a Pope who did not claim sovereign and temporal jurisdiction over the
kingdoms of the earth? Do the annals of mankind record so dispassionate
and so solemn an act of treachery, or so glaring an evidence of temporal
power and despotism, as that of Hildebrand, known as Gregory, over the
Emperor of Germany? The universal monarchy and sovereign power, which he
and Rome wrung from a bleeding world, was never more absolute than that
which the Popes of Rome wrung from the superstitions of mankind, in
almost every age of the world; and now, in the nineteenth century,
in 1845, the present Pope has the unparalleled insolence, through his
agents in New York, Boston, and elsewhere, to fasten upon our necks a
yoke more galling than that which heathenism imposed upon the Romans.
This they cannot do by argument, because, to use argument with effect,
man must be in the right; but to make the best possible use of bad
arguments, may be, nevertheless, the privilege of genius, craft, and
intrigue. Hence the introduction of auricular confession. Hence it
is, that Romish bishops and priests persuade their people to go to
confession, where they have the complete mastery over then feelings,
passions, and judgment. They know if they can debauch and seduce one
female in a family, the whole of the household is at their mercy. It is
in that accursed tribunal that they persuade the people, first, "that it
is abominable to maintain that men can work out their salvation, under
any form of creed whatever, provided their morals are pure." Second,
"that it is odious and absurd, to grant to the people liberty of
conscience." Third, "that it is impossible to hold the liberty of
the press in too great detestation." Every Papist is compelled in the
confessional, to subscribe to these degrading concessions. He must
swear solemnly, that these propositions are orthodox, and that every
government should be compelled to acknowledge them as such. No man can
die in the faith of the Romish church, until he acknowledges that these
propositions are true. No individual can be confirmed as a member of the
Romish church, at least in Catholic countries, until he assents to them.
No one can be ordained a Roman Catholic priest, until he solemnly swears
to maintain them.
They familiarize the human mind to these infamous axioms of theirs, from
their very infancy; and thus when they arrive at the age at which they
are permitted to go to confession, which is generally from eight to
twelve, there is no difficulty in confirming their people in the belief
of these horrid principles.
The following passage may be found in the _encyclic letter_, addressed
by the actual Pope, to all the bishops of France, in 1832, in order
that they might conform, they and their flocks, to these instructions,
although they are in direct opposition to the laws of the country, and
the rights of its citizens. Is it necessary to say that M. Lamennais
protested, with all the powers of his great soul, against such odious
maxims as these, stated in all their ultramontane candor?
"We now come," says the holy father, "to another cause by which we
lament to see the church afflicted at this moment. To wit: to that
indifference or perverse opinion, which has spread itself abroad on all
sides, by the artifices of evil men, and in accordance to which, men may
attain everlasting SALVATION BY THE PROFESSION OF ANY CREED, PROVIDED
THAT THEIR MORALS ARE PURE. It will not be difficult for you, in a
matter so clear and evident, to repel an error, so fatal as this for the
people."
Is this clear enough? A word to those of our number, who are intrusted
to the care of these pastors. So here is an Italian monk, the
ultramontane head of our bishops, who annuls, at a single dash of his
pen, one of our most sacred rights, a right, the maintenance of which
has cost the country torrents of bloodshed in the religious wars, like
water.
"From this corrupt course of indifference," proceeds the holy father,
"originates that absurd and erroneous opinion, or madness rather, which
asserts that the liberty of conscience must be secured and guarantied
to every one, whomsoever. The way is being cleared for this pernicious
error by the liberty of opinions, full and unbounded, which spreads
itself fai and wide, to the ruin of civil and religious society."
It is evident, that the holy father commands our bishops to inspire
their flocks with a horror of one of the fundamental laws of our
society. Let us conclude with an attack by the same holy father, by no
means less violent, or less conclusive, against the dragon of the press.
"With this is connected that fatal liberty, of which we cannot but stand
in awe, the liberty of libraries to publish any writing whatsoever; a
liberty which some persons still dare to solicit and extend with as much
noise as ardor."
"Pope Gregory the XVIth, had scarcely ascended the pontifical throne,
when he heard of the revolt of Bologna. His first movement was to summon
the Austrians, and excite the _Sanfedistes_. The Cardinal Albani beat
the liberals at Cesena; his soldiers pillaged the churches, sacked the
town, ravished the women. At Forli, the bands committed assassinations
in cold blood. In 1832, the Sanfedisles showed themselves in broad day,
wearing medals, with effigies of the Duke of Modena, and of the holy
father, letters patent, in the name of the apostolical congregation,
privileges and indulgences: The Sanfedistes took the following oath
liberally: '_I swear to elevate the altar and the throne upon the bones
of the infamous liberals, and to exterminate them without pity for the
cries of their children, the tears of their old men and women._' The
disorders committed by these brigands, passed all bounds; the court
of Rome made anarchy regular, organized the Sanfedistes into bands of
volunteers, and granted to these bands extraordinary privileges."--The
Revolution and Revolutionists of Italy. Review of the Two Worlds,
November 15, 1844.
This is a specimen of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, as taught
in this country; and thus, Americans, would they erect altars upon
your bones, "heedless of the cries of your old men and your old women,"
should the Pope's spiritual power ever gain the ascendancy over your
strong arms,--or should his priests, by intrigue and by a play of
passions, (as Rodin expresses it,) and excitement, obtain the control of
your hitherto clear intellects. Pause, Americans. Hesitate for a
moment, you young men and young ladies, who, under the influence of some
momentary excitement, may be tempted to unite yourselves with the Romish
church, or to go into their nunneries.
The first advance you make, the very first step you take to effect this,
is in itself utterly degrading to you. It is the abandonment of your
whole selves, bodies and souls, judgment, intellect, understanding,
mind, liberty and all, to the guidance of a body of men whose political
intrigues, and public and private immoralities, have blackened the pages
of history for the last sixteen hundred years.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Strasburg, in a letter to the Paris
Constitutionnel, has denied that such doctrines as those contained in
the three propositions which I have quoted above, are taught in Popish
colleges. He pledges his honor in support of this assertion. I have
quoted from the _Casuists_, a work written by the fathers of the Jesuit
Society. The bishop does not deny the doctrines positively, but says
that the work from which the quotations are made, was written, not by
Jesuits, but by a Rev. Dr. Moulet, a secular priest. If any other proof
were necessary, to show the iniquity of Jesuit doctrines, and the truth
of every word I have said, and others before me have said, against
Jesuit intrigue and tergiversation, this admission of the Bishop of
Strasburg, would be sufficient.
What is the difference between a Jesuit father, and a secular priest?
It is simply this. Jesuits are limited in the sphere of their duties, by
the general of their order; and whenever a Jesuit makes his appearance
in the diocese of any Popish bishop, he is subject, while there, to the
said bishop.
The Strasburg professor may succeed in imposing upon those who know not
the difference between a secular priest and a Jesuit. The matter is
not mended, or the difficulty removed, by having the book written by
a secular priest; it is so much the worse. An evil deed, for instance
treason, when committed by a servant, is bad enough; but it is much
worse when committed by his master. An act of perfidy or immorality
committed by a priest, under the jurisdiction of a bishop, merits
execration, and should receive it; but if committed by the bishop
himself, would become still more execrable.
I presume that when the Bishop of Strasburg pledged his honor that the
crimes imputed by others, as well as myself, to him and his tools, were
not sanctioned in his college, or by the writings of Jesuits, he had
Brother Jonathan in view. His letter to the Paris Constitutionnel was
intended exclusively for Americans, whom Jesuits know by the name of
"_dolts, double dolts_."
Let us now see how far the word and honor of this Jesuit Strasburg
bishop are entitled to credit. It is proper to do so, as his letter has
found its way into several of our presses in the western country.
I pronounce the Bishop of Strasburg's assertion an unqualified,
deliberate, and unmitigated falsehood. An issue is now made between
myself and the bishop. The question is one of veracity, between us; and
I am willing to leave the decision to a jury of the public. The bishop
is a Jesuit, and bound, by his oath of allegiance to the Pope, to
support him and the doctrines of his church, at the expense of all
Protestant governments. He is bound by his oath to "hold no faith with
heretics." He is bound by his oath "to destroy them." He is no citizen
of this country. He has nothing in common with Americans, but the
external configurations of humanity. He is not personally known to any
American, as far as I am acquainted; and under these circumstances, he
comes before the American public with the naked, unsupported assertion,
that what history has handed down, and I, a fellow-citizen of their own,
have confirmed and declared to be true, is false. Is he to be believed
in preference to me, even if history was silent?
I have lived in this country more than twenty-five years, and though a
foreigner by birth, I will venture the assertion, that no Roman Catholic
priest ever came to America with higher recommendations than I did. Some
of them are from Roman Catholic bishops, and are now in my possession;
but I will not ask Americans to give them any credit, because a Romish
bishop or Jesuit would recommend the devil himself, who takes the
necessary oath of allegiance to Rome, and swears to overthrow, by all
possible means, the heretical government of the United States, which
sanctions,--I use the very words of the Pope,--"that _fatal liberty of
the press of which we cannot but stand in awe, the liberty of
libraries to publish any writing whatsoever; a liberty which
some--Americans--dare_ to solicit with noise and ardor."
I will not insult Americans by asking them to give me credit for
veracity on the strength of recommendations from Popish bishops in
Europe, men who are the sworn enemies of everything dear to freemen.
I brought with me, from other sources, testimonials of the highest
respectability, not as a Popish priest, but as a man. Among them were
introductions to that eminent patriot, De Witt Clinton of New York, who
immediately, on my arrival at his hospitable residence in Albany, and
during the session of the Legis-ture, had me appointed chaplain to the
senate. But I will not ask Americans to give me credit for veracity on
account of any connections or acquaintances which I formed while I was
a Popish priest The very fact of my being a priest was in itself
contamination. It should disqualify a man from being considered anything
that was candid, frank or virtuous. But I will ask Americans to credit
me, in preference to the Bishop of Strasburg, or any other Jesuit
priest, upon the testimony of American citizens, men known to
themselves, men of honor, probity and patriotism.
I have been a member of the bar of the States of South Carolina and
Georgia, for nearly twenty years, until ill health obliged me to change
my residence temporarily; and I value the following letter which has
been sent to me by William Law, Esq., then judge of the superior
court of Georgia, more highly than all the documents, testimonials and
recommendations, which the Pope of Rome, or the whole college of his
cardinals and Jesuits, could furnish.
"Savannah, 25th June, 1832.
"Dear Sir,--Understanding from you that it is your intention to leave
the State, with a view to the practice of law elsewhere, it will I
apprehend be necessary that the certificate of admission to our bar
furnished you by the clerk, should be accompanied with a certificate
from myself, as the presiding judge of the court in which you were
admitted. This is necessary to give it authenticity in another State. It
will afford me pleasure to append that verification to it, if you will be
pleased to send me the certificate.
"Permit me, as you are about to leave us, to offer you my humble
testimony to your correct, upright deportment as an advocate at the bar
of the superior courts of the eastern district of Georgia, since your
admission to the practice of law in the same.
"Wishing you success and prosperity wherever you may settle, I am, dear
sir, very respectfully,
"Your obedient servant,
"William Law."
Judge Law resides now in Savannah. He has retired from the bench, and
practises law in copartnership with senator Berrien, of Georgia. I need
not say who Judge Law is. He is well known, as one of the most eloquent
and learned advocates of the American bar; nor is he more distinguished
for his legal knowledge, than for his Christian virtues and exemplary
life. He is at present, and has been for many years, an elder of the
Presbyterian church, in that city. I believe that I have the honor
and the friendship of this worthy man, up to the moment I write. Every
earthly interest I have is in this country. Its prosperity will advance
mine. The overthrow of its government would bury in its ruins all I
have to support me. Who then is to be believed by Americans,--the Jesuit
bishop of Strasburg, whose country is the world, whose queen is the
Popish church, and whose kindred are monks and Romish priests? Am I
unreasonable, under these circumstances, in asking a jury of Americans
for a verdict in favor of my veracity, my word and my honor, in
preference to the honor of a foreign Jesuit bishop of Strasburg, or any
other Popish priest or bishop in the United States? You, Americans, are
the best judges. In addition to these facts and circumstances, I will
take the liberty of stating that nearly the whole delegation to Congress
from the State of Georgia, where I have so long resided, have borne
testimony to my correct conduct, by recommending me to high and
lucrative offices under this government. Among these were the names of
the Hon. J. M'Pherson Berrien, then a next door neighbor of mine, the
Hon. Thomas Butler King, William C. Dawson, and the lamented Richard W.
Habersham, of Savannah. This last named gentleman is no more, but he has
not left behind him one whose confidence and friendship I valued more.
He was, indeed, the noblest work of God, an honest man. His name is
now revered in Georgia, and will be there venerated as long as she has
records to preserve it. I have in my possession the most friendly and
affectionate letters from this Christian patriot up to within a few
weeks of his death, which occurred about two years since. I may further
add to these distinguished names, that of the Hon. Wm. C. Preston, of
South Carolina, the Hon. Isaac Holmes, of the same State, and the Hon.
Judge Wayne, of Savannah, one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the
United States. I have evidence in my possession, up to a few weeks ago,
of the personal friendship of that elegant and accomplished gentleman
Judge Wayne. I have studied law more than twenty years ago with the
Hon. Mr. Holmes, and never since has his friendship towards me been
interrupted. As a literary man and finished classical scholar Mr. Holmes
has scarcely a superior in the country. With such testimonials as these
of my Americanism, honor and veracity, I dread not the verdict of an
American jury in the case now pending between me and the Jesuit bishop
of Strasburg.
But before you make up your verdict, I beg to submit to you the
following sketch of a debate, which took place the 5th of last March,
in the Swiss Diet in Switzerland, on the subject of Jesuits in
that country. It is taken from a speech of the Hon. Mr. Neuhaus, a
representative from Berne. The debate commenced by the chancellor laying
before the assembly petitions from the people of Switzerland, signed by
120,000 persons, praying that the Jesuits might be expelled from that
country.
Neuhaus said that the question of the Jesuits, which was raised last
year, had made great progress since that time, and its importance might
be estimated by the impression which it had produced on the population,
the anxiety with which the result of the deliberations of the diet was
looked forward to, and the care taken by all the great councils of the
cantons to have their opinions duly represented. * * According to the
eighth article of the federal compact, the diet took all the measures
necessary for the internal and external safety of Switzerland. That
right on the part of the diet was incontestable, and had been put in
force on former occasions within memory. The question, therefore, was
not whether the diet had a right to take steps against the Jesuits, but
whether the Jesuits had compromised and were compromising the safety of
Switzerland. It was therefore the question of fact only that he would
approach. Were the Jesuits dangerous or not? Were they particularly
dangerous as respected Switzerland? Yes, the Jesuits were dangerous.
1. Because of their morality. They taught the people to commit, without
remorse of conscience, the most culpable actions. Their morality
necessarily exercised on those exposed to their influence a deleterious
effect; and a writer of the eighteenth century had said, with great
truth, that he detested the Jesuits because they were an order
_aboutissant_. But in republics morality was wanted above all things.
2. The Jesuits were dangerous because they made use of the
ecclesiastical character to carry disorder into families, and to divide
the members of them, in order the more easily to govern them. Examples
abounded, and, if necessary, he could cite many.
3. They were dangerous because the order required of all its members
a blind obedience, an absolute submission. He who was a member of the
society, whether he were a Jesuit properly so called, or merely belonged
to the order under another denomination, could no longer have either
opinions or will. As soon as the leaders gave orders, those who were
enrolled in that militia were obliged to obey, without examination; and
if the chief ordered the members and their associates to work in secret
to subvert republican governments, they were obliged to obey, without
examination, whether they thought it right or wrong. But what was
necessary to the people of Switzerland, if they wished to maintain their
independence, was the sentiment of liberty and moral force, and that
sentiment the Jesuits annihilated.
4. The Jesuits were dangerous because they had neither family nor
country. As soon as a Swiss citizen entered the order of the Jesuits,
he only belonged to that body. On this account the governments of the
cantons would do well to make a law that any one entering the order of
the Jesuits should lose his natural rights. When a man was obliged to
lay aside his feelings of family, to disown his cantonal as well as
federal country, he was no longer a Swiss; he as nothing but a Jesuit
and a stranger to every country. 5. The Jesuits were dangerous because
they endeavored everywhere to seize upon power. In despotic and
monarchical governments, where the head was invested with extended
authority, they might be tempted to make use of the Jesuits as
auxiliaries. As long as the Jesuits did not dominate, they would consent
to serve a master; but when they had attained their end, they took
advantage of services which they had rendered to establish then
domination over those who had recourse to them. This was what made
all the governments of Europe banish them from their states. They
were dangerous to monarchies, and still more to republics, where the
authorities did not possess the elements necessary to counterbalance
their pernicious influence. 6. They were especially dangerous to
Switzerland, because one of the principal ends of the order was to
extirpate Protestantism. Without doubt, the Swiss Catholics had a
right that their Protestant brethren should respect their religious
convictions; but the Protestants had also rights which should be
respected by the Catholics; and the deputies of the canton of Berne
would demand, if those Catholic cantons which tolerated, and even
invited into their bosoms an order, the object of which is the
extirpation of Protestantism, conducted themselves like good
confederates towards the reformed cantons; if they fulfilled the federal
duties, and if those states had not the right to say to the states which
received the Jesuits, 'We have no congregation which labors for
the extirpation of Catholicism, and we ask of you not to tolerate a
corporation so hostile to us as the Society of Jesus.' These were the
principal reasons which made the canton of Berne consider the Jesuits
as dangerous; but there were many others which he could state, and among
others, the recent events in the country were a strong proof of the
danger of the Jesuits. The only legal way to settle the question was,
by taking the opinions of the cantons in the diet, and if twelve of the
cantons voted that the Jesuits were dangerous, the others must submit.
M. Neuhaus concluded by reading his instructions from his canton, which
were to demand a decree for the expulsion of the Jesuits from every part
of Switzerland.
"The action of the diet is already known." The reader may see from the
above, proofs almost positive of the truth of every crime with which I
have charged Popish Jesuits. The Hon. M. Neuhaus, a representative from
a people proverbially generous, distinguished as a nation for honesty
and simply integrity. Switzerland and chivalry are almost synonymous
since the days of William Tell. Switzerland, honesty, virtue and
piety are understood to be almost one and the same thing. Even among
ourselves, in the United States, a Swiss Protestant emigrant needs
no recommendation but a certificate of his nativity. We trust him; we
confide in him, because he is honest; we believe him because he is truth
himself. All the finer qualities of uncorrupted humanity seem to be his
by birthright. One hundred and twenty thousand of these honorable men
petitioned their Legislature to pass a law for the expulsion of Jesuits
from their country, and their representative, M. Neuhaus, the embodiment
of their virtue and integrity, supports the prayer of their petition,
charging those Jesuits to their teeth, proving from the history of their
past and present lives, that they are collectively and individually
immoral and treacherous men, the sworn enemies of freedom and disturbers
of the peace. He accuses them of being leagued together, and bound by
the most awful oaths, to overthrow the government and exterminate
the Protestants of Germany. He accuses them of maintaining spies in
Protestant families, of tampering with their children, and introducing
disobedience and disorder amongst them.
I regret extremely that I have not his whole speech, but if there is a
file of the Swiss papers in the city, it will be found in those of last
March.
I am ready now, fellow-citizens, for your verdict. I submit the case
between the Jesuit Bishop of Strasburg and myself, to you without
further argument.
If I am correct in my charges against Jesuits; if the various crimes,
with which Eugene Sue charges them, be well founded,--and I declare, on
the honor of an American citizen and a member of the American bar, that
they are,--I ask my fellow-citizens of the United States for a verdict
in my favor.