T* 1 ?? PRINCETON, N. J. ■«' ! Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 1 i i i BV 741 .H78 Hughes, John, 1797-1864. A discussion of the question, Is the Roman t, ^ ,' /^»£^j^ 'ttttts, Sf 4^ DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION, IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, IN ANY CK IK ALL ITS PRINXIPLES OR DOCTRINES, INIMICAL TO CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 1 AND OF THE QUESTION, IS THE PRESBYTERIAN RELIGION, IN ANY OR IN ALL ITS PRINCIPLES OR DOCTRINES, INIMICAL TO CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 1 BY THE ^ REVEREND JOHN HUGHES, OF THK ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND THE REVEREND JOHN BRECKINRIDGE OF THE PRESBYTERIAX CHURCH. 43hila^clplua: CAREY, LEA. AND BLANC HARD. 1836. HntevetJ according to ^ct ot ^OltflfCSS, in the year 1836, By Caret, Lea, and Blaxciiard, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Penn- sylvania. PREFACE. 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 Listitute. 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 vari- ous denominations, whilst it disclaimed all sectarian motive, entered on the discussion in that bold spirit of inquiry, con- ducted by candour, which characterized its debates, and with- out the slightest expectation that any but subscribing mem- bers would take part in the discussion. So interesting and exciting, however, did this question prove, that after the debate had been continued three evenings, during which the Rev. Messrs. Hughes, M'Calla, and Breck- inridge, Honorary Members of the Society, were the princi- pal speakers, arrangements were made, by a Committee 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 substituted for the words " Roman Catholic," and an equal portion 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 So- ciety were disappointed as to the services of the Reporter on the §rst 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 diiFicuI- tics, and others appertaining to the mode and extent of correc- 4 PREFACE. lion, an arrangement was entered into by the disputants to fill up the deficiency in the Report, and to correct the speeches, as each might think proper. The time necessary 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 opportunity of doing justice to themselves, respectively, in giving their own report of their speeches. The only disagreement be- tween them now, is, as to the amount of matter : — the one contending, that only one-third of the number of speeches de- livered in the oral discussion are produced in their written report ; — and the other maintaining, that each of the WTitten speeches contains the matter of three, as they were spoken. It is not for us to decide, but to leave, as we do, the gentle- men themselves, and the public, to form their own opinion on this point. This misunderstanding, however, between the disputants, required the action of the Society, which was had in the annexed resolutions. In accordance 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 exten- sive circulation. The Letters, referred to in the subjoined resolutions, are ap- pended, and will fully explain the views of the Reverend gen- tlemen 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 ns to its immediate disposal. THOMAS BROWN, M. D. WILLIAM DICKSON, Commit tee on Puhlicatinn. May 201/1, 1836. RESOLUTIONS OF THE UNION LITERARY AND DEBATING INSTITUTE, Passed April Ath, 1S36. 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 late Discussion be- tween the Rev. Messrs. Breckinridge and Hughes : and ivhereas, 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 an- other mode, viz., rewriting the whole, agreed upon, and a satisfactory arrangement entered into to that effect : and ivhereas, another difficulty has now arisen relative to this af- fair, 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 Publication are hereby instructed, forthwith, to dispose of the manuscripts of the Discussion in their hands for immediate puhlication,^n^ re- port final action on the next evening of meeting; and that all the letters which have passed between the parties be included in the publication. Resolved, That both clergymen be permitted to continue the work, under the sanction of the Society, but at their own expense. DEFINITIONS AND CONDITIONS. DEFINITIONS. I.. Religious Doctrines. Those tenets of faith and morals which a denomination teaches as having been revealed by Almighty God. II. 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 affirmative to prove, that what he calls a doctrine, is really such, before he can use it as an argument. 3. The decree of a General Council, the brief or bull of a 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 President ; ajrd no person whatsoever to be permitted to take part in the debate, but'the Reverend Messrs. Hughes and Breckinridge. b'. The President shall prevent any manifestation of appro- bation 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. # PBiHO£TOr -THEOI ».*#..!V LETTERS, ETC Philadelphia, March Uth, 1836. To THE President of the Young Men'^ ? Literary and Debating Society. 5 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, I 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 2 10 originally set apart for the debate. Upon what ground he ven- tures thus 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, noio 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 writ- 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. n. I will agree to publish eight nights, and for the present, at least, giving no additional matter — to the public^^present the de- bate as in SUBSTANCE complete. HI. 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 may 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 contributing so largely to pay him, as that refusal, by 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, &c. 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 Pittsburg 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 numbei of pages, to be occupied by my speeches, should exceed that required by Mr. Breckinridge's ma- nuscripts, I shall curtail. If his should exceed mine, he must 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 be 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 my- self 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 tliink 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. Philadelphia, March 29th, 1836. To THE President of the Young Men's > Literary and Debating Society. 5 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 even- ing, I take the liberty of making an additional communication 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 refused, on the third night, to proceed without a reporter — yet he afterwards rejected the reporter''s ivork. 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 priesthood ; 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 morel 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, /or this reason, we will now publish/o?/r 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. T will publish the second 14 part jit 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 rights. 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 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, 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 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- quest, to write anew, 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 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 5thj 183ty. To Messrs. Brown 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, on any terms, publish the entire debate; and my friends have urgently solicited me to consent to publish the /owr 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, which 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 com>plete the Discussion. For their 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 which I feel at liberty to make, is that the correspondence which relates to the publication of the debate, 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 rfc- bate 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 llM, 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 statement* 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 lor the press." To this 1 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 24lh 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 method 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. 1 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 attend to the business for which he was supposed to have been engaged, 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 originally 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 ofi" 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 conckision. 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 third part of the Discussion, knowing, that if he says he spoke more in the time allowed for speaking, than what he has written out, no one, who reflects a mo- ment, 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 Rev. 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 obliged 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 connexion, or rather, in contrast with his letter. He has intro- duced, into his written speeches, whole 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 choice, 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- ternpted to prescribe the length of my 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.*' 3 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 I 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 ray- 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, hoyiour, 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. AVhat 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- hyterianism''' 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 publishing any part of the debate." Now, I entieat the Society not to " bind" the gentleman under any such cruel obligation. By 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 had 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 de- bate 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 iyitended 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 parties done the same? It seems to have been a favourite object, with Mr. Breckin- ridge, to make it appear that I was forced to publish. To refute this gratuitous and unworthy suspicion, I refer to the whole history of my 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 20 the contrary, desired it in thought, word, and deed. But I never should have given it to the Society, if the terms of publication had not been fair, equitable, and impartial. And to prove to the So- ciety that 1 have given it, not only willingly, but freely, / have had a copyright secured according to law. 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 any thing 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. I am an American citizen — not by chance, — but by choice. AVhen circumstances seemed to make it a duty, I threw myself in 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, I have taught one of the ablest representatives of that Presbyterian com- bination, which is attempting to destroy the civil and religious reputation of Catholics, that if any denomination of Christians are to be expelled for the 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 Catholic. I was born under the scourge of Protestant persecu- tion, of which my fathers, in common with their Catholic coun- trymen, had been the victims for ages. Hence, I know the value of that civil and religious liberty which our happy government secures lo all; and I regard, with feelings of abhorrence, those who would sacrilegiously attempt, direcdy 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 21 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 most 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- 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 2ist, 1835. To THE Rev. John Hughes. Sir, I HAVE just been informed that you are expected to address a Society to-morrow evening, on a question of wliich the following is the substance, viz.: " Whether the Roman Catholic Religion is favourable to Civil and Religious Liberty?'' 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 BRECKINRIDGE. PART I IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, IN ANY OR IN ALL ITS PRINCIPLES OR DOCTRINES, OPPOSED TO CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 1" DISCUSSION ^' Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its priiv ciples or doctrines, opposed to civil or religions liberty V^ AFFIRMATIVE I.— MR.- BRECKINRIDGl!. Before I enter on the discussion of this important question, 1 wish to say to this society, that I hold in my hand a Roman Catholic paper, published in New York, called " The 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 liall some evenings since. — This letter is a tissue of uncandid statements, and is most scanda- lously and injuriously /«/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 produc- tion ! — 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 resjyonsible 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 bundled witnesses whenever he will venture to avow himself.*— Till then, I hold Mr. Hughes responsible. In advocating the affirmative of this question it is not meant to be asserted, that all the principles of the Romish religion are opposed to civil and religious liberty — but that many, 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 defini- tions drawn from his own views, are both unusual and highly cha- 5 34 racteristic of himself and the gentlemen with wjiom 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 techni- cally accurate, and entirely impartial. The definition offered by the gentleman on a former occasion was singular enough, and goes very far to show his whole system of belief as to the rights of rnan. He gravely proposed to you the adoption of the following definition of civil liberty, viz., " the right of each individual to advance the good of the people, by 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 ex- plain 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 I [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 o( rights. The explanation alters not the case. If, as the gentleman said on the last evening, the majority has the right to rule — then if the ma- jority did wrong, it followed that it was right to do wrong. And then, if the day should ever come, wlien Roman Catholics will com- pose the majority in this country, they may of right establish their religion by law. This is the broad and ruinous principle of the gen- tleman ; and we see what it is, and where it leads. Hence his in- differentism 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 Independence, there are certain inalienable imprescriptible rights derived from God, of which a man cannot deprive himself, or be deprived— such as no majority can de- prive him of, and no possible state of society weaken or destroy. I -would give the following constitutional definition of liberty, (re- ligious, especially as that enters peculiarly into this debate,) derived from the Constitutions of Pennsylvania, (1790) ; Kentucky, (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 rejects it; I will show he is not true to his holiness if he adopt it. It is this : " ^11 mCr^ 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, erect, or support any place of worship. 35 or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human au- thority 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 establishmmts or modes of worship.^^ This is the right of all men, laity as well as clergy— every where ; 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 conlirmed and illustrated by the gospel, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. This right is inde- feasible— that is, imprescriptible — not subject to alienation; it can- not be repealed, or abridged, or impaired, by power or numbers, nor divested by personal renunciation. It is a right indelibly impressed on each individual man by God himself; so that he cannot tnake himself, or be made less free than God has made him in this respect. It is an essential elernent of his free agency, ^nd indispensable to liis voluntary worship, which alone is worship in truth. It is '* accord- ing to the dictates of his own conscience ^^ not that of the priest- hood ; 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 lawful, is his un- alienable right; and therefore all restrmnts upon the press as prac- tised by the general councils of the Romish Church, in this and other respects, is an invasion of this natural and indefeasible right. (1) According to this definition, churches established by law, by kings or pontiffs, and maintained by coercion, are an invasion of the natu- ral liberties of man ; and therefore the Romish hierarchy was an usurpation in the days of Luther, and is so noiv, wherever its power is felt, as in South America, in Spain, and in the temporal dominions of the Pope. All teri-itorial 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 ecclesiastical uses, upon pretence of ecclesiastical or temporal power, is an invasion of the rights of man; ^nd therefore the government of the Pope, within his own dominions, and in the dominions of those sovereigns who acknowledge his pre- tensions, is an usurpation ; and for the same reason all societies esta- blished by ecclesiastical authority, the object of which is to govern the temporal affairs by means of the spiritual, (the Jesuits for example), are irreconcileably repugnant to free institutions. And ouv definition, (on which I dwelt more largely the last even- ing,) declares, that this right belongs to all men. It goes beyond the exigencies of a mere social compact. It is uttered in the name of the human race. It is an universal truth, every where, and at all times, true. (1) See Constitution of the United States, Amendments, Act 1st 36 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 animo assent to it ; and hence Protestants and Roman Catholics cannot con- cur 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 natu- ral liberties ; their conscience forbids them to assert their own free- dom, or to allow to protestants the measure of freedom which they claim. Hence the South Americans, notwithstanding their high no- tions 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 Bojuan Tontiff. The spirit of Luther did not pass in the direction of Spain : this s)iows why Spanish America is papistical and not free. It did pass, in the direction of England ; hence the United States are free. Had a liUther 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 ef- fect to its instrumental cause. This principle of the American con- stitutions is protestantism. The liberties and intelligence, and the manifold blessings enjoyed by the citizens of the United States are its effects — which can properly be appreciated only by contrast with the condition 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, ttp^n the same reason, a man who renounces 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 of 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. Suppose the people of Pennsylvania were, with one consent, to choose a governor or prince as their ruler, who should have absolute power to make and execute such laws as he saw proper. Could the government with propriety be caWed free? Yet the case supposes the people voluntary in making the change, and not constrained in submitting to it. They would voluntarily part with their natural liberties, but they would no more continue to be free, than a man who should 37 voluntarily part with all his property would continue to be rich. Nor could the government with any propriety be called free, rela- tively 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 spiritual prince or pontiff, do not continue to be free in these respects — nay they cannot be said to be free in any 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, Ivhich no true American can deny, it is apparent in how many respects the " doctrines" of the Church of Rome are directly opposed to human and especially to religious liberty. Wiih these great principles in view, I will proceed to specify more in detail the joroo/" 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 born into the world, the ^^ indelible brand of slavery, ^^ as it has been justly called, is stamped upon him, by the Church of Rome, in what she calls baptism. The decrees and canons of the Council of Trent on this subject, eternize, in their self-styled — and unchangeable infallibility — the tyranny of Roman- ism. Thus, for example, the fourteenth canon on baptism is as follows — viz : " Whoever shall affirm that when these baptized children grow up they are to be asked whether they will confirm the promises made by their godfathers in their name, at their bap- tism ; 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 any other punishment 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 mora/ force, hui physical; for moral means, or ecclesiastical discipline, such as *' exclusion from the eucharist and other sacra- ments^' — is expressly stated in the above canon as not the only punishment meant. The Latin word also used in the original is eoGENDos, which every scholar knows, especially in such a con- nexion, means the application of coercion, superior power, force. Resides ; 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 practice in the Church of Rome, which is directly and avowedly destructive of religious liberty. *^gain; I referred on the last evening to the doctrine of the Church of Rome on auricular confession, as an invasion of personal 58 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 office of judge, if the cause be unknown to them; nor inflict equitable punishments, if sins are only confessed in general ; and not minutely and indivi- dually described.'' — " Those who do otherwise, and knowingly conceal any sins, present nothing to the divine goodness to be forgiven by the priest."" — Again, the sixth canon is as follows: ** Whoever shall deny that sacramental confession was instituted by divine command, or that it is necessary to salvation ; or shall affirm that the practice of secretly confessing to the priest alone, as it has ever been observed from the beginning by the Catholic Church, and is still observed, is foreign to the institution and command 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 di priest as judge in God's stead, and forcing the poor subject, as the condition of pardon, to unveil the secrets of the heai't 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 salva- 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, desires, of all their subjects. Think of the power it gives. Was there ever such a scheme of espionage ; such a system of omnipresent police ! Can there be liberty under such a regime? It is easy to be seen how, on this plan, a priest can restore stolen goods ; and why we poor protestants neither know 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-sewer of iniquity! Now, under the operation of such a system, must not a pure priest or a free mind be almost a miracle ! Is not the destruction of all liberty necessarily involved in the application of such a system ? We com- mend 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- tion of human liberty, / draw my next argument from her tyranni- cal interference with the freedom of the press — of readitig, fyc. 39 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, knowledge groweth, judg- ment increaseth, books are dispersed, the Scripture is seen, the doctors be read, stories be opened, times compared, truth discerned, falsehood detected, and with finger pointed, and all through the bene- fit of printing. Wherefore I suppose, that either the Pope must abolish printing, or he must seek a new world 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 presiime to pinnt, 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, with the inquisitor of heretical pravity for the diocese, in which the said impressiorj is about to be made ; and unless also it shall have received under their own hand, their written approval. given without price, and without delay. Whoso- ever shall presume to do otherwise, besides the loss of the books, which shall be publicly burned, shall be bound by the sentence of excommunication." Caranza, from whom the above is extracted, more wisely than honestly omits several parts of this decree, such as, '* That the 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 other* of a similar kind, are thus confirmed, viz. Rule I. '* All books con- demned by the supreme pontiffs or general councils, before 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 undoubtedly 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 lust 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 Pius IV. entrusted it to certain select fathers, to consider what was needful to be done in the case of divers censures, and books either suspected or pernicious ^ and then report to the holy council; and 'having heard now, that (I) See Caranza, p. 670. 40 their labours are completed, but yet seeing that on account^ of the variety and number of said books, the holy council cannot mmutely, and with convenience, judge in the case; therefore it is decreed, that whatever 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 sanctioning the acts of the committee and Pope. Ac- cordingly, the " committee on the index" proceeded to draw up a list of ''prohibited books,'' which makes a large volume ; [here Mr. B. exhibited 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 rebellion; to deny its existence reckless falsehood. To show the oppressive character of this system, we give some of its I'ules, (they are ten in number.) The second rule is : " The books of heresiarchs, whether of those who broached or disseminated their heresies prior to the year above mentioned, or of those who have been, or are, the heads or leaders of heretics, as Luther, Zuingle, Calvin, Bakhasar, Paci- mbntanus, Swenchfeld, and other similar ones, are altogether for" bidden, whatever may be their names, titles or subjects." The fourth is as follows : *' Inasmuch as it is manifest from ex- perience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of men. will cause -more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point re- ferred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented 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 with- out such written permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary. Booksellers, however, who shall sell, or otherwise dispose of Bibles in the vulgar tongue, to any person not having such permission, 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 other penalties as the bishop shall judge proper according to the quality of the oflence. But re- gulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without a special license from their superiors." The fifth rule allows books of heretics containing but little of thsir own to be us'ed by catholics, after having been corrected by their divines. By the sixth rule, '' books of controversy, betwixt the catholics and heretics of the present time, ivritten in the vulgar tongue, are not to be indiscriminately allowed, but are to be subject to the same regulations as Bibles in the vulgar tongue.'' The tenth rule is as follows : *' In the printing of books or other 41 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 ex- amined by the Pope's vicar and the master of* the saci'ed palace, or other persons chosen by our most holy father for that purpose. In other places the examination of any book or manuscript intended 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 prohibited, 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 here- tics, or the writings of any authors suspected of heresy or false doctrine, he shall ins'tantly incur the sentence of excommunication, and those who re3.d or keep works interdicted on another account, besides the mortal sin committed, shall be severely punished at the will of the bishops." Now if this be not restraint of human liberty, I know not what re- straint is. Here the conscience, the intellect, and the means of know- ledge— 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 Jhe fourth session of that conventicle, is this open decree ; " Moreover the same most holy council, considering that no small advantage will accrue to the church of God if, o^ all the Latin editions of the sacred book which are in circulation, sonie one shall be distinguished as that which ought to be regarded as authentic, — doth ordain and de- clare, 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 public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions ; and that no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any pretence ivhat soever.^' In order to restrain petulant minds> the Council fur- ther decrees, " that in matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one, confiding in his own judgment, shall dare to \vtest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held and 6 42 still is held by Holy Mother Church,. to Jiose ri^ht it is to judge oj the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred JVord; or con- trary to the iinanimous 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 Scripture with notes and expositions taken indifferently from any writer, without the permis- sion 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, without 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 pecuyiiary fine adjudged by the last Council of Later an.^^ — Here the vulgate, or old Latin version, 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 forcibly made the exclusive 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, Avithout permission, under heavy pains and penalties, spiritual and temporal ; and all perspns are forbidden 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 possible translation, is prohibited ; as follows: " Biblia Vulgari quocunque Idiomate con- scrip ta. That IS, The Bible, in whatever idiom avritten, (is prohibited.) Finally, I have before me a decision fresh from Rome, viz. the Encyclical (circular) letter of the present reigning Pope, Gregory XVI., addressed to the faithful all over the world, and written at his coronation, dated August 5th, 1832. The following are extracts : *' Towards this point ttnds that most vile, detestable, and never to be sufficiently execrated liberty of booksellers, namely, of publish- ing writings of whatsoever kind they please ; a liberty which some persons dare with such violence of language to demand and pro- mote.'' " Far different, was the discipline of the church in extirpating the 43 intection of bad books, even in the days of the Apostles ; who, we read, publicly burned a vast quantity of books. ^^ *' Let it suffice to read oter the laws passed on that point in the Fifth Council of Lateran, and the constitution which subsequently 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 comjnling an index of books, in which improper doctrine was contained. Clement XIIL, 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 our might exterminate the deadly mischief of so Qnany books ; for the matter of error will never be effectually removed unless the guilty elements of depravity be con- sumed in theflamesy *' So that by this continual solicitude, through all ages, with which the Holy Apostolic See has ever striven, to condemn suspect- ed and noxious hooks, and to wrest them forcibly out ofmen^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, who not only reject the censorship of books, as too severe and burdensome ; but even proceed to that length of wickedness, as to assert, that it is contrary to the principles of equal justice; and dare deny to the church, the right of enacting and em- ploying it.^^ Now perhaps my Eeverend 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 law. If not, does Mr. Hughes denounce and condemn them ? Does he deny their truth, their wisdom, their righteousness, or their authority? Be- sides, 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 he followed? 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 sustain him. 44 " Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its prin- ciples or cloctiHnes, opposed to civil or religious liberty 7^'' 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 com- plains, is a true statement of the facts, although it is inaccurate in a few details of a merely circumstantial character, the correction of which, would, in my opinion, tend rather to irritate than to soothe his wounded feelings. The Society were witnesses of what oc- curred, and of course competent to specify the . pretended mis- statements. If they cannot do this, it is unreasonable to require 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 Presbyterians understand by civil and religious liberty. If it be said that the paper called the Presbyterian, gave the cor- rection of misrepresentation in regard to a previous debate — the answer is, that the cases are entirely dissimilar. There, the false- hoods were specifically 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 /«/sz^crf^zow of facts, was npt inqidrcd afttr ; — here, though the falsification has not been specified, and cannot be proved, still the author is peremptorily demanded, as if the object were to in- flict 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 offered it. They were, of coarse, 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 thoughts, 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 re- mark, that a mind conscious of its oivn 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 gentleman has selected for 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, 1 maintain, as a general principle of all free and popular governments,' the very doctrine which the gentleman has here condemned. I hold it to be self-evident ; — and I say that the opposite doctrine is suited to the meredian 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 gen- tleman's first principle, so called, is adverse to the fundamental prin- ciple of our republican government — and furnishes the very text by which kings and tyrants govern. Neither does it follow, as he pre- tends, that, admitting my principle, the majority would have " a right to do wrong." There is no such right, in either- the nnrajority or the minority. " And then,'^ says he, " if the day should ever cojne, when Roman Catholics icill compose the majority in this country, they may, of right, establish their religion by laio.^^ Why, if the minority are to rule, as the gentleman seems to maintain, there is no reason why the Presbyterians might not do noiv, what it is pretended the Catholics could do " if ever the day should come," &/C. &lc. In the first place, it is to be observed, that the right of the majority to rule, is circumscribed in a free government by the boundaries of civil jurisdiction. 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 Assembly 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 mcijorities: 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 stil) only imitating an example which the Presbyterians have set to all denominations, whenever they had the power. The history of his own sect furnishes the „iy discipline! Then you own that the discipline was wrong, and icptessed freedom; and that no doc- trine of your churcli forbids su^ai discipline? No! doctrine has nothing to do with it. But what is ^ocirine ? will you please give me an infallible defnilion of doctrine? \ find, when you speak of the Presbyterians of Scotland as punishing t^se 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- 69 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 Rome to do infinitely more, and greatly worse things,. wne/er the same prin- ciple ? The gentleman says the " object of all such regulations^ inade in regard to printing, publishing, and reading of books, was to pre- serve the Church of Christ from the admixture of errors,^"* &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 ser- vice.^'' But was it right? The gentleman then owns " that the end justifies the memisF" Was it compatible with the civil and religi- ous rights of Roman Catholics to pass such regulations ? Were they not ^^ voluntary slaves^'' to submit 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 Cal- vin as well as those of Voltaire." Ah ! " a right to exclude P^ This is a full admission of the whole thing in debate. Here we might end the question, for we know what " spiritual authority" means in the Church of Rome. The gentleman still further says, " Whenever this right has been maintained by temporal penalties, the penalties have been for the violation of the 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 he<; subjects: and then, "whenever" she can, she influences the state to enforce them. Now at Rome the temporal and spiritual 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 Ihem, "regulations," against the freedom of the press, does not the church, in him, exercise temporal power 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 difference? If no difference, is it not clear that the church, by her acts, and this her head, " whenever she can,'''' opposes the civil and religious rights of man. But, says the gentleman, printing is like " the use of gunpowder, or of steam-navigation — an acquired 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 right to do it, or to omit it. But have the Pope and 70 general councils a right to ''forbid 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, i ^/ly 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 jjarticular grievances to which 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 independence. They had no idea that the Constitution would ever come to be considered as the patent-right of what " legitimacy denominates rebellion and treason ;" or that it should, ever be denounced as containing "immorality," "infidel," and " Anti-Christian" princi- ples. 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 his 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 der\ied." 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 defec- tive. 1 showed that Presbyterians themselves claim the right to "compel" members to lead Christian lives, hy other penalties 85 ^* besides exclusion from the sacraments "—such as suspension and excommunication. He informs me, however, that these 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 iheir members," for breaking the fast of Lent, was whipping 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 "rom producing any new argument against it, except what I shall lotice presently. I refer the reader to my explanation of this doc- rine in the last speech. Catholics believe that auricular confes- lion, as they understand it, is a part of the religion of Christ. In )ractising this duty, therefore, they only exercise the rights of tf conscience, like other denominations. They can pity the blind- less, and pardon the bigotry, of those who denounce them for the exercise of this right; 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 was expressed. By way of vin- dicating himself from this charge, he makes a show of appealing to the original Latin : — " Is it not written,*^ says he, " near at hand — poenam quam, opportet pro illis poenitentibus im,ponere.^^ 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 V The only sentence at all like, it, (and the likeness is very remote,) is this .... neque aequitatem quidem in poenis injungendis servare potuisse .... 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 ungramm,atical Latin^ has given proof that he has forgotten his grammar, it does not fol- low that he has forgotten his poetry. His success in this depart- ment will surprise you the less ; as, according to Horace, to be a poet does not depend on education — poeta nascitur non fit. The following beautiful lines, therefore, will gratify those who are sen- sible to the delicate and sublime : — (1) Vol. ii. p. 94. 86 « Said Paddy with a ?iop. If I had a horse, how'd ye sivap .?" 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 — runited 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 first 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 it before, tells you " it is not 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 of curiosity. h\ 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 interrogations — 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 irresponsible 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- cessity of restricting the freedom of the press within such limits as would lender it compatible with the safety of society. The object was to prevent the abuse of the press, and protestant, Pres- byterian, governments were as prompt and as unrelenting in pro- secuting this object as Catholic governments. The Presbyterian parliament of England, on the 12th of June, 1643, (just two days before the calling of that Westminster Assem- bly which framed the gentleman's Confession of Faith,) published an act, commanding ^Hnguiry after private presses , and to search 87 all suspected shops and warehouses for unlicensed books and pamphlets, and to commit offenders against this order to prison, to be PUNISHED as the parliament shall direct J'"' (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. The Pope has no authority to inflict civil punishments out of his own dominions. I pass, then, from this head, by flinging back the consequences which the gentleman affects 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 vulgari 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 recognized beyond the limits of a few provinces. And, therefore, even if the gentleman's statement were true, where 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 canon of the Fourth Lateran Council, enacted specifically against the Albigenses. Having been obliged to convict him of garbling this canon 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 expected. But there arc a few questions involved in the subject. 1. Who (1) Neal, Hist, of Purit., voL iii. p. 72. 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 and authority of the canon in ques- tion? The Albigenses were the religious descendants of the Manichaean heresy. Their principal establishment was in Bul- garia. Thence 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 there 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.; that unnatural lusts were lawful, but not the propagation of the human species. (I) 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 theii 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, Robert, 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 malo 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 to, 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 puiposes. 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, Histoire Eccles. L. 58, § 54.— Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 338, 339— et alibi passim. (3) Matt. Paris, An. 1344. 89 limitation; first, to the Albigensian heretics alone; and, secondly, to the " secular poivers presenf"* at the council. The gentleman on a former occasion thought it advisable, in making the quota- tion, to suppress the word '■'■present.'''' 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 jiresent. Now the fact is, that so far from its being a doctrine of the Catholic Church, and so far from its being an enactment of universal application, 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 exclusively 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, for 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- «5 one of its enactments. 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 Rincus 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, Rigordus, Gregory IX., Matthew Paris, (1) Nanclarus, (2) the monk Godfrey, &c., all of whom maintain that, whatever was its origin, it w^s not an act of the council. But as . the geatleman is, probably, not acquainted with these authors, and probably never will be, I shall refer him to Dqpin, vol. x. Bibliot. p. i04; 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 canon spurious. And the gentleman's authority, in opposi- (1) Ad. An. 1215. (2) Chron. Ad. An. 1215. 12 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 wiiat 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 very 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 infallible Black Letter Com- tnentary 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 t/iere is no liberty. In vain did Draco zvrite his laws in blood — or Heathen Rome legislate against Christians. This is the masterpiece of spiritual and temporal despotisin.''^ 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 ignoraiice of the difference between " docirine and discipUne.^^ 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 ivhich a denomi- ■ nation teaches, as having been revealed by Almighty God." Let him consult larger treatises 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 tenet 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, wliatever 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 Catholic Religion^ in any or in all its prin- ciples or doctrines, 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 tlie 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 dig- nified letter to the editor of the Diary, has exposed the falsehoods of said piece-T-and demanded the publication of their reply to it. His refusal to do so is the proper, as it is the expressive, jinaJc of this matter. There is one very curious circumstance about this piece, which is worthy of notice, before dismissal. The author says, " / called on the Rev. Mr. Hughes the next evening, to obtain a copy of the con- ditions on 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 Presbyterian Church in the United States, and to that in connexion ivith the General As- sembly." I appeal to the written rules, signed by the gentleman himself, in contradiction of his assertion. " Oh, honour! thou hast fed to brutish beasts." His reason for this course is very obvious. He says — '' The gen- tleman admits that persecution was a joart of Presbyterianism, in all other countries." If so, then is it 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 92 in us to condemn, — and flies to other churciies, and other lanjls, in quest of matter. This is, in fact, giving up the question, as to PresbT/icriiifis. He says truly, therefore, when quoting from the *' General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church" — a denun- ciation of the American Constitution — " the gentleman will tell you these doctrines are not of the Presbyterians." They are not our doctrines. — Far, far from them. When the gentleman, a little be- fore, charges me with *• affecting 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 popery, which is unchange- able, the same every icherc, and in every age. It cannot change. And if, as he says, we may relapse into the intolerance of our fathers^ Rome can never {by her own confession), be reformed from her -per- secuting spirit. When we come to the Presbyterian question, 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 I *' who have come, and rudely thrust myself between him and his rela- tion with (to) this society." It is he who came, with unmanly officious- ness, and thrust himself between the youthful disputants;— it is he who quailed before the Rev. Mr. M'Calla, when he unexpectedly met him, on that occasion ; — it is he who retreated from a half finished debate of a former day — who, with the constancy of a martyr de- clined my reiterated call, for years — and wlrom I now meet by in- vitation of those very youths. He who has vitiated the stenogra- pher's report, after being beaten in oral debate; — he who yet refused to discuss it or«//?/ again — who was on the eve of 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 publica- tion of tliis 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 his personal attacks. No christian, no gentleman, can retaliate such language. Here, at least, I allow myself wholly his inferior. I yield the i)alm of blackguardism to him. He has entirely the advantage of me here. 1 mak>e no pretensions to the title which he has conferred on me, " of the Chesterfield of the Presbyterian Church." But, sir, when we hear him wielding with such coarse and vulgar imperti- nence, the terms' ^'falsehood,'' " fabrication," '* artifice," " forgery," ct id omne genus, 1 cannot but be reminded of the origin, habits, breeding, and pretensions of the Jesuit priesthood, as the true ex- planation of the fact, that neither Chesterfield nor Elijah has large- ly cast his mantle over thtm. The fact is, they are used to so un- questioned a supremacy, that they cannot brook contradiction, or dissent. Their religion deifies each pope ; and each priest is a 93 parish-pope, a " household-god," without the tiara and the temporal sword. The Catechism of the Council of Trent declares, " that in the minister of God, who sits in the tribunal of penance, as his legi- timate judge, he (the penitent) venerates the power and person (awful profanity!) of our Lord Jesus Christ:" and ^^ 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 lohich her ministry invests them:' (\) The canon law makes it sacrilege to strike a priest; and forbids every one from bringing a bishop or priest before a secular judge for accusation of crime; — it exempts them from taxes, Zlc. &lc. 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 ungentle- manly epithet, as so niuc"h conceded to unansiverable argument. These remarks will not appear too strong, when the gentlemen of the Society recal 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 shoiv of appealing to the original Latin. * Is it not written,' says he, * pcenam quam opportet pro illis poeni — tentibus imponere.' And what will be the readers disgust, to learn that this beautiful specimen of Latinity,put forth as a quotation from the Council of Trent, is a fabrication, a forgery." If the gen- tleman were ignorant, we might account for, if not excuse, the reck- less 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 loord of my quotation is in the 5th chap- ter, I4lh 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 n>^ 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 barbarous Latin. It appears in the following connexion, viz: — Ut de gravitate ^eardSBSota. recte cersere possint, ei pcenam opportat pro illis pcEnitentibus imponere. 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 Latin, 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 ? (1) Eng. Trans., pp. 242, 95. 94 There is one part of this tirade which is truly diverting. He says of the passage quoted by n)e, it is " a phrase which is a most palpable violation of all syntax;'"' and at tlie close of his potential harangue adds, " I would advise him not to write any more Latin for the Fa- thers of Trenty It certainly is a curious fact that the infallible fa- thers of the Council of Trent should have written bad Latin ; and '* the Dutch have taken Holland," when the son thus laughs at the syntax of the ins^'ned fathers. How he will settle 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 whole case we learn how far to trust the as- sertions of one who continues to illustrate the papal rhaxim, that ^ the endjustifies the means.'' You may measure his charges of" artifice," " fabrication," &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 practice these arts, shall still find himself a learner in the deeper counsels of my ?nore practised friend. I have been thinking that it might be well to divide my answers to his speeches into two parts — 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 disgorge, he might feel better after it, and save us the trouble of so often ex- posing him. There is another sample of candour and logic blended, which I must not omit to notice. He says, in reference to the HI canon of IV Lateran, ** Now the wording of the canon shows its limitation 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: — Damnati vero, saecularibus potestatibus praesentibus aut eorum balivis relinqqantur animadversione debita puniendi. But being condemned, let them (the heretics) be left to the secular powers present, or to their bailiffs to be punished by due animadversion. He charges me with fraudulenly omitting the word " present," and for this reason, that I thus make the persecuting canon apply to all secular powers, 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 p/ace and ihe poiaers for punishing ''heretics'"' at a future day ; and orders that the secular powers in wTiose territory they should be found, should punish them. The terms saecularibus potestatibus praesentibus are equivalent to *' the powers that be." Just below, in the same canon, the same *' poioers"" are named without '' presenti- bus,"" and Caranza, the popish author, in giving the contents ,of this canon, thus writes : — Punitio haereticorum saecularibus potestatibus 95 committfnda. '' The punishment of heretics to be committed to the secular potver.'"' *' JPreseutibiis'^ 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 omisi>ion was an inadvertence, for I am accus- tomed to translate this barbarous Latin in almost a barbarously literal way, knowing that I have to do with a Jesuit. But cdloiving that " praesentibus" does refer to the powers pr-e- sent in the council, has not the gentleman told us that the council embraced " ambassadors representing the temporal sovereigns of Germany, Constantinople, England, France, &c. or as he says, in a former controversy, " a general congress of Christendom in which the states and sovereigns were represented for the purpose of confer^ ring together on such matters as concerned the general welfare^ Now, v.'ho was not represented here ? Were not the '* secular powers present from all Christendom?^'' Then wherever the decree went it would find the " bailiffs'"' o{ those very minions of the Pope who, in this " mingled theocracy and civil policy," " this church and state''' in which the "Pope was head, had allowed heresy to be de- nounced as a "civil offence" and as such to be devoted by the church of Rome (the pope presiding), and through "all Christendom" doomed to extirpation by fire and sword. These dexterous G^oxi^ o^ h\s are made to evade the powerful proof of Roman 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 Albigensian 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 : — " We ex- communicate and anathematize every heresy {oryinem haeresi?n) extolling itself against this holy orthodox Catholic faith, which (faith) ive before expounded, condemning all heretics by whatsoever name 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 were limited to i\\e Albigenses ? 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 one people? Or '\{ one, why not all, when said church shall please 1 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 canons, 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 the- ocracy and fearful persecution ! But he says, " the Albigenses were very, very wicked, not only in their doctrines but their liv^, by lusts and bloodshed. There are almost as many falsehoods as sentences in the account he gives of 96. this persecuted people. You will remember, gcntletnen, that he 'produced Mosheim's Testimc>ny, and read, from his 3d vol., page 283, some sentences calling the Albigenses " ivrctchcd enthusiasts,'' charging them with '^ abominable lusts,'" '* going naked," &lc. &lc. I was .much shocked at the statement ; declared it false, and a per- version of the historian ; and promised to ex()Ose 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 turning to the passage, it appeared, that the gentleman had omitted the 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. This author says :(2) they were the same with the Pauliciaiis; that "even their worst enemies achnoiclcdged the sincerity of their piety ; but they were blackened by accusations lohich were evidently false ; and that the opin- ions for tohich they lo ere punished, differed widely from the Manichccan system.'^ He adds, in ihe same page, a narrative of the character, vices, and errors of those whom my Reverend friend made the slan- dered and perverted writer call Albigenses. I pronounce him a 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 pontijfs 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 propa- gated by the Church of Romc.'^ Also, (4) he says of the Inquisition, " That nothing might be wanting to render this spiritual court for- midable and tremendous, the Roman pontiffs persuaded the Eu- ropean princes, and more especially Frederic 11." (the very prince on whom our priest would fasten tlie persecuting canon in question, and of whom he says, " whose zeal against heretics and rebellious barons is well knoion,") " and Lewis IX., king of France, to enact the most barbarous laws against heretics, and to commit to the flames, by the ministry of public 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 a^ain : 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 gen- tleman's argument is : the Albigenses were wicked and murderous ; therefore the church might lay hold on them. Princes were repre- ' ■ ■m (2) Vol. ii. p. 580-2. (3) Vol. ill. p. 266. (4) P. 272. 97 sented 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 sitis " 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 can?iot change, is ix persecuting church. But the gentleman says this dreadful canon hsiS nothing to do ivith doctrine. " It is so far from having anything to do with 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 for heresy, and only discipline in the Catholic church to cut off men's heads for the same thing ? Voov discipline! she has a hard time of it. She is the scapegoat of all her infallible sister doctrine's sins. No wonder the gentleman refused so stoutly to discuss 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 example : it is a part of discipline to take the cup 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 Rome 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 representa- tives had nothing to do with the definition of doctrines and morals.''^ But the canon says : *' This holy, orthodox, catholic faith which we have before expounded." Of course, it was the pure doctrine- Making council with no secular admixture. And then the decree proceeds to announce the sum of such doctrines as that those who "extol themselves against the Catholic church" are heretics: that God has empowered the church to punish heretics with spiritual pains and penalties, and to order the civil power to superadd tem- poral ones ; that the civil power must be bound by oath to do it ; that if it refuse it is to be excommunicated, and the subjects of said power absolved from their allegiance by the vicar of Christ; that in- dulgences, including great sjnritual good, are purchased by going as cross-bearers to exterminate the heretics, &bQ.., &>c. Not one of these but rests on a doctrine, or is a doctrine. Or else does the Church of Rome 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 gentleman finding, makes a last struggle (as if conscious that this terrible canon and his cause cannot both stand) to vitiate fAe awMcw^iciVy of the document itself. This neio light has unfor- tunately come too late. It is a pity the gentleman had not received it before the first controversy. It would have saved him the trials of his long and sad defence of this canon. But he had not even heard of it while the debate which we arc now writing out. was going on, else why defend it then and discard it now ? He says : " The best 13 96 critics have regarded this canon as spurious; an interpolation in the genuine acts of the council." Truly, if the authenticity of the m- fuUihle decrees be so uncertain (as all this wo'uld seem to say), that such a document could have been interpolated so as to deceive the infallible church, then her advocates may for ever 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 ap«»^, not the ichole of the canon that is wanting in that manu- script. Labbe, who follows it, gives the luhole of the canon in Latin ; and where he omits the Greek, he observes, in a marginal note : Deest hie folium in codice Mazarino. ^^Here a leaf is ip anting in the Ma- zarine 7najiusc7'ipt." But this leaf contained only the middle portion of the canon, while both the beginning and end ii^xt preserved. This looks more like excision than interpolation. It is either too muck or too little for the gentleman's purpose. And again ; the second paragraph of this canon, as taken from the same manuscript, points out the punishment to be inflicted on those ivho should be convicted of heresy. Since, then, the first part and the last part, and the piinishment to be inflicted are all retained by that MS., it is clear that only a leaf was wanting, not the ichole as the gentleman ventures to say ; and therefore we have the exterminating 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 jibove-named fact of its mutilation. Mr. Hughes says, again : " In the first edition of the Councils, by Crabbe the Franciscan, published by John Merlin, in 1530, it is not found." But why does the gentleman not tell us, that the said Crabbe afterwards published tlirce editions of the Councils in which the said canon is found ; and that the edition of 1530 contained none of the fouPljateran' s canons 1 Is this candid ? to suppress the one fact and use the other, so as to make all who do not know better, think that the edition of 1530 7-^-§ a word, which is not in the Latin — as if only opinions were to be judged — and puts in, " on their opinions,'' whereas it is] " on them, to be punished by her;" [another forgery, for the translator interpolates * spiritual,' but the Latin is simply ' puniantur,'] "and denounced with anathema." Now, here is a claim full of despotism, which the translator's frauds could not conceal. It most fitly compares the Roman Church to an army, and us poor heretics to deserters, who are still subject to her. Yet does the gentleman talk about freedom of conscience, and of worship I 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 101 A^n" Not " spiritual" alone, though that were destructive of liber- ty; but it is more than this, as any one will perceive who consults either the force of the words, or the history and practices of the Church of Rome. We may learn what is meant above by referring to other testimo- ny. For example. Dens' s Theology, adopted by the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland, since 1808, as a standard book. What does it say? — "Although Heretics are without the church, nevertheless, they remain by reason of baptism, subject to the church, whence she justly seizes them as deserters from the camp of the church, and so they are under the obligation of returning." (9) Under the question ''Is it lawful to tolerate the rites of unbe- lievers?'' he replies, " The rites of other unbelievers, viz. o^ Pagans and Heretics, are not in themselves to be tolerated; because they are so bad, that no truth or utility can from thence be derived to the good of the church." (10) •' Unbelievers who have been baptized, as heretics, and apostates generally, and q\so baptized schismatics , can be compelled by corpo- ral punishments, to return to the Catholic faith, and 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 them by the ordained "means to obedience, to fulfil the obligations contracted in their baptism.'"' '• This also obtains in the case of those who have been baptized in their infancy" [I pray the gentleman to remember what I said of ' cogendos,' and of baptism as ' a brand of slavery;'] " as the Coun- cil of Trent teaches, sess. 7, can. 14," [the very proof adduced by me,] *' and the fourth Council of Toledo, canon 55, vol. ii. pp. 79 — 81." The Toledo canon (11) is ''that eveyi those who by force or necessity adopted the faith, should be forced to hold it." " Op- portet ut fidem, etiam quam vi vel necessitate susceperunt, tenere cogantur." " Heretics that are known to be such are infamous for this very cause itself, and are deprived of Christian buried." " Their temporcd 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 ecclesiastical judge, because the cognizance of heresy lies in the ecclesiastical tribunal." " Finally, they are also justly afflicted with other corporal punishments, 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. (9) Vol. ii. p. 114. (10) Vol. ii. pp. 82, 83. (11) See Caranza, page 55. 102 *' The same is proved from the condemnation of the 14th article ofJofm llttss, in the Council of Constance." (11) That article de- nies the right of handing one over to the secular power for heresy. Here is proof 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 opifiion? 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: We have the testimony of the amwtators of the Rhemish New Testa' ment, 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 blamed for putting Heretics to death." Note on Revelations, xviii. 6, " 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 bloo.d, by order of justice, no commonwealth shall answer." Rev. ii. 6, 20, 22, •-' He [Christ] warnelh bishops to be zealous and stout against the fa]se prophets of tvhat sort, soever, by alluding covertly to the example of holy Elias, that in zeal killed four hundred and fifty false prophets." John x. 1. " Arius, Calvin, Lut-her, and all that succeeded them in room and doctrine, are thieves and murderers." Acts xix. 19, [Please in each ease refer to the Scripture-passage.] " A Christian man is bound to burn or deface all wicked books, of what sort soever, especially hereticcd books. Therefore the Church has taken order against all such books.''"' Here then is another collateral testimony full to my purpose. It is the declaration of a long accredited commentary that the doctrines of the Catholic Church not only justify hui command persecution. 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 weakening or maiming the public authority or power." " No illusion can be more dangerous than making toleration a mark of the true 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 ancient despotism of the church over conscience. They addressed a letter to the king, to be found in the Annual Register, (London) and portions of it 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 (11) Dens's Theo. vol. ii. pp. 88, 89. See also Reports I. and II. of Protestant Meeting at Exeter Hall, London, 1835. (12) GEuvres de Btss, Tom. 111. p. 411. Paris 1747. 103 Church in this part of your kingdom are inconsistent with an article of the new constitution, by which equal favour and protection are promised to all religions." " Since the conversion of the Belgians 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 ca- nonical laws which are sanctioned by the ancient constitutions of the country, are incompatible with the projected constitution which would give in Belgium equal favour and protection to all religions.^' The ** canonical laics, say the Popes, ought to be received everywhere. But wherever they are received, say these bishops (and truly) tolera- tion is out of the question. *'The canonical laws have always rejected schism and heresy 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, commanded the bishops carefully to watch not only over the maintenance 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 con- sistency and inviolability of its government."* One of these resolu- tions of the Council of Trent, and the object of the bull of Pope Paul the III. (observes the refuter of Dallas) which issued in conse- quence, was the " extirpation of heresy." The bishops proceed to say " Securing the same protection to all reli- gions would be incompatible with the free and entire exercise of our offi- cial duties.'^ That is, whereyer popery really and fully exists there can be no toleration, for toleration " is 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 entrusted to our care from the doctrines which are in opposition to the doctrines ot the Ca- tholic Church. We could not release ourselves from this obligation without violating our most sacred duties ; and if your Majesty, by vir- tue of a fundamental latv, protected in these provinces the jnihlic pro- fession and spreading of these doctrines, the progress of which zve are bou7id to oppose with the care and energy which the Catholic Church expects from our office, we should be informal opposition to the laws of the state, to the measures which your majesty might adopt to main- tain them among us, and in spite of all our endeavours to secure union and peace, the public tranquillity might still be disturbed.'^ Here is a bold, honest position taken ; without disguise they declare that when- ever 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 go- 104 vermnent. That is, popery is in its own necessary 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 dis- sent to Buonaparte's proposal to grant the free public exercise of re- ligious worship to dissenters from popery. He says, " It is joroposed that all religious j)er suasions should be free, and their worshijy pub- licly exercised ; but we have rejected this article as contrary to the canons, and to the councils, to the Catholic religion, and to the welfare of the state, on account of the deplorable consequences which ensue from it. (13) Here is the whole matter out. Toleration is against " canons," against " councils," against the Catho- lic RELIGION." Is not the Catholic religion, as a system, and in many o^ lis doctrines, opposed to liberty? Let the gentleman settle it 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 charac- ter of the Church. Haeretici, Judsei, ethnici, cum iis preces habere communes veta- tur. Templorum haereticorum ingressus prohibetur. Conjugium Calholici cum ethnicis, haereticis, schismaticis, pro- hibitum. Commercium cum iisdem omne vetitum. Quomodo coercendi. Haeretici pervicaces exterminentur. Damnali j)otestatibus, ssecularibus relinquantur. Multa circa eos qui favent haeriticis. Pcense haereticorum et illorum fautorum. Incarcerentur usque ad mortem. Relapsorum poena. Domus in qua inventus est haereticus diruatur. (14) TRANSLATION. It is prohibited to pray with heretics, .Tews, and heathens. It is forbidden to enter houses of worship used by heretics. Catholics are prohibited to marry with heretics, Jews, and schis- matists. All intercourse with them is forbidden. By what methods they are to be coerced. Pertinacious heretics are to be exterminated. Being condemned they arc to be left to the secular power. Many things touching those who favour heretics. (13) See Hist. Jesuits. (14) Acta Ecclesioe, torn. ii. 105 • The punishments of heretics and their favourers. They are to be imprisoned even unto death. Punishment of the relapsed. The house in which a heretic is found is to be pulled down. The great and good Baxter says : ^^ Smithjield confuted the Pro- testants, ivhom both the Universities could not confute. Tlieir 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, even as the Mahomedans 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 1 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 ** tilling up," that I may be 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 no premimn has appeared, though I agreed to lay it out in Bibles for the worshippers 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 has changed, not I. On the first evening of this discussion, as also in the former Contro- versy, he avowed that the majority had the right (without making any qualifications) to rule the minority. Thus, (16) he says: "/ would ask, had not they the right, as the majority by a m,illio7i to one, to take measures for the common welfare ? The doctrine of Christ teaches submission to 'the powers that be;'" and adds, ** No republican, I should think, would deny it." Will the reader believe that this is in defence 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 majority have established the Catholic religion by law. Now I ask him, again, ^^ 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. (15) Key for Calholics to open the juggling of the Jesuits. (16) Page 72, IXth Letter of the late Controversy. 14 106 That this is his principle, see Cardinal Bellarmine, (17) where hq says distinctly, that when Catholics have the majority they have not only the right to rw/e^but to exterminate heretics. He who shall see a majority of our people papists shall stand at the tomb of liberty in this land. As to " voluntary slaves," he thinks the American people would not be such, though they should elect the Pope their head for life, and alter the Constitution to justify it? Could a Roman monarchist say more 1 As to the charge of " artifice" in my statement of his " candid admission'' " of the established order of civil and ecclesiastical du- ties in a state," I am willing to leave the matter to be judged 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 martyrs, not in conse- quence but in spite of popery. " The cud of persecution" will do for the quid nwnc5 of Jesuitism. But the doctrine, that " Catholics can be submissive to the bishop of Kome,^' and yet have nothing to do with him ** as temporal prince," is hard of digestion, and especially in America. For ex- ample : He, as bishop, in the name of God, denounces " liberty of conscience," and, as *' temporal pritice, "uses an arm,y to enforce uniformity of worship. As bishop, all Catholics approve, and must approve oi the principle ; but yet the /;r«c^ice 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 church, 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, CIS prince, " meddles in the civil concerns of other states," and they resist him, as ^' pj'ince," what becomes of the bishop? 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 Mahomedan, or an atheist, if she be "of age" to judge — 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 her means of scdvation, 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 radia- ting centre,'' (which, by the way he predicted some time ago, about to fall to pieces) what is Rome ? De Pratt says, " Catholicism is not organised like other worships. The latter l)€ive no common centre, uo exclusive source from whence flows power in every religious so- U7) Book iii. chap. 23. of Laics, 107 ciety. They have no Rome, 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. Jt is not so with Rome ; every thins; in Catholicism tends to Rome. The Pope is chief of 120,000,006 of followers." " Catholicism cannot have less than 400,000 ministers. This worship and its ministers are spread everywhere." ** The Irish and the Amerlcan priests (my friend is both) are 7nore 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 eveii than many sove- reigns together. These have subjects only on their ovtn terri- tory. The Pope counts subjects on the territory oj' all so- vereigns. These comnnand 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 whole 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 it for ages in respect to Europe. Not to knoio how to foresee is not to know how to govern or to judge the ivorld."" This man was was once an Abbe of the Pope. He knew what he was saying. Yet can Mr. Hughes talk honestly of the '* radiating 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 benefit. Publish forty editions of the Bible, and iheu forbid the people 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 gentle- man 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 pass- age? There is near the close of his speech this admission. " The civil restraints appointed by governments^ whether Catholic or Protest- ant, are chargeable to those governments, and not to the doctrines which they profess.'*^ Then why does he just before charge " the Presbyterianparliament of England" with restraining the freedom af 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 Ahe same thing. In the former Controversy (18) he said, "Caesar" never was in the power of (Presbyterian) your church but once." Yet (18) Letter 9, near close. 108 he has, during this cantroversy, again and again charged Presbyterf- ans with abusing civil power for many ages and in many lands. The gentleman ridicules 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 exercise their own discretion about civil and religious liberty. ''"' Is this not al- lowing that the civil and religious rights^ of man are not sufficiently regardedby Romanism to be apart of their religion ? What, does not the Bible define the rights of conscience and of personal as well of civil liberty ? Presbyterians 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. That we are not at liberty to destroy or re- press the liberty of others, or alienate our 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 pos- sible is to furnish him a better. Well-spring of grief, and fierce 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 persecutriz, nnrse of Iniquity, The living's hell ; a miracle it will be^ If Christ in fury come not against thee Most shameless w**''e, Petrarch, Sonnet 149. torn, IV. Or this, 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 haste 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 nought to her. She laugh'd at groans f No music pleased her more, and no repast So sweet to her, as hloodofmcn redeemed By blood of Christ. Ambition's self, tho' mad, And nursed in human gore, with her compared was merciful. J. BRECKINRIDGK 109 " Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or all its principles 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 ** in 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 the 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 mistatements, was one of those reasons. J know, — for I was an eye and ear witness, as well as the Society, — that* the statements are substantially cor- rect. 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 the very doctrines which constituted their warrant for persecution in other countries. He ought to know, that I establish my point by showing that the creed of his church retains the doctrinal theory of persecution, in despite of the American Constitution, which has only taken away the right to put it in 'practice. Against the Catholics, he goes back a ihousand years before Presbyterians existed, and although his sect is only three hundred years old, I, forsooth, must not go back more than fifty years, — must not go beyond 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 no 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 which are undeniably 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 perve7'se . 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- tion, 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 members of both churches. Do the General Assembly look on their reformed brethren as heretics? The latter, it is known, reject the Con- stitution of the United States, as not being a moral ordinance of God ; and yet the gentleman himself has pronounced them *' as among the purest Presbyterians that ever lived !" 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 f7'om the Council of Trent, a passage, setting forth that the 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- man, " to inflict punishment," might mean personcd 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 flies 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, — * poenam quam opportet pro illis poenitentibus imponere?' i. e., '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 accorwas their apologist. The protestants wanted an appearance of ecclesiastical descent from the Apostles, and as the Albigenses had protested 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 specific name, and sinks the general appellation by which they are known in cotemporary 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 before 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 undei the patronage of factions 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 Tiateran, to show that these poor heretics were condemned to awr ful penalties, for nothing at all but protesting against the errors ol the Church of Rome. This he did by quoting the beginning -awA conclusion of the canon, and, without indicating any omission, suppressing the crimes of these proto-maityrs of Calvinism. It 116 was proved, by llie very document from which lie quoted, that these lambs of the Albigeiisian fold were '• exercising such cruelty ON THE CHRISTIANS, (1. C. 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 OF 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 convicted, show that the penalties enacted against them, a quarter of a cen- tury 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 ? .AVas 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 oilended Heaven for their "sin;" and that of the English go- vernment, in " conniving at popery?" Never. Were the Albigenses 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 before 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 Catholic 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 says it was contrary to Catholic doctrine to exercise. Power for their extermination was not wanting at any time. And if that power ivas exercised finally, it was not until after their excesses, the result of their errors, had made it manifest that either they, 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 doctrine binding on all Catholics, and applica- ble to all heretics, was directed, so far as it was penal in its enactments, 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 measures for the purpose of arresting its progress. Hence the ambassadors 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 tkfeir 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 condemning 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 bodily penalties, their decisions are sustained by no promise of lis infallibility, and by no authority derived from God for that pur- pose. AViiatever right they may have derived from other sources or circumstances to inflict cfyi/ punishment, it is certain 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 Appenines, and like his divine master, not. having where to lay his head, he would be as much the supreme pastor of the Catholic Church, ns 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 which I have alludeti. The power which God imparted to his church is spiritual. The exercise of temporal or civil power is of human origin, and con- stitutes 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, Lou- vain, Alcala, Salamanca and Vallodolid, in reply to the questions 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 in 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 against 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 lirst 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. Wliy define these DOCTRINES? Because the heretics, against whom the third canon was directed, held the errors opposed to these definitions. They believed that there were two first principles — God and tlie devil. They believed that both 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 au- thor of the Old Testament, creator of the material world, and of the human body; and hence, that marriage, with its conse- quences, was a co-operation with \he principle of evil, and ren- dered salvation impossible. Now I say that the provisions of the canon, of which there is now question, had reference to the believers in these abominable (1) See the whole in the Appendix to "Catholic Question in America," by William Sampson, Esq. of New York. 119 impieties, and the evidence is found in the text itself, where the words " hasc hwreUcs. fee (lit as, ^^ " this heretical^/^/i," are expressly used. Again, where the words "universi ha^retici, quibuscunque nominibus censeantur,"— r"all heretics, under whatever name they may come," are employed ; tlie same limitation is found in the context, in the words, " adversus heme sanctam, orthodoxam, catholicam fidem, qicam superius exposicimus.'" Thai is, " in opposition to this, holy, orthodox, catholic faith, which we have exposed above."" What was that faith? The faith of one only eternal God — creator of all things, Slc. Consequently, the exten- sion of the third canon is restricted to those who held the opposite errors. Now, if the gentleman will only condescend to distrust his knowledge 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 were 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 having " different faces," but yet as being "joined together by the tails." That is, they had different ap- pellations derived from their different " faces," but in the doc- trines which constituted their bond of union " haec haeretica fcedi- tas," one appellation was applied to them all — Albigenses. It was on this account, that in my last speech I remarked, that men of in- formation 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 opposition to the gentleman's hypothesis, accord- ing 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 gentleman and all his anti-Catholic colleagues are sadly moitified to discover that the Catholic religion will not be as bad as they wish. If it would only accommodate them, by be- coming all that malevolence has invented, and ignorance believed, it would suit their purpose 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 Catho- lics, by virtue of their ecclesiastical office. If, therefore, the canon in question confiscated the goods, 2ind punished the bodies of the Albigensian heretics, my answer is, that the doctrines of the Catholic Church do not recognise or admit the right of a general council to either confiscate goods or punish bodies. If the gen- tleman can show me the '* canon of a General Council, or the bull 120 of a Pope, setting forth as ' an article of faith or morals revealed hy Almighty God,'' " that such a right exists, or did exist in any ao-e 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 gendeman has not been struck with the absurdity of the conckision to which his argument would lead. He makes us hold a doctrine, as he pretends, a canon wliich we never could comply with, until Protestants come to hold the abominations of the Albi- genses, 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 could be put in practice ! But when the gentleman is bent on carrying an argument, absurdities do not aJETright him, and impossibilities are but as straws in his way. Having disposed of the substance of the gentleman's argument, I shall now pro(!eed to take him on the small points with which it is suirounded. He says, that in translating the words " ssecularibus potestatibus prossentibiis,^^ the " secular powers present^^ at the council, I committed a mistake which " every schoolboy that has read Cor- dery could correct." Now, between "present" and " absent," there is no medium, and since he and the schoolboys have deter- mined ihsit prsesentibus means "absent" or ^' not present," of course, I have only to bow submission to their authority. He says I charge him with having omitted the word '■'■ prsesentibus^'' 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 " praesentibus" ought to be translated "not present," is that although expressed when the reference is first made to the " secu- lar pov/ers," it is not repeated at every subsequent reference — as if the original determination of the sense, did not render the repe- tition superfluous. But admiiting, as he does, /or argument sake, that the word " praesentibus" 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 iiim, 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 lion, to have opposed the church, was, like the virtue of charity, enough to cover a " muUitude of sins." But even Mosheim ad- raits enough to sustain all 1 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 appellation of all the various kinds of heretics, who resided in the southern parts of France was Jilbigenses. He tells us that this term, " in its more confined sense, was used to denote those heretics who were inclined to the Manichsean system, and who were otherwise known by the denominations of Catharists, Publicans, or Pauli- cians and Bulgarians. "(1) And pray have not I identified them by theii " Manichaean doctrines" — their descent from the " Pauli- cians," who were Manichaeans — 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 pernicions 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 la" falsifier" in calling them by that name? When Mosheim tells us, notwith- standing their " Manichaean system," that the Albigenses were very " sincere in their piety," he speaks as a partizan, giving his opinion; whereas the facts stated by himself, as an historian, are suflFicient 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, Mosheim'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 cotemporary witnesses of their abomina- ble 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 by the Pope, and not to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, the persecution is to be ascribed. If ithad been a doctrine, the Pppe, instead of persuading them to do it, would have excommunicated them for having left it undone. He charges me with haying said that it was " doctrine in Scot- (1) Mosh. Bait. ed. Vol. II. p. 375. Note. 16. 122 land to cut men's cars ofl'." 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 doctrines among Catholics. I will inform him. The Presbyterians held that their right to do so, was a " TEXKT REVEALED BY Almighty God." Consequently with them it ivas a " doctrine." The Catholics never held, that their right tp 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 loill 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 (To 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 docs he mean? Oh! I perceive. The " secular am"bassa- dors" of Christendom were at the Council of Lateran, — major. But the pronoun " we" is found in the third canon against the Albigenses, in connexion with the faith which had before been " expounded," — minor. And therefore we means the secular am- bassadors,/ie/j^mo* 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 ferule. He uses also tht^ 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 time for these things was reserved for the minority of Presbyterianism, when orthodoxy was to be looked for in acts of parliament, and in oaths, leagues and covenants ; and when the civil magistrate, good man, w^as to see that whatever should be done in ecclesiastical assemblies should bd" " according to the mind of God.(1) 1 stated that the authenticity of this canon was disputed by Protestant 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 " unerting guide, the faithful tradition of the Church of Rome?" I answer, that the " unerring guide" and " faithful tradition" would (1) 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 Latcran, is composed of five chapters or sections. Each of these has its own specific import, and in Caranza its own spe- cific heading. The second, under the heading " Quod juramentum debeant pra^stare seeculares potestates," is the portion of whose authority there is a doubt among critics. And it was of this section, which is more properly a chapter than a " canon," that I said, it is regarded by critics as '* spurious — an interpolation in the genuine acts of the council." .Tliis chapter is neither the beginning, " middle," or end 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 iis Greek. Here the gentleman has betrayed him- self. He professes to quote the marginal note of Labbe, " Deest hie folium in codice Gra^co et Latino.,''^ and leaves out flie 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 " Labbe follows the Mazarine 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 does Labbe say that it does not ; if it does not exist, as the gentleman saw by the marginal note, 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 assertion. Here are the acts of the council, and I call on him for the proof. Collier, the gentleman. has told you, only states that it is wanting in the Mnzarine copy; and this was one of Collier's reasons 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 ray last speech? I bring a host of witnesses, and instead of rebutting their evidence, he challenges tlie 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 no^ie of the four Lateran's canons." Tbere 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 suflicient reason wily it should not be in the edition of 1530; and I was not speak- ing of the other canons. He says that " the said Crabbe published afterwards three editions of the 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. Does 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 ivas 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 by 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 doctrihes of the Catholic Church are affected by them, I have no objection to make the admission myself. But it does not follow, that Dr. Ciotty 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 douT^tful authenticity. My argument, however, does not require that I should avail myself of this circumstance. My allusion to it was merely incidental. The gentleman betiays 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 alnd 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 tlie words " delivered, de- fined, and declared^'' in the creed of Pius W . Thus the Avhole 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 'svere to take up questions to be investigated. But the ebullitions of religious spleen, and the researches of reckless apostacy, furnished by Mflrtogh 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 Rhemish 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 sufficient 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 Scrip- tures 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 anything to do with the Belgic Constitution, ancient or modern. l26 The case of tlie 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 constitii- iion of the Papal ^tates, by which the Catholic religion had been exclusively recognized, 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 by laio established, to admit the dissenters to take degrees in the Universities. In a word, the gentleman may heap together scraps of books, five words from one place, 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 he- doc- trines. Thus it is a doctrine, that marriage lawfully and validly contracted, is indissoluble ; and for the maintenance of this doc- trine, she sufTered Henry VHI. 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 doing so, 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 vjoxse^viisinformed on these subjects. 1 pledge myself to show that Presbyterianism has been more cruel in its laws than the inquisition itself. In the meantime, 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 ofthe state, at whose instance they were probably enacted, to put them in force or not. 3. That they never weie put in force ex- cept in one or two provinces of 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 theyi 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 bring 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 cotemporary 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 Ecclesiae, 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 difference 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 difiference. Or to make the illustration more familiar, I would say, that " Acta Ecclesiae," or the " Canon Law" of the Presbyterian Church, are the sayings 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 being. But wlien I come to treat the Presbyterian question, I am prepared to show tliat what is at most only canon law with us, is doctrine with them. For instance, in the index of the Acta Ecclesiae, as quoted by him, it is forbidden io pray or marry with heretics; a proof that, at least, it was not forbidden to let heretics live, as the genllemah 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 idolators: neither should the godly be unequally yoked."(l) 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. Tn reply to this, the gentleman exclaims, "What? does not the Bible define the rights of conscience, 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 acknow- ledged "doctrine" of the Presbyterian Church. The midnight torch was applied, and, sure enough, there was "no discretion" — there was no alternative, but to perish in the flames, or go to enjoy "liberty," with the houseless beasts of the field. The conse- quences 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 holding 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) Confession, p. 108. 129 " Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or all its prin- ciples or doctrines, ojjposed to civil or religious liberty J?" AFFIRMATIVE IV.—MR. BRECKINRIDGE. Mr. President, — I HOPE the gentleman has recovered his composure after the discussions of the. last jiight. If the Joints of his armour crack under the power of the truth, it is not my fault; nor his: for he is the ''prince 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 affecting 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 have written "^eA-e/," as Avith a sunbeam, and whose final and speedy overthrow is as certain as its dominion has been de- structive 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 OAvns) has said that some of the writer's remarks were " in 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 f and I am willing that the gentleman should profit by his casuistry. Yet why did the editor of the Diary refuse to publish the society's letter? And why did he not call for the proofs, if he desired jus- tice, or doubted the statements made in the letter ? It is really enough to excite the compassion of the audien<=e, to see how the genUeman retreats from the charge which lie made against me, of "forging a quotation" from- the Council of Trent. He said, in so many words, " And what will be ilu reader's dis- gust, to learn that" this beautiful specimen of Latiniiy, j^ut 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, pnd in regard to which he had so impertinently charged me, is i/ideed the very Latin, ver- bum verbo, word, for word, of th« holy council ! Yet he called it "fabrication." You may se^ how much credit is due to his charges, by this example, ^or he is compelled to own, " that his personal integrity is interested in this point," and with disingenu- ous, but forced acl^'rtowledgment, says, "according to the letter, I was mistaken r' and according to the letter, I retract.'^ But how 17 130 could he be *" mistaken," with the Latin before him, and in the very same chapter, a few sentences below ! And if mistaken 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 " doctrine,^^ which I am still charged with " perverting." In my first speech, I translated " injungcre pcenas," to " inflict punishments." In his re- ply, he charged me, as usual, wiih fcdsifying the ssnse by this trans- lation. 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 pknam, occur, and I quoted that member of the sentence which contained them. Then he denied that there was such a passage ; but, corrected by my last speech, owns it was there; makes a ludicrous apology for ridiculing the Latin of the holy infallible council, and flies at me for 3i mistrans- lation. Now poena means punishment, as my same little school- boy will say; *^ injungere^'' means "^o join with,''^ "to lay on," *' to enjoin ;" and '■''imponere'^ " to impose," " to enjoin," " to in- flict,'''' "/o lay upon one.^^ Fcenitentia signifies ^^ penance ;^^ but poena, ^^ punishment.'''' But the gentleman says, "/o inflict pun- ishment, might mean personal 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. HI., Book IV., § 21, tells us, ^^ that the church had prisons in former days, in which offending clergy- men were cast,'' and he enumerates "castigation, exile, finesy and other punishments inflicted by the churchy" or, as the gen- tleman's Latinity is so pure, I will give him the 7iut to crack. *'De verberibus, exilio, mulctis pecuniariis, caeteris que pcenis, quae ab ecclesia dabantur, sequenti libro, suus erit agendi locus." Affain, 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 power 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. \1Q2— saying that there is nothing in th^ 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 <;haetisements have been enjoined, some self- inflicted, as penance, und some inflicted by authority of the " holy mother," as tender mei^ies, to reduce the sinner to repent- ance? In vain therefore does the genOeman struggle in his toils. His had Latin is with him and his fathers ot Trent. His criticisms, be on his guides; his "forgeries" on his, own head! As to Bossuet — and French — I own " / do not knox,) as much about 131 the French" as I do of " the Jesuits.'''' But with my little, I proceed to expose his ivretched perversion of Bossuet. The gentleman makes lum say ^^ there is no illusion more dangerous than to assign suffering as a mark of the true church.''^ V La souffrance^' may mean either " suffering''' or " toleration,'^ The author is speaking of the exercise of the pouter 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, m-aiming, the public authority or power :"(l) (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 ^^ suffering ;^'' for he is defending the power to enforce religion; and is opposing *^ la souffrance'^ or " toleration." Now, if it be rendered " suffering," 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 Chutch, *' indeed which renders her so unconciliatory, and con- sequently so odious to all sects separated from her; most of which at the beginning desired only to be tolerated by her, or at least not to be anathematized by her. But her holy security, and the holy delicacy of her sentiments, forbade her such indulgence, or rather such softness. "(2) Will 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 tvar with the civil law of the land, as well as convey the inost horrible intimations on the legitimacy of all Protestant issue. ** The Belgian bishops" are not to be put aside with a icord. They quoted *' the canonical laws" as opposed to the neiv 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 olhcial duties." (1) Chose ausi qui ne peut etre revoquee en doute, sans ^nerver et comme, estropier la puissance publique. (2) Cost en effect ce qui la rend si severe si insociable, et ensuite si odieuse a toutes les sectes separees, qui la plupart au commencement ne demondoient autre chose si non qu'elle voulQt bien les tolerer ou du moins ne le frapper par de ses anathemez. Mais sa sainte severite et la sainte delicatesse des ses sentimens ne lui permettoit pas cettc indulgence, ou plutot cette mollesse. — Sixieme Avevtisment, sect. 11.5; CEuvres, toin. iv. p. 426. 132 They declare that their duty to the church will put them *'i« foTTYiul opposition to the laws of the state^'''' viz. to " universal toleration.^^ Now, if the bishops of a whole 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 oppose the " laws of the state." So would the bishops and priests do here if they had equal candor! 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 awkwaid account of the Albigeases. I see he would willingly detain me from the exposure of popery, on the question of their heresies and immo- ralities. But this cannot be; though he is peculiarly open to ex- posure in their history. Now, allowing all he says of their cha- racter and doctrines to be true, what does it amount to? To this : — that they ivere so wicked, so heretical, and such enemies to the human race, that the Pope and Council were compelled, after two hundred years of jj«/ie;ice, to order their extermination! We know that laymen never vote in popish councils. That is a Presbyterian heresy, to admit tlie 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 cdoyie had a right to declare war against their civil transgressors. But the holy council did it. But the gendeman 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 ahd denounced with anathema.''' {[) Accordingly, the gentleman admits they had the right to inflict punishment, but denies that in doing it they were infallible, or derived the right froni 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 civil or bodily penalties, iheiv decisions are sustained hy no promise of infallibility y How strange a picture ! An intermittent infalli- bility ! The same identical men, 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, &LC. 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 bloodhounds 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 folly of such a distinc- tion between the definition and discipline of the council, let me ask, is this bloody discipline contrary to any doctrine, or to any bull ever uttered by the Church of Borne? 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 Popes 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 persecution against the doctrines of his church? The same remarks apply with augmented 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 ^xooi o^ lis persecuting character. I gave a full page of it; and gave all but the nariative 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 exam- ple, 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! Does 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 ^y 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 AJbigensian heresy." Now Dupin tells us (on the 13th Cent., page 95,) '* the Pope, in his Letters of Indiction, gives his reasons why he thought the council necessary, viz. ' the recovery of the Holy 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 Church, on the drunken- ness and bastards of the clergy — forbidding states to tax the clergy — regulating relics, excommunications, revenues, ut under oath to inform on heretics; and those refusing to swear, were to be treated as heretics ; depriving lawyers, judges, clerks, voters, heirs, Sfc. 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 heretic^ — (ad haereticorum exterminium). Yet, gentlemen, can you believe 137 it, he denies " that independent of this omitted section^ we have the exterminating claused 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 Graeco." — This is a falsification of my citation. 1 quoted it thus, *' Deest hie folium in codice Mazarino." — " A leaf is here wanting in the Mazarine manuscript." As the leaf was wanting in the Mazarine manuscript, of course, all it contained was want- ing; and yet the gentleman would make me say, though the leaf was wanting, yet half the leaf was not wanting. 1 said Labbeus followed that manuscript; yet the fact that he also gives the Latiit .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 the gentleman said, " Collier (a Pro- testant) pronounces this canon spurious." I replied, it is not true ; he only says, it is wanting (as above) in the Mazarine manu- script. Does the gentleman, in answer to this, prove what he had before said? No. He begs the question, and shuns all proof, saying, " this was one of Collier's reasons for doubting its authenticity." ^^ Doubting V But before it was, " pronounced it spurious."*' 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 f^ you may measure the rest by them,. As to Crabbe, history tells us he published editions of the councils in 1538, 1551, 1558. Dupin and Matthew Paris were claimed by the gentleman, against the authenticity of the third canon. But lo ! when I adduce their real 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 io prove the canon spurious. I proved, from Matthew Paris, that all he really said, was, that the council murmured over the whole seventy; and Dupin (though quoted by Mr. Hughes as on his side) expressly says, the council did not debate the 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. 18 138 The smart play upon the word ^^ praesentibus^'' 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 on the spot 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, " Sed ecclesiastical coercitiohis summus est gradus ejectio eorwtn, qui in religionem, vel in societatem peccarunt. Si quis reli- gionem violare ausus fuerit crimine, schismati, hseresi, neque monitus redierit in bonam mentem, eum sive clericus, sive laicus sit, eccZesia EJiciT A SACRis, ET societate Christianorum, jorop^cr potestatim, et officium quod habet in omnes Christianas curandi, regendiqiie cuncta, quae ad religionem pertinent^ (1) " But the highest grade of ecclesiastical coercion, is the expulsion of those who have offended against religion or society. If any one has dared to violate religion by crimes, schism, heresy, and hav- (1) Vol. III. p. 20, 31. 152 ing been admonished, does not return to a good mind, him, the church casts forth from her sacred things, and from the society of Christians, whether he be a cleric or a lay person, by 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 should 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- siastics, 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, when he had before his eyes, and in the same paragraph, the author^ s statemerits 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, in as much 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. He shows, or assumes, that the church has this power from Jesus Christ, and not from the authority of men. He then speaks of tho*se who denied that the church has this ( 1 ) 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 " in the same miicW" — " in eodem 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." " Jifter their example,'''' he adds, " all the Protes- tants ivho admit the right of the prince in sacred things,. take from the church all judicial power.^^ Here are the two antagonist 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 spiritual matters, and by penalties of the same spiritual order, to enforce their observ- ance. Tlie other denying all "judiciary power to the church," and ascribing it to the civil " magistrates''^ — " those nursing fathers to the churcli," as the >gentleman's Confession of Faith has it. The one asserting that there is a spiritual power 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 ybr its own government — and the Presbyterian, which places the execution of ecclesiastical laws in the hands of the civil rulers. This is precisely the point of view in which Devoti 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 all '•'stick in the same mud together.'''' Why? Because, 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 accordance with their will. I again refer the reader to the quo- tation 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 by the doctrine of Luther, Calvin, Melancthon and the Genevan Church, the prince has a (1) Histoire des Var., liv. x. § IvL 20 154 right to use the sivord 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 paralyse 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 operation of their own principles^ acting in the French government, would represent their sufferings as a ihark 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," who denied the magistrate'* s rigid 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, written in the blood of his victims. They could not assign ** toleratk)n" as a mark of their church, but they 7night have assigned their sufferings. So that the gentleman shows his igno- rance of the French language, when he says that " souffrance" 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 he was writing. It was the " argumentum* ad horainem." He told them " you teach that right, and there- fore you 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 the 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 them within the pale of her communion. It was in this sense that she would not tolerate thenij'just as the Synod of York, to which the gentleman has 155 ihonghl proper to refer, would not tolerate the Rev. Albert Barnes. And with equal truth may it be said, in the words oi 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 could 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 may be more tolerant^ because their doctrines being matter of opinion all round, they are in perpetual dispute as to what is true, and ivhat false. But to pervert this into an evidence that, according to Bossuet, the Oatholic religion would not allow '* toleration^' 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 Fi-ench, The Catholic '* marriage," as a civil contract, 'is every thing that the laws of the land require. As a religious rite, it is in harmony with the gospel. So it has always been. The I3elgian 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 speecli 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, justly or ofhenvise, 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 popery." I know he is abler at abusing popery 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 only to profess that all human bodies were the creation of the devil, ancl then, under the protection of their iieresy, commit what crimes 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 <.he Albigenses. This puzzles him. " What a strange picture !" he exclaims. " An intermittent infallibility !" 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 15G , had been fought should be forfeited. None but a quack would look for " infallibility" in any suoli decision. So it was with that of Lateran, in appointing civil penalties against the Albi- genses. 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 Albigenscs as a persecuiion for tvorshippmg God according l.o the dieted es of their conscience. The gentleman, unable to find, anywhere, persecution recog- nised as a doctrine of the Catholic Cliurch, 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, at 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, ?..^ we have defined tiiem. 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 tho3e who bear " false witness against their neighbours." He may prove that Catholics persecuted. This is not the ques- tion. Did they persecute in ol)edience to any tenet of doctrine held by their Church ? If they did, let the gentleman point out that 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 the council refute him. After enu- merating their crimes, it simply states, "liberum sit principibus hujusmodi homines subjicere servituti," — ""let it be permitted, or firee, for princes to reduce such men to slavery.''^ 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 inetance of false testimony. He asks, was the canon ever repealed? I answer, that it became extinct, when the Albigenses ceased from their warfare on "virgins and WIDOWS, OLD AND YOUNG, scx and agc, and their destruction and desolation of every thing after the manner of pagans,^' as the canon asserts; and as Mr. Faber and the gendeman thought proper not to assert, whilst they professed to give the canon. It 157 became extinct then — or else M-heii 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 Albigensiaii heresy. And because they condemned other heresies, he affects to discover contradiction. They defined the doctrine of transub- 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 every heresy, extolling itself against this holy, orthodox faith which they had before expounded.. And the gentleman thiliks, after all this trouble, it is hard that the Protestants should not be included in the canon against the Albi- gensss. But he cannot be gratified. He is puzzled equally to account for the fact, that the Albigenses had been so long borne within 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," lohen the Mbigeyises werefeiv, instead of waiting till they perpetrated such outrages. Besides, there never was a period when popes did not " dare" to proclaim and practise every article of Catholic faith. Of the ch^iracter and doctrines of the Albigenses, I said only what cotemporary 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 Dupin 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 , 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 both lan- guages of that manuscript. Yet liis former assertion was, that Labbe followed the Latin; and the insinuation, that the leaf had been 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. I did not make him say any such thing. But since Labbe states, that both 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 " 5«y," 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 Dupin 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. Dupin gave the Pope himself credit for making the whole seventy canons ; and M. Paris says, they . were " read," and, as the gentleman affirms, " the council 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 submitted for deliberation — they should have been aj)- proved — they should have been adopted. So far from this, on hearing them " read," " the council murmured over them ;" and therefore, says Mr. Breckinridge, they are t?ie 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 for 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 undei this definition, it if; not a 159. doctrine of the Roman Catholic religion ; and unless it be a docr trine of the Roman Catholic religion, / am not bound to defend it. Catholics are to be judged by their doctrines — in which they all agiee; and not by the opinions of individuals — which must be different and contradictory, according to the age^ the country^ the government, (fee, 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 ' I imagine not. But the tories in England, the men who will not allow Presbyterians to receive the honours of the UNIVERSITIES, foundcd and endowed by Catholics : these men, in order to check the progress of free principles 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 utterly false. For three hundred years, the Irish Catholics have been the victims of Protestant persecution ; and neither they, nor their bishops, would, or oould, or did approve of the sophistry by which Dens would recommend the cursed prin- ciple. The. whole matter was 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 no 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 simply exercising the rights of conscience, but as public enemies, who, by their excesses agamst 160 the right 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 are his witnesses even for their exist- ence. And his reasoning is, that since Dens held 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 Rhemish annotators, admits that they only give their opmions. But, he says, *' are not their opinions as good as that of Mr. Hughes ? Is Mr, Hughes wiser 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 Slates 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 ojnnions of Mr. Dens. In other words, he acknowledges that the anti- Catholic crusaders, with whom he is associated, ^rs/ 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 teiiet of faith or morals. Now, Mr. Hughes states, that it is not a doctrine. By \yhat 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, ih^i persecu- tion IS a doctrine of the Catholic Church! But 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, as Catholics. If it were a doctrine, Mr. Hughes dare not deny it in the name of his Church. Sueh 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 arc able to do it, would be living in a perpetual state of mortal sin, so long as they abstained from killing their Protestant neighbours. 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 suspicious pains to make it appear, that the bull In Coena Domini rests on " accumulative and infalli- 161 ble authority." A few facts will suffice to prove the contrary. In 1510 the Provincial Council of Tours rejected this bull in the name of the French nation. (1) And in 1773, 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 been rejected by Catholics, it follows, that its rejection was not inconsistent with the doctrines of the Catholic religion. 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 "whole Catholic Church," which they did accordingly. The " bishops," at his instance, con- structed an artificial Vatican in the western city, and with artificial thunder, that reverberated along the surrounding hills and valleys, for a considerable distance, cut ofl' from the communion of the " Christian Church" nearly two hundred millions of as good Christians as themselves. Had not the Pope, in 1536, as good a right to excommunicate the Calvinists, 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 Coena Domini, he is forced to admit that " some'' are good. But most of them had reference to times, and custom and laws, with which we are alto- gether unacquainted. The world has changed, and it is probable that, at the period of their promulgation, tliese clauses were 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 as 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. I 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. 21 162 The 2d sectioia denounces those who, to gain time for the pro- pagation of heresy^ or schism, or any thing else that might injure religion, appeal to a future general conneil. Does the gentleiaan, liimself 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 ille- gal 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 Presbyteiian Confes- sion of Faith has it, the '* magistrate had to provide, that what- ever is done in Synods, be according to the mind of Qod^ 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 immuniiies in property, 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 genUeman 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 unust know, that the intrinsic force of the word " anathema" is not " imprecation ;" and, as an ecclesiasw; scholar, he ought to know, that in ecclesiastical usage, it has not lUat meaning. But it follows, on the gentleman's view of th« 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 dast, tliiat lie might trample on them. On the contrary, he l 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 gentle- man ventures again to deny that this writer claims for the church the right to inflict temporal and bodily punishments ^ 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 Later- 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 Jive sections of that canon which he can assail; and in a Jesuitical way is constrained to confess, after being exposed, that he did mistate in condemning the whole canon. I think, gentlemen, he will attempt to spike no more of these canons. (1) Devoti, book iv, title 8. passim. (2) Book iv., ^ 8, p. 12. 23 178 The gentleman scolds about Matthew Paris, but wisely forgets "Dens's" Theology, and my challenge on that book, which has opened the eyes of millions on the other side of the waters to new evidences on the persecuting doctrines of the Church of Rome. The reason why all the Etiropecm authorities quoted by me 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 tlje United States ! The gentleman's defence of the Bulla in Ccena 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: ** inhuman to 'condemn the illegal imposition of taxes?''"' Why, Mr. Hughes! These taxes, says the Pope, were imposed in " dominio7is'" of others, " without the special leave of the apostolic see T^ 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 law, 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. Of Anathema we shall speak, in its place, and too soon for the gentleman. The gentleman in reply to my question — " Had the majority in Spain or Italy the right to establish the Catholic religion by law?'''' an- swers, '•' in my opinion, if the majority in Italy or iSpain, by doing so, violated no civil or religious right of the minority, they had in that case the right.'" This is alloiving that the Catholic religion may be in certain cases established by law, ivithout violating the right of the minorily. This is again C07iceding the whole question. For when can a majority do this, without such a violation of the rights of the minority? I ask the gentleman ivhen, 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 right, do such a thing! That if «// were of the same religion, it were anli-christian and anti-liberal to do it ! Here we see leaking out the gentleman's majority , rights— 'w\\\c\\ he exposed the first night of our debate, then tried to retract ; and now again, drawn by the debate arid 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 doicn the monuments of papal idolatry by force.''' It was wholly . 179 icrong ! Mr. Westley ^^ being dead yet speaketh.^' 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 1 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. Augustine. In the very terms of the gentleman's citation from the Council of Constance, the doctrine is avowed that the faith, the pledged faith {of the emperor) that Huss 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, J proceed to adduce others: — We have seen from the disclosures of my former speeches how far the Rev. 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 theii 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 VHI. 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 years before their election: such Bulls come from another quarter." Here he implies that the Bull has been forged; that it was never issued from Rome; 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 autho- rity 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 Bull, because Barronius 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 me, do I deny it? and without waiting for my answer, you reply, that * / dare not.' Now, I reply that I dare, and do deny it flatly. '*'' 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 1487, ^th of Kallends of May, and of our Pontificate the 3f/." 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, &lc. &c." Was there ever such evasion? was evasion ever more unavailing and palpa- ble? ^'^Commissioned!'' But who comnr.issioned him? Why the Pope! But what 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. the Pope, to preach a crusade against the TValdenses 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 prehdes, and ptriests, and pri7ices, 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 doctHnes in religion, which the Pope ccdled 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) ffom the archives of Cambridge University, we will give it to the American people. " Innocent the Bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our 181 well beloved son Albertus de Capitaneis, archdeacon of the Church of Cremona, our nuntio, 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 Sedun, 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 ; ive^ to whom 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 inen of Lyons, or Waldenses, which long ago hath most un- happily {damnabiliter) 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 faith of Christ, having been formerly appointed for that ser- vice by the master general of that order, and afterwards by our beloved son Cardinal Dominic, styled Presbyter of St. Clement^ legate of the Holy See in these places, and at last by Pope Sixtus IV., 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 parishes, 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 hy the duty of our pastoral charge, being desirous to pluck up and wholly 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 Aiith, and experience in affairs; 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 nuntio, and commissary of the Apostolic See, for the cause of God and of the faith, in the dominions of our dear son Charles, duke of Savoy, &lc. 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 defiled with the infection of any sort of heresy what- ever, to abjure their errors, and obey the orders of the said in- quisitor: and that you may be able to effect this with so much more ease, in proportion to the greatness of the power and autho- rity wherewith you are vested by us, we, by these presents, grant to you a full and entire licence and authority to call and instantly to require, by yourself or by any other person or persons, all the archbishops and bishops in the dutchy, in Dauphiny, and in the parts adjacent, (whom the Most High hath appointed to be part- ners witli us in our travail,) and to com^nand 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 he assisting to you in the things mentioned, and with one consent pro- ceed, along icilh you, to the execution of them; that they take arms against the said VValdenses 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 work so holy and so very necessary as the extermination and dissipation of these heretics, they apply all their endeavours, and willingly bestow all their pains as in duly bound; and, in fine, that they neglect nothing which rnay in any way contribute to that design. 183 ** Moreover, to intreat our most dear son in Christ, Charles the illustrious king of France, and our belovfed sons the noblemeUy Charles duke of Savoy, the dukes, princes, earls, and temporal lords of cities, lands, and the universities of these and other places, the confederates of higher Germany, and in general all others who are faithful 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 they afford help to the said archbishops, bishops, to you, to their vicars, or officials, and to the inquisitor, by suitable aids, and by their secular arm, according as they understand to be needful for executing such a necessary and salutary perquisition ; and that 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 ?nay make thent to perish, and entirely blot them out from the face of the earth. '* And if you should think it expedient, that all the faithful in those 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 by 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 a plenary indulgence, and the remission of all their si?is once ill 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 excommimi cation, all fit preachers of the word of God, secular and regular, of whatever order they be, mendicants not excepted, exempt and nonexempf, that they excite and inflame (excilare ct inflammare) these faithful to exterminate, utterly by force and by 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, whetlier ge- neral or particular, by which they may in any manner be bound, excepting those which shall be specially inflicted hereafter, from which the offenders 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 chargeable with in divine things, or by any apostacy, and to agree and compound with them as to goods which they may have clandestinely or by stealth acquired, or ivhich they dishonestly or doubtfully possess, 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 the army to be convened, and to enjoin and command, that they undertake that charge, and faithfully acquit themseh^es 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 moveable or inunoveable, and to give them, for a prey, whatever the heretics have brouglu 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 admon- ish 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, for ever 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 simpliciter^ without the noise and form of justice, 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 fight 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, injine^ to concede, disjwse, esta- blish, ordain, command, and execute, all and every 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 be, to ccdl into your assistance the aid of the secular 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 in 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 general- ly 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, my dearly beloved son, undertaking with a devout mind the charge of such a meritorious work, 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 folloiv, and that by your so- 24 ISG licilude you may not only merit for reward the glory ivhich is bestowed on those who are employed in designs and affairs of piety r but also that you may obtain, and not undeservedly, the more abundant commendations from us, and from the Apostolie See, on account of your inost exact diligence and faithful inte- grity. 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, ai 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." Such is the document! Has 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 llth, 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, nequaquani prsBsumant.) The denial of Mr. Hughes is its own best comment on the character of Papism, and ihe 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 flock 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'; Archbishops, and other ministers of peace and love, Ordered to take up arms against them, and tread them down, and 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 " coinmuting vows, though made with an ocdh,''' for those who aid the crusade by hand or purse, and the like holy things, show- ing how " Holy Mothef loVed heaven and the rights of men I This document alone is enough to settle the question at issue, with every candid nian. The only possible apology which is at- tempted for this diaboliccd instrument is, that these heretics (Wal- DENSES TOO, SO that it was not only the Albigenses whom the popes slaughtered,) were public enemies of all Catholics, and of all states. This, if wholly true, (it is ivholly false) is in fact, giv- ing up the question in debate ; for it is saying, that according to 187 the. Catholic religion, whenever a people arise in any 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! 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 His church, to put men to death (or which is tlie same thing, orr/tr it to be done) for crimes against the state, and departure from the doctrines of the Catholic church. While Mr. Hughes gives it as his opinion, that the Rojnan Catholic religion 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 Rome should endorse such opinions, (which he has never done for Mr. Hughes's opinion) then the testimony 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 follow- ing terms: — (I) "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 ought to inflict ON SUCH TEMPORAL PUNISHMENTS, AND EVEN DEATH ITSELF. Ist, This may be proved from the Scriptures. 2d. It is proved from the opinions and laws of the emperors which the church has always approved. 3d. It is proved by the laws of the CHURcii. 4th. It is proved by the testimony of the fathers. Lastly. It is proved from natural reason. For, first ; it is owned by all, that heretics 7nay of right be excommunicated — of course they tnay be put to death. This consequence is proved because excommunication is a greater punishment than temporal death. Secondly; experience proves that there is no other remedy; for the church has, step by step, tried all remedies ; 1st, exconi' mumcation alone ; then pecuniary ^ewa/^^es ; afterwards, banish- ment ; and 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 o^ forgery of the Word of God. Fourthly ; a breach of faith by man toward God, is a greater sin than of a wife with her husband. But a woman's unfaithfulness is punished ivith death ; why not a he- retic's? Fifthly; there are three grounds on which reason shows that heretics should be put to death. The first, is, lest the (1) Chap. XXI. Lib. iii. On Laity. 188 wicked should injure the righteous; second, that by the punish- -ment of a few, many may be 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. Finally ; it is a benefit to obsti- nate heretics to remove them from this life, for the longer they live the more errors they invent^ the more persons they mislead ; and the greatest damnation do they treasure up to themselves. " Chapter XXII. — Objections Answered. *' 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, from the beginning even to this time, has never burned a heretic. TJierefore it does not seem to be the mind of the Holy Spirit that they should be burned! 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 OTHERWISE PUT TO DEATH, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore 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 few from many examples. {He instances, Donatists, 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 ivhich is the Word of God, but not the material sivord. Nay, he said to Peter, who wished to defend him with a material sword, * put up thy sword into the scabbai^d :'' John xviii. I answer: As the church has eccle- siastical and secular princes, 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 V.'ITH 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, BECAUSK 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 Church of Rome of such acts. Bellarmine here frankly avows persecution, yea, the right and the duty of 189 THE CHURCH TO PUT HERETICS TO DEATH, and plcads the Scfip- ture for the authority; and appeals to history for the fact that the church had put to death, before his day, *' almost an infinite NUMBER." It is this same writer who thus explains the stillness and peace of Catholics where they are not the majority of a community, in the very next chapter. " But when in reference to heretics, thieves, and OTHER WICKED MEN, there shall arise this question in par- ticular, * shall they be exterminated?' it is to be considered according, to the meaning of our Lord, whether that can be done luithout injury to the good, and if that be possible, they are ivithout DOUBT TO BE EXTIRPATED ; but if that bc uot possiblc, either be- cause they be not sufficiently known, and then there would be dan- ger of punishing 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 SHOULD BE SLAIN, THEN WE MUST KEEP QUIET." Hence, in the United States, we may expect life while we have" numbers. You see, gentlemen, what our friends at Rome (not priests but cardinals, whose works are sanctioned by the Pope, and in this case a nepliew of the Pope) think of the rights of mi- norities! they are summed up in this — they may die by the hands of papists ! 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, ivith sovereign states of Europe. There was scarcely a form of oppression which they did not practice, or a right, civil or religious, on which they did not encroach. A system is often best known by its practical 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 character which it openly assumes. What follows will explain itself. We present to our readers a chapter 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 cotenxporary writers. The events are too no- torious to be denied, at least in their essential parts. It may be proper here to say a word of the Interdict 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 the audacity to question. 190 The papal Ititerdict was designed to slmt 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 EccLESiASTicuM Universum J 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 ail 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 which 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 pj'ofesses to be subject to the Pope, and yet love liberty 1 One or other of these must be given up. Let Mr. Hughes tell us why in the I7th century the Pope oppressed Venice, and yet in the 19th century spares us ? The History of the Interdict 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 permission of the senate. By the other, 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 (lispose in any manner whatsoever, of immoveable goods in per- petuity, in favour of ecclesiastical persons, without the consent of the senate : upon condition nevertheless, that if any legacies of immoveable 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 Sarrasin, 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 persua- ded that the decrees and enterprises against the clergy, encroached upon ecclesiastical jurisdiction, complained of them to the am- bassador of Venice, and demandj^d of the senate by his nuncio, that the decrees should be revofeled 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 recognizance 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 Grimani, 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-establisliing affairs in their for- mer state. He commanded them under the penalty of excommu- nication, latm SententicB, to revoke them, 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 "to present and publish them, and acquainted the cardinals in a consistory held the 12th of that month, 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 Dona to 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 Griniani, 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 1606, Leonardo Donato was advanced to that high dignity. Ail 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 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 Rome. 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, which had any relation to the affair in question. Then the Senate, after having understood the opin- ion of the doctors, returned this answer to the Pope the 2Sth of January : *' 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 prince, or which- 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 which 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 alien- ation of the goods of the laity for ever 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 a^so to alienate their's in favour of the ecclesiastics without their permis- sion. That the ecclesiastics lose nothing by their decrees, becairse 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 atfair, 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 Tor a long lease, from ten to a hundred years. 25 194 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 Rome, 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 I5th 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, and 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 ciiurch, 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, arch-bishops, bishops, their vicar-generals, and to all the clergy, secular and regular, having ecclesiastical dignity in the State of the Repub- lic of Venice. " The senate being informed that the monitorial bull was pub- lished, recalled their extraordinary ambassador ; forbade all ec- clesiastical prelates to publish or set up tlie bull of the Pope, and commanded that all they 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 ecclesiastic state without leave, as- suring those who staid 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 them from Rome, or order from their superiors, to send it to the magistrates before they read it. And the gover- nors 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 name of the doge, addressed to all the ecclesiastics of the republic, wherein he declared, that having received advice of the publication, April 17th, at Rome, 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 omit'ted 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 liberty 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 edification, 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, and the respect which is due to the holy Roman 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 al least abstain from saying of mass, they were commanded on the lOth 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, they 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 tluit 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 terjn, 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 pmyers, 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 attrilnited to the suggestions of the Jesuits, made a decree the 14th of June, whereby they declared, that the Jesuits should never more 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 accommodate the diffisrence betwixt the Pope and the Venitians. 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 anyone else in bringing matters to an accommodation^ and at length effected 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 accommodation, 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 afterwards 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 Venitians, 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 rupture, the ambassadors of France did not cease, nevertheless, to negociate 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 people, for daring to extend the jurisdiction of the state to the punishment of ecclesiastics , to the erection 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 Pope demanded 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 showed 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, &LC, &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 were intended to restrict their encroachments. But the Pope had no idea of permitting a free state to govern his subjects, though they lived in that state ! Let the reader refer to the first part of this chapter from Dupin, 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 on 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. They 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 everyJesuit, 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 attack the Vetiitians, or defend himself if he should be attacked by theni.^' A very Christian attitude truly for the Head of the Church! Heading an army to crush a republic! 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 mB.ster 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 repen- tance, obedience, and the ministerial office. 199 " Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its prin- ciples or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty 7^"^ NEGATIVE v.— MR. HUGHES. Mr. President: — Nothing is more disagreeable than to be obliged to argue with a man who trifles with those rules of 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 {%\\ who pay attention to the rules of reasoning. Now I will take up the 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 Kis proposition. As long as he does not prove this proposition, he beats the air. But what are we to understand by " DOC- TRINE?" Any '* tejiet of faith or morals which Catholics liold 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 morals that had been Revealed by Almighty God." When he has proven this, then he may again proceed to build his argument on it, nothwithstanding 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 li- berty, 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 " fal- 200 LACiEs" 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 said, and written, and f/o?ze, by these, which are not Catholic doctrines. Thus the Interdict of Venice — does not pretend to be eiiJier a " tenet of faith or morals." In making this the foimdation of nn argument, therefore, he as- sumes FALSE PREMISES, by assuming as a *' doctrine," what is not doctrine, and he arrives at a false concluston. . 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 been 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 noi follow 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 noi 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, tiiat l^e believes his hearers and readers to be ignorant of them. FOURTHLY. The case of Venice furnishes a few facts which go to refute the gentleman. Venice was a REPUBLIC. And Venice was CATHOLIC. Therefore, the Catholic doctrines have nothing in them inconsistent vnth republicanism. . 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 by 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 sfate, by means of the spiritual, which belonged to the church, they resisted him, and were prepared to resist him at the point of 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 comrnents 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 Innocent VIII, I have 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 x\Ir. Breckinridge promised, more than eighteen months since, to procure its authentication from " Cambridoje, 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 were genuine, it would be no proof; because it does not constitute a'ny doctrine of the Catholic religion. This is the point, which the gentleman overlooks, and on which the FALLACY of his indue* tion rests. It purports to be a letter of" Innocent, the Bishop," to his " WELL BELOVED SON Albertus," " Commissary, &.C. both on THIS SIDE and 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 besides 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 iheii 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 anti-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 " Raynold" (Raynaldus) who con- tinued the work of Baronius, and instead of thanking me, for com- pelling him to be 7nore 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 authentic. But as a matter of historical criticism, 1 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 diflicully 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 answcf boldly, NEVER. 26 202 And I call upon their accuser to point out the TENET or DOC- TRINE in their religion that require 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 reli- gion^ 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 never occur, and I reply that, if it can never occur, it can never be right for any majority to establish any religion bylaw. I asked iiimin turn, whether his Scotch forefathers Had a right, being a minority, to pull down by force the altars and religious emblems of the Catholics, who were thfe 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 catechisai, 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 differently. In explaining the gentleman's Confession of Faith, it has this "Question. Are our forefathers to be blamed for pulling dowa 203 altars, images, and other monuments of idolatry, from places of public worship, at the reformation ? 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 Bos- ton. 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 yetty sect, 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 unacquaint- ed 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 bound 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 iu bclicving as tenets of revelation, — shows how the accuser is straitened for evidence. He must first swear, that Catholics believe it as a principle or tenet of their re- ligion— and when tliey 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 my 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, whicli is opposcd to civil and religious liberty. I have, in former speeches, pointed out what fl) Numbers xxxiii. and Dent, vii, 5. (J) Page 66, 67. 204 are the principles of Catholic doctrine. They are tenets, held by the church, as having been revealed by divine authority — are believed by ALL CATHOLICS— in ALL TIMES— in ALL PLACP:S— and which it would b6 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 liber- ty. I shall argue the case for him, by taking up some of those grounds, which the calumnies of Protestant writers have assigned, as evidence in the case. But, before I do this, I have to call upon the gentleman, to explain a k\v points, in which he has had the infirmity/ 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 de- pended on, and as this implies a very serious charge, it becomes necessary for me, to establish, and to prove it. And here 1 must protest against loifoimded accus^iion of" abus6 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 exam- ple, by retorting on him epithets of contempt and odium, such as he has applied tome, "Jesuit," "papist," "foreigner," "mi- nion of the pope," &c. &c., that would be "abuse" — -too viil- gar, I trust, for my imitation. But I have done nothing of this kind. I have been invited expressly, to controvert his statementSy to examine his authority, and expose him, whertever he uses bad logic or false assertion. I hope he did not expect me to come here, at his invitation, to sanction by my silence, the calumnies hy which the public^ (to an almost incredible extent,) have 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 ve- racity, will be scrutinised. He who tries to take away the charac- ter 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?''' I should think not. If he were scrupulous, he would never leave such an advantage in my power. I have already given some instances, in my former speeches, in proof of the fact, that his statements are not to be depended on. 1 shall now give a {qw 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. Hesays, atthe headofit, "i" have the original before me, but for 7vcmf of space, 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 wa/, it has the same general meaning that it seems to have in the translation ?" (p. 100.) His answer to the first question is — *• I answer imhesitatinsrly ^ I do." And yet, ihe 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, which he omit- ted. He had " the original before him." And if he had — he must have known that it was not continuous. How then, and I ask him for a reply, how could he sait/, that it was continuous? — First instance. Again, having the original before him, how could he say in reply to the second question. ** / consider the second question an indignity offered to the feelings 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 TRUTH 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 the executirti 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 denieij, was true. Second " instance." Again still, he says, (same page) ** 1 answer, that it is from your own * Caranza's Summa Conciliorum,' that I quote." Now, the proof ihu 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 ihe ongmo.] for want of space alone.''^ This could not be the fact, if, as we have seen, he had " space" left for what was not in the original at all. Fourth "instance." Now, I challenge the gentleman to 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, unable 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 jjersonalities," are his own. His reference to what he calls, my 206 "spirit and origin," — to " St. John's," "the fashionable CONGREGATION," the " bancl-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 crossness, 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 io 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. However, lest the gentleman should mistake my motive for abstaining, I wish him to know, that, as to family, origin, good-breeding, education, private history, public character, I have no reason to shrink from a comparison with HIM, the said Rev. John Breckinridge. If he brings on the discussion, he will find me as competent to rebuke arrogant pretension, as he has found me to refute bad logic. I shall hold myself ready to balance the 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, /or the purpose of pevama- TioN, then it admits of no palliation. I shall here give one addi- tional " instance," in which the gentleman has 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, \\Q 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. knew for what point of doctrine " The translators of the they {the Protestant transla- English {Protestant) Bible tors,) have thus framed their OUGHT TO BE abhorred to translation, they mould 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," dec. 2. He makes that a chity, which the £(uthors 207 say, would be a consequence. 3. He falsifies the text absolute- ly, by inserting the words, *' OUGHT TO BE," which are not in the orrginal. 4. By his omission of the true, and inserting of the untrue, the citation would make it appear, that the crime of translating the Bible into English, was that, for which the trans- lators "ought to be abhorred," &lz. Now the truth is, that the annotators were censuring them for perverting the Bible, after the example of Calvin. They are censuring that perversion, b.y which these translators, would harve Christ to have " suffered THE PAINS OF THE DAMNED IN HELL." And the Rhemish 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 CORRUPTING the INTEGRITY, and AL- TERING ihe language of his witnesses, for the PATRIOTIC purpose of blackening 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 similar 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 lying title of " A HISTORY OF POPERY." The author appears to have been ashamed to put his name to it. But he got Doctor Miller to endorse the ribaldry. The venerable Professor in an " Introductory Essay," to that compilation of falsehoods and buffoonery, took occasion to allude to the controversy, m language that shows how necessary he must have considered it to repeat the charges, and support them on his 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 thg serious con- sideration of the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. Speaking of the contro- versy, the venerable Professor says, t' Misrepresentations the most gross were not only made, hut after their falsehood was demon- strated, was persevered in with a recklessness, truly astonishing.'^ Yes, we have just "demonstrated" the "falsehood" of some of them. " 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 own 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 him 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 gentleman used them, tliey 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 retracted the expression. Notwithstanding this, contrary to all parliamen- tary usage, he avails himself of my candour to accuse me of in- justice, rslow, the fact is, that the analogies of the case are, as if A had charged B with forging the name of C: And as if B should affect to triumph, on 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 mistatement." I assure him and the au- dience, that I will retract every " mistatement" 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 " mistatement," 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 yiot true: 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 ill reference to this author, I " gloried in the apparent tri- 209 umph over his (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 victory. 1 understood distinctly the gentleman to account for the iniquitous suppression in the Twen- ty-seventh Canon of the Third Council of Lateran, 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 me alone accountable for a position, which he created by his assertion, and confirmed hy 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, he asks: '^ But does the silence of the slandered man make the slander true? And pray, ivhy did he (Mr. H.) say it the first time? 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 was silent as he admits, thereby showing that I had not misunderstood him, then he himself was positively, by his assertion, and negatively, by 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 ch^geoi faithless citation, in regard to the Twenty-seventh Canon of the Third Lateran, by any such silly flourish, as that which I have just exposed. And since he did not follow Caranza, in citing the canon, I call upon him to s!iy from whom he copied. I demand HIS AUTiioRiTy. He cites the beginning and end of the canon, conceals the m,iddle by suppression, 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 si mply ybr 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 — rthat Protestants who love truth, may know in what geometrical progression arc propagated from generation to generation, those calumnies which are invoked to prove that Catholics ought to he hated. Tjie name must be GIVEN, otherwise the falsification must test at the gentleman's own door. Supposing I were to quote a document to show that 27 210 Presbyterians put heretics to death, and suppress the part of the document which attested that these heretics were guihy of mur- der and violence of every description, what vvould honest and honourable men say? I may be told, that this does not justify the canon; — that is not the question. I want to know ivho it was^ that cited \i di\s\\onGs\.\y, 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 'expressive " et caetera." I showed by fio less than five different editions of that work, that it contains every word of the whole 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 ^ew 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 exauiine it, when lo! the entire of the second commmidment w,a.s 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 ca.techism 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 fhey become conspicuous in contributions to present or future schemes of benevolence towards others, without first going back to make straight {he crooked ways of past, pri- vate, and .personal transactions. I b.ave 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- ing 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 consist of ecclesiastical censures, suspensions, and finally excom- munication, which the author calls " the highest grade of co- 211 These are the punishments (poenae), or penalties, by which men are to be " compelled (cogendos) lo 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 by Christ to the church, the right to punish by fines, imprisojiment, or otherwise, ui a civil sense. The proof was, that Devoti, to support that right, referred ex- pressly 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 power given by 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* of 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 ^/ic/r 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 statemenls are not to be depended on. There was no dispute between Devoti and La .Borde, on the subject of bodily or civil punishments. 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 thus was formed that coalition between ecclesiastical apostacy and political ambition, of which the thousand and one religions, called the Reformation, were the amphibious offspring. I refer the audience tq my remarks, in my last speech, for the circumstances in wliich 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 Aim of another " instance" in which his statements are not only not to be -depend- ed on, but are absolutely false and unfounded. From lliese, 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 he who offends against society^ <^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 judgc 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 the 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 crimes, 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 lay 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 of not, it furnishes another ** instance" stilly to prove that 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 bodily punishment on clergymen who had com- mitted any civil crime against society, as *' given by Christ to the church:" whereas Devoti, ^r*^, does ?20^ 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 7iot 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 o( 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, over 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 oi the Catholic religion requires the existence of the Inqui- sition, he shrinks from his proposition. He may abuse it as much 21; .»> 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. Devoti gives an account of its institution, and the gentleman con- cludes that either " Devoti or myself has been guilty of no small departures from historical and doctrinal truth." He will again have to excuse pie, for saying that his statement is not to be de- pended on, until he will have the goodness to point out in lohat these " DEPARTURES" 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 i7nperial laius. He speaks of her *' two-fold power" of punishment. The ONE " wholly spiritual, 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," &lc. 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 " two-fold power." After telling us what was the nature of the power given by Christ — that it is " WHOLLY SPIRITUAL," exercised in " foro intimo" — the conscience, and in*"foro externo," laws and censures; he, Devoti, tells us that she has "another power" which she has in common with every perfect republic, and which " is called temporal." " It follows, says he, that there should be a twofold kind of punishment :" What 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 would not notice, and with a depth of erudition which the gentleman could not fathom. I thank him, however, for having at length done justice to Devoti, at the expense of his own statements. When the imperial laws allowed " ecclesiastical" offenders to be judged and punished by the " ecclesiastical tribunal," then the churchy or the authorities of the church "inflicted bodily punishment." But by what power? Bv 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 civil 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 inspired me with every feeling but respect for the cause that could employ them ; and I can ussure him that his threats shall not deter me from my-duty to truth, and its opposite : I shall continue to defend the one, and expose the other. 1 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 si- lence. And also, he says, *' that about the Third Canon of the Fourth Council of Lateran." Not exactly, sir. The gentleman must first tell us why he said he quoted from " our own Caranza," lite- rally and continuously, when the fact was not so. He says that, in rehtion to this canon, " a^ cveiy step 1 have given ground.' First I tried to defend the canon, as being only discipline against murderers.'^ This is not the fact, I never said it was " discipline^" and never " defended'''' it at all. I showed that it was no " doc- trine;" and then the gentleman represented me as wishing to make it "discipline." 1 showed that the Albigenses, through whom Calvinism 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, he said, that I "defended" the canon. As to its authenticity, I 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 spuriousuess, *as es- tablished by numerous evidences. I drove the gentleman off on this point ; and by a kind of delusion which appears to be natu- ral 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 difference, there- fore, between the gentleman and myself is, that, whilst I have " spiked''^ the canon effectually, 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 pwr^/?ec? 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 has ever seen, '* has opened the eyes of MILLIONS, on the other side of the waters, to the new evidences of the penccuting 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; not, how- 215 ever, to see what the gentleman 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 Mr. 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 gentleman says, I " have proved that i dare not HONESTLY AVOW WHA.T 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 1 can conjecture. Or why i should be AFRAID to avow the docti'ines of my church ** in the United States," is a question which would hardly have occurred to any citizen, except a Vreshylex'i^n, familiar ivitlithe secrets and designs of the anti-Catholic conspiracy , which has begun to show itself in bigotry and DARKNESS, except at Boston, ivhere its darkness was turned into light. He says, I " defend the Bull in Coena 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 riot 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 against his neighbour." The gentleman tells us, that the " Bible doctrine" forbids the establishment of any religion by law. I shall prove from his own " CONFESSION OF FAITH," that his assertion is not the doctrine of his church. Was not the Jewish religion established by law ? And is not this the Bible? Aye, 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 Mr. 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," / ^^ C Henry IV., ^E'-'P""'-^- \ Balislaus, King of Poland. S Henry IV., Emperor. Philip I., King of France, < Henry IV., ^ j Henry v., t Emperors. Henry V., j * Henry V., J William, King of Sicily. C Frederic I., Emperor. I Henry H., King of England. C Henry VI., Emperor. I Alphonso, King of Galicia. Philip and Otho, Emperors. John, King of England. Philip II., of France. Ladislans, King of Poland. Louis VII. &L Louis VIIL, of France. This was the monster who said — '* It has pleased God so to order the affairs of the world, that those provinces which had anciently been subject 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 chnrch, tliat 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 pleniiiide of spiritual things^ and the full extent (latitudinem temporalium) of temporal things. She hath given me the mitre, in token of things spiritual; the crown, in token of things temporal: the mitre, for the priesthood ; the crown, for the kingdom — making me the lieutenant of Him who hath written upon his thigh and upon his vesture. King of kings, and Lord of lords : 1 enjoy alone the plenitude of power, that OTHERS MAY SAY OF ME, NEXT TO GoD, ' and OUt of Ms fuhlCSS IVB have received! ! r " Such were his blasphemous claims — which the Church of Rome has not denounced, but sustained. But to continue our list : — Popes. Honorius, Gregory IX. Innocent IV. Urban IV. - Clement IV. Gregory X. - Nicholas III. Martin IV. - Honorius IV. Nicholas IV. Boniface VIIL John XXII. Benedict XH. Clement VI. Urban VI. - Boniface IX. Innocent VII. Alexander V. Sixtus IV. - y Emp( PmifCEs. Frederic II., C Frederic II., \ Wincessaus. Frederic IL, Emperor. Manfred and > -ir- r c?- m Conradin, ^ Kings of Sicily. C Alphonso, King of Portugal. ^Alphonso X., King of Castile. Charles, King of Anjou. C Peter of Arragon. \ Michael Paleologus, Emperor. 5 James, ") ^Alphonso, t Kings of Arragon. Alphonso, J 5 Philip IV., King of France. ^Eric VIIL, King of Denmark. Lewis of Bavaria, ") Lewis, (.Emperors. Lewis, J C Jane, Queen ? r xt i ^Charles, King5 ^^ ^^P^^^' TLewis of Anjou. t' Richard, > ^. n t, , , Edward, 5 ^^"SS of England. Wenchelaus, Emperor. Ladislaus, > t^. r tvt i Ladislaus,5^^"g««fN^Pl^«- Ladislaus, King of Bohemia. 245 PoPKS. PrIXCKS. TV TT C Albert, KinjT of Naples. JlUlUS II. - - St • VTf T.-- IT? ^ Lewis All., King of France. Leo X. - - Stenon, King of Sweden. Clement VII. - Henry VIIL, > ... ^ ^^ , , n 1 TTT XT TTTTT y King of England. Paul III. - - Henry \ III. ,5 ^ ^ Pius V. - - Elizabeth, Queen of England. 5 Henry HI., King of France. tMxtus V. - - 2 Henry, King of Navarre. Gregoiy XIV. - Henry IV., Kingof France and Navarre. Innocent XI. - Ambassador of Louis XIV. of France. This terrific list needs no comment! It speaks the doctrine of the Church in its superabundant ^^r^c/zce. It is no longer merely an ABSTRACT point to be proved. It is a part of the history 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 forbid it? Have all these Popes done all these things with the connivance of the Church ? Then is such a Church to be trusted, doctrine, or no doctrinel Do so many Popes assert their divine right to depose 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 infallibilities mistaken, and a self-styled insulated inter- preter of catholicity contradict this great cloud of witnessing Popes? And shall we take his word against all these? Impossi- ble. History is on one side ; John Hughes on the other ! The history of Popes, with few exceptions, is a history of usurpation of human rights; enmity to human liberty; lording it over human conscience ; and oppression, when possible, of the temporal, by the spiritual power. "It is well known," says 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 rights 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 2vorld, and subject princes not only in spiritucds, but in temporals also, di- rectly or indirectly ; that the Roman pontiffs consider themselves as kings, as well as priests, uniting the imperial diadem with the mitre, and grasping the sword, together with the keys of St. Peter; yea, as possessed of the power and prerogatives of divinity, 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 ccliit among the nations, till that great city actu- 24G tiUy became once more the mistress of the worlds ' ruling over THE KINGS OF THE EARTH ;' lier fallen empire was again sei up under a new form, and \\e\- pretended vicars oj Christ, in the end, outdid, if possible, her Pagan Cxsars 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 nis 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 cofiers. Tiiey used tlie 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 aftairs 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, whetlier gained by subtlety, extorted by force and terror, or yielded up by voluntary abject concessions, one way or other, these usurping Nimrods found themselves actually possessed of that sovereignty which 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 submilted to their decision. They crowned 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 Roman See, but made the greater part of them really to be so ; imposed oaths of fidelity and vassalage on princes, enlisting them (1) A tax levied by the Popes on every family in England, paid nnnvnlly. 247 under their banners, and sending tliem on their IVantic expeditions ajgfainst 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 offended them, or dared to re- sist their will, they have armed themselves with thunders, de- nountnng 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 intolerable, than all they had befoie either suffered or feared, by the most humiliating ceremonies, the basest and most abject submissions and conces- sions, and sometimes by the most mortifying 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 io prove. If the Reverend 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 deposition of princes, from almost every throne in Europe. But can an American audience, or ajiy honest man, look at this sketch of the claims and practices of the head of the church, and not own that liberty lingers not in a communion or a country which she controls ? There is still extant in Europe a book, 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 llie quolatioiis. (Some of which we give . below.) The title of the work is as follows. Three Books of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Holy Roman Church; printed at Colosrne, 1571." The quotations which follow, illustrate 1 low popes treated, and felt towards, kings and emperors in the days of their power and glory. When the Pope had a procession, it Avas 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. Tbe emperor shall carry the Pope'' s first dish. *' 8. The emperor shall carry the Pope's first cm/)." Think, gentle auditor, that this is the man who calls himself servant of servants, " servus servorum ;^^ think, in contrast, of our blessed Lord, whose vicar the Pope calls himself, washing his disciples^ fiet ; and Peter, the ^^ first Fope,^'' saying, " silver and ^old have 1 7ione.^^ Ls not this he of whom the Apostle Paul speaks, when he tells us of " that man of sin, and son of perdi- tion ; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shoiuing himself that he is God.'" (1) 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, in- stantly struck ivith his foot the emperor's croivn, and cast it upon the ground, signifying that he had the power of deposing him from the empire if he was undeserving of it. The cardinals, however, lifting up the crown, placed it upon the head of the emperor.^' (2) This was Pope Celestine IIL, 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 by the cardi- nals, (et y fut adore des cardinaux,) afterwards by the bishops, (1) See 2 Thes. chap. ii. (2) From Cardinal Baronius's Annals, A. D. 1191. 249 and lastly, by the whole people, who crowded to kiss his feet." (1) The former shows, that he claims divine power over temporal princes and kingdoms ; the latter, that he claims divine worship audaciously, venturing to ascend the altar of God, and there to receive tlie adoration of men 1 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 Roscoe's account of the inauguration of Pope Alexander VI. we are told, that " while the new pontiff 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 one may serve as a sufficient specimen. " Ro7ne was great under Caesar, but now she is greatest; Alexander VI. reigns ; the former was a man, the latter is a god." Caesare majora fuit, nunc Roma est maxima; sixtus regnat Alexander; ille viR, iste DEUs. (2) Pope Nicholas, in his letter to the Emperor Michael, (3) says, *'z7 may very evidently be 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 seculari potestate, nee ligari piorsus nee solvi posse pontificem, quern constat a pio principe Constan- tino, (quod longe superius memoravimus,) Deum appellatum ; nee posse Deum, ab hominibus judicari manifestum est.) Here, after all quibbles have been tried, in vain, the Pope claims exemption 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 : " It is shown sufficiently evident, that the pontiff cannot be hound altogether, nor dissolved, by the secular power, ivho, it is evident, frotn the pious Prince Constantine, was called a God — and that God cannot be indicated by menis 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 spelling, and had mistaken judicari for indicari. He then ren- dered the last clause thus: " that God cannot be judged by 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 Fmch. (3) See Decretals, First Part, Dist. 9G, chap. 7. 32 250 Pope who said tliis, or Constantine ? 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 ihe Pope Nicholas had cited them to the Emperor Michael, to prove that a previous emperor had called 2. 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 ^^ pontijicem^^ meant not the Pope, but every priest! 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 be judged of inen I 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 "/^ the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its prin- ciples 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, ive 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 dhoutfour months after the close of the debate. Was that my fault? 3d. 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 whole 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 was 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 1 could not make out the notes," "this is spoiled," (fee. &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. The 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 his speech abounds, 1 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 SPECIFY, 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 reason 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 own tvritings and assertions^ to estab- lish 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 specify, and prove one single charge of calumny against me. He does not, he cannot. Neither need he be at a loss for an immoral principle, 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 anything, 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 1 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 they 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- ing to this doctrine, Presbyterians might 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 charge Presbyterians Avith being guilty of the "horrible crimes," to which this doctrine invited them. That I may have omitted, on any occasion of read- ing maimscript, a sentence by mistake, is possible, and those who recollect 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. I fling it back upon him with the indignation which it is calculated to excite, and with only this rebuke, that his example, even if I had not known it before, has taught me and this audience that " honesty, 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. Breckinridge 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 hon- our 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 from Caranza," he was betrayed by 254 his pen? That when he said he copied "continuously," he was deceived by his spectacles. Thai, when he said he " had THE ORIGINAL BEFORE HIM," he was Only Copying 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, and that he does not know to what author it belongs. 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, yet 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," rtss judgmenV 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 to 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 (suo jure) 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 Rheniish Testa- ment; and instead of apologising for such dishonourable proceed- ing, 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. 261 Those notes are censurable enough in themselves; and as such were condemned from their first appearance, by the Catholics of England and Jreland. But it seems they were not bad enough for his purpose, and hence he counterfeits tJiem by inserting words which they do not contain, and omitting others that are contained 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 had printed and sent to South America, a pretended Spanish bible, with a falsehood stamped on its title-page. The gentleman 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 undeniable, 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 version of the word of God. They call it on the tiJle-page, the BIBLE OF THE BISHOP OF SEGOVIA, and they know that they have omitted intentionally, several books which that 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? Ilo protestantise 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 ivere 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 Protes- tants, 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 power 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, 262 ihat " the cluircii never put a heretic to death." To thi?, he re- 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 may be proper for me to make a few observations on it. The Pope, 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 fold. The doctrines of that religion give 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. Cotemporary 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 ag well as the empire. Tn the ninth and tenth centuries, the reo"ions 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 /ro?7i PAGANISM, have been converted to the Catholic religion, and by missionaries appointed by, or in connexion 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 realise, 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 l>e judged in connexion with the character of the agej 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 by 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 additioh 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. But who is the prince that was actually DEPOSED by any pope? You will look for his name in history; and you vvill 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, which he did not possess before? Not one. These are i\\e 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- sessioh 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 unlawful end. It was an abuse, conse- quently. And the Catholics of England and Ireland condemned it, and proved that whilst they were ready to suffer persecution for conscience' sake at the hands of Elizabeth, 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 arc 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 to enquire. 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 proof and reason, instead oi 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; 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 of 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, but which thy 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. Recourse 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 I have selected, and if the gentleman will venture to deny the truth of my statements, HERE ARE ALL THE BOOKS, THE PAGES, AND I'ASSAGES 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 Rev. 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 do- cuments. FIRST CALUMNY. ** That according to the Council of Constance, Catholics are not bound 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 pointy 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 itself, 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 soverecgns 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 be- fore. FOURTH CALUMNY. 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 doc- trine, (4) and whereas, Bellarmine teaches no such doctrine, but the reverse, therefore, the charge is FALSE and INJURIOUS 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. Breekinridge, ibid p. 19. (5) Mr. Breckinridge, ibid, passim. 34 266 (even after six different editions had been shown to him,) by referring to a copy which was in New York, and whereas, he has exhibited that copy to this assennbly as proof in his favour, and whereas, THAT COPY CONTAINS IT, like all the others, therefore, the charge js cruelly FALSE and INJURIOUS. SIXTH CALUMNY. "That there is di. dishonest difference 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 what turns out to be a falsijication of the text, by making difull stop in the middle of a sentence, and otherwise mu- tilating ; 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 ^o mutilate it at all? And 2d, How he came to mutilate word for word^ as was done in the above " text-book^' 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 no part of the Catho- lic religion, but a special regulation for 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 speculative 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 suppression of the truth, without being aware of it, from Faber; and whereas, we do not know from whom Faber copied ; and whereas, the greater the multiplication 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, it would refresh the face of Christianity, if Mr. Breckinridge would undeceive the public with the same pen (G) Controversy, p. 86. (7) Ibid, p. 175. 267 which contributed to lead that public astray. Faber will have to see to it in the next world^ if not in this. NINTH CALUMNY. " That the Pope claims the right of ex- terminating heretics." In proof of this, tiic 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 be deposed, and their subjects released from their allegiance, when they become heretics; and that they are to be excommunicated when they neg- lect 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 particular heretics ivhose 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, &lc. And whereas, his opponent has compared, and has the origij/al and TRANSLATION HERE PRESENT, and finds that the said translation is neither " continuous'' nor " literal:'' — because, 1. Whole senten- ces are left out, without the usual marks to indicate the omission. 2. Other sentences are begun or broke off in the middle. 3. The (8) Controversy, p. 174. (9) Ibid, p. 89. (10) CoUier's Eccl. Hist. vol. i.p. 424. 268 worrl " praf^seiitibiis" is omitted, as an important qualification. 4. The last paragraph is 7iot hi the original, and we must be inform- ed wliere the gentleman found it. Hence, the following questions are to be answered. I. Did he quote from Caranza? If hedid, why did he mangle his authority in order to make out his proof? If he did not, why did he say that he did? 2. Had he room for the whole Canon as it is abridged in Caranza? If he had, why did he not give all ? If he hadnot, as he says, why did he introduce a passage which is not in Caranza at all? 3. Did he hioiv how much his translation differed from Caranza? If he did, why did he say that it was " continuous ?" If he did not, why did he say that he had the original before him ? Challenge a comparison of his translation with the original, and affect to be 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 d^xe removed ? \i I were in his situation, I know what I should do. 1 should appeal to the wit- nesses to prove my innocence, and i^ their testimony condemned me, I should apologise 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. After having acknowledged the error of his ci- tation of one of the notes appended to the text of the Rhemish testament, he adds, " Yet prai/, Mr. Hughes^ why pass over all the other citations in silence. One of them says, ' The zeal of Catholic men ought to he so great towards 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 I right in this citation?" Why, Mr. Breckinridge, you are wrong. If you ever saw 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 Lerins and St. Augustine, they conclude in these tvords : '• Lastly, Hierome iiseth this place, wherein the apostle giveth the curse or anathema to cdl false teachers., not once hut twice, to prove that the zeal of Catholic men ought to he so great to- wards all heretics and their doctrines, that they should give them, the anathema, though never so dear to them. In which case, saith this holy doctor, I woidd not spare mine own parents.'*'' This is the true citation. Proving the gentleman guilty of 1st. Garbling, by beginning in the middle 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 il, viz. *' so as not even to spare, Sfc." 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- broken passage, and on examining Baronius, it was found to be made up of " scraps" taken from four different paragraphs of a page, in two columns, folio. The first scrap was from the 5th paragraph, the second from the 6th, the third scrap from the 5th again, the fourth scrap from the 4th paragraph, the fifth scrap from the 5th again, and the sixth 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 1 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 his 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 ei proof thsit the American Constitution sanctions immorality. He has quoted Canon law, and whilst he shows in every sentence 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. Thcsc canons of doctrine are denned 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 1 Not one. They do not exist. But there have been other canons, of which doctrine was not the 270 object. They were lemporary laws made for particular exigen- ces, and »s these were subject to the vicissitudes of time and place, so the rules or canons to which they gave rise were neces- sarily various, different, and often contradictory. They are like a COLLECTION OF CIVIL STATUTES Under the Constitution of Eng- la7id; 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 were, but are not now. They are not even universal laws of the church ; much less, DOCTRINES ; which are con- fined to those tenets of faith and morals that Catholics believe to have been revealed by Almighty God. Where 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 7iever 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 signally and triumphantly FAILED. He spoke of the INaUISITION. 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 portion of that tribunal, it belonged to the civil govern- ments, and was used by them as apolitical engine. To the facts by which this distinction is established, the gentleman has been utterly unable to reply. He spoke of the CRUSADES. 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 sliall 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 pillaged hundreds of towns; massacred thousands of their countrymen; and spread desolation and blood- shed wherever they went. On the occasion of the St. Bartholo- mew, 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 ha-d 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 justify the hor- rid 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 ih Ireland, I advise the gentleman to read Mr. Carey's erudite and unanswerable work, the VINDICI-^ HIBERNICJj]. 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 signally 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 FACTS 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 defend- ed, unless by patience. See St. Ireneus (10), St. Justin (11), Theophilus Alexandrinus (12), Eusebius (13), Tertullian in his Apology (14). He says in his book ad Scapulam (15), speaking of the Christians — *' We loorship the emperor as it befits him, and as it is lawful for us, to wit, as a man next to God, dependent for what he possesses on God, and inferior only to him." 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 ijight of giving kingdoms 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 *' UNAN- (10) Lib. 5, chap. xxiv. (15) Chap. ii. (11) Apol. 2. (J 6) Lib. 3, Cont. Parni. (12) Lib. 1, ad Autilogiuni. (17) Tom. I, p. 371. (13) Lib. 7, chap. x. (18) Lib. 4, de Civit Dei, c. xxxiii. (14) Chap XXX. (19) Tom. II, p. 118. 272 IMOUS CONSENT," that the civil powers of the world, and the spiritual poivers of the church, 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 doctrine of the church : — some human title, or some text of Scrip- ture, employed on the hazard of " private interpretation," which is contrary 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 doctine 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, and 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- 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 Britjsh dominions. This they have not ceased to do since the pretended Reformation^ and discl-ain)ed it ON OATH, as a calumny imputed by their oppressors, and 7iot contained in the' doctrines of the Catholic religion. During most of the last 300 years since the importation of Protestantism, the Catholics, who have cgntinued 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 prin- ciple 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 una- nimously, as follows : — (1 ) (1) See Butler's Book of the Church. 273 *' 1. Has the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, any civil authority, power, JURISDICTION, or PRE-EMINENCE ivhatsocver,, ivithin the realm of England? '* 2. Can the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his tnajesty^s subjects, from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever? " 3. Is there any tenets of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics ARE JUSTIFIED in not keeping faith ivith here- tics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature?'" The Universities answered unanimously : — *' 1. That the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, has not any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm of England. " 2. That the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, cannot absolve or dispense 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 keep- ing faith with heretics, or other jjersons differing from them in religious opinions, 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, &lc., rather than swear a false oath. They wer^ required to swear, that they believed in the religious opinions set forth in various acts of par- liament, and that they did not believe in the doctrines of their own Church. This, they knew, would be j9e?7 wry. And because they would not commit this perjury, they were doomed to submit to the grinding and degradation of the penai, code, which brands protestantism with such indelible crimes of persecution for con- science 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 described 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 be taxed with- out his own consent, it double-taxed every mail who refused to abjure his religion, and thus become an apostate. IV. It shut them out from all offices of power and trust, even the most insig- 35 274 nificant. V. It took from tliem the right of presenting to livings in the Church, though 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 Ghurch, to go to which they deemed apostacy. VII. It disabled them from keeping arms in their houses /or their defence^ from maintaimng suits at law; from being guardians or executors ; from practising in law or physic; from travelling five miles from their houses, and all these, under heavy penalties, in case of disobedience. VIII. Jf a juarried woman kept away from, Church, she forfeited two- thirds OF HER DOWER ; slic coukl not bc executrix to her hus- band, and m,ight, during her husband's lifetime, be hnprisoned, 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 oi not going to Church, to call him before them, to compel Imn 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 which 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. XII. It imposed a fine of about ten pounds a month, for employing a Catholic schoolmaster hi 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 piofits, 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 pounds. 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 QUARTERING. " In Ireland, the code was still more ferocious, more hideously bloody : fot, 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 inflicted upon unhappy 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 savage punishments. I. A Catholic schoolmaster. 275 private or public;, or even usher to a Protestant, was punished with IMPRISONMENT, BANISHMENT, uud FINALLY, AS A FELON. IL The Catholic clergy were not allowed to he in the country, with- out being registered, and kept as a sort of prisoners at large ; and rewards were given, (^oiit 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. Til. Any two justices of the peace might call before them any Catholic, order him to declare an oath, where and when jie 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 yearns 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. V. 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 bill against the suspected trustee, and 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 ihan one-third, might dispossess the Catholic, and enter on the lease in his stead. VII. Any Protestant see- ing a Catholic with a horse, worth inore than five pounds, might take the horse away frotn him upon tendering him five pounds, VIII. In order to prevent the smallest chance of justice in these and similar cases, none but knoivn Protestants were to be jury^ wen 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 by 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. XL 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, though the pro- perty might be entailed on them. XII. If there were no Protes- tant heir, then, in order to break 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 forbiddem to marry a Catholic in or out of Ireland. XIV. All marriages be- tween Protestants and Catholics were annulled, though many children might have proceeded from them. XV. Every priest, mho celebrated ii 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, his own child, if the child, however young, PRE- TENDED to be a Protestant ; but the child was taken 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 fit. XVIII. ' Wives, be obedient unto your own hus- bands,' 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, hoivever bad a wife or a bad 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^ Such is but a part of the punishment which Catholics might have escaped, if the doctrines of their Church had only permitted tbeni 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 laivs 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 ! ! • 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 7ione 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 Pio- 277 testanls, 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 Catholic Maryland, where conscience was declared free. EIGHTH FACT. That the last Catholic 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 attempt to establish universal toleration, lost the crown and kingdom to James II. and his son. NINTH FACT. T\i2.i some oi i\ie 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 Protes- tant patriots by whom it was secured. Will any man, 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, furnish such evidences, both of principle and of practice, on the question of civil and religious liberty, without violating any doctrine of their creed, is opposed to civil and religious liberty? And whilst the gentleman on the other . side has signally, and triumphantly FAILED ; — in every attempt to prove the affirmative, 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 Corifession of Faith, are truly hostile to civil and religious liberty, t shall show, that they have led to persecution, and, if reduced to practice, that they would lead to persecution again in the nineteenth century, and in this very country. If I do not prove my proposition, so as to make the gentleman 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 his peculiarly ingenious mode of spreading it, as a mantle, over the weakness of his arguments. PART II. "IS THE PRESBYTERIAN RELIGION, IN ANY OR IN ALL ITS PRINCIPLES OR DOCTRINES, OPPOSED TO CIVIL OR RE- LIGIOUS LIBERTY]" DISCUSSION. " Is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or all of its prin- ciples or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty 7^^ AFFIRMATIVE I.— 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 lork, 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 diOwv\, first, the denomination that is most unpopular, and then, by the same rule, to graduate the scale in reference to other sects, un- til Presbyterians shall be predomindtit. The watchword is well se- 36 282 lected. Under the pretence of solicitude for the preservation of CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, tlic Catliolics are to be robh)ed 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 " foreigneis," 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 their own creation to appear as the spontaneous manifestation of American feeling. And hence, we find, by a co- incidence, loo 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 vilify 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 agitate the elements of strife, and the pulpit, from whence men. should learn to forget and forgive, was selected as the laboratory^.. It was 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, know- ingly, 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 the doctrines of the Catholic religion, and the sayings or doings of 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 1 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 pulverised, annihi- lated, and that, after having been reduced to nothing, 1 fled. You till know how that was. But if they could publish such a statement, unsupported by one little of truth, how much more, in case I had, in fact, declined the discussion ? On that evening I had to encoun- ter the Rev. 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 Phila- 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 sliould hav'C learnt in New York, on Wednesday, what he acknowledges he knew in Philadelphia on the Friday 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 Ihey 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, labouied 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 here he knew no ma«." Presbyterian charity is always geographical, mine is catholic- I respect age everywhere, and, therefore, I dismiss the subjects Yet the gentleman's remarks came in the richness of Scotch-Irish accents, that brought back thie ears 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, or proved by a General Council, or the bull 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 either of iliese sources, mioit be a doctrine. Discipline, history of events, le;^islalion, enactment, everything was doctrine. He was as in- nocent of tlie knowledge of what constituted doctrine^ as the child unborn. Two or three days before, he had defined " doctrines as those tenets of faith and morals, which a denomination teaches, AS HAVING BEEN REVEALED Bv Almighty God." But on the en- trance into this Hall, his memory was overtaken with a most un- accountable " backsliding and short-coming." Then everything 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 foi tlie authority of the renegade, the apostate 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 De Pradt 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, 1 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- posures 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 vj ere furious figures; he terminated with the anecdote of the " butcher and his ham" — and the " hen laying eggs" — this was flat. In a word — He commenced with a "wen," And he closed with a " hen." I recognize the fitness, as well as humility, 6f 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, mine being the right to prosecute, and his 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, "(1) 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 " fore-ordained" 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 '" unchangeably fore-ordained,'''' and yet the agent, who was " fore-ordained" 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 155.3, 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 "fore-ordained unchangeably;" 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 fore-ordained" that he should do ! 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 I.,