# 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 .if 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 4 
 
 (0 
 
 
 '^^ 
 
 IE 
 
 
 ^tr ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 *S 
 
 i-f— 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 >^:§:' 
 
 S g 
 
 c 
 < 
 
 3 
 
 (^152 
 
 iz; 
 
 E 
 
 <a "^i "^ 
 
 t^ M 
 
 OJ 
 
 '^ .^ "S 
 
 •s p^ 
 
 CO 
 
 :s ^ 1 
 
 -^ PM 
 
 iZ 
 
 '^ ^ ^ i 
 
 "^ 
 
 5 
 
 ! 
 
 o 
 
 2- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -T3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 vi 
 
 (U 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
N E V I N S ' 
 THOUGHTS ON POPEEY. 
 
THOUGHTS 
 
 ON POPERY 
 
 BY THJE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM 'NEYINS, D.D. 
 
 Late Pastor of a Church in Baltimore. 
 
 REVISED BY ISAAC TAYLOR, ESQ. 
 
 Author of Natural History of Enthusiasm, Ancient Christianity, 
 '8sc. 4-c. 4r. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION; 
 
 By W. H. DALTON, 
 
 28, cockspur street, charixg cross. 
 
 MDCCCXLIII. 
 
J. WRIGHT, PRINTER, AVON-STREET, BRISTOL. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 1. The Sufficiency of the Bible as a Rule of Faith 
 
 and Guide to Salvation. 
 This is the great matter in controversy between 
 Protestants and Roman Catholics. We say the 
 Bible is sufficient. Thei/ say that it is not. Now 
 suppose that Paul the apostle be permitted to de- 
 cide 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 acknow- 
 ledged writings. It is agreed on all hands that 
 he wrote the second epistle to Timothy. Well, in 
 the third chw^iQT 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 coiTectly translated into 
 English, any scholar may see. 
 
 Here then we have what Paul wrote; and I can- 
 not believe that he would write, in a letter to 
 Timothy, that the Holy Scriptures are capable of 
 bemg 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 Scriptures ? He reminds him that he had 
 known them fiom a child ; that is, he had been 
 
2 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 Tes- 
 tament, and of the New, so far as the latter was 
 written and recognized at the time, are intelli- 
 gible 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 under- 
 standing? And what do we want more for a 
 rule of faith, than a Bible which a child can un- 
 derstand ? The Bible then cannot 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, " which" he says, " are able 
 to make thee wise unto salvation." Why the apostle 
 talks as if he had taken lessons of Luther. AVhen 
 did he live ? They say that the Protestant religion 
 is only three hundred years old ; but here is a man 
 who lived well nigh eighteen hundred 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 wishes 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 wise 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 suffi- 
 ciency of the Bible as a rule of faith and guide to 
 salvation, I know not how any thing can be proved- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 6 
 
 I will tell you what I have 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 iii. 15, and I mean to hold on 
 to this weapon of heavenly temper, and to wield 
 it manftdly, until my opponent surrender or re- 
 treat. He cannot stand before it. 
 
 But before I close this, I must say, that if the 
 Scriptures which existed when Paul wrote to 
 Timothy were able to make -wise unto salvation, 
 how much more are they with what has been add- 
 ed to the canon since ! And here, by the way, we 
 have an answer to the question which the Catholic 
 asks mth such an air of triumph : " How, if this 
 be your rule of faith, did Christians manage before 
 the New Testament was written 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 apart 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- 
 inspired men, I think they must have managed 
 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 personally accessible. The advantage is, that 
 we have daily and hourly opJ)ortunity to consult 
 the Author of the Bible on the meaning of it. We 
 can, at any moment we please, go and ask Him to 
 interpret to us any difficult passage. "We can lift 
 off our eyes from the word of truth, when some- 
 
4 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 thing occurs ^vllicil we do not readily comprehend, 
 and direct tliem 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. It is not enough ? 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. xxii. 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, 
 Avho searched them f/rt77z/, because they would not 
 take on trust even what Paul said (and I suspect 
 they would 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." (Actsxvii. 11, 
 12.) Whatever these Bereans were, it is clear that 
 they were not good|Catiiolics. 
 
 But after all, it is not surprising that these noble 
 
THOUGHTS Oif POPERY. 5 
 
 Bereans did not fall into any fatal error by reason 
 of reading 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 " un- 
 learned and unstable;"' and that they do them no 
 harm, except they wrest them, — that is, do abso- 
 lute violence to them. (2 Pet. iii. 16.) 
 
 3. Private Interpretation. 
 
 It is known to every body how strenuously the 
 Roman Catholics 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 iii. 16 : " God 
 so loved the world that he gave his only begotten 
 Son," &c. ; or to that, Matt. xi. 28, 30 : " Come 
 unto me, all ye that labour 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 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 intei-pretation, 
 if he does. Before he pretends to understand those 
 passages, he must inquire how the Church has al- 
 Avays 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 understood them. Well, now, 
 it strikes me as rather hard upon the poor sinner, 
 that he should be made to go through this long 
 
b THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 and difficult process before he is permitted to ad- 
 mire the love of God in the gift of his Son, and be- 
 fore he can go to Jesus for rest. And somehow I 
 cannot help suspecting that it is not necessary to 
 take this circuitous course ; and that it is not so very 
 great a sin, when one reads such passages, to un- 
 derstand them according to the obvious import of 
 their terms. 
 
 But the Catholic asks, " Does not Peter con- 
 demn private interpretation ? " And they point us 
 to his 2nd Epistle, i. 20 : " Knowing this first, 
 that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private 
 interpretation." Now you must know that Catho- 
 lics, though they have no great attachment to the 
 Bible, are as glad as any people can be, "when 
 they can get hold of a passage of it which seems 
 to estabUsh some tenet of theirs. And as only a 
 very small portion of the Bible has even the appear- 
 ance of favoring them, one may observe with what 
 eagerness they seize upon, and with what tenacity 
 they cling to, the rare passages which seem to be- 
 friend their cause. Thus they do with this passage 
 of Peter. They quote it with an air of triumph, 
 and exultingly ask what Protestants can have to 
 reply to it. 
 
 Now, in the name of Protestants, I will state in 
 two or three particulars what w^e have to say in op- 
 position to the Catholic inference from these words 
 of Peter. We say that that passage does not make 
 for the Catholic cause, j^rs?, because if the right of 
 private judgment 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 hcriatory, is not 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 7 
 
 of private interpretation ; but only the prophetic, 
 that part in "which something \s foretold. He does 
 not say no Scripture., hut '"'•710 jyrophec?/ of the Script- 
 ure is of any private interpretation." Allowing 
 then to the CathoHc all which he contends for, we 
 are left with by far the larger part of the Bible open 
 to private interpretation. Peter restricts us only in 
 the matter Qi projyhecy I 
 
 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 
 understands it to mean. This is evident from what 
 follows it. I wish the reader would turn to the pas- 
 sage. He will perceive that Peter, having said that 
 no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private in- 
 terpretation, proceeds 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 confirms 
 the Eoman 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, 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 Roman Catholic argument from 
 this passage may be stated thus : The Bible is an 
 
8 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 inspired hook^ therefore too obscure and ambiguous to 
 be of jyrivate interpretation ! Inspired^ therefore un- 
 intelligible ! 
 
 If it be so hard to understand what God says, 
 how was the divine Saviour able to make himself 
 understood by the common people, who heard him 
 gladly ? I suspect 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 un- 
 derstood by those who heard it. No one thought 
 of asking how others understood it. No one felt 
 the necessity of an interpreter : 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 understanding it, had 
 been taken down in writing at the time, Avould not 
 they who understood it when they heard it have 
 equally understood it w^hen they read it ? The 
 spoken discourses of Christ were intelligible : have 
 they become unintelligible by being written f* 
 
 To return for a moment to the passage in Peter. 
 I consider that the word rendered in verse 20, in- 
 terjyretation^ should be translated as Dr. M'Knight 
 translates it, inveiition ; or, as another renders it, 
 imjmlse : and verse 21 should be considered as ex- 
 planatory of that which precedes it. If the Apostle 
 really intended to deny the right of private judg- 
 ment, 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 ^(S^X^e /zeerf 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 in- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 9 
 
 terpretation, then of course the passage of Scripture, 
 2 Pet. i. 20, is not 'of private interpretation ; and 
 yet the CathoHc exercises his private judgment 
 upon it, and submits it to the private judgment of 
 the Protestant, in the hope thereby of making him 
 a CathoHc ! No part of Scripture, according to him, 
 may be privately interpreted, but that which af- 
 firms that no part, not even itself, may be privately 
 interpreted ! 
 
 4. Pojpery Unscriptural. 
 
 I undertake to prove that the Roman Catholic 
 religion is unscriptural — that it is not borne out by 
 the Bible. If I can do that, I shall be satisfied ; for 
 a religion, professing to be Christianity, which 
 does not agree with the statements of Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude, 
 will, I am persuaded, never go down in the United 
 States of America. 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 country 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 Ro- 
 manism and the Bible are at variance. This, if I 
 mistake not, I can easily do. 
 
 The Roman Catholics act very much as if they 
 themselves did not regard their religion as being 
 
10 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 contains their religion ? 
 They need not take our translation of it. They have 
 one of their own — the Douay. Let them circulate 
 that. Why do they leave the whole business of dis- 
 tributing the Scriptures to the Protestants ? Above 
 all, why do they oppose the operations of Bible 
 Societies, when they are only multiplying and dif- 
 fusing copies of the book which contains the Ro- 
 man Catholic religion ? 
 
 I am particularly surprised that the Roman Ca- 
 tholics 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 acknowledge 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 wonder that they 
 wish to keep out of sight of the people the epistles 
 of Paul, who says (Gal. ii. 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 Avith me. 
 I have been reading his epistles, to see if I can dis- 
 cover 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. v. 
 13) he means Rome, as John does in the Revela- 
 tion; and not a word about his being Bishop of 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 11 
 
 Rome, or Pope ! He seems to have no idea that he 
 was a pope. He says in his 1st Epistle, y. 1, " The 
 elders which are among you I exhort, who am also 
 an elder." An elder ! was that all ? Why, Peter, do 
 you forget yourself ? Do you not know that you are 
 universal Bishop, Prijiiate of the Apostolical College, 
 Supreme and Infallible Head of the Church ? He 
 seems never to have known one Avord about it. Now 
 I think I have hit upon one reason why it is 
 thought best that the people in general should not 
 be familiar with the writings 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 reHgion of these epistles is their religion, I have 
 no further controversy with them. 
 
 5. The Evil of Believing too much. 
 
 It is a common saying among the Catholics, 
 that it is better to believe too much than to beheve 
 too^ little ; and it is one of the arguments with 
 which they endeavour to make proselytes, that they 
 believe all that Protestants believe, besides a good 
 deal that Protestants do not believe. Hence they 
 would have it inferred that their religion possesses 
 all the advantages which belong to Protestant- 
 ism, 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 mak- 
 ing Catholics, I shall take the liberty of ex- 
 amining it. 
 
 Why is it better to believe too much than to be- 
 
12 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 lieve too little ? Excess in other things is not better 
 than defect. To eat or clmik 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 de- 
 range a man's calculations as much as the other. 
 The man who believes 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 au- 
 thority at Rome as well as every where else, 
 represents additions to the truth to be as injurious 
 and as offensive to God as subtraction from it. 
 Rev. xxii. IS, 19. "If any man shall add unto 
 these things, God shall add unto him the plagues 
 that are ^vritten in this book." Here you see what 
 a man gets by believing too much. It is not al- 
 together so safe a thing as the Catholics represent 
 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 off'ensive to God, is, that they 
 are such additions 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. ix. 16.) All the additions of 
 the church of Rome to Christianity 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 justified by faith alone, without the deeds 
 of the law. Nay, says the Catholic ; our own good 
 
THOUGHTS OX POPERY. 13 
 
 •works have something 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 satis- 
 fied with Christ's being " once offered to bear the 
 sins of many," but they teach the strange doctrine 
 that Christ is offered as often as a priest is pleased 
 to say mass ! 
 
 Nothing is farther from the truth than that the 
 Catholic believes all which the Protestant believes, 
 besides a great deal that the Protestant does not 
 believe. The latter part of the assertion is correct. 
 The Catholics believe a great deal which the Pro- 
 testants 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 satisfied with 
 Holy Scripture. But the Catholics do not believe 
 all that Protestants believe ; they do not believe 
 the Protestant doctrine of regeneration, or justifi- 
 cation, 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 
 believe tradition; so that they believe all w^hich 
 Protestants beHeve, and some more besides. Yery 
 logical, to be sure ! But suppose that tradition and 
 Scripture happen 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 contradictions. The Catholic 
 believes with Scriptui'e, that " mamage is honour- 
 c 
 
14 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 able in all;" and he believes with tradition, that it is 
 very disgraceful in some. One of his rules of faith 
 affii-ms 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 be blamed^ but the other asserts his infallibility. 
 According to one, Peter was a simple elder ; but 
 according to the other, universal bishop, &c. The 
 Catholic says he believes both, and therefore he is 
 in a safer state than the Protestant, Well, when 
 I can be convinced that two contradictory as- 
 sertions are both true, I may believe as much as 
 the Catholic believes. Meanwhile I am satisfied 
 with believing enough ; and not caring to be more 
 than perfectly safe, I shall continue to be a Pro- 
 testant. 
 
 6. The Nine Commandments. 
 '"''Nine commandments ! What does that mean ? 
 I always thought the commandments were ten.*' 
 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 primitive 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 in- 
 fallible. 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 a way off at Rome, subtract one 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 15 
 
 from the ten commandments ; and so they have 
 but nine commandments. Theirs is not a De- 
 calogue, but a Nonalogue. 
 
 It is just so. When many years ago I first 
 heard of it, I thought it was a slander of the Pro- 
 testants. I said, " Oh, it cannot be that they have 
 dared to meddle 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 instrument of iron, ob- 
 literated 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 ever 
 have gained currency, unless there was some foun- 
 dation for it. Who would ever have thought of 
 charging Roman Catholics with suppressing one 
 of the commandments, unless they had done it, or 
 something 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 slander. I saw with my own eyes the ca- 
 techisms published under the sanction of bishops 
 and archbishops, in which one of the command- 
 ments w^as omitted; and the reader may see the 
 same thing in " The Manual of Cathohc Piety," 
 printed no farther off than Philadelphia. The Hst 
 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 will see that the commandment 
 
16 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 •vvHcli the Catholics leave out, as helug grievous to 
 them, Is the second of 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 ac- 
 cording to their numbering. Is the ninth. But as 
 they don't like the sound of " the nine command- 
 ments," since the Bible speaks of "ten command- 
 ments," (Exod. xxxiv. 28 ; Deut. iv. 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 ? AVhy, 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 : 
 
 "9fch. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. 
 
 10th. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour'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. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 17 
 
 But, after all, it is a bad job. It is not nearly so in- 
 genious as many of tlie devices of Popery. After all is 
 said and done, they hare 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 
 commandment 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 Ca- 
 tholics are bent on dividing the last of the com- 
 mandments, they should call the first half, Sh, 
 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 com- 
 mandments, and they acknowledge only nine of 
 them. It is a mean device to divide one of the 
 nine, and then say they acknowledge ten. TEe 
 Catholics know that the commandments, as they 
 are in many of their catechisms, 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 
 speculation. 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 repentance, they have restored the 
 second commandment in many cases : they can 
 show you a great many catechisms and books in 
 wl 'ch it is found. I had supposed that the omission 
 ex" ted now only in the catechisms published 
 an 1 used in Ireland, until I heard of the 
 
18 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 Philadelphia Manual. They had better repent 
 thoroughly, and restore the commandment in all 
 their publications. And I think it ^vould not be 
 amiss for them to confess that for once they have 
 been falhble ; that in the matter of mutilating the 
 Decalogue, they could, and did err. If they will 
 afford us that evidence of repentance, -vve will for- 
 give them, and we wdll say no more about it. We 
 know it is a sore subject with them ; they don't 
 know how to get over it. When one asks them, 
 " How came you to leave out the second command- 
 ment T 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, " AVhy?" 
 
 7. Roman 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 JMicaiah, the 
 prophet of the Lord. (1 Kings xxii. 8.) It is hard 
 not to contract a strong dislike to that which is for 
 ever bearing testimony against one. To love an 
 enemy is one of the most difficult attainments. 
 Now, the Bible is all the time speaking against the 
 Roman Catholic religion, and prophesying not 
 good, but evil of it, just as Micaiah did of Ahab. 
 It is natural, therefore, that the Catholics should 
 feel an aversion to the Bible. We ought not to 
 expect any thing else. But I am somewhat sur- 
 prised 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 19 
 
 the oracles of God. It has an ugly appearance, to 
 say the least, to see the Christian church come out 
 against the Christian Scriptures. 
 
 I wondered much, when, a feAv 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 liave them." It has 
 very much the appearance of contradicting 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 Roman Catholic may have 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 favour. Far be it 
 from him to forbid the use of the Bible, except in 
 the vuljiar tongue I 
 
 Another more recent fact has surprised me not 
 a little — that a student of Maynooth College, in 
 Ireland, named O'Beirne, should have been ex- 
 pelled that institution for persisting in reading the 
 Bible. Expulsion is rather a serious thin*:. That 
 must be esteemed a heinous crime which is sup- 
 posed to justify so severe a penalty. I cannot see 
 any thing so criminal in reading the Scriptures. I 
 wonder if the reading of any other book is for- 
 
20 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 bidden at Maynooth: — I suspect not. The 
 authorities at Maynooth must think the Bible the 
 i0O7'st 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 dis- 
 missed with dishonour ! But I suppose they will 
 say, he was not expelled for reading the Scriptures, 
 but for contempt 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 authorities of the college told 
 he must not. His sin consisted in obeying Christ 
 rather than the government of the college. I 
 think it might have been set down as vetiial. 
 They might have overlooked the fault of pre- 
 ferring Christ's authority to theirs. "When the 
 Son of man shall come in his glory," I don't be- 
 lieve He Avill expel the young man for what he did, 
 though the college bade him " depart." 
 
 I wonder, and have always wondered, that the 
 Roman Catholics, 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 Letters " of the 
 Popes, why not let them read the "General 
 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 ? I cannot ex- 
 plain this. 
 
 Here is another fact that has surprised me. A 
 recent Galway newspaper denounces, by name, 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 21 
 
 two Protestant clergymen as reptiles^ and advises 
 that they should be at once trampled on. What 
 for? Wh3% for the sin of holding a Bible meeting, 
 and distributing the Scriptures ! 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 sup- 
 pose it must be because it prophesies no good of 
 him. Certainly he cannot think the Bible very 
 favourable to his religion, otherwise he would not 
 proclaim such a crusade 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, shoidd be themselves, as a matter of 
 course, hell-inspired. I cannot think that Exeter 
 Hall and Chatham-street Chapel become Pan- 
 demoniums whenever the Bible Society meets in 
 them. Nor shall I believe that Satan is going to 
 turn Bible distributor, 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 recently I read an article stating 
 the New- York Young Men's Bible Society had 
 undertaken to supply the emigrants arriving at that 
 port with the Bible in their respective languages, 
 I almost instinctively pronounced it a good work ; 
 and I was astonished, as well as grieved, to find 
 
22 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 that some of the emigrants refiised 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 offered 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 suppose, put them up to 
 refuse the Bible ? And who put it into the head 
 of the woman to speak of hurning the Bible ? I 
 think any person, in whatever part of the country 
 born, could giie&s, I guess it was not any infidel—- 
 guess it was a priest. 
 
 But perhaps the reason they refused the Bibles 
 offered them, was, that they had other and better 
 Bibles ? That is not pretended. They had none. 
 Now, it seems 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 Bible. What if 
 the DouAY is before all other Bibles, yet king 
 James's 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 
 translation ? When they undertake that, we will 
 cease to trouble them. We should be very glad to 
 see every CathoHc family possessing, and capable 
 of reading, the Douay Bible, although it does 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 23 
 
 make repentance towards 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 
 CathoKcs 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, evangelists, and apostles ? 
 
 8. Something for the Rev. Mr. H . 
 
 Mr. H , the Goliath of the Catholics, 
 
 seems to be very fond of asking questions which 
 he thinks nobody can answer. I am not acquaint- 
 ed with any writer who makes more frequent use 
 of the interrogation point. But his questions are 
 not quite so unanswerable 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 
 religion 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 protest against. But it is the same, 
 however called. There it is, in the Bible. Read 
 
24 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 it. Read any part of it. You cannot go amiss 
 to find the religmi 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 pro- 
 minent epistles was ever (^uoted hy any one in. 
 proof of any peculiarity of the Roman Catholic 
 church ! 1 suspect never. Protestants, however, 
 make great use of them. 
 
 But, says the interrogator, " Tell us what 
 particular doctrines constitute the Protestant re- 
 ligion. Telling us it is the religion of the Bible, 
 is telling us ivhere it ig, but not luhat it is." 
 And is it not enough to tell you where you may 
 find a thing ? Have you no eyes ? Have you no 
 mi7id? Do you want one to think for you? Is 
 not that all which Jesus Christ did ? He gave 
 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 religion before Luther? '' Be- 
 fore 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 Augustine, 
 or any of them, until we get as far back into an- 
 tiquity as St. John ? 
 
 But Mr. H. asks ao-ain, "What society of 
 Christians ever taught this pretended religion of 
 Christ previous to the Reformation ? " Why, Mr. 
 H., do not aifect 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. 
 
THOUGHTS OX POPERY. 25 
 
 to whom one Paul wrote a letter, which has come 
 down to us ? Now. if it cannot be ascertained 
 what that society of Christians " taught," yet it 
 vcan easily be ascertained what was taught them. 
 It Ic only to read the letter. And I think it not 
 improbable that that society of Christians pro- 
 fessed and taught what St. Paul taught them. 
 
 But there was another respectable society of 
 Christians, a good wiiile "■' previous to the reform- 
 ation," who seem to have known something 
 about this " pretended religion of Christ," called 
 Protestant. They dw^elt in a city named Ephesus. 
 That same Paul resided among them three years, 
 preaching the gospel, and he did it faithfully. 
 He " shunned not to declare all the counsel of God." 
 After establishin<x a flourishinsf church there, he 
 went away, and subsequently addressed an epistle 
 to them, which also has come down to us. In 
 this epistle it is to be presumed 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 ivriiing 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 Protestant ? I will leave it to any 
 intelligent infidel on earth to decide. Will Mr. 
 H. agree to the reference ? Oh no, he wants us to 
 leave it to a pope, and general ccunciJ, and the 
 unanimous fathers. 
 
 I have told Mr. H. now of two societies of 
 Christians who " taught this pretended religion 
 of Christ previous to the Reformation." I could tell 
 
26 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 written? I am curious to know. How 
 came the Evangelists 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 
 Avritten, 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 
 Catholic 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 first form of 
 Christianity. That is a 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 reappeared at the Reformation. They 
 cidl it a new religion. But no, it is the old re- 
 stored. If any one doubts the identitif of the 
 restored religion, let him but compare its features 
 with that which appeared and flourished in the 
 apostolic age. 
 
 Another question I beg leave to ask Mr. H. 
 " Did the first ChristiaRs of Rome hold the doc- 
 trines contained 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 27 
 
 doctrines of the epistle, then, since these are the 
 very doctrines which the friends of the Reformation 
 contend for, have we not here the example of a 
 society holding the doctrines of the Eeformation 
 long before the actual era of the Reformation ? I 
 have other questions to ask, but I wait for these to 
 be answered. 
 
 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 distinction 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 Protest- 
 ant lady, on his spending the whole of a certain 
 Sabbath in playing cards, replied, w'ith the utmost 
 readiness, and with every appearance of confidence 
 in the validity of his apology, " Oh, 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 of 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 eternity 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 
 
28 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 continueth 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. iii. 10 ; Rom. vi. 23 ; Ezek. xviii. 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 
 distinction. I only mention it as one of the absurd 
 and pernicious errors of the system to which it 
 belongs. 
 
 10. The 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 infal- 
 lible 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 29 
 
 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 deception^ which 
 we Protestants regard as sins, even though their 
 object should be pious. Besides, 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 con- 
 tinueth not in all things written in the book of the 
 law to do them" ? It is admitted tbat there are 
 more than seven things ^vritten in the book of 
 the law. Again, why is it said that the w^ages 
 of sin is death ? This would seem to imply that 
 death is due to every sin, of whatever kind. If 
 there are only seven deadly sins, why does not the 
 Apostle say, " The w^ages of these seven sins (enu- 
 merating them) is death " ? But he does not 
 say that. He regarded all sins as deadly — every 
 one of the multitude as mortal in its conse- 
 quences. 
 
 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 07ie of a thous- 
 and. According to Job, then, who is a very an- 
 cient 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, Glut- 
 
30 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 iony^ Envy^ 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 without any qualifica- 
 tion among the seven deadly sins. It must be 
 because they are not familiar with the Scriptures. 
 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 re- 
 ference 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 lan- 
 guage which I animadvert upon implies that the 
 seven sins enumerated are, if not exclusively, yet 
 peculiarly 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. 
 
 I am sui-prised 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, v.e are 
 told that the Holy Ghost came primarily to reprove 
 the world of unbelief — and yet there is no recogni- 
 tion of it among the deadly sins ! It is an oversight, 
 which no wonder they fell into, who, in making out 
 their religion, made no use of the word of God. 
 
THOUGHTS OX POPERY. 31 
 
 I perceive that neither heresy nor schism are in 
 the Hst of deadly sins. I infer, then, that to dif- 
 fer from the Roman' church in some particulars, 
 and even to separate from her communion, is not 
 fatal, even she herself 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 reminded of. It is the sin of idolatry — of 
 worshipping the creature — of paying divine hon- 
 ours 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 had better leave 
 oft' praying to saints, and honoring the Virgin 
 Mary above her Son, lest perchance this prove 
 deadly sin. 
 
 11. A Religion without a Holy Spirit. 
 
 A gentleman of intelligence, who wtiS born of 
 Catholic parents, and educated in the Catholic 
 church, but left it recently for Protestantism — (for 
 some do leave the Catholic for the Protestant 
 church — the conversions are not all to Romanism 
 — but we, Protestants, don't make such a noise 
 about it when w^e receive a convert ; and I sup- 
 pose the reason is, that it is really no v/onder that 
 a Catholic should become a Protestant — the only 
 wonder is, that any should remain Catholics) — 
 this gentleman said to his brother, who is still a 
 Catholic, "Why, brother, as long as I was a 
 CathoKc, I never knew that there was a Holy 
 Spirit." 
 
 And what do you think was the brothers re- 
 
32 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 ply? "Well, I don't know that there is one 
 
 now 
 
 The narration of what passed between these two 
 men struck me with great force. A religion with 
 out a Holy Spirit ! — and this the religion, accord- 
 ing to the computation of Bishop England, of two 
 himdred millions 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 my title to heaven, with- 
 out a Jitness for it ? As a sinner, I am equally 
 destitute of both. There can be no heaven with- 
 out holiness. And whence has any man holiness 
 but from the Holy Spirit ? And is it Hkely He 
 will act where He is not acknowledged? If 
 priests can pardon^ as they say, yet can they 
 purify f 
 
 Here were two men, educated in the Catholic 
 religion, 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 
 Avord of the Holy Spirit, the Divine Sanctifier! 
 But was it not their own fault ? Is not the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity a part 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 direc- 
 tion, with o?/, spittle^ 8^c. as the church directs, is 
 applied to the body, and the name of each person 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 33 
 
 of the Trinity is mentioned ? Yes, but, poor men, 
 they had never studied Latin. How should they 
 know what Spiriius Sanctus means, when they 
 hear it ? Why should all the world he presumed 
 to understand Latin ? Oh, why should the v/or- 
 ship of the living God he conducted in a dead 
 lan«;uage ? But this is by the way. 
 
 These men knew not that there was a Holy 
 Spirit — why did they not know it ? I will tell 
 you. Because so httle 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 system is complete with- 
 out a Holy Spirit. Therefore nothing is said of 
 Him in the pulpit, and in the confession-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 I 
 Catholic, look at it, and obey the voice from 
 heaven which says, " Come out of her, my people, 
 that ye be not partakers 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. Infallibility. 
 
 Every body knows that the Church of Rome 
 lays claim to infallibility. She contends that 
 there is no mistake about her ; that she cannot err. 
 
34 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 Now this very modest claim of our sister of Rome 
 (for in the matter of churches I reject the relation 
 of mother and daughter) I am constrained to 
 question, and that for such reasons as the follow- 
 ing:— 
 
 1. She cannot herself tell us where her infal- 
 libility is to he 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 mth the Pope. Others contend that it re- 
 sides in a general council. And another 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 them find 
 infallibility, and/.r 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 
 infallible — 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 handed it down. But was 
 Peter infallible ? There was a day when I 
 suspect he did not think himself infallible — 
 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 confidently 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 ac- 
 count in Acts XV. Why was the matter suffered 
 to be debated in the presence of his infaUibility ? 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 35 
 
 It seems that Peter on that occasion claimed no 
 preeminence. Nor was any particular deference 
 paid to him by the council. He related his ex- 
 perience, precisely as did Paul and Barnabas. 
 James seems to have heen in-ike chair on that occa 
 sion. He speaks much more like an infallible 
 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 bro- 
 ther take do^vn his Douaj/, and read that 
 chapter ? 
 
 But again, if Peter was infallible, I am sur- 
 prised that Paul ^''withstood him to the face, because 
 he was to be blamed." (Gal. vi. 1 1 .) That was not 
 the way to treat a Pope. But Paul had always 
 sometlung of the Protestant 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 
 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 greatest, our Saviour 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 ; other- 
 
36 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 wise the dispute about superiority could never liave 
 arisen. 
 
 Now, according to the Catholic doctrine, Peter 
 being infahible, each successive Pope inherits 
 his infallibihty, 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 Pcqms^ 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 frailty of her 
 sex. 
 
 It is well for the church of Rome that she 
 does not contend that her popes are infallible iu 
 pi-act ice; for if she did, she would find some dif- 
 ficulty 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 Borgia^ and the chief of ecclesias- 
 tics too, tells me, with a grave air and solemn 
 tone, that it is a shocking wicked thing for an 
 ecclesiastic to marry, I cannot help demurring 
 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 pro- 
 nounced the same thing ? Have thei/ ever con- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 37 
 
 tradicted eacli other? Ask rather, whether 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 de- 
 pended on their being in communion with the 
 true Bishop of Rome, the rightful successor of St. 
 Peter. 
 
 5. The more common opinion among the Ca- 
 tholics is, I believe, that the infallibihty 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 equivalent to the 
 affirmative; but I do not believe that two fal- 
 libles ever were or will be equivalent to an infalli- 
 ble. It is like saying that two wrongs make a 
 right. 
 
 13. The Keys. 
 
 The Catholics, — by which I mean Roman Ca- 
 tholics, since, though a Protestant, I believe in 
 the holy Catholic, that is, zmiversal church, and 
 profess to be a member of it, at the same time 
 that I waive all pretensions to being a Roman 
 Catholic, — they make a great noise about the 
 keys having been given to Peter ; the keys of the 
 
38 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 kingdom of heaven. Well, it is true enough— 
 they were given to him. The Bible says so, and 
 we Protestants Avant no better authority than the 
 Bible for any thing. We do not require the 
 confirmation of tradition, and the unanimous con- 
 sent of the fathers. We do not want any thing 
 to strengthen " Thus saith the Lord." Yes, the 
 keys were given to Peter; it is said so in Mat- 
 thew xvi. 19. This is one of those passages of 
 Scripture Avhich 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 passage, at least, in which private in- 
 terpretation 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 Catholics 
 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 purposes served by ke3^s. It was for 
 this purpose, I suppose, 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 dispensation, as the 
 phrase " kingdom of heaven" often signifies. He 
 opened it to both Jews and Gentiles : he preach- 
 ed the first sermon, and was the instiiiment 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 39 
 
 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 chap- 
 ter but one, was extended to all the dis- 
 ciples. 
 
 Well, Peter opened the kingdom of heaven; 
 and what 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 Avhat 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 
 Christians in remembrance ; but I don't find him 
 reminding them of the keys. The truth is, hav- 
 ing used them for the purpose for which they 
 w^ere 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 the Pope at Rome 
 has them now. And they say these keys signify 
 the authority given to the church, and espe- 
 cially 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 nobody since Peter has been able 
 
40 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 to produce the keys. This settles the mat- 
 ter 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 heayen, as porter, to admit 
 and keep out whom he will. But this notion 
 does not tally very well with certain passages of 
 Scriptures. Christ tells his disciples that He 
 goes to prepare a place for them, and that He 
 will come again and receive them unto himself: 
 (John xiv. 3.) He will do it. He will not 
 trust the business to Peter. " He that hath the 
 key of David, he that openeth and no man shut- 
 teth, and shutteth, and no man openeth," is not 
 Peter, but Christ. (Rev. iii. 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 not a soul of us, 
 poor Protestants, will. They may be mistaken, 
 however. I 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 Epis- 
 tles 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 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 Sacraments, or Transubstan- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 41 
 
 tiation. Let the reader turn to his Epistles, and 
 see just -svhat 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 re- 
 lieving another. I do not know how it is, but I 
 judore, 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 speaking represented as made to suit all the 
 complicated modern wards, as if fresh from some 
 manufactory at Birmingham or ShefHeld ! I do 
 not suppose the keys Peter received answered 
 exactly to this ingenious representation of them. 
 
 14. The Head of the Church. 
 
 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 Avho, think you, is the head of the 
 church? Who but Christ himself? Who else 
 is fit to be its head — its source of influence 
 and government ? I will produce the pas- 
 sages of Scripture in proof of Christ's headship 
 presently. 
 
 But the Catholics say that the Pope is the head 
 of the church. Ah, is he ? Where is the proof 
 
42 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 confess 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, we begin with Genesis, and we 
 go through to Revelation, searching 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 thing. We find no account of any such 
 character as a Pope — not a word about him. 
 The subject of the proposition, that is, the Pope, 
 does not seem to be known to that book at all. 
 I really do not wonder that it frets a Catholic 
 when 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 43 
 
 about a Pope, yet we find much about the Head 
 of the Church. In Ephesians i. 22, 23, Chiist 
 is said to be " the head over all things to the 
 church, Avhich 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 
 Christ's 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. v. 23, 
 it is explicitly declared that " Christ is the head 
 of the church." The same is repeated in Col. i. 
 18—" He (Christ) is the head of the body, 
 the church." 
 
 Our brethren of the Roman 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, where their doctrine of the Pope's 
 headship of the church was when the New 
 Testament was written, i. e., some seventeen hun- 
 dred and fifty or eighteen hundred years ago. But 
 I will withdraw the question. It may seem unkind 
 to press it. 
 
 Now, since the Bible says that Christ is the 
 head of the church, if the Pope also is, there 
 must be tiuo 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 
 
44 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 been anotlier 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 definite, 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 
 anotlier ; 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 absent ? Hear : " Lo, I am with you alway, 
 even unto the end of the world." " Where two 
 or three are gathered 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 with a visible 
 head ? Of what use to us — the part of the body 
 here — is a head a long way off at Rome ? It is 
 no better than a caput mortimm 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 — the foundation 
 of the church ; but I really did not know that 
 they regarded him, whom, however they exalt, 
 they still consider but as a mere man, as cap- 
 able of being head of the church too. It is not too 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 45 
 
 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 found- 
 ation and head of the chiurch, is really carrying 
 the matter rather far. How httle Peter thought 
 he Avas both^ 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. The Power to Forgive Sins. 
 
 Seculum modestum I rather suppose will not be 
 the designation by which the 19th century will be 
 distinguished in history from her sister centuries. 
 I know not whether any age has been more re- 
 markable 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 pretension to 
 which I allude is that made by the Catholic priest- 
 hood. What do you think it is which they pretend 
 they can do ? Forgive sins. They pretend that 
 they have power over sins, to remit or retain them. 
 They claim that the prerogative of pardon is lodged 
 with them. And that is the reason why they re- 
 ceive 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 
 
46 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 of this notion to common sense. The idea of being 
 pardoned by any other than the being offended, 
 seems absurd. What ! a fellow-sinner pardon sins 
 against God ! It is as if of two debtors, one should 
 play the creditor and forgive the other his debt. 
 That would be a strange way of getting rid of 
 debts. I always thought he to whom the debt is 
 due ought to have a voice in the matter of remit- 
 ting it. If I had disposed of a debt in that man- 
 ner, I should always be afraid that it would some 
 day or other be exacted — that the real creditor 
 would appear and make his demand. Then it 
 would be a poor excuse for me to say that my fel- 
 low-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 notwithstand- 
 ing. 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 re- 
 corded. 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 xx. 23. Does not Christ 
 say to his disciples, " Whosesoever sins ye remit, 
 they are remitted 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 to found a claim of theirs 
 on a grant made to the Apostles ? They do in- 
 deed 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 apos- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 47 
 
 tolical power of remitting sins. But I forget that 
 they scorn a resort to jwoof. 
 
 The power communicated in that grant to the 
 Apostles 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 en- 
 abled to make a correct statement to mankind of 
 the way and means of salvation, to express 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 Saviour s breathing on tliem, 
 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 
 Apostles, and I shall show presently that this de- 
 clarative power is all they pretend ever to have ex- 
 ercised. Now, the priests have no right to claim 
 even this power, except 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, "Receive ye the Holy 
 Ghost," that they should claim equality with the 
 Aposfles ? The effect of the inspiration is not so 
 manifest in the case of the priests as it was in the 
 case of the Apostles, if I may be permitted to ex- 
 press an opinion. 
 
 But the priests claim far more than ever entered 
 
48 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 the thouglits of the Apostles. They are not satis- 
 fied with the ministerial and declarative power 
 over sins. They claim a magisterial and authoritative 
 power to remit or 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 Apostles of synagogues and proseuches^ or 
 places of prayer; hut do you find any thing ahout 
 confession-boxes there ? Does there seem to have 
 been any thing auricular in the transactions of the 
 day of Pentecost ? 
 
 There is 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 exer- 
 cised it in favour 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 perhaps the thought 
 of thine heart may be forgiven thee." How dif- 
 ferently 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 paternosters, 
 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 par- 
 don would have waited for Peter's action in the 
 matter, if there had been penitence in the heart of 
 the sorcerer. I suspect not. I suspect the gracious 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 49 
 
 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 
 authorities of the Roman Catholic church would 
 condescend to strike it off* the list of prohibited 
 books, and allow the Lord to speak to his creatures. 
 I wish they would let their people, the many thou- 
 sands that on the Sabbath crowd their chapels and 
 cathedrals, read, or hear what Jehovah says to 
 "every one" in that Avonderful chapter, the 55th 
 of Isaiah. It is indeed a wonderful chapter. But the 
 Roman Catholics don't know any thing about it. 
 No ; and they have never heard of that precious 
 and glorious verse, the 18th of the 1st chapter of 
 Isaiah, in which saith the Lord to the sinner, 
 "Come now, and let us" (you and I, sinner!) 
 " reason together." And then follows the reason- 
 ing ; "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be 
 as white as snow ; though they be red like crim- 
 son, they shall be as avooI." Ask the awakened 
 sinner, or the recently pardoned, what he would 
 take for that passage. He esteems it above all price; 
 and to the Christian it becomes every day more and 
 more a theme of wonder and delight. But the 
 Roman Catholics don't know that the Lord has 
 ever made any such kind and condescending pro- 
 posal to his creatures. They never hear of the call 
 of God to come and reason with Him. The only 
 " come " they hear is the priest's call. I pity them. 
 But it is no wonder that the priests treat the 
 
50 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 people as they do, for if they allowed them to know 
 what the Lord says to them, they would be very 
 apt to go directly to God in Christ, and leave the 
 priest out of the question. And then where would 
 he the importance of the priest ? and his emolu- 
 ment^ where ? 
 
 \Q. A Catholic Book Reviewed. 
 
 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 were 
 appended some hymns. The book was published 
 in Baltimore by a respectable Roman Catholic 
 bookseller, and under the sanction of the Arch- 
 bishop. Well, said I to myself, this is good 
 authority. I w^ill look into this book. I know 
 what Protestants say of Roman Catholics. I will 
 see now what Roman Catholics say of themselves. 
 Men cannot complain when we take their o>vn ac- 
 count of themselves; and I like the way of judg- 
 ing 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. 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 in- 
 dulgences." Indulgences ! thought I. What does 
 a Christian want with indulgences? He is apt 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 51 
 
 enough to indulge himself. And how are in- 
 dulgences to help him to heaven ? I should rather 
 pronounce self-denial the road. Indulgences, not 
 partial^ hut plenary ! I should think plenary in- 
 dulgence on any condition was enough to ruin one. 
 If by indulgence the Roman Catholics mean par- 
 don, they have chosen an unfortunate way to ex- 
 press it. "Why not s^y full pardon^ instead of plenary 
 indulgence ? 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 re- 
 pentance to a priest approved by the bishop." This 
 begins very well, and goes on well for a time. Con- 
 fession of sin, with sincere repentance, is truly 
 the way to 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 wa^ 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 done against Him, and why should they 
 not be told to Him? I cannot get rid of the notion 
 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 a priest ; it is good for nothing without 
 it. If the publican, 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, Avhen he confessed only 
 to God. And the penitent must take care what 
 
52 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 sort of a priest it is to ^vhom he confesses, else he 
 might as well remain impenitent. It must be a 
 priest approved by the bishop. Well, now, this is 
 very strange, that our pardon should be suspended 
 on such a condition — that angels, in other words, 
 must wait before they express any joy that a sin- 
 ner 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. Not Peter, nor Solomon, nor 
 John, nor Paul. Pead 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 con- 
 fession must be made 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 
 confess his sins with a sincere repentance, though 
 not to a priest, what is to be done ^rith his soul ? 
 Must pardon 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 mak- 
 ing rather too much of the priest. 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 ge- 
 neral statement : " Plenary indulgences granted to 
 the faithful throughout these States, at the follow- 
 ing ti^nes ; " 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 53 
 
 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 saw " The Christian's Guide to 
 Heaven " before in my life. I have always used 
 the Bible as a guide. 
 
 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 Con- 
 fiteor." In it the person wishing to be guided to 
 heaven makes this confession, from which it will 
 appear that Catholics do not confine their con- 
 fessions to the priest, but extend them to many 
 other beings : " I confess to Almighty 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." Now, 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 business of theirs ? 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 coupHng of these 
 creatures with the Creator, as worthy equally with 
 Himself to receive our confessions of sin, savours 
 strongly of idolatry. Confession is made to them 
 on the same principle that prayer is. Each is an 
 act of worship — one of those things which should 
 be confined exclusively to God. I wonder the 
 Catliolics will not be satisfied with one great and 
 glorious object of worship, God, the Father, Son, 
 and Spirit. Why will they in their devotions 
 
54 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 associate creatures with the Creator ? The book 
 I am reviewing contains numerous and very of- 
 fensive examples of it. I shall continue the re- 
 view in my next. 
 
 17. The Review of the Catholic Book continued. 
 
 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 solemn declaration concerning the 
 Holy Scriptures : " Neither will I ever take and 
 interpret them otherwise 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 au- 
 thority and weight to the interpretation of the 
 fathers ? Why cannot we ascertain what the Bible 
 means as well as they could ? What helps had 
 they which we have not ? and why require that 
 they be unanimous ? What a roundabout method 
 this of finding out what a book means ! First, 
 the reader has 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 a catalogue of 
 the Avhole number from Barnabas to Bernard, the 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 55 
 
 next step in the process is to ascertain ho^Y they 
 all interpreted the Bible. For this purpose he 
 must pore over their works. But some of them 
 left no AYorks behind them. How shall he ever 
 find out what they thought of this and that pass- 
 age of Scripture ? And yet he must somehow or 
 other ascertain their opinions, else how can he 
 compare them with the opinions of the other fa- 
 thers, and discover their agreement with them ? 
 For you will remember the consent must be una?i- 
 imous. 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 difficulty is to be got over, for my part. 
 It is altogether beyond me. But supposing it to 
 be surmounted, there remains the task of compar- 
 ing 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 con- 
 sent, 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 
 interpretation, it must be rejected if the hundredth 
 father had a different opinion of its meaning. 
 I cannot help thinking that it is the better, as cer- 
 tainly it is the shorter and easier method, just 
 for every one to take up and " search the Scrip- 
 tures," and " if any lack wisdom, let him ask of God, 
 that giveth to all men liberally." (Jas. i. 5.) 
 As the case is, I do not wonder that the Ca- 
 
66 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 thollcs 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-bye, 
 if they live long enough, when they have ascertain- 
 ed what the fathers agreed on, they may go to read- 
 ing the Scriptures. 
 
 It seems odd that one cannot, without mortal 
 sin, attach a meaning to such a passage as John 
 iii. 16 : " God so loved the world, that he gave 
 his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
 in him should not perish, but have everlasting 
 life," until he has first ascertained what Cyprian, 
 Jerome, Hilary, both the Gregorys, and indeed 
 all the fathers thought of it, and whether they 
 agreed in their interpretation of it. How any onei 
 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 dear ? "Why cannot we understand the 
 Greek of John and Paul, as well as that of Chry- 
 sostom ? 
 
 The thing which next attracted my observation 
 in the book was the following : " In the Mass 
 there is offered to God a true, proper, and pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." 
 The Mass ! and what is that ? The Bible 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 ; or 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. Never- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 57 
 
 theless, 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 CathoUcs 
 don't hold to reasoning. 
 
 An idea occurs to me here which I heg leave 
 to express. If the sacrament is perfect in cither 
 kind, why do not the priests sometimes give the 
 people the cup ? Why do they always give them 
 the bread ? And why originally did the}' with- 
 hold 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 Mass 
 there 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 ye all of it." There is 
 something offered to men in this sacrament, even 
 the precious memorials of the Saviour'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," offer- 
 ed to God. A sacrifice included in the sacrament ! 
 How is that ? And a propitic^ory sacrifice 
 too ! I always supposed that propitiatory sa- 
 crifices ceased with the offering up of the Great 
 Sacrifice — when the Lamb of God bled and died. 
 Do we not read (Heb. x. 14), that " by one 
 offering he hath perfected for ever them that are 
 sanctified;" "Now once in the end of the Avorld hath 
 he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
 
58 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 himself?" "Christ was once offered to bear 
 the sins of many," (Heb. ix. 26, 28,) — and it is 
 said of his blood that it " cleanseth from all sin." 
 (1 John i. 7-) I don't know what we want 
 after this, of those unbloody sacrifices which the 
 Catholics talk of as offered continually in the 
 service of the mass. What is the use of them, if 
 they are unhloody^ as they say, since "without 
 shedding of blood is no remission " ? (Heb. ix.22.) 
 
 According to the Catholics, it was premature 
 in Christ to say on the cross, "It is finish- 
 ed." They deny that it is finished. They say 
 it is going on still— that Christ is offered when- 
 ever mass is said. Once Christ was offered, the 
 Bible says ; but the Roman church affirms that he 
 is offered many times daily, whenever and where- 
 ever mass is said ! 
 
 I do really wonder that this religion has lasted 
 so long in the world. How the human mind 
 can entertain 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 con- 
 tradicts the dying declaration of the Saviour. 
 It is a religion unknown to the Bible— and 
 yet still in existence, aye, and they say, 
 making progress, 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. 
 
 18. T/ie Pope cm Idolater. 
 It may seem a very uncharitable title I give 
 this article. What, some will say, charge the 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 59 
 
 Pope with being an idolater ! What do you 
 mean ? I mean just what I say, that this boast- 
 ed head of the church, and self-styled vicar of 
 Christ, residing at Rome, ascribes divine attri- 
 butes 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 w^as not — the wor- 
 ship of the host of heaven was not — the worship 
 of the gods of Ilindooism 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 matter 
 what the creature is, whether it be the angel near- 
 est the throne of God, or an onion that grows in 
 the garden, such as they of Egypt once worship- 
 ped. 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 
 successor 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 histories 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 objection 
 that it is an offence against charity to speak of 
 such a thiDg as the Pope's being an idolater. My 
 charity " rejoiceth in the truth." The charge can 
 be uncharitable only by being untrue. It is too 
 Lite in the day, I trust, for idolatry to find an 
 
60 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 apologist. But to the proof. Perhaps you sup- 
 pose it is some obscure Pope of the dark ages, 
 that I am going to prove an idolater. No, it is a 
 Pope of the nineteenth century — the present 
 reigning Pope, Gregory XVI. He is the idola- 
 ter ; and here are his own words in proof of it. 
 They are part of the circular, or encyclical letter, 
 sent fortli by him on entering on his of&ce, and 
 addressed to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbish- 
 ops, and Bishops. The letter may be found in 
 the Laity's Directory, 1833, and has been exten- 
 sively published without any of its statements 
 being contradicted. In it the Pope calls upon all 
 the clergy to implore " that she (the Virgin 
 Mary) who has been, through every gi'eat cala- 
 mity, our Patroness and Protectress, 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 com- 
 ment necessary ? Observe, he recognizes not God 
 as having been their defence, but hei" as having 
 been their protectress in past calamities, and di- 
 rects tlie clergy to pray to her to continue her 
 watch over them ! As contrast is one of the 
 principles on wdilch 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 not she, 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 always thought it was the exclusive 
 prerogative of Jehovah to have access to the mind, 
 and to exert an immediate influence on it ; and I 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 61 
 
 cannot but think now that the Pope must err in 
 this matter, though he speaks ex cathedra. I can- 
 not believe he was 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 successful and happy issue, let ns raise our 
 eijes to the most blessed Virgin ^lary, icho alone 
 destroys heresies, who is our greatest hope, yea, 
 
 THE ENTIRE GROUND OF OUR HOPE ! " The cap- 
 itals are mine, but the words are the Pope's. 
 Now, just look at this. Did 3^ou 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 lift mine eyes unto the hills, from whence 
 Cometh my help. My help cometh from the 
 Lord." And in the 123rd, "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 maid- 
 en unto the hand of her mistress ; so our eyes 
 wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have 
 mercy 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. Protestants in this case side with the 
 Psalmist : and in this particular our religion is 
 not only older than Luther, 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, arf» not pre- 
 
62 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 cisely such as are proper to be addressed to God, 
 and which others do address to him ? Do they 
 not ask of her just what ought to be asked of Him^ 
 and v>'hat He alone can give ? After 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 wdth being an idolater, 
 but he wants the entire clergy, and of course the 
 whole Catholic church, to join him in his idolatry ! 
 
 I wish the Pope had explained how the blessed 
 Virgin 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 
 altogether, says of another, that she is "our great- 
 est hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope ? " 
 Is not that against Christ ? The Bible speaks of 
 Him as " our hope," (1 Tim. i. 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. iii. 11.) " Neither is there salvation in any 
 other." (Acts iv. 12.) It would seem from this, 
 that Christ is the ground of hope. But not so, 
 says the Pope ; the blessed Virgin is " the entire 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY 63 
 
 ground of our hope." By the way, I should not 
 be surprised if 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 hav- 
 ing any more power in our free, enlightened, and 
 happy America, than he has already. Pray let 
 us not, after having broken the chains of political 
 thraldom, come in bondage to idolatry. 
 
 19. Charles X. an Idolater. 
 
 Having proved his holiness the Pope an idola- 
 ter, 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 them 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, sjnttle, 
 &c., an improvement on the simple water-system 
 of the Bible) of his young grandson, the Duke of 
 Bordeaux, this was his language : " Let us in- 
 voke for him the protection of the mother of God, 
 the queen of the angels; let us implore her to 
 watch over his days, and remove far from his 
 
64 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 cradle the misfortunes with which it has pleased 
 Providence to afflict his relatives, and to conduct 
 him hy 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 con- 
 duct 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 omni- 
 scient 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 
 holiness and his majesty both make application to 
 the creature rather than to the Creator. Charles 
 does not say, " Let us invoke for him the pro- 
 tection of God," but of a woman; a woman 
 indeed highly favoured 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 Catholicism is com- 
 paratively 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 Avill spend a Avord or two. 
 He calls her " the queen of the angels." Now we 
 read in the Bible, of Michael, the archangel, or 
 prince of angels, but we do not read of the angels 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 65 
 
 having a queen. We read also of a king in hea- 
 ven, but not a ^vord 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 Script- 
 ures ; and yet these Scriptures, I had always sup- 
 posed, contained all that we know about the 
 angels. I wish he would tell us from his retire- 
 ment where he got the idea, for he speaks very 
 positively about the angels having a queen. It is 
 true, we do read in one place in the Bible of a 
 queen of heaven ; but the worship 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 eferemiah xliv. If any one 
 will read the chapter he will see what that prophet 
 thought of those worshippers of the queen of 
 heaven. Now, if the worship of a queen of hea- 
 ven by the Jews was denounced as idolatry, and 
 ruin came on them in consequence of it, is not a 
 similar worship performed by Catholics as idola- 
 trous, and as dangerous ? 
 
 But no matter what he calls her, he asks her to 
 do what only God can do. He treats her precise- 
 ly as if she were divine. Is it not so — and is not 
 this idolatry ? He ascribes divine perfections to 
 her: — omniscience, else how could she watch over 
 the child ? and omnipotence, else how could she 
 Avard 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 to glory." 
 (Ps. Ixxiii. 24.) But the ex-king looks to Mary 
 to conduct the young duke to eternal life. 
 
66 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 What tlie Psalmist expects from God, tlie ex- 
 king expects from Mary. Is not this putting 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 
 misnomer it is so called. It is not the proper 
 name for it at all. It should be called by some 
 such name as Marianism, rather than Christianity. 
 In Christianity the principal figure is Christ ; but 
 He is not the principal figure in the Catholic reli- 
 gion. 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 confidence and 
 hope. Pope Gregory says she " is our greatest 
 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 advise them to adopt. Let their religion 
 be called Marianism^ 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. 
 
 20. Idolatry near home. 
 
 It is wonderful what a propensity there is in 
 fallen men to idolatry. How they do love to 
 worship the creatui'e rather than the Creator ! In 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 67 
 
 n certain church, which need not be named, the 
 blessed Virgin, though a mere woman, receives 
 ten, perhaps a hundred times as much reUgious 
 honour as does the blessed Saviour, though He be 
 "the mighty God," deserving of all homage, 
 while she merits only respectful remembrance. 
 One that has much intercoiu:se with Catholics 
 would suppose the mother to be the Saviour of the 
 world, rather 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 Roman 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 
 honour of a creature, and dedicated to a creature 
 Is not that a temple of idolatry ? Can there be 
 more accurate definition 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 j and when they hear of an 
 idol-temple they immediately think of Juggeraaut. 
 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 Avill 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 case is this: — on the Catholic chapel in Anna- 
 joolis^ Maryland^ is this inscription, " In hono- 
 REM Deipar/E Virginis." It is Latin. The 
 Enghsh of it is, " In honour of the Virgin, the 
 mother of God." If I have not rightly translated 
 it, some of those who worship in Latin can cor- 
 rect me. 
 
68 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 Now, what does this mean ? It seems to signify- 
 that the chapel was erected, and is continued in 
 honour of, that is, for the -worship of the Virgin 
 Mary. The being in whose honour a chapel is 
 erected is worshipped in it. If not, how is it in 
 honour of him ? The inscription signifies dedica- 
 tion 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 we dedi- 
 cate our churches to the Triune God, for Him we 
 worship in them. They are erected in honour of 
 him. No one mistakes the meaning of these in- 
 scriptions. When we read on the Unitarian 
 church in Baltimore this inscription in Greek, 
 " To the only God," we understand 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 Anna- 
 polis, " In honour of the only God." So when 
 Paul found at Athens an altar with this inscrip- 
 tion, " To the unknown God," he inferred im- 
 mediately that worship was intended, for he 
 says, " whom therefore ye ignorantly worship ; " 
 suppose the inscription had been " in honour 
 of the unknown God," would not the apostle's 
 inference 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, this constitutes it a tem- 
 ple of idolatry, and those who worship in it idola- 
 ters ! 
 
 Let no man say that the inscription implies no 
 more than that the chapel is named after Mary. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. Uif 
 
 Some Protestants name their churches after saints, 
 but the name is not given in any case in honour of 
 the saint. St. Paul's in London was not built in 
 honour of St. Paul. It is simply so denominated. 
 But here we have a chapel in honour of the Vir- 
 gin, and she is called Mother of God^ apparently to 
 justify the worship which the authors of the cha- 
 pel intend her. If this were the only proof that 
 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 ren- 
 der unto this creature that which is due to God 
 alone, religious worship. See for proof, their own 
 Rhemish Testament with the notes. Therefore they 
 are idolaters. 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 something 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 nevet be a nation of idolaters — 
 creature worshippers. We had better be, what 
 God forbid we ever should be, a nation of slaves. 
 I do verily believe that the Roman Catholic reli- 
 gion has only to be universally adopted to make us 
 both. 
 
70 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 21. Praying to Saints. 
 
 This is one of the numerous points in which 
 Roman CathoHcs and Protestants differ from each 
 other. They, the CathoHcs, pray to departed 
 saints. This they acknowledge they do, nor are 
 they at all ashamed of the practice, but endeavour 
 to justify it. If any one doubts that they hold to 
 the invocation of saints, as they express it, let him 
 consult the notes to their own Khemish Testa- 
 ment, 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 7iot 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 appear 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 pray- 
 er. 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." (Jas. i. 17-) Others may, in 
 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 Ave are much more 
 likely to receive 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 in Jesus Christ, as John, 
 another saint, testifies : " If any man sin, we have 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 7 1 
 
 an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the 
 righteous." (1 John ii. 1.) 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. ii. 5, and 1 John ii. 1, assert the doc- 
 trine of a plurality of mediators 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 " advo- 
 cate," 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 immedi- 
 ately. Here w^e need no daysman. 
 
 2. "We Protestants have always regarded pray- 
 er as a part of worship, as much as praise and 
 confession of sin. Now, our Saviour says, " Thou 
 slialt worship the Lord thy God, and him only 
 slialt thou serve." We dare not, therefore, pray 
 to any other than God. We should not like to be 
 guilty of the idolatry of worshipping a creature. 
 
 3. If we were disposed to pray to the saints, 
 yet we should not exactly know how to do it. 
 AYere 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 attended to, for it may 
 
72 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 be among saints in heaven, as it is among tlieir 
 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 
 specific 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 mistake in praying to de- 
 ceased men who have passed for saints. It is easy 
 enough to ascertain who the church regards as 
 saints, but the canonized may not exactly corre- 
 spond to the sanctified. But, supposing this 
 difficulty removed, and that w^e 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 prefer- 
 ring requests to those who cannot hear them. 
 How is this to be done ? The saints are in hea- 
 ven — 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 omni- 
 present. Do they say that God communicates to 
 him the fact ; but where is the proof of that ? 
 Besides, what does it amount to ? God, accord- 
 ing to this theory, informs Peter that a certain 
 sinner on earth wants him, Peter, to ask Him, the 
 Lord, to grant him something. This is a round- 
 about 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 73 
 
 we do not request living saints to pray for us. 
 We do, for we have inspired authority for that. 
 But that is not praying io them. There is a wide 
 difference between praying to a saint in heaven, 
 and asking a fellow-traveller to Zion on earth to 
 pray to God for us. Every one must see that. 
 When a Christian asks his minister or his Christ- 
 ian 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 creatures, it is certain cannot be pre- 
 sent with all that call upon them. How many 
 individuals are every day, at the same hour, call- 
 ing on the blessed Virgin for assistance ! It is all 
 folly, unless she be omnipresent — a goddess, which 
 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 
 suppose 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 Eoman Catholic religion, 
 proves the seniority of Protestantism over Popery, 
 I find no account of praying to saints. I do not 
 read of Joshua praying to JMoses ; or of Elisha 
 
74 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 invoking Elijah. No, there is not a word of what 
 constitutes so much of the devotion of the Catholic, 
 in either Testament. We do not find anything in 
 the Acts or Epistles ahout praying to the beloved 
 Virgin, whom they call our Ladi/^ in allusion to 
 the phrase our Lord. Those writers say nothing 
 about the mother. It is all about the Son. What 
 heretics Luke and the rest of them were ! How 
 worthy of being excommunicated ! Cathohc books 
 are full of the blessed Virgin. The Bible is all 
 about Christ. There is the difiFerence. 
 
 But I forgot. The New Testament does record 
 one instance of prayer to a departed saint. The 
 record is in Luke xvi. 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 igno- 
 rance and neglect of religion, and that it proved 
 totally unavailing, I suspect he will make no more 
 out of it. 
 
 22. Specimens of Catholic Idolatry. 
 I take them from the Catholic book which I 
 have been reviewing : " The Christian's Guide to 
 Heaven." I did not know, before I read this 
 book, that idolatry was the road to heaven. It 
 did not use to be, under the JcAvish dispensation. 
 These specimens of Catholic idolatry I think the 
 reader wdll pronounce with me, quite up to the 
 average of Pagan idolatry. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 75 
 
 Here is one. " We fly to thy patronage, O 
 holy mother of God ; despise not our petitions in 
 our necessities, hut 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, hut " God is our refuge." (Psalm, xlvi. 1.) 
 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 hetter ascertain the powers of the Virgin 
 Mary, before they place such unbounded rehance 
 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 thee" (the Lord.) 
 (Psalm Ivi. 3.) So says the Psalmist, and it is my 
 purpose too. 
 
 The next specimen is entitled, "The Salve 
 Regina," 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, moiu*ning and 
 weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most 
 gracious advocate, thy eyes of mercy towards us; 
 and after this our exile is ended, show unto us the 
 blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O clement, O 
 pious, 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 Catho- 
 lic prayer, in which there is no recognition of God 
 whatever ! 
 
 Then follows a call to devout contemplation; 
 and one would suppose that the object of it would 
 be God, or the Saviour. But no, it is the Virgin. 
 " Let us, with exultation, contemplate the blessed 
 Virgin Mary sitting in glory at the right hand of 
 
76 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 her beloved 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. Stephen saw " the heavens 
 opened, and the Son of man standing on the right 
 hand of God," but he saw nothing of the Virgin 
 Mary sitting at her Son's right hand. Nor does 
 John^ in the history he gives in the book of Reve- 
 lation 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 univer- 
 sal queen, and appointed dispenser of the graces 
 of Christ. But where did they get that informa- 
 tion ? It is too much to expect us to take their 
 word for it, since it is acknowledged that we have 
 not the word of God for it. I alw^ays supposed 
 Christ to be, through his Spirit, the dispenser of 
 his OAvn graces. I always understood it to be Him 
 who " received gifts for men." But it seems, 
 according to the Catholics, that quite a different 
 person received and dispenses them. How much 
 novelty there is in the Catholic religion ! It is al- 
 most all of it comparatively new doctrine. Ours, 
 the Protestant, is the old rehgion, after all that is 
 said to the contrary. 
 
 But the Catholic is so positive in regard to the 
 coronation of the blessed Virgin, that we find 
 him using the following thanksgiving : " Jesus, 
 in union with angels and saints, I bless thee for 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 77 
 
 the glor}'' Avith 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 protectress and my mother." 
 Here ends the thanksgiving to Jesus. They soon 
 become weary of addressing him, and fondly 
 return to the mother. " O queen of angels and 
 men, grant thy powerful intercession to those who 
 are united to honour thee in the confraternity of 
 the holy rosary," (I don't know what that means ; 
 it is a mystery that I must leave unexplained,) 
 " and to all thy other servants." Then follows 
 something to Avhich 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 entire- 
 ly to thy service." Here the person wishing to be 
 guided to heaven is directed, under the authority 
 of the archbishop, to consecrate himself entirely to 
 the service of the Virgin Mary, who is acknow- 
 ledged 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 
 bodies a living sacrifice to God, which, he says, is 
 our reasonable service ; but this Catholic guide to 
 heaven directs us to consecrate ourselves entirely 
 to the service of the Virgin Mary. 
 
 Accordingly, the docile Catholic does consecrate 
 
78 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 himself to Mary, as In the following act of devo- 
 tion to her, which you may read in the same 
 Httle book : *' blessed Virgin, I come to offer 
 thee my most humble homage, and to implore the 
 aid of thy prayers 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 my patroness. Thou 
 wert pleased to consider me from that time as one 
 of thy children. I will henceforth serve, honour, 
 and love thee. Accept my protestation of fidelity ; 
 look favourably on the ccifidence I have in thee ; 
 obtain for me, of thy dear Son, a lively faith ; a 
 firm hope ; a tender, generous, and constant love, 
 that I 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 (Psalm xxiii. 4), 
 " 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 CathoHc who trusts 
 in her ? I should like to know. Do they go so 
 far as to say she is omnipresent ? Have they 
 formally deified her, as in fact they have ? 
 
 The devotee in this prayer uses the following 
 language to the Virgin : " Thou art all-powerful 
 with the Almighty." Shall I call this an error or 
 2k falsehood ? It is certain that there is no truth in 
 it. She, a poor sinful creature, like the rest of us, 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 79 
 
 saved by grace, all-powerful with the Almighty in 
 intercession ! Christ is that ; hut no other being 
 is : and to say that any other is, is not only false- 
 hood, but blasphemy. ^ , ,. ., w 
 
 I have other specimens of Cathohc idolatry, 
 which I mean to give ; but those I have exhibited 
 are sufficient to convict that church of idolatry 
 before any court that ever sat, or any jury that 
 was ever empanneled. / have proved the Cathohc 
 church and religion to be idolatrous. I have not 
 merely asserted it ; it has been demonstrated, and 
 the proof has been taken from her own authorized 
 pubhcation. To have said she was idolatrous, 
 Avould have been uncharitable. To have ^rot'eof it, 
 is not. A man is responsible for the drift of his 
 assertions, but not for the scope of his arguments. 
 Idolatrous ! Yes, she who pretends to be the 
 onlv church, is convicted, out of her own mouth, 
 of 'idolatry. She has this millstone about her 
 neck. I wonder she has swum with it so long. 
 It must si7ik her presently. I think I see her 
 goin^ down already, although I know many sup- 
 pose she is rising in the world. 
 
 23. More specimens of Catholic Idolatry. 
 Why, reader, did you know that the Catholics 
 not only pra2j to the Virgin Mary, but sing to her ? 
 I was 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 I find the two follow- 
 in^ hymns addressed to her. They are both in 
 common metre. Here is the /r.^. You will see 
 tbat, in point of idolatry, they are fully as bad as 
 the prayers to her. 
 
80 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 " O holy mother of our God, 
 
 To thee 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 fljing to a creature 
 for help and for defence. There is a curse pro- 
 nounced in Jeremiah (xvii. 5), on the man " that 
 trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." If the 
 person who devoutly uses this hymn, does not 
 make " flesh his arm," I should Hke 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, 
 
 Pity our needy state. 
 O thou Avho fiU'st the highest place, 
 
 Next heaven's imperial throne. 
 Obtain for us each saving grace, 
 
 And make our wants thy own. 
 How oft, when trouble fill'd my breast. 
 
 Or sin my conscience pain'd, 
 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, tlu:ough thy powerful prayers, 
 
 To gain eternity." 
 
 But it seems the blessed Virgin is not the only 
 creature 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 we meet with hearts sincere ; 
 Blest St. Joseph, all uniting. 
 Call on thee to hear our prayer." 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 81 
 
 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 he Him 
 whom alone they should worship. To give but 
 one example, I find in " the Litany of the blessed 
 Sacrament," as they call it, among many other 
 similar supplications, this one : " 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 j^^ogress of things. 
 But here is retrocession with a mtness. In the 
 first century the rule was, according to the practice 
 of the publican, to pray, "God be merciful to me, 
 a sinner ;" but now in the nineteenth^ the sinner is 
 directed to say, " wheat of the elect, have mercy 
 on us !" 
 
 I think we have found, with reference to the 
 Catholic 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 mth 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 Avill carry on our operations against her. 
 If the Roman Catholic church is idolatrous, can she 
 stand? Must she not fall? What! a church that 
 
82 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 is plainly idolatrous maintain its ground as the 
 church 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 supplications for mercy to 
 that of which bread is made. I 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. 
 
 24. Image Worship. 
 
 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, who are so inclined to 
 worship. They worship almost every thing that 
 comes in their way, with scarcely any discrimina- 
 tion. The value of worship with them seems to 
 depend on the variety of objects worshipped. What 
 a pity it is they cannot confine their worship 
 mthin narrower bounds ! What a pity they are 
 not satisfied with one object of religious venera- 
 tion — 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. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 83 
 
 Nor are they satisfied with these beings themselves. 
 They must have visible representations of them to 
 bow down unto, and worship. They want some- 
 thing to worship which they can see. In the 
 profession of faith which I find in the little book 
 published in Baltimore under the sanction of the 
 archbishop, from which I have quoted so freely 
 already, and to which I love to appeal, seeing it is 
 pubhshed so near home, and there can be no dis- 
 pute 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 retained, 
 and that due honor and veneration is to be given 
 them." This doctrine sounds a little difi*erent from 
 that promulged 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 able to show presently that they have 
 that aspect to Catholics as well 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 cm?/ 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 sup- 
 pose I may infer tliat they do so now, since it is 
 their grand boast that their religion is ever?/ where 
 
84 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 
 imge worship. But, says the modern " Guide to 
 Haven," 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 venera- 
 tion given them." Here are Baltimore and Trent 
 against Sinai ; or, in other words, the archbishop 
 and council on one side, and He who came down 
 on the mountain which burned mth fire on the 
 other. My readers must range themselves on 
 either side, as they see fit. 
 
 But cannot the two things be reconciled some- 
 how ? Can they not be so explained as to remove 
 all appearance of inconsistency? Perhaps they 
 can, if one of them be explained away ; that is, be 
 made so clear that you can't see it any longer. 
 This is a new way some have of reconciling things ; 
 but I, as an individual, do not think much of it. 
 I like the old way of la}'ing things alongside 
 of each other, and then shedding as much light as 
 possible on both. If this is done with the two 
 things in question, I fear there is no hope of re- 
 conciling 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 efiectually 
 explained one of them away. They have sup- 
 pressed it. The second commandment has been 
 thrown out of the Decalogue, as I have shown on a 
 former occasion. This is a part of the Roman 
 Catholics' " short and easy method with Pro- 
 testants." It beats Leslie's with the Deists all to 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 85 
 
 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 
 commandment «5, or at least looks very much 
 against them, otherwise they would not have 
 meddled with it. Can any other reason be given 
 for the suppression 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 im- 
 pelling 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 modem Baltimore book, " The Guide to 
 Heaven," the second commandment is suppressed. 
 I think I have stated that fact in a former article. 
 It is so. And why should it not be ? "Why should 
 not the invariable religion be the same here that it 
 is in Ireland or Italy? "Why should American 
 Catholics be bound to keep one more command- 
 ment than European Catholics ? Why should they 
 of the old countries have greater liberty of action 
 than we of the new world? The circumstances 
 under which the second commandment is omit- 
 ted in "The Guide," are these. An examina- 
 tion, preparatory to confession, is recommended to 
 the devout Catholic, on the ten commandments, 
 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 
 himself on the second, but twice over on the tenth, 
 so as to make out the full number. Now I 
 acknowledge it would have been awkward to have 
 
iib THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 set the person to examining himself in reference 
 to the second commandment. 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 ?" himself would have been apt to answer, 
 " AYhy, 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, " Oh, 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 — and you only give ''due honor and 
 veneration' to images — nothing more than that. 
 You should consider, my child, the distinction 
 between adoration and veneration — and also 
 between latria and dulia." But this might not have 
 satisfied the persons conscience. It might have 
 been all Greek to him. Wherefore it was judged 
 most prudent not to recommend any examination 
 on the commandment about images. Perhaps it 
 was the more prudent course. The polict/ of the 
 measure I do not dispute. 
 
 But, say the Roman Catholics, have not Pro- 
 testants their pictures and statues ? Certainly we 
 have. We do not make war against the fine arts. 
 We can approve o^ painting and statuary without 
 practising idolatry. Yes, we have representations 
 of deceased Christians, but we do not kneel before 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPEBY. 87 
 
 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 modem 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 visi- 
 ble 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 Pagan idolatry. The worshippers of the gold- 
 en calf worshipped something beyond the calf. The 
 calf was only a help to devotion, and they only 
 paid " due honour and veneration " to it. Never- 
 theless they " sinned 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 signify all these ex- 
 planations and distinctions to the great mass of the 
 Catholic laity? They do not even understand 
 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 
 
88 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 would let the publisher's stereotype plates he alter- 
 ed 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 commandments. The 
 Psalmist seems to have thought that necessary. 
 (Psalm cxix. 6.) It would gratify me much, if the 
 archbishop would permit the Lord to say to his 
 people all He has to say. 
 
 25. Relics, 
 
 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 veneration which is very apt to run into wor- 
 ship. They are relics^ so called. I have just 
 come from the dictionary, where I went to find the 
 word. I consulted Cruden's Concordance first, 
 but I found no such word there. That contains 
 only the words which are used in the Bible. Re- 
 lics came into fashion after the Bible was written. 
 In those old times they were not in 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 xxiii. 18.) This is the way in which 
 Protestants respect the remains of the dead. It is 
 rather strange that CathoHcs, 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. 
 
 By the way, I did not even find relics in the 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERT. 89 
 
 concordance 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 remains of the bodies, or clothes, 
 of saints or martyrs, and the instruments by 
 which they were put to death, devoutly preserved, 
 in honour to their memory : — kissed, revered, and 
 carried in procession." This is the best definition 
 of relics I can anywhere find. I am indebted for 
 it to the Encyclopaedia. But it is not a perfect 
 definition. There are some things preserved and 
 revered as relics which don't exactly fall under it ; 
 as, for example, the rope mth which Judas hang- 
 ed 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 -odth the Catholics. Always and every 
 where the same^ is their boast respecting their reli- 
 gion. Besides, in the Baltimore publication, " The 
 Guide to Heaven," notice is taken of relics. It 
 says that the saints are to be honoured and invo- 
 cated, and that their rehcs are to be respected. 
 Well, and where 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 promoted 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 
 Oi" piety in his heart. . The ancient method of 
 
90 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 exciting the glow of devotion was quite different. 
 It was by meditation on spiritual subjects. It was 
 while the Psalmist was musing^ that "the fire 
 burned " within him. 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 it does flame ? Towards the saints, to be 
 sure, whose relics they are. These remains can 
 only remind them of those to whom they once be- 
 longed. So that it is the religious veneration of 
 saints, not the worship of Jehovah, that is pro- 
 moted by relics. All that can be said for them is, 
 that they serve the cause of idolatry. 
 
 But I have been ymting as if these 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 suppo- 
 sition. The very idea of such things being preserved, 
 and transmitted through eighteen centuries, is 
 preposterous. Their own writers 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 odour 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 work of it. 
 But some of the authorities of the church of Rome 
 go so far as to say that it is not necessary the 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 91 
 
 relics should be genuine. It is enough that the 
 worshipper has an intention of honouring the 
 saints whose bones he supposes 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 with- 
 out 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, "Nvill carry complete conviction to his 
 mind. It is, that there are altogether too many 
 of these relics, so that some of them must be spu- 
 rious. Five devout pilgrims happening to meet 
 on their return from Eome, found, on comparing 
 their notes, that each had been honoured with a 
 foot of the very ass upon which Christ rode to 
 Jerusalem. Here were five feet for one animal. 
 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 
 preserved, and afterwards removed to Canaan? 
 Undoubtedly they were. But they were all kept 
 together in a coffin, and they were removed, not 
 to be worshipped, 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 with them, for 
 he wished 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 Cathohc practice of disturbing 
 coffins and separating bone from bone, and cherish- 
 
92 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 ing 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 xiii. 21, of the dead man that was revived 
 by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha. 
 But how does this favour relics ? The bones of 
 Elisha were quietly reposing in the place where 
 they were laid at his death. Not one of them had 
 been touched. But if relics had been in vogue 
 then, do you suppose the remains of such an 
 eminent saint as Elisha would have been left 
 undisturbed ? 
 
 I was surprised to find that Bellarmine refers to 
 Deut. xxxiv. 6, in support of relics. It is that 
 remarkable passage in which the Lord is said to 
 have biiried Moses in a valley in the land of Moab, 
 and that no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto 
 this day. I suppose 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 v. 9, contended for it for 
 some such purpose as this, but he was foiled. 
 The reference to this passage strikes me as rather 
 an unhappy one. 
 
 But were not handkerchiefs and aprons brought 
 from the body of Paul, and miracles thereby 
 wrought ? Yes, but they were not relics. Paul 
 was living. Besides, who does not see that those 
 articles of dress Avere but signs to connect the 
 miracles, in the minds of the people, with the 
 person of God's inspired ambassador ? Was any 
 honour due to them ? Do we hear of their being 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 93 
 
 preserved and revered ? No. I do not find them 
 in any list of relics. They passed again imme- 
 diately into their former appropriate use as hand- 
 kerchiefs and aprons. Finally, they appeal to the 
 efficacy of the shadow of Peter, as related, Acts 
 V. 15, in proof of the virtue of relics. But as 
 there appears to he no substance in this argument, 
 I leave it unanswered; and have only to add, that 
 I wonder not that infidels abound so m Cathohc 
 countries, when Christianity is held up before 
 them as embracing and even giving prominence to 
 such doctrines as the veneration of rehcs, the invo- 
 cation of saints, and many more like them. 
 
 26. tSeven Sacraments, 
 What ! Seven ! How is this ? I read in the 
 Bible of only two. ■\yhence have they the other 
 five^ Oh, they come irom the other source of 
 Christian doctrine, tradition. They were ha7ided 
 down. It is true, the apostles wrote of only two 
 sacraments; but Catholics would have us believe 
 that they preached and conversed about five others: 
 and those that heard them spoke of these sacra- 
 ments 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 some- 
 thing had better be written about these five extra 
 sacraments. I wonder that was never thought of 
 before. It is surprising that it never occurred to 
 the Apostles, when they were writing their Epis- 
 tles, 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 
 
94 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 unwritten tradition, in support of a doctrine or 
 practice called Christian. I like to be able to 
 trace a doctrine all tbe way back to the Bible, and 
 to find it originating in the very oracles of God 
 themselves. Some think it sufiicient, 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 certain other Epistles, rather more ancient, in 
 which I should 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, Cle- 
 mens, and all those good fathers, stood on the bank 
 of the stream; but Paul and 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 corrupt- 
 ed very near its source ? If I live eighteen or 
 nineteen 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, con- 
 cluding that 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? One 
 is marriage. What ! marriage a sacrament ! 
 How does it answer to the definition of sacrament ? 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERT. 95 
 
 What spiritual thing is signified hy it ? Marriage 
 is said to be " honourable in all," but nothing is 
 said of its being a sacrament. If it be a sacra- 
 ment, why are not priests, as well as others, per- 
 mitted to take this sacrament ? AVhy should the 
 universal clergy be debarred the privilege of this 
 holy thing? Does its sacred character render 
 it unsuitable to those who fill the sacred ofiice ? 
 
 The other dav I was thinking— for, being a 
 Protestant, I dare think even on rehgion— 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 him ; and of approaching 
 to the experimental knowledge 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 dispo- 
 sitions towards his creatures, founded on the pa- 
 rental relation ? " I read in the Bible (Ps. cm. 13), 
 that " Hke 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, consequent- 
 ly, 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, 
 (Matt. vii. 11), "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 privilege of ever knowing how 
 
yb THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 well-disposed parents are to bestow good things on 
 their children ? And has He laid under this ban 
 the very persons whom He has appointed to repre- 
 sent 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 
 privilege of marriage in his own case — he may not 
 use that power, as Paul, in his peculiar circum- 
 stances, did not, and as many a Protestant minis- 
 ter does not. This is one thing; but has God 
 cut off the whole order of the clergy from even 
 the riffhi to marry ? That is the question. And 
 that is a very different thing. 
 
 27. Transuhstantiation. 
 
 Because Christ says, in reference to the bread, 
 "This is my body," the Roman Catholics con- 
 tend that the bread is changed into the body of 
 Christ; and this they call Transuhstantiation. 
 And when we say that the passage 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 re^ 
 presents his body merely — what authority have 
 Protestants to bring in a figure here ? " Now let 
 me be heard. I have no disposition to ridicule 
 the doctrine of Transuhstantiation, especially as it 
 professes to be founded on Scripture. I would 
 give always a candid hearing to the claims of a 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 97 
 
 doctrine -wliicli even seems to be held out of re- 
 spect to tlie 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 consist- 
 ent in his interpretation of them. I think I can 
 show that, to be consistent with himself, he 
 should believe in many more than one Transub- 
 stantiation. Let him turn to Luke xxii. 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 ^old 
 or silver, but a testament or will! Does not 
 Christ say it is the new testament ? What right 
 have Catholics to bring in 2l figure here ? The cup 
 is a will — Christ says so. To be sure, if it were 
 carried to a probate office, it would be thought 
 out of place, and an article for a silversmith 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 believe 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 be- 
 lieves ; 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 appearance of these letters there may be some- 
 thing quite different, even as, under the appear- 
 
yo THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 ance of bread in the eucharist, is the body of 
 Christ, as the Catholics affirm ! 
 
 But these are not the only instances of Tran- 
 substantiation. The Bible is full of them. I find 
 two cases of this change recorded in Revelation i. 
 20 ; one in which certain stars become angels, and 
 another in which certain candlesticks become 
 churches. Do you doubt it ? Read for yourself: 
 "The seven stars are the angels of the seven 
 churches, and the seven candlesticks which thou 
 sawest, are the seven churches." The construc- 
 tion 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 2, figure 
 here? 
 
 Perhaps every body does not know that Tran- 
 substantiation is an Old Testament doctrine. But, 
 according to this mode of interpretation, it is. St. 
 Paul, in 1 Cor. x. 4, alluding to the rock which 
 Moses 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 given from the Old Testament. Let 
 two remarkable cases suffice, of which we have 
 an account in Genesis xli. 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 believes in one. Let him then either believe in 
 them all, or else never adduce, " This is my body," 
 in proof of the Transubstantiation held in his 
 church. I wish Mr. H. or somebody else would 
 set me right, if I err in this argument. 
 
 28. Half a Sacrament. 
 
 Half a sacrament! Who ever heard of such 
 a thing ? 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 Saviour instituted 
 the same night in which He was betrayed ; and, 
 ever since the Council of Constance, they have 
 allowed the people only half of it. 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 ? Yet, 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 
 plausibihty have denied her laity the other half 
 of the sacrament — the bread. After the command 
 to take the cup, there follows the reason ; observe 
 it : " For this is my blood of the new testament, 
 which is shed for ma^iy, for the remission of sins." 
 Now the Catholics say that only priests were 
 present on that occasion, and that the giving of 
 
100 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 tlie cup to tliem 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 
 apply to others besides the clergy. Was not the 
 blood 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 coextensive with the reason annexed to 
 it. Now I have not been in the habit of regard- 
 ing the propitiatory death of Christ as a part of 
 the benefit of clergy — as one of the peculiar pri- 
 vileges of the priesthood. I object therefore to the 
 restriction of the cup of blessing to the clergy. 
 The symbol of the blood shed for many, for the 
 remission of sins, I claim to be my privilege as 
 truly as that of any priest. 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 administer- 
 ed it in both kinds; yet {hoc tamen non obstante 
 are their very words) they appoint that the people 
 shall receive it but in one kind, that is, notwith- 
 standing Christ and the primitive church. And 
 they declare them accursed who teach or practise 
 otherwise. What is this but anathematizing 
 Christ? But surely they must have something 
 to say in justification of their conduct in this re- 
 spect. To be sure they have. Do you not know 
 that the Pope is the head of the church, and that 
 he is infaUible ; or if he is not, yet the firm Pope 
 & Co. are ? Yes, but there was Pope Gelasius, 
 who lived a good while before. He having heard 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 101 
 
 of some Maniclieans who received the bread with- 
 out the wine, decided that such a dividing of one 
 and the same sacrament might not he done with- 
 out a heinous sacrilege. Was not he head of the 
 church too, and Avas not he infallible ? If he 
 was not, I wonder how he could transmit infaU 
 libiHty. 
 
 This withholding of the cup is one of the bold- 
 est strokes of that church. I cannot help admir- 
 ing 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 burnt 
 them, and they made no more noise about it. 
 
 But are not Christians followers, that is, im- 
 itators of Christ? Oh yes. But this AA-ithholding 
 of the cup is not doing like Christ. The Ca- 
 tholics say that Christ 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 pro- 
 gress 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 aAvay 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 salvation. 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 sacra- 
 
102 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. "^ 
 
 ment. 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 hoth that make this exhibi- 
 tion. 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 super- 
 fluous thing in giving the cup? "What if the 
 blood is in the body, and the bread being changed 
 into the bod3% we take the one in taking the 
 other? — we want the blood separated from the 
 body, the blood shed. The blood of Christ 
 is not an atonement for sin, except as it is shed. 
 Catholics, you 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 iv. 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 principles, 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 sacra- 
 ment 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 103 
 
 are no longer a Catholic. Five minutes. That is 
 all. But you say, I must not douht • yet you 
 may think ^ and God the judge will never condemn 
 you for exercising your mind. 
 
 29. Extreme 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 would 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 extremity anoint 
 him with oil ! This is extreme unction — 
 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 ser- 
 vice. 
 
 There does not 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 intervention and unction 
 of a human priest — done by oil ! Truly this 
 is an easy way of getting to heaven, particularly 
 where priests are plentiful. I do not w^onder that 
 the Catholic religion is popular. This is indeed 
 prophesying smooth things." We Protestants 
 have no such doctrine to preach. When we are 
 called to see a sick person, we candidly acknow- 
 ledge that there is nothing we can do for him 
 which shall infaUibly secure his salvation. We 
 
104 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 tell him what he must do: that he must repent 
 and helieve in Christ : and then Ave ask God to 
 undertake and do for him. It is only on certain 
 conditions that we can assure him of his salvation. 
 The priests says that they can insure 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 ivritten, and not merely handed down, then 
 I am at once a believer in it. Let us see : 
 they adduce two passages in support of their dogma, 
 Mark vi. 13, and James v. 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? let him call for the elders of the church; 
 and let them pray over him, anointing him 
 ^vith oil in the name of the Lord," that is, doing 
 Avhat the Apostles are represented by Mark as 
 having done ; and doing it, as appears from the 
 next verse, Aviththe same end in view, viz. healing. 
 Now, what authority for the sacrament of extreme 
 unction is there here ? Here is indeed an anoint- 
 ing with oil by an ecclesiastic. But who does not 
 see in how many particulars, and how widely this 
 anointing differs from the extreme unction of 
 the Catholics? Their anointing proceeds 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 token of a miraculous cm-e. It held 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 105 
 
 precisely the same place Tvith Christ's making clay 
 of spittle, and anointing therewith the eyes of the 
 bhncl man; or with Naaman's being directed to 
 go and wash seven times in Jordan. It was, 
 like each of these, an external, and in itself 
 inefficacious sign of a miraculous recovery ; and 
 even now there is no objection to the use of the 
 sign, if the thing signified is to be expected. Let 
 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 doing away of the sign. As soon as any 
 sign becomes insignificant, let it cease to be used. 
 Extreme unction is now a sign of nothing. It 
 would have been useless to go 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. 
 
 How the priests now differ In their use of the 
 oil 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 dying. The former would not 
 anoint, if they foresaw the person was to die ; the 
 latter will not, if they foresee that he is to live. 
 How at odds they are I How Scripture and tra- 
 dition do quarrel ! And the worst of it is, there 
 is no such thing as bringing about a reconciliation 
 between them. 
 
 Among the doctrines of the Catholic church, I 
 am at a loss whether to give the palm to this or 
 to purgatory. Purgatory teaches the doctrine of 
 salvation hyfire. Extreme unction, the doctrine 
 
106 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 hlood. The 
 salvation He proclaims is by these j and the 
 sacraments He instituted, are Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper. These signify something: the first, 
 regeneration ; the second, the propitiation made for 
 our sins. 
 
 30. Doing Penance. 
 
 Insufferable ! What ? Why, that the Catholic 
 translators of the Bible should render the 
 Greek word, which signifies repentance, by the 
 phrase doing penance ! I would not willingly be 
 uncharitable, imputing a bad motive where a good 
 one might have been present. But I must say 
 that I know not how to reconcile this rendering 
 of the word ^vith their integrity as translators, 
 I cannot help believing that they knew better. 
 Could they have supposed that they were selecting 
 the most judicious method of conveying the mind 
 of the Spirit as expressed in that word, when they 
 concluded on rendering it doing penance ? Why 
 did they use two English words (coining one of 
 them moreover 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 was 
 there 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 107 
 
 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 which 
 expressed or implied either sorrow or amendment., 
 and therefore they fixed on the phrase doing pen- 
 ance. I am mistaken if these translators have not 
 a heavy account to give. This single rendering, 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 
 prospect of the judgment-day, and by the terror of 
 it, commands all men every where to do a cer- 
 tain thing (Acts xvii. 30, 31); and Christ says 
 that except they do it, they shall perish. (Luke 
 xiii. 3.) This thing God expresses by the Greek 
 term metanoia. 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 neces- 
 sary to render that word into English. Certain 
 persons undertake to do it, that is, to interpret 
 the mind of God as expressed by metanoia. 
 And what do they make it out to mean ? Doing 
 penance ! That is it, they say. *' Do the pen- 
 ance which your priest appoints, after you have 
 made your confession to him, and that is all." It 
 is no such thing. This is a misrepresentation of 
 the Almighty. This is not the subject of the 
 command and warning to which reference has 
 
108 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 been made. And to suppose that it is on account 
 of this that angels rejoice, i.e., when a sinner does 
 penance, is truly farcical. Oh, what a transla- 
 tion ! "There is joy in heaven over one sinner 
 that does penance." Truly angels must be easily 
 made to rejoice, 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 commands all to do 
 penance. Except ye do penance, 5^0 shall all 
 likewise perish. He is not wilhng 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 external, and generally puerile, 
 things prescribed by a priest ; all which may be 
 done without any internal exercise — without any 
 emotion of any kind. The word, according to the 
 Catholics, makes no requisition on the heart what- 
 ever. 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. AVherefore a man may 
 be a good CathoHc 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 un- 
 charitable ? It is true, and ought to be said. It 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 109 
 
 ought to be known and proclaimed that the re- 
 ligion of the church of Rome overlooks the reason, 
 conscience, 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 Christianity of Christ ? It cannot be. 
 
 I ought perhaps to say that I find, in one place 
 in the Douay Testament, the Greek metanoeite 
 translated correctly, repent. It occurs in Mark i. 
 15. Whether it was done in a moment of re- 
 lenting, or through inadvertence, I cannot say. 
 It was never repeated that I can find. Perhaps 
 the translators had to do penance for presum- 
 ing 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 requisition ? Then a sinner ^vill be saved 
 if he repent, irrespective of the priest. The great 
 High Priest that is passed into the heavens will 
 see to the case of every true penitent. But if the 
 requisition be doing penance, in that case, there 
 being something necessary which the priest pre- 
 scribes, he has the poor sinner completely in his 
 power. It makes the salvation to depend on the 
 act of the 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 connect- 
 ed -svith this subject, which may afford me a topic 
 hereafter. 
 
110 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 31. The Hardest Religion. 
 
 Among tlie compliments which our brethren of 
 the Chm:ch of Rome pay to their rehgion, this 
 is one. They say it is the hardest rehgion — 
 that no other rehgion requires so much of its 
 votary. Hence they would have it inferred that 
 theirs must he 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 acknow- 
 ledge it is exceedingly hard to receive. It re- 
 quires 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 that alone, but also into his soul and divinity! 
 Yes, it is hard to believe it is so, when one sees it 
 is not so, and knoios it cannot be so. It is hard to 
 disbeheve at will those long-tried and faithful 
 servants, the senses; and especially that first of 
 the five, the sight. There is difficulty in the Catho- 
 lic religion truly. It puts a tremendous strain on 
 the mind. 
 
 There is also her doctrine about the necessity 
 of baptism to salvation, which some of us find 
 it very hard to believe. One reason of our dif- 
 ficulty is that that doctrine bears so hard upon 
 the heathen, and particularly on the immense 
 multitude of infants who every where die Avithout 
 baptism. According to the doctrine of Rome, that 
 baptism is indispensable to salvation, they are all 
 lost for the want of a little water ! Poor things, 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. HI 
 
 they fare no better than the chief on the cross who 
 died without baptism. Th y get no farther than 
 Paradise the first day. It is a hard reUgion. This 
 doctrine is cruelly hard upon children; as her 
 doctrine that money, by the purchase of prayers and 
 masses, releases souls from purgatory, is hard upon 
 the poor. 
 
 So much for the difficulty of her fatth. But 
 all of that is not so hard; as for example, her 
 doctrine of indulgences. It is never hard to be 
 indulged. There is no hardship, but very great 
 convenience for a dehnquent sinner to have such 
 a bank to draw upon, as the accumulated merits 
 of the saints in by-gone ages, who did more than 
 they needed for their own salvation, havmg loved 
 God with considerably more than " all the heart, 
 and soul, and strength, and mind ! " This doctrine 
 does not make the Roman Cathohc rehgion 
 a hard one— neither does the doctrine of venial 
 sins. You know they hold that there are some 
 sins whose wages is not death. They are excus- 
 able—mere peccadilloes. We recognise no such 
 sins. We think with St. Paul, that "cursed is 
 every one that continueth not in all things 
 which are written in the book of the law to do 
 
 them." r 1- • 
 
 But perhaps when the Catholics speak ot their 
 religion as a hard one, they refer not so much 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 
 
112 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 them talk, tliat the commandments of God are 
 grievous. I am truly sorry for them that Christ's 
 yoke, which. He says, is easy, they find to he 
 so galling to them. We, Protestants, never think 
 of speaking of our religion as hard. " Wisdom's 
 ways" we find to be "pleasantness, and all her 
 paths peace." Our language is, "Oh 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 he 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 must comply 
 with. " I must," is the language which they use 
 jn 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 hardship. 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 ? 
 
 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 perform 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 at once to me with your broken heart, 
 and make your confession to me ; for He is " in 
 Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 113 
 
 imputing their trespasses unto them." (2 Cor. 
 V. 19.) 
 
 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 Ti- 
 mothy in his prediction concerning them, an " aJ- 
 staining from meata^ or " whatsoever is sold 
 in the shambles." Now there is nothing so very 
 hard in that restriction. He must he very difficult 
 to please who cannot satisfy his appetite out of all 
 the variety of the vegetable kingdom, when he has 
 moreover 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 material 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 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 which he died in 
 paradise. Surely 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. 
 
114 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 certain note on 
 Matthew iii. 2. "Do penance, for the kingdom 
 of heaven is at hand," is the edifying translation of 
 the passage. Our attention is then directed to 
 this note, "Agite psenitentiam, 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 
 original 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 translators 
 must have thought that repentance and amend- 
 ment, though included in the original w'ord, were 
 of little importance, otherwise they would not have 
 suppressed them in their translation. They 
 must have judged them too insignificant to be 
 taken notice of in their standard version I As 
 for us Protestants, we think that to be sorry 
 and to reform are very important parts of re- 
 pentaace. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 115 
 
 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 should like to see 
 some of them, for the dictionaries tell us another 
 story. Well, they appeal 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 sup- 
 pose 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 does 
 not mean punishing. Punishing past sins I This 
 is no very eligible phrase. It is much too figura- 
 tive for an explanatory note. And punishing 
 them, how? By fasting. How does fasting pu- 
 nish sin ? I cannot see how any fasting punishes 
 sin; but I am sure the Catholic fasting does 
 not. Do you know what Catholics mean by 
 fasting? Not abstaining from food. No, to be 
 sure ; but changing their kind of food. Only ab- 
 stain from meats., according to the prediction, 1 
 Tim. iv. 3, and you may eat what else you please. 
 Fasting, according to the opinions held by Ca- 
 tholics in the region of country where I live, and 
 I suppose it is so elsewhere, consists in reducing 
 one's self down to the low diet of fish (after 
 all their kinds), eggs., oysters, terrapins, with all 
 manner of vegetables, and every variety of dessert ! 
 This is fasting, because there is no butchers' meat 
 eaten. You may eat what is sold anyv/here 
 else but in the shambles. Now I cannot see 
 any thing very punitive in sucMm ting. A man's 
 
116 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 sin must be exceedingly sensitive to feel the 
 infliction of such abstinence. I 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 explained occurs, as for example, " God 
 now commandeth all men every where to punish 
 their past sins by fasting and such like peniten- 
 tial exercises." How does that soimd ? 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 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 
 thefidl was incompatible with genuine fasting. In- 
 deed it was considered that eating at all broke 
 a fast. I suppose no one doubts that Daniel, 
 Nehemiah, Ezra, and the pious Jews in general, 
 abstained 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 been forward, I leave others 
 to determine. Now, according to the views 
 which prevail in that church which cannot go 
 wrong, and which makes no mistakes even when 
 she contradicts herself, abstinence is not essential 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 117 
 
 to a fast ; and a fast-day' dinner, so far from 
 being no dinner at all, as some puritanical Christ- 
 ians 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 complacently practise 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 subject was 
 the following incident. As I was sitting at table 
 the other day, the topic of conversation was a 
 very delicate preparation of eggs. I took no 
 particular interest in it, until one of the company 
 remarked that when she resided in the family 
 of Mr. A., a distinguished Catholic, that dish was 
 always a part of their fast-day dinner. This arrest- 
 ed my attention. " Fast-day dinner ! " exclaimed 
 I. "Who ever heard of a dinner on a fast- day ? 
 It is not possible they have a dinner at Mr. A.'s 
 on fast-days ! " " Dinner 1 " replied the person, " I 
 never desire to eat a better." This made me cu- 
 rious to enquire what constituted the fast-day din- 
 ner 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 appetite), eggs pre- 
 pared in two ways, and 02/sters." " They dispense 
 •with vegetables, I presume," said I. " no," she re- 
 joined ; and to this I readily assented, for I had 
 forgotten myself in supposing that they dispensed 
 with vegetables. Timothy does not prophesy of 
 the antichrist that he shall command to abstain 
 from vegetables, but only from " meats, which 
 God hath created to be received with thanksgiv- 
 
1 18 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 ing." "Well, surely," said I, "they have no dessert 
 on their fast-days?" " How you talk," said she : 
 "they have the very hest, and every variety." "And 
 they call that a fast-day dinner ? and do they 
 suppose that they fast when they eat it ?" " Cer- 
 tainly," said she. " Well, I suppose it is because 
 they eat very sparingly of what is set before them." 
 "You are mistaken," replied my informant; '■'' quan- 
 tity has nothing to do in the matter. It is not the 
 quantity eaten that constitutes a fast, but the kind.'* 
 There the conversation ended, but my thoughts pro- 
 ceeded on. And this, thought I, is fasting. So the 
 church teaches, and millions 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 endeavour 
 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! Ad- 
 mirable doctrine ! 
 
 34. The 
 
 There is a great deal of the phraseology of the 
 Romish 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 inspiration 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 re- 
 peats to himself, " what is that?" He has read his 
 Bible through and through, but he has found no- 
 thing about the mass there. He thinks it ought to 
 be there, if it is any part of Christianity. Why 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 119 
 
 should apostolical Christians have been silent on a 
 subject on which those who claim to be their 
 direct descendants are so loquacious ? He does 
 not even meet in his Bible with any doctrine 
 or rite to which the word mass seems at all ap- 
 propriate. He would not object to the word, if 
 he could find the tkin^ 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 
 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 certainly best that they shodld 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 well 
 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 
 
120 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 every priest now oflPers it when lie says mass. 
 Well, reader, 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 propitia- 
 tory 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 
 occasion? The Catholics say that when Christ 
 performed 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 re- 
 semblance to the offering of a propitiatory 
 sacrifice ? There was no bloodshed — no life 
 taken, as was the case in all propitiatory sacrifices 
 under the laAV, and in the sacrifice which Christ 
 made of himself on the cross, and which has always, 
 by Pagans as well as the disciples of the true 
 religion, been considered as essential to a propitia- 
 torij sacrifice. I confess there was something offer- 
 ed. 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, 
 who 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 what- 
 ever 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 offered in this case 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 12 1 
 
 •was offered to the disciples. " Take, eat," He said 
 to them. It is true the bread and wine were of- 
 fered them as the memorial of a sacrifice in v/hich 
 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 
 himself a sacrifice to God, as they ajSirm ; and 
 afterwards, as all admit, offered himself on the 
 cross, then He twice offered himself; and if so, the 
 writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was under 
 a great mistake, for he says, "Christ was once 
 offered to bear the sins of many," " "We are 
 sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus 
 Christ once for all." (Heb. ix: 28, and x. 10.) 
 Here is a contradiction. Which shall we be- 
 lieve ? The Apostle of the Gentiles or the Ca- 
 tholic church ? If Christ really offered himself in 
 the eucharist — on the table, as Catholics contend 
 — there was no need of his offering himself on the 
 cross. His twice offering himself was quite un- 
 necessary. If " in the mass there is offered to 
 God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice," 
 what need of another on Calvary ? One "true, 
 proper, and propitiatory sacrifice" is all that is 
 wanted. 
 
 But if the Roman CathoHc doctrine be true, 
 Christ has been offered not twice only, but in- 
 numerable times. In every mass that ever has 
 been said. He has been offered. He is offered to- 
 day as really as He was on the day of his crucifix- 
 ion. He is offered on earth while He is interced- 
 ing in heaven. Both parts of the priest's office, 
 
 M 
 
122 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 the propitiation and tlie intercession, are going on 
 at the same time — a thing unheard of in the 
 history of the priesthood ! Did the Jewish high 
 priest, the type of Jesus, our great high priest, 
 execute both parts of his office at the same mo- 
 ment ? Moreover, according to this doctrine, 
 there was no propriety in Christ's saying on the 
 cross, "It is finished," for it is not finished yet, 
 nor will it be, till the last mass is said. It de- 
 pends 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 offered just when 
 he pleases? My mind recoils from the convic- 
 tion. 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 eucharist is offered in an unbloody manner, 
 while the sacrifice 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 sacrifice is unbloody, it 
 cannot be propitiatory, which, nevertheless, 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 atone- 
 ment — a sacrifice with a view to the remission 
 of sins. This all acknowledge. But "without 
 shedding of blood is no remission," (Heb. ix. 22) 
 consequently no propitiatory sacrifice. Now here 
 is no shedding of blood, they say; yet remission 
 is effected by it ! It is a propitiatory sacrifice, 
 notwithstanding. Who does not see the con- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPBRY. 
 
 123 
 
 tradiction? Thev 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 Roman 
 Catholic church subverts that great principle 
 in the divine government, that " without shedding 
 of blood is no remission" — a principle not merely 
 inscribed on the page of the Bible, but wTitten 
 with the finger of God on the mind of man. 
 The conscience of the veriest pagan reads it 
 there. If a sacrifice may be propitiatory, though 
 unbloody, not a victim that bled under the Jew- 
 ish economy need have been slain; and 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 ofiered, then a propitiatory 
 sacrifice may be effected by mere action. ^ No 
 passion whatever is necessary to it— expiation 
 is made without any svferin^—mside by a mere 
 doing J Is^ this truth ? Can antiquity 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 a projntiatory 
 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. 
 
124 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 I reserve some things on the mass for a future 
 communication. 
 
 35. More about the Mass, 
 
 But before I proceed to the Mass, I wish to 
 add a word about relics. In my communication 
 on that subject, I referred to BellaiTaine as 
 quoting from the Old Testament in support of 
 the doctrine of reHcs. Since then, I have re- 
 collected a fact which makes me wonder that a 
 Catholic should ever appeal to the Old Testament 
 for authority in favor of relics. The reader pro- 
 bably knows that no relics are more common 
 among the Catholics, and none more highly valued 
 than the bones of deceased saints and martyrs. 
 Now, if Numbers xix. 16, be consulted, it will 
 be found that under the Jewish dispensation, 
 if a person so much as touched the bone of a 
 man, he was ceremonially unclean for seven 
 days, and had to submit to a tedious process of 
 purification before he could be restored to the 
 privileges of Gods 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 
 earned 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. 
 
 But with respect to the mass. It is known, 
 I suppose, that they quote Scripture in favor of 
 
THOtTOHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 135 
 
 the mass. That circumstance however proves 
 nothing. Scripture is not always aptly quoted. 
 It should be remembered by those who are prone 
 to think it in favor of a doctrine, that its abet- 
 tors appeal to the Bible in its support, that 
 Scripture was once quoted to prove the propriety 
 of the Son of God casting himself doAiTi from the 
 pinnacle of the temple. It is always advisable to 
 refer to the quotation, and see 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 J 4th chapter 
 of Genesis. Abraham 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 occmrrence 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 " in the mass there is ofiered 
 to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice 
 for the living and the dead." Q. 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 
 locfic of the thing. But he should remember 
 that they do the best thing they can, when 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 CathoUc is 
 ashamed of this reference to the Bible in behalf 
 
126 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 of the mass. He sees that it has no hearing on 
 the case. It is not to compare in point of appro- 
 priateness 'vvith the tempter's quotation referred to 
 above. 
 
 Just observe Jirst^ that it was as king, not as 
 priest, that Melchizedek brought forth the bread 
 and wine. " Melchizedek, Jcing of Salem, 
 brought forth bread and wine." It was an act 
 of royal bounty — an exercise of kingly hospitality. 
 True, it is said immediately 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 know, was one part of the priest's office. 
 (Numbers vi. 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. In his seventh chapter 
 he introduces Melchizedek as a priest, and in that 
 character as the model of Christ's priesthood ; 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 
 material circumstance according to the Catholic 
 notion — alluded to, if in it he acted as a priest and 
 as the sacerdotal type of Christ ? Why does the 
 apostle, when speaking of him as a priest, mention 
 only his benediction of Abraham ? Now if, 
 as I think is manifest, he brought forth bread 
 and wine not in the exercise of his office as priest, 
 it overturns the CathoHc argument at once. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 127 
 
 But secondly^ consider wHat in all human proba- 
 bility -vvas 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 — Avith bread and wine, 
 not to be eaten and drunk, but to be offered to 
 God ! What more unnatural than such a sup- 
 position ! On the other hand, what more natural, 
 and proper than to bring forth, for those fatigued 
 soldiers, " wine that maketh glad the heart of 
 man, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart," 
 to refresh them ? It was just what, under the cir- 
 cumstances, they needed. 
 
 In further proof of the correctness of this view 
 of the passage, 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. What was offered, was to Abraham and 
 his company. But if the offering were to God, it 
 could but constitute an eucharistic sacrifice. 
 Bread and wdne might be offered as thank-offer- 
 ings. But a bloodless propitiatory sacrifice was 
 unknown under the Old Testament. Whatever 
 view we take of the passage, it cannot make 
 for the mass. That which was offered was only 
 bread and Avine. The Catholics do not pretend 
 that they were changed into the body and blood 
 of Christ. Melchizedek lived nearly 2000 years 
 before Christ had a body. How could transub- 
 
128 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 stantiation take place so long before the incarna- 
 tion ? But if simple bread and wine were offer- 
 ed, then the act of Melchizedek, 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 does not seem to have 
 denied the cup to the laity, as later priests have 
 done. Oh no, it was the Council of Constance, 
 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 for ever, 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 
 offering oftentimes the same sacrifice." But what 
 is said of Christ? He " needeth not daily, as 
 
 those high priests, to offer up sacrifice for this 
 
 he did once, when he offered up himself." (Heb. 
 vii. 27.) And again : " But this man, after be 
 had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down 
 on the right hand of God." (Heb. x. 12.) Yet the 
 Catholics say He needeth daily to offer up sacrifice, 
 and that He^ as well as the Aaronic priests, offers 
 oftentimes 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 ! 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 129 
 
 As to Christ's being a priest for ever^ if that 
 means any thing more than is expressed in 
 Heb. vii. 24, where He is said to have " an un- 
 changeable priesthood," 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 inter- 
 cession." He is a priest for ever, because He ever 
 liveth to make intercession. It is not at all neces- 
 sary that He should ever live to offer sacrifice, in 
 order to his being a priest for ever. 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 when 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 
 antit3rpe, has entered "not into the holy places 
 made with hands, which are the figm^es of the 
 true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the 
 presence of God for us." (Heb. ix. 24.) And there 
 he remains. He has never come out. He had no 
 need to come out to offer another sacrifice, as the 
 Jewish high-priest had. "By one offering he hath 
 perfected for ever 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. ix. 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 him- 
 
130 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 self." He is sacrificing, according to them, while 
 He is interceding — sacrificing in the place appro- 
 priated to intercession, and offering himself with- 
 out suffering ! The Bible tells us, " Christ was 
 once offered," but that " He ever 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 
 Catholic religion. Protestants commonly use the 
 word to signify an army, or a great multitude. 
 But Catholics mean by it 07ie thing. It is the name 
 they give to the consecrated wafer in the Eu- 
 charist. Wafer ! What has a wafer to do with 
 the Eucharist ? We read that our Saviour took 
 breads and blessed, and brake, and gave it to his 
 disciples; but we read nothing about 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 
 consecrated ; 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 Roman Catholics contend that there was 
 any transubstantiation of the bread into another 
 
THQT7GHTS ON POPERY. 131 
 
 substance ; and if no such effect was produced on 
 that bread by the blessing and thanksgiving, 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 Roman Catholics. Now they call it the 
 kost^ 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 
 thing 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 ? 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 un- 
 dergo, 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 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 >vith the absurdity of the doctrine, cries 
 out against it ; and though all experience be 
 against it. And in favor of it, there is, what? 
 
132 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 "Why, Christ said, " Tiiis 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, literall}^, a door, or a rock ? Oh, no. 
 "Why, then, is it contended, that the bread was 
 literally his body ? 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, w^hile they will not allow it in the 
 other cases. 
 
 But if they contend for a strictly literal inter- 
 pretation of " This is my body," why do they not 
 abide by such an interpetration ? 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, Avhen He does not say 
 so? You see they do not interpret the passage 
 literally, after all. 
 
 But what do the Roman Catholics do with this 
 host? Principall}^ two things. 
 
 1. They adore it. The Bible says, " Thou shalt 
 worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt 
 thou serve." But Roman Catholics worship the 
 host. Yes; but is not Christ to be worshipped, 
 and do they not hold that the host is Christ? 
 Suppose they do hold so. Does it follow that 
 every thing is as they hold it to be ? And if, in 
 this case, the fact be dijfferent from what they hold 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 133 
 
 it to be, is not their worship idolatry, whatever 
 they may verily think ? Paul verily thought that 
 he ought to do many things contrary to the name 
 of Jesus of Nazareth. But did his verily thinking 
 it was his duty, make it so, or exculpate him? 
 No, he ought to have been better informed. And 
 Roman 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, eat" 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 that you ought 
 not to eat what you 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 have asked that question. Papal Rome has 
 far outdone Pagan Rome. 
 
134 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 If I believed in transubstantiation, I would 
 never receive the eucbarist. I know that I must 
 spiritually eat the flesh and drink the blood of 
 Christ, that I may have life in me ; but I could 
 never literally eat what I believed to be my divine 
 Saviour. What, take him actually between ray 
 teeth ! chew and swallow what I had just before 
 worshipped and adored ! Let not the language be 
 objected to. It is unavoidable. Rather let horror 
 be felt at the thmg. 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 impossible 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^ and their offering sacrifice^ that the Old 
 Testament dispensation — the dispensation of types 
 and shadows — was still in force : and that the 
 Messiah, the substance 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, having 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY, 136 
 
 once oflfered 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 i. 6;) even as also Peter, who 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. ii. 5.) This priest- 
 hood, which Peter recognises, is very different 
 from the Roman Catholic priesthood. All Christ- 
 ians 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 
 characters in his church. " He gave some apostles, 
 and some prophets, and some evangeHsts; and some, 
 pastors and teachers ; " but He gave none priests. 
 And these He gave or appointed "for the per- 
 fecting 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 appointed no officer to perform such func- 
 tions as these. I have quoted from Eph. iv. 
 11, 12. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, we have another 
 
136 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 Avhich 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 intercession, 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 piiests in the Acts, and mention is made 
 of the priests of Jupiter, but not a word do we 
 hear of any Christian priests. Who w^ere they ? 
 What w^ere their names ? Stephen was a deacon ; 
 Philip was an evangelist ; Paul w as an apostle ; 
 Peter was an elder ; and there were many who 
 were addressed as bishops. But who was a priest ? 
 If Paul w^as, why does he not sometimes call 
 himself so in the introduction of his Epistles ? 
 Was he ashamed of the office ? Peter says he 
 was an elder or presbyter, but 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," A^hich 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 137 
 
 those of priests. Were they to have no qualifi- 
 cations ? Must ahishop 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 decisive. Any one 
 may see now why the Catholic priests do not hke 
 the Bible. "Who likes to be treated, by book or 
 man, with silent contempt? The priests will 
 never forgive the Evangelists and Apostles 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 word, viz. a 
 presbyter, of which priest, as used by them, is but 
 an abbreviation, there could have been no occasion 
 for this article. But they mean by a priest, a real 
 sacerdotal character, as much as the priest of the 
 Old Testament was — one who literally offers 
 sacrifice. They pretend that their priests offer 
 sacrifice now — that whenever they perform mass, 
 a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, for the 
 living and the dead, is off'ered by them. And if 
 you ask them what they off'er, 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 
 off'ered by them in their missal service, as He was 
 by himself on Calvary, only now He is off'ered in 
 an unbloody manner ! This is what their priests 
 do. A priest must have somewhat to off'er. He 
 is ordained to off'er gifts and sacrifices. Now, the 
 
138 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 Catholic priest, finding nothing else to offer, 
 pretends to reoffer Christ. For all this — this 
 priesthood — 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 
 Bible doctrine? I believe, however, that the 
 Catholics say it is no part of doctrine, but of disci- 
 plme. This is a sorry evasion. It amounts to a 
 confession that some of their ecclesiastical practices 
 have no warrant in Christian doctrine. It is say- 
 ing 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, w^e shall see 
 w^hy the Catholics are unwilling that the people 
 should read the Bible. We shall see what a 
 w^orld of trouble it would occasion the priests, 
 were they to be in the habit of reading it. Sup- 
 pose, for example, an intelligent Catholic to take 
 up Paul's first epistle to Timothy for perusal. 
 Well, he reads along until he comes to the third 
 chapter, where he finds Paul telling Timothy w^hat 
 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 139 
 
 concludes to read on. Coming to verse 4th, he 
 meets with this qualification of the bishop : " One 
 that ruleth well his own house," i. t. family. But 
 how can he, if not permitted to have a house of 
 his own ? He proceeds : " Having his children in 
 subjection." His children — Ms children ! ! ! What, 
 a bishop having children of his own, and having 
 them collected in a family too ! And then there 
 follows a most provoking parenthesis: "For if a 
 man know not how to rule his ot\ti 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 dea- 
 cons., and to say what they must be ; and in verse 
 11th, he says what sort of wives they should have 
 — " even so must their wives be grave," &c. So 
 far from encouraging a doubt whether they should 
 marry or not, Paul gives them directions for 
 choosing a wife. 
 
 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 «//, without exception of clergy ? I 
 do not wonder at it. AVho 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 com- 
 munications to them ? 
 
 But there is a passage a little farther on, at the 
 beginning of chapter iv., which, I suppose, con- 
 stitutes with the priests a still stronger objection to 
 the popular reading of this part of the Bible par- 
 
140 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 ticularly. *' The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in 
 the latter times some shall depart from the faith — 
 forbidding to marry" 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. 
 
 39. A Holier State than Matrimony! 
 
 In one of his last letters to Mr. Breckenridge, 
 Mr. Hughes, of Philadelphia, says that the 
 Catholic church does not forbid marriage, but, 
 "she holds, however, that there is a holier state." 
 When I had read the letter thus far, I stopped, 
 and said to myself, " How is this ? a holier state I 
 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 had 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 suppose I am going to 
 believe that the state of a Roman priest is holier 
 than that of Enoch ; and that he would have been 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. l4l 
 
 a better man if he liad let marriage alone ? Never. 
 I would ask, Do the priests do more than walk 
 with God? 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 en- 
 join celibacy, as the letter tells us the law of the 
 Catholic priesthood does ? Above all, Avhy was not 
 the high priest, whose functions were of the most 
 sacred character, so much as permitted to occupy 
 that holier state? He was not only authorised, 
 but, it is believed, was obliged to marry. 
 
 3. The letter says, speaking of the Catholic 
 church, "the law of her priesthood enjoins 
 celibacy, &c. She does not choose them (those 
 who marry) for her clergy." Truly, she is very 
 fastidious in the choice of her clergy. Why need 
 she be so much more particular than Paul required 
 Timothy and Titus to be in the choice of their 
 clergy ? Their bishops and deacons 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 world 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 commanded to be perfect. 
 
 Let the Catholic priesthood no longer make 
 such an ado about their celibacy, as a holier state. 
 Protestants 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 extreme- 
 ly soHcitous that their ministers should aspire to 
 
142 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 any holiei: state than that from which Enoch was 
 translated. 
 
 40. Auricular Confession. 
 
 I hare been thinking with myself, where is the 
 authority 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 dictate that confession should 
 be made immediately to the being offended ; espe- 
 cially if he be easily accessible. 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 
 offence as we, to confess to him, that we have 
 sinned against our father, when that father is near 
 by, and when, moreover, 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 looking 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 more. They all went 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 143 
 
 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 im- 
 plore of Him pardoning mercy, and it says to him, 
 " You need not 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. 
 
 Nor can I see why we want more than one 
 mediator 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 ? 
 Oh no. Let the priest not put himself 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 cannot 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. _ 
 
144 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 pur- 
 pose. They must be hard pushed for authority, 
 ■when they resort to that passage, " Confess your 
 faults one to another." This implies something 
 onutual. If I confess to the priest, he must con- 
 fess to me, for it says one to another. This puts 
 priests and all on a level. There is nothing 
 auricular in this. Certainly we ought to confess 
 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 different thing. 
 
 On the w^hole, 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. 
 
 A\. A Mistake Corrected. 
 
 In an article entitled "Auricular Confession," 
 the writer stated, that in looking into the Bible 
 he discovered that all the penitents mentioned 
 therein w^ent directly to God to make their 
 confessions of sin, and not to the priests ; and 
 he spoke of David, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, 
 as examples in point. He finds, however, that 
 he was mistaken m saying that they all confessed 
 to God instead of to the priests. There is one 
 exception, and he is mlling that the Catholics 
 should have the advantage of it. It is the case of 
 Judas Iscariot^ recorded in Matthew xxvii. 3, 4. 
 He did 7iot go to God with his confession. He 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 145 
 
 went to the cMef 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 only one, I believe, in the Bible. Judas 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 
 Scripture which really makes in their favor. It is 
 well known that they need it. 
 
 But, poor man ! he got nothing by going to 
 the priests. It was their cruel and contemptuous 
 treatment of him, as much as anything else, that 
 determined him to go and hang himself. How 
 differently even Judas would have been treated, 
 if he had gone with a broken heart to our great 
 High Priest Jesus ! Ah I it would have been 
 better to go to Him whom he betrayed, than to 
 them to whom he betrayed him. I think I shall 
 always go to Him, not\vithstanding the example 
 of Judas. 
 
 42. Purgatory. 
 
 There are no worse reasoners than the Catho- 
 lics, and I suppose the cause of this is that they 
 are so little accustomed to reason. iMen rarely do 
 well what they are not used to do. The mind 
 needs to be disciplined to thinking and reasoning, 
 else it performs these operations but very indif- 
 ferently. Hence you hear so many persons say 
 therefore^ when nothing follows, or, at any rate, 
 that does not follow which they suppose. Of this. 
 
146 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 the Catholics, not being in the habit of thinking 
 and reasoning, their very religion prohibiting 
 these operations, afford us some wonderful speci- 
 mens. Between their premises and conclusion 
 there is often so great a gulf, so deep and wide 
 both, that I have wondered how they manage to 
 get over it. Let us hear them on the subject of 
 pm-gatory. They feel as if they would like to 
 have a little scripture for this dogma of theirs — a 
 text or two ; not for the satisfaction of the faithful 
 (for to them it is sufficient that the church beheves 
 the doctrine), but to meet the heretics. But 
 where shall they find in the Bible any thing 
 favourable 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 pur- 
 gatory not 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 
 oldeVy the inspired -^vriters, say nothing about it. 
 We read frequently 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 hyjlre, as that doctrine 
 asserts, but by blood. So that those passages in 
 which purging occurs, do not help the Catholic 
 cause. Then they look in the Bible for the word 
 fire ; and they read of the fire that is not quench- 
 ed, and of everlasting fire, prepared 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 imagined a 
 purgatory for devils. The fire of their purgatory 
 is to be quenched. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 147 
 
 But there is a passage having fire in it, which 
 they adduce as to the point. It is 1 Cor. iii. 15 : 
 " Yet so as by fire." These are the premises in 
 the grand argument ; and the conclusion is purga- 
 tory, a place of temporary punishment by fire 
 after this life. Q. E. D. Those letters were 
 never more out of place. If there existed inde- 
 pendent and irrefragable proof from another quar- 
 ter of the doctrine of purgatory, in that case it 
 might be innocently imagined that the Apostle 
 had in his mind some remote allusion to it in this 
 chapter ; but that this proverbial phrase, " saved, 
 yet so as by fire," signifying, as used by writers 
 both sacred and profane, a narrow escape out of a 
 great danger^ should be relied on as the principal 
 support of the doctrine, is truly marvellous ! I 
 always thought that the fire of purgatory was to 
 purify men's souls ; but the fire here spoken of is 
 to try every mans 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 confla- 
 gration. A good man, who, on the precious 
 foundation of Jesus Christ, builds worthless 
 materials, such as wood, hay, stubble, shall 
 suffer the loss of his work, yet he himself shall 
 be saved, though with great difficulty, so as 
 by fire. So much for the moAn pillar of pur- 
 gatory. 
 
 But they point us to Matthew v. 2.5, 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 imtb thee, thou shalt 
 
148 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid 
 the uttermost farthing." Now I would look the 
 intelligent CathoHc, who 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 pur- 
 gatory derives any support from that passage. 
 What is it hut a most excellent piece of advice in 
 reference to the settlement of differences among 
 men ? But they say, " Does not Christ, in 
 Matthew xii. 32, speak of a sin which shaD not 
 be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the 
 world to come ; and does not this imply 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 before the flood in pm'gatory ? 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 jjr caching^ ac- 
 cording to the Catholics, that souls are Hberated 
 from purgatory, but by prayers and masses well 
 paid for. And why should Christ select out the 
 antediluvian sinners, and preach only to them ? 
 Indeed, I think the friends of purgatory had 
 better give up that text; 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 149 
 
 burning out sin — in salvation hy Jire. We protest 
 against it. We believe in the washinp a-svay of 
 sin, and that bv 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 perfect 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." (Rev. ic 5.) Hoav could 
 souls just come up out of purgatory, where they 
 have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, 
 undergoing the purification of fire, imite in this 
 song ? 
 
 43. More about Purgatory. 
 
 What low and unworthy thoughts the Cathohcs 
 must have of the work of Christ and of the effica- 
 cy 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 order that the expia- 
 tion 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 ! " God, I pray thee 
 rid and deliver the mind of man from this dread- 
 ful delusion, so derogatory to thy dear Son, our 
 blessed Saviour ; and so injurious to thee, for it 
 represents thee, who delightest in mercy, as 
 punishing after thou hast pardoned ; as requiring 
 
150 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 votaries of that rehgion never exclaim, " O 
 death, where is thy sting ? grave, where is thy 
 victory ? " It is because they are expecting to go 
 to a place of fire. How can they be triumphant 
 in the " certain fearful looking-for of judgment 
 and fiery indignation ? " How can their religion 
 be other than what it is, a rehgion of fear and 
 foreboding ? 
 
 I have a few more things to say upon this sub- 
 ject ; 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 little note, for they say no- 
 thing about it — and of little use, because we hear 
 of no one going thither. Lazarus did not go 
 thither — 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 
 hody^ as present with the Lord. Is Christ in pur- 
 gatory ? 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 (Rev. xiv. 13), 
 " 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 151 
 
 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 attention 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 embold- 
 ens men to go out of the world in impenitence, 
 assuring them that though they do, yet prayers 
 and masses offered for them after death can save 
 them. It denies that we are to be judged and 
 dealt vnXh. according to the deeds clone in the hody; 
 whereas, 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 
 prqfiiahle doctrine. Yes, a capital speculation. 
 There is no doctrine which pays so well. You 
 have heard of Peters 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 Theolo- 
 gians of the Catholic Provincial Council, now in session 
 
152 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 in this city, together 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 ]\Iass, attended by the pro- 
 per officers. After the Gospel, the Right Rev. Doctor 
 Purcell, Bishop of Cincinnati, ascended the pulpit and 
 preached a funeral oration ; in which he ably por- 
 trayed, in accurate and pathetic language, the ^drtues 
 and serxaces of the deceased prelates, the former of 
 whom fell a victim to the cholera, after years of 
 laborious and successful exertions ; the latter was 
 taken away in the bloom of youth and in the midst of 
 his labors by the yellow fever. After the ]\Iass, Doc- 
 tor Rosati performed the usual obsequies." 
 
 Having finished reading the article, I withdrew 
 my eye from the paper, and I said to myself, 
 Where am 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 nineteenlh. 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— seculura tenebricosum, as the 
 church historians call it — the midnight of time! 
 " This day the prelates in this city cele- 
 brated the solemn office for the repose^" Szc. 
 
 Just then it occurred to me that I might have 
 read the paragraph incorrectly. So I resumed the 
 paper ; but still I read the same. Then I threw it 
 do>vn, and I sat and thought. Well now, this is 
 a strange thing — an extraordinary piece of busi- 
 ness — praying for the repose of deceased saints ! — 
 and those, too, prelates of the only true church — 
 and prelates eminent for their "virtues and ser- 
 vices" — dead a year, or thereabouts, and yet not at 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 153 
 
 0-est I — and this by confession of their own church! 
 What must become of the less renowned Catho- 
 lics, 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-creatures ; and need solejnii offices said 
 for the repose of their souls ? I always thought 
 that rest to the soul ensued immediately on the 
 exercise of faith. Paul says (Heb. iv. 3;, " We 
 w^hich have believed, do enter into rest;" and 
 Christ says (Matt. xi. 28), " 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 a long purgatorial period 
 subsequent to that. But above all, I had the 
 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 Lord/;•o77^ 
 lienceforth : yea, saith the Spirit, that they may 
 rest," &c., or possibly I got it from that other 
 passage (Job. iii. IJ), "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 rest. And if so, why celebrate the solemn 
 office for their repose ? 
 
 Hoping it may not be a 7nortal sin (if it be only 
 venial, I will risk it), I would ask how the Catho- 
 
154 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 lies 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 Fen wick enjoyed an enviable repu- 
 tation for goodness. I have often heard him 
 spoken of by Protestants in terms of high com- 
 mendation; 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 
 they 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 these men, 
 but also a reflection on Christ. How imperfectly, 
 accordingly to the Catholics, He must have done 
 his work! — that even those esteemed his most 
 devoted servants must lie, and toss, and bum, 
 nobody knows how long, after death, before the 
 efficacy of his atonement will allow of their being 
 taken to heaven ! And where is the fulfilment of 
 his promise, " Come unto me, and I will give you 
 rest. Ye shall find rest to your souls"? Ac- 
 cording to the prelates, &c., these bishops have 
 not foimd it yet. 
 
 I would dare ask another question. How is it 
 that the priests and prelates can tell with so much 
 accuracy how long a soul remains in purgatory 
 before it is released? How do they know just 
 when to stop praying ? 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 
 thej /reel?/ give their prayers. I could not help 
 thinking, if they did go first to purgatory, yet 
 they may not be there so long as this. A year is 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 155 
 
 a long time to be in purgatory. Hours pass 
 slowly away while one is burning. Oh, is this a 
 part of Christianity ? Can it be ? What an un- 
 satisfactory religion, which will not allow its most 
 eminent examples, its most virtuous votaries, to 
 have repose even in the grave ! Credat qui vult, 
 non ego. 
 
 35. Canonizing Saints. 
 
 I was a good deal struck the other day in read- 
 ing in a Baltimore paper the following notice : 
 "On Monday, the 17th of March, St. Patrick's 
 day, a solemn High Mass wull be sung in St. 
 Patrick's church. Fell's Point, and the panegyric 
 of the Saint will be delivered." It suggested 
 some thoughts which I beg leave to commimicate. 
 
 Why should the 17th of March be called St. 
 Patrick'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 po- 
 sitively pronounce our fellow-creatures saints. 
 Especially should Catholics, since even Peter him- 
 self, though, as they aifirm, infallible, did not 
 express himself so confidently, for he says in his 
 first epistle (v. 12), of Silvanus, "a faithful brother 
 unto you, as I suppose" 
 
 But what if he was a saint ?-^very real Christ- 
 
156 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 ian 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 object altogether to the day 
 being called his. I have no idea that the 365th 
 portion of every year belongs peculiarly to St. 
 Patrick. I have no notion of this parceling 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 appropriated 
 to dead saints. 
 
 Ah, but you forget that Patrick was canonhed. 
 The chm'ch made him a saint, and appropriated 
 that day to him. But I have not much opinion of 
 these 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 f 
 What have we to do with it, who live so long 
 after? Patrick died in 493, and here in the 
 nineteenth 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 one hundred and 
 twenty. 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 lamen- 
 tation for him, but in honor and praise of him. 
 High mass is to be sung^ as it appears by the 
 advertisement. Now singing expresses praise — 
 and his panegyric is to be pronounced. It is 
 wonderful what a disposition there is among the 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 157 
 
 Catliollcs to multiply tlie objects of their religious 
 honor. Oh that they were but satisfied to praise 
 the Lord that made heaven and earth ! But no — 
 they must have creatures to do homage unto — 
 angels; 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 
 tutelar saints and guardian angeh. It would 
 appear as if they had rather be under the care of 
 any other beings than God. 
 
 Now the idea of still eulogizing, panegyrizing, 
 and praising, here in the United States, one St. 
 Patrick, 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 expensive than low 
 mass. If you want high mass said for a poor 
 suftering soul in purgatory, you have to pay more 
 than you do if you are content with 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 expeditiously. 
 
 As for us Protestants, w^e have nothing to do 
 with these masses. We do not find any thing 
 said about them in the Bible. The Catholic will 
 
158 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 misunder- 
 stood), such as that about the rock^ which they say 
 was Peter ^ on whom the church was built, accord- 
 ing to them ! Only think now, a man that 
 denied iki^ founder of Christianity three times, with 
 profane oaths, \i\xii'&^i \ki^ foundation of the whole 
 church! Nothing else for it to rest upon but 
 Peter ! But the beauty of it is that this founda- 
 tion should have had a long series of fundamental 
 successors, 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. 
 
 It strikes me that in giving this notice, the 
 priests should have used an easier word than pane- 
 gyric. 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. Patrick." 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 ^on I 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 firsts what is 
 truth. Then we will come to the question, what is 
 charity. And we shall find that charity is some- 
 thing which " rejoices in the truth." 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 169 
 
 46. Gen. Lafayette not at Best. 
 A few days since, I observed the following 
 notice, taken from the Charleston Roman Catho- 
 lic I^Iiscellany : " There will be an office and 
 high mass in the Cathedral on Monday, 30th 
 inst. (June), for the repose of the soul of General 
 Lafayette." Also the follo^ving, taken from the 
 Catholic Herald : " A solemn high mass will be 
 sung on Tuesday next, the 29th inst. (July), at 
 at 10 o'clock, at the church of the Holy Trinity, 
 corner of Sixth and Spruce, for the repose of the 
 soul of the late Gen. Lafayette." The General 
 died, it will be remembered, on the 20th 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, 
 pecuUar to themselves, of seeing into the invisible 
 world. With what positiveness 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 
 
160 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 lost from tlie 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 posi- 
 tiveness of the future 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 speak of the condition 
 of individuals with the same confidence ; and 
 especially dare we not say of this or that person 
 who 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 inti- 
 mate that the soul of such a man as Lafayette is 
 not at rest ? 
 
 But the Catholics are not so reserved. They 
 pretend to know not only who are saints in glory, 
 but what souls are suffering in the fire and rest- 
 lessness of purgatory. They can tell you the 
 names of the persons. They have printed in two 
 of their papers, at least, that the good 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 
 where the wicked cease not irom troubling ; and 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. l6l 
 
 much annoyance received he from them, in the 
 course of his patriotic and useful Hfe'; 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 beHeve that up to 
 that day his soul is not in repose, else why seek 
 its repose ? If the person who inserted these no- 
 tices were living in the papal dominions, or under 
 the influence of Prince Mettemich, or the ex-king 
 Charles, I should not wonder at their proclaiming 
 his soul not at rest, for Lafayette was never a fa- 
 vorite at Rome, Vienna, 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 assert 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 minis- 
 ter 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 Catho- 
 hcs do it with impunity. 
 
 But why do the CathoHcs suppose that La- 
 fayette 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 " ? Or 
 how can it be said, " O death, where is thy 
 
162 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 sting ? " since here it is, and sting enough. But 
 he who wrote Phil, i., and 1 Cor xv., and 2 Cor. 
 v., was not a Roman Catholic. Or do they con- 
 clude 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 
 inquired curiously into the devotional character of 
 the General, but I am possessed of no proof that 
 he was 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 repose of his soul, pro- 
 vided it be not at rest. But they insert no con- 
 dition. They are sure he is not at rest. 
 
 Well, if he is not at rest, how are their masses 
 to give him repose? Does the Bible say that 
 they have that efiicacy ? I must be excused for 
 being so old-fashioned as to appeal to the Bible. 
 That book, since it says nothing about masses, 
 cannot be supposed to say anything of their tran^ 
 quillizing tendency. I always forget that the 
 Cathohcs 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, was reported, and so has come doAvn by 
 word of mouth. But I, for my part, am satisfied 
 with what they wrote. 
 
 We Protestants cannot join the' Roman Ca- 
 tholics in their solemn ofiice for Lafayette. We 
 hope there is no need for praying for the repose of 
 his soul ; and we are certain there is no use in it. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 163 
 
 We prayed for Mm while he was living. We did 
 not w^ait for him to be dead first. Now that his 
 spirit has returned to God who gave it, and the 
 Judge has passed sentence upon it, we 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 to sing theirs on the 29 th of July. How 
 long is this thing 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 will 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 I^atin maxim, " Nil de 
 mortuis, nisi bonum," say nothing but good re- 
 specting the dead — which, it seems to me, the 
 Catholics have disregarded in the case of Lafayette. 
 It is certainly not saying any good of a dead man, 
 to say that he is not at rest. 
 
 47. Prayers for the Faithful Departed. 
 
 I have taken up again that little book, '' The 
 Christian'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 heretofore reviewed, but I have not 
 exhausted its contents. I find on page 198 of 
 my edition, the title of this article, " Prayers for 
 
164 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 the Faithful Departed." Faithful, said I to my- 
 self ; 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 good as to pray. I thought there was no need 
 of praying for deceased Christians — for the faith- 
 ful departed. I got the notion somewhere, that 
 good people, when they die, go where there is 
 " fulness of joy," and " pleasures for evermore." I 
 may have imbibed it from St. Paul, Avho 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 labours. It is more likely, 
 however, that I got the idea from our Saviour, 
 who says to the church in Smyrna (Rev. ii. 10), 
 " 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 do 
 not 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 diflPerent from the crown 
 of life. They are a long time absent from the 
 body before they are present with the Lord. They 
 do not go to heaven, or paradise. They go to 
 purgatory. This is the Catholic's creed. It does 
 not seem to agree altogether well with the Saviour's 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 165 
 
 promise to the Smyrneans. 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. 
 
 Somehow or other this doctrine of the faithful 
 going to purgatory after death, and 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 amanuen- 
 sis. He speaks of it as gain to die ; but surely, to 
 exchange earth for purgatory is no gain. 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 well as Lazarus, who 
 made no stay in purgatory; or as the penitent 
 thief, who could not have made a long one, since 
 he was in paradise the same day he died. It 
 has always appeared to me, that according 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 few 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 
 praying 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. xii. 46. — This 
 looks 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. I know the 
 
166 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 Catholics contend that it is as good scripture as 
 any. But ask the Jews if it is scripture. " Unto 
 them were committed the oracles of God." Ask 
 them if the hooks of Maccahees were committed 
 to them. They tell you no. They were not even 
 written in Hehrew. The New Testament abounds 
 in quotations from the Old Testament scriptures. 
 I wonder some of the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment had not quoted Maccahees, if it had been 
 scripture. I would ask any one who reads it, if 
 it strikes the ear as scripture. It certainly does 
 not. Besides, it is not in all cases good sense. 
 The verse quoted in favour of praying for the 
 dead is not good sense. They speak of praying 
 for the dead as a holy thought, and of prayer as 
 having an efficacy to loose7i 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 suffering souls in purgatory." It is a cm-ious 
 prayer. I should like to quote the whole of it. 
 But some specimens must suffice. Here is one 
 petition. " Have mercy on those who suffer in 
 purgatory. Look with compassion on the great- 
 ness 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 refine 
 and purify certain metals, but how it should act 
 in that way on soids^ 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 won- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 167 
 
 der, 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 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 (Rom. iii. 26), that God can 
 now be ^^just^ and the justifier of him which 
 believeth in Jesus; " and that "if we confess our 
 sins, He is faithful and just to forgive them." 
 (1 John i. 9.) Are not the faithful pardoned ? 
 and how 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 human nature, they have committed 
 against thee." Then a little further on: "Remem- 
 ber, Lord, that they are thy living members, 
 thy faithful followers, thy spouses." Here you 
 see these sufferers are God's children; and they 
 are suffering for mere faults^ which they fell 
 into through frailty. This seems hard. But 
 they are not only God's children; they are Christ's 
 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 which the Saviour discharged. And this 
 is the Roman Catholic gospel ! Is it not " another 
 
168 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 gospel ? " And yet " not another." It is qio 
 gospel- It is a contradiction of the good news. 
 
 I quote but one more petition : " Deliver them, 
 O most merciful God, from that place of dark- 
 ness and torture, and call them to a place of 
 refreshment, light, and peace." The reader will 
 remember that this prayer is for the faithful. It 
 is they who, having been " faithful unto death," 
 go to a place of darkness and torture. There they 
 " rest from their labours." I don't know, for my 
 part, what worse can befall zmbelievers than this. 
 Truly, here is no great encouragement to believ- 
 ing. What a consolatory 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 
 "darkness and torture." Can it be Jesus who 
 says this to his faithful followers ? Can this be 
 christian doctrine ? It certainly is not well calcu- 
 lated to make dying 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 Roman Catholic doctrine of 
 purgatory be true. 
 
 48. An Improveme?2t. 
 
 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 Avill 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 phra- 
 seology, I rejoice in it, because words not only 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 169 
 
 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 
 phraseology merely. The case is this. It is the 
 habit among the Catholics, some few months or 
 so after a considerable character dies, to open the 
 church and have a service for him. This has 
 heretofore been announced 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 will 
 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. Lafayette, 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 weeks having passed away, 
 the time came to take notice of his soul. Ac- 
 cordingly it was done. But I was struck with 
 the alteration in the wording of the notice. It 
 ran thus : " A funeral service ^^'ill be performed 
 in the cathedral for the late Most Rev. Arch- 
 bishop AVhitfield." 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 regularly buried some months before. 
 Protestants cannot readily imderstand 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 sufficiently in their favour, 
 will not tolerate a thing of this kind without a 
 degree of restlessness, not a little annoying to 
 Q 
 
170 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 them, and perhaps likely to he iniurious to their 
 concern. For see, that reasoning animal, man, 
 who is naturally a logician, and can reason with- 
 out ever having studied the rules of reasoning, 
 argues something like this: Either the soul for 
 which the mass is said is at rest, or it 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, to 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, how they know it is not at 
 rest weeks and months after. Common sense, 
 not finding any thing about it in the Bible, wants 
 to know how the Catholics get the information. 
 And so, through fear of the investigation of com- 
 mon 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 for- 
 midable foe of error and imposition. I confi- 
 dently 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 com- 
 mon 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. 
 
THOTJGHTS ON POPERY. I7l 
 
 The people of the United States will thinh^ and 
 they have a notion that they have a right to 
 think for themselves, without sending to Rome to 
 know if they may. And they will ask questions 
 on subjects, not omitting religion, and they will 
 insist on having a satisfactory answer. The in- 
 habitants of the old world may, if they please, 
 believe on 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 demon- 
 strandum," or something of that nature. You 
 can never get a majority here to believe in con- 
 tradiction 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. The Duke of Brunswick's Fiftieth Reason. 
 
 A certain Duke of Brunswick, having many 
 years ago abjured Lutheranism, and become a 
 Roman Catholic, thought it necessary to apologise 
 to the world for his change of religion. It needed 
 an apology. So he wrote dowTi fifty 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 Catho- 
 lics have free permission to read. yes — they 
 may read any book but the Bible. There is no 
 objection to their reading books which contain 
 the thoughts of men ; but the book which contains 
 the thoughts of God is interdicted ! Men know 
 how to express themselves. Men can write in- 
 teUigibly. But . . . . ! ! 
 
 Fifty reasons ! The duke must have been con- 
 
172 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 scious, I suppose, that his reasons were weak, 
 otherwise he would have been satisfied with a 
 less number than fifty. Why does a man want 
 fifty reasons for a thing when one good reason is 
 sufficient ? / have but one general reason for not 
 being a Roman 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 wrote about, as any one may see who 
 will compare the Holy Scriptures with the Coun- 
 cil 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-nine were. But what do you think the sa- 
 pient Duke's fiftieth reason was — his closing, 
 crowning reason — that mth which he capped the 
 climax — the reason which, having brought out, he 
 rested from very exhaustion, consequent on the 
 amazing effort of mind by which it was ex- 
 cogitated ? 
 
 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 Catho- 
 lics 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 salvation, assm-ed me that, if 
 I were to be damned for embracing the Catholic 
 faith, they were ready to answer for me at the Day 
 of Judgment^ and to take my damnation upon 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 173 
 
 themselves ; an assurance I could never extort 
 from the ministers of any sect in case I should 
 live and die in their religion. From whence I 
 inferred, the Roman Catholic faith was built on a 
 better 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 
 unnecessary, and even injurious. I wonder the 
 Catholics are not ashamed of this reason. Indeed, 
 I suspect the intelligent 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 Ca- 
 tholics. They agreed that if he were to be 
 damned for embracing their faith, (they admit 
 the possibility that he might be ; whereas the 
 Protestant ministers whom he consulted were 
 too well assured of the truth of theii* religion to 
 allow of the supposition,) they would take his 
 place, and be damned for him. Now I wonder 
 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 generous offer, if their faith was 
 false, would have to be damned for themselves ! 
 That which should leave him without a title to 
 heaven, would equally leave them without one. 
 I wonder the duke so readily believed that the 
 substitution would be accepted. "What if they 
 were willing to suffer perdition in his place ? 
 The Judge might object to the arrangement. 
 What ignorance and stupidity it manifests, to sup- 
 
174 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 pose 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 suppose that it is trans- 
 ferable ! I should like to know how one man is 
 to suffer remorse for another. And again, what 
 an admirable exemplification of the spirit of 
 Christianity, that one should consent, on any 
 condition, to lie in hell, for ever, sinning and 
 blaspheming God ! I am sincerely glad that 
 no Protestant minister could be found to give his 
 consent to an eternity of enmity against God. 
 But the Catholics whom the duke consulted, loved 
 the Lord so that they were willing to sin against 
 him for ever and ever, with ever-increasing ma- 
 lignity of opposition, for the sake of saving their 
 noble proselyte! "FROM WHENCE I IN- 
 FERRED," says the duke (but you have no 
 cajntals large enough for this conclusion), "the 
 Roman Catholic faith was built on a better found- 
 ation than any of those sects that have divided 
 from it." Admirable dialectician ! He must be 
 Aristotle himself, by metempsychosis. 
 
 I think that those who wish to live and die 
 Roman Catholics, 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 Duhe's Seventh Reason. 
 
 The Duke's 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 
 
THOTIGHTS ON POPERY. 175 
 
 times, in conversation with Catholics, heard it 
 alleged, and some considerable stress laid on it. 
 The drift of it is this : Protestants acknowledge 
 that some Roman Catholics may he saved, but 
 Catholics contend that no Protestants 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 
 resolution 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 charitable 
 doctrine of the Catholics of course true ? Is it so 
 very clear that none are saved but the greatest 
 bigots — none saved but those who affirm, and are 
 ready to swear, that none others but themselves 
 can be saved? Have Roman CathoHcs never 
 affirmed any thing but what was strictly true, 
 so that from their uniform veracity 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 Protestants. 
 No salvation except for Catholics ! Ah ! and 
 where is the chapter and verse for that ? I don't 
 think that even the Apocrypha can supply them. 
 If subsequent Popes have taught the doctrine, he 
 who is reckoned by Catholics to have been the 
 first Pope, did not. It is rather unkind, perhaps, 
 to quote Peter against his alleged successors, but a 
 
17 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 Catholic in order to be 
 saved ; but the case of Cornelius cured him of that 
 prejudice. That led him to say, as recorded, Acts 
 X. 34, 35, " Of a truth I perceive that God is no 
 respecter of persons, but in every nation he that 
 feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is 
 accepted with 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. 
 
 Now, if what the Roman 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 
 Cathohc. Suppose that Protestants should give 
 out to the world that none but themselves can be 
 saved, would that make Protestantism any better, 
 or safer, or worthier of adoption? Would our 
 religion be more entitled to reception, if we should 
 publish that Fenelon was lost for ever, and that 
 Pascal was excluded from heaven, and Massillon 
 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 vener- 
 ation, because Catholics assert as an undoubted 
 verity, that such men as Locke, Newton, Leighton, 
 Howard, and many others, are beyond all question 
 in hell, not even admitted to purgatory, because, 
 forsooth, they were not Roman Catholics. 
 
 But the Duke's inference is from a double pre- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 177 
 
 mise. Not only do Catholics say no Protestant 
 can be saved ; but Protestants allow that Catholics 
 may. If Protestants were to say that Catholics 
 could not be saved, then they would be even with 
 each other, and there could be no argument in the 
 case. But since Protestants allow that others 
 besides themselves may be saved, while 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 some Roman Catholics may be 
 saved. They allow that the fact of a person's 
 being externally related to the Roman Catholic 
 church does not of itself 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 hy the Catholic religion, but in spite of 
 it, to some who professedly adhere to that religion. 
 If a CathoHc hold understandingly to the merit of 
 good works, the insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, 
 the worship of creatures, or similar unscriptural 
 doctrines, we do not see how he can be saved ; 
 but we believe many, called Catholics, reject these 
 doctrines in fact, though not perhaps in word, and 
 
178 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 rely on Christ's atonement alone for salvation. 
 Now if Catholics are so absurd as not' to admit in 
 our favour as much as we admit in theirs, we 
 can't help it, and we don't care for it. It is just 
 as they please. We shall not take back our 
 admission for the sake of making proselytes to 
 Protestantism — 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 rehgion, because 
 Protestants admit that some CathoHcs 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 exclaims, 
 " 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 indeed, not to join a people who may not 
 all be lost ! Oh what a madness to continue to be 
 Protestants, when Roman Catholics say that they 
 are out of the way ! What if they do my so? 
 What if every Jesuit missionary 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 lie^ 
 but to err. He goes on like a very Aristotle. 
 " Who would not advise a man to take the safest 
 way when he is threatened with any evident dan- 
 ger?'* Certainly, noble Duke, the safest way; 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 179 
 
 but not of course the 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 highness 
 proceeds: "And does not that way which two 
 opposite parties approve of, promise greater secur- 
 ity than another which one party only recom- 
 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 tnie and safe way. Then 
 comes an illustration, which like a great many 
 other illustrations, is well constructed, 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 possibiliti/ of the Catholic's 
 salvation. Then he is represented as approving 
 the Catholic way — and immediately after as pre- 
 scribing it ! It is easy proving any thing, if one 
 may make facts to suit his purpose. I believe it 
 is not true that Protestants prescribe the Roman 
 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 Bruns • 
 wick'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 
 
180 HOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 bid all others stand by, because they are holler. I 
 cannot think it so great a recommendation of 
 a religion, that it denowices, and so far as it 
 can, damns all who cannot see their way clear 
 to embrace it. 
 
 51. The Duke's Eleventh Reason. 
 
 Fifty reasons why the Roman Catholic religion 
 ought to be preferred to all others ! Only think. 
 And some of them that I don't find any answer 
 to in any Protestant Avriter! Such a one is the 
 eleventh of the formidable series. In the three 
 preceding reasons or considerations, as he calls 
 them, the duke had been giving us the result of 
 his inquiries. It seems he was quite an investi- 
 gator. 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 philoso- 
 phers, the fathers, the martyrs, and all the saints, 
 I cannot see where is the harm of just looking in- 
 to 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 considera- 
 tion, tells us about his consulting the writings of 
 the ancient 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. Th en, 
 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 aiTived at 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 181 
 
 eternal bliss." And they said — not that they had 
 " washed their robes and made them white in the 
 blood of the Lamb," in accordance -with the ac- 
 count given of some other saints in Rev. vii. — but 
 *' they all made answer, It was the Roman 
 faith." By the way, the Catholics have an 
 advantage over us Protestants. They know who 
 are saints, and have a w^ay 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 answer. " Thus," says he, " I was an- 
 swered by St. Martin, St. Nicholas, St. Athanasius, 
 and many more among the bishops; among the 
 religious, by St. Dominick (! ?), 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 con- 
 sulted them, the result might have been somewhat 
 diflferent. But no Protestant had notice of his 
 intention to carry his inquiries into that quarter. 
 The duke was determined to make thorough 
 work of it. Therefore, in his tenth consideration 
 he tells us, "Then I turned to the holy 
 martjTS, and inquired what faith it was for the 
 truth of which they spilt their blood." They an- 
 swered 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 
 
 R 
 
182 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 on the whole, before winding it up, to let it 
 run down a little 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, Yigilantius, Pelagius, 
 Nestorius, Macedonius, Marcion, &c." May I 
 never be under the necessity of descending so low 
 for an argument! But the duke does not say 
 that he actually went thither, but he went in 
 thought. There, having gone in thought^ he found 
 so and so. Here is another advantage the 
 CathoUcs 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 CathoUcs have the 
 whole of this argument to themselves. The duke 
 says they told him they were there for not being 
 Catholics, and we have no counter-testimony. 
 Protestantism, however, having so many other 
 "witnesses to the truth" of her system, can 
 easily do without the testimony of "the spirits 
 in prison." Let that be for the Catholics. But 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 183 
 
 by the way, I wonder that the duke relied so 
 unhesitatingly on the testimony of those per- 
 sons. How 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 of 
 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? There was no Roman church 
 to break off from. 
 
 I was expecting that the duke would push his 
 inquiries yet one step farther, and, seeing he 
 was on the spot, interrogate Satan in regard 
 to the true religion. 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 subject, 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, though it has 
 never been answered. 
 
 52. Beauties of the Leopold 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 caUing the attention of the 
 
184 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 public to the choice parts of the reports ; for even 
 where all is good, you know, there are generally 
 portions here and there of superior excellence. 
 Will -;ou 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 hare admired the way in which the 
 report speaks of conversions. It seems that 
 these Catholics can foresee conversions with as 
 much certainty as we, poor blind Protestants, 
 can look back on them ! F. Baraga "vmtes, under 
 date of March 10, 1832: "I long for the arrival 
 of spring, when I shall have numerous conver- 
 sions"!! Now, I am aware that the face of 
 nature 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 perfect accuracy. It is hard to foresee 
 what men will do. Bu,t 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 
 hira 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!" 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 that they would 
 be converted, but he says, "From two other 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 185 
 
 counties I have received assurances, that many 
 of the Indians there would be converted to the 
 Christian rehgion, if I would come and preach 
 the gospel to them !" You see they had told 
 others, who told Baraga, that they would. It 
 came very straight. He speaks particularly 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 beheve, and be converted 
 — to have their hearts changed — to be bom 
 again! 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 forward 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 1, 1832: "When I decided 
 to be a missionary," he says, " I promised our hea- 
 venly mother that I would consecrate to her 
 the first church I should consecrate 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 
 I did not know we had a heavenly mother. 
 Will the reader pause a moment, and inquire 
 the meaning of the word idolatry? Baraga 
 promised her ! Where had they the interview 
 
186 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 when that promise was made? He have must 
 been praying to her. And why was the promise 
 made ? Because " I am convinced she will pray 
 her Son." What ! prayer in heaven ! John, 
 in Patmos, heard praise] in heaven, hut not 
 prayer. I know there is one advocate in heaven, 
 Jesus Christ the righteous, who ever 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 must go directly 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 conversion of the heathen." Now, if all 
 this is not idolatry, I wish somebody 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 with- 
 out that help. Father Senderl Avrites : " Young 
 people of sixteen years, and not unfrequently 
 older persons, have never confessed nor commun- 
 ed (taken the half sacrament^ I suppose he 
 means). I prepare them for both, and^for con- 
 firmation." / prepare them ! And another writes 
 concerning Baraga, that he achieves wonders of 
 salvation among the Ottawas. 
 
 This is a specimen of the religion which Prince 
 Metternich & Co., our Austrian brethren, those 
 dear lovers of Hberty, are : benevolently con- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 187 
 
 tributing 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 Roman Catholic religion I Timeo Met- 
 ternich et dona ferentem. [1 fear Mettemich, even 
 sending gifts.] 
 
 53. Beauties of the Leopold 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 Christ- 
 ian is truly " the highest style of man," but the 
 consistent Catholic is not much above the lowest, 
 Baraga writes as follows: "It would be oi 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 Protest- 
 ants often feel that we cannot be thankfid 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 Pro- 
 testant missionaries at Ceylon, and elsewhere, 
 would not be so very grateful if Ave should send 
 them a consignment of cups, boxes, &c. No : 
 such things could not be of essential service to 
 
188 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 their missions. We do not understand convert- 
 ing people as tlie 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 Christ crucified ; 
 but they have only to put the little crucifix in his 
 hand. I went, a short time ago, to visit a man 
 under sentence of death, to talk to him about 
 Christ and his death. I found him gazing 
 intently on a little metallic image of Christ cru- 
 cified, 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 rosaries ! What a number of beads ! 
 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 
 honour of the house of God, so that the inner 
 man, by the splendor of the external divine wor- 
 ship, may be lifted to heaven." What a sage sen- 
 timent. How scriptural! How philosophical too ! 
 This is truly a new way of being lifted to 
 heaven. 
 
 But I must not overlook a letter of Bishop 
 Fenwick, dated Mackinac, July ], 1831. 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, confes- 
 sions began ; and from that time till the day 
 of our departure, we sat on the confession stool firom 
 early morning till 1 o'clock, and in the afternoon. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 189 
 
 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 con- 
 fessed the sins of forty years ! All that time they 
 were waiting for a priest to come to them. There 
 was the God who delighted in mercy, to w^hom 
 they might have confessed, 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 that would 
 not have been to act the part of good Catholics. 
 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 with 
 his confession-siool. The confession-stool substitut- 
 ed 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 stool." Ca- 
 thoHcs 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 the Church of Rome. 
 
 There is nothing of which I am more perfectly 
 certain 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 Christ- 
 
190 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 ianity. How can they be the same, when they 
 difter so widely? Midnight and noon are not 
 more unlike. I will specify one point of difference. 
 Romanism is partial. She is a respecter of 
 persons. Christianity is the very opposite of 
 this. And not only is the church of Rome partial, 
 but her partialities are all in favour of the 
 rich. Now Christianity, if it leans in any direc- 
 tion, inclines towards the poor. It was one sign 
 that the Messiah was come in the person of Jesus 
 of Nazareth, that "the poor had the Gospel 
 preached to them." They were not overlooked ; 
 far from it. " Hearken," says one (Jas. ii. 5) ; 
 "hath not God chosen the poor of this world, 
 rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he 
 has promised to them that love him ? " The poor 
 had never such a friend as Christ. He was him- 
 self poor. He had experience of the privations, 
 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 con- 
 nected 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: 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 191 
 
 According to her creed, all souls, except, perhaps, 
 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 sufiFer 
 out their time (that is, all the time which 
 remains after 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 performed 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, unless the sacrifice of the mass be 
 added to it! Well, how are these masses, so 
 necessary to the repose and release of the soul, to 
 be had? Why, how do you suppose, 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 CathoUc religion the religion of Christ. 
 Verily, Popery is no religion for poverty. What 
 did our Saviour mean, when he said, Mark x. 
 23 : "How hardly shall they that have riches 
 enter into the kingdom of God !" According to 
 the Roman Cathohc doctrine, they are the very 
 men that enter most easily — they having the 
 wherewith to purchase indulgences and masses. 
 It is the poor, according to this scheme, that with 
 difficulty enter in. They have to serve their time 
 
192 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 out in purgatory — whereas, the rich can buy their 
 time off. 
 
 But is the thing managed in this way? Ai'e 
 not masses said for all that die in the Catholic 
 faith? Yes, there is a day in the year called 
 All-soul's day (it comes on the 2nd of November. 
 Alas for the poor Catholic who dies on the 3rd, 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 w^hat 
 does it amount to, when you consider the mil- 
 lions of Catholics that die every year, and the 
 many milHons not yet out of the fire, among 
 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 
 favour 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. Iv. 1.) I beheve that 
 " whosoever will," may " take of the water 
 of life freely." (Rev. xxii. 17-) This is my 
 creed. 
 
 There was poor Lazarus. I reckon he went to 
 heaven 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 Saviour said, " To-day shalt thou be with 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 193 
 
 me in Paradise." If there was erer 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 thither. Christ took him with him immediately 
 to paradise. He went thither without penance, 
 without extreme unction^ mthout 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 Avas, could have got to heaven sooner than 
 that penitent thief. But Christ always consid- 
 ered the poor ; and that is not Christianity which 
 does not consider them. 
 
 As I said in former pieces that I had no faith 
 in salvation by fire, or in salvation by oil, 
 I say now, I have no faith in salvation by 
 monei/. 
 
 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 major pro- 
 position. Who dare dispute it ? But the church 
 of Rome makes it not so easy for a poor man to 
 get to heaven as one that is rich. This is my 
 7)iinor proposition, and this I have shown. "Who 
 dare deny it ? Now my conclusion is, therefore, 
 the religion of the church of Rome is not Christ- 
 ianity. 
 
 55. Supererogation. 
 
 This long word was coined by the Cathohcs for 
 
 their own special use, as was also that longer and 
 
 harder word transubstantiation. Nobody else finds 
 
 any occasion for it. It expresses what the rest of 
 
194 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 mankind think has no real existence. If the read- 
 er 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, whether we understand it or not), he 
 will see that supererogation is compounded of two 
 words, and signifies literally above what is required. 
 It designates that overwork in the service of God 
 which certain, good Catholics in all ages are sup- 
 posed to have done. After doing all the good 
 which God requires of them, then what they do 
 over and above that, they call supererogation. 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 
 command. 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/bur — 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 
 tins 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 hea- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 195 
 
 ven is perfect." (Matt. v. 48.) And in another 
 place, even by Peter ^ it is said, " As he which has 
 called you is holy, so he 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 super- 
 fluous glory which men give to God, after glorify- 
 ing him in their bodies and spirits, which are his, 
 and doing a//, whatsoever they do, even to the mat- 
 ter of eating and drinking, to his glory ! See 1 Cor. 
 vi. 27, and Acts x. 31. This is supererogation. I 
 hope the reader understands it. 
 
 Now, those who do these works of supereroga- 
 tion, have of course more merit than they have 
 any occasion 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 imfortu- 
 nate 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 of indulgences. 
 This is the article that Tetzel was dealing in so 
 largely and lucratively, when Martin Luther start- 
 ed up in opposition to the traffic. Protestants 
 have never dealt in the article of indulgences. 
 
 By the way, the wise virgins of whom we read 
 in Matthew xxv., 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 seasonable supply, they answered, " Not so : 
 lest there be not enough for us and you." They 
 had only enough for themselves. 
 
196 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 person, besides obeying the precepts, complies 
 with the counsels, doing not only what is required, 
 but also what is recommended, is not here a foun- 
 dation 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 no precepts require, yet obedience to these 
 counsels cannot constitute works of supererogation, 
 and accumulate merit, imless aU the precepts are 
 perfectly obeyed. A man must do all that is re- 
 quired, before he can do more than what is re- 
 quired. Now, has any mere man since the fall 
 perfectly obeyed all the commandments of God ? 
 Has any man done all his duty ? If not, I reckon 
 no one has done more than his duty. We do not 
 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 required ! 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 admissible ? The 
 Psalmist says, " Thy commandment is exceeding 
 broad." But according to this doctrine, the virtue 
 of the Catholic is broader. I, however, do not be- 
 lieve it. 
 
 3. There is no counsel which does no* become 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. ^ 197 
 
 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 favourite example 
 of the Catholics, celibacy, vrhich, they say, is re- 
 commended but not required. Novr, 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 supererogation. 
 When celibacy is not a duty, there is no virtue in 
 it. Does any one believe that Enoch would have 
 been more virtuous, and walked more closely with 
 God, if he had not had a wife and children ? 
 
 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, 
 monasteries, nunneries, &c., are in the Roman 
 CathoHc rehgion. Who has not heard of monks 
 and nuns, and of the estabhshments in which they 
 respectively seclude themselves from the world? 
 What a pity they cannot keep the flesh and the 
 devil as far off! But the flesh they must carry in 
 "vvith them ; and the devil is at no loss to find au 
 entrance. There are no convents that can shut 
 these out ; and it is my opinion that it is not o£ 
 much use to exclude the world, if they cannot atl 
 the same time shut out the other two. The world 
 would be very harmless, but for the flesh and the 
 
198 THOUGHT ON POPERY. 
 
 devil. Besides, I am of opinion that a person may- 
 be of the world, thought not in the world. In, hut 
 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 knows it, has taken up its lodgement in the 
 heart. The heart can entertain the world. If so, 
 convents 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 con- 
 vents 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 
 people good, and for keeping them pure, I am 
 surprised they were never thought of till after the 
 canon of Scriptui'e was closed. Why do not the 
 me:a who speak by inspiration of God, say any 
 thing about them? This puzzles me. I wish 
 some of the Roman Catholic A-vTiters would ex- 
 plain 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 vii. 17, 
 " because of the depth of the mystery, and the in- 
 credulity or feebleness of those to whom he wrote." 
 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 ? Perhaps 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 Miock take the vow of ceUbacy, and go into 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 199 
 
 one, instead of "walking with God and begetting 
 sons and daughters"? How much better a man, 
 according to the Roman Catholic notion, he would 
 have been, had he only been a monk ! And why 
 did not St. John banish himself 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 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 
 improvement on those times. But I do not Hke 
 the idea of improvements on a system arranged by 
 the wisdom 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 im- 
 mured in monasteries and shut up in nunneries. It 
 takes up the various 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. An- 
 thony in the fourth century after Christ ? 
 
 Again, if the system is favourable to holiness, 
 then all equally need it, since all are required to be 
 equally holy — tO' be holy as God is holy. But 
 what would soon become of us all, if the system 
 should become universal, and all adopt these means 
 
200 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 of holiness? This idea, that the means of the 
 most eminent sanctity required of any, are not ac- 
 cessible 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 con- 
 vents. I would never have them assailed by any 
 other force than that which belongs to an argument. 
 If I were a Roman Catholic, I could not more in- 
 dignantly reprobate than, being a Protestant, I do, 
 the recent burning 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 system of con- 
 vents 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 suspecting, and of making 
 mere suspicion the ground of condemnation, is no 
 part of my religion. It is a part of my Pro- 
 testantism to protest against it. 
 
 57. Afr. 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 ex- 
 ception to something she had said in her "Ccelebs" 
 about Popery. He is very much offended with 
 her. He complains, among other things, of her 
 use of the word Popery, to designate the Roman 
 Catholic religion. Now, some of us do not make 
 much use of that word, as knowing it is offensive 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 201 
 
 to the Catholics, and not Tvilling 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 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 their 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 mth 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 sen- 
 tence : " Nothing is more surprising than that 
 you Protestants 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 sur- 
 prising. But there is one thing which is even 
 more surprising. It is that any intelligent eccle- 
 siastic 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 Cathohcs. They say we do 
 
202 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 not let them speak for themselves. Yes, we do. 
 Do they not speak for themselves in their own 
 manuals, breviaries, and catechisms, printed under 
 their own sanction and supervision ? If we take 
 their tenets from their own books, and quote 
 verbatim, and refer to the edition and page, is not 
 that enough? Well, we do so. Yet they say 
 we misrepresent them. How can that be ? They 
 may misrepresent and contradict themselves, but 
 it is hard to hold us responsible 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 Protestants 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 ahke, 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 ? Has no 
 error ever been very popular? The world all 
 thought alikel once on astronomy — all held the 
 earth to be the centre of the system. But did 
 they think aright ? 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 Catho- 
 
 M' 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 203 
 
 lie, and he tells you what he thinks, you know 
 what every English and American Catholic thinks, 
 for they "all think alike." So, if you take up 
 one catechism or book of instruction, and read 
 that, you know what they all ought to contain. 
 It saves a great deal of trouble. 
 
 But the Vicar complains bitterly of the Bishop 
 of Durham, for asserting that the Catholics sup- 
 press 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 have myself seen two different catechisms, 
 published in Ireland by Catholic booksellers, and 
 under the highest Catholic authority, from both of 
 which the second commandment was excluded ; 
 and it is left out of the " Christian's Guide," 
 pubhshed in Baltimore by the CathoHcs, as any 
 one may see for himself. Now what could Mr. 
 B. say to this ? Would he say, " Oh ! those were 
 published in Ireland and America." But he 
 says, "We all, whatever be our country^ 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 ? Yes ; but if their 
 catechisms differ, how do they all think alike ? 
 Besides, no one ever accused the Catholics of 
 leaving the second commandment out of every 
 one of their books. But why do they leave it 
 
204 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 
 evade 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 im- 
 portant 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 any ? Why did he 
 not make them all uniform? A man may as 
 well tell me I have no eyes, as deny that some 
 Catholic catechisms have been published without 
 the second commandment. Now, why was ever 
 a catechism published under Catholic sanction 
 without it ? Did they ever publish one in which 
 they omitted any other of the commandments ? 
 Did Protestants ever publish a list of the com- 
 mandments ^^dth 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 themselves 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 restless under the charge. 
 But surely, he had too much good sense to sup- 
 pose that he had answered the Bishop, when he 
 showed him a catechism that had the command- 
 ment 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 mill- 
 stone about the neck of their religion. They see 
 it is in danger of sinking it. But they cannot 
 shp it off so easily ; and if they cannot manage to 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 205 
 
 swim wltli it, it must sink them. Well, if it 
 does, and nothing hut the system goes to the 
 hottom, I shall not he 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 hearing the word, they 
 " searched the scriptures daily whether these things 
 were so!" (Acts xvii. 11.) 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 Script- 
 ures." 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 New Method of Exciting Devotion. 
 
 There seems to be no end to new discoveries. 
 Marching mind appears to have no idea of halting. 
 Probably improvement will go on till the world 
 itself terminates. What should I see, in taking 
 up the Observer of January 3rd, but an article 
 headed " Cathedral at St. Louis " ? Then fol- 
 lowed a description, taken, be it known, not 
 from any scandalous Protestant paper, but from 
 the Cathohc Telegraph, printed at Cincinnati, 
 of the building, altar, &c. By the way, the altar 
 is of stone, but they tell us this is only temporary, 
 and will soon be superseded by a superb marble 
 altar which is hourly expected from lialij. Why 
 
206 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 presents now from abroad. Foreign 
 Catholics are particularly kind to us. You know 
 we are making the great experiment, whether a 
 free, representative government can sustain itself; 
 and our Austrian and Italian brethren, sympa- 
 thizing with us, want to help us all they can. 
 They mourn especially over the deplorable lack 
 of reHgion in this country, and are anxious 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, &c., 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 example, they cannot find any 
 uneducated children in Ireland^ but they must 
 come over here to find them. However that may 
 be, they come. But what strikes me with vfonder, 
 is, that when they get here, they are all for edu- 
 cating Protestant children. Why do they not 
 give the children of Catholics, their own people, 
 a chance ? There are many of them scattered 
 over the land, and they are not all seltf-taught. 
 I should like to have this explained. Common 
 sense suggests that there must be a m.otive for 
 making this distinction, and shrewdly suspects it 
 m proseli/tistn. Charity waits to hear if £iny more 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 207 
 
 creditable reason can be assigned. But this is 
 a digression. 
 
 Well, on the 26th of October the grand 
 building was consecrated. The procession con- 
 sisted of an " ecclesiastical 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 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 
 here has to depend for its 'men and money on 
 native Americans ; but Popery, you perceive, has 
 all Europe to draw upon. If, with this advan- 
 tage, the latter religion should make considerable 
 progress in our country, we must not be surprised. 
 Whether this influx of foreign priests augurs 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 im- 
 provement I spoke of. The editor, or his cor- 
 respondent, 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 v/ell as our own, to 
 the Great and Almighty Being." Now is not 
 this something new ? 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 
 
208 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 the reader please to consider Tvhat was done, and 
 what did it ? All hearts were raised to God, by 
 means of three 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 calamity deafness now appears to be ; 
 and how to be pitied they are Avho lived before 
 the invention of gunpowder ! I never knew before 
 that this was among the benefits of that invention, 
 that it inspires devotional feelings, and raises 
 hearts on high. But we must live and learn. 
 
 Well, all hearts being raised as before, "the 
 holy relics were removed towards the new habita- 
 tion, where they shall enjoy anticipated resur- 
 rection — 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 as 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 
 sermon ; and afterwards we are informed, for our 
 edification, that " during the di-\dne 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-bye), two of the military stood 
 with drawn swords, one at each side of the altar ; 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPEKY. 209 
 
 they belonged to a guard of honor, formed ex- 
 pressly 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, sta- 
 tioned at convenient distances around the church." 
 The reader will not forget that certain professed 
 ambassadors of "the Prince of Peace" were here 
 engaged in dedicating a church to His service ; 
 and this is the way they took to do it. If they 
 had been consecrating a temple to Mars^ I don't 
 know how they could have selected more appro- 
 priate ceremonies. Here were soldiers, drawn 
 swords, guns, and, as we shall see presently, 
 colours 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 descrip- 
 tion. "When the solemn moment of the con- 
 secration approached, 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 ban- 
 ners were lowered over the balustrade of the 
 sanctuary, the artillery gave a deafening discharge." 
 All that seems to have been wanting here was 
 three cheers. Those would have been quite as 
 suitable as the other accompaniments of the ser- 
 vice. Reader, is this religion ? and are these the 
 things which are pleasing to God ? 
 
 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 nations, I much doubt. But a 
 
208 mr 
 
 HOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 the reader r^- .^ . , _, 
 
 c^.^ n. -is not its appropnate place. There is 
 
 another banner which should wave there — and 
 that is not star-spangled. One solitary star dis- 
 tinguishes it — the star — ^the star of Bethlehem. 
 
 THE END 
 
*Y. 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 No. Page. 
 
 1. Sufficiency of the Bible as a Rule of Faith and 
 
 Guide to Salvation 1 
 
 2. The Source of Heresies - - - - 4 
 
 3. Private Interpretation . . - - 5 
 
 4. Popery Unscriptural .... - 9 
 
 5. Evil of believing too much - - - - 1 1 
 
 6. The Nine Commaudments - - - - 14 
 
 7. Roman Catholic hostility to the Bible - - 18 
 
 8. Something for the Rev. Mr. H. - - - 23 
 
 9. Distinction of sins into Mortal and Venial - 27 
 
 10. The Deadly Sins 28 
 
 11. A Religion without a Holy Spirit - - - 31 
 
 12. InfallibiUty ....... 33 
 
 13. The Keys ....... 87 
 
 14. The Head of the Church ... - 41 
 
 15. The power to forgive Sins - - - - 45 
 
 16. A Catholic Book reviewed ... 50 
 
 17. Review of the Catholic Book continued - 54 
 
 18. The Pope an Idolater .... 58 
 
 19. Charles X. an Idolater 63 
 
 20. Idolatry near Home ^^ 
 
 21. Praying to Saints 70 
 
 22. Specimens of Catholic Idolatry . - 74 
 
 23. ^lore Specimens of Catholic Idolatry - - 79 
 
 24. Image Worship 82 
 
 25. Relics 88 
 
 26. Seven Sacraments 93 
 
 27. Transubstantiation 96 
 
 28. Half a Sacrament 99 
 
 29. Extreme Unction 103 
 
 30. Doing Penance 106 
 
21 2 CONTENTS. 
 
 No. Page. 
 
 31. The hardest Religion - - - - "' - 110 
 
 32. More about Penance - - - - 114 
 
 33. A Fast-day Dinner 116 
 
 34. The Mass - - - - - - 118 
 
 35. More about'the Mass 124 
 
 36. The Host ^ 130 
 
 37. Priests - 134 
 
 38. Celibacy of the Clergy - - - - 138 
 
 39. A Holier State than Matrimony ^- - - 140 
 
 40. Auricular Confession - - - - 142 
 
 41. A Mistake Corrected 144 
 
 42. Purgatory 145 
 
 43. More about Purgatory 149 
 
 44. A Strange Thing ,151 
 
 45. Canonizing Saints - - - - - 155 
 
 46. General La Fayette not at rest - - 159 
 
 47. Prayers for the Faithful Departed - - 163 
 
 48. An Improvement 168 
 
 49. The Duke of Brunswick's Fiftieth Keason - 171 
 
 50. The Duke's Seventh Reason - . - -^ 174 
 
 51. The Duke's Eleventh Reason - •• '^-180 
 
 52. Beauties of the Leopold Reports - - 183 
 
 53. Puerihty of the Catholic Religion " - - 187 
 
 54. Partiality of the Church of Rome - - 189 
 
 55. Supererogation - - - - - - 193 
 
 56. Convents 197 
 
 57. Mr. Berrington and Mrs. More - - - 200 
 
 58. A new method of exciting Devotion -. " 205 
 
 Printed at J. Wright's Steam-Press, Bristol. 
 
PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION 
 
 OFFICE, 11, EXETER HALL, STRAND. 
 
 SPECIAL FUND 
 
 i3iiiTtins ^tantJartJ ^voteiStant Wioxh^, 
 
 BY POPULAR WRITERS, 
 IN A CHEAP AND ATTRACTIVE FORM. 
 
 Mai/, 1843. 
 The Committee of the Protestant Association, having 
 taken mto their serious consideration the extensive use 
 made of the Press by the members of the Church of Rome, 
 and those who sympathise with her in this country, have 
 resolved upon extending their operations by issuing m an 
 attractive form 
 
 n ^n-it^ of iSopular OToi-feiS, 
 
 caleulatedto extend Protestant principles, and to counteract 
 the rapid spread of error in the laud. 
 
 For this purpose they propose to create a separate l«und. 
 to enable them to prosecute with vigour this fresh work m 
 the cause of Truth ; and they now afifectionately mvite tlit 
 kind pecuniary support of the public, and the cooperation ci 
 their Christian friends tliroughout the country. 
 
2 PROTESTANT WORKS. 
 
 ALREADY PUBLISHED. 
 
 I. History of the Great Beformation. 
 
 By the Rev. J. H. Merle D'Aubigne. 
 
 Abridged by Edward Dalton, Secretary to the Protestant 
 
 Association. 18mo., cloth lettered, with Frontispiece, 4.*. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PUBLIC PRESS. 
 
 " A faithful, judicious abridgment is a great boon. Mr. Dalton 
 has succeeded in supplying us with a very pleasing one, small in 
 size, moderate in price, and preserving, as* all who know him must 
 readily suppose it does, the high Protestant tone of feeling 
 thi'oughout. We give it our most hearty recommendation." — 
 Christian Lndi/'s Magazine. 
 
 " Such a history is particularly valuable : and this abridgment 
 of it, suited to the briefer leisure and humbler means of the ma- 
 jority of the public, is no less valuable than the original. Mr. 
 Dalton deserves the thanks of the community for the able manner 
 in which he has abridged the work, preserving in his epitome all 
 that is most valuable." — The MicII'md Munitor. 
 
 " We consider it our duty to call attention to a movement on 
 the part of the Protestant Association, which must produce 
 results of incalculable benefit to the population of this country.- 
 The Protestant Association have pi'oposed to print in a cheap and 
 attractive form a series of popular Standard Protestant Works, 
 and they have begun very appropriately by issuing an abridgment, 
 by Mr. Dalton, of D'Aubigne's History of the Great Reformation. 
 It is very neatly, we may say, elegantly got up, contains more than 
 five hundred "pages, and is published at Four Shillings ; thus 
 putting it within the power of man v persons to purchase for them- 
 selves, and of others to purchase for gratuitous distribution. We 
 shall be glad to see the undertaking encouraged." — Derlnj Mercury. 
 
 " Mr. Daltou's Abridgment is the first of aseries of popular works 
 which the Protestant Association intend to publish ' in a chea]) 
 and attractive form,' with a view ' to counteract the rapid spread 
 of error in the land.' We wish much prosperity to the undertak- 
 ing, and have pleasure in marking how well it has been com- 
 menced by the present ])ublication, IMr. Dalton has judiciously 
 performed the work of abridgment, and the volume is just what it 
 should be— neat, portable, in every respect readable, and very 
 cheap. 
 
 " There is a very large and most important class of readers who 
 cannot spare either time or money to make their own of so volu- 
 minous a production; — for them Mr. Dalton's book is admirably 
 suited; — and readers of all classes may avail themselves of the 
 rich treasuies of information accumulated in D'Aubigne's noble 
 history." — Ji'atchman. 
 
 "Tlie cause of Protestantism in England, owes much, very 
 much, to Mr. Dalton, We now find him supplying the public with 
 a very able abridgment of a book, the size and price of which 
 place' it often beyond the reach of those to whom it would be 
 especially valuable. This neat, handsome little volume, comprises 
 the pith of three large octavos, and reflects the highest credit on 
 our friend." — Protestant Magazine. 
 
TROTESTANT WORKS. 3 
 
 " This is bringing do^vn one of the most interpsting works of 
 he present day to the capacities of the middhng and operative class, 
 md we doubt "not it will meet with a great circulation. The work 
 from which it is abridged sells for £1. 13i-., which rendered it 
 impossible for thousands of the operatives of England to purchase ; 
 this abridgment is only Four ShiVLings."— Protestant Operative. 
 
 " The celebrity of D'Aubigne's work has naturally recommended 
 it to tlie present change of form, in order that it may be extensively 
 circulated by the Protestant Association. The first three volumes 
 of the original are compressed into this simple and small volume, 
 with much judgment and ability, by Mr. D^W.on.''' —Literary 
 Gazette. 
 
 II. The Divine Warning to the Church at 
 this 
 
 With Information respecting the Present Spread of Infidelity, 
 
 Lawlessness, and Popery. 
 
 By the Rev. Edward Bickersteth, Rector of Walton. 
 
 2nd Edition, considerably enlarged. 
 18mo. cloth lettered. Price 3s., or £3 for 25 to give away. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PUBLIC PRESS. 
 
 "We need not dUate on its value and importance. We must 
 however express our strong conviction of the surpassing value and 
 importance of the present timely 'warning.' ''—V/iristian Lady's 
 Magazine. 
 
 "K truly important volume of Scriptural Protestantism, adapted 
 for the family, the reading-room, and the closet. Mr. Bickersteth 
 has greatly added to his many invaluable services to the cause 
 that ne so dearly loves, by this admirable little volume." — Protest- 
 ant Magazine."' 
 
 " It is a work which cannot be too widely circulated. Contain- 
 ing much valuable information respecting the present diffusion of 
 Infidelity, Lawlessness, and Popery," — Protestant Operative. 
 
 " Contains a mass of sound Protestant truth, brought forward 
 with admirable distinctness and fidelity, and is truly and emphat- 
 ically a Book for the Times." — fVatchman. 
 
 III. The Jesuits : their Principles and Acts. 
 
 By Edward Dalton, Secretary to the Protestant 
 Association. 18mo., cloth lettered, 3s. 
 
 " We call the attention of our Protestant readers to this ably 
 written wark, and recommend a careful perusal of the whole of 
 Mr. Dalton's judicious publication." — Court Gazette. 
 
 "A valuable work, showing from their own writings and the 
 undoubted records of history, what the priuciples and acts of this 
 dangerous body have been from their formation. We recom- 
 mend it most cordially as containing information most important 
 to be known in the present day, when Jesuits are so active and 
 nvaa^xovts."— Protestant Operative. 
 
SUMS SUBSCRIBED. 
 
 John Hardy, Esq. M.P. 5 
 J. r. Plumptre, Esq., 
 
 M.P .5 
 
 Samuel Marshall, Esq. , 
 
 Cheapsicle 5 
 
 IMrs. Elizabeth Frank 5 
 Benjamm Bond Cab- 
 bell, Esq 5 
 
 Rev.J.E.Dalton.B.D., 
 
 Cambridge 5 
 
 Anti " British Critic" 5 
 A Protestant Christian 5 
 Rev. Dr. Gillv. Durham 3 
 B. N. Dal ton, Esq., 
 
 Stockv/ell 2 
 
 Major Penlev 1 
 
 Rev Dr. Marsh, Lea- 
 mington 1 
 
 Mr. Edward Dalton . . 3 
 
 Mrs. Edward Dal ton.. 2 
 Mrs. John Wood,Hans- 
 
 place a 1 
 
 G. J. P. Smith, Esq. . . 1 
 John Lee, Esq., Whit- 
 church 1 
 
 Rev. James Hopkins.. 1 
 Captain Farrer, Blaclv- 
 
 heath 1 
 
 S. E. Pigott, Esq 1 
 
 Robert Bates, Esq.... 
 
 Miss Cornwall 
 
 Capt. H. Dov%-nes, R.N. 1 
 Miss Eleanor Elliot, 
 
 Brighton 3 
 
 IMrs. Fowle 
 
 Miss S. Fowle 
 
 J. G. Hildvard, Esq... 
 
 Miss Williams 10 
 
 Miss M. W' illiams .... 10 
 Mrs. Day, Chelsea.... 5 
 
 Rev. Dr. Poore 10 
 
 Rev. A. Duthie 5 
 
 A. Giraud, Esq 5 
 
 Rev.W. E. Light 10 
 
 J. Lee, Esq., jun 10 
 
 Rev. C. Grav '..I 
 
 TMrs. Neufville 10 
 
 Mrs. Worfolk 1 
 
 E, H. L 1 
 
 Captain W. Montagu.. 10 0. 
 Rev. John Metcalf .... 10 
 Mrs. Hav\'es, Colchester 110 
 
 James Lyon, Esq 1 1 
 
 L. H. J. Tonna, Esq. 
 Blackheath 1 
 
 s. d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 2 I 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 3 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 10 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 j 
 
 10 1 
 
 10 
 
 10 , 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Friends at Middle wick 10 
 
 Rev. G. H. Watkins .. 1 
 
 R. Richardson, Esq. .. 2 
 Arthur Guinness, Esq. 
 
 Dublin 5 
 
 Miss Latham 10 
 
 Mrs. Noble 2 6 
 
 Miss Bennett, Melton 
 
 Mowbray 2 (> 
 
 Mr. Dodd,'Holloway.. 10 
 Admiral Duff", Elgin 
 
 (N.B.) 2 2 
 
 Miss Anderson 5 
 
 Richard Gould, Esq. . . 1 
 
 John Gould, Esq 1 
 
 Anonymous 5 
 
 Alex.'Gordon, Esq.... 5 
 
 Henrv Rowed, Esq.... 1 
 
 Rev. il. Macklin a \ 1 
 
 W. F. Burnley, Esq. a 1 
 
 Rev. H. G. Woodrooffe 10 
 
 Mr. W. E. Painter .... 2 2 
 
 Mr. Thos. Ragg 10 
 
 Mrs. lightfoot 110 
 
 Miss Puttrell 1 
 
 Brighton Protestant 
 
 Association 4 
 
 Mrs. Charles Day.... 10 
 
 R. Bevan, Esq 1 
 
 H . Cross, Esq., Preston 10 6 
 
 Rev. S. C. BroAvn 10 
 
 Rev. Jas. Carter 10 
 
 Mr. R. Ebdon 5 
 
 H. S. Montagu, Esq. . . 3 
 
 Rev. Jas. Hopkins 2 2 
 
 Edward Upton, Esq... 10 
 Rev. S. B. Plummer ..110 
 
 — Whitmore, Esq 5 
 
 Members of the Derby and 
 
 Derbyshire Protestant Associa- 
 
 tion. 
 
 Colonel Clowes ... 2 
 
 Rev. John Latham.. I 
 
 Hon. and Rev. Thos. 
 
 Caveadish 1 
 
 Beni. Friar, Esq.... 1 
 
 W.\Vhiston,Esq..iun. 10 
 Rev. A. A.Holden ..100 
 Charles R. Colville, 
 
 Esq., M.P 2 
 
 VV. L. Newton, Esq. 10 
 
 Wev. Henry Fielding 10 
 
 Mrs. T. P. l^ainbrigge 10 
 
 Rev. R. Macklin.... 1 
 
SUMS SLUSCRIBEl). 
 
 £ S. d. 
 
 Ilenrv Cox, Esq.... 1 10 
 
 Mr. John Cock 1 
 
 Miss Taylor 1 
 
 Kev. N. P. Johnson .200 
 
 Rev. Philip GcU .... 10 
 
 Rev. E. Lillinsston.. 10 
 John Greeves, Esq., 
 
 Matlock. 1 
 
 Mr. Saxton, Matlock .'j 
 
 Rev. W. Melville.do. 5 
 
 A Friend, do 10 
 
 The "Essex Standard" 1 1 
 
 A. S 10 
 
 Mrs. Collins 10 
 
 Miss H. Travers 10 6 
 
 W. S. G 1 
 
 Rev.T. W.Franklvn.. 1 1 
 
 J. N. Bond, Esq..'..;. 10 
 
 Rev. T. Birks 3 
 
 Rev, G. Knight 10 
 
 A Subscriber, per 
 
 "Record" 10 
 
 E. Woodhouse, Esq. ..110 
 
 Miss Oakev 1(J 
 
 Mrs. Brouihton 10 
 
 Rev. E. Bickersteth ..200 
 
 Miss King, Halstead a lO 
 
 Miss C. King, do a 10 
 
 MissNewmai 10 
 
 John Blanchard, Esq. 10 
 
 G. H.Howell, Esq.... 1 
 
 Rev. S. M. Barkworth 3 
 
 Mrs. Young, Osset 2 2 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 G. Graham, Esq.... a\ 1 
 
 Genl. Marshal 7 
 
 E. S. D 2 2 
 
 Miss Baldock a I 1 U 
 
 The Hon. Miss Cal- 
 
 thorpe 2 
 
 Miss AUix, Derby 3 
 
 The Rt. Hon. 'Lord 
 
 Redesdale 5 
 
 Viscount Bernard, MP. 2 
 The Hon. Colonel W. 
 
 Stratford .5 
 
 Rev. \V. Shirley .... 10 
 The Rt. Hon. The Earl 
 
 of Harrowbv 5 
 
 Rev. G. N. Woodrooffe 10 
 
 Miss Robertson. . . . , 1 f» 
 
 Mr. Raver 2 6 
 
 John Laboucliere, Esq. .*> 
 
 Rev. E. Holland .... .5 
 
 Mrs. Holland , b 
 
 Dowager Countess of 
 
 Castle Stuart .... 1 1 <) 
 
 H. M. H 1 
 
 B.J 10 
 
 Major Brock 10 
 
 I\Ir. Fawcett 5 
 
 ISIiss Cullen 5 
 
 Rev. B. Richings ... 1 
 R. Wilkinson, Esq.. 22, 
 
 Cumberland Terrace 5 
 
 Sir Digby INlackworth 10 
 
 Miss De Launcy .... 1 fi 
 
 1 The Child's Book of Martyrs, Nos. 1 and 2. Illustrated with 
 many woodcuts. To be complete in twelve monthly numbers. 
 Price \d., each. 
 
 2 The Lyonese Martyrs. \d., or 7*-. per 100. 
 
 3 A Dialogue on Maynooth College, between John Seafth and 
 Peter Surface. Id., or 7*-. per lOJ. 
 
 4 England the Fortress of Christianity. By the Rev. Dr. 
 Croly. 3Tlh 1000. W., or 7s. per ICO. 
 
 .'"/The Progress of Popery. 15th 1000. Zd., or 20^-. per 100. 
 
 (5 The Achill Mission, and the Present State of Ireland. By tie 
 Rev. Edward Nangle. 2nd. Edition. 2t/., or 12*-. per 100. 
 
 7 Protestantism and Popery. By the Rev. Henry Melville. 1 Hh 
 1000. 1 id. or 10.-. per 100. 
 
o PROTESTANT WORKS. 
 
 8 The Popish College of Maynooth, 10th 1000. lid., or 10^. 
 per 100. 
 
 9 Roman Catholic Question.— Speech of M. T. Sadler, Esq., 
 M.P. for Newark. 3d., or 20s. per 100. 
 
 10 Speeches of Rev. Dr. Croly, &c., against the Appointment of 
 Roman Catholic Chaplains, &c. Ii7., or Is. per 100. 
 
 11 The Reformation a Direct Gift of Divine Providence. By the 
 Rev. Geo, Croly, LL.D. 5th Edition, revised. 3d., or 20s. per 100. 
 
 12 The Danger of Attending Popish Chapels. 19th 1000. 3s. per 
 100. 
 
 13 Cruelties of Popery, lid., or lOs. per 100. 
 
 14 Address to Protestant Operatives. Hd., or lOs, per 100. 
 
 15 Jezebel. By the Rev. H. M'Neile. id., or 28i-. per 100. 
 
 16 Come out of Rome. B v the Rev. E. Bickersteth. 3c/., or 20*. 
 per 100. 
 
 17 National Religion. By Dr. Tillotson, Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury. Id., oris, per 100. 
 
 18 A National Standard of Civil and Religious Liberty. l|rj., or 
 jer 100. 
 
 The Papal Antichrist ; or, the Church of Rome proved to 
 have the Marks of Antichrist. By the Rev. Hugh M'Neile. 3d., or 
 20.9. per 100. 
 
 20 The Protestant Magazine. Published monthly. With beauti- 
 ful steel engravings. Price 4c/. 
 
 21 The Penny Protestant Operative. Illustrated with wood 
 engravings. Id., or 7*. per 100. 
 
 NARRATIVE TRACTS. 
 
 1 Eleanor, the Irish Convert. 2d., or 125. per 100. 
 
 2 Anecdotes of our Protestant Martyrs, la., or 6s. per 100. 
 
 3 Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day. Id., or 6^. per 100. 
 
 4 The Persecution of the Church of England by Queen Mary d 
 or 12*. per 100. 
 
 5 Examinations and Martyrdom of Dr Taylor, lid., or 9^. per 
 100. 
 
 6 INIurder of the Rev. Irvine Whittv. id., or Is. 8d. per 100. 
 
 7 The Fifth of November. Id., or hs. per 100. 
 
 8 Andrew Dunn. 2d., or 125. ner 100. 
 
 "\r 
 
 Printed at J. Wright's Steam-Press, Bristol. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 ^.tMiiiMMMr, 
 
 
 
 M ■' . 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
nnceton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01097 3511