cil at Toledo, and here are references to various councils, such as Bivii Concilia, Tom. I. pp. 737, 739. Crabb. Concil. Tom. I. p. 449. Edition of 1551, and Pithou Corp. Ju. Canon. p. 47, as quoted by Dr. Brownlee, which go to prohibit priests "from keeping more than one concubine," and declare marriage in a priest to be a mortal sin." And here is Costerus and cardinal Campygio who taught what I dare not read here; but I will reserve all this for a more convenient season. [Mr. Campbell here called for the reading again of the seventh proposition, which being read by Mr. Piatt, one of the Moderators, he proceeded.]

About the year 1088, Urban II. decrees:

"That subjects are by no authority constrained to pay the fidelity which they have sworn to a christian prince, who opposeth God and his saints, or violateth their precepts.' An instance whereof we have in his granting a privilege to the canons of Tours; which,' saith he, if any emperor, king, prince, &c. shall wilfully attempt to thwart, let him be deprived of the dignity of his honor and power." [Barrow. p. 22.

Again, the council of Toledo still more fully expresses the spirit

of the age.

"We the holy council promulge this sentence or decree, pleasing to God, that whosoever hereafter shall succeed to the kingdom, shall not mount the throne, till he has sworn among other oaths, to permit no man to live in his kingdom, who is not a Catholic. And if after he has taken the reins of government, he shall violate his promise, let him be anathema maranatha, in the sight of the eternal God, and become fuel of eternal fire-pabulum ignis æterni. [Caranza, p. 404.

Innocent III. (that true wonder of the world and changer of the age) affirms:

"Under Pope Innocent, III. it was ordained, that if any temporal lord, being required and admonished by the church, should neglect to purge his territory from heretical filth, he should by the metropolitan and the other comprovincial bishops, be noosed in the band of excommunication; and that if he should slight to make satisfaction within a year, it should be signified to the Pope, that he might from that time denounce the subjects absolved from their feasty to him, and expose the territory to be seized on by Catholics." Barrow, p. 22.

Adrian I. A. D. 772, thus decrees:

"We do by general decree constitute, that whatever king, or bishop, or potentate, shall hereafter believe, or permit, that the censure of the Roman pontiffs may be violated in any case, he shall be an execrable anathema, and shall be guilty before God, as a betrayer of the Catholic faith." P. Had. I. Capit apud Grat. Caus. xxv. qu. I. c. 11.

Leo IX. says, that Constantine M. "did think it very unbecoming that they should be subject to an earthly empire, whom the Divine Majesty had set over an heavenly.” Of Gregory II. who lived A. D. 730, Barronius says, " He effectually caused both the Romans and Italians to recede from, obedience to the emperor." "So," continues this authentic historian," he did leave to posterity a worthy example that heretical princes should not be suffered to reign in the church of Christ, if being warned they should be found pertinacious in error." To consummate the whole, Gregory II. did say to the emperor Isauros: "All the kingdoms of the west did hold St. Peter as an earthly God."

Wishing to crowd as much into this speech as I possibly can in one hour, I shall, with as much rapidity as is consistent with distinctness of enunciation, hasten through many documents. Thus we have seen, that for at least five centuries, the heads of the Roman church clearly and unambiguously taught, that the spiritual sword was above the temporal, and that the vicar of Christ is by a divine right Lord

of thrones and all earthly things. This, I have no doubt, is the true doctrine of the immutable and infallible church of Rome! and certain it is, that it has never been disowned, or renounced, by a general council, the organ of infallibility. If the church of Rome be insusceptible of reformation, or infallible; it is proved to be essentially anti-American, and opposed to the genius of our institutions.

To resume the bishop's oath. The gentleman at length admitted that he had taken the bishop's oath, by saying, that he took the oath of naturalization first!! There is but one oath for Roman bishops in all countries, therefore, the Bishop is sworn to "increase and advance the authority of the pope," and persecute and oppose (fight against) heretics and schismatics. If he have not taken this oath, he will please refer us to the oath he has sworn, and specify its peculiarities.

The defence is a very singular one. He first swore allegiance to the United States, and then to that foreign prince the pope. Does he mean, contrary to common usage, that the first oath is more binding than the second; or, that it neutralizes the anti-American attributes of the second. But his explanation is but half given in the first point, that he took the oath of American allegiance before he took the oath of Roman allegiance. The other ground of defence was in the query, which, with such a triumphant air, he put to me yesterday evening-viz. whether I would not have been justified in breaking my oath to England, had I been an American colonist or soldier at the time of the revolution, when the king tyrannized over the Americans? I have already answered this question, and have affirmed that in Protestant doctrine, no circumstance or contingency, can ever absolve a person from the obligation of an oath, into which he has intelligently and voluntarily entered. It is in the estimation of christians most impious and daring for any prince or pope to presume to absolve men from the obligations of an oath solemnly taken. If, indeed, an oath has in it the nature of a covenant, then one of the parties failing, so far vacates the covenant as to set the other free from his oath but this is not absolution for breaking it; it is a simple annulling of its conditions. Now, in the case supposed, the king of England was generally allowed to have receded from the conditions on which that oath was taken by the persons who renounced allegiance to him; he having failed to protect and cherish his American subjects, according to the tenor of the charter given, they were freed from the obligations of allegiance. But I beg my audience to remember that the bishop attempts to defend himself for breaking his oath in certain contingencies: else, why ask me such a question? The bishop's plea is, therefore, that oaths may be broken, and that the pope can absolve men from allegiance on a justifiable emergency, when the church, or some other great interest may demand it! Of what use then is the oath of, naturalization ?—

That the incompatibility of the bishop's oath with our oath of allegiance may be obvious, I shall quote the oath of naturalization, as proposed to every foreigner by the laws of the United States:

The laws of the U. S. provide; That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the U. S. or any of them, on the following condition, and not otherwise: That he shall have declared on oath, or affirmation, before the supreme superior, district, or circuit court, of some one of the states, or a court of record, having a clerk and seal-3 years at least before admission.

1st. Oath of Intention.

"That it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the U. S. and to renounce forever, all allegiance and fidelity, to any foreign Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty, whatsoever; and particularly, by name, the Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty, whereof he may, at the time be a citizen or subject. That he shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath or affirmation, before a court as above.

2d. Oath of Renunciation, Abjuration, &c. and of Fidelity on Admission. "That he will support the constitution of the U. S. and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty whatever; and particularly by name the Prince, Potentate, State, Sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject.

The court admitting the alien to be satisfied that he has resided five years within the U. S. one year in the state, and that he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the U. S. and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The residence to be proved by a witness, not by oath of the applicant.

Where a person coming into the United States 3 years before 21 years of age, proving same character, and continued residence 5 years, admitted as before stated on the first application, on taking final oath of abjuration, renunciation, fidelity, &c. without the first oath of intention.

Further provided; That in case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of Nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of Nobility, at the time to be recorded, &c.

Further provided-That no alien who shall be a native citizen, denizen, or subject of any country, state or sovereign, with whom the U. S. shall be at war at the time of his application, shall be then admitted to be a citizen of the U. S."

&c. &c.

Such are the oaths and laws of naturalization. Now, as the pope of Rome is a foreign prince-at this very moment a prince temporal as well as spiritual, exercising political authority over the states of Rome, and claiming allegiance in temporals as well as spirituals, throughout the whole Roman Catholic world; I ask, can any one who has sworn "to increase and advance his authority," or feeling himself so bound, as he shall answer for it to the supreme judge of the universe, take or keep the oath of citizenship in this country without perjury?! In my most deliberate judgment, it is impossible.

The case is simply this: The oath of naturalization requires the candidate for citizenship to swear that he does absolutely and entirely renounce all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty. Now, the pope of Rome is a sovereign of Europe-a foreign potentate, issuing bulls, laws, or briefs, throughout the world often to secure, augment and advance his authority, in temporals, as well as spirituals; as the testimony of 500 years now before you, amply demonstrates; and every Roman Catholic layman feeling a paramount obligation to his bishop, and through him to the pope; and all the rulers of the Roman Catholic church, being sworn to the pope absolutely and forever, I ask, can such persons in good faith solemnly swear allegiance to this government? If a person can be sworn to support two antagonist constitutions, governments, powers, -two masters, as opposite as the poles: then may he, without perjury, swear to our government, and to that of papal Rome!

But bishops are sworn "to persecute and oppose (persequar et impugnabo) heretics and schismatics. Papal Rome is and always has been, a persecuting government. She is essentially so. I intend not now to dwell much on tas theme. But I will sustain my proposition.

And first, I admit that Protestants have persecuted,-that they have persecuted even to death. I deny it not; and therefore my opponent need not prove it. It is a matter of record indisputable however, that their persecutions have not been as a drop to the ocean, in comparison of papal persecutions. Still they have persecuted, and we frankly own it. But we have an excuse for them. The first Protestants after the Lutheran Reformation, came out from a bloody and cruel mother, who had accustomed them to blood and slaughter, and taught them that the blood of heretics was a sacrifice, most acceptable to God. They were taught that it was just to destroy thieves, robbers, and murderers; and that heretics were the worst of thieves, robbers, and murderers, and ought when incorrigible to be slain: for so the good of society did imperiously demand.-As soon as they got out of the great city, they began to contend, among themselves, whether persecution was right. They soon saw it was of the manners and customs of Babylon; and that "all who take the sword must perish by the sword;" therefore they laid it down. They have abjured it in their creeds and remonstrances against the papacy; and we rejoice to state the fact, that there is not in Protestant christendom a single creed that does not repudiate persecution and assert the great principle of christian and religious liberty.

But I have said that papal Rome is essentially a persecuting power -still a persecuting monarchy; because she has it yet written in her infallible and immutable decrees of councils, in the bulls and anathemas of her popes; and in the constitution of her inquisitions, which as a church she still acknowledges and maintains, A few of her infallible decrees must be accepted as a specimen.

"In the fifth council of Toledo, Can. 3rd, the holy fathers say, 'We the holy council promulge this sentence, or decree pleasing to God, That whosoever hereafter shall succeed to the kingdom, shall not mount the throne till he has sworn among other oaths, to permit no man to live in his kingdom who is not a Catholic. (Nullum non Catholicum.) And if after he has taken the reins of government, he shall violate this promise, let him be anathema maranatha in the sight of the eternal God, and become fuel for the eternal fire, (Pabulum ignis æterni.) Caranza Sum. Conciliorum, p. 404.

The great Lateran council under Innocent III. who instituted the inquisition and transubstantiation, has still more expressly decreed: "We excommunicate, and anathematize all heresy, condemning all heretics, by what names soever they are called.

*

*

*

*

*

These being condemned, must be left to the secular power to be punished. And those who are only suspected of heresy, if they purge not themselves in the appointed way, are to be excommunicated, and if within a year satisfaction is not given, they are to be condemned as heretics.

They must take this oath." That they will endeavor, bona fide, and with all their might, to exterminate from every part of their dominions all heretical subjects, universally, that are marked out to them by the church. So that from this time forward, when any one is promoted to any power temporal or spiritual, he shall be obliged to confirm this. But if any temporal lord, being required and admonished by the church, shall neglect to purge his land from this heretical filthiness, he shall be tied up in the band of excommunication by the metropolitan and his comprovincial bishops. And if he should neglect to make satisfaction within a year, it should be signified to the pope, that he might from that time pronounce the subjects absolved from allegiance to him, and expose his territories to be seized on by Catholics, who expelling heretics, shall possess them without contradiction.

But Catholics, who having taken the badge of the cross, shall set themselves to extirpate heretics, shall enjoy the same indulgence and be fortified with the same privilege, as is granted to those who go to the recovery of the holy land."

And, to save time, be it emphatically observed, that the council of Trent fully established, adopted, and re-promulged these decrees, and they are, at this moment, in full force at Rome. Until, then, a general council is called, and makes fallible the decisions of the great Lateran council; such is, and must be the dictum and belief of the Roman church; and, as I judge, there never will be another general council, this will ever be the doctrine of papal Rome, till the day of her death. Is this, I emphatically ask, the genius and spirit of republican America?

But edicts, canons, and decrees, are not a dead letter. They have been all personified, and acted out to the letter. Who has not heard of that personification of every thing that is diabolically cruel-the HOLY OFFICE OF THE INQUISITION? What abuse of language! Think not, my friends, that I will rake up its ashes; that I will rehearse its horrible racks, and engines, and instruments of torture; that I will describe a single auto da fe, one of the horrid tragedies of the acts of faith, whose flagrance language fails to speak. "It was the vice of the age," my opponent has said. Of what age ? Of Innocent III. ? Of the era of transubstantiation? No, indeed; but of the age of Napoleon; of the age of pope Pius, the saint of 1814! Yes, of the present age! It was got up, indeed, by Innocent (inapposite name!) III., and was fully in operation in Italy, A. D. 1251. Its first officer, Dominic, was afterwards made a saint! In Spain and Portugal it was perfected; and its reign of terror, in unfigurative truth, transcends all description. My soul sickens at the thought. In Spain alone, from 1481 to 1814, about half a million suffered by it. Lorente (Paris edit. tom. iv. p. 271,) sets down the victims of one department of torment, those burnt, at 33,912; and of other rigorous punishments, at 291,450. He is, by other historians, supposed to be far below the full amount. From the records of the inquisition, the manuscripts taken from the inquisitorial palace at Barcelona, when taken by siege in 1828, one may reckon, that in all Spain, in a little over three centuries, half a million suffered all manner of cruelties from this infernal tribunal.

It was even employed as a means of converting the heathen, in pagan lands. It is said, that 800 persons have been condemned at one session, by one of its tribunals. And, still worse, in Seville, in the year 1481, 2000 persons were condemned to the flames, and 20,000 more to inferior punishments. Such were the tender mercies of these Roman gospel arguments to save men's souls from hell! It was the vice of a dark age, and yet restored by Pius VII. in 1826!! What!

But, this is only one of the tribunals of persecution: it was only one of the means of persecuting and destroying heretics and schismatics. Shall I relate the persecutions of the Waldenses and Albigenses, and other Protestants, sometimes called Lollards, Wickliffites, Hugonots, &c. &c.? Shall I tell of the millions in France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, England, Ireland, and elsewhere? Shall I tell of the massacre of St. Bartholomew's day? of the persecutions consequent upon the revocation of the edict of Nantz? or the Irish massacre? and of all the other deeds of horror? I shall not attempt it. I cannot describe the slaughter of two millions, in the early crusades against Jews and infidels; nor of fifteen millions of Indians and pagans; nor of a million Waldenses, murdered and banished in a single