"Even good old John Wesley caught the spirit of the times, and wrote that letter, from which it appears he thought if the Catholics got into power, they would abuse Protestants. What abuse they could have heaped on them, greater than they heaped on Catholics, short of cutting their throats, I cannot conceive."
The only superior you acknowledge is CARDINAL WISEMAN, a bigoted Roman Catholic, and you seem to knock under to him quite reluctantly, and not without informing the public that you have been a laborious student for forty years, and "_a profound thinker_." Here is your praise:
"I have been a pretty severe student for near forty years, and a laborious, if not _profound thinker_ for a long time; but when I compare myself in intellectual stature with that man, I shrink in my own estimation to the insignificance of a mite."
So much by way of noticing vanity. You are a literary and theological star of the first magnitude! You are an encyclopedia of the learning, science, patriotism, and religion of the country! Sir, if you possessed a little more _sheep-faced modesty_, and could exhibit a little less of _lion-headed impudence_ than you do, you would be a much more useful, not to say successful minister of the New Testament!
Sir, you have taken the field in opposition to Know-Nothingism, _professedly_ through your deep and abiding concern for Christianity, and the interests of Methodism. You say:
"You cannot surely be so weak as to suppose you can crush Romanism by Know-Nothing agencies; but you have almost ruined Methodism by them already.
"Now the ruler of this nation is spoken evil of by your party continually, and therefore, in the judgment of Wesley, I might stand up in the pulpit and defend him."
The truth is, you are influenced alone by partisan political feelings; and occupying a position in a Mississippi College, in the midst of Fire-eating Disunion Progressive Democracy, you desire to please them, rather than serve the interests of your country or Church. To take the stump, or the pulpit, in defence of _Frank Pierce_ and his corrupt administration, would be a pleasant talk to you, who have been, all your life-time, an inveterate Locofoco in politics, and "a profound thinker"
in favor of its iniquitous measures and principles. In your early political training, you have been swayed by interest and popular favor, and in most cases at the expense of truth, just as you now are, in your mad vindication of Romanism. A tool for others to work with, till you have found yourself in a condition to use such tools as you yourself have been, you are now a trimmer and weatherc.o.c.k, leading on men of less sense than yourself, to such distinction as interest and ambition may dictate!
Sir, you take the ground, throughout, that there is no danger of Catholics in this country, and that they do not seek to establish their religion. Here is a specimen of your logic:
"Thank G.o.d no religious sect can tyrannize over another in this country, so long as they all respect the Federal Const.i.tution.
Until we see, then, the Catholics treating that instrument with disrespect, it is madness to entertain fears of them and worse than madness to form combinations against them."
Now, sir, the foregoing statement is untrue, and in making it you could not have been sincere. You are a man of too much sense, and of too much information, to believe what you are wickedly trying to palm upon others. Brownson"s Quarterly Review, the most able, as well as the most authentic organ of Catholicism in the United States, employs the following language to the American people--mark it:
"_Are your free inst.i.tutions infallible?_ Are they founded on _Divine right_? This you deny. Is not the proper question for you to discuss, then, _not_ whether the Papacy be or be not compatible with republican government, but whether _it be or be not founded in Divine right_? If the Papacy be founded in Divine right, it is supreme over whatever is founded only in human right, and then your inst.i.tutions should be made to harmonize with it: not it with your inst.i.tutions!!! The real question, then, is not the compatibility or the incompatibility of the Catholic Church with _democratic inst.i.tutions_, but, Is the _Catholic Church the Church of G.o.d_?
"Settle this question first. But in point of fact, _democracy is a mischievous dream, wherever the Catholic Church does not predominate_, to inspire the people with reverence, and to teach and accustom them to obedience to authority."
Here is still plainer language from the Roman Catholic Bishop of St.
Louis:
"Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes."
Here is what the _Boston Pilot_ says, a Catholic paper of high standing:
"_No good government can exist_ without religion, and there can be no religion without an _inquisition_, which is wisely designed for the promotion and protection of the _true faith_."
Here is the _Shepherd of the Valley_, published under the eye and with the approbation of the Bishop of St. Louis:
"The Church is, of necessity, intolerant. Heresy she endures when and where she _must_; but she hates it, and directs all her energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country is _at an end_: so say our enemies--_so say we_."
And here is what the _Rambler_ says, a devoted Catholic periodical, high in the confidence of the Bishops and Priests of that Church:
"You ask if he (the Pope) were lord in the land, and you were in the minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend on circ.u.mstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you--if expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you, probably he might even hang you; but, be a.s.sured of one thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the "glorious principles" of civil and religious liberty."
I could give other quotations of this character, which have met your eye long since, but I forbear, as they would extend my letter beyond the limit I have prescribed for myself. These are the publications which, in part at least, have given rise to the Know-Nothing organization, so cordially hated by you.
You say there is no danger of injury to our inst.i.tutions from the rapid strides of Romanism. Allow me to ask your attention to the following remarkable political prediction by the Duke of Richmond, late Governor-General of Canada, and a British n.o.ble, who declared himself hostile to the United States on all occasions. Speaking of our Government, this deadly enemy said:
"It will be destroyed; it ought not, it will not be permitted to exist." "The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its example; and so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon his throne; and the _sovereigns of Europe are aware of it_; and they have _determined upon its destruction, and have come to an understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means to accomplish it_; and they will eventually succeed by SUBVERSION _rather than conquest_." "All the low and surplus population of the different nations of Europe will be carried into that country. It is and will be a receptacle for the bad and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted for soldiers, or to supply the navies; _and the governments of Europe will favor such a course_. This will create a surplus and majority of low population, who are so very easily excited; and they will _bring with them their principles_; and in nine cases out of ten adhere to their ancient and former governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion; and will transmit them to their posterity; and in many cases propagate them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and, by the const.i.tution and laws, will be invested with the right of suffrage." "Hence, _discord_, _dissension_, _anarchy and civil war will ensue_; and some popular individual will a.s.sume the government, and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe, the emigrants, and many of the natives will sustain him." "The Church of Rome has a design upon that country; and it will in time be the established religion, and will aid in the destruction of that Republic." "I have _conversed with many of the sovereigns and princes of Europe, and they have unanimously expressed these opinions relative to the government of the United States, and their determination to subvert it_."
But, sir, after eulogizing Catholics for their devotion to religious toleration in this country, you make two a.s.sertions, touching the Methodist Church, for which I wish to arraign you, and for which the authorities of said Church ought to arraign you, under that section of our Discipline which forbids _railing out against our Doctrines and Discipline_. You say:
"And if I were to take the stump against you, I would say to the honest yeomanry of the country. "Good people, if you think your liberties will be _any safer in the hands of Methodists than Catholics, you are vastly mistaken_."
"I would add, in humiliation but in candor, "You have ten thousand times more to fear, just at this time, from Methodists, than Catholics; simply because the first are more numerous than the last, because the first are actually in the field for office, while the last are not.""
If you have this opinion of the Methodist Church, you cannot be an honest man and remain within her jurisdiction. You ought to leave her communion forthwith, and go over to Rome; and in doing this, you would _not have far to go_! Occupying the position you do, and holding the sentiments you do, I would not send a child to any school or college over which you might preside. Nor do I think any Protestant parent or guardian ought to patronize any school under your care. Your influence, whatever you may possess, is against the Protestant faith, and in favor of Catholicism. In a word, you are a dangerous man in a Republican government.
Upon the subject of religious toleration by the Catholics, you seem to have fallen into the same error adopted by the Hon. Mr. Stephens, of Georgia--a man for whom you have great regard now, but who, in the days of _Clay Whiggery_, was a stench in your Locofoco nostrils! Mr. Stephens made the a.s.sertion, in a public speech in Augusta, that "the Catholic Colony of Maryland, under Lord Baltimore, was the first to _establish_ the principle of free toleration in religious worship." The Colony of Maryland was a Catholic Colony, and the "Toleration Act" was written by Lord Baltimore himself. That Act is dated 21st April, 1649, when Lord Baltimore was in the zenith of his glory. Here is the language of that "Act" of religious toleration:
"Denying the Holy _Trinity_ is to be punished with _death_, and confiscation of land and goods to the Lord Proprietary, (Lord Baltimore himself!). Persons using any reproachful words concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Apostles or Evangelists, to be fined 5, or in default of payment to be publicly whipped and _imprisoned, at the pleasure_ of his Lordship, (Lord Baltimore himself!) or of his Lieutenant-General." _See Laws of Maryland, at large, by T.
Bacon_, A. D. 1765. 16 and 17 _Cecilius"s Lord Baltimore_.
G.o.d deliver us from such toleration! _Death_ was the penalty for expressing certain religious opinions, not acceptable to Lord Baltimore and the Holy Catholic Church! Fines and _whipping at the post_ was the penalty for speaking against the image-worship of the Catholic Church.
But I need not pursue this subject further: the _onus propandi_ is on your side.
Speaking of Mr. Wesley, you say:
"If Wesley were alive, what would he think of your midnight plots, and open tirades against Papists? But a letter of his has been going the rounds of the newspapers, which the Know Nothings obviously think gives the sanction of that good man to their movement. Not so. Mr. Wesley was not the man to write as inconsistently as their version of this letter makes him write."
Why, sir, Mr. Wesley goes much further in his political opposition to Roman Catholics than the American party have ever proposed to go. The American party say only that they will not vote for Catholics, or put them in office, because their principles are antagonistic to the spirit of Republican inst.i.tutions. Mr. Wesley lays down the comprehensive, but _true doctrine_, in this very letter, that "_no government not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion_." And to show how fully and clearly he sustains this position, I quote from his letter at length. You will find the letter in Vol. 5, page 817, of Wesley"s Miscellaneous Works, dated January 12th, 1780. It was originally addressed to the Dublin Freeman"s Journal. Here is what Mr.
Wesley says, in the very letter you seek to _deny out of_:
"I consider not whether the Romish religion is true or false: build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore, away with all your common-place declamation about intolerance and persecution for religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius"s creed to be true! Suppose the Council of Trent to have been infallible; yet I insist upon it that no government not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion.
"I prove this by a plain argument--let him answer it that can--that no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable behavior. I prove it thus: It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established not by private men, but by public council, that "No faith is to be kept with heretics."
This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it has never been openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain than that the members of that Church can give no reasonable security to any government for their allegiance and peaceable behavior.
Therefore, they ought not to be tolerated by any government, Protestant, Mohammedan, or Pagan. You say, "Nay, but they take an oath of allegiance." True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, "No faith is to be kept with heretics," sweeps them all away as a spider"s web. So that still no governors that are not Roman Catholics can have any security of their allegiance.
"Again, those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the Pope can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but all Roman Catholics acknowledge this: therefore they can give no security for their allegiance. The power of granting pardons for all sins--past, present, and to come--is, and has been for many centuries, one branch of his spiritual power. But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can give no security for their allegiance, since they believe the Pope can pardon rebellion, high treason, and all other sins whatever.
The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is another branch of the spiritual power of the Pope: all who acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the Pope, can give no security for his allegiance to any government. Oaths and promises are none: they are as light as air--a dispensation makes them null and void. Nay, not only the Pope, but even a priest has power to pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine of the Church of Rome. But they that acknowledge this, cannot possibly give any security for their allegiance to any government. Oaths are no security at all; for the priest can pardon both perjury and high treason. Setting their religion aside, it is plain that, upon principles of reason, no government ought to tolerate men who cannot give any security to that government for their allegiance and peaceful behavior.
But this, no Romanist can do; not only while he holds that "no faith is to be kept with heretics," but so long as he acknowledges either priestly absolution, or the spiritual power of the Pope.
"If any one pleases to answer this, and set his name, I shall probably reply. But the productions of anonymous writers I do not promise to take any notice of.
"I am, sir, your humble servant,
"JOHN WESLEY.
"CITY ROAD, January 12, 1780."
But, sir, you know as well as any living man that the history of the Church, from the days of the first Pope down to the iniquitous reign of Pius IX., sustains Mr. Wesley in his views on this subject, and justifies the steps taken by the American party. Notwithstanding the oft-repeated profession of Catholic liberality and Romish toleration, so triumphantly paraded by you, and other interested aspirants and unprincipled demagogues, the Catholic Church has invariably shown herself to be dest.i.tute of both, whenever she had the opportunity of using them. Sir, _intolerance_ is an element of her faith, and _persecution_ a specimen of her piety; and no man knows it better than you do. In taking upon herself the obligation of "true obedience to the Pope," the Catholic Church imposes upon herself a task that proves beyond all doubt she cannot, under any circ.u.mstances, remain faithful to that obligation, and yet maintain "allegiance" to such a government as ours!
Sir, I have no patience with a Protestant minister who stands forth as the apologist of Catholicism; nor have I any confidence in one who does it, provided he is a man of _intelligence_, as I admit you to be. The only excuse I can render for your strange and inconsistent conduct is, that you are in your dotage; that you are a violent old partisan; and that you are the tool of designing demagogues, infamous disunionists, and unmitigated repudiators. I shall not be at all surprised to hear that you have apostatized from the Methodist Church, and gone over to the Roman Catholics. I learn from the Little Rock Gazette, a Democratic paper, that but the other day, Gov. E. N. Carway, of Arkansas, a member of the Methodist Church, had actually apostatized from Methodism, and the Protestant faith, and united with the Roman Catholics. And what makes his defection from the faith of his fathers still more notorious, his organ is down upon the Protestant clergy in bitter and unrelenting denunciations! I believe that _you_ are preparing to go over to the Roman Catholics; and to justify your change, when the time comes, you now a.s.sert, "in humiliation but in candor," you say, that the people "have _ten thousand times more_ to fear from Methodists than from Catholics." If you believe this, you ought to leave the Methodist Church _instantly_, even without the formalities of a withdrawal or expulsion--even though you should be denied admittance into the Catholic Church! I deny that we have "_ten thousand times more to fear_" from the _Devil_ than we have from the Catholics; and according to your argument, _the Methodists are worse than the Devil_! This, their most bitter revilers and enemies do not believe; and for obvious reasons. The Methodist Church has no St. Bartholomew"s Day, with its rivers of blood staining her garments: she never indiscriminately slaughtered the Albigenses, or Waldenses, or Huguenots: she never established an infernal Inquisition: she never lit up the fires of Smithfield: never burned the Holy Bible, and prohibited, upon pain of eternal death, the printing and circulating of G.o.d"s word; and last, but not least, she has not sought to keep the people in ignorance. Wherever Methodism has been planted, the people have become great and happy. If you please, wherever _Protestantism_ has prevailed, the people have been prosperous and happy. But look to Old Spain, Italy, the German Confederacies, Sardinia, Naples, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Bavaria, Baden, South America, and Mexico, where Romanism is the established religion, and the places of her influence are a hissing and a by-word in the eyes of the civilized world! Protestantism has done more for the world in the last hundred years than the Roman Catholic Church has for the _eighteen hundred years_!
Sir, the Puritans, of New England; the Hollanders, of New York; the Quakers, Lutherans, and German Reformed, of Pennsylvania; the Baptists, of Rhode Island; the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, of Virginia; the Lutherans and followers of Wesley and Whitefield, of Georgia; the Huguenots and Episcopalians, of the Carolinas; and the Seceders in several of the States, who were the religious pioneers of these States, were all Protestants and Know Nothings; and if they were living, they would be ashamed of you and your teachings. They selected this wilderness country as their home, in order that they might enjoy those religious privileges from which they had been debarred in the old world, by the very Church and people you are seeking to vindicate.
But you will say, as you have done in substance, that this is no longer the characteristic of Romanism. Why is it not? Has she ever changed for the better? When did she renounce her doctrines and practices? Never!