V. The last feature of the Reformation to which we shall advert is, that it has delivered the civil government of the countries which embraced it, from papal tyranny, and has given a new impulse to civil liberty, which has been felt throughout the Christian world.
Since the relative tendencies of Protestantism and Popery have been fully developed and attentively studied, no fact in the philosophy of history is more fully established than that the former is intimately allied to civil liberty; and the latter to civil despotism. Ecclesiastical government, like that which pertains to the state, may be divided into government of the will or authority, and government of law or reason. The several Protestant churches are confessedly governed by fixed principles of reason and scripture. They have adopted the word of God as their ultimate book of facts and principles in morals, by which they profess to be guided, to which they refer in all doubtful or disputed cases. This book they freely circulate among the community, that all may study the subject, become qualified to judge for themselves, and exercise their civil influence in defence of their rights. Romanism demands absolute, unconditional submission to the decisions of mother church; discourages all effort in the community to judge for themselves; yea, prohibits the general reading of God's word; interdicts altogether the writings of those who impugn the position of the church, and condemns as mortal sins every attempt to vindicate the unalienable rights of the people. Nay, it even conceals from its own laymen those decrees of councils and bulls of popes, which are most dangerous to their own liberties and those of their Protestant brethren, although it requires them all from Sabbath to Sabbath to repeat their belief in them. Thus creating a habit of instinctive submission to certain unknown doctrines or principles of their church, and preparing at least the less enlightened eventually to execute purposes of cruelty and injustice, from which, if honestly dealt with, they would shrink with horror. To what flagrant violations of the civil rights of governments and people, these principles of popery led in the course of her history, is also but too indelibly impressed on the annals of Europe and South America and even Asia! How much, how incalculably much the Protestant nations have gained by the Reformation, is demonstrated by their manifest and striking superiority to t heir Catholic neighbours in every thing relating to civil rights and liberty, to internal improvements, to domestic purity and happiness, to literacy activity and enterprise and to scientific investigations. But that we may do no injustice to the Romish church, we shall let her own standard writings illustrate the facts in her history, and as her principles professedly change not, the investigation will be fairly applicable to prospective Romanism in our own country. The established principles of Popery which have hitherto led to her encroachments on civil liberty, and must also do so in our country as soon as she prevails, are the following:--
1. The popes actually do claim at this day jurisdiction over the highest civil governments of the world. Listen to language of pope Pius VII., in his bull of excommunication against Napoleon in 1809: "Let them once and again understand, that by the law of Christ their sovereignty (the French empire) is subject to our throne; for we also exercise a sovereignty; we add also, a more noble sovereignty; unless it were just that the spirit should yield to the flesh; and celestial things to terrestrial."84 Hear again the language of the present pope Gregory XVI. but three years ago. His priests in Portugal were in rebellion against the government, the government drove off the pope's nuncio, and confiscated the property of the rebellious priests. The pope
84 M'Gavin's Protestant, ch. 106, 107, vol. ii.
denounces them "for rashly arrogating power over the church," and adds: "We do explicitly declare, that we do absolutely reprobate all the decrees of the government of Lisbon made to the detriment of the church and her priests, and declare them null and of no effect." Hear finally the claims of Pius VII. in 1808, to his agents in Poland: the laws of the church do not recognize any civil privileges as belonging to persons not Catholic; that their marriages are not valid; that they can live only in concubinage; that their children being bastards are incapacitated to inherit; that the Catholics themselves are not validly married, unless they are united according to the rules prescribed by the court of Rome; and that when they are married according to these rules, their marriage is valid even if they, in other respects, infringed all the laws of their country.85 Here, then, if there is any meaning in language, the popes explicitly and honestly tell us, that they do claim authority over the existing civil governments of the land, and claim and exercise the power of abrogating the civil laws, made by the government. They do not even rest claim on the fact, that the French and Portuguese had professed the Romish religion: because as Dens' Theology, the present popish textbook in Maynooth College, where bishop England and multitudes of our Irish priests were educated, informs us, "Though they (the Protestants) and not of the (Romish) church, they (the protestants) being baptised, are subject to the (Romish) church"!!! So that the same claim to the control of our government may be expected to be asserted by the pope, so soon as he finds his Catholics strong enough to sustain him.
2. Again, the popes undertake to depose civil rulers and to absolve the people from their allegiance to their own civil governments, even if they had formerly pledged that allegiance by an oath.
The third Lateran council prescribes to all good Catholics, "That oaths which contravene the utility of the church, and the constitutions of the holy fathers, are not to be called oaths, but rather perjuries."86
The fourth council of the Lateran is still more explicit in its decrees. Having first commanded that "the secular powers, whatever office they execute, be admonished, persuaded, and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they desire to be reputed and accounted faithful, so they would publicly take an oath for the defence of the (Romish) faith, according to their power to destroy all heretics marked by the church, out of the lands of their jurisdiction."--The council then proceeds to prescribe the remedy of the church, in case any civil ruler should refuse to exterminate his subjects at the bidding of the papal minions. "But if the temporal prince, being admonished and required, shall neglect to purge his land from this heretical filthiness, He Shall Be excommunicated by the bishops of the province, and if he shall refuse to give satisfaction within a year, let it be signified to the pope, that he may forthwith pronounce his vassals Absolved From Their Allegiance (for not murdering their Protestant neighbours!!!) and expose his land to be possessed by Catholics, who having destroyed the heretics, may possess it without contradiction, &c."87 To the decrees of these councils among others, every pope binds himself to adhere, in the following words: "I also without doubt receive and profess all other things, delivered, defined and declared by the sacred canons and general
85 Quarterly Register, Vol. iii. p. 89; and Beecher's Plea, p. 173.
86 Labbei Concilia, Tom. x. p. 1522.
87 Labbei Concilia, Tom. xi. Part i. p. 148, can. 3, and Horne on Romanism, p. 30.
councils, and especially by the holy council of Trent; and all things contrary to them, with all heresies rejected and cursed by the church, I likewise condemn, reject and curse."88 And even the late pope Pius VII. explicitly says: "It is a rule of canon law, that the subjects of a prince manifestly heretical (Protestant) are released from all obligation to him, are dispensed from all allegiance and all homage!!!" This is the theory of the Romish church, set forth in terms too explicit to be misunderstood. The popes, therefore, down to the present incumbent, do evidently claim the right and avow it as their obligation to denounce Protestant rulers, and to absolve their subjects from all civil allegiance to them.
That the popes have not been remiss in the discharge of the duty enjoined on them by the canons, whenever they possessed the requisite power, is testified only too abundantly by the history of papal countries.
Saint Gregory VII. twice anathematized and deposed the Emperor Henry IV. In 1116 the Emperor Henry V. was deposed by Paschal II.; John, King of England, by Innocent III. in 1210, and Raymond, Count of Thoulouse, by the same pontiff, in 1215; the Emperor Frederick II. by Innocent IV. in 1245; Peter, King of Arragon, by Martin IV. in 1283; Matthew, Duke of Milan, in 1322, and Lewis of Bavaria, in 1324, by John XXII.; Barnabas, Duke of Milan, by Urban V. in 1363; Alphonso, King of Arragon, in 1425, by Martin V.; the king of Navarre, by Julius II. in 1512, Henry VIII. King of England, by Paul III. in 1538; Henry III. of France, in 1583, by Sixtus V.; who, on hearing of this monarch's assassination by friar Jacques Clement, declared that the murderer's fervent zeal toward God surpassed that of Judith and Eleazar, and that the assassination was effected by Providence! In 1591, Gregory XIV. and in the following year the uncanonically elected Pope, Clement VII., issued bulls of deposition against Henry IV. King of France, whose life was first attempted by John Chastel, a Jesuit, then by a monk, and finally, he was stabbed by Ravaillac. In 1569 saint Pius V. deposed Queen Elizabeth, whose Romanist subjects he stimulated to rebel against her, and furnished some of them with money to aid their nefarious attempts; and bulls of deposition were fulminated against that illustrious Queen, by Gregory XIII. in 1580, Sixtus V. in 1587, and Clement VIII. in 1600. Sixtus V. in his bull, styled her an usurper, a heretic, and an excommunicate; gave her throne to Philip II. of Spain, and commanded the English to join the Spaniards in dethroning her. Clement VIII. in 1600, issued a bull to prevent James I. ascending the throne of England, declaring that "when it should happen that that miserable woman [Queen Elizabeth] should die, they [her subjects] should admit none to the crown, though ever so nearly allied to it by blood, except they would not only tolerate the [Roman] Catholic religion, but promote it to the utmost of their power, and would, according to ancient custom, undertake upon oath to preform the same." In 1643, Urban VIII. issued a bull of deposition against Charles I. in Ireland; where two years before not fewer than 100,000 Protestants were massacred, and to those who had joined the rebellion of 1641, the same holy pontiff granted a plenary indulgence. In 1729 Benedict XIII. at the instance of the Romanist Irish prelates, issued a bull to dethrone George II. King of England, with an indulgence for raising money to support the Pretender. In 1768, Clement XIII. published a brief, on occasion of certain edicts issued by the Duke of Parma and Placentia, in his own dominions; wherein the pontiff, in the plentitude of his usurped authority, abrogated, repealed, and annulled, as being prejudicial to the liberty, immunity, and jurisdiction of the church, whatever the Duke had ordered in his edicts,
88 Pope Pius' VIIth Creed.
and forbade his subjects to obey their sovereign; further depriving all, who had either published or obeyed the edicts, of all their privileges, and incapacitating them from receiving absolution, until they should fully and entirely have restored matters to their former condition, or should have made suitable satisfaction to the church, and to the holy see. In 1800, the late pope Pius VII. announced his election to the pontificate to Louis XVIII. as the lawful King of France; and in the following year he exhibited a most edifying instance of papal duplicity, when it suited his interest, by entering into a concordat with Bonaparte, in which, besides suppressing 146 episcopal and metropolitan sees, and dismissing their bishops and metropolitans without any form of judicature, he absolved all Frenchmen from their oaths of allegiance to their legitimate sovereign, and authorized an oath of allegiance to the First consul: and when Louis XVIII. sent his ambassador to Rome to present his credentials, the pontiff refused to receive him. With marvellous infallibility, however, not quite eight years after, the same pontiff issued a bull (in June, 1809,) excommunicating Bonaparte and all who adhered to him in his invasion of the papal states; in which bull he makes the same extravagant pretensions to supreme power which had been put forth by Saint Gregory VIIl., Innocent III. and other pontiffs.89
But it may be asked, why have not the popes exercised this right against our own government, if they are in sober earnest in claiming its possession? To this interrogation we will permit pope Pius himself to furnish a very satisfactory reply. "To be sure," he says, "we have fallen into such calamitous times, that it is not possible for the spouse of Jesus Christ to practise, nor expedient for her to recall her holy maxims of just rigour against the enemies of the faith. But although she cannot exercise her right of deposing heretics (Protestants) from their principalities, and declaring them deprived of their property," &c. The reason, it seems, why the popes do not dethrone Protestant rulers as they formerly did, is not a change in their principles, but a want of power to execute their wishes, an unwillingness on the part of the Protestant subjects to obey the lordly dictates of the pontiffs!! Hence the only course left for the holy father, is first to convert enough of these heretical subjects to the Romish church, and train them to implicit obedience to the priests, so that in due time they will be prepared to execute the pontifical mandate to "dethrone their heretical rulers," and extirpate their heretical fellow citizens.
3. The third principle of Popery which has led to infringement of civil liberties of Protestants is, that Romish ecclesiastics, priests, monks, and nuns claim exemption from the civil jurisdiction of the governments under which they live.
The bull of Pope Paul V. termed "In coena Domini," of "At the supper of the Lord," in its fourteenth section, "excommunicates all persons, both ecclesiastical and secular, who appeal from the execution of the pontifical briefs, indulgences, or any other of their decrees--and all those who have recourse to secular courts for redress from Roman jurisdiction--and all those who hinder or forbid the publication and execution of those letters and decrees; and all those who molest, imprison, terrify or threaten those who execute the commands of the Roman court."90
89 See Horne on Romanism, pp. 31, 32, 33.
90 M'Gavin's Protestant, Vol. ii. p. 690, 691.
Section sixteenth, of the same bull, "curses all those who draw ecclesiastical persons, convents, &c., before their tribunal, against the rules of the canon law."91
And section twenty, of the same instrument, completes the work. It anathematizes and excommunicates all and every the magistrates, judges, notaries, &c., who intrude themselves in capital or criminal causes against ecclesiastical persons, by processing, apprehending or banishing them, or pronouncing or executing any sentences against them, without the special, particular, and express license of this holy apostolic see: and also all those who extend such licenses to persons or cases not expressed, or any other way abuse them, although the offenders should be counsellors, senators, chancellors, or entitled by any other "names."92 The twenty-eighth section enjoins it on all prelates, bishops, priests, &c., absolutely to publish this arrogant bull at least once a year in their churches. Whether this bull is regularly published in this country we know not. Possibly the pope, who can and often has suited his religion to the times, has given a secret dispensation for a season in this republican country; if not, it is now published, though probably in Latin, that it may not excite public attention. In Roman Catholic countries it is faithfully published and acted on: and even "though the late Grand Duke Leopold, of Tuscany, frequently commanded the entire suppression of it in his territories, that paper was, not withstanding, affixed by the priests to the confessionals and sacristies; while others had the hardihood to publish it from the pulpit or the altar on the day specified by the pope."93
4. The fourth principle which makes them dangerous to civil government is, that their priests, &c., are under such oaths to the pope and his kingdom, as render them necessarily unfaithful to the civil liberties of any country.
The oath taken by priests is as follows: "Omnia a sacris canonibus," &c. "All things defined by canons and general councils, and especially by the Synod of Trent, I undoubtedly receive and profess. And all things contrary to them I reject and anathematize; and from my dependents and others who are under my care, as far as possible, I will withhold. And this Catholic faith I will teach and enforce upon them." The cananical oath, which every prelate takes at his consecration, runs thus: "Ego ab hac hora," &c. "From this hour forward I will be faithful and obedient to my Lord the pope, and his successors. The counsels with which they trust me, I will not disclose to any man, to the injury of the pope and his successors. I will assist them to
91 Id., Vol. ii. p. 691
92 M'Gavin's Protestant, Vol. ii. p. 691. St. Ligori, the latest authority, quoted by Dr. Varela, in New York, affirms the same dangerous doctrine. "It is certain, (he says) that ecclesiastics are not subject to the civil war, either by canonical or civil right. They re bound, however, in conscience, by the civil laws which are not repugnant to their station. The civil law has no power to compel them, but it can give them directions, in order that they may conform to the community."--De Privileg. N. 18. "The clergy, (he continues) are exempt from punishment by the civil law."-- Id., N. 19. See Smith's Ligori, a work that deserves to be in the hands of every American citizen, p. 207.
That Catholic priests do not feel bound to speak the truth in some cases, even when on oath, is explicitly asserted by this same saint, whose works were sanctioned by the Pope and Congregation of Rites at Rome in 1816. "A confessor may affirm even with an oath, that he knows nothing about a sin which he has heard in confession, meaning thereby, that he does not know it as a man, but not that he does not know it as a minister of Christ." "A culprit or a witness who is interrogated by a judge unlawfully, can swear that he is ignorant, when in truth he knows."--Id. N. 153--154. Smith's Synopsis of Ligori, p. 160.
93 M'Gavin's Protestant, Vol. ii. p. 697.
retain and defend the popedom and the royalties of Peter against all men. I will carefully conserve, defend and promote the rights, honours, privileges, and authority of the pope. I will not be in any council, pact or treaty, in which any thing prejudicial to the person, rights, or power of the pope is contrived; and if I shall know any such things, I will hinder them to the utmost of my power, and with all possible speed I will signify them to the pope. To the utmost of my power I will observe the pope's commands, and make others observe them. I will impugn and persecute all heretics, (Protestants,) and rebels to my lord the pope."94
Now when it is recollected that the power claimed by the popes is as much political as religious; that he claims control over all civil governments, as has been already proved to you both by papal bulls and canons of councils, is it not difficult to evade the inference, that persons who have taken this oath to support all the power and "royalties" of the pope, cannot be true to the political interests of our own country and government, which are so diametrically opposed to those of popery?
Of a character still more glaringly treasonable is the form of a "Jesuit's oath of secrecy, as it remains on record at Paris, among the Society of Jesus."95 In order, it would seem, to keep the whole body of ecclesiastics detached from the interests of civil governments, to make them an ecclesiastical and civil standing army, true only to the interests of the popes, the 43d canon of the Council of Lateran, under Innocent III., actually forbids the Romish priests from taking the oath of allegiance to the civil government: "Saci auctoritate Concilii prohibemus," &c. "By the sacred authority of this Council, we declare, that it is unlawful for secular princes to require an oath of fidelity and allegiance of their clergy; and peremptorily forbid all priests from taking any such
94 Pontifical. Romanor. de Consecrat. Elect. in Episcopum, p. 57, and M'Gavin, Vol. ii. p. 694.
95 The Jesuits' Oath.--I, A.B., now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the archangel, the blessed St. John Baptist, the holy apostles St. Peter and St Paul, and the saints and sacred hosts of heaven, and to you my ghostly father, do declare from my heart, without mental reservation, that his holiness Pope Urban is Christ's vicar general, and is the true and only head of the Catholic or universal church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to his holiness by my Saviour Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths, and governments, all being illegal, without his sacred confirmation, and that they may safely be destroyed; therefore, to the utmost of my power I shall and will defend this doctrine, and his holiness's rights and customs against all usurpers of the heretical (or Protestant) authority whatsoever: especially against the now pretended authority and Church of England, and all adherents, in regard that they and she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred mother Church of Rome. I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, or state, named Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates or officers. I do further declare, that the doctrine of the Church of England, of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and of other of the name Protestants, to be damnable, and they themselves are damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all, or any of his holiness's agents in any place, wherever I shall be, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, or in any other territory or kingdom I shall come to; and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestants' doctrine, and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding i am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagating of the mother church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they intrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstances whatsoever: but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me, by you my ghostly father, or by any of this sacred convent. All which I, A.B., do swear by the blessed Trinity, and blessed sacrament, which I now am to receive, to perform, and on my part to keep inviolably: And do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real intentions to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the eucharist; and witness the same further with my hand and seal in the face of this holy convent, this---day of---An. Dom. &c. M'Gavin's Protestant, Vol. ii. p. 256.
oath if it be required." According to this canon, no Romish priest can be naturalized as a citizen of our republic. It is a curious topic of inquiry, whether Romish priests do generally become naturalized or not. Would it not be an interesting and important circumstance, if the inquiry should establish the fact, that of the whole mass of foreign priests, not one has become a naturalized citizen of our country? We do not assert the fact, yet we should not be surprised if it is found true. We have never ourselves heard of a case of such naturalization.
Thus have we presented to you some of the anti-republican principles of popery, derived not from doubtful sources, not from the fabrications of Protestants,but from the bulls and canons of the Romanists themselves, all which the priests are by oath bound to observe. Prior to the Reformation these principles were fully acted out in Europe; and since that time they are still observed in all Catholic countries, except where the civil governments, even though Catholic, have not fully submitted. In our own country the priests can accomplish their objects only be degrees. Yet do we not perceive symptoms of their progress? Is it not a fact, that even at this day there are some popish nunneries, &c., in our country, into the interior of which no civil officer is ever admitted?96 Does not this look like a gradual assertion of the claim to exemption from civil
96 The following documents in relation to the Convent in Baltimore, are taken from the Baltimore Literary and Religious Magazine, edited by the Rev. R.J. Breckinridge. The witnesses are credible and respectable persons, and no explanation has yet been given of the mysterious circumstance to which they relate. If such cries had been heard in any other institution, would the civil authorities not have examined into the matter?
We whose names are subscribed hereto, declare and certify, that on or about the -- day of --- 183-, about nine o'clock at night, as we were returning home from a meeting in the Methodist Protestant Church, at the corner of Pitt and Aisquith street, and when opposite the Carmelite Convent and school in Aisquith street, our attention was suddenly arrested by a loud scream issuing from the upper story of the convent. The sound was that of a female voice indicating great distress--we stopped and heard a second scream, and then a third, in quick succession, accompanied with the cry of Help! Help! Oh, Lord! Help! with the appearance of great effort. After this there was nothing more heard by us during the space of ten or fifteen minutes--we remained about that time on the pavement opposite the building from which the cries came.
When the cries were first heard, no light was visible in the fourth story, from which the cries seemed to issue. After the cries, lights appeared in the second and third stories--seeming to pass rapidly from place to place, indicating haste and confusion. Finally, all the lights disappeared from the second and third stories, and the house became quiet.
No one passed along the street where we stood, while we stood there. But one of our party was a man, and he advanced in life--all the remainder of us were women. The watch was not yet set, as some of us heard 9 o'clock cried before we got home.
Many of us have freely spoken of these things since their occurrence, and now, at the request of Messrs. B. and C. and M. we give this statement--which we solemnly declare to be true--and sign it with our names.
John Brushcup,
Lavina Brown,
Sophronia Brushcup,
Hannah Leach,
Sarah E. Baker,
Elizabeth Polk.
control enjoined by their bulls and canons? The hostility of their leaders to our political institutions has even been openly professed, and therefore cannot well be denied by them, nor doubted by the most charitable Protestants. Bishop Flaget of Kentucky complains in his letters to his superiors in Europe, that the conversion of the Indians to Romanism is principally retarded by their intercourse with the whites, "which," he adds, "cannot be hindered as long as this Republic shall subsist." Mr. Baraga, another Austrian Jesuit, laments "the evils of a free government," and of "This Too Free government!!" When therefore we reflect, that republican institutions are alike hostile to the ecclesiastical despotism of Rome, and the civil despotism of Austria and Europe generally, nothing can be more evident than that the downfall of our government would advance the interests of both ecclesiastical and political monarchists, and is naturally desired by them, even if they had not themselves confessed the fact. The monarchists and statesmen of Europe well know the fruitlessness of an attempt to destroy our republic by open invasion. The only mode or reaching us is by indirect action. What pretext could be more specious than that of religion? And as Popery, which is a system of politico-religious despotism, is well understood to be hostile to liberty in every form, the enemies of human rights must rejoice in its extension, however indifferent they may be to every thing like true religion. When, under these circumstances, we see hundreds of societies organized in Catholic Europe, and patronized by the first politicians and monarchists of Austria, to propagate popery in America, their motive may be
Baltimore, March 13th, 1835.
This is to certify that John Brushcup, Hannah Leach, Sophronia Brushcup, Lavinia Brown, and Sarah E. Baker, are acceptable members of the Methodist Protestant Church, of Pitt street station.
(Signed)
William Colier, Superintendent.
We take leave then (says the editor of the Magazine) to say in conclusion:--1. This whole subject must be perfectly familiar to the Superior of the Convent, and to the priest who resides there as Confessor to the establishment, and we demand of them an explicit and satisfactory account of this affair; in default of receiving which, we shall put upon their silence the only construction it can bear.
2. The Archbishop of this diocess ought to know that such transactions are perpetrated in this establishment. And if all his American feelings are not swallowed up in his vows and duties to the head of the Holy Roman state, we expect and call upon him to ferret out this transaction and relieve the public mind, by a full statement of the affair.
3. To aid him in his humane labours, we have to say, that we are well assured that two females have died within six months in the Carmelite Convent; and if he will furnish us with the date of their deaths, then we will furnish him with the date the terrible affair to which we now call his paternal notice."
And yet, in regard to entering into these abodes of uncleanness and cruelty, Catholic priests, according to the doctrine of their own sainted Ligori, feel it a duty to encourage children not to consult their own parents, the natural protectors whom God has given them. "Children (says Ligori) who wish to enter into the religious state (that is, to become monks or nuns) are not bound, neither is it expedient for them, to consult their parents. Children should be very cautious in respect to their vocation to a religious life, not to consult their parents (!!!); for it is said, 'make thy case known to thy friend,' because one's carnal relations are not friends in this affair, but enemies, according to what the Lord has said-- 'A man's enemies are those of his own household.' From all this, the conclusion is, that children who enter into the religious state without consulting their parents, do not sin, but, generally speaking, they greatly err, if they let them know any thing about their vocation."--Smith's Synopsis of Ligori, p. 231.
easily conjectured. When we learn, too, that this motive is the current topic of conversation in the higher circles of Europe, and that the few friends of human liberty there feel an anxious apprehension from the machinations of Roman priests; when even the venerable patriot Lafayette was constrained to exclaim to different American citizens, "If the liberties of your country are destroyed, it can only be by the popish clergy;"97 it becomes us to lend respectful attention to this subject, and in a suitable, Christian manner, endeavour to resist the encroachments of the enemy.
Here we are met by the objection, that papists, when interrogated, deny every intention hostile to our liberties, and ought they not to be believed? We answer, the mass of common papists we have already exonerated from the charge of being privy to such designs. The secret has not been confided to them. They are only taught implicitly to obey the priest and pope and councils, at the hazard of eternal ruin, and thus, in due time, as common soldiers, to obey their commanders. But, some of their leading bishops and priests have denied all such design. True, but these are well acquainted with the decree of the council of Constance, that no faith need be kept with heretics, in virtue of which poor Huss, though in possession of a letter of safe conduct from Emperor Sigismund himself, was committed to the flames. They well know also that this canon with respect to not keeping faith with heretics was distinctly recognized by the council of Trent, the last general council that has been held; and that it is therefore still in force.98 Now supposing these priests even to be conscientious men, as they believe and obey those canons, they can state any thing, and deny any thing, even with an oath, as the papal bull declares, and their oath itself is not binding if the violation of it advances the interests of the church! So long, therefore, as these canons remain unaltered, and priests continue by an oath to bind themselves to obey them, they cannot reasonably expect intelligent Protestants to believe their disclaimer. At
97 "The very last interview (says Professor Morse) which I had with Lafayette on the morning of my departure from Paris, full of his usual concern for America, he made use of the same warning; and in a letter which I received from him but a few days after at Havre, he alludes to the whole subject, with the hope expressed that I would make known the real state of things in Europe to my countrymen: at the same time charging it upon me as a sacred duty as an American, to acquaint them with the fears which were entertained by the friends of republican liberty, in regard to our country."--Preface to Professor Morse's edition of "Confessions of a French Catholic Priest," &c. p. ix.
98 M'Gavin's Protestant, vol. i. p. 203, 204. History abundantly testifies how faithfully the decree of that Council has been observed. Not to insist upon the numerous plots and conspiracies against the reformed religion in Great Britain, from its establishment to the memorable gunpowder conspiracy, and the Irish conspiracy in 1729; witness the martyrdom of John Huss, who, though he had a safe conduct from the emperor Sigismund, guaranteeing his free access to the Council of Constance, and his free return from it, was nevertheless imprisoned there; and, after a process on a charge of heresy, was condemned and burnt to death, in violation of every law, human and divine. Witness the massacre of St. Bartholomew. Witness also the massacre of 1641, in Ireland, where (as in France, sixty-nine years before) no ties of nature or of friendship could prevent papists from embruing their hands in the blood of their nearest Protestant relations. To these instances may be added the unprincipled revocation of the sacred and irrevocable edict of Nantes, by Louis XIV., against the faith of the most solemn treaties. Once more, in 1712, when by virtue of the treaty of Alt-Rastadt certain places were to be surrendered to some Protestant princes, Pope Clement XI. in a letter to the emperor Charles VI. denounced the Protestants as "an execrable sect," and in the plenitude of his pretended supremacy declared that every thing, which either was or could be construed or esteemed to be in any way obstructive of, or in the least degree prejudicial to the Romish faith or worship, or to the authority, jurisdiction, or any rights of the church whatsoever, "to be, and to have been, and perpetually to remain hereafter null, unjust, reprobated, void, and evacuated of all force from the beginning; and that no person is bound to the observance of them, although the same have been repeated, ratified, or secured by oath."--Digest of Evidence on the State of Ireland, Part ii. p. 243. Horne on Romanism, p. 35.
the time of the American revolution, the several Protestant churches, whose creeds contained a profession of allegiance to kings, &c., or other principles inconsistent with our republican institutions, expunged the objectionable articles, and threw off all foreign allegiance. But Catholics have never done so. Let them do this; let them openly renounce allegiance to all foreign potentates, and reject those canons of councils and bulls of the popes, which are hostile to our liberties; and they will secure the confidence of their fellow citizens: we shall be among the first to do them justice. In the mean time we must regard as the special work of God that glorious Reformation, which opened the eyes of Europe on the corruptions and arrogant claims of popery; which taught princes to vindicate their rights against the encroachments of the pretended vicar of Him who had "no kingdom of this world." Let us cherish the recollection of that wondrous work of God, which restored to the people the blessed Bible, that principal instrument of the Reformation, and rendered accessible to all, the pure and unerring plan of salvation taught by the Saviour and his apostles. In view of all the facts of the case, let the patriot and the Christian seriously inquire, whether the subject of progressive Romanism amongst us is not worthy of their attention; whether love to their wives and children does not call upon them to guard against even the distant dangers of papal cruelty and superstition? Let them not regard with indifference the rapid increase of those foreign emissaries among us, who still retain their allegiance to a foreign power. Let them not regard as uncharitable those who re-echo the alarm which the apostle of liberty, Lafayette, first sounded in our ears. That order of men especially, now spreading over our land, the disciples of Loyola, who have proved so formidable to the strong arm of civil government in Europe, as to have been suppressed or banished at thirty different times, should not be regarded as a contemptible foe, or as unworthy of being attentively watched. Indeed nothing but want of acquaintance with their history, can lead any friend of liberty to view them with indifference. Let civilians and statesmen investigate, not the religious doctrines, but the political principles and political canons of popery, for popery is not less a political99 than a religious system. The priests and Jesuits form a standing army of foreign
99 The writer would earnestly invite the attention of his fellow citizens to the following extract from a highly interesting recent work, entitled, "Confessions of a French Catholic Priest; to which are added, Warnings to the People of the United States." This priest is now in New York, and the translator, S.F.B. Morse, of the New York University, vouches for the character of the author and credibility of his statements. The scenes here revealed by one who was himself an actor in them, but whose awakened conscience prompted him to abandon such a corrupt association, will enable politicians to appreciate the solemn prediction of the great Lafayette, that if American liberty is destroyed it will be by Catholic priests. In reference to our own country, we would merely say, What intelligent politician does not know that, in some places, the Romanists already hold the balance at our elections, and that whenever a papist is a candidate, or any thing can be gained to their cause, or either party is thought more favorable to the papists as such, they move in a body under the direction of the priest, with a unanimity utterly unknown in any Protestant sect? Their priesthood is a compactly organized legion, spread over the length and breadth of our land, each of whom can control almost every Catholic vote in his parish. All these priests are moved by eleven bishops, and by the archbishop and the pope's legate, Bishop England, the head of the Jesuitic order in this country. And all these, down to the lowest priest, are under an oath of allegiance to the pope, who is a political as well as religious prince, while, if we mistake not, few if any of them (the great majority of them are foreigners) have taken the oath of naturalization and sworn allegiance to our own government. Would it not be prudent, in the present circumstances of our country, to require by law all foreign priests and ministers of any and every denomination, Protestant and Catholic, before they can exercise their professional functions in this country, to become naturalized, and thus take the oath of allegiance to our own government? Let the reader peruse the following extract from the warning of the converted priest, and then answer my question:--
"Americans of every age, of every rank, magistrates and citizens, rich and poor, clergy and laity, by all that is dearest to you, let a single feeling animate you; unite your ranks as in the day of battle, and if your foe attempts to introduce himself here, to creep in among you, let him meet every where an impenetrable wall; if he proposes to you to exchange the simple and pure faith of your fathers for his fanaticisms and superstitions, your liberty for his thraldom, answer as you would answer if any tyrant should propose to you to surrender your national flag and betray your country.
"Such is the duty of every American, however you may be divided. Some ambitious men, I am informed, are to be found among you, hungry for power, who do not blush to make use of Catholics to compass their ends at the elections. Do those men belong to that American people whose fidelity, union, and devotion, sixty years ago, astonished Europe, and commanded the admiration of the world? In the days of your immortal struggle you had but one Arnold to betray the noble cause, and his name is dishonoured for ever; and now, Americans, forgetful of their origin, of their duty and country, forgetful of the patriotism of their fathers, of the blood which flows in their veins, buy and beg the very voices of their enemies, of Roman Catholic priests. This only fact is an awful symptom, and proves but too truly that my fears are well founded.
"But perhaps those misguided, ambitious men do not know the enemy with whom they would join themselves. Let them open their eyes then, and learn what true Catholics, and especially what priests have lately done in the elections of France. The history of past events is a lesson for the present day. When Louis XVIII. in 1819 granted his charter, which gave some rights to the French, all the true Catholics, and the clergy above all, chafed by this recognition of the people's rights, left no means untried to violate and distort it, till they destroyed it by the ordinances of July, 1830. During this long struggle of fifteen years, between Absolutism and Liberalism, my fellow priests used all their power to revive their party, especially on the great day of elections. Then our bishops, (creatures of the king,) sent us their circulars, in order to warn our zeal and ardour.
"And we, the faithful slaves of our spiritual Superiors, used all our influence--made public prayers for good elections; we preached in the pulpit to our parishioners, in the catechism to the boys, in the confessional to every body, that Liberalism (or the party of Liberty) was a guilty heresy; it was a mortal sin to give one's voice for this party, and we tried by every means to dishonour and tarnish its adherents.* The throne and the altar was a watch-word, was the enjoined text of all our discourses. We required in confession rigorously from the electors, the name and opinion of their candidates, obliged them to vote according to our direction, under pain of refusal of absolution.+ If electors themselves did not come to the confession, we had their wives and daughters; and we recommended to them that they should employ all their influence to make their fathers and husbands of our party.
"The government, which relied upon our zeal, which knew that its interests were ours, instituted many societies of itinerant missionaries. They went from city to city, from village to village, to revive the ashes of Catholicism and preach servitude. They formed brotherhoods and associations of both sexes, in which they enlisted the most devoted knights of their religion and royalism, the most ardent foes of liberty. And (striking circumstance, the best proof of the truth of my observations) all the deputies named by the country electors were enemies of liberty and of the press, because those country electors were under the influence of curates; while in the cities the electors, more free and learned, chose deputies how were friends of freedom.
"But when our party# saw that all its exertions were vain and useless, it introduced into the court of Charles X., about 1826, a secret ecclesiastic council, composed of the cardinals De la Fare and De Latil, archbishops of Rouen and Rheims, the archbishop of Paris, M. De Guelen, and some pious laymen, worthy of their holy society. This council, called the Camarilla, directed all the acts of government; forced the public functionaries to go to confession; required from all the candidates to public situations an attestation of Catholic and Royalist principles delivered by the curate; pressed the unhappy Charles X. to name his stupid ministry of the 8th of August, 1829; and at length, to issue the fatal ordinances of July, 1830. Thus has the Popish clergy lengthened the struggle for liberty, and compromised the well-being of thirty-three millions of Frenchmen; thus it has divided them into two camps of mortal enemies; thus, at last, has it ingloriously crowned the long story of its cruelty and oppression in my unfortunate country.
"Since the accession of Louis Philip, the priests have kindled again the flames of civil war. They have sprinkled again with holy water the guns and pick-axes of the poor and slavish peasants of La Vendee $ and Britagny, to raise them against the popular throne. But this new crime has ended, after some bloody fights, in
allegiance in our midst. Unconnected with our population by the ties of domestic life, they live subservient to the interests of their alien master, and fight his battles. They are servants of the state as well as of the altar. Above all, let politicians, statesmen, and Christians of every denomination unite in circulating the unadulterated word of God, without note or comment, either Papal or Protestant, among our Catholic fellow citizens, and in persuading them to search the scriptures and think for themselves. Let efforts be made to bring their children under the influence of Sabbath-school instruction. Let all, both young and old, be treated in the spirit of true Christian benevolence, and we doubt not, that under God, much can be accomplished for the preservation of our liberties, and the glory of our Divine Master.
bringing on La Vendee an army of thirty thousand soldiers, who at the present time, crush this province, the tool of its priests; and the clergy, seeing that Philip becomes from day to day as despotic as his predecessors, rallies itself round him, and unites once more the throne and the altar. Such as these are the men with whom you ally yourselves, Americans; whose suffrages you beg, whose assistance you ask, in your elections: these are the men with whom you would divide the future destinies of your country. I wish you would but look at the history of Popery, and examine and see if ever a Catholic country has been happy."--p. 245-249.
See also, on the political bearings of Popery, Dr. Breckinridge's Discussion with Mr. Hughes, passim.
*A singular proof of the natural hatred of the priests for liberty, is, that Lafayette is represented by them as a very bad man. In order to judge of this hero's character, it was necessary for me to come to America.
+In 1833, the author assisted at the administration of the last sacrament to a dying country gentleman. The origin of his fortune was questionable, and he was a member of the Liberal party. His priest enjoined him, in order to legitimate his riches, to make them donations to the church; but as for his vote, the priest compelled him to call in his family, to beg pardon, for the scandal of having given his vote to a Liberal man, and to beseech his eldest son not to follow his example.
# As I was only a secondary wheel of this infernal machinery, I knew not all its secrets; but these few revelations are true to the letter.
$ Every body knows that La Vendee has been devastated by sword and flames, and unpeopled, in its wars excited by its priest against the republic in 1793--4. They attempted in 1830 to renew the same horrors, but Philip has employed the most rigorous and oppressive measures to prevent it.
„Discourse in commemoration of the glorious reformation of the sixteenth century“ von Samuel Simon Schmucker († 1873), Gould and Newman, 1838 · Text nach einer digitalen Abschrift des Drucks, gemeinfrei · Originalscan bei archive.org · Titelbild schlicht selbst gestaltet