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^