cause of the noise, saw through one of the windows, a man dressed in black, flogging a female with what he took to be a cowskin." This rumour was published in a letter to the Archbishop calling his attention to the fact. In the same year the following statement portending awful doings within those sacred walls was published, certified to by six respectable citizens who heard the piercing screams that horrified their souls. STATEMENT. We whose names are subscribed hereto, declare and certify that on or about the day of 183-about nine o'clock at night, as we were returning home from a Meeting in the Methodist Protestant church, at the corner of Pitt and Aisquith streets; and when opposite the CARMELITE CONVENT and school, in Aisquith street, our attention was suddenly arrested, by a LOUD SCREAM ISSUING FROM THE UPPER STORY OF THE CONVENT. The sound was that of a female voice, indicating great distress; we stopt and heard a second scream; and then a third, in quick succession, accompanied with the cry of HELP! HELP! OH! LORD! HELP!! with the appearance of great effort. After this there was nothing more heard by us during the space of ten or fifteen minutes; we remained about that time on the pavement opposite the building from which the cries came. When the cries were first heard, no light was visible in the fourth story, from which the cries seemed to issue. After the cries, lights appeared in the second and third stories,-seeming to pass rapidly from place to place, indicating haste and confusion. Finally all lights disappeared from the second and third stories, and the house became quiet. No one passed along the street where we stood, while we stood there. But one of our party was a man, and he advanced in life; all the remainder of us were women. The watch was not set, as some of us heard nine o'clock cried, before we got home. Many of us have freely spoken of these things since their occurrence—And now at the request of Messrs. B. and C. and M., we give this statement, which we solemnly declare to be true; and sign it with our names. Signed JOHN BRUSCUup, BALTIMORE, MARCH 13th, 1835. CERTIFICATE OF THE MINISTER. This is to certify that John Bruscup, Hannah Leach, Sophia Bruscup, Lavinia Brown, and Sarah E. Baker, are acceptable members, of the Methodist Protestant Church of Pitt street station. BALT., MARCH 13th, 1835. Signed WILLIAM COLLIER, Sup't. The publication of the above, though done by responsible individuals who demanded an investigation, and peaceably awaited the issue, was met on the part of the Papal community, by threats of violence on the persons certifying, and of a prosecution on the conductors of this periodical for publishing. The violent and piercing cries of a female for help, and she incarcerated under priestly turnkeys, was enough to awaken the sympathy of every humane man. But those that would venture to make it known and say that they considered it a gross outrage on a female who could have no possible redress but from those without the Convent, they were the ones to be looked upon and treated as ruthless violators of the peace of these innocent victims. It is indeed idle for the Papal community, from the Archbishop to his sub-committee to prate about the spirit of those that would injure such a community. Let his honor explain the terrible affair published in May, 1835-let him spread out before this community such an explanation as will excuse the priest or priests in attendance, of a cruel and unmanly attack, not "upon the reputation and peaceful abode," but upon the person of the incarcerated victims, let him tell the cause of that shriek-that piteous cry-HELP— HELP-OH-LORD-HELP!! Read that statement and answer who will, that it does not indicate violence toward some one of the members of that Convent from some one who had access within its walls. So plain and glaring was the fact that few pretended to deny it and many of the Papists undertook to give explanations as to what it was,—but on this we have nothing to say at present. From the winding up of that affair things were pretty quiet about the Convent until a short time back a rumour got in circulation, that one of the nuns had escaped from the Convent-for notwithstanding the enticing character of things in these institutions, there are persons now and then desirous of escaping. Suffice it to say, she escaped.-But ah, a priest, hungry for his prey, soon pounced upon her and brought her back. How severe the penance she endured for her disobedience, none can tell. It would argue ignorance indeed of Papal tyranny and oppression to suppose it light. After-history tells us in the case of the escaped but re-captured nun, that it was "the usual penance." But by-and-by there is another escape, from the same building, in which was seen the female castigated with what seemed a cowskin, by a man in black-from the same building in which was heard the cry for help. Yes another escape from it. The news reaches the ears of others in the neighborhood as soon as it does the watchful priest. She enters a neighboring house claiming protection-PROTECTION FROM WHOM? FROM WHAT? Who was it that had once seized and dragged her back to her dungeon? Who was it that so soon stood at the door demanding his victim, declaring that she should go back? A poor, helpless female, imprisoned contrary to her own will, and by those who have no legal right to restrain her liberty, after many efforts, succeeds in escaping from a prison, a priest's jail, in which she had been kept contrary to her will, contrary to the laws of the land. She pleads for protection, that she may not be compelled to go back again to her prison and her penance.Times had changed. The nod of the priest did not make the officers of the law yield. He says she shall, but the arm of a Protestant officer of justice did not wither at his word. Thus far but no farther shalt thou go. The report of this escape spreads, and as it goes, creates the flame that had well nigh been kindled aforetime. And the issue turns on the question, what shall be done? Where shall she go? The collected and indignant multitude declare that she shall not go back, but of her own free will. And the same sentiment has been uttered by every man in whose breast is the spirit of a freeman. They declare for the laws of the land that protect the lives and liberties of the meanest of its citizens. The priests-the Papal laity and the editors of our daily newspapers (those guardians of liberty-those defenders of the oppressed,) join in the hue and cry, she is insane. Surely it was a mark of insanity, in that she was unwilling to remain in a prison under priests.-Sane or insane, what right does it give a priest to imprison her? It is time to blush for our country's character, when men who call themselves her sons are seen siding with those who are the sworn vassals of a foreign tyrant,-who have been and are and will be enemies and oppressors of every one that will not yield his power to the Beast. Some of the daily newspapers have opened their columns on this subject, to such an extent in behalf professedly of the institution, but really in behalf of the priests, that their readers and subscribers have been filled with wonder. The whole history of this occurrence is full of interest to the community at large. As citizens we should know the character of these institutions; why it is that they are founded with such care and defended with such zeal by the hierarchy of the church of Rome. The present time seems to demand a more thorough exposition of their history and of the doctrines connected with them, and if our readers will bear with us, we will endeavour to shew their character from the testimony of those who were in many cases eye witnesses of the system in its perfection. Convents and the celibacy of the Papal priesthood have gone hand in hand, and seem to be almost inseparable, so much so at least, that the most of those who contend for the Scripture doctrine "that every bishop should have his own wife," and "that marriage is honourable in all," so also contend against the cloistering of nuns, and those on the other hand who plead for celibacy plead for nunneries. "The Roman Pontiff," says Hume, "who was making every day, great advances towards an absolute sovereignty over the ecclesiastics, perceived that the celibacy of the clergy alone could break off entirely their connexion with the civil power, and depriving them of every other object of ambition, engage them to promote, with increasing industry, the grandeur of their own order. He was sensible that so long as the monks were indulged in marriage, and permitted to rear families, they never could be subject to a strict discipline, or reduced to that slavery under their superiors, which was requisite to procure to the mandates, issued from Rome, a ready and zealous obedience. Celibacy, therefore, began to be extolled as the indispensable duty of Priests; and the Pope undertook to make all the clergy throughout the western world renounce at once the privilege of marriage."-chap. 11. 6.6 "It was a struggle," says Hallam, against the natural rights and strongest affections of mankind, which lasted for several ages, and succeeded only by the toleration of greater evils than it was intended to remove. The laity in general, took part against the married priests, who were reduced to infamy and want, or obliged to renounce their connexions. In many parts of Germany no ministers were left to perform divine services. But perhaps there was no country where the rules of celibacy met with as little attention as in England. It was acknowledged in the reign of Henry I. that the greater and better part of the clergy were mar ried; and that prince is said to have permitted them to retain their wives. But the hierarchy never relaxed in their efforts; and all the councils, general or provincial, of the twelfth century, utter denunciations against concubinary priests. After that age we do not find them so frequently mentioned; and the abuse by degrees, though not suppressed, was reduced within limits at which the church might connive."- Vol. 11. pages 219–252. The course adopted was to teach the people that a single life was to be preferred to a married one. The words of the Cat. Coun. Trent, are, "Virginity is highly exalted and strongly recommended in Scripture as superior to marriage, as a state of greater perfection and holiness,"-p. 304, and the holy Council of Trent, in Decree on Marriage' says, "Whoever shall affirm that the conjugal state is to be preferred to a life of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not more conducive to happiness to remain in virginity or celibacy— let him be accursed."-Sess. xxiv. Canon 10. When the sovereign pontiffs had succeeded in establishing the doctrine of the celibacy of the priests, and it had been thoroughly carried out in practice, the corruption that prevailed throughout the Papacy, beggars all description, and passes the conception of the most decided opponent of the Papal system. Alvarus Pelagius, who was a Roman Catholic Bishop, at Silva, in Portugal, before the Protestant Reformation, says (De Planctu Eccl. Lib. 2, art. 27,) "He wishes that the clergy had never vowed chastity, especially the clergy of Spain; wherein the sons of the laity were not much more numerous than the sons of the clergy." Durandus junior Papal Bishop of Mimatum, in France, proposing means for the reformation of the church, "adviseth among other things, that it were ordered that public stews might not be kept near great churches, nor in the court of Rome next to the palace of the Pope, nor in other places near the houses of bishops."-(De Modo Celebr. conc. gen. part 2, rubr. 10. John Gerson, a celebrated Papal writer, Chancellor of Paris and attendant upon the Council of Constance, declares "that either incontinent priests must be tolerated, or none can be had; and therefore that it were more convenient for the church, that concubines should be publicly permitted to the clergy, than that the laity should be forbidden to hear the mass of incontinent priests."-(De Vita Spirit. Anima. Sect. 4, Cor. 14. prop. 3.) Nicholas De Clemangis, of Bayeux in France, a Papal ArchDeacon, and cotemporary with Gerson, who lived in the fifteenth century, relates that "in many diocesses, the priests giving a set and determined price to their bishops, publicly and openly kept concubines"-De Corrupt Eccl. statu. p. 15, §. 2,—and in Switzer. land says Sleidan, it was the custom in many cantons, in the times of popery, that whenever they received a new pastor, they obliged him to take a concubine, that he might not attempt the chastity of virgins and matrons," Comm. lib. 3. Thuanus, in the 37th book of his history, says, "that when Pius V. intended putting down the public stews, (in Rome,) the Senate instigated by the clergy, interceded with him not to abolish them, adding as a reason, that if he did, the chastity of their families would be endangered by the priests." Claudius Espencaeus, says in his work, De Continentia, lib. 2, c. 4, so great was the corruption in Rome, under the licence given by Pope Sixtus, that the whole city is one brothel house."-Urbs est jam tota Lupanar. We might multiply quotations almost without number, from Papal writers, who have told of the abominations consequent upon the establishment in the Papacy of the doctrine which is so emphatically described by the apostle Paul, in his I Ep. to Tim. iv. chap. 1 and 3 verses. "Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils: speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared with a hot iron: FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to ABSTAIN FROM MEATS.". This index which points with the certainty of the magnet, to the Papacy, is directly consequent upon the teaching, by the same apostle of the character of the persons that should be put in the offices of the church of Jesus Christ.-See ch. ii. 1-13 serses. We now pass from the history of the priesthood since the establishment of this doctrine to the teaching upon it by Papal authority. And to begin with the Council of Trent :-The ninth Canon of xxiv. sess., speaks as follows: "Whosoever shall affirm, that persons in holy orders, or regulars, who have made a solemn profession of chastity, may contract marriage, and that the contract is valid, notwithstanding any ecclesiastical law or vow: and that to maintain the contrary is nothing less than to condemn marriage; and that all persons may marry who feel that though they should make a vow of chastity, they have not the gift thereof; let him be accursed-for God does not deny his gifts to those who ask aright, neither does he suffer us to be tempted above that we are able." The Papal books of devotion that are much taken up in celebrating the virtues of the male and female saints, insist upon celibacy as one of their chief virtues. In the sixth Canon of the same session, "The Council also determines, that a marriage contract is dissolved by one of the parties entering into religious orders," (a Convent or Monastery.) See, also, Bellarmin, De Monachis, lib. 11, cap. 37, 38, where he treats at large upon their dissolution, gives his reasons for its being done, and lib. 1, cup. 14, De Matrim. Then let the reader look at what God, by his servant, has said.-Matt. xix. 6. 1Cor. vii. 2, 5. The doctrine laid down by the high authorities of the Papacy on the marriage of the clergy, is shocking in the extreme. In the annotations by the Jesuit College, at Rheims, upon the 9 v. of the vii. ch. of 1 Cor. they say in the very face of the text, "Concerning those lawfully made priests, and such as otherwise have made vows of chastity, they cannot marry at all, and therefore there is no comparison in them, betwixt marriage and fornication, or burning, for their marriage is but pretended, and is the worst sort of incontinency and fornication or burning." And Bellarmine De Monachis, (1. 2. c. 30,) says, "it is worse to marry than to burn, however our adversaries may gainsay, (and the Apostle Paul is among them, I Cor. vii. 9,) especially for her who is under a solemn vow."-(Non utrumque est malum, et nubere, et uri; imo pejus est nubere, quicquid reclamant adversarii, præsertim ei, quæ habet votum solemne,) and in the next section he says, "She that marries after a simple vow, in a manner sins more than she that commits fornication, because the one makes herself incapable of keeping her vow, which she does not who plays the whore." Quæ autem nubit post votum simplex, |