Skip to main content

Full text of "A discussion of the question, Is the Roman Catholic religion, in any or in all its principles or doctrines, inimical to civil or religious liberty? : And of the question, Is the Presbyterian religion, in any or in all its principles or doctrines, inimical to civil or religious liberty?"

See other formats





.|n ang or m all its principles ox glottriitcs, 



|ir HnjT or in: all its principles or J ortrips, 


eeVeeei^d joim hughes, 






Sold by Booksellers generally. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S36, by 


ia the Clerk's Office o»' *he District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

Copyright purchased by Wiluam Dickson. 



The following brief statement of the origin of this Discus- 
sion, and of the measures adopted for its publication, seems 
necessary. The question, " Is the Roman Catholic Religion, 
in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, inimical to Civil 
or Religious Liberty?" was adopted, January, 1835, as a 
topic of debate in the Union Literary and Debating Institute. 
The object in view, was in accordance with the general design 
of the Institute — the improvement of its members. The So- 
ciety, consisting of Roman Catholics and Protestants of 
various denominations, whilst it disclaimed all sectarian mo- 
tive, entered on the discussion in that bold spirit of inquiry, 
conducted by candour, which characterized its debates, and 
without the slightest expectation that any but subscribing 
members would take part in the discussion. 

So interesting and exciting, however, did this question 
prove, that after the debate had been continued three even- 
ings, during which the Rev. Messrs. Hughes, M'Calla, and 
Breckinridge, Honorary Members of the Society, were the 
principal speakers, arrangements were made, by a Com- 
mittee of the Society, for a continuance of the discussion, 
between the Rev. Messrs. Hughes and Breckinridge, for six 
evenings. It was further agreed, that at the expiration of 
the six evenings, the word "Presbyterian" should be sub- 
stituted for the words "Roman Catholic," and an equal por- 
tion of time should be devoted to the new question. 

According to the articles of agreement between Messrs. 

H. and B. and the Society, a Reporter was to be employed 

by the Society, and a report of the speeches furnished. The 

Society were disappointed as to the services of the Reporter 

on the first three evenings of the debate. The concluding 

speeches were also retained in the hands of the Reporter for 

some months after its close. In consequence of these diffi- 


756939 • 

culties, and others appertaining to the mode and extent of 
correction, an arrangement was entered into by the dispu- 
tants to fill up the deficiency in the Report, and to correct 
the speeches, as each might think proper. The time neces- 
sary to re-write the Discussion, added to the previous delays, 
has protracted the publication to a whole year after the close 
of the oral debate. 

These delays, though attended with some inconvenience 
to the Society, have, at least, given the disputants an oppor- 
tunity of doing justice to themselves, respectively, in giving 
their own report of their speeches. The only disagreement 
between them now is, as to the amount of matter : — the 
one contending, that only one-third of the number of 
speeches delivered in the oral discussion are produced in 
their written report ; — and the other maintaining, that each 
of the written speeches 6ontains the matter of three, as they 
were spoken. It is not for us to decide, but to leave, as we 
do, the gentlemen themselves, and the public, to form their 
own opinion on this point. This misunderstanding, how- 
ever, between the disputants, required the action of the So- 
ciety, which was had in the annexed resolutions. In ac- 
cordance with instructions from the Society, the Committee 
have disposed of the work to the present publishers, and we 
trust that the importance of the questions discussed, will 
cause it to meet with an extensive circulation. 

The Letters, referred to in the subjoined resolutions, are 
appended, and will fully explain the views of the reverend 
gentlemen as to the publication. 

In justice to the Society, it is necessary to state, that to 
have sanctioned a continuance of the debate for publication 
by them, would have so increased the size of the volume, as 
to have prevented the Committee from carrying out their 
views as to its immediate disposal. 


Committee on Publication. 
May 20th, 1836. 




Passed April 4:th, 1836 

Whereas, The Union Literary and Debating Institute has 
become involved, beyond the extent of its means, in conse- 
quence of providing a Reporter for the Lite Discussion be- 
tween the Rev. Messrs. Breckinridge and Hughes : and 
whereas, the report of the stenographer, and the manuscripts 
furnished by him, were, after this expense incurred by the 
Institute, condemned as unsatisfactory and incorrect, and 
another mode, viz., rewriting the whole, agreed upon, and a 
satisfactory arrangement entered into to that effect: and 
whereas, another difficulty has now arisen relative to this 
affair, and the Institute can see no prospect of an event 
promised in the beginning, and are weekly at more expense 
and trouble on this account ; therefore — 

Resolved, That the Committee of Fublication are hereby 
instructed, forthwith, to dispose of the manuscripts of the 
Discussion in their hands for immediate publication, and 
report final action on the next evening of meeting ; and that 
all the letters which have passed between the parties be in- 
cluded in the publication. 

Resolved, That both clergymen be permitted to continue 
the work, under the sanction of the Society, but at their 
own expense. 

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2007 witin funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 




I. Religious Doctrines. 

Those tenets of faith and morals which a denomination 
teaches as having been revealed by Almighty God. 

11. Religious Liberty. 

The right of each individual to worship God according to 
the dictates of his own conscience, without injuring or in- 
vading the rights of others. 

III. Civil Liberty. 

The absolute rights of an individual restrained only for 
the preservation of order in society. 


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 

2. That, in both cases, it shall be the duty of the affirma- 
tive to prove, that what he calls a doctrine, is really such, 
before he can use it as an argument. 

The decree of a General Council, the brief or bull of a 



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- 

5. All questions of order shall be decided by the Presi- 
dent; and no person whatsoever to be permitted to take 
part in the debate, but the Reverend Messrs. Hughes and 

6. The President shall prevent any manifestation of ap- 
probation or disapprobation, and enforce perfect silence in 
the meeting. 

7. That a stenographer shall be engaged by the Institute, 
to take an impartial report of the proceedings and debate, 
and that no unauthorized report be given by the Society. 



Philadelphia, March 14</i, 1836. 

To THE President op the Young Men's ] 
Literary and Debating Society. J 


I HAVE had the honour, within a short time, of receiving a re- 
solution from the Society over which you preside, requesting the 
respective parties, in the discussion which they are now preparing 
for the press, to condense the matter, as much as practicable, con- 
sistently with the end in view. 

In reply to this communication, T am prepared promptly to say, 
that the wishes of the Society are entirely in accordance with my 
own; and that it will give me much pleasure to do all in my 
power, without a sacrifice of the object in view, to reduce the 
size, and hasten the appearance of the intended work. 

It is well known to the Society, that it was esteemed by me a 
violation of my rights, and a departure from the original agree- 
ment among the several parties concerned, to adopt the present 
mode of preparing the debate for the press. It pleased the So- 
ciety, however, to indulge Mr. Hughes, and I yielded my wishes 
to his. There were three methods of accomplishing the publica- 
tion of the Discussion within our reach, viz. — 1, the putting of 
the stenographer's report to press; 2, debating the whole anew; 
3, writing it out anew, as the disputants might choose. The first 
and second were declined by Mr. Hughes ; and the third adopted. 
I had preferred the first or second — but acquiesced in the third; 
and by mutual agreement between Mr. H. and myself, the Society 
approving, we have been, for some time, engaged in reducing the 
debate to manuscript form. In proof of this, I beg leave to refer 
the Society to the correspondence in the hands of your Secretary, 
and to the testimony of the Publishing Committee. 

I have just been informed, however, by one of the members of 
that Committee, that Mr. Hughes declines the continuance of the 
Controversy, after the completion of the third part of the nights 



originally set apart for the debate. Upon what ground he ven- 
tui^s tu'Js to abandon the Discussion, it is not my business to de- 
clare. Surely it cannot be with the approbation of the Society; 
and it must be at the entire sacrifice, if persisted in, of his cause, 
his honour, and my rights. I hereby, therefore, utterly protest 
against giving such a course the sanction of the Society, if, by 
such sanction, it be understood that it shall be expected, or re- 
quired of me, now to close the Discussion ; and I cast myself on 
the justice of your honourable body, claiming of them, very re- 
spectfully, the full protection of my equal rights. Nay, more, I 
may appeal to the magnanimity of the young gentlemen of the 
Society, as they must remember, that the very plan which Mr. 
Hughes now seeks to defeat, by a premature close, was accepted 
by me, in order to oblige the Society, and to indulge Mr. 

As, however, I am very desirous to bring this vexed question 
to an amicable termination, I offer to the Society, (for I can no 
longer permit myself to have any direct intercourse with Mr. 
Hughes,) the following propositions : — 

I. I will agree to complete six evenings of the debate — three 
on each question, and then put the work to press. As the writr 
ten speeches exceed those spoken in length, about eight evenings 
of the former might probably embrace the substance of what was 
spoken in twelve; and six might, with condensation, present the 
chief part of the Discussion. 

In this event, I propose to pursue the subject hereafter on my 
own responsibility. 

II. I will agi-ee to publish eight nights, and for i\\Q present, at 
least, giving no additional matter — to the public — present the de- 
bate as in SUBSTANCE complete. 

III. If Mr. Hughes declines both these propositions, I shall 
stand prepared to furnish my part of the entire debate, with the 
confident expectation that the Society will publish all that Mr. 
Hughes ma^ have contributed ; and, stating his withdrawal, pub- 
lish the matter furnished by the other party. 

IV. In the event of the Society's consenting to sustain Mr. 
Hughes, in the very extraordinary course proposed by him, which 
appears to me wholly impossible, I must seek another channel to 
the public ; and, at the same time respectfully ask of the Society 
to refund to me the sums of §10, and of §150, advanced by me, 
(the first, as a donation, the second, as a loan, borrowed by me 
for that end,) to pay the stenographer. If / had refused to abide 
by the stenographer's report, then there might be some justice in 
my contributiug so largely to pay him ; as that refusal, hy prevent- 
ing the publication of the work, has dried up one chief source of 
your revenue. But so far was this from the fact, that my advance 
to the stenographer was made after I had failed to bring his work 
to press; and on the faith that the present arrangements would be 


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, 


March 22c?, 1836. 

To Messrs. Brown and Dickson, Committee^ dec. 

I HAVE now finished the correction of my speeches, and my 
part of the Discussion. The matter is equivalent to more than 
eighteen hours' public speaking, and consequently it is time to 
stop. If the Society had, according to agreement, held a steno- 
grapher engaged, and thus taken down the arguments, in the 
words of the speakers, much trouble and labour would have been 
saved to all parties. But the first three nights of the Discussion 
were blanks, as to any report. Then came Mr. Stansbury, under 
the auspices of Mr. Breckinridge, to take notes of arguments, and 
fill up the supposed thoughts of the speakers in language, as near 
as might be to that which they employed. This did not give my 
arguments — except as Mr. Stansbury conceived them. Conse- 
quently, the report was imperfect; — the reporter was not em- 
ployed at the expense of the Society, as appeared — 1st, by the 
fact, that Mr. Breckinridge proposed to compensate him by a 
public collection ; and 2d, by the fact, that he neglected the report, 
until after he had attended to business in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. 
Hence, it follows, that the Society, having failed in that part of 
our understanding on which their claim to my speeches depended, 
could not have any right to expect them. But, least there should 
be the shadow of legitimate complaint, I have, by my own labour, 
supplied the defects of their mismanagement, and will hand them 
my part of the Discussion, authenticated by my signature, to be 
published for their benefit ; — provided, that not a single page, in 
the printed copy, shall be allowed more to one side than to the 
other. If the aggregate number of pages, to be occupitd by my 
speeches, should exceed that required by Mr. Breckinridge's ma- 
nuscripts, I shall curtail. If his should exceed mine, he rau.«t 
curtail. I ask nothing but what is right ; I shall submit to nothing 
that is wrong. I trust, gentlemen, that you, and the independent 
portion of the Society, will discover, in this proposal, that I ask 


nothing but that the scales of justice he held even. I am aware, 
that there may be, in the Society, a few little spirits, who, not 
having strength to burst the nutshell of bigotry in which they are 
confined, are accustomed to prefer what is expedient to what is 
only just. Now, I cling to justice. 

If this just proposition should be defeated, then I shall hold 
myself as having done every thing honourable and fair to lay the 
merits of the Discussion before the public, and let the Society en- 
joy the benefits arising from it ; but then, too, I shall use my ma- 
nuscript as I think proper. The individual, or party defeating, 
or attempting to defeat the publication on this basis of justice and 
equality, must be responsible to the Society for the consequences. 
As to myself, I have not the slightest doubt but the public will 
see through the whole matter, and, with the exception of the little 
spirits in the nutshell, form a just judgment. 

I have the honour to be, gentlemen, 

Your obedient servant, 


PhiladeJpMaj March 29th, 1836. 

To THE President of the Young Men's ) 
Literary and Debating Society. j 


Having been informed, that the young gentlemen of the So- 
ciety have delayed the final decision of the painful question now 
pending, in regard to the publication of the debate, until this 
evening, I take the liberty of making an additional communica- 
tion through you to the Society. 

As no little time has passed since the debate began, and many 
changes have taken place in our arrangements, a rapid retrospect 
of the circumstances may not now be amiss. The following facts 
will not be disputed, it is supposed, by any member of the So- 
ciety ; or if disputed, are capable of ample proof. 

1. Mr. Hughes re/used, on the third night, to proceed without 
a reporter — yet he afterwards rejected the reporter's work. 

2. Mr. Hughes selected the present method of preparing the 
debate for the press ; and he pledged himself to complete it in this 
way; and he proposed no limits or terms at the commencement 
of this plan of preparation : on the contrary, he found fault with 
the former Publishing Committee for seeking to restrict him; 
and a new committee was appointed by the Society to carry the 
new plan into effect. 

3. The Society did thus and otherwise sanction the present 


plan, and agree to carry it into effect. And it was on the faith of 
Mr. Hughes's pledge, and theirs, that I gave up the stenographer's 
report, and adopted Mr. Hughes's plan. And it was on the faith 
of the same united pledge, that the debate should be completed, 
sold, and published, that I advanced a considerable sum of money 
to pay the Society's debt to the reporter. 

4. Mr. Hughes first set the example of enlarging the form of 
the original debate; for when the first Publishing Committee op- 
posed his additions to the report of the stenographer, he said he 
was to be the judge of how much or how little should be added. 
Acting on this principle, we began, afterward, to rewrite the 
whole, each having full liberty. When, therefore, Mr. Hughes 
complains of the dilation of the Discussion, he should remember 
that he is not only the sharer, but author of the practice. 

5. Though more matter has been written than was spoken on 
the same number of nights, yet a considerable portion of the 
topics, presented in the oral debate, have, as yet, not been touched 
in the manuscript; as, for example, the supremacy of the Pope; 
the doctrine of the Roman priestJwod; the order of the Jesuits; 
the monastic institutions; the immoral tendency of the system of 
popery ; the Inquisition; the papal conspiracy abroad against 
the liberties of our country, are all yet to be examined, and was 
all gone over in the debate. This, Mr. Hughes well knows. 
Yet he seeks now to stop short, and exclude all that yet remains. 
Besides all this, there are allusions in the discussion of the second 
general question, to the discussion of the first, which first will 
not appear, if we arrest the debate here. How absurd will this 
appear; and to me, how palpably unjust ? Mr. Hughes, contrary 
to the order of the debate, contrived to alternate, very absurdly, 
one speech on one question, and one speech on the other. And 
now we have each question half discussed ; yet he insists on pub- 
lishing now, and publishing no more ! 

In view of all these facts, I can hardly think it possible for 
your honourable body to do such violence to my rights, as now to 
force a close of the Discussion on me. Being, however, unfeign- 
edly anxious to bring every part of the Discussion, as speedily as 
possible, before the American people, I have conceded much to 
the wishes of others, as will be seen in my last letter, to which I 
respectfully refer the Society. 

That there may be no room left to complain of my terms, I 
here add, to the proposals of that communication, the following, 
viz : — 

As Mr. Hughes refuses to go farther in the debate, let it be 
agreed, that, for this reason, we will now publish four nights of 
the manuscript debate : let me then complete my argument on the 
papal question, and publish it under the sanction of the Society, 
accompanied by an explicit avowal of the fact that Mr. Hughes 
declines to pursue the Discussion. I will publish the second 


fart at my own risk, and ask no more than what is stated above, 
f Mr. Hughes asks more, his country must see why ; and his 
best friends must blush for him, when he shall not only abruptly, 
and after all his pledges, withdraw from the Controversy, but even 
seek to silence me midway the question. 

I feel well assured, sir, that the honourable young gentlemen, 
of all names and sects, over whom you preside, will esteem my 
wishes reasonable ; and will unite to sustain me in my obvious 

But if not, then I must appeal to the American public ; and 
reverting to the alternative, the painful alternative, stated in my 
former letter, I must seek shelter from injustice, before a larger 
and better tribunal, who love liberty, who will do justice; and be- 
fore whom, if God give me help, I am resolved to spread out the 
whole of the debate, and the history, as well as the matter of it, 
if my stipulated rights should now be so seriously invaded. 
With full confidence in the candour and justice of the Society, 
remain, dear sir, very respectfully. 

Your friend and fellow-citizen, 


P. S. I understand it has been alleged, that inasmuch as I called 
on the audience to aid in paying the fees of the stenographer, at 
the close of the debate, therefore, he was confessedly my reporter. 
It is well known, as I then avowed, that the reason of the call 
was the poverty of the Society, (which had no funds,) and the 
pressing wants of the reporter who expected to leave the city the 
next morning. Besides, it is fully known, that, for three nights, 
the Committee had failed to get a reporter ; and Mr, Hughes re- 
fused to proceed without one. Then, at the request of the Com- 
mittee, I wrote for Mr. Stansbury — the faithful reporter of the 
American Congress for some dozen years. And yet, after all, 
Mr. Hughes rejects his reports. Then, when we yield to his 
wishes, give up the reporter's manuscript, and begin, at his re- 
request, to write aneio, he proceeds but /m//*way through; when 
lo, again, and of a sudden, without consultation, or agreement 
with the other parties, he resolves to stop. Will the Society sus- 
tain such a course? It was on the faith of Mr. Hughes's repeated 
pledge, to complete the debate, and on the faith of the Society's 
pledge, to cause it to be completed, and sold, and published, that 
I advanced money to pay the debt of the Society. Will the So- 
ciety now permit, nay, aid in a continuance to defeat the publica- 

J. B. 


Philadelphia^ April bth, 1836. 

To Messrs. Browx and Dickson. 


I AM sure you must be weary, as I am, most heartily, of the 
interminable contests which have been going on about the publi- 
cation of the debate. It seems apparent that Mr. Hughes will 
not, 071 any terms, publish the entire debate; and my friends have 
urgently solicited me to consent to publish the four nights, which 
will be complete, on my furnishing my reply to his sixth speech 
on the Presbyterian question. I hereby, then, signify to you my 
consent to this course, whicb I pray you to make known to the 
Society this evening. 

In thus waiving my rights so entirely, I hope you will under- 
stand that it is intended as a testimony of my high respect for the 
Society which I am unwilling longer to embroil, even in doing 
me justice; and that it is my purpose to go on, through the press 
on my own responsibility, to complete the Discussion. For theii 
desire, and their long continued efforts to issue the whole debate, 
I owe them my sincere thanks; and I am consoled by the thought, 
that the young gentlemen have had so practical a proof, that it is 
not Protestantism, but Popery, which shuns the light. 

The only condition wliich I feel at liberty to make, is that the 
correspondence which relates to the publication of the dabate, 
shall be published with it. 

I know not, after this, what else Mr. Hughes can require of the 
Society, or of me, than that I should be bound to write and de- 
hate no more on popery, as the condition of his publishing any 
part of the debate. 

I am, gentlemen, very respectfully. 

Your friend and fellow-citizen, 


Philadelphia, April Wth, 1836. 

To THE President of the Union Literary \ 
AND Debating Society. j 

In certain letters of Mr. Breckinridge, which he wishes to have 
prefixed to the publication of our Debate, there are statements 
which are calculated to mislead those who are not acquainted with 
the facts of the case, and to which I have been indulged with the 
privilege of replying. In his letter of the 14th ult. he complains 



of the " present mode of preparing the Debate for the press." To 
this I reply, that owing to our not having a stenographer the first 
three nights of the discussion, and owing to the manner in which 
the remainder, or at least portions of it, continued in the hands of 
the stenographer for months after the debate closed, there was no ' 
other mode left in which to prepare it. After having attended the 
General Assembly, and the trial of Dr. Beecher, the reporter 
wrote to your Committee, on the 24th of June, that *'his next 
business would be to resume the report," &c. By whose fault 
did this happen ? Mr. Breckinridge says, there were ^' three 
methods :" 1. ^' Putting the stenographer's report to press." This 
is absurd. That report was but three-fourths of the discussion, 
and not the whole. It contained none of the citations of authori- 
ties, which were numerous. It merely referred to them, and left 
it to the speakers to fill up. Would it not have been absurd, then, 
to put it to press in this condition ? His second method was, 
" debating the whole anew." This, indeed, would be a new me- 
thod of preparing the debate for the press. The third was that 
which has been adopted. He says this was done to " indulge 
Mr. Hughes." The statement was incorrect ; — it was done be- 
cause no other, in the circumstances of the case, was practicable. 
I called on him through the Committee, and on the Committee 
themselves, to point out any other practicable method ; — and when 
they could not, he, and they, and I, agreed, by mutual consent, 
to adopt the present mode. This is the simple history of the 
whole matter; and shows, that so far, if Mr. Breckinridge has any 
reason to complain, it is not of me, but of the Society — for not 
having a stenographer from the first, and not obliging him to at- 
tend to the business for which he was supposed to have been en- 
gaged, consecutively and in season. 

2. He complains in the same letter, that I discontinued the de- 
bate after the completion of "the third part of the nights origin- 
ally set apart for the Discussion. To this I reply, that each of 
the written speeches, one with another, contains as much matter 
as three of those that were spoken. Both parties spoke one hour 
and a half every evening ; which, for the twelve evenings, makes, 
for each, eighteen hours speaking. In each half hour there must 
have been a waste of two or three minutes, by interruptions, look- 
ing for references, &c., which would take off more than an hour 
of the whole time, making it for each, less than seventeen hours. 
Now, let Mr. Breckinridge take his twelve written speeches, and 
attempt to deliver them, with that solemnity, and those graces of 
elocution, for which he is so distinguished, and he will find that 
twenty hours will not be sufiicient. Consequently, the written 
speeches, though fewer in number, contain more than those that 
were spoken. But who began these long speeches ? Mr. Breck- 
inridge himself ! Look at the speech with which he opened ; — 
and according to which I was under the necessity of regulating 


my reply. Here, therefore, is my reason for stopping — at the 
conclusion. Another reason was, that the Society had requested 
that the matter should be condensed as much as possible. A 
third reason was, that if the two parts, out of three which Mr. 
Breckinridge says are wanting, were added, it would swell the 
work to six or seven volumes, which would frighten any pub- 
lisher in the city. It is on all these grounds that I have allowed 
Mr. Breckinridge to call it only the tliird part of the Discussion, 
knowing, that if he says he spoke more in the time allowed for 
speaking J than what he has written out, no one, who reflects a 
moment will put any belief in the assertion. 

In his letter of the 29th of March, Mr. Breckinridge complains 
that, owing to the pretended abridgment of the Discussion, there 
are a great many subjects which he has not had an opportunity to 
introduce. To this I reply, that he had the privilege, in common 
with myself, of correcting the report in any manner, and to any 
extent he might think proper. If, then, instead of adhering to 
the original substance, he thought it more serviceable to fill up 
his space with new and apocryphal matter, he must not blame 
me for the consequences of his choice. He introduced, for in- 
stance, the subject on which the Eev. Murtoch O'Sullivan has 
been holding forth in Exeter Hall, viz., Dens's Theology. I 
did not blame him for this ; on the contrary, I approved it, by 
following his example in other instances. 

But, besides, the very topics which he says he has been ob- 
liged to omit, are to be found in his speeches in tedious repeti- 
tion. For the correctness of this statement, I refer to his speeches 
in connection, or rather, in contrast with his letter. He has intro- 
duced, into his written speeches, wliole columns of printed matter 
from his own former writings, and from the writings of others ] 
and this fact shows that he ought not to complain of want of space. 
He was uncontrolled in the choice of his matter and argument. 
The interchange of speeches on both questions at the same time, 
was merely to expedite the work according to the wish of the So- 
ciety. From all this, it is evident, that the matter of the correct- 
ed, or written speeches, is fully as much as that of the entire Dis- 
cussion; and, secondly, that the introduction of new topics was a 
matter of clioice, and not of necessity, with Mr. Breckinridge. 

He says, in his letter of the 29th, that, in reference to the 
lengthened speeches, I was not only " the sharer, but author of 
the practice.'' This is a mistake. The first speech — the rule for 
others, was His. It is true, that when the former Committee at- 
tempted to prescribe the length of ray first speech on the Presby- 
terian Question, I resented their interference, because I would 
not consent to be deprived of any privilege which had been 
allowed to Mr. Breckinridge. 

He says that I *' refused on the third night, to go on without 
a reporter — and yet I afterwards rejected the reporter's work/' 


The first part of the statement proves that I wished the Discus- 
sion to be published. And the second is not correct. I never re- 
jected the stenographer's work ; but, as it was avowedly incom- 
plete, I claimed to correct it; and, as no rule could be pointed out 
to obviate dispute about the correction, I suggested that he should 
correct his speeches, and I mine, as we pleased. 

He says that, at the commencement, I ^' proposed no limits or 
terms.'' This is true ; but it does not follow, that the Discussion 
should become endless on this account. The time employed by 
each speaker would determine the limits, and, by this rule, I main- 
tain that the Discussion, as now presented, is larger than if every 
word uttered in debate had been taken down and preserved. If 
Mr. Breckinridge thinks that he has not done justice to the sub- 
ject, he may write as long as he can find ink and paper; but 1 
must be at liberty to follow him or not, as I may think proper. 
This matter is quite simple. I allow him page for page with my- 
self; and if he require an appendix to help him out, then, — to 
borrow a phrase from his own letter, — " his country must see 
why; and his best friends must blush for him." 

In his letter of April 5th, Mr. Breckinridge speaks of his hav- 
ing "waived his rights," &c. Sir, he has waived no rights. To 
every thing that has been done, he has been a free, voluntary 
party. I never dictated to him. I never submitted to his dicta- 
tion. In the whole matter I never knew or felt but one princi- 
ple, implied by the words justice, honour, impartiality — and, 
above all, "do unto others as you would that they should do unto 
you." But I knew my own rights, and have had both power and 
fortitude enough to resist and repel their invasion. 

Mr. Breckinridge, in the same letter, sets forth, that it is not 
" Protestantism but Popery that shuns the light." If, by the 
phrase, " shuns the light," he means, that I have not wished to 
see the Discussion published, nothing can be more untrue. I en- 
tertain, after all, too high an opinion of Mr. B.'s sagacity and 
judgment, to suppose, for a moment, that he seriously entertains 
any such opinion. What he has said of the Catholic religion, has 
been often, and better said before. What / have said on the other 
side, will remove prejudice from every candid mind, and, as re- 
gards the genius of Presbyterianism, will exhibit the motives 
which should induce every lover of civil and religious liberty to 
watch its movements, and be prepared to resist its grasping spirit 
of sectarian domination over all other creeds. The question, on 
the other side, has been, not of " Protestantism," but of ^'Pres- 
byterianism'' alone. Against the Episcopalians, Methodists, 
Baptists, Friends, Lutherans, or other denominations of Protest- 
ants, I have said nothing. 

In the same letter, Mr. Breckinridge says, " I know not, after 
this, what else Mr. Hughes can require of the Society, or of me, 
than that I should be bound to write and debate no more on 


popery, as the condition of his publisliing any part of the debate." 
Now, I entreat the Society, not to ''bind" the gentleman under 
any such cruel obligation. 13y it, his usefulness to himself and 
the country would be destroyed. But though I do not wish to 
bind him in any sense, yet I cannot help expressing the opinion, 
that to preach peace and good will among men, would be a holier 
employment of his time. "Blessed are the peace-makers, for 
they shall be called the children of God." 

3. He refers, in his P. S. of the 29th of March, to the fact of 
his having undertaken to remunerate the stenographer, not from 
the funds, or by the credit of the Society, but from the pockets of 
the guests — by a collection. 

Now, let him give any explanation he may think proper of that 
proceeding : it proves that the reporter bad been employed by Mr. 
Breckinridge, and looked to him for compensation. And here I 
must refer to the position lately assumed by the Society, claim- 
ing as a matter of justice, an arbitrary right to indemnify them- 
selves by virtue of an agreement which they never fulfilled. If 
they had provided a stenographer, and he had taken down the 
debate from beginning to end, in order, then, indeed, the report 
should be theirs — because they would have fulfilled the conditions 
on which alone their title, injustice, depended. But failing to do 
this, they have thrown upon us the labour of reporting, de novo, 
the whole debate. This debate was theirs, inasmuch as I am con- 
cerned, because I intended to give it to them, on the conditions of 
a fair and impartial publication. But it was not theirs on any 
other title; and it has been with deep regret that I have observed 
the Protestant member of their Committee, in obedience to the ad- 
vice of intrigue, setting up a pretension to detain my manuscript, 
forcibly, unjustly, illegally. I had placed it in the hands of that 
gentleman on deposit, until it should pass into the hands of the 
publisher. I treated him with confidence by placing my manu- 
script in his hands, when I might have put it in the hands of his 
Catholic colleague. I have been disappointed, and I regret it. If 
I had ever violated my word of honour, in my whole intercourse 
with the Society, or its Committees, there might have been some 
pretext for this dishonourable proceeding to which I refer. But I 
defy any member of the Society to point out a single instance in 
which, so far depended on me, I did not comply with my engage- 
ment, and fulfil my promise. Have the other j)a)'ties done the 
same? It seems to have been a favourite object, with Mr. Breck- 
inridge, to make it aj)pear that I was forced to publish. To refute 
this gratuitous and unworthy suspicion, I refer to the whole history 
of jny proceeding. I insisted that a stenographer should be in at- 
tendance. I took upon me to supply, by my own hand, the de- 
ficiencies and corrections of his report. I had the whole copied 
at considerable expense. I had never refused to publish; but on 



the contrary, desired it in thought, word, and deed. But T never 
should have given it to the Society, if the terms of publication had 
not been fair^ equitablej iind impartial. And to prove to the So- 
ciety that I have given it, not only willingly, but freely, / 
have had a copyright secured according to laiu. This precaution 
was rendered necessary in order to remove all ground for the im- 
putation which was attempted to be cast on my honour and in- 

Thus, sir, whilst I acted honourably with the Society and its 
Committees, — refusing, with frankness, to do anything that I re- 
garded as unfair, — but fulfilling, to the letter, whatever I had once 
promised, — I never left myself in their power. And when, by an 
attempted violation of my rights, a member of your Committee, 
in obedience to the voice of intrigue, would detain my property, 
I qualified myself to laugh the pretension to scorn, and to teach 
him that I proceed to publication, not by the coercion of petty 
artifice, but by the moral obligation of my own word, freely 
pledged, and freely redeemed. 

li^-aj n, an American citizen — not hvc hance^ — but by choi ce. 
When circumstances seemed to make it a duty, I threw myselFln 
the breach, to vindicate the principles of my fellow-citizens of the 
Catholic religion throughout the United States, I have done so; 
and, by carrying the war into the camp of the enemy, 1 have 
taught one of the ablest representatives of that Presbyterian com- 
bination, which is attempting to destroy the.,_ciyil, anil.xeligious 
reputation of Catholics, that if any denomination of Christians are 
to ^e eapeUed for tlia-crime of persecution, it would be the lot of 
Presbyterianism — to march first. In doing this I have submitted 
to the sacrifice of much personal feelings, much labour, incon- 
venience, and anxiety. And the reason why I retained my just 
dominion over my manuscript, was, least if passed into other 
hands, it might never find its way to the public. If it belonged 
to the Society, the consequence would be, that, as their property, 
they would have a right to burn it if they thought proper. I 
have taken care that it should have a better destination. 
^^^But, sir, I am not only an American citizen, but also a Roman 
' t TCatholic. I ^p° ^^'^" "'^dfir ^ he scourge o f Protestant persecu- 
/ tion, of w hich my fathers, in co mmon witlTlitetg^-^^trtiiotic coun- 
/ try men, had been the victims for ages. Henee, Hi now the value of 
^— that civil and religious liberty which our happy government secures 
to all; and I regard, with feelings of abhorrence, those who would 
eacrilegiously attempt, directly or indirectly, immediately or re- 
motely, to deprive any citizen of those inestimable blessings. 
God alone is the lord of conscience. As a Catholic, I trust I 
should be ready to renounce liberty, and even life, sooner than 
renounce one doctrine of the faith of the Church — for without 
faith it is impossible to please God. But what is faith without 


charity? And is not charity the love of God, as God; — and the 
love of our neighbours as ourselves ? Let other men endeavour 

to serve God, and save their souls, in whatever religion they be- 

lieve to be true — their rights are as sacred as mine. 

Finally, sir, in taking leave of the Union Literary and Debating 
Institute, permit me to return my thanks for the personal courte- . 
sies, and honourable and impartial treatment, which I have expe- 
rienced from the majority of its members, Protestants as well as 
Catholics. In my intercourse with them, I trust that, if I have 
manifested a reasonable measure of independence, I have never 
been deficient in courtesy and respect. I have never, by under- 
hand measures, attempted to bias one member, or control one 
measure in your proceedings. As to the under-current of petty 
intrigue and prejudice, by which the best and^post impartial mea- 
sures of the Society have been sometimes turned aside, I, at this 
moment, think of those who have been engaged in the direction 
of its various courses, as persons to be only pitied and forgotten. 
I am, with great respect, 

Your friend and fellow-citizen, 


P. S. The following is the letter of Mr. Breckinridge, to which 
reference is made more than once in the progress of the Discus- fy 
sion. He knew I disliked personal contention with any one, and 
most of all with him, for reasons which I have not concealed. He 
knew that I had been invited, not to dispute, but to deliver an 
address, before the Society, on the subject referred to in his let- 
ter : and he had 'privately engaged Mr. M'Calla to attend. All 
this was before he left Philadelphia. He goes to New York, and 
after three or four days, writes me the following modest, vera- 
cious, but to me, extraordinary and unexpected letter. I give it 
as my apology and justification for the pain which my exposures 
of Presbyterianism must inflict on the feelings of many worthy 
persons of that denomination. J. H. 

New York, January 21s^, 1835. 

To THE Eev. John Hughes. 


I HAVE just been informed that you are expected to address a 
Society to-morrow evening, on a question of which the following 
is the substance, viz.: " Whether the Roman Catholic Religion is 
favourable to Civil and Religious Liherti/?^' 

I write a few lines, in order to say, that I will meet you, on the 
evening of the 29th instant, before the same Society, Providence 


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 

I remain, your obedient servant, 



"j& the Raman Catholic Beligion, in any or iyi all its 
Principles or Doctrines^ opposed to Civil or Re- 
ligioiLs Liberty?" 


''is tlie Roman Catholic Religioriy in any or in all its principles 
or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty ?^^ 


Eefore I enter on the discussion of this important question, I 
wish to say to this society, that I hold in my hand a Roman 
Catholic paper, published in New York, called ^'■Tke New York 
Weekly Register and Catholic Diary, No. 21, Vol. III., Feb. 21, 
1835" — which purports, in a letter signed R. C. W., to give a 
true report of our preliminary discussion, held in this hall some 
evenings since. — This letter is a tissu^e of uncandid statements, 
and is most scandalously and injuriously /a/se. As a committee 
of this society has publicly corrected the representations made in 
a Protestant paper of this city, concerning a previous debate between 
the Rev. Mr. M'Calla and the Rev. Mr. Hughes, so I now demand, 
in the name of truth and equal rights, that a similar notice be 
taken of this base production : — and as the author has avowed in 
the course of his statement, that he waited on Mr. Hughes, and 
received from him "a copy of the conditions on which the debate 
is to be conducted" — so I have demanded of the Rev. gentleman 
the name of the author, as^ it must be known to him ; and I shall 
hold him responsible for the letter and its contents until he gives 
it up. 

[The Rev. Mr. Hughes said — I did not come here to listen to 
newspaper articles, but to debate the question before us; and no 
other business is in order.] 

Mr. B. — I lay this publication on the table, and pronounce the 
author guilty of base and divers falsehoods, which I will prove by 
one hundred witnesses whenever he will venture to avow him- 
self. — Till then, I hold Mr. Hughes responsible. 

In advocating the affirmative of this question it is not meant to 
be asserted, that all the principl es of the R omish religion are op- 
posed to civil and religious liberty — ^but th^t'Uiany, very many of 
them are; and that the system of which they make a vital part is 
opposed both to civil and religious liberty. — Here it is worthy of 
remark, that the efforts of the gentleman to tie up the discussion 
by peculiar definitions drawn from his own views, are both unusual 
and highly characteristic of himself and the gentlemen with whom 



he is associated. A definition should be found in the terms of the 
question — and if terms are fixed, defining the limits of debate, 
they should be technically accurate, and entirely impartial. The 
definition offered by the gentleman on a former occasion was sin- 
gular enough, and goes very far to show his whole system of belief 
as to the rights of man. He gravely proposed to you the adoption 
of the following definition oi civil liberty, viz., "?Ae right of each 
individual to advance the good of the people, hy every constitutional 
and honest means." Now, sir, this is the definition of a duty, and 
not of a right. But when you compare this definition with what 
the gentleman said in our preliminary discussion, you will see how 
the parts of the system explain each other. On that occasion he 
contended that the majority had in all cases the right to rule; and 
of course, as in Spain, the majority had a right to compel the 
minority to receive the Roman Catholic religion as the religion of 
the state, and the only religion to be tolerated. The minority 
here must submit. What rights had they? Why to promote the 
^'public good" — viz., to be as "good Catholics" as possible; to 
help on the system as much as possible — their right is to submit! 

[Here Mr. H. said, — I defined it to be the right of every indi- 
vidual to do all the good he could, in promoting public happiness.] 

Mr. B. — I repeat it, this is a duty. But we are speaking of 
rights. The explanation alters not the case. If, as the gentleman 
said on the last evening, the majority has the right to ride — then 
if the majority did wrong, it followed that it was right to do wrong. 
And then, if the day should ever come, when Roman Catholics 
will compose the majority in this country, they may of right 
establish their religion by law. This is the broad and ruinous 
principle of the gentleman; and we see what it is, and where it 
leads. Hence his indilFerentism as to the liberty of other lands; — 
and his views about other governments. Now I contend that there 
are certain rights which lie aback of all conventions among men. 
That, according to our ever memorable Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, there are certain inalienable imprescriptible rights derived 
from God, of which a man cannot deprive himself, or be deprived 
— such as no majority can deprive him of, and no possible state 
of society weaken or destroy. 

I would give the following constitutional definition of liberty, 
(religious, especially as that enters peculiarly into this debate,) 
derived from the Constitutions of Pennsylvania, (1790); Ken- 
tucky, (1799); Ohio, (1802); Tennessee, (1796); Indiana, (1816); 
Illinois, (1818); Missouri, (1820); almost in identical terms. This 
definition is a compact among the citizens of these states. The 
Rev. gentleman is not a Pennsylvanian or an American if he re- 
jects it; I will show he is not true to his holiness if he adopt it. 
It is this: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to 
worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own 
consciences) no man can of right be compelled to attend^ erecty or 


support avy place of loorsJu'p, or to maintain any ministri against 
his consent; no human authority can in any case whatever control 
or interfere with the rights of conscience ; and no preference shall 
ever he given hy law to any religious estahlishments or modes of 
worship J' This is the right of all men, laitj as well as clergy — 
everywhere; at Rome, as in North America — the indefeasible, 
natural right; that is, a right by the law of nature, or in better 
language, by the gift of the God of nature; and therefore a right 
coeval with the race of man, and not repealed but confirmed and 
illustrated by the gospel, to worship God according to the dictates 
of his own conscience. This right is indefeasible — that is, impre- 
scriptible — not subject to alienation; it cannot be repealed, or 
abridged, or impaired, by power or numbers, nor divested by per- 
sonal renunciation. It is a right indelibly impressed on each 
individual man by God himself; so that he cannot malce himself, 
or he made less free than God has made him in this respect. It 
is an essential element of his free agency, and indispensable to his 
voluntary worship, which alone is worship in truth. It is ^^ac- 
cording to the dictates of his own conscience f^ not that of the 
priesthood; and therefore each has a right to inform his conscience, 
by all means in his power; by reading the Bible, and, if he sees 
fit, by making it the rule of his faith and practice. Hence the 
translation, and printing, and free circulation of the Bible is law- 
ful, is his unalienable right ; and therefore all restraints upon the 
press as practised by the general councils of the Romish Church, 
in this and other respects, is an invasion of this natural and inde- 
feasible right. (1) 

According to this definition, churches established by law, by 
kings or pontiffs, and maintained by coercion, are an invasion of 
the natural liberties of man ; and therefore the Romish hierarchy 
was an usurpation in the days of Luther, and is so now^ wherever 
its power is felt, as in South America, in Spain, and in the tem- 
poral dominions of the Pope. All territorial precincts, such as 
parishes, dioceses, and the assigning by the authority of law of 
the inhabitants within them to the jurisdiction of an ecclesiastic, 
and the exaction of tithes, or other rateable stipends for ecclesi- 
astical uses, upon pretence of ecclesiastical or temporal power, is 
an invasion of the rights of man; and therefore the government 
of the Pope, within his own dominions, and in the dominions of 
those sovereigns who acknowledge his pretensions, is an usurpa- 
tion ; and for the same reason all societies established by ecclesi- 
astical authority, the object of which is to govern the temporal 
affairs by means of the spiritual, (the Jesuits for example,) 
are irreconcilably repugnant to free institutions. 

And our definition, (on which I dwelt more largely the last 
evening,) declares, that this right belongs to all men. It goes 
beyond the exigencies of a mere social compact. It is uttered in 
(1) Seo Constitution of the United States, Amendments, Act 1st. 


the name of the human race. It is an universal truth, evei*y- 
"where, and at all times, true. 

In its nature the proposition of this article is as liberal as it can 
be, but as a compact it necessarily excludes those who cannot ex 
amino assent to it; and hence Protestants and Roman Catholics 
cannot concur in it, not because of the illiberality of the rule, but 
on account of the scruples of Roman Catholics, who, as a matter 
of conscience, ascribe to the Pope lawful authority to invade a 
portion of their natural liberties; their conscience forbids them to 
assert their own freedom, or to allow to Protestants the measure 
of freedom which they claim. Hence the South Americans, not- 
withstanding their high notions of political liberty, in no instance 
have reckoned religious liberty among their political rights. They 
dared to throw off the yoke of the King of Spain, but not the 
yoke of the Roman Pontiff. The spirit of Luther did not pass in 
the direction of Spain : this shows why Spanish America is papis- 
tical and not free. It did pass in the direction of England; hence 
the United States are free. Had a Luther never lived, the United 
States might have been as Spanish America. The religion, or 
rather the religious principle of the American constitutions, is 
traceable under God to Luther, as an effect to its instrumental 
cause. This principle of the American constitutions is Protes- 
tantism. The liberties and intelligence, and the manifold bless- 
ings enjoyed by the citizens of the United States are its effects — 
which can properly be appreciated only by contrast with the con- 
dition of the vicious, ignorant, superstitious, and priest-ridden 
inhabitants of South America, Spain and Italy. The contrast 
shows also the natural tendencies of Romanism upon the civil 
and religious liberties of men. 

There is a common sophism on this question, which consists in 
confounding the term voluntary with the term free. In this spe- 
cious way a voluntary slave^ (which is by no means a solecism,) 
may be proved to be a free man. A kindred sophism consists in 
confounding the freedom of government, or constitutional liberty, 
with individual or personal freedom. If a man were to be robbed 
of his property he would be esteemed poor; the manner by which 
he is divested of his property does not alter the fact or the true 
character of his condition. For the same reason, a man who re- 
nounces into the hands of another his natural liberties can with 
no more propriety be called a free man, than he could be if he 
were deprived of them by the hand qf arbitrary and irresistible 
power. In truth a voluntary slave is more a slave than one who 
resists his oppressor, or who desires to throw off his chains. A 
voluntary slave is the lowest and most ignoble of all slaves. Sup- 
pose the people of Pennsylvania were, with one consent, to choose 
a governor or prince as their ruler, who should have absolute 
pgwer to make and execute such laws as he saw proper. Could 
the government with propriety be called free? Yet the case 


supposes the people voluntari/ in making the change, and not 
constrained in submitting fo it. They would voluntarily part 
with their natural liberties, but they would no more continue to 
be free, than a man who should voluntarily part with all his pro- 
perty would continue to be rich. Nor could the government with 
any propriety be called free, relatively to the governments of the 
other states, which are founded upon the principles of natural right. 

For the same reason those who surrender voluntarily the natural 
rights of conscience, the rights of free worship to a qnritual 
prince or pontiff, do not continue to be free in these respects — nay, 
they cannot be said to be fred'in ant/ respect. A man who is chained 
by one limb only is restrained of his natural freedom, as truly and 
almost as effectually, as to all useful purposes, as if he were chained 
by every limb. It is like a semi-paralysis of the body. 

Now in view of the above definition and necessary inferences, 
which no true American can deny, it is apparent in how many 
respects the "doctrines" of the Church of Kome are directly 
. opposed to human and especially to religious liberty. 

With these great principles in view, I will proceed to specify 
more in detail the proo/* against the Roman Catholic religion. 

What I said more fully at the preliminary meeting — and what 
the gentleman then scarcely pretended a reply to — I now repeat — • 
that as soon as a child is horn into the world., the '^indelible 
brand of slaveri/," as it has been justly called, is stamped upon 
him, by the Church of Rome, in what she calls baptism. The de- 
crees and canons of the Council of Trent on this subject, eternize, 
in their self-styled — and unchangeable infallibility — the tyranny 
of Romanism. Thus, for example, the fourteenth canon on baptism 
is as follows — viz : " Whoever shall affirm that when these bap- 
tized children grow up they are to be asked whether they will con- 
firm the promises made by their godfathers in their name, at their 
baptism ; and that if they say they will not, they are to be left to 
their own choice, and not to be compelled in the mean time to lead 
a Christian life, by ani/ other jninishment than exclusion from the 
eucharist and the other sacraments, until they repent: let him be 

Here it is evident that the doctrine of force is distinctly taught; 
and not moral force, but physical; for moral means, or ecclesi- 
astical discipline, such as " exclusion from the eucharist and other 
sacraments" — is expressly stated in the above canon as not the onl;^ 
punishment meant. The Latin word also used in the original is 
COG KN DOS, which every scholar knows, especially in such a con- 
nexion, means the application of coercion, superior power, force. 

Besides : the practice of the church, in every country, where it 
has the power, and even at this day, is in accordance with this 
interpretation. Now here we say is a doctrine leading to a p)ractice 
in the Church of Rome, which is directly and avowedly destructivo 
of religious liberty. 


Again; I referred on the last evening to the doctrine of the 
Church of Rome on auricular coiifefision, as an invasion of personal 
liberty, and in the highest sense dangerous to the freedom and 
safety of states. In the fourteenth session of the Council of Trent, 
under the decrees on 'penance^ it is thus written : *' The universal 
church has always understood that a full confession of sins was 
instituted by the Lord, as a part of the sacrament of penance." — 
*' It^is plain that the priests cannot sustain the ojfice of judge, if 
the cause be unknown to them ; nor inflict c(imi-dh\Q lyunishments, 
if sins are only confessed in general; and not minuteli/ and in- 
dividually described.^' — " Those who do otherwise, and knowingly 
conceal any sins, present nothing to the divine goodness to be for- 
given by thej^riest." Again, the sixth canon is as follows : '^ Who- 
ever shall deny that sacramental confession was instituted by 
divine command, or that it is necessary to salvation ; or shall 
afl&rra that the practice of secretly confessing to the j^riest alone, 
as it has ever been observed from the beginning by the Catholic 
Church, and is still observed, is foreign to the institution and com- 
mand of Christ, and is a human invention : let him be accursed.'' 

Now we say this is usurping the peculiar prerogative of God. 
It is blasphemously setting up a priest as judge in God's stead, 
Sind forcing the poor subject, as the condition df pardon, to unveil 
the secrets of the heart to a priest, when this is due to God alone ! 
Never, perhaps, was such a device found out to rule with a rod of 
iron a subject world. No secrets from the priests, or else no sal- 
vation ! and that, too, with the priest alone ! Hence it is called 
auricular. Think of your daughter, your sister, your wife, thus 
secretly opening to a priest alone, all her feelings — on all subjects — 
as the medium of pardon. Think of the confessor of a prince ! 
think of that great army of priests located all over the world, 
prying into all the secret thoughts, feelings, acts, intentions, de- 
sires, of all their subjects. Think of the power it gives. Was 
there ever such a scheme of espionage : such a system of omnipre- 
sent police ? Can there be liberty under such a regime ? It is 
easy to be seen how, on this plan, 3, priest can restore stolen goods; 
and why we poor Protestants neither Jcnow nor can do any thing 
like it ? They know all the secrets of all the villains, connected 
with their church; and can, by a nod, compel restitution, or hand 
them over to hopeless perdition! It may well be conceived also, 
what must be the habitual state of every priest's mind, being made, 
as it is, the receptacle of all the sins of all his people — the common 
»ev)er of iniquity ! Now, under the operation of such a system, 
must not vt, pure priest or 2, free mind be almost a miracle ? Is not 
the destruction of all liberty necessarily involved in the application 
of such a system ? We commend this subject to the audience, and 
call for a reply from our reverend friend. 

Without dwelling at present upon the other sacraments of the 
Church of Rome, as constructed and administered for the destruc- 


tion of human liberty, I draw my next argument from her tyrannic 
cat interference with the freedom of the press — of readingy &c. 
The freedom of the press has justly been called the palladium of 
our independence. It is the glory, the pledge, and, under God, 
one of the chief securities of our liberties. Unlimited freedom of 
printing and reading has never been permitted by the Roman 
hierarchy, where she had power to prevent it. Speaking of 
printing, one has racily said, "Hereby tongues are known, know- 
ledge groweth, judgment increaseth, books are dispersed,' the 
Scriptures are seen, the doctors be read, stories be opened, times 
compared, truth discerned, falsehood detected, and with finger 
pointed, and all through the benefit of printing. Wherefore I 
suppose, that either the Pope must abolish printing, or he must 
seek a new icorld to reign over ; for else, as this world standeth, 
printing doubtless will abolish him." 

The great Council of Lateran, held at Rome, A. D. 1515, under 
Leo X. session 10th, (1) thus enacted : " We ordain and decree 
that no person shall presume to print, or cause to be printed any 
book or other writing whatsoever, either in our city, (Rome,) or 
in any other cities and dioceses, unless it shall first have been 
carefully examined, if in this city by our vicar, and the master of 
the holy palace, or if in other cities and dioceses by the bishops 
or his deputy, ivlth the inquisitor of heretical pravity for tlie dio- 
cese, in which the said impression is about to be made ; and un- 
less also it shall have received under their own hand, their written 
approval given without price, and without delay. Whosoever 
shall presume to do otherwise, besides the loss of the books, which 
shall be publicly burned, shall be bound by the sentence of ex- 
communication.'' Caranza, from whom the above is extracted, 
more wisely than honestly omits several parts of this decree, such 
as, " That |he transgressing printer was to pay 200 ducats, to help 
in building St. Peter's Cathedral at Rome;" "be suspended for 
a year from his trade," &c. 

By authority of the Council of Trent, this decretal, and all 
others of a similar kind, are thus confirmed, viz. Rule I. "All 
books condemned by the supreme pontiiFs or general councils, be- 
fore the year 1515, and not comprised in the present index, are 
nevertheless to be considered as condemned. '^ The creed also, as 
adopted by every Roman Catholic, requires all " to receive un- 
doubtedly all things delivered, defined and declared by the sacred 
canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council 
of Trent." These decretals, &c. being thus confirmed by the last 
council, stand to this day, and bind every Roman Catholic on 
earth. That same last council, thus sealed with its last act the 
destruction of all liberty of printing, reading, and of thought itself, 
among all its subjects, viz. "Concerning the index of books, the 
most holy council in its second session under our most holy lord 
(1) See Caranza, p 670. 


Pius IV. entrusted it to certain select fathers, to consider what 
was needful to be done in the case of divers censures, and hooks 
either suspected or pernicious, and then report to the holy council; 
and having heard now, that their labours are completed, but yet 
seeing that on account of the variety and number of said books, 
the holy council cannot minutely, and with convenience, judge in 
the case; therefore it is decreed, that wbatever may be determined 
by them, shall be laid before the most holy Pope of Rome, so that 
it may be completed, and published according to his judgment 
and authority/' Here then is the decree of the council sanction- 
ing the acts of the committee and Pope. Accordingly, the 
^'committee on the index" proceeded to draw up a list of ^'p)ro- 
liihited hoohs,'' which makes a large volume ; [here Mr. B. ex- 
hibited the book, adding, that there was another copy in the 
Philadelphia Library,] and they prefixed many ''rules" to it, which 
received in full the sanction of the Pope ; they were published by 
his authority, and have since been received by the church, and re- 
peatedly sanctioned by subsequent Popes. The work, therefore, 
is binding on every Roman Catholic on earth ; to reject it is rebel- 
lion ; to deni/ its existence reckless falseJiood. To show the op- 
pressive character of this system, we give some of its rides, (they 
are ten in number.) The second rule is : ''The books of heresi- 
archs, whether of those who broached or disseminated their here- 
sies prior to the year above mentioned, or of those who have been, 
or are, the heads or leaders of heretics, as Luther, Zuingle, Calvin, 
Balthasar, Pacimontanus, Swenchfeld, and other similar ones, are 
altogether forbidden, whatever may be their names, titles or sub- 

The fourth is as follows: "Inasmuch as it is manifest from ex- 
perience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tonguQ 
be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerUy of men 
will cause more evil than good to arise from it; it is, on this point 
referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, 
by the advice of the priest or confessor, perynit the reading of the 
Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to 
those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be aug- 
mented and not injured by it; and this permission they must have 
in writing: but if any one shall have the presumption to read or 
possess it without such written permission, he shall not receive ab- 
solution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordi- 
nary. Booksellers, however, who shall sell, or otherwise dispose of 
Bibles in the vulgar tongue, to any person not having such per- 
mission, shall forfeit the value of the books, to be applied by the 
bishop to some pious use, and be subjected by the bishop to such 
othci penalties as the bishop shall judge proper according to the 
quality of the offence. But regulars shall neither read nor pur- 
chase such Bibles without a special license from their superiors." 

The fifth rule allows books of heretics containing but little of 


their own to be used by Catholics, after having been corrected hy 
their divines. By the sixth rule, " books of controversy^ betwixt 
the Catholics and heretics of the present time, written in the vulgar 
tongue, are not to be indiscriminately alloioed, but ore to be sub- 
ject to the same regulations as Bibles in the vulgar tongue." 

The tenth rule is as follows : *'//i the printing of books or other 
writings, the rules shall be observed which were ordained in the 
tenth session of the Council of Lateran, under Leo X. Therefore, 
if any book is to be printed in the city of Rome, it shall first be 
examined by the Pope's vicar and the master of the sacred palace, 
or other persons chosen by our most holy father for that purpose. 
In other places the examination of any book or manuscript intend- 
ed to be printed, shall be referred to the bishop, or some skilful 
person whom he shall nominate, and the inquisitors of heretical 
pravity of the city or diocese in which the impression is executed^' 

^' Moreover, in every city and diocese, the house or places where 
the art of printing is exercised, and also the shops of booksellers, 
shall be frequently visited by persons deputed for that purpose by 
the bishop or his vicar, conjointly with the inquisitor of heretical 
pravity, so that nothing that is ptrohibited, may be printed, kept, 
or sold." *'If any person shall import foreign books into any 
city, they shall be obliged to announce them to the deputies." 
^^ Heirs and testamentary executors shall make no use of the 
books of the deceased, nor in any way transfer them to others, 
until they have presented a catalogue of them to the deputies, 
and obtained their license, under pain of confiscation of the books." 

^'Finally, it is enjoined on all the faithful, that no one presume 
to keep or read any books contrary to these rules, or prohibited 
by this index. But if any one keep or read any books composed 
by heretics, or the writings of any authors suspected of heresy or 
false doctrine, he shall instantly incur the sentence of excommuni- 
cation, and those who read or keep works interdicted on another 
account, besides the mortal sin committed, shall be severely pu- 
nished at the will of the bishops." 

Now if this be not restraint of human liberty, I know not what 
restraint is. Here the conscience, the intellect, and the means 
of knowledge — printing, selling, circulating, holding, importing, 
reading books, are, by the decree of an infallible council, and 
their authorized rules, trampled in the dust. But, in fine, look 
once more to the decrees of the Council of Trent on the editions 
of God's Holy Word itself In the fourth session of that conven- 
ticle, is this open decree; '^Moreover the same most holy council, 
considering that no small advantage will accrue to the church of 
God if, of all the Latin editions of the sacred book which are in 
circulation, some one shall be distinguished us that which ought 
to be regarded as authentic, — doth ordain and declare, that the 
same old and vulgate edition, which has been approved by its use 
in the church for so many ages, shall be held as authentic, in all 



public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions; and that 
no one shall dare or presume to reject it under any 'pretence what- 
soever." In order to restrain petulant minds, the Council further 
decrees, "that in matters of faith and morals, and whatever re- 
lates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one, confiding 
in his own judgment, shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to 
his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held and 
still is held hy Holy Mother Church, tchose right it is to judge of 
the true meaning and interpretation of the sacred Word ; or con- 
trary to the unanimous consent of the fathers; even though such 
interpretations should never be published. If any disobey, let 
him be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to 
law. Being desirous also, as is reasonable, of setting bounds to 
the printers, who, with unlimited boldness, supposing themselves 
at liberty to do as they please, print editions of the Holy Scrip- 
ture with notes and expositions taken indifferently from any 
writer, without the permission of their ecclesiastical superiors, 
and that at a concealed or falsely designated press, and, which is 
worse, without the name of the author, — and also rashly expose 
books of this nature to sale in other countries; the holy council 
decrees and ordains, that for the future, the sacred Scriptures, 
and especially the old vulgate edition, shall be printed in the 
most correct manner possible; and no one shall be permitted to 
print, or cause to be printed, any books relating to religion, with- 
out the name of the author; neither shall any one hereafter sell 
such books, or even retain them in his possession, unless they 
have been first examined and approved by the ordinary, under 
penalty of anathema, and the pecuniary fine adjudged hy the 
last Council of Lateran." — Here the vulgate, or old Latin ver- 
sion, known by every scholar to abound in errors, including also 
the fables and falsehoods of the Apocrypha, and to the contempt 
of the original languages of the Bible, is Jhrcibly made the exclu- 
sive standard; printers of all sorts, in all places, are forbidden 
to print the Bible, with notes — as in the former extract they were 
forbidden to print it in any way, without permission, under heavy 
pains and penalties, spiritual and temporal ; and all persons are for- 
bidden to think for themselves. Putting all these decrees together, 
there never was perhaps such a system of high-handed oppression. 
In faithful keeping with these decrees, the index which I hold 
in my hand, on its thirtieth page, actually forbids the reading of 
the Bible, and not the Protestant Bible, (as my Rev. friend tried 
in the late controversy to make appear,) but the very Roman 
Bible, with all its parts, sanctioned by the church, in every pos- 
sible translation, is prohibited; as follows: "Biblia Vulgari quo- 
cunque Idiomate conscripta." That is. The Bible in what- 
ever IDIOM AVRITTEN, (^is jjrohibited.) Finally, 1 have before 
me a decision fresh from Rome, viz. the Encyclical (circular) 
letter of the present reigning Pope, Gregory XVI., addressed to 


the faithfvil all over the world, and written at his coronation, 
dated August 5th, 1832. The following are extracts: 

^^ Towards this point tends that most vile, detestable, and never 
to he sujficientlj/ execrated liherti/ of booksellers, namely, of pub- 
Ushijig writings of whatsoever kind they please; a liberty uhich 
some persons dare with such violence of language to demand and 

" Far different was the discipline of the church in extirpating 
the infection of bad books, even in the days of the Apostles; 
who, we read, publicl?/ burned a vast quantity of books." 

''Let it suffice to read over the laws passed on that point in 
the Fifth Council of Lateran, and the constitution which subse- 
quently was published by our predecessor of happy memory, Leo 
X. Let not that which was happily invented for the increasing of 
the faith, and spread of good learning, be converted to a contrary 
purpose, and bring harm to the salvation of faithful Christians.'' ' 

"This matter also occupied extremely the attention of the 
fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy to so great an evil, by 
publishing a most salutary decree, for compiling an index of 
books, in lohich improper doctrine was contained. Clement XIII., 
our predecessor of happy memory, in his encyclical letter on the 
suppression of noxious books, pronounces — "We must contend 
with energy such as the subject requires, and with all oiir might 
exterminate the deadly mischief of so many books; for the matter 
of error will never be effectually removed unless the guilty ele- 
ments of depravity be consumed in the flames." 

"So that by this continual solicitude, through all ages, with 
which the Holy Apostolic See has ever striven, to condemn sus- 
pected and noxious bdbks, and to wrest them forcibly out of men's 
hands; it is most clear how false, rash, and injurious to the said 
Apostolic See, and fruitful of enormous evils to the Christian 
public, is the doctrine of those, ivho not only reject the censor.nhip 
of books, as too severe and burdensome; but even proceed to that 
length of wickedness, as to assert, that it is contrary to the p)rin- 
ciplcs of equal justice; and dare deny to the church, the right of 
enarting and employing it." 

Now perhaps my Reverend friend may say, these are only 
opinions of the Pope. Well — but the universal church has 
seemed for three years to approve them, and of course they 
become laio. If not, does Mr. Hughes denounce and condemn 
them? Does he deny their truth, their wisdom, their righteous- 
ness, or their authority? Besides, will not his reply be also an 
opinion? Who are we to credit? the Pope or the priest? If they 
differ, where is infallibility? If they differ, who is to be fol- 
lowed? If they differ, the Pope is surely the more excathedra, 
impartial, authorized expounder of the doctrine and discipline of 
the church; — and especially as he quotes general councils to sus- 
tain him. / 


''Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its ^yTinciples 
or doctrines J o2'>posed to civil or religious liherti/f" 


Mr. President: — The gentleman commences his argument by 
an attack on the liberty of the press. The article of which he 
complains, is a true statement of the facts ^ although it is inaccu- 
rate in a few details of a merely circumstantial character, the cor- 
rection of which, would, in ray opinion, tend rather to irritate than 
to soothe his wounded feelings. The Society were witnesses of 
what occurred, and of course competent to specify the pretended 
misstatements. If they cannot do this, it is unreasonable to re- 
quire the reparation that is demanded. For this, neither is it 
necessary that the gentleman should be made acquainted with the 
name of* the writer; and the gentleman's demand to have that 
name given up to him, is a pretty fair sample of what Presbyte- 
rians understand by civil and religious liberty. 

If it be said that the paper called the Presbyterian, gave the 
correction of misrepresentation in regard to a previous debate — 
the answer is, that the cases are entirely dissimilar. There, the 
falsehoods were specif. cally attested by the Society, — here, they 
have not been pointed out; because they do not exist. There, 
they were acknowledged, — here, they are denied. There, the 
author of the acknowledged /a/s/y^ca^to?! of facts, was not inquired- 
after ; — here, though the falsification has not been specified, and 
cannot be proved, still the author is peremptorily demanded, as if 
the object were to inflict upon him a personal chastisement. Let 
the gentleman show wherein he has been injured, except by the 
statement of truth, and I pledge myself that he shall have reparation. 

His next topic is my definition of civil liberty, which has been 
rejected as willingly by myself as by him. He has stated my 
motives for having oifered it. They were, of course, such as the 
eyes of a Presbyterian can always discover in the breast of a 
Catholic. The public must judge whether their baseness is to be 
ascribed to their supposed origin, or to the medium through which 
they are made to pass, in the gentleman's analysis of my tlioughts, 
which was never revealed to him. There has been nothing in 
my conduct to justify such insinuations; and I shall dismiss the 
topic with the single remark, that a mind conscious of its own 
rectitude, is slow to indulge in the gratuitous imputation of bad 
motives to others. 


Before I proceed to lay down the principles involved in the dis- 
cussion of the present question, I must briefly advert to some of 
those assumptions, which the gentlemen has selected yb?- the occa- 
sion, and would dignify by the appellation of " principles." He 
has charged on me, as an error sanctioned by Catholic authority— 
" that the majority shall rule." Of course the true Presbyterian 
doctrine must be, that the right of ruling belongs to the minority. 
Now, I maintain, as a general principle of all free and popular 
government, the very doctrine which this gentleman has here 
condemned. I hold it to be self-evident ; — and I say that the op- 
posite doctrine is suited to the meridian of despotism all over the 
world. It is the majority that rules in this country, from the 
chief magistrate down to the township constable. In Russia, it 
is the minority. The gentleman's first principle, so called, is ad- 
verse to the fundamental principle of our republican government — 
^nd furnishes the very text by which kings and tyrants govern. 
Neither does it follow, as he pretends, that, admitting my princi- 
ple, the majority would have ''a right to do vv^rong." There is no 
such RIGHT, in either the majority or the minority. ^'And then" 
says he, ^' if the day should ever come, lohen Roman Catholics 
will compose the majority in this country, they may, 01' RIGHT, 
establish their religion by laic." Why, if the minority are to rule, 
as the gentleman seems to maintain, there is no reason why the 
Presbyterians might not do now, what it is pretended the Catholics 
could do " if ever they should come," &c. &c. In the first place, 
it is to be observed, that the right of the majority to rule, is cir- 
cumscribed in a free government by the boundaries of civil juris- 
diction. It means that the laws passed by the majority for the 
civil well-being of society, are to be obeyed by the minority, and 
by all. But it does not mean that the majority have any right to 
be tyrants, by making a religion, as when the Westminster As- 
sembly met; or daring to rule for the minority in relation to 
another world, as well as this. The question of religion does not 
appertain to state majorities: it is a spiritual concern between 
man and his God. So that the consequence, which the gentleman 
pretends to derive from my principle, is the legitimate offspring 
of his own bad logic. The Catholics are but as one to twenty-six 
of the population-; and if we suppose with the gentleman, that they 
should become a majority, and establish their religion by law, they 
would be still only imitating an example which the Presbyterians 
have set to all denominations, whenever tlcey had the power. The 
history of his own sect furnishes the true shades to the false lights 
of his picture. Does it follow, from my principle, recognising the 
right of the majority to rule, that because the Presbyterians were 
the majority in Scotland and New England, they had therefore the 
right to take away the lives of men who difi'ered from them in re- 
ligious opinion? No : it only follows that they had the power — 
and we all know what use they made of it. Now it is singular that 
the gentleman should have entered, nay, forced himself, on this 


discussion, without having taken pains to clear up, in his own mind, 
the very important distinction between right and power. 

Thus, the action of the majority-principle, is restricted by the 
sphere of the purely civil and social relations. It has nothing to 
do with those "natural and imprescriptible rights which lie aback 
of all conventions. '' These belong to another category, and shall 
be treated of in their proper place. ThaJ; the gentleman should have 
confounded them with cfyiYand social rights, is the more surprising, 
as the constitution has expressly excepted them from the opera- 
tion of the principle, which that same constitution has sanctioned, 
for the regulation of social rights ; and this exception the gentle- 
man has quoted, without seeming to comprehend its meaning. 
^^AU men have a NATURAL and indefeasible right to worship 
Almighti/ God according to the dictates of their own consciences : 
no man can, OF RIGHT, he compelled to attend, erect, or support, an^ 
place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent : 
no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere 
with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever he given 
BY LAW to any religious establishment or any modes of worship." 

Here are the rights which the constitution recognises, as inde- 
feasible and natural — especially beyond the reach of the majority 
and minority. These, then, have no reference to the civil or fo- 
litical rights, secured by the national instrument in question, but 
to religious, spiritual rights, which are to be inviolable. And yet, 
it was for fV»p nvAvalg^ nf ih\^ Drero^^ative, Unde r the faith of that 
constitution, tha t the Con vent w as burnca do\v57-at»44liat a Pres- 
by tt^nnrLJ^fiTOrrt p IS jinw^ronTaimnd thron"HfonF the land' agai n st 
Catholic citizens. It was by the violation of these principles, that 
the same Presbyterians, in former days, shed the blood, and seized 
the property of other denominations of Christians, whenever they 
were possessed of political power to do so. And since the gentle- 
man tells us, that these principles " are confirmed and illustrated 
by the Gospel :" — it follows, on his own showing, that for their 
knowledge of the gospel, Presbyterians are indebted to the consti- 
tution, which took from them the power of oppressing men for 
conscience sake. Now, these are the imprescriptible rights of man. 
My argument leaves them precisely where the constitution places 
them : and when the gentleman represents me as advocating their 
infringement, on the ground that the '^ majority has the right -to 
govern," he only furnishes another specimen of his vicious rea.son- 
ing. They are inalienable : and therefore every Catholic, and 
every Protestant, worships God " according to the dictates of his 
own conscience," and not that of the priesthood, nor of the pres- 
bytery. The gentleman reckons among these natural rights, trans- 
lations, printing, and the unbounded freedom of the press. By 
this we can discover how much attention he has not paid to the 
subject. Natural rights are rights derived from nature, common 
to all men ; and printing is as much a right as steam navigation, 
or the use of gunpowder. These are all acquired rights — and the 


freest government is that wliicli puts the least restraint on their 
exercise. If printing be a natural right, why did the gentleman 
complain of its exercise in the New York Diary? He tells us 
that to circulate the Bible is a ''natural and inalienable right j'^ 
I answer, that if each one has the right "to worship God accord- 
ing to the dictates of his own conscience/' it is just as natural a 
right and as inalienable, not to circulate the Bible. 

From the moment the gentleman read, without seeming to un- 
derstand, the doctrines of the American Constitution, on both 
social and natural rights, he becomes, at once, inspired and ora- 
cular. Hence we find him breaking out in the following rhapsody, 
which contains about as much solemn nonsense as it is possible 
to express in so many words. The reader who is acquainted with 
the history of the Presbyterian Church, and knows how it tram- 
pled on older rights, in Geneva, Holland, Scotland, and England, 
graciously betrothing itself to the Laws of the State, ''for better 
and for worse," will smile at the gravity with which the gentle- 
man gives in the following catalogue of "usurpations on the natu- 
ral rights of men." 

"According to this definition, churches established by law, by 
kings or pontiff's, and maintained by coercion, are an invasion of 
the natural liberties of men." (This is a good hit at the present 
churches of England and Scotland, and Denmark and Sweden and 
Holland. All of them were established as the gentleman describes. 
But mark his logical conclusion.) "Therefore the Roman hier- 
archy was an usurpation in the days of Luther, and is so now 
wherever its power is felt, as in South America, Spain, and the 
temporal dominions of the Pope." (That is, the Presbyterians 
claim your property, and therefore you hold it by "usurpation.") 
"All territorial precincts, such as parishes," (or presbyterial boun- 
daries by geography^ "dioceses, and the assigning by the autho- 
rity of law of the inhabitants within them to the jurisdiction of 
an ecclesiastic, and the exaction of tithes, or other rateable stipends 
for ecclesiastical uses, upon pretence of ecclesiastical or temporal 
power, is an invasion of the rights of man; and therefore the 
government of the Pope in his own dominions, and in the domi- 
nions of those sovereigns who acknowledge his pretensions, is an 
usurpation," (that is, Mr. Breckinridge heing Judge,) "and for 
the same reason, all societies established by ecclesiastical autho- 
rity, the object of which is to govern the temporal affairs by 
means of the spiritual," (as the Presbyterian parsons are now 
doing,) " the Jesuits for example, are irreconcilably repugnant to 
free institutions." When the gentleman adduced the "Jesuits 
for example," he falsifies absolutely the object of their institution. 
For the rest, he wounds as many friends as foes. 

In short, the gentleman might have been more concise, and 
told us at once, that all jurisdiction both in Church and State 
is a usurpation on the natural rights of men, save and except that 
which is exercised by Congress and by the Getieral Assembly/ 


of the Presbyterian Church. As this conclusion is founded 
on false premises which have already been exposed, it would be 
wasting time if we were to enter on tke exposition of its special 
absurdities. He proceeds to speak of something which he calls 
"this article/' ana says that "Roman Catholics cannot concur in 
it, who, as a matter of conscience, ascribe to the Pope lawful au- 
thority to invade a portion of their natural liberties; their con- 
science forbids them to assert their own freedom, or to allow to 
Protestants the measure of freedom which they claim.'' Without 
pretending to know what the "article" is to which the gentleman 
makes such pointed allusion, I shall reply to the reason which he 
assigns for his opinion. That reason is utterly false. He'calum- 
niates Catholics when he says they ascribe any such "lawful au- 
thority" to the Pope, or that their "conscience forbids them" in 
the matter described. The gentleman thinks the South Ameri- 
cans are still slaves, because they did not throw off the profession 
of their religion at the same time when they asserted their politi- 
cal freedom. The same might be said of the North Americans 
for not having at the revolution burst the fetters of their ecclesi- 
astical bondage. The only difference I can see, is, that in the 
one case, the people, if the gentleman will have it so, chose to be 
ridden by priests; in the other, they preferred to be ridden by 
parsons and their families. The people of South America have 
the lighter burden. The gentleman ascribes the freedom of the 
United States to Luther. I say that Faust, by inventing print- 
ing, contributed, under God, much more to it than Luther. 
"The condition of the vicious, ignorant, superstitious and priest- 
ridden inhabitants of South America, Spain, and Italy," is a very 
opprojyriate and consoling phrase on the lips of the Presbyterian 
parsonhood, when they are pressing on their own followers with 
a weight of spiritual and temporal domination, whose little finger 
is heavier than the loins of Catholic bondage in any country 
under the sun. The tithes in most Catholic countries are but a 
trifle, compared with the enormous amount of money which is 
extorted, for one object or another, from the religious portion of 
American Presbyterians. It is true the parsons do not send the 
constable to collect it, but they send forth what seems to answer 
the purpose just as well, a picture of the premonitory symptoms 
of "election and reprobation." 

Next comes a "sophism," which the gentleman undertakes to 
expose for the good of posterity. It consists in confounding the 
term "voluntary" with the term "tree." We must pass 
over his illustrations. If they have not the merit of being appo- 
site or profound, they have, at least, that of being diversified and 
numerous. The whole meaning, however, breaks out in the 
object for which they were adduced, which is to show "that 
those who surrender voluntarily/ the natural rights of conscience, 
the rights of free worship to a spiritual prince or pontiff, do not 
continue to be free in these respects; nay, they cannot be said to 


be free in any respect/' Now it is to be observed, in the first 
place, that the gentleman's notion of freedom would place the 
human mind in the position of the animal between two bundles 
of hay, where the inducements should he as strong on the one 
side as the other. Any deviation towards either might be " volun- 
tar?//' but it would not, on that account, he tells us, be ^'/ree." 
Secondly, according to his distinction all laws, in Pennsylvania 
and elsewhere, are compj^tible with "volunfari/ submission," but 
not with "freedom." So that the sons of the commonwealth 
have the honour of being classed by him, in the principle of their 
subjection, with the ''most ignoble of all slaves, voluntary slaves/' 
Thirdly, if the gentleman, in striking out one distinction, had not 
overlooked another, he would not have confounded the rights of 
society with those which are natural and personal to every man.» 
Fourthly, neither would he have talked of '•^surrendering'' rights 
which cannot be surrendered. The rights of conscience, in their 
personal relation, are as inalienable as the rights of rnemory: and. 
it is just as absurd to talk of " surrendering" the one as the other. 
As to the rights of "free worship," they are of that ord er which V^v5 
the Prf^^bytprinn^ drniod tf^T^tihnlicr inTtl, iittTinl n4r^n thrjnndr y 
it DEATH to have i^T U^or liearct mass three times, and denied / 
to the Episcopalians, when they putlT'sire d thom -by- civil penalties/^ 
for READING the common prayer-hook, even in private families. 
These rights may be taken away by the power of bigotry and 
despotism united; but to talk of their being " surrendered," either 
"freely" or "voluntarily," is too absurd. Finally, supposing the 
thing possible, the charge stands as pointedly against those who^ 
''surrender" these rights to the spiritual junto, called the Gene- 
ral Assembly, as if they were resigned to the ''spiritual pontiff"." 

Having thus briefly exposed the absurdity of some of what the 
gentleman calls first principles, his inferences perish with the 
mistaken premises on which he thought them established. Before 
I advert to what he calls "t]isJ^xaiiny of llomanism," it is pro- 
per to lay down the true principles, by which the merits of the 
present discussion can alone be tested. The question is, whether 
the "religions" called the "Roman Catholic" and "Presbyterian" 
are opposed in any or all of their doctrines or principles to civil 
and religious liberty. The gentleman and myself have, by a writ- 
ten agreement, determined and fixed the meaning of the terms 
employed. If he had adhered to his engagement, and abided by 
his own definitions, the question would be extremely simple ; but 
such an instance of good faith was more than my experience 
should have taught me to expect. 

Accordingly, in the very first speech, we find him quitting the 
definition which he could understand, and plunging into the mys- 
ticism of universal ethics, far beyond his 'depth; — confounding 
all rights, personal and social, human, and divine, m order to ex- 
tract from the confusion, materials for the unhallowed purpose 
of Presbyterian zeal, which is, to excite odium against Catho- 


lie citizens, under pretence of advocating ^' civil and religious 

Let us endeavour to introduce order into the chaos of his specu- 
lations. Rights arc 'privileges either inherent in our nature, or 
derived from some extrinsic source. The former class are termed 
NATURAL, INDEFEASIBLE, imj^rescrijitible and eternal. The lat- 
ter are classed under various heads; — those which are derived from 
God by revelation, are termed divine rights; those which result 
from the social compact, are called civil oy ])olifical rights; when 
that compact secures us in the privilege of exteRx\ally *' wor- 
shipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience," 
it guarantees our religious rights. The immunities of the stand- 
ing which we hold in the ecclesiastical body to which we belong, 
are termed our ecclesiastical rights. Let us explain. 

1. Natural Right. If every man were living by himself, 
having no connexion with his fellow-beings, he would have a natu- 
ral right to do whatever he chose, except only what God would 
have forbidden him. He might be a king without subjects, or a 
slave without a master. He might print treason and preach 
sedition. And the reason is, that he alone would be aifected by 
his proceedings. But the moment he enters into society, the natu- 
ral rights must be restrained. Let the society be composed but 
of three persons, he has no right to league with the second, in 
order, by calumniating, to oppress the third. In proportion as 
the interests of society would become more complex and diversified, 
in the same proportion the natural rights of each individual should 
have to yield to the paramount good of the whole. At one period 
of mankind it was a natural right for a brother to marry a sister 
— for a man to have several wives at the same time; ^t another 
period, society has prohibited the exercise of this right, and yet 
I trust the gentleman will not adopt the conclusions to which his 
pretended principles lead, and accuse society of being guilty of 
"tyranny" by invading the natural rights of man. When indi- 
viduals offend against the rights of society, society robs them of 
the natural rights — freedo^si, life. Is this tyranny? 

2. Divine Right. This is the authority with which God has 
in-vested certain men and conditions of life, for some purpose of 
good. Thus, Moses, after his appointment, had the right to com- 
mand the people of God. The Jewish priesthood had the right 
to offer sacrifices. The apostles had the right to establish Chris- 
tianity, and their legitimate successors have the right to perpetuate 
it, both by the preaching of the word and the administration of 
the sacraments. These rights are peculiar to those onli/, to whom 
God has given them, and in this they differ from natural rights, 
which are common to all men. Now rights and duties are core- 
lative : and therefore it was the duty of the people of God to obey 
Moses, and it is the duti/ of men to hear (and practice) the doc- 
trines of Christianity from those who have the right to preach 
them. This right is not derived from nature; neither is it, nor 


can it be, derived from civil authority. And consequestly those 
■who have not received the divine appointment to exercise it, do 
not possess it at all. The sphere, and direct object of this righty 
is spiritual. It is degraded by those who wield it for base, tem- 
poral purposes. " My kingdom is not of this world." The exer- 
cise of this right is no usiuyation, except by those who do not re- 
ceive it ffbm God, and could not receive it from any other source. 

3. Political, or Civil Rights, are ^^that residuum o/ na- 
tural liberty lohich is not required hy the laws of society to he sac- 
rificed to public convenience : or else those civil privileges, which so- 
ciety has engaged to provide in lieu of those natural liberties so given 
up by individuals. Tliis definition is from a Protestant jurist. It 
distinguishes properly between those natural rights which the laws 
of society do not require us to sacrifice, and those conventional rights 
which result from society itself. Hence the constitution of the 
United States guarantees the citizen in the enjoyment of i\\Q former 
as well as the latter division of those rights. It recognises the pri- 
vilege of every man *'to worship God according to the dictates of 
his own conscience" as among the natural rights of man. It pledges 
the faith of the nation to recognise no distinction between the pro- 
fessors of one creed and those of another; because it understands 
that religion is a matter between man and God. In this, it differs 
from many of the civil constitutions in Catholic states ; and from 
ALL the civil constitutions that were ever drawn up or administered 
by Calvinists. In short, it secures unbounded "liberty of con- 
science." Again, it secures in lieu of the natural liberties, which 
it abridges, all the advantages of social assistance : whicli could 
not be realized except by the legal imposition of j9crso«a/ restraint. 

The idea of •' compelling'' a man to believe this doctrine, or that, 
is an absurdity. Hence the privilege of believing, as an act of the 
mind, bids defiance to all external power. But the right io prac- 
tice the doctrines that one believes, must be exercised in harmony 
with the rights of others. Thus, for example, the Presbyterians 
believe that God has commanded' them to " remove d\\ false wor- 
ship." Now, they can believe this in despite of the Constitution : 
they may even preach and publish that God has commanded them 
to ''remove all false worship;" but the Constitution interposes 
between the belief n.nd practice of the doctrine, and says, " whether 
God has commanded it or not, you shall NOT do it.'' And why ? 
Because what Presbyterians believe to be ^^ false worship," other 
denominations believe to be ^Urue worship;" and to allow the 
Presbyterians to practice their belief on this point, would be to al- 
low them to invade the rights and tyrannize over the consciences 
of their fellow-citizens, to whom the same measure of religious 
rights is secured as to themselves. The same rule would apply 
to Catholics, or Methodists, or Episcopalians. 

Finally : Ecclesiastical Rights are those privileges secured 
to individuals according to their stations, and resulting from the 
ecclesiastical constitution, or usages of the religious society to which 


lie belongs. Thus, for instance, if the gentleman should be accused 
of heresy, like some of his brethren, he would have a right to a 
trial according to the usual forms among Presbyterians. He would 
be arraigned before his presbytery, and if the majority pronounced 
him innocent he would be acquitted. He might refuse the trial — 
tell his peers that he must " worship God according to the dictates 
of his own conscience, and not that of the presbytery -J' '^ that if 
he submitted to their authority he would not be 2, free man, but a 
voluntary slave, and therefore a most base and ignoble slave.'' He 
might tell them that *' aback of all conventions,'' &c. These are 
the rules, which in his pretended principles he has laid down for 
Catholics ; and yet he knows that if he insisted on them, in such 
circumstances, he would soon feel the weight and the smart of the 
discipline — Calvinistic. 

Thus, Mr. President, you perceive that there are rights of va- 
rious and distinct orders. That the application of those rights 
must be in the order of the subjects to which they are applicable. 
That to confound them in one common mass, and then apply the 
principles of one order of rights to the circumstances of (mother 
order, as the gentleman has attempted to do, would be just as ab- 
surd (though perhaps not so striking in the minds of this audience) 
as if he undertook to prove the mysteries of the Christian religion 
by the axioms of mathematics, or to prove the problems of Euplid 
by texts of Scripture. 

These principles are so clear, that they cannot be denied consis- 
tently with sense or reason. They are in the nature of things ; 
and constitute tbe pulse of civil and religious organization. The 
individual who would exempt himself from the discharge of either 
social or ecclesiastical duties, as established in the state by lawful 
authority, or in the religious body of which he is a member, by an 
appeal to his pretended natural rights, would justly be regarded 
as unworthy to participate in the advantages of either. The cul- 
prit at the bar might, if this were not so, appeal for his 7-ights to 
the tribunal of the '^ general assembly;" and the individual, de- 
posed or condemned by that body for heresy, might carry his griev- 
ance before congress. All, to escape punishment, might reject the 
jurisdiction of society, and proclaim that there is no power on earth 
that has a right to rob them of their natural liberties, or make them 
" less free than God has made them free." Mankind could not 
exist under the shock of such doctrine. The frame of the social 
edifice would be broken to pieces by its application. 

Now, the gentleman has himself argued that every man has a 
''right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his 
own conscience, without invading or injuring the rights of others." 
Therefore if my conscience dictates to me that the worship of the 
Catholic religion is that which is most pleasing to Almighty God, 
I have the absolute right to embrace and profess that religion. 
Having the right to profess that religion, it becomes my duty to com- 
ply with the terms of its communion yro??i tlic moment when I wish 


to he admitted a member. How far this compliance abridges my 
natural rights is a question which is personal to 3IE, and on which 
I am not to be dictated to by otliersr_J_t_is a-piiTt of thlTJxtdgment 
which all acknowledge the right in every man to form for himself. 

The question, then, before this Society is, whether ''that religion 
in any or all of its principles or doctrines is opposed to civil or 
religious liberty. '^ By doctrines you are to understand " those 
tenets of faith and morals which it teaches as having been re- 
vealed by Almighty God.'* 

The gentleman has taken it for granted that he has proved the 
affirmative of this proposition ; and when we know with what en- 
tire satisfaction of mind, men sometimes adopt the falsest conclu- 
sions, we may find charity to believe him sincere. What he con- 
ceives to be Catholi'C doctrine may, and no doubt is, opposed to 
what HE conceives to be civil and religious liberty. But if his 
** conceptions" be erroneous; if his information be but partinl and 
unsound; if his reasoning, even on the materials he has, be de- 
fective; and, in fine, if he be uiLconscious of all this, then his 
arriving at a false conclusion can be accounted for without the 
necessity of impeaching his sincerity. He has selected "Bap- x. 
tism," "Auricular Confession," and the "Liberty of the Press," /^ 
as the triple foundation of his argument and inference. Here, 
then, it is manifest that the gentleman's information is not sound; 
otherwise, he would have known that Catholics do not teach that 
God made any revelation whatever on the subject of the "riiESS," 
and consequently that the ^^llbertij, or the restraint of i\\Q press," 
forms no "principle or doctrine" of the Catholic religion. Com- 
mon sense tells us that the press can be employed for the corrup- 
tion of morals and the destruction of Christianity, and every vir- 
tuous mind would condemn such an abuse of it. But beyond 
this the Catholic Religion has no "doctrine" on the subject. 

The decision of the Council of Trent, on the subject of baptism, 
merely defines, as an article of Catholic doctrine, that persons 
baptized in infancy, are bound to discharge the duties of a Chris- 
tian life, the same as if tliey had been baptized in adult age. And 
that the Church has a right to employ other means to enforce this 
obligation, besides "exclusion from the eucharist and the other 
sacraments." I presume that the gentleman does not deny the 
right of the Church to exclude heresy. He seems to have studied 
the Catholic religion just as Tom Paine studied the Bible. But 
let us, to show the nature of his argument, suppose him to carry 
his doctrine into some Presbyterian pulpit. Let him tell the young 
persons who were baptized in infancy, that they are free to remove 
the "indelible brand of slavery," and to become Jews or Mo- 
hammedans, as they prefer. And suppose a number of them to 
adopt this doctrine, what would be the course of the Presbyterian 
Church in relation to the matter? — It would ^^ compel" him and 
them to renounce the heresy. How? — By suspension from the 
Lord's Supper. But would this "punishment" be all the means 


of coercion within the power of the Church? — No: '^ Excommu- 
nication" might and would follow, in case of obstinacy. How 
then, I ask, can he advocate, in this place, a doctrine which he 
dare not preach in a Presbyterian pulpit? Shall the Catholic 
Church be restricted in the employment of censures, to suspension 
from the sacraments, — and the Presbyterian Church indulged 
with the right of employing the sword of excommunication? By 
virtue of Church censures, Presbyterians claim the power "to 
shut" and to "open" the kingdom; and shall it be "liberty" 
to exercise this power among them, and "slavery," tyranny, to 
exercise it among Catholics? Let the gentleman consult his own 
"Confession of Faith." (1) 

But he has told you that in the canon, the "doctrine of force 
is distinctly taught; — and not moral force, hut physical.'' This 
assertion I pronounce to be emphatically false. iVnd I give it 
that designation, not out of any desire to offend, but to throw him 
on the necessity of furnishing the proof. The Council asserted 
the right of the Church to employ other means besides "exclusion 
from the eucharist and other sacraments;" and it does not follow, 
that those other means must he "physical." 

His whole argument, then, may be stated in a few words ; as 
follows : — 

"The Council of Trent teaches, that '''■physical force' ^ is to be 
employed to compel persons baptized in infancy, to lead a Chris- 
tian life, as soon as they have grown up." 

"Therefore this doctrine of the Church of Rome is directly 
and avowedly destructive of religious liberty." 

The answer and the refutation are — that his premises are em- 
phatically FALSE ; — and the conclusion is like the premises, false. 

I am surprised that the gentleman's mind did shrink back, 
affrighted at the absurdity of its own prejudice. At the period 
of the Council of Trent, when the standard of apostasy was raised 
on every side — when the pure light of the Gospel, as the apostates 
from the ancient faith were pleased to call their notions, was beam- 
ing in its morning brilliancy — when the echoes of Luther's coarse 
thunder were still reverberating throughout Europe — when Calvin 
was bringing up another reformation, and Socinus another still, — 
then it was, the gentleman tells you, that the Council of Trent 
decreed that the Church should employ "physical force," io com- 
pel men to be holy ! If this be a doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
it has never been taught, and would have remained a secret to 
eternity, if he had not discovered it in a canon of the Council — 
where it is not to he found I And he would denounce his Catholic 
fellow-citizens, because he accuses them falsely, of holding a doc- 
trine, which they abhor, and which exists only as a phantom in 
his own brain, if it exists even there ! 

From baptism he goes to confession. Here, again, if the gen- 
tleman had stated our doctrine as it is, and saved himself the 
(1) Chapter xxx. p. 129, On Chukch Censurbs. 



trouble of inventing a creed for us, his apprehensions for the 
safety of '' civil and religious liberty/' from the dangers of '' con- 
fession," would have dissolved into thin air. The question is not 
whether our doctrine on this subject is true; — it is enough that 
Catholics believe it to be so. It is then an article of our faith, 
that when Christ, speaking to his apostles, said, '•'- Receive ye the 
Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven ; 
and whose sins ye shall retain^ they are retained f' they and their 
successors, the bishops and priests of the Catholic Chuueh, re- ^ 

ceived power to absolve any truly penitent sinner from his sins. ^'v 

God ITaving thus given them the ministry of reconciliation, and !W>' 
made them Christ's legates, (2) Christ's ministers, and the dispen- 
sers of the mysteries of Christ, — and given them promise, that 
^^ whatsoever they should loose on earth, woidd he loosed in hea- 
ven." — (3) It is an article of Catholic faith, that whoever comes 
to them, making a sincere and humble confession of his sins, with 
a frm j^urpose of amendment, and a sincere reso^H^io/i of turning 
from his evil ways, may, and does, through their ministry, receive 
absolution and release from his sins. It is equally an article of 
faith, that whoever comes without the due preparation — without re- 
pentance from the bottom of his heart, and a sincere intention of 
forsaking his sins, receives no benefit from absolution, but adds sin 
to sin, by a high contempt of God's mercy, and abuse of the sa- 
craments. Hence, the sacrament of penance, for the reception of 
which confession by the penitent is a condition, is the oj^posite of 
whatever is sin. The bishop or priest to whom the confession is 
made, is said to act in the capacity of Judge. — 1st. Because he 
has to judge from the signs of repentance, whether the sins are to 
be " forgiven" or " retained," i. e. not forgiven. 2dly. Because 
he judges of the penance which the sinner should undergo in this 
life, by acts of piety or self-denial. This confession is made to the 
minister of the sacrament alone, because, although in some in- 
stances in the early ages of the Church it was made in public, yet 
the danger of producing more scandal than edification by such pub- 
lic confession, has been considered as a sufficient reason for making 
the discipline uniform. The penitent must confess all his sins; for 
his concf-aling any of them knowingly, would indicate a want of sin- 
cerity, and render him unworthy of that mercy and forgiveness, 
which Jesus Christ exercises by the ministry of his priests. The 
Council of Trent observes, that without knowledge of the sins com- 
mitted, the priest could not observe equity "in enjoining the pe- 
nance." " ^quitatem servare in poenis injungendis," — the gen- 
tleman's ignorance of 'our doctrine, has made him, on the miscon- 
ception of these words, represent the priest as ^'inflicting equita- 
ble punishment." And though there may, in his case, be some 
excuse for a mis-translation, yet we know not how to account for 
his putting in the English quotation, a phrase which has no ori- 
ginal in the Latin of the Council; as in the quotation from the 14th 
(2) 2 Cor. T. 18, 19. (3) Matt, xviii. 18. 


session, the words ^'as a part of the sacrament of penance." The 
gentleman may, if he choose, take his learning at second-hand, but 
he himself must be accountable for the errors which it contains. 

In the doctrine here stated, my opponent thinks he discovers 
"usurpation on the prerogatives of God," ''blasphemy," "forcing 
the subject," &c. If God has appointed the sacrament of penance 
as the means of reconciliation ; if he has imparted to the ministers 
of his church the power of absolving penitent sinners ; if confession 
be a condition for the exercise of that power, as Catholics believe; 
then, according to his reasoning it is "blasphemy," "usurpation," 
tyranny, slavery, and what not, to do what God has commanded ! — 
to comply with the conditions on which forgiveness and pardon de- 
pend ! The children of fore-ordination and fatality may, as "Ameri- 
can freemen," hold God obliged to pardon their sins, in the way 
most agreeable to themselves. Catholics are happy to receive that 
pardon in the way that God himself has appointed, although the 
means may be humiliating to the pride of the corrupt heart. 

If, then, as the Catholics believe, and are able to prove, Christ 
appointed the sacrament of penance as the nieans of reconciliation 
between the repentant sinner and God, it is the duty of the " wife," 
the " sister," the " daughter," to have recourse to it as often as their 
rT?anscience reproaches them with having violated the divine law. It 
^ is their right to do so — their inalienable right, and none but a tyrant 
would interpose to prevent them. Yet this is what the gentleman's 

i argument goes to authorize, ybm??^/ their conscience. If this be a 
doctrine of revelation, as Catholics believe, then it is as compatible 
with freedom as any other doctrine of revelation. The gentleman 
is utterly mistaken when he says that priests know all the "secrets 
of all the villians connected loith their church." These persons, for 
the reason that they are villains, never go to confession. They 
unite Catholic theory with Presbyterian practice, and their restoring 
ill-gotten property to Protestants, is a sign of their conversion — that 
they have been at confession and mean to be " villains' no longer. 
As for the " state of every priests' mind," in consequence of their 
having to listen to the confessions of the penitent, the gentleman 
need not be at all uneasy. There have been, and there still may 
be bad priests. But as a class, they will not shrink from a com- 
parison with the Presbyterian clergy, for purity, zeal, learning, 
charity, and disinterestedness. And in confirmation of this remark, 
it is sufficient to observe, that the corrupt ViW^ fallen priest, who is 
cast forth from the sanctuary he has profaned, is nevertheless hailed 
as a trophy, if he can descend to turn Presbyterian. 

The argument, then, on this subject may be stated as follows : 
le doctrine of penance is a system of ^usurpation,' ^e^pionage^ 
hla^jhemy,^ " and " ''tyranny.' " 
" Therefore, it is opposed to civil and religious liberty." 
Answer and refutation. The doctrine of penance is a revelation 
of Christ. In administering or receiving that sacrament Catholics 
are " worshipping God according to the dictates of their conscience" 


— doing what Christ commanded. And since in doing what Christ 
has commanded there is neither ^^usm-pation," nor ^^ espionage," 
nor ^^hlaiiphemi/,^^ nor ^^fyranny,^' therefore, in the doctrine of 
penance there is ?io/7i.ry?^ opposed to either civil or religious liberty. 
The gentleman would not have hazarded such an argument, had he 
not been ignorant of our doctrine; his conclusion is not sustained 
by arguments drawn from Catholic theology, but must have rested, 
in his mind, o n those absurd Pres byterian .preiudices which he im- 
bibed in the nursery, and from who^e thr aldo m his subsequent 
education was not cnhrutated to emancipate him. 

It is true, thjit'ttrenJocfrinGror penance may be abused, but in 
this, it is like every best gift of heaven to men. But the stern 
discipline of the church degrades for life the fiiithless minister, 
who would sacrilegously pervert it to any other end, save that for 
which it was instituted. 

The third argument on which the gentleman would make it ap- 
pear that the doctrines of the Catholic church are opposed to '* civil 
and religious liberty,'^ is the freedom of the press. Now the free- 
dom of the press is as much a doctrine of the church as Symmes* 
Theory of the Poles. Hence, the objection on this ground has no 
force. There is not in the whole creed, a doctrine which forbids 
me, as a Catholic priest, to advocate the most unbounded freedom 
of the press. 

If the gentleman knew a little more of the history of printing, as 
an art, it would not be necessary to inform him, that the popes, 
and cardinals, and bishops, were its patrons, and the first use to 
which it was applied was the publication of the Scriptures. If he 
will consult the writings on bibliography, of Le Long, or of Cle- 
ment, a Protestant, he will discover that there had been published 
in the Italian lamjuage alone, forty different editions of the Scrip- 
tures, before the first Protestant version of Geneva, which was in 
1562. There had been ten editions of the Italian Bible of Mal- 
hermi, printed between the years 1471 and 1484. These facts 
ought to shame the ignorancc,Vind.%\\(i\\Q,e\.\\Qhereditari/ slanders, 
of those who, like the gentleman, pretend that printing, and the pub- 
lication of the Holy Scriptures are against the doctrine of the church. 
One single Italian city, within thirty years after the invention of the 
pre<s, and before Protestantism tvas horn, publishes the Bible in the 
Italian language, at the rate of an edition every year, of eight out 
of ten years, and yet it is said that this was against the doctrine 
of the Catholic church, and credulity swallows the falsehood ! 

The'object of all the regulations made in regard to the printing, 
publishing, and reading of books, was to preserve the faith of Christ 
from the admixture of errors, introduced at the apostasy of the 16th 
century. It was to check the licentiousness, not to destroy the 
liberty of printing, publishing, and reading. The church, as the 
depository of the true doctrines, has a right to condemn and exclude, 
by the exercise of spiritual authority, all heretical and impious 



books, those of Calvin as well as those of Voltaire. Wherever this 
right has been maintained bj temporal penalties, the penalties are 
for the violation of the laws of the state. The rules of the Index 
from which the gentleman has multiplied quotations, never took 
effect, except where the civil power had adopted them. There were 
many Catholic nations in which they were nevej published or heard 
of, — a sufficient proof that they constitute no portion of Catholic 

The gentleman says that, in page 30, the Index " actually for- 
bids the reading of the Bible, and not the Protestant Bible, (as 
my reverend friend tried in the late controversy to make appear,) 
but the very Roman Bible with all its parts, sanctioned by the 
church, in every possible translation is prohibited, as follows : 
Biblia vulgari quocunque idiomate conscripta," that is, ''The Bi- 
ble IN WHATEVER IDIOM WRITTEN, (is prohibited.)" I have not 
seen his copy of this Index, but I have no hesitation to pronounce 
the statement here made to he false, and unwarranted by the ori- 
ginal. I challenge the proof. He must furnish it, or stand ac- 
countable to public opinion for having falsified the text, and 2idi- 
diMGQdi forged documents to prop his cause. 

Finally, he adduces the Encyclical letter of the present Pope. 
Well, what does he find in it, except a praiseworthy solicitude to 
preserve the truth of God pure, in hooks of doctrine as well as preach- 
ing ; complaints that the world is inundated with had hooks, to the 
corruption of faith and morals, and the destruction of souls. The 
Pope asserts that those wh.o..j:e,cognise the spiritual authority of the 
church, are vTicked^injdenyino: her right to exercise censorship 
over books. He denounces the conduct of those men who labour 
to seduce the faithful into the mazes of error and doubt, by circu- 
lating among them mutilated and spurious copies of the Scripture, 
and telling them to reject the church of Christ, and to become their 
0wn guides. He warns the flock over which Christ has placed him, 
against those who come among them in sheep's clothing, or when 
they cannot do this, send their errors of doctrine most innocently 
bound up in calf-skin. He has a right to do all this — he is bound 
to do it, as he will have to appear before Grod, to answer for the 
discharge of his duty. 

But it does not follow that he has any right, or temporal autho- 
rity, to punish by civil disabilities, those who are not subject to the 
civil laws of his own state, for the violation of those principles. 
He does^ot pretend to have any. And hence the gentleman may 
discover that the "Pope and the Priest'' do not "differ." That 
both recognise the right to denounce counterfeit copies of the Scrip- 
ture, the writings of Calvin, those of Voltaire, Thomas Paine, and 
all works contrary to pure morals and sound doctrine. Neither 
does it follow that they are enemies of the " liberty of the press/' 
unless by liberty, the gentleman means licentiousness. 


''Js the Roman Catliolic Relif/ion, in any or in all its principles 
or doctrines, opposed to ciiTil or religious Vibertyf^ 


The gentleman began his reply by charging me with attacking 
tlie liberty of the press , because, forsooth, I demanded the name of 
a scurrilous writer, who has anonymously assailed me in the "Ca- 
tholic Diary," and who refers to the Rev. gentleman as the per- 
son from whom he got apart of his information. Of course Mr. 
Hughes knows who he is, and whether he did not get the whole 
from the same quarter. Now, if calling for the name of a libeller 
be an invasion of the liberty of the press, (as the gentleman says 
it is,) can any one believe him in earnest when he attempts to ex- 
cuse and even defend the present reigning Pope, for his open 
attacks on the frecdoin of the press, read by me when I last ad- 
dressed this audience ? 

The object in calling for the name was not '^personal chastise- 
ment," as the gentleman intimates; but such associations of mind 
are, I allow, very natural to his system ; and especially from the 
nearness of the author to the gentleman, I can excuse him for de- 
siring to shelter him. But I repeat the charges already uttered, 
and pledge myself to make them out to the full, whenever the 
name of the author is announced. In the mean time, and espe- 
cially since the gentleman has become the advocate of the writer, 
I here publicly lay the article on the table, and hold the gentle- 
man responsible for its contents. 

The distinction which the gentleman has striven to make between 
this piece and that which appeared in the Presbyterian, is not a 
little remarkable, especially when we remember that he opposed the 
society's acting on it this evening, as out of place, — and now makes 
their not acting on it a ground of fault ! Is this consistent, or can- 
did ? But in due time they loill act on it, as we are assured, and 
give to the author good reason to continue in a darkness which 
wisely shuns exposure. I dismiss this subject, with the remark, 
that i\\Q fahome compliments -paid to iMr. Hughes in that piece, is 
another reason why the name is withheld ; and really, Mr. Presi- 
dent, they are in such strong contrast with the history of the evening, 
which was so mortifying to his friends, that I should have mistaken 
the praises for irony, but for other parts of the production. 

And here allow me, thus early in the debate, to say, that nothing 
but the love of liberty as an American, and of truth as a Protestant 


Christian, could induce me to subject my feelinp^s to the coarse and 
ill-bred impertinence of a priesthood Avhose temper and treatment 
toward other men alternate between servilit}'^ to their spiritual so- 
vereigns and oppression of their unhappy subjects. I can and will 
bear, for the sake of the (jreat cause, whatever may be made neces- 
sary — though, thank God, I am not forced to do it either as a minion 
of tjie P ope, or the subject, of nn arrog ^iTUnml \u]gSir_Jcs7iitum. 
The ffrst thingi notice is, the gentleman' s qiiTFble on my state- 
ment of the rights of minorities. On the first evening of our meet- 
ing, (which, happily for him, was not a part of the series of regular 
debates,) he had said that a man did not drop down from theclomh, 
— hut grew vp under an existing state of societf/ : and finding a 
certain governmeiit established by the majority of the 2)cople, who 
had a right to rule, that he had no right to interfere icith the order 
of society already established. Now my principle, as stated this 
cveniDg, is, that the majority have no right to rule in violation of 
certain rights of the minority. He pertly replies, " of course the 
Presbyterian doctrine must be, that the right of ruling l)e]ongs to 
the minority." I answer, no. That is as in-ong as the other — that 
is aristocracy, that is despotism. — Both are wrong. There are cer- 
tain rights aback of all minorities and majorities, which are not law- 
fully in i\iQ power of man, such as the rights of conscience. For 
example : the Pope of Rome has established by laio the Jtoman 
Catholic religion, and no subject is allowed to exercise any other 
icorship. Allowing that a majority of the people wish it to be so, 
I contend, that, in this case, the majority have no right to enforce 
such a regidation. — The minority (and we have good evidence, 
from year to year, that even in Home there exists a minority) have a 
right to worship God as Protestants, if they so please. But it will be 
replied, this cannot be done without violating the laws of the land. 
The gentleman has said, *' Tlie individual tcho woidd exempt him- 
self from, the discharge (f either socidl or ecclesiastical diities, AS 
llgiouiii body of which he is a member, by an appeal to hispjretended 
natural rights, would justly be regarded as unworthy to partici- 
pate in the advantages of either." This is truly a candid admis- 
sion. Then, " by lawful authority^ civil and ecclesiastical duties 
may be established in a state !" Yes, and so it is established at 
Rome at this day, that every child born there, and every .vubject, 
must be a Catholic! Now I say, this law, if passed by a maj</rity, 
(which, however, is only a majority of Austrian bayonets,) makes 
the majority voluntary slaves, and oppresses the minority. The 
minority have no right to enj'orce, but to eujoy their religion ; so 
with majorities. If this be not so, we ask the gentleman, does he 
approve or condemn the Pope's enforcing his religion at Rome? Is 
it consistent with freedom of conscience '/ Is not the temporal power 
by which he enforces it an usurped and tyrannic exercise of power ? 
If he were in this land, and a constitutional majority of the states 


were to alter the constitution, so as to make the Pope temporal and 
spiritual head of tlie nation for life, and his successor eligihle for 
life bj a few Cardinals, would it not be an evasion of our rights? 
Of the rights of the minority ? And would not the majority be 
voluntary slaves ? But this is the way the Pope rules ; ana this 
is the way he is elected. We beg, then, a candid, direct answer 
to these questions. If they be evaded, we shall readily know why 
it is; and you, gentlemen, will please to remark it well. 

Now my principle is this : there are certain rights which no ma- 
jority or minority can give or take away, or interfere with, except 
to prevent men, in their exercise, from invading the rights of other 
men. Of these, as most important, I selected, as a specimen of 
the rest, the right of icorship, which God confers on every man 
as a natural, indefeasible right. This right is sometimes called a 
religious right; but our admirable constitution justly regards it as 
a civil right: that is, though it refers to religion, it is a right be- 
longing to man in civil society. The constitution does not confer, 
and no constitution can take away this right. It does not except 
it; but on the contrary adopts it, declares it, and secures it, as a ci- 
vil right to all American citizens in the following noble language : — 

^^All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Al- 
mighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences. 
No man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any 
place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his con- 
sent; no human authority can in any case whatever control or in- 
terfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever 
be given by law, to any religious establishment or any rriodes of 
worship." But at Rome, in Spain, and in every Roman Catholic 
country upon earth, this is denied; and even in the Spanish Ame- 
rican States, the rights of conscience are trampled in the dust. The 
gentleman himself also on the first evening took the same ground 
in substance, when he vested all rights, civil and religious, in the 
majority. Frightened by the consequences of his own principles, 
he has half receded and half retains this ground, in the last speech. 
It is indeed a curious offspring of a Roman conscience, trying to 
speak American principles. He denies, for example, that the ma- 
jority-principle, as he calls it, has any thing ^Uo do with those na- 
tural and imprescriptible rights which lie aback of all conven- 
tions." But if the right of worship be secured to us by the con- 
stitution as a civil right, then the majority principle has much to 
do with it. It has to protect it. It would at Rome put down the 
tyrant called the Pope. It would in South America put down 
Popery as the established religion. It would not erect another ui 
its stead. It would protect it, while it did not burn heretics. It 
would close the inquisition. It would say to Jew, Protestant, Pa- 
pist, we protect you all, while you mind, your own business. In 
England, and Scotland, and Ireland, it would break down the 
Episcopal and Presbyterian establishments; and expelling the 


word toleration from the earth, would put in its place protection 
to all, — equal rights to all. So far, therefore, the majority-p/-?'ri- 
ciple ^'does belong to this category," and so far do these rights 
which "lie aback of all conventions/' enter directly into the ques- 
tion of civil liberty. 

But again : the gentleman says that ''the righto/ the majority 
to rule, is circumscribed in a free government by the boundaries 
of civil jurisdiction. True : but in a government not free, how 
is it ? What is the gentleman's view of the rights of a people 
having a sovereign like the Pope? What is the governing power 
there? And what are the rights of the minority? Have they 
any on the gentleman's principle hut submission ? And he seems 
quite to forget his usual discretion in avoiding the disclosure of 
his true principles, when he says, — ''In short, the gentleman 
might have been more concise, and told us at once, that all ju- 
risdiction, both in church and state, is a usurpation on the natural 
rights of man, save and except that which is exercised by Con- 
gress, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.'' 
It is surely no small throw at our American principles to speak 
just so of the national congress ! Yet let the gentleman tell us 
where entire freedom, civil or religious, is enjoyed, " save and ex- 
cept^' in that land which receives its laws from " Congress.^' 

The gentleman seems strangely at a loss to understand the mean- 
ing of " voluntary slave ;^^ and infers from my principle, that all 
subjection to law (e. g. to the laws of Pennsylvania) is voluntary 
slavery. Not so. But this is the principle : — ^Jhe papacy, by 
restrainin g libert y of conscience, is a system of oppression. iA? 
doctrines. aixeZJ^Tx^d'inrrttiTn-^'^^ fbr example,) on every sub- 

ject; and they who reject them are punished civilly, and tempo- 
rally, and 0BcejS3LQ-jmnxiaUy-^--^kf¥-^Qmsj^wa»-d€€U by the law. 
Now all good Catholics choose to submit. As the church excludes 
from salvation all who reject her doctrines, so her true followers 
abandon their rights of conscience, rather than expose themselves 
to her wrath, and damnation. This is vohmtary slavery. This 
too will- explain "the article" (wnicli" the "genTtt'man cannot dis- 
cover, though it stares the world in the face) in the American con- 
stitution, in which Protestants and Roman Catholics cannot concur. 
The article is "that no hiiman authority can in any case whatever 
control or interfere with the rights of conscience.^' This isan 
American, Protestant, Bible principle. Now eorfscientious papists 
do not, and cannot believe this ; for they ascribe to the Pope the 
right and the poiver to dictate their creed, and to enforce obedi- 
ence to it', and they are voluntary slaves by giving up their rights 
of conscience ; and in all Catholic countries, they concur by civil 
and if necessary by military force, to compel submission in others. 
Hence no good Catholic can be a consistent American. 

Now whereas the gentleman thinks, on my view, the human 
mind were like the ass — between two bundles of hay — I must 


own that between the gentleman and his incognito friend, (at whom 
we now and then get a glimpse,) the poor American constitution 
is like a bundle of hay between two such animals. And then as 
to all that he has said in abuse of Presbyterians in this and other 
lands and ages, though but about one hundredth part of it is 
true, we have never hesitated to own that our fathers very imper- 
fectly understood the rights of conscience. Our principles strike 
at the root of all establishments, everywhere, Protestant as well 
as Papal. Our fathers learned to persecute from the Church of 
Rome ; but happilij we are not professedly infalUhle, and there- 
fore not unchangeable. PnjiPr y^ nn liAr nwn prinf^iplpH, faillV^ ^ 

chamje; but is the same persecuting power now, and everywhere 
s'hecan be, that she ever was. The question (whose terms how- 
ever i\\Q gentleman very little respects) limits his investigation 
"to the Presbyterian Church in the United States, in connexion 
with the General Assembly J' This church has never persecuted — 
no, never ; and so little candour is there in stating her principles, 
tliat in quoting from her standards on\y four words i\\Q gentleman 
has transposed even a part of them; has put a false phrase in, 
and left the ^rweone out; as he once extracted a, j^^^'ccgraph from 
another confession and published it as ours. When we pass how- 
ever to that form of the question which concerns the Presbyterian 
Church, it will be time enough to begin her defence. In the mean 
time, why does he leave his own unhappy communion so unshel- 
tered; and while weaving subtle distinctions to entangle the un- 
wary, pass untouched all the difficulties of his system ? And 
even allowing, for the sake of argument, that Presbyterians do 
persecute, does that prove that Catholics do not ? 

It is needless to pursue the gentleman through his learned and 
pointless definition of "rights natural,'' " rights political/' "rights 
divine," " rights ecclesiastical." 

We may take an example of his confusion of ideas, and see 
even through his effort to conceal his principles, their anti- 
American, and (as we hold) anti-Christian character. Speaking of 
"divine right," (a favourite term \v\i\i kings and Romish priests,) 
he says, " this is the authority with which God has invested cer- 
tain men, and conditions of life, for some purpose of good." He 
then refers to Moses, to the apostles, and their putative succes- 
sors, viz.: the priesthood of Rome. " These rights are peculiar 
to those only to whom God has given them" — " now rights and 
duties are correlative"— of course we are all bound to obey the 
priesthood of Rome. But the American constitution allows 
diversity of religions ; and the gentleman has said " the individual 
who would exempt himself from the discharge of either social or 
ecclesiastical duties as established in the state by LAWFUL 
AUTHORITY, or in the religious body of which he is a member, by 
an appeal to his pretended natural rights, would justly be re- 
garded as unworthy to participate in the advantages of either." 


These things united give a stronger squinting at the rights of 
Romanum than might have been expected from so wary a dis- 
putant in North America. This is the (jcrm of the canon law — 
thiit vilest, shrewdest of all human tricks, — to mingle things 
temporal with things spiritual; to enthrone kings on the necks 
of the people, by divine right; and, by still diviner rights, the 
jfriesthood on the necks of the kings. He says divine rights 
*' are not natural." Nor, says he, "can they he derived from 
civil authority." What are they? Our constitution makes 
rights of conscience a part of the civil rights of every man, and 
guards Jew, and Christian, and Gentile, and Mohammedan 
equally, in their proper exercise. But it owns no peculiar 
divine rights claimed exclusively by the Pope, and "/o which 
duties are correlative." We reject the canon law. Whatever 
God in his blessed revelation has made known to man, enters 
under the broad banner of the rights of conscience; and it is no 
contradiction of natural right, or departure from it, to receive it, 
and exercise it as divided between a ministry of p^rs?/asi"o«, and 
a laity voluntarily associated to be instructed and directed in cer- 
tain duties, without the surrender of any original right. , But 
how diflferent from papal domination, and papal doctrine about 
the Pope, and priesthood, and confession, and the rule of 
faith, &c. &c. &c. 

But we will meet the gentleilaan's wish for a more specific 
examination of civil liberty. The definition adopted by us is 
this, viz.: 

^' The absolute rights of an individual restrained only for the 
preservation of order in society." 

^^ Absolute" — not in respect to the Creator. As it respects 
him, all human rights are precarious and dependant. He may 
take away life, liberty, and happiness. " In him we live, and 
move, and have our being," is the language of a heathen, but 
adopted and commended by an inspired apostle. In respect, 
therefore, to God, the absolute rights of an individual can mean 
no more than his natural rights. But these may be called abso- 
lute in respect of the laws of men. They are absolute in essence 
so far as they are indefeasible. And they are absolute in fact so 
far as they are not divested by the just powers of government. 

'' Restrained." The Declaration of the American Independence 
will show us in what sense restraint is lawful. 

The second paragraph of that instrument reads thus: — We 
hold these truths to be self-evident — that all men are created 
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments 
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the 
consent of the governed." 

From this it appears, that the end of government is to secure 


to individuals tlie enjoyment of their inalienable rights, and that 
the foundation of all just government rests upon the consent of 
the governed; and, therefore, if our definition is just, the restraint 
intended must be self- Imposed j or such as rests upon consent 
freely given. . 

^' Order in society.''^ This phrase cannot be intended to apply 
to the actual forms of government, if the preceding remarks are 
just; for if we should so understand it, civil liberty would be a 
variable quantity, ranging between the. extremes of a pure demo- 
cracy and an absolute despotism. In the United States it would 
be one thing — in England another — in France another; in Aus- 
tria another — in Russia another — in Italy another — alia Rom de — 
alia Athenis: yet this is the very ground that the gentleman has 
already taken. It would be any thing or nothing. Civil liberty, 
therefore, is not the residuum of freedom, after making such de- 
ductions or subtractions from the absolute or natural rights of 
man as are necessary to preserve the ^)a?-^/ci</t/r order established 
in the country where he happens to be, or to be born ; but it is 
the residuum of freedom, after making such deductions only from 
his natural rights, as the social condition, in its best form, re- 
quires. These deductions are few, and consequently the re- 
siduum is large — such at least were the views of the signers of 
the Declaration of Independence; such cannot be the gentleman's. 
They declared that the object of the institution of government is 
to preserve the inalienable rights of individuals, comprising in 
this class life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But we are 
not left to inferences — they declared in express terms, that when 
any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is 
the right of the people to alter and abolish it. If this sentiment 
be just, it puts an end to the doctrine of legitimacy and the divine 
right of kings; and it shows that civil liberty is much more than 
that miserable pittance of freedom, which the established order 
of society throughout the whole, or almost the whole, of Eu- 
rope allows. It proves the right of expatriation, notwithstand- 
ing the claims and pretended rights of monarchs to the persons 
of their subjects; it proves the right of revolution — the instru- 
ment itself is professedly a revolutionary paper, and justifies that 
as a right, ichich legitimacy denominates rebellion and treason j 
and we should like to know whether the gentleman thinks our re- 
volution was rebellion, our resistance, treason? The instrument 
asserts that the people are the source of all just government — 
that the rightful continuance of it in any form depends upon 
their will — that they have the right " to alter or abolish it, and 
institute a new government, laying its foundation on such princi- 
ples, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall 
seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." It is evi- 
dent therefore that by order in society, cannot bo intended the 
established order, unless civil liberty may consist with acts of dea- 


potism ; for such acts are consistent with the order of society in 
despotic states ; and they may be necessary to maintain the esta- 
blished order of society in such states. The tenants of the Bastile 
and of the Inquisition may have suffered according to law — the 
law of the state to which it was their misfortune to belong. Indul- 
gence to the full measure of the rights of man, only duly restrained, 
might often result in a dethronement and a revolution. The laws 
of England would have condemned Washington and Hancock and 
their associates to the gaUows, and the Prince of Orange would 
doubtless have suffered a similar fate from the hands of Philip 11. 

And if such a fatality had befallen the cause of libert}^, it would 
have contributed no doubt to preserve the estahlishcd order of 
society. But the right to punish such men for disturbing the esta- 
blished order of society, is no better or greater than the right of the 
robber to murder or imprison his victims for the preservation of 
his plunder. No : in arbitrary governments (by which I mean all 
governments not founded and dependant for their continuance on 
the consent of the governed) the original wrong is the usurpation, 
and that cannot be rightfully defended. Despots, like Zaccheus 
the publican, ought to make restitution of their extortions. If they 
refuse to do it, their suffering subjects have a right to compel it. 
If they attempt it without success, the event proves nothing as to 
the right, but only the comparative ybrce; it only shows that fetters 
may be forged which are too strong for the victim. These are the 
principles of the American governments. They are too repugnant 
to the ideas of order in society, as defined by legitimacy, to be po- 
pular at St. Petersburg, Vienna, Madrid, and Rome. They indi- 
cate also a reason for the preference entertained by the Holy Al- 
liance for Louis XVIII. over Napoleon ; although, in truth, the 
claims of Napoleon were at least as well founded as those of the 
head of the Bourbon race. They also show a reason for the con- 
cern which the advocates of legitimacy manifest for the diffusion 
of European notions of order in society; and their deadly opposi- 
tion at Ptome, at Vienna, at St. Petersburg and Madrid to the dif- 
fusion of American principles. 

Now if the gentleman will apply these principles to that strange 
mixture of vulgarisms, affected American principles, and Popish 
enmity to human freedom, which, in verbose confusion, undulate 
through his reply, he will find it possibly no easy matter to escape 
from their application. 

But it is time for us to pass to a brief review of the gentleman's 
reply to my specifications against " the principles or doctrines" of 

I. As TO Baptism — beginning, as it does, with the beginning of 
life — I asserted and brought proof that the doctrine of Popery ou 
this point was destructive of liberty. The gentleman denies it. 
The passage to which I especially referred, was the fourteenth ca- 
non of the Council of Trent on this sacrament. As the gentle- 

man has not answered the argument already presented, we need not 
dwell here. The word in the origiual is cogendos. Now we assert, 
that the plain, obvious, and conuuon meaning of this word, is the 
applicalLon of force ; not implying choi(3e, or leaving an alterna- 
tive. Ainsworth gives for the meaning of the word ^^to he forced j' 
and in the common use of the term among classical authors, this 
is the idea where it is applied to this or kindred subjects : e. g. Ci- 
cero, cogendua est armU — ''Ho be forced hy arms." And then the 
connection of this word as used by the council. It anathematizes 
those who say ^Hhat when these baptized children grow up they 
are to be asked ivhether they will confirm the promises, &c. &c.; 
'^ and that if they say they will not, are to be left to their own 
choice" &G. Here the freedom of will is forced — it is slavery down- 
right. Now the Presbyterian Church does not at all proceed as the 
gentleman supposes, with baptized children. It is wholly a false 
and gratuitous statement. But when we do discipline adult mem- 
bers, they are visited only with spiritual punishments, such as sus- 
pension, excommunication. There we stop. Not so in the Catho- 
lic Church. Where they can and dare, as at Rome, " they are not 
left to their own choice," — no, but ''are to be compelled to lead 
a Christian life by other punishment thari exclusion from, the 
sacraments 1" This is very plain to a candid mind. And why 
is the gentleman so cautiously silent about the practice of the 
church ; go to those who have left this church ! go to the history 
of this system, and this, better than a criticism on words, by the 
comment of fticts, will confirm my construction, and seal my proof. 
II. On the head of auricular confession, the gentlema'n is so 
feeble, though so verbose, that I think really he has shown what he 
cannot do, and left little need of reply. The question now is not 
on the truth of the doctrine, but its tyranny. He adduces Christ's 
commission to his apostles, and assuming that Romish priests are 
their successors, and owning that auricular confession was the in- 
vention of his church, yet infers the propriety oi it, from \kiQ failure 
of proving it. Now who made any man, and above all a Roman 
priest, ''judge" of sins, and lord of conscience ! Is it not anti- 
Christian tyranny to say as the catechism of this council does, 
^^ that the jjriests hold the j)lace, and POWER, and AUTHORITY OP 
God on earth?" Is it not blasphemy, and unbounded oppres- 
sion? Is it not saying, through me you pass to heaven, or without 
me to hell? In vain does the gentleman quibble and explain. 
^^ Judges" and of men's sins and consciences, and in Christ's stead, 
and in the exercise of \\\s power ! He charges me with misunder- 
standing his doctrine. Is it not written near at hand — '^Poenam 
quam opportet pro illis j)oenitentibusimponere?" i. e. 'Hhe punish- 
ment which ought to he inflicted on the penitent;" which a Jesuit 
would soften into ^^penance enjoined." As to the translation of 
which he last complained, I followed the faithful Cramp, and the 
gentleman well knows it: he also knows that the more literal 


translation is even worse for his suffering cause ; and that the sense 
is not varied bj the expletive term which the translator has em- 
ployed, as will be seen by reference to the original. 

The syllogisms of tlie gentleman are so profoundly absurd, I 
see not their bottom or intent; but, like circumvallations of mud, 
they must be left as proof against all logic, and a terror to all 
^^ clean and goodli/ arms.' ' 

When he argues so profoundly-, " If God has appointed the sa- 
crament of penance ;'' — ^^If he has imparted to his ministers the 
power," &c.; "7/" confession be a condition^' &c.; "i/J" &c. &c. 
And what if I 

" Said Paddy with a hop, 
If I liad a horse, how'd ye swaj}?" 

Pardon my poetic impulse, gentlemen. I feel inspired by this 
battalion of i/s; by argument without reasoning; and triumphs 
without the toils of ratiocination. 

The practical effect of the doctrine of confession has been to 
make the priesthood the most corrupt of all men, and to put all 
men, all kings, all power, of all who confessed to them, at their 
disposal. Can such effects flow from divine doctrine? Are such 
demands compatible with human rights ? 

III. In reply to my argument so largely dwelt on, concerning tlie 
freedom of the press, of reading, &c., the gentleman says: '^Nbw 
the freedom of the press is as much a doctrine of the church as 
Symmes's Theory of the Poles. Hence the objection on this ground 
has no force." This is surely an ominous confession ! Do her 
doctrines assert no liberty of thought ? Do her Scriptures enjoin 
no inquiry after the will, and into the word of God ? Has she not for- 
bidden, in the manifold citations just given by me from councils and 
popes, the free printing and reading of books in general, and espe- 
cially of God's holy word? Does her system hold no doctrine 
which would forbid such tyranny on the soul, and such daring re- 
straint on the Bible ? Then does not that omission ruin her system? 
Or will the gentleman tell me it is only discipline ? Then can that 
church regard the rights of God or man, which will tolerate, nay, 
which will enact and enforce, such discipline? and with such tem- 
poral and spiritual pains and penalties ? — Impossible ! The gentle- 
man says that ^ forty editions of the Scripture were pidjlished in the 
Italian language,before the year 1562 !'' Admitting it true, (which 
however is not,) and what then ? Does this disprove what the La- 
teran and Trent Councils did, and what a host of popes did against 
the printing, and reading, and circulating the Bible, and of other 
books ? Bibles were printed — therefore the popes and councils did 
not oppose reading them! But, sir, here are decrees of councils, 
and bulls of popes ! No matter ! forty editions of Bibles were printed 
in Italy before 1562 ! But, sir, the decrees /briat/e any to print or 
read without the Popes license ! Had the church a right to make 
such decrees ? Oh they were only discipline ! Then you own that 


the discipline was wrong, and repressed freedom ; and that no doc- 
trine of your churcdi forbids such discipline ? No ! doctrine has 
nothing to do with it. But what is doctrine ? will you please give 
me an infallible definition of doctrine? I find, when you speak 
of the Presbyterians of Scotland as punishing those who read the 
prayer-book, you consider it doctrine. How are similar things in your, 
church only discipline ? How is it so wrong for Scotch Presbyte- 
rians (as it was, I think, very wrong) to hold such a principle as 
to restrain free inquiry, and yet is no error in the Church of 
Home to do infinitely more, and greatly worse things, under the 
same 'principle ? 

The gentleman says the '•'■ ohjcct of all such regulations, made 
in regard to printing, puhlishirig, and reading of books, was to 
preserve the Church of Christ from the admixture of e7'rors," 
&c. I know it; so Christ told his disciples the object some men 
would have in view in putting them to death, would be '' to do 
God service." But was it right? The gentleman then owns 
*' that the end justifies the means ?" Was it compatible with 
the civil and religious rights of Roman Catholics to pass such 
regulations? Were they not ^^ voluntary slaves'^ to suhniit to it? 
Did they submit willingly? Were they not forced? 

Again. He says, ''The church, as the depository of the true 
doctrines, has a right to condemn and exclude, by the exercise of 
spiritual authority, all heretical and impious books — those of 
Calvin as well as those of Voltaire." Ah ! "« right to exclude!" 
This is a full admission of the whole thing in debate. Here we 
might end the question, for we know what " spiritual autho- 
rity" means in the Church of Ptome. 

The gentlemen still further says, " Whenever this rignt has 
been maintained by temporal penalties, the penalties have been 
for the violation of tlie laws of the state." 

That is, the Church of Rome can so unite with despotic states, 
as to permit and encourage such states to enforce her spiritual 
laws with temporal pains and penalties. The church makes laws 
for her subjects : and then, " whenever" she can, she influences 
the state to enforce them. Now at Rome the temporal and spi- 
ritual power are united in the same sovereign head — the Pope. 

Query. When he, as prince, by civil penalties, and military 
power, if need be, enforces the laws, or, as the gentleman is pleased 
to call them, "regulations," against the freedom of the press, 
does not the church, in him, exercise temporal poicer to enforce 
" the spiritual ?" I beg for a direct answer. Is it not tyranny ? 
and do not the general councils sanction it? Has the church 
ever forbidden it? Has she not legislated on it, with command 
to enforce the oppression ? Will the gentleman deny it ? If the 
Pope were here, with like power, would he respect our rights^ 
when he does as we have seen in Italy? Are our rights of one 
sort, and those of Rome of-another? What makes the differ- 


ence? If no difference, is it not clear that the church, by her 
acts, and this her heady '^ 2cherievcr she can," o2)jjoses the civil 
and religious rights of man. But, says the gentleman, printing 
is like *' the use of gunpowder , or of steam-navigation — an ac- 
quired right." Then, of course, according to his own principles, 
''the majority-principle" may alienate it! He says, "it is as 
natural and unalienable a right, not to circulate the Bible, as to 
circulate it." True, I have a riglu to do it, or to omit it. . But 
have the Pope and general councils a right to ^^forhid me to do 
it" if I please to do it? Or, have they a right to forbid me 
*' steam-navigation," as they once did forbid all Europe to furnish 
the Saracens with ships, arms, «&c. &c. The gentleman more 
than hints that the?/ have ! And, worst of all, the gentleman 
calls the tyrannic acts of the present Pope against the press, "a 
praiseworthy solicitude." He says, '' The Pope asserts that 
those iclio recognise the spiritual authority of the church, ARE 
WICKED IN DENYING HIS RIGHT to exercise censorship over the 
press." * * ^ '^ He has a RIGHT to do all this — he is BOUND 
to do it," &c. Here he admits then, that the Pope has a right and 
is boimd to restrain the liberty of all Catholics ; and all men 
ought to be Catholics. Is not this slavery ? Is not this con- 
ceding fully the point in debate ? Is not this surrendering a part 
of their liberty ? And then can a good Catholic be a consistent 
American citizen ? But the gentleman goes still further : '* But 
it does not follow that he (the Pope) has any right, or temporal 
authority, to punish, by civil disabilities, those who are not sub- 
ject to the civil laws of his own state, for the violation of those 
principles 1" His own state ! Who made him a ruler I A few 
cardinals ! Not the people ! Who passed " the civil laws of his 
state" against the freedom of the press ? General councils of the 
church ! and popes elected by cardinals, who were created by 
popes ! Yet the gentleman owns that the Pope, the head of the 
church, " does enforce by civil disabilities," the laws against a 
free press " in his own state." What if a papal majority should 
make France or America a part of '' his state," will he not '^have 
a right," and " be bound" to enforce the same laws ? And the 
gentleman ventures so far as to say, speaking of himself, " The 
' Pope' and the ' priest' do not differ !" In this confession 
he yields up the question ; finally exposes his indefensible princi- 
ples, and insults the feelings of his injured country. As to the 
index, whose testimony he questions, here is the book, and here 
the very words. It was printed at Rome, too ! and forbids the 
readirig in the vulgar tongue of the Catholic Bible, no matter 
in what idiom ! How much, pra}", were the forty editions of 
Italian Bibles worth to an oppressed and benighted people? 

lA^. I next proceed to show from various decrees of professedly 
infallible councils embodying principles on all the leading rela- 
tions of man, 'Uis to life, liberty, a7id the pursuit of happiness^* 


that the Church of Rome is opposed in many of her doctrines to 
civil and religious liberty. 

And first, from the Fourth General Council of Lateran held at 
Rome, A. D. 1215, under Pope Innocent III. — Present 2 patri- 
archs ; 70 metropolitans ; .400 bishops ; 812 abbots, priors, &c. 
with imperial ambassadors, strumpets, &c. &c. 

We give entire the whole of the third chapter. Concerning 
Heretics. — We have the original on the table, and it may be re- 
ferred to by the gentleman, if he has any doubt of the justness of 
the translation — which we endeavour to make very accurate. 

" We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy extolling 
itself against this holy, orthodox, catholic faith, which we before 
expounded, condemning all heretics, by whatsoever names called, 
having indeed different faces, but having their tails bound together 
by a common agreement in falsehood, one with another. And be- 
ing condemned, let them be left to the secular powers present, or 
to their bailiffs, to be punished with due animadversion ; if clergy- 
men, let them be first degraded from their orders, so that the goods 
of persons thus condemned, if of the laity, maybe confiscated; if 
of the clergy, they may be devoted to the churches from which 
they have received their stipends. But if any shall be found, who 
are notable by suspicion alone, let them be stricken with the sword 
of anathema, and shunned by all, until they have rendered full 
satisfaction ; unless they shall have proved their innocence by a 
clearing of themselves, suitable to the degree of suspicion and the 
quality of the person ', but if they continue under excommunica- 
tion for a year, they shall after that be condemned as heretics. 
And let the secular powers be warned and induced, and if need 
be, condemned by ecclesiastical censure, what offices soever they 
are in ; that as they desire to be reputed and taken for believers, 
so they publicly take an oath f .r the defence of the faith, that they 
will study in good earnest to exterminate to their utmost power, 
from the lands subject to their jurisdiction, all heretics devoted 
by the church; so that every one that is henceforth taken into 
any power, either spiritual or temporal, shall be bound to confirm 
this chapter by his oath. But if the temporal lord, required and 
warned by the church, shall neglect to purge his territory of this 
heretical filth, let liim by the metropolitan and corn-provincial 
bishops be tied by the bond of excommunication ; and if he scorn 
to satisfy within a year, let that be signified to the Pope, that he 
may denounce his vassals thenceforth absolved from his fidelity, 
[allegiance to him,] and may expose his country to be seized by 
Catholics, who, exterminating the heretics, may possess it without 
any contradiction, and may keep it in the purity of the faith; 
saving the right of the principal lord, so be it he himself put no 
obstacle thereto, nor oppose any impediment ; the stime law not 
withstanding being kept about them that have no principal lords. 

" And the Catholics that taking the badge of the cross, shall 


gird themselves for the extermination of heretics, shall enjoy that 
indulgence and be fortified with that holy privilege, which is 
granted to them that go to the help of the Holy Land. 

'' And we decree to subject to excommunication the believers 
and receivers, defenders and favourers of heretics, firmly ordain- 
ing that whenever such person is noted by excommunication, if 
he disdain to satisfy within a year, let him be vp?,o jure made in- 
famous; nor let him be admitted to public offices or councils, nor 
to aid in electing such, nor to bear testimony. Let him also be 
intestate, so that he shall neither have power to bequeath or in- 
herit. Besides — no one shall be required to answer him about 
any business — but he shall answer all others. If he be a judge, 
his sentence shall be null ; nor shall any causes be brought fgr a 
hearing before him. If an advocate, he shall not be permitted to 
plead. If a public register, his instruments shall have no force, 
but be condemned with their condemned author. And we com- 
mand the like to be observed in like cases. But if he be a cler- 
gyman, he shall be deposed from all office and benefice; because 
the greater the offence the heavier should be the punishment, 
(vindicta.) But if any persons shall contemptuously refuse to 
shun those whom the church has devoted, (as heretics,) let them 
be smitten with the sentence of excommunication, until they have 
made full satisfaction. Moreover, let not clergymen administer 
to such pestilent persons the sacraments of the churph ; nor let 
them presume to bestow on them Christian burial ; nor to accept 
their alms or offerings; but on the contrary, let them be deprived 
of their office, and not restored without a special grant from the 
Holy See. In like manner all regulars, on whom the same shall 
be inflicted, shall lose their privileges in that diocese in which 
they have committed said excesses. 

" And because some, under ' tlie form of godliness, but deny- 
ing its power,' as the apostle saith, have assumed the authority 
to preach, although the same apostle saith, ^Hoio shall tlicy preach 
except tliey he sent.' Therefore, let all who presume to preach 
without the authority of the Holy See, or of a Catholic bishop, 
either publicly or privately, he bound with the chain of excom- 
munication ; and unless they quickly repent, let them be visited 
with other condign punishment. 

*' We enjoin, in addition, that every archbishop and bishop, 
either in person, by his archdeacon, or by fit and honest persons, 
shall twice, or at least once a year, make the circuit of any parish 
in which heresy is reported to exist, and there compel three or 
more men of good report, or if it is thought expedient the whole 
neighbourhood, to swear that if any one shall thereafter know of 
any heretics therein, or any holding secret conventicles, or any 
differing in life and morals from the conversation of the faithful, 
that he shall studiously point them out to the bishop. And the 
bishop shall call the accused to his presence, an-d the accused shall 


be canonically punished, unless they do clear themselves from the 
suspected guilt; if after a show of being cleared, they relapse 
into their former perfidy, or if any such despising the sacredness 
of an oath, shall with damnable heresy refuse to swear, let them 
for that thing be reputed heretics," 

Such is the '^ Magna Charta'' of Papal righU — the great infal- 
lible Black Letter Commentary on the power of the priesthood — 
the germ of the inquisition — the tender mercies of the only true 
church, out of which there is no salvation, in which there is no 
liberty. In vain did Draco write his laws in blood — or heathen 
Rome legislate against Christians. This is the masterpiece of 
spiritual and temporal despotism. But, as I need some respite, 
I reserve my analysis and comments for the last hour of the even- 
ing. We shall now be entertained by the gentleman's skill in 
showing that there is not a %cord of doctrine in it; and if men 
were destroyed in millions by the disciples of the church, why, 
that was not to be charged upon her principles ; for she never 
touched a heretic — she only handed them over to the civil power 
— that did the business. 

Her doctrines are those of perfect freedom ! And as for the 
heretics, they deserved to die; and if discipline put them out of 
the way, the world was well rid, while doctrine is still full of love 
and full of liberty to man. 

" Jesuitism," says De Pratt, ^^embarrasses itself very little 
with the means — scruples are trifles. This is what Mirabeau 
called la grande morale; leaving what he disdainfully termed la 
petite morale to the commonalty.'' The church killed millions 
by discipline, leaving c?oc^mie reposing in the higher, parts of the 
system. See now how skilfully her chosen son will exemplify 
the tactics of his school and the ethics of Rome in explaining 
away this tremendous decree. 


"/& .At, xCuiaan CatJioUc Keligion, in any or in all its pri«ci- 
f)lt% or KWctrineSf ojpjposed to civil or religious liberty?^* 


Mr. President, — I am glad that, in demanding the name of the 
writer in the Diary, the gentleman's object is not to inflict "per- 
sonal chastisement." If the name could be of any use to him, 
for any other puipose, I should have no hesitation in making him 
acquainted with it. His memory seems to be sore in relation to 
the subject, and I really cannot imagine why. He considers 
himself as having triumphed over me on that occasion, and why 
does he repine ? The writer in the Diary spoke of him in terms 
of great respect, called him a gentleman, &c., but he has just dis- 
covered that the writer was " ironical " throughout. The gentle- 
man's manner of referring to this, will have the effect to make per- 
sons doubt the soHdity of his own convictions on the subject. 
For if he can prove it to be a libel, (which it is not,) an assault 
on him, (which it is not,) then people will say, ''why does he 
not do so ?'^ '* Why does he pretend that the name of the author 
is necessary, when every one of common sense sees that it has 
no more to do with the statements, than the size of the town 
clock ?'^ 

As to the society's acting on it, it was for them to do so, not 
in the hour of discussion, but afterward, when they are on busi- 
ness. Let them treat its statements as they did those of the Pres- 
byterian, — point out and specify the falsehoods; if they do not 
this, the legitimate inference is that there are none. The gentle- 
man might be consoled for the " fulsome compliments " that are 
paid to me by the discovery, of which he is the author, that the 
•writer spoke ''ironically." But all will not do — lateri hacret 

The sweet contemplation of the laurels which the article would 
wickedly dispute his right to w^ur, must* have inspired him with 
the following ^90?is7iec? specimen of Christian meekness, and lite- 
rary refinement : " Nothing hut the love of liberty^ as an Ameri- 
can, and of truth as a Protestant Christian, could induce him 
to subject his feelings to the coarse and ill-bred impertinence of 
a priesthood, whose temper and treatment toicard other meUj 
alternate between servility to their spiritual sovereigns, and op- 
pression of their unhappy sidyjects. He can and will bear, for 
the sake of the great cause, whatever may be made necessary; 


thoughy thanh God, he is twf forced to do it, either as the minion 
of the Pope, or the suhject of ever-arrogant arid vulgar Je- 

Do you not, sir, pity the gentleman ? The Chesterfield of the 
Presbyterian church — the magister elegantiarum — to be exposed 
to the retorts of a Catholic priest ! But, for sake of 'Uhe great 
cause" he is willing to be a martyr. — Still it is hard to have his 
fine, delicate feelings exposed to such rude treatment! He ought, 
however, to remember, that aiming at the immortality of an au- 
thor, he must be prepared to encounter the trials to which his am- 
bition has exposed him. When he uses language in reference to 
his present position, which is a violation of the most common po- 
liteness, he must not expect that it can be allowed to pass unno- 
ticed. Is not every term, in the foregoing extract, chosen — is not 
every sentence arranged, for the express purpose of gross insult ? 
He would now claim sympathy as the reward of a position which 
he has sought with assiduity. He it was who kept up a standing 
advertisement, challenging me to an "oral discussion." He it 
was who rudely, as I conceive, thrust himself between me and 
my relation to this society. He it was who addressed to me 
the most unwarrantable letter I ever received in my life, praying 
that I would give him the opportunity to meet me in this discus- 
sion. And now, forsooth, his truly delicate feelings are exposed, 
'not by his own seeking, of course : — Oh no ! but for " the great 
cause." Give him sympathy, then, all ye that love '' the great 

The gentleman knew that I disliked to have any thing more to 
do with him, after the close of our late controversy ; and I leave 
it to the connoisseifrs in good breeding to determine how fi\r his' 
forcing himself on my notice can be reconciled with those 
tensions to refined feelings which he has set forth. He pron 
himself immense glory from an oral discussion. He drew infer- 
ences from my reluctance to meet him, which the case did not 
warrant. It was not that I dreaded his arguments, nor distrusted 
my own. But I had been obliged to expose the gentleman during 
the controver^sy, in a way so disagreeable to myself, and necessa- 
rily discreditable to him, that I regarded him as having suffered 
literary shipwreck. 

When a writer affects to be learned, and quotes from an author 
something as evidence, he ought to know for certain the truth of 
his quotation. When the sense of the author is perverted, either 
by additions, or omissions, or garhlings, then the proceeding is 
entitled literary forgery. And when this is exposed in a contro- 
versy, either political, literary, or religious, the individual who is 
convicted is regarded, by men of hig}i honour, as hors dc coinbat. 
He is done. — Neither is it enough to say that the forgery wa.s 
copied, and not original. The man who is necessarily at the 
mercy of second-hand authority , ought not to rush into a discus- 

pre- / 

lised , 



sion where the fountains are to be consulted. In the course of 
that controversy, and in the duty of defending my religion against, 
reckless and unfounded assertion, I was compelled to ofler a pre- 
mium of five hundred dollars to any professor who should find a 
certain quotation, by Mr. Breckinridge, in the place in which he 
professed to find it, hut where it did not exist. The advertise- 
ment is still on record — and the premium unclaimed. (1) While 
the gentleman stands in this position before the public, he will 
see a reason why I desired to have nothing more to do with him, 
in the way of controversy. Others, too, will discover that the gen- 
tleman's claim to fine, sensitive feelings (refuted, however, by the 
very gross language in which he asserts it) comes too late. His 
position, as one who trifled with authors, and made them speak 
falsehoods to support his argument, was a much harder trial for 
his honour, than to encounter the viva voce, refutation of his ar- 
guments. I recommend patience under contradiction. When- 
ever he errs in history, philosophy, logic, theology, it will be my 
duty, if lean, to advise him of it ; and this, I am aware, will be 
hardly borne by one who has been accustomed to have his 'ij)se 
dixit received as the gospel. 

As to the points of his speech which relate to the argument, 
and not to himself, I am happy to perceive that his views on prin- 
ciples of civil government are much improved since he last spoke. 
He had censured my argument for maintaining the right of the' 
majority to rule. In reply I retorted that, since he denied this 
right to the majority, he must, of course, ascribe it to the minority; 
and, in that case, there is no reason why the Presbyterians might 
not now begin to rule for the nation at large. Startled at the evi- 
dence of this consequence, he turns back in his last address, and 
states that his principle is " that the majority have no right to rule 
in violation of certain rights of the minorifi/." Now this is 
common sense; and if the gentleman had stated his proposition 
thus qualified, in his first speech, there would have been no disa- 
greement on the matter. He is mistaken, therefore, when he re- 
presents me as replying ^^perlJij,^' or otherwise, to what did not 
exist. This is a new proposition. I agree with him, that in re- 
lation to certain rights of the minority, no majority has a right to 
rule. And this doctrine I have stated at large in my answer to his 
first speech. 

. I had laid down as a principle, that the man who, as a citizen, 
refuses to discharge the duties lawfully imposed on him by that 
relation ; or, as a member of a church, refuses to comply with the 
regulations of the religious society to ichich he belongs, "by an 
appeal to his pretended natural right, would be justly regarded as 
unworthy to participate in the privileges of either :" viz. of the 
government, or of the church to which he belonged. 

(1) S(ie Controversy, p. 411, Johnson's edition. 


There is not in the community, a man of common sense, to 
whom this proposition is not self-eyident ; and yet my opponent, 
struck apparently with its novelty or extravagance, calls it a '' can- 
did admission." It was not candid in him, however, to suppress 
a portion of my statement, in order to misrepresent me by the other 
portion. He makes me say, that ''by lawful authority, civil and 
ecclesiastical duties may be established in a state;'' as if I recog- 
nised in the state the right to appoint ecclesiastical duties. I 
spoke distinctly of civil duties as established in the state ; and of 
ecclesiastical duties (as established) '' m the religious body of 
which one is a memhe?-." The gentleman's artifice, therefore, in 
suppressing a portion of the statement, and perverting the rest, 
must redound to the glory of Presbyterianism. On this perversion 
he builds a series of inductions, which, inasmuch as they are 
built on n. false imputation, deserve no reply. |-Ie winds up, how- 
ever, with the following question, which contains the cream of 
his logic : '^1/ he (the Pope) wer^e in this la7id, and a constitu- 
tional majority of the States were to alter the constitution, so as 
to make the Pope a temporal and spiritual head of the nation for 
life, and his successor eligible for life by Cardinals, would it not 
he an invasion of our rights?'' Answer — IT WOULD. And we 


not be an invasion of the rights of the minority?" Yes, MOST 
DECIDEDLY. " And icould not the majority be voluntary slaves ?" 
I think not; since the case supposes them to act ''constitution- 
ally,'' and by the impulse of their own free and sovereign 
CHOICE. Th e principle of the hypothesis ist he same, no matter ^— ^ 
on whoin the choice should fall However^T^tey Wiire to"^' alter ->^ 
the con stitut Fo n ,^^^d a pp oi n t " the Pope and all his successors," ^ 
they wouTd^ in my humble "opmTon, do a very foolish thing. It *" 
would exceed, in abamidJly^-fgiLej^ l^he liypothesis'itsc lfr ^-- 

The gentleman has undertaken to prove that the'doctrines of 
the Catholic religion are opposed to civil and religious liberty. In 
order to refute his position, it is sufficient to show, that Catholics 
can be the most strenu ous prom oters__of_biith civil andj^ligious 
liberty, with out violatin g any doctrine of their creed. To assert 
a propositiou7 and maintain it agalnat tlie-Tioc trine of the Church, 
is regarded as heresy ; and such Catholics as do so, are permitted 
to become Presbyterians as soon as they wish. Therefore, if 
there were any doctrine, in the Catholic Church, opposed to civil 
and religious liberty, it would be heresy to advocate the principles 
of civil and religious liberty. Now, this principle has been advo 
cated by Catholic individuals and Catholic nations, and in th 
they have never been accused of violating any doctrine of thei 
religion. France is certainly a Catholic nation ; and yet all reli 
gions are equal. Poland is a Catholic country ; and yet Catholic 
Poland has always been conspicuous among the nations for its 
advocacy of civil and religious liberty If, therefore, Catholic 



nations and individuals can be, and have been, the advocates of 
civil and religious liberty, it follows that the most unbounded free- 
dom, both political and religious, is perfectly compatible with the 
principles and doctrines of the Catholic religion. 

Now, the gentleman's reference to the political and religious 
condition of the Papal dominions, must be intended only for the 
ignorant portion of his hearers. His argument betrays itself the 
moment you bring it to the test of reason. Supposing that I were 
to grant him all he requires, and agree that the subjects of the 
Papal dominion are oppressed by an arbitrary and absolute govern- 
ment, his inference that, therefore, the doctrines of the Catholic 
religion are opposed to civil and religious liberty, is a non scqui- 
tur in reasoning, and a contradiction of history in point of fact. 
The opposition which the political vi'eics of popes have had to 
encounter from Catholic governments in past ages, is a sufficient 
evidence that tlie political creed of the Roman States constitutes 
no part of the Catholic religion. If the gentleman would conde- 
scend to read history on the subject, he would learn, that the only 
connection between Catholics and the Pope, is the connection be- 
tween the visible head and the visible members of the Church — 
Christ, its founder, being the supreme invisible head. He would 
learn that the object of this connection is the unity of belief in 
one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. He would learn that in 
■^ the Bishoj) of Rome, Catholics have always distinguished be- 
"^^ tween the legitimate authority of the Pontiff, appertaining to a 

^'^ kingdom, which is not of this world, and the. pretensions of the 

Y^M-y, temporal prince. An^^while the doctrine of the Catholic religion 
fl^V taught them to besub missivo to ihu Li7<fc!,tr1eTnh"eni the right not 

^ only to resist, Kut^^a-tQ.£hastise7th^e''temerity of the other. In 

short, any man who is acquainted with history, and honest in the 
use he makes of it, will discover in the religious nnitij between 
Catholic nations and the see of Eome, and in the iwlitical re- 
sistance to the pretensions of various popes, when they undertook 
to meddle in the civil concerns of other states, the broad historical 
evidence, that, as regards civil and religious liberty. Catholics are 
as unshackled in their doctrines as any other denomination. 
This the British nation have acknowledged, by restoring the 
Catholics to their political rights. And it is worthy of the Pres- 
byterian parsonhood, to take up the cud of bigotry and perse- 
cution — which even England had thrown away, after having 
chewed it for three centuries — and present it to the palate of 


But the gentleman tells us, that he recognises, '' as a natural 
and indefeasible right, the right of worship which God confers on 
every man." This he calls his principle : to which I reply, that 
it is as much my principle as his. Yet it does not follow, that I 
have " a natural and indefeasible right" to SAY MASS in the halls 
of the Princeton Theological Seminary, under the -plea of wot- 


ship. Neither does it follow, that he has a right to preach Calvin' 
ism under the Pope's window, denouncing the civil head of the 
Koman States, as a '^usurper," and the supreme Bishop of the 
Catholic Church, as ^' Anti-Ciirist." This would be not merely 
an act of worship — it would be preaching sedition : and if the 
doctrine took effect, bloodshed must be the consequepce. To say 
mass, however, is an act of mere worship, having no other effects 
or relations, than those which relate to God, and the consciences 
of the worshippers. And yet, the Presbyterian laws of Scotland 
held it enacted, that the individual who should be convicted of 
performing or assisting at this act of mere worship, "three 
TIMES," even in the caves of the mountain, SHOULD BE put TO 


Now the gentleman himself disclaims this article of Scotch 
Presbyterianism, and contends for the unbounded freedom of con- 
science and right of worship. Let me, then, ask him a question, 
(an*d I beg you, gentlemen, to mark his answer well :) Supposing 
that the wife or daughter of a Presbyterian minister should 
claim the right of worshipping God according to the doctrines of 
the Catholic Chufch — I ask the gentleman, whether that Presby- 
terian minister is hound to grant her the right which she demands, 
in the name of conscience and of God ? Let him answer that. 
Is he bound to allow her to go to confession, when her conscience 
prompts her to do so ? If he answers in the negative, then, you 
will understand how hollow are his professions of zeal for tho 
'^rights of worship and of conscience," which he calls "/as prin- 
ciple." This will test all he has said on this subjec't. 

The gentleman misrepresents me, when he charges me with 
having "vested all rights civil and religious, in the majority." 
Whenever I spoke of the majority, I spoke of them in connection' 
with those things in which the principles of a free government ac- 
knowledge their right to rule ; and already it becomes manifest, 
that the success of his cause will depend on the success with 
which the arguments of his opponent can be misrepresented. The' 
rights of conscience, and of worship, are 'older than all civil go* 
vernment. They are coeval with the human mind ; their exist- 
ence is independent of civil laws — which have only the power to 
recognise or 7iot recognise them. Catholic constitutions have 
sometimes recognised them — Presbyterian constitutions, never. 

In the oracular mood of his last speech, the gentleman had 
gone into a very minute detail of the " usurpations" in church 
and state, with which the world is afflicted. The Congress of the 
United States, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church, were the only two sources of authority that did not enter 
into his catalogue. I took the liberty of observing, that he 
might have saved a tedious enumeration, if he had said at once, 
that ^^ AIAj jurisdiction is an usurpation, except what is exercised 
hi/ Congress and the General Assemblj/." He intimates that I 


have spoken disrespectfully of Congress, by associating it with 
the General Assembly. This was not my meaning; and he would 
again mistake me, if he were to suppose that I ascribe to the said 
General Assembly any of. those blessings of "civil and religious 
freedom," which he very properly ascribes to another source. 
Yet, though it is my privilege to regard the authority exercised 
by the General Assembly, as "usurpation,'' still I must say, with 
every man acquainted with the mode in which it is organized, that 
for the purposes of popular and political government, its structure is 
little inferior to that of the Congress itself. In any emergency 
that may arise, the General Assembly can produce a uniformity of 
action among its adherents to the farthest boundaries of the land. 
It acts on the principle of a radiating centre, and is without an 
equal or a rival among the other denominations of the country. 

Catholics, in the adoption and profession of their religion, are 
actuated by the power of the evidences that establish, in their 
mind, the truth of their creed. Whenever men profess a creed 
from other motives, they become hypocrites, and are incapable of 
rendering worship to God, who is a Spirit, and who desires to be 
adored in spirit and in truth. Hence it is as absurd, as it is ty- 
rannical, to att^empt to force the consciences of men. 

The faculty of the human mind, which decides on the question 
of creeds, is the judgment, which cannot be coerced by civil laws. 
Civil governments would be as well employed in passing laws to 
regulate the will and memory of the subject or citizen, as in 
attempting to regulate the understanding. I submit to all the 
duties of religion prescribed by the Catholic Church, because, in 
the unfettered exercise of my understanding, I have come to the 
conviction that the doctrines of that church are the doctrines pro- 
mulgated by Jesus Christ and his apostles. The motive, therefore, 
which induces me to be a Catholic, is as much superior to all hu- 
man authority, as God is superior to man, or as mind is superior to 
matter. Why then, if the gentleman holds these principles, does 
he associate himself with those, who, in contempt of the American 
constitution, are, as far as they can with safety, persecuting Ca- 
tholics for conscience sake? Are not the misguided fanatics, 
who are covering the Catholic name with the slime of vulgar ca- 
lumny, low invective, and mere Billingsgate argument — who are 
passing-from town to town, and from city to c ity, 'appgnhn ^ to the 
worst passion^ of ignorance and prejudiue — and stooping from 
their prete^ionB as ministers of Christ, to the office of mere poli- 
tical haranguers, are not these trying to induce " human authority 
to interfere with the rights of conscience?'' As a specrmen 
of ^eir "Style, i have only to quote from the gentleman him- 
self. He says that Catholics must believe in the right of human 
authority to interfere with the rights of conscience. This is a 
gross calumny. I am a Catholic, and I have repeatedly asserted 
the contrary. He says that they " ascribe to the Pope the right 


and the power to dictate their creed and to force obedience to it.'* 
This is another gross calumny; the Pope has no such right, and 
the proposition would he condemned hy the Pope himself, and the 
whole Catholic Church, as HERETICAL. He says that Catholics 
*' are voluntary slaves by giving %ip their rights of conscience." 
This is equally a calumny. They worship Almighty God "ac- 
cording to the dictates of their conscience," and this is their 
crime in the estimation of the Presbyterian bigots, who persecute 
them now, as they have ever done, because they refuse to give up 
these rights. It was natural that, having made the foundation of 
his argument of "gross calumnies," his conclusion, that " Aoice 
no good Catholic can be a consistent American," should be what 
it really is, — a gross libel. Let the gentleman inscribe it on the 
tomb of Charles Carroll of Carroilton, and the very marble will 
blush for him, if he cannot blush for himself. — ■ 

The gentleman admits that persecution was a part of Presbyte- 
rianism in all other countries, but he says that the "question 
limits my investigation to the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States, and in connexion with the General Assembly." This is 
not the fact. The limits of the question are, the " Presbyterian 
tion of the American Constitution it is no great merit to say that 
the Presbyterian Church has not persecuted other denominations; 
and this is about as far as the gentleman feels authorized to go. 
For the rest, he says that the Presbyterians learned-^rseeution 
from the Church of Rome; and if so, it must be confessed that 
they remembered" the lesson a long while, and practised it so uni- 
formly, that it never would have been forgotten, had they not been 
obliged, in the development of national events, to submit to the 
influence of extrinsic liberality. He says, however, that the Pres- 
byterian Church is not infallible, of which, indeed, there is sufficient 
evidence. Now when it shall be my privilege to investigate "the 
doctrines and principles of the Presbyterian religion," I pledge 
myself to provet^aJL-persecution, for conscience sake, has been 
their doi^jEme^. And asl^ey iire fdllibk', Theyinay discover in due 
time, that in disavowing this doctrine out of compliment to the 
American Constitution, they were guilty of a departure from 
the "faith once delivered to the saints." Hence, then- fallibility 
in doctrine is a very suspicious argument to prove that they will 
never relapse into their old habits. The gentleman says that the 
Catholic Church is, or claims to be infallible. This is true. She 
claims to have received the doctrines of Christianity fvom Christ 
and his apostles. She claims to have received divine commission 
to teach and transmit these doctrines, unchanged as she received 
them. Hence she claims to have been constituted a ivitncss of 
what they are — with authority to expel from her communion those 
who would add, or diminish, or per cert. She makes no doctrine; 
she repudiates none that was originally committed to her testi- 



mony. In givini^- that testiinony, she claims to be protected /ro?;i 
the attcstatiou of fahehood, by the promise of him who said, "I 
am with you all days -till the consummation of the world." In this 
sense, therefore, and in this sense ai:one, she claims to be ''infal- 
lible." If she teach as "A tenet of faith or morals revealed 
BY Almighty God" that "civil and' religious liberty,^' or either 
of them, is sinful, then I am bound as a Catholic to believe accord- 
ingly, and I shoidd be {juilty of heresy were I to deny it. 

Now it is known that all Catholics repudiate this charge; and 
consequently, that either their faith disclaims this imputed doctrine, 
or else they sin against their faith, and fall into heresy. But Catho- 
lics, it may be said, Itave ojjj^osed civil and religious liberty. Yes, 
and other, and perhaps better Catholics have advocated civil and re- 
ligious liberty ; their doctrines leaving them at perfect liberty to 
exercise their own discretion in the matter. The inhabitants of 
South America have vindicated their liberty by revolution — have 
they ceased to be Catholics on this account ? And they might 
declare equal protection and privilege in the state, to the professors 
-fif every other religion, without violating one iota of the doctrines 
of the Catholic Church. They might follow the example of the 
Catholic colony of Maryland, who were the first to teach the Pu- 
ritans of New England, and the bigots of the world, that no hu- 
man authority has a right to interpose between the conscience of 
man and his God; and yet bo even better Catholics than they 
are. All this pri^ves that there is no doctrine in the Catholic creed 
opposed to ''civil and religious liberty," and it proves that no such 
doctrine can ever become a portion of that creed, which would 
forfeit its claims to infallibility, the moment it should teach as a 
*' tenet revealed by Almighty God," any article that had not been 
taught and believed from the beginning of Christianity. 

The gentleman says, that in quoting from his standards, I ^^piit 
in a false -phrase and left a true one out^ I deny the fact, and 
challenge him for the proof. Until he furnish the proof, I pronounce 
the charge unfounded in truth. It is a habit which I have had 
too much reason to despise in others, to be guilty of it myself. 

My opponent finds himself unable to controvert any of my dis- 
tinctions of "RIGHTS," or the definition given of them. Another, 
finding them just and logical, would have passed on. But not so 
the gentleman. He has discovered that I include the legitimate 
ministers of the Christian religion as persons exercising functions 
by "divine right." I gave Moses, and the apostles and their suc- 
cessors, as instances. He has not thought it too petty to insinu- 
ate that I was advocating the pretensions of " kings" to rule by 
''divine right." His motive for this little artifice cannot be mis- 
taken. Now I shall show that every Presbyterian parson pretends 
to be a minister of Christ by "divine right." They are not born 
ministers. The government could not make them ministers. 
How then ? By what right do they exercise the ministry ? By 


divine right, as they say. They were called of God as they pre- 
tend, but not exactly "as Aaron was." This is their doctrine; 
and if I am mistaken I shall be glad to hear the correction, in the 
acknowledo-ment of the gentleman, that he is a Presbyterian 
minister, but not by divine right. If, therefore, this doctrine 
"squints," as he has elegantly expressed it, in favour of "kings/' 
and against the Constitution, it follows that he is as much com- 
mitted by it as I am. But the thing was aliAost too little to have 
deserved any notice. 

We now pass to the gentleman's long commentary on the defi- 
nition of " CIVIL LIBERTY." By this we agreed to understand 
^^the absolute rights of the individual, restrained only for the 2)re- 
servation of order in society ^ This definition, his own, must 
be very obscure, when four pages have been wasted in commen- 
taries on it, which, however, only wrap it up in thicker folds of 
obscurity. It is much easier to understand the text than the com- 
mentary. The whole seems to be intended as a high-wrought 
panegyric of the principles set forth in the Constitution, of which 
I am as fond an admirer as the gentleman can be. Yet I must 
say, that this perpetual stooping to flatter the republican feelings of 
the audience, is but a lame way of maintaining an argument, while 
it is any thing but complimentary to their understandings. Now'i 
it is a singular fact, that while the gentleman affects to be almost 
an idolater of the American Constitution, other Reverend gentle- 
men, regarded by Presbyterians as sound in the faith, and as 
learned as my present opponent ir^ Pj-esbyterian theology ,J:ii 
denounced that Constitution as a Godless instrument. The 
General Synod of the Reformed I:*resbyterian Church, held in 
Pittsburg, in the month of October, 1834, in two Overtures pub- 
lished as an appendix to its proceedings, contains the following 
propositions against the United States and State Constitutions. 
In the first Overture we find the following propositions explicitly 
laid down : — 

" We proceed now to establish the charge of immorality 
against the Constitution of the United States." (1) 

" 1. It does not acknowledge or make any reference to the ex- 
istence or providence of a Supreme Being." 

" 2. The United States Constitution does not recognise the re- 
vealed will of God." 

" 3. The Constitution of the United States acknowledges no 
subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ." (2) 

Again, (3) " The Constitution of the United States contains 
the infidel and anti-ciiristian principle, that a nation, as such, 
ought not to suj^port nor even recognise the religion of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. Congress shall make no law respecting the es- 
tablishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 

(1) Overture, p. 5. (2) Page 6. (3) Page 8. 


^^ 84 

The gentleman will tell you, that these are the doctrines fiot of 
the Presbyterians, but of the i^f/ormecZ Presbyterians in the United 
States. But do not these kindred denominations exchange pulpits? 
Do they not exchange the right hand of Christian fellowship ? 
And if they do, does it not follow that, in the judgment of the 
Presbyterian Church, there is no essential heresy in this doctrine 
of their reformed brethren ? These are matters which it is diffi- 
cult to reconcile with the " blarney^' with which the gentleman 
treats the American Constitution, which his brethren denounce as 
containing ''infidel" and '' anti-christian'' principles. 

Neither can I help believing that the gentleman has perverted 
the meaning and spirit of the American Constitution, when he 
tells us that '' it justifies as a right that ichich legitimacy de- 
nominates rebellion and treason." This is injudicious praise. I 
-presume the advocates of ''rebellion and treason" against this 
government, would find themselves mistaken in appealing to the 
Constitution for their right to perpetrate rebellion and treason. 
The gentleman wishes to know whether I think " our revolution 
was rebellion, our resistance treason ?" I answer, that, in my 
opinion^ our revolution was a successful experiment of popular re- 
sistance against unjust and tyrannical oppression, justified, not by 
the broad principles of anarchy laid down by him, but justified by 
the particular grievances to ivhich it owed its origin. I believe 
it was so understood by the immortal men who wrought out the 
experiment and constructed the fabric of our national independ- 
ence. They had no idea that the Constitution would ever come 
to be considered as the patent-right of what " legitimacy denomi- 
nates rebellion and treason;" or that it should ever be denounced 
as containing "immorality," "infidel," and "anti-christian" prin- 
ciples. This is quite enough on the gentleman's four pages of po- 
litical casuistry — for in the correction of his speech it extends to 
four pages. 

His next matter is a return to, and repetition of, what he had 
said on baptism in his last speech, and what I had refuted in mine. 
He goes to Ainsworth's Dictionary for the meaning of what Catho- 
lics understand by the word " cogendus," in one of the canons of 
the Council of Trent. He does not adduce any fact to support 
liis misapprehension of its meaning. I leave the explanation given 
in my last speech, as a sufficient reply to 'the vapid declamation, 
without either fact or argument, with which he has thought pro- 
per to return to it. It is a maxim of logic, that " what is gra- 
tuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied." When the gen- 
tleman adduces facts instead of assertions, to prove his construc- 
tion, I shall be prepared to meet him. 

There is one remark of his, however, which shows that his 
knowledge of the history of his own church is somewhat defect- 
ive. I showed that Presbyterians themselves claim the right to 
"compel" members to lead Christian lives, by other penalties 


'^besides exclusion from the sacraments" — such as suspension 
and excommunication. He informs me, however, that tlicse are 
the only punishments by which Presbyterians "discipline their 
adult members." The Council of Trent prescribed no other. 
But I would beg leave to oppose to the gentleman's assertion, the 
authority of the historian Gilb. Stuart, who tells us that one of the 
ways in which they (Presbyterians) " disciplined their members," 
for breaking the fast of Lent, loas wliipping in the church. (1) 

On the head of Auricular Confession, the gentleman still thinks 
and says it is *' tyranny," "voluntary slavery," "blasphemy," 
" unbounded oppression," &c. &c., though he modestly abstains 
from producing any new argument against it, except what I shall 
notice presently. I refer the reader to my explanation of this doc- 
trine in the last speech. Cath!.ilics believe that auricular confes- 
sion, as the?/ understand it, is a part of the religion of Christ. In 
practising this duty, therefore, they only exercise the rights of 
conscience like other cleno ml nations. They can pity the blind- 
ness, and pardon the bigotry, of those who denounce them, for the 
exercise of this rigJit, and who yet pretend to be advocates of 
freedom of conscience. I had, indeed, charged the gentleman, 
not only with " misunderstanding " our doctrine, but also with per- 
verting the language in which it wds expressed. By way of vin- 
dicating himself from this charge, he makes a show^ of appealing 
to the original Latin: — "J*- it not ivritten,'" says he, ^^ near at 
hand — poenum qiiam ojjportet pro illis jjoenitotfibus imp)onere." 
And what will be the reader's disgust to learn that this beautiful 
specimen of Latinity, put forth as a quotation from the Council of 
Trent, is a fabrication — a forgery ! The only sentence at all 
like if, (and the likeness is very remote,) is this .... neque 
sequitatem quidem in pocnisinjungendis scrvare poiuisse .... to 
which I referred in my last speech. The Rev. gentleman must 
have become quite rusty in his grammar, when he ventured on 
giving, as Latin, a phrase which is a most palpable violation of all 
syntax. He says he follows the "faithful Cramp," — author of the 
" Text Book of Popery " — and if so, I can only say that the mas- 
ter and the disciple are worthy of each other. The Scripture tells 
us, that "if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit." 

But if the gentleman, in making the fathers of the Council of 
Trent responsible for his own spurious and ungrammatical Latin^ 
has given proof that he has forgotten his grammar, it does not fol- 
low that he has forgotten \\h poetry. His success in this depart- 
ment will surprise you the less j as, according to Horace, to be a 
poet does not depend on education — jweta nascitur non jit. The 
following beautiful lines, therefore, will gratify those who are sen- 
sible to the delicate and sublime : — 

(1) Vol. ii. p. U. 

" Said Paddy with a hop, 

.Jti ow'd yo swani !!. 

After having thus proved that he had not perverted our doctrine 
of confession, (and such a proof!) he returns to the freedom of 
the press, in reference to which I beg again to direct the reader to 
my last speech. I am content with the judgment which people of 
common sense — united with common candour — will pronounce 
upon the objection and the reply. I stated a fact, in regard to the 
printing of the Bible, viz., that in Italy, where all are Catholics, 
under the notice, and with the approbation of popes, and cardinals, 
and bishops, no less than forty editions of the whole Bible, in the 
Italian language, had been published and in circulation before the 
Jirst Protestant Italian copy was published. I stated this on the au- 
thority of a Protestant minister, the Rev. David Clements, in his 
Dissertation on Ancient Bibliography. The gentleman says, on 
his own ipse dixit authority, that the statement is not true ! He 
despises the labours of literary research, as something beneath the 
dignity of an ''American freeman." You state an historical fact, 
on the authority of an unimpeached historian, and the gentleman, 
because he never heard of it before, tells you ^'itisnot true," with- 
out giving a single reason for his assertion. Still I must say, 
that, under this head of the discussion, the gentleman makes up 
for the want of knowledge by a superabundance o^ curiosit}/. In 
three pages of his corrected speech, 1 have taken the pains to 
count no less than thirty different questions, followed by as many 
notes of interrogation — a proof that his mind is at length smitten 
with the love, or the lack of information. 

On the discovery of printing as an art, all encouragement was 
given to it by the dignitaries of the church. It was employed to 
multiply copies of manuscripts in every department of knowledge. 
The Holy Scriptures were the first ; the Greek and Latin classics, 
works of science, and elegant literature followed in order. This 
undeniable fact is a proof that printing in itself is by no means op- 
posed to the doctrines of the church. But when the press became 
the irresjjonsihle agent of mischief in the hands of wicked men, 
who employed it to corrupt the Scriptures, to excite the people to 
sedition, to disseminate FALSEHOOD instead of truth, the natural 
law of self-preservation, both in church and state, dictated the ne- 
cesssty of restricting the freedom of the press within such limits 
as would render it compatible with the safety of society. The 
object was to prevent the ahuse of the press, and Protestant, Pres- 
byterian governments were as prompt and as unrelenting in prose- 
cuting this object as Catholic governments. 

The Pretvbyterian parliament of England, on the 12th of June, 
1648, (just two days before the calling of that Westminster Assem- 
bly which framed the gentleman's Confession of Faith,) published 
an act, commanding " inquiry after private presses, and to search 


all suspected shops and icarcliouses for UNLICENSED BOOKS and 
pamphlets, and to commit offenders against this order to PRISON, 
to he PUNISHED as the parliament shall direct." (1) Even at this 
day, Presbyterians hinder, as much as they can, the reading^ and, 
if they could, would hinder the printing of Catholic books. The 
Pope, as the chief visible pastor of the Catholic Church, has a 
right, and it is his duty, to warn, exhort, entreat the whole flock, 
and every member of it, against the danger of printing, publishing, 
selling, circulating:, or reading books, calculated to destroy their 
faith or corrupt their morals : this is a right exercised by every 
Presbyterian minister in the country. The civil restraints and 
penalties appointed by governments, whether Catholic or Pro- 
testant, are chargeable to those governments, and not to the doc- 
trines which they profess. Th e Pope_j 3Uis-«o--authuiitv to inflict 
civil punishments out of hi sjowP- dominions. I pass, then, from 
this head, by flinging 'Back the consequences which the gentleman 
aff"ects to draw from my arguments, but which are to be ascribed, 
not to my language, but to his garbling' and misrepresentation of 
it. When he will condescend to dispense with abusive declama- 
tion, and substitute something like positive information, I shall be 
prepared to close with him. The gentleman can hardly expect to 
impose on his audience by these flourishes of stump oratory and 
grandiloquent assertion, when the question in debate is a matter 
of historical evidence — a positive matter of fact. 

As to his assertion in his former speech, '' that the Bible, in 
whatever idiom written, is prohibited" — I said, and I repeat, that 
it is false. — That it is not warranted by the original. The index 
has it, "Biblia vidgari quocunque idiomate conscripta.'' There- 
fore, it was not in ^'whatever idiom," as the gentleman said, but 
in whatever '' vernacular idiom." Again, in the fourth rule of the 
index, the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue is expressly 
allowed, under the. prescribed qualifications set by the index. 
Therefore, the statement that it was ''prohibited,'' even in the 
vernacular idiom, is false. Again, still the authority of the index 
was never recognised beyond the limits of a few provinces. And, 
therefore, even if the gentleman's statement were true, ichere the 
index prevailed, which it was not, as we have seen, it would be, 
and is totally false, in regard to all the other Catholics of the 

The gentleman concludes with a republication of the third 
can(»n of the fourth Lateran Council, enacted specifically against 
the Albigcnses. Having been obliged to convict him of garbling 
this c.iuon in the written controversy, I shall not now take the 
trouble to examine his translation. It is probable that he follows 
the " faithful Cramp;" and if so, we know what is to be e^spected. 
But there are a few questions involved in the subject. 1. Who 

(1) Neal, Hist, of Purit., vol. iii. p. 72. 



were these Albigenses? 2. What was their doctrine ? 3. What 
were its effects on society ? 4. What was the Lateran Council ? 
and, 5. What was the origin arid author iiy of the canon in ques- 
tioii? The Albigenses were the religious descendants of the 
jVCoiuoh co^;jil£m&y . Their principal establishment was in Bul- 
gariar~"*Tlience their horrible doctrines were translated into France, 
Italy, and Spain, in the tenth and eleventh centuries. They were 
called by different names — Poblicoli, Paterini, Cathari, Bogomili, 
Zurlupins, Beghardi, Brethren of the Free Spirit, &c. ; but their 
general appellation was Albigenses. Their doctrines were, that 
th^re are two first principles or deities ; one of them the creator 
of devils, of animal flesh, of wine, of the Old Testament, &c.; the 
other, the author of good spirits, the New Testament, &c. ; tlmt 
unnatural lusts were laic/ul, hut not the jpropagation of the 
human species. (1) 

These deluded and abandoned people, supported by the Counts 
of Thoulouse, Comminges, and Foix, had set their sovereigns at 
defiance, carrying fire and sword through their dominions, slaugh- 
tering their subjects without distinction "of age or sex, and by 
their conduct^ as well as their doctrine^ waging open war against 
Christianity, morality, society, and human nature. As far back 
as the year 1022, Bobert, King of France, had been obliged to 
take measures of safety against their doctrines and their crimes. 
The infamous name, which, even at this day, is given to unnatural 
lusts, is derived from their appellation — " Paterini et Bugares de 
quorum errore male tacere quam loqui." (2) Knowing the errors 
and the infamy of the Albigenses, the man who is acquainted 
with ecclesiastical history must feel amused or shocked to behold 
them ranked, as they sometimes are, by ignorant advocates on the 
gentleman's side of the question, among the religious progenitors 
of Protestantism. 

We must now turn to the Council of Lateran. The errors of 
the Albigenses were referred tio, and condemned in the first and 
second canons. The object of the third canon, now in question, 
was to check the spread of those errors, and the progress of 
slaughter and desolation, which the Albigenses, on every oppor- 
tunity, for two hundred years before, had not ceased to perpetrate. 
It was also to maintain the rights of sovereigns against the factious 
lords, who encouraged the excesses of the 'Albigenses, for their 
own political jmrpo^es. Besides the bishops and abbots, there 
were at the council ambassadors representing the temporal sove- 
reigns of Germany, Constantinople, England, France, Hungary, 
Arragon, Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus; besides those of many 
other inferior states. Now the wording of the canon shows its 

(1) See Bossuet's Variations, Book XI. — Acta Concil. iii. Lat. — Fleury, 
Ilistoire Eccles. L. 58, g 54.— Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 328, 329— et 
alibi pagsim. 

(2) Matt. Paris, An. 1244. 


limitation; first, to the Albigensian heretics alone; and, secondly, 
to the ^^ secular powers present'' at the council. The gentleman 
on a former occasion thought it advisable, in making the quota- 
tion, to suppress the word '^preseiit." Having been exposed for 
this, he now inserts it, and thereby mars his whole purpose, 
which was to extend the meaning of the text to all secular 
powers, whether absent or present. Now the fact is, that so far 
from its being the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and so far from 
its being an enactment of universal approbation, it never was put 
in force against any other heretics besides the Albigenses, nor 
even against them, except in the departments of the three counts 
mentioned above, who encouraged the outrages of these enemies 
of the human species. Its origin was owing to the crimes of 
those against whom it was specifically and exclusiveli/ enacted. 
And it is dishonest to charge on Catholics of the present day, a 
responsibility, which must rest, in time and in eternity, on those 
who were concerned in its enactment. But in all this I have ad- 
mitted, ybr sake of argument, that it was enacted by the council, 
and this I have done, because, as respects the point at issue, it is 
of no importance by whom it was enacted. 

The fact is, however, that the best critics, who have not been 
under the influence of the anti-Popery mania, have regarded this 
canon as spurious — an interpolation in the genuine acts of the coun- 
cil. In the Mazarine copy of the council, it is not found in either the 
Greek or Latin. In the earliest editions of the councils, it is not 
found. For two hundred and twenty years after the council, this 
canon was not known as one of its enactme^its. In the first edition 
of the councils, by Crabbe the Franciscan, published by John 
Merlin in 1530, it is not found. The first and only person who 
discovered it was John Cochleus, in 1537. By him it was sent 
to John Bincus of Cologne, and published in Crabbe's second 
edition of 1538. Some have ascribed it to Pope Innocent him- 
self Some have regarded it as a fragment of the imperial con- 
stitutions of Germany, probably the work of Frederick II., whose 
zeal against heretics and rebellious barons is well known. In 
support of these conjectures, it will be sufficient to mention such 
authorities as Platina, Bigordus, Gregory IX., Matthew Paris, (1) 
Nanciarus,(2) the monk Godfrey, &c., all of whom maintain 
that, whatever was its origin, it was not an act of the council. 
But as the gentleman is, probably, not acquainted with these 
authors, and probably never will be, I shall refer him to Dupin, 
vol. x. Bibliot. p. 104; or if he refuses the authority of this half 
Protestant writer, I refer him to Collier's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 
424. Collier was a Protestant, but a learned one; he pronounces 
this can<?n spurious. And the gentleman's authority, in opposi- 

(1) Ad. An. 1215. 

(2) Chron. Ad. An. 1215. 



tion to that of Dr. Collier, would not weigh a feather, in regard 
to a matter of history. But at all events. Catholics of the present 
day, have no more to do with what is called the third canon of 
the Council of Lateran, than with the burning of Servetus. 

In view of these historical facts, of which the gentleman seems 
to be most blessedly ignorant, I think he cuts a \eTj ridiculous 
figure, when, in relation to this canon, he breaks out in the fol- 
lowing strains of impassioned eloquence: ^' Such is the Magna 
Charta of Papal rights — the great iv fallible Black Letter Com- 
mentary/ on the power of the priesthood — the germ of the inqui- 
sition — the tender mercies of the only true church, out of which 
there is no salvation; in which there is no liberty. In vain did 
Draco write his laws in blood — or Heathen Rome legislate 
against Christians. This is the masterpiece of spiritual and 
temporal despotism." Here the gentleman gets out of breath, 
and, as he says, "needs a little respite." He is just able, before 
sitting down, to avow his ignorance of the difference between 
^^ doctrine and discipline." He should have reflected on this 
state of his mind before he rushed into the discussion. If he is 
serious in wishing to know what doctrine is, I refer him to his own 
definition. It is any *' tenet of faith or morals which a denomi- 
nation teaches, AS HAVING been revealed by Almighty God." 
Let him consult larger treaties of theology, when his leisure will 
permit. He had bound himself in relation to any disputed point, 
to show that it was taught by a General Council, or the bull of a 
Pope, as a "doctrine" — i. e. as a tejiet of faith and morals re- 
vealed by Almighty God," or else not to adduce it in argument. 
You all have seen how he redeems his pledge. You all have 
seen, that he insists on making Catholics admit as a doctrine of 
their religion, whatever nonsense or impiety he may think proper 
to ascribe to them. Now, it so happens, that neither Pope nor 
General Council possesses this right. They have the right to 
attest and explain what is the doctrine, but they have no right to 
create and impose new tenets. The gentleman, however, is de- 
termined to make us hold whatever doctrines he pleases. He 
first repeats the calumnies that were invented for political pur- 
poses, in days of bigotry and rapine, and then he denounces us 
for having been calumniated. It is with this view, that the slan- 
ders of every outcast from our communion, are put on file against 
us. It is with this view that De Pratt is quoted. I make the 
gentleman a present of him. Having the "faithful Cramp," and 
the infidel renegade, De Pratt, as his monitors, the gentleman is 
in a fair way of being correctly informed on the subject of the 
doctrines of the Catholic religion. Still, even under their guidance, 
I would advise him not to write any more Latin for the fathers of 
the Council of Trent. 


'*is the Roman Catlwlic Religion^ in any or in all its principles 
or doctrines J opposed to civil or religious liberty ?'^ 


Mr. President : — The reason why I was so desirous to have the 
name of the anonymous writer in the " Catholic Diary," (better 
called Noctuary,) is the same which makes my Reverend friend 
so anxious to conceal it. Its loud, long praises of the Rev. John 
Hughes, (these praises it was that I said might seem irony^ they 
were so unapt, had they not been meant for emphatic,) make it a 
curious document — since there is now so much reason to believe 
him the author of it. I am happy to say, that this society in a 
dignified letter to the editor of the Diary, has exposed the false- 
hoods of said piece — and demanded the publication of their reply 
to it. His refusal to do so is the proper, as it is the expressive, 
finale of this matter. 

There is one very curious circumstance about this piece, which is 
worthy of notice before dismissal. The author says, ^^ I called on 
the Rev. Mr. Hughes the next evening j to obtuin a copy of the con- 
ditionson which the debate is to be continued, which I send herewith.'^ 
Having stated that the " Presbyterian Religion" was to be examined 
as the first question, he adds, on Mr. Hughes's information — 
^' The Westminster Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church 
in America, shall be a proof on the other side." Every member 
of the committee of arrangements knows this to be the case; — so 
does the whole society. — And yet the gentleman ventures to assert, 
" that the question does not limit his investigation to the Presbyte- 
rian Church in the United States, and to that in connexion with 
the General Assembly." I appeal to the written rules, signed 
by the gentleman himself, in contradiction of his assertion. "■ Oh, 
honour! thou hast fied to brutish beasts." 

His reason For this course is very ohvious. He says — " The gen- 
tleman admits that persecution ivas a part of Presbyterian ism, in 
all other countries." If so, then it is to be supposed that I would de- 
fend it? I did say that our forefathers in different ages, even Calvin 
himself, had some false views of religious liberty : and were to a 
certain extent intolerant ; and that so far I condemned them — and 
that so far our church in the United States of America differed 
from them. The gentleman knows it to be so. He finds nothing 
in us to condemn, — and flies to other churches, and other lands, in 
quest of matter. This is, in fact, giving up the question, as to 
Presbyterians. He says truly, therefore, when quoting from the 
^^ General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church" — a df- 
nunciation of the American Constitution — '' the gentleman will 


tell you these doctrines are not of the Presbyterians/' They are not 
our doctrines. — Far, far from them. When the gentleman, a little 
before, charges me with " afccting to he an idolater of the American 
Constitution,'^ HE answers the question. When he asks — " Do not 
these kindred denominations exchange pulpits ?" I answer — No. 

But we are now looking a little into Popert/, ivhich is unchanr/e- 
aJjIe, the samd n^er^'ivhere, and in ev^Tyxige. It cannot change. 
And if, as he says, we may relapse into the intolerance of our fa- 
thers, Rome can never (h?/ her own confession) he reformed from 
her 2)ersecuting spirit. When we come to the Presbyterian ques- 
tion, it will be the time to show that there are almost as many errors 
as paragraphs in the gentleman's attacks. But he cannot divert me, 
with all his arts, from probing Popery. I know it is a sore, and 
therefore sensitive, spot. But he must endure it ; — for it is not 1 
^^ who have come and rudely thrust myself between him and his re- 
lation with (to) this society." It is he who came, with unmanly offi- 
ciousnes s, and thrust himself hctwe&n the y^tithtul dis ptutants ; — 
it is he w'ho quajledjhefore tht^ IW. IVlr. IvrCallnj wh^n he icnex- 
pectedly^TWSritrm, on that occasion ; — it is he who retreated from 
a half-finished debate of a former day — who, with the constancy 
of a martyr declined my reiterated call, for years — and whom I 
now meet by invitation of those very youths. He who has vitiated 
the stenographer's report after being beaten in oral debate ; — he 
who yet refused to discuss it orally again — who was on the eve pi 
a retreat to Mexico, had not the publication of the debate been 
pressed at the point of his honour, as well as the hazard of his cause; 
and who, (after six months of evasion and delay,) will now defeat the 
pubjication of this debate, without an almost superhuman patience, 
sagacity, and firmness, on the part of your publishing committee. 

Sir, you have heard the audacity and coarseness of personal 
attacks. No Christian, no gentleman, can retaliate such language. 
Here, at least, I allow myself wholly his inferior. I yield the palm 
of blackguardism, to him. He has entirely the advantage of me 
here. I make no pretensions to the title which he has conferred on 
me, ''of the Chesterfield of the Presbyterian Qhurch." But, sir, 
when we hear him wielding wnth such coarse and vulgar imperti- 
nence, the terms ^falsehoml," ''fabrication," "artifice," "for- 
gery," et id. omne genus, I cannot but be reminded of the origin, 
habits, breeding, and pretensionsof the Jesuit priesthood, as the true 
explanation of the fact, that neither Chesterfield nor Elijah has 
largely cast his mantle over them. The fact is, they are used to so un- 
questioned a supremacy, that they cannot brook contradiction, or 
dissent. Their religion deifes each pope ; and each priest is a 
parish-pope, a "household god," without the tiara and the tem- 
poral sword. The Catechism of the Council of Trent declares, 
^^that in the minister of God, who sits in the tribunal of penance, 
as his legitimate Judge, he (the penitent) venerates the power and 
person (awful profanity!) of our Lord Jesus Christ:" and " ice?'e 
even thi: lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still ivithin 


Tier pale J and therefore lose no part of the power with which her 
ministry invests them.'\V) 

The canon law makes it sacrilege to strike a priest; nn^forhids 
every one from bringing a bishop or priest before a secular judge 
for accusation of crime; — it exempts them from taxes, &c. &c. 
No wonder, then, a Protestant heretic is so illy borne with — and so 
much impatience discovered, under the freedom of American in- 
quiry, and at the tribunal of public opinion. But, still, we must 
advance with the discussion, and we shall set down every ungen- 
tlemanly epithet, as so much conceded to unanswerable argument. 
These remarks will not appear too strong, when the gentlemen of the 
Society recall the following very insulting sentence of the reverend 
gentleman, — ''I had, indeed, charged the gentleman not only with 
misunderstanding our doctrine, but also, with perverting the lan- 
guage in which it was expressed. By way of vindicating himself 
from this charge, he makes a show of appealing to the original Latin. 
* Is it not written,' says he, ' Poenam quam opportet pro illis poeni — 
tentibus imponere?' And what will be the reader's disgust, to learn 
that this beautiful specimen of Latinity, put forth as a quotajbion 
from the Council of Trent, is a fabrication, a forgery.'' If the 
gentleman were ignorant, we mi^ht account for, if not excuse, the 
reckless audacity of this charge. But he is not ignorant. I leave it 
for you, gentlemen, to imagine a reason for such a charge, especially 
when you hear that every word of my quotation is in the 5th chap- 
ter, 14th session, of the Council of Trent. ' I have been at the 
trouble to get another edition of the decrees of the Council, which 
exactly agrees with my former citation. The passage adduced by 
me, is part of a very long sentence, from which I extracted that for 
which the proof called. I own it is harharous Latin. It appears 
in the following connexion, viz.: — " Ut de gravitate criminum recte 
cersere Y)0ssmt,-et j^cena^n opportatpro illis poenitentibus imjyonere." 

We may better now explain a sentence in a former speech of the 
gentleman's, that not one in ten thousand of the people understood 
the language in which the decrees, &c. &c. of his church were 
written. Hence he ventures, trusting to this ignorance^ to vitiate 
my quotations and assail my honesty. But happily, there are some 
men in the community beside the Jesuits who can read a little La- 
tin, and who have in their hands the decrees of the councils. And 
now we ask, where does the charge of ^fabrication^' rest, and on 
whom must the "reader s disgust" fasten ? 

There is one part of this tirade which is truly diverting. He says 
of the passage quoted by me, it is "a phrase lohich is a most palpa- 
ble violation of all syntax:" and at the close of his potential ha- 
rangue adds, "I would advise him not to write anymore Latin 
for the Fathers of Trent" It certainly is a curious fact that the 
infallible fathers of the Council of Trent should have written bad 
Latin; and <Hhe Dutch have taken Holland," when the son thus 
laughs at the syntax of the inspired fathers. How he will settle 

(1) Eng. Trans., pp. 242, 95. 


this matter with his master at Rome I am at a loss to determine. 
But his corrections are two hundred years too late ; and it is one of 
many proofs that the gentleman has arisen on the earth in the wrong 
age. But I think he will not venture again ''to make Latin for the 
fathers of the Council of Trent;'' and from this w^iole case we learn 
how far to trust the assertions of one who continues to illustrate the 
papal maxim, th at "theend JvMiJies the means." You may measure 
his charges of" artilice/' ''nibri cation/' &c. &c* by this specimen, and 
you will clearly see that he not only considers such things "■venial 
sins/' but that any man who will practise these arts, shall still find 
himself a learner in the deeper counsels of my 7>iore practiced friend. 

I have been thinking that it might be well to divide my answers 
to his speeches into tv^'oparts — one for the irrelative and indecent 
of the gentleman's remarks, viz. : the Billingsgate,' the abusive, the 
"pathetic," the provocative, &c.; the other for the argumentative 
part : or perhaps if we could give him an entire evening to dis- 
gorge, he might feel better after it, and save us the trouble of so 
often exposing him. 

There is another sample of candour and lojic blended, which I 
must not omit to notice. He says, in reference to the III. canon 
of IV. Lateran, " Now the wording of the canon shows its limita- 
tion to the secular powers present at the council." Now, so far is 
this from being true, that there is not a schoolboy in America who 
has read the colloquies of Cordery that does not know better. The 
passage in the original reads thus : — Daranati vero, saecularibus 
potestatibus praesentibus aut eorum balivis relinquantur animad- 
versione debita puniendi. But being condemned, let them (the 
heretics) be left to the secular poivers present, or to their bai- 
liffs to be punished by due animadversion. lie charges me with 
fraudulently omitting the word " present," and for this reason, 
that I thus make the persecuting canon apply to all secular 2^0 w- 
ers, whereas, he says, it applies only to those "present" in the 
council. Can the gentleman be in earnest in this translation ? 
(The charge I despise.) The decree is defining the place and the 
powers for punishing "heretics" at a future day; and orders that 
the secular powers in whose territory they should be found , should 
punisJuf them. The terms ssecidaribus p)otestatibus praesentibus 
are equivalent to "the powers that be." Just b^low, in the 
same canon, the same "powers" are named without "prsese7itibus," 
and Caranza, the Popish author, in giving the contents of this ca- 
non, thus writes : — Punitiohasreticorum ssecularibusj)Otestatib'us 
committenda. " The punishment of heretics TO BE committed to the 
secular power." "Praesentibus" is omitted; and in a just and pure 
translation not the least change in the sense is made by its presence 
or absence. Still the omission was an inadvertence, for I am accus- 
tomed to translate this barbarous Latin in almost a babarously literal 
way, knowing that I have to do with a Jesuit. 

But allowing that "praesentibus" does refer to the powers pre- 
sent in the council, has not the gentleman told us that the council 


embraced '' ambassadors representing the temporal sovereigns of 
Germany, Constantinople, England, France," &c., or as he says, in a 
former controversy, ^^a general congress of Clivhtendom in which 
the states and sovereigns tvei-e rej^resented for thej^urpose of con/er- 
ring together on such matters as concerned the general welfare." 

Now, who was not represented here? Were not the '[secular 
powers jyresent from all Christendom?" Then wherever the decree 
went it would find thnB-^M*6ii*??y6' " of those very minions of the Pope 
who, in this "mingled theocracy and civil policy," 'Hhls church and 
state" in which the Pope was liead, had allowed heresy to be de- 
nounced as a "civil oifence" and as such to be devoted by the 
church of Rome, (the Pope presiding,) and through "all Christen- 
dom" doomed to extirpation by fire and sword. 

These dexterous efi"orts of his are made to evade the powerful proof 
of E-oman Catholic persecution found in the terrible canon of the IV 
Lateran, quoted by me at the close of my last speech. He first 
tries to distort its meaning, by telling us that its force is " limited," 
by the "wording of the canon," " to the Alhigcnsian heresy alone." 
It is truly incredible that he could believe so with the following 
words staring him in the face in the very first sentence : — "' TFe ex- 
communicate and anathematize EVERY HERESY (omnem hasreisni) 
extolling itself against this holy orthodox Catholic faith, which 
(faith) we before expounded, condemning Al,!, HERETICS by what- 
soever 7iame called." If these terms have any limitations save 
heresy and earth, I cannot see them. "All heresy," "by whatever 
name called." But I ask, what if it icere limited to the Albigenses f 
Admit it to be so. What does the gentleman gain ? Why this. The 
infallible council, headed by the Pope, only persecuted one people^ 
not all. But what right had they to persecute o?ie people ? Or if 
one, why not all, when said church shall please ? What right had 
Catholics to punish them with death for their opinions ? Who put 
the sword into the Pope's hand? Who formed this "Congress of 
Christendom ?" The Pope called it, headed it, drew up all the ca- 
nons, and then confirmed them, published them, and ordered their 
execution in the name of the Holy Catholic Church, and by the 
authority of God ! Yet the gentleman dares, in the light of this 
age and land, to defend this theocracy and fearful persecution ! 

But he says, " the Albigenses were very, very ■wicked, not only in 
their doctrines but their lives, by lusts and bloodshed. There are 
almost as many falsehoods as sentences in the account he gives of 
this persecuted people. You will remember, gentlemen, that he 
produced Moshcim's Testimony, and read, from his 3d vol., page 
283, some sentences calling the Albigenses " wretched enthusi- 
asts," charging them with "abominable lusts," "going naked" 
&c. &c. I was much shocked at the statement ; declared it false, 
and a perversion of the historian ; and promised to expose it? as 
such. I had hoped to find it a forgery of the Jesuits; and thus 
the gentleman would escape. But as you will remember, on turn- 
ing to the passage, it appeared that the gentleman had omitted the 


real name of the people denounced by Mosheim, (though but one 
sentence above,) and had made him say all those shocking things 
of the poor Albigenses. Now, how strange must it seem, when I 
tell you that the historian was there speaking of one of the sects 
classed with a people "called Brethren of the Free Spirit." Of 
the Albigenses he gives a most opposite account, and in a different 
part of the work I This author says : (2) they were the same with 
the Faulicans; that "even their loorst enemies acknowledrjed the 
sincerity of their piety ; hut they were blackened by accusations 
'khich loere evidently false ; and that the opinions for which they 
were punished, differed widely from the Manichsean system." 
He adds, in the same page, a narrative of the character, vices, and 
errors of those whom my reverend friend made the slandered and 
perverted writer call Albigenses. I pronounce him 2i falsifier of 
Mosheim, and call on him to clear his character. If he will^hear 
more of Mosheim, the historian goes on to say: (3) "During the 
whole of this century (the 13th) the Roman pontiffs carried on 
the most barbarous and inhuman persecution against those whom 
they branded with the denomination of heretics ; i. e., against all 
those who called their pretended authority and Jurisdiction in 
question, or taught doctrines different from those which were 
adopted and propagated by the Church of Rome." Also, (4) he 
says of the Inquisition, "That nothing might be wanting to ren- 
der this spiritual court formidable and tremendous, the IIoman 
PONTIFFS PERSUADED the European princes, and more especially 
Frederic II," (the very prince on whom our priest would fasten 
the persecuting canon in question, and of whom he says, "whose 
zeal against heretics and rebellious barons is loell knoivn,") "and 
Lewis IX., king of France, to enact the most barbarous laws against 
heretics, and to commit to the flames, by the ministry of pu))lic 
justice, those who were pronounced such by the inquisitors." 
When the proper time comes, I will show, by Catholic historians^ 
that there is not one word of truth in what the gentleman has said 
of the Albigenses. 

But allow it true. I ask again : What has the head of Christ's 
church, and the holy council, to do with burning heretics, with 
oaths of allegiance, with ruling, punishing, deposing princes ? The 
gentleman's argument, is: the Albigenses were loicked and mur- 
derous; therefore the church might lay hold on them. Princes 
were represented in the council, and these heretics had devastated 
their realms ; therefore the church had a right to order a crusade 
against them, and promise a "full remission of sins" to all who 
fought against them, and to depose and punish all who refused. 
His argument admits that the Church of Rome has been, and of 
course, as she cannot charige, is a persecuting church. 

But the gentleman says this dreadful canon has nothing to do 
tcith doctrine. "It is so far from having any thing to do with 

(2) Vol. ii. p 580-2. (3) Vol. iii. p. 266. (4) P. 272. 


doctrine" &c. Ah ! it is only discipline. It is hard to see (as 
he tells us) how it is doctrine in Scotland to cut off men's ears 
fqr heresy, and only discipline in the Catholic churcli to cut off 
men's heads for the same thing? Poor discipline! she has a hard 
time of' it. She is the scapegoat of all her infallible sister doc- 
trines sins. No wonder the gentleman refused so stoutly to dis- '' 
cuss the hearings of Catholic discipline. But it will not all avail. 
That part of discipline which flows from doctrine, and for whose 
exercise the doctrine is pleaded, is doctrine in amount. For ex- 
ample : it is a part of discipline to take the cnj) from the people ^ 
in the Lord's Supper. But it rests on the doctrine of the real 
presence. So here: It is a doctrine of the Church of Home that 
heretics are in the power of the church, and to be punished by her. 
This decree announces the same doctrine, and directs its application. 
The gentleman, in a former controversy, (such writers need good 
memories,) said, ''The secular representatives had nothing to do 
with the definition of doctrines and morals.'' But the canon says ; 
''This holy, orthodox, catholic faith which we have before e.x- 
poundedj" Of course, it was the pure doctrine — making council 
with no secular admixture. And then the decree proceeds to an- 
nounce the sum of such doctrines as that those who "extol them- 
selves against the Catholic church" are heretics: that God has 
empowered the church io p>unish heretics with spiritual pains and 
penalties, and to order the civil power to superadd temjwral ones; 
that the civil power must be bound by oath to do it; that if it re- 
fuse it is to be excommunicated, and the subjects of said power ab- 
solved from their allegiance by the vicar of Christ; that indulgences, 
including great sphitual good, are purchased by going as cross'-"" ~ 
bearers to exterminate the heretics, &c. «&c. Not one of these but 
rests on a doctrine, or is a doctrine. Or else does the Church of 
Home say there is no revealed doctrine about the right of men to 
life and thought ? Or did the holy council err ? There is no escape. 
This the genUeman finding, makKs a last strng o 'lo (jis^ f con- 
scious that this temB'ie canon and his c ause cannot bot h stand) to 
vitiate the awffer>^ficiV^T>1^thT^"^6c'urnentTtseTf. This nexc light has 
unfortunately come too late. It is a pity the gentleman had not 
received it before the first controversy. It would have saved hini 
the trials of his long and sad defence of this canon. But he had 
not even heard of it while the debate which we are now writing 
out was going on, else why defend it then and discard it now? 
He says : " The best critics have regarded this canon as spurious; y 
an interpolation in the genuine acts of the council.'' Truly, if y/^ 
the authenticity of the iv fallible decrees be so uncertain, (as alK.^^^ [/ y 
this would seem to say,) that such a document could have been ^"^ ^ 
interpolated so as to deceive the infallible church, then her ad- 
vocates may forever close their lofty speeches about an unerring 
guide, and the faithful tradition of the Church of Rome ! But 
hear him : "In the Mazarine copy of the council it is not found 
in either Greek or Latin." This is false. It is only u. part, not 


the v:Jwlc of the canon that is wanting in that manuscript. Labbe, 
who foHows it, gives the u-liole of the canon in Latin; and where 
he onjits the Greek, he observes, in a marginal note : De est liic 
folium in codice Mazarino. '•'■Here a leaf is iccmting in the Ma- 
zarine majiiisci-ij^t." But this leaf contained only the michlle por- 
tion of the canon, while both the hcginniiuj and end are 2yrescrvcd. 
This looks more like excidon than interpolation. It is either too 
much or too little for the gentleman's purpose. And again ; the 
second paragraph of this canon, as taken from the same manu- 
script, points out the pujiishment to be injlicted on those who 
should he convicted of heresy. Since, then, t\\Q frst part and the 
last part, and the punishment to be injlicted are all retained by 
that MS., it is clear that only a leaf was wanting, not the whole 
as the gentleman ventures to say; and therefore we have the ex- 
terminating part at least. The rest I care not for. Again : the 
Rev. gentleman says, '^ Collier (a Protestant) pronounces this 
canon spurious." This too, I regret to say, is false. He barely 
states the above-named fiict of its mutilation. Mr. Hughes says, 
again : "In the first edition of the Councils, by Crabbe the Fran- 
ciscan, published by John Merlin, in 1530, it is not found." But 
why does the gentleman not tell us, that the vSaid Crabbe after- 
tcards published three editions of the Councils in which the said 
canon is found; and that the edition of 1530 contained oione of 
the fourth Late7'an's canons? Is this candid? to suppress the 
ona fact and use the other, so as to make all who do not know 
better, think that the edition of 1530 had all the other canons of 
that council ? But still farther. The gentleman claims Du Pin 
and Matthew Paris as rejecting it. But it is still not true. Du 
Pin says :(5) " Matthew Paris says that those canons seemed 
tolerable to some of the prelates and grievous to others. His 
words are these: farto prius, &c.; i. e. an exhortatory discourse 
having frst been delivered by the Pojye, the seventy chajHers [capi- 
tula] were then read in a full council, which seemed tolerable to 
some, grievous to others. Let the case be how it will, it is cer- 
tain that these canons were not made by the council, but by In- 
nocent III., who presented them to the Council ready drawn up, 
and ordered them to be read; and that the prelates did not enter 
^^ into any debate upon them, but that their silence was taken for 
\ *' an approbation." Here then is a falsification of the gentleman's 
r^ ^ey statement by his otvn authorities. (6) And here, by the way, we 
see ichat sort of a thing infallihility is. The Pope draws up arti- 
cles; the trembling prelates receive them in silence. Some think 
them tolerable, some intolerable; none satisfied, yet none speak ! 
Dr. Crotty, Catholic President of Maynooth College, thus testi- 
fied before the British Commissioners of Education Inquiry, — (7) 
<<I acknowledge that in the Councils of Lateran and Constance, 

(5) Vol. xi. cent. xiii. p. 95. 

(0) See on this whole subject the learned Grier's Epitome, p. 190-6. 

(7) See Sth Report — note, p. 87, in Grier. 


laws were enacted injlicthuj severe temporal jnmisJiments on per- 
sons who at those periods were hibouring to subvert the Catholic 
Faith in Europe : that temporal lords who connived at, or favoured 
the heresy, should be excommunicated ; and if within a year, they 
did not give a satisfactory account of their conduct, they should in 
addition, forfeit the allegiance and duty of their vassals." Will 
Mr. Hughes call this an opinion? Pray, is his better? Is not it 
as good as his? — yea, better. Yet what does it say? 

Finally, (on this topic,) the Council of Trent has affirmed some 
of the Canons of the fourth Lateran; for example, its Canon on 
Confession : which it has adopted on its authority, and as its own. 
Yet it has not said one word of the sj)U7'io2isness of any of the other 
canons. It has not repealed any of them. Yet it met since the 
other — and its decisions are law with all true Catholics. Then, 
here is the broad seal of the last, the (jreat Council, set to the 
authenticity of this third canon : and to the authority of all of 
them. And every Catholic on earth is under the following obliga- 
tion : " I also profess and undoubtedly receive all other things, de- 
livered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general 
Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent."(8) 

I regret to have spent so much time on a single document. But 
the discussion was important on many accounts. And now the ter- 
rific decree returns to us, as one of the "sacred canons" of the 
" Holy Catholic Church,'^ — to be received by all. Never was such 
a decree passed by any assembly secular or sacred, before or since. 
Consider for a moment its contents, as spread out at the close" of 
my last speech. — 1. Heretics are those who differ from Home; 
and 2. She is to denote them. 3. The civil power is to take oath 
to inflict due punishment on them : ,4. Which is to exterminate 
them, if they remain contumacious ; and give their lands to Ca- 
tholics. 5. If the civil power refuse, it is to be reported to the 
Pope; and 6. lie absolves the siihjccts from the oath of allegiance, 
and excommunicates the prince, giving his lands to Catholics, and 
the throne to another. 7. All favourers of heretics were to lose 
all civil as well as all religious rights: as the right of inherit- 
ance, bequest, suffrage, &c. &c. 8. Great indulgences were, on 
the contrary, bestowed on their persecutors. 

Is not^his at war with all liberty — and with l ife, a nd the race 
itself, as weft -ft»-with -iI^gli "Eeaven? But this decreeTTs only as 
^' one o/ a thousand.'^ 

The 27th canon of the third Lateran, (which was also a general 
Council, held a. d. 1179,) is almost equally odious and persecut- 
ing. This the gentleman has not tried to vitiate ; — but stoutly 
charged me with garbling it, in a former controversy, because I 
followed Faber in citing its substance. The Acta Ecclesisc give 
still less, I think, than Faber. This is the unlucky decree which 
the gentleman, during the debate, 7nade one say icas in Caranza; 
when, unfortunately, by turning to the page, I had just said the re 
(8) Creed of the Church called Pius IV. 


verse ; viz.: that Caranza " with filial care had omitted the whole." 
Baronius himself does not give it continuously. I gave a full page; 
but because I omitted the nicknames and pretended sins of the 
heretics, he, as usual, charged me with *' garbling;" for his great 
first resource is to taint the documents. Now, then, I refer you 
to his acknowledged edition of it in the late controversy. 

This persecuting canon, in the name of God, ^^ curses the here- 
tics and their favourers with an anathema.'' It " enjoins on 
all the faithful for the remission of sins," " to take up arms." 
It enforces " confiscation of their goods;" and worse than all, adds, 
*' Let it be freely permitted to princes to reduce men 
OF SUCH STAMP TO SLAVERY.'' It " relaxes two years of enjoined 
penance, to those faithful Christians, who shall take up arms" 
and to ^^ longer time — longer indulgence;" and those who re- 
fused, ^^ were inhibited from the hodi/ and hlood of the Lord." 

Surely this is doctrinal, ecclesiastical, and persecuting? Surely 
it relates to morals, to faith, to duty? AVe commend it to the 
gentleman's scissors ! Let it but pass his alembick, and it will 

?come out pure and ethereal, refined from '^ slavery," *' persecu- 
tion," and all that is opposed to civil or religious liberty! 
, t Let us pass from these decrees of Councils to the Catechism of 

the Council of Trent — a source of proof recognised by the gentle- 
r man. In naming those who are excluded from the Church, it is 
\ said, " Heretics and schismatics, because they have separated from 
o the Church, and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army 
from ichich they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied, 
7\ that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, as those 
t\ liable to have her judgment passed" [the English translation re- 
^ commended by the Reverend clergy in this country, here forges a 
^v word, which is not in the Latin — as if only ojmiions were to be 
V judged — and puts in, " 07i their opinions," whereas it is] " on them, 
^ to be punished byher;" [another forgery, for the translator inter- 
polated [ spiritual,' but the Latin is simply 'puniantur,'^ '^and de- 
VA nounced with anathema." Now, here is a claim full of despotism, 
"^ which the translator's frauds could not conceal. It most fitly com- 
[^ pares the Roman Church to an army, and us poor heretics to de- 
^^ serters, who are still subject to her. Yet does the gentleman talk 
about freedom of conscience, and of worship ! But how is this ? 
" Subject to her judgment still — like deserters." So they act it out 
in Italy and Spain ; no thanks to them for freedom here ! " To be 
PUNISHED by her." Not "spiritual" alone, though that were 
destructive of liberty; but it is more than this, as any one will 
perceive who consults either the force of the icords, or the history 
and practices of the Church of Rome. 

We may learn what is meant above by referring to other testi- 
mony. For example, Dens' s Theology, adopted by the Roman Ca- 
tholic Bishops of Ireland, since 1808, as a standard book. What 
does it say? — " Although Heretics nvc without the church, never- 
theless, they remain by reason of baptism, subject to the church, 


whence she justly seizes them as desertervS from the camp of the 
church, and so they are under the obligation of returuing/'(9) 

Under the question, " Is it lawful to tolerate the rites of unhe- 
lievers f he replies, *^ The rites of other unbelievers, viz. of Pa- 
gans and Heretics, are not in themselves to be tolerated ; because 
they are so bad, that no truth or utility can fron^ tjc^cp be derived 
to the good of the church." (10) ' -' - '' ^ - 

*' Unbelievers who have been baptized, f>s' heretics, .and, apos- 
tates generally, and also baptized schis7naiics^ ^cani'^elcpTripelvcd 
by corporal punishments, to return to the Catholic faith, and unity 
of the Church." 

" The reason is, that they, by baptism, are made sid>jects of the 
Church, and therefore, the church has jurisdiction over them, and 
the power of compelling them by the ordained means to obedi- 
ence, to fulfil the obligations contracted in their baptism^' 

'^ This also obtains in the case of those who have been baptized 
in their infanci/" [I pray the gentleman to remember what I said 
of 'cogendos,' and of baptism as 'a brand of slavery;'] *' as the 
Council of Trent teaches, sess. 7, can. 14," [the very proof ad- 
duced by me,] "and the fourth Council of Toledo, canon 55, vol. 
ii. pp. 79-81." The Toledo canon (11) is ^'that even those who 
by force or necessity adopted the faith, should be forced to hold 
it.'' ^' Opportet ut fidem, etiam quani vi vel necessitate suscepe- 
runt, tenere cogantur." 

" Heretics that are known to be such are infamous for this very 
cause itself, and are deprived of Christian burial." 

*' Their temporal goods are, for this very cause itself, confiscated ; 
but before the execution of the act, the sentence declaratory of 
their crime ought to proceed from the ccclosiastical judge, because 
the cognizance of heresy lies in the ecclesiastical tribunal." "Fi- 
nally, they are also justly afflicted with other corporal punish- 
ments, as exile, imprisonment," &c. 

" Heretics are justly punished with death, because God, in the 
Old Testament, ordered the false prophets to be slain; and in 
Deut. xvii. 12, it is decreed, that if any one will act proudly, and 
will not obey the commands of the priest, let him be put to 
death. See also 18th chapter." 

"The same is proved from the condemnation of the 14th article 
o{ John ITuss, in the Council of Constance." (12) That article de- 
nies the right of handing one over to the secular power for heresy. 

Here is proo/ which he that runs may read. Will the gentleman 
tell me it, too, is opinion ? Is his any more ? Dens's is, to say the 
least, as good as his. But this is under the seal of the Irish pre- 
lates. Is it still opinion? When I adduced the Pope, it was still 
opinion! Either then you must call a general council to repeal, 
or rest in the fearful and full proof we have adduced. But again: 

(9) Vol. ii. p. 114. (10) Vol. ii. pp. 82, 83. (11) S^ Caranza, paoje 55. 
(12) Dens's Theo, vol. ii. pp. 88, 89. See also Reports I. and II. of Protest- 
ant Meeting at Exeter Hall, London, 1835. 


We have the testimony of the onnofators of the Rhemish Nno Tes- 
tamc7it, with full notes, prepared with much care, as an exhibit of 
papal doctrines. Note on Luke ix. 55, 56, " The Church or Chris- 
tian Princes, are not hlamed for putt imj Heretics to death." Note 
on Revelations xviii. 6, '^ The blood of Ileretics is not the blood of 
saints j nq mqrcj than the blood of thieves, man-killers, and other 
malefactors-^'ib.r the shedding of which blood, by order of justice, 
no commonwealth shall answer." llev. ii. 6, 20, 22, *' He [Christ] 
warneth bishops to be jealous and stout against the false j9roj;Ae^s of 
U)hat sort sofivcr, by alluding covertly to the example of holy Elias, 
that in zeal killed four hundred and fifty false prophets." John 
X. 1, " Arius, Calvin, Luther, and all that succeeded them in room 
and doctrine, are thieves and murderers." Acts xix. 19, [Please 
in each case refer to the Scripture-passage,] "A Christian man is 
hound to burn or deface all wicked books, of what sort soever, es- 
pecially heretical books. Therefore the Church has taken order 
against all such hooks.'' 

Here then is another collateral testimony full to my purpose. It 
is the declaration of a long accredited commentary that the doc- 
trines of the Catholic Church not only justify but command perse- 
cution. But again. . Besides this testimony from annotators, what 
says the GREAT Bossuet ? Of the power of the sword in matters 
of religion he says, " It cannot be called in question without weak- 
ening or maiming the public authority or power." ^^ No illusion 
can he more dangerous than malting toleration a mark of the time 
church." No ; the church's holy severity, and her holy delicacy 
forbade her such indulgence, or rather softness. (12) 

We have also testimony to the intolerance of Romanism from Bel- 
gium as well as from France. As soon as the king of the Nether- 
lands took possession of his dominions, the papal prelates made an 
effort to re-establish throughout Flanders the aneient despotism of 
the church over conscience. They addressed a letter to the king, to 
be found in the Annual Register, (London,) and portions of jt in the 
History of the Jesuits, which is a reply to Dallas's Defence of them. 
They say, '* Sire, the existence and privileges of the Catholic 
Church in this part of your kingdom are inconsistent with an ar- 
ticle of the new constitution, by which equal favor and protecitiou 
are promised to all religions." *' Since the conversion of the Bel- 
gians to Christianity such a dangerous innovation has never been 
introduced into these provinces, unless by force." 

'' Sire, we do not hesitate to declare to your Majesty that the 
canonical laws which are sanctioned by the ancient constitutions 
of the country, are incompatihle with the projected eonstitution 
which would give in Belgium equal favour and protection to all 
religions." The '^ canonical laws, say the Popes, ought to be 
received everywhere." But wherever they are received, say these 
bishops (and truly) toleration is out of the question. ^' The 

(12) (Euvres de Boss, Tom. III. p. 411. Paris, 1747. 


canonical laws have always rejected schism and hersey from the 
bosom of the church." Does Mr. Hughes deny this, or condemn 
the effect, if admitted by him to be true? 

" The Council of Trent, all whose resolutions were published in 
these provinces, and have the force of ecclesiastical Law, com- 
manded the bishops carefully to watch not only over the mainte- 
nance of the sacred pledge of the faith ^ but also that of the laws 
which concern the essential discipline of the Catholic Church, and 
secure the consistency and inviolability of its government." One 
of these resolutions of the Council of Trent, and the object of the 
bull of Pope Paul the III. (observes the refuter of Dallas) which 
issued in consequence, was the ^^extirpation of heresy." 

The bishops proceed to say ^^ Securing the same protection to all 
religions would he incompatible with the free and entire exercise 
of our official duties." That is, wherever Popery really and fully 
exists there can be no toleration, for toleration "?s incompatible 
with the free and entire exercise of the official duties of its bishops/' 
In fine, they say, "We are bound, sire, incessantly to preserve the 
people intrusted to our care from the doctrines which are in opposi- 
tion to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, We could not release 
ourselves from this obligation without violating our most sacred 
duties; and if your majesty, by virtue of a fundamental law, pro- 
tected in these provinces the p)uhlic profession and sjyreading of 
these doctrines, the progress of which vje are boui\d to oppose with 
the care and energy which the Catholic Church expects from, our 
office, we should be in formal opposition to the laws of the state, to 
the measures which your Tnajesfy might adopt to maintain them 
ainong us, and in sjnte of all our endeavours to secure union and 
peace, the public traniiuillity might still be disturbed." Here is 
a bold, honest position taken; without disguise they declare that 
whenever the laws of the state shall tolerate any other religion, then 
the papal prelates and the Catholic system are necessarily opposed 
to those laws and to the government which should maintain them. 
Here observe, they do not say that as Popery was the Religion of 
the state, therefore Protestantism was against the law. But they 
say whenever the law of the state shall so change as to tolerate 
Protestants (or heresy and schism) then Popery will be opposed 
to the laws and government. That is. Popery is in its own neces- 
sary nature intolerant, opposed to liberty. 

It is a proper place here to introduce the Pope's letter to the 
cardinals universally, dated February 5th, 1808, declaring his 
dissent to Buonaparte's proposal to grant the free public exercisq^ 
of religious worship to dissenters from Popery, He says, "/^ is A /- 
jirojjosrd that all religious persuasions should be free, and their I / 
worship publicly exercised ; but we have rejected this article as y y^ 
contrary to the canons, and to the councils, to the Catiiolic RELI- i ^ 
GION, and to the welfare of the state, on account of the deplorable I 
consequences which ensue from it."(13) Here is the whole mattej,*.^ 

(13) See Hist. Jesuits. \ a /jl/^T^ 






out. Toleration is agaivst " canons," against ^^ COUNCILS," 
against the ''Catholic religion." Is not the Catholic reli- 
gion, as a system, and in maoiT/of its doctrines, opposed to liberty ? 
Let the gentleman settle with popes, bishops, commentators and 

How well does the reigning Pope agree with his predecessor 
'^ of happy memory." He, as cited by me already, calls " the 
liberty of the press' an evil never sufficiently to be execrated and 
detested, and " liberty of conscience a pestilential error." It is 
a most striking fact, worthy of record, that even the index to the 
decrees of councils on the word ^^ heretic' shows the persecuting 
and oppressive character of the church. 

Hteretici, Judcei, ethnici, cum iis preces habere communes 

Templorum haereticoruni ingressus prohibetur 

Conjugium Catholici cum ethnicis, haereticis, schismaticis, pro- 

Commercium cum iisdem omne vetitum. 

Quomodo coercendi. 

Hasretici pervicaces exterminentur. 

Damyiati potestafibus ssecularibus relinquantur. 

Multa circa eos qui favent haeriticis. 

Poenae haereticorum et illorum fautorum. 

Incarcerentur usque ad mortem. 

Relapsorum poena. 

Domus in qua inventus est hasreticus dirautur.(14) 


It is prohibited to pray with heretics, Jews, and heathens. 
It is forbidden to enter houses of worship used by heretics. 
Catholics are prohibited to marry with heretics^ Jews, and 

All intercourse with them is forbidden. 

By what methods they are to be coerced. 

Pertinacious heretics are to be exterminated. 

Being condemned they are to be left to the secular power. 

Many things touching those who favour heretics. 

The punishments of heretics and their favourers. 

They are to be imprisoned even unto d-eath. 

Punishment of the relapsed. 

The house in which a heretic is found is to be pulled down. 

The great and good Baxter says : "SmitJiJield confuted the Pro- 
testants, ivhorn both the Universities could not confxite. Their In- 
quisition is a school where they dispute more advantageously than 
in academies. Though all the learned men in the world could not 
confute the poor Albigenses, Waldenses, and Bohemians, yet by 
these iron arguments they had men who presently stopped the 
mouths of many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of them, 

(14j Acta Ecclesiae, torn. ii. 


even as the Mohammedans confute the Christians. A strappado is 
a knotty argument. In how few days did they convert 30,000 Pro- 
testants in and about Paris, till they left them not (on earth) a word 
to say ? In how few weeks' space did the ignorant Irish thus stop 
the mouths of many thousand Protestants ? Even in Ulster, alone, 
as is strongly conjectured, by testimony on oath, about 150,000 men 
were mortally silenced. There is nothing like stone-dead with a 
papist. They love not to tire themselves with disputes, when the 
business may be sooner and more successfully despatched. "(15) 

Before closing, there are some multifarious matters which the 
gentleman has thrown in by way of " filling up," that I maybe ex- 
pected to notice. 

As to the "premium of $500," I produced the book, and my 
friend, at the place appointed, met with it. But wo premium has 
appeared, though I agreed to lay it out in Bibles for the worship- 
pers of St. John's. Or, if the gentleman pleases, we will build with 
it confessionals for priests to confess their sins in. 

As to " the majority principle," it is he who Xms, changed, not I. 
On the first evening of this discussion, as also in the former Con- 
troversy, he avowed that the majority had the right (without mak- 
ing any qualifications) to rule the minority. Thus, (16) he says: 
^^Iioould ask, had not they the right, as the MAJORITY hy a million, 
to one, to take measures for the common welfare? The doctrine 
of Christ teaches submission to * the powers that be ;' " and adds, 
^' No repuhlican, I should think, would deny it." Will the reader 
believe that this is in d(fence of the cruelties practised by the said 
Fourth Lateran Council, whose bloody canon we have so largely ex- 
amined ? Now apply the principle. In Italy, in Spain, the ma- 
Jorityhaye established the Catholic religion hy law. Now I ask him, 
again, i^had the majority a right to do so?'' Let him reply : yes, 
or no. He will not venture to do either. You will see that he 
will evade it. Yet the above has answered it. His shield was 
then on the other side, and he left his principles exposed. 

That this is his principle, see Cardinal Bellarmine,(17) where he 
says distinctly, that when Catholics have the majority they have 
not only the right to rule, but to extirpate heirtics. He who shall 
see a majority of our people pnrpis/s shall stand at the tomb of li- 
berty in this land. As to "voluntary slaves," bethinks the Ame- 
rican people would not be such, though they shoidd elect the Pope 
their head for life, and alter the Constitution to justify it ? Could 
a Roman monarchist say more ? 

As to the charge of " artifice" in my statement of his ^'candid 
admission^' " of the established order of civil and ecclesisastical 
duties in a state," I am willing to leave the matter to be judged 

(15) Key for Catholics to open the juggling of the Jesuits. 

(16) Page 72, IXth Letter of the late Controversy. 

(17) Book iii. chap. 23, of Laics. 



of by every honest reader. The testimony of the Belgian bishops, 
given above, shows the gentleman's real system. 

He denies that the doctrines of his church' are opposed to liberty, 
because Catholics, as in France, Poland, &c., have sought and 
maintained liberty. The French conquered their liberty from the 
•priesthood. And as to Poland, noble, bleeding Poland ! if she had 
expelled the Jesuits a little sooner ! ! — Poland is but semi-papal — 
and she is the nursery of freedom and now its martyr, not in con- 
sequence, but in spite of popery. 

'' The cud of persecution will do for the quid Jiuncs of Jesuit- 
ism. But the doctrine, that '■^Catholics can he submissive to the 
bishop of Rome," and yet have nothing to do with him "as tem- 
poral prince," is hard of digestion, and especially in America. 
For example : He, as bishop, in the name of God, denounces "li- 
berty of conscienee," and, as '■'■ temporal prince, ^^ uses an army to en- 
force uniformity of worship. As bishop, all Catholics approve, and 
must approve of the jjrinciple; but yet the 2^ractice they condemn. 
Now can any man consistently hold to a bishop of such principles, 
and yet reject the principles ; or, consistently uphold him as head of 
the churdh, when as a prince he is so foul a tyrant as to rest his throne 
on the hired bayonets of Austria. When (as the gentleman owns) 
the Pope, as prince, "meddles in the civil concerns of other states," 
and they resist him, as "prince," what becomes of the bishoj) ? can 
you separate them ? He asks, "Is a Presbyterian minister bound 
to grant his daughter, if she demand it, the right to be a Catholic ?" 
Surely ; or a Mohammedan, or an atheist, if she be " of age" to 
j^udge — and even in her minority he has no right to offer force. 
But what then ? If she should exercise the right of becoming a 
papist, and then the priest should deny her the Bible, make his 
pardon the means of her salvation, require her to confess her most 
secret sins to him, and she consent, that were "voluntary slavery.'* 

I ask, in turn, if our " General Assembly" be, as he says, "a ra- 
diating centre," (which, by the way, he predicted some time ago, 
about to fall to pieces,) what is Rome 'I De Pratt says, " Catholicism 
is not organized like other wo7'ships. The latter have no common cen- 
tre, no exclusive source from whence flows power in every religious 
society. They have no Ptome, nor precedents of Rome, nor preten- 
sions of Rome. The exaltation or depression of these worships is of 
no importance in the political order of states. Is it not so with 
Rome ^ every thing in Catholicism tends to Rome. The Pope is 
chief of 120,000,000 of followers." " Catholicism cannot have less 
than 400,000 ministers. This worship and its ministers are spread 
everywhere." " The Irish and the American priests (my friend 
is both) are more obsequious to Rome than the German or French 
priests who are placed nearer to her. Reverence is increased with 
distance. Rome, viewed at a distance, is a Colossus." "The Pope 
counts more subjects than a sovereign, more even than many sove- 
reigns together. These have subjects only on THEIR OWN TERRI- 


TORY. The Pope counts subjects on the territory of all 
SOVEREIGNS. These command only the exterior. The Pope pene- 
trates deeper. He commands the interior. The seat of his empire 
is placed in the conscience itself. If the lohole world were Catholics 
the Pope would command the world — what a power? — what would 
it leave to others? In a word, he would shake the world ! He did 
iV for ages in respect to Europe. Not to know how to foresee is not 
t:) know how to govern or to judge the world." This man was 
once an Ahhe of the Pope. He knew what he was sa^^ing. Yet 
can Mr. Hughes talk honestly of the "radiatinn; centre" of our Ge- 
neral Assembly as dangerous to the land with Rome in his eye ? 

What the gentleman says of the forty Italian editions of the 
Scripture needs proving. I have searched extensively where such 
evidence should be found, and it is not to be had. Let us have the 
proof. Let us see the book. 

But supposing it true, and also the gentleman's translation of 
"The Index" to be just, then what after all is the mighty bene- 
fit? Publish forty editions of the Bible, and then forbid the peo- 
ple to read them ! Does he intend to insult our feelings by 
making a farce of this subject, or our reason by such logic ? By 
the way, the gentleman denied that the Index contained what I 
asserted it did. He called for the book; I produced it. Pray 
has he had the justice to own that he was mistaken ? I ask, did 
it or did it not contain the passage ? 

There is near the close of his speech this admission. ^^The civil 
restraints appointed hy governments, ivhether Catholic or Protest- 
anty are chargeable to those governmcntSj and not to the doctrines 
which they p)r of ess." Then why does he just before charge ^^ the 
Presbyterian parliament (f England" with restraining the freedom 
of the press? '* Was it not chargeable to the government, and not to 
the doctrines which they professed ?" In the same page he defends 
popery and assails Presbyterians by a most palpable inconsistency 
for doing the same thing. In the former C(>ntroversy(18) he said, 
"Caesar never was in the power of (Presbyterian) your church but 
once." Yet he has, during this controversy, again and again charged 
Presbyterians with abusing civil power for many ages and in many 

The gentleman ridicides my thirty questions ; yet strange to 
tell he answers none of them. 

I only notice in the last place this admission of the gentleman, 
"that the doctrines of Catholics leaves them perfect liberty to exr 
ercise their oion discretion about civil and religious liberty." Is 
this not allowing that the civil and religious rights of man aro 
not sufficiently regarded by Romanism to be a part of their reli- 
gion? What, does not the Bihle define the rights of conscience 
and of personal as well of civil liberty? Presbyterians hold that 

(18) Letter 9, near close. 


God has revealed a clear code ofriglits in his word, and that " there 
is no discretion" as to the matter of liberty. That wc are not at 
^ liherty to destroy or repress the liberty of others, or alienate our 
\i own; in a word, that the Gospel is the charter of freedom to man. 
I have, in conclusion, only to beg the gentleman's pardon, that my 
poetical couplet, derived from his own native land, did not please 
him, and my only reparation possible is to furnish him a better. 

Well-spring of grief, and J5erce wrath's hospital. 
The school of error, temple of Heresy, 
Once Rome, now Babylon most wicked, all 
With sighs and tears bewail thy piteous fall ; 
Thou mother of Deceit, bulwark of Tyranny : 
' Truth's persecutrix, nurse of Iniquity, 
The living's HELL; a miracle it will be, 
If Christ in fury come not against thee 
Most shameless w*"**e. 

Petkarch, Sonnet 149. torn. IV. 

Or thus, 

The Inquisition, model most complete 
Of perfect wickedness, where deeds were done, — 
(Deeds ! let them ne'er be nam'd,) and set and planned 
Deliberately and with most musing pains, 
How to extremest thrill of agony 
The flesh, the blood, and souls of holy men, 
Her victims might be wrought, and when she saw 
New tortures of her labouring fancy born. 
She leapt for joy, and made great liaste to try 
Their force, well pleased to hear a deeper groan. 
The supplicating hand of innocence, 
That made the tiger mild, and in its wrath 
The lion pause — the groans of suffering most 
Severe were naught to her. She laugh'd at groans ! 
No music pleased her more, and no repast 
So sweet to her, as blood of men redeemed 
By blood of Christ. Ambition's self, tho' mad, 
And nursed in human gore, with her compared was me^ci^ I. 



"is the Roman CatlwUc Religion, in any or all its princi- 
ples or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty^" 


Mr. President: — You have been told by the gentleman who 
has just concluded, that "this Society, in a dignified letter to the 
editor of the Catholic Diary, has exposed the falsehoods of the 
piece" published in that paper. Now I have taken the pains to 
procure a copy of the letter referred to, and it turns out, that the 
Society have not exposed one single " falsehood." They merely 
complain (apparently to soothe the gentleman's feelings) that some 
of the remarks were " i7i a great measure untrue.'' This is 
supposing falsehoods. But to suppose them, and to "expose" 
them are two different things. On what authority, therefore, has 
the gentleman ventured to assert that any falsehoods were " ex- 
posed" by this Society, when the statement is discovered to be un- 
supported by facts? The editor gave his reasons at the time, 
for not publishing the letter of the Society — and the fact of their 
not having " exposed" the pretended misstatements, was one of 
those reasons. I know — for I was an eye and ear witness, 
•as well as the Society — that the statements are substantially 

The gentleman pretends to discover a departure from the rules, 
when I go to other lands and other ages, to show the character of 
Presbyterianism. This inference is not just. I am at liberty to 
quote history, not indeed for the proof of Presbyterian doctrine, 
but for the illustration of Presbyterian intolerance. When I come 
to treat of the question of doctrine, I shall show, by the Westmin- 
ster Confession of Faith, that the Presbyterians hold now, in the 
United States, some of ,tJie..v&ry~ doctcijiCs^wh Tch oo u otitu-ted their 
warrant for persecution in Qther-Cdun tries. "He'^ought to know, 
that I establis^h my point by sliowing -that the creed of his church 
retains the dojcirinal theory of persecution, in despite of the 
American Constitution, whTclTTias^on'Iy takeiLj^Wirjrthc right to 
put it'm pract^e. AgainsTthe Catholics, he goes back a thousand 
years before-Pi^esbyterianism existed, and although his sect is only 
three hundred years old, I, forsooth, must not go back more than 
fifty years, — must not go bejond the boundaries of the United 
States, in which the government had taken from them the power 
to persecute. This is unjust and ungenerous. All that is required 



by the rules, is, that when he denies a doctrine, in the name of his 
church, I should prove by the Confession of Faith now adopted 
that it is a " doctrine ;" and he is at liberty to establish any 
point against me, by showing that such a point has been set forth 
as a " doctrine" of the Catholic Church, in some canon of a 
general council, or bull of a Pope. 

If, therefore, I go to other lands ''for matter," I only show 
what is, and has been, the practical operation of the doctrines 
ioJiich are undeniahli/ in the Confession of Faith. To restrict the 
argument, then, to the United States, since the Revolution, is as 
absurd as it would be to restrict the inquiry respecting a man's 
moral character, to the period during which he was deprived of 
liberty by incarceration . His principles of dishonesty, his 2>cr verse 
nature are the same, as when he enjoyed liberty to indulge them ; 
and it would be a poor vindication to say that he never has in- 
dulged them, since the power to do so was taken from him. And 
yet this is the defence which the gentleman sets up, by anticipa- 
tipn, for the Presbyterians. 

The gentleman says, that there is no right-hand of fellowship 
between the Reformed Presbyterians and the General Assembly 
Presbyterians. This assertion is denied by membei-s of both 
churches. Do the General Assembly look on their reformed 
brethren as heretics ? The laUer, it is known, 'reject the Con- 
stitution of the United States, as not Ferng~lir~mDraLcrdinance of 
God; and yet the gentleman himself has pronouiiced them "as 
among the purest JPreshf/terians that ever lived I" How is all 
this to be accounted for ? 

Before entering on the main question, I must clear up a point 
in which my personal integrity is interested. It refers to my re- 
marks on the gentleman's quotation from the Council of Trent. 
In order that the matter may be understood, it is necessary for 
me to remind you, that in a former speech he gave, as a transla- 
tion from the Council of Trent, a passage setting forth that thS 
priest, as the minister of the sacrament of penance, was to ''in- 
flict punishment." These are the words. Knowing the charge 
to be false, I replied, that the words in the original were "poenam 
injungere;" which is, "to enjoin a penance." When a priest 
tells the penitent in confession to recite some of the Psalms of 
David, he " enjoins a penance." This is the true meaning of 
"poenam injungere;'^ but the translation given by the gentle- 
roan, " to inflict punishment," might mean personal castigation ; 
and there is little doubt but that he, or the "faithful Cramp," 
whom he followed, intended that it should be so understood by 
Protestants. On these evidences I charged him with having per- 
verted our doctrine; and that charge still stands against him. 
For, in his reply, he flics from the original and translation, on 
which my charge was founded. He gives the same translation , 
and presents another ^ different^ sentence of the Latin, which we 


shall presently examine. But in order to do perfect justice, I shall 
give the whole passage, as furnished in the corrected speech. 

" Is it not written near at hand, — ' panam quam opportet pro 
illis poenitentibus imponere?' i. c.j 'the punishment which ought 
to be inflicted on the penitents.' " Now I pronounced this Latin 
a "fabrication, a forgery." 'According to the letter, I was mis- 
taken ; and according to the letter, I retract the expressions. And 
now I must explain, how far, and why, I was mistaken. 1st. The 
words " near at hand,'' did not signify the passage in dispute, as I 
supposed, but another, which had not been previously referred to. 
2d. The English expresses the point in dispute. 3d. I supposed 
that the Latin was intended to express the same idea conveyed by 
the English. 4th. I saw that, on this ht/pothesis, it was such 
Latin as the fathers of Trent never would have used. It was a 
violation of all syntax : 1st, by putting the verb " iraponere" in the 
infinitive mood, without any word to govern it; 2d, by writing 
the " oportet" with two p's instead of one, thereby putting it out 
of the Latin language; od, by putting the pronoun '' illis" as an 
adjective; 4th, by putting the word '* pcenitentibus," under the 
conflicting government of the verb " imponere," which requires 
the dative case, and the preposition " pro," which requires the 
ablative. Let any Latin scholar take the sentence, as the gentle- 
man quotes it, and see whether it is not a flagrant violation of 
syntax, in all the particulars that I have pointed out. The 
Latin of the Council of Trent is not highly classical, it is true, 
but yet it is at least grammatical, as will be seen by the con- 
nexion in the original, on which the sense as well as the grammar 

" CoUigitur praeterea, etiam eas circumstantias in confessione 
explicandas esse, qua) speciem peccati mutant, quod sine illis pec- 
cata ista neque a puenitontibus integre exponantur, nee judicibus 
innotescant, et fieri nequeat, ut de gravitate criminum recte cen- 
'sere possint, e.t poinam quam oportet pro illis poenitentibus imjjo- 
nere." Here, there is nothing barbarous or ungraramatical; 
whereas the garbled words, marked in italics, when presented by 
themselves as they were by the gentleman, make complete non- 
sense. It is directed here, that those circumstances which alter 
the species of the sin should be confessed, as well as the sin itself; 
and among the reasons assigned, the last is, that otherwise the 
priests cannot "judge of the grievousness of the crimes, nor en- 
join, on the penitents for them (pro illis) the penance that ought 
to be enjoined." This ij^ very different from " the punishment 
which ought to be inflicted on the penitents." And this, too, as 
a translation of " poenam quam opportet (oportet) pro illis poeni- 
tentibus imponere." 

I may as well here, as elsewhere, notice a few of the gentle- 
man's scattering reniarks. He says, for instance, that I "retreated 
£ix)m a half-finished controversy of a former day." I wrote the last. 


as well as the^rs^ letter of that controversy; and this is what the 
gentleman calls "retreating." He says, I was ''beaten in the 
oral discussion/' Still, for sake of appearances, he should let 
others celebrate his victory. I am perhaps less than his equal as 
to talents, but a good cause gives me advantages in every discus- 
sion involving the respective characters of Catholicity and Pres- 
byterianism. If the gentleman wishes to triumph, there is but one 
way, in which he can succeed — let him carry on the controversy 
— alone. 

In my last, I showed, by facts, that the sympathy which he 
claimed for his suffering in the "great cause," was unmerited. 
I detailed 2i few facts, which made it clear, that his 02071 pen had 
furnished the hardest trials, to which his feelings could be sub- 
jected. Instead of meeting my facts with even an attempt at re- 
futation, he very politely charges me with " audacity and coarse- 
ness," and then says that he is a mere novice in abuse, or, as he 
elegantly terms it, " blackguardism." 

He says, I " refused stoutlj^ to discuss the bearings of disci- 
pline." I say, that the offer was never made to me, and conse- 
quently I had not the chance to refuse it. But the charge proves 
that he was not quite so ignorant of the difference between doc- 
trine and discipline, or what is termed canon law, as he pretended 
at the opening of the debate. The one is of Divine institution, 
and consequently unchangeable. The other is of ecclesfastical 
enactment — liable to be changed by the authority that ordained 
it, or like obsolete laws to pass into desuetude, when the object of 
it does not exist, or its application becomes injurious. 

The gentleman, ^/J'er denying that the Catholics had published 
forty editions of the Bible in Italian, before the Protestants had 
published one, now begins to hesitate, and wants to " see the 
book." Let him deny or admit the fact first, and then I shall 
consider of his request. For he goes on to say that, even if true, it 
was still nothing. " Publish forty editions of this Bible, and then * 
forbid the people to read them ! Does he intend to insidt our feel- 
ings by making a farce of this subject, or our own reason by such 
logic P" Sure enough! If I had said that the translators had 
been allowed to translate the Bible into Italian, and the booksellers 
of the different cities to publish forty editions of it, with the ex- 
press understanding, that none of them should ever be read, the 
gentleman would discover nothing " farcical" in the statement. 
The logic would be exactly like his own — reasonable, of course. 
As for the index, I have already disposed of it in a former 
speech. We shall now pass to the investigation of other matters. 

The gentleman has returned to the canon of Lateran, against 
the Albigenses, although the remarks of my last speech, on that 
subject, should have been sufl&cient to satisfy any candid man. 
The growing light, and decaying bigotry of Great Britain, had 
wrung from king, lords, and commons, the public acknowledg- 


nient, that the gentleman's interpretation of this canon was a 
libel, — invented, as a pretext, for placing on the necks of the 
Catholics, that millstone of persecution which has been so re- 
cently removed. Still, as the creed of Calvin wraps its votaries 
in that mantle of " inamissible^' intolerance, which is impervious 
to the rays of light and of liberality, the gentleman, as might 
have been expected, contends that his interpretation of the fourth 
canon of Lateran is the true one, and, of course, that the wisdom 
of the British senate was confounded, in blotting the infamous 
libel from the statute book. It remains for me, then, to show the 
true bearing of the case — not, indeed, in the hope that it will have 
any effect on the mind of those men, who, as a preliminary mea- 
sure, conducive to the attainment of ulterior ends, have formed the 
unholy combination which is now in existence, for the destruction 
of the Catholics — but for the honest men of the country, in whose 
breasts justice, humanity, respect for equal rir/hfs, and liberty of 
conscience, prevail over blind attachment to the dictates of secta- 

I said in my last speech, that the canon in question related, ex- 
clusiveli/, to the Albigenses, and those who should profess their 
heresy. Before I proceed to establish this proposition, it is pro- 
per to show, more at large, who were the Albigenses, and what was 
the nature of their heresy, from the testimony of contemporary 

The origin of the errors maintained by the Albigenses, is traced 
to the Manicheans. They were introduced into Bulgaria, shortly 
after the conversion of that province to Christianity. (1) The acts > 
of the Council of Orleans (2) inform us, that under King llobert, 
their doctrines were discovered at Orleans, and were adopted by 
two canons of that church, named HeribeH and Lisoius. At the 
same time their disciples appeared in Aquitaniaand at Toulouse. (3) 
They are expressly caUed '' Manicheans," and "rejected baptism, 
the sign of the cross, the church, the Redeemer, (together with the 
incarnation and passion,) the veneration of the saints, the lawful- 
ness of marriage, and the use of flesh meat. "(4) Glaber, and the 
Chronicle of Saint Cibard, cited by Vignier, call them Mani- 
cheans. Renier, who had been one of their disciples for seven- 
teen years, tells us that the errors of these sects, both in France 
and Italy, were derived from the ManiclLean churches of Bulga- 
ria.(5) And Vignier says also, that the Albigenses were called 
Bulgarians. (6) 

By these and other authorities, it is manifest, both in their de- 
scej^t and their doctrines, that the Albigenses were Manicheans. 

(1) Petr. Sic. initio libr. (2) Labbe. t. IX.: col. 8.^6. 

(3) Baron, t. XL: an. 1017. 

(4) Fragtn. Hist. Aquit. edita a Petro Pithon, ibid. 

(5) Rem. Cont. Vald. c. 6. t. IV. Bibl. P. P. part ii. p.' 759. 

(6) Bib. His. part ii. an. 1022. p. 672. 


They were discovered at Goslar in Suabia, under Henry IV., by 
the determination wi(h which they abhorred all animal flesh (1) 
The Cathari, about Cologne, held the same abominable doctrines 
on the incarnation, and on marriage, as well as the other promi- 
nent characteristics of Manicheism.(2) Instead of water, they used 
li(jhted torches, and gave what they regarded as the "baptism of 
fire. "(8) They held that all flesh was the creation of the devil, 
and consequently, that the propagation of the human species was 
aidino^ the devil in perpetuating his work. (4) St. Bernard went 
among them to recall them from their errors, by preaching and 
exhortation. He instructed himself thoroughly in their doctrines, 
in order to confute them ; and besides their condemnation of the 
baptism of infants, the invocation of the saints, prayer for the 
dead, he numbers also their condemnation of marriage, and of 
whatever resulted from the union of sexes. (p^ It is acknow- 
ledged by a Protestant historian, that the heretics whom Peter the 
Venerable labored to refute, were "Albigenses, under the name 
of Petrobrussians.''(6) In their exposition of their doctrine at 
the Council of Lombez, near Albi, in 1176, they acknowledged 
that they rejected the "Old Testament," and refused to acknow- 
ledge the lawfulness of baptism or marriage. (7) Guy de Nogent 
says of them, in like manner, that they rejected all flesh meats, and 
all that resulted from the union "of the two sexes. (8) Another 
historian of the eleventh century, gives the same account of them, 
and adds expressly their belief in "two creators. "(9) William 
of Neudbridge, in England, and all other historians, give the same 
general account of their doctrine. 

The authors of the time distinguish between the Albigenses and 
the Waldenses, who were entirely a distinct sect, and who were 
•not even charged with leaving held the abominable doctrines which 
rendered the Albigenses so unspeakably infamous. Such were 
the origin, descent, and anti-human tenets of the Albigenses, as 
set forth by all the contemporary historians that ever wrote of 
them. They were, indeed, called by diff"erent names, as I men- 
tioned in my last speech. And it is a mere quibble, to say, as the 
gentleman does, that they are to be considered as acquitted of these 
charges, on the ground that Mosheim does not call them Albigen- 
ses, when he is detailing their infamies. They are known by the 
generic term Albigenses, just as the descendants of the pretended 
Reformation are spoken of as Protestants. And to say that they 

(1) Centuriat. in Cent. XL e. 5. 

(2) Eckbert, Serm. XIIL Adv. Cath. t. IV., Bibl. P. P. part ii. 

(8) Serm. I. VIII. XI. • 

(4) Eckbert, Serm. IV. 

(5) St. Bern. Serm. LXVI. in Cant. No. 9. 

(6) Laroc; Hist, de I'Euch. 452, 453. 

(7) Acta Con. Lumb. t. X. Labb. Con. col. 1471. 
(8; De vita sua, lib. III. c. 16. 

(9) lludulphus Ardens, Serm. in Dom. VIII. past. Trin. t. ii. 


were not Albigenses, hecause Moshcim speaks of tliem as "Breth- 
ren of the Free Spirit," &c., is the same as to say that the mem- 
bers of the Church of Scotland are not Protestants, hecanse they 
are called Presbyterians. Besides, Mosheim was their apologist. 
The Protestants wanted an appearance of ecclesiastical descent 
from the Apostles, and as the Albigenses had j^rotested against the 
Church of Rome, they were considered a very important link in 
the chain of ecclesiastical ancestry. Mosheim, therefore, as was 
natural, was tender on the horrible vices of his religious fore- 
fathers ; and when he speaks of their unnatural tenets, and the 
crimes which resulted from them, he calls them by some specijic 
name, and sinks the general appellation by which they are known 
in contemporary history. 

Let any man apply the doctrines of the Albigenses, simply on 
two points, viz. the tenet that the devil was the creator of the 
visible world ; and that, in order to avoid co-operation with the 
devil in continuing his work, the faithful should take measures 
by which the human race should come to an end ; and then say 
whether those errors were merely speculative. They were, on the 
contrary, pregnant with destruction to society. Was it persecu- 
tion, or rather, was it not self-preservation, to arrest those errors? 
We shall see presently, however, that these men, like the Cal- 
vinists in France at a later period, took up the sword of sedition, 
and wielded it against the government under which they lived. 
We shall see, that long hefore the canon of Lateran was passed, 
their course was marked with plunder, rapine, bloodshed. And 
if so, it follows that their crimes against society^ springing from 
their doctrines, constitute the true reason of the severity of the 
enactment against them. 

Their existence was known from the year 1022. If, then, the 
extermination of heretics had been a doctrine of the Catholic 
Church, why were they not exterminated from the first? If it was 
not a doctrine of the church in 1022, it was not a doctrine in 
1215; for the gentleman himself admits and proclaims that our 
doctrines never change. Why then did not the Catholics exter- 
minate them at once ? Is it that they were not able ? No : for 
at first the heresy had but few supporters. But why were they 
afterwards persecuted ? The reason is, that in the interval they 
had proceeded to sustain and propagate their infernal principles, 
by violence. They had placed themselves under the patronage of 
factious and rebellious barons, and had fought in pitched battles 
against their sovereigns. In the former controversy, the gentle- 
man garbled the twenty-seventh canon of the third Council of 
Lateran, to show that these poor heretics were condemned to aw- 
ful penalties, for nothing at all but protesting against the errors of 
the Church of Rome. This he did by quoting the beginning and^ 
conclusion of the canon, and, without indicating any omission, 
suppressing the crimes of these proto-martyrs of Calv'nism. It 


was proved, by the very document from which he quoted, that these 
lambs of the Albigensian fold were " exercising such cruelty 


EVERY THING." — When I discovered the fraud, and asked him to 
account for it, his defence is that he copied from the Rev. Stanly 
Faber! — or rather, in his own words, "Faber quotes just as I 
have done ;" as if he and Faber were joint partners in the glory 
-of the fraud! At all events the crimes of which they were con- 
victed, show that the penalties enacted against them,- a quarter of 
a century afterwards, at the fourth Council of Lateran, were 
founded on other reasons besides the mere fact of their heretical 
doctrine — blasphemous and shocking as this was. 

Now, I leave it to the common sense and candour of any un- 
biassed man in this assembly to decide, even on the strongest case 
of supposed persecution recorded in ecclesiastical history — the 
case of the Albigenses — whether that case, adduced to prove that 
intolerance and persecution is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
does not prove, in fair reasoning, the very reverse. Here is a sect, 
beginning, as all sects do, with a few individuals, appearing in 
the very heart of Catholic Europe, and, on the gentleman's hypo- 
thesis, creating a public, notorious sin — as extensive as the Church 
— viz. the sin of permitting these heretics to live and increase for 
two hundred years previous to the fourth Lateran Council, in open 
violation of their own supposed doctrine ! If their extermination 
had been a doctrine; if, like the Presbyterians at this day, and in 
the United States, the Catholic Church had taught as the command- 
ment of God, the obligation "to remove all false worship," "ac- 
cording to each one's place and calling/' binding the conscience 
of every man, from the Pope down. to the acolythe, and from the 
king down to the peasant — I ask whether the Albigensian heresy 
would not have been extinguished in the blood of its first profes- 
sors ? Was it regarded as a sin, a violation of Catholic doctrine, 
to have let them live ? Never. Was there any example in those 
ages, of what Presbyterians have since done, when, with hearts 
steeled by Calvinism, and faces bent upwards, they were appeas- 
ing offended Heaven for their "sin ;" and that of the English go- 
vernment, in " conniving at Popery V Never. Were the Albigen- 
ses condemned to suffer death for an act o^ private worship, as the 
Catholics were by the Presbyterian laws of Scotland? Never. 
Did the Catholics destroy the Presbyterian " churches," " spare 
neither virgins nor widows, neither old nor young, neither age 
nor sex," "but after the manner of Pagans destroy every thing?" ' 
Never. — And yet, more than a quarter of a century he/ore the 
fourth Council of Lateran, the Albigenses had committed all these • 
excesses against the Catholics. Here then is a sect, in the midst 


of the dark ages, and in the midst of Cathoh'c nations, and instead 
of being extinguished on its first appearance, it is allowed to grow, 
swelling its numbers, until it is able to set public authority at de- 
fiance, and to become the persecutor of those Catholics to whose 
toleration ov forbearance it was indebted for its numbers, and even 
its existence ! Will the gentleman say that the heretics were too 
numerous? But their very numbers is a refutation of his argu- 
ment. To what were they indebted for their numbers, but to that 
forbearance which he^ays it was contrary to Catholic doctrine to 
exercise. Power for their extermination was not wanting at any 
time. And if that power loas exercised finally, it was not until 
after their excesses, the result of their errors, had made it manifest 
that either thei/, or the Catholics^ must yield to the superiority of 
force, instead of laws which they trampled on. 

It was in this state of things, two hundred years after the first 
appearance of the Albigensian heresy, and twenty-five years after 
the third Council of Lateran in 1179, in which their crimes against 
public rights are specified, that the fourth General Council of 
Lateran was convened in 1215. Now the decree of that council, 
which the gentleman and his illiberal colleagues would manufac- 
ture into a Catholic doctrineh'\n^mg on all Catholics, and applica- 
ble to all heretics, was directed, so far as it was penal in its enact- 
ments, against the Albigenses alone. Every other means had 
been resorted to, during the period of two hundred years, and the 
growing desperation of the disease seemed to require strong mea- 
sures for the purpose of arresting its progress. Hence the am- 
bassadors from almost all the governments of Europe concurred 
in, and probably instigated, the provisions of the canon, which 
were regarded as essential to their security. 

In order not to be misunderstood, I deem it proper to state, that 
in detailing the facts and circumstances of the canon against the 
Albigenses, passed in the Council of Lateran, my object is not to 
vindicate the measure, but to submit the information that may 
enable this audience and our readers to form their own judgment 
and conclusion on the whole premises. The case will afford me 
an opportunity of establishing the distinction between the acts of 
a general council, which the doctrines of the Roman Catholic re- 
ligion oblige every member of the communion to receive, as a 
** tenet of faith and morals revealed by Almighty God," — and 
other acts, which have no such claim to our belief or obedience. 
^ The Fourth General Council of Lateran was assembled espe- 
cially for the purpose of pondemning the errors of the Albigensian 
heresy. In this capacity, it was infallible — because, as the repre- 
sentative organ of the church, it was discharging the duty for which 
the church was divinely instituted — namely, " teaching all truth," 
and consequently, condemning all error. But when they pass 
from the definitions of doctrines to the enactments of civil or 
hodilij penalties, their decisions are sustained by no promise of 

^ 118 

infallibility, and by no authority derived from God for that pur- 
pose. Whatever ru/lit they may have derived from other sources 
or circumstances to inflict c/r// punishment, it is certaiu that they 
have derived none from their vocation to the holy ministry or the 
imposition of hands. If Gregory XVI. were a wanderer on the 
Alps or Apennines, and like his divine Master, not having where 
to lay his head, he would be as much the supreme pagtor of the 
Catholic Church, as he is, beneath the lofty dome of St. Peter's. 
It is not because he is the temporal ruler of a portion of Italy, 
that the eyes of the Catholic, world are turned to him as the suc- 
cessor of St. Peter, and visible head of Christ's Church on earth. 
Hence the important distinction to whicli I have alluded. The 
power which God imparted to his church is sjjii'itual. The exer- 
cise of temporal or civil power is of human origin, and constitutes 
no part or portion of the Catholic religion. 

Here the gentleman ought to make a show of great surprise at 
the boldness of my assertion. He ought to pretend that I am 
guilty of heresy in making it. In fact, the assertions are not 
mine. They are the assertions of the Universities of Paris, Douay, 
Louvain, Alcala, Salamanca, and ValLadolid, in reply to the ques- 
tions put by Mr. Pitt in 1798. Does the gentleman wish a higher 
authority? Then I give him that of the Pope himself, Pius VI., 
in his rescript to the archbishops of Ireland ir^ 1791.(1) 

The principal question now is, whether the canon of the fourth 
Lateran was directed against all heretics and heresies, or whether 
it was, in its penal enactments, pointed again&'t the Albigenses 
alone. Let us see. Here are the whole acts of the council on 
the table, and I challenge the gentleman to the investigation. 
Now the text of the council shows the nature of the heresy which 
it condemned. It defines the existence of one God or first prin- 
ciple, the creator of all things, and teaches that the devils were 
not from all eternity evil, but fell by sin ; and it goes on to teach 
that persons are saved in the state of marriage, &c. Why define 
these DOCTRINES ? Because the heretics, against whom the third 
canon was directed, held the errors o]pj)osed to these definitions. 
They believed that there were two first principles — God and the 
devil. They believed that hotli were eternal. They believed that 
God, the good principle, was the author of souls and of the New 
Testament; and that the devil, the evil principle, was the author 
of the Old Testament, creator of the material world, and of the 
human body ; and hence, that marriage, with its consequences, 
was a co-operation with the principle of evil, and rendered salva- 
tion impossible. 

Now I say that the provisions of the canon, of which there is 
now question, had reference to the believers in these ahominahlc 

(1) See the wliole in the Appendix to "Catholic Question in America/* by 
William Sampson, Esq., of New York. 


impiefies, and the evidence is found in the text itself, where the 
words ^'hsGC hsGreticii/aedUas/' "ihi.s heretical ^//A," are expressly 
used. Again, where the words " universi haeretici, quibuscunque 
nominibus censeantur," — '* all heretics, under whatever name they 
may come," are employed ; the same limitation is found in the con- 
text, in the words, ''adversus hanc sanctam, orthodoxam, catholi- 
cam fidem, quam superius exposmmus." That is, " in opposition 
to this holy, orthodox. Catholic faith, loliich ice have exposed 
above.'^ What was that faith ? The faith of one only eternal God 
— creator of all things, &c. Consequently, the extension of the 
third canon is restricted to those who held the opposite errors. 
Now, if the gentleman will only condescend to distrust his know- 
ledge as a production of instinct or inspiration, and just take the 
trouble to examine the text, he will see all I have said. But, says 
he, they are not called Albigenses ; and Mosheim speaks of them 
as connected with the brethren of the spirit. Now, if he will again 
condescend to examine the text, he will find that they are spoken 
of as haviag "different faces," but as yet being "joined together 
by the tails." That is, they had different appellations derived 
from their different "faces," but in the doctrines which constituted 
their boml of union, " hasc hseretica foeditas," one appellation was 
applied to them all — Albigenses. It was on this accoiint, that in 
my last speech I remarked, that men of information must laugh or 
blush, as the matter may affect them, to hear ignorant advocates 
numbering the horrible Albigenses among the religious ancestors 
of Protestantism. I have now established the first fact, in opposi- 
tion to the gentleman's hypothesis, according to which the canon 
of Lateran extends to all heretics that ever were, or ever will be.. 
It is, in its very language, restricted to the Albigenses. The gen- 
tleman and all his anti-Catholic colleagues are sadly mortified to 
discover that the Catholic religion will not be as bad as they wish. 
If it would only accommodate them, by becoming all that malevo- 
lence has invented, and ignorance believed, it would suit their pur- 
pose exactly, and they could say what they do say of it, without the 
inconvenience of uttering calumnies. 

We have seen secondly, by the highest Catholic authority, the 
Universities of France, Belgium and Spain, supported by the tes- 
timony of the Pope himself, that neither pope, nor cardinal, nor 
bishops, nor altogether have any right resulting from the doctrines 
of the Catholic religion, to dispense with oaths, release subjects 
from fidelity to their governments, depose rulers on account of dif- 
ference of religion, or to exercise any civil authority over Catholics, 
by virtue of their ecclesiastical office. If, therefore, the canon in 
question confiscated the goods, and punished the bodies of the Al- 
bigensian heretics, my answer is, that the doctrines of the Catholic 
Church do not recognise or admit the right of a general council 
to either conjiscate goods or punish bodies. If the gentleman can 
show me the " canon of a General Council, or the bull of a Pope, 


setting forth as 'an article of faith or morals revealed hi/ Al- 
mightf/ God' " that such a right exists, or did exist in any age 
of the church, I give up the argument. But if he cannot, let him 
give up the attempt to prove it. Again, is it not surprising that 
the gentleman has not been struck with the absurdity of the con- 
clusion to which his argument would lead ? He makes us hold a 
doctrine, as he pretends, a canon which we never could comply 
with, until Protestants come to hold the abominations of the Al- 
bigenses, and till the world returns to that identical condition of 
civil governments, in which it was in the year 1215. Kings and 
feudal barons, vassals, and all gradations of the feudal system 
must return, before the provisions of this canon coidd he put in 
practice ! 

But when the gentleman is bent on carrying an argument, ab- 
surdities do not affright him, and impossibilities are but as straws 
in bis way. 

Having disposed of the substance of the gentleman's argument, 
I shall now proceed to take him on the small points with which it 
is surrounded. 

He says, that in translating the words '^saecida'irihuspotestatihus 
j)rsesentihus," the ^^ secular powers present" at the council, I 
committed a mistake which " every schoolboy that has readyCor- 
dery could correct.^' Now, between "present" and "absent,'* 
there is no medium, and since he and the schoolboys have deter- 
mined that praesentihus means " absent" or 'hwt present," of 
course, I have only to bow submission to their authority. He 
says I charge him with having omitted the word '■ 'jJ r assent ih us'' 
on a former occasion. I did; and he does not venture to say that 
the charge was unfounded. He says I qualified the charge by the 
word "fraudulently." I deny it, and call for his proof. Child 
of Antichrist although he supposes me, I have too much charity 
to suppose him under the influence of knowledge and malice at 
the same time. Another reason why our critic thinks " prassenti- 
bus" ought to be translated "not present," is that although 
expressed when the reference is Jirst made to the " secular 
powers," it is not repeated at every subsequent reference — as 
if the original determination of the sense, did not render the 
repetition superfluous. 

But admitting, as he does, for argument sake, that the word 
" pra3sentibus" means " present," he arrives at the conclusion, 
even by my own showing, that there was a "church and state" — 
as if this point of history were a new discovery. 

The gentleman calls me a "falsifier of Mosheim." I fling the 
imputation back upon him, and call for his proof. I have already 
pointed out the reason of any apparent discrepancy, between my 
account of the Albigenses, and that given by Mosheim. I have 
access to the originals, and can see in every page of Mosheim the 
struggle between the Protestant and the historian. In his estima- 


tion, to have opposed the church, was, like the virtue of charity, 
enough to cover a " multitude of sins/' But even Mosheim ad- 
mits enough to sustain all I have said. He tells us that the term 
"Albigenses" was used in two senses. He states, on the autho- 
rity of Petrus Sarmensis, that the general appetlation of all the 
various kinds of heretics, who resided in the southern parts of 
France was Albigenses. He tells us that this term, "in its more 
confined sense, was used to denote those heretics who were 
inclined to the 3famchsean si/stem, and who were otherwise 
known by the denominations of Catharists, Publicans, or Pauli- 
cians and Bulgarians.''(l) And pray have not I identified them 
by their " Manichaean doctrines" — their descent from the "Pauli- 
cians," who were Manichseans — and their having come from Bul- 
garia? Mosheim does not give any name to those " fanatics,^' as 
he calls them, whose " shocking violation of decency,^' he tells 
us, ''was a consequence of their pernicious system." What was 
this but the Manichaean system ? And since those who held or 
inclined to this system, were called, even in the stricter sense of 
the term, Albigenses, as Mosheim tells us, was I a "falsifier" 
in calling them by that name ? When Mosheim tells us, notwith- 
standing their " Manichasan system," that the Albigenses were 
very " sincere in their piety," he speaks as a partisan, giving his 
opinion ; whereas the facts stated by himself, as an historian, are 
sufficient to prove their abandoned principles both in doctrine and 
morals. To talk about their " sincerity," is not to the purpose. 
He admits, and the gentleman quotes it as a vindication, that they 
were the same as the Paulicians ; and this settles the question. 
The Paulicians being the name of the Manichaeans in Armenia, 
from whence their doctrine passed into Bulgaria, and thence into 
Italy, France, and Germany, as we have seen above. Finally, 
Mosheini's testimony against the principles of these sects, is that 
of a friend ; and it was on this account that I quoted him at all. 
For the rest, I have the contemporari/ witnesses of their abomi- 
nable doctrines and practices ; and who are the only sources of 
information on which modern writers, including Mosheim him- 
self, have to draw. 

When the gentleman tells us, on the authority of Mosheim, 
that the Pope ''persuaded Frederic II. and Louis IX. to enact 
barbarous laws against heretics," he furnishes the refutation of his 
own argument, and I am surprised that he had not sagacity enough 
to see it. For since the Pope had to persuade them, it is evident 
that, to this persuasion hy the Pope, and not to t^ie doctrine of 
the Catholic Church, the persecution is to be ascribed. If it had 
been a doctrine, the Pope, instead of persuading them to do itj 
would have excommunicated them for having left it undone. 

He charges me with having said that it was " doctrine in Scot- 

(1) Mosh. Bait. ed. Vol. II. p. 375. Note. 


land to cut men's ears off." He mistakes ; it was New Eng- 
land, I said. In ''Scotland'^ something more than the "ears" 
was required as the penalty of worshipping God according to con- 
science. But he wonders why such things were '' doctrine" 
among Presbyterians, and not doctrine among Catholics. I will 
inform him. The Presbyterians held that their right to do so, 
was a ^^ TENET REVEALED BY ALMIGHTY GoD." Consequently 
with them it was a *' doctrine." The Catholics never held, that 
their right to do so was a '< tenet of revelation;" but invariably 
derived their right, so called, from either the destructive nature 
of the heresy, the crimes of the heretics, the will of the govern- 
ment, or the dictates of self-preservation, which the almost uni- 
form seditious spirit of heresy often called into operation. Does 
the gentleman now understand the difference ? 

I said, in a former controversy, as he remarks, that "the 
secular representatives (at the Council of Lateran) had nothing to 
do with the definitions of doctrine and morals." I say so still, 
and the fact is as universal as the history of the church. Has he 
discovered any thing to the contrary? In consequence of my 
having said so, he remarks "such writers need good memories." 
What does he mean? Oh! I perceive. The "secular ambassa- 
dors" of Christendom were at the Council of Lateran — major. 
But the pronoun "we" is found in the third canon against the 
Albigenses, in connection with the faith which had before been 
" expounded," — minor. And therefore we means the secular am- 
bassadors, helping to "expound" the faith, — conclusion. This 
seems to be the gentleman's logic, and though it may pass in the 
anti-popery schools, it cannot pass wherever common sense is per- 
mitted to wield the ferrule. He uses also the term "doctrine- 
making council." Now you all recollect that the doctrine ex- 
pounded was the existence of only one God, and the sanctity of 
marriage, and you see how far the council deserves to be called a 
" doctrine-making" council — whether with or without the help of 
the "secular ambassadors." No; the titne for these things was 
reserved for the minority of Presbytcrianism, when orthodoxy was 
to be looked for in acts of parliament, and in oaths, leagues and 
covenants ; and when the civil magistrate, good man, was to see 
that whatever should be done in ecclesiastical assemblies should 
be "according to the mind of God."(1) 

I stated that the authenticity of this canon was disputed by 
Brotestant as well as Catholic historians. The gentleman, as we 
shall presently see, has not been able to controvert the truth of 
the statement. But, he says, admitting it, what becomes of the 
^'unerring guide, the faithful tradition of the Church of Rome?" 
I answer, that the "unerring guide" and "faithful tradition" would 

(!) See [Genuine] Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 23,- "Of Civil 


be no more affected by it, than the gentleman's identity would be, 
by his inability to tell whether a certain button on his coat, had 
been sewed on by his tailor, or by his laundress. 

Now we come to the criticism on the authenticity of the canon 
in question. Before I notice what he has said on this subject, it 
is necessary to state, that what is commonly called the third canon 
of the fourth Lateran, is composed of five chapters or sections. 
Each of these has its own specific import, and in Caranza its own 
specific heading. The second, under the heading " Quod jura- 
mentum debeant praestare saeculares potestates,'' is the portion of 
whose authority there is a doubt among critics. And it was of 
this sectionj which is more properly a chapter than a " canon,'' 
that I said, it is regarded by critics as " spurious — an interpola- 
tion in the genuine acts of the council." This chapter is neither 
the beginning, " middle," or e'nd of the canon ; it is distinct and 
by itself — having no necessary connexion with what goes before 
or comes after. This is the section that is considered spurious. 
This is the section which is wanting in the Mazarine copy, " in 
Latin" as well as Greek. Here the gentleman has betrayed him- 
self. He professes to quote the marginal note of Labbe, '' Be est 
hie folium in codice Grseco et Latino ,' and leaves out the words 
*^ et Latino." He must have seen with his eyes, therefore, that 
the same leaf which was wanting in the Greek of the Mazarine 
copy was wanting also in the Latin copy. And yet he says that 
^^Lahhe follows the- 3Iazarmc copy," in giving that part of the 
canon which Labbe himself says does not exist in that copy, either 
in the Greek or Latin ! If it does exist in Latin, why dues Labbe 
say that it does not; if it does not exist, as the gentleman saw hy 
the martjinal 7iote, why does he say that ^' Labbe followed it?" 
Let him answer that question. 

He says, that independently of this omitted section, we have 
the ''^exterminating part at least." I deny the truth of the as- 
sertion. Here are the acts of the council, and I call on him fur 
the proof. Collier, the gentleman has told you, onlt/ states that it 
is wanting in the Mazarine copy; and this was one of Collier's rea- 
sons for doubting its authority. Does not even this determine the 
truth of what my opponent has ventured to assert was " not true?" 
But why select Collier, and pass over the other authorities adduced 
in my last speech? I bring a host of witnesses, and instead of 
rebutting their evidence, he challenges the testimony of one, and 
he a Protestant, who sustains me nevertheless, whilst all the others 
remain unanswered, undisputed. 

The gentleman represents me as '' uncandid" for not stating 
that '^ Crabbe's edition of the councils published in 1530 oione of 
the four Lateran's canons." There might be some foundation 
for the charge, if I had not assigned the reason why the portion 
of which I was speaking, could not have been published in 1530 : 
namely, that it was not known as a part of what is called the 


third canon " until 1537." This seemed to me a sufficient reason 
wliy it should not be in the edition of 15o0; and I was not speak- 
ing of the other canons. 

He says that " the said Crabhe published afterwards three edi- 
tions of tlae councils in which the said canon is found.'* If this 
be true, the fact cannot be explained except by taking it for 
granted that Crabbe published two editions after his death, just 
for the gentleman's accommodation. 

We now come to Matthew Paris and Du Pin. I claimed these 
as rejecting the canon. He says this " is not true." And yet, he 
himself establishes the fact, by the very passages he brings to dis- 
prove it. Matthew Paris, even as quoted by the gentleman, says 
that the whole seventy chapters on being read in the council, 
" seemed tolerable to some, and grievous to others." Does this 
prove that the section of the third canon, now under consideration, 
was then incorporated in the seventy chapters? No. It leaves 
that question untouched. Docs it prove that the seventy chapters 
themselves were the "genuine acts of the council?" No such 
thing. If it proves any thing, it proves the contrary. The docu- 
ment was read to the council — it "seemed grievous" to some, 
and only "tolerable" to others; — therefore it was the genuine 
act of the council, and Mr. Hughes says that which is " not 
true" when he asserts the contrary! Du Pin says, "Let the 
case be as it will, it is certain that these canons were not made 
h?/ the council, but by Innocent III." Therefore, says my logical 
friend, Mr. Hughes said what is " not true" when he quoted Du 
Pin as not admitting these to be the genuine acts of the council ! 
But his commentary on Du Pin is worthy of his text. He tells 
us that on hearing them read " none were satisfied" — and 
yet he maintains that they were the genuine acts of the council ! 
When he contradicts himself, it is not strange that he should 
contradict me. 

But Dr. Crotty, the gentleman says, had admitted the substance 
of these canons to be the acts of the council — in his examination 
before the commissioners of parliament. Granted. So far as the 
doctrines of the Catholic Church are aifected by them, I have no 
objection to make the admission myself. But it does not follow, 
that Dr. Crotty could not, or that I should not, give good reasons 
to prove that the documents, or at least a portion of them, which 
have been made a pretext for the persecution of Catholics in Great 
Britain for three hundred years, are of doubtful authenticity. My 
argument, however, does not require that I should avail myself of 
this circumstance. My allusion to it was merely incidental. 

The gentleman betrays great want of information in what he 
says about the Council of Trent, as adopting the acts or reputed 
acts of the Council of Lateran. The Council of Trent adopts all 
the " tenets of faith and morals" that had been held as such by 
any, and by all the general councils that preceded it. To these 


'' tenets" also, and to these alone, refer the words " delivered, de- 
fined and declared'^ in the creed of Pius IV. Thus the whole 
argument falls by knocking away the prop of ignorance by which 
it was supported. 

As for Dens's Theology^ which I have never seen, it is, I pre- 
sume, like nearly all other treatises on the same subject, in which 
the prejudices of the author pervade the discussion of such ques- 
tions as do not belong to the substance of faith. The gentle- 
man has seen, or should have seen, that the Catholic Archbishop 
of Dublin, in the name of the Irish Prelates, had disavowed it. 
That it was published as a speculation by an ordinary bookseller, 
that it was not the standard or school book of theology in Ireland, 
that it was only referred to as a rule for the order or succession, 
in which the conferences of the clergy were to take up questions 
to be investigated. But the ebullitions of religious spleen, and 
the researches of reckless apostasy, furnished by Murtogh O'Sul- 
livan, Mr. M'Ghee, dee, dee, and the rest of the " Fudge Family" 
at Exeter Hall, have come to the gentleman's aid, too late indeed 
for the discussion, but yet in time for the correction of his 
speeches. In quoting the real or pretended sentiments of Dens, 
my opponent deals in false premises, and absurd conclusions — by 
assuming, that the work called Dens's Theology contains nothing 
but Catholic doctrine, which is false; and by concluding from 
this false position, that therefore Catholics are bound to believe 
all that Dens has written ; which is absurd, and consequently no 

As to the Rheraish Testament, I have no objection that he has 
referred to it. The notes put to it by the publisher are objection- 
able, and were condemned by the Catholics of England from its 
first appearance — a sufiicient evidence that these notes are any 
thing but Catholic doctrine. The work was almost out of print 
when the clique to which the gentleman belongs, brought out an 
edition in New York, in order to make the Catholics of this 
country answer for the sins of the Rhemish note-makers. But 
iniquity lied to itself. For, in publishing the notes, they publish 
also the text; thereby refuting their own calumny about the 
Scriptures being forbidden. 

Bossuet says, " there is no illusion more dangerous than to 
assign suffering as a mark of a true church." His words are 
these — " II n'y a point d'illusion plus dangereuse, que de donner 
* LA souffrance' pour un charactere de vraie eglise." As the 
gentleman does not know the French language, I can pardon him 
for supposing that " la souffrance" means '^ toleration." But 
Faber, no doubt, has *' quoted it just as he has done." 

The Belgian bishops quoted the ancient constitution of the 
country for their pretensions, and certainly neither English, 
French, Irish, Scotch or American Catholics, have any thing to 
do with the Belgic Constitution, ancient or modern. 


The case of the Pope's letter to the cardinals, dated February 
5, 1808, deserves a little explanation, which, for the gentleman's 
instruction in history, I will supply. The Pope was a prisoner 
in Rome, and Napoleon had proposed to alter the civil constitu- 
tion of the Papal States, by which the Catholic religion had 
been exclusively recognised, from time immemorial. The Pope 
protested against this change, as being contrary to the "canons," 
''councils," and the ''Catholic religion" — just as the Bishop of 
London would say, that it was against the "canons," "acts of 
parliament," and "the Church of England," as hj law established, 
to admit the dissenters to take degrees ^n the Universities. 

In a word, the gentleman may heap together scraps of books, 
five words from one plac"e, and fifteen from another; — he may in- 
voke the spouters at Exeter Hall, the apostate De Pradt, and one 
thousand other helps ; — he may show what was done, but still he 
comes short of proving his proposition — which is, that the doc- 
trines, that is, those " tenets of faith and morals which Catholics 
hold as having been revealed by Almighty God," are opposed to 
" civil and religious liberty." He knows well, that the Catholic 
Church cuts off* from her communion those who reject hef doc- 
trines. Thus it is a doctrine, that marriage lawfully and validly 
contracted, is indissoluble ; and for the maintenance of this doc- 
trine, she suff'ered Henry VIII. and his adherents to depart from 
the Church. In this respect she is perhaps inimical to liberty^ 
as she would not allow his majesty the liberty of having two 
wives at the same time. But Catholic France and Catholic 
Poland made all religions equal, and there was no excommunica- 
tion; because, in the exercise of civil sovereignty, they had the 
right to do so, and because, in so doing, they violated no doctrine 
of the Catholic Church. The gentleman, however, thinks that 
Poland did nothing, so long as she did not " expel ;" in other 
words, persecute " the Jesuits." This shows his standard of re- 
ligious liberty. His knowledge of the history of Poland seems 
to be as extensive as the article on that subject in the Encyclo- 
paedia Americana. 

Let the gentleman now come on to " Huss," " the Council of 
Constance," "the massacre of St. Bartholomew," "the Inquisi- 
tion," and the other stereotype topics of reproach ; and whilst I 
pledge myself to prove that the religion of Roman Catholics has 
no necessary connexion with them, I pledge myself also to show 
that the gentleman, like nine hundred and ninety-nine Protestants 
out of every thousand, is ignorant, or what is worse, misinformed 
on these subjects. I pledge myself to show that Presbyterianism 
has been more cruel in its laws than the inquisition itself In the 
mean tipie, we are on the subject of the decrees, real or fictitious, 
as he may choose to consider them, of the Council of Lateran 
against the Albigenses. I have proved that they were confined to 
the Albigenses alone. 2. That it depended on the civil authority 

/ 127 

of the state, at whose instance they were probably enacted, to put 
them in force or not. 3. That they never were put in force ex- 
cept in one or two provinces in France. 4. That they were 
neither enacted nor enforced for two hundred years after the first 
appearance of the Albigenses. 5. That it was not for their specu- 
lative errors, but for their crimes against human nature — the 
'^ consequence of their pernicious system," as Mosheim expresses 
it, and not for these only, but for their ravages on the rights of 
society, in the destruction of life and property. 6. That the law 
for their suppression did not even pretend to rest for its authority 
on any doctrine of the Catholic Church, but upon the reward of 
confiscated lands and promised indulgences. And finally, that 
not only the political condition of society, which tlien existed, 
must be restored, but the Protestants must agree in " doctrine and 
practice" with the Albigenses, before the gentleman, with all his 
anxiety to do so, can biijng himself and his brethren within the 
meaning of the obsolete politico-ecclesiastic enactments of the 
Council of Lateran. He may say that the council, as such, had 
nothing to do with the enactment of civil penalties. This is 
another question, on which I shall not enter further than by 
stating, in opposition to what the gentleman has undertaken to 
prove, that the doctrines of the Catholic Church gave them no 
authority to do so. He may say that the Albigenses have been 
calumniated, and get some Bancroft to give them a character, as 
he did the Calvinists. This will not do. I have stated the facts 
and contemporary authorities. Let the gentleman meet my posi- 
tion as a scholar and as a logician, by going to the original autho- 
rities. He mistakes the character of the public judgment, if he 
supposes that his declamation will pass for history, or his rhapso- 
dies for reason. 

The gentleman in quoting the index of what he calls the Acta 
Ecclesias, shows great fecundity of resources, if not depth of re- 
search. For, if he can make arguments from having perused 
merely the index, what would be able to resist him if he had 
made himself acquainted with the body of the work ? He seems 
to think that every thing written by a Catholic is an article of 
faith; and that every action that was done by a Catholic, the 
more wicked the better for his purpose, was a defined tenet of 
Catholic morality. He is mistaken. The time allotted me, is too 
brief for me to refute his arguments, and point out to him the 
diflference between canon law and Catholic doctrine. 

But let him read some treatise, even Hooker's Ecclesiastical 
Polity, and he will find that there is a difference. Or to make the 
illustration more familiar, I would say, that ''Acta Ecclesia3," or 
the " Canon Law" of the Presbyterian Church, are the sat/ings 
and doings of the General Assembly; but the doctrines of the 
Presbyterian Church, are the Westminster Confession of Faith, as 
"revised" "corrected" and "amended," to suit the political con- 


dition of the country for the time heing. But when I come to 
treat the Presbyterian question, I am prepared to show that what 
is at most only canon law with us, is doctrine with them. For 
instance, in the index of the Acta Ecclesia3, as quoted by him, it 
is forbidden to pra^ or marry with heretics; a proof that, at least, 
it was not forbidden to let heretics live, as the gentleman has been 
labouring to persuade us. Now, in contrast with this, let us place 
the mild, liberal, charitable doctrine of the Presbyterian Church — 
^'Such as profess the true reformed religion, should not marry 
with infidels, papists, or other idolaters : neither should the < 
be unequally yoked." (1) 

I had stated that Catholics exercise their own discretion on the 
subject of civil and religious liberty — that their religion leaves 
them free on the matter. I know that St. Paul was not a preacher 
of insurrection to the slave. In reply to this, the gentleman ex- 
claims, "What! does not the Bihle definethe rights of cor\sciencef 
and of personal as well as civil liberty ? If we look at the black 
ruins of the convent near Boston, we should infer not; for the 
Boston people, and, indeed, the New England people generally, 
are great Bible readers. ^^ Presbyterians,^* he says, ^^hold that 
God has revealed a clear code of rights in his word," and that 
there is " no discretion as to the matter of liberty." Now the 
magnanimous sacking of the convent was in strict accordance with 
this acknowledged "doctrine'^ of the Presbyterian Church. The 
midnight torch was applied, and, sure enough, there was "no dis- 
cretion" — there was no alternative, but to perish in the flames, or 
go to enjoy "liberty" with the houseless beasts of the field. The 
consequences of this Presbyterian doctrine, which, I repeat, is not 
the doctrine of St. Paul, begin to be felt in the South, as well as 
in the North, making the master a criminal against God, for hold- 
ing slaves, and the slaves criminals against God, for submitting 
to their condition. The Presbyterians hold, that according to the 
word of God, "there is no discretion on the matter of liberty." 

(1) Coufessioii; p. 108. 


''is the Roman Catholic Relujion^ in any or in all its principles 
or doctrines^ opposed to civil or i^eligious liherti/f 


Mr. President, — 

I HOPE the gentleman has recovered his composure after the 
discussions of the last night. If theyo/?iY,s of his armour crach 
under the power of the truth, it is not my fault ; nor his : for he 
is the "prmce of dodgers." If his cause could be defended, he 
could do it. It fails — not for want of an able, advocate — but from 
its own evil nature. How aifecting a spectacle it is, to see a mind 
possessed of powers fitted to bless his country and his age, stoop- 
ing to every unworthy art, to defend a system on which God and 
man has written ^Uekel," as with a sunbeam, and whose final and 
speedy overthrow is as certain as its dominion has been destructive 
of the best hopes of the race ! 

The gentleman denies that this Society has '•'-exposed" the men- 
dacious writer in "The Catholic Diary.'' Yet the Society (he 
owns) has said that some of the writer's remarks were "m a great 
measure untrue." This looks no little like saying that the author 
had told ^falsehoods;" though I know the Jesuits draw a distinc- 
tion between lying in whole, and lying in ^^ a great measure ;" 
and I am willing that the gentleman should proy?/" by his cnsuistry. 
Yet why did the editor of the Diary refuse to publish the Society's 
letter? And why did he not call for i\iQ proofs, if he desired jus- 
tice, or doubted the statements made in trie letter ? 

It is really enough to excite the compassion of the audience, to 
see how the gentleman retreats from the charge which he made 
against me, of ^forging a quotation" from the Council of Trent. 
He said, in so many words, ^^And leliat will be the reader's dis- 
gust, to learn that this beautifd specimen of Latinity^put forth 
as a quotation from the Council of Trent, is a FABRICATION, a 
FORGERY*" In my reply, I produced conviction, even on his mind, 
that this Latin, at which he had laughed, and in regard to which 
he had so impertinently charged me, is indeed the very Latin, ver- 
bum verbo, word for word, of the holy council ! Yet he called it 
"fabrication." You may see how much credit is due to his 
charges, by this example, for he is compelled to own "that his per- 
sonal integrity is interested in this point," and with disingenuous, 
but forced acknowledgment, says, ^^according to the letter, I ivas 
mistaken; and according to the letter j I retract " But how coidd 


he be '^mistaken," with the Latin before him, and in the very 
saiiie chapter, a few sentences below! Aud (/ ini'staken in his 
own decrees, what shall we say of his knowledge of his cause ! If 
not, what shall we think of such outrageous charges against the 
true citation of the document ? 

Having failed "in the letter," he flies for refuge to the "doc- 
trine," which I am still charged with " perverting/! In my first 
speech, I translated "injungere poenas," to "inflict punishments/' 
In his reply, he charged me, as usual, with /a/^//}//??^ the sense by 
this translation. To make it plain that this was the true sense, I 
referred, in my second speech, to a passage in the same connexion, 
just below, where the words imponere poenani occur, and I quoted 
that member of the sentence which contained them. Then he de- 
nied that there was such a passage ; but, corrected by my last 
speech, owns it was there ; makes a ludicrous apology for ridicul- 
ing the Latin of the holy infallible council, and flies at me for a 
miiitrandation. ]^o\f poena means punishment, as m}'' same little 
schoolboy will say : "injumjere" means "to join with," " to lay 
on," "to enjoin;" and "imponere" "to impose," "toenjoiii," 
" to inflict," "to lay vpon one." Poenitentia signifies "penance j" 
hxit poena, "punishment." But the gentleman says, "to inflict pu- 
nishment, miijht mean piersonal castigation." So it might ! and so 
it often does ! Has this not been the fact in every age of the 
"Catholic Church," that she has enjoined and claimed the right 
to order, and even to inflict "personal castigation," by way of 
penance. Devoti, Vol. HE., Book IV., § 21, tells us, "that the 
church had prisons in former days, in which offending clergymen 
were cast," and he enumerates "castigation, exile, fines, and 
other punishments inflicted by the church ;" or, as the gentleman's 
Latinity is so pure, I will give him the nut to crack. " De ver- 
beribus, exilio, mulctis pecuniariis, caeteris que PCENis, qu£e ab 
ecclesia dabantur, sequenti libro, suus erit agendi locus." 
Again, Book IV., §§ 9, 10, he discourses at large on the same 
subject, and tells us, among other things, that there are prisons 
in monasteries, for this very use. In the ninth section he 
honestly avows that the church has poiver to coerce the laity as 
well as the clergy, with temporal punishments. And this author 
has the sanction of the Pope as late as A. D. 1792 — saying that 
there is nothing in the book contrary to faith and good morals. 
(But more of this hereafter.). Is any man a stranger to the 
fact, that all sorts of personal chastisements have been enjoined, 
some selfinfiicted, as penance, and some inflicted by authority 
of the " holy mother," as tender mercies, to reduce the sinner 
to repentance ? 

In vain, therefore, does the gentleman struggle in his toils. His 
bad Latin is with him and his fathers of Trent. His criticisms, 
be on his guides; his "forgeries" on his own head! As to 
Bossuet — and French — I own "/ do not know as much about 


the French" as I do of ^Uhe Jesuits." But with my little, I 
proceed to expose his wretched 2'>erversion of Bossuet. The gen- 
tleman makes him say, ^' there is no illusion more dangerous than 
to assign SUFFERING as a mark of the true church." ^^La 
souffrance" may mean either " suffering" or " toleration." The 
author is speaking of the exercise of the power of the sword in 
matters of religion and conscience; and he says that "it cannot 
BE CALLED IN QUESTION WITHOUT Weakening, and, as it were, 
maiming, the j^ublic authority or power,"(V) (then follows the 
passage before cited :) so that there is no illusion more dangerous 
than to make TOLERATION a mark of the true church." It would 
be pure nonsense to translate this word '■^ siffering ;" for he is 
defending the power to enforce religion; and is opposing "la 
souffrance" or " toleration." Now, if it be rendered " suffer- 
ing,^' then you make him say that the power of the sword in 
matters of religion is right, therefore "suffering" is not a mark 
of the true church ! But the same author elsewhere settles the 
question. " It is this," the holy and inflexible incompatibility of 
the Catholic Church, " indeed which renders her so unconcilia- 
TORY, and consequeittly so odious to all sects separated from her; 
most of which at the beginning desii'cd only to he TOLERATED hy 
her, or at least not to be anathematized by her. But her HOLY 
SECURITY, and the holy delicacy of her sentiments, for- 
bade HER such indulgence, OR RATHER SUCH SOFTNESS. "(2) 

AVill the gentleman then reapply his knowledge of the language 
"of the great nation," and tell us whether Bossuet really believed 
it right to tolerate a false religion? So far is he from this, that 
he admits that the Church of Rome is the most intolerant of all 
Christian sects, while quoting and affirming (on the previous 
page) the words of M. Jurieu. 

The allusion of the gentleman to "marriage" is peculiarly 
unfortunate. For, on that subject alone, it were, easy to show 
that the doctrines of his church are directly at war with the civil 
law of the land, as well as convey the most horrible intimations 
on the legitimacy of all Protestant issue. 

" The Belgian bishops" are not to be put aside with a ivord. 
They quoted "the canonical laws" as opposed to the new consti- 
tution, and for the reason that the new constitution tolerated all 
religions, which the canon laws forbade. They say " toleration 
is incompatible with the free exercise of their of&cial duties." 

(1) Chose ausi qui ne peut Stre revoquee en doute, sans enerver et comme, 
estropier la puissance publique. 

(2) C'est en effect ce qui la rend si severe n insociable, et ensuite si odieuso 
a toutes les sectes separees, qui la plflpart au cemmencement ne deniondoient 
autre chose si non qu'elle voulut bien les tolerer ou du moins. ne lo frapper 
par de ses anathemez. Mais sa sainte severite et la sainte delicatesse des ses 
sentimens ne lui permettoit pas cette indulgence, ou pliitot cette moUesse.— 
Sixieme Avertisment, sect. 115; CEuvres, torn. iv. p. 426. 


They declare that their duty to the church will put them " in 
formal opposition to the laws of the State," viz.: to ^^ universal 
toleration." Now, if the bishops of a lohole nation are right; if 
they understand the Council of Trent, the canonical law, and their 
duties to the Catholic religion, toleration of any other religion is 
against all these! Hence they call on the king to establish the 
Catholic religion again, by law, as before, or else threaten to op- 
pose the " laws of the state/' So would the bishops and priests 
do here if they had equal candour ! Therefore, ^^ English, French, 
Irish, Scotch, and American Catholics HAVE much to do with" 
this matter; and so have American Protestants; and they will 
understand it so ! 

We notice next the gentleman's confused and awkward account 
of the Alhigenses. I see he would willingly detain me from the 
exposure of Popery, on the question of their heresies and immo- 
ralities. But this cannot 1)e; though he is peculiarly open to ex- 
posure in their history. Now, allowing all he says of their cha- 
racter and doctrines to be tnie, what does it amount to? To 
this : — that they loere so wicked, so heretical, and such enemies to 
the human race, that the Pope and Council icere compelled, after 
two hundred years of patience, to order their extermination! 
We know that laymen never vote in popish councils. That is a 
Presbyterian heresy, to admit the representatives of the people 
to vote on the doctrines and discipline of the church. Of course 
it was by the clergy that this persecuting canon was passed. 
Therefore, the clergy, headed by the Pope, resolved that it was 
the duty of the church to take up arms against such offenders. 
This is confessing the whole point in debate. For, we repeat it, 
the civil power alone had a right to declare war against their civil 
transgressors. But the holy council did it. But the geotlemau 
says, " the Fourth General Council of Lateran was assembled 
especially for the purpose of condemning the errors of the Albi- 
gensian heresy. In this capacity it was infallible." They did 
condemn the errors. But what next? They then proceeded to 
order the punishment of these heretics. Let it be remembered, 
the gentleman admits that they had been in existence for two 
centuries — and out of Rome's communion. Yet the holy coun- 
cil were determined, as they were like '■'' deserters from an army, 
they were still subject to the jurisdiction of the church, and, as 
such, were liable to have judgment passed on them, and to be 
punished and denounced with anathema." (V) Accordingly, the 
gentleman admits they had the right to inflict punishment, but 
denies that in doing it they were infallible, or derived the right 
from their priestly office. " Whatever right they may have 
derived from other sources or circumstances to inflict civil punish-^ 
ment, it is certain they have derived none from their vocation to 

(1) See Cat. Counc. Trent, p. 95. 


the holy ministry or the imposition of hands. '^ " When they 
pass from the definitions of doctrine to the enactments of civU or 
bodily penalties, their discussions are sustained by no promise of 
infallibility." How strange a picture ! An intermittent infalli- 
bility ! The same identical man, passing three decrees — the first 
and second on doctrine — the third ordering the punishment of 
those who held these doctrines, and who were enemies to society, 
&c. In the two former they were infallible: in the latter, not. 
They had right from God to do the two former, i. e. to denounce 
the errors and sins: in the latter, they had a right from "other 
sources and circumstances" to order their extermination ! In a 
word, these holy butchers marked the victims, and then set their 
bloQclhounds on them. When arraigned for it, they say, we 
condemned doctrines, as infallible priests ; we ordered the exter- 
mination of the heretics, as men. Truly this is a terrific sort of 
defence? But this is the best that even Mr. Hughes himself can 
say. Now, to show the fraud as well as fully of such a distinc- 
tion between the definition and discip)line of the council, let me 
ask, is this bloody discipline contrary to any doctrine, or to any 
bull ever uttered by the Church of Rome? Of all the general 
councils that have met since A. D. 1215, (of which the gentleman 
admits no less than six,) and of all the bulls of all the Fopes 
for so many hundred years, not one has in one line, or word, 
denounced, or in any way recalled or altered, this bloody canon ! 
I call on the gentleman to produce one sentence which in the 
least goes to condemn it ! If he cannot produce it, will it not 
follow that there is nothing in 2^c^'secution against the doctrines 
of his church ? The same remarks oppli/ with auginentcd force 
to the twenty-seventh canon of the Third Lateran, against which he 
has no exception to make; only that I left out (in a former contro- 
versy) the middle of the canon, and gave the first and last. But I 
gave full proof of its persecuting character. I gave a full page of 
it; and gave all but the narrative of their pretended crimes. I did 
not know before that Mr. Hughes conceded that the council had 
jurisdiction over them; and, as the celebrated Faber set the ex- 
ample, I suppose that I shall be considered as at least in as good 
company, and under as hopeful direction, as if following a wily 
Jesuit. But now for the whole canon, crimes and all ! I)oes he 
admit that to be genuine? He has already done so ! It dooms 
its victims to slavery! It even hires men to slaughter the heretics 
for their errors and crimes, with heavenly gifts ! and denounces all 
who refuse to take up arms against them ! Has this canon of the 
third Lateran ever been repealed, or its persecution and bloodshed 
denounced, by pope or council ? Yet it was passed as early as 
A. D. 1179 — six hundred and fifty-six years ago ! 

But again , the gentleman, desperate in resource, and trusting 
to the chance of my not having the canons of the Fourth Lateran 
before me, says that the council was " assembled especially for 


the purpose of condemning the errors of the Albigensian heresy." 
Now Du Pin tells us, (on the 13th Cent., page 95,) ^Hhe Fope, in 
his Letters of ludiction, gives his reasons why he thought the 
council necessary, viz. * the recovery of the IIoli/ Land, and the 
reformation of the Catholic Church,' '' It passed no less than 
seventy canons — one of these^ the bloody third, of which we are 
treating. They were on the Greek Churchy on the drunken- 
ness and bastards of the clergy — forbidding states to tax the 
clergy — regulating relics, excommunications, revenues, &c., and 
they end with a decree on the crusade for the recovery of the 
Holy Land, for which the remission of sins was promised; 
excommunication is threatened to those who voiced to go, and 
then failed ; the holy army is ordered ichen to start, and ivhere 
to convene, and such like thincjs, well becoming *' Christ's 
vicar" and Mr. Hughes's infallible head! Yet he says the 
Albigenses were the chief object ; nay, " the exclusive" one I 
Again ; he says, that the heretics denoted in the third canon, and 
the heretics denounced in i\iQ first and second, were Albigensian, 
and restricted to them. Strange ! In the creed expressed in the 
first canon, the doctrine of transidjstantiation is specially named, 
and the impossibility of salvation out of the Catholic Church. 
Now, I ask, were the Albigenses the only sect who opposed 
these, even in that age ? But he owns that the penal canon was 
against all those who did not or should not hold what is defined 
in the first canon. But do not all modern, as well as ancient 
Protestants, reject and abhor the said defined doctrines of tran- 
substantiation, and no salvation out of the Catholic Church? 
Then the canon applies to them, and to all of them, as well to 
the Albigenses. Besides, in the second canon, the council con- 
demns the errors of Joachim, Abbot of Flora, and the errors of 
Amaury. After this broad and various definition, covering every 
Protestant, then or now on earth, the council proceed to say, 
(in the third canon,) ^^we excommunicate and anathematize every 
heresy extolling itself against this holy orthodox faith, which we 
have before (as above) expounded." And yet the gentleman tella 
us it only means these wicked Albigenses ! 

His motive in this is plain ; but his weakness is plainer still. 
He cannot restrict the curses of that bloody act, and the crimes 
and murders which flowed after it, to the poor Albigenses. It 
has no limits less than all ages of the world, and all Protestants 
against Rome; or if there be a limit, it is in i\\Q poicer of Rome 
to carry it out. But once more : he says, if perseciition were a 
doctrine of their church, why did they bear with the Albigenses 
so long? Answer. They did not bear ivith them. In 1179, as 
we have seen, the Third Lateran enacted its bloody twenty-seventh 
canon against heretics. The Council of Tours in 1163, that of 
Toulouse in W\S^, ke., passed persecuting canons. As soon as 
they dared, the popes and councils began their persecution. 

135 ^ 

Du Pin says, (Thirteenth Century, p. 154,) "The Popes and 
prehitcs [perceiving that the notorious heretics contemned the 
spiritual power, and that excommunication and other ecclesiastical 
penalties were so far from reducing them, that they rendered them 
more insolent, and put them upon using violence] were of opinion 
that it loas lawful to make use of force^ to see whether those who 
icere not reclaimed out of a sense of their salvation, might be so 
hi/ the fear of punishments, and even of temporal death. There 
had been ALREADY several instances of heretics condemned to 
fnes, to banishments, to punishments, and even to death itself; 
but there had never been any war proclaimed against them. In- 
nocent III. \»as the first that proclaimed such a war against 
THE Albigenses [a fine business for the head of the Church!] 
and Waldenses, [Mr. Hughes says, it was '^ restricted to the 
Albigenses," and that the AValdenses were a very different peo- 
ple,] and against Raymond, Count of Toulouse, their protector. 
War might subdue the heads, and reduce whole bodies of people, 
but it was not capable of altering the sentiments of particular per- 
sons, or of hindering them from teaching their doctrines secretly. 
"Whereupon, the Pope thought it advisable to set up a tribunal of 
such persons, whose business should be to make inquiry after 

heretics, and to draw uj) their processes And from 

hence this tribunal was called the Inquisition.'^ My hearers 
know what it is. Du Pin was a Papist. We see, then, the gentle- 
man is confuted, and exposed by his own historian. And when 
the gentleman asks, ^^If their extermination had been a doctrine 
— / ask whether the Albigensian heresy would not have been 
extinguished in the blood of its first professors?'' I answer, it 
was finally almost literally thus extinguished, in the blood of an 
immense multitude, until at length they were nearly blotted out 
from under Heaven; though, as the gentleman says, they were at 
one time exceedingly numerous. 

But lastly : The gentleman has falsified the 'history of this peo- 
ple, both as to their doctrine and lives. I cited Mosheim, because 
he first quoted him, and by omitting the name of one sect, which 
Mosheim denounced, and inserting falsely the name of Albi- 
genses, whom Mosheim defends, made him seem to sustain 
Mr. Hughes's slanders, in utter variance with the author's whole 

Mr. Hughes utters almost as many falsehoods as sentences, 
when he charges the Albigenses with being Manichees; and I 
pledge myself to prove on him an ignorance which has disgraced 
the Bishop of Meaux, (and which disgraces \\\^ follower now,) be- 
fore I have done with this discussion. But allowing all he has 
said of their errors and their vices, does not this j9?ca for persecu- 
tion, on that ground, (for it is no less,) prove that Catholics think 
it .a favour to let others exist who differ from them, and that they 
claimed and exercised the right to denote^ as vicious heretics, those 


whose opinions and lives they disliked; that when society was in 
their judgment disturbed by such persons, especially if they be- 
came numerous, the Church claimed and exercised the right, to 
declare religious wars against them, to confiscate their jiroperty, 
forbid the exercise of aU civil riglitSj order their exterinination, 
give their lands to others, and depose their rulers, if they refused 
to submit to it; and, finally, to pay the murderers with ^indul- 
gences,'' (of which the Church is exclusive depository,) by the 
act of the spiritual head, the Pope ! ! ! 

The defence which the gentleman makes of his vain attack on 
the authenticity of the canon, is both awkward and uncandid. In 
the former speech he had said, " the best critics have regarded 
this canon as spurious, and an interpolation in the genuine acts 
of the council.'' Now, driven from this ground by my convicting 
testimony, he says, the canon ''is composed oi Jive chapters or 
sections;'' ''the second section is the portion of whose authenti- 
city there is a doubt among critics." But in the former speech 
he had said, "this canon is regarded as spurious.'' This is there- 
fore a CHANGE from five sections to only one section ! But he goes 
on — ^^ and it was of this section, which is more properly a chap- 
ter than a 'canon,' that I said it is regarded by critics as spurious." 
This, I regret to say, is false. He said expressly, that " the canon 
was considered spurious;" not merely this one section. The 
whole five sections make one canon. He said the whole was spu- 
rious; now he denies it : and confounding section\f\i\\ canon, tries 
to confuse the subject. He has finally, however, owned, that only 
one of five sections is supposed spurious. Then my remark re- 
turns — allow it so. It is not the "beginning," nor the "end;" 
yet he denies it is the " middle." It may be the " hlind side,'' 
for aught I care. But take it out, and what remains ? Hhe first 
section, as he calls it, denounces all heretics, ordering them to be 
delivered to the secular powers; their goods to be confiscated, &c.: 
the third section (as divided by Caranza, though it is all one 
canon, and chiefiy on one great subject) ofi'ers indulgences, such 
as were given to crusaders to the Holy Land, (WHICH WERE IM- 

denounced canonical vengeance against the bishops who should 
neglect to purge their territories of this heretical filth. And this 
is only what Caranza's abridgment gives — I have the lohole be- 
fore me. He has left out nearly half, and some of the icorst 
parts too; such as that the whole country was to be jmt under 
oath to inform on heretics; and those refusing to swear, were to 
be treated as heretics; depriving lawyers. Judges, clerks, voters, 
heirs, &c. of their civil rights. Now I ask, even if the second 
section were spurious, is there not here persecution enough for- 
ever to expose the spirit of the council, and of the church? The 
third section expressly rewards those'' who exterminate heretics — 
(ad haereticorum exterminium.) Yet, gentlemen, can you believe 


it, he denies ^^ that independent of this omitted section, we have 
the extenninating clause." He says *'/ deny the truth of the 
assertion." This is to me inexplicable. I do from my heart 
pity the position of the gentleman. The gentleman charges me 
with quoting Labbeus falsely, thus, *' Deest hie folium in codice 
Grraeco." — This is a falsification of my citation. I quoted it 
thus "Deest hie folium in codice Mazarino." — "A leaf is here 
wanting in the Mazarine manuscript." As the leaf wsiS wanting 
in the Mazarine manuscript, of course, allit contained icas want- 
ing; and yet the gentleman would make me say, though the leaf 
was ivantingj yet Aa7/the leaf was not wanting. 1 said Labbeus 
followed that manuscript ; yet the fact that he also gives the Latin 
of the canon, shows that he believed it to be genuine, though the 
leaf was wanting. The gentleman ought to have more sense, or 
more candour, than thus to quibble. This then is my " answer" 
to his most profound "question." 

Again : in the last speech th(5 gentleman said, " Collier (a Pro- 
testant) pronounces this canon spurious." I replied, it is not 
true; he only says, it is loanting (as above) in the Mazarine manu- 
script. *Does the gentleman, in answer to this, pr<]>ve what he had 
before said ? No. He hegs the question, and shuns all proof, 
saying, " This was one of Collier's reasons for doubting its 
authenticity." '^Doubting!" But before it was, "pronounced 
it S2)urious." The nerves crack, and give way, from certainty to 
doubt. Now I again pronounce it false ; and if not, give us the 
proof These are specimens of his " host of witnesses ;" you may 
measure the rest by them. 

As to Crabbe, history tells us he published editions of the 
councils in 1538, 1551, 1558. Du Pin and Matthew Paris were 
claimed by the gentleman against the authenticity of the third 
canon. But lo! when I adduce their 7'eal testimony, it is directly 
against him. All he says, in reply, is, if Matthew Paris repre- 
sented the council as of various opinions and feelings about the 
seventy canons, does that prove that they passed, and that the 
third is genuine? Answer. Matthew Paris was cited by the 
gentleman to prove the canon spurious. I proved, from Matthew 
Paris, that all he really said, was that the council murmured over 
the whole seventy ; and Du Pin (though quoted by Mr. Hughes as 
on his side) expressly says the council did not debate th« canons, 
but passed them in silence, which was received as approbation. 

Mr. President, I regret this tedious discussion. But it was 
called for — and will be useful. I will here say, that never in my 
life did I know so many literary frauds in so short a compass as 
this gentleman has practised. I blush, sir, to have to expose 
them. There is one article in the Confession of Faith which the 
gentleman ought by this time to believe, even if he should not like 
it. He will find it in the 25th Chap. 6th Section, which identi- 
fies the man of sin. 



The smart play upon the word ^^ prsesentihus^* will not pervert 
my meaning; which was, that it referred to the secular powers 
present, when and where the decree should be executed ; and 
hence, "secular powers," or secular powers present, or lu the 
spof if you please, meant, in that instance, the same thing. 

The gentleman quotes the names {not a word of their testimony) 
of the Universities of Paris, Douay, Louvaire, &c. &c., to dis- 
prove the authorities I brought. But pray did not the gentleman 
in the same speech discard the opinions of whole tribes of com- 
mentators and bishops, &c. ? He also refers to Pope Pius Sixth's 
rescript to the archbishops of Ireland in 1791 ; and sends us to the 
appendix of the work of William Sampson, Esq., "on the Catho- 
lic Question in America." But why not give us "at least ^ve or 
fifteen words'' of this rescript on liberty. What is it? We can- 
not take his opinion, or ipse dixit. If his word will do, then (as 
is usual at Rome) we may save much trouble; and settle the ques- 
tion by authority. 

The gentleman seems not at all pleased with Dens' s Theology. 
Yet he is a standard icriter; and noio he is of special value, in 
evidence, because the "Catholic" prelates of Ireland have jnihUcly 
endorsed him. It was proved by unanswerable testimony, at the 
said meeting of Protestants in Exeter Hall, London, June 20th, 
1835, that as early as A. D. 1808, "a^ a meeting of the Roman 
Catholic prelates of Ireland, it was unanimously agreed that Dens' s 
Complete Body of Theology was the best book on the subject of the 
doctrines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, as a se- 
cure standard for the guidance of those clergymen who had not 
access to libraries." The work is therefore full authority. 
Now from this book I made ample (and they were surely startling) 
quotations in my last address. Has the gentleman denied that 
they were the author s belief of Catholic doctrine ? Who is right ? 
Mr. Hughes, or the learned Dens and the prelates of six millions 
of Catholics? I ask you, gentlemen, to review my citations from 
Dens, in the light of the above facts; and I beg leave here, by way 
of refreshing the subject, to say that Dens declares " all Protest- 
ants, as Lutherans, Calvinists, &c., worse heretics than Jews and 
pagans; that baptism brings them in the power of the church, 
(for they allow our baptism to be valid,) and that* it is the right 
and duty of the church to compel heretics, by corporeal punish- 
ments, to return to the faith, or if they will not, that confisca- 
tion of property, exile, imprisonment, and death, are to be de- 
nounced against them.'\ And now I invite the gentleman's at- 
tention to the contents of the book, and the proo/s of the sanction 
of it by the prelates of Ireland. That the gentleman should com- 
plain of my introducing tiew pi-oofh strange, when he it was who 
vitiated the report of the stenographer; and who insisted on re- 
writing the entire debate, after his own plan; and who has not 


ceased to desert his old ground on many points, and to introduce 
new topics and new matter. 

But I will introduce an old acquaintance. Joannes Devoti, hav- 
ing the Pope's imprimatur to his Canonical Institutes; a late 
oracle from Rome ; and pledged to contain nothing contrary to 
sound faith and good morals. (1) " Actiiis Jirst attempted to take 
from the church all ecclesiastical jwisdiction and legislative 
power; and the Waldenses, John Huss, Marsilius Patavinus, 
Jandunus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, have followed his errors, 
having falsely thought that the church had no juvisdictlon^ but 
that all her authority consisted in government and PERSUASION. 
After their example, all Protestants ivho maintain the right of the 
prince, in sacred things, deny JUDICIAL POWER to the church. 
These, with Puffendorf, contend that the church is not A distinct 
republic or state, as they say, but only a collegium; and with 
Mosheim, Bohemer, Budseus, and others, deny to the church all 
judicial power ; and thinking it to p>er tain to the right of majesty 
in the secular prince, attribute only a collegiate right to the 
church. . . . In the same mire sticks (in eodem lato hcesitat) 
P. Laborde, who, in his small work entitled 'Principles concern- 
ing the Nature, Distinction, and Limits of the Tivo Powers, 
Temporal and Spiritual,' endeavours to undermine and take away 
the power given by Christ to the chu?'ch, not merely of govern- 
ment by councils and persuasion, but also of decreeing by laws, 
and of compulsion, and of coercijig with punishment those who 
are worthy of it, [cogendique, et poena coercendi eos, qui poena 
sunt digni;] and who subjects the ecclesiastical ministry in such 
a way to the secular poioer, as to insist that to it belongs the 
cognizance and jurisdiction of all external and sensible govern- 
ment. Benedict XIV., (Pope,) condemned this depraved a)id j^er- 
nicious treatise in Const, ad Assiduas, 44., t. 4, &c. &c.; and 
the like error of Patavinus and Jandunus was long before con- 
demned by John XXII., Const, licet juxta doctrinam.'^ Here we 
have an honest Roman ! He has no prevarication; but freely tells 
the whole truth, and brings the authority ex cathedra of two Pon- 
tiffs to sustain his doctrine of the judicial and coercive power of 
the church with penal sanctions. The incidental testimony in be- 
half of Protestant ojnnions in the case of Luther, Calvin, the 
Waldenses, Huss, and " the Protestants," is very striking; and 
as much contradicts Mr. Hughes on that side, as his papal claims 
do on the other. Huss was condemned to the stake by the Coun- 
cil of Constance, for holding such doctrines as "That the papal 
dignity savors of Caesar; and the institution and headship of the 
Pope was derived from his power;" ''that the doctrine o^ hand- 
ing over to the civil arm those who, after ecclesiastical censure, 
refused to retract, was like the high priests, scribes, nndpharisees, 

(1) Book III., tit 1, sec. 3. " On the Judicial Poioer of the CJntreh." 


who delivered Jesus to Pilate, saying, it is not lawful for us to 
put ani/ man to death; and those who handed over such persons 
were worse homicides than Pilate :" '' that excornmunicatwns, 
interdicts, &c. degraded the laity, exalted the clergy,' and pre- 
pared the way for Antichrist ;" and the like. To these the author 
quoted above refers. The converse of these is poperi/ ; so Huss's 
sentence declares, and its execution seals it. 

It is worthy of remark also, that the doctrines attributed by 
Devoti to Protestants in the previous extracts, though retaining a 
taint of chu/H-h and state, are so far heloiu the claims of popery, 
that thei/ were denounced as pulling down the rights and judicial 
poicer of the church ! How lofty, then, must her pretensions be ! 
But we are not left to conjecture. The same author tells us.(l) 
^'that the church has of right the power to pun ish clergymen, and 
of herself inficts on offenders lashes, fines, imprisonment, exile, 
and other punishments." Now, when we collect the testimony 
of Bossuet, and Dens, and the Rhemish annotators, and Du Pin, 
and Devoti, (and to name no more,) the reigning Pope, it is clear 
they all concur in the doctrine that the Catholic Church has a 
right to punish temporally ; that she is intolerant of false reli- 
gions or heresies ; and that all modern Protestants are such here- 
tics. If Mr. Hughes says, these are their o2nnions, we ask, is he 
infallible? Are not his too opinions? Shall we believe him 
against so many, and so able witnesses, on the other side? And 
besides, they bring abundant proofs ! What shall we say in re- 
ply to them? Were they all mistaken in ihoiY proofs? Is Mr. 
Hughes wiser than all these ? The answer is very simple. He 
that runs may read. TJicy lived in Rome, France, Belgium, Ire- 
land. He lives in the United States ! • 

We have now given several decrees of " infallible councils," 
which directly prove that the doctrines of the Roman Catholic 
religion are oj)j)osed to civil and religious liberty ', and we have 
given abundant testimony from commentators, a multitude of 
Belgian bishops, and divers authors of successive ages, and vari- 
ous nations, showing that the meaning attributed to these decrees 
by us, was the common and received sense of Catholic Europe for 
ages. Surely it were a singular accident, that they should all 
concur to slander their own church! Yet if Mr. Hughes be 
right, they do. Now, if he may cite modern universities, I may 
adduce cill those authorities, with some claim to be proof in the 
case. And if jMr. Hughes expects his declarations to have ueight, 
why discard their overwhelming testimony — when so many are 
against him, (including the now reigning Pope,) and when they 
were in circumstances so much better fitted to give an unbiassed 
and true statement ? 

Reserving other councils for future use, I proceed to obey the 

(1) Lib. IV., tit. 1, sec. 10. 


gentleman's call for a hull of a pope in wliicli presecution is 
taught, — I cite the bull in Coena Domini. Of this memorable 
bull the PARLIAMENT OF Paris, in its proceedings, (as extracted 
from its Registers,) A. D. 1688, upon the Pope's bull on the 
franchises in the city of Home, &c. &c., thus speaks: — ''And to 
give some colour to so scandalous an innovation, he (the Pope) 
refers to that famous bull styled In Coena Domini, because it is 
read at Rome every Thursday of the holy week. True it is, that 
if this decree, whereby the popes declare themselves sovereign 
MONARCHS OF THE WORLD, be legitimate, the majesty royal will 
then depend on their humour ; ALL OUR liberties will be 
ABOLISHED, the sccular judges will no longer have the power to 
try the possession of benefices, nor the civil and criminal causes 
OF ecclesiastical persons, and we shall quickly see our- 
is a great nation^'s parliament — I suppose the gentleman will again 
call it infidel; yet it may be presumed to know evils which it so 
grievously /e^if. The bull is taken from the Bullarium of Laertius 
Cherubinus, Rome, 1G38, tom. iii., p. 183, the sixty-third con- 
stitution of Paul V. '•''The excommunication and anathema- 
tizing of all heretics &c. <Ssc.^ which is wont to he puhlished 
on Maunday Thursday. As for almost all the chapters of 
this bull [besides the third Extrav. of Paul II., and the first 
Extrav. of Sixtus IV. in the title of Penance and Remissions] 
you have them hefore ordained in the first constitution of 
Urban V., f 215; in the twenty-fifth constitution of Julius II., 
f. 482; in the tenth constitution of Paul III., f. 522; and in the 
eighty-first constitution of Gregory XIII., f 348, lib. 2. Other 
bulls of this nature, called bulls in Coena Domini, I have pur- 
posely omitted, (says the compiler,) being content with these; 
from which it may appear that the popes have made some varia- 
tion in them — according to the exigency of the times. Yet I 
would not omit those which follow, as being especially necessary, 
and particularly published upon the several chapters of this bull. 
There is extant, therefore, in this collection, a particular edict of 
Nicholas III., about the first section of this bull, in the Second 
Constitution, sup. fol. 143. Concerning section second there is 
extant Constitution fifth of Pius II., f 290, lib. 1. Concerning 
section fourth there is extant Constitution seventh of Pius V., 
f. 137, 1. 2. Concerning section seventh is extant Constitution 
third of Nicholas V., f 283, 1. 1. Concerning section ten is ex- 
tant a canon of Callistus in CXXIIL, Constitution twenty-fourth, 
q. 3." And thus the compiler proceeds to fortify, by twice as 
many authorities as we have here recited, all the grevit principles 
of this infamous bull. He adduced the acts of not less than 
EIGHTEEN popes, and some of them again and again, to prove that 
it rests on cumulative, undisputed, infallible authority ; and I recite 
these otherwise disgusting details, to show that an army of popes 


will meet Mr. Hughes at every step of his denials and evasions. 
Truly this is a cluster from the vine of Sodom and the grapes of 
Gomorrah ! 

Here follows some material parts of the document itself: — 
^'Paul, bishop y servant of the servants of God, in perpetual 
memory of the thing now decreed^ 

The introductory paragraph tells the faithful that the unity of 
tlie whole church doth flow from the ^^ Roman Pontiffs who is 
Christ's vicar and St. Peter's successor:" — That ^' the Pop)es of 
Rome, his predecessors, on the day dedicated to the anniversary 
commemoration of our Lord's Sujjper, have been accustomed an- 
nually to exercise the spiritual sword of ecclesiastical discipline, 
and the icholesome weajwns of justice, by the ministry of the su- 
preme apostolate, and to the glory of God, and the salvation of 

Here it is proved that this was an annual service. 

Sect. 1. *' We excommunicate and anathematize, in the name of 
God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and by the authority 
of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and by our own, all 
Hussites, Wicldiffi,tes, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, Ana- 
baptists, Trinitarians, and apostates from the Christian faith, 
and all heretics by lohatsoever name they are called, or of what- 
soever sect they be. Also their adherents, receivers, favourers^ 
and generally any defenders of them ; together with all whoj 
WITHOUT OUR AUTHORITY, (sine nostra auctoritate,) and that of the 
Apostolic See, knowingly READ, KEEP, PRINT, or any way, for 
any cause whatever, publicly, or privately, on any pretext or co- 

RELIGION, a$ also schismatics, and those who withdraw them- 

the Popes of Rome for the time being." Here surely more than 
" the wicked Albigenses" are meant ! All, all out of the Roman 
Church are cut off, and doomed to eternal woe ! And the liberty 
of printing, reading, and even of thought itself, is levelled to the 

The second section curses, as above, and interdicts " all uni- 
versities, colleges, and chapters, by whatsoever name they may 
be called, who appeal from the orders and decrees of Popes to a 
General Council;" and curses also, ^^ all who favour or aid the 
appeal." This usurps the empire of letters, and forbids all 

The third section goes to sea, not content with ruling all lands, 
and curses ''all pirates" — that is, who trouble "owr seas." 

The fourth legislates against '' wreckers" in all seas. These 
laws are good : but, who ever set Pefcr and his successors over 
the sea ? Ah, I forget ! Peter was a fisherman ! therefore, all 
seas are subject to the Pope. 

Fifth. '' Also we excommunicate and anathematize all who im- 


pose or augment any new tolls, or gables, (excise taxes,) in their 
dominions, except iu cases permitted to them by law, or by special 
leave of the apostolic see, or who impose or exact such taxes for- 
hidden to he imposed or augmented." Here he takes the ket/ of 
the treasury into his own harids; as before, he had grasped the TRI- 
DENT, the spiritual sword and the "ket/s of JSt. Feter." 

Seventh, curses all who furnish to ^^ Saracens, Turks, and 
other enemies arid foes of the Christian religion, or to those who 
are expressly and by name declared heretics," (as Hussites, Luther- 
ans, Calvinists, &c. &c.) ''by the sentence of us or this holy see — 
horses, arms, iron, icire of iron, tin, steel, and all kinds of metal 
and warlike instruments, timber, Jiemp, ropes made as well of any 
other matter,'' &c. &c. Here he becomes Head of Hosts, and 
commissary-general to the holy war against all foreign^and dO' 
inestic foes; for there were domestic as well as foreign crusades; 
and he expressly includes ^^all heretics named by us." 

There are no less than thirty of these sections, in which this 
''gi'eai hunter of men" raves through the world and lays his curse 
and his claim on all the civil and religious rights of man — leaving 
not even a grave for a lieretic ! 

We must select some specimens. 

Section thirteen curses those who carry spiritual causes before 
secular tribunals, by appealing from the Pope's letters, ''to LAY- 
POWER," even though the civil power should require it. 

Fourteen, curses those who "by their own authority and de 
facto," ''Hake away the cognizance of tithes, benefices," &c. and 
^from ecclesiastical judges," even though the person doing it 
*' should be presidents of councils, chanceries, parliaments, chan- 
cellors, &c. of any secular princes, whether emperors, kings, 
dukes, or any other dignitary." 

Fifteen, curses those loho draw, or to be drawn, ^'di- 
rectly or indirectly, upon any pretence whatsoever, ecclesiastical 
persons, (as Mr. Hughes,) chapters, convents, &c. &c. before them 
to their tribunal, audience, chancery, council or parliament, 
AGAINST THE RULES OF THE CANON LAW. Here, on the authority 
of the canon law, all ecclesiastical causes and persons are declared 
by the Pope to be exempted from civil courts, and he excommuni- 
cates and anathematizes all who oppose his will ! Did Presbyte- 
rians ever make such demands ? 

The sixteenth curses those who hinder these ecclesiastical judges 
in their jurisdiction, and rests their claims on "the canons and sa- 
cred ecclesiastical constitutions and decrees of general councils, es- 
pecially that of Trent." Here is "infallible" proof! 

Eighteen, curses all who impose, (without permission of the 
Pope,) even with the consent of the clergy, any taxes of any kind 
on the clergy of Rome or on the rents of churches, monasteries, &c., 
and he renews against them the canons of the last Lateran, 
as well as other general councils, with the censures and pu- 


nishments contained in them. Here is complete exemption of 
the clergy. 

Twentieth, curses all who dare to interfere, in any way with St. 
Peter's patrimmii/, and the lands, cities, &c. subjp:ct TO THE JU- 
RISDICTION OF THE Church of Rome." This is the heart of 
Italy, and a temporal dominion over millions of subjects, whose 
emperor, the Pope, is elected for life by cardinals ! Is this not op- 
to liberty^ 

Twenty- first. These acts, not to be recalled, except by the 
Pope, (Jie has never done it,) and to continue in force and be put 
in execution. (They are now binding upon Mr. Hughes and 
every Catholic on earth.) 

Twenty-sixth announces their publication, " that those whom 
these processes concern may pretend no excuse or allege ig- 

Twenty-seventh orders their publication, by Patriarchs, 
Archbishops, Ordinaries, and Prelates, directly or by others, once 
every year, or oftencr, (semel in anno — aut etiam pluries,) ^Hf 
they see fit, when the greater part of the people shall be met for 
divine service — AND TO THE FAITHFUL, THEY are to be told, de- 
clared, and kept before their minds." 

Thirtieth. The wrath of Almighty Grod, and of Peter and Paul, 
is denounced against all who dare to oppose these excommunica- 
tions, curses, interdicts, &c. &c. Such is this terrific system, 
sustained by the authority of a crowd of Popes, and resting its 
claims on divine right, as expressed by constitutions, general coun- 
cils, and the canon law. 

Well did the French Parliament call the Popes "the declared 
MONARCHS OF THE WORLD." These Popes now head one hun- 
dred and twenty millions of people ! We may now understand 
one of their mottoes : Urbis et orbis. " The city and the 
WORLD." The mistress of the world. If this bull be not pub- 
lished in Rome or in America at this day, it is still unrepealed, 
and still in force and lying in the Vatican, 

^'Hushed in grim repose, 
Exjpecta its evening prey." 

Let the day come which will make it prudent to republish it, 
and the nations will again hear this Monarch's voice. 

With ''Ate hy his side come hot from hell, 
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs ofxcar." 

Before I close, a few things in the gentleman's reply must be 
briefly noticed. 

In my last speech I quoted from the index of the Acta Ecclesix 
to show how rife persecution is in the Church of Rome, when the 


Tieads of chapters were thus hedged with damnation of all 
sorts, temporal, social, spiritual, against heretics such as we. He 
answers it with a sneer and a mild extract from our standards, 
stating the duty of Christians to marrij Clwistians. He has fur- 
nished, without intending it, a most striking co?i?ra,s^ between the 
two religions, as any one may see, who will refer to the quotations 
from that index, given by me in the last speech. 

He also attempts to fasten the abolition odium on Presbyte- 
rians. In the former Controversy, (1) when he supposed the pub- 
lic mind felt a little differently on this subject, he insulted the na- 
tion after the coarse and ribaldrous manner of Daniel O'Connell, 
and actually retailed one of Garrison's anecdotes, as follows: 
" But when you wish to pay a compliment to ^our memorable De- 
claration of Independence^ were you not rather unfortunate 
in coupling it with an allusion to slavery? It reminds me of 
the negro slave, who, on his way to Georgia tha'ough Washing- 
ton, shook his manacled hands at the capitol, and began to sing, 
'Hail Columbia, happy land.' " But now, he says, "the conse- 
quences of this Presbyterian doctrine, (which I repeat is not the 
doctrine of Paul,) begin to be felt in the South as well as in the 
North ; making* the master a criminal against God for holding 
slaves, and the slaves criminal against God for submitting to the 
condition.'' Now, slavery, African slavery, originated (in 
this hemisphere) with a Catholic, the good Las Cassas ; and in 
the 27th canon of the Third Lateran, heretics are doomed to 
^^slavery,'' if not ^^exterminated ;^' and now the papal champion 
squints at its defence. The Presbyterian Church has often pub- 
licly avowed the doctrine, that slavery is a great evil, and as such, 
to be mourned over and removed .so soon as the highest interests 
of the respective parties will allow. But we do not approve the 
ferocious spirit and false doctrines of modern abolitionists, any 
more than the slavery doctrines of the Council of Lateran, Las 
Cassas, or in Bohemia, and the conquest of South America. (It is 
strange that Garrison and Priest Hughes are the most violent in 
their attacks on Presbyterians.) The following very recent decla- 
ration of the Synod of Philadelphia may serve to show our views 
on this whole subject : 

" In this day of public excitement and fanatical excess, the Synod 
feel called upon to warn the churches against the agitators of the 
public mind, who, reckless of consequences, and desperate in spirit, 
are endangering the integrity of the American Union, and the 
unity of the Presbyterian Church, by the unchristian methods 
which they adopt to advance the cause of abolition. The Pres- 
byterian Church, through her supreme judicature, and other 
bodies, has often and freely expressed her views of the evils of 
slavery. But at the present crisis, it is earnestly recommended 

(1) Letter 19. 


to all our people, to discountenance the revolutionary agita- 
tions and unrighteous plans and doctrines of the sdf-iifijled aboli- 
tionists, who it is firmly believed are retarding, more than all other 
causes combined, the progress of universal emancipation. If they 
succeed, they must rend the Church and the Union in twain, deluge 
the land in blood, and destroy the best hopes of the unhappy slaves. 
The Synod would be very far from even appearing to excuse the 
spirit of misrule and lawless violence which has been exhibited of 
late in almost every part of our beloved country. But when such 
a spirit is known to be rife and abroad in the land, the friends of 
Christ are called on in a special manner to shun the occasions of 
such excitements; and to sustain, by every proper available influ- 
ence, the dominion of law and public order. We cannot forbear 
to add, that those who take advantage of such a crisis to agitate 
the land, assume a terrible responsibility for 511 the consequences; 
and the guilt of such a system is aggravated by the consideration, 
that it seems to be a part of the design to produce public excesses^ 
and then profit hi/ them.'' 

The above reference to slavery grew out of the gentleman's per- 
version of an important principle before asserted and i}ow main- 
tained by me. He had said in a former speech, *'That the 


replied that it was not so with Presbyterians. Their principles 

NOMINATIONS, AND people; ami that the gospel is the charter 
of freedom to man. With these doctrines our standards are erect 
and replete. But a papist may be a tyrant or submit to be ruled 
by spiritual and temporal tyrants without violating his doctrines. 
So says Mr. Hughes : '' May exercise his own discretion.'' Hence, 
when I call on him to show one doctrine against oppression, or one 
oppressive decree or bull that has been rescinded .^ he is dumb. He 
cannot show one article in all his creed, councils, catechism, or 
bulls, that tolerate, any religion but his own, much less that asserts 
*' all are equally to be protected.'' Now, this is really giving up 
the question in debate. 

Again. He says the creed of Pius IV., (which binds all Catho- 
lics,) in avowing that it "receives cdl other things delivered, de- 
fined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils,'* 
means only "tenets of faith and morals." But how obviously 
false ! It is written "csetera item, omnia" — "all other things;" 
not " tenets" merely, but all other things, delivered, defined, and 
declared by the sacred canons. I ask, is not the third canon of 
Fourth Lateran,and the twenty-seventh canon of Third Lateran, 
a sacred canon? and were they not "delivered by general coun- 
cils?'' And all the oihev persecuting canons are included in this 
"'deception." This is made clear by the next clause : " and I like- 


wise also condemn, rrjecf, and anathematize all tilings contrary 
thereto, and all heresies ichatsoever,'' &c. Here two ideas are 
presented : 1, all things contrary to the sacred canons and 
general councils are condemned in general ; 2, and particularly 
"«// heresies." If the gentleman reply, then some things besides 
heresies are here condemned I True ; and some things besides what 
the gentleman calls ^'doctrines delivered" are here received; viz., 
discipline, which persecutes and forbids to tolerate any other re- 
ligion ; and, by the authority of God, requires that heretics shall 
he exterminated. This is " received;" and call it '* doctrine" or 
^^ discipline," to this Mr. Hughes is bound this night by a solemn 
oath, and denies it at the risk of papal displeasure. Between his 
religion, his conscience, and his country's Constitution, I do most 
sincerely pity him. 

The Rhemish Testament. Then he abjures it. But it had 
great favour in Europe. What he says " of the text," ex- 
posing the American publishers, is laughable. The history of 
the book (ray copy is European) is this: When it was found 
that it was impossible to keep the people from having "Me text" 
in English, the papists at Rhdims, in 1584, got up a translation at- 
tended by the horrid notes of which I gave some specimens. No 
wonder the gentleman recoils. But the notes speak the opinions 
of very learned papists about Roman TJatholic doctrines. And 
pray, did the Pope ever condemn the notes? 

The gentleman says, "the law for their (the Albigenses) sup- 
pression did not even pretend to rest for its authority on any doc- 
trine of the Catholic Church, hut upon the reward of confiscated 
landsj and promised indidgences." 1. Who passed the law^ 
Answer. The " infiillible council !" 2. Who confiscated the 
lands ? The " infallible council." Laymen, in both cases, were 
silent. The Pope and clergy did it. 3. Who promised " the re- 
ward of indulgences P" The infallible council. "The power of 
granting indulgences has been bestowed by Christ upon his 
church." (1) Indulgences take away the punishment (in this 
world and in purgatory) due for sins ; they are to be granted for 
reasonable causes, out of the superabundant merits of Christ and 
his saints. Here then, for the reasonable cause o^ butchering 
multitudes of men, women and children, the Church of Rome, 
as Mr. Hughes tells us, ^^ promised indulgences;" and " on this the 
laiD for the supression of the Albigenses rested for its authority." 
Then it seems the church does persecute! and pays out of "the 
merits of Christ" for it? Only CALL IT NOT A doctrine! Oh ! 
tell it not in Gath ! publish it not in the streets of Askelon ! ! ! 

The gentleman denies he charged me with ^^fraudulently" 
abridging the twenty-seventh canon of Third Lateran ! It is well 
he can yet blush ! But in the very last speech he twice uses the 

(1) See 25 Sess. Counc. Trent. 


same term as to Faber and my ].ioor self; so that he makes me 
Faber's/e/Zo2i7, though, he condemns me for putting our names in 

Let me ask the gentleman if, as he allows, (in the case of the 
Pope and Napoleon,) ^^it he contrary to the Catholic religion 
to alter the civil constitution of the papal states, hy which the 
Catholics had been exclusively recognised,'^ to what part of the 
Catholic religion it was contrary? And is not Xhdit part which 
is violated by brealiing down a church-establishment, contrary to 
civil and religious liberty ? Let the gentleman reply. Here the 
Pope, the principle, and the priest, are all involved; and the dis- 
cussion is brought to a very point ! 

At the close of the last address, I asked the gentleman a ques- 
tion, which I then predicted he would not answer. Even so it is, 
But I repeat it once more. " Had the majority in Italy, or 
Spain, a right to establish the Catholic religion by law?'^ 
We now expect an answer ! 

I close with a word as to his " retreating from" the last Contro- 
versy. When our second limits expired, he insisted on writing the 
last letter, as he had i\\Q first. On my return to the city I proposed 
to renew and f7iish the discussion. He declined. I went on alone for 
many weeks. I invited him to oral debate. He declined. I finished 
the discussion in public assembly, calling for him. He declined. 
I left a standing invitation for him in the newspapers, as he has 
heretofore told you. He declined. x\.nd you, gentlemen, know 
how he came to meet me here ! And you also know, how ha^'d 
it was to hold him to the point. And the public will know how 
much he has striven to shun the publication of the debate ; by re- 
fusing the stenographer's report, '' going to Mexico," &c. I 
think all this looks like retreating: or if the gentleman calls this 
courage, we see his standard: But I really wish to encourage 
him. I am glad he feels bravely. We shall like him all the bet- 
ter, if his heart be the heart of a man. For my own part, I won- 
der that he can look his countrymen in the face, and advocate the 
principles of the papal hierarchy. I should run away from the 
first onset. It requires a good cause to inspire a firm purpose. 
The militia captain who told his heart to his general, was a reso- 
lute, brave confessor, after the gentleman's own school. ''Sir," 
said he, "if you were frightened half as much as I am, you 
woukl run away from the enemy." 


^^Is the Roman CatJioUc Religion, in any or in all its prin- 
ciples or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liherty ?'' 


Mr. President, — 

Whenever a disputant becomes the judge in his own cause — 
whenever the advocate assumes the office of umpire — you may take 
it for granted that he, himself, has but little confidence in the quality 
of his arguments, or in the character of the evidence by which he 
supports them. I refer you to the speech which you have just 
heard, as a striking illustration of this remark. The tribunal at 
which we stand is that of public reason; it expects us to furnish 
evidence in the case ; and the gentleman, instead of being a pleader 
at the bar, becomes an oracle on the bench, and dictates the sen- 
tence. He will save the public from the trouble of forming a 
judgment, and leave it only the easy task of admiring the man 
who is at once his own hero, — his own judge, — and his own trum- 
peter. From all which, I am inclined to infer, that the experience 
which he has already acquired, has hinted to him the necessity of 
usurping the ermine, and anticipating the sentence. 

He had said that this Society had exposed the falsehoods of a 
communication to the Catholic Diary, For this he had no au- 
thority in fact, and consequently has failed to produce any proof. 
But he makes no apology. 

With regard to the Council of Trent, I am content with the ex- 
planation I have given in my last speech. Where I was mis- 
taken, I had the candour to acknowledge it; and consequently, to 
vindicate my personal integrity in the opinion of honourable men. 
The manner in which I was led into the mistake does no cre'dit to 
my opponent. A different sentence had given rise to the dispute, 
and instead of defending the passage which he had^rs^ perverted, 
he tears seven words out of their connexion in another sentence, 
(containing above forty,) repeats the translation " the punishment 
which ought to be inflicted on penitents," and gives for the Latin 
of this translation " poenam quam opportet pro illis poenitentibu.s 
impo!iere." Out of these seven words, one (opportet) is a barba- 
rism; and the whole, as a translation of the ivords " the punish- 
ment which ought to be inflicted on the penitents," is ungramma- 
tical — nonsense. Its sense and grammar depended on its con- 
nexion with the whole sentence, out of which the gentleman was 
pleased to garble it, and in which it escaped my notice, when I 


looked over the canon the first time. The matter being explained, 
then, according to the facts, I make him a present of all the glory, 
which the whole affair, including my mistake, is calculated to re- 
flect on him in the minds of scholars. 

The meaning of the word " imponere," as used by the Council 
of Trent, is to be determined by the sense in which Catholics un- 
derstand it. Of that sense the practice of the church is the best 
interpreter. According to this, " injungere poenam" means to 
"enjoin penance;'^ and ''imponere pcenam" means the same 
thing. The gentleman thought it would help his argument with 
the ignorant, to translate the word, " injungere,'^ by " inflict." But 
even the Dictionary refused to sustain him. The other verb, 
" imponere," has among its meanings " to inflict," thereft.^re it 
does not mean " to enjoin." This is his logic. But the Diction- 
ary itself refutes him. 

His statement respecting the difi^erence between " poenitentia," 
" penance," and " poena," " punishment," shows that he requires 
instruction. ** Sacramentum poenitentia" is the form of expres- 
sion used by theologians to designate " the sacrament of penance." 
In the administration of this sacrament, the priest exercises that 
ministry which Christ instituted, when he said, " Receive ye the 
Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven," &c. 
But it is not enough that the priest should be invested with this 
power, the penitent must have the proper dispositions, to receive 
the benefit of this ministry. He must be sincerely sorry for hav- 
ing ofi'ended God ; and firmly resolved, by the assistance of Divine 
grace, nevgr to ofi"end him more. This is called contrition — the 
first and most essential disposition to receive the sacrament of 
penance. The next is confession of the sins he has committed. 
The third is satisfaction, and consists in repairing, (as far as he 
can,) the injury which he has done to his neighbour, and the of- 
fences he has committed against God. If he has wronged his 
neighbour, he must retract the calumny, and restore the ill-gotten 
goods, before he can receive the benefit of the sacrament. Now 
all this third part, or condition, is prescribed, or " enjoined" by 
the priest, and is expressed by " poena" in Latin, by " penance" 
or ^' satisfaction" in English. Hence, in the quotation from the 
Council of Trent, ''injungere poenam," " imponere poenam," 
means simply to '' enjoin penance" — to '' prescribe the satisfac-^ 
tion." Hence it sometimes happens, that restitution is made 
through the priest. It is a part of the '' penance," " satisfaction" 
— " pcenam" — that is enjoined, as an essential condition of the for- 
giveness of sin. This the gentleman may call " inflicting punish- 
ment," if he chooses. It is a condition, however, entirely foreign 
to the process of Presbyterian regeneration ; although it would not 
be amiss, if the saints, in their ways of righteousness, would some- 
times look a little to the past, as well as the present, and the 
future. To require them to do so, as a necessary condition of 


Divine forgiveness, might, indeed, be considered as "inflicting 
punishment," but it would not be *' corporeal castigation/' not- 
withstanding the assertion of their minister. 

The gentleman flies to Devoti for the proof, which, notwith- 
standing his talent at both garbling and perverting, cannot be made 
out from the Council of Trent. I meet him in l3evoti. His first 
reference is to " Vol. III. Book IV. § 21." I have examined the 
reference, though there is no " Book IV." to be found. Devoti's 
work is on canon law, comprising civil and ecclesiastical Juris- 
prmlencc, as it existed in countries where the church and state 
were united. It is chiefly historical. He speaks of laws and 
usages; he traces them to their origin; he shows what punish- 
ments the church inflicted hy her own divine constitution, as dis- 
tinguished from those which the state authorized her to inflict on 
ecclesiastics, or others. To the state belonged the power by 
which the church was authorized to punish ecclesiastics, by im- 
prisonment or otherwise. He refers to the constitutions of the 
empire, and the code of Theodosius, for the proof. • The gentleman 
must have seen this in the note; and a disposition to avoid de- 
ceiving his readers, should have induced him to say so. 

Every one, who has read even a moderate course of history, 
must be familiar with the fact, that during the Middle Ages eccle- 
siastical ofiienders were tried not hy civil but by ecclesiastical 
judges. This was by the concession of the state. And the same 
principles which authorized the church to try clerics for offences, 
authorized it also to j^nnish them, when guilty, by civil penalties. 
It is in connexion with this state of things that Devoti speaks of 
'^prisons, exile, pecuniary fines, &c." as having been used by the 
church. The gentleman's knowledge of history must have been 
very imperfect, if he remained ignorant of all this until he saw it 
in Devoti. 

But this is not the question. The question is, does the Catho- 
lic Church claim, by virtue of any tenet of faith or morals revealed 
by Almighty Grod, the right to \i\^\Q,i physical punishment on any 
one 1 Devoti settles this question in the very paragraph to which 
the gentleman referred. He states distinctly, in that paragraph — 
^^Scd, ecclesiasticse coercitionis summus estgradus EJECTIO eorum, 
qui in religionem, vel in societatem peccarunt. Si quis reli- 
giojiem violare ausns fuerit crimine, schismati, heeresi, neque 
m^onitus rcdicrit in honam mentem, eum sive clericus, sivc laicus 
potestatim, et officium quod hahet in omnes Christianos curandiy 
regendique cuncta, quae ad religionem pertinent." (1) " But 
the highest grade of ecclesiastical coercion, is the expulsion of 
those ivho have offended against Religion or society. If any one 
has dared to violate religion hy crimes^ schism^ heresy, and hav- 

(1) Vol. III. p. 20, 21. 


ing been admonished, does not return to a good mindj him the 
chiirch casts forth from her sacred things^ and from the society 
of Christians, luhc.tlier he he a cleric or a lay person, hy the power 
and office which she has in reference to all Christians, of guard- 
ing and governing all things appertaining to religion." Here, 
therefore, is Devoti stating that excommunication is the ''highest 
grade" of " ecclesiastical coercion" in the church. With this 
means of coercion Christ invested her; any other means of co- 
ercion, with which her Laws have been enforced, at any time, were 
exercised or sanctioned by the civil power of the state, for the time 
and place being, and were revocable at the will of the civil govern- 
ment. When the civil constitution of states exempted the clergy 
from civil jurisdiction, it did not mean that their offences against 
the laws shoidd go unpunished. It placed the authority to punish 
them, at the disposal of their ecclesiastical superiors. Otherwise 
they might claim impunity in defiance of both the civil, and eccle- 
siastical, governments. They might plead their privileges, as eccle- 
sia-stics, at the civil tribunal — and their rights as subjects of the 
civil state, at the bar of their ecclesiastical judges. They might 
say to the state, " I am not subject to your jurisdiction ;" and to 
the church, " you have no right to punish me." But the fact 
was, that the state, in relinquishing its jurisdiction, authorized 
their ecclesiastical superiors, in certain cases, to exercise over 
them, its own powers of civil punishment. The dishonesty of the 
gentleman's attempt, therefore, consists in his representing this as 
a doctrine of the Catholic Church, ivhen he had before his eyes, 
and in the same paragraph, the author^ s statements to the con- 
trary. I shall have occasion to speak again of this in the case of 
John Huss, of which there is so much misapprehension. 

I now turn to another quotation from Devoti which the gentle- 
man has produced, and the purport of which he has most shame- 
fully attempted to pervert. It is Vol. III. tit. 1, §3. '' On the 
Judicial Power of the Church." (1) 

All Catholics hold, as a doctrine, that the church, inasmuch as 
it is a visible society, is invested by its Divine author with all 
powers necessary for its own government; that it has jurisdiction 
over all its own members ; that it has authority to make laws, and 
require obedience to them; that it has authority to judge in con- 
troversies ; condemn new doctrines ; cast out heretics by excommu- 
nication, and do all other things necessary to the purity of doc- 
trine and unity of faith, by the exercise of those spiritual weapons 
which Jesus Christ bequeathed for her defence, preservation, and 
government. Devoti lays this down as the Catholic principle of 
church government. Be shows, or assumes, that the church has 
this power from Jesus Christ, abd not from the authority of men. 
He then speaks of those who denied that the church has this 

(\) See his last speech. 


power — generally all those, who, from the beginning of Chris- 
tianity until now, had been cast out of the church. 

In opposition to this Catholic principle, he places ^Hn the same 
mud/' — "in eoduni luto" — Luther, Calvin, the Waldenses, Huss, 
and a few others, who maintained that the church had '' no juris- 
diction," but that all her authority consisted in "direction and 
persuasion." '■'■After their example/' he adds, ^^ all the Protest- 
ants who admit TEiE RIGHT OF THE Prince in sacred things, 
take from, the church all judicial power." Here are the two 
antagonistic principles. The one asserting that Jesus Christ in- 
vested the church with the right to judge, make laws, require 
obedience to them in all ecclesiastical or spiritucd m^atters, and 
by penalties of the same spiritual order, to enforce their observ- 
ance. The other denying all "judiciary power to the church," 
and ascribing it to the civil " magistrates'' — " those nursing 
fathers to the church," as the gentleman's Confession of Faith 
has it. The one asserting that there is a spiritual pjoicer in the 
church, for the coercion of those who violate its laws. The 
other maintaining that the ministers have a right to make laws, 
and that the magistrates are bound, or at least authorized, to 
enforce them. This is the origin of the two great ordinances of 
Presbyterianism — ministry and magistracy — of which I shall 
have occasion to speak in the next question. The reader can 
judge which of these two principles is the most dangerous to 
civil and religious liberty — the Catholic, which teaches that in 
the church itself, resides all necessary authority, jurisdiction, 
legislative, and judicial -power for its own government — and the 
Presbyterian, which places the execution of ecclesiastical laws in 
the hands of the civil riders. This is precisely the point of view 
in which Dcvoti discusses the question — as one of principle. Of 
those who would convert the magistrates of the commonwealth 
into mere constables of the church, for the execution of its laws, 
he says they SiW^' stick in the same mud together." Why? Be- 
cause, acknowledging that in their church there is no authority 
that could produce a sense of obligation in the consciences of men, 
they require nevertheless that the civil magistrate should be the 
executive of their church, to regulate those consciences in accord- 
ance with their loill. I again refer the reader to the quotation 
from Devoti, for evidence that the gentleman has made as gross a 
perversion of a writer's meaning, as ever disgraced the annals of 
polemical disputation. 

On the perversion of Bossuet, by translating the word " souf- 
france" " toleration," I must make a few remarks, although the 
matter does not affect the main question. 

Bossuet sets out(l) by showing that /;// the doctrine of Luther^ 
Calvin, Melancthon and the Genevan Church, the prince has a 

i(l) Histoire des Var., liv. x. § Ivi. 


right to use the sword against the enemies of the church. On 
this question, he says, there was no dispute between him and 
them. Calvin had reduced their doctrine to bloody practice, by 
putting Servetus and Gentilis to death. He then goes on to say, 
that this right of the prince was admitted by the Calvinist author, 
who had most bitterly accused the Catholic Church of cruelty. 
He says, that to deny this right, would be to paralyze the public 
power — and concludes, " de sorte qu'il n'y a point d'illusion plus 
dangereuse que de donner LA souffrance pour une caractere de 
vraie eglise;" by which it would seem that the Calvinists, whilst 
suffering under the ojieration of their own principles, acting in 
the. French government, would represent their sufferings as a 
mark of their being the true church. Bossuet takes this plea from 
them, by showing that the descendants of the cruel Calvin, and 
the professors of his intolerant creed, could not avail themselves 
of it; that, if it were a true mark, it would be in favour only of 
the " Socinians and Baptists," icho denied the magistrate's right 
to punish offences against religion. Hence, he says, in the words 
following: " et je ne connois parmi les Chretiens que les Soci- 
niens et les Anabaptistes qui s'opposent a cette doctrine.'' 

He had just proved that there was no dispute between him and 
the Calvinists on the question of toleration ; that their doctrine 
was clear, from their own books, and Calvin's Commentary, writ- 
ten in the blood of his victims. The?/ could not assign " tolera- 
tion" as a mark of their church, but they might have assigned 
their sufferings. So that the gentleman shows his ignorance of 
the French language, when he says that " souffrancp:" in this 
place, means " toleration," and produces the very nonsense which 
he affects to avoid. If Bossuet vindicates the magistrate's right to 
employ the sword, he does it by virtue of doctrines held by those 
against whom ho was writing. It was the " argumentum ad homi- 
nem." He told them " you teach that right, and therefore ?/c»it 
cannot complain of its exercise by the government." 

The gentleman then quotes and perverts another passage of 
Bossuet, to support his perversion of the word '' souffrance" in 
this. The reference is Six. Avert, sec. 115, tom. iv. p. 426. In 
this passage Bossuet speaks of toleration, and uses the French 
word proper to express it. He does not speak of it, however, in 
the sense in which it is understood in our discussion. He speaks 
of it in the sense in which truth must ever be intolerant. The 
author was assigning the reasons why the Catholic Church was 
so much hated by tlie Protestant denominations, who had sepa- 
rated from her. He says that at the beginning they only desired 
that the church would abstain from condemning their doctrines. 
But she was intolerant; she condemned their heresies, and would 
not allow their authors to propagate theni^, within the pale of her 
communion. It was in this sense that she would not tolerate 
them, just as the Synod of York, to which the gentleman has 


thought proper to refer, wouJd not tolerate the Rev. Albert 
Barnes. And with equal truth may it be said, in the words of 
Bossuet, that the ''holy severity and the holy delicacy" of the 
old school party "forbade such indulgence, or rather such soft- 
ness. '^ The Catholic Church couM not admit heresy to be ortho- 
dox doctrine. She was the original depository of the truths of 
revelation; and when men oppose them, she brands their opinions, 
and will not allow truth and falsehood to coalesce within the pale 
of her communion. In this sense, she is as intolerant as truth. 
In this sense, Protestant denominations mai/ he more tolerant, 
because their doctrines being matter of opinion all round, they are 
in perpetual dispute as to ichat is true, and ivhat false. But 
to pervert this into an evidence that, according to Bossuet, the 
Catholic religion would not allow " toleratioii' to persons sepa- 
rated from her communion, is one of those bold and desperate 
attempts to deceive the public which merit the reprobation of 
every honest man. But I ascribe it to the gentleman's imperfect 
knowledge of the French. 

The Catholic "marriage," as a civil contract, is every thing that 
the laws of the land require. As a religious rite, it is in har- 
mony with the goi^pel. So it has always been. 

The Belgian bishops may quote canon law in favour of into- 
lerance, yet they, with one exception out of four, voted the appro- 
priation of money for the support of the Protestant ministers and 
churches; a very certain proof that their religion does not make in- 
tolerance an article of faith. Can the gentleman show a parallel ? 

In my last speech I exposed the case of the Albigenses; — the 
nature of their doctrine; their crimes against church and state, 
and human nature itself; — the measures that were then, Jusf/y or 
otherwise, deemed necessary to be taken against them. At this 
day there is no state, Catholic or Protestant, that would not sup- 
press them. To that speech I refer the reader. They had set 
public authority at defiance, by their violence, and public autho- 
rity put them down by the same means. The gentleman says I 
only wished to decoy him away "from the exposure of pop^'ry." 
I know he is abler at abusing popefy than at discussing points of 
history, and therefore I give him credit for his ingenuity. He 
knows his forte. According to his view, it would appear, that 
the Albigenses 'had onliy to profess that all human bodies were 
tt\e creation of the devil, and then, under the protection of their 
heresy, commit what crime ^. they would. He wonders that I 
should assert the infallibility of the council, in condemning the 
doctrine, and deny that infallibility in denouncing the persons, of 
the Albigenses. This puzzles him. " What a strange picture!" 
he exclaims. " An interinittent infallibility I" The quack, be- 
cause he is a quack, is deceived in the symptoms. The educated 
physician knows that there is nothing " intermittent" in the case 
The Council of Trent decreed that the ground on which a duel 


had been fought should be forfeited. None but a quack would 
look for "infallibility" in any such decision. So it was with 
that of Lateran, in appointing civil penalties against the Albi- 
geiises. It depended on the civil government in which they lived, 
to make war on them, or not, as their interests might direct. It is 
an abuse of language — a contempt of history — to represent the 
case of the Albigenses as a persecution for ivorshipjjtng God 
according to the dictates of their conscience. 

The gentleman, unable to find, anywhere, persecution recog- 
nised as a doctrine of the Catholic Church, except in the calum- 
nies of her enemies, or in the perversion of what may have been 
said by her friends, as Bossuet, calls on me, as last, to show a con- 
demnation of that principle. He set out to prove the charge; 
and now he calls on me to prove that he cannot do it. I am pre- 
pared to do this; but, in the mean time, let him look for the evi- 
dence, in the doctrines of the Catholic Church, to support the 
calumny which he and his associates in the anti-Catholic crusade 
have uttered. Let him find one tenet of faith and morals in the 
whole creed of the Catholic Church which is opposed to civil and 
religious liberty, as we have defined them. Let him show from 
any bull of a pope or decree of a general council that any such 
tenet has been proposed to the belief of Catholics, and then he 
will prove his proposition — not before. But if he cannot do this, 
let him retire with that portion of shame which ought to cling to 
those who bear "false witness against their neighbours.^' 

He may prove that Catholics persecuted. This is not the ques- 
tion. Did. they persecute in obedience to any tenet of doctrine 
held by their Church? If they did, let the gentleman point oxxithat 
doctrine which required them to persecute. He refers to the '27th 
canon of the Third Lateran, in the quotation which I convicted him, 
and Mr. Faber by his testimony, of garbling to make out their 
cause. He makes a jest of the circumstance. In his mind, gar- 
bling and exposure for it, are not associated with dishonour. He 
has neither the courage to deny the fact, nor the humility to ex- 
plain how it happened. He says, that canon "dooms its victims 
to slavery." The words of tjie council refute him. After enu- 
merating their crimes, it simply states, " liberum sit principibus 
hujusmodi homines subjicere servituti," — "/e^ it j^ciniittrd, or 
free, for princes to reduce such men to slarery." Will he say 
that to "doom them to slavery," and to '^ leave it free for princes 
to reduce them to slavery," is the same thing. If not, the gentle- 
man is convicted of another instance of false testimony. He asks, 
was the canon ever repealed? I answer, that it become extinct, 
when the Albigenses ceased from their warfare on "virgins and 
WIDOWS, OLD AND YOUNG, sex and age, and their destruction and 
desolation of every thing after the manner of pagans,'^ as the 
canon asserts; and as Mr. Faber and the gentleman thought 
proper riot to assert^ whilst they professed to give the canon. It 


became extinct then — or else when princes had reduced " such 
men'' to slavery. And being extinct, it was not susceptible of 

I stated, that the object for which the Lateran Council was 
'^ especially" convened, was the condemnation of the Albigensiaa 
heresy. And because they condemned other heresies, he affects 
to discover contradiction. They defined the doctrine of tran sub- 
stantiation, and the gentleman hints, that in this, they had a 
prophetic reference to the Protestants, who were to come into 
being some three hundred years afterwards. They even excom- 
municated, and anathematized evei'i/ heresi/, extolling itself against 
this holy, orthodox faith which they had before expounded. And 
the gentleman thinks, after all this trouble, it is hard that the 
Protestants should not be included in the canon against the Albi- 
genses. But he cannot be gratified. He is puzzled equally to 
account for the fact, that the Albigenses had been so long borne 
with in the midst of Catholic Europe. And he accounts for it, by 
saying, that " as soon as they dared ^ the popes and councils did 
begin their persecution." One would suppose that they might 
have '^ dared," when the Albigenses were few, instead of waiting 
tiir they perpetrated such outrages. Besides, there never was a 
period when popes did not ''dare" to proclaim and practise everi/ 
article of Catholic faith. Of the character and doctrines of the 
Albigenses, I said only what contemporary writers mention ; and if 
the gentleman can refute my authorities, I beg him not to with- 
hold his knowledge, until the last night of the discussion. It is 
possible, that my corrected speech has been sent to college, and 
if so, we all understand why the answer to it has been postponed 
for the present. The assertion, that Du Pin was a Catholic, is not 
to be depended on. His private correspondence with Archbishop 
Wake of Canterbury, proves that he was quite ready to be a Pro- 

As to the section of the canon, which I said was spurious, the 
gentleman cannot involve me in a contradiction, except at the 
sacrifice of truth, about which (to return his expression of " re- 
gret") I am sorry that he seems to entertain but little scruple. 
I did say, '^^ this canon," when, in strict hair-splitting accuracy y 
I should have said '■'■ this section of the canon." This I did in 
my subsequent speech ; and because I did so, he charges me as 
having intended to designate under the words, '' this canon," the 
whole five sections, considered as different sections, as being 
spurious. It is in this that he sacrifices truth. I have a right, 
at least, to know my own meaning. 

It is, however, of no importance in which section of the canon 
"the exterminating clause" may be found. The gentleman 
would have found it equally in the second, if I had said it was 
in the third, and not in the second. 

He does not yet answer my question about the Mazarine copy. 


Neither did I do injustice to his citation of the marginal note. He 
now admits, that the section referred to, was wanting in hoth lan- 
guages of that manuscript. Yet his former assertion was, that 
Labbe followed the Latin ; and the insinuation, that the leaf had 
heen torn out, proves his meaning. Now, he settles the matter, 
"of course.^' "As the leaf was wanting in the Mazarine manu- 
script, of course, all it contained was wanting." What next ? 
"And yet the gentleman would make me say, that though the 
leaf was wanting, yet half the leaf was not wanting." No, 1 did 
not make him say any such thing. But since Labbe states, that 
hoth languages are wanting in the Mazarine copy, I wish to 
know how Labbe could follow the Latin of that copy, as the 
gentleman asserted ? If we believe the gentleman, Labbe followed 
the text, which Labbe himself says, did not exist. The difficulty 
remains; and the gentleman, instead of agitating the "leaf," will 
do well to meet it fairly. 

Let me humour the gentleman in regard to Collier. That his- 
torian does not " say,^' that this section is spurious ; he only re- 
jects it for want of evidence to prove that it was the authentic act 
of the council. This is all I want. Now, if it was not the authen- 
tic act, was it not, ipso confesso^ spurious? 

As to Du Pin and Matthew Paris, I proved, in my last speech, 
that even by the use made of them by the gentleman, they sustain 
all I said on their authority. Du Pin gave the Pope himself credit 
for making the whole seventy canons ; and M. Paris says, they 
were "read," and, as the gentleman affirms, "the cou^XIL mur- 
mured OVER them." This is the gentleman's own admission. 
But to make them " the genuine acts of the council," they should 
have been suhmitted for deliheration — they should have been ap- 
proved — they should have been adopted. So far fjom this, on 
hearing them "read," "the council murmured over them ;" and 
therefore, says Mr. Breckinridge, they are the genuine acts of the 
council; and, because they "murmured over them," they were 
" bloody butchers." The gentleman's intellects must be be- 
wildered, or he would not refute himself so palpably. Having 
granted me all that I contended for, and more than was sufficient 
to sustain my position, he says he " blushes lor having had to 
expose them." He exposed himself, and his " blushes" become 

My reference to the decision of the universities on the question in 
debate, was for those who wish to know the truth, and gain cor- 
rect information. As its citation was more than my argument re- 
quired, I have postponed it for the present. But I may give it 
entire hereafter. 

The document which I am bound to admit as evidence of 
Catholic doctrine, is the decree of a General Council, or the bull of 
a Pope — setting it forth as a " tenet? of faith or morals revealed by 
Almighty God." Unless it come under this definition, it is not a 


doctrine of the Roman Catholic religion ; and unless it be a doc- 
trine of the Roman Catholic religion, I am not hound to defend 
it. Catholics are to be judged by their doctrines — in which they 
all agree ] and not by the opinions of individuals — which must be 
different and contradictory, according to the age, the country, the 
government, &c., in which they lived. The ''learned Dens" is 
one of these writers. And when the gentleman asks " who is 
right ? Mr. Hughes, or the learned Dens," I answer, that, as re- 
gards persecution, Mr. Hughes is right in condemning, and Mr. 
Dens was wrong in approving it. I answer, secondly, that, as re- 
gards the doctrines of the Catholic religion, there is no disagree- 
ment between Mr. Hughes and the " learned Dens." Both are 
agreed — and both are right. Has the gentleman ever seen Dens's 
Theology ? I imagine not. But the tories in England, the men 
who will not allow Presbyterians to receive the honours of the 
UNIVERSITIES, founded and endowed by Catholics ; these men, in 
order to check the progress of free priociples and popular rights, 
have returned to the stale expedient of crying " NO POPERY." 
The chorus had died away for some years, and, in order to renew 
it, there was a congregation of the ''Fudge Family" at Exeter Hall 
— headed by Murtagh O'Sullivan, and Patrick Maghee, dee, dee, 
— appropriate instruments to do the dirty work of political bigotry, 
by the excitation of religious hatred. These men made speeches 
on the subject of Dens's Theology, and to those speeches the gen- 
tleman appears to be indebted for all he knows of that work. He 
says it was approved of by the Irish bishops. It may have been, 
so, so far as it treats of those " tenets of faith and morals which- 
the Catholic Church holds as having been revealed by Almighty 
God ;" I. e. so far as Catholic doctrine is concerned. That the 
opinions of the author, in support of persecution, were approved of 
by them is utterlij false. For three hundred year?, the Irish 
Catholics have be6n the victims of Protestant persecution ] and 
neither they, nor their bishops, would, or could, or did approve of 
the sophistry by which Dens would recommend the cursed prin- 
ciple. The whole matter w^as this : — a bookseller had published 
it as a matter of pecuniary speculation ; he laboured " to make 
money by it ; and the bishops made it the rule, not for the de- 
cision, but for the order of such subjects as the clergy had to dis- 
cuss in their conferences. The gentleman came here to show 
" those tenets of faith and morals held by Catholics" which are 
opposed to "civil and religious liberty;" and to prove the exist- 
ence of such tenets by the " bull of a Pope, or the decree of a General 
Council." This he cannot do. But he quotes a canon of a Ge- 
neral Council in which wo doctrine is proposed, but in which per- 
mission is given, encouragement is held forth, to the governments 
in which the Albigenses existed, to drive them from their territo 
ries respectively ; not as persons simplj/ exercising the rights of 
conscience^ but as public enemies, who, by their excesses against 


the rights of others, had forfeited every claim to have their own 
respected. He has quoted the supposed opinions of Dens ; and 
the spouters at Exeter Hall arc his witnesses even for their exist- 
ence. And his reasoning is, that since Dens hold those opinions 
— therefore they are doctrines of the Catholic Church, and are 
binding on all Catholics ; for it is their boast that their doctrines 
never change ! ! The premises are false, and the conclusion is ab- 
surd. The gentleman, in quoting Dens, Bossuet, the Ilhemish 
annotators, admits that they only give their opinions. But, he 
says, ''are not their opinions as good as that of Mr. Hughes? 
Is Mr. Hughes iciser than all these ? The answer is very simple. 
He that runs may read. They lived in Rome, France, Belgium, 
and Ireland. He lives in the United States." I thank him for 
the admission. Then he acknowledges, that, in accusing the 
Catholics of the United States of holding the same opinions which 
have been put forth by writers in Rome, France, Belgium, and Ire- 
land, he, and his colleagues, have been bearing "false witness 
against their neighbour." He acknowledges that Mr. Hughes can 
be a Catholic in the United States, without holding the ojjinions 
of Mr. Dens. In other words, he acknowledges that the anti- 
Catholic crusaders, with whom he is associated, first calumniate 
the Catholics, by charging on them tenets which they do not hold ; 
and then denounce them for doctrines which they disclaim, at 
least in '' the United States." I thank him for his candour, though 
I do not believe it was intentional. 

Let the gentleman show me one of those writers teaching per- 
•secution as a Catholic tenet of faith or morals. Now, Mr. 
Hughes states, that it is not a doctrine. By what Catholic 
writer, then, has Mr. Hughes been contradicted ? By Bossuet ? 
No. By Dens? No. By the Pope? No. By the Rhemish 
annotators ? No. Not one of them has ever said that persecu- 
tion is a doctrine of the Catholic Church I ]5ut they advocated 
the principle. If they did, it was in their own name, and on 
their own authority ; not by any requisition of their religion, a3 
Catholics. If it were a doctrine, Mr. Hughes dare not deny it 
in the name of his Church. Such a denial would be heresy, and 
would entitle him to a seat in the Synod of York. If it were a doc- 
trine, the Catholic wife would have to make an act of contrition 
every evening, for not having poisoned her heretical husband, 
during the day ; and those Catholics in France and other coun- 
tries, where they are ahle to do it, would be living in a perpetual 
state of mortal sin, so long as they abstained from killing their 
Protestant neighhours. In a word, the doctrine would lead to 
the same consequences among Catholics, which it produced 
among Presbyterians; and like them, we too should be asking 
God's pardon for the sin of tolerating a false religion. 

The gentleman has taken snsjncious pains to make it appear, 
that the bull In C(ENA Domini rests on ''accumulative and infalli- 


ble authority." A few facts will suffice to prove the contrary. In 
1510 the Provincial Council of Tonrs rejected this hull iu the 
name of the French nation. (1) And in 1778, Pope Clement XIV. 
suspended the publication of it. (2) It is still read, however, in 
Rome every Thursday in holy week, as it had been long before 
the Reformation, so called. Out of one single church in Rome, it 
has not been read for more than sixty years. Since, therefore, it 
has hcen rejected by Catholics, it follows, that its rejection was 
not inconsistent with the doctrines of the Catholic And 
since it has been suspended by the Pope himself, it follows that, 
if it ever had any authority, it has none now. It is another in- 
stance to show on what grounds the calumniators of the Catholics 
are obliged to build. 

That Pope Paul should excommunicate the heretics and here- 
sies, that were just springing into being, during his pontificate, 
1536, is nothing wonderful. The Synod of York, for a mere 
difference of opinion, suspended the Rev. Mr. Barnes in 1835. 
And the gentleman himself instigated the General Assembly at 
Pittsburg to excommunicate the " wliole Catholic Church," which 
they did accordingly. The '^ bishops,'' at his instance, con- 
structed an artificial Vatican inlhe Western city, and with artificial 
thunder, that reverberated along the surrounding hills and valleys, 
for a considerable distance, cut oif from the communion of the 
"Christian Church" nearly two hundred millions of as good 
Christians as themselves. Had not the Pope, iu 1536, as good a 
right to excommunicate the Calviuists, as the General Assembly,- 
in 1835, had to-excommunicate the whole Catholic world of pre- 
sent and past generations ? 

After enumerating, with double emphasis on the word curses, 
of which I shall speak presently, all the clauses which he deems 
most suited to his purpose in the bull In Ccena Domini, he is 
forced to admit that "some" are good. But most of them had 
reference to times, and customs, and laws, with which we are alto- 
gether unacquainted. The world has changed, and it is probable 
that, at the period of their i^romulgation, these clauses Avere not 
at variance with the civil laws of any country that could be af- 
fected by them. But, at all events, the document is, in the Catho- 
lic Church, of no kind of authority ; the state of things, in which 
it might be even tolerable, having passed away from every civil- 
ized nation, Catholic as well Protestant, in the world. 

Making allowance for the age in which they were passed — let 
us see, after all, whether those clauses are^so full of mischief. 1 
shall just follow the gentleman, and we shall see. 

The 1st section denounces heretics; and it is not for a member 
of the Synod of York to find fault with this. 

(1) Bergier, vol. i. p. 475. (2) Ibid. 


The 2d section denounces those who, to gain, time for the pi-o- 
pagation of liere^y, or schism, or any thing else that might injure 
religion, appeal to a future general council. Does the gentleman, 
himself an enemy to heresy, find fault with this? 

The 3d section denounces all '^pirates." Was this wrong? 

The 4th section denounces all ''wreckers;" and pray was it 
wrong for the Pope to come with all the influence of his authority 
to the aid of the shipwrecked mariner, on whatever coast he might 
be cast? 

The 5th section denounces the authors of oppression by the lYZe- 
(/aZ imposition of taxes. Was this very inhuman? 

The 7th section denounces those who assisted the Saracens in 
their wars against the Christians. Was there any thing so very 
bad in this? The gentleman makes it put the Hussites, Lutherans, 
Calvinists, &c. in the same predicament as the Saracens. This 
part of the bull, however, had existed a few hundred years before 
there were any Calvinists. 

The 8th section denounces those who should appeal to secular 
tribunals, in spiritual matters.. Was this a great crime ? especially 
as the time had not yet come, when, as the Presbyterian Confes- 
sion of Faith has it, the "magistFate had to provide, that what- 
ever 'is done in Si/ nods, be according to the mind of God." 

The 14th section denounces those who should take the cogni- 
zance of ecclesiastical affairs from ecclesiastical judges, to whom 
it belonged by the laws of the state, as then existing. Was 
this so very unnatural? 

The 15th section denounces those who should invade the per- 
sonal immunities of the clergy, as then recognised, both by canon 
and civil law. Is there any thing so shocking in this? 

The 18th section denounces the invaders of their immunities 
in jjroperti/, as equally secured by general laws. 

The 20th section denounces those who should invade the papal 

The 21st section directs, that these acts shall not be recalled, 
except by the Pope. And the Pope has recalled them; and with 
this item of additional information, I hope the gentleman will 
sleep sound, and not be disturbed by any apprehensions of the 
bull ''In Coena Domini." 

In following him, I have used the word "denounced," while 
he uses the word "curses." This suits his purpose better, be- 
cause it conveys the idea imprecation. As a Greek scholar, he 
must know, that the intrinsic force of the word " anathema" is 
not "imprecation;" and, as an ecclesiastic scholar, he ought to 
know, that in ecclesiastical usage, it has not that meaning. 

But it follows, on the gentleman's view of the case, that the 
Pope was not, even in the Middle Ages, that omnipotent monarch, 
who, by the frown of his brow, could lay nations prostrate in the 


dust, that he might trample on them. On the contrary, he had 
no means, it appears, to defend his own immunities and those of 
the Church, but anathenjas, or, as the gentleman will have it, 
''curses." Which shall we believe? Again; since the Presby- 
terians hold, that the Pope is anti-Christ, they ought to rejoice, 
that he has excommunicated them; and be satisfied, that the 
'' curses" of anti-Christ will only help them on their way to 

The gentleman misrepresents me, when he says, I wish to 
fasten the "abolition odium" on Presbyterians. His own ex- 
pose of Presbyterian doctrine, setting forth that on the " subject 
of liberty, there is no discretion," is the only thing in this discus- 
sion, that can fix that odium. According to his own statement of 
the doctrine, it follows, as a consequence, that both slave and 
master are involved in guilt; since there is '' no discretion on the 
subject of liberty." The uncalled-for disclaimer of the Synod of 
York will not remove the "odium," which I have no wish to 

Of Garrison's writings on the subject of slavery, I have never 
read a line; and Daniel O'Connell goes out of his sphere, as I 
conceive, whenever he touches on the subject. From all I have 
seen of his writings, he seems to be, on this point, an orthodox 
Presbyterian, believing, in the gentleman's own words, that where 
liberty is concerned, God has left "no discretion." 

The effort, the last struggle of the gentleman's argument, shows 
the desperate condition to which he is reduced. I explained, in 
my last speech, the meaning of the creed of Pope Pius IV. Still, 
he contends, that if not by "doctrine," at least by "discipline," 
all Catholics are bound to kill and exterminate heretics wherever 
they meet them. Poor man ! To this (for it amounts to this by 
his construct ioii) he says, "J/r. Iliujhes is BOUND tliis night by 
a SOLEMN OATH, and denies it at tlie risk of papal disjyleasure." 
The Catholics, throughout the world, the gentleman has told you, 
amount to 120,000,000; and the Pope would be quite angry, if 
they did not subscribe the creed of Pius IV., just for the pleasure 
of committing perjury by living in the perpetual violation of its 
doctrine and discipline. He will be equally displeased, if, after 
having sworn to it, they do not commit apostasy, as well as 
perjury, by denying it, as "Mr. Hughes does this night." 

I say nothing of his charging me with perjury. Coming from 
any other, I should resent it as an insult — but from him, it is 
precisely what I expected — I know him to be capable of. When 
the gentleman has so far forgotten himself as to use such language 
to an opponent whom he himself selected, he authorizes that op- 
ponent to consider him as having forfeited that moral attribute 
which is essentially connected with even \Siq power to insult. I, 
therefore, present him with carte blanche. But the fact of his 


having used sucli language^ will explain, more clearly still, my 
motive for shrinking from any "oral discussion" with a gentle- 
man, whom I judged so well to be capable of using it. 

He admits that the notes on the Rhemish Testament are only 
the opinions of ''very learned papists" — but he asks whether the 
" pope ever condemned them ?" I really cannot answer the 
question, as I am uncertain whether the pope ever. saw them. It 
would keep the pope too busy to read all the " opinions" that 
may be uttered and published by 120,000,000 of men. The book 
in which he would record the ''opinions" that he approved; and 
the other book in which he would record the " opinions" that he 
condemned, would be too large and unwieldy. And tf he were 
to do so, the gentleman would be among the first to accuse him of 
tyrannizing over, not only the "doctrines of the church," but the 
"opinions" of men. He must underrate the common sense of 
the audience and the public, when he asks such questions. 

He has found out that ^^ induhjenccs take aicai/ the punishment 
(in this world and in purgatory) due for sins, they are to he 
granted for reasonable causes, out of the superabundant merits 
of Christ and his saints." This -he has discovered in the 
Council of Trent. I am glad that he has lived long enough to 
prove, with his own pen, that when, in the recent controversy, 7ie 
stated that "indulgences were a bundle of licenses to 
COMMIT SIN," he was deceiving the public by his testimony. He 
finds now that they are NOT licenses to commit sin, but simply 
the "taking away of temporal 2:>unishmcnt due for sins" committed. 
He finds that they must be gjf-anted for "just causes." 

And now, for the use he makes of this discovery. Inasmuch 
as indulgences were offered to those who should aid in suppress- 
ing the Albigenses, he infers that the third canon of the Fourth 
Council of Lateran rested on the "doctrine of indulgences." This 
is his last resource for a doctrine to support it. Well, let us see 
how his argument will stand. "Indulgences are the taking 
away of temporal punishment due for sins, and must be granted 
for reasonable causes." Therefore, Catholics hold the third 
canon of the Fourth Council of Lateran as a tenet revealed by 
Almighty God. This logic will not do. But then, the suppression 
of the Albigenses, provided for in the canon, was deemed a suffi- 
cient, "reasonable cause," for granting indulgences — therefore 
the canon, going before, was founded on the indulgences that 
were to come after. This will not do either. If, as historians 
write, the Albigenses were the destroyers of churches and monas- 
teries — persons " who spared neither sex nor age, neither 
VIRGINS NOR WIDOWS ;" those who risked their lives in defence of 
these, might be considered as furnishing " reasonable cause" for 
the application of indulgences. If, on the other hand, the Albi- 
genses were those innocent lambs which the gentleman has pro- 


mised to make them appear — ihen, it was an abuse of the doctrine 
to grant or promise an indulgence for their immolation. But in 
neither case can the doctrine be brought to sustain the canon. 

The gentleman, copying after Faber, suppressed the middle of 
the twenty-seventh canon of the Third Lateran, and brought the 
other portions together, as if nothing had been omitted. This 
he calls ''abridging." In speaking of it, I gave him the merit of 
a copyist, and on that ground excused him of " fraud," — but not of 
culpable ignorance — considering his office. Rather than acknow- 
ledge that he had been deceived bi/ cop)i/in(j, he stated that, "i^a- 
her had quoted it as he had.'' On which I hinted to him that 
he seemed to be ambitions of a partnership in the " fraud" with 
which Faber is chargeable — for in him it could not have been 

The gentleman enumerates the efforts by which he endeavoured 
to engage me in controversy ; to all of which the same monotonous 
result is ascribed. "He declined. He declined. He declined." 
I am not sorry that he should boast, except always where he 
goes beyond the facts. For, whilst it pleads my apology for the 
freedom with which I shall have to speak of Presbyterian doc- 
trines; it will show, on the other hand, his want of title to that 
sympathy which be would otherwise claim for his suffering "in 
the great cause," if I should make a whip of his ecclesiastical 
ignorance, to chastise his anti-popery zeal withal. One thing I 
promise, however, that the gentleman himself, personally, shall but 
seldom engage my attention. As a gentleman he has entitled him- 
self to impunity. 

Finally, he asks me my opinion about the right of "the MA- 
JORITY IN Spain, or Italy, to establish the Cataolic reli- ■ 
GION BY LAW." I answer that, in my opinion, if the majority in 
Italy and Spain, by doing so, violated no civil or religious right of 
the minority, they had, in that case, the right to " establish the 
Catholic religion by law." 3ut if, in order to establish it, they 
violated a7iy right, sacred' or civil, of the minority, then, in that 
case, they had no right to "establish the Catholic religion by law." 
They had no right to do evil, that good might come. 

And now, having answered his question, I ask in turn. Whether 

SHIP AT THE IIeformation ? "We now expect an answer." 

The gentleman has quoted some of the doctrines of John Huss, 
and especially on the subject of handing heretics over to the civil 
arm for corporal punishment. It is a little unfortunate for his 
argument, however, that Huss himself was an adv^^cate for the 
corporal punishment of heretics; and this too, whilst he himself 
was under the imputation of heresy. Connected with the case of 


Huss, is the supposed evidence on which Mr. Wesley constructed 
his famous syllogism, to prove that Catholics ought not to be 
tolerated among even ''Turks or Pagans." The Rev. Mr. Night- 
ingale, a Protestant clergyman, says, that Mr. Wesley wrote under 
"a mistaken impression;" and that if he were living ''^ at this 
time^'" he would use his talents and influence in favour of " the 
cause of liberty and justice;" that " no man was ever more ready 
to acknowledge an error, of which he was once convinced, than 
was Mr. Wesley." I subscribe freely to these observations in fa- 
vour of Mr. Wesley's sincerity and candour — at the same time I 
shall proceed to show that he was under a " mistaken im- 

His argument, in his letter of January 12, 1780, prochiims it as 
a '■^ Roman Catholic maxim, estahlislied not hij private men, but 
hy a public council, that ^ no faith is to be kept icith heretics.^ 
This has been openly avoioed by the Council of Constance, but it 
has never been openly disclaimed, Therefore they (^Catho- 
lics) omjht not to be tolerated by any government, Protestant, 
Mohammedan, or Pagan." The whole of this argument depends 
on the fact, whether or not the Council of Constance "publicly 
avowed the maxim" ascribed to it by Mr. Wesle3^ If it did not, 
then it was impossible to '•'■recalV^ what it had never published. 
If it did NOT — then, under a "mistaken impression," Wesley, too, 
has borne "false witness against his neighbour." 

Mr. Wesley is dead — but Mr. Breckinridge has adopted his as- 
sertion ; and I call on Mr. Breckinridge, here present, to show, in 
the acts of the Council of Constance, now open before us on the 
table, the ^^ maxim avowed ' that no faith is to be kept with here- 
tics.' " If he cannot, I call on him, as he professes to hate a 
falsehood, to aid me in denouncing the calumny. There is no 
retreat. He shall not have the plea, in his biography, that he 
wrote under "a mistaken impression." Here are the original 

A few words will be sufficient to explain the supposed founda- 
tion of this cruel slander. In the nineteenth session of the Coun- 
cil of Constance, it is laid down, that the spiritual authority of the 
church, being of Divine origin, cannot be impeded, or hindered, 
by any safe-conduct of any p>rince, emp>eror, king, or secidar 
power whatever, from the just exercise of its function, in con.' 
demning the errors of those loho are sidgect to its jurisdiction. 
It asserted the right of the church to judge of heresies or errors 
that might corrupt the purity of the faith, in despite of all the safe- 
conducts that might be given by all the princes in the world. It 
asserted this right and jurisdiction, even where the culprit de- 
pended on his safe-conduct in such a manner as that he would not 
have come to the place of judgment without it. It asserted that 
princes had no authority to give a safe-conduct which would 


trench on the judiciary powers of tiic sjjiritual trihunal, over 
which princes, as such, have no control. And finally, that sup- 
posing they did give such a safe-conduct, it could not bind them, 
only to the extent of civil jurisdiction, beyond which no«safe-con- 
duct can be admitted as of any effect. Otherwise a heretic might 
appear before the council, argue his case, propagate his errors, 
and laugh at his spiritual judges, because he had a safe-conduct 
from the civil government. Let us make the illustration. 

Supposing the llev. Mr. Barnes, at the Synod of York, had 
pleaded, in bar of his suspension, that he had a safe-conduct from 
the governor of the state, promising that he should return to his 
congregation as he left them. What would Father Green and the 
" bishops" say ? They would say, ''>S^/>, no safe-conduct can 
take from Synod the power to judge and punish you for heresy, 
in your notes on the Romans. But suppose the governor were 
to appear, and say, ''I have promised to see that Mr. Barnes shall 
return to his congregation unsuspend.edy and uncondemned." 
They would tell him, that, as to civil rights, he might protect him 
as the laws directed, but if he promised to prevent Synod from 
suspending Mr. Barnes, the obligation was mdawful, and he was 
not obliged to fulfil it — inasmuch as it was out of his power. 
And supposing that, on this decision, we should build an argu- 
ment to prove that '^ it is a Presbyterian maxim, established not 
by private men, but by the Synod of York, that ' no faith is to be 
kept with heretics,' and that, therefore, Presbyterians ought not 
to be tolerated by any government, Catholic, Mohammedan, or 
Pagan ;" what would the gentleman say ? 

To prove that I have fairly stated the case, and fairly esta- 
blished the parallel, I shall quote the original in the words of the 

*' Praesens sancta synodus ex quovis salvo conductu per impe- 
ratorem, reges et alios seculi principes haereticis, vel de haeresi 
diff'amatis, putantes eosdem sic u suis erroribus revocare, quo 
cunque vinculo se astriuxeriut, concesso, nullum fidei Catholicae 
vel jurisdictioni ecclesiasticae prsejudicium generari, vel impedi- 
mentum pracstari posse, seu debere declarat, qua minus, dicto 
salvo conductu non obstante, liceat judici competenti ecclesiastico 
de hujusmodi personarum erroribus iuquirere, et alias contra eos 
debite procedere, eosdemque punire, quantum justitia suadebit, si 
suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint, etiam si de salvo 
conductu confisi, ad locum venerint judicii, alias non venturi ) nee 
sic promittentem, cum alius fecerit quod in ipso est, ex hoc in 
aliquo remansisse obligatum.^'(l) 

iW Acta Ccnc. Const., Sess. XIX. 



^^TTie present sacred synod declares, tJiaf, out of any safe- 
conduct whatever, granted to heretics or persons accused of 
heresy hy the eiujjeror, kings, or secular princes, by ichatever 
tie they may have hound themselves, thinking thus to recall 
those persons from their errors, no prejudice to Catholic faith 
can or ought to arise, nor any obstacle be thrown in the way of 
ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, by which it might be less lauful for 
the competent and ecclesiastical Judge, notwithstanding said 
safe-conduct, to inquire into the errors of such persons, and 
otherwise proceed against them, and punish than, as Justice 
shall direct, if they obstinately refuse to retract their errors — 
even though they come to the place of Judgment, trusting to 
their safe-conduct, and otherwise would not have come : nor is 
he who makes the j>romise, when he has done what is in his 
power to do, bound by any further obligation." 

I call upon the gentleman now, either to say that the " maxim'' 
that " no faith is to be kept with heretics/' is avowed in this 
passage, or that it is not. If it is, let him tell in which part of it. 
He has both languages before him. Let him quote from either. 
If it is not, (as is manifest to every Latin reader,) then let him, as an 
honest man, denounce the calumny, as a false and wicked charge, 
and let him undeceive the American people so far as he has con- 
tributed to lead them astray by aiding in its propagation. But 
no retreat — no shuffling. 

But did not, it will be asked by Protestants, the Council of 
Constance burn Huss, at the stake ? No. Did it not solicit that 
he should be burned? No. But did it not condemn him as a 
heretic ? Yes ; and it had, at least, as much right to do so as the 
Synod of York had to condemn Mr. Barnes, as a heretic. But 
did it not ''hand him over to the civil power?" It degraded 
him from his office as a priest, which it has a right to do, when 
he had rendered himself unworthy of that character by his anti- 
Catholic doctrines of heresy and sedition. How, then, came he 
to be burned ? The civil law of the country contained the bar- 
barous enactment which authorized it. By condemning Huss 
as a heretic, the church or council necessarily exposed him to the 
law of the state. But by not condemning him the council would 
have been under the necessity of approving heretical doc- 
trines. Now, the church could not allow Huss to preach heresy 
in her name, as a Catholic priest, for any consideration that might 
follow his suspension and excommunication, more than the Synod 
of York could allow Mr. Barnes to continue to preach heresy in 
the name of the Presbyterian Church, on the ground that the loss 
of his salary and the sujfering of his character ^ might be the 
consequence of his suspension. 


That Huss maintained heretical and seditious doctrines the 
gentleman himself will allow. One of his doctrines condemned 
in the council, was, that the '■^authority of the magistrate, pre- 
late, or bishop is null, when he is in mortal sin." 

G-oing to the council, IIuss proclaimed his willingness, in case 
of conviction, to " submit to all the pains of heretics." He 
knew by the laws of the land what they were. He had apijcaled 
to the council, and desired to be tried by it. He had obtained 
his safe-conduct from the emperor, as going to the council, only. 
And yet almost all Protestants, deceived by their writers and 
ministers, assert that the emperor had bound himself to bring him 
safe back. I call upon Mr. Breckinridge to meet me in this 
question ; and if he denies one single statement made hy me in 
relation to it, I promise to furnish the evidence on the most indis- 
putable authority. But let him state his argument, and refer to 
something better than jMjndctr prejudice for his proof. The peo- 
ple will find out how their credulity has been imposed on, in re- 
lation to these matters. 

It is not at all improbable that he will assert, or at least insi- 
nuate, that Mr. Hughes is an apologist for the Council of Con- 
stance, and of course approves of ' the burning of a heretic. The 
council will require no apologist ; it did only what it had a right 
to do J and what is ascribed to it, over (ind above, is properly to 
be charged to the calumnies of p)olitical or religious enmity to 
Catholics. As to the burning of Huss, as a Christian, a Catholic 
and a man, I reprobate the barbarous and inhuman statute of 
which it was the execution. But to make the church accountable, 
either for the existence of that law, or for its execution, is as false 
in history, and as absurd in reasoning, as to make it accountable 
for not having invented printing in the tenth century. 

Another of the stereotype calumnies which the gentleman and 
his associates, in the present crusade against the Catholics, labour 
to make as immortal as truth, is, that the Inquisition is a part of 
the Catholic religion. And whilst, witli affected scrupulosity of 
conscience, they call our religion ''popery," they become polite 
in their libelliugs of it, and say the " Holy Catholic Inqui- 

I do not mean to enter into defence of the Inquisition ; and none 
can have a deeper abhorrence of the cruelties, real or supposed, 
of which it was made the instrument. But I mean to show that 
Protestants are, for the most part, perfectly deceived in relation 
to it. They suppose that it is, or was, a part of the Catholic 
religion. In this they are deceived. First, because it was un- 
known during the first twelve hundred years of the church. 
Secondly, because in very many Catholic countries it never 
existed. Of these, it will be sufficient to mei^tion England, the 
kingdom of Naples, in Italy, and France, where an attempt was 



made to establish it, but without any lasting success. In Spain 
it was what the civil government made it. In no place did it 
exist except by the permission, often at the request, of the civil 
government. Those Catholic nations that rejected it, were as 
sound in their faith as the others that admitted it. Therefore, it 
was no part of the Catholic religion. The representative of the 
nalumnies, that have been uttered against Catholics in relation to 
the Inquisition, is here present, and let him show from history 
that I have here made one single statement that is not true. 
If he docs attempt it, I pledge myself to refute his argument. 
But if he does riot, then let him aid me in denouncing the first 
great calumny which he has helped to circulate, viz. that the 
Inquisition is a part of the Catholic religion. 

The next great calumny which he has aided in circulating, is, 
that there are dungeons of, or for, the Inquisition under the 
Catholic Churches in this country; thereby exposing them to share 
the fate of the Convent at Boston. Now the Aict is, and it argues 
great ignorance not to know it, that, at this day, out of the city of 
Rome the Inquisition does not exist either in fact or in name — 
either civilly or ecclesiastically — in any country under the sun. 
Does he deny this ? Then let him point to the spot on the map 
of the world where it does exist. 

And now I propose to show that, apart from the form given to 
it by the state, the substance of the Inquisition exists in every 
Protestant denomination. The word inquisition is derived from 
the duty of inquiring into the real or supposed errors which 
might corrupt the true faith. Thus when Mr. Barnes appended 
Notes to the Ilomans, Dr. Judkin became his accuser, and his 
Presbytery constituted the tribunal of Inquisition — to inquire 
whether these things are so. This tribunal decided in the nega- 
tive; but a higher tribunal of Inquisition reversed the decision. 
The gentleman himself was one of the inquisitors. In this sense, 
all clergymen of all denominations, that hold tenets of doctrine, a 
denial of which tliei/ regard as lieresy, are by office and profession 
inquisitors. The gentleman will not, .so far, deny one word of 
this. Where, then, is the difference, in i^rinciple, between the 
Catholic and the Protestant Inquisition ? So far as the inquiry 
into errors, and condemnation of heresies is concerned, it is 
common to both; and in principle, there is not a particle of 

The gentleman may tell me that, here there are no civil jwnal' 
ties attaching to the crime of heresy. True. But would this 
have been the case in Scotland, Holland, or Geneva? Thanks 
to the liberality of the age, and the freedom of our institutions, the 
inquisitors of all denominations are circumscribed within their 
proper sphere. Here men may be heretics, without kissing the 
6take that Calvin fixed for Servetus, or going through the ordeal 



of a Spanish auto de fe. There are heresy-hunters in every de- 
nomination that has a creed which they call orthodox; but it is to 
be hopVd that the times have gone, forever, when there can be 
found herefi'c-burners'm any. 

The appointment of inquisitors, as a special and distinct officCy 
was, if any thing, an encroachment on the inherent prerogatives of 
the episcopacy, whose special office it was and is to watch over 
the purity of the faith. As an ecclesiastical tribunal, their office 
was to inquire after heresy, and to judge whether those who were 
accused of it, were guilty, or not guilty. When they had done 
this, the power which their office gave them, so far as it icas 
derived from the Church, was at an end. Now here is a state- 
ment that will startle the victims of the delusion which the gen- 
tleman has laboured to perpetuate, touching the *• Holy Catholic 
Inquisition.'' But I make it, in order to bring him to the proof- 
He must not say that he can prove it, and yet withhold the testi- 

If, therefore, the ecclesiastical authority terminated at the same 
point, to which it extends in all denominations, even in this age, 
and in this country ] if it neither exacted, nor required, nor en- 
joined any penalty in life or property, I ask him, is it Christian, 
is it JUST, is it true, or rather, is it not shamefully calumnious, 
to charge on the Catholic religion the punishments which the 
CIVIL LAWS of Spain and Portugal had enacted against those who 
should be found guilty by the tribunal of the Inquisition. Let the 
gentleman not mistake the question. Let him not undertake to 
prove what I do not deny, but what I do deny. 

Of all the blood that ever was, or was supposed to have been 
shed, let him show that the Catholic religion, or the authority of 
the Church, ever expected, or required, or enjoined, that so much 
as one drop should be shed for the crime of here>ii/. If he cannot, 
how will he stand before the American public, whom he has so 
much contributed to deceive? If he cannot, how will he answer 
to God, who is the source and lover of truth; and who rejects 
the aid which men think to render to his cause, by the employ- 
ment of CALUMNY and "false witness against their neighbour." 

"But the Church could have prevented it." Neither is that so 
clear. The Church had no jurisdiction to establish civil laws in 
France, and just as little to annul them in Spain. She judged of 
heresy as a crime before God; and so Presbyterians, as well as 
Catholics, regard it. When she had condemned it as such, her 
jurisdiction terminated. The civil laws of nations claimed the 
right to determine offences, and assign their punishment, and this, 
not as Catholics, but as nations exercising the rights of notional 
sovereignty. Hence the Inquisition which was adopted in Catho- 
lic Spain, was rejected by Catholic France, on the giound that it 
would be consistent with the welfare of neither the church, nor the 


state. Neither was it established in the kingdom of Naples, be- 
cause the Pope and King could not agree as to which should have 
the right to appoint the Inquisitor-General, and as neither would 
yield to the other, the Inquisition was never established in that 
kingdom. Will the gentleman contradict any of these facts ? If 
he does, I shall cite the authorities to convince him and the public, 
how little he has read of the true history of the Inquisition. 


"is the Roman Catliolic Religion, in any or all its princi- 
ples or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty f" 


Mr. President : — It ill becomes me to retort Mr. H.'s vulgar 
and unchristian assaults ; for the sacred Scriptures forbid us to 
^^ render railing for railing.'* The low abuse and indecent per- 
sonalities of the gentleman, if I can consent to call him so any 
longer, reflect most unhappily on his spirit and his origin, and 
confirm, what I have long known, that he is really ignorant of 
what gentlemen owe to each other and to themselves. 

I consider this a sufficient answer (and more than he deserves) 
to all his scurrility. Poor St. John's ! It has set up for the fa- 
shionable and the refined world who wished to go to heaven with- 
out the trouble of being holy ; and the priest at the altar was sup- 
posed by some to have sprung from a band-box. As for breed- 
ing, they would have found a real gentlemen in the Rev. Charles 
Constantino Pise. As it is, (if any of that people venture on the ma- 
la prohihita of a controversy with heretics, or if, like the devouter 
papists, they read Mr. Hughes's argument alone,) I am sure they 
will find in his last speech that his breeding is skin-deep, and it is 
only want of resolution that keeps him from the frequent and free 
use of the ecclesiastical shillelagh. After all the gentleman's 
struggles about ''the Latin of the Council of Trent," it ends in 
. Mr. Hughes's conviction and uncandid confession of a flat mis- 
statement ! As to my had Latin, I gave the Latin of the holy /a- 
thers, and gave in full the member of the sentence which the dis- 
cussion called for ; and he now makes the presence of a superflu- 
ous loord, in that member, an apology for daring to charge me with 
"fabricating" and "forging" Latin for the Council of Trent, and 
then saying "what will be the reader's disgust," &c. &c. If I 
had left out that word, then he would have charged me with crimi- 
nal omissions affecting the sense. 

If this were a solitary misstatement of the gentleman, or if, being 
the repetition of the off'ence, he had with Christian candour ac- 
knowledged it, I should have said no more about it, for I do from 
my heart pity him. But you remember, gentlemen, that during 
the debate he produced Caranza, and represented me as having 


said that a certain passage was in Caranza, and told us that it was 
NOT in Caranza, and gloried in the apparent triumph over my 
character ! When la! on my turning to my letter in the former Con- 
troversy, (on which he charged the falsehood,) 1 found and 2^roved 
before the ichole society, that he had utterly falsified my letter, that 
I had distinctly declared that Caranza omitted the passage! And 
how did he excuse himself? By saying that when he first asserted 
it, I had been silent, and therefore he thought it true and admit- 
ted by me. But does the silence of a slandered man make the 
dander true? And pray, icliy did he say it the first time? Does 
one falsehood excuse two ? I refer you also to his treatment of 
Mosheim, which made a shiver of involuntary horror run like u 
"wave over this assembly when it was first exposed. 

As to the " infiict'ion o/punishment" in the sacrament of penance 
if (as he says) " satisfaction consistsin repairing (as far as he can) 
the injury which he (the penitent) has done to his neighbour," 
I would say that it is high time for him to seek a confessor him- 
self, and recall his slanders, and confess his false statements in this 
debate. I do not wonder that he ridicules the doctrines of " re- 
generation," which even the dark mind of Nicodemus, amidst his 
marvel at its mysterious character, durst not despise. When we 
come to show that " immorality is necessary to the very nature of 
papal penance," we shall also prove that '■'' indidgences are a bun- 
dle of licenses to comrnit sin;" as we have in the last speech 
showed, without any reply but a denial from the gentleman, that 
punishment is supposed in penance, and that corporeal punishment 
is often included. Sometimes, it is perhaps walking barefoot, at 
an early hour before St. Johns; sometimes, it is to pray for a 
long time, each day, for many days, (for j) ray er is a great punish- 
ment to some people;) sometimes, self-castigation; sometimes, 
walking on the knees so many times around a holy well, or idol, or 
altar ; or it may be pecuniary fines, (these are precious to priests,) 
or exile, or imprisonment in the dungeons of the monastery. It 
is from this very word, and this very use of it, that our laYm peni- 
tentiary is derived. 

It is pleasant to me, though vain for the gentleman, that he has 
at length attempted to look at the testimony of Devoti. He tells 
us gravely^ that Devoti in speaking " of tlie jwwer by ivhich the state 
authorized the church to j^untsh ecclesiastics by imprisonme7it or 
otherwise," (the otherwise — covers fines, exile, castigation, &c.,) 
or in other words, that the author did not claim for the church any 
original power to inflict such punishments. But this is directly 
false; for in the very passage before his eyes, cited in my last 
speech, Devoti says, ''P. La Borde endeavours to undermine a.nd 
take away the power given by Christ to the church, not 
merely of government, by counsels and persuasion, but also decree- 
ing by laws awtZo/ compulsion, and o/ COERCING WITH PUNISH- 
MENT those WHO ARE WORTHY OF IT." Here is a flat contradic- 


don of Mr. Hughes, and the author cites two popes (V) who con- 
demned this very principle I 

The gentleman proceeds — ^'■During the Middle Ages, ecdesi' 
astical offenders icere triedj not hy civil, but by ecclesiastical 
judges.^' Yes, this is by the canon lawy (which is the text-book of 
popish doctrine on the poicer of the church,) 7wt used as " the con- 
cession of the state,'' but claimed as the right of the church, and 
those are denounced who dare to do otherwise ! Yet Mr. Hughes 
says it '^wasby concession of the state." Query. If the United 
States were to concede this to Roman Catholics, does their religion 
forbid it? The^ Presbyterian Church ybriu/s this as contrary to 
the word of God. '"'And the same p)ri7iciples which authorized 

tion with this state of tilings, that Devoti speaks of '■prisons^ 
exile, pecuniary fines, &c. as having been used by the church." 

But Devoti expressly says, ^Hliis power is given by Christ to the 
church," and is, of course, inalienable and perpetual. If it fails to 
exercise it, then it is for want of ability, not want of right. And 
pray, i67ie?i did the church cease to use them ? — never, till forced by 
the state. Where did she ever cease to use them ? — nowhere, till 
she was compelled to do it ! 

He next cites and translates a passage from the same author, 
to prove that " the highest grade of ecclesiastical coercion is ex- 
pulsion" from the Church, But, unhappily for the gentleman, in 
the next sentence to the one so pompously quoted by him, the 
author goes on to say — "Bat he tcho off'ends against society by 
any crime, if a clergyman, is subject to the Judgment of the Church, 
not on account of the thing itself, which is proper to the civil com- 
monicealth, but on account of the person, because, forsooth, he is 
a citizen of the ecclesiastical commonwealth. Wherefore, the 
Church proceeds against him, by imprisonment, or other corp)oral 
punishment; and if the crime be still more weighty, for which the 
lenity and mildness of the church has no adequate punishment, 
(poenam,) .^he degrades him — that is, permits him to be no longer 
a citizen of her commonwealth ; but subjects him, like other laics, 
to the civil j)ower. It (the civil power) therefore exercises the 
jurisdiction over this man who is now a citizen of its common- 
wealth, which it has over its other citizens; and visits him loith 
death or other punishments, appointed by civil law." (2) 

(1) See the whole extract in my last speech. 

(2) Qui aliquo crimine societatcm laesit si clericus sit ecclesias judicio subest, 
non propter rem ipsam, qua; propria est civilis reipublicae, sed propter personam, 
quia silicet ecclesiasticae reipublicie civis est. Itaque in euni ecclesia animad- 
vertit carcere, aut alia poena corporali ; et si gravius crimen sit cui non parem 
habeat poenam ecclcsiie coraitas et mansuetudo eum de gradu dejccit; hoc est 
non amplius suie rcipublicaj eivem esse sinit, sed ad instar caiterorum laieorum 
subjecit civili potestati. Ipsa vero in hunc hominem, qui jam suae reipublica? 
civis est imperium e.\ercet quod habet in reliquos cives suos, eura que coercet 
morte, cajteris ve poenis qua) sunt a civilibus legibus constitutas. 


Here it clearly appears, that Devoti holds the doctrine, that the 
clergy are punishable, temporalli/ and corporally, hy the Churchy 
{which he says derived this power from Christ, as quoted hy me 
above, and not from the State, as Mr. ITuf/hes falsely says;) that 
the fact of being a clergyman gives the Church this ^Mwer ; that 
lie must be degraded, i. e. cease to be a clergyman in order to be 
reached by the civil power. How strangely must the gentleman 
feel to be thus caught in the same page, and in his own papal 
theology ! 

The gentleman "mired*"' "in the same mud," (to use the ele- 
gant figure of Devoti,) struggle;g to prove that I have perverted 
the author, and denies that he claims any thing for the Church, 
but spiritual jurisdiction. Yet, in the sixth page of the same 
book, § 5, he says — " For those who are placed over a common- 
wealth, in authority, have power over all the things which pertain 
to that commonwealth, viz. over the j^ersons of which it consists; 
and the things ichich these persons use and enjoy in j^rolonging 
life. Wherefore, also the magistracy (magistratus) of the Clturch 
ought tb have judicial power over the things and persons of her 
commonwealth, ichich other magistrates have over theirs." 

When we come to present theproo/ from the Inquisition, that 
the institutions of popery (embodying and expressing her doc- 
trines and her morals) are opposed to liberty in all its lovely 
forms, then we will show how fir the gentleman s defence of, or 
at least, apology for, ''a good thing abused," has any claim 
to our regard by its weight, or any title to our credence by its 
truth. * 

In the mean time honest Devoti shall again speak. lie surely 
knows what the Inquisition is. He wrote in sight of it. His work 
is franked from Home itself Let honest men compare the follow- 
ing statement with what Mr. Hughes says : — 

Under the head "Inquisitors of heretical j^r a vity," he gives the 
following statements : " The cause of instituting the tribunal 
called the Inquisition, was this. At first every bishop in his own 
diocese, or a number of bishops assembled in a provincial council, 
made inquisition of those errors which arose in the diocese or 
province ; but the more weighty matters were always referred to 
the apostolical see, (Rome,) and thus every bishop or provincial 
council took care to bring to its proper issue whatever was decreed 
by the apostolical see. But in process of time, when greater evils 
pressed, it became necessary for the pope to send legates into 
those regions in which heresy had long and widely spread, that 
they might assist the bishops in restraining th<5 audacity of aban- 
doned men, and in deterring Christians from foreign and depraved 
doctrines. But when new errors daily sprung up, and the num- 
ber of heretics was greatly increased, seeing that the legates could 
not always be at hand nor apply the proper remedy, it was deter- 
mined to INSTITUTE A STANDING TRIBUNAL that should alwavs be 


present, and at all times and in every country should devote their 
minds to preserving the soundness of the f\iith, and to restraining 
and expelling heresies as they arose. Thus it was that the in- 
quisitors were first aj^pointed to jperform the ofiice of vicars to the 
Holy See. But as in a matter so weighty as the preservation of 
the purity of the faith, the inquisitors needed that close union of 
mind and sentiment which is proper to the apostolical see, as 
the centre of unity, there was instituted at Rome, hy the Popes, 
an assemhly or congregation of cardinals in which the Pope pre- 
sides. This congregation is the head of all inquisitors over the 
whole world, to it they all refer their more difiicult matters, and its 
authority and judgment are final. ''^ 

'■'■ It is rightly and wisely ordered that the pope's office and 
power should sustain this institution, for he is the centre of unity 
and head of the church; and to him Christ has committed plenary 
power to feed, teach, rule and govern all Christians. "(1) 

Surely one of these gentlemen has been guilty of no small de- 
partures from historical and doctrinal truth ! 

The same author (2) says expressly : "And since the power of 
the church is twofold, the one wholly spiritual given separately 
by Christ, which is exercised both in the inner and outer court, the 
other which she has in common with every perfect and distinct 
commonwealth, and which is called temporal, it follows that 
there are two kinds of punishment ordained hy her. That is, one 
kind is spiritual, which is to ajfflict the soul ; the other TEMPO- 
RAL, WHICH IS TO CASTIGATE THE BODY. She exercises the right 
to inflict spiritual punishments on all who by baptism 'are admitted 
among the children of the church, and who sin against religion. 
The church also has set up temporal punishments for all, 
but the laity and clergy in an unequal degree." now, 
if the gentleman ventures again to deny that this writer claiips 
for the church the right to inflict temporal and bodily punish- 
ments, I will expose him in a way which he must deeply regret. 

I am willing to leave the long contest about Bossuet to speak 
for itself; and so also that about the third canon of Fourth Late- 
ran. The hearer and reader must have perceived that at every 
step the gentleman has given ground. First he tried to defend 
the canon, as being only discipline against murderers. Then, 
driven from that, he assailed the authenticity of the canon — the 
whole canon ; and lo ! in the last speech he is finally forced to own 
that it is only one of five sections of that canon which he can 
assail J and in a Jesuitical way is constrained to confess, after 
being exposed, thaff he did misstate in condemning the whole 

I think, gentlemen, he will attempt to sp/Z^c no more of these 

(1) Devoti, book iv., title 8, passim. (2) Book iv., § 8, p. 12. 


The gentleman scolds about Matthew Paris, but wisely forgets 
^'Dens's" Theology, and my clialleuge on that hook^ which has 
opened the e^'^es of millions on the other side of tlie icaters to new 
evidences on the persecuting doctrines of the Church of Rome.* 

The reason why all the European authorities quoted by nie are 
more impartial than Mr. Hughes, is not ^' that Mr. Hughes (as 
the gentleman says) can be a Catholic in the United States," with- 
out holding doctrines opposed to liberty; but because Mr. Hughes 
has proved to us that he dares not honestly avow what the true 
doctrine of his church is, in the United States ! The gentleman's 
defence of the Bulla In Coena Domini, is a concession of the ques- 
tion in debate. I need not, therefore, dwell much more on it. 
For example, he says, was it wrong for the Pope to condemn pi- 
rates? Was it '^ iiihuman to condemn the illegtd imposition of 
taxes f Why, Mr. Hughes! These taxes, says the Pope, were 
imposed in ''dominio)is" of others, '^without the sj^ecial leave of 
the apostolic see !" Of /course Mr. Hughes thinks it not against the 
liberty of states for the pope to interfere with their taxation of 
their own subjects! And so of all the invasions in this Bull, of 
the rights of sovereign states ; he defends them, says they were 
according to the canon law, &c. &c. Yes ! and for that very rea- 
son, since the Pope's bull, sustained by the canon laiv, thus claims 
jurisdiction over sea and land, armies, navies, battles, treasuries, 
coasts, &c. &c. ; and since Mr. Hughes defends the acts and 
claims, he concedes being unable to defend the question in 

Oi Anathema we shall speak, in its place, and too soon for the 

The gentleman in reply to my question — ^'•Ilad the Tnajority in 
Spa in or Italy the right to establish the Catholic religion by law?" an- 
swers, ^'in my opinion, if the majority in Italy or Spain, by doing so, 
violated no civil or religious right of the minority, they had in that 
case the right!' This is allowing that the Catholic religion may 
be in certain cases established by law, ivithout violating the right 
of the minority. This is again conceding the whole question. 
For when can a majority do this, without such a violation of the 
rights of the minority ? I ask the gentleman when, or how can 
this be done ? The American principle, the Bible doctrine, is, 
that it is violating the rights of a minority to establish any re- 
ligion by law! That no majority can, in any possible case, of 
rigid, do such a thing! That if all were of the same religion, it 
were anti-Christian and anti-liberal to do it! Here we see leaking 
out the gentleman's majority rights — which he exposed the first 
night of our debate, then tried to retract; and now again, drawn 
by the debate and by his other principles, is compelled to admit ! 

As to our Scotch fathers, I say, unequivocally, that they had. no 
right, however great a majority they may have composed, to ^^pull 
down the monuments of papal idolatry by force." It was wholly 


wrong ! Mr. Wesley ''being dead, yet speaheth.^^ I am happy to 
honour the memory of that great and good man ; and when Mr. 
Hughes answers, or even attempts to answer his arguments, as 
quoted by me, I will, on the ground stated when I cited his re- 
marks, meet Mr. Hughes, and all the college of priests who help 
him, in and about St. Johns, and the library of St. Augusfine. 

In the very t«rms of the gentleman's citation from the Council 
of Constance, the doctrine is avowed that the faith, the 2)lc<Jged 
faith (of the emperor) that IIuss should return in safety from the 
Council, was not binding. 

But we will hereafter, at large, put this matter in the light to 
make "the defender of the Council of Constance's crimes" blush 
once more, if that faculty has not been lost by him. 

Having now disposed of the gentleman's despairing attacks on 
my authorities, I proceed to adduce others: — 

We have seen from the disclosures of my former speeches how 
far the llev. Mr. Hughes permits his zeal in defence of the 
papacy to carry him in denying the existence and obligation of 
documents, which make a part of the history of the world, and 
which are known to every well-informed man in Europe and 

We have still stronger illustrations of the same reckless spirit 
for the present one. 

In letter No. 15 of the Controversy, the Rev. Mr. Hughes said, 
"Show me then the decree of any Council, or the Bull of any 
Pope, proposing persecution as a part of our religion, and let that 
document be the proof of your charge." In answer to this call, 
I produced copious extracts from the Bull of Pope Innocent VIII. 
for the extirpation of the Vadois (or Waldenses) given to Albert 
de Capitaneis, A. D. 1477, stating at the same time, in proof of 
its authenticity, that the original was preserved in the University 
of Cambridge, England. And how did he meet its terrific con- 
tents? Why in this extraordinary way : " Pope Innocent VIII. 
was elected in the year 1484, and it is not usual with our Popes 
to issue Bulls seven jears before their election : such Bulls come 
from another quarter." Here he implies that the Bull has been 
forged; that it was never issued from Borne; and the proof is 
drawn from an error of ten years in the date ! But in my next 
letter, I corrected the date, which was 1487, instead of 1477, and 
which had been a misprint in the work from which I had extract- 
ed it. I then added : '''do you deny that there was such a Bull ? 
If you have any doubts on this subject, I refer you to Baronius's 
Annals, Vol. XIX., page 387, section 25th." 

And now, guileless hearer, can you divine how any art could 
evade such testimony ? He replies : " The Annals of Baronius 
come down only to the year 1198, and yet you quote his author- 
ity for a fact which should have taken place in 1487 ! ! ! How is 
this?" But Raynold, the accredited continuator of Baronius, 


brings down the history of the church to the year 1534 ! The 
reply then was, there is no such Eull, because Baronius died be- 
fore it was issued? On such shallow evasions he ventures flatly 
to deny the existence of the Bull. In Letter 19, he says : ^' You 
ask rae, do I deny it? and without waiting for my answer, you 
reply, that ^ I dare not!' Now, I reply that I dare, and do deny it 
fiatlj/." And now see what Baronius's continuator, Mr. Hughes's 
authentic historian, says: 

"By which indignity Innocent, much excited, ordered the 
Gauls, Savoyes, and Germans, within whose territories the impiety 
still remained firmly rooted, to take up arms for the destruction of 
the heretics ; and he smote the favourers of the heretics with 
heavy punishments ; at the same time he commissioned Albert de 
Capitaneis, Archdeacon of Cremona, with ample powers to pub- 
lish a crusade for the extermination of the Waldenses, and to stir 
up Princes and Bishops against them. The date of this docu- 
ment is as follows : Given at Rome at St. Peter's, in the year of 
our Lord's incarnation 14:S7 , ^th of Kallends of May, and of our 
Pontificate the 3J.'' 

Having then been brought to such sad issues with his own his- 
torian and with notorious facts, his last vain struggle was this : 
"Does he say that such a Bull exists? No. The quotation 
merely testifies that Albertus Capitaneis was commissioned to 
preach a crusade against the Waldenses, &c. &c." Was there 
ever such evasion ? was evasion ever more unavailing and palpa- 
ble? ^^Commissioned!'' But who commissioned him? Why 
the Pope! But icliat was the commission? A Brief? a Bull? 
Letters Patent? an Edict of Blood? The name matters not. It 
is the thing we look to? The historian tells us of this thing; 
and it was a commission with ample powers from Innocent VIII. f 
the Pope to preach a crusade against the Waldenses for their ex- 
termination, and to stir up Princes and Bishops against them. 
And yet Mr. Hughes says the historian "merely testifies that 
Albertus was commissioned to preach a crusade against the Wal- 
denses." " Merely a crusade ! ! !" Do we need any more proof 
of Mr. Hughes's secret feelings on this subject; or of the Papal 
system ? Merely a crusade ! in which, by authority of the Pope, 
a great army, headed by preZa/es, a7id priests, and princes in- 
vaded a territory over which the Pope had no civil control, and in 
the name of God, butchered thousands of men, women and chil- 
dren, because they held doctrines in religion which the Pope 
called heresy? In order to show the spirit of this Bull, as well 
as the recklessness of our American defender of the faith, I here 
spread it out in full for the use of Mr. Hughes, and of all our 
readers; and when we get a copy of the original Latin (as we 
expect soon to do) from the archives of Cambridge University, we 
will give it to the American people : 

"Innocent the Bishop, serva7it of the servants of God, to our 


well-beloved son Albcrtusde Capitaneis, archdeacon of the Church 
of Cremona, our nuncio, and commissary of the Apostolical See, 
in the dominions of our dear son the noble Charles, duke of Savoy, 
both on this side and that side of the mountains, in the city of 
Vienne in Dauphiny, and in the city and diocese of Sedon, and 
the places adjacent; health and apostolic benediction. 

'' The chief wishes of our heart demand that we should endea- 
vour, with the most studious vigilance, to withdraw those from the 
precipice of errors, for whose salvation the. sovereign Creator of 
all things himself choosed to suffer the greatest of human mise- 
ries, and carefully to watch over their salvation ; we, to ivhom he 
hath been pleased to commit the charge and government of his 
flock, and who most ardently desire, that the Catholic faith should 
prosper and triumph under our pontifical reign, and that heretical 
pravity should be extirpated from the territories of the faithful. 

" We have heard, with great displeasure, that certain sons of 
iniquity, inhabitants of the province of Ambrun, &c., followers of 
that most pernicious and abominable sect of wicked men, called 
poor men of Lyons, or Waldenses, which long ago hath most un- 
happily ((lamnahililer) risen up in Piedmont, and the other places 
adjacent, by the malice of the devil, endeavouring, with fatal in- 
dustry, to ensnare and seduce the sheep dedicated to God through 
winding, devious paths, and dangerous precipices, and at last to 
lead them to the perdition of their souls; who, under a deceitful 
appearance of sanctity, and delivered up to a reprobate sense, 
have the utmost aversion to follow the way of truth, and who, ob- 
serving certain superstitious and heretical ceremonies, say, do, 
and commit very many things contrary to the orthodox faith, 
offensive to the eyes of the Divine Majesty, and most dangerous 
in themselves to the salvation of souls. 

"And whereas our well-beloved son Blasius de Mont Royal, of 
the order of preaching friars, professor in theology, inquisitor- 
general in these parts, transported himself into that province, in 
order to induce them to abjure the foresaid errors, and profess the 
true fiith of Christ, having been formerly apj)ointed for that ser- 
vice by the master-general of that order, and afterwards by our 
beloved son Cardinal Dominic, styled Preshyter of St. Clementj 
legate of the Holy See in these places, and at last by Pope Sixtus 
ly., of happy memory, our immediate predecessor; but so far 
from forsaking their wicked and perverse errors, like the deaf 
adder that shuts its ears, they proceed to commit yet greater evils 
than before, not being afraid to preach publicly, and, by their 
preachings, to draw others of the faithful in Christ into the same 
errors, to contemn the excommunications, interdicts^ and other cen- 
sures of the said inquisitor, to demolish his house, to carry off and 
spoil the goods that were in it, and those of other Catholics: to 
kill his servant, to Wage open war, to resist their temporal lords: 
to destroy their property, to chase them, with their families, from 


their parisbcs, burning or demolishing their houses, hindering 
them to receive their rents, doing to them all the mischief in their 
power, as also to commit innumerable other crimes, the most de- 
testable and abominable. 

'^ We therefore, as obliged hjj the dutt/ of our pastoral charge, 
being dtairous to pluch up and ichollij root out from the Catholic 
Church that execrable sect, and those impious errors formerly men- 
tioned, lest they should spread farther, and lest the hearts of the 
faithful should be damnably corrupted by them, and to repress 
such rash and audacious attempts, we have resolved to exert every 
effort for this purpose, and to bestow hereupon all our care, and 
we putting our special trust in God as to your learning, the ma- 
turity of your wisdom, your zeal for the faith, and experience in 
aifairs ; and likewise hoping that you will execute, with honesty 
and prudence, all that we have judged proper to commit to you for 
extirpating such errors, we have thought good to appoint you, by 
these presents, our nuncio, and commissaiy of the Apostolic See, 
for the cause of God and of the faith, in the dominions of our dear 
son Charles, duke of Savoy, &c., to the intent that you may cause 
the said inquisitor to be received and admitted to the free exer- 
cise of his office, and that by your seasonable remedies, you may 
prevail with these most wicked followers of the Waldensian sect, 
and others delEiled with the infection of any sort of heresy what- 
ever, to abjure their errors, and obey the orders of the said in- 
quisifor ; and that you may be able to effect this with so much 
more ease, in proportion to the greatness of the power and author- 
it 1/ whereicith you are vested by us, we, by these presents, grant 
to 3'ou a full and entire license and authority to call and instantly 
to require, by yourself or by any other person or persons, all the 
archbishojjs and bishops in the duchy, in Dauphiny, and in the 
parts adjacent, (whom the Most High hath appointed to be part- 
ners with us in our travail,) and to command them, in virtue of 
holy obedience, together with the venerable brethren our ordina- 
ries or their vicars, or the officials general in the cities and dio- 
ceses wherein you may see meet to proceed to the premises, and 
to execute the office which we have enjoined you ; and with the 
foresaid inquisitor, a man of great erudition, established in the 
faith, and of ardent zeal for the salvation of souls, that they be 
assisting to you in the things mentioned, and with one consent pro- 
ceed, along icith you, to the execution of them; that they take arms 
against the said Waldenses and other heretics, and, with common 
counsels and measures, crush and tread them as venomous ser- 
pents ; and that they provide with care, that the people committed 
to their inspection persist and be confirmed in the confession of 
the true faith ; and that, in a worlc so holy and so very necessary 
as the extermination and dissipyation of these heretics, the}' apply 
all their endeavours, and willingly bestow all their pains as in duty 
bound ; and, in tine, that they neglect nothing which may in any 
■way contribute to that design. 


"Moroever, to entreat our most dear son in Christ, Charles the 
iUustrioiis king of France, and our beloved sons the nohlemen, 
CharlcH duke of Savoy, the dukes, j)?'Ui<';es, earhy arid temporal 
lords of cities, lands, and the universities of these and other 
places, the confederates of higher Germai)y, and in general all 
others who are faithfid in Christ in these countries, that they may 
take up the shield for defence of the orthodox faith, of which they 
made profession in receiving holy baptism, and the cause of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom kings reign, and princes rule ; and 
that tliey afford help to the said archbishops, bishops, to you, to 
their vicars, or officials, and to the inquisitor, by suitable aids, 
and hy their secular arm, according as they understand to be 
needful for executing such a necessary and salutary per qidsition ; 
and tliat they vehemently and vigorously set themselves in oppo- 
sition to these heretics, for the defence of the faith, the safety of 
their country, the preservation of themselves and of all that be- 
long to them, that so they may make them to j^erish, and entirely 
blot them out from the face of the earth. 

''And if you should think it expedient, tliat all the faithful in 
thos:i places should carry the salutary cross on their hearts and on 
their garments, to animate them to fight resolutely against these 
heretics, to cause, preach, and publish the croisade hy the proper 
preachers of the word of God, and to grant unto those who take 
the cross, and fight against these heretics, or who contribute 
thereunto, the privilege of gaining :i plenary indulgence, and the 
remission of all their sins once in their life, and likewise at the 
point of death, by virtue of the commission given you above; 
likewise to command, upon their holy obedience, and under the 
pain of the greater excommunication, ^XX fit irreachers of the word 
of God, secular and regular, of whatever order they be, mendicants 
not excepted J exempt and non-exempt, that they excite and iufianie 
(exotiare et iufiammare~) these faithful to exterminate, utterly hy 
force and hy arms, that plague, so that they may assemble with all 
their strength and powers for repelling the common danger; fur- 
ther, to absolve those who take the cross, fight, or contribute to 
the war, from all ecclesiastical sentences and pains, whether ge- 
neral or particular, by which they may in any manner be bound, 
excepting those which shall be specially inflicted hereafter, from 
wliich the oftenders are only to be loosed by previous satisfaction, 
or the consent of the party; as likewise to dispense with them as 
to any irregularity they may be cliargeable with in divine things, 
or by any apostasy, and to agree and. comj)ound with them as to 
goods which they may have clandestinely or by stealth acquired, or 
which they dishonestly or doubtfully j^ossess, applying them only 
for the support of the expedition for extirpating the heretics; in 
like manner to commute all vows whatever, though made with an 
oath, of pilgrimage, abstinence, and others, (excepting only 
those of chastity, of entering into a religious life, visiting the 


Holy Land, the sepulchres of the apostles, and the church of St. 
James in Compostella,) to those who come forth to this warfare, 
or who contribute thereto, or who only give as much as the per- 
formance of their vows of pilgrimage might probably have cost 
them, having a respect to the distance of the places, and the 
condition of the persons, according as shall appear proper to you, 
or to the confessors deputed by you for that purpose ; in the mean 
time to choose, appoint, and confirm, in our name, and in the 
name of the Romish Church, one or more captains or leaders of 
the war over the crossed soldiers, and tbe army to be convened, 
and to enjoin and command, that they undertake that charge, and 
faithfully acquit themselves in it for the honour and defence of 
the faith, and that all the rest be obedient to him or them ; to 
grant, further, to every one of them a permission to seize and free- 
ly possess the goods of the heretics whether movable or immovable, 
and to give them, for a prey, whatever the heretics have brought 
to the lands of the Catholics, or, on the contrary, have taken or 
caused to be taken from them; to command likewise all those 
who are in the service of the said heretics, wherever they be, to 
depart from them within a limited time which you shall prescribe 
to them, under whatever pains you shall judge proper; to admo- 
nish and require them, and all persons, ecclesiastical or secular, 
of whatever dignity, age, sex, or order they be, under the pains 
of excommunication, suspension and interdict, reverently to 
obey and observe the apostolical mandates, and to abstain from 
all commerce with the aforesaid heretics ; and, by the same au- 
thority, to declare, that they and all others, whoever they be, 
who may be bound and obliged by contract, or in any other man- 
ner whatever, to assign or pay any thing to them, shall not hence- 
forth be obliged to do so, nor can they be compelled in any man- 
ner of way to it ; moreover, to deprive all those who do not obey 
your admonitions and mandates, of whatever dignity, state, de- 
gree, order, or pre-eminence they be, ecclesiastics of their dig- 
nities, offices, and benefices, and secular persons of their honours, 
titles, fiefs, and privileges, if they persist in their disobedience 
and rebellion ; and to confer their benefices on others whom you 
shall account worthy of them, and even on those who may be 
already possessed of, or expecting any other ecclesiastical bene- 
fices, in whatever number, or of whatever quality soever they 
may be ; and to declare these deprived as aforesaid, forever infa- 
mous, and incapable, for the time to come, of obtaining the like 
or any others ; and to fulminate all sorts of censures, according 
as justice, rebellion, or disobedience, shall appear to you to re- 
quire; to inflict an interdict, and, when inflicted, either to re- 
move it finally, or only to suspend it for a time, according as it 
may be found expedient, on good reasons and consideration, as 
you may know to be useful and necessary ; but chiefly on those 
days on which perhaps indulgences are to be published, or the 


croisade to be preached ; and to proceed directly and simpUciter, 
loithout the noise and form o/*yit6-^ice, having only regard to truth, 
against those who carry to these heretics, or their accomplices, 
provisions, arms, or other things prohibited, and other aiders, 
abettors, advisers, or entertainers of them, whether open or se- 
cret, or who by any means hinder or disturb the execution of such 
a salutary enterprise ; and to declare all and every one of the 
transgressors to have incurred the censures and pains, both spi- 
ritual and temporal, which are inflicted, of right, upon those who 
do such things; as also to restore and absolve those who are peni- 
tent, and willing to return again to the bosom of the church as 
formerly, even though they should have taken an oath to faVour 
the heretics, or had received their pay to light for them, or had 
supplied them with arms, succours, victuals, and other things 
forbidden ; providing they promise by taking an oath of a different 
kind, or otherwise give sufficient security, that for the time to 
come they will obey our mandates, those of the church, and yours, 
whether they be communities, universities, or particular persons, 
of whatever state, order or pre-eminence they be, or in whatever 
dignity, ecclesiastical or civil, they may be elevated ; and to re- 
establish and put them in possession of their honours, dignities, 
offices, benefices, fiefs, goods, and other rights, of which they 
were formerly possessed ; and^ in fine, to concede, dispose, esta- 
blish, ordain, command, and execute, all and evert/ other mat- 
ters necessary or in any respect conducive to this salutary business, 
even though they should be such as require a particular order, 
and are not comprehended in your general commission ; and to 
check and restrain all opposers thereof, by ecclesiastical censures, 
and other suitable and lawful remedies, without regard to any 
appeal whatever; and, if need he, to call into your assistance the 
aid of the secidar arm. And our will is, that all privileges, ex- 
emptions, apostolical letters, and indulgences of any kind, grant- 
ed by us, in general, or particular, or iu manner aforesaid, under 
any form of words or expressions, shall be held void, and as let- 
ters not granted, so far as they are inconsistent with, and tend 
to hinder or retard these presents, we hereby deprive them of all 
force, together with all other things whatever that are contrary, 
though the Holy See should have granted to any, either* gene- 
rally or particularly, that they could not be interdicted, suspended 
or excommunicated and deprived of their dignities and benefices, 
or smitten with any other apostolical pain, if in the apostolical 
letters there be not full and express mention made, word for word, 
of such an indulgence. 

^'■Thou, therefore, vfiy dearly beloved son, undertaking icith a 
devout mind the charge of such a meritorious ivork, show yourself 
diligent, solicitous, and careful in word and deed to execute it, so 
that, from your labours, attended, with the divine favour and grace, 
the expected success and fruits may follow, and that by your so- 




Ucitude you may 7iot only merit for reward the glory which is 
bestoived on thos^e who are employed in designs and affairs of 
piety J hut also that you m,ay obtain, and not undeservedly, the 
more abundant commendations from us, and from the Apostolic 
See, an account of your most exact diligence and faithful integ- 
rity. And, because it may be difficult to transmit these present 
letters to all places where they may be necessary, we will, and by 
apostolical authority appoint, that to a copy which may be taken 
and subscribed by the hand of any public notary, and attested by the 
subscription of any ecclesiastical prelate, entire faith may be given, 
and that it should be held as valid, and the same regard paid to 
it as to the original letters, if they had been produced and shown. 
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the incarnation of 
our Lord 1487, the 5th of the kal. of May, in the 3d year of our 

Sm-li is the document! ^ECas earth ever seen such outrages? 
Did heathen Rome herself ever issue and enforce such edicts of 
blood and terror, as " Holy Mother Church'' belched forth upon 
the trembling tribes of men as they melted before her wrath ! 
Well did the Fifth Council of Lateran, 1516, session 11th, forbid 
her priests " on any account to presume to fix, or in their sermons 
assert, any certain time of the evils to come, or of the coming of 
Anti- Christ.*' (Tempus quoque praefixum futurorum malorum, vel 

Antechristi adventum praedicate, vel asserrere, nequaquam 

prsesumant.) The denial of Mr. Hughes is its own best comment 
on the character of Papism, and the means of its defence. 

We see in this decree from the head of the church, the claim of 
power over all things temporal and spiritual, as having charge 
from God to govern his Jiock by such means. The Inquisition is 
here authoritatively set up in the dominions of a foreign prince ; 
kings invoked to sustain the work of crushing the vipers, the he- 
retics — in the name of their baptism, and of the faith, and of God ; 
Archbishcps, and other ministers of peace and love, ordered to take 
uj) arms against them, and tread them AQVin,^x\6. exterminate them; 
and all to unite in blotting them from the earth. We have also, as 
usual, the '-'■plenary indulgence*' for murdering by wholesale : and 
the good morals of ^'- compounding'' ' with thieves and robbers, so as to 
apply the goods fraudulently gotten, to the extirpation of heretics; 
also " commuting voics, though made wUh an oath," for who 
aid the crusade by hand or purse, and the like holy things, show- 
ing how ^'Iloly Mother" loved heaven and the rights of men ! 
This document alone is enough to settle the question at issue, 
with every candid man. The only possible apology which is at- 
tempted for this diabolical instrument is, that these heretics (Wal- 
DENSES TOO, SO that it was not only the Alhigenses whom the 
popes slaughtered) were public enemies of all Catholics, and of 
all states. This, if wholly true, (it is wholly false, ^ is in fact,"*giv- 
ing up the question in debate; for it is saying, that according to 


the Catliollc relifjion^ whenever a people arise in a country, who 
are thought at Rome to be public enemies to all Catholics and all 
governments, then the Pope may order their extermination by a 
crusade — no matter whether in France, Portugal, or Italy, — whe- 
ther in Europe or America I This is no less than claiming uni- 
versal supremacy over church and state everywhere, for the support 
of the Catholic faith. It is claiming the right in the name of 
God, and as head of Plis church, to put men to death (or which is 
the same thing, order it to be done) for crimes ar/ainst the state, 
and departure from the doctrines of the Catliolic church. 

While Mr. Hughes gives it as iiis opinion, that the Roman 
Catholic reli(jion is not opposed to civil and religious liberty, we 
may surely ask what other and abler men say, even allowing that 
they only give their opinion of Catholic doctrine on this subject. 
And if the Pope of Home should endorse such ojyiniojis, (which 
he has never done for Mr. Hughes's opinion,) then the testiuiony 
would seem conclusive in favour of the truth of these opinions. 
Now, suppose Cardinal Bellarmine to be in Priest Hughes's place, 
and discussing this question, and should, under the Pope's sanc- 
tion, argue for the fact and the right of persecution, in the fol- 
lowing terms: — (1) 

" That heretics condemned by the church may be pu- 
nished WITH temporal penalties, AND EVEN WITH DEATH. 

We will briefly show that the church has the power, and it is 
HER DUTY, to cast off incorrigible heretics, especially those who 
have relapsed, and that the secular power ougeit to inflict 
on such temporal punishments, and even death itself. 1st. 
This may be proved from the Scriptures. 2d. It is proved 
from the opinions and laws of the emperors, which the church has 
alioaijs approved, od. It IS PROVED BY THE LAWS OF the 
church. 4th. It is proved by the testimony of the fathers. 
Lastly. It is proved from natural reason. For, Jirst; it is owned 
by all, that havetic^ may of right he excoinmuiiicated — of course 
they may he put to death. This consequence is proved because 
excommunicatioii is a greater punishment than temporal death. 
Secondly ; experience j^roves that THERE IS NO OTHER REMEDY; 
for the church has, stej) hy step, tried ALL REMEDIES ; 1st, excom- 
munication alone; then pecuniary pena/^ics; afterwards, banish- 
ment ; ajid lastly, HAS been forced TO put them to death, 
TO SEND THEM TO THEIR OWN PLACE. Thirdly; all allow that 
forgery deserves death, but heretics are guilty of forgery of the 
Word of God. Fourthly; a hreach of taith hy man toward 
God is a greater sin than of a ivife with her hushand. But a 
iDomans unfaithfulness is punished ivith death; why not a he- 
retic s? Fifthly; there are three grounds on which reason 
shows that heretics should he put to death. The first is, lest the 

(1) Chap. XXL Lib. iii. On Laity. 


wicked should injure the righteouH; second, that by the p?/???^^- 
oncnt of a few, many may bs reformed. For many who were 


THE Inquisition flourishes. F In ally ; it is a benefit to o<^.s^i- 
nate heretics to remove them from this life^for the longer they 
live the more errors they invent, the more persons they mislcadj 
and the greatest damnation do they ti'easure up to themselves. 

*' Chapter XXII. — Objections Ansioered. 

'^ It remains to answer the objections of Luther and other here- 
tics. Argument 1st, From the History of the Church at 
Large. The Church, says Luther, //-o??! the beg inning even to 
this time, has never burned a heretic. Therefore it does 
not seem to he the mind of the Holy Spirit that they slioidd be 
burned I I reply. This argument admirably proves, not the sen- 
timent, but the IGNORANCE or impudence of Luther. For as 

WISE PUT TO DEATH, Luthcr either did not know it, and was there- 
fore ignorant ; or, if he knew it, he is convicted of impudence and 
falsehood, for that heretics were often burned by the church, may 
be proved by adducing a feio from, many examples. {lie instances, 
Donatisfs, Manicheans, and Albigenses.) 

"Argument 2d, Experience shows that terror is not useful (in 
such cases). I reply, experience proves the contrary — 
FOR the Donatists, Manicheans, and Albigenses were 

ROUTED and annihilated BY ARMS. 

** Argument 13th. The Lord attributes (says the Protestant^ 
to the church, the sword of the Spirit, which is the ^Vord of God, 
but not the material sicord. Nay, he said to Peter, who wished 
to defend him with a material sword, '^)?^< up thy .sicord into the 
scabbard:' John xviii. I answer: As the church has eccle- 

"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 


Luther denied that the true church had ever burned a heretic. 
He often convicts the Clturch of Rome of such acts. Bellarmilie 
here frankly awows persecution, yea, the right and the duty of 


ture for the authority ; and appeals to history for the fact that the 
church had put to death, before his day, " almost an ineinite 


It is this same writer who thus explains the stillness and peace 
of Catholics where they are not the majoriti/ of a community, in the 
very next chapter: " But when in reference to heretics, thieves, 
and other wicked men, tlicre shall arise this question in par- 
ticular, 'SHALL THEY BE EXTERMINATED V it is to he considered 
according to the meaning of our Lord, whether that can he done 
tvithout injury to the good, and if that he possihle, they are without 
DOUBT TO BE EXTIRPATED; hut if that he not possible, either he- 
cause thvy he not sufficiently hnoicn, and then there would he dan- 
ger of putrishing the innocent, instead of the guilty ; OR BECAUSE 


Hence, in the United States, we may expect life while wo have 
numhers. You see, gentlemen, what our friends at Rome (not 
jjriests, but CARDINALS, whose works are sanctioned hy the Pope, 
and in this case a nephew of the Pope) think of the rights of mi- 
norities/ they are summed up in this — they may die hy the hands 
of papists I 

Now, with these declarations of a great cardinal, we may com- 
pare the bulls of popes, and decrees of councils, already adduced 
— and see how forcibly they illustrate and confirm each other. 

One of the most striking proofs of the opposition of popery, as 
a system, to civil and religious liberty, is found in the interference 
of the popes as the avowed head of the church, icith sovereign 
states of Europe. There was scarcely a form of oppression which 
they did not practise, or a right, civil or religious, on which they 
did not encroach. A system is often best known by its p)ractical 
operation; and when the effect is not only such as the system 
might be expected to produce, but such as the system fearlessly 
avows, no one can refuse to it a ch"Uracter which it openly assumes. 
What follows will explain itself. 

We present to our readers a chapt<ir from Du Pin, a Roman Ca- 
tholic historian, which gives a most striking picture of the spirit of 
papism in the 17th century. It is a detailed history of an outra- 
geous assault made by the Pope on the Republic of Venice. For 
the fidelity of the narrative we have not merely the character of 
Du Pin, (who as a papist would hardly do the Pope injustice,) but 
the confirmation of contemporary writers. The events are too no- 
torius to be denied, at least in their essential parts. It may be 
proper here to say a word of the Inderdict which the Pope fulmi- 
nated against the State of Venice, for daring to assert rights which 
are inseparable from every government, and which no ruler but 
the Pope ever had th*- audacity to question. 


The papal Inderdict was designed to shut Heaven against the 
offending people; and to expose them as heathen to the wrath of 
God until they submitted to the Pope. I have before me a large 
folio, Jus EccLESiASTicUxM Universu3i; or The Universal Eccle- 
siastical Law of the Church of Rome, in which a whole chapter is 
taken up on the nature, form, force, &c. &c. of an Interdict. The 
following is a part of the form there given, which has been often 
used in other days and other lands : 

" Bind the whole land of with the bond of public excom- 
munication, so that no one, except a clergyman, or poor mendi- 
cant, or stranger, or infant of two years or under, be allowed bu- 
rial in the whole territory . No one shall be permitted to 

marry a wife, or to salute another; nor clergy, nor laity, nor inha- 
bitants, nor strangers in all the land shall be permitted to eat flesh 
or any other food, except what is allowed in Lent, while the In- 
terdict continues. Let no layman or clergyman be shorn of his 
hair or shaven, until the rulers are subdued, and the leaders of 
the people are made obedient. But if any one shall be detected 
in the violation of this bond, in any way, he shall not be restored 
without condign punishment.'' 

This is a part of the terrific sentence passed by the Pope only 
two centuries ago, against a sovereign state, and that a republic, 
over wdiich he had no more right to lord it, than over our own. 

Now, I ask, why should the minions of the Pope in the United 
States be believed when they talk of liberty? Can any man be- 
lieve the Rev. Mr. Hughes, when he j^ro/esses to be subject to the 
Pope, and yet love liberty? One or other of must be given 
up. Let Mr. Hughes tell us why in the 17th century the Pope 
oppressed Venice, and yet in the 19th century sjmr-es usf 

The History of the Inderdict of Venice, fulminated by 
Pope Paul V. (1) 
"The difference of the Republic of Venice with Paul V. is one 
of the most important points of the ecclesiastical history of the se- 
venteenth century; not only by reason on the subject of the dis- 
pute, but also much more on account of the great number of 
questions which were agitated on occasion of that difference, by 
the most able divines and lawyers of that time. The Senate of 
Venice made two decrees in the beginning of that century ; by 
the first of which it was forbidden under severe penalties, to build 
hospitals or monasteries, or to establish new convents or societies 
in the State of Venice, without the permissioa of the senate. By 
the othef, which was made the 26th March, 1605, a law made in 
1536 was renewed, confirmed and extended over all parts of the 
State, forbidding all the subjects of the republic to sell, alienate, 

(1) From Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. viii. Book ii. Chap. 1, Cen- 
tury 17th. 


or dispose in any manner whatsoever, of immovable goods in per- 
petuity, in favour of ecclesiastical persons, without the consent of 
the senate : upon condition nevertheless, that if any legacies of 
immovable goods were bequeathed, those goods should be sold 
within two years after, and the purchase given to discharge those 
legacies. There happened at the same time two criminal affairs, 
which concerned the ecclesiastics. Scipion Sarrasui, canon of 
Vicenza, who had taken off the seal of the magistrates, affixed to 
the Episcopal chancery, at the request of the chancellor, the see 
being vacant, was seized by the senate, and put into prison for 
having insulted one of his kinswomen, whom he intended to de- 
bauch ; and some time after, Count Baldolin Valde-marino, Abbot 
Feveza, being accused of many enormous crimes, (1) was impri- 
soned by order of the senate. The Pope Paul V. being persu^^ded 
that the decrees and enterprises against the clergy, encroached 
upon ecclesiastical jurisdiction, complained of them to the am- 
bassador of Venice, and demanded of the senate by his nuncio, 
that the decrees should be revoked immediately, and the ecclesi- 
astics, imprisoned by the authority of the senate, delivered into 
the hands of his nuncio, to be tried by ecclesiastical judges ; 
threatening to interdict the republic, if he was not obeyed imme- 
diately. The senate answered, the 1st of December, 1605, that 
they could not release prisoners accused of crime which belong to 
the recognisance of the secular judges, nor revoke the laws which 
they had a right to make, and which they believed necessary for 
the good of the state. The Pope having received this answer by 
letters from his nuncio, and by word of mouth from the ambassa- 
dor of Venice, despatched on the 10th of December two Briefs; 
the one addressed to Marin Grrimani, Doge of Venice, and the 
other to the republic by way of monitory, exhorting the state to 
revoke their decrees, which he thought contrary to the canons, 
and prejudicial to the liberties of the church; declaring that they 
who made these laws, or caused them to be executed, had incurred 
ecclesiastical censures, from which they could not be freed but 
by revoking those statutes, and re-establishing affairs in their for- 
mer state. He commanded them under the penalty of excommu- 
nication, latm seutentias, to revoke theui, which, if they refused, 
he protested that he should be obliged to put in execution the pe- 
nalties annexed to such offences, without any other citation; being 
not willing that God should call him to account one day for having 
thus failed in his duty; and not being able to dissemble, when he 
saw the authority of the holy Apostolic See infringed, the eccle- 
siastical immunities trampled under foot, the canons and holy de- 
crees neglected, and the rights and privileges of the church sub- 

The Pope sent these briefs to his nuncio at Venice, with orders 

(1) Oppression, incest with his sister, and murder. 


^Ho present and publish them," and acquainted the cardinals in a 
consistory held the 12th of that montli, with the subject of com- 
plaint he had against the republic of Venice, and with what he 
had done thereupon. Nevertheless the republic appointed Leo- 
nardo Donato, procurator of St. Mark, to go express, and treat of 
this affair in the quality of ambassador at Rome. The nuncio 
not having received those briefs till the day after Donato had been 
chosen ambassador, thought he ought to put off the publication 
of them, and wrote to the Pope, who ordered him to present them. 
The nuncio received this order on Christmas-eve, and presented, 
the day following, the briefs to the counsellors assembled to assist 
at a solemn mass, in the absence of the Doge Grimani, who was 
extremely ill, and died the day following. His death was the rea- 
son why the briefs were not opened, the senate having ordered 
that no affair should be transacted, but that of the election of a 
doge. The Pope on his side wrote. to the nuncio, to protest to the 
senate that they ought not to proceed to a new election, because 
it would be null, as made by excommunicated persons. The nun- 
cio pressingly demanded audience to make this declaration ; but 
the senate would not give it him, it being not customary to re- 
ceive any memorials from the ministers of foreign princes during 
the interregnum, but compliments of condolence. The electors 
were not a long time in choosing a new doge. The 10th of Janu- 
ary, 1706, Leonardo Donato was advanced to that high dignity. 
All the ambassadors went immediately, according to custom, to 
visit the new doge, and pay him their compliments. But the 
nuncio would not visit him. The doge did not omit in writing to 
the Pope according to custom, to notify his election to him ; and 
the Pope received his letter. The first affair which was transacted 
at Venice after the election of the doge, was the difference of the 
republic with the Pope. It began with nominating the Chevalier 
Duodo in the place of Leonardo Donato (who was elected doge) 
ambassador at Home. After this the briefs were opened; and 
when the senate saw what they contained, before they returned 
an answer to the Pope, they determined to have the advice of some 
divines and lawyers. The lawyers whom they principally consult- 
ed were Erasmus Gratian of Udina, and Mark Antonio Pellegrin 
of Padua; and the famous Fra-Paolo Sarpi of the order of the 
Servites, was appointed the divine of the republic. It was also 
resolved not only to consult the doctors of the university of Padua 
and of Venice, but also the most able lawyers of Italy and Europe, 
who sent them their opinions, with the laws of the other kingdoms 
and churches of Christendom, wdiich had any relation to the affair 
in question. Then the senate, after having understood the opi- 
nion of the doctors, returned this answer to the Pope the 28th of 
Januar}^ : " That they heard with a great deal of grief and as- 
tonishment, by letters from his holiness, that he had condemned 
the laws of the republic, (observed with success for many ages, 


and with which his predecessors had found no fault,) as contrary 
to the authority of the holy apostolic see ; and that he regarded 
those who had made them (who were men of piety, and had well 
deserved of the see of Rome) as persons who broke the ecclesi- 
astical immunities; that according to the admonition of his holi- 
ness, they had caused to be examined their ancient and modern 
laws, and that they had found nothing in them which could not 
be ordained by the authority of a sovereign priuce, or whjch in- 
fringed on the power of the Pope; because it is certain that it 
belongs to a secular prince, to take cognizance of all societies 
which are founded within his own jurisdiction, and to take care 
that no edifices may be raised whicli may prejudice the public 
safety, when there are in a state as great a number of churches 
and places of devotion as is sufficient. That they never refused 
giving leave to build them ; the republic even contributing there- 
to very liberally on her part. That the law prohibiting the aliena- 
tion of the goods of the laity forever in favour of the ecclesias- 
tics, regarding nothing but temporal affairs, it cannot be pretended 
that they have done any thing by that against the canons. That 
if the Popes had power to forbid the ecclesiastics to alienate in 
favour of secular persons the goods of the church without her con- 
sent, it might be lawful for princes to prohibit seculars also to 
alienate theirs in favour of the ecclesiastics without their permis- 
sion. That the ecclesiastics lose nothing by their decrees, because 
they receive the value of the immovable goods which are given or 
bequeathed to them. That this alienation weakening the state, 
is not less prejudicial in spiritual than temporal concernments. 
That the senate cannot believe they have incurred any censure 
by making these laws, since princes have by a divine law, from 
which no human authority can derogate, the power of making 
laws in temporal affairs. That the admonitions of his holiness 
have no effect but in matters that are purely spiritual, and not in a 
temporal affair, which is in all things separate, and wholly exempt 
from the pontifical authority. That the senate does not believe 
his holiness, who is full of piety and religion, will persevere with- 
out knowledge of the cause, in his menaces. That these were an 
abridgment of the senate's reasons, which their extraordinary 
ambassador would give him to understand more largely. 

*' The Pope having received this answer of the senate, declared 
to the ambassador that he could not relax his severity if they did 
not revoke their laws, and deliver into the hands of his nuncio 
the prisoners. He complained still more of another decree they 
had made upon the emphytheoses,(l) and caused his complaints to 
be delivered by his nuncio to the senate. As he knew they would 
give him no satisfaction thereupon, he gave orders for another 
brief to be presented, the 10th of December, to the senate, 

(1) A term of law for a long lease, from ten to a hundred years. 


whereby he required that the two prisoners should be delivered to 
his nuncio, under the penalty of excommunication. The senate 
answered, that they would not divest themselves of the right which 
they had to punish the crimes of their subjects, which they had 
always enjoyed from the establishment of their state, with the con- 
sent of the sovereign pontiffs. The extraordinary ambassador of 
the republic came to Home, and represented to the Pope the rea- 
sons of their proceedings ; but nothing was able to move his ho- 
liness. He caused a monitory to be drawn up against the Repub- 
lic of Venice, and having communicated it to the cardinals in 
consistory the 15th of April, he ordered it to be published and 
fixed up in the public places at Rome. This monitory imported 
that the Senate of Venice being not willing to revoke the laws 
which they had made in prejudice of the ecclesiastical authority, 
nor to deliver their prisoners, he declared these laws to be null, a^d 
pronounced the doge and Republic of Venice excommunicated, 
if within the space of twenty-four days, to begin from the day of 
the publication, they did not revoke, break, and annul the afore- 
said laws, and actually deliver the canon and the abbot into the 
hands of his nuncio. That till such time as they should pay 
obedience to this order, he forbade them to bury in consecrated 
ground those who happened to die ; and that if, within three days 
after the twenty-four were expired, they did not comply, he laid 
the whole state under an interdict; and forbade all masses and 
divine offices to be celebrated, except in such cases and places as 
were privileged by common law. And that he deprived the doge 
and senate of all the goods which they possessed in the Roman 
Church, or in other churches, and of all the privileges or indultos 
which they had obtained from the holy see, and especially from 
those which they had to proceed against clerks in certain cases. 
The monitory was addressed to the patriarchs, archbishops, 
bishops, their vicar-generals, and to all the clergy, secular and 
regular, having ecclesiastical dignity in the State of the Republic 
of Venice. 

'^ The senate being informed that the monitory bull was pub- 
lished, recalled their extraordinary ambassador; forbade all ec- 
clesiastical prelates to publish or set up the bull of the Pope, and 
commanded that all the}'^ who had copies of it should carry them 
to the magistrates of Venice. The Pope on his side recalled the 
nuncio who was at Venice, and dismissed the ordinary ambassa- 
dor of the republic. At the same time the chiefs of the Council 
of Ten sent for the superiors of monasteries, and of the other 
churches of Venice, and declared the intention of their sovereign 
to be that they should continue to perform the divine offices, and 
that no one should leave the ecclesiastical state without leave, as- 
suring those who stayed of protection ; and declaring, that they 
who departed should not carry with them any of the goods and 
ornaments of the churches. They commanded them, in case any 


brief was sent to tlicm from Rome, or order from their superiors, 
to send it to the magistrates before they read it. And the govern- 
ors of all the cities of the state were enjoined to give the same 
orders in the places of their jurisdiction. The superiors immedi- 
ately all promised to obey the orders that had been given them, 
and to perform divine service as before. A council was held upon 
what was proper to be done concerning the monitory of the Pope. 
Some gave their advice to appeal from it, as many princes, and the 
republic itself had done on the like occasion. But others believed 
there was no occasion for having recourse to this remedy, pretend- 
ing that the briefs were notoriously null of themselves. This 
opinion was followed, and nothing was done, but a mandate made 
in the niame of the doge, addressed to all the ecclesiastics of the 
republic, wherein he declared, that, having received advice of the 
publication, April 17th, at Home, of a certain brief fulminated 
against him, and the senate, and sovereignty of Venice, he thought 
himself obliged to employ his cares in maintaining the public 
tranquillity, and supporting the authority of the prince. That he 
protested before God he had not omitted any means of informing, 
and laying before the Pope, the strong and convincing reasons of 
the republic. But that having found his ears closed, and seen the 
brief he had published against all kind of reason and justice, in 
opposition to the doctrine of the Holy Scripture, the fathers and 
canons, and to the prejudice of the secular authority which God 
has bestowed upon sovereign princes, the liherti/ of the state and 
the public repose, and to the great scandal and ofFence of the 
whole Christian world; he held that brief to be not only unjust, 
but also null, unlawfully fulminated in fact, and contrary to the 
rules of law, and that he would use the same remedies which his 
predecessors and other princes have used against the popes who 
abused the authority which God had given them to edilication, and 
passed the bounds of their power. And this he was the more 
inclined to do, forasmuch as he was certain that this brief would 
be looked upon in the same light, not only by all the subjects of 
the republic, but also by the whole Christian world. That he was 
persuaded they would continue, as before, to take care of the souls 
of the faithful, and to perform the divine offices, being fully re- 
solved to persevere in the Catholic and apostolic faith, anei the 
respect which is due to the holy Boman church. This mandate, 
dated the 6th of May, 1606, was immediately published and set 
up at Venice, and in all the cities of the state. 

" As the term of twenty-four days allowed by the briefs approach- 
ed, and the Jesuits, who had received particular orders from the 
Pope, showed plainly, that they were inclined to observe the inter- 
dict, and would at least abstain from saying of mass, they were 
commanded on the 10th of May, to give an express declaration of 
the measures they designed to take. They acknowledged then, 
that they could not celebrate mass during the interdict, and that if 


the senate obliged them to do it, thej chose rather to retire from 
Venice. Upon this answer, the senate resolved to send them 
away, and appointed the grand Vicar of the Patriarch to receive 
the ornaments of their churches, and gave them order to depart 
immediately. They went out that evening, carrying each of them 
a consecrated host about their necks; and being put into two 
barks, retired to Ferrara. The Jesuits in the convents which 
were in the other cities of the republic departed also. As it was 
manifest that the Capuchins, Theatins, and other regulars, after 
the example of the Jesuits, were resolved to observe the interdict, 
the senate published a decree the last day of the term, by which 
all those who refused to celebrate the divine offices, in the accus- 
tomed manner, were enjoined to retire out of the jurisdiction of 
the republic ; upon which the Capuchins and Theatins departed 
also, and the other Religious were placed in the government of 
their churches. The Capuchins of the Territories of Brescia and 
Bergamo stayed, and continued to perform divine offices, like the 
other ecclesiastics, secular and regular, of the republic. 

''The nuncios of the Pope who were in the courts of Catholic 
princes of Europe, endeavoured to exclude from divine service, 
the ambassadors and envoys of Venice; but their attempts were 
fruitless. They continued to be treated as they used to be, and 
were admitted to prayers, assemblies, and the ecclesiastic ceremo- 
nies, as heretofore, in France, Spain, Italy, and Poland. The 
ambassador of the republic assisted in person at Vienna, in the 
first solemn procession of the Holy Sacrament, which was made 
by the Jesuits. But the nuncio, who was not present for fear of 
meeting the ambassador, gave out such menaces, that the am- 
bassador did not think fit to be present at the two following ones. 
Though the interdict was not observed in the States of Venice, it 
occasioned tumults and seditions in several places, which the se- 
nate, having attributed to the suggestions of the Jesuits, made a 
decree the i4th of June, whereby they declared, that the Jesuits 
should nevermore be received for the future in any place of the 
State of Venice, and that this decree should never be revoked, be- 
fore there had been first read the whole process in presence of all 
the senate, which should be composed at least of a hundred and 
four score senators, and unless there were five for one who voted 
for the revocation. 

^'Nevertheless the Christian princes interposed to accomodate 
the difi"erence between the Pope and the Venetians. But these 
would not hear any proposition of accommodation, before the 
Pope had taken away the interdict, and the Pope demanded be- 
fore all things the revocation of the decrees. The ambassador of 
the most Christian king exerted himself more strongly and effica- 
ciously than any one else in bringing matters to an accommodation, 
and at length eflfected it. The king of Spain assured the Pope 
that he would assist him with all his forces, and that he had given 


orders for that purpose to his ministers in Italy. But these pro- 
mises had no other effect, than to retard the acconiniodation, and 
had like to have kindled a war in Italy. Some unknown persons 
having set up in the state of Venice a placard by which the re- 
public was exhorted to separate herself from the Roman Church, 
the senate commanded, that search should be made after the 
author of it, and protested that their intention was, never to de- 
part from the Catholic religion, nor the obedience due to the Holy 
See. They published afterward several orders to maintain a war 
in case they should be attacked. The Pope on his side solicited 
the princes of Italy to put himself into a condition to attack the 
Venetians, or to defend himself, if he should be attacked by them. 
On each side preparations of war were made, but the dispute never 
came to an open rupture. It was not so in the war which was 
carried on by the pen, for a very great number of writings were 
published on both sides, with heat, vivacity, and learning. Though 
the affair had a lowering aspect, and all things threatened a rup- 
ture, the ambassadors of France did not cease, nevertheless, to 
negotiate an accommodation." 

The above passage from a Roman Catholic historian, is the 
narrative of a transaction which is full of interest to the American 
people. From it we learn that the Pope only two centuries ago, 
when his claims were asserted without disguise, excommunicated 
a whole poop'e, for daring to extend the jurisJiction of the state 
to the p/ni/,sA»ieH^ of ecclesiastics, to the erectiBn of convents, 
monasteries, &c. &c. The clergymen were arrested by order of 
the Republic of Venice, the one for debauch, and the other for 
incest and murder. These are offences against the state; they 
are cognizable in civil courts, and in them alone. The courts of 
the church cannot inflict temporal punishment, or try civil cases, 
without infringing the liberty of the state, and violating the order 
which God has established. No Papist will venture to deny this 
in this country, though in Spain and Italy it is far otherwise. But 
the P*»pe diuuanded these criminals of the republic, to be tried 
by him in his ecclesiastical court; and threatened an interdict of 
the republic, if instant obedience was not shown to his mandate! 
What would the American people say if a certain priest who not 
many years since, in a neighbouring town, attempted a similar 
offence to the one mentioned above, (instead of flying the country,) 
had been arrested by the civil magistrate, and had been demanded 
by the Pope, with the threat of an interdict, if we refused to give 
him up? 

In the other case, the republic forbade convents, monasteries, 
&c. &c. to be erected without the permission of the senate, and 
passed salutary laws regulating the bestowing of property on 
ecclesiastics. Monasteries were filling, and ruling the land ; and 
the clergy (as in South America, and once in Great Britain) 
were getting possession of the wealth and even the soil of the 


commonwealth. These salutary laws w^ro intended to restrict 
their encroachments. But the Pope had no idea of permitting a 
free state to govern his subjects, though thej lived in that state ! 
Let the reader refer to the first part of this chapter from Du Pin, 
and then read these remarks — and he will see how the Pope 
claims temporal, as well as spiritual power, over all his followers, 

The next note we make t)n the above narrative is that the his- 
torian tells how faithful the Jesuits (whom the Rev. Mr. Hughes 
so much admires and lauds) were to the Pope. IViei/ left the re- 
public, and publicly espoused the cause of the Pope, as a military 
foe, against their native and free state ! ! And the oath of alle- 
giance of every Jesuit, bishop and priest, if faithfully observed, 
will lead to the same results, in the same circumstances. 

Again: ^'-The Pope," (says our Catholic historian,) "solicited 
the Princes of Italy to put himself into a condition to attach the 
Venetians, or defend himself, if he should he attacked hy themJ' 
A very Christian attitude truly for the Head of the Church ! 
Heading an army to crush a republic I And that for daring to 
punish priests who had been guilty of incest and murder ! How 
would it sound to say — The Apostle Peter raised an army in Je- 
rusalem to rescue James from prison ? Peter once did try the 
sword, and in how just a cause ! But his master rebuked him ! 
''Put up thy sword; they that use the sword shall perish by the 
sword." Yet this is the vicar of Jesus and the successor of Peter ! 
The Pope is indeed the successor of Peter in his follies and sins — 
in using the sword, and in denying his Lord; but not in repent- 
ance, obedience, and the ministerial office. 


*'Is the Rovian Catholic Religion, in any or all its princi- 
ples or doctrines J opposed to civil or religious liberty T' 


Mr. President : — Nothing is more disagreeable than to be 
obliged to argue with a man who trifles with those rules ctf reason- 
ing, on the observance of which, the soundness of an argument 
depends. Logic is to reasoning what grammar is to language, 
with this difference, that the principles of logic are founded in 
common sense, and derive but little authority from usage : where- 
as, those of language are frequently sustained by usage alone. 
All men reason, and yet there are few who pay attention to the 
rules of reasoning. Now I will take up iho: prominent points of 
the gentleman's last speech, in order to show that they are what 
logicians term '' FALLACIES." 

FIRST. What had he undertaken to prove ? He had under- 
taken to prove, that there are doctrines in the Catholic religion 
which are hostile or opposed to civil and religious liberty. This 
is his proposition. As long as he does not prove this proposition ^ 
he beats the air.' But what are we to understand by "DOC- 
TRINE ?" Any ^^ tenet of faith or 7noraIs which Catholics hold 
as having been revealed by Almighty God." Consequently, the 
'first step to be taken, is to select the '^ doctrine." If it is admit- 
ted as such, then he has only to proceed with the argument. If, 
what he imputes as a " doctrine," be denied by his opponent, then 
he must either abandon it, or show that it was taught in the acts 
of a general council, or the Bull of a Pope, " AS A tenet of faith 


When h(! has proven this, then he may again proceed to build his 
argument on it, notwithstanding the denial of his opponent. 

SECOND. His next duty, as a logician, is to show in what 
manner, the " DOCTRINE" is opposed to civil and religious 
liberty, according to the admitted definition of these words. If, 
instead of this, he trusts to popular prejudices in the minds of his 
audience, and substitutes declamation instead of logic, then he 
appeals to the tribunal of passion, and reason will assuredly dis- 
claim the verdict. 

THIRDLY. I shall now proceed to show wherein the "FAXr- 


LAClEs" of the gentleman's argument consist. The foundations 
on which he builds are the sayings and doings of popes, cardinals, 
canonists, and Catholic writers. Now, this is fundamentally illo- 
gical; for, there are many things .s(7?W, and written, and done, by 
these, which are not Catholic doctrines. Thus the interdict of 
Venice does not pretend to be either a '^ tenet of faith Or morals." 

In making this iha foundation of an argument, therefore, he as- 
sumes FALSE PREMISES, by assuming as a "doctrine," what is not 
doctrine, and he arrives at a false conclusion. Herein is the 

If it were true, that Catholics hold the Interdict as " a tenet of 
faith or morals," then, the argument would be logical. But, as 
this is false, so the reasoning which is founded on it, is false, so 
far as regards the question in debate. If I had asserted that the 
Pope had never issued an interdict, the case of Venice would 
have beAi in point, to refute me. But the question is not about 
INTERDICTS, but about DOCTRINES. The Same remarks are appli- 
cable to the other facts, real or pretended, adduced in his speech. 
They may be true in themselves, but it does not follovi that, 
therefore, they are doctrines of the Catholic religion. The Synod 
of York, or the Assembly at Pittsburg, may have said very foolish, 
and done very naughty things; but it does not follow that, there- 
fore, the Confession of Faith is a book of heresy. This must be 
proved by other arguments. Now, when I shall come to show 
what doctrines of the Presbyterian religion are inimical to civil 
and religious liberty, I shall begin by proving, that they are held 
by that denomination, as "having been revealed by Almighty 
God." Whenever the gentleman disclaims the doctrine, I shall 
point it out to him, put his hand 'upon it, and " compel" him, as a 
Presbyterian, to acknowledge it. His introduction of the acts 
and opinions of individuals, instead of stating the acknowledged 
"doctrines" of the Catholic religion, as evidence in the case, is 
a FALLACY in argument, which proves, either that he knows not 
the laws of sound reasoning, or, that he believes his hearers and 
readers to be ignorant of them. 

FOURTHLY. The case of Venice furnishes a few facts which 
\^o to refute the gentleman. Venice was a RJCPUBLIC. And 
Venice was CATHOLIC. Therefore, "the Catholic doctrines 
have nothing in them inconsistent with repvhlicanism. Here 
then, is a fact which refutes the slanders of the whole tribe of 
anti-Catholic crusaders, who are going about disturbing the har- 
monies of society bv their malevolent zeal. Again, the CATHO- 
LICS of THAT REPUBLIC, when the POPE attempted, as 
they conceived, to govern the temporal, which belonged to the 
state, by means of the spiritual, which belonged to the church, 
they resisted him, and were prepared to resist him at the point op 
the bayonet. Were they heretics for this ? No : they were 
never accused of it, and this proves that they violated no "doc- 


trine" or principle of the Catholic religion. The gentleman in 
his comments on this, confounds the •' interdict" with the " ex- 
communication," but this I ascribe to the defectiveness of his his- 
torical and theological information. 

FIFTHLY. The pretended Bull of Incocent VIII. I hj^ve long 
since pronounced spurious. It is not in the Bullarium Magnum, 
■which contains others quite as objectionable. It is not to be found 
in Rome. But Mr. Breckenridge promised, more than eighteen 
months since, to procure its authentication from '' Cambridge, 
England." He has not redeemed his promise. Why ? He 
knows, and let him tell why. He wants the "original Latin." 
This will be no proof; for a document may be spurious in Latin, 
as well as in English. Yet he gives the document, under all 
these circumstances, as if it were genuine. But even if it icere 
genuine, it would be no proof; because it does not constitute any 
doctrine of the Catholic religion. This is the point which the 
gentleman overlooks, and on which the FALLACY of his induc- 
tion rests. It purports to be a letter of "■ Innocent, the Bishop," 
to his " well-beloved son Albertus," « Commissary, &c. both 
on THIS SIDE aud on THAT SIDE of the mountains," &c. 
Now, what I have to defend, are the DOCTRINES of the Catho- 
lic religion ; and as this is no such thing, even if it were genuine, 
and as be.sides it is spurious, I have nothing to do with it. The 
gentleman has first to prove, that it is authentic in history; se- 
condly, that it is regarded as containing doctrines, and then I 
shall recognise it as an argument. 

He first said it was issued in 1477. This was before Innocent 
was elected. I sent him back to his authorities. Then he found 
he had ante dated the document ten years, and charged me with 
*' evasion" for having detected the error. Then, he quoted 
Baronius. I told him, that Baronius wrote only as far down as 
1198. He then says, it was " Ilaynold" (Raynaldus) who con- 
tinued the work of Baronius, and instead of thanking me, for com- 
pelling him to be more exact in his information, he again charges 
me with evasion. Finally he finds in Raynaldus, reference to a 
document on the subject, Rome, 1487, and concludes that, 
THEREFORE, this is that document ! ! Now, I deny its 
authenticity, and I call for the proof. I know that it is worthless, 
for his argument, even if it were cvuthentic. But as a matter of 
historical criticism, I demand his proof. Oh! says he, the " La- 
tin original" is in " Cambridge, England ?" What proof have we 
for that either? I deny the fact, and pronounce the document 
spurious, and worthy of the cause which employs it. There is no 
difficulty in admitting that the Waldenses, as well as the Albi- 
genses, were persecuted by the Catholics. This is not the ques- 
tion. But the question is, did ever Catholics persecute by virtue 
of any "tenet of faith or morals held by them as having 
BEEN revealed BY Almighty God ?" I answer boldly, NEVER. 



And I call upon their accuser to point out the TENET or DOC- 
TKINE in their religion that requires of them to persecute. He 
is bound to do this, at the risk of being looked upon as a public 
CALUMNIATOR of their civil and religious character. 

SIXTHLY. Bellarmine was an advocate for the punishment of 
heretics by the state, and it is a remarkable fact, that he was so far 
from pretending that any doctrine of the Catholic Church required 
this, that his principal authorities for his views, were the writings 
of the infallible Calvin himself. Now, my obligation in this con- 
troversy is not to defend all that was ever done, or said, or written 
by Catholics. I am here to defend the doctrines of the Catholic reii- 
ff'ion, and not the opinions of its members. The Doctrines are 
BINDING ON ALL CATHOLICS ; the opinions of individuals are bind- 
ing ON NOBODY. Here, then, is the FALLACY again, which per- 
vades the whole of the chapter. Let Bellarmine answer for himself; 
I do not hold his sentiments on the subject of heretics. I prefer the 
more humane views of the other individuals, and if Bellarmine 
had attempted to put forth these views as the DOCTRINES of 
the church, and not as his own opinions, he would have been un- 
questionably called to account for them. Does he lay them down^ 
as tenets of Catholic faith? Not he; and yet the gentleman 
would have his readers believe, that the speculations of an author 
and the DOCTRINES which Catholics " hold as having been re- 
vealed by Almighty God,'' are the same thing! Silly artifice! 
He knows that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are no 
more affected by the writings of individuals, giving their opinion 
as individuals, than the Constitution of the United States is affected 
by the babblings of a pettifogger. His system of logic would 
make the ravings of Garrison a part of the American Constitution, 
and those of Doctor Ely, or Mr. M'Calla,a part of the Presbyterian 
creed. Catholics, as such, are accountable for doctrines held by 
the church as having been revealed by Almighty God. 

SEVENTHLY. He asked me, whether the majority in Italy 
and Spain had a right to establish the Catholic religion by law. 
To this, I replied that, if in doing so, they violated no right of 
the minority, they had, in that case, but not otherwise, the right 
to establish it. He says, the case can jiever occur, and I reply 
that, if it can never occur, it can never be right for any majority 
to establish any religion by law. I asked him in turn, whether 
his Scotch forefathers had a riglit, being a minority, to pull down 
by force the altars and religious emblems of the Catholics, who 
were the majority. To this he replies, " it was wholly wrong.'' 
This flat denial of Presbyterian DOCTRINE is what I expected. 
Any book, which is used as a catechism, with the approbation of 
the church, is to be regarded as a standard; and such a book is 
Fisher's Catechism, which answers the question very diiferently. 
In explaining the gentleman's Confession of Faith, it has this 
" Question. Arc our forefathers to he blamed for pulling down 



altars, images, and other monuments of idolatry, from places of 
public worship, at the lleformation ? Answer. No. They had 
Scripture precept and warrant for what they did. (1) 
' Ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their 
images, and cut down their groves, and burn their 
graven images with fire.' "(2) Here we see the heresy of 
the gentleman's reply when he says it was '< wholly WRONG." 
This identical Scripture is quoted or referred to in his Confession 
of Faith, and shows the '' SCRIPTURE WARRANT" for 
burning the Convent at Boston. 

EIGHTHLY. The gentleman admits, that Devoti proclaims 
expulsion from church communion, to be the '' highest grade of 
ecclesiastical coercion." Now, this settles the question, so far as 
the present discussion is concerned. The same means of " ec- 
clesiastical coercion," is used by every 'petty seet^ in existence. 
This belongs to doctrine, and all the rest is touching what is 
called canon law, or rules that were observed in states where the 
ecclesiastical law was so mixed up with the civil, as to be part and 
portion of the law of the land. Is it honest then, I would ask, 
to take advantage of the ignorance of those who are unacquainted 
with the political conditions of other times, and by a perversion 
of truth, represent as portions of Catholic doctrine, those things 
which Devoti himself, shows to have been the result of positive 
state and church laws ? If the author in question says, that Ca- 
tholics are hound by the obligation of their religion, to do what 
he tells us has been done, then I want to know, in what part of 
his work the assertion is found. The whole speech, being a la- 
boured effort to compel Catholics to believe, what they would in 
fact be heretics in believing as tenets of revelation, — 
shows how the accuser in straitened for evidence. He must tirst 
swear, that Catholics believe it as a principle or tenet of their re- 
ligion — and when they swear, that they do not, — he must then 
swear in reply, that they are not to be believed on oath. He 
bound himself in the agreement, to confine the question to their 
DOCTRINES, and yet he never touches' a DOCTRINE, but 
selects out the history of eighteen hundred years, and of the 
Christian world, such portions as would prove his point, IF it 
were not CALUMNY of the grossest kind, to call them doc- 
trines, or hold Catholics of the present day accountable for 

NINTHLY. I have explained the circumstances, connected 
with these times, as much as the limits at ray disposal would ad- 
mit. I have shown, that in no case, has the gentleman met 
the question at issue. I defy any man to fix on any single 
doctrine, proved to be such, which is opposed to civil and 
religious liberty. I have^ in former speeches, pointed out what 

(1) Numbers xxxiii. and Deut. vii. 6. (2) Page 66, 67. 


are the principles of Catholic doctrine. They are tenets, held 
by the church, as havinii: been revealed by divine authority — 
are believed by ALL CATHOLICS— in ALL TIMES— in ALL 
PLACES — and which it would be HERESY TO DENY. 
These, and these only, are Catholic ''DOCTRINES/' And 
these are what the gentleman shuns, although it was in these that 
he bound himself to discover hostility to civil and religious liberty. 
I shall argue the case for him, by taking up some of those grounds, 
which the calumnies of Protestant writers have assigned, as evi- 
dence in the case. But, before I do this, I have to call upon the 
gentleman, to explain a few points, in which he has had the in- 
jirmity to sin against truth, without having the grace or humility 
to acknowledge it. I have been under the necessity of admonishing 
the audience, that his statements were not to be depended on, and 
as this implies a very serious charge, it becomes necessary foi 
me, to establish, and to prove it. And here I must protest 
against unfounded accusation of " abuse and personality." If I 
were to go out of the record, to examine his 'private affairs, that 
would be "personality." If I were to imitate his example, 
by retorting on htm epithets of contempt and odium, such as he 
has applied to me, "Jesuit," "papist," "foreigner," "minion 
of the pope," &c. &c., that would be "abuse" — too vulgar, I 
trust, for my imitation. But I have done nothing of this kind. 
I have been invited expressly to controvert lih statements, to ex- 
amine his authoriti/, and expose him, whenever he uses bad logic 
or false assertion. I hope he did not expect me to come here, at 
his invitation, to sanction hy 7111/ silence, the calumnies hy which 
the public^ (to an almost incredible extent,) liave been so long 
deluded, on the subject of the Catholic religion, and its doctrines. 
If he did, he is mistaken. He stands forth as a PUBLIC 
ACCUSER, and he must expect that his claim to veracity will 
be scrutinized. He who tries to take away the character of a 
large body of his fellow- citizens, must not complain, when his 
unamiable zeal pushes him to the daring experiment of risking 
his own. If he makes a false statement — and I prove that it is 
a false statement, has he any right to complain, that I am " abusive 
or personal r' I should think not. If he were scrupulous, he 
would never leave such an advantage in my power. I have al- 
ready given some instances, in my former speeches, in proof of 
the fact, that his statements are not to be depended on. I shall 
now give a few more. 

In page 89, (Johnson's edition,) of our written Controversy, he 
gives a quotation from the " Third chapter" of the Fourth Council 
of Lateran, as divided by Caranza. He says, at the head of it, "/ 
have the original he/ore me, hut for want ofspace^ I give the trans- 
lation." In regard to this translation, the following questions 
were put by me. ^^ First, do you give it as a literal and con- 
tinuous translation? Second, do you affirm, that in the origi- 


nal, it has the same general MEANING that it seems to have in 
the translation P" (p. 100.) His answer to the first question is 
— ^^ I answer unhesitat'mqly^ I Do/' And yet, the fact is, that it 
WAS NOT CONTINUOUS! The truth is, that no two sen- 
tences of this " continuous" translation, follow each other in the 
original, without words or sentences intervening, wbich he omit- 
ted. He had '' the original before him." And if he had — he 
must have known that it was not continuons. How then, and I 
ask him for a reply, how could he soj/, that it was continuous? — 
First instance. Again, having the original before him, how could 
he say in reply to the second question, ^' I consider the second 
question an indignity offered to the feel irnjs of any honest man." 
(p. 106.) This second question was, '^ Whether, in the original^ 
it had the same GENERAL MEANING, that it seems to have in the 
quotation." His reply is an indignant mode of asserting, that it 
had. And yet the TllUTH IS, that it HAD NOT. The ori- 
ginal had it, " the secular powers PRESENT ;" which limits 
the meaning, by the word ''present," — qualifying the "secular 
powers," to whom ^he execution of the decree was entrusted. 
To make the " meaning general," Mr. Breckinridge OMITS 
the word "present," in the translation, "having the original be- 
fore him," — and yet affects to be indignant, that I should have 
suspected him of having done so ! He denies it, and regards the 
question as an insult. And yet, what HE denied, was true. 
Second "instance." 

Again still, he says, (same page,) " I answer, that it is from 
your own ' Caranza's Summa Conciliorum,' that I quote." Now, 
the]) roof that this is not to be depended on, is, that the last sen- 
tence of the quotation is not in Caranza — at least not in the part 
from which the rest was taken. Third " instance." 

He says, (same page,) "I omitted the original for want of space 
alone." This could not be the fact, if, as we have seen, he had 
" space" left /or ichat loas not in the original at all. Fourth 
"instance." Now, I challenge the gentleman t*o deny one sin- 
gle statement here made. If he does deny one, I shall quote the 
omitted passages, and show that the denial is to be regarded as 
another "instance." If he does not deny one, then he admits 
the facts, and I call upon him for the explanation. I might add 
many more, but I shall reserve them for future occasion, not wish- 
ing to press too much, at once. 

This may be as convenient a place as any other, to notice the 
gratuitous, and unmixed "abuse and personality," with which 
Mr. Breckinridge introduced his last speech. If he 'can show, 
that my statements are unfounded in truth, I shall not complain 
But when, nnahle to do this, he travels out of the discussion, to 
treat of matters that have nothing to do with the question in de- 
bate, then I maintain, that the "low abuse, and indecent 
personalities" are Ids own. His reference to what he calls, my 


" SPIRIT and origin/' — to " St. John's," " the fashionable 
congregation/' the "hand-box," the ''Priest AT the altar/' 


&c., all on the same page, are specimens (I will not say, of mere 
personality/, but) of grossness, for which no parallel can be 
found in my writings. I ask, what have these things to do with 
the question ? If I were disposed to retort, I should say, that 
there are some men, in whom vulgarity and pride are insepara- 
bly blended, — alternately betraying each other; — in whom, this 
complex quality is so innate and constitutional, as to bid defiance 
to the influence of education, good manners, and even religion 
itself. I might quote the gross and abusive epithets, which 
the Rev. John Breckinridge has applied to' his opponent, during 
this discussion, to prove, that the gentleman himself (if to use 
his own words, '^ I must call him by that name any longer") is 
one of those men. But, such retorts do not edify. HoAvever, 
lest the gentleman should mistake my motive for abstaining, I 
wish him to know, that, as to family, origin, good-breeding, 


reason to shrink from a comparison with HIM, the said Rev. 
John Breckinridge. 1/ he brint/s on the discussion, he will find 
me as competent to rebuke arroijant pretensions, as he has found 
me to refute bad logic. I shall hold myself ready to balance tlie 
account, as soon as he may think proper to present it. But, let 
the responsibility be on him. The first, and most essential ingre- 
dient in the moral composition of a WELL-BRED MAN, is a strict 
and scrupulous regard /or truth. There are violations, however, 
of truth, which have no evil consequence, except to the speaker 
himself. But when truth is violated, ybr the purpose of by^fa^ia- 
TION, then it admits of no palliation. 1 shall here give one adrli- 
tional ''instance," in which the gentleman ha.4 violated truth, 
precisely in this way. It is found in the written Controversy, 
p. 325, (Johnson's edition,) where he gives, or professes to give, 
a note from the Rhemish Testament^ and bad as those notes are, 
he falsifies the citation, in order to make it appear even worse 
than they are. The note is on Hebrew v. 7. 

The note is this : As falsified by Mr. Breckin- 

^^But if the good reader ridge : 

hneiu for what point of doctrine ^^ The translators of the 

they {the Protestant transla- Enrjlish (^Protestant) Bible 

tors) have thus FRAMED THEIR OUGHT TO BE abhorred to 

TRANSLATION, they would ab- the depths of hell." 
hor them to the depth of hell." 

Here the gentleman makes that a positive and universal propo- 
sition, which is in the text, only conditional — " if the good 
reader knew," &c. 2. He makes that a duty, which the authors 


say, would be a consec Aice. 3. He falsifies fhe text absolute- 
hj, by inserting the words, ''OUGHT TO BE," which arc not 
in the original. 4. By his omission of the tnic^ and inserting of 
the untrue, the citation would make it appear, that the crime of 
translating the Bible into English, was tliaf, for which the trans- 
lators " ought to be abhorred," &c. Now the truth is, that the 
annotators were censuring them for pre verting the Bible, after 
the example of Calvin. They are censuring that preversion, by 
which these translators, would have Christ to have " suffered 
THE PAINS OF THE DAMNED IN HELL." And the Rhcmish an- 
notators say, that ^^ if the good reader' knew this, he would 
abhor them to the depth of hell. Now, Mr. President, the pub- 
lic must determine, how far this gentleman is sustained by ho- 
nour, in thus CORRUPTINa the INTEGRITY, and AL- 
TERING the language of his witnesses, for the PATRIOTIC 
purpose of hlackening the reputation of Catholics, and helping a 
. desperate cause. 

During that controversy, it became necessary for me to point 
out so many instances of a sinfilar kind, that, as it would seem, 
his friends became a little alarmed. Accordingly, shortly after 
its close, there appeared a volume of the usual slander and ca- 
lumny against Catholics, under the insulting and hjiug tide of 
''A HISTORY OF POPERY." The author appears to have 
been ashamed to put his name to it. But he got Doctor Miller to 
eydorse the ribaldry. 

The venerable Professor in an " Introductory Essay," to that 
compilation of falsehoods and buffoonery, took occasion to allude 
to the controversy, in language that shows how necessary lie must 
have considered it to repeat the charges, and support them on hir 
own authority, when they had been found to rest on no other. I 
do not pretend to judge of his heart or motives, but speaking of 
his language in as much as it can be considered apart from its 
author, I venture to assert that it is impossible to find in so small 
a compass, a larger quantity of condensed malignity, slander, and 
sanctimoniousness. Of the sanctimonious portion, I shall quote 
at present two sentences, which I recommend to the serious con- 
sideration of the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. Speaking of the contro- 
versy, the venerable Professor gays, ^'Misrepresentations the most 
gross icere not only made, hut after their FALSEHOOD icas DEMON- 
STRATED, was persevered in ivith a recklessness truly astonishing^ 
Yes, we have just "demonstrated" the ''falsehood" of some of 
thcui. " With such adversaries," he continues, " it is difficult for 
men of TRUTH and of DELICACY, to carry on a contest."(5) 
Yes, it is extremely " difficult" when their OAvn statements, and 
even their citations, as we have seen, are not to be depended on : 
and when their language becomes surcharged with scurrilous 

(5) Ibid. p. 16. 


epithets and indelicate figures, such as graced the introduction of 
Mr. Breckinridge's last speech. This smooth moral of the Doc- 
tor's was intended as a charge against the Catholic side of the 
controversy; but facts prove that its application properly belonged, 
and belongs to the other. 

• It is in this *' Essay," that this meek Professor denounces the 
Catholics — those who in the exercise of the rights of conscience, 
prefer the religion of Carroll, of La Fayette, of Kosciusko, and of 
Gaston — as the "foes of God and man." Think you, sir, that 
the spirit of Calvinism, which inspired liim with this language, 
would not impel his followers to actions corresponding, if the Con- 
stitution did not interpose ? 

But enough of Doctor Miller for the present. As to the slan- 
ders with which his Essay is crowded, I shall take another occa- 
sion of placing them in company with those which I am now 
engaged in refuting, so far as they belong to this question. 

I shall now take up such of the small points of the gentleman's 
speech, as deserve notice. As to the seven words torn out of a 
sentence in the Council of Trent, and applied as a translation of 
an English pretended quotation, I have already established the 
fact, that, as the gentlemen used tliem, they comprised bad gram- 
mar, barbarism, and nonsense ; although in the context from 
which they had been taken, they are exactly correct. The gen- 
tleman never attempted to meet me on that head. I said they 
were a forgery ; but as soon as I discovered my mistake, I retractgd 
the expression. Notwithstanding this, contrary to all parliament- 
ary usage, he avails hi'mself of my candour to accuse me of in- 
justice. Now, the fact is, that the analogies of the are, as 
if A had charged B with forging the name of C : And as if B 
should aifect to triumph, o?i the ground that he had not forged, 
but had only cut out and transferred the signature. This would 
not be exactly forgery, but it would be almost as disreputable; 
at all events, it would be nothing to be boasted of. He says that 
this is not a ''solitary misstatement." I assure him and the au- 
dience, that I will retract every '' misstatement" that he can prove 
to be such, if he will have the goodness to point it out. I chal- 
lenge him to convict me of any "misstatement," which I am not 
ready to correct. The side of the discussion which rests on truth, 
requires no other support ; and though it is possible that I may 
commit mistakes, I only wish to have them pointed out. It is by 
this purpose of honesty, that I have escaped, and always shall 
escape, those straits into which the gentleman has betrayed him- 
self by his rashness, or readiness, to assert what is not tfue: and 
his obstinate reluctance in correcting it, when pointed out and 
proven to a demonstration, as in the foregoing "instances," 

As to Caranza, I have already furnished evidence which ought 
to make Mr. Breckinridge wish to forget his name. He states, 
that in reference to this author, I " gloried in the apparent tri- 



umph over Lis (Mr. B's) character." Now, from what I have 
already established in this speech, the audience will judge whether 
the " triumph" was not real and complete. But to me it is no '■'■ tri- 
umph," — truth alone claims the vicfory. I understood distinctly 
the gentleman to account for tlie iniquitous suppression in the Twen- 
ty-seventh Canon of the Third Council of Latcran, by stating, when 
charged with it, in the debate, that he followed Caranza; and the 
PROOF that I understood him correctly, was the silence with which 
he admitted the charge. It appears that afterwards he discovered 
his mistake, by a reference to the written text of the Controversy, 
and then attempts to hold nie alone accountable for a position, 
which he created hy his assertion, and confirmed hjj his silence, 
when called upon for an explanation. And to show how strong 
his propensity is to use abusive language, and how weak the pre- 
texts on which he indulges his taste, ho asks : ^^But does the 
silence of the slandered man make the slander true? And jrraij, 
why did he (Mr. 11.) say it the first timef Does one falsehood 
excuse two?" No : but if Mr. Breckinridge, in the debate, gave 
Caranza as his guide, and I took the excuse which he gave, and 
whilst I used it in argument, he urns silent as he admits, thereby 
showing that I had not misunderstood him, then he himself was 
positively, hy his assertion, and negatively, hy his silence, the 
WITNESS against himself. It was on his authority and admission 
that I argued; and the gentleman overreaches himself a little, 
when he applies the words "slander" and "falsehood," to what 
was said on his own testimony. He may keep these precious 
phrases where they belong. 

But the gentleman is mistaken if he thinks that he can escape the 
charge of faithless citation, in regard to the Twenty-seven ih Canon 
of the Third Lateran,by any such silly flourish, as that which I have 
just exposed. And since he did not fullow Caranza, in citing the 
canon, 1 CALL UPON IIIM to say from whom he copied. I demand 
HIS AUTHORITY. He cites the beginning and end of the canon, 
conceals the middle hy suj^j^ression, which contained a narrative 
of the crimes and cruelties of the Albigenses, and makes it appear 
that the punishment which was awarded for their crimes, was 
simply /or their speculative heresies. The object of all this ma- 
lignant artifice, and dishonest citation, was to blacken the Catholic 
name, and excite hatred founded, in so much at least, on decep- 
tion, in the minds of Protestants. If he says he translated from 
the original, then I charge him directly with the fraud. If he 
says HE DID not copy from the original, then I demand the name 
of the author, from whom he did, copy — that Protestants who love 
truth, may know in what geometrical progression are propagated 
from generation to generation, those calumnies which are invoked 
to prove that Catholics owjlu to he hated. The name MUST BE 
GIVEN, otherwise the falsification must rest at ihe gentleman's 
own door. Supposing I were to quote a documeut to show tha> 


Presbyterians put heretics to death, and anpprcas the part of the 
document which attested that these hci-etics were guilty of mur- 
der and violence of every description, what would honest and 
honourable men say ? I may be told, that this does not justify the 
canon ; — that is not the question. ♦! want to know who it wa.s, 
that cited it dishonestly, for the first time : whether it was Mr. 
Breckinridge himself, or another from whom he copied. 

The gentleman had stated that there were only four words of 
the second commandment, in the catechism of the Council of 
Trent, followed by an exjn-essive " et castera." I showed by no 
less than five different editions of that work, that it contains every 
word of the ichole decalogue, and you may recollect, gentlemen, 
how he blanched under the testimony — how, on standing up, he 
spoke of his character, and promised that, if '' God would spare 
his life," he would go to New York, and procure the copy of that 
work, on which he depended for his vindication. He brought 
it from New York ; and after a long dissertation on the injury 
that had been offered to his feelings, he exhibited the work. 
He was courteous enough to trust it into my hands., that I might 
examine it, when lo ! the entire of the second commandment was 
found in it, the same as in all the rest! He spoke no more about 
his "feelings;" but with great coolness said, that it was not all on 
the same page, which contained the first sentence ! The com- 
mandments are all divided in that work, and explained clause by 
clause. Now, I call upon the gentleman to do homage to the 
truth, under this head, and to undeceive the public by acknow- 
ledging that the catechism in question, contains not only " four 
words," but the WHOLE OF the second COMMANDMENT. 
Will he have the moral courage to do it ? I fear not. He repre- 
sents me as ridiculing the ''doctrine of regeneration." I protest 
against the charge. I am not conscious of having employed 
" ridicule," but if I did, it was in reference to that mockery of 
regeneration, which allows men to consider themselves holy from 
the moment when they become conspicuous in contributions to 
present or future schemes of benevolence towards others, without 
first going back to make straight the crooked ways of past, private, 
and personal transactions. 

I have had occasion already to observe that Devoti's work is 
not a work on the doctrines of Catholicity, but a Treatise on the 
External Policy of the Ecclesiastical Laws and Usages, as exist- 
intj in Catholic countries. He speaks of the church as a VISIBLE 
SOCIETY, having within itself, and from the very nature of its con- 
stitution, all the powers of self-government, implying authority to 
make laws, and the right to punish those who violate them. Now 
these punishments, so far as they result from the constitutional 
powers of the church, were necessarily given by Christ. They con- 
sist of ecclesiastical censures, suspensions, and finally excommuni- 
cation, which the author calls "the highest grade of coercion." 


These are the punishments, (poena),) or penalties, by which men 
are to be '' compelled (cogendos) to the observance of the laws 
and obligations of church membership." These are the powers 
which Devoti says were given by Christ — as I proved in the argu- 
ments of my last speech. I then stated, that Devoti did not claim 
by virtue of any power given b}'' Christ to the church, the right 
to punish hij fines, imprisonment, or otherwise, in a civil sense. 
The proof was, that Devoti, to support that right, referred ex- 
presslj/ to the *' constitutions" of the empire, and the code of 
Theodosius. The gentleman says this is " false, directly false." 
And what proof does he give that it is so ? He says that Devoti 
claimed for the church, as a ipower f/iven hy Christ, the right, not 
merely of governing by counsel, and persuasion, but also of de- 
creeing by laws, and of compulsion, and of coercing with punish- 
ment, those who are worthy of it. Mr. Hughes says the same, 
provided that the ''decreeing laws," the "compulsion," ''coer- 
cing," and " punishment," be in the spiritual order such as the 
Synod of York has exercised in "punishment," of Mr. Barnes, 
when they could not " coerce" him, to fall down and worship their 
infallibility. Devoti nowhere says, that 'the use of corporeal 
punishment, by prisons, fines, exile, or otherwise, was by virtue 
of a " power given by Christ." This is the proposition which the 
gentleman says is " directly false ;" and I repeat his words to 
show another " instance" in which his statements are not to be 
depended on. There was no dispute between Devoti and La 
Borde, on the subject of hodilj/ or civil ptunishments. The for- 
mer wrote in opposition to the principles laid down by the Re- 
formers, so called, which La Borde's treatise favoured. What 
were those principles ? That the "judiciary power" in the church 
belongs to the civil magistrates, under the pretty title of "nursing 
FATHERS TO THE CHURCH." And tlius was formed that coalition 
between ecclesiastical apostasy and political ambition, of which 
the thousand and one religions, called the Reformation, were the 
amphibious offspring. 

I refer the audience to my remarks, in my last speech, for the 
circumstances in which Devoti speaks of " prisons, fines, banish- 
ment, &c.," as having been used by the church. The gentleman, 
after quoting my words, tells us in his corrected speech, that De- 
voti expressly says " this power is given by Christ to the church." 
It is not true. And to show that it is not true, I pledge myself 
to make a public apology, if he can produce the words of the 
author, stating " expressly that the power of ' imprisoning,' ' banish- 
ing,' or ' imposing pecuniary fines,' WAS given by Christ to the 
CHURCH." If he cannot, his inability will convict him of another 
"instance" in which his statements are not only not to be depend- 
ed on, but are absolutely false and unfounded. From these, his 
false statements, he may draw what inferences against Catholics 
he pleases, the public will understand the true consequence. 


His quotation from Devoti, beginning ^^But lie loho offends 
against societf/, &c./' (which he gives in Latin too,) is another 
attempt at establishing a false conclusion, on the belief of false 
premises. Devoti is speaking of the rights of the " ecclesiasti- 
cal tribunal/' to judge those who were subject to its jurisdic- 
tion, being clergymen, and in those cases not subject to the civil 
judge. But does he say that the right to judge and punish them 
had been conferred on the church BY Christ ? Not at all. On 
the contrary he refers expressly, in the note, to tbe LAWS OF 
THE EMPIRE, for the source of that jurisdiction which the 
church, he says, exercises over the '' persons" of the clergy, who 
had been guilty of crimes. Whenever these ctimes, he says, 
were so great that the lenity of the church had no adequate 
punishment -for them, then the clergy were degraded, and the 
state punished them directly as laij persons. Did the gentle- 
man see this ? If he did, how could he honestly suppress it? If 
he did not, it only proves that he reads Devoti as the deist reads 
the Bible. But whether he saw it or not, it furnishes another 
''instance" still, to prove thafc his statements are not to be depend- 
ed on. I may now address him in the language which he applies 
to me. He says that Devoti speaks of the power by which the 
church inflicted hodily punishment on the clergymen ivho had com- 
,mitted any civil crime against society , as ''given BY CllRlST to 
the church:^' whereas Devoti, first, does 7iot say this — but, second- 
ly, he states that it was derived from the civil laws of the empire, 
to which he expressly refers. The gentleman asserts what is not 
true, and suppresses what is true. " How strangely then must 
he feel, to be thus caught," making Devoti speak falsehood 
to support a Calvinistic argument. His reasoning, when founded 
on false premises, falls of itself. 

Now, for his last quotation from Devoti, it is what every body 
acknowledges in every sect. The Church, as a spiritual com- 
monwealth, has governors, or magistrates, and has power, in the 
order of its constitution, o\er all persons who are its members, 
and all things that belong to it, for its use. This is all true, not 
only in the Catholic Church, which received it from Christ, 
the original proprietor, but also in the Presbyterian Church, 
which claims it without a title, and exercises it most graciously, 
as Mr. Barnes knows. 

With regard to the INQUISITION, I proved, in my last speech, 
that it is, and ever was, as much unconnected with the Catholic 
religion, and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, as the trial 
BY JURY. I have said and proved, that the essence of the inquisi- 
tion is in every church that has a creed which it calls orthodox; 
and that the gentleman himself, and his " orthodox" brethren, 
have been but recently discharging the genuine functions of in- 
quisitors. As long as he does not assert that such or such a doc- 
trine of the Catholic religion requires the existence of the Inqui- 
sition, he shrinks from his proposition. He may abuse it as much 


as he pleases, and he will accomplish nothing. " The question" 
is about the DOCTRINES of the Catholic Church, and unless he 
can make it appear that the Inquisition is one of them — to which 
I challenge him, as the representative of all the calumniators that 
have ever said it was — he proves nothing to the point in debate. 
Dovoti gives an account of its institution, and the gentleman con- 
cludes that either ^^Dcvoti or myself has hecn guilty of no siwxll 
departures from historical and doctrinal triith." He will again 
have to excuse nie, for saying that his .statement is not to he de- 
pended on, until he will have the goodness to point out in lohat 
these '' DEPAKTURES" consist. ' 

After this unfounded statement, he goes back from the Inquisi- 
tion to the commencement of the volume, as if he had forgotten 
something very important. Devoti speaks there, as he speaks 
throughout, of the church, as she existed in conjunction with the 
ancient imp)erial laws. He speaks of her " twofold power" of 
punishment. The ONE " wholly sriRlTUAL, given separately 
by Christ." Now if the gentleman were not bent on making his 
attempt at argument infinitely ridiculous, he would have stopped 
here. He had accused Devoti of saying that the ''power" to 
punish "■ by fines," " imprisonment," " castigation," "exile," &c., 
had been given by Christ to the Church. Now, however, the 
truth has leaked out, and he is convicted by his own showing. 
The Church has a " twofold power." After telling us what was 
the nature of the power given by Christ — that it is " WHOLLY 
SPIRITUAL," exercised in " tbro intimo" — the conscience, and 
in " foro externo," laws and censures; he, Devoti, tells us that 
she has ''another powkr" which she has in common with every 
perfect republic, and which "is called temporal." '' It folloicSf 
says he, that there should be a twofold kind of punishment:" 
AVhat is this "other" power that was not given by Christ; — and 
" is called temporal?" Precisely that which he had traced to the 
imperial statutes, with a fidelity of reference which the gentle- 
man icould not notice, and with a depth of erudition which the 
gentleman could not fathom. 

1 thank him, however, for having at length done justice to 
Devoti, at the expense of his own statements. When the imperial 
laws allowed " ecclesiasticW offenders to be judged and 
punished by the "ecclesiastical tribunal," then the church, 
or the authorities of the church " inflicted bodily punishment." 
But by what power? By power given by Christ? No; that was 
" WHOLLY SPIRITUAL." By what "power" then ? By the 
power of those imperial laws which Devoti has most abundantly 
cited. Here again the gentleman has convicted himself; when, 
contrary to the truth, he asserted, and repeatedly asserted, that 
Devoti had claimed for the church, "AS A power given her by 
CHRIST," the right to inflict bodily or ciril punishment. He says, 
that for denying his assertion he will " expose me in a way which 


I must deeply regret." His assertions and arguments have in- 
spired me with every feeling but respect for the cause that could 
employ them; and I can assure him that his threats shall not de- 
ter me from my duty to truth, and its opposite : 1 shall continue to 
defend the one, and expose the other. I have no doubt, however, 
but he will verify the words of the poet, '"furor arma ministrat/' 

He is willing to '^ leave the long contest about Bossuet to speak 
for itself. It has spoken, and the gentleman is wise in his silence. 
And also, he says, *' that about the Third Canon of the Fourth 
Council of Lateran." Not exactly, sir. The gentleman mu^t Jirst 
tell us why he said he quoted from " our own Caranza," literally 
and continuously, when the fact ivas not so. He says that, in re- 
lation to this canon, ^^ at every step I have (jiven ground. First 
I tried to defend the canon, as being only discipline agaiJist mur- 
derers." This is not the fact; I never said it was " discipline," and 
never '^ defended" it at all. I showed that it was no "doctrine;" 
and then the gentleman represented me as wishing to make it 
'^ discipline." I showed that the Albigenses, through whom Cal- 
vinism is claimed to have descended from the apostles, were a 
sect whose doctrine and practices could not be tolerated in any 
country or age; and then, lie said, that I " defended" the canon. 
As to its authenticity, 1 assailed it, but not after having been 
'' driven" from what he incorrectly calls my '' defence" of it. I 
showed that he had nothing to reply, except that he shoidd reply 
in time; from which I inferred that my speech had been sent to 
college for an answer. I showed that, admitting its authenticity, 
it proved nothing for the affirmative of the question. I proved 
that I MIGHT HAVE AVAILED MYSELF of its spuriousncss, as es- 
tablished by numerous evidences. I drove the gentleman oft" on 
this point; and by a kind of delusion which appears to be natural 
to him, he has mistaken his own flight for mine. It is true that, 
taking the division of Caranza, I used the word " canon," when I 
should have said "chapter" of the canon; I corrected myself, and 
then the gentleman " exposed" me. The only difi'erence, there- 
fore, between the gentleman and myself is, that, whilst I have 
^^ spiked" the canon efiectually, after its mischief against the Albi- 
genses, he has been sponging it with the leaves of Caranza, to 
make it shoot Presbyterians. And unfortunately his hands have 
not been as yet purified from the operation. 

The gentleman's authorities return periodically, like the arms 
of a windmill. He tells us that " Dens," an author which neither 
of us hnve ever seen, ^' has opened the eyes o/ MILLIONS, on the 
oilier side of the ivaters, to the new evidences of the jyersecuting 
doctrines of the Church of Rome." He does not give any authority 
for the statement, however, not even "our own Caranza." A book 
that has been for sale, for thirty years on the shelves of the Pro- 
testant booksellers in Dublin, has at length been miraculously dis- 
covered, and "has opened the eyes of millions," yes; notj how- 


ever, to see what the gentlemen supposes, but to see by what low, 
base, and contemptible tricks Protestantism in England tries to 
sustain itself on the crutches of Mammon, conscious that it can- 
not walk, nor even stand without them. " Opened the eyes of 
millions;" yes, to see that the "no popery" tricks will avail no 
more. " Othello's occupation's gone," and Murtagh O'Sullivan, 
and Dr. Maghee, dee, dee, cannot recall it. The ghost of Peter 
Dens will frighten nobody. The people of England are looking 
for freedom, not because they love Catholic doctrines, but because 
they are disgusted with Protestant oppression. 

The gentleraair says, I HAVE proved that I dare not 


BEING IN THE UNITED States.'' How he found his way into 
the cabinet of my thoughts, is more than I can conjecture. Or 
WHY I SHOULD BE AFRAID to avow the doctrincs of my church 
" in the United States," is a question which would hardly have 
occurred to any citizen, except a Presbyterian, familiar with the 
secrets and designs of the anti-Catholic conspiraci/, which has 
begun to show itself in bigotry and DARKNESS, except at Boston^ 
ichere its darkness was turned into light. ' 

He says, I ^'defend the Bull In Caena Domini." This is not 
true. I stated that it had been suppressed; and that was surely 
not defending it. Can he show where I "defended" it? Does 
he not perceive that he injures not only his cause, but himself, by 
such assertions. And, on this unfounded assertion, he builds 
almost a page of very confused and vapid declamation. 

The gentleman promises to speak of "Anathema," in its place, 
and " too soon for me." He cannot take it up too soon for him-, 
self, however; for he has said that it means " CURSE," and I 
have proved that it does not. And, consequently, that he has 
" borne false witness aijainst his neighbour." 

The gentleman tells us, that the "Bible doctrine" forbids the 
estabHshment of any religion by law. I shall prove from his own 
" CONFESSION OF FAITH," that his asscrtiou is not the doctrine 
of his church. Was not the Jewish religion established by law ? 
And is not this the Bible ? Ay, and that very portion of the 
Bible which Presbyterians, as the "people of God," in "New 
Testament times," have ever been ready to imitate. 

I had refuted Mr. Wesley's false charge against the Council of 
Constance, in a way that bids defiance to my respondent. I proved 
that l\x. Wesley, supposing him to have been sincere when he 
asserted the calumny, had been deceived; and the arguments 
adduced by me for that purpose, have left the gentleman without 
auy future pretext for the wilful malignity that would repeat the 
charge of Wesley; knowing, as he now does, that the charge was, 
and is, and shall ever be, an atrocious calumny! He has no reply 
to my facts ; no answer for my proofs. The original documents 
have confounded him. As for " help from priests," I do not re- 


ceive it; and the gentleman knows that I do not stand in need of 
it. If, instead of meetinp^ the '^ College of Priests," he will only 
meet my arguments, it will be much more to his credit. By those 
arguments I have proved that the man who asserts ^'tJiat if is a 
Roman Catholic maxim," or '' doctrine, '^ ^' that nofailh is to be 
kept with heretics,'' is a slanderer of the Catholic body. Now 
this has been asserted by Mr. Wesley, Dr. Miller, and the Rev. Mr. 
Breckinridge; I call upon the last-mentioned individual, there- 
fore, to prove the charge, or, like a man who loves truth, to ac- 
knowledge THE SLANDER, and uudcceive his countrymen. 

He says, that ^' in the very terms of mi/ citation from the Coun- 
cil of (Jonstance, the doctrine is avowed, thai the FAITII, the 
PLEDGED FAITH (of the ICmperor) that HUSS SHOULD return 

is not true. And the proof is, that no such faith had been pledged 
by the Emperor. The Passport was a common passport, to 
protect Huss, travelling through Germany, where he had many 
private and personal enemies. The Emperor told him, that if he 
did not retract, *' he, with his own hands, would kindle the fire 
to burn him."(l») He says, again, the Emperor's conduct was 
not so much violated by the execution of Huss, as by his imprison- 
ment. For if after an examination, according to the due 
course of law, the Council had found John Huss a heretic, 

THOSE TIMES, to Sentence him to the flames, and deliver him over 
to the secular arm." (2) 

I shall now proceed to a more criViVa^ examination of the Presby- 
terian ccdf which the gentleman sets forth as the Bull of Innocent 
VIII. I have already stated, that there is no external evidence 
of history to prove that it is authentic. Now, I purpose to show, 
that it bears in its bosom the intrinsic evidences of spuriousness 
and falsehood. 1st. It enjoins on " archbishops and bishops to 
take up arms." Whereas, by a law of the church, the shedding 
of blood, even accidentally, or in a just war, disqualifies a man 
from becoming a clergyman — unless by a special dispensation. 
There never was a case, in which it was allowed for clergymen, 
by either pope or council, to shed human blood, in war or other- 
icise. This commnnd for ^' archbishops and bishops to take up 
arms," is alone sufficient to stamp the character of the document. 
2d. After having ordered all the ecclesiastical and civil poicers, 
to " make the heretics perish, and entirely blot them out from the 
face of the earth," — as we read in the middle of the document, — 
this '''beloved son, Albertus," is "PERMITTED/' towards the 
close, " if need be, to call into his assistance, the aid of the secu- 
lar arm." This i.^ the second evidence, that it is spurious — and 
that the imposture is a bungling concern. 3d. But what seals the 

(1) L'Enfant, B. III. No. 6. (2) lb. B. IV. No. 32. 


eyidence, is, the susjncion whicli the Pope is made to have had 
about its being regarded as spurious, and for which he takes 
prophetic measures. ''And because/' he is made to say, ''it 
mai/ he difficult to transmit these present letters, to all places 
xohere they may he necessary, we will, and hy apostolical au- 
thority appoint, that to a copy which may he taken and subscribed 
by the hand of any public notary, and attested by the subscrip- 
tion of any ecclesiastical prelate, entire faith may be given, and 
that it should be held as valid, and the same regard paid to it, 
as to the original letters, IF THEY HAD BEEN PRODUCED 

This was rather overdoing the business. But with all due re- 
spect for Innocent VIII., and his calumniators, I would prefer 
to see the j' original letters,'' or an ATTESTED copy of them. 
Mr. Breckinridge is not a '^notary public," — and he has not 
procured the "subscription of any ecclesiastical prelate;" there- 
fore, I cannot " pay the same regard to it," as if it were authentic, 
notwithstanding the orders of his holiness. 

Now, Mr. President, I call on the gentleman to give me the 
SOURCE from which he derived this document. From whom did 
he copy it? I demand his answer to that question. Was it from 
the Rev. Dr. Brownlee ? Or Mr. M'Calla ? What proof has he, 
that it was ever treated as genuine, by any respectable writer ? 
What then, will the audience and public think of the cause that 
requires, and the man who could produce such a document in 
e\jidence ? Must he not have a delicate sense of literary pride, — 
a high respect for the understandings of his audience, — a sincere 
disposition to confer honour on the Presbyterian Church, the 
American name, and human nature? A document surrounded 
with external, and surcharged with internal, evidences, of spu- 
riousness — produced by a man who tells us, that there is a " Latin 
translation" of it in " Cambridge, England." I have a right to 
demand his authority, and to consider it, what it is, a vile attempt 
at imposture, until he shall have furnished us with its history, 
and the proofs of its authenticity. The inference and comment- 
ary are worthy of the document; founded on falsehood, they 
perish with its exposure. 

When the gentleman introduced Bellarmine discussing, as an 
individual in the exercise of his private opinion, the proposition — 
"That heretics condemned by the Chiwch, MAY BE punished 
with tenijjoral punishment, and even with death," he should have 
stated one fact, which the Cardinal sets out with, viz. that HE 
and Calvin were agreed on that poiet, — a pretty strong evidence 
that he was not arguing an article of Catholic doctrine. He 
proves his opinion by various arguments, whicli were no doubt 
satisfactory to his own mind — but though he quotes imperial stat- 
utes, and facts to show that heretics had been put to death, and 
though he quotes Calvin to prove, that they ought to be put to 



death, — he never attempts to prove it, by any reference to the 
DOCTRINE OF HIS OWN CHURCH, that sucli a principle of ''belief 
or of MORALS," is a part of the Catholic religion. The gentle- 
man aifects to say, that he (Bellarmine) was giving on this head, 
his opinion " of Catholic doctrine/' This is not true. He 
was giving his own opinion, and the reasons why he entertains 
it. His opinion is of no authority ; — no man's opinion, not even 
the Pope's, is of any authority in the Catholic Church, farther 
than as an opinion. But the gentleman knows, that where '' doc- 
trines," *' tenets of faith or morals revealed by God," — are in 
question, there are NO OPINIONS among Catholics. Christ 
made a revelation of facts, truths, — Catholics believe them as 
FACTS and truths, — whilst Protestants make opinions of them. 
When Bellarmine lays down the rule to be observed with " he- 
retics, thieves, and other wicked men," when they are not known 
distinctly enough, or when they are too powerful and numerous, 
he remarks, that he gives the answer given to the same question 
hy St. Augustine, who is in high veneration among the Calvin- 
ists. Why did the gentleman suppress this ? — Since the blame 
which he would throw on Bellarmine, belongs equally to St. Au- 
gustine. Another deception in this passage is, the meaning at- 
tached to the word "extirpate." He is speaking of the text, in 
the gospel of St. Matthew, in which the Saviour was explaining 
the parable of the *' good seed," and " the cockle," — the one 
representing the good, the other the wicked ; — and Bellarmine 
following out the figure, contended, that the " cockle" in the 
field of the Lord, were the heretics, thieves, and other wicked 
men, who were to be rooted or plucked out, (extirpandi,) unless 
in the cases which he excepted, after St. Augustine, and St. 
Chrysostom. This is the fact, and the gentleman must have 
known it, if he ever saw the work. He takes up this case, sup- 
presses the circumstances that explain it, metamorphoses Bellar- 
mine's private sentiment, into a doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
carries it from Home to America, — makes the Catholic citizens 
of the republic adopt it, against their creed and conviction, and 
with a logic worthy of the school he belongs to, infers on this 
evidence, that Catholics are bound to cut the throats of all here- 
tics, as soon as they find themselves in the majority! Are they 
not the majority in France, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, and 
in short, in the whole Christian world? If this had been their 
doctrine, could they not have destroyed the Pteformers, in any 
stage of their increase, from Martin Luther, up to millions ? Does 
the gentleman not see how ridiculous, in presence of these uni- 
versal FACTS, — public, notorious, and obvious to common sense, 
— he renders himself, when supported by his perversion of Bi^lar- 
mine, he draws the following sweeping conclusion, discreditable 
to his* feelings, and to the understandings of the audience: 
"HENCE," says he, "iVi the United States we may expect\A^Yi, 



while we have numbers. You se^.y r/enflemen, ichat our friends at 
Rome (not priests, but cardinals, whose works are sanctioned by 
the Pope, and in this case nephew of the Pope^ think of the rights 
of the minorities; they arc summed up in this, — THEY MAY DIE BY 
THE HANDS OF PAPISTS," This is sillj slander, founded on yet 
more silly reasoning. 

The gentleman says, that Luther, in maintaining " that the 
church had never put a heretic to death," meant, not the Catho- 
lic Church, but some other. That he, after, even ^'convicts the 
Church of Rome of such acts." I thought he entertained more 
respect for the character of Luther, than to charge him thus, with 
a palpable equivocation. I call upon him, therefore, for the re- 
ference in Luther's works, for the authority on which he makes 
these two statements. 1st. In which he states, that '^ THE 
CHURCH NEVER BURNED A HERETIC," — and 2d, in which he 


that something is wrong here, as usual. My reason is, that 
history is entirely silent, touching the existence of TWO 
CHUllCHES, previous to Luther. And I do not like to hear 
the gentleman, imputing to Luther, a contemptible equivocation 
on that subject. At all events, I wish to see his authorities for 
the statement. 

He says, that Bellarmine " here frankly avows persecution j yea, 
the right and the duty of the church to put heretics to death, — 
and pleads to Scripture for the authority, — and appeals to history 
for the fact, that the church before his day, had put an almost 
infinite number to death.'' Now, although Bellarmine's opinidn, 
on the matter has nothing to do with the question in debate, yet 
I cannot hear such atrocious imputations falsely made against 
Bellarmine, more than against Luther. The question was, whe- 
ther " heretics, condemned by the church, might be punished 
by temporal punishments, and even death." Bellarmine contend- 
ed, that they might, and should, — in opposition to IIuss and 
Luther, who having been liable to this consequence in their own 
persons, contended, very naturally, that they should not. Hence, 
Bellarmine begins his chapter in these words. '* Joannes Huss, 
art. 14, in Concilio Constantiensi, .sess. 15, recitato, asseruit, non 
licere lisereticum incorrigibilem TRADERE SiECULARl POTESTATI, et 
PERMlTTERii comburendum. '•Idem Lutherus in art. 33, et in 
assertione ejusdem." '•^Jolui Huss, in article 14, in the 15 ses- 
sion of the aforesaid Council of Constance, asserted, that it is 
not lawful to DELIVER a?i incorrigibleheretic TO THE CIVIL POWER, 
and PERMIT HIM to be burned. Luther asserted the same, in 
article 33, and in his defence of that article." The first witness 
adduced by Bellarmine, to refute both Huss and Luther, was 
JOHN CALVIN. But what does he undertake to prove ? He 
undertakes to prove, that it is lawful for the church, to *leave in- 
corrigible heretics, to the civil laws of the state, even ivhere the pu- 


nisTnnenf of heresy is hurning. This was the onli/ point in dispute, 
between hira and Huss or Luther. 

He lays down the proposition which he is about to prove, in 
these words : — 

^^Nos igitur hrcvifer ostcndcmus, hsereticos ivcorrigihiles, ac 
praesertim relapsos, posse ac dchere ab ecclesia rpjicij et a ssecida- 
rihus potestatihus, temporalihus poenis atque ipsa etiam morte 

"■ We, therefore, shall hriejiy show, that incorrigible heretics, 
and especially those who have relapsed, MAY AND OUGHT TO "BE 

SECULAR POWERS, with temporal punishment, and ivith 
death itself." 

Here, then, are the two points of his thesis : — 
1st. That heretics may and ought to be cast out of the 
church; and 

2d. That (being cast out) they may and ought to be punish- 
ed AVITH CIVIL pi;nalties, a,nd even death, (not hy the church, as 
Mr. Breckinridge states in opposition to BeUarmine's own words, 
but, BY THE CIVIL POWER. That first part of the proposition is 
held by the gentleman himself, viz, " That heretics may and 
ought to he cast out of the church.'^ Bellarmine, then, turning 
to the CIVIL POWER, says, that the state (ssecularibus potestatibus) 
" may and ought" to put them to death even, or lesser punish- 
ments. The arguments by which he attempts to prove this part 
of the proposition, are those from which Mr. B. presents the gar- 
bled quotations, which he shamefully perverts. Bellarmine says, 
that it is the right and the duty OF THE STATE to pu- 
nish heretics, with civil penalties and even death. Mr. Breckin- 
ridge, contrary to this, charges him with ''avowing the right and 
the duty of the church to put them to death." In which he 
only furnishes another " instance" to prove that his statements 
are not to be depended on. Every instance adduced by Bellar- 
mine of this, is an instance by th^j authority of the state or by 
some Emperor; but, inasmuch as the civil rulers, who made and 
executed, these laws against heretics, icei^e Catholics, and the 
church had '' cast those heretics out," he speaks of it as if the 
church itself had executed the laws. Does he say that there is 
any doctrine of the church, any laiu of the church, requiring he- 
retics to be put to death ? No ! Does he say the church ever 
put them to death except by not shielding them under the eccle- 
siastical laws ? No ! Does he say that she ever claimed the 
rigid to put them to death, that she exercised it, that she ever 
put any one to death for heresy, except by leaving them exposed 
to the law of the state, the secular power ? No ! Has not the 
gentleman accused Bellarmine ftilsely ? He will probably say, 
that I " defend" Bellarmine — yes, from unfounded accusatiolfny 
but as to his opinion on the right and duty of the magistrate, or 


temporal powers to punish heretics, I hold it imlcfensihle ; and 
the only way I can account for his having attempted to maintain 
such an opinion, is, by supposing that his judgment had been 
twisted into obliquity of vision by the sophistries of Calvin and 
Beza, on the same subject — for he places their works and example 
at the head of the chapter. 

Such, Mr. President, are the amount and detail of the gentle- 
man's speech; a compound of false premises, supporting false 
logic, and giving occasion to that kind of wholesale assertion and 
bloated declamation which constitute the very acme of eloquence 
and evangelism, in the anti-popery meetings which have been 
organised by the propaganda of bigotry in New York. Any thing, 
sir, that is said to blacken popery, being, of course, Protestant doc- 
trine, must he true. This delusion has lived too long, and spread 
too far. It may be convenient for the gentleman, whenever 
he shall think proper to make good his promise of " carry- 
ing on the controversy hy himself." But it will not suit 
here. He has invited me to come and examine the quality 
of his information and the character of his reasoning. It is in 
obedience to this invitation that I make so free in my ana- 
lysis of both. The child of his anti-popery zeal would be, per- 
haps, adniired elsewhere ; but when he sends it forth Itere^ as a 
young giant, that is to slay the man of sin in the United States, 
I have only to bring it near the light, and hold it up. The first 
ray that falls upon it from the lamp of truth in history, and of logic 
in debate, proves it to be a little monster of moral deformity, which, 
instead of killing the pope, will only disgrace its parentage. 

By the way, there is one thing that has struck me as somewhat 
extraordinary. It is, that the gentleman, after having been in the 
field publicly against the Catholic religion these several years, is 
evidently unprepared for the facts of the question. He was un- 
prepared for the case of the Albigenses, and the facts connected 
with it. He was unprepared for the facts regarding Huss and 
the Council of Constance. He was unprepared for .the meaning 
of ^'anathema," according to the facts. He was unprepared for 
the character of the Inquisition, according to the facts of history. 
He was familiar with the calumnies which are founded on all 
these subjects, and made abundant use of them. But the facts ^ 
which he had never condescended to examine at the original 
source, took him by surprise; and he adjourned the topics with 
a — promise. A gentleman who has kept himself so long adver- 
tised as the champion, should have been better prepared : one 
who had so long and so often instructed the 2nthlic, should not 
have been obliged to wait for information on subjects with which 
he had professed himself so well acquainted. The unexpected- 
ness of the position should have been an excuse for me, if I were 
found unable to meet the gentleman at every point. It was im- 
possible for me to have made any special preparation ; and yet, to 


my surprise, mj arguments on the very topics on which the gen- 
tleman has been so clever, wlien there teas no one to oppose him, 
are obliged to wait unansicered till the advent of " new li(jht.** 
And as I never wish to make an assertion without supporting it 
by proof, I give an additional instance of a topic for which I ven- 
ture to predict that not only he, but the authorities at Princeton 
are unprepared. Has he ever asserted in public, or proclaimed in 
print, that in the Catholic Church the Scriptures in the vernacular 
la/nguage are xcithheld from the laity ? If he has, he has aided in 
perpetuating the calumny, without taking pains to know, or make 
known the facts. Doctor Miller has this very calumny in his In- 
troductory Essay, coupled wirh others "whose name is legion." 
*' Does she not," says he, "after all her multiplied denial of the 
fact, continue to LOCK UP the Scriptin-e from common p)eoj)le f No, 
Doctor, not at all ; you are misleading the public (^unintentionally, 
Ihop)e) when you say so. Do you ask for proof? Then I give it. 
It consists of tiie following facts, which you sho^dd have known. 

The Catholics in this country have published more editions of 
the Scriptures in the English language than any other denomina- 
tion, during the same time. They have one in folio, four in quarto, 
one in octavo, — making six different editions of the whole 
BIBLE. Of the New Testament, there have been published sepa- 
rately, one in 4to, two in 8vo, two in 12mo, and two in 32mo, 
making seven editions of the Testament separately — thir- 
teen EDITIONS in all, and one in French, for the French Catholics, 
puhlished under the auspices, and by the direction of Bishop Vheve- 
rus. Protestants do not buy them, — the clergy do not require 
tbem in English, having them in other languages, especially the 
Latin. Who bought them, and paid the publisher for printing, 
and even stereotyping them ? The " COiVlMON PEOPLE," 
from whom. Doctor Miller says, falsely, that " they ark kept 
locked up." Is the gentleman prepared to meet me on this 
topic, in regard to which he has so often asserted the calumny ? 
Shame on the men who can thus bear " false witness against their 

Mr. Breckinridge may say that in this country the Scriptures 
could not be kept out of the hands of the people ; and thnt though 
the charge is false, as regards American and English Catholics, 
yet it is true where the power of the church prevails, as in Italy. 
This is equally false, and the proof is the letter of Pope Pius VI. 
addressed to Martini, in ap)probation of his labours as translator 
of the Bible into Italian, for the use of the " common people.'* 
For this, and other service to religion, said Martini was made 
archbishop. This reference to the Italian Bible reminds me of a 
pledge given by me in presence of the society, which it is fitting 
that I should redeem. 

You remember, Mr. President, the evening on which DOC- 
TOB BBOWNLEE honoured the meeting with his presence, I 


had to answer the young gentleman who opened the debate with 
so many beautiful figures of speech. I had to answer the llev. 
Doctor Brantley, who thought that it was possible and incumbent 
on me to^" prove the negative." 1 had to answer the gentleman 
himself, who had come prepared. In his speech, he brandished 
the usual calumnies around the head of " popery." Among others, 
this very one of Doctor Miller's, about keeping the Scriptures 
'^ locked up from the common peopled' In my answer to his speech, 
I mentioned as a refutation of this particular calumny, that the 
Catholics had published FORTY EDITIONS of the Scriptures 
in Italian, before the first Protestant edition came out, which was 
that of Geneva in 1562. This was something new to the bench 
and to the meeting. Dr. Brownlee, as you recollect, stood up to 
interrupt me, and on being informed that he must address himself 
to the chair, he slated that he wished to ask a question "/or in- 
formation,^' and on leave being granted, he inquired, " whether 


LANGUAGE?" I replied that they were; to which his rejoinder 
was, ''I DENY IT." Then, sir, I promised to prove it, and show 
that the Doctor ought not to deny the existence of facts, after 
having avowed his ignorance of them, and his desire to be "in- 
formed." Now for the PROOFS. 

1st. In the year 1471, sixteen years after the first hook icas 
printed with type, and FIFTY years before that fusion of doctrine 
into private opinion, which is called the "Reformation," and 
twelve years before the birth of Martin Luther, the Bible was 
printed and published in the Italian language, in VENICE. This 
edition was published in August, as appears by the title-page; 
^^impressofi questo volume nel Valma patria di Venitia negP an- 
nide la salutefera incarnatione del Figliolo de Veterno et omnipo- 
tente Deo, 1471, in Kalende di Augusto; per Vindelino iSpira." 
It was the translation of Nicholas Malhemi, a monk. Another 
edition was published in October of the same year, in the same 
city, and a third in Rome, making three editions in large folio in 
the year 1471. In 1475, a fourth was published "mi Pignerolo, per 
Gio de Rossi.'' Fifth, sixth, and seventh editions in Venice, all 
three in 1477, of different type, and the last being an " improve- 
ment" on the translation of Malhemi, by Squarzatico, as stated in 
the preface. Eighth, VENICE, in 1481. Ninth and tenth, VE- 
NICE, in 1484, when Martin Luther was a hahy of about one 
year old. Eleventh, VENICE, in 1487, a curious and elegant 
edition, a copy of which David Clement saw in the biblical col- 
lection of the Duchess of Luneburg, ^'■nitide et accurate excussa." 
The twelfth and thirteenth have disappeared entirely. The four- 
teenth and fifteenth editions are of the years 1502 and 1507. The 
latter is the first edition of the celebrated GIUNTI. The editions 
of 1517, '25, '32, '35, '46, '53, '58, all of Malhemi, in folio, bring 
the number to twenty-one. The editions from twenty-two to 


thirty-five, both inclusive, were the translation from the Hebrew, 
of Bruccioli, published by Giunti, VENICE, with t\\e privilege of 
the senate; the first appeared in 1532. A version by another 
translator, Marmochini, a Dominican, which he professed to have 
made from the Hebrew, and Glreek, was published by Giunti, 
first in 1538, and again in 1546, making editions thirty-sixth and 
thirty-seventh. Edition thirty-eighth, was by another translator, 
with Si poetical version of Job and of the Psalms, in 1547. 

The 39th and 40th editions were published in 1541 and 1551, 
being the translation of Bruccioli with some alterations. Eleven 
years after the date of the last, and ninety-one years after that of 
the first edition of the Bible in Italian, the Calvin ists altered 
the version of Bruccioli to suit their purpose, as the editor declares 
in the preface, and published in Geneva, the eirst Protestant 
edition of the Scriptures in the Italian language. But on what 
authority does all this rest ? Must I send for ^' Latin to Cambridge, 
England," to prove it ? No, sir. The proof is the testimony of 
Pavid Clement, A CALVINISTIC MINISTER, and libra- 
rian to the king of Prussia, in his " Bibliotheque ciirieuse, ov 
catalogue raisonne de livres difficilcs a trouver," in ix vols. 4to, 
published at Gottingen, 1750-60. (See letter B.) What will 
the gentleman say for his fanatical associate. Doctor Brownlee, 
who DENIED this fact? What will he say for his own calumnies, 
and those of Doctor Miller, in maintaining that the Catholic re- 
ligion is hostile to the Scriptures, and ^^ locks them up from the 
common people?" Sir, these gentlemen ought to instruct them- 
selves before they teach others, and if they really are ignorant of 
these facts, it is a disgrace to the age that they should labour as 
they do in regard to this matter, to engraft their own ignorance 
of the fact, on the American mind, as a j^art of knowledge and 

What was true of Italy, was equally true of German}^, France, 
Spain and Belgium. Does the gentleman deny it, like Doctor 
Brownlee ? If he does, I pledge myself to prove it. But I took 
Italy, the heart of the Catholic Church. Will the gentleman, 
therefore, as he loves truth, aid, with the pen that has contributed 
to lead the uneducated astray on this subject, to undeceive them? 
Will not GOD approve of such a course, proceeding from such a 

But why was a partial restriction put to the reading and cir- 
culation of the Scripture afterwards ? The reason is obvious. The 
religious wars in Germany, France and Switzerland — the crimes 
and fanaticism that had been witnessed, and for a.11 which was quot- 
ed, some text of Scripture, as authority, had pve?^n/^ed a new and 
alarming view of the case. When the demagogue? of the refor- 
mation, in order to seduce the people from allegiance, t-o aU powers 
but themselves, taught them that they could understand the Scrip- 
tures without difficulty, and engaging them in wars and ssd:ti»»n 


against their governments, applied the principle of Mohammed with 
more subtlety, but with equal effect, to persuade them, that in 
doing so, they were contending " for the gospel," then it was 
deemed prudent to regulate the circulation of the Scripture in 
the vernacular language, until the delirium of the social and 
religious condition, which the abuse of the Scripture and the 
degradation of its character had produced, should have subsided 
or passed away. 

The regulation was restrictive, local, temporary. And never 
misrepresentation has asserted. The facts of the immense circu- 
lation of the Scriptures in the various languages of Europe, 
before the Reformation, (considcrmg hoio recent/^ printuuj had 
been inveuted,) are such as should make these false accusers 
ashamed of their vocation. The circulation of the Scriptures in 
the United States, where the Catholics, few as they are, have 
had them in every size and form, is a direct refutation of the 
calumny, by facts, against which it is ridiculous for them to 
reason. Even the Spaniards, in whose country the Inquisition 
was most jealous and oppressive, have their Spanish Bible, by the 
Bishop of Segovia, a copy of which, mutilated by the Bible 
Society of New York, I now hold in my hand. It is regarded 
as the word of God, and yet it is sent by the ]3ible Society to the 
ignorant Spaniards of South America, with a falsehood printed 
on the title-page. It purports to be from the Vulgate, as trans- 
lated by the Bishop of Segovia, in order not to startle the preju- 
dices or suvspicions of the Spaniards. And yet the books, which 
Protestants call "Apocryphal," but which Catholics believe to be 
inspired, are all omitted. ^V\th this omission, of which 
nothing is said, it is no longer the Bible of the Bishop of 
Segovia; and, consequently, it 'carries on its title-page a false- 
hood. Now, let not the gentlemen say that in this, I calumni- 
ate the Bible Societij, or the gentlemen who compose it. I state 
the FiVCT. It is a fraud, known as such to its authors, who- 
ever they may be, and ought to be denounced by every honour- 
able member of that society. They ought not to associate, nor 
allow their agents to associate, with the circulation of the 
" WORD OF GOD," so legitimate an evidence of their holding, 
or at least jpractising the maxim, that the ^'^ end justifies the 


"is the Roman Catliolic Reliylony in any or in all its principles 
or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty f 


Mr. President, — After holding the copy of my speech about 
thirty days, the gentleiiian has returned me his windy response. 
During half of that time, he also had in his possession my reply 
on the alternate question also, though, by agreement, his reply 
was due on the delivery of my speech on the afhrmative. I do 
not wonder at his delay. I shall wonder, if he ever permits this 
debate to see the light. But I here notice these facts to show 
the public in what a position the man stands who complains that 
I am never p>rcpared to meet him. Was I not prepared to meet 
him in the discussion ? Did I not meet him on all the points as 
they arose ? And after the debate was brought to a close, is not 
the whole Society witness to the fact, that he re/used to publish 
the rejiorts of the stenographer ; and insisted on delaying even 
the writing out aneio of the debate, as we are now doing, until 
he should go to Mexico ? 

No, sir, the fact is this. The gentleman finding his cause 
pressed sorely, tried first to divert me from its exposure, by 
shifting the grounds of the discussion. But I chose to pursue my 
own course, as it is my right and duty to do, while in the afiirm- 
ative. I did not choose to discuss the character of the Inquisi- 
fion, till I had finished the direct proof o^ the enmity of his Church 
to liberty. He then tried the virtue of attacking my reputation 
through the contents of a former controversy. I then turned aside, 
for the greater part of one evening, to meet and expose his malig- 
nity and falsehoods, to the satisfaction, I am sure, of every candid 
mind ; and afterward resumed the line of my discussion. In the 
writing out of this debate, he has bespangled every part of it with 
these personal attacks, and these vain eiforts at diversion from the 
main question. Besides having met these personalities in my 
late controversy with him, and besides, having exposed them in 
the oral debate, I have met them as they have been brought up by 
him in the manuscript. Some of them reappear, in meagre and 
dejected forms, in his last speech, evidently showing that the 
author, having little to say for his cause, wishes to do all he can 
against his adversary. Pascal, a Catholic, but a Jansenist, has 
explained all this in his fifteenth Letter, (Provincial Letters,) of 



wbich the heading is this : " the Jesuits omit calumny in their 
catalogue of crimes, and make no scruple of using it against 
tlieir enemies^ Pascal, whom JMr. Hughes has denounced, ex- 
poses the Jesuits, whom Mr. Hughes has praised, for wickedly 
justifying horrible calumnies known to be so, in self-defence. 
*'It is certain," says Caramuel,(l) "it is a probable opinion that 
it is no mortal sin to bring a false accusation for the sake of 
preserving ones honour, for it is maintained by ticenty grave 
doctors, Gaspar, Hurtado, Decastillus, &c. Hence, if this doc- 
trine be not probable, there is scarcely any one that is so in the 
whole system of divinity." Well might Pascal exclaim, ^^ Oh, 
what an execrable system is this .'" This is the morality of the 
school which the gentleman sustains; which is head of popery 
in this country; and which adequately explains all Mr. Hughes's 

By these attacks the gentleman compelled me to hold up three 
cases q1 fraud committed by him before the whole society, viz.: 
1. The case of Mosheim, where he omitted t\iQ first sentence, and 
read what the historian had said of a set oi fanatics, and told us 
it was a description of the Albigenses, who were not named there; 
and of whom the same writer gives a totally different account. 
2i. The case in which he took one sentence of mine from a certain 
page, and another, some fifty pages off; and by putting them to- 
gether, made me say the very reverse of what I had really said, 
and then charged it on me as falsehood. 3. The case in which 
he omitted whole pages of a manuscript which he was reading as 
part of his speech, and yet handed it in to be reported, thus rob- 
bing me of my time, (for we spoke by portions of time alternately,) 
and thus dishonourably charging Presbyterians with horrible 
principles and crimes, which I did not know were in the paper, 
and which would have gone before the public unknown, and, of 
course, unanswered by me, if I had not demanded a copy from 
the stenographer. These were openly exposed, and charged upon 
him publicly. They have not been, they cannot be explained. 
When they occurred, I should have left the discussion, but for the 
sake of the cause : for since that moment he can have no claim to 
my respect; nor can I own him as an equal, or a gentleman. I 
once tried to explain Mr. Hughes's conduct by the apology of his 
bad breeding and ignorance of the decent proprieties of life. Now, 
we must refer all to the morality of Jesuit is^n. And now let the 
gentleman explain, if he can ; deny, he dare not; and even should 
he be unable to do it, if he will repent, and reform, I vfiW forgive. 

As to Caranza ; I have already, and fully explained, as he well 
knows, the omission of a single word, ^^ prsesentibus,^' by mistake, 
which he knows did not in the least affect the sense. And I call 
on him to tell me publicly, whether the extract, from the third 

(1) N. 1151. 


chapter of Fourth. Lateran, contains one word that is not in the 
oriymal. He says, the translation overruns Caranzajfrom whom 
I quote. If, then, what I give in English, is not in the original 
Latin, here will be the way to detect me. If he will say that 
translation is not faithful ; if, what overruns Caranza, is forged, 
let him say so. If he will, then I will tell him what translation I 
followed. By his declaration, that Caranza's Latin is overrun 
by my English, he either asserts that I fabricate matter, or else 
that Caranza has not given all. The former he dare not say. 
The latter is the fact. Caranza suppresses much of the decree. 
I gave ajmge of his abridgment, and gave the continned sense of 
the decree; following him as far as he 2vent, and then continuing 
it from other sources. This Mr. H. knows. Let him venture to 
deny it. Yet he charges me with garbling the decree; and jus- 
tifies Caranza for doing the very same thing. And now I chal- 
lenge Mr. H. to show that, in my long extracts from Caranza, I 
have at all affected the continued sense, or mistranslated, in the 
smallest measure, a single word. My citations were taken 
largely from consecutive portions of the infamous decree, to prove 
the persecution of the Church of Rome. I have given the whole 
chapter in my second speech, first night. Let any reader refer 
to the former Controversy. I challenge Mr. Hughes to cite the 
passage in his next speech, and show that my said extracts altered 
the sense of the canon. If not, his charges are base. If I did, 
let him show it. 

Mr. H.'s evasion about the false charge of '^forging Latin for 
the Council of Trent," which he so ludicrously urged against me, 
is too palpable to call for any thing but my pity at his embarrass- 
ment. When, by accident, I omitted one word in a page of Latin, 
he says I ^^ suj)pressed f' when I cite a passage, and'^give a icord 
too much, he says it is ^^ 2^, forgery. ^^ I then refer to the passage 
with new p)foofs of its genuineness ; he says I am right in the 
letter, but wrong in the spirit. When, of a decree covering 
several pages, I give the substance in one page, he says, I supjjress 
a 2^c(i'f' Yet, at the end, I overrun a papal abridgment, and 
give an additional sentence from another and fuller work, he 
charges me with doing wrong again. Because I say I follow the 
abridgment, (as far as it goes,) I sin if I go any farther, though 
every word I add is a part of the decree which the popish 
abridger had left out ! ! For such attacks, there is no explana- 
tion but the desperation of the man. 

His explanation of his fraud on my quotation, I cannot receive. 
It will not do, Mr. II. Your character calls you to try it once 
more ! 

Pie rings new changes on the old charge, and the true one 
made by me, tltat the Catechism of the Council of Trent gives only 
four iDords of the second commandment. The copy to which I 
referred is in i\iQ pjubl^c library of New York. When he called 


up the subject, on the rostrum, two years after I had asserted the 
fact, (in the first Controversy with him,) I promised to get the 
book, and exhibit it. In due time I did so. It was just as I had 
said. The four words were given ; the rest, instead of being 
announced, were suppressed, and brought up maiiy jyaqes after, 
in the tailo^ the exposition, and kept out of view as much as pos- 
sible ! That the gentleman produced some copies of one or more 
editions, in which the whole was honestly announced on one 
page, is only a proof, that Rome is wise. She gives out the 
word of God as she must; and has different degrees for different 
regions of the earth. Sir, every scholar Ivuows that (he Church 
of Rome is guilty in this thing. She even mistranslates the words 
of the Bible, which forbid us " to bow down" to graven images; 
falsely TendGYiug them ^' adore," &c.; for you know her people 
do how down to graven images. But in most cases the Church 
has suppressed the true second commandment, after merging it in 
another, and splitting the unique tenth, so as to make two of it; 
and thus covers the fraud. That Church has different editions of 
her standards for different countries; and whenever she dare, she 
suppresses the commandment which forbids idolatry. I will 
prove what I say. The most Bev. James Butler's Catechism, 
revised, enlarged, improved, and recommended by the four Roman 
Catholic Archbishops of Ireland, printed at New York in 1826, 
at pnge 21, has the following question and answer : — 

'' Lesson XIV. On the Commandments. 

'^Ques. Say the ten commandments of God. 

^'x\ns. I. I am the Lord, thy God; thou shalt not haVfe strange 
Gods before me, &c. 

''II. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in 

" III. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." Is 
there any thing here about images? Not a word ! Surely, they 
who keep the Bible from the people, ought, at least, to give them the 
ten commandments in full ! The next proof is from a Philadelphia 
edition, published by authority, by Eugene Cummiskey in 1827. 
Not one word is here about graven images. Next — 3Ir. Cum- 
miskey, four years after, gives another edition. There was time 
ioT repentance. But still the same ^/iz'»<7. Fourth proof . ''The 
Christian Doctrine,'^ composed by Father Lederma, Priest of the 
Society of Jesus,- and printed " by permission of the superiors," 
A. D. 1609 and 1624,(1) gives the following version of the com- 
mandments : 

"I. I am the Lord, thy God; thou shalt have no other Gods 
but me. 

" II. Thou shalt not take the name of G-od in vain. 

" III. Remember to sanctify the holy days." Is there any 
thing here SLbont graven images? Yet, while suppressing the 

(1) See Preface to Via. Tuta. 


law of God against idolatry, he adds, (icichcdly,) a charge to 
keep Roman lioly days! 

Again ; the version used in Ireland has not one word of the 
second commandment. 

And again ; the version used in the Highlands of Scotland (1) 
wholly suppresses the second commandment. And now, no one 
need be at a loss to understand the reason, to estimate the guilt, 
or know the fact of this svjijji'ession. I ask now, who is the 
calumniator P And as / have no Jesuit-morality to shelter me, 
I wish the calumny to attach where it belongs. I know, however, 
that it is hard for Mr. Hughes to ex2:)lain, or disprove this terrible 

As the gentleman's ideas fluctuate in elegant confusion, through 
his pages, it matters little in what order the reply to them be ar- 
ranged. We make the order of imjwrtance our guide; and next 
return to Cardinal Bellarmine. He says, that I " introduce Bel- 
larmine discussing as an individual, in the exercise of his j^rivate 
opinion, the proposition, ^that heretics may he punished with 
temporal punishments, (^penalties,') and even with death.' " But, 
sir, the gentleman well knows that Bellarmine speaks, like De- 
VOTi, under the Pope's expressed sanction, and utters the true 
Catholic doctrine ! The Pope did hang him up in the Index for 
one error, viz.: for saying, that the Pope had only indirect tem- 
poral POWER, whereas he ought to have said, he has DIRECT 
temporal power. The rest is approved, and declared to contain 
no doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith. It is no private 
op in ion, then ; but the publicly approved, avowed doctrine of the 
Church of Rome ! If Calvin agreed with Bellarmine, then Calvin 
was so far wrong. But Calvin spoke his tenet; Bellarmine spoke 
for the Pope, his master, and his Church. Mr. Hughes says, 
that infamous passage which directs to kill heretics, if Catholics 
have the majority, was derived from Augustine, by the author. 
Yes, and that is another proo/, that it is Catholic doctrine; 'Hhe 
consent of the father s.^' Chrysostom, also, says the same. Mr. 
Hughes says, again, that I " suppress the circumstances which 
explain it." What are they? The above is one of them ! Another 
is 'Uhat Bellarmine is speaking of the text (passage) in the Gos- 
pel of St. Matthew, in which the Saviour was explaining the 
parable of the good seed and the cockle; the one representing the 
good, the other the wicked ; and Bellarmine following out the 
figure, contended that the cocJdes in the field of the Lord, were 
the heretics, thieves, and other wicked men, who were to be 
rooted or plucked out, (extirpandi,) unless in the cases which he 
excepted, after St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom." Now, if this 
be not enough to prove, that Bellarmine thought it a papal doc- 
trine to extirpate heretics, unless, to use his own words, *' THEY 

(1) See M'Gavin on this subject. 


ARE STRONGER THAN OURSELVES," I know not the force of words. 
But see how Mr. Hughes and Bellarmine reason. The Lord said, 
'■^Ict the wheat and the cockle groiv together till the harvest;^' i. e. 
^Hhe end of the world.'' Bellarmine says no! Pluck them up 
now, if you can! Mr. Hughes says, that I '' suppress circum- 
stances." What circumstances? Does Bellarmine say, it is his 
opinion ! No. He says, in the same chapter, (in answer to the 
objection, that it was contrary to the mercy of the Churchy to 
loish the death of heretics,) " THE Church HAS TRIED Aljh other 
methods, before she could be induced to inflict this extreme 
punishment, (death;) for, at first, as we have said before, she 
only excommunicated ; but afterwards, seeing this would not suf- 
fice, she added pecuniary penalties; then confiscation of goods; 
afterwards exile; at length she reached this, (death;) as is suffi- 
ciently apparent from the various laws of the ancient emperors, 
in the chapter entitled De Heretics." Here is no opinion; but 
a fact; viz., that as soon fts the emperors allowed her, the 
Church did fne, rob, banish, and kill heretics! 

But ^Ir. Hughes asks, ''Are not Catholics in the majority in 
France?" No. Protestants and infidels are now! . Once they 
were. And what then ? Has Mr. Hughes forgotten the edict of 
Nantz, and St. Bartholomew's day? ''In Austria?" But are 
Protestants tolerated in Austria? So as to have room to increase? 
" In Belgium ?" But she goes with France. Have you forgotten 
the Belgian bishops, who said, that it was anti-Catholic to tolerate 
any other religion? "In Ireland?" It has been tried there! 
Force alone has hindered it! " In Italy?" Are Protestants tole- 
rated in Italy, Mr. Hughes? "And the Reformers?" Why, yes? 
The Reformers lived only because the wars of near half a century 
could not extinguish them. No, Mr. Hughes; it is not from the 
Carrolls, and Gastons, and Careys, and other patriots, that we look 
for things, as you try to make me say, concerning the wicked 
and polluted hands of the Jesuit priesthood, under their names. 
No. The Catholic laity, such as these, are not Roman Catholics! 
on the question of liberty. The priesthood is the Church; the 
hierarchy of Rome is the despotic power; and they must change, 
or fall from the confidence of American citizens. But if the priest- 
hood can but rally from the dark papal states of Europe, a full 
band of their unlettered and deeply subjected militia, then may 
we see this land ruled by a papal mob ; and then these slumber- 
ing doctrines will awake for new carnage in this confiding nation. 
But vve proceed. Mr. Hughes, in the face of Bellarmine's own 
words, says, that "they" (heretics) "may, and ought to be pu- 
nished with civil penalties, and even death, not by the Church, 
as Mr. Breckinridge states, in opposition to Bellarmine's own 
words, but by the civil power." Now, see the truth. In this 
very chapter, Bellarmine says, "It is proved; [the proposition, 
that the civil power ought to punish, even with death, the IN- 



Scriptures. II. It is proved, from the opinions and laws of the 
emperors, which the Church has always approved." Is this 
an OPINION of Bellarmine? He appeals to history. III. "It is 
proved by the laws of the Church!" Is this an opinion? 
Do the ImDS of the Church ever violate her doctrines? If 
these lains were anti-Catholic, would ^^tlie Church always ap- 
prove them," and pass them, and never to this day repeal them ? 
IV. "//! is proved by the testimony of the fathers.'' Were these 
fathers heretics? Their opinions make part of the rtde of faith 
in the Roman Church! He afterwards says, ''That heretics 
were often burned by the Church, may be proved by ad- 
ducing A FEW FROM MANY EXAMPLES;" and he names " DoNA- 
TISTS, Manicheans, AND Albigenses, who Were routed, and an- 
nihilated hy arms:" nay, he says, ''AN almost infinite num- 
ber (of heretics) were either burned, or otherwise put to 
DEATH," (by the Church.) But Mr. Hughes ventures to say, 
" every instance, adduced by Bellarmine, of this, is an instance 
by the authority of the state," (but, he says, the Church approved 
this! Is it not then her doctrine?) or by some emperor; but in- 
asmuch as the civil rulers, who made and executed these laws 
against heretics," (but, Mr. Hughes ! Bellarmine says, "the laws 
of the Church called for it !") " were Catholics, and the Church 
had cast these heretics out; he speaks of it as if the Church her- 
self had executed the laws." But Bellarmine says, " The apostles 
did not invoke the secular arm against heretics, because there was 
no Christian prince whom they could call on for aid. But after- 
wards, in Constantino's time the Church called in the 

aid of the secular arm." And he here quotes Augustine again. 
And more; he says, (all in Mr. Hughes's face, in the self-same 
chapter,) "As the Church has ecclesiastical and secidar princes, 
who are her two arms, so she has two swords, the sp>iritual and 
material; and, therefore, when her right hand is unable to con- 
vert a heretic, with the sword of the Spirit, she invokes the aid of 
thelefthand, and coerces the heretics with the material (/crreo — 
iron^ sword." Here he makes the Church the head; and the 
state, "the left arm, with the iron sword" moving at her will; 
and as soon as ever the emperors would, she set them to work to 
burn heretics ! Yet, Mr. Hughes has the rashness, I use no 
stronger term, to say, " every instance, adduced by Bellarmine, 


where is thy blush ! As well say, that the man loho kindled the 
fire that burned them, did it, and. not the emperor ; .for the em- 
peror did not touch the match! The Church cut off the heretic; 
she then ordered, or begged, according to her ptower, the state to 
hum him; the state ordered the executioner to do it! Pray who 
did it? And yet Mr. Hughes gravely asks, " Does he say there 
is any law of the Church requiring heretics to be put to death .''" 


Yes. He says, " It is proved by the laws of the Church !" 
What is proved ? Why, that when the Church casts oif incorri- 
gible heretics, the civil power should inflict on such temporal 
punishments, even death itself. He quotes, in proof, no less than 
four chapters from the canon law, which I will spread out in my 
next speech, if Mr. Hughes dares deny these proofs again. How 
futile, how childish, then, his quibbles on the assertion of doctrine 
in form? How reckless, and how impotent his foul, vulgar 
charges against me, as the perverter and corruptor 6f this author ! 
But I think we shall next hear him say, Bellarmine is not a 
standard author! "The grapes are sour," said the wily fox, 
when he reached for them in vain. I know not where the gen- 
tleman gets the phrase, which he charges on me, ''that I carry 
on the controversy hy myself." This ''lingo" is familiar at 
home with him, I suppose. But truly, if his defence of his 
Church falters hereafter, as it has done of late, after thirty days 
delay, and then such replies, I shall almost cease to believe what 
others say, that he has helj^s at hand. 

The gentleman cannot forget "the barbed'^ arguments of Dr. 
Miller ! Adapting my figure to my present associate, I have only 
to say "the galled jade winces." 

Next he assails the able Dr. Brownlee, and calls him Vi. fanatic ! 
Strange that Vi fanatic routed the banded triumvirate of the New 
York priesthood. You remember, Mr. President, that on the 
preliminary evening of the debate, Dr. Brownlee, Dr. Brantley 
and his son, as well as Mr. Hughes and myself, took spme very 
small part in the debate. The terms had not finally been agreed 
on. Young Brantley, with great modesty, dignity, and effect, 
according to the rules of your society, opened the debate. Dr. 
Brantley stated a single point, and "proved" Mr. Hughes a 
" ne;:ative" for the evening; Dr. Brownlee denied the assertion 
made by Mr. Hughes, as to forty editions of the Italian Bible 
being printed before one Protestant edition. Now Mr. Hughes 
drags him and the other gentleman in, and very rudely insults 
them. The truth was, we had much difficulty in getting Mr. 
Hughes to the meeting ] in keeping him at it, (for his canonical 
hours came on early that night;) or in drawing him out in it. — 
Hence it was an irregular meeting; though the gentleman gave 
himself a good share of glory, and us a terrible awful defeat, in 
his communication to the " Catholic Diary." I am thus minute, 
that those who may read this Discussion (having not witnessed 
the debate) may know the history of that scene. 

And now, as to the forty Italian editions of the Bible. I say 
first, I demand better proof than Mr. Hughes's word. Let us 
have it in full. Second, I ask Mr. Hughes if he will assert that 
there was no restriction on the reading of the Bible before the 
Council of Trent ? Third, Will he say that these editions of Ita- 
lian Bibles circulated freely, and were by their cost, kcj in the 



reach of the mass of the people ? Fourth, how large were the 
editions ? But allowing^his foi'ttj editions, let us see his reasoning. 
Forty editions of Italian Bibles 2vere jyrinted hy Catholics, before 
the first Bible tvas printed by Protestants : therefore the Svrip- 
titres loere not, and are not forbidden to the laity ! Surely there 
is ^VQ^t profundity here. It seems to be thought by Mr. Hughes 
of no consequence to the argument to know, whether there was 
not a restriction on the use of these books. But the facts shall 
speak by the side of his logic. First fact. In 1515, about 
half a century after the first use of types, when printing began 
to frighten the Church of Home, the Council of Lateran under 
Leo X. muzzled the press, when, by Mr. Hughes's own showing, 
only fifteen of his /b;'(y editions had appeared; and when know- 
ledge had begun to spread, and Luther was on the point of ap)- 
pearing as a Reformer, the Council forbid any book to be 
printed anywhere under heavy penalties, unless examined and 
approved, by the Papers vicar, or some inquisitor. Second fact. 
The first rule of the Index of prohibited books prepared by order of 
the Council of Trent, informs us that books were condemned 
before the year 1515, by Popes and Councils. Third fact. 
The Index prepared by authority of the Council of Trent, which 
I exhibited to the society during the debate, and which Mr. 
Hughes has examined at his own house, in so many words for- 
bids the use (not of the Protestant but) of the Roman Catholic 
Bible, in every vulgar tongue. (1) Biblia vulgari quocunque 
Idiomate conscripta ! Pray, of what use then, were, the fo?-fy 
editions in the Italian language, except to the priesthood? 
Fourth fact. . The fourth rule of the Index foi-bids the Bible, 
(the Catholic Bible) translated into the vulgar tongue to be 
indiscriminately used, because it was manifest from experience 
[these forty editions had begun to do "Tnischief it seems !] that 
such use would cause more evil than good; and therefore no 
man without a, written permission from a bishop or inquisitor, 
s\oidd read or possess a copy of the Bible, and offenders loere 
punished — the possessors and readers — by refusing absolution to 
them, fill they gave up the book; and the venders by fines and 
forfeitures, and other penalties. These rules I produced at large 
on the first night of the debate. Now I ask of what use were 
these Bibles, these "forty editions," under such restrictions? 
And is it honest, with these /owr facts in his house, in his hand, 
in his eye, to make so great a flourish with his^or^y Italian edi- 
tions ? It were just as fair, and as fitting, to give us the history of 
^^ the forty thieves !" Fifth fact. Uven this license has since 
been recalled. I have before me, and will give, from the Index, 
the order of Pope Clement VIII. recalling the license-giving 
POWER mentioned ABOVE ; and extending the prohibition to 

(1) In page 30. 



questions it, I will give the passage in the original. 

Now where are your /orf?/ Ikilicm editions? They are buried 
in your convents — used us pillows under the heads of lazy monks, 
hid from the sight of men — forbidden to God's creatures, as hurtful 
to the hierarchy of that "man of sin" who would take God's place, 
and full well knows that darkness is his Jit dwelling-place, and 
his only defence! 

In truth — -the gentleman owns that there was a ^'partial re- 
striction^' afterwards! I ask why? Who dare do it? Is not this 
against human liberty? He says it was ''local,'' ''temporary." 
I pronounce it utterly, deliberately false; and defy the author of 
so outrageous a perversion of facts to show me, in all the above 
citations, one proof that these restrictions were not '^prohibitort/," 
"universal," and "perpetual." Let him but give me one rebut- 
ting fact or word. His knowledge is too large to acquit his 
character. It is the height of reckless audacity and folly. 

And now a word of the bull of Innocent VIII. Not for hi5< 
impertinence, will I give my authority — but for the informati(Mi of 
the country — for the confusion of the man, who knows, while he 
denies it, that there is such a bull. He will find it spread out at 
large in "Free Thoughts on Popery," by Bruce, of Great Britain. 
He will find an abstract of it in Jones's History of the Christian 
Church, Vol. 'II. Chap. 6. He will find it in Morland's Churches 
of Piedmont, pp. 188-198; and in Alixs liistorjj of that perse- 
cuted people against whom the "infernal machine", was levelled. 
The original, Mr. 11. once called for. I promised to send for it 
to the Cambridge library, England. I have done so. It may yet 
make him blush. He evidently fears it; for now, he says, if it 
comes, it may be ^ forgery . He thus makes a bull^ in deinjimj 
one. In the continuation of Baronius's Annals, as proved in the 
late Controversy, the fact, that such a bull was given, is distinctly 
stated. I now ask, does Mr. H. deny that x\.lbert de Capetaines 
was commissioned by the Pope to carry on the crusade, as stated 
in the bull ? By what authority did he execute his commission ? 
Let us have honest answers to these two inquiries. Let the 
reader also observe, that the bull is so horrible that the gentleman 
finds his only safety in denying its authenticity. To its contents 
he will never venture a reply. 

And you see all he says, or can say, of the Pope's treatment of 
the Republic of Venice! Venice was a Republic; therefore 
Catholics are not opposed to liberty ! profound ratiocination 1 But 
what did the Jesuits — the Pope's soldiery, do ? Why, impelled 
by the doctrine, that the Pope is head of the church, and the 
church over -the state, they left their country to join the Pope, 
who was in arms against it ! And so would it be with Jesuits in 
America, in the same circumstances. Venice, like Poland, and 


Switzerland and France, had some noble spirits — some deep-laid 
principles of liberty, not in consequence — but in spite of popery. 
Popery has well nigh ruined them all. But, in so far as they 
were//r^^, did they find the Pope trying to oppress them. Spain 
had good Catholics — hence Spain was enslaved: so Portugal. In 
each, as liberty rises, popery sinks. The liberal party in both 
cou'.itries has the priesthood against them. The thousand monas- 
teries and nunneries, lately annihilated in Spain and Portugal, 
show what the lovers of the rights of the people, and of a more 
free constitution, think of Popery, and its anti-liberal fruits. The 
Pope's bull against the government of Portugal, and his sympathy 
with his dear son, Don Carlos, show how he feels towards liberal 
institutions, and the destruction of church-power and priestly 
domination. So it was in Venice; ask Father Paul — ask Du Pin 
— ask De Thou, (Thuanus;) you have denounced them as Pro- 
testants. They were Catholics, but in Venice and France 
stood up for liberty. I say not, that all Ccttholics are in doctrine or 
in spirit, enemies to liberty. Far from it. All men love it. But 
ihiG priesthood xidiQ on the necks of men. They keep them de- 
based, ignorant, oppressed, by doctrines and discipline opposed 
to all liberty. The most enlightened rise up to resist; and at last 
the hierarchy will fall ; and all people will be free. Then there 
will remain the Catholicism of truth, which now lies neutralized 
under the weight of despotism, as the Alps under eternal snows. 
But the system is constructed to darken, enslave, corrupt, and 
govern the world. Not all the doctrines; not all the discipline; 
but the systcvi is tyrannic. It refuses to reform — it must then 
expire. God speed the day ! 

In the case of Devoti, the gentleman feels himself to be on 
perilous ground. I \i^\Q forced him to admit that Devoti, (a 
WTiter approved at Rome late in the eighteenth century,) says, 
that the Church of Rome did directly inflict bodily punishments, 
and fine and banish men. This is enough. Does Mr. Hughes 
deny this to have been the fact? Did the Church of Rome do it 
or not? Let him reply. I defy him to deny if. You will see 
he dare not. She did. Then there was a time when the Church 
of Rome held no doctrine which forbid this tyranny. But, she 
says, she changes not. Then she is still the same; and can, 
without any violation of her doctrines, do it still. If, then, she 
gets the power in America, is she to be trusted ? Are not her doc- 
trines as ready for it as ever^ Now, the American Protestant 
churches say, that it is anti-Christian, anti-liberal for them to do 
it. If the gentleman can show any such declaration of his church, 
let him do it. If not, that settles the question. But, he says, 
Devoti only claimed the church's right to do these things from 
the constitutions of emperors. Suppose it to be so. If the 
American Constitution should give to the Catholic Church the 
power to fine, imprison, banish, castigate men, is there any thing 


in Tier doctrines wJiich forhlds it? No. If tlxere be, let it be 
stated, chapter and verse. But the American Protestant Churches 
— the Presbyterian Church, for example, in her standards, de- 
clares, that it is not right, not Christian, not competent to her, or 
any church of Christ, to have, or to hold, or to exercise, such 
power. Here is the grand difference. But the author Devoti 
goes farther, and distinctly says, (in a passage quoted at large by 
me in my first speech, second night,(l) to which I refer the reader,) 

^'Labarde endeavours to undermine and take away 

THE roWER given BY Christ TO THE CHURCH, not only of govern- 
ment hi/ councils, and persuasion, but also of decreeing hy laws, 
and of compulsion, and of coercing with jy^^^shment, those loho 

Again, § VIII. "And since the power of the church is two- 
fold, the one wholly spiritual, given separately (i. e., to her alone) 
by Christ, which is exercised both in the inner and outer court j 
the other, which she has in common with every perfect and dis- 
tinct commonwealth, and which is called temporal, it follows that 
there are two kinds of punishments ordained by her : the one kind 
is spiritual, which is to afflict the soul ; the other temporal, which 
is to castigate the body: she exercises the right to inflict spiritual 
punishment on all who, by baptism, are admitted among the chil- 
dren of the church, and who sin against religion. The church 


^' So long as she (the church) has punishments equal to their (the 
clergy's) offence, she inflicts them by that right which every re- 
public has over its citizens, and punishes a guilty clergyman 
with lashes, fines, imprdsonment, and other inflictions, with this 
end, that the offenders may be reformed, and others may, by the 
example of their punishment, be induced to abstain from crime." 
It is in illustrating this section, (as well as in^Book III. tit. 1, 
sec. 21,) that he gives the account of the prisons of the church, in 
monasteries, for example. [Are our nunneries thus furnished ?] 
Now, we ask, is not here a right claimed to exercise temporal 
power f Whence is it derived ? Not from the s^a^e.? No. For 
he says each power, civil and religious, has its distinct preroga- 
tive ! It is "eo»ywre," by that right which every republic exercises 
over its citizens." This Dens contends for, over all baptized per- 
sons, as I have already showed — the gentleman not disputing his 
testimony. Bellarmine, also, as I have just shown, claims this 
power, not as the gift of the state, but possessed before the state 
permitted the church to exercise it; and says, it was exercised aa 
soon as it was in the power of the church to do so. When I 
(1) Page 139. 


said, then, in my last speech, ^^this icriter claims for the church 
the right to inflict temporal and hodilj/ punishments," I said 
just the truth; and my promise to expose Mr. H. is so far ful- 
filled, that I am well assured his friends will feel it, if he does not. 

But to end the dispute. Devoti says, § V., ''•Peace having 
been given to Christians, [in Constan tine's reign, and afterwards,] 
the church passed Judgment on crimes, not only hy llER OWN 
RIGHT, (suo jure,) hut hi/ the laics of the emperors.'* Here, 
plainly, she claimed the right before the emperors conceded and 
confirmed it. But what were these crimes and judgments? 
*'And truly these judgments were not only about crimes against 
religion, hut they also comprehended all causes in which the 
clergy icere convicted, of any crime against the republic,'* (or 
state.) He proceeds through the whole title, or chapter, to dis- 
tinguish, or more properly to confound, the two republics, as he 
calls them, namely, the church and the state; and comes to the 
result, that the essential nature of the church's constitution as a 
republic, gives her temporal power over all, in certain respects, 
but especially over the clergy ; whom she fines, whips, imprisons, 
banishes; and, if all will not do, then hands them over to the last 
vengeance of the civil arm, by excommunication. ; which is higher 
punishment than all others; and which infers all the rest, if the 
state does its duty to heretics. 

As to the Rhemish Testament, I really think that all honest 
men will say Mr. H. has made a distinction without a difference 
in his comments on one of my citations from it. I gave a page of 
extracts. It seems in one of them I make them say, " tlie trans- 
lators of the English (Protestant) Bible, ought to be abhorred to 
the depths of hell." They say, "but if the good reader knew for 
what point of doctrine they (the Protestant translators) have thus 
framed their translation, they would abhor them to the depths of 
hell." In both cases, they are to be abhorred to the depths of 
hell — only, gentle reader, it is the great difference, that a right 
judgment would SO abhor them ; and not that they ought to be so 
abhorred! How hard pressed is a man, a cause, that thus ^in/cs, 
catching at straws. But I stand corrected. ^et' pray, Mr. 
Hughes, why pass over all the other citations in silence P Oue 
of them says, '' the zeal of Catholic men ought to be so great to- 
ward all heretics, and their doctrines, that they should give 
them the anathema, though they are never so dear to them ; so as 
not even to spare their own parents." Am 1 right in this cita- 
tion? If so, are they in doctrine? ''The blood of heretics, is 
not the blood of ■ saints, no more than the blood of thieves, man- 
killers, and other malefactors; for the shedding of which blood, 
hy order of justice, no commonwealth shall answer." Is it faith- 
ful? Is it true Catholic doctrine? They .seem to say so. These 
are their comments, as good Catholics, on Gal. i. 8, and Rev. 
xvii. 6 ; and are specimens of those not noticed by Mr. Hughes. 


The charge against the American Bihie Society hediVS malice 
and falsehood on its front. But the Pope has begun to denounce 
these noble institutions ; well may the vassal follow his " most 
holy lord.'' 

Under what he calls " Itldy," he tries to cover a former admis- 
sion, which was, "that the majority had a right, as in Italy, or 
Spain, to' establish the Catholic religion by law, if, in doing so, 
they violate no right of the minority." Now, I ask, if this does 
not imply ^hat such a thing may he done without violating such 
rights f But to test his principle, I still farther ask. Is it possi- 
ble ever to establish any religion by law, and yet not violate the 
rights of the minority? Or to the cases in hand. Was not that 
done in Spain and in Italy, by establishing the Catholic religion 
by law ? 

On the third page, he admits that Catholics have persecuted. 
I ask, has one bull or decree of council, by which they justified 
their persecution, ever been repealed? Please show me one. 
Whereas, American Protestants have renounced and changed 
those articles which their fathers derived from Rome, and ance 
plead in justification of persecution. For example, the citation 
from '' Fisher's Catechism" is not held by Presbyterians in 

He says, " Was not the Jewish religion established by law ? 
And is not that in the Bible V This is a strong squinting at 
defending establishments. But, Mr. Hughes, that was a theo- 
cracy, and not an example; or to be a plea for the Roman 
hierarchy, though I know your church so thinks, and your govern- 
ment is so modelled. 

His pertness about Luther answers itself: it is too puerile to 
be worthy of notice. 

Having met the statements, and exposed the fallacious and 
evasive reasonings of the gentleman, I now return to the line of 
my argument. In my last address, I showed conclusively, both 
by the declarations and the acts of the Pope, that he claimed, by 
divine right, POWER over both swords, that is, to be the head of 
the state, as well as of the church. The honest and high-toned 
papal writers make no qualifications on this subject. Of these 
there is a great crowd. Let us take an example. SuAREZ : — 
*'A king legitimately dejjosed is no longer legally a king ; and, 
if after such deposition, he continues obstinate, and retains the 
kingdom by force, he then deserves the title of tyrant. After the 
sentence is pronounced, (by the Pope,) he is entirely deprived of 
his dominions, so that he can no longer justly retain possession 
of them. Hence he may be treated in all respects as a tyrant; 
and, consequently, it is lawful for every individual to kill him. 
James, king of England, in order to turn Bellarmine into ridicule, 
observes, this is a Qiew and admirable rendering of the words of 
Jesus, ' FEED MY SHEEP, which makes them signify destroy. 


proscribe, and depose, Christian jyrinces and kings.' But Bel« 
larmine and ALL OF us (for in this cause we are all as one) 
do not allege these words to prove the direct primacy t)f the Pope 
in temporal affiiirs. The king of England should not, therefore, 
assert that we explain these words as signifying destroy, &c., which 
no Catholic ever did ; but, if he will attend to our sincere testi- 
mony, we maintain, that among other things contained in these 
words, and in the extent of power which the}' ascribe, this is com- 
prised — destroy, proscribe, depose heretical kings who 


faith/'(1) , 

This is comparatively a modern author; and he tells us what 
ALL hold in the Catholic Church, 3Ir. JJaghes excepted. 

Cornelius, a Lapide, is still more hold. He says : *' The sacer- 
dotal kingdom Of the church appears first in the bishops and the 
episcopate; but it is above all to be found in the Pontiff, and the 
pontificate, whose power, great and most ample, extends to all 
parts of the universe — a power hy which he commands Icings, 
(who, therefore, prostrate themselves before him as suppliants, 
casting their crowns and sceptres at his feet,) by which, v:hen 
rebels to the church, he deprives them, as he HAS OFTEN DONE, 

Let it be observed too that these are men of what they would 
call moderate views, only contending for an indirect temporal 
power. The sixth chapter of Bellarmine, fifth book, on the Pope, 
has this for its heading : — " Papam habere summam temporalem 
potestatera indirecte" — the Pope possesses supreme temporal power 
indirectly. By indirectly, we see what he means, in the follow- 
ing passages from the seventh chapter. ^^ It is not lawfid for 
Christians to tolerate an infidel or heretical king, provided he 
endeavours, to seduce his subjects to his heresy or infidelity. But 
to judge whether or not he does seduce them to heresy, pertains to 
the Pope, to whom is committed the care of religion : therefore, 
the Pope is to judge ivhether or not a king is to be deposed." 

The same writer, in the eighth chapter, adduces examples in 
proof of the fact that popes liave exercised this right of deposi- 
tion; and from the fact, he proves the right. He gives no less 
than twelve examples! His first examples are from the Old 
Testament : such as Uzzia, 2 Chron. chap. 26, and Athaliah, 
2 Chron. chap. 23 ; where he distinctly implies a theocracy, as 
transmitted to the Catholic Church, with authority to do by the 
Pope what the ancient high priests did. He then enumerates the 
cases of Gregory I. ; Gregory IL ; Zachariah; Leo. III., &c. &c., 
who respectively exercised the deposing power ; and one of whom, 

(1) Defensio Fidei, Cath., Ac, lib. 6. 

(2) Com. in Acta. Apos., cap. 2. 


LEO III., ^^ translated the emjnre from the Greeks to the Ger- 
mans, because the Greeks were not able to help the western 
church in her trials.'^ He also quotes divers parts of the canon- 
laio in support of his reasoning; and to every Catholic his argu- 
ments are unansicerable : for he brings authorities which they 
dare not-refuse or discredit. This is an honest Roman! Oh 
that they were all honest; if they will be Romans! And this 
is the Catholic doctrine. Baronius, Binius, Caranza, Driedo, 
Suarez, Perron, Pighius, Cajetan, Sylvester, Ilortiensis, Panor- 
mitan, yea, a crowd of such writers of the first authority; many 
quoted by Bellarmine sustain him in the assertion that this is the 
jyrinciple of popery. The French parliament cite no less than 
siXTY-EiGliT papal writers, who were advocates of this terrific 

But we have the specific claims of popes on the same 


Id the Decretals (1) it is thus written, (by Pope Gelasius to the 
Emperor Anastasius) " 0, august emperor, there are two by whom 
the world is chiefly ruled — the sacred authority of the Popes and 
the kingly power. In the which that of the j^riests preponde- 
rates, inasmuch as in the divine examination, they will have to 
answer for the kings of men," 

'' Be well aware, therefore, that in these matters you depend 
upon their judgment; and they cannot be subservient to your 
will." And at the close, he quotes a passage from Ambrose, in 
proof of the subjection of kinr/s to the priesthood: ^'for as much 
as you see that the necks of kings and ^^^ ibices are put tinder the 
knees of priests; and that when they have kissed their right 
hands, they believe themselves to be partakers of their prayers." 

Again : (2) the heading of the title or chapter is " Omnes Christi 
fideles de necessitate salutis, subsunt llomano Pont-ifici, qui 
utrumque gladium habet, et omnes judicat, a nemine judicatur" — 
'''•It is necessary to the salvation of cdl tlie faithful in Christ, that 
they be subject to the Pope of Rome; icho has the power of both 
swords, and who Judges all, but is judged by none.'' Here is, 

1. Damnation to all out of the visible communion of Home ; 

2. A claim to all temporal and spiritual power; 3. A superiority 
to all human tribunals. This is stated at large in the extracts 
which are cited by the canonist, in proof of the tej(ft quoted above. 
Thus we are told that ^'of the two swords, one must be subject 
to the other; and that the temporal power must be subject to the 
spiritual ;'' and to leave no doubt of the infamous bigotry and 
uncharitableness of the system of popery, closes with this awful . 
declaration, as a, defined tenet of the Church of Home, viz. 
"Porro subesse Bomano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae, decla- 

(1) First Part, Diet. 90, chap. 10. 

(2) Extra vag. Comm., book i., tit. 8. 


rimus, dicimus, definiraus et pronuntiamus, oninino esse de neces- 
sitate sfilutis ?" — ''Moreoue)', ice declare, ojjirm, DEFINE and pro- 
nounce (is not this a doctrine delivered ex cathedra ?) that it is 
altogether necej^uirij to iicdvatioii for every human creature to he 
subject to the Poj->e of Rome." 

The Pope of Home professes to be the vicegerent of God on 
earth — to dispo'se of the church and the state at his will. Hence 
the Pope gave a grant of America to Spain, (which has never yet 
been revoked,) even before America was discovered. The Pope, 
Pius v., in his bull against Queen Elizabeth, recites his preroga- 
tive in no measured terms. In that bull he deprives her of her king- 
*dom, and releases her subjects from their allegiance to her. "He 
who reigns on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and 
on earth, hath committed the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic 
Cliurch, 02it of irhi'ch there is no salvation, to one alone, on 
earth, namely, to Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and to the Roman 
Pontiff, successor of Peter, to be governed with the fulness of 
power. This o')ie man hath he aj^pointed prince over all NA- 
TIONS, AND ALL KINGDOMS, that he may pluck up, destroy, scatter , 
ruin, plant, build." To this latter trust he has been eminently 
faithful 1 Here is godship on earth in church and state. Where 
any liberty can lurk, in these pretensions, or under this universal 
theocracy, I am at a loss to conceive. 

Again : the bull of Sixtus V. against Henry, king of Navarre, 
and the prince of Condc, thus runs : — " The authority given to 
St. Peter and his successors, by the immense power of the 
eternal King, excels all the powers of earthly kings and princes. 
It passes uncontrollable sentence upon all, and if it find any of 
them resisting God's ordinance, it takes a more severe vengeance 
of them, and, casting down the most powerful of them from their 
thrones, tumbles them down into the lowest parts of the earth, as 
the ministers of the proud Lucifer." 

Among the twenty-seven celebrated Sentences, or Dictates, of 
Pope Gregory VI [. are such as these, viz. 

8th. That the Pope alone can use imperial ensigns. 

9th. That all princes must kiss the feet of the Pope only. 
,l'2th. That it is lawful for him to depose emperors. 

17th. That no chapter or book may be accounted canonical 
without his authority. 

18th. That his sentence may be retracted by none; and he 
alone may retract all men's. 

19th. That he himself ought to be judged by no man. 

27th. That he may absolve the subjects of unjust men from 
fidelity, (to their princes.) 

These Dictates are papal definitions of papal power. They 
have been preserved by the papal writers ; believed and observed 
by the priesthood; and never revoked, rescinded, or condemned 
by any council, or any pope. Of this Cardinal Baronius is a 


good witness who asserts, concerning these Dictates — Sententias 
eas hactenus iu Ecclesia Catholica, usu receptas fuisse, quibus 
reprimetur audacia schismaticorum principiiin iioo tempore in 
Romanam Ecclesiam insurgentium. That these sentences had 
heretofore (to the eleventh century) heen received into use in the 
Catholic Churchy hy them the audacity of schismatic princes, 
icho had duri)ig that time arisen in. the Roman Church, had 
heen restrained. 

It were a curious and instructive piece of history to compile 
into one table, after the example of Bellarmine, not the dozen, 
but the two hundred examples, in which j^opes have actually 
carried their principles into effect in the excommunication, or 
deposition, sr both, as the case might be, of offensive kings and 

We give below an imperfect tabular view, promising to add, 
alter, or diminish, at the suggestion of Mr. Hughes, on good evi- 
dence of error. We have no doubt his superior knowledge of 
this topic in history will enable him greatly to enlarge the table. 

Popes. Prixces excommunicated, or deposed, or both,. 

Gregory II Leo. HI.,') 

Gregory III Leo. III., v Emperors. 

Pascal I Leo. V., ) 

John VIII Lewis, King of Germany. 

Gregory V Robert, King of France. 

Adrian II Lothario, ) ,-, 

^ ^„ ( Henry iV., ^'^V^^'o^- 

Gregory VII | ^..yj.^^^^ i|„g of Poland. 

TT 1. TT ( Henry IV., Emperor. 

Urban II s ui -i- t tt- x* t? 

rhiiip I., King oi !• ranee. 

Pascal II |S'"'^l^-^ 

I Henry V., 

Calixtus II Henry V. 

V Emperors. 

G^asius II Henry V., J 

uidrian IV William, King of Sicily. 

Frederic I., Emperor. 

Henry II., King of England, 

Henry VI., Emperor. 

Alphonso, King of Galicia. 

Philip and Otho, Emperors. 

John, King of England. 

Philip II., of France. 

Ladislaus, King of Poland. 

Louis VII. and Louis VIIL, of France. 

Alexander III.. 
Celestine III.... 

Innocent III.... 

This was the monster who said — " It has pleased God so to 
order the affairs of the world, that those provinces which had 
anciently heen suhject to the Roman Church in spirituals, were 


now become subject to it in temporals." And again : " Jesus 
Christ, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, and Priest accord- 
ing to the order of Melchizedeck, hath so united the royal and 
priestly power, in his church, that the kingdom is but a royal 
priesthood, and the priesthood the royal power." 

He said, " the church, my spouse, is not married to me with- 
out bringing me something. She hath given me a dowry of price 
beyond all price, the plentitude of spiritual things, and the fidl 
extent (latitudinem temporalium) of temporal things. She hath 
given me the mitre, in token of things spiritual; the croivn, in 
token of things temporal: the mitre, for the priesthood; the 
crown for the kinsidom — makinsr me the lieiUenant of Him who 
hath written upon his thigh and upon his vesture, King of kings, 
and Lord of lords : I ENJOY ALONE THE plentitude of power, 
THAT OTHEHS may SAY OF ME, NEXT TO GoD, ^ and out of his 
fidness we have received!!!'" Such were his blasphemous 
claims, which the Church of Rome has not denounced^ hui 

But to continue our list : — 

Popes. Princes. 

O'^S^yl^ jwincessaus.-^ 

Innocent lY Frederic II., Emperor. 

Urban IV Manfred and) -rr- ^ a- -i 

Clement IV Conradin. | ^^'^S^ "^ ^■<=''y- 

r\ ^ S Alphonso, Kins: of Portugal. 

brregory A | Alphonso X., King of Castile. 

Nicholas III Charles, King of Anjou. 

M +• TV I Peter of Arragon. 

Martm i V j Michael Paleologus, Emperor. 

TT • Ttr f James, ") 

Honorius IV | Alphonso, [ Kings of Arragon. 

Nicholas IV Alphonso, \ 

•D 'c TrTTT ( Philip IV., King of France. 
Boniface VIIL... | g^j^ ^^jj ; g-j^" ^^ Denmark. 

John XXII Lewis, of Bavaria, "^ 

Benedict XII Lewis, V Emperors. 

Clement VI Lewis, j 

U^^-^I {chrHe?rng }°^N^P'- 

{Lewis of Anjou, 
Vd ^V r Kings of England. 
Wenchelaus, Emperor. 

Innocent VII Ladislaus, ) -,^. /» vr i 

.. i -ir T Ti ' y Kings of Naples. 

Alexander V Jjadislaus, J ° ^ 

Sixtus IV Ladislaus, King of Bohemia. 



Popes. Princes. 

J ,. jy ( Albert, King of Naples. 

*^^^'"^ ^^ I Lewis XII., King of France. 

Leo X Stenon, King of Sweden. 

Clement VII Henry VIII., ) x^. . t^ , , 

Paul III ....HcurjVm.;|K^°S«^^"S^''^^^- 

PiusV Elizabeth, Queen of England. 

Sixtii<4 V I ^''"^'^ ^^^•' -^^"^ ^^ France. 

^^^^"^ ^ I Hepry, King of xVavarre. 

Gregory XIV Henry IV., King of France and Navarre. 

Innocent VI Ambassador of Louis XIV. of France. 

This terrific list needs no comment I It speaks the doctrine of 
the Church in its superabundant prac^i'ce. It is no longer merely 
an ABSTRA.CT point to be proved. It is a part of the hiUory of the 
Church and of its creed, for ages. It is quod erat faciendum. 
It is in vain to cry out now, this was only discipline. Does any 
doctrine of the Church /or6ic^ it? Huve all these Popes done all 
these things with the connivance of the Church ? Then is such 
a Church to be trusted, doctrine, or no doctrine? Do so many 
Popes aaaert their divine right to deposo kings; dissolve the tie 
that bound their people to them ; transfer kingdoms, from Asia to 
Europe, from country to country, and from man to man ; and yet 
all their infalUhllitics mistaken, and a self-styled insulated inter- 
preter of catholicity contradict this great cloud of witnessing 
Popes ? And sliall we take his word against xiU these ? Impos- 
sible. History is on one side; Johi Iliujhes on the other! 
The history of Popes, with few exceptions, is a history of usur- 
pation of human rights; enmity to human liberty; lording it 
over human conscience; and oppression, when possible, of the 
temporal^ by the sp)i.ritual jjower. 

" It is well known," s;iys an admirable author, '' that the papacy 
is a species of universal monarchy of a mixed nature, partly eccle- 
siastical, partly civil, founded upon the pretence of divine ri(/ht, 
and promoted under colour of religion ; that it ever aspires to un- 
limited extent, universal dominion, and worldly wealth and gran- 
deur; that it claims a divine authority to govern the world, and 
subject princes not only in sp)irituals, but in temporals also, di- 
rectly or indirectly; that the Roman pontifis consider themselves 
as kings, as well 'ds 2)riests, uniting the imperial diadem with the 
mitre, and grasping the sword, together with the keys of St. Peter; 
yea, as possessed of the 2)ower and prerogatives of divinityy 
boasting that all power is committed to them in heaven and in 
earth ; in consequence of which they claim a right to dispose of 
crowns and kingdoms, to set up or depose princes, and to pluck 
up and destroy, at their pleasure. In consequence of that absurd 
and monstrous system, Rome gradually began to show herself 
with glory and eclat among the nations, till that great city actVf 


ally became once more the mistress of the world, '■ RULING OVER 
THE KINGS OF THE EARTH 3' her fallen empire was again set up 
under a new form, and \\q.x pretended vicars of Christ, in the end, 
outdid, if possible, her Pagan Cassars in pride, magnificence, 
despotism, and cruel tyranny, as well as in idolatry, luxury, and 
every abominable vice. Having obtained repeated donations of 
cities, lands, and provinces, they rose to the rank of temporal 
princes. But these being entirely unequal to their insatiable 
avarice and ambition, they enlarged their claims without end. 
Not satisfied with taxing and giving laws to the patrimony of St. 
Peter, they began to consider all Cliristendom as his patrimony ; 
and accordingly claimed His pence. (1.) By methods unheard of 
before, they found the secret of raising immense revenues, and of 
drawing the wealth of the world to their coffers. They used the 
style of the most haughty and arbitrary sovereigns. They affected 
more than royal titles, powers and honours; were crowned in 
state; carried about on men's shoulders in procession; received 
homage and adoration ; imposed oaths of fidelity and allegiance on 
the clergy; kept a numerous train of servants and attendants; had 
their guards, fleets and armies; they inflicted capital punishments; 
wore the imperial ensigns, and in military armour have gone in 
person to battle; they had their courts and tribunals, with long 
lists of dependent officers and ministers of state; they received 
ambassadors; despatched their nuncios and legates a latere, (a 
sort of sub-Popes, to go abroad from Rome, and represent his 
majesty,) into all nations; they have meddled in all the affairs of 
princes; managed perpetual intrigues; fomented endless discords; 
mingled in all broils; sustained themselves judges in all causes, 
umpires in all controversies, and supreme arbiters of peace and 
war. False and absurd as- the principles are, on which the papal 
empire is built, yet they have, in innumerable in- 
stances, been reduced to practice, and too often with admirable 
success. There is no state where the papal supremacy was at all 
owned, but the temporal authority has also been tried, and ex- 
ercised, even in some of its highest branches. So that, whether 
gained by subtlety, extorted by force and terror, or yielded up by 
voluntary abject concessions, one way or other, these usurping 
JVimrods found themselves actually possessed of that sovereignty 
whk'h they so much wished for, and so falsely pretended to be 
their right. Appeals of all kinds were made to them, and all dif- 
ferences submitted to their decision. They croioned and consti- 
tuted the emperors; in competitions and controverted elections 
they preferred whom they pleased; they not only demanded the 
surrender of every kingdom in Europe, as tributary fiefs of the 
Koman See, but made the greater part of them .really to he so ; 
imposed oaths of fidelity and vassalage on princes, enlisting them 

(1) A tax levied by the Popes on every family in England, paid annually. 



under their banners, and sending them on their frantic expeditions 
against infidels, to break them more tamely to the yoke. Royal 
titles and dignities have been created, or annihilated at their word; 
and kingdoms, like toys, given away, or sold to their sycophants 
and slaves. Against all who have oftendcd them, or dared to re- 
sist their will, they have armed themselves with thunders, de- 
nouncing anathemas upon anathemas; sacrilegiously profaning 
sacred institutions, to which they have added others of their own 
invention, to gratify their lust of dominion, their diabolical pride, 
resentment, and revenge; times without number, have they excom- 
municated princes, deposing them from their governments, inter- 
dicting their dominions, or transferring them to others ; absolving 
subjects from allegiance, exciting them to revolt, and authorizing 
them to depose or murder their excommunicated sovereigns; and 
their iniquitous sentences and barbarous mandates have often been 
but too well obeyed. If the objects of their resentment have 
escaped falling an instant sacrifice to it, and overcome by a series 
of insults and dangers, they have at any time applied for favour, 
the terms of reconciliation have proved more intolenible, than all 
they had before either suffered or feared, by the most humiliating 
ceremonies, the basest and most abject submissions and conces- 
sions, and sometimes by the most moriifying penances, they have 
been constrained to sacrifice at once the majesty of kings, and the 
dignity of men. Intoxicated with their success, the Popes dis- 
daining to acknowledge any limits to their dominion, have at- 
tempted to grasp and wield the sceptre of the universe 

They have extended their sovereignty to every quarter of the 
globe; to islands and continents; to the east and to the west; to 
countries civilized and barbarous. Christian and Indian, known 
and unknown ; to land and sea ; and what is more, to heaven and 
hell : no wonder to find this lower world trembling at their voice, 
and poor mortals paying abject homage to their triple crown, when 
they can summon all the celestial thrones and principalities above, 
and command the whole infernal hierarchy, without exception, to 
obey them.'' Now, there is not one of this vast catalogue of 
crimes and usurpations, which we do not stand prepared to 2^rove. 
If the lieverend gentleman will select from them one, or one dozen, 
we will, at once, make out the proof, as in the example given of 
the excommunication and de-position of princes, from almost 
every throne in Europe. 

But can an American audience, or any honest man, look at this 
sketch of the claims and piractices of the head of the church, and 
not own that liherti/ lingers not in a communion or a country 
which she controls 'I 

There is still extant in Europ)c a hook, of which the celebrated 
George Finch, Esq., a living British writer, thus speaks: — 
"Through the kindness of Dr. Sadler, who favoured me with a 
sight of the original work from Trinity College Library, Dublin, 


I was enabled to verify the quotations. (Some of which we give 
below.) The title of the work is as follows: Three Books of 
the Sacred Ceremonies of the HoJij Roman Church ; printed at 
Cologne, 1571." The quotations which follow, illustrate how 
popes treated, and felt towards, kings and emperors in the da^^s of 
their power and glory. When the Pope had a procession, it was 

''1. The emperor shall hold the Pope's stirrup. 

**2. The emperor shall lead the Pope's horse. 

" 3. The emperor must bear the Pope's chair on his shoulder. 

"4. The emperor shall bear up the Pope's train. 

*^ 5. Let the emperor bear the basin and ewer to the Pope. 

*' 6. Let the emperor give the Pope water. 

** 7. The emperor shall carry the Pope' s frst dish. 

"S. The emperor shall carry the Pope's first cup." 

Think, gentle auditor, that this is the man Vho calls himself 
servant of servants, ^' servits servorum;" think, in contrast, of 
our blessed Lord, whose vicar the Pope calls himself, loashing 
his disciples' feet, and Peter, the ^^frst Pope," saying, ^^ silver 
and gold have I none.* ^ Is not this he of whom the Apostle Paul 
speaks, when he tells us of ^'that man of sin, and son of perdi- 
dition ; who ojjposcth and exalteth himself ahove all that is called 
God, or that is worshijyped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the 
temple of God, showing himself that he is God."(l) 

Take, for illustration, the following facts: '<But now we pro- 
ceed to relate the things which were then transacted from the an- 
nals of Roger, which were compiled at that time. On the mor- 
row after his consecration, the lord Pope went from the Lateran 
to the church of the blessed Peter, and Henry, king of the Ger- 
mans, met him there, with Constance, his wife, and a large body 

of armed men Our lord, the Pope, after this, led them 

into the church, and anointed him as emperor, and his wife as 
empress. But our lord, the Pope, sat in the pontifical chair, hold- 
ing the imperial crown between his feet, the emperor, bending his 
head, received the Crown; and the empress, in the same manner, 
from the feet of our lord, the Pope. But our lord, the Pope, m- 
st-diUly struck with his foot the emjjeror's crojw/i, and cast it upon 
the ground, signifying that he had the power of deposing him 
from the empire if he xvas undeserving of it. llie cardinals, 
however, lifting up the crown, j^laced it upon the head of the 
emperor.' (2) This was Pope Celostine III., crowning Henry 
of Germany! ^' The Pope was conducted to the church of St. 
Peter, and after being elevated on the great altar, *at the foot of 
which are the tombs of the Holy Apostles, he sat upon the throne 
that was prepared for him, and was there adored hy the cardi- 
nals, (et y fut adore des cardinaux,) afterwards by the bishops, 

(1) See 2 The?, chnp. ii. 

(2) From Cardinal Baronius's Annals, A. D. 1191. 


and lastly, by the whole people, who crowded to kiss his feet."(l) 
The former shows, that he claims divine power over temporal 
princes and kingdoms; the latter, that he claims divine icorship 
audaciously, venturing to ascend the altar of God, and there to 
receive the adoration of men! Finally, the Pope has permitted 
himself to be called God; and has called himself God. 

In the Council of Lateran, A. D. 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, the 
Pope was expressly called God. And in Roseoe's account of the 
inauguration of Pope Alexander VI. we are told, that '^while the 
new pontiiF passed through the triumphal arches, erected to his 
honour, he might have read the inscriptions, which augured the 
return of the golden age — and hailed him a god." Of these, the 
following otie may serve as a sufficient specimen. ^^Rome was 
great under Csesar, but now she is greatest; Alexander VI. 
reigns; the former was a man, the latter is a god.'^ CiX^sare 
majora fuit, nunc Roma est maxima; sixtus rcgnat Alexander; ille 
VIR, iste DEUS.(2) 

Pope Nicholas, in his letter to the Emperor Michael, (3) says, 
" it may very evidently he shown, that the Pope, who, [as we 
have already related,] was called God, by Prince Constantino 
the Pius, can neither be bound nor released by the secular power, 


(Satis evidenter ostenditur, a secular! potestate, nee ligari prorsus 
nee solvi posse pontificem, quem constat a pio principe Constan- 
tino, (quod longesuperiusmemoravimus,) Deum appellatum; nee 
posse Deum, ab houiinibus judicari manifestum est.) 

Here, after all quibbles have been tried, in vain, the Pope 
claims exemptioa from human authority, on the ground of GoD- 
SHIP. It is true, the Rev. gentleman had tried, by much evasion, 
to weaken the force of this terrible testimony. In the progress of 
the debate Mr. Hughes called on Mr. Kearney, (a gentleman of 
the Roman Catholic Church, who was present, and who was 
commended by Mr. H. as a scholar,) to translate the passage just 
quoted. Mr. Breckinridge called for Dr. Wiley, but he was not 
present. Mr. Kearney then rendered the passage as follows : 
"/<! is shown sufficiently evident, that the Pontiff cannot he 
hound altogether, nor dissolved, by the secular j^owcr, who^ it is 
evident, from the pious Prince Constantine, was called a God — 
and that God cannot he indicated hy men is manifest." Being again 
asked, as to the last member of the sentence, Mr. Kearney looked 
more closely at the Latin, and said, he had been misled by the old 
spelliT^ig, and had mistuken Jud icari ior indicari. He then ren- 
dered the last clause thus: "that God cannot he JUDGED hy men 
is manifest." Mr. Hughes asked him to say whether it was the 

(1) Fleury, Ecc. His. torn. 15, lib. 5. 

(2) Corio-Storia di Milano, par. 7, p. 188, as cited by Finch. 

(3) See Decretals, First Part, Dist. 96, chap. 7. 



Po2)e who said this, or Constanttne? Mr, Kearney replied, it 
was Constantine. Mr. Breckinridge resumed. The gentleman 
laid stress on the fact, that these were the words, not of Pope 
Nicholas, or Pope Leo, but of the Emperor Constantine. But 
the Foj^e Nicholas had cited them to the Emperor Michael, to 
prove that a previous emperor had called 21, previous Pope, God! 
For what did the Pope quote the words? To show that the Pope 
was above human tribunals, because he was a god on earth. It 
is evident that this is the very use for which the Pope cited the 
words. If not for this, for what purpose? But Mr. Hughes 
would have it, that ^'- pontificem'^ meant not the Pope, but every 
priest I that is, that NO priest could be bound by the secular 
power ; and why ? Because he was a god on earth; and God could 
not he judged of men! It came then to this, that all priests 
were gods! We had thought before, that there was but one god 
among them, and that was the Pope. But he stood corrected; 
for it seemed, by Mr. Hughes's own interpretation, every parish 
priest is a god ! 

The above narrative is taken, in substance, from the steno- 
grapher's report of the debate. This specimen may help to show 
why it is that the gentleman did not wish that report published; 
and why this debate is now nearly one year behind its time. 


**Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its principles 
or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty." 


Mr. President : — 

The gentleman intimates that I have refused to publish the re- 
port of the stenographer, and that I have caused the delay of the 
publication. I shall state the facts of the case, and leave the pub- 
lic to decide. 1st. As to the stenographer, we had NONE during 
the first three evenings of the discussion. Was that my fault? 
2d. Of the remainder, he did not return some of the speeches 
for about four months after the close of the debate. Was that my 
fault? od. Both he and Mr. Breckinridge, almost immediately 
after its close, had to attend the General Assembly at Pittsburg; 
the latter to help to excommunicate the ichole Catholic Church pre- 
sent, past and future; and the former, to make a report of the 
proceedings. Was that my fault ? 4th. The stenographer had 
to go, then, to Cincinnati, where Doctor Beecher was to be tried 
for heresy. Was I the cause of this delay ? Finally, when it 
suited the convenience of the stenographer to return the remainder 
of the speeches, he did so; and when I w^as making arrangements 
to go to Mexico, the gentleman became quite impatient to have 
the debate published. Now the only difficulty was to know how, 
by what rule, the report of the stenographer should be corrected? 
That it required the correction of the speakers is undenied, as the 
stenographer himself frequently put in the margin, " This, I do 
not understand,^' "here I could not make out the notes," "■ this is 
spoiled," &c. &c. In order, therefore, that the mode of correction 
might not be an occasion of new and interminable disputes, I pro- 
posed that each speaker should correct, as he thought proper. 
Tiie gentleman, unable to discover any better rule, adopted it, and 
led the way, in the correction of his first speech, which has 
been followed up to the present time. These are the facts of the 
case. The blame, therefore, must rest on those to whom it belongs, 
and not on me. 

When the gentleman says, that I have kept his speech a great 
many days, he ought to recollect, even if the fact were as he states, 
that I have duties to attend to, which I deem much more important; 
and that it is only the intervals of leisure, which are few and far 
between, that I can devote to him and his speeches. As to his 
charges of personality/' "attacks on his reputation," "malig- 


NITY AND FALSEHOOD," and Other scurrilous matter in which hia 
speech abounds, I look upon them as ebullitions of temper, which 
plead for pity, at the same time that they destroy all claim or 
title to it. His charges are silly, vague and unfounded. Let him 
SPKCIFY, and then let him prove. But as long as he withholds 
the proof, his crimination is ridiculous. When /make a charge, 
I prove it. I begin with a fact, which he cannot deny. I reaFon 
from that fact, with a strict and just induction of consequences, 
which he does not venture to dispute. I have never gone out of 
the question, to find matter of censure; but confined myself strictly 
to his labours, as the gratuitous defamer of his Catholic fellow- 
citizens. When I wish to prove that in carrying on this work of 
defamation, he sinned against both truth and knowledge, I found 
abundant testimony in his oicn icritings and assertioois, to esta- 
blish the fact; and the fact, once established, remains. His own 
pen, his own words have been the true, real enemy of his repu- 
tation. Before he takes pains to account for my pretended calum- 
nies by citing " Pascal, a Catholic, but a Jansenist," (he might as 
well have said a " Catholic but an atheist,") let him first specif y, 
and prove one single charge of calumny against me. He does not, 
he cannot. Neither need he be at a loss for an immoral prrnciple, 
to authorize the dishonourable means by which he attempts to 
sustain himself in this discussion. The same doctrine of his 
creed, which teaches him that good works have no merit, and that 
evil works, cannot hinder his salvation, if he is one of the "fore- 
ordained," makes all means equal. Calumny itself never imputed 
to the Jesuits so broad a shield for the covering of iniquity, as 
this, under which his creed protects its members. By this, Cal- 
vin was a saint, although guilty of the blood of his victims. And 
if such crimes could not hinder the master from being a saint, 
smaller transgressions cannot defeat the destiny of the disciples, 
who expect to be saved by the " decree" of God, and by faith 
alone. Nay, they are never so much in danger of hell, as when 
they believe that good works could avail any thing, in aiding them 
to escape it. 

He says "he has held up three cases of fraud committed by 
me." There is not a word of truth in the statement, as I have 
shown before. I proved that Mosheim himself applies the name 
of Albigenses to the " fanatics," whom he describes, and of whom 
I spoke. Is there any fraud in this? I refer the reader to my 
former speech, in which I settle the question in a way which 
left the gentleman not a word to say in reply. So much for the 
first fraud. The second was a mistake, in which the gentleman 
participated with me, but which I promptly corrected, as soon as 
I discovered it. Was there any fraud in this? The third is that 
in which he charges me with having suppressed the reading of a 
portion of a document which I handed in to the stenographer, which, 
he says, "charged Presbyterians with horrible principles and 


crimes." The principles here referred to, are those of absolute 
^^predestination," and the gentleman characterizes them properly, 
when he calls them ''horrible." But the}' are in the ''CON- 
FESSION OF FAITH," and he defends them. So far, there- 
fore, there could be no motive to suppress the reading. But when 
he says I charged Presbyterians at the same time, with " horrible 
crimes," he only bears false witness against his neighbour. This 
I have also cleared up in a former speech. I showed that, accord- 
iiKj to this doctrine, Presbyterians iniglit commit any crime, 
without risking their hopes of happiness, or fear of punishment in 
the next world, where every thing is fixed by eternal, immutable, 
absolute election and reprobation, irrespective of good works or 
bad works done in the flesh. But I did not charpje Presbyterians 
with being guilty of the " horrible crimes," to which this doctrine 
invited them. That I may have omitted, on any occasion of reading 
manuscript, a sentence by mistake, is possihle, and those who re- 
collect the many interruptions to which both parties were subject 
on such occasions, will not be surprised that such a thing should 
have occurred, although I have no reason to believe that it did 
occur even in this instance. But the charge of " fraud," implies 
that it did occur, and was intentional. I deny the first as un- 
founded in fact, and the latter as equally foolish and FALSE. 

How could the gentleman charge me with an intention fabri- 
cated in his own mind, and imputed to me on the strength of a fact, 
which he has asserted, which I have denied, and which he has not 
proved? What motive was there? What evidence is there, that 
in one place I suppressed the reading of an argument which I 
have developed again and again, throughout the discussion? There 
is not in the assembly, another mind, perhaps, that would harbour 
such a suspicion, on such absurd grounds; and it is no evidence of 
'' conscious rectitude," in the gentleman himself, that he should 
have harboured, and even ventured to express it, without the 
shadow of proof. 1 fling it back upon him with the indignation 
which it is calculated to excite, and with only this rebuke, that 
kis example, even if I had not known it before, has taught me 
and this audience that "honestj/, in literary, as well as social inter- 
course, is the best policy." If he had paid strict attention to this 
moral adage, he would not have been what he now is. This is the 
second time that I have had to refute these charges; and, like 
bubbles floating on the sea of temper, to blow them into thin air. 
But let us turn to something substantial. 

You must have been amused, gentlemen, to observe the variety 
of expedients employed by Mr. 13reckinridge to evade the question 
about Caranza. Poor human nature ! How much better would 
it have been for him to have acknowledged the facts, and do ho- 
nour to injured truth, of which he calls himself a minister ? How 
much more honourable for him to have acknowledged, that when 
he said that " he copied fiiOxM Caranza," he was betrayed by 


his pen ! That -when he said he copied " continuously/' he 
was deceived by his spectacles. That, when he said he '' HAD 
THE ORIGINAL BEFORE HIM," he was Only copjing from Faber, 
or some other blind guide. That, when he said he ''omitted" 
part of Caranza, *' FOR WANT OF room," he deceived his readers 
unintentionally. That the part which he has quoted, as being 
in Caranza, and which is not in Caranza, was found Just so, 
in the book from which he copied, ajid that he does not know 
to what author it helomjs. Yes, yes; any other course would 
have been mercy to his own reputation, compared with that which 
the gentleman has thought proper to pursue. Addison has re- 
marked somewhere in his Spectator, that falsehood is like a 
house without a foundation, " it requires to be supported by 
props." And, although I cannot praise the gentleman as an archi- 
tect, 3'et he has displayed considerable talents in finding and apply- 
ing props. He shuns the real question, and agitates points that are 
not in dispute. He talks about "substance," and ''sense," &c. &c. 
This is not the question. He shifts it from what is in dispute, 
to what is not in dispute. The question is, did he state truth, 
when he said "unhesitatingly, that he copied from Caranza — literal- 
ly and continuously ?" 1 say, he did not; and I say more, that if I 
were in his situation, I should never stand in. a Christian pulpit, 
until 1 had proved the truth of that assertion, or acknowledged its 
falsity. I bring him to the point; it is the only advantage that 
oral disputation can have over written controversy, that you can 
call your opponent to account, point out his words, and, face to 
face, hold him responsible for them, when they are, as Addison 
expresses it, a house that requires to be supported hy props, for 
want of a foundation. Sir, I cautioned th.e gentleman to beware 
of his authorities ; he slighted my advice, and compels me to de- 
fend truth, at the expense of what may seem, but is not, charity. 
I take no pleasure in exposing facts, which must necessarily have 
their influence in public judgment, against the gentleman's pre- 

As to the charge about the second commandment of the Coun- 
cil of Trent, the gentleman bears me out in regard to all I said in 
my last speech. It was found in the very edition which he 
brought from New York to sustain his calumny! I This he ac- 
knowledges, and this settles the question; — convicting him, by 
his own testimony, of having uttered what was "untrue," when 
he said it contained ^^ only four words of the second command- 
ment.'^ His display about its being "suppressed," and then 
" brought up," and " kept out of view as much as possible," is to 
be charged to the chapter on " propping." 

The exhibition of his false statements, with regard to the other 
catechisms, must be reserved to another time. If he understood 
the history of the Protestant Scriptures, he would know that the 
word "f??mye" is one which their translators supplied, but which 


18 not in the original. But it is useless to waste time in giving 
him what he vastly stands in need of — information. 

In attempting to cover his misrepresentation of Bellarmine, he 
says that his writings, except one portion, ascribing only indirect 
power to the Pope over temporal matters, are approved of, and 
'^declared to contain no doctrine contrary to the Catholic 
FAITH." Yes ; but does this make it appear that when he gives, 
not the "doctrine of Catholic faith," but the opinion of the 
writer on political questions, Catholics are to receive his opinions 
as doctrines of their Church ? I believe not. I wish the gentle- 
man would review his logic, if he ever studied any. 

He says that " Calvin agreed with Bellarmine." Indeed ! 
Calvin, who died in 1564, agreed with Bellarmine, who wrote 
and lived more than half a century afterwards ! ! Bellarmine co- 
pied Calvin's doctrine on persecution, just as the gentleman copied 
from Faber, stating that Faber " had quoted as he had done." 
But if persecution had been a Catholic tenet of faith, Calvin's au- 
thority would never have been adduced. Bellarmine gave cita- 
tions also from Augustine and Chrysostom, and hence the gentle- 
man quotes this as the criterion of Catholic doctrine — '* the con- 
Bent of the fathers." Even here he gar-hies, by leaving out the 
word which determines the rule. The words are, the " unanimous 
CONSENT OF THE FATHERS." Hc kuows the word too Well to have 
omitted it by accident. Now, many of the fathers, Tertullian, St. 
Ambrose, Leo the Great, and others, condemned persecution ] and 
since their ''unanimous consent" is the sign of doctrine, we see 
the reason why the word '' unanimous" was suppressed. I ex- 
plained, in my last, the meaning of Bellarmine, and the gentleman 
has nothing to say in reply, except by notes of interrogation. 
"Does Bellarmine," he asks, "say it is opinion?" No; — for 
he did not conceive that any one should be so ignorant as to sup- 
pose it to be any thing else but opinion. Mr. B. tells us, (stupite 
gentes I) that " Protestants are now the majority in France 1" 
8uch ignorance is too gross not to be feigned. He asks, are Pro- 
testants "tolerated in Austria, so as to have room to increase?'* 
Yes J except that they are not yet allowed to increase by pulling 
down the "monuments of idolatry." So in Belgium — so in Italy 
itself J we never hear of their putting Protestants to death by vir- 
tue of a Catholic majority. Now, if it were a Catholic doctrine, 
to be practised wherever Catholics have the power, as he inter- 
prets Bellarmine, here is the power in all these countries ; and yet 
the doctrine, so falsely imputed,. is never heard of. 

The gentleman's account of the Ileformers is truly amusing. 
As an argument and evidence that the Catholic religion is not so 
exterminating as his Commentary on Bellarmine would make it 
appear, I referred to the case of the Reformers. Surely the 
Catholics were a majority then. All they wanted to extirpate the 
Reformers, was a doctrine of their religion requiring them to do 


so. The reason why they did not do so, was, it appears by the 
gentleman's philosophical account, that the" icars of near half 
a century could not extinguish them J' Then they carried on 
wars ! ! Against whom ? Against their countries. Against their 
lawful governments. A beautiful "Reformation," truly! Admi- 
rable apostles of the new religion, who spread their gospel by 
civil wars ! What simpletons the first Christians were, who knew 
how to suffer; whereas, if they had possessed a spark of the Ge- 
neva Revelation, they would have been trained to fght. The 
gentleman has told the secret of the Reformation. 

The compliment paid to the patriotism of " the Gastons, the 
Carrolls, and the Careys," will, no doubt be duly appreciated, 
coupled as it is with the charge that they are faithless to the 
principles of the religion ichich the?/ profess. I will give one 
single passage from the speech of the eloquent Judge Gaston, 
before the convention of his State, which is enough to refute all 
the gentleman has said in the whole of his effort to support his 
cause against the Catholic religion : 

" But it has been objected that the Catholic religion is un- 
favourable to freedom, nay, even incompatible with republican 
institutions. Ingenious speculations on such matters are worth 
little, and prove still less. Let me ask who obtained the great 
charter of English freedom but the Catholic prelate, and barons 
at Runnemede ? The oldest — the purest democracy on earth, is 
the little Catholic republic of St. Marino, not a day's journey 
from Rome. It has existed now for fourteen hundred years, and 
is so jealous of arbitrary power, that the executive authority is 
divided between two governors, who are elected every three 
months. Was William Tell, the founder of Swiss liberty, a 
royalist? Are the Catholics of the Swiss Cantons in love with 
tyranny? Are the Irish Catholics friends to passive obedience and 
non-resistance ? Was La Fayette, Pulaski, or Kosciusko, a foe to 
civil freedom ? Was Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, unwilling to 
jeopard fortune in the cause of liberty? Let me give you, however, 
the testimony of George Washington. On his accession to the 
presidency, he was addressed by the American Catholics, who, 
adverting to the restrictions on their worship then existing in 
some of the states, expressed themselves thus : — ' The prospect 
of national prosperity is peculiarly pleasing to us on another ac- 
count ; because, while our country preserves her freedom and 
independence we shall have well-founded title to claim from her 
justice the equal rights of citiz.enship, as the price of our blood 
spilt under your eye, and of our common exertions for her defence, 
under your a,uspicious conduct.' This great man, who was utterly 
incapable of flattery and deceit, utters in answer the following 
sentiments, which I give in his own words : ' As mankind be- 
comes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those 
who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community, 



are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope 
ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of 
justice and liberality, and I presume that your fellow-citizens 
will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the accom- 
plishment of their revolution, and the establishment of their go- 
vernment, or the important assistance which they received from a 
nation in which the lloman Catholic faith is professed.' By-the- 
by, sir, I would pause for a moment to call the attention of this 
committee to some of the names subscribed to this address. 
Among them are those of John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic 
bishop in the United States, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, and 
Thomas Fitsimmons ; for the character of these distinguished 
men, if they needed vouchers, I would confidently call on the 
venerable president of this Convention. Bishop Carroll was one 
of the best of men and most humble and devout of Christians. I 
shall never forget a tribute to his memory paid by the good and 
venerable Protestant Bishop White, when contrasting the }»iety 
with which the Christian Carroll met death, with the cold trifling 
that characterized the last moments of the skeptical David Hume. 
1 know not whether the tribute was more honourable^ to the piety of 
the dead, or the charity of the living prelate. Charles Carroll 
of Carrollton, the last survivor of the signers of American inde- 
pendence — at whose death both houses of the legislature of North 
Carolina unanimously testified their sorrow as at a national be- 
reavement! Thomas Fitsimmons, one of the illustrious convention 
that framed the Constitutiou of the United States, and for several 
years the representative in Congress of the city of Philadelphia. 
Were these, and such as these, foes to freedom and unfit for 
republicanism? Would it be dangerous to permit such men to be 
sheriffs or constables in the land '( Head the funeral eulogium of 
Charles Carroll, delivered at Home by Bishop England — one of 
the greatest ornaments of the American Catholic church — a fo- 
reigner indeed by birth, but an American by adoption, and who, 
becoming an American, solemnly abjured all allegiance to every 
foreign king, prince, and potentate whatever — that eulogium which 
was so much carped at by English royalists, and English tories — 
and I think you will find it democratic enough to suit the taste, 
and find an echo in the heart of the sternest republican amongst 
us. Catholics are of all countries, of all governments, of all 
political creeds. In all they are taught that the kingdom of Christ 
is not of this world — and that it is their duty to render unto Cae- 
sar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are 

There, sir, is enough to put to shame the ignorant revilers of 
Catholic principles. There is the true state of the case. " Ca- 
tholics are of all countries, of all governments, of all political 
creeds." And who was that "Archbishop Carroll" to whose 
virtue the "venerable Bishop White" bore such honourable testi- 


mony ? IIo was a Jesuit; belonged to that body which the gentle- 
man, with a grossness familiar to his pen, has designated as the 
Now I will only say in answer, that from this priesthood, the 
Presbyterian parsons, (at least the class of them to which the 
gentleman belongs,) might learn much of piety, history, philo- 
sophy, SCIENCE, GENERAL INFORMATION ; — but, abovc all, much 
of what is much needed, — HUMILITY and good manners. 
Whether this land is to be ruled by a " papal mob," or a " Pres- 
byterian mob," time only can determine. I hope it will never be 
ruled by either. At present the aspirants to rule are the gentle- 
man himself and his '^gallant colleagues" in the propagation of 
the anti-Catholic conspiracy. 

The gentleman repeats himself in such detail, that I must 
leave him' to his *' ingenious speculations." He is determined to 
make out the evidence in some shape, and what Bellarmine does 
not say for the church, he saijs for Bellarmine. He does not 
argue, he asserts. He seems to think that to employ reasoning 
for his readers, would be throwing pearls to swine. I think he 
is mistaken. I think there is a portion of them, even Presby- 
terians, who will expect to see the doctrine of the Catholic Church, 
which is opposed to civil and religious liberty, and who will be 
disappointed, if not disgusted, to find that he can only torture the 
assertions of Bellarmine by assertions of his own. 

He boasts of the '^ barbed arguments" of Dr. Miller, and it is 
but fair that the meeting should have a specimen of them. I shall 
take it from his ribaldrous compilation, entitled the '"History of 
Popery." In order to give his readers a correct idea of the 
Catholic religion, this venerable calumniator is not ashamed to 
copy into his work the burlesque excommunication of Tristam 
Shandy, part of which is as follows — "3Ia7/ lie he cursed in 
living and dying., in eating and drinking, in being Imngry, in 
heing thirsty, in fasting, in sleeping, in slumhering, in leaking, 
in walking, in standing, in sitting, in lying, in icorking, in 
resting. May he he cursed in all the powers of his hody. May 
he he cursed icithin and without. May he he cursed in the hair 
of his head; inay he he cursed in his hrain. May he he cursed 
in the crown of his head, in his temples, in his forehead, in his 
ears, in his eyehrows, in his cheeks, in his jawhones, in his 
nostrils, in his fore-teeth, in his grinders, &c. &c." Is not this 
a ''barbed argument" of which the friends of Dr. Miller maybe 
proud ? Is it not evidence of extensive erudition, and a delicate 
conscience ? Is it not worthy of the man who lifts his face to 
heaven, and tells God that the "Catholics are his enemies." 

But let us give another of these ^^harhed arguments.'' It is a 
story about a Scotch lady who happened to be on a visit in Dublin 
on a very interesting occasion, when a number of souls were to be 
translated out of purgatory. The operation was to take place in 


one of the Catholic chapels, and it appears that purgatory was 
under the floor. The priest having received his wages, and all 
things being ready, the doctor goes on to tell us that, ^^ Imme- 
diate! 1/ a mocahle part of the floor, unoccupied of course, opened, 
and there turned forth from it living creatures as Hack as Jet. 
When the little creatures began to move about, in order to pre- 
vent the deception from being detected, the lights xcere all extin- 
guished, as if by magic. The lady had eyed the souls' repre- 
sentatives very narrowly, and had observed that there was one 
of them within her reach; and with a degree of courage that 
would not be exercised by every one in her circumstances, she 
seized, and secured it. She took it home, and showed it to the 
gentleman who had introduced her to the chapel, when it turned 

Such is Dr. Miller's < 'History of Popery/' Such his <^ barbed 
AUGUxMENTS." The author was ashamed to put his name to it ; 
but Dr. Miller became father to the offspring, which its own 
parent would not own. He is satisfied, he tells us, in his Intro- 
ductory Essay, that the work '' may be read with entire 

^' That it is well worthy of the careful perusal of all who wish to 
be able to give 'a reason of THE HOPE THAT IS IN THEM,' and 
to warn their children and others around them, against those 
delusions which destroy the souV 

Do you wonder, sir, that the common lights of Presbyterian ism 
are destined to cut a sorry figure in discussing this question, when 
the great luminary of ^ their church is found in such works of 
ignorance and absurdity ; bestowing such recommendati(ms on 
such nonsense, and blessing God that he is to be saved by ab- 
solute predestination ? 

I have long since answered the objection which the gentleman 
brings forward again on the subject of the Scripture. In my 
last I proved by facts unanswerable, that in the interval between 
the invention of printing and the invention of Protestantism, the 
Scriptures were extensively circulated in the common language 
of the people. The clergy used them in the Latin language, as 
they still do. The gentleman explains the forty Catholic editions 
of the Scriptures in Italian, preceding the first Protestant version, 
by supposing that they were for " monks." This is a mistake. 
The monks, unlike many of the parsons of the ^present day, did 
not require that books should be in their "mother tongue" in or- 
der to understand them. It is to their labour and learning that 
we are indebted for the preservation of the Scriptures, and the 
fragments of literary or scientific works that have come down 
from antiquity. It was by the labours of the monks that they 
were all saved from the deluge of ignorance and barbarism that 
swept in upon Europe after the fall of tlie Roman Empire. 

As to the spurious bull ascribed to Innocent VIII., he might as 


-well quote Dr. Miller's History of tlie '^ crabs in black velvet/' 
or his own authority, to prove its authenticity, as the writers 
whom he has quoted. They do not touch the point. They quote 
it, but it does not become the less spurious on that account. 

In his allusion to my remarks on Venice, the gentleman gives 
us a new view of liberty. According to him, it consists in the 
destruction of monasteries and nunneries, and the triumph of 
anarchy and Voltaire over the rights of order and the authority of 
the pope. He admits, in fine, that he cannot prove his proposition. 
His words are, ^^ I say not that all Catholics are in doctrine or 
in spirit enemies to liberty^ He knows that '' in doctrine" all 
Catholics are the same. And, consequently, since he allows that 
some can be friends to liberty without violating their doctrine, it 
follows that all can he, if they will ; and, consequently, it follows 
that the Catholic religion is not opposed to liberty in any of its 
doctrines. Its doctrines are the same for all — for the pope and 
the peasant, the rich and the poor, the learned and the illiterate, 
the priesthopd and the people. The gentleman is disposed to 
acquit the people, and fix the charge on the ''priesthood/' Hinc 
illse lachryma?. But he is confused; and it would be wasting 
time to follow him through all his contradictions, not only of 
others, but of himself also. 

But I must not be so fast. The gentleman, to "END THE 
DISPUTJ^," as he tells us, comes out with an argument from 
Devoti, § V. He does not say what volume, nor is it at all im- 
portant. Devoti, it appears, says, ^^ Peace haviiuj been given to 
Christians, (in Constantino's reign and afterwards,) the church 
PASSED JUDGMENT on crimes, not only hy her oiun right (smo 
jure) hut hy the laivs of the Emperors." " Here," says Mr. 
Breckinridge, plainly, " she claimed the right before the Em- 
perors conceded it." Certainly, Mr. B., and she claims it still ; 
and so does your own church. But what then ? Why she claims 
to *'j?«,ss judgment" on crimes against the state, as well as 
against religion." Certainly, and so she does still. If a priest 
or lay person were to be involved in treason against his country, 
has she not a right io judge him, and even punish him by expul- 
sion from her communion? This she has (suojure') by her own 
right. But the rights which were conferred on ecclesiastical 
tribunals by the emperors, were those of penal chastisement, 
whose origin Devoti points out, as derived from the state, and 
not inherent in the church (suojure) by her own right. This, 
therefore, does "end the dispute." 

In my last speech I convicted the gentleman of altering and 
thereby corrupting a citation from the notes of the Bhemish Tes- 
tament; and, instead of apologizing for such dishonourable pro- 
ceeding, he says I am " catching at straws," and wonders why I 
did not stop to expose all the rest of his citations in the same 
way. I had not time. 


Those notes are censurable criongh in themselves; and as such 
were condemned from their first appearunce, by the Catholics of 
England and Ireland. But it seems they were not bad enough 
for his purpose, and hence he coiuiterfcita them by inserting words 
which they do not contain, and omitting others that are. coptaiued 
in them. This he' admits: but he is not ashamed of it. 

He volunteers to defend the ^'AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIE- 
TY." I did not attack it. I did not say one word against it. I 
stated that it ho-d printed and sent* to South America, a pretended 
Spanish Bible, with a falsehood stamped on its title-page. The 
gentlemen does not, dare not, deny the fact. He knows it is 
true. And what is his reply? — that my '^charge bears malice 
and falsehood on its front.'' But so long as the fact is undenied 
and undeiiiahle, his abuse, and the epithets in which he expresses 
it, must recoil on their source. The proceeding is a scandal to 
public morals. They circulate what they profess to believe a 
CORRUPTED versi<.n of the word of God. They call it on the 
title-page, the BIBLE OF THE BISHOP OF SEGOVIA, and 
they know that they have omitted intentionally/, several books 
which tliat Bible contains. Why is the title preserved ? To de- 
ceive the Spaniards, to whom it is sent. Why are portions of the 
original suppressed, whilst the title is retained? To protestantize 
the sacred word, and by a clandestine process, unworthy the Bible 
Society, to debauch the faith of the Catholics, whom they have 
selected as the victims of this contemptible artifice. Why have 
they circulated it at all, if they believe it to be a corrupted, ver- 
sion? There is only one possible answer, — the assumed lawful- 
ness of ''doing evil that good may come." The proceeding, I 
say, claiming for its support the name and respectability of the 
American Bible Society, IS A SCANDAL TO PUBLIC MO- 
RALS. I state facts. I have no doubt but hundreds of indivi- 
duals, of high and honourable feelings, will learn of this proceed- 
ing, with disgust and indignation at the iniquity which perpetrated 
it in their name. 

The gentleman takes up my admission that Catholics have per- 
secuted, as something highly serviceable to his cause. But has 
he been able to show, by any doctrine of their religion, that they 
were required to persecute? Has he been able to show that they 
violated any doctrine of their religion, when they not only did not 
persecute, but granted equal civil and religious freedom to Protest- 
ants, flying from the persecutions of their fellow-Protestants, as 
in Catholic Poland, and in Catholic Maryland? He has not, and 
he cannot. Will he be able to show that Presbyterians in po\^er 
ever granted such freedom? Never, as we shall see under the 
next question. 

I asked him to explain the equivocation which he ascribed to 
Luther, in making him distinguish between the Catholic Church 
and some other church, when he said, in opposition to Bellarmine, 
that "the church never put a heretic todeath." To this, he re- 


plies, that my ^'pertness is too puerile to be worthy of notice." 
The gentleman has frequently alluded to the temporal power 
claimed by and attributed to popes, during the Middle Ages. 

On this subject he has only "a little learning.'' It maybe 
proper for me to make a few observations on it. 

The Tope, according to the doctrine, of the Catholic religion, 
is the supreme visible head of that kingdom, which is not of this 
world — the chief visible pastor of Christ's universal world. The 
doctrines of that religion gave him no title, by virtue of his high 
spiritual trust, to any civil power or temporal right for the manage- 
ment of purely secular things. Therefore, what has been called 
the temporal authority of the Pope, must be traced to some other 
source, than that by which he is appointed to feed the sheep as 
well as the lambs of the Christian fold. 

THE POPES — during the first three hundred years, were dis- 
tinguished, amidst the brightness even of those ages of primitive 
Christianity, for the innocence, holiness, humility, and heroic for- 
titude of their lives. The greater proportion of them sealed their 
faith by martyrdom. Those of the fifth and sixth century were 
equally distinguished for their zeal, talents, science, and laborious 
ministry. Contemporary writers bear witness to the correctness 
with which those of the seventh and eighth centuries laboured to 
stem the torrent of barbarism, that was threatening to inundate the 
church, as well as the empire. In the ninth and tenth centuries, 
the regions of northern barbarism were invaded by the apostolic 
missionaries, sent by the popes to preach Christ, and establish the 
gospel on the ruins of paganism. So far, enmity itself has been 
unable either to obscure the virtues of the men who succeeded in 
the chair of St. Peter, or to deny the salutary effects of their zeal, 
in promoting all that was most beneficial for the temporal and 
eternal interests of man. It is a remarkable fact, that ALL the 
nations that have ever been CONVERTED from PAGANISM, 
have been converted to the Catholic religion, and by missionaries 
appointed by, or in connection with, the successive popes, who 
have governed the church. Fifteen hundred years of Christianity 
had passed away, before the Protestant religion was invented — 
breaking communion with the pope and the church — and three 
hundred years since; and it is equally remarkable that Protestants 
have failed in their attempts to convert pagans. They seduced 
Catholics, but they have failed among the heathens. From the 
tenth to the fifteenth century, the state of society and civil govern- 
ment in Europe was such, as it is impossible for us, at this day, 
to conceive or realize, even in imagination. The military spirit 
that prevailed — the feebleness of law — the unsettled order of 
claims to political power — the strifes and rivalships, — all pre- 
sented an ocean in which were rocks and whirlpools, shoals and 
tempests, and through which the popes as pilots of divine appoint- 
ment had to steer the vessel of the church. 


It was during this period that occurred those events which fur- 
nish half-educated Protestant writers with the everlasting theme 
of crimination against the popes. Those events, to be judged 
with justice, ought to be judged in connection with the character 
of the age, customs of the nations, and the other specific circum- 
stances in which they occurred. For their own temporal power, 
the popes enjoy it by as ancient and as just a title as any govern- 
ment in Europe or America. When the emperors were busied 
in the East, and unable to protect the states of Italy, the pope be- 
came, by the choice of the people, sovereign of the Exarchate of 
Ravenna ; and their title is confirmed b}^ a prescription of eleven 
hundred years. It matters not whether that authority was the 
gift of Pepin, after the expulsion of the Lombards, or not. The 
pope became the temporal ruler de facto, and his successors, with 
scarcely any addition or diminution of their territory, have re- 
mained so to this day. 

But they are charged with claiming a right to dispose of the 
crowns of other nations, and releasing their subjects from their 
oaths of fidelity. Some few have, indeed, cherished and pro- 
claimed this pretension. ]5ut who is the prince that was ACTUALLY 
DErosED by any pope ? You will look for his name in history, 
and you will not find it. The Presbyterians deposed four go- 
vernments, and brought two crowned heads to the block, in 
less than a century. The popes never so much as one. Who is 
the prince on whom the popes conferred a crown and dominions, 
xchich he did not possess before? NoT ONE. These are iha facts 
of the case, and show the value of the gentleman's learning and 
industry, as exhibited on this subject in his last speech. 

The pope did not give America to Spain, and much less did he 
give it before it was discovered. The countries discovered in 
these seas by Spanish and Portuguese navigators, were taken pos- 
session of in the name of the two governments respectively; and 
when a dispute arose about the boundaries, the Pope Alexander 
VI. was appealed to as arbiter; it was in this capacity that he 
gave those governments what they possessed already. 

The popes in some cases, as that of Queen Elizabeth, did af- 
fect to release subjects from their allegiance. This was exercising 
an assumed power for an unlauful end. It was an abuse, conse- 
quently. And the Catholics of England and Ireland condemned 
it, and proved that whilst they were ready to snffcr persecution for 
conscience' sake at the hands of Etizaheth, they were also ready to 
fight in defence of her rights, notwithstanding the pretended re- 
lease from their fealty, and her excommunication. Even Hume, 
the habitual reviler of the Catholic religion, shows how distin- 
guished was the loyalty of the Catholics of England against the 
pretensions of Philip. But facts that are palpable, are the best 
test to decide. Presbyterians overthrew four governments, and 
brought two sovereigns to the block in less than a century : and 


the Popes have never overturned so much as one. The gentle- 
man has copied an index in his catalogue of popes and kings, and 
he very modestly requires of me to write out the history. 

Nearly the whole of his speech is made of assertions, which he 
calls history. From whom he copied the long extract of borrowed 
assertion, with which he fills up, it is not worth while lo inquire. 
It is assertion^ mere assertion, and nothing else. Its violence be- 
trays its origin. Copied, no doubt, from some writer as fanatical 
and as ill-informed as the gentleman himself. It is from begin- 
ning to end, a fiery, foolish rhapsody, which a man who pretends 
to give jj?-oq/" and reason, instead o^ declamation and abuse, would 
not offer to an assembly whose intellect he did not despise. It 
was not worthy of the gentleman to undergo the humiliation of 
borrowing such gratuitous abuse from another 3 whereas in that 
department, which requires no proof, he is known to be equal to 
the sublimest originality. 

About the pope calling himself God, and some other points in 
which the gentleman has borne false witness against his neigh- 
bour, I shall sum up the evidences presently. In written contro- 
versy, it is easy for one who is not restrained by the " belief in 
good works," to give such a partial colouring to isolated facts, as 
to pervert them from the truth of history. But here, he cannot 
escape detection. I have collected a number of the gentleman's 
calumnies from the written controversy, with the very books to 
which he referred for their proof. These books, the original 
works, are now marked at the place 0/ each reference^ AND ON 
THE TABLE BEFORE US. The gentleman has an oppor- 
tunity to sustain his assertions, in presence of this meeting, and 
if he does not, the audience will not be slow to understand the 

It is a painful process, sir, to have to contend with a man 
against whom the interests of truth, the rights of reputation, the 
protection of innocence, accused and villified, oblige you to prove, 
face to face, the charge of CALUMNY. I charge the gentleman 
with calumny : not in his absence, but in his presence ; and I 
have brought to this meeting the original works, said to contain 
the statements which he has ascribed to them, hut which they do 
not contain. Yes, sir, it is painful to be obliged to undertake such 
a work. But it is the glory of the Catholic religion, that in order 
to prove it guilty of the charges that sectarian zeal has preferred 
against it, recourse must be had to artifice, perversion of authori- 
ties, imputation of doctrines which Catholics disclaim,, and in 
many instances abhor, llecourse must be had to every species of 
refined speculation, misrepresentation, and, with a sense of humi- 
liation for human nature, I must add, falsehood. I shall now give 
a list of those particular calumnies, which 1 have selected, and if 
^h.Q gentleman will venture to deny the truth of mij statements^ 


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 

Be it known then, to all posterity, that, in the year of our Lord 
1835, in the month of February, in an Oral Discussion between 
the Kev. John Breckinridge and the Rev. John Hughes, in the 
city of Philadelphia, the following CALUMNIES against the 
holy Catholic religion have been refuted by a reference to original 
documents : 

FIRST CALUMNY. '' That according to the Council of 
Constance, Catholics are not hound to keep faith with heretics." 
Whereas, this has been stated by nearly all Protestant controver- 
sial writers, and believed by their unsuspecting followers, and 
lastly has been referred to, as a settled point, by the Rev. John 
Breckinridge in his first letter of the written Controversy with 
said Rev. John Hughes; (1) and whereas, the truth is, that no 
such doctrine is contained in the acts of said Council, now open 
before us, therefore, the charge is a CALUMNY; false in it- 
self, and injurious to the rights of Catholics. 

SECOND CALUMNY. <' That according to the Sixteenth 
canon of the Third Council of Lateran, an oath contrary to eccle- 
siastical utility is perjury, not on oath. "(2) And whereas, the 
said canon, NOW PRODUCED IN THE ORIGINAL, contains 
no such doctrine, therefore, the charge is false and injurious, 
as above. 

THIRD CALUMNY. " That the Fourth Council of Lateran, 
A. D. 1215, Third canon, freed the subjects of such sovereigns 
as embraced heresy, from their fealty ;"(3) whereas, the ORIGI- 
NAL CANON NOW PRODUCED, contains no such doctrine, 
therefore, the charge is again FALSE and INJURIOUS, as 

FOURTH CALUMNY. That ^' if the Pope should err in 
commanding vices, and prohibiting virtues, the church would be 
bound to believe vices to be virtues, and virtues to be vices." 
And whereas, Bellarmine has been referred to, as maintaining this 
doctrine, (4) and whereas, Bellarmine teaches no such doctrine, 
but the reverse, therefore, the charge is FALSE and INJURI- 
OUS to Catholics. Bellarmine's work, with the passage marked, 
is now on the table before us. 

FIFTH CALUMNY. "That the Catholics have suppressed 
in the catechism of the Council of Trent, that part of the first 
commandment which forbids idolatry." (5) And whereas he (Mr 
Breckinridge) persisted in this calumny, and attempted to prove it 

(1) Johnson's edition, p. 20. (2) Mr. Breckinridge, same page. 

(3) Mr. Breckinridge, same page. (4) Mr. Breckinridge, ibid., p. 19. 

(5) Mr. Breckinridge, ibid., passim. 



(even after six different editions had heeii shown to him) by re- 
ferring to a copy which was in New York, and whereas, he has 
exhibited that cop?/ to this assembly as proof in his favour, and 
whereas, that copy contains it, like all the others, therefore, 
the charge is cruelly FALSE and INJURIOUS. 

SIXTH CALUMNY. " That there is a dishonest diiference 
in the sense of two translations of the Catechism of the Council 
of Trent, in certain particular passages." And whereas, the pre- 
tended difference does not exist in the works referred to, but was 
predicated on ichat turns out to he a' falsification of the text, by 
making ^full stop in the middle of a sentence, and otherwise 
mutilating ; therefore, the charge is FALSE and INJURIOUS 
as above. And since Mr. Breckinridge disclaims having copied 
from the *' Text-book of Popery," it remains for him to explain, 
1st. How he came to mutilate it at all? And 2d, How he came 
to mutilate word for ivord, as was done in the above ^' text-hoolc' 
of falsehoods. 

SEVENTH CALUMNY. "That Catholics call the Pope God." 
As proof of this, Mr. Breckinridge (6) quoted the epistle of Pope 
Nicholas to the Emperor Michael, in the Corpus juris Canonici; 
and whereas, said epistle now produced in the original, contains 
no such proposition; therefore the charge is FALSE and INJU- 
RIOUS to Catholics, and shows great STUPIDITY in the minds 
of those who make or believe it. 

EIGHTH CALUMNY. "That the doctrines of the Catholic 
Church are hostile to civil and religious liberty." In proof of this 
calumny, the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge cited the Twenty-seventh 
canon of the Third Council of Lateran, a. d. 1179, against the 
Albigenses.(7) And whereas, said canon is 7io part of the Catho- 
lic religion^ but a special regulation fi)r a particular case, made in 
concurrence with the civil power of the states from which alone it 
could derive any authority ; and whereas, the said Mr. Breckin- 
ridge in quoting the said canon, suppressed the section which 
enumerates the crimes of the sects referred to, and thereby de- 
ceives his readers, making it appear that the punishment was for 
their specidative errors in doctrine, and not for their crimes against 
society and the state ; therefore, the charge is FALSE and INJU- 
RIOUS to Catholics. And whereas, the said Mr. Breckinridge 
alleges that he copied this suppi-ession of the truth, without being 
aware of it, from Faber ; and whereas, we do not know from 
whom Faber copied ; and whereas, the (jrcater the midtiplication 
of copyists and copies, the greater the extent of injury done to 
Catholics; and whereas, it is a divine trait of the religion of Christ, 
that it obliges us to repair an injury even to a pagan, when it is 
in our power; therefore, itvfoiildrefreshthe face of Christianity, 
if Mr. Breckinridge would undeceive the public with the same pen 

(6) Controversy, p. 86. (7) Ibid., p. 175. 



which contributed to lead that public astray. Faber will l 
see to it in the next icorld, if not in this. 

NINTH CALUMNY. *' That the Pope claims the right ux ca- 
terminating heretics." In proof of this, the said Rev. Mr. Breck- 
inridge quoted (8) a supposed Bull of Innocent VIII. against 
the Waldenses; and whereas, said bull, even if genuine, is no part 
of Catholic doctrine; and whereas, the gentleman who quoted 
it, had no certainty of its existence, and whereas, it is not to be 
found in the collection of bulls, in which the worst, as well as the 
best, are preserved, nor among the archives in Rome, which have 
been particularly examined; therefore, the charge, so far as it de- 
pends on this spurious document, is equally FALSE and INJU- 
RIOUS to the rights of Catholics. 

TENTH CALUMNY. "That according to the Third Canon 
of the Fourth Council of Lateran, sovereigns may he deposed^ 
and their subjects released from their allegiance, when thei/ become 
heretics; and that they are to be excommunicated when they ne- 
glect to exterminate heretics from their lands." In proof of this, 
the said Rev. John Breckinridge quoted a mangled extract of said 
Canon. (9) And whereas, said Canon is no part of Catholic doc- 
trine, except in so far as it condemns all heresies in the abstract; 
and whereas, it expressly refers to those jmrticular heretics ichose 
crimes, growing out of their errors, had threatened the welfare 
of the state and of society, as appears by the original documents 
NOW BEFORE US; and whereas, it refers to inferior lords who held 
their territory and power by the conditions of feudal tenure, and 
expressly excepts the rights of the sovereign or principal lord, who 
held by what was termed divine right; and whereas, it was enacted 
with the concurrence, probably at the request, of all the sovereigns 
of Europe, and depended on them for its authority; and whereas, 
it is denied by learned Protestant authors, that said Canon was 
passed in the Council ;(10) and whereas, admitting it to be genu- 
ine, it does not prove the accusation; therefore the charge is 
equally FALSE and INJURIOUS. 

And whereas, the said Mr. Breckinridge in reply to the question, 
whether the quotation was literal and continuous, answered un- 
hesitatingly, "that it was;" that "he had the original before 
him; that "he copied from Caranza;" that his opponent might 
"compare his translation with the original;" that he considered 
the question an indignity offered to his character, &c. And 
whereas, his opponent has compared^ and has the original and 
TRANSLATION HERE PRESENT, and finds that the said translation is 
neither '■^ continuous'' uor ^^ literal:" because,!. Whole sentences 
are left out, without the usual marks to indicate the omission. 
2. Otlior sentences are begun or broke off in the middle. 3. The 

(8) Controversy, p. 174. (-9) Ibid, p. vS9. 

(10) Collier's Eccl. Hist, vol. i. p. 424. 


word ^'praesentibus" is omitted, as an important qualification. 4. 
The last paragraph is not in the original, and we must be inform- 
ed where the gentleman found it. Hence, the following questions 
are to be answered. 1. Did he quote from Caranza? Jf he didy 
why did he mangle his authority in order to make out his 
proof? // he did not, why did he say that he did? 2. Had he 
room for the whole Canon as it is abridged in Caranza ? // he 
had, why did he not give all? J/ he had not, as he says, why did 
he introduce a passage which is not in Caranza at all? 3. Did 
he know how much his translation differed from Caranza? Jfhc 
did, why did he say that it was "continuous ?" ]f he did not, why 
did he say that lie had the original before him? Challenge a 
comparison of his translation with the original, and affect to bo 
offended at the intimation of a doubt, which facts have proven to 
be but too well founded ? 

Here are the charges, and here are the witnesses, the original 
works, to prove them. Will the gentleman vindicate himself now, 
or will he wait till the witnesses are removed? If I were in his 
situation, I know what I should do. I should appeal to the wit- 
nesses to prove my innocence, and if their testimony condemned 
me, I should apologize to my Catholic fellow-citizens for the injury 
I had done them. 

But the fact is, that the gentleman, hoping to be saved by the 
patent-right of predestination, which God was pleased to bestow 
on Calvin and his followers, seems to make a jest of truth and 
literary honesty, lifter having acknowledged the error of his ci- 
tation of one of the notes appended to the text of the Rhemish 
Testament, he adds, ^^Yet ]}ray, Mr. Hughes, ich?/ j^iss over ALL 
the other citations in silence? One of them says: ^ The zeal of 
Catholic men ought to he so great toicards all heretics and their 
doctrines, that they shoidd give them the anathema, though they are 
never so dear to them; so as not even to sjnire their own 2'>arents.' 
Am I right in this citation ?" Why, Mr. Breckinridge, you are 
wrong. If you ever saio the text, YOU MUST KNOW that you are 
wrong. The annotators were writing on the 8th verse of the 1st 
chapter to the Galatians, where the apostle gives the "anathema'' 
to even an angel who should preach another Gospel, besides that 
which he had preached. On this, after giving the explanation St. 
Vincent Lerius and St. Augustine, they conclude in these words: 
^'■Lastly, Hierome useth this place, icherein the apostle giveth 
the curse or anathema to all false teachers, not once but twicCy 
to prove that the zeal of Catholic men ought to be so great to- 
wards all heretics and their doctrines, that they shoidd give them 
the anathema, though never so dear to them. In which case, saith 
this holy doctor, I icoidd not spare mine own parents.^' This is 
the true citation. Proving the gentleman guilty of 1st. Garbling, 
by beginnings in the middl<} of the sentence, and altering the 
PUNCTUATION. 2d. Of suppressing the words " in which case saith 


that holy doctor, &c.'* 3d, Of foisting into the text words which 
are not in it, viz. '^so as not even to spare, <&c." And yet with 
a boldness, which indicates nerves of iron, he asks in reference 
to this citation— "PRAY, MR. HUGHES, AM I RIGHT, OR 
AM I WRONG?" Let the public judge. I have been obliged 
to expose him in this way from the beginning. During the writ- 
ten controversy he gave a quotation from Baronius, composed of 
only a few lines; but what is its history? He gave it as one un- 
hroken passage, and on examining Baronius, it was found to. bo 
made up of "scraps" taken irom four different paragraphs of a 
page, in two columns, folio. The first SCRAP was from the 5th 
paragraph, the second from the Gth, the third scrap from the 5th 
again, the fourth scrap from the 4th paragraph, the fifth scrap from 
the 5th again, and the Gth scrap from the 7th paragraph. Of 
what use is it, therefore, to contend with a man, who, to supply 
the absence of truth in the support of a bad cause, is obliged to 
have recourse to these means ? 

I have now examined the evidence which he has brought for- 
ward, to show that the Catholic religion contains doctrines opposed 
to civil and religious liberty, and I believe that no man who un- 
derstands what it is TO PROVE A PROPOSITION will risk hia 
reputation so far as to say that the gentleman has not signally and 
triumphantly FAILED. He has trifled with truth. He has per- 
verted authors, and authorities. He has corrupted citations. He 
has exposed himself, and done no credit to the cause which he 
had thrust himself forward to maintain. He has told us what 
Bellarmine and Devoti said, and yet admitting, for argument sake 
that he has told us correctly, still he has signally and triumphantly 
FAILED, whenever he attempted to show that the sayings of 
these individuals, and the doctrines of the Catholic religion are 
the same thing. He has stated facts of history, and by reasoning 
backwards, he has inferred that they MUST be sanctioned by doc- 
trine; as if the transgressions of our citizens were aproo/that 
the American Constitution sanctions immorality. He has quoted 
Canon law, and whilst he shows in every instance that he does 
not understand what it means, he seems to expect that I should 
supply the instruction of which he is deficient. Canon signifies a 
rule or regulation. Now every subject, to which a rule can be 
applied, may be said to fall under the operation of a canon. Hence 
there are CANONS OF DOCTRINE in the Catholic religion, 
which are the same in all ages and countries, of the church 
AND of the world. These canons of doctrine are defined some- 
times by General Councils, sometimes in the Bulls of Popes. It 
was in these doctrinal canons that the gentleman had bound him- 
self to find those "tenets of faith or morals" in the Catholic re- 
ligion, which were supposed to be hostile to civil and religious 
liberty. Did he find them ? Not one. They do not exist. But 
there have been other canons, of which doctrine was not the 


object. They were temporary laws made for particular exigen- 
cies, and as these were subject to the vicissitudes of time and 
place, so the rules or canons to which they gave rise were neces- 
sarily various, diiferent, and often contradictory. They are like a 
COLLECTION OF CIVIL STATUTES under the Constitution of Eng- 
land; and it would be just as absurd to say that the inhabitants of 
Great Britain are obliged to observe ALL the statutes that ever 
WERE passed from the foundation of the empire, as to say that 
Catholics are bound by what was, at one period, or in other coun- 
tries, Canon law, but is so no more, or is so, but in other coun- 
tries. Most of those canons have become, like other laws, obso- 
lete. They icej^e, but are not now. They arc not even universal 
laws of the church; much less, DOCTIIINES; which are con- 
fined to those tenets of faith and morals that Catholics believe to 
have been revealed by Almighty God. Whcj-e they existed, they 
were incorporated into the civil code, and formed part of the law 
of the land. Neither was this regulation, in those times, deemed 
an invasion of either civil or religious liberty, in as much as the 
Catholic religion was the religion of the people and rulers as well 
as of the popes and bishops. 

From these, the gentleman would prove doctrine. They jievcr 
were doctrine; and wherever they affected the external relations 
of men, they have become obsolete, except in those countries in 
which they still remain incorporated in the civil code as laws of 
the land. Consequently in adducing these as evidence of doc- 
trine, he signall}'^ and triumphantly FAILED. 

He spoke of the INQUISITION. I have proved that every 
denomination has all of the Inquisition, for which the Catholic re- 
ligion is responsible; viz. the right to hunt out heresy, and expel 
the obstinate heretics; and that no denomination exercises this 
right, with more rigour and less mercy than the Presbyterian 
would-be orthodox, as Mr. Barnes can testify. But as for the 
penal 2^ortion of that tribunal, it belonged to the civil govern- 
ments, and was used by them as a 2)olitical engine. To the facts 
by which this distinction is established, the gentleman has been 
utterly unable to reply. 

He spoke of the CllUSADES. Mr. James, who has studied 
the question, and written upon it, and who being a Protestant, 
cannot be suspected of partiality, has decided that they "were as 
just as any wars that ever were undertaken." Whether his 
opinion, or that of Mr. Breckinridge carries more weight, I shall 
not pretend to decide. At all events, they have no more to do 
with the doctrines of the Catholic religion, than the English wars 
have to do with the thirty-nine articles. 

He 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 


on the throne. For this they had invited foreigners to aid them 
in their war against their country. They had assassinated the 
Duke de Guise; sacked and pilhiged hundreds of towns; massa- 
cred thousands of their countrymen; and spread desolation and 
bloodshed wherever they went. On the occasion of the St. Bar- 
tholomew, it was maintained by the French court, afterwards, 
that they had formed a plot, to get possession of the young king, 
and thus accomplish their object by stratagem. Whether they 
had or not, is now not clear; they were known to be capable of 
it. But THIS was the plea on which the court attempted to jus- 
tify the horrid crime, by which it escaped the real or pretended 
conspiracy of the Calvinists. This is notorious matter of history; 
and those who understand it otherwise, are like the gentleman, 
under the dangerous influence of "a little learning.'' 

On the civil wars in Ireland, I advise the gentleman to read 
Mr. Carey's erudite and unanswerable work, the VINDICI^ 
HIBERNIC^. But all these matters are unavailing for the 
purpose in hand, which is to show that there are DOCTRINES, 
RELIGION, opposed to civil and religious liberty. He has sig- 
nally and triumphantly — FAILED, in this; whatever else he 
may have done. 

And now having seen that every attempt to prove the affirma- 
tive of this question has been a failure, I shall try whether, 
difficult as is the proof of a negative^ I cannot establish FxlOTS 
from which it will appear clearly and conclusively, that there is 
no doctrine of the Catholic religion opposed to civil or religious 

FIRST FACT. That the Catholic Church teaches, and has 
always taught, that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. 
For proof of this, we have the testimony of popes and fathers, all 
agreeing that religion cannot be enforced by violence, nor de- 
fended, unless by patience. See St. Irena3us,(10) St. Justin, (11) 
Theophilus Alexandriuus,(12) Eusebius,(13) Tertullian in his 
Apology. (14) He says in his book ad Scapulam,(15) speaking 
of the Christians — " Wetcoj-shij) the emperor as it befits Am, and 
as it is law/id for us, to ivit, as a man next to God, dependent for 
what he possesses on God, AND INFERIOR ONLY TO IIIM." St. 
Optatus maintains the same doctrine. (16) Also Osius of Cor- 
dova, cited by Athanasius.(17) St. Augustine(18) says, *'We 
do not assign THE RIGHT OF GIVING Jcingdoms or empires except 
to the true God^ The doctrine of Origen,(19) and in short, of all 
the fathers that have ever written on the subject is the " UNANI- 

(10) Lib. 5, chap. xxiv. (15) Chap ii, 

(11) Apol. 2. (16) Lib. 3, Cont. Farm. 

(12) Lib. 1, ad Antilogiiim. (17) Tom. L p. 37L 

(13) Lib. 7, chap. x. (18) Lib. 4, de Civit. Dei, c. xxxiiL 
(U) Chap. XXX. (19) Tom. II. p. 118. 


MOUS CONSENT/' that the civil poioers of the world, and the 
spiritual jjoivei-s of the Ohurch, are both original in their source, 
and mutually independent of each other. If individual popes, or 
individual writers have claimed, for popes, the right to dispose of 
kingdoms, it was on some other ground of right, besides any doc- 
trine of the church : — some human title, or some text of Scripture, 
employed on the hazard of " private interpretation,'' which is con- 
trary to the rule of determining doctrine in the church. 

SECOND FACT. That Catholic nations invariably resisted, 
and that without even the charge of having violated any doc- 
trine of their religion, the attempts of popes to dispose of their 
civil sovereignty. And it does not appear that the popes have 
actually ever succeeded in deposing a sovereign, or bestowing a 

THIRD FACT. That before Luther and Protestantism were 
heard of, crowds of Republics had flourished under the auspices 
of the Catholic religion, and public liberty. VENICE rose up 
from the ocean, with all her republican glory round about her, 
and for five hundred years remained a lofty democratic govern- 
ment. Genoa, Florence, and other free states, are proof that 
liberty and Catholicity are perfectly congenial, notwithstanding 
the infinite ignorance that asserts the contrary. Even Spain had 
its Catholic Cortes, a free assembly, which imposed upon the 
monarch an oath, in which they told him, that they were indivi- 
dually as good, and, taken altogether, far better than himself, an4 
that his power was derived from the people. This was before 
what is called the Protestant Reformation, and it was the excesses 
of that era, that frightened Spain into a despotism — in self-de- 

FOURTH FACT. That the Catholics of Great Britain and 
Ireland have disclaimed all right of the Pope or cardinals to civil 
or temporal jurisdiction in the British dominions. This they have 
not ceased to do since the pretended Reformation; and disclaimed 
it ON OATH, as a calumny imputed by their oppressors, and not 
contained in the doctrines of the Catholic religion. During most 
of the last 300 years since the importation of Protestantism, the 
Catholics, who have continued to disclaim this calumny under the 
solemnity of an oath, have constituted one-fourth, and at present 
constitute one-third, of the entire population of Great Britain 
and Ireland. In this, no portion of their fellow-Catholics 
throughout the world, ever accused them of denying a doctrine 
OR principle of faith. 

FIFTH FACT. That in 1791, the following questions, at 
the instance of Mr. Pitt, then Minister of State, were sent to the 
foreign universities in France and Spain, and were answered 
unanimously, as follows : — (1) 

(1) See Butler's Book of the Church. 


" 1. Has tlie Pope or cardinals, or any hody of men, or any 
individual of the Church of Rome, ANY CIVJL authority, power, 
JURISDICTION, or PRE-EMINENCE whatsoever, within the realm of 
England ? 

*' 2. Can the Pope or Cardinals, or any hody of men, or 
any individual of the Church of Rome, absolve or DISPENSE 
loitli his majesty's subjects, FROM THEIR OATH OP ALLEGIANCE, 

'< 3. Is there any tenets of the Catholic faith, by which 
Catholics ARE JUSTIFIED in not keeping faith with here- 
tics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, 
in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature P" 
The Universities answered unanimously : — 

^' 1. That the Pope or cardinals, or any body of men, or any 
individual of the Chuixh of Rome, HAS not any civil authority, 
power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence WHATSOEVER, icithin the 
realm of England. 

*' 2. That the Pope or cardinals, or any hody of men, or any 
individual of the Church of Rome, CANNOT ABSOLVE or DIS- 
PENSE with his majesty's subjects, from their oath of allegiance, 

KEEPING /a?V/i with heretics, or other persons differing from them 
in religious oj^inions, in any transactions, either of a public or a 
private nature.'' 

SIXTH FACT. That the Catholics of Great Britain and 
Ireland have suffered themselves to be robbed of their titles, 
their CIVIL rights, their property, their reputation, &c., rather 
than swear a false oath. They were required to swear, that they 
believed in the religious opinions set forth in various acts of par- 
liament, and that tliey did not believe in the doctrines of their 
own Church. This, they knew, would be 2^crju'ry. And because 
they would not commit i\nBp)erjury, they were doomed to submit 
to the grinding and degradation of the penal code, which brands 
Protestantism with such indelible crimes of persecution for con- 
cience' sake, as ought to make its votaries blush, whenever the 
words " religious freedom," " rights of conscience," are accident- 
ally pronounced in their presence. A Protestant has thus de- 
scribed the barbarous operation of that infernal code : 

'' In England, this code, (the penal code,) I. Stripped the 
peers of their hereditary right to sit in parliament. II. It stripped 
the gentlemen of their right to be chosen members of the Com- 
mons House. III. It took from all the right to vote at elections; 
and though Magna Charta says, that no man shall he taxed with- 
out his own consent, it double-taxed every man who refused to 
ABJURE HIS RELIGION, and thus become an apwstate. IV. It shut 
them out from all offices of power and trust, even the most insig 


nificant. Y.-It took from them the right of presenting to livings 
in the Church, (hough that right was given to Quakers and Jews. 
VI. It fined them at the rate of TWENTY POUNDS A 
MONTH, for keeping away from that Church, to go to which 
they deemed apostasy. VII. It disabled them from keping arms 
in their houses ybr their defence; from maintaining suits at law; 
from being guardians or execiiturs ; from jyractising in law or 
physic; from f ravelling Jive miles from their houses, and all 
these, under heavy penalties, in case of disobedienco. VIII. If a 
married woman kept away from Chnrch, she forfeited TWO- 
THIRDS OF HER DOWER ; she could not he executrix to her hus- 
band, and might, during her husband's lifetime, be imprisoned^ 
unless ransomed by him at ten pounds a month. IX. It enabled 
any four justices of the peace, in case a man had been convicted 
of not going to Church, to call him before them, to compel him 
to ABJURE HIS RELIGION, or, if he refused, to sentence him to 
BANISHMENT FOR LIFE, (without judge or jury,) and, if he re- 
turned, HE WAS TO SUFFER DEATH. X. It enabled any two jus- 
tices of the peace to call before them, without any information, 
any man that they chose, above sixteen years of age, and if such 
man refused to abjure the Catholic religion, and continue in his 
refusal for six months, he was rendered incapable of possessing 
land; and any land, the possession of ichich might belong to 

who was not obliged to account for any profits. XI. It made 
such man incapable of purchasing lands, and all contracts made 
by him, or for him, were null and void. XIL It imposed a 
fine of about ten pounds a month, for employing a Catholic 
schoolmaster in a private family, and two pounds a day on the 
schoolmaster so employed. XIII. It imposed a fine of one hun- 
dred pounds for sending a child to a Catholic foreign school, and 
the child so sent was disabled from ever inheriting, purchasing, 
or enjoying lands, or profits, goods, debts, legacies, or sums of 
money. XIV. It punished the SAYING OF MASS, by a fine of one 
hundred and twenty pounds, and the hearing of mass, by a fine 
of sixty p>ounds. XV. Any Catholic priest, who returned from, 
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 

''In Ireland, the code was still more ferocious, more hideously 
bloody ; for, in the first place, ALL the cruelties of the English 
code had, as the work of a few hours, a few strokes of the pen, 
in one single act, been infiicted npon nnhapj^y Ireland: and then, 
IN ADDITION, the Irish code contained,. amongst many other 
violations of all the laws of justice and humanity, the following 
twenty most sacage punishments. I. A Catholic schoolmaster, 


private or public, or even usher to a Protestant, was punished 


The Catholic clergy were not allowed to he in the country, with- 
out being registered, a-nd kept as a sort of prisoners at large; and 
rewards were given (out of the revenue raised in part on the 
Catholics^ for discovering them ; fifty pounds for an archbishop 
or bishop; twenty pounds for a priest, and ten pounds for a 
schoolmaster or usher. III. Ani/ two justices of the peace might 
call before them any Catholic, order him to declare an oathy 
where and when he heard mass, who were present, and the 
name and residence of any priest or schoolmaster he might know 
of; and if he refused to obey this inhuman inquisition, they had 
power to condemn him, (without judge or jury,) to a year's im- 
prisonment in a felon's gaol, or to pay twenty pounds. IV. No 
Catholic could purchase any manors, nor even hold under a lease 
for more than thirty-one years. Y. Any Protestant, if he sus- 
pected any one of holding property in trust for a Catholic, or of 
being concerned in any sale, lease, mortgage, or other contracts 
for a Catholic ; any Protestant, thus suspecting, might file a hill 
against the suspected trustee, apd take the estate or property 
FROM HIM. VI. Any Protestant seeing a Catholic tenant of a 
farm, the produce of which farm exceeded the amount of the rent 
by more than one-third, might dispossess the Catholic, and 
enter on the lease in his stead. VII. Any Protestant see- 
ing a Catholic with a horse, icorth Tiiore than five pounds, might 
take the horse away from him upon tendering him five j^ounds. 
VIII. In order to prevent the smallest chance of justice in these 
and similar cases, none but known Protestants, were to be jury- 
men in the trial of any such cases. IX. Horses of Catholics 
might be seized for the use of the militia; and, besides this. Ca- 
tholics were compelled to pay double towards the militia. X. 
Merchants, whose ships and goods might be taken by privateers, 
during a war with a Catholic Prince, were to be compensated for 
their losses hy a levy on the goods and lands of Catholics only, 
though, mind. Catholics were, at the same time, impressed and 
compelled to shed their blood in the war against that same Catho- 
lic Prince. XI. Property of a Protestant, whose heirs at law 
were Catholics, was to go to the nearest Protestant relation, just 
the same as if the Catholic heirs had been dead, thoiigh the pro- 
perty might be entailed on them. XII. If there were no Protest- 
ant heir, then, in order to hreak up all Catholic families, the 
entail and all heirship were set aside, and the property was di- 
vided, share and share alike, amongst all the Catholic heirs. 
XIII. If a Protestant had an estate in Ireland, he was forbidden 
to marry a Catholic in or out of Ireland. XIV. All marriages be- 
tween Protestants and Catholics were annulled, though many 
children might have p)roceeded from them. XV. Every priest, 
who celebrated a marriage between a Catholic and a Protestant, 


or between two Protestants, was condemned to be hanged. 

XVI. A Catholic father could not be guardian to, or have the 
custody of, Ms own child, if the child, HOWEVER YOUNG, PRE- 
TENDED to he a Protestant; but the child ?^"as tciken from its 
OWN FATHER, and put into the custody of a Protestant relation. 

XVII. If any child of a Catholic became a Protestant, the parent 
was to be instantly summoned, and to be made to declare, upon 
oath, the full value of his or her property, of all sorts; and then 
the chancery was to make such distribution of the 'property as -it 
thought ft. XVIII. ' Wives, be obedient unto your own hus- 
band,' says the great apostle. 'Wives, be disobedient to them,' 
said this horrid code; for if the wife of a Catholic chose to turn 
Protestant, it set aside the will of the husband, and made her a 
participator in all his possessions, in spite of him, however im- 
moral, however bad a wife or bad a mother she might have been. 
XIX. ' Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be 
long in the land, which the Lord, thy God, giveth thee.' 'Dis- 
honour them,' said this savage code; for if any one of the sons 
of a Catholic father became a Protestant, this son was to possess 
all the father had, and the father could not sell, could not mort- 
gage, could not leave legacies or portions, out of his estate, by 
whatever title he might hold it, even though it might have been 
the fruit of his own toil. XX. Lastly, (of this score, but this is 
only a part,) 'the Church, as by law established,' was, in her 
great indulgence, pleased not only to open her doors, but to 
award, (out of the taxes,) thirty pounds A YEAR FOR life, to any 
Catholic priest, who would abjure his religion, and declare his 
belief in hers J' 

Such is but a part of the punishment which Catholics might 
have escaped, if the doctrines of their Church had only permitted 
them to swear a lie, by which Protestants would have hailed 
them as converts to pure Christianity. And yet, after an ordeal 
of three centuries of persecution, the Catholic religion is found to 
have been gaining ground for the last one hundred and fifty years, 
in spite of human efforts to crush and extinguish it. But although 
the Presbyterians were themselves sometimes sufferers by penal 
laws, yet it is a fact, that in all their grievances against the govern- 
ment, the neglect to put these sanguinary and inhuman laws 
into rigorous and merciless execution against the Catholics was 
always at the head of the list. And yet they talk about being 
friends of religious freedom 1 ! 

SEVENTH FACT. That the first declaration of religious 
and civil freedom and equality, that was ever published by a legis- 
lative body, was by the Catholic Colony of Maryland. They had 
fled from persecution; they offered an example which none had 
given, and which few other denominations were prompt to imitate. 
Did they, in this, violate any doctrine of the Catholic religion ? 
As the Protestants of Germany, persecuted by their fellow-Pro 


testants, found protection and liberty of conscience in Poland, 
with its Catholic population of 20,000,000, so did the victims of 
Protestant persecution in this country find an asylum in Catholio 
Maryland, where conscience was declared free. 

EIGHTH FACT. That the last Catlwlic king that sat on 
the throne of Great Britain, was expelled from his dominions for 
being a Catholic, and for not being a persecutor. It is acknow- 
ledged, that the profession of the Catholic religion, and the at- 
tempt to establish universal toleration^ lost the crown and king- 
dom to James II. and his son. 

NINTH FACT. That some of the most democratic and free 
cantons of Switzerland are the Catholic cantons. 

TENTH FACT. That the independence of this country was 
won by, the efforts and blood of Catholics, as well as Protestants. 
That Archbishop Carroll, then a Jesuit priest, was among the 
most zealous in co-operating with the other Catholic and Protest- 
ant patriots by whom it was secured. 

Will any njan, therefore, who is endowed with common under- 
standing, and is not bent on gratuitous falsehood and misrepresen- 
tation, say, that a religion, whose members MAY and can indivi- 
dually// and collectively f urn ish SUCH EVIDENCES, both of principle 
and of practice, on the question of civil and religious liberty with- 
out violating any doctrine of their creed, is opposed to civil and 
religious liberty? And whilst the gentleman on the other side 
has siynallij and triuniphandij FAILED; — in every attempt to 
prove the iiffirmative, I submit to the cool, sober, and just judg- 
ment of reflecting men, whether I have not established the nega- 
tive of the question. I am willing to abide by their judgment. 

And now we have to pass to the Presbyterian religion. There 
I shall show, first, that its doctrines, not falsely imputed, hut 
avowed in the Confession of Faith, are truly hostile to civil and 
religious liberty. I shall show, that they have led to persecu- 
tion, and, if reduced to practice, that they would lead to persecu-^ 
tion again in the nineteenth century, and in this very country. 
If I do not prove my proposition, so as to make the g( ntleman 
shrink from an attempt to answer my arguments, I shall ask no 
man to believe me. Facts and logic shall be my auxiliaries, 
leaving to the gentleman all the advantages of popular prejudice, 
and of liis peculiarly ingenious mode of spreading it^ as a mantle, 
over the weakness of his arguments. 


f'ls the Pi^eshyterian Religion, in any or in all its 
Pmicijples or Doctrhies, opposed to Civil or Re^ 
ligioiLs Liberty?" 



**Is the Preshyterian Religion, in any or all of its principles or 
doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty f 


Mr. President: — 

Before I enter on the arguments in proof of the affirmative of 
the question, I beg to be indulged in a few remarks, by *way of in- 
troduction. Some time before the commencement of the present 
discussion, my attention was drawn to the subject by a notice, in 
the public papers, that the religion of a large body of American 
citizens was to be made the subject of crimination and defence, in 
a Debating Society. Having attended on the occasion, I took the 
liberty to suggest, in the most respectful manner, the inexpediency, 
of treating such a question in such a place. Prejudice and popu- 
lar calumnies might make many members eloquent in attacking; — 
whilst incompetency to detect sophistry, and want of specific in- 
formation on that subject, might render others unequal to the task 
of defending. The consequence would be so far injurious to the 
Catholic body, in their civil and religious rights. I did not imagine, 
nor do I believe now, that the members of this Society could be 
induced to be employed, knowingly , as tools, in the hands of a 
combination of bigotry and malice, whose centre is New York, 
and whose contemplated circumference is the boundary of the 
land. The man must be blind to clear evidence, who does not see 
the existence of a dark conspiracy, having for its ultimate object, 
to make the Presbyterian Church the dominant religion of this 
country, — the workings of the same spirit, which, having been 
foiled in its attempt to stop the Sunday mail, has now hit upon a 
more popular, more cunning, and, therefore, a more dangerous ex- 
pedient for the accomplishment of its unhallowed purpose. This 
expedient is, to combine all Protestants in a general effort to put 
down, jirst, the denomination that is most unpopular, and then, by 
the same rule, to graduate the scale in reference to other sQcts, un- 
til Presbyterians shall be predominant. The watchword is well sc- 

18 281 


lected. Under the pretence of solicitude for the preservation of 
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, the Catholics are to be robbed of 
both. They are to be denounced as '' foreigners;" — and foreigners 
are at the bottom of the plot for their destruction. These in- 
triguing adventurers, who come inflated with the spirit of John 
Knox, care not what dissensions may ensue, what charities may 
be broken up, what blood may flow, provided that, under the plea 
of guarding against *' foreigners," they may be allowed to sting 
the Republic, and distil into its veins the poison of bigotry and 
intolerance, which will soon reach its heart. But they would 
have the work of thqir own creation to appear as the spontaneous 
manifestation of American feeling. And hence, we find, by a co- 
incidence, too striking to be natural, that the same question, which 
was selected for debate in this Society, was, 'at the same time, 
undergoing discussion in New York, Ohio, Kentucky, and the 
Eastern States. They knew very well, that throughout the coun- 
try, for every man that has read the Council of Trent, there are 
ten thousand who have read the popular treatises, written expressly 
to misrepresent the tenets of Catholicity, and to villify the profes- 
sors of that creed. 

Presbyterian clergymen had left their own pulpits, where their 
ministry might have been salutary, in teaching their congregations 
the meek doctrines of the Saviour, in preaching good will and 
charity among men, — and were passing from city to city, and from 
district to district, rousing the worst passions of the human breast 
into hatred and enmity against Catholics. Their object was to agi- 
tate the elements of strife, and the pulpit, from whence men should 
learn to forget and forgive, was selected as the laboratory. 

It wae in this state of the case that the discussion of the ques- 
tion^, respecting the Catholic religion, was announced on the part 
of the Union Literary and Debating Society; and, although I be- 
lieve that the gentlemen composing it were too high-minded, too 
American, to become tools in the hands even of parsons, hnow- 
ingh/, yet it was manifest, that the purposes of those fanatics 
would be equally subserved by a discussion, when all could at- 
tack, and none, perhaps, were qualified by education to defend. 
It was on these accounts that I attended, with a view to see how 
such a question would be disposed of, in such an assembly. My 
anticipations, in this regard, were not disappointed. Hence, I 
made some remarks, showing the injustice done to Catholics, un- 
der these circumstances. At the request of the respected Presi- 
dent, I consented to deliver an address on the principles involved 
in the discussion, and on the distinction between th« doctrines of 
the Catholic religion, and the sayings or doings or its nominal 
members- This, after my arrival on the evening appointed, was 
refused by the Society. I should either depart, or else speak for 
a certain time, when I might be answered by any respondent. I 
chose the latter, because I knew that, if I did not, the trump of 


triumphant falsehood would proclaim my retreat, and ascribe 
to a wrong motive. In fact, as it was, the veracious Pres- 
byterian, and another paper, published in New York, called' the 
Protestant Vindicator, proclaimed that I was pulverized, annihi- 
lated, and that, after having been reduced to nothing, I fled. You 
all know how that was. But if they could publish such a statement, 
unsupported by one tittle of truth, how much more, in case I had, 
in fact, declined the discussion ? On that evening I had to encoun- 
ter the Ptev. Wm. L. M'Calla, a gentleman whom, for various rea- 
sons, I was by no means ambitious of meeting. He was in keep- 
ing, however, for the occasion, and made his debut, by the signifi- 
cant declaration, that he was no "green horn,'' and, ''as Sam Patch 
said, there was no mistake in that.'' He was only a substitute, 
however, appointed by my present Rev. opponent. This ap- 
pointment was made, according'to his own explanation, in Fkila- 
delphia on Friday evening. And yet he writes /rom New York 
on the Wednesday following, that he had ^^just learnt," that I 
was to address the society on the following evening. He com- 
plains that by this I impeach his veracity. I answer that for the 
statement of both facts, he is himself my author, and of course, 
it is for him to explain in the best way he can, how he should 
have learnt in Neio York, on Wednesday, what he acknowledges 
he knew in Philadelphia on the Fjriday previous. 

He returned from New York in due season. The first evening 
the debate was opened by a young gentleman of the Society, fol- 
lowed by several others. The anti-Catholic battery was manned by 
a goodly number, including the venerable gentleman, on the left of 
my opponent. I, sir, had to stand the fire of them all, and I hope 
they will be prepared to defend Presbyterians, when the time shall 
come, and to receive a shot in return. The venerable gentleman's 
mind, as I remember, laboured strangely under the conflicting claims 
of friendship and duty. ''Out of this place, no man had greater 
respect for Mr. Hughes than he had, but luwc he knew no man." 
Ptesbyterian charity is always gcoyraphical, mine is catholic. 
I respect age everywhere, and, therefore, I dismiss the subject. 
Yet the gentleman's remarks came in the richness of Scotch-Irish 
accents, that brought back the years of my childhood, when Presby- 
terian lads were my school-companions, and would have flogged 
the urchin who should have attempted to impose on me. 

Subsequently, the definitions of liberty, civil and religious, as 
well of doctrines, and the rules of the discussion, were agreed 
upon, and signed by the gentleman and myself, in a private inter- 
view. I thought then, that he would have complied with his 
own deliberate agreement, and have "kept faith with a heretic." 
But no. He agreed that nothing should be adduced against the 
Catholic religion, as argument, except what should be admitted, 
ov proved hy a General Council, or the hull of a pope, to be a DOC- 
TRINE of that religion. And yet, on the first evening of the de- 


bate, he assumed, that every document emanating from cither of 
these sources, imist he a doctrine. Discipline, history of events, 
legislation, enactment, every thing was doctrine. He was as in- 
nocent of the knowledge of what constitutes doctrine^ as the child 
unborn. Two or three days before, he had defined ^^ doctrines as 
those tenets of faith and rnorals, ichicJb a denomination tcaeheSy 
trance into this Hall, his memory was overtaken with a most un- 
accountable ''backsliding and shortcoming." Then every thing 
that a Council said, or a Pope did, was a doctrine. When I re- 
minded him of his contract, that, unless it had been taught by the 
council or the Pope, as " having been revealed by Almighty God,'^ 
he should not assume it as a doctrine of the Catholic religion, his 
answer was, that I meant to "cramp the discussion." But even 
with this latitude, the councils and Popes were soon relinquished 
for the authority of the renegade, the ajwstate De Pradt; and this 
apostate, and outcast from the Church, the gentleman would pass 
off for a Catholic. Was this ignorance? was it disingenuous- 

When DePradt failed, Tristam Shandy was adduced to prove Ca- 
tholic doctrine — and the records of the Parliament of Paris, from 
which the gentleman drew mighty inferences, although he never 
got farther than the Index. Still he proceeded uncontrolled, turn- 
ing every thing into doctrines, and obstinately determined to make 
Catholics hold, as tenets revealed by Almighty God, Whatever he 
or Tristam Shandy charged them with believing. 

It was not for me to instruct the gentleman as to how he should 
conduct his argument. Still, I must observe, that so palpable a 
violation of an agreement I have never witnessed. In the whole 
six evenings, the gentleman never touched on a '' doctrine," 
except one or two. He took liberties with the few bulls of 
popes in the way of additions and suppressions, and the ex- 
posure which followed show that the animals wheeled upon 
him and horned him. There he remains, and the only consola- 
tion he has, is, that, in his falsification of documents, he only 
copied after the Rev. G. Stanley Faber — clarum et venerabile 

His tirade against the Catholic religion passed through the 
three stages of the facetious, the furious and the flat. He opened 
with the story of "Paddy and his horse" — this was funny; he 
continued by "oceans of blood" — "millions of butchered Pro- 
testants" — these were furious figures; he terminated with the 
anecdote of the "butcher and his ham" — and the "hen laying 
eggs" — this was flat. In a word — 

lie commenced with a " wen," 
And ho closed with a "hen." 

I recognise the fitness, as well as humility, of the emblem. 


Still, if I were ambitious of immortality as an author, I should 
have selected a nobler bird; I should have endeavoured to mount 
on the eagle's pinions, and gone down to posterity in a style of 
which posterity need not be ashamed. But all this is past, and 
the "Presbyterian Religion" is now on its trial, inine being the 
right to prosecute, and Ms the duty to defend. 

Now, Mr. President, I charge that religion with holding "doc- 
trines" — "tenets of faith and morals, as having been revealed by 
Almighty God," which are opposed to the "civil and religious 
liberty" of all men who are not Presbyterians. That religion, 
under the head of "God's Eternal Decree,"(l) teaches that God 
from all eternity did "freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever 
comes to pass." The same doctrine is taught, in Larger and 
Smaller Catechism, (2) where the word "foreordained" is applied 
to " whatsoever comes to pass." I am aware that the text goes 
on to disclaim the consequences of this doctrine, by stating that 
God is not on this account "the author of sin," which I do not 
assert him to be. And further, that " neither is violence offered 
to the will of the creatures," of which I also say, let that pass. 
But when it goes on to assert, that the " liberty or contingency 
of second causes is not taken away, but rather established," by 
this doctrine, — I must beg leave to demur. How an act can be 
^' unchangeaMi/ foreordained," and yet the agent, who was 
" foreordained" to do that act, be at liberty to leave it undone, 
is what I leave to the gentleman or the General Assembly to 

Let us illustrate this doctrine by a particular case. In the year 
1553, Michael Servetus was burned alive for heresy, in Geneva, 
by John Calvin, or through his influence. Now, according to 
this doctrine, the time, the place, the agent, had all been deter- 
mined and "foreordained unchangeably j" and, if so, Calvin 
could not avoid the part assigned to him in this tragedy of blood. 
If he could not avoid it, where was his " liberty" as " a second 
cause ?" If he had no " liberty" to avoid it, where could be his 
guilt? And here is the reason, that, whilst all other denomina- 
tions regard him, in connexion with this matter, as one whose 
hands were purpled with blood of a man, who was not amenable 
to his tribunal, the Presbyterians regard him as a saint, who is 
not to be held accountable for having done what God from all 
eternity had "unchangeably foreordained" that he should do I 
Apply this principle to John Knox and his associates, in the assas- 
sination of Cardinal Beaton; and to the others, in the assassination 
of Archbishop Sharp — the execution of Laud, Strafford, Charles L, 
&c. — and, last of all, to the burning of the Convent at Boston. 
The doctrine that God has "unchangeably foreordained what- 

(1) Confession of Faith, Chap. III. p. 15. 

(2) Page 146 and 321. 


soever comes to pass/' is applicable to all these cases, and to all 
the crimes that ever were, or ever will be committed. The 
agents were but the irresponsible tools of onmtpotent poiccr — 
"foreordained" to execute "whatsoever comes to pass" — the 
evil as well as the good ; for the word '' whatsoever^' comprises 
both. Now there can be neither merit nor crime in executing 
the decrees of God; and where there is neither, there can be no 
punishmenf — no reward. Hence, it follows, that this doctrine 
is subversive of that fundamental principle, on the admission of 
which, the safety of states, the authority of human laws, the wel- 
fare of society depend — viz. the principle of future ^'■rewards and 
punishments." The doctrine of the decree " unchangeably fore- 
ordaining" whatsoever comes to pass, destroys the doctrine of 
free will and moral responsibility. 1 do not say that Presbyte- 
rians act out this doctrine of their Confession of Faith; but that 
its tendencies are such as I have described, no man who has a 
mind capable of tracing the connexion between principles and 
their consequences, can, for a moment, deny. The gentleman 
will not venture to deny the doctrine; and I challenge him to 
refute the argument, which it confirms, as here laid down, and 
proven. Reduced to the form of a syllogism, it may be stated 
thus : — 

Any religion that holds, as a "tenet of faith revealed by Almighty 
God," that "whatsoever comes to pass" was "unchangeably fore- 
ordained," is opposed and dangerous to civil and religious liberty, 
by reducing its votaries from the position of moral, free, respon- 
sible agents, to that of the mere instruments of God's eternal de- 
cree, for the execution of " whatsoever comes to pass." 

But the Presbyterian Religion holds this doctrine : 

Therefore the Presbyterian Religion is, in this respect, opposed 
and dangerous to civil and religious liberty. First Argument. 

Intimately connected with this, is the Presbyterian doctrine of 
"election and reprobation," The belief that God would render 
to every man according to his works, in the judgment of another 
life, has been the conservative principle of all social rights since 
the beginning of the world. It furnishes the check by which the 
conscience of a good man curbs and restrains the passions of 
cupidity and self-interest. It furnishes the motive, reaching to 
the inmost soul, for which we should avoid evil and do good. 
It supposes, that, with the help of divine grace, we are not only 
free, but able to fulfil the requisitions of justice towards God and 
our neighbour. Wherever this salutary belief is rejected, there 
the corner-stone of social safety is removed, and the edifice, 
unless sustained by other support, will totter and fall. Now this 
principle is rejected by the Presbyterian Religion, which teaches 
that our good or evil works, in this life, do not in any wise con- 
tribute as a help or a hiuderance, to our eternal happiness or misery 
in the life to come : consequently, there is no motive of reward or 


punishment, among the believers of that creed, springing from the 
considerations of eternity, to c-ounteract and subdue the workings 
of temporal self-interest. 

Their doctrine is, that, " by the decree of God, for the mani- 
festation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto 
everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death/' 
And this (for the elect) out of his mere free grace and love, with- 
out any foresight of faith and good works, or perseverance in 
either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions^ 
or causes moving him thereunto; and all for the praise of his 

glorious grace." "The rest of mankind, God was pleased 

to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their 
sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. "(1) Since this conse- 
quence was "for their sin," it would follow that God had fore- 
ordained their sin. But as Presbyterians disclaim this blasphe- 
mous consequence, I will not urge !t, although I cannot see how 
they can escape it, consistently with the doctrine that God has 
" unchangeably ybreorf/a/wccZ whatsoever comes to pass." 

But it is manifest from the doctrines here stated, that " good 
works" cannot contribute to secure the salvation, nor to hinder 
damnation of Presbyterians. Whence it follows, that with them, 
all is fixed as fate; that those who are to be saved, will be saved, 
whatever may be the extent of their wickedness ; and that those 
who are to be damned, will be damned, in spite of all their efforts 
to avoid it, by a virtuous, upright, honest life. The gentleman 
cannot deny these consequences consistently with the Confession 
of Faith. Whence I conclude — 

That any religion which makes eternal hajypiriess and eternal 
misery/ depend on an absolute decree, "excluding the foresight of 
faith and good icorks, or perseverance in either of them, or any 
other thing in the creature, as conditions," is dangerous, and op- 
posed to civil and religious liberty; by inculcating implicitly that 
the invasion of the civil and religious rights of others, in this 
life, cannot affect the destinies of the soul, in the life to come. 

But the Presbyterian Religion holds the doctrine of which this 
is the logical and undeniable consequence : 

Therefore, in this doctrine, that religion is opposed to civil and 
religious liberty. Second Argument. 

I am not ignorant that Presbyterians disclaim this consequence, 
but I dispute their right to disclaim it. It is deduced from their 
doctrine as fairly as ever consequence flowed from premises, and 
those who deny it, must either have minds incapable of making 
inductions, or else be persuaded that all reasoning is a farce. 
According to their doctrine, I am foreordained to everlasting life 
or everlasting death, by the eternal decree of God; and no actions 
of mine can disappoint my eternal destiny. Now this principle 
pervades the whole Presbyterian denomination, and .takes from 
(1) Confession of Faith, pp. 17, 18, 19. 


them the motive which would render the civil and religious 
rights of other denominations sacred in their estimation. How 
is that motive taken away ? By their belief that God will 
judge them, not hy their actions, hut hy Ms own eternal 
decree. To the influence of this doctrine, I ascribe that dark, 
morose, restless, aspiring, turbulent, intolerant, and persecuting 
spirit, which has characterized the ardent disciples of this 
sect, from the hour of its birth; — distinguishing it from all other 
sects and denominations. Assuming that God had elected tliem 
as special favourites, they naturally grow proud by the dis- 
tinction in comparison with other men, who, in the language of 
their creed, have been " passed by.'' Hence, as the Christian 
heirs of these prerogatives, which God bestowed on his chosen 
people under the Jewish law, they would exercise over every 
country, that right of exclusive domination which the children of 
Jacob, by divine permission,*exercised in reference to the inha- 
bitants and territory of Canaan. You can find no period in their 
history, in which they were not oppressed — or oppressing — and 
sometimes both. Whilst the laws and government of Protestant 
England were severe, and severely, executed against them, their 
cry was that the oppression of the Catholics was not sufficiently 
grinding. They emerged from every persecution with the fierce 
spirit of intolerance, unquenched and unquenchable. Even in 
this country, without a single legitimate motive to stimulate them, 
they are now attempting to rob their Catholic fellow-citizens of 
the civil and religious rights secured by the Constitution. Other 
denominations of Protestants are used by them as " cats' -paws;" 
and will, no doubt, in due season, receive their merited, but un- 
welcome recompense, at the hand'of predominant Presbyterianism. 
They are the favoured class; with the decree of election and 
reprobation as a patent of impunity in the other world for actions 
done in this, they have conscientious facilities, for the accom- 
plishment of projects dictated by private or sectarian ambition, 
Tfhich are denied to the consciences of those who hold, as a 
doctrine, that their conduct in this life will have a serious influence 
on the judgment of their souls in the life to come. 

This difl'erence accounts also for the fact, that the Presbyterians in 
every instance, where their numbers gave hope of success, aimed, 
and often successfully, at the supreme civil power of the state ; 
perfectly indiff"erent as to the meaos by which it might be acquired. 
Hence their libels on governments, which they wished to over- 
turn, and then civil war to be followed by defeat or victory. It 
was thus, trampling on the civil and religious rights of the Catho- 
lics, that they established their religion in Scotland, England and 
on the Continent of Europe. The excitement of popular commo- 
tion, the circulation of libels, the inflaming of the passions of the 
multitude, were the usual precursors of some political stroke 
which should place Presbyterians uppermost. The attack, on 


Catholics which they are now exciting the people to make, is not 
their first attempt in this country, to obtain the control and di- 
rection of the civil government. We all remember the effort made 
by them, as a trial of strength, to have the Sunday mail stopped, 
and by an act of Congress, save the country from the national 
sin of transporting letters on the Sabbath-day. The experiment 
failed. We all remember the efforts to have the ''Sunday-school 
Union" incorporated; and the anticipation that was indulged in 
of the political influence which would be placod at the disposal 
of the Presbyterians, through its instrumentality, in ten or at 
most twenty years. We all remember the boast (^f Dr. Ely, that 
Presbyterians alone could bring half a million voters to the poll, 
and his effort to establish "a Christian party in politics." All 
these efforts failed. But the untiring, indomitable spirit of Pres- 
byterian ambition returns to the onset, and, out of pure, disinte- 
re.'^ted zeal "for civil and religious liberty" undertakes to deprive 
Catholics of both. It will be ygain defeated; — as soon as it will 
be discovered that there is an ulterior object towards which the 
putting down of the Catholics is but the first i^tepping-stone. 

Another point of danger in the creed of this denomination is the 
right claimed by them to alter their doctrine, according to the inte- 
rests of their position on the scale of political ascendency. Thus, 
the principles of the " Solemn League and Covenant" constituted 
their doctrines so long as they were able, h^ meaiLs of the civil 
power, to force their adoption on others. But after the restoration 
of the Episcopalian interest to supreme power under Chailes II., 
it was found that a more relaxed creed would suit their interest 
better. And the small band of Presbyterians, called " Covenant- 
ers," preserved alone the profession of their principles. The 
Westminster Confession of Faith became the nominal standard of 
doctrine, among the degenerate sons of defection. Tins document 
taught, as a doctrine, that for publishing or maintaining certain 
erroneous opinions, persons might be called to account, and pro- 
ceeded against, by the censures of the church, " and by the power 
of the civil magistrate." That the " civil magistrate" may sup- 
press blasphemies and heresies* That it is a sin to tolerate a false 
religion, &c. After the Revolution in this country, these "te- 
nets," hitherto held as "having been revealed by Almighty God," 
were also discarded from the books, as being unsuited to the soil of 
new-born liberty and of equal rights. The Constitution declared that 
opinions were free, and should not be proceeded against "by the 
civil magistrate," that he should suppress no hcresij, that it was 
710 sin to tolerate a "false religion" — and lo I the Confession of 
Faith is forthwith amended so as to suit the Constitution, and the 
new order of things. When reminded of these several rejections of 
what God had revealed, the answer is, that they do not pretend 
to be infallible ; and consequently have a right to change and 
modify their creed when they find it wrong. But the question in 


wliicli of their creeds is right ? May they not discover that tliey 
are now in error, and recall the doctrines of the magistrate's 
power, and of the sin of tolerating a false religion ? They may. 
And there is reason to believe that they will, when it can be done 
with safety. Wi>ence I argue, — 

That any religion which maintains as a doctrine the right to 
resume its intolerance, whenever the civil power is prepared for 
it, is, in this respect, dangerous to the civil and religious liberty 
of other denominations. 

But the Presbyterian religion teaches this right as a doctrine. 
Therefore this ijeligion is opposed to the civil and religious liberty 
of otlner denominations. Third argument. 

As it exists at this time, and in this country, Presbyterianism 
is in a false position. It embodies in its composition all the 
essence of persecution, and yet, awed by the genius of the coun- 
try, it is compelled to do violence to its nature, and ^ro/es.s that 
liberality which it does not fe^ and cannot ^j?-ac'^/se. But let 
such a change of political circumstances arise as will authorize 
another revision and correction of its doctrines, and the scenes of 
other days will be renewed, supported by a new Confession of 
Faith, and texts of Scripture. Richard will be himself again. 
The '* ordinance of magistracy" may be revived, and days of 
humiliation and prayer appointed for the sin of having ever 
abandoned it. Under the sanction of this '^ ordinance," whipping, 
cutting oif the ears, hanging, may again be introduced, as they 
were practised in New England, which was always remarkable 
for its love of civil and religious liberty. (1) 

Before going farther, it may be proper to expose a sophism, of 
which the gentleman has more than once attempted to avail him- 
self. It consists in denying that the colonies of New England 
were Presbyterians, and this for no other reason except that he 
must be ashamed of professing a religion which sanctions their 
deeds of blood and persecution. " They were Puritans," he has 
said, '' whereas ^ce are Presbyter ians.^' They differed only, 
however, in the form of church government, and not in the doc- 
trines of intolerance. Both agreed in holding as a i^ tenet revealed 
by Almighty God," that the civil magistrate had a right to enforce 
the observance of the ''first," as well as the ''second table" of 
the decalogue. Now the first table has reference to the worship 
of God, the sanctification of his name, and of the Sabbath-day. 
So that the right of every man to worship Almighty God, according 
to the dictates of his own conscience, is contrary to all that icas 
doctrine among Puritans and Presbyterians, previous to the 
declaration of American independence. Their doctrine was that 
he had a right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates 
of the civil magistrate. This I shall have abundant occasion to 

(1) See Backus's History of the Baptists, ^Jass^'w. 


show in the sequel of this argument. Consequently, then, since 
both hold the same doctrine on all the points that are essential to 
this question; — it follows that the pretended difference or dis- 
tinction on which the gentleman claims to disown the Puritans, 
is nugatory. We shall find that in both denominations it pro- 
duced the same blood-stained fruits. 

The plan of civil and religious government contemplated by the 
doctrine of the Presbyterian, and indeed, all the Calvinistic sects, 
is a coalition and consolidation of church and state. Geneva was 
the model. The clergy were to constitute the legislative body 
and the judiciary, in all matters appertaining to doctrinb, worship, 
and "the power of godliness." The civil magistrate was to be 
the executive, the mere constable of the church. Neither let it. 
be supposed that Presbyterians have yet relinquished this danger- 
ous doctrine. The present Confession of Faith tells us, that 
although the civil magistrates may not '^interfere in matters of 
faith, yet, AS nursing fathers, it is the duty of the civil magis- 
trates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the 
preference to any denomination of Christians, above the rest," &c. 
This last clause is put in as a salvo ad captandum; — for the gentle- 
man has made amends for his want of charit}^ by his abundant 
candour in admitting that, according to Presbyterian doctrine, 
Catholics, Quakers, Unitarians, and I know not how many other 
sects, are excluded from the nieaning of the words, ''church of 
our common Lord," and consequently, excluded from the protec- 
tion which the " nursing fathers" are bound to afford. But I 
fear the Confession of Faith, which is better authority, cuts off a 
few other denominations. In page 3, it tells us that the " visible 
church . . . consists of all those throughout the world, that pro- 
fess the true religion; together with their children; and is the 
kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, 
out of which there is no ordinari/ possibility of salvatioji." 
Whence it follows that those who do not "profess the true 
religion," do not belong to the " church of our common Lord," 
and are not of the happy few whom it is the duty of the civil magis- 
trates, as " nursing fathers," to protect. Now the " true religion," 
according to Presbyterian belief, consists in the doctrines of the 
Old and New Testament; — and the book called the Confession of 
Faith, " contains the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scrip- 
tures. "(1) Here then the profession of the true religion is made 
to consist in the profession of the Presbyterian religion. And 
since the profession of the true religion, alias the Westminster 
Confession of Faith, with all its doctrine of fatalism, under the 
caption of "God's eternal decree," constitutes the " church of 
our common Lord," "out of which there is no ordinary possi- 
bility of salvation," it follows that those who do not hold the 

(1) Page 378. 


>j^stem of doctrine taught in the Confession of Faith, have no title 
CO the protection of the civil magistrates, as not being included 
in the " church of our common Lord," which turns out to be 
nothing more than the Presbyterian church. To reduce the 
matter into a more condensed form, it may be stated in the fol- 
lowing propositions: 

Any religion which teaches, as a doctrine, that the civil ma- 
gistrates, in these United States, are bound, *'as nursing 
fatliers,'' to protect the church of one sect, or of a specific number 
of sects, under pretext that it, or they alone, constitute the 
^'church of our common Lord," to the exclusion of other deno- 
minations, is adverse to the constitution of the country, and danger- 
ous to civil and religious liberty. This proposition is self-evident. 

But the Presbyterians, as has been shown, by the foregoing 
facts and reasoning, holds this doctrine : 

Therefore, the Presbyterian religion is opposed, in this respect, 
and dangerous to the civil and religious rights of other denomi- 
nations. Fourth argument. 

Let this doctrine be carried out, and you will see the njagis- 
trates of your republic converted into dry nurses of Presby- 
terianism, the President dandling the baby on his knee, and 
the Secretary of the Treasury gathering pap for it. The vision 
is enchanting enough, as it recalls the palmy days of the church, 
when, at her bidding, the magistrates of Geneva, Holland, Scot- 
land, England, maintained the *' power of (Presbyterian) godli- 
ness," by the power of the sword. Still it is but a vision. 

All other denominations, with whose doctrines I am acquainted, 
hold, that it is the duty of the civil magistrates to administer the 
constitutional laws of the country, in justice and mercy, leaving 
" the church of our common Lord" to protect itself. *' The 
church of our common Lord" is a thing unknown to the Consti- 
tution; that instrument guarantees the protection of citizens, 
leaving them at full liberty to choose their religion unbiassed by 
political preferences, extended to one sect more than another. 
The orthodoxy of the Dutch Reformed Church is fully admitted by 
the denomination to which the gentleman belongs. And the anti- 
constitutional doctrine, of the duty of magistrates, which is cun- 
ningly enough disguised in the Westminster Confession, is openly 
and honestly stated in the creed of the Dutch Reformed brethren, 
where it is taught, that the " office" of the civil magistrates is . . . 
" that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and 

prevent all idolatry and false worship wherefore, we 

detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all 

those who reject the higher powers, and magistrates "(1) 

This coincidence of intolerant doctrine accounts for the fact, that 

(^ ) Confession of Faith of the Keformed Dutch Church in North America, 
New York, 1819. 


tbe politico-religious excitement which is now raging against the 
Catholics, has been mainly stimulated by the fiery harani^ues and 
writings of certain fanatical or malevolent preachers, of those two 
denominations. They endeavour to enlist the passions of other 
sects of Protestants, in the nefarious attempt to put down the 
adherents of that religion, which they impudently term of anti- 
Christ. But let their credulous allies not be deceived ; the same 
warrant of Revelation which authorizes them to do this, makes it 
equally incumbent on them to put down ''all false worship/' 
and to ^^ detest the Anabaptists." 

The gentleman takes credit to his cause, on the ground, that, in 
this country, Presbyterians have not persecuted since the Decla- 
ration of Independence. If he means that they have not put men 
to death or in prison, for the crime of worshipping God according to 
the dictates of their conscience, I admit the truth of his observation. 
But I ascribe the happy circumstances to the constitution and laws 
of tlie United States, and to the buoyant energies of young Ameri- 
can liberty and liberality. The American eagle, which has ho- 
vered over the equal rights of all denominations, both civil and 
religious, would have picked the eyes out of the sect that should 
have dared to execute the work of religious persecution. But let 
the hand of Presbyterian intolerance only succeed to pluck only 
one feather out of the noble bird's wing; and its pinions' will soon 
be broken, and a cage found for it by the General Assembly. The 
church will become the guardian of "civil and religious liberty,^' 
and the civil magistrates will become the "nursing fathers" of the 

It might be supposed by those who are unacquainted with the 
subject, that these observations are made without regard to facts 
that warrant them. This would be a great mistake. It was said 
by a great statesman, Patrick Henry, that the light which should 
guide our course, in regard to the future, must blaze from the 
lamp of experience. And on this subject, what does experience 
teach? Open the history of Presbyterianism and see. If the 
gentleman can show me an instance, in the history of the world, 
in which Presbyterians did not invade by civil penalties, extend- 
ing in most cases to life and death, (when they had the political 
power to do so,) the "riglit of every man to worship God, accord- 
ing to the dictates of his own conscience," I bind myself to 
give up the argument. Other general rules have exceptlonSj — 
this has none. Let him name one instance. I challenge him to 
the test. 


*'Is the Preshi/terian Religion, in any or in all its principles 
or doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty." 


Mr. President : — 

It would seem as if the gentleman had determined to make a 
deep impression on yowr pifi/, if not on your reason, in the intro- 
duction of his address. It is surely a strong indication of the pro- 
gress of truth, and human freedom, as well as of the spirit of the 
age, when a priest of Rome is heard appealing to public sympa- 
thy, under any circumstances. We may truly bless God, and 
take courage, when we compare Rome, in the fifteenth century, 
making the earth to tremble at her rebuke, with Rome, in the 
nineteenth century, calling ^or pity. Rome complaining of per- 
secution! Sir, Romanism cannot endure free inquiry. It is al- 
ways, therefore, either "heresy" or "persecution," to question 
this infallible mother of churches, and mistress of nations. It is 
heresy, \i in poicer ; persecution, ii not. But, sir, Roman Catho- 
lics are not persecuted. 

It is a custom of the American people to examine every thing. 
It is an attribute of the American system, to reject every thing 
which cannot stand the test of an examination by the standard of 
truth and right. Rome is not used to this. She cannot stand it. 
She cries out against it. Hinc illse lachrymse. Hence, those lu- 
gubrious cries with which the gentleman moved your pity at the 
sorrows of that poor weak people, only 120,000,000 strong, whom 
a few Presbyterian "parsojis" are persecuting to death! No, 
Mr. President, the ''origin" of this question is not truly stated by 
the gentleman. It is no new thing, that popery and liberty have 
no afiinity, or love for each other; and it is natural for the Ameri- 
can people to watch narrowly what is so well known to be hostile 
to the rights of man. 

Well; it had been observed, with some solicitude for many 
years, that a large number of Jesuits (you remember how sternly 
and fondly the gentleman has defended them) were coming into 
the United Slates; some iii, some out r>f the priesthood. Talley- 
rand (a Jesuit) was once a teacher in this country !• Crowds of 
such wore seen passing with other goods through our custom- 
houses into the bosom of the nation — from France, Spain, Ger- 
many, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland. The Jesuits were known to 


be the most subtle, strongly united, and numerous body of llomisli 
emissaries; the militia of the Pope, the enemies of all freedom; 
who had ruled, corrupted, and been expelled from almost every 
government of Europe; and having recently been restored to 
power and rank by the Pope, were rapidly extending their mis- 
sions to the New World, and to this garden of it. 

Again : The emigration to this from Roman Catholic countries, 
was observed to be immense; and, with many honourable excep- 
tions, this population was confessedly the most ignorant, unruly, 
and vicious in the country; and, also, very much devoted to 

7Vgain : It was seen that European despots were deeply inte- 
rested, and published, in the annual reports of organized societies, 
as patmns of plans to send priests and Catholic emigrants to the 
United States : (witness the Leopold foundation of which I have 
largely spoken already, headed by Prince Metternich, sending 
vast sums of money to America to spread Catholicity:) and this 
was done in connexion with the periodical visits to Europe of 
American Roman Catholic prelates; as, for example. Bishop Eng- 
land's late tour. 

Roman Catholic politicians also in Europe, had avowed alike 
their ennjity to our institutions, and the fear of their influence on 
the European system of despotism. 

A high officer in the Austrian government, Schlegel, had said, 
in his Lectures on the Fhilosophy of History ^{V) " That THE 

ROPE, [Poland, Belgium, Holland, he names,] had been North 

And still more. We had been warned* by writers^ especially 
Frenchmen^ who have most freedom of all the Catholic states, 
that the priesthood of Rome would destroy our liberties, if they 
prevailed in America. De Pradt, who had certainly once heen a 
Catholic, and an Abbe, one of the first writers and politicians in 
Europe, has thus warned us: "In Ireland, Holland, and the 
United States, (Rome) does every thing by apostolic vicars, as 
in the countries of missions. This regime pleases Rome; for it 
gives her the means of being mistress everywhere. The CLERGY 
OF the United States, like that of Ireland, is very devoted to 
the Pope. It is very rigorous. In time it will give embar- 
rassment TO THE United States, as that of Ireland does 
to the British government.^'(2) 

All these, connected with an unparalleled zeal for proselytism, 
and a daily augmenting arrogance, and self-consequence among the 
priests, awakened the simultaneous attention of American citizens, 
politicians, and Christians; and, at the same time, American Epi,«- 

(1) Lecture XVIL, Vol. II. p. 286. 

(2) Modern Jesuitism, p. 305. 


copalians, Baptists, Methodists, and Congregationalists, as well as 
Presbyterians, without collusion, by the call of these concurrent 
events and disclosures, began to inquire ^'ichat can this mean?'* 
It is wholly false, however, that this coincidence was L?/ concert, 
as the Kev. gentleman has said. For, even supposing that these 
various and powerful Christian denominations could be thought 
capable of a concerted, simultaneous attack of the sort, " in New 
York, Ohio, Kentucky, and the Eastern States," it is hardly 
likely that they would have joined in "a dark consjnraci/ — to 
make the Presbyterian Church the dominant relujion of the coun' 
try f\ . . . and '^ under the pretence of a regard for civil and re- 
ligious liberty, rob the Catholics of both.'' 

And then, as to the respectable Society before which we appear, 
I hardly suppose the young gentlemen will feel much flattered by 
the charge of "being employed,'^ " though not knowingly," *'as 
tools in the hands of a combination of bigotry and malice." For 
myself, sir, the first intimation that I ever had of the existence of 
this Society, was after the question " On Civil and Religious 
Liberty" had been brought up, and debated for at least one night; 
and after the Eev. gentleman had participated in the discussion. 
It was in consequence of that very appearance of his, at this Hall, 
that I was asked to attend and meet him, (a week after,) in case 
he should finally consent to debate again. This was on Friday, 
when I was on the eve of a journey to New York. On the next 
Wednesday I received official notice that Mr. Hughes had com- 
mitted himself to appear again. Then it was, that I addressed 
to him the letter which he has so ungenerously tried (though in 
vain) to distort into a contradiction. All I intended to say, in a 
hurried letter, written in a sick chamber, was this : that having 
just been officially assured, of his pledged appearance in the dis- 
cussion, (what he had promised before, what the Society hoped 
he would, and \ feared he would not do,) I then, and thus agreed 
to meet him on the pending question. What motive had I to af- 
fect ignorance of his intention ? I had, for more than a year, pub- 
licly, by a standing call, invited him to an oral discussion. He 
had all this time declined, after having abruptly and pertinaciously 
closed a former written discussion with me; and left me to carry 
it on alone. You lately had a specimen of the gentleman's reso- 
lution in debate — when this Society earnestly and unanimously 
requested us to add two evenings to each of the questions, that 
the important subjects involved might be fully examined; yet 
against our united entreaties, he did most licroically and zealously 
refuse. The gentleman is a great admirer of that prudent adage 
— " The better part of valour is disci-etion;" and if ever he re- 
deem his pledge to finish and publish this debate; — if he do not 
make reasons to decline it, to delay it, to vitiate it, I shall be 
both surprised and gratified. 

His unhappy grudge against ray gallant and able friend, the 

297 » 

Rev. Mr. M'Calla, who sometimes attends this debate, is easily 
divined by those who witnessed their late meeting in this place. 
The Rev. gentleman is so much disturbed by his presence, that I 
shall be constrained to beg him to leave the house — or at least to 
require him to turn his eyes away from my friend ; and especially 
to drop not an arrow into my quiver. 

Let me add, on these preliminary matters on which the gentle- 
man has so largely dwelt, that it was natural, manly, seasonable, 
and American^ for these young gentlemen to bring up this ques- 
tion; and the promptitude with which all the parties interested 
have agreed to examine (at Mr. Hughes's request) the relation of 
Pre^hijterian principles to civil and religious liberty, proves alike 
the liberality and justice of the Society, and the fearless candour 
and confidence of Presbyterians in the goodness of their cause. It 
puts to shame also the gentleman's cry of ijcrsecution ; for if dis- 
cussions of charges against Romanism constitute persecution, and 
intend the destruction of Roman Catholic rights, then, when the 
name shall be changed to Presbyterian, will it not be equally true 
of Presbyterians and their rights ? Do the gentleman's attacks 
on Presbyterians, intend the destruction of their rights? Does he 
intend to persecute them ? He first appeared in the debate ! He 
proposed, nay, urged, as a condition, the discussion of Presby- 
terianism ! Will he say it is retaliation ? or self-defence ? But 
the Society is not Presbyterian ; it is of no sect; and numbers 
many Catholics who consented to the original question; nay, 
aided to adopt it. No, sir; we understand this cant; and it comes 
with an ill grace from a priest of the Vatican, holding allegiance 
to the author of the crusades, and the mistress of the inquisi- 
tion, " drunk with the blood of saints." 

The gentleman has attempted to excite the public mind against 
^^ Presbyterians" — on the ground, that they were indiscriminately 
attacking ^^ foreigners.'* Sir, no men feel more, or do more for 
deserving ** foreigners" than Presbyteriaus. Does the gentleman 
forget their sympathies and co-operation in the memorable case of 
the exiled* Poles — those injured, noble men 1 Have we not hailed 
them, and loved them, and helped them, as the peculiar objects of 
the public care, as the orphans of the nation ? It is only the cor- 
rupt, degraded, intractable, that we fear. Beside what has been 
said before, let me subjoin that this is a topic on which the wise 
and good of all names, sects, and parties, both secular and reli 
gious, even now tremble ; and our various state sovereignties are 
wisely beginning to make provision againsi the immense evils 
which threaten from that quarter. Mr. Jefferson, whom the gen- 
tleman loves to quote in garbled extracts against Presbyterians, 
long ago lifted up his warning voice, saying, in his Notes on 
Virginia — " To these [the principles of our government] nothing 
can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. 
Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. 



They will bring with them the principles of the governments they 
have imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, 
it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, 
as is usual, from one extreme to another In propor- 
tion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. 
They will in/use into it thiir spirit, warp and bias its directions, 
and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass/' 
"When we add to this almost prophetic language (whose fuljQl- 
ment is now daily transpiring before our eyes, in all our large 
cities) the fact, that so many of the emigrants come from papal 
countries, and bring with them, or meet here, Jesuit priests, who 
are ex officio monarchists, and stifle, as it rises in the bosom of 
the people, the love of liberty, we may well be excused for a wise 
fear of impending danger to our free institutions. 

I fear, sir, yoti are already impatient at these prefatory matters; 
yet, as the gentleman has introduced them, I must meet them. 
As to the charge of following " Faber" in falsifying the decrees, 
&c. of the church, I refer this body to my full exposure of these 
slanders on a previous evening; and to the several reversed cases, 
in which I convicted him of falsifying me, and of garbling divers 
authorities to suit his own purposes. 

And then as to the rules : I agreed to use the decree of a Gene- 
ral Council, the brief or bull of a Pope, the Catechism of the 
Council of Trent, and the admitted doctrines of a pope, in proof; 
it being understood that each party was to prove that what was 
used was a doctrine. I appeal to the train of my arguments, and 
to the decision of the chair, already given, whether I have violated 
these rules. The Rev. gentleman agreed that the Westminster 
Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, under the care 
of the General Assembly in the United States, should be his 
source of proof Yet you will perceive, from every allusion 
almost which he makes, that he is perfectly reckless as to this 
rule. The gentleman has an intermittent sensibility of con- 
science about the rules, which fluctuates, with amusing alternacy, 
from one side to the other. When we were probing tflie Roman 
hierarchy, he was often crying aloud for " rules'^ — '* rules." 
Now, while he charges me with deviation, what does he do? 
I ofiered him the broad question of Protestantism, as exhibited in 
the twelve creeds issued at the Reformation. He refused; and 
chose the Presbyterian Church, and its Confession of Faith, as 
held by us. I agreed joyfully to that selection; and so the rules 
fixed it. Yet now we find him running for proof to the Congrega- 
tional churches of New England, and then to the Reformed Dutch 
Church ; and then to the Covenanters ; and then to the churches 
of Scotland, Holland, England, Geneva, &c. ! Now, it is true, 
that all these churches are, or wei-e, Calvinistic — as we shall pre- 
sently see ; and most of them are Fresbyteria7i. But it is to the 
doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, under the government of the 


General Asscmhli/ in the United States, that lie agreed to con- 
fine himself. Here he finds scarcely o. point on which to alight: 
therefore he goes to other com amnions and other continents. 
For example, he charges Presbyterians with burning '' the Con- 
vent'' Now the charge is too base to be replied too — in the name 
of our Protestant brethren of Massachusetts. But there is not a 
Presbyterian Church, nor, as far as I know, member, within ten 
miles square of jBostow. It is, therefore, not "a sophism," as 
the gentleman says, but " a truism," that '' the New England 
colonies were not Presbyterian," and their descendants are not — 
diough nearly allied to them in their general principles, and in 
the noble love of liberty and divine truth. 

It may be as proper here, as anywhere, to say that the 
American churches (we mean of course Protestant) stand in a 
very peculiar relation to their European progenitors. The Euro- 
pean Protestant Churches are Protestant in regard to Rome. 
The American Protestant Churches are so in respect of esta- 
blished religions, as well as in regard to Rome. This peculiarity 
exists in North America alone. For example : in England, the 
Episcopal church is established by law ; in Scotland, the Pres- 
hyterian. But in this country, no American Presbyterian or 
Episcopalian can approve of those establishments; nor are these 
churches branches of the parent stock in this respect ; nor can 
they tolerate or have any fellowship with an establishment as 
such. The American system disclaims all /orce as a means of 
preserving unity, and as a means of maintaining and extending 
the visible church. We deny and reject the right of the civil 
magistrate to legislate for the conscience. That is the preroga- 
tive of God alone. Nor has the majority the right to do it for 
the minority. iVmerican Protestant Christians, as citizens, have 
declared this to be their system in their American constitutions; 
and, with equal explicitness, in their creeds and public formula- 
ries. In this the Presbyterian Church has ever held a most con- 
spicuous position, and taken a decided part. The pages of our 
standards stare the gentleman full in the face, and bespeak him a 
slanderer, in a hundred paragraphs, which he declares the reverse. 

Thus,(l) it is thus written : — " They (that is, Presbyterians) 
are unanimously of opinion, that God alone is Lord of the con- 
science, and hath left it free from the doctrine and commandments 
of men, which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it 
in matters of faith and worship : there/ore, they consider the rights 
of private Judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as uni- 
versal and unalienable ; they do not even wish to see any reli- 
gious constitution, aided by the civil power, further than may be 
necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, BE 


(1) On page 343, Form of Government, Chap. I., Sect. I. 


Again ;(1) civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the 
administration of the word and sacraments ; or the iiower of the 
Jceijs of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in mat- 
ters of faith. Yet, " as nursing fathers,"(2) it is the duty of civil 
magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without 
giving the prefej'ence to any denomination of Christians above 
the rest, in such a manner, that all ecclesiastical persons what- 
ever shall enjoy the full , free, and unquestioned liberty of din- 
charging every 2oart of their sacred functions, without violence 
or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath ajjpointed a regular 
government and discipline in his church, no laic of any com- 
monwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise 
thereof among the voluntary members of any denomination of 
Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is 
the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name 
of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person 
be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or infidelity, to offer 
any indignity, violence, abuse or injury to any other perswi 
whatsoever; and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical 
assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance." This 
covers all; no less Catholics, than Protestants; and, it is pro- 
tection, not MERELY TOLERATION. 

Here are surely some pretty explicit declarations — of the full 
and equal rights of all denominations — and the utter rejection of 
all establishments. And this is the general position of the Ame- 
rican Protestant Churches. This is the American system — Ame- 
rican Protestantism ; or, more properly speaking, a return to that " 
position in which Christ and his apostles left the church, and 
which she maintained while she continued in the purity of the 
faith, and until corrupted by union with the state. 

Now, if the gentleman will show me one such principle in all 
his creeds, decrees, missals, bulls, briefs and canons, I will own 
that he is right, and I am wrong. Let us for a moment inquire 
how all this is with respect to Rome. The gentleman says his 
church is infallible and unchangeable: the same, therefore, in 
Rome, Spain, and North America. Protestant American churches 
have de?wunced and divorced the alliance of church and state. 
They have adopted American principles. But American Papists 
change not. They cannot change. Therefore, the genius of the 
church, and the institutions of the church, here, and in Europe, 
are the same. The Pope, their spiritual head, is the temporal 
head of a state; a monarch; elected by cardinals, that j)opes 
appoint. It is church and state united ; and all priests, and all 
papists, owe allegiance to this monarch of spiritual and temporal 

(1) Pages 105, 106, Of the Civil Magistrate, Chap. XXIIL, Sect. 3. 

(2) And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing 
mother^. — Isaiah, chap, xlix., ver. 23. 


/Jungs mixed ; and are under this universal head. And that said 
head, the Pope, in his last universal circular , thus writes: — 
^'Nor can we augur more consoling consequences to religion and 
to government, from the zeal of some to separate the church 


PRIESTHOOD TO THE EMPIRE. For it is clear that this union ^'is 
di^eaded hy the PROFANE LOVERS OF LIBERTY, onli/hecanse it has 
never failed to co)tfer jprosperity on both." Here it is plain that 
the Pope declares it profane to sunder this tie. He honestly an- 
nounces a papal doctrine; and no consistent Catholic can decline 
the authority announcing, or the pri}icip>le promulgated. 

Again, he says, ^^May this our zeal for the welfare of religion 
and, public order ^ (we see what he considers ^ established order 
in a state,') acquire aid and authority from the princes^ our 
dearest sons in Christ, who, let them, reflect, have received their 
poiver, not merely for their temporal ride, BUT CHIEFLY FOR THE 
PROTECTION OF THE CHURCH." If, bccausc Dr. Ely, the clerk 
(iiot the secretary of state) of the General Assembly, in his pri- 
vate capacity, being a busy, loquacious man, talked about ^^ a 
Christian party in politics," the Presbyterian Church is accused 
by Mr. Hughes of aiming at an establishment; then what will he 
say to this officicd and direct avowal of the propriety and neces- 
sity of an establishment, by the. reigning Pope ! And, if we are 
to be charged with holding to a theocracy, because, as Isaiah said, 
so say we, riders should be ^^ nursing fathers" to the church, what 
will the gentleman do with the Pope's avowal, that the protection 
of the Catholic Church is the chief end of rulers, and that the Pope 
is the father of ^^ princes, his dearest sons?" 

The result is clearly this, that the Church of Rome every- 
where, is one, and unchangeable ; that, at Home, it not only 
courts, but enjoins the union of church and state; and that, 
therefore, what the head and centre holds, the branch holds also 
in this land; and, hence, the Koraan Catholic Church in Ame- 
rica is anti-American, anti-liberal; and, in order to take the 
right, or the safe ground, and to secure the confidence of the 
American people, American Catholics must declare themselves 
independent of Rome; and change their doctrines on the subject 
of civil and religious liberty. 

Again ; it follows, from the above exposition, that whatever 
principles or practices the gentleman may have found in European 
Presbyterians opposed to civil and religious liberty, yet the}' 
attach not to American Presbyterians. That some such things 
existed, we own; we regret them; we denoufice them. They 
were learned from Home; they were only as a " drop in the 
bucket" compared to Rome. But they are not ours; and the 
American Presbyterian Church is stainless on this subject — both 
in principle and practice. 

But, the gentleman says, we were forced to change: as fol- 


lows, viz. — *^ After the revolution in this countrj, these tenets 
(of the ^yestminster Confession, making heresy punishable by 
law) hitherto held as having been revealed by Almighty God, 
were also discarded, as being unsuited to the soil of new-born 

liberty and of equal rights/' " The Confession of Faith is 

forthwith amended to suit the constitution and the new order of 
things." " Presbyterianism, awed by the genius of the country, 
is compelled to do violence to its nature, and profess that liberality 
which it does not feel, and cannot practise." These truly are 
fine specimens of the "charity" about which the meek and loving 
man preached, with so much pathos, at the opening of his ha- 
rangue. But observe; he owns, in the very basis of the argu- 
ment, that our Confession is now riglU: that it has ^'■discarded" 
its objectionable ^^ tenets;'* and stands ^^ amended to suit the 
constitution, and the new order of things.'* Very well. So far 
it is good; and, by his own confession, right. For this uncon- 
scious admission, which settles the question in dispute, we de- 
voutly thank him. And now, if Rome will only change too, 
and *' adapt herself to the new order of things," we will not ask 
her why, or abuse her for the blessed ^^ amendment.'* 

But again ; he has repeatedly said that the clause in our Larger 
Catechism, (1) which ^^ requires every one, according to his j^lace 
and calling, to remove all the monuments of idolatry," is a per- 
secuting clause, and distinctly points to force against the papacy. 
He also charges the Reformed Dutch Church, and the Cove- 
nanters, with retaining persecuting articles, even until now. If 
so, how does it happen that the " constitution" did not force a 
change? Did the constitution " compel us to do violence to our 
nature," and " amend the Confession to suit the new order of 
things?" The gentleman says so. Then there can be no perse- 
cution in it ! But he says there is. Then we did not do what 
we did, in the way of change, " by force," and '■'■ against our na- 
ture;" for here, he says, is persecution ^^ still." Here is a flat 
contradiction. But still further. The changes in the Confession of 
Faith were made before the adoption of the American "Constitu- 
tion." The men that legislated and fought for American freedom — 
for the whole term of the American war — they were the men who 
altered one or two clauses in the Confession of their Faith before 
the adoption of the American Constitution. " Father Green," as 
the gentleman calls him, and well does he deserve it of his coun- 
try and his church, carried his musket; and, as a chaplain, in the 
rebel array, preached freedom, civil and religious. And the 
father of the sai(! Dr. Miller, whose heavy bloics on " the beast 
and the bull that has turned to gore us," make him so hateful to 
my Reverend friend ; I say, his father preached freedom, and 
nhelliori, as Rome would call it, at the origin of the revolution. 

(1) Page 217, Ans. to 108 Ques. 


Ask the country, and ask the American army ; ask the British 
leaders, where the Presbyterians were ? How they felt ? How 
they fought ? Ask Tarleton ! Ask the American Congress how 
Washington felt, and thought. No, sir. There was no force 
about it. The American Constitution was the effect of Puritan 
and Presbyterian love of civil and religious liberty, as much per- 
haps, as of any other cause ; and, I repeat it, our present Con- 
fession was adopted before the American Constitution. And, until 
we change back, by the gentleman's own logic, we are *' suited 
to the new order of things," which we helped, with all our 
power, under God, to produce. 

We pass, as it is here in place, to consider the gentleman's 
argument from the y«c^ of the change. We own that a change was 
necessary, in all or nearly all the European Protestant Confessions 
on the point of estahlishments^ and of religious freedom. We 
own that Presbyterians of Scotland, Holland, and Geneva, as well 
as Episcopalians of England, and Catliolica everywhere, needed 
to change their principles on the right of the civil magistrate to 
legislate for conscience. We Presbyterians did change he/ore 
the American Constitution was adopted. Episcopalians changed. 
Have Catholics? No. The gentleman says they cannot. Nay, 
he argues against our change. He says, ^'may they not discover 
that they are now in error, and recall the doctrines of the magis- 
irate s power ^ and the sin of tolerating a false religion f" . . . . 
^^They do not pretend to he infallible.'' . . . . ^' There is reason to 
believe they will [change back] when it can he done with safety.'' 

Now when I charged Romanism with persecuting what it calls 
^^ false religions," not merely to the " cropping of ears" but by 
the critsades and inquisitions founded on decrees of councils and 
bulls of popes, destroying many millions of lives, he said "Oh, IT 
WAS ONLY DISCIPLINE," " not doctrine." How does it come that 
" not to tolerate a false religion" with us *'is DOCTRINE?" You 
see his consistency ! But to the argument. If we, he'mgfallihle, 
may change to wrong, when right, can Catholics, believing them- 
selves infcdlihle, if wrong, ever become right f I have proved 
for six long nights of unanswered arguments, that in doctrine and 
discipline they do persecute, and ever have done it. Hence they 
must be so forever ; for he says they cannot change. Therefore 
they are now what they were on St. Bartholomew's night, at the 
Council of Constance, in the crusades, in the inquisition ; and 
they are in A7nerica, what they are in Spain, in Portugal, in Goa, 
and at Home. Fatal logic to the gentleman's cause ! Yet it is his 
own reasoning. Now we own that we are fallible, and therefore 
may change. But we claim no right to do wrong. We claim 
no right to change to a renounced error. Till we change we are 
owned by him to be right. When we change back to Rome's 
principles, then the gentleman will love us more. Till 'then the 
slanderous charges and false logic of the gentleman will be es- 



timated on the same standard which can claim infallihility to the 
worst men that ever cursed the earth; and which glories to give 
eternity to error, by refusing to change even from had to (/oodj 
from uroiig to right, from slavery i^ freedom. 

One of the most remarkable instances of audacity in assertion, 
is his charging a ^'■theocracy ' on Presbyteiians, and ''indeed on 
all the Calvinistic sects." I know no motive for this, but the 
advantage of ^^ calling hard names' first. Why, sir, the whole 
system of popery is one grand consolidated theocracy, corrupting 
and then extending the Jeioish system to the 2L-hole icorld. Does 
not the pope claim to be '' father of princes," '' vicar of Christ," 
"head of the Universal Chvrch," above all civil power, and as 
we have showed abundantly on the previous question, '^a god on 
earth?" Even the famous writer llobinson,(l) adduced by the 
gentleman against Fresbyterians, says, " The canon law is a 
body of high treason against the rights and consciences of man- 
kind." (2) The canon law is Rome's magna charta. He says 
too, (3) " The pojje's public j)oIitical end was to be the absolnte 
rider of all the priesthood ; and through them of all mankind." 
And, again, (4) " It is a Jewish Christianity, having in it the 
seeds of a hierarchy ; "they sunk t\\epeoj)le to elevate the order:" 
"the order created a master like Aaron," &c.; and again, "If this 
dispute had been only about the right of wearing bells and pome- 
granates, as Aaron had done, and a breastplate that nobody but a 
Jew could read, it might have created mirth ; but it took a very 
serious turn when it -was perceived that Aaron had under all his 
fine things, a KNIFE and a Bl,OOD-basin." De Pradt says "Je- 
suitism is EMPIRE BY RELIGION." .... "The general of the 
Jesuits is a veritable king." The Pope is master of the general. 
He says, " It is organized intolerance." ...."' Who is chief 
of this immense family, this militia present everywhere? The 
Pope. Me counts more subjects than any sovereign ; more than 
even mof??^ sovereigns together." .... " if the whole A\ orld 
were Catholic, the pope would command the world." . . . 
When we add to these shocking truths that the Catholics number 
120 millions, and have one and only one common centre, and boast 
of their unity and indivisibility, and common j)'>'inciples, it be- 
comes truly terrific. De Pradt says " Catholicism is^not orga.-aized 
like other worships. l^he latter have no common centre — no 
exclusive source from lohence fiows poicer in every relimous 
society. They have no Home. "(5) Protestants are incap'^ble, 
if they icould, of consolidation. Catholics cannot exist loiz-^iovt 
it. When it ceases, the system ceases. When, therefore, the 
gentleman talks of a theocracy, and says it endangers civiS and 

(1) Eccles. Researches. (2) Page 142. 

(3) Page 163. (4) Page 12L 

(5) See Modern Jesuitism, passim. 


religious liberty, we wonder at his temerity; we rejoice in his 
admissions; and turn his principles back upon his own ^^ eternal 
city/* Where the great tyrant reigns in the name of God, "call- 
ing himself God" on the ruins of religion, liberty and law. 

The gentleman has said so much about the spirit of European 
Prcshyterians, that it may not be amiss to examine this matter a 
little, and see what others thought of our venerable ancestors. 
While, as we have said, we own they brought out of Home a 
remnant of her spirit, yet they have ever been foremost, in each 
age, in the love and defence of human liberty. Dryden, who has 
done so much with his sarcastic pen for popery, in his political 
poem, called '^llie Hind and I^anther," thus traces the origin 
of republicanism. Observe, the Hind was the Romish Church; 
the English Church was the Panther; the Ereshf/terian the 
Wolf; the kennel, Geneva; the puddle, its beautiful lake, and 
the wallj its noble mountains. 

'Last of all, the litfci- 'scaped by chance, 
And from Geneva iirst infested France. 
Some autlrors thus his pedigree will trace, 
But others write him of an upstart race; 
Because of Wickliff's brood no mark he brings. 
But his innate A^^TIPATHY to kings. 
AVhat tho' your native kennel still be small. 
Bounded between a puddle and a wall? 
Yet your victorious colonies are sent, 
Where the North-ocean girds the continent. 
Quickened with fire below your monster's breed 
In fenny Holland, and in fruitful Tweed; 
And like the first, the last efFects to bo 
Draion to the dref/s of a democracy. 
But as the poisons of the deadliest kind 
Are to their unhappy coast confined, 
So Presbytery and its pestilential zeal, 
Can flourish only in a comjionweal." 

This is the good, honest testimony of a Papist. It needs no 
comment. Surely Dryden did not think Presbyterianism and re- 
publics at war with each other! 

Again; listen to Dean Swift. In a sermon, preached on " the 
Martyrdom of Charles II.," he said, " Upon the cruel persecu- 
tions raised against the Protestants under Queen Mary, among 
the great number who fled the kingdom to seek for shelter, 
several icent and resided at Geneva, ichich is a commonwealth, 
governed without a Icing, lohere the religion contrived hij Calvin 
is without the order of bishops. When the Protestant faith was 
restored by Queen Elisabeth, those who fled to Geneva returned 
among the rest home to England, and were grown so fond of the 
government arid religion of the place they had left, that they 
used all possible endeavours to introduce both into their own 


^' From hence they proceeded by degrees to quarrel with the 
KINGLY GOVERNMENT, because, as I have already said, the city 
of Geneva, to which their fathers had flown, for refuge, was a 
coliwiomcealth, or government of the ]^eople ! !" Here is the testi- 
mony of a Tory and h'igh-churchman ! Surely the Dean differed 
with our Papist priest about Presbyter ianism and liberty! 

And then, as to "Mr." Luther and " Mr," Calvin, especially 
the latter! w)iy, Mr. President, these upstart Jesuits, who have 
never learned as much, ''with all their philosophy" and monarchy, 
as Calvin forgot — I do not wonder that they hate his memory. 
He was not infaHible. He is not our ^' Pope." We condemned 
him for his conduct to Servetus. It has been much exaggerated, 
and they only did at Geneva, what the Papists tried to do, but 
failed, at Vienne. Yet it was very wrong. But, if one victim 
makes Geneva so vile, what shall we say of the millions of the 
victims of papal crusades and inquisitions? Has the gentleman 
forgot? or does he adopt the famous principle — "one murder 
makes a villain" "millions a hero!" 

Hooker, the immortal defender of Episcopacy, says, of Calvin, 
in his Preface to his " Ecclesiastical Polity," on the origin of 
popular Church government, " that he was incomparably the 
wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy" — that in 
Exposition of the Scriptures, " the perfectest divines in the Re- 
formed Churches were judged to be they who were skilfulest in 
Calvin's writings, his books being almost the very canon to judge 
both doctrine and discipline by." 

And our own eminent and admirable historian, Bancroft, though 
himself a Unitarian, thus writes — not only of Calvin, but Calvin- 
ists, and of American Caloinists! 

" They who have no admiration but for wealth and rank, can 
never admire the Genevan Reformer, for though he possessed the 
richest mind of his age, he never emerged from the limits of frugal 
poverty. The rest of us may be allowed to reverence his virtues, 
and regret his errors. He lived in a day when nations were 
shaken to their centre by the excitement of the Reformation, 
when the fields of Holland and France were wet with the carnage 
of persecution; when vindictive monarchs on one side threatened 
all Protestants with outlawry and death, and the Vatican on the 
other sent forth its anathemas and its cry for blood. In that day, 
it is too true, the influence of an ancient, long-established, hardly 
disputed error, the constant danger of his position, the intensest 
desire to secure union among the antagonists of popery, the en- 
grossing consciousness that his struggle was for the emancipation 
of the Christian world, induced the great Reformer to defend the 
use of the sword for the extirpation of error. Reprobating and 
lamenting his adhesion to the cruel doctrine, which all Christen- 
dom had for centuries implicitly received, we may, as republicans, 
remember that Calvin was not only the founder of a sect, but fore- 


most among the most efficient of modern republican legislators. 
More truly benevolent to the human race than Solon, more self- 
denying than Lycurgus, the genius of Calvin infused enduring 
elements into the institutions of Geneva, ^and made it for the 
modern world the impregnable fortress of popular liberty, the fer- 
tile seed-plot of democracy. 

"Again; we boast of our common schools; Calvin was the 
father of popular education, the inventor of the system of free 

" Again ; we are proud of the free states that fringe the 
Atlantic. The pilgrims of Plymouth were Calvinists; the best 
influence in South Carolina came from the Calvinists of France; 
Wm. Penn was the disciple of the Huguenots. The ships from 
Holland, that first brought colonists to Manhattan^ were filled 
with Calvinists. He that will not honour the memory and 
respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of 
American liberty. 

'^ Or do personal considerations chiefly win applause ? Then 
no one merits our symyathy and our admiration more than Calvin; 
the young exile from Prance, who achieved an immortality of fame 
before he was twenty-eight years of age; now boldly reasoning 
with the King of France for religious liberty; now venturing as 
the apostle of truth to carry the new doctrines into the heart of 
Italy ; and now hardly escaping from the fury of papal persecu- 
tion ; the purest writer, the keenest dialectician of his age; push- 
ing free inquiry to its utmost verge, and yet valuing inquiry only 
as the means of arriving at fixed principles. The light of his 
genius scattered the mask of darkness which superstition had 
held for centuries before the brow of religion. His probity was 
unquestioned; his morals spotless. His only happiness consisted 
in 'tasks of glory and of good;' for sorrow found its way into 
all his private relations. He was an exile from his country; he 
became, for a season, an exile frOm his place of exile. As a hus- 
band, he was doomed to mourn the premature loss of his wife; as 
a father, he felt the bitter pang of burying his only child. Alone 
in the world, alone in a strange land, he went forward in his 
career with serene resignation and inflexible firmness; no love of 
ease turned him aside from his vigils ; no fear of danger relaxed 
the nerve of his eloquence ; no bodily infirmities checked the in- 
credible activity of his mind; and so he continued, year after 
year, solitary and feeble, yet toiling for humanity, till, after a 
life of glory, he bequeathed to his personal heirs a fortune in 
books and furniture, stocks and money, not exceeding two 
hundred dollars, and to the world a purer reformation, a repub- 
lican spirit in religion, with the kindred principles of republican 

How impartial, how true, how noble. How such light dazzles 
as it discloses the " bats" of the gloomy Vatican ! ! ! 


"We come, at length, to the gentleman's famous '^ argumentum 
ad captandum," on " decrees" and " election." He has truly 
given a sad caricature of our system, and then denied to us even 
the right of 'disclaimer," and to our doctrine the hcnefit of 
clergy^ and decent burial in holy ground. He raises two argu- 
ments — but they are one. The first is — '' that the doctrine, 
that whatever comes to jjass, is foreordained unchangeably/' is 
destructive of free agency, and therefore of moral freedom, and 
therefore of civil and religious liberty. The other is its neces- 
sary corollary : viz., that "the making of eternal happiness or 
misery to depend upon the decrees of God, without conditions of 
faith and good works," destroys motives to duty, and therefore 
all regard for the rights of others. The very statement of the 
argument shows, that the gentleman was hard rim for matter. 
We are not now on the truth, but the tendency of these doctrines ; 
yet, if they be true, (not as distorted by a Jesuit, but as spread 
olit in our standards,) this must disprove the tendency charged on 
them by him, as well as exhibit him in a light of shocking pro- 
fanity and presumption. I will not argue the truth of these doc- 
trines, as that is not the question; but since the gentleman has an 
infallible interpreter always present on earth, I beg, in reply, that 
he will tell us what he makes of the following passages: " Him 
being delivered by the determinaie counsel and foreknowledge of 
God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and 
slain." — Acts ii. 23. "Thou couldst have no power at all 
against me, except it were given thee from above ; therefore, he 
that delivered me unto thee, hath the greater sin." — John xix. 11. 
Here the sin is made the greater, by the certainty and divinity of 
the decree. Also, Ephes. i. 11 ; Roms. ix. 10-24 ; Ephes. i. 
2—4. A candid Hicksite once said to me in debate, "Paid cer- 
tainly agreed with thee." Paul's is surely good company. 
Where this gentleman will put him, I am at a loss to deter- 

Now, as to the tendency of these doctrines, we hold, and so our 
standards abundantly declare, that so far from making men unholy, 
the moment a man freely adopts them, he is humbled, purified, 
and made a Christian. We also hold, that it is only by the power 
of God a man can be made or kept holy; and we also hold, that 
God's decrees establish, instead of destroying moral freedom. 
That good works flow from God's decrees; and that, "without 
holiness, no man shall see the Lord;" and it is because ^^ the 
Lord worketh in us," " that we work out our salvation with 
fear and trembling." We think the means are predestinated, as 
well as the end. As Paul told the creiv of the shij) that not one 
of them should be lost; and yet, after that, he said, if the 
men left the ship, all would be lost; so we hold, as to the means 
and the end. Good works, therefore, are a part of the system ; 
not as causes, but as effects ; not as merit, but as fruit ; not as 


conditions, but as means. The doctrine, on the contrary, of pa- 
pal merits, we hold, not only dishonours Christ, but tempts men 
to licentiousness and self-dependence; and the whole system of 
penance, indulgences, confession, unction, remission by priests, 
purgatory, prayers for the dead, supererogation, and the mass, is 
vile human patdixcorh — to fill the pockets of the priests, and 
cheat the souls of the people. Well have these hocus-pocus arts 
and heathen exorcisms been described — 

" Supplied with spiriUial provision 
And magazines of ammunition, 
With crosses, relics, crucifixes, 

Beads, pictures, rosaries, and pixes, n 

The tools of working out salvation 
By mere mechanic operation." 

How finely contrasted with this system of self-salvation, is the 
description given by Sir James Macintosh :(1) '' It was fortunate 
also, that the enormities of Tetzel" \the Pope's retaikr of indul- 
gences'] " found Luther busied in the contemplation of the princi- 
ple, which is the basis of all ethical judgment, and by the power 
of which he struck a mortal blow at superstition:" namely, "men 
are not made truly righteous by performing certain actions which 
are extcrnall}/ good, but men must have righteous principles in 
the first place; and then they will not fail to perform virtuous ac- 
tions." He calls it "a proposition equally certain and 
SUBLIME;" and adds, that Luther, in a more sp)ccial a2)plication 
of his principle, used it to convey his doctrine of jastijication by 
faith.'' And again says, "in justice to him, the cioil his- 
torian should never omit the benefits which accrued to the moral 

interests of society from this principle." This principle is 

the merit of Christ made ours by the power of God working faith 
in us; and by union to Christ, making us free from guilt and pol- 
lution. To this Christians are by God's decree predestinated. 
This secures moral liberty, and moral rectitude; makes a man "a 
law unto himself" — and, therefore, a good citizen; the freest, no- 
blest, and most just of men. 

But let us pass h'om principles to facts. Who held these doc- 
trines ? Why Augustin, and the flower of the papacy. And at the 
Ileformatiou, the whole of Protestant Europe ! The twelve creeds 
of the Reformers, uttered by many millions in the same illustrious 
age, from Germany, Switzerland, Holland, France, England, and 
Scotland, were all, all what you term " Calvinistic.'' And they 
were the most free, and most virtuous millions of all Europe. 

Who are Caloinists «c»MJ-a-days? Why, not only the Presby- 
terians of Europe and America, but the great mass of the Congre 

(1) History of England, Vol. 11. pp. 120-1. 


gationalists of New and of Old England; the Baptists, as a body, 
of both continents; and the articles of the Episcopal churches, on 
both sides of the Atlantic, if not all their clergy. And our Me- 
thodist brethren, the potent and dreaded enemies of popery every- 
where, disclaim and abhor the " merit-system," and '^ salvation by 
words" — of priest-craft, though they reject the peculiar doctrines 
of Calvinism. Now, the appeal is to facts. Are not these Cal- 
vinistic masses of men among the purest and freest upon earth? 
Nay, is there a nation on eai-th that is not grossly corrupt, and 
deeply enslaved, in which there is not a strong leaven of Cal- 
vinism? There, then, is your false logic; and here are my tri- 
umphant facts: for whose truth, I appeal to the history of virtue, 
liberty, and man. 

Finally, it is curious that the Council of Trent has contradicted 
itself flatly in its decree on this subject; and, as Father. Paul, a 
Catholic, has told us (1) that on predestination and freewill it did 
not agree; and could not agree. Two large parties, the Domi- 
nicans and Franciscans, quarrelled over the mea/iiing of the decree; 
and to this day, it is a contradictory system, evidently shaped with 
unitt/ of icorcls, and contrarieiy oi doctrine. In fact, they would 
not admit, and they could not wholly stifle, the truth. 

As to being the "exclusive favourites" of heaven, our princi- 
ples, as already quoted, falsify the charge. It is true, we hold 
Rome to be apostate from God. But our creed avows that '' all 
men are to be protected in the exercise of their religion," true or 
false; and we embrace Rome in our piti/, and "all who hold the 
head" in our Christian fellowsliijo. Complaints of bigotry from a 
Roman priest, if they were sincere, were cheering truly; for here- 
tofore papists have excluded even unhaptized infants from hea- 
ven; and the Catholic creed expressly says "out of the true 
Catholic faith [not out of the pale of the Church] none 
CAN BE SAVED." But all Protestants are out of both pale and 

I regret the gentleman is not pleased with my illustration of 
the "hen." I adapted my figures to my friend. The Ameri- 
can eagle spreads too free a pinion to descend to a papal quarry. 
Besides, the Pope has been legislating lately about the use of 
eggs on days of abstinence; which brought the good dame to my 
mind. But I truly hope there is no oflence, at least with the 
poor fowl — for I should fear that the next orders from Rome will 
not only forbid us to eat, but her to lay her eggs. If, however, 
my Rev. friend would like a graver fowl, and a fitter exemplar, I 
would respectfully remind him that Rome was ovce before saved 
hy the cackling of a goose. 

We shall, in our next, reply to his last question, about Presby- 
terians abusing power when they had it. 

(1) Hist. Counc. Trent, Book II. 


We 710W close, as ice have not room to go on with that ques- 
tion, hy asking that gentleman to iell me of one 'people under 
heaven, for the ages on ages in which papacy prevailed over the 
world, of one country where Roman Catholics ever had the power 
to persecute, and did not do it; or one country in those ages 
that was, or in this age, that now is really free, where Roman 
Catholics have the majority. 


'*is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or all its principles or 
doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty?" 


I AM far from supposing, Mr. President, that the good sense of 
this meeting, will be satisfied with the gentleman's mere decla- 
mation, instead of the/«c^s and reasoning, which it had a right to 
expect, and with which he had promised to astound the nation. 
I may characterize his speech justly, by saying of it, that what is 
new is not true, and what true is not neiv. I do not complain 
that Catholics are persecuted by Presbyterians in the sense in 
which he would represent. But I complain of their disposition 
and efforts to bring about a persecution. Thanks to the better 
genius of the age and country, they have not yet succeeded. 

The cause to which the gentleman ascribes the present excite- 
ment against Catholics, for exercising the rights of conscience, is 
not the true cause. He says that, in as much as poor foreigners, 
escaping from the oppressions of their various countries, seek an 
asylum on these shores, ''American Episcopalians, Baptists, 
Methodists, and congregationalists as loell as Frei^byterians," 
are guarding the coast against the landing of the emigrant who 
comes to better his condition, and to breathe, as he supposed, 
the air of religious and civil freedom. He is a foreigner, as 
all of us have been, either in ourselves or in our ancestors, but 
his son will be an American, and his grandson will wear gold 
spectacles. He may be poor, but is this a reason why ^'ministers 
of the gosp)el," should denounce him ? He may be ignorant, but 
does not this strengthen his claim to our pity and humanity? 
Should we not rejoice that he and his posterity are transplanted into 
a region, where human rights are recognised; and that a race of 
victims have been rescued from the present, and prospective, 
grasp of iron-handed despotism, both civil and religious. But he 
is a Catholic; that is, he worships God, according to the dictates 
of his conscience, — and has he not a right to do so ? And shall we 
be told that all the other Protestant denominations join the Presby- 
terians in denouncing him for this ? I do not believe the assertion. 
He comes to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, to tanie the 
forests, and to make the highways of commerce through the very 
cornfields, by canals and railways; and is this an injury to your 
country? But he is a Catholic, ignorant and vicious; then teach 


him virtue hy exampley and if this will not do, teach him hy the 
laws. But the accusation is a calumny: the great body of Catho- 
lic emigrants, exposed as they are, are industrious, hard-working 
people, who live, not by knavery , but by their daily toil. And 
the vicious among them, are themselves the victims of their own 
folly and wickedness. This plea, therefore, for the pretended 
combination of all Protestant denominations is equally unfounded 
and absurd. 

But there are "foreign associations in aid of Catholic missiona- 
ries." And so there are here, — for the aid and support of foreign 
Protestant missions. Of which then, on the score of political 
economy, has the country more reason to complain — of those who 
send the money out of the country, or of those who bring it in ? 
The receipts of the American Bible Society, since its commence- 
ment to the year 1830, have been $909,291.15, ;ilmost a million 
of dollars. The receipts of the Board of Foreign Missions, in 
1834, was $152,386.10.(1) This society has been in operation 
for twenty-five years, and the whole sum expended by it, in 
FOREIGN missions, is probably not less than two millions. All 
that was ever received by Catholics from foreign sources together^ 
would not equal in amount the annual income of the American 
Board of Foreign Missions. It is an injury, therefore, that for 
all the money which they send out of the country, the Catholics 
should bring a little in ? But they build colleges with it. Well, 
that only proves that they are the friends of education ; and are 
the friends of education, the enemies of freedom ? Education 
ought not to be a Preshylcrian monopoly — we do not burn down 

tlieir houses of education. But " European despots" 

The Catholic religion has flourished in de&iylte of them ; it can 
flourish without them. They are its enemies at home, and we 
cannot expect them to be its friends abroad. But the " Leopold- 
INE foundation" — What of it? Its members, very limited in 
number, choose to tax themselves about one cent a week, in aid 
of foreign missions in America. And supposing all the people of 
Europe were to do the same, it would only . . . bring more money 
into the country. Yes, but it is to aid in spreading Catholicity, 
And is Protestantism afraid of being bought out? The Preshyteri- 
ans seem to think so. But " Prince Metternicii," the gentleman 
tells you, "sends vast sums for the spread of Catholicity." 
I am aware that the gentleman is not original in making this as- 
sertion, and I have the less difiiculty, on this account, in pronoun- 
cing it to be, what it is, a jjositive falsehood. I challenge his 
proof. But "Bishop England" has made a "late tour" in Europe, 
and of course he was about no good. And pray, is the policy OP 
China to be adopted, by the American people, that a citizen may 
not go when and vjhere he pleases? According to the gentleman's 

(1) See Report, page 44 


apprehension of things, Rome is the '^beau ideal" of civil and 
religious despotism, and yet in Rome, as elsewhere, the institutions 
of America, found in Bishop England not only a willing, but a 
willing and able advocate. It is true that the burning of the 
CONVENT gave the advocates of absolutism a momentary advantage 
over him, but it was only until he had time to discriminate between 
the genius of our institutions, and that dark, cold, remnant of Cal- 
vinistic bigotry, which the sun of our government has not been 
able to thaw into humanity, or enlighten into virtue. 

But " Schlegel, in his Lectures on the Philosophy of History," 
says that the " nursery of all the revolutions that occurred in 
Europe, has been North America." To be sure, — and he says 
the fact. And a fact of which '' North America" is not ashamed. 
Nay, it is her boast. On the fourth day of July, every year, 
this very fact makes every tongue, east and west of the Alleghany, 
eloquent with liSerty and patriotism. 

As for the " Je8UITs," there are a few facts in their history, 
which make me appreciate the united compliment the gentle- 
man pays me, when he represents me as their '' defender." One 
is, that they have done more for education and science, than all the 
Presbyterians that ever did, or ever will, exist. Another is, that 
they have suffered persecution, and rejoiced that they were found 
worthy to suffer, for the name of Jesus. Another still, is, that 
their enemies, the infidels of the last century, were the enemies 
of Christianity. Frederick the Great, who was in the secrets of the 
infidel conspiracy, said of the Jesuits, that they were the ^'- foxes," 
between the sheep of the Christian fold and the '' wolves," ,that 
wished to devour them. I have no objection, therefore, to see 
the gentleman putting on the panoply of Voltaire and Rousseau, 
against the Jesuits, though I do not think it becomes him. The 
reasonable motive of hatred against them in this country, is, that 
they can give a better and a cheaper education than Presbyte- 

I have taken, Mr. President, almost too much notice of the 
gentleman's loose and vague, and I may add, unfounded, assertions. 
You have observed that, like all declaimers who wish to reach an 
endy and have not the means, he deals exclusively in (general 
statements, without proof. The only authority in fact that he 
could adduce is that of an anonymous libeller in New York, who, 
under the signature of '' Brutus," and in a tract of silly slander 
against Catholics, entitled " Foreign Conspiracy," insulted the un- 
derstanding of the country, by pretending, that the governments 
of Europe were preparing to invade our liberties — as if such a 
thing were possible. They have enough to do at home. But, 
sir, these Presbyterian gentlemen are haunted by strange visions. 
Some time since, there was a division in the synod of Cincinnati, 
(no unusual thing by-the-by,) and a reverend peacemaker ad- 
dresses them, as 1 remember, in this wise — ''Ah ! brethren, how 



the Pope of Rome will chuckle, when he hears of your divi' 

The gentleman, however, I must do him the justice to say, has 
ventured on one specific statement. In order to make you believe 
that crowds of ''Jesuits'' are smuggled through our custom-houses, 
he tells you that " Talleyrand (a Jesuit) was once a teacher 
IN THIS country/' Here is sometbing tangible. Here is a sen- 
tence of only ten words, and yet it contains two positiveli/ false state- 
ments. Talleyrand never was either a '' Jesuit," or a " teacher." 

Such is the analysis of the pretended events which have roused, 
as the gentleman asserts, the ''American Episcopalians, Baptists, 
Methodists, Congregationalists, as well as Freshyterians," to 
"inquire what can this mean?" That some of each of these 
denominations may have been used to stir up the fanatical excite- 
ment, is highly probable : — but that the genius which presides 
and directs, is the genius of Presbyterianism, no man at all ac- 
quainted with the character of the machinery will for a moment 
deny. The only denomin&tious, so far as I am aware, that have 
brought the politics of the country into their pulpits — are the 
Presbyterians, and possibly their step-brethren, the Congregation- 
alists. of New England. The only denomination that have itine- 
rant haranguers on-pay^ who go about like roaring lions, for the 
express purpose of stirring up^the people against Catholics, are 
the Presbyterians. The only denomination -that seem to have 
despaired of being able to pluck arguments from heaven, for the 
refutation of Catholic doctrine, and who have, therefore, stooped 
to dig them out of the earth, are the Presbyterians. Yet I know some 
Presbyterians, and I hope there are many whom I do not know, 
who blush for and condemn these proceedings. The gentleman, 
however, I regret to say, is not of the number. Dr. Beecher of 
Cincinnati, whose visit to Boston last year was as if he came to 
" bring fire on earth, and only wished that it might be kindled"— 
who had scarcely finished his third sermon against Catholics, when 
the Convent was in flames — he is not of the number. The con- 
ductors of the Cincinnati Presbyterian Journal, who gave the 
first circulation to what the Chronicle of that city calls "an im- 
pudent LIE," viz., the story about knocking a senator down, and, 
" HATS OFF, gentlemen, THE BiSHOp's COMING," are not of the 
number. They knew, and most of their colleagues knew, that 
this was "an impudent lie." They published the falsehood, 
and they have refused to publish the correction. Nay, a Presby- 
terian minister in New York, Mr. Mason, has made this falsehood 
immortal, by treating it as a matter of historical record, in his 
Preface to History of the Inquisition. 

But, if there be a man in the country whose sentiments are a 
fair index of the genius and temper of Presbyterians, that man is 
Dr. Miller, of the Princeton Theological Seminary. In his Intro- 
ductory Essay to the History of Bomanism, a compilation of 


calumny and buffoonery, this venerable professor, in the nineteenth 
century, and in the United States of America, denounces hia 
Catholic fellow-citizens "AS foes of God and man I" and com- 

Out of the Presbyterian communion, I question whether there is 
a man on the American continent capable of giving utterance to 
a sentiment, so unchristian and so inhuman ; for, let it be recol- 
lected, that the crime of the Catholics is their worshipping God 
according to the dictates of their oicn conscience, rather than of 
that of the General Assembly, or of Dr. Miller. 

No, sir, the glory of stirring up, or causing to be stirred up, 
the smouldering embers of relir/ious hatred, (what a contradiction !) 
belongs to the Presbyterians. The other denominations of whom 
the gentleman has made an artificial parade, are, no doubt, per- 
suaded that we are wrong in our belief: our conviction is pre- 
cisely the same in regard to their creed. But they are, in the 
main, content to allow us to conduct our affairs in our own way, 
and we certainly do not disturb them in the management of theirs. 
Not so the zealots among the Presbyterians. Believers in their 
own "election," and in the "inadmissibility of grace," they seem 
to think that God has commanded them to take charge of all the 
rest of mankind. I can admire their zeal, but I would admire it 
much more, were it tempered with a little more charity, and a 
little less overbearance. 

But the gentleman tells you that the American people " ex- 
amine EVERY thing/' that popery, as he insultingly calls my 
religion, cannot stand the test of inquiry ; and that its votaries 
have no other way to hide its deformities, than by endeavouring 
to check free inquiry and discussion. 

I suppose we may take the scene that was exhibited in Mr. 
M'Calla's church last winter, as a fair specimen of what the gen- 
tleman means by " free inquiry." A platform — a crowd of curi- 
ous and uneducated people of both sexes — a circle of ministers, 
amusing the audience with burlesque and ribaldry, at the expense, 
not of the Catholic religion, but of what the speakers might think 
proper to represent as such : this is what we are to understand by 
" FREE inquiry." A scene unworthy of the temple and its minis- 
ters ; at which, though the profane might laugh, piety, of what- 
ever sect, might find enough to weep. This is " free inquiry." 
That is, your enemies attack your character, by dabbing their ca- 
lumnies or prejudices against you : one says that you knocked down 
an American senator, because he would not take off his hat when 
" the bishop was coming;" another, that you have cells for the in- 
quisition, and infants' skulls in your cellar; a third avers that you 
are as bad as " a highwayman, and an assassin in the dark;" a 
fourth proves that you are " the foe of both God and man ;" 
and, then, the assembly closes, as it commenced, with a pmyer 
You remonstrate against the injustice of thus attacking your 



character; and you are gravely told that you are an enemy to 
''free investigation;" and that the "American people investigate 
ever}/ thing." 

The Catholic religion courts investigation, but not tins hind 
of investigation; and Presbyterians do not allow it the benefit of 
any other. If they wished the American people to be informed 
correctly on the subject, they would direct them to our catechisms 
and books of instruction, and not to our enemies. The Catholic 
clergy throughout the country, though not obtrusive, are, never- 
theless, always ready to explain our doctrine to those who are sin- 
cere in their inquiries. But the object is to distort the public 
judgment, by the exhibition of caricatures, and the concoction of 
old slanders w^ith modern seasoning. The object is to vitiate the 
public taste; so that, like the Chinese, who never relish eggs till 
they are stahy nothing may go down but what, in a healthier 
tone of the literary and religious palate, would have created nau- 
sea and disgust. Witness Miss Reed's book. Witness the 
" Downfall of Babylon," by a Miss Reed of the other gender, 
the unhappy Mr. Smith, a little two-penny concern of abuse 
against the Catholics, of which Dr. Ely said, with a good deal 
of -malicious wit, "■ every little helps." It is by such means as 
these that the Catholic religion and its professors are enveloped 
in the slime of calumny, and so presented for the judgment of 
the "American people:" just as the anaconda wraps up its vic- 
tim in saliva, in order to facilitate the process of swallowing. 

I have already said, that, with regard to the young gentlemen 
who introduced the question in this society, I could not for a mo- 
ment suppose that they would knowingly introduce any question 
for the purpose of injuring any sect or denomination. So far as 
I know them, I have too high an opinion of their honour and 
sense of justice, to harbour the thought for one moment. 

It is true that the gentleman was the advocate of the unfortu- 
nate Poles, who were not only foreigners, but Catholics, and I 
give him credit for it. When he portrayed the agonies of their 
separation from their country, and their friends, whom they should 
see no more, until they meet " around the throne of God," the 
picture was touching, and did honour to his feelings; but, alas! 
the vision of the orator, and the man, was soon dissipated by the 
dogmas of the Presbyterian. In this capacity, the gentleman, 
against the better feelings of his nature, is obliged to regard them, 
and all Catholics, as — idolaters! so that their meeting " around 
the throne of God," was, after all, only a figure of oratory. 

The Society remember that I exposed the gentleman's falsifica- 
tion of the Council of Lateran, in the place in which, suppressing 
the crimes of the Albigenses, in the middle of the quotation, and 
bringing the beginning and end together, without indicating any 
omission, he made it appear that the penalties enacted against 
them, were for their speculative errors, and not for their crimes 


against society; his excuse was, that ''he had quoted as Faber 
had done/' If, therefore, this is " shinder,'' as he now says, you 
are all witnesses that he himself is my authority ! Quo ipse ducit, 
sequor. When I falsify, let him expose; that he has done, or ran 
do so, I emphatically deny. 

The speech which you have just heard is f-ufficiently accom- 
modating. It admits the fact that persecution was a part of 
Presbyterianism, from the origin of the sect, down to the last 
amendment of the Confession of Faith. Then, it follows, that 
down to this period, the Presbyterians were themselves heretics; 
by holding ''as having been revealed by Almighty God,'' a tenet, 
which, just after the Declaration of Independence, it was dis- 
covered that God had not revealed ! Here, then, is a Presbyte- 
rian minister, acknowledging that, down to that period, all Pres- 
byterians were heretics by doctrine, and persecnfors hy heresy! 
This is candid, though perhaps some of his brethren may regard 
it as somewhat humiliating. 

By this candid acknowledgment, the gentleman has saved me, 
for the present, the necessity of entering on the horrible facts of 
persecution by the Presbyterians. It only remains to show that 
persecution is at this day, and in the United States, an avowed 
doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. When I say " avowed," I 
do not mean that they avow it under that name; but that they 
avow it, in other words, no man acquainted with the Confession 
of Faith will for a moment deny. Since the revolution they 
have cut down the tree, whose fruit was death to other Protest- 
ants, as well as Catholics, in the various countries of the earth in 
which Calvinism prevailed. But its root remains. The Presby- 
terians hold not only as a doctrine, but as a positive command- 
ment of Almighty God, that they are bound " to remove all 


therefore, they are bound to do this, by the commandment of God, 
what other religion will remain, after they have begun to " keep 
the commandments?" Every other religion but their own, is a 
*'' FALSE worship;" and, as they are bound to "remove all false 
worship," it follows that they are bound to remove all other reli- 
gions. In the Confession of Faith, under the head of the Second 
Commandraent,(l) among the obligations which the command- 
ment imposes, we find ^^the disapproving, detesting, ojyjwsing all 
false Korshij), and, according to each one's place and. calling, 
removing it and all the monuments of idolatry." Not only is 
this obligation imposed on the Presbyterians by the Decalogue, 
it is confirmed to them as the true heirs of the Jews in their com- 
plex rights regarding the land of Canaan. The Confession of 
Faith takes the confirming warrant from the seventh chapter of 
Deuteronomy — of which the text is clear. 

(1) Pages 218, 219, Quest. 108. 




The gentleman has had the candour to admit, that by '' monu- 
ments of idolatry," are meant whatever is appropriated to, or in 
connexion with the Catholic religion. Hence, according to the 
Presbyterian mode of interpreting the seventh chapter of Deuter- 
onomy, we, as IDOLATERS, are to be treated by them, the people 
OP God, as the Canaanites were treated by the Jews. It is not 
for me to say who the " seven nations" are. But if the true 
worship be the Presbyterian, the ^'/alse worships" are pretty 
numerous, and it will be difficult to ''remove" them. However, 
as the Presbyterians are bound to aim at this object, " according 
TO each one's place and calling" — I. e. the minister in the 
pulpit — the author at the press — the teacher of schools as teacher, 
— the session of the church, the Synod, and the General Assem- 
bly, in their accumulating, and concentrated influence — the 
Sunday-school Union, as the Sunday-school Union — the various 
religious societies holding this abominable doctrine, in their re- 
spective capacities — the merchant in his commerce, — the jud^^e 
on the bench, — the jurymen in the box — the legislator as legisr 
lator — the ordinary citizen at the ballot-box — the pious ladies who 
have hearts to pity the objects of persecution, except they are 
steeled with Calvinism, in their domestic influence : in a word, 
all Presbyterians, being bound by the Confession of Faith, and 
the supposed commandment of the holy and just God, to ''re- 
move ALL false worship," mai/ succeed, by the mode which 
they are bound to follow, " each according to his^^^rtce and calling.^* 

This, therefore, being the doctrine of the Presbyterian church, 
throws considerable light on some of their recent efforts to disturb 
the equilibrium of the constitution and laws of the country. Their 
petitions to Congress to have the Sabbath sanctified by legislative 
enactments ; their attempt to drive out of circulation every ele- 
mentary book of education not favourable to their doctrine of 
arrogance, as well as despotism ; their attempt, frustrated by the 
timely but unintentional disclosures of that " busy and loquacious 
man," as the gentleman calls him. Dr. Ely, to "form a Christian 
party in politics;" these were the beginnings of that intolerant 
policy which in the name of God Almiglity calls upon all Presby- 
terians to labour "according to each one's place and calling," >to 
^^ remove all false worship, and all the monuments of idolatry.'' 
Since the failure of these, it has been thought more expedient not 
to attempt the fulfilment of the wjiole commandment at once; and 
it is thought w^iser to begin by putting down the "monuments of 
idolatry" first, and the "false worships" will be more easily 
" removed" afterwards. 

I would now 'appeal to any twelve conscientious men in the 
United States, and ask them, under the moral responsibilities of it 
jury, bound to decide according to truth, whether this doctrine of 
the Presbyterian Church in the United States is not in deadly 
conflict with the constitution under which we live. Here is a 


constitution securing to every man the right to worship God ac- 
cording to the dictates of his conscience ; and here is a Confession 
of Faith obliging, by a commandment of God, the Presbyterians 
to "remove n\\ false worship, and all the monuments of idolatry.'' 
The Presbyterians, therefore, must be either ftiithless to God, by 
bearing with those " false worships and monuments of idolatry," 
which, according to their narrow and intolerant creed, he has com- 
manded them to ^'remove;" or they must be traitors to the con- 
stitution wdiich protects those "false worships/' and will not 
allow them to keep the commandments of God, by removing the 
monuments of idolatry. I did not say, as the gentleman affects 
to understand me, that the Convent at Boston was burned down 
by Presbyterians; but what is certain is, that the Presbyterians 
have, what they call a commandment of God, and according to 
that commandment, the incendiaries who fired it were doing 
God's service, though against the American constitution. The 
chivalrous men who made war on the dwellings of defenceless 
ladies and female children, in mask, and at the dead hour of mid- 
night — the men who, by this act of barbarism and ferocity,violatcd 
the American constitution and fixed a hlot on the national escut- 
cheon, and on the nineteenth century, did nothing more than what 
the commandment of God binds all Presbyterians to do — " accord- 
ing to each one's jilace and callinr/' — they " removed a false 
worship, a monument of idolatry." With this doctrine, therefore, 
in their Confession of Faith, is it not an evidence of singular 
contempt for the attestations of history and the understandings of 
men, that the Preshj/tcrians, above all other denominations, should 
put themselves forward as the advocates of civil and religious 
liberty; whilst — under the divine ohligation of removing " all 
FALSE WORSHIP," and all the ^^ monuments of idolatry" — they 
would allow it to none but themselves ? 

I shall now proceed to show that the purposes avowed by Dr. Ely 
are in strict accordance with the doctrine and history of the Pres- 
byterian Church. The gentleman would account for the avowal, 
by telling you that the doctor is a " busy and loquacious man ;" 
but it has a deeper origin. The doctor may have been "impru- 
dent," and it is well for the country that he was so. But for the 
rest, I ask, whether he was not discharging the duties of a sincere 
Presbyterian minister ? He was commanded, with all his brethren, 
by the Confession of Faith, and on the pretended authority of God, 


IDOLATRY." And this he was commanded to do according to his 
" PLACE AND CALLING." Now, his " place and calling" are the 
ministry and the pulpit; and hence, he was only discharging 
honestly the duties imposed on him by the Confession of Faith, 
when, on the 4th of July, 1827, he preached the doctrine of his 
Church in the following passages : — 

" Our riders, like any other members of the community, who 


are under the law to God, as rational beings, and under law to 
Christ, since they have the light of Revelation, ought to search 
the Scriptures, assent to the truth; pro/ess faith in Christ; keep 
the Sabbath holy to God; pray in j^rivate, and in the domestic 
circle; attend to the public ministry of tlie word; BE BAPTIZED, 
AND CELEBRATE THE Lord's Supper." This is specious and 
general; still, it is a religious test of qualifications for office. 
But the doctor, being a '■'■ busy and loquacious man," unfolds a 
little more of the doctrine in the following passage, given as ex- 
planatory of the above : — 

*'//i other words, our presidents, secretaries of the government, 
senators, arid other representatives in Congress, governors of 
states, judges, state legislators, Justices of the peace, and city 
magistrates, are just as much bound, as any other jjersons in the 
United States, to be ORTHODOX IN THEIR FAITH." 

Now, if Presbyterians could see all these ojjices filled by men 
who are '' orthodox in their faith," then they might begin 
to keep the commandment of God, as set forth in the Confession 
of Faith, by which " they are bound," according to each one's 
place and calling, to " remove all false worship, and all the monu- 
ments of idolatry." However, the doctor's '' place and calling" 
was to labour for this remote end. Accordingly he goes on : — 

^^I projMse, fellow-citizens, a new sort of union ; or, if you 
please, a Christian party in politics, ichicli I am, exceedingly 
anxious all good men in our country should join, not by sub- 
scribing a new constitution, and the formation of a new society, 
but by adojjting, avowing, and determining to act upon truly 
religious principles in all CIVIL matters." 

*'7Vie Presbyterians ALONE could, bring half a million of 
electors into the field. ^' 

'•'- It will be objected, that my plan,^^ (of making orthodoxy a 
test for office,) *' of a truly Christian party in politics, will make 
HYPOCRITES. We are not answerable for their hypocrisy, if it 
doesr ' 

^^ I am free to avow, that other things being equal, I would 
prefer for my chief magistrate, and judge, and ruler, A SOUND 

Now, the end of the second commandment, as laid down in the 
Confession of Faith, is the removal of ''all false worship, and all 
the monuments of idolatry." And when all public rulers shall 


and each obliged to labour for the end, according to his ^^ p)lace 
and calling,^' it is easy to foresee the consequences. Let the 
gentleman not think, therefore, that he can get over this avowed 
doctrine of the Presbyterian creed, by charging Dr. Ely with 
being a "busy and loquacious man." The truth is, that the 
doctor only preached what all Presbyterian ministers should 
preach, if they were as imprudently honest in proclaiming their 


tenets, as the Reverend clerk of the General Assembly. Their 
doctrines, under the second commandment, oblige them to it. 
The doctor allowed the '' simplicity of the dove" to prevail over 
the "cunning of the serpent:" it was his misfortune, by pro- 
claiming openly the doctrines of his Church, to give the alarm to 
the friends of civil and religious liberty; and hence, he is called 
a '^ busy and loquacious man." 

The Sunday-school Union, in perfect harmony with these sen- 
timents — in various reports made about the same time — had the 
candour to avow their desire and intention ^^ to force out of circu- 
lation,'" such elementary books as did not coincide wdth their 
views — to '' revise and alter" — to become, in their own language, 
*Uhe DICTATORS to the consciences op thousands of im- 
mortal BEiNrjs." And what were their anticipations of reward 
for this labour of love ? They themselves explain it. ^' In ten 


It is generally known, that Presbyterians soon became the pro- 
minent and efficient managers of all the concerns of the Sunday- 
school Union. It was under their supervision and authority, that 
these bold and daring purposes w^ere thus publicly avowed. 

They proclaim themselves " dictators to the consciences of 
thousands," by ^'' alter huf^ the sources of early information, and 
they look forward to the time, when the " political poWer of our 
country shall be in the hands of men, whose characters have been 
formed under this dictation." 

The gentleman will tell you, that some of our most respectable 
citizens are, or have been, managers in this institution. I would 
not detract one iota from their respectability. But the more re- 
spectable they are, the more reason there is to dread a religion, 
the influence of which could so far pervei't their judgment. " If 
these things be done in the green wood, says the Scripture, what 
shall it be in the dry?" If respectable men can so fiir forget 
what is due to the CIVIL and religious rights of the American 
people, as to become '^dictators," to the ''consciences" oi con- 
fiding cliildhood, merely because the second commandment of the 
Presbyterian creed requires of them, "according to each one's 
place and calling, to remove all false worship, and all the monu- 
ments of idolatry;" then, sir, you may imagine what it will be 
when these same principles are brought to operate on men of bad 
or of no character. That is the aim of their effort now. Their 
object is to stir up — the mob. 

No Christian can entertain much respect for the character of 
Thomas Jefferson, who is known to have had little or no respect 
for the Christian's religion. But, viewed as a statesman, his 
(1) Appendix to Second An. Rep. S. S. U. 1826, p. 93. 


character appears in a very different light. In political sagacity, 
in the direct or indirect bearings of religious or political princi- 
ples, he was a deep reader of the human heart, and thoroughly 
instructed. He warned his country against the possible danger 
■which might arise from the monarchical or other predilections, 
that might be introduced by emigrants. But he warned it also 
against a danger more immediate, for his knowledge of which he 
depended not on speculation, hut on facts. This was the danger 
growing out of the superior intolerance, for which Presbyterianism 
had been, and would be, distinguished in all ages. He wrote his- 
tori/, and yet those who are acquainted with the violent proceed- 
ings of Presbyterians within the last twelve months, may see that 
he wrote prophecy at the same time. In vol. iv., p. 358, Letter 
clxvii., he says : — 

^^The atmosphere of our country is unquestionably charged 
with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some p«r^s, 
denser 171 others, but too heavy in all. I had no idea, however^ 
that in Pennsylvania, the CRADLE OF TOLERATION and FREEDOM 
OF RELIGION, it coulcl have risen to the height you describe. 
This must be owing to the GROWTH of Presbyterianism.* Ilere, 
Upiscopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, join to- 
gether in hymning to their Maker, listen ivith attention and devo- 
tion to each other^ s preachers, and all mix in society with perfect 
harmony. It is not so in the districts icherc Presbyterianism pre- 
vails undividedly. Their ambition and tyranny would 

at grasping at an ascendency over ALL other sects, they aim at 
every institution that THEY do not direct; are jealous at seeing 
others begin to attend at all to that object." 

On the same subject, he says, in his letter to William Short, 
p. 322 :— 

" The Presbyterian clergy are the LOUDEST, the most IN- 
TOLERANT of all sects; the most TYRANNICAL and AMBITIOUS; 
ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a. word could now be 
obtained, to put the TORCH TO THE PILE, and to rekindle in this 
virgin hemisphere the flames in ichich their oracle, Calvin, con- 
sumed the p>oor Servetus, because he could not subscribe the pro- 
TO RE-ESTABLISH BY LAW, that holy inquisition, which they can 
now only infuse into j)ublic opinion." Be assured, sir, Thomas 
Jefferson understood the genius of Presbyterianism, not in its 
theological deformity, but as a statcwian, in its bearings upon 
the principles we are now discussing; viz., "civil and religious 

But we have other testimony besides that of Thomas Jefferson. 
We have those who are good Presbyterian theologians, explain- 


ing the intolerant doctrines which the gentleman would disguise, 
bj pretending that nobody ever thought of them, except Dr. Ely, 
who is " a busy, loquacious man." We have, in our own city, 
the testimony of the Kev. Dr. Wylie, a gentleman of learning 
and humanity, from whose breast not even the intolerance of the 
creed he defends has been able to drain the milk of kindness to 
his brother — man. The testimony of this writer is unanswerable 
proof of the arguments which I have already deduced from the 
Westminster Confession of Faith. The gentleman will tell you 
that Dr. Wylie is a Ee/ormed Presbyterian. But I can tell you, 
and my opponent will not venture to gainsay the statement, that 
the principles now maintained by Dr. Wylie are the true princi- 
ples of honest primitive Presbyterianism. They are the princi- 
ples of the Westminster Confession. The work from which I am 
about to quote, is a short doctrinal treatise on the " Duty of Ma- 
gistrates and Ministers," entitled the " Two Sons of Oil," and 
published by Dr. Wylie, in 1803. The audience and the public 
will judge of the principles; — in regard to which the author 
says, in his short Preface, '^ The time has heen when the whole body 
of Fre^hyterians, in Scotland, Emglandj and Ireland, unani- 
mously subscribed them." 

The first object of the argument is to show that the doctrine of 
what is called " Union of Church and State/' is conformable 
to the law of God, in the institution of the two great ordinances 
of Magistracy and Ministry." The second is to show that 
the government of the United States and the State governments 
are not moral ordinances of God, precisely because they re- 
ject these notions of a scriptural magistracy, and allow univer- 
sal LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. What is definitive in support of 
my argument, and in showing that the doctrines of the Presbyte- 
rian religion are opposed to civil and religious liberty, is, that to 
establish the above points, the author of the " Two Sons of Oil" 
quotes repeatedly the text of the Westminster Confession — the 
present creed of the General Assembly. 

On the Presbyterian doctrine about the magistrates being 
" nursing Withers" to the church. Dr. Wylie speaks out with a de- 
gree of manly candour and fearlessness, which does him credit, 
"/ie (the magistrate) ought, by his civil power, to REMOVE all 
external imj)ediments to the true religion and worship of God, 
whether they be persons, or things; such as persecution, pro- 
faneness, heresy, IDOLATRY, and THEIR ABETTORS, as did Asa, 
Hezekiah, Josiah, and other pious kings." (X) Now this is plain 
dealing. This is the end, and Dr. Ely's *' Christian party in 
politics" is the means by which to accomplish it. If the gentle- 
man denies this doctrine — he denies \i\& faith. It is neither more 
nor less, than what his creed requires of all Presbyterians, under 

(1) Two Sons of Oil, p. 19. 


the second commandment, viz., to '^ remove, according to each 
one's place and calling, all fahe icorsliip^ ami all the 
monuments of idolatry T Of the want of qualifications for the 
ministry, the candid Presbyterian writer whom I have ah'eady 
quoted, says, — ^'Siich are the clouds of illiterate, Methodist lo- 
custs , which darken, the horizon of these states the infu- 
riate zeal with which thcij propa(jate their POISONOUS DOCTRINES, 
resembles much the character of the Scribes and Pharisees, men- 
tioned in Matthew xxiii. 15. "(1) In this assembly, it has suited the 
gentleman to be loud and long in the praise of the American Gene- 
ral and State Constitutions, inasmuch as this audience respects the 
Constitutions, and do not know his creed. 

Now, the fact is, that the Constitution and the doctrines of the 
Presbyterian religion are directly opposed, one to the other. 
Hence, the stricter sort of that denomination condemn the whole 
political system. Their reasons are, that first, the federal Con- 
stitution does not even recognise the existence of God. (2) Se- 
cond, That the State Constitutions contain "positive immorality,'* 
And what is this immorality? ^^ Their recognition of such rights 
of conscience" as are contrary to sound Presbyterianism.(3) 
^^Tlie government gives a legal security and establishment to 
gross heresy, blasphemy, and idolatry, UNDER THE NOTION OP 

The Confession of Faith teaches, as a doctrine, that the ^^ civil 
magistrates are NURSING FATHERS to the Church." And the gen- 
tleman pretends not to understand this perversion of the Constitu- 
tion, as containing any thing at which the friends of civil and re- 
ligious liberty need feel alarmed. Let him see its explanation in 
Dr. Ely's " Christian party in politics." Let him read its mean- 
ing in the '' Two Sons of Oil." "Kings shall be thy nursing 
fathers. Would he not be a hard-hearted father, who would put 
his CHILD upon the same footing with the WOLVES, TIGERS, and 
leaves the child TRUTH in the jaws of enemies , still more deadly, 
cannot be allowed to possess much more tender feelings. Will 
the Church of Christ enjoy no OTHER PRIVILEGE than this, 'by 
sucking the breast of kings ?' "(5) 

In short, I put it to every honest member of the Presbyterian 
Church, whether there is not a palpable contradiction, between his 
implied oath as a citizen, and his implied oath as a Presbyterian. 
As a Presbyterian he binds himself to " remove, according to his 
place and calling, all false worship, and all the monuments of 
idolatry." As a citizen, he binds himself to support the Consti- 
tution, and consequently, to protect "all false worship, and all the 
monuments of idolatry." Consequently, he binds himself to "re- 

(1) Two Sons of Oil, p. 31. (2) Ibid. p. 34. 

(3) Ibid. p. 35. (4) Ibid. (6) Ibid. p. 38. 

• , 326 

move^^ the very thiDp:s which he birds himself to protect, and not 
^^ remover' If he tells us that he ean keep both, he must either 
be a fool, or else believe those to whom he makes the assertion to 
be fools. He swears, either actually or implicitly, of the same 
thing, that he lolll '^ REMOVE," and that he will not ^^ remove" it. 
AVhich of these contradictory oaths will he keep ? If he keeps 
his Freyhyterian oath, he is a traitor to the Constitution, a foe to 
the rights of conscience, to civil and religious liberty, and a dan- 
gerous citizen. If, on the other, he keeps his eivil oath, he is a 
hypocrite, and a traitor towards God. For, as a Presbyterian, he 
is obliged to believe that God has commanded him to remove all 
false worshq^; and, instead of obeying God, he turns round, and 
swears to support a Constitution which protects all false worship ! 
To be an honest man, therefore, he must renounce one or other 
of these incompatible obligations. If "his creed is correct, the Con- 
stitution is^ a document of iniquity — opposed to the commandment 
of God. If the Constitution is correct, he ought to renounce his 
creed. But, at all events, it is manifest, that, under this govern- 
ment, the Presbyterians have not liberty of conscience. It will 
not allow them to keep the commandments of Jehovah, by re- 
moving '' all false worship," as the Almighty has appointed in the 
"Westminster Confession of Faith. This is the reason why the 
honest Presbyterians — the Covenanters, whose orthodoxy in the 
faith, the gentleman will not dare to deny, reject the American 
Constitutions as not being a moral ordinance of God. This is 
the reason why Dr. Ely would prefer, for his " chief magistrate, 
a sound Presbyterian." This is the reason why the Sunday-mail 
experiment was tried. This, in fine, is the reason why the Pres- 
byterian parsons have, in such numbers, entered into a political 
conspiracy against their Catholic fellow-citizens. If they can 
only enlist the other Protestant denominations in aiding them to 
remove the ^'monuments of idolatry," they will know how to dis- 
pose of their allies afterwards, and the removal of "all false 
worships" will follow, as a matter of course. 

The doctrine of the Reformed Presbyterian Church is notori- 
ously opposed to the civil and religious liberty guaranteed by the 
American Constitutions. Yet they are held to be sound in the 
faith, by their brethren of the General Assembly. What does 
this prove ? The Dutch Reformed Church, another head of the 
original hydra of intolerance, the representative of which is the 
gentleman's colleague, holds the same anti-i^merican doctrine that 
I have pointed out in the Confession of Faith. All of them hold, 
as a tenet revealed by Almighty God, that magistrates of this Re- 
public are, (or rather ought to be,) "nursing fathers to the 
Church." The Dutch Confession says : — ^^And their office is 
not only to have regard unto, and to watcli for the welfare of the 
civil state; hut also, that they protect the sacred ministry; and 
THUS may REMOVE all idolatry a?ic^ FALSE WORSHIP, that 


the kingdom of ant i- Christ may he THUS destroyed^ and the Icing- 
dom of Cltrist he thus promoted." (I) '' Tlius" — /. e., by the 
'< nursing fathers," the magistrates !!...." Wherefore," says 
this Jiberal and charitable document, '■^ we detent all Anabaptists 
and other seditious j^cojjle, &c."(2) And why detest the ''Ana- 
haptists^" Because they denied that the magistrates had any 
right to meddle with the rights of conscience. For this, they are 
'^ detested," and ranked with " seditious people." 

Now, I would leave it to any man of sound mind, and impartial 
judgment, in the United States, to say, whether these several 
tenets of the Presbyterian creed are not pregnant with all that is 
destructive of religious liberty, and the rights of conscience. 
Their creed is not, indeed, as arrogantly intolerant in the letter, 
as it tvaa before the rights of men, proclaimed at the period of 
American Independence, obliged them to curtail its tyrannical pre- 
tensions. But the gentleman reckons without his host, when he 
represents me admitting, that it " is now right." He asks why 
the Dutch Reformed Church, and the Covenanters, were not 
obliged to change their persecuting principles, as well as their 
brethren of the General Assembly. I know no reason, except 
that they appear to have been more consistent, and less time-serv- 
ing. They seem to have felt that it was too late in the day, to 
persuade the world, that Presbyterian ism coidd he other than a 
persecuting creed. They judged rightly; for at this day they 
would be trusted with the guardianship of civil and religious 
liberty, just as fast, and as far, as those who thought it more ad- 
visable to hide the more ugly features of their religion, in hypo- 
critical conformity with the shiftings of the political gale. 

The gentleman wishes me to rep>eat my refutation of assertions 
against the Catholic faith. I refer the reader to my vindication 
during the first six evenings. He says that '^Father Green" 
carried his musket during the Revolution. To which I reply, 
that for this he deserves well of his country. But Catholics "did 
the same. The Catholic armies and officers of France and 
Poland helped ^' Father Green" to survive the day of hattle. 
The gentleman says, what is unfounded in fact, when he repre- 
sents the said " Father Green" as being " hateful" to me. He 
is to me an object of great indifference; and, I trust, that I can 
live without hating any one. 

It will be time enough for the gentleman to call on the Catho- 
lics to change their creed, when he shall have proven that they 
ever held, as '^ a tenet of faith or morals," any of the avowed doc- 
trines of the Westminster Confession of Faith on the subject of 
doniineering over the religious rights of other denominations. 
The doctrines of the Catholic Church are as immutable as the 
truths of God. Men professing those doctrines have, sometimes, 

(1) Page 486. (2) Ibid. 


persecuted, but their faith did not require them to do so ; they 
would have been better Catholics if they had left it alone. But 
the Presbyterians cannot comply with the revealed tenets of HIS 
FAITH, without being a persecutor. Here is the difference. 

The gentleman characterizes my charging " theocracy on Pres- 
byterians," and indeed, ''on all the Calvinistic sects," as an in- 
stance of " audacity in assertion.^' By this, it is plain, that he 
is ignorant of the history of his own Church. Is it not known to 
every man of information, that Calvin and Knox justified their 
shedding of blood, by claiming for their magistrates the rights 
and duties exercised by the magistrates under the old law ? Nay, 
is not the present Confession of Faith crammed with texts and 
references to the same effect ? Is it not on this principle that they 
claim a divine right to *' burn our graven images with fire," and 
to ''remove all false worship?" I should not wonder any more 
to find the gentleman ignorant, as he is, of Catholic doctrine, 
when he is so palpably unacquainted with his own. 

The opinions of Robinson and De Pradt, two enemies of the 
Catholic religion, are of as much weight in the argument as his 
own opinion. He tells us, on the contrary, that European Pres- 
byterians were great democrats. The attestations of history are, 
that they were invariably seditious under the civil governments 
of other denominations^ and as invariably tyrants when other 
denominations were under them. The dethronement and violent 
death of Charles I., and the penalty of imprisonment, for reading 
the Episcopal Common Prayer Book, are proofs of their charac- 
ter under this double aspect. 

The gentleman, unable to find facts for the vindication of his 
cause, calls in Hooker and Bancroft, two zealous Protestants, to 
say a good word for Calvin and for Calvin ists. This proves, that 
the evidence of facts is felt to be strong against the culprit. But 
the audience will judge of them by their deeds and avowed jurm- 
ciples, and not by the flourishes of rhetoric employed by their 
friends. The gentleman could have made almost as good a pane- 
gyric himself 

I showed, in my last speech, that the doctrine of " predestina- 
tion, as held by Presbyterians, has an adverse bearing on the civil 
and religious rights of all other denominations of Christians. 
And the gentleman answers my argument by asking me to explain 
a text of Scripture for him ! This shows that he understands 
the force of the argument, and cannot meet it. Then let it 
remain unanswered, to teach others, that when Presbyterians talk 
about " civil and religious liberty," they ought to be acquainted 
with their own doctrine, and not rush into a position in which 
they cannot help appearing a little ridiculous. 

But though he cannot meet the argument, he can quote doggerel 
ribaldry, abusive of the Catholic religion and practices. This, 
however, is no aro-ument — and the audience know it. The infidels 



can write and utter many stupid witticisms against Christ and his 
religion, without being able to aflFect the solidity of Christianity. 
So with the gentleman; he has studied Catholic Theology, as far 
as the ''inquisition," "hocus-pocus," " Tetzel, and the sale of 
indulgences — " and few of the clique to which he belongs, have 
gone farther. Macintosh's testimony is like that of Hooker and 
Bancroft — opinions — mere Protestant opinions. 

The gentleman states, a-s/acfs, that St. Augustine, and the flower 
of the Catholic Church, held the Presbyterian doctrine on what 
are called in that system of fatalism, " the decrees of God." Now 
the Presbyterian doctrine is thatGrod " foreordaijied wiiatsoeyeb. 
comes to pass."(l) Hence, sjnce evil — murder, adultery, ca- 
lumny, crime of every description, " come to pass," it follows ac- 
cording to this doctrine, that God has '' foreordained'' them. And 
he tells us that Augustine and the flower of the Catholic Church 
held this hlas2yhemous and dangerous principle ! That many of the 
Reformers held it, I admit, but their doctrines have been reformed 
in their turn, by their successors. And the only denomination, 
that I know, who have not become ashamed of the avowal of this 
article, are the high-toned Presbyterians. I defy the proof, 
that it is held by the other denominations of Protestants, whom 
he has mentioned. 

He says that that the " Presbyterian creed" avows that all men 
are to be protected in the exercise of their religion, " whether true 
or false.'' Yes, but what comes of the second commandment in 
the mean time? The State had determined that all religions 
should be protected. But when, as Dr. Ely says, we shall have 
a " Christian party in politics," and a " sound Presbyterian for 
our chief magistrate — " then we shall learn the meaning of that 
divine precept of the decalogue, that obliges the Presbyterians, 
" according to each one's place and calling, to remove all false 
worship and all the monuments of idolatry." This is the kind 
of " protection" which Presbyterianism never failed to afford when 
it had the power — as I shall prove in the sequel of this argument. 
The concluding portion of the gentleman's speech does not de- 
serve a reply. 

(1) Confession of Faith, page 321. 



**Is the Presbyterian Religion^ in any or all of its principles or 
doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty ? " 


Mr. President: — 
Nothing is farther from my intention than " to insult " the 
Rev. gentleman by calling him a Papist. It is only calling things 
by their pi-oper names. On this side of the Atlantic, the temper 
of the times and the spirit of the people, make it advisable to keep 
the Roman monarchy out of view. But in Papal (I beg pardon) 
*' Catholic" Europe, they glory in the very title which Mr. H. 
rejects with scorn. Baronius, the great historian of Rome, says 
(in his Martyrology,) glorying in the name " The modern here- 
tics, call Catholics PAPISTS.: certainly they could not give them a 
more glorious title. Let it therefore be our praise while living, 
and our cpitapHi when dead, ever to be called, papists. " — And 
Gother perpetuates the sanction of this name, by calling his book 
*'The Papist misrepresented.^' What shall we call him? 
A Catholic ? But that were to give up the whole question in de- 
bate between him and Protestants ; for the name imports that his 
is the universal, and therefore the only true church; and that, 
without its faith, none can be saved! shall we admit this? The 
canon-law which is binding on every priest and member upon earth 
goes still farther, and expressly excludes from salvation all who are 
not subject to the Pope. Omnes Christi fidelcs de necessitate 
salutis S2ibsunt Romano Ponfifci, qui utrumque gladlum habet 
a nemine autcm judicatur. (1) (The book is now in my hands, and 
is the property of a Roman Catholic Priest.) *^It is necessary to 
the salvation of all the faithful in Christ, that they he sidjject to 
the Pope of Rome, who holds both swords ; but is himself judged 
of no man." Here in one sentence it is declared, 1, That all 
who are not j)02yists perish : 2, That the Pope has control of 
civil as well as of 7'eligious affairs : 3, Yet that he is above all 
human jiirisdiction. Shall we not then call his servant andjorzVsi 
by his name ? Truly, Mr. President, I think* the gentleman ought 
to carry his shame to the thing signifcd, and not stop at the name. 
He has much more reason to be ashamed of the title of " Jesuit," 
in which he glories, calling it "a compliment," and this too in 
the face of all the disclosures made by me on that subject ! 

(1) Extrav. tit. viii. chap. i. 


It is but too evident, from the tone of the gentleman's remarks, 
on my account of the origin of this Controversy, that he feels their 
force not a little. His attacks on the Presbyterian Church at large, 
are most virulent and bitter. It is hard to say, whether there bo 
a greater dearth of argument, or profusion of ferocious scandal. 
^^ He draws upon his imagination, and his passions, for his facts 
— and on his memorjj for his wit.'* '' Fools" — " Hypocritical 
conformity to the shiftings of the political gale," &c. &c., flow 
with elegant ease from the refined and lordly priest, '' in WHOSE 
person" (according to his Catechism,) WE venerate the power 
AND person op OUR LoRD Jesus Christ." What a contrast ! 

From the fiict, that it was at his own instance that the " Presby- 
terian Religion" was brought under review at this time, we may 
learn how sincere he is in charging us with wishing to deprive 
Papists of their rights, by freely examining their principles. On 
this whole subject, Dr. Beecher, whom the gentleman seems most 
cordially to hate and fear, has well expressed the feelings of Pres- 
byterians, when he says, in a recent publication : 

" But have not the Catholics just as good a right to their reli- 
gion as other denominations have to theirs?" I have said so. I 
not only admit their equal rights, but insist upon them ; and am 
prepared to defend their rights as I am those of my own and other 
Protestant denominations. The Catholics have a perfect right to 
proselyte the nation to their faith if they are able to do it. But I 
too have the right of preventing it if I am able. They have a 
right freely to propagate their opinions and arguments; and I too 
have a right to apprise the nation of their political bearings on our 
republican institutions. They have a right to test the tendencies 
of Protestanism by an appeal to history : and I, by an appeal to 
history, have a right to illustrate the coincidence between the po- 
litical doctrines and the practice of the Catholic Church, and to 
show that always they have been hostile to civil and religious li- 
berty. The Catholics claim and exercise the liberty of animadvert- 
ing on the doctrines and doings of Protestants, and we do not com- 
plain of it; — and why should they or their friends complain that 
we in turn should animadvert on the political maxims and doings 
of the Catholic Church ? Must Catholics have all the liberty — 
their own and ours too ? Can they not endure the reaction of free 
inquiry ? Must we lay our hand on our mouth in their presence, 
and stop the press ?^-Let them count the cost, and such as cannot 
bear the scrutiny of free inquiry, return where there is none ; for . 
though we would kindly accommodate them in all practicable ways^ 
we cannot surrender our rights for their accommodation." 

But the gentleman denies that other Protestant denominations in 
the United States participate with Presbyterians in their views 
and feelings about popery, except as dupes. He owns that ^' these 
denominations may have been used, hy Presbytn-ians to stir up 
this fanatical excitement." He is certainly very complimentary 


to them ! He admits that the Reformed Dutch Church, which ho 
styles ''another head of the original hydra of intolerance, the 
representative of which is the gentleman's colleague/^ (Dr. Brown- 
lee, whom popery has reason to mourn was ever born,) is in har- 
mony with us. This is surely no mean ally. He admits also, 
that '' our step-brethren, the Congregationalists of New England,''' 
are with us. They are of themselves 'dilation ; and the cradle of 
liberfj/ is in their midst. But the naughty Yankees will not let 
the Pope rock it, or put the spirit of liberty (nursed in it,) to sleep, 
and Mr. Hughes is very an<jry at it — What a pity ! 1 But does 
the gentleman doubt the feelings of American Episcopalians? Let 
him ask Bishop Mcllvaine, or the Gambler Observer, or the Epis- 
copal (Philadelphia) Recorder. Does he doubt the feelings of the 
Baptist Church : or the Methodist Episcopal Church ? surely the 
*' Catholic Herald " does not exchange with the " Christian Advo- 
cate," or the *' Christian Watchman." If the gentleman will 
bring me the certificate of one Baptist or one Methodist minister 
of Christy in the United States, who believes that the Roman 
Catholic doctrines, as a system, are favourable to civil or religi- 
ous liberty, I will then own that, out of many thousands, I have 
mistaken one. The gentleman will remember Wesley ! His 
views are strong, but they have never been answered. In letter 
No. 15, of our late Controversy, the gentleman charged that cele- 
brated man with intolerance, and tried to prove it, by a garbled 
extract, plucked out of its connexions. In a subsequent letter, I 
cited the whole paragraph, it is as follows : 

" With persecution I have nothing to do; I persecute no man 
for his religious principles. Let there be as boundless a freedom 
in religion as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the 
point; I will set religion, true or false, out of the question. Yet I 
insist upon it that no government, not Roman Catholic, ought to 
tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I prove this by a 
plain argument, let him answer it that can : that no Roman Ca- 
tholic does, or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable be- 
haviour, I prove thus: It is a Roman Catholic maxim established 
not hy private men, but by ajmblic council, that 'no faith is to 
he kept luith heretics.' This has been openly aooioed by the 
Council of Constance ; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whe- 
ther private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the 
Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, nothing can be more 
plain than that the members of that church, can give no reasona- 
ble security to any government, for their allegiance or peaceable 
behaviour. (Here follow the words quoted by Mr. Hughes.) 
Therefore they ought not to be tolerated by any government, 
Protestant, Mahomeian, or Pagan. (The author proceeds.) 
You may say, ' nay, but they will take an oath of allegiance.' 
True, five hundred oaths ; but the maxim, ' no faith is to be kept 
with heretics ' sweeps them all away as a spider's web. So that 


Btill, no governors, that are not Koman Catholics, can have any 
security of their allegiance. The power of granting' pardons for 
all sins, past, present, and to come, is, and has been for many 
centuries, one branch of his (the Pope's) spiritual power. But 
those who acknowledged him to have this spiritual power, can 
give no security for their allegiance, since they believe the Pope 
can pardon rebellions, high treasons, and all other sins whatever. 
The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is an- 
other branch of the spiritual power of the Pope. All who 
acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But 
whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the Pope, can 
give no security for his allegiance to any government. Nay, not 
only the Pope, but even a priest has the power to pardon sins. 
This is an essential doctrine of the Church of Rome, but they 
that acknowledge this cannot possibly give any security for their 
allegiance to any government. Oaths are no security at all, for 
the priest can pardon both perjury and high treason. Setting, 
then, religion aside, it is plain that, upon principles of reason, 
no government ought to tolerate men who cannot give any se- 
curity to that government for their allegiance and peaceable 
behaviour .... Would I wish, then, the Roman Catholics to be 
persecuted 't I never said or hinted any such thing. I abhor 
the thought ; it is foreign from all I have preached and wrote 
these fifty years. But I would wish the Romanists in England, 
(I had no others in view,) to be treated with the same lenity that 
they have been these sixty years ; to be allowed both civil and 
religious liberty; but not permitted to undermine ours." (2) 

While Wesley disclaims persecution, he insists that popery 
" undermines civil and religious liberty ^' if allowed its genuine 

Now the American system is one of unqualified and universal 
protection^ and is more than toleration ; and we glory in it, just 
as it is. But we hold that no consistent Roman Catholic can be 
ex animo, an admirer of the American system. The people, 
happily false to popery, present many noble examples of devoted 
freemen. The priests, they are the monarchists ; they are the 
}iierarcliy of Rome ; they are the church, the foes of divine 
truth, and human liberty. In these views, we repeat it, Ameri- 
can Protestants as a body agree. 

The gentleman's rejoinder to my argument ^^ on the decrees of 
God " — as he calls the doctrine, halts to the last degree. His 
previous position was that the doctrine of election led to imm,o- 
rality — and to the destruction of a due regard for the rights of 
other men ; and therefore was opposed to civil and religious lib- 
erty. In reply, I forbore to discuss the triUh of these doctrines, 
as out of place ; but yet presented fifew i^assages of God's word, 
by way of nuts for his infallible interpreter, begging, in passing, 
an explanation of their sense. These passages (see my last 

(2) See Wesley's Works, vol. v. p. 817, 818, 826.) 


speech) assert tliat moral lihertij is secured hi/ the decrees of God ; 
and are therefore direct rebutters to his false logic. And what 
■does he say ? "I showed in my last speech that the doctrine of 
predestination, as held by Presbyterians, has an adverse bearing 
on the civil and religious rights of all other denominations of 
Christians. And the gentleman answers my argument by ask- 
ing me to explain a text of Scripture for him ! This shows that 
he understands the force of the argument, and cannot meet it," 
But with all this bravado, what has he done ? I appealed to 
liistory in proof of i\\^ fact that " Calvinistic denominations'' and 
" Calvinistic nations,'' were foremost in the ranks of the f-ee and 
prosperous and virtuous. Did he deny it? Did he disprove it? 
I have already shown abundantly that popery is the parent of 
vice, and vice in its vilest forms; so that if the argument to im- 
morality is of any weight, as I think it is of much, his logic 
rebounds on his cause ; and history is witness that his principles 
have ruined it. Tacitly admitting that the denominations and 
nations enumerated by me, were signalized by their liberty and 
virtue, he makes the only effort possible to disengage himself, by 
denying that they held the doctrines of *' the decrees," and '^ pre- 
destination." '' The only denomination that I know, who have not 
become ashamed of the avowal of this article, are the high-toned 
Presbyterians. I defy the proof that it is held by the other 
denominations of Protestants whom he has mentioned." To the 
proof then we go. The XVIIth Article of the Episcopal Church, 
while it wiseh'^ guards against the torture and perversion of this 
doctrine, is fulhj Calvinistic. " Of Predestination and election." 
^^Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, wlierehy 
(before the foundations of the uorld were laid,^ he hath con- 
stantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse 
and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of man- 
kind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as 
vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which he endued with 
so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's pur- 
pose, by his spirit working in due season; they, through grace 
obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of 
God by adoption ; they be made like the image of his only be- 
gotten son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; 
and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.'^ 
Pray is this no " proof?" It is ample proof that the doctrine is 
Episcopal; and it closes with a charming refutation of the gen- 
tleman's reasoning, when he says the doctrine leads to immorality. 
Here, as in our Confession, it is declared, and facts prove it, that 
the doctrine calls for, and its belief produces, good works. 

When he denies that the Baptists hold this doctrine, he only 
exposes his ignorance. Let him ask Gill, Fuller, Robert Hall, 
Carey, Ward, and their standards of faith, for the conviction which 
he desires. He cautiously denies that Augustine held this doc- 


trine. Proof (1) — ^^ We are therefore to understand calling, as 
perialning to the elect; not that they were elected because they 
believed; but that they were elected in order that they might 
believe. God himself makes this sufficiently plain, when he 
says, ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you. For if they 
were elected because they believed, they would themselves elect 
by believing in him; so that- they would inerit election. But he 
takes all this away, when he says, * ye have not chosen me, but 
I have chosen you.' They have not chosen (non elegerunt) Him, 
in order that he might choose them ; but he chose, (elegit eos) 
them that they might choose him; because his mercy prevented 
them, by grace, and not by debt. Therefore, He chose them out 
of the ivorld, when they lived in the flesh, but He chose them in 
himself before the foundation of the world. For what does the 
Apostle say, " as he hath chosen us in Him before the founda- 
tion of the world." 

Again ; (2) "iVb one cometh to Christ unless it be given to 
him ; and it is given to those loho were chosen in Him before the 
foundation of the world." (3) 

We need not enter into the proof as to the twelve creeds of the 
Reformers ; for the gentleman admits that '^ some — " of them 
held it. He knows that nearly " all" did. It is true, some of 
their descendants have abandoned these views. But look at 
Scotland, England, Ireland, Holland, and the United States of 
North America, for the liberty, science, and piety of those lands. 
Are they not the most free, enlightened and virtuous of nations ? 
and are they not the most Calvinistic : — and are not the Cal- 
vinists aFiong them abreast of any other population, and far, far 
ahead of the " Catholic," population, in intelligence, and piety, 
and good order ? Again, I say let history reply. 

But the gentleman, in calling this "a blasphemous and danger- 
ous principle,'* treads on delicate ground; for, strange as it may 
appear, the best ptart of the Council of Trent (if such a term be 
not a contradiction) held to this very doctrine; and the divided 
conventicle actually trimmed their creed to heal the breach that 
was threatened to their infallibilities. The Twelfth Chapter, 
sixth Session, in a scared way, admits the truth of this doctrine, 
in the following terms : ^'That the rash confidence of predesti- 
nation is to be avoided. Let no man, while he continues in this 
mortal state, so far presume respecting the hidden mystery of 
divine predestination, as to conclude that he is certainly one of 
Oie predestinate ; as if it were true that a justified man cannot 

(1) Book I. Chap. 17. torn. 7. Of The Predestination of Saintg. 

(2) Tom. 7. chap. 10. ''Of Perseverance," &c. 

(3) Neminem venire ad Christum nisi fuerit ei datum; ct eis dari qui in eo 
electi sunt ante constitutionem mundi. — Sec at large Corpus et Syntagma 
Confessiouum, <fee. on Augustine. 


sin any more, or that if he sin he can assure himself of repent* 
anre ; for no one can know whom God hath chosen for himself ^ 
unless hy special revelation." Here the truth of the doctrine is 

Father Paul (referred to in my last speech, but cautiously shun- 
ned by his papal brother Hughes) on the same subject, viz. pre- 
destination and election, that man doeth nothing, but all is in 
the will of God ; thus writes : — '^ In examining the first of these 
questions, the opinions were divers : the most esteemed divines 
among them thought IT to be Catholic, and the contrary, heresy, 
because the good school-writers, St. Thomas, Scotus, and the rest, 
do so thinh ; that is, that God, hfore the creation, out of the 
mass of majiJiind, hath elected hy his only and mere mercy, some 
for glory, for whom he hath prepared effectually the means to 
ohtain it, which is called, to PREDESTINATE. That their number 
is certain, and determined.'^ The writer goes on to say, that 
they quoted in proof, the ninth chapter of Romans, in the case of 
Esau and Jacob, and the example of the potter and clay, and that 
the apostle calls ^^ d-WuiQ predestination and rcp7'ohafion the height 
and depth of wisdom unsearchable and incompi-ehensible ..." 
*' They added divers passages of the Gospel of John, and iv finite 
authorities from '^t. Augustine, because that saint wrote nothing 
in his old age, but in favour of this doctrine." (1) On page 202 
he adds, that after the decree was adopted the Dominicans and 
Franciscans wrote laborious controversies, showing directly oppo- 
site senses to it ; and, that when it was sent to the Pope, and he gave 
it to his friars and learned men for consultation, " it icas ap>proved 
hy them because every one might ujiderstand it in his own sense." 

From this circle of proofs then, it appears, that the doctrine 
^' of divine decrees," as held by the Presbyterians, is held now, 
by the great body of the professed Protestant Churches, in all 
those countries most remarkable for the freedom of their institu- 
tions; and the diffusive intelligence of the people ; that Augustine 
did teach most clearly the same doctrine, and that the Council 
of Trent itself gave it a scanty existence, in its decrees, and 
enacted an evasive canon on the subject, in order to have unity 
without candour or sense. 

As to this doctrine, I am well aware, that many excellent men, 
and some Christian denominations, differ with us. But they have 
the candour to own, that it makes us not the less respectful of the 
rights of man, and of the obligations of religion. Indeed, they 
have, many of them, paid a generous homage to the virtues of 
" Calvinists," as we are sometimes called. It was to this pur- 
pose we cited the testimony of the great Hooker, who was no 
Presbyterian, of the elegant and impartial Bancroft, a Unita- 
rian, and of Sir James Macintosh, a great statesman, and not a 

(1) Hist. Counc. Trent, Book II, p. 196. Lond. edit. 1576. 


Presbyterian. Such testimony to facts, are not ''mere opinions;'* 
and from learned, impartial, and virtuous men of other denomina- 
tions, have great weight. Besides, this was called for by the dis- 
honourable course pursued by Mr. Hughes. He agreed in " the 
rules" to confine himself to "The Presbyterian Church under 
the General AssemNiy in the United States." But he soon found 
nothin(j in our standards against liberty ; and he flew to Euro- 
pean Presbyterians. I followed him, admitting that our ancestry 
had erred as to the 7'i(/hts of conscience, (he falsely says, I owned 
that persecution was a part of Presbyterianism in all time till 
now.) I owned, that formerly Presbyterians had persecuted, but 
his Church exceedinijhj more. Presbyterians had, from the first, 
been the leading' advocates for liberty, and distinguished for good 
morals. \vi proof , I brought the testimony o^ other denominations, 
and of statesmen of no denomination, and oven of Roman Catho- 
lics, For this reason I called in Swift, and Drydcn^ a " Catholic," 
as well as Hooker, Bancroft, and Sir James Macintosh. And now, 
he says, they were but ''■opinions" And pray, is his doctrine 
any more ? I brought our standards. He says, they were altered 
to suit the country. Very well. I ask him to do the same with 
his system. But he cannot, will not; it is infallible. And so it 
stands. The papal system cannot become liberal^ and they will 
not renounce it; and here we join issue — here we fix our final op- 
position to it, as anti-American, as well as anti-Christian. 

The abuse which the gentleman pours upon Dr. Miller, speaks 
well for the doctor's labours, for truth and liberty. Mr. Hughes 
seems to covet the honour of being in such yoocZ company. But 
it is not for jwrcupines to fight with lions; nor rats to demolish 
the stately pillars of the Church. 

I confess, it is more appropriate game to go after Dr. Ely. 
And yet, how has our Jesuit friend garbled even Dr. Ely ! He 
has left out, as usual, the explanatory parts, and uprooting from 
their connexions other parts, has falsified his sense, and then 
charged the perversio7i on the Presbyterian Church. For example, 
Dr. Ely says, " We do not say that true, or even pretended Chris- 
tianity, shall be made a constitutional test of admission to oj/ice, 
but we do ajfirm, that Christians may, in their elections, law- 
fully prefer the avowed friends of the Christian religion, to 
Turks, Jews, and Infidels." But Robert Bellarmine says, (1) 
" But when, in reference to heretics, thieves, and other wicked 
men, there arises this question in particular, 'shall they be exter- 
minated?' it is to be considered, according to the meaning of our 
Lord, whether that can be done without injury to the good ; and 
if that be possible, they are, without doubt, to be extirpated, 

(1) Book III. Chap. 23, of Laics — his works beiug approved and published 
hy atithon'fi/ of the Pope, except that he condemned him for not heinr/ strung 
enough on the temporal power of the Pope. 


(exterpandi sunt proculJubio.) Dr. Ely says, (speaking of a 
Christian Presideut,) '' Let liim be a man of a good moral cha- 
racter, and let him profess to believe in, and advocate the Chris- 
tian religion, and 2ve can all support Mm. At one time he will 
be a Baptist ; at another an Episcopalian ; at another a Metho- 
dist ; at another a Preshyterian of the American, Scotch, Irish, 
Dutch, or German stamp, and always a friend to our common 
Christianity." I suppose, his being a Christian, ^'ould not be 
a radical objection in the mind of Mr. Hughes ! The sermon 
was surely a silly production. But while Mr. Hughes cries 
''wolf," "wolf," over it, the present Pope says, (and I beg him 
to notice it as it has been before presented, and not noticed,) 
<' Nor can we auguii more consoling consequences to reli- 

Here the head of the universal and only true Church announces, 
in a public letter, addressed to ''Catholics," over the whole world, 
that it is Vi profane love of liberty to oppose the union of Church 
and state, and that said union is necessary to the prosperity of 
religion and government! Will Mr. Hughes meet this? Will 
he explain it, by the side of his inference from Dr. Ely's proposal 
to form "a Christian party in politics." 

Dr. Wilie is next introduced. He is first assailed for his 
opinions; then devolved on us; then praised for his candour. Dr. 
Wilie is an able and a good man. I wish that "a drop of oil'' 
from " the good olive trees," that I believe feed his soul, might 
fall on the husky conscience of his loily eulogist. Dr. Wilie be- 
longs not to our communion. His views, as uttered in the sermon 
adduced, on the question now before us, are very much at issue 
with our standards. We are not responsible for them. We 
deeply regret them. They greatly surprise us. Mr. Hughes, 
however, as usual, has distorted them. But Dr. Wilie, with 
whom, I presume, on all other leading points I should essentially 
agree, "is of age," and will, if he think it worth while, ^' speak 
for himself." 

And then for ^'The Dutch Reformed Church." I refer Mr. 
Hughes to my gallant " colleague," whose heavy blows yet ring 
on the broken bosses of the three priests, who united against him 
in New York ; but who treated him anon as my discreet friend 
did Mr. M'Calla, profiting by the venerable maxim : — 

" He that fights, and runs away, 
May live to fight another day," 

Of the caricature which he has given us of the meeting at Mr. 
M'Calla's church, I will only say, that though the gentleman 


seems to have been present, he did not accept the invitation pub- 
licly given, to any j)>'iest, to defend his cause ; and that the efforts 
made to disturb that meeting, plainly prove what "Catholics" 
would do, if they could. 

Mr. Smith is now despised. When he was a Popish j^riest, 
as his testimonials fully show, he was much esteemed. Now he 
is blackened. The truth is, his " two-penny" sheets are making, 
week by week, such disclosures of what he saw among nuns and 
p)riests, that I do not wonder Mr. Hughes ^^ despises even the day 
of small things.^' The gentleman excuses us from the charge of 
actualli/ putting the torch to the Convent ; but he still insists that 
we are labouring to excite '^ a disposition and efforts to persecute 
Catholics." I need not, I will not stoop to repel such malignant 
but powerless thrusts. But 1 will say this : that there is a certain 
hind of houses, which the Pope used to license at Rome, which 
the "boys and mobs" in America, taking Judge Lynches laws, 
sometimes pull down, not as Protestants against p)operj/, but as 
enemies to gross immoralities, which we cannot name. 

AVhen he comes to Mr. Jefferson, the gentleman says, " He 
(Mr. Jefferson) depended for his knowledge (of the Presbyte- 
rians) not on speculation, but on facts." But did not De Pradt, 
and Robinson, and Hooker, and Bellarmine, have "facts" also? 
yet their's were only " opinions; " and De Pradt, and the Parlia- 
ment of Paris, were " Infidels," and in both cases, he told us they 
had Qio weight; you see his consistenci/ . The gentleman ought 
to have a better memory, or not so bad spirit. But we proceed : 
Mr. Jefferson has shared the fate of all authors that pass through 
Mr. Hughes's household expurgatory Index. He gives the part 
that suits his case, "/or the rest," as he says, let it go to the 
winds. Just above Mr. Hughes's second quotation, Mr. Jefferson 
says of Paul, " OF this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was 
the great Coryphceus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Je- 
sus." You see we are in good company : and you can judge how 
impartial he is towards us in other matters. Mr. Hughes omits 
a passage about the Trinity, and begins his citation in the midst 
of a paragraph, of which the following is an integral part : " The 
history of our University you know so far. An opposition in the 
mean time, has been gotten up. The serious enemies are thep)riests 
of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind, 
its improvement is ominous. Their pulpits are now resounding with 
denunciations against the "appointment of Dr. Cooper, whom they 
charge as a monotheist, in opposition to their tritheism. Hostile 
as these sects are in every* point to one another, they unite in 
maintaining their mystical theology, against those who believe 
there is one God only." Then comes in the quotation by Mr. 
Hughes, the reason for the omisssion is obvious. Mr. Jefferson 
includes "2)riests of the different religious sects ; " Mr. Hughes 
wished to confine it to Presbyterians. Query ? Did Mr. Jeffer- 


son mean to exclude Popish priests from any claim to be " Chris- 
tiansP" Again. When he speaks of the '^wlf/ viqicisition," 
does he intend to say that Presbyterians ever had one, or that they 
originated it, and kept it alive in Rome, and Spain, &c.? The 
, tyranny of Rome is incorporated into the elements of language. 
If we would express cruelty^ we go to the abstraction of Rome's 
inquisition, li fraud, we borrow Jesuit from Rome's magazine ] 
so that Mr. Jefferson, in abusing Presbyterians, and Mr. Hughes 
in quoting him, unconsciously publishes the shame and oppres- 
sion of the papal system ! 

The quotation from Mr. Jefferson, (see my last speech) on emi- 
gration from Europe, has been put hi/, but not ansivered. We 
do not object to worthy emigrants. We welcome the patriot, the 
persecuted Poles. They come loving liberty, and we trust long 
to enjoy it. The Poles, by the way, as a nation, think very dif- 
ferently of the Jesuits, from Mr. Hughes. The Jesuits began 
their ruin: they know it, and judge accordingly. But to return. 
The emigrants we dread, are such as ^'dig our canals," and "rail- 
roads," and make mobs by way of chorus, and keep the land in 
commotion, wherever they are : such as are now figuring in Bal- 
timore, living at the public charge, and enjoypg trial by jury, for 
riot and bloodshed on the Baltimore rail-road. The poor, the 
well-principled, intelligent, industrious poor, we welcome and 
conlide in. 

Let such freemen multiply in our midst. But let them not be 
'priest-ridden, degraded men, who think it a crime to read the 
Bible : a merit to hate a Protestant : and that liberty is freedom 
from law and order. 

Washington said to the American people, in his Farewell Ad- 
dress, ^^ Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, {I con- 
jure you to believe me, my felloiu-citizens,) the jealousy of a free 
people, ought to be constantly awake, since history and experi- 
ence prove that foreign influence is one of the most banefid foes 
of a republican government." May we profit by his oracular 
and paternal warning ! 

There is a very interesting and important document connected 
with our colonial history, which speaks volumes on this subject, 
especially in reference to papal emigrants and influence. I quote 
from the Address of the Continental Congress to the People of 
Great Britian, Oct. 21, 1774. (1) 

" And by another act, the dominion' of Canada is to be so ex- 
tended, modelled, and governed, as that by being disunited from 
us, detached from our interests, by civil, as well as religious pre- 

(1) See Journal of Cont. Cong., in 4 vols. 1774 to 1788 vol. i. p. 30. Seo 
Life and Writings of John Jay,' 2 vols, octavo, New York — J. & J. Harper — 
1833. Vol. i. p. 473. See also p. 382-3, Oct. 19— "Dated by paragraphs." 
See p. 382. 


judices, hy their numbers daily swelling with Catholic emigrants 
from Europe, and by their devotion to an administration so friend- 
ly to their religion, that they might become formidable to us, and, 
on occasion, be fit instruments, in the hands of power, to reduce 
these ancient, free, Protestant colonies, to the same state of 
slavery with themselves. * **:{«* * 

''Nor can we suppress our astonishment, that a British Parlia- 
ment should ever consent to establish in that country a religion 

through every part of the world.'' 

We see then, what our fathers felt and feared, long before Pres- 
byterians began to excite the nation (as Mr. Hughes has said) to < 
jiersecute Catholics. Who were they that uttered these strong 
opinions ? Not a General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church ! 
Not a convention of Protestant preachers ! But a Congress of 
the Colonies, on the eve of the A7nerican Revolution. Let us 
see were the gentleman will place these patriots ! Let us hear 
to '^ what category" this document belongs! Surely, if Presby- 
terians are mistaken in this matter, they are not alone. These 
fears are strangely sustained by our patriot fathers. 

In reply to the challenge for proof of immense sums being 
expended in this country for propagating popery by foreign 
despots, I need only refer you to my extended disclosures already 
made on that topic in the history of the Leopold Foundation, 
and the acknowledgment of Ca^/io?ic documents, both in America 
and Germany, as already exhibited. Our foreign missions," 
he complains, drain the country of money; also, " the American 
Bible Society:" and this he professes, as ti political economist, 
and boasts that Catholics send money into the country. But 
political economists tell us that such monies, say on Bibles, made 
at home, and circulated chiefly at home, directly quicken trade; 
and even foreign expenditures do the same. But we would not 
complain of " Cathohc despots" sending us good money, if it 
were not that they send icith it bad men, and for bad uses. But, 
surely, the gentleman forgets, when he ventures on the ground of 
^'political economy." It is estimated that in the states of Eroupe 
there are a million of different sorts of ecclesiastics; who are 
usually not taxable, though, as a body, they command vast 
wealth (as in South America), and who are, as to public service 
in the state, idle, and, if fathers, not husbands; and "most of 
this million subsist on the plunder of the people/' Again; the 
number of monasteries and nunneries in popish countries is 
incredible. They are seats of idleness, if not sinks of corruption. 
It was at one time boasted that there were forty-four thousand in 
the empire of the Pope. Again; nearly one-third part of the 
year is wasted, in papal countries, in feasts, and fasts, and wor- 
shipping saints, &:c. &c. ; all which is sunk to the state, in m^oney^ 


while it also corrupts the morals of the people. The treasure sunk 
in kind, in adorning images, chapels, cathedrals, and in sacred 
vessels, &c. is immense. This is lost to the state. The result 
is, that liome, (for example) the centre of the finest country on 
earth, once the greatest city, is surrounded by boundless desola- 
tions. Italy, and Spain, and Portugal ! Why are they now, 
degraded, enslaved, and a century behind their sister nations ? 
It is popery — popery, alone, makes them decay; and, until it 
is destroyed, they can never rise. Popery closes on them the 
Bible. Popery is the malaria of the nations. Popery makes 
the very land to decay, while it enslaves and destroys the soul. 
I challenge a reply to these astounding facts. No. Never men- 
tion political economy again, while you love popery ! And now 
let the gentleman visit Scotland, England, Holland — Protestant 
states. Does he see such desolations ? Does he see such in 
North America ? They abound in papal South America. Why ? 
Let the gentleman inform us. 

His attack on '^ the American Sunday School Union" is emi- 
nently fitted to disclose the aversion of popery to universal and 
Bible education; and is a lasting disgrace to its author. It is 
not a Presbyterian .but a Protestant association. Episcopalians, 
Baptists, &c. share with Presbyterians equally in its control ; and 
no book is edited by it which has not been revised by a committee 
composed of all these, as well as of Presbyterians. If, as he says, 
Presbyterians give most to it, and labour most for it, why I hardly 
know how to apologise for so atrocious a crime. But, while a 
foreign priest denounces this noble charity, what do impartial 
Americans say ? At a public meeting held in our capital, during 
the session of Congress, in 1830, the Hon. Senator Grundy pre- 
sided. William Wirt addressed to the meeting a letter, being 
sick in his chamber. William Wirt — ^a name dear to letters, 
liberty, and religion — said : " / regret that it is not in my power 
to be with you this evening, that I might have united my hum- 
hie efforts luith those of my fellow-citizens who will be present 
in advancing this great, and, as I believe, heaven-directed cause." 
" It has been the ignorance of the people which has so long 
enabled tyrants to hold the world in chains." "Viewed in a 
temporal and political light, merely, it deserves the strongest 
support of all who wish the continuance of our free and happy 
institutions at home." Does he who opposes such influences, 
sincerely love them, or really desire their '^continuance?" 

The Hon. Theodore Frelinghuyson, the pure politiciati, the 
eloquent statesman, himself a Sunday School teacher, ably 
advocated this holy cause, saying, ^' It is the most benignant 
enterprise of modern benevolence.'^ " He is unfaithful to his 
country who would seek to impair its influence.'' The Pre- 
sident of the United States sent an apology for his absence, 
(having promised to be present) enclosing a donation. And, to 


name no more, Daniel Webster addressed the meeting, saying : 
^^Tlic usefulness of Sunday Schools is univcrsallf/ acknowledged. 
Most great conceptions ore simple. The j)^&sent age has struck 
out two or three ideas, on the important subjects of educatiortj 
and, the diffusion of religious knowledge, partaking in a very 
high degree of this character. They were simple ; hut their 
apjjlicaiioQi was extensive, direct^ and efficacious. Of these, the 
leading one, perhaps, was the distribution of the Holy Scriptures 
without note or comment, an idea not only full of piety and 
duty^ and of candour also, but strictly just and philosophical 
also The object of Sunday Schools, and of the resolu- 
tion now before the meeting, was, as he understood it, of similar 
large and liberal character. It was to diffuse the elements of 
knowledge, and to teach the great truths of revelation. It was 
to improve, to the highest of all purposes, the leisure of the Sab- 
bath ; to render its 7-est sacred, by thoughts turned towards the 
Deity, and aspiring to a knowledge of his word and will. There 
were other plans of benevolence about which men might differ. 
But it seemed to him there could be no danger of error here. 
If we icere sure of anything, we were sure of this, that the 
knowledge of their Creator, their duty, and their destiny, is 
good for men ; and that whatever, therefore, draws the attention 
of the young to the consideration of these objects, and enables 
them to feel their importance, must be advantageous to human 
happiness, in the highest degree, and in all worlds." Such is the 
noble testimony of this great man, this disinterested patriot — 
called by emphasis the champion of the American Constitution ! 
He was not, is not, a Presbyterian. Oh ! how small, and how 
ashamed, must a priest of Home feel before the sublime concep- 
tions, the manly rebuke, the just defence of an American lay- 
man pleading for an open Bible and universal education, against 
the chosen representative of the " only true Church/' — " the 
exclusive depository of God's word and ministry!!" I have 
looked at the gentleman's reference in vain, for the declaration 
charged by him on the institution — that they desire to become 
^' the dictators of the consciences of thousands of immortal beings." 
I believe it utterly false ; or, if found in it, whenever identified, 
it will be seen to mean wholly another thing from what the gen- 
tleman says. I call for the reference. And as to the passage 
about " the political power of the country," it is a private letter 
from Connecticut, and only asserts, that in ten years, minds 
formed, not by Presbyterians, but by the Bible, and. in Sunday 
Schools, would predominate in the country. 

Will not our " Catholic" laymen, such as Mathew Carey, 
blush for their priest, who so recklessly assails such institutions? 
By way of a very striking contrast, I remind the audience of the 
" Inquisition," and the ''Jesuits." Is it not passing strange that 


this gentleman can be the apologist of the former, and the advo- 
cate of the latter, and yet assail "Sundai/ Schools P" 

But it is time for me to notice his argument, drawn from the 
Larger Catechism, on the duties required in the second command- 
ment, which, among other things, is said to require " the disap- 
proving, detesting, opjjosing all false worship ; and, according 
to each one^s place and calling, removing it, and all monmnents 
of idolatry J^ If I understand the reasoning, he means to charge 
us with holding, that force of some kind is a duty -, or that some 
method of ^^ removing the monuments of idolatry,'' at war with 
the rights of others, is expressed. For, I suppose, he will not 
say, that if we oppose false worship, and remove these monu- 
ments of idolatry, in a constitutional way, and without disturbing 
the rights of others, this would be wrong ; or against liberty, 
civil or religious ? I am aware, however, that he has a icarm side 
towards these things, which, indeed, is not to be wondered at. 
But he will not say that it is persecution, to oppose idolatry by 
discussion, moral influence, and prayer. The question then is, 
as to the 7nanner of doing it. Does our doctrine utter, or imply 
tyranny ? or force ? or a hindrance to the free exercise of religious 
worship ? If so, we should like to know it. So far is this from 
being the fact, that he has himself owned, " that the Confessiori 
of Faith was amended, (at the adoption of the American Consti- 
tution,) to suit the Constitution, and the new order of things." 
What he thus admits (as ^^an amendment,") to be true, may be 
easily shown, by reference to all those parts of our standards, 
which relate to the freedom of worship, and the use of force by 
the civil magistrate in matters of conscience. For example : (1) 
^^ It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person, arid 
good name, of all these people ; so that no person be sufferedy 
either upon pretence of religion, or infidelity, to offer any indig- 
nity, violence, abuse, or injury, to any other person lohatsoever ; 
and to take order that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies 
be held without molestation or disturbance." '' It is the duty of 
civil magistrates, as * nursing fathers,' to protect the Church of 
our common Lord without giving the preference to any denomi- 
nation of Christians, above the rest." Here is surely a disclaimer 
of all force. " But the nursing fathers !" — Why, yes. Isaiah 
said so before us. But he ought to have known, that he would 
give offence to Mr. Hughes, native of Ireland, emigrant to the 
United States, priest of Home, pastor of St. John's in the nine- 
teenth century, by such a passage 'r* Yet it is not said our par- 
ticular church, but all Christian denominations, that the civil ma- 
gistrate should protect. Ileligion is one of our common rights — 
and a civil right to be protected in it. But Mr. Hughes replies, 
this " excludes us idolaters." No. We say " all religious and 

(1) Chap. XXIII. Confession of Faith. 



ecclesiastical assemblies " are to be *^ protectedj' though it be an 
anti-Christian system. But shall we, for this reason, be silent 
about their errors ? May we not use the liberty of speech ? It is 
a part of the daily worship of St. John's, and of every " Catholic" 
altar upon earth, whenever full service is performed, to denounce 
us heretics; and every time the creed of Pius IV. is said, we are 
excluded from salvation. But they have a right to do it ; and it 
does not hurt us — nor do we try to hinder them. But shall we 
not use our liberty in turn, and freely inquire into these things? 
This is all we ask, and all we do. This is what the gentleman 
dreads — this is what his system cannot endure. 

But he insists we are not sincere. That we have a secret sense, 
and a private purpose, which Dr. Ely has let out for lack of 
Jesuit cunning. If our profession of faith be discredited, the ap- 
peal, of course, must be to facts. The only one he has adduced, 
is, that at Boston, the riotous rable taking the Convent for a 
********, wickedly burned it down. But these were not Pres- 
byterians. No. But they well deserved to be ! We appeal then 
to our standards, and, passing from them, we appeal to our his- 
tory, in refutation of these uncandid and shallow attacks. 

One thing must have struck every hearer. I mean the dearth 
of matter; when "election," and "removing all the monuments 
of idolatry," constitute the burden of his argument, (if such it 
may be called,) on which he has so long rung the changes of 
hopeless declamation, and ingenious sophistry. 

On the other hand, have not my hours been crowded with testi- 
monies against the oppressive system which he attempts to 
defend ? 

Before I close, let me notice some of the gentleman's evasions, 
devices, &c. 

He says the Jesuits were opposed by Voltaire, and other infi- 
dels; and were therefore good; yet he cites Mr. Jefferson to tes- 
tify to Presbyterian character. 

Under the second commandment, our standards refer to Deu- 
teronomy vii. 7., to prove that idolatry was to be abhorred, and, 
by all proper means, prevented. He argues, from the reference, 
that we hold to a theocracy^ and to force as a duty. Is he sin- 
cere ? Then let us turn to his own Catechism, (1) where it says, 
^^ heretics are to he punished,^' (The translator has interpolated 
the word ^^ spiritual,'^ and struck out all the references.) But on 
turning to the honest Latin, I find, it quotes Deuteronomy xvii. 12. 
" And the man thai ivill do presumptuosly , and will not hearken 
unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord 
thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die — and thou 
shall put away evil from Israel." If the gentleman is honest, 

(1) Counc. of Trent, page 9fi, English edition. 



then, he is forced to own, by his own reasoning on our Confes- 
sion, that his is a jjersecutmg theocraci/. But, still more. It also 
refers, for further proof, to Romans xiii. 4. ^^ He beareth not the 
sico7'd in vain," &c.; and, in the margin, it says, Unde leges in 
hcsreticos latce. Hence laws are passed against heretics. This, 
also, the pious translator left out. Now, this confirms and inter- 
prets the persecuting clause. Now, in our Confession there are 
abounding passages, which disclaim all purpose, or right, to en- 
force religious opinions; or to persecute heretics, or to require the 
civil power to do it; and all pretensions to be exclusively the true 
Church. Whereas, in the Roman Catholic standards, directly the 
reverse is true. It professes to be the only true Church; it pro- 
fesses that the civil power is hound to punish all persons " de- 
notcd hi/ the Church" as heretics; it professes to be a theocracy, 
a mixed power, commanding hoth swords. And I defy the gen- 
tleman, I hereby challenge him, to bring me one passage, in all 
his standards, condemning the union of church and state; ov per- 
mitting the toleration of a false religion; or the protection of any 
religion ; or announcing that all religions ought to be placed by 
the state on an equal footing ! I call on him to do it. Here, 
then, l\e adduces a passage of our standards, and construes it, (in 
a way which contradicts all the otlier parts of it, as he has al- 
lowed,) to mean persecution. Whereas I produce a passage sus- 
tained by his own use of our standards, and by many kindred 
parts of his, avowing the doctrine and the duti/ oi persecution. 

And that there may be no doubt of this, let me close with an 
extract from his own Cardinal Bellarmine. (1) ^' The spiritual 
power does not mingle in temporal a:^airs, but permits them to 
proceed in their ordinary course, provided they present no obsta- 
cle to the spiritual purpose, or are not necessary to forward them. 
But if any such thing should happen, the spiritual poitrr 77103/ and 
ought to repress the temporal, by every means and expedient 
which she may deem requisite; — may change kingdoms, taking 
them from one and giving them to another, as the sovereign, spi- 
ritual prince may deem necessary to the safety of souls. It is 
not permitted to Christians to tolerate an infidel, or heretical king, 
if he endeavours to draw his subjects into heresy ; but it belongs 
to the sovereign pontiff, who has the care of religion, to judge, 
whether the king does or not ; to the sovereign pontiff it conse- 
quently remains, to decide, whether the king shall be deposed or 
not." — Illustration. King John, of England; the Pope's inter- 
dict, and deposition of the king; his doing homage to the Pope 
for his crown ; and agreeing to pay an annual tribute to the Pope, 
called, from this, *' Peter's Pence ! " In different periods of papal 
despotism, not less than sixty emperors, kings, and princes, have 

(U Lib 5. chap. 6. Do Rom. Pon. 


been excommunicated, deposed, &c. by the Popes of Rome ! 
Yet, we are told, Rome regards the rights of man ! 

P.S. When a Jesuit denies a Jesuit, what shall we say ? 
There is proof positive, in the Jiistory of Talleyrand, that he 
taught mathematics in the state of New York. There is proof 
in his character^ that he is a Jesuit. 


" 2s t7i8 Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its principles or 
doctrines, opposed to civil or religious liberty?^' 


Mr. President: — 

I HAVE had but little intercourse with the gentleman, except 
as a controversial opponent, and yet, notwithstanding the viola- 
tion of all the rules that usually govern the intercourse of gen- 
tlemen, vyhich you have witnessed in his last speech, I have reason 
to know that he can he courteous, when he is in good humour. 
*' Papist," ''Jesuit," •' native of Ireland," "foreigner," and every 
epithet that can awaken a dormant prejudice, or excite a feeling 
of hatred, is employed to designate the individual Vhora HE him- 
self SELECTED, as his equal in every moral quality. Still, sir, 
I can trace his violation of propriety to his bad humour; and I 
can trace his bad humour, to his bankruptancy in argument. His 
conduct reminds me of those disputants, who would overthrow 
the influence of the Saviour's preaching, not by argument or 
reasoning, but by saying that he ^^ intended to destroy the tem- 
ple," that he was a '' Samaritan, and had a devil." 

He represents me as attacking the reputation of individuals, — 
slandering the character of institutions, — "hating" this one, 
"fearing" that other — and above all, publishing "ferocious 
scandals " of the Presbyterians. But all will not do. He has 
assigned my position in this Discussion, and the history of his creed 
and its professors furnish me with arguments to maintain it. 
Catholics are not in the habit of meddling with the religious con- 
cerns of other denominations; but when circumstances of the 
gentleman's own choice and creation, have made it my duty to 
examine the bearings of Presbyterianism on "civil and religious 
liberty," then the fault, if there is any, must rest on his own head. 
The examination of Presbyterianism is an operation to which he 
is evidently unaccustomed, and for which his temper is constitu- 
tionally unfitted. I am not surprised, therefore, that it should 
betray him into a forgetfulness of what is due to himself as a 
"minister of the gospel" and a refined gentleman. That he 
should experience pain, is natural enough. But the man who is 
so ready to inflict it on Catholics, should be prepared to en- 
dure in return. Neither should he mistake the source of his 


suffering — by making the instrument responsible for what be- 
longs, rather, to the depth and inveteracy of the disease. Igive 
chapter and verse for every fact stated in argument. Does he 
dispute my citation of authorities ? It would bo useless. Does 
he grapple with my reasoning, in deducing consequences from 
those facts? No, but he calls me a <' Jesuit," a ''papist" — and 
for those who will not be convinced by this kind of argument, 
there is no remedy. Least, however, that even this should go 
unrefuted, I shall cite a counter argument from the Rev. Mr. 
Nightingale, a Protestant clergyman, who says ''The reproachful 
epithets of 'Papists,' 'Romanist,' 'Popish,' 'Romanish,' &c. are 
no longer applied to them ( Catholics) hy ANY gentleman OR 
SCHOLAR." (1) The gentleman says, that to call us " Catholics" 
" would be to give up the whole question of debate between us 
and Protestants." I am sorry that Protestantism has to depend 
for its existence on a breach of politeness — and the hope of ap- 
propriating to itself a title which had been ours for,150Q years 
previous to its existence. 

He seems to think that the other Protestant denominations join 
the Presbyterians in the crusade against Catholics. That they 
believe Catholics to be in error, is easily admitted. But this does 
not constitute evidence in the case. The Presbyterians alone, so 
far as I know, are the only denomination who have seen their 
^'ministers of the gospel" resigning their congregations to be 
saved by " God's eternal decree," in order to devote themselves 
to the preaching of religious and political hatred among citizens 
in a country where the rights of all are equal. I believe that the 
great body of the sober-minded Presbyterians themselves, have 
beheld with regret and mortification, the proceedings by which 
certain llev. agitators of their sect, were fixing the attention of 
the country, as to what might be their ulterior object. The stories 
about "gunpowder plots," and ''foreign conspiracies," were a 
little too absurd for the belief of rational and reflecting minds, 
such as are found in all denominations. Their very authors, I 
am persuaded in my heart, do not believe one word of them. 

Passing over the gentleman's charges against the Catholic reli- 
gion, which I have answered under the former question — passing 
over for the present his irrelevant matter about " Dr. Beecher," 
" Dr. Miller," " Dr. Ely,"—" lions," " porcupines," and "rats," 
— I shall proceed to the question, and the argument at once. My 
first argument to show, that Presbyterians hold doctrines " opposed 
to civil and religious liberty," was founded on their doctrine of 
predestination; which Calvin called the "horrible decree." I 
showed that any doctrine which destroyed free-will, and transfer- 
red the responsibilitij of moral transgression from the CREATURE 
to the CREATOR; whether true or false in itself, is opposed in its 

(1) Pourtr. p. 14. 


consequences, not only to morality, but to the foundation of all 
moral laws. But does the Presbyterian doctrine warrant such a 
conclusion ? It certainly does. It teaches that God " fore- 
ordained WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS.'^ (1) Pass in review, 
then, all the crimes that have been. committed since the world 
began, including the first *,nd the last ; and, since it is undeniable 
that they *' HAVE come to pass," it follows, according to the 
Confession of Faith, that Grod had ^'fore-ordained them.'' And 
since God had " fore-ordained '^ them, it follows that their perpe- 
trators could not avoid committing them. And since they could 
not avoid committing them, it follows that they had no reason 
to be sorry for them. And since they had no reason to be sorry 
for them, it follows that there is no motive for exertion to avoid 
them. Since, if God has " fore-ordained '^ them, they will happen 
in despite of effort. Here, therefore, is a doctrine which makes 
all human actions-^virtuous as well as vicious — and vicious as 
well as virtuous, the result of God's '' fore-ordination," in the 
carrying out of which, man is no longer a free, inoral agent, but 
the mere automaton of the eternal decree. According to this it 
was "fore-ordained" that John IIuss should be burned at 
Constance ; and yet the gentleman charges the Council for it. 
But I ask him whether it was not "fore-ordained" that it should 
be so ? If lie sai/s it was, then he blames the Council for not 
DEFEATING One of God's ^'decrees." If he says it ivas not, then 
he abandons his doctrine. But he must admit that it was. And 
I ask any one, whether a doctrine which tells the offender against 
the rights of his fellow-men, that God had " fore-ordained " the 
offence, is not a dangerous doctrine ? 

In answer to this, he says, that St. Augustine, the Episcopalians, 
and Baptists hold, and that the Council of Trent almost held this 
doctrine. I say that, with the exception of what are called Calvin- 
istic Baptists, the fact is not so. St. Augustine, in the passage 
quoted, is speaking of election to the grace and knowledge of 
Christianity, as the original clearly shows. The Episcopalians, 
even in England, are known to have had, especially since the time 
of Archbishop Laud, " Calvinistic articles, and Arminian clergy." 
The doctrine was in the book, but they neither professed nor be- 
lieved in it, as their Presbyterian opponents have been eloquent 
in showing. As to the Council of Trent, it taught no such im- 
pious tenet. But it is of no importance. The difficulty remains 
the same. A second attempt at answering, which has been made, 
is the citation of the good opinion which Hooker, and Bancroft, 
and Sir James Macintosh entertained of Presbyterians. This is 
not the question. But the question, what is the plea which this 
Joctrine gives to wicked men who choose to act upon it? A man 
trained in this belief, for instance, has committed a crime. Before 

(1) Pag© 321. 


detection, he soothes his conscience by the reflection that the 
^'eternal decree of God, foreordained" him to commit it. But 
he is detected, and condemned by the laws of his country. Be- 
fore receiving his sentence, he pleads, in bar of judgment, that 
God had ''foreordained" him, by an '' unchangeable decree," 
to commit the act for which man is about to punish him. The 
human law required him not to do it — the decree of God put 
it out of his power to abstain from doing it; the consequence 
is, that he is to be punished for not having resisted the decree 
of God! Now let the gentleman show where there is an error 
in this reasoning. Let him reconcile the doctrine of '' the fore- 
ordination oi tchatever comes to pass," with the justice of those 
primitive laws, by which the equal rights of men, social, civil, 
and religious are protected ; and I shall admit that there is nothing 
in this doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, '' opposed to civil and 
religious liberty." Nay, I shall never bring it forward again, if he 
does. But let us have no more certificates of good behaviour 
from " Hooker and Bancroft." For they ^o not remove the 
difficulty. Neither does Swift or Dryden remove the difficulty. 
Another argument was founded on the Presbyterian doctrine, 
by which the '' magistrates" are constituted '* nursing fathers 
of the Church of our common Lord." This was the language 
of the Westminster Assembly, and their own understanding of 
its meaning is the best interpretation. Dr. Wilie gave the true in- 
terpretation in the passage I read from his sermon in my last 
speech. Before, Dr. Wilie was ranked among the ^^ purest Pres- 
hyterians that ever lived f^ now, the gentleman says, " Ae (/)r. 
TF.) does not helong to our communion. But how comes it, that 
the identical texts of Scripture, by which Dr. Wilie supports 
those arguments, which the gentleman sees with so much '' regret 
and surprise," are for the most part the same that are referred to 
or expressed in the Confession of Faith ? Did the gentleman not 
study in his theological course the meaning which the Westminster 
divines gave to them? Were they not Jehovah's warrant, au- 
thorising those laws of persecution and intolerance, by which the 
brief ascendancy of Presbyterianism in England was so distin- 
guished ? What are they now ? Have they, too, altered their 
meaning ? If they have, why did not the republican edition of 
the Confession say so ? If they have not, why does he disclaim 
the persecuting principles, which they were originally employed 
to support 1 Thus, the text, to prove that magistrates are to be 
*' nursing fathers to the church," is Isa. xlix. 23. ^^And kings 
shall he thi/ nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing 
motlters." Is this the manner in which the Presbyterian Church 
has repudiated the state ? The fact is that the state, happily 
for the country, would not marry the church; but if the visions 
of Dr. Ely should be realised, it will be found that the '' banns'' 
have been long on record, in the Confession of Faith. 


But I am told, that this article, making the magistrates of the 
republic " nursing fathers to the Church of our common Lord/' 
means something else. It means, that they should protect all 
denominations of Christians. Well, this duty the magistrates can 
learn from the Constitution. But let us see what is meant by 
the '^ Church of our common Lord." Let the confession speak. 

" The visible Church, which is also Catholic or Universal 
under the Gospel, (not confined to one nation as before under the 
law,) consists of all those throughout the world that PROFESS 
THE TRUE V^YAAQclO:^, together with their children ; and is 
the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of 


SALVATION." (1) Hence, to belong to the *' Church of common 
Lord/' to which the magistrates are to be '■^ nursing fathers," it 
is necessary to '■'■ profess the true religion |" in other words, to 
be a Presbyterian. If the magistrate is bound to " remove all 


the creed elsewhere teaches, is it not contradictory and absurd to 
say, under this head, that he is bound to ^^ protect all?'' 

There is one circumstance connected with the gentleman's vin- 
dication of Presbyterian doctrine, from the charge of persecution, 
to which I beg to direct your attention. It is this — that he con- 
fines himself within that portion of history and geography, in 
which it was impossible to practice the doctrine of his Church, 
and unpopular even to profess it. But the honest Presbyterians, 
who have adhered to their principles in adversity, as well as 
prosperity, determined the question of doctrine by a thousand 
attestations. I have given already abundant evidence to estab- 
lish this, both from their synodical expositions and individual 
testimonies, in our own times and country.' We shall now hear 
their doctrines expounded by themselves, and we shall discover 
in them the broad avowal of civil hostility to all freedom of con- 
science opposed to Presbyterianism. Let it be understood, that 
I do not hold the gentleman responsible for the intolerance of 
individuals, but I quote those individuals as faithful interpreters 
of the standards of the Presbyterian Church ; and we have his 
own candid acknowledgment of their character, when he tells us, 
that " they are among the purest Presbyterians that ever lived." 
I quote from the work of the Rev. Mr. Houston, of the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church in Ireland, published in 1833, entitled 
"The Reviewer Reviewed." 

In order to understand the merits of the argument, it is neces- 
sary to premise that, the reviewer, a Mr. Paul, had under- 
taken the difficult task of vindicating the Presbyterian stand- 
ards from the persecuting doctrines, which all the world knows 
them to contain ; and which Mr. Houston being, like Dr. Ely, 

(1) Chap. XXV. Art. 2. 


perhaps, ^' a busy, loquacious man," had imprudently set forth. 
Here the question was identically the same that is now under 
discussion, and the disputants being both of that class, which 
the gentleman designates as among the ^^ purest Preshyteriam 
that ever lived,'* every justice will be done to the standards. 

Mr. Houston, with that intellectual refinement of intolerance, 
for which the disciples of John Calvin have always been charac- 
terized by a singular aptitude, maintains, that Presbyterian ma- 
gistrates have a right, and it is their duty, to punish '' heretics 
and IDOLATERS, '^ with the civil sword, and yet that this is not 
persecution ! It is true, if magistrates of any other denomination, 
were to wield the civil sword against Presbyterians, then it would 
be persecution; because, says he, persecution " is the endurance 
of trouble for the true Christian religion, in doctrine and wor- 
ship." (1) From this position, he deduces, as consequences, that 
the Protestants, or at least the Presbyterians, were martyrs when 
they suifered for conscience sake; but that this was their exclusive 
privilege, as professors of the " true Christian religion." 

As the Presbyterian was a martyr, whenever he suifered by 
civil law, so, whenever he made the professors of other religions 
suffer by the civil sword, he was not a persecutor, but a zealous 
minister of God. Hear the Presbyterian, who had no motive to 
disguise the princij)les of their creed. " Actuated hy holy zeal 
for the honour of God, and feeling a deep interest in the safety 
of the TRUE RELIGION, the magistrate may restrain its daring 
enemies ; and if free from malignity in so doing, he incurs not 
the guilt of a persecutor, according to the TRUE IINIPORT of the 
word." (2) Let the Presbyterian magistrate only say, with the 
associate of John Knox, and the murderer of Cardinal Beaton, 
that he is not moved to the shedding of heretical blood, by any 
*' private malignity," and he is, from that moment, not a perse- 
cutor, but a zealous minister of God. Having established this 
Presbyterian distinction, the author goes on to say — " The most 
enlightened of our Reformers, too, whether churchnen or states- 
men, and the most devoted and faithful 'martyrs to the Reforma- 
tion cause, drunk deeply into the same spirit, BEING AVOWED 

Reformed religion." (3) The author is here candid and hon- 
est, and we shall have abundant occasion to show that the minis- 
ters of the Reformed religion, made use of the magistrates' power, 
and that without it, Protestantism never would have succeeded. 
But Mr. Houston supports his assertions by the authorities of the 
Westminster divines, and their cotemporaries, and from the gen- 
tleman's Confession of Faith. The London ministers had laid it 
down, that '^ The magistrate is, in a civil notion, the supreme gover- 
nor in all causes ecclesiastical, THE keeper of both tables, the 

(1) P. 20. (2) P. m. (b; P. 21. 


NURSING FATTIER OF THE CHURCH, &c." (1) The gentleman pre- 
tended, that the magistrate's being denominated a '' nursing father 
of the church/' had no kind of connexion with civil and religious 
liberty ; although he must be truly unacquainted with Presbyte- 
rian theology, if he did not know that in the mind of those who 
made his creed in Westminster, it meant to authorize the tyranny 
over conscience, which Presbyterians invariably exercised, when 
they had the power. Mr. Houston proceeds to show the mean- 
ing of the doctrines on this subject, embodied in the Westminster 
Confession of Faith, and other Presbyterian standards, from "such 
venerated men as Rutherford, Guthrie, and Gillespie, '' and from 
those very texts of Scripture, by which the Westminster divines 
proved the right of the civil magistrates to regulate the consciences 
of men, and which texts are still in the gentleman's Confession. 
^^ Now, says he, it is plain that all those false teachers of old, who 
aimed to icitlidraw the Israelites from the worship of the true 
God, and to cause them to go after other gods, were regarded 
hy the law as heretics. Such is the interpretation given to the 
laws recorded in Deut. XIII. hy Calvin, and the most eminent 
expositors offor7ner times, and Scott, of more modern days. 'It 
deserves to be remarked, that, OUR Westminster divines refer 
TO these very passages, (2) in proof of the positions which they 
advance, that it is the magisfrates duty to take order that all 
heresies should he suppressed." (3) 

After the independence of this country was secured, it was 
found that the doctrine of using the civil magistrate as a tool in 
the hands of Presbytery, for " suppressing heresy," would not take. 
Thege odious words were omittted, accordingly, in the Confession 
of Faith ; but the original Scripture on which their persecuting im- 
port was founded, remains to the present day. And it is proba- 
ble that this is one of the reasons why that " busy, loquacious 
man/' Doctor Ely, desired to form his '^ Christian party in poli- 
tics/' and preferred, ("other things being equal,") to have a " good 
sound Presbyterian for his chief magistrate." Mr. Houston, 
in developing the standards, says — " It is so notorious that at 
the period of the Reformation, the Reformers and reformed 
churches held the p)rinciple of magistratical care about religion, 
and that the Protestant powers, such as the Senate of 
Geneva, the Elector of Saxony, and others icho favoured the 
Reformation, carried this principle, into execution, that 
the advocates of the new-ligiit doctrine generally represent 
them as but partially enlightened on this article ; and if they 
go not the length of condemning them as bigots, they represent 
them as not fully emancipated from the shackles of Anti' 
christ." (4) We shall see more of this by-and-by. 

(1) p. 38. (2) Deut xiii. 5, 6, 12. 

(3) P. 54. (4) P. 58. 


Again. ^^Tlie penal statutes enacted in various Reforming 
parliaments, against idolaters and heretics, prove incontestihly, 
that, at that time at least, and hy those men, WHOM WE ARE AC- 
CUSTOMED TO VENERATE, OS Valiant witnesses for the truth, the 
suppression of idolatry and heresy, hy the authority of the civil 
magistrate, was regarded as AN INDISPENSABLE DUTY.'' (1) 

^'■The article of the Westminster Confession, (2) which asserts, 
that all blasphemies and heresies should he suppressed, hy the 
magistrates authority ; and the solemn league and covenant, a 
deed which was sanctified hy the highest legislative council in the 
nation, and cheerfully taken hy persons of all ranks and condi- 
tions at that day, in which the SWEARERS hind themselves, each 
doctrine which they maintained on this subject." (3.) 

After having noticed the ''gratuitous assertions," as he calls them, 
of ''infidel writers" and " pretended liberals," Mr. Houston states 
a fact, which shows how little Mr. Breckinridge's statement, as 
to Presbyterians having been the friends of liberty of conscience, 
is to be depended on. ''Besides, the sectaries who abetted the 
cause of liberty of conscience and toleration, both in the West- 
minster Assembly, and the councils of the nation, were men of 
learning and address, and p>ossessed of extensive influence. Not- 
withstanding these powerful obstacles, THE GOOD HAND OF THE 
Lord was visibly upon his servants." (4) Here is the 
acknowledgment, that the pleaders for toleration, were the Secta- 
ries, and that the Presbyterians defeated their purpose. Yet you 
have heard their liberality spoken of. The gentleman will say 
this is Houston, a Reformed Presbyterian. Yes ; but he is unr 
folding the principles of the Confession of Faith. For instance, 
" When the abettors of error are restrained by the civil magistrate, 
and when he acts in every respect as a true ' NURSING FATHER TO 
THE CHURCH,' faithful ministers ivill be encouraged in their la- 
hows, and the difficulties that now oppose their success in the mi- 
nistry, will he in a great measure removed." (5) He goes on to 
say, that "In no country, without the aid of the civil magistrate, 
can Christianity (Presbyterianism) universally prevail." And 
as a proof of this, he cites an example which ought to make the 
gentleman and his colleagues blush. ''Popish delusions received 
no effectual check in Scotland, till the rulers and nobles of the 
land put their hand, to the work, and called into exercise THEIR 


OF THE TRUTH." (6) What is this, but to acknowledge that the 

(1) P. 59. (2) Chap, xxiii. ;3) P. 62. 

(4) Ibid. p. 63. (5) Ibid. p. 65. (6) Ibid. p. 66. 


Presbyterian religion was established by the magistrate, and the 
Catholic, refuted by the argument of the sword ? 

After showing the advantages of the magistrates being, as the 
church requires, and as they used to be, " nursing fathers,^' he 
shows the evils of the opposite, which he calls the " new-light," 
system. ^^Consequences of the ncw-Ught scheme exemplified in 
France, and in the United States of America." (1) For the 
evils of the system in this country, he quotes from Doctor Dwight 
and Doctor Beecher. (2) ^^The United States afford another 
specimen of the working of the new-light scheme, though even 
there, the princijile is hy no means carried into full extent. The 
government of this land of freedom, as it is hoastingli/ called, 
not only contains no direct recognition of the moral Governor of 
the Universe, offers no homage to 3Iessiah, but makes it essential, 
that no favour shoidd he extended to the Church of Christ, more 
than to any merely civil institution, while her avowed enemies 
are eligible to all 2)laces of power and trust, and the fullest 
toleration is extended to every species of error and irreligion." (3) 
Let any one compare this with the doctrine of the "nursing 
fathers," and the " Christian party in politics,'' and the late 
political campaign of the Rev. junto of Presbyterian ministers, 
and see whether every expression, and every movement, is not in 
accor-dance with the doctrines which I have already quoted from 
the Confession of Faith. 

Among the evils deplored by this writer, as the consequence of 
our free American government, is the very one with which my Rev. 
opponent and his colleagues are endeavouring to stir up the peo- 
ple to intolerance. " With all the vigour and zeal of the churches 
in the United States, IN consequence of the neglect OF THE 
CIVIL ruler on the score of religion, the idolatry of popery 

is spreading with rapidity." (4) What is all this but the 

acknowledgment that, without the help of the civil magistrate, 
Presbyterianism cannot flourish ? The whole, and only defence 
that the gentleman can make, is, that he does not hold these doc- 
trines. Ife ! Of what importance is he in the question? I bring 
expounders of his doctrines, who wrote in the absence of the 
motives which seem to operate on the gentleman just now, 
and he flings them all overboard ! He is not ^' answerable for 
Dr. Miller j" Dr. Ely is a ''busy, loquacious man;" Dr. Wilie 
"belongs not to our communion;" and he "regrets," and is 
"surprised." The only one whom he has not disowned is 
Dr. Brownlee, of the Dutch Reformed or Presbyterian Church. 
And this man's Confession of Faith makes it a duty, imposed on 
the civil magistrates of this free country, to '^protect the sacred 
ministry;" and "remove and prevent all idolatry and 
False WORSHIP.". . . "Wherefore," the doctor and his associates 

a) Ibid. p. 67. (2) P. 69. (3) P. 69. (4) P. 70. 


^^detest tlie Anahaptists and other seditious people,'^ who do not 
agree with his creed in holding these anti-American doctrines. 
The representative of this creed, a Scotch foreigner, the gentle- 
man calls his ''gallant colleague;" by which it is manifest that 
the doctrine obtains his approval, as being orthodox, and in strict 
conformity with his own creed, which obliges all Presbyterians 

OF idolatry/' 

Sir, the gentleman's disclaimer of intolerance, in the name of 
the Presbyterian doctrine, is a sufficient evidence that he is better 
acquainted with " Cramp's Text Book of Popery," than with the 
standards and theology of his own communion. I will now quote 
but one single doctrine, which he is bound by his ordination vows 
to preach and maintain as a " tenet of faith or morals revealed by 
Almighty God." It is, that all Presbyterians are commanded by 
Jehovah, not only to DETEST and oppose, but also "according 


mentary on this avowed doctrine, I shall quote the standards of 
Presbyterians of other countries, to show that this single article 
contains the essence of all the intolerance which was honestly ex- 
pressed by this sect, previous to the national establishment of 
liberty of conscience in this republic — to which its spirit is so 
emphatically adverse. 


"That papistry and superstition may be UTTERLY SUP- 
*' PRESSED, according to the intention of the Acts of Parlia- 
'^ ment, repeated in the 5th Act, Pari. 20, King James VI. 
" And to that end they ordain all papists and priests to BE 
" ASTICAL PAINS, as adversaries to God's true religion, 
" preached, and BY LAW ESTABLISHED, within this realm, 
" Act 24, Pari. 11, King James VI. ; as common enemies to all 
" Christian government. Act 18, Pari. 16, King James VI. ; as 
" rebellers and gainsfanders of our sovereign lord's authority, 
" Act 47, Pari. 3, King James VI. (Acts of Parliament 
" embodied in the National Covenant, and afterwards approved 
^•' by the compilers of the Act and Testimony)." 

This shows the character of that Gospel hy wldch Presbyte- 
rianism was established in Scotland; and sufficiently indicates 
the duty of the magistrates, as nursing fathers." But again — 

" That all kings and princes, at tlieir coronation, and reception 
" of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise, 
" by their solemn oath, in the presence of their eternal God, that 
"during the whole time of their lives, they shall serve the same 
" eternal God, to the utmost of their power, a3cording as he hath 


" required in his most holy word, contained in the Old and New 
"Testament; and, according to the same word, shall maintain 
" the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of his holy 
" word, the due and right ministration of the sacraments now 
*' received and preached within this realm, (according to the 
" ING) and shall ABOLISH and gainstand ALL FALSE IlE- 
" LIGION CONTRARY TO THE SAME ; and shall rule the 
" people committed to their charge, according to the will and 
" and according to the laudable laws and constitutions received in 
" this realm, no wise repugnant to the said will of the eternal God; 
" and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the kirk of 
" God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect peace in all 
"time coming; and that they shall be careful to ROOT OUT 
" OF THEIR EMPIRE ALL HERETICS and enemies to the 
" TRUE WORSHIP of God, who shall be convicted by the 
" TRUE KIRK of God of the foresaid crimes." (1) 

Here is the origin of that commandment which requires Pres- 
byterians to "oppose and remove, according to each one^s 

place and calling, all false worship, and all the monuments of 
idolatry. Again, still — 

"That we shall, in like manner, without respect of per- 
" sons, endeavour the extirpation of popery, prelacy (that is 
" church-government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors, 
" and commissaries, deans, deans and chapters,, archdeacons, and 
" all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), 
" and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine 
" and the power of godliness ; lest we partake in other men's 
" sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues ; and 
" that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three king- 
" doms." (2) 

This was in England, in 1643 — more than a hundred years 
after the so-called Reformation. But let the standards proceed. 

" When any thing is amiss, we will endeavour a reformation 
" in a fair and orderly way, and where reformation is settled, we 
" resolve, with that authority wherewith God hath vested us, to 
" maintain and defend it in peace and liberty against all trouble 
" that can come from without, and against all HERESIES, 
" SECTS, AND SCHISM-S, which may arise from within." (3) 

"We shall be bold to warn your majesty really, that the guilt 
"which cleaveth fast to your majesty and to your throne, is such 
" as (whatsoever flattering preachers or unfaithful counsellors may 

(1) Coronation Oath in the National Covenant. 

(2) Solemn League and Covenant, Art. 2. 

(3) Acts of Assembly, 1638. 


" say to the contrary) if not timely repented, cannot but involve 
''yourself and your posterity under the wrath of the ever-living 
^' God, for your being guilty of the shedding of the blood of many 
*' thousands of your majestyVbest subjects; for your PERMIT- 
"TINa THE MASS and other idolatry, both in your own 
" family and in your dominions." (1) 

This was the Assembly which framed the gentleman's CON"- 
FESSION OF FAITH. The king was so far friendly to liberty 
of conscience, as to "permit" the saying of mass, and this was to 
draw upon him the " wrath of God." Again — 

" So, it cannot be denied, that upon these passages and pro- 
*' ceedings, hath followed the interrupting of the so much longed 
''for reformation of religion, of the settling by Presbyterian 
"government, and of THE SUPPRESSING OF HERESIES 
" AND DANGEROUS ERRORS, which works the PARLIA- 

" We are also very sensible of the great and imminent dangers 
" into which this common cause of religion is now brought by 
" the growing and spreading of most dangerous errors in England, 
"to the obstructing and hindering of the begun reformation; as, 
"namely, besides many others, Socinianism, Arminianism, Ana- 
" baptism, Erastianism, Brownism, Antinomianism, Independency, 
"and that which is called (by abuse of the word) LIBERTY 
"OF CONSCIENCE, being indeed liberty of error, scandal, 
" schism, heresy, dishonouring God, opposing the truth, hinder- 
" ing reformation, and seducing others. (3) 

Will the gentleman say that this is not evidence to show the 
bearing of Presbyterian doctrines on civil and religious liberty ? 
These were the men who understood the Confession of Faith — 
and explained it. 

" The General Assembly, considering how the errors of INDE- 
" PENDENCY and SEPARATION have, in our neighbour 
" kingdom of England, spread as a gangrene, and do daily eat as 
"a canker; insomuch that exceeding many errors, heresies, 
"schisms, and blasphemies have issued therefrom, and are shelt- 
" ered thereby ; and how possible it is for the SAME EVILS TO 
" DOM, (lying within the same island,) BY THE SPREADING 

" BELS, AND LETTERS that some course may be 

'* taken to hinder the dispersing thereof ; and herehy all Fveshy- 
" terians and si/nods are ordained to try and process such as shall 
" transgress against the p7'emises, or any part of the same : And 

(1) Remonstrance to the King — Acts of Assembly, February, 1645. 

(2) Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation, in the Acts of Assembly 
AuijHit, 1(347. 

(3) Declaration and Brotherly Exhortation. 


"the Assembly also doth seriously recommend to civil magis- 
" trates that they may he pleased to he assisting to ministers 
^' and presbyteries in execution of this act, and to concur with 
" their authority in everything to that eiFect." (1) 

* * " That notwithstanding hereof, the civil magistrate ought 
" to suppress, by corporal or civil punishments, such as, by 
'' spreading error or heresy, or by fomenting schism, greatly dis- 
" honour God, dangerously hurt religion, and disturb the PEACE 
" seever OPPOSED by the AUTHORS and fomentors of the 
" foresaid errors respectively,) the General Assembly doth FIRM- 
"to the judgment both of the ancient and THE BEST RE- 
-FORMED KIRKS. (CXI. Proposition, 8th Head.^') 

The profession of faith, in divinity of Christ, by the Council of 
Nice, is not more emphatic than the doctrine of magistrates 
here laid down — as true, orthodox, grounded on the word of 
God,^' &c. 

" As also, that, as the ambassadors of Jesus Christ and his 
" watchmen, you will give seasonable warning to the honourable 
" Houses of Parliament, that now, (after the loss of the oppor- 
" tunity of so many years,) they would, IN THEIR PLxiCES, 
" repair the House of the Lord, that lieth so long desolate, and 
" promote the work of reformation and UNIFORMITY accord- 
" ing to the Covenant. For, if the honourable Houses of Parlia- 
" ment had timely made use of that power, which God hath put 
** in their hands for suppressing of sectaries, and had taken a 
^^ speedy course for settling of Presbytcrial government, (a spe- 
" cial and effectual means appointed by God to purge his Church 
^'■from all scandals in doctrine and practice,^ then, had not THE 
" height, as to give occasion to the MALIGN ANTS of both king- 
"doms to justify and bless themselves in their old opposition to 
" the work of reformation, and to encourage one another to new 
" and iijore dangerous attempts. (2) 

Some of the audience may not be aware that " malignants" 
was the term employed to designate the Episcopalians — the 
old argument of nicknames, instead of reason, 

^' And because the POWERS which God hath ordained, and 
"the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended 
" by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one 

(1) Acts of Assemhhj, August, 1647. This was the Assembly that received 
and approved of the Westminster Cimfession of Faith. 

(2) Acts of Assembly, August 2, 1648. 


"another; they who, UPON PRETENCE OF CHRISTIAN 
" or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be CIVIL OR ECCLE- 
" SIASTICAL, resist the ORDINANCE OF GOD. And for 

" their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such prac- 
" tices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known 
" principles of Christianity, whether CONCERNING FAITH, 
" WORSHIP, or conversation ; or to the power of godliness ; or 
" such erroneous opinions or practices, as, either, in their own 
" nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are 
" destructive to the external j^eace and order which Christ hath 
" established in the Church : they may lawfully be called to ac- 
" count, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, 
" (and by the power of the civil magistrate/^) (1) 

The words in parenthesis are omitted in the present republican 
edition, as something offensive to the eye. But the rest of the 
article makes the sense complete; and besides, omission is no 

(" The following Scriptures, amongst others, are referred to by 
^' the compilers, in proof of the doctrine which they have here 
" advanced : — Ezra, vii. 23. * Whatsoever is commanded by the 
" God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God 
" of heaven : for why should there be wrath against the realm of 
" the king and his sons?' Yer. 25. 'And thou, Ezra, after the 
" wisdom of thy God that is in thy hand, sit magistrate and judges 
" which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all 
"such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that 
" know them not.' Yer. 26. 'And whosoever will not do the 
" law of thy God, and the LAW OF the king, let judgment be 
" executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to 
"banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.' — 
" Zech. xiii. 2. 'And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the 
"' Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of 
" the land, and they shall no more be remembered : and also I 
" will cause the prophets and the unclean spirits to pass out of the 
" land.' Yer. 3. 'And it shall come to pass, that when any shall 
" yet prophecy, then his father and his mother that