Page images
PDF
EPUB

'We must be further allowed to remind you,' says the able address of the American Protestant Association, 'that notwithstanding the modest guise which that church puts on, in this and other protestant countries, no evidence whatever has been produced, emanating from the Papal See, that it has abated its pretensions, or laid aside its persecuting tenets. We are not satisfied with the disclaimers of Roman Catholic laymen or the denials of Romish priests. We insist upon a renunciation from the only authority in the church, which has the right to make one. We demand that the same power which enjoined the persecutions of former days, shall express its disapproval of them, and repudiate the pretended right to persecute for opinion's sake. When proof of this sort is produced, we may listen to the suggestion that popery has put off its intolerance. We do not, however, rest here. We have a witness at hand, who will be deemed both competent and credible as to the point under consideration. This witness is Gregory XVI, the reigning pope; and the document from which we quote, is his famous Encyclical Letter of August 15th, 1832.

'From that polluted fountain of indifference, flows that abused and erroneous doctrine, or rather raving, in favor and in defence of liberty of conscience,' for which most pestilential error, the course is opened by that entire and wild liberty of opinion which is every where attempting the overthrow of civil and religious institutions; and which the unblushing impudence of some, has held forth as an advantage of religion. * * * * From hence arise these revolutions in the minds of men; hence, this aggravated corruption of youth; hence, this contempt among the people of sacred things, and of the most holy institutions and laws; hence, in one word, that pest of all others most to be dreaded in a state, unbridled liberty of opinion.'

Again. 'Hither tends that worst and never sufficiently to be execrated and detested liberty of the press, for the diffusion of all manner of writings, which some so loudly contend for, and so actively promote.'

And again. 'Nor can we augur more consoling consequences to religion and to government, from the zeal of some to separate the church from the state, and to burst the bond which unites the priesthood to the empire. For it is clear that this union is dreaded by the profane lovers of liberty, only because it has never failed to confer prosperity on both.'

To this testimony, we append the following extracts from the theology of Peter Dens, a book which is used in the Roman Catholic College at Maynooth, Ireland. An edition of this work has been published at Mechlin, in the Netherlands, as recently as the year 1838. It is there distinctly asserted, that

'Baptized infidels, such as heretics and apostates usually are,

also baptized schismatics, may be compelled, even by corporal punishment, to return to the Catholic faith, and the unity of the

church.'

"The reason is, because these by baptism have become subject to the church, and therefore the church has jurisdiction over them, and the power of compelling them, through appointed means of obedience, to fulfill the obligations contracted in baptism.'

Again, it is said, by the same author:

"The rites of other infidels, namely, pagans and heretics, in themselves considered, are not to be tolerated; because they are so bad that no truth or advantage for the good of the church can be thence derived. Except, however, unless greater evils would follow, or greater benefits be hindered.'

After stating that heretics are deservedly visited with penalties of exile, imprisonment, and so forth, this author asks: 'Are heretics rightly punished with death?"

Yes,

'St. Thomas answers, (2. 2. quest. XI, art. 3, in corp.) because forgers of money or other disturbers of the state, are justly punished with death; therefore also heretics, who are forgers of the faith, and, as experience shows, grievously disturb the state.'

'Here is documentary evidence of the highest kind, to show that popery is unchanged; to prove that the popery of the 19th century and the popery of the 16th are the same. We have it affirmed by a standard authority in the Romish church, that it is right to put heretics to death. And we have it officially promulgated by the present pope, that LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE, LIBERTY OF OPINION, the LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, and the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, are four of the sorest evils with which a nation can be cursed! Both as protestants and as American citizens, we count the rights which are here assailed as among our dearest franchises; and we cannot look on in silence and see the craft and power of Rome systematically and insidiously employed to subvert them. We deplore the necessity which calls for the measure; but, believing as we do, that patriotism and christianity demand it, we have united, and we invite all who love our institutions to unite wits us in repelling the aggressions of the papal hierarchy.'

We may, therefore, apply to this doctrine of prelacy, both Romish and Anglican, the words of Shakespeare:

'Nay, had it power, it would

Pour the sweet milk of concord into hell,

Uproar the universal peace, confound

All unity on earth.'

It is, then, no part of liberality to call this system of prelacy, whether Romish or Anglican, catholic. It should be remem

bered, to use the words of Coleridge, that the Romish anticatholic church, would more truly express the fact. Romish, to mark that the corruptions in discipline, doctrine, and practice do, for the larger part, owe both their origin and perpetuation to the Romish court, and the local tribunals of the city of Rome; and neither are or ever have been catholic, that is, universal, throughout the Roman empire, or even in the whole Latin or Western church; and anti-catholic, because no other church acts on so narrow and excommunicative a principle, or is characterized by such a jealous spirit of monopoly. Instead of a catholic (universal) spirit, it may be truly described as a spirit of particularism, counterfeiting catholicity by a negative totality and heretical self-circumspection; in the first instances cutting off, and since then cutting herself off, from all the other members of Christ's body.tt

We are well aware, that in expressing these sentiments, we will be held up as utterly contradicting our own principles of liberality, and as being bigots of the fiercest order. Now it has been justly remarked,‡‡ that persecution for conscience sake,' is so odious, and the least approach to it so dangerous, that we deem it impossible to express too great detestation of any measure, which tends to countenance, or seems to encourage it. 'But let us be just as well as liberal.' We speak the truth in Christ, and lie not. We are exceedingly pressed in spirit, and constrained to give our public testimony against the system of European popery. We are sincerely sacrificing our own personal feeling in so doing. Most heartily do we wish we could remain silent, or think otherwise of this dangerous foreign and hostile system. But it is impossible. Woe is unto us if we speak not out, and give a timely warning.

Let that warning be heard. Let our views be candidly examined. Let us, as protestants and presbyterians, have the same freedom of speech, and the same candid and impartial hearing, which are so freely given to our Romish brethren. Why is jealousy to be exercised only towards protestants, and almost exclusively towards presbyterians? Why are we alone to be excluded from all the advantages of the spirit, liberality, and charity, which our reformers have vainly contributed to originate and to foster?§§ Why are we, their posterity, who cling, it may be, with an over-fond tenacity to their opinions, to be denied the benefits of that very inheritance they purchased for us with tears and blood? Are we alone prone to illiberality, and have Romanists and prelatists become the exclusive possessors of all true charity? Are we so disinherited of our fathers' glory, and have popery and prelacy become so transformed, that ttAids to Reflection, Lond. 1839, pp. 155, 156. #See Life of Knox, vol. i. pp. 301, 303.

88 McCrie's Life of Knox, vol. ii. p. 25.

whereas they are now the presiding genii of all true and genuine liberality, we are the very personification of harshness and bigotry?

And has it come to this, that while the sworn subjects of a foreign prince, who claims over them infallible as well as despotic authority, are to be allowed all liberty to propagate their unchristian tenets, to defame protestantism, and constantly to ANATHEMATIZE and CURSE us, all this is to be regarded as no more than a just exercise of liberty and self-defence; while we, by whose principles this great republic was originated, and is upheld, are to be reprobated as bigots, and to be heard with the ear of a closed incredulity, when we venture to assert the irre concilableness of unchanged and European popery with true christianity, or with genuine liberty, and when we would warn the republic of those dangers with which, on this account, its stability and happiness are threatened? May God forbid.

CHAPTER VI

THE CATHOLICITY OF PRESBYTERY.

SECTION I.

The catholicity of presbytery in its ecclesiastical system, in contrast with popery and prelacy.

THE polity of the christian church was modelled, as we have already proved, after the discipline of the Jewish synagogue. That system, which seems to have been a development of the simpler and more catholic service of the patriarchal dispensation, was permitted, by divine providence, if not, as is probable, by express divine teaching, to run parallel with the national and typical dispensation of Moses, until it became merged in the christian economy.* The chief characteristics of this system were the simplicity of its rites, and the consequent facility with which it could be reduced to practice in any part of the world. It was not Jewish, like the Mosaic ritual, but universally applicable, under whatever form of civil government it might be introduced. It thus stood in direct contrast to the temple service, which was strictly national and sectarian, and admitted of no alliance or intermixture with any other polity or government. While therefore the temple had its lineal order of priests, and its prescribed and unalterable ceremonies and forms of consecration, the ministers of the synagogue were of no particular tribe or lineage, but were received according to the judgment of its rulers, and by the simple rite of imposition of hands. The sacerdotal service, by being restricted to Jerusalem, was, in this way, prepared for abrogation, while the synagogue service was as plainly capable of extension to every clime, and was therefore truly catholic.

By a strange fatuity, however, that church which arrogates to itself the exclusive attribute of catholicity, has assumed, as its exemplar and standard, the partial, narrow, and sectarian model of the temple service; while we, to whom the very name of catholic is most bitterly denied by this arrogant sect, have in every thing practicable, conformed our polity to the popular, free, and catholic system of the synagogue. In the prelacy,

*Nolan's Cath. Char. of Chr. p. 191. See also Scott. Chr. Herald, for 1839, pp. 627, 653, &c. Browne's Vind. of Presb. Ch. Govt. p. 269. Plea for Presbytery, pp. 316, 322.

« PreviousContinue »