ny," and to enable them the better to perform its duties, she authorizes her confessors (themselves vowed to celibacy!) to inquire with a disgusting particularity into its most secret and sacred affairs.

Every one knows that the ecclesiastics of the Romish church are forbidden to marry; though nothing is more certain than that Peter had a wife, (Mat. 8: 14,) as did most of the Apostles. (1 Cor. 9: 5.) But Roman Catholic priests, while denied the blessings of virtuous love, are often suffered to "lead about a sister," according to their vicious inclinations. We can not soil our pages with the recital of the deeds of licentiousness which have sprung from this single precept of the church. We rejoice to find that the more honest among the clergy, are growing restive under this unnatural restraint. The present Pope on his accession to the pontificate, found this uneasiness so general as to demand special notice in his encyclical letter of 1832. He says, "and here we wish to see your constancy ever watchful to defend religion from that most foul conspiracy against the celibacy of the clergy, which as you know, is daily extending its influence, and in which the ranks of the impious philosophers of the day, are swelled by the accession of some even of the ecclesias tical order, who, forgetful of their character and duty, and yielding to the allurements of passion, have been carried by their licentiousness so far as in some places publicly to solicit the intervention of their princes, and even to repeat their solicitations with them in order to abrogate this most holy branch of discipline. But why detain you with the recital of attempts so revolting? Having confidence in your piety, to you we commit the defense of a law of so much moment, against

which the darts of the lascivious are directed from every quarter. Preserve the building entire; and in its

protection and defense, neglect none of those resources, which the sacred canons have in reserve for you." Notwithstanding this remonstrance, the old man is still compelled to see the "building" assailed at the same vulnerable point by the ecclesiastics of Bavaria, headed by the king. One of the demands of these new reformers, (the "disciples of Sailer,") is "that vows of celibacy shall not be obligatory on the clergy." It is remarkable that the same demand was made in Bavaria three hundred years ago. "There happened a great tumult and popular commotion in Bavaria, because the cup was not allowed, nor married men suffered to preach; which disorder proceeded so far, that, to appease them, the Duke promised in the Diet, that if in all June a resolution were not made in Trent, or by the Pope, to give them satisfaction, himself would grant both the one and the other;" ." but this he afterwards retracted. We hope that the movement which was then defeated will now be successful. It is a significant fact, “that all the profligate clergy are strong in favor of the continuance of the law of celibacy, while all the moral clergy are for abolishing it." We doubt not that the repeal of this law would be followed by the abolition of that general appendage of a convent, the foundling hos pital.

We are painfully conscious that Protestant clergymen are not always free from that licentiousness which we have charged upon Romish priests. But when a Protestant clergyman falls into any gross sin, are not his ministerial brethren the first to investigate the matter, and to ex press their abhorrence of his crime? Do they not cut him off at once from their fellowship and refuse to recognize him as a minister of

Christ?

But how is it when a Ro

* Father Paul.

mish priest is known to be vicious? Does his bishop degrade him from office? Do his fellow-priests discountenance him? Is it felt to disqualify him at all for the duties of his office? No; he is permitted to go on almost without rebuke. The system with which he is connected both makes him vicious, and shields him from the consequences of his vice. This can not be said of Protestantism.

The celibacy of the priesthood is essential to the existence of the church of Rome. Once let the priest marry, give him a home, and he will be, not the subject of a foreign power, but a citizen, bound by a thousand ties to the community

around him. He will forget his allegiance to the papal see; he will understand the tyranny and corruption of the system with which he is linked, and soon break away from it entirely. Gregory foresees all this and therefore dreads the incipient movement. But the friends of virtue and of man must in the end prevail over corruption and despotic power, both in the church and in the state. As then we hope for the speedy downfall of the Papacy, we wish success to the reformation now in progress in Bavaria.

We must again postpone the consideration of several important doctrines in the Roman Catholic system of theology.

In our last number, we inquired into the objects which the government of this country has sought to secure by the annexation of Texas to our territory and the incorporation of its inhabitants with our people. We proved from the public documents, and, as we conceive beyond any room for doubt, that these objects were, to prevent the possibility of emancipation in Texas; to promote the interests and strengthen the power of the slaveholding states; to extend the guarantees of the constitution to the perpetual maintenance of our slave system against every danger; and to place this nation in the front rank of the supporters of slavery against the moral influence of the civilized world. The southern statesmen, who negotiated the treaty, assume that slavery in this country is to be perpetuated for ever, and that the people are bound by the solemn compact of the constitution to defend it against the conscience of mankind and the providence of God. The conscience of the world is against slavery;

in the course of events slavery has been abolished in some countries; there is a fear it may be in Texas; that country, therefore, is to be annexed to this, both to prevent that catastrophe and to to raise up an everlasting barrier against these influences. Nay, it is contended in an argument with the minister of a foreign nation, that we are compelled by the constitution of our government, to defend the southern institution by incorporating with ourselves every neighboring country where there is any reasonable probability of slavery being abolished; for, would not such an event jeopard the rights of slaveholders to their property? And are we not bound to maintain those rights?

But the government does not enjoy all the honor and glory of such opinions and arguments. The Hon. Senator McDuffie took the same position in a speech on the treaty, in the Senate of the United States, May 23, 1844. We quote a single passage. "Now, Sir, whatever oth

ers may think, there is a deep and universal conviction impressed upon the minds of all the people of the southern and southwestern states, that the acquisition of a controlling influence over Texas by Great Britain-having the views she distinctly avows-will be imminently dangerous to these institutions. We ask you to give us nothing; we only ask you to protect the property we have, which we hold by a title derived from the ancestors of our fellow-citizens of the north, during our common dependence on Great Britain. They imported the slaves under the laws and auspices of the mother country, and against the protest of some of the southern colonies, and sold them to the ancestors of those, who now hold them, and warranted the title. And the solemn guaranty afterwards made by the federal constitution was nothing more than a confirmation of the warranty." If the guaranty of the constitution is nothing more than this, we would not give much for it. There is another "title," which we doubt not in heaven's chancery would stand paramount-the title of the slave to himself, of which he was robbed by those who sold him, and the stolen property received by those who bought him. But if this "warranty" compels us to take Texas because the influence of England there will be imminently dangerous to southern slavery, why not Mexico and Cuba? and the other West India islands? Indeed, since an enormous crime committed two centuries ago has laid on us and our posterity, so long as the government exists, an obligation to maintain in this way the wicked system which it established, we see not but that we have before us a career of conquest which would satisfy the ambition even of South Carolina heroes.

In our former article, we sought to find out the objects of annexation, proposed by the government,

and through that, by the leading friends of the measure in the southern states. We did not discuss them. Indeed do they require it? Is not the wickedness of such avow. ed designs apparent on the face of them? Can any severity of lan guage add to the universal scorn and detestation with which they have every where been received? Messrs. Calhoun and McDuffie and others, have taken from their oppo. nents the necessity of reproach, by blazoning their own shame in the maintenance of opinions which are abhorred as soon as they are known. If the question of annexation could be decided on the grounds which they have assumed, Texas would be almost unanimously rejected. But it is contended by the great body of the friends of Texas in the free states, in opposition to the opin ions of those leading statesmen of the slave states, who are the most interested in it and the most thor oughly conversant with the subject, that the proposed measure will not promote the interests of slavery. We purpose, therefore, to investi gate, in the present article, the ac tual bearings of annexation upon the interests of our country.

We shall confine ourselves, how. ever, to two inquiries, first, to consider the probable effects of the measure upon the slave system itself; and, secondly, to trace out the results which may arise from these effects viewed as causes act ing upon the whole country. We make this limitation, because, in our opinion, it is its relation to slavery, which gives to this subject its great, its chief importance. If we could believe it would not affect the interests of slavery one way or the other, we should regard it as indeed a most important measure, but not of course as an unwise one. We would not tarnish the honor of the nation for it. We would not go to war for it. But we would accede, perhaps, to the conditions

of Mr. Clay, "without dishonor, without war, with the common consent of the Union, and upon just and fair terms"-with this addition -without the increase of slavery or the promotion of its interests. What are the probable effects of the measure upon the system of slavery itself?

The first and most important effect, which we mention, is, the increase of the number of slaves. We are aware that this is denied. It is contended that as the number of slaves in the United States and Texas will be no greater after Texas is annexed than before, there never will be more slaves under the union with Texas, than in the United States and Texas as independent nations. This is the argument stated in its full force. Its fallacy is seen the moment the attention is directed to it. It is founded on the assumption that the rate of the increase of population is a fixed quantity; but it is a universally acknowledged principle, supported by common observation of facts, that the population of different countries increases in different ratios, after making allowance for emigration and immigration. We have to inquire, then, whether the annexation of Texas will not affect those causes upon which the rate of increase depends. It may not be possible to assign all these causes, but this may be stated with undoubted certainty, in relation to the increase of a free population, that a new country, where population is not crowded and large families can be well supported, is the most favorable to it. But will this apply to a slave population? We see not why the case is not exactly parallel, where there is a new country demanding large supplies of slaves, and an old country where the breeding of them has become a profitable business. We reluctantly soil our pages with this last expression, but we can not otherwise state the argument in its Vol. II.

75

true force. There can be no doubt then, on this point. We appeal to the acknowledged laws of population, and no cause can be assigned adequate to alter them in the present instance. We have, therefore, all the grounds of certainty which can exist in the operation of a law of nature. And it is a melancholy view which this fact in nature brings before our minds-our own native land turned into an Africa, to furnish from its bosom the bleeding victims of a cruel oppression.

But it will be contended that though the existence of slavery in Texas will have this effect-to increase the slave population by opening a new market and a new field of slave labor-it will have the same effect if Texas remains an independent nation. But we deny this. There will be less emigration of southern planters to it in this case. It would be a foreign government, the prosperity of which could not for a long time compete with the advantages which are here enjoyed. Besides, Texas would be a slaveholding government, unsupported by the energies of freemen. Slavery is in itself essentially weak. It is a problem of difficult solution, whether a purely slave government could, at the present day, stand firm enough and attain to such a degree of good order and prosperity as to invite emigration. At any rate, Texas independent, bearing alone the whole burden of slavery, will be a very different thing from Texas upheld and borne along by the general progress of the United States. Texas, therefore, would not stand to our upper slave states in the same relation as Louisiana and Mississippi. If we receive it into our Union, we give to it the energies of our Union, and subject it to the laws of a rapidly increasing population; but out of it, we leave it to its own weakness. Farther, while planters with their families of slaves might emigrate to Texas as a foreign country,

would this nation sink so low as to engage in a foreign slave trade, and enter into rivalry with the African traffick?

It is said that the destination of the African race is southward, and that no political causes can prevent it. But is it their destiny to be driven there as slaves? Can we believe it is the design of Providence that any country should be cultivated by slave labor? It may be true that those southern regions are destined to be occupied by the negro race; but shall we interfere with that destiny, and fill them with slaves?

Moreover, if it be true that such is the destination of the African race, and if it be furthermore true, that Texas, as an independent nation, will draw off just as many of our slaves, and will in time convert in this way the upper slaveholding states into free states, then, we say, let her remain independent. We should rejoice if she would take our whole slave population, and with it the curse of slavery. We should, then, be wholly a free people.

Whether, therefore, Texas as an independent nation will have the same effect upon the increase of slavery in the United States as if united with us, or not, we equally object to the union. But we must adhere to our own opinion, that the annexation will increase the number of the slaves in the two countries.

We mention, as a second effect of annexation, the increase and perpetuation of the domestic slave trade. We have been astonished at the flippancy with which the diffusion of slavery has been talked of. It will not increase slavery, it is said, it will only diffuse it. And what is it to diffuse slavery? It is to carry on the most abominable and guilty traffick on the face of the earth. It is, to fill the prisons of the slave-driver, and send forth that demon of terror, prowling for prey,

through the land! It is, to tear the husband from the wife, the child from the mother, the brother from the sister, and to separate them for ever!" It is to cut deeper and deeper every wound that slavery inflicts, and to uphold before those who have already suffered more than could be easily atoned for, the perpetual horror of exile, of suffer ing, of an early grave! It is, in short, to promote a business which finds its appropriate parallel only on the coasts of Africa. No man can think of the slave-trade of the United States, without feeling the deep degradation of his country. And yet we talk of the diffusion of slavery with perfect calmness! We know what is meant by the diffu sion of a free population, by the emigration of families. We know how many alleviating circumstances there are, when the planter removes with his slaves. And we deny not there would be much of such emigration to Texas. But who can adequately describe the enormities of the diffusion of slavery by the slavetrader? Who can behold, without pity and indignation, the coffle of slaves, collected one from one family, another from another, one taken for his viciousness, another because poverty or worse has com pelled the sale of the best, as they start on their long and painful journey, separated for ever from all the little happiness which has been theirs on earth? Who can think of the old Virginia planter, as we may have conceived of him in the early days of the republic, before the curse of slavery had wrought its vengeance upon him, and as he now is, making up for the failure of worn-out lands, by the sale of men and women, brought up with him on the same plantation, or of children, who have enjoyed the delights of youth under his own eye, and not blush for shame at the comparison? And yet, the annexation of Texas will perpetuate for gene.