« AnteriorContinuar »
tates, but that they had fallen short of the virtues of their predecessors.
My friend quarrels with the name, cardinals. The name is Latin and as old as that language. But I will not contend for the name. He says the cardinals, were not so called for 1000 years, but did not show his authority. This was, however, the title given to priests charged with the care of large churches, as far back as the year 150, or at least in 300. But call them what you may, they were a portion, and an eminent portion, of the Roman clergy in all ages. Now, as formerly, there are cardinal priests, cardinal deacons, and even cardinal laymen. They are a superior order of men, the patrons of the arts and sciences, as well as the ornaments and supports of the church, and the benefactors of the poor. They liberally entertain and treat our travelling fellow-citizens with great civility—for instance, Mr. Dewey, an Unitarian minister, lately in Rome, and cardinal Weld, a distinguished English nobleman, in whose father's castle, at Lulworth, if I am not mistaken, our first archbishop, the cousin of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was consecrated bishop.-Read Mr. Dewey's elegant and thrilling pages. They will almost make you a Catholic. Certainly they will liberalize your minds already raised far above vulgar prejudices. The cardinals elect the popembut if the pope creates the cardinals, surely he does not create his own electors !
Mr. C.-has not told us yet, from what true and holy apostolic church, the Roman church apostatized. He has told you of the Albigenses, Vaudois, Novatians, Donatists, &c., but they furnish no continuous church. They are, I say again, ignoble ancestry. My friends, read history for yourselves if you wish to see what a miserable set of wretches these sectarians were.
My friend says, that Peter was married—but I defy him to prove that he retained his wife after he became a bishop. I will meet Mr. Campbell on this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy, and shew him in the words of St. Paul, 1st Cor. i. 26, and in those of Jesus Christ, Matthew xix. 12, whose expressions, although he was purity itself, I dare not repeat in Mr. C 's fastidious ears, “ that there are not many wise according to the flesh.” St. Paul, who was a bachelor, says, 1st Cor. vii. “I would that all were as myself. I say to the unmarried and the widows ; it is good for them if they so continue even as I. v. 8. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife : and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Read the entire chapter. Marriage was ordained by Almighty God for the propagation of the human race. The Catholic church not only approves the institution, but teaches that Christ hath exalted it to the dignity of a sacrament. St. Paul, while he wishes all to be like himself, unmarried, still acknowledges that all are not called to that state; and they who cannot practise continence, he wishes to marry; so does the Catholic church. Her ministers are not allowed to take a vow of chastity until they have attained an age when they can, aided by divine grace, decide on their capability for its pure observance. And now, young ladies and gen
tlemen, take care you never become what Mr. C. would make you, the successors of Paulicians. They condemned all connubial ties, saying that marriage came from the evil principle. But, married or single, let us not forget that our days in this life are numbered; the gayest are frequently death's earliest victims. “For the fashion of this world, says the apostle, passeth away." Let priests then do good, even as Catholic religious have done, to the whole human family, renouncing the ties that would bind them to a few only, that they may be like God, the fathers and benefactors of many.
Mr. C. spoke of ministering to the sick. I thank him for the hint. In deeds of charity, the Catholic priesthood, the Catholic religious of all orders, are unsurpassed. Their · labor of love' is seen in the hospital, the pest-house, the dungeon, the orphan asylum ; where the cholera makes its dreadful ravages, where the pestilence stalketh at noonday, or midnight! Hear Waddington
“The Ursulines. Of the more modern orders, there is also one which may seem to require our notice—that of the Ursulines. Its origin is ascribed to Angela di Brescia, about the year 1537, though the saint from whom it received its name, Ursula Benincasa, a native of Naples, was born ten years afterwards. Its character was peculiar, and recalls our attention to the primitive form of ascetic devotion. The duties of those holy sisters were the purest within the circle of
e-to minister to the sick, to relieve the poor, to console the miserable, to pray with the penitent. These charitable offices they undertook to execute without the bond of any community, without the obligation of any monastic vow, without any separation from society, any renouncement of their domestic duties and virtues. And so admirably were those offices, in millions of instances, performed, that had all other female orders been really as useless and vicious, as they are sometimes falsely described to be, the virtues of the Ursulines had alone been sufficient to redeem the monastic name,
But it is very far from true, that these other orders were either commonly dis.
lute or generally useless. Occasional scandals have engendered universal caimnies." Waddington's Church Hist. page 325, New York edit. 1835.
Ir. C. spoke of bad popes, Nicholas III. &c. &c. and of monks. H r again—what this Protestant historian says of them and of this very Nicholas.
***. It is not without reason that Roman Catholic writers vaunt the disinterested devotion of the early Mendicants-how assiduous they were in supplying the spiritual wants of the poor, how frequent in prisons and in hospitals, how forward to encounter the fire or the pestilence; how instant on all those occasions where
eril was imminent and the reward not in this world. They were equally distinguished in another, and not less righteous, duty, the propagation of christianity among remote and savage nations. We have noticed, in a former chapter, the method by which the gospel was introduced into the north of Europe before the middle of the eleventh century. In the twelfth, we observe Boleslaus, duke of Poland, opening the path for its reception in Pomerania hy the sword; and in like manner, both the Sclavonians and Finlanders, were prepared for conversion by conquest. Again, Urban VIII. consecrated Mainhard, an unsuccessful missionary, bishop of the Livonians, and proclaimed a holy war against them; the bishop conquered his see, and promulgated at the head of an army the tidings of evangelical concord. The same methods were pursued by Innocent III. But from that time forward we find much more frequent mention of pious missionaries, whose labours were directed to accomplish their great work by legitimate, or, at least, by peaceful means. It may be true, that some of them were satisfied with mere nominal conversions, and that others had chiefly in view either their own advancement, or the extension of the papal sovereignty. But there were likewise many who were animated by the most admirable motives, and whose exertions, if they failed of complete success, failed not through any want of disinterested devotion. The missions of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were principally directed to the north of Asia. In 1245, Innocent IV. sent an embassy, composed of Dominicans and Franciscans, to the Tartars; and a friendly communication was so maintained, that the envoys of Abaca, their
king, were present, in 1271, at the second council of Lyons. Nicholas III. (in 1278) and Nicholas IV. (in 1289,) renewed those exertions. John of Monte Corvino, a Franciscan, was distinguished during the conclusion of the century by the success of his laborş; and in 1307, Clement V. erected an archiepiscopal see at Cambalu, (Pekin,) which he conferred upon that missionary. Seven other bishops, also Franciscans, were sent to his support by the same pope; and this distant branch of the hierarchy was carefully nourished by succeeding pontiffs, * especially John XXII. and Benedict XII. It is certain that the number of Christians was not inconsiderable, both among the Chinese and Moguls, as late as the year 1370, and they were still increasing, when they were suddenly swept away and almost wholly exterminated by the Mahometan arms. Howbeit, the disastrous overthrow of their establishment detracts nothing from the merit of those who constructed it; and it must not be forgotten, that the instruments in this work were Mendicants, and, for the most part, Franciscans." Ib. p. 547.
The Methodists have done themselves honor by the praises they have bestowed on Francis Xavier, a Jesuit. They have published his life, and to day, if I have time, I will quote from it some beautiful extracts.
They and other Protestants have also published Thomas a Kempis, or the christian pattern. Where, except in the Gospel, can purer morality be found ? And Thomas a Kempis was a monk. We are told that Sacchi said that the Albigenses and Vaudois made a show of piety. That is a fact, and a pretty show it was. I will not read the indicated, but forbidden page of narrative sincere-better blot it with a tear!
If the pope is charged with severity to kings, it is because kings were tyrants and the pope was the advocate of the weak, and the enemy of arbitrary power. The people were crushed, and had no resource but in the influence which God gave to the head of the church.
“With all its errors, (the papacy's,) its corruptions, and its crimes, it was, morally and intellectually, the conservative power of christendom. Politically, too, it was the savior of Europe; for, in all human probability, the west, like the east, must have been overrun by Mahommedanism, and sunk in irremediable Jegradation, through the pernicious institutions which have everywhere accompanied it; if, in that great crisis of the world, the Roman church had not roused the nations to an united and prodigious effort commensurate with the danger.
In the frightful state of society which prevailed during the dark ages, church everywhere exerted a controlling and remedial influence. Every place of worship was an asylum, which was always respected by the law, and generally even by lawless violence. It is recorded, as one of the peculiar miseries of Ste phen's miserable reign, that during those long troubles,
the soldiers learned to disregard the right of sanctuary. Like many other parts of the Romish system, this right had prevailed in the heathen world, though it was not ascribed to every temple. “It led, as it had done under the Romish empire, to abuses which became intolerable; but it originated in a humane and pious purpose, not only screening offenders from laws, the severity of which amounted to injustice, but, in cases of private wrong, affording time for passion to abate, and for the desire of vengeance to be appeased. The cities of refuge were not more needed, under the Mosaic dispensation, than such asylums in ages when the administration of justice was either detestably inhuman, or so lax, that it allowed free scope to individual resentment. They have, therefore, generally been found wherever there are the first rudiments of civil and religious order. The churchyards also were privileged places, whither the poor people conveyed their goods for security. The protection which the ecclesiastical power extended in such cases, kept up in the people, who so often stood in need of it, a feeling of reverence and attachment to the church. They felt that religion had a power on earth, and that it was always exercised for their benefit.
The civil power was in those ages so inefficient for the preservation of public tranquility, that when a country was at peace with all its neighbors, it was liable to be disturbed by private wars, individuals taking upon themselves the right of deciding their own quarrels, and avenging their own wrongs. Where there existed no deadly feud, pretexts were easily made by turbulent and rapacious men, . N 2
for engaging in such contests, and they were not scrupulous whom they seized and imprisoned, for the purpose of extorting a ransom. "No law, therefore, was ever more thankfully received, than when the council of Clermot enacted, that, from sun-set on Wednesday to sun-rise on Monday, in every week, the truce of God should be observed, on pain of excommunication. Well might the inoffensive and peaceable part of the community (always the great, but in evil times the inert, and therefore the suffering part,) regard, with grateful devotion, a power, under whose protection they slept four nights of the week in peace, when other. wise they would have been in peril every hour. The same power by which individuals were thus benefited, was not unfrequently exercised in great national concerns; if the monarch were endangered or oppressed either by a foreign enemy, or by a combination of his barons, here was an authority to which he could resort for an effectual interposition in his behalf; and the same shield was extended over the vassals, when they called upon the pope to defend them against a wrongful exertion of the sovereign power.” Southey's Book of the Church, page 293. Boston, 1st. edit. 1825.
Now I must follow Mr. C. wheeling right about from rear to van. We are told that Peter exercised the grand commission of Apostle and that therefore he could not have been bishop of Rome, and again that Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. But Peter was the first apostle sent to the Gentiles-by the angel of God. He received Cornelius the centurion into the church. He founded the see of Antioch—a Gentile city. If Peter was an apostle of the whole world, where should he place his head quarters ? Where, but at Rome, the mistress of the world, worthy field for a chief japostle's zeal; where he could at once be heard by Gentiles and by Jews, by Greeks, Barbarians and Romans.
We are told there are no vices to be discovered in the Pagan emperors more flagrant and gloomy than those of the Roman pontiffsthat they became proverbial for their iniquity. But I have shown that these sweeping denunciations are glaringly untrue. There were 39 martyrs out of 260 or 270 popes. If there were a few bad men among them, shall we for that reason fling away our faith? Does Christ say so ? Did he not say that it must needs be that scandals come? And were not the vast majority of the popes entitled to veneration ? Suppose there were about a dozen that were infamous, and that there were even fifty of various shades of guilt, or imperfection, there were still upwards of 200 worthy. Christ has said that “many are called, but few chosen." Show me 200 of the Roman emperors or a like proportion of any other rulers, to the popes, who were as good men, and who have deserved to go to heaven. Shall we point to Nero holding up the dagger which he had plunged into the breast of his own mother? to Diocletian, the man of sin, the antichrist of the apostles, who mowed down hundreds of meek and peaceful disciples at once ?-to Caligula, the murderer of the saints ?--to Maxentius? or the monster Maximin? Where is there a parallel to their atrocities? My friend has talked of the inquisition, and on that point also 1 will meet him. The inquisition was the vice of the age and not of the church. It was unknown for many centuries. In many Catholic countries it was never received. Other churches and times have, likewise, their sins of blood to answer for. [Time expired.)
Half-past 11 o'clock, A. M. MR. CAMPBELL rises
My friends if we proceed in this course we never shall dismiss the propositions we have before us. If we are to sit here and listen to such a variety of matter wholly irrelevant to the question we shall never prove any thing, or know what is proved. Must we have questions introduced reaching back to the beginning of the discussion and forward to its close, and touching upon the whole system of theology in every speech? I have said already I will not lose sight of my duty so as to respond to every thing in one speech. . I almost trembled when my opponent arose with so much pomp and appearance of having found a triumphant proof of his assertions in some hidden, and by me, unexplored corner of Irenæus. What! said I to myself, have I not thoroughly examined this matter? Is it possible that there yet remains one passage unknown to me against my assertion, and have I committed myself? But it was even a little less alarming than his blustering about the consecration of Phocas. Judge of my surprise and great relief, when I found he was only reading one of his elegant extracts, which he styles his proof! that indeed, it was the same old story new vamped and varnished, without any reference at all, to the present debate." Irenæus said," while Peter and Paul were founding the congregation at Rome.” I would ask, is there in this audience, any stripling in knowledge, who understands that founding a congregation makes a man bishop of that church all his life ? °Missionaries go abroad, they plant congregations in particular places; and they go from country to country, from city to city, to found other churches. Are they bishops of all the congregations that they establish? It is essential to a missionary not to be stationary. But why expose a matter, already evident to all ? It is the gentleman's last effort. He has explored all antiquity, and all he can find, after three or four days' search, is this single fragment of a saint, stating on hearsay, that Paul and Peter planted the church at Rome! So ends the controversy on that point, the main pillar of the Roman church. There is another little matter (there are too many little matters) which I wish to dispose of.
The gentleman affects a great accuracy in his knowledge, and great precision on the part of his authorities. He seems to glory in that sort of reputation, else I would not select this trifle. How often has he asserted that Sylvester summoned the council of Nice, and that the pope's legates presided over it! And how often has he tried to prove it! Like some other matters already disposed of, after sleeping two nights upon the subject, as one that had a pleasant dream, he awakens and affirms again, that Osius, a Spanish bishop, was legate of Sylvester, and as such presided at Nice. But did he prove it? I shall read you some testimony on this subject. I do this, not to add to the weight of my arguments one grain of sand; but to prove that when I assert any thing as a fact, I do it advisedly, and will stand to it. Permit me now to correct a mistake into which the gentleman has fallen, that I relied upon the testimony of an ephemeral paper in Kentucky. I did not say, that it was upon such authority I read any author here. My allusion to that paper, was a pure argumentum ad hominem; and was made for bishop Purcell and no one else. [The bishop of Bardstown or some of his clergy admitted that Eusebius and Du Pin, though not good Catholics, “ were authentic historians.” But that admission gives them no new weight, or indeed, no weight at all with me. I have already given my reasons for the authority of Du Pin. But where, may I ask, is his authority for Sylvester's calling the council of Nice! The emperor did it at the general suggestion