it is the doctrine of any church calling itself Christian; but, unfortunately, I know it has been practised by some Roman Catholics, and it has been practised in every church which accused her of having had recourse thereto. I would then say it was taught by no church; it has been practised in all. One great temptation to its exercise, is the union of any church with the state; and religion has more frequently been but a pretext with statesmen for a political purpose, than the cause of persecution for zeal on its own behalf.

Christ gave to his Apostles no commission to use the sword or the brand, an they went forth in the simplicity of their testimony, and the evidence of their miracles, and the power of their evidence, to convert the world. They gave freely their own blood to be shed for the sake of religion, but they shed not the blood of their opponents. Their associates and their successors followed their example, and were successful by that imitation. And the historian who represents the chastisements of infidel barbarians, by Christian princes, for the protection of their own people, and the security of their own property, misleads the reader whom he would fain persuade, that it was done for the purposes of religion at the instigation of those who laid down their own lives in the conversion of those barbarians. It is true, indeed, that we cannot call error truth, nor style truth error; it is true that we say there must continue to be an essential distinction between them; it is true that we cannot belie our consciences, nor bear false witness to our neighbours, by telling them that we believe they adhere to the doctrines of Christ, when they contradict what we receive as those doctrines; we cannot believe two contradictory propositions to be at the same time true. But such a declaration on our part does not involve as its consequence that we believe they ought to be persecuted. The Inquisition is a civil tribunal of some states, not a portion of our religion.

We now come to examine what are called the persecuting laws of our church. In the year 1215, at the Council of Lateran, certain heresies were condemned by the first canon; and amongst other things this canon recites as Catholic faith, in opposition to the errors of those whom it condemned, that there is but one God, the creator of all things, of spirits as well as bodies; the author of the Old Testament and of the Mosaic dispensation, equally as of the New Testament and of the Christian dispensation; that he created not only the good angels, but also the devil and the bad angels, originally

coming good from his hand, and becoming wicked by their own malice, &c. In its third canon it excommunicates those heretics, and declares them to be separated from the body of the church. Then follows a direction, that the heretics so condemned, are to be given up to the secular powers, or to their bailiffs, to be duly punished. This direction continues to require of all bishops and others having authority, to make due search within their several districts for those heretics, and if they will not be induced to retract their errors, desires that they should be delivered over to be punished. There is an injunction then to all temporal lords to cleanse their dominions by exterminating those heretics; and if they will not, within a year from having been so admonished by the church, cleanse their lands of this heretical filth, they shall be deprived if they have superior lords, and if they be superior lords and be negligent, it shall be the duty of the metropolitan and his provincial bishops to excommunicate them, and if any one of those lords paramount so excommunicated for this negligence shall continue during twelve months under the excommunication, the metropolitan shall certify the same to the Pope, who, finding admonition useless, shall depose this prince, and absolve his subjects from their oaths of fealty, and deliver the territory over to Catholics, who, having exterminated the heretics, shall remain in peaceable possession.

This is the most formidable evidence adduced against the position which I have laid down, that it is not a doctrine of our church, that we are bound to persecute those who differ from us in belief. I trust that I shall not occupy very much of your time in showing that this enactment does not in any way weaken that assertion. I shall do so, by satisfying you that this is a special law for a particular case; and also by convincing you that it is not a canon of the church respecting any of those points in which we admit her infallibility; nor is it a canon of the church.

The doctrines condemned in this first canon originated in Syria, touched lightly at the islands of the Archipelago, settled down in Bulgaria, and spread into the south of Europe, but were principally received in the vicinity of Albi, in France. The persons condemned held the Manichean principle of there being two creators of the universe; one a good being, the author of the New Testament, the creator of good angels, and generally of spiritual essences; the other an evil being, the creator of bodies, the author of the Mosaic dispensation, and generally of the Old Testament. They stated that

marriage was unlawful, and co-operation with the principle of evil was criminal. The consequences to society were of the very worst description, immoral, dismal, and desolating. The church examined the doctrine, condemned it as heretical, and cut off those who held or abetted it from her communion. Here, according to the principles which I have maintained before you, her power ended. Beyond this we claim no authority; the church, by divine right, we say, infallibly testifies what doctrines Christ has revealed, and by the same right, in the same manner, decides that what contradicts this revelation is erroneous; but she has no divine authority to make a law which shall strip of their property, or consign to the executioner, those whom she convicts of error. The doctrine of our obligation to submit does not extend to force us to submit to a usurpation; and if the church made a law upon a subject beyond her commission for legislation, it would be invalid; there would be no proper claim for our obedience; usurpation does not create a right. The council could by right make the doctrinal decision; but it had no right to make the temporal enactment; and where there exists no right to legislate on one side, there is no obligation of obedience on the other. If this was then a canon of the church, it was not one in making which she was acting within her constitutional jurisdiction, it was a usurpation of temporal government, and the doctrine of infallibility does not bear upon it.

Every document respecting this council, the entire of the evidence respecting it, as well as the very mode of framing the enactments, prove that it was a special law regarding a particular case. The only persons whose errors were condemned at that council were those whom I have described. The general principle of legal exposition restraining the application of penal enactments must here have full weight, and will restrain the application of the penalty to the only criminals brought within its view. But the evidence is still more confirmed, by the special words of definite meaning, this, and filth, which were specially descriptive of only those persons; the first by its very nature, the second by the nature of their crime; and the continued exposition of the enactment restrained its application to the special case, though frequently attempts had been made by individuals to extend its application, not in virtue of the statute, but in virtue of analogy. It would then be improperly forcing its construction to say that its operation was to be general, as it evidently was made only for a particular case.

In viewing the preamble to this council, as well as from our knowledge of history, we discover that this was not merely a council of the church, but it was also a congress of the civilized world. The state of the times rendered such assemblages not only usual but necessary; and each legislative body did its own business by its own authority; and very generally the subjects which were decided upon by one body in one point of view, came under the consideration of the other assembly in a different point of view, and their separate decisions were engrossed upon a joint record. Sometimes they were preserved distinct and separate; but copyists, for their own convenience, brought together all the articles regarding the same subject, from what source soever they were obtained. Such was precisely the case in the instance before us. There were present on this occasion, by themselves or by their legates, the King of Sicily, Emperor elect of the Romans, the Emperor of the East, the King of France, the King of England, the King of Arragon, the King of Jerusalem, the King of Cyprus, several other kings, and lords paramount, sovereign states, and princes. Several of the bishops were princes or barons. In the ecclesiastical council, the third canon terminated exactly in one sentence, which was that of the excommunication or separation from the church, of those whom the first canon had condemned, whatever name or names they might assume; because they had in several places several appellations, and were continually dividing off and changing names as they separated. The duty and the jurisdiction of the council came to this, and the ancient records give no more as the portion of its enactments. But the congress of the temporal powers then made the subsequent part as their enactment; and thus this penal and civil regulation was not an act of the council, but an act of the congress; and it is not a canon concerning the doctrine of the church, nor indeed is it by any means a canon, though the copyists have added it to the canon as regarding the very same subject; and as confessedly the excommunication in the third canon regarded only the special case of those particular heretics, the addition of the penal enactment to this particular canon is confirmatory evidence that those who added it knew that the penalty in the one case was only co-extensive with the excommunication in the other.

Having thus seen that this canon of the Council of Lateran was not a doctrinal decision of our church establishing the doctrine of persecution, and commanding to

amongst European potentates under circumstances widely different.

It has been frequently objected to us, that our church has been more extensively persecuting than any other. This is not the place to enter into a comparison of atrocities: but I will assert, that when weighed against each other, our scale will be found light indeed. Did any person think proper to conjure up the victims from the grave, I would engage to produce evidence of the inflictions upon us in abundance, until the hairs of our hearers should stand on end, and humanity interpose to prevent the recital. But the crimes of individuals or of assemblies are not the doc

trines of a church.

I had other subjects which I desired to treat of in your presence, but I feel I have trespassed too long upon your patience. Let us go back to our view of religion. We may now say that all the law and the prophets can be reduced to the two great commandments as our blessed Saviour gave them: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and thy whole soul, and thy whole mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first and the greatest. Love is affectionate attachment founded upon esteem. We seek to know the will of those whom we love that we may bring ours to be in conformity therewith. The will of God is, that we should seek to know what he teaches, because, indeed, he would not have taught without desiring that we should learn. Our Saviour himself tells his disciples, if they love him they will keep his word. The proof, then, of our love is not to be exhibited in our mere declaration, it is to be found in the manifestation of our assiduity to know what our Creator has taught, that it may be the rule of our practice that we may believe his declarations, obey his injunctions, and adhere to his institutions. As his knowledge surpasses ours, so his declarations may regard facts beyond our comprehension, and our faith be thus built upon the evidence of his word for things which we have not seen, and his promises exhibit to us the substance of what we hope to enjoy, because he has pledged his veracity, not because our reason makes it manifest. It is our duty to love him so

as to be zealous for discovering what he has taught, that we may pay to him the homage of our understanding, as well by its exertion as by its submission. Let me then exhort you to this love. Investigate for the purpose of obtaining the knowledge of truth, and then pay the homage of your will by determining to act in conformity with what you shall have discovered. Submit your affections to his law, bring your passions in subjection thereto. Of ourselves we are weak, in his grace we can become strong. His institutions have been established, that through them we might be strengthened in that grace. It is therefore our duty, as it is our interest, to have recourse to them. Reason, religion, wisdom, which is the perfection of both, leads us to this conclusion. It necessarily, then, is incumbent on us to search for where those institutions are to be found.

The second commandment is like the first: it is, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself for the sake of God. The apostle asks us, How can a man say that he loves God whom he hath not seen, and hate his neighbour whom he seeth? and that neighbour is made to the likeness of God. The Saviour commands us even to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us, and to pray for those who calumniate and persecute us. Nothing can excuse us from the discharge of this duty, the observance of this great commandment. No difference [of creed or] of religion, can form a pretext for non-compliance. Religion, that holy name has too often been abused for this end, that man might flatter himself with having the sanction of heaven for the indulgence of a bad passion. In these happy and free states we stand upon the equal ground of religious right; we may freely love and bear with each other, and exhibit to Europe a contrast to her jealousies in our affection. By inquiry we shall correct many mistakes, by which our feelings have been embittered; we shall be more bound together in amity, as we become more intimate; and may our harmony and union here below produce that peace and good will that may be emblematic of our enjoyment of more lasting happiness in a better world.