Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

possible measures of vexation and persecution which were in their power, gradually to exhaust the people, and compel them from necessity if not from choice to join the popish standard. Many yielded, being overcome by their grievous sufferings, others left the country, but most remained firm in the religion of their fathers. At length under Louis XIV., after all artifices had been exhausted, the popish prelates and the jesuits, who then bore sway in the counsels of the king, determined that this people, the protestants of France, must be exterminated by violence, and crushed by a single stroke. Overcome by their arguments and solicitations, the king, in the year 1685, with the approbation and applause of the Roman Pontiff, in violation of all laws human and divine, revoked the edict of Nantz, and commanded his reformed subjects to return to the arms of popery. This was the signal for distress and violence to the protestants throughout the kingdom. Vast multitudes of French people were compelled to leave their country and to wander into various parts of Europe, and into the wilds of America, to find an asylum from cruel persecution. Soldiers were despatched into all parts of the kingdom to make converts to popery at the point of the bayonet. Every species of torture, vexation and suffering was inflicted on the poor persecuted protestants, to make them profess with their lips, and adopt in outward forms, a religion which they abhorred in their hearts. Great pains were taken to prevent their escape from the country, for the papists would admit of no alternative but to submit, or die. But after all their vigilance, from half a million to a million are supposed to have found means to reach foreign countries. And some of the best families in these United States came to this country and adopted it as their own in consequence of this persecution. And those who could not escape, were butchered in great numbers, or compelled to abjure their faith to save their lives. Thus treaties and oaths, and promises the most solemn that

man can make, was violated by the papists without compunction, when the opportunity offered, and their interests seemed to demand. Such is the genius of popery. It has always invariably manifested a persecuting and intolerant spirit, so far as circumstances would admit, and has carried its persecutions to all the extremes of barbarous cruelty and savage malignity. No one has ever been able to live peaceably with a papist, in the exercise of his own rights of conscience, without the shield of civil power, constantly over him for protection. And from observation, as well as from the very nature and principles of popery, it is very certain that no one ever will enjoy toleration from popery only as a matter of necessity.

SECTION IX.

SUPERSTITIONS OF POPERY.

UNDER the above general denomination, it is proposed to treat of a variety of institutions and practices of popery, which have not yet come into view. And the first of these is

MONASTICISM. By this term we understand a practice, adopted very extensively by papists, and at length by a law of general council, erected into a permanent institution of popery, wherein persons of both sexes separate themselves from the common duties and relations of life, to a life of perpetual celibacy, poverty, and as they say, devotion. Monasticism involves three vows which are considered essential to its existence, and binding on all its devotees. These are, poverty, chastity and obedience to a superior. Males who assume the monastic vows are called monks. Females who assume these vows are called nuns. There have been many different orders of monastic persons in the papal church, some of

the principal of which have been already mentioned in the preceding historical sketch. What is now in view, is to give an outline of the origin, nature, and consequences of monasticism in general. "Among the corruptions which were early introduced into the Christian church," says a late writer, "monasticism holds a prominent place; an invention which is equally incompatible with the constitution of man, the welfare of the social system, and the design of Christianity. The religion of the gospel is an active religion, adapted to the existing state of society, and never intended to interfere with the ordinary relations and duties of life. The Saviour did not pray that his disciples might be taken out of the world, but that they might be kept from the evil. Instead of withdrawing from his fellows, and thinking to serve the divine being better by mere acts of contemplation and devotion, the Christian is commanded not to be slothful in business, while they are fervent in spirit serving the Lord; to combine the active with the contemplative, to abide in his calling with God, and to fulfil the respective obligations arising out of the domestic and social

state.

The religion of the bible, is not hostile to the laws of nature, or to the general intentions of divine providence."

To the above remarks may be added, that God has expressly commanded, "that if any man do not work, (i e. contribute by his own exertions of body or mind, to his own wants, or the public weal) neither shall he eat." This law of course applies to all who have physical power of compliance. If then monks and nuns can live, and are willing to abide the consequences of living without food or clothing, there would be more consistency in the course they adopt; though even then it would be wholly unjustifiable, as a dereliction of duty to God. But while the monk is engaged in his solitary contemplations, if he really do so, some body must be laboring so much harder to furnish him with the necessaries of

life. If he then gains any thing by this course, he gains it by another's loss. And what propriety or utility is there in this arrangement which adds nothing to the general good. This however, is viewing the subject in the fairest light. Does the monk really gain any thing to himself? Facts will answer this question. So far from gaining any thing, monasticism has done incalculable mischief to its own votaries, as well as to communities. Monks and nuns have made vows indeed of chastity and poverty; but have they kept them? In a general view, it is well known to every reader of ecclesiastical history, that these vows have been systematically and shamelessly broken. They have professed to live in contemplation and devotion and self-mortification. This in a few instances may have been the fact. But in general they have been notorious for vice, for being busy-bodies in other men's matters, and shamefully luxurious and licentious. The whole concern, then has been worse than a dead loss to the world. Better, far better both to themselves and the world, had it been if most who have devoted themselves to monasticism, had never been born. Besides, God created man male and female, and this he did for some important purpose. Have men a right to annul this arrangement of divine providence, and to frustrate its design; and are they warranted to suppose that such a course is peculiarly acceptable to God, unless indicated by some special manifestation of the divine will ? What pleasure does the Deity take in the celibacy of men or women, by which his arrangement in creation and in providence is desecrated from its proper use and diverted from its proper channel? Is this the way to please God or to render ourselves acceptable to him? The system of monasticism is all founded in pride and self-righteousness. Popish convents it is true are often filled with females, whose choice of that life is apparently influenced by a powerful feeling of devotion and deadness to the world. But what are the motives set before them

to induce this feeling? They are told, in the presence of an admiring assembly that they are to become the spouse of Christ, and to enter on a state of almost angelic purity, and that separated from the temptations and sins of the world, they will possess every facility for accomplishing their salvation, and increasing their merit in the sight of God. Now, supposing this to be their real motive when they enter on this course of life, and that they are wholly unacquainted with the depths of Satan into which they are about to plunge, yet what is their motive, to say nothing of its delusion and its gross irreverence, what is it but a piece of self-righteousness? What better in spirit or principle than the practice of the Hindoo female who devotes herself to the funeral pile, or of him who casts himself before the wheels of the car of Juggernaut ?

With these preliminary remarks, we proceed to examine the features of monasticism more in detail.

The monastic spirit first appeared in a sect of fanatical Jews, called Therapentae, who claimed to be disciples of Moses, notwithstanding their wide departure from him. They gave up all their property and retired, to solitary places, where they lived in huts, without any external worship, and without labor; mortifying their bodies by fasting, and their souls by contemplation, in order to bring the heaven-born spirit, now imprisoned in the body, into light and liberty, and fit it for the celestial mansions after death. They assembled together every seventh day of the week, and after religious ceremonies, they ate together, feeding on salt with bread and water. This meal was followed by a sacred dance which continued through the night. At first the men and women danced apart, but at length, guided, as they claimed, by inspiration, they joined together in this exercise, and labored by violent outcries, songs, and movements, to express the love of God working in their hearts.

We next find the monastic spirit operating in the sect

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »