L I B H -A. n "sr 

PBINCETOK. y. J. 
The Stephen Collins Donation. 



No. Casc^ 



Divj^ip 



No. ^^^^(A_Sjecti0nJk 

No. Book, -^^ 



BV A501 .NA 1836a 

Nevins, William, 1797-1835. 

Thoughts on popery 



J 



f ••> 



.^.r 



yy 



y^.pH^A^-' 



/ 



^ as <©■ ^ ^ ms If s 



^ <. 



" To the law and to the testimony." Isa. 



BY REV. WILLIAM Kevins, d. d, 

Late Pastor of a Church in Baltimore. 



PUBLISHED BV THE 

AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 
150 NASSAU-STREET, KEW-tORK. 



D. Fanshaw, Printer. 



^ •*.'»- 3t'V>.. 



Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1836, by 
RuFUS L. Nevins, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court 
of the Southern District of New-York. 



CONTENTS. 



No. Page. 

1. Sufficiency of the Bible as a Rule of Faith and 

Guide to Salvation, 7 

2. The Source of Heresies, ----- 10 

3. Private Interpretation, - - - - - -11 

4. Popery Unscriptural, ----- 15 

5. Evil of believing too much, 18 

6. The Nine Commandments, - - - - 21 

7. Catholic hostility to the Bible, - - - - 25 

8. Something for the Rev. Mr. H. - - - - 30 

9. Distinction of Sins into Mortal and "Venial, - - 33 

10. The Deadly Sins, 35 

11. A Religion without a Holy Spirit, - - - 37 

12. Infallibility, - 40 

13. The Keys, 44 

14. The Head of the Church, 47 

15. The power to forgive Sins, - - - - - 51 

16. A Catholic Book reviewed, - - - - 56 

17. Review of the Catholic Book continued, - - 60 

18. The Pope an Idolater, - - - - . - 65 

19. Charles X. an Idolater, 69 

20. Idolatiy near home, ------ 73 

21. Praying to Saints, - - - - - • 76 

22. Specimens of Catholic Idolatry, - - - 80 

23. More Specimens of Catholic Idolatry, - - - 85 

24. Image Worship, ------ 89 

25. Relics, 94 

26. Seven Sacraments, ------ 100 

27. Transubstantiation, 103 

28. Haifa Sacrament, 105 

29 Extreme Unction, 109 



4 CONTENTS. 

No. Page. 

30. Doing Penance, 112 

31. The hardest Religion, 116 

32. More about Penance, 120 

33. A Fast-day Dinner, ----- 122 

34. The Mass, 125 

35. More about the Mass, - . - - . ISO 

36. The Host, - - 136 

37. Priests, 140 

38. Celibacy of the Clergy,^ 144 

39. A Holier state than Matrimony, - - - 146 

40. Auricular Confession, 148 

41. A Mistake Corrected 151 

42. Purgatory, -------- 152 

43. More about Purgatory, ----- 156 

44. A Strange Thing, - 158 

45. Canonizing Saints, - 161 

46. General La Fayette not at rest, - - - - 165 

47. Prayers for the Faithful Departed, - - - 170 

48. An Improvement, 175 

49. The Duke of Brunswick's Fiftieth Reason, - 178 

50. The Duke's Seventh Reason, - - - - 181 

51. The Duke's Eleventh Reason, . - - 187 
53. Beauties of the Leopold Reports, - - - 190 

53. Beauties of the Leopold Reports, . - - 194 

54. Partiality of the Church of Rome, - - . 196 

55. Supererogation, - - - - - - 200 

56. Convents, 204 

57. Mr. Berrington and Mrs, More, - - - 207 

58. A new method of exciting Devotion, - - - 212 



The lamented author of the following articles had long 
mourned over the influence of Romanism, as essentially a 
political rather than a religious institution — attracting men 
by its splendid and imposing exterior, to the neglect of that 
spirituality of heart, without which no man can "see the 
kingdom of God." He had made repeated endeavors to 
engage what he considered abler pens in exposing its ab- 
surdities ; and at length, as a means of reaching the greatest 
number of minds, commenced the insertion of brief mis- 
cellaneous articles bearing on the subject in a widely circu- 
lated weekly newspaper — the New- York Observer — using 
the signature M. S. the finals of his name. In familiarity 
of style, kindness and cheerfulness of manner, and plain 
common sense, they are adapted to secure the attention and 
carry conviction to the heart of the general reader; while 
their richness of thought and clearness and conclusiveness 
of argument will render them not less acceptable to mature 
and cultivated minds. Finding the reception they met, it 
was the design of the author to comply with requests from 
numerous sources entitled to his regard, by himself (when 
the series should have been somewhat further extended) 
embodying them in a volume ; but the failure of his health 
and the early close of his valuable life prevented the fulfill- 
ment of that design. They are now given to the public iu 
accordance with general suggestions of the author, but es- 
sentially in the form in which they at first appeared. 



^aB<©i^<SIIg^^ <S>^ 5S'^^222&'a?, 



1. Tbe Siiffioieuoy of tlie Bible as a Rule of Faitli 
and Guide to Salvation. 

This is the great matter in controversy between Pro- 
testants and Roman Catholics. We say the Bible is 
sufficient. They say that it is not. Now, suppose that 
Paul the apostle be permitted to decide between us. 
We are agreed to refer the matter to him. Can our 
opponents object to this reference ? Let Paul then be 
consulted in the only way in which he can be, viz. 
through his acknowledged writings. It is agreed on all 
hands that he wrote the second epistle to Timothy. 
Well, in the third chapter of that epistle, and at the 
15th verse, he writes to Timothy thus : " And that 
from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, 
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation." 
That the Greek is here correctly translated into Eng- 
lish, any scholar may see. 

Here then we have what Paul wrote, and I cannot 
believe that he would write, in a letter to Timothy, that 
the Holy Scriptures are capable of being known by a 
child, and able to make wise unto salvation, and then 
say, to be handed down by tradition, that they are so 
obscure and abstruse that one can make nothing out 
of them. 

But what did Paul write to Timothy about the Holy 



8 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

Scriptures ? He reminds him that he had known them 
from a child, that is, he had been acquainted with them 
so far as to understand them from that early age. Now, 
either Timothy was a most extraordinary child, of 
which there is no proof, or else the Holy Scriptures 
of the Old Testament, and of the New, so far as the 
latter was written and recognized at the time, are in- 
telligible to a child. I see not how this conclusion can 
in any way be evaded. If the child of Eunice could 
and did know them, why may not my child and your 
child, and any child of ordinary understanding ? And 
what do we want more for a rule of faith, than a Bible 
which a child can understand ? The Bible then can- 
not be insufficient as a rule of faith, through any want 
of perspicuity in it. That point is settled. 

But Paul says something more to Timothy about 
these same Scriptures, " lohich,^^ he says, " ai^e able 
to make thee wise unto salvation." Why, what is the 
matter with the man ? He talks as if he had taken 
lessons of Luther. When did he live ? They say that 
the Protestant religion is only three hundred years old, 
but here is a man Avho lived well nigh eighteen hun- 
dred years ago, that writes amazingly like a Protestant 
about the Holy Scriptures. He says (and I have just 
been looking at the Greek to see if it is so there, and I 
find that it is) they are able to make thee wise unto 
salvation. Now, who Avishes to be wiser than that? 
and if they can make one thus wise, they can make 
any number equally wise. So then the Scriptures can 
be known by children, and can make Avise to salvation 
those who know them. This is Paul's decision, and 
here should be an end of the controversy. If this prove 
not the sufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith and 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 9 

guide to salvation, I know not how any thing can be 
proved. I will tell you what I am determined to do 
the next time a Catholic opens his mouth to me about 
the insufficiency and obscurity of our rule of faith, I 
mean to take hold of the sword of the Spirit by this 
handle, 2 Tim. 3 : 15, and I mean to hold on to this 
weapon of heavenly temper, and to wield it manfully, 
until my opponent surrender or retreat. He cannot 
stand before it. 

But before I close this, I must say, that if the Scrip- 
tures which existed when Paul wrote to Timothy were 
able to make wise unto salvation, how much more 
are they with what has been added to the canon since ? 
And here, by the way, we have an answer to the ques- 
tion which the Catholic asks with such an air of tri- 
umph : " How, if this be your rule of faith, did Chris- 
tians get along before the New Testament was writ- 
ten and received ?" Very well ; they had Scriptures 
enough to make them "wise unto salvation" as early 
as the time of Timothy ; and they had, many years 
before that, all the Old Testament, and a part of the 
New. Now, with Moses and the prophets, and the 
Psalms, and Matthew's Gospel, and perhaps some 
others, together with a large number of divinely in- 
spired men, I think they must have got along very 
comfortably. 

One thing more I desire to say. It is this : that there 
is an advantage for understanding the Bible, which 
does not belong to any book whose author is not per- 
sonally accessible. The advantage is, that we have 
daily and hourly opportunity to consult the Author of 
the Bible on the meaning of it. We can, at any mo- 
ment we please, go and ask him to interpret to us any 



10 THOUGHTS ON POPERY, 

difficult passage. We can lift off our eyes from the 
word of truth, when something occurs which we do 
not readily comprehend, and direct them to the throne 
of grace. And what encouragement we have to do 
this ! James tells us, " If any of you lack wisdom, let 
him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and 
upbraideth not ; and it shall be given him." So then 
we have the Bible to inform and guide us, and we 
have constant opportunities of consulting its Author in 
regard to its meaning. Is it not enough 1 I, for one, 
am satisfied. I can dispense with the fathers, &c. &c. 



2. The Source of Heresies* 

The Roman Catholics say it is the Bible. They 
trace all the errors and divisions which prevail, to the 
Scriptures as their fountain. Do they know whose 
book it is which they thus accuse ? How dare they 
charge God with being " the Author of confusion ?" 
But is the Bible to blame for heresies ? Christ gives a 
very different account of the matter. He says, Matt. 
22 : 29, to the Sadducees, " Ye do err, not knowing the 
Scriptures." He makes ignorance of the Scriptures 
the source of heresies. He does not agree with the 
priests. 

It is very strange, if the reading of the Scriptures is 
the cause of heresies in religion, that the Bereans, who 
searched them daihj, because they would not take on 
trust even what Paid said, (and I suspect they would 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 11 

not have treated Peter any more civilly,) did not fall 
into any of these errors. It would seem to have had 
quite a contrary effect, for it is added, " therefore many 
of them believed." Acts, 17 : 11, 12. Whatever these 
Bereans were, it is clear that they were not good Ca- 
tholics. 

But after all it is not surprising that these noble Be- 
reans did not fall into any fatal error by reason of read- 
ing the Scriptures, since Peter says of Paul's hardest 
parts, and most obscure passages, that they do nobody 
any harm, but such as are both '^ unlearned and un- 
stable ;" and that they do them no harm, except they 
wrest them, that is, do absolute violence to them. 2 
Pet. 3 : 16. 



3. Private Interpretation* 

It is known to every body how strenuously the Ca- 
tholics oppose the reading of the Bible, or rather, I 
should say, the reader exercising his mind on the 
Bible which he reads. He may read for himself, if 
he will only let the church think for him. He may 
have a New Testament, and he may turn to such a 
passage as John, 3 : 16, " God so loved the world that 
he gave his only begotten Son," &c. or to that. Matt. 
11 : 28, 30, " Come unto me, all ye that labor and are 
heavy laden, and I will give you rest," &c. and he 
may read the words, but then he must not attempt to 
put a meaning upon them, though it be very difficult 



12 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

to avoid attaching a sense to them, since they are 
quite as easy to be understood as they are to be read. 
But he must not do it. At his peril he must not. He 
is guilty of the crime of private interpretation, if he 
does. Before he pretends to understand those passages, 
he must inquire how the church has always interpreted 
them, and what the popes and general councils have 
thought about them, and how all the fathers^ from 
Barnabas to Bernard, not one excepted, have under- 
stood them. Well, now, it strikes me as rather hard 
upon the poor sinner, that he should be made to go 
through this long and difficult process before he is 
permitted to admire the love of God in the gift of his 
Son, and before he can go to Jesus for rest. And 
somehow I cannot help suspecting that it is not ne- 
cessary to take this circuitous course, and that it is 
not so very great a sin when one reads such passages, 
to understand them according to the obvious import 
of their terms. 

But the Catholic asks, " Does not Peter condemn 
private interpretation ?" And they point us to his 2d 
Epistle, 1 : 20. '• Knowing this first, that no prophecy 
of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." Now 
you must know that Catholics, though they have no 
great attachment to the Bible, are as glad as any peo- 
ple can be, when they can get hold of a passage of it, 
which seems to establish some tenet of theirs. And 
as only a very small portion of the Bible has even the 
appearance of favoring them, one may observe with 
what eagerness they seize upon, and with what te- 
nacity they cling to the rare passages which seem to 
befriend their cause. Thus they do with this pas- 
sage of Peter. Thev quote it with an air of triiunph, 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 13 

and exultingly ask what Protestants can have to re- 
ply to it. 

Now, in the name of Protestants, I will state in two 
or three particulars what we have to say in opposition 
to the Catholic inference from these words of Peter. 
We say that that passage does not make for the Ca- 
tholic cause, Jirst, because if the right of private judg- 
ment and private interpretation is taken away by it, 
as they affirm, yet it is taken away with respect to 
only a small part of the Bible, viz. the prophetic part. 
He does not say that any other part, the historical, the 
didactic, or the hortatory, is of private interpretation, 
but only the prophetic, that part in which something 
is foretold. He does not say no Scripture, but " no 
prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpreta- 
tion." AlloAving then to the Catholic all which he 
contends for, we are left with by far the larger part 
of the Bible open to private interpretation. Peter re- 
stricts us only in the matter of prophecy ! 

But secondly, let me say, that to whatever the re- 
mark of the apostle has reference, it can easily be 
shown that it does not mean what the Catholic under- 
stands it to mean. This is evident from what follows 
it. I wish the reader would turn to the passage. He 
will perceive that Peter, having said that no prophecy 
of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, pro- 
ceeds to assign the reason of that assertion, or rather, 
as I think, goes into a further and fuller explanation of 
what he had said : " For the prophecy came not in old 
time by the will of man, (that is, it was not of human 
invention, it did not express the conjectures of men.) 
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by 
the Holy Ghost." Now I would ask if this reason 
2 



14 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

confirms the Catholic view of the passage ? Is the 
fact that the Bible was written by men inspired of God 
to write it, any reason why it should not be of private 
interpretation? Does the circumstance that God gave 
them the thoughts, and even suggested to them the 
words in which they should clothe them, render the 
production so unintelligible, or so equivocal in its 
meaning, that a private individual cannot be trusted 
to read it ? That would be to say that God cannot 
make himself understood as easily as men can ! The 
Catholic argument from this passage may be stated 
thus : the Bible is an inspired book, therefore too ob- 
scure and ambiguous to be of private interpretation ! 
Inspired, therefore unintelligible ! 

If it be so hard to understand what God says, how 
was the divine Savior able to make himself understood 
by the common people who heard him gladly ? I sus- 
pect they knew what he meant when he said, " Come 
unto me, and I will give you rest." The sermon on 
the mount seems to have been understood by those 
who heard it. No one thought of asking how others 
understood it. No one felt the necessity of an inter- 
preter : every one exercised his private judgment on 
what Christ said. Now, suppose that what Jesus said 
to the people, and they found no difficulty in under- 
standing it, had been taken down in writing at the 
time, would not they who understood it when they 
heard it, have equally understood it when they read 
it? The spoken discourses of Christ were intelligi- 
ble : have they become unmtelligible by being written? 

To return for a moment to the passage in Peter. I 
consider that the word rendered in verse 20, interpre- 
tation^ should be translated as Dr. M'Knight trans- 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 15 

lates it, invention ; or, as another renders it, impulse: 
and verse 21 should be considered as explanatory of 
that which precedes it. If the apostle really intended 
to deny the right of private judgment, why does he in 
verse 19 exhort all the saints, to whom he wrote, to 
take heed to " the more sure word of prophecy," the 
very thing in reference to which he is supposed to deny 
the right of private judgment? Why should they take 
heed to it, if it is not of private interpretation ? and 
why does he speak of it as " a light that shineth in a 
dark place ?" 

Finally : If no part of Scripture is of private inter- 
pretation, then of course the passage of Scripture, 2 
Pet. ] : 20, is not of private interpretation ; and yet 
the Catholic exercises his private judgment upon it, 
and submits it to the private judgment of the Protes- 
tant, in the hope thereby of making him a Catholic ! 
No part of Scripture, according to him, may be pri- 
vately interpreted, but that which affirms that no part, 
not even itself^ may be privately interpreted ! 



4. Popery Unscriptural. 

I undertake to prove that the Roman Catholic reli- 
gion is unscriptural — that it is not borne out by the 
Bible. If I can do that, I shall be satisfied ; for a reli- 
gion, professing to be Christianity, which does not 
agree with the statements of MattheAv, Mark, Luke, 
John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude, will, I am per- 



16 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

suadedj never go down in the United States of Ame- 
rica. It may do for Spain, Portugal and Italy ; but it 
will not do here. There is too much respect for the 
Bible in this republican land to admit of such a thing. 
Republicans know too well how much liberty owes to 
the Bible. They know that tyranny cannot exist where 
the Bible, God's magna charta to mankind, is in the 
hands of the people. Besides, the people of this coun- 
try have too much good common sense to take that 
for Christianity about which the evangelists and the 
apostles knew nothing. I think, therefore, that I shall 
have gained the point, if I show that Romanism and 
the Bible are at odds. This, if I mistake not, I can 
easily do. 

The Roman Catholics act very much as if they them- 
selves did not regard their religion as being scriptural. 
Why, if they believe that their religion is the religion 
of the Bible, do they not put the Bible into the hands 
of the people, and advise them to read it, that they 
may become, or continue to be good Roman Catholics ? 
Why not circulate far and wide the book which con- 
tains their religion ? They need not take our transla- 
tion of it. They have one of their own — the Douay. 
Let them circulate that. Why do they leave the whole 
business of distributing the Scriptures to the Protes- 
tants ? Above all, why do they oppose the operations 
of Bible Societies, when they are only multiplying 
and diffusing copies of the book which contains the 
Roman Catholic religion ? 

I am particularly surprised that the Roman Catholics 
are not more anxious to put into general circulation the 
two epistles of their St. Peter, who they assert was 
the first Bishop of Rome, and earliest Pope. They ac- 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY 17 

knowledge that he wrote two epistles, and that they 
are extant. Why, in the name of common sense, do 
they not let every Catholic have them ! I do not won- 
der that ihey wish to keep out of sight of the people 
the epistles of Paul, Avho says, Gal. 2 : 11, that he 
withstood Peter to the face, " because he was to be 
blamed." Paul forgot at the moment that Peter was 
supreme and infallible ! We are all liable to forget. 
But why the rulers of the church should be unwilling 
to let the people hear Peter, is the wonder with me. I 
have been reading his epistles, to see if I can discover 
why the Catholics are not friendly to their circulation. 
Perhaps it is because in them he says nothing about 
Rome, unless by Babylon^ 1 Ep. 5 : 13, he means 
Rome, as John does in the Revelation; and never a 
word about his being Bishop of Rome, or Pope ! The 
man seems to have no idea that he was a pope. He 
says in his 1st Epistle, 5:1, " The elders which are 
among you I exhort, who am also an elder.'''' An el- 
der ! vv'-as that all ? Why, Peter, do you forget your- 
self? Do you not know that you are universal Bishop, 
Primate of the Apostolical College, Suprerae and 
Infallible Head of the Church? He seems never to 
have known one word about it. Now I think I have 
hit upon one reason Avhy it is thought best that the 
people in general should not be familiar with the wri- 
tings of Peter. 

I wish, for my part, that the Catholics would print 
an edition of Peter's Epistles, and give them general 
circulation among their members ; for if the religion 
of these epistles is their religion, I have no further 
controversy with them. 

2* 



18 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 



5. Tlie Kvil of Believing Too Much. 

It is a common saying among the Catholics, that it 
is Detter to believe too much than to believe too little ; 
and it is one of the arguments with w^hich they endea- 
vor to make proselytes, that they believe all that Pro- 
testants believe, besides a good deal that Protestants 
do not believe. Hence they would have it inferred that 
their religion possesses all the advantages which be- 
long to Protestantism, and some more into the bargain ; 
so that if the religion of the Reformation is safe, much 
more is that of the church of Rome safe. Now, as I 
am certain that this way of talking {reasoning it is 
not worthy to be called) has some influence in making 
Catholics, I shall take the liberty of examining it. 

Why is it better to believe too much than to believe 
too little ? Excess in other things is not better than 
defect. To eat or drink too much is not better than to 
eat or drink too little. To believe that two and two 
make five, is as bad as to believe that two and two 
make three. One of these errors will derange a man's 
calculations as much as the other. The man who be- 
lieves that two and two make five, has no advantage 
because he believes the whole truth and a little more. 

A certain writer, who ought to be in high authority 
at Rome as well as every where else, represents addi- 
tions to the truth to be as injurious and as offensive to 
God as subtraction from it. Rev. 22 : 18, 19. " If any 
man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto 
him the plagues that are written in this book." Here 
you see what a man gets by believing too much. It is 
not altogether so safe a thing as the Catholics repre- 



THODGHTS ON POPERY. 19 

sent it to be. Adding is as bad as taking away. For 
every article added there is a plague added. 

I suppose that one reason why these additions to the 
truth are so offensive to God is, that they are such ad- 
ditions as take from that to which they are added ; just 
as when a man puts " a piece of new cloth into an old 
garment, that which is put in to fill it up taketh from 
the garment, and the rent is made worse." Mat. 9 : 16. 
All the additions of the church of Rome to Christiani- 
ty take away from some of its doctrines. She first cuts 
a hole in the robe of Christ and then applies her patch ! 
In order to make room for her doctrine of human me- 
rit, she has to take away just so much from the merit 
of Christ. The Protestant doctrine is, that we are justi- 
fied by faith alone, without the deeds of the law. Nay, 
says the Catholic, our own good works have some- 
thing to do in the matter of our justification. Now, this 
addition does not leave entire that to which it is added, 
but takes from it ! 

We hold to the perfection of the one sacrifice offered 
by Christ on the cross. The Catholics add to this the 
sacrifice of the mass. They are not satisfied with 
Christ's being " once ofiered to bear the sins of many," 
but they teach the strange doctrine that Christ is of- 
fered as often as a priest is pleased to say mass ! 

Nothing is farther from the truth than that the Ca- 
tholic believes all which the Protestant believes, be- 
sides a great deal that the Protestant does not believe. 
The latter part of the assertion is correct. The Ca- 
tholics believe a great deal which the Protestants do 
not. In the quantity of their faith they far surpass us. 
There is the whole that is comprehended in tradition. 
They believe every word of it — while Protestants are 



20 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

satisfied with Holy Scripture. But the Catholics do 
not believe all that Protestants believe ; they do not 
believe the Protestant doctrine of regeneration, or jus- 
tification, or other cardinal doctrines. 

But, asks one, is not all that Protestants believe 
contained in the Scriptures ! Yes. Well, Catholics 
believe the Scriptures. Therefore they believe all 
which Protestants do ; and then, moreover, they be- 
lieve tradition ; so that they believe all which Protes- 
tants believe, and some more besides. Very logical, to 
be sure ! But suppose that tradition and Scripture hap- 
pen to contradict each other, how then? What sort of 
an addition to a testimony is a contradiction of it? I 
might give some precious specimens of these contra- 
dictions. The Catholic believes with Scripture, that 
"marriage is honorable in all;" and he believes with 
tradition, that it is very disgraceful in some. One of 
his rules of faith affirms that " all our righteousnesses 
are as filthy rags," but the other assures him that there 
is merit in his good works. One says that Peter was 
to he blamed, but the other asserts his infallibility. 
According to one, Peter was a simple elder ; but ac- 
cording to the other, universal bishop, &c. The Catho- 
lic says he believes both, and therefore he is in a safer 
state than the Protestant. Well, when 1 can be con- 
vinced that two contradictory assertions are both true, 
I may believe as much as the Catholic believes. Mean- 
while I am satisfied with believing enough ; and not 
caring to be more than perfectly safe, I shall continue 
to be a Protestant. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 21 



6. The Nino Commandments. 

^^Nine commandments ! What does that mean ? I 
always thought the commandments were teny There 
used to be that number. There were ten proclaimed 
by the voice of God from Mount Sinai ; and ten were 
written by the finger of God on the tables of stone, 
and when the tables were renewed, there were still 
ten: and the Jews, the keepers of the Old Testament 
Scriptures, always recognized ten ; and so did the pri- 
mitive church, and so do all Protestants in their creeds 
and catechisms. But the Roman Catholics, (you know 
they can take liberties, for they are the true church, 
they are infallible. A person, and so a church, which 
cannot possibly make a mistake, need not be very par- 
ticular about what it does,) these Christians who have 
their head away off at Rome, subtract one from the 
ten commandments ; and you know if you take one 
from ten, only nine remain. So they have but nine 
commandments. Theirs is not a Decalogue, but a 
Nonalogue. 

It is just so. When, many years ago, I first heard 
of it, I thought it was a slander of the Protestants. 
I said, " O, it cannot be that they have dared to med- 
dle with God's ten commandments, and leave out one. 
They cannot have been guilty of such impiety. Why, 
it is just as if some impious Israelite had gone into 
the holy of holies, opened the ark of the covenant, and 
taking out the tables of stone, had, with some instru- 
ment of iron, obliterated one of the commands which 
the divine finger wrote on them." But then it struck 
me how improbable it was that such a story should 



22 THOUGHTS ON 'POPERY. 

ever have gained currency, unless there was some 
foundation for it. Who would ever have thought of 
charging Roman Catholics with suppressing one of 
the commandments, unless they had done it, or some- 
thing like it ? 

So I thought I would inquire whether it was so or 
not; and I did, and found it to be a fact, and no slan- 
der. I saw with my own eyes the catechisms published 
under the sanction of bishops and archbishops, in 
which one of the commandments was omitted ; and 
the reader may see the same thing in " The Manual 
of Catholic Piety," printed no farther off than in Phi- 
ladelphia. The list of the commandments runs thus: 

1. I am the Lord thy God ; thou shalt not have 
strange Gods before me. 

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy 
God in vain, 

3. Remember the Sabbath day, &c. 

The reader w411 see that the commandment which 
the Catholics leave out, as being grievous to them, is 
the second in the series. It is the one that forbids 
making graven images and likenesses of any thing for 
worship. That is the one they don't like ; and they 
don't like it, because they do like pictures and images 
in their churches. They say these things wonderfully 
tend to promote devotion, and so they do away that 
commandment of God ! David says, " I esteem all 
thy precepts concerning all things to be right." But 
he was no Catholic. 

Well, having got rid of the second, they call the 
third second, and our fourth they number third, and 
so on till they come to our tenth, which, according to 
their numbering, is the ninth. But as they don't like 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 23 

the sound of " the nine commandments," since the 
Bible speaks of " the ten commandments," Exod. 34 : 
28 ; Deut. 4 : 13, and every body has got used to the 
number ten, they must contrive to make out ten some 
how or other. And how do you think they do it ? 
Why, they halve their ninth, and call the first part 
ninth, and the other tenth. 

So they make out ten. In the Philadelphia Manual, 
corrected and approved by the Right Rev. Bishop 
Kenrick, it is put down thus : " 9th. Thou shalt not 
covet thy neighbor's wife. 10th. Thou shalt not covet 
thy neighbor's goods." You see they make two of the 
commandments to relate to coveting. It is not very 
probable the Lord did so. I reckon they were not so 
numbered on the tables of stone. But you see it would 
never do to let that second commandment stand, and 
it would never do to have less than ten : so they were 
laid under a sort of necessity to do as they have done. 
But, after all, it is a bad job. It is not near so inge- 
nious as many of the devices of Popery. After all is 
said and done, they have but nine commandments ; for 
every body knows that by dividing any thing you get 
not two wholes, but two halves : there is but one 
whole after the division. And so the ninth command- 
ment is but one commandment after they have divided 
it. If they were to quarter it they could not make 
«any more of it. If the Catholics are bent on dividing 
the last of the commandments, they should call the 
first half, 8i, and the second half, 9th. That is what 
they ought to do. That would be acting honestly, 
for they know they have left out one of the Lord's 
ten. They know that the Lord gave ten command- 
ments, and they acknowledge only nine of them. It 



24 THODGHTS ON POPERY. 

is a mean device to divide one of the nine, and then 
say they acknowledge ten. The Catholics know that 
the commandments, as they are in many of their cate- 
chisms, are not as they were written with the finger of 
God on the tables of stone. They know that one is 
wanting, and why it is they know. They had better 
take care how they do such things, for the Lord is a 
jealous God. 

Indeed the Catholics are sorry for what they have 
done in this matter. It has turned out a bad specula- 
tion. This reduction of the law of God one-tenth, 
has led to the opening of many eyes. They would 
never do the like' again. And as a proof of their re- 
pentance, they have restored the second command- 
ment in many cases : they can show you a great many 
catechisms and books in which it is found. I had sup- 
posed that the omission existed now only in the cate- 
chisms published and used in Ireland, until I heard of 
the Philadelphia Manual. They had better repent 
thoroughly, and restore the commandment in all their 
publications. And I think it would not be amiss for 
them to confess that for once they have been fallible ; 
that in the matter of mutilating the Decalogue, they 
could, and did err. If they will afford us that evidence 
of repentance, we will forgive them, and Ave will say 
no more about it. We know it is a sore subject with 
them ; they don't know how to get along with it. When 
one asks them, " How came you to leave out the second 
commandment ?" if they say, " Why, we have not left 
it out of all our books." The other replies, "But why 
did you leave it out of any ?" and there the conversa- 
tion ends. Echo is the only respondent, and she but 
repeats the question, " Why ?" 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 25 



7. Catholic Hostility to the Bible. 

I am not surprised that the Roman Catholics dislike 
the Bible, for very much the same reason that Ahab, 
king of Israel, disliked Micaiah, the prophet of the 
Lord. 1 Kings, 22 : 8. It is hard not to contract a 
strong dislike to that which is for ever bearing testi- 
mony against one. To love an enemy is one of the 
most difficult attainments. Now, the Bible is all the 
time speaking against the Catholic religion, and pro- 
phesying not good, but evil of it, just as Micaiah did of 
Ahab. It is natural, therefore, that the Catholic should 
feel an aversion to the Bible. We ought not to expect 
any thing else. But I am somewhat surprised that 
they do not take more pains to conceal their dislike of 
it, for it certainly does not look well that the church 
of God should fall out with the oracles of God. It has 
an ugly appearance, to say the least, to see the Chris- 
tian church come out against the Christian Scriptures. 

I wondered much, when, a few years ago, the Pope 
issued his encyclical letter, forbidding the use of the 
Bible in the vulgar tongue. It certainly looks bad that 
Christ should say, " Search the Scriptures ;" and that 
the vicar of Christ should say, " No, you shall not even 
have them." It has very much the appearance of con- 
tradicting Christ: but appearances may deceive in this 
case, as in transubstantiation. But I must do the Pope 
justice. He does not unconditionally forbid the use of 
the Bible, but only the use of it in the vulgar tongue. 
The Pope has no objection that a person should have 
the Bible, provided he has it in a language which he 
does not understand. The English Catholic may have 

3 



26 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

a French Bible, and the devout Frenchman may make 
use of an English or Dutch Bible ; or both may have 
a Latin Bible, provided they have not studied Latin. 
An acquaintance with the Latin makes it as vulgar a 
tongue as any other. I have thought it due to the Pope 
to say thus much in his favor. Far be it from him to 
forbid the use of the Bible, except in the vulgar tongue ! 
Another more recent fact has surprised me not a 
little — that a student of Maynooth College, Ireland, 
named O'Beirne, should have been expelled that insti- 
tution for persisting in reading the Bible ! Expulsion 
is a pretty serious thing. That must be esteemed a 
heinous crime which is supposed to justify so severe 
a penalty. I cannot see any thing so criminal in read- 
ing the Scriptures. I wonder if the reading of any 
other book is forbidden at Maynooth: I suspect not. 
The authorities at Maynooth must think the Bible the 
worst book in the world. A student of that college 
may read whatever is most offensive to purity and 
piety in the ancient classics, without any danger of 
expulsion ; but if he reads the Bible he is dismissed 
with dishonor! But I suppose they will say, he was 
not expelled for reading the Scriptures, but for con- 
tempt of authority, in that, after being forbidden to 
read the Scriptures, he still persisted in reading them. 
That makes a difference I must confess: still the 
young man's case was a hard one. Christ told him 
not only to read, but to search the Scriptures : the au- 
thorities of the college told him he must not. His sin 
consisted in obeying Christ rather than the govern- 
ment of the college. I think it might have been set 
down as venial. They might have overlooked the fault 
of preferring Christ's authority to theirs. " When the 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 27 

Son of man shall come in his glory," I don't believe 
he will expel the young man for what he did, though 
the college bade him " depart." 

I wonder, and have always wondered, that the Ca- 
tholics, in prohibiting the Scriptures, do not except St. 
Peter's Epistles. Was ever any Catholic forbidden to 
read the letters of a Pope ? I believe not. But if good 
Catholics may, and should read the " Encyclical Let- 
ters " of the Popes, why not let them read the " Gene- 
ral Epistles " of the first of Popes, Peter ? Why is it 
any more criminal to read the letters of Pope Peter, 
than those of Pope Gregory 1 I cannot explain this. 

Here is another fact that has surprised me. A recent 
Galway newspaper denounces, by name, two Protest- 
ant clergymen as reptiles^ and advises that they should 
be at once trampled on. What for ? Why, for the sin 
of holding a Bible meeting, and distributing the Scrip- 
tures ! It speaks of them as a hell-inspired junto of 
incarnate fiends, and says, " If the devil himself came 
upon earth, he would assume no other garb than that 
of one of these biblicals." The Irish editor adds, " The 
biblical junto must be put down in Galway." He is 
evidently in a passion with the Bible : I suppose it 
must be because it prophecies no good of him. Cer- 
tainly he cannot think the Bible very favorable to his 
religion, otherwise he would not proclaim such a cru- 
sade against its distribution. It is the first time I ever 
heard it asserted, that the managers and members of 
Bible Societies are ipso facto incarnate fiends. It 
seems singular, that those who promote the circulation 
of a heaven-inspired volume, should be themselves, 
as a matter of course, hell-inspired. I cannot think 
that Exeter Hall and Chatham-street Chapel become 



28 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

Pandemoniums whenever the Bible Society meets in 
them. Nor shall I believe that Satan is going to turn 
Bible distributer, until I actually see him " walking 
about " on this agency. 

I do not know how it is, but I cannot help looking 
on the circulation of the Scriptures as a benevolent 
business — the gratuitous giving of the word of God 
to the children of men as a good work. When re- 
cently I read an article stating that the Young Men's 
New-York Bible Society had undertaken to supply the 
emigrants arriving at that port with the Bible in their 
respective languages, I almost instinctively pronounc- 
ed it a good work ; and I was astonished, as well as 
grieved, to find that some of the emigrants refused to 
receive the volume. I suppose that if the agent had 
offered them a volume of the Spectator, or a novel, 
they would have taken that. Any book of man they 
could have thankfully received ; but the book of God 
they had been instructed to refuse, should that be of- 
fered them ! The agent reports the following fact : 
" June 17, visited on their landing a large number of 
emigrants from Ireland, not one of whom could be 
prevailed on to receive a Bible, even as a gift. One of 
the females told me, if I would give her one she 
would take it with her and burn it." Who, do you sup- 
pose, put them up to refuse the Bible ? And who put 
it into the head of the woman to speak of burning the 
Bible ? I think any person, in whatever part of the 
country born, could guess. I guess it Avas not any 
infidel — I guess it was a priest. 

But perhaps the reason they refused the Bibles of- 
fered them, was, that they had other and better Bibles. 
That is not pretended. They had none. Now, it seems 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 29 

to me they might have accepted our Bibles until they 
could procure their own better Bibles. An imperfectly 
translated Bible is better than none : no translation of 
the Bible was ever so bad as to be worse than no Bi- 
ble. What if the Douay is before all other Bibles, 
yet king James' may answer one's turn until he can 
get the Douay. The Catholics complain that we give 
their people an erroneously translated Bible : why, 
then, do they not supply them with a correct transla- 
tion ? When they undertake that, we will cease to 
trouble them. We would be very glad to see every 
Catholic family possessing, and capable of reading, 
the Douay Bible, although it does make repentance to- 
wards God to consist in doing penance appointed by 
men. But that they have no idea of doing. Does not 
the Pope forbid the use of the Bible in the vulgar 
tongue ! I know many Catholics have it, but it is no 
part of their religion to have a Bible. They get their 
Christianity without the trouble of searching the 
Scriptures. Indeed they would in vain search in the 
Scriptures for what they call Christianity. If they 
were not perfectly conscious that their religion is not 
to be found in the Bible, do you suppose they would 
denounce and persecute that book as they do ? Would 
they direct their inquiries to fathers, and councils, and 
priests for information, rather than to prophets, evan- 
gelists, and apostles? 



30 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 



8. Soiuetliins^ for the Revi Mr. H. 

Mr. H. the Goliath of the Catholics, seems to be 
very fond of asking questions which he thinks no- 
body can answer. I am not acquainted with any wri- 
ter who makes more frequent use of the interrogation 
point. But his questions are not quite so unanswera- 
ble as he supposes. I will just answer two of the string 
of questions with which he commences a recent letter 
to Mr. B. and then I beg leave to ask a few. 

He wants to know Jirst, what the Protestant reli- 
gion is. He has been often told, but I will tell him 
again. It is the religion of the Bible. It was not 
called Protestant when the Bible was written, for 
then there was no corruption of Christianity to pro- 
test against. But it is the same, however called. 
There it is, i7i the Bible. Read it. Read any part 
of it. You cannot go amiss to find the religion of the 
Reformation in the Bible. Read particularly the 
epistle to the Romans, to whom Catholics pretend to 
refer their origin ; or the epistle to the Ephesians. I 
wonder if a passage from either of these prominent 
epistles was ever quoted by any one in proof of any 
peculiarity of the Roman Catholic church ! I suspect 
never. Protestants, however, make great use of them. 

But, says the interrogator, " tell us what particular 
doctrines constitute the Protestant religion. Telling 
us it is the religion of the Bible, is telling us where it 
is, but not what it is." And is it not enough to tell 
you where you may find a thing? Have you no eyes? 
Have you no mind ? Do you want one to think for 
you ? Is not that all which Jesus Christ did ? He gave 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 31 

the Scriptures to the Jews, and said, " search them." 
So we put the Bible into your hand, and say, there is 
our religion. And yet you ask, " Where was your re- 
ligion before Luther ?" Before Luther ! we tell you 
where it was before the earliest fathers. It was in 
the Gospels and Epistles, where it is now, and ever 
will be. What have we to do with Luther or Augus- 
tine, or any of them, until we get as far back into an- 
tiquity as St. John? 

But Mr. H. asks again, " What society of Chris- 
tians ever taught this pretended religion of Christ pre- 
vious to the Reformation ?" Why, Mr. H. do not affect 
such ignorance — you must be joking^ when you ask 
such a question. Did you never hear of a society of 
Christians residing at Rome, some of whom were of 
Caesar's household, to whom one Paul wrote a letter, 
which has come down to us? Now, if it cannot be as- 
certained what that society of Christians " taught," 
yet it can easily be ascertained what was taught 
them. It is only to read the letter. And I think it 
not improbable that that society of Christians profess- 
ed and taught what St. Paul taught them. 

But there was another respectable society of Chris- 
tians, a good while " previous to the Reformation," 
who seem to have known something about this " pre- 
tended religion of Christ," called Protestant. They 
dwelt in a city named Ephesus. That same Paul 
resided among them three years, preaching the Gos- 
pel, and he did it faithfully. He " shunned not to 
declare all the counsel of God." After establishing 
a flourishing church there, he went away, and subse- 
quently addressed an epistle to them, which also has 
come down to us. In this epistle it is to be presumed 



32 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

that he embodied the substance of the Gospel, which 
he had taught them "publicly and from house to 
house." He is not to be suspected of preaching one 
thing and writing another. Will Mr. H. deny that 
the society of Christians at Ephesus professed and 
taught the doctrines of the epistle to the Ephesians ? 
I think not. Well, sir, what are the doctrines of that 
epistle ? Are they yours or ours — Catholic or Protes- 
tant ? I will leave it to any intelligent infidel on earth 
to decide. Will Mr. H. agree to the reference ? O 
no, he wants us to leave it to a pope, and general coun- 
cil, and the zmanimous fathers. 

I have told Mr. H. now of two societies of Chris- 
tians who " taught this pretended religion of Christ 
previous to the Reformation." I could tell of more ; 
but two are enough. He only asked for one. 

Now I would ask Mr. H. a question. Where was 
your religion, Mr. H. at the time the Bible was writ- 
ten ? I am curious to know. How came the evange- 
lists and apostles to know nothing about it, if it is 
really the religion of Christ ? Perhaps Mr. H. can 
clear up this difficulty. I wish he would, if he can. 
I do not want him to say where his religion was after 
the Bible was written, and after all the evangelists 
and apostles were dead. I am informed on that point. 
I want to know where the Roman Catholic religion 
was before those good men died ; where it was before 
the fathers. 

They talk about the antiquity of the Roman Ca- 
tholic religion. It is old, I must confess. It bears 
many marks of age upon it. But the difficulty is, it 
is not old enough by a century or two at least. They 
say it is the frst form of Christianity. That is a 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 33 

mistake. It is the second. The first appeared for a 
while, then " fled into the wilderness, where she had 
a place prepared of God," and re-appeared at the Re- 
formation. They call it a new religion. But no, it 
is the old restored. If any one doubts the identity of 
the restored religion, let him but compare its features 
with that which appeared and flourished in the apos- 
tolic age. 

Another question I beg leave to ask Mr. H. " Did 
the first Christians of Rome hold the doctrines con- 
tained in the epistle to the Romans, or did they not?" 
If they did not, they must have departed from the faith 
sooner than Paul predicted that they would. If they 
did hold the doctrines of the epistle, then, since these 
are the very doctrines which the friends of the Refor- 
mation contend for, have we not here the example of 
a society holding the doctrines of the Reformation 
long before the actual era of the Reformation ? I have 
other questions to ask, but I wait for these to be an- 
swered. 



9. The Distinction of Sins into Mortal and Venial. 

Mr. Editor^ — I was not aware, until recently, that 
Roman Catholics of this age, and in this country, make 
that practical use which I find they do of the distinc- 
tion of sins into mortal and venial. For the truth of 
the following narrative I can vouch. An intelligent 
gentleman being, a few weeks since, expostulated 
with by a Protestant lady, on his spending the whole 
of a certain Sabbath in playing cards, replied with 



o4 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

the Utmost readiness, and with every appearance of 
confidence in the validity of his apology, " O, that is 
not a mortal sin." Several similar examples of a 
resort to this distinction were reported to me. Now, 
can that system be the religion of Jesus Christ, which 
recognizes this horrible distinction, and puts such a 
plea as this into the mouth of a transgressor of one ot 
the commandments of that Decalogue which God's 
own voice articulated and his own finger wrote? I 
cannot express the feelings I have, when I think of 
the multitudes who are forming a character for eterni- 
ty under the influence of doctrines like these. What 
sort of a character must they form ! 

How completely at variance with the Scriptures is 
this distinction ! " Cursed is every one that continu- 
eth not in all things which are written in the book of 
the law to do them — the wages of sin is death — the 
soul that sinneth, it shall die." Gal. 3 : 10 ; Rom. 6 : 
23 ; Ezek. 18 : 4. Is not all sin disobedience to God ? 
and may he be disobeyed in any respect without guilt ? 
Did ever a father of a family recognize such a distinc- 
tion in the government of his children ? Did Christ 
atone for what are called venial sins, or did he not ? 
If he did not, then he did not atone for all sin. If he 
did atone for them, they must be worthy of death, since 
he died for them. 

The truth is, all sin is mortal, if not repented of; 
and all sin is venial, that is, pardonable, if repented of. 
There is no sin which the blood of Christ cannot cleanse 
from. And nothing but that can take out any sin. 

It is not worth while to reason against such a dis- 
tinction. I only mention it as one of the absurd and 
pernicious errors of the system to which it belongs. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY, ^ 



10. Tlie Deadly Sins. 

In " the Christian's Guide to Heaven " I read with 
some interest an enumeration of what the Catholics 
are pleased to call " the seven deadly sins." Why 
this distinction, thought I ? Are there only seven sins ? 
Or are only some sins deadly ; and is the number of 
sins that kill ascertained by the infallible church to be 
just seven and no more, all other sins being venial, 
not mortal, according to another distinction which that 
church presumes to make ? 

They cannot mean that there are only seven sins, 
for heresy is not in this list of sins, and that I am sure 
they esteem a sin ; neither is there any mention of 
falsehood and deceptio7i, which we Protestants regard 
as sins, even though their object should be pious. Be- 
sides, David says that his iniquities were more than 
the hairs of his head — consequently many more than 
seven. And who is any better off than David in this 
respect? Moreover, even the Catholics admit nine 
commandments. They do not leave out any but the 
second. They must therefore admit the possibility of 
at least nine sins. 

They must mean that there are only seven sins 
which are mortal to the soul. But if this be the case, 
why is It said, " Cursed is every one that continueth 
not in all things written in the book of the law to do 
them?" It is admitted that there are more than seven 
things written in the book of the law. Again, why is 
it said that the wage-s of sin is death? This would 
seem to imply that death is due to every sin, of what- 
ever kind. If there are only seven deadly sins, why 



36 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

does not the apostle say, " The wages of these seven 
sins (enumerating them) is death?" But he does not 
say that. He regarded all sins as deadly — every one 
of the multitude as mortal in its consequences. 

If there are only seven sins which are deadly, then 
I suppose we can answer for all the rest ; but Job says 
he cannot answer him one of a thousand. According 
to Job, then, who is a very ancient authority, there are 
at least a thousand sins for which we cannot answer. 

But let us hear what the seven are. They are Pride^ 
Covetousness, Luxury or Lust, Anger, Gluttony, En- 
vy, Sloth. Well, these are, to be sure, sins, all but one 
of them, anger, which is not necessarily a sin any 
more than grief is. We are directed to " be angry and 
sin not." I wonder they should have put anger with- 
out any qualification among the seven deadly sins. It 
must be because they are not familiar with the Scrip- 
tures. But granting them all to be sins, then certainly 
they are deadly, since all sin is deadly. We could not 
therefore object, if it had been said, in reference to 
them, " seven deadly sins." But " the seven deadly 
sins " seems to imply that there are no more. We read 
in the book of Proverbs of six things which the Lord 
doth hate ; yea, of seven that are an abomination to 
him. But there is no implication there, that those are 
the only things which the Lord hates. It is not said, 
" the seven things which the Lord doth hate." The 
language which I animadvert upon implies that the 
seven sins enumerated are, if not exclusively, yet pe- 
culiarly deadly. Now that is not the case. There is 
nothing in those sins to entitle them to this distinction 
above other sins. There is no reason why we should 
be warned to avoid them more than many others. 



Thoughts on I'oPery. 37 

1 am surprised that in the list of .deadly sins there 
is no mention of unbelief. Now surely that must be 
a deadly sin, when "he that believeth not shall be 
damned — shall not see life, but the wrath of God 
abideth on him.'^ Moreover, we are told that the Holy 
Ghost came primarily to reprove the world of unbe- 
lief-^and yet there is no recognition of it among the 
deadly sins ! It is an oversight, which no wonder ihey 
fell into, who, in making out their religion, made no 
use of the word of God. 

I perceive that neither heresy nor schism are in the 
list of deadly sins. I infer, then, that to differ from the 
Roman church in some particulars, and even to sepa- 
rate from her communion, is not fatal, even she her- 
self being judge. I thank her for the admission. 

There is one sin which, in all their catalogues, the 
Catholics omit, and which, I think, they need to be re- 
minded of. It is the sin of idolatry — ^^of worshiping 
the creature — of paying divine honors to something 
else besides God. It used to be very deadly, under the 
Jewish dispensation. It doubtless is equally so under 
the Christian. They had better beware of it. They 
liad better leave off praying to saints, and honoring the 
Virgin Mary above her Son, lest perchance they fall 
mto deadly sin. 



11. A Religion ivithoiit a ttoly S^pirit. 

A gentleman of intelligence, who was born of Ca- 
tholic parents, and educated ia the Catholic church, 

4 



39 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

but left it recently for Protestantism (for some dd 
leave the Catholic for the Protestant church — the 
conversions are not all to Romanism — but we, Pro- 
testants, don't make such a noise about it when we 
receive a convert ; and I suppose the reason is, that it 
is really no wonder that a Catholic should become a 
Protestant — the only wonder is, that any should re- 
main Catholics) — this gentleman said to his brother, 
who is still a Catholic, " Why, brother, as long as I 
was a Catholic, I never knew that there was a Holy 
Spirit." 

And what do you think was the brother's reply 1 
" Well, I don't know that there is one now I" 

The narration of what passed between these two 
men struck me with great force. A religion without 
a Holy Spirit ! and this the religion, according to the 
computation of Bishop England, of two hundred mil- 
lions of mankind ! It made me sorry. My religion, 
thought I, would be very imperfect without a Holy 
Spirit. I want a Sanctifier, as well as a Surety. I 
want one to act internally upon me, as well as one to 
act externally for me. What should I do with ray 
title to heaven, without a fitness for it? As a sinner, 
I am equally destitute of both. There can be no hea- 
ven without holiness. And whence has any man ho- 
liness but from the Holy Spirit ? And is it likely he 
will act where he is not acknowledged ? If priests 
can pardon^ as they say, yet can they purify 7 

Here were two men, educated in the Catholic reli- 
gion, and attending weekly the Catholic church, and 
yet never having heard of the Holy Spirit ! They had 
heard often enough of the Virgin Mary, and of this 
saint, and that saint, but never a w^ord of the Holy 



THOltGHTS ON POPERY. 39 

Spirit, the Divine Sanctifier! But was it not their 
own fault? Is not the doctrine of the Trinity apart 
of the Catholic faith ? It is — but that may be, and yet 
the priests never instruct the people in the character 
and office of the Holy Spirit, and in the necessity of 
his operations. 

But had these men never been present at a baptism, 
when water, according to Christ's direction, with oil, 
spittle, &c. as the church directs, is applied to the 
body, and the name of each person of the Trinity is 
mentioned ? Yes, but, poor men, they had never stu- 
died Latin. How should they know what Spiritus 
Sanctus means, when they hear it ? Why should all 
the world be presumed to understand Latin? Oh, 
why should the worship of the living God be con- 
ducted in a dead language ? But this is by the way. 

These men knew not that there was a Holy Spi- 
rit — why did they not know it ? I will tell you. Be- 
cause so little is said of the Holy Spirit among the 
Catholics — there is so little need of any such agent, 
according to their system ! They do not believe in the 
necessity of a change of heart. Why should there be 
a Holy Spirit? The priest does not want any such 
help to prepare a soul for heaven. The Catholic sys- 
tem is complete without a Holy Spirit. Therefore 
nothing is said of him in the pulpit, and in the con- 
fession-box ; and the sinner is not directed to seek his 
influences, or to rely on his aid. If I misrepresent, let 
it be shown, and I will retract. But if I am correct in 
the statement I make, look at it. Protestant, look at 

it a religion without a Holy Spirit ! Catholic, look 

at it, and obey the voice from heaven which says. 
"Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers 



40 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." 
This is one of her capital crimes. She does not 
speak against the Holy Ghost. No, she is silent 
about him ! 



12. Inlambility. 



Every body knows that the Church of Rome lays 
claim to infallibility. She contends that there is no 
tnistake about her ; that she cannot err. Now this very 
modest claim of our sister of Rome (for in the matter 
of churches I reject the relation of mother and daugh- 
ter) I am constrained to question, and that for such 
reasons as the following : 

1. She cannot herself tell us where her infallibility 
is to be found. She is sure that she has it somewhere 
about her, but for the life of her she cannot tell where. 
Some of her writers say that it is with the Pope. Others 
contend that it resides in a general council. And ano- 
ther opinion is that both the Pope and a council are 
necessary to it. Now I think they ought to settle it 
among themselves who is infallible, before they re- 
quire us to believe that any one is. Let X\\eiinjind in- 
fallibility and fix it. After that it will be time enough 
for us to admit its existence. But, 

2. We will suppose that it is the Pope who is infal- 
lible — each successive Pope. Well, where did they 
get their infallibility ? Why, it was transmitted from 
St. Peter, to be sure, Christ gave it to him, and he 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 41 

handed it down. But was Peter infallible ? There was 
a day when I suspect he did not think himself infal- 
lible — when smitten to the heart by the reproving look 
of his Lord, he went out and wept bitterly. There is 
no doubt that he made a mistake, when he so confi- 
dently pronounced, " Though I should die with thee, 
yet will I not deny thee" — and let it be remembered 
that this was after Christ had said, " Thou art Peter, 
and on this rock," &c. 

If Peter was infallible, I wonder he did not at once 
settle the difficulty of which we have an account in 
Acts, 15. Why was the matter suffered to be debated 
in the presence of his infallibility ? It seems that Pe- 
ter on that occasion claimed no pre-eminence. Nor 
was any particular deference paid to him by the coun- 
cil. He related his experience, precisely as did Paul 
and Barnabas. James seems to have been in the chair 
on that occasion. He speaks much more like an infal- 
lible person than any of the rest. He says, " Where- 
fore my sentence is," &c. What a pity it is for the 
church of Rome that Peter had not said that instead 
of James. We should never have heard the last of it. 
But it was the bishop of Jerusalem, and not the bishop 
of Rome, who said it. It cannot be helped now. Will 
my Catholic brother take down his Douay and read 
that chapter ? 

But again, if Peter was infallible, I am surprised 
that Paul " withstood him to the face, because he was 
to be blamed" Gal. 2:11. That was no way to treat 
a Pope. But Paul had always a spice of the Protes- 
tant about him. And yet Peter did not resent Paul's 
treatment of him, for in his second Epistle he speaks 
of him as " our beloved brother Paul." I suppose that 

4* 



42 THOUGHTS ON FOPERY. 

Peter himself did not know he was infallible. Men 
do not always know themselves. 

Once more, if the superiority among the disciples 
belonged to Peter, it has struck me as strange that, 
when a dispute arose among them who should be the 
greatest, our Savior did not take Peter, instead of a 
little child, '' and set him in the midst of them," 
and remind the others that the supremacy had been 
given to him. I think the other apostles could not 
have understood Christ in that declaration, " Thou art 
Peter," &c. as the church of Rome now understands 
him, otherwise the dispute about superiority could 
never have arisen. 

Now, according to the Catholic doctrine, Peter be- 
ing infallible, each successive Pope inherits his infal- 
libility, and therefore never a man of them could err 
in a matter of faith — nor even the woman Joan, (for in 
the long list of Papas, there was by accident in the 
ninth century one Mama, though this, I am aware, is 
denied by some,) — even she retained none of the/rm7- 
ty of her sex. 

It is well for the church of Rome that she does not 
contend that her popes are infallible in practice, for 
if she did, she would find some difficulty in reconciling 
that doctrine with history. It is very true that one may 
err in practice and not in faith. Nevertheless, when I 
see a man very crooked in practice, I cannot believe 
that he is always exactly straight in doctrine. I can- 
not believe that all I hear from him is good and true, 
when what I see in him is false and bad. Take for 
example such a one as Pope Alexander sixth ; when 
he, the father of such a hopeful youth as Cesar Bor- 
gia, and the chief of ecclesiastics too, tells me, with a 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 43 

grave air and solemn tone, that it is a shocking wicked 
thing for an ecclesiastic to marry, I cannot help de- 
murring somewhat to the statement of Cesar's father. 
But I must proceed with my reasons. 

3. If a man says one thing one day, and the next 
day says another thing quite contrary to it, I am of 
opinion that he is one of the days in error. But what 
has this to do with the business in hand ? Have not 
the Popes always pronounced the same thing? Have 
they ever contradicted each other ? Ask rather, whe- 
ther the wind has always, ever since there was a wind, 
blown from the same quarter. Now here is a reason 
why I cannot allow infallibility to belong to either 
popes or councils. 

4. I would ask just for information, how it was, 
when there were three contemporary Popes, each 
claiming infallibility. Had they it between them ? or 
which of them had it ? What was the name of the one 
that there was no mistake about? How were the 
common people to ascertain the infallible one? for 
you know their salvation depended on their being in 
communion with the true Bishop of Rome, the right- 
ful successor of St. Peter. 

5. The more common opinion among the Catholics 
is, I believe, that the infallibility resides in a Pope and 
general council together. Each is fallible by itself, but 
putting the two together, they are infallible ! Now I 
admit that in some languages two negatives are equi- 
valent to an affirmative ; but I do not believe that two 
fallibles ever were or will be equivalent to an infalli- 
ble. It is like saying that two wrongs make a right. 



44 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 



13. The Keys. 

The Catholics, by which I mean Roman Catholics, 
since, though a Protestant, I believe in the holy Ca- 
tholic, that is, universal church, and profess to be a 
member of it, at the same time that I waive all pre- 
tensions to being a Roman Catholic. — they make a 
great noise about the keys having been given to Peter ; 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Well, it is true 
enough — they were given to him. The Bible says so, 
and we Protestants want no better authority than the 
Bible for any thing. We do not require the confirma- 
tion of tradition, and the unanimous consent of the fa- 
thers. We do not want any thing to back " Thus saith 
the Lord." Yes, the keys were given to Peter ; it is 
said so in Matthew, 16 : 19. This is one of those pas- 
sages of Scripture which is not hard to be understood, 
as even they of Rome acknowledge. I am glad our 
brethren of that communion agree with us that there 
is something plain in the Bible ; that there is one pas- 
sage, at least, in which private interpretation arrives 
at the same result which they reach who follow in the 
track of the agreeing fathers ! I suppose, if we could 
interpret all Scripture as much to the mind of the Ca- 
tholics as we do this, they would let us alone about 
private interpretation. 

Well, Peter has got the keys. What then ? What 
are keys for ? To unlock and open is one of the pur- 
poses served by keys. It was for this purpose, I sup- 
pose, that Peter received them : and for this purpose 
we find him using them. He opened the kingdom of 
heaven, that is, the Gospel Church, or Christian dis- 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 45 

pensation, as the phrase " kingdom of heaven " often 
signifies. He opened it to both Jews and Gentiles : 
he preached the first sermon, and was the instrument 
of making the first converts among each. With one 
key he opened the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, and 
with the other to the Gentiles. This was a distinction 
conferred on Peter, it is true : but it was necessary 
that some one of the twelve should begin the business 
of preaching the Gospel. The whole twelve could 
not turn the keys and open the door. The power of 
binding and loosing, which was conferred on Peter 
when the keys were given him, was not confined to 
him, but, as Matthew testifies in the next chapter but 
one, was extended to all the disciples. 

Well, Peter opened the kingdom of heaven ; and 
Vv'-hat became of the keys then ? Why, there being no 
farther use for them, they were laid aside. I don't 
know what has become of them, for my part. When 
a key has opened a door which is not to be shut again, 
there being no more use for the key, it does not matter 
much what becomes of it. Hence, in the history of 
the Acts of the Apostles, we hear no more about the 
keys ; and Peter, in his Epistles, says never a word 
about them. He wrote his second Epistle to put Chris- 
tians in remembrance, but I don't find him reminding 
them of the keys. The truth is, having used them for 
the purpose for which they were given him, he had 
after that no more concern about them. 

But many fancy that Peter kept these keys all his 
life, and then transmitted them to another, and he to 
a third, and so from hand to hand they have come 
along down till whaVs his name at Rome has them 
now — the Pope. And they say these keys signify the 



46 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

authority given to the church, and especially to the 
Popes. But I find no Bible warrant for this assertion. 
Christ does not say that he gave the keys to Peter to 
give to somebody else, and Peter does not say that he 
gave them to any body else, and no body since Peter 
has been able to produce the keys. This settles 
the matter in my mind. I want to know where the 
keys are. 

But some suppose that Peter took them to heaven 
with him, and that he stands with them at the gate of 
heaven, as porter, to admit and keep out whom he 
will. But this notion does not tally very well with 
certain passages of Scripture. Christ tells his disci- 
ples that he goes to prepare a place for them, and that 
he will come again and receive them unto himself: 
John, 14 : 3. He will do it. He will not trust the bu- 
siness to Peter. " He that hath the key of David, he 
that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and 
no man openeth, is not Peter, but Christ." Rev. 3 : 7. 

But the Catholics will have it that Peter is the one ; 
and he, having the keys, they think that they will all 
be admitted, while never a soul of us, poor Protes- 
tants, will. They may be mistaken, however. 1 do 
not know what right they have to put in an exclusive 
claim to Peter. I see no resemblance between Peter 
and a Roman Catholic — none in the world. I never 
care to see a truer and better Protestant than I take 
him to be. But if he does stand at the gate of heaven 
with such authority as the Catholics ascribe to him, 
yet I suppose he will not deny that he wrote the 
Epistles called his. Well, then, if he shall hesitate 
to admit Protestants, we shall only have to remind him 
of his Epistles. He does not say any thing in them 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY, 47 

about his being Pope. No, he says, " The elders which 
are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." Not 
a word says he about the Mass, or the Seven Sacra- 
ments, or Transubstantiation. Let the reader turn to 
his Epistles, and see just what he does say ; I think 
he will not find any thing in those Epistles to frighten 
Protestants. 

But there is still another supposition, viz* that Peter 
is not perpetual porter of heaven ; but each Pope, as 
he dies, succeeds to that office — one relieving another. 
I do not know how it is, but I judge, if all the Popes 
have been in their day porters of Paradise, many of 
them must have tended outside. They have not been 
universally the best of men, I think history informs 
us. But I will not mention any names. 

One thing more. In Catholic pictures and prints 
(for that very spiritual religion abounds with these) 
you will see the keys of which we have been speak^ 
ing represented as made to suit all the complicated 
modern wards, as if fresh from some manufactory at 
Birmingham or Sheffield ! I do not suppose the keys 
Peter received answered exactly to this ingenious re- 
presentation of them. 



I4t Tli6 Head of the Chnrch^ 

The church is Represented in the Scriptures as a 
body. Of course, therefore, it must have a head ; and 
that same blessed book tells us who the head is* And 



48 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

who, think you, is the head of the church? Who bul 
Christ himself? Who else is fit to be its head — its 
source of influence and government ? I will produce 
the passages of Scripture in proof of Christ's headship 
presently. 

But the Catholics say that the Pope is the head ol 
the church. Ah, is he 1 Where is the proof that he is ? 
Now there is nothing which irritates a Catholic so 
soon as to ask him for proof. " Proof, indeed !" he 
says. " Do you ask proof of an infallible church ? 
What is the use of infallibility, if we must prove every 
thing? These are truly most degenerate days. The 
time was when nobody demanded proof; but now 
every little sprig of a Protestant must have reasons to 
support assertions. He calls for proof. And he must 
have it from the Bible. He will not believe any thing 
in religion unless some text can be cited in support of 
it. Things have come to a pretty pass indeed." It is 
even so. We plead guilty to the charge. For every 
thing alleged to be a doctrine of Christianity, we con- 
fess we do require some proof out of the writings of 
some evangelist or apostle. And since our Catholic 
brethren will not gratify us by adducing the scriptural 
Warrant for believing the Pope or Bishop of Rome to 
be the head of the church, we will do them the favor 
of consulting the Scriptures for them. Well, Ave begin 
with Genesis^ and we go through to Revelation, search^ 
ing all the way for some proof that the Pope is the 
head of the church. But so far are we from finding 
any evidence that he is the head of the church, that we 
find not a particle of proof that he is that or any things 
We find no account of any such character as a Pope — 
not a word about him. The subject of the proposition, 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 49 

that is, the Pope, does not seem to be known to that 
book at all. I really do not wonder that it frets a Ca- 
tholic v/hen we send him to the Bible for proof that 
the Pope is the head of the church* 

But though we discover nothing in the Bible about 
a Pope, yet we find much about the head of the church. 
In Ephesians, 1 : 22, 23, Christ is said to be " the head 
over all things to the church, which is his body." Now, 
if the church is his body, surely he must, be the head 
of it, as well as head over all things to it. Will any 
one say that the Pope of Rome is the head of ChrisVs 
body ? That is shocking. And yet the Catholics are 
told that they must believe it ; and seeing they cannot 
help it, they do somehow or other contrive to believe 
it. In Eph. 5 : 23, it is explicitly declared that '* Christ 
is the head of the church." The same is repeated in 
Col. 1 : 18—" He (Christ) is the head of the body, 
the church." 

Our brethren of the Catholic church have long been 
in the habit of asking where our religion was before 
the Reformation. They may see where one doctrine of 
it was fifteen hundred years before the Reformation. 
One would suppose, from the way they talk, that they 
supposed the Bible was written a considerable time 
after the Reformation, and that it was then got up to 
support the Protestant heresy ! I might ask them, but 
that they do not like to be asked questions, lest they 
should not be able to answer them, where their doc- 
trine of the Pope's headship of the church was when 
the New Testament was written, i. e. some seventeen 
hundred and fifty or eighteen hundred years ago. But 
I will withdraw the question. It may seem unkind to 
press it. 

5 



50 THOUGHTS ON POPEllY. 

Now, Since the Bible says that Christ is the head of 
the church, if the Pope also is, there must be two 
heads of the church. But there is only one body. Why 
should there be two heads? Is the church a monster? 
Besides, if there had been another head, Christ would 
have been spoken of in the Scriptures as one of the 
heads of the church, or as a head of the church. But 
he is called the head of the church. The article is de- 
finite, denoting only one. There is not a syllable in 
the Bible about another head. Indeed the language of 
the Bible does not admit of there being another. Yet 
the Catholics say there is another ; and it is their Pope. 
" Christ being absent, they say, it is necessary there 
should be a visible human head to represent him on 
earth." Now the Pope, they say, is this visible head 
of the church — the head that you can see. But is their 
assumption correct, that Christ is absent? Is he ab- 
sent ? Hear : " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto 
the end of the world." " Where two or three are ga- 
thered together in my name, there am I in the midst 
of them." Was he absent from Paul ? He says : " I 
can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth 
me." A visible head ! What do we want of a visible 
head ? Of what use to us — the part of the body here — 
is a head a way off at Rome ? It is no better than a 
caput mortuum to us. 

But what if we admit the possibility of a visible 
human head of the church, who made the Pope that 
head ? Did he inherit this also from St. Peter? Was 
Peter head of the church? He, more modest than his 
pretended successors, does not any where claim that 
title. I know the Catholics hold him to be the rock — 
i\iQ foundation of the church; but I really did not know 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 51 

that they regarded him, whom, however they exalt, 
they still consider but as a mere man, as capable of 
being head of the church too. It is not too much to 
speak of Christ as both the foundation and head of 
the church, but to speak of Peter, poor Peter, as we 
are accustomed to call him when we think of the 
scene of the denial, as both foundation and head of the 
church, is really carrying the matter rather far. How 
little Peter thought he was hoth^ when " he went out 
and wept bitterly !" How little he knew of himself! 
The Pope the head of the church ! ! Then the church 
is the Pope's body ! ! Alas for the church ! 



15. Tlie Power to Forgive Sius. 

Seculum modesium I rather suppose will not be the 
designation by which the 19th century will be distin- 
guished in history from her sister centuries. I know 
not whether any age has been more remarkable for 
cases of unfounded pretension than the present. The 
case, however, of which I am to take notice, did not 
originate in the 19th century. It has existed many 
hundred years. I do not wonder at its surviving the 
dark ages, but that it should have lived so far into the 
luminous 19th does somewhat surprise me. The pre- 
tension to which I allude is that made by the Catholic 
priesthood. What do you think it is which they pre- 
tend they can do? Forgive sins. They pretend that 
they have power over sins, to remit or retain them. 



52 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

They claim that the prerogative of pardon is lodged 
with them. And that is the reason why they receive 
confessions. Confession to a priest would be a farce, 
if it was not thought that he could forgive. 

The first thing that strikes me is the contrariety of 
this notion to common sense. The idea of being par- 
doned by any other than the being offended, seems 
absurd. What ! a fellow-sinner of a priest pardon 
sins against God ! It is as if of two debtors, one should 
play the creditor and forgive the other his debt, with- 
out any consultation with the real creditor. That 
would be a strange way of getting rid of debts. I al- 
ways thought he to whom the debt is due ought to 
have a say in the matter of remitting it. If I had 
disposed of a debt in that manner I should always be 
afraid that it would some day or other be exacted — 
that the real creditor would appear and make his de- 
mand. Then it would be a poor come off for me to 
say that my fellow-debtor forgave me the debt. I will 
tell you what I expect. I expect that a great deal 
which the priests forgive will be exacted notwith- 
standing. Catholics talk of going to the priest and 
getting their old scores wiped off^ just as if it were 
but a slate and pencil memorandum, which any one 
can rub out. The sin of man is not thus recorded. It 
is " written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a 
diamond." It is not so easily obliterated. 

But is there not Scripture in support of the priests' 
claim? See John, 20 : 23. Does not Christ say to his 
disciples: " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re- 
mitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, 
they are retained ?" Yes, he says that to his disciples 
— the apostles. But pray, what right have the priests 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 53 

to found a claim of theirs on a grant made to the apos- 
tles? They do indeed come after the apostles, but 
they are their successors in no other sense. I should 
like to know how the priests prove that they inherit 
the apostolical power of remitting sins. But I forget 
that they scorn a resort to proof. 

The power communicated in that grant to the apos- 
tles was merely ministerial and declarative. It was 
no less true after than before that grant was made, that 
none can forgive sins but God only. That the power 
was declarative merely, that is, that the apostles were 
empowered to remit and retain sins only as they were 
authorized and enabled to make a correct statement to 
mankind of the way and means of salvation, to ex- 
press the conditions of pardon and condemnation, and 
to propose the terms of life and death, is clear to me 
from the fact that the conferring of it was immedi- 
ately preceded by the Savior's breathing on them, 
and saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Now, 
this communication of the Spirit qualified them for 
the declarative remission and retention of sins. They 
were thereby inspired to pronounce on what grounds 
sins are remitted and retained by God. 

This was the power over sins granted to the apos- 
tles, and I shall show presently that this declarative 
power is all they pretend ever lo have exercised. Now, 
the priests have no right to claim even this power, ex- 
cept in that subordinate sense in which it is possessed 
by all who are authorized to preach the Gospel. Did 
Christ ever breathe on them, and say to them, " Re- 
ceive ye the Holy Ghost," that they should claim 
equality with the apostles ? The effect of the inspi- 
ration is not so manifest in the case of the priests as 

5* 



54 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

it was in the case of the apostles, if I may be permit- 
ted to express an opinion. 

But the priests claim far more than ever entered 
the thoughts of the apostles. They are not satisfied 
with the ministerial and declarative power over sins 
They claim a magisterial and authoritative power 
to remit and retain them. Consequently they call 
sinners to come and confess their sins to them. Did 
Peter and the other apostles, the very men to whom 
Christ said, "whosesoever sins ye remit," &c. ever 
do such a thing ? You read in the Acts of the Apos- 
tles of synagogues and proseuches, or places of prayer, 
but do you find any thing about confession-boxes there? 
Does there seem to have been any thing auricular in 
the transactions of the day of Pentecost ? 

There is the case of Simon Magus that strikes me 
as in point. If Peter and John had had the power of 
forgiving sin, could they not have exercised it in favor 
of Simon ? But we find Peter addressing him just as 
any Protestant minister would have done : " Repent 
therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if per- 
haps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." 
How differently the Roman priest would have done ! 
He would have said, " Well, Simon, and what have 
you to say for yourself? Ah, that is very bad, very 
bad. But if you are sorry, Simon, I forgive you. Only 
I cannot let you off without doing some penance. 
You must say so many pateT7iosters, and you must 
not eat meat for so many days." This is the way in 
which the boasted successors of Peter manage these 
matters. But, they will say, Simon was not penitent, 
otherwise perhaps Peter would have pardoned him. 
But I wonder if pardon would have waited for Peter's 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 65 

action in the matter, if there had been penitence in 
the heart of the sorceror. I suspect not. I suspect 
the gracious Lord, when he sees contrition in any 
soul, does not withhold pardon till a priest or even an 
apostle shall intervene and act in the matter. And 
when the good angels have ascertained that a sinner 
has repented, I rather suppose they do not suspend 
their rejoicing until he has gone to confession, and 
has got absolution from the priest. 

What a glorious book the Bible is ! I wish the au- 
thorities of the Catholic church would condescend to 
strike it off the list oi prohibited books, and allow the 
Lord to speak to his creatures. I wish they would 
let their people, the many thousands that on the Sab- 
bath crowd their chapels and cathedrals, read, or hear 
what Jehovah says to " every one " in that wonderful 
chapter, the 55th of Isaiah. It is indeed a wonderful 
chapter. But the Catholics don't know any thing 
about it. No ; and they have never heard of that pre- 
cious and glorious verse, the 18th of the 1st chapter 
of Isaiah, in which thus saith the Lord to the sinner, 
"Come now, and let us" (you and I, sinner !) "rea- 
son together." And then follows the reasoning, 
" though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as 
white as snow ; though they be red like crimson, they 
shall be as wool." Ask the awakened sinner, or the 
recently pardoned, what he would take for that pas- 
sage. He esteems it above all price ; and to the Chris- 
tian it becomes every day more and more a theme of 
wonder and delight. But the Catholics don't know 
that the Lord has ever made any such kind and con- 
descending proposal to his creatures. They never 
hear of the call of God to come and reason with him. 



56 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

The only " come " they hear is the priest's call. I 
pity them. 

But it is no wonder that the priests treat the people 
as they do, for if they allowed them to know what the 
Lord says to them, they would be very apt to go di- 
rectly to God in Christ, and leave the priest out of the 
question. And then where would be the importance 
of the priest ? and his emolument, where 7 



16. A Catholic Book Revieived. 

I happened to lay my hand the other day on a little 
book entitled, " The Christian's Guide to Heaven, a 
Manual for Catholics," to which was appended some 
hymns. The book was published in Baltimore by a 
respectable Catholic bookseller, and under the sanction 
of the Archbishop. Well, said I to myself, this is good 
authority. I will look into this book. I know what 
Protestants say of Catholics. I will see now what 
Catholics say of themselves. Men cannot complain 
when we take their own account of themselves ; and 
I like the way of judging people out of their own 
mouths, because it shuts their mouths so far as reply 
is concerned. I resolved that I would compare the 
statements and doctrines of this book professing to be 
a guide to heaven, with the statements and doctrines 
of that bigger book which is the Protestant's guide to 
heaven. You will know that I mean the Bible. That 
is our manual — that the guide we consult and follow. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 57 

However, if a book agrees with the Bible, that is 
enough. 

So I began to read ; and one of the first things that 
I came to was, " Conditions of plenary indulgences." 
Indulgences ! thought I. What does a Christian want 
of indulgences ? He is apt enough to indulge him- 
self. And how are indulgences to help him to hea- 
ven? I should rather pronounce self-denial the road. 
Indulgences not partial^ but plenary ! I should think 
plenary indulgence on any condition was enough to 
ruin one. If by indulgence the Catholics mean par- 
don, they have chosen an unfortunate way to express 
it. Why not say full 'pardon, instead of plenary in- 
dulgence ? But I suppose pardon expresses what God 
exercises, and indulgence what the church grants. I 
should like to know, however, what right the church 
has to grant any thing of the kind. 

Well, the conditions enumerated were four. I took 
note only of the first, which was in these words : " To 
confess their sins with a sincere repentance to a priest 
approved by the bishop." This begins very well, and 
goes on well for a time. Confession of sin, with sin- 
cere repentance, is truly a condition of pardon. "If 
we confess our sins. He is faithful and just to forgive 
us our sins." But what a pity the condition did not 
stop there, or if any thing was added in regard to the 
object of the confession, that it did not designate God 
as the being to whom the sins should be confessed. 
The sins are all doiie against him, and why should 
they not be told to him ? I cannot get rid of the no- 
tion that we ought to confess our sins to God, the be- 
ing whom we have offended by them. But no, says 
this guide to heaven, the confession must be made to 



58 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

a priest ; it is good for nothing without it. If the pub- 
lican, of whom we read, had lived now, it would have 
been quite irregular, according to the Catholic notion, 
that he should have gone down to his house justified, 
when he confessed only to God. And the penitent 
must take care what sort of a priest it is to whom he 
confesses, else he might as well remain impenitent. 
It must be a priest approved by -the bishop. Well, 
now, this is a queer arrangement, that our pardon 
should be suspended on such a condition — that angels, 
in other words, must wait before they express any joy 
that a sinner has repented, until he has gone and told 
his sins to a priest approved by a bishop ! Who sus- 
pended it there, I wonder ? Not Isaiah. Read his 55th 
chapter. Nor Peter, nor Solomon, nor John, nor Paul. 
Read them and see. There is not a word in the Bible 
about confessing to a priest. So I found that the two 
guides did not agree in this matter. The Catholic 
Manual said the confession must be to a priest ; but 
the. holy Scriptures insist on no such thing, but direct 
that the confession be made to God. 

This thought occurred to me : What if a sinner con- 
fess his sins with a sincere repentance, though not to 
a priest, what is to be done with his soul ? Must par- 
don be denied him, and he be consigned to perdition, 
because, though he confessed penitently, yet he did it 
not to a priest ? Really this is making rather too much 
of the priest. It is making too important a character 
of him altogether. I do not believe that our salvation 
is so dependent on the deference we pay the priest. 

Before the conditions, on one of which I have been 
remarking, are mentioned, there is this general state- 
ment: "Plenary indulgences granted to ihe faithful 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY* 69 

thfoughout these states, at the following times s^^ and 
then follows a specification of nine different seasons 
when plenary indulgences may be had. I did not know 
before that pardons were confined to any set times ; I 
always supposed that they might be had summer and 
winter, night and day, and at any hour of either — in 
short, whenever a penitent heart breathes its desire to 
God» My mistake must have arisen from the fact that 
I have been in the habit of consulting the Bible on 
these matters. I never saAV " The Christian's Guide 
to Heaven " before in my life. I have always used the 
Bible as a guide, for want of a better. 

Now that I am on the subject of confession, I may 
as well make another reference to the manual. There 
is an article or chapter headed " The Confiteor." In 
it the person wishing to be guided to heaven makes 
this confession, from which it will appear that Catho- 
lics do not confine their confessions to the priest, but 
extend them to many other beings : '' I confess to Al- 
mighty God, to blessed Mary, ever virgin, to blessed 
Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to 
the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints, 
that I have sinned." Nov/, I do not see the use of 
naming so many. The confession, I think, should have 
stopped with the first mentioned — Almighty God. 
What have the rest to do with it ? How is it any of 
their business ? The person has not sinned against 
them. Surely every sinner may say to God, " Against 
thee, thee only have I sinned," since David could. 
Besides, this coupling of these creatures with the 
Creator, as worthy equally with himself to receive our 
confessions of sin, savors strongly of idolatry. Con- 
fession is made to them on the same principle that 



60 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

prayer is. Each is an act of worship — one of those 
things which should be confined exclusively to God. 
I wonder the Catholics will not be satisfied with one 
great and glorious object of worship, God, the Father, 
Son, and Spirit. Why will they in their devotions as- 
sociate creatures with the Creator? The book I am 
reviewing contains numerous and very offensive ex- 
amples of it. I shall continue the review in my next 



1^. The Review of tHe Catholic Book eontlntied* 

The next thing that struck me as worthy of notice 
in the perusal of the book was this— that the devout 
Catholic is represented as making the following so- 
lemn declaration concerning the Holy Scriptures : 
" Neither will I ever take and interpret them other- 
wise than according to the unanimous consent of the 
fathers. '' I smiled when I read this, and I thought 
within myself, if that is his determination, he will not 
be likely ever to take them at all. What an intention 
this, which the Catholic expresses — never to attach 
any meaning to a passage which he may read in the 
Bible, until he has first ascertained whether certain 
ancient persons called the fathers all agreed in any 
interpretation of it, and if so, what that interpretation 
is ! What should give such authority and weight to 
the interpretation of the fathers ? Why cannot we as- 
certain what the Bible means as well as they could ? 
What helps had they which we have not ? and why 



THOUGHTS 0J4 POPERY. 61 

require that they be unanimous? What a roundabout 
method this of finding out what a book means ! First, 
the reader has got to ascertain who are entitled to be 
called fathers. He must make out a list of them all. 
If one is overlooked, it vitiates the interpretation, though 
all the rest should agree in it. But supposing him to 
have got a catalogue of the whole number from Bar- 
nabas to Bernard, the next step in the process is to 
ascertain how they all interpreted the Bible. For this 
purpose he must pore over their works. But some of 
them left ni works behind them. How shall he ever 
find out what they thought of this and that passage of 
Scripture ? And yet he must somehow or other ascer- 
tain their opinions, else how can he compare them 
with the opinions of the other fathers, and discover 
their agreement with them ? For you will remember 
the consent must be unanimous. Others of the fathers 
left works behind them, but they have not come down 
to us. How shall the reader of the Bible know what 
those lost works contained ? Yet he must know what 
they thought, else how can he be sure that they thought 
in accordance with the views of those fathers whose 
works are preserved to us. I cannot see how this dif- 
ficulty is to be got over, for my part. It is altogether 
beyond me. But supposing it to be surmounted, there 
remains the task of comparing the opinions of all these 
Greek and Latin fathers, to the number of a hundred 
or two, one with another, to see if they all agree ; for 
the consent, you know, must be unanimous. Those 
parts of Scripture in the interpretation of which they 
did not agree, are to go for nothing. Indeed, if ninety- 
nine should be found to accord in a particular inter- 
pretation, it must be rejected if the hundredth father 

6 



61 THOUGHTS ON POPERV. 

had a different opinion of its meaning. I cannot helj^ 
thinking that it is the better, as certainly it is the 
shorter and easier method, just for every one to take 
up and " search the Scriptures," and " if any lack 
wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men 
liberally." 

As the case is, I do not wonder that the Catholics 
do not read the Bible. They have not come to that 
yet. They are still among the fathers, searching out 
and comparing their opinions, so as to know how to 
take the Bible. By and by, if they live IrTig enough, 
when they have ascertained what the fatners agreed 
on, they may go to reading the Scriptures. 

It seems odd that one cannot, without mottal sin, 
attach a meaning to such a passage as John, 3 : 16, 
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life," until he has 
first ascertained what Cypirian, Jerome, Hilary, both 
the Gregorys, and indeed all the fathers thought of 
it, and whether they agreed in their interpretation of 
it. How any one can' read it without understanding 
it in spite of himself, I cannot see. Ah, but they say 
the Scriptures are so obscure. And are the fathers so 
very clear 7 Why cannot we understand the Greek 
of John and Paul, as well as that of Chrysostom ? 

The thing which next attracted my observation in 
the book was the following : " In the Mass there is of- 
fered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice 
for the living and the dead." The Mass ! and what 
is that ? The BihJe could not tell me. So I had to 
resort to the dictionary. It is the name which the 
Catholics give to the sacrament of the Lord's supper \ 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 63 

oiv rather to the half o^ it ; for you know they divide it, 
and giving the bread to the people, do with the wine 
I cannot tell what. They say that it is "perfect in one 
kind, and anathematize all who say it is not. Their 
curse is on me now while I am writing. Neverthe- 
less I must ask, if it was perfect in one kind, why did 
Christ institute it in both kinds ? Why did he not 
stop with the bread, reserving the cup ? Was it to 
make the sacrament more than perfect ? But this is 
reasoning. I forget myself. The Catholics don't 
hold to reasoning. 

An idea occurs to me here which I beg leave to ex 
press. If the sacrament is perfect in either kind, why 
do not the priests sometimes give the people the cup ? 
Why do they always give them the bread ? And why 
originally did they withhold the cup rather than the 
bread? Some persons may imagine a reason, but I 
will content myself with asking the question. 

But to proceed. They say that "in the MassZ^ere 
is offered to God,''"' &c. Why, what do they mean ? 
There is nothing offered to God. What is offered is 
to men. Christ says, offering to his disciples the 
bread, "take, eat," and reaching out the cup, he says, 
"drink je all of it." There is something offered to 
men in this sacrament, even the precious memorials 
of the Savior's propitiatory death ; but every one who 
reads the account, sees that there is nothing offered to 
God. Yet the Catholics, leaning on tradition, say 
there is in it " a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice " 
offered to God. A sacrifice included in the sacra- 
ment! How is that? And a propitiatory sacrifice 
too ! I ahvays supposed that propitiatory sacrifices 
ceased with the offering up of the Great Sacrifice — 



64 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

when the Lamb of God bled and died. Do we not 
read, that " by one offering he hath perfected for ever 
them that are sanctified," " now once in the end ot 
the world hath he ap)eared to put away sin by the 
sacrifice of himself ?" *' Christ was once offered to bear 
the sins of many" — and it is said of his blood that it 
" cleanseth from all sin." I don't know what we want 
after this, of those unbloody sacrifices which the Ca- 
tholics talk of as offered continually in the service of 
the Mass. What is the use of them, if they are un- 
bloody^ as they say, since " without shedding of blood 
is no remission ?" 

According to the Catholics, it was premature in 
Christ to say on the cross, " it is finished." They 
deny that it is finished. They say it is going on still — 
that Christ is offered whenever Mass is said. Once 
Christ was offered, the Bible says ; but the Roman 
church affirms that he is offered many times daily ; 
whenever and wherever mass is said ! 

I do really wonder that this religion has lasted so 
long in the world. How the human mind can enter- 
tain it for a day, I do not know. See how at every 
step it conflicts with reason. See in how many points 
it does violence to common sense. See, in this case, 
how boldly it contradicts the dying declaration of the 
Savior. It is a religion unknown to the Bible — and 
yet still in existence, aye, and they say, making pro- 
gress^ and that even in this home of freedom ! If it be 
so, which I question, I blush that I am an American, 
and am almost ashamed that I am a man. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 65 



18. Tl&e Pope an Idolater. 

It may seem a very uncharitable title I give this ar- 
ticle. What, some will say, charge tha Pope with be- 
ing an idolater! What do you mean? I mean just 
Avhat I say, that this boasted head of the church, and 
self-styled vicar of Christ, residing at Rome, ascribes 
divine attributes, and pays divine honors to a creature, 
even to a human being, a partaker in our mortality 
and sin ! and if that is not idolatry, I don't know what 
idolatry is. If that is not idolatry, the worship of the 
golden calf was not — the worship of the host of hea- 
ven was not — the worship of the gods of Hindooism 
is not. What truer definition of idolatry can be given 
than that it is an ascribing of divine attributes, and a 
paying of divine honors to a creature ? It does not mat- 
ter what the creature is, whether it be the angel nearest 
the throne of God, or an onion that grows in the gar- 
den, such as they of Egypt once worshiped. It is its 
being a created thing — it is its being not God. that 
makes the service done it idolatry. 

But can I make good this charge against the suc- 
cessor of St. Peter, as they call him? If I cannot, I 
sin not merely against charity, but against truth. But 
I can establish it. Nor will I derive the proof from 
the Pope's enemies ; nor will I look for it in the his- 
tories of the Papacy. The Pope himself shall supply 
me with the proof. Out of his own mouth will I judge 
him. If his own words do not convict him of idolatry, 
believe it not. But if they do, away with the objec- 
tion that it is an offence against charity to speak of 
such a thing as the Pope's being an idolater. My cha- 

6* 



66 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

rity " rejoiceth in the truth." The charge can be un- 
charitable only by being untrue. It is too late in the 
day, I trust, for idolatry to find an apologist. But to 
the proof. Perhaps you suppose it is some obscure 
Pope of the night of times — the dark ages, that I am 
going to prove an idolater. No, it is a Pope of the 
nineteenth century — the present reigning Pope, Gre- 
gory XVI. He is^ the idolater; and here are his own 
words in proof of it. They are a part of the circular, 
or e_':cyclical letter, sent forth by him on entering on 
his office, and addressed to all Patriarchs, Primaies, 
Archbishops, and Bishops. The letter may be found 
in the Laity's Directory, 1833, and has been extensive- 
ly published without any of its statements being con- 
tradicted. In it the Pope calls upon all the clergy to 
implore " that she, (the Virgin Mary,) who has been, 
through every great calamity, our Patroness and Pro- 
tectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead 
our mind by her heavenly influence, to those counsels 
which may prove most salutary to Christ's flock !" Is 
comment necessary ? Observe, he recognizes not God 
as having been their defence, but her as having been 
their protectress in past calamities, and directs the 
clergy to pray to her to continue her watch over them ! 
As contrast is one of the principles on which ideas are 
associated, I was reminded in reading this, of the 121st 
Psalm, in which the writer speaks of the one " that 
keepeth Israel." It is noishe, according to the Psalmist, 
but He, the Lord which made heaven and earth, that 
keepeth Israel. But, according to the Pope, it is the 
Virgin Mary that keeps Israel ; and he speaks of her 
as exerting a heavenly influence on the mind. I al- 
ways thought it was the exclusive prerogative of Je- 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 67 

novah to have access to the mind, and to exert an im- 
mediate influence on it ; and I cannot but think now 
that the Pope must err in this matter, though he 
speaks ex cathedra. I cannot believe he vtras exactly 
infallible when he wrote that letter. 

But you have not heard the worst of it yet. In the 
same letter he says : " But that all may have a suc- 
cessful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the 
most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys here- 
sies, who is our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground 
OF OUR HOPE !" The underscoring is mine, but the 
words are the Pope'i=. Now, just look at this. Did you 
ever hear any thing like it ? Observe what Mary is said 
to be and to do ; and what the clergy are exhorted to 
do. The Pope's religion cannot be the oldest, as they 
pretend. It is not the religion of the Psalms. In the 
121st Psalm the writer says : " / will Itft up mine 
eyes unto the hills, from ^jwhence cometh my help. 
My help cometh from the Lord." And in the 123d, 
" Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest 
in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look 
unto the hand of their, masters, and as the eyes of a 
maiden unto the hand of her mistress ; so our eyes 
wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mer- 
cy upon us." But the Pope says : " Let us raise our 
eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary." There is the 
difference between the Pope and the Psalmist. Pro- 
testants in this case side with the Psalmist ; and in 
this particular our religion is not only older than Lu- 
ther, but older even than the Pope. 

I would inquire of the reader whether these prayers 
which the Pope would have the whole church address 
to the Virgin Mary, are not precisely such as are pro- 



68 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

per to be addressed to God, and which others do ad- 
dress to him ? Do they not ask of her just what oughi 
to be asked of Him, and what he alone can give? Af- 
ter asking such things as the Catholics are directed 
to ask of the Virgin Mary, what remains to be asked 
of God in prayer? And is not this putting a creature 
in the place of God? Indeed, is it not putting God 
quite out of the question? The eyes are raised in 
prayer to the Virgin, and they are lifted no higher. 
There they fix. Is not this idolatry ? And you see he 
/is not satisfied himself with being an idolater, but he 
wants the entire clergy, and of course the whole Ca- 
tholic church, to join him in his idolatry ! 

I wish the Pope had explained how the blessed Vir- 
gin destroys heresies. He says she does it, and she 
alone. I should think it rather belonged to " the Spirit 
of Truth '• to destroy heresies, and to " guide into all 
truth." But no, says the Pope, the Spirit of Truth has 
nothing to do with it. It is all done by the blessed 
Virgin ! She " alone destroys heresies." 

The Catholics complain that we call their Pope 
Antichrist. But I would appeal to any one to say if 
he is not Antichrist, who, overlooking Christ altoge- 
ther, says of another, that she is " our greatest hope, 
yea, the entire ground of our hope ?" Is not that against 
Christ ? The Bible speaks of him as " our hope," 1 
Tim. 1:1; yea, of him as our only hope ; for " other 
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11. " Neither is there salva- 
tion in any other " Acts, 4 : 12. It would seem from 
this, that Christ is the grou7id of hope. But not so, 
says the Pope ; the blessed Virgin is " the entire ground 
of our hope." By the way, I should not be surprised if 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 69 

that hope should disappoint its possessor. Now, is not 
the Pope Antichrist? Well, if he is an idolater and 
Antichrist, ought he to be adhered to ? What sort of 
a body must that be, which has such a head ? I think 
I should not like to be a member of it. And I must 
confess that I am against such a person having any 
more power in our free, enlightened, and happy Ame- 
rica, than he has already. Pray let us not, after hav- 
ing broken the chains of political thraldom, come in 
bondage to idolatry. Let us not, after having extri- 
cated our persons from the power of a king, subject 
our minds to the spiritual domination of a Pope. 



19. Charles X. an Idolater. 

Having proved his holiness the Pope an idolater, 
I proceed now to prove " his most Christian majesty" 
that was, the ex-king of France, an idolater ; which 
having done, I shall have gone a good way towards 
proving the whole Catholic church idolatrous, since, 
as you know, it is their boast that they all think alike, 
and that there are no such varieties of opinion among 
ihem as among us unfortunate Protestants ; though, 
by the way, it is not so strange that they all think 
alike, when one thinks for all. 

I proved Gregory an idolater out of his own mouth. 
I shall do the same in the case of Charles. On the 
occasion of the baptism (with oil, spittle, &c. an im- 
provement on the simple water-system of the Bible) 



70 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

of his young grand-son, the Duke of Bordeaux, 
this vas his language : " Let us invoice for him the 
protection of the mother of God, the queen of the an- 
gels ; let us implore her to watch over his days, and 
remove far from his cradle the misfortunes with which 
it has pleased Providence to afflict his relatives, and 
to conduct him by a less rugged path than I have had, 
to eternal felicity." He was anxious that the little boy 
should have a protector, one to watch over him, and 
to remove his misfortunes, and to conduct him by an 
easy path to eternal life. For this purpose, one not 
educated a Catholic would have supposed that he 
would apply to the omniscient and almighty God. I 
do not know who can do those things besides God, 
But no. 'His majesty" does no more apply to God, 
than did his holiness in a similar case. I suppose it 
would have been heresy if he had. They would have 
thought him going over to Protestantism. His holi- 
ness and his majesty both make application to the 
creature rather than to the Creator. Charles does not 
say, " Let us invoke for him the protection of God," 
but of a woman, a woman indeed highly favored of 
the Lord, and of blessed memory, but still a woman. 
He calls her, according to the custom of his church, 
" the mother of God." I suppose you know that phrase 
is not in the Bible. And there is a good reason for it, 
the idea is not as old as the Bible. The Bible is an 
old book, almost as old as our religion. Roman Ca- 
tholicism is comparatively young. I will not remark 
on the phrase, mother of God, seeing it is not in the 
Bible, and since it has often been remarked upon by 
others. But there is another thing the ex-king says of 
her, on which I will spend a word or two. He calls 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 71 

h6t " the queen of the angels." Now we read in the 
Bible, of Michael, the archangel, or prince of angels, 
but w6 do not read of the angels having a queen. We 
read also of a king in heaven, but not a word about a 
queen. I don't know where he got this idea of a queen 
of angels. He certainly did not get it out of the Holy 
Scriptures, and yet these Scriptures, I had always 
supposed, contain all that we know about the angels. 
I wish he Would tell us from his retirement where he 
got the idea, for he speaks very positive about the an- 
gels having a queen. It is true, we do read in one 
place in the Bible of a queen of heaven, but the wor- 
ship of her was so evidently idolatry, that I presume 
the Catholics will not quote it as authorizing the title 
they give and the honor they pay to the Virgin Mary. 
The account is found in Jeremiah, 44. If any one will 
read the chapter he will see what that prophet thought 
of those worshipers of the queen of heaven. Now, if 
the worship of a queen of heaven by the Jews was de- 
nounced as idolatry, and ruin came on them in con- 
sequence of it, is not a similar worship performed by 
Catholics as idolatrous, and as dangerous ? 

But no matter what he calls her, he asks her to do 
what only God can do. He treats her precisely as if 
she were divine. Is it not so — and is not this idolatry ? 
He ascribes divine perfections to her — omniscience, 
€lse how could she watch over the child; and omni- 
potence, else how could she ward off evil from him ; 
and he speaks of her as the guide of souls to eternal 
life. The Psalmist considered it was the prerogative 
of God to do this. He says, " Thou shalt guide me 
with thy counsel, and afterward receive me lo glory." 
But the ex-king looks to Mary to conduct the young 



72 THOUGHTS OPi POPERY^ 

duke to eternal life. What the Psalmist expects from 
God, the ex-king expects from Mary. Is not this put- 
ting a creature in the place of God, the Creator? 
Every one must see that it is shocking idolatry, and 
that the man who uses such language is as truly an 
idolater as any devotee of Juggernaut. 

I do really wonder that the Catholics continue to 
call their system Christianity. It is by a great misno- 
mer it is so called. It is not the proper name for it at 
all. It should be called by some such name as Mari- 
anism, rather than Christianity. In Christianity the 
principal figure is Christ ; but he is not the principal 
figure in the Catholic religion. Mary is. Therefore 
the religion should be called after her, Marianism, and 
not after Christ, Christianity. Catholics are not the 
disciples of Christ, but of Mary; she is their confi- 
dence and hope. Pope Gregory says she " is our great- 
est hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope." Now, 
I think that the religion of such people ought to be 
called after the one who is their greatest hope ; and I 
have suggested a name to the Catholics, which I ad- 
vise them to adopt. Let their religion be called Mari- 
anism, and let them leave to us the name Christianity, 
since Christ " is our hope." 

Having proved his Holiness, and his most Christian 
Majesty, the two principal characters in the church of 
Rome, idolaters, I think I may as well stop here. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 73 



20* Idolatry near Home. 

It is wonderful Avhat a propensity there is in fallen 
men to idolatry. How they do love to worship the 
creature rather than the Creator ! In a certain church, 
which need not be named, the blessed virgin, though 
a mere woman, receives ten, perhaps a hundred times 
as much religious honor as does the blessed Savior, 
though he be " the mighty God," deserving of all ho- 
mage, while she merits barely respectful remembrance. 
One that has much intercourse with Catholics would 
suppose the mother to be the Savior of the world, ra- 
ther than the Son. They make her to be the principal 
advocate of sinners in heaven. " If any man sin, we 
have an advocate with the Father." Who? St. John 
says, ^^ Jesus Christ the righteous" — the Catholics 
say it is Mary ! So they differ — we Protestants side 
with John. 

I have lately met with an idolatrous temple, that is, 
a church or chapel avowedly erected in honor of a 
creature, and dedicated to a creature. Is not that a 
temple of idolatry 1 Can there be a more accurate de- 
finition of such a place ? Well, I have seen one — and 
I have not been a voyage to India neither. Some 
think there is no idolatry nearer than India ; and when 
they hear of an idol-temple they immediately think of 
Juggernaut. But it is a mistake. I have not been out 
of the United States of America, and yet I have seen 
a temple of idolatry. I will state the case, and let 
every one judge for himself If I am under an erro- 
neous impression I shall be glad to be corrected. The 

7 



74 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

case is this : On the Catholic chapel in Annapolis, 
Maryland, is this inscription, " In honorem Dei Pa- 
RJE ViRGiNis." It is Latin. The English of it is, " In 
honor of the Virgin, the mother of God." If I have 
not rightly translated it, some of those who worship 
in Latin can correct me. 

NoAv, what does this mean ? It seems to signify 
that the chapel was erected, and is continued in ho- 
nor of, that is, for the worship of the Virgin Mary. 
The being in whose honor a chapel is erected is wor- 
shiped in it. If not, how is it in honor of him? The 
inscription signifies dedication to the Virgin Mary. 
Now, the being to whom a place of religious worship 
is dedicated is always the object of the worship there 
rendered. This is universally understood. Hence Ave 
dedicate our churches to the Triune God, for him Ave 
worship in them. They are erected m honor of him. 
No one mistakes the meaning of these inscriptions. 
When we read on the Unitarian church in Baltimore 
this inscription in Greek, " To the only God," we un- 
derstand that the church is consecrated to the service 
of the only God, and it is precisely the same as if the 
inscription had been in the style of that at Annapolis, 
in honor of the only God. So when Paul found at 
Athens an altar with this inscription, " To the unknown 
God," he inferred immediately that worship was in- 
tended, for he says, " whom therefore ye ignorantly 
worship :" suppose the inscription had been " in ho- 
nor of the unknown God," would not the apostle's in- 
ference have been the same ? Nothing is more clear 
than that the inscription on which I am remarking, 
implies that the chapel in question is dedicated to the 
worship of the Virgin Mary ; and she being a creature, 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 75 

this constitutes it a temple of idolatry, and those who 
worship in it idolaters ! 

Let no man say that the inscription implies no more 
than that the chapel is named after Mary. Some Pro- 
testants name their churches after saints, but the 
name is not given in any case in honor of the saint. 
St. Paul's in London was not built in honor of St. 
Paul. It is simply so denominated. But here we have 
a chapel in honor of the Virgin, and she is called Mo- 
ther of God, apparently to justify the worship which 
the authors of the chapel intend her. If this were th^s 
only proof that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary, 
we might overlook it ; but it is only one of many. No 
one thing is more susceptible of demonstration, less 
capable of denial, than that Roman Catholics render 
unto this creature that which is due to God alone, re- 
ligious worship. See for proof, their own Rhemish 
Testament with the notes. Therefore they are idola- 
ters. I am sorry to say it, because I am sorry there is 
any occasion for saying it. But the time has come to 
speak out. This religion is threatening America, and 
it should be known, it should be proclaimed in the ear 
of every Christian, and every patriot, that it is some- 
thing worse than mere error. And something more 
to be dreaded far than tyranny, which also it is, and 
ever has been, and must be — it is idolatry. It puts 
another, and a creature, in the place of God ; or if it 
discards not him, it does what is as offensive to him, 
it associates other and inferior objects of worship with 
him — and this his jealousy will not suffer. Whatever 
this great people are to become, I do hope we shall 
never be a nation of idolaters — creature-worshipers. 
We had better be, what God forbid we ever should be, 



76 ' THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

a nation of slaves. I do verily believe that the Roman 
Catholic religion has only to be universally adopted 
to make us both. 



31. Praying to Saints. 

This is one of the numerous points in which Ca- 
tholics and Protestants differ from each other. They, 
the Catholics, pray to departed saints. This they ac- 
knowledge they do, nor are they at all ashamed of the 
practice, but endeavor to justify it. If any one doubts 
that they hold to the invocation of saints^ as they ex- 
press it, let him consult the notes to their own Rhe- 
mish Testament, or look into their book of prayers, 
where he will read the very language in which they 
make their supplication to the saints. 

We Protestants do oiot pray to saints, and we think 
we have pretty good reasons for not doing it. We will 
mention some of them, in the hope that they will ap- 
pear to be equally good reasons why Catholics should 
not pray to saints. 

1. We do not feel the need of saints to pray to. We 
have a great and good God to go unto, whose ear is 
ever open to our cry, and we think that is enough; 
we do not want any other object of prayer. Whenever 
we feel the need of any thing, we judge it best to 
apply directly to our heavenly Father, especially 
since James, one of the saints, testifies, that " every 
good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, and 
cometh down from the Father of lights." Others may, 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 77 

m their necessity, if they please, apply to the saints, 
but we choose to ask of the Great Giver of all good. 
In doing so, we think we are much more likely to re- 
ceive than if we invoke the saints. 

It is true, being sinners, we need an advocate with 
the Father, but we do not need more than one, and 
him we have, as John, another saint, testifies, in Jesus 
Christ : " If any man sin, we have an advocate with 
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." John speaks 
of only one advocate, and Paul asserts that as there 
is but one God, so there is but one mediator between 
God and men. Yet the Catholics will have it, that 
there are advocates many and mediators many. The 
notes of the Rhemish translators on 1 Tim. 2 : 5, and 
1 John. 2 : 1, assert the doctrine of a plurality of me- 
diators and advocates. The object of those notes is to 
show, that if any man sin, he has many advocates with 
the Father, and that there are more mediators than 
one between God and men ; the very reverse of what 
those texts assert ! I am aware that the Catholics say 
that saints are mediators only in a subordinate sense; 
but I say they are mediators in no sense. Does the 
Bible speak of them as mediators in any sense ? Those 
words, " mediator " and " advocate," are in the Bible 
sacredly appropriated to Christ. There is but one, and 
it is he. We come to the Father by him. To him we 
come immediately. Here we need no daysman. 

2. We Protestants have always regarded prayer 
as a part of worship, as much as praise and confession 
of sin. Now, our Savior says, " Thou shalt worship 
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." We 
dare not, therefore, pray to any other than God. We 
would not like to be guilty of the idolatry of worship- 
ing a creature. 7* 



78 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

3. If we were disposed to pray to the saints, yet we 
should not exactly know how to do it. Were we to 
pray to them generally, without singling any out by 
name, it would be a kind of praying at random ; and 
we strongly suspect that our requests would not be at- 
tended to, for it may be among saints in heaven, as it 
is among their less perfect brethren on earth, that what 
is made every body's business comes to be regarded 
as nobody's. If, on the other hand, we apply to spe- 
cific saints, and invoke them by name, this supposes 
that we know just who the saints are. It implies either 
that we could see into their hearts while they lived, 
or that we can see into heaven now — both which far 
outreach our power. We might make some sad mis- 
take in praying to deceased men who have passed for 
saints. It is easy enough to ascertain who the church 
regards as saints, but the canonized may not exactly 
correspond to the sanctified. But, supposing this diffi- 
culty removed, and that we know certain individuals, 
who, having once lived on earth, are now in heaven : 
the next thing is, to make them hear us, for there is 
manifestly no use in preferring requests to those who 
cannot hear them. How is this to be done ? The saints 
are in heaven — the suppliant sinner is on earth, and 
the distance between them is great. Saints in heaven 
are not within call of sinners on earth. Where is the 
proof of it? If I say, "Peter, pray for me," how is 
he to know I say it? Peter is not omnipresent. Do 
they say that God communicates to him the fact ; but 
where is the proof of that ? Besides, what does it 
amount to? God, according to this theory, informs 
Peter that a certain sinner on earth wants him, Peter, 
to ask him, the Lord, to grant him something. This 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 79 

is a roundabout method of getting at the thing. The 
man had better, a great deal, not trouble Peter, but say 
at once, " God be merciful to me a sinner." 

But the Catholics ask with an air of triumph, if we 
do not request living saints to pray for us. We do, 
for we have inspired authority for that. But that is 
not praying to them. There is a wide difference be- 
tween praying to a saint in heaven, and asking a fel- 
low-traveler to Zion on earth to pray to God for us. 
Every one must see that. When a Christian asks his 
minister or his Christian friend to beseech God for 
him, he does not consider that he is praying to him or 
invoking him. Besides, we never ask one to pray for 
us, unless we know he is within hearing. We should 
think it very silly to do so. We must have proof of 
his presence before we think of making any request 
of him. Yet the Catholics are continually making 
requests of creatures, of whose presence with them 
they have not a particle of proof, and who, being crea- 
tures, it is certain cannot be present with all that call 
upon them. How many individuals are every day, at 
the same hour, calling on the blessed Virgin for as- 
sistance ! It is all folly, unless she be omnipresent — a 
goddess, Avhich the Bible certainly does not represent 
her as being. She occupies but one small spot in the 
universe of God, and it is probably a great way off. 
She cannot hear, even if she could help. Do you sup- 
pose, that her calm repose in heaven is suffered to be 
disturbed by the ten thousand confused voices that 
cry to her without ceasing from earth? Never. 

In looking over the Bible, the book which contains 
the religion of Protestants, and which, being older 
than the Roman Catholic religion, proves the seni- 



80 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

ority of Protestantism over Popery, I find no account 
of praying to saints. I do not read of Joshua praying 
to Moses ; or of Elisha invoking Elijah. No, there is 
not a word of what constitutes so much of the devo- 
tion of the Catholic in either Testament. We do not 
find any thing in the Acts or Epistles about praying 
to the beloved Virgin, whom they call our Lady, in 
allusion to the phrase our Lord. Those writers say 
nothing about the another. It is all about the So7i. 
What heretics Luke and the rest of them were ! How 
worthy of being excommunicated ! Catholic books are 
full of the blessed Virgin. The Bible is all about 
Christ. There is the difference. 

But I forgot. The New Testament does record one 
instance of prayer to a departed saint. The record is 
in Luke, 16. The saint prayed to was Abraham. The 
supplicant was a rich man in hell, and he made two 
requests. Here is the Catholic's authority for this 
doctrine of praying to deceased saints, so far as he 
gets it out of the Bible. Let him make the most of it. 
When, however, he takes into consideration that it 
was offered from hell, and by a man who lived and 
died in ignorance and neglect of religion, and that it 
proved totally unavailing, I suspect he will make no 
more out of it. 



33. Specimens of Catliolic Idolatry. 

I take them from the Catholic book Avhich I have 
been reviewing, " The Christian's Guide to Heaven." 



THODGHTS ON POPERY, 81 

I did not know, before I read this book, that idolatry 
was the road to heaven. It did not use to be under 
the Jewish dispensation. These specimens of Catho- 
lic idolatry I think the reader will pronounce, Avith me, 
quite up 'to the average of Pagan idolatry. 

Here is one. " We fly to thy patronage, O holy 
mother of God ; despise not our petitions in our neces- 
sities, but deliver us from all dangers." That is the 
manner in which devout Catholics in the United 
States are directed to pray. They fly to Mary, but 
" God is our refuge." There is the difference. They 
look to her to deliver them from all dangers. I don't 
know how she can deliver them from all dangers. I 
think they had better ascertain the powers of the Vir- 
gin Mary, before they place such unbounded reliance 
on her. I should be a very fearful creature, had I none 
to fly to from danger but her. " What time I am afraid, 
I will trust in Z^ee," (the Lord.) So says the Psalm- 
ist, and it is my purpose too. 

The next specimen is entitled, " The Salve Regi- 
na," and thus it runs : " Hail ! holy queen, mother of 
mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee 
we cry, poor banished sons of Eve; to thee we send 
up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of 
tears. Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thy eyes 
of mercy tov/ards us, and after this our exile is ended, 
show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O 
clement, O pious, O sweet Virgin Mary." Now, is it 
not a farce to call this Christianity ? It is a great deal 
more like atheism. Here is an authorized Catholic 
prayer, in which there is no recognition of God 
whatever ! 

Then follows a call to devout contemplation, and 



82 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

one would suppose that the object of it would be 
God, or the Savior. But no, it is the Virgin. "Let 
us, with exultation, contemplate the blessed Virgin 
Mary sitting in glory at the right hand of her be- 
loved Son. She is crowned by the heavenly Father 
queen of heaven and earth, and appointed by Jesus 
Christ the dispenser of his graces." It is singular 
that the Catholics, when they look up to heaven, see 
no object so conspicuous as the blessed Virgin. Now, 
she was not the most prominent figure in those visions 
of heaven of which we have account in the Bible. Ste- 
phen saw "the heavens opened, and the Son of man 
standing on the right hand of God," but he saw no- 
thing of the Virgin Mary sitting at her Son's right 
hand. Nor does John, in the history he gives in the 
book of Revelation of his visions of heaven, make any 
mention of seeing her. But it seems she is not only 
visible to the contemplative Catholic, but almost alone 
conspicuous. 

They speak of her moreover as crowned universal 
queen, and appointed dispenser of the graces of Christ. 
But where did they get that information ? It is too 
much to expect us to take their word for it, since it is 
acknowledged that Ave have not the word of God for it. 
I always supposed Christ to be, through his Spirit, the 
dispenser of his own graces. I always understood it 
to be him who " received gifts for men." But it seems, 
according to the Catholics, that quite a different per- 
son received and dispenses them. How much novelty 
there is in the Catholic religion ! It is almost all of it 
comparatively new doctrine. Ours, the Protestant, is 
the old religion, after all that is said to the contrary. 

But the Catholic is so positive in regard to the coro- 



THOUGHTS ON FOPERY. 83 

nation of the blessed Virgin, that we find him using 
the following thanksgiving, " O Jesus, in union with 
angels and saints, I bless thee for the glory w4th 
which thou hast environed thy holy mother, and I 
give thee thanks from the bottom of my heart, for 
having given her to me, for my queen, my protec- 
tress and my mother." Here ends the thanksgiving 
to Jesus. They soon become weary of addressing 
him, and fondly return to the mother. " O queen ot 
angels and men, grant thy powerful intercession to 
those who are united to honor thee in the confrater- 
nity of the holy rosary," (I don't know what that 
means ; it is a mystery that I must leave unexplain- 
ed,) "and to all thy other servants." Then follows 
something to which I solicit particular attention. I 
suspect the author and approvers of the book would 
be glad to obliterate the sentence I am going to quote, 
if they could. But it is too late. The words are 
these : " I consecrate myself entirely to thy service." 
Here the person wishing to be guided to heaven is 
directed, under the authority of the archbishop, to con- 
secrate himself entirely to the service of the Virgin 
Mary, who is acknowledged on all hands to be a 
creature. Mark, it is entirely. This excludes God 
altogether from any share in the person's services. 
He is to be entirely consecrated to the service of the 
Virgin. Will any one, who has any regard for his 
character as an intelligent being, say that this is not 
idolatry ? There cannot be a plainer case of idolatry 
made out in any part of the world, or from any portion 
of history. St. Paul beseeches us to present our bo- 
dies a living sacrifice to God, which, he says, is our 
reasonable service ; but this Catholic guide to heaven 



84 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

directs us to consecrate ourselves entirely to the ser- 
vice of the Virgin Mary. 

Accordingly, the docile Catholic does consecrate 
himself to Mary, as in the following act of devotion 
to her, which you may read in the same little book : 
" O blessed Virgm, I come to offer thee my most 
humble homage, and to implore the aid of thy pray- 
ers and protection. Thou art all-powerful with the 
Almighty. Thou knowest that from my tender years 
I looked up to thee as my mother, my advocate, and 
patroness. Thou wert pleased to consider me from 
that time as one of thy children. I will henceforth 
serve, honor and love thee. Accept my protestation 
of fidelity; look favorably on the confidence I have in 
thee ; obtain for me, of thy dear Son, a lively faith ; a 
firm hope ; a tender, generous, and constant love, that 
1 may experience the power of thy protection at my 
death." Here you perceive the Catholic says he will 
do what " the guide " directs him to do. He will 
serve her; and so doing, he hopes to experience the 
power of her protection at his death. Poor soul ! I 
pity him, if he has no better company in death than 
that. That was not the reason David said, " Though 
I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I 
will fear no evil." His reason was, "for Thou (the 
Lord, his shepherd ) art with me ; thy rod and thy 
staff, they comfort me." How can Mary be with 
every dying Catholic who trusts in her? I should like 
to know. Do they go so far as to say she is omnipre- 
sent ? Have they formally deified her, as in fact they 
have ? 

The devotee in this prayer uses the following lan- 
guage to the virgin : " Thou art all-powerful with the 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 85 

Almighty." Shall I call this an error ox idi falsehood? 
It is certain that there is no truth in it. She, a poor 
sinful creature, like the rest of us, saved by grace, all- 
powerful with the Almighty in intercession ! Christ 
is that ; but no other being is ; and to say that any 
other is, is not only falsehood, but blasphemy. 

1 have other specimens of Catholic idolatry, which 
I mean to give ; but those I have exhibited are suffi- 
cient to convict that church of idolatry before any 
court that ever sat, or any jury that was ever impan- 
neled. / have proved the Catholic church and reli- 
gion to he idolatrous. I have not merely asserted it; 
it has been demonstrated^ and the proof has been 
taken from her own authorized publication. To have 
said she was idolatrous, would have been uncharita- 
ble. To have proved it, is not. A man is responsi- 
ble for the drift of his assertions, but not for the scope 
of his arguments. 

Idolatrous ! Yes, she who pretends to be the only 
church, is convicted, out of her own mouth, of idola- 
try. She has this millstone about her neck. I won- 
der she has sioum with it so long. It must sink her 
presently. I think I see her going doion already, al- 
though I know many suppose she is rising in the 
world. 



33. More Specimens of Catliolic Idolatry. 

Why, reader, did you know that the Catholics not 
only pray to the Virgin Mary, but sing to her ? I was 

8 



86 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

not aware of it until I got hold of the book I have 
been reviewing. But it is a fact that they do. At the 
end of the book 1 find the two following hymns ad- 
dressed to her. They are both in common metre. Here 
is the first. You will see that, in point of idolatry, they 
are fully up to the prayers to her. 

" O holy mother of our God, 

" To ihee for help we fly ; 
" Despise not this our humble prayer, 

" But all our wants supply. 

" O glorious virgin, ever blest, 

" Defend us from our foes; 
" From threatening dangers set us free, 

"And terminate our woes." 

Here is the idolatry of looking to a creature for the 
supply of all wants ^ and of flying to a creature for 
help and for defence. There is a curse pronounced in 
Jeremiah, 17 : 5, on the man " that trusteth in man, 
and maketh flesh his arm." If the person who de- 
voutly uses this hymn does not make "flesh his arm," 
I should like to know who does. 

The other hymn runs thus : 

"Hail, Mary, queen and virgin pure, 

" With every grace replete ; 
"Hail, kind protectress of the poor, 

" rity our needy state. 

" O thou who fill'st the highest place, 

" Next heaven's imperial throne; 
" Obtain for us each saving grace, 

'• And make our wants thy own. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 87 

" How oft, when trouble filled my breast, 

" Or sin my conscience pained, 
" Through thee I sought for peace and rest, 

" Through thee I peace obtained. 

" Then hence, in all my pains and cares, 

"I'll seek for help in thee; 
*' E'er trusting, through thy powerful prayers, 

' To gain eternity." 

But it seems the blessed Virgin is not the only crea- 
ture they sing' to. I find in the same book a hymn to 
St. Joseph, of which the first verse is, 

** Holy Patron, thee saluting, 

" Here Ave meet with hearts sincere; 

" Blest St. Josej)h, all uniting, 

" Call on thee to hear our prayer." 
• 

Perhaps the reader is aware that the Catholics are 
not satisfied with praying merely to animated beings, 
they sometimes supplicate things which have no life. 
Indeed they seem disposed to worship almost every 
thing, except it be Him whom alone they should wor- 
ship. To give but one example, I find in " the Litany 
of the blessed Sacrament," as they call it, among ma- 
ny other similar supplications, this one, " O wheat of 
the elect, have mercy on us." What a prayer this, to 
be sanctioned by an archbishop, and sent forth from 
one of the most enlightened cities of America, and 
that in the nineteenth century too ! It is really too bad. 
We talk of the progress of things. But here is retro- 
ccssio7i with a witness. In the Jirst century the rule 
was, according to the practice of the publican, to pray, 
" God be merciful to me a sinner ;" but now in the 



88. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

nineteenth^ the sinner is directed to say, " O wheat 
of the elect, have mercy on us !" 

I think Ave have found, with reference to the Catho- 
lic religion, what Archimedes could not find when he 
wanted to move the world. He said he could move it, 
provided he could have a place to stand on, from which 
he could with his lever act upon the world. But as no 
such place could be found for him, the world was not 
moved. I think, however, that I have discovered a 
spot from which we can not only move, but utterly 
subvert the Roman Catholic religion. We pass over 
her absurdity and her intolerance, and plant ourselves 
on her idolatry. Here we will stand, and from this 
place we will carry on our operations against her. If 
the Roman Catholic church is idolatrous, can she 
stand ? Must she not fall ? What ! a church that is 
plainly idolatrous maintain its ground as the chinch 
of Christ ! It is impossible. It is but for the eyes of 
mankind to be opened to see her idolatry, and her 
reign is over. The common sense of the world cannot 
long brook prayers and hymns to creatures, and sup- 
plications for mercy to that of which bread is made. 
1 would not have it persecuted ; I would not have one 
of its adherents harmed in the slightest degree ; but 
there are some things which the enlightened intellect 
of man cannot tolerate ; and this is the chief of those 
things which are intolerable to reason. It must go off 
the stage, even though infidelity should come on and 
occupy it. The religion that is not of the Bible, and 
that scoffs at reason, must come to an end. I have no 
fears of its rising to any higher ascendancy than that 
it now occupies. My hope is in God; but if it were 
not, it would be in man. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 89 



34:. Image Worsliip. 



If there be any truth in phrenology, I judge that 
Catholics must have the organ of veneration very 
largely developed. There are no people, unless it be 
some Pagans, v^rho are so inclined to worship. They 
"worship almost every thing that comes in their way, 
with scarcely any discrimination. The value of wor- 
ship with them seems to depend on the variety of ob- 
jects worshiped. What a pity it is they cannot con- 
fine their worship within narrower bounds ! What a 
pity they are not satisfied with one object of religious 
veneration — the great and glorious God ! But no. Be- 
sides him, they must have a host of creatures, angels, 
saints, and what not, as objects of adoration. Nor are 
they satisfied with these beings themselves. They 
must have visible representations of them to bow 
down unto, and worship. They want something to 
worship which they can see. In the profession of 
faith which I find in the little book published in Bal- 
timore under the sanction of the archbishop, from 
which I have quoted so freely already, and to which 
I love to appeal, seeing it is published so near home, 
and there can be no dispute about its authority, I find 
this paragraph among others : " I most firmly assert, 
that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever 
Virgin, and also of the saints, ought to be had and re- 
tained, and that due honor and veneration is to be 
given them." This doctrine sounds a little different 
from that proraulged from Sinai, and written with the 
finger of God on the tables of stone. They look to be 
at variance, to say the least; and I think I shall be 

8* 



90 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

able to show presently that they have that aspect to 
Catholics as Avell as Protestants. The voice that 
shook the earth, after saying, " Thou shalt have no 
other gods before me," said, " Thou shalt not make 
unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any 
thing that is in heaven above," &c. Now Christ, the 
virgin, and the saints are in heaven above, unless any 
choose to surmise that some of those reckoned saints 
are elsewhere. Consequently no likeness of them 
may be made. The law proceeds : " Thou shalt not 
bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." But do 
not Catholics bow down or kneel before likenesses of 
the saints and others? I ask the question. I know 
they used to do so, and I suppose I may infer that 
they do so now, since it is their grand boast that their 
religion is every where and always the same. The 
doctrine delivered from Sinai is the old notion on the 
subject, and it would seem to be against every kind 
and degree of image worship. But, says the modern 
"guide to heaven," what the authoritative Council of 
Trent had said many years before, " the images of 
Christ, of the mother of God, and also of the saints, 
ought to be had and retained, and due honor and ve- 
neration given ihem." Here are Baltimore and 
Trent against Sinai; or, in other words, the arch- 
bishop and council on one side, and he who came 
down on the mountain which burned with fire on the 
other. My hearers must range themselves on either 
side, as they see fit. 

But cannot the two things be reconciled somehow ? 
Can they not be so explai7ied as to remove all ap- 
pearance of inconsistency ? Perhaps they can, if one 
of them be explained aivay, that is, be made so clear 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 91 

that you can't see it any longer. This is a new way 
some have of reconciling things ; but I, as an indivi- 
dual, do not think much of it. I like the old way of 
laying things alongside of each other, and then shed- 
ding as much light as possible on both. If this is 
done with the two things in question, I fear there is 
no hope of reconciling them. To this conclusion our 
Catholic brethren themselves seem to have come ; and 
seeing that the two things could not be so explained 
as to appear in harmony, they have most effectually 
explained one of them away. They have suppressed 
it. The second commandment has been thrown out 
of the Decalogue, as I have shown on a former occa- 
sion. This is a part of the Catholics' " short and easy 
method with Protestants." It beats Leslie's with the 
Deists all to nothing. Whether it be as honest and 
correct a method, as it is short and easy, I refer to the 
judgment of my readers. One thing is very certain ; 
the Catholics must think that the old second com- 
mandment is, or at least looks very much against 
them, otherwise they would not have meddled with 
it. Can any other reason be given for the suppres- 
sion of the second commandment, but that it seems to 
forbid that use which Catholics make of images in 
their churches? If any body can imagine another 
reason, I will thank him to state it. Now, where 
there can be but one motive impelling to an act, I 
suppose it is not uncharitable to refer the act to that 
motive. 

I believe the reader is aware that, even in the little 
modern Baltimore book, " the guide to heaven," the 
second commandment is suppressed. I think I have 
stated thp.t fact in a former article. It is so. And 



92 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

why should it not be ? Why should not the invaria- 
ble religion be the same here that it is in Ireland or 
Italy ? Why should American Catholics be bound to 
keep one more commandment than European Catho- 
lics? Why should they of the old countries have 
greater liberty of action than we of the new world ? 
The circumstances under which the second com- 
mandment is omitted in "the guide to," &c. are 
these. An examination, preparatory to confession, is 
recommended to the devout Catholic, on the ten com- 
mandments, that he may see, before he goes to the 
priest to get forgiveness, wherein he has transgressed 
any of them. Now, he is not directed to examine him- 
self on the second, but Hcice over on the tenth, so as 
to make out the full number. Now I acknowledge it 
would have been awkward to have set the person to 
examining himself in reference to the second com- 
mandment. It might have led to a conviction of sins 
not recognized by his confessor. If he had asked 
himself, " is there any graven image, or likeness of 
any thing in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, 
to which I bow down V himself would have been apt 
to answer, " Why yes, there is that image of Christ I 
kneel before — and there is that likeness of the blessed 
Virgin I bow down to and adore — I am afraid I have 
broken the second commandment." If then he had 
gone to the priest with his scruples, you see it would 
have made work and trouble. It is true, the priest 
could have said to him, " O, my child, you don't 
mean any thing by it. You only use the image as a 
help to devotion. Your worship does not terminate 
on it. Your worship of it is only relative. Besides, 
you don't adore the image — you only venerate it — 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 93 

and you only give '■^ due honor and veneration" to 
images — nothing more than that. You should con- 
sider, my child, the distinction between adoration and 
veneration — and also between latria and dulia.^^ But 
this might not have satisfied the person's conscience. 
Tt might have been all Greek to him. Wherefore it 
was judged most prudent not to recommend any ex- 
amination on the commandment about images. Per- 
haps it was the more prudent course. The policy of 
the measure I do not dispute. 

But, say the Catholics, have not Protestants their 
pictures and statues ? Certainly we have. We do 
not make war against the fine arts. We can approve 
of painting and statuary without practicing idolatry. 
Yes, we have representations of deceased Christians, 
but we do not kneel before them, nor do we on that 
account drop the second commandment, as some do. 
The Catholics make a great many explanations and 
distinctions on this subject of image worship, some 
of which I have adverted to above, in what I have 
supposed the priest to say. But they are substantially 
the same that the ancient Israelite might have made, 
and the modern Pagan makes in justification of him- 
self. Idolaters, when called upon to explain them- 
selves, have always been in the habit of saying that 
it was only a relative worship they paid to the visible 
object, and that the adoration was meant to pass 
through and terminate on an invisible object beyond. 
This explanation is not original with the modern 
Christian idolater. It is as old as Jewish and Paaran 
idolatry. The worshipers of the golden calf wor- 
shiped something beyond the calf. The calf was 
only a help to devotion, and they only paid " due 



94 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

honor and veneration " to it. Nevertheless they '^ sin- 
ned a great sin," and "the Lord plagued the people " 
on account of it.^ " There fell of the people that day 
about 3,000." I suppose it would have been just the 
same had they made ever so many explanations. But 
their explanations were not waited for. What signi- 
fies all these explanations and distinctions to the great 
mass of the Catholic laity ? They do not even under- 
stand them ; and it seems that if they both understood 
and regarded them, it would not help the matter. It 
is this very explained and qualified worship which the 
commandment forbids. 

I have nothing more to say about images, but I wish 
the Archbishop of Baltimore would allow the second 
commandment to appear in the next edition of " the 
Guide to Heaven." I wish he would let the publish- 
er's stereotype plates be altered so as to conform to the 
tables of stone. I am afraid the people will not get 
to heaven if they have not respect to all God's com- 
mandments. The Psalmist seems to have thought 
that necessary. Ps. 119: 6. It would gratify me much, 
if the archbishop would permit the Lord to say to his 
people all he has to say. 



25. Relicg. 



My last was on the subject of images. Here are 
some more things to which the Catholics, if they do 
not exactly worship them, pay a respect and venera- 
tion which is very apt to run into worship. They are 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 9d 

relics, so called. I have just come from the diction- 
ary where I went to find the word. I consulted Cru- 
den's Concordance first, but I found no such word 
there. That contains only the words which are used 
in the Bible. Relics came in fashion after the Bible 
was written. In those old times they were not fn the 
habit of mutilating the bodies and disturbing the 
bones of the pious dead. They respected the remains 
of the departed by letting them alone, as king Josiah 
ordered the people to do in the case of the bones of 
the two prophets. They were going to disturb them, 
but he told them to let them alone, 2 Kings, 23 : 18. 
This is the way in which Protestants respect the re- 
mains of the dead. It is rather queer that Catholics, 
in the lack of other scripture to support their doctrine 
of relics, appeal to this, and they will have it that 
Josiah, like themselves, entertained a great respect for 
relics. The reference to that passage must be on 
the principle of Incus, a noii hicendo, [light from no 
light.] I cannot account for it in any other way. 

By the way, I did not even find relics in the con- 
cordance to the Apocrypha. But Johnson has it. A 
dictionary, you know, takes in all words. I find the 
general signification of the word to be remains. In 
the Catholic church it is used to designate " the re- 
mains of the bodies, or clothes, of saints or martyrs, 
and the instruments by which they were put to death, 
devoutly preserved, in honor to their memory ; — 
kissed, revered, and carried in procession." This is 
the best definition of relics I can any Avhere find. I 
am indebted for it to the Encyclopedia. But it is not 
a perfect definition. There are some things preserved 
and revered as relics which don't exactly fall under 



96 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

it ; as, for example, the rope with which Judas hanged 
himself, and the tail of Balaam's ass, both of which 
are kept and shown as relics. 

But it may be asked if relics are not out of date. 
The inquirer should know that nothing ever gets out 
of date with the Catholics. Always and every where 
the same is their boast respecting their religion. Be- 
sides, in the Baltimore publication, " the Guide to 
Heaven," notice is taken of relics. It says that the 
saints are to be honored and invocated, and that their 
relics are to be respected. Well, and Avhere is the 
harm of respecting relics ? I might retaliate and ask 
where is the use — what is the good of it ? They must 
think that devotion is promoted by these relics. But 
I cannot see how the spirit of devotion is to be pro- 
moted by contemplating St. Joseph's axe and saw, or 
the comb of the Virgin Mary, or even the finger of 
St, Ann. If a person even knows that he is handling 
a piece of the identical wood of the cross, it does not 
occur to me how that is to enkindle the flame of piety 
in his heart. The ancient method of exciting the 
glow of devotion was quite different. It was by me- 
ditation on spiritual subjects. It was while the Psalm- 
ist was musing, that " the fire burned " within hira. 
But it seems the Catholics come to the same thing by 
the aid of their relics. Well, if devotion is kindled 
by relics, towards whom does it flame ? Towards the 
saints, to be sure, whose relics they are. These re- 
mains can only remind them of those to whom they 
once belonged. So that it is the religious veneration 
of saints, not the worship of Jehovah, that is promoted 
by relics. All that can be said for them is, that they 
serve the cause of idolatry. 



THODGHTS ON POPERY. 97 

But I have been writing as if tliese relics were 
genuine remains of the saints — the saw they show 
really St. Joseph's, and the finger St. Ann's. The 
reader must excuse me for indulging such a supposi- 
tion. The very idea of such things being preserved, 
and transmitted through eighteen centuries, is prepos- 
terous. Their own Avriters acknowledge that many of 
them are spurious — that bones are often consecrated, 
which, so far from belonging to saints, probably did 
not belong to Christians, if indeed to human beings. 
If this be so, how are we to know which are genuine? 
There can be no internal evidence to distinguish 
them. The bones of saints must look just like other 
bones. I know it is said there is an odor about the 
genuine relics which does not belong to the remains 
of the vulgar dead. How that is I cannot say. I 
understand that, in the failure of the ordinary, external 
evidence, the Pope takes it on him to pronounce them 
genuine. This is making short Avork of it. But some 
of the authorities of the church of Rome go so far as 
to say that it is not necessary the relics should be 
genuine. It is enough that the worshiper has an in- 
tention of honoring the saints whose bones he sup- 
poses them to be. If this is correct doctrine, churches 
and chapels may be readily furnished with relics, and 
the defect in this particular, which Catholics deplore 
in regard to many of their establishments, be supplied 
without going farther than the nearest graveyard. 

If any one should still think that the relics may be 
genuine, there is a consideration which, if I mistake 
not, will carry complete conviction to his mind. It is, 
that there are altogether too many of these relics, so 
that some of them must be spurious. Fi^^ devout pil- 

9 



93 TIIOUGIITS ON FOPERY. 

grims happening to meet on their return from Rome, 
found, on comparing their notes, that each had been 
honored with a foot of the very ass upon which Christ 
rode to Jerusalem. Here were five feet for one ani- 
mal. Moreover, it is said that there are as many- 
pieces of the timber of the true cross in different parts 
of Europe, as would supply a town with fuel for a 
winter ! 

But, say they, were not the bones of Joseph pre- 
served, and afterwards removed to Canaan. Undoubt- 
edly they were. But they were all kept together in 
a coffin, and they were removed, not to be worshiped, 
but to be buried. Joseph, being persuaded that God 
would visit his people, and bring them out of Egypt 
into Canaan, enjoined it on them to take his remains 
along Avith them, for he Avished them to repose in the 
land of promise. What this has to do with relics I 
have not the discernment to perceive. How it bears 
any resemblance to the Catholic practice of disturbing 
coffins and separating bone from bone, and cherishing 
them as things to be revered, I cannot see. Yet no 
less a character than Cardinal Bellarmine appeals 
to this fact in support of their doctrine of relics. So 
also they cite the case recorded in 2 Kings, 13: 21, of 
the dead man that was revived by coming in contact 
with the bones of Elisha. But how does this favor 
relics ? The bones of Elisha were quietly reposing in 
the place where they Avere laid at his death. Not one 
cf them had been touched. But if relies had been in 
vogue then, do you suppose the remains of such an 
eminent saint as Elisha would have been left undis- 
turbed ? 

I was surprised to find that Bellarmine refers to 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 99 

Deut. 34 : 6, in support of relics. It is that remarka- 
ble passage in which the Lord is said to have buried 
Moses in a valley in the land of Moab, and that no 
man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. I sup- 
pose the cardinal would have us infer from this, that 
if the place of Moses' body had been known, it would 
have been dug up and converted into relics. And 
therefore the Lord took care it should not be known. 
The devil, it seems, from Jude, 5: 9, contended for it 
for some such purpose as this, but he was foiled. The 
reference to this passage strikes me as rather an un- 
happy one. 

But Avere not handkerchiefs and aprons brought 
from the body of Paul, and miracles thereby wrought? 
Yes, but they were not relics. Paul was living. Be- 
sides, Avho does not see that those articles of dress 
were but sig-ns to connect the miracles, in the minds 
of the people, with the person of God's inspired am- 
bassador ? Was any honor due to them ? Do we 
hear of their being preserved and revered? No. I do 
not find them in any list of relics. They passed again 
immediately into their former appropriate use as hand- 
kerchiefs and aprons. Finally, they appeal to the effi- 
cacy of the shadow of Peter, as related, Acts, 5 : 15, in 
proof of the virtue of relics. But as there appears to 
be no substance in this argument, I leave it unanswer- 
ed ; and have only to add, that I wonder not that infi- 
dels abound so in Catholic countries, when Christi- 
anity is held up before them as embracing and even 
giving prominence to such doctrines as the veneration 
of relics, the invocation of saints, and many more like 
them. 



100 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 



36. Seven Sacraments. 



What ! Seven ! How is this ? I read in the Bible of 
only tivo. Whence have they the other Jive ? O, they 
come from the other source of Christian doctrine, ti^a- 
dition. They were handed down. It is true, the apos- 
ties iiyrote of only two sacraments ; but Catholics 
would have us believe that they -preached and con- 
versed about five others : and those that heard them 
spoke of these sacraments to others ; and they to others 
still ; and so the story passed from lip to lip, until the 
Council of Trent, I believe it was, concluded that 
something had better be written about these five extra 
sacraments. I Avonder that was never thought of be- 
fore. It is surprising that it never occurred to the 
apostles, when they were writing their Epistles, to 
say a syllable about these seven sacraments. It would 
seem to have been very thoughtless in them. I may be 
very hard to please, but I cannot help feeling a desire 
to have Scripture, as well as unwritten tradition, in 
support of a doctrine or practice called Christian. I 
like to be able to trace a doctrihe all the Avay back to 
the Bible, and to find it originating in the very oracles 
of God themselves. Some think it sufficient, if they 
can follow a doctrine back as far as the earlier fathers ; 
and especially if they can trace it to the Epistles of 
Ignatius. But this does not satisfy me. There are cer- 
tain other Epistles, rather more ancient, in which I 
would like to find the doctrine. Ignatius was a very 
good man, but he did not belong to the days of Paul 
by any means. Ignatius, Clemens, and all those good 
fathers, stood on the bank of the stream, but Paul and 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 101 

his associates sat around the fountain. These last saw 
truth in its rise ; the others only saw it in its flow. 
True, they were near the source, but they were not 
at it ; and who knows not that a stream may be cor- 
rupted very near its source ? If I live eighteen or nine- 
teen miles distant from a certain fountain, whose 
stream passes by my residence, and I want to know 
whether its waters have been corrupted, do I trace 
back the stream until I come within a mile or two of 
the fountain, and there stop, concluding thai such as 
the water is there, such it must be at the spring ? Do 
I not rather go all the way up to the fountain? Which 
ought I to do ? It strikes me as very strange, that any 
should suspend their search after truth a century or 
two this side of the Bible era. I think they should go 
all the way back to the Bible. 

But I am wandering from my subject, which is the 
sacraments. What are those other Jive 7 One is mar- 
riage. What ! marriage a sacrament ! How does it 
answer to the definition of sacrament ? What spiritual 
thing is signified by it ? Marriage is said to be " ho- 
norable in all," but nothing is said of its being a sa- 
crament. If it be a sacrament, why are not priests, as 
well as others, permitted to take this sacrament? 
Why should the universal clergy be debarred the pri- 
vilege of this holy thing? Does its sacred character 
render it unsuitable to those who fill the sacred office ? 

The other day I was thinking — for, being a Protes- 
tant, I dare think even on religion — and this thought 
occurred to me : " Is it possible that God has denied 
the whole body of the clergy, of all nations and ages, 
the privilege of knowing how he pitieth them that fear 
hira; and of approaching to the experimental know- 

9* 



102 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

ledge of his exceeding readiness to give the Holy 
Spirit to them that ask him — the privilege, in other 
words, of being able to feel the force of some of the 
most touching representations which he has made of 
his dispositions towards his creatures, founded on the 
p'arental relation ?" I read in the Bible that " like as 
a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them 
that fear him." Now, can it be sinful for a minister 
of Jesus Christ to know by experience (the only way 
in which it can be fully known) how a father pitieth, 
and how, consequently, the Lord pitieth his people? 
I think it is man, and not God, that constitutes this 
a sin. Again, does God make this general appeal to 
his creatures, " If ye then, being evil, know how to 
give good gifts unto your children, how much more 
shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to 
them that ask him !" — and has he at the same time 
excluded a large class of his creatures from the privi- 
lege of ever knowing how well disposed parents are 
to bestow good things on their children ? And has he 
laid under this ban the very persons whom he has ap- 
pointed to represent and testify of him to men ? Has 
he appealed to the parental feelings of his creatures, 
and then forbidden a large and important class of 
them to know what those feelings are ? This is rather 
more than I can believe. 

A minister of Jesus Christ may decline the privi- 
lege of marriage in his own case — he may not use that 
power, as Paul, in his peculiar circumstances, did not, 
and as many a Protestant minister does not. This is 
one thing ; but has God cut off the whole order of the 
clergy from even the right to marry? That is the 
question. And that is a very different thing. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 103 



27 » Tx-ausubstantiotiou. 



Because Christ says, in reference to the bread, " This 
is my body," the Catholics contend that the bread is 
changed into the body of Christ; and this they call 
Transubstantiation. And when we say that the pas- 
sage is not to be interpreted literally, but that the 
bread is merely indicated as the representative of 
Christ's body, they reply with wonderful confidence, 
" Ah, but does he not say it is his body — does he say 
it represents his body merely — what authority have 
Protest.ints to bring in a figure here ?" Now let me 
be heard. I have no disposition to ridicule the doctrine 
of Transubstantiation, especially as it professes to be 
founded on Scripture. I would give always a candid 
hearing to the claims of a doctrine which even seems 
to be held out of respect to the authority of the Bible. 
But I must say that the Catholic does not carry his 
veneration for the Scriptures far enough ; or he is not 
consistent in his interpretation of them. I think I can 
show that, to be consistent with himself, he should be- 
lieve in many more than one Transubstantiation. Let 
him turn to Luke, 22 : 19, 20. He reads in verse 19, 
" This is my body." Therefore, he reasons, the bread 
becomes the body of Christ. Very well. But read verse 
20 ; " This cup is the new testament." Here is ano- 
ther Transubstantiation. The cup or chalice becomes 
the new testament. It is no longer gold or silver^ 
but a testament or iinll ! Does not Christ say it is the 
new testament ? What right have Catholics to bring 
in d^ figure here ? The cup is a will — Christ says so. 
To be sure, if it were carried to a probate office, it 



104 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

would be thought out of place, and an article for a sil- 
versmith to prove, rather than a judge of probate. But 
no matter for that. What if the senses do tell you that 
it is still a cup, and the body still bread, will you be- 
lieve those liars, the senses ? But if they are such liars 
as this would make them out to be, why should I ever 
believe them — why should I believe them, when they 
tell me that I see in the Bible those words : " This is 
my body ?" That testimony of the senses the Catholic 
believes ; but if they lie about the body, still declaring 
it is bread, after it has ceased to be any such thing, 
why may they not lie in regard to the letters which 
spell '.' this is my body." Under the appeal ance of 
these letters there may be something quite different, 
even as, under the appearance of bread in the Eucha- 
rist, is the body of Christ, as the Catholics affirm ! 

But these are not the only instances of Transub- 
stantiation. The Bible is full of them. I find two cases 
of this change recorded in Revelation, 1 : 20 ; one in 
which certain stars become angels, and another in 
which certain candlesticks become churches. Do you 
doubt if? Read for yourself : "The seven stars are 
the angels of the seven churches, and the seven can- 
dlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven churches." 
The construction here is precisely similar to " this is 
my body." Christ is the speaker in each case, and he 
says the stars are angels, and the candlesticks are\ 
churches. Who has any right to imagine a figure 
here? 

Perhaps every body does not Imow that Transub- 
stantiation is an Old Testament doctrine. But, ac- 
cording to this mode of interpretation, it is St. Paul, 
in 1 Cor. 10 : 4, alluding to the rock which Moses 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 105 

smote in the wilderness, says, " That rock was 
Christ" — not it represented^ but it was Christ ! Away 
with your figures. 

Many other examples of Transubstantiation might 
be ffiven from the Old Testament. Let two remark- 
able cases suffice, of which Ave have an account in Ge- 
nesis, 41 : 26, 27 : " The seven good kine are seven 
years, and the seven good ears are seven years," &c. 
Here seven cows and seven ears of corn are changed 
into seven years of three hundred and sixty -five days 
each ! 

I suppose I might find many hundred examples of 
these Transubstantiations. Now, does the Catholic 
believe in all of them? He ought, most undoubtedly 
he ought, on the same reason that he believes in one. 
Let him then either believe in them all, or else never 
adduce, " this is my body," in proof of the Transub- 
stantiation held in his church. I wish Mr. H. or some 
body else would set me right, if I err in this argument. 



38. Half a Sacrament. 

Half a sacrament ! Who ever heard of such ajhing? 
A sacrament divided ! Yes, even so. The authorities 
of the Roman Catholic church. Pope, Council, &c. 
have divided the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 
which our Savior instituted the same night in which 
he was betrayed ; and, ever since the Council of Con- 
stance, they have allowed the people only half of it. 



106 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

They have told them that they must put up with the 
bread, for that they want the cup for themselves. But 
did not Christ give the cup, in the original institution 
of the sacrament, to as many as he gave the bread ? 
Yes, Christ did. So say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
Paul. He took the cup, they tell us, and gave it to them ; 
and Matthew adds that he said in giving it, " Drink ye 
all of it." Let not this be omitted by any disciple. It 
would seem as if Christ foresaw what the Constance 
Council was going to do, and therefore said, " Drink 
ye all of it." Rome might with more plausibility have 
denied her laity the other half of the sacrament — the 
bread. After the command to take the cup, there fol- 
lows the reason ; observe it : " For this is my blood of 
the new testament, which is shed for many, for the 
remission of sins." Now the Catholics say that only 
priests were present on that occasion, and that the giv- 
ing of the cup to them can be no precedent for giving 
it to the laity. But, though we should admit that they 
were at that time priests, I want to know if the reason 
for partaking of the cup does not apj)ly to others be- 
sides the clergy. Was not the ]jlood shed for the laity 
as well as for the clergy ? And if this is the reason 
why any should partake, it is equally a reason why all 
should for whom the blood was shed. The precept and 
privilege to drink is co-extensive with the reason an- 
nexed to it. Now I have not been in the habit of re- 
garding the propitiatory death of Christ as a part of 
the benefit of clergy — as one of the peculiar privileges 
of the priesthood. I object therefore to the restriction 
of the cup of blessing to the clergy. The symbol ot 
the blood shed for many, for the remission of sins, I 
claim to be mv privilege as truly as that of any priest. 



THOUGHTS Oi\ POPERY. 107 

Christ did not shed his blood for the sons of Levi 
alone. 

Yes, Christ gave it in both kinds — and what is more, 
the Catholics themselves acknowledge that he did, and 
that the primitive church administered it in both kinds, 
yet {hoc tamen noii obstante are their very words) 
they appoint that the people shall receive it but in one 
kind, that is, notwithstanding Christ and the primitive 
church. And they declare them accursed who teach 
or practice otherwise. What is this but anathema- 
tizing Christ ? But surely they must have something 
to say in justification of their conduct in this respect. 
To be sure they have. Do you not know that the Pope 
is the head of the church, and that he is infallible ; or 
if he is not, yet the firm Pope & Co. are 1 Yes, but 
there was Pope Gelasiics, who lived a good while be- 
fore. He having heard of some Manicheans who re- 
ceived the bread without the wine, decided that such 
a dividing of one and the same sacrament might not 
be done without a heinous sacrilege. Was not he head 
of the church too, and was not he infallible ? If he was 
not, I wonder how he could transmit infallibility. 

This withholding of the cup is one of the boldest 
strokes of that church. I cannot help admiring the 
courage it manifests. Who would have thought it 
could have succeeded so well? I wonder they even 
undertook to carry this point. However, they have done 
it. There was some murmuring against it, to be sure. 
Huss and Jerome made a noise about it, but they just 
burnt them, and they made no more noise about it. 

But are not Christians followers, that is, imitators 
of Christ ? O yes. But this withholding of the cup is 
not doing like Christ. The Catholics say that Christ 



108 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

is with their church to the end of time. It strikes me, 
however, that he could not have been with them at 
that point in the progress of time when the Council of 
Constance sat. 

I do not know what others think, but for my own 
part I don't believe that any power on earth has a 
right to limit a grant of Jesus Christ, or, in other 
words, to take away what he has given. He said of 
the cup, " drink ye all of it" — and I, for one, will do 
it, and I think all ought — and if the Catholics will 
come over to us, they too shall have the cup of salva- 
tion. O, if I had the ear of the Catholics now, I 
would not ask .them to confess their sins to me, but 
there is a thing I would tell them : I would say. My 
dear Catholic brethren, you never remember Christ in 
his sacrament. You only half remember him. He 
said, eat and drink in remembrance of me. You only 
do one. You do not show the Lord's .death ; for Paul 
says, " as often as ye eat this bread and drink this 
cup, ye do show the Lord's death." It is only they 
who do both that make this exhibition. Christ's 
death is not shown by the bread merely, but by both 
the elements. I know your church says that the 
blood is in the body, and that, in taking one, both are 
taken, for that "Christ was entire and truly under 
each kind," as the council decrees. But how came 
Christ himself to know nothing of this ? Did he do a 
superfluous thing in giving the cup ? What if the 
blood is in the body, and the bread being changed 
into the body, we take the one in taking the other, 
we want the blood separated from the body, i\ie 
blood shed. The blood of Christ is not an atone- 
ment for sin, except as it is shed. Catholics, you 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. I09 

never celebrate the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's 
Supper there was a cup. In yours there is none. 
You hold that the discourse in John, 6, relates to an 
atonement, and there it is written, " except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have 
no life in you." Now, according to his own princi- 
ples, you have no life in you, for you do not drink 
his blood. The most you can be said to do is, that 
you eat it in connection with his body ! One thing 
more. Catholic brethren. There can be no such thing 
in reality as half a sacrament. To divide a sacrament 
is to destroy it. What follows then^ but that the 
whole sacrament is taken from you ! Look at this — 
just fix your mind five minutes on this subject, and 
you are, I do not say what, but you are no longer a 
Catholic. Five minutes. That is all. But you say, 
I must not doubt ; yet you may think, and God the 
judge will never condemn you for exercising your 
mind. 



29. Bxtreme Unction* 

When it looks as if one was going to die, then by 
all means let the priest be sent for : and when he has 
come, let him receive the dying man's confession, (but 
if the priest should be long in coming, I Vv^ould advise 
him to confess to God. I think it would answer as 
well. Indeed I prefer that near way to pardon, to the 
other circuitous route) — and let him then in that ex- 
tremity anoint him with oil ! This is extreme unction 

10 



110 tHOUGHTS ON POf£RY. 

— a sacrament — one of the seven! I think they must 
have been at a loss to make up the seven, when they 
pressed this into the service. 

There don't seem to be a great deal of religion in it; 
nor indeed any excess of common sense. But to speak 
of it as constituting a preparation for death is really 
shocking. What ! a preparation for dying, and for 
meeting and answering to God, procured by the in- 
tervention and unction of a human priest— done by 
oil ! Truly this is an easy way of getting to heaven, 
particularly where priests are plenty. I do not won- 
der that the Catholic religion is popular. This is in- 
deed prophesying smooth things. We Protestants 
have no such doctrine to preach. When we are 
called to see a sick person, we candidly acknowledge 
that there is nothing we can do for him which shall 
infallibly secure his salvation. We tell him what Jie 
must do : that he must repent and believe in Christ : 
and then we ask God to undertake and do for bim. It 
is only on certain conditions that we can assure him 
of his salvation. The priests say that they can in- 
sure the person's salvation ; but to any such power as 
that we do not pretend. 

But have not the Catholics plain Scripture for their 
doctrine of extreme unction ? If they have ; if it is 
written., and not merely handed dow7i, then I am at 
once a believer in it. Let us see : they adduce two 
passages in support of their dogma, Mark, 6 : 13, and 
James, 5 : 14. The first is historical. It affirms that 
the apostles " anointed with oil many that were sick 
and healed them." The other is hortatory. " Is any 
sick among you 7 let hira call for the* elders of the 
church ; and let them pray over him, anointing him 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. Ill 

v/ith oil in the name of the Lord," that is, doing what 
the apostles are represented by Mark as having donej 
and doing it, as appears from the next verse, with the 
same end in view, viz. healing. Now, what authority 
for the sacrament of extreme unction is there here J 
Here is indeed an anointing with oil by an ecclesias- 
tic. But who does not see in how many particulars, 
and how widely this anointing differs from the ex- 
treme unction of the Catholics ? Their anointing pro- 
ceeds on the supposition that the person is going to 
die ; and could his recovery be foreseen, it would be 
omitted. But the anointing practised by the apostles 
and elders of the church was in order to the recovery 
of the person, and was in every case connected with 
his recovery. Their anointing was the attendant and 
tol<en of a miraculous cure. It held precisely the 
same place with Christ's making clay of spittle, and 
anointing therewith the eyes of the blind man ; or 
with Naaman's being directed to go and wash seven 
times in Jordan. It was, like each of these, an exter- 
nal, and in itself inefficacious sign of a miraculous re- 
covery ; and even now there is no objection to the use 
of the sign, if the thing signified is to be expected. 
Lei the priests anoint with abundance of oil all their 
sick, if they can accompany that unction with such 
a prayer of faith as shall save the sick. But if the 
miraculous recoveries have ceased, let there be a do- 
ing away of the sign. As soon as any sign becomes 
insignificant^ let it cease to be used. Extreme unc- 
tion is now a sign of nothing. There was no use in 
going down into the pool of Bethesda after the angel 
had ceased to pay his periodical visit to it. So in this 
case, there being now no healing, there need be, and 
there should be, no anointing. 



112 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

How the priests now differ in their use of the cil 
from those whose successors they pretend to be ! The 
apostles and elders anointed persons with a view to 
their living ; but the priests with a view to their dy- 
ing. The former would not anoint, if they foresaw 
the person was to die; the latter will not, if they fore- 
see that he is to live. How at odds they are ! How 
Scripture and tradition do quarrel ! And the worst of 
it is, there is no such thing as bringing about a recon- 
ciliation between them. 

Among the doctrines of the Catholic church, I am 
at a loss whether to give the palm to this or to purga- 
tory. Purgatory teaches the doctrine of salvation by 
fire. Extreme unction, the doctrine of salvation by 
oil. There does not seem to be much Christianity in 
either. Extreme unction is, however, the smoothest 
doctrine. Decidedly so. Jesus Christ came by water 
and blood. The salvation he proclaims is by these; 
and the sacraments he instituted, are Baptism and 
the Lord's Supper. These signify something: the 
^Yst, regeneration ; the second, the propitiation made 
for our sins. 



30. Dolus Penance. 



Insufferable I What ? Why, that the Catholic trans- 
lators of the Bible should render the Greek word, 
which signifies repentance, (metanoia,) by the phrase 
doing penance ! I would not willingly be uncharita- 
ble, imputing a bad motive where a good one might have 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 113 

been present. But I must say that I know not how 
to reconcile this rendering of metanoia with their in- 
tegrity as translators. I cannot help believing that 
they knew better. Could they have supposed that 
they were selecting the most judicious method of con- 
veying the mind of the Spirit as expressed in that 
word, when they concluded on rendering it doing pen- 
ance 7 Why, in the name of common sense, did they 
use tioo English words (coining one of them more- 
over for the occasion) to convey the meaning of one 
Greek word ? Was there any necessity for it ? Was 
there no single English word that would express the 
sense ? There was repentance^ the word adopted by 
the translators of the common English Bible. What 
objection lay to the use of that? Why was that passed 
by ; and especially why was it passed by in order to 
give a preference to such a phrase as doing penance? 
If they had disliked repentance, they might with more 
propriety have employed the word reformation. It 
would seem as if they were anxious to avoid the use 
of any word Avhich expressed or implied either sorrow 
or amendment, and therefore they fixed on the phrase 
doing penance. I am mistaken if these translators 
have not a heavy account to give. This single ren- 
dering, if it were the only exceptionable one, would be 
as a millstone about the neck of that translation. Just 
think of the false impression, and that on a point of 
the highest moment, made on the minds of so many 
millions by this one egregiously erroneous version. 

Contemplate the state of the case. God, in pros- 
pect of the judgment day, and by the terror of it, com- 
mands all men every where to do a certain thing, 
Acts, 17: 30, 31 ; and Christ says that except they 

10* 



114 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

do it, they shall perish. Luke, 13: 3. This thing God 
expresses by the Greek term metarioia. But all do 
not understand Greek. Wherefore, for the admonition 
and instruction of those Catholics who read only the 
English language, and who cannot be persuaded of 
the sin of reading the Bible, it becomes necessary to 
render that word into English. Certain persons un- 
dertake to do it, that is, to interpret the mind of God 
as expressed by metanoia. And what do they make 
it out to mean? Hear, hear ! Doing penance ! That 
is it, they say. "Do the penance which your priest 
appoints, after you have made your confession to him, 
and that is all." It is no such thing. This is a mis- 
representation of the Almighty. This is not the sub- 
ject of the command and warning to which reference 
has been made. And to suppose that it is on account 
of this that angels rejoice, i. e. Avhen a sinner does 
penance, is truly farcical. O what a translation ! 
"There is joy in heaven over one sinner that does 
penance." Truly angels must be easily made to re- 
joice, if this be the case ! How it sounds ! How 
offensive to the very ear, and how much more to the 
enlightened judgment, is this rendering ! " God com- 
mands all to do penance. Except ye do penance, ye 
shall all likewise perish. He is not willing that any 
should perish, but that all should return to penance .'" 
Shocking ! Away with such a translation from the 
earth. The Douay Bible is not God's Bible ; for it 
purposely misrepresents him in a main point, viz: 
on the article of repentance. Here is a translation of 
metanoia implying no sorrow for sin, no change of 
mind, (which the word literally signifies,) nor any 
moral reformation ; but only the doing of certain ex- 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 115 

ternal, and generally puerile, things prescribed by a 
priest ; all which may be dons without any internal 
exercise — without any emotion of any kind. The 
word, according to the Catholics, makes no requisition 
on the heart whatever. And truly, a man may be a 
good Catholic without ever feeling any thing, unless 
it be the bodily pain of self-inflicted penance. And 
every one knows that thinking is not necessary to con- 
stitute a good Catholic. Wherefore a man may be a 
good Catholic without either thinking or feeling , that 
is, without any exercise of either mind or heart. All 
that seems requisite is mechanical action. Maelzel, 
the constructor of automatons, could almost make one. 
Is this uncharitable ? It is true^ and ought to be said. 
It ought to be known and proclaimed that the religion 
of the church of Rome overlooks the reason^ con- 
science^ and heart of man, addressing no appeal to 
them, and indeed making no use of them. Is it then 
the religion of the Holy Ghost ? Is this the Christi- 
anity of Christ? It cannot be. 

I ought perhaps to say that I fiiid, in one place in 
the Douay Testament, the Greek metanoeite translated 
correctly, repent. It occurs in Mark 1 : 15. Whether 
it was done in a moment of relenting, or through in- 
advertence, I cannot say. It was never repeated that 
I can find. Perhaps the translators had to do penance 
for presuming to render the word in that one case cor- 
rectly. 

Do you not see what a difference it makes to the 
priests, if you give it out that repentance is the requi- 
sition ? Then a sinner will be saved if he repent, irre- 
spective of the priest. The great High Priest that is 
passed into the heavens will see to the case of every true 



116 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

penitent. But if the requisition be doing penance, in 
that case, there being something necessary which the 
priest prescribes, he has the poor sinner completely in 
his power. It makes the salvation to depend on the 
act of the Utile low priest. Do you wonder that the 
priests insist on the translation do penance, and forbid 
the people to read in a Bible which requires them to 
repent ? 

There is a precious note in the Douay connnected 
with this subject, which may afford me a topic here- 
after. 



31. Tlie Hardest Religion. 

Among the compliments which our brethren of the 
Church of Rome pay to their religion, this is one. 
They say it is the hardest religion — that no other re- 
ligion requires so much of its votary. Hence they 
would have it inferred that theirs must be the divine 
and only true religion. The yoke being so hard, and 
the burden so heavy, they must of course be Christ's. 

I shall examine this claim to the precedence in point 
of difficulty. And something I am prepared to concede 
to the Church of Rome on this score. There is a part 
of her faith which I acknowledge it is exceedingly 
hard to receive. It requires a powerful effort doubtless 
to believe the doctrine of transubstantiation, viz. that 
the bread and wine of the sacrament are changed into 
♦ ♦ * what? The body and blood of Christ? Not 



TH0DGHT3 ON POPERY. 117 

that alone, bat also into his soul and divinity ! Yes, 
it is hard to believe it is so, when one sees it is not so, 
and knows it cannot be so. It is hard to disbelieve at 
will those long-tried and faithful servants, the senses ; 
and especially that first of the five, the sight. There is 
difficulty in the Catholic religion truly. It puts a tre- 
mendous strain on the mind. 

There is also her doctrine about the necessity of bap- 
tism to salvation, which some of us find it very hard 
to believe. One reason of our difficulty is that that 
doctrine bears so hard upon the heathen, and particu- 
larly on the immense multitude of infants who every 
where die without baptism. According to the doctrine 
of Rome, that baptism is indispensable to salvation, 
they are all lost just for the want of a little water ! 
Poor things, they fare no better than the thief on the 
cross who died without baptism. They get no farther 
than Paradise the first day. It is a hard religion. This 
doctrine is cruelly hard upon diildren ; as her doctrine 
that money, by the purchase of prayers and masses, re- 
leases souls from Purgatory, is hard upon the poor. 

So much for the difficulty of her faith. But all of 
that is not so hard ; as for example, her doctrine of in- 
dulgences. It is never hard to be indidged. There is 
no hardship, but very great convenience for a delin- 
quent sinner to have such a bank to draAv upon, as the 
accumulated merits of the saints in by-gone ages, who 
did more than they needed for their own salvation, 
having loved God with considerably more than " all 
the heart, and soul, and strength, and mind !" This 
doctrine does not make the Roman Catholic religion 
a hard one — neither does the doctrine of venial sins. 
You know they hold that there are some sins whose 



118 THOUGHTS ON' POPERY. 

Avages is not death. They arc excusable — mere pec- 
cadillos. We recognise no such sins. We think with 
St. Paul, that " cursed is every one that continueih 
not in all things which are written in the book of the 
law to do them." 

But perhaps when the Catholics speak of their re- 
ligion as a hard one, they refer not so n:uch to its faith 
as to its practice. It is what they have to do that is 
so hard. But why do they speak of it as hard ? It looks 
as if it was a task to them — as if they do not find their 
sweetest and purest delight in it. It would appear as 
if they did not esteem the service of God as much their 
privilege as their duty. One would suppose, to hear 
them talk, that the commandments of God are grievous. 
I am truly sorry for them that Christ's yoke, which, he 
says, is easy, they find to be so galling to them. We, 
Protestants, never think of speaking of our religion as 
hard. "Wisdom's ways" we find to be "pleasant- 
ness, and all her paths peace." Our language is : " O 
how love I thy law ! How sweet are thy words unto 
my taste ! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth !" 
But it seems not to be so with Catholics. I have been 
struck with surprise to hear even the most devout of 
them speak of the requirements of their religion as 
things which they viust comply with. " I must," is 
the language which they use in reference to almost 
every thing of a religious kind that they do. I have 
thought with myself how it is possible that their hearts 
can be in their religion, if they esteem it such a hard- 
ship. How will heaven be able to make them happy, 
if the exercises and acts on earth, most akin to those 
of heaven, are so irksome that they engage in them 
only from sheer necessity ? 



THOUGHTS ON POFERY, 119 

But I must advert to some of the hard practices 
which the Catholic religion requires of her votaries. 
There is that practice of confessing to the priest. Is 
not that hard ! Truly it is. I think I should find it 
hard to tell every thing, even the most secret thoughts, 
to any body called a priest. And then to have to per- 
form whatever penance he might please to prescribe. 
Yes, it is hard — so hard, and so absurd too that God 
has never required it at our hands. He says to the 
sinner, come right to me with your broken heart, and 
make your confession to me, for he is " in Christ re- 
conciling the world unto himself, not imputing their 
trespasses unto them." 

Again, fasting is reckoned among the hard things 
of the Catholic religion — and indeed it is hard not to 
eat when one is hungry. But that is not their idea of 
fasting. Their idea of fasting is in accordance with 
what St. Paul says to Timothy in his prediction con- 
cerning them, an " abstairmig from meats,^^ or " what- 
soever is sold in the shambles." ' Now there is nothing 
so very hard in that restriction. He must be very dif- 
ficult who cannot satisfy his appetite out of all the va- 
riety of the vegetable kingdom, when he has more- 
over the liberty of the entire fish market. 

But there is one thing about the Catholic religion, 
in view of which I suppose I must admit it to be the 
hardest religion. It belongs strictly neither to faith 
nor practice. You will guess that I have in my mind — 
Purgatory. Now, as a doctrine, there are many things 
about it hard to be believed, as, for example, that ma- 
terial fire should be able to act on an immaterial spirit, 
and thereby purify it too. But hard as purgatory is to 
be believed, it is still harder to be suffered. Yes, it is 



120 THOHGHTS 0*J rOPERY. 

hard, after having gone through the whole routine of 
the sacraments, and lived long a good Catholic, then 
to die, and go into an intense fire. It is so hard that I, 
for my part, prefer the religion of poor Lazarus, whom 
the angels took straight to heaven ; and of the penitent 
malefactor, who spent a part of the day on Avhich he 
died, in Paradise. By the way, St. Paul could not 
have been thinking of Purgatory when he said, " to 
me to die is gain^ But I forget that he lived before 
the time of the Catholic religion. 



32. More about Penance. 

Let us hear both sides. In my former article on this 
subject, I objected to the translation doing penance, 
in the Douay Bible. But have the Catholics nothing 
to say in justification of their rendering? I suppose 
that whatever they have to say is expressed in a cer- 
tain note on Matthew, 3:2. " Do penance, for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand," is the edifying trans- 
lation of the passage. Our attention is then directed 
to this note, "agite posnitentiara, metanoeite," which 
word, according to the use of the Scriptures and the 
holy fathers, does not only signify repentance and 
amendment of life, but also " punishing past sins by 
fasting and such like penitential exercises." This is 
the sage note. 

Now here is an acknowledgment that the ideas of 
repentance and amendment are intended in the ori- 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 121 

giaal word. Why then is a translation of it adopted, 
which excludes both repentance and amendment. If 
the original includes them, yet their translation does 
not. A man may do penance, and yet neither repent 
nor amend — neither be sorry nor better. These trans- 
lators must have thought that repentance and amend- 
ment, though included in the original word, were of 
little importance, otherwise they would not have sup- 
pressed them in their translation. They must have 
judged them too insignificant to be taken notice of in 
their standard version ! As for us Protestants, we 
think that to he sorry and to reform are very impor- 
tant parts of repentance. 

But, besides repentance and amendment, they say 
the original word signifies " punishing past sins, by 
fasting," &c. This is their assertion. Where are 
their proofs ? I would like to see some of them, for 
the dictionaries tell us another story. Well, they ap- 
peal to the Scriptures and the fathers, " according to 
the use of the Scriptures and the holy fathers." Here 
are two authorities, though of very unequal weight 
in my estimation. I wish these translators had said 
"where the Scriptures use this word in their sense. I 
suppose they would, if they had been able. The truth 
is, the word is never so used. It does not include this 
idea of theirs. Punishing ! Repentance don't mean 
punishing. Punishing past sins ! This is no very 
eligible phrase. It is quite too figurative for an ex- 
planatory note. And punishing them, how? By fast- 
ing. Hov^r does fasting punish sin? I cannot see 
how any fasting punishes sin; but I am sure the Cath- 
olic fasting does not. Do you know what Catholics 
mean by fasting ? Not abstaining from food. No, ta 

11 



122 THOUGRTS ON POPEBY. 

be sure. But changing their kind of food. Only ab- 
stain from meats, according to the prediction, 1 Tim. 
4: 3, and you may eat what else you please. Fasting, 
according to the opinions held by Catholics in the re- 
gion of country where I live, and I suppose it is so 
elsewhere, consists in reducing one's self down to the 
low diet of Jish, (after all their kinds,) eggs, oysters, 
terrapins, with all manner of vegetables, and every 
variety of desert ! That is fasting, because there is 
no butchers' meat eaten. You may eat what is sold 
anywhere else but in the shambles. Now I cannot 
see any thing very punitive in svxli fasting. A man's 
sin must be exceedingly sensitive to feel the infliction 
of such abstinence. 1 do not believe that sin is to be 
starved out of the soul in this way. 

It is well enough sometimes to try the value of an 
explanation upon a passage in which the thing ex- 
plained occurs, as for example, " God now command- 
eth all men every where to punish their past sins by 
fasting and such like penitential exercises." How 
does that sound? Do you really think that it is what 
the Lord meant. 



33. A Fast-Day Dinner. 

Some plain, honest people may be surprised at the 
heading of this article, because it implies a dinner of 
some sort on a day of fasting, whereas, according to 
their old-fashioned notions there should be no dinner 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 123 

at all on a fast day. And truly fasting did formerly 
imply 'partial^ at least, if not total abstinence from 
food during the period of the fast. ^It was thought 
that eating to the full was incompatible with genuine 
fasting. Indeed it was considered that eating at all 
broke a fast. I suppose no one doubts that Daniel, 
Neherniah, Ezra, and the pious Jews in general, ab- 
stained entirely from food on their days of fasting. 
Who has an idea that they ate any dinner on those 
days? But mind has marched a great way since 
those men flourished. Whether its march has always 
\ie&]\ forward^ I leave others to determine. Now^ ac- 
cording to the views which prevail in that church 
which cannot go wrong, and Avhich don't make mis- 
takes even when she contradicts herself, abstinence 
is not essential to a fast ; and a fast-day dinner, so 
far from being no dinner at all, as some puritanical 
christians still contend it should be, is a rare repast — 
one of the very best dinners in the whole week. I 
ought to say here that some Protestants have imbibed 
this doctrine of the infallible church, and very com- 
placently practice according to it. We have a great 
many Protestants among us who do not protest as 
thoroughly or as strenuously as we think they should. 
What put me in mind of this subje.ct was the fol- 
lowing incident. As I was sitting at table the other 
day, the topic of conversation was a very delicate pre- 
paration of eggs. I took no particular interest in it, 
until one of the company remarked that when she re- 
sided in the family of Mr. A., a distinguished Catholic, 
that dish was always a part of their fast-day dinner. 
This arrested my attention. Fast-day dinner! ex- 
claimed I. Who ever heard of a dinner on a fast-day ? 



124 THOUGHTS ON POPERY, 

It is not possible they have a dinner at Mr. A.'s on 
fast-days ! Dinner ! replied the person. I never desire 
to eat a better. This made me curious to enquire what 
constituted the fast-day di"nner at Mr. A.'s table. Well, 
said she, to begin, a rock fish dressed with eggs and 
butter, (no mean affair this where there is an appe- 
tite,) eggs prepared, in two ways, and oysters. They 
dispense with vegetables I presume, said I. O no, she 
rejoined ; and to this I readily assented, for I had for- 
gotten myself in supposing that they dispensed with 
vegetables. Timothy does not prophecy of the anti- 
christ that he shall command to abstain from vegeta- 
bles, but only from ^^ meats, which God hath created 
to be received with thanksgiving." Well, surely, said I, 
they have no desert on their fast-days '? How you talk, 
said she; they have the very best, and every variety. 
And do they call that ?l fast-day dinner? and do they 
suppose that they fast when they eat it? Certain- 
ly, said she. Well, I suppose it is because they eat 
very sparingly of what is set before them. You are 
mistaken, replied my informant, quantity has nothing 
to do in the matter. It is not the quantity eaten that 
constitutes a fast, but the kind. There the conversa- 
tion ended, but my thoughts proceeded on. And this, 
thought I, is fasting. So the church teaches, and mil- 
lions on their way to the judgment believe it. What 
dupes ! how deceived to suppose that this is fasting. 
If not deceived themselves, what insulters of God, to 
endeavor to palm it off on him as fasting ! A change 
of food is fasting ! To eat differently on one day 
from what we do on other days, is to keep a fast I 
Admirable doctrine ! 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 125 



3^. Tlie Masg. - 

There is a great deal of the phraseology of the Ro- 
mish church which is not a little peculiar, not to say 
outlandish. The Christian reader who is not very- 
familiar with other authors than those who by inspi- 
ration wrote the Bible, does not know what to make 
of these terms when he comes across them in books 
professing to treat of Christianity. " The mass, the 
mass," he repeats to himself, " what is that ?"' He has 
read his Bible through and through, but he has found 
nothing about the mass there. He thinks it ought to 
be there, if it is any part of Christianity. Why should 
apostolical Christians have been silent on a subject 
on which those who claim to be their direct descend- 
ants are so loquacious ? He does not even meet in 
his Bible with any doctrine or rite to which the word 
mass seems at all appropriate. He would not object 
to the word, if he could find the thing there. It never 
occurs to him that by the mass Catholics can mean 
the transaction recorded by Matthew in his 26th chap- 
ter, and by three other sacred writers, and which we 
commonly speak of as the institution of the Lord's 
Supper. But that is what they mean by it. Then, 
they tell us, the first mass was said. In the Douay 
Catechism we find these questions and answers : 
Q. Who said the first mass ? A. Jesus Christ. 
Q. When did he say it ? A. At his last supper. Here 
it is, question and answer for it, if not chapter and 
verse. The Biblical reader will please to bear in 
mind, whenever hereafter he reads the narrative of 



126 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

the transaction, that the writer is giving an account 
of the first mass that was ever said ! 

But they may call it mass, if they please, and they 
may speak of Christ's instituting the ordinance as his 
saying mass. Words are nothing, though it is cer- 
tainly best that they should, be well chosen and fitly 
applied. If they mean by their mass what we mean 
by the Lord's Supper, that is the main point. But the 
truth is, they mean by it as different a thing as you 
can wrII imagine. Just hear what " the Christian's 
Guide" says on the subject: "I profess likewise, that 
in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper and 
propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." 
Christ offered it first when he said mass, and every 
priest now offers it when he says mass. Well, read- 
er, you and I must not judge rashly. We will look 
again at the account given of the matter in the Bible, 
and we will see if we can find in it any thing of the 
nature of a sacrifice. He " took bread and blessed, 
and brake and gave it to the disciples, and said. Take, 
eat." And then he took the cup and gave it. Where 
is any sacrifice here, and especially where is any pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice ? Does the account we have of 
sacrifices in the Old Testament, and in the epistle to 
the Hebrews, accord with what was done on this oc- 
casion? The Catholics say that when Christ perform- 
ed these actions with the bread and wine, he offered 
himself to God as a propitiatory sacrifice. How 
does what he did, bear even the least resemblance to 
the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice ? There was no 
bloodshed — no life taken, as was the case in all pro- 
pitiatory sacrifices under the law, and in the sacrifice 
which Christ made of himself on the cross, and which 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 127 

has always, by Pagans, as well as the disciples of the 
true religion, been considered as essential to a j^f^o- 
pitiatory sacrifice. I confess there was something 
offered. Bread and wine were offered. These might 
constitute a eucharistic sacrifice, but never a propi- 
tiatory one. If things of this kind can constitute a 
propitiatory sacrifice, then I do not see why Cain, Avho 
offered " of the fruit of the ground," was not accepted 
equally with Abel who brought to the Lord " of the 
firstlings of his flock." But whatever was offered, it 
was not offered to God. A sacrifice, to be a sacrifice, 
must be offered to God, as even the quotation from 
the Christian's guide recognizes. But what was of- 
fered in this case was offered to the disciples. "Take, 
eat," he said to them. It is true the bread and wine 
were offered them as the memorial of a sacrifice in 
which the body of Christ was to be broken and his 
blood shed ; but the memorial of a sacrifice is not a 
sacrifice. The emblematical representation of a thing 
is not the'thing itself. Plainly there was no sacrifice 
in this transaction. 

But again : if Christ in the eucharist offered him- 
self a sacrifice to God, as they affirm ; and afterwards, 
as all admit, offered himself on the cross, then he tioice 
offered himself; and if so, the writer of the epistle to 
the Hebrews was under a great mistake, for he says, 
" Christ was 07ice offered to bear the sins of many," 
" we are sanctified through the offering of the body of 
Jesus Christ once for allP'' Heb. 9 : 28, and 10 : 10. 
Here is a contradiction. Which shall we believe? 
The apostle of the Gentiles or the Catholic church ? 
If Christ really offered himself in the eucharist — on 
the tahle^ as Catholics contend — there was no need 



128 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

of his offering himself on the cross. His twice offer- 
ing himself was quite unnecessary. If " in the mass 
there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitia- 
tory sacrifice," what need of another on Calvary ? 
One " true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice " is all 
that is wanted. 

But if the Catholic doctrine be true, Christ has been 
offered not twice only, but innumerable times. In 
every mass that ever has been said, he has been of- 
fered. He is offered to-day as really as he was on 
the day of his crucifixion. He is offered on earth 
while he is interceding in heaven. Both parts of the 
priest's office, the propitiation and the intercession, 
are going on at the same time — a thing unheard of in 
the history of the priesthood ! Did the Jeivish high 
priest, the type of Jesus, our great high priest, exe- 
cute both parts of his office at the same moment? 
Moreover, according to this doctrine, there was no 
propriety in Christ's saying on the cross, " It is finish- 
ed," for it is not finished yet, nor will it be, till the 
last mass is said. It depends on the will of the priest 
when it shall be finished. This to me is shocking 
doctrine. What ! Can a priest cause Christ to be of- 
fered just when he pleases ? My mind recoils from 
the conviction. There is what by a figure is called 
the "crucifying of the Son of God afresh," but this 
appears like doing it literally. 

I know the Catholics make a distinction here. They 
say, and let them be heard, that Christ in the eucha- 
rist is offered in an unbloody manner, while the sa- 
crifice of the cross was bloody. And this distinction 
they lay great stress on. But I wonder they see not 
the consequence of this explanation — that if the sacri- 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 129 

fice is unbloody, it cannot be propitiatory, which, ne- 
vertheless, they say it is. Unbloody, yet propitiatory ! 
Who ever heard of an unbloody propitiatory sacrifice? 
What Jew ? What Pagan ? A propitiatory sacrifice, 
be it remembered, is a sacrifice for atonement — a sa- 
crifice with a -view to the remission of sins. This all 
acknowledge. But " without shedding of blood is no 
remission," Heb. 9 : 22 — consequently no propitiatory 
sacrifice. Now here is no shedding of blood, they 
say; yet remission is effected by it ! It is a propitia- 
tory sacrifice, notwithstanding. Who does not see 
the contradiction? They must take back their admis- 
sion that it is unbloody, or else acknowledge that it is 
not propitiatory. They cannot hold to both without 
self-contradiction. 

The reader sees that this doctrine of the Catholic 
church subverts that great principle in the divine go- 
vernment, that " without shedding of blood is no re- 
mission" — a principle not merely inscribed on the 
page of the Bible, but written with the finger of God 
on the mind of man. The conscience of the veriest 
pagan reads it there ? If a sacrifice may be prqpitia- 
tory, though unbloody, never a victim that bled under 
the Jewish economy, need have been slain ; a7id 
Christ need not have died ! The doctrine of the mass 
therefore, that a sacrifice may be propitiatory, though 
bloodless, undermines the Gospel. 

One inference more from their doctrine I must not 
forget. It is this. If in the eucharist a propitiatory 
sacrifice is offered, then a propitiatory sacrifice may be 
effected by mere action. No passion whatever is ne- 
cessary to it — expiation is made without any suffer- 
ing — made by a mere doing ! Is this truth ? Can an- 



ISO THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

tiquiiy be pleaded for this doctrine ? Can that be the 
oldest religion which cherishes and teaches it? 

There is no sacrifice in what is improperly called 
the mass — least of all z. propitiatory sacrifice. The 
doctrine is error — error in a capital particular — on a 
fundamental point — gross and most pernicious error. 
What then shall we think of a church which not only 
inculcates it, but gives it the greatest prominence, and 
makes the service connected with it the main thing in 
its religion? I have my thoughts. The reader must 
have his. 

I reserve some things on the mass for a future com- 
munication. 



33. More about tlic Mass. 

But before I proceed to the Mass, I wish to a Id a 
word about relics. In my communication on that 
subject, I referred to Bellarmine as quoting from the 
Old Testament in support of the doctrine of relics. 
Since then, I have recollected a fact which makes me 
wonder that a Catholic should ever appeal to the Old 
Testament for authority in favor of relics. The reader 
probably knows that no relics are more common among 
the Catholics, and none more highly valued than the 
hones of deceased saints and martyrs. Now, if Num- 
bers, 19: 16, be consulted, it will be found that under 
the Jewish dispensation, if a person so much as touch- 
ed the bone of a man, he was ceremonially unclean 
for seven days, and had to submit to a tedious pro- 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 131 

cess of purification before he could be restored to the 
privileges of God's worship, from which he had been 
temporarily excluded in consequence of that contact. 
This being the case, it is pretty certain that the bones 
of the dead were not handled and cherished as relics 
by the pious Jews, as they are by our Catholics. There 
was nothing which the Israelite more carefully avoid- 
ed than some of those very things which are now 
carried about and shown as relics. Therefore, I say, 
it is not best to go so far back as the Old Testament 
for testimony in favor of relics. 

Now let us to the mass again. It is known, I sup- 
pose, that they quote Scripture in favor of the mass. 
That circumstance however proves nothing. Scrip- 
ture is not always aptly quoted. It should be remem- 
bered by those who are prone to think it in favor of a 
doctrine, that its abettors appeal to the Bible in its 
support, that Scripture was once quoted by a celebra- 
ted character to prove the propriety of the. Son of 
God casting himself down from the pinnacle of the 
temple. It is always advisable to refer to the quota- 
tion, and see for ourselves if it makes in favor of the 
doctrine. The principal passage which the Catholics 
adduce in support of their mass, is that concerning 
Melchizedek, in the 14th chapter of Genesis, Abra- 
ham and his armed servants were on their return from 
" the slaughter of the kings," when they were met by 
this distinguished personage. The record of the oc- 
currence is as follows : " And Melchizedek, king of 
Salem, brought forth bread and wine ; and he was the 
priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him.... 
And he gave him tithes of all." Here is the text, 
reader. Now the doctrine deduced from it is this that 



132 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

" in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and 
propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." 

a. E. D. 

Do not smile at the incongruity of the text and the 
doctrine — the distance of the conclusion from the 
premises. Sacred things are to be handled seriously. 
I know the reader only smiles at the logic of the 
thing. But he should remember that they do the best 
thing they can, v/hen they quote this passage in favor 
of their mass. If there were other Scripture more 
appropriate and to the point than this, they would 
quote it. I have no doubt the intelligent Catholic is 
ashamed of this reference to the Bible in behalf of the 
mass. He sees that it has no bearing on the case. 
It is not to compare in point of appropriateness with 
the tempter's quotation referred to above. 

Just observe ^r5^, that it was as king, not as priest, 
that Melchizedek brought forth the bread and wine. 
" Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread 
and wine." It was an act of royal bounty — an exer- 
cise of kingly hospitality. True, it is said immedi- 
ately after, that he was a priest as well as a king ; but 
that is said in reference to what follows, not what 
precedes. " And he was priest of the Most High 
God. And he blessed him." In his capacity of king 
he brought forth bread and wine. In the exercise of 
his priestly office he blessed Abraham. To bless, we 
Iniow, was one part of the priest's office. Numbers, 6 : 
23. His bringing forth bread and wine had nothing to 
do with his being a priest. What proves this view of 
the passage correct is, the manner in which the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to it. Iji his 
seventh chapter he introduces Melchizedek as a priest. 



THOtTGHTS ON POPERY. 133 

and in that character as the model of Christ's priest- 
hood ; and he speaks of his blessing Abraham, but 
says not a word about his bringing forth bread and 
wine. Why is not this circumstance— this most ma- 
terial circumstance, according to the Catholic notion, 
alluded to, if in it he acted as a priest and as the sa- 
cerdotal type of Christ ? Why does the apostle, when 
speaking of him as a priest, mention only his benedic- 
tion of Abraham? Now if, as I think it is manifest, 
he brought forth bread and wine not in the exercise of 
his office as priest, it overturns the Catholic argument 
at once. 

But secondly, consider what in all human proba- 
bility was the object of the bread and wine. Would 
any one, in reading the passage, suppose it could have 
been for any other purpose than refreshment ? What 
an idea ! to come out to a people returning famished 
and weary from the toils of conflict, with a sacrifice — 
a propitiatory sacrifice too — the mass — with bread and 
wine, not to be eaten and drank, but to be offered to 
God ! What more unnatural than such a supposi- 
tion ! On the other hand what more natural, and 
proper than to bring forth, for those fatigued soldiers, 
''wine that makelh glad the heart of man, and bread 
which strengtheneth man's heart," to refresh them ? 
It was just what, under the circumstances, they needed. 

In further proof of the correctness of this view of 
the passag^e, we find that Abraham recognized the 
priesthood of Melchizedek, not by receiving bread 
and wine at his hands, but by giving him tithes. 
"And he gave him tithes of all." 

We see then there is no proof of any sacrifice in 
this transaction. There was nothing offered to God. 

12 



134 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

What was offered, was to Abraham and his company. 
But if the offering was to God, it could but constitute 
an eucharistic sacrifice. Bread and wine might be 
offered as thank-offerings. But a bloodless propitia- 
tory sacrifice was unknown under the Old Testament. 
Whatev^er view we take of the passage, it cannot 
make for the mass. That which was offered was 
only bread and wine. The Catholics do not pretend 
that they were changed into the body and blood of 
Christ. Melchizedek lived nearly 20C0 years before 
Christ had a body. How could transubstantiation 
take place so long before the incarnation ? But if sim- 
ple bread and wine were offered, then the act of Mel- 
chizedek, if any thing more than an example of 
hospitality, was rather the model of the Protestants' 
Lord's Supper, than the Roman Catholic's mass. — 
And here it may be observed, that Melchizedek dees 
not seem to have denied the cup to the laity, as later 
priests have done. no, it was the Council of Con- 
stance, in the 15th century, that established that custom. 
But Catholics have another argument from Scrip- 
ture in favor of their mass. It is derived from the 
perpetuity of Christ's priesthood. If, say they, Christ 
is a priest forever, and " every high priest is ordained 
to offer gifts and sacrifices," there must be a perpetual 
sacrifice, else he would be a priest without exercising 
priestly functions. But do they not see that this is to 
suppose Christ a priest after the order of Aaron, and 
not after that of Melchizedek? It is true the Aaronic 
priests offered sacrifice during the whole term of their 
priesthood. They stood " daily ministering, and offer- 
ing oftentimes the same sacrifices." But what is said 
of Christ? He '• needeth not daily, as those high 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 135 

priests, to offer up sacrifice for this he did once, 

when he offered up himself." And again: "But 
this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, 
forever sat down on the right hand of God." Yet the 
Catholics say he needeth daily to offer up sacrifice, 
and that he, as well as the Aaronic priests, offers of- 
tentimes the same sacrifices ! They make Christ to 
resemble the Jewish priests in those very particulars 
in which the apostle says he stands in contrast to 
them ! 

As to Christ's being a priest /oreuer, if that means 
any thing more than is expressed in Heb. 7 : 24, 
where he is said to have "an unchangeable priest- 
hood," that is, a priesthood that passes not from one 
to another, as did the Aaronic, it is explained in the 
succeeding verse, where it is said that "he ever liveth 
to make intercession." He is a priest forever, because 
he ever liveth to make intercession. It is not at all 
necessary that he should ever live to offer sacrifice, in 
order to his being a priest forever. Intercession is 
as much a part of the priest's office as sacrifice. And 
here I would ask whether the Jewish high-priest was 
not as much a priest vvrhen he went into the most holy 
place to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice, and to burn 
incense, as when, before he entered, he was engaged 
in offering the sacrifice ? Undoubtedly he was. He 
offered no sacrifice while he was in the holy place. 
He went in for another purpose altogether. So Christ, 
the great antitype, has entered " not into the holy 
places made with hands, w^hich are the figures of the 
true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the 
presence of God for us." And there he remains. He 
has never come out. He had no need to come out to 



136 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

offer another sacrifice, as the Jewish high-priest had. 
"By one offering he hath perfected forever them that 
are sanctified." Were another sacrifice necessary, he 
would return in person to earth to offer it ; nor would 
it be " under the form of bread and wine," for the 
apostle argues, in Heb. 9 : 25, 26, that he must suffer 
as often as he offers himself — that he cannot be offered 
without suffering. Yet the Douay Catechism says 
he "continues daily to offer himself." He is sacri- 
ficing, according to them, while he is interceding — 
sacrificing in the place appropriated to intercession, 
and offering himself without suffering ! The Bible 
tells us, " Christ was once offered," but that " he erer 
liveth to make intercession." It makes the perpetuity 
of his priesthood to consist in his intercession. The 
Catholic doctrine, on the other hand, teaches us that 
he is continually offered, and therefore a priest for- 
ever. And yet they appeal to the Bible in proof of 
their doctrine ! 



36. The Host. 



Here is another of the peculiar terms of the Cath- 
olic religion, Protestants commonly use the word to 
signify an army, or a great multitude. But Catholics 
mean by it one thing. It is the name they give to the 
consecrated wafer in the Eucharist. Wafer! What 
has a wafer to do with the Eucharist? We read that 
our Saviour took bread and blessed, and break, and 
gave it to his disciples ; but we read nothing about 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 137 

any wafer. If by wafer the same thing is meant, 
which we mean by bread, yet why this change of 
names ? Why not call it what Christ called it ? Why 
seek to improve upon things as they were left by him? 

When the wafer, the thin piece of bread, is conse- 
crated; that is, when a blessing has been invoked, and 
thanks have been given, for that is all that Christ 
did, (the same precisely which he did when he fed the 
multitudes ; in which case not even Catholics contend 
that there was any transubstantiation of the bread 
into another substance; and if no such effect was pro- 
duced on that bread by the blessing and thanksgiv- 
ing, how should the same produce such an effect on 
the bread of the sacrament?) then it is no longer 
called a wafer. It is true, St. Paul calls it the same 
afterwards that he called it before. But not so the 
Catholics. Now they call it the host, a word derived 
from the Latin hostia, signifying victim, or sacrifice. 

But why change its name ? And above all, why give 
it so different a name? One minute to call a thinsr a 
wafer, and the next a victim, a sacrifice ! and when 
nothing but a prayer has intervened. Has it become 
so different a thing that it deserves so different a 
name 7 I know the Catholics say a great change has 
taken place in its nature, and therefore it ought to 
have a new name. Well, I am open to conviction. 
When a great change has taken place in any thing, 
such a change that the original substance of the thing 
has totally departed, which is the greatest change 
any thing can undergo, it commonly appears to the 
senses different from what it did before. But the 
wafer and the host look exactly alike, and they smell 
alike, and taste and feel precisely alike. The form 

12 * 



138 THOUGHTS ON FOPERY. 

is the same it was before ; and by every test by which 
the substance can be examined, it is found to be the 
same. Yet they say the two things are as unlike as 
bread, and the body, soul and divinity of Christ ! And 
this on pain of perdition must be believed, though the 
senses all exclaim against it ; and reason, that calm 
faculty, almost getting into a passion with the absur- 
dity of the doctrine, cries out against it ; and though 
all experience be against it. And in favor of it, there 
is what? Why, Christ r,aid "This is my body," 
speaking as Paul did when he said " and that rock 
was Christ ;" and as he himself did, when he said 
" I am the door." Did any one ever contend that 
Christ was literally a door or a rock? Oh no. AVhy 
then is it contended that the bread was literally his 
body 7 Is it so said ? And are not the other things also 
so said? It is strange the Catholics should contend 
for a literal interpretation in the first case, while they 
will not allow it in the other cases. 

But if they contend for a strictly literal interpreta- 
tion of "this is my body," why do they not abide by 
such an interpretation ? Why do they say, as in the 
Christian's Guide, page 14, that " in the most holy 
sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, 
and substantially, the body and blood, together with 
the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ?" If 
Christ says it is his body, he does not say it is his soul 
and divinity. Where do they get that from ? They 
say it is his body, because he says it is. But why do 
they say it is his soul and Divinity also, when he does 
not say so? You see they do not interpret the pas- 
sage literally, after all. 

But what do the Catholics do with this host? Prin- 
cipally two things. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERV. 139 

L They adore it. The Bible says "Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
serve." But the Catholics Avorship the host. Yes, 
but is not Christ to be worshiped, and do they not 
hold that the bost is Christ? Suppose they do hold 
so. Does it follow that every thing is as they hold i' 
to be ? And if in this case the fact be diflferent froin 
what they hold it to be, is not their worship idolatry 
whatever they may verily think 7 Paul verily thought 
that he ought to do many things contrary to the name 
of Jesus of Nazareth. But did his verily thinking ic 
was his duty, make it so, or exculpate him? No, he 
ought to have been better informed. And Catholics 
ought to be better informed than to suppose that the 
host is Christ — a wafer, God — a bit of bread, not only 
the body, but the very soul and divinity of Christ ! 
I say they ought to know better. And if they do not, 
they must take the consequences of such ignorance. 

2. The other thing which they do with the host is 
to eat it. This is all very well on our theory. It is 
bread ; and what is bread for but to be eaten. Christ 
tells us to put it to this use. He says " Take, eaV* 
But on their supposition that it is bread no longer, it 
is no longer proper to be eaten. Its nature being so 
changed, there ought to be a corresponding change in 
its use. If it is to be adored, it is not to be devoured. 
Common sense teaches this. These two uses of it, 
adoring it and eating it, are incongruous to each other. 
One of them at least ought to be dispensed with. If 
they continue to eat it, they ought to give up adoring 
it. But if they must have it as an object of worship, 
they should cease to use it as an article of food. Any 
body can tell you Ihat you ought not to eat what you 



140 THOCGHTS ON POPERY. 

worship. Cicero thought such a thing could not be. 
In his work on Theology, he asks " Was any man 
ever so mad as to take that which he feeds upon for a 
god ?" But Cicero did not live late enough, else he 
could not hav£ asked that question. Papal Rome has 
far outdone Pagan Rome. 

If I believed in transubstantiation, I would never 
receive the Eucharist. I know that I must spiritu- 
ally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, that I 
may have life in me, that is, I must by meditation and 
faith, contemplate and appropriate his sacrifice ; but 
I could never literally eat what I believed to be my 
divine Saviour. What, take him actually between 
my teeth ! chew and swallow what I had just before 
worshiped, and adored ! Let not the language be ob- 
jected to. It is unavoidable. Rather let horror be 
felt at the thing. I would not speak lightly of sacred 
things, nor untenderly of the opinions of others ; but 
the idea of adoring and eating the same object is 
shocking to me. Some readers will perhaps say that 
I must misrepresent the Catholics — that it is impos- 
sible they should believe so. Let such convict me of 
misrepresentation, if they can, and I will take the first 
opportunity of retracting. 



37. Priests. 



Where are we ? Under what dispensation are we 
living ? One would suppose, from hearing so much 
said among a certain class of people about priests^ 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 141 

and their offering sacrifice^ that the Old Testament 
dispensation — the dispensation of types and shadows 
— was still in force : and that the Messiah, the sub- 
stance and antitype, was yet to come. Priests were 
a sacred order of men under the Jewish dispensation, 
and sacrifice constituted an important part of divine 
service. But, under the Christian dispensation, there 
is no order of priests, neither any literal sacrifices 
offered. We have, indeed, under this dispensation, a 
great High Priest, Jesus the Son of God, who, hav- 
ing once offered himself to bear the sins of many, has 
passed into the heavens for us, where he ever lives to 
make intercession; and he makes all his disciples, 
in a sense, both "kings and priests unto God" — John 
1:6; even as also Peter, vfho is prime authority with 
us all, testifies. When addressing the Christians to 
whom he wrote, he says: "Ye are a holy priesthood, 
to offer up spiritual sacrifices." 1 Pet. 2 : 5. This 
priesthood, which Peter recognizes, is very different 
from the Roman Catholic priesthood. All Chris- 
tians share equally in the New Testament priest- 
hood, and these priests are set apart to offer up 
spiritual sacrifices, or as it is said, v. 9, that they 
"should show forth the praises" of God. This is 
not the object of the Roman priesthood, neither are 
its functions performed by all the faithful. 

The truth is, the Roman Catholic priesthood, that 
large and influential body of ecclesiastics, has no 
more warrant and authority for its existence from 
Christ, than it has from Mohammed. There is no 
more in the Bible in favor of such an order, than 
there is in the Koran., and perhaps not as much. 
Christ instituted no such office — authorized no such 



142 THOUGUTS ON POPERY. 

characters in his church. " He gave some, apostles ; 
and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and 
some, pastors and teachers ;" but he gave none 
priests. And these he gave or appointed "for the 
perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, 
for the edifying of the body of Christ," not for saying 
mass, offering sacrifice, burning incense, hearing 
confessions, and the like of those things. Christ ap- 
pointed no officer to perform such functions as these. 
I have quoted from Eph. 4: 11, 12. In 1 Cor. 12 : 28, 
"vre have another enumeration of the officers which 
God has set in the church, but there is not a word 
about priests. They are a class of persons not at all 
needed under the Christian dispensation. The great 
High Priest of our profession answers every purpose. 
He has offered the sacrifice which is efficacious to 
put away sin — has shed a blood which cleanseth from 
all sin; and he ever liveth to be our Advocate with 
the Father. Neither for propitiation, nor for inter- 
cession, need we any other priest. Other priests are 
quite out of place since he has come. 

If Christ instituted an order of priests, why do we 
not read any thing about them in that choice piece of 
ecclesiastical history, the Acts of the Apostles ? It is 
very strange. We read about Jewish priests in the 
Acts, and mention is made of the priests of Jupiter, 
but not a word do we hear of any Christian priests. 
Who were they? What were their names? Ste- 
phen was a deacon; Philip was an evangelist; Paul 
was an apostle ; Peter was an elder, and there were 
many who were addressed as bishops. But who was 
a priest? If Paul was, why does he not sometimes 
call himself so in the introduction of his Epistles'? 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 143 

Was he ashamed of the office 1 Peter says he was 
an elder or presbyter, buf gives no hint of his having 
been a priest. He seems to have had no idea of his 
being a priest in any other sense than as being one of 
that " holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices," 
which all true believers compose. 

If the priesthood be a Christian order of men, why 
does Paul, in writing to Timothy and Titus, take no 
notice of it ? He gives the qualifications of bishops 
and deacons, but says nothing about those of priests. 
Were they to have no qualifications ? Must a bishop 
be " blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, 
sober, apt to teach," &c. and might a priest be any 
thing he pleased in these respects ? Might any body 
be a priest ? If not, the silence of the apostle is de- 
cisive. Any one may see now why the Catholic 
priests do not like the Bible. Who likes to be treat- 
ed by book or man with silent contempt? The 
priests will never forgive the evangelists and apos- 
tles for having passed them by in the way they have 
done. Never. And they will never let their people 
have the genuine Bible. If they do, they will lose 
the people. 

I suppose it is scarcely necessary to say, that if 
Catholics meant no more by a priest, than some of our 
Protestant brethren mean by the Avord, viz. a presby- 
ter, of which priest, as used by them, is but an abbre- 
viation, there could have been no occasion for this 
article. But they mean by a priest, area.! sacei^dot at 
character, as much as the priest of the Old Testa- 
ment was — one who literally offers sacrifice. They 
pretend that their priests offer sacrifice now — that 
whenever they perform mass, a true, proper, and 



144 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead, is 
offered by them. And if you ask them what they 
offer, they tell you they offer Christ — ^that, under 
their hands, he becomes again, and as often as they 
choose to make him so, a propitiatory sacrifice— that 
he is as really offered by them in their missal ser- 
vice, as he was by himself on Calvary, only now he 
is offered in an unbloody manner I This is what their 
priests do. A priest must have somewhat to ofier. 
He is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices. Now, 
the Catholic priest, finding nothing else to offer, pre- 
tends to re-offer Christ. For all this — this priest- 
hood, and this sacrifice — every one knows there is no 
more authority in the Bible than there is for the 
Hindoo Suttee — the burning of widows. 



38. The Celibacy of the Clergy. 

This is the Roman Catholic doctrine ; but is it Bi- 
ble doctrine ? I believe, however, that the Catholics 
say it is no part of doctrine^ but of discipline. This 
is a sorry evasion.. It amounts to a confession that 
some of their ecclesiastical practices have no warrant 
in Christian doctrine. It is saying that it is a part of 
their discipline that their clergy do not marry, but no 
part of their doctrine that they should not. 

But let us see how this doctrine or discipline, or by 
whatever name it may be called, tallies with the 
Scriptures ; and as we proceed, we shall see why the 



THOtrOHTi ON POPERY. 145 

Catholics are unwilling that the people should read 
the Bible. We shall see what a world of trouble it 
"would occasion the priests, were they to be in the ha- 
bit of reading it. Suppose, for example, an intelli* 
gent Catholic to take up Paul's ^rsf epistle to Timo- 
thy for perusal. Well, he reads along until he comes 
to the third chapter, where he finds Paul telling Tim- 
othy what a bishop must be. He must be this and 
that, and, among other things, " the husband of one 
wife." The reader is shocked. '' Why, what does 
this mean ? Our priests tell us that a bishop must not 
marry at all. Our church prohibits all her clergy from 
marrying. Which is right, our priests and church, 
or St. Paul ?" He concludes to read on. Coming to 
verse 4th, he meets with this qualification of the bi- 
shop: " one that ruleth well his own house," i.e. family. 
But how can he, if not permitted to have a house of 
his- own ? He proceeds: "having his children in 
subjection." His children — his children ! ! ! What, a 
feishop having children of his own, and having them 
collected in a family too ! And then there follow's a 
most provoking parenthesis, " for if a man know not 
how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of 
the church of God ?" His ruling his own house well 
is to be a criterion of his ability to take care of the 
church of God, and yet they say that he must not 
marry ! 

But the apostle passes on to speak of the deacons, 
and to say what they must be ; and in verse llth, he 
says what sort of wives they should have — "even so 
must their wives be grave," &c. So far from en- 
couraging a doubt whether they should marry or not, 
Paul gives them directions for choosing a wife. 

13 



146 tHOtGHTS ON fOPEIlY. 

Now, need any one wonder that the priests do not 
-want to have the Bible read by the people ; a Bible 
which contains such statements as these, and which 
moreover declares that marriage is honorable in allf 
without exception of clergy? I do not wonder at it. 
Who would put into the hands of his children and 
servants, and recommend to their perusal and belief, a 
book containing statements so much at variance with 
his oral communications to them ? 

But there is a passage a little farther on, at the be- 
ginning of chapter 4, which, I suppose, constitutes 
with the priests a still stronger objection to the popu- 
lar reading of this part of the Bible particularly- 
" The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter 
times some shall depart from the fdiiih.—forbiddi7ig to 
marry J^ Now, they are afraid that if the people were 
to read this, they might say, " Why, St, Paul must 
mean our church, it forbids to marry." And as it 
might give the priests some trouble to show that he 
did not mean their church, the better way is not to let 
the people know that there is any such passage in the 
Bible. 



30. A Holier State than Matrimony t 

In one of his last letters to Mr. Breckenridge, Mf. 
Hughes, of Philadelphia, says that the Catholic church 
does not forbid marriage, but " she holds, however, that 
there is a holier siatt»^ When I had read the letter 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 147 

thus far, I stopped, and said to myself, " How is this ? 
a holier state ! I must look into this." So I thought a 
moment; and I came to the conclusion that I could 
not hold with the Catholic church in this thing, for 
the following reasons among others. 

1. Because, according to this doctrine there is a 
holier state than that to which Enoch attained, and 
from which he was translated ! He, we know, was a 
married man, and begat sons and daughters ; and it 
would seem that he married earlier than any other 
Patriarch ! And yet all the while after his marriage, 
for three hundred years, he walked with God; and, 
^^ he kad this testimony, that he pleased God ;" and 
God, in honor of his eminent piety, translated him 
^' that he should not see death !" Now do you sup- 
pose I am going to believe that tbe state of a Roman 
priest is holier than that of Enoch ; and that he would 
have been a better man if he had let marriage alone ? 
Never. I would ask. Do the pri-ests do more than 
walk with God 7 Have they a higher testimony than 
that they please him? Are they translated? What 
is the reason we never hear of their holier state being 
thus honored ? 

2. If there be a holier state than matrimony, why 
did not the law of the Jewish priesthood enjoin celi- 
bacy, as the letter tells us the law of the Catholic 
priesthood does ? Above all, why was not the high 
priest, whose functions were of the most sacred cha- 
racter, so much as 'permitted to occupy that holier 
state ? He was not only authorized, but, it is believed, 
was obliged to marry. 

3. The letter says, speaking of the Catholic church, 
"the law of her priesthood enjoins celibacy, &e. She 



148 THOUGHTS Or-i PCPERT. 

does not choose them (those who marry) for her cler- 
gy." Truly, she is very fastidious in the choice of 
her clergy. Why need she be so much more parti- 
cular than Paul required Timothy and Titus to be in 
the choice of their clergy ? Their bishops and dea- 
cons might have a wife ; but if any " wish to marry," 
she does not choose them for her clergy ! 

4. I thought when I read about the holier state, 
"what if all the Avorld should aspire to the holier 
state ?" Certainly, if it is holier, they ought to aspire 
to it. Priests are not the only persons who are com- 
manded to be perfect. 

Let the Catholic priesthood no longer make such an 
ado about their celibacy, as a holii^ state. Protes- 
tants allow their clergy to do as they please in this 
matter. If they remain unmarried, it is all very well. 
At the same time they are not extremely solicitous 
that their ministers should aspire to any holier stale 
than that from which Enoch was translated. 



40. Auricular Confession. 

I have been thinking with myself, where is the au- 
thority for this doctrine and practice of the Catholics — 
whence came the idea of confessing sin to a priest ? 
Every one admits that sin ought to be confessed — but 
why to a priest? Common sense would seem to dic- 
tate that confession should be made immediately to 
the being offended ; especially if he be easily accessi- 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 149 

ble- If a child offends his father, does he confess the 
offence to some third person, when his father is near 
at hand too ; and above all, does he select for that third 
person, an equally offending brother? Was ever such 
a thing heard of as this ? Yet this is the Catholic 
doctrine. It sends us to a brother as deep in the of- 
fence as we, to confess to him, that we have sinned 
against our father, when that father is near by, and 
when, moreov€r, he says " Come to me !" I think 
both the brothers, the penitent and the priest, had 
much better go directly to the father. I find that this 
is what they used to do in old times. I have been 
loolcing into the Bible to discover how it was then, 
and i perceive that they all went to God to make their 
■confessions. They did not stop at the priest. There 
was David, and Daniel, and Ezra, and Nehemiah, and 
I know not how many raor-e. They all w^ent with 
their sin directly to God, Read that precious Psalm, 
the 51st. There is David before God, He confesses 
to the one he had offended. " Against thee," he says. 
And may we not use that Psalm ? May we not go 
and say "against thee?" Must we turn aside to the 
priest? The publican did not. He went straight on 
to God- And the prodigal did not stop short of his 
father. Why should we? Why should Catholics? 
I think the sinner should go on to God — and I do 
not like that Catholic doctrine^ because it stops him 
as he is going to God. The sinner is on his way to 
confess his sin to his maker, and to implore of him 
pardoning mercy, and it says to him " you need nol 
go so far — the priest will hear you confess — he can 
forgive you," I like better the Protestant doctrine, 
which speeds and cheers the penitent on his way to God, 

13* 



150 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

Nor can I see why we want more than one media- 
tor between us and God. Why is not Christ enough ? 
How admirably qualified he is for his work? With 
one nature that reaches up to God, and another that 
reaches down to man, how excellently fitted is he to 
mediate for us ! Do we want another between us and 
Christ ? O no. Let the priest please not put him- 
self in the way. Jesus says, " Come unto me ;" we 
want no human priest between us and our " great High 
Priest, that is passed into the heavens for us." 

I may be very dull, but really I cannot see for my 
part what is the use of the priest ; for surely he can- 
not forgive a sinner, unless he repents ; and if he does 
repent, God forgives him, and then who cares whether 
the priest forgives him or not. If confession to the 
priest is intended to supersede confession to God, it 
is certainly a great mischief. If not so intended, it is 
useless, for our being forgiven depends on the nature 
of our confession to God, as penitent or otherwise. 

But they allege in support of their doctrine, a verse 
of Scripture, " confess your faults one to another." I 
suppose the reason they allege this is, that it is the 
best they can find for their purpose. They must be 
hard pushed for authority, when they resort to that 
jpassage. " Confess your faults one to another?"* This 
implies something mutual. If I confess to the priest, 
he must confess to me, for it says one to another. 
This puts priests and all on a level. There is no- 
thing auricular in this. Certainly we ought to con- 
fess our faults one to another, and to " pray one for 
another," as the same apostle exhorts. But this is by 
no means the Catholic doctrine of confession. That 
is quite a difierent thing. 



THOUQHTd ON POPERV, 151 

On the whole, it is my opinion that the world can 
dispense with this doctrine, and with the practice 
founded on it as well as with any thing which it has 
in use. 



4:1* A Mistake Corrected. 



In an article entitled " Auricular Confession," the 
writer stated, that in looking into the Bible he disco- 
vered that all the penitents mentioned therein went 
directly to God to make their confessions of sin, and 
not to the priests ; and he spoke of David, Daniel, Ez- 
ra, and Nehemiah, as examples in point. He finds, how- 
ever, that he M'as mistaken in saying that they all 
confessed to God instead of the priests. There is one 
exception, and he is willing that the Catholics should 
have the advantage of it. It is the case of Judas Is- 
carict, recorded in Matthew, 27 : 3, 4. He did not go to 
God with his confession. He went to the chief priests, 
and it was to them he said, " I have sinned, in that I 
have betrayed the innocent blood." Here, we must 
confess, is an example of confession to a priest. 
But it is the 07ily one, I believe, in the Bible. Ju- 
das also brought money (thirty pieces of silver) to 
the priests; so that the Catholics have authority 
(such as it is) for that part of their practice. I am 
determined I will do the Catholics justice. They 
shall have the advantage of every particle of Scrip- 
ture which really makes in their favor. It is well 
known that they need it. 



152 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

But, poor man ! He got nothing by going to the 
priests. It was their cruel and contemptuous treat- 
ment of him, as much as any thing else, that deter- 
mined him to go and hang himself. How differently 
■even Jud<as would have been treated, if he had gone 
with a broken heart to our great High Priest . Jesus ! 
Ah, he had better gone to him whom he betrayed, 
than to them to whom he betrayed him. I think I siiall 
always go to Him, notwithstanding the example of 
Judas. 



43. Purgatory. 



There are no worse reasoners than the Catholics ; 
and 1 suppose the cause of this is that they are so lit- 
tle accustomed to reason. Men rarely do mell what 
they are not used to do. The mind needs to be dis- 
ciplined to thinking and reasoning, else it performs 
these operations but very indifferently. Hence, you 
hear so many persons say therefore^ when nothing 
follows, or, at any rate, that does not follow which 
they suppose. Of this, the Catholics, not being in 
the habit of thinking and reasoning, their rery reli- 
gion prohibiting these operations, afford us some won- 
derful specimens. Between their premises and con- 
clusion there is often so great a gulf, so deep and 
wide both, that I have wondered how they manage tQ 
get over it. Let us hear them on the subject of pur- 
gatory. They feel as if they would like to have a lit- 
tle Scripture for this dogma of theirs — a text or twoj 



THOUGHTS OX ropFP.y. 153 

not for the satisfaction of the faithful, (for to them it is 
sufficient that the church believes the doctrine,) but to 
meet the heretics. But where shall they find in the 
Bible any thing favorable to purgatory. The Bible 
speaks plainly enough of two places beyond the grave, 
but it says nothing about a third place. It tells us of 
a heaven and a hell^ but of an intermediate purgatory 
never a word. It is true that some hundreds of years 
afterwards certain writers speak of it as a Christian 
doctrine, but I want to know why the older, the in- 
spired writers, say nothing about it. We read fre- 
quently in the Bible of being purged from sins, but 
most unfortunately for the Catholic doctrine, the 
purging is done in this life, not after death ; and it is 
done, not by Jire, as that doctrine asserts, but by 
blood. So that those passages in which purging oc- 
curs, do not help the Catholic cause. Then they look 
in the Bible for the word Jire ; and they read of the 
fire that is not quenched, and of everlasting fire, pre- 
pared for the devil and his angels. But this will not 
answer their purpose. This fire is everlasting, and 
for devils as well as wicked men. They never ima- 
gined a purgatory for devils. The fire of their pur- 
gatory is to be quenched. 

But there is a passage having ^re in it, which they 
adduce as to the point. It is 1 Cor. 3 : 15 : "yet so as 
by fire." These are the premises in the grand argu- 
ment ; and the conclusion is purgatory, a place of tem- 
porary punishment by fire after this life. d. E. D. 
Those letters were never more out of place. If there 
existed independent and irrefragible proof from ano- 
ther quarter of the doctrine of purgatory, in that case 
it might be innocently imagined that the apostle had 



154 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

in his mind some remote allusion to it in this chap- 
ter ; but that this proverbial phrase, " saved, yet so as 
by fire," signifying, as used by writers both sacred and 
l)rofane, a narrow escape out of a great danger, 
should be relied on as the principal support of the 
doctrine, is truly marvelous ! I always thought that 
the fire of purgatory was to purify men^s souls; but 
the fire here spoken of is to try every man'^s work. 
Besides, it is not said that the person shall be saved 
by fire, but so as by fire ; that is, with the like difficulty 
with which a man in a burning house is saved from 
its conflagration. A good man, who, on the precious 
foundation of Jesus Christ, builds worthless materials, 
such as wood, hay, stubble, shall sufier the loss of his 
Avork, yet he himself shall be saved, though with great 
difficulty, so as hy fire. So much for the main pillar 
of purgatory. 

But they point us to Matthew, 5. 25, 26, "agree 
with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the 
way with him ; lest at any time the adversary deliver 
thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the 
officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily, I say 
unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, 
till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." Noav I 
would look the intelligent Catholic, Avho refers to this 
in proof of purgatory, in the face, and ask him if he is 
in earnest ; if he can think that the doctrine of purga- 
tory derives any support from that passage. What is 
it but a most excellent piece of advice in reference to 
the settlement of differences among men? But they 
say, " does not Christ, in Matthew, 12 : 32, speak of a 
sin which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, 
neither in the world to come ; and does not this imply 



tHOUQHTS ON POPERY. 155 

that some sins may be forgiven in the world to come?" 
It implies no such thing. That form of expression is 
employed but to strengthen the denial. Besides, how 
can they be said to be forgiven, if they are purged 
away by fire? 

Ah, but does not St. Peter say that Christ went and 
preached to the spirits in prison ? Where were they 
but in purgatory ? But were all the giant sinners be- 
fore the flood in purgatory ? If so, there may be some 
hope for us heretics. But why should Christ go to 
purgatory to preach to the spirits there ? It is not by 
•preaching^ according to the Catholics, that souls are 
liberated from purgatory, but by prayers and masses, 
well paid for. And why should Christ select out the 
antediluvian sinners, and preach only to them ? In- 
deed, I think the friends of purgatory had better give 
up that text J and not attempt to support their dogma 
by Scripture, but be content with tradition, consoling 
themselves with the reflection that though nothing is 
written about it, yet it has been handed down. 

As for us Protestants, we do not believe in burning 
out sin — in salvation by jire. We protest against it. 
We believe in the washing away of sin, and that by 
the blood of Jesus alone : " The blood of Jesus Christ, 
his son, cleanseth us from all sin." What is there 
left for fire to do ? The spirits of the just made per- 
fect ascribe no part of their salvation to fire. No. 
Their ascription is " unto him that loved us, and 
washed us from our sins in his own blood." How 
could souls just come up out of purgatory, where they 
have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, un- 
dergoing the purification of fire, unite in this song? 



156 THOUGHTS OK POPERY* 



43> More about Purgatory* 

What low and unworthy thoughts the Catholics must 
have of the work of Christ and of the efficacy of his 
blood, that they should believe that after he has done 
all he can for a soul, and his blood has exhausted its 
virtue on it, it has still to be subjected to the action of 
an intense flame, for no one knows how long, in ordei 
that the expiation of its sins may be complete, and 
its salvation perfected ! What a doctrine ! Why, 
according to this, Christ was premature in saying on 
the cross, " It is finished." It was not finished. The 
expiation of sin was only begun on Calvary. It is 
completed in Purgatory ! O God, I pray thee rid 
and deliver the mind of man from this dreadful delu- 
sion, so derogatory to thy dear Son, our blessed Sa- 
vior ; and so injurious to thee, for it represents thee, 
who delightest in mercy, as punishing after thou hast 
pardoned ; as requiring satisfaction from men, after 
thou hast accepted for them the satisfaction of Christ ! 

Now I know the reason why Catholics are never 
happy in the prospect of death — why the dying vota- 
ries of that religion never exclaim, " O death where 
is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?". It is 
because they are expecting to go to a place of tire. 
Hov7 can they be triumphant in the " certain fearful 
looking for of judgment and Jiery indignation ?" How 
can their religion be other than Avhat it is, a religion 
of fear and foreboding. 

I have a few more things to say upon this subject ; 
one of them is this : If there was in the time of Christ 
and his apostles such a place as Purgatory, it must 
have been a place of little note and of little use — of 



tnOUGHTS OK POfERY. 157 

little note, for they say nothing about it — and of little 
Use, because v/e hear of no one going there. Lazarus 
did not go there, neither did Dives — nor did the thief 
who was saved from the cross — nor did Judas. Paul 
speaks of those Christians who are absent from the 
body, as present with the Lord. Is Christ in Purga- 
tory ? Is it there that believers go to be ever with 
him? But hark ! a voice from heaven ! now we shall 
know how it is : "I heard a voice from heaven," says 
St. John, " saying unto me, write, blessed are the dead 
which die in the Lord from henceforth ; yea, saith the 
Spirit, that they may rest from their labors." They 
that die in the Lord, rest. Then certainly they are 
not in Purgatory. 

If Purgatory is full of souls, who are helped by the 
prayers of the faithful on earth, as Catholics say, 
why, in the multitude of their exhortations, do the 
sacred writers never so much as give us a hint about 
praying for those poor suffering souls ? What a cruel 
oversight it was in them ! 

I smile sometimes when I look at this doctrine of 
Purgatory. But I repress the smile. Ludicrous as 
the doctrine is, it is still more pernicious. What does 
it do, that is so bad ? Why, it turns away the atten- 
tion of the soul from Christ. It says the very opposite 
of " behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the 
sin of the world." And then it tells men that they 
may not only live, but die wickedly, and yet entertain 
the hope of salvation. It proclaims the possibility of 
a post-mortem repentance and purification from sin. 
It emboldens men to go out of the world in impeni 
lence, assuring them that though they do, yet prayers 

and masses offered for them after death can save 

14 



158 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

them. It denies that we are to be judged and dealt 
with according to the deeds done in the body ; wherea-i, 
the Bible declares that according to these, we are to 
receive. 

On the whole, for this doctrine of Purgatory there 
is neither Scripture, nor reason, nor common sense. 
This, however, may be said of it. It is a profitable 
doctrine. Yes, a capital speculation. There is no 
doctrine which pays so well. You have heard of Pe- 
ter'' s pence. Here his boasted successors get their 
pounds. 



44. A Strange Thing. 

I read the other day in a Baltimore newspaper the 
following article : 

*' Obsequies. — This day the Prelates and Theologians of the 
Catholic Provincial Council, now in session in this city, to- 
gether with several other priests, celebrated the solemn office 
for the repose of the souls of the Right Rev. Doctor Fenwick, 
of Cincinnati, and De Neker, of New Orleans. The Right Rev. 
Doctor Rosati celebrated the High Mass, attended by the pro- 
per officers. After the Gospel, the Right Rev. Doctor Purcell, 
Jiishop of Cincinnati, ascended the pulpit and preached a fune- 
ral Oration; in which he ably portrayed, in accurate and 
pathetic language, the virtues and services of the deceased 
jirelates, the former of whom fell a victim to the cholera, after 
years of laborious and successful exertions; the latter wai 
taken away in the bloom of youth and in the midst of his labors 
by the yellow fever. After the Mass, Doctor Rosati perform- 
ed the usual obsequies." 

Having finished reading the article, I withdrew the 
paper from my eye and I said to myself, Where am 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 159 

I? I thought I was in the United States of America. 
But that cannot be. This can be no other than Spain, 
Portugal, or Italy. And what century is this ? I always 
thought that I lived in the glorious nineteenth. But 
I must have made a mistake of nine at the very least. 
This surely must be the tenth century; the darkest of 
the dark ages — seculum tenebricosum, as the church 
historians call it — the midnight of time! this day the 
Prelates in this city celebrated the solemn of- 
fice for the repose, &c. 

Just then it occurred to me that I might have read 
the paragraph incorrectly. So I resumed the paper ; 
but still it read the same. Then I threw it down, and 
I sat and thought : Well now, this is a strange thing — 
an extraordinary piece of business — praying for the re- 
pose of deceased saints I — and those, too, prelates of 
the only true church — and prelates eminent for their 
"virtues and services" — dead a year, or thereabouts, 
and yet not at rest! — and this by confession of their 
own church ! What must become of the less renowned 
Catholics, if the very best of their bishops are tossing 
and burning in purgatory a year after having sacrificed 
their lives in the service of God and their fellow-crea- 
tures ; and need solemn offices said for the repose of 
their souls? I always thought that rest to the soul en- 
sued immediately on the exercise of faith. Paul says, 
" we Avhich have believed, do enter into rest ;" and 
Christ says, " come unto me, and I will give you rest ; 

take my yoke upon you and learn of me and ye 

shall find rest unto your souls." I always supposed it 
meant that they should find the rest as soon as they 
came ; and not after a long life, and along purgatorial 
period subsequent to that. But above all, I had got the 



160 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

impression that, if never before, yet in the grave, good 
men find rest. I must have contracted that belief, I 
suppose, by reading what St. John says, " Blessed are 
the dead which die in the hord from henceforth: yea, 
saith the Spirit, that they may rest," &c. or possibly 
I got it from that other passage, "there the wicked 
cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest^ 
But it seems I am wrong. Here are two bishops dead, 
yet not at rest ! If what St. John says is true, here is 
a dilemma. Either those bishops did not die in the 
Lord, or they are at rest. Will the prelates say that 
they did not die in the Lord? I suspect not. Then 
they must believe that they are at rest. And if so, why 
celebrate the solemn office for their repose ? 

Hoping it may not be a mortal sin, (if it be only ve- 
nial, I will risk it,) I would ask how the Catholics know 
that these bishops of theirs are not at rest ? Who 
told them so? Where did they learn it? It seems to 
me a slander on those men. Bishop Fenwick enjoyed 
an enviable reputation for goodness. I have often 
heard him spoken of by Protestants in terms of high 
commendation ; and the article quoted speaks of 
" the virtues and services " of both. And now, after 
they have been dead so long, to tell the world that 
ihey are not at rest, and that their repose must be 
prayed for! If Protestants had dared to suggest such 
a thing about them, we should never have heard the 
last of it. 

But it seems not only a slander on those men, but 
also a reflection on Christ. Hoav imperfectly, accord- 
ing to the Catholics, he must have done his work ! 
that even those esteemed his most devoted servants 
must lie, and toss, and burn, nobody knows how long, 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 161 

after death, before the efficacy of his atonement will 
allow of their being taken to heaven ! And where is 
the fulfillment of his promise, " Come unto me and I 
will give you rest. Ye shall find rest to your souls ?" 
According to the prelates, &c. these bishops have not 
found it yet. 

I would dare ask another question. How is it that 
the priests and prelates can tell with so much accura- 
cy how long a soul remains in purgatory before it is 
released ? How do they know just when to stop pray- 
ing? I will not insinuate that they pray as long as 
the money holds out, and no longer -, for in the case of 
the bishops, I suppose they freely give their prayers. 
I could not help thinking, if they did go first to purga- 
tory, yet they may not be there so long as this. A 
year is a long time to be in purgatory. Hours pass 
slowly away while one is burning. O, is this a part 
of Christianity ? Can it be ? What an unsatisfactory 
religion, which will not allow its most eminent exam- 
ples, its most virtuous votaries, to have repose even in 
the grave ! Credat qui vult, non ego. 



4r5. Canonizing^ Saints. 

I was a good deal struck the other day in reading, 
in a Baltimore paper, the following notice : " On 
Monday, the 17th of March, St. Patrick's day, a so- 
lemn High Mass will be sung in St. Patrick's church. 
Fell's Point, and the panegyric of the Saint will be 

14* 



162 THOUGHTS CTN POPERY. 

delivered." It suggested some thoughts which I beg 
leave to communicate. 

Why should the 17th of March be called St. Pat- 
rick's day ? How is it his day more than yours or 
mine ? What property had he in it more than others? 
He died on that day, it is true. But was he the only 
one that died on that day. Many thousands must 
have died on the same day. Does a man's dying on 
a particular day make it his ? Ah, but he was a saint. 
How is that ascertained ? Who saw his heart ? I 
hope he was a good man, and a renewed person. But 
I think we ought to be cautious how we so positively 
pronounce our fellow creatures saints. Especially 
should Catholics, since even Peter himself, thousrh. 
as they affirm, infallible, did not express himself so 
confidently, for he says in his first epistle, 5th chap, 
and 12th verse, of Silvanus, " a faithful brother unto 
you, as I supposed 

But what if he was a saint ; every real Christian is 
a saint. If any one doubts this, let him consult any 
part of the New Testament, I trust there were many 
saints on earth at that time ; and I doubt not that 
other saints died on that day as well as Patrick. I ob- 
ject altogether to the day being called his. I have no 
idea that the 365th portion of evAy year belongs pe- 
culiarly to St. Patrick. I have no notion of this par- 
celing out the year among the saints, and calling one 
day St. Patrick's, and another St. Cecilia's, and so 
on. At this rate we shall have the whole year appro- 
priated to dead saints. 

Ah, but you forget that Patrick was canonized. 
The church made him a saint, and appropriated that 
day to him. But I have not much opinion of these 



THOUGHTS OK POPERY. 163 

canonized saints — the saints of human manufacture. 
I like the sanctified ones better. Our Protestant 
saints are "God's workmanship, created in Christ 
Jesus." But granting the 17th of March to be St. 
Patrick's day, why is it kept? What have we to do 
with it, who live so long after ? Patrick died in 493, 
and here in the 19th century they are keeping his day ! 
I think it is time to have done grieving for the death of 
St. Patrick, now that he has been dead more than 1300 
years, and especially when he died at the good old age 
of 120. Really, I think it is time that even the Irish 
Catholics had wiped up their tears for him. Tears ! 
why, they do not keep the day in lamentation for him, 
but in honor and praise of him. High mass is to be 
swig, as it appears by the advertisement. Now sing- 
ing expresses praise — and his panegyric is to be pro- 
nounced. It is wonderful what a disposition there is 
among the Catholics to multiply the objects of their 
religious honor. O that they were but satisfied to 
praise the Lord that made heaven and earth ! But no 
— they must have creatures to do homage unto — an- 
gels ; and saints of their own making ; and above all, 
the blessed Virgin, "our heavenly mother," as some 
of them call her. It would really seem as if they had 
rather pay respect to any other being than God ! They 
cannot be satisfied with the mediation of Jesus. They 
must have creatures to mediate and intercede for them. 
They are always doing things, and keeping days in 
honor of the saints. How much they talk about tute- 
lar saints and guardian angels. It would appear 
as if they had rather be under the care of any other 
beings than God! 

Now the idea of still eulogizing, panegyrizmg, and 



164 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

praising, here in these United States, one St. Patr'ck, 
who died in Ireland in 493, how absurd! How is 
piety to be promoted by it, I should like to know ! 

By the way, what is high mass in distinction from 
low mass? They differ in several respects. Among 
the peculiarities of high mass, this, I believe, is one, 
that it is more exfensive than Ioav mass. If you Avant 
high mass said for a poor suffering soul in purgatory, 
you have to pay more than you do if you are content 
Avitli low mass. And so it should be, for the high 
mass is worth more. Low mass scarcely makes an 
impression on a soul in purgatory. It is high mass 
that does the business effectually and expeditiouslv. 

As for us Protestants, we have nothing to do with 
these masses. We do not find any thing said about 
them in the Bible. The Catholic will pardon me, I 
hope, for alluding to the Bible. I am aware that it is 
no good authority with him, except now and then a 
verse, (entirely misunderstood,) such as that about the 
rock, which they say was Peter, on whom the church 
was built, according to them ! Only think now, a man 
that denied the founder of Christianity three times 
with profane oaths, himself the foundation of the 
whole church ! Nothing else for it to rest upon but 
Peter ! But the beauty of it is that this foundation 
should have had a long series o{ fundamental succes- 
sors, down to the present Pope ! I always supposed 
that when a foundation is laid, there is an end of it, 
and that all after belongs to the superstructure. But 
this is a digression. I was speaking of us Protestants, 
that we reject masses. And so we acknowledge no 
distinction of days, but the Lord^s day. We keep no 
saint's days. We keep the Lord's day. It is almos: 



THOUGHTS ON POPERV. 165 

the only day that some Catholics do not keep reli- 
giously ! They are so busy with their saint's days, 
that they quite overlook the day which " the Lord 
hath made." 

It strikes me that in giving this notice, the priests 
should have used an easier word than panegyric. I 
wonder how many of our Irish brethren know what it 
means. But " ignorance is the mother of devotion," 
you know, is one of their maxims. What multitudes 
of them said, on the 17th of March, " blessed St. Pat- 
rick." Probably many more than said " Hallowed be 
thy name." And every day how much more respect 
is paid among them to the mother than to the Son! 
It is as clear as demonstration can make any thing, 
that the Catholic religion is idolatrous. Men may 
say that it is a very uncharitable remark. But if any 
one will dare to say it is an untrue remark, I am ready 
to meet him. Let us inquire Jirst^ what is truth. 
Then we will come to the question, what is charity. 
And we shall find that charity is something which 
" rejoices in the truth." 



40. Gen. liafayette not at Rest. 

A few days since I observed the following notice, 
taken from the Charleston Roman Catholic Miscella- 
ny : " There will be an office and high mass in the 
Cathedral on Monday, 30th inst. (June,) for the re- 
pose of the soul of General Lafayette." Also the 



166 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

following, taken from the Catholic Herald: "A so- 
lemn high mass will be sung on Tuesday next, the 
29th inst. (July,) at 10 o'clock, at the church of the 
Holy Trinity, corner of Sixth and Spruce, for the re- 
pose of the soul of the late Gen. Lafayette." The 
General died, it will be remembered, on the 20lh of 
May. I did not know that he had been heard from 
since, any more than the rest of the dead. But the 
Charleston and Philadelphia editors seem to have had 
accounts of him up to as late a date as the 29th of 
July. Forty days after his death, according to the one 
account, and sixty-nine days according to the other, 
his soul was not at rest ; and they give notice that 
measures are about to be taken to procure its repose. 
I don't know where they got it. They do not say 
through what channel the intelligence came. They 
are very positive, however, in regard to the fact. I 
have often been surprised at the confidence with which 
Catholics make assertions, implying a knowledge of 
the condition of souls beyond the grave. One would 
suppose they had a faculty, peculiar to themselves, of 
seeing into the invisible world. With what positive- 
ness they speak of this one and that other as saints 
in glory, and even pray to them as such. I have often 
thought that many of the prayers of Catholics might 
be lost from the circumstance of the persons to whom 
they are addressed not being in heaven. 

We Protestants do not lose any prayer in that way. 
We do not pray to any being who we are not certain 
is-in heaven. We speak with positiveness of the fu- 
ture condition of characters and classes of men — the 
righteous and the wicked — believers and unbelievers. 
The Bible does that. But we do not, we dare not 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 167 

speak of the condition of individuals with the same 
confidence ; and especially dare we not say of this or 
that person that has died, that his soul is not at rest. 
We think it better to be silent concerning the spirit 
that has returned to God who gave it, and wait for the 
great day to disclose the decision of the eternal mind 
on its case, and that especially if the person seemed 
to die in impenitence. We would not usurp the place 
and prerogative of judgment. What Protestant, even 
though belonging to the class of Calvinists, as some 
of us do, would intimate that the soul of such a man 
as Lafayette is not at rest ? 

But the Catholics are not so reserved. They pre- 
tend to know not only who are saints in glory, but 
what souls are suffering in the fire and restlessness of 
purgatory. They can tell you the names of the per- 
sons. They have printed in two of their papers, at 
least, that the ^ood Lafayette, as our countrymen are 
wont to speak of him, has not gone to rest. His body 
rests ; but his soul, they tell us, has as yet found no 
repose. It has not obtained admittance into that place 
where "the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary 
are at rest." The General lived a long time Avhere 
the wicked cease not from troubling ; and much an- 
noyance received he from them, in the course of his 
patriotic and useful life ; and many trials and fatigues 
he underwent for liberty and the rights of man. Now 
it seems to me the Catholics take a great deal on 
them, when they say that his soul is still subject to 
the annoyances and disquiet which were his lot on 
earth. Yet they do say so. They appoint a day, a 
good while after his death, to sing high mass for the 
repose of his soul. Of course they must believe that 



168 TUOtGHTS OK fOrERY. 

up to that day his soul is not in repose, else why seek 
its repose ? If the person who inserted these notices 
were living in the papal dominions, or under the influ- 
ence of Prince Melternich, or the ex-king Charles, I 
should not wonder at their proclaiming his soul not at 
rest, for Lafayette was never a favorite at Rome, Vi- 
enna, or in the court of Charles X. He loved liberty 
too well for that. But that American Catholics, and, if 
the reader will not smile at the incongruity of the 
terms to each other, republican Catholics, should as- 
sert such a thing of him, I am a little surprised. I 
almost wonder that the people do not resent it as an 
insult to the old general, if a Protestant minister 
should say from the pulpit, or through the press, that 
Lafayette is not at rest, his church and his person 
would be hardly safe. But the Catholics do it with 
impunity. And let them. All the penalty I would 
have them suffer, is the contempt of every intelligent 
mind. 

But why do the Catholics suppose that Lafayette is 
not at rest ? Is it because none are at rest when they 
die? Is this their doctrine ? A comfortable religion 
to be sure ! According to this, how is it " gain to die ?" 
Who would be "willing rather to be absent from the 
body 1^ Or how^ can it be said, " O death Avhere is thy 
sting?" since here it is, and sting enough. But he 
who wrote, Phil. 1, and 1 Cor. 15, and 2 Cor. 5, was not 
a Catholic. Or do they conclude Lafayette to be not 
at rest, because only saints find repose in death, and 
he was no saint ? I wish all the saints of the church 
of Rome had been as good men as Lafayette. They 
have canonized worse men than he. I have never in- 
quired curiously into the devotional character of the 



THOUGHTS ON POPERV. 169 

general, but I am possessed of no proof that he wag 
not a Christian. Certainly, I find in his moral history 
no reason why they should be so positive that he is 
not at rest. They might have made the appointment 
conditional, I should think — mass to be said for the re- 
pose of his soul, provided it be not at rest. But they 
insert no condition. They are sure he is not at rest. 

Well, if he is not at rest, how are their masses to 
give him repose 1 Does the Bible say that they have 
that efficacy ? I must be excused for being so old- 
fashioned as to appeal to the Bible. That book, sines 
it savs nothing about masses, cannot be supposed to 
say anything of their tranquilizing tendency: I al- 
V\-ay3 forget that the Catholics have another source of 
information on religion besides the Bible. Tradition 
they call it. They mean by it the talk of inspired 
men, when they had no pen in their hands ; which 
being heard, Avas reported, and so has come along 
down by word of mouth. But I, for my part, am satis- 
fied Vv'ith what they wrote. 

We, Protestants, cannot join the Roman Catholics 
in their solemn office for Lafayette. We hope there 
is no need of praying for the repose of his soul; and 
we are certain there is no i(se in it. We prayed for 
him while he v/as living. We did not wait for him 
to be dead first. Now that his spirit has returned to 
God who gave it, and the Judge has passed upon it, 
VsTQ. leave it there. By the way, how do the Catholics 
know when to stop praying for the repose of a soul ? 
The Charleston Catholics had their mass for him on 
the 30th of June. But it seems it was of no avail, 
for the Philadelphia Catholics are called together Xo 
sing theirs on the 29th of July. How long is this thing 

15 



170 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

to go on ? I am writing on the 31st of July. Is he 
at rest now ? Was the mass of the 29th inst. more 
efficacious than that of the 30th ult. ? Perhaps the 
next news from New- York Avill be that mass is to be 
performed there for the repose of the same soul some 
day in August. I hope the church is not infallible 
in regard to Lafayette, as in other matters. I should 
be sorry to think him all this time not at rest. 

I remember an old Latin maxim, " Nil de mortuis, 
nisi bonum," say nothing but good respecting the 
dead — which, it seems to me, the Catholics have dis- 
regarded in the case of Lafayette. It is certainly not 
saying any good of a dead man, to say that he is not 
at rest. And it is cruel to sing about it. The Phila- 
delphia mass was sung. Is it kind to treat a sufler- 
ing soul in purgatory with singing ? 



It* l*Jrayer8 for tlie FaitSiful Departed. 

I have taken up again that little book, " The Chris- 
tian's Guide to Heaven,"* published, as the title page 
assures us, with the approbation of the most reverend 
Archbishop of Baltimore. Parts of it I have hereto- 
fore reviewed, but I have not exhausted its contents. 
I find on page 198 of my edition, the title of this arti- 
cle, "Prayers for the Faithful Departed." Faithful, 
said I to myself; and is it for the faithful dead that 
they pray ? I was so ignorant as to suppose that it 
was for wicked Catholics, being dead, they were so 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 171 

good 33 to pray. I thought there was no need of 
praying for deceased Christians — for the f aithful de- 
parted. I got the notion somewhere, that good peo- 
ple, when they die, go where there is " fullness oi 
joy," and "pleasures forevermore." I may have 
imbibed it from St. Paul, who says that when such 
are " absent from the body," they are " present with 
the Lord ;" or perhaps I caught it from St. John, who 
speaks of the dead that die in the Lord, as " blessed 
from henceforth," and as resting from their labors. 
It is more likely, however, that I got the idea from 
our Saviour, who says to the church in Smyrna, " Be 
thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown 
of life." It was natural that I should take up the idea 
in reading this, that prayers for the faithful departed 
were needless, since he says, if they were faithful unto 
death they should receive a crown of life. We are 
all liable to mistakes, that is, unless we are infallible. 
It seems, according to the Catholics, who profess to 
know all about these matters, that the faithful don't 
get the crown of life by being faithful unto death. 
No, they must be faithful a good while after death, 
before they receive it. That which they get at death 
is very different from the crown of life. They are a 
long time absent from the body before they are pre- 
sent with the Lord. They donH go to heaven, or para- 
dise. They go to purgatory. This is the Catholic's 
creed. It don't seem to agree altogether well with 
the Savior's promise to the Srayrneans. A simple 
man would suppose that fidelity unto death was im- 
mediately followed by the crown of life. But they 
that cannot err tell us otherwise. 

SomehoAV or other this doctrine of the faithful going 



172 THOCGHTS CN POPERY. 

to purgatory after death, aiicl needing to be prayed 
out of it, seems to have been always out of the mind 
of the apostle Paul, when he had his pen in his hand, 
or was dictating to the amanuensis. He speaks of it 
as gain to die; but surely, to exchange earth for pur- 
gatory is no gain. Air, however impure or sultry, is 
more agreeable than the element of Jire. He tells of 
his desire to depart and be with Christ, just as if the 
one immediately followed the other. He overlooked 
purgatory ; otherwise I think he would not have had 
the desire to depart. Perhaps he thought he would 
fare as v/ell as Lazarus, Avho made no stop in pur- 
gatory ; or as the penitent thief, Avho could not have 
made a long one, since he was in Paradise the same 
day he died. It has always appeared to me, that ac- 
cording to the Catholic system, this man, of all others, 
should have gone to purgatory. He never did any 
penance on earth — never bought an indulgence — he 
repented only a i^ew minutes before he died ; and yet 
he goes direct to paradise ! Who then may not ? 

But do they not give us chapter and verse for pray- 
ing for the dead ! It must be confessed they do. Here 
it is. " It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray 
for the dead, that they may be loosened from their 
sins." 2 Macb. 12:46. This ZooA-.f like Scripture, 
though it does not sound much like it. It passes for 
Scripture with the Catholics ; but it is Apocrypha. 
It is no more holy Scripture than the Koran is. J knov/ 
the Catholics contend that it is as good Scripture as 
any. But ask the Jews if it is Scripture. " Unlo 
them were committed the oracles of God." Ask them 
if the books of Maccabees were committed to them. 
They tell you no. They were not even written in 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 173 

Hebrew. The New Testament abounds in quota- 
tions from the Old Testament Scriptures. I wonder 
some of the writers of the New Testament had not 
quoted Maccabees, if it had been Scripture. I woukl 
ask any one who reads it, if it strikes the ear as Scrip- 
ture. It certainly does not. Besides, it is not in all 
cases good sense. The verse quoted in favor of pray- 
ing for the dead is not good sense. They speak of 
praying for the dead as a hohj thought^ and of prayer 
as having an efficacy to loosen them, from their sins. 
Now any child can see this to be no part of Scripture. 
But I hasten to the prayer. " A prayer for the suf- 
fering souls in purgatory." It is a curious prayer. I 
should like to quote the whole of it. But some speci- 
mens must suffice. Here is one petition. " Have 
mercy on those who suffer in purgatory. Look with 
compassion on the greatness of their torments; they 
are more keenly devoured by their ardent desire of 
being united to thee, than by the purging flames 
wherein they are plunged." Observe, here are spirits 
m flames; and they are purging flames. Fire may re- 
fine and purify certain metals, but how it should act 
in that Vv'ay on souls, is beyond my comprehension. 
The suffering occasioned by fire is very horrible; but 
it seems that it is nothing compared with what they 
suffer from the love of God, or the "ardent desire 
of being united to him." I wonder, if they have 
such desires after God, that they are kept in that 
suffering state. I wonder he does not take them up 
to himself. Why should they suffer so, since Christ 
has suffered for them, and they are the faithful who 
believe on him? Did not Christ suffer enough? But 
the prayer proceeds: "With them I adore thy 



174 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

avenging justice." So it seems the faithful are the 
objects of God's avenging justice. I always thought 
that justice exacted its full demand of Christ. I don't 
know what the Apocrypha says about it, but holy 
Scripture informs me that God can now be just, and 
the juslifier of him which believeth in Jesus ; and that 
if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for- 
give them. Are not the faithful pardoned ; and huw 
is pardon consistent with vengeance ? 

The prayer goes on thus: "Remember, O Lord, 
thou art their Father, and they are thy children. 
Forget the faults, which, through the frailty of hu- 
man nature, they have committed against thee." 
Then a little farther on: '-Remember, O Lord, that 
they are thy living members, thy faithful followers, 
thy spouses." Here you see these sufferers art 
God's children; and they are suffering for mere fcmltf!, 
which they fell into through frailty. This seems 
hard. But they are not only God's children ; they 
are Christ's living members, his faithful followers, 
his spouses ; and he died for them — and yet there they 
are burning — pardoned, yet suffering punishment — 
interested in the satisfaction of Christ, yet making- 
satisfaction for themselves — paying over again the 
penalty Avhich the Savior discharged. And this is 
the Catholic gospel! Is it not '-another gospel?" 
And yet "not another." It is no gospel. It is a con- 
tradiction of the good neus. 

I quote but one more petition : " Deliver them, O 
most merciful God, from that place of darkness and 
torture, and call them to a place of refref.hment, 
licrht and peace." The reader will remember that 
this prayer is for ihc faithful It is they who, having 



TH0DGHT3 OM POPERY. 175 

been " faithful unto death," go to a place of darkness 
and torture. There they ''''rest from their labors." 
I don't know, for my part, what worse can befall VAibe- 
lievcrs than this. Truly, here is no great encourage- 
ment to believing. What a consolitary doctrine this to 
break in the ear of a dying disciple ! Fear not, be of 
good cheer, thou art but going to the place of '* dark- 
ness and torture." Can it be Jesus who says this to 
his faithful followers ? Can this be Christian doc- 
trine ? It certainly is not well calculated to make dy- 
ing easy. With such a prospect before them, I do 
not wonder that Catholics find it hard to die — verily 
death has a sting, and the grave a victory, if the Ca- 
tholic doctrine of purgatory be true. 



£8. An Improvement. 

I always hail improvements. I am always glad to 
see things taking a turn for the better, even though 
the improvement be slight. We must not despise 
the day of small things. Rome was not built in a 
day, nor will she be overthrown in a day. A system 
that it took centuries to introduce, cannot be expected 
to pass away all at once. Even if the improvement 
be only in phraseology, I rejoice in it, because words 
not only signify ideas, but sometimes generate them , 
so that from using right words, men not unfrequently 
pass to holding correct ideas on subjects. 

The improvement to which I refer relates to phra- 



176 THOUGHTS ON POPERY, 

seology merely. The case is this. It is the habis 
among the Catholics, some few months or so after a 
considerable character di-es, to open the church and 
have a service foi' him. This has heretofore been an- 
nounced thus : " High mass will be said or sung for 
the repose of the soul of such a one, at such a time'' 
— not, the reader Vv'ill understand, because the soul is 
at rest, but that it may be at rest. The service is not 
eucharistic, but supplicatory. This, I observed, was 
done in the case of a recent western bishop, and also 
in the case of Gen. La Fayette, who, some months 
after he had died, was discovered not to be at rest. 
Now, a short time ago the Archbishop of Baltimore 
died ; and v/eeks having passed aw^ay, the time camt 
to take notice of his soul. Accordingly it was done 
But I was struck with the alteration in the wording of 
the notice. It ran thus ; "A funeral service will be 
performed in the cathedral for the late Most Rev. 
Archbishop Whitlield." This is certainly better than 
the old way of announcing it' To be sure, it sounds 
odd to talk of a funeral service for one who was regu- 
larly buried some months before. Protestants cannot 
readily understand it. But waiving this, why the 
change of phraseology ? The best explanation I can 
give of it is this : The Catholics see that the public 
sense of the community, though sufiiciently in tlieir 
favor, will not tolerate a thing of this kind without a 
degree of restlessness, not a little annoying to them, 
and perhaps likely to be injurious to their concern. 
For see, that reasoning animal, man, who is naturally 
a logician, and can reason without ever having studied 
the rules of reasoning, argues something like this : Ei- 
ther the soul for which the mass is said is at rest, or it 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 177 

is not at rest. If it is at rest, it is preposterous to pray 
for its repose. It is asking that that may be done 
which has been done already. When a thing is done, 
lo pray for it is superfluous. Then is the time to give 
thanks. If, on the other hand, the soul is not at rest, 
then common sense, which is no fool, asks why they 
put off the mass so long — why they did not begin to 
pray for the repose of the soul sooner. It was not 
kind in them. And common sense, which is also a 
great querist, inquires how they know the soul did not 
go immediately to rest ; or if it did not, hoAV they know 
it is not at rest weeks and months after. Common 
sense, not finding any thing about it in the Bible, 
wants toknowhov/ the Catholics get the information. 
And so, through fear of the investigation of common 
sense, they change the phraseology of the notice. It 
is wise. Well may the authorities of the Roman 
Catholic church stand in dread of common sense. I 
do not know any more formidable foe of error and im- 
position. I confidently look forward to the overthrow 
of the Catholic religion ; and I expect a great deal of 
the work of its destruction will be done by common 
sense. I have not the dread, which some have, that 
this religion is going to overrun our country, and rise 
to dominion here. There is too much common sense 
abroad in the length and breadth of the land to allow 
of such a result. The people of the United States 
will think, and they have a notion that they have a 
right to think for themselves, without sending to 
Rome to knov/ if they may. And they v/ill ask ques- 
tions on subjects, not omitting religion, and they will 
insist on having a satisfactory answer. The inhabi- 
tants of the old world may, if they please, believe on 



178 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

the ipse dixit of the Pope, but we of the new, before 
we yield our assent, require a " Thus saith the Lord," 
or a " quod erat demonstrandum," or something of 
that nature. You can never get a majority here to 
believe in contradiction of the five senses. They will 
stick to it that a thing is what they see and feel and 
taste it to be — in other words, that bread is bread. 



49. Tlie Biikc of Bi>uns\vick's Fiftictli Reason. 

A certain Duke of Brunswick, having many years 
ago abjured Lutheranism, and become a Catholic, 
thought it necessary to apologize to the world for his 
change of religion. It needed an apology. So he 
wrote down Jifty reasons to justify the course he had 
pursued, and had them printed in a little book, which 
is entitled " Fifty Reasons why the Roman Catholic 
religion ought to be preferred to all others." This 
book the Catholics have free permission to read. O 
yes — they may read any book but the Bible. There 
is no objection to their reading books which contain 
the thoughts of mert ; but the book which contains 
the thoughts of God is interdicted I Men know how 
to express themselves. Men can write intelligibly. 
But ! ! 

Fifty reasons ! The Duke must have been conscious, 
I suppose, that his reasons were weal:, otherwise he 
would have been satisfied with a less number than 
fifty. Why does a man want fifty reasons for a thing 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 179 

when one good reason is sufficient ? / have but one 
general reason for not being a Catholic, and I consider 
that enough. It is that the Catholic religion is not 
the religion of the Bible. It is not the religion which 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, and 
Peter Avrote about, as any one may see who will 
compare the Holy Scriptures with the Council of 
Trent. But you see, the Duke, feeling that he had 
not one good reason for turning Catholic, gives us fifty 
poor ones ; thinking to make up for the weakness of 
his reasons by the number of them ; and calculating 
that fifty poor reasons would certainly be equivalent 
to one good one. 

Fifty reasons ! I shall not now inquire what the 
forty-imie were. But what do you think the sapient 
Duke's fiftieth reason was — his closing, crowning 
reason — that with which he capped the climax — the 
reason which, having brought out, he rested from very 
exhaustion, consequent on the amazing effort of mind 
by Avhich it was excogitated ? 

The fiftieth reason ! I will give it to you in his own 
words, which I quote from an edition of his reasons, 
published by one of the very best Catholics in the 
land, so that there can be no mistake about it. After 
going on about something else, he says, " Besides that, 
the Catholics, to whom I spoke concerning my salva- 
tion, assured me that, if I were to be damned for em- 
bracing the Catholic faith, they were ready to answer 
for me at the Bay of Judgment^ and to take my dam- 
nation upon themselves ; an assurance I could never 
extort from the ministers of any sect, in case I should 
live and die in their rtilgion. From Avhence I infer- 
red, the Roman Catholic faith was built on a better 



180 TiiorcHTs OS roPEHY. 

foundation than any of those sects that have divided 
from it." Prodigious! — and there he stops. I think 
it was time. 

I do not know whether to make any comment on 
this reason or not. Sometimes comment is unneces- 
sary, and even injurious. I wonder the Catholics are 
not ashamed of this reason. Indeed, I suspect the in- 
telligent ones among them do blush for it, and wish 
the Duke had stopped at forty-nine. 

But let us look at it a minute. It seems the Duke was 
won over by the generosity of the Catholics. They 
agreed that if he were to be damned for embracing 
their faith, (they admit the possibility that he might be j 
whereas, the Protestant ministers v^^hom he consulted 
were too well assured of the truth of their religion to 
allow of the supposition,) they would take his place, 
and be damned for him. Nowlv/onder the Duke had 
not reflected — (but there are stupid Dukes — this was 
a nobleman, but not one of nature's noblemen) — that 
those very Catholics, who made him this genyrous 
offer, if their faith was false, would have to be damned 
for themselves ! That which should leave him with- 
out a title to heaven, would equally leave them with- 
out one. I wonder the Duke so readily believed that 
the substitution would be accepted. What if they 
Avere willing to suffer perdition in his place ! The 
Judge might object to the arrangement. What igno- 
rance and stupidity it manifests, to suppose that one 
may suffer in hell for another, just as one serves in 
the army for another! What an idea such persons 
must have of the nature of future punishment, to sup- 
pose that it is transferable ! I should like to know 
lx:r.v one man is to suffer remorse for another. And 



ITHOUGHTS ON rOPERV. 181 

again, what an admirable exemplification of the spirit 
of Christianity, that one should consent, on any con- 
dition, to lie in hell, for ever, sinning and blaspheming 
God ! I am sincerely glad that no Protestant minis- 
ter could be found to give his consent to an eternity 
of enmity against God. But the Catholics whom the 
Duke consulted, they loved the Lord so that they 
were willing to sin against him for ever and ever, with 
ever-increasing malignity of opposition, for the sake 
of saving their noble proselyte ! " FROM WHENCE 
1 INFERRED," says the Duke, (but you have no 
capitals large enough for this conclusion,) " the Ro- 
man Catholic faith was built on a better foundation 
than any of those sects that have divided from it." 
Admirable dialectician! He must be Aristotle him- 
self, by metempsychosis. 

I think that those who wish to live and die Catho- 
lics, had better keep their eyes shut. It is the safer 
way. If they open them almost any where, they will 
be in danger. 



50. The Dnfee's Seventll Reagoii. 

The Vukeh fiftieth reason has been the subject of 
an article. Each of his reasons might be made the 
subject of one, but that would be giving them too 
much consequence. I have selected the seventh for 
some remarks, because I have several times, in con- 
versation with Catholics, heard it alleged, and some 
considerable stress laid on it. The drift of it is this :, 
Protestants acknowledge that some Roman Catholics 
36 



182 THOUGHTS ON POfERY, 

may be saved, but Catholics contend that no Protes- 
tants can be saved. Therefore it is better and safer 
to be a Catholic, than a Protestant ! But, perhaps, I 
had better let his Serene Highness speak for himself* 
He says : " But what still confirmed me in my resolu-- 
tion of embracing the Roman Catholic faith was this, 
that the heretics themselves confess Roman Catholics 
may be saved, whereas, these maintain there is no 
salvation for such as are out of the Roman Catholic 
church." Let us examine this reasoning. Catholics 
say that there is no salvation out of their church, and 
therefore, by all means, we should belong to it. But 
does their saying so make it so ? Is this very chari- 
table doctrine of the Catholics of course true 7 Is it 
so very clear that none are saved but the greatest bi- 
gots — none saved but those who affirm, and are ready 
to swear that none others but themselves can be saved ? 
Have Roman Catholics never affirmed any thing but 
what was strictly true, so that from their uniform ve- 
racity and accuracy, we may infer that they must be 
correct in this statement ? Let history answer that 
question- This is more than we claim even for Pro- 
testants. No salvation except for Catholics ! Ah, and 
where is the chapter and verse for that. I don't think 
that even the Apocrapha can supply them. If subse- 
quent Popes have taught the doctrine, he who is reck- 
oned by Catholics to have been the first Pope, did 
not. It is rather unkind, perhaps, to quote Peter 
against his alleged successors, but a regard to truth 
compels me to do it. It is true, Peter once thought 
that a person must be an Israelite to be saved, just 
as our Catholics hold that a person must be a Cath- 
olic in order to be saved; but the case of Come- 



THOUGHTS 0N POPERY. 183 

lius cured him of that prejudice. That led him to 
say as recorded, Acts 10 : 34, 35, " Of a truth I per- 
ceiv^e that God is no respecter of persons, but in eve- 
ry nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteous- 
ness, is accepted Avith him." This sounds a little differ- 
ent from the Duke's premises. It is a little unlike the 
language of later Popes. They have not taken their 
cue from Peter. Peter was a little of a Catholic at 
first, but he soon got rid of it. 

Now, if what the Catholics say about there being 
no salvation out of their church, is not true — if there 
is no Scripture for it, but much against it — if even 
Peter controverts it, it certainly does not constitute a 
very good reason for being a Catholic. Suppose that 
Protestants should give out to the world that none 
but themselves can be saved, would that make Protes- 
tantism any better, or safer, or worthier of adoption ? 
Would our religion be more entitled to reception, if 
we should publish that Fenelon was lost forever, and 
that Pascal was excluded from heaven, and Masillon 
too, just because they were not Protestants, but in 
communion with the Church of Rome? I think not. 
Nor can I think that the Roman Catholic religion is 
entitled to increased respect and veneration, because 
Catholics assert as an undoubted verity, that such men 
as Locke. Nevjton, Leighton, Howard, and many 
others are beyond all question, in hell, not even ad- 
mitted to purgatory, because, forsooth, they were not 
Catholics. 

But the Duke's inference is from a double premiss. 
Not only do Catholics say no Protestant can be saved ; 
but Protestants allow that Catholics may. If Protes- 
tants were to say that Catholics could not be saved, 



184 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

then they would be even with each other, and tnere 
could be no argument in the case. But since Protes- 
tants allow that others besides themselves may be 
saved, Avhile Catholics deny it, therefore the Catholic 
religion is the safer. See what credit the Catholics 
give our declarations when they seem to work in their 
favor. They build a whole argument on one. Why 
do they not give us equal credence, when we declare 
that the probability of salvation among Protestants is 
much greater than among Catholics ? 

But what is it after all that Protestants allow ? 
They allow that so7ne Roman Catholics may be sav- 
ed. They allow that the fact of a person's being ex- 
ternally related to the Catholic church does not of it- 
self shut him out from salvation — that if he believes 
with his heart in the Lord Jesus, and truly repents of 
his sins, he will be saved, though a Catholic : and 
that the fact of his being a Catholic, though much 
against him, does not preclude the possibility of his 
being a genuine penitent and a true believer. This 
is the length and breadth of our admission. It admits, 
as every one must see, not that there is salvation 6y 
the Catholic religion, but m spite of it, to some who 
professedly adhere to that religion. If a Catholic 
holds understandingly to the merit of good works, the 
insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, the worship of crea- 
tures, or similar unscriptural doctrines, we do not see 
how he can be saved ; but we believe many, called Ca- 
tholics, reject these doctrines in fact, though not per- 
haps in word, and rely on Christ's atonement alone 
for salvation. Now if Catholics are so absurd as not 
to admit in our favor as much as we admit in theirs, 
we can't help it, and we don't care for it. It is just 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 185 

as they please. We shall not take back our admis- 
sion for the sake of making proselytes to Protestant- 
ism — and if they can draw off any from us by their 
exclusive notions, they are welcome to them. 

But I must call the reader's attention to the extent 
of the Duke's inference. He infers the perfect safety 
of the Catholic religion, because Protestants admit 
that some Catholics may be saved ! But is that a safe 
spot of which this only can be said that some of the 
persons occupying it, may possibly escape ? And is it 
madness to occupy any other spot? The Duke ex- 
claims, " What a madness then were it, for any man 
not to go over to the Roman Catholics, who may be 
saved in the judgment of their adversaries: but to 
sort himself with these, who, according to Roman 
Catholics, are out of the way ?" What a madness in- 
deed, not to join a people who may not all be lost ! O 
what a madness to continue to be Protestants, when 
Roman Catholics say that they are out of the way ! 
What if they do say so? What if every Jesuit mis- 
sionary has ever so constantly affirmed ? I suppose a 
Jesuit can say what is not so, as well as any body 
else. I suppose it is not naturally impossible for one 
being a Jesuit, I will not say to Zie, but to err. He 
goes on like a very Aristotle. " Who would not ad- 
vise a man to take the safest way when he is threat- 
ened with any evident danger ?" Certainly noble 
Duke, the safest way ; but not of course tne way 
which some say is safest. There are a great many 
safest ways, if all which are said to be safest, are so. 
But his bigness proceeds : " And does not that way 
which two opposite parties approve of, promise great- 
er security than another which one party only recora- 
16* 



186 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

mends, and which the other condemns ?" But that is 
not so. The two parties do not approve of it. So far 
from it that the Protestant declares the Catholic way 
to be an exceedingly dangerous way, while his own 
way, though pronounced by the Catholic to be fatal, 
can claim the most respectable testimony that it is the 
true and safe way. Then comes an illustration, which 
like a great many other illustrations, is well con- 
structed, but happens to be totally inapplicable to the 
case in hand, " Who, in fine, can doubt, but that a 
medicine prescribed by two physicians may be taken 
with more security than another which one of the two 
judges may be his death ?" How the Duke rolls on 
his argument ! Just now the Protestant only admitted 
the possibility of the Catholic's salvation. Then he 
is represented as approving the Catholic way — and 
immediately after as prescribing it ! It is easy prov- 
ing any thing, if one may make facts to suit his pur- 
pose. I believe it is not true that Protestants pre- 
scribe the Catholic religion to those who ask them 
what they shall do to be saved. 

People must become Catholics, if they please, but I 
would advise them to look out for better reasons for 
the change than the Duke of Brunswick's fifty ; and 
especially than this, his seventh. It is a poor reason 
for becoming a Catholic that they say they are the 
people, and haughtily bid all others stand by, because 
they are holier. I cannot think it so great a recom 
mendation of a religion, that it denounces, and so fa. 
as it can, damns all who cannot see their way clea\ 
to embrace it. 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 187 



51. Th.e Duke's Klcventli. Reason. 

I don't know what is to become of our Protestant 
religion, with so many reasons against it. I don't 
know but we shall all have to go back again to the 
Catholic church, compelled by the cogency of argu- 
ment. Fifty reasons why the Roman Catholic reli- 
gion ought to be preferred to all others ! Only think. 
And some of them that I don't find any answer to in 
any Protestant writer ! Such a one is the eleventh of 
the formidable series. In the three preceding rea- 
sons or considerations, as he calls them, the Duke 
had been giving us the result of his inquiries. It 
seems he was quite an investigator. He searched 
almost every book but the Scriptures. He looked 
for what he wanted every where but where the thing 
was. When a man is inquiring after the truth, and 
consults the philosophers, the fathers, the martyrs, 
and all the saints, I cannot see where is the harm of 
just looking into the prophets, the evangelists, and 
the apostles too. I don't know why they should be 
treated with such neglect ; I think they are quite as 
respectable writers as some of the fathers. But be 
this as it may, the Duke, in his eighth consideration, 
tells us about his consulting the writings of the an- 
cient fathers, to find what they would advise him to 
do, whether to embrace the Roman Catholic faith or 
no. And he says they all told him to be a Roman 
Catholic by all means. Then says he in his ninth 
consideration, "I appealed to the saints of God, and 
asked them what was the faith they lived in, and by 
which they arrived at eternal bliss." And they sai4 



a88 thoughts on popery. 

not that they had "washed their robes and made 
them white in the blood of the Lamb," in accordance 
with the account given of some other saints in Rev. 
7, but "they all made answer, it was the Roman 
faith." By the way, the Catholics have an advantage 
over us Protestants. They know just who are saints, 
and have a way of consulting them after they are 
dead. We are not equal to those things. Why, the 
Duke even tells us the names of those who made an- 
swer. " Thus," says he, " I was answered by St. Mar- 
im, St. Nicholas, St. Athanasius, and many more 
iimong the bishops ; among the religious, by St. Do- 
mmick (!?) St. Francis, &c. Among the widows, by 
St. Monica, St. Bridget, St. Elizabeth, &c. Among 
the virgins, by St. Agatha, St. Lucy, St. Agnes, St. 
Catharine, &c." I think if a Protestant had had the 
privilege of cross-examining the above when the 
Duke consulted them, the result might have been 
somewhat different. But no Protestant had notice 
of his intention to carry his inquiries into that quar- 
ter. The Duke was determined to make thorough 
work of it. Therefore, in his tenth consideration he 
tells us : " Then I turned to the holy martyrs, and 
inquired what faith it was for the truth of which they 
spilt their blood." They answered it was the Roman 
Catholic. "This," he says, "I was assured of by 
thirty-three bishops of Rome, who were crowned 
with martyrdom ; by the saints Cyprian, Sebastian, 
Laurence; by St. Agatha, St. Cecily, St. Dorothy, 
St. Barbara, and an infinite number of other saints." 
They all told the same story. " Then," says the Duke, 
" I wound up my argument." But he concluded on the 
whole, before winding it up, to let it run down a little 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 189 

lower. And this brings us to his eleventh reason. 
The reader will please prepare himself now for a 
'prostrating argument. " My next step was in 
thought to hell, where I found in condemnation to 
everlasting torments, Simon Magus, Novatus Vigi- 
lantius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Marcion, 
&c." May I never be under the necessity of descend- 
ing so low for an argument ! But the Duke does not 
say that he actually went to the bad place, but he 
went in thought. There, having gone in thought, he 
found so and so. Here is another advantage the Ca- 
tholics have over us. They know who are in hell. 
We do not. Perhaps some are not there who we 
may fear are. We do not hold ourselves qualified to 
judge in these matters. Well, he found them there. 
He was quite sure not one of them had repented and 
been saved. And he asked them how they came 
there, and they very, civilly answered that "it was 
for their breaking off from the Roman Catholic 
church." Now this is the argument that I have not 
seen answered by any Protestant writer, as far as 
I can recollect. I don't read of any Protestant who 
went even in thought to hell to consult the lost on the 
points in controversy between us and the Catholics. 
So that the Catholics have the whole of this argu- 
ment to themselves. The Duke says they told him 
they were there for not being Catholics, and we have 
no counter testimony. Protestantism, however, hav- 
ing so many other "' witnesses on the truth" of her 
system, can easily do without the testimony of " the 
spirits in prison." Let that be for the Catholics. But 
by the way, I wonder that the Duke relied so unhesi- 
tatingly on the testimony of those persons. How 



190 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

does he know they told the truth ? Are not all such 
called in Scripture " the children of the devil," and 
does not every body know his character for veracity ? 
It is certainly an extraordinary answer for one ot 
them, Simon Magus, to give, considering the time 
when he lived. How could he say with truth that he 
was there for breaking off from the Roman Catholic 
church, when at the date of his apostacy the Gospel 
had never been preached at Rome 7 There was no 
Roman church to break off from. 

I was expecting that the Duke would push his in- 
quiries yet one step farther, and, seeing he was on 
the spot, interrogate Satan in regard to the true re- 
ligion. But he does not seem to have consulted " the 
father of lying," but only the children. The truth is, 
the Devil does not wait to be consulted on that sub- 
ject, but makes his suggestions to " them that dwell 
on the earth," without being called on so to do. 

I hope the Reformed religion will be able to stand 
the shock of this argument, notwithstanding the 
doubt I expressed in the beginning. 



53< Beauties of tlie Iieopold Reports. 

I have been not a little interested with the extracts 
recently published from the Reports of the Leopold 
Society in Austria, and it has struck me that I might 
do some service, especially to those who have not the 
time or the patience to read long articles, by calling 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. ' 191 

the attention of the public to the choice parts of the 
reports ; for even where all is good, you know, there 
are generally portions here and thexe of superior ex- 
cellence. Will you allow me, then, to point out some of 
the beauties of the reports'? What has struck me with 
peculiar force, will probably affect others as forcibly. 
Now I have admired the way in which the report 
speaks of conversions. It seems that these Catholics 
ca.u. foresee conversions with as much certainty as we, 
poor blind Protestants, can look back on them ! F. 
Baraga writes, under date of March 10, 1832 : " I long 
for the arrival of spring, when I shall have numerous 
conversions I !" Now, I am aware that the /ace of na- 
ture is renewed when spring appears, but I did not 
know this was as true of the souls of men. It is news 
to me that conversions can be foreseen with such per- 
fect accuracy. It is hard to foresee what men will do. 
But here is a foreseeing of what God will do, unless 
they deny that conversion is his work ! But what 
makes our Catholic brother speak so confidently of 
the conversions that were to take place ? How did 
he know it ? Why, forsooth, some had promised him 
that they would be converted in the spring. " There 
are many pagan Indians," he says, " who promised me 
last summer and fall, that they would in the spring 
embrace the Christian religion 1" This beats all. 
Why, if they were convinced of the truth of the 
Christian religion, did they not embrace it at once '? 
Why put it off till after the 1st of March ? But not 
only had some promised him on their honor that they 
would be converted, but he says : " From two other 
counties I have received assurances, that many of the 
Indians there would be converted to the Christian reli- 



192 THOVJGIITG o:\" rOfERVi 

gion, if I would come and preach the gospel to them P^ 
You see they had told others, who told Baraga, that 
they would. It (?ame very straight. He speaks par* 
ticularly of a Christian Indian who had brought him 
the intelligence. Now observe, they had never heard 
a word of the gospel — neither knew what it was, nor 
how confirmed ! Yet they promised to embrace it- 
promised to believe, and be converted — to have their 
hearts changed — to be born again I I know that God 
promises, " A new heart will I give you," but I never 
knew before that any man, and especially one who 
had never heard the gospel, could look ahead and say, 
" at such a time I will have a new heart." Baraga 
says, "I cannot describe the joy such assurances give 
me." We Protestants are not so easily made happy 
by the promises of the unconverted. 

Again, I have been struck with the manner in which 
Baraga speaks of the mother of Jesus, under date 
of July I, 1832 : "When I decided to be a missiona- 
ry," he says, " I promised our heavenly mother that I 
would consecrate to her the first church I should con- 
secrate among the Indians, for I am convinced she 
will pray her Son continually for the progress of our 
missions." Our heavenly mother ! ! Our heavenly 
Father is a phrase dear to every Christian heart ; but 
it is the first time I ever heard we had a heavenly 
mother. O ! O ! Will the reader pause a moment and 
inquire the meaning of the word idolatry ? Baraga 
promised her? Where had they the interview when 
that promise w^as made ? He must have been praying 
to her. And why was the promise made ? Because 
"I am convinced she Avill pray her Son." What! 
•prayer in heaven ! John, in Patmo>, heard praise in 



THOOGHTS ON POPERY. 193 

heaveii, but not prayer. I know there is one advocate 
in heaven, Jesus Christ the righteous, who over liveth 
to make intercession. That one is enough. But here 
we are told of another advocate on high — a. mediatrix. 
And she prays to her son — mediates between him and 
sinners. What ! Do we need a mediator between us 
and Christ ? I always knew we needed a mediator 
between God and us ; but I supposed we need go di- 
rectly and immediately to Christ, since he is himself 
a mediator. Baraga says presently after, " thanks be 
to Mary, gracious mother, who ever prays for the con- 
version of the heathen." Now, if all this is not idola- 
try, I wish some body could tell me what idolatry is. 
I would as soon undertake to defend the worship of 
the golden calf as this. 

Finally, what power these Catholic priests have ! 
Protestant ministers are only "mighty through God." 
But the priests can succeed Avithout that help. Father 
Senderl writes : " Young people of sixteen years, 
and not unfrequently older persons, have never con- 
fessed nor communed ; (taken the half sacrament, I 
suppose he means.) I prepare them for both, and for 
confirmation." / prepare them ! And another writes 
concerning Baraga, that he achieves wo7iders of sal- 
vation among the Ottawas. 

This is a specimen of the religion which Prince 
Metternich ^ Co. our Austrian brethren, those dear 
lovers of liberty, are benevolently contributing to give 
us here in America. They are afraid that our free 
institutions will not be permanent unless they help us 
to prop them up with the Catholic religion ! Timeo 
Metternich et dona ferentem. [I fear Metternich, evea 
sending gifts.] 

17 



194 THOUGHTS OiN POPERY. 

53. Beauties of the I<copoItl Reports* 

Puerility of the Catholic Religion. 

What a 'puerile religion the Catholic religion is ! 
How childish ! How petty its cares ! About what 
trifles it concerns itself! The Christian is truly " the 
highest style of man," but the consistent Catholic is 
not much above the lowest. Baraga writes as follows: 
" It would be of essential service to our missions, if 
there could be sent us cups, boxes for the holy wafer, 
rosaries, crucifixes — of the last two, as many as pos- 
sible, for such articles cannot be bought here. How 
it is with church furniture and linen, you may easily 
think. Those given to me by pious persons are of great 
use to me, and I cannot be thankful enough for them." 
Cannot be thankful enough for boxes, rosaries, &c. ! ! 
His capacity for gratitude must be small indeed. We 
Protestants often feel that we cannot be thankful 
enough, but it is not for such trumpery as cups and 
boxes. When we feel and lament over the inadequacy 
of our gratitude, it is in view of the many and great 
mercies of God to us. I suppose our Protestant mis- 
sionaries at Ceylon, and elsewhere, would not be so 
very grateful if we should send them a consignment 
of cups, boxes, &c. No : such things could not be of 
essential service to their missions. We do not under- 
stand converting people as the Catholics do. They can 
regenerate and pardon, and do all the rest in a trice. 
We have to bring before the mind of the sinner the 
great-saving truth of Ch.ns,i crucified ; but they have 
only to put the little crucifix in his hand. I went, a 
short time ago, to^isit a man under sentence of death, 



THOUGHTi ON POPBRY. 195 

to talk to him about Christ and his death. I found him 
gazing intently on a little metallic image of Christ 
crucified, which a priest had left him. He seemed 
indifferent to all I said. The priest had 'prepared him ! 

In a note to Baraga's letter, we are told of a great 
number of Catholic notions that are already on their 
way to America ; among them three thousand rosa- 
ries ! What a sight of heads ! How their missions 
must prosper after this ! A little afterwards, by way 
of inducing others to contribute beads, boxes, &c. it is 
said : " The good Christian rejoices to promote the 
external honor of the house of God, so that the inner 
man, by the splendor of the external divine worship, 
may be lifted to heaven." What a sage sentiment ! 
How scriptural ! How philosophical too! This is 
truly a new Avay of being lifted to heaven. 

But I must not overlook a letter of Bishop Fenwick, 
dated Mackinac, July 1, 1S31. He writes : " On the 
second day after my arrival, Mr. M. and I preached at 
different times after mass. When the people had heard 
some sermons, confessions began ; and from that time 
till the day of our departure, we sat on the confession 
stool from early morning till 1 o'clock, and in the af- 
ternoon, from 3 or 4 o'clock, till 10, 11, and twice till 
12 at night. There were confessions of twenty, thirty, 
and forty years." What a prodigious memory they 
must have had, who called to mind and confessed the 
sins of forty years ! All that time they were waiting 
for a priest to come along. There was the God who 
delighted in mercy, to whom they might have confess- 
ed, as the publican dared to do ; and there was "Jesus 
the mediator of the new covenant," whom they might 
at any time have engaged to intercede for them. But 



196 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

that would not have been to act the part of good Ca- 
tholics. The good Catholic does not go to the mercy- 
seat of God to confess his sins and obtain forgiveness, 
(that were an " iniquity to be punished by the judges,") 
but he waits for the priest to come along with his con- 
fession-stool. The confession-stool substituted in the 
place of the mercy-seat ! This is one of the doings 
of that religion which Austria wants to give us. God 
says to sinners, " Come unto me," and he promises 
that he will " abundantly pardon them from his throne 
of grace." " Nay," says the priest, " wait till I come 
with my little stool." Catholics may, if they please, 
go for pardon and mercy to the stool of confession — 
but, my Protestant brethren, "Let us come boldly unto 
the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and 
find grace to help in time of need." 



54. Partiality of tlie Clinrcli of Rome. 

There is nothing of Avhich I am more perfectly cer- 
tain than that the religion of the church of Rome is 
not the religion of Jesus Christ. I do not care to say 
what it is — but it is not Christianity. How can they 
be the same, when they differ so widely ? Midnight 
and noon are not more unlike. I will specify one point 
of difference. Romanism is partial. She is a re- 
specter of persons. Christianity is the very opposite 
of this. And not only is the church of Rome partial, 
but her partialities are all in favor of the rich. Now 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 197 

Christianity, if it leans in any direction, inclines to- 
wards the poor. It was one sign that the Messiah 
was come in the perison of Jesus of Nazareth, that 
" the poor had the Go«pel preached to them." They 
were not orerlooked j far from it. " Hearken," says 
one, " hath not God chosen the poor of this world, 
rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom whiah he has 
promised to them that lovt him." The poor had never 
such a friend as Christ. He was himself poor. He 
had experience of the prirations, cares, and sorrows 
of that condition. So poor was he that he had not 
where to lay his head. No lodging-place at night had 
he in all that world which his word created and his 
hand sustained. The poor are peculiarly his brethren. 
And think you, then, that he has opened a wider door 
of entrance into heaven to the rich than to the poor ? 
Think you that he has connected with the condition 
of the rich man an advantage whereby he may sooner 
or more easily obtain admittance into the place of his 
glorious presence ? I do not believe it. But this is 
what the church of Rome teaches. She preaches bet- 
ter tidings to the rich than to the poor — Christ did not. 
But I must make good this charge against the church 
of Rome. I do it thus : According to her creed, all 
souls, except, perhap% now and then one, of every 
condition, go, on their leaving the body, to purgatory. 
There they are. Now to get them out. How does she 
say that is to be done? Why, they must either suffer 
out their time, (that is, all the time which remains af- 
ter subtracting all the indulgences that were purchased 
and paid for,) or their release must be effected by the 
efficacy of prayers and masses said for them by the 
faithful on earth. You remember that mass was per- 



198 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

formed lately by the Catholic congress assembled in 
Baltimore, for the repose of the souls of two deceased 
bishops. There is no other way. Christ's sacrifice does 
not give rest to the soul, according to the Catholics, un- 
less the sacrifice of the mass be added to it ! Well, how 
are these masses, so necessary to the repose and re- 
lease of the soul, to be had ? Why, how do you sup- 
pose, but by paying for them! Give the priests 
money, and they will say them. At any rate, they 
promise that they will. Now, do you not see the ad- 
vantage which money gives a man in the church of 
Rome, and the hardships of being a poor Catholic ? 
I wonder any poor man should think the Catholic re- 
ligion the religion of Christ. Verily, Popery is no 
religion for poverty. What did our Savior mean, when 
he said, " How hardly shall they that have riches en- 
ter into the kingdom of God ?" According to the Ca- 
tholic doctrine, they are the very men that enter most 
easily — they having the wherewith to purchase indul- 
gences and masses. It is the poor, according to this 
scheme, that with difficulty enter in. They have to 
serve their time out in purgatory — whereas, the rich 
can buy their time off. 

But is the thing managed in this way ? Are not 
masses said for all that die in th^j Catholic faith ? Yes, 
there is a day in the year called All-soul's day, (it 
comes on the 2d of November. Alas for the poor Ca- 
tholic who dies on the 3d, for he has to wait a whole 
year for a mass,) when all of them are prayed for. 
The poor share in the benefit of the masses said on 
that day ; but what does it amount to, when you con- 
sider the millions of Catholics that die every year, 
and the many millions not yet out of the fire, among 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 199 

whom the benefit is to be divided? It is not like 
having a mass said for one's soul in particular. But 
that is the privilege of the rich. 

Now I do not believe that it is the religion of the 
blessed Jesus that makes this distinction in favor of 
the rich. I believe that Christ brought as good news 
from heaven to the poor as to the rich. I believe that 
every blessing which he has to dispose of may be 
bought without money and without price. See Isa. 
55 : i. I believe that " whosoever will," may " take 
of the water of life freely." Rev. 22 : 17. This is 
my creed. 

There was poor Lazarus. I reckon he went to hea- 
ven as soon after he died as he would have done if he 
had had millions of money to leave to the church ; and 
I reckon the angels were as tender and careful of his 
soul as if he had been clothed in purple and fared 
sumptuously every day. And he was a poor man to 
whom the dying Savior said, " To-day shalt thou be 
with me in Paradise." If there was ever a man who, 
according to the Catholic doctrine, should have gone 
to purgatory, and remained a great while there, it was 
that thief. But you see he did not go there. Christ 
took him with him immediately to paradise. He went 
there without penance, without exti-eme unction^ with- 
out confession to a priest^ without a single mass being 
said for him, in utter outrage of all the rules of the 
church ! I don't think that Joseph of Arimathea, rich 
as he was, could have got to heaven sooner than that 
penitent thief. But Christ always considered the 
poor ; and that is not Christianity which 4oes not 
consider them. 

As I said in former pieces that I had no faith in 



200 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

salvation by fire, or in salvation by oil, I gay no)?» I 
have no faith in salvation by money. 

I will close with a syllogism. Christianity makes 
it as easy for a poor man to get to heaven, as for one 
that is rich. This is my ma or proposition. Who 
dare dispute it ? But the church of Rom« make^ it not 
so easy for a poor man to get to heaven as one that is 
rich. This is my minor proposition, and this I have 
shown. Who dare deny it ? Now my conclusion is, 
therefore, the religion of the church of Rome is not 
Christianity. 



55. Superer*s;atio]^ 

This long word was coined by the Catholics for 
their own special use, as was also that longer and 
harder word transubstantiation. Nobody else finds 
any occasion for it. It expresses what tlie rest of 
mankind think has no real existence. If the reader 
is acquainted with the Latin, (that language which 
the church of Rome extols so high above the Hebrew 
and Greek, the languages of God's choice — and in 
which she says we ought all to say our prayers, whe- 
ther we know it or not,) he will see that supereroga- 
tion is compounded of two words, and signifies lite- 
rally above ichat is required. It designates that 
overwork in the service of God which certain good 
Catholics in all ages are supposed to have done. Af- 
4er doing all the good which God requires of them 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 201 

then what they do over and above that, tney call su- 
pererogation. It expresses how much more they love 
God than they are required to love him. He claims, 
you know, to be loved with all the heart, and soul, and 
strength, and mind. This is the first and great com- 
mand. And observe, it is with all of each. Now. 
when the Catholic has fully satisfied this claim, he 
enters upon the work of supererogation ; and all that 
he does in the way of loving God after loving him 
with all the four^ heart, strength, soul, and mind, is 
set down to this account, be it more or less. Might 
I just ask here, for information, if a man is required 
to love God with all his strength, that is, with his 
whole ability, how can he do more ? It seems that 
whatever he can do, is required to be done. How 
Catholics contrive to do more than they can, I, for my 
part, do not know. It is a mystery to Protestants. 
We are in the dark on this subject. 

Let me tell you more about this supererogation. It 
expresses how much more Catholics are than perfect. 
Perfect, you know, we are all required to be — perfect, 
" even as our Father who is in heaven is perfect." 
Matt. 5 : 48. And in another place, even by Peter 
it is said, " As he which has called you is holy, so be 
ye holy in all manner of conversation." Now, when one 
is holy as he who hath called him is holy, and holy 
in all manner of conversation, in so far as he is more 
holy than this, since this is all that is required, the 
surplus is set down to the account of supererogation ! 
In other words, supererogation expresses the superflu- 
ous glory which men give to God, after glorifying him 
in their bodies and spirits, which are his, and doing 
all whatsoever they do, even to the matter of eating 



202 THOUGHTS ON POPERT. 

and drinking, to his glory ! See 1 Cor. 6 : 27, and Acts, 
10 : 31. This is supererogation. I hope the reader un- 
derstands it. 

Now, those who do these works of supererogation, 
have of course more merit than they have any occa- 
sion for on their own account ; and as this excess of 
merit ought by no means to be lost, the church of 
Rome has with great economy treasured it up for the 
benefit of those who are so unfortunate as to do less 
than what is required, to whom it is, at the discretion 
of the church, and for value received, served out in 
the way o( indulgences. This is the article that Tet- 
zel was dealing in so largely and lucratively, when one 
Martin Luther started up in opposition to the traffic. 
Protestants have never dealt in the article of indul- 
gences. 

By the way, the wise virgins of whom we read in 
Matthew, 25, seem not to have been acquainted with 
this doctrine of supererogation ; for when the foolish 
virgins, in the lack of oil, applied to them for a sea- 
sonable supply, they answered, " not so : lest there be 
not enough for us and you." They had only enough 
for themselves. 

But, say the Catholics, are there not counsels in the 
Bible, as well as precepts — certain things which are 
recommended, though not required ? If so, and a per- 
son, besides obeying the precepts, complies with the 
counsels, doing not only what is required, but also 
what is recommended, is not here a foundation for 
works of supererogation ? This is plausible, but that 
is all. My motto being brevity, I shall not attempt 
an extended answer to it, but take these few things. 

1. If there are counsels recommending things which 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY* 203 

no precepts require, yet obedience to these counsels 
cannot constitute works of supererogation, and accu- 
mulate merit, unless all the 'precepts are perfectly 
obeyed. A man must do all that is required, before 
he can do more than what is required. Now, has any 
mere man since the fall perfectly obeyed all the com- 
mandments of God ? Has any man done all his duty ? 
If not, I reckon no one has done more than his duty. 
We don't generally go beyond a thing until after we 
have come up to it. A cup does not usually run over 
before it is full. But, 

2. According to this doctrine of the church of Rome, 
men are capable of a higher virtue than God has re- 
quired ! They can, and actually do, perform virtuous 
and holy acts which belong to neither of the tables of 
the law, and which are comprehended neither in the 
love of God nor in the love of man ! Is this idea ad- 
missible? The Psalmist says, "thy commandment is 
exceeding broad." But according to this doctrine, the 
virtue of ihe Catholic is broader. I, however, don't 
believe it. 

3. There is no counsel which docs not become a 
precept or command, provided it be found that God 
can be more glorified by a compliance with it than 
otherwise. The thing recommended, if in any case it 
be apparent that the doing of it will redound to the 
glory of God, is ipso facto required, and becomes a 
duty. Take the favorite example of the Catholics, 
celibacy, which, they say, is recommended but not re- 
quired. Now, if any one find that he can better serve 
God in the single condition than in the matrimonial 
state, celibacy is in that case his duty ; and being a 
duty, a thing required, it can be no work of superero- 



204 THOUGHTS ON POPERY* 

gation. When celibacy is not a duty, there is no vir- 
tue in it. Does any one believe that Enoch would 
have been more virtuous, and walked more closely 
with God, if he had not fallen into the mistake of mat- 
rimony ? 

But I arrest my remarks, lest, in criminating one 
kind of supererogation, I myself be guilty of another. 



56* Convents* 



Every body knows how important convents, monas- 
teries, nunneries, &c. are in the Roman Catholic reli- 
gion. Who has not heard of monks and nuns, and of 
the establishments in which they respectively seclude 
themselves from the worldl What a pity they cannot 
keep the flesh and the devil as far off! But the flesh 
they must carry in with them ; and the devil is at no 
loss to find an entrance. There are no convents that 
can shut these out ; and it is my opinion that it is not 
of much use to exclude the world, if they cannot at 
the same time shut out the other two. The world 
would be very harmless, but for the flesh and the 
devil. Besides, I am of opinion that a person may be 
o/the world, though not in the world, /w, but not of 
the world, is the Protestant doctrine, and the true 
plan. People forget that the world is not the great 
globe, with all its land and water ; but that it is often 
an insidious little thing, which, ere one knoAvs it, 
has taken up its lodgment in the heart. The heart 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 205 

call entertain the world* If so, convent cannot even 
keep out the world. They do not answer the purpose 
therefore for which they are intended. 

But be this as it may, I find nothing for convents in 
the Bible. In the Old Testament not a word about 
them — in the New not a word. Now if they are such 
grand contrivances for making pet)ple good, and for 
keeping them pure, I am surprised they were never 
thought of till after the canon of Scripture was closed. 
Why do not the men who speak by inspiration of 
God, say any thing about them ? This puzzles me. 
I wish some of the Catholic writers would explain 
the reason. They tell us why St. Paul omitted to 
say any thing in his writings about the mass. It was, 
say the authors of the Rhemish Testament in their 
annotations on Hebrews, 7: 17, "because of the 
depth of the mystery, and the incredulity or feeble- 
ness of those to whom he Avrote." We thank them 
for the admission that the apostle did not teach the 
doctrine of the mass. But how came they to know 
the reason of his silence upon it ? May be it was for 
a similar reason that he maintained a perfect silence 
on the subject of convents ! 

But if convents are such clever things, why did not 
Enoch take the vow of celibacy, and go into one, in- 
stead of " walking with God and begetting sons and 
daughters '?" How much better a man, according to 
the Catholic notion, he would have been, had he only 
been a monk ! And why did not St. John banish him- 
self to some solitary Patmos, and there live the life 
of a hermit, before a persecuting emperor drove him 
into it ? Why did not Peter and his wife part, and he 
turn friar .and she nun ? We look to such characters 

18 



SOB THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

for examples. Why did not the Marys, or some other 
of the pious women of whom we read in the Bible, 
take the veil ? Monachism, they may say, is an im- 
provement on those times. But I do not like the idea 
of improvements on a system arranged by the wis- 
dom of the Son of God himself. 

There is what we call the spirit of a book. Now, 
the entire system of convents seems to me as clear- 
ly at variance with the spirit of the Bible, as one 
thing can be at variance with another. The Bible 
appears to have been written for persons who were 
to live in society with their fellow-men. It supposes 
human beings to be associated together in families 
and in civil communities, not as immured in monas- 
teries and shut up in nunneries. It takes up the va- 
rious relations of life, and descants on the duties 
growing out of them. But the system of Monachism 
dissolves these relations. Is it scriptural then ? But 
why should I ask if that be scriptural which was 
first instituted by St. Anthony in the fourth century 
after Christ ? 

Again, if the system is favorable to holiness, then 
all equally need it, since all are required to be equal- 
ly holy — to be holy as God is holy. But what would 
soon become of us all, if the system should become uni- 
versal, and all adopt these means of holiness ? This 
idea, that the means of the most eminent sanctity re- 
quired of any, are not accessible and practicable to 
all, is radically erroneous. It is no such thing. It 
cannot be. Therefore I conclude against convents. 

But while I impugn the system, I bring no charges 
against the existing edifices, called convents. 1 would 
never have them assailed by any other force than 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 207 

that which belongs to an argument. If I were a Ro- 
man Catholic, I could not more indignantly repro- 
bate than, being a protestant, I do, the recent burn- 
ing of one of these buildings. If truth and argument 
can prostrate them, let them fall ; but not by axes, 
and hammers, and fire-brands. All I contend for is, 
that the whole concern of convents is unscriptural. 
Those who inhabit them may be as pure as any who 
live outside ; and so I shall believe them to be, until 
I have proof to the contrary. This plan of suspect- 
ing, and of making mere suspicion the ground of con- 
demnation, is no part of my religion. It is a part of my 
Protestantism to 'protest against it. 



57. Mr. Berrington and Mrs. More. 

In reading the interesting memoirs of Mrs. Hannah 
More, I was struck with a letter which that good lady 
received in 1809 from Joseph Berrington, the Pope's 
Vicar General, taking exception to something she had 
said in her " Coelebs " about Popery. He is very much 
offended with her. He complains, among other things, 
of her use of the word Popery, to designate the Ro- 
man Catholic religion. Now, some of us do not make 
much use of that word, as knowing it is offensive to the 
Catholics, and not willing to say any thing irritating 
to them; and when we do use it, I believe it is more 
for brevity than for any other reason — to avoid tedious 
circumlocution. It is as much out of regard to the 



208 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

printer as any thing else. I do not see, however, why 
they should so strongly object to the word Popery. 
They all hold to the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, 
and regard him as the head of the church. Why then 
should not iheir religious system be called after him ? 
We call ours after the one we regard as supreme in 
spiritual matters, and head of the church. We call 
it Christianity, after Christ. Why not for the same 
reason call theirs Popery, after the Pope ? We do not 
even get angry when they call us Calvinists, and our 
doctrinal system Calvinism. Yet with much more 
reason might we ; for what is Calvin to us ? He is 
only one of many thousand eminent men who have 
espoused substantially the system of doctrine we do. 
I find in Mr. B's. letter this remarkable sentence : 
" Nothing is more surprising than that you Protest- 
ants should be so utterly ignorant, as you really are, 
or seem to be, of our tenets ; when we all, whatever 
be our country, think alike, and our catechisms and 
books of instruction lie open before the world." He 
says nothing is more surprising. But there is one 
thing which is even more surprising. It is that any 
intelligent ecclesiastic should venture to write such a 
sentence. He says we Protestants are, or seem to be, 
utterly ignorant of their tenets. Now, the truth is, 
there are few things we are better acquainted with 
than the tenets of Roman Catholics. They say we 
do not let them speak for themselves. Yes, we do. 
Do they not speak for themselves in their own manu- 
als, breviaries, and catechisms printed under their 
own sanction and supervision ? If we take their te- 
nets from their own books, and quote verbatim, and 
refer to the edition and page, is not that enough ? 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 209 

Well, we do so. Yet they say we misrepresent them. 
How can that be ? They may misrepresent and con- 
tradict themselves, but it is hard to hold us responsi- 
ble for that. If we are ignorant of their tenets, it is 
because they do not themselves constantly hold to 
them. If they let go their doctrines, as soon as Pro- 
testants attack and expose them, and resorting to 
explanations, evasions and glosses, do thus virtually 
take hold of something different from their original 
and published tenets, we are not to blame for that, I 
should think. 

But Mr. B. tells us what makes our ignorance so 
surprising : " when we all, whatever be our country, 
think alike." Do they all think alike ? They did not 
always all think alike. See history. And so far as 
they do think alike, does the reader know how it 
comes about? It is by virtue of not thinking at all. 
But grant they all think alike. Does it follow that 
they think right 7 Has no error ever been very popu- 
lar ? The world all thought alike once on astronomy 
— all held the earth to be the centre of the system. 
But did they think right ? However, it is convenient 
to have a large number of persons all think alike, for 
then, if you can ascertain what one thinks, you know 
what all think, and if you read one book, you know 
what is in them all. So, if you chance to fall in with 
a Spanish or Italian Catholic, and he tells you what 
he thinks, you know what every English and Ameri- 
can Catholic thinks, for they " all thi/ik alike." So, 
if you take up one catechism or book of instruction 
and read that, you know what they all ought to con- 
tain. It saves a great deal of trouble. 

But the Vicar complains bitterly of the Bishop of 

18* 



210 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

Durham, for asserting that the Catholics suppress the 
second commandment. He says it is no such thing, 
and that any school boy could tell him different. And 
he affirms that a catechism was put into the hands of 
the Bishop containing that commandment, and still 
he persisted in his assertion. The Bishop was right ; 
and " nothing is more surprising " than that Mr. B. 
should deny it. I hare myself seen two different 
catechisms, published in Ireland by Catholic book-sel- 
lers, and under the highest Catholic authority, from 
both of which the second commandment was ex- 
cluded ; and it is left out of " the Christian's Guide," 
published in Baltimore by the Catholics, as any one 
may see for himself Now what could Mr. B. say to 
this 1 Would he say, " O ! those were published in 
Ireland and America." But he says, " we all, what- 
ever he our cotmtry, think alike." Would he say that 
he spoke of 1809, and these were published since ? 
But it is their boast that they not only do now all think 
alike, but that they always did think alike. Would 
he say that if it was left out of those catechisms, yet 
it was retained in others 1 Yes ; but if their catechisms 
differ, how do they all think alike ? Besides, no one 
ever accused the Catholics of leaving the second com- 
mandment out of every one of their books. But why 
do they leave it out of any? Will they please to say 
why they leave it out of any ? They have never con- 
descended to answer that question. They always 
e"vade it. If a man should publish successive editions 
of the laws of any country, and should leave out of 
some of the editions a certain important law, would 
it be sufficient for him to say that he did not leave it 
out of all the editions ? Why did he leave it out of 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 211 

any '? Why did he not make them all uniform ? A 
man may as well tell me I hare no eyes, as deny that 
some Catholic catechisms have been published with- 
out the second commandment. Now, why was erer 
a catechism published under Catholic sanction with- 
out it ? Did they ever publish one in which they 
omitted any other of the commandments ? Did Pro- 
testants erer publish a list of the commandments with 
one omitted, and another divided so as to make out 
the ten ? Alas for them ! there is no getting out of 
this dilemma into which they have brought them- 
selves by their mutilation of the decalogue. It is 
about the most unfortunate thing they ever did for 
themselves. I do not wonder that Mr. B. was rest- 
less under the charge. But surely, he had too much 
good sense to suppose that he had answered the 
Bishop, when he showed him a catechism that had 
the commandment in it. It is as if a man, charged 
with falsehood in a particular instance, should under- 
take to answer the charge by showing that in another 
instance he had spoken the truth. The Catholics are 
very uneasy to get rid of this millstone about the neck 
of their religion. They see it is in danger of sinking 
it. But they cannot slip it off so easy ; and if they 
cannot manage to swim with it, it must sink them. 
Well, if it does, and nothing but the system goes to 
the bottom, I shall not be sorry. 

In the course of his letter, Mr. B. speaks of " the 
anarchical principle of private judgment." And is 
this a principle which leads to anarchy ? Paul did 
not seem to think so. He says : " Let every man be 
fully persuaded in his own mind." What anarchy 
must have existed in the Berean church, where, after 



213 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

hearing the word, they " searched the Scriptures daily, 
whether these things were so !" What confusion 
there must have been where all read and thought 
for themselves ! They needed an Inquisitor to set 
things to rights. He is the man to mend matters 
when people fall to " searching the Scriptures." Well, 
if the 19th century will tolerate the denunciation of 
private judgment on any subject, I suppose it must be 
so ; but I cannot say Amen. 



58. A TSew Metliod of Excitiugf Devotion. 

There seems to be no end to new discoveries. 
Marching mind appears to have no idea of halting. 
Probably improvements will go on until the world it- 
self terminates. What should I see, in taking up the 
Observer of January 3d, but an article headed " Ca- 
thedral at St. Louis ?" Then followed a description 
taken, be it known, not from any scandalous Protes- 
tant paper, but from the Catholic Telegraph, printed 
at Cincinnati, of the building, altar, &c. By the way, 
the altar is of stone, but they tell us this is only tem- 
porary, and will soon be superseded by a superb mar- 
ble altar which is hourly expected from Italy. Why 
go all the way to Italy for an altar ? Why not employ 
our own mechanics and artists'? We have marble 
enough here, and men enough. But I suppose it is a 
present. Our country is receiving a great many pre- 
sents now from abroad. Foreign Catholics are parti- 
cularly kind to us. You know we are making the 



THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 213 

great experiment whether a free, representative go- 
vernment can sustain itself; and our Austrian and 
Italian brethren, sympathizing with us, want to help 
us all they can. They mourn especially over the de- 
plorable lack of religion in this country, and are anx- 
ious to supply it. Nor is it in building and furnishing 
churches alone that they are disposed to help us. 
They cannot bear to see our children growing up in 
such ignorance. They are not used (they would have 
us believe) to an ignorant population ; and then, what 
is to become of the republic if the people are not 
educated ? So they come from Ireland, France, Italy, 
and all those countries, male and female, to educate 
us. A sceptical person might be tempted to ask if there 
is nothing of the kind to be done at home — if, for exam- 
ple, they cannot find any uneducated children in Ire- 
land, but they must come over here to find them. How- 
ever that be, they come. But what strikes me with won- 
der, is, that when they get here, they are all for educating 
Protestant children. Why do they not give the chil- 
dren of Catholics, their own people, a chance? There 
are many of them scattered over the land, and they 
are not all self-taught. I should like to have this ex- 
plained. Common sense suggests that there must be 
a motive for making this distinction, and shrewdly 
suspects it is proselytism. Charity waits to hear if 
any more creditable reason can be assigned. But this 
is digression. 

Well, on the 26th of October the grand building 
was consecrated. The procession consisted of an " ec- 
clesiastical corps " amounting to fifty or sixty, of whom 
four were bishops, and twenty- eight priests, twelve of 
whom were from twelve different nations. You see 



214 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

they are coming upon us from all quarters. It would 
really seem as if all Europe was conspiring to pour in 
its priests among us. Here are priests of twelve dif- 
ferent nations met at St. Louis ! Protestantism has to 
depend for its men and money on native Americans ; 
but Popery, you perceive, has all Europe to draw upon. 
If, with this advantage, the latter religion should make 
considerable progress in our country, we must not be 
surprised. Whether this influx of foreign priests au- 
gurs good or evil to our free institutions, is a question 
on which I will express no opinion. 

I come now to the novelty which suggested the title 
of this article — the new discovery — the improvement I 
spoke of. The editor, or his correspondent, says, "As 
soon as the procession was organized, the pealing of 
three large and clear-sounding bells, and the thunder 
of two pieces of artillery, raised all hearts, as well as 
our own, to the Great and Almighty Being." Now is 
not this something new 7 I always thought bells were 
to call people together, not to raise them up. But here 
he says they raised all hearts. However, it was with 
the help of the thundering artillery. It was the bells 
and guns together that did it. They made such a noise 
that at once all hearts were raised. What an effect 
from such a cause ! Will the reader please to consider 
what was done and what did it? All hearts were 
raised to God by means of tliree bells and two guns ! 
Is not this a new> method of exciting devotion ? Who 
ever heard before of noise composing the mind and 
preparing it for devout exercises? According to this, 
the fourth of July should be the day of all others in 
the year most favorable to devotion. And what a ca- 
lamity deafness now appears to be ; and how to be 



Thoughts on popery. 215 

|)ltied they are who lived before the invention of gun^ 
powder ! I never knew before that this was among 
the benefits of that invention, that it inspires devo- 
tional feelings, and raises hearts on high. But we 
must live and learn. 

Well, all hearts being raised as before, " the holy 
relics (alias, the old bones) were moved towards the 
ncAV habitation, where they shall enjoy anticipated 
resurrection— the presence of their God in his holy 
tabernacle." What this means, the reader must find 
out for himself. Now, when the relics were moved, 
the writer tells us what the guns did. " The guns fired 
a second salute." They could not contain themselves. 
Neither could the writer. " We felt," says he, " as if 
the soul of St. Louis was in the sound." A soul in a 
sound ! Here is more that is new. 

Then we are told who preached the dedication ser- 
mon ; and afterwards we are informed, for our edifica- 
tion, that " during the divine sacrifice, (the Protestant 
reader, perhaps, does not know what is meant by this 
phrase, but if the twelve nations continue to send over 
their priests, we shall know all about it by and by,) 
two of the military stood with drawn swords, one at 
each side of the altar ; they belonged to a guard of 
honor, formed expressly for the occasion. Besides 
whom, there were detachments from the four militia 
companies of the city, the Marions, the Greys, the 
Riflemen, and the Cannoniers from Jefferson Barracks, 
stationed at convenient distances around the church." 
The reader will not forget that certain professed am- 
bassadors of " the Prince of P^ace " were here en- 
gaged in dedicating a church to his service ; and this 
is the way they took to do it. If they had been conse- 



216 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 

crating a temple to Mars^ I don't know how they could 
have selected more appropriate ceremonies. Here were 
soldiers, drawn swords, guns, and, as we shall see 
presently, colors and drums too, all to dedicate a church 
to the meek and lowly Jesus, and that too on the day 
of rest ! 

One more quotation from this glowing description. 
" When the solemn moment of the consecration ap- 
proached, and the Son of the living God was going to 
descend, for the first time, into the new residence of 
his glory on earth, the drums beat the reveille, three 
of the star-spangled banners were lowered over the 
balustrade of the sanctuary, the artillery gave a deaf- 
ening discharge." All that seems to have been want- 
ing here was three cheers. Those would have been 
quite as suitable as the other accompaniments of the 
service. Reader, is this religion; and are these the 
things which are pleasing to God 7 

I have a word to say about the star-spangled banner. 
That is an ensign endeared to every American heart. 
Whether it is as highly esteemed by the twelve na- 
tions, I cannot say. But a church is not its appro- 
priate place. There is another banner which should 
wave there — and that is not stav-sp angled. One soli- 
tary star distinguishes it — the star — the star of Beth- 
lehem. Let us keep these things separate : under the 
one, go to fight the bloodless battles of our Lord — un- 
der the other, march to meet our country's foes. This 
is the doctrine of American Protestantism — no union 
of church and state, and no interchange of their ap- 
propriate banners. 

THE END. 



DATE DUE 



WSiW 




GAYLORD 



PRINTED IN aSA 



Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 



1 1012 01011 3662 



g^ngmnmiii^l^^^^^^ 



