ; which is higher 
 punishment than all others; and which infers all the rest, if the 
 state does its duty to heretics. 
 
 As to the Rhemish Testament, I really think that all honest 
 men will say Mr. H. has made a distinction without a difference 
 in his comments on one of my citations from it. I gave a page of 
 extracts. It seems in one of them I make them say, " tlie trans- 
 lators of the English (Protestant) Bible, ought to be abhorred to 
 the depths of hell." They say, "but if the good reader knew for 
 what point of doctrine they (the Protestant translators) have thus 
 framed their translation, they would abhor them to the depths of 
 hell." In both cases, they are to be abhorred to the depths of 
 hell — only, gentle reader, it is the great difference, that a right 
 judgment would SO abhor them ; and not that they ought to be so 
 abhorred! How hard pressed is a man, a cause, that thus ^in/cs, 
 catching at straws. But I stand corrected. ^et' pray, Mr. 
 Hughes, why pass over all the other citations in silence P Oue 
 of them says, '' the zeal of Catholic men ought to be so great to- 
 ward all heretics, and their doctrines, that they should give 
 them the anathema, though they are never so dear to them ; so as 
 not even to spare their own parents." Am 1 right in this cita- 
 tion? If so, are they in doctrine? ''The blood of heretics, is 
 not the blood of ■ saints, no more than the blood of thieves, man- 
 killers, and other malefactors; for the shedding of which blood, 
 hy order of justice, no commonwealth shall answer." Is it faith- 
 ful? Is it true Catholic doctrine? They .seem to say so. These 
 are their comments, as good Catholics, on Gal. i. 8, and Rev. 
 xvii. 6 ; and are specimens of those not noticed by Mr. Hughes. 
 
239 
 
 The charge against the American Bihie Society hediVS malice 
 and falsehood on its front. But the Pope has begun to denounce 
 these noble institutions ; well may the vassal follow his " most 
 holy lord.'' 
 
 Under what he calls " Itldy," he tries to cover a former admis- 
 sion, which was, "that the majority had a right, as in Italy, or 
 Spain, to' establish the Catholic religion by law, if, in doing so, 
 they violate no right of the minority." Now, I ask, if this does 
 not imply ^hat such a thing may he done without violating such 
 rights f But to test his principle, I still farther ask. Is it possi- 
 ble ever to establish any religion by law, and yet not violate the 
 rights of the minority? Or to the cases in hand. Was not that 
 done in Spain and in Italy, by establishing the Catholic religion 
 by law ? 
 
 On the third page, he admits that Catholics have persecuted. 
 I ask, has one bull or decree of council, by which they justified 
 their persecution, ever been repealed? Please show me one. 
 Whereas, American Protestants have renounced and changed 
 those articles which their fathers derived from Rome, and ance 
 plead in justification of persecution. For example, the citation 
 from '' Fisher's Catechism" is not held by Presbyterians in 
 America. 
 
 He says, " Was not the Jewish religion established by law ? 
 And is not that in the Bible V This is a strong squinting at 
 defending establishments. But, Mr. Hughes, that was a theo- 
 cracy, and not an example; or to be a plea for the Roman 
 hierarchy, though I know your church so thinks, and your govern- 
 ment is so modelled. 
 
 His pertness about Luther answers itself: it is too puerile to 
 be worthy of notice. 
 
 Having met the statements, and exposed the fallacious and 
 evasive reasonings of the gentleman, I now return to the line of 
 my argument. In my last address, I showed conclusively, both 
 by the declarations and the acts of the Pope, that he claimed, by 
 divine right, POWER over both swords, that is, to be the head of 
 the state, as well as of the church. The honest and high-toned 
 papal writers make no qualifications on this subject. Of these 
 there is a great crowd. Let us take an example. SuAREZ : — 
 *'A king legitimately dejjosed is no longer legally a king ; and, 
 if after such deposition, he continues obstinate, and retains the 
 kingdom by force, he then deserves the title of tyrant. After the 
 sentence is pronounced, (by the Pope,) he is entirely deprived of 
 his dominions, so that he can no longer justly retain possession 
 of them. Hence he may be treated in all respects as a tyrant; 
 and, consequently, it is lawful for every individual to kill him. 
 James, king of England, in order to turn Bellarmine into ridicule, 
 observes, this is a Qiew and admirable rendering of the words of 
 Jesus, ' FEED MY SHEEP, which makes them signify destroy. 
 
240 
 
 proscribe, and depose, Christian jyrinces and kings.' But Bel« 
 larmine and ALL OF us (for in this cause we are all as one) 
 do not allege these words to prove the direct primacy t)f the Pope 
 in temporal affiiirs. The king of England should not, therefore, 
 assert that we explain these words as signifying destroy, &c., which 
 no Catholic ever did ; but, if he will attend to our sincere testi- 
 mony, we maintain, that among other things contained in these 
 words, and in the extent of power which the}' ascribe, this is com- 
 prised — destroy, proscribe, depose heretical kings who 
 
 WILL not amend their WAYS, AND WHO ARE DANGEROUS TO 
 THEFR SUBJECTS IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CaTIIOLIO 
 
 faith/'(1) , 
 
 This is comparatively a modern author; and he tells us what 
 ALL hold in the Catholic Church, 3Ir. JJaghes excepted. 
 
 Cornelius, a Lapide, is still more hold. He says : *' The sacer- 
 dotal kingdom Of the church appears first in the bishops and the 
 episcopate; but it is above all to be found in the Pontiff, and the 
 pontificate, whose power, great and most ample, extends to all 
 parts of the universe — a power hy which he commands Icings, 
 (who, therefore, prostrate themselves before him as suppliants, 
 casting their crowns and sceptres at his feet,) by which, v:hen 
 rebels to the church, he deprives them, as he HAS OFTEN DONE, 
 OF THEIR KINGD0MS/'(2) 
 
 Let it be observed too that these are men of what they would 
 call moderate views, only contending for an indirect temporal 
 power. The sixth chapter of Bellarmine, fifth book, on the Pope, 
 has this for its heading : — " Papam habere summam temporalem 
 potestatera indirecte" — the Pope possesses supreme temporal power 
 indirectly. By indirectly, we see what he means, in the follow- 
 ing passages from the seventh chapter. ^^ It is not lawfid for 
 Christians to tolerate an infidel or heretical king, provided he 
 endeavours, to seduce his subjects to his heresy or infidelity. But 
 to judge whether or not he does seduce them to heresy, pertains to 
 the Pope, to whom is committed the care of religion : therefore, 
 the Pope is to judge ivhether or not a king is to be deposed." 
 
 The same writer, in the eighth chapter, adduces examples in 
 proof of the fact that popes liave exercised this right of deposi- 
 tion; and from the fact, he proves the right. He gives no less 
 than twelve examples! His first examples are from the Old 
 Testament : such as Uzzia, 2 Chron. chap. 26, and Athaliah, 
 2 Chron. chap. 23 ; where he distinctly implies a theocracy, as 
 transmitted to the Catholic Church, with authority to do by the 
 Pope what the ancient high priests did. He then enumerates the 
 cases of Gregory I. ; Gregory IL ; Zachariah; Leo. III., &c. &c., 
 who respectively exercised the deposing power ; and one of whom, 
 
 (1) Defensio Fidei, Cath., Ac, lib. 6. 
 
 (2) Com. in Acta. Apos., cap. 2. 
 
241 
 
 LEO III., ^^ translated the emjnre from the Greeks to the Ger- 
 mans, because the Greeks were not able to help the western 
 church in her trials.'^ He also quotes divers parts of the canon- 
 laio in support of his reasoning; and to every Catholic his argu- 
 ments are unansicerable : for he brings authorities which they 
 dare not-refuse or discredit. This is an honest Roman! Oh 
 that they were all honest; if they will be Romans! And this 
 is the Catholic doctrine. Baronius, Binius, Caranza, Driedo, 
 Suarez, Perron, Pighius, Cajetan, Sylvester, Ilortiensis, Panor- 
 mitan, yea, a crowd of such writers of the first authority; many 
 quoted by Bellarmine sustain him in the assertion that this is the 
 jyrinciple of popery. The French parliament cite no less than 
 siXTY-EiGliT papal writers, who were advocates of this terrific 
 doctrine. 
 
 But we have the specific claims of popes on the same 
 
 SUBJECT. 
 
 Id the Decretals (1) it is thus written, (by Pope Gelasius to the 
 Emperor Anastasius) " 0, august emperor, there are two by whom 
 the world is chiefly ruled — the sacred authority of the Popes and 
 the kingly power. In the which that of the j^riests preponde- 
 rates, inasmuch as in the divine examination, they will have to 
 answer for the kings of men," 
 
 '' Be well aware, therefore, that in these matters you depend 
 upon their judgment; and they cannot be subservient to your 
 will." And at the close, he quotes a passage from Ambrose, in 
 proof of the subjection of kinr/s to the priesthood: ^'for as much 
 as you see that the necks of kings and ^^^ ibices are put tinder the 
 knees of priests; and that when they have kissed their right 
 hands, they believe themselves to be partakers of their prayers." 
 
 Again : (2) the heading of the title or chapter is " Omnes Christi 
 fideles de necessitate salutis, subsunt llomano Pont-ifici, qui 
 utrumque gladium habet, et omnes judicat, a nemine judicatur" — 
 '''•It is necessary to the salvation of cdl tlie faithful in Christ, that 
 they be subject to the Pope of Rome; icho has the power of both 
 swords, and who Judges all, but is judged by none.'' Here is, 
 
 1. Damnation to all out of the visible communion of Home ; 
 
 2. A claim to all temporal and spiritual power; 3. A superiority 
 to all human tribunals. This is stated at large in the extracts 
 which are cited by the canonist, in proof of the tej(ft quoted above. 
 Thus we are told that ^'of the two swords, one must be subject 
 to the other; and that the temporal power must be subject to the 
 spiritual ;'' and to leave no doubt of the infamous bigotry and 
 uncharitableness of the system of popery, closes with this awful . 
 declaration, as a, defined tenet of the Church of Home, viz. 
 "Porro subesse Bomano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae, decla- 
 
 (1) First Part, Diet. 90, chap. 10. 
 
 (2) Extra vag. Comm., book i., tit. 8. 
 
242 
 
 rimus, dicimus, definiraus et pronuntiamus, oninino esse de neces- 
 sitate sfilutis ?" — ''Moreoue)', ice declare, ojjirm, DEFINE and pro- 
 nounce (is not this a doctrine delivered ex cathedra ?) that it is 
 altogether necej^uirij to iicdvatioii for every human creature to he 
 subject to the Poj->e of Rome." 
 
 The Pope of Home professes to be the vicegerent of God on 
 earth — to dispo'se of the church and the state at his will. Hence 
 the Pope gave a grant of America to Spain, (which has never yet 
 been revoked,) even before America was discovered. The Pope, 
 Pius v., in his bull against Queen Elizabeth, recites his preroga- 
 tive in no measured terms. In that bull he deprives her of her king- 
 *dom, and releases her subjects from their allegiance to her. "He 
 who reigns on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and 
 on earth, hath committed the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic 
 Cliurch, 02it of irhi'ch there is no salvation, to one alone, on 
 earth, namely, to Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and to the Roman 
 Pontiff, successor of Peter, to be governed with the fulness of 
 power. This o')ie man hath he aj^pointed prince over all NA- 
 TIONS, AND ALL KINGDOMS, that he may pluck up, destroy, scatter , 
 ruin, plant, build." To this latter trust he has been eminently 
 faithful 1 Here is godship on earth in church and state. Where 
 any liberty can lurk, in these pretensions, or under this universal 
 theocracy, I am at a loss to conceive. 
 
 Again : the bull of Sixtus V. against Henry, king of Navarre, 
 and the prince of Condc, thus runs : — " The authority given to 
 St. Peter and his successors, by the immense power of the 
 eternal King, excels all the powers of earthly kings and princes. 
 It passes uncontrollable sentence upon all, and if it find any of 
 them resisting God's ordinance, it takes a more severe vengeance 
 of them, and, casting down the most powerful of them from their 
 thrones, tumbles them down into the lowest parts of the earth, as 
 the ministers of the proud Lucifer." 
 
 Among the twenty-seven celebrated Sentences, or Dictates, of 
 Pope Gregory VI [. are such as these, viz. 
 
 8th. That the Pope alone can use imperial ensigns. 
 
 9th. That all princes must kiss the feet of the Pope only. 
 ,l'2th. That it is lawful for him to depose emperors. 
 
 17th. That no chapter or book may be accounted canonical 
 without his authority. 
 
 18th. That his sentence may be retracted by none; and he 
 alone may retract all men's. 
 
 19th. That he himself ought to be judged by no man. 
 
 27th. That he may absolve the subjects of unjust men from 
 fidelity, (to their princes.) 
 
 These Dictates are papal definitions of papal power. They 
 have been preserved by the papal writers ; believed and observed 
 by the priesthood; and never revoked, rescinded, or condemned 
 by any council, or any pope. Of this Cardinal Baronius is a 
 
243 
 
 good witness who asserts, concerning these Dictates — Sententias 
 eas hactenus iu Ecclesia Catholica, usu receptas fuisse, quibus 
 reprimetur audacia schismaticorum principiiin iioo tempore in 
 Romanam Ecclesiam insurgentium. That these sentences had 
 heretofore (to the eleventh century) heen received into use in the 
 Catholic Churchy hy them the audacity of schismatic princes, 
 icho had duri)ig that time arisen in. the Roman Church, had 
 heen restrained. 
 
 It were a curious and instructive piece of history to compile 
 into one table, after the example of Bellarmine, not the dozen, 
 but the two hundred examples, in which j^opes have actually 
 carried their principles into effect in the excommunication, or 
 deposition, sr both, as the case might be, of offensive kings and 
 emperors. 
 
 We give below an imperfect tabular view, promising to add, 
 alter, or diminish, at the suggestion of Mr. Hughes, on good evi- 
 dence of error. We have no doubt his superior knowledge of 
 this topic in history will enable him greatly to enlarge the table. 
 
 Popes. Prixces excommunicated, or deposed, or both,. 
 
 Gregory II Leo. HI.,') 
 
 Gregory III Leo. III., v Emperors. 
 
 Pascal I Leo. V., ) 
 
 John VIII Lewis, King of Germany. 
 
 Gregory V Robert, King of France. 
 
 Adrian II Lothario, ) ,-, 
 
 ^ ^„ ( Henry iV., ^'^V^^'o^- 
 
 Gregory VII | ^..yj.^^^^ i|„g of Poland. 
 
 TT 1. TT ( Henry IV., Emperor. 
 
 Urban II s ui -i- t tt- x* t? 
 
 rhiiip I., King oi !• ranee. 
 
 Pascal II |S'"'^l^-^ 
 
 I Henry V., 
 
 Calixtus II Henry V. 
 
 V Emperors. 
 
 G^asius II Henry V., J 
 
 uidrian IV William, King of Sicily. 
 
 Frederic I., Emperor. 
 
 Henry II., King of England, 
 
 Henry VI., Emperor. 
 
 Alphonso, King of Galicia. 
 
 Philip and Otho, Emperors. 
 
 John, King of England. 
 
 Philip II., of France. 
 
 Ladislaus, King of Poland. 
 
 Louis VII. and Louis VIIL, of France. 
 
 Alexander III.. 
 Celestine III.... 
 
 Innocent III.... 
 
 This was the monster who said — " It has pleased God so to 
 order the affairs of the world, that those provinces which had 
 anciently heen suhject to the Roman Church in spirituals, were 
 
244 
 
 now become subject to it in temporals." And again : " Jesus 
 Christ, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, and Priest accord- 
 ing to the order of Melchizedeck, hath so united the royal and 
 priestly power, in his church, that the kingdom is but a royal 
 priesthood, and the priesthood the royal power." 
 
 He said, " the church, my spouse, is not married to me with- 
 out bringing me something. She hath given me a dowry of price 
 beyond all price, the plentitude of spiritual things, and the fidl 
 extent (latitudinem temporalium) of temporal things. She hath 
 given me the mitre, in token of things spiritual; the croivn, in 
 token of things temporal: the mitre, for the priesthood; the 
 crown for the kinsidom — makinsr me the lieiUenant of Him who 
 hath written upon his thigh and upon his vesture, King of kings, 
 and Lord of lords : I ENJOY ALONE THE plentitude of power, 
 THAT OTHEHS may SAY OF ME, NEXT TO GoD, ^ and out of his 
 fidness we have received!!!'" Such were his blasphemous 
 claims, which the Church of Rome has not denounced^ hui 
 sustained. 
 
 But to continue our list : — 
 
 Popes. Princes. 
 
 O'^S^yl^ jwincessaus.-^ 
 
 Innocent lY Frederic II., Emperor. 
 
 Urban IV Manfred and) -rr- ^ a- -i 
 
 Clement IV Conradin. | ^^'^S^ "^ ^■<=''y- 
 
 r\ ^ S Alphonso, Kins: of Portugal. 
 
 brregory A | Alphonso X., King of Castile. 
 
 Nicholas III Charles, King of Anjou. 
 
 M +• TV I Peter of Arragon. 
 
 Martm i V j Michael Paleologus, Emperor. 
 
 TT • Ttr f James, ") 
 
 Honorius IV | Alphonso, [ Kings of Arragon. 
 
 Nicholas IV Alphonso, \ 
 
 •D 'c TrTTT ( Philip IV., King of France. 
 Boniface VIIL... | g^j^ ^^jj ; g-j^" ^^ Denmark. 
 
 John XXII Lewis, of Bavaria, "^ 
 
 Benedict XII Lewis, V Emperors. 
 
 Clement VI Lewis, j 
 
 U^^-^I {chrHe?rng }°^N^P'- 
 
 {Lewis of Anjou, 
 Vd ^V r Kings of England. 
 Wenchelaus, Emperor. 
 
 Innocent VII Ladislaus, ) -,^. /» vr i 
 
 .. i -ir T Ti ' y Kings of Naples. 
 
 Alexander V Jjadislaus, J ° ^ 
 
 Sixtus IV Ladislaus, King of Bohemia. 
 
I 
 
 245 
 
 Popes. Princes. 
 
 J ,. jy ( Albert, King of Naples. 
 
 *^^^'"^ ^^ I Lewis XII., King of France. 
 
 Leo X Stenon, King of Sweden. 
 
 Clement VII Henry VIII., ) x^. . t^ , , 
 
 Paul III ....HcurjVm.;|K^°S«^^"S^''^^^- 
 
 PiusV Elizabeth, Queen of England. 
 
 Sixtii<4 V I ^''"^'^ ^^^•' -^^"^ ^^ France. 
 
 ^^^^"^ ^ I Hepry, King of xVavarre. 
 
 Gregory XIV Henry IV., King of France and Navarre. 
 
 Innocent VI Ambassador of Louis XIV. of France. 
 
 This terrific list needs no comment I It speaks the doctrine of 
 the Church in its superabundant prac^i'ce. It is no longer merely 
 an ABSTRA.CT point to be proved. It is a part of the hiUory of the 
 Church and of its creed, for ages. It is quod erat faciendum. 
 It is in vain to cry out now, this was only discipline. Does any 
 doctrine of the Church /or6ic^ it? Huve all these Popes done all 
 these things with the connivance of the Church ? Then is such 
 a Church to be trusted, doctrine, or no doctrine? Do so many 
 Popes aaaert their divine right to deposo kings; dissolve the tie 
 that bound their people to them ; transfer kingdoms, from Asia to 
 Europe, from country to country, and from man to man ; and yet 
 all their infalUhllitics mistaken, and a self-styled insulated inter- 
 preter of catholicity contradict this great cloud of witnessing 
 Popes ? And sliall we take his word against xiU these ? Impos- 
 sible. History is on one side; Johi Iliujhes on the other! 
 The history of Popes, with few exceptions, is a history of usur- 
 pation of human rights; enmity to human liberty; lording it 
 over human conscience; and oppression, when possible, of the 
 temporal^ by the sp)i.ritual jjower. 
 
 " It is well known," s;iys an admirable author, '' that the papacy 
 is a species of universal monarchy of a mixed nature, partly eccle- 
 siastical, partly civil, founded upon the pretence of divine ri(/ht, 
 and promoted under colour of religion ; that it ever aspires to un- 
 limited extent, universal dominion, and worldly wealth and gran- 
 deur; that it claims a divine authority to govern the world, and 
 subject princes not only in sp)irituals, but in temporals also, di- 
 rectly or indirectly; that the Roman pontifis consider themselves 
 as kings, as well 'ds 2)riests, uniting the imperial diadem with the 
 mitre, and grasping the sword, together with the keys of St. Peter; 
 yea, as possessed of the 2)ower and prerogatives of divinityy 
 boasting that all power is committed to them in heaven and in 
 earth ; in consequence of which they claim a right to dispose of 
 crowns and kingdoms, to set up or depose princes, and to pluck 
 up and destroy, at their pleasure. In consequence of that absurd 
 and monstrous system, Rome gradually began to show herself 
 with glory and eclat among the nations, till that great city actVf 
 
246 
 
 ally became once more the mistress of the world, '■ RULING OVER 
 THE KINGS OF THE EARTH 3' her fallen empire was again set up 
 under a new form, and \\q.x pretended vicars of Christ, in the end, 
 outdid, if possible, her Pagan Cassars in pride, magnificence, 
 despotism, and cruel tyranny, as well as in idolatry, luxury, and 
 every abominable vice. Having obtained repeated donations of 
 cities, lands, and provinces, they rose to the rank of temporal 
 princes. But these being entirely unequal to their insatiable 
 avarice and ambition, they enlarged their claims without end. 
 Not satisfied with taxing and giving laws to the patrimony of St. 
 Peter, they began to consider all Cliristendom as his patrimony ; 
 and accordingly claimed His pence. (1.) By methods unheard of 
 before, they found the secret of raising immense revenues, and of 
 drawing the wealth of the world to their coffers. They used the 
 style of the most haughty and arbitrary sovereigns. They affected 
 more than royal titles, powers and honours; were crowned in 
 state; carried about on men's shoulders in procession; received 
 homage and adoration ; imposed oaths of fidelity and allegiance on 
 the clergy; kept a numerous train of servants and attendants; had 
 their guards, fleets and armies; they inflicted capital punishments; 
 wore the imperial ensigns, and in military armour have gone in 
 person to battle; they had their courts and tribunals, with long 
 lists of dependent officers and ministers of state; they received 
 ambassadors; despatched their nuncios and legates a latere, (a 
 sort of sub-Popes, to go abroad from Rome, and represent his 
 majesty,) into all nations; they have meddled in all the affairs of 
 princes; managed perpetual intrigues; fomented endless discords; 
 mingled in all broils; sustained themselves judges in all causes, 
 umpires in all controversies, and supreme arbiters of peace and 
 war. False and absurd as- the principles are, on which the papal 
 empire is built, yet they have, in innumerable in- 
 stances, been reduced to practice, and too often with admirable 
 success. There is no state where the papal supremacy was at all 
 owned, but the temporal authority has also been tried, and ex- 
 ercised, even in some of its highest branches. So that, whether 
 gained by subtlety, extorted by force and terror, or yielded up by 
 voluntary abject concessions, one way or other, these usurping 
 JVimrods found themselves actually possessed of that sovereignty 
 whk'h they so much wished for, and so falsely pretended to be 
 their right. Appeals of all kinds were made to them, and all dif- 
 ferences submitted to their decision. They croioned and consti- 
 tuted the emperors; in competitions and controverted elections 
 they preferred whom they pleased; they not only demanded the 
 surrender of every kingdom in Europe, as tributary fiefs of the 
 Koman See, but made the greater part of them .really to he so ; 
 imposed oaths of fidelity and vassalage on princes, enlisting them 
 
 (1) A tax levied by the Popes on every family in England, paid annually. 
 
I 
 
 247 
 
 under their banners, and sending them on their frantic expeditions 
 against infidels, to break them more tamely to the yoke. Royal 
 titles and dignities have been created, or annihilated at their word; 
 and kingdoms, like toys, given away, or sold to their sycophants 
 and slaves. Against all who have oftendcd them, or dared to re- 
 sist their will, they have armed themselves with thunders, de- 
 nouncing anathemas upon anathemas; sacrilegiously profaning 
 sacred institutions, to which they have added others of their own 
 invention, to gratify their lust of dominion, their diabolical pride, 
 resentment, and revenge; times without number, have they excom- 
 municated princes, deposing them from their governments, inter- 
 dicting their dominions, or transferring them to others ; absolving 
 subjects from allegiance, exciting them to revolt, and authorizing 
 them to depose or murder their excommunicated sovereigns; and 
 their iniquitous sentences and barbarous mandates have often been 
 but too well obeyed. If the objects of their resentment have 
 escaped falling an instant sacrifice to it, and overcome by a series 
 of insults and dangers, they have at any time applied for favour, 
 the terms of reconciliation have proved more intolenible, than all 
 they had before either suffered or feared, by the most humiliating 
 ceremonies, the basest and most abject submissions and conces- 
 sions, and sometimes by the most moriifying penances, they have 
 been constrained to sacrifice at once the majesty of kings, and the 
 dignity of men. Intoxicated with their success, the Popes dis- 
 daining to acknowledge any limits to their dominion, have at- 
 tempted to grasp and wield the sceptre of the universe 
 
 They have extended their sovereignty to every quarter of the 
 globe; to islands and continents; to the east and to the west; to 
 countries civilized and barbarous. Christian and Indian, known 
 and unknown ; to land and sea ; and what is more, to heaven and 
 hell : no wonder to find this lower world trembling at their voice, 
 and poor mortals paying abject homage to their triple crown, when 
 they can summon all the celestial thrones and principalities above, 
 and command the whole infernal hierarchy, without exception, to 
 obey them.'' Now, there is not one of this vast catalogue of 
 crimes and usurpations, which we do not stand prepared to 2^rove. 
 If the lieverend gentleman will select from them one, or one dozen, 
 we will, at once, make out the proof, as in the example given of 
 the excommunication and de-position of princes, from almost 
 every throne in Europe. 
 
 But can an American audience, or any honest man, look at this 
 sketch of the claims and piractices of the head of the church, and 
 not own that liherti/ lingers not in a communion or a country 
 which she controls 'I 
 
 There is still extant in Europ)c a hook, of which the celebrated 
 George Finch, Esq., a living British writer, thus speaks: — 
 "Through the kindness of Dr. Sadler, who favoured me with a 
 sight of the original work from Trinity College Library, Dublin, 
 
248 
 
 I was enabled to verify the quotations. (Some of which we give 
 below.) The title of the work is as follows: Three Books of 
 the Sacred Ceremonies of the HoJij Roman Church ; printed at 
 Cologne, 1571." The quotations which follow, illustrate how 
 popes treated, and felt towards, kings and emperors in the da^^s of 
 their power and glory. When the Pope had a procession, it was 
 ordered, 
 
 ''1. The emperor shall hold the Pope's stirrup. 
 
 **2. The emperor shall lead the Pope's horse. 
 
 " 3. The emperor must bear the Pope's chair on his shoulder. 
 
 "4. The emperor shall bear up the Pope's train. 
 
 *^ 5. Let the emperor bear the basin and ewer to the Pope. 
 
 *' 6. Let the emperor give the Pope water. 
 
 ** 7. The emperor shall carry the Pope' s frst dish. 
 
 "S. The emperor shall carry the Pope's first cup." 
 
 Think, gentle auditor, that this is the man Vho calls himself 
 servant of servants, ^' servits servorum;" think, in contrast, of 
 our blessed Lord, whose vicar the Pope calls himself, loashing 
 his disciples' feet, and Peter, the ^^frst Pope," saying, ^^ silver 
 and gold have I none.* ^ Is not this he of whom the Apostle Paul 
 speaks, when he tells us of ^'that man of sin, and son of perdi- 
 dition ; who ojjposcth and exalteth himself ahove all that is called 
 God, or that is worshijyped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the 
 temple of God, showing himself that he is God."(l) 
 
 Take, for illustration, the following facts: '<But now we pro- 
 ceed to relate the things which were then transacted from the an- 
 nals of Roger, which were compiled at that time. On the mor- 
 row after his consecration, the lord Pope went from the Lateran 
 to the church of the blessed Peter, and Henry, king of the Ger- 
 mans, met him there, with Constance, his wife, and a large body 
 
 of armed men Our lord, the Pope, after this, led them 
 
 into the church, and anointed him as emperor, and his wife as 
 empress. But our lord, the Pope, sat in the pontifical chair, hold- 
 ing the imperial crown between his feet, the emperor, bending his 
 head, received the Crown; and the empress, in the same manner, 
 from the feet of our lord, the Pope. But our lord, the Pope, m- 
 st-diUly struck with his foot the emjjeror's crojw/i, and cast it upon 
 the ground, signifying that he had the power of deposing him 
 from the empire if he xvas undeserving of it. llie cardinals, 
 however, lifting up the crown, j^laced it upon the head of the 
 emperor.' (2) This was Pope Celostine III., crowning Henry 
 of Germany! ^' The Pope was conducted to the church of St. 
 Peter, and after being elevated on the great altar, *at the foot of 
 which are the tombs of the Holy Apostles, he sat upon the throne 
 that was prepared for him, and was there adored hy the cardi- 
 nals, (et y fut adore des cardinaux,) afterwards by the bishops, 
 
 (1) See 2 The?, chnp. ii. 
 
 (2) From Cardinal Baronius's Annals, A. D. 1191. 
 
249 
 
 and lastly, by the whole people, who crowded to kiss his feet."(l) 
 The former shows, that he claims divine power over temporal 
 princes and kingdoms; the latter, that he claims divine icorship 
 audaciously, venturing to ascend the altar of God, and there to 
 receive the adoration of men! Finally, the Pope has permitted 
 himself to be called God; and has called himself God. 
 
 In the Council of Lateran, A. D. 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, the 
 Pope was expressly called God. And in Roseoe's account of the 
 inauguration of Pope Alexander VI. we are told, that '^while the 
 new pontiiF passed through the triumphal arches, erected to his 
 honour, he might have read the inscriptions, which augured the 
 return of the golden age — and hailed him a god." Of these, the 
 following otie may serve as a sufficient specimen. ^^Rome was 
 great under Csesar, but now she is greatest; Alexander VI. 
 reigns; the former was a man, the latter is a god.'^ CiX^sare 
 majora fuit, nunc Roma est maxima; sixtus rcgnat Alexander; ille 
 VIR, iste DEUS.(2) 
 
 Pope Nicholas, in his letter to the Emperor Michael, (3) says, 
 " it may very evidently he shown, that the Pope, who, [as we 
 have already related,] was called God, by Prince Constantino 
 the Pius, can neither be bound nor released by the secular power, 
 
 FOR IT IS MANIFEST THAT GOD CANNOT BE JUDGED OF MEN." 
 
 (Satis evidenter ostenditur, a secular! potestate, nee ligari prorsus 
 nee solvi posse pontificem, quem constat a pio principe Constan- 
 tino, (quod longesuperiusmemoravimus,) Deum appellatum; nee 
 posse Deum, ab houiinibus judicari manifestum est.) 
 
 Here, after all quibbles have been tried, in vain, the Pope 
 claims exemptioa from human authority, on the ground of GoD- 
 SHIP. It is true, the Rev. gentleman had tried, by much evasion, 
 to weaken the force of this terrible testimony. In the progress of 
 the debate Mr. Hughes called on Mr. Kearney, (a gentleman of 
 the Roman Catholic Church, who was present, and who was 
 commended by Mr. H. as a scholar,) to translate the passage just 
 quoted. Mr. Breckinridge called for Dr. Wiley, but he was not 
 present. Mr. Kearney then rendered the passage as follows : 
 "/<! is shown sufficiently evident, that the Pontiff cannot he 
 hound altogether, nor dissolved, by the secular j^owcr, who^ it is 
 evident, from the pious Prince Constantine, was called a God — 
 and that God cannot he indicated hy men is manifest." Being again 
 asked, as to the last member of the sentence, Mr. Kearney looked 
 more closely at the Latin, and said, he had been misled by the old 
 spelliT^ig, and had mistuken Jud icari ior indicari. He then ren- 
 dered the last clause thus: "that God cannot he JUDGED hy men 
 is manifest." Mr. Hughes asked him to say whether it was the 
 
 (1) Fleury, Ecc. His. torn. 15, lib. 5. 
 
 (2) Corio-Storia di Milano, par. 7, p. 188, as cited by Finch. 
 
 (3) See Decretals, First Part, Dist. 96, chap. 7. 
 
 16 
 
250 
 
 Po2)e who said this, or Constanttne? Mr, Kearney replied, it 
 was Constantine. Mr. Breckinridge resumed. The gentleman 
 laid stress on the fact, that these were the words, not of Pope 
 Nicholas, or Pope Leo, but of the Emperor Constantine. But 
 the Foj^e Nicholas had cited them to the Emperor Michael, to 
 prove that a previous emperor had called 21, previous Pope, God! 
 For what did the Pope quote the words? To show that the Pope 
 was above human tribunals, because he was a god on earth. It 
 is evident that this is the very use for which the Pope cited the 
 words. If not for this, for what purpose? But Mr. Hughes 
 would have it, that ^'- pontificem'^ meant not the Pope, but every 
 priest I that is, that NO priest could be bound by the secular 
 power ; and why ? Because he was a god on earth; and God could 
 not he judged of men! It came then to this, that all priests 
 were gods! We had thought before, that there was but one god 
 among them, and that was the Pope. But he stood corrected; 
 for it seemed, by Mr. Hughes's own interpretation, every parish 
 priest is a god ! 
 
 The above narrative is taken, in substance, from the steno- 
 grapher's report of the debate. This specimen may help to show 
 why it is that the gentleman did not wish that report published; 
 and why this debate is now nearly one year behind its time. 
 
251 
 
 **Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its principles 
 or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty." 
 
 NEGATIVE VI.— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President : — 
 
 The gentleman intimates that I have refused to publish the re- 
 port of the stenographer, and that I have caused the delay of the 
 publication. I shall state the facts of the case, and leave the pub- 
 lic to decide. 1st. As to the stenographer, we had NONE during 
 the first three evenings of the discussion. Was that my fault? 
 2d. Of the remainder, he did not return some of the speeches 
 for about four months after the close of the debate. Was that my 
 fault? od. Both he and Mr. Breckinridge, almost immediately 
 after its close, had to attend the General Assembly at Pittsburg; 
 the latter to help to excommunicate the ichole Catholic Church pre- 
 sent, past and future; and the former, to make a report of the 
 proceedings. Was that my fault ? 4th. The stenographer had 
 to go, then, to Cincinnati, where Doctor Beecher was to be tried 
 for heresy. Was I the cause of this delay ? Finally, when it 
 suited the convenience of the stenographer to return the remainder 
 of the speeches, he did so; and when I w^as making arrangements 
 to go to Mexico, the gentleman became quite impatient to have 
 the debate published. Now the only difficulty was to know how, 
 by what rule, the report of the stenographer should be corrected? 
 That it required the correction of the speakers is undenied, as the 
 stenographer himself frequently put in the margin, " This, I do 
 not understand,^' "here I could not make out the notes," "■ this is 
 spoiled," &c. &c. In order, therefore, that the mode of correction 
 might not be an occasion of new and interminable disputes, I pro- 
 posed that each speaker should correct, as he thought proper. 
 Tiie gentleman, unable to discover any better rule, adopted it, and 
 led the way, in the correction of his first speech, which has 
 been followed up to the present time. These are the facts of the 
 case. The blame, therefore, must rest on those to whom it belongs, 
 and not on me. 
 
 When the gentleman says, that I have kept his speech a great 
 many days, he ought to recollect, even if the fact were as he states, 
 that I have duties to attend to, which I deem much more important; 
 and that it is only the intervals of leisure, which are few and far 
 between, that I can devote to him and his speeches. As to his 
 charges of personality/' "attacks on his reputation," "malig- 
 
252 
 
 NITY AND FALSEHOOD," and Other scurrilous matter in which hia 
 speech abounds, I look upon them as ebullitions of temper, which 
 plead for pity, at the same time that they destroy all claim or 
 title to it. His charges are silly, vague and unfounded. Let him 
 SPKCIFY, and then let him prove. But as long as he withholds 
 the proof, his crimination is ridiculous. When /make a charge, 
 I prove it. I begin with a fact, which he cannot deny. I reaFon 
 from that fact, with a strict and just induction of consequences, 
 which he does not venture to dispute. I have never gone out of 
 the question, to find matter of censure; but confined myself strictly 
 to his labours, as the gratuitous defamer of his Catholic fellow- 
 citizens. When I wish to prove that in carrying on this work of 
 defamation, he sinned against both truth and knowledge, I found 
 abundant testimony in his oicn icritings and assertioois, to esta- 
 blish the fact; and the fact, once established, remains. His own 
 pen, his own words have been the true, real enemy of his repu- 
 tation. Before he takes pains to account for my pretended calum- 
 nies by citing " Pascal, a Catholic, but a Jansenist," (he might as 
 well have said a " Catholic but an atheist,") let him first specif y, 
 and prove one single charge of calumny against me. He does not, 
 he cannot. Neither need he be at a loss for an immoral prrnciple, 
 to authorize the dishonourable means by which he attempts to 
 sustain himself in this discussion. The same doctrine of his 
 creed, which teaches him that good works have no merit, and that 
 evil works, cannot hinder his salvation, if he is one of the "fore- 
 ordained," makes all means equal. Calumny itself never imputed 
 to the Jesuits so broad a shield for the covering of iniquity, as 
 this, under which his creed protects its members. By this, Cal- 
 vin was a saint, although guilty of the blood of his victims. And 
 if such crimes could not hinder the master from being a saint, 
 smaller transgressions cannot defeat the destiny of the disciples, 
 who expect to be saved by the " decree" of God, and by faith 
 alone. Nay, they are never so much in danger of hell, as when 
 they believe that good works could avail any thing, in aiding them 
 to escape it. 
 
 He says "he has held up three cases of fraud committed by 
 me." There is not a word of truth in the statement, as I have 
 shown before. I proved that Mosheim himself applies the name 
 of Albigenses to the " fanatics," whom he describes, and of whom 
 I spoke. Is there any fraud in this? I refer the reader to my 
 former speech, in which I settle the question in a way which 
 left the gentleman not a word to say in reply. So much for the 
 first fraud. The second was a mistake, in which the gentleman 
 participated with me, but which I promptly corrected, as soon as 
 I discovered it. Was there any fraud in this? The third is that 
 in which he charges me with having suppressed the reading of a 
 portion of a document which I handed in to the stenographer, which, 
 he says, "charged Presbyterians with horrible principles and 
 
253 
 
 crimes." The principles here referred to, are those of absolute 
 ^^predestination," and the gentleman characterizes them properly, 
 when he calls them ''horrible." But the}' are in the ''CON- 
 FESSION OF FAITH," and he defends them. So far, there- 
 fore, there could be no motive to suppress the reading. But when 
 he says I charged Presbyterians at the same time, with " horrible 
 crimes," he only bears false witness against his neighbour. This 
 I have also cleared up in a former speech. I showed that, accord- 
 iiKj to this doctrine, Presbyterians iniglit commit any crime, 
 without risking their hopes of happiness, or fear of punishment in 
 the next world, where every thing is fixed by eternal, immutable, 
 absolute election and reprobation, irrespective of good works or 
 bad works done in the flesh. But I did not charpje Presbyterians 
 with being guilty of the " horrible crimes," to which this doctrine 
 invited them. That I may have omitted, on any occasion of reading 
 manuscript, a sentence by mistake, is possihle, and those who re- 
 collect the many interruptions to which both parties were subject 
 on such occasions, will not be surprised that such a thing should 
 have occurred, although I have no reason to believe that it did 
 occur even in this instance. But the charge of " fraud," implies 
 that it did occur, and was intentional. I deny the first as un- 
 founded in fact, and the latter as equally foolish and FALSE. 
 
 How could the gentleman charge me with an intention fabri- 
 cated in his own mind, and imputed to me on the strength of a fact, 
 which he has asserted, which I have denied, and which he has not 
 proved? What motive was there? What evidence is there, that 
 in one place I suppressed the reading of an argument which I 
 have developed again and again, throughout the discussion? There 
 is not in the assembly, another mind, perhaps, that would harbour 
 such a suspicion, on such absurd grounds; and it is no evidence of 
 '' conscious rectitude," in the gentleman himself, that he should 
 have harboured, and even ventured to express it, without the 
 shadow of proof. 1 fling it back upon him with the indignation 
 which it is calculated to excite, and with only this rebuke, that 
 kis example, even if I had not known it before, has taught me 
 and this audience that "honestj/, in literary, as well as social inter- 
 course, is the best policy." If he had paid strict attention to this 
 moral adage, he would not have been what he now is. This is the 
 second time that I have had to refute these charges; and, like 
 bubbles floating on the sea of temper, to blow them into thin air. 
 But let us turn to something substantial. 
 
 You must have been amused, gentlemen, to observe the variety 
 of expedients employed by Mr. 13reckinridge to evade the question 
 about Caranza. Poor human nature ! How much better would 
 it have been for him to have acknowledged the facts, and do ho- 
 nour to injured truth, of which he calls himself a minister ? How 
 much more honourable for him to have acknowledged, that when 
 he said that " he copied fiiOxM Caranza," he was betrayed by 
 
254 
 
 his pen ! That -when he said he copied " continuously/' he 
 was deceived by his spectacles. That, when he said he '' HAD 
 THE ORIGINAL BEFORE HIM," he was Only copjing from Faber, 
 or some other blind guide. That, when he said he ''omitted" 
 part of Caranza, *' FOR WANT OF room," he deceived his readers 
 unintentionally. That the part which he has quoted, as being 
 in Caranza, and which is not in Caranza, was found Just so, 
 in the book from which he copied, ajid that he does not know 
 to what author it helomjs. Yes, yes; any other course would 
 have been mercy to his own reputation, compared with that which 
 the gentleman has thought proper to pursue. Addison has re- 
 marked somewhere in his Spectator, that falsehood is like a 
 house without a foundation, " it requires to be supported by 
 props." And, although I cannot praise the gentleman as an archi- 
 tect, 3'et he has displayed considerable talents in finding and apply- 
 ing props. He shuns the real question, and agitates points that are 
 not in dispute. He talks about "substance," and ''sense," &c. &c. 
 This is not the question. He shifts it from what is in dispute, 
 to what is not in dispute. The question is, did he state truth, 
 when he said "unhesitatingly, that he copied from Caranza — literal- 
 ly and continuously ?" 1 say, he did not; and I say more, that if I 
 were in his situation, I should never stand in. a Christian pulpit, 
 until 1 had proved the truth of that assertion, or acknowledged its 
 falsity. I bring him to the point; it is the only advantage that 
 oral disputation can have over written controversy, that you can 
 call your opponent to account, point out his words, and, face to 
 face, hold him responsible for them, when they are, as Addison 
 expresses it, a house that requires to be supported hy props, for 
 want of a foundation. Sir, I cautioned th.e gentleman to beware 
 of his authorities ; he slighted my advice, and compels me to de- 
 fend truth, at the expense of what may seem, but is not, charity. 
 I take no pleasure in exposing facts, which must necessarily have 
 their influence in public judgment, against the gentleman's pre- 
 tensions. 
 
 As to the charge about the second commandment of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, the gentleman bears me out in regard to all I said in 
 my last speech. It was found in the very edition which he 
 brought from New York to sustain his calumny! I This he ac- 
 knowledges, and this settles the question; — convicting him, by 
 his own testimony, of having uttered what was "untrue," when 
 he said it contained ^^ only four words of the second command- 
 ment.'^ His display about its being "suppressed," and then 
 " brought up," and " kept out of view as much as possible," is to 
 be charged to the chapter on " propping." 
 
 The exhibition of his false statements, with regard to the other 
 catechisms, must be reserved to another time. If he understood 
 the history of the Protestant Scriptures, he would know that the 
 word "f??mye" is one which their translators supplied, but which 
 
255 
 
 18 not in the original. But it is useless to waste time in giving 
 him what he vastly stands in need of — information. 
 
 In attempting to cover his misrepresentation of Bellarmine, he 
 says that his writings, except one portion, ascribing only indirect 
 power to the Pope over temporal matters, are approved of, and 
 '^declared to contain no doctrine contrary to the Catholic 
 FAITH." Yes ; but does this make it appear that when he gives, 
 not the "doctrine of Catholic faith," but the opinion of the 
 writer on political questions, Catholics are to receive his opinions 
 as doctrines of their Church ? I believe not. I wish the gentle- 
 man would review his logic, if he ever studied any. 
 
 He says that " Calvin agreed with Bellarmine." Indeed ! 
 Calvin, who died in 1564, agreed with Bellarmine, who wrote 
 and lived more than half a century afterwards ! ! Bellarmine co- 
 pied Calvin's doctrine on persecution, just as the gentleman copied 
 from Faber, stating that Faber " had quoted as he had done." 
 But if persecution had been a Catholic tenet of faith, Calvin's au- 
 thority would never have been adduced. Bellarmine gave cita- 
 tions also from Augustine and Chrysostom, and hence the gentle- 
 man quotes this as the criterion of Catholic doctrine — '* the con- 
 Bent of the fathers." Even here he gar-hies, by leaving out the 
 word which determines the rule. The words are, the " unanimous 
 CONSENT OF THE FATHERS." Hc kuows the word too Well to have 
 omitted it by accident. Now, many of the fathers, Tertullian, St. 
 Ambrose, Leo the Great, and others, condemned persecution ] and 
 since their ''unanimous consent" is the sign of doctrine, we see 
 the reason why the word '' unanimous" was suppressed. I ex- 
 plained, in my last, the meaning of Bellarmine, and the gentleman 
 has nothing to say in reply, except by notes of interrogation. 
 "Does Bellarmine," he asks, "say it is opinion?" No; — for 
 he did not conceive that any one should be so ignorant as to sup- 
 pose it to be any thing else but opinion. Mr. B. tells us, (stupite 
 gentes I) that " Protestants are now the majority in France 1" 
 8uch ignorance is too gross not to be feigned. He asks, are Pro- 
 testants "tolerated in Austria, so as to have room to increase?'* 
 Yes J except that they are not yet allowed to increase by pulling 
 down the "monuments of idolatry." So in Belgium — so in Italy 
 itself J we never hear of their putting Protestants to death by vir- 
 tue of a Catholic majority. Now, if it were a Catholic doctrine, 
 to be practised wherever Catholics have the power, as he inter- 
 prets Bellarmine, here is the power in all these countries ; and yet 
 the doctrine, so falsely imputed,. is never heard of. 
 
 The gentleman's account of the Ileformers is truly amusing. 
 As an argument and evidence that the Catholic religion is not so 
 exterminating as his Commentary on Bellarmine would make it 
 appear, I referred to the case of the Reformers. Surely the 
 Catholics were a majority then. All they wanted to extirpate the 
 Reformers, was a doctrine of their religion requiring them to do 
 
256 
 
 so. The reason why they did not do so, was, it appears by the 
 gentleman's philosophical account, that the" icars of near half 
 a century could not extinguish them J' Then they carried on 
 wars ! ! Against whom ? Against their countries. Against their 
 lawful governments. A beautiful "Reformation," truly! Admi- 
 rable apostles of the new religion, who spread their gospel by 
 civil wars ! What simpletons the first Christians were, who knew 
 how to suffer; whereas, if they had possessed a spark of the Ge- 
 neva Revelation, they would have been trained to fght. The 
 gentleman has told the secret of the Reformation. 
 
 The compliment paid to the patriotism of " the Gastons, the 
 Carrolls, and the Careys," will, no doubt be duly appreciated, 
 coupled as it is with the charge that they are faithless to the 
 principles of the religion ichich the?/ profess. I will give one 
 single passage from the speech of the eloquent Judge Gaston, 
 before the convention of his State, which is enough to refute all 
 the gentleman has said in the whole of his effort to support his 
 cause against the Catholic religion : 
 
 " But it has been objected that the Catholic religion is un- 
 favourable to freedom, nay, even incompatible with republican 
 institutions. Ingenious speculations on such matters are worth 
 little, and prove still less. Let me ask who obtained the great 
 charter of English freedom but the Catholic prelate, and barons 
 at Runnemede ? The oldest — the purest democracy on earth, is 
 the little Catholic republic of St. Marino, not a day's journey 
 from Rome. It has existed now for fourteen hundred years, and 
 is so jealous of arbitrary power, that the executive authority is 
 divided between two governors, who are elected every three 
 months. Was William Tell, the founder of Swiss liberty, a 
 royalist? Are the Catholics of the Swiss Cantons in love with 
 tyranny? Are the Irish Catholics friends to passive obedience and 
 non-resistance ? Was La Fayette, Pulaski, or Kosciusko, a foe to 
 civil freedom ? Was Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, unwilling to 
 jeopard fortune in the cause of liberty? Let me give you, however, 
 the testimony of George Washington. On his accession to the 
 presidency, he was addressed by the American Catholics, who, 
 adverting to the restrictions on their worship then existing in 
 some of the states, expressed themselves thus : — ' The prospect 
 of national prosperity is peculiarly pleasing to us on another ac- 
 count ; because, while our country preserves her freedom and 
 independence we shall have well-founded title to claim from her 
 justice the equal rights of citiz.enship, as the price of our blood 
 spilt under your eye, and of our common exertions for her defence, 
 under your a,uspicious conduct.' This great man, who was utterly 
 incapable of flattery and deceit, utters in answer the following 
 sentiments, which I give in his own words : ' As mankind be- 
 comes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those 
 who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community, 
 
I 
 
 257 
 
 are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope 
 ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of 
 justice and liberality, and I presume that your fellow-citizens 
 will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accom- 
 plishment of their revolution, and the establishment of their go- 
 vernment, or the important assistance which they received from a 
 nation in which the lloman Catholic faith is professed.' By-the- 
 by, sir, I would pause for a moment to call the attention of this 
 committee to some of the names subscribed to this address. 
 Among them are those of John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic 
 bishop in the United States, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, and 
 Thomas Fitsimmons ; for the character of these distinguished 
 men, if they needed vouchers, I would confidently call on the 
 venerable president of this Convention. Bishop Carroll was one 
 of the best of men and most humble and devout of Christians. I 
 shall never forget a tribute to his memory paid by the good and 
 venerable Protestant Bishop White, when contrasting the }»iety 
 with which the Christian Carroll met death, with the cold trifling 
 that characterized the last moments of the skeptical David Hume. 
 1 know not whether the tribute was more honourable^ to the piety of 
 the dead, or the charity of the living prelate. Charles Carroll 
 of Carrollton, the last survivor of the signers of American inde- 
 pendence — at whose death both houses of the legislature of North 
 Carolina unanimously testified their sorrow as at a national be- 
 reavement! Thomas Fitsimmons, one of the illustrious convention 
 that framed the Constitutiou of the United States, and for several 
 years the representative in Congress of the city of Philadelphia. 
 Were these, and such as these, foes to freedom and unfit for 
 republicanism? Would it be dangerous to permit such men to be 
 sheriffs or constables in the land '( Head the funeral eulogium of 
 Charles Carroll, delivered at Home by Bishop England — one of 
 the greatest ornaments of the American Catholic church — a fo- 
 reigner indeed by birth, but an American by adoption, and who, 
 becoming an American, solemnly abjured all allegiance to every 
 foreign king, prince, and potentate whatever — that eulogium which 
 was so much carped at by English royalists, and English tories — 
 and I think you will find it democratic enough to suit the taste, 
 and find an echo in the heart of the sternest republican amongst 
 us. Catholics are of all countries, of all governments, of all 
 political creeds. In all they are taught that the kingdom of Christ 
 is not of this world — and that it is their duty to render unto Cae- 
 sar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are 
 God's." 
 
 There, sir, is enough to put to shame the ignorant revilers of 
 Catholic principles. There is the true state of the case. " Ca- 
 tholics are of all countries, of all governments, of all political 
 creeds." And who was that "Archbishop Carroll" to whose 
 virtue the "venerable Bishop White" bore such honourable testi- 
 
258 
 
 mony ? IIo was a Jesuit; belonged to that body which the gentle- 
 man, with a grossness familiar to his pen, has designated as the 
 "WICKED AND POLLUTED JESUIT PRIESTHOOD/' 
 Now I will only say in answer, that from this priesthood, the 
 Presbyterian parsons, (at least the class of them to which the 
 gentleman belongs,) might learn much of piety, history, philo- 
 sophy, SCIENCE, GENERAL INFORMATION ; — but, abovc all, much 
 of what is much needed, — HUMILITY and good manners. 
 Whether this land is to be ruled by a " papal mob," or a " Pres- 
 byterian mob," time only can determine. I hope it will never be 
 ruled by either. At present the aspirants to rule are the gentle- 
 man himself and his '^gallant colleagues" in the propagation of 
 the anti-Catholic conspiracy. 
 
 The gentleman repeats himself in such detail, that I must 
 leave him' to his *' ingenious speculations." He is determined to 
 make out the evidence in some shape, and what Bellarmine does 
 not say for the church, he saijs for Bellarmine. He does not 
 argue, he asserts. He seems to think that to employ reasoning 
 for his readers, would be throwing pearls to swine. I think he 
 is mistaken. I think there is a portion of them, even Presby- 
 terians, who will expect to see the doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
 which is opposed to civil and religious liberty, and who will be 
 disappointed, if not disgusted, to find that he can only torture the 
 assertions of Bellarmine by assertions of his own. 
 
 He boasts of the '^ barbed arguments" of Dr. Miller, and it is 
 but fair that the meeting should have a specimen of them. I shall 
 take it from his ribaldrous compilation, entitled the '"History of 
 Popery." In order to give his readers a correct idea of the 
 Catholic religion, this venerable calumniator is not ashamed to 
 copy into his work the burlesque excommunication of Tristam 
 Shandy, part of which is as follows — "3Ia7/ lie he cursed in 
 living and dying., in eating and drinking, in being Imngry, in 
 heing thirsty, in fasting, in sleeping, in slumhering, in leaking, 
 in walking, in standing, in sitting, in lying, in icorking, in 
 resting. May he he cursed in all the powers of his hody. May 
 he he cursed icithin and without. May he he cursed in the hair 
 of his head; inay he he cursed in his hrain. May he he cursed 
 in the crown of his head, in his temples, in his forehead, in his 
 ears, in his eyehrows, in his cheeks, in his jawhones, in his 
 nostrils, in his fore-teeth, in his grinders, &c. &c." Is not this 
 a ''barbed argument" of which the friends of Dr. Miller maybe 
 proud ? Is it not evidence of extensive erudition, and a delicate 
 conscience ? Is it not worthy of the man who lifts his face to 
 heaven, and tells God that the "Catholics are his enemies." 
 
 But let us give another of these ^^harhed arguments.'' It is a 
 story about a Scotch lady who happened to be on a visit in Dublin 
 on a very interesting occasion, when a number of souls were to be 
 translated out of purgatory. The operation was to take place in 
 
259 
 
 one of the Catholic chapels, and it appears that purgatory was 
 under the floor. The priest having received his wages, and all 
 things being ready, the doctor goes on to tell us that, ^^ Imme- 
 diate! 1/ a mocahle part of the floor, unoccupied of course, opened, 
 and there turned forth from it living creatures as Hack as Jet. 
 When the little creatures began to move about, in order to pre- 
 vent the deception from being detected, the lights xcere all extin- 
 guished, as if by magic. The lady had eyed the souls' repre- 
 sentatives very narrowly, and had observed that there was one 
 of them within her reach; and with a degree of courage that 
 would not be exercised by every one in her circumstances, she 
 seized, and secured it. She took it home, and showed it to the 
 gentleman who had introduced her to the chapel, when it turned 
 out to be a CRAB DRESSED IN BLACK VELVET.'^ 
 
 Such is Dr. Miller's < 'History of Popery/' Such his <^ barbed 
 AUGUxMENTS." The author was ashamed to put his name to it ; 
 but Dr. Miller became father to the offspring, which its own 
 parent would not own. He is satisfied, he tells us, in his Intro- 
 ductory Essay, that the work '' may be read with entire 
 
 CONFIDENCE, AND THAT IT IS ADAPTED TO DO MUCH GOOD." ... 
 ^' That it is well worthy of the careful perusal of all who wish to 
 be able to give 'a reason of THE HOPE THAT IS IN THEM,' and 
 to warn their children and others around them, against those 
 delusions which destroy the souV 
 
 Do you wonder, sir, that the common lights of Presbyterian ism 
 are destined to cut a sorry figure in discussing this question, when 
 the great luminary of ^ their church is found in such works of 
 ignorance and absurdity ; bestowing such recommendati(ms on 
 such nonsense, and blessing God that he is to be saved by ab- 
 solute predestination ? 
 
 I have long since answered the objection which the gentleman 
 brings forward again on the subject of the Scripture. In my 
 last I proved by facts unanswerable, that in the interval between 
 the invention of printing and the invention of Protestantism, the 
 Scriptures were extensively circulated in the common language 
 of the people. The clergy used them in the Latin language, as 
 they still do. The gentleman explains the forty Catholic editions 
 of the Scriptures in Italian, preceding the first Protestant version, 
 by supposing that they were for " monks." This is a mistake. 
 The monks, unlike many of the parsons of the ^present day, did 
 not require that books should be in their "mother tongue" in or- 
 der to understand them. It is to their labour and learning that 
 we are indebted for the preservation of the Scriptures, and the 
 fragments of literary or scientific works that have come down 
 from antiquity. It was by the labours of the monks that they 
 were all saved from the deluge of ignorance and barbarism that 
 swept in upon Europe after the fall of tlie Roman Empire. 
 
 As to the spurious bull ascribed to Innocent VIII., he might as 
 
260 
 
 -well quote Dr. Miller's History of tlie '^ crabs in black velvet/' 
 or his own authority, to prove its authenticity, as the writers 
 whom he has quoted. They do not touch the point. They quote 
 it, but it does not become the less spurious on that account. 
 
 In his allusion to my remarks on Venice, the gentleman gives 
 us a new view of liberty. According to him, it consists in the 
 destruction of monasteries and nunneries, and the triumph of 
 anarchy and Voltaire over the rights of order and the authority of 
 the pope. He admits, in fine, that he cannot prove his proposition. 
 His words are, ^^ I say not that all Catholics are in doctrine or 
 in spirit enemies to liberty^ He knows that '' in doctrine" all 
 Catholics are the same. And, consequently, since he allows that 
 some can be friends to liberty without violating their doctrine, it 
 follows that all can he, if they will ; and, consequently, it follows 
 that the Catholic religion is not opposed to liberty in any of its 
 doctrines. Its doctrines are the same for all — for the pope and 
 the peasant, the rich and the poor, the learned and the illiterate, 
 the priesthopd and the people. The gentleman is disposed to 
 acquit the people, and fix the charge on the ''priesthood/' Hinc 
 illse lachryma?. But he is confused; and it would be wasting 
 time to follow him through all his contradictions, not only of 
 others, but of himself also. 
 
 But I must not be so fast. The gentleman, to "END THE 
 DISPUTJ^," as he tells us, comes out with an argument from 
 Devoti, § V. He does not say what volume, nor is it at all im- 
 portant. Devoti, it appears, says, ^^ Peace haviiuj been given to 
 Christians, (in Constantino's reign and afterwards,) the church 
 PASSED JUDGMENT on crimes, not only hy her oiun right (smo 
 jure) hut hy the laivs of the Emperors." " Here," says Mr. 
 Breckinridge, plainly, " she claimed the right before the Em- 
 perors conceded it." Certainly, Mr. B., and she claims it still ; 
 and so does your own church. But what then ? Why she claims 
 to *'j?«,ss judgment" on crimes against the state, as well as 
 against religion." Certainly, and so she does still. If a priest 
 or lay person were to be involved in treason against his country, 
 has she not a right io judge him, and even punish him by expul- 
 sion from her communion? This she has (suojure') by her own 
 right. But the rights which were conferred on ecclesiastical 
 tribunals by the emperors, were those of penal chastisement, 
 whose origin Devoti points out, as derived from the state, and 
 not inherent in the church (suojure) by her own right. This, 
 therefore, does "end the dispute." 
 
 In my last speech I convicted the gentleman of altering and 
 thereby corrupting a citation from the notes of the Bhemish Tes- 
 tament; and, instead of apologizing for such dishonourable pro- 
 ceeding, he says I am " catching at straws," and wonders why I 
 did not stop to expose all the rest of his citations in the same 
 way. I had not time. 
 
201 
 
 Those notes are censurable criongh in themselves; and as such 
 were condemned from their first appearunce, by the Catholics of 
 England and Ireland. But it seems they were not bad enough 
 for his purpose, and hence he coiuiterfcita them by inserting words 
 which they do not contain, and omitting others that are. coptaiued 
 in them. This he' admits: but he is not ashamed of it. 
 
 He volunteers to defend the ^'AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIE- 
 TY." I did not attack it. I did not say one word against it. I 
 stated that it ho-d printed and sent* to South America, a pretended 
 Spanish Bible, with a falsehood stamped on its title-page. The 
 gentlemen does not, dare not, deny the fact. He knows it is 
 true. And what is his reply? — that my '^charge bears malice 
 and falsehood on its front.'' But so long as the fact is undenied 
 and undeiiiahle, his abuse, and the epithets in which he expresses 
 it, must recoil on their source. The proceeding is a scandal to 
 public morals. They circulate what they profess to believe a 
 CORRUPTED versi<.n of the word of God. They call it on the 
 title-page, the BIBLE OF THE BISHOP OF SEGOVIA, and 
 they know that they have omitted intentionally/, several books 
 which tliat Bible contains. Why is the title preserved ? To de- 
 ceive the Spaniards, to whom it is sent. Why are portions of the 
 original suppressed, whilst the title is retained? To protestantize 
 the sacred word, and by a clandestine process, unworthy the Bible 
 Society, to debauch the faith of the Catholics, whom they have 
 selected as the victims of this contemptible artifice. Why have 
 they circulated it at all, if they believe it to be a corrupted, ver- 
 sion? There is only one possible answer, — the assumed lawful- 
 ness of ''doing evil that good may come." The proceeding, I 
 say, claiming for its support the name and respectability of the 
 American Bible Society, IS A SCANDAL TO PUBLIC MO- 
 RALS. I state facts. I have no doubt but hundreds of indivi- 
 duals, of high and honourable feelings, will learn of this proceed- 
 ing, with disgust and indignation at the iniquity which perpetrated 
 it in their name. 
 
 The gentleman takes up my admission that Catholics have per- 
 secuted, as something highly serviceable to his cause. But has 
 he been able to show, by any doctrine of their religion, that they 
 were required to persecute? Has he been able to show that they 
 violated any doctrine of their religion, when they not only did not 
 persecute, but granted equal civil and religious freedom to Protest- 
 ants, flying from the persecutions of their fellow-Protestants, as 
 in Catholic Poland, and in Catholic Maryland? He has not, and 
 he cannot. Will he be able to show that Presbyterians in po\^er 
 ever granted such freedom? Never, as we shall see under the 
 next question. 
 
 I asked him to explain the equivocation which he ascribed to 
 Luther, in making him distinguish between the Catholic Church 
 and some other church, when he said, in opposition to Bellarmine, 
 that "the church never put a heretic todeath." To this, he re- 
 
262 
 
 plies, that my ^'pertness is too puerile to be worthy of notice." 
 The gentleman has frequently alluded to the temporal power 
 claimed by and attributed to popes, during the Middle Ages. 
 
 On this subject he has only "a little learning.'' It maybe 
 proper for me to make a few observations on it. 
 
 The Tope, according to the doctrine, of the Catholic religion, 
 is the supreme visible head of that kingdom, which is not of this 
 world — the chief visible pastor of Christ's universal world. The 
 doctrines of that religion gave him no title, by virtue of his high 
 spiritual trust, to any civil power or temporal right for the manage- 
 ment of purely secular things. Therefore, what has been called 
 the temporal authority of the Pope, must be traced to some other 
 source, than that by which he is appointed to feed the sheep as 
 well as the lambs of the Christian fold. 
 
 THE POPES — during the first three hundred years, were dis- 
 tinguished, amidst the brightness even of those ages of primitive 
 Christianity, for the innocence, holiness, humility, and heroic for- 
 titude of their lives. The greater proportion of them sealed their 
 faith by martyrdom. Those of the fifth and sixth century were 
 equally distinguished for their zeal, talents, science, and laborious 
 ministry. Contemporary writers bear witness to the correctness 
 with which those of the seventh and eighth centuries laboured to 
 stem the torrent of barbarism, that was threatening to inundate the 
 church, as well as the empire. In the ninth and tenth centuries, 
 the regions of northern barbarism were invaded by the apostolic 
 missionaries, sent by the popes to preach Christ, and establish the 
 gospel on the ruins of paganism. So far, enmity itself has been 
 unable either to obscure the virtues of the men who succeeded in 
 the chair of St. Peter, or to deny the salutary effects of their zeal, 
 in promoting all that was most beneficial for the temporal and 
 eternal interests of man. It is a remarkable fact, that ALL the 
 nations that have ever been CONVERTED from PAGANISM, 
 have been converted to the Catholic religion, and by missionaries 
 appointed by, or in connection with, the successive popes, who 
 have governed the church. Fifteen hundred years of Christianity 
 had passed away, before the Protestant religion was invented — 
 breaking communion with the pope and the church — and three 
 hundred years since; and it is equally remarkable that Protestants 
 have failed in their attempts to convert pagans. They seduced 
 Catholics, but they have failed among the heathens. From the 
 tenth to the fifteenth century, the state of society and civil govern- 
 ment in Europe was such, as it is impossible for us, at this day, 
 to conceive or realize, even in imagination. The military spirit 
 that prevailed — the feebleness of law — the unsettled order of 
 claims to political power — the strifes and rivalships, — all pre- 
 sented an ocean in which were rocks and whirlpools, shoals and 
 tempests, and through which the popes as pilots of divine appoint- 
 ment had to steer the vessel of the church. 
 
263 
 
 It was during this period that occurred those events which fur- 
 nish half-educated Protestant writers with the everlasting theme 
 of crimination against the popes. Those events, to be judged 
 with justice, ought to be judged in connection with the character 
 of the age, customs of the nations, and the other specific circum- 
 stances in which they occurred. For their own temporal power, 
 the popes enjoy it by as ancient and as just a title as any govern- 
 ment in Europe or America. When the emperors were busied 
 in the East, and unable to protect the states of Italy, the pope be- 
 came, by the choice of the people, sovereign of the Exarchate of 
 Ravenna ; and their title is confirmed b}^ a prescription of eleven 
 hundred years. It matters not whether that authority was the 
 gift of Pepin, after the expulsion of the Lombards, or not. The 
 pope became the temporal ruler de facto, and his successors, with 
 scarcely any addition or diminution of their territory, have re- 
 mained so to this day. 
 
 But they are charged with claiming a right to dispose of the 
 crowns of other nations, and releasing their subjects from their 
 oaths of fidelity. Some few have, indeed, cherished and pro- 
 claimed this pretension. ]5ut who is the prince that was ACTUALLY 
 DErosED by any pope ? You will look for his name in history, 
 and you will not find it. The Presbyterians deposed four go- 
 vernments, and brought two crowned heads to the block, in 
 less than a century. The popes never so much as one. Who is 
 the prince on whom the popes conferred a crown and dominions, 
 xchich he did not possess before? NoT ONE. These are iha facts 
 of the case, and show the value of the gentleman's learning and 
 industry, as exhibited on this subject in his last speech. 
 
 The pope did not give America to Spain, and much less did he 
 give it before it was discovered. The countries discovered in 
 these seas by Spanish and Portuguese navigators, were taken pos- 
 session of in the name of the two governments respectively; and 
 when a dispute arose about the boundaries, the Pope Alexander 
 VI. was appealed to as arbiter; it was in this capacity that he 
 gave those governments what they possessed already. 
 
 The popes in some cases, as that of Queen Elizabeth, did af- 
 fect to release subjects from their allegiance. This was exercising 
 an assumed power for an unlauful end. It was an abuse, conse- 
 quently. And the Catholics of England and Ireland condemned 
 it, and proved that whilst they were ready to snffcr persecution for 
 conscience' sake at the hands of Etizaheth, they were also ready to 
 fight in defence of her rights, notwithstanding the pretended re- 
 lease from their fealty, and her excommunication. Even Hume, 
 the habitual reviler of the Catholic religion, shows how distin- 
 guished was the loyalty of the Catholics of England against the 
 pretensions of Philip. But facts that are palpable, are the best 
 test to decide. Presbyterians overthrew four governments, and 
 brought two sovereigns to the block in less than a century : and 
 
264 
 
 the Popes have never overturned so much as one. The gentle- 
 man has copied an index in his catalogue of popes and kings, and 
 he very modestly requires of me to write out the history. 
 
 Nearly the whole of his speech is made of assertions, which he 
 calls history. From whom he copied the long extract of borrowed 
 assertion, with which he fills up, it is not worth while lo inquire. 
 It is assertion^ mere assertion, and nothing else. Its violence be- 
 trays its origin. Copied, no doubt, from some writer as fanatical 
 and as ill-informed as the gentleman himself. It is from begin- 
 ning to end, a fiery, foolish rhapsody, which a man who pretends 
 to give jj?-oq/" and reason, instead o^ declamation and abuse, would 
 not offer to an assembly whose intellect he did not despise. It 
 was not worthy of the gentleman to undergo the humiliation of 
 borrowing such gratuitous abuse from another 3 whereas in that 
 department, which requires no proof, he is known to be equal to 
 the sublimest originality. 
 
 About the pope calling himself God, and some other points in 
 which the gentleman has borne false witness against his neigh- 
 bour, I shall sum up the evidences presently. In written contro- 
 versy, it is easy for one who is not restrained by the " belief in 
 good works," to give such a partial colouring to isolated facts, as 
 to pervert them from the truth of history. But here, he cannot 
 escape detection. I have collected a number of the gentleman's 
 calumnies from the written controversy, with the very books to 
 which he referred for their proof. These books, the original 
 works, are now marked at the place 0/ each reference^ AND ON 
 THE TABLE BEFORE US. The gentleman has an oppor- 
 tunity to sustain his assertions, in presence of this meeting, and 
 if he does not, the audience will not be slow to understand the 
 reason. 
 
 It is a painful process, sir, to have to contend with a man 
 against whom the interests of truth, the rights of reputation, the 
 protection of innocence, accused and villified, oblige you to prove, 
 face to face, the charge of CALUMNY. I charge the gentleman 
 with calumny : not in his absence, but in his presence ; and I 
 have brought to this meeting the original works, said to contain 
 the statements which he has ascribed to them, hut which they do 
 not contain. Yes, sir, it is painful to be obliged to undertake such 
 a work. But it is the glory of the Catholic religion, that in order 
 to prove it guilty of the charges that sectarian zeal has preferred 
 against it, recourse must be had to artifice, perversion of authori- 
 ties, imputation of doctrines which Catholics disclaim,, and in 
 many instances abhor, llecourse must be had to every species of 
 refined speculation, misrepresentation, and, with a sense of humi- 
 liation for human nature, I must add, falsehood. I shall now give 
 a list of those particular calumnies, which 1 have selected, and if 
 ^h.Q gentleman will venture to deny the truth of mij statements^ 
 HERE are all THE BOOKS, THE PAGES, AND PASSAGES MARKED. 
 
265 
 
 which will decide in presence of this meeting who speaks the 
 truth, and who has spoken or written the untruth in the matter. 
 I request the gentleman to pay attention, and not flinch from the 
 ordeal. 
 
 Be it known then, to all posterity, that, in the year of our Lord 
 1835, in the month of February, in an Oral Discussion between 
 the Kev. John Breckinridge and the Rev. John Hughes, in the 
 city of Philadelphia, the following CALUMNIES against the 
 holy Catholic religion have been refuted by a reference to original 
 documents : 
 
 FIRST CALUMNY. '' That according to the Council of 
 Constance, Catholics are not hound to keep faith with heretics." 
 Whereas, this has been stated by nearly all Protestant controver- 
 sial writers, and believed by their unsuspecting followers, and 
 lastly has been referred to, as a settled point, by the Rev. John 
 Breckinridge in his first letter of the written Controversy with 
 said Rev. John Hughes; (1) and whereas, the truth is, that no 
 such doctrine is contained in the acts of said Council, now open 
 before us, therefore, the charge is a CALUMNY; false in it- 
 self, and injurious to the rights of Catholics. 
 
 SECOND CALUMNY. <' That according to the Sixteenth 
 canon of the Third Council of Lateran, an oath contrary to eccle- 
 siastical utility is perjury, not on oath. "(2) And whereas, the 
 said canon, NOW PRODUCED IN THE ORIGINAL, contains 
 no such doctrine, therefore, the charge is false and injurious, 
 as above. 
 
 THIRD CALUMNY. " That the Fourth Council of Lateran, 
 A. D. 1215, Third canon, freed the subjects of such sovereigns 
 as embraced heresy, from their fealty ;"(3) whereas, the ORIGI- 
 NAL CANON NOW PRODUCED, contains no such doctrine, 
 therefore, the charge is again FALSE and INJURIOUS, as 
 before. 
 
 FOURTH CALUMNY. That ^' if the Pope should err in 
 commanding vices, and prohibiting virtues, the church would be 
 bound to believe vices to be virtues, and virtues to be vices." 
 And whereas, Bellarmine has been referred to, as maintaining this 
 doctrine, (4) and whereas, Bellarmine teaches no such doctrine, 
 but the reverse, therefore, the charge is FALSE and INJURI- 
 OUS to Catholics. Bellarmine's work, with the passage marked, 
 is now on the table before us. 
 
 FIFTH CALUMNY. "That the Catholics have suppressed 
 in the catechism of the Council of Trent, that part of the first 
 commandment which forbids idolatry." (5) And whereas he (Mr 
 Breckinridge) persisted in this calumny, and attempted to prove it 
 
 (1) Johnson's edition, p. 20. (2) Mr. Breckinridge, same page. 
 
 (3) Mr. Breckinridge, same page. (4) Mr. Breckinridge, ibid., p. 19. 
 
 (5) Mr. Breckinridge, ibid., passim. 
 
 17 
 
266 
 
 (even after six different editions had heeii shown to him) by re- 
 ferring to a copy which was in New York, and whereas, he has 
 exhibited that cop?/ to this assembly as proof in his favour, and 
 whereas, that copy contains it, like all the others, therefore, 
 the charge is cruelly FALSE and INJURIOUS. 
 
 SIXTH CALUMNY. " That there is a dishonest diiference 
 in the sense of two translations of the Catechism of the Council 
 of Trent, in certain particular passages." And whereas, the pre- 
 tended difference does not exist in the works referred to, but was 
 predicated on ichat turns out to he a' falsification of the text, by 
 making ^full stop in the middle of a sentence, and otherwise 
 mutilating ; therefore, the charge is FALSE and INJURIOUS 
 as above. And since Mr. Breckinridge disclaims having copied 
 from the *' Text-book of Popery," it remains for him to explain, 
 1st. How he came to mutilate it at all? And 2d, How he came 
 to mutilate word for ivord, as was done in the above ^' text-hoolc' 
 of falsehoods. 
 
 SEVENTH CALUMNY. "That Catholics call the Pope God." 
 As proof of this, Mr. Breckinridge (6) quoted the epistle of Pope 
 Nicholas to the Emperor Michael, in the Corpus juris Canonici; 
 and whereas, said epistle now produced in the original, contains 
 no such proposition; therefore the charge is FALSE and INJU- 
 RIOUS to Catholics, and shows great STUPIDITY in the minds 
 of those who make or believe it. 
 
 EIGHTH CALUMNY. "That the doctrines of the Catholic 
 Church are hostile to civil and religious liberty." In proof of this 
 calumny, the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge cited the Twenty-seventh 
 canon of the Third Council of Lateran, a. d. 1179, against the 
 Albigenses.(7) And whereas, said canon is 7io part of the Catho- 
 lic religion^ but a special regulation fi)r a particular case, made in 
 concurrence with the civil power of the states from which alone it 
 could derive any authority ; and whereas, the said Mr. Breckin- 
 ridge in quoting the said canon, suppressed the section which 
 enumerates the crimes of the sects referred to, and thereby de- 
 ceives his readers, making it appear that the punishment was for 
 their specidative errors in doctrine, and not for their crimes against 
 society and the state ; therefore, the charge is FALSE and INJU- 
 RIOUS to Catholics. And whereas, the said Mr. Breckinridge 
 alleges that he copied this suppi-ession of the truth, without being 
 aware of it, from Faber ; and whereas, we do not know from 
 whom Faber copied ; and whereas, the (jrcater the midtiplication 
 of copyists and copies, the greater the extent of injury done to 
 Catholics; and whereas, it is a divine trait of the religion of Christ, 
 that it obliges us to repair an injury even to a pagan, when it is 
 in our power; therefore, itvfoiildrefreshthe face of Christianity, 
 if Mr. Breckinridge would undeceive the public with the same pen 
 
 (6) Controversy, p. 86. (7) Ibid., p. 175. 
 
i 
 
 267 
 
 which contributed to lead that public astray. Faber will l 
 see to it in the next icorld, if not in this. 
 
 NINTH CALUMNY. *' That the Pope claims the right ux ca- 
 terminating heretics." In proof of this, the said Rev. Mr. Breck- 
 inridge quoted (8) a supposed Bull of Innocent VIII. against 
 the Waldenses; and whereas, said bull, even if genuine, is no part 
 of Catholic doctrine; and whereas, the gentleman who quoted 
 it, had no certainty of its existence, and whereas, it is not to be 
 found in the collection of bulls, in which the worst, as well as the 
 best, are preserved, nor among the archives in Rome, which have 
 been particularly examined; therefore, the charge, so far as it de- 
 pends on this spurious document, is equally FALSE and INJU- 
 RIOUS to the rights of Catholics. 
 
 TENTH CALUMNY. "That according to the Third Canon 
 of the Fourth Council of Lateran, sovereigns may he deposed^ 
 and their subjects released from their allegiance, when thei/ become 
 heretics; and that they are to be excommunicated when they ne- 
 glect to exterminate heretics from their lands." In proof of this, 
 the said Rev. John Breckinridge quoted a mangled extract of said 
 Canon. (9) And whereas, said Canon is no part of Catholic doc- 
 trine, except in so far as it condemns all heresies in the abstract; 
 and whereas, it expressly refers to those jmrticular heretics ichose 
 crimes, growing out of their errors, had threatened the welfare 
 of the state and of society, as appears by the original documents 
 NOW BEFORE US; and whereas, it refers to inferior lords who held 
 their territory and power by the conditions of feudal tenure, and 
 expressly excepts the rights of the sovereign or principal lord, who 
 held by what was termed divine right; and whereas, it was enacted 
 with the concurrence, probably at the request, of all the sovereigns 
 of Europe, and depended on them for its authority; and whereas, 
 it is denied by learned Protestant authors, that said Canon was 
 passed in the Council ;(10) and whereas, admitting it to be genu- 
 ine, it does not prove the accusation; therefore the charge is 
 equally FALSE and INJURIOUS. 
 
 And whereas, the said Mr. Breckinridge in reply to the question, 
 whether the quotation was literal and continuous, answered un- 
 hesitatingly, "that it was;" that "he had the original before 
 him; that "he copied from Caranza;" that his opponent might 
 "compare his translation with the original;" that he considered 
 the question an indignity offered to his character, &c. And 
 whereas, his opponent has compared^ and has the original and 
 TRANSLATION HERE PRESENT, and finds that the said translation is 
 neither '■^ continuous'' uor ^^ literal:" because,!. Whole sentences 
 are left out, without the usual marks to indicate the omission. 
 2. Otlior sentences are begun or broke off in the middle. 3. The 
 
 (8) Controversy, p. 174. (-9) Ibid, p. vS9. 
 
 (10) Collier's Eccl. Hist, vol. i. p. 424. 
 
268 
 
 word ^'praesentibus" is omitted, as an important qualification. 4. 
 The last paragraph is not in the original, and we must be inform- 
 ed where the gentleman found it. Hence, the following questions 
 are to be answered. 1. Did he quote from Caranza? Jf he didy 
 why did he mangle his authority in order to make out his 
 proof? // he did not, why did he say that he did? 2. Had he 
 room for the whole Canon as it is abridged in Caranza ? // he 
 had, why did he not give all? J/ he had not, as he says, why did 
 he introduce a passage which is not in Caranza at all? 3. Did 
 he know how much his translation differed from Caranza? Jfhc 
 did, why did he say that it was "continuous ?" ]f he did not, why 
 did he say that lie had the original before him? Challenge a 
 comparison of his translation with the original, and affect to bo 
 offended at the intimation of a doubt, which facts have proven to 
 be but too well founded ? 
 
 Here are the charges, and here are the witnesses, the original 
 works, to prove them. Will the gentleman vindicate himself now, 
 or will he wait till the witnesses are removed? If I were in his 
 situation, I know what I should do. I should appeal to the wit- 
 nesses to prove my innocence, and if their testimony condemned 
 me, I should apologize to my Catholic fellow-citizens for the injury 
 I had done them. 
 
 But the fact is, that the gentleman, hoping to be saved by the 
 patent-right of predestination, which God was pleased to bestow 
 on Calvin and his followers, seems to make a jest of truth and 
 literary honesty, lifter having acknowledged the error of his ci- 
 tation of one of the notes appended to the text of the Rhemish 
 Testament, he adds, ^^Yet ]}ray, Mr. Hughes, ich?/ j^iss over ALL 
 the other citations in silence? One of them says: ^ The zeal of 
 Catholic men ought to he so great toicards all heretics and their 
 doctrines, that they shoidd give them the anathema, though they are 
 never so dear to them; so as not even to sjnire their own 2'>arents.' 
 Am I right in this citation ?" Why, Mr. Breckinridge, you are 
 wrong. If you ever saio the text, YOU MUST KNOW that you are 
 wrong. The annotators were writing on the 8th verse of the 1st 
 chapter to the Galatians, where the apostle gives the "anathema'' 
 to even an angel who should preach another Gospel, besides that 
 which he had preached. On this, after giving the explanation St. 
 Vincent Lerius and St. Augustine, they conclude in these words: 
 ^'■Lastly, Hierome useth this place, icherein the apostle giveth 
 the curse or anathema to all false teachers, not once but twicCy 
 to prove that the zeal of Catholic men ought to be so great to- 
 wards all heretics and their doctrines, that they shoidd give them 
 the anathema, though never so dear to them. In which case, saith 
 this holy doctor, I icoidd not spare mine own parents.^' This is 
 the true citation. Proving the gentleman guilty of 1st. Garbling, 
 by beginnings in the middl<} of the sentence, and altering the 
 PUNCTUATION. 2d. Of suppressing the words " in which case saith 
 
269 
 
 that holy doctor, &c.'* 3d, Of foisting into the text words which 
 are not in it, viz. '^so as not even to spare, <&c." And yet with 
 a boldness, which indicates nerves of iron, he asks in reference 
 to this citation— "PRAY, MR. HUGHES, AM I RIGHT, OR 
 AM I WRONG?" Let the public judge. I have been obliged 
 to expose him in this way from the beginning. During the writ- 
 ten controversy he gave a quotation from Baronius, composed of 
 only a few lines; but what is its history? He gave it as one un- 
 hroken passage, and on examining Baronius, it was found to. bo 
 made up of "scraps" taken irom four different paragraphs of a 
 page, in two columns, folio. The first SCRAP was from the 5th 
 paragraph, the second from the Gth, the third scrap from the 5th 
 again, the fourth scrap from the 4th paragraph, the fifth scrap from 
 the 5th again, and the Gth scrap from the 7th paragraph. Of 
 what use is it, therefore, to contend with a man, who, to supply 
 the absence of truth in the support of a bad cause, is obliged to 
 have recourse to these means ? 
 
 I have now examined the evidence which he has brought for- 
 ward, to show that the Catholic religion contains doctrines opposed 
 to civil and religious liberty, and I believe that no man who un- 
 derstands what it is TO PROVE A PROPOSITION will risk hia 
 reputation so far as to say that the gentleman has not signally and 
 triumphantly FAILED. He has trifled with truth. He has per- 
 verted authors, and authorities. He has corrupted citations. He 
 has exposed himself, and done no credit to the cause which he 
 had thrust himself forward to maintain. He has told us what 
 Bellarmine and Devoti said, and yet admitting, for argument sake 
 that he has told us correctly, still he has signally and triumphantly 
 FAILED, whenever he attempted to show that the sayings of 
 these individuals, and the doctrines of the Catholic religion are 
 the same thing. He has stated facts of history, and by reasoning 
 backwards, he has inferred that they MUST be sanctioned by doc- 
 trine; as if the transgressions of our citizens were aproo/that 
 the American Constitution sanctions immorality. He has quoted 
 Canon law, and whilst he shows in every instance that he does 
 not understand what it means, he seems to expect that I should 
 supply the instruction of which he is deficient. Canon signifies a 
 rule or regulation. Now every subject, to which a rule can be 
 applied, may be said to fall under the operation of a canon. Hence 
 there are CANONS OF DOCTRINE in the Catholic religion, 
 which are the same in all ages and countries, of the church 
 AND of the world. These canons of doctrine are defined some- 
 times by General Councils, sometimes in the Bulls of Popes. It 
 was in these doctrinal canons that the gentleman had bound him- 
 self to find those "tenets of faith or morals" in the Catholic re- 
 ligion, which were supposed to be hostile to civil and religious 
 liberty. Did he find them ? Not one. They do not exist. But 
 there have been other canons, of which doctrine was not the 
 
270 
 
 object. They were temporary laws made for particular exigen- 
 cies, and as these were subject to the vicissitudes of time and 
 place, so the rules or canons to which they gave rise were neces- 
 sarily various, diiferent, and often contradictory. They are like a 
 COLLECTION OF CIVIL STATUTES under the Constitution of Eng- 
 land; and it would be just as absurd to say that the inhabitants of 
 Great Britain are obliged to observe ALL the statutes that ever 
 WERE passed from the foundation of the empire, as to say that 
 Catholics are bound by what was, at one period, or in other coun- 
 tries, Canon law, but is so no more, or is so, but in other coun- 
 tries. Most of those canons have become, like other laws, obso- 
 lete. They icej^e, but are not now. They arc not even universal 
 laws of the church; much less, DOCTIIINES; which are con- 
 fined to those tenets of faith and morals that Catholics believe to 
 have been revealed by Almighty God. Whcj-e they existed, they 
 were incorporated into the civil code, and formed part of the law 
 of the land. Neither was this regulation, in those times, deemed 
 an invasion of either civil or religious liberty, in as much as the 
 Catholic religion was the religion of the people and rulers as well 
 as of the popes and bishops. 
 
 From these, the gentleman would prove doctrine. They jievcr 
 were doctrine; and wherever they affected the external relations 
 of men, they have become obsolete, except in those countries in 
 which they still remain incorporated in the civil code as laws of 
 the land. Consequently in adducing these as evidence of doc- 
 trine, he signall}'^ and triumphantly FAILED. 
 
 He spoke of the INQUISITION. I have proved that every 
 denomination has all of the Inquisition, for which the Catholic re- 
 ligion is responsible; viz. the right to hunt out heresy, and expel 
 the obstinate heretics; and that no denomination exercises this 
 right, with more rigour and less mercy than the Presbyterian 
 would-be orthodox, as Mr. Barnes can testify. But as for the 
 penal 2^ortion of that tribunal, it belonged to the civil govern- 
 ments, and was used by them as a 2)olitical engine. To the facts 
 by which this distinction is established, the gentleman has been 
 utterly unable to reply. 
 
 He spoke of the CllUSADES. Mr. James, who has studied 
 the question, and written upon it, and who being a Protestant, 
 cannot be suspected of partiality, has decided that they "were as 
 just as any wars that ever were undertaken." Whether his 
 opinion, or that of Mr. Breckinridge carries more weight, I shall 
 not pretend to decide. At all events, they have no more to do 
 with the doctrines of the Catholic religion, than the English wars 
 have to do with the thirty-nine articles. 
 
 He spoke of the MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW. 
 He did not, however, relate the facts connected with it, or rather 
 antecedent to it. The followers of Calvin's religion had attempt- 
 ed to dethrone their king, and put a successor of their own creed 
 
271 
 
 on the throne. For this they had invited foreigners to aid them 
 in their war against their country. They had assassinated the 
 Duke de Guise; sacked and pilhiged hundreds of towns; massa- 
 cred thousands of their countrymen; and spread desolation and 
 bloodshed wherever they went. On the occasion of the St. Bar- 
 tholomew, it was maintained by the French court, afterwards, 
 that they had formed a plot, to get possession of the young king, 
 and thus accomplish their object by stratagem. Whether they 
 had or not, is now not clear; they were known to be capable of 
 it. But THIS was the plea on which the court attempted to jus- 
 tify the horrid crime, by which it escaped the real or pretended 
 conspiracy of the Calvinists. This is notorious matter of history; 
 and those who understand it otherwise, are like the gentleman, 
 under the dangerous influence of "a little learning.'' 
 
 On the civil wars in Ireland, I advise the gentleman to read 
 Mr. Carey's erudite and unanswerable work, the VINDICI^ 
 HIBERNIC^. But all these matters are unavailing for the 
 purpose in hand, which is to show that there are DOCTRINES, 
 TENETS OF FAITH, AND MORALS, in the Catholic 
 RELIGION, opposed to civil and religious liberty. He has sig- 
 nally and triumphantly — FAILED, in this; whatever else he 
 may have done. 
 
 And now having seen that every attempt to prove the affirma- 
 tive of this question has been a failure, I shall try whether, 
 difficult as is the proof of a negative^ I cannot establish FxlOTS 
 from which it will appear clearly and conclusively, that there is 
 no doctrine of the Catholic religion opposed to civil or religious 
 liberty. 
 
 FIRST FACT. That the Catholic Church teaches, and has 
 always taught, that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. 
 For proof of this, we have the testimony of popes and fathers, all 
 agreeing that religion cannot be enforced by violence, nor de- 
 fended, unless by patience. See St. Irena3us,(10) St. Justin, (11) 
 Theophilus Alexandriuus,(12) Eusebius,(13) Tertullian in his 
 Apology. (14) He says in his book ad Scapulam,(15) speaking 
 of the Christians — " Wetcoj-shij) the emperor as it befits Am, and 
 as it is law/id for us, to ivit, as a man next to God, dependent for 
 what he possesses on God, AND INFERIOR ONLY TO IIIM." St. 
 Optatus maintains the same doctrine. (16) Also Osius of Cor- 
 dova, cited by Athanasius.(17) St. Augustine(18) says, *'We 
 do not assign THE RIGHT OF GIVING Jcingdoms or empires except 
 to the true God^ The doctrine of Origen,(19) and in short, of all 
 the fathers that have ever written on the subject is the " UNANI- 
 
 (10) Lib. 5, chap. xxiv. (15) Chap ii, 
 
 (11) Apol. 2. (16) Lib. 3, Cont. Farm. 
 
 (12) Lib. 1, ad Antilogiiim. (17) Tom. L p. 37L 
 
 (13) Lib. 7, chap. x. (18) Lib. 4, de Civit. Dei, c. xxxiiL 
 (U) Chap. XXX. (19) Tom. II. p. 118. 
 
272 
 
 MOUS CONSENT/' that the civil poioers of the world, and the 
 spiritual jjoivei-s of the Ohurch, are both original in their source, 
 and mutually independent of each other. If individual popes, or 
 individual writers have claimed, for popes, the right to dispose of 
 kingdoms, it was on some other ground of right, besides any doc- 
 trine of the church : — some human title, or some text of Scripture, 
 employed on the hazard of " private interpretation,'' which is con- 
 trary to the rule of determining doctrine in the church. 
 
 SECOND FACT. That Catholic nations invariably resisted, 
 and that without even the charge of having violated any doc- 
 trine of their religion, the attempts of popes to dispose of their 
 civil sovereignty. And it does not appear that the popes have 
 actually ever succeeded in deposing a sovereign, or bestowing a 
 crown. 
 
 THIRD FACT. That before Luther and Protestantism were 
 heard of, crowds of Republics had flourished under the auspices 
 of the Catholic religion, and public liberty. VENICE rose up 
 from the ocean, with all her republican glory round about her, 
 and for five hundred years remained a lofty democratic govern- 
 ment. Genoa, Florence, and other free states, are proof that 
 liberty and Catholicity are perfectly congenial, notwithstanding 
 the infinite ignorance that asserts the contrary. Even Spain had 
 its Catholic Cortes, a free assembly, which imposed upon the 
 monarch an oath, in which they told him, that they were indivi- 
 dually as good, and, taken altogether, far better than himself, an4 
 that his power was derived from the people. This was before 
 what is called the Protestant Reformation, and it was the excesses 
 of that era, that frightened Spain into a despotism — in self-de- 
 fence. 
 
 FOURTH FACT. That the Catholics of Great Britain and 
 Ireland have disclaimed all right of the Pope or cardinals to civil 
 or temporal jurisdiction in the British dominions. This they have 
 not ceased to do since the pretended Reformation; and disclaimed 
 it ON OATH, as a calumny imputed by their oppressors, and not 
 contained in the doctrines of the Catholic religion. During most 
 of the last 300 years since the importation of Protestantism, the 
 Catholics, who have continued to disclaim this calumny under the 
 solemnity of an oath, have constituted one-fourth, and at present 
 constitute one-third, of the entire population of Great Britain 
 and Ireland. In this, no portion of their fellow-Catholics 
 throughout the world, ever accused them of denying a doctrine 
 OR principle of faith. 
 
 FIFTH FACT. That in 1791, the following questions, at 
 the instance of Mr. Pitt, then Minister of State, were sent to the 
 foreign universities in France and Spain, and were answered 
 unanimously, as follows : — (1) 
 
 (1) See Butler's Book of the Church. 
 
273 
 
 " 1. Has tlie Pope or cardinals, or any hody of men, or any 
 individual of the Church of Rome, ANY CIVJL authority, power, 
 JURISDICTION, or PRE-EMINENCE whatsoever, within the realm of 
 England ? 
 
 *' 2. Can the Pope or Cardinals, or any hody of men, or 
 any individual of the Church of Rome, absolve or DISPENSE 
 loitli his majesty's subjects, FROM THEIR OATH OP ALLEGIANCE, 
 UPON ANY PRETEXT WHATSOEVER ? 
 
 '< 3. Is there any tenets of the Catholic faith, by which 
 Catholics ARE JUSTIFIED in not keeping faith with here- 
 tics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, 
 in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature P" 
 The Universities answered unanimously : — 
 
 ^' 1. That the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any 
 individual of the Chuixh of Rome, HAS not any civil authority, 
 power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence WHATSOEVER, icithin the 
 realm of England. 
 
 *' 2. That the Pope or cardinals, or any hody of men, or any 
 individual of the Church of Rome, CANNOT ABSOLVE or DIS- 
 PENSE with his majesty's subjects, from their oath of allegiance, 
 UPON ANY PRETEXT WHATSOEVER. 
 
 *' 3. That there IS NO PRINCIPLE IN THE TENETS OF THE CA- 
 THOLIC FAITH, BY WHICH CATHOLICS ARE JUSTIFIED IN NOT 
 KEEPING /a?V/i with heretics, or other persons differing from them 
 in religious oj^inions, in any transactions, either of a public or a 
 private nature.'' 
 
 SIXTH FACT. That the Catholics of Great Britain and 
 Ireland have suffered themselves to be robbed of their titles, 
 their CIVIL rights, their property, their reputation, &c., rather 
 than swear a false oath. They were required to swear, that they 
 believed in the religious opinions set forth in various acts of par- 
 liament, and that tliey did not believe in the doctrines of their 
 own Church. This, they knew, would be 2^crju'ry. And because 
 they would not commit i\nBp)erjury, they were doomed to submit 
 to the grinding and degradation of the penal code, which brands 
 Protestantism with such indelible crimes of persecution for con- 
 cience' sake, as ought to make its votaries blush, whenever the 
 words " religious freedom," " rights of conscience," are accident- 
 ally pronounced in their presence. A Protestant has thus de- 
 scribed the barbarous operation of that infernal code : 
 
 '' In England, this code, (the penal code,) I. Stripped the 
 peers of their hereditary right to sit in parliament. II. It stripped 
 the gentlemen of their right to be chosen members of the Com- 
 mons House. III. It took from all the right to vote at elections; 
 and though Magna Charta says, that no man shall he taxed with- 
 out his own consent, it double-taxed every man who refused to 
 ABJURE HIS RELIGION, and thus become an apwstate. IV. It shut 
 them out from all offices of power and trust, even the most insig 
 
274 
 
 nificant. Y.-It took from them the right of presenting to livings 
 in the Church, (hough that right was given to Quakers and Jews. 
 VI. It fined them at the rate of TWENTY POUNDS A 
 MONTH, for keeping away from that Church, to go to which 
 they deemed apostasy. VII. It disabled them from keping arms 
 in their houses ybr their defence; from maintaining suits at law; 
 from being guardians or execiiturs ; from jyractising in law or 
 physic; from f ravelling Jive miles from their houses, and all 
 these, under heavy penalties, in case of disobedienco. VIII. If a 
 married woman kept away from Chnrch, she forfeited TWO- 
 THIRDS OF HER DOWER ; she could not he executrix to her hus- 
 band, and might, during her husband's lifetime, be imprisoned^ 
 unless ransomed by him at ten pounds a month. IX. It enabled 
 any four justices of the peace, in case a man had been convicted 
 of not going to Church, to call him before them, to compel him 
 to ABJURE HIS RELIGION, or, if he refused, to sentence him to 
 BANISHMENT FOR LIFE, (without judge or jury,) and, if he re- 
 turned, HE WAS TO SUFFER DEATH. X. It enabled any two jus- 
 tices of the peace to call before them, without any information, 
 any man that they chose, above sixteen years of age, and if such 
 man refused to abjure the Catholic religion, and continue in his 
 refusal for six months, he was rendered incapable of possessing 
 land; and any land, the possession of ichich might belong to 
 him, CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE NEXT PrOTESTANT HEIR, 
 
 who was not obliged to account for any profits. XI. It made 
 such man incapable of purchasing lands, and all contracts made 
 by him, or for him, were null and void. XIL It imposed a 
 fine of about ten pounds a month, for employing a Catholic 
 schoolmaster in a private family, and two pounds a day on the 
 schoolmaster so employed. XIII. It imposed a fine of one hun- 
 dred pounds for sending a child to a Catholic foreign school, and 
 the child so sent was disabled from ever inheriting, purchasing, 
 or enjoying lands, or profits, goods, debts, legacies, or sums of 
 money. XIV. It punished the SAYING OF MASS, by a fine of one 
 hundred and twenty pounds, and the hearing of mass, by a fine 
 of sixty p>ounds. XV. Any Catholic priest, who returned from, 
 beyond the seas, and WHO DID NOT ABJURE HIS RELIGION IN THREE 
 DAYS AFTERWARDS, and also any person who returned to the 
 Catholic faith, or procured another to return to it, this merciless, 
 this sanguinary code, punished with HANGING, RIPPING 
 OUT OF BOWELS, and QUARTEPJNG. 
 
 ''In Ireland, the code was still more ferocious, more hideously 
 bloody ; for, in the first place, ALL the cruelties of the English 
 code had, as the work of a few hours, a few strokes of the pen, 
 in one single act, been infiicted npon nnhapj^y Ireland: and then, 
 IN ADDITION, the Irish code contained,. amongst many other 
 violations of all the laws of justice and humanity, the following 
 twenty most sacage punishments. I. A Catholic schoolmaster, 
 
275 
 
 private or public, or even usher to a Protestant, was punished 
 
 with IMPRISONMENT, BANISHMENT, and FINALLY, AS A FELON. II. 
 
 The Catholic clergy were not allowed to he in the country, with- 
 out being registered, a-nd kept as a sort of prisoners at large; and 
 rewards were given (out of the revenue raised in part on the 
 Catholics^ for discovering them ; fifty pounds for an archbishop 
 or bishop; twenty pounds for a priest, and ten pounds for a 
 schoolmaster or usher. III. Ani/ two justices of the peace might 
 call before them any Catholic, order him to declare an oathy 
 where and when he heard mass, who were present, and the 
 name and residence of any priest or schoolmaster he might know 
 of; and if he refused to obey this inhuman inquisition, they had 
 power to condemn him, (without judge or jury,) to a year's im- 
 prisonment in a felon's gaol, or to pay twenty pounds. IV. No 
 Catholic could purchase any manors, nor even hold under a lease 
 for more than thirty-one years. Y. Any Protestant, if he sus- 
 pected any one of holding property in trust for a Catholic, or of 
 being concerned in any sale, lease, mortgage, or other contracts 
 for a Catholic ; any Protestant, thus suspecting, might file a hill 
 against the suspected trustee, apd take the estate or property 
 FROM HIM. VI. Any Protestant seeing a Catholic tenant of a 
 farm, the produce of which farm exceeded the amount of the rent 
 by more than one-third, might dispossess the Catholic, and 
 enter on the lease in his stead. VII. Any Protestant see- 
 ing a Catholic with a horse, icorth Tiiore than five pounds, might 
 take the horse away from him upon tendering him five j^ounds. 
 VIII. In order to prevent the smallest chance of justice in these 
 and similar cases, none but known Protestants, were to be jury- 
 men in the trial of any such cases. IX. Horses of Catholics 
 might be seized for the use of the militia; and, besides this. Ca- 
 tholics were compelled to pay double towards the militia. X. 
 Merchants, whose ships and goods might be taken by privateers, 
 during a war with a Catholic Prince, were to be compensated for 
 their losses hy a levy on the goods and lands of Catholics only, 
 though, mind. Catholics were, at the same time, impressed and 
 compelled to shed their blood in the war against that same Catho- 
 lic Prince. XI. Property of a Protestant, whose heirs at law 
 were Catholics, was to go to the nearest Protestant relation, just 
 the same as if the Catholic heirs had been dead, thoiigh the pro- 
 perty might be entailed on them. XII. If there were no Protest- 
 ant heir, then, in order to hreak up all Catholic families, the 
 entail and all heirship were set aside, and the property was di- 
 vided, share and share alike, amongst all the Catholic heirs. 
 XIII. If a Protestant had an estate in Ireland, he was forbidden 
 to marry a Catholic in or out of Ireland. XIV. All marriages be- 
 tween Protestants and Catholics were annulled, though many 
 children might have p)roceeded from them. XV. Every priest, 
 who celebrated a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant, 
 
276 
 
 or between two Protestants, was condemned to be hanged. 
 
 XVI. A Catholic father could not be guardian to, or have the 
 custody of, Ms own child, if the child, HOWEVER YOUNG, PRE- 
 TENDED to he a Protestant; but the child ?^"as tciken from its 
 OWN FATHER, and put into the custody of a Protestant relation. 
 
 XVII. If any child of a Catholic became a Protestant, the parent 
 was to be instantly summoned, and to be made to declare, upon 
 oath, the full value of his or her property, of all sorts; and then 
 the chancery was to make such distribution of the 'property as -it 
 thought ft. XVIII. ' Wives, be obedient unto your own hus- 
 band,' says the great apostle. 'Wives, be disobedient to them,' 
 said this horrid code; for if the wife of a Catholic chose to turn 
 Protestant, it set aside the will of the husband, and made her a 
 participator in all his possessions, in spite of him, however im- 
 moral, however bad a wife or bad a mother she might have been. 
 XIX. ' Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be 
 long in the land, which the Lord, thy God, giveth thee.' 'Dis- 
 honour them,' said this savage code; for if any one of the sons 
 of a Catholic father became a Protestant, this son was to possess 
 all the father had, and the father could not sell, could not mort- 
 gage, could not leave legacies or portions, out of his estate, by 
 whatever title he might hold it, even though it might have been 
 the fruit of his own toil. XX. Lastly, (of this score, but this is 
 only a part,) 'the Church, as by law established,' was, in her 
 great indulgence, pleased not only to open her doors, but to 
 award, (out of the taxes,) thirty pounds A YEAR FOR life, to any 
 Catholic priest, who would abjure his religion, and declare his 
 belief in hers J' 
 
 Such is but a part of the punishment which Catholics might 
 have escaped, if the doctrines of their Church had only permitted 
 them to swear a lie, by which Protestants would have hailed 
 them as converts to pure Christianity. And yet, after an ordeal 
 of three centuries of persecution, the Catholic religion is found to 
 have been gaining ground for the last one hundred and fifty years, 
 in spite of human efforts to crush and extinguish it. But although 
 the Presbyterians were themselves sometimes sufferers by penal 
 laws, yet it is a fact, that in all their grievances against the govern- 
 ment, the neglect to put these sanguinary and inhuman laws 
 into rigorous and merciless execution against the Catholics was 
 always at the head of the list. And yet they talk about being 
 friends of religious freedom 1 ! 
 
 SEVENTH FACT. That the first declaration of religious 
 and civil freedom and equality, that was ever published by a legis- 
 lative body, was by the Catholic Colony of Maryland. They had 
 fled from persecution; they offered an example which none had 
 given, and which few other denominations were prompt to imitate. 
 Did they, in this, violate any doctrine of the Catholic religion ? 
 As the Protestants of Germany, persecuted by their fellow-Pro 
 
277 
 
 testants, found protection and liberty of conscience in Poland, 
 with its Catholic population of 20,000,000, so did the victims of 
 Protestant persecution in this country find an asylum in Catholio 
 Maryland, where conscience was declared free. 
 
 EIGHTH FACT. That the last Catlwlic king that sat on 
 the throne of Great Britain, was expelled from his dominions for 
 being a Catholic, and for not being a persecutor. It is acknow- 
 ledged, that the profession of the Catholic religion, and the at- 
 tempt to establish universal toleration^ lost the crown and king- 
 dom to James II. and his son. 
 
 NINTH FACT. That some of the most democratic and free 
 cantons of Switzerland are the Catholic cantons. 
 
 TENTH FACT. That the independence of this country was 
 won by, the efforts and blood of Catholics, as well as Protestants. 
 That Archbishop Carroll, then a Jesuit priest, was among the 
 most zealous in co-operating with the other Catholic and Protest- 
 ant patriots by whom it was secured. 
 
 Will any njan, therefore, who is endowed with common under- 
 standing, and is not bent on gratuitous falsehood and misrepresen- 
 tation, say, that a religion, whose members MAY and can indivi- 
 dually// and collectively f urn ish SUCH EVIDENCES, both of principle 
 and of practice, on the question of civil and religious liberty with- 
 out violating any doctrine of their creed, is opposed to civil and 
 religious liberty? And whilst the gentleman on the other side 
 has siynallij and triuniphandij FAILED; — in every attempt to 
 prove the iiffirmative, I submit to the cool, sober, and just judg- 
 ment of reflecting men, whether I have not established the nega- 
 tive of the question. I am willing to abide by their judgment. 
 
 And now we have to pass to the Presbyterian religion. There 
 I shall show, first, that its doctrines, not falsely imputed, hut 
 avowed in the Confession of Faith, are truly hostile to civil and 
 religious liberty. I shall show, that they have led to persecu- 
 tion, and, if reduced to practice, that they would lead to persecu-^ 
 tion again in the nineteenth century, and in this very country. 
 If I do not prove my proposition, so as to make the g( ntleman 
 shrink from an attempt to answer my arguments, I shall ask no 
 man to believe me. Facts and logic shall be my auxiliaries, 
 leaving to the gentleman all the advantages of popular prejudice, 
 and of liis peculiarly ingenious mode of spreading it^ as a mantle, 
 over the weakness of his arguments. 
 
PART II. 
 
 f'ls the Pi^eshyterian Religion, in any or in all its 
 Pmicijples or Doctrhies, opposed to Civil or Re^ 
 ligioiLs Liberty?" 
 
 I 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
 **Is the Preshyterian Religion, in any or all of its principles or 
 doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty f 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE L— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President: — 
 
 Before I enter on the arguments in proof of the affirmative of 
 the question, I beg to be indulged in a few remarks, by *way of in- 
 troduction. Some time before the commencement of the present 
 discussion, my attention was drawn to the subject by a notice, in 
 the public papers, that the religion of a large body of American 
 citizens was to be made the subject of crimination and defence, in 
 a Debating Society. Having attended on the occasion, I took the 
 liberty to suggest, in the most respectful manner, the inexpediency, 
 of treating such a question in such a place. Prejudice and popu- 
 lar calumnies might make many members eloquent in attacking; — 
 whilst incompetency to detect sophistry, and want of specific in- 
 formation on that subject, might render others unequal to the task 
 of defending. The consequence would be so far injurious to the 
 Catholic body, in their civil and religious rights. I did not imagine, 
 nor do I believe now, that the members of this Society could be 
 induced to be employed, knowingly , as tools, in the hands of a 
 combination of bigotry and malice, whose centre is New York, 
 and whose contemplated circumference is the boundary of the 
 land. The man must be blind to clear evidence, who does not see 
 the existence of a dark conspiracy, having for its ultimate object, 
 to make the Presbyterian Church the dominant religion of this 
 country, — the workings of the same spirit, which, having been 
 foiled in its attempt to stop the Sunday mail, has now hit upon a 
 more popular, more cunning, and, therefore, a more dangerous ex- 
 pedient for the accomplishment of its unhallowed purpose. This 
 expedient is, to combine all Protestants in a general effort to put 
 down, jirst, the denomination that is most unpopular, and then, by 
 the same rule, to graduate the scale in reference to other sQcts, un- 
 til Presbyterians shall be predominant. The watchword is well sc- 
 
 18 281 
 
282 
 
 lected. Under the pretence of solicitude for the preservation of 
 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, the Catholics are to be robbed of 
 both. They are to be denounced as '' foreigners;" — and foreigners 
 are at the bottom of the plot for their destruction. These in- 
 triguing adventurers, who come inflated with the spirit of John 
 Knox, care not what dissensions may ensue, what charities may 
 be broken up, what blood may flow, provided that, under the plea 
 of guarding against *' foreigners," they may be allowed to sting 
 the Republic, and distil into its veins the poison of bigotry and 
 intolerance, which will soon reach its heart. But they would 
 have the work of thqir own creation to appear as the spontaneous 
 manifestation of American feeling. And hence, we find, by a co- 
 incidence, too striking to be natural, that the same question, which 
 was selected for debate in this Society, was, 'at the same time, 
 undergoing discussion in New York, Ohio, Kentucky, and the 
 Eastern States. They knew very well, that throughout the coun- 
 try, for every man that has read the Council of Trent, there are 
 ten thousand who have read the popular treatises, written expressly 
 to misrepresent the tenets of Catholicity, and to villify the profes- 
 sors of that creed. 
 
 Presbyterian clergymen had left their own pulpits, where their 
 ministry might have been salutary, in teaching their congregations 
 the meek doctrines of the Saviour, in preaching good will and 
 charity among men, — and were passing from city to city, and from 
 district to district, rousing the worst passions of the human breast 
 into hatred and enmity against Catholics. Their object was to agi- 
 tate the elements of strife, and the pulpit, from whence men should 
 learn to forget and forgive, was selected as the laboratory. 
 
 It wae in this state of the case that the discussion of the ques- 
 tion^, respecting the Catholic religion, was announced on the part 
 of the Union Literary and Debating Society; and, although I be- 
 lieve that the gentlemen composing it were too high-minded, too 
 American, to become tools in the hands even of parsons, hnow- 
 ingh/, yet it was manifest, that the purposes of those fanatics 
 would be equally subserved by a discussion, when all could at- 
 tack, and none, perhaps, were qualified by education to defend. 
 It was on these accounts that I attended, with a view to see how 
 such a question would be disposed of, in such an assembly. My 
 anticipations, in this regard, were not disappointed. Hence, I 
 made some remarks, showing the injustice done to Catholics, un- 
 der these circumstances. At the request of the respected Presi- 
 dent, I consented to deliver an address on the principles involved 
 in the discussion, and on the distinction between th« doctrines of 
 the Catholic religion, and the sayings or doings or its nominal 
 members- This, after my arrival on the evening appointed, was 
 refused by the Society. I should either depart, or else speak for 
 a certain time, when I might be answered by any respondent. I 
 chose the latter, because I knew that, if I did not, the trump of 
 
283 
 
 triumphant falsehood would proclaim my retreat, and ascribe 
 to a wrong motive. In fact, as it was, the veracious Pres- 
 byterian, and another paper, published in New York, called' the 
 Protestant Vindicator, proclaimed that I was pulverized, annihi- 
 lated, and that, after having been reduced to nothing, I fled. You 
 all know how that was. But if they could publish such a statement, 
 unsupported by one tittle of truth, how much more, in case I had, 
 in fact, declined the discussion ? On that evening I had to encoun- 
 ter the Ptev. Wm. L. M'Calla, a gentleman whom, for various rea- 
 sons, I was by no means ambitious of meeting. He was in keep- 
 ing, however, for the occasion, and made his debut, by the signifi- 
 cant declaration, that he was no "green horn,'' and, ''as Sam Patch 
 said, there was no mistake in that.'' He was only a substitute, 
 however, appointed by my present Rev. opponent. This ap- 
 pointment was made, according'to his own explanation, in Fkila- 
 delphia on Friday evening. And yet he writes /rom New York 
 on the Wednesday following, that he had ^^just learnt," that I 
 was to address the society on the following evening. He com- 
 plains that by this I impeach his veracity. I answer that for the 
 statement of both facts, he is himself my author, and of course, 
 it is for him to explain in the best way he can, how he should 
 have learnt in Neio York, on Wednesday, what he acknowledges 
 he knew in Philadelphia on the Fjriday previous. 
 
 He returned from New York in due season. The first evening 
 the debate was opened by a young gentleman of the Society, fol- 
 lowed by several others. The anti-Catholic battery was manned by 
 a goodly number, including the venerable gentleman, on the left of 
 my opponent. I, sir, had to stand the fire of them all, and I hope 
 they will be prepared to defend Presbyterians, when the time shall 
 come, and to receive a shot in return. The venerable gentleman's 
 mind, as I remember, laboured strangely under the conflicting claims 
 of friendship and duty. ''Out of this place, no man had greater 
 respect for Mr. Hughes than he had, but luwc he knew no man." 
 Ptesbyterian charity is always gcoyraphical, mine is catholic. 
 I respect age everywhere, and, therefore, I dismiss the subject. 
 Yet the gentleman's remarks came in the richness of Scotch-Irish 
 accents, that brought back the years of my childhood, when Presby- 
 terian lads were my school-companions, and would have flogged 
 the urchin who should have attempted to impose on me. 
 
 Subsequently, the definitions of liberty, civil and religious, as 
 well of doctrines, and the rules of the discussion, were agreed 
 upon, and signed by the gentleman and myself, in a private inter- 
 view. I thought then, that he would have complied with his 
 own deliberate agreement, and have "kept faith with a heretic." 
 But no. He agreed that nothing should be adduced against the 
 Catholic religion, as argument, except what should be admitted, 
 ov proved hy a General Council, or the hull of a pope, to be a DOC- 
 TRINE of that religion. And yet, on the first evening of the de- 
 
284 
 
 bate, he assumed, that every document emanating from cither of 
 these sources, imist he a doctrine. Discipline, history of events, 
 legislation, enactment, every thing was doctrine. He was as in- 
 nocent of the knowledge of what constitutes doctrine^ as the child 
 unborn. Two or three days before, he had defined ^^ doctrines as 
 those tenets of faith and rnorals, ichicJb a denomination tcaeheSy 
 AS HAVING BEEN REVEALED BY ALMIGHTY GoD." But on the en- 
 trance into this Hall, his memory was overtaken with a most un- 
 accountable ''backsliding and shortcoming." Then every thing 
 that a Council said, or a Pope did, was a doctrine. When I re- 
 minded him of his contract, that, unless it had been taught by the 
 council or the Pope, as " having been revealed by Almighty God,'^ 
 he should not assume it as a doctrine of the Catholic religion, his 
 answer was, that I meant to "cramp the discussion." But even 
 with this latitude, the councils and Popes were soon relinquished 
 for the authority of the renegade, the ajwstate De Pradt; and this 
 apostate, and outcast from the Church, the gentleman would pass 
 off for a Catholic. Was this ignorance? was it disingenuous- 
 ness? 
 
 When DePradt failed, Tristam Shandy was adduced to prove Ca- 
 tholic doctrine — and the records of the Parliament of Paris, from 
 which the gentleman drew mighty inferences, although he never 
 got farther than the Index. Still he proceeded uncontrolled, turn- 
 ing every thing into doctrines, and obstinately determined to make 
 Catholics hold, as tenets revealed by Almighty God, Whatever he 
 or Tristam Shandy charged them with believing. 
 
 It was not for me to instruct the gentleman as to how he should 
 conduct his argument. Still, I must observe, that so palpable a 
 violation of an agreement I have never witnessed. In the whole 
 six evenings, the gentleman never touched on a '' doctrine," 
 except one or two. He took liberties with the few bulls of 
 popes in the way of additions and suppressions, and the ex- 
 posure which followed show that the animals wheeled upon 
 him and horned him. There he remains, and the only consola- 
 tion he has, is, that, in his falsification of documents, he only 
 copied after the Rev. G. Stanley Faber — clarum et venerabile 
 nomen. 
 
 His tirade against the Catholic religion passed through the 
 three stages of the facetious, the furious and the flat. He opened 
 with the story of "Paddy and his horse" — this was funny; he 
 continued by "oceans of blood" — "millions of butchered Pro- 
 testants" — these were furious figures; he terminated with the 
 anecdote of the "butcher and his ham" — and the "hen laying 
 eggs" — this was flat. In a word — 
 
 lie commenced with a " wen," 
 And ho closed with a "hen." 
 
 I recognise the fitness, as well as humility, of the emblem. 
 
285 
 
 Still, if I were ambitious of immortality as an author, I should 
 have selected a nobler bird; I should have endeavoured to mount 
 on the eagle's pinions, and gone down to posterity in a style of 
 which posterity need not be ashamed. But all this is past, and 
 the "Presbyterian Religion" is now on its trial, inine being the 
 right to prosecute, and Ms the duty to defend. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I charge that religion with holding "doc- 
 trines" — "tenets of faith and morals, as having been revealed by 
 Almighty God," which are opposed to the "civil and religious 
 liberty" of all men who are not Presbyterians. That religion, 
 under the head of "God's Eternal Decree,"(l) teaches that God 
 from all eternity did "freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever 
 comes to pass." The same doctrine is taught, in Larger and 
 Smaller Catechism, (2) where the word "foreordained" is applied 
 to " whatsoever comes to pass." I am aware that the text goes 
 on to disclaim the consequences of this doctrine, by stating that 
 God is not on this account "the author of sin," which I do not 
 assert him to be. And further, that " neither is violence offered 
 to the will of the creatures," of which I also say, let that pass. 
 But when it goes on to assert, that the " liberty or contingency 
 of second causes is not taken away, but rather established," by 
 this doctrine, — I must beg leave to demur. How an act can be 
 ^' unchangeaMi/ foreordained," and yet the agent, who was 
 " foreordained" to do that act, be at liberty to leave it undone, 
 is what I leave to the gentleman or the General Assembly to 
 explain. 
 
 Let us illustrate this doctrine by a particular case. In the year 
 1553, Michael Servetus was burned alive for heresy, in Geneva, 
 by John Calvin, or through his influence. Now, according to 
 this doctrine, the time, the place, the agent, had all been deter- 
 mined and "foreordained unchangeably j" and, if so, Calvin 
 could not avoid the part assigned to him in this tragedy of blood. 
 If he could not avoid it, where was his " liberty" as " a second 
 cause ?" If he had no " liberty" to avoid it, where could be his 
 guilt? And here is the reason, that, whilst all other denomina- 
 tions regard him, in connexion with this matter, as one whose 
 hands were purpled with blood of a man, who was not amenable 
 to his tribunal, the Presbyterians regard him as a saint, who is 
 not to be held accountable for having done what God from all 
 eternity had "unchangeably foreordained" that he should do I 
 Apply this principle to John Knox and his associates, in the assas- 
 sination of Cardinal Beaton; and to the others, in the assassination 
 of Archbishop Sharp — the execution of Laud, Strafford, Charles L, 
 &c. — and, last of all, to the burning of the Convent at Boston. 
 The doctrine that God has "unchangeably foreordained what- 
 
 (1) Confession of Faith, Chap. III. p. 15. 
 
 (2) Page 146 and 321. 
 
286 
 
 soever comes to pass/' is applicable to all these cases, and to all 
 the crimes that ever were, or ever will be committed. The 
 agents were but the irresponsible tools of onmtpotent poiccr — 
 "foreordained" to execute "whatsoever comes to pass" — the 
 evil as well as the good ; for the word '' whatsoever^' comprises 
 both. Now there can be neither merit nor crime in executing 
 the decrees of God; and where there is neither, there can be no 
 punishmenf — no reward. Hence, it follows, that this doctrine 
 is subversive of that fundamental principle, on the admission of 
 which, the safety of states, the authority of human laws, the wel- 
 fare of society depend — viz. the principle of future ^'■rewards and 
 punishments." The doctrine of the decree " unchangeably fore- 
 ordaining" whatsoever comes to pass, destroys the doctrine of 
 free will and moral responsibility. 1 do not say that Presbyte- 
 rians act out this doctrine of their Confession of Faith; but that 
 its tendencies are such as I have described, no man who has a 
 mind capable of tracing the connexion between principles and 
 their consequences, can, for a moment, deny. The gentleman 
 will not venture to deny the doctrine; and I challenge him to 
 refute the argument, which it confirms, as here laid down, and 
 proven. Reduced to the form of a syllogism, it may be stated 
 thus : — 
 
 Any religion that holds, as a "tenet of faith revealed by Almighty 
 God," that "whatsoever comes to pass" was "unchangeably fore- 
 ordained," is opposed and dangerous to civil and religious liberty, 
 by reducing its votaries from the position of moral, free, respon- 
 sible agents, to that of the mere instruments of God's eternal de- 
 cree, for the execution of " whatsoever comes to pass." 
 
 But the Presbyterian Religion holds this doctrine : 
 
 Therefore the Presbyterian Religion is, in this respect, opposed 
 and dangerous to civil and religious liberty. First Argument. 
 
 Intimately connected with this, is the Presbyterian doctrine of 
 "election and reprobation," The belief that God would render 
 to every man according to his works, in the judgment of another 
 life, has been the conservative principle of all social rights since 
 the beginning of the world. It furnishes the check by which the 
 conscience of a good man curbs and restrains the passions of 
 cupidity and self-interest. It furnishes the motive, reaching to 
 the inmost soul, for which we should avoid evil and do good. 
 It supposes, that, with the help of divine grace, we are not only 
 free, but able to fulfil the requisitions of justice towards God and 
 our neighbour. Wherever this salutary belief is rejected, there 
 the corner-stone of social safety is removed, and the edifice, 
 unless sustained by other support, will totter and fall. Now this 
 principle is rejected by the Presbyterian Religion, which teaches 
 that our good or evil works, in this life, do not in any wise con- 
 tribute as a help or a hiuderance, to our eternal happiness or misery 
 in the life to come : consequently, there is no motive of reward or 
 
287 
 
 punishment, among the believers of that creed, springing from the 
 considerations of eternity, to c-ounteract and subdue the workings 
 of temporal self-interest. 
 
 Their doctrine is, that, " by the decree of God, for the mani- 
 festation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto 
 everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death/' 
 And this (for the elect) out of his mere free grace and love, with- 
 out any foresight of faith and good works, or perseverance in 
 either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions^ 
 or causes moving him thereunto; and all for the praise of his 
 
 glorious grace." "The rest of mankind, God was pleased 
 
 to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their 
 sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. "(1) Since this conse- 
 quence was "for their sin," it would follow that God had fore- 
 ordained their sin. But as Presbyterians disclaim this blasphe- 
 mous consequence, I will not urge !t, although I cannot see how 
 they can escape it, consistently with the doctrine that God has 
 " unchangeably ybreorf/a/wccZ whatsoever comes to pass." 
 
 But it is manifest from the doctrines here stated, that " good 
 works" cannot contribute to secure the salvation, nor to hinder 
 damnation of Presbyterians. Whence it follows, that with them, 
 all is fixed as fate; that those who are to be saved, will be saved, 
 whatever may be the extent of their wickedness ; and that those 
 who are to be damned, will be damned, in spite of all their efforts 
 to avoid it, by a virtuous, upright, honest life. The gentleman 
 cannot deny these consequences consistently with the Confession 
 of Faith. Whence I conclude — 
 
 That any religion which makes eternal hajypiriess and eternal 
 misery/ depend on an absolute decree, "excluding the foresight of 
 faith and good icorks, or perseverance in either of them, or any 
 other thing in the creature, as conditions," is dangerous, and op- 
 posed to civil and religious liberty; by inculcating implicitly that 
 the invasion of the civil and religious rights of others, in this 
 life, cannot affect the destinies of the soul, in the life to come. 
 
 But the Presbyterian Religion holds the doctrine of which this 
 is the logical and undeniable consequence : 
 
 Therefore, in this doctrine, that religion is opposed to civil and 
 religious liberty. Second Argument. 
 
 I am not ignorant that Presbyterians disclaim this consequence, 
 but I dispute their right to disclaim it. It is deduced from their 
 doctrine as fairly as ever consequence flowed from premises, and 
 those who deny it, must either have minds incapable of making 
 inductions, or else be persuaded that all reasoning is a farce. 
 According to their doctrine, I am foreordained to everlasting life 
 or everlasting death, by the eternal decree of God; and no actions 
 of mine can disappoint my eternal destiny. Now this principle 
 pervades the whole Presbyterian denomination, and .takes from 
 (1) Confession of Faith, pp. 17, 18, 19. 
 
288 
 
 them the motive which would render the civil and religious 
 rights of other denominations sacred in their estimation. How 
 is that motive taken away ? By their belief that God will 
 judge them, not hy their actions, hut hy Ms own eternal 
 decree. To the influence of this doctrine, I ascribe that dark, 
 morose, restless, aspiring, turbulent, intolerant, and persecuting 
 spirit, which has characterized the ardent disciples of this 
 sect, from the hour of its birth; — distinguishing it from all other 
 sects and denominations. Assuming that God had elected tliem 
 as special favourites, they naturally grow proud by the dis- 
 tinction in comparison with other men, who, in the language of 
 their creed, have been " passed by.'' Hence, as the Christian 
 heirs of these prerogatives, which God bestowed on his chosen 
 people under the Jewish law, they would exercise over every 
 country, that right of exclusive domination which the children of 
 Jacob, by divine permission,*exercised in reference to the inha- 
 bitants and territory of Canaan. You can find no period in their 
 history, in which they were not oppressed — or oppressing — and 
 sometimes both. Whilst the laws and government of Protestant 
 England were severe, and severely, executed against them, their 
 cry was that the oppression of the Catholics was not sufficiently 
 grinding. They emerged from every persecution with the fierce 
 spirit of intolerance, unquenched and unquenchable. Even in 
 this country, without a single legitimate motive to stimulate them, 
 they are now attempting to rob their Catholic fellow-citizens of 
 the civil and religious rights secured by the Constitution. Other 
 denominations of Protestants are used by them as " cats' -paws;" 
 and will, no doubt, in due season, receive their merited, but un- 
 welcome recompense, at the hand'of predominant Presbyterianism. 
 They are the favoured class; with the decree of election and 
 reprobation as a patent of impunity in the other world for actions 
 done in this, they have conscientious facilities, for the accom- 
 plishment of projects dictated by private or sectarian ambition, 
 Tfhich are denied to the consciences of those who hold, as a 
 doctrine, that their conduct in this life will have a serious influence 
 on the judgment of their souls in the life to come. 
 
 This difl'erence accounts also for the fact, that the Presbyterians in 
 every instance, where their numbers gave hope of success, aimed, 
 and often successfully, at the supreme civil power of the state ; 
 perfectly indiff"erent as to the meaos by which it might be acquired. 
 Hence their libels on governments, which they wished to over- 
 turn, and then civil war to be followed by defeat or victory. It 
 was thus, trampling on the civil and religious rights of the Catho- 
 lics, that they established their religion in Scotland, England and 
 on the Continent of Europe. The excitement of popular commo- 
 tion, the circulation of libels, the inflaming of the passions of the 
 multitude, were the usual precursors of some political stroke 
 which should place Presbyterians uppermost. The attack, on 
 
289 
 
 Catholics which they are now exciting the people to make, is not 
 their first attempt in this country, to obtain the control and di- 
 rection of the civil government. We all remember the effort made 
 by them, as a trial of strength, to have the Sunday mail stopped, 
 and by an act of Congress, save the country from the national 
 sin of transporting letters on the Sabbath-day. The experiment 
 failed. We all remember the efforts to have the ''Sunday-school 
 Union" incorporated; and the anticipation that was indulged in 
 of the political influence which would be placod at the disposal 
 of the Presbyterians, through its instrumentality, in ten or at 
 most twenty years. We all remember the boast (^f Dr. Ely, that 
 Presbyterians alone could bring half a million voters to the poll, 
 and his effort to establish "a Christian party in politics." All 
 these efforts failed. But the untiring, indomitable spirit of Pres- 
 byterian ambition returns to the onset, and, out of pure, disinte- 
 re.'^ted zeal "for civil and religious liberty" undertakes to deprive 
 Catholics of both. It will be ygain defeated; — as soon as it will 
 be discovered that there is an ulterior object towards which the 
 putting down of the Catholics is but the first i^tepping-stone. 
 
 Another point of danger in the creed of this denomination is the 
 right claimed by them to alter their doctrine, according to the inte- 
 rests of their position on the scale of political ascendency. Thus, 
 the principles of the " Solemn League and Covenant" constituted 
 their doctrines so long as they were able, h^ meaiLs of the civil 
 power, to force their adoption on others. But after the restoration 
 of the Episcopalian interest to supreme power under Chailes II., 
 it was found that a more relaxed creed would suit their interest 
 better. And the small band of Presbyterians, called " Covenant- 
 ers," preserved alone the profession of their principles. The 
 Westminster Confession of Faith became the nominal standard of 
 doctrine, among the degenerate sons of defection. Tins document 
 taught, as a doctrine, that for publishing or maintaining certain 
 erroneous opinions, persons might be called to account, and pro- 
 ceeded against, by the censures of the church, " and by the power 
 of the civil magistrate." That the " civil magistrate" may sup- 
 press blasphemies and heresies* That it is a sin to tolerate a false 
 religion, &c. After the Revolution in this country, these "te- 
 nets," hitherto held as "having been revealed by Almighty God," 
 were also discarded from the books, as being unsuited to the soil of 
 new-born liberty and of equal rights. The Constitution declared that 
 opinions were free, and should not be proceeded against "by the 
 civil magistrate," that he should suppress no hcresij, that it was 
 710 sin to tolerate a "false religion" — and lo I the Confession of 
 Faith is forthwith amended so as to suit the Constitution, and the 
 new order of things. When reminded of these several rejections of 
 what God had revealed, the answer is, that they do not pretend 
 to be infallible ; and consequently have a right to change and 
 modify their creed when they find it wrong. But the question in 
 
290 
 
 wliicli of their creeds is right ? May they not discover that tliey 
 are now in error, and recall the doctrines of the magistrate's 
 power, and of the sin of tolerating a false religion ? They may. 
 And there is reason to believe that they will, when it can be done 
 with safety. Wi>ence I argue, — 
 
 That any religion which maintains as a doctrine the right to 
 resume its intolerance, whenever the civil power is prepared for 
 it, is, in this respect, dangerous to the civil and religious liberty 
 of other denominations. 
 
 But the Presbyterian religion teaches this right as a doctrine. 
 Therefore this ijeligion is opposed to the civil and religious liberty 
 of otlner denominations. Third argument. 
 
 As it exists at this time, and in this country, Presbyterianism 
 is in a false position. It embodies in its composition all the 
 essence of persecution, and yet, awed by the genius of the coun- 
 try, it is compelled to do violence to its nature, and ^ro/es.s that 
 liberality which it does not fe^ and cannot ^j?-ac'^/se. But let 
 such a change of political circumstances arise as will authorize 
 another revision and correction of its doctrines, and the scenes of 
 other days will be renewed, supported by a new Confession of 
 Faith, and texts of Scripture. Richard will be himself again. 
 The '* ordinance of magistracy" may be revived, and days of 
 humiliation and prayer appointed for the sin of having ever 
 abandoned it. Under the sanction of this '^ ordinance," whipping, 
 cutting oif the ears, hanging, may again be introduced, as they 
 were practised in New England, which was always remarkable 
 for its love of civil and religious liberty. (1) 
 
 Before going farther, it may be proper to expose a sophism, of 
 which the gentleman has more than once attempted to avail him- 
 self. It consists in denying that the colonies of New England 
 were Presbyterians, and this for no other reason except that he 
 must be ashamed of professing a religion which sanctions their 
 deeds of blood and persecution. " They were Puritans," he has 
 said, '' whereas ^ce are Presbyter ians.^' They differed only, 
 however, in the form of church government, and not in the doc- 
 trines of intolerance. Both agreed in holding as a i^ tenet revealed 
 by Almighty God," that the civil magistrate had a right to enforce 
 the observance of the ''first," as well as the ''second table" of 
 the decalogue. Now the first table has reference to the worship 
 of God, the sanctification of his name, and of the Sabbath-day. 
 So that the right of every man to worship Almighty God, according 
 to the dictates of his own conscience, is contrary to all that icas 
 doctrine among Puritans and Presbyterians, previous to the 
 declaration of American independence. Their doctrine was that 
 he had a right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates 
 of the civil magistrate. This I shall have abundant occasion to 
 
 (1) See Backus's History of the Baptists, ^Jass^'w. 
 
291 
 
 show in the sequel of this argument. Consequently, then, since 
 both hold the same doctrine on all the points that are essential to 
 this question; — it follows that the pretended difference or dis- 
 tinction on which the gentleman claims to disown the Puritans, 
 is nugatory. We shall find that in both denominations it pro- 
 duced the same blood-stained fruits. 
 
 The plan of civil and religious government contemplated by the 
 doctrine of the Presbyterian, and indeed, all the Calvinistic sects, 
 is a coalition and consolidation of church and state. Geneva was 
 the model. The clergy were to constitute the legislative body 
 and the judiciary, in all matters appertaining to doctrinb, worship, 
 and "the power of godliness." The civil magistrate was to be 
 the executive, the mere constable of the church. Neither let it. 
 be supposed that Presbyterians have yet relinquished this danger- 
 ous doctrine. The present Confession of Faith tells us, that 
 although the civil magistrates may not '^interfere in matters of 
 faith, yet, AS nursing fathers, it is the duty of the civil magis- 
 trates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the 
 preference to any denomination of Christians, above the rest," &c. 
 This last clause is put in as a salvo ad captandum; — for the gentle- 
 man has made amends for his want of charit}^ by his abundant 
 candour in admitting that, according to Presbyterian doctrine, 
 Catholics, Quakers, Unitarians, and I know not how many other 
 sects, are excluded from the nieaning of the words, ''church of 
 our common Lord," and consequently, excluded from the protec- 
 tion which the " nursing fathers" are bound to afford. But I 
 fear the Confession of Faith, which is better authority, cuts off a 
 few other denominations. In page 3, it tells us that the " visible 
 church . . . consists of all those throughout the world, that pro- 
 fess the true religion; together with their children; and is the 
 kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, 
 out of which there is no ordinari/ possibility of salvatioji." 
 Whence it follows that those who do not "profess the true 
 religion," do not belong to the " church of our common Lord," 
 and are not of the happy few whom it is the duty of the civil magis- 
 trates, as " nursing fathers," to protect. Now the " true religion," 
 according to Presbyterian belief, consists in the doctrines of the 
 Old and New Testament; — and the book called the Confession of 
 Faith, " contains the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. "(1) Here then the profession of the true religion is made 
 to consist in the profession of the Presbyterian religion. And 
 since the profession of the true religion, alias the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith, with all its doctrine of fatalism, under the 
 caption of "God's eternal decree," constitutes the " church of 
 our common Lord," "out of which there is no ordinary possi- 
 bility of salvation," it follows that those who do not hold the 
 
 (1) Page 378. 
 
292 
 
 >j^stem of doctrine taught in the Confession of Faith, have no title 
 CO the protection of the civil magistrates, as not being included 
 in the " church of our common Lord," which turns out to be 
 nothing more than the Presbyterian church. To reduce the 
 matter into a more condensed form, it may be stated in the fol- 
 lowing propositions: 
 
 Any religion which teaches, as a doctrine, that the civil ma- 
 gistrates, in these United States, are bound, *'as nursing 
 fatliers,'' to protect the church of one sect, or of a specific number 
 of sects, under pretext that it, or they alone, constitute the 
 ^'church of our common Lord," to the exclusion of other deno- 
 minations, is adverse to the constitution of the country, and danger- 
 ous to civil and religious liberty. This proposition is self-evident. 
 
 But the Presbyterians, as has been shown, by the foregoing 
 facts and reasoning, holds this doctrine : 
 
 Therefore, the Presbyterian religion is opposed, in this respect, 
 and dangerous to the civil and religious rights of other denomi- 
 nations. Fourth argument. 
 
 Let this doctrine be carried out, and you will see the njagis- 
 trates of your republic converted into dry nurses of Presby- 
 terianism, the President dandling the baby on his knee, and 
 the Secretary of the Treasury gathering pap for it. The vision 
 is enchanting enough, as it recalls the palmy days of the church, 
 when, at her bidding, the magistrates of Geneva, Holland, Scot- 
 land, England, maintained the *' power of (Presbyterian) godli- 
 ness," by the power of the sword. Still it is but a vision. 
 
 All other denominations, with whose doctrines I am acquainted, 
 hold, that it is the duty of the civil magistrates to administer the 
 constitutional laws of the country, in justice and mercy, leaving 
 " the church of our common Lord" to protect itself. *' The 
 church of our common Lord" is a thing unknown to the Consti- 
 tution; that instrument guarantees the protection of citizens, 
 leaving them at full liberty to choose their religion unbiassed by 
 political preferences, extended to one sect more than another. 
 The orthodoxy of the Dutch Reformed Church is fully admitted by 
 the denomination to which the gentleman belongs. And the anti- 
 constitutional doctrine, of the duty of magistrates, which is cun- 
 ningly enough disguised in the Westminster Confession, is openly 
 and honestly stated in the creed of the Dutch Reformed brethren, 
 where it is taught, that the " office" of the civil magistrates is . . . 
 " that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and 
 
 prevent all idolatry and false worship wherefore, we 
 
 detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all 
 
 those who reject the higher powers, and magistrates "(1) 
 
 This coincidence of intolerant doctrine accounts for the fact, that 
 
 (^ ) Confession of Faith of the Keformed Dutch Church in North America, 
 New York, 1819. 
 
293 
 
 tbe politico-religious excitement which is now raging against the 
 Catholics, has been mainly stimulated by the fiery harani^ues and 
 writings of certain fanatical or malevolent preachers, of those two 
 denominations. They endeavour to enlist the passions of other 
 sects of Protestants, in the nefarious attempt to put down the 
 adherents of that religion, which they impudently term of anti- 
 Christ. But let their credulous allies not be deceived ; the same 
 warrant of Revelation which authorizes them to do this, makes it 
 equally incumbent on them to put down ''all false worship/' 
 and to ^^ detest the Anabaptists." 
 
 The gentleman takes credit to his cause, on the ground, that, in 
 this country, Presbyterians have not persecuted since the Decla- 
 ration of Independence. If he means that they have not put men 
 to death or in prison, for the crime of worshipping God according to 
 the dictates of their conscience, I admit the truth of his observation. 
 But I ascribe the happy circumstances to the constitution and laws 
 of tlie United States, and to the buoyant energies of young Ameri- 
 can liberty and liberality. The American eagle, which has ho- 
 vered over the equal rights of all denominations, both civil and 
 religious, would have picked the eyes out of the sect that should 
 have dared to execute the work of religious persecution. But let 
 the hand of Presbyterian intolerance only succeed to pluck only 
 one feather out of the noble bird's wing; and its pinions' will soon 
 be broken, and a cage found for it by the General Assembly. The 
 church will become the guardian of "civil and religious liberty,^' 
 and the civil magistrates will become the "nursing fathers" of the 
 Church. 
 
 It might be supposed by those who are unacquainted with the 
 subject, that these observations are made without regard to facts 
 that warrant them. This would be a great mistake. It was said 
 by a great statesman, Patrick Henry, that the light which should 
 guide our course, in regard to the future, must blaze from the 
 lamp of experience. And on this subject, what does experience 
 teach? Open the history of Presbyterianism and see. If the 
 gentleman can show me an instance, in the history of the world, 
 in which Presbyterians did not invade by civil penalties, extend- 
 ing in most cases to life and death, (when they had the political 
 power to do so,) the "riglit of every man to worship God, accord- 
 ing to the dictates of his own conscience," I bind myself to 
 give up the argument. Other general rules have exceptlonSj — 
 this has none. Let him name one instance. I challenge him to 
 the test. 
 
294 
 
 *'Is the Preshi/terian Religion, in any or in all its principles 
 or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty." 
 
 NEGATIVE I.— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Mr. President : — 
 
 It would seem as if the gentleman had determined to make a 
 deep impression on yowr pifi/, if not on your reason, in the intro- 
 duction of his address. It is surely a strong indication of the pro- 
 gress of truth, and human freedom, as well as of the spirit of the 
 age, when a priest of Rome is heard appealing to public sympa- 
 thy, under any circumstances. We may truly bless God, and 
 take courage, when we compare Rome, in the fifteenth century, 
 making the earth to tremble at her rebuke, with Rome, in the 
 nineteenth century, calling ^or pity. Rome complaining of per- 
 secution! Sir, Romanism cannot endure free inquiry. It is al- 
 ways, therefore, either "heresy" or "persecution," to question 
 this infallible mother of churches, and mistress of nations. It is 
 heresy, \i in poicer ; persecution, ii not. But, sir, Roman Catho- 
 lics are not persecuted. 
 
 It is a custom of the American people to examine every thing. 
 It is an attribute of the American system, to reject every thing 
 which cannot stand the test of an examination by the standard of 
 truth and right. Rome is not used to this. She cannot stand it. 
 She cries out against it. Hinc illse lachrymse. Hence, those lu- 
 gubrious cries with which the gentleman moved your pity at the 
 sorrows of that poor weak people, only 120,000,000 strong, whom 
 a few Presbyterian "parsojis" are persecuting to death! No, 
 Mr. President, the ''origin" of this question is not truly stated by 
 the gentleman. It is no new thing, that popery and liberty have 
 no afiinity, or love for each other; and it is natural for the Ameri- 
 can people to watch narrowly what is so well known to be hostile 
 to the rights of man. 
 
 Well; it had been observed, with some solicitude for many 
 years, that a large number of Jesuits (you remember how sternly 
 and fondly the gentleman has defended them) were coming into 
 the United Slates; some iii, some out r>f the priesthood. Talley- 
 rand (a Jesuit) was once a teacher in this country !• Crowds of 
 such wore seen passing with other goods through our custom- 
 houses into the bosom of the nation — from France, Spain, Ger- 
 many, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland. The Jesuits were known to 
 
295 
 
 be the most subtle, strongly united, and numerous body of llomisli 
 emissaries; the militia of the Pope, the enemies of all freedom; 
 who had ruled, corrupted, and been expelled from almost every 
 government of Europe; and having recently been restored to 
 power and rank by the Pope, were rapidly extending their mis- 
 sions to the New World, and to this garden of it. 
 
 Again : The emigration to this from Roman Catholic countries, 
 was observed to be immense; and, with many honourable excep- 
 tions, this population was confessedly the most ignorant, unruly, 
 and vicious in the country; and, also, very much devoted to 
 popery. 
 
 7Vgain : It was seen that European despots were deeply inte- 
 rested, and published, in the annual reports of organized societies, 
 as patmns of plans to send priests and Catholic emigrants to the 
 United States : (witness the Leopold foundation of which I have 
 largely spoken already, headed by Prince Metternich, sending 
 vast sums of money to America to spread Catholicity:) and this 
 was done in connexion with the periodical visits to Europe of 
 American Roman Catholic prelates; as, for example. Bishop Eng- 
 land's late tour. 
 
 Roman Catholic politicians also in Europe, had avowed alike 
 their ennjity to our institutions, and the fear of their influence on 
 the European system of despotism. 
 
 A high officer in the Austrian government, Schlegel, had said, 
 in his Lectures on the Fhilosophy of History ^{V) " That THE 
 
 RKAL NURSERY OF ALL THESE DESTRUCTIVE PRINCIPLES, THE 
 REVOLUTIONARY SCHOOL OF FrANCE, AND THE REST OF EU- 
 ROPE, [Poland, Belgium, Holland, he names,] had been North 
 Amehica!!" 
 
 And still more. We had been warned* by writers^ especially 
 Frenchmen^ who have most freedom of all the Catholic states, 
 that the priesthood of Rome would destroy our liberties, if they 
 prevailed in America. De Pradt, who had certainly once heen a 
 Catholic, and an Abbe, one of the first writers and politicians in 
 Europe, has thus warned us: "In Ireland, Holland, and the 
 United States, (Rome) does every thing by apostolic vicars, as 
 in the countries of missions. This regime pleases Rome; for it 
 gives her the means of being mistress everywhere. The CLERGY 
 OF the United States, like that of Ireland, is very devoted to 
 the Pope. It is very rigorous. In time it will give embar- 
 rassment TO THE United States, as that of Ireland does 
 to the British government.^'(2) 
 
 All these, connected with an unparalleled zeal for proselytism, 
 and a daily augmenting arrogance, and self-consequence among the 
 priests, awakened the simultaneous attention of American citizens, 
 politicians, and Christians; and, at the same time, American Epi,«- 
 
 (1) Lecture XVIL, Vol. II. p. 286. 
 
 (2) Modern Jesuitism, p. 305. 
 
296 
 
 copalians, Baptists, Methodists, and Congregationalists, as well as 
 Presbyterians, without collusion, by the call of these concurrent 
 events and disclosures, began to inquire ^'ichat can this mean?'* 
 It is wholly false, however, that this coincidence was L?/ concert, 
 as the Kev. gentleman has said. For, even supposing that these 
 various and powerful Christian denominations could be thought 
 capable of a concerted, simultaneous attack of the sort, " in New 
 York, Ohio, Kentucky, and the Eastern States," it is hardly 
 likely that they would have joined in "a dark consjnraci/ — to 
 make the Presbyterian Church the dominant relujion of the coun' 
 try f\ . . . and '^ under the pretence of a regard for civil and re- 
 ligious liberty, rob the Catholics of both.'' 
 
 And then, as to the respectable Society before which we appear, 
 I hardly suppose the young gentlemen will feel much flattered by 
 the charge of "being employed,'^ " though not knowingly," *'as 
 tools in the hands of a combination of bigotry and malice." For 
 myself, sir, the first intimation that I ever had of the existence of 
 this Society, was after the question " On Civil and Religious 
 Liberty" had been brought up, and debated for at least one night; 
 and after the Eev. gentleman had participated in the discussion. 
 It was in consequence of that very appearance of his, at this Hall, 
 that I was asked to attend and meet him, (a week after,) in case 
 he should finally consent to debate again. This was on Friday, 
 when I was on the eve of a journey to New York. On the next 
 Wednesday I received official notice that Mr. Hughes had com- 
 mitted himself to appear again. Then it was, that I addressed 
 to him the letter which he has so ungenerously tried (though in 
 vain) to distort into a contradiction. All I intended to say, in a 
 hurried letter, written in a sick chamber, was this : that having 
 just been officially assured, of his pledged appearance in the dis- 
 cussion, (what he had promised before, what the Society hoped 
 he would, and \ feared he would not do,) I then, and thus agreed 
 to meet him on the pending question. What motive had I to af- 
 fect ignorance of his intention ? I had, for more than a year, pub- 
 licly, by a standing call, invited him to an oral discussion. He 
 had all this time declined, after having abruptly and pertinaciously 
 closed a former written discussion with me; and left me to carry 
 it on alone. You lately had a specimen of the gentleman's reso- 
 lution in debate — when this Society earnestly and unanimously 
 requested us to add two evenings to each of the questions, that 
 the important subjects involved might be fully examined; yet 
 against our united entreaties, he did most licroically and zealously 
 refuse. The gentleman is a great admirer of that prudent adage 
 — " The better part of valour is disci-etion;" and if ever he re- 
 deem his pledge to finish and publish this debate; — if he do not 
 make reasons to decline it, to delay it, to vitiate it, I shall be 
 both surprised and gratified. 
 
 His unhappy grudge against ray gallant and able friend, the 
 
297 » 
 
 Rev. Mr. M'Calla, who sometimes attends this debate, is easily 
 divined by those who witnessed their late meeting in this place. 
 The Rev. gentleman is so much disturbed by his presence, that I 
 shall be constrained to beg him to leave the house — or at least to 
 require him to turn his eyes away from my friend ; and especially 
 to drop not an arrow into my quiver. 
 
 Let me add, on these preliminary matters on which the gentle- 
 man has so largely dwelt, that it was natural, manly, seasonable, 
 and American^ for these young gentlemen to bring up this ques- 
 tion; and the promptitude with which all the parties interested 
 have agreed to examine (at Mr. Hughes's request) the relation of 
 Pre^hijterian principles to civil and religious liberty, proves alike 
 the liberality and justice of the Society, and the fearless candour 
 and confidence of Presbyterians in the goodness of their cause. It 
 puts to shame also the gentleman's cry of ijcrsecution ; for if dis- 
 cussions of charges against Romanism constitute persecution, and 
 intend the destruction of Roman Catholic rights, then, when the 
 name shall be changed to Presbyterian, will it not be equally true 
 of Presbyterians and their rights ? Do the gentleman's attacks 
 on Presbyterians, intend the destruction of their rights? Does he 
 intend to persecute them ? He first appeared in the debate ! He 
 proposed, nay, urged, as a condition, the discussion of Presby- 
 terianism ! Will he say it is retaliation ? or self-defence ? But 
 the Society is not Presbyterian ; it is of no sect; and numbers 
 many Catholics who consented to the original question; nay, 
 aided to adopt it. No, sir; we understand this cant; and it comes 
 with an ill grace from a priest of the Vatican, holding allegiance 
 to the author of the crusades, and the mistress of the inquisi- 
 tion, " drunk with the blood of saints." 
 
 The gentleman has attempted to excite the public mind against 
 ^^ Presbyterians" — on the ground, that they were indiscriminately 
 attacking ^^ foreigners.'* Sir, no men feel more, or do more for 
 deserving ** foreigners" than Presbyteriaus. Does the gentleman 
 forget their sympathies and co-operation in the memorable case of 
 the exiled* Poles — those injured, noble men 1 Have we not hailed 
 them, and loved them, and helped them, as the peculiar objects of 
 the public care, as the orphans of the nation ? It is only the cor- 
 rupt, degraded, intractable, that we fear. Beside what has been 
 said before, let me subjoin that this is a topic on which the wise 
 and good of all names, sects, and parties, both secular and reli 
 gious, even now tremble ; and our various state sovereignties are 
 wisely beginning to make provision againsi the immense evils 
 which threaten from that quarter. Mr. Jefferson, whom the gen- 
 tleman loves to quote in garbled extracts against Presbyterians, 
 long ago lifted up his warning voice, saying, in his Notes on 
 Virginia — " To these [the principles of our government] nothing 
 can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. 
 Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. 
 
 19 
 
298 
 
 They will bring with them the principles of the governments they 
 have imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, 
 it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, 
 as is usual, from one extreme to another In propor- 
 tion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. 
 They will in/use into it thiir spirit, warp and bias its directions, 
 and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass/' 
 "When we add to this almost prophetic language (whose fuljQl- 
 ment is now daily transpiring before our eyes, in all our large 
 cities) the fact, that so many of the emigrants come from papal 
 countries, and bring with them, or meet here, Jesuit priests, who 
 are ex officio monarchists, and stifle, as it rises in the bosom of 
 the people, the love of liberty, we may well be excused for a wise 
 fear of impending danger to our free institutions. 
 
 I fear, sir, yoti are already impatient at these prefatory matters; 
 yet, as the gentleman has introduced them, I must meet them. 
 As to the charge of following " Faber" in falsifying the decrees, 
 &c. of the church, I refer this body to my full exposure of these 
 slanders on a previous evening; and to the several reversed cases, 
 in which I convicted him of falsifying me, and of garbling divers 
 authorities to suit his own purposes. 
 
 And then as to the rules : I agreed to use the decree of a Gene- 
 ral Council, the brief or bull of a Pope, the Catechism of the 
 Council of Trent, and the admitted doctrines of a pope, in proof; 
 it being understood that each party was to prove that what was 
 used was a doctrine. I appeal to the train of my arguments, and 
 to the decision of the chair, already given, whether I have violated 
 these rules. The Rev. gentleman agreed that the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, under the care 
 of the General Assembly in the United States, should be his 
 source of proof Yet you will perceive, from every allusion 
 almost which he makes, that he is perfectly reckless as to this 
 rule. The gentleman has an intermittent sensibility of con- 
 science about the rules, which fluctuates, with amusing alternacy, 
 from one side to the other. When we were probing tflie Roman 
 hierarchy, he was often crying aloud for " rules'^ — '* rules." 
 Now, while he charges me with deviation, what does he do? 
 I ofiered him the broad question of Protestantism, as exhibited in 
 the twelve creeds issued at the Reformation. He refused; and 
 chose the Presbyterian Church, and its Confession of Faith, as 
 held by us. I agreed joyfully to that selection; and so the rules 
 fixed it. Yet now we find him running for proof to the Congrega- 
 tional churches of New England, and then to the Reformed Dutch 
 Church ; and then to the Covenanters ; and then to the churches 
 of Scotland, Holland, England, Geneva, &c. ! Now, it is true, 
 that all these churches are, or wei-e, Calvinistic — as we shall pre- 
 sently see ; and most of them are Fresbyteria7i. But it is to the 
 doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, under the government of the 
 
299 
 
 General Asscmhli/ in the United States, that lie agreed to con- 
 fine himself. Here he finds scarcely o. point on which to alight: 
 therefore he goes to other com amnions and other continents. 
 For example, he charges Presbyterians with burning '' the Con- 
 vent'' Now the charge is too base to be replied too — in the name 
 of our Protestant brethren of Massachusetts. But there is not a 
 Presbyterian Church, nor, as far as I know, member, within ten 
 miles square of jBostow. It is, therefore, not "a sophism," as 
 the gentleman says, but " a truism," that '' the New England 
 colonies were not Presbyterian," and their descendants are not — 
 diough nearly allied to them in their general principles, and in 
 the noble love of liberty and divine truth. 
 
 It may be as proper here, as anywhere, to say that the 
 American churches (we mean of course Protestant) stand in a 
 very peculiar relation to their European progenitors. The Euro- 
 pean Protestant Churches are Protestant in regard to Rome. 
 The American Protestant Churches are so in respect of esta- 
 blished religions, as well as in regard to Rome. This peculiarity 
 exists in North America alone. For example : in England, the 
 Episcopal church is established by law ; in Scotland, the Pres- 
 hyterian. But in this country, no American Presbyterian or 
 Episcopalian can approve of those establishments; nor are these 
 churches branches of the parent stock in this respect ; nor can 
 they tolerate or have any fellowship with an establishment as 
 such. The American system disclaims all /orce as a means of 
 preserving unity, and as a means of maintaining and extending 
 the visible church. We deny and reject the right of the civil 
 magistrate to legislate for the conscience. That is the preroga- 
 tive of God alone. Nor has the majority the right to do it for 
 the minority. iVmerican Protestant Christians, as citizens, have 
 declared this to be their system in their American constitutions; 
 and, with equal explicitness, in their creeds and public formula- 
 ries. In this the Presbyterian Church has ever held a most con- 
 spicuous position, and taken a decided part. The pages of our 
 standards stare the gentleman full in the face, and bespeak him a 
 slanderer, in a hundred paragraphs, which he declares the reverse. 
 
 Thus,(l) it is thus written : — " They (that is, Presbyterians) 
 are unanimously of opinion, that God alone is Lord of the con- 
 science, and hath left it free from the doctrine and commandments 
 of men, which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it 
 in matters of faith and worship : there/ore, they consider the rights 
 of private Judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as uni- 
 versal and unalienable ; they do not even wish to see any reli- 
 gious constitution, aided by the civil power, further than may be 
 necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, BE 
 
 EQUAL^AND COMMON TO ALL OTHERS. 
 
 (1) On page 343, Form of Government, Chap. I., Sect. I. 
 
300 
 
 Again ;(1) civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the 
 administration of the word and sacraments ; or the iiower of the 
 Jceijs of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in mat- 
 ters of faith. Yet, " as nursing fathers,"(2) it is the duty of civil 
 magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without 
 giving the prefej'ence to any denomination of Christians above 
 the rest, in such a manner, that all ecclesiastical persons what- 
 ever shall enjoy the full , free, and unquestioned liberty of din- 
 charging every 2oart of their sacred functions, without violence 
 or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath ajjpointed a regular 
 government and discipline in his church, no laic of any com- 
 monwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise 
 thereof among the voluntary members of any denomination of 
 Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is 
 the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name 
 of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person 
 be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or infidelity, to offer 
 any indignity, violence, abuse or injury to any other perswi 
 whatsoever; and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical 
 assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance." This 
 covers all; no less Catholics, than Protestants; and, it is pro- 
 tection, not MERELY TOLERATION. 
 
 Here are surely some pretty explicit declarations — of the full 
 and equal rights of all denominations — and the utter rejection of 
 all establishments. And this is the general position of the Ame- 
 rican Protestant Churches. This is the American system — Ame- 
 rican Protestantism ; or, more properly speaking, a return to that " 
 position in which Christ and his apostles left the church, and 
 which she maintained while she continued in the purity of the 
 faith, and until corrupted by union with the state. 
 
 Now, if the gentleman will show me one such principle in all 
 his creeds, decrees, missals, bulls, briefs and canons, I will own 
 that he is right, and I am wrong. Let us for a moment inquire 
 how all this is with respect to Rome. The gentleman says his 
 church is infallible and unchangeable: the same, therefore, in 
 Rome, Spain, and North America. Protestant American churches 
 have de?wunced and divorced the alliance of church and state. 
 They have adopted American principles. But American Papists 
 change not. They cannot change. Therefore, the genius of the 
 church, and the institutions of the church, here, and in Europe, 
 are the same. The Pope, their spiritual head, is the temporal 
 head of a state; a monarch; elected by cardinals, that j)opes 
 appoint. It is church and state united ; and all priests, and all 
 papists, owe allegiance to this monarch of spiritual and temporal 
 
 (1) Pages 105, 106, Of the Civil Magistrate, Chap. XXIIL, Sect. 3. 
 
 (2) And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing 
 mother^. — Isaiah, chap, xlix., ver. 23. 
 
301 
 
 /Jungs mixed ; and are under this universal head. And that said 
 head, the Pope, in his last universal circular , thus writes: — 
 ^'Nor can we augur more consoling consequences to religion and 
 to government, from the zeal of some to separate the church 
 
 FROM THE state; AND TO BURST THE BOND WHICH UNITES THE 
 
 PRIESTHOOD TO THE EMPIRE. For it is clear that this union ^'is 
 di^eaded hy the PROFANE LOVERS OF LIBERTY, onli/hecanse it has 
 never failed to co)tfer jprosperity on both." Here it is plain that 
 the Pope declares it profane to sunder this tie. He honestly an- 
 nounces a papal doctrine; and no consistent Catholic can decline 
 the authority announcing, or the pri}icip>le promulgated. 
 
 Again, he says, ^^May this our zeal for the welfare of religion 
 and, public order ^ (we see what he considers ^ established order 
 in a state,') acquire aid and authority from the princes^ our 
 dearest sons in Christ, who, let them, reflect, have received their 
 poiver, not merely for their temporal ride, BUT CHIEFLY FOR THE 
 PROTECTION OF THE CHURCH." If, bccausc Dr. Ely, the clerk 
 (iiot the secretary of state) of the General Assembly, in his pri- 
 vate capacity, being a busy, loquacious man, talked about ^^ a 
 Christian party in politics," the Presbyterian Church is accused 
 by Mr. Hughes of aiming at an establishment; then what will he 
 say to this officicd and direct avowal of the propriety and neces- 
 sity of an establishment, by the. reigning Pope ! And, if we are 
 to be charged with holding to a theocracy, because, as Isaiah said, 
 so say we, riders should be ^^ nursing fathers" to the church, what 
 will the gentleman do with the Pope's avowal, that the protection 
 of the Catholic Church is the chief end of rulers, and that the Pope 
 is the father of ^^ princes, his dearest sons?" 
 
 The result is clearly this, that the Church of Rome every- 
 where, is one, and unchangeable ; that, at Home, it not only 
 courts, but enjoins the union of church and state; and that, 
 therefore, what the head and centre holds, the branch holds also 
 in this land; and, hence, the Koraan Catholic Church in Ame- 
 rica is anti-American, anti-liberal; and, in order to take the 
 right, or the safe ground, and to secure the confidence of the 
 American people, American Catholics must declare themselves 
 independent of Rome; and change their doctrines on the subject 
 of civil and religious liberty. 
 
 Again ; it follows, from the above exposition, that whatever 
 principles or practices the gentleman may have found in European 
 Presbyterians opposed to civil and religious liberty, yet the}' 
 attach not to American Presbyterians. That some such things 
 existed, we own; we regret them; we denoufice them. They 
 were learned from Home; they were only as a " drop in the 
 bucket" compared to Rome. But they are not ours; and the 
 American Presbyterian Church is stainless on this subject — both 
 in principle and practice. 
 
 But, the gentleman says, we were forced to change: as fol- 
 
302 
 
 lows, viz. — *^ After the revolution in this countrj, these tenets 
 (of the ^yestminster Confession, making heresy punishable by 
 law) hitherto held as having been revealed by Almighty God, 
 were also discarded, as being unsuited to the soil of new-born 
 
 liberty and of equal rights/' " The Confession of Faith is 
 
 forthwith amended to suit the constitution and the new order of 
 things." " Presbyterianism, awed by the genius of the country, 
 is compelled to do violence to its nature, and profess that liberality 
 which it does not feel, and cannot practise." These truly are 
 fine specimens of the "charity" about which the meek and loving 
 man preached, with so much pathos, at the opening of his ha- 
 rangue. But observe; he owns, in the very basis of the argu- 
 ment, that our Confession is now riglU: that it has ^'■discarded" 
 its objectionable ^^ tenets;'* and stands ^^ amended to suit the 
 constitution, and the new order of things.'* Very well. So far 
 it is good; and, by his own confession, right. For this uncon- 
 scious admission, which settles the question in dispute, we de- 
 voutly thank him. And now, if Rome will only change too, 
 and *' adapt herself to the new order of things," we will not ask 
 her why, or abuse her for the blessed ^^ amendment.'* 
 
 But again ; he has repeatedly said that the clause in our Larger 
 Catechism, (1) which ^^ requires every one, according to his j^lace 
 and calling, to remove all the monuments of idolatry," is a per- 
 secuting clause, and distinctly points to force against the papacy. 
 He also charges the Reformed Dutch Church, and the Cove- 
 nanters, with retaining persecuting articles, even until now. If 
 so, how does it happen that the " constitution" did not force a 
 change? Did the constitution " compel us to do violence to our 
 nature," and " amend the Confession to suit the new order of 
 things?" The gentleman says so. Then there can be no perse- 
 cution in it ! But he says there is. Then we did not do what 
 we did, in the way of change, " by force," and '■'■ against our na- 
 ture;" for here, he says, is persecution ^^ still." Here is a flat 
 contradiction. But still further. The changes in the Confession of 
 Faith were made before the adoption of the American "Constitu- 
 tion." The men that legislated and fought for American freedom — 
 for the whole term of the American war — they were the men who 
 altered one or two clauses in the Confession of their Faith before 
 the adoption of the American Constitution. " Father Green," as 
 the gentleman calls him, and well does he deserve it of his coun- 
 try and his church, carried his musket; and, as a chaplain, in the 
 rebel array, preached freedom, civil and religious. And the 
 father of the sai(! Dr. Miller, whose heavy bloics on " the beast 
 and the bull that has turned to gore us," make him so hateful to 
 my Reverend friend ; I say, his father preached freedom, and 
 nhelliori, as Rome would call it, at the origin of the revolution. 
 
 (1) Page 217, Ans. to 108 Ques. 
 
303 
 
 Ask the country, and ask the American army ; ask the British 
 leaders, where the Presbyterians were ? How they felt ? How 
 they fought ? Ask Tarleton ! Ask the American Congress how 
 Washington felt, and thought. No, sir. There was no force 
 about it. The American Constitution was the effect of Puritan 
 and Presbyterian love of civil and religious liberty, as much per- 
 haps, as of any other cause ; and, I repeat it, our present Con- 
 fession was adopted before the American Constitution. And, until 
 we change back, by the gentleman's own logic, we are *' suited 
 to the new order of things," which we helped, with all our 
 power, under God, to produce. 
 
 We pass, as it is here in place, to consider the gentleman's 
 argument from the y«c^ of the change. We own that a change was 
 necessary, in all or nearly all the European Protestant Confessions 
 on the point of estahlishments^ and of religious freedom. We 
 own that Presbyterians of Scotland, Holland, and Geneva, as well 
 as Episcopalians of England, and Catliolica everywhere, needed 
 to change their principles on the right of the civil magistrate to 
 legislate for conscience. We Presbyterians did change he/ore 
 the American Constitution was adopted. Episcopalians changed. 
 Have Catholics? No. The gentleman says they cannot. Nay, 
 he argues against our change. He says, ^'may they not discover 
 that they are now in error, and recall the doctrines of the magis- 
 irate s power ^ and the sin of tolerating a false religion f" . . . . 
 ^^They do not pretend to he infallible.'' . . . . ^' There is reason to 
 believe they will [change back] when it can he done with safety.'' 
 
 Now when I charged Romanism with persecuting what it calls 
 ^^ false religions," not merely to the " cropping of ears" but by 
 the critsades and inquisitions founded on decrees of councils and 
 bulls of popes, destroying many millions of lives, he said "Oh, IT 
 WAS ONLY DISCIPLINE," " not doctrine." How does it come that 
 " not to tolerate a false religion" with us *'is DOCTRINE?" You 
 see his consistency ! But to the argument. If we, he'mgfallihle, 
 may change to wrong, when right, can Catholics, believing them- 
 selves infcdlihle, if wrong, ever become right f I have proved 
 for six long nights of unanswered arguments, that in doctrine and 
 discipline they do persecute, and ever have done it. Hence they 
 must be so forever ; for he says they cannot change. Therefore 
 they are now what they were on St. Bartholomew's night, at the 
 Council of Constance, in the crusades, in the inquisition ; and 
 they are in A7nerica, what they are in Spain, in Portugal, in Goa, 
 and at Home. Fatal logic to the gentleman's cause ! Yet it is his 
 own reasoning. Now we own that we are fallible, and therefore 
 may change. But we claim no right to do wrong. We claim 
 no right to change to a renounced error. Till we change we are 
 owned by him to be right. When we change back to Rome's 
 principles, then the gentleman will love us more. Till 'then the 
 slanderous charges and false logic of the gentleman will be es- 
 
 ft 
 
304 
 
 timated on the same standard which can claim infallihility to the 
 worst men that ever cursed the earth; and which glories to give 
 eternity to error, by refusing to change even from had to (/oodj 
 from uroiig to right, from slavery i^ freedom. 
 
 One of the most remarkable instances of audacity in assertion, 
 is his charging a ^'■theocracy ' on Presbyteiians, and ''indeed on 
 all the Calvinistic sects." I know no motive for this, but the 
 advantage of ^^ calling hard names' first. Why, sir, the whole 
 system of popery is one grand consolidated theocracy, corrupting 
 and then extending the Jeioish system to the 2L-hole icorld. Does 
 not the pope claim to be '' father of princes," '' vicar of Christ," 
 "head of the Universal Chvrch," above all civil power, and as 
 we have showed abundantly on the previous question, '^a god on 
 earth?" Even the famous writer llobinson,(l) adduced by the 
 gentleman against Fresbyterians, says, " The canon law is a 
 body of high treason against the rights and consciences of man- 
 kind." (2) The canon law is Rome's magna charta. He says 
 too, (3) " The pojje's public j)oIitical end was to be the absolnte 
 rider of all the priesthood ; and through them of all mankind." 
 And, again, (4) " It is a Jewish Christianity, having in it the 
 seeds of a hierarchy ; "they sunk t\\epeoj)le to elevate the order:" 
 "the order created a master like Aaron," &c.; and again, "If this 
 dispute had been only about the right of wearing bells and pome- 
 granates, as Aaron had done, and a breastplate that nobody but a 
 Jew could read, it might have created mirth ; but it took a very 
 serious turn when it -was perceived that Aaron had under all his 
 fine things, a KNIFE and a Bl,OOD-basin." De Pradt says "Je- 
 suitism is EMPIRE BY RELIGION." .... "The general of the 
 Jesuits is a veritable king." The Pope is master of the general. 
 He says, " It is organized intolerance." ...."' Who is chief 
 of this immense family, this militia present everywhere? The 
 Pope. Me counts more subjects than any sovereign ; more than 
 even mof??^ sovereigns together." .... " if the whole A\ orld 
 were Catholic, the pope would command the world." . . . 
 When we add to these shocking truths that the Catholics number 
 120 millions, and have one and only one common centre, and boast 
 of their unity and indivisibility, and common j)'>'inciples, it be- 
 comes truly terrific. De Pradt says " Catholicism is^not orga.-aized 
 like other worships. l^he latter have no common centre — no 
 exclusive source from lohence fiows poicer in every relimous 
 society. They have no Home. "(5) Protestants are incap'^ble, 
 if they icould, of consolidation. Catholics cannot exist loiz-^iovt 
 it. When it ceases, the system ceases. When, therefore, the 
 gentleman talks of a theocracy, and says it endangers civiS and 
 
 (1) Eccles. Researches. (2) Page 142. 
 
 (3) Page 163. (4) Page 12L 
 
 (5) See Modern Jesuitism, passim. 
 
305 
 
 religious liberty, we wonder at his temerity; we rejoice in his 
 admissions; and turn his principles back upon his own ^^ eternal 
 city/* Where the great tyrant reigns in the name of God, "call- 
 ing himself God" on the ruins of religion, liberty and law. 
 
 The gentleman has said so much about the spirit of European 
 Prcshyterians, that it may not be amiss to examine this matter a 
 little, and see what others thought of our venerable ancestors. 
 While, as we have said, we own they brought out of Home a 
 remnant of her spirit, yet they have ever been foremost, in each 
 age, in the love and defence of human liberty. Dryden, who has 
 done so much with his sarcastic pen for popery, in his political 
 poem, called '^llie Hind and I^anther," thus traces the origin 
 of republicanism. Observe, the Hind was the Romish Church; 
 the English Church was the Panther; the Ereshf/terian the 
 Wolf; the kennel, Geneva; the puddle, its beautiful lake, and 
 the wallj its noble mountains. 
 
 'Last of all, the litfci- 'scaped by chance, 
 And from Geneva iirst infested France. 
 Some autlrors thus his pedigree will trace, 
 But others write him of an upstart race; 
 Because of Wickliff's brood no mark he brings. 
 But his innate A^^TIPATHY to kings. 
 AVhat tho' your native kennel still be small. 
 Bounded between a puddle and a wall? 
 Yet your victorious colonies are sent, 
 Where the North-ocean girds the continent. 
 Quickened with fire below your monster's breed 
 In fenny Holland, and in fruitful Tweed; 
 And like the first, the last efFects to bo 
 Draion to the dref/s of a democracy. 
 But as the poisons of the deadliest kind 
 Are to their unhappy coast confined, 
 So Presbytery and its pestilential zeal, 
 Can flourish only in a comjionweal." 
 
 This is the good, honest testimony of a Papist. It needs no 
 comment. Surely Dryden did not think Presbyterianism and re- 
 publics at war with each other! 
 
 Again; listen to Dean Swift. In a sermon, preached on " the 
 Martyrdom of Charles II.," he said, " Upon the cruel persecu- 
 tions raised against the Protestants under Queen Mary, among 
 the great number who fled the kingdom to seek for shelter, 
 several icent and resided at Geneva, ichich is a commonwealth, 
 governed without a Icing, lohere the religion contrived hij Calvin 
 is without the order of bishops. When the Protestant faith was 
 restored by Queen Elisabeth, those who fled to Geneva returned 
 among the rest home to England, and were grown so fond of the 
 government arid religion of the place they had left, that they 
 used all possible endeavours to introduce both into their own 
 country 
 
80G 
 
 ^' From hence they proceeded by degrees to quarrel with the 
 KINGLY GOVERNMENT, because, as I have already said, the city 
 of Geneva, to which their fathers had flown, for refuge, was a 
 coliwiomcealth, or government of the ]^eople ! !" Here is the testi- 
 mony of a Tory and h'igh-churchman ! Surely the Dean differed 
 with our Papist priest about Presbyter ianism and liberty! 
 
 And then, as to "Mr." Luther and " Mr," Calvin, especially 
 the latter! w)iy, Mr. President, these upstart Jesuits, who have 
 never learned as much, ''with all their philosophy" and monarchy, 
 as Calvin forgot — I do not wonder that they hate his memory. 
 He was not infaHible. He is not our ^' Pope." We condemned 
 him for his conduct to Servetus. It has been much exaggerated, 
 and they only did at Geneva, what the Papists tried to do, but 
 failed, at Vienne. Yet it was very wrong. But, if one victim 
 makes Geneva so vile, what shall we say of the millions of the 
 victims of papal crusades and inquisitions? Has the gentleman 
 forgot? or does he adopt the famous principle — "one murder 
 makes a villain" "millions a hero!" 
 
 Hooker, the immortal defender of Episcopacy, says, of Calvin, 
 in his Preface to his " Ecclesiastical Polity," on the origin of 
 popular Church government, " that he was incomparably the 
 wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy" — that in 
 Exposition of the Scriptures, " the perfectest divines in the Re- 
 formed Churches were judged to be they who were skilfulest in 
 Calvin's writings, his books being almost the very canon to judge 
 both doctrine and discipline by." 
 
 And our own eminent and admirable historian, Bancroft, though 
 himself a Unitarian, thus writes — not only of Calvin, but Calvin- 
 ists, and of American Caloinists! 
 
 " They who have no admiration but for wealth and rank, can 
 never admire the Genevan Reformer, for though he possessed the 
 richest mind of his age, he never emerged from the limits of frugal 
 poverty. The rest of us may be allowed to reverence his virtues, 
 and regret his errors. He lived in a day when nations were 
 shaken to their centre by the excitement of the Reformation, 
 when the fields of Holland and France were wet with the carnage 
 of persecution; when vindictive monarchs on one side threatened 
 all Protestants with outlawry and death, and the Vatican on the 
 other sent forth its anathemas and its cry for blood. In that day, 
 it is too true, the influence of an ancient, long-established, hardly 
 disputed error, the constant danger of his position, the intensest 
 desire to secure union among the antagonists of popery, the en- 
 grossing consciousness that his struggle was for the emancipation 
 of the Christian world, induced the great Reformer to defend the 
 use of the sword for the extirpation of error. Reprobating and 
 lamenting his adhesion to the cruel doctrine, which all Christen- 
 dom had for centuries implicitly received, we may, as republicans, 
 remember that Calvin was not only the founder of a sect, but fore- 
 
307 
 
 most among the most efficient of modern republican legislators. 
 More truly benevolent to the human race than Solon, more self- 
 denying than Lycurgus, the genius of Calvin infused enduring 
 elements into the institutions of Geneva, ^and made it for the 
 modern world the impregnable fortress of popular liberty, the fer- 
 tile seed-plot of democracy. 
 
 "Again; we boast of our common schools; Calvin was the 
 father of popular education, the inventor of the system of free 
 schools. 
 
 " Again ; we are proud of the free states that fringe the 
 Atlantic. The pilgrims of Plymouth were Calvinists; the best 
 influence in South Carolina came from the Calvinists of France; 
 Wm. Penn was the disciple of the Huguenots. The ships from 
 Holland, that first brought colonists to Manhattan^ were filled 
 with Calvinists. He that will not honour the memory and 
 respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of 
 American liberty. 
 
 '^ Or do personal considerations chiefly win applause ? Then 
 no one merits our symyathy and our admiration more than Calvin; 
 the young exile from Prance, who achieved an immortality of fame 
 before he was twenty-eight years of age; now boldly reasoning 
 with the King of France for religious liberty; now venturing as 
 the apostle of truth to carry the new doctrines into the heart of 
 Italy ; and now hardly escaping from the fury of papal persecu- 
 tion ; the purest writer, the keenest dialectician of his age; push- 
 ing free inquiry to its utmost verge, and yet valuing inquiry only 
 as the means of arriving at fixed principles. The light of his 
 genius scattered the mask of darkness which superstition had 
 held for centuries before the brow of religion. His probity was 
 unquestioned; his morals spotless. His only happiness consisted 
 in 'tasks of glory and of good;' for sorrow found its way into 
 all his private relations. He was an exile from his country; he 
 became, for a season, an exile frOm his place of exile. As a hus- 
 band, he was doomed to mourn the premature loss of his wife; as 
 a father, he felt the bitter pang of burying his only child. Alone 
 in the world, alone in a strange land, he went forward in his 
 career with serene resignation and inflexible firmness; no love of 
 ease turned him aside from his vigils ; no fear of danger relaxed 
 the nerve of his eloquence ; no bodily infirmities checked the in- 
 credible activity of his mind; and so he continued, year after 
 year, solitary and feeble, yet toiling for humanity, till, after a 
 life of glory, he bequeathed to his personal heirs a fortune in 
 books and furniture, stocks and money, not exceeding two 
 hundred dollars, and to the world a purer reformation, a repub- 
 lican spirit in religion, with the kindred principles of republican 
 liberty.'' 
 
 How impartial, how true, how noble. How such light dazzles 
 as it discloses the " bats" of the gloomy Vatican ! ! ! 
 
808 
 
 "We come, at length, to the gentleman's famous '^ argumentum 
 ad captandum," on " decrees" and " election." He has truly 
 given a sad caricature of our system, and then denied to us even 
 the right of 'disclaimer," and to our doctrine the hcnefit of 
 clergy^ and decent burial in holy ground. He raises two argu- 
 ments — but they are one. The first is — '' that the doctrine, 
 that whatever comes to jjass, is foreordained unchangeably/' is 
 destructive of free agency, and therefore of moral freedom, and 
 therefore of civil and religious liberty. The other is its neces- 
 sary corollary : viz., that "the making of eternal happiness or 
 misery to depend upon the decrees of God, without conditions of 
 faith and good works," destroys motives to duty, and therefore 
 all regard for the rights of others. The very statement of the 
 argument shows, that the gentleman was hard rim for matter. 
 We are not now on the truth, but the tendency of these doctrines ; 
 yet, if they be true, (not as distorted by a Jesuit, but as spread 
 olit in our standards,) this must disprove the tendency charged on 
 them by him, as well as exhibit him in a light of shocking pro- 
 fanity and presumption. I will not argue the truth of these doc- 
 trines, as that is not the question; but since the gentleman has an 
 infallible interpreter always present on earth, I beg, in reply, that 
 he will tell us what he makes of the following passages: " Him 
 being delivered by the determinaie counsel and foreknowledge of 
 God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and 
 slain." — Acts ii. 23. "Thou couldst have no power at all 
 against me, except it were given thee from above ; therefore, he 
 that delivered me unto thee, hath the greater sin." — John xix. 11. 
 Here the sin is made the greater, by the certainty and divinity of 
 the decree. Also, Ephes. i. 11 ; Roms. ix. 10-24 ; Ephes. i. 
 2—4. A candid Hicksite once said to me in debate, "Paid cer- 
 tainly agreed with thee." Paul's is surely good company. 
 Where this gentleman will put him, I am at a loss to deter- 
 mine. 
 
 Now, as to the tendency of these doctrines, we hold, and so our 
 standards abundantly declare, that so far from making men unholy, 
 the moment a man freely adopts them, he is humbled, purified, 
 and made a Christian. We also hold, that it is only by the power 
 of God a man can be made or kept holy; and we also hold, that 
 God's decrees establish, instead of destroying moral freedom. 
 That good works flow from God's decrees; and that, "without 
 holiness, no man shall see the Lord;" and it is because ^^ the 
 Lord worketh in us," " that we work out our salvation with 
 fear and trembling." We think the means are predestinated, as 
 well as the end. As Paul told the creiv of the shij) that not one 
 of them should be lost; and yet, after that, he said, if the 
 men left the ship, all would be lost; so we hold, as to the means 
 and the end. Good works, therefore, are a part of the system ; 
 not as causes, but as effects ; not as merit, but as fruit ; not as 
 
809 
 
 conditions, but as means. The doctrine, on the contrary, of pa- 
 pal merits, we hold, not only dishonours Christ, but tempts men 
 to licentiousness and self-dependence; and the whole system of 
 penance, indulgences, confession, unction, remission by priests, 
 purgatory, prayers for the dead, supererogation, and the mass, is 
 vile human patdixcorh — to fill the pockets of the priests, and 
 cheat the souls of the people. Well have these hocus-pocus arts 
 and heathen exorcisms been described — 
 
 " Supplied with spiriUial provision 
 And magazines of ammunition, 
 With crosses, relics, crucifixes, 
 
 Beads, pictures, rosaries, and pixes, n 
 
 The tools of working out salvation 
 By mere mechanic operation." 
 
 How finely contrasted with this system of self-salvation, is the 
 description given by Sir James Macintosh :(1) '' It was fortunate 
 also, that the enormities of Tetzel" \the Pope's retaikr of indul- 
 gences'] " found Luther busied in the contemplation of the princi- 
 ple, which is the basis of all ethical judgment, and by the power 
 of which he struck a mortal blow at superstition:" namely, "men 
 are not made truly righteous by performing certain actions which 
 are extcrnall}/ good, but men must have righteous principles in 
 the first place; and then they will not fail to perform virtuous ac- 
 tions." He calls it "a proposition equally certain and 
 SUBLIME;" and adds, that Luther, in a more sp)ccial a2)plication 
 of his principle, used it to convey his doctrine of jastijication by 
 faith.'' And again says, "in justice to him, the cioil his- 
 torian should never omit the benefits which accrued to the moral 
 
 interests of society from this principle." This principle is 
 
 the merit of Christ made ours by the power of God working faith 
 in us; and by union to Christ, making us free from guilt and pol- 
 lution. To this Christians are by God's decree predestinated. 
 This secures moral liberty, and moral rectitude; makes a man "a 
 law unto himself" — and, therefore, a good citizen; the freest, no- 
 blest, and most just of men. 
 
 But let us pass h'om principles to facts. Who held these doc- 
 trines ? Why Augustin, and the flower of the papacy. And at the 
 Ileformatiou, the whole of Protestant Europe ! The twelve creeds 
 of the Reformers, uttered by many millions in the same illustrious 
 age, from Germany, Switzerland, Holland, France, England, and 
 Scotland, were all, all what you term " Calvinistic.'' And they 
 were the most free, and most virtuous millions of all Europe. 
 
 Who are Caloinists «c»MJ-a-days? Why, not only the Presby- 
 terians of Europe and America, but the great mass of the Congre 
 
 (1) History of England, Vol. 11. pp. 120-1. 
 
310 
 
 gationalists of New and of Old England; the Baptists, as a body, 
 of both continents; and the articles of the Episcopal churches, on 
 both sides of the Atlantic, if not all their clergy. And our Me- 
 thodist brethren, the potent and dreaded enemies of popery every- 
 where, disclaim and abhor the " merit-system," and '^ salvation by 
 words" — of priest-craft, though they reject the peculiar doctrines 
 of Calvinism. Now, the appeal is to facts. Are not these Cal- 
 vinistic masses of men among the purest and freest upon earth? 
 Nay, is there a nation on eai-th that is not grossly corrupt, and 
 deeply enslaved, in which there is not a strong leaven of Cal- 
 vinism? There, then, is your false logic; and here are my tri- 
 umphant facts: for whose truth, I appeal to the history of virtue, 
 liberty, and man. 
 
 Finally, it is curious that the Council of Trent has contradicted 
 itself flatly in its decree on this subject; and, as Father. Paul, a 
 Catholic, has told us (1) that on predestination and freewill it did 
 not agree; and could not agree. Two large parties, the Domi- 
 nicans and Franciscans, quarrelled over the mea/iiing of the decree; 
 and to this day, it is a contradictory system, evidently shaped with 
 unitt/ of icorcls, and contrarieiy oi doctrine. In fact, they would 
 not admit, and they could not wholly stifle, the truth. 
 
 As to being the "exclusive favourites" of heaven, our princi- 
 ples, as already quoted, falsify the charge. It is true, we hold 
 Rome to be apostate from God. But our creed avows that '' all 
 men are to be protected in the exercise of their religion," true or 
 false; and we embrace Rome in our piti/, and "all who hold the 
 head" in our Christian fellowsliijo. Complaints of bigotry from a 
 Roman priest, if they were sincere, were cheering truly; for here- 
 tofore papists have excluded even unhaptized infants from hea- 
 ven; and the Catholic creed expressly says "out of the true 
 Catholic faith [not out of the pale of the Church] none 
 CAN BE SAVED." But all Protestants are out of both pale and 
 faith. 
 
 I regret the gentleman is not pleased with my illustration of 
 the "hen." I adapted my figures to my friend. The Ameri- 
 can eagle spreads too free a pinion to descend to a papal quarry. 
 Besides, the Pope has been legislating lately about the use of 
 eggs on days of abstinence; which brought the good dame to my 
 mind. But I truly hope there is no oflence, at least with the 
 poor fowl — for I should fear that the next orders from Rome will 
 not only forbid us to eat, but her to lay her eggs. If, however, 
 my Rev. friend would like a graver fowl, and a fitter exemplar, I 
 would respectfully remind him that Rome was ovce before saved 
 hy the cackling of a goose. 
 
 We shall, in our next, reply to his last question, about Presby- 
 terians abusing power when they had it. 
 
 (1) Hist. Counc. Trent, Book II. 
 
311 
 
 We 710W close, as ice have not room to go on with that ques- 
 tion, hy asking that gentleman to iell me of one 'people under 
 heaven, for the ages on ages in which papacy prevailed over the 
 world, of one country where Roman Catholics ever had the power 
 to persecute, and did not do it; or one country in those ages 
 that was, or in this age, that now is really free, where Roman 
 Catholics have the majority. 
 
812 
 
 '*is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or all its principles or 
 doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty?" 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE II.— MH. HUGHES. 
 
 I AM far from supposing, Mr. President, that the good sense of 
 this meeting, will be satisfied with the gentleman's mere decla- 
 mation, instead of the/«c^s and reasoning, which it had a right to 
 expect, and with which he had promised to astound the nation. 
 I may characterize his speech justly, by saying of it, that what is 
 new is not true, and what true is not neiv. I do not complain 
 that Catholics are persecuted by Presbyterians in the sense in 
 which he would represent. But I complain of their disposition 
 and efforts to bring about a persecution. Thanks to the better 
 genius of the age and country, they have not yet succeeded. 
 
 The cause to which the gentleman ascribes the present excite- 
 ment against Catholics, for exercising the rights of conscience, is 
 not the true cause. He says that, in as much as poor foreigners, 
 escaping from the oppressions of their various countries, seek an 
 asylum on these shores, ''American Episcopalians, Baptists, 
 Methodists, and congregationalists as loell as Frei^byterians," 
 are guarding the coast against the landing of the emigrant who 
 comes to better his condition, and to breathe, as he supposed, 
 the air of religious and civil freedom. He is a foreigner, as 
 all of us have been, either in ourselves or in our ancestors, but 
 his son will be an American, and his grandson will wear gold 
 spectacles. He may be poor, but is this a reason why ^'ministers 
 of the gosp)el," should denounce him ? He may be ignorant, but 
 does not this strengthen his claim to our pity and humanity? 
 Should we not rejoice that he and his posterity are transplanted into 
 a region, where human rights are recognised; and that a race of 
 victims have been rescued from the present, and prospective, 
 grasp of iron-handed despotism, both civil and religious. But he 
 is a Catholic; that is, he worships God, according to the dictates 
 of his conscience, — and has he not a right to do so ? And shall we 
 be told that all the other Protestant denominations join the Presby- 
 terians in denouncing him for this ? I do not believe the assertion. 
 He comes to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, to tanie the 
 forests, and to make the highways of commerce through the very 
 cornfields, by canals and railways; and is this an injury to your 
 country? But he is a Catholic, ignorant and vicious; then teach 
 
313 
 
 him virtue hy exampley and if this will not do, teach him hy the 
 laws. But the accusation is a calumny: the great body of Catho- 
 lic emigrants, exposed as they are, are industrious, hard-working 
 people, who live, not by knavery , but by their daily toil. And 
 the vicious among them, are themselves the victims of their own 
 folly and wickedness. This plea, therefore, for the pretended 
 combination of all Protestant denominations is equally unfounded 
 and absurd. 
 
 But there are "foreign associations in aid of Catholic missiona- 
 ries." And so there are here, — for the aid and support of foreign 
 Protestant missions. Of which then, on the score of political 
 economy, has the country more reason to complain — of those who 
 send the money out of the country, or of those who bring it in ? 
 The receipts of the American Bible Society, since its commence- 
 ment to the year 1830, have been $909,291.15, ;ilmost a million 
 of dollars. The receipts of the Board of Foreign Missions, in 
 1834, was $152,386.10.(1) This society has been in operation 
 for twenty-five years, and the whole sum expended by it, in 
 FOREIGN missions, is probably not less than two millions. All 
 that was ever received by Catholics from foreign sources together^ 
 would not equal in amount the annual income of the American 
 Board of Foreign Missions. It is an injury, therefore, that for 
 all the money which they send out of the country, the Catholics 
 should bring a little in ? But they build colleges with it. Well, 
 that only proves that they are the friends of education ; and are 
 the friends of education, the enemies of freedom ? Education 
 ought not to be a Preshylcrian monopoly — we do not burn down 
 
 tlieir houses of education. But " European despots" 
 
 The Catholic religion has flourished in de&iylte of them ; it can 
 flourish without them. They are its enemies at home, and we 
 cannot expect them to be its friends abroad. But the " Leopold- 
 INE foundation" — What of it? Its members, very limited in 
 number, choose to tax themselves about one cent a week, in aid 
 of foreign missions in America. And supposing all the people of 
 Europe were to do the same, it would only . . . bring more money 
 into the country. Yes, but it is to aid in spreading Catholicity, 
 And is Protestantism afraid of being bought out? The Preshyteri- 
 ans seem to think so. But " Prince Metternicii," the gentleman 
 tells you, "sends vast sums for the spread of Catholicity." 
 I am aware that the gentleman is not original in making this as- 
 sertion, and I have the less difiiculty, on this account, in pronoun- 
 cing it to be, what it is, a jjositive falsehood. I challenge his 
 proof. But "Bishop England" has made a "late tour" in Europe, 
 and of course he was about no good. And pray, is the policy OP 
 China to be adopted, by the American people, that a citizen may 
 not go when and vjhere he pleases? According to the gentleman's 
 
 (1) See Report, page 44 
 20 
 
314 
 
 apprehension of things, Rome is the '^beau ideal" of civil and 
 religious despotism, and yet in Rome, as elsewhere, the institutions 
 of America, found in Bishop England not only a willing, but a 
 willing and able advocate. It is true that the burning of the 
 CONVENT gave the advocates of absolutism a momentary advantage 
 over him, but it was only until he had time to discriminate between 
 the genius of our institutions, and that dark, cold, remnant of Cal- 
 vinistic bigotry, which the sun of our government has not been 
 able to thaw into humanity, or enlighten into virtue. 
 
 But " Schlegel, in his Lectures on the Philosophy of History," 
 says that the " nursery of all the revolutions that occurred in 
 Europe, has been North America." To be sure, — and he says 
 the fact. And a fact of which '' North America" is not ashamed. 
 Nay, it is her boast. On the fourth day of July, every year, 
 this very fact makes every tongue, east and west of the Alleghany, 
 eloquent with liSerty and patriotism. 
 
 As for the " Je8UITs," there are a few facts in their history, 
 which make me appreciate the united compliment the gentle- 
 man pays me, when he represents me as their '' defender." One 
 is, that they have done more for education and science, than all the 
 Presbyterians that ever did, or ever will, exist. Another is, that 
 they have suffered persecution, and rejoiced that they were found 
 worthy to suffer, for the name of Jesus. Another still, is, that 
 their enemies, the infidels of the last century, were the enemies 
 of Christianity. Frederick the Great, who was in the secrets of the 
 infidel conspiracy, said of the Jesuits, that they were the ^'- foxes," 
 between the sheep of the Christian fold and the '' wolves," ,that 
 wished to devour them. I have no objection, therefore, to see 
 the gentleman putting on the panoply of Voltaire and Rousseau, 
 against the Jesuits, though I do not think it becomes him. The 
 reasonable motive of hatred against them in this country, is, that 
 they can give a better and a cheaper education than Presbyte- 
 rians. 
 
 I have taken, Mr. President, almost too much notice of the 
 gentleman's loose and vague, and I may add, unfounded, assertions. 
 You have observed that, like all declaimers who wish to reach an 
 endy and have not the means, he deals exclusively in (general 
 statements, without proof. The only authority in fact that he 
 could adduce is that of an anonymous libeller in New York, who, 
 under the signature of '' Brutus," and in a tract of silly slander 
 against Catholics, entitled " Foreign Conspiracy," insulted the un- 
 derstanding of the country, by pretending, that the governments 
 of Europe were preparing to invade our liberties — as if such a 
 thing were possible. They have enough to do at home. But, 
 sir, these Presbyterian gentlemen are haunted by strange visions. 
 Some time since, there was a division in the synod of Cincinnati, 
 (no unusual thing by-the-by,) and a reverend peacemaker ad- 
 dresses them, as 1 remember, in this wise — ''Ah ! brethren, how 
 
I 
 
 315 
 
 the Pope of Rome will chuckle, when he hears of your divi' 
 sions!" 
 
 The gentleman, however, I must do him the justice to say, has 
 ventured on one specific statement. In order to make you believe 
 that crowds of ''Jesuits'' are smuggled through our custom-houses, 
 he tells you that " Talleyrand (a Jesuit) was once a teacher 
 IN THIS country/' Here is sometbing tangible. Here is a sen- 
 tence of only ten words, and yet it contains two positiveli/ false state- 
 ments. Talleyrand never was either a '' Jesuit," or a " teacher." 
 
 Such is the analysis of the pretended events which have roused, 
 as the gentleman asserts, the ''American Episcopalians, Baptists, 
 Methodists, Congregationalists, as well as Freshyterians," to 
 "inquire what can this mean?" That some of each of these 
 denominations may have been used to stir up the fanatical excite- 
 ment, is highly probable : — but that the genius which presides 
 and directs, is the genius of Presbyterianism, no man at all ac- 
 quainted with the character of the machinery will for a moment 
 deny. The only denomin&tious, so far as I am aware, that have 
 brought the politics of the country into their pulpits — are the 
 Presbyterians, and possibly their step-brethren, the Congregation- 
 alists. of New England. The only denomination that have itine- 
 rant haranguers on-pay^ who go about like roaring lions, for the 
 express purpose of stirring up^the people against Catholics, are 
 the Presbyterians. The only denomination -that seem to have 
 despaired of being able to pluck arguments from heaven, for the 
 refutation of Catholic doctrine, and who have, therefore, stooped 
 to dig them out of the earth, are the Presbyterians. Yet I know some 
 Presbyterians, and I hope there are many whom I do not know, 
 who blush for and condemn these proceedings. The gentleman, 
 however, I regret to say, is not of the number. Dr. Beecher of 
 Cincinnati, whose visit to Boston last year was as if he came to 
 " bring fire on earth, and only wished that it might be kindled"— 
 who had scarcely finished his third sermon against Catholics, when 
 the Convent was in flames — he is not of the number. The con- 
 ductors of the Cincinnati Presbyterian Journal, who gave the 
 first circulation to what the Chronicle of that city calls "an im- 
 pudent LIE," viz., the story about knocking a senator down, and, 
 " HATS OFF, gentlemen, THE BiSHOp's COMING," are not of the 
 number. They knew, and most of their colleagues knew, that 
 this was "an impudent lie." They published the falsehood, 
 and they have refused to publish the correction. Nay, a Presby- 
 terian minister in New York, Mr. Mason, has made this falsehood 
 immortal, by treating it as a matter of historical record, in his 
 Preface to History of the Inquisition. 
 
 But, if there be a man in the country whose sentiments are a 
 fair index of the genius and temper of Presbyterians, that man is 
 Dr. Miller, of the Princeton Theological Seminary. In his Intro- 
 ductory Essay to the History of Bomanism, a compilation of 
 
316 
 
 calumny and buffoonery, this venerable professor, in the nineteenth 
 century, and in the United States of America, denounces hia 
 Catholic fellow-citizens "AS foes of God and man I" and com- 
 pares them to '' HIGHWAYMEN AND ASSASSINS IN THE DARK.'' 
 
 Out of the Presbyterian communion, I question whether there is 
 a man on the American continent capable of giving utterance to 
 a sentiment, so unchristian and so inhuman ; for, let it be recol- 
 lected, that the crime of the Catholics is their worshipping God 
 according to the dictates of their oicn conscience, rather than of 
 that of the General Assembly, or of Dr. Miller. 
 
 No, sir, the glory of stirring up, or causing to be stirred up, 
 the smouldering embers of relir/ious hatred, (what a contradiction !) 
 belongs to the Presbyterians. The other denominations of whom 
 the gentleman has made an artificial parade, are, no doubt, per- 
 suaded that we are wrong in our belief: our conviction is pre- 
 cisely the same in regard to their creed. But they are, in the 
 main, content to allow us to conduct our affairs in our own way, 
 and we certainly do not disturb them in the management of theirs. 
 Not so the zealots among the Presbyterians. Believers in their 
 own "election," and in the "inadmissibility of grace," they seem 
 to think that God has commanded them to take charge of all the 
 rest of mankind. I can admire their zeal, but I would admire it 
 much more, were it tempered with a little more charity, and a 
 little less overbearance. 
 
 But the gentleman tells you that the American people " ex- 
 amine EVERY thing/' that popery, as he insultingly calls my 
 religion, cannot stand the test of inquiry ; and that its votaries 
 have no other way to hide its deformities, than by endeavouring 
 to check free inquiry and discussion. 
 
 I suppose we may take the scene that was exhibited in Mr. 
 M'Calla's church last winter, as a fair specimen of what the gen- 
 tleman means by " free inquiry." A platform — a crowd of curi- 
 ous and uneducated people of both sexes — a circle of ministers, 
 amusing the audience with burlesque and ribaldry, at the expense, 
 not of the Catholic religion, but of what the speakers might think 
 proper to represent as such : this is what we are to understand by 
 " FREE inquiry." A scene unworthy of the temple and its minis- 
 ters ; at which, though the profane might laugh, piety, of what- 
 ever sect, might find enough to weep. This is " free inquiry." 
 That is, your enemies attack your character, by dabbing their ca- 
 lumnies or prejudices against you : one says that you knocked down 
 an American senator, because he would not take off his hat when 
 " the bishop was coming;" another, that you have cells for the in- 
 quisition, and infants' skulls in your cellar; a third avers that you 
 are as bad as " a highwayman, and an assassin in the dark;" a 
 fourth proves that you are " the foe of both God and man ;" 
 and, then, the assembly closes, as it commenced, with a pmyer 
 You remonstrate against the injustice of thus attacking your 
 
I 
 
 317 
 
 character; and you are gravely told that you are an enemy to 
 ''free investigation;" and that the "American people investigate 
 ever}/ thing." 
 
 The Catholic religion courts investigation, but not tins hind 
 of investigation; and Presbyterians do not allow it the benefit of 
 any other. If they wished the American people to be informed 
 correctly on the subject, they would direct them to our catechisms 
 and books of instruction, and not to our enemies. The Catholic 
 clergy throughout the country, though not obtrusive, are, never- 
 theless, always ready to explain our doctrine to those who are sin- 
 cere in their inquiries. But the object is to distort the public 
 judgment, by the exhibition of caricatures, and the concoction of 
 old slanders w^ith modern seasoning. The object is to vitiate the 
 public taste; so that, like the Chinese, who never relish eggs till 
 they are stahy nothing may go down but what, in a healthier 
 tone of the literary and religious palate, would have created nau- 
 sea and disgust. Witness Miss Reed's book. Witness the 
 " Downfall of Babylon," by a Miss Reed of the other gender, 
 the unhappy Mr. Smith, a little two-penny concern of abuse 
 against the Catholics, of which Dr. Ely said, with a good deal 
 of -malicious wit, "■ every little helps." It is by such means as 
 these that the Catholic religion and its professors are enveloped 
 in the slime of calumny, and so presented for the judgment of 
 the "American people:" just as the anaconda wraps up its vic- 
 tim in saliva, in order to facilitate the process of swallowing. 
 
 I have already said, that, with regard to the young gentlemen 
 who introduced the question in this society, I could not for a mo- 
 ment suppose that they would knowingly introduce any question 
 for the purpose of injuring any sect or denomination. So far as 
 I know them, I have too high an opinion of their honour and 
 sense of justice, to harbour the thought for one moment. 
 
 It is true that the gentleman was the advocate of the unfortu- 
 nate Poles, who were not only foreigners, but Catholics, and I 
 give him credit for it. When he portrayed the agonies of their 
 separation from their country, and their friends, whom they should 
 see no more, until they meet " around the throne of God," the 
 picture was touching, and did honour to his feelings; but, alas! 
 the vision of the orator, and the man, was soon dissipated by the 
 dogmas of the Presbyterian. In this capacity, the gentleman, 
 against the better feelings of his nature, is obliged to regard them, 
 and all Catholics, as — idolaters! so that their meeting " around 
 the throne of God," was, after all, only a figure of oratory. 
 
 The Society remember that I exposed the gentleman's falsifica- 
 tion of the Council of Lateran, in the place in which, suppressing 
 the crimes of the Albigenses, in the middle of the quotation, and 
 bringing the beginning and end together, without indicating any 
 omission, he made it appear that the penalties enacted against 
 them, were for their speculative errors, and not for their crimes 
 
318 
 
 against society; his excuse was, that ''he had quoted as Faber 
 had done/' If, therefore, this is " shinder,'' as he now says, you 
 are all witnesses that he himself is my authority ! Quo ipse ducit, 
 sequor. When I falsify, let him expose; that he has done, or ran 
 do so, I emphatically deny. 
 
 The speech which you have just heard is f-ufficiently accom- 
 modating. It admits the fact that persecution was a part of 
 Presbyterianism, from the origin of the sect, down to the last 
 amendment of the Confession of Faith. Then, it follows, that 
 down to this period, the Presbyterians were themselves heretics; 
 by holding ''as having been revealed by Almighty God,'' a tenet, 
 which, just after the Declaration of Independence, it was dis- 
 covered that God had not revealed ! Here, then, is a Presbyte- 
 rian minister, acknowledging that, down to that period, all Pres- 
 byterians were heretics by doctrine, and persecnfors hy heresy! 
 This is candid, though perhaps some of his brethren may regard 
 it as somewhat humiliating. 
 
 By this candid acknowledgment, the gentleman has saved me, 
 for the present, the necessity of entering on the horrible facts of 
 persecution by the Presbyterians. It only remains to show that 
 persecution is at this day, and in the United States, an avowed 
 doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. When I say " avowed," I 
 do not mean that they avow it under that name; but that they 
 avow it, in other words, no man acquainted with the Confession 
 of Faith will for a moment deny. Since the revolution they 
 have cut down the tree, whose fruit was death to other Protest- 
 ants, as well as Catholics, in the various countries of the earth in 
 which Calvinism prevailed. But its root remains. The Presby- 
 terians hold not only as a doctrine, but as a positive command- 
 ment of Almighty God, that they are bound " to remove all 
 
 FALSE WORSHIP, AND ALL THE MONUMENTS OF IDOLATRY." If, 
 
 therefore, they are bound to do this, by the commandment of God, 
 what other religion will remain, after they have begun to " keep 
 the commandments?" Every other religion but their own, is a 
 *'' FALSE worship;" and, as they are bound to "remove all false 
 worship," it follows that they are bound to remove all other reli- 
 gions. In the Confession of Faith, under the head of the Second 
 Commandraent,(l) among the obligations which the command- 
 ment imposes, we find ^^the disapproving, detesting, ojyjwsing all 
 false Korshij), and, according to each one's place and. calling, 
 removing it and all the monuments of idolatry." Not only is 
 this obligation imposed on the Presbyterians by the Decalogue, 
 it is confirmed to them as the true heirs of the Jews in their com- 
 plex rights regarding the land of Canaan. The Confession of 
 Faith takes the confirming warrant from the seventh chapter of 
 Deuteronomy — of which the text is clear. 
 
 (1) Pages 218, 219, Quest. 108. 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 319 
 
 The gentleman has had the candour to admit, that by '' monu- 
 ments of idolatry," are meant whatever is appropriated to, or in 
 connexion with the Catholic religion. Hence, according to the 
 Presbyterian mode of interpreting the seventh chapter of Deuter- 
 onomy, we, as IDOLATERS, are to be treated by them, the people 
 OP God, as the Canaanites were treated by the Jews. It is not 
 for me to say who the " seven nations" are. But if the true 
 worship be the Presbyterian, the ^'/alse worships" are pretty 
 numerous, and it will be difficult to ''remove" them. However, 
 as the Presbyterians are bound to aim at this object, " according 
 TO each one's place and calling" — I. e. the minister in the 
 pulpit — the author at the press — the teacher of schools as teacher, 
 — the session of the church, the Synod, and the General Assem- 
 bly, in their accumulating, and concentrated influence — the 
 Sunday-school Union, as the Sunday-school Union — the various 
 religious societies holding this abominable doctrine, in their re- 
 spective capacities — the merchant in his commerce, — the jud^^e 
 on the bench, — the jurymen in the box — the legislator as legisr 
 lator — the ordinary citizen at the ballot-box — the pious ladies who 
 have hearts to pity the objects of persecution, except they are 
 steeled with Calvinism, in their domestic influence : in a word, 
 all Presbyterians, being bound by the Confession of Faith, and 
 the supposed commandment of the holy and just God, to ''re- 
 move ALL false worship," mai/ succeed, by the mode which 
 they are bound to follow, " each according to his^^^rtce and calling.^* 
 
 This, therefore, being the doctrine of the Presbyterian church, 
 throws considerable light on some of their recent efforts to disturb 
 the equilibrium of the constitution and laws of the country. Their 
 petitions to Congress to have the Sabbath sanctified by legislative 
 enactments ; their attempt to drive out of circulation every ele- 
 mentary book of education not favourable to their doctrine of 
 arrogance, as well as despotism ; their attempt, frustrated by the 
 timely but unintentional disclosures of that " busy and loquacious 
 man," as the gentleman calls him. Dr. Ely, to "form a Christian 
 party in politics;" these were the beginnings of that intolerant 
 policy which in the name of God Almiglity calls upon all Presby- 
 terians to labour "according to each one's place and calling," >to 
 ^^ remove all false worship, and all the monuments of idolatry.'' 
 Since the failure of these, it has been thought more expedient not 
 to attempt the fulfilment of the wjiole commandment at once; and 
 it is thought w^iser to begin by putting down the "monuments of 
 idolatry" first, and the "false worships" will be more easily 
 " removed" afterwards. 
 
 I would now 'appeal to any twelve conscientious men in the 
 United States, and ask them, under the moral responsibilities of it 
 jury, bound to decide according to truth, whether this doctrine of 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States is not in deadly 
 conflict with the constitution under which we live. Here is a 
 
820 
 
 constitution securing to every man the right to worship God ac- 
 cording to the dictates of his conscience ; and here is a Confession 
 of Faith obliging, by a commandment of God, the Presbyterians 
 to "remove n\\ false worship, and all the monuments of idolatry.'' 
 The Presbyterians, therefore, must be either ftiithless to God, by 
 bearing with those " false worships and monuments of idolatry," 
 which, according to their narrow and intolerant creed, he has com- 
 manded them to ^'remove;" or they must be traitors to the con- 
 stitution wdiich protects those "false worships/' and will not 
 allow them to keep the commandments of God, by removing the 
 monuments of idolatry. I did not say, as the gentleman affects 
 to understand me, that the Convent at Boston was burned down 
 by Presbyterians; but what is certain is, that the Presbyterians 
 have, what they call a commandment of God, and according to 
 that commandment, the incendiaries who fired it were doing 
 God's service, though against the American constitution. The 
 chivalrous men who made war on the dwellings of defenceless 
 ladies and female children, in mask, and at the dead hour of mid- 
 night — the men who, by this act of barbarism and ferocity,violatcd 
 the American constitution and fixed a hlot on the national escut- 
 cheon, and on the nineteenth century, did nothing more than what 
 the commandment of God binds all Presbyterians to do — " accord- 
 ing to each one's jilace and callinr/' — they " removed a false 
 worship, a monument of idolatry." With this doctrine, therefore, 
 in their Confession of Faith, is it not an evidence of singular 
 contempt for the attestations of history and the understandings of 
 men, that the Preshj/tcrians, above all other denominations, should 
 put themselves forward as the advocates of civil and religious 
 liberty; whilst — under the divine ohligation of removing " all 
 FALSE WORSHIP," and all the ^^ monuments of idolatry" — they 
 would allow it to none but themselves ? 
 
 I shall now proceed to show that the purposes avowed by Dr. Ely 
 are in strict accordance with the doctrine and history of the Pres- 
 byterian Church. The gentleman would account for the avowal, 
 by telling you that the doctor is a " busy and loquacious man ;" 
 but it has a deeper origin. The doctor may have been "impru- 
 dent," and it is well for the country that he was so. But for the 
 rest, I ask, whether he was not discharging the duties of a sincere 
 Presbyterian minister ? He was commanded, with all his brethren, 
 by the Confession of Faith, and on the pretended authority of God, 
 
 to "REMOVE ALL FALSE WORSHIP, AND ALL THE MONUMENTS OF 
 
 IDOLATRY." And this he was commanded to do according to his 
 " PLACE AND CALLING." Now, his " place and calling" are the 
 ministry and the pulpit; and hence, he was only discharging 
 honestly the duties imposed on him by the Confession of Faith, 
 when, on the 4th of July, 1827, he preached the doctrine of his 
 Church in the following passages : — 
 
 " Our riders, like any other members of the community, who 
 
321 
 
 are under the law to God, as rational beings, and under law to 
 Christ, since they have the light of Revelation, ought to search 
 the Scriptures, assent to the truth; pro/ess faith in Christ; keep 
 the Sabbath holy to God; pray in j^rivate, and in the domestic 
 circle; attend to the public ministry of tlie word; BE BAPTIZED, 
 AND CELEBRATE THE Lord's Supper." This is specious and 
 general; still, it is a religious test of qualifications for office. 
 But the doctor, being a '■'■ busy and loquacious man," unfolds a 
 little more of the doctrine in the following passage, given as ex- 
 planatory of the above : — 
 
 *'//i other words, our presidents, secretaries of the government, 
 senators, arid other representatives in Congress, governors of 
 states, judges, state legislators, Justices of the peace, and city 
 magistrates, are just as much bound, as any other jjersons in the 
 United States, to be ORTHODOX IN THEIR FAITH." 
 
 Now, if Presbyterians could see all these ojjices filled by men 
 who are '' orthodox in their faith," then they might begin 
 to keep the commandment of God, as set forth in the Confession 
 of Faith, by which " they are bound," according to each one's 
 place and calling, to " remove all false worship, and all the monu- 
 ments of idolatry." However, the doctor's '' place and calling" 
 was to labour for this remote end. Accordingly he goes on : — 
 
 ^^I projMse, fellow-citizens, a new sort of union ; or, if you 
 please, a Christian party in politics, ichicli I am, exceedingly 
 anxious all good men in our country should join, not by sub- 
 scribing a new constitution, and the formation of a new society, 
 but by adojjting, avowing, and determining to act upon truly 
 religious principles in all CIVIL matters." 
 
 *'7Vie Presbyterians ALONE could, bring half a million of 
 electors into the field. ^' 
 
 '•'- It will be objected, that my plan,^^ (of making orthodoxy a 
 test for office,) *' of a truly Christian party in politics, will make 
 HYPOCRITES. We are not answerable for their hypocrisy, if it 
 doesr ' 
 
 ^^ I am free to avow, that other things being equal, I would 
 prefer for my chief magistrate, and judge, and ruler, A SOUND 
 Presbyterian." 
 
 Now, the end of the second commandment, as laid down in the 
 Confession of Faith, is the removal of ''all false worship, and all 
 the monuments of idolatry." And when all public rulers shall 
 
 be " ORTHODOX IN THEIR FAITH," '' SOUND PRESBYTERIANS," 
 
 and each obliged to labour for the end, according to his ^^ p)lace 
 and calling,^' it is easy to foresee the consequences. Let the 
 gentleman not think, therefore, that he can get over this avowed 
 doctrine of the Presbyterian creed, by charging Dr. Ely with 
 being a "busy and loquacious man." The truth is, that the 
 doctor only preached what all Presbyterian ministers should 
 preach, if they were as imprudently honest in proclaiming their 
 
322 
 
 tenets, as the Reverend clerk of the General Assembly. Their 
 doctrines, under the second commandment, oblige them to it. 
 The doctor allowed the '' simplicity of the dove" to prevail over 
 the "cunning of the serpent:" it was his misfortune, by pro- 
 claiming openly the doctrines of his Church, to give the alarm to 
 the friends of civil and religious liberty; and hence, he is called 
 a '^ busy and loquacious man." 
 
 The Sunday-school Union, in perfect harmony with these sen- 
 timents — in various reports made about the same time — had the 
 candour to avow their desire and intention ^^ to force out of circu- 
 lation,'" such elementary books as did not coincide wdth their 
 views — to '' revise and alter" — to become, in their own language, 
 *Uhe DICTATORS to the consciences op thousands of im- 
 mortal BEiNrjs." And what were their anticipations of reward 
 for this labour of love ? They themselves explain it. ^' In ten 
 
 YEARS, OR CERTAINLY IN TWENTY, THE POLITICAL POWER OP 
 OUR COUNTRY WOULD BE IN THE HANDS OP MEN, WHOSE CHA- 
 RACTERS HAVE BKEN FORMED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SaB- 
 BATH-SCII00LS."(1) 
 
 It is generally known, that Presbyterians soon became the pro- 
 minent and efficient managers of all the concerns of the Sunday- 
 school Union. It was under their supervision and authority, that 
 these bold and daring purposes w^ere thus publicly avowed. 
 
 They proclaim themselves " dictators to the consciences of 
 thousands," by ^'' alter huf^ the sources of early information, and 
 they look forward to the time, when the " political poWer of our 
 country shall be in the hands of men, whose characters have been 
 formed under this dictation." 
 
 The gentleman will tell you, that some of our most respectable 
 citizens are, or have been, managers in this institution. I would 
 not detract one iota from their respectability. But the more re- 
 spectable they are, the more reason there is to dread a religion, 
 the influence of which could so far pervei't their judgment. " If 
 these things be done in the green wood, says the Scripture, what 
 shall it be in the dry?" If respectable men can so fiir forget 
 what is due to the CIVIL and religious rights of the American 
 people, as to become '^dictators," to the ''consciences" oi con- 
 fiding cliildhood, merely because the second commandment of the 
 Presbyterian creed requires of them, "according to each one's 
 place and calling, to remove all false worship, and all the monu- 
 ments of idolatry;" then, sir, you may imagine what it will be 
 when these same principles are brought to operate on men of bad 
 or of no character. That is the aim of their effort now. Their 
 object is to stir up — the mob. 
 
 No Christian can entertain much respect for the character of 
 Thomas Jefferson, who is known to have had little or no respect 
 for the Christian's religion. But, viewed as a statesman, his 
 (1) Appendix to Second An. Rep. S. S. U. 1826, p. 93. 
 
323 
 
 character appears in a very different light. In political sagacity, 
 in the direct or indirect bearings of religious or political princi- 
 ples, he was a deep reader of the human heart, and thoroughly 
 instructed. He warned his country against the possible danger 
 ■which might arise from the monarchical or other predilections, 
 that might be introduced by emigrants. But he warned it also 
 against a danger more immediate, for his knowledge of which he 
 depended not on speculation, hut on facts. This was the danger 
 growing out of the superior intolerance, for which Presbyterianism 
 had been, and would be, distinguished in all ages. He wrote his- 
 tori/, and yet those who are acquainted with the violent proceed- 
 ings of Presbyterians within the last twelve months, may see that 
 he wrote prophecy at the same time. In vol. iv., p. 358, Letter 
 clxvii., he says : — 
 
 ^^The atmosphere of our country is unquestionably charged 
 with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some p«r^s, 
 denser 171 others, but too heavy in all. I had no idea, however^ 
 that in Pennsylvania, the CRADLE OF TOLERATION and FREEDOM 
 OF RELIGION, it coulcl have risen to the height you describe. 
 This must be owing to the GROWTH of Presbyterianism.* Ilere, 
 Upiscopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, join to- 
 gether in hymning to their Maker, listen ivith attention and devo- 
 tion to each other^ s preachers, and all mix in society with perfect 
 harmony. It is not so in the districts icherc Presbyterianism pre- 
 vails undividedly. Their ambition and tyranny would 
 
 TOLERATE NO RIVAL, IF THEY HAD POWER. SYSTEMATICAL 
 at grasping at an ascendency over ALL other sects, they aim at 
 ENGROSSING THE EDUCATION OF THE COUNTRY; are hostile tO 
 every institution that THEY do not direct; are jealous at seeing 
 others begin to attend at all to that object." 
 
 On the same subject, he says, in his letter to William Short, 
 p. 322 :— 
 
 " The Presbyterian clergy are the LOUDEST, the most IN- 
 TOLERANT of all sects; the most TYRANNICAL and AMBITIOUS; 
 ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a. word could now be 
 obtained, to put the TORCH TO THE PILE, and to rekindle in this 
 virgin hemisphere the flames in ichich their oracle, Calvin, con- 
 sumed the p>oor Servetus, because he could not subscribe the pro- 
 position of Calvin, THAT MAGISTRATES HAVE A RIGHT TO EX- 
 TERMINATE ALL HERETICS TO CaLVINISTIC CREED. TlIEY PANT 
 TO RE-ESTABLISH BY LAW, that holy inquisition, which they can 
 now only infuse into j)ublic opinion." Be assured, sir, Thomas 
 Jefferson understood the genius of Presbyterianism, not in its 
 theological deformity, but as a statcwian, in its bearings upon 
 the principles we are now discussing; viz., "civil and religious 
 liberty." 
 
 But we have other testimony besides that of Thomas Jefferson. 
 We have those who are good Presbyterian theologians, explain- 
 
324 
 
 ing the intolerant doctrines which the gentleman would disguise, 
 bj pretending that nobody ever thought of them, except Dr. Ely, 
 who is " a busy, loquacious man." We have, in our own city, 
 the testimony of the Kev. Dr. Wylie, a gentleman of learning 
 and humanity, from whose breast not even the intolerance of the 
 creed he defends has been able to drain the milk of kindness to 
 his brother — man. The testimony of this writer is unanswerable 
 proof of the arguments which I have already deduced from the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith. The gentleman will tell you 
 that Dr. Wylie is a Ee/ormed Presbyterian. But I can tell you, 
 and my opponent will not venture to gainsay the statement, that 
 the principles now maintained by Dr. Wylie are the true princi- 
 ples of honest primitive Presbyterianism. They are the princi- 
 ples of the Westminster Confession. The work from which I am 
 about to quote, is a short doctrinal treatise on the " Duty of Ma- 
 gistrates and Ministers," entitled the " Two Sons of Oil," and 
 published by Dr. Wylie, in 1803. The audience and the public 
 will judge of the principles; — in regard to which the author 
 says, in his short Preface, '^ The time has heen when the whole body 
 of Fre^hyterians, in Scotland, Emglandj and Ireland, unani- 
 mously subscribed them." 
 
 The first object of the argument is to show that the doctrine of 
 what is called " Union of Church and State/' is conformable 
 to the law of God, in the institution of the two great ordinances 
 of Magistracy and Ministry." The second is to show that 
 the government of the United States and the State governments 
 are not moral ordinances of God, precisely because they re- 
 ject these notions of a scriptural magistracy, and allow univer- 
 sal LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. What is definitive in support of 
 my argument, and in showing that the doctrines of the Presbyte- 
 rian religion are opposed to civil and religious liberty, is, that to 
 establish the above points, the author of the " Two Sons of Oil" 
 quotes repeatedly the text of the Westminster Confession — the 
 present creed of the General Assembly. 
 
 On the Presbyterian doctrine about the magistrates being 
 " nursing Withers" to the church. Dr. Wylie speaks out with a de- 
 gree of manly candour and fearlessness, which does him credit, 
 "/ie (the magistrate) ought, by his civil power, to REMOVE all 
 external imj)ediments to the true religion and worship of God, 
 whether they be persons, or things; such as persecution, pro- 
 faneness, heresy, IDOLATRY, and THEIR ABETTORS, as did Asa, 
 Hezekiah, Josiah, and other pious kings." (X) Now this is plain 
 dealing. This is the end, and Dr. Ely's *' Christian party in 
 politics" is the means by which to accomplish it. If the gentle- 
 man denies this doctrine — he denies \i\& faith. It is neither more 
 nor less, than what his creed requires of all Presbyterians, under 
 
 (1) Two Sons of Oil, p. 19. 
 
325 
 
 the second commandment, viz., to '^ remove, according to each 
 one's place and calling, all fahe icorsliip^ ami all the 
 monuments of idolatry T Of the want of qualifications for the 
 ministry, the candid Presbyterian writer whom I have ah'eady 
 quoted, says, — ^'Siich are the clouds of illiterate, Methodist lo- 
 custs , which darken, the horizon of these states the infu- 
 riate zeal with which thcij propa(jate their POISONOUS DOCTRINES, 
 resembles much the character of the Scribes and Pharisees, men- 
 tioned in Matthew xxiii. 15. "(1) In this assembly, it has suited the 
 gentleman to be loud and long in the praise of the American Gene- 
 ral and State Constitutions, inasmuch as this audience respects the 
 Constitutions, and do not know his creed. 
 
 Now, the fact is, that the Constitution and the doctrines of the 
 Presbyterian religion are directly opposed, one to the other. 
 Hence, the stricter sort of that denomination condemn the whole 
 political system. Their reasons are, that first, the federal Con- 
 stitution does not even recognise the existence of God. (2) Se- 
 cond, That the State Constitutions contain "positive immorality,'* 
 And what is this immorality? ^^ Their recognition of such rights 
 of conscience" as are contrary to sound Presbyterianism.(3) 
 ^^Tlie government gives a legal security and establishment to 
 gross heresy, blasphemy, and idolatry, UNDER THE NOTION OP 
 LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. "(4) 
 
 The Confession of Faith teaches, as a doctrine, that the ^^ civil 
 magistrates are NURSING FATHERS to the Church." And the gen- 
 tleman pretends not to understand this perversion of the Constitu- 
 tion, as containing any thing at which the friends of civil and re- 
 ligious liberty need feel alarmed. Let him see its explanation in 
 Dr. Ely's " Christian party in politics." Let him read its mean- 
 ing in the '' Two Sons of Oil." "Kings shall be thy nursing 
 fathers. Would he not be a hard-hearted father, who would put 
 his CHILD upon the same footing with the WOLVES, TIGERS, and 
 OTHER VORACIOUS BEASTS of prey ? The POLITICAL FATHER, who 
 leaves the child TRUTH in the jaws of enemies , still more deadly, 
 cannot be allowed to possess much more tender feelings. Will 
 the Church of Christ enjoy no OTHER PRIVILEGE than this, 'by 
 sucking the breast of kings ?' "(5) 
 
 In short, I put it to every honest member of the Presbyterian 
 Church, whether there is not a palpable contradiction, between his 
 implied oath as a citizen, and his implied oath as a Presbyterian. 
 As a Presbyterian he binds himself to " remove, according to his 
 place and calling, all false worship, and all the monuments of 
 idolatry." As a citizen, he binds himself to support the Consti- 
 tution, and consequently, to protect "all false worship, and all the 
 monuments of idolatry." Consequently, he binds himself to "re- 
 
 (1) Two Sons of Oil, p. 31. (2) Ibid. p. 34. 
 
 (3) Ibid. p. 35. (4) Ibid. (6) Ibid. p. 38. 
 
• , 326 
 
 move^^ the very thiDp:s which he birds himself to protect, and not 
 ^^ remover' If he tells us that he ean keep both, he must either 
 be a fool, or else believe those to whom he makes the assertion to 
 be fools. He swears, either actually or implicitly, of the same 
 thing, that he lolll '^ REMOVE," and that he will not ^^ remove" it. 
 AVhich of these contradictory oaths will he keep ? If he keeps 
 his Freyhyterian oath, he is a traitor to the Constitution, a foe to 
 the rights of conscience, to civil and religious liberty, and a dan- 
 gerous citizen. If, on the other, he keeps his eivil oath, he is a 
 hypocrite, and a traitor towards God. For, as a Presbyterian, he 
 is obliged to believe that God has commanded him to remove all 
 false worshq^; and, instead of obeying God, he turns round, and 
 swears to support a Constitution which protects all false worship ! 
 To be an honest man, therefore, he must renounce one or other 
 of these incompatible obligations. If "his creed is correct, the Con- 
 stitution is^ a document of iniquity — opposed to the commandment 
 of God. If the Constitution is correct, he ought to renounce his 
 creed. But, at all events, it is manifest, that, under this govern- 
 ment, the Presbyterians have not liberty of conscience. It will 
 not allow them to keep the commandments of Jehovah, by re- 
 moving '' all false worship," as the Almighty has appointed in the 
 "Westminster Confession of Faith. This is the reason why the 
 honest Presbyterians — the Covenanters, whose orthodoxy in the 
 faith, the gentleman will not dare to deny, reject the American 
 Constitutions as not being a moral ordinance of God. This is 
 the reason why Dr. Ely would prefer, for his " chief magistrate, 
 a sound Presbyterian." This is the reason why the Sunday-mail 
 experiment was tried. This, in fine, is the reason why the Pres- 
 byterian parsons have, in such numbers, entered into a political 
 conspiracy against their Catholic fellow-citizens. If they can 
 only enlist the other Protestant denominations in aiding them to 
 remove the ^'monuments of idolatry," they will know how to dis- 
 pose of their allies afterwards, and the removal of "all false 
 worships" will follow, as a matter of course. 
 
 The doctrine of the Reformed Presbyterian Church is notori- 
 ously opposed to the civil and religious liberty guaranteed by the 
 American Constitutions. Yet they are held to be sound in the 
 faith, by their brethren of the General Assembly. What does 
 this prove ? The Dutch Reformed Church, another head of the 
 original hydra of intolerance, the representative of which is the 
 gentleman's colleague, holds the same anti-i^merican doctrine that 
 I have pointed out in the Confession of Faith. All of them hold, 
 as a tenet revealed by Almighty God, that magistrates of this Re- 
 public are, (or rather ought to be,) "nursing fathers to the 
 Church." The Dutch Confession says : — ^^And their office is 
 not only to have regard unto, and to watcli for the welfare of the 
 civil state; hut also, that they protect the sacred ministry; and 
 THUS may REMOVE all idolatry a?ic^ FALSE WORSHIP, that 
 
327 
 
 the kingdom of ant i- Christ may he THUS destroyed^ and the Icing- 
 dom of Cltrist he thus promoted." (I) '' Tlius" — /. e., by the 
 '< nursing fathers," the magistrates !!...." Wherefore," says 
 this Jiberal and charitable document, '■^ we detent all Anabaptists 
 and other seditious j^cojjle, &c."(2) And why detest the ''Ana- 
 haptists^" Because they denied that the magistrates had any 
 right to meddle with the rights of conscience. For this, they are 
 '^ detested," and ranked with " seditious people." 
 
 Now, I would leave it to any man of sound mind, and impartial 
 judgment, in the United States, to say, whether these several 
 tenets of the Presbyterian creed are not pregnant with all that is 
 destructive of religious liberty, and the rights of conscience. 
 Their creed is not, indeed, as arrogantly intolerant in the letter, 
 as it tvaa before the rights of men, proclaimed at the period of 
 American Independence, obliged them to curtail its tyrannical pre- 
 tensions. But the gentleman reckons without his host, when he 
 represents me admitting, that it " is now right." He asks why 
 the Dutch Reformed Church, and the Covenanters, were not 
 obliged to change their persecuting principles, as well as their 
 brethren of the General Assembly. I know no reason, except 
 that they appear to have been more consistent, and less time-serv- 
 ing. They seem to have felt that it was too late in the day, to 
 persuade the world, that Presbyterian ism coidd he other than a 
 persecuting creed. They judged rightly; for at this day they 
 would be trusted with the guardianship of civil and religious 
 liberty, just as fast, and as far, as those who thought it more ad- 
 visable to hide the more ugly features of their religion, in hypo- 
 critical conformity with the shiftings of the political gale. 
 
 The gentleman wishes me to rep>eat my refutation of assertions 
 against the Catholic faith. I refer the reader to my vindication 
 during the first six evenings. He says that '^Father Green" 
 carried his musket during the Revolution. To which I reply, 
 that for this he deserves well of his country. But Catholics "did 
 the same. The Catholic armies and officers of France and 
 Poland helped ^' Father Green" to survive the day of hattle. 
 The gentleman says, what is unfounded in fact, when he repre- 
 sents the said " Father Green" as being " hateful" to me. He 
 is to me an object of great indifference; and, I trust, that I can 
 live without hating any one. 
 
 It will be time enough for the gentleman to call on the Catho- 
 lics to change their creed, when he shall have proven that they 
 ever held, as '^ a tenet of faith or morals," any of the avowed doc- 
 trines of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the subject of 
 doniineering over the religious rights of other denominations. 
 The doctrines of the Catholic Church are as immutable as the 
 truths of God. Men professing those doctrines have, sometimes, 
 
 (1) Page 486. (2) Ibid. 
 
328 
 
 persecuted, but their faith did not require them to do so ; they 
 would have been better Catholics if they had left it alone. But 
 the Presbyterians cannot comply with the revealed tenets of HIS 
 FAITH, without being a persecutor. Here is the difference. 
 
 The gentleman characterizes my charging " theocracy on Pres- 
 byterians," and indeed, ''on all the Calvinistic sects," as an in- 
 stance of " audacity in assertion.^' By this, it is plain, that he 
 is ignorant of the history of his own Church. Is it not known to 
 every man of information, that Calvin and Knox justified their 
 shedding of blood, by claiming for their magistrates the rights 
 and duties exercised by the magistrates under the old law ? Nay, 
 is not the present Confession of Faith crammed with texts and 
 references to the same effect ? Is it not on this principle that they 
 claim a divine right to *' burn our graven images with fire," and 
 to ''remove all false worship?" I should not wonder any more 
 to find the gentleman ignorant, as he is, of Catholic doctrine, 
 when he is so palpably unacquainted with his own. 
 
 The opinions of Robinson and De Pradt, two enemies of the 
 Catholic religion, are of as much weight in the argument as his 
 own opinion. He tells us, on the contrary, that European Pres- 
 byterians were great democrats. The attestations of history are, 
 that they were invariably seditious under the civil governments 
 of other denominations^ and as invariably tyrants when other 
 denominations were under them. The dethronement and violent 
 death of Charles I., and the penalty of imprisonment, for reading 
 the Episcopal Common Prayer Book, are proofs of their charac- 
 ter under this double aspect. 
 
 The gentleman, unable to find facts for the vindication of his 
 cause, calls in Hooker and Bancroft, two zealous Protestants, to 
 say a good word for Calvin and for Calvin ists. This proves, that 
 the evidence of facts is felt to be strong against the culprit. But 
 the audience will judge of them by their deeds and avowed jurm- 
 ciples, and not by the flourishes of rhetoric employed by their 
 friends. The gentleman could have made almost as good a pane- 
 gyric himself 
 
 I showed, in my last speech, that the doctrine of " predestina- 
 tion, as held by Presbyterians, has an adverse bearing on the civil 
 and religious rights of all other denominations of Christians. 
 And the gentleman answers my argument by asking me to explain 
 a text of Scripture for him ! This shows that he understands 
 the force of the argument, and cannot meet it. Then let it 
 remain unanswered, to teach others, that when Presbyterians talk 
 about " civil and religious liberty," they ought to be acquainted 
 with their own doctrine, and not rush into a position in which 
 they cannot help appearing a little ridiculous. 
 
 But though he cannot meet the argument, he can quote doggerel 
 ribaldry, abusive of the Catholic religion and practices. This, 
 however, is no aro-ument — and the audience know it. The infidels 
 
 I 
 
329 
 
 can write and utter many stupid witticisms against Christ and his 
 religion, without being able to aflFect the solidity of Christianity. 
 So with the gentleman; he has studied Catholic Theology, as far 
 as the ''inquisition," "hocus-pocus," " Tetzel, and the sale of 
 indulgences — " and few of the clique to which he belongs, have 
 gone farther. Macintosh's testimony is like that of Hooker and 
 Bancroft — opinions — mere Protestant opinions. 
 
 The gentleman states, a-s/acfs, that St. Augustine, and the flower 
 of the Catholic Church, held the Presbyterian doctrine on what 
 are called in that system of fatalism, " the decrees of God." Now 
 the Presbyterian doctrine is thatGrod " foreordaijied wiiatsoeyeb. 
 comes to pass."(l) Hence, sjnce evil — murder, adultery, ca- 
 lumny, crime of every description, " come to pass," it follows ac- 
 cording to this doctrine, that God has '' foreordained'' them. And 
 he tells us that Augustine and the flower of the Catholic Church 
 held this hlas2yhemous and dangerous principle ! That many of the 
 Reformers held it, I admit, but their doctrines have been reformed 
 in their turn, by their successors. And the only denomination, 
 that I know, who have not become ashamed of the avowal of this 
 article, are the high-toned Presbyterians. I defy the proof, 
 that it is held by the other denominations of Protestants, whom 
 he has mentioned. 
 
 He says that that the " Presbyterian creed" avows that all men 
 are to be protected in the exercise of their religion, " whether true 
 or false.'' Yes, but what comes of the second commandment in 
 the mean time? The State had determined that all religions 
 should be protected. But when, as Dr. Ely says, we shall have 
 a " Christian party in politics," and a " sound Presbyterian for 
 our chief magistrate — " then we shall learn the meaning of that 
 divine precept of the decalogue, that obliges the Presbyterians, 
 " according to each one's place and calling, to remove all false 
 worship and all the monuments of idolatry." This is the kind 
 of " protection" which Presbyterianism never failed to afford when 
 it had the power — as I shall prove in the sequel of this argument. 
 The concluding portion of the gentleman's speech does not de- 
 serve a reply. 
 
 (1) Confession of Faith, page 321. 
 
 21 
 
830 
 
 **Is the Presbyterian Religion^ in any or all of its principles or 
 doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty ? " 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE II.— MR. BRECKINRIDaE. 
 
 Mr. President: — 
 Nothing is farther from my intention than " to insult " the 
 Rev. gentleman by calling him a Papist. It is only calling things 
 by their pi-oper names. On this side of the Atlantic, the temper 
 of the times and the spirit of the people, make it advisable to keep 
 the Roman monarchy out of view. But in Papal (I beg pardon) 
 *' Catholic" Europe, they glory in the very title which Mr. H. 
 rejects with scorn. Baronius, the great historian of Rome, says 
 (in his Martyrology,) glorying in the name " The modern here- 
 tics, call Catholics PAPISTS.: certainly they could not give them a 
 more glorious title. Let it therefore be our praise while living, 
 and our cpitapHi when dead, ever to be called, papists. " — And 
 Gother perpetuates the sanction of this name, by calling his book 
 *'The Papist misrepresented.^' What shall we call him? 
 A Catholic ? But that were to give up the whole question in de- 
 bate between him and Protestants ; for the name imports that his 
 is the universal, and therefore the only true church; and that, 
 without its faith, none can be saved! shall we admit this? The 
 canon-law which is binding on every priest and member upon earth 
 goes still farther, and expressly excludes from salvation all who are 
 not subject to the Pope. Omnes Christi fidelcs de necessitate 
 salutis S2ibsunt Romano Ponfifci, qui utrumque gladlum habet 
 a nemine autcm judicatur. (1) (The book is now in my hands, and 
 is the property of a Roman Catholic Priest.) *^It is necessary to 
 the salvation of all the faithful in Christ, that they he sidjject to 
 the Pope of Rome, who holds both swords ; but is himself judged 
 of no man." Here in one sentence it is declared, 1, That all 
 who are not j)02yists perish : 2, That the Pope has control of 
 civil as well as of 7'eligious affairs : 3, Yet that he is above all 
 human jiirisdiction. Shall we not then call his servant andjorzVsi 
 by his name ? Truly, Mr. President, I think* the gentleman ought 
 to carry his shame to the thing signifcd, and not stop at the name. 
 He has much more reason to be ashamed of the title of " Jesuit," 
 in which he glories, calling it "a compliment," and this too in 
 the face of all the disclosures made by me on that subject ! 
 
 (1) Extrav. tit. viii. chap. i. 
 
331 
 
 It is but too evident, from the tone of the gentleman's remarks, 
 on my account of the origin of this Controversy, that he feels their 
 force not a little. His attacks on the Presbyterian Church at large, 
 are most virulent and bitter. It is hard to say, whether there bo 
 a greater dearth of argument, or profusion of ferocious scandal. 
 ^^ He draws upon his imagination, and his passions, for his facts 
 — and on his memorjj for his wit.'* '' Fools" — " Hypocritical 
 conformity to the shiftings of the political gale," &c. &c., flow 
 with elegant ease from the refined and lordly priest, '' in WHOSE 
 person" (according to his Catechism,) WE venerate the power 
 AND person op OUR LoRD Jesus Christ." What a contrast ! 
 
 From the fiict, that it was at his own instance that the " Presby- 
 terian Religion" was brought under review at this time, we may 
 learn how sincere he is in charging us with wishing to deprive 
 Papists of their rights, by freely examining their principles. On 
 this whole subject, Dr. Beecher, whom the gentleman seems most 
 cordially to hate and fear, has well expressed the feelings of Pres- 
 byterians, when he says, in a recent publication : 
 
 " But have not the Catholics just as good a right to their reli- 
 gion as other denominations have to theirs?" I have said so. I 
 not only admit their equal rights, but insist upon them ; and am 
 prepared to defend their rights as I am those of my own and other 
 Protestant denominations. The Catholics have a perfect right to 
 proselyte the nation to their faith if they are able to do it. But I 
 too have the right of preventing it if I am able. They have a 
 right freely to propagate their opinions and arguments; and I too 
 have a right to apprise the nation of their political bearings on our 
 republican institutions. They have a right to test the tendencies 
 of Protestanism by an appeal to history : and I, by an appeal to 
 history, have a right to illustrate the coincidence between the po- 
 litical doctrines and the practice of the Catholic Church, and to 
 show that always they have been hostile to civil and religious li- 
 berty. The Catholics claim and exercise the liberty of animadvert- 
 ing on the doctrines and doings of Protestants, and we do not com- 
 plain of it; — and why should they or their friends complain that 
 we in turn should animadvert on the political maxims and doings 
 of the Catholic Church ? Must Catholics have all the liberty — 
 their own and ours too ? Can they not endure the reaction of free 
 inquiry ? Must we lay our hand on our mouth in their presence, 
 and stop the press ?^-Let them count the cost, and such as cannot 
 bear the scrutiny of free inquiry, return where there is none ; for . 
 though we would kindly accommodate them in all practicable ways^ 
 we cannot surrender our rights for their accommodation." 
 
 But the gentleman denies that other Protestant denominations in 
 the United States participate with Presbyterians in their views 
 and feelings about popery, except as dupes. He owns that ^' these 
 denominations may have been used, hy Presbytn-ians to stir up 
 this fanatical excitement." He is certainly very complimentary 
 
832 
 
 to them ! He admits that the Reformed Dutch Church, which ho 
 styles ''another head of the original hydra of intolerance, the 
 representative of which is the gentleman's colleague/^ (Dr. Brown- 
 lee, whom popery has reason to mourn was ever born,) is in har- 
 mony with us. This is surely no mean ally. He admits also, 
 that '' our step-brethren, the Congregationalists of New England,''' 
 are with us. They are of themselves 'dilation ; and the cradle of 
 liberfj/ is in their midst. But the naughty Yankees will not let 
 the Pope rock it, or put the spirit of liberty (nursed in it,) to sleep, 
 and Mr. Hughes is very an<jry at it — What a pity ! 1 But does 
 the gentleman doubt the feelings of American Episcopalians? Let 
 him ask Bishop Mcllvaine, or the Gambler Observer, or the Epis- 
 copal (Philadelphia) Recorder. Does he doubt the feelings of the 
 Baptist Church : or the Methodist Episcopal Church ? surely the 
 *' Catholic Herald " does not exchange with the " Christian Advo- 
 cate," or the *' Christian Watchman." If the gentleman will 
 bring me the certificate of one Baptist or one Methodist minister 
 of Christy in the United States, who believes that the Roman 
 Catholic doctrines, as a system, are favourable to civil or religi- 
 ous liberty, I will then own that, out of many thousands, I have 
 mistaken one. The gentleman will remember Wesley ! His 
 views are strong, but they have never been answered. In letter 
 No. 15, of our late Controversy, the gentleman charged that cele- 
 brated man with intolerance, and tried to prove it, by a garbled 
 extract, plucked out of its connexions. In a subsequent letter, I 
 cited the whole paragraph, it is as follows : 
 
 " With persecution I have nothing to do; I persecute no man 
 for his religious principles. Let there be as boundless a freedom 
 in religion as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the 
 point; I will set religion, true or false, out of the question. Yet I 
 insist upon it that no government, not Roman Catholic, ought to 
 tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I prove this by a 
 plain argument, let him answer it that can : that no Roman Ca- 
 tholic does, or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable be- 
 haviour, I prove thus: It is a Roman Catholic maxim established 
 not hy private men, but by ajmblic council, that 'no faith is to 
 he kept luith heretics.' This has been openly aooioed by the 
 Council of Constance ; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whe- 
 ther private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the 
 Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, nothing can be more 
 plain than that the members of that church, can give no reasona- 
 ble security to any government, for their allegiance or peaceable 
 behaviour. (Here follow the words quoted by Mr. Hughes.) 
 Therefore they ought not to be tolerated by any government, 
 Protestant, Mahomeian, or Pagan. (The author proceeds.) 
 You may say, ' nay, but they will take an oath of allegiance.' 
 True, five hundred oaths ; but the maxim, ' no faith is to be kept 
 with heretics ' sweeps them all away as a spider's web. So that 
 
338 
 
 Btill, no governors, that are not Koman Catholics, can have any 
 security of their allegiance. The power of granting' pardons for 
 all sins, past, present, and to come, is, and has been for many 
 centuries, one branch of his (the Pope's) spiritual power. But 
 those who acknowledged him to have this spiritual power, can 
 give no security for their allegiance, since they believe the Pope 
 can pardon rebellions, high treasons, and all other sins whatever. 
 The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is an- 
 other branch of the spiritual power of the Pope. All who 
 acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But 
 whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the Pope, can 
 give no security for his allegiance to any government. Nay, not 
 only the Pope, but even a priest has the power to pardon sins. 
 This is an essential doctrine of the Church of Rome, but they 
 that acknowledge this cannot possibly give any security for their 
 allegiance to any government. Oaths are no security at all, for 
 the priest can pardon both perjury and high treason. Setting, 
 then, religion aside, it is plain that, upon principles of reason, 
 no government ought to tolerate men who cannot give any se- 
 curity to that government for their allegiance and peaceable 
 behaviour .... Would I wish, then, the Roman Catholics to be 
 persecuted 't I never said or hinted any such thing. I abhor 
 the thought ; it is foreign from all I have preached and wrote 
 these fifty years. But I would wish the Romanists in England, 
 (I had no others in view,) to be treated with the same lenity that 
 they have been these sixty years ; to be allowed both civil and 
 religious liberty; but not permitted to undermine ours." (2) 
 
 While Wesley disclaims persecution, he insists that popery 
 " undermines civil and religious liberty ^' if allowed its genuine 
 influences. 
 
 Now the American system is one of unqualified and universal 
 protection^ and is more than toleration ; and we glory in it, just 
 as it is. But we hold that no consistent Roman Catholic can be 
 ex animo, an admirer of the American system. The people, 
 happily false to popery, present many noble examples of devoted 
 freemen. The priests, they are the monarchists ; they are the 
 }iierarcliy of Rome ; they are the church, the foes of divine 
 truth, and human liberty. In these views, we repeat it, Ameri- 
 can Protestants as a body agree. 
 
 The gentleman's rejoinder to my argument ^^ on the decrees of 
 God " — as he calls the doctrine, halts to the last degree. His 
 previous position was that the doctrine of election led to imm,o- 
 rality — and to the destruction of a due regard for the rights of 
 other men ; and therefore was opposed to civil and religious lib- 
 erty. In reply, I forbore to discuss the triUh of these doctrines, 
 as out of place ; but yet presented fifew i^assages of God's word, 
 by way of nuts for his infallible interpreter, begging, in passing, 
 an explanation of their sense. These passages (see my last 
 
 (2) See Wesley's Works, vol. v. p. 817, 818, 826.) 
 I 
 
334 
 
 speech) assert tliat moral lihertij is secured hi/ the decrees of God ; 
 and are therefore direct rebutters to his false logic. And what 
 ■does he say ? "I showed in my last speech that the doctrine of 
 predestination, as held by Presbyterians, has an adverse bearing 
 on the civil and religious rights of all other denominations of 
 Christians. And the gentleman answers my argument by ask- 
 ing me to explain a text of Scripture for him ! This shows that 
 he understands the force of the argument, and cannot meet it," 
 But with all this bravado, what has he done ? I appealed to 
 liistory in proof of i\\^ fact that " Calvinistic denominations'' and 
 " Calvinistic nations,'' were foremost in the ranks of the f-ee and 
 prosperous and virtuous. Did he deny it? Did he disprove it? 
 I have already shown abundantly that popery is the parent of 
 vice, and vice in its vilest forms; so that if the argument to im- 
 morality is of any weight, as I think it is of much, his logic 
 rebounds on his cause ; and history is witness that his principles 
 have ruined it. Tacitly admitting that the denominations and 
 nations enumerated by me, were signalized by their liberty and 
 virtue, he makes the only effort possible to disengage himself, by 
 denying that they held the doctrines of *' the decrees," and '^ pre- 
 destination." '' The only denomination that I know, who have not 
 become ashamed of the avowal of this article, are the high-toned 
 Presbyterians. I defy the proof that it is held by the other 
 denominations of Protestants whom he has mentioned." To the 
 proof then we go. The XVIIth Article of the Episcopal Church, 
 while it wiseh'^ guards against the torture and perversion of this 
 doctrine, is fulhj Calvinistic. " Of Predestination and election." 
 ^^Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, wlierehy 
 (before the foundations of the uorld were laid,^ he hath con- 
 stantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse 
 and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of man- 
 kind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as 
 vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which he endued with 
 so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's pur- 
 pose, by his spirit working in due season; they, through grace 
 obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of 
 God by adoption ; they be made like the image of his only be- 
 gotten son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; 
 and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.'^ 
 Pray is this no " proof?" It is ample proof that the doctrine is 
 Episcopal; and it closes with a charming refutation of the gen- 
 tleman's reasoning, when he says the doctrine leads to immorality. 
 Here, as in our Confession, it is declared, and facts prove it, that 
 the doctrine calls for, and its belief produces, good works. 
 
 When he denies that the Baptists hold this doctrine, he only 
 exposes his ignorance. Let him ask Gill, Fuller, Robert Hall, 
 Carey, Ward, and their standards of faith, for the conviction which 
 he desires. He cautiously denies that Augustine held this doc- 
 
335 
 
 trine. Proof (1) — ^^ We are therefore to understand calling, as 
 perialning to the elect; not that they were elected because they 
 believed; but that they were elected in order that they might 
 believe. God himself makes this sufficiently plain, when he 
 says, ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you. For if they 
 were elected because they believed, they would themselves elect 
 by believing in him; so that- they would inerit election. But he 
 takes all this away, when he says, * ye have not chosen me, but 
 I have chosen you.' They have not chosen (non elegerunt) Him, 
 in order that he might choose them ; but he chose, (elegit eos) 
 them that they might choose him; because his mercy prevented 
 them, by grace, and not by debt. Therefore, He chose them out 
 of the ivorld, when they lived in the flesh, but He chose them in 
 himself before the foundation of the world. For what does the 
 Apostle say, " as he hath chosen us in Him before the founda- 
 tion of the world." 
 
 Again ; (2) "iVb one cometh to Christ unless it be given to 
 him ; and it is given to those loho were chosen in Him before the 
 foundation of the world." (3) 
 
 We need not enter into the proof as to the twelve creeds of the 
 Reformers ; for the gentleman admits that '^ some — " of them 
 held it. He knows that nearly " all" did. It is true, some of 
 their descendants have abandoned these views. But look at 
 Scotland, England, Ireland, Holland, and the United States of 
 North America, for the liberty, science, and piety of those lands. 
 Are they not the most free, enlightened and virtuous of nations ? 
 and are they not the most Calvinistic : — and are not the Cal- 
 vinists aFiong them abreast of any other population, and far, far 
 ahead of the " Catholic," population, in intelligence, and piety, 
 and good order ? Again, I say let history reply. 
 
 But the gentleman, in calling this "a blasphemous and danger- 
 ous principle,'* treads on delicate ground; for, strange as it may 
 appear, the best ptart of the Council of Trent (if such a term be 
 not a contradiction) held to this very doctrine; and the divided 
 conventicle actually trimmed their creed to heal the breach that 
 was threatened to their infallibilities. The Twelfth Chapter, 
 sixth Session, in a scared way, admits the truth of this doctrine, 
 in the following terms : ^'That the rash confidence of predesti- 
 nation is to be avoided. Let no man, while he continues in this 
 mortal state, so far presume respecting the hidden mystery of 
 divine predestination, as to conclude that he is certainly one of 
 Oie predestinate ; as if it were true that a justified man cannot 
 
 (1) Book I. Chap. 17. torn. 7. Of The Predestination of Saintg. 
 
 (2) Tom. 7. chap. 10. ''Of Perseverance," &c. 
 
 (3) Neminem venire ad Christum nisi fuerit ei datum; ct eis dari qui in eo 
 electi sunt ante constitutionem mundi. — Sec at large Corpus et Syntagma 
 Confessiouum, <fee. on Augustine. 
 
336 
 
 sin any more, or that if he sin he can assure himself of repent* 
 anre ; for no one can know whom God hath chosen for himself ^ 
 unless hy special revelation." Here the truth of the doctrine is 
 acknowledged. 
 
 Father Paul (referred to in my last speech, but cautiously shun- 
 ned by his papal brother Hughes) on the same subject, viz. pre- 
 destination and election, that man doeth nothing, but all is in 
 the will of God ; thus writes : — '^ In examining the first of these 
 questions, the opinions were divers : the most esteemed divines 
 among them thought IT to be Catholic, and the contrary, heresy, 
 because the good school-writers, St. Thomas, Scotus, and the rest, 
 do so thinh ; that is, that God, hfore the creation, out of the 
 mass of majiJiind, hath elected hy his only and mere mercy, some 
 for glory, for whom he hath prepared effectually the means to 
 ohtain it, which is called, to PREDESTINATE. That their number 
 is certain, and determined.'^ The writer goes on to say, that 
 they quoted in proof, the ninth chapter of Romans, in the case of 
 Esau and Jacob, and the example of the potter and clay, and that 
 the apostle calls ^^ d-WuiQ predestination and rcp7'ohafion the height 
 and depth of wisdom unsearchable and incompi-ehensible ..." 
 *' They added divers passages of the Gospel of John, and iv finite 
 authorities from '^t. Augustine, because that saint wrote nothing 
 in his old age, but in favour of this doctrine." (1) On page 202 
 he adds, that after the decree was adopted the Dominicans and 
 Franciscans wrote laborious controversies, showing directly oppo- 
 site senses to it ; and, that when it was sent to the Pope, and he gave 
 it to his friars and learned men for consultation, " it icas ap>proved 
 hy them because every one might ujiderstand it in his own sense." 
 
 From this circle of proofs then, it appears, that the doctrine 
 ^' of divine decrees," as held by the Presbyterians, is held now, 
 by the great body of the professed Protestant Churches, in all 
 those countries most remarkable for the freedom of their institu- 
 tions; and the diffusive intelligence of the people ; that Augustine 
 did teach most clearly the same doctrine, and that the Council 
 of Trent itself gave it a scanty existence, in its decrees, and 
 enacted an evasive canon on the subject, in order to have unity 
 without candour or sense. 
 
 As to this doctrine, I am well aware, that many excellent men, 
 and some Christian denominations, differ with us. But they have 
 the candour to own, that it makes us not the less respectful of the 
 rights of man, and of the obligations of religion. Indeed, they 
 have, many of them, paid a generous homage to the virtues of 
 " Calvinists," as we are sometimes called. It was to this pur- 
 pose we cited the testimony of the great Hooker, who was no 
 Presbyterian, of the elegant and impartial Bancroft, a Unita- 
 rian, and of Sir James Macintosh, a great statesman, and not a 
 
 (1) Hist. Counc. Trent, Book II, p. 196. Lond. edit. 1576. 
 
387 
 
 Presbyterian. Such testimony to facts, are not ''mere opinions;'* 
 and from learned, impartial, and virtuous men of other denomina- 
 tions, have great weight. Besides, this was called for by the dis- 
 honourable course pursued by Mr. Hughes. He agreed in " the 
 rules" to confine himself to "The Presbyterian Church under 
 the General AssemNiy in the United States." But he soon found 
 nothin(j in our standards against liberty ; and he flew to Euro- 
 pean Presbyterians. I followed him, admitting that our ancestry 
 had erred as to the 7'i(/hts of conscience, (he falsely says, I owned 
 that persecution was a part of Presbyterianism in all time till 
 now.) I owned, that formerly Presbyterians had persecuted, but 
 his Church exceedinijhj more. Presbyterians had, from the first, 
 been the leading' advocates for liberty, and distinguished for good 
 morals. \vi proof , I brought the testimony o^ other denominations, 
 and of statesmen of no denomination, and oven of Roman Catho- 
 lics, For this reason I called in Swift, and Drydcn^ a " Catholic," 
 as well as Hooker, Bancroft, and Sir James Macintosh. And now, 
 he says, they were but ''■opinions" And pray, is his doctrine 
 any more ? I brought our standards. He says, they were altered 
 to suit the country. Very well. I ask him to do the same with 
 his system. But he cannot, will not; it is infallible. And so it 
 stands. The papal system cannot become liberal^ and they will 
 not renounce it; and here we join issue — here we fix our final op- 
 position to it, as anti-American, as well as anti-Christian. 
 
 The abuse which the gentleman pours upon Dr. Miller, speaks 
 well for the doctor's labours, for truth and liberty. Mr. Hughes 
 seems to covet the honour of being in such yoocZ company. But 
 it is not for jwrcupines to fight with lions; nor rats to demolish 
 the stately pillars of the Church. 
 
 I confess, it is more appropriate game to go after Dr. Ely. 
 And yet, how has our Jesuit friend garbled even Dr. Ely ! He 
 has left out, as usual, the explanatory parts, and uprooting from 
 their connexions other parts, has falsified his sense, and then 
 charged the perversio7i on the Presbyterian Church. For example, 
 Dr. Ely says, " We do not say that true, or even pretended Chris- 
 tianity, shall be made a constitutional test of admission to oj/ice, 
 but we do ajfirm, that Christians may, in their elections, law- 
 fully prefer the avowed friends of the Christian religion, to 
 Turks, Jews, and Infidels." But Robert Bellarmine says, (1) 
 " But when, in reference to heretics, thieves, and other wicked 
 men, there arises this question in particular, 'shall they be exter- 
 minated?' it is to be considered, according to the meaning of our 
 Lord, whether that can be done without injury to the good ; and 
 if that be possible, they are, without doubt, to be extirpated, 
 
 (1) Book III. Chap. 23, of Laics — his works beiug approved and published 
 hy atithon'fi/ of the Pope, except that he condemned him for not heinr/ strung 
 enough on the temporal power of the Pope. 
 
338 
 
 (exterpandi sunt proculJubio.) Dr. Ely says, (speaking of a 
 Christian Presideut,) '' Let liim be a man of a good moral cha- 
 racter, and let him profess to believe in, and advocate the Chris- 
 tian religion, and 2ve can all support Mm. At one time he will 
 be a Baptist ; at another an Episcopalian ; at another a Metho- 
 dist ; at another a Preshyterian of the American, Scotch, Irish, 
 Dutch, or German stamp, and always a friend to our common 
 Christianity." I suppose, his being a Christian, ^'ould not be 
 a radical objection in the mind of Mr. Hughes ! The sermon 
 was surely a silly production. But while Mr. Hughes cries 
 ''wolf," "wolf," over it, the present Pope says, (and I beg him 
 to notice it as it has been before presented, and not noticed,) 
 <' Nor can we auguii more consoling consequences to reli- 
 gion AND THE GOVERNMENT, FROM THE ZEAL OF SOME TO 
 SEPARATE THE ChURCH FROM THE STATE, AND TO BURST THE 
 BOND WHICH UNITES THE PRIESTHOOD TO THE EMPIRE. FOR, 
 IT IS CLEAR, THAT THIS UNION IS DREADED BY THE PROFANE 
 LOVERS OF LIBERTY, ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER FAILED TO 
 CONFER PROSPERITY ON BOTH." 
 
 Here the head of the universal and only true Church announces, 
 in a public letter, addressed to ''Catholics," over the whole world, 
 that it is Vi profane love of liberty to oppose the union of Church 
 and state, and that said union is necessary to the prosperity of 
 religion and government! Will Mr. Hughes meet this? Will 
 he explain it, by the side of his inference from Dr. Ely's proposal 
 to form "a Christian party in politics." 
 
 Dr. Wilie is next introduced. He is first assailed for his 
 opinions; then devolved on us; then praised for his candour. Dr. 
 Wilie is an able and a good man. I wish that "a drop of oil'' 
 from " the good olive trees," that I believe feed his soul, might 
 fall on the husky conscience of his loily eulogist. Dr. Wilie be- 
 longs not to our communion. His views, as uttered in the sermon 
 adduced, on the question now before us, are very much at issue 
 with our standards. We are not responsible for them. We 
 deeply regret them. They greatly surprise us. Mr. Hughes, 
 however, as usual, has distorted them. But Dr. Wilie, with 
 whom, I presume, on all other leading points I should essentially 
 agree, "is of age," and will, if he think it worth while, ^' speak 
 for himself." 
 
 And then for ^'The Dutch Reformed Church." I refer Mr. 
 Hughes to my gallant " colleague," whose heavy blows yet ring 
 on the broken bosses of the three priests, who united against him 
 in New York ; but who treated him anon as my discreet friend 
 did Mr. M'Calla, profiting by the venerable maxim : — 
 
 " He that fights, and runs away, 
 May live to fight another day," 
 
 Of the caricature which he has given us of the meeting at Mr. 
 M'Calla's church, I will only say, that though the gentleman 
 
339 
 
 seems to have been present, he did not accept the invitation pub- 
 licly given, to any j)>'iest, to defend his cause ; and that the efforts 
 made to disturb that meeting, plainly prove what "Catholics" 
 would do, if they could. 
 
 Mr. Smith is now despised. When he was a Popish j^riest, 
 as his testimonials fully show, he was much esteemed. Now he 
 is blackened. The truth is, his " two-penny" sheets are making, 
 week by week, such disclosures of what he saw among nuns and 
 p)riests, that I do not wonder Mr. Hughes ^^ despises even the day 
 of small things.^' The gentleman excuses us from the charge of 
 actualli/ putting the torch to the Convent ; but he still insists that 
 we are labouring to excite '^ a disposition and efforts to persecute 
 Catholics." I need not, I will not stoop to repel such malignant 
 but powerless thrusts. But 1 will say this : that there is a certain 
 hind of houses, which the Pope used to license at Rome, which 
 the "boys and mobs" in America, taking Judge Lynches laws, 
 sometimes pull down, not as Protestants against p)operj/, but as 
 enemies to gross immoralities, which we cannot name. 
 
 AVhen he comes to Mr. Jefferson, the gentleman says, " He 
 (Mr. Jefferson) depended for his knowledge (of the Presbyte- 
 rians) not on speculation, but on facts." But did not De Pradt, 
 and Robinson, and Hooker, and Bellarmine, have "facts" also? 
 yet their's were only " opinions; " and De Pradt, and the Parlia- 
 ment of Paris, were " Infidels," and in both cases, he told us they 
 had Qio weight; you see his consistenci/ . The gentleman ought 
 to have a better memory, or not so bad spirit. But we proceed : 
 Mr. Jefferson has shared the fate of all authors that pass through 
 Mr. Hughes's household expurgatory Index. He gives the part 
 that suits his case, "/or the rest," as he says, let it go to the 
 winds. Just above Mr. Hughes's second quotation, Mr. Jefferson 
 says of Paul, " OF this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was 
 the great Coryphceus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Je- 
 sus." You see we are in good company : and you can judge how 
 impartial he is towards us in other matters. Mr. Hughes omits 
 a passage about the Trinity, and begins his citation in the midst 
 of a paragraph, of which the following is an integral part : " The 
 history of our University you know so far. An opposition in the 
 mean time, has been gotten up. The serious enemies are thep)riests 
 of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind, 
 its improvement is ominous. Their pulpits are now resounding with 
 denunciations against the "appointment of Dr. Cooper, whom they 
 charge as a monotheist, in opposition to their tritheism. Hostile 
 as these sects are in every* point to one another, they unite in 
 maintaining their mystical theology, against those who believe 
 there is one God only." Then comes in the quotation by Mr. 
 Hughes, the reason for the omisssion is obvious. Mr. Jefferson 
 includes "2)riests of the different religious sects ; " Mr. Hughes 
 wished to confine it to Presbyterians. Query ? Did Mr. Jeffer- 
 
340 
 
 son mean to exclude Popish priests from any claim to be " Chris- 
 tiansP" Again. When he speaks of the '^wlf/ viqicisition," 
 does he intend to say that Presbyterians ever had one, or that they 
 originated it, and kept it alive in Rome, and Spain, &c.? The 
 , tyranny of Rome is incorporated into the elements of language. 
 If we would express cruelty^ we go to the abstraction of Rome's 
 inquisition, li fraud, we borrow Jesuit from Rome's magazine ] 
 so that Mr. Jefferson, in abusing Presbyterians, and Mr. Hughes 
 in quoting him, unconsciously publishes the shame and oppres- 
 sion of the papal system ! 
 
 The quotation from Mr. Jefferson, (see my last speech) on emi- 
 gration from Europe, has been put hi/, but not ansivered. We 
 do not object to worthy emigrants. We welcome the patriot, the 
 persecuted Poles. They come loving liberty, and we trust long 
 to enjoy it. The Poles, by the way, as a nation, think very dif- 
 ferently of the Jesuits, from Mr. Hughes. The Jesuits began 
 their ruin: they know it, and judge accordingly. But to return. 
 The emigrants we dread, are such as ^'dig our canals," and "rail- 
 roads," and make mobs by way of chorus, and keep the land in 
 commotion, wherever they are : such as are now figuring in Bal- 
 timore, living at the public charge, and enjoypg trial by jury, for 
 riot and bloodshed on the Baltimore rail-road. The poor, the 
 well-principled, intelligent, industrious poor, we welcome and 
 conlide in. 
 
 Let such freemen multiply in our midst. But let them not be 
 'priest-ridden, degraded men, who think it a crime to read the 
 Bible : a merit to hate a Protestant : and that liberty is freedom 
 from law and order. 
 
 Washington said to the American people, in his Farewell Ad- 
 dress, ^^ Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, {I con- 
 jure you to believe me, my felloiu-citizens,) the jealousy of a free 
 people, ought to be constantly awake, since history and experi- 
 ence prove that foreign influence is one of the most banefid foes 
 of a republican government." May we profit by his oracular 
 and paternal warning ! 
 
 There is a very interesting and important document connected 
 with our colonial history, which speaks volumes on this subject, 
 especially in reference to papal emigrants and influence. I quote 
 from the Address of the Continental Congress to the People of 
 Great Britian, Oct. 21, 1774. (1) 
 
 " And by another act, the dominion' of Canada is to be so ex- 
 tended, modelled, and governed, as that by being disunited from 
 us, detached from our interests, by civil, as well as religious pre- 
 
 (1) See Journal of Cont. Cong., in 4 vols. 1774 to 1788 vol. i. p. 30. Seo 
 Life and Writings of John Jay,' 2 vols, octavo, New York — J. & J. Harper — 
 1833. Vol. i. p. 473. See also p. 382-3, Oct. 19— "Dated by paragraphs." 
 See p. 382. 
 
341 
 
 judices, hy their numbers daily swelling with Catholic emigrants 
 from Europe, and by their devotion to an administration so friend- 
 ly to their religion, that they might become formidable to us, and, 
 on occasion, be fit instruments, in the hands of power, to reduce 
 these ancient, free, Protestant colonies, to the same state of 
 slavery with themselves. * **:{«* * 
 
 ''Nor can we suppress our astonishment, that a British Parlia- 
 ment should ever consent to establish in that country a religion 
 THAT HAS DELUGED YOUR ISLAND IN BLOOD, and dispersed 
 
 IMPIETY, BIGOTRY, PERSECUTION, MURDER, AND REBELLION, 
 through every part of the world.'' 
 
 We see then, what our fathers felt and feared, long before Pres- 
 byterians began to excite the nation (as Mr. Hughes has said) to < 
 jiersecute Catholics. Who were they that uttered these strong 
 opinions ? Not a General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church ! 
 Not a convention of Protestant preachers ! But a Congress of 
 the Colonies, on the eve of the A7nerican Revolution. Let us 
 see were the gentleman will place these patriots ! Let us hear 
 to '^ what category" this document belongs! Surely, if Presby- 
 terians are mistaken in this matter, they are not alone. These 
 fears are strangely sustained by our patriot fathers. 
 
 In reply to the challenge for proof of immense sums being 
 expended in this country for propagating popery by foreign 
 despots, I need only refer you to my extended disclosures already 
 made on that topic in the history of the Leopold Foundation, 
 and the acknowledgment of Ca^/io?ic documents, both in America 
 and Germany, as already exhibited. Our foreign missions," 
 he complains, drain the country of money; also, " the American 
 Bible Society:" and this he professes, as ti political economist, 
 and boasts that Catholics send money into the country. But 
 political economists tell us that such monies, say on Bibles, made 
 at home, and circulated chiefly at home, directly quicken trade; 
 and even foreign expenditures do the same. But we would not 
 complain of " Cathohc despots" sending us good money, if it 
 were not that they send icith it bad men, and for bad uses. But, 
 surely, the gentleman forgets, when he ventures on the ground of 
 ^'political economy." It is estimated that in the states of Eroupe 
 there are a million of different sorts of ecclesiastics; who are 
 usually not taxable, though, as a body, they command vast 
 wealth (as in South America), and who are, as to public service 
 in the state, idle, and, if fathers, not husbands; and "most of 
 this million subsist on the plunder of the people/' Again; the 
 number of monasteries and nunneries in popish countries is 
 incredible. They are seats of idleness, if not sinks of corruption. 
 It was at one time boasted that there were forty-four thousand in 
 the empire of the Pope. Again; nearly one-third part of the 
 year is wasted, in papal countries, in feasts, and fasts, and wor- 
 shipping saints, &:c. &c. ; all which is sunk to the state, in m^oney^ 
 
342 
 
 while it also corrupts the morals of the people. The treasure sunk 
 in kind, in adorning images, chapels, cathedrals, and in sacred 
 vessels, &c. is immense. This is lost to the state. The result 
 is, that liome, (for example) the centre of the finest country on 
 earth, once the greatest city, is surrounded by boundless desola- 
 tions. Italy, and Spain, and Portugal ! Why are they now, 
 degraded, enslaved, and a century behind their sister nations ? 
 It is popery — popery, alone, makes them decay; and, until it 
 is destroyed, they can never rise. Popery closes on them the 
 Bible. Popery is the malaria of the nations. Popery makes 
 the very land to decay, while it enslaves and destroys the soul. 
 I challenge a reply to these astounding facts. No. Never men- 
 tion political economy again, while you love popery ! And now 
 let the gentleman visit Scotland, England, Holland — Protestant 
 states. Does he see such desolations ? Does he see such in 
 North America ? They abound in papal South America. Why ? 
 Let the gentleman inform us. 
 
 His attack on '^ the American Sunday School Union" is emi- 
 nently fitted to disclose the aversion of popery to universal and 
 Bible education; and is a lasting disgrace to its author. It is 
 not a Presbyterian .but a Protestant association. Episcopalians, 
 Baptists, &c. share with Presbyterians equally in its control ; and 
 no book is edited by it which has not been revised by a committee 
 composed of all these, as well as of Presbyterians. If, as he says, 
 Presbyterians give most to it, and labour most for it, why I hardly 
 know how to apologise for so atrocious a crime. But, while a 
 foreign priest denounces this noble charity, what do impartial 
 Americans say ? At a public meeting held in our capital, during 
 the session of Congress, in 1830, the Hon. Senator Grundy pre- 
 sided. William Wirt addressed to the meeting a letter, being 
 sick in his chamber. William Wirt — ^a name dear to letters, 
 liberty, and religion — said : " / regret that it is not in my power 
 to be with you this evening, that I might have united my hum- 
 hie efforts luith those of my fellow-citizens who will be present 
 in advancing this great, and, as I believe, heaven-directed cause." 
 " It has been the ignorance of the people which has so long 
 enabled tyrants to hold the world in chains." "Viewed in a 
 temporal and political light, merely, it deserves the strongest 
 support of all who wish the continuance of our free and happy 
 institutions at home." Does he who opposes such influences, 
 sincerely love them, or really desire their '^continuance?" 
 
 The Hon. Theodore Frelinghuyson, the pure politiciati, the 
 eloquent statesman, himself a Sunday School teacher, ably 
 advocated this holy cause, saying, ^' It is the most benignant 
 enterprise of modern benevolence.'^ " He is unfaithful to his 
 country who would seek to impair its influence.'' The Pre- 
 sident of the United States sent an apology for his absence, 
 (having promised to be present) enclosing a donation. And, to 
 
843 
 
 name no more, Daniel Webster addressed the meeting, saying : 
 ^^Tlic usefulness of Sunday Schools is univcrsallf/ acknowledged. 
 Most great conceptions ore simple. The j)^&sent age has struck 
 out two or three ideas, on the important subjects of educatiortj 
 and, the diffusion of religious knowledge, partaking in a very 
 high degree of this character. They were simple ; hut their 
 apjjlicaiioQi was extensive, direct^ and efficacious. Of these, the 
 leading one, perhaps, was the distribution of the Holy Scriptures 
 without note or comment, an idea not only full of piety and 
 duty^ and of candour also, but strictly just and philosophical 
 also The object of Sunday Schools, and of the resolu- 
 tion now before the meeting, was, as he understood it, of similar 
 large and liberal character. It was to diffuse the elements of 
 knowledge, and to teach the great truths of revelation. It was 
 to improve, to the highest of all purposes, the leisure of the Sab- 
 bath ; to render its 7-est sacred, by thoughts turned towards the 
 Deity, and aspiring to a knowledge of his word and will. There 
 were other plans of benevolence about which men might differ. 
 But it seemed to him there could be no danger of error here. 
 If we icere sure of anything, we were sure of this, that the 
 knowledge of their Creator, their duty, and their destiny, is 
 good for men ; and that whatever, therefore, draws the attention 
 of the young to the consideration of these objects, and enables 
 them to feel their importance, must be advantageous to human 
 happiness, in the highest degree, and in all worlds." Such is the 
 noble testimony of this great man, this disinterested patriot — 
 called by emphasis the champion of the American Constitution ! 
 He was not, is not, a Presbyterian. Oh ! how small, and how 
 ashamed, must a priest of Home feel before the sublime concep- 
 tions, the manly rebuke, the just defence of an American lay- 
 man pleading for an open Bible and universal education, against 
 the chosen representative of the " only true Church/' — " the 
 exclusive depository of God's word and ministry!!" I have 
 looked at the gentleman's reference in vain, for the declaration 
 charged by him on the institution — that they desire to become 
 ^' the dictators of the consciences of thousands of immortal beings." 
 I believe it utterly false ; or, if found in it, whenever identified, 
 it will be seen to mean wholly another thing from what the gen- 
 tleman says. I call for the reference. And as to the passage 
 about " the political power of the country," it is a private letter 
 from Connecticut, and only asserts, that in ten years, minds 
 formed, not by Presbyterians, but by the Bible, and. in Sunday 
 Schools, would predominate in the country. 
 
 Will not our " Catholic" laymen, such as Mathew Carey, 
 blush for their priest, who so recklessly assails such institutions? 
 By way of a very striking contrast, I remind the audience of the 
 " Inquisition," and the ''Jesuits." Is it not passing strange that 
 
844 
 
 this gentleman can be the apologist of the former, and the advo- 
 cate of the latter, and yet assail "Sundai/ Schools P" 
 
 But it is time for me to notice his argument, drawn from the 
 Larger Catechism, on the duties required in the second command- 
 ment, which, among other things, is said to require " the disap- 
 proving, detesting, opjjosing all false worship ; and, according 
 to each one^s place and calling, removing it, and all monmnents 
 of idolatry J^ If I understand the reasoning, he means to charge 
 us with holding, that force of some kind is a duty -, or that some 
 method of ^^ removing the monuments of idolatry,'' at war with 
 the rights of others, is expressed. For, I suppose, he will not 
 say, that if we oppose false worship, and remove these monu- 
 ments of idolatry, in a constitutional way, and without disturbing 
 the rights of others, this would be wrong ; or against liberty, 
 civil or religious ? I am aware, however, that he has a icarm side 
 towards these things, which, indeed, is not to be wondered at. 
 But he will not say that it is persecution, to oppose idolatry by 
 discussion, moral influence, and prayer. The question then is, 
 as to the 7nanner of doing it. Does our doctrine utter, or imply 
 tyranny ? or force ? or a hindrance to the free exercise of religious 
 worship ? If so, we should like to know it. So far is this from 
 being the fact, that he has himself owned, " that the Confessiori 
 of Faith was amended, (at the adoption of the American Consti- 
 tution,) to suit the Constitution, and the new order of things." 
 What he thus admits (as ^^an amendment,") to be true, may be 
 easily shown, by reference to all those parts of our standards, 
 which relate to the freedom of worship, and the use of force by 
 the civil magistrate in matters of conscience. For example : (1) 
 ^^ It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person, arid 
 good name, of all these people ; so that no person be sufferedy 
 either upon pretence of religion, or infidelity, to offer any indig- 
 nity, violence, abuse, or injury, to any other person lohatsoever ; 
 and to take order that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies 
 be held without molestation or disturbance." '' It is the duty of 
 civil magistrates, as * nursing fathers,' to protect the Church of 
 our common Lord without giving the preference to any denomi- 
 nation of Christians, above the rest." Here is surely a disclaimer 
 of all force. " But the nursing fathers !" — Why, yes. Isaiah 
 said so before us. But he ought to have known, that he would 
 give offence to Mr. Hughes, native of Ireland, emigrant to the 
 United States, priest of Home, pastor of St. John's in the nine- 
 teenth century, by such a passage 'r* Yet it is not said our par- 
 ticular church, but all Christian denominations, that the civil ma- 
 gistrate should protect. Ileligion is one of our common rights — 
 and a civil right to be protected in it. But Mr. Hughes replies, 
 this " excludes us idolaters." No. We say " all religious and 
 
 (1) Chap. XXIII. Confession of Faith. 
 
I 
 
 345 
 
 ecclesiastical assemblies " are to be *^ protectedj' though it be an 
 anti-Christian system. But shall we, for this reason, be silent 
 about their errors ? May we not use the liberty of speech ? It is 
 a part of the daily worship of St. John's, and of every " Catholic" 
 altar upon earth, whenever full service is performed, to denounce 
 us heretics; and every time the creed of Pius IV. is said, we are 
 excluded from salvation. But they have a right to do it ; and it 
 does not hurt us — nor do we try to hinder them. But shall we 
 not use our liberty in turn, and freely inquire into these things? 
 This is all we ask, and all we do. This is what the gentleman 
 dreads — this is what his system cannot endure. 
 
 But he insists we are not sincere. That we have a secret sense, 
 and a private purpose, which Dr. Ely has let out for lack of 
 Jesuit cunning. If our profession of faith be discredited, the ap- 
 peal, of course, must be to facts. The only one he has adduced, 
 is, that at Boston, the riotous rable taking the Convent for a 
 ********, wickedly burned it down. But these were not Pres- 
 byterians. No. But they well deserved to be ! We appeal then 
 to our standards, and, passing from them, we appeal to our his- 
 tory, in refutation of these uncandid and shallow attacks. 
 
 One thing must have struck every hearer. I mean the dearth 
 of matter; when "election," and "removing all the monuments 
 of idolatry," constitute the burden of his argument, (if such it 
 may be called,) on which he has so long rung the changes of 
 hopeless declamation, and ingenious sophistry. 
 
 On the other hand, have not my hours been crowded with testi- 
 monies against the oppressive system which he attempts to 
 defend ? 
 
 Before I close, let me notice some of the gentleman's evasions, 
 devices, &c. 
 
 He says the Jesuits were opposed by Voltaire, and other infi- 
 dels; and were therefore good; yet he cites Mr. Jefferson to tes- 
 tify to Presbyterian character. 
 
 Under the second commandment, our standards refer to Deu- 
 teronomy vii. 7., to prove that idolatry was to be abhorred, and, 
 by all proper means, prevented. He argues, from the reference, 
 that we hold to a theocracy^ and to force as a duty. Is he sin- 
 cere ? Then let us turn to his own Catechism, (1) where it says, 
 ^^ heretics are to he punished,^' (The translator has interpolated 
 the word ^^ spiritual,'^ and struck out all the references.) But on 
 turning to the honest Latin, I find, it quotes Deuteronomy xvii. 12. 
 " And the man thai ivill do presumptuosly , and will not hearken 
 unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord 
 thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die — and thou 
 shall put away evil from Israel." If the gentleman is honest, 
 
 (1) Counc. of Trent, page 9fi, English edition. 
 
 22 
 
346 
 
 then, he is forced to own, by his own reasoning on our Confes- 
 sion, that his is a jjersecutmg theocraci/. But, still more. It also 
 refers, for further proof, to Romans xiii. 4. ^^ He beareth not the 
 sico7'd in vain," &c.; and, in the margin, it says, Unde leges in 
 hcsreticos latce. Hence laws are passed against heretics. This, 
 also, the pious translator left out. Now, this confirms and inter- 
 prets the persecuting clause. Now, in our Confession there are 
 abounding passages, which disclaim all purpose, or right, to en- 
 force religious opinions; or to persecute heretics, or to require the 
 civil power to do it; and all pretensions to be exclusively the true 
 Church. Whereas, in the Roman Catholic standards, directly the 
 reverse is true. It professes to be the only true Church; it pro- 
 fesses that the civil power is hound to punish all persons " de- 
 notcd hi/ the Church" as heretics; it professes to be a theocracy, 
 a mixed power, commanding hoth swords. And I defy the gen- 
 tleman, I hereby challenge him, to bring me one passage, in all 
 his standards, condemning the union of church and state; ov per- 
 mitting the toleration of a false religion; or the protection of any 
 religion ; or announcing that all religions ought to be placed by 
 the state on an equal footing ! I call on him to do it. Here, 
 then, l\e adduces a passage of our standards, and construes it, (in 
 a way which contradicts all the otlier parts of it, as he has al- 
 lowed,) to mean persecution. Whereas I produce a passage sus- 
 tained by his own use of our standards, and by many kindred 
 parts of his, avowing the doctrine and the duti/ oi persecution. 
 
 And that there may be no doubt of this, let me close with an 
 extract from his own Cardinal Bellarmine. (1) ^' The spiritual 
 power does not mingle in temporal a:^airs, but permits them to 
 proceed in their ordinary course, provided they present no obsta- 
 cle to the spiritual purpose, or are not necessary to forward them. 
 But if any such thing should happen, the spiritual poitrr 77103/ and 
 ought to repress the temporal, by every means and expedient 
 which she may deem requisite; — may change kingdoms, taking 
 them from one and giving them to another, as the sovereign, spi- 
 ritual prince may deem necessary to the safety of souls. It is 
 not permitted to Christians to tolerate an infidel, or heretical king, 
 if he endeavours to draw his subjects into heresy ; but it belongs 
 to the sovereign pontiff, who has the care of religion, to judge, 
 whether the king does or not ; to the sovereign pontiff it conse- 
 quently remains, to decide, whether the king shall be deposed or 
 not." — Illustration. King John, of England; the Pope's inter- 
 dict, and deposition of the king; his doing homage to the Pope 
 for his crown ; and agreeing to pay an annual tribute to the Pope, 
 called, from this, *' Peter's Pence ! " In different periods of papal 
 despotism, not less than sixty emperors, kings, and princes, have 
 
 (U Lib 5. chap. 6. Do Rom. Pon. 
 
847 
 
 been excommunicated, deposed, &c. by the Popes of Rome ! 
 Yet, we are told, Rome regards the rights of man ! 
 
 P.S. When a Jesuit denies a Jesuit, what shall we say ? 
 There is proof positive, in the Jiistory of Talleyrand, that he 
 taught mathematics in the state of New York. There is proof 
 in his character^ that he is a Jesuit. 
 
S48 
 
 " 2s t7i8 Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its principles or 
 doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty?^' 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE III.— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President: — 
 
 I HAVE had but little intercourse with the gentleman, except 
 as a controversial opponent, and yet, notwithstanding the viola- 
 tion of all the rules that usually govern the intercourse of gen- 
 tlemen, vyhich you have witnessed in his last speech, I have reason 
 to know that he can he courteous, when he is in good humour. 
 *' Papist," ''Jesuit," •' native of Ireland," "foreigner," and every 
 epithet that can awaken a dormant prejudice, or excite a feeling 
 of hatred, is employed to designate the individual Vhora HE him- 
 self SELECTED, as his equal in every moral quality. Still, sir, 
 I can trace his violation of propriety to his bad humour; and I 
 can trace his bad humour, to his bankruptancy in argument. His 
 conduct reminds me of those disputants, who would overthrow 
 the influence of the Saviour's preaching, not by argument or 
 reasoning, but by saying that he ^^ intended to destroy the tem- 
 ple," that he was a '' Samaritan, and had a devil." 
 
 He represents me as attacking the reputation of individuals, — 
 slandering the character of institutions, — "hating" this one, 
 "fearing" that other — and above all, publishing "ferocious 
 scandals " of the Presbyterians. But all will not do. He has 
 assigned my position in this Discussion, and the history of his creed 
 and its professors furnish me with arguments to maintain it. 
 Catholics are not in the habit of meddling with the religious con- 
 cerns of other denominations; but when circumstances of the 
 gentleman's own choice and creation, have made it my duty to 
 examine the bearings of Presbyterianism on "civil and religious 
 liberty," then the fault, if there is any, must rest on his own head. 
 The examination of Presbyterianism is an operation to which he 
 is evidently unaccustomed, and for which his temper is constitu- 
 tionally unfitted. I am not surprised, therefore, that it should 
 betray him into a forgetfulness of what is due to himself as a 
 "minister of the gospel" and a refined gentleman. That he 
 should experience pain, is natural enough. But the man who is 
 so ready to inflict it on Catholics, should be prepared to en- 
 dure in return. Neither should he mistake the source of his 
 
349 
 
 suffering — by making the instrument responsible for what be- 
 longs, rather, to the depth and inveteracy of the disease. Igive 
 chapter and verse for every fact stated in argument. Does he 
 dispute my citation of authorities ? It would bo useless. Does 
 he grapple with my reasoning, in deducing consequences from 
 those facts? No, but he calls me a <' Jesuit," a ''papist" — and 
 for those who will not be convinced by this kind of argument, 
 there is no remedy. Least, however, that even this should go 
 unrefuted, I shall cite a counter argument from the Rev. Mr. 
 Nightingale, a Protestant clergyman, who says ''The reproachful 
 epithets of 'Papists,' 'Romanist,' 'Popish,' 'Romanish,' &c. are 
 no longer applied to them ( Catholics) hy ANY gentleman OR 
 SCHOLAR." (1) The gentleman says, that to call us " Catholics" 
 " would be to give up the whole question of debate between us 
 and Protestants." I am sorry that Protestantism has to depend 
 for its existence on a breach of politeness — and the hope of ap- 
 propriating to itself a title which had been ours for,150Q years 
 previous to its existence. 
 
 He seems to think that the other Protestant denominations join 
 the Presbyterians in the crusade against Catholics. That they 
 believe Catholics to be in error, is easily admitted. But this does 
 not constitute evidence in the case. The Presbyterians alone, so 
 far as I know, are the only denomination who have seen their 
 ^'ministers of the gospel" resigning their congregations to be 
 saved by " God's eternal decree," in order to devote themselves 
 to the preaching of religious and political hatred among citizens 
 in a country where the rights of all are equal. I believe that the 
 great body of the sober-minded Presbyterians themselves, have 
 beheld with regret and mortification, the proceedings by which 
 certain llev. agitators of their sect, were fixing the attention of 
 the country, as to what might be their ulterior object. The stories 
 about "gunpowder plots," and ''foreign conspiracies," were a 
 little too absurd for the belief of rational and reflecting minds, 
 such as are found in all denominations. Their very authors, I 
 am persuaded in my heart, do not believe one word of them. 
 
 Passing over the gentleman's charges against the Catholic reli- 
 gion, which I have answered under the former question — passing 
 over for the present his irrelevant matter about " Dr. Beecher," 
 " Dr. Miller," " Dr. Ely,"—" lions," " porcupines," and "rats," 
 — I shall proceed to the question, and the argument at once. My 
 first argument to show, that Presbyterians hold doctrines " opposed 
 to civil and religious liberty," was founded on their doctrine of 
 predestination; which Calvin called the "horrible decree." I 
 showed that any doctrine which destroyed free-will, and transfer- 
 red the responsibilitij of moral transgression from the CREATURE 
 to the CREATOR; whether true or false in itself, is opposed in its 
 
 (1) Pourtr. p. 14. 
 
350 
 
 consequences, not only to morality, but to the foundation of all 
 moral laws. But does the Presbyterian doctrine warrant such a 
 conclusion ? It certainly does. It teaches that God " fore- 
 ordained WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS.'^ (1) Pass in review, 
 then, all the crimes that have been. committed since the world 
 began, including the first *,nd the last ; and, since it is undeniable 
 that they *' HAVE come to pass," it follows, according to the 
 Confession of Faith, that Grod had ^'fore-ordained them.'' And 
 since God had " fore-ordained '^ them, it follows that their perpe- 
 trators could not avoid committing them. And since they could 
 not avoid committing them, it follows that they had no reason 
 to be sorry for them. And since they had no reason to be sorry 
 for them, it follows that there is no motive for exertion to avoid 
 them. Since, if God has " fore-ordained '^ them, they will happen 
 in despite of effort. Here, therefore, is a doctrine which makes 
 all human actions-^virtuous as well as vicious — and vicious as 
 well as virtuous, the result of God's '' fore-ordination," in the 
 carrying out of which, man is no longer a free, inoral agent, but 
 the mere automaton of the eternal decree. According to this it 
 was "fore-ordained" that John IIuss should be burned at 
 Constance ; and yet the gentleman charges the Council for it. 
 But I ask him whether it was not "fore-ordained" that it should 
 be so ? If lie sai/s it was, then he blames the Council for not 
 DEFEATING One of God's ^'decrees." If he says it ivas not, then 
 he abandons his doctrine. But he must admit that it was. And 
 I ask any one, whether a doctrine which tells the offender against 
 the rights of his fellow-men, that God had " fore-ordained " the 
 offence, is not a dangerous doctrine ? 
 
 In answer to this, he says, that St. Augustine, the Episcopalians, 
 and Baptists hold, and that the Council of Trent almost held this 
 doctrine. I say that, with the exception of what are called Calvin- 
 istic Baptists, the fact is not so. St. Augustine, in the passage 
 quoted, is speaking of election to the grace and knowledge of 
 Christianity, as the original clearly shows. The Episcopalians, 
 even in England, are known to have had, especially since the time 
 of Archbishop Laud, " Calvinistic articles, and Arminian clergy." 
 The doctrine was in the book, but they neither professed nor be- 
 lieved in it, as their Presbyterian opponents have been eloquent 
 in showing. As to the Council of Trent, it taught no such im- 
 pious tenet. But it is of no importance. The difficulty remains 
 the same. A second attempt at answering, which has been made, 
 is the citation of the good opinion which Hooker, and Bancroft, 
 and Sir James Macintosh entertained of Presbyterians. This is 
 not the question. But the question, what is the plea which this 
 Joctrine gives to wicked men who choose to act upon it? A man 
 trained in this belief, for instance, has committed a crime. Before 
 
 (1) Pag© 321. 
 
361 
 
 detection, he soothes his conscience by the reflection that the 
 ^'eternal decree of God, foreordained" him to commit it. But 
 he is detected, and condemned by the laws of his country. Be- 
 fore receiving his sentence, he pleads, in bar of judgment, that 
 God had ''foreordained" him, by an '' unchangeable decree," 
 to commit the act for which man is about to punish him. The 
 human law required him not to do it — the decree of God put 
 it out of his power to abstain from doing it; the consequence 
 is, that he is to be punished for not having resisted the decree 
 of God! Now let the gentleman show where there is an error 
 in this reasoning. Let him reconcile the doctrine of '' the fore- 
 ordination oi tchatever comes to pass," with the justice of those 
 primitive laws, by which the equal rights of men, social, civil, 
 and religious are protected ; and I shall admit that there is nothing 
 in this doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, '' opposed to civil and 
 religious liberty." Nay, I shall never bring it forward again, if he 
 does. But let us have no more certificates of good behaviour 
 from " Hooker and Bancroft." For they ^o not remove the 
 difficulty. Neither does Swift or Dryden remove the difficulty. 
 Another argument was founded on the Presbyterian doctrine, 
 by which the '' magistrates" are constituted '* nursing fathers 
 of the Church of our common Lord." This was the language 
 of the Westminster Assembly, and their own understanding of 
 its meaning is the best interpretation. Dr. Wilie gave the true in- 
 terpretation in the passage I read from his sermon in my last 
 speech. Before, Dr. Wilie was ranked among the ^^ purest Pres- 
 hyterians that ever lived f^ now, the gentleman says, " Ae (/)r. 
 TF.) does not helong to our communion. But how comes it, that 
 the identical texts of Scripture, by which Dr. Wilie supports 
 those arguments, which the gentleman sees with so much '' regret 
 and surprise," are for the most part the same that are referred to 
 or expressed in the Confession of Faith ? Did the gentleman not 
 study in his theological course the meaning which the Westminster 
 divines gave to them? Were they not Jehovah's warrant, au- 
 thorising those laws of persecution and intolerance, by which the 
 brief ascendancy of Presbyterianism in England was so distin- 
 guished ? What are they now ? Have they, too, altered their 
 meaning ? If they have, why did not the republican edition of 
 the Confession say so ? If they have not, why does he disclaim 
 the persecuting principles, which they were originally employed 
 to support 1 Thus, the text, to prove that magistrates are to be 
 *' nursing fathers to the church," is Isa. xlix. 23. ^^And kings 
 shall he thi/ nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing 
 motlters." Is this the manner in which the Presbyterian Church 
 has repudiated the state ? The fact is that the state, happily 
 for the country, would not marry the church; but if the visions 
 of Dr. Ely should be realised, it will be found that the '' banns'' 
 have been long on record, in the Confession of Faith. 
 
352 
 
 But I am told, that this article, making the magistrates of the 
 republic " nursing fathers to the Church of our common Lord/' 
 means something else. It means, that they should protect all 
 denominations of Christians. Well, this duty the magistrates can 
 learn from the Constitution. But let us see what is meant by 
 the '^ Church of our common Lord." Let the confession speak. 
 
 " The visible Church, which is also Catholic or Universal 
 under the Gospel, (not confined to one nation as before under the 
 law,) consists of all those throughout the world that PROFESS 
 THE TRUE V^YAAQclO:^, together with their children ; and is 
 the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of 
 
 God, OUT OF WHICH THERE IS NO ORDINARY POSSIBILITY OP 
 
 SALVATION." (1) Hence, to belong to the *' Church of common 
 Lord/' to which the magistrates are to be '■^ nursing fathers," it 
 is necessary to '■'■ profess the true religion |" in other words, to 
 be a Presbyterian. If the magistrate is bound to " remove all 
 
 FALSE WORSHIP, ACCORDING TO HIS PLACE AND CALLING," a3 
 
 the creed elsewhere teaches, is it not contradictory and absurd to 
 say, under this head, that he is bound to ^^ protect all?'' 
 
 There is one circumstance connected with the gentleman's vin- 
 dication of Presbyterian doctrine, from the charge of persecution, 
 to which I beg to direct your attention. It is this — that he con- 
 fines himself within that portion of history and geography, in 
 which it was impossible to practice the doctrine of his Church, 
 and unpopular even to profess it. But the honest Presbyterians, 
 who have adhered to their principles in adversity, as well as 
 prosperity, determined the question of doctrine by a thousand 
 attestations. I have given already abundant evidence to estab- 
 lish this, both from their synodical expositions and individual 
 testimonies, in our own times and country.' We shall now hear 
 their doctrines expounded by themselves, and we shall discover 
 in them the broad avowal of civil hostility to all freedom of con- 
 science opposed to Presbyterianism. Let it be understood, that 
 I do not hold the gentleman responsible for the intolerance of 
 individuals, but I quote those individuals as faithful interpreters 
 of the standards of the Presbyterian Church ; and we have his 
 own candid acknowledgment of their character, when he tells us, 
 that " they are among the purest Presbyterians that ever lived." 
 I quote from the work of the Rev. Mr. Houston, of the Reformed 
 Presbyterian Church in Ireland, published in 1833, entitled 
 "The Reviewer Reviewed." 
 
 In order to understand the merits of the argument, it is neces- 
 sary to premise that, the reviewer, a Mr. Paul, had under- 
 taken the difficult task of vindicating the Presbyterian stand- 
 ards from the persecuting doctrines, which all the world knows 
 them to contain ; and which Mr. Houston being, like Dr. Ely, 
 
 (1) Chap. XXV. Art. 2. 
 
353 
 
 perhaps, ^' a busy, loquacious man," had imprudently set forth. 
 Here the question was identically the same that is now under 
 discussion, and the disputants being both of that class, which 
 the gentleman designates as among the ^^ purest Preshyteriam 
 that ever lived,'* every justice will be done to the standards. 
 
 Mr. Houston, with that intellectual refinement of intolerance, 
 for which the disciples of John Calvin have always been charac- 
 terized by a singular aptitude, maintains, that Presbyterian ma- 
 gistrates have a right, and it is their duty, to punish '' heretics 
 and IDOLATERS, '^ with the civil sword, and yet that this is not 
 persecution ! It is true, if magistrates of any other denomination, 
 were to wield the civil sword against Presbyterians, then it would 
 be persecution; because, says he, persecution " is the endurance 
 of trouble for the true Christian religion, in doctrine and wor- 
 ship." (1) From this position, he deduces, as consequences, that 
 the Protestants, or at least the Presbyterians, were martyrs when 
 they suifered for conscience sake; but that this was their exclusive 
 privilege, as professors of the " true Christian religion." 
 
 As the Presbyterian was a martyr, whenever he suifered by 
 civil law, so, whenever he made the professors of other religions 
 suffer by the civil sword, he was not a persecutor, but a zealous 
 minister of God. Hear the Presbyterian, who had no motive to 
 disguise the princij)les of their creed. " Actuated hy holy zeal 
 for the honour of God, and feeling a deep interest in the safety 
 of the TRUE RELIGION, the magistrate may restrain its daring 
 enemies ; and if free from malignity in so doing, he incurs not 
 the guilt of a persecutor, according to the TRUE IINIPORT of the 
 word." (2) Let the Presbyterian magistrate only say, with the 
 associate of John Knox, and the murderer of Cardinal Beaton, 
 that he is not moved to the shedding of heretical blood, by any 
 *' private malignity," and he is, from that moment, not a perse- 
 cutor, but a zealous minister of God. Having established this 
 Presbyterian distinction, the author goes on to say — " The most 
 enlightened of our Reformers, too, whether churchnen or states- 
 men, and the most devoted and faithful 'martyrs to the Reforma- 
 tion cause, drunk deeply into the same spirit, BEING AVOWED 
 ABETTORS OF MAGISTRATICAL INTERFERENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE 
 
 Reformed religion." (3) The author is here candid and hon- 
 est, and we shall have abundant occasion to show that the minis- 
 ters of the Reformed religion, made use of the magistrates' power, 
 and that without it, Protestantism never would have succeeded. 
 But Mr. Houston supports his assertions by the authorities of the 
 Westminster divines, and their cotemporaries, and from the gen- 
 tleman's Confession of Faith. The London ministers had laid it 
 down, that '^ The magistrate is, in a civil notion, the supreme gover- 
 nor in all causes ecclesiastical, THE keeper of both tables, the 
 
 (1) P. 20. (2) P. m. (b; P. 21. 
 
354 
 
 NURSING FATTIER OF THE CHURCH, &c." (1) The gentleman pre- 
 tended, that the magistrate's being denominated a '' nursing father 
 of the church/' had no kind of connexion with civil and religious 
 liberty ; although he must be truly unacquainted with Presbyte- 
 rian theology, if he did not know that in the mind of those who 
 made his creed in Westminster, it meant to authorize the tyranny 
 over conscience, which Presbyterians invariably exercised, when 
 they had the power. Mr. Houston proceeds to show the mean- 
 ing of the doctrines on this subject, embodied in the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith, and other Presbyterian standards, from "such 
 venerated men as Rutherford, Guthrie, and Gillespie, '' and from 
 those very texts of Scripture, by which the Westminster divines 
 proved the right of the civil magistrates to regulate the consciences 
 of men, and which texts are still in the gentleman's Confession. 
 ^^ Now, says he, it is plain that all those false teachers of old, who 
 aimed to icitlidraw the Israelites from the worship of the true 
 God, and to cause them to go after other gods, were regarded 
 hy the law as heretics. Such is the interpretation given to the 
 laws recorded in Deut. XIII. hy Calvin, and the most eminent 
 expositors offor7ner times, and Scott, of more modern days. 'It 
 deserves to be remarked, that, OUR Westminster divines refer 
 TO these very passages, (2) in proof of the positions which they 
 advance, that it is the magisfrates duty to take order that all 
 heresies should he suppressed." (3) 
 
 After the independence of this country was secured, it was 
 found that the doctrine of using the civil magistrate as a tool in 
 the hands of Presbytery, for " suppressing heresy," would not take. 
 Thege odious words were omittted, accordingly, in the Confession 
 of Faith ; but the original Scripture on which their persecuting im- 
 port was founded, remains to the present day. And it is proba- 
 ble that this is one of the reasons why that " busy, loquacious 
 man/' Doctor Ely, desired to form his '^ Christian party in poli- 
 tics/' and preferred, ("other things being equal,") to have a " good 
 sound Presbyterian for his chief magistrate." Mr. Houston, 
 in developing the standards, says — " It is so notorious that at 
 the period of the Reformation, the Reformers and reformed 
 churches held the p)rinciple of magistratical care about religion, 
 and that the Protestant powers, such as the Senate of 
 Geneva, the Elector of Saxony, and others icho favoured the 
 Reformation, carried this principle, into execution, that 
 the advocates of the new-ligiit doctrine generally represent 
 them as but partially enlightened on this article ; and if they 
 go not the length of condemning them as bigots, they represent 
 them as not fully emancipated from the shackles of Anti' 
 christ." (4) We shall see more of this by-and-by. 
 
 (1) p. 38. (2) Deut xiii. 5, 6, 12. 
 
 (3) P. 54. (4) P. 58. 
 
355 
 
 Again. ^^Tlie penal statutes enacted in various Reforming 
 parliaments, against idolaters and heretics, prove incontestihly, 
 that, at that time at least, and hy those men, WHOM WE ARE AC- 
 CUSTOMED TO VENERATE, OS Valiant witnesses for the truth, the 
 suppression of idolatry and heresy, hy the authority of the civil 
 magistrate, was regarded as AN INDISPENSABLE DUTY.'' (1) 
 
 ^'■The article of the Westminster Confession, (2) which asserts, 
 that all blasphemies and heresies should he suppressed, hy the 
 magistrates authority ; and the solemn league and covenant, a 
 deed which was sanctified hy the highest legislative council in the 
 nation, and cheerfully taken hy persons of all ranks and condi- 
 tions at that day, in which the SWEARERS hind themselves, each 
 * ACCORDING TO HIS STATION, AND MEANS COMPETENT THERETO, 
 to extirpate SUPERSTITION, HERESY, SCHISM, PROFANENESS, &C./ 
 exhibit with a CLEARNESS NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD, the 
 doctrine which they maintained on this subject." (3.) 
 
 After having noticed the ''gratuitous assertions," as he calls them, 
 of ''infidel writers" and " pretended liberals," Mr. Houston states 
 a fact, which shows how little Mr. Breckinridge's statement, as 
 to Presbyterians having been the friends of liberty of conscience, 
 is to be depended on. ''Besides, the sectaries who abetted the 
 cause of liberty of conscience and toleration, both in the West- 
 minster Assembly, and the councils of the nation, were men of 
 learning and address, and p>ossessed of extensive influence. Not- 
 withstanding these powerful obstacles, THE GOOD HAND OF THE 
 Lord was visibly upon his servants." (4) Here is the 
 acknowledgment, that the pleaders for toleration, were the Secta- 
 ries, and that the Presbyterians defeated their purpose. Yet you 
 have heard their liberality spoken of. The gentleman will say 
 this is Houston, a Reformed Presbyterian. Yes ; but he is unr 
 folding the principles of the Confession of Faith. For instance, 
 " When the abettors of error are restrained by the civil magistrate, 
 and when he acts in every respect as a true ' NURSING FATHER TO 
 THE CHURCH,' faithful ministers ivill be encouraged in their la- 
 hows, and the difficulties that now oppose their success in the mi- 
 nistry, will he in a great measure removed." (5) He goes on to 
 say, that "In no country, without the aid of the civil magistrate, 
 can Christianity (Presbyterianism) universally prevail." And 
 as a proof of this, he cites an example which ought to make the 
 gentleman and his colleagues blush. ''Popish delusions received 
 no effectual check in Scotland, till the rulers and nobles of the 
 land put their hand, to the work, and called into exercise THEIR 
 
 OFFICIAL AUTHORITY, TO RESTRAIN AND PUNISH THE ENEMIES 
 
 OF THE TRUTH." (6) What is this, but to acknowledge that the 
 
 (1) P. 59. (2) Chap, xxiii. ;3) P. 62. 
 
 (4) Ibid. p. 63. (5) Ibid. p. 65. (6) Ibid. p. 66. 
 
356 
 
 Presbyterian religion was established by the magistrate, and the 
 Catholic, refuted by the argument of the sword ? 
 
 After showing the advantages of the magistrates being, as the 
 church requires, and as they used to be, " nursing fathers,^' he 
 shows the evils of the opposite, which he calls the " new-light," 
 system. ^^Consequences of the ncw-Ught scheme exemplified in 
 France, and in the United States of America." (1) For the 
 evils of the system in this country, he quotes from Doctor Dwight 
 and Doctor Beecher. (2) ^^The United States afford another 
 specimen of the working of the new-light scheme, though even 
 there, the princijile is hy no means carried into full extent. The 
 government of this land of freedom, as it is hoastingli/ called, 
 not only contains no direct recognition of the moral Governor of 
 the Universe, offers no homage to 3Iessiah, but makes it essential, 
 that no favour shoidd he extended to the Church of Christ, more 
 than to any merely civil institution, while her avowed enemies 
 are eligible to all 2)laces of power and trust, and the fullest 
 toleration is extended to every species of error and irreligion." (3) 
 Let any one compare this with the doctrine of the "nursing 
 fathers," and the " Christian party in politics,'' and the late 
 political campaign of the Rev. junto of Presbyterian ministers, 
 and see whether every expression, and every movement, is not in 
 accor-dance with the doctrines which I have already quoted from 
 the Confession of Faith. 
 
 Among the evils deplored by this writer, as the consequence of 
 our free American government, is the very one with which my Rev. 
 opponent and his colleagues are endeavouring to stir up the peo- 
 ple to intolerance. " With all the vigour and zeal of the churches 
 in the United States, IN consequence of the neglect OF THE 
 CIVIL ruler on the score of religion, the idolatry of popery 
 
 is spreading with rapidity." (4) What is all this but the 
 
 acknowledgment that, without the help of the civil magistrate, 
 Presbyterianism cannot flourish ? The whole, and only defence 
 that the gentleman can make, is, that he does not hold these doc- 
 trines. Ife ! Of what importance is he in the question? I bring 
 expounders of his doctrines, who wrote in the absence of the 
 motives which seem to operate on the gentleman just now, 
 and he flings them all overboard ! He is not ^' answerable for 
 Dr. Miller j" Dr. Ely is a ''busy, loquacious man;" Dr. Wilie 
 "belongs not to our communion;" and he "regrets," and is 
 "surprised." The only one whom he has not disowned is 
 Dr. Brownlee, of the Dutch Reformed or Presbyterian Church. 
 And this man's Confession of Faith makes it a duty, imposed on 
 the civil magistrates of this free country, to '^protect the sacred 
 ministry;" and "remove and prevent all idolatry and 
 False WORSHIP.". . . "Wherefore," the doctor and his associates 
 
 a) Ibid. p. 67. (2) P. 69. (3) P. 69. (4) P. 70. 
 
357 
 
 ^^detest tlie Anahaptists and other seditious people,'^ who do not 
 agree with his creed in holding these anti-American doctrines. 
 The representative of this creed, a Scotch foreigner, the gentle- 
 man calls his ''gallant colleague;" by which it is manifest that 
 the doctrine obtains his approval, as being orthodox, and in strict 
 conformity with his own creed, which obliges all Presbyterians 
 
 to " REMOVE ALL FALSE WORSHIP, AND ALL THE MONUMENTS 
 OF idolatry/' 
 
 Sir, the gentleman's disclaimer of intolerance, in the name of 
 the Presbyterian doctrine, is a sufficient evidence that he is better 
 acquainted with " Cramp's Text Book of Popery," than with the 
 standards and theology of his own communion. I will now quote 
 but one single doctrine, which he is bound by his ordination vows 
 to preach and maintain as a " tenet of faith or morals revealed by 
 Almighty God." It is, that all Presbyterians are commanded by 
 Jehovah, not only to DETEST and oppose, but also "according 
 
 to EACH one's place AND CALLING, TO REMOVE ALL FALSE 
 WORSHIP, AND ALL THE MONUMENTS OF IDOLATRY. As a COm- 
 
 mentary on this avowed doctrine, I shall quote the standards of 
 Presbyterians of other countries, to show that this single article 
 contains the essence of all the intolerance which was honestly ex- 
 pressed by this sect, previous to the national establishment of 
 liberty of conscience in this republic — to which its spirit is so 
 emphatically adverse. 
 
 STANDARDS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN RELIGION. 
 
 "That papistry and superstition may be UTTERLY SUP- 
 *' PRESSED, according to the intention of the Acts of Parlia- 
 '^ ment, repeated in the 5th Act, Pari. 20, King James VI. 
 " And to that end they ordain all papists and priests to BE 
 " PUNISHED WITH MANIFOLD CIVIL AND ECCLESI- 
 " ASTICAL PAINS, as adversaries to God's true religion, 
 " preached, and BY LAW ESTABLISHED, within this realm, 
 " Act 24, Pari. 11, King James VI. ; as common enemies to all 
 " Christian government. Act 18, Pari. 16, King James VI. ; as 
 " rebellers and gainsfanders of our sovereign lord's authority, 
 " Act 47, Pari. 3, King James VI. (Acts of Parliament 
 " embodied in the National Covenant, and afterwards approved 
 ^•' by the compilers of the Act and Testimony)." 
 
 This shows the character of that Gospel hy wldch Presbyte- 
 rianism was established in Scotland; and sufficiently indicates 
 the duty of the magistrates, as nursing fathers." But again — 
 
 " That all kings and princes, at tlieir coronation, and reception 
 " of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise, 
 " by their solemn oath, in the presence of their eternal God, that 
 "during the whole time of their lives, they shall serve the same 
 " eternal God, to the utmost of their power, a3cording as he hath 
 
358 
 
 " required in his most holy word, contained in the Old and New 
 "Testament; and, according to the same word, shall maintain 
 " the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of his holy 
 " word, the due and right ministration of the sacraments now 
 *' received and preached within this realm, (according to the 
 "CONFESSION OF FAITH IMMEDIATELY PliECED- 
 " ING) and shall ABOLISH and gainstand ALL FALSE IlE- 
 " LIGION CONTRARY TO THE SAME ; and shall rule the 
 " people committed to their charge, according to the will and 
 " command of God, REVEALED IN HIS FORESAID WORD, 
 " and according to the laudable laws and constitutions received in 
 " this realm, no wise repugnant to the said will of the eternal God; 
 " and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the kirk of 
 " God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect peace in all 
 "time coming; and that they shall be careful to ROOT OUT 
 " OF THEIR EMPIRE ALL HERETICS and enemies to the 
 " TRUE WORSHIP of God, who shall be convicted by the 
 " TRUE KIRK of God of the foresaid crimes." (1) 
 
 Here is the origin of that commandment which requires Pres- 
 byterians to "oppose and remove, according to each one^s 
 
 place and calling, all false worship, and all the monuments of 
 idolatry. Again, still — 
 
 "That we shall, in like manner, without respect of per- 
 " sons, endeavour the extirpation of popery, prelacy (that is 
 " church-government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors, 
 " and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters,, archdeacons, and 
 " all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), 
 " SUPERSTITION, HERESY, SCHISM, PROFANENESS, 
 " and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine 
 " and the power of godliness ; lest we partake in other men's 
 " sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues ; and 
 " that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three king- 
 " doms." (2) 
 
 This was in England, in 1643 — more than a hundred years 
 after the so-called Reformation. But let the standards proceed. 
 
 " When any thing is amiss, we will endeavour a reformation 
 " in a fair and orderly way, and where reformation is settled, we 
 " resolve, with that authority wherewith God hath vested us, to 
 " maintain and defend it in peace and liberty against all trouble 
 " that can come from without, and against all HERESIES, 
 " SECTS, AND SCHISM-S, which may arise from within." (3) 
 
 "We shall be bold to warn your majesty really, that the guilt 
 "which cleaveth fast to your majesty and to your throne, is such 
 " as (whatsoever flattering preachers or unfaithful counsellors may 
 
 (1) Coronation Oath in the National Covenant. 
 
 (2) Solemn League and Covenant, Art. 2. 
 
 (3) Acts of Assembly, 1638. 
 
359 
 
 " say to the contrary) if not timely repented, cannot but involve 
 ''yourself and your posterity under the wrath of the ever-living 
 ^' God, for your being guilty of the shedding of the blood of many 
 *' thousands of your majestyVbest subjects; for your PERMIT- 
 "TINa THE MASS and other idolatry, both in your own 
 " family and in your dominions." (1) 
 
 This was the Assembly which framed the gentleman's CON"- 
 FESSION OF FAITH. The king was so far friendly to liberty 
 of conscience, as to "permit" the saying of mass, and this was to 
 draw upon him the " wrath of God." Again — 
 
 " So, it cannot be denied, that upon these passages and pro- 
 *' ceedings, hath followed the interrupting of the so much longed 
 ''for reformation of religion, of the settling by Presbyterian 
 "government, and of THE SUPPRESSING OF HERESIES 
 " AND DANGEROUS ERRORS, which works the PARLIA- 
 " MENT HAD TAKEN IN HAND." (2) 
 
 " We are also very sensible of the great and imminent dangers 
 " into which this common cause of religion is now brought by 
 " the growing and spreading of most dangerous errors in England, 
 "to the obstructing and hindering of the begun reformation; as, 
 "namely, besides many others, Socinianism, Arminianism, Ana- 
 " baptism, Erastianism, Brownism, Antinomianism, Independency, 
 "and that which is called (by abuse of the word) LIBERTY 
 "OF CONSCIENCE, being indeed liberty of error, scandal, 
 " schism, heresy, dishonouring God, opposing the truth, hinder- 
 " ing reformation, and seducing others. (3) 
 
 Will the gentleman say that this is not evidence to show the 
 bearing of Presbyterian doctrines on civil and religious liberty ? 
 These were the men who understood the Confession of Faith — 
 and explained it. 
 
 " The General Assembly, considering how the errors of INDE- 
 " PENDENCY and SEPARATION have, in our neighbour 
 " kingdom of England, spread as a gangrene, and do daily eat as 
 "a canker; insomuch that exceeding many errors, heresies, 
 "schisms, and blasphemies have issued therefrom, and are shelt- 
 " ered thereby ; and how possible it is for the SAME EVILS TO 
 " INVADE AND OVERSPREAD THIS KIRK AND KING- 
 " DOM, (lying within the same island,) BY THE SPREADING 
 "OF THEIR ERRONEOUS BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, LI- 
 
 " BELS, AND LETTERS that some course may be 
 
 '* taken to hinder the dispersing thereof ; and herehy all Fveshy- 
 " terians and si/nods are ordained to try and process such as shall 
 " transgress against the p7'emises, or any part of the same : And 
 
 (1) Remonstrance to the King — Acts of Assembly, February, 1645. 
 
 (2) Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation, in the Acts of Assembly 
 AuijHit, 1(347. 
 
 (3) Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation. 
 
860 
 
 "the Assembly also doth seriously recommend to civil magis- 
 " trates that they may he pleased to he assisting to ministers 
 ^' and presbyteries in execution of this act, and to concur with 
 " their authority in everything to that eiFect." (1) 
 
 * * " That notwithstanding hereof, the civil magistrate ought 
 " to suppress, by corporal or civil punishments, such as, by 
 '' spreading error or heresy, or by fomenting schism, greatly dis- 
 " honour God, dangerously hurt religion, and disturb the PEACE 
 " OF THE KIRK. WHICH HEADS OF DOCTRINE, (how- 
 " seever OPPOSED by the AUTHORS and fomentors of the 
 " foresaid errors respectively,) the General Assembly doth FIRM- 
 ^'LY BELIEVE, OWN, MAINTAIN, AND COMMEND 
 ^'UNTO OTHERS AS SOLID, TRUE, ORTHODOX, 
 <^ GROUNDED UPON THE WORD OF GOD, consonant 
 "to the judgment both of the ancient and THE BEST RE- 
 -FORMED KIRKS. (CXI. Proposition, 8th Head.^') 
 
 The profession of faith, in divinity of Christ, by the Council of 
 Nice, is not more emphatic than the doctrine of magistrates 
 here laid down — as true, orthodox, grounded on the word of 
 God,^' &c. 
 
 " As also, that, as the ambassadors of Jesus Christ and his 
 " watchmen, you will give seasonable warning to the honourable 
 " Houses of Parliament, that now, (after the loss of the oppor- 
 " tunity of so many years,) they would, IN THEIR PLxiCES, 
 " repair the House of the Lord, that lieth so long desolate, and 
 " promote the work of reformation and UNIFORMITY accord- 
 " ing to the Covenant. For, if the honourable Houses of Parlia- 
 " ment had timely made use of that power, which God hath put 
 ** in their hands for suppressing of sectaries, and had taken a 
 ^^ speedy course for settling of Presbytcrial government, (a spe- 
 " cial and effectual means appointed by God to purge his Church 
 ^'■from all scandals in doctrine and practice,^ then, had not THE 
 "INSOLENCY OF THAT PARTY ARISEN to such a 
 " height, as to give occasion to the MALIGN ANTS of both king- 
 "doms to justify and bless themselves in their old opposition to 
 " the work of reformation, and to encourage one another to new 
 " and iijore dangerous attempts. (2) 
 
 Some of the audience may not be aware that " malignants" 
 was the term employed to designate the Episcopalians — the 
 old argument of nicknames, instead of reason, 
 
 ^' And because the POWERS which God hath ordained, and 
 "the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended 
 " by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one 
 
 (1) Acts of Assemhhj, August, 1647. This was the Assembly that received 
 and approved of the Westminster Cimfession of Faith. 
 
 (2) Acts of Assembly, August 2, 1648. 
 
361 
 
 "another; they who, UPON PRETENCE OF CHRISTIAN 
 "LIBERTY, 8H ALL OPPOSE ANY LAWFUL POWER, 
 " or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be CIVIL OR ECCLE- 
 " SIASTICAL, resist the ORDINANCE OF GOD. And for 
 
 " their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such prac- 
 " tices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known 
 " principles of Christianity, whether CONCERNING FAITH, 
 " WORSHIP, or conversation ; or to the power of godliness ; or 
 " such erroneous opinions or practices, as, either, in their own 
 " nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are 
 " destructive to the external j^eace and order which Christ hath 
 " established in the Church : they may lawfully be called to ac- 
 " count, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, 
 " (and by the power of the civil magistrate/^) (1) 
 
 The words in parenthesis are omitted in the present republican 
 edition, as something offensive to the eye. But the rest of the 
 article makes the sense complete; and besides, omission is no 
 contradiction. 
 
 (" The following Scriptures, amongst others, are referred to by 
 ^' the compilers, in proof of the doctrine which they have here 
 " advanced : — Ezra, vii. 23. * Whatsoever is commanded by the 
 " God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God 
 " of heaven : for why should there be wrath against the realm of 
 " the king and his sons?' Yer. 25. 'And thou, Ezra, after the 
 " wisdom of thy God that is in thy hand, sit magistrate and judges 
 " which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all 
 "such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that 
 " know them not.' Yer. 26. 'And whosoever will not do the 
 " law of thy God, and the LAW OF the king, let judgment be 
 " executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to 
 "banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.' — 
 " Zech. xiii. 2. 'And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the 
 "' Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of 
 " the land, and they shall no more be remembered : and also I 
 " will cause the prophets and the unclean spirits to pass out of the 
 " land.' Yer. 3. 'And it shall come to pass, that when any shall 
 " yet prophecy, then his father and his mother that begat him 
 " shall say unto him, thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies 
 " in the name of the Lord ; and his father and his mother that 
 " begat him shall thrust him through when he prophcsieth.' ") 
 
 " The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the adminis- 
 " tration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of 
 " the kingdom of heaven ; (yet he has authority, and it is his duty, 
 " to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in t^ie Church, 
 " that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphe- 
 " mies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in 
 
 (1) Westminster Confession, Chap. XX. Art. 4. 
 
 23 
 
362 
 
 " worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordi- 
 '^ nances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For 
 " the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be 
 " present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted 
 " in them be according to the mind of Grod/') (1) 
 
 The words in parenthesis are omitted since the Eevolution ; 
 and the very ambiguous phrase, appointing the magistrates of 
 this country to be " nursing fathers to the church," substituted. 
 But the magistrates not being always orthodox, the "baby" has 
 been much neglected, and Dr. Ely, naturally enough, wished to 
 see all offices filled by Presbyterians. 
 
 " Lev. xxiv. 16. And he that blasphemeth the name of the 
 <* Lord, he shall surely be put to death ; and all the congregation 
 " shall certainly stone him ; as well the stranger, as he that is born 
 "in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall 
 '' be put to death." 2 Chron. xxxiv. 33. "And Josiah took away 
 " all tiie abominations out of the countries that pertained to the 
 " children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to 
 " serve, even to serve the Lord their God, and all his days they 
 " departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers." 
 
 In perfect keeping with all the foregoing, is the following arti- 
 cle, which requires only to be understood. It appears smooth ; 
 but every clause is pregnant with hostility to the rights of con- 
 science, and to " civil, as well as religious liberty." 
 
 '^And also the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false wor- 
 " ship ; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing 
 ^' it and all monuments of idolatry." (2) 
 
 Let us now see whether this was not the doctrine of the Pres- 
 "byterian Churches on the continent of Europe, as well as where 
 the Westminster Confession prevails. 
 
 The celebrated Francis Turretin, Professor of Theology in 
 Geneva, expresses himself fully on this topic, and by various 
 arguments, shows the right of the magistrate to punish with civil 
 pains, gross heretics, idolaters and blasphemers. In endeavour- 
 ing to establish this point, he lays down this position, that "MA- 
 " GT8TRATP]S have the right to restrain contumacious and 
 " OBSTINATE HERETICS, who cannot be CURED of their 
 " errors, and who disturb the peace of the Church, and even to in- 
 " flict upon them due punishment." " Since magistrates," he adds 
 for confirmation, " arc keeper of BOTH TABLES, and the care 
 *' of religion pertains to them, they ought to provide that it should 
 " suffer no injury, and should in wisdom oppose those who assert 
 " it, lest the poison insinuate itself more widely, and be diffused 
 " through the whole body. But magistrates cannot protect reli- 
 " gion, unless they restrain the obstinate and factious contemners 
 
 (1) Westminster Confession, Chap. XXIIL Art. 3. 
 
 (2) Larger Catechism, Quest. 108. 
 
363 
 
 < thereof. Sucli interference, both the glory of God^ of which 
 " they are the defenders, and the safety of the commonwealth, 
 '^ of which they are the guardians, demand. If less evils are 
 " restrained by heavy penalties, this, which is the greatest, which 
 ^' injures the trust of God, which blasphemes his name, which 
 " rends the Church, which corrupts the faith, and brings into 
 " danger the safety of the faithful, should not be permitted to 
 ^^go unpunished. Rather is there frequently required, that a- 
 " speedy and powerful remedy be applied ; inasmuch, as from 
 " this quarter, the destruction of the whole body is threatened, 
 " unless the application be quickly made.'' 
 
 " For this purpose, the laws of Moses against apostates, blas- 
 '^ phemers, false prophets, &c. were given, as in Dcut. xiii. 5, and 
 "xvii. 12; Levit. xxiv, 16, with the same design, there are set 
 '' before us the examples of Moses, and of pious kings in the Old 
 " Testament, who reformed religion, and restrained FALSl^ PllO- 
 " PHETS, HERETICS, and IDO]»ATERS, and never hesitated 
 " moreover, to inflict upon them various civil punishments ; and 
 " also the examples of Christian princes, in New Testament times, 
 " who passed several laws against heretics, and visited them not 
 " only with imprisonment and exile, but coerced them likewise 
 " with severer punishment." Again he asserts, that " the magis- 
 " trates can restrain heretics, and punish them, and according to 
 ^' the nature of their crime ; if, for instance they are blasphemers, 
 '^ and factious and seditious, he may inflict on them capital pun- 
 ^' ishment." And afterwards he advocates the application of capi- 
 tal punishments in such extreme cases, from, 1. The atrocity of 
 the crime; and 2. The authority of God declared in the law. (1) 
 The confessions of the Reformed Churches, expressly assign to 
 the Christian civil magistrate this coersive and punitive power, 
 in matters of religion. The first confession of Helvetia, declares, 
 ^' Seeing that every magistrate is of God, his CHIEF DUTY, ex- 
 '^ ccpt it please him to exercise tyrannj'^, consisteth in this : to de- 
 *' fend religion from all blasphemy, to promote it, as the prophet 
 ^' teacheth, out of the word of the Lord, to see it put in practice, 
 " as far as lies in him.'' The latter confession of Helvetia, which 
 was expressly approved by the Church of Scotland, and other re- 
 formed Churches, teaches, that " magistracy, of whatever sort it 
 " bo, is ordained of God himself, for the peace andtranquill ty of 
 " mankind; so that the magistracy ought to have the chief place 
 "in the world. If he be an advr>rsary to the Church, he may 
 " greitly hinder and disturb it; but if he be a FRIEND and MEM- 
 " BER of the Church, he is a most profitable member, and may 
 " excellently aid and advance it. His principal duty is to procure 
 ^' and maintain peace and public tranquillity; which doubtless he 
 " will never do more happily than when he is seasoned with the 
 
 (1) See Turret, De Polit. Ecc. gubern. qucesti xxxiv. 
 
364 
 
 " fear of God, and true religion, particularly when he shall, after 
 *' the examples of the most holy kings and princes of the people 
 " of the Lord, advance the preachino; of the truth, and the pure 
 "unadulterated faith, shall EXTIRPATE FALSEHOOD, and 
 " ALL SUPERSTITION, IMPIETY, and IDOLATRY, and 
 " shall defend the Church of God; for indeed we teach that the 
 ^' care of religion doth chiefly appertain to the holy magistrate/' 
 The confession of Saxony declares, that '' the word of God doth 
 " in general, teach this, concerning the power of the magistrate; 
 *' first, that God wills that the magistrates, without all doubt, 
 '' should sound forth the voice of the moral law among men, ac- 
 " cording to the ten commandments, or law natural, by-laws for- 
 " bidding idolatry and blasphemies, as well as murders, theft, &c." 
 for well has it been said of old : ''THE MAGISTRATE IS A 
 *' KEEPER OF THE LAW, i. e. OF THE FIRST AND SE- 
 ^^ OOND TABLE, as concerning discipline and good order. This 
 " ought to be their special care, (of kingdoms and their rulers,) to 
 '* bear and embrace the true doctrine of the Son of God, and to 
 "cherish the Churches, according to Psalm ii. and xxiv. and 
 <- Isaiah xlix., and KINGS AND QUEENS SHALL RE THY 
 " NURSES, I. e. let commonwealths be NURSES OF THE 
 "CHURCH, and to godly studies/' The Dutch Confession 
 teaches, that God " hath armed the magistrate with a sword, to 
 " punish the bad, and defend the good. Furthermore, it is their 
 " duty to be careful not only to preserve the civil polity, but also 
 " to endeavour that the ministry be preserved : that all idolatry 
 " and COUNTERFEIT WORSHIP be abolished, the kingdom 
 *' of Antichrist be brought down, and the kingdom of Christ be 
 " enlarged ; in fine, that it is their duty to bring it to pass, that 
 " the holy word of the Gospel be preached everywhere, that all 
 " men may serve God, purely and freely, according to the pre- 
 " scribed will of his word." And the French Confession de- 
 clares, " that God hath delivered the sword into the magistrate's 
 " hand, that so sins committed against BOTH TABLES OF 
 " GOD'S law, not only against the second, BUT THE FIRST 
 "ALSO, MAY BE SUPPRESSED.'^ 
 
 Here, sir, are not the opinions of individuals. Here, the spe- 
 culations of Doctor Ely, and Mr. Dens, of Bellarmine, and of 
 Doctor Wilie, are all out of the question. Here are the doctrinal 
 foundations of the Presbyterian Church. Here we have, on the 
 subject of "magistracy," "nursing ftithers to the church," 
 " heresy," " ftilse worship," " monuments of idolatry," " both 
 tables of the law," &c. &c., " the tenets f/ faith and morals, 
 which that denomination held, and holds, as having been reveal- 
 ed hij Ahnighti/ God^ Compare them one with another, begin- 
 ning at Geneva, you will find that royalists or republicans, Swiss, 
 Sax<m, Dutch, French, Scotch, English and American, they all 
 agree in the same doctrine, more or less developed : expressed 
 
365 
 
 boldly in Geneva, Holland, Scotland, and England, (during 
 Presbyterian ascendancy in the State,) expressed cautiously in 
 the United States, since the revolution, but expressed sufficiently 
 everywhere. 
 
 But, says the gentleman, where have Presbyterians persecuted 
 in the United States ? I answer, wherever they obeyed their own 
 doctrine, rather than the American Constitution. They had to 
 hrcak the second commandment, in order to abstain from viola- 
 ting the rights of their fellow-citizens, by ^'removing false wor- 
 ship, AND MONUMENTS of IDOLATRY." But, at all events, they 
 did not '' REMOVE them." Thanks to the Constitution, and their 
 own good sense, but none to their doctrine, or some of their parsons. 
 
 There is one thing to which I beg leave to direct the attention 
 of this meeting, and of the public. It is, that the gentleman's 
 quotation of my language is not to be depended on. I w^ill give 
 one or two instances, as a sample of the rest, too numerous to 
 notice. He represents me glorying the title of ''Jesuit," and, 
 as ashamed of that of '• Papist." There is no truth in either of 
 his statements. I said, that the title Jesuit did not belong to me, 
 although I might be proud to be the defender of that calumniated 
 body. I said, that he ''insultingly" used the term popery ; but not 
 that I was ashamed of being insulted, nor of the term by which 
 the insult was conveyed. In purporting to repeat my remarks 
 about the other denominations of Protestants, he makes me say, 
 that " these denominations may have been used by the Presbyte- 
 rians to stir up this fanatical excitement" — and then adds, that I 
 am "certainly very complimentary to them." He falsifies my 
 language, and then charges me with the result of his own over- 
 siglit or dishonesty. My words were, "tJiat some of each of 
 these denominations may have been used, &c." He charges me 
 with applying the word "fools" to my opponents', and yet, 
 though I used the word, there is no truth in the charge. By what 
 name, then, \i it customary to designate those who assert what is 
 false? He says, that I "hate" and "fear" Dr. Beecher. The 
 fact is not so. That gentleman has entitled himself to the "love" 
 which every " enemy" has a right to claim from the Christian 
 disciple. The defenceless females and children of Mount Bene- 
 dict, have had reason to " fear" him. And yet, I do not say, that 
 the burning of the convent was the direct motive of his fiery ser- 
 mons in Boston and Charlestown. The fact is, the doctor wanted 
 money, and, like Some of his brethren, knew that he could extract 
 more by denouncing popery than by preaching the gospel. 
 
 He says, of Dr. Miller, that " I seem to covet the honour of 
 being in such good company." Now, the fact is, that I do not. 
 I know and speak of Dr. Miller only as an author. In this ca- 
 pacity, the portion of honour that remains to him, is too small 
 to be divided. He has been equally various and unfortunate in 
 his controversies. His literary career has been one series of 
 
866 
 
 polemical drubbings, which few writers have so richly earned, or 
 so regularly received. His bad logic has been immortalized by 
 the llev. Mr. Duncan, of Baltimore ; and his abuse of authors, 
 by faithless citation, in the Episco]_ml Controversy, has been placed 
 on the pinnacle of notoriety, by Dr. Cooke, of Kentucky. Still 
 he may be, as the gentleman will have it, a "lion;" although 
 the only trait of the noble animal that I can discover in the doc- 
 tor's polemical career, is the majestic silence with which he retires 
 to his de7i, as often as he is foiled in the open field. There the 
 gentleman may have had an opportunity of admiring him, but, as 
 " porcupines'^ are not permitted to enter, I cannot tell how he 
 looks. If it be ^' abuse," to state a fact from his own book, and 
 make the proper commentary on it, then I have *• abused" Dr. 
 Miller, but not otherwise. I know nothing of him, except as an 
 author, and, as such, his fame excites no envy. 
 
 The gentleman has altered his tone about foreigners. The poor 
 men on the "railroads" and "canals" are the foreigners he dreads. 
 "The poor, the well-principled, intelligent, industrious j^oor, WE 
 welcome and confide in." I thank him, in their name. The 
 feeling does honour to hfm. But then, there was " riot and 
 bloodshed" on the Baltimore Railroad; and, therefore, he says, 
 " The emigrants we dread, are such as dig our canals and rail- 
 roads, and make mobs by way of chorus," &c. If, instead of 
 making " mobs by way of chorus,'^ they had made mobs by way 
 of removing a false religion, or a monument of idolatry, his sen- 
 sibilities would not be shocked in the least, as appears from the 
 almost inhuman manner in which he seems to triumph over the 
 destruction of the convent. His language is this : — ^^JBut I will 
 say this, that there is a certain kind of houses, ichit^i the Pope 
 used to license at Rome, which the hoys and mohs in America, 
 taking Judge Lynch's law, sometimes pidl down, not as Protest- 
 ants against popery^ hut as enemies to gross immoralities, which 
 
 we cannot name." And again, " the riotous rahhle, at 
 
 Boston, taking the convent for ^^ =««**** >i« WICKEDLY hurned 
 it down" The malignity of malice itself, was foiled, in every 
 attempt to fix a stigma on the moral character of the inmates of 
 the convent, and no one will envy the feelings of that man, who, 
 in addition to the injuries already inflicted on them, can give 
 utterance to so foul and false an insinuation. He, the advocate 
 of " civil and religious liberty ! !" 
 
 The gentleman speaks of my " attack on tlie Sunday School 
 Union," and quotes William Wirt and Mr. Frelinghuysen, to 
 prove that it is a good institution. He says, I " denounce this 
 noble charity." And again ; " Will not our Catholic laymen, such 
 as Mathew ''Carey, blush for their priest, who so recklessly assails 
 such institutions." Now, if he will quote from my speech the 
 passage in which I made an " attack "(5n the Sunday School 
 Union/' in which I " denounced this noble charity," in which I 
 
367 
 
 ^^ assailed this institution/' in which I spoke of the merits of the 
 institution, as sucJi, I promise to make a public apology. But, 
 since he has accused me of all these, then, if he cannot furnish 
 the proof from iny speech, I charge him as A calumniator of my 
 character. I now put him to the test; and honest men will see, 
 whether Presbyterians have not more occasion to blush for their 
 ^' Minister of the Gospel," than Catholics have to blush for me. 
 I have made the penalty emphatic, in order to bring him to the 
 test. I have stated facts. I have quoted from the records of the 
 Sunday School Union, and if the quotations reflect on its char- 
 acter, the fault is theirs — not mine. He says, ^'Oh! how small 
 and how ashamed must a priest of Rome feel before the sublime 
 conceptions, the manly rebuke, the just defence of an American 
 layman pleading for an open Bible and universal education. . ." 
 This is a hundred miles from the argument. Does the American 
 laymen plead for their becoming '' Dictators to the consciences 
 OF thousands of immortal beings ?'' Is THIS the ''open 
 Bible V for "changing even the ideas" of authors ? Is this 
 "universal education?" The legitimate object of the Sunday 
 School Union is one thing — the abuses into which faithless agents, 
 or sectarian ambition may betray it, are another. I did not 
 attack the institution itself; and, therefore, its defence was 
 supererogatory, except to keep time with the calumny on which 
 it was based. The gentleman says, he could not find my quota- 
 tions, by which he insinuates, that he will defend them, if dis- 
 covered. He will find them in the Appendix to Dr, Ely's Sermon, 
 published with remarks, by the doctor himself, at the ofiice of 
 William F. Geddes, in 1828. We shall see, whether he will be 
 able to prove, that they are nothing but " an open Bible, and 
 universal education." He says, "he believes it" (dictators to 
 the consciences of thousands of immortal beings) " to be utterly 
 false;" but he wilt find, that he is "utterly" mistaken. 
 
 I stated, in my last, that for all the money which the Presbyte- 
 rians send out of the country, tor foreign missions, it can be no 
 great harm if Catholics should bring a little into it. In reply, he 
 assumes, that in Catholic countries, one-third part of the year is 
 wasted in "worshipping," &c.; "immense treasures are sunk in 
 adorning images," &c.; that they are " poor" and "' desolate ;" 
 whereas, Protestant countries are rich and prosperous, &;c. All 
 this is the gentleman's assumption, and, if it were true, would 
 only prove, that Catholic countries are poorer than Protestant 
 countries. But what becomes of the other part of his story, set- 
 ting forth, that these "rich," "enlightened," "prosperous Pro- 
 testants," were to be bought up by the vast sums of money, 
 which the poor, ignorant, debased Catholics were sending for that 
 purpose ? How is that ? Since one part of his argument refutes 
 the other, he ought to have told us which we arc to believe. 
 
 Having calumniated me as an " assailant of the Sunday School 
 
368 
 
 Union/' it is not " passing strange/^ tliat he should represent me 
 as the "apologist'' of the inquisition, and the "advocate" of the 
 Jesuits. On the subject of the inquisition, I proved, that it had 
 no necessary connexion with the Catholic religion ; that it was 
 employed as an engine of state policy, for political purposes; 
 that the Catholic religion existed more than one thousand years 
 before the inquisition was thought of; that even in parts of Italy 
 itself, it never did exist : in a word, I enlightened the ignorance 
 of the gentleman in relation to it. If he states, that I was the 
 "apologist" of the inquisition, he states what is false. I did 
 not say one single word in its justification. 
 
 He had stated, that Talleyrand was a " Jesuit, and had been a 
 teacher" in this country. I denied the assertion, knowing it to 
 be unfounded. In a postscript to his corrected speech, he says, 
 ^^ There is proof positive, in the history of Talleyrand, that he 
 taught mathematics in the state of New York. There is proof 
 in his character that he is a Jesuit." Now, I call for the 
 
 PAGE OF THE HISTORY WHICH ATTESTS THE FORMER FACT. 
 And I CAUTION the gentleman not to trifle with HIS 
 REPUTATION FOR VERACITY. 
 
 The Jesuits are known to every man of education, in both 
 hemispheres, to be a society of men in the Catholic Church, the 
 object of whose institute is the promotion of religion, piety, and 
 learning. That there may have been had members in that so- 
 ciety, is readily admitted. But, as a body, they have deserved 
 well of religion, of science, and of humanity. This I have proved 
 under the former head. It was of this society, — and in this senscj 
 that I was the " defender," although I am not a member. 
 The gentleman stated, that Talleyrand was a " Jesuit" — that is, 
 as honest men would understand, a memher of this society. He 
 is caught in the assertion ; and, instead of feeling ashamed at its 
 want of truth, he seems to smile at his own smartness, in effecting 
 a dishonourable retreat. " There is proof in his (Talleyrand's) 
 character, that he was a Jesuit." That is, "all scoundrels 
 are Jesuits; and Mr. Hughes, (who attacked the Sunday 
 School Union, and apologized for the Inquisition,) is the advo- 
 cate of the Jesuits.'' In this sense, there are Jesuits of all 
 denominations. And the man who is willing to be their "advo- 
 cate," need never be at a loss for a brief and a client among 
 the Presbyterian Jesuits of the country. I hope the gentleman 
 will tell us in future which Idnd of Jesuits he means. 
 
 He has said, that Dr. Brownlee has given the Catholics occa- 
 sion to regret that "ever he was born." Now, the only definite 
 result that I have been able to trace to the doctor's labours, was 
 the public statement made by two respectable gentlemen in New 
 York, that his writings had induced them to renounce the Pro- 
 tesiantf and evfibrace the Catholic faith. If the doctor "had not 
 
\ 
 
 369 
 
 been born/^ it is probable that these persons would never have 
 come to the knowledge of the truth. 
 
 The gentleman says that Mr. Smith is ^^now despised.'^ It 
 may be, but Catholics entertain more of pit?/ than contempt for 
 him. As to his being "esteemed" when he was a "priest," it 
 may be true, so long as he was regarded as a good priest. But 
 when they came to know him better, he discovered, 1st, that he 
 would not he employed, in the ministry ; and then he discovered, 
 2dly, the errors of popery. On the 15th of August, 1833, he 
 addressed to me a letter, in which he states : — "//' I am not con- 
 sidered altogether too unworthy, I wish, like the prodigal child, 
 to return to the house of my father. ^^ ^'■That I am still worthy 
 of nothing hut stripes I am fully aware, although my soul is 
 bleeding under the hitter lacerations of a wounded conscience." 
 
 " / congratulate you on the success of your controversy 
 
 with Mr. Breckinridge." " Here I drop a tear ; and, 
 
 involuntarily grasping the sword of the Spirit, long to he hy 
 
 your side, fighting in the cause of TRUTH." ^^May I he so 
 
 happy as to he one of your numhcr." When Mr. Smith wrote 
 this letter, he knew of "priests" and "nuns" ALL that he knows 
 now. His experience had all been hefore. 
 
 At all events he was " considered ALTOGETHER too unworthy" 
 to exercise the priesthood; and the consequence was that he 
 renounced his religion. It appears he was bent on "fighting;" 
 and, since he would not be permitted to fight by "my side in the 
 cause of truth," he - determined, unhappy man, to fight in the 
 cause of error. He is now, I believe, a saint — having broken his 
 vows, abjured his faith, and published the Downfall of Babylon. 
 
 As to the gentleman's " challenges " about Catholic principles 
 in relation to " civil and religious liberty," I have met them all 
 under their head, during the first six nights. Then, it was his 
 right to "challenge" and afiirm — and my duty to meet his 
 *' challenges" and refute his assertions. If I have failed — let the 
 public judge — let the facts decide. But now, hy the gentleman s 
 own regidation, I have a right to enter the sanctuary of the Pres- 
 byterian religion. I have a right to take it down from its 
 pedestal, on which people of moderate information have been 
 accustomed to venerate it, as the " beau ideal " of all that is 
 friendly to religious and civil liberty, and to lay it open by dis- 
 section. All this, the gentleman has given me a right to do. 
 Consequently, my business during these six nights, is to lay 
 before the public, the anatomy of Presbyterianism, and to show 
 that, notwithstanding its long and sanctimonious visage, to which 
 its advocates point with such confidence, there is the deadly seed 
 of intolerance and persecution in every joint and muscle of its 
 whole frame and structure. Now, the gentleman having given 
 me the right to do all this, as an equivalent for his privilege to 
 examine the Catholic religion, during the first six nights, must 
 
370 
 
 not expect that I can suspend the operation to refute agairij what 
 I have already refuted. 
 
 You would suj)pose, from the tone of the gentleman, that his 
 religion is entitled to the credit of all that is liberal in the genius 
 of the civil government of the country. '^ We protect all reli- 
 gions." No, sir, the Constitution of the country does this. All 
 denominations protect all denominations, and are protected hy 
 them. The protection of all denominations which the creed of 
 Presbyterians furnishes, is the commandment of Almighty God 
 
 to "^ to oppose all false worship, and, according to each 
 
 one^s place and calling, to REMOVE IT, and all the monuments 
 of idolatry.'^ The protection of the Constitution is to forbid 
 what Presbyterians say God commands; and to prevent their 
 " REMOVING of any false icorship, or any monument of idola- 
 try," except their OWN. \ 
 
 The gentleman finds fault with me for not giving more of 
 Mr. Jefferson, Dr. 'Ely, &c. Where should I fix the limits? 
 Must I publish their whole works, in order to make a quotation ? 
 I shall show, in the sequel of the argument, the gentleman need 
 not go out of the annals of his own church to find language to 
 express cruelty, not in the " abstractioji" but in the practice. 
 The name of its founder, Calvin, conveys the idea in a much 
 more concrete form than the word inquisition. 
 
 The extract from the continental Congress is just such a broad, 
 sweeping, but unfounded assertion, as the gentleman himself 
 would make, during a violent paroxysm of devotion to ''civil and 
 religious liberty." Protestants who have not taken the pains to 
 examine the facts, have been much accustomed to deal in such 
 figures of rhetoric. / do not repeat what Catholics said of Pres- 
 byterians, to show their doctrines and practice, but I give their 
 actions, when and ichere ; and this, too, on Protestant authority. 
 I deem it no disrespect to the memory of that Congress, to say, 
 that, with all their patriotism, and magnanimity of character, they 
 were unacquainted with the principles of the Catholic religion, 
 and misinformed as to the matter of which they assert. When 
 they assert that the Catholic religion had "deluged England with 
 blood," they assert what history does not sustain. If they had 
 spoken thus of the civil Avars by which Presbyterianism fought 
 its way to Westminster, when the island tvas deluged with the 
 blood of the prince and the peasant — then, indeed, history would 
 have borne them out. 
 
871 
 
 "if the Preshyterian Relvjiorij in any or in all its principles or 
 doctrines J opposed to civil or religious liberty f '' 
 
 NEGATIVE III.— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Mr. President : — * 
 
 Whether, if the question of a mere choice of "an equal and a 
 companion" were before me, I should select the Rev. priest of St. 
 John's, is a matter which I do not feel now called on to decide. 
 I am glad, however, to see that he has not forgotten the name 
 which defines a well-bred man. His presumption^ in comparing 
 himself to Jesus Christ, and his compliment, in resembling me to 
 the murderers of our Master j may be left among the memorabilia 
 which need no comment. 
 
 My arguments already given, are enough, without repetition or 
 enlargement, to set the question of " the decrees" in its proper 
 
 He unwittingly answers all his own cavils, on the subject, when 
 he says, •'According to this it was 'foreordained that 
 John Huss should be burned at Constance. And yet the 
 gentleman charges the Council for it." Even so. This 
 shows, in a word, ^' that the gentleman (Mr. B.) denies, as every 
 Presbyterian does, thsit for eordination takes away accountability. 
 This is the very distinction that we make. So the Lord Jesus 
 said to Pilate : ' Thou couldst have no power at all against me, 
 except it were given thee from above; therefore he that delivered 
 one unto thee hath the greater sin.' " (1) It was this text I asked 
 the gentleman to explain ; you have seen his reply ! 
 
 In Acts ii. 23. Peter (" the first Pope,") said : '' Him (Jesus) 
 being delivered by the determinate counsel, and foreknoioledge of 
 God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and 
 slain." Here God is directly called the decreeing cause ; yet the 
 agents are called the " wicked " agents, who did the murderous 
 deed. And again, Acts iv. 26—28. " The kings of the earth stood 
 up, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord, and 
 
 against his Christ; for to do whatsoever thy hand and 
 
 thy counsel determined before to be done." Here is foreordina- 
 tion by God, and yet guilt charged on men for doing what God 
 had determined before was to be done." Now, this is our doc- 
 
 (1) John xix. ii. 
 
872 
 
 tHne. Moral agency is not disturbed by divine foreordination ; 
 or will the gentleman tell us lohat the passages mean ? if not, 
 what I attribute to them ? If he be silent, after this, then it will 
 be owning that God's word teaches a doctrine which makes Grod 
 to authorize sin, and which takes away the guilt of all actions ; 
 and all motives to good actions. So he says of this doctrine ! 
 I^ow let him s^peah ! 
 
 My answer, "that Augustine — the Baptists, and Episcopalians,'' 
 &c. held this doctrine, was in reply to this statement in his pre- 
 vious speech, viz.: '^ The only denomination that I know who 
 have not became ashamed of the avowal of this article, (predesti- 
 nation,) are the high-toned Presbyterians. I defy the proof that 
 it is held by the otner denominations whom he has mentioned." 
 I had, in my first speech, mentioned " the Congregationalists of 
 old and New England" as a hodij, ''the great mass; " and the 
 twelve creeds of the original Reformers — in Germany, Switzer- 
 land, Holland, France, England, and Scotland, as " Calvinistic," 
 as well as "Augustine, the Episcopalian articles, and the Baptist." 
 As he denied it, so I brought proof Now, he " lets go " about 
 half of the whole number, and denies that "Augustine, Episcopa- 
 lian^," and all the Baptists, hold it. He is in the face of a mass 
 of Catholic evidence, if he deny that Augustine held this doctrine ; 
 and now, if he will only venture to deny it like a man, and in 
 plain words, I will expose him before all the world. He admits 
 that the Episcopal articles are Calvinistic. I have to do with 
 no more. But surely, when he says the " clergy are Arminian," 
 he pays them no enviable conipliment. He says profoundly, 
 " with the exception of those called Calvinistic Baptists," the 
 Baptists are not Calvinists ! But who are Calvinistic Baptists. 
 I refer to history in England and America, in proof that the great 
 body are Calvinistic ; though I must own that those who are not 
 Calvinistic, are not! In reply to all I said (including a passage 
 from the decrees) of the Council of Trent, he remarks, "as to the 
 Council of Trent, it taught no such impious tenet." This is sum- 
 mary, though it may not be very conclusive reasoning. The 
 point of my argument was to show, that the freest, wisest, most 
 virtuous, and most flourishing nations on earth, have been distin- 
 guished by "Calvinistic" doctrines; and that the Council of Trent 
 contradicted itself, being divided on the doctrine, in trying to re- 
 concile parties. 
 
 Foiled on this topic, the gentleman returns, for the twelfth timcj 
 (I think,) to " the monuments of idolatry." He says, as the 
 magistrate is by our Confession bound to remove " all the monu- 
 ments of idolatry ; " and as, by the same Confession, " those only* 
 belong to the true Church, who profess the true religion" — there- 
 fore, it is absurd to say, that they ought to "protect all religions." 
 I grant it is so, " on Catholic principles ; " which are, that "heretics 
 are to he exterminated." But while we hold, that " out of the 
 
373 
 
 universal Church there is no ordinary possibility of si^ilvation/' 
 we also hold, that ^'' civil government" is not to protect only the 
 true CJinrch, but all churches — even congregations oT infidels in 
 Tammany Hall, if they commit no civil offence. But the Catho- 
 lic "church and state doctrine" interwoven in his argument, as 
 now stated, makes protection stop where heresy begins. Again : 
 we hold, that not only Presbyterians, but ''all, everywhere, who 
 love the Lord," are of Christ's Church ; and so wide is this prin- 
 ciple, that we believe a part of the true Church lay hid, in the 
 Church of Home, at the occurrence of the Reformation. 
 
 He next remarks, as if it were a new and extraordinary thing, 
 that "he (Mr. B.) confines himself loithin i\\\it portion of history 
 and geography in ichich it was impossible to practice the doctrine 
 of his Church, and unpopidar to profess it." Here the gentle- 
 man admits impliedly, the terms of our discussion. It was " the 
 Presbyterian Church, in connexion with the General Assembly 
 in the United States," and the Confession of Faith of that Church, 
 which were by the rulers, (for which, to help the short memory of 
 the gentleman, I appeal to the records of the Society,) defined, for 
 his attack, and my defence. Early in this debate I distinctly de- 
 clared, that I considered our fathers in Europe mistaken in some 
 of their views of "religious liberty;" and that, at this day, the 
 Presbyterian Church in Scotland, like the Episcopal Church in 
 England, 'was most seriously wrong, in permitting, and, still 
 more, in cherishing an union with the state : that American Pres- 
 byterians, like American Episcopalians, had renounced this sys- 
 tem, as contrary to liberty and the ivord of God. The gentleman 
 said it wds forced on us by the American Revolution. I showed 
 that the alteration in our Church preceded the Revolution of the 
 United States. But force, or no force, here is the change. In 
 this respect, the American system differs wholl}^ from the Euro- 
 pean system. Now, we call on the American Catholics, to make 
 the same change. They pre-eminently, and originally, held to 
 the duty and necessity of an union of church and state ; and at 
 Rome this union is such, that the Pope refused to tolerate any 
 other religion, (when even Napoleon proposed it,) saying, IT WAS 
 
 CONTRARY TO THE CaTIIOLIC RELIGION TO ALTER THE CIVIL CON- 
 STITUTION, BY WHICH THE CaTHOLIC RELIGION WAS EXCLU- 
 SIVELY RECOGNIZED (in the papal states). 
 
 Now, in those very states, above all others, the Pope had the 
 power to alter this clause! But he says " it is CONTRARY to the 
 Catholic religion to do it;" and refused. It is clear, then, 
 that in Rome ^^ religious liberty is contrary to the Catholic 
 religion." Now, the Catholic religion is unchangeable, (says 
 Mr. Hughes) and is one and the same every where. In Ame- 
 rica, then, " religious liberty," or, what is the same, the protec- 
 tion equally of all religions, is contrary to the Catholic religion. 
 Here, then, is the difference. The American Presbyterian reli 
 
374 
 
 gion lia% rejected this vile, and barbarous, and anti-apostolical 
 principle. So lias the American Episcopal Church. The gen- 
 tleman goes to Europe to find 'proof that we in America^ as Pres- 
 byterians, oppose liberty. We point him to the change. But 
 his Church, he says, cannot change. Then, till it can, and will, 
 and does, the American people will and must believe that it is a 
 persecuting church ; and, it is as fair to go for proof of this to 
 Europe, and especially to Rome, and the Pope, as it is for 
 Mr. Hughes to go there for his creed and ordination, and right 
 to administer the " sacramentsJ' To settle this question, I will 
 record this inquiry : — '' Does Mr. hughes think it consistent 
 WITH the Catholic religion to establish it by law, as the 
 
 EXCLUSIVE religion OF THE PaPAL STATES ! " Now, I will 
 
 nail this inquiry up at the portal of the debate, till he gives a 
 direct reply. AVhenevcr he shall do so, I promise you, gentle- 
 men, to settle this question — by his own showing. Till he does, 
 you will know the reason of his silence. 
 
 The above statement disposes entirely of all his citations from 
 "J/;-. Ilousfon," of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Ireland. 
 And so far as these citations are honestly made, we cordially join 
 with the gentleman in saying that every Presbyterian act, as icell 
 as every papal which went to apply force and use the civil 
 power in aid of religion, was contrary to the rights of men 
 and the word of God. Popery began persecution in Scotland. 
 Cardinal Beaton, of bloody memory, burned men at the stake 
 before Presbyterians had the, power to resist. Episcopalians, 
 afterwards, in a way full of horror and fierce crime, persecuted 
 Presbyterians ; and Presbyterians p)ersecuted also, in their turn, 
 and often with a high hand. For these things American Episco- 
 palians and Presbyterians condemn their ancestors. But popery 
 is the same. It cannot change. The butcher, Beaton, is a saint 
 and martyr. 
 
 The gentleman, with poetical license, makes me to say, " / am 
 not answerable for Dr. Miller. This is only directly false! 
 He says the " only one whom he has not disowned is Dr. Brown- 
 lee." This also is false. I commended Dr. Brownlee. The 
 discomfited priests of New York praise him still more. '' His 
 works praise him." Hence the gall of the gentleman's attack. 
 But I still reverence Dr. Wilie — as a learned divine, who, in 
 all otJier respects, so far as I know, is a sound Presbyterian, as 
 well as an able and good man. The views of his communion on 
 the subject of the American Constitution differ much from ours. 
 But if his assailant would read '* the Original Draft of a Pastoral 
 Address from the Eastern Subordinate Synod of the Reformed 
 Presbyterian Synod," he might learn a little of the doctor's real 
 doctrine; and spare the ignoble exhibitions of his own dishonour- 
 able attacks, under the guise of professed respect. 
 
 The gentleman says of me, " The whole and only defence that 
 
375 
 
 the gentleman can maJce, is, that he does not hold these doctrines." 
 I defy him to produce such a defence, from all that I have said. 
 He adds, ^^ Of what importance is he in the question?" . True — 
 or Mr. Hughes P Let us remember this — when with a word he 
 dismissses a pope, a canon, or a decree. I go to our standards 
 for defence ) he to his — NEVER ; save to vitiate, deny, or becloud 
 them. 
 
 In his long ciiations from acts of English and Scotch Assem- 
 blies, he has found it necessary to save his own character, by 
 throwing in here and there a saving clause, wherever any perse- 
 cution is found; as, for example, in presenting you the Scotch 
 Article of the Confession corresponding to our Art. 4, Chap. XX. 
 he says, "The ivords in parenthesis are 03IITTED in the present 
 repuhlican edition. These words are, (and by the power of 
 THE CIVIL magistrate); and this is the only persecuting part. 
 In a word, he shows what is not in our standards ; and chafes 
 himself, not a little, that it is loanting. In another place he has 
 the audacity to insert a long passage from the same foreign 
 standards, and affix it to oiir Confession, (1) and then to add, 
 "The words in ^parenthesis are OMITTED since the revolution; 
 and the very ambiguous phrase, apjjointing the magistrates of 
 the countrjf/ to he ' nursing fathers to the church,' substituted/' 
 That is, i\\Q persecuting part Mr. Hughes regrets to iSnd is not in 
 the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States." Here again he clears us, by his own imperti- 
 nent exposition. Tliis is only not forgery. He then says : — 
 "Let us see whether this icas not the doctrine of the Presbyterian 
 Churches on the continent of Europe ;" and, travelling out of 
 the record at the first step, quotes from Turretine and the Hel- 
 vetic Confession. 
 
 Still there is no proof of the opposition of our doctrines to 
 civil and religious liberty ; for he has, at the close of these long 
 extracts, still to own that they are not ours; and, therefore, 
 though they help him to wend his weary way through the ap- 
 pointed half hour, they only show what our doctrines ARE NOT. 
 They do serve one other purpose. They show that, from the days 
 when popery fastened its yoke on the necks of the race, until the 
 asylum of liberty was opened by Heaven, in a new world, that 
 all Christendom had been more or less astray on " the rights of 
 conscience ;" and the relations of the church to the state. In 
 these errors Roman Catholics led the way with supreme domi- 
 nion. T'he reformers, rejecting the chief part of ih^iv persecuting 
 principles, retained some of tJiem, in a milder form, but still, 
 retained a iwrtion. Episcopalians in England, and Presbyte- 
 rians in Scotland, retain establishments to this day. Popery 
 remains the same every where, unchangeable and unchanged — 
 
 (1) Art. 3, Chap. XXIII. 
 
876 
 
 till God shall destroy it with the hrightness of his coming. 
 In America, Presbyterians and Episcopalians, &c., have wholly 
 renounced all appearance of the old leaven. Mr. Hughes says 
 we are dishonest. We condemn the errors of out fathers, while 
 we own them errors. Mr. Hughes says we are dishonest still. 
 Very^well. We know he regrets that we are not in the same 
 condemnation with him and his system. If he will honestly 
 ohjuYC j)opal jjersecutions, we will then cease to charge him with 
 the system of tyranny, which riots through his standards, and 
 reigns wherever it dare, and where it can. Till then, American 
 citizens must watch these emissaries of the Pope ; and expose 
 their anti-American, anti-social, anti-Christian discipline, doctrine, 
 and morals. 
 
 The gentleman, in a late speech, made a most flourishing exhi- 
 bition of Bishop England, as the representative of our country 
 in the eternal city, and as puzzled to defend our national char- 
 acter, after the news reached Rome, of the hurning of the con- 
 vent. This is surely a most unfortunate allusion. It is not a 
 long time since that man wrote to his Irish friends, one of the 
 most barefaced letters, against the American system of religious 
 liberty, that was ever penned. I give below an extract from his 
 patriotic opinions. It was published in a Charleston (S. C.) 
 paper ; and the Bishop was at hand to deny or to explain, had 
 that been possible. It is as follows : 
 
 " How often did I wish my voice could be heard across the 
 deep, proclaiming to your meetings what I have seen and heard 
 since I left you ! A people valuing freedom — and in the pleni- 
 tude of its enjoyment — destroying religion — nay, having nearly 
 effected its destruction by reducing to practice here, the princi^e 
 which the Vetoists and Conciliators contend for amongst you. ^ 
 
 "2^he Americans are loud in their reprobation of your servile 
 aristocracy, ivho would degrade religion by placing its concerns 
 under the control of a King's minister ; and could your aristo- 
 crats and place-hunters view the state of Catholicity here, they 
 tvould inveigh against the democrats, icho would degrade reli- 
 gion by placing its concerns under the control of a mob, and I 
 am perfectly convinced both are riyht. In both cases the princi- 
 ple is exactly the same — the mode of carrying it into operation 
 is different. 
 
 " I am convinced that if those gentlemen of the Irish hierarchy 
 who arc suspected, and I fear with good reason, of being favoura- 
 ble to vetoistical arrangements, had each one month's experience 
 of the operation of the principle here, their good sense, and piety j 
 and zeal for religion, would compel them to suffer inconvejiience, 
 rather than commit the fate of the religion of millions under their 
 chanje, and, myriads yet unborn, to the influence of a most de- 
 structive jyrinciple, to release themselves and their flocks from 
 the mitigated persecution under which they still suffer. 
 
377 
 
 " The people here, claim, and endeavour to assume, the same 
 power ivhich (he clauses and conditions would give to the Crown 
 amongst you — though not to the same extent. The consequence 
 is, that religion is neglected, degraded, despised, and insulted 
 with impunity." 
 
 Now if the Bishop is an American in heart, he has become so 
 very lately. The above, is the boldest and basest attack I have 
 ever seen, oa our free institutions, from any pen, save those of 
 George Thompson and Daniel O'Connell. The American people 
 will be not a little disgusted to hear, in contrast with the above 
 extracts. Bishop England's adulation of the religious statesmen, 
 at Rome. While in Rome, in his late visit, he actually wrote a 
 hook on the ^^ furniture, (&c. of a church, vestments of the clergy,'' 
 &c. &c., which he dedicated to " His eminence Cardinal Weld,'* 
 &c. &c., ''my Lord Cardinal," &c. He tells him ^^ that the 
 grain of mustard seed, (the papal church in America,) cultivated 
 with success, under the auspices of Pius VI., has rapidly grown 
 to a mighty tree, and protected by Gregory XVI. is now extend- 
 ing its branches above an enlightened community, reposing in 
 peace under its shadow." He adds (in the dedication to a second 
 work bound in the same volume, "O/i the Ceremonies of the Holy 
 Week.") ''In the venerable successor of St. Peter, I behold the 
 former, active, zealous, and enlightened prefect of the Propagan- 
 da, whose DEEP INTEREST, and LABORIOUS EXERTIONS in THE 
 CONCERNS OF THE ChURCH OF THE UNITED STATES, have been 
 
 so BENEFICIAL.^' He calls the company of the Cardinals " the 
 
 VENERABLE AND EMINENT SENATE OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD;" 
 
 praises the Pope for that very effort against " liberty," which 
 breathes through the detestable ^^ Encyclical Letter" so repeatedly 
 alluded to in the Controversy, (that letter was published Aug. 15th 
 1832, and the Bishop's book appeared at Rome, March 26, 1833,) 
 and he says, " that stripping the Holy See of its temporal inde- 
 pendence, woidd inflict a deep wound on religion." Yet Mr. 
 Hughes says, the temporal prince has no relation to the Ecclesi- 
 astical Head of the Church. In a word, this prelate by his pub- 
 lic defence of ministerial dissipations, by his unworthy and anti- 
 republican sycophancy at Rome ; and by his direct attacks on the 
 institutions of his country, not to name his open defence of the 
 Inquisition, has disgraced his prelacy, and sundered every tie 
 that could constitute or continue him an American. 
 
 But this spirit is not peculiar to him. A papal journal in our 
 country, holds the following language. (It is from the ^'Catholic 
 Telegraph," Cincinnati, and was called out by the trials of Bos- 
 ton in relation to the burning of the Convent.) 
 
 "J. system of government, which admits a feeling of alarm in 
 the execution of the laws, from the vengeance of the mob, which 
 Mr. Austin (the prosecuting attorney,) distinctly allowed to be 
 the case, a vengeance exhibited by letters to the public officers 
 
 2-1 
 
878 
 
 and threats to the public authorities, may he very fine in ilieory^ 
 very fit for imitation on the part of those who seek the power of 
 the mob, in contradistinction to justice, and the jpuhlic interest. 
 But it is not of a nature to invite the reflecting part of the world, 
 and shows at least that it has evils. A public officer in England, 
 who would publicly avow such a fear of executing his duty, and 
 carrying into effect the law of the realm, ought and would be 
 thrust out of the office, by public opinion. This one fact is 
 
 CONDEMNATION OF THE SYSTEM OP AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS, 
 CONFIRMED LATELY BY NUMEROUS OTHER PROOFS." That is, OUr 
 
 institutions are a failure, because a mob burned a Convent; and 
 the Court did not find a bill for the Catholics, as strong as was 
 expected. ^'Therefore our institutions are to be denounced as 
 worthy of iinitation only, by those who seek power of the mob." 
 Such is the audacity Q)i foreign emissaries; renegado- Jesuits, the 
 bondsmen of the Pope, who come here to corrupt and to traduce 
 the country. In substance, Mr. Hughes has told us, that our na- 
 tion is disgraced by that conflagration. These haughty bondsmen 
 of a foreign despot, the Pope, seem to think indeed, that this 
 world was made for them, and their master; and that we are 
 honoured by holding their sacred persons in the land ; or even 
 by being noticed by their lordly anathemas. 
 
 But Bishop England is not alone in denouncing our " demo- 
 cracy," and RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE, AS THE GREAT PRIN- 
 CIPLE OP THE American system. '< My Lord Bishop Flaget, of 
 Bardstown, Kentucky, (says the admirable Brutus,) in a letter to 
 his patrons abroad, has this plain hint at ulterior political de- 
 sign; and that no less than the entire subversion of our republi- 
 can government.'' Speaking of the difficulties, and discourage- 
 ments, the Catholic missionaries have to contend with, in convert- 
 ing the Indians, the last difficulty in their way, he says, is " their 
 continual trafiic among the whites, WHICH CANNOT BE hindered, 
 as long as the republican government shall subsist." 
 
 This intimation of the bishop is extracted from ''Annales de 
 TAssociation, de la Propagation de la Foi," being a periodical 
 continuation of the ^^Lettres JEdifiantes" k Lyons, et a Paris, 
 1829. As to the case of the ^'knocking off of the hat at the 
 bishop's approach,'' no doubt the Rev. Mr. Mason believed it. 
 For, in the first place, there were divers affirmations, not on 
 Presbyterian authority merely, that something of the kind ac- 
 tually did occur; and, secondly, it is notorious, that in every Ca- 
 tholic country on earth, the man who does not kneel in the 
 street, as the host passes, will lose not only his hat, but perhaps 
 his head also; for these holy processions, paying idolatrous wor- 
 ship to a piece of bread, are accompanied by armed men, to force 
 adoration from every spectator; and wo to the hapless " here- 
 tic " who cannot escape through the crowd, and will not bow 
 down and worship the idol. Even a little credulity, therefore, 
 
379 
 
 (supposing the whole story false, into which, however, I intend 
 to inquire,) may be pardoned, when we know, that Catholics do 
 the very thing charged on them in Rome, Spain, Portugal, and 
 all the papal states and islands of the American hemisphere. 
 
 Bishop Enghind says, (1) "all who fire not in the procession, 
 as the Pope passes — kneel." The Pope, having worshipped 
 " the hidden God" as the bishop profanely calls the consecrated 
 wafer — takes the vessel containing it, and bareheaded, with in- 
 cense burning before him, leads on the procession. He says, 
 "Nothing is more offensive to Catholics, than a transgres- 
 sion of the principle here alluded to;" viz., "to kneel as the 
 procession passes, in a decorous, external conformity " 
 
 I have seen many persons from the West Indies, South 
 America, Spain, and Home, who confirm the above statements 
 about being forced to kneel at the point of the hayonct, or else 
 precipitately retreat before the approach of the procession. 
 
 It has be»n a frequent argument of the gentleman during this 
 discussion, that the principles of Presbyterians led to licentious- 
 ness. Especially has he been loud in thus charging the doctrine 
 of election. It did not suffice him, that the Apostle Paul, eighteen 
 centuries ago, met and answered this heathen objection, in his 
 Epistle to the Church of Rome. 
 
 " What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin, that 
 grace may abound ? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead 
 to sin, live any longer therein 1" (2) "For sin shall not have 
 dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under 
 grace. What then ? Shall we sin because we are not under the 
 law, but under grace ? God forbid. God be thanked ye were 
 the servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart, that 
 form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free 
 from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." (Verses 
 14, 15, 17, 18.) ■ "Whom He did foreknow, He also did pre- 
 destinate to be conformed to the image of his son." (Rom. viii. 
 29.) But Paul's testimony did not suffice. The gentleman, iqi 
 a written paper, thrown in during the discussion, thus said : — 
 
 "Consequently, as individuals, they (^Presbyterians^ may pay 
 their debts by an act of the legislature, and live in affluence af- 
 terwards. They may give to BiBLE SOCIETIES, Tract Societies, 
 Sunday School Union, and Missionary Societies, WHAT BELONGS 
 TO THEIR CREDITORS, and yet eat well, dress well, sleep well, and 
 feel no remorse." And, again; "The same motives of selfish- 
 ness, that govern INDIVIDUALS, govern also, more or less, all 
 
 sects and denominations The doctrine of 
 
 Presbyterian ism authorizes the remorseless violation of the prin- 
 cijales of justice, honesty, truth ; and permits that sect to estab- 
 lish its own ascendancy over other sects, on THEIR RUINS. 
 
 (1) Page 64, Ceremonies of the Holy Week. (2) Chap. VI. y 1—2. 
 
380 
 
 And when they shall have done so, though your property, and 
 reputation, and liberty to worship God according to the dictates 
 of your conscience, should fall a sacrifice to their arts, ar secta- 
 rian ambition, still they icill feel no remorse." These are, in- 
 deed, heavy charges — not only against Presbyterians, but against 
 all God's people, who hold the same views, and (I tremble while 
 I say it) against the word of God. For these ungodly slanders, 
 I need not say, he brings not a solitary proof. There are but 
 three methods of proof possible in the case. 
 
 1. He might refer directly to the word of God. His word, 
 even Mr. Hughes will allow, contains no doctrine oj)j>osed to 
 good morals, and the icell-being of society. Then, are these 
 Presbyterian doctrines contained in the Bible ? This question, 
 however, the gentleman dare not touch. A Papist has no liberty 
 to reason on this subject. If you convince him, he is yet not 
 convinced. His rule of faith forbids him to think for himself ; 
 and if he should venture to reason, he is guilty of this absurdity, 
 that though neither reason, nor the Bible, nor any thing else, 
 but ^^his infallible judge of controversies'' is capable of con- 
 vincing HIM ; yet, he expects OTHERS to be open to reason, and 
 to be led by private interpretation, though he will not. The 
 Papist declares, at the outset, that he is incapable of being con- 
 vinced ; and rejects those very means which he tries to use in 
 convincing others. He is, therefore, insincere at every step, and 
 cannot honestly reason on the subject; or, if honest, absurdly 
 inconsistent. 
 
 2. The next method of proof is an appeal to the whole Pres- 
 byterian system. What does it say? Does it not, at large, in 
 the Confession of Faith (1) most abundantly and explicitly de- 
 clare, that without holiness, no man shall see the Lord ; that re- 
 pentance, regeneration, good works, and growth in these, and 
 perseverance in them till death, is the end and effect of the de- 
 crees of God ; that love to God, and love to man, are binding on 
 all, and that none are, or can be, saved without it. It is true, 
 we do not think with Papists, that there is any saving merit in 
 good works, and WE prefer to let God elect ; they prefer the 
 Pope to do it; and say, that none can be saved, who reject their 
 faith, and are not subject to their Pope. We prefer to let God 
 fix the terms of salvation; and believe, as he hath said, '■Hhat 
 whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved,'' 
 even if it be from the bosom of the fallen Church of Rome. 
 
 But the gentleman says we have a " hidden sense" in our 
 standards, differing from our avowed principles. But " secreta 
 monita" belong to him and his Jesuit brethren ! And it was 
 
 (1) Chap. III., section 3; Chnp. X., Chap. XII.; XIII. 0/ Sanctijication ; 
 Chap. XIV., Chap. XV. Of Repentance unto Life ; XVI. Of Good Works, 
 to name no more. 
 
I 
 
 381 
 
 ^^ from, our standards'' that he pledged himself io prove our (yp- 
 position to liberty. Here ihey are. No torture can make them 
 prove that our doctrines advocate or sustain licentiousness, dis- 
 honesty, &c., &c. You see, gentlemen, how utterly he has 
 failed ; and you must be struck (by contrast) with the abundant 
 testimony produced on the other side. 
 
 3. The other J and only other conceivable method of proof is 
 from facts. And here I have called in vain for proof, that "owr 
 doctrine authorizes the remorseless violation of justice^ holiness, 
 and. truth.'' Where has he laid his hand on one facj;, or one page 
 of history to prove it ? I know we are at best unworthy ; and 
 that, compared with God's holy standard, ice come very far 
 short. But, compared with other denominations of our brethren, 
 above all, comparing Presbyterian with papal countries — or Pres- 
 byterian with papal clergy — or Presbyterian with papal laity, 
 who will venture to say that papal doctrines have produced better, 
 or as good effects on the public, or on the personal character and 
 morals, as Presbyterian ? The gentleman himself has not ven- 
 tured to say it, much less to attempt i\\Q proof of it. 
 
 Now, I admit, that any system of doctrine, which necessarily 
 leads to licentiousness, or that habitually produces, or even per- 
 mits and connives at the sins charged on us by the gentleman, is 
 false, wicked, oifensive to God, contrary to the Bible, arjd destruc- 
 tive of society, as well as of the souls of men. I join issue with 
 the gentleman on this ground, and am willing by it to stand or 
 fall. Perhaps he may say my opinion of Calvinism is partial. I 
 own I love it. But we adduced Swift, (^Episcopalian,) Dryden, 
 (^Papist,) Bancroft, ( Unitarian,) testifying to its direct and mighty 
 influence in promoting liberty. The gentleman passed by Dry- 
 den, and charged the rest with partiality. But we will add other 
 witnesses. Bishop Burnet (does the gentleman know him ? he 
 was a moderate Arminian,) says, — '* A Calvinist is taught, by 
 his opinions, to think meanly of himself [how unlike the picture 
 drawn by Mr. Hughes !] and to ascribe the honour of all to God; 
 which lays in him a deep foundation for humility : he is also 
 much inclined to secixt prayer, and to a fixed dependence on 
 
 The article Predestination, in the Encyclopedia Britannica^ 
 said to be written by an able foreign lawyer, tell us, — " There is 
 one remark which we feel ourselves bound in justice to make, al- 
 though it appears to us somewhat singular. It is this : that 
 from the earliest ages down to our own days, if wo consider the 
 character of the ancient stoics, the Jewish Essenes, the modern 
 Calvinists and Jansenists, when compared with that of their an- 
 tagonists, the Epicureans, the Sadducees, the Arminians, and the 
 Jesuits, we shall find that they have excelled, in no small degree, 
 in the practice of the most rigid and respectable virtues; and 
 have been the highest honour of their own ages, and the ^est 
 
S82 
 
 models for imitation for every succeeding arje^ This surely is 
 no measured praise; and yet, that it is from one who was no 
 Galvinist, appears, not only from the above remark on " tlie sin- 
 gularity^' of the fact, stated by him, but still more, from the fol- 
 lowing sentence. "At the same time, it must be confessed that 
 their virtues have in general been rendered unamiahle, hy a tinge 
 of gloomy and severe austerity.'^ 
 
 Finally. '* In Letters addressed to a Serious and Ilumhle In- 
 quirer,'' <^c., by the Rev Edward Cooper, Rector of Hampstall 
 liidwane, (a distinguished Episcopal clergyman of England, and 
 no Calvinist,) it is thus written: "Among no denomination or 
 description of professing Christians, is there to he found a larger 
 portion of hutnhle, pious, and devoted servants of God, persons 
 of a truly Christian spirit, zealous of good ivorJcs, and exem- 
 plary in every duty and relation of life, than among those who 
 hold the Calvinistic tenets. I am sure that your observation and 
 your candour will fully Justify this statement. And, therefore, 
 so far this system is to he judged of by its ACTUAL effects, I 
 .think, that on a candid reconsideration of the subject, you will be 
 induced to abandon your objection, and to admit, that it was 
 founded on an erroneous and partial view of the subject." The 
 objection which he was exposing, is the same urged by Mr. 
 Hughes — '^the immoral tendency of the system." He says, 
 "Where is the tendency of this doctrine to make its followers 
 slothful, or confident^ negligent of the means of grace, or inat- 
 tentive to moral and relative duties?" He also calls it "a ca- 
 luminated system." It haa^ been so from the days of the Apostle 
 Paul, down to our times. But if the gentleman will appeal to 
 history; to facts; go to Calvinistic New England; to Cavinistic 
 Scotland; to Calvinistic Holland; or to American Calvinists; 
 and compare them with the glory of popery anywhere, in any 
 age ! This is the test. Let us appeal to it. Agreeing with the 
 gentleman, that any system whose tendency is immoral, is ruin- 
 ous to society, and to all its blessings, civil and religious, I go 
 hand in hand with him, into his own boasted religion. And I 
 will take my examples from the era of the Reformation, after the 
 world had made a fair trial of popery for ages; when Rome had 
 "extinguished in their own blood'' the Albigenses and Wal- 
 denses; and when Protestants, properly so called, arose to re- 
 form, and to resist. I will also go not to Protestant, but io pa- 
 pal ivriters — who can be supposed to have no ^^ prejudices" 
 against the "Catholic Church," and whose testimony shall de- 
 cide the question. 
 
 In our late Controversy, several references were made to the 
 ^' Consilium," or " Letter of Advice," given to Paul the III. by 
 four cardinals and five prelates, appointed by him for counselling 
 him, on the state of the Roman Catholic Church. My Reverend 
 friend seemed exceedingly reluctant to touch this state paper from 
 
383 
 
 Rome ; or to permit the American people to hear of it. Copious 
 extracts from it, were left almost unnoticed by him, and for this 
 plain reason, that the less said about this extraordinary document 
 the better. But it is an American principle to examine every sub- 
 ject. This too, is the fearless, open-faced spirit of universal truth. 
 It is needful for Rome, but not for Christianity, to cover up. 
 Rome suffers from free inquiry ; truth and freedom suffer with- 
 out it. As it is very possible that my learned and candid friend 
 may deny the authority, and even existence, of this document, a 
 few words by way of preface may not be out of place. Pope 
 Paul III. appointed the nine dignitaries of the church, whose 
 names are subscribed to the paper, to give him their advice, as to 
 the state of the church, and the best method of reforming it. This 
 they did with such plainness that he did not venture to carry their 
 suggestions into effect; though he so far approved them as to 
 publish their letter. Its disclosures were of such a character that 
 the Protestants soon republished it in various languages. In Ger- 
 many, Sturmius published it in Latin, with a preface; and Luther 
 gave it to the world in German " accompanied (says the learned 
 M'Crie in his work on the Reformation in Italy, p. 115,) with 
 animadversions, in which among other satirical remarks, he says 
 that the cardinals contented themselves with removing the small 
 twigs, while they allowed the trunk of corruption to remain un- 
 molested ; and like the Pharisees of old, strained at gnats and 
 swallowed camels. To set this before the eyes of the readers, he 
 prefixed to the book a print, in which the Pope is represented as 
 seated on a high throne surrounded by the cardinals, who hold in 
 their hands, long poles with foxes' tails fixed to them like brooms, 
 with which they sweep the room." 
 
 Pallavicini, the papal historian of the Council of Trent (Lib. 
 III. Sec. 59,) complains that the Pope, in this production, ex- 
 poses the church. He writes as follows : " By ordering a 
 
 reformation of morals, he acknowledged the existence of cor- 
 ruptions, and countenanced the distracting speeches which 
 heretics circulated among the vulgar." 
 
 Cardinal Quirini refers to this document (in his Diatriba De 
 Gestis Pauli III.) in proo/ that Paul icished to reform the church. 
 He tells us it was printed at Rome by Paul III. a.d. 1538. Wol- 
 fius (in his Lee. Memoral. Tom. ii. p. 398 — 449.) inserts this 
 Consilium, or <' Advice of the Bishop," at length, with a Preface 
 by Vergerio. It was also reprinted by Schelhorn, with a letter to 
 Cardinal Quirini. (See M'Crie's Italy, pages 114—120.) 
 
 It is a singular fact, that Caraffa, one of these nine advisers, 
 afterward, when he became Pope Paul IV. actually put his own 
 joint production into the Prohibitory Index, as a condemned 
 book ! Another Pope once said, when taxed with a change in 
 his views, after his elevation, *' since I have risen higher ^ I see 
 
884 
 
 hetter." On this principle ought we not to recommend Brother 
 Hughes for speedy and high promotion at Kome ? 
 
 The following translation of the Letter of Advice, was made by 
 the Rev. Dr. Claggett of the Established Church of Great Britain, 
 and may be seen with his able Preface in "The Preservative 
 against Popery/' vol. 1st. 
 
 So much for the history 6f this document. As to its charater 
 and mcanhuj, we ask no more than a faithful perusal of it, to con- 
 vince any honest man that such a church cannot he infallible : 
 Or if this be infallibility — from such per/ec^io/i good Lord deliver 
 us ! Let it be borne in mind that this paper is Roman Catholic 
 testimony. 
 
 " The advice given to Pope Paul the Third, hy four Car- 
 dinals, and five other Prelates, whose names are under- 
 tcritten, in order to the amendment of the state of the 
 Church. 
 
 " Most blessed Father, we are so unable to express that mighty 
 thanks the whole body of th^ Church is bound to pay to Almighty 
 God, who has in these times raised up you to be the Supreme 
 Bishop and Pastor of his flock, and gives you likewise that mind 
 which you have, that we have no hope so much as to conceive 
 how great they. are. For that spirit of God, by which, as the 
 prophet speaks, the heavens are made firm, has decreed, as ice 
 cannot hut see, hy your hand to support the church, now that she 
 IS not only leaning, hut just falling headlong into ruin; nay, 
 to advance her to her ancient eminence, and to restore her to her 
 former heauty. 
 
 "It is no uncertain conjecture of this purpose of God, which 
 we are enabled to make, whom your holiness called to you and 
 required, that without any regard had to you, or to any one else, 
 we should signify to you what those abuses are, and most griev- 
 ous distempers wherewith the Church of God, and especially the 
 court of Kome, has for a long time been affected, whereby also 
 it has come to pass, that these pestilent diseases grouping to their 
 height hy little and little, the Church, as we see, is upon the very 
 brink of ruin. And because your holiness (being taught by the 
 Divine Spirit, who, as St. Austin says, does without noise of 
 words speak in the heart) very well understands this to be the 
 original of these mischiefs; that some Popes, your predecessors, 
 having itching ears, as says the apostle Paid, heaped up teach- 
 ers after their own lusts, not to learn from them what they ought 
 to do, but that they should take pains and employ their wit to 
 find out ways hoiv it might he lawful for them to do what they 
 pleased: to which we may add, that as the shadow follows the 
 body, %o flattery follows greatness, and truth can hardly find any 
 way to the ears of princes ; hence it has come to pass, that there 
 
385 
 
 have been doctors ever ready to maintain, that all benefices heing 
 the Popes and the Lord havmg a right to sell what is his own, 
 it Qnust necessarili/ follow, that the Pope is not capable of the 
 guilt of simony ; insomuch, that the Pope^s will and pleasure, 
 v)hatever it he, must needs he the rule for all that he does; which 
 douhtless zcould end in helieving every thing lawful that he had 
 a mind to do. 
 
 ^^From this source, as from the Trojan horse, those so many 
 abuses, and such mortal diseases, have broken forth into the 
 Church of God, ivhich have reduced her, as we see, almost to a 
 state of desperation ; the fame of these things having come to 
 the ears even of infidels, (let your holiness believe us, speaking 
 what we know) loho deride Christianity more for this, than for 
 any thing else; so that through ourselves, we must needs say 
 through ourselves, the name of Christ is blasphemed amongst the 
 nations. 
 
 " But to reduce all our thoughts to some certain heads ; since 
 your holiness is both the prince of these provinces, which are the 
 ecclesiastic estate and territory, and ivifhal, the governor of the 
 universal Church, and likewise the hishop of Rome ; we have 
 not taken upon ourselves to speak of those things which concern 
 that principality, which, by your prudence, is so excellently go- 
 verned, as we see. We will touch upon these matters only, that 
 belong to the ofiice of the universal pastor, and some also that 
 are proper to the Roman bishop. 
 
 '' First of all then, we think, most blessed Father, according to 
 what Aristotle says, in his Politics, that, as in every other com- 
 monwealth, so in the ecclesiastical government of the Church of 
 Christ, it should be esteemed the principal law of all, that laws 
 should be observed as much as is possible ; and that it be not law- 
 ful to dispense with the laws, but for a cause urgent and neces- 
 sary. But one thing there is of moment next to this, or rather of 
 far greater consequence, as xve think, that it is not lawful for the 
 Pope, ivho is Christ^ s vicar, to make any gain to himself of the 
 use of the keys, of the power of the keys we say, which Christ 
 hath committed to him. For this is the commandment of Christ: 
 Freely ye have received, freely give. 
 
 ^'And here the first abuse in this kind is, that in the ordina- 
 tion of clerks, especially of Presbyters, no manner of care and 
 diligence is used, but evety where the most uneducated youths, 
 of the vilest parentage, set out with nothing but evil manners, 
 are admitted to holy orders, even to priesthood itself, though 
 that he the character which expresseth Christ ^lore than all 
 others. From hence grow innumerable scandals; from hence 
 comes the contempt of the ecclesiastic oixler ; and hence it is, thai 
 the reverence of God's worship is not only diminished, hut well 
 nigh extinguished. 
 
 *' Another abuse of a most grievous nature, is in the collation 
 
386 
 
 of ecclesiastical benefices, especially with cure of souls, and above 
 all, of bishoprics ; the manner having been, that good provision 
 is made for those who have the benefices, but for the flock of 
 Christ, and the Church, none at all. 
 
 "There is another abuse also in the changing of benefices, 
 upon contracts, that are, all of them, simoniacal, and in which 
 no regard is had to any thing but gain. 
 
 "Again; it is an ancient hiw established by Clement, that the 
 ions of priests should not succeed their fathers in their benefices ; 
 and this, lest the common patrimony of the Church should be- 
 come a private estate. But, as we hear, this venerable law is 
 dispensed with ; and we must not conceal what every prudent 
 person will, by himself, discern to be a great truth, that )io one 
 thing hath raised more of that envy against the clergy, from 
 whence so many seditions have already happened, and more are 
 at hand, than this turning of ecclesiastical profits and revenue 
 from heing a common to a 2)rivate thing. All men had some 
 Jiojye hrfore this, but now they are reduced to despair, and 
 sharpen their tongues against this holy see. 
 
 " These things being setr right, which refer to the appointment 
 of your ministers, w^ho are, as it were, the instruments for the 
 right performing of God's worship, and the well-ordering of the 
 people in a Christian life ; we must now come to those things 
 which relate to the government of Christian people : as to which 
 matter, most holy father, there is an abuse in the first place to be 
 corrected; and the greatest care is to be taken, that bishops espe- 
 cially, no nor curates, be absent from their churches and parishes, 
 unless for a weighty cause, but keep their residence ; but espe- 
 cially the bishops, since they are the husbands of the Church 
 committed to their care. For we appeal to God, that no sight can 
 he more lamentable to a Christian man going through Christen- 
 dom, than this solitude of the Churches. Almost all the pastors 
 are withdrawn from their flocks, which are, almost every where, 
 entrusted tvith hirelings. 
 
 " In the orders of the Religious, there is another abuse to be 
 corrected, that many of them are so degenerate, that they are 
 grown scandalous, and their examples pernicious to the Seculars. 
 We think the Conventual orders are to be abolished, not by doing 
 to any man that injury of dispossessing him, but by forbidding 
 them to admit any more : for thus, without wronging any one, 
 they would soon be worn out, and good Religious might he sub- 
 stituted instead of them; hut at present, it were best, that all 
 diildren, loho are not yet professed, should he taken from their 
 monasteries. 
 
 " We have already said, most holy father, that it is by no 
 means lawful to make any gain by the use of the keys, in which 
 matter the words of Christ stand firm and sure, Freely ye have 
 received, f-fcly give. This does not only belong to your holi- 
 
887 
 
 ness to take uotice of, but to all who share in this power; and 
 therefore, we desire, that it may be observed by your Legates 
 and Nuncios : for, as ihe custom which has much prevailed, dis- 
 honours this see, and makes the people clamorous, so the con- 
 trary would be exceedingly for the ornament of the one, and for 
 the edification of the other. 
 
 ^' Christian people are disturbed hy another abuse, which con- 
 cerns Nuns, that are under the care of the Conventual Friars, 
 where, in most monasteries^ public sacrileges' are committed, to 
 the intolerable scandal of the citizens. Let your holiness deprive 
 the Conventuals of this care, and give it to the ordinaries, or to 
 others, as you shall see cause. 
 
 " There is another abuse in the collectors for the Holy Ghost, 
 for St. Anthony, and others of this kind, tohich put cheats upon 
 rusticks, and simple people, and entangle them in a icorld of 
 superstition. These collectors, we think, ought to be taken 
 away. 
 
 " We conceive it also to be an abuse, to dispense with the mar- 
 riage of those that are in the second degree of consanguinity, or 
 afiinity, unless it be for a weighty reason. Nor should dispensa- 
 , tions be granted without other degrees, but where the cause is 
 honest, and still loithout money, unless the parties were married 
 before ; in which case, it is lawful to impose a pecuniary punish- 
 ment, in order to absolution from sin already committed, and to 
 convert it to pious uses, such as your holiness promotes. For, 
 as where there is no sin in the use of the keys to be done away, 
 no money can be demanded ; so where absolution from sin is de- 
 sidered, a pecuniary mulct may be laid, and designed for pious 
 uses. 
 
 ^'In the absolution of a simoniacal person, there is another 
 abuse; and 'tis a dismal thing to consider, that this plague reigns 
 in the Church' to that degree, that some are not afraid to be 
 guilty of simony, and to go presently for absolution. — The truth 
 is, they buy their absolution, and so they keep the benefice they 
 bought before. 
 
 ^^ It has been a custom also to change the wills of testators, toho 
 have left a certain sum of money for pious and charitable pur- 
 poses ; ivhich, by the authority of your holiness, is transferred to 
 the heir or the legatee, under pretence of their poverty, &c., and 
 this is gained by money too. 
 
 ^'And thus, according to our capacity, having summarily des- 
 cribed all those things which belong to the duty of a supreme 
 bishop of the Catholic Church ; it remains, that we say something 
 of that which belongs to the Roman bishop. — This city of Rome 
 is both the mother of the Church, and mistress of other Churches : 
 wherefore, the worship of God and purity of manners should 
 'flourish there most of all. 
 
 ^'Nay, in this city, whores walk about, as if they were goodly 
 
matrons ; or tliey ride upon mules, and are at, noon-day followed 
 up and down hy men of the best account in the families of car- 
 dinals and hy clergymen. We see no sy,ch degeneracy in any 
 other city, hut in this, which is to he an example to all others. 
 These ivhores live in splendid houses : 'tis a filthy abuse, and 
 ought to he mended. 
 
 " We hope that you are chosen to restore the name of Christ, 
 forgotten hy the nations, and even hy us of the clergy ; that here- 
 after it may live in our hearts, and appear in our actions, to heal 
 our diseases, to reduce the fiock of Christ into one sheep-fold, to 
 remove from us that indignation and vengeance of God, which 
 we deserve, ivhich is now ready to fall upon us, which now hangs 
 over our heads. 
 
 ^^The names of the Cardinals, &c. 
 
 " GrASPARD, Cardinal Contarene. 
 
 " Job. Peter, Cardinal Theatine, afterwards Paul IV. 
 
 " James, Cardinal Sadolet. 
 
 *^ Reginald Pole, Cardinal of England. 
 
 " Frederick, Archbishop of Brundusium. 
 
 " Job. Matthew GtIbet, Bishop of Yerona. 
 
 '^ Gregory Cortese, Abbot of St. George at Venice. 
 
 " Friar Thomas, Master of the Sacred Palace. 
 
 " There should be another to make nine.'' 
 
 Now here is a picture of the papal church hy papal authority ^ 
 after it had ruled the world for ages. We have necessarily omit- 
 ted perhaps one half of its contents, from the extreme length of 
 the document. But let any impartial mind survey this scene of a 
 church in ruins, with the head and the members, the ministry 
 and the monasteries rotten at the heart, and all tending to ruin, 
 on the testimony of many of their own prelates ! What does this 
 history say? Does it not show the need of 'a reformation? 
 And, if the gentleman's argument be true, as we allow, that doc- 
 trines which lead to immorality are ruinous and anti-social doc- 
 trines, then, what must those doctrines be which produce, or 
 even tolerate, such corruptions ? It is but reasoning from effect 
 to cause. ^^By their fruits ye shall know them," saith our Lord. 
 Here they are in loathsome profusion. 
 
 If my hearers will now advert to all that I have said of the 
 doctrines of indidgences, of purgatory, of penance, of priestly 
 pardon of sins, of auricular confession, of celibacy, to name no 
 more, they will be able clearly to discern the natural, the neces- 
 sary causes of these tremendous effects on morals and social 
 order. 
 
 Before I close I must notice some of the gentleman's imper- 
 tinences, which come out at the close, like dregs, from an ex- 
 hausted mind, and a choleric spirit. 
 
 He says my " quotation of his language (about the Jesuits) is 
 
889 
 
 not to he depended on/' I spurn his reflections; and appeal to 
 his documents. He said I paid him an unintended *' compli- 
 ment by calling him a Jesuit. Moreover, he has been their 
 eulogist uniformly, in hoth my controversies with him. In the 
 jirst,(V) Mr. Hughes says of the Jesuits : — ^^In my opinion re- 
 ligion and science suffered hij the suppression of the Jesuits; and 
 that hoth are gainers hij their restoration.'' Is not this 'praise? 
 And, in the light of my 2)^^^^ous ahundant exposure of their 
 ta-rific doctrines^ it is praise most disgraceful to the author. 
 
 He said, at the same place, " The Inquisition may have 
 BEEN A GOOD THING ahused." It is to triflo with Heaven, and 
 insult all men, but inquisitors, to say so. Is not this being its 
 "apologist?" If it should result that I misquote his words, 
 now that they are written words, the gentleman must remember 
 that if words be changed after I quote them, it is no fault of 
 mine. If they be not changed, my quotations will be found 
 literal, when I profess them so. Sometimes it is necessary to 
 give the substance — a page of trash in a sentence. I try to be 
 a faithful chymist. 
 
 Dr. Miller is still kept up before the public. Mr. Hughes 
 reminds me of a fop I once knew, whose chief business seemed 
 to be to convince the little world that he was intimate with the 
 great world. Mr. Hughes may be assured that Dr. Cook, and 
 the other 7.;i7t7i(??i-scribblers who unite with him in calumniating 
 Dr. Miller, have not destroyed an hour of his rest. The only 
 emotion which Dr. Miller and many others feel, in contemplating 
 these men, (who dishonour, by being in it, a much valued Christ- 
 ian Church) is, wonder that they do not go all the way to 
 popery; like the newly " converted Burlington brother," who 
 has relieved himself of inconsistency, wife, children, and all 
 " other hig and little responsihilities," as Fanny Wright called 
 such ungodly encumhrances, by joining himself to you. 
 
 The gentleman is mistaken about my *' altering my tone." 
 He falsely charged me with unkindness to ^^ poor" emigrants. 
 I replied, " we fear not the virtuous poor. Rich, or poor, if 
 they he Jesuits, priests, or their tools, we do fear them. 
 
 I regret that my allusion to the ^^ convent" makes the gentle- 
 man expose himself My defence is in the proof already given, 
 that, in other days (2) monastic institutions were very brothels. 
 If the Boston mob were mistaken in the opinion, I qannot help 
 it. I asserted no more than that they did so think. 
 
 The retreat of Mr. Hughes before Daniel Webster, and the 
 other authorities cited by me, is characteristic. His forces, like 
 the Roman quincunx, retain their shape, though thejc may shift 
 
 (1) See Letter XXXI. 
 
 (2) See the same subject, called "sacrilege," exposed by the nine hiahopa 
 and cardinals quoted in this speech. 
 
890 
 
 their position. He now retreats, blustering against me. I called 
 for his authority for saying that the Sunday School Union 
 declared '^ their desire to become the dictators of the consciences 
 of thousands of immortal beings." This the gentleman quoted^ 
 with appropriate marks, and underscored, as from the docu- 
 ments of the Society. I called for the reference. He has with- 
 held, it. I now demand it again — the year and the "page of the 
 report containing it; and, if not produced, I will expose the 
 gentleman. 
 
 In reply to his question, ITow the rich Protestants are to be 
 bought iq) by monies sent from such poor Catholic countries 
 abroad ? I answer. The Catholic Church is rich. The pope 
 and priesthood are rich. The emperor of Austria is rich. The 
 monastic houses are rich. The Jesuits are rich. The people 
 are poor, and oppressed too. The church and ih^ pope, the Aus- 
 trian monarch, and the propaganda, and the Leopold Foundation, 
 they send the money and the men. Does the answer satisfy ? 
 
 In regard to ^^Mr. Smith," his papal vouchers and recom- 
 mendations falsify Mr. Hughes's attack. Gentlemen, you per- 
 haps recollect the fable of the fox and the grapes. The grapes, 
 which were out of his reach, were sour. As soon as a man leaves 
 popery he is not " worth having ;" yet they catch only the off- 
 scourings of Protestantism — half crazy women, who want homes ; 
 romantic, disap)pointed old maids, and men who have sunk into 
 contempt in Protestant pulpits. So far popery .drains usefidly. 
 You are welcome to all you have, or may yet have. 
 
 It is ominous to see the priest of Rome assail " the continental 
 Congress." He is most wise to forbear meeting these statements. 
 It is easy to assert or deny. Now, here is that venerable body 
 publicly declaring that <' the Catholic religion has deluged 
 England with blood." A priest of Rome denies it. AVhich 
 is the more weighty, disinterested party? — which most 
 devoted to American liberty? Yet it was to warn England 
 against popery in North America that the paragraph which so 
 sorely wounds the *^ man of sin" was drafted. 
 
 P.S Why has the gentleman so strangely forgotten John 
 Wesley's argument ? Let us hear from him on that subject. 
 
391 
 
 '* is the Preshyterian Religion, in any or in all its principles or 
 doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty f* 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE lY.— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 I HAD occasion, Mr. President, to point out to the attention of 
 this meeting and the public, the efForts of the gentleman, to ac- 
 complish, by the help of prejudice, what he knows he cannot 
 accomplish by the use of legitimate weapons, sound argument, 
 and sober reasoning. When these are fairly twisted out of hia 
 hands, and turned against him, he stoops to avail himself of every 
 abusive epithet, that may render his opponent odious in the esti- 
 mation of those for whom alone he seems to speak and write — the 
 bigoted, the prejudiced, the ignorant. "Papist," "Emissaries of 
 the Pope," " Foreigner,'^ "'Jesuit," — these are his last and safest 
 resource. I showed him, that a similar mode of refutation was 
 employed against Christ, by those who called him a " Samaritan," 
 and said " he had a devil." In other words, I showed him, that 
 abuse is not aryumcnt. I refer the reader to the passage ; and, 
 if it appears, that I did NOT " compare myself to Jesus Christ," 
 NOR him to " the murderers of our Master," it will follow, that 
 in charging me with having done this, he "bears false witness 
 AGAINST HIS NEIGHBOUR." Is it not SO ? I refer to the passage. 
 
 He next returns to the " predestination." He admits, that 
 the burning of Huss was "foreordained" by God; and yet, 
 charges on the council, as a crime, that it did not oppose and de- 
 feat what God had thus " foreordained ! ! !" But, I refer to the 
 argument, as stated in my last speech, and ask the reader to say 
 whether the gentleman has not completely evaded it. He cannot 
 meet it. A doctrine which has decided, that ^\from all eternity, 
 God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass," takes 
 away all liberty, civil, religious, and personal. There are no two 
 ways of it. The thing is plain, and cannot be denied. Either 
 the doctrine is false, or else there is no liberty. Man, according 
 to that pxinciple, is a machine ; and conscience, a mockery. I 
 wish the gentleman to go back to my last speech, and attempt to 
 show error in the reasoning by which I establisiied this conse- 
 quence. That he has not done so, I take as a proof, that he feels 
 the thing to be impossible. His attempt to prove the doctrine 
 by texts of Scripture, shows, that I stated it fairly — and this is 
 
392 
 
 enough. If the question were of the truth of the doctrine, and 
 not of its bearing on civil and religious liberty, I should follow 
 him, and expose his perversion of the sacred writings, when he 
 quotes them in support of the blasphemy, that makes God first 
 ^^ foreordain^' the sin, and then punish the sinner for having 
 done that which he could not avoid doing*! ! 
 
 I had stated, that (except, perhaps, the Congregationalists) " the 
 hi^h-toned Presbyterians were the oiili/ denomination that had 
 not become ashamed of the avowal of this doctrine." He does 
 not meet the statement ; and yet, by a slight sMftlng of terms, he 
 affects to have refuted it. He says, the 'Uwelve creeds of the 
 original Reformers," and the '^ Episcopalian articles'' have it. 
 But had I denied this ? Did I assert, that "creeds and articles" 
 — parchment, are capable of becoming " ashamed ? " I said, those 
 " denominations " had become ashamed to avow the doctrine of 
 predestination, as avowed by the high-toned Presbyterians. Has 
 the gentleman refuted the statement? Not a word of it. He 
 slides the question from the '^ denomination" spoken of, into the 
 "creeds and articles;" and this he calls "proof." 
 
 He charges me with having said, that " except the Galvinistic 
 Baptists, the Baptists are not Calvinists." The gentleman, him- 
 self, is entitled to the merit of so silly an assertion. I know, as 
 well as he, that none of the Baptists are " Calvinists." The 
 branch of that denomination, which holds the doctrine of "fore- 
 ordination, is called, from this circumstance, "' Calvinistic Bap- 
 tists; " and I stated what the gentleman has not denied, that all 
 the other sections of that denomination had become ashamed of 
 the avowal of that doctrine. When he invents a witty statement, 
 and puts it forth as mine, it becomes proper, that I should dis- 
 claim it, and let him enjoy the advantages of his wit. 
 
 That St. Augustine ever taught the doctrine, that '^God has, 
 from all eternity, foreordained WHATSOEVER to pass," is 
 what I positively deny. And now, let the gentleman " expose 
 me," as he promised. To assert it, is a libel on his character. 
 The doctrine implicitly accuses God, as being the author of sin; 
 and it is a libel on the character of the Scriptures to say, that they 
 inculcate any such impious tenet. 
 
 I said, that by his creed, he is bound to " remove, according 
 to his j>lace and calling, ALL false worship, and all the monu- 
 ments of idolatry;" and that, by the AMERICAN CONSTITU- 
 TION he is bound to leave them where they are. If he oheys 
 his country, he disobeys God. Can he obey both ? Impossible. 
 So long as the Presbyterians abstain from "removing all false 
 worship," so long do they continue in the VIOLATION of one 
 of God's commandments, as may be seen in the Confession of 
 Faith. I ask the gentleman whether this is not the fact? I ask, 
 " on Presbyterian 2^'''i»ciples," how he can get over it ? He 
 ^Uhinks" this is the " twelfth time" the question has been put; 
 
— ^well ; let him answer it, and I promise I shall not afflict him 
 with it afterwards. But let him meet it fairly and fully. Will 
 he tell us how Presbyterians can obey GOD by *' removing false 
 worship;" and obey the CONSTITUTION by ^OT removing 
 it, but minding their own business ? 
 
 I quoted from the Confession, the doctrine, that the ^* magis- 
 trates" OF THIS REPUBLIC are bound to be '^ nursing fa- 
 thers" to the Church. I have quoted from the same Confession 
 of Faith the meaning of "the Church." I showed, that to be- 
 long to "the Church," it was necessary to "profess" the 
 "true religion;" and that to "profess the true religion," it 
 was necessary to admit the Confession of Faith, " as con- 
 taining the summary of the doctrines, taught in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures." So that by the Confession of Faith, the Presbyterian 
 Church is the hahy to which the " magistrates" are to become 
 " nursing fathers." Has the gentleman denied this 't Has 
 he met the argument? Supposing the Catholics held such a 
 doctrine ; supposing they maintained, that the magistrates* duty 
 is to be "nursing fa'jiiers" to the Church, as thej/ understand 
 it; how loudly would the country ring with denunciations against 
 them ! Yet here is the doctrine avowed by the Presbyterian 
 creed; and its ministers pretend, that they are only anxious, 
 forsooth, that all denominations should be equally protected ! 
 
 The gentleman says, " we hold, that not only the Presbyte- 
 rians, but all, every where, who love the Lord are of Christ's 
 Church." Now, this is something like charity. But he forgets, 
 that he and a few others, at Pittsburg, excommunicated the 
 whole Catholic world, both of the present and of past gene- 
 rations, as being no part of the Church of Christ. Now, he 
 tells us, that if they " loved the Lord," they icere " of Christ's 
 Church." Why, then, did he not postpone their excommunication, 
 until he should be certain whether they "loved the Lord," or 
 not? But in making the "love of the Lord" the criterion of 
 " Christ's Church," has he stated the Presbyterian doctrine? 
 Not he, indeed. The universal designation, in the Confession of 
 Faith, is not those " who love the Lord," but those who "PRO- 
 FESS THE TRUE RELIGION, TOGETHER WITH THEIR 
 CHILDREN." (1) The Synod of York may meet again, and 
 before the period of its meeting, I advise the gentleman to re- 
 tract his NEW definition, and to return to the " standards." 
 Otherwise, his orthodoxy may become a subject of investigation. 
 
 He says, " we (Presbyterians) believe a part of the true Church 
 lay hid in the Church of Rome, at the occurrence of the reforma- 
 tion." "J. part lay hid ;" then, the inference is, that since it was 
 " hid," he cannot know any thing respecting it. But the otiier 
 parts, that were not " hid" — does the gentleman know any thing 
 
 (1) See page iii 176, 346. 
 
 25 
 
394 
 
 of them either ? He testifies to what was invisible, ^'hid/' — and 
 acknowledges, that the other " part," or " parts" of the true 
 Church which were not invisible, were nowhere to be found ! ! 
 In fact, the Church was visible then, as it is now. 
 
 The quotation, which the gentleman has adduced from the Ca- 
 tholic Telegraph, as evidence of Catholic sentiment respecting 
 this government, is every way discreditable to him, as a logician, 
 and as a friend of truth. As a logician, because, if the writer of 
 it had been a Catholic of the United States, still it would be 
 illogical and unjust to make the whole body of the Catholics 
 accountable for his assertions and views. As a lover of truth, 
 for in this character he knew, or ought to have known, that it 
 was an article copied from a Canadian paper, the Advocate, and 
 published to show the handle which the disgraceful proceedings, 
 in the destruction of the convent at Boston, were giving to the 
 enemies of repuhlican iiistitutions. If the gentleman did not 
 know this, he was culpably ignorant ; and he must excuse me 
 for saying what all honest men will admit, that his culpable 
 ignorance is no excuse for the calumnips with which he is at- 
 tempting to blacken the character of the Catholics of the country. 
 When, therefore, he says, it was the language of a "papal jour- 
 nal," the Catholic Telegraph, he says what is destitute of truth. 
 It was copied into that paper, from a foreign journal, as similar 
 articles were copied into most of our secular papers, without 
 being the language or the sentiments of the editors. 
 
 As for Bishop England's sentiments, on the propriety of lay- 
 men not interfering in the government of the Church, they are 
 such as he has a right, in the exercise of his own judgment, to 
 entertain and express. With us, doctrines are not made up, as 
 with Presbyterians, from the gatherings of the opinions of the 
 people. They are tenets of revelation ; they are held and taught 
 as such, and the votes of the people cannot make them true or 
 false. They were revealed to be taught and believed, and not to 
 be ^^ coughed down*' in such assemblies as the late Synod of 
 York. 
 
 When the gentleman represents Bishop England, as having 
 ^'disgraced himself by his open defence of the inquisition," he 
 states, or assumes against that calumniated prelate, a charge which 
 is utterly false. He did, what I have done myself, in the former 
 part of this Discussion ; — he instructed the popular ignorance of 
 those Protestants, who supposed, — -'from the prejudices instilled 
 into them by false teaching from the pulpits, and false statements 
 in books, — that the inquisition was a portion of the Catholic reli- 
 gion. He proved, that it was no such thing. The charge of " de- 
 fending the inquisition," deserves the same appellation by which 
 the Protestant editor of Cincinnati characterized the calumny, 
 published in all the Presbyterian papers, and never corrected in 
 any, about '' hats off gentlemen, the bishop's coming" — he 
 
895 
 
 called it an " impudent lie." But I shall not so designate this 
 charge against Bishop England. I shall only say, it is unfounded 
 in truth. 
 
 The quotation from Pallavicini is not to be found in the refer- 
 ence given. The gentleman could not understand it, if he saw it. 
 Let him, therefore, get some one who can give the reference cor- 
 rectly. In the meantime, it purports to be ^^The advice given to 
 Paul III. hy FOUR cardinals, and nvE other prelates, whose 
 names are written zmder, in order to the amendment of the state 
 of the Church.'' And yet, though there are ^'four'^ and "five" 
 names '' under-written' ' in the document, the translator, when 
 he has given ''eight" names, says, with much simplicity, there 
 should he another to make nine ! !" But, besides this, Raynaldi, 
 in reference to this document, states, positively, that it was 
 vitiated in the marginal notes, put by both Sturraius and Luther. 
 Supposing, however, that it is precisely what the gentleman 
 represents, it only proves the solicitude of its authors, to see men 
 brought back to the purity and holiness of Catholic morals; and 
 certainly does not prove, that the doctrines of the Presbyterian 
 religion are 7iot opposed to civil and religious liberty. 
 
 The gentleman, in pretending to meet my argument on the 
 subject of predestination, represents me as charging on Presbyte- 
 rians DISHONESTY AND IMMORALITY. Here, again, I am con- 
 strained to advise the meeting, that his statement is not to be 
 depended on. AVhoever will take the trouble to examine the 
 passage, as it stands in my speech, will discover, that I showed 
 simply the consequences naturally flowing from the doctrine of 
 "Grod's decrees," as stated in the Confession of Faith ; by which, 
 men are ''foreordained" from all eternity to everlasting life, or 
 everlasting death, in such a manner, that neither their good 
 works, nor their evil actions can, in the least, alter or affect their 
 eternal destiny. This is the doctrine of Presbyterianism-^-the 
 gentleman cannot deny it. As a necessary ^^consequence'' of this 
 doctrine, I stated, that Presbyterians " mai/" commit every im- 
 moral act to which selfish or sectarian ambition prompts them. 
 He represents me, as chargiwj them with actually doing these 
 immoral actsj and it is in this, that he ^^ hears false luitncss 
 against his neighhour,'^ and makes the statement which is not to 
 be depended on. Yet, it is a fact, that is sustained by the gene- 
 ral experience of mankind, that the more " religious" Presbyte- 
 rian individuals become, the more diminished is the confidence 
 which persons of other denominatiuus are willing to place in their 
 integrity, as regards matters of this world generally. Those 
 who before were frank, sincere, generous, charitable, and every 
 thing that man has a right to expect from his fellow men in the 
 social relations of life, become, — from the moment they are deeply 
 indoctrinated in the Confession of Faith, — more or less gloomy, 
 morose, illiberal, uncharitable, (except to saints like themselves,) 
 
V 896 
 
 and with regard to the rest of manldnd, infinitely pharisaical. 
 In general, however, the worst of them are greatly better than 
 their creed. Common sense, the opinions of mankind, and the 
 inextinguishable sympathies of human nature, work out in prac- 
 tice, and defeat the irresponsible licentiousness, that is authorized 
 by a doctrine, which teaches, that all men will be saved or damned 
 by a '< DECREE," fixed from all eternity, and which neither 
 good works nor bad works have any power to alter. All things 
 are "FOREORDAINED." This is enough. It brings the 
 matter to this point, that whenever a crime is committed, it could 
 not be avoided by the agent, who was acting under the eternal 
 DECREE OF OMNIPOTENCE. 
 
 The gentleman wishes me to charge the Presbyterians directly 
 with the immoralities, thus autl^^rized, in the doctrine of their 
 creed. Then, he would say, that. /was a calumniator, and HE 
 would- be the defender, of their character. I charge not their 
 character; and his certificates from Bancroft and Burnet are, to 
 my mind, extremely ridiculous. The argument does not require 
 me to show what Presbyterians are, but what their creed makes 
 it of no importance in the future life for them to have been. 
 
 He asks me whether I know who Burnet was ? I answer yes. 
 He was the husband of a Presbyterian icife — the son of a Pres- 
 byterian mother. He was an Episcopalian in head, for he wore 
 a bishop's mitre, and received a bishop's revenue. But he was, 
 probabiy, and in my opinion, decidedly, a Presbyterian in heart. 
 He was a faithless historian, who published, as HISTORY, says 
 Sir James Macintosh, " the evidence on one side thus raked to- 
 gether by him as a purveying advocate," against the legiti- 
 macy and claims of the Prince of Wales to the throne of Eng- 
 land. When the "evidence" "raked together," expressly and 
 avowedly for that 'p^irpose, was found to be unnecessary, he pub- 
 lished it as HISTORY. (1) 
 
 And now, since I have shown, that I know who Burnet was, 
 and who " Usher" was, I must beg leave to cite, by way of certi- 
 ficate, for the morality of Presbyterians, the testimony, not of a 
 Unitarian, or a Papist, or a moderate Arminian, but of th(i whole 
 Church of Scotland, met in General Assembly. Let the gentle- 
 man and the audience not say, that Mr. Hughes is slandering the 
 Presbyterian denomination — the witnesses are the United Fathers 
 of the Church itself. In the preamble to an act of the Assembly, 
 passed in the year 1578, it is set forth, that •' the General 
 Assembly of the kirk finding universal corruption of 
 the aviiole estates of the body of the realm, the great 
 
 coldness and slackness in religion in THE GREATEST PART 
 OF THE PROFESSORS OF THE SAME, WITH THE DAILY INCREASE 
 OF ALL KIND OF FEARFUL SINS AND. ENORMITIES, AS INCESTS, 
 
 (1) Macintosh's History of Revolution, p. 617. 
 
89T 
 
 ADULTERIES, MURDERS, (COMMITTED IN EDINBURGH AND STIR- 
 LING,) CURSED SACRILEGE, UNGODLY SEDITION AND DIVISION 
 WITHIN THE BOWELS OF THE REALM, WITH ALL MANNER OP 
 DISORDERED AND UNGODLY LIVING," &C. &C. 
 
 In the year 1648, about seventy years after this, the Grcneral 
 Assembly again testify to the state of Presbyterian morality in 
 Scotland ; and state, that '^ignorance OF GoD, and of his son, 
 Jesus Christ, prevailed exceedingly in the land; that 
 IT were impossible to reckon up all the abominations 
 that were in the land; and that the blaspheming of the 
 NAME of God, swearing by the creatures, profanation op 
 the Lord's day, uncleanliness, excess and rioting, vani- 
 ty OF APPAREL, lying AND DECEIT, RAILING AND CURSING, 
 arbitrary and uncontrolled oppression, and GRINDING 
 THE faces of the POOR BY LANDLORDS AND OTHERS IN PLACE 
 AND POWER, AVERE BECOME ORDINARY AND COMMON SINS." (1) 
 
 The testimony of the associate synod, as late as the year 1778, 
 is of similar import. *'A general unbelief of revealed reli- 
 gion (prevails) among the higher orders of our country- 
 men, which hath, by a necessary consequence produced, 
 IN vast numbers, an absolute indifference as to what 
 they believe, either concerning truth or duty, any far- 
 ther THAN IT may comport WITH THEIR WORLDLY VIEWS." (2) 
 
 Then, speaking not of the '' higher orders," but of the ^^coun- 
 try generally," they lament it as nova, *' through the preva- 
 lence OF INFIDELITY, IGNORANCE, LUXURY, AND VENALITY 
 SO MUCH DESPOILED OF ALL RELIGION, AND FEELING THE 
 WANT OF IT." (3) 
 
 If we go back to tbe first congregation of Presbyterians in Scot- 
 land, those who murdered Cardinal Beaton and their associates, 
 including their preachers, John Rough and John Knox, we shall 
 find, that the picture of morals was nearly uniform from first to 
 last. Buchanan, a Presbyterian himself, tells us that, after having 
 exercised on the cardinal, what Fox, in his lying book of Mar- 
 tyrs, blasphemously calls not only the "judgment," but the 
 
 "WORK" of God, "THEY MADE A VERY BAD USE OF THIS 
 
 respite, which this temporary accommodation procured 
 them; and that, notwithstanding the admonitions op 
 Knox, they spent their time in whoredom and adul- 
 tery, AND ALL the VICES OF IDLENESS." (4) 
 
 Take in connexion with this state of public morals, the hypo 
 critical sanctimoniousness which made them so tender of " God's 
 honour," that, whilst these crimes were flagrant and universal 
 
 (1) Acknowledgement of Sins. 
 
 (2) Warning, p. 54. 
 
 (3) Ibid, p. 64. 
 
 (4) Guthrie's History of Scotland, V. p. 397. 
 
among themselves, thej were passing laws, making it death for the 
 Catholic to have " heard or said mass three times" ! ! ! They 
 whine over their own flagrant violations of the law of God, whilst, 
 by way of appeasing Heaven, they twist the rope, or whet the 
 sword of death against the Catholic for an act of religions worship 
 ** according to the dictates of his conscience,'^ and performed too, 
 it may be, with closed and bolted doors, or in the cave of the 
 mountains. Sir, the gentleman must be profoundly ignorant of 
 the history of his system, or he never would have pushed himself 
 forward on public notice as tfie advocate of civil and religious 
 liberty, and that, too, in the name of Presbyterianism, above all 
 others' creeds ! ! He must have supposed that I was as unac- 
 quainted with it as himself, or he never would have forced himself 
 on my attention, seeing that, if I did not spurn his advances, I, 
 at least, shrank from his importunate approaches. Let him now 
 leave oiF borrowing " certificates " of character from Bancroft and 
 Burnet; and make himself acquainted with history — with the tes- 
 timony of the Presbyterian fathers; and if he can refute it, let 
 him do so. If he cannot — let him acknowledge, that, whilst 
 Bancroft, a Unitarian, had nothing to say of the Presbyterians, 
 except that they were a little ^' gloomy " or so, the friends, yea 
 the fathers of the Church, have quite a difibrent tale to tell. 
 
 But the question, after all, is not whether Presbyterians are, or 
 are not, less moral than other denominations. I am willing to 
 admit that they are as moral as others ; and that, as regards the 
 " outside of the platter," the reading of the Bible, the keeping of 
 the Sabbath, and the censuring of their neighbours for not being, 
 and in the same way, as good as themselves ; — the saints among 
 the Presbyterians, male and female, are the strictest moralists that 
 have appeared in the world — since the days of the Pharisees. But 
 the question is, what motive for holiness is held forth; what 
 ability to be virtuous is recognised in the Presbyterian creed ? 
 Men, in that system, are saved by election, and damned by pre- 
 destination; and their works, GOOD or BAD, were ''foreordained" 
 from all eternity. Where is the motive to morality in this sys- 
 tem ; where is the freedom of human agency, necessary to a moral 
 action, recogiiised? No where. EVERY THINGr is eternally, 
 omnipotently, immutably " foreordained." Then where is free- 
 dom ? Let the gentleman answer this, t shudder at the conse- 
 quences of this doctrine, in relation to the attributes of the good 
 and just Deity. And no wonder, when I see Calvin advancing, as 
 a doctrine of Christianity, that it is not absurd to assign the same 
 crime (suppose murder) to GoD, to Satan, and to man, (1) 
 When I see him refuting, or attempting to refute those who main- 
 tain, that God only permits the existence of evil, and the com- 
 mission of crime, and asserting, that he (God) positively wills 
 
 (1) Institutes, Lib. 2. Chap. IV. 
 
399 
 
 and ordains the commission of crimes^ so as to be called the 
 
 *' AUTHOR OP THEM." 
 
 "Etjani satu aperth ostendi, DEUM VOCARI OMNIUM EORUM 
 (criminum) AUCTOREM, qaoc isti censores volurit otioso tantum 
 ejus permUsu coiitinr/ere." 
 
 *'/ have shown already^ with sufficient clearness^^ sai/s 7ie, 
 "THAT God is called the AUTHOR of those (crimes,) 
 which these censors will have, as happening ONLY by his indolent 
 permission." (1) 
 
 It is no pleasure to me, sir, to make these exhibitions of what 
 it must be painful to the feelings of Presbyterians to read, but 
 even they cannot justly censure me, for spreading out a doctrinal 
 principle of their religion, which, if applied in practice, would 
 sap the foundations of public and private virtue. When Presby- 
 terian ministers have relinquished the preaching of '^ peace and 
 good wi/l among men," and not content with enjoying the rights 
 of conscience, themselves, are endeavouring to deprive their Ro- 
 man Catholic fellow-citizens of that sacred right, by firing the 
 passions of the multitude — the ignorant multitude, into the belief, 
 that by destroying our property, as well as our character, they 
 would be doing a service to God and to their country — it is time 
 to advise the true lovers of civil and religious liberty, of the 
 principles of doctrine by which they are actuated. Let them 
 only succeed to remove one tile from the sacred edifice of reli- 
 gious freedom, whose vaulted roof is ample enough to protect all, 
 and as time rolls on, not a stone upon a stone will remain, dovra 
 to its deepest foundation. 
 
 Here are two principles which are enough to move the world. 
 The one, that their salvation being dependent on the decree 
 of God, cannot be secured nor aided by VIRTUE — (if it can, let 
 the gentleman say so) — cannot be defeated or jeoparded, by 
 crime — if it can, again, let him say so. 
 
 The other principle is, that they avow it as an obligation im- 
 posed on theiri by Almighty God, to " remove all false wor- 
 ship, and all monuments" of WHAT they are arrogantly pleased 
 to call '^idolatry;" and this "ACCORDING to each one's 
 PLACE AND CALLING." Not Only Catholic Churches and Convents, 
 but "ALL FALSE WORSHIP." In this supposed commandment, (for 
 G#d never made a commandment for Presbyterians, which he did 
 not make equally for all denominations,) is to be found the solu- 
 tion of that restlessness, that turbulence and domineering, which 
 has stood forth in the uniform history of the Presbyterians, as a 
 moral problem exciting the curiosity of those who were unac- 
 quainted with the doctrinal principle from which it emanated. 
 Suppose each denomination were to make for itself such an obli- 
 gation, and then say, that God had imposed it, what would be 
 
 (I) Institutes, Lib. 1, Chap. XVIIL, Sec. 3. 
 
400 
 
 the consequence, on tbe hypothesis, that all should try, as all 
 are bound, to keep the commandments of God? 
 
 The gentleman is much annoyed by the uniform language of 
 intolerance and presumption, found in all the Confessions of 
 Faith, of the Calvinistic Churches, as exhibited in my last speech. 
 Those doctrines unequivocally stated in their standards, if re- 
 duced to practice, would not leave another denomination in the 
 land. And in this, they are not a particle more inimical to civil 
 and religious liberty, than the present Confession, the single 
 clause making it their duty, imposed by God himself, to " re- 
 move ALL FALSE WORSHIP," even in the United States, being 
 equivalent to all the tyranny over conscience, expressed in the 
 the creeds of other times, and other countries. I refer the reader 
 to those documents, and request him to consider what conse- 
 quences they would lead to, if reduced to practice. 
 
 The gentleman's only defence is, that some passages in those 
 creeds have been left out of the American Confession ] as I never 
 failed to mention. To this defence I have to make a few observa- 
 tions in reply, which will show that it is perfectly nugatory. Jst. 
 The difference is only in words, the doctrine, as I have shown, 
 being substantiaUy the same in all. 2d. The OMISSION of a few 
 phrases in the genuine and original Confessions of Faith, which 
 would have alarmed the friends of civil and religious freedom in 
 this country, by their naked arrogance, is no proof that the doc- 
 trine expressed by them has been rejected or condemned as hereti- 
 cal. The gentleman, indeed, has said that they were heretical in 
 religion as well as in politics. But he has given no proof. You 
 may imagine how hard he is pressed, when he throws all Presby- 
 terians overboard, as believers in a heretical doctrine, except 
 those of the United States, since the Revolution. And yet the 
 same doctrine for which he condemns them, is substantially and 
 unequivocally expressed in their creed at the present day, as I 
 have already established. According to him, the Calvins, the 
 Knoxes, the Lightfoots, the whole Assembly of Westminster, 
 i\\dii framed the standards, were all, in so much, heretics. Now 
 it is a pity, that after such a generous immolation of Presbyte- 
 rian fathers, still his argument should fail. Why ? Because the 
 Presbyterian Church in this country, regards those Presbyterian 
 Churches of other times and countries, whose creeds I quoted in 
 my last speech, as sound in the faith. As such, they hold 
 communion with them, proving thereby, that the Presbyterians of 
 this country have NOT condemned those creeds, although their 
 persecuting clauses are not expressed in print, as fully as they had 
 been before the American Revolution. This the gentleman will 
 not venture to deny, and his admission of it is fatal to his defence. 
 But again, when ministers of those churches are admitted into the 
 Presbyterian Church, in this country, are they required to re- 
 nounce and condemn those doctrines which are omitted in the 
 
401 
 
 present republican standard ? They are not. This is equally 
 fatal to the gentleman's defence. And let him not affect to tell 
 us any more that the doctrines of the Presbyterians have been 
 reformed since the Revolution; these facts prove that on the doc- 
 trine of intolerance, the Presbyterians of the United States have 
 condemned nothing in those Confessions of Faith of England, 
 Scotland, Geneva, Holland, or elsewhere, which I quoted in ri\j 
 last speech. And yet, in opposition to these facts, the gentleman 
 has given up, and virtually denounced as heretics, those who are 
 regarded by the Presbyterian Church now, and in this country, 
 as sound and orthodox, whilst they are known to hold the doc- 
 trines which he says have been rejected ! ! Had I not reason, 
 therefore, to say, that whenever a man stands forth to defend or 
 advocate civil and religious liberty, or the rights of conscience, 
 and at the same time professes belief in the Preshi/terlan reli'jion, 
 he attempts to reconcile contradiction, and renders himself neces- 
 sarily and supremely ridiculous. 
 
 The feature which was esssntially wanting to the argument 
 against the Catholic Church, is the fact, that persecution was 
 enjoined hy doctrine. That Catholic states, and Catholic writers 
 of great eminence, have advocated principles adverse to liberty 
 of conscience, is not disputed. That other Catholic states and 
 writers have supported opposite principles, is what the gentleman 
 will not venture to deny. But, on the other side, this is not the 
 case. All the blood that has been shed by Presbyterians, has been 
 shed on a principle of doctrine. This constitutes the diiference. 
 I do not say, that the Presbyterians are persecutors in this coun- 
 try; but I do say, that in this, they act in opposition to their 
 doctrine, as stated in all their Confessions of Faitfi — including 
 the one that obliges them to remove "all false worship." 
 
 We shall now see the effects of these doctrines in countries in 
 which they have been reduced to practice. Calvin is the father 
 and founder of the Presbyterian religion. He is one of the great 
 reformers. His praise is in all the Churches. His doctrine on 
 this subject is what is found in the Confessions of Faith; — his 
 conduct, in practising that doctrine, shall be the evidence of its 
 friendship to civil and religious liberty. I shall content myself 
 with stating a few principal facts, omitting many circumstances 
 calculated to heighten the atrocity of the proceedings. I shall 
 quote also from Protestant historians. 
 
 A man of the name of Gruet, in Geneva, for exercising liberty 
 of conscience, and calling Calvin the "new Pope," was put to 
 death in 1550. (1) Sebastian Castalio, master of the public 
 school of Geneva, for using the liberty of thought and speech 
 against Calvin's "unconditional predestination," was deposed 
 from his office, and banished from the city. (2) Jerome Bolsec, 
 
 (1) Moshoim, vol. ii. p. 125. (2) Ibid. 
 
402 
 
 for diiFeriug in opinion from Calvin, was imprisoned first, and 
 afterwards sent into banishment. (1) Jacque de Bourgoyne, a 
 nobleman, to '^ avoid Calvin's vengeance," says Mosheim, for 
 having endeavoured to save Bolsec, removed from Geneva, and 
 passed the remainder of his days in rural retreat. (2) Who under- 
 stood Calvinism better than Calvin? And Ins practice is the 
 best commentary on the second commandment, which obliges all 
 Presbyterians, by the commandment of God, to " remove all 
 FALSE worship." Calvin fulfilled this commandment, by '' re- 
 moving" the ''false worshippers," which amounts to the same. 
 These instances of persecution and death for conscience' sake, are 
 generally lost sight of in magnitude of the horror with which the 
 mind is filled by the execution of Servetus, and its circum- 
 stances. I admit, that lie was a heretic, but in this he was only 
 like Calvin himself. It was this man's misfortune to have de- 
 tected and exposed several mistakes and errors in Calvin's Insti- 
 tutes, which inspired this Pope of Geneva with such hatred, that 
 he declared, writing to Viret and Farel, that "if ever this heretic 
 (Servetus) should fall into his hands, he would order it so, that 
 it should cost him his life." It is to be borne in mind, that Ser- 
 vetus was not in, any manner subject to the laws of Geneva, either 
 civil or religious. But, passing on his way as a traveller, he was 
 about to cross the lake to Zurich, and whilst waiting for a boat, 
 was betrayed to Calvin, who had him arrested and thrown into 
 prison. This was on a Sunday, when it was unlawful to arrest any 
 one, except for a capital crime. But Calvin, in opposition to the 
 laws of God, the laws of the state, the rights of nations, and the 
 voice of human nature, had him seized on the spot. His situation 
 is described by a Protestant historian in the following words : "i^ar 
 from his oion country^ fallen into the hands of cruel strangers^ 
 all under the influence of Calvin, his avowed enemy, who hore 
 him a mortal hatred ; stript of all his property ; confined in a 
 damp p>rison, and neglected till he was almost eaten up with 
 vermin, denied an advocate, and loaded ivith every indignity 
 that harharity could invent. (3) The fate of Servetus was, that 
 he was burned to death by Calvin's procurement, on the 27th of 
 October, 1553. Such is the practice of the Calvanistic doctrine, 
 in regard to heretics, as exemplified in the life of its author, Cal- 
 vin himself. To show that his cruel heart never felt the sting of 
 remorse for this murder, which was, of course, "foreordained" in 
 the "decrees of God," he wrote a book entitled, "A faithful 
 
 ACCOUNT OF the ERRORS OF MiCHAEL SeRVETUS, IN WHICH IT 
 IS PROVED, THAT HERETICS OUGHT TO BE RESTRAINED WITH 
 
 THE SWORD." Not Only this; in his letter to the Marques de 
 Poet, dated September oOth, 1561, he says, ^'Honour, glory, and 
 
 (1) Mosheim, vol. ii. p. 125. (2) P. 126. 
 
 (.3) Kobiiisou's Eccles. Researches, p. 340. 
 
403 
 
 riches shall he the reward of your pains : hut, ahove all, do not 
 fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels, who stir up 
 the country to revolt AGAINST US. SuCH MONSTERS SHOULD BE 
 EXTERMINATED, AS I HAVE EXTERMINATED MlCHAEL SeR- 
 
 VETus, THE Spaniard." 
 
 Such was the maa, by whom the Presbyterian religion was 
 founded. And in every country in which that religion has pre- 
 vailed, and become supreme in political power, its doctrines have 
 sanctioned persecution, and its hands have been stained with 
 blood. I state this fact on the faith of history, and if the gen- 
 tleman can point out a single exception, I shall acknowledge, 
 that in one instance the statement is incorrect. 
 
 Let us begin with the Calvinistic cantons of Switzerland. If 
 the doctrines of the Calviuists had authorized the persecution of 
 only Catholics, its advocates might claim sympathy from the other 
 Protestant denominations. But the fact is, that all sects were 
 alike to it. It claimed ftie right to dictate to men's consciences; 
 and wo be to those who were not prepared to fall down and wor- 
 ship its arrogant pretensions to infallibility. In the Cantons of 
 Switzerland, it punished with fine, such of its own citizens as 
 should exercise the rights of conscience in embracing the Baptist 
 religion. Baptists who were not citizens, were " banished with 
 
 THE express threat, THAT IF THEY RETURNED THEY SHOULD 
 BE DROWNED TOGETHER WITH THEIR LEADERS."(1) In the 
 
 Canton of Zurich, it was decreed that not only the Baptists them- 
 selves, but those who protected them, should be PUT TO death. 
 Those who would not inform against them, were condemned as 
 
 perjurers to IMPRISONMENT AND EXILE. " Be punir ch mortj 
 soit les Anahaptistes, soit ceux qui les protegeroient : et d'empri- 
 sonner, et de banner meme, comme des parjures, ceux qui ne les 
 deceleroient pas." (2) Some of these wretched Baptists having 
 returned to the country, were actually put to death by drown- 
 ing, "a cause de leur opiniatrefe, on les noya."{^) In Berne, 
 the punishment against the Baptists was, that the men should be 
 BEHEADED, and the women drowned. In 1566, Gentillis was 
 beheaded at Berne, for judging for himself, in opposition to Cal- 
 vinistic infallibility. x\nd as late as 1633, Anthony, a minister 
 at Geneva, was burned to death for the same crime. (4) This 
 is the effectual fulfilment of the second commandment, ^' removing 
 all false worship." This is the practical exemplification of the 
 doctrine that turns the magistrates into " nursing fathers to the 
 church." It is remarkable, that whilst in Holland they put the 
 heretics to death by the hloch ; in Geneva by the stake ; in New 
 England by hanging ; they selected drowning for the Baptists 
 
 (1) Ruchets' Hist, of Refor. in Switzerland, vol.1, p. 556. 
 
 (2) Idem, vol. iii. p. 99. (3) Idem, vol. iv. p. 218. 
 (4) Priestley's Church Hist. vol. iii. p. 359. 
 
404 
 
 m Switzerland, as if they would pun on the supposed heresy of 
 their victims, by the manner of their execution. 
 
 The second saint in the Presbyterian Calendar, is John Knox. 
 He was what may be termed, legate a latere, to the ''Pope of 
 Geneva." He was the principal framer of Presbyterian doctrine 
 and discipline in Scotland, and, like his master, he held these 
 "tenets of faith," which made it his duty to be a man of blood. 
 This is not the place to enter on the conduct or character of Car- 
 dinal Beaton, who is by no means regarded either as a saint or a 
 martyr in the Catholic Church. He was a man who fell by 
 hands of assassins ; and John Knox, according to Doctor Heylin, 
 characterizes that cold-blooded assassination as a ''godly act." 
 
 Of course, according to the Confession of Faith, this assassina- 
 tioji was one of those things which God had " foreordained" 
 in his *' eternal decrees." This Knox's understanding of the 
 doctrine of the Presbyterian religion is clear, not only from his 
 calling the murder of Beaton a "godly act," but also from those 
 principles which he laid down as universal tenets of faith. 
 
 " Ye are bound to REMOVE from honour, and to 
 PUNISH WITH DEATPI {if the crime so require) SUCH as 
 
 DECEIVE THE PEOPLE, OR DEFRAUD THEM OF THAT FOOD OF 
 THEIR SOULS, I MEAN God's LIVELY AVORD." (1) 
 
 " none provoking the people to idolatry ought to 
 be exempted from the punishment of death." (2) 
 
 " The punishment of \such crimes as are idolatry, 
 blasphemy, and others that touch the majesty of god, 
 doth not appertain to the kings and chief rulers 
 
 only but to the whole body of the people, and to 
 
 every member of the same." (3) 
 
 " It IS NOT ONLY LAWFUL TO PUNISH TO THE DEATH 
 
 SUCH AS LABOUR TO SUBVERT THE TRUE RELIGION, BUT THE MA- 
 GISTRATES AND PEOPLE ARE BOUND SO TO DO, unless they 
 
 WILL provoke the WRATH OF GoD AGAINST THEMSELVES." (4) 
 
 " Intimation was made to others, as to the abbot of 
 
 CORRAGNEL, THE PARSON OF SaNGHAR, AND SUCH, THAT THEY 
 SHOULD NEITHER COMPLAIN TO THE QUEEN NOR COUNCIL, BUT 
 SHOULD EXECUTE THE PUNISHMENT THAT GoD HAS APPOINTED 
 TO IDOLATERS IN HIS WORD, WHEREVER THEY SHOULD BE 
 FOUND." (5) 
 
 Here we see the true origin and meaning of the Confession of 
 Faith, touching the duty of the "magistrates" as "nursing fa- 
 thers" to the church. Here we see the true and original meaning 
 of the texts of Scripture, still preserved in the Confession of Faith, 
 directing the reader to those punishments which " God had ap- 
 pointed to idolaters in the old law." Here we see, not only the 
 magistrates, but the people instructed, in the name of the insulted 
 
 (1) Appeal to Knox's Hist, of Reform, p. 10. (2) Idem, p. 21. 
 
 (3) Idem, p. 22. (4) Idem, p. 25. (5) Knox's Hist., p. 352. 
 
405 
 
 God, that not only they may, but that they ''are bound" to 
 murder id ohiters, bksphemers, and such as by "false worship" 
 do touch the divine Majesty. Here we see the true meaning and 
 origin of the Presbyterian second commandment, about "detesting 
 and opposing all false worship, and, according to each one's place 
 and calling, removing it and all the monuments of idolatry." 
 Here we see the meaning of those texts which we find even in the 
 republican edition of the Westminster Confession, in which the 
 Presbyterian denomination claims the authority of God " to smite 
 the seven nations stronger and mightier than they, and to show 
 no mercy to them." (1) And yet the gentleman is, or affects to 
 be, ignorant of the meaning of those passages in his creed, which 
 I have pointed out as opposed to civil and religious liberty. These 
 evidences from Geneva and Scotland show how the Presbyterian 
 religion came to have followers, and by what kind of arguments 
 it maintained itself. They show what reason Houston had to 
 say that it made but little progress until the " magistrates," 
 "according to their place and calling," became "nursing fathers," 
 and set about " removing all false worship and all the monuments 
 of idolatry." I say nothing of the arrogance of this creed, which, 
 founded, as it avowedly is, on private opimon, would dare to 
 pronounce as a settled question, that the religion of the Roman 
 Catholics is " idolatry," and that of all other denominations 
 "false worship" — and would claim for its own members, the 
 impudent right to "remove" them. 
 
 I beg, sir, the attention of this meeting to the operation of the 
 doctrine here stated, and which the gentleman d^es not deny to 
 be that of the Presbyterian creed. I have already exhibited the 
 reasons why it was in perfect accordance with the Presbyterian 
 religion for Dr. Ely to aim at what he innocently called a 
 "Christian party" in politics 3 and why, good man, he would 
 prefer a " sound Presbyterian" for, his chief magistrate. ' When- 
 ever that project shall be realized, the sleeping doctrines of the 
 second commandment will awake into action and effect. And 
 here it is that the seemingly unmeaning clause, "according to each 
 one's place and calling," will explain itself in irremediable works 
 of destruction to civil and religious liberty. Does the gentleman 
 say that this is Mr. Hughes's gratuitous assertion ? Then let the 
 operation of the doctrine, when it was reduced to practice, be its 
 interpreter. 
 
 We have already seen John Knox, the founder of Presbyte- 
 rianism in Scotland, "the man of God," proclaiming that the 
 people and magistrates were bound to put to death such as they 
 miglit consider to be guilty of blasphemy, heresy, or idolatry." 
 After commencing by that " godly act," the assassination of Car- 
 dinal Beaton, the progress of Calvinism in Scotland was traced 
 by that of sedition, violence, devastation and plunder. But once 
 (1) Deut. vii. 
 
406 
 
 fairly establislied on the ruins of a religion that had been intro- 
 duced by peace and persuasion, we shall see the operation of its 
 doctrines. There was a " Christian party in politics, and the 
 chief magistrate a sound Presbyterian ; " they were all bound to 
 *' remove all false worship, and all the monuments of idolatry — 
 each according to his place and calling/' 
 
 I shall quote from Lord Kames's Abridgement of the Statute 
 Law, an abstract, as published in the Scotch Magazine for Octo- 
 ber, 1778. 
 
 In 1581 it was enacted (1) ''That all professed papists be 
 
 OBLIGED TO LEAVE THE KINGDOM WITHIN A LIMITED TIME, UN- 
 LESS THEY WILL SUBSCRIBE THE CONFESSION OF FaITH J AND 
 
 THAT NONE SELL OR DISPERSE POPISH BOOKS under 
 
 THE PAIN OF BANISHMENT AND CONFISCATION OF MOVEABLES." 
 
 Is not this a beautiful specimen of the Presbyterian system, "ac- 
 cording to each one's place and calling?" Here is the amiable 
 practice of the doctrine which lies dormant in the Confession of 
 Faith, since the declaration of American Independence. But why 
 dormant ? Because the genius of civil and religious freedom would 
 not tolerate its blasphemous tyranny over thought and conscience. 
 Again, in 1587, it was enacted, (2) " That professed Jesuits 
 
 AND seminary PRIESTS, FOUND IN ANlf PART OF THE REALM, 
 SHALL BE APPREHENDED, PURSUED, AND INCUR THE PAIN OF 
 
 DEATH AND CONFISCATION OF MOVEABLES;— That 
 
 WHOEVER WILLINGLY AND WITTINGLY RECEIPTS AND SUPPLIES 
 ANY OF THEM FOR THE SPACE OP THREE DAYS AND THREE 
 NIGHTS TOGETHER, OR SEVERALLY AT THREE TIMES, SHALL IN- 
 CUR THE TINSEL OF THEIR LIFE-RENTS. ThAT ALL SAYERS AND 
 HEARERS OF MASS, ALL WHO REFUSE TO RESORT TO THE PREACH- 
 ING OF God's word, and all who shall, BY BEASONING-, 
 01^ DISPERSING OF BOOKS OR LETTERS, endeavour 
 
 TO PERSUADE ANY OP HIS MAJESTY'S SUBJECTS TO DECLINE 
 from the PROFESSION OF THE TRUE RELIGION, SHALL INCUR 
 THE TINSEL OF THEIR MOVEABLES AND OP THEIR LIFE-RENT." 
 
 In 1593, (3) it was enacted ''That the receipters afore- 
 said SHOULD, FOR THE FIRST FAULT, LOSE THEIR MOVEABLES, 
 THEIR LIFE-RENT FOR THE SJCCOND, AND FOR THE THIRD, IN- 
 CUR THE PAIN OF TREASON." We all know what that was. 
 
 An act passed in the year 1587, (4) ordered ^^ Papistical BOOKS 
 to he searched for and destroyed hy the magistrates of hwghs, 
 with concourse of the minister ; and those who import the same 
 to he punished in their persons and goods, at the king's ivill." 
 
 '^The saying of mass, receipting of Jesuits , seminary priests^ 
 trajfclcing papists, against the Icing's majesty and religion, pro- 
 fessed within the realm, declared to infer the PAIN OF TREA- 
 SON, hoth against the Jesuits, mass-priests, trafficking papists 
 
 (1) Chap. 106. (2) Idem, 24. (3) Idem, 168. (4) Idem, 25. 
 
407 
 
 and the raeipters of tliem ; hut in case of sati faction given to 
 the king and kirh, the receipters not to he liahle." (1) 
 
 By acts passed in the years 1594, ch. 196, and in 1607, ch. 1, 
 it was enacted, " That all wilful HEAIIERS OF MASS and 
 concealers of the mme, he CAPITALLY punished, and their 
 goods and gear escheated to the king's useJ' 
 
 ^^ Preshyteries ctppointed to summon before them all papists, 
 and those smpectecl of papistry, in order to satisfy the kirk, and 
 if tliey compear not, or refuse to give satisfaction, they are to he 
 dilated to the privy council ; who must direct letters, charging 
 the said papists, and those suspected of papistry, to appear hefore 
 them, and to produce sufficient certificates of due satisfaction 
 given to the kirk, under the PAIN OF rebellion, and of heing 
 PUT TO THE HORN : and if they fail therein that they he de- 
 nounced, and both their single and life-7-ent escheat belong to the 
 king. And whosoever receipts, supplies or entertains such per- 
 sons after dfmunciation aforesaid, shall also incur the penalty of 
 aingle or life-rent escheat." (2) 
 
 Here we see the doctrine of the gentleman's second command- 
 ment — after denouncing penalties against those who should dare 
 to exercise liberty of thought or conscience — going to extinguish 
 the feelings of human nature, by involving those who should show 
 them hospitality or kindness, in the same or kindred punishments. 
 
 In the year 1600(3) it was enacted that ^'the statutes made 
 against Jesuits, seminary priests, sayers and hearers of mass, 
 and their receijHers, should be put in due execution; with the 
 following explanation: — That the former acts shall be extended 
 against THE hearers AND sayers of mass, without exception. 
 That every person who HARBOURS a Jesuit, seminary priest, 
 <&c., shall be subjected to the 2^enalties of the former statutes, 
 as wilfully incurring the same, after being warned by public 
 intimation.'' 
 
 " A PREMIUM of five hundred marks was ordained by an 
 art, passed in 1700,(4) for DISCOVERINGl and SEIZING 
 any priest, Jesuit, or trafiicking papist that may be convicted." 
 
 These are beautiful specimens of liberty of conscience, as 
 understood by Presbyterians under the second commandment of 
 the Decalogue. 
 
 In 1700,(5) it was enacted, ^^If a man is held and reputed 
 to be a Jesuit, priest, or trafficking papist; or if it be made out 
 that he has changed his name or surname, either OF THESE 
 CIRCUMSTANCES, with his refusing to purge himself of popery, 
 shall he a sufficient cause for the privy council to banish him 
 
 (1) Acts passed in 1592, ch. 122; in 1607, ch. Ij and in 1601, ch. 8. 
 
 (2) Act of 1594, ch. 197. (3) Chap. 18. (4) Idem, 3. 
 (5) Idem, 3. 
 
408 
 
 forth of the realm, never to return, under pain of DEATH, 
 being a papist." 
 
 In other cases, even under pagans, a man was presumed inno- 
 cent until he was proved guilty. Here, he was condemned, if he 
 did not prove his innocence, under pain of BANISHMENT and 
 DEATH. And what was the crime ? It was the crime of wor- 
 shipping Grod, according to the dictate of his conscience ! ! These 
 instances are enough to prove the practical operation of the se« 
 cond commandment. But they prove more : they show that, 
 without the reasoning powers, the convincing influence, the per- 
 suasive eloquence of DEATH-INFLICTINa LAWS, the Pres- 
 byterians could not have induced the Scotch people to abandon 
 the religion that had civilized them, for the blasphemous doctrine 
 of blind predestination, and the tyrannical dogma, authorizing 
 Calvinists to oppress the thoughts and consciences of other men — 
 ^'according to each one's place and calling." 
 
 The doctrines of Calvinism were no less fruitful on this side of 
 the Atlantic, than they were in Scotland, England, and on the 
 continent of Europe. The Puritans had been themselves the 
 victims of Protestant persecution, and one would suppose, that 
 their own sufferings for conscience' sake, should have taught them 
 mercy towards others. But their conduct alone, after their arrival 
 on these shores, is sufficient to show that pure Calvinism and 
 gentle mercy, can never amalgamate in the human breast. 
 
 The gentleman will, no doubt, try to disown the Puritans, as 
 he has denied all his religious forefathers, down to the last amend- 
 ment of the Confession of Faith. But it will not do. In every 
 point relating to the duty of the " magistrates as nursing fathers," 
 in every point involving the question of civil and religious liberty, 
 their doctrines were identically the same. Neal, in his History 
 of the Puritans, tells us, vol. iii. p. 155, that from the meeting 
 of the Westminster Assembly, the " name of Puritans was to be 
 sunk," and that of "Presbyterians" substituted. This shows 
 that down to that period the two appellations were common in Eng- 
 land. So that the Puritans of New Eno;land were English Pres- 
 byterians, who had left the country before the meeting of the West- 
 minster divines. Their Church government was different from 
 that of Presbyterians, but i\\Q\v doctrine was on these subjects the 
 same. They, too, held it as a tenet of fiiith, that they were bound 
 to " remove, according to each one's place and calling, all false 
 worship, and all the monuments of idolatry." And their history 
 shows the practice to which this doctrine leads. In the United 
 States, since the civil government has guaranteed that the civil 
 and religious rights of all shall be equal, this doctrine is harmless, 
 because it is impracticable. It is still, however, declared to be a 
 commandment of God, and it is possible that, as soon as the Con- 
 stitution will permit, the «iints will return to the observance of it. 
 
 But when it reigned predominant among the Puritans of New 
 
409 
 
 England, what were its effects on men who were guilty of attempt- 
 ing to think for themselves, or of worshipping Almighty God, 
 according to the dictates of their own conscience ? They were 
 
 <' IMPRISONMENT," "FINING/^ CONFISCATION OF GOODS," "BA- 
 NISHING," "UNMERCIFUL SCOURGING," "BURNING WITH HOT 
 IRONS," "CUTTING OFF EARS," and "DESTROYING LIFE BY THE 
 
 IGNOMINIOUS GALLOWS." Here, again, we shall take Protestant 
 authority, that of Sewel, in his History of the Quakers. Now 
 if there ever was a denomination entiled to be tolerated, it was 
 this. Their errors, above those of all other sects, were purely er- 
 rors of the mind, exclusively matters between themselves and God. 
 In all the relations of life, their demeanour was that of meekness, 
 simplicity, integrity, and peace. They appeared with none of that 
 evangelical pugnacity with which Presbyterianism fought its way 
 into the places of power, and overthrew old tyrannies, to establish 
 young tyrannies on their ruins. And yet the stripes which per- 
 secution had inflicted on the Puritans, were scarcely healed, when 
 they themselves began to wield the lash against the inoffensive 
 Quakers. "These detestable scenes of more than savage barbarity, 
 says a Protestant writer, began in the month called July, 1656. 
 Mary Fisher, and Ann Austin, having arrived in the road before 
 Boston, the JDeputy Governor Bellingham, had them brought on 
 shore, and committed to prison as Quakers. They were stript 
 naked under pretence of knowing whether they were witches ; and 
 in this search, (says Sewel,) they were so barbarously misused^ 
 that modesty forbids to mention it. After about five weeks' im- 
 prisonment, they were sent back to Old England, THEIR BEDS 
 AND BIBLES BEING TAKEN BY THE JAILOR FOR HIS 
 FEES." (1) 
 
 " Scarce a month after, eight others of those called Quakers, 
 came; they were locked up in the same manner as the former; 
 and after about eleven weeks' stay, they were sent back. John 
 Endicot bid them ' TAKE HEED THAT YE BREAK NOT 
 OUR ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS, FOR THEN YE ARE 
 SURE TO STRETCH BY THE HALTER.' " 
 
 " Then a law was made to prohibit all masters of ships from 
 bringing any Quakers into that jurisdiction. Nicholas Upsal, a 
 member of the Church, and a man of unblameable character, for 
 speaking against such proceedings, was fined twenty-three pounds, 
 and IMPRISONED also, for iwt coming to Church; next they ban- 
 ished him out of their jurisdiction; and though a weakly old 
 man, yet he was forced to depart in the winter. Nicholas after- 
 wards, met with an Indian Prince, who having understood how 
 he had been used, offered to make Irim a warm house ; and further 
 said, 'WHAT A GOD HAVE THE ENGLISH, WHO DEAL 
 SO WITH ONE ANOTHER ABOUT THEIR GODl' " (2) 
 
 (1) Sewel'fi History, p. 157. (2) Idem, pp. 168, 169. 
 
 I 26 
 
410 
 
 "The following year, 1657, Anne Burden, and Mary Dyer, 
 Were imprisoned at Boston; and Mary Clark, for learning these 
 persecutors to desist from their iniquity , was unmercifully re- 
 warded with TWENTY STRIPES OF A THREE-CORDED 
 WHIP, ON HER NAKED BACK, and detained in prison about 
 three months, in the winter season. The cords of these whips 
 were commonly as thick as a man's little finger, having each some 
 knots at the end." 
 
 '' Christopher Holder, and John Copeland, WERE WHIPT AT 
 BOSTON, the same year, each thirty stripes, with a knotted whip 
 of three cords, the hangman measuring his ground and fetching 
 the strokes with all the force he could, which so cruelly cut their 
 flesh, that a woman seeing it, fell down for dead. Then they 
 were locked up in prison, and kept three days without food, or so 
 much as a drink of water, and detained in prison for nine weeks, 
 in the cold winter season, without fire, bed, or straw.'' 
 
 ** Lawrence and Cassandra Southick, and their son Josiah, being 
 carried to Boston, were all of them, notwithstanding the old age 
 of the two, sent to the House of Correction, and whipt with cords, 
 as those before, in the coldest season of the year, and had taken 
 from them to the value of four pounds ten shillings, for not com- 
 ing to Church:'' 
 
 " In the year 1658, a law was made, which besides imposing 
 heavy penalties and imprisonments, extended to working in the 
 House of Correction, SEVERE WHIPPING, CUTTING OFF 
 EARS, and BORING THROUGH THEIR TONGUES WITH 
 A RED HOT IRON, whether male or female, and such like in- 
 human barbarities.'' (1) 
 
 " The same year William Brend, and William Leddra, came to 
 Newberry ; thence they were carried to Boston to the House of 
 Correction, to work there ] but they, unwilling to submit thereto, 
 were kept five days without any food, and then beaten twenty 
 strokes with a three-corded ivhij)." 
 
 *^ Next they were put into irons, neck and heels, so close together, 
 that there was no more room left between, than for the lock that 
 fastened them and kept in that situation sixteen hours, and then 
 brought to the mill to work; but Brend refusing, was beaten by 
 the inhuman jailor, with a pitched rope, more than a hundred 
 strokes, till his flesh was bruised into a jelly, his body turned cold, 
 and for some time he had neither seeing, feeling, nor hearing." (2) 
 
 The pars >n, John Norton, was heard to say, " WILLIAM 
 BREND ENDEAVOURED TO BEAT OUR GOSPEL ORDI- 
 NANCES BLACK AND BLUE, IF THEN HE BE BEATEN 
 BLACK AND BLUE, IT IS BUT JUST UPON HIM; and I 
 will appear in the behalf of him that did so'' (3) 
 
 (1) Sewel's IHstorv, p. 191. (2) Idem, pp. 190, 192. 
 
 ^3) Idem, pp. 193, 19-4. 
 
411 
 
 "In the same year, John Copeland, Christopher Holder, and 
 John Rous, were taken up, and in a private manner, HAD THEIR 
 RIGHT EARS CUT OFF BY AUTHORITY, and, as if these 
 inhuman barbarities were not sufficient, John Norton, and other 
 parsons, petitioned for a Liw to banish the Quakers ON PAIN 
 OF DEATH. The petition was granted October 20th, 1658, by 
 the Court of Boston. A short extract of the law is as follows : 
 
 ^' Whereas, there is a pernicious se«t, (commonly called Qua- 
 kers,) do take upon them to change and alter the received lauda- 
 ble customs of our nation, and also to destroy the order of the 
 Churches, by DENYING ALL ESTABLISHED FORMS OF 
 WORSHIP; for prevention thereof, this Court doth order and 
 enact, that every person or persons being convicted to be of the 
 sect of the Quakers, shall be sentenced to be BANISHED, 
 UPON PAIN OF DEATH." (1) 
 
 " Daniel and Provided Southick, son and daughter to Lawrence 
 and Cassandra, not frequenting the assemblies of such a perse- 
 cutimj generation^ were fined ten pounds, though it was well 
 known they had no estate, their parents being already brought to 
 poverty by their rapacious persecutors. To get this money, the 
 General Court at Boston issued out an order, by which the trea- 
 surers of the several counties were empowered to SELL THE 
 SAID PERSONS to ANY OF THE ENGLISH NATION, at 
 VIRGINIA, or BARBADOES, to answer the said fines." 
 
 *' William Maslon, at Hampton, was fined ten pounds for two 
 hooks found in his house; five pounds for not frequenting their 
 Church, and three pounds besides, as due to the jf)Ofr,so/i; for 
 which fine, he had taken from him what amounted to more than 
 twenty pounds. Not long after, above a thousand pounds were 
 taken from some, only because they had separated themselves 
 from the persecuting church." (2) 
 
 '' Thomas Prince, Governor of Plymouth, was heard to say, 
 that in his conscience, the Quakers were such a p/eople as deserved 
 to be destroyed, they, their wives and children, their houses and 
 lands, without pity or mercy. Humphrey Norton, at New Ha- 
 ven, for being a Quaker, WAS SEVERELY WHIPT, and burnt 
 in the hajid icith the letter H, to signify Heretic." 
 
 >' The unjust and bloody sentence of DEATH was executed 
 upon William Robinson, and Marmaduke Stevenson, the 27th 
 October, 1659. When they were come near the gallows, the 
 parson (Wilson,) tauntingly said to Robinson, * SHALL SUCH 
 JACKS AS YOU COME IN BEFORE AUTHORITY WITH 
 THEIR HATS ON?^ to which Robinson replied, 'Mind you, 
 mind you, it is for the NOT putting off the hat, we are imt to 
 death!"' (3) 
 
 ^' The persons that were hanged were barbarously used, even 
 
 (1) Sewel's Hist. p. 218, (2) Idem, p. 219. (3) Idem, p. 226. 
 
412 
 
 their shirts were ripped off with a knife, and their naked bodies 
 cast into a hole that was dug, without any covering, and parson 
 Wilson makes a ballad on them. On the 31st of the third month, 
 1660, Mary Dyer was SENTENCED TO DEATH by Endicot, 
 and the next day EXECUTED. William Leddra returned to 
 Boston, was cast into an open prison, and locked in chains day 
 and night, in a very cold winter, and was SENTENCED TO 
 DExVTH, and executed !)n the 14th of the 1st month, 1661." (1) 
 
 '' Many, both men and women, were stript naked from the 
 waist and upward, tied to the cart-tail, and SCOURGED in the 
 most brutal and barbarous manner, while the parsons who were 
 the principal instigators to such more than savage meanness, 
 were pleased in nothing better than in the exercise of such anti- 
 Christian and diabolical cruelties." 
 
 *' Peter Pearson, and Judith Brown, being stript to the waist, 
 were fastened to a cart-tail, and WHIPT through the town of 
 Boston. Also, Josiah Southick was stript, and led through the 
 streets of Boston, at the cart-tail, and vehemently SCOUllGED 
 by the hangman. The same day he was WHIPT at ROXBURY, 
 and the next morning at DEDHAM. The whip used for these 
 cruel executions, was not of whip-cord, but of dried guts ; and 
 each string with three knots at the end." (2) 
 
 " December 22d, 1662. At Dover, Anne Coleman, Mary Tom- 
 kins, and Alice Ambrose, were sentenced to be fastened to the 
 cart-tail, and whipt on their naked hacks, through eleven towns, 
 a distance of nearly eighty miles. Then, in a very cold day, the 
 deputy, Walden, at Dover, caused these women to be stript naked, 
 from the middle upward, and tied to a cart, and then whipt 
 
 THEM, WHILE THE PARSON LOOKED ON AND LAUGHED AT IT. 
 
 Two of their friends testified against Walden's cruelty, for which 
 THEY were put in the stocks." 
 
 " The women were carried to Hampton, and there whipt; from 
 thence to Salisbury, and again ichipt. William Barefoot at 
 length obtained the warrant from the constable, and let them go: 
 
 THE PARSON ADVISING TO THE CONTRARY. Not long after thcSC 
 
 women returned to Dover, and were again seized, while in meet- 
 ing, and barbarously dragged about at the instigation of (a man 
 fahehj called) Hatk-evil Nutwell, a ruling elder." 
 
 ''The barbarity of their persecutors, on this occasion, exceeds 
 description; being seized in meeting, while on their knees in 
 prayer, they were dragged by their arms nearly a mile through a 
 deep snow, across fields and over stumps, by which they were 
 much bruised. The next day they were barbarously dragged 
 down a steep hill to the water side, and threatened with drowning; 
 and one of them was actually plunged into the water, when a sud- 
 den shower obliged them to retreat : at length, after much abuse, 
 
 (I) Scwcl's History, p. 254. (2) Idem, pp. 272, 324. 
 
413 
 
 these poor victims of orthodox barbarity were turned out of 
 doors at midnight, and with their clothes wet and frozen, were 
 obliged to suffer the inclemency of a very severe winter's night. 
 
 '^ Afterwards, Anne Coleman, and four of her friends, were 
 whipt through Salem, Boston, and Dedham, by order of Haw- 
 thorn, the magistrate. Anne Coleman was a little, weakly woman ; 
 Bellingham encouraging the executioner while she was fastening 
 to the cart at Dedham, he laid on so severely, that, with the knot 
 of the whip, he split the nipple of her breast, which so tortured 
 her, that it almost took away her life." 
 
 Here there was no pretext, no motive but the commandment 
 enjoining the obligation to remove ''all false worship," ''accord- 
 ing to each one's place and calling ;" the governor ordering the 
 sentence as a good "nursing father," the hangman executing it, 
 and the parson looking on. There was no crime charged but the 
 crime of thought, and its expression. 
 
 These are the points of the question, which it is important for 
 the gentleman to clear up. I have shown that the barbarities, 
 here and throughout this speech, enumerated, were founded on 
 the very principles of doctrine still extant in the Confession of 
 Faith. I have shown that those who have interpreted that prin- 
 ciple as I have done, were not only orthodox Presbyterians, but 
 the fathers, and founders, and authoritative expounders of the 
 Presbyterian doctrine. Can the gentleman answer these argu- 
 ments ? He may say, as he has said before, that since the Revo- 
 lution Presbyterians have not put Baptists, or Catholics, or So- 
 cinians, or Quakers, or Episcopalians, or Arminians, to death for 
 ^'idolatry," or "false worship." But this is still the argument, 
 that became a man has not committed robbery since he has been 
 conjQned in prison, therefore he is an honest man. Since the 
 Revolution, the thing was impracticable. And hence it is that 
 whilst I have invariably referred to the Confession of Faith for 
 the DOCTRINE, I have referred to countries where it had "fair 
 play," to show its 'practice and effect. The doctrine is the text ; 
 the jiractiee is the commentary. That the practice is founded on 
 the doctrine, no man, who has common sense to estimate the 
 meaning of what is called a "principle," will for a moment deny. 
 It is a principle of faith and morals, that what God has 'com- 
 manded we are bound to do. Now, the Presbyterian religion 
 teaches its votaries that God has commanded them to " remove 
 ALL FALSE WORSHIP." Not simple to preach and pray, that all 
 false worship may be removed, but directly and absolutely to 
 "REMOVE IT." Here, then, thanks be to Heaven, the Constitu- 
 tion will not allow them to keep this commandment. Suppose 
 the Constitution would not allow them to keep holy the Sabbath 
 day. And supposing they were to yield obedience to the Consti- 
 tution, and, by profaning the Sabbath day, disobey God — their 
 condition would not be one whit different from what it is. It 
 
414 
 
 makes no matter which of the commandments the Constitution 
 obliges them to vioh\te. But the effect of the doctrine is to be 
 looked for in countries where the civil constitution puts no obstacle 
 in the way of its observance. 
 
 The gentleman tries many an expedient to sink the question in 
 debate, and substitute irrelevant matter in all the majesty of wild- 
 ness, incoherency, and confusion. He cannot answer my argu- 
 ments; and yet it would look bad if he were to remain silent. 
 Hence, he flounders away in his own peculiar strain, about popes, 
 and all those things which, as he knows, I have already cleared 
 up under the proper head, in the former question. 
 
 It is almost too late for the gentleman to affect that his quota- 
 tions can be always depended on, when I have proved the con- 
 trary, in instances which he has not ventured to take up. He 
 always makes a charge of this kind for himself, when he wishes 
 to disprove it, but those which I specify^ he passes over. 
 
 I have said all that is necessary in regard to the Jesuits, in the 
 former question. I have proved, by Protestant writers, that most 
 of the popular prejudices, which pass for history among a certain 
 class of Protestants, are the calumnies of the primitive Calvinists. 
 
 The gentleman will have it that I wish to be acquainted with 
 Doctor Miller. I have already stated that the fact is not so. He 
 is surprised that Doctor Cook, of Kentucky, because he exposed 
 the vicious citation of authors found in the writings of the Prince- 
 ton professor, did not become a Catholic. It appears that even 
 that exposure has not "disturbed one hour of Doctor Miller's 
 rest." This is precisely what might be expected of those who 
 believe in "foreordination." 
 
 The allusion to Mr. Ansley, of Burlington, who is engaged in 
 the peaceable pursuits of his avocations, livicg with his wife and 
 children, and labouring for them, is no inapt illustration of the 
 intolerant and slanderous spirit with which Calvinism imbues its 
 votaries. Pray, what has he ^to do with the question ; has he 
 written a book ; has he appeared in any public capacity, which 
 could warrant the introduction of his name ? And yet, because 
 he has exercised that liberty of conscience, for which the gentle- 
 man affects to be zealous, his private character is attacked. But 
 the attack betrays the meanness that would insinuate, without 
 the courage to assert, and being founded on falsehood, reflects its 
 infamy back upon its source. / 
 
 I am not surprised that the gentleman touches lightly on the 
 heartless language in which he seemed to exult, in his last speech, 
 over the labours of the mob in burning the Convent. He says, 
 *'if the mob were mistaken, he cannot help it." Indeed ! And 
 pray what are he and his associates, "according to their place and 
 calling," doing, but trying to lead the mob of the whole country, 
 wherever it can be found, into the same mistake, that they, (the 
 mob,) "according to their place and calling," may "remove the 
 
415 
 
 monuments of idolatry" in the same way? The Presbyterian 
 second commandment requires that it should do so. The religion 
 of the Christian world, for fifteen hundred years before Calvin 
 baptized his opinions in the blood of Servetus, is to be called 
 after that period, *' monuments of idolatry," by a set of men who 
 are quarrelling among themselves on almost every article of 
 Revelation ? And because thoi/ call it by this name, they incul- 
 cate that the people are bound to " REMOVE it." 
 
 I have already given the reference which the gentleman calls 
 for, respecting the <• dictation to consciences of THOUSANDS 
 of IMMORTAL beings." If he has not the book, as appears, I 
 shall loan it to him. And now let him tell us what was meant 
 by it. Let him say, whether it was not in strict accordance with 
 Presbyterian duty, "according to each one's place and calling." 
 If Daniel Webster had known the facts, which Doctor Ely's zeal 
 for Presbyterian ascendancy brought before the public notice, his 
 good sense and sound patriotism would have induced him to form 
 the same judgment, which was entertained at Harrisburg, in 
 regard to the whole proceeding. I convicted the gentleman, in 
 relation to it, of having calumniated my character, by making 
 charges against me which were false and injurious. I refer 
 the reader, for proof of this, to my last speech. He says, I "re- 
 treated before Daniel Webster." Not at all, sir ; the gentleman 
 himself had made assertions unfounded in fact, and I fastened 
 them on him. I care for TRUTH more than for him or Daniel 
 Webster, with whom, by the way, I was not at issue. 
 
 The gentleman talks of insulting the American people, and he 
 has the simplicity to believe that he and his associates do not 
 oflfer a deeper insult; do not convey an insinuation of greater 
 baseness, than could be done by even an enemy to the, national 
 character; — when they insinuate that the "Pope and priesthood, 
 and the Emperor of Austria, are rich enough to buy the American 
 people out of their religious principles ! ! That nothing but the 
 vigilance of Brutus, Doctor Brownlee, and Mr. Breckinridge has 
 saved the American people from selling themselves, body and 
 soul, to the Pope and the Emperor of Austria ! ! This is the 
 hardest cut of all. 
 
 With regard to "Mr. Smith," I have only to say, that he 
 belongs to that class, of whom Dean Swift said significantly, 
 ^' tchen the Pope weeds Ms (jarderiy I wish he would not throw 
 his NETTLES over our wall.'' 
 
 The gentlemen says, that " popery drains usefully," in receiv- 
 ing from Protestantism a few worthless proselytes, unworthy to 
 be retained. If he is sincere in this remark, he refutes those 
 mock apprehensions, by which he. and his colleagues are labour- 
 ing to stir up the people, and break the harmonies of society, on 
 the plea that popery is making such wonderful progress, and 
 that, were it not for them, the Emperor of Austria would buy 
 out Protestantism root and branch. 
 
416 
 
 When he represents me as '^assailing the Continental Con- 
 gress/' I have again to caution the reader, that his statement is 
 not to be depended on. Does the gentleman suppose that nobody 
 is acquainted with the "History of England/' and that an ojmiion 
 expressed by any body of men, however respectable, is to be 
 taken for proof — when the facts are known to the world which 
 disprove it ? 
 
 Does not every one know that, sine* the Reformation, so called, 
 the Catholics of England, Scotland, and Ireland, have been ground 
 to the earth, by the millstone of oppression, intolerance, and per- 
 secution ? Can the gentleman be ignorant of this ? Or does he 
 thrust himself on the discussion, with the simplicity of a child, 
 who knows no other reason for things only because "father says 
 so?" The "paragraph" is justly qualified, when he tells us it 
 was "drafted." Now, history is not "drafted/' and this con- 
 stitutes the difference. It is truly amusing, to hear the gentleman 
 calling for "Wesley's argument," which I have answered by 
 showing, that it was founded on a false assumption. But the 
 predicament in which he finds himself, with regard to the defence 
 0^ Presbyterianism, must account to the reader, for the wander- 
 ings of his memory, and the confusion of his thoughts. The man 
 who acknowledges that God has commanded him to " REMOVE 
 ALL FALSE WORSHIP/' has an awkward and difficult part 
 to sustain, when he affects to support the Constitution of the 
 country which forbids him to keep that commandment. 
 I hope, therefore, the audience will make allowance for the 
 gentleman's situation. 
 
417 
 
 '' Is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its principles or 
 doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty?'^ 
 
 NEGATIVE IV.— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Mr. President : — 
 
 As the gentleman professes to act under the guidance of a 
 living oracle, and an infallible interpreter of the word of God, I 
 ■will thank him very much for an interpretation in his next 
 speech of the following passage, " Yet Michael, the archangel, 
 when contending with the devil disputed about the body of Moses, 
 durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said the 
 Lord rebuke thee.'\l) His interpretation, if just, will answer 
 bis ill-bred and unfounded calumnies, and excuse, yea, I must 
 suppose, commend to this society the pity and silence with which 
 I can pass them by, rejoicing that we are in an age, and in a 
 land, where the terror (with the power^ of the priesthood of 
 Rome has ceased. 
 
 He has charged me with ^'•shifting the terms" of the sweeping 
 denial which he made as to the extent of ''Calvinism" in the 
 world. He says, I had stated, " that (except perhaps, the Con- 
 gregationalists) the high-toned Presbyterians were the only de- 
 nomination that had not become ashamed of the avowal of the 
 doctrine. He does not meet the statement, and yet by a slight 
 shifting of the terms, he affects to have refuted it. He says, 
 ^ the twelve creeds of the original reformers,' and ' the Episco- 
 palian articles' have it. But had I denied this? Did I assert 
 that ' creeds and articles' — parchment, are capable of becoming 
 ashamed ?" The gentleman's memory is short, and he forgets that 
 litero scripta manet. In his second speech, night seventh, he 
 thus spoke : — '' The only denomination I know who have not 
 become ashamed of the avowal of this article, are the high-toned 
 Presbyterians. I defy the proof that it is held by the other de- 
 nominations whom he has mentioned." Here you see 
 
 I. He has shifted his terras most uncandidly ; for in his last 
 speech he excepts, with a '' perhaps," the Congregationalists, who 
 compose the mass of New England, and nearly the half of the 
 evangelical Christians of Old England. , But in the other, he 
 
 (1) Jude, 9 verse. 
 
418 
 
 excepted no denoiir' nation; thus shifting the terms of his own 
 speech. 
 
 II. He flatly contradicts himself. In his last speech, as quoted 
 above, he says he only said that other denominations were ashamed 
 of the doctrine. This is implyiny that though they hold it, they 
 are not honest enough to avoic it ! But on the last night he said 
 expressly, '' I defy the proof that it (the doctrine) is held 
 BY the other denominations whom he has mentioned." 
 Here he says " /leZtZ," not merely " ashamed o/." Such tricks are 
 worthy of a Jesuit. It was his call for proof which led me to 
 quote at large from the articles of the Episcopal church, and to 
 refer to other creeds. He shows extreme and impertinent igno- 
 rance when he says, ^' I know, as well as he does, that NONE 
 of the Baptists are Calvinists ;" whereas^ the majority of the 
 Baptists in Great Britain and America are decidedly Calvinistic. 
 
 I shall remember his denial that Augustine held, " that Grod 
 from all eternity foreordained whatsoever comes to pass ;'^ and his 
 knowledge or his candour must suffer not a little in my next reply. 
 
 The gentleman asks how I can obey both the American Con- 
 stitution, -which fo7-bids me to touch the "monuments of idolatry/' 
 and our confession, which commands me "to remove them?" I 
 have answered the question before, by showing that we mean in 
 the confession no force, but truth, moral influence, argument, 
 the press, the Bible, &c. &c. For example, the fifty Catholics 
 who were converted to Protestantism in Baltimore last year, by 
 truth, not /orc<3, were delivered from the idolatry of Rome; 
 ceased to worship a consecrated wafer ; ceased to worship saints 
 and angels. Thus we largely removed the monuments of idolatry. 
 I know it is not a pleasant business to Mr. Hughes. But we 
 cannot help that. Yet if he will show anything unconstitutional 
 in all this, except that it violates the constitution of the Church 
 of Rome (whose health is already not a little impaired by the 
 free discussions going on in America), we will feel ourselves 
 much obliged to him. 
 
 As to the article from the '^Catholic Telegraph," I pass by 
 the insolent and ill-bred remarks of the gentleman on it. I now 
 challenge the gentleman to prove one word he has said (of the 
 intention of the extract) to be true. Till then he stands my 
 calumniator, and the uncandid vindicator of Catholic enmity to 
 American institutions. I call on the gentleman distinctly to 
 prove what he has said on this subject, or else to disclaim it with 
 proper apology and explanation. 
 
 The arguments of our popish advocate have a very one-sided way 
 of advancing toward their object. Let us illustrate tiiis. In my 
 last speech I gave long extracts from Bishop England's published 
 letter, attacking directly our republican institutions. Yet the 
 gentleman says not one word about it ! So also of my Lord 
 Bishop Flagcl. I showed by extracts from his communications 
 
419 
 
 from Kentuchy to Rome, that he directly declares that religion 
 cannot be spread among the Western Indians ^' WHILST OUR RE- 
 PUBLICAN GOVERNMENT SHALL SUBSIST."" Yet the gentleman, 
 like his brother Levite of old, passes hy on tlie other side. Yet 
 he pays high regard to an article in a newspaper of which he 
 fancied, or he hoped he could, without detection, charge me with 
 the perversion. But now, while I recall him to the defence or re- 
 nunciation of the two above-named American (what a contra- 
 diction in terms) Catholic prelates, I charge him with mis-stating 
 the intention of the extract from the Catholic Telegraph, and call 
 on him to prove his statements to be true, or confess them false. 
 The gentleman's two stereotype arguments appear once 
 more — I think for the thirteenth time. One is, the doctrine of 
 eternal decrees of God is destructive of moral, and, therefore, 
 of civil liberty. This argument has already been so much laughed 
 at by the community since the champion of popery first used it in 
 this debate, and so often answered by me, that I should really be 
 ashamed to go over it again, for fear of fatiguing my hearers and 
 future readers. But it may relieve the dry tedium of his hum drum 
 repetition of this stale matter, if he would tell us what are the true 
 news of this subject. He attacks the principles of the Protestants 
 of the Reformation era, and of the great body of evangelical Pro- 
 testants noiv. But he gives no other system in its stead. Let us 
 now hear how he reconciles the divine government with moral lib- 
 erty. I have showed that the Council of Trent in one instance, 
 clearly recognized the doctrine of election, and in another, shunned 
 giving any explanation. Now, until the gentleman gives us a bet- 
 ter system, and clears up the charges against his own, as acknow- 
 ledging what he condemns in ours, we must hold him responsible 
 as either unpardonably ignorant, or still worse. I call on him, 
 then, explicitly, and with no more evasion, to tell us what the Ro- 
 man Catholic Church does believe on ^' the decrees,"" and " elec- 
 tion,"" and if he will tell us, I here pledge myself to prove either 
 that he feds if es his creed, or else that the very same objections lie 
 against it which he has charged against ours. As to the other 
 stereotype argument, concerning the " monuments of idolatry,"" I 
 can only say, I believe that every creature in this house, not ex- 
 cepting Mr. Hughes, feels fully persuaded that it has been again 
 and again refuted. Yet I do not wonder that his deepest sympa- 
 ties are kindled for his gods. In India it was once wittily said, 
 ^Hf one would pray against idolatry he must ask God that it 
 may not rain." The Hindoos worship even the things that grow 
 out of the ground. So of the Church of Rome. She manufac- 
 tures gods ; she makes priests, and they make gods. It was said 
 of the old Romans, that they had 130,000 gods. But the new 
 Roman priests find one in every shrine, and every saint, and every 
 angel, and every image, and every relic, and every consecrated 
 wafer, and, in short, in every priest. No wonder that i\iQ priests^ 
 
420 
 
 therefore, cry out for their idols. As did the sJirine-dealers at 
 Ephesus, and for the same reason (viz. lest the gain of the cra/t 
 should suffer) so do the ^^ricsfs. They cry aloud ^ 'great is Diana 
 of the EphesiansJ' But the day of their doom is at hand. 
 American Catholics are year by year getting more and more 
 weaned from Rome, and opening their eyes to priestcraft ; and 
 if we can only for an age, escape the contagion of that foreign 
 infusion which is pouring upon us in Jesuit priests, and the most 
 degraded emissions from papal Europe, I have no doubt, that we 
 shall find the enlightened Catholics of America renouncing Rome. 
 
 It is curious enough to observe, how the gentleman, by a turn 
 of humour, would put aside the /«mows letter to Paul III. I ask 
 the gentleman to deny its genuineness, if he dares. He knows 
 too well what it is, and on wha.t proof it rests. Nor does it show 
 the solicitude of the Pope to purify the church. For he never 
 attemj^ted it, though the letter called for it so loudly. Its disclo- 
 sures show that the Catholic Church was terribly corrupt in her 
 head and members, and that the system leads to such effects. But 
 the gentleman has admitted that such a system is destructive of 
 liberty and of society. Therefore on his own principles, I have 
 proved that his own system is destructive of liberty and of society. 
 
 As to the changes which have been inade in our confession on 
 the subject of religious liberty, we have proved that they were 
 made before the American Revolution, and by the patriots who 
 helped to effect it ; and for the same reason that they sought iV, 
 viz. : the love of liberty, full and entire — civil and religious. 
 Mr. Hughes has again and again admitted this change ; and yet 
 he now says that " the difference is only in words." Here, as 
 usual, he contradicts himself, and makes fools of the American 
 people ; for he had said the change was to adapt our confession to 
 the new order of things. But can the American people be gulled 
 with a change in 2^ few words, when the thing remains the same? 
 So he seems to intimate. The gentleman's appeal to the civil go- 
 vernment of the cantons of Switzerland, and to the witch stories of 
 New England is well. It shows that he has nothing against us — 
 that he is writing against time — that he feels it his task to make 
 out a speech. And this interprets why he rejected the stenogra- 
 pher's report, and why he was so zealous to go to Mexico. Yes; 
 when we complete this debate, I am well persuaded that those 
 enlightened Catholics who have looked for a manlg, honest defence 
 of the system which they have been taught was true, will look with 
 wonder and deep mortification through these pages, and find them 
 filled with vulgarity, trash, and tales, merely thrown in to cloud 
 the discussion and divert the attention. They will say " Why 
 did he not refute as well as DENY ? Why did he talk about 
 WITCHES in New England, when he had promised to show that 
 ^Presbyterian doctrines are opposed to liberty f* And why did 
 he pass by unnoticed, unexplained, unanswered, page after page 
 
421 
 
 professing to he proof thai Catholic doctrines are at tear with 
 the civil and religions freedom of manf 
 
 But these are ^'reasons of atate'' unto which the ^Haity must not 
 aspire to look. The gentleman says "/le has already given the 
 reference which I called for ^^ in the report of the American Sun- 
 day School Union. I pronounce it utterly false, and now once 
 more demand it — page, year, and report. His defence of the 
 Burlington brother is ominous. He says that he is 'living with 
 his wife and children, and labouring for themJ' For his coarse 
 abuse 1 pardon him. His pen is truly vulgar. His tongue, when 
 started in scandal, is original and at home, as if it were a familiar 
 and favourite business. And this a father confessor to refined and 
 lovely women! ! ! He breaks forth upon one, like the ^^ moving 
 hog" of which I lately read an account, wdiich, though covered at 
 the surface with luxuriant green, was no sooner disrupted by some 
 disturbing force, than it broke forth into a dark and slimy stretim, 
 which poured its filthy current through field and brooks, and the 
 habitations of men ; spreading one dark veil of pollution over the 
 whole face of nature. 
 
 But no wonder he starts with conscious wincing at the touch. 
 The ciy of the orphan robbed of its father, may yet come up 
 against him before God. The detestable system which can 
 licence brothels in Rome, and tear families asunder in America 
 with fanatical excess, and a degrading superstition that dries up 
 the heart of man, shall not pass unexposed in this land. Nor 
 shall this case stop with the gentleman' s denial, and exparte tes- 
 timony. He is too nearly involved in this matter to be permitted 
 by an indignant community to be a witness, unless it be as states- 
 evidence, and preceeded by confession in the ear, not of a priest, but 
 of the American people. The gentleman shall hear of this again. 
 
 When he charges Calvin with making God the author of sin^ 
 he falsified the author with his eyes ojjen. And now, if he will 
 only give in his next speech, the context, and the passages of 
 Scripture which Calvin was expounding in meeting the objections 
 of Cavillers, I will prove my assertion and charge made in thp 
 last sentence. 
 
 In the oral debate, and in this repetition of it in manuscrlpvj 
 the gentleman has often and very impertinently attacked me on 
 my " quotations." You know, gentlemen, how very numerous 
 they have been. Of course where he passes them by in silence 
 as he has done with many scores of them) it is admitting the truth 
 of the proof and the fairness of the method of citation. But I 
 am not satisfied with this negative way of conviction. I now, 
 therefore, take up and expose his positive charges against me. 
 As iiis slanders are repeated, and his last speech really presents 
 nothing to be Vfplied to, I will here present a paper read by me 
 during the oral debate, which painfully exposes him and his 
 systeui, but which duty requires me to exhibit. 
 
422 
 
 Rpply to the paper thrbicn into the oral discussion hy the Rev. 
 J. HiKjhes, in tvhich he charges his opponent with divers calumnies 
 ayainst the Church of Rome. 
 
 When this pompous and slanderous paper was presented, the 
 Rev. Mr. Hughes was nominally defending the Roman Catholic 
 religion. But having, during a succession of three nights, to the 
 surprise of his friends and the compassion of his protestant hearers, 
 utterly failed to meet any of the many facts and arguments brought 
 forward to expose the hostility of liis church to civil and religious 
 liberty, he proved and owned himself defeated by 2^ personal attach 
 on his opponent, which could have no connexion with the question 
 in debate. He dragged into view the matters of a former contro- 
 versy, and tried, though in vain, to save his cause by blackening 
 the character of his adversary when he could not meet his argu- 
 ments — thus illustrating the maxim of the Jesuits, that *' the end 
 justifies the means." 1 promised in due time to expose this paper 
 and its author. Having already given up one of my evenings 
 (devoted to the attack of his doctrines) to personal defence, in 
 answer to his j^crsonal attack, and the gentleman still continuing 
 to call replies, and to press these personalities, it is due to the cause 
 and to myself, to reply in this form before this discussion closes. 
 
 1st. He charges me with cahimniating his church, for saying 
 in a former published controversy, that according to the Council 
 of Constance, Roman Catholics are not hound to keep faith with 
 heretics. During that controversy, and again during this debate, 
 I proved the truth of this weighty charge. 
 
 Here follows the proof. From the XIX Session of said Council 
 I produced, read, and translated to this assembly (the gentleman 
 then making no reply) the following passage, viz : — Tliat a safe 
 conduct granted hy an emperor or other secular prince to heretics, 
 or those charged with heresy, cannot hinder the competent and 
 ecclesiastical judge from enquiring into the en-ors of such persons, 
 nor from proceeding in other ways against them, nor from pun- 
 ishing them as much as justice shall require, if they ohstinately 
 refuse to recant their errors, although they may have come to the 
 place of judgment depending on said safe conduct, and would 
 not have come otherwise (etiam si de salvo conductu confissi, ad 
 locum venerint judicii, alias non venturi); nor is the person pro- 
 mising the safe conduct, hound hy it after having done what he 
 could. (1) 
 
 That no faith is to be kept with heretics is so established a doc- 
 trine of the Church of Rome that it is heretical to deny it. This 
 principle is taught by such Roman Catholic writers as Bailly, Si- 
 manca, Aquinas, Cresswell, Bernard, Cornelio, the Jesuits gene- 
 rally, the Parisian University, and by Popes Gregory IX., Urban 
 
 (1) See Actse Ecclesia, torn. i. p. 1669; see also TEnfant's His. of Coun, 
 Constance, p. 335. 
 
423 
 
 VL, Paul IV., Paul V,, Innocent X. to name no others; also by 
 the provincial Councils of liome, Lateran and Diamper; and also 
 by the general Councils of Lateran Fourth, Lyons, Pisa, and Basil, 
 as well as the Council of Constance. The Councils of Basil and Trent 
 contradict the Rev. Mr. Hughes, and admit the fact about the 
 Council of Constance, in the safe conduct which they granted to 
 the Bohemians and Germans. The Council of 'Trent in the safe 
 conduct given to the Grermans, on the 14th day of May, 1562, thus 
 speaks ; added to this, exchiding all fraud and stratagem, this 
 council promises in good and true faith, that it will seek no occa- 
 sion either publicly or secretly, by any authority, power, right, sta- 
 tute, privilege of law, or of canons, or of any councils whatsoever, 
 especially the Councils of Constance and Siena, in whatever form 
 of words expressed, to prejudice in any way the security of this pub- 
 lic faith. (1) It was on this admitted principle of the Church, of 
 Home that the powerful and yet unanswered argument of Westley 
 proved that no consistent Roman Catholic, or in other words, none 
 who had not renounced, ex animo, this principle of true communion, 
 can be a true citizen of a Protestant government. Multitudes, we 
 rejoice to know, do renounce it. But where we ask does the ca- 
 lumny now lie ? For additional proof we refer to Thuanus, iii. 524. 
 Father Paul lib. i. 28, and Labbeus, Alexander, and Cruileb on 
 the Council of Constance. 
 
 2d. I am charged by the Rev. gentleman with saying, " that 
 according to the Sixteenth Canon of the Third Council of Lateran, 
 an oath contrary to ecclesiastical utility is perjury, not an oath," 
 and whereas the said canon now produced in the original contains 
 no such doctrine, therefore the charge is false and injurious 
 as above." 
 
 Ans. It is very possible that the gentleman's abridgement of the 
 Book of Councils may not contain this oiFensive article. But we 
 have the best authority for its existence, viz. Pithon, p. 110. Lab- 
 beus, 13 vol. p. 426. Guibert, 3 vol. 504 p. (2) The following are 
 the words of the Holy Council, " Non juramenta, sed perjuria 
 potius sunt dicenda, quae contra utilitatem, ecclesiasticum atten- 
 tantur." And if more proof is wanting, that this trifling with 
 the sacredness of oaths is an avowed and practical principle of 
 the popes, councils, and Church of Rome, we refer the gentleman 
 to what we have said above in the first head. 
 
 3d. The Rev. gentleman thus charges me : " that the Fourth 
 Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, third canon, freed the subjects 
 of such sovereigns as embraced heresy from their fealty ; (Mr. B. 
 same page,) whereas the original canon now produced contains nc 
 such doctrine, therefore the charge is again false and injurious 
 as before." 
 
 (1) Seo Degrees of Coun. Trent, sess. 18. p. 247. Lyons 1624. 
 
 (2) See Edgar's Variations of Popery, 278 page. 
 
424 
 
 Proof. Binniiis, in his Book of Councils, 8tli vol. 807 p. and 
 Labbeus, 13th vol. 934 p. as cited by Edgar, expressly confirm 
 my statement. But we need go no farther than the original canon 
 itself, which has been read in full to this assembly to prove the 
 truth of our assertion. It is as follows : '' But if the temporal lord., 
 bemg required and warned by the church, shall neglect to j^urge 
 Ms territory/ of this heretical filth, let him by the metropolitan 
 and comprovincial bishops be tied by the bond of excommunica- 
 tion; and if he scorn to satisfy wdthin a year, let that he signified 
 to the Pope, that he may denounce his vassal, thenceforth ab- 
 solved from his fidelity, (or allegiance) and may expose his 
 country to he seized on hy Catholics, who exterminating the 
 heretics, may p^ossess it ivithout any contradiction, and may keep 
 it in the purity of faith, saving the right of the principle lord, so 
 be it he himself put no obstacle hereto, nor impose any impedi- 
 ment; the same law notwithstanding being kept about them that 
 have no principal lords. '^ 
 
 Here then, in express words, and in the very canon itself, is my 
 whole statement affirmed, and the gentleman's confident assertion 
 directly falsified. Not only is this true, but it is matter of history 
 that popes almost without number have absolved subjects from 
 their oath of allegiance to their sovereigns. Thus Gregory in 
 1078 absolved all from their fidelity who were bound by oath to 
 persons excommunicated, and this he professed to do by apostolical 
 authority. Eos qui excommunicatis fidelitate aut sacramento con- 
 strict! sunt, apostolica auctoritate a sacramento absolvimus. (1) 
 " We absolve tht^se who are bound by oath or fidelity to excommu- 
 nicated persons from, said oath, by apostolical authority." Cle- 
 ment, in 1306 freed Edward, king of England, from a public oath 
 which he had made to the people to confirm the Magna Ciiarta. 
 See also what is said under the first head in regard to other popes, 
 provincial and general councils, which have sanctioned the same 
 infamous principle. 
 
 4th. I am charged as follows: ^^That whereas Mr. B. has ac- 
 cused Bellarmine of saying that if the Pope should err in com- 
 manding vices and prohibiting virtues, the church would be bound 
 to believe vices to be virtues and virtues to be vices. And whereas 
 Bellarmine has been referred to as maintaining this doctrine, (2) 
 and whereas Bellarmine teaches no such doctrine, but the reverse, 
 therefore this is false and injurious to Catholics." 
 
 Proof. I insist that I have fairly represented the sentiment of 
 Bellarmine. Bellarmine is attempting to prove that the Pope is 
 infallible, and he pursues this train of argument. 
 
 1. The church is bound by conscience to believe the Pope. 
 
 2. If the Pope were not infallible, he might command vices 
 and prohibit virtues. 
 
 (1) Pithon, 260 page. (2) Mr. B. ibid. p. 19. 
 
425 
 
 3. If the Pope should err in commanding vices and prohibiting 
 virtues, the church would be bound to believe vices to be good, 
 and virtues to be bad. 
 
 Mr. Plughes says, " in the former controversy, you stated that 
 it is a principle of Catholics, ' that if the. Pope were to command 
 vice and prohibit virtue, he is to be obeyed.' " I answer, I never 
 stated it is a principle of Catholics, but merely said '^Bellarmine 
 says.'' That I quoted Bellarmine fairly, I appeal to the original 
 quoted by Mr. Hughes. Bellarmine as much asserts the third of 
 these propositions, as he does the first and second. His reasoning 
 reminds me of the following little incident in the Roman History. 
 After the death of Tiberius Gracchus, one Blosius who had taken 
 part with him against the Senate, came to the consul to sue for 
 mercy. His plea was " that he had entertained so high a regard 
 for Gracchus, that he thought he ought to do whatever Gracchus 
 desired.'' " What," said the consul, *' if Gracchus had wished 
 you to set fire to the capitol, would you have thought yourself 
 bound in friendship to have complied with his wishes?" *'He 
 would never have wished it," answered Blosius, '' but if he had I 
 certainly should have obeyed him." The historian adds, ^' ne- 
 faria est ista vox.''' "This is an impious sentiment." And so 
 will every man of sense, and honesty, say of the similar senti- 
 ment of Bellarmine. 
 
 Now to put this matter beyond all doubt, the same Bellarmine 
 in his work against Barklay, c. 13. says, "In bono sensu, Christus 
 dedit Fetro poiestatem faciendi depeccato non jyeccatmn ; et de non 
 peccato peccatum." " In a good sense, Christ gave to Peter pQwer 
 to make that which is sin, to be no sin } and that which is no sin, 
 to be sin;" and he infers, that the Pope as Peter's successor has 
 power to do the same. Now can any one conceive how sin can he 
 made no sin, and no sin he made sin in A GOOD sense ! Is it not 
 the very sense which we have given in the other passage ? It is re- 
 served to the morality of Rome to make sin good, and virtue, vice. 
 
 5fh. The Rev. gentleman charges me with calumniating the 
 Roman Church, when I assert, that she has suppressed that part 
 of the first commandment (second) which forbids idolatry. 
 
 In answer to this, I reply, first. That on a previous evening of 
 this debate, such abundant proofs were given of the truth of this 
 charge, that they need not be repeated here. Second, The copy 
 which I produced from a public library in New York, fully sus- 
 tained my assertion, which was, that it gave only four voords of 
 the portion against idolatry, and closed with an expressive et eaetera : 
 and whereas, Mr. H. states that said copy contained the whole 
 commandment, we positively deny the truth of the statement; for 
 it was apparent on examination that many pages from the place 
 where it ought to have heen written in full, it was given in broken 
 fragments, and not only the sense, but the words, as much as pos- 
 sible, kept out of view. Third, The fact that he exhibited som^ 
 
 27 
 
426 
 
 copies of one edition, which contained it in full, only proves, that 
 they print different editions for different latitudes. For it will 
 abundantly appear under the next head, how the priesthood of 
 the same communion, can fraudulently pervert the Latin and the 
 English of that same hook. 
 
 6 th. I am charged with calumniating the translators of this 
 catechism, in two specifications, 1st, for asserting that the trans- 
 lation of Donovan, and that called the Dublin edition, materially 
 differ. In reply, I have only to refer to Cramp's Text Book of 
 Popery, page 380, for a glaring confirmation of this charge. 2d 
 specification, I am charged with slandering the English transla- 
 tion (which is Donovan's) now in use in this country, by accusing 
 it of manifold frauds upon the Latin text. The proofs of these 
 frauds I did not derive from the Text Book of Popery, but collated 
 the translation with the original, in the hearing of this assembly. 
 This translation he it known is sanctioned and recommended hy 
 the Rev. gentleman, and all his hrethren in America, as faithful 
 and true. Now I assert that it is hasely a false one. On page 
 244 of that translation one whole sentence, not in the latin, begin- 
 ning with these words, "Perfect contrition it is true/' &c. is 
 forged and interpolated. 
 
 In page 97 of the Translation, there are twelve lines of the Latin 
 struck out. These are from Ambrose, who says, ^^ Christ is the 
 Bock," and that Christ conferred his peculiar titles on the twelve 
 disciples. Why this is dropped is very clear ! But the forgery stops 
 not here. The words of the compilers of the catechism, written 
 7na')v/ ages after Amhrose died, are put into his mouth, and he is 
 maJe to talk like a thorough-paced papist, by leaving in the 
 words — '^ St. Ambrose saith," and then erasing all he had said, 
 and making him father a long paragraph comjjosed in the IQth cen- 
 tury, on the power of the popes ! Is this less than infamous ? As 
 ■we have already given many more specimens of this corrupt 
 translation, we need not now enlarge ; but I here challenge Mr. 
 Hughes to meet me on this book before any number of Latin 
 scholars, and I will convict this shameful edition of twenty de- 
 liberate and glaring frauds which have been evidently committed 
 with design. And yet the gentleman has ventured to charge me 
 with calumny when I expose these enormities. 
 
 But these frauds do not stop with poor St. Ambrose, nor are they 
 confined to the translators of the catechism. By the authority, not 
 only of popes, but of iy\fallihle councils, a regular warfare has been 
 carried on for ages against all free enquiry; all writers not friendly 
 to Home have been denounced; lloman Catholic writers have 
 been purged of unwelcome truths; they have poisoned the foun- 
 tains of antiquity ; they havedared to prune and correct the writings 
 of the fathers, and even ventured to lay their correcting and sacri- 
 legious hands on the Word of God. The prohibitory and expurga- 
 tory indexes of Rome are living monuments of these daring frauds. 
 
I 
 
 427 
 
 A copy of one of these works, making a large volume, is now 
 in my possession, and has been already exhibited by me to this 
 assembly. 
 
 I. Specification. — Modern writers pruned and altered. In the 
 year 1595,(1) Clement VIII, in his catalogue of prohibited books, 
 published a decree, of which the following is an extract. In libris 
 Catholicorum recentiorum, qui post annum Christianae salutis — 
 1515, conscript! sint, si id quod corrigendum occurrit, paucis 
 demptis, aut additis emendari posse videatur, id correctores faci- 
 endum curent; sin minus, omnino deleatur. ^'In the books of 
 modem Catholics, written since the year of our Lord, 1515, if 
 any thing should occur worthy of c/rrection, and it can he done 
 hy striking out or putting in a few things, let the correctors have 
 it done; but if not, let it he wholly erased." The year 1515 
 marks the rise of Luther ! Hence the Pope fixed on that em 
 for his special vigilance over the press! 
 
 II. Specification. — The Fathers corrupted. If any one wishes 
 to be fully informed on this subject, let him examine James's 
 Treatise on this subject. (2) 
 
 a. The sixth canon of the Apostles. ^' Let not a bishop, a 
 priest, in any sort upon pretence of religion, forsake his own wife. 
 But if he chance to do so, let him be excommunicated; or if he 
 continue, let him be degraded." 
 
 It has thus been forged by Roman Catholic hands — '^ or if he 
 continue in his error, let him be degraded." The true passage 
 means — if he continue to forsake his wife, he is to be degraded. 
 The forgery makes it mean, that if he continue to keep his wife 
 he is to be degraded. This is the way the celibacy of the priest- 
 hood Improved. We have already showed how it is compensated 
 by concubines, &c. &c. 
 
 h. Thirty-second Canon of the Council of Agatha it is written, 
 ^^Let a clergyman presume to sue no man before a temporal 
 Judge," &c. But it has been foi'ged to mean the very opposite 
 by changing clericus into clericum, and nulhwi into nullus. Then 
 it reads '■^Let no man jyresume to sue a clergyman before a secu- 
 lar judge V Thus Bellarmine uses it; and in his controversy 
 with Barklay, page 279, tries to excuse it. This passage shows 
 not only a fraud, but a fraud to exalt the priesthood, and put 
 down the laity. 
 
 c. The Fourth Council of Cai-thage — (3) ''Let no woman, though 
 she be a religious woman or learned, in presence of men presume 
 so far as to baptize any." This is the true passage. But to mag- 
 nify baptism and the priesthood, baptism is made necessary to 
 salvation, even to the dying infant. Hence they needed a plan to 
 apply it in all cases. But this passage is in their way ; so there 
 
 (1) See Campbell's Lectures Ecc. Hist. p. 349. 
 
 (2) No. 3507 of the Philadelphia Library Company. 
 
 (3) Chap. 99, 100. 
 
428 
 
 has been added to it these words — unless it he in case of necessity. 
 This forgery opens the door for nurses to hajjtize infants. 
 
 d. St. Ambrose (1) — "They have not Peter's inheritance 
 which have not Peter's (fidem) fa.ith.^' Gratian corrupted this 
 into ''Peter's (sedeni) chair!" 
 
 e. Chrysostom (2) — " It (the seed of the woman) shall bruise 
 thy head/' To honour the Virgin Mary, it is forged to read 
 ^^she shall bruise thy head." 
 
 /. Preface to the Council of Ephesus. The true reading is 
 this, ''In which Council presided the blessed Cyril, formerly 
 Bishop of Alexandria," &c. It is thus forged, to prop the papacijy 
 "In Avhich Council instead of the blessed Celestine the Pope, 
 presided the blessed St. Cyril!" James gives no less than fifty 
 specimens of this p)^uning and corrupting of the Fathers and 
 Councils in the first few centuries. 
 
 g. Finally, the Rev. Mr. Hughes himself, in our late contro- 
 versy cited Tertullian (3) to prove the primacy of Rome and the 
 supremacy of the Pope ; and made it seem to be really so, by garb- 
 ling the author, and applying all he said to Rome alone. Whereas, 
 the /z^/^ passage which I published in parallel lines with his cllip' 
 tical extract, declares that CoRiNTii, PiiiLiPPi, Thessalonica, 
 and Ephesus were all apostolical chairs, as well as Rome ! ! 
 
 III. Specification. — Tlie holy word of God. itself has been 
 CORRUPTED ivith wanton profaneness by the Church of Home. 
 Out of a crowd of examples we give a few. 
 
 a. The Vulgate Bible and the English translation of it sanc- 
 tify the forgery on Chrysostom cited above, (4) "s7«e shall bruise 
 thy head," i. e. the Virgin Mary, we suppose — instead of "iV," 
 thy seed, i. e. CllRlST. 
 
 b. Hebrews xi. 21, "Jacob worshipped the top of his staff" — 
 in support of the worship of images. Whereas the true rendering 
 is "worshipped on (that is, leaning on) the top of his staff"!" 
 
 c. Luke xiii. 3, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye do 
 penance, ye shall all likewise perish." Whereas, the true mean- 
 ing is, unless ye repent ; which we need not say is a thing wholly 
 different from doing penance in the Church of Rome. 
 
 (/. Immediately after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 
 1685, a duly prepared version of the New Testament in the French 
 tongue was extensively circulated for the conversion of Protestants. 
 Mr. Butler in his " Book of the Roman Catholic Church," thus 
 writes — "At the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, fifty thousand 
 copies of a French translation of the New Testament were, at the 
 recommendation of BossUET, distributed among the converted 
 Protestants, by order of Louis XIV." Now, let us examine the 
 
 (1) Lib. 1. de Poenit. cap. vi. torn. 4. 
 
 (2) 17 Homily on Genesis, chap. iii. v. 15. 
 
 (3) See pjige 74 of Whetham's edition. 
 
 (4) On Gen. iii. 15. 
 
429 
 
 character of this translation, of whose dissemination the author so 
 much boasts ; and which was issued under such high authority. 
 Acts, xiii. 2, the true passage is, ''As they ministered unto the 
 Lord," &c. The Bordeaux transhxtion has it, "As they sacrificed 
 unto the Lord the sacrifice of mass.'* 1 Cor. iii. 15, ''If any 
 man's work shall be burned, he shall suifer loss ; but he himself 
 shall be saved ; yet so as by fire." The Roman Catholic version 
 interpolates the words "of purgatory," so as to make it read, "^e 
 shall he saved hy the fire of purgatory. '* 1 Tim. iv. 1, "In the 
 latter times some shall depart from the faith." The Eoman Ca- 
 tholic version forges the word "Roman," making it read, "shall 
 dejyart from the Roman faith.*' Such frauds and forgeries on 
 the sacred text itself, discover the desperate extremities and reck- 
 less spirit of a system, which, in order to carry its own ends, 
 dares to pollute even the sacred fountain of divine truth. (1) 
 Here, then, is my answer to the gentleman's charge of calumny. 
 Let heaven and earth judge between us. 
 
 7th. He charges me with calumny for saying " that Catholics 
 call the Pope God." I said in the late controversy that the Pope 
 called himself Grod. On a previous evening however in this de- 
 bate, I fully proved out of the mouth of the Rev. gentleman's own 
 translator and friend, that the Pope did call himself Grod. Not 
 only so, but it was also shown at the same time, that the Pope was 
 worshipped at Rome as God, and that the titles and attributes of 
 God had been conferred on him by standard writers in the 
 Church of Rome ; and with the sanction of councils themselves. 
 
 8th. The Rev. gentleman charges me with calumniating his 
 church by asserting that its doctrines are opposed to civil and re- 
 ligious liberty. This charge I have made good by the unanswered 
 and accumulating arguments of the whole debate — to which in 
 general I now refer. Rut he specifies the Twenty-seventh Canon 
 of the third Lateran, which I adduced, and says it is inadequate 
 proof in itself, and that I siq-tpressed a part of it. He says, "and 
 whereas said canon is no part of the Catholic religion." Strange ! 
 Does he renounce it, or cZenounce it ? Is it not as much a part of 
 his religion as the directions in our confession of faith about op- 
 posing false religions and removing the monument of idolatry are 
 a part of ours ? It is discipline, with him to remove millions of 
 men out of the world — but it is doctrine with us to remove only 
 the monuments of idolatry ? 
 
 Again. He says this canon was "a special regulation for a 
 particular case, 7nade in concurrence with the civil power from 
 which alone it could derive its authority." But who made it ? 
 He acknowledges that it was made with the civil power from 
 which it derived its authority ; and made hy the council ! Then 
 he owns that such a union of Church and state may be made as 
 that the church may derive authority to raise an army and put 
 (1) See Rev. xxii. 18, 19. 
 
430 
 
 multitudes of men to death, sach their toicns, and maJce slaves of 
 them; for a part of the decree published by me is this, "AND LET 
 
 IT BE FREELY PERMITTED TO PRINCES TO REDUCE MEN OF SUCH 
 
 STAMP TO slavery/' This too is done by the representative 
 chtirch ; and that church in said decree says, '^ TFe inhibit them'' 
 (who fail to take up arms at the call of the Bishop) from a par- 
 ticipation of the body and blood of the Lord — and on the con- 
 trary, those who take up arms were "received into the protection 
 of the church,'* and large indulgences were granted to them by 
 the church. Here then the gentleman owns that if the state will 
 give the church poicer, she may, as she did, enslave, fight, curse, 
 and kill meri; may reward those who do, and excommunicate 
 those who do not help her to do these things. 7s not this church 
 and state? Is not this opposing civil and religious liberty ? He 
 says "it is discipline ! " verily! But does the Roman doctrine 
 tolerate such discij^line ? Does it forbid it ? Does it not enforce 
 it ? What matter to the persons put to death, whether you call the 
 sword discipline or doctrine ? And what if the government of the 
 United States should give ''authority" to the Pope to destroy us 
 heretics ? Would it be right ? certainly ; as the council did, and 
 as the defender of it says ! 
 
 But again he says, "Mr. B. suppressed the section which enu- 
 merates the crimes of the sects referred to, and thereby deceives 
 his readers by making it appear that the punishment was for spe- 
 culative errors in doctrine, and not for their crimes against society 
 and the state/' He falsely charges me with suppressing. I fol- 
 lowed Faber, and he gave all that was necessary (making one 
 page) to prove the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 But see his reasoning. The church has a right to punish; even 
 to death, men who are guilty of crimes against society and states. 
 This he admits. This is the very point. I say she has not. What 
 has she to do vt'iih p)unishing crimes against society and the states, 
 with temporal pains and penalties ! ! It matters little whether the 
 church persecute for opinions, or for crimes. It was not for crimes, 
 but for opinions that the Church of Rome put these poor people 
 to death. " But admit all the crimes that are charged. Does the 
 gentleman say that for them his church can punish men tem- 
 porally. Yes this is the plea. Let my country hear, and 
 PAUSE, and think ! 
 
 9th. Charge of calumny is this — that I quoted a bull for the 
 extermination of heretics, which is not preserved at Rome. The 
 copy of the bull (in translation) was then, and is now in my pos- 
 session. I have sent to England for the original. The gentleman 
 knows there is such a bull. He knows too that Popes suppress 
 bulls when they are found to injure them. He may not know that 
 even the infiimous Bulla in Coena Domini, (which he told us lately 
 he never saw) — but which all the papal world besides knows — which 
 for centuries has sent all mankind to hell but papists, and which 
 
431 
 
 he is bound in virtue of holy obedience to read during lent every 
 year ; I say he may not know that this bull is not printed in 
 the BuUarium Magnum. 
 
 10th. Calumny, I am charged with a long catalogue of sins 
 against the Third Canon of Fourth Lateran. This canon I read 
 and expounded at large on a former evening. As to the charges 
 of garbling tJds canon, the falsification of the gentleman's charges 
 will also be found in the debate of a former evening, to which I 
 refer this assembly. 
 
 As to the matter of the decree itself, he says, Mr. B. asserted, 
 '^ that according to this canon, sovereigns may be deposed, and 
 their subjects released from their allegiance when they become 
 heretics, and that they are to be excommunicated when they ne- 
 glect to exterminate heretics from their land." He again denies 
 that this is doctrine. This is too shallow an artifice to deceive a 
 school boy. He admits it is " doctrine so far as it condemns all 
 heresies in the abstract.'^ Well, and what if it condemns heresy 
 in the concrete ; that is in the persons of men f Is it doctrine no 
 more? Is a decree condemning a book, (foc^>-me ; and the same 
 decree condemning a man for hokling the doctrine in the book 
 discipline ? One is doctrine ; the other is doctrine and discipline. 
 Is it doctrine to condemn a hook to the flames, and discipline to 
 condemn a man to them? Now this decree condemned the DOC- 
 TRINES OF MILLIONS, AND THEIR PERSONS TOO ! It is the 
 
 most bloody document I ever read. Mr. Hughes admits that it 
 absolves the subjects of inferior lords from allegiance ! Yet 
 denies that it does those of lords who were chvf. But is not 
 the principle the same ? Is it not persecution, tyranny, and 
 usurpation not to be borne or defended ? 
 
 Again the decree emhraces " secular poicers whatsoever offices 
 they are in f Docs this exclude any high or low ? It says, 
 ^^ saving the right of the principal lord f^ but with this sweeping 
 proviso, *^ if so be he himself put no obstacle thereto, nor oppose 
 any impediment!'^ Yet Mr. Hughes has the hardihood to deny 
 that the sovereigns or principal lords are embraced in the decree. 
 This cruel, persecuting canon, pays its bloody soldiery with hea- 
 venly gifts for exterminating heretics. It excommunicates all the 
 friends of the heretics; it makes the heretic intestate, infamous, 
 and deprives him of all civil and religious rights; if a clergyman 
 he is deposed : and twice a year if necessary every prelate is to 
 make the circuit of his territory to search for heretics : and com- 
 pel the whole neighbourhood to swear to inform on heretics, and 
 those who refuse to swear, or swearing neglect to inform, are to 
 be reputed heretics ; and Bishops are put under canonical ven- 
 geance if they refuse to act. Did Dracho's laws equal these ? 
 Does the police of Constantinople proZ/e and detail in such detail, 
 and such ubiquity as this ? And yet this no persecution ! Not 
 opposed to all sorts of liberty, or if opposed, not doctrine! God 
 
432 
 
 save our country from a system, which, with honied doctrines 
 and smooth words, may by discipline hathc the land in blood I 
 
 11th, and lastly. The gentleman has on divers occasions charged 
 me with calumniating the Church of Home by exaggerated ac- 
 counts of the number of lives which have been destroyed by her 
 agency, authority, or influence. Now as our chief object was to 
 establish principles, we have confined ourselves for the most part 
 to the discussion of principles ; and having abundantly proved that 
 persecution, (^ven to death, is a principle of the Church of Rome j 
 upon ichich she has acted for ages, the amount of blood she has 
 shed in carrying out these principles is a second question. The 
 blood which she has shed is a fearful standing commentary on 
 her principles ; and she has shed enough to float a man of loar ! 
 
 Specifications. — 1. The crusades for liberating the Holy Land 
 originated with and were encouraged and impelled hy the popes 
 and the priesthood, and Councils of the Church of Rome. These 
 continued for about two centuries, under the significant title of 
 " the Holy War," with no less than eight expeditions, and the 
 slaughter on both sides of several millions of men. These were 
 sanctioned and urged by Popes Gregory VII., Martin II., Inno- 
 cent III., &c. In vol. ii. p. 309, of the Acta Ecclesiae, we have 
 a long decree of the Fourth Council of Lateran, headed " Expe- 
 dition for the recovery of the Holy Land." This decree ordains 
 a Christian army ; gives great indidgences to the cross-hearers ; 
 yea, even 2^ plenary pardon to them of all their sins, and increase 
 of eternal joy in the reioards of the just, and adding appropriate 
 and most holy curses upon all those ivho should in any icay hin- 
 der the success of these bloody expeditions. Severtxl 'millions of 
 Europeans and Asiatics were the victims of these Holy Wars; 
 and the guilt of their blood is charged to the Church of Rome. 
 
 2. The persecutions against the Albigenses, Waldenses, and 
 Wicklifiites were commissioned by holy councils, preached up and 
 pressed on by the bulls of popes, and the ministry of bishops, in- 
 quisitors, &c., and from age to age, carried out on the most bloody 
 principles oi persecution by the Church of Rome. It is impossible 
 to compute the multitudes, not only of men, but of women and 
 children, slaughtered in these crusades. Bruys (1) estimates that 
 100,000 Albigenses fell in one day. Mezerai and Velly compute 
 the number slain in storming the city of Beziers at 60,000. (2) 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Hughes thinks these massacres may be justified, 
 
 because, as he says, the victims were not innocent victims, but 
 
 wicked men, and the enemies of society. We are thankful for his 
 
 candour though he meant it for a defence. He speaks in this the 
 
 spirit and language of his church ; for it is a matter of history, that 
 / 
 
 (1) Vol. iii. p. 139. 
 
 (2) See Edgar, p. 252. See also on these crusades, Thuanus, Alix's His- 
 tory of the Waldenses and Albigenses, Jones's Hist, of the same. Mosheim's 
 Ecclesiastical Histoi-y, as well as Bruys, Mezerai and Velly, passim. 
 
433 
 
 the provincial Councils of Toledo, Oxford, Tours, Avignon, La« 
 baur, Montpelier, Narbonne, Albly, and Tolosa, sanctioned the 
 sanguinary spirit of persecution, and not only so, but the general 
 Councils of the Four Laterans of Constance and Sienna did the 
 same. (1) 
 
 3. The history of the Holy Inquisition, which we have proved 
 on a previous occasion, to have the Pope for its head, infallible 
 authority for its cruelties, and the whole world for its field. Even 
 the Ilev. Mr. Hughes has said it was a good institution abused ; the 
 Bishop of Aire justifies it for putting guilty victims (that is, Pro- 
 testants) to death; Bellarminu not only justifies but recommends 
 it, and says, that by this and other means, (2) almost an infinite 
 number of heretics were burned or otherwise put to death by the 
 Church ; and he instances Douatists, Manichseans, and Albigeuses, 
 who were routed and annihilated by arms. Devoti also honestly 
 defends the Inquisition. Now, in Spain alone, according to the 
 history of I. A. Lloronte, secretary to the Inquisition, in a little 
 more than two centuries the victims of the Inquisition, burned or 
 otherwise punished, were no less than 341,057. The horrors of 
 this infamous tribunal we will not attempt to describe; its secrets 
 will never be known until the great day of revelation. The num- 
 ber of its victims in various forms and lands, while it ruled the 
 nations with a rod of iron, must indeed have been fearfully great. 
 
 4. The massacre of St. Bartholomew's day, the revocation of 
 the Edict of Nantes, the massacre in cold blood of the Protestants 
 of Ireland, the sanguinary persecutions by the Duke of Alva in 
 Holland, where Father Paul says (o) 50,000 were hanged, be- 
 headed, buried alive, and burned in a short time; the destruction 
 of the Wickliffites, Lollards, and Culdees; the persecutions of Bo- 
 hemia; the suppression, by force, of the reformation in Italy and 
 Spain; and the millions massacred by Catholics in South America; 
 make a picture of wickedness on the one hand, and looe on the 
 other, which no created mind can adequately describe or ever 
 conceive. Add to this, that for centuries the potentates of Europe, 
 by the mixture of church and state, under a theocracy, of which the 
 Pope was God, were held bound by oath to exterminate and destroy 
 in their dominions all heretics and dissenters from the Church of 
 Home. In the Cementines (4) there is a long chapter, headed — 
 '^ Oaths of jidelitij which the Roman Emperors take to the Pop)e 
 of Rome,'' which fully confirms what we have just said. Now, 
 consider in connexion with this the millions slaughtered by the 
 kings and emperors of Europe under the obligation of these oatlis 
 against heretics and dissenters from Rome, and then add all these 
 
 (1) See Dupin, Labbeus, Crabbe, Binnius, Alexander, Bruys, Guibert, and 
 Crotty. 
 
 (2j Book ii. cbap 22 and 23, on tbe Laity. 
 
 (3) Page 387. (4) Book ii. tit. 9. 
 
434 
 
 parts together, and you have some imperfect idea of the hutcheries 
 of Ilohj Alother Church. 
 
 I cannot dose this article without indulging myself and my 
 hearers with an extract from the Rev. Mr. Hughes's Ninth Letter 
 of the late Controversy; in which it will be seen at a glance, thai) 
 he advances principles which will go to justify all the great perse- 
 cutions of the Church of Home : principles which vest the civil and 
 religious rights of men in the power of a (Jampot or of a mojovity ; 
 principles which will justify the Roman Catholics whenever they 
 get the majot'Uij in this country in shaping the government of the 
 state and the church so as to take away all constitutional liherty 
 from both; principles too, which he advanced in defending the 
 persecuting Canon of Fourth Lateran. "//' is to he observed in the 
 first place that this Council was held at a time when the feudal 
 system was in full operation. A council was as it were the general 
 con(jress of Christendom, in which states and sovereigns were 
 represented for the purpose of conferring together on such matters 
 as concerned the general welfare. These secular representatives 
 had nothing to do with the definitions of doctrines or morals; and 
 the infallibility of the church had nothing to do WITH ANY THING 
 ELSE. Still it was deemed the most convenient time and place 
 for sovereigns and states to adopt such means, in conjunction with 
 the clergy, as might protect the altar and the throne, or as the 
 exigencies of the period required. The social picture, mingled 
 theocracy and civil policy of the puritan settlements in New 
 England, presents but a diminutive analogy, when the pilgrim 
 fathers and their immediate successors (not to speak of other 
 things far more serious) would hardly ring the town-house 
 bell unless they found a text of scripture for ity Here, mark 
 that the gentleman owns the fact of ''a theocracy'' in that day of 
 Home's sujweme doininion over men's souls and bodies. You 
 remember how he attacked lately, and denounced the persecutions 
 of New England, and read long extracts against them. He rightly 
 chndemned them — but here, he is off his guard, and on the same 
 principles defends Rome. Now, if Rome was right against the 
 xilhigenses, was New England wrong? If New England and 
 Rome were alike in this, how can he condemn New England'? 
 Let the logic of Rome explain it ! Again (same page) he writes— 
 "So it was in the temporal regulations adopted by the commin- 
 gled representatives of church and state at the General Council of 
 Lateran. Had they not the right, I icould ask, AS the majori- 
 ty by a million to one, to take measures for the common welfare? 
 The doctrine of Christ teaches submission to the 'powers that be.' 
 Consequences such as you predicted of the Bible Society in Russia, 
 have always followed the footsteps of fanaticism. Had not then the 
 Catholic kings, and Catholic barons, and Catholic vassals and 
 all the orders of feudalism in Catholic Europe, the right by 
 VIRTUE of their majority to take precautions against such 
 
435 
 
 CONSEQUENCES? No REPUBLICAN, I should think, would deny it ! " 
 Thus, we see, how he denies all constitutional, original, impre- 
 scriptihle rights, and GIVES TO THE POWERS tliat he, to an autocrat, 
 or a majority, the right to stop the circulation of the Bible, or to 
 destroy the minority, if their own interest depends on it, and yet 
 talks about republican — and about rights! His principle clearly 
 is, that minorities have no rights. How this coincides with 
 the more candid Bellarmine ! (1) "When the question is, whe- 
 ther heretics, thieves, and other wicked men are to be extirpated 
 it is always to be considered, according to the purpose of the Lord, 
 whether it can be done without injury of the good, (Catholics) 
 and if indeed it can be done, THEN without doubt they are 
 TO be extirpated; but if it cannot be done, because they are 
 not sufficiently known, and there is danger of injuring the in- 
 nocent instead of the guilty; or they be stronger than WE, 
 and there is danger if we meet them in battle that more 
 
 MAY FALL AMONG US THAN AMONG THEM, in SUch Case we should 
 
 be quiet." 
 
 (1) Vol. iii. chap. 22, do Laicis. 
 
436 
 
 '* J« the Presbyterian Religion^ in any or in all its principles or 
 doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty ? " 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE V.— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President : — 
 
 You have heard what the gentleman has put forth, and it would 
 be difficult to find, in our language, 2i single word expressive 
 enough to convey an idea of its character. It is, if I may borrow 
 a term from the Spanish, an " olla-podrida." It is like the varie- 
 gated robe with which parental fondness clothed the patriarchal 
 boy; and the variety of its colours furnishes intrinsic evidence, 
 that patriarchal hands have been employed in patching it up. 
 But whatever it is, you all know what it is NOT — an answer to 
 my speech. And, far from complaining that the gentleman has 
 invoked the aid of friendship in his extremity, I am delighted that 
 he has friends, and that they have sense enough not to attempt 
 a refutation of my arguments. The propositions of my last speech, 
 therefore, are tacitly admitted as unanswerable. Not a single 
 exception taken at my authorities — not a single attempt to dis- 
 prove the correctness of my reasoning. I confess that of a train 
 of argument, founded on facts, which exhibited the doctrines 
 of the "Confession of faith" as authorizing and leading to 
 bloodshed, in every country in which the civil constitution did not 
 restrain its intolerance, (as in the United States now,) I did expect 
 that there would be some attempt at refutation. But the reverse 
 is the case; and it proves that the wisdom of older men cannot 
 extricate the Presbyterian religion from the predicament, into 
 which it has been brought by the imprudence of the gentleman. 
 There it sticks ; and, until history can be blotted out from the 
 memory of men, there it will continue, undefended and indefensi- 
 ble ; from the indelible charge of having shed the blood of men, for 
 conscience' sake, and that on a principle of doctrine — which is 
 still retained in its public creed. 
 
 He mistook his subject when he promised to defend it. Talents 
 superior to his, would be shipwrecked in the undertaking. Ilis 
 talents lie in another way; his/oWe is the "abuse of popery." 
 This discussion will have taught him more of Presbyterian his- 
 tory than he ever knew before ; and, I trust, he will have gleaned 
 from the improvement of his knowledge, the wholesome moral of 
 the old adage, " tliat men of GLASS ouglit not to throw stones." 
 
I 
 
 431 
 
 He assigns as a reason why he does not attempt to meet my argu- 
 ments, that ''he has answered them already/' Sir, a grosser im- 
 position never was attempted on sectarian credulity. Examine his 
 speeches from beginning to end, and tell me WHERE, or WHEN 
 he has answered them ! To my quotations from history, showing 
 the unextinguishable intolerance of Presbyterians, he has opposed 
 his ASSEKTIONS. Do you call that an answer? To the 
 Protestant and Presbyterian authorities quoted by me to prove 
 their doctrines and deeds of blood, in every country under heaven, 
 that was scourged with their political ascendancy, he opposes 
 ^'certificates" of Bancroft, or somebody else, setting forth that 
 they were a pretty good kind of people. Do you call that an 
 answer? I prove by testimony that he does not dispute, that the 
 Quakers and other " pestilent heretics,'' as they were called, 
 were cropped of their ears, scourged at the cart-tail, and hanged 
 on the gallows, for having exercised liberty of conscience, in op- 
 position to Calvinism, in New England — and he calls this evi- 
 dence, "witch" stories! Now is this an answer? I show him 
 that the Baptists were put to death by the Presbyterians of Switz- 
 erland — and he says, Oh, that icas m Sicitzerland, hut WE 
 have not done so, in tJiis COUNTEY, since the BEVOLUTlON. 
 Do you call that an answer? I show him that in Scotland, 
 the Presbyterians made it death for the Catholic to have wor- 
 shipped "three times," according to the dictates of his 
 OWN conscience ; and to this he replies, that his Scotch ances- 
 tors were not sound in the faith. Is this an answer? I show 
 that his church holds communion with all those churches — 
 that SHE receives their ministers — that some of those minis- 
 ters are the very men who are stirring up religious discord in the 
 republic now, and to all this he answers NOTHING-. And why 
 does he answer nothing ? Because he has nothing to say in 
 reply. The same principles of Presbyterian doctrine which 
 authorized the use of the AXE, and the STAKE, and the 
 HALTEIl, in other countries, have never been condemned — have 
 never been considered as a departure from orthodoxy by the 
 Presbyterians of the United States, either since the revolution or 
 before. The gentleman, therefore, must not pretend that he has 
 answered these arguments, when he has not. The claim of his 
 creed to the political support of the magistrates as "nursing 
 fathers to the church" — the pretended commandment of God 
 to "remove all false worship" — contain enough of the 
 DOCTllINE of persecution to authorize the same tragical bar- 
 barities which they produced elsewhere. They point out the 
 END which the Presbyterians are bound by their " TENETS OF 
 FAITH " to aim at — and all scruple as to the means by which 
 this end is to be accomplished, are sufficiently taken away by 
 the doctrine, that God has unchamjcably " FOREOKDAINEJ) 
 WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS." 
 
438 
 
 And before I proceed to develope still further the radical in- 
 tolerance and tyranny of this doctrine, I must make a few observa- 
 tions to show the unreasonableness of the gentleman's attempt to 
 decoy me away from the subject of debate. He introduces mat- 
 ter which is out of order — foreign to the question, and belonging 
 to the former part of this discussion. If I turn aside to notice 
 his assertions, (for they are nothing more,) it is manifest that I 
 cannot perform the operation which he finds so painful, viz., the 
 dissection of Presbyterianism. This is what he hopes to defeat. 
 I show him that the arguments by which the doctrine of his 
 church authorized its members to refute all heresies and false 
 worship, were the faggot, and the block, and the halter. And, in 
 order to withdraw the eyes of the public from the contemplation 
 of tlds horrible truth, he says, " why does not Mr. Hughes an- 
 swer this, and this — the '^crusades,'' the "Inquisition,'' "St. 
 Bartholomew," " licensed brothels at Rome," " mutilations and 
 forgeries of authors," &c. &c. &c. &c. &c. I reply that my 
 reason for not answering them 7iow, is, first, because so for as 
 they 'die falseli/ said to have been evidences OF the doctrines 
 of the Catholic religion, I have answered them already, under 
 their proper head, in the former question; to which I refer the 
 audience and the reader. I reply secondly, that they do not be- 
 long to this question, and that my time and space are sacred to 
 Prenbyterianism. These are sufficient to show that the gentle- 
 man's ruse de guerre, to decoy me from exposing the reasons 
 why Presbyterians ought to be ashamed to speak of ^^civil and 
 religious liberty ^^ is an artifice of which a generous antagonist 
 would feel discredited by stooping to avail himself. Lest, how- 
 ever, the course he has pursued should be construed illogically, 
 and an inference drawn that the case does not warrant, I submit 
 the following remarks and proposal. 
 
 1. The crusades had for their object to arrest the progress of 
 the sworn enemies of the Christian name. The learned Protest- 
 ants who have written on the subject, even Southey and James^ 
 have acknowledged that the political salvation of Europe 
 was secured by them. James declares that they were as "just 
 
 AS ANY WARS THAT EVER WERE UNDERTAKEN." 
 
 2. The Albigenses were public enemies of the state and of 
 society by THEIR CRIMES. They were put down by the civil 
 power, with the permission and the recommendation of the clergy — 
 not as heretics, but as heretics who committed such public dis- 
 orders AS NO GOVERNMENT COULD TOLERATE. Catholics, guilty 
 
 of the same crimes, would have been put down in the same way. 
 
 3. The Hugonot wars in France were wars for political ascen- 
 dancy. The doctrines of Calvin had taught his disciples that 
 sooner than his gos^jel should not triumph in POLITICS, as well as 
 religion, they might turn their arms against their country and 
 their king. They did so, but they did not succeed. It was they 
 
r 
 
 439 
 
 wlio are responsible for the blood that was sbed duriog those 
 melancholy days. Treachery and treason, conspiracy and assassi- 
 nation had been employed hy them, to accomplish their purpose. 
 And, though treachery was employed against them, no principle 
 of the Catholic relvjion was ever adduced to sanction the pro- 
 ceedimj of St. Bartholomew. It was attempted to be justified 
 on the plea, that it was precisely the stratagem which the Ilugo- 
 nofs themselves had intended to employ. 
 
 4. The altering of books is introduced, for what purpose the 
 gentleman alone can tell. The only reason I can imagine, is, to 
 cover the use he has attempted to make of the spurious document, 
 ascribed to Innocent YIII. He says the bull '' In Coena Domini" 
 is not in the Bullarium Magnum. This is simply nntrue. It is 
 found in Vol. III., p. 282. Down to the pretended Reformation 
 there icas NO motive to alter hooks, since all were Catholics. 
 After that, it would have been USELESS AND ABSURD — since the 
 Protestants icould know the fact. The true reason, therefore, 
 was to guard against the errors which the new religionists were 
 ever zealous to foist into the republication of Catholic works. 
 The Scriptures, the Fathers, the Ecclesiastical Writers, were all 
 to be '' reformcd^^ by those sly alterations, ichich changed the 
 meanimj of the author, and yet jyreserved the title of the book. 
 We have instances in our own day, to prove that the art has 
 not been lost or forgotten by Presbyterians. The Sunday School 
 Union — and the American Bible Society, in sending a mutilated 
 Spanish Bible to the South Americans with a " lyinc/ title page/' 
 are cases directly in point, 
 
 5. As to charges of " CALUMNIES,'' to which he pretends 
 now to give a REPLY, I shall briefly show how much his "reply'' 
 is worth. 1. What is his reply? It is only a repetition of 
 the calumnies themselves. 2. He quotes, when he quotes at all, 
 a garbled word, or sentence, and adduces it as evidence, not of its 
 meaning IN the original, but of the malicious meaning which 
 CALUMNY has ascribed to it — just as the devil quoted Scripture, 
 to suit his purpose. Let the gentleman not say that I compare 
 him to the devil — I only borrow an illustration. 3. But what 
 settles the matter is, that when /made out the calumnies, I had 
 the ORIGINAL TEXT AND CONTEXT spread out on the 
 tablr. Then was the time for a man who had a literary reputa- 
 tion either at stake or in prospect, to have felt laudably indignant 
 at the charge, and bent over the page, which would convict or 
 acquit him. Did he do this? Not at all. I specified calumny 
 after calumny ; pointed to the books, not Crampt's " Text Book 
 of Popery," not Dr. Miller's ribaldrous " History of Popery," 
 but the ORIGINAL BOOKS, which calumniators dread; I 
 challenged him to the open page; I taunted him with a pre- 
 diction that he would wait to avail himself of the absence of the 
 books to which he referred — but all in vain ! A candid man 
 
440 
 
 would have said, ^^ let me see the originals — I am glad you have 
 brought them here, and marked the references, for I have always 
 been taught to believe those statements ; and I have no wish to 
 aid in the perpetuation of calumnies, if they are such, I shall 
 see for myself, and not depend on Faber any more." Was there 
 any thing of this ? Not at all. He said something about his 
 character, and promised, '^ with the permission of God/' to reply 
 to the charges — in the absence, as we now see, of the onJi/ wit- 
 nesses that could convict or acquit him — the ORIGrlNAL DOCU- 
 MENTS. Here was the test. 
 
 But he shall not escape with this. The calumnies which I 
 charged and proved, may be seen under the former head. I have 
 still the original works in my library. And I propose that two 
 interpreters, one a Catholic, appointed by me ; the other a Pres- 
 byterian, appointed by Mr. Breckinridge, shall appoint, by agree- 
 ment, a third, neither a Catholic nor Presbyterian ; and let these, 
 as a tribunal, decide, hy aj^j^eal to the original documents. I 
 propose next to enter into a bond, with security, to pay one hun- 
 dred dollars to whoever may claim it, for every case in which 1 
 do not succeed to convict the gentleman of the calumnies alleged 
 hy me against him ; provided that he or any of his friends will 
 enter into a 'like obligation, of, paying one hundred dollars for 
 every instance in which I shall convict him. The forfeit to be 
 given in such charity as either party may choose. 
 
 27iis will test the measure of confidence which he has in his 
 pretended " reply." This will test how far his friends are sin- 
 cerely disposed to believe that his statements '' are to be depended 
 on." This will test whether the conscience of Presbyteriauisra 
 is as ready to sacrifice money, as it is to immolate truth. To 
 this test I challenge the gentleman. 
 
 Before I enter on the continuation of the general argument, I 
 must go over the small points of the gentleman's speech. I had 
 said, that the only denomination of Protestants who had not be- 
 come "ashamed" of Calvin's absolute "decrees," were the high- 
 toned Presbyterians, and ^^perhaps" theCongregationalists of New 
 England. I defied the proof, that it was " held" by the other de- 
 nominations. He does not give the proof, but says, that inasmuch I 
 said "they icere ashamed of," in one sentence, and "thryhcld," in 
 the other, I have contradicted myself! ! He says so. But, surely, 
 there is no contradiction. The Lutherans, Episcopalians, General 
 Baptists, Methodists, Swedenborgians, Moravians, Unitarians, 
 and the other denominations of Protestants that I am acquainted 
 with, are "ashamed of it,'" and do not "hold it." I said that 
 " none of the Baptists were Calvinists." This, he says, " SHOWS 
 
 MY EXTREME AND IMPERTINEN'J* KINORANCE ;" for, he adds, the 
 
 majority in Great Britain are "decidedly CalvinisTic. And, there- 
 fore, being CalvinisTic, they are CalvinistsI! Now the Calvinists 
 of Switzerland tied the Baptists back to back, and DBvOVVNED 
 
441 
 
 THEM FOR HERESY— a sufficient proof that I was not ^'igno- 
 ranV* when I said that none of the Baptists are ^' Oalvinists." 
 
 I have too much respect for the moral sense of the age, not to 
 believe and hope, that the ffentleman himself would be ''ashamed" 
 of its avowal. Would he not be ashamed to go into a Christian 
 pulpit, and proclaim that the crimes and villanies of the day, and 
 the drunkenness and debaucheries of the night, were all "FORE- 
 ORDAINED " by God ? Would he not be '' ashamed " to say, 
 after Calvin, that the incest of Absolom is set down in Scripture 
 as ''GOD'S OWN WORK?" '' Ahsolon incesto coitu patris 
 torum polluens, detestahile scelus perpetrat; Deus TAMEN HOO 
 SUUM OPUS PRONUNCIAT." (1) Would he not be "ashamed" 
 to say, with the father of his religion, that " God directs lohat- 
 ever is perpetrated hy men, OR EVEN BY THE DEVIL HIMSELF?" 
 ** Ergo quidquid agitent homines vel Satan ipse, Deus tamen 
 clavum tenet'' — literally, '■^God holds the keys." (2) 
 
 The gentleman says, that ^' force" is not intended by the com- 
 mandment which obliges Presbyterians "to remove all false wor- 
 ship, and all the monuments of idolatry.'^ He ought to know 
 that the uniform* practice of his Church explains what was in- 
 tended by this commandment. In Geneva it meant "FORCE," — 
 in France, " FORCE," — in Scotland, England, and Ireland, 
 "force," — in the Low Countries, "force," — in New England, 
 "FORCE;" — and if, in this country, it means ^^ moral influence,'^ 
 the fact teaches us to be grateful to Heaven for having given us 
 a government lohich compels the Presbyterians to break one of 
 God's commandments, and DESIST FROM THE USE OF " force" 
 in removing what they, in the plenitude of arrogance, think 
 proper to designate as ^ false worship.'^ The article was framed, 
 as it qow stands, by the Creed-makers of Westminster, when the 
 political power, legislative, executive, and judiciary, was in the 
 hands of Presbyterians, and the gentleman must be extremely 
 ignorant of the history of those times, if he supposes that it was 
 not framed expressly to sanction the employment of ^^ force," in 
 establishing Presbyterian " uniformity'* throughout the three king- 
 doms. It was the very rock on which they split. For, if the 
 indomitable intolerance of Calvinism had permitted them to com- 
 ply with the petitions of the Independents, to grant an " indul- 
 gence to tender consciences," their power would not have 
 been so short-lived. But nothing shoft of the "REMOVAL" 
 of all "FALSE WORSHIP" would satisfy their thirst for abso- 
 lute religious domination. This we have seen already in my last 
 speech, and it shall be more fully shown in the present. 
 
 The gentleman wants me to show the ^^ intention" of the Edi- 
 tor of the Catholic Telegraph, in copying the article from a for- 
 eign paper, animadverting on the affair in Boston. It is enough 
 
 (1) Inst. c. 18. g 1. (2) Ibid. 
 
 28 
 
442 
 
 that I have proved him and his colleagues guilty of calumny ^ 
 when they charged the authorship of that article on the Catholic 
 editor himself, and on this assumption of their own calUiMNY, 
 would charge its sentiments on the whole Catholic body of the 
 United States. Bishop England and Bishop Flaget had a per- 
 fect right to say what they have said, and the man who can ex- 
 tract a had meaning from it, must be one who measures his 
 neighbour's thoughts by the dark standard of his own bosom. 
 
 lie says he has answered the doctrine of the "decrees" of Cal- 
 vinism so often, that he would be " ashamed to go over it again*' — 
 ''it would fatigue his hearers and future readers. On the con- 
 trary, it is so pleasant a doctrine, that they would 7icver get tired 
 of it. A doctrine that tells them that all the crimes they ever 
 have committed, or will commit, were "FOREORDAINED'' 
 by God, cannot be repeated too often. The passions will exult 
 in it. But if the gentleman would only once attempt to answer 
 my arguments, showing its dangerous bearings on civil and 
 religious liberty, his doing so would constitute a variety in his 
 reply, precious as a spice of life. He says, that in this I attack 
 the principle of the " Protestant Reformation, era.'' But why 
 is not he able to defend it, since the other Protestants generally 
 have become "ashamed of its avowal." 
 
 He says, the " DAY OF OUR DOOM IS AT HAND." 
 This is strong; and considering that the gentleman is in the secrets 
 of the anti-Catholic crusaders, this is significant language. The 
 ^'day of our doom" may be destined in the "decrees" of Calvin, 
 to come in the "night," as was the case with the Convent at Bos- 
 ton. As to "priestcraft," the odium of the term may belong 
 to us — the GAIN belongs to the parsons. The " craft" is theirs. 
 The American Catholics are much obliged to the gentleman for 
 calling them "enlightened." I showed, in my last speecR, that 
 what the gentleman calls a "change" in the Confession of Faith, 
 is only an " omission," and that an omission is no condemnation, 
 no contradiction. Otherwise, the gospels of the four Evangel- 
 ists would be in contradiction with each other. The gentleman, 
 unable to meet my arguments, asks a question : — "But" says 
 he, " can the American people be GULLED with a change in a 
 few words, when the thing remains the same?" To this, I 
 reply, I hope not. The American people are not so easily 
 "gulled" The fate of the "Sunday Mail petitions," at Wash- 
 ington, — and of the Sunday School Union bill, at Harrisburg, a 
 few years ago, should have taught Presbyterians that the Ameri- 
 can people are not to be "gulled by the change of a few words 
 when THE thing remains the same." 
 
 The gentleman is very much afflicted for the disappointment 
 which Catholics will feel on reading my part of this discussion. 
 I would advise him to husband his sympathies — he will have oc- 
 casion for them elsewhere. He will have to carry on the " contro- 
 
443 
 
 versi/ hy himself,'' for many a day, before he will have repaired 
 its effects, even to his own satisfaction, much less to that of his 
 orthodox brethren. 
 
 I promised, in my last speech, to loan him the book, printed 
 under Doctor Ely's direction, which contains all my former quota- 
 tions from the proceedings of the Sunday School Union. I had 
 told all about it before. When I had done this, I said I had given 
 the '* reference." He says, in his usual polite and veracious 
 style, that this is " utterly false." Let the public judge. But 
 least he should have any pretext for evading it, I tell him that the 
 Preface to the Catalogue of Sunday School Books, for the year 
 1826, contains the avowal of ''dictation to the souls OF 
 THOUSANDS of immortal beings." Let the gentleman meet it. 
 
 As to Mr. Ansley, not having an opportunity to defend himself 
 the gentleman's attack on his private character is as cruel and heart- 
 less a proceeding as it is possible to imagine. The gentleman re- 
 turns to it, as to a labour of love. Insinuation is the safest channel 
 for slander, and the gentleman ought to have left it to those base 
 spirits that take delight in blackening character, without risking 
 the responsibility of being accusers. Until he think proper to 
 f.peak out, I can only say, and I say it with the most undisguised 
 contempt for the insinuation, that '' I recognise in it the meanness 
 that would insinuate, without the courage to assert," and that so 
 far as it is supposed to relate to myself, it is founded on FALSE- 
 HOOD, and must reflect its infamy back on its origin. I hope 
 the gentleman will speak out the next time. 
 
 He says, I " falsified Calvin with my eyes open." I answer, 
 the statement is not to be depended on. I quoted Calvin's own 
 words, and the audience are to judge whether they '' make God 
 the author of sin." If they do not, I am at a loss to know what 
 they mean. But let the audience and the public judge. The 
 gentleman lays down a canon of priticism on the subject of " quo- 
 tations" which is not orthodox. He says, that when " I pass his 
 quotations hy in silence, it is admitting the TRUTH of the PROOF 
 and the foiirness of the method of citation.'' I caution the audience 
 against any such absurd inference. I may pass by his " quota- 
 tions in silence" — 1st. Because, if, in every case, 1 were to stop 
 to correct the want of " truth," or unfairness in the " method of 
 citation," I should lose the whole time, and fill up the space, that 
 are sacred to something more important than the exposure of faith- 
 less citation. 2d. The falsity of the quotation, whether in sub- 
 stance or method, may be unimportant. 3d. 1 may discover, that 
 faithless though it be, yet it does not prove the point for which 
 he adduced it. Here are three sufficient reasons why I should 
 pass many of his "quotations by in silence." I have exposed a 
 few as a sample, and I believe that the usual rule is to place but 
 little reliance on an author who has corrupted, even in a single 
 instance, the testimony of those whom he brings forward aa 
 
444 
 
 vouchers. The gentleman's inference would require me to prove 
 that he never quotes without perverting. This I did not say. 
 But I do say, that in no single instance have I examined his quo- 
 tations, without being painfully convinced that they were pervert- 
 ed, either in altering the text, or in perverting the author's mean- 
 ing, and sometimes in both. 
 
 In reference to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the gen- 
 tleman, after charging a great many frauds on the translation, not 
 one of which he ventures to prove by citation, closes with these 
 words, ^^hut I here challenge Mr. Ilughes to meet me ho fore any 
 number of Latin scholars, and I urill convict this shameful edi- 
 tion of twenty DELIBERATE and glaring FRAUDS ichich 
 have been EVIDENTLY committed with DESIGN." I accept 
 the challenge, and refer it to the tribunal for examining the gen- 
 tleman's calumnies. I shall enter into obligations to pay, by my 
 securities, one hundred dollars for every instance in which he will 
 have succeeded to prove his proposition ; provided, he will oblige 
 himself to forfeit a similar sum for every instance in which he will 
 have failed to prove it. Let him name the day when he is willing 
 and ready to enter into these obligations. If he does not, the 
 public will see that he has no confidence in the truth of his propo- 
 sition. I pronounce it utterly untrue. 
 
 The gentleman assumes, in his attempt to vindicate his sup- 
 pression of a part of the twenty-seventh Canon of the Third La- 
 teran, that I admit the Church had a right to punish the Albigenses 
 ^' for their crimes." I admitted no such thing : it is his own per- 
 version of my language. It is false in history, that the Church 
 punished them for their crimes. They were punished by their 
 governments for their outrages on society. The Church excom- 
 municated them; and their crimes drew on them their chatise- 
 ment and suppression. Had not the States which they disturbed a 
 right to reduce them ? Had not France its king, and Germany its 
 emperor, and every state in Europe its civil government. Suppos- 
 ing that CATHOLICS had leagued together for the destruction of 
 social order, and the commission of crime, as the Albigenses did; 
 supposing they had committed, on " churches and monasteries, 
 virgins and widows, all sexes and ages," those outrages which 
 the gentleman, after Faber, thought it prudent to suppress and 
 conceal, would not the States have a right to reduce them to order, 
 or exterminate them, and would not the authorities of the Church 
 have a right to encourage them to do so ? But what would have 
 been lawful on account of their crimes, if they had been Catholics, 
 becomes quite otherwise from the moment that their crimes were 
 sanctified by the merits of their heresy. Because they were 
 'A/bigens^is, the gentleman seems to infer that it was persecution 
 to arrest them in their career of destruction, until they had deso- 
 lated the whole land " after the manner of pagans," as they were 
 doing. They were the public enemies of society by their crimes 
 
445 
 
 — for this the gentleman admits they ought to be punished. But 
 they were the enemies of the Catholic relvjioii, and had assailed, 
 hy violence, its churches, monasteries, &c., and for this they ought 
 to have been protected, and the Pope, at least, ought not to have 
 encouraged any measures against them ! ! But, he says, it was at 
 least ''discipline," of the Church. No, sir, it was not even dis- 
 cipline. It was a special direction for a special case. The Synod 
 of York has directed an anti-popery sermon to be preached every 
 year; and this order, or direction, is neither doctrine nor disci- 
 pline. The direction given at the Council of Lateran, was, in its 
 principle, like that given at the Synod of York. It is neither 
 doctrine nor discipline. If the Catholics had been acquainted 
 with the Presbyterian second commandment, it would not have 
 been necessary to wait for the public crimes of the Albigenses. 
 Their "FALSE WORSHIP" alone would have given a sufficient 
 plea to obey God, and " REMOVE THEM." This may sug- 
 gest the difference between doctrine and no doctrine. 
 
 He says that I am "bound in virtue of holy obedience, to 
 read the bull In Coena Domini, during Lent, every year." 
 Here, again, he deceives his readers by the assertion. His 
 statement is positively false. I proved, under the former head, 
 that that bull was never admitted in many Catholic countries, 
 and that by a rescript of the Pope himself, it was suppressed 
 throughout the whole world, except in Rome itself. Proof 
 .and reasoning are lost on such an opponent, but not, I trust, 
 on the meeting and the public. Finally, he says ^Hlie Church 
 has shed blood enough to float a man of warT This is quite a 
 a vciQ^QXdXQ figure. It used to be "oceans" of blood. I maintain, 
 that not so much as one drop of human blood was ever shed by 
 virtue of any tenet of faith or morals in the Catholic religion; 
 and the gentleman, however bold in his assertions, has been 
 signally defeated in his attempts to prove the contrary. The 
 Catholics have shed' blood like the professors of other creeds, 
 but never, like the Presbyterians, by virtue of one of God^s com- 
 mandments. Whenever the gentleman ventured on facts to prove 
 his assertion, he was found minus habens. Now he has recourse 
 to OPINIONS. lie thinks that all the blood shed in the crusades, 
 is chargeable to the Church ; the Saracens, like the Albigenses, 
 were innocent lambs. Wiser and more learned Protestants, 
 have pronounced that the Crusades were just wars. If so, the 
 gentleman's " man of war," will be aground. 
 
 Next the Inquisition. He thinks, that the Church is account- 
 able for the bloo(i shed by the Inquisition. Now every man that 
 knows the history of the countries in which it existed, knows 
 that so far as the shedding of blood was a part of the Inquisition, 
 it was ENTIRELY, AND AVOWEDLY, a pc>/'i7/c«^ and not an 
 ecclesiastical tribunal. So that this must be subtracted from the 
 element on which the gentleman would float his " man of war.'' 
 
446 
 
 Next tlie Massacre of St. Bartliolomew . He tliinhs, that the 
 Church is accountable for this. I have proved the contrary in 
 the former question. The wars in Irekmd made the Catholics 
 bleed, and not the protestants, except in the wicked retaUation of 
 despair. Let the gentleman read the Vindicise Hiberuicse of 
 Mr. Carey, and he will make a profitable addition to his stock of 
 knowledge. As to the rest, the gentleman might as well hold 
 the Church responsible for the blood that was shed at the battle 
 of Waterloo. 
 
 Charge, then, all the blood which the gentleman has collected 
 with so much assertion, and so little sense or authority, from the 
 CIVIL or FOREIGN WAKS, in which Catholics throughout the 
 world may have been engaged, each portion to \i^ proper account, 
 where history places it, and the "man of war/^ which he thought 
 to set " afloat," will be found " high and dry." He has fallen 
 into that fallacy of logic, which is sometimes termed "??o?j causa 
 pro causa," assigning effects to one cause, which belong to an- 
 other. But as he is bold in assertion, and fallacious in logic, so 
 is he fervent in declamation. He looks at the picture drawn from 
 imagination, and addressed to imagination ; and in order to show 
 what patriots he and Doctor Brownlee are, he seems to say, "O/i, 
 my countrymen, the Catholic Church is guilty of all the blood 
 that was ever shed. Do not, I beseech you, after all the trouble 
 we have had to get mojiey from you, for tracts, and Bibles, and 
 missionaries, and education societies, do not, I pi-ay you, sell 
 yourselves to the Pope. Then our occupation would be gone. 
 Look at this picture of a ^ man of w\ar.' " 
 
 The gentleman has said, with his usual regard for truth, that 
 ^'3Ir. Hughes thinks that these MASSACRES may be justified, be- 
 cause, as he says, the victims of them were not innocent but 
 tcicked men, and the enemies of Society." Just for curiosity, I 
 shall number the untruths contained in this short sentence, Mr. 
 Hughes never thought or said, that men might be " massacred," 
 for being ^^ wicked men," (first untruth.) Mr. Hughes never 
 thought or said that "these massjicres" might be "justified," at 
 all, (second untruth.) Mr. Hughes never thought or said, that 
 any massacre might be "justified," on any plea (third untruth.) 
 Now if I have, 1 bind myself to apologize publicly for the lan- 
 guage I have used. If I have not, the gentleman owes a triple 
 apology; one to my character, another to truth, and the third to 
 that commandment of God, which says, "thou shalt not bear 
 false icitness againt thy neighbour," and which seems to be a 
 dead letter, if at all, in the Presbyterian Catechism. 
 
 He says again that I "o^vn the fact of a theocracy in that day 
 of Rome s supreme dominion over mens souls and bodies" Now 
 there is not a word of truth in this assertion. I pointed to the 
 real Calvinistic "theocracy" of the early "puritans" in New 
 England, as presenting a "diminutive analogy" of the social con- 
 
447 
 
 dition of Europe, at the period of the Fourth Lateran Council. 
 The inference that, therefore, I oivn a theocracy in the Catholic re- 
 ligion, is both illogical in reasoning, and false in assertion. From 
 this/«^se assertion, the gentleman draws other inferences intended 
 to prove I care not what; but proving in eifect, that Mr. Hughes 
 is, like his Churchy as wicked as barefaced calumny can make 
 him. I am surprised that the gentleman has not more pity on his 
 own reputation; he exposes himself palpably and unmercifully. 
 After having quoted the passage from my letters, showing that the 
 Catholic States of Europe had a right ^' TO TAKE MEASURES 
 FOR THE COMMON WELFARE," to suppress sedition, and 
 maintain order and subordination in society, he adds, "THUS WE 
 SEE HOW HE (Mr. Hughes,) DENIES ALL CONSTITU- 
 TIONAL, ORIGINAL, IMPRESCRIPTIBLE RIGHTS," (not 
 true,) AND GIVES TO THE POWERS THAT BE, TO AN 
 AUTOCRAT, OR A MAJORITY, THE RIGHT TO STOP 
 THE CIRCULATION OF THE BIBLE," (not exactly true,) 
 " or to destroy the minority, if their own interest depends on it.'' 
 (Utterly and entirely false.) All that I said was, that society has 
 a right to suppress heretics, or no heretics, loho xindertahe to over- 
 throw the government. The gentleman had said, that this Would 
 have been accomplished in Russia, if the OPERATIONS OF 
 THE BIBLE SOCIETY had not been arrested; and I observed 
 in reply, that the Emperor did what any man ivould do in his 
 circumstances ; he put down the Bible Society, and we have Mr. 
 Breckinridge's authority for stating, that if he had not done so, 
 he would have "TO LOSE HIS CROWN." (1) 
 
 But it is not only in misrepresentations of m}'^ statements, and 
 false inductions, but in direct and positive matters of fact, that 
 the gentleman does injury to truth. For instance, he sa3^s the 
 Confession of Faith was amended "BEFORE THE AMERI- 
 CAN REVOLUTION." Now it was amended so fjir as print- 
 ing is concerned, in the first General Assembly, in 1789, just 
 thirteen years after the Declaration of Independence ! ! How 
 then could it have been "6r/ore," as the gentleman has said with 
 emphasis. It was not even before the Constitution. 
 
 The question returns then, how can Presbyterians obey God, 
 who commands them to "REMOVE ALL FALSE WORSHIP;" 
 and yet obey the Constitutions, which enjoin on them to disobey 
 God? This is the point which I cannot get the gentleman to 
 meet, or clear up. He says that he has answered this question 
 before, by shf^wing that WE (Presbyterians,) mean in the CON- 
 FESSION, NO FORCE; but truth, moral influence, argument, 
 the press, the Bible, Sc. &c. This is sophistry which can de- 
 ceive but few. For, the meaning of the "Confession," was de- 
 termined by those who drew it up, nearly two hundred years ago. 
 
 (1) See Letters, viii. ix. 
 
448 
 
 The object of the doctrine was to impose the solemn league and 
 covenant on all men, and establish '^ vniformif?/" of religion 
 throughout the three kingdoms. How ? By PENAL LAWS, sane- 
 tioning the use of every hind of punishment, from the STOCKS to 
 the qalloics and the hloch. Its meaning has been determined by 
 acts of Parliament, by ejecting the EPISCOPAL CLERGY from 
 their livings, by ^' REMOVING," VIOLENTLY, every menu- 
 ment of Catholic piety from the Ej)iscopal Churches. Was this 
 *' moral influence I*" The gentleman need not tell us what " he " 
 means in the Confession. Its meaning was written in the blood 
 of the Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, Arminians, Quakers, &c., 
 before, long before, he was born. Its meaning is a settled pointy 
 a *' ruled case," and I am astonished that the gentleman should 
 have exposed his knowledge of history, so far as to talk of ''mo- 
 ral influence," in connection with the propagation of Calvinism. 
 How was it propagated ? I say BY FORCE, and I challenge 
 contradiction. It was a tyrant from its cradle, and before it was 
 ten years of age, it had abolished the '' mass," and drowned the 
 Baptists in the same canton. How did it propagate itself; in 
 Geneva ? BY FORCE. In France ? BY FORCE. In Scot- 
 land? BY FORCE. In Holland? BY FORCE. In England? 
 BY FORCE. In Ireland? BY FORCE. How did it preach 
 itself into political power in those countries ? It began by LI- 
 BELS, and ended by PITCHED BATTLES. The exordium 
 of its sermon was sedition ; — the p^^roration, fixed bayonets. 
 Will the gentleman deny this ? He need not ; all this is public, 
 notorious, palpable matter of history. But after it had succeeded 
 in establishing itself BY FORCE, did it then employ only "mo- 
 ral influence ?" In answer to this question, I refer the reader to 
 my last speech, and he will see that it employed the influence of 
 the block and the gibbet, for the purpose of '' REMOVING ALL 
 FALSE WORSHIP." The American Constitution abridged the 
 practical part of the creed, on this subject. But since then, (like 
 Samson in the recovery of his strength,) its hair has grown out, 
 its locks have become thick and bushy, and, impatient of the 
 " PHILISTINES " by whom it is surrounded, it begins to FEEL 
 that it is NOW strong enough to ^' carry aiuay the j)illars" of 
 the Constitution ; — ^and judging by the fiery zeal of the gentle- 
 man and his colleagues, it is almost blind enough to make the 
 attempt. (" The Presbyterians alone," says Dr. Ely, " could 
 bring a half a million of voters into the field.") 
 
 But so long as the Constitution lasts, the Presbyterian doctrine 
 cannot have FAIR PLAY. The magistrates cannot, convenient- 
 ly, be '' ITS NURSING FATHERS." But take it where they 
 were faithful to the "nursling;" let us see it in the low coun- 
 tries, according to the testimony of one of its own ministers, for 
 I like to use its friends as v:itnesses against it. 
 
 We have seen the fruits of the doctrine about the " REMOVING 
 
449 
 
 OF ALL FALSE WORSHIP/'' as they ripened in Geneva, 
 Scotland, and New England. Let us see whether they were less 
 bitter in the Low Countries. I shall quote from the ^'Ilistori/ 
 of the Reformation, in and about the Low Countries, hy the Rev. 
 Gerard Brandt" — himself a Presbyterian minister, but not a 
 ^'high-toned Calvinist." In describing the 'Muoral influence,'' 
 by which Calvinism established itself at Antwerp in 1566, his 
 narrative reminds one of the ^^ removing" process at Boston — the 
 fulfilling of the second commandment. 
 
 " Stiada adds, that they (the Calvinists) laid hands on the sacra- 
 mental bread, or mass-wafers, trampling them wider their feet. 
 The consecrated chalices they filled with the wine they found in 
 the churches, and drank to one another's health. They smeared 
 their shoes with the holy oil, defiled the church garments with 
 ordure, and, daubing the books luith butter, threio them into the 
 fire: some of the images and pictures were kicked up and down ; 
 others they thrust through with swords, or chopped off their 
 heads with axes ; upon others they put on armour, and then tilted 
 against them with spears, javelins, &c. out of wantonness, till the 
 images fell down, and then mocked and jeared tliem."(l) Was 
 not this Gdvinistic "moral influence?" 
 
 It may be well to inform the audience that what is called the 
 ^^Reformcd Religion'" in these extracts is the pure Calvinistio 
 doctrine — held by the Presbyterian Church in the United States. 
 It was introduced at Dort, in 1572, in the following truly evan- 
 gelical manner, converting the Catholics by the pure " moral 
 influence" of persuasion. 
 
 " The first sermon preached by the Reformed was under a 
 lime-tree in the Klevenniers Doel, where the shooting-house now 
 stands ; but that did not last long, nor would they be so contented. 
 In a little time, the images were thrown out of the churches, the 
 altars broken down, and the Rt formed Religion ivas publicli/ 
 exercised. But, in a certain Journal written at that time, we 
 find that the images in the monastery of the Austin Fryers were 
 broken down on the 26th of July, and that on the next day the 
 first sermon was preached there. The Baguines were forced to 
 fly, for the troopers brought their horses into their nunneries." (2) 
 
 Again, at Utrecht, in J 580, about fourteen years after Calvin- 
 ism had established itself by the persuasive "moral influence" 
 of the musket, the magistrates began to ^^ nurse" it : — 
 
 " It fared yet worse with the papists at Utrect ] for, upon 
 the 18th of June, there was published an order in that city (of 
 which the occasion is not mentioned} forbidding, in the name 
 of the stadtholder and magistrates, the exercise of the Romish 
 religion t ) all priests, or ordained persons, and their adherents, 
 of that communion, within the said city or liberties thereof, npon 
 
 (1) Vol. i. p. 193. (2) Idem, p. 297. 
 
450 
 
 forfeiture of their benefices and offices, if they had any, or the 
 sum of ten gilders ; aud this order was to be in force till the 
 stadtholder aud states should otherwise direct."(l) 
 
 From these extracts the gentleman will learn how Presbyte- 
 rians, "according to each one's place aud calling," are bound to 
 " remove all false worship, and all the monuments of idolatry.'' 
 We have seen that "force" has always and every where been 
 employed for that purpose. In 1581 the following ordinance 
 was published in Amsterdam, by the prime " nursing father." 
 
 " On the say day there likewise appeared a placard, in the 
 name of the prince of Orange, as to whom the supreme adminis- 
 ti-ation of affairs had been yielded up; in which, not only the 
 printing and selling all manner of scandalous, abuseful, and sedi- 
 tious books and pamphlets, new ballads and songs, without the 
 leave of the magistracy, and name of the publisher, were pro- 
 hibited, but also, the 'exercise of the Romish religion, and the 
 holding either public or private conventicles, on the penalty of a 
 hundred gilders; nevertheless, says the same placard, it is not 
 our intention to impose any burthen, or make inquisition into 
 any man's conscience. The wearing ecclesiastical habits, and 
 keeping schools, withoid previons examination and permissiony 
 were likewise forbidden to all papists." (2) 
 
 The ministers of Calvinism, after having appropriated to their 
 own use the ecclesiastical as well as secular property of the 
 Catholics, by the violences and tyranny here mentioned, came to 
 a decision, in 1588, that not only the Catholic faith should be 
 excluded, but that the exercise of all other religions, but their 
 own, should be prohibited. (3) Burgomaster Hoost, in endea- 
 vouring to instil some feelings of humanity into the persecuting 
 soul of this desperate religion, uses an argument which I submit 
 to the gentleman's consideration. 
 
 " Particularly," says he, " it is very strange that those who 
 so strenuously maintain the doctrine of predestination, should 
 thus insist on PERSECUTION, OR FORCING OF CON- 
 SCIENCES ; for, if their doctrine be true, no man can avoid 
 that to which he is ordained." (4) 
 
 To show that their doctrine binds them, in conscience, to hin- 
 der any other worship but their own, the following testimony 
 from their writings will be sufficient. 
 
 " Since experience has shown how prejudicial it has been to 
 the church of God, to tolerate the Anabaptists, in the free exer- 
 cise of their schismatical opinions, after the public dispute with 
 -them, just as if there was no difference between i\iQ pure doctrine 
 of the true church and their heterodox notions ; the ministerSy 
 therefore, of God's word belonging to this province, intreat the 
 
 (1) Page 375. (2) Brandt, vol. i. p. 383. 
 
 (3) .Idem, vol. i. p. 424. (4) Page 470. 
 
451 
 
 deputies of the states to provide some remedy for this evil, so as 
 it may be most for the benefit of God's church and the discharge 
 of their consciences." (1) / 
 
 The following testimony shows plainly the nature of the doc- 
 trine touching the duty of the civil magistrates to be " nursing 
 fathers " to the church. 
 
 " But Grod works by instruments or such officers as he has set 
 over the people. Those officers are your lordships, whom God 
 has appointed as supreme moderators and governors under him, 
 in all cases relating to his church. The right which belonged to 
 the Christian magistrate in these matters, who was to take care 
 that the word of God were duly preached, and all scandal or 
 offisnce removed, was taken away from him by the Pope; but 
 restored in some places by the Reformation." (2) 
 
 Having removed the Catholic, and prevented the Baptist reli- 
 gion, BY FORCE, one would have expected that these Calvinists 
 would tolerate each other. But no. Some of them becoming 
 "ashamed'' of Calvin's doctrine about absolute "PREDESTI- 
 NATION," were PERSECUTED, for exercising their own 
 judgment and the rights of conscience in reference to that tenet, 
 with a cruelty and obstinacy without a parallel. These were 
 called ARMINIANS or REMONSTRANTS, and their persecu- 
 tors GOMARISTS or CONTRA-REMONSTRANTS. From 
 the moment that these Arminians ventured to think for them- 
 selves, the cunning treachery and intolerance of pure, unadul- 
 terated Calvinism, such as the gentleman professes, marked them 
 out for vengeance and destruction. How did they begin ? By 
 their usual weapon, slander. They covered them with calumny, 
 as has been done in Boston, and then employed the mob and the, 
 magistrate, alternately, to hunt them down. 
 
 "The Remonstrants were (as they themselves complained) 
 through the many SLANDERS raised against them in those 
 times, rendered so odious to the common people, and to the vilest 
 of the mob especially, that they could hardly walk the streets 
 without being called Arminians, and other reproachful names, and 
 pointed at as they passed. Many cried out alotid that they held a 
 correspondence with the Spaniards and Jesuits; that they received 
 bribes and pensions from them, and would have betrayed their 
 country to them, if they had not been hindered. Many suffered 
 themselves to be persuaded, or else made themselves believe (for 
 when once hatred has got possession of a man's heart, he deceives 
 himself as easily as he does others) that their doctrines were mere 
 blasphemy; that God, according to them, had decreed one man 
 (or even one child) from the womb of his mother, to eternal 
 aamnation, and another to salvation." (3) 
 
 In every age of Calvinism, a pretended zeal for their country, 
 
 (1) Page 474. (2) VoL ii. p. 58. (3) Idem, p. 427. 
 
452 
 
 and against popery, has been and is the ^^ i^remonitory symptom^^ 
 of ])ersecution. The same cry was raised every where, when 
 they wished a pretext to practice their intolerant second com- 
 mandment. Accordingly, when in 1618 the Remonstrants wished 
 to heal the division, the Calvinists, says Brandt, 
 
 *' In order to put this separation actually in practice, they have^ 
 hy their preaching and. discourses, instilled very ill opinions of 
 the said llemonstrants into the common people, accusing them of 
 promoting novelties, describing them by heretical nick-names, and 
 reporting that they endeavoured to INTRODUCE POPERY, 
 and to betray the country to jSpain." (1) Again, still — 
 
 " During the course of these affairs and disputes, several people 
 dispersed libels and scandulous papers, daily, but without any 
 name to them, with design to render their adversaries odious. 
 But it will not be unuseful to set before our reader what the 
 Heer Grotius thought of this kind of proceeding and its conse- 
 quences. ' If there be any thing/ says he, ^ unbecoming a Chris- 
 tian, it is the violating any man's good 7iame by pasquils and 
 libels. This, by the Roman or civil law, was forbidden, on pain 
 of death, and justly so, since every man, by such means, has it 
 in his power to blacken his neighbour, without his being able to 
 obtain a legal remedy; because his adversary is concealed, who 
 also lies the more boldly, as knowing he cannot be obliged to 
 prove his assertions. How much some of the contra-Remonstrant 
 clergy, and others of their persuasion, have found their account 
 in this way of proceeding, their works will show : in divers of 
 whose books, the nobility and the magistracy of the towns, as 
 well in general as in particular, are painted with the most odious 
 colours.'" (3) 
 
 By this it seems that such writings as those of Miss Reed, 
 Brutus, and the ^'Foreign Conspiracy," are old Presbyterian 
 tricks. In fact, when we look at the libels with which the Cal- 
 vinistic press is teeming, one might almost imagine that Brandt 
 was drawing a picture of them after what is now their conduct 
 and character. 
 
 " The general strife was, who should write and CALUMNI- 
 ATE most. All the streets and market places rang with the songs 
 and ballads made upon the prisoners, especially upon Oldenbarne- 
 velt, whom every one curst, sentenced, and condemned, with his 
 abettors. The most satyrical papers appeared without any name 
 to them. Among the rest, one was entitled The Grolden Legion 
 of the New St. John : another. The Golden Bellows of the 
 Spanish Knave ; in which the advocate is charged with taking 
 money of the Spaniards ; a third. The Theatre of the Arminians, 
 composed in doggrel rhimes, with several other pasquinades of 
 the like kind, too many to be mustered up here. Great numbers 
 
 (1) Vol. ii. p. 448. (2) Page 339. 
 
453 
 
 of satyrical prints and cuts were made in reproach to them ; such 
 as, for instance, that called the Arminian Dung Cart; the 
 Arminians' LAST WILL ; and the Sieve of Justice : all of 
 them ridiculimj and exposing the llemonstrants, the past admin- 
 istration, the discharging the warders, the change of the magis- 
 trates, and, in a word, representing every incident with the utmost 
 SPITE and RANCOUll."(l) 
 
 The gentleman has told us that it was the mob of Boston, mis- 
 taking the Convent for what the danders of Calvinism had made 
 of it, destroyed it. But he ought to know that this also is an 
 old trick. The C:ilvinists in the Arminian controversy had re- 
 course to it for a similar purpose. On one occasion, in 1617, 
 the mob were instigated to fall on the Remonstrant heretics, their 
 names being known and their houses marked. Brandt speaks 
 of these outrages as follows : — 
 
 " The damage that was done him, as Bishop himself declared, 
 amounted to above five thousand gilders, besides a quantity of 
 books that belonged to other persons, which were partly recovered. 
 His wife, getting out of the house at last, and being pursued by 
 part of the mob, who, with great rage, threatened to murder her, 
 sheltered her-^elf in a house on the Heer Graft; but, not being 
 ahie to stay there, she climbed over the garden wall of the burgo- 
 master Gerard Jacob Witsen, where she fell, and was taken up 
 senseless ; but she was carried into the house with great tender- 
 ness, and proper means were used to bring her to herself: when 
 she was recovered, says the burgomaster, ' Well, neighbour, how 
 came you in this condition?^ Upon which, being still under 
 great disorder, she burst out into into these words : — ^Ah ! sivj 
 this is the fruit of your minister's sermons, who enrage and ex- 
 asperate the people thus against us!' " 
 
 Among those who stood looking on, and applauding the fury 
 of the mob, there was one, who hearing their insolence blamed, 
 made answer very angrily : — It icere pity hut your house and 
 five-and -twenty more were treated in like manner. Another 
 cried : — There is no harm done : they have their deserts. If four 
 or five of them had had their heads cleft in the meeting-house, it 
 would have been well done. Another said: — What has been 
 done by the boys we are ready to take upon ourselves. And 
 another :— GOD HAS INSPIRED THESE CHILDREN TO 
 ACT THUS; he has revealed it to them, that the Arminians 
 seek to ens'ave the country to the Spaniards, and makes use of 
 those lads to prevent it." (2) 
 
 It is worthy of remark, that in the whole Controversy, the 
 crime of the Arminians was the exercise OF THE RIGHTS OP 
 CONSCIENCE. As far back as the year 1600, they had avowed 
 their purpose of requiring the magistrate, " according to his place 
 
 (1) Vol. ii. p. 566. (2) Page 295. 
 
454 
 
 and calling," to " remove all false worship/' but that of Calvin. 
 Here are the words of Brandt. 
 
 '' The following year, (1601,) endeavours were renewed to per- 
 suade the magistrates at Sneek, in Freesland, that NO OTHER 
 SECTS ought to be allowed the liberty of religion, beside,s the 
 Reformed. And Beza's Discourse, of PUNISHINa HERE- 
 TICS, was translated from the Latin into the Low-Dutch language, 
 and published with a dedication and recommendation of it to the 
 niaxjistrates, by Goswin Geldorp, and John Bogerman, minis- 
 ters of the said town. In the Preface, (which also related what 
 had passed the year before, between the ministers of Sneek and 
 the Anabaptists,) there were the following expressions: ^That 
 God had made it a duty incumbent on the inagistrafes to defend 
 the true religion, and OPPOSE THE FALSE WITH ALL 
 THEIR MIGHT. It was, they said, a j^oisonous notion; that 
 the Government ought not to trouble itself about religion, but to 
 leave the ministers to propagate it by themselves as well as they 
 could, by ecclesiastical methods. And yet, as pernicious as 
 such an opinion was, it was very agreeable to many, who found 
 their account in a political, (as they termed it) hut unchristian 
 and unlaivful peace, whereby every man, according to them, was 
 to be allowed the free exercise of his 7'eligion ; to the end, for- 
 sooth, that no discord might arise between countrymen and fellow- 
 citizens. This, said they, is * MAKING PEACE WITH SA- 
 TAN.' They likewise maintained, ' THAT THERE OUGHT 
 TO BE BUT ONE RELIGION ALLOWED.' And as for 
 that objection, that this would be lording it over men's consciences, 
 they replied, 'That this was the means to restore to Godj to 
 whom it belonged, the dominion of consciences, according to hu 
 command ; seeing they only attempted to execute the Divine 
 COMMANDS, BY DIVINE METHODS.'(l) Accordingly, 
 byway of ^ moral influence,' as the gentleman tells us, * On 
 the seventh of September, the magistrates of Gronnigen published 
 a new order, by toll of bell, concerning religious matters ) in 
 which was said : THAT THEY PROHIBITED THE EXER- 
 CISE OF ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, BESIDES THE RE- 
 FORMED. So that whoever should presume to rent his house 
 OR GROUND, TO THE ANABAPTISTS, OR PAPISTS, OR 
 ANY OTHER SECTS, contrary to the ecclesiastical laws of 
 their city, for the use of their meetings or ministers, should forfeit, 
 for every such offence, the sum of ten dollars, as should likewise 
 the persons that PRESUMED TO PREACH THERE, or else 
 he confined to hrtad and water, for the space of fourteen days. 
 And if they offended the third time, they were to be banished 
 from the city, and the jurisdiction thereof. And all the people 
 that were found at such meetings, should forfeit, for each offence, 
 
 (1) Vol. ii. p. 8. 
 
465 
 
 two dollars. Whoever was discovered to re-baptize any person, 
 should forfeit twenty dollars, and upon a second conviction, be 
 put to hread and loater, and condemned as above. Unhaptized 
 children should he incapahle of inheriting. None should be ad- 
 mitted to any public or private office, BUT UPON SOLEMN 
 OATHS. He that refused to take an oath, should be punished 
 according to law. All that lived with women in concubinage, and 
 without lawful marriage, should be punished as whoremongers, if 
 they did not marry, according to the ecclesiastical laws, within 
 the space of a month. Whoever married incestuously, or within 
 the forbidden degrees, or suffered themselves to be joined in ma- 
 trimony, OUT OF THE REFORMED CHURCH, should not 
 enjoy any advantage thereof, nor inherit any estate, NEITHER 
 SHOULD THEIR CHILDREN BE LEG ITIMATE : besides 
 all which, they should be punished according as the case de- 
 served." (1) 
 
 The bitter experience which the Baptists had of Calvinism, 
 taught them to regret the absence of the Catholic rule, under 
 which, as they stated, ^' they lived quietly, and were connived at." 
 But it was not the Catholics and Baptists alone, that had reason 
 to complain, under this spiritual and temporal despotism of Cal- 
 vinism. The Lutherans, and the moderate party called Remon- 
 strants, had equal reason to exchange sympathies. No matter by 
 what name the ^ false worship'* was called, the conscience of the 
 orthodox was oppressed with remorse for the violation of God's 
 second commandment, until it was '^removed" by the "nursing 
 fathers" of the Church, " according to their place and calling." 
 The offence which Lutheranism gave to their "tender consciences," 
 may be gathered from the following statement in Brandt; speak- 
 ing of one of.their assemblies held 1600, he says : 
 
 "In this assembly, there were likewise some resolutions taken 
 in prejudice of the Lutherans. It appeared (as the Journal of the 
 said Synod has it,) that the Martinists, Ubiquitarians, Flaccians, 
 and such like sectaries, were much increased in the country, dis- 
 covering great animosities, and freely venting their reproaches 
 against the Reformed Church. The Deputies of the South Hol- 
 land Sj/nod consulted those of the North about what course 
 should he taken, and it was resolved, That the ministers should 
 lay he fore the magistrates an account of the places where the 
 Lutherans met, WITH REASONS FOR SUPPRESSINQ THE 
 CONVENTICLES, AND PUTTING A STOP TO THE 
 RAILINGS OF THOSE PEOPLE What was after- 
 wards resolved by the Court of Justice against the Lutherans, 
 as also the fresh attempts of the Clergy, may be gathered from 
 what is recorded in the books of the States, and their committees 
 concerning it, the sum of which is as follows : 
 
 (1) Page 9. ' 
 
456 
 
 '^ There appeared at the Assembly of the Lords, the States of 
 Holland, Arnoldus Cornelius, and Bernardus la Faille, ministers 
 of Delft, and the Hague, as deputed hy the Synod, in order to 
 acquaint them that they had been frequently intreated by those of 
 the Church and magistracy of Woerden, to represent to the Lords 
 the States, the scandal which was occasioned to good and sin- 
 cere minds, by the too puhlic exercise of religion, performed by 
 those who, indeed, called themselves of the Augsburg Confession, 
 but who were not so; forasmuch as our religion, which is styled 
 the Reformed, has a great conformity to it in the matter of the 
 Lord's Supper, and in other points. They therefore prayed, that 
 the resolution or sentence formed by the court against one of their 
 preachers, MIGHT BE PUT IN EXECUTION; and those of 
 the aforesaid Confession, living within the said town of Woerden, 
 BE PROHIBITED to receive any other minister in his stead, 
 and BE HINDERED, as far as possible, from exercising that 
 religion. The said deputies moreover alleged, that there ought 
 likewise some care to be taken in other towns, where the said 
 religion was also practised, particularly at Amsterdam, and Rot- 
 terdam ; to the end that the religion which alone is puhlicly al- 
 lowed in the United Provinces, (as being the TRUE Christian 
 religion,) might be the better maintained, and all offence removed; 
 requesting the due attention of the States, to these matters." (1) 
 
 The magistrates, less intolerant than the ministers, allowed the 
 exercise of the Lutheran religion in that particular instance^ on 
 the following humiliating condition : — 
 
 '^ That the designs of the States had always been, and still 
 were, to force no man's conscience; and, accordingly, that he, 
 the said Glaserus, should be connived at, in proceeding with all 
 peaceableness, discretion, and good manners, to teach and preach 
 in his Conventicle, at Woerden, as formerly." (2) 
 
 But their intolerance towards other sects is not to be wondered 
 at, when we see the extent and malice of their persecutions against 
 their own brethren, the Remonstrants. These denied Calvin's 
 doctrine of eternal, immutable, and absolute predestination, with 
 its appendages, and for THIS, they were calumniated, sus- 
 pended, deprived, expelled from their Chnrches, banished from 
 the country, imprisoned, or put to death, by the intolerant ortho- 
 doxy of "high-toned Calvinism." The Synod of Dort decided 
 against the Arminians and in favour of the Gomarists. The 
 real merits of the dispute may be understood from the manner 
 in which Gomarus himself met the Arminian argument, which 
 was then, and is now, and will be to eternity, unanswered and 
 unanswerable. 
 
 '' Nobody, said he, maintains that God absolutely decreed to 
 reprobate men without sin ; but as he decreed the end, so he like- 
 
 (1) Page 15. (2) Page 16. 
 
467 
 
 wise did the means; that is, HE PREDESTINED HIM TO 
 SIN, AS THE ONLY MEANS OF DEATH/' (1) The au- 
 dience may judge from this, of the merits of the case. 
 
 *' It happened one time," says Brandt, (speaking of a Remon- 
 sferant,) " that walking on" the beach at Home, he met with two 
 ministers, who having a mind to joke with him, said Robert, 
 you seem very pensive, what is the matter with you? He 
 replied, 'tis true, brethren, I was considering who is the author 
 of JSin. They : Who do you hold to be the author of sin ? He : 
 When sin was first committed, the man laid it upon the woman, 
 and the woman accused the serpent ; but the serpent was at that 
 time young, and stupid, and silent; but now he is grown old and 
 daring, and comes to the SYNOD OF DORT, and sai/s, that 
 God is the author of sin." (2). 
 
 The spirit which actuated that Synod, may be understood from 
 the following extract from Brandt : 
 
 *' It was likewise reported, that the late President Bogerman, 
 having had a long conference with a great man at the Hague, soon 
 after the breaking up of the Synod, should, upon his return, say 
 with much pleasure, to a friend of his at Leyden, God he praised, 
 we shall have hut one religion in all the Provinces : we will first 
 EXTIRPATE THE ARMINIANS, AND THEN ALL THE 
 OTHER SECTS MUST COME TO THE CHURCH, OR FLY 
 THE COUNTRY. Other hot-headed zealots cried. We shall 
 now bring matters to such a pass, in a short time, that people 
 will give money to see an Arminian. These were tlie first fruits 
 of those bitter seeds, as the Remonstrants thought, which Boger- 
 man had been sowing seventeen years before, in the Preface to 
 Beza's little tract, ahout putting heretics to death. They were 
 also of opinion, that this placard was partly the efi"ect of the furi- 
 ous zeal of divers of the Synodical members, who hardly talked 
 of any thing else hut of using the secular arm ; of rooting out 
 the tares or weeds, hi/ the authority of the civil magistrates ; of 
 banishing the Five Articles, and the teachers of them, out of the 
 land ; of forbidding the Remonstrants to preach or write. This 
 was the view, they thought, of the Synodical request, as con- 
 tained in the sentence of the Remonstrants, That their High 
 Mightinesses would not suffer ANY OTHER doctrine than that 
 of the Synod, to be publicly taught in their dominions, and cause 
 the decrees of the said Synod to be firmly and perpetually main- 
 tained. This opinion, therefore, that the Synod was the great 
 and principal occasion of making such a placard, very much 
 increased the aversion which some had conceived against that 
 body.'' (3) 
 
 These points were carried out into fearful practice. To hold 
 any office in the church or state, to be a schoolmaster, or even an 
 
 (1) Brandt, vol. iii. p. 103. (2) P. 424. (3) P. 402, 403. 
 
 29 
 
458 
 
 organist, it was necessary to swear a belief in the horrible doc- 
 trine which had been approved by the Synod. 
 
 "As for the schools, it was agreed that siiice all the school- 
 masters ivere required to sign the Confession, and Catechism, and 
 some also the Canons of Dort, which tended to implant Calvin- 
 ism in the youth j therefore, those of the clergy that ministered 
 in the country, should take care to warn parents not to send 
 their children to Calvinistical masters, but rather to let them be- 
 taught at home, or to act in that matter according to the liberty 
 that should be granted to the Mennonites, or other sects." (1) 
 
 The following case is recorded of an organist, and shows the 
 zeal of the Calvinists to " remove all false worship :" — 
 
 "This man was likewise summoned to si^n the Formulary of 
 the National Synod ; but he earnestly entreated the magistrates, 
 that they would not require it of him. He said. That his art had 
 nothing common with the one or the other doctrine: tha^ indeed 
 he played in the Church, but did not preach there. But this 
 would not avail him; and as they insisted on his subscribing, he 
 burst out at last into these expressions: ^Gentlemen, I can't pos- 
 sibly subscribe the canons, BUT IF YOU PLEASE TO SET 
 THEM TO TUNES, I AM READY TO PLAY THEM IN 
 THE CHURCH, ON MY ORGAN : in this manner I will 
 serve you with all my heart. Playing the canons to any tune, 
 is agreeable enough to my profession, but subscribing them is 
 against my conscience.' This, his bantering offer, was more dis- 
 pleasing to the magistrates than his serious refusal; insomuch 
 that neither his art, nor the interposition of his friends, could 
 prevent his being turned out." (2) 
 
 But they first turned the Remonstrants out of their Churches, 
 and then would not allow them to meet for worship, even in the 
 open air. It was demanded by the Calvinists, that : — 
 
 " The placards against forbidden meetings, might be revised and 
 enforced in such manner, that those who frequented such meet- 
 ings might forfeit their upj^er garments ; and those who went 
 armed, their weapons; and that they might be obliged to depart, 
 or else be fallen upon wherever they were ; and that all those who 
 corresponded or conversed with any of the exiled persons, should 
 pay a pecuniary fine of six hundred gilders, and likewise forfeit 
 such offices or employments as they held ; and in case they could 
 not answer the said fine of six hundred gilders, they should be sent 
 away into banishment, or suffer other arbitrary punishments." (3) 
 
 "On the 16th of February, they (the Remonstrants) held another 
 meeting, likewise out of town, at the house of the Bloomersdyke^ 
 but before the sermon was half over, the Dykcgrave Dune fell upon 
 them furiously, with a number of soldiers. They who could not 
 save themselves by a timely flight, were plundered. The women 
 
 (1) Page 23. (2) Page 474. (3) Page 177. 
 
459 
 
 were stript even to their under-pettieoats, and the men were rob- 
 bed of their cloaks, and what money they had about them. The 
 soldiers attacked them, as if they had to do with the common 
 enemy ; and some were even dragged along the fields by the hair 
 of their heads. The soldiers seized a young woman, one of 
 which supported her body, whilst the other dragged her all un- 
 covered, by the legs, along the rugged ice, just as a sledge is drawn. 
 In short, they used the poor girl so cruelly, that she died of it soon 
 after." (1) 
 
 Thus, sir, we see that in Holland the doctrines of the Presby- 
 terian religion sprang up into the same cruel system of persecution 
 which marked its progress and its presence in those countries 
 of which I spoke in my last speech. The creed of the Synod of 
 Dort is the creed of the Dutch Reformed Calvinists in this coun- 
 try; and its libellous, turbulent, intolerant, persecuting spirit is 
 appropriately represented by one, and, as far as I know, by only 
 one of its ministers in the tjnited States, Dr. Brownlee. The 
 gentleman calls him '^ Ids gallant colleague'' He is exactly 
 what the case required — a foreigner, a scion of Scotch bigotry, 
 grafted on the stock of Dutch Calvinism. The saintly commu- 
 nion between these " gallant colleagues," proves that in doctrine 
 there is no diiFerence between their creeds. Besides this, the 
 Westminster Assembly (that made the gentleman's faith, to save 
 him the trouble of looking for it in the Bible) approved of the 
 decision of the Synod of Dort on the doctrines in question. So 
 that, were it not for the protection of equal religious right secured 
 by the AMERICxVN CONSTITUTION, the same causes would 
 produce the same effects, here, which they never failed to produce 
 elsewhere. The gentleman has said that the Confession does not 
 mean "FORCE, hut truth, moral influence, argument, the 
 press, the Bible," &c. Sir, a greater imposition on credulity never 
 was attempted. There is no historical evidence to sustain 
 the assertion ; and the whole history of Calvinism, in its begin- 
 ning, and middle, and end, (by losing the power to persecute,) 
 establishes its refutation. NO FORCE'!! Read, sir, its sedi- 
 tions and rebellions — read its penal laws and persecutions, and 
 you will blush for its cruelties, as well as for the ignorance that 
 could assert that it does not mean " force." Can the gentleman 
 tell me of ONE SINGLE COUNTRY, in which it was estab- 
 lished by any other means ^ I answer, NOT ONE; and I challenge 
 contradiction ivith proof. He cannot show one. Can he tell me 
 of ONE SINGLE COUNTRY, in which, having obtained the 
 political ascendancy, it did not employ " FORCE," to crush the 
 liherty of conscience, speahing, preaching, printing, in all those 
 who were not prepared to tliink, and speak, and preach, and print 
 m accordance with (or at least not against) its tyrannical dogmas? 
 
 (1) Page 231. 
 
460 
 
 Not one, sir, on the face of the earth ! If he can, let Lini name 
 it, and I pledge myself to expose the imposition. Let the gentle- 
 man, then, reserve such assertions for the Presbyterian pulpit, or 
 those edifying assemblies of which we had a specimen last winter, 
 in Mr. M'Calla's church. Let him hazard them, where he speaks 
 to those who know no better; but let him not venture on them in 
 my presence, at the risk of exposure by history such as he has 
 now received. I return to the point. 
 
 The DOCTRINE of the Presbyterian religion, in. these United 
 State's, the same as in Geneva, Scotland, and Holland, requires, 
 by a commandment of God, that its votaries should, ''according 
 
 TO EA^II one's place AND CALLING, REMOVE ALL FALSE WOR- 
 SHIP, AND ALL THE MONUMENTS OF IDOLATRY." But ALL worship 
 
 besides their own, being founded on heretical doctrine, is "FALSE; " 
 therefore they are bound BY THEIR DOCTRINE to remove it. 
 Q. E. D. He says that this is to be done by "moral influence;'' 
 and such an acknowledgment from a minister of CALVIN'S 
 religion, is the highest tribute of praise that ever was bestowed 
 indirectly on the American Constitution, which will not tolerate 
 the employment of "force." Yet the Presbyterian Church still 
 retains the warrant from God, under which their ftithers employed 
 it : although the Constitution forbids the execution of the hea- 
 venly mandate. Which of these will eventually triumph over tlie 
 other, time only will determine. The pretext now is to put down 
 j)Ojjeri/. But this is the pretext under which they put down the 
 Episcopalians in England, the Arminians in Holland, and the Cath- 
 olics every where. Of their persecutions of the Catholics in Hol- 
 land, I have said but little, but there is one single case recorded, 
 which is enough to show how infinite is the barbarity of a doctrine 
 which could so demonize the human heart. It is related by Brandt, 
 a Reformed minister, who was no friend to the Catholics. I shall 
 give it in his own words : — 
 
 " There happened something in North Holland about this time, 
 which will appear a hloochj sjiot in our history : 'Divers popish 
 housekeepers were, at the instigation of Sonoy, very inhumanly 
 treated by an extraordinary tribunal, or court of judicature, in 
 order to discover a supposed plot, ^ipon the forced and impro- 
 bahle evidence of certain felons, ivho all of them RECANTED 
 their accusation at the point of death. One of the said papists, 
 named Koppe Cornelison, was TORTURED TO DEATH; his 
 son Nunning was stretched on the rack two or three-and-twenty 
 times, with new-invented cruelties, notwithstanding he attested 
 his inuoccncy every time he was taken down; and, at last, 
 WAS QUARTERED— HIS HEART WAS TORN OUT OF 
 HIS BODY. A little before his death, when he ought to have 
 been allowed some time to think of heaven, and the condition of 
 his soul, the judges gave him SWEET WINE, TO CONFOUND 
 HIS SPEECH AND UNDERSTANDING, which he, through 
 
461 
 
 faintness and thirst,.greedily swallowed ; however, it did not so far 
 deprive him of sense, but that, when he mounted the scaffold, he 
 again declared his innocence. But the minister, Jurian Eppeson, 
 under pretence of strengthening him with arguments from Scrip- 
 ture, interrupted him with noise and clamour; reproving him for 
 denying the crime, and affirming that he had owned it before. 
 Upon which the patient cited him to appear before the tribunal 
 of Grod within three days, or, as others say, within four or five. 
 The said minister returned home, after the execution of Nanning, 
 much troubled in his mind, continually complaining of the sum- 
 mons given him, and taking his bed, became a corpse within the 
 time limited. In like manner Peter Nanningson was most cruelly 
 tortured no less thayi four or five-and-twenty times upon the 
 rack: and after him John Jeromson and Peter EUertson, both 
 of them popish burghers of Horn, were apprehended upon the 
 extorted confession of Nanning, and being carried to prison, the 
 latter of them was racked four times in two days.' *'(1) 
 
 Sir, you sicken at the narrative ; and no wonder. Not satisfied 
 with destroying life, they aim at the destruction of the soul. 
 They try to make him drunk on the brink of eternity, in order to 
 extort from drunkenness the worthless confirmation of their own 
 slanders— and then ply him with texts of SCRIPTURE ! ! ! But 
 why not? Had not God "FOREORDAINED WHATSO- 
 EVER COMES TO PASS?^' Of course the "racking," and 
 "sweet wine," and all were "foreordained," and consequently 
 these saints were only carrying out Grod's decree. 
 
 The duplicity which stands so uniformly prominent in the 
 schemes of Presbyterians for the attainment of their political ends, 
 can be explained only on the doctrine of " foreordination." We 
 have seen how they persecuted the Lutherans in Holland, and 
 yet, when it seemed likely to serve their purpose, they wished to 
 unite with them, just as Dr. Ely was willing to unite with Bap- 
 tists, Episcopalians, Arminians, Lutherans, &c. to form a "Chris- 
 tian party in politics," and place " sound Presbyterians" in places 
 of political trust, where they might be "nursing fathers" to the 
 church, " according to each one's place and calling." The object 
 of all such unions tendered by them, was most accurately de- 
 scribed by the Lutherans of Germany, nearly two hundred years 
 ago. Brandt has recorded the occasion, and the issue of it : — 
 
 " Before this," says he, " the Reformed had several times of- 
 fered peace and brotherhood to the Lutherans ; but now the con- 
 demning and persecuting the Remonstrants had so far cut off all 
 hopes of such a wholesome union, that the Theological Faculty at 
 Wittenburg, in Saxony, published a book this year, under the title 
 of 'A Faithful Warning to all the Lutheran Christians in Bohemia, 
 Moravia, Silesia, and other countries thereunto belonging, carefully 
 
 (1) Vol. i. p. 316. 
 
462 
 
 to abstain from the erroneous and highly pernicious Calvinistical 
 religion/ In which book they endeavoured to expose the scan- ' 
 dalous and- fraudulent dealings, which, as they said, the Cal- 
 vinists used, and had used for several years, in oifering spiritual 
 fraternity so often to the Lutherans, adding as follows : 
 
 '' What good there is to be expected from such brethren, may 
 easily be gathered from the Sj/nod, of Dort, and their proceedings. 
 The Calvinists had several disputes with the Arminians, particu- 
 larly about the article of grace or election, in which the latter 
 defended our opinion, and the former that of Calvin. In this 
 controversy the Calvinists at length showed so much heat, that, 
 by a hasty decree of that synod, they condemned the Arminians 
 and their doctrines, lolthout allowing them to make any defence, 
 DEPRIVING THEM OF THE EXERCISE OF THEIR 
 RELIGION, and BANISHING their most eminent ministers 
 from their country for ever. Was not that a very hrotheiiy pro- 
 ceeding ? If they thus treated such who differed from them in a 
 little more than one article, viz : that of election or predestina- 
 tion, what must ice expect, who differ from them in so many ? 
 Men of sense may easily discover what they would be at. They 
 labour now to get the BRACHIUM SECULARE, THE CIVIL 
 MAGISTRATE ON THEIR SIDE, and to bring such as are of 
 their ojmiions into the best offices. If this succeeds, we shall soon 
 gee a general synod called in Germany, those of the Calvinistical 
 religion j^^^siding and having the direction of all affairs, judg- 
 ing them according to their own pleasure, not once hearing us, 
 or allowing us to sit in the same synod, but, as was done at Dort, 
 rashly censuring our doctrine as false, hindering the exercise of 
 it, and driving away the Lutheran ministers, and, unless God pre- 
 vents it, totally extirpating our religion. We conclude from all 
 this, that their offers oi fraternal communion are not sincere, but 
 are only designed as a feint, till they can gather streti^th and 
 courage to possess themselves of our churches. And, if a prince 
 of their persuasion, should in time be raised to the imperial dig- 
 nity, such a spirit as they are of would be sufficient to involve 
 lis in blood and destruction, and we poor Lutherans should be 
 butchered like sheep by these our worthy brethren : for with 
 them, 'tis a principle of RELIGION THAT HERETICS 
 OUGHT TO BE ROOTED OUT BY FORCE ; and THAT 
 NONE BUT THE TRUE RELIGION SHOULD BE TO- 
 LERATED in a well-governed state, as CALVIN, BEZA, and 
 several others of their leaders maintain. From hence they will 
 infer, that the Lutherans are heretics ; to wit, Nestorians, Euty- 
 chians, Pelagians, &c.; therefore this will be followed hi/ a 
 hloody decree : the Lutherans ought to he extirpated with the 
 sword. This will be the final determination of our Calvinistical 
 brethren; such good are we to expect from them. "'TIS an 
 JEsopical brotherhood which they offer to us, that is to say, such 
 
463 
 
 peace and amity as the wolf offered to the sheep, the better to 
 seize and devour them. Let no man then be imposed upon by 
 the amicable name of brotherhood : 'tis under this specious pre- 
 tence, that they are seeking our destruction; and whoever joins 
 himself to these Calvinrsts, becomes partaker of all that deceit 
 which they conceal^ and all the vile iritri(/ues which they have 
 chiejiy levelled at the Lutheran churches.'' (1) 
 
 This extract shows that the doctrine of '^ removing all false 
 worship" is no new discovery in the Presbyterian creed. The 
 Lutherans knew it, and knew its meaning from their own obser- 
 vation, which the history of their religion ever since has only 
 served to confirm. 
 
 Let me now sum up the argument. If I have stated the truth, 
 (and if I have not I beg the gentleman to point out the instance,) 
 the following conclusions are clearly and logically established: 
 1. That the Presbyterians have scaled the places of political 
 power in every country where their religion has been established, 
 not by '^ moral influence," but by sedition^ libels, force^ violence 
 and bloodshed. 2. That they established that religion, wherever 
 the government wliich they attempted to overthrow did not take 
 strong and timely measures for its own safety. 3. That when 
 in political power, they persecuted in every case, and in every 
 degree of the principle, from the imposition of fine, to the shed- 
 ding of blood. 4. That their persecutions have been founded 
 on, and justified by, the doctrines of their religion. 5. That they 
 constituted themselves the guardians of God's honour, and the 
 avengers of the insult offered to Him by what they arrogantly 
 term '^ false worship," and ^^ idolatry." And, 6. That, there- 
 fore, their doctrine is opposed, 1st. "To religious liberty," 
 which is the ^^ right of every man to worship Almighty God, 
 according to the dictates of his oion conscience, without in- 
 juring or invading the rights of others ; " — and, 2d. That it is 
 opposed to " civil liberty," by which we understand the abso- 
 lute rights of the individual, restrained only for the pmyose of 
 order in society. Now I maintain that these positions have been 
 established by the united attestation of facts that cannot be 
 denied, and of reasoning, that cannot be refuted. The gentleman 
 will say that they have not been established. But he will take 
 special care to avoid meeting the question. The public must 
 decide. 
 
 The gentleman boasts that Presbyterians have not persecuted 
 in the United States. Granted. But I give the glory of their 
 forbearance to the provisions of the Constitution ; the better spirit 
 of other denominations; the liberality of the age; or any thing 
 else — rather than the doctrine which makes it of divine obligation 
 for Presbyterians to "REMOVE ALL FALSE WORSHIP, 
 
 (1) Pages 330, 331. 
 
464 
 
 AND ALL THE MONUMENTS OF IDOLATRY." The 
 
 duties of the citizen, and of the sectarian, are in direct conflict. 
 The act of '^removing," which is obedience to God, is dis- 
 obedience to the laws. The act of obedience to the laws, is, like 
 the violation of the Sabbath, an act gf disobedience to God, 
 according to Preshyterian doctrine. 
 
465 
 
 '' Is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its principles or 
 doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty?" 
 
 NEGATIVE Y.— MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Mr. President : — ' 
 
 If scandal be argument, or exultation be victory, or joy at 
 notoriety and exposure be the tests of a good cause, then we 
 must yield the palm to the prince of Jesuits. 
 
 The man who challenges the whole Presbyterian Church, can- 
 not it is true, confess himself defeated by one of the feeblest of 
 her sons, without supernumerary shame. And therefore it is not 
 to be wondered at that he covers his wounds by the argmncntum 
 ad verecundiam which he tries to draw from the charge that his 
 opponent has aid. Heaven and truth are aid enough for our 
 cause. David's sling, and David's stone, with David's God, are 
 enough for the vaunting Goliath of the Philistines without the aid 
 of Saul's armour, or ^^ of patriarchal hands." Yet it is a reluc- 
 tant tribute paid to my arguments that the foe in the field cries 
 out '' that the patriarch's hands " are upon him ! 
 
 The complaint that w?/ arguments are 'Mike Joseph's coat," is 
 only an unconscious condemnation of his own. He is leading in 
 the attack, /follow as respondent. When he was beaten on the 
 papal question, he gave vitujyeration, and persojia? assaults instead 
 of the defence of his cause. At that time, he charged me with 
 tacitly confessing myself personally indefensible, because I pursued 
 the line of my discussion, and paid but little attention to his abuse. 
 I then arrested the argument to meet the calumniator : how effec- 
 tually the public must judge. I had no sooner renewed the argu- 
 ment, than he resorted again to calumny. I then resolved to re- 
 duce my reply and exposure of his personalities into one body, and 
 that body was introduced into my last speech. If it be of " many 
 colo7ir></' it was in exposure of a chameleon. If not bathed in blood 
 like Joseph's coat, it is not the fault of Joseph's envious and en- 
 raged pursuer. He had charged me with no less than eleven 
 CALUMNIES; and that too while he was professing to defend his 
 church against the charge of enmity to civil and religious liberty. 
 The 1st calumny he charged me with was, for saying that his 
 church did not keep faith with heretics; 2d, that she trifled with 
 oaths, if against her interests ; 3d, that she absolved subjects from 
 
466 
 
 allegiance to heretics ; 4tli, that I had slandered Bellarmine ; 5th, 
 about the second commandment; 6th, about the translation of the 
 Trentine Catechism; 7th, about calling the Pope Grod ; 8th, &c. 
 &c. (see the particulars at large in my last speech.) Most of these 
 charges against nie were drawn from a former controversy. In 
 replying to his digre&sions could I fail to digress? He abused 
 me first, because I would not follow him. Now he ridicules me 
 for doing it. " OUa Podrida !" The much-rahe is for '^chopt 
 straw ;" as well as the etherial sword for the old serpent. If I 
 stoop to such company, I must answer to its calls. Of that com- 
 pany I confess to you, gentlemen, I have often been heartily 
 ashamed ; and if there be a point on which I have really been at 
 a loss in this discussion, it is to reconcile these two proverbs of 
 Solomon (in my replies to Mr. Hughes's abundantly coarse and 
 virulent abuse), viz. ^^ Answer not a fool according to his folhj, 
 lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his 
 folly ^ lest he he wise in his oicn conceit." (1) I have surety failed 
 of preventing the latter evil, as all the gentleman says of himself 
 will readily attest ; and I fear at each step lest in seeking to cor- 
 rect the latter I should incur the former. If the gentleman will 
 give me a good example, or in my despair of that a good inter- 
 pretation of this difficult duty, I will follow the one and adopt 
 the other, as a sincere disciple quoad hoc. 
 
 The exultation of the gentleman, that my reply to his last speech 
 contained no notice of his reasonings and facts, is a fit illustration 
 of what I have just said. If I had gone once more over the re- 
 peated replies to his stale arguments, if such they may be called, 
 he would have said " chopt straw'' — a very pastoral and fre- 
 quent figure with our gentle shepherd. I forbore to reiterate. 
 He cries out that I concede every thing. The argument from 
 ^^ decrees of God!" The ^^ monuments of idolatry." They have 
 ^^ perished in the using." ■ The witch-stories of New England ! 
 Do they prove that the doctrines of Presbyterians are opposed to 
 liberty? I might have filled pages in reply with the incantations 
 of papal baptism, or the hocus pocus and legerdemain of priestly 
 transubstantiation, in which witch-craft and jugglery are en- 
 throned on the sacraments of Jesus Christ; and he who rejects 
 them, dies the death, if popery be true. 
 
 And then as to the persecutions of European Presbyterians, I 
 have owned that they did in a degree practice them; and that 
 they were to he condemned — and I united with the gentleman to 
 condemn them. I have gone farther, I have said again and again 
 that almost the whole Christian world had gone astray on the sub- 
 ject of civil and especially of religious liberty ; in persecuting 
 each other; in establishing religion as a part of the civil code ; by 
 intolerance ; and mutual oppression : but that American Pro- 
 
 . (1) Proverbs, xxvi. 4, 5. 
 
467 
 
 testants have adopted a far different system; and among them, 
 Prcsbijterians, the objects of his malignant attacks. But he says, 
 owning that we liave changed, you were forced to do it by the 
 American Revolution. Well, admit, for the sake of argument, 
 that such was the cause. Here however is the excellent effect. 
 Now the Church oi^oma first persecuted; and persecuted most; 
 she first united church and state — she first made heresy a civil 
 offence — she still upholds the union of church and state, wher- 
 ever she can, as in Spain, Portugal, Austria, South America, 
 and in Rome herself, where the head of the church is head of 
 the state, ex officio, and elected to it by priests of the Church of 
 Rome ; and none but a jrriest of that church, elected hy priests 
 of that church, can be Prince of Rome! The Church of Rome 
 says she cannot change, and will not change ; and she does not 
 change in this respect. Now here is the mighty difference. We 
 have changed ; not merely every practice, but every tenet, that 
 allowed a state establishment of religion. We cannot accept an 
 establishment if it were offered to us. Our avowed published doc- 
 trines forbid it; and though the gentleman says very kindly we are 
 hypocrites in all this, still such are our standards. They declare 
 ''that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to protect the church 
 of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomi- 
 nation of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all eccle- 
 siastical persons whatever, shall enjoy the full, free, and unques- 
 tioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, 
 without violence or dangers." (1) Now I have often called, and 
 called in vain for one such sentence in the voluminous standards 
 of Rome. So far from this, her Catechism, binding on all the 
 faithful, says, ^^Yet it is not to be denied but that they [heretics 
 and schismatics] are in the power of the church, as those loho may 
 be judged by her, punished and condemned icith an anatfiema;" 
 and they are compared to " deserters from an army." Chap. x. 
 § 9. Here is direct and universal dominion claimed over all 
 '■^heretics and schismatics,'^ as all we Protestants are in Rome's 
 view. And again, ^^But of them who obeyed not the priests, it is 
 written, '■He that will be proud, and refuse to obey the command- 
 ment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord, thy 
 God, by the decree of the Judge that man shall die' " (2) — This 
 is on the 5th commandment, §20., in answer to the question, 
 '' With what punishment shall they be visited who break this com- 
 mandment?" Here the priesthood is enthroned by the standards 
 of the Roman Church in supreme dominion over life and death 
 itself, and the adduced authority of the word of God is given in 
 proof of the doctrine of the 27riest's power. Here we see the 
 true contrast between our standards and those of Rome. 
 
 (1) Confession of Faith, c. xxii. g 3. 
 
 (2) Deuteronomy xvii. 12. 
 
468 
 
 But still more ; our standards say, " God alone is the Lord of 
 conscience : — the rights of private judgment in all matters that 
 respect religion are universal and unalienable : they (Presby- 
 terians) do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided 
 by the civil power, farther than may be necessary for protection 
 and security, and at the same time be equal and common to all 
 others.'' (1) Now if Mr. Hughes will show me this same prin- 
 ciple in any part of his standards, I will give up the question. 
 Has your church in any of her standards, ever avowed it ? Does 
 not that very Pope to whom Mr. Hughes is bound by a feudal 
 oatb, and who is head of the Catholic Church now while 1 speak, 
 by force of arms sit a king over millions of men, and support 
 (by the spiritual authority, and temporal, blended in his own 
 person) a religious estahliahment ? And does the Pope violate 
 any one doctrine of popery in doing all this ? Not one ! But a 
 religion which can receive or tolerate such an establishment, is 
 opposed to civil and religious liberty, and treads both in the 
 dust. This the Roman Catholic religion does; and this the 
 Presbyterian religion cannot receive or tolerate. Here is a fair 
 and direct contrast. Let the gentleman reply. To accept an 
 establishment we must change : to reject it, Catholicity must 
 change. Is it not so ? It must be seen then very clearly how little 
 I have to do with the Presbyterians of Holland, or any others, 
 in this question, save American Preshyterians ; and how much on 
 the contrary, in an unchanged church, Mr. H. has to do with the 
 popery of Europe and Rome, which is one with his popery in all 
 respects. This unchangeable unity is thus expressed by Francis 
 Plowden, Esq., a champion of Romanism. " If any one says or 
 pretends to insinuate, that modern Catholics differ in one iota 
 from their predecessors, he is either deceived himself, or he 
 wishes to deceive others — Semper eadem (always the same) 
 is not less emphatically descriptive of our religion, than of our 
 Jurisprudence." No ! always the same ! The same in the twelfth 
 and in the nineteenth century ! The same in Rome and America ! 
 Jffere again we call on the gentleman to say, does his religion 
 forbid an establishment? Has it not an establishment now at 
 Rome, in the person of the head of his church ? Then it might 
 without a change in an iota have one here, if it could, if it dare ! 
 Then it is opposed to civil and religious liberty ! 
 
 In the progress of my arguments in the affirmative, I entered 
 the INTERIOR of the Church of Rome, and proved that she op- 
 pressed her own subjects, as well as persecuted " the heretics and 
 schismatics who loere deserters," and without her communion. 
 
 It will be directly in place to revert to the points then stated, 
 and contrast the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church with those 
 of Rome, under the respective heads. 
 
 (1) Form of Goverument, b. i. c. i.^l. 
 
469 
 
 1st. As TO Baptism. What do the standards of the Church 
 of Rome say ? 
 
 It was proved from the canons of the Council of Trent, on the 
 first night, that/o?'ce is to be applied, to compel children baptized 
 in their infancy to lead Christian lives ichen thei/ grow up. This 
 was further proved by the comments of standard writers, though 
 (of course) denied by Mr, Hughes. For example Dens's Theology, 
 adopted formally by the Catholic Prelates of Ireland, since 1808, 
 cited in my third speech, first night, where the author quotes the 
 very proof given hy me, and uses the very ivord adopted by the 
 Holy Council, to prove what I affirm, viz. '* this also obtains in 
 the case of those who have been baptized in their infancy, as the 
 Council of Trent teaches, sess. 7. can. 14. and the Fourth Coun- 
 cil of Toledo, canon 55, that even those who by force, or necessity, 
 adopted the ftiith, should be forced (cogantur) to hold it." But 
 Mr. Hughes denied that this word in the use of the infallible coun- 
 cil, meant any thing but spiritual force. Dens, however, is more 
 honest, for he says, *' Unbelievers who have been baptized, as 
 heretics, and apostates generally, and also baptized schismatics^ 
 can be compelled by corporal pimishment to return to the Catholic 
 faith, and the unity of the Church.'^ 
 
 ''The reason is that they by baptism are made subjects of the 
 church, and therefore the church has jurisdiction over them, and 
 the power of compelling themby the ordained means to obedience j 
 to fulfil the obligations contracted in their baptism." I must 
 say again, here is an honest lloman ! Let those believe Mr. 
 Hughes's denial who are ignorant of the force of language, and 
 the history of the Church of Home, atid of his motives to cover 
 vp and to forget in this free land, and enquiring age. The Bev. 
 Blanco White, once a priest of the '' Catholic" Church* in Spain, 
 now a member of the Episcopal Church of Great Britain, calls 
 baptism in the Church of Home, ''an indelible brand of 
 
 SLAVERY." 
 
 Now let us turn to this sacrament in the Presbyterian Church. 
 I invite the gentleman's scrutiny. It will repay our search ; it will 
 furnish the contrast in strong relief. Here amidst our institutions, 
 sacraments, and doctrines, is the place to find our views of religious 
 liberty. Why does the gentleman go to the Netherlands, when here 
 are our standards, almost untouched? Two points have been 
 tortured, and repeated twelve or thirteen times to make them speak 
 against liberty — but in vain. Here is the volume, replete with a 
 whole system of doctrine! Why does he shun its hundreds of pages 
 crowded with doctrines proved by appeals to the word of God, not 
 by Nightingale or Brandt, but by Paul and Matthew and James 
 and John, and by their and our Lord ! Now on the sacrament of 
 baptism let him turn over these pages and show me one word like 
 force, and I will yield up the question in debate. In the 9th chap. 
 Directory for Worship, is this section, which is so strongly in 
 
470 V 
 
 contrast with the jmpal system on the same subject, that it shall 
 speak for itself. ^' Children born within the pale of the visible 
 church and dedicated to God in baptism are under the inspection 
 and government of the church, and are to be taught to read and 
 repeat the catechism, the apostle's creed, and the Lord's prayer. 
 They are to be taught to pray, to abhor sin, to fear God, and obey 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. And icheii they come to years of discretion, 
 if they he free from scandal, appear sober and steady, and to 
 have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord's body, they ought 
 to be informed that it is their duty and their privilege to come to 
 the Lord's supper^ In the Papal Churchj baptism, which is a 
 brand of slavery for life, is at the same time made absolutely 
 necessary to salvation ; so that none can be saved without it ; no, 
 not even the dying infant ; and those babes who die without it, 
 are forever lost. Thus they drive men into slavery by the fears 
 of eternal damnation. So they believe ; and hence, shocking to 
 relate, not only are nurses and physicians, and the laity at large 
 authorized to administer this sacrament, but if a mother be giving 
 birth to a dying infant, the priW will interpose to baptize the 
 babe amidst the awful and, to such men, unapproachable scenes 
 of parturition, and hold the mother suspended between life and 
 death, in order to administer this popish rite and carry out this 
 shocking doctrine. The gentleman may affect to be horrified by 
 the allusion. I put him on his honour to deny or confess, 1st, 
 Whether such be not the literal fact? 2d, Whether he has not 
 himself been an actor in such scenes ? And now let him deny 
 it in the face of the parties in this community who may test the 
 truth of the statement, by an appeal to their own memories ! 
 
 In contrast with all this, our standards say, (1) '* Although it 
 be a great sin to contemn or neglect th^s ordinance, yet grace and 
 salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, that no person 
 can be regenerated or saved without it; or that all that are bap- 
 tized are undoubtedly regenerated." We drive no man to it. 
 We bind no man forcibly by it. We impair not human liberty, 
 or divine truth by our doctrine, discipline, or practice. 
 
 2d. We showed at large that auricular confession, which 
 is required in the Roman Church, in order to salvation, is in the 
 highest sense an invasion of personal liberty ; and besides being 
 unspeakably corrupting to the jJriest, and absolutely destructive of 
 good morals among multitudes of the j^eople, endangers the safety 
 of states, putting alike the rulers and the subjects in the power 
 of the priesthood. By this system of (as it were) omnipresent, and 
 all-knowing espionage, the priests ever have ruled, and while it 
 prevails ever will rule the state, and corrupt the laity. They know 
 every man's, every woman's, every ruler's secrets. The directory 
 for self-examination in the Book of Devotion put forth under the 
 sanction of the Catholic priesthood of America, and now in use in 
 
 (1) Con. Faith, chap, xxviii ^ 5. 
 
471 
 
 this city, is enough of itself forever to ruin the system of which 
 it is a part in the eyes of the American people. And the de- 
 crees on confession by the Council of Trent, require all the cir- 
 cumstances and particulars of sins to be laid open to the priest. 
 Hence the horrible Spanish book which I exhibited to the audi- 
 ence, asks females whether they have criminal attachments to 
 any of the priests ? and if so, to which of the jpriests ? And 
 what if she should reply — to you? 
 
 If incessant and unspeakable evils do not occur, it is a stand- 
 ing miracle. History shows that this papal sacrament is a sink 
 of debauchery ; and destructive of all sorts of human liberty. 
 
 Now here is a point of decisive contrast. We ask the gentle- 
 man to show us anything in the Presbyterian Church at all cor- 
 responding to this enormous evil. Show me the confessional ; 
 show me this fearful police over men's souls : show me hundreds 
 of priests who know every man's, woman's, child's secrets, and 
 can act accordingly; can at a glance look through and through 
 the wants, lusts, plans, desires, resources, of a whole communi- 
 ty ] show me these things in any Presbyterian or any Protestant 
 Church. 
 
 3d. I showed how the Church of Rome had interfered directly 
 with the liberty of the press, the liberty of buying and reading, 
 and the liberty of thought. This was done on system ; by general 
 councils; and is extended even to the rule of faith and the word 
 of God. The infallible Council of Trent had by its constituted 
 organ denounced so many books, and among them the word of 
 God in the vernacular tongues of the nations (without a written 
 permission to read it), that the mere list (?/ names filled a volume, 
 which I exhibited to the society ! That another large volume was 
 filled with a list of erasures and expurgations of books, especially 
 those which have been written since the Reformation, and that 
 the present reigning pope denounces the liberty of the press, and 
 the freedom of religion. 
 
 Now will the gentleman show me any such feature in the Pres- 
 byterian or the Protestant Churches of the United States ? He has 
 often charged Protestantism with variations, and our rule of faith 
 with defects and various evils, but never with oppressing the con- 
 science, restricting the freedom of the mind, staying the right of 
 private judgment, laying its rude hand on the press, and even on 
 the free use of the word of God. It is true, he has abused the 
 Synod of Philadelphia for suspending Mr. Barnes, and tried to 
 flatter the prejudices of those who think Mr. Barnes was loronged. 
 But will he please to show us the Presbyterian act, forbidding any 
 man to print, sell, or read Mr. Barnes' work under pain of tines, 
 loss of the edition, and the discipline of the church in its severest 
 forms ? The act denounced the errors of the book, and applied 
 ecclesiastical censure to the author. But how was it with Huss, 
 Jerome of Prague, John llodgers, and the immense multitude of 
 
472 
 
 the martyrs of the truth butchered by the Church of Rome ? The 
 entire discussion of the rule of faith in our late controversy, on 
 the part of Mr. Hughes, went to show the consolidated character 
 . of his church ; its full and formal unity every where and alicays ; 
 and the uniformity of its doctrines, the perfection of its rule in 
 producing uniformity, the binding authority of that rule, &c. &c., 
 and in contrast with it the utter and hopeless division of Protest- 
 ants; the number of their sects and partie% — even the thousand 
 and 07ie; the varieties of their opinions on every possible subject 
 touching the revelation of God; and in a word the hopeless dis- 
 tractions and dissimilitudes of protestantism. Now the gentleman 
 sees what the drift of his reasoning was THEN. But he flinches 
 too late. We remember, though he icishes us to forget, that by his 
 own showing his is the only church in America in which perfect 
 uniformity prevails ; and whose members all speak one language 
 and breathe one spirit. The agitated and heterogeneous mass of 
 protestantism can never feel, think, or act together ; though each 
 of the thousand and one sects were ever so well disposed to govern 
 the nation. But let Papists once prevail; let their yearly acces- 
 sions from abroad raise them to a majority; and let them play off 
 the Protestants one party against another, so as to divide and 
 rule them, and ichere, ivhere on the gentleman' s oicn showingj 
 were the security of our freedonit The majority has a right to 
 rule, though it be to establish popery ! And a papal majority 
 never divides, changes, or recedes. 
 
 Such is the operation of the ''Catholic rule of faith." Whereas 
 the Presbyterian and Protestant rule, even ^^ the Bible'' in the 
 hands of the people, is the great preservative against priestcraft 
 and fatal consolidation. We beg the gentleman to examine this 
 contrast of his own sketching, and report to us, in reply. 
 
 4th. In nothing docs this contrast appear more striking, than 
 on the subject, or as Mr. Hughes would say, the sacrament of 
 marriage. 
 
 With American Protestants, including Presbyterians, this is 
 no sacrament; but a divine institution coeval with the creation 
 of man. It is an institution, accompanied by divine sanctions; 
 but not peculiar to the church. Our standards, say, (1) "It is 
 proper that every commonwealth, for the good of society, make 
 laws to regulate marriage ; ivldch all citizens are bound to obey." 
 With us a civil magistrate may solemnize marriage, :md the civil 
 law has certain important relations to the institution. 
 
 But how is it in the Cliurch of Rome ? It is enthroned as a 
 sacrament, under the exclusive regulation of the priesthood ; and 
 no man can marry without his act, and " intention," and interpo- 
 sition ; and unless his intention be right when he officiates, the 
 solemnization is void, and the contract void, and the issue illegiti- 
 
 (1) Directory for Worship, chap. ii. p. 441. 
 
473 
 
 mate, and the seed of all persons not married by a Roman priest 
 is illegitimate ^ and a Roman priest is forbidden to marry those 
 who are not baptized persons. It is indeed expressly said, (1) 
 ♦* without the presence of the parish priest, or some other priest 
 commissioned hy him, or hy the ordinary, and that of two or 
 three witnesses, there can he 7io marriage." In a word, under the 
 Gospel, none but Catholic priests can marry. Hence this great 
 civil right being tortured into a sacrament, and subordinated to 
 the church, none can marry without her consent and act ; and 
 she can dispense even to the second degree, so as to allow brother 
 and sister to marry, for reasons of state ; or she can put even 
 harriers in the way which none dare to pass over. Here is sla- 
 very. Here is making matrimony, as well as life's opening, and 
 life's close, and all the way through life, a sort of fluent sacra- 
 ment, so that one is dependent on the priest for every thing, 
 great, good, and to be desired, now or forever. They keep the 
 keys of the treasury, and of life and of death. They keep the 
 great seals ; this Cerberus must have his sop from every traveller 
 into, or through, or out of the world. 
 
 There is another aspect of this subject which has very special 
 interest, and is little thought of in our country. It is very ably 
 presented in the following paper which I have lately met with, 
 published in the heart of Pennsylvania, and which I desire to 
 present for the gentleman's special consideration, adding that I 
 have the work in my possession from which the writer quotes. 
 
 " An opinion prevails extensively that a man's sentiments and 
 professions upon the subject of religion should not be made a mat- 
 ter of objection against his elevation to office. It is undoubtedly 
 a very delicate subject — and if such objections should come in 
 vogue at all, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to restrain 
 them within proper bounds. Yet every voter at the polls must 
 and will act upon such motives as seem best to him, and hence it 
 is that the public press has a most weighty and responsible duty 
 to perform, in conveying to the citizens at large correct impres- 
 sions upon all topics connected with our forms of government. 
 
 *'The opinion to which we have reference is a deduction from 
 the grand principles of Protestantism — namely, that all men have 
 a right to worship Grod according to the dictates of their own con- 
 Bcieuces. This is certainly true ; and the Roman Catholic has 
 as much right to worship God in his way as any of the various 
 sects of Protestants have to worship in their way. No man can 
 rightfully be coerced by human law, in matters of conscience, 
 whether he be a Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Mahometan or Pagan. 
 The only power which can be lawfully brought to bear upon him, 
 is the power of the word or the power of persuasion. This is 
 
 (1) Sec Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 313. 
 
 30 
 
474 
 
 Protestantism. It forms the onli/ religious article in the constitu- 
 tion, and no man who loves his country can wish to expunge it from 
 our political or religious creed. But does it follow from this, that 
 a man's opinions are of no consequence to the public ? Is it not 
 important that sound and just opinions upon all subjects touching 
 our social condition, should be entertained by every citizen, and 
 especially by those citizens who aspire to places of trust ? Does 
 it follow because one man has not the right to persecute another 
 for his opinions, that he is in duty bound to take no note of them 
 at the ballot box? To a certain extent our constitution does take 
 notice of relvjious opinions^ notwithstanding it declares the right 
 of private opinion. There is a provision which declares that no 
 man who believes in the being of a God, and a state of future 
 rewards and punishments shall be disqualified from holding any 
 office of trust on account of his religious sentiments. Now the 
 meaning of this is, that although every man has a right to enjoy 
 his opinions, yet certain opinions are necessary to make him wor- 
 thy of high public trusts. In practice too, it is not unfrequent 
 that candidates for public office are called upon for their senti- 
 ments upon political subjects. This proceeds upon the ground that 
 their principles, which are comparatively a matter of no importance 
 in private life, become a matter of public concern when they are 
 candidates for places of public trust. It is generally supposed, 
 however, that the religious belief and principles of a man, (except- 
 ing certain fundamental articles indispensable to the very idea of 
 that accountability which is implied by an oath,) can have no 
 very close connection with temporal and seculap trusts and duties, 
 and no iiistance has occurred in this country in which a man's re- 
 ligious creed has been the subject of direct and public enquiry. 
 This opinion is more correct in relation to any of the Protestant 
 sects than to the Roman Catholics. In that system much passes 
 under the name of religion which mainly concerns the temporal 
 and political condition of men. Our people are not generally aware 
 of this, because they are not attentive to follow out principles to 
 their consequences. Take for example the diiferent views enter- 
 tained by Protestants and Catholics upon the subject of *' MAR- 
 RIAGE.^' The former hold it to be a civil contract, but of a very 
 peculiar and solemn character; the latter hold it to be a sacra- 
 ment. Now most persons among us suppose this to be a mere 
 theological difference, depending upon metaphysical or scholastic 
 distinction, and one which may be disregarded by the politician, 
 "because it can have no political results. No doubt, many among 
 us would think it a very idle objection to a candidate for public 
 office, that he believes marriage to be a sacrament, which can 
 rightly be performed only by a priest of the Roman Catholic 
 Church. What more idle, they would say, than to make such a 
 dogma, a turning point in deciding upon the fitness of a candidate 
 for office ? It is not however a difference of opinion, so entirely 
 
I 
 
 475 
 
 destitute of consequences, as will appear from the following 
 facts. 
 
 "During the ascendancy of Napoleon Buonaparte in France, the 
 Catholic clergy, who had been ejected from the sees and cures by 
 the revolution, were re-established under certain conditions by a 
 treaty (or concordat, as it was called) between the Pope and the 
 French government. This treaty was published in 1802. Pius 
 VII., then Pope, was for a time very grateful. He declared pub- 
 licly, that next to Grod, he owed every thing to Napoleon Buona- 
 parte; but shortly afterwards he began to complain of certain laws 
 which the French government had made, and among others the 
 laws relating to marriage. In 1807 a cardinal was sent from 
 Home to Paris, to negociate about these difficulties. Afterwards 
 discussions were continued at Rome, in which the obstinacy of 
 the Court of Rome, in considering as null and void all marriages 
 solemnized according to the civil code, was signally manifested. 
 The doctrine of the Pope and of his clergy was, that no real or 
 valid marriage could exist except by the intervention of a Catholic 
 priest. Still the French code, or parts of it, became more and more 
 extended in Europe, and was introduced into diiferent countries to 
 a greater or lesser extent, and the Court of Rome, in order to 
 counteract the effect of it, despatched instructions, as they were 
 called, exhibiting in bold relief the unsocial and immoral doctrine 
 of that church upon the subject of marriage. 
 
 "The following are extracts from a letter of instruction destined 
 for Poland, no longer ago than 1808, where, by law, an attempt 
 had been made to reconcile the sacramental benediction, (as it was 
 called,) with the civil nature of the marriage contract. 
 
 "'Such a transaction, (says the Pope's letter) proposed by a 
 Catholic prelate to a royal minister, upon a subject so sacred, con- 
 sidered in its principles, in its consequences, in its whole tenor, 
 leads directly to the result, which modern sectaries have proposed 
 to themselves, namely to make Catholics and bishops, and even 
 the Pope himself, confess that the power of governing men is in- 
 divisible. ******** Pqj. y^ Catholic bishop to 
 acknowledge in Catholic marriages, civil publications, civil con- 
 tracts, civil divorces, civil judgments prescribed by the civil law, 
 is to grant to the prince a power over the sacraments and over 
 ecclesiastical discipline. It is to admit that he can alter the form 
 and the rites — can derogate from the canons — can violate ecclesi- 
 astical liberty — can trouble consciences — that he has, by way of 
 consequence, an absolute authority over things and causes purely 
 ecclesiastical — essentially privileged, and dependent on the power 
 of the keys — which is as much as to say that he can put his hand 
 to the censer and make his laws prevail over the laws of the 
 church. Either the bishop should have dissemhled and tolerated 
 a disorder imposed by irresistible force, or if he would say any 
 thing, he should have informed the royal minister that the regula- 
 
476 
 
 tions of the code, so far as they respect marriage, cannot he 
 applied to Catholic marriages in Catholic countries/ 
 
 '' If we survey the history of nations, we shall not find a single 
 example of a Catholic prince, imposing or suffering to be imposed 
 on his subjects, the obligation to publish and declare their mar- 
 riage, and to discuss the validity or nullity of it before the judge 
 of the district. A large field would have been opened for the bishop 
 to show the royal minister that in a country where the Catholic 
 religion is that of the state — in a country governed by a Catholic 
 prince, the laws of the civil code relative to marriage cannot be 
 applied to Catholics, nor the observation of them be required 
 without a great scandal — that it would be an attempt, unheard of 
 — and a manifest revolt, against the laws of the church — a no- 
 velty leading to error and schism. If these pastoral remonstrances 
 had proved useless, the bishops should have committed their cause 
 and that of the church into the hands of God and continued to 
 teach well the flock committed to their care. * * js^ * * * 
 
 '^ 1st. That there is no marriage, if it is not contracted in the 
 form which the church has established to render it valid. 
 
 "■ 2d. That marriage once contracted according to the forms of 
 the church, there is no power on earth which can sunder its tie. 
 
 " 3d. That it remains indissoluble notwithstanding adultery, 
 and the inconveniences of cohabitation. 
 
 "4th. That in case of a doubtful marriage, it belongs to the 
 church alone to judge of its validity or invalidity, so that every 
 other judgment emanating from any other power whatever is in- 
 competent and incapable of authorizing a divorce and of render- 
 ing it lawful. 
 
 " 5th. That a maraiage to which there is no canonical impedi- 
 ment is good and valid, and consequently is indissoluble, tvhatever 
 impediment the lay j^ower may unduly impose without the con- 
 sent and approbation of the Universal Church or of its supreme 
 head, the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 " 6th. That on the other hand, every marriage contracted not- 
 withstanding a canonical impediment — (though abrogated abu- 
 sively by the sovereign) ought to be holden as entirely null and of 
 no effect — and that evei-y Catholic is hound in conscience to re- 
 gard such a marriage as null until it shall be validated by a 
 lawful dispensation granted by the Church, if indeed the im- 
 pediment which renders it null may be removed by a dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 *' The Bishop of Warsaw had said that the regulations of the 
 code civil relative to marriage did not present any difficulty — that 
 they ordered nothing contrary to the laws of God and of the 
 church and consequently that every one was bound to conform to 
 it. In reply to this judicious reflection the Court of Rome ans- 
 wered in these terms. 
 
 "'Is not the article which declares that persons divorced shall 
 
477 
 
 not intermarry again, opposed to the laws of God and of the 
 church, &c. &c. — and to say all in one word, is it not an oiFence 
 to God and to the church, to make laws which subvert ecclesias- 
 tical discipline in a matter so delicate V The Court of Rome then 
 declares that it is an error to regard marriage as a civil contract, 
 * above all since under the evangelical law it has been elevated 
 to the dignity of a sacrament — and has thereby become a sacred 
 thing independent, as respects its nature and validity, of every 
 species of iwofune law. And it is so true that the nature and 
 validity/ of marriage, particularly under the gospel, is indepen- 
 dent of every civil contract established by the civil laws, that the 
 Council of Trent declared 7iull every marriage contracted with- 
 out the solemn forms lohich it prescribed, and this the CouncU 
 could not have done, if marriage partooh of the nature of two 
 contracts, ****** which depend upon two distinct 
 powers — the one civil and dependant on the civil laws for its 
 validity — the other religious and dependant on the laws of tJte 
 church.' 
 
 ^'From the foregoing extracts the reader perceives that however 
 he may regard the difference between the doctrine of Protestants 
 and Catholics on the subject of marriage, the Church of Home 
 holds the distinction to be all important. Every considerate 
 man will admit, that of all contracts marriage is the strictest, the 
 most necessary, and that which commends itself most seriously 
 to the attention of the civil power. It is the contract which more 
 than any other constitutes and perpetuates society. Upon such a 
 subject the duties of the Legislator are too grave to be surrendered 
 to a foreign priest — or to an assembly of our own priests. Yei 
 every devout Catholic holds that marriage is a sacrament, and the 
 foregoing are some of the inferences resulting from that position-. 
 
 " Here then is one illustration of the manner in which a man's 
 religious principles may affect his civil conduct, not as a private 
 citizen merely, but as a legislator and as a public officer. A man 
 who would send to Rome, or tlie vicar-general of the Pope in this 
 country, for a dispensation from a canonical impediment to mar- 
 riage, does so, of course, under the belief that marriage is a sa- 
 crament and not a civil contract, and of course, that his marriage 
 though according to the civil law would, without a dispensation 
 be null and his issue illegitimate. If he icould not do so, but 
 rely on the civil jjower to declare what marriages are lawful, he 
 would be deemed a schismatic and the subject of ecclesiastical 
 censure and excommunication. The question may now be put 
 whether a man, who believes in the papal doctrine, that marriage 
 is a sacrament, is not by his own conscience disqualified from 
 holding any public office of trust in a Protestant country ?" 
 
 There is one respect in which this gentleman excels any other 
 I have ever known. — It is in making something of nothing. Ex 
 nihilo nihil fit can no longer be stated by philosophers as an indis- 
 
478 
 
 putable axiom. Not the spider who will spin out his interminable 
 web from the materials furnished hy one -poor jiy ; not the lean 
 liver who decocts his profuse sovps of hones can make a richer 
 use of nothing than our self-complacent, unblushing disciple of 
 Loyola. Truly sir, I admit that there is no answering ^' these 
 arguments." He may weave his spider web and wind his horn of 
 triumph, and still his speeches must be unanswerable, while there 
 is nothing in them to answer. Such are the first pages of the last 
 speech. As might have been expected, his declamation is not 
 only empty hnt false. Thus he says the Quakers were cropped in 
 England by ^^ Calvinists." Now does he mean to say this was 
 by Presbyterians ? Then it is wholly, wholly false. If by others, 
 then it is wholly irrelevant. His want of candour is as unwise as 
 it is unjust and unlovely. Take for example the two cases of 
 which he has made so much, as given by Brandt. Admit it all to 
 be true ! as well as the cropping of the poor Quakers ! — what then? 
 He infers that Presbyterian doctrine \^ persecuting doctrine. Let 
 it be allowed to be- so. I turn him to the Catholic Historian, 
 Father Paul, (1) where he tells us that " FROM the edict op 
 Charles until the time of the peace, (in the very same 
 land where the two men were put to death,) " tliere were hanged, 
 beheaded, buried, and burned to the number o/fifty THOUSAND " 
 of the Protestants ! ! ! And now will he say it was persecution 
 for Presbyterians to put two men to death, and no persecution for 
 Catholics to put 50,000 ? Truly he undervalues the lives of 
 heretics even more than the Pope his master, if two Catholics 
 outweigh 50,000 Presbyterians ! Now will he say it was only 
 discipline to slaughter Protestants but doctrine to kill even two 
 papists? Grotius, whom Mr. H. has often referred to, says 
 these martyrs to liberty and truth in the low countries amounted 
 to 100,000. Yet, after all, the secret sting of Popery was the 
 loss of the nation, and its full final identification with the Pro- 
 testant cause. For as it often is, persecution made the church 
 of Christ to grow ; in spite of anti-christ and the 3Ian of sin, 
 the Reformation reclaimed Holland from papal domination. 
 
 The malignity oi the last speech of the gentleman is so great, 
 that I can only explain it by the efficacy of my illustrations and au- 
 thorities. A gentleman and a Christian cannot answer malignity 
 any more than a logician can reply to gasconade and emp)ty de- 
 clamation. Here then I must also pass by the i?pleen and abuse 
 and ill-bred taunts and vulgarity I meet. I cannot stoop either 
 to gamble with the gentleman as he proposes. I know Protestant 
 money is popular at St. John's ; and that Bishop England thinks 
 well of a game of cards, as Mr. Hughes does of a wager. When 
 I exhibited Baronius, to the confusion of his audacious misrepre- 
 sentation in the late controversy, and claimed the offered ^500 — 
 
 (1) History of Council of Trent, page 387, book v. 
 
 A 
 
479 
 
 how did he meet the pledge ? The self-confident air with which 
 he holds forth his ^100 — resembles the last stake of a desperate 
 gamester. But while I cannot gamble even with a priest of Rome, 
 a candidate for the ring and staff, lest his ^Ujr eat swelling words 
 should deceive the unimry'' I will give him some distinct exam- 
 ples from the catechism of the Council of Trent, in proof of the 
 truth of my proposition, and to show how empty and uncandid the 
 gentleman's grandiloquence is. The proposal was this — ^^But I 
 he)'e challenge Mr. Hughes to meet me before any number of Latin 
 scholars, and I to ill convict this shameful edition" (of the English 
 translation of the catechism of the Council of Trent, printed in 
 this country and approved by Mr. Hughes,) ''of twenty deliberate 
 and glaring frauds, which have been evidently committed with de- 
 sign.'' He says of this charge : ^^ I pronounce it utterly untrue.^' 
 Now for the proof. The translator says in his* preface, ^^the 
 phraseology of the icork is consecrated by ecclesiastical usage. 
 Whilst, therefore, he has endeavoured to preserve the spirit, he 
 has been unwilling to lose sight of the letter — studious to avoid a 
 servile exactness, he has not felt himself at liberty to indulge the 
 freedom of paraphrase: anxious to transfuse into the copy the 
 spirit of the original he has been no less anxious to render it an 
 express image of that original." These are fair promises, and 
 pompous pledges. 
 
 The first step of the learned "professor," (and he is in the pa- 
 pal college of Maynooth, specially dedicated to the training of a 
 priesthood) is wholly to 07nit the Pope's Bull which accompanies 
 the original, and ushered it into the world. The reason for this 
 it is not hard to understand. 
 
 I. Example J is an omission. 
 
 Original Latin. 
 Nam per sacramenta 
 golum 61 eorum forma 
 eervatur peccata remitti 
 possunt: alitor vero nul- 
 lum jus a peccatis sol- 
 vendi eoclesiaa datum 
 est: ex quo sequltur turn 
 tacerdotee, turn sacra- 
 menta ad peccata con- 
 donanda, velnti instru- 
 menta valere, quibus 
 GhristuH Doininua auctor 
 ipse, et lavfjitor salutis, 
 remissionem peccatorum 
 et justitiam in nobis 
 effi,cit. 
 
 Our "holy" transla- 
 tor gives the folloxoing 
 only : — "And sins can bo 
 forgiven only through 
 the sacraments, when 
 duly administered. The 
 church has received no 
 power otherwise to re- 
 mit sin." 
 
 A full translation ;— 
 By the sacraments only, 
 so that the form of them 
 be kept, sins may be 
 forgiven ; but otherwise 
 there is no power of 
 absolving from sin given 
 to the church j whence 
 it follows that the priests, 
 as icell as the sacraments, 
 are as it were instru- 
 ments to the forgive- 
 ness of sins by which 
 Christ our Lord, loho 
 is the very author and 
 giver of salvation, works 
 in us forgiveness of sins 
 and 'righteousness. 
 
480 
 
 Here all that part in italics is omitted. Why that was selected 
 is very plain, for that makes the priests not only means of goodj 
 but *'as it were'^ instruments of pardon of sin — a sort of sacra- 
 ments I Such profanity he might well be ashamed of; yet his 
 shame should be at the doctrine; and his honour and honesty 
 should have given a fair, full translation. ( 1) 
 
 II. Example, is an interpolation. 
 
 Original Latin. 
 Quod quidem non mi- 
 nus ver6 de illo etiam 
 homine sacerdos pro- 
 nunciat qui priua arden- 
 tissimas contritionia vi, 
 accedente tamen confes- 
 sionis voto, peccatoruin 
 veniam adeo consecutus 
 sit. Adduntur praeteria 
 complures preces, non 
 quidem ad forman neces- 
 sariae, sed ut ea remove- 
 antur, quae sacraraenti 
 vim et efficientiam, illius 
 culpa cui administratur, 
 impedire possent. (2) 
 
 True translation. 
 This (the form of ab- 
 solution) the priest may 
 pronounce no less truly 
 concerning that man 
 also, who by virtue of a 
 most ardent contrition — 
 yet so as that he has the 
 wish of confession — has 
 obtained from God the 
 pardon of his sins. Many 
 prayers also accompany 
 the form, not because 
 they are deemed neces- 
 sary, but in order to 
 remove every obstacle 
 which the unworthiness 
 of the penitent may op- 
 pose to the power and 
 eflScacy of the sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 Donevan'a corruption of 
 the text, defended by 
 Jlr. Hughes. 
 " This form is not leas 
 true, when pronoui)ced 
 by the priest over him 
 who by means of perfect 
 contrition has already 
 obtained the pardon of 
 his sins. Perfect con- 
 trition it is true recon- 
 ciles the sinner to God, 
 hut his justification is 
 not to be ascribed to 
 perfect contrition alone, 
 independently of the de- 
 sire tchich it includes of 
 receiving the sacrament 
 of penance. Many 
 
 prayers accompany the 
 form, not because they 
 are deemed necessary, 
 but in order to remove 
 every obstacle which 
 the unworthiness of the 
 penitent may oppose to 
 the efficacy of the sa- 
 crament. 
 
 Here one whole sentence, (that in italics,) is an entire forgery to 
 which there is not one corresponding word in the original Latin ! 
 This is adapting the si/stem to the latitude. He who rcfads this 
 will better understand what I said in my last speech about the 
 liberties taken with the Fathers and the Bible in the Church of 
 Home. 
 
 * 
 
 III. Ml/ third example is a compound of several hinds of 
 iniquities. — This is the most flagrant, and deliberate act of fraud 
 I have ever seen practised on any author, living or dead. The 
 
 (1) See Donovan's Translation, 108 page ; and the original Latin, p. 75, g 6. 
 
 (2) See Latin edition, p. 177. English, pages 241-2. 
 
481 
 
 compilers are here introducing St. Ambrose as authority on the 
 question of the supremacy of the. Pope. They extract some 
 twelve lines from that father, and then proceed to add their own 
 doctrine of the n^cessittj of a visible head to the church on earth. 
 This translator, advocated by Mr. Hughes omits every avord 
 OF Ambrose's extract; and, retaining his name, puts the lan- 
 guage of the catechists into his mouth, and makes him father 
 what was written many, yes, very many centuries after his 
 death, and lo, he speaks the language of a thorough-paced 
 papist ! ! ! 
 
 Original Latin, 
 Postremo sanctus Ambrosius ait : 
 ''Magna sunt eniin Dei mnnera, qui 
 non solum nobis quae nostra fuerant 
 reparavit, verum etiam qute sunt 
 propria concessit : [deinde paucis in- 
 terjectis sequitur.] Magna autem 
 Christi gratia qui omnia propo voca- 
 bula sua discipiilis ipsis donavit." — 
 [Tliis father then gives quotations of 
 eight or nine portions of the Bible, 
 to prove the above proposition, viz : 
 that om' Lord bestowed his title on his 
 diecijilca; all these are suppressed by 
 the translator, and the following 
 words put into his mouth.] "Si quia 
 objiciat ecclesiam uno capite et sponso 
 Jesu Christo •ontentam praeterea nul- 
 lum requirere, in promptu responsio 
 
 est, Ac Sic ecclesiae quam 
 
 ipse intimo spiritu regit hominem 
 suae potestatis vicarium, et ministrum 
 praefecit, nam cum visibili capite 
 egeat ita salvator noster Petrum uni- 
 versi fidelium generis caput et pasto- 
 rem constituit," Ac. 
 
 Translation and true connexion. 
 Lastly St. Ambrose saith : " Great 
 indeed are the gifts of God, who not 
 only restored to us what had been 
 ours, but even conferred on us what 
 was peculiar to himself; [then after 
 adding a few things he proceeds.] 
 How great was the grace of Christ, 
 who bestoiced nearly all his titles on 
 his discijiles." [Here the quotations 
 from Scripture are introduced, and 
 the extract from Ambrose closes. 
 By him all the dIvSciples of Chiust 
 are made equal shakers in these 
 peculiar a\d gracious titles. but 
 the translator suppresses that pas- 
 sage, and puts up Peter alone as 
 bearing Christ's titles. This is base 
 fraud.] " If any should object that 
 the church is content with one spouse 
 and one head, Jesus Christ, and re- 
 quires no other, the answer is ob- 
 vious, <fec So He, (Je- 
 sus,) has placed over his church which 
 he governs by his invisible spirit, a 
 man. to be his vicar, and the minister 
 of his power; for a visible church 
 requires a visible head, and there- 
 fore does our Saviour appoint Peter 
 head and pastor of all the faithful." 
 
 Br/ the above fraud ^ 13 lines of Ambrose are expunged ; and 
 12 lines of the catechism are put into his mouth and reported as 
 his — being entirely different words, and composed ]200 years 
 after Ambrose died. 
 
 A glance at the above will convince any honest man that this 
 is base icorh. Now I gave this book, only as one of many, (in- 
 cluding the "Catholic" Fathers, as they are called, and the 
 word of God itself,) in which frauds had been committed on the 
 sacredness of the press, and works altered by omissions, forge- 
 ries, variations, and false connexions of terms — by the members 
 and head of the Roman Church. Of all the cases given, Mr 
 
482 
 
 Hughes has noticed this alone. And now I ask directly whether 
 these are frauds or not ? Does Mr. II. any ktnger defend this 
 translator y And now let me ask Mr. H, to lay aside the Jesuit 
 /o7' once, and meet these proofs ; and as he says my proposition 
 about this translation "is untrue,^^ I require him to prove it, or 
 to confess that he has made a false statement. If he vindicates 
 the translator, or if he does not now condemn him before the 
 public, he becomes the partaker of his guilt; if he remains 
 silent, it will be a confession of guilt and confusion too. When 
 he shall have met these three examples, like an honest man, then 
 we will produce more, and refer the whole book to the proper 
 arbitration. 
 
 And as to the arhifration of all undisputed points, I shall 
 rejoice, at the close of this discussion, to refer all the points as 
 to the meaninrj of words in the dead languages, as to the facts 
 about which we are at issue (or may be before the debate closes) 
 to fit referees. And among other things, the question to whom 
 is to be charged the failure to publish the report of the stenogra- 
 pher ; and why it is that Mr. Hughes can bet hundreds of dol- 
 lars, and yet at no time pai/ one cent toward the expences of the 
 report of the debate, while it was at his instance, said report 
 was laid aside ; and thus the means of paying the reporter for 
 the time, made unavailing!! 
 
 If the gentleman will look into the new edition of Buck's 
 Theological Dictionary, at the close of the book, he will find an 
 article on *^ the Baptists," drawn up by a distinguished clergy- 
 man of this city belonging to that denomination, in which if he 
 has any desire to correct his false statements about the proportion 
 of Calvinists, he will find room to regret his rudeness, and to be 
 ashamed of his ignorance ; or if he requires it, I will cite it in 
 the next reply. 
 
 As to the article in the " Catholic Telegraph," the "inten' 
 tion," as a Catholic priest ought to know, determines the whole 
 question. Was not that interition to favour the sentiment of the 
 article which denounced our American system as a failure f If 
 so, then my use of it was the fair and the only fair one. Mr. 
 Hughes denies that such ivas his intention, on him then lies the 
 duty of proof. He is well aware that he cannot make it good. 
 Hence his silence as to proof and his impertinence as to abuse. 
 
 *' The doom" of popery is not pronounced by me, but by God, 
 who hath said prophetically, " Babylon has fallen, has fallen ;" 
 and " that man of sin, whose coming is after the working of satan 
 with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all de- 
 ceivableness of unrighteousness ; whom the Lord shall consume 
 with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of 
 his coming." This is the doom I speak of. It has been working 
 since the morning star of the reformation arose. It is working in 
 
483 
 
 Spain, in Portugal, in France, even in Rome; and its signs are 
 seen in the spread of the gospel, in the progress of liberty and 
 truth, and in the desperation of the disciples and defenders of 
 Rome, '^ whose ivrath is great because iliei/ see that their time is 
 short.'* 
 
 When the gentleman charges me with suppressing a part of 
 a canon, '' after Faher," he gives me good defence before honest 
 men, by the very manner of attack, for surely the name and ex- 
 ample of ^'Faber'' are good, against the name and the renown 
 of John Hughes. 
 
 As to " nursing fathers." The Presbyterian Church, respond- 
 ing to the American Constitution, which is but a republication 
 of Bible liberty, says it is the duty of the civil magistrate to pro- 
 tect all denominations, giving the preference to none; and cites, 
 in proof, the prophet Isaiah who predicts this protection to the 
 then persecuted church. Now I call on the gentleman to say 
 what his church thinks the duty of the civil magistrate on this 
 subject ought to be? I have told him during the unanswered 
 arguments of many addresses, what it is; viz. '' to purge his ter- 
 ritory of heretical filth" "to exterminate heretics ;'' and, if 
 " being warned, he shall refuse, let it be told the pope, that he 
 may absolve his subjects from their allegiance, and give the ter- 
 ritory to those who will keep it free from heretics." 
 
 As to the American Sunday School Union. If ever there was an 
 institution in which sectarian domination was impossible, it is 
 this. It is one of the most expressive and unanswerable proofs of 
 the spirit of Mr. Hughes, and of his church, that he attacks such 
 institutions as that which unites many denominations of Christians^ 
 to send out the Bible without note or comment to the whole world ; 
 and which has already caused the Bible to be translated into one 
 hundred and fifty five languages of the earth ! And that institu- 
 tion, which is even icithout price, teaching God's word on God's 
 day to millions of children in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America; 
 and which at the cost of one mass or one prayer for a soul in pur- 
 gatory, will teach a child for five years, and dismiss him at the 
 close with a New Testament in his hand. For twenty five cents 
 can all this be done; the tuition is gratis, by the best heads and 
 hearts of America : [Theodore Frelinghuysen is one of these 
 teachers; and how much of John Hughes's slander think you it 
 would take to stain the fair lawn of his ^'detestable Calvinism ?"'\ 
 and then twelve and a half for spelling books and reading primers, 
 and twelve and a half cents for the Testament, and then the whole 
 solicited by the Sunday School Union, from the American people 
 indiscriminately, save the Catholics (they never give to such in- 
 stitutions ; and like them as little as their rubicund priests do the 
 temperance society), and when solicited, given to the printers 
 and binders of school books and Bibles for the books which are 
 gratuitously bestowed on the poor children ! Yes ! these are tha 
 
484 
 
 noble institutions which foreign Jesuits fear, hate, and assail in 
 vain. 
 
 This man charged the Ameriean Sunday School Union with 
 saying, in one of its reports, that the purpose of the institution 
 was to '' dictate to the souls of thousands of immoi'tal beings." I 
 called for the proof! And instead of referring to the report, 
 he talks of some preface to one of the catalogues of books pub- 
 lished by the union ! Now I ask him to cite the whole passage : 
 to say if it be a report of the society ; and if they announce on 
 their own authority, the principle charged on them ! Let Mr. 
 Hughes reply. 
 
 It is laughable to see the gentleman apply his huge American- 
 ism and his heroic love of liberty to specific cases. He says, for 
 example, " the Synod of York (of Philadelphia at York) has di- 
 rected an anti-popery sermon to be preached every year, and this 
 order or direction is neither doctrine nor discipline. The direc- 
 tion given at the Council of Lateran, (which was to destroy the 
 heretics, depose rulers who countenanced them, &c. &c. See the 
 dreadful canon given in full in my second speech, first night) was 
 in its principle like that given at the Synod of York'' (at York). 
 It was neither doctrine nor discipline. 
 
 But what if the Synod ha,d said, " every man who will not re- 
 ceive and believe the doctrines of that sermon ought to he put to 
 death.?" What then ? ^\on\d th^t he doctrine? No! Would 
 it be discipline ? No ! What then ? a nulity ? Yes ! But query, 
 Can a church pass such a resolution without holding doctrines 
 and pursuing a course unfriendly to liberty of conscience, and to 
 civil rights ? I ask is there any thing in the Roman Catholic 
 doctrine which the persecuting canon of the Lateran Council 
 violates? Our standards are replete with explicit doctrines 
 against persecution. If the gentleman has one, yes one such, I 
 do beg him to show it. Now a religion which can allow perse- 
 cution ; whose infallible council can order it ; and yet say it is 
 " neither doctrine nor discipline " to do it, nor yet against its 
 doctrine or discipline, has confessed guilty to all that we have 
 charged on it. Yet this Mr. Hughes has said ! 
 
 He says he has exposed " a few (of my quotations) as sam- 
 ples." Pray will the gentleman give us one? I exposed the way 
 the Church of Rome corrupted the Bible in my last speech ? Is 
 that one sample? I see — the gentleman is silent about that. I 
 expoged the way in which Catholics corrupted the text of the 
 fathers. The gentleman is silent about that. Is that a sample 
 of my false quotations ? Ah, gentlemen ! the good Samaritan 
 did not pass oy on the other side ! It was the priest that did so ! 
 
 The charge of *' falsehood" is a matter of course with Mr. 
 Hughes ! But when he can put by my side FabcV, and Dr. Miller, 
 and the American confederation, and the Bible Society, and the 
 Sunday School Union, and stand himself with "the lewd fellows" 
 
485 V 
 
 who make the mobs, and then after hearing their crimes suppress 
 them, under the seal of confession, while he joins their cry against 
 the wise and the good ! I say, gentlemen, if Mr. Hughes were 
 to praise me, T should feel it a duty at once to begin the work 
 of self-examination ! 
 
 As to the Synod of Dort, you observe what he says (extracted 
 from its fierce enemy) is given by him only with '^ IT IS RE- 
 PORTED/' a fine foundation truly for pages of calumny. But 
 the ^^ viper hites the file." 
 
 I would ask Mr. Hughes to tell me in his next, lohen and 
 where the Preshyterians had the political and civil power in their 
 hands ? When he does this, then it will be time enough to look at 
 his foul-mouthed calumnies. What a heart must that be, which 
 can vent such a spirit ? Query ? Can any man sit and hear the 
 confessions of all the crimes of all sorts of bad men, for half a 
 century, and keep a heart cleaner than a common sewer ? 
 
 The whole of his attack on the church of Holland is exposed 
 hy one word, in the very extract which he gives from Brandt (vol. 
 1st. p. 316), when the author says, that what he relates was done 
 "6yan extraordinary tribunal or court of judicature?" Mr. 
 Hughes would induce his hearers to suppose that all this was the 
 act of the church ! 
 
 He says, in reference to the persecuting canon of the great La- 
 teran council — "All that he said was that society has a right to 
 suppress heretics, or no heretics, who undertake to overthrow the 
 government." — Very true. But, Mr. Hughes, 1st. These heretics 
 were under a foreign government; and not under the Pope's ciyi7 
 government ? Or do you mean ecclesiastical government ? That 
 was in all these lands ! Do you mean that ? 2d. The Council of 
 Laterau which met at Rome did not represent ^^ society," but 
 " the Holy Catholic Church ! " What had the Pope to do with 
 " society ? " Suppose the general assembly of the Presbyterian 
 church should say, ^^ society," i. e. "the general assembly," has a 
 right to suppress, (by a crusade of several hundred thousand men,) 
 heretics or no heretics, who undertake to overthrow the (Ameri- 
 can) "government?" What, I ask had the "Council" to do 
 with the duties of civil " society" in foreign lands? or even in 
 Italy, where the Pope is an usurper placed and kept on the backs 
 of the people by Austrian bayonets — while his minions in Amer- 
 ica, cry out for liberty, liberty! Let Mr. Hughes say, first, whether 
 or not the Pope has a right to be a civil Potentate in Rome, from 
 God or man? Is he a legitimate ruler or a tyrant? Settle that 
 question, and then talk of liberty ! ! As to " moral influence," I 
 neod not repeat. Once Mr. Hughes said " we had changed our 
 creed to suit the American Constitution ; I replied, very well. 
 Whatever the taw.se, you admit the fact of the change. And I 
 said, do you only change too, and then we will shake hands over 
 our blessed constitution. But, no 1 Rome never changes ! NovOf 
 
486 
 
 the g-entleraan implies that there is no change in us; that it still 
 means force, by a sort of inystic sen^e like the secreta monita of 
 the Jesuits; or like the consecrated bread, it is bread to Pro- 
 testants ; to Priests it is '^God, and Christ, very Christ — hones, 
 
 The gentleman says, *^tiie inquisition was entirely and 
 
 AVOWEDLY A POLITICAL AND NOT AN ECCLESIASTICAL INSTITU- 
 TION." I am sorry to say he knows the reverse to be true ; and 1 
 have only to refer the reader to what I have already said on that 
 subject, on the Catholic question. Devoti, says, (see my long 
 citation from him,) ^'TnE congregation of cardinals at 
 Home instituted by the Pope, in which the Pope pre- 
 sides, is the head of all inquisitors over the whole 
 world; to it they all refer their more difficult mat- 
 TERS; AND ITS AUTHORITY IS FINAL. It IS RIGHTLY AND 
 WISELY ORDERED THAT THE PoPE'S POWER AND OFFICE SUSTAIN 
 THIS INSTITUTION, FOR HE IS THE CENTRE OF UNITY AND HEAD 
 OP THE CHURCH; AND TO HIM ChRIST HAS COMMITTED PLENARY 
 POWER, TO FEED, TEACH, RULE, AND GOVERN ALL CHRISTIANS." 
 
 Now either the Pope is political head of all countries where the 
 inquisition has been established, or else it is a religious, and eccle- 
 siastical institution. But, gentlemen, I predict that Mr. Hughes 
 will pass this by in his next speech. And here it is curious to 
 see the gentleman's intermitting conscience and sensibility. 
 
 For one Catholic priest's crwe^ (and so it was cruel) execution, 
 " he sickens at the narrative.'^ But the historian of the Spanish 
 inquisition alone tells us that there were, from 1481 to 1812 
 (only 331 years) 341,021 victims, of whom 31,912 were burnt 
 to death. (1) 
 
 So of Servetus. How Mr. Hughes groans in holy pity over 
 that poor, persecuted, injured man! So he was injured; and 
 Calvin, and the Genevese sinned against God and the liberty of 
 Servetus. But Servetus had run away from the Catholics of 
 Vienne, who only did not burn him because they could not catch 
 him. And then the Huguenots, and the Albigenses, and the 
 Turks. Why ! Why ! Historians say " the crusades were just 
 wars," — '' they were heretics threatening to overthrow the govern- 
 ment." But what had the Pope to do with carrying on wars? 
 What with the military defence of the state ? This i^ to confess 
 all; yes all. 
 
 As to the Bulla in Coena, &c. I am glad the gentleman admits 
 it exists. Once he had never seen it' in his life. Now he stoutly 
 cries out " it is in the Bullarium Magnum." I am glad to hear 
 it ; and with great pleasure acknowledge that I was mista/ce?i in 
 saying it was not. It was only the frst editions of it that were 
 not there printed. It was for ages growing " bigger and badder/* 
 
 (1) See Llorente, already quoted. 
 
487 
 
 as one of the gentleman's fcllow-nien once said of a lesser evil, 
 and the BuUariiua contains the form finished out. 
 
 As to poor Mr. Anslcy, I pity him, and wish him well, espe- 
 cially if he will take care of his family — and I shall think the 
 better of Father Hughes, if he will add his influence to effect or 
 aid in that duty. 
 
 The following dignified and sensible letter from Bishop Doane 
 on the subject is my reply to the scurrility and abuse of Mr. 
 Hughes, if Mr. H. deem it satisfactory, very well — I prefer 
 not to publish it, out of respect to the feelings of all the parties. 
 If not feati.sfiictory to Mr. H., then I hereby add it to this speech 
 as a part thereof, for which act I have in the letter the permis- 
 sion of the Right Rev. gentleman. 
 
 Burlingtmi, N. J. Feb. 16, 1836. 
 
 Rev. Sir — Your letter of the 8th arrived here in my absence. 
 I embrace the earliest leisure moment since my return to reply 
 The case of Mr. Ansley, to which you allude, has been a very 
 painful one, and has indirectly caused me great perplexity. Mr. 
 Ansley was never received as a minister of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the United States. He came to me a stranger 
 and poor, and so engaged my sympathies. As he did not bring 
 letters to me I have never recommended him to the patronage 
 of others. Long before he gave any symptoms of a tendency to 
 Romanism, I saw that his mind was unsettled, and I have since 
 learned that he has been at times insane. I regard him as par- 
 tially deranged at this time, though competent to pursue his 
 business as a teacher. Of course his adhesion to the Church of 
 Rome is no loss to Protestantism and no gain to her. His strange 
 conduct to his family I account for on the same ground. It is 
 true that he is living with his family. It is not true that he has 
 as yet contributed to their support since they came to him. It 
 is true that both to his wife and children he has been unkind in 
 many ways, and has been unjust to obtain from her articles of 
 Beparation. It is very probable that a vague hope of being a 
 Roman priest may have had some influence in inducing him to 
 pursue this course. But I have no ground for supposing that he 
 has been encouraged by Mr. Hughes or any other person to pur- 
 sue this course, or indeed to expect that under any circumstances 
 they would admit him to the priesthood. It should be stated 
 that immediately after the first paroxysm of insanity, which I 
 think was in 1832, he became prejudiced against his wife — 
 though, so far as I can* learn, without the slightest reason. 
 
 I have thus stated the material facts in the case, as they appear 
 to me. You are at liberty to use the statement as you please. 
 Badly as I think of the papal system, and anxious as I am that 
 its inroads in our country should be resisted, the case of Mr. 
 Ansley has not seemed to me of much importance. An amiable 
 
488 
 
 man, of not very strong mind, and very imperfect education in 
 theology, naturally recluse in his disposition and inclined to en- 
 thusiasm, he appears to have sunk under the pressure of misfor- 
 tune into a state of mental alienation, such as had befallen his 
 father before him. Recovering in part, and under some degree 
 of censure in his own church, he seems to have found in the 
 Romish system, elements congenial with the morbid state of his 
 mind and heart, and to have embraced it with an eagerness 
 amounting to desperation. In two or three conversations which 
 I had with him before his final decision, I saw clearly that he 
 knew nothing of the argument-^that to reason with him was to 
 twist a rope of sand — and that he was yielding to an impulse 
 which seemed like what we are told of fascination. 
 
 I have reason to believe that his accession to the Romish ranks 
 was regarded by them as a triumph. I have reason to believe 
 that it is now regarded by them in a very different light. I 
 have only to wish that since he has chosen them, and they have 
 received him, they would now take him and take care of him. 
 His helpless family have been taken care of by the Christian 
 benevolence of the community; perplexing and painful as his 
 course has been, I cannot but regard him as an object of pity. 
 
 Believe me, very truly and respectfully, vours, 
 
 * G. W. DOANE. 
 
 Finally, let me state in a word what has often been said before, 
 that in other ages, and other countries, after the days of Con- 
 stantino, papists and Protestants held principles and exercised 
 discipline opposed, in a greater or less measure to liherfy, both 
 civil and religious. The Protestants were in the amount of this, 
 as one to one hundred, to the papists. The Reformation teas 
 the beginning of a glorious emanclj)ation. Liberty, civil and 
 religious, has been gradually developing ever since, until it has 
 been matured and restored to Apostolic and Bible grounds in 
 America. All other sects not professing to be infallible have 
 adopted American principles ; among i\iGn\ Presbyterians. But 
 popery, as already, proved, did once persecute in fact; did so on 
 principle; and was sustained in it by its discipline. Popery is 
 the same it ever was. It ivill not change. Therefore it is still 
 as ever opposed to liberty, civil and religious. If discipline is 
 so, many of its doctrines are so. Hence it is peaceable, because 
 it has not the power. Hence too the former persecutions of 
 Presbyterians, which we unite to condemn, prove nothing to this 
 question ; whereas those of Catholics do much. 
 
''is the Presbyterian Religiorij in any or in all its principles or 
 doctrines J opposed to civil or religious liberty ? " 
 
 AFFIRMATIVE VI.— MR. HUGHES. 
 
 Mr. President: — 
 
 You and the audience have seen verified the prediction of my 
 last speech, that Presbyterianism is slow to sacrifice money, 
 whilst it immolates truth by the hecatomb. I had proposed to 
 place at the disposal of charity, one hundred dollars for every in- 
 stance in which I should have failed to convict the gentleman of 
 the calumnies specified in my former speech, requiring that he, or 
 his friends, if they have any confidence in his statement, should 
 forfeit a similar sum, for a similar purpose, as often as I should 
 have convicted him. He dreads this appeal to the purse. He 
 knows he should suffer by it, and he shrinks from the test, as 
 Achilles would from the course of an arrow aimed at his heel. He 
 is scrupulous all at once ; and he would not be guilty of " gamb- 
 ling," forsooth! Sir, it is no gambling; it is only a tax^ which I 
 proposed to levy on falsehood, for the benefit of charity. 
 This question, therefore, is doubly SETTLED; first, by his 
 shrinking from the original documents, and secondly, by his refu- 
 sal to maintain his assertions at the risk of his purse. / always 
 take the precaution to make myself certain of the truth of my 
 statements, when history is in question ; and it is thus that I am 
 supported by that confidence which truth alone can inspire. The 
 gentleman, unfortunately for himself, takes ignorant and faithless 
 partizan guides, and hence it is that he appears confounded 
 whenever the original fountains of history are consulted on 
 these popular calumnies. Hence too, his confidence forsakes 
 him, whenever he is brought up to the trying alternative, of hav- 
 ing to prove, or having to pay. 
 
 My reference to " patriarchial " assistance was not, as he sup- 
 poses, in compliment to the ability of his speech. But it was to 
 take away the plea on which the feebleness of his arguments has 
 sometimes been accounted for, by those who say that Presbyte- 
 rianism suffers through his incompetency, rather than from the 
 weakness of the cause itself. This cannot now be said, if, as we 
 have reason to believe, *his speeches have the advantage of being 
 revised and amended, at head-quarters. In this way they furnish 
 
 31 
 
490 
 
 the best answer to my arguments, that can be furnished, by even 
 the lions of Presbyterianism ; and these answers consist in a dex- 
 terous evasion of those arguments. The evidences of Presbyte- 
 rian intolerance, tyranny, and cruelty, seem to have taken them 
 all by surprise. They find them rising up from every country 
 under the sun, where their system existed, and had power to per- 
 secute. They find that not only Catholics, but men of all other 
 religions, that ventured to worship Almighty God, ^'according to 
 the dictates of their own consciences," were the victims of their 
 persecution. They find all this undeniable. And hence it is, that 
 I have had occasion to admire that discretion which has prompted 
 the gentleman to abstain from every attempt to grapple with facts 
 and arguments, which a "lion" of his Church could not over- 
 throw. 
 
 The gentleman does well, therefore, to reconcile the " proverbs 
 of Solomon," since he cannot "reconcile" the doctrines of his 
 Church with "civil and religious liberty." 
 
 Of what he calls European persecutions, by Presbyterians, he 
 says he "has owned that they did in a degree practice them." 
 Now I have proved that they practiced them in EVERY "de- 
 gree," from the pecuniary fine, to the block, and the stake, and 
 the gibbet ; both in Europe and America. I have proved that 
 there is no instance in the records of history, in which they did 
 not practice them. I have proved that, by theii* Confessions of 
 Faith, they were bound to practice them : — that they held the 
 obligation as a "tenet revealed by the Almighty," and that their 
 second commandment, tiow, and in this countri/^ (requiring them 
 to "remove all false worship,") binds them still to practice 
 them, "according to each one's place and calling." So long as 
 their conscience allows them to continue in the violation of that 
 divine precept, so long " false worships " may be left unremoved. 
 He then goes on to tell us, what "he has said again and again." 
 Sir, the question is not what he has said. But the question is 
 what his Church has said. For this I refer to the Confessions of 
 Faith, as exhibited in a former speech. Has the General Assem- 
 bly ever condemned those Confessions? Has it refused commu- 
 nion with the sister Churches that hold them? Has it required 
 that ministers, coming from those Churches, should renounce any 
 portion of those Confessions ? No such thing. Then, it approves 
 them all; and the gentleman cannot deny it. Consequently, so 
 far as the creed of Presbyterians in this country is concerned, it 
 contains the essence of all the "degrees" of persecution, that was 
 ever practised by its sister Churches in Europe. It requires only 
 a free stage, and fearless interpreters. 
 
 He refers to the fact, that the " toleration of a false religion " is 
 no longer printed in the Confession of Faith, as a " sin ; " to prove 
 that Presbyterians have changed their persecuting doctrines since 
 the Constitution. Thia is a sophistry ; for it is essentially sinful 
 
491 
 
 to tolerate what God, as they hold, commands them to ^^ remove." 
 The Catholic doctrine never taught that such toleration was sin- 
 ful; and therefore, i^ never could change. We have seen, 
 under the former question, that Catholic nations have been the 
 first to grant this toleration, and never have they been reproached 
 by their Church for it, as if it were sinful, or against any doctrine. 
 This settles that question. The gentleman does not meet the 
 difficulty, by quoting those parts of his standards which instruct 
 the magistrates as to their duties. Their duties flow from the 
 Constitution, and are determined by it, much more wisely than 
 by the Presbyterian G-eneral Assembly. He says, that in order 
 to " accept a civil establishment, the Presbyterian doctrine must 
 change." To this I answer, that even if it were true, nothing is 
 easier than this ^' change." But so far from its being necessary 
 to change, in order to a union with the state, I maintain that its 
 doctrine is expressly adapted for that union : and that the Confes- 
 sion of Faith is completely " out of joint," till it be accepted or 
 secured. This I shall establish in the course of the present speech. 
 
 The doctrines of the Catholic Church, on the subject of bap- 
 tism, marriage, &c., the gentleman could learn, if he would only 
 read our Catechisms; but I cannot lose my time, just now, in 
 giving him the instruction of which his remarks on these subjects 
 prove him to stand so much in need. The gentleman, on the 
 subject of baptism, puts two questions, in which he betrays again 
 the meanness that would insinuate, the safeguard of the slanderer, 
 and the cowardice that shrinks from the responsibility of direct 
 honest assertion. If he means to assert, I fling his statement 
 back on him ; and challenge him to produce his testimony. If 
 he asks for information, I tell him I have too much contempt for 
 the grossness that could give public utterance to such a question, 
 and too much respect for myself, to give it any reply. Baptism, 
 marriage, confession, and all the other portions of the Catholic 
 religion, may be called by any nickname, which he or Blanco 
 White thinks proper to apply; but they constitute the points in 
 which Catholics exercise their liberty of conscience; and for this 
 they are persecuted by the fanatics, of whom the gentleman is a 
 fit representative. 
 
 As to the liberty of the press, there can be no doctrines in the 
 Catholic religion on that subject, more than on chemistry. But it 
 may have been necessary to take precautions against its abuse, and 
 this is all that the Church has ever done. All sects oppose the 
 liberty of the press, by endeavouring to exclude such publications 
 as expose their real or supposed errors. The writings of Catho- 
 lics, and the Scriptures of Unitarians, find no favour with Presby- 
 terians. The people of the South, in a particular crisis of society, 
 find it absolutely necessary to check the circulation of the inflam- 
 matory publications with which they are inundated. Yet, it does 
 not follow, that the Constitution or its principles are hostile to the 
 
492 
 
 liberty of the press. As little so is the Catholic religion, what- 
 ever regulations may have been made to restrain its abuse. The 
 principles laid down in the Controversy, respecting the DOC- 
 TRINES of the Catholic religion, are maintained still. They 
 admit of no change. They are as old as Christianity, and as uni- 
 versal as the Church. And as the gentleman has been unable to 
 discover among them, any principles or tenets opposed to civil 
 and religious liberty, it follows that such tenets cannot now, or at 
 any future time, be incorporated with them. Laws having a per- 
 secuting tendency have been repealed in Catholic countries, and 
 can be repealed where it has not already been done, without any 
 violation of doctrine, without any breaking of the second com- 
 mandment. These laios are what the gentleman, ignorantly per- 
 haps, but certainly fahel?/, calls Catholic doctrines. This has 
 been abundantly proved throughout the present discussion. If I 
 had allowed him to exalt the facts or the follies, or the vices of 
 other times, to the rank of Catholic doctrines, then his argument 
 would have been good. But the question was exclusively/ on the 
 doctrines : — and the doctrines were restricted exclusively to those 
 *' tenets of faith and morals, which Catholics hold as having been 
 revealed by Almighty God.'' 
 
 Now let the gentleman boast of the changeableness of doctrine 
 in the Presbyterian Church. And if they have changed, as he as- 
 serts, let the next General Assembly break communion with those 
 sister JPresbi/teries in Europe, in whose Confessions of Faith the 
 principle of intolerance is avowed as a doctrine. It is avowed 
 in the Church to which Doctor Brownlee belongs. Let them con- 
 demn it as an error in doctrine. If they do not, it is their own; 
 and the gentleman makes himself ridiculous, when he denies it. 
 Let them revise their own Confession of Faith, and purge out the 
 old leaven of Scotch and English Presbyterian intolerance, w^ith 
 which it is leavened. Let them receive ministers from Europe, 
 where the gentleman acknowledges the intolerance of their doc- 
 trine, not as brethren of the same faith, but as converts from an- 
 other religion, who must first renounce their errors, before they 
 can be admitted into the communion and ministry of American 
 Presbyterianism. When this is done, then let them talk of hav- 
 ing renounced the errors of their forefathers, and European breth- 
 ren, but not before. The assertions of a cha7i(je of doctrine, so 
 long as there are these, and a hundred other similar FACTS, to 
 disprove it, must pass for absolutely less than nothing. They are 
 unproA^ed, unsupported, and in direct opposition to the testimony 
 
 of FACTS. 
 
 The Catholics hold marriage to be a sacrament, which cannot 
 be rightly administered, except in the presence of the parish priest. 
 But this is only where the discipline of the Council of Trent is 
 established, which it is not, in this country. Now, whether it 
 were received or not, cannot in the least affect the civil rights of 
 
493 
 
 any one. We look on Protestant marriages, whether by the 
 magistrate, or parson, to be as sacred and binding, as they do 
 themselves. But they are not Catholic marriages, nor do we re- 
 gard them as conferring the sacrament. We hold that the legist 
 lature or civil government, for sufficient reasons, may grant a 
 divorce, but we hold that the parties divorced are not, therefore, at 
 liberty to marry or violate their conjugal fidelity, until the death of 
 one or the other. Here, the Presbyterian doctrine is more ac- 
 cunimodatlng. It allows the husband or wife " in case of such 
 wilful desertion, as can in no wise be remedied by the civil ma- 
 gistrate," to sue out a bill of divorce and marry again. This, 
 the gentleman may call '' liberty ;" to me it seems to be licen- 
 tiousness. But at any rate, we have seen that the sister Presby- 
 terian Church of Holland, required that all children, whose pa- 
 rents were not married by their Calvinistic ministers, should 
 be made ILLEGITIMATE by law ! And with the Church of 
 Holland the Presbyterian Church in America holds communion! 
 The gentleman seems to have forgotten all these things. 
 
 Pie acknowledges that he " cannot answer my arguments," and 
 assigns as the reason, that there is '' nothing to answer." On that 
 point I leave the public to decide. 
 
 Having "nothing to answer," therefore, as he supposes, he 
 has recourse to his old theme, the "abuse of popery." He 
 tells us what Father Paul said. Every man acquainted with the 
 character of Father Paul, Protestant and Catholic, knows him to 
 have been " a Lutheran in a monk's dress." In his history of 
 the Council of Trent, Cardinal Pallavicini pointed out and proved 
 no less than three hundred and sixty-four falsehoods. Such a 
 writer is the very authority that suits the gentleman. Dupin and 
 Thuanus belong to the same class. But even Father Paul does 
 not say that Protestants were put to death exclusively for exer- 
 cising the rights of conscience. They attacked the doctrines of 
 the Catholic Church, and, in doing so, in those times and coun- 
 tries, they attacked the religion of the people at large, and the 
 laws of the state. The progress of their doctrine was synony- 
 mous with that of civil broils, sedition, rebellion, or revolution, as 
 the gentleman may think proper to call it. They fought their 
 doctrines into supremacy. The Catholics had the pretext of self- 
 preservation for those acts which are called persecution. But 
 when the Presbyterians persecuted they had no such pretext. 
 They did it on doctrine, as the guardians of their own upstart 
 infallibility, and the avengers of Grod's insulted majesty. They 
 hanged the Quakers, because they were Quakers, and not because 
 they were seditious or enemies to the state. They drowned the 
 Baptists, because they deemed it, in conscience, a duty to re- 
 baptize, and not because they were traitors. They made it 
 DEATH for the Catholics to have "said or heard mass three 
 times," because they exercised the right of conscience in wor- 
 
494 
 
 shipping God according to tlie liturgy of the Christian Church for 
 fifteen hundred years, rather than according to the worship set up 
 by the murderers of Servetus and of Cardinal Beaton. The exercise 
 of the rights of conscience between man and his God, was the 
 ONLY GROUND on which Presbyterians persecuted to death. But 
 the persecutions by Catholics were on many other grounds, which 
 show that mere liberty of conscience was not the exclusive plea. 
 At the origin of the Reformation so called, the Catholics were in 
 possession. This is important. The reformers possessed nothing. 
 Liberty of conscience was, as the gentleman has himself defined it, 
 the " right of evert/ man to loorsTiip God according to the dic- 
 tates of his own conscience, WITHOUT INJURING OR INVADING the 
 RIGHTS OF OTHERS.^' Now there is no instance on record in which 
 the reformers respected this qualification. They claimed liberty 
 of conscience ; but the universal attestation of history is, that, 
 under this term, they meant liberty of usurpation on the rights of 
 others in church and state. They had nothing — they claimed to 
 possess themselves of what belonged to others. They claimed 
 it, they prayed for it, they preached for it, they intrigued for it, 
 they fought for it. The martyrs of Presbyterianism, therefore, 
 are men who fell in this struggle fiir domination, between those 
 who claimed hi/ possession, and those who claimed hy usurpation. 
 In such a case the persecution was by the usurpers, and not by 
 the possessors. But there was no such extenuation for the per- 
 secutions of Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, Lutherans, Qua- 
 kers, &c. whom the Presbyterians persecuted. They "invaded,'^ 
 they '' injured '' no man's rights. They simply wished to wor- 
 ship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. 
 For this, and for this ALONE, they were, as we have seen, burnt, 
 or hanged, or drowned, or whipt at the cart-tail by the Presby- 
 terians. And why should it not be so, since God has commanded 
 the Presbyterians, according to their book of doctrine, to " remove 
 
 ALL FALSE WORSHIP." 
 
 Again, the Presbyterian religion was unknown in the world for 
 fifteen hundred years after the origin of the Christian religion. 
 If there was a Christian religion on the earth, during all that 
 time, it was the Catholic religion. At length a few obscure indi- 
 viduals cry out hoarsely, that this Catholic — this Christian reli- 
 gion of fifteen centuries, was the church, not of Christ, but of 
 Anti-Christ ! In other words, that Christ had no church on earth; 
 and therefore, they would make a church for him. They gave 
 no proof that they had been appointed for this purpose — no mira- 
 cles — no commission — no extraordinary sanctity — no motives of 
 credibility like those that accompanied the founding of the ^rst 
 church, and therefore the true church. Now, until this period, 
 Presbyterians never persecuted ; inasmuch as, until this period, 
 Presbyterians did not exist. Until this period the crimes and 
 vices of Christians were those of Catholics — of men whose « 
 
495 
 
 wicked lives were in open violation of the holy religion which 
 they professed. But then, the glory of all the zeal, patience, 
 purity and holiness, that had adorned the Christian name, be- 
 langed also to the Catholic Church. 
 
 We pass to another consideration. The Presbyterians having 
 existed only within the last three hundred years, have been as 
 disproportioned to the Catholics in point of numbers as in point 
 of time. Their greatest numbers at any time, did not exceed fif- 
 teen or twenty millions. Those of the Catholics are now from a 
 hundred and eighty to two hundred millions. Besides this, the 
 Presbyterians have had civil power only for a short time. And 
 it is only when a denomination has civil power, that it can show 
 the workings of its doctrine. We have seen what were those 
 of Presbyterianism. Not a single exception on record — not a 
 single case in which their doctrines did not drive them to perse- 
 cute others when they had the power ! I have called on the 
 gentleman repeatedly to name a single kingdom, or canton, or 
 city, or village, in which the civil power belonged to Presbyte- 
 rians, and they did not use it for persecution. He has not been 
 able to name one ! Not so much as ONE I!! Now, supposing 
 they had been as numerous as the Catholics — supposing they had 
 been as long in possession of civil power — and had carried out 
 their doctrines, as they have done according to their numbers and 
 opportunities within the short period of their existence, I ask 
 whether, by this time, there would be another denomination of 
 Christians left in existence? Would they not have ^^ removed 
 all false worship ?" And especially, if, after having been estab- 
 lished for centuries in their possession, they had been attacked 
 by upstart and unheard of religionists, as the Catholics were at 
 the Reformation — would they consider it persecution to have 
 refused giving up their churches — their castles — their towns — 
 their government — to men who wielded every concession for the 
 destruction of those from whom it had been obtained ? If to 
 have "■ heard or said mass three times" — to have said " thee and 
 thou" — to have administered baptism by immersion, were crimes 
 worthy of death, as we have seen in the history of Presbyte- 
 rianism, what would it have been, if, having the same civil power 
 and numerical stremjth^vihAGh. the Catholics had at the time of 
 the Reformation, individuals had arisen to pervert the Scriptures, 
 and prove, by the perversion, that the Presbyterians were Anti- 
 christs, and proclaim that every blow which was struck for their 
 destruction, was a blow against the apocolyptic beast? Why, 
 sir, judging from what Presbyterians have done, during the short 
 period of their existence, the paucity of their numbers, and the 
 few opportunities they have had to persecute, it is not too much 
 to infer that, had they occupied, in all respects, the position 
 which the Catholics held at the origin of the Reformation, the 
 advocates of what, in that case, would be the ^' false worship/' 
 
496 
 
 would have been chopped up into mince-raeat. No man who 
 overlooks these circumstances can form a correct estimate of the 
 extent to wbich the doctrines of Presbyterianism are imbued with 
 the PRINCIPLE and essence of persecution. 
 
 The gentleman, instead of meeting these arguments, turns 
 aside to criticise Donovan's Translation of the Trentine Cate- 
 chism. I shall not follow him, unless he or his friends have 
 confidence enough in his statements, to sacrifice their purse, to 
 the same extent to which I charge him with having immolated 
 truth. His episodes have no connexion with the subject, even if 
 they were not the assumption of what is false. They are taken 
 from Cramp, who, like Mr. Breckinridge, begins and ends his 
 quotations in the middle of sentences ; — changes the punctuation, 
 and stops at the commencement of the portion that would refute 
 him. The commission of frauds on the word of God is begging 
 the question, /say it is the Protestant version that is corrupt; 
 the gentleman says it is the Catholic. Who shall decide ? Let 
 those who existed before the origin of the dispute — the vmjmrtial 
 witnesses — decide. Then, I shall prove the corruption of the 
 Protestant version. It is they who have changed, not we. But 
 who corrupted the Bible of the Bishop of Segovia ? Who put 
 a falsehood, known, deliberate, intentional falsehood, on the title- 
 page of that Bible whereby to deceive the South Americans ? 
 Who gave this corrupting example to American morals ? Who 
 gave such a sacrilegious instance to prove that the " end justifies 
 the means?'' The Bible Society!! Why is the gentleman 
 silent on that subject? It is far more important than the pre- 
 tended discrepancy between two translations of the Council of 
 Trent Catechism. 
 
 The stenographer should have been engaged by the Society. 
 For three nights there was none. The report of the other nine 
 nights did not profess to give the words, but the substance 
 of my arguments. I preferred the words ; and did not choose 
 that my arguments should receive their cast from a Presbyterian 
 mould. When the gentleman proposed to compensate the steno- 
 grapher by a public contribution, I regarded the proceeding as 
 an insult both to the stenographer and the Society that was sup- 
 posed to have employed him. If the Society was unable to pay 
 him, from the proceeds of the Discussion, I proposed to pay 
 him half, if the gentleman would pay the other half But to 
 impose an eleemosynary tax on the audience, to pay the steno- 
 grapher, was an insult to the Society which they should have 
 repelled promptly and indignantly. These are the reasons why 
 I have not contributed, and shall not contribute to any charity 
 collection for the stenographer. 
 
 As to the number of Calvinistic Baptists, the gentleman may 
 cite any authority he pleases. When, also, in regard to the 
 " intention" of the editor of the Catholic Telegraph, he says it 
 
497 
 
 was bad, lie must prove what he says; and it is not for me, as he 
 pretends, to prove the contrary. To a (jratiiitous assertion, the 
 laws of reasoning authorize us to oppose a gratuitous denial. 
 The onus probandi rests with him. 
 
 Kespecting the '' doom" with which he threatened Catholics in 
 his former speech, he now says that it was "not pronounced 
 BY HIM, BUT BY GoD;" and he incontinently falls into a fit of 
 the apocolyptic mania, which has qualified so many of his prede- 
 cessors for the Bedlam. Scaliger says of Calvin that he was wise 
 for not having written on the Apocalypse, 
 
 Sapuit Calvinua quia non scripsit in Apocalypsin. 
 
 The ravings, to which this mania has driven those who have 
 been affected with it, are as numerous and extravagant as the 
 vagaries of the human mind, in its most disordered condition. 
 I shall give only one specimen, from the writings of an English 
 divine, who is considered sane notwithstanding. 
 
 " He convinced himself that the name of the beast was Lateinos, 
 and that Lateinos must signify the Latin Church. The proof is 
 curious. Lateinos, he contends, is derived from the Hebrew 
 monosyllable LAT, which means to cover or conceal. Now the 
 Latin Church, in the celebration of the mass, conceals some of 
 the prayers from the people, by ordering them to be pronounced 
 with a low voice : therefore the Latin Church is Lateinos, the 
 beast in the Apocalypse. Moreover, the head of the Latin 
 Church resides in the palace of the Lateran, a name derived from 
 the same monosyllable Lh.T : and the Lateran palace is situated 
 in the country anciently called Latium, an appellation also derived 
 from the same monosyllable LAT : and Latium is a province of 
 that part of Europe called Italy, which also derives its name from 
 the same monosyllable LAT. Be not startled, gentle reader; 
 apocalyptic maniacs can, with equal facility, read backwards or 
 forwards ; and Mr. Sharp informs us, that, if we read Italy back- 
 wards, we shall have Ylati, in the midst of which is the same 
 Hebrew monosyllable LAT. Naviget anticyram ! " 
 
 I proved that the gentleman, following Faber, falsified the 
 documents to which he referred. He refers to the matter in 
 a tone which seems to intimate, that it is more honourable to 
 corrupt citations with Faber, than give them honestly with 
 Mr. Hughes. With men of such easy principles of literary 
 honour it is humiliating to have to contend. With men who are 
 unwilling or incompetent to consult history at the original foun- 
 tains, but who have to take information at second hand, without 
 knowing what is true from what is false — with such men contro- 
 versy and discussion give disgust, and no laurels. Yet such 
 men are the fittest to maintain the position which the gentleman 
 occupies. 
 
 As to the " nursing fathers," the gentleman, after various fruit- 
 
498 
 
 less attempts to explain it as meaning nothing at all, at length 
 takes the true interpretation, and refers to the Prophecies of Isaiah 
 to prove it should be so. Now this is precisely the doctrine of 
 his church ; and the arguments by which I showed its dangerous 
 and unfriendly bearing on liberty of conscience and the rights of 
 other denominations — remain unanswered and untouched. 
 
 He lauds the Sunday School Union with eulogy, which may he 
 deserved, or at least needed ; but neither does he touch or meet 
 my arguments, on that subject. He represents me as among those 
 who ^' fear, hate, and assail it in vain.'^ The charge is false and 
 futile. Of its merits or demerits, I have not spoken. I have com- 
 mented on its own puhllshed documents, in which was avowed 
 the plan to alter books, and yet keep their titles, to 
 
 CHANGE THE IDEAS OF AUTHORS, TO EDUCATE A POLITICAL IN- 
 FLUENCE, WHICH IN '' TEN, OR AT MOST, TWENTY YEARS,^' WAS TO 
 WIELD OR CONTROL THE DESTINIES OF THIS COUNTRY, AND IN 
 
 A WORD " TO DICTATE TO THE SOULS OF THOUSANDS 
 OF IMMORTAL BEINGS.'' What I attacked, the gentleman 
 does not reply to; what I did not attack, he defends. And here 
 let me observe, once for all, that Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Ser- 
 geant, Mr. Ralston, Mr. Henry, and the other names which the 
 gentleman has paraded in this discussion, as if they stood in need 
 of vindication, had never been attacked by me. I beg those gen- 
 tleman, if they should ever see this Discussion, to be assured that 
 I entertain as much respect for their character, as the gentleman 
 can do; and too much to suppose for a moment, that they would 
 ever sanction the grasping ambition of the pretensions which I 
 have censured in the Sunday School Union, or the impressing of 
 a falsehood on the title-page of a Bible, in order to deceive the 
 Spaniards, as has been done by the Bible Society. I wish them 
 to know that it is the gentleman, and not I, that has brought their 
 names forward, to cover those proceedings over with the mantle of 
 their respectability. The ''preface" was as much by the au- 
 thority of the Sunday School, as if it had been a " report." He 
 had said it was " false." What does he say now ? Does he meet 
 it? ^Does he justify it ? Does he condemn it? Neither. There 
 it is, and he has not a word to reply to it. 
 
 He refers again to the Synod at York, and Mr. Barnes's case. 
 In all my reading of Synods, either Catholic, or Protestant, I 
 never saw more of the spirit of tyranny over conscience, and of 
 persecution, than was in that case exhibited by the majority. If 
 the power had been as the will seems to have been^ Mr. Barnes 
 would have fared no better than the fifteen deputies of the Armi- 
 nians, who, after having been invited to the Presbyteriaii Synod 
 of Dort, were, on the condemnation of their supposed errors, 
 seized, imprisoned, and hurried into banishment, without being 
 allowed to take leave of their families ; as is related by Brandt. 
 If the orthodox brethren at York had had the ''nursing fathers" at 
 
499 
 
 their command, as they had in Holland, there was spirit enough 
 in the Synod, to treat Mr. Barnes and his friends in the same way. 
 Here was liberty of conscience ! Here was the principle of not 
 keeping faith with heretics, fully and authoritatively acted on. 
 First, invite the Arminians to the Synod, then seize their persons 
 and send them into exile, /or being Arminians^ and for no other 
 crime. 
 
 The Secreta Monita, of which the gentleman has spoken, is 
 known to every scholar in Europe to be spurious. Even in the 
 British Parliament, i* was denounced by as great a bigot as need 
 be, Leslie Foster, as a FORGERY. This very character, or 
 rather merit, in the eyes of bigots every where, may have been 
 the cause of its publication recently in Princeton. Such a work 
 comes appropriately from such a quarter. 
 
 Of the Inquisition I have said, that so far as it is an ecclesiasti- 
 cal concern, the principle of it is common to all Churches having 
 orthodox creeds ; it is only another name for that spirit of heresy- 
 hunting, with which old Presbyterianism is so thoroughly imbued. 
 So far as it was a tribunal for the dispensation of temporal pun- 
 ishment, it was "entirely and avowedly a political and 
 NOT AN ecclesiastical INSTITUTION." This account corresponds 
 perfectly with that of Devoti ; it is founded in history and truth, 
 as the gentleman is culpably ignorant if he does not know. There 
 is no subject of history on which there is so much ignorance and mis- 
 information abroad, as on the Inquisition. I neither defend nor ap- 
 prove of it. But the very feature, which was most objectionable 
 in it, that which made it so terrible, and left no data for those who 
 would be its historians, was its secrecy. It tried men for other 
 crimes besides heresy, crimes which were punishable with death 
 in all countries. But of its victims, there is no evidence that it 
 kept any record, whilst its secrecy warrants the belief that it did 
 not. Llorentte, and those who have written on it, drew on their 
 imaginations just like Miss Monk, in describing the Convent at 
 Montreal. But besides, those writers were ministering to that 
 morbid appetite, which feasts on the pretended disclosures of pro- 
 ceedings which they know to have been conducted in secrecy. 
 Hence, even the British Critic, an English Protestant Review, 
 says of the work of Llorentte, that " altliough it might he too 
 much to say, that the WHOLE is false, yet that there can he no 
 more than a weak tincture of truth, LARGELY DASHED AND 
 
 BREWED WITH LIES." 
 
 With regard to Mr. Ansley, the event has justified my predic- 
 tion ; that '' so far as I was concerned at least, the gentleman's in- 
 sinuations were founded on falsehood, and must recoil upon their 
 source." So it is proven by Bishop Doane's letter. Of that docu- 
 ment, the gentleman may make what use he thinks proper. I 
 wash my hands of all proceedings, having for their object to ex- 
 pose the domestic concerns of any family. To the gentleman 
 
500 
 
 alone, must belong the undivided glory of this magnanimous 
 achievement. He breaks in on the domestic sanctuary of a fami- 
 ly, with which he has nothing to do; he hears the gossip of dis- 
 agreement between husband and wife ; he twites for more, he 
 knows nothing of the cause, and yet with a heartlessness and in- 
 delicacy, which must plant a wound in the breast of a father like 
 himself, and a wife like his own, and children who have commit- 
 ted no fault, he blazons these sacred topics in a book ! ! All to 
 inflict a wound on Popery I And yet he fails. Mr. Ansley had 
 been a Protestant minister; and of his own accord, in the exercise 
 of his rights of conscience, he became a Catholic. This was his 
 crime. Supposing I were to make the manner in which Mr. Breck- 
 inridge treats his wife and family the subject of a scandulous dis- 
 sertation in this Discussion ; what would he say ? What would 
 the public say ? And yet the domestic sanctuary of every man 
 is, or ought to be, as inviolable and as sacred as his. I would 
 not be the author of what he has said on this subject, as he has 
 said it, for all the exchequer of his Church. 
 
 I shall now turn to the prosecution of my argument. 
 
 We have seen that on the continent of Europe, in Great Bri- 
 tain, Ireland, and New England, that is, in every country in 
 which they existed, Presbyterians persecuted all other denomina- 
 tions when they had the civil power to do so. There is no excep- 
 tion. This they did, as appears by all their CONFESSIONS to 
 which I refer, as quoted in a former speech, on a principle of doc- 
 trine. The gentleman began his defence, by disowning and de- 
 nouncing those European Presbyterians, as unsound in the faith, 
 and as holding errors which his Church, in this country, since 
 the formation of the Federal Constitution, has rejected and con- 
 demned. I have proved the contrary by facts, that are uncontro- 
 verted and uncontrovertible, viz : that his Church holds commu- 
 nion with those sister Churches of Europe ; and receives their 
 ministers, not as converts, but as brethren of the same faith. 
 Consequently, his Church has not seen any error in the doctrinal 
 intolerance of those foreign Presbyterian creeds. This, therefore, 
 settles that question. 
 
 He has said, that when Presbyterians teach that God has given 
 them a divine commission to ''remove all false worship," the 
 phrase does not mean force. Its meaning can be determined only 
 by the intention or understanding of those who framed the creed. 
 Did they mean that this doctrine should be understood to author- 
 ize employment of coercion by the state? I answer, that they 
 did ; and I shall proceed to prove it. — The Presbyterians had the 
 power of the state, during the whole time of the session of that 
 Assembly, by whom the Confession of Faith was drawn up. They 
 had an opportunity of proving what it meant, on the subject of 
 conscience, toleration, &c. Doctor Lightfoot informed the House 
 of Commons, on this subject, that "certainly the devil in the 
 
501 
 
 conscience might be, yea, must be bound by the civil magis- 
 trate." (1) 
 
 In order to show its meaning, we have the fact, that in 1645, 
 they published an ordinance, forbidding the use of the Episcopal 
 COMMON PRAYER-BOOK, not only in places of "public worship," 
 but also "IN ANY PRIVATE PLACE Oil FAMILY," under 
 the penalties of " FINES AND IMPRISONMENT." (^) This 
 is what was meant by " removing all false loorHhip." In the same 
 year, they made Lawrence Clarkson, a Baptist, renounce his error 
 of baptizing adult persons, for which exercise of the rights of 
 conscience they had kept him for six months in a dun(jfeon.(^) 
 In January of the next year, the " Presbyterian ministers," says 
 Neal, . . . . " prevailed with the Lord Mayor, and Court of Alder- 
 men, to join with them in presenting to Parliament, an Ad- 
 dress," " FOR A SPEEDY SETTLEMENT OF CnURCH GOVERN- 
 MENT, ACCORDING TO THE CfOVENANT, AND THAT NO TOLERA- 
 TION MIGHT BE GIVEN to Popery, prelacy, supersti- 
 tion, HERESY, PROFANENESS, OR ANY JHING CONTRARY TO 
 SOUND DOCTRINE, AND THAT ALL PRIVATE ASSEMBLIES MIGHT 
 
 BE RESTRAINED. "(4) They held that " toleration was, and would 
 be a root of gall and bitterness;" that it was "soul-poison;" "a 
 sword in the hands of a madman ;" " a city of refuge in men^s 
 conscience, for the devil to fly to."(5) " The whole Scots' nation," 
 demanded of the Parliament of England, that the civil sanction 
 might be added to support the Westminster creed, " AS THE 
 DIVINES HAD ADVISED ;" and what that advice was, may be 
 gathered from the fact, that they conclude with the hope " that 
 
 THE PIETY AND WISDOM OF THE HONOURABLE HoUSES, WILL 
 NEVER ADMIT TOLERATION OF ANY SECTS OR SCHISMS, CON- 
 TRARY TO OUR SOLEMN LEAGUE AND C0VENANT."(6) Again WO 
 
 find them complaining, that " congregations were ALLOWED" 
 to judge for themselves, in matters of religion, and beseeching 
 Parliament, ^^ that all separate congregations may he suppressed ; 
 that\all such separatists, who conform not to the public discip)liney 
 may he declared against ; that no person disaffected to tJie Pres- 
 hytcrial government set forth by Parliament, may he employed in 
 any place of public trust,'' &c.(7) They presented a petition to 
 the king at Newcastle, in which among other laws for the grind- 
 ing of conscience, they required that the Episcopal religion should 
 b^ utterly abolished by law, and that a law should be passed to 
 sanction the kidnapping of Catholic children, in order to educate 
 them " in the Protestant religion."(8) In another petition to the 
 Parliament, they entreat that "ALL SEPARATE CONGREGA- 
 TIONS, THE VERY NURSERIES OF DAMNABLE HERE- 
 
 (1) Crosby, vol. i. p. 176. " (2) Neal's Hist, of Pur., vol. iii. p. 171. 
 
 (3) Crosby. (4) Neal, vol. iii. p. 291. 
 
 (5) Ibid. p. 313. (6) Ibid. p. 314. 
 
 (7) Ibid. p. 329. (8) Ibid. p. 332. 
 
502 
 
 TICS, MAY BE SUPPRESSED ; AND THAT AN ORDI- 
 NANCE BE MADE FOR THE EXEMPLARY PUNISH- 
 MENT OF HERETICS, AND SCHISMATICS," &c.(l) The 
 Parliament, "fo satt's/j/ the petitioners/' says Neal, declared their 
 resolution to proceed against "all such ministers, and others, as 
 shall PUBLISH, or maintain by PREACHINa, WRITING, 
 PRINTING, or aui/ other icay, anythmg against, or in dei'ogation 
 of Church government/' (Presbyterianism.) (2) The celebrated 
 Edwards, in the Prefiice to his Gangroina, lays down the princi- 
 ple and meaning of the commandment about " REMOVING ALL 
 FALSE WORSHIP," which is still in the gentleman's Confession of 
 Faith. ^' Now," says he, addressing the civil rulers, ""a conni- 
 vance AT, AND SUFFERING WITHOUT PUNISHMENT, SUCH 'FALSE 
 DOCTRINES,' AND DISORDERS, PROVOKES GoD TO SEND JUDG- 
 MENTS. A TOLERATION doth eclipse the glory of the 
 
 MOST excellent REFORMATION, AND MAKES THESE SINS TO BE 
 THE SINS OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT COUNTENANCES THEM. A 
 MAGISTRATE SHOULD USE COERCIVE POWER TO PUNISH AND SUP- 
 PRESS EVILS, AS APPEARS FROM THE EXAMPLE OF ElI."(3) 
 
 Among the charges to prove the necessity for persecution, he 
 mentions that one of the Independents had the impieti/ to pray 
 '' two or three times, that Parliament might give liberty to tender 
 consciences." (4:) When the Parliament was in danger from the 
 growing strength of the army, the Scotch Presbyterians being in- 
 voked by their English brethren, "published a declaration, in the 
 name of the Jcirk, and whole kingdom, wherein they engage, by a 
 SOLEMN OATH, to establish the Presbyterian government in 
 
 England," and declare against "all toleration and liberty 
 
 of conscience."(5) 
 
 The Scotch Commissioners in London were remonstrating, in 
 the name of their National Church, against the introduction of a 
 " sinful and ungodly toleration in the matters of religion," whilst 
 the whole body of the English Presbyterian clergy, in their official 
 papers, protested against the schemes of Cromwell's party, and 
 solemnly declared, " that they detested and abhorred toleration." 
 " My judgment," said Baxter, a man noted in his day for mode- 
 ration, " I have always freely made known. I abhor unlimited 
 liberty or toleration of all." " Toleration," said Edwards, an- 
 other distinguished divine, " will make the kingdom a chaos, a 
 Babel, another Amsterdam, a Jordan, an Egypt, a Babylon. Tol- 
 eration is the grand work of the Devil, his master-piece, and chief 
 engine to uphold his tottering kingdom. It is a most compendi- 
 ous, ready, sure way to destroy all religion, lay all waste, and 
 brmg in all evil. It is a most transcendent, catholic, and funda- 
 mental evil. As original sin is the fundamental sin, having the 
 
 (1) Neal, vol. iii. p. 364. (2) Ibid. 
 
 (3) Ibid. Append. (4) Ibid. 
 
 (6) Ibid. p. 400. 
 
503 
 
 seed and spawn of all sins in it, so toleration hath all errors in 
 it, and all evils." (1) 
 
 The'^^, and many other authorities that might be adduced, prove 
 unans\> ^rably the meaning of the Presbyterian commandment, as 
 it was understood by the Westminster Assembly, that drew it up. 
 The meaning, therefore, in their minds, was simply this — that it 
 was the duty of those who had the civil power, '^according to 
 each one's place and calling/' to support the Presbyterian Church 
 alone, and to make penal laws, and execute them too, against all 
 those who, in the exercise of their judgment, should adopt, or 
 maintain, any other religion or mode of worship under the *' much 
 abused name of liberty of conscience." The gentleman may say, 
 that Presbyterians, in this country^ since the Constitution, have 
 given that commandment a new interpretation; but he must have 
 been extremely unacquainted with the times, history, and circum- 
 stances of that doctrine as first promulgated, when he ventured to 
 say that meant only '' moral influence, the press, preaching, the 
 Bible," &c. It meant FINES, PRISONS, and DEATH. Under 
 its original and TllUE '^meaning," Catholics, Episcopalians, 
 Baptists, Quakers and others were to be punished by whatever 
 laws and penalties the "ordinance of magistracy" might find ne- 
 cessary for the "removal of all talse worship and all the 
 MONUMENTS OF IDOLATRY." Docs the gentleman deny this? Here 
 is the proof. In 1648, " the Presbyterian members," says Neal 
 
 "finding they had the superiority in the house, resumed their 
 
 courage, and took the opportunity of discovering their PRINCI- 
 PLES and SPIRIT...." How did they discover their principles 
 and spirit? By passing a law against heretics, as they called 
 them, but in reality for the carrying out of the second command- 
 ment, as it still stands in the American Presbyterian Confession 
 of Faith. It was passed on the 2d of May, 1648 : and ordains 
 ^Hhat all persons who shall ivillingly MAINTAIN, PUBLISH, or DE- 
 PEND, hy PREACHlNa or WRITING, the following heresies with 
 obstinacy, shall, upon complaint, and proof, hy the oaths of two 
 witnesses, hefore two justices of the peace, or confession of the 
 party, he committed to prison, WITHOUT BAIL or MAINPRIZE, tiU 
 the next gaol delivery; and in case the indictment shall then he 
 found, and the party upon his trial shcdl not abjure his said 
 error, and his defence and maintenance of the same, HE SHALL 
 SUFFER THE PAINS OF DEATH, AS IN CASE OF 
 FELONY, WITHOUT BENEFIT OF CLERGY...." This 
 ^as evidence of zeal against "all false religion." You ob- 
 serve, sir, the inhuman features of this law, independent of the 
 "pains of death without benefit of clergy." 1. The oaths of 
 "two witnesses" were sufficient. 2. The exercise of the rights 
 of conscience wa& deemed, like murder, too grievous a crime to 
 admit of " bail or mainprize." 3. It did not allow even the pri- 
 
 (1) Verplank's Discourses, pp. 23, 24. 
 
504 
 
 vilege of jury. 4. Neither did it allow the liberty of appeal. 
 Presbyterian Legislators, — Presbyterian witnesses, — Presbyterian 
 judges, — Presbyterian hangmen, — having first the ''command- 
 ment of God,'' and next the "law of the land," were thus doubly 
 bound, ^^ according to each one's place and calling, (mind that,) 
 to remove all false icorship and all the monuments of idolatry." 
 
 The gentleman may say that no one suffered under this Pres- 
 byterian law. But this is easily accounted for. Cromwell drove 
 these spiritual despots from power, before they had an opportunity 
 of putting it in execution. It is the only act of his life for which 
 posterity have reason to be grateful to that profound hypocrite — 
 who was himself a disciple of the Presbyterian school, and did 
 honour to the tuition. But supposing that the Presbyterians had 
 remained in power, and it were our misfortune to live under their 
 mild, tolerant, and liberty-loving principles, what then would be 
 the fact? Why the fact would be, that the UNITARIANS, UNI- 
 YERSALISTS, SWEDENBORGIANS, DEISTS, and all those 
 'who come under the denominations of INFIDELS would be, ipso 
 facto, under sentence of "DEATH WITHOUT BENEFIT OF 
 CLERGY!" — A murderer, even then would be allowed a clergy- 
 man on the scaffold, or at the gallows, but a heretic of the above 
 description should die "without benefit of clergy," By the same 
 "ordinance" the DUNGEON was provided for another class of 
 heretics — which class embraces in the actual state of the religious 
 world, all Catholics, all Episcopalians, all Methodists, all 
 Baptists, and all other denominations, present and future, ex- 
 cept predestinarian Presbyterians. Does the gentleman venture 
 to deny this? Let him consult the ordinance in Neal, (Vol. iii. p. 
 484-5,) and the list of errors specifically enumerated as constitut- 
 ing the "false worship" against which the ordinance was levelled, 
 "according to each one's place and calling." I give the gentleman 
 chapter and verse, day and date, for my facts. Neither do I draw 
 my authorities from Tristam Shandy, or renegades from his reli- 
 gion. The writings of the most respectable Protestant, and even 
 Presbyterian ministers and fathers are the fountains from which 
 I derive my testimony of facts, and facts too that should make a 
 Presbyterian blush, whenever any one, {forgetting icho is pre- 
 sent,) happens to mention the words " liberty of conscience." 
 
 He may say that this was an act of Parliament; — for which his 
 doctrine is not responsible. Such an assertion would be a fallacy. 
 His doctrine obliges "ALL its members," and each, "according 
 to his place and calling" — " to remove false worship." So that 
 a member of Parliament then, or a member of Congress now, is 
 bound to use his official, as well as personal, influence to secure 
 this end. The Constitution clothes him with power to be used 
 exclusively in support of the provisions contained in that bill of 
 rights. Hence he is bound, not only not to "remove, but to pro- 
 tect, and consequently, in so much, preserve " all false religions 
 and all the monuments of idolatry." And yet he professes a 
 
505 
 
 creed, the doctrines of which oblige him, by a commandment OP 
 God, not only to remove them, but even to use his official power 
 and influence for that purpose — ''according to his place and 
 calling/* Is there no contradiction here? Is he faithful to 
 the Constitution? — -Then he is a traitor to his creed, by disobey- 
 ing what it commands. Is he true to his creed? — Does he labour, 
 ^^ according to Ms place and calling y' to ''remove" all those re- 
 ligions, which the Presbyterian Catechism, Book of Doctrines, 
 arrogantly denominates " false worships?" Then he is a dan- 
 gerous man to be entrusted with the rights of a free people, 
 who claim to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of 
 their conscience. The members of Parliament, therefore, in pass- 
 ing the above ordinance, were only obeying the commandment of 
 God, AS Presbyterians, "acccording to their place and call- 
 ing." But again, it is remarkable that this inhuman law was 
 passed while the Confession of Faith drawn up by the divines 
 of Westminster, loas actually under consideration in the House 
 of Commons, by whom it was approved on the twentieth of the 
 following month. Not only tliis, but during the whole session 
 of the Assembly there was a perpetual "billing and cooing" be- 
 tween them and the houses of Parliament; the divines instruct- 
 ing the legislators to make laws against heretics and heresies; 
 and the legislators instructing the divines to make doctrines, by 
 which Presbyterianism might be uppe/'most, with its iron heel on 
 the necks of all other denominations. 
 
 From all this, therefore, the meaning of the second command- 
 ment, as expounded by the known and professed intolerance of 
 tliose who made it, is clear, and undeniable. The gentleman did 
 wrong to deny it. He should have known something of its his- 
 *tory, and not have put me to the trouble of unfolding it. If the 
 meaning of a book is to be determined by the meaning of its 
 authors, then this doctrine of the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith, was knowingly and intentionally framed to secure spiritual 
 domination to the sect of Presbyterians, and to crush and perse- 
 cute all other denominations by means of tl>e civil sword and the 
 power of the magistrate. God, who puts limits to the wickedness 
 of men, permitted them to remain in power just long enough to 
 show, by the above ordinaKce, that their principles should make 
 them a terror to mankind. And when they had prepared their 
 engine of cruelty, to make legal slaughter for the vindication of 
 his honour and the true religion, as extensive as their civil domi- 
 nation, he transferred to other hands the sword on which they had 
 seized by usurpation, and of which they were preparing to make 
 such bloody use. 
 
 The only question remaining is, whether the Presbyterians m 
 this age, and in this country, are at liberty to interpret their stan- 
 dard of doctrine diiferently from the sense and meaning intended 
 by the Westminster divines. I say they are not. And for the 
 
 32 
 
506 
 
 proof I refer to the whole reasoning on which it is attempted to 
 justify the condemnation of Mr. Barnes. His crime (if crime it 
 be) has consisted exclusively in his giving a new interpretation 
 to the Confession of Faith. Therefore, the true, orthodox mean- 
 ing of the Presbyterian doctrines, is the meaning in which they 
 were held by the WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY— what that 
 was, we have seen above, in the ordinance to which I have refer- 
 red ; — and now, sir, I leave it to you, to this audience, and to the 
 public at large, to say whether this doctrine is not opposed to 
 both civil and religious liberty. 
 
 If Presbyterians had the power to carry it out, and were faith- 
 ful to what they profess to regard as one of God's coinmand^ 
 ments, I ask you whether this doctrine would not be fatal to all 
 that we understand by ^'rights of conscience. '^ Whilst these 
 Presbyterians were thus making arrangements to lord it over men's 
 souls, and bodies, and property, in England, what was going on 
 in Ireland ? What were the officers of this Parliament doing in 
 that ill-fated country ? They were not only making it lawful to 
 commit murder and assassination, but the murderer and the 
 assassin, in presenting a human head at their council of blood, 
 received as a PENSION the reward which was appointed for 
 killinga WOLF!! (1) 
 
 It is true, that the murderer was required to swear that it was 
 the head of a " Catholic priest" — and if he swore that oath, no 
 matter whose head it was, he received his wages ! Thus, the 
 conditions of the service were so regulated that the premium was 
 an incentive to murder and perjury at the same time! And the 
 man holding and glorying in the doctrines of the men under whom 
 and by whom these scenes of horror and blood made the earth 
 sick — that man pushes himself forward, to make a fuss about 
 "civil and religious liberty!" Let him read the history of his 
 church. We have seen what it was in Switzerland, the Low 
 Countries, Scotland, and every other country where Presbyterians 
 possessed civil power. We have seen what it was in England, % 
 the very men who made the gentleman' s Confession of Faith, and 
 what it would have been, if that country had continued to be 
 cursed much longer with their spiritual and temporal domination 
 and despotism. In the midst of all this, in their hypocritical con- 
 fessions of sins, they never failed to ask pardon of Heaven for the 
 sin of " TOLERATION !!" And whilst they were themselves 
 under penal disabilities for conscience' sake — whilst they were 
 petitioning for their own rights of conscience, they never failed 
 to represent, as one of their greatest grievances, that the i^enal 
 laws were not enforced rigorously enough against the (htholics. 
 They held that Grod was angry with them, for the culpable mercy 
 of the government in not torturing the Catholics with the rigorous 
 
 (l^i Curry's Review of the Civil Wars in Ireland, vol. ii. p. 11. 
 
607 
 
 execution of the persecuting laws. These laws I have given a 
 brief outline of, in my last speech on the former question, to 
 which I refer. 
 
 The gentleman has told you that all this has been changed in 
 this country. The CONSTITUTION has indeed changed the 
 working of the system — but it did not change the principle of its 
 doctrine. We have seen what that principle is, as it respects 
 *' false worship.'' The General Assembly holds, even at this day, 
 communion with the establishment and intolerance of the Scotch , 
 Creed, and the Dutch Confession. And this fact proves what the 
 gentleman, with great perseverance, but with fatal forgetfulness 
 of history and facts, has attempted to deny. The creed of the 
 Dutch Reformed Church, of which Dr. Brownlee is minister, 
 teaches, in this country and against the Constitution, that it 
 is the " office " of the MAGISTRATES to take measures whereby 
 to " REMOVE and PREVENT ALL IDOLATRY and FALSE 
 WORSHIP." 
 
 From what has been said, it is manifest that the assertion made 
 by the gentleman, viz., that in order ''to accept a civil establish- 
 ment the Presbyterian doctrine must change,'' is, like a great 
 many of his assertions — not to he depended on. It is not only in 
 opposition to the bonds of communion between his Church in this 
 country, and the sister churches that are ''civilly established" in 
 Europe, but it is in opposition to his Confession of Faith, in 
 which he is instructed to pray for that very establishment, under 
 the article—" THY KINGDOM COME." At page 309 of the 
 Confession, the Presbyterians are instructed to pray that " the 
 
 church may he countenanced and MAINTAINED hj the 
 
 civil magistrate." The same Book of Doctrines decides fpage 3) 
 that " the Church " is composed of those " who profess the true 
 religion ; " and it decides also, as a matter of course, that the 
 "true religion" is the Presbyterian religion. Therefore it is 
 manifest that the Presbyterian Church not only does not refuse, 
 but actually PRAYS for, and aspires to, "a civil establishment." 
 For what else but a "civil establishment" does it mean when it 
 claims to be not only " countenanced," but MAINTAINED, by 
 the " CIVIL MAGISTRATE ? " That the gentleman should be 
 ignorant of the history of his Church did not surprise me ; but 
 t^hat he should be ignorant of its very doctrines, actually and 
 openly professed in the Confession of Faith, is more than 
 I expected. If he was not ignorant of it, how can we account 
 for his saying that "in order to accept a civil establishment, the 
 Presbyterian doctrine must change ? " His own Catechism re- 
 futes him, and shows, as well by its doctrine, as its history, that 
 it was made expressly for a ^^ civil establishment,'' and is essenti- 
 ally "out of joint" till it shall be "MAINTAINED BY THE 
 CIVIL MAGISTRATE." 
 
 Now, sir, is this constitutional? Here is the doctrine, ready 
 
508 
 
 to produce the same effects here, that it has done in all other 
 countries. I have pointed out some of those effects. Let the 
 gentleman himself meditate on the facts and arguments that 
 have been adduced. I do not ask him to answer them; he has 
 already, and from the beginning, had the good sense not to expose 
 himself by attempting to refute them. But I wish him to meditate 
 on them. And to assist him, let him bear in mind the following 
 considerations: — 1. That John Calvin was the founder of his 
 religion. 2. That it was propagated, not by peace and persua- 
 sion, but by tumult and riot in the various countries in which it 
 prevailed. 3. That it preached and fought its way into civil 
 power, by invading the rights of others. 4. That when in power, 
 it persecuted in every instance without exception. 5. That all 
 other denominations of Protestants were the victims of its perse- 
 cution, as well as Catholics. 6. That it made "ex post factum'' 
 
 laws EXPRESSLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERSECUTING. 7. That 
 
 its members were, at all times, comparatively few. 8. And its 
 enjoyment of the civil sword limited to brief periods. 9. That 
 it had itself suffered for conscience' sake, and should have learnt 
 mercy from experience. 10. That notwithstanding all these ad- 
 verse circumstances, it shed the hlood of man j and made laws for 
 shedding it in torrents, in every country where it had power to 
 make and execute them. 11. That \i justified all these atrocities 
 on the plea that God had authorized, nay, commanded it, " to 
 remove all false religions, and all the monuments of" what it was 
 impudently pleased to nickname "idolatry" — meaning thereby 
 the religion of the great society of Christians of all nations from 
 the time of the apostles to the present day. Let him meditate on 
 it, in connexion with these circumstances, and it will appear that 
 **eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into 
 the heart of man to conceive," (so far as the civil and religious 
 rights are concerned) any thing more intolerant, tyrannical, per- 
 secuting, bloodthirsty and remorseless, than the dark spirit which 
 John Calvin and John Knox breathed, as the living soul, into the 
 Presbyterian doctrines. Let the gentleman meditate upon the 
 facts — in Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, Scotland, Eng- 
 land, Ireland and America. 
 
 Tiie hurry of arrangement, and the disorder and confusion by 
 which the gentleman has laboured to keep the real question out 
 of view, have necessarily prevented me from doing entire justice 
 to a subject, on which too little is understood. But this I say, 
 that the man, who, in the name of human nature, and the Chris- 
 tian religioD, and civil and religious liberty, should write a regular 
 history of Presbyterianism, especially of its persecuting doctrines, 
 would render an incalculable service to his country. He would 
 open the eyes of thousands; hewould tear away the mask of 
 hypocrisy under which Presbyterian ambition is now, and has 
 been for years, labouring for a political predominancy, whereby 
 
609 
 
 to control this nation from north to south, and from east to west. 
 Finding the stoppage of the Sunday mail too knotty a block for 
 their entering-wedge, they have changed their tactics, but not 
 their object. They think that by using the NO POPERY cry, 
 as a feeler, they have discovered the '' soft place" in the head of 
 public opinion, and are trying to hunt down the Catholics to the 
 tune of " hurra for religious liberty." It will not do, sir. Most 
 of the other denominations in this country, are satisfied to enjoy 
 their own liberty of conscience, without invading that sacred 
 right in the person of their neighbours, even though these should 
 be Catholics. Not so the true blue Presbyterian. He professes 
 a creed whose doctrine of absolute election removes all apprehen- 
 sion/or ?ds oivn sins, but leaves him to feel remorse for aU the 
 sins of all his neighbours. Now I owe it to truth and candour to 
 state my conviction, that there are hundreds and thousands of 
 Presbyterians who are utterly unacquainted with the hereditary 
 and inherent intolerance of their creed — who would be among the 
 first to resist the spirit of those doctrines, as exemplified in the 
 sectarian and political aspirations of some of their own ministers. 
 Men who, as Americans, feel humbled at the fact that there is in 
 their country enough of the spirit of persecution, to destroy the 
 property and endanger the lives of defenceless ladies, for no other 
 crime, except tliat^ of worshipping Abniyhty God according to 
 the dictates of their conscience ! But the gentleman is not of the 
 number ; his associates, Dr. Brownlee & Co. are not to be num- 
 bered with those real friends of civil and religious liberty. 
 
 I must now notice some of the miscellaneous matter of his 
 speech. And, 1. HIS PERSONALITY AND ABUSE. After 
 having expended every epithet of contempt — "Jesuit," "Papist," 
 " Foreigner," &c. &c. he winds up with the charge of "malignity." 
 I am not surprised at all this ; it is a part of the system which he 
 represents. During ten years that I have resided in this city, I 
 have had intercourse with society of all denominations ; I have 
 preached nearly every Sunday during that time, oftentimes on 
 controversy, when hundreds of Protestants were present, and I 
 venture to assert that I have not done one action or used one 
 expression, in the pulpit or out of it, to warrant the charge of 
 "malignity." I have wounded no man's feelings; I have ridi- 
 culed no man's religion; I have injured no man's character. I 
 have the consolation to believe, therefore, that in the community 
 where I am known, the charge of " malignity" will recoil on its 
 author, and nottaficct me. I am proud to believe, and have reason 
 to believe, that, though a Catholic and a priest, I stand as high 
 in public, even Protestant estimation, as the gentleman himself. 
 The secret of his accusation is, that, having forced himself on 
 my notice, and compelled me to enter into an oral disputation, I 
 have taught him a few facts respecting his religion, as well as 
 mine, with which he was unacquainted before. Not only this, I 
 
510 
 
 established argilments on the basis of those facts, which he is 
 unable to answer. This was very '* malignant" to be sure. He 
 says I directed all my '' malignant attacks against the Presbyte- 
 rian religion." Certainly : what had I to do with any other ? 
 But greater men than I have been honoured with this species of 
 Calvinistic argument. The appellation of " hogs," was among 
 the gentlest that Calvin himself could bestow on his theological 
 or literary antagonists. About the time of the Westminster As- 
 sembly, the Episcopalians of England were known in the voca- 
 bulary of the Presbyterians as the " malignants," or the '' ma- 
 lignant FACTION." When John Wesley ventured to preach a 
 sermon on " free grace," in opposition to Calvin's decrees, Mr. 
 Toplady, a worthy son of Geneva, described him, as '' hatching 
 blasphemy" — ''having a forehead petrified, and impervious 
 TO A blush" — a " shameless traducer."(l) But the best of the 
 joke is, that he charges me with being personal and abusive!! 
 It is true that I have had to prove his assertions false, continually, 
 and to expose his vitiated citation of authors, as well as his bad 
 reasoning. Now he ought not to mistake this for abuse. The 
 faitlt was his, mine was the duft/. It is true, that I have some- 
 times retorted, but with milder words, and perhaps more point. 
 
 2. Morality. He assumes that Protestant countries are more 
 moral than Catholic countries. Is this the fact ? In the first 
 place we have the testimony of the Reformers themselves, show- 
 ing that those who embraced the new doctrines became less moral 
 than they had been. Luther says, "ice see that, throiujli the 
 malice of the devil, men are now more avaricious, more cruel, 
 more disorderly, more insolent, and much more wicked than 
 they were under popery ." (2^ Musculus says, "If any one wish 
 to see a multitude of knaves, disturbers of the public j^eace, 
 &c. let him go to a city where the gospel is preached in its 
 purity."(S) ..... The testimony of all the other Reformers, as 
 they are called, is to the same effect. Secondly, their doctrine was 
 adverse to morals. The Scripture says we are saved hj faith, 
 but this was not sufficient, and they accordingly corrupted the 
 text by inserting " faith ALONE." Thirdly, the decrees of the 
 Presbyterian religion, setting forth, that God has "foreor- 
 dained WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS," is fatal to morals — by 
 establishing the doctrine that the crimes of the wicked were ''fore- 
 ordained," as well as the virtues of the good. Hence the gen- 
 tleman is flying in the face of his own decrees, whenever he blames 
 immorality. Fourthl}^, the gentleman's estimate of morality in 
 Catholic countries is not founded on observation; not on crimi- 
 nal statistics; not on impartial history, but on books written in 
 the spirit of Mrs. Trollope, and Miss Reed, and Miss Maria 
 
 (1) See Fletcher's Checks, vol. 4. p. 71. (2) In Postil. Dom. part i. 
 
 (3) Muse. Dom. i. Adv. 
 
511 
 
 Monk, combined. Fifthly; it is not fair to compare the profligate 
 portions of society in Catholic countries, with the religious por- 
 tions of Protestant lands. But, comparing each class with its 
 corresponding class, it will be found that the Catholics have more 
 piety, and are of a more amiable character; that they have more 
 sanctity, with less sanctimoniousness. Finally, that knavery, 
 intellectual immorality, the general system of swindling, which 
 in the large cities of Protestant countries is reduced to the preci- 
 sion of a science, are almost unknown in Catholic countries. 
 The corruption of the heart is the same every where ; but, in 
 confirmation of the remark I have just made, it is to be observed 
 that Protestant countries are distinguished by two vices — crimes 
 in particular which were unknown among Christians before the 
 Ileformation, and are still almost unknown in Catholic countries — 
 FORGERY and SUICIDE. The Calvinists of Holland, rather than 
 lose the trade of Japan, submit to a ceremony which is under- 
 stood by those who require a compliance, to be a renunclatioii 
 of Christ and Ids religion — viz., '' trampling on the cross." 
 The Catholics gave up the trade, and suflFered death rather than 
 comply with it. 
 
 3. COMPARATIVE WEALTH. Here the gentleman fur- 
 nishes no proof. But he forgets some important facts. For in- 
 stance, that in Protestant countries, the disciples of Calvin, at 
 least, appropriated to themselves the property as well as the power 
 of the Catholics, whom they dispossessed of both. So it was in 
 Scotland and England; heretics and idolaters had no right to pro- 
 perty. Hence, the wealth, and estates, and church property of 
 Catholics, were seized upon as a ready stock in trade for the saints 
 to commence with. Ireland remained Catholic, and the soil was 
 taken three different times from its owners, to enr?ch the ex- 
 chequer of Protestant cupidity. I refer to the penal laws cited in 
 my last speech on the former question, to show that the poverty 
 and ignorance of the Irish are the effects of Protestant persecu- 
 tion. Plunder was made lawful, in order to crush them. Edu- 
 cation was made criminal by the laws, until, within a few years. 
 They preserved their integrity, their religion, and were robbed of 
 everjj thing besides. Their mental independence, with their 
 poverty, is more honourable than the ill-gotten wealth and infamy 
 that cling to their oppressors. The gentleman, therefore, has been 
 unfortunate in his allusion to the wealth of Protestant countries — 
 especially so far as England, Scotland and Ireland are concerned. 
 He ought to have let that subject rest. 
 
 4. CELIBACY OF THE PRIESTS AND NUNS. The 
 manner in which the whole class of writers to which the gentle- 
 man belongs, treat this topic, and mix it up with imputations of 
 lewdness, betrays the diseased state of their own imaginations, 
 (ind reminds one of the food and the feast of the hyena. These 
 uxorious parsons, who study the daughters of the Church, in- 
 
512 
 
 stead of 'Hhe fathers'' — who, in times of pestilence, take refuge 
 behind the breast-work of their wives and children, and leave 
 their dying members, body and soul, to be taken care of by the 
 sisters of charity and priests, these are the men who, when pesti- 
 lence has departed, turn round to taunt us with celibacy, and argue 
 as if tliey held the indulgence of lewdness to be a necessity of hu- 
 man nature, and the virtue of chastity to be impossible ! On what 
 data do they build such a conclusion ? It must be either on in- 
 nate depravity, or else on experience among their own people. 
 But in neither case is it good reasoning to make the conclusion 
 general, when the premises are only 'particular. At all events, 
 the gospel of Christ makes chastity an obligation; and there is no 
 reason why it should be more difficult for priests and nuns, than 
 
 for UNMARRIED PERSONS GENERALLY, OF BOTH SEXES, AND OF 
 
 ALL DENOMINATIONS. The reputation of all these, therefore, is 
 wounded by the shafts of base suspicion which the parsons aim at 
 the priests and nuns alone. They would not allow their wives and 
 daughters to go to confession. What does this prove ? It proves 
 that, from whatever source tlicy may have derived their vile esti- 
 mate of human nature, they have no confidence in the virtue of their 
 wives and daughters, any more than in that of the priests ! But 
 the gentleman says, that indelicate questions are asked. I say, 
 the assertion is FALSE. The priest, v/ho should so far forget 
 the sacredness of his ministry as to abuse the confidence of the 
 confessional, is, by the laws of the Church, degraded from of- 
 fice FOR LIFE. And, in Catholic countries, is doomed to per- 
 petual IMPRISONMENT ON BREAD AND WATER. Is there any SUch 
 
 protection against the abuse of nightly and anxious-meetings, 
 among the parsons? I believe not. Finally, who is the blame- 
 less parson among them, to whom we cannot oppose as blameless 
 a priest? And who is the bad priest to whom we cannot oppose 
 a worse parson ? Their wives have not been able to shield them, 
 in all cases, from either the imputation or the guilt of crime. And 
 among them the instances are as numerous as among us. For 
 that class of parsons who treat the subject of celibacy as the gen- 
 tleman has done, these remarks are deemed sufficient — to the 
 more dignified ministers of the Protestant churches of every de- 
 nomination they are not intended to apply. 
 
 5. HIS CONTRADICTIONS. To enumerate these in de- 
 tail, would take up moiy3 space than can be spared. At one time, 
 Catholics wanted only power and numbers to destroy the Pro- 
 testants, root and branch ; at another, when they possessed all 
 power and numbers, they were not able to put down the Reform- 
 ers 1 At one time, we are charged with having exalted matrimony 
 to the rank of a sacrament; at another, we are charged with treat- 
 ing it contemptuously ! At one time, the Church is accused for 
 not punishing the real or pretended vices of the clergy, and re- 
 moving the scandals given ; at another, she is accused of tyranny 
 
513 
 
 for having made laws expressh/ for this purpose! Now, the 
 Pope is represented as commanding the world, and our liberties 
 are gone if he only raise his little finger; and now, he is a power- 
 less old man, supported on his throne only by Austrian bayonets ! 
 Thus it is, that in the logical analysis of the gentleman's argu- 
 ment, we discover the bane and antidote. One portion of his as- 
 sertions refutes the other; and the only difficulty is, to know when 
 he is serious, or which side to believe. He is as contradictory 
 in the matter of his defence, as in that of his attack. Now, he 
 is an orthodox Presbyterian, professing to have received a com- 
 mand to ^'REMOVE ALL FALSE . WORSHIPS ; '' and now he is a 
 ^•Ammg patriot, anxious only to preserve them ! lie seems to be 
 operated on alternately by the contradictory principles of his creed, 
 and of his country; and his benevolent nature, like Mahomet's 
 coffin, is suspended between them, with the additional circum- 
 stance, that he oscillates from one side to the other, as the neces- 
 sities of his argument may require. 
 
 6. CHARACTER OF HIS TESTIMONIES. These may 
 be divided into — opinions and pacts. His opinions may pass for 
 what they are worth. When he shall have lived longer, and read 
 more, and enlarged his intercourse with the world, he may see 
 reason to change his opinions, and say, with the Apostle, " ivheii 
 I was a child, I thought as a child^ I spoke as a child." As for 
 his facts in argument, they are generally the opinions of bigoted 
 Protestants, or discarded and condemned Catholic icritfirs. Of 
 the former description, it will be sufficent to mention Bancroft, 
 Burnet, Fabeii, Cramp, Blanco White, (" Tristam Shandy,") 
 et id genus omne. Of the latter, Dupin, Pascal, (a Jansenist,) 
 Thuanus, Father Paul, and the Abbe De Pradt. Renegades, 
 apostates, — enemies in disguise, whose works have been refuted 
 by Catholic writers. That he should have been correctly in- 
 formed on the Catholic religion, was' not to be expected. He 
 would learn our principles from our enemies alone ; but as to our 
 own approved expositions of doctrine, I hazard but little in say- 
 ing, that he never read sixty pages of them in his life, except in 
 the mind and spirit which prompt the Deist to read the Bible. 
 The consequence is, that he is profoundly ignorant of the doc- 
 trines which he professes to understand and discuss. I shall take 
 any child over six years, that has been instructed in the Catechism, 
 and if that child's answers to twelve questions, on the points dis- 
 puted between Catholics and Protestants, are not found to be more 
 correct, true, precise, and theological, than the gentleman' s an- 
 swers to the same questions, — I shall be ready to make him an 
 apology. Religion among Protestants is not so much a question 
 of correct knowledge and TRUTH, as a business OF PARTY; and 
 hence it is, that to multitudes prejudiced by this party feeling, the 
 word " papist," or some other epithet of abuse, is more conclu- 
 sive, from the lips of a parson, than would be a demonstration of 
 
514 
 
 Euclid, subiiiittecl by a Catholic priest. No syllogism could 
 make Presbyterians half so orthodox as Dr. Miller's simple story 
 about the " crabs in black velvet." These circumstances account 
 for the ignorance, or rather false information, with which the 
 gentleman and his associates attack the Catholic religion ; they 
 know the travesty of our faith, and when they destroy this by 
 ribaldry, it is only the creature of their own brain that perishes. 
 Our faith remains untouched as before. 
 
 FINALLY.— HIS ASSERTIONS THAT PRESBYTERI- 
 ANS HAVE NOT PERSECUTED IN THIS COUNTRY. 
 This is true, so far as life and property are concerned. But so 
 far as REPUTATION, CHARACTER, and GOOD NAME 
 could be destroyed, invaded, or injured by base falsehoods, slan- 
 ders and calumnies, invented, circulated, and patronised hi/ Pres- 
 hyterian.% a more subtle and cruel persecution has never been 
 waged than they have, for the last few years, carried on against 
 their Catholic fellow-citizens. The fate of the Convent at Bos- 
 ton, shows that the transition from the blackening of character to 
 the destruction of property, and the risk of life, is easy and 
 natural. They first bear false witness against the Convent, and 
 then burn it down, on the strength of their own calumnious tes- 
 timony. Is not this persecution ? Doctor Beecher and his asso- 
 ciates first fire the passions of the people, and the fiilsehoods 
 which those preachers propagate in the name of the living God, 
 acting on the minds of ignorant and credulous followers, place 
 the torch in the hands of the midnight incendiaries. Property has 
 been destroyed — lives have been jeoparded — by the spirit of Pres- 
 byterian persecution in the United States, and in the nineteenth 
 century — for no other crime save that of worshipping Godj ac- 
 cording to the dictates of conscience ! ! 
 
 The instruments of obedience to the second commandment, for 
 "removing this monument of idolatry," searched among the 
 ruins, — they even did not spare the sepulchre, in the hope of dis- 
 covering something to sustain their slanders. They found no- 
 thing. But not dismayed, the spirit of lying and slander which 
 had taken possession of them, became emboldened by the scene of 
 desolation which it had produced. It attempted to blacken and 
 destroy the character of the Catholics, by new slanders. They had 
 dungeons for the inquisition under their churches, — and one of 
 these propagators of ^^ false witness against their neighbour," di- 
 rects his brother bigots, in case of his sudden disappearance, to 
 look for his body under the Catholic churches. So that, in case 
 the fanatic should commit suicide, or hide for six weeks, he ex- 
 pects that the Catholic churches are to be destroyed, in order to 
 find, or, at least, search for his remains. Foreign conspiracies 
 were invented, and charged on the Catholics; — an old trick in the 
 tactics of Presbyterian persecution. They knew both of these 
 charges to be false. There was no evidence to sustain either; 
 
515 
 
 and the rule is, that men are to be held innocent until they are 
 proved guilty. The story about having knocked down a senator, 
 was proven by the Cincinnati papers, to have been "an impu- 
 dent LIE." Still it is consecrated in their ivrUuujs, as if it had 
 not been a slander. Book after book has been published — slan- 
 der after slander has been repeated, — but yet nothing proved 
 against the Catholics. In general, these charges are vague, and 
 not made directly against individuals by name. They thus shun 
 the legal consequences of their defamation. But, in some in- 
 stances, this " hunger and thirst" for calumnies against "popery" 
 have betrayed individuals into very unpleasant circumstances, 
 from which they have had to extricate themselves by a liumiUati7i<j 
 process. Let me give an instance. 
 
 From the Christian Herald, January 8, 1836. 
 
 TPE AMENDE HONORABLE.— Having, in the Christian 
 Herald, of the 11th of July, published a paragraph which 
 seemed to insinuate a charge of improper conduct on the part of 
 the Rev. John O'Reilly, during his absence in the summer from 
 this city, I do hereby declare that I had no intention to injure 
 the character of this gentleman, and, for the satisfaction of him 
 and his friends, and repair any injury he may have sustained 
 from that article, I do hereby declare my belief that said rumours 
 were unfounded. Given under my hand, January 1, 183^. 
 
 T. D. BAIRD. 
 
 This, I should say, is a humiliating business for a Presbyte- 
 rian MINISTER. But even this was not sufficient. He had to 
 make another attempt to repair the injury to character. 
 
 From th& same, of January 22, 1836. 
 
 Having, in the Christian Herald, of the 8 th instant, pub- 
 lished some hasty remarks upon the controversy existing between 
 the Rev. John O'Reilly and myself, I hereby acknowledge that 
 they were made under a misconception, and calculated to convey 
 an erroneous impression concerning the condition on which Mr. 
 O'Reilly agreed that all legal proceedings should cease, and the 
 suit be withdrawn, which conditions were as follows, — viz., that 
 I should publish the explanation, and pay all expenses. 
 
 T. D. BAIRD. 
 
 But to enumerate all the instances in which they have at- 
 tempted to blacken the character of Catholics by slander, would 
 be endless. And it is a fact, of which Catholics may be proud, 
 that the issue in every charge, has eventuated not in the establish- 
 ment of the accusation, but in fixing, silently, the brand and seal 
 of the slanderer on their accusers. Generally, indeed, the tales 
 of fiction set forth by these men and women. Miss Reed, Docior 
 
516 
 
 Brownlee, poor, fallen, Mr. Smith, the gentleman himself, and 
 the last ally in the -holy cause, Miss Maria Monk, are so incredi- 
 ble, or so stupid ; — so extravagant, or so indecent ; — that to sober 
 and reflecting minds, they betray only the depraved zeal of their 
 authors, and the weakness of the cause, which is reduced to the 
 necessity of employing such base means of support. Miss Reed 
 is now quite eclipsed ; and at present the contest is between Mr. 
 Smith, and the Rev. Mrs. Hoyte, alias Miss Monk. The busi- 
 ness of simple lying against the Catholics, had been exhausted ; 
 and hence, in the more recent publications, scenes of the lowest 
 and vilest debauchery, with a suitable sprinkling of murders, and 
 infantcide, are presented with such clumsy grossness, that even 
 the Journal of Commerce could not swallow them. The charac- 
 ter of the writer was infamous; but that circumstance made her 
 the more appropriate to the vocation, whereunto she had been 
 called by the parsonhood. The dirtier the implement, the fitter 
 for the work which they have to carry on. The plan of a con- 
 spiracy is laid, the mother of an illegitimate child is selected, 
 and the victim of their own depravity is made the instrument by 
 which it is intended to destroy the reputation of a whole commu- 
 nity. Was anything ever conceived more black, more dastardly, 
 more diabolical ? An attempt is made to bribe the mother of 
 the unfortunate woman to join in the conspiracy, and to support 
 it by PERJURY. The following is an extract of the affidavit, 
 in which she disclosed the attempt that had been made to corrupt 
 
 her veracity, by these unprincipled hypocrites : " The 
 
 next day Mr. Hoyte came in with an elderly man, Dr. Judge 
 Turner, of St. Albans. They demanded to see tke child, which I 
 produced. Mr. Hoyte demanded if I had discovered the mother; 
 1 said not. She must be found, said he ; she has taken away a 
 shawl and a bonnet belonging to a servant girl at Goodenough's ; 
 lie would not pay for them, she had cost him too much already ; 
 that his things were kept at the hotel on that account : being 
 afraid that this might more deeply involve my daughter, I offered 
 my own shawl to replace the one taken ; Mr. Hoyte first took it, 
 but afterwards returned it to me on my promise that I would pay 
 for the shawl and bonnet. In the course of the day, Mrs. Tar- 
 bert found my daughter, but she would not come to my house ; 
 she sent the bonnet and shawl, which were returned to the owner, 
 who had lent them to my daughter to Assist her in procuring her 
 escape from Mr. Hoyte, at the hotel. Early on the afternoon of 
 the same day, Mr. Hoyte came to my house with the same old 
 man, wishing me to make all my efi'orts to find the girl, in the 
 meantime speaking very bitterly against the Catholics, the Priests, 
 and the Nuns; mentioning that my daughter had been in the Nun- 
 nery, where she had been ill-treated. I denied that my daughter 
 had ever been in a Nunnery, that when she was about eight years 
 of age, she went to a day-school; at that time came in two other 
 
517 
 
 persons, whom Mr. Hoyto introduced; one was the Rev. Mr. 
 Brewster. I do not recollect the other reverence's name. They 
 all requested me, in the most j^ressinf/ terms, to try to make it 
 out that my daughter had heeii in the Nunnery ; and that she 
 had some connexion with the Priests of the Seminary, of which 
 Nunneries and Priests he spoke in the most outrageous terms; 
 said, that should I make it out, myself, my daughter, and child, 
 ivould be protected for life. I expected to get rid of their impor- 
 tunities, in relating the melancholy circumstances by which my 
 daughter was frequently deranged in her head, and told them, that 
 when at the age of about seven years, she broke a slate-pencil in 
 her head; that since that time her mental faculties were deranged, 
 and by times much more so than at other times, but that she was 
 far from being an idiot ; that she could make the most ridiculo*us, 
 but most plausible stories; and that as to the history that she had 
 been in a Nunnery, it was a fabrication, for she never was in a 
 Nunnery ; that at one time I wished to obtain a place in a Nun- 
 nery for her, that I had employed the influence of Mrs. De Mon- 
 tenach, of l3r. Nelson, and of our pastor, the llev. Mr. Esson, 
 but without success. / told them noticidistanding I was a Pro- 
 testant, and did not like the Roman Catholic religion — like all 
 other renpectahle Protestants, I held the Priests of the Seminary 
 and the Nuns of Montreal in veneration, as the most pious and 
 charitable persons I ever knew." (1) 
 
 Here, sir, is a scene of complicated depravity, for which it 
 would be difficult to find a parallel. The only one 1 can remem- 
 ber equal to it, is that in which Brandt tells, of one of the Catho- 
 lic victims of Presbyterian persecution in Holland, to whom they 
 gave sweet wine, in order to make him drunk in the agonies of 
 death, on the rack. 
 
 Persecution advances by degrees, and it is a fiict as well estab- 
 lished in history, as the burning of Servetus by Calvin, that Pres- 
 byterians, as they persecuted to death in every country where 
 they had power, so in every case, the first degree of that perse- 
 cution was, in the thick, black, gross, and unmeasured calumnies 
 which they heaped on the character of their intended victims. At 
 an early period of tlieir history in France, Maimburg, quoted by 
 Bayle, (2) says, their libels against the Jesuits, the clergy and 
 govern uient of France, already amounted to ten volumes, which 
 were tilled, says he, with " all that detraction and the blackest 
 malignity have ever invented, of SUPPOSED CRIMES, atrocious 
 invectives and calumny, .spread out brutally, and without judg- 
 
 ment or taste " Bayle, though himself educated a 
 
 Calviuist, confirms the truth of this statement. Chalmers tells 
 us, that the Presbyterians accomplished the destruction of the un- 
 fortunate Queen of Scots, by the same means. (3) The same 
 
 (1) Extrac-t from Mrs. Monk's oatb. (2) Avis Aux Ref. vol. ii. p. 5^. 
 (3) t'haliner's Life of Mary, vol. ii. p. 9. 
 
518 
 
 means of calumny and slander, were employed for the de- 
 structiou of the Arminians, in Holland; and the Episcopalians 
 in England ; as we see in Brandt and Neal, passim. To their 
 calumnies we trace, on the most respectable testimony, the ori- 
 gin of the wicked principles which ignorance has so long and 
 so falsely attributed to the Jesuits. These calumnies were echoed 
 in* the clamours and writings of the infidels and Jansenists, of the 
 last century, and from these again, the Calvinists and others, now 
 derive only new editions of their own old slanders. The bishops 
 of France, when called upon, gave the true character of the Jesuits 
 in their answer to the king, who had submitted this subject of 
 inquiry. 
 
 "Article II. How the Jesuits behave in the instructions, and in 
 their own conduct, with regard to their instructions, and in their 
 own conduct, with regard to certain opinions which strike at 
 the safety of the king's person; as likewise, with regard to the 
 received doctrines of the clergy of France, contained in the 
 declaration of the year 1682 ; and in general, with regard to 
 their opinions on the other side of the Alps." Here is their 
 testimony : — 
 
 ''Our history informs us, that, in the infancy of the society in 
 France, the Calvinists used their utmost endeavour to hinder the 
 growth of a body of men, raised on purpose to oppose their errors, 
 and to stop the spreading contagion : to this end, they dispersed 
 into all parts a multitude of pamphlets, in which the Jesuits were 
 arraigned as professing a doctrine inconsistent with the safety of 
 his majesty's sacred person ; heing well assured^ that the impu- 
 tation of so atrocious a crime was the shortest and securest way 
 to bring about their ruin. These libels soon raised a prejudice 
 against the Jesuits, in the minds of all those who had any inte- 
 rest in opposing their establishment in France, and some commu- 
 nities even joined in the impeachment. The crimes which are 
 now laid to their cJiarge, in the numberless writings that swarm 
 in all parts of your majesty's dominions, are no other than those 
 which were maliciously forged, and published above one hun- 
 dred and fifty years ago. It is not from such libels as these, 
 that we are to form a just idea, or rational judgment, of the Je- 
 suits' doctrine or behaviour : such wild and groundless accusa- 
 tions did not deserve our attention, and the little notice we took 
 of them, may be a convincing proof to your majesty, of the Je- 
 suits' innocence." (1) 
 
 In England, during their civil wars, the same course of circu- 
 lating the most absurd and stupid calumnies was systemati- 
 cally pursued, as we learn from the testimony of Protestant 
 writerk Bishop Warburton tells us ^Uhey (the Presbyterians,) 
 preached and fought for the Kings destruction ; and fasted and 
 
 (1) Judgment of the Bishops of France, concerning the doctrine, the gov- 
 ernment, the conduct, and usefulness of the French Jesuits. Appendix. 
 
519 
 
 prayed for Ms j^reservatwn, WHEN THEY HAD BROUGHT HIM TO 
 THE FOOT OF THE SCAFFOLD." But their calumnies oever ceased. 
 At times, the Catholics were solemnly denounced as ''the sowers 
 of discord between the king and his faithful commons/' (1) This 
 day, whole fleets of foreign Papists were created upon the coasts; 
 the next day, the ordinary equipage of a Catholic nobleman was 
 magnified into a Popish army ; viz : the Earl of Bristol's. (2) 
 Now the nation w.as terrified wntli the report of "an army under 
 GROUND." (3) Then the inhabitants of London were frightened 
 with the intelligence of a new gunpowder plot for "BLOWING- 
 UP THE RIVER THAMES, AND DROWNING THAT 
 FAITHFUL PROTESTANT CITY." (4) At last one Beale, 
 a tailor, at Cripplcgate, was introduced to the House of Commons, 
 by no less a man than the celebrated John Hampden, (5) who 
 averred, that " icalhing in the fields near a hank, he overheard 
 from the opposite side of it, the particidars of a plot, concerted 
 hy the Fricsls and other Papists, for one hundred, and ei(/ht as- 
 sassins to murder one hundred and eight leadimj members of 
 Parliament, at the rate of ten pounds for every lord, and of forty 
 shillings for every commoner, so murdered." (6) To show the 
 bigotry of the first men in the nation, at that time, against the 
 Catholics, it will be sufficient to mention, that upon this very 
 deposition of the Cripplegate tailor, stuifed with other circum- 
 stances equally absurd, and unsupported by any collateral evi- 
 dence, (7) the House of Commons proceeded to the most violent 
 measures against them ; and, under pretence of greater security, 
 ordered the train-bands and militia of the kingdom to be in readi- 
 ness, and to be placed under the command of that real traitor the 
 Earl of Essex. (8) 
 
 The Episcopal clergy fared no better. Heylin tells us, 
 
 " they could find no other title for the Archbishop of Canterbury ^ 
 than Belzebub of Canterbury, Pope of Lambeth, the Canterbury 
 Caiphas, Emu, a monstrous anti- Christian Poj)e, a most bloody 
 opposer of God's saints, a very anti- Christian beast, a most vile 
 and cursed tyrant. They tell us further of this humble and 
 meek spirited man, that no Bishop ever had such an aspiring 
 and ambitious mind, as he; no, not Cardinal Wolsey : None so 
 proud as he; no, not Stephen Gardiner of Winchester : None so 
 tyrannical as he; no, not Bonner, the butcher of London. In 
 general, he tells us both of him, and the rest of the bishops, That 
 they are unlawful, unnatural, false, bastardly governors of the 
 Church, the Ordinances of the Devil, petty Popes, petty anti- 
 Christs, incarnate devils, Bishops of the devil, cogging, cozening 
 
 (1) Romonstr. of Pari. an. 1641. (2) Nalson's CoUectiens, Pref. p. 76. 
 
 (3) Exam, of Neal's Hist, of Puritans, by Grey, vol. ii, p. 260. 
 
 (4) Ibid. vol. ii. p. 260. (.'')) Clarendon's Hist, of Rebellion. 
 (6) Nalson's Col. vol. ii. p. 646, Ac. (7) Ibid. p. 647. (8) Ibid. 
 
520 
 
 Jcnaves, and ivill lie like dogs. That they are proud, popishy 
 presumptuous, profane, paltry, p)estilent, p)ernicious Prelates, and 
 usurpers ; enemies of God, and the most pestilent enemies of the 
 State; and, that the worst Puritan in England is an honesier 
 man than the best Lord Bishop in Christendom." (1) 
 
 In fact, this was the spirit of their founders. They adopted 
 from the cradle the motto, 
 
 Calumniare audacter, semper aliquid adhasrebit. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Whitaker, a clergyman of the English Episcopal 
 Church, tells us of Knox, (and gives facts to prove it,) '^ that he 
 
 was an original genius in lying, that he felt his mind 
 
 impregnated with a peculiar portion of that spirit of falsehood, 
 which is so largely possessed by the father of lies.'^ (2) Of Bu- 
 chanan, another Scotch Presbyterian Reformer, Whitaker tells 
 
 us, '^ that he became equally devoid of principle, and of 
 
 shame, ready for any fabrication of falsehood, and capable of 
 any operation in villany/V3) The testimony of Doctor Stewart 
 is to the same effect. (4) 
 
 In fine, this learned Protestant author, Whitaker, whose sub- 
 ject introduced him to all the sources of information, says, 
 *' FORGERY, / blush for the honour of Protestantism, while 
 I write, seems to have been PECULIAR to the Reformed. I 
 look in vain for one of these accursed outrages of imposition 
 among the disciples of Paper i/." (5) 
 
 I now take leave of the subject. Nothing but necessity could 
 have induced me to enter into this discussion. My apology to 
 my friends, both Catholics and Protestants, is, that a system of 
 ferocious denunciation had been organized, for the purpose of de- 
 stroying the civil and religious rights of Catholics, and thus depriv- 
 ing them of those constitutional privileges which, in common with 
 the patriots of tjther denominations, they bled to purchase. This 
 system was under the direction of the gentleman, and a few Pres- 
 byterian ministers, FOREIGNERS; of whom. Dr. Brownlee 
 may be regarded as chief. These men, if they pursue their mea- 
 sures of intolerance, disorganizing the harmonies of society, and 
 propagating religious bigotry, instead of charity, peace, and good- 
 will among men, will bring disgrace on even the Presbyterian name. 
 This is the opinion of the more sober and rational portion of 
 their own members. I am aware that, in ordinary circumstances, 
 it is not for the Catholic priest, the minister of a religion whose 
 principles have been promulged throughout the world for eighteen 
 hundred years, to enter into dispute with the unsettled advocate of 
 
 (1) Dr. Heylin's Hist, of Pres. (2) Vindication of Mary, vol. ii. p. 22. 
 
 (3) Vindic. of Mary, ibid. (4) Hist, of Scotl. vol. ii. p. 245. 
 
 (5) Vol. ii. p. 2. 
 
621 
 
 turbulence and fanaticism, no matter by wbat name be may be 
 called. But wben a Presbyterian minister, the ripeness of com- 
 bined ignorance and bigotry, steps forward in the name of liberty 
 and God, to show reasons why their followers should fire the 
 convents, and churches, and property of Catholics, it is time to 
 put the lovers of peace and order on their guard. It is time 
 that the people should know something of Presbyterian, as well 
 as Catholic history. If the gentleman had been a Baptist, I 
 should have let him pass on. If he had been a Methodist, I 
 should have said nothing. If he had been a Quaker, I should 
 have heard his professions of zeal for "civil and religious liber- 
 ty," in silence. 
 
 The principles of Roger "Williams, and of William Penn, would 
 have disarmed resentment. AVhether it is owing to the pacific 
 principles of these denominations, or to the fact that, never hav- 
 ing possessed civil power, they never had the strong temptation 
 to persecute, it is certainly true that neither the Friends, nor the 
 Baptists, nor the Methodists have ever been guilty of persecution 
 for conscience' sake. Their robes are as yet unstained with this 
 crime — and they are unwise in this age of the world, if they do 
 not continue to preserve them as they are. But for a disciple of 
 Presbyterianism to make himself conspicuous — and stand forth to 
 talk of the rights of conscience, whilst the mantle of Calvinism, 
 with which he covers himself, is stained and purple with the 
 blood of men of every creed, and of every country where it could 
 be shed ; — this was too much. When the gentleman assumed 
 this position, and pressed himself importunately on my notice, 
 when he knew that I was averse to disputation, then I felt it due 
 to the public to administer to him the rebuke of history, which 
 ignorance had so wantonly provoked. My only wish is, that he 
 and his brethren, who have more zeal than discretion, may pre- 
 serve these testimonies of history, which establish the character 
 of his creed, and hibour to correct the ugliness and deformity of 
 its features, instead of attempting to break the innocent mirror, 
 for reflecting them truly. 
 
 I have established ray arguments by the most respectable autho- 
 rities, generally Presbyterians and Protestants. I have, I trust, ' 
 attacked no other denomination of Christians, and I can say with 
 truth, that towards men of all denominations I cherish feelings 
 of benevolence, charity, and good will. It was painful to me to 
 have spoken of Presbyterians, among whom I have the pleasure 
 to number many friends, as I, have done. But Mr. Breckinridge 
 imposed it on me as a duty to say the truth — and I have done so. 
 I would rather, however, be employed in soothing, than exciting, 
 even by necessity, the feelings of religious prejudice and bigotry 
 on either side. Men have but a short time to live in this world, 
 and why should they, and especially they who minister, embitter 
 the cup of human existence ? Let Presbyterians worship God, 
 
 33 
 
622 
 
 according to the dictates of their conscience, let Catholics do the 
 same. But let neither be engaged in the unholy work of sowing 
 discord among brethren, or in rupturing the ties of harmony which 
 bind all citizens into, at least, social union. Blessed are the 
 peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God. 
 Whose children can they be, who are destroyers of peace and 
 sowers of discord ? 
 
 If I have spoken of individuals not immediately connected with 
 this discussion, I have done so only in relation to their j^nhlished 
 writings; — and never have I touche^d their private character or 
 history. In this regard, therefore, I trust that I have violated no 
 rule of propriety. I have left eave-droppers and tattlers, to those 
 who may need, and can employ them. Finally, the gentleman 
 has the closing speech — and I shall have no opportunity to ex- 
 pose it. If he can bring forward argument to show that the 
 Presbyterian religion is not as intolerant and as persecuting as 
 its doctrines and history have proved it to be, I shall be happy 
 to read them. But if, instead of this, he shall elope from " the 
 QUESTION," and relapse into the abuse of popery, he will there- 
 by furnish the best evidence that, on both questions, he has sig- 
 nally and triumphantly FAILED. 
 
523 
 
 "is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its principles or 
 doctrines J opposed to civil or religious liberty f" 
 
 NEGATIVE VI.—MR. BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Mr. President : — 
 At the close of the oral debate, I predicted that Mr. Hughes 
 would never permit the publication of our Discussion. One of 
 his own followers in this city has truly said, that Mr. Hughes 
 has made such statements in the debate, that he never will agree 
 to its publication. We have now a practical demonstration of 
 the truth of the statement. The Discussion is little more than 
 hulf finished ; yet I have received his last piece, containing his 
 farewell to me, to the public, and to the defence of his deserted 
 cause. He has avowed his determination to write no more to 
 the publishing committee and to the Society ; and has even gone 
 so far as to require that the society should peremptorily close the 
 debate, and stop me, as well as connive at his retreat ! All this 
 has been done, too, after his solemn public promise to write the 
 debate anew, if the society and I would agree to lay aside the 
 stenographer's report. The society, however, with much una- 
 nimity, and after long patience, resolved (on the last evening) 
 that the portion of the debate now finished should be published, 
 and then the disputants, or either of them, might go on, under 
 the sanction of the society, to finish the questions at issue. Mr. 
 Hughes has behaved in so extraordinary a way, that his retreat 
 from the discussion is in fact the settlement of the question ; and 
 its history deserves to be preserved, as illustrative of the acts of a 
 Jesuit to shun the light ; and the desperation of a cause, which, 
 with all his talents and learning, he cannot defend. I therefore in- 
 corporate one of my letters to the society, written on the occasion 
 of his refusing to proceed, as a brief explanation of the state of 
 the case. And in confirmation of what is said in it, I appeal to 
 the members of the society, and to the records of the institution. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 29ih, 1836. 
 
 To THE President of the Young Men's ) 
 Literary and Debating Society. ^ 
 
 Sir, 
 Having been informed, that the young gentlemen of the So- 
 ciety have delayed the final decision of the painful question now 
 
524 
 
 pending, in regard to the publication of the debate, nntil this 
 evening, I take the liberty of making an additional communica- 
 tion through you to the Society. 
 
 As no little time has passed since the debate began, and many 
 changes have taken place in our arrangements, a rapid retrospect 
 of the circumstances may not now be amiss. The following 
 facts will not be disputed, it is supposed, by any membervof the 
 Society ; or if disputed, are capable of ample proof. 
 
 1. Mr. Hughes refused, on the third night, to proceed without 
 a reporter — yet he afterwards rejected the reporter s v)orh. 
 
 2. Mr. Hughes selected the present method of preparing the 
 debate for the press; and he pledged himself to complete it in 
 this way; and he proposed no Limits or terms at the commence- 
 ment of this plan of preparation : on the contrary, he found 
 fault with the former Publishing Committee for seeking to re- 
 strict him ; and a new committee was appointed by the Society 
 to carry the new plan into effect. 
 
 8. The Society did thus and otherwise sanction the present 
 plan, and agree to carry it into effect. And it was on the faith 
 of Mr. Hughes's pledge, and theirs, that I gave up the stenogra- 
 pher's report, and adopted Mr. Hughes's plan. And it was on 
 the faith of the same united pledge, that the debate should be 
 completed, sold, and published, that I advanced a considerable 
 sum of money to pay the Society's debt to the reporter. 
 
 4. Mr. Hughes first set the example of enlarging the form of 
 the original debate ; for when the first Publishing Committee op- 
 posed his additions to the report of the stenographer, he said he 
 was to be the judge of how much or how little should be added. 
 Acting on this principle, we began, afterward, to rewrite the 
 whole, each having full liberty. When, therefore, Mr. Hughes 
 complains of the dilation of the Discussion, he should remember 
 that he is not only the sharer, but aiUhor of the practice. 
 
 5. Though more matter has been written than was spoken on 
 the same number of nights, yet a considerable portion of the 
 topics, presented in the oral debate, have, as yet, not been touched 
 in the manuscript; as, for example, the siipremaci/ of tlie Pope; 
 the doctrine of the Roman priesthood ; the order of the Jesuits; 
 the monastic institutions ; the immoral tendency of the system of 
 popery ; the Inquisition ; the jja^^al conspiracy abroad against 
 the liberties of our country, are all yet to be examined^ and loere 
 all gone over in the debate. This, Mr. Hughes well knows. 
 Yet he seeks now to stop short, and exclude all that yet remains. 
 Besides all this, there are allusions in the discussion of the second 
 general question, to the discussion of the first, which frsi will 
 not appear, if we arrest the debate here. How absurd will this 
 appear ; and to me, how palpably unjust ? Mr. Hughes, contrary 
 to the order of the debate, contrived to alternate, very absurdly, 
 one speech on one question, and one speech on the other. And 
 
525 
 
 now we have each question half discussed; yet he insists on pub- 
 lishing iioio, and publishing no more ! 
 
 In view of all these facts, I can hardly think it possible for 
 your honourable body to do such violence to my rights, as now to 
 force a close of the Discussion on me. Being, however, unfeign- 
 edly anxious to bring every part of the Discussion, as speedily as 
 possible, before the American people, I have conceded much to 
 the wishes of others, as will be seen in my last letter, to which I 
 respectfully refer the Society. 
 
 That there may be no room left to complain of my terms, I 
 here add, to the proposals of that communication, the following, 
 viz: — 
 
 As Mr. Hughes refuses to go farther in the debate, let it be 
 agreed, that, for this reason, we will 7iow publish four nights of 
 the manuscript debate : let me then complete my argument on the 
 papal question, and publish it under the sanction of the Society, 
 accompanied by an explicit avowal of the fact, that Mr. Hughes 
 declines to pursue the Discussion. I will publish the second 
 part at my own risk, and ask no more than what is stated above. 
 If Mr. Hughes asks more, his country must see why; and his 
 best friends must blush for him, when he shall not only abruptly, 
 and after all his pledges, withdraw from the Controversy, but even 
 seek to silence me midway the question. 
 
 I feel well assured, sir, that the honourable young gentlemen, 
 of all names and sects, over whom you preside, will esteem my 
 wishes reasonable; and will unite to sustain me in my obvious 
 Wghts. 
 
 But if not, then I must appeal to the American public; and re- 
 verting to the alternative, the painful alternative, stated in my 
 former letter, I must seek shelter from injustice, before a larger 
 and better tribunal, who love liberty, who will do justice; and be- 
 fore whom, if Grod give me help, I am resolved to spread out the 
 whole of the debate, and the history, as well as the matter of it, 
 if my stipulated rights should now be so seriously invaded. 
 
 With full confidence in the candour and justice of the Society, 
 I remain, dear sir, very respectfully. 
 
 Your friend and fellow-citizen, 
 
 JOHN BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 P. S. I understand it has been alleged, that, inasmuch as I called 
 on the audience to aid in paying the fees of the stenographer, at 
 the close of the debate, therefore, he was confessedly my reporter. 
 It is well known, as I then avowed, that the reason of the call 
 was the 'poverty of the Society, (which had no funds,) and the 
 pressing wants of the reporter, who expected to leave the city the 
 next morning. Besides, it is fully known, that, for three nights, 
 the Committee had failed to get a reporter; and Mr. Hughes re-- 
 fused to proceed laithout one. Then, at the request of the Com- 
 
526 
 
 mittee, I wrote for Mr. Stansbury — the faithful reporter of the 
 American Congress for some dozen years. And yet, after all, 
 Mr. Hughes rejects his reports. Thcn^ when we yield to his 
 wishes, give up the reporter's manuscript, and begin, at his re- 
 quest, to write aneWy he proceeds but half way through ; when 
 lo, again, and of a sudden, without* consultation, or agreement 
 with the other parties, he resolves to stop. Will the Society sus- 
 tain such a course ? It was on the faith of Mr. Hughes's repeated 
 pledge, to complete the debate, and on the faitli of the Society's 
 pledge, to cause it to be completed, and sold, and published, that 
 I advanced money to pay the debt of the Society. Will the So- 
 ciety now permit, nay, aid in a continuance to defeat the publica- 
 tion ? 
 
 J. B. 
 
 Since the Society adopted the last course so firmly, Mr. Hughes 
 has so fjircome to terms, as to allow me to proceed, though he re- 
 i^eats liimseJf. Men do not commonly retreat from the victory 
 of their cause. I exceedingly regret his retiring so pertinaciously. 
 But the way is open (and I hereby make it hnovoi) to any 
 respectable, accredited priest of the Church of Rome, who will 
 take the place of his absent friend, while 1 go over the ground 
 which he traversed in the debate, but forsakes at the press. 
 
 It becomes my duty now to reply, so far as any reply is called 
 for, to his last speech (now before me) on the Presbyterian 
 question. * 
 
 And really I hardly know what order to observe in this reply. 
 Despair and fury, abuse, flight and confusion '' fluctuate through 
 his pages in unknown agitation." He seems to have felt it was 
 his last. It is the confusion of retreat. I had as well take it up 
 by the order of pages and paragraphs — for there is surely no other 
 line of argument. It is the order of confusion and of final rout. 
 
 1. First, then, as to his ^' bet." Though I declined it, I ac- 
 cepted his reference, and I am now prepared to fulfil my pro- 
 mise, in St. John's Church, the day after he shall preach the 
 eulogy of the Neapolitan queen, if he pleases: viz., to show the 
 forgeries and frauds by addition, erasure and perversion in twenty 
 places in Donevan's Translation of that very Catechism which 
 Mr. Hughes recommends to his flock, and is the standard of the 
 Komish Church! And what does Mr. Hughes say in reply? 
 Why that I got the facts from Cramp. But still, are they facts? 
 He dare not deny them again. I got them fresh from the foun- 
 tains, and will confront him with them, if he will name the day 
 and the place. He asks, what have these charges to do with the 
 question? I reply, much. He once denied them. Besides, they 
 prove that Roman Catholic writers are, as a body, unless they 
 he laymen, not to be trusted. They commit forgeries on their 
 own books; and on the icord of God. Thus they are not to be 
 
527 
 
 Ousted. I refer to my fourth speech on the second question 
 (the last but one) for a crowd of unnoticed proofs of this awful 
 fact. 
 
 2. The charge, that we hold communion with European Pres- 
 hyterian Churches ivhich hold persecuting doctrines, is pressed 
 by Mr. H. with much triumph — to prove that we hold the same 
 doctrines ourselves. I had often said that the American Presby- 
 terians had rejected and expunged several clauses /ro??i the West- 
 minster Confession of Faith wJiich were intolerant, and I proved 
 the fact that they made this change before the adoption of the 
 American Constitution, which shows that it was a matter of 
 choice, and not oi force, (as Mr. Hughes once said). Mr. liughes 
 replies, that we have fellowship with those who hold these perse- 
 cuting doctrines, to prove that we at heart approve them, though 
 we profess to have renounced them. He says — " And if they 
 have changed, as he asserts, let the next General Assembly 
 break communion with those sister Presbyteries in Europe, in 
 whose Confessions of Faith the principle of intolerance is avowed 
 as a doctrine." Now, the truth is, Mr. Hughes, ignorantly I 
 would fain hope, has entirely falsified the facts. We hold no 
 such communion with any such churches. The Church of Scot- 
 land has an establishment, and retains the intolerant doctrine. 
 The consequence is we have no communion with her. The Irish 
 Church (the Synod of Ulster) receives the regium donum. We 
 have no reciprocation with her ; of which we have had a notable 
 illustration in the person of our late delegate to the British churches. 
 He went as a delegate from the Greneral Assembly of our church 
 to the Congregational Churches of England and Wales — but 
 not to the Scotch — not to the Irish Presbyterian Church. So 
 much for the historical vanity of the gentleman. 
 
 But now for his argument. Is he honest in the use of it ? Is 
 it good, where the facts support it? He says it is. Then it 
 settles the question between us. For is he not in full and direct 
 communion with the Cliurch of Rome, which has an estab- 
 lishment ? Is not the American papal (what a contradiction in 
 terms!) church under the Pope? And is not the Pope head of 
 an established church, and a temporal prince also? And has 
 not Mr. Hughes boasted that the papal church is the same and 
 one all over the world — in Spain, and Austria, and every where? 
 And are not the churches in these empires intolerant, and exclu- 
 sive, and, by his own confession, persecuting ? Yet he has fel- 
 lowship with them all! Priests from them all pass into direct 
 connexion with the American Catholics ! They are received 
 ad eundem at St. John's ! Yea, and the bishops of this diocese, 
 and bishops of every diocese, in this country, hold their offices 
 directly from the Pope, a foreign prince, and the head of a 
 state establishment! This I say then settles the question, by 
 Mr. Hughes's own showing. For he says of us, '•^ Let them 
 
528 
 
 condemn it (Jintolerance) as an error in doctrine. If they do 
 not — it is their own; and the (jcntleman makes himself ridicU' 
 Ions when he denies it." 
 
 I will add, that the Reformed Dutch Church has explicitly de- 
 nounced the doctrine of intolerance; and I have the public act of 
 her Synod containing it in my possession. Here is another slip 
 in the gentleman's statements. 
 
 3. The gentleman affects to be much shocked at my allusion 
 to the horrific practice of anie-natum baptisms. It is indeed a 
 shocking subject. But if such things are too shocking to tell, 
 how shocking to do ? If the gentleman will only publicly deny, 
 
 1. That, by their doctrine, unbaptized infants cannot be saved: 
 
 2. That they do not practice in his Church such baptisms : 
 
 3. And that he never did himself perform such a baptism, I will 
 give the public such proof as shall make him blush — or publicly 
 apologise for my statement. 
 
 4. As TO MARRIAGE. Mr. Hughes has entirely evaded the 
 argument contained in my last speech. To it, without repeating, 
 I refer the reader. How amazing, that he can leave untouched 
 such a body of facts ! He says " Catholics hold marriage to be a 
 sacrament, which cannot be rightly administered except in the 
 presence of a parish priest. But this is only where the discipline 
 of the Council of Trent is received, which it is not in this coun- 
 try." The latter clause is not only gratuitous, but a mere fiction. 
 On page 318 of Donovan's Translation of the Council of Trent's 
 
 Catechism, it is said expressly, " Without the presence of 
 
 the parish priest, or of some other priest commissioned by him 
 or by the ordinary, and that of two or three witnesses, there can 
 he no 'marriage." Now does this say one word about " the 
 receiving of the discipline of the Council of Trent?" Not one 
 word. Mr. Hughes well knows that by his doctrines every mar- 
 riage in Christendom is illegitimated that has not been performed 
 by a Catholic priest! And when he says, ''whether it were 
 received or not it cannot afi"ect the civil right of any one," he 
 passed by thejpom^ of the question. We know, thank God, that 
 his holding our children illegitimate, and our civil contracts void, 
 does not make them so. But the question is, whether any man 
 that thinks so is a fit person to represent our rights, or make our 
 laws, in state and national legislatures? Does not every man 
 who believes marriage to be a sacrament subject that relation 
 necessarily to the Church and Pope of Rome, and reject all right 
 or fitness of the civil power to judge of the lawfulness of mar- 
 riage? And would not Mr. Hughes treat any Catholic holding 
 the reverse of this as a schismatic, and the subject of discipline? 
 And, then, can any man, with these views, conscientiously hold 
 an office of trust in a Protestant country? I rejoice that some of 
 our best citizens are Catholics. But it is little more than nominal 
 with those who have intelligence, and they are, day by day, 
 
529 
 
 becoming more and more Protestant hy the poicer of truth and 
 public opinion. And this controversy has made Mr. Hughes, 
 by necessity, more of a Protestant than the Pope will like. I 
 am sure if this Discus^iion should reach Rome, in time, he will 
 get the rod rather than the staff. 
 
 5. He says — ^'■AU sects oppose the lihertij of the press, hi/ en- 
 deavouring to exclude such publications as expose their real or 
 supposed errors'' This is most surprising ! But is this the same 
 thing with saying, "7/" any one shall presume to read or possess 
 the Bible loithout a written permission of a bishop or inquisitor, 
 he shall not receive absolution until he shall have frst delivered 
 up such Bible to the ordinary?" Is the effort, hy persuasion, to 
 discourage the use of a bad bogjc, or one we tltink bad, the same 
 thing as forbidding reading or printing, under pains and penalties 
 of body and soul '/ One is papal, the other is Protestant treat- 
 ment of the press ! and not only the press in general, but even 
 the holy word of God. Turreline (Bened.) has said, "There is 
 no place of mercy left to the Book of Grod. Men fly from the 
 Gospel, in the Italian or Spanish tongue, faster than they would 
 run from the plague of pestilence/^ 
 
 6. The gentleman's principles will leak out. He says, ''They 
 [the Protestants at the era of the Btformation] attached the doc- 
 trines of the Catholic Church, and, in doing so, in those times, 
 and countries, they attacked the religion of the people at large, 
 and the laws of the state." Now, at this period, the Roman 
 Church had every thing in its power. So it had been for ages. 
 There had been a full opportunity to try its principles. AH (he 
 says) were Catholics. And he exults that, though this was so, 
 they shed so little blood. He forgets ^Hhe almost infinite number' 
 of poor heretics, whom Bellarmine tells us the chui-ch had put to 
 death. After they were extirpated, the church ceased to kill. 
 *' Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." But as they possessed 
 all the power, so they acted out tlieir principles. And what were 
 they? As the gentleman says, '■^they had possession!" And how 
 did they exercise their power? Why, as he says, ^Uhe Catholic 
 religion was the law of the state." Yes ) of every state on earth 
 in their power. I challenge the example of one state in the world, 
 for the ages of their dominion, where they did not establish their 
 religion by law where they had the power. And will they not do 
 the same here if they ever become able ? The gentleman eays, 
 they change not. Their system has worked so for AGES, and 
 EVERYWHERE, with not one exception, not one, for ages on 
 ages I Is not its very genius, essence, and nature, intolerance 
 and domination ? But the strange part is to come. He pleads 
 their usurped p)Ower as a reason for its continued exercise ; and 
 even as making its exercise lawful I " At the origin of the Re- 
 formation, so called, the Catholics tvcre in jyossession. This is 
 important. The Refurmers possessed nothing They 
 
580 
 
 had notliing — ihei/ claimed to j'Ossess themselves of the rights of 
 others'' " Had nothing !" Had they not their hodies, their soidsy 
 their covntri/, their rights, their Bible ? ^'Ilad nothing." No ! 
 ^^Theij claimed to possess themselves of the rights of others;" that 
 is, they claimed that the Catholic religion slioidd cease to be the 
 ^' law of the state" — so that they should not be denied liberty of 
 thought, worship, printing, and discussion. But, as the gentle- 
 man more than intimates, '' these luere the rights of others.'^ 
 This was the very language of the papists at the diet of Splices 
 in 1529 ! It was for liberty the Reformers contended. It was 
 liberty that the diet refused them ; liberty of worship, and of 
 discussion, '' as it would interfere with the rights of others ;" that 
 is, of the Catholics, ^' who had possession," as Mr. Hughes, re- 
 peating the language of that day, has said. It is an ever-memo- 
 rable fact, that the name of PROTESTANT was then and there 
 acquired by the illustrious men who protested against ty- 
 ranny — in reference to their religious and civil rights. The 
 doctrinal question was incidental. It was liberty they sought, 
 and against oppression they protested. 
 
 It may be as well here, as elsewhere, to say, that the boasted 
 toleration of the papal colony of Maryland is, in a great mea- 
 sure, an empty name. For, in the first place, they well knew, 
 from the strong Protestant power prevailing in the parent country, 
 and from the very terms of the grant, popery could never be es- 
 tablished by law in any colony of the British crown. Again, it 
 was only toleration — not true liberty. And still, again. Unitarians 
 were put to death by law.(V) Now, was this liberty? Is this 
 ground of boast ? When Mr. Hughes accuses Presbyterians of 
 murdering " Quakers," and drowning " Baptists,'' I can only 
 say, that he falsifies history, and slanders their good name. And 
 while we mourn over the ill-judged and guilty persecutions of 
 New England, in that day of the dawning of freedom, *it ill be- 
 comes that man, whose ^^ frock of office" has descended to him 
 on a sea of blood, (innocent blood, shed by his Church,) to stand 
 up and mouth the heavens, about the intolerances of a few peeled 
 and scattered Puritans, who had learned from Rome the spirit of 
 intolerance, and whose sins in that way, compared with those of 
 Rome, mdking every allowance for disparity of numbers, and of 
 duration, were about as one to one million. Rome is estimated, 
 by impartial historians, to have caused the extinction of about 
 60,000,000 of our race. Rome has put to death more me?i, by 
 her crusades, inquisitions, &c., than all Protestant Christendom 
 combined, have shed drops of human blood for the same guilty 
 cause ; and papal Rome has far, far outdone pagan Rome in 
 the work of persecution and inhuman butchery. 
 
 7. He says, the Presbyterians have existed for only three 
 
 (1) See Langford, pp. 27-32. 
 
531 
 
 hundred years ; and that, if, witli their spirit, they had held the 
 world as long as the Catholics have, they would have butchered 
 the race. 
 
 That Presbyterians have, informer dai/s, persecuted, and been 
 intolerant, I have already acknowledged. That papists hate 
 them, I do not wonder, especially Calvin, and the brave Hol- 
 landers, and the indomitable Scotch, English, and Irish Presby- 
 terians. Well do the papists remember their love of liberty. 
 They cannot forget or forgive it. Dryden has said all in a word 
 — he too a Catholic. 
 
 " So preshytery and its pestilential zeal, 
 Can only finurish in a COMMON WEAL — 
 In fenny Holland, and in fruitful Tweed, 
 And like the first, the last effects to be. 
 Drawn to the dreys of a democracy." 
 
 Admitting, for the sake of argument, that Presbyterianism, 
 which is as old as the Gospel of Christ, has existed only three 
 hundred years, and that it arose at the era of the Reformation, has 
 it not been prominent among the struggles for liberty ever since ? 
 Has it not been persecuted most dreadfully by Catholics, and by 
 Episcopalians; and again and again ? Does the gentleman pretend 
 to say that they have ever — yes, ever begun the work of intoler- 
 ance 't Tell me where ! Tell me when ! Has he forgotten the 
 scenes of the Low Countries; the bloody tragedies of Scotland, 
 acted out first by Catholics, and then'by Episcopalians? Has he 
 forgotten the butcheries of Ireland, and the persecutions in Vir- 
 ginia ? Is the name of Huguenot erased from his pretermitting 
 memory ? Has he forgot that he has already said, that Presbyte- 
 rians never had ^^Cijesar^' in their power but once ? Yet now he 
 asks me to show him when they had the civil power ("Cassar") 
 in their hands, and did not persecute? He knows the Church 
 never had the power. He knows the acts he charges on the 
 Church are falsely charged hy.him on her: that they were acts 
 of Parliaments; and conscious of the glaring falsehood, he antici- 
 pates detection by admitting it. He knows that the cases he 
 cites, even admitting all said to be true, (a great Stretch of charity 
 to a Jesuit,) that they were acts of self-defence, or oi retaliation. 
 He also knows that I have freely and fully condemned every per- 
 secuting act of Presbyterians and Protestants;* find that, (as I have 
 proved,) the intolerant articles, two in number, contained in the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith, were voluntarily and unani- 
 mously erased before the adoption of the American Constitution; 
 and that the terms of our Confession are full, various, and clear j 
 on the whole subject — not merely of toleration, but of protection 
 of all religions — all having equal rights. He insists, that when 
 we say "kings should be nursing fathers" of the Church of our 
 common Lord, we mean a state establishment of Presbyterianism. 
 
632 
 
 I do not wonder that he involuntarili/ enforces his rigid of inter- 
 pretation. But right glad are we, that we are not in Rome, — or 
 we might have some of those hnotty arguments which appeal to 
 the quivering JlesJi, and those stone-dead, knock-down arguments 
 of which Baxter speaks. Being in America, where persuasion 
 IS the only force, and discussion the only way, we must claim to 
 tell what our creed is ourselves., And as Mr. Hughes has tried 
 discussion from the press, and then left it, half complete ; (1) has 
 then tried the rostrum, and still refused to abide by its reports; (2) 
 and finally has fled the field midivay the manuscript preparation 
 of his debate, we must do the best we can alone, and on the 
 Protestant and American plan of argument. 
 
 And now, as to the three hundred years of our acknowledged 
 existence, where has liherty been found ? where science ? where 
 enterprise, commerce, order, and public prosperity? Has it been 
 in Italy? In Spain? In Catholic Germany? In Catholic Ireland? 
 Has England, has Holland, has Scotland, have the United States 
 of America, been CatlioUc since the Reformation? No! Pro- 
 testant! Have these States been Presbyterian? In them Pres- 
 byterians have abounded. Have these States been famed for 
 what was eminent in all that can bless and exalt a nation ? 
 Confessedly foremost I Let Mr.. Hughes deny it if he can. He 
 will not pretend to do it. 
 
 But reverse the scene. Go to Spain now. There the priests 
 especially, the monks and Jesuits, are ranged with Don Carlos 
 against the party that is stFuggling for liherty and light. Go see 
 the monasteries, how, in the judgment of the people, (they, too, 
 called Catholic,) are demolished by thousands as the sinks of 
 corruption, as castles of despotism, as the strong holds of priestly 
 domination ? 
 
 Or will you survey Portugal ? There you see the Pope de- 
 nouncing, by public appeal, the reformation of Don Pedro, and 
 giving the power of his arm to the monster Miguel. Hear him 
 denounce the new government for daring to interfere, in its own 
 territory, for the regulation of the priesthood ! 
 
 Go to Italy, and see the Pope a public despot, his throne rest- 
 ing on the parks of Austrian artillery; collecting his taxes in the 
 name of the fisherman, as the successor of Peter and vicar of 
 Jesus ; one day blessing the horses and the asses of the city in the 
 name of the holy Trinity, to keep off evil spirits and pestilence ; 
 the next, cursing liberty in the name of God, and sending a 
 bishop's ring to John Hughes, or a cardinal's hat to John, Bishop 
 of Charleston. 
 
 There is one point in this Discussion, of very great conse- 
 quence, which Mr. Hughes has continually endeavoured to keep 
 
 (1) See the former Controversy. 
 
 (2) See our correspondence on the subject. 
 
533 
 
 out of view. It is tliis : that American Protestants differ on the 
 whole question of civil and religions liherfij, very widely from 
 European Protestants; whereas, Catholics being subject to an 
 European head, and being one and unchangeable, are the same 
 here as in Rome, and the same now as they were at the Reforma- 
 tion of Luther. 
 
 I therefore never did, and never would, undertake to defend 
 our ancestry in those things which were intolerant; but have, 
 with all true American Protestants, rejected and reprobated those 
 things. Hence, gentlemen, I have often, very often, when I knew 
 Hr. Hughes was slandering European Presbyterians, passed on, 
 since that was not the question; and since I knew full well that 
 he wished by that means to call me off from the true questioUj 
 which is American Presbyferianism. If I had followed him 
 through his distortions of the history of European Protestants 
 (for half the cases he has adduced were not Presbyterian at all) 
 I should have had no time left to exhibit the great principles 
 involved in the Discussion, nor to illustrate the grounds on which 
 American Presbyterians rest their system. 
 
 Now it is well known that x\merican Episcopalians are not 
 chargeable with the persecutions of their British ancestry ; and, 
 if I mistake not, they have formally and explicitly renounced the 
 doctrine of intolerance, and of establishments. Suppose, then, 
 that John Hughes, in the superlativeneiss of his impudence, should 
 approach the venerated father of the American Episcopal Church, 
 Bishop White, and should say to him — '^ Sir, besides being a 
 heretic, whom I denounce as such every time I recite the regular 
 services of our mass-house, as incapable of salvation, while out of 
 the true faith, I charge you with being an enemy to liberty, 
 because your Episcopal fathers j»;ersec«)'c(il and even burned Ca- 
 tholics and Presbyterians, and because you are an Episcopalian V 
 But the meek and venerable man replies — '^Sir, you ought to 
 know that American Episcopalians have, in their public formula- 
 ries and standards, condemned all intolerance, and all religious 
 establishments, as •dnii- Christian, and unti- American." The ill- 
 bred Jesuit might say, as he is very much accustomed to do, 
 ^'/SVr, you, lie," — "you are not sincere — your creed iised to mean 
 very differently — and, under it, you may still persecute, and have 
 an establishment, and oppress Irish and all other Catholics.'* 
 Just so he has said of Presbyterians. 
 
 But reverse the case. How is it with you, Mr. Hughes ? Have 
 you renounced the intolerant doctrines of European papists? 
 Mr. Hughes — Tlie Holy Catholic Church, and its faith, without 
 which none can be saved — never changes. Have you renounced 
 the doctrine of church and state, as Jioiv illustrated and enforced 
 in every country on earth ichere Catholics have the j^ower, and as 
 now .sustained in the person of the Pope, your lord and master? 
 Mr. Hughes — All Catholics, every ichere, are one people. We 
 
534 
 
 receive our doctrines and offices from the lioly father^ the Pope^ 
 who is the head of the universal church, and centre of unify. 
 
 Such, then, is the true state of the question; and, until Ameri- 
 can Catholics renounce the Pope, and his system, and give iip 
 the doctrine of an infallihle, unchangeable church, it is clear that 
 they must hold, as they now do, anti-American doctrines. We 
 have abundantly proved this already. We desire to leave it very 
 prominently in the view of every reader of this Discussion. 
 
 8. As to the American Bible Society. The gentleman knows 
 how fully I exposed his slanders, during the late oral debate. 
 Now he fiies the course hefore we reach that stage of the ques- 
 tion ; and yet asks why I am silent about it. All I need now say 
 is, that the whole gross and abusive attack on that noble institu- 
 tion is founded on this fact, that the American Bible Society 
 has omitted the fabulous and uninspired Apocrypha — which, 
 of course, appears on the face of every Bible; as the omitted 
 parts make about a hundred and sixty chapters, it can hardly be 
 called a ^^ fraud." 
 
 9. As to Faber. I meant to say that Faber's name was above 
 the charge of ignorance and fraud ; and that, as Mr. Hughes had 
 done me the honour to put me with him " in the same condem- 
 nation," I merely remarked, that I should be quite as likely to 
 be believed on Faber's testimony, as disbelieved on Mr. Hughes's. 
 But it is not only Hughes against Faber; it is Hughes against 
 truth. Not one word, or one syllable, on that whole subject, as 
 uttered by Mr. Hughes, is true. 
 
 10. As to the Sunday School Union. He finds he has unhappily 
 met, in its noble halls, as it diffuses to millions the bread of life, 
 such men as Alexander Henry, and John Sergeant, and Daniel 
 Webster, and Theodore Frelinghuysen, and Robert Ralston, No 
 wonder he starts back; and hides his dagger; and refuses his 
 support to his original assertions. Strange ! and yet 7iot strange, 
 when we remember who, and where he is, and what he has been 
 doing. 
 
 11. Calvin had too much to do with the direct exposure of 
 anti- Christ, as he rose to view before him, to have much leisure 
 or need to trace his features in the Apocalypse. But perhaps the 
 gentleman does not know (for the Fifth Lateran Council, in its 
 eleventh session, forbade its priests to preach concerning the 
 coming of anti-Christ, especially to fix the time of it) that Pas- 
 torini (Dr. Walmsly, a Catholic minister) had admitted that Rome 
 is to be the seat of anti- Christ. This is yielding the whole 
 question. For, either the Pope is he, or else, if anti-Christ is to 
 supplant the Pope from being head of ''the true church," then 
 the true church will have failed. Certain it is, that anti-Christ 
 and the Pope cannot both reign in Rome, except as they are one; 
 and they are so near akin that it will require a dispensation to 
 allow their nupttiah. 
 
535 
 
 12. Poor Mr. Ansley ! I named liiin not — at first. On the 
 contrary, my {illusion to him was anonymous — for those reasons 
 of delicacy which Mr. Hughes affects to feel. It was Mr. Hughes 
 who dragged his naiJie to light. It was in St. John's (I learned) 
 that this man renounced Frotcstantism ; and under the direct 
 auspices of Mr. Hughes. The reason for naming such cases, is, 
 that the direct effect, and even requirement, of popery is that 
 jjriests should have no wives. Hence, before a married man 
 can enter the priesthood of Rome, he must leave his wife, as a 
 wife forever — whether she will or not. Hence it is the asylum 
 of so many villains, who grow weary of one wife — but may keep 
 tweni(/ concubines. It is an anti-social and abominable doctrine, a 
 disgrace to the church and all its priesthood. And it is high time, 
 indeed, that the liol^ wrath and j.»wre benevolence andpapa/J deli- 
 cacy of a, renegado Jesuit, should burn against me because I inti- 
 mate that the doctrine of celibacy parts husbands from wives, and 
 beggars helpless babes — when the same Jesuit is seeking, far and 
 near, to spread this very doctrine, and these very eft'ects; and 
 exults, like a hungry tiger, when he can thus prey upon the cre- 
 dulity or domestic misery of some fanatical Protestant ! I spurn, 
 before the universe, the hypocrisy and baseness of such a system, 
 and feel it to be my duty, my privilege, and my joy, to hold up 
 such infamous principles and practices to the detestation of man- 
 kind. And if the gentleman will go to Burlington, N. J., he will 
 there find a fall conlirmation of all that 1 have said, in the honest 
 indignation of a thousand bosoms. 
 
 And i hereby publish the dignified letter of Bishop Doane, be- 
 cause Mr. Hughes's impertinence makes it a duty, and the Bishop 
 kindly allows it. I pity Mr. Ansleij. May God teach him his 
 duty to his family, and the great sin of deserting '' the wife of 
 his youth." 
 
 1'6. Next we have Mr. Barnes and the Synod oy Phila- 
 delphia, and Mr. Hughes, good man, with his crocodile tears ! 
 How he wonders at oppression ! The inquisitors would not do 
 so! No I What unheard of cruelty ! It far exceeds the burning 
 of John Huss and Jerome of Prague ! The massacre of St. Bartho- 
 lomew's night did not equal it! I hardly think Mr. Barnes will 
 bottle Mr. Hughes's tears, or thank him for the manner of his no- 
 tice. However that may be, if Mr. Hughes had read the trial he 
 would have kuown my views of it; and "whatever his views of it, 
 this is certain, Mr. Barnes had a trial offered to him in the 
 Synod, and refused. He then appealed to a higher court, and to 
 it the case goes. He had already been tried in a court below. But 
 how did the priest in Wilmington (Del.) a few years ago fare, 
 whose sin 1 will not shock Mr. Hughes's ears by reciting? Did 
 he get a trial? No! Did the church in this country cover his 
 'Bin? Oh yes ! It was indelicate to publish it; and too cruel to try 
 him. He was chased to Home by a wily prelacy which well knows 
 
6H6 
 
 how to hide im'quif^, and to oppress the weak. The Pope would 
 have saved the Synod all this vast round of trouble, trial, appeal 
 and discussion, by cutting the knot and the iieck at the same blow. 
 
 14. liis reasoning on our prayers, is truly forcical. We are 
 enjoined he says by our confession to pray ^^that the church may 
 he countenanced and mamtained by the civil magistrate." But 
 the same book he says declares, that the church is composed of 
 those who profess the true religion. And Preshytcrianism is the 
 true religion. Therefore we pray for an establishment! I know 
 no better proof of the barrenness of his field of argument than such 
 logic. This is the secret of his late retreat. He was run out of 
 matter. But let us look at the best he has to give. In the first 
 place, we pray that God would bless and maintain, and cause the 
 civil magistrate to maintain and countenance, all Christian 
 churches. There is not one word in the Confession of Faith like 
 the assertion, that v/e alone are the true church. On the contrary 
 it is expressly and repeatedly declared, (as already proved) that 
 we are only one branch of the Kniversal church. The Jews and 
 Catholics are the only bigots on this subject. It is a part of Mr. 
 Hughes's creed "that out of the true Catholic faith none can be 
 saved." Not so with us. Yet on this false statement of his, turns 
 his profound argument. Again, when we pray that the civil ma- 
 gistrate may do so, it is but saying in other words, so far as 
 American Churches are concerned, Oh, Lord, perpetuate the Ame- 
 rican Constitution which protects thy people in their unalienable 
 rights, and which is the peculiar foe of anti-Christian and papal 
 domination over the consciences of thy creatures ! ! ! But I am 
 ashamed to stoop to such petty and peurile trifling. Yet he be- 
 lieves this to be profound, and if I had passed it by, it might have 
 been trumpeted as unanswerable. 
 
 15. As to Maria Monk, I have not named her. It seems 
 some of the holy fathers liked her better than Mr. Hughes does. 
 I never rest great principles on insulated cases. But surely it is 
 very needless for any body TO invent stories about nunneries 
 and monasteries, while they are now demolishing them by thou- 
 sands in Spain, &c. for their corruptions and opposition to 
 the best interests of states; and when the blackest page of history 
 is that which records their character. But more of this hereafter. 
 I remark again, if Maria Monk be false it is now easy to show it, 
 aBfd so., to do it, as to identify the propagators of the forgery. For 
 J find in the "Protestaiit Vindicator'' of this week., the FOL- 
 LOWING CHALLENGE, which I commend to Mr. Hughes's 
 chivalry, and love to his church and her institutions. 
 
 "Challenge. — The Boman Prelates and Priests of Montreal; 
 Messrs. Conroy, Quarter, and Schneller, of New York ; Messrs. 
 Fenwick and Byrne of Boston; Mr. Hughes of Philadelphia; the 
 Arch Prehite of Baltimore, and his subordinate Priests; and Car- 
 dinal England of Charleston, with all other Roman Priests, and 
 
637 
 
 every Nun, from Baffin's bay to the gulf of Mexico, are hereby 
 challenged to meet an investigation of the truth of Maria Monk's 
 'Awful Disclosures/ before an impartial assembly, over which 
 fhall preside seven gentlemen ; three to be selected by the Roman 
 F'riests, three by the Executive Committee of the New York Pro- 
 ^^stant Association, and the seventh as Chairman, to be chosen 
 I'y the six. 
 
 '' An eligible place in New York shall be appointed, and the 
 regulations for the decorum and order of the meetings, with all 
 the other arrangements, shall be made by the above gentlemen. 
 
 " All commuuications upon this subject from any of the Roman 
 Priests or Nuns, either individually or as delegates for their supe- 
 riors, addressed to the Correspondinrj Secretary of the New 
 York Protestant Association, No. 142 Nassau street, New York, 
 will be promptly answered." 
 
 Now as Mr. Ilw/hes is expressly named, let him meet the call 
 like a man; or henceforth keep still at St. John's. 
 
 The previous remarks exhaust the little argument there is to 
 be found in the last speech of Mr. Hughes, which he discharged 
 retreating. For his larrje assertions there needs no rebutter. For 
 his litt'e arguments, of many heads, I refer to the whole past 
 discussion, as a full reply. 
 
 And now, before I close this artide, it becomes my duty, in a 
 brief (and it must be very brief) way to present to the public, a 
 view of the field of argument over which we passed in the de- 
 bate, and which he has left undefended, and avowed indefensihie^ 
 by his abrupt and irrevocable withdrawal. 
 
 After completing the argument as given for suhstance in the 
 previous discussion, I proceeded next to show, that while the 
 papal system is so decisively opposed to the civil, and especially 
 the religious liberty of others, out of the communion of " the 
 church,'' it has bound its own subjects with a series of honds, 
 which make it the most severe a-ad compacted hierarchy on earth. 
 A real ^^ Catholic" is another name for a slave for life. The 
 system is so constructed in its doctriiaes, institutions, and disci- 
 pline, as to receive a man into bondage when he comes into the 
 world ; to lead him through life in bondage ; and send him out 
 of the world bound hand and foot, dependent on priestly acts and 
 intentions xchether he be saved or lost, and whether if he get into 
 purgatory and not into hell, he shall stay there a long or a short 
 time, before he rises to Heaven ! In another part of this discus- 
 sion we have exposed the bondage of papal baptism, papal 
 matrimony, and the papal rule of faith. We now propose to 
 examine the bonds themselves. An illustration of the system 
 supported by them is very important — in proof that the Roman 
 Church is the enemy of liberty. 
 
 I. The crked and oath op Pius. — In the year 15G4, 
 (after the final rising of the Council of Trent,) Pius IV. issued 
 a creed containing a summary of the doctrines decreed by that 
 
 o4 
 
538 
 
 Council — which was received universally in the Roman Catholic 
 Church ; and this creed, being intended to publish and enforce, 
 the decrees of that Council — is accompanied by an oath under 
 whose sanction it is to be adopted. The Bull of Pius IV. which 
 promulgated this creed required all doctors, and teachers, and 
 heads of universities to profess it; and no election or promotion 
 was to be considered valid without its adoption. Another bull 
 required all heads of cathedrals, monastic institutions, and the 
 military orders, to profess this creed. Persons also received into 
 the communion of the church "f-om without," are bound to 
 adopt this creed. Dr. Milner in his "Und of Controversies," 
 chap. XVT. says " The same creeds, viz. the Apostle's creed, the 
 Nioene creed, the Athanasian creed, and the creed or Pope 
 Pius IV. drawn up in conformity with the definitions of the 
 Council of Trent, ARE EVERY WHERE recited and professed, 
 to the strict letter, &c. But the universal reception and 
 binding authority of this document will hardly be denied. What 
 then are its contents? After a 2)rofession of faith — after the 
 form of the Apostle's and Nicene creed, there is an addition of 
 gome tivelve new articles as foreign to the Apostle's creed as to 
 Christian truth. They are as follows : 
 
 1. I most firmly admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesi- 
 astical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of 
 the same church. 
 
 2. I also admit the sacred Scriptures according to the sense 
 which the holi/ mother church has held and does hold, to tvhom 
 it belongs to jud(/e of the true sense and interpretation of the 
 holy Scriptures; nor will I ever take or interpret them otherwise 
 than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers" The 
 first adopts all the trash of Roman traditions ; the second binds 
 the mind never to think for itself in religion, and adopts the 
 impossible test of unanimitij among the fathers. ' 
 
 3. The third article is, ^' I profess also that there are truly and 
 properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus 
 Christ, and for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every 
 one : to wit, Baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme 
 unction, orders, and matrimony, and, that they confer grace. 
 
 4. The fourth adopts the definitions of the " H'dy Council of 
 Trent^' — on original sin, and justification, by the latter of which, 
 among other things, it is declared that '' without the sacrament 
 of Baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, no one can ever 
 obtain justify- at ion," hanging thus the saving of the soul on the 
 arm of the priest. 
 
 5. Adopts the horrible doctrine of transubstantiation and the 
 mass ; " that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, 
 and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead" — making 
 every priest a sacrificcr of Jesus Christ; and thus again hanging 
 salvation directly on his act and ]iis alone ; for while in ex- 
 treme cases, laymen may baptize ; none in the universe, who is not 
 
539 
 
 a ^^ Catholic" priest^ may or can transubstantiate the wafer ^ or 
 offer up the sacrifice of mass, and to this they are hound hy oath. 
 
 6. Adopts the doctrine of purgatory, that is tevfiporary punish- 
 ment after death ; which is the way to heaven for the faithful. 
 (Heretics all go to hell, as the XII. Article will presently declare,) 
 and this again, is made to depend on acts of men on earth, the 
 acts of the priest. " The souls detained therein are helped hy the 
 suffrages of the faithful ^ By this is meant the prayers (ivell paid 
 for) of the living, offered through the priests for the souls of the 
 dead, to get them out of purgatory ; so that for the soul of his 
 father, his wife, or his child, lying in all the horrors of purgatory, 
 he must employ the priest's official services, and pay him for them^ 
 in order to deliver that soul from torment ! ! 
 
 Could there be a more enriching, or a more binding doctrine 
 than this ? Hence a distinguished public man said to a friend of 
 mine in this city, while the former Controversy was going on, 
 '^The doctrine of purgatory gives the Catholic priests great advan- 
 tage over the Protestants." It truly does ! We have no such mines 
 oi wealth for the priesthood, and bond of slavery for the people. 
 
 7 & 8. Adopt and profess the heathen doctrine of worshipping 
 (for it is no less,) saints and their relics; the images of Christ, rf 
 the "Virgin Mother of God," and of other saints; yet this is 
 binding on all. 
 
 9. Professes faith in the power of indulgences. "1 also affirm 
 that the power of indulgences was left hy Christ in the church, and 
 that the use of them is most wholesome to a Christian people" 
 They have been well called " bills of exchange on purgatory" 
 They are dispensed by the Pope, through the priests. Being "a 
 bundle of licenses to commit sin,'^ ih-dy hvq pojndar ; being sold 
 they are very profitable, and depending on the foreign will of the 
 Pope, they give to his ''keys" (with which he professes to un- 
 lock an infinite treasury of merits of the whole papal pantheon, 
 not only the merits of our Lord, but of all saints,) an unbounded 
 power over the people. 
 
 10. "/ acknowledge the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman 
 Church for the mother and mutress of all churches ; and I pro- 
 mise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter 
 prince of the Apostles and vicar of Jesus Christ." " The MIS- 
 TRESS OF ALL CHURCHES." What an epithet for a Christian 
 church! And then this direct allegiance to the pope. Is it less 
 than slavery ? 
 
 11. "Ilikcwise wndoubtedly receive and profess all other things 
 delivered, defined, and declared hy the sacred canons of general 
 Councils." Here is a universal adoption of all the persecuting 
 canons, and all the profane, civil, and immoral legislation of all 
 the general Councils. "And particularly the holy council of 
 Trent," the worst and last of all. Yet every priest is bound on 
 oath to receive, " all things defined, delivered, and declared" by 
 that conventicle ! 
 
540 
 
 *^And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary ^ 
 thereto, and all heresies ivhich the church has condemned, rejected^ 
 and anathematized." Here, by wholesale, they curse over all 
 their curses, and in the gross, affirm, known or unknown, their 
 direful persecutions. 
 
 12. ** Tliis true Catholic faith, without which, no man can he 
 saved, which I at present freely j^^^f^^^ «'*''^ truly hold, the same I 
 will take care as far as in me lies, shall he most constantly held 
 and confessed by me, whole and unviolated, with God's assistance, 
 to the last breath of life; and by all my subjects, or those the care 
 of whom in my office belongs to me, shall be held, taught and 
 preached. I, THE SAME N, PROMISE, VOW, AND 
 SWEAR; SO HELP ME GOD, AND THESE HOLY 
 GOSPELS." This is peculiarly the priest's article. He is the 
 SLAVE of the Pope, and a parish pope to the people. 
 
 (1) He swears that there vi no salvation to those who hold not 
 this creed ; as for example, purgatory, supremacy of the Pope, 
 
 INDULGENCES, IMAGE AND SAINT WORSHIP, TRANSUBSTANTIA- 
 
 tion, TRADITIONS OF RoME, &c. &c. Was there ever such ex- 
 clusiveuess, such intolerance, and yet sustained by AN OATH ! 
 
 (2) He swears to do all, for life, that he can, without ever restrict- 
 ing himself to what is right, to spread this system among those 
 under his care, or subject to him ! Then will Protestants, who 
 know this, ever trust their children to " Catholic" priests? Either 
 they will *'do all that in them lies " to make " Catholics " of their 
 children, or else they are perjured; for they swear to do this, 
 
 (3) And consider the bonds under which this oath brings the 
 conscience and creed of every Roman priest upon earth ! Bound 
 by oath to the Poj>e and to the pecidiar and exclusive doctrines 
 of the church ; bound by oath to receive all the tyrannic and 
 persecuting decrees of all the General Councils, and to seek 
 by all means in their reach the diffusion of these anti-liberal 
 principles ! ! 
 
 The last named of these articles, as taken by the priests, dif- 
 fers somewhat from the form usually adopted for the profession 
 of the laity. That for the laity, however, explicitly declares 
 that ^^ without this true Catholic faith none can be saved." 
 
 And now who can look at this juramentum ''oath," and })ro- 
 fessio fidei, ^^ profession of faith," without distinctly perceiving 
 bow the whole church is bound up in bonds to the fearful hierar- 
 chy of Ptome, by the creed of Pius IV. 
 
 H. But we pass to consider next, the EPISCOPAL OATH OF ALLE- 
 GIANCE TO THE Pope. — This oath, like the Bulla in Cocna Domi- 
 ni was crescent, augmenting its size and strictness with the gra- 
 dual rise of popery in the world. The earliest form adopted, con- 
 sisted of seven particulars, which are still found in the Corpus 
 Juris Cauonici, (the body of the canon law,) in the Decret. of Greg. 
 IX. 1. ii. title 24. It is much more simple, and less rigid than 
 that afterwards used, given in full, in the Roman Pontifical, and ex- 
 
541 
 
 tracted from it into Barrow's unanswered Treatise on Supremacy. 
 This is exactly a feudal oath, and binds every Roman Catholic 
 hishop on earth to the foot of the papal throne. It is as follows: 
 "I, N, elect of the church of N, will henceforward be faithful 
 and ohedient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the holy Roman 
 Church and to our Lord, the lord N, pope N, and to his successors 
 canonically coming in. I will neither advise, consent, or do any 
 tiling that they may lose life or member, or that their persons may 
 be seized, or hands anywise laid tipon them, or any injuries offer- 
 ed to them under any pretence whatever. The counsel which they 
 shall entrust me withal, by themselves, their messengers, or letters, 
 I will not knowingly reveal to any to their prejudice. I will help 
 them to defend and to keep the Roman papacy; and the royalties 
 OF St. Peter, saving my order, against all men. The legate of 
 the apostolical see, going and coming, I will honourably treat and 
 help in his necessities. The rights, honours, privileges, 
 
 AND authority OF THE HOLY ROMAN ChURCII OF OUR LORD 
 THE Pope, and his foresaid successors, I will endeavour to pre- 
 serve, defend, increase, and advance, I will not he in any counsel, 
 action, or treaty in which shall he plotted against our said lord, 
 and the Romish Church, any thing to the hurt or prejudice of their 
 persons, right, honour, state, or power; and if I shall know any 
 such thing to he treated or agitated hy any whatsoever, I will 
 hinder it to my power, and as soon as I can, will signify it to our 
 said lord, or to some other hy whom it may come to his knowledge. 
 The rules of the holy fathers, the apostolic decrees, ordinances, or 
 disposals, resei-vations, provisions, and inandates, I will ohserve 
 with all my might, and cause to he ohserved hy others. Heretics, 
 
 schismatics, AND REBELS TO OUR SAID LORD, OR HIS FORESAID 
 SUCCESSORS, I WILL TO MY POWER PERSECUTE AND OPPOSE. I 
 
 will come to a council when I am called, unless I am hindered by 
 a canonical impediment. I will by myself in person visit the 
 
 THRESHOLD OF THE APOSTLES EVERY THREE YEARS, AND GIVE 
 AN ACCOUNT TO OUR LORD AND HIS FORESAID SUCCESSORS OF ALL 
 
 MY PASTORAL OFFICE, and of all things anywise helonging to the 
 state of my church, to the discipline of my clergy and people, and 
 lastly to the salvation of souls committed to my trust; and will in 
 like manner humhly receive and diligently execute the apostolic 
 commands. And if I he detained, hy a lawful impediment, I will 
 perform all the things aforesaid hy a certain messenger, hitherto 
 specially impowered, a memher of my chapter, or some other in 
 ecclesiastical dignity, or else having a parsonage ; or in default 
 of these, hy a priest of the diocese, or in defaxdt of one of the clergy ^ 
 Qof the diocese,] hy some other secular or regular priest of ap- 
 proved integrity and religion, fully instructed in all things ahove 
 mentioned. And .such impediment I will make out hy lawful 
 proofs, to he transmitted hy the foresaid messenger to the cardinal 
 proponent, of the holy Roman church, in the congregation of the 
 sacred council. The possessions helonging to my tahle, I will 
 
542 
 
 neither sell, nor give away, nor Tnortgage, nor grant anew in fee, 
 nor anywise alienate, no not even tcifh the consent of the chapter 
 of my church, without consulting the Roman pontijf. And if I 
 shall make any alienation, I ivill thereby incur the penaties con- 
 tained in a certain constitution, jntt forth about this matter. So 
 HELP ME God and these Holy Gospels/' 
 
 This is a complete feudal oath. No man can take it to the 
 Pope and be the consistent citizen of his own country — or the free 
 citizen of any country. How can any Catholic bishop maintain 
 this oath to the Pope, and be an honest citizen of the United 
 States? The reader will please remember that under these bonds, 
 in the memorable contest between the Pope and the Repuhlic of 
 Venice, the Jesuits all turned traitors and loent over to the Pope. 
 
 But we have not room to comment; and it is not necessary. 
 It speaks for itself. 
 
 III. Another topic (which Mr. Hughes has excluded by ab- 
 ruptly stopping) which was presented in the debate, was that the 
 doctrines of supremacy and of the priesthood, made the people 
 the bond-slaves of the priesthood. 
 
 The doctrine of supremacy in the words of the council of Flo- 
 rence is this: ^^That the apostolic chair, and Roman high 
 priest, doth hold a primacy over the universal church ; and that 
 the Roman high priest is the successor of St. Peter, the prince 
 of apostles, the true heir-tenant of Christ, and the head of the 
 church; thai he is the father and doctor of all Christians ; and 
 that unto him in St. Peter, full power is committed to feed 
 and direct the Catholic Church under Christ ; according as is 
 contained in the acts of general councils and in the holy canons." 
 And Leo X. (approved by the Lateran Council at the very era of 
 the Reformation), "Christ before his departure from the world, 
 did in solidity of the rock, institute Peter and his successors to 
 he his lieutenants, to whom it IS SO necessary to obey, that 
 
 HE WHO DOTH NOT OBEY MUST DIE THE DEATH." 
 
 The doctrine of the priesthood makes a pope for every parish; 
 as that of supremacy makes a God on earth of tho- head-pope. 
 The poj^e grinds the priesthood, and they grind the 2^eople. In 
 the Catechism of the Council of Trent it is thus written, (1) "In 
 the minister of God who sits in the tribunal of penance, as his 
 legitimate judge, he (the penitent) venerates the power and per- 
 son of our Lord Jesus Christ.'" This is blasphemy. Again, (2) 
 ''They hold the place, and power and authority of God 
 ON EARTH." Again, (3) " The j)ower of consecrating and offering 
 the body and blood of our Lord, and of remitting sins, with 
 which the priesthood of the new law is invested, is such as cannot 
 be comprehended by the human mind, still less can it be equalled 
 hy, or assimilated to any thing on earth." Every priest is in fact a 
 God. Hence he controls our elections — raises or allays a mob by 
 the waving of his hand (among his own people) — forgives sins, 
 
 (I Donevan's Trans, page 342. (2) Page 283. (3) Same page. 
 
543 
 
 admits men to heaven, lets them out of purgatory, &c. &c.! "What 
 awful unearthly power ! To strike such a man is death, where the 
 Catholic religion is established ! But who helievinc/ this would 
 dare to strike or offend him ? The men among the Catholics who 
 are worst, often fear the priest most, on the principles by which 
 some of the Eastern nations worship the devil, because of his 
 power and loiUingness to do them harm. Besides all this, no act 
 of his is valid unless he intends to make it so. Such is the doc- 
 trine of intention. Hence to displease him is ruin to his poor peo- 
 ple. And again, once a priest always a priest. They cannot take 
 away his office. The sacrament of orders impresses an indelible 
 character. And hence they teach and hold that however wicked 
 a priest may be, yet he is to be venerated as a priest of Christ ! 
 Thus it is written : (1) "And of this the faithful are fre- 
 quently TO BE reminded, IN ORDER TO BE CONVINCED, THAT 
 WERE EVEN THE LIVES OF HER MINISTERS DEBASED BY CRIME, 
 THEY ARE STILL WITHIN HER PALE, AND THEREFORE LOSE NO 
 PART OF THE POWER WITH WHICH HER MINISTRY INVESTS 
 
 THEM." Here is a shelter for every knave and debauchee ; and 
 here is sustaining the power, influence, and authority of the 
 priesthood, to the last dregs of human, papal, priestly crime. 
 
 All these facts Mr. Hughes has once tried to meet ; but failing, 
 now wisely shuts the debate. All must see why he does so. 
 
 In the late debate, I proved at large, on the authority of the 
 French Parliament, and of Catholic writers, THAT THE ORDER 
 OF THE Jesuits, who are the pope^s great propar/andists, cannot, 
 and never did prevail in any country, without destroying its 
 liberties, and its morals. Mr. Hughes shuns enquiry on this 
 topic, by withdrawing from the discussion before it is reached in 
 writing, having been defeated on it in the oral debate, and having 
 then rejected the stenographer's report. Mr. Hughes is the 
 apologist, nay the eulogist of the Jesuits. The secreta monita, 
 which Mr. Hughes well knows, rest on good proof, are not our 
 only, or our chief proof, as those who heard the debate will testify. 
 
 But we are not allowed to introduce this subject here. Mr. 
 Hughes refuses to allow me to proceed — refuses to proceed him- 
 eelf. He will withhold what he has written, if I add more to 
 \j\iCi present amount before it is put to press. 
 
 Nunneries. We proved in the oral debate, that they had 
 uniformly been prisons to the inmates, and generally brothels for 
 ihe priests ; that every nation almost of Europe which had tried 
 them, hud been sorely injured by them in vital respects, especially 
 by the astonishing immoralities which they systematically propa- 
 gated among females and priests. 
 
 And this was done on the authority of Catholic writers of 
 different ages. In Spain and Portugal, which though late, are 
 at last awaking from the long slumber of slaves under the papal 
 yoke, these nurseries oi popery and of pollution are perishing 
 
 (1) Catechism, 94, 95. 
 
544 
 
 before the wild fury of an injured and outraged people. If the 
 disclosures of the secrets of the nunneries in our continent be not 
 true, I can only say that they are most faithful reports of the 
 history of the same institutions, in other ages, and in other 
 lands. Let any man read what Erasmus, what De llicei, what 
 the Bishop of Saltsburg, and the Bishops of Bononia, all Catho- 
 lic loritcrs, say of these institutions, (which Mr. Hughes de- 
 fends, and is continually attempting to honour and multiply) and 
 he must arise from their perusal deeply ,convinced that their 
 friend is his countri/'s enemy. 
 
 But Mr. Hughes declines to discuss this topic also. 
 
 And the Inquisition. Mr. Hughes its apologist ! In 
 America ! In the 19th century ! It is enough I Yet he 
 declines discussing the question when he sees it coming, and 
 retreats shutting the door by which he is pursued. 
 
 We proved the fact of the conspiracy/ among foreign papists 
 against the liberties of our country ; showing at the same time 
 that popery is a political, much more than a religious institution. 
 Mr. Hughes refuses to have it published, or at least he declines to 
 meet the proof from the press, after having heard it in the debate. 
 
 The immoralities of the papal system show it to be the " man 
 of sin." The dreadful tendency of the doctrines of indulgences, 
 priestly absolution, and confession in secret to a priest; and the 
 impurities even of their very books of devotion, were exhibited at 
 large in the debate. He shunned them then, he flies from them 
 now. A Spanish hook used in confession in South America, 
 and ^^The Christianas Guide to Heaven," issued under the sanc- 
 tion of Bishop Kenrick, have in them the most reprehensible 
 matter. From the latter I give a specimen of the questions for 
 self-examination, in preparation for confession to a priest. I 
 blush to record it I But how else shall we expose it ? They who 
 print it, circulate it, use it, have themselves denounced the expo- 
 sure of it ? On page 82, it says, ^^ consult the table of sins to help 
 your memory." In this table, under the sixth commandment, is 
 the following paragraph. " Committed adultery, fornication or 
 incest. Procured pollution in one's self or others. Wanton 
 words, looks, or gestures. Lascivious dressing, colours, or paint- 
 ing. Lewd company. Lascivious balls, or revellings. Dishonest 
 looks. Unchaste songs. Kissing, or unchaste discourses. Took 
 carnal pleasure by touching myself, or others of either sex. 
 Showed your skin or some naked part of your body to entice others. 
 Eat hot meats, or drank hot wine to procure or excite lusts." 
 
 Is not this the vocahidary of a brothel? What but a Roman 
 Catholic Priest, " could have had the pollution to conceive it, or the 
 audacity to give it in a book of devotions; to prepare a female to 
 meet him at confession ? When I first read this infamous passage 
 it struck me as possible that it may have been given for private 
 use. It were horrible even then. But not so. The same book in 
 the same connexion adds, "If you have any thing upon your con- 
 
545 
 
 science which you have a particular difficult 1/ in confessing, cease 
 not with prayers and tears to importune your Heavenly Father to 
 assist you in this regard, till he gives you the grace to overcome 
 that difficulty. Let it (^your confession^ be entire as to the hind 
 and number of your sins; and such circumstances as quite change 
 the nature of your sins, or notoriously aggravate it." This drags 
 the whole heart, and all its details to light. The fifth chap- 
 ter also of the Council of Trent, On Confession, commands the 
 most secret kind of mortal sins to he confessed, as indisj^ensahle to 
 their forgiveness. * 
 
 Now can such a system fail to ruin any heart, or church, or 
 country in which it prevails, and then too as a part of religion ? 
 If this be religion, what must the rest he? I beg pardon of my 
 country for the record of this loathsome matter. But I felt that 
 I should have to ask a still deeper pardon for suppressing it. 
 
 Finally, I reviewed the canon law, which is binding upon all 
 Catholics, which is a deposit(/ry of the papal system, as an active, 
 organized mass; and from it, at large, I proved the tyranny of 
 Rome; her enmity to liberty; her persecuting spirit; and her 
 total and ruthless bigotry and intolerance. 
 
 It was and is in vain to call Mr. Hughes to its defence. 
 
 Now from all these sources of proof, we showed the enmity of 
 the system of popery to civil and especially religious liberty. 
 
 These several heads have been excluded from this volume of the 
 Discussion by Mr. Hughes's determination not to admit them, 
 though every member of the society knows that they were in 
 succession produced, and dwelt on in the oral debate. This re- 
 capitulation of them is designed to show to the public how large the 
 sources of proof are; how limited the discussion about to be put to 
 press is; how inadequate a view it gives of the subject as traversed 
 on the rostrum ; who abridged it thus ; and why he has done it. 
 
 And now at the close of these remarks, it becomes my duty to 
 make the following suggestions. 
 
 1. That I always distinguish between the priesthood and the 
 laity of the Church of Home. The priesthood make the hierarchy 
 and are the seat of power, oppre^ision, darkness, and pollution. I 
 respect unfeignedly many of the laity, whom I esteem it my hap- 
 piness to know. The intelligent members of that communion in 
 the United States have been and are fast verging to protestantism. 
 They are strictly speaking only semi-p)apal ; and one happy ef- 
 fect of these discussions, as I have good reason to know, has al- 
 ready been to open many eyes to the true character of popery. For 
 example, Avhen Mr. Hughes (as in the late discussion), backed by 
 i^ishop Kcnrick, took off, by a public disclaimer, the papal pro- 
 hibition {i'eco7'ded in the rules of the index) to read controversies 
 with heretics, thousands of Catholics availed themselves of that 
 permission to read the Discussion. And so as to the reading of the 
 Bcble. In this way therefore, Mr. Hughes's denial of the doctrines 
 and discipline of his church, is (though reversely) producing the 
 
546 
 
 lest fffecfs for tlie truth, thongli on liis part, in a most unenviable 
 way. For as he is ashamed of man}^ features of his system, and 
 denies them, it is death to it by suicide; instead of destruction 
 in the field of manly argument. Tlie result will be the same. 
 
 2. It is an American and a Bible principle to examine every 
 thing. If there be any thing in Preshyterianism that shall prove 
 wrong in itself or opposed to liberty we desire to know it — and to 
 renounce it. We profess not to be unchangeable, or infallible. 
 We invite enquiry. But I think it will appear very plain that Mr. 
 Hughes has found little in us against liberty. Hence he ran to 
 Europe. There we did not largely follow him; for it was aside 
 from the question. We agreed with him that our fathers were in 
 some things icrong, and in others intolerant. Most of his state- 
 ments were/a/ir, as we have occasionally p?'oi?e(/; and may more 
 fully do Uereafter. But we were determined to press the real 
 question, and leave his scandal to refute itself. 
 
 3. Catholic priests in America are so ill-bred, that it seems im- 
 possible to debate with them as gentlemen. Nothing but the great 
 interest at stake would ever have induced me to debate with Mr. 
 Hughes after I discovered how reckless and unamiable a man he 
 was. Yet I feel it to be my duty thus publicly to say that I deep- 
 ly regret my having occasionally expressed myself with improper 
 severity towards him. I expect to meet him before a higher bar 
 than that of the American people, which is surely the first of 
 earthly tribunals. It is with some humble consciousness of the 
 integrity of my purpose, and a deep impression of the value and 
 glory of the truth, that I review my intercourse with Mr. Hughes. 
 
 4. It is my purpose, if heaven permit, to pursue this question 
 to its legitimate close ; and at my leisure, exhibit those features 
 of the discussion which have been suppressed by Mr. Hughes. 
 
 Finally, I dedicate my imperfect attempts to defend the great 
 cause of American liberty to the youth of our beloved country, 
 whose breasts, as has been no less truly than beautifully said by 
 one of our greatest statesmen — are the shrine of freedom. To 
 them, under God, our liberties are committed. 
 
 May it be an imperishable deposit. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 We, the undersigned. Committee on Publication, after having 
 carefully examined this work, do certify that it is a true copy of 
 the manuscript of the Discussion as placed in our hands by the 
 Rev. gentlemen for publication. 
 
 THOMAS BROWN, M. D 
 WILLIAM DICKSON. 
 
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 
 University of California Library 
 
 or to the 
 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 
 (415)642-6233 
 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books 
 
 to NRLF 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days 
 
 prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 
 APR 8 1997 
 
 f^/^ I / im 
 
 APR 2 7 20 1 
 
 l^'^ 
 
 21^ 
 
 _60TH 
 
 .3; 65 
 
 '^^,-336slO)470B 
 
 
 1 
 
U^ C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 CDMblODM7a 
 
 ' -* hSs^