« AnteriorContinuar »
and of the humility of the popes, of which my friend has so often spoken, take the following example.
According to this doctrine then current at Rome, in the last Lateran great synod, under the Pope's nose, and in his ear, one bishop styled him Prince of the world; another orator called him King of kings, and Monarch of the earth; another great prelate said of him, that he had all power above all powers, both of heaven and earth. And the same roused up Pope Leo X. in these brare terms: "Snatch up therefore the two-edged sword of divine power, committed to thee; and enjoin, command, and charge, that an universal peace and alliance be made among christians for at least ten years; and to that bind kings in fetters of the great king, and constrain nobles by the iron manacles of censures: for to thee is given all power in heaven and in earth."
"This is the doctrine which Barronius, with a Roman confidence,doth so often assert and drive forward, saying, "that there can be no doubt of it, but that the civil principality is subject to the sacerdotal: and that God hath made the political government subject to the dominion of the spiritual church." Epis. Patrac. Sess. 10, p. 133. Barronius, Annals, 57. 23.
It is Barronius, and not Du Pin, says, "that God has made the political government subject to the spiritual." This is the true doctrine of popery. But we shall hear another great cardinal.
Again Bellarmine says; * ' By reason of the spiritual power, the pope, at least, indirectly, hath a supreme power even in temporal matters."
Concerning which, Dr. Barrow rightly observes, "If the pope may strike princes, it matters not much whether it be by a downright blow or slantingly."
We shall now very hastily run back from A. D. 1585 to 730, and give a few specimens of the true spirit, and tone, and action, of this institution, during its ascendency.
A. D. 1585. "The bull of Pope Sixtus V. against the two sons of wrath, Henry, King of Navarre, and the Prince of Conde, beginneth thus: '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 them all—and if it find any of them resisting God's ordinance, it takes more severe vengeance of them, casting them down from their thrones, though never so puissant, and tumbling them down to the lowest parts of the earth, as the ministers of aspiring Luciter.' And then he proceeds to thunder against them,' We deprive them and their posterity forever of their dominions, and kingdoms;' and accordingly he depriveth those princes of their kingdoms and dominions, absolveth their subjects from their oaths of allegiance, cjid forbiddeth them to pay any obedience to them. 'By the authority of these presents, we do absolve and set free all persons, as well jointly as severally, from any such oath, and from all duty whatsoever in regard of dominion, fealty and obedience, and do charge and forbid all and every of them that they do not dare to obey them, or any of their admonitions, laws, and commands." Bulla Sixti V. Contra Henr. Navarre, R. &c.
Is this the genius of our government? Are these the doctrines of the United States? Here you have kings hurled from their thrones, and subjects released from their allegiance, without ceremony, by the vicars of Christ and the head of the church! Who is this that sets aside oaths, and religious obligations, in the name of the Lord? "Why," says the modern Roman Catholic, "do you bring up these old things?" Not so very old! But will the bishop mention the council that ever repudiated this doctrine?
The bishop says, 'they have been repudiated.' I thank him for conceding that they once existed! But now for the proof of their repudiation. Nothing is infallible but a general council; and what general council has set since the days of pope Sixtus V.?!! The council of Trent convened Dec. 13, 1545, and all its decrees were confirmed by the pope Jan. 36, 1564; consequently, the bull of pope Sixtus V. is the bull of the Reformed Infallible Roman church after the council of Trent!! If it were orthodox then, it is orthodox now.
We shall now hear pope Pius V. (almost canonized,) excommunicate the queen of England, and for aught I know, we Protestants were all excommunicated at the same time.
A. D. 1570. ,* He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and in earth, hath committed the one holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, out of which 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 a plenitude of power; this one he hath constituted prince over all nations, and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruinate, plant, and build."—And in the same bull he declares, that' he thereby deprives the queen of her pretended right to the kingdom, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever; and absolves all the nobles, subjects, and people of the kingdom, and whoever else have sworn to her, from their oath and all duty whatsoever, in regard of dominion, fidelity and obedience.'-' [Camp. Hist, anno. 1570.
That this was not peculiar to one individual, but of the spirit of the system, appears from the following facts:
Pope Clement VI. did pretend to depose the Emperor Lewis IV.
Pope Clement V. in the great synod of Vienna, declared the emperor subject to him, or standing obliged to him by a proper oath of fealty. TClem. lib. ii. tit. 9.
Pope Boniface VIII. hath a decree extant in the canon law running thus: * We declare, say, define, pronounce it to be of necessity to salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff."
A. D. 1294. "For one sword, saith he, must be under another, and the temporal authority must be subject to the spiritual power;—whence, if the earthly power doth go astray, it must be judged by the spiritual power." Ibid.
This definition says Dr. Barrow, at the foot of whose pages we have the Latin original of all these decrees, might pass for rant of that boisterous pope (a man above measure, ambitious and arrogant) vented in his passion against king Philip of France, if it had not the advantage (of a greater than which no papaldecree is capable) of being expressly confirmed by one of their general councils; (or, 'We (saith Pope Leo X. in his bull read and passed in the Lateran council) do renew and approve that holy constitution, with approbation of the present holy council. ' Accordingly Mech Cauns saith, that ' the Lateran council did renew and approve that extravagant (indeed extravagant) constitution:' and Barronius saith of it, that' all do assent to it, so that none dissenteth who do not by discord fall from the church.'
The truth is, pope Boniface did not invent that proposition, but borrowed it from the school; for Thomas Aquinas in his work against the Greeks, pretendeth to show, that it is of necessity to salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
The appendix to Mart Pol saith of pope Boniface VIII. 'Regem se Regumf Mvndi JHonarcham,unicurn in spiritualibus et temporalibus Dominionpromulgavit? that he openly declared himself to be the king of kings, monarch of the world, and sole lord and governor both in spirituals and temporals.
Before him, pope Innocent IV. did hold and exemplify the same notion; declaring the emperor Frederick II. his vassal, and denouncing in his general council of Lyons, a sentence of deprivation against him in these terms: We having, about the foregoing and many other his wicked miscarriages, had before a careful deliberation with our brethren and the holy council, seeing that we, although unworthy, do hold the place of Jesus Christ on earth, and that it was said unto us in the person of St. Peter the apostle, whatever thou shaltbind on earth—the said prince (whoJiath rendered himself unworthy of empire and kingdoms, and of all honor and dignity, and who for his iniquities is cast away by God, and that he should not reign or command, being bound by his sins and cast away, and deprived by the Lord of all honor and dignity) do show, denounce, and accordingly, by sentence, deprive; absolving all wlio are held bound by oath of allegiance from such oath forever; by apostolical authority firmly prohibiting, that no man henceforth do obey or regard him as emperor or king; and decreeing, that whoever shall hereafter yield advice, or aid, or favor to him as emperor or king;, shall immediately lie under the band of excommunication."
Before him, pope Innocent the third, (that true wonder of the world, and changer of the age,) did affirm the pontifical authority so much to exceed the royal power, as the sun doth the moon; "and applietn to the former that of the prophet Jeremiah: Ecce. constitui It super gentes et regna;—see, I have set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw down," &c.
Article xxiii. Pope Pius IV. "I do acknowledge the holy Catholic and apostolic Roman church to be the mother and mistress of all churches; and I do promise and swear true obedience to the bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, the prince of apostles, and the vicar of Jesus Christ." £Time expired.]
Half past 4 o'clock, P. M. Bisnop Purcei.t, rises— .
My friends, Mr. Kinmont will read, before I close, what Liguori says on the subject of Mr. Smith's charges against the Catholic church. It affords me more pleasure than I can express, to have an opportunity of proving, by a gentleman, who is not a Catholic, and therefore is a disinterested witness, as far as I and my religion are concerned, that it is all a base slander.
We have heard a great deal about the pope's deposing kings, and absolving subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and so on. In your presence and hearing therefore, I am going to put my friend into one of the most terrible dilemmas in which he has ever been placed in his life. Now, sir, (addressing Mr. C.) suppose you had been living at the time of the American Revolution, and were witness to the tyranny, which these colonies had to endure, on the part of his most gracious majesty, king George III. of England: when the spirit of a mighty and a numerous people was roused by excess of wrong, to make one vast effort for freedom. Under these circumstances, the General in chief, the officers, and the army, the revenue department, and postmasters, all of whom had taken an oath of allegiance to that king, appeal to you, inquiring, what is to be done 1 Asking you if the oath was binding. What would be your reply 1
Mr. Camprell. If they had taken a solemn oath, they should not break it.
Bishop Pcucf.ll. Then was George Washington a perjurer, and all the officers of the army and navy, all the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and all the subjects of the king of Great Britain were perjurers!!
Mr. Camprell. That does not follow from my answer to your question.
Bishop Purcell. And what would you have persons to do, who had taken the oath of allegiance 1
Mr. Campbell. "It is better not to vow, than to vow and not pay"—as saith the good Book.
Mr. Campbell rose and said, that for his part, we should always do our duty, and leave consequences to God. When he intends the deliverance of a people, he will effect for them redemption, as he did for his people out of
Bishop Purcell. There is no oath of artificial contrivance, stronger than the natural tie between the subject and the king, the governed and the government; of whatever form it may be. This is an oath, prior and superi ir to all other oaths. But if those of the colonists, who had not taken a conventional oath, or an oath of office, to the king of England, had alone rebelled, what could they have done? Were not the army and the civil and military officers bound by their oath to resist rebellion 1 How then could human rights have been vindicated, or human wrongs redressed 1 You have repeatedly said " vox populi, vox Dei" in the course of this discussion; in other words that the people's will was the most authentic interpretation of the will of God, that it could give a call to the ministry and give to its choice a right to exercise spiritual powers!! Thus, my friends, you see the dilemma to which the gentleman has been reduced, and that, while Catholics are reproached for their slavish tenets, he himself teaches the whole doctrine of passive obedience, and condemns the very principle of the American Revolution. I leave you to reflect on what the gentleman has uttered. Now mark the difference. Had my friend decided my question, as the Father of his country did similar ones, he would have been sustained by the voice and the spirit of the American people—and of all denominations thereof, both Catholics and Protestants, the contemporaries of a struggle in which, they, who engaged at this side the water, "periled Every Thing Rut Their Sacred Honor." Whereas, the pope, when he absolved from their oath the English Catholics, whose were the lands, and the houses, the churches and the schools, the hospitals and the glory of England; whose sufferings exceeded those of the American colonists as much as the Alleghanies do a grain of sand, decided upon far better grounds than did the sages of our Revolution, that passive obedience, under such circumstances, ceased to be a virtue. Yet one word more—the absolution was considered by those very Catholics, an exceeding of his powers, and they did not act upon it. His decision was, for them, no article of faith.
My friend's next resort, in the way of documentary evidence, is to the Encyclopaedia of religious knowledge, just published. He does not know the author, or the entire title of the work, nor the history of its "getting up." Fessenden is the author of the volume.
Mr. Campbell. I do know the author, but bishop Purcell does not.
Bishop Purcell. That is Protestant Jesuitism. He is the publisher. In the New York Churchman of a recent date, there is a story told of a most egregious imposture practised on the patrons of this same volume. The editors professed to give the views of the different sects, in the very words of their respective standards, or accredited writers, and carefully disguised the fact, that it was to be subservient to the interests of one particular sect, the Baptists. They applied to an Episcopal minister, to write an article on Episcopacy, and to patronize the publication. This looked like fair play—the poor minister was caught in the snare and signed his name recommending the Encyclopaedia. But lo! when the work appeared, it was wholly opposed to Episcopalianism; and this flagrant violation of the faith due to the public from the publishers, elicited a most cutting, but at the same time, most merited castigation from the (Episcopal) Churchman. I hope the article will be read, by every sincere enquirer after truth, that he may be able to appreciate, according to its value, this new humbug.
We come back to the Jesuits. It was so notorious to Frederick, the Great, of Prussia, that the Jesuits had been calumniated, and most foully dealt with, that, Protestant, as he was, he received them in his dominions, and placed them in many of his colleges. He told the other kings of Europe that they would soon be sorry for the expulsion of an order that had done so much for literature and science. "The day will come," said he, "when you will be offering me, 300 pounds for a procurator, 400, for a professor, 600, for a Rector, and a per valorem, for inferior officers of the Jesuits, but depend upon it, I will fleece yon well. I will make you pay dearly for your folly." Frederick was a great judge of human nature, my friends, and he had a keen sense of the superior claims of the Jesuits, for good scholarship, and morality. Hence his kingdom and his palace were given them, with his own confidence. The celebrated preacher, Bourdaloue, was a Jesuit, and who has ever preached a sounder, or a purer morality?
My worthy friend said, the Jesuits supported kings and monarchs, and were for crushing the people; and most grossly did he contradict himself, by stating almost at the same moment, that they were the most formidable enemies of kings, and it was for their opposition to their measures, that kings banished them from several of the kingdoms of Europe. Thus they were, according to his account, the supporters of kings and the enemies of kings! The infamous Pombal of Portugal began the crusade against the Jesuits. Read his history, and it will be their best vindication—or see them among the savages of Paraguay! This word alone reveals to the intelligent reader, a series of wonders performed for God, humanity and virtue, such as the world, perhaps, has never witnessed since the establishment of Christianity.
Next comes the theocracy of the Jews. And is not Jehovah our king also? Is he not ever Lord over all? Do we not acknowledge that there is no power but from him? My argument was this. If it be essentially incompatible with liberty, to obey the same ruler in temporal and ecclesiastical things, God could not have established such a government on earth. But, God did establish such an authority; therefore, it is not incompatible with liberty. I do not wish to see it now, unless God should vouchsafe to be as manifestly our king, as he was the king of the Jews; which is not to happen under the Christian dispensation, as it did under the old law. Christ has declared, that his kingdom is not of this world. My worthy opponent said, that the fleshly body and the heavenly body of Christ, were not the same. I ask, then, what became of his fleshly body? Did it rot in the ground? I call on him to answer this question. "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," says David, "nor wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." (Ps. xv. 10.) It was spiritualized, but still the same body, according to what he said to his disciples, frighted at this apparition, supposing they had seen a spirit: "See my hands and my feet: it is myself: handle and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have." (Luke xxiv. 39.) He is "ever living," (Heb. vii. 25,) to make intercession for us, by the eloquent mouths of his wounds, which he exhibits, for us, to his Father in heaven. He gave them, as he had previously done to Thomas, the signs they asked; while he reprehended them, as he did that apostle, "forslowness of belief ." It was thus that, when the Jews murmured for meat in the wilderness, loathing as light food the manna of heaven, God gave them meat to satiety; and afterwards, for their unbelief, not only excluded them from the land of promise, but scattered their carcases in the desert.
My friend told you, how much afraid he was of Catholics. My friends, what a pretty tale he made of it. I was really going to say: "Poor baby, do not be so afraid: do not be such a coward: shake off those old woman's fears about raw head and bloody bones, and be more manly." Washington, though he lived in a less enlightened