Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

When, says Lord Mansfield in the ease of Mr. Evans, the Jesuits in France meditated the oppression, and the distruction of the protestants "there was no oc"casion to revoke the edict of Nantz; the Jesuits* need"ed only to have advised a plan similar to what is con"tended for in the present case. Make a law to ren"der them incapable of office; make another to punish "them for not serving. If they accept, punish them;

if they refuse, punish them; if they say yes, punish "them; if they say no, punish them. My Lords this " is a most exquisite dilemma, from which there is no "escaping; it is a trap a man cannot get out of; it is "as bad persecution as that of Procrustes. If they are "too short, stretch them; if they are too long, lop them. "Small would have been their consolation to have been gravely told the edict of Nantz is kept inviolable ; you have the full benefit of that act of toleration, you may take the sacrament in your own way with im

66

66

66

* This religious order has been traduced both by ill informed Catholics and Protestants. The Jesuits have been proscribed throughout all Europe, except in Russia. It would be doing the highest injustice to the United States of America, to allow it to go abroad to the world that they have participated in the abuse which has been heaped upon that order. It cannot be doubted by any intelligent or well informed man, that policy and prejudice, have conspired more than any thing else, to pourtray that learned body in an odious light, and to hold them forth as faithless-designing and subtle. The fact is, that no class of men have manifested greater zeal for the Christian religion-none have taken more pains to diffuse its benefits to mankind-none have laboured more to carry it to the distant regions of the earth than the Jesuits. In learning they have been surpassed by none.-We beg leave to refer the reader to a note on this subject in the appendix.

punity; you are not compelled to go to mass.

[ocr errors]

Was

"this case but told in the city of London as of a pro"ceeding in France, how would they exclaim against "the Jesuitical distinction! and yet in truth it comes "from themselves; the Jesuits never thought of it ;"when they meant to persecute, their act of toleration, "the edict of Nantz, was repealed."*

Apply this to the case now before the Court. We tell the Catholics-yes, you shall have the full benefit of the constitution; you shall have the "free exercise "and enjoyment of religious profession and worship ;" you shall have your seven sacraments; your Priest shall freely administer the sacrament of penance; you shall all enjoy the consolation of auricular confession; and as we know that your Priest cannot according to his religious faith, reveal to any person in the world, what passes in confession ;-we will not compel himwe will only consign him to prison, and peradventure superadd a fine which he can never pay or, if your Priest should violate the seal of confession, and reveal what the penitent hath disclosed-far be it from us to violate the constitution; the penitent shall freely enjoy

his religious profession and worship."-He has the full benefit of it. We only shut him up in the State

* See Lord Mansfield's opinion 41 vol. Gentlemans Magazine 65,

N. B. The Edict of Nantz, was in fact repealed by Lewis the 14th, and not by the Jesuits.-It could not be repealed by that order. Whether the revocation of the Edict of Nantz proceeded from a spirit of persecution on the part of the French government, or from a necessity of securing the throne against the incessant attemps made by the Hugenots, to subvert it, is a point of historical fact that cannot be rightly decided but by perusing the historians of both parties of that time.

Prison, or otherwise punish him according to law. Is there, in the republic, a man who does not see in this the most scandalous sophistry? Is there, on earth, a man who would not abhor it?

.

It.

The decision of the Peers in the case of the dissenter is important as a rule of construction. The toleration bill left the dissenters to act as their consciences shall "direct them, in matters of religious worship."* secured nothing more. Yet the Lords rightly held, that by necessary implication, it extended to the exemption claimed by Mr. Evans. Our constitution is much more broad and explicit. The object was to secure, " to all mankind the free exercise and enjoyment of religious "profession and worship, without distinction or pre"ference." Every thing essential to that object, is by necessary implication, secured by the constitution ; less it leads to acts of licentiousness, or to practiees inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.

We have no statutory regulation upon the subject now under consideration, and the principles of the common law are accurately and strongly laid down by Lord Mansfield. His words are these, "My Lords, there

never was a single instance, from the Saxon times "down to our own, in which a man was ever punished for erroneous opinions concerning rites or modes of "worship, but upon some POSITIVE LAW."

Thus it is clear, in every possible view which we have taken of the question, that the exemption claimed by Dr. Kohlmann, is fully supported by the enacting clause of the Constitution. It only remains to be seen, whe

* 4 Blac, Com. 54.

ther this right be impaired by the proviso in the Consti

tution.

The words are, "Provided, that the liberty of con"science hereby granted, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices "inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State." Now, unless it can be shewn, that auricular confession tends to the excuse of licentiousness, or justifies practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State, we cannot be affected by the proviso.

But let us see how it stands. Does auricular confession excuse acts of licentiousness? If the Catholics held that the confessor could unconditionally forgive every, or any sin, which might be committed; or if they held that he could forgive upon condition that they confessed such sin; a sinner, on such terms, might go on and repeat his sins at pleasure; and then it might be said, that auricular confession is within the proviso of the constitution. But from a book* that contains the Catholic creed on this point, and which my Rev. client has put into my hands, I find the fact to be altogether otherwise. The Catholic holds that his priests can absolve no one, but the "truly penitent sinner," that he must come to them "making a sincere and humble "confession of his sins, with a true repentance, and "firm purpose of amendment, and a hearty resolution "of turning from his evil ways; and that whosoever "comes without the due preparation; without a rcpentance from the bottom of his heart, and a real in

The Council of Trent, Sess. 14.

“tention of forsaking his sins, receives no benefit by the "absolution; but adds sin to sin by a high contempt of * God's mercy, and abuse of his sacraments.”

According to our faith,* give me leave to ask, whether a sinner, under such convictions and resolutions, look. ing to, and confiding implicitly in the Saviour of the world, would not, through the merits of that Saviour, be absolved from his sins? I answer he would. It is the faith of all Protestants.

It requires no observations of mine, to shew that no thing in the Catholic creed, in this point, excuses or encourages licentiousness. In the instance before us it has led to a restoration of the property to the true owner, and it is known to be attended in a multitude of cases with great good. The life of HENRY the Fourth, of France, was undoubtedly saved by it, though he afterwards fell a victim to the fanaticism of Ravillac.(1) If we could legally and constitutionally compel the clergyman to reveal the name of the penitent, who would afterwards go to confession? What would be gained to the State?

Is auricular confession dangerous to the peace or safety of the State? We know that it exists and is practiced in Russia-In Spain-in France-in Portugal—in Italy-in Germany, and in most of the countries of Europe. Is their peace, or their safety disturbed by auricular confession?

[merged small][ocr errors]
« PredošláPokračovať »