L I B H -A. n "sr PBINCETOK. y. J. The Stephen Collins Donation. No. Casc^ Divj^ip No. ^^^^(A_Sjecti0nJk No. Book, -^^ BV A501 .NA 1836a Nevins, William, 1797-1835. Thoughts on popery J f ••> .^.r yy y^.pH^A^-' / ^ as <©■ ^ ^ ms If s ^ <. " To the law and to the testimony." Isa. BY REV. WILLIAM Kevins, d. d, Late Pastor of a Church in Baltimore. PUBLISHED BV THE AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 150 NASSAU-STREET, KEW-tORK. D. Fanshaw, Printer. ^ •*.'»- 3t'V>.. Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1836, by RuFUS L. Nevins, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New-York. CONTENTS. No. Page. 1. Sufficiency of the Bible as a Rule of Faith and Guide to Salvation, 7 2. The Source of Heresies, ----- 10 3. Private Interpretation, - - - - - -11 4. Popery Unscriptural, ----- 15 5. Evil of believing too much, 18 6. The Nine Commandments, - - - - 21 7. Catholic hostility to the Bible, - - - - 25 8. Something for the Rev. Mr. H. - - - - 30 9. Distinction of Sins into Mortal and "Venial, - - 33 10. The Deadly Sins, 35 11. A Religion without a Holy Spirit, - - - 37 12. Infallibility, - 40 13. The Keys, 44 14. The Head of the Church, 47 15. The power to forgive Sins, - - - - - 51 16. A Catholic Book reviewed, - - - - 56 17. Review of the Catholic Book continued, - - 60 18. The Pope an Idolater, - - - - . - 65 19. Charles X. an Idolater, 69 20. Idolatiy near home, ------ 73 21. Praying to Saints, - - - - - • 76 22. Specimens of Catholic Idolatry, - - - 80 23. More Specimens of Catholic Idolatry, - - - 85 24. Image Worship, ------ 89 25. Relics, 94 26. Seven Sacraments, ------ 100 27. Transubstantiation, 103 28. Haifa Sacrament, 105 29 Extreme Unction, 109 4 CONTENTS. No. Page. 30. Doing Penance, 112 31. The hardest Religion, 116 32. More about Penance, 120 33. A Fast-day Dinner, ----- 122 34. The Mass, 125 35. More about the Mass, - . - - . ISO 36. The Host, - - 136 37. Priests, 140 38. Celibacy of the Clergy,^ 144 39. A Holier state than Matrimony, - - - 146 40. Auricular Confession, 148 41. A Mistake Corrected 151 42. Purgatory, -------- 152 43. More about Purgatory, ----- 156 44. A Strange Thing, - 158 45. Canonizing Saints, - 161 46. General La Fayette not at rest, - - - - 165 47. Prayers for the Faithful Departed, - - - 170 48. An Improvement, 175 49. The Duke of Brunswick's Fiftieth Reason, - 178 50. The Duke's Seventh Reason, - - - - 181 51. The Duke's Eleventh Reason, . - - 187 53. Beauties of the Leopold Reports, - - - 190 53. Beauties of the Leopold Reports, . - - 194 54. Partiality of the Church of Rome, - - . 196 55. Supererogation, - - - - - - 200 56. Convents, 204 57. Mr. Berrington and Mrs, More, - - - 207 58. A new method of exciting Devotion, - - - 212 The lamented author of the following articles had long mourned over the influence of Romanism, as essentially a political rather than a religious institution — attracting men by its splendid and imposing exterior, to the neglect of that spirituality of heart, without which no man can "see the kingdom of God." He had made repeated endeavors to engage what he considered abler pens in exposing its ab- surdities ; and at length, as a means of reaching the greatest number of minds, commenced the insertion of brief mis- cellaneous articles bearing on the subject in a widely circu- lated weekly newspaper — the New- York Observer — using the signature M. S. the finals of his name. In familiarity of style, kindness and cheerfulness of manner, and plain common sense, they are adapted to secure the attention and carry conviction to the heart of the general reader; while their richness of thought and clearness and conclusiveness of argument will render them not less acceptable to mature and cultivated minds. Finding the reception they met, it was the design of the author to comply with requests from numerous sources entitled to his regard, by himself (when the series should have been somewhat further extended) embodying them in a volume ; but the failure of his health and the early close of his valuable life prevented the fulfill- ment of that design. They are now given to the public iu accordance with general suggestions of the author, but es- sentially in the form in which they at first appeared. ^aB<©i^^ 5S'^^222&'a?, 1. Tbe Siiffioieuoy of tlie Bible as a Rule of Faitli and Guide to Salvation. This is the great matter in controversy between Pro- testants and Roman Catholics. We say the Bible is sufficient. They say that it is not. Now, suppose that Paul the apostle be permitted to decide between us. We are agreed to refer the matter to him. Can our opponents object to this reference ? Let Paul then be consulted in the only way in which he can be, viz. through his acknowledged writings. It is agreed on all hands that he wrote the second epistle to Timothy. Well, in the third chapter of that epistle, and at the 15th verse, he writes to Timothy thus : " And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation." That the Greek is here correctly translated into Eng- lish, any scholar may see. Here then we have what Paul wrote, and I cannot believe that he would write, in a letter to Timothy, that the Holy Scriptures are capable of being known by a child, and able to make wise unto salvation, and then say, to be handed down by tradition, that they are so obscure and abstruse that one can make nothing out of them. But what did Paul write to Timothy about the Holy 8 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. Scriptures ? He reminds him that he had known them from a child, that is, he had been acquainted with them so far as to understand them from that early age. Now, either Timothy was a most extraordinary child, of which there is no proof, or else the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, and of the New, so far as the latter was written and recognized at the time, are in- telligible to a child. I see not how this conclusion can in any way be evaded. If the child of Eunice could and did know them, why may not my child and your child, and any child of ordinary understanding ? And what do we want more for a rule of faith, than a Bible which a child can understand ? The Bible then can- not be insufficient as a rule of faith, through any want of perspicuity in it. That point is settled. But Paul says something more to Timothy about these same Scriptures, " lohich,^^ he says, " ai^e able to make thee wise unto salvation." Why, what is the matter with the man ? He talks as if he had taken lessons of Luther. When did he live ? They say that the Protestant religion is only three hundred years old, but here is a man Avho lived well nigh eighteen hun- dred years ago, that writes amazingly like a Protestant about the Holy Scriptures. He says (and I have just been looking at the Greek to see if it is so there, and I find that it is) they are able to make thee wise unto salvation. Now, who Avishes to be wiser than that? and if they can make one thus wise, they can make any number equally wise. So then the Scriptures can be known by children, and can make Avise to salvation those who know them. This is Paul's decision, and here should be an end of the controversy. If this prove not the sufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith and THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 9 guide to salvation, I know not how any thing can be proved. I will tell you what I am determined to do the next time a Catholic opens his mouth to me about the insufficiency and obscurity of our rule of faith, I mean to take hold of the sword of the Spirit by this handle, 2 Tim. 3 : 15, and I mean to hold on to this weapon of heavenly temper, and to wield it manfully, until my opponent surrender or retreat. He cannot stand before it. But before I close this, I must say, that if the Scrip- tures which existed when Paul wrote to Timothy were able to make wise unto salvation, how much more are they with what has been added to the canon since ? And here, by the way, we have an answer to the ques- tion which the Catholic asks with such an air of tri- umph : " How, if this be your rule of faith, did Chris- tians get along before the New Testament was writ- ten and received ?" Very well ; they had Scriptures enough to make them "wise unto salvation" as early as the time of Timothy ; and they had, many years before that, all the Old Testament, and a part of the New. Now, with Moses and the prophets, and the Psalms, and Matthew's Gospel, and perhaps some others, together with a large number of divinely in- spired men, I think they must have got along very comfortably. One thing more I desire to say. It is this : that there is an advantage for understanding the Bible, which does not belong to any book whose author is not per- sonally accessible. The advantage is, that we have daily and hourly opportunity to consult the Author of the Bible on the meaning of it. We can, at any mo- ment we please, go and ask him to interpret to us any 10 THOUGHTS ON POPERY, difficult passage. We can lift off our eyes from the word of truth, when something occurs which we do not readily comprehend, and direct them to the throne of grace. And what encouragement we have to do this ! James tells us, " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not ; and it shall be given him." So then we have the Bible to inform and guide us, and we have constant opportunities of consulting its Author in regard to its meaning. Is it not enough 1 I, for one, am satisfied. I can dispense with the fathers, &c. &c. 2. The Source of Heresies* The Roman Catholics say it is the Bible. They trace all the errors and divisions which prevail, to the Scriptures as their fountain. Do they know whose book it is which they thus accuse ? How dare they charge God with being " the Author of confusion ?" But is the Bible to blame for heresies ? Christ gives a very different account of the matter. He says, Matt. 22 : 29, to the Sadducees, " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." He makes ignorance of the Scriptures the source of heresies. He does not agree with the priests. It is very strange, if the reading of the Scriptures is the cause of heresies in religion, that the Bereans, who searched them daihj, because they would not take on trust even what Paid said, (and I suspect they would THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 11 not have treated Peter any more civilly,) did not fall into any of these errors. It would seem to have had quite a contrary effect, for it is added, " therefore many of them believed." Acts, 17 : 11, 12. Whatever these Bereans were, it is clear that they were not good Ca- tholics. But after all it is not surprising that these noble Be- reans did not fall into any fatal error by reason of read- ing the Scriptures, since Peter says of Paul's hardest parts, and most obscure passages, that they do nobody any harm, but such as are both '^ unlearned and un- stable ;" and that they do them no harm, except they wrest them, that is, do absolute violence to them. 2 Pet. 3 : 16. 3. Private Interpretation* It is known to every body how strenuously the Ca- tholics oppose the reading of the Bible, or rather, I should say, the reader exercising his mind on the Bible which he reads. He may read for himself, if he will only let the church think for him. He may have a New Testament, and he may turn to such a passage as John, 3 : 16, " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son," &c. or to that. Matt. 11 : 28, 30, " Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," &c. and he may read the words, but then he must not attempt to put a meaning upon them, though it be very difficult 12 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. to avoid attaching a sense to them, since they are quite as easy to be understood as they are to be read. But he must not do it. At his peril he must not. He is guilty of the crime of private interpretation, if he does. Before he pretends to understand those passages, he must inquire how the church has always interpreted them, and what the popes and general councils have thought about them, and how all the fathers^ from Barnabas to Bernard, not one excepted, have under- stood them. Well, now, it strikes me as rather hard upon the poor sinner, that he should be made to go through this long and difficult process before he is permitted to admire the love of God in the gift of his Son, and before he can go to Jesus for rest. And somehow I cannot help suspecting that it is not ne- cessary to take this circuitous course, and that it is not so very great a sin when one reads such passages, to understand them according to the obvious import of their terms. But the Catholic asks, " Does not Peter condemn private interpretation ?" And they point us to his 2d Epistle, 1 : 20. '• Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." Now you must know that Catholics, though they have no great attachment to the Bible, are as glad as any peo- ple can be, when they can get hold of a passage of it, which seems to establish some tenet of theirs. And as only a very small portion of the Bible has even the appearance of favoring them, one may observe with what eagerness they seize upon, and with what te- nacity they cling to the rare passages which seem to befriend their cause. Thus they do with this pas- sage of Peter. Thev quote it with an air of triiunph, THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 13 and exultingly ask what Protestants can have to re- ply to it. Now, in the name of Protestants, I will state in two or three particulars what we have to say in opposition to the Catholic inference from these words of Peter. We say that that passage does not make for the Ca- tholic cause, Jirst, because if the right of private judg- ment and private interpretation is taken away by it, as they affirm, yet it is taken away with respect to only a small part of the Bible, viz. the prophetic part. He does not say that any other part, the historical, the didactic, or the hortatory, is of private interpretation, but only the prophetic, that part in which something is foretold. He does not say no Scripture, but " no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpreta- tion." AlloAving then to the Catholic all which he contends for, we are left with by far the larger part of the Bible open to private interpretation. Peter re- stricts us only in the matter of prophecy ! But secondly, let me say, that to whatever the re- mark of the apostle has reference, it can easily be shown that it does not mean what the Catholic under- stands it to mean. This is evident from what follows it. I wish the reader would turn to the passage. He will perceive that Peter, having said that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, pro- ceeds to assign the reason of that assertion, or rather, as I think, goes into a further and fuller explanation of what he had said : " For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, (that is, it was not of human invention, it did not express the conjectures of men.) but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Now I would ask if this reason 2 14 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. confirms the Catholic view of the passage ? Is the fact that the Bible was written by men inspired of God to write it, any reason why it should not be of private interpretation? Does the circumstance that God gave them the thoughts, and even suggested to them the words in which they should clothe them, render the production so unintelligible, or so equivocal in its meaning, that a private individual cannot be trusted to read it ? That would be to say that God cannot make himself understood as easily as men can ! The Catholic argument from this passage may be stated thus : the Bible is an inspired book, therefore too ob- scure and ambiguous to be of private interpretation ! Inspired, therefore unintelligible ! If it be so hard to understand what God says, how was the divine Savior able to make himself understood by the common people who heard him gladly ? I sus- pect they knew what he meant when he said, " Come unto me, and I will give you rest." The sermon on the mount seems to have been understood by those who heard it. No one thought of asking how others understood it. No one felt the necessity of an inter- preter : every one exercised his private judgment on what Christ said. Now, suppose that what Jesus said to the people, and they found no difficulty in under- standing it, had been taken down in writing at the time, would not they who understood it when they heard it, have equally understood it when they read it? The spoken discourses of Christ were intelligi- ble : have they become unmtelligible by being written? To return for a moment to the passage in Peter. I consider that the word rendered in verse 20, interpre- tation^ should be translated as Dr. M'Knight trans- THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 15 lates it, invention ; or, as another renders it, impulse: and verse 21 should be considered as explanatory of that which precedes it. If the apostle really intended to deny the right of private judgment, why does he in verse 19 exhort all the saints, to whom he wrote, to take heed to " the more sure word of prophecy," the very thing in reference to which he is supposed to deny the right of private judgment? Why should they take heed to it, if it is not of private interpretation ? and why does he speak of it as " a light that shineth in a dark place ?" Finally : If no part of Scripture is of private inter- pretation, then of course the passage of Scripture, 2 Pet. ] : 20, is not of private interpretation ; and yet the Catholic exercises his private judgment upon it, and submits it to the private judgment of the Protes- tant, in the hope thereby of making him a Catholic ! No part of Scripture, according to him, may be pri- vately interpreted, but that which affirms that no part, not even itself^ may be privately interpreted ! 4. Popery Unscriptural. I undertake to prove that the Roman Catholic reli- gion is unscriptural — that it is not borne out by the Bible. If I can do that, I shall be satisfied ; for a reli- gion, professing to be Christianity, which does not agree with the statements of MattheAv, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude, will, I am per- 16 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. suadedj never go down in the United States of Ame- rica. It may do for Spain, Portugal and Italy ; but it will not do here. There is too much respect for the Bible in this republican land to admit of such a thing. Republicans know too well how much liberty owes to the Bible. They know that tyranny cannot exist where the Bible, God's magna charta to mankind, is in the hands of the people. Besides, the people of this coun- try have too much good common sense to take that for Christianity about which the evangelists and the apostles knew nothing. I think, therefore, that I shall have gained the point, if I show that Romanism and the Bible are at odds. This, if I mistake not, I can easily do. The Roman Catholics act very much as if they them- selves did not regard their religion as being scriptural. Why, if they believe that their religion is the religion of the Bible, do they not put the Bible into the hands of the people, and advise them to read it, that they may become, or continue to be good Roman Catholics ? Why not circulate far and wide the book which con- tains their religion ? They need not take our transla- tion of it. They have one of their own — the Douay. Let them circulate that. Why do they leave the whole business of distributing the Scriptures to the Protes- tants ? Above all, why do they oppose the operations of Bible Societies, when they are only multiplying and diffusing copies of the book which contains the Roman Catholic religion ? I am particularly surprised that the Roman Catholics are not more anxious to put into general circulation the two epistles of their St. Peter, who they assert was the first Bishop of Rome, and earliest Pope. They ac- THOUGHTS ON POPERY 17 knowledge that he wrote two epistles, and that they are extant. Why, in the name of common sense, do they not let every Catholic have them ! I do not won- der that ihey wish to keep out of sight of the people the epistles of Paul, Avho says, Gal. 2 : 11, that he withstood Peter to the face, " because he was to be blamed." Paul forgot at the moment that Peter was supreme and infallible ! We are all liable to forget. But why the rulers of the church should be unwilling to let the people hear Peter, is the wonder with me. I have been reading his epistles, to see if I can discover why the Catholics are not friendly to their circulation. Perhaps it is because in them he says nothing about Rome, unless by Babylon^ 1 Ep. 5 : 13, he means Rome, as John does in the Revelation; and never a word about his being Bishop of Rome, or Pope ! The man seems to have no idea that he was a pope. He says in his 1st Epistle, 5:1, " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder.'''' An el- der ! vv'-as that all ? Why, Peter, do you forget your- self? Do you not know that you are universal Bishop, Primate of the Apostolical College, Suprerae and Infallible Head of the Church? He seems never to have known one word about it. Now I think I have hit upon one reason Avhy it is thought best that the people in general should not be familiar with the wri- tings of Peter. I wish, for my part, that the Catholics would print an edition of Peter's Epistles, and give them general circulation among their members ; for if the religion of these epistles is their religion, I have no further controversy with them. 2* 18 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 5. Tlie Kvil of Believing Too Much. It is a common saying among the Catholics, that it is Detter to believe too much than to believe too little ; and it is one of the arguments with w^hich they endea- vor to make proselytes, that they believe all that Pro- testants believe, besides a good deal that Protestants do not believe. Hence they would have it inferred that their religion possesses all the advantages which be- long to Protestantism, and some more into the bargain ; so that if the religion of the Reformation is safe, much more is that of the church of Rome safe. Now, as I am certain that this way of talking {reasoning it is not worthy to be called) has some influence in making Catholics, I shall take the liberty of examining it. Why is it better to believe too much than to believe too little ? Excess in other things is not better than defect. To eat or drink too much is not better than to eat or drink too little. To believe that two and two make five, is as bad as to believe that two and two make three. One of these errors will derange a man's calculations as much as the other. The man who be- lieves that two and two make five, has no advantage because he believes the whole truth and a little more. A certain writer, who ought to be in high authority at Rome as well as every where else, represents addi- tions to the truth to be as injurious and as offensive to God as subtraction from it. Rev. 22 : 18, 19. " If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." Here you see what a man gets by believing too much. It is not altogether so safe a thing as the Catholics repre- THODGHTS ON POPERY. 19 sent it to be. Adding is as bad as taking away. For every article added there is a plague added. I suppose that one reason why these additions to the truth are so offensive to God is, that they are such ad- ditions as take from that to which they are added ; just as when a man puts " a piece of new cloth into an old garment, that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse." Mat. 9 : 16. All the additions of the church of Rome to Christiani- ty take away from some of its doctrines. She first cuts a hole in the robe of Christ and then applies her patch ! In order to make room for her doctrine of human me- rit, she has to take away just so much from the merit of Christ. The Protestant doctrine is, that we are justi- fied by faith alone, without the deeds of the law. Nay, says the Catholic, our own good works have some- thing to do in the matter of our justification. Now, this addition does not leave entire that to which it is added, but takes from it ! We hold to the perfection of the one sacrifice offered by Christ on the cross. The Catholics add to this the sacrifice of the mass. They are not satisfied with Christ's being " once ofiered to bear the sins of many," but they teach the strange doctrine that Christ is of- fered as often as a priest is pleased to say mass ! Nothing is farther from the truth than that the Ca- tholic believes all which the Protestant believes, be- sides a great deal that the Protestant does not believe. The latter part of the assertion is correct. The Ca- tholics believe a great deal which the Protestants do not. In the quantity of their faith they far surpass us. There is the whole that is comprehended in tradition. They believe every word of it — while Protestants are 20 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. satisfied with Holy Scripture. But the Catholics do not believe all that Protestants believe ; they do not believe the Protestant doctrine of regeneration, or jus- tification, or other cardinal doctrines. But, asks one, is not all that Protestants believe contained in the Scriptures ! Yes. Well, Catholics believe the Scriptures. Therefore they believe all which Protestants do ; and then, moreover, they be- lieve tradition ; so that they believe all which Protes- tants believe, and some more besides. Very logical, to be sure ! But suppose that tradition and Scripture hap- pen to contradict each other, how then? What sort of an addition to a testimony is a contradiction of it? I might give some precious specimens of these contra- dictions. The Catholic believes with Scripture, that "marriage is honorable in all;" and he believes with tradition, that it is very disgraceful in some. One of his rules of faith affirms that " all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags," but the other assures him that there is merit in his good works. One says that Peter was to he blamed, but the other asserts his infallibility. According to one, Peter was a simple elder ; but ac- cording to the other, universal bishop, &c. The Catho- lic says he believes both, and therefore he is in a safer state than the Protestant. Well, when 1 can be con- vinced that two contradictory assertions are both true, I may believe as much as the Catholic believes. Mean- while I am satisfied with believing enough ; and not caring to be more than perfectly safe, I shall continue to be a Protestant. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 21 6. The Nino Commandments. ^^Nine commandments ! What does that mean ? I always thought the commandments were teny There used to be that number. There were ten proclaimed by the voice of God from Mount Sinai ; and ten were written by the finger of God on the tables of stone, and when the tables were renewed, there were still ten: and the Jews, the keepers of the Old Testament Scriptures, always recognized ten ; and so did the pri- mitive church, and so do all Protestants in their creeds and catechisms. But the Roman Catholics, (you know they can take liberties, for they are the true church, they are infallible. A person, and so a church, which cannot possibly make a mistake, need not be very par- ticular about what it does,) these Christians who have their head away off at Rome, subtract one from the ten commandments ; and you know if you take one from ten, only nine remain. So they have but nine commandments. Theirs is not a Decalogue, but a Nonalogue. It is just so. When, many years ago, I first heard of it, I thought it was a slander of the Protestants. I said, " O, it cannot be that they have dared to med- dle with God's ten commandments, and leave out one. They cannot have been guilty of such impiety. Why, it is just as if some impious Israelite had gone into the holy of holies, opened the ark of the covenant, and taking out the tables of stone, had, with some instru- ment of iron, obliterated one of the commands which the divine finger wrote on them." But then it struck me how improbable it was that such a story should 22 THOUGHTS ON 'POPERY. ever have gained currency, unless there was some foundation for it. Who would ever have thought of charging Roman Catholics with suppressing one of the commandments, unless they had done it, or some- thing like it ? So I thought I would inquire whether it was so or not; and I did, and found it to be a fact, and no slan- der. I saw with my own eyes the catechisms published under the sanction of bishops and archbishops, in which one of the commandments was omitted ; and the reader may see the same thing in " The Manual of Catholic Piety," printed no farther off than in Phi- ladelphia. The list of the commandments runs thus: 1. I am the Lord thy God ; thou shalt not have strange Gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, 3. Remember the Sabbath day, &c. The reader w411 see that the commandment which the Catholics leave out, as being grievous to them, is the second in the series. It is the one that forbids making graven images and likenesses of any thing for worship. That is the one they don't like ; and they don't like it, because they do like pictures and images in their churches. They say these things wonderfully tend to promote devotion, and so they do away that commandment of God ! David says, " I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right." But he was no Catholic. Well, having got rid of the second, they call the third second, and our fourth they number third, and so on till they come to our tenth, which, according to their numbering, is the ninth. But as they don't like THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 23 the sound of " the nine commandments," since the Bible speaks of " the ten commandments," Exod. 34 : 28 ; Deut. 4 : 13, and every body has got used to the number ten, they must contrive to make out ten some how or other. And how do you think they do it ? Why, they halve their ninth, and call the first part ninth, and the other tenth. So they make out ten. In the Philadelphia Manual, corrected and approved by the Right Rev. Bishop Kenrick, it is put down thus : " 9th. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. 10th. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." You see they make two of the commandments to relate to coveting. It is not very probable the Lord did so. I reckon they were not so numbered on the tables of stone. But you see it would never do to let that second commandment stand, and it would never do to have less than ten : so they were laid under a sort of necessity to do as they have done. But, after all, it is a bad job. It is not near so inge- nious as many of the devices of Popery. After all is said and done, they have but nine commandments ; for every body knows that by dividing any thing you get not two wholes, but two halves : there is but one whole after the division. And so the ninth command- ment is but one commandment after they have divided it. If they were to quarter it they could not make «any more of it. If the Catholics are bent on dividing the last of the commandments, they should call the first half, 8i, and the second half, 9th. That is what they ought to do. That would be acting honestly, for they know they have left out one of the Lord's ten. They know that the Lord gave ten command- ments, and they acknowledge only nine of them. It 24 THODGHTS ON POPERY. is a mean device to divide one of the nine, and then say they acknowledge ten. The Catholics know that the commandments, as they are in many of their cate- chisms, are not as they were written with the finger of God on the tables of stone. They know that one is wanting, and why it is they know. They had better take care how they do such things, for the Lord is a jealous God. Indeed the Catholics are sorry for what they have done in this matter. It has turned out a bad specula- tion. This reduction of the law of God one-tenth, has led to the opening of many eyes. They would never do the like' again. And as a proof of their re- pentance, they have restored the second command- ment in many cases : they can show you a great many catechisms and books in which it is found. I had sup- posed that the omission existed now only in the cate- chisms published and used in Ireland, until I heard of the Philadelphia Manual. They had better repent thoroughly, and restore the commandment in all their publications. And I think it would not be amiss for them to confess that for once they have been fallible ; that in the matter of mutilating the Decalogue, they could, and did err. If they will afford us that evidence of repentance, we will forgive them, and Ave will say no more about it. We know it is a sore subject with them ; they don't know how to get along with it. When one asks them, " How came you to leave out the second commandment ?" if they say, " Why, we have not left it out of all our books." The other replies, "But why did you leave it out of any ?" and there the conversa- tion ends. Echo is the only respondent, and she but repeats the question, " Why ?" THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 25 7. Catholic Hostility to the Bible. I am not surprised that the Roman Catholics dislike the Bible, for very much the same reason that Ahab, king of Israel, disliked Micaiah, the prophet of the Lord. 1 Kings, 22 : 8. It is hard not to contract a strong dislike to that which is for ever bearing testi- mony against one. To love an enemy is one of the most difficult attainments. Now, the Bible is all the time speaking against the Catholic religion, and pro- phesying not good, but evil of it, just as Micaiah did of Ahab. It is natural, therefore, that the Catholic should feel an aversion to the Bible. We ought not to expect any thing else. But I am somewhat surprised that they do not take more pains to conceal their dislike of it, for it certainly does not look well that the church of God should fall out with the oracles of God. It has an ugly appearance, to say the least, to see the Chris- tian church come out against the Christian Scriptures. I wondered much, when, a few years ago, the Pope issued his encyclical letter, forbidding the use of the Bible in the vulgar tongue. It certainly looks bad that Christ should say, " Search the Scriptures ;" and that the vicar of Christ should say, " No, you shall not even have them." It has very much the appearance of con- tradicting Christ: but appearances may deceive in this case, as in transubstantiation. But I must do the Pope justice. He does not unconditionally forbid the use of the Bible, but only the use of it in the vulgar tongue. The Pope has no objection that a person should have the Bible, provided he has it in a language which he does not understand. The English Catholic may have 3 26 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. a French Bible, and the devout Frenchman may make use of an English or Dutch Bible ; or both may have a Latin Bible, provided they have not studied Latin. An acquaintance with the Latin makes it as vulgar a tongue as any other. I have thought it due to the Pope to say thus much in his favor. Far be it from him to forbid the use of the Bible, except in the vulgar tongue ! Another more recent fact has surprised me not a little — that a student of Maynooth College, Ireland, named O'Beirne, should have been expelled that insti- tution for persisting in reading the Bible ! Expulsion is a pretty serious thing. That must be esteemed a heinous crime which is supposed to justify so severe a penalty. I cannot see any thing so criminal in read- ing the Scriptures. I wonder if the reading of any other book is forbidden at Maynooth: I suspect not. The authorities at Maynooth must think the Bible the worst book in the world. A student of that college may read whatever is most offensive to purity and piety in the ancient classics, without any danger of expulsion ; but if he reads the Bible he is dismissed with dishonor! But I suppose they will say, he was not expelled for reading the Scriptures, but for con- tempt of authority, in that, after being forbidden to read the Scriptures, he still persisted in reading them. That makes a difference I must confess: still the young man's case was a hard one. Christ told him not only to read, but to search the Scriptures : the au- thorities of the college told him he must not. His sin consisted in obeying Christ rather than the govern- ment of the college. I think it might have been set down as venial. They might have overlooked the fault of preferring Christ's authority to theirs. " When the THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 27 Son of man shall come in his glory," I don't believe he will expel the young man for what he did, though the college bade him " depart." I wonder, and have always wondered, that the Ca- tholics, in prohibiting the Scriptures, do not except St. Peter's Epistles. Was ever any Catholic forbidden to read the letters of a Pope ? I believe not. But if good Catholics may, and should read the " Encyclical Let- ters " of the Popes, why not let them read the " Gene- ral Epistles " of the first of Popes, Peter ? Why is it any more criminal to read the letters of Pope Peter, than those of Pope Gregory 1 I cannot explain this. Here is another fact that has surprised me. A recent Galway newspaper denounces, by name, two Protest- ant clergymen as reptiles^ and advises that they should be at once trampled on. What for ? Why, for the sin of holding a Bible meeting, and distributing the Scrip- tures ! It speaks of them as a hell-inspired junto of incarnate fiends, and says, " If the devil himself came upon earth, he would assume no other garb than that of one of these biblicals." The Irish editor adds, " The biblical junto must be put down in Galway." He is evidently in a passion with the Bible : I suppose it must be because it prophecies no good of him. Cer- tainly he cannot think the Bible very favorable to his religion, otherwise he would not proclaim such a cru- sade against its distribution. It is the first time I ever heard it asserted, that the managers and members of Bible Societies are ipso facto incarnate fiends. It seems singular, that those who promote the circulation of a heaven-inspired volume, should be themselves, as a matter of course, hell-inspired. I cannot think that Exeter Hall and Chatham-street Chapel become 28 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. Pandemoniums whenever the Bible Society meets in them. Nor shall I believe that Satan is going to turn Bible distributer, until I actually see him " walking about " on this agency. I do not know how it is, but I cannot help looking on the circulation of the Scriptures as a benevolent business — the gratuitous giving of the word of God to the children of men as a good work. When re- cently I read an article stating that the Young Men's New-York Bible Society had undertaken to supply the emigrants arriving at that port with the Bible in their respective languages, I almost instinctively pronounc- ed it a good work ; and I was astonished, as well as grieved, to find that some of the emigrants refused to receive the volume. I suppose that if the agent had offered them a volume of the Spectator, or a novel, they would have taken that. Any book of man they could have thankfully received ; but the book of God they had been instructed to refuse, should that be of- fered them ! The agent reports the following fact : " June 17, visited on their landing a large number of emigrants from Ireland, not one of whom could be prevailed on to receive a Bible, even as a gift. One of the females told me, if I would give her one she would take it with her and burn it." Who, do you sup- pose, put them up to refuse the Bible ? And who put it into the head of the woman to speak of burning the Bible ? I think any person, in whatever part of the country born, could guess. I guess it Avas not any infidel — I guess it was a priest. But perhaps the reason they refused the Bibles of- fered them, was, that they had other and better Bibles. That is not pretended. They had none. Now, it seems THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 29 to me they might have accepted our Bibles until they could procure their own better Bibles. An imperfectly translated Bible is better than none : no translation of the Bible was ever so bad as to be worse than no Bi- ble. What if the Douay is before all other Bibles, yet king James' may answer one's turn until he can get the Douay. The Catholics complain that we give their people an erroneously translated Bible : why, then, do they not supply them with a correct transla- tion ? When they undertake that, we will cease to trouble them. We would be very glad to see every Catholic family possessing, and capable of reading, the Douay Bible, although it does make repentance to- wards God to consist in doing penance appointed by men. But that they have no idea of doing. Does not the Pope forbid the use of the Bible in the vulgar tongue ! I know many Catholics have it, but it is no part of their religion to have a Bible. They get their Christianity without the trouble of searching the Scriptures. Indeed they would in vain search in the Scriptures for what they call Christianity. If they were not perfectly conscious that their religion is not to be found in the Bible, do you suppose they would denounce and persecute that book as they do ? Would they direct their inquiries to fathers, and councils, and priests for information, rather than to prophets, evan- gelists, and apostles? 30 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 8. Soiuetliins^ for the Revi Mr. H. Mr. H. the Goliath of the Catholics, seems to be very fond of asking questions which he thinks no- body can answer. I am not acquainted with any wri- ter who makes more frequent use of the interrogation point. But his questions are not quite so unanswera- ble as he supposes. I will just answer two of the string of questions with which he commences a recent letter to Mr. B. and then I beg leave to ask a few. He wants to know Jirst, what the Protestant reli- gion is. He has been often told, but I will tell him again. It is the religion of the Bible. It was not called Protestant when the Bible was written, for then there was no corruption of Christianity to pro- test against. But it is the same, however called. There it is, i7i the Bible. Read it. Read any part of it. You cannot go amiss to find the religion of the Reformation in the Bible. Read particularly the epistle to the Romans, to whom Catholics pretend to refer their origin ; or the epistle to the Ephesians. I wonder if a passage from either of these prominent epistles was ever quoted by any one in proof of any peculiarity of the Roman Catholic church ! I suspect never. Protestants, however, make great use of them. But, says the interrogator, " tell us what particular doctrines constitute the Protestant religion. Telling us it is the religion of the Bible, is telling us where it is, but not what it is." And is it not enough to tell you where you may find a thing? Have you no eyes? Have you no mind ? Do you want one to think for you ? Is not that all which Jesus Christ did ? He gave THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 31 the Scriptures to the Jews, and said, " search them." So we put the Bible into your hand, and say, there is our religion. And yet you ask, " Where was your re- ligion before Luther ?" Before Luther ! we tell you where it was before the earliest fathers. It was in the Gospels and Epistles, where it is now, and ever will be. What have we to do with Luther or Augus- tine, or any of them, until we get as far back into an- tiquity as St. John? But Mr. H. asks again, " What society of Chris- tians ever taught this pretended religion of Christ pre- vious to the Reformation ?" Why, Mr. H. do not affect such ignorance — you must be joking^ when you ask such a question. Did you never hear of a society of Christians residing at Rome, some of whom were of Caesar's household, to whom one Paul wrote a letter, which has come down to us? Now, if it cannot be as- certained what that society of Christians " taught," yet it can easily be ascertained what was taught them. It is only to read the letter. And I think it not improbable that that society of Christians profess- ed and taught what St. Paul taught them. But there was another respectable society of Chris- tians, a good while " previous to the Reformation," who seem to have known something about this " pre- tended religion of Christ," called Protestant. They dwelt in a city named Ephesus. That same Paul resided among them three years, preaching the Gos- pel, and he did it faithfully. He " shunned not to declare all the counsel of God." After establishing a flourishing church there, he went away, and subse- quently addressed an epistle to them, which also has come down to us. In this epistle it is to be presumed 32 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. that he embodied the substance of the Gospel, which he had taught them "publicly and from house to house." He is not to be suspected of preaching one thing and writing another. Will Mr. H. deny that the society of Christians at Ephesus professed and taught the doctrines of the epistle to the Ephesians ? I think not. Well, sir, what are the doctrines of that epistle ? Are they yours or ours — Catholic or Protes- tant ? I will leave it to any intelligent infidel on earth to decide. Will Mr. H. agree to the reference ? O no, he wants us to leave it to a pope, and general coun- cil, and the zmanimous fathers. I have told Mr. H. now of two societies of Chris- tians who " taught this pretended religion of Christ previous to the Reformation." I could tell of more ; but two are enough. He only asked for one. Now I would ask Mr. H. a question. Where was your religion, Mr. H. at the time the Bible was writ- ten ? I am curious to know. How came the evange- lists and apostles to know nothing about it, if it is really the religion of Christ ? Perhaps Mr. H. can clear up this difficulty. I wish he would, if he can. I do not want him to say where his religion was after the Bible was written, and after all the evangelists and apostles were dead. I am informed on that point. I want to know where the Roman Catholic religion was before those good men died ; where it was before the fathers. They talk about the antiquity of the Roman Ca- tholic religion. It is old, I must confess. It bears many marks of age upon it. But the difficulty is, it is not old enough by a century or two at least. They say it is the frst form of Christianity. That is a THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 33 mistake. It is the second. The first appeared for a while, then " fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God," and re-appeared at the Re- formation. They call it a new religion. But no, it is the old restored. If any one doubts the identity of the restored religion, let him but compare its features with that which appeared and flourished in the apos- tolic age. Another question I beg leave to ask Mr. H. " Did the first Christians of Rome hold the doctrines con- tained in the epistle to the Romans, or did they not?" If they did not, they must have departed from the faith sooner than Paul predicted that they would. If they did hold the doctrines of the epistle, then, since these are the very doctrines which the friends of the Refor- mation contend for, have we not here the example of a society holding the doctrines of the Reformation long before the actual era of the Reformation ? I have other questions to ask, but I wait for these to be an- swered. 9. The Distinction of Sins into Mortal and Venial. Mr. Editor^ — I was not aware, until recently, that Roman Catholics of this age, and in this country, make that practical use which I find they do of the distinc- tion of sins into mortal and venial. For the truth of the following narrative I can vouch. An intelligent gentleman being, a few weeks since, expostulated with by a Protestant lady, on his spending the whole of a certain Sabbath in playing cards, replied with o4 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. the Utmost readiness, and with every appearance of confidence in the validity of his apology, " O, that is not a mortal sin." Several similar examples of a resort to this distinction were reported to me. Now, can that system be the religion of Jesus Christ, which recognizes this horrible distinction, and puts such a plea as this into the mouth of a transgressor of one ot the commandments of that Decalogue which God's own voice articulated and his own finger wrote? I cannot express the feelings I have, when I think of the multitudes who are forming a character for eterni- ty under the influence of doctrines like these. What sort of a character must they form ! How completely at variance with the Scriptures is this distinction ! " Cursed is every one that continu- eth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them — the wages of sin is death — the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Gal. 3 : 10 ; Rom. 6 : 23 ; Ezek. 18 : 4. Is not all sin disobedience to God ? and may he be disobeyed in any respect without guilt ? Did ever a father of a family recognize such a distinc- tion in the government of his children ? Did Christ atone for what are called venial sins, or did he not ? If he did not, then he did not atone for all sin. If he did atone for them, they must be worthy of death, since he died for them. The truth is, all sin is mortal, if not repented of; and all sin is venial, that is, pardonable, if repented of. There is no sin which the blood of Christ cannot cleanse from. And nothing but that can take out any sin. It is not worth while to reason against such a dis- tinction. I only mention it as one of the absurd and pernicious errors of the system to which it belongs. THOUGHTS ON POPERY, ^ 10. Tlie Deadly Sins. In " the Christian's Guide to Heaven " I read with some interest an enumeration of what the Catholics are pleased to call " the seven deadly sins." Why this distinction, thought I ? Are there only seven sins ? Or are only some sins deadly ; and is the number of sins that kill ascertained by the infallible church to be just seven and no more, all other sins being venial, not mortal, according to another distinction which that church presumes to make ? They cannot mean that there are only seven sins, for heresy is not in this list of sins, and that I am sure they esteem a sin ; neither is there any mention of falsehood and deceptio7i, which we Protestants regard as sins, even though their object should be pious. Be- sides, David says that his iniquities were more than the hairs of his head — consequently many more than seven. And who is any better off than David in this respect? Moreover, even the Catholics admit nine commandments. They do not leave out any but the second. They must therefore admit the possibility of at least nine sins. They must mean that there are only seven sins which are mortal to the soul. But if this be the case, why is It said, " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them?" It is admitted that there are more than seven things written in the book of the law. Again, why is it said that the wage-s of sin is death? This would seem to imply that death is due to every sin, of what- ever kind. If there are only seven deadly sins, why 36 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. does not the apostle say, " The wages of these seven sins (enumerating them) is death?" But he does not say that. He regarded all sins as deadly — every one of the multitude as mortal in its consequences. If there are only seven sins which are deadly, then I suppose we can answer for all the rest ; but Job says he cannot answer him one of a thousand. According to Job, then, who is a very ancient authority, there are at least a thousand sins for which we cannot answer. But let us hear what the seven are. They are Pride^ Covetousness, Luxury or Lust, Anger, Gluttony, En- vy, Sloth. Well, these are, to be sure, sins, all but one of them, anger, which is not necessarily a sin any more than grief is. We are directed to " be angry and sin not." I wonder they should have put anger with- out any qualification among the seven deadly sins. It must be because they are not familiar with the Scrip- tures. But granting them all to be sins, then certainly they are deadly, since all sin is deadly. We could not therefore object, if it had been said, in reference to them, " seven deadly sins." But " the seven deadly sins " seems to imply that there are no more. We read in the book of Proverbs of six things which the Lord doth hate ; yea, of seven that are an abomination to him. But there is no implication there, that those are the only things which the Lord hates. It is not said, " the seven things which the Lord doth hate." The language which I animadvert upon implies that the seven sins enumerated are, if not exclusively, yet pe- culiarly deadly. Now that is not the case. There is nothing in those sins to entitle them to this distinction above other sins. There is no reason why we should be warned to avoid them more than many others. Thoughts on I'oPery. 37 1 am surprised that in the list of .deadly sins there is no mention of unbelief. Now surely that must be a deadly sin, when "he that believeth not shall be damned — shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.'^ Moreover, we are told that the Holy Ghost came primarily to reprove the world of unbe- lief-^and yet there is no recognition of it among the deadly sins ! It is an oversight, which no wonder ihey fell into, who, in making out their religion, made no use of the word of God. I perceive that neither heresy nor schism are in the list of deadly sins. I infer, then, that to differ from the Roman church in some particulars, and even to sepa- rate from her communion, is not fatal, even she her- self being judge. I thank her for the admission. There is one sin which, in all their catalogues, the Catholics omit, and which, I think, they need to be re- minded of. It is the sin of idolatry — ^^of worshiping the creature — of paying divine honors to something else besides God. It used to be very deadly, under the Jewish dispensation. It doubtless is equally so under the Christian. They had better beware of it. They liad better leave off praying to saints, and honoring the Virgin Mary above her Son, lest perchance they fall mto deadly sin. 11. A Religion ivithoiit a ttoly S^pirit. A gentleman of intelligence, who was born of Ca- tholic parents, and educated ia the Catholic church, 4 39 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. but left it recently for Protestantism (for some dd leave the Catholic for the Protestant church — the conversions are not all to Romanism — but we, Pro- testants, don't make such a noise about it when we receive a convert ; and I suppose the reason is, that it is really no wonder that a Catholic should become a Protestant — the only wonder is, that any should re- main Catholics) — this gentleman said to his brother, who is still a Catholic, " Why, brother, as long as I was a Catholic, I never knew that there was a Holy Spirit." And what do you think was the brother's reply 1 " Well, I don't know that there is one now I" The narration of what passed between these two men struck me with great force. A religion without a Holy Spirit ! and this the religion, according to the computation of Bishop England, of two hundred mil- lions of mankind ! It made me sorry. My religion, thought I, would be very imperfect without a Holy Spirit. I want a Sanctifier, as well as a Surety. I want one to act internally upon me, as well as one to act externally for me. What should I do with ray title to heaven, without a fitness for it? As a sinner, I am equally destitute of both. There can be no hea- ven without holiness. And whence has any man ho- liness but from the Holy Spirit ? And is it likely he will act where he is not acknowledged ? If priests can pardon^ as they say, yet can they purify 7 Here were two men, educated in the Catholic reli- gion, and attending weekly the Catholic church, and yet never having heard of the Holy Spirit ! They had heard often enough of the Virgin Mary, and of this saint, and that saint, but never a w^ord of the Holy THOltGHTS ON POPERY. 39 Spirit, the Divine Sanctifier! But was it not their own fault? Is not the doctrine of the Trinity apart of the Catholic faith ? It is — but that may be, and yet the priests never instruct the people in the character and office of the Holy Spirit, and in the necessity of his operations. But had these men never been present at a baptism, when water, according to Christ's direction, with oil, spittle, &c. as the church directs, is applied to the body, and the name of each person of the Trinity is mentioned ? Yes, but, poor men, they had never stu- died Latin. How should they know what Spiritus Sanctus means, when they hear it ? Why should all the world be presumed to understand Latin? Oh, why should the worship of the living God be con- ducted in a dead language ? But this is by the way. These men knew not that there was a Holy Spi- rit — why did they not know it ? I will tell you. Be- cause so little is said of the Holy Spirit among the Catholics — there is so little need of any such agent, according to their system ! They do not believe in the necessity of a change of heart. Why should there be a Holy Spirit? The priest does not want any such help to prepare a soul for heaven. The Catholic sys- tem is complete without a Holy Spirit. Therefore nothing is said of him in the pulpit, and in the con- fession-box ; and the sinner is not directed to seek his influences, or to rely on his aid. If I misrepresent, let it be shown, and I will retract. But if I am correct in the statement I make, look at it. Protestant, look at it a religion without a Holy Spirit ! Catholic, look at it, and obey the voice from heaven which says. "Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers 40 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." This is one of her capital crimes. She does not speak against the Holy Ghost. No, she is silent about him ! 12. Inlambility. Every body knows that the Church of Rome lays claim to infallibility. She contends that there is no tnistake about her ; that she cannot err. Now this very modest claim of our sister of Rome (for in the matter of churches I reject the relation of mother and daugh- ter) I am constrained to question, and that for such reasons as the following : 1. She cannot herself tell us where her infallibility is to be found. She is sure that she has it somewhere about her, but for the life of her she cannot tell where. Some of her writers say that it is with the Pope. Others contend that it resides in a general council. And ano- ther opinion is that both the Pope and a council are necessary to it. Now I think they ought to settle it among themselves who is infallible, before they re- quire us to believe that any one is. Let X\\eiinjind in- fallibility and fix it. After that it will be time enough for us to admit its existence. But, 2. We will suppose that it is the Pope who is infal- lible — each successive Pope. Well, where did they get their infallibility ? Why, it was transmitted from St. Peter, to be sure, Christ gave it to him, and he THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 41 handed it down. But was Peter infallible ? There was a day when I suspect he did not think himself infal- lible — when smitten to the heart by the reproving look of his Lord, he went out and wept bitterly. There is no doubt that he made a mistake, when he so confi- dently pronounced, " Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" — and let it be remembered that this was after Christ had said, " Thou art Peter, and on this rock," &c. If Peter was infallible, I wonder he did not at once settle the difficulty of which we have an account in Acts, 15. Why was the matter suffered to be debated in the presence of his infallibility ? It seems that Pe- ter on that occasion claimed no pre-eminence. Nor was any particular deference paid to him by the coun- cil. He related his experience, precisely as did Paul and Barnabas. James seems to have been in the chair on that occasion. He speaks much more like an infal- lible person than any of the rest. He says, " Where- fore my sentence is," &c. What a pity it is for the church of Rome that Peter had not said that instead of James. We should never have heard the last of it. But it was the bishop of Jerusalem, and not the bishop of Rome, who said it. It cannot be helped now. Will my Catholic brother take down his Douay and read that chapter ? But again, if Peter was infallible, I am surprised that Paul " withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" Gal. 2:11. That was no way to treat a Pope. But Paul had always a spice of the Protes- tant about him. And yet Peter did not resent Paul's treatment of him, for in his second Epistle he speaks of him as " our beloved brother Paul." I suppose that 4* 42 THOUGHTS ON FOPERY. Peter himself did not know he was infallible. Men do not always know themselves. Once more, if the superiority among the disciples belonged to Peter, it has struck me as strange that, when a dispute arose among them who should be the greatest, our Savior did not take Peter, instead of a little child, '' and set him in the midst of them," and remind the others that the supremacy had been given to him. I think the other apostles could not have understood Christ in that declaration, " Thou art Peter," &c. as the church of Rome now understands him, otherwise the dispute about superiority could never have arisen. Now, according to the Catholic doctrine, Peter be- ing infallible, each successive Pope inherits his infal- libility, and therefore never a man of them could err in a matter of faith — nor even the woman Joan, (for in the long list of Papas, there was by accident in the ninth century one Mama, though this, I am aware, is denied by some,) — even she retained none of the/rm7- ty of her sex. It is well for the church of Rome that she does not contend that her popes are infallible in practice, for if she did, she would find some difficulty in reconciling that doctrine with history. It is very true that one may err in practice and not in faith. Nevertheless, when I see a man very crooked in practice, I cannot believe that he is always exactly straight in doctrine. I can- not believe that all I hear from him is good and true, when what I see in him is false and bad. Take for example such a one as Pope Alexander sixth ; when he, the father of such a hopeful youth as Cesar Bor- gia, and the chief of ecclesiastics too, tells me, with a THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 43 grave air and solemn tone, that it is a shocking wicked thing for an ecclesiastic to marry, I cannot help de- murring somewhat to the statement of Cesar's father. But I must proceed with my reasons. 3. If a man says one thing one day, and the next day says another thing quite contrary to it, I am of opinion that he is one of the days in error. But what has this to do with the business in hand ? Have not the Popes always pronounced the same thing? Have they ever contradicted each other ? Ask rather, whe- ther the wind has always, ever since there was a wind, blown from the same quarter. Now here is a reason why I cannot allow infallibility to belong to either popes or councils. 4. I would ask just for information, how it was, when there were three contemporary Popes, each claiming infallibility. Had they it between them ? or which of them had it ? What was the name of the one that there was no mistake about? How were the common people to ascertain the infallible one? for you know their salvation depended on their being in communion with the true Bishop of Rome, the right- ful successor of St. Peter. 5. The more common opinion among the Catholics is, I believe, that the infallibility resides in a Pope and general council together. Each is fallible by itself, but putting the two together, they are infallible ! Now I admit that in some languages two negatives are equi- valent to an affirmative ; but I do not believe that two fallibles ever were or will be equivalent to an infalli- ble. It is like saying that two wrongs make a right. 44 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 13. The Keys. The Catholics, by which I mean Roman Catholics, since, though a Protestant, I believe in the holy Ca- tholic, that is, universal church, and profess to be a member of it, at the same time that I waive all pre- tensions to being a Roman Catholic. — they make a great noise about the keys having been given to Peter ; the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Well, it is true enough — they were given to him. The Bible says so, and we Protestants want no better authority than the Bible for any thing. We do not require the confirma- tion of tradition, and the unanimous consent of the fa- thers. We do not want any thing to back " Thus saith the Lord." Yes, the keys were given to Peter ; it is said so in Matthew, 16 : 19. This is one of those pas- sages of Scripture which is not hard to be understood, as even they of Rome acknowledge. I am glad our brethren of that communion agree with us that there is something plain in the Bible ; that there is one pas- sage, at least, in which private interpretation arrives at the same result which they reach who follow in the track of the agreeing fathers ! I suppose, if we could interpret all Scripture as much to the mind of the Ca- tholics as we do this, they would let us alone about private interpretation. Well, Peter has got the keys. What then ? What are keys for ? To unlock and open is one of the pur- poses served by keys. It was for this purpose, I sup- pose, that Peter received them : and for this purpose we find him using them. He opened the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Gospel Church, or Christian dis- THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 45 pensation, as the phrase " kingdom of heaven " often signifies. He opened it to both Jews and Gentiles : he preached the first sermon, and was the instrument of making the first converts among each. With one key he opened the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, and with the other to the Gentiles. This was a distinction conferred on Peter, it is true : but it was necessary that some one of the twelve should begin the business of preaching the Gospel. The whole twelve could not turn the keys and open the door. The power of binding and loosing, which was conferred on Peter when the keys were given him, was not confined to him, but, as Matthew testifies in the next chapter but one, was extended to all the disciples. Well, Peter opened the kingdom of heaven ; and Vv'-hat became of the keys then ? Why, there being no farther use for them, they were laid aside. I don't know what has become of them, for my part. When a key has opened a door which is not to be shut again, there being no more use for the key, it does not matter much what becomes of it. Hence, in the history of the Acts of the Apostles, we hear no more about the keys ; and Peter, in his Epistles, says never a word about them. He wrote his second Epistle to put Chris- tians in remembrance, but I don't find him reminding them of the keys. The truth is, having used them for the purpose for which they were given him, he had after that no more concern about them. But many fancy that Peter kept these keys all his life, and then transmitted them to another, and he to a third, and so from hand to hand they have come along down till whaVs his name at Rome has them now — the Pope. And they say these keys signify the 46 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. authority given to the church, and especially to the Popes. But I find no Bible warrant for this assertion. Christ does not say that he gave the keys to Peter to give to somebody else, and Peter does not say that he gave them to any body else, and no body since Peter has been able to produce the keys. This settles the matter in my mind. I want to know where the keys are. But some suppose that Peter took them to heaven with him, and that he stands with them at the gate of heaven, as porter, to admit and keep out whom he will. But this notion does not tally very well with certain passages of Scripture. Christ tells his disci- ples that he goes to prepare a place for them, and that he will come again and receive them unto himself: John, 14 : 3. He will do it. He will not trust the bu- siness to Peter. " He that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth, is not Peter, but Christ." Rev. 3 : 7. But the Catholics will have it that Peter is the one ; and he, having the keys, they think that they will all be admitted, while never a soul of us, poor Protes- tants, will. They may be mistaken, however. 1 do not know what right they have to put in an exclusive claim to Peter. I see no resemblance between Peter and a Roman Catholic — none in the world. I never care to see a truer and better Protestant than I take him to be. But if he does stand at the gate of heaven with such authority as the Catholics ascribe to him, yet I suppose he will not deny that he wrote the Epistles called his. Well, then, if he shall hesitate to admit Protestants, we shall only have to remind him of his Epistles. He does not say any thing in them THOUGHTS ON POPERY, 47 about his being Pope. No, he says, " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." Not a word says he about the Mass, or the Seven Sacra- ments, or Transubstantiation. Let the reader turn to his Epistles, and see just what he does say ; I think he will not find any thing in those Epistles to frighten Protestants. But there is still another supposition, viz* that Peter is not perpetual porter of heaven ; but each Pope, as he dies, succeeds to that office — one relieving another. I do not know how it is, but I judge, if all the Popes have been in their day porters of Paradise, many of them must have tended outside. They have not been universally the best of men, I think history informs us. But I will not mention any names. One thing more. In Catholic pictures and prints (for that very spiritual religion abounds with these) you will see the keys of which we have been speak^ ing represented as made to suit all the complicated modern wards, as if fresh from some manufactory at Birmingham or Sheffield ! I do not suppose the keys Peter received answered exactly to this ingenious re- presentation of them. I4t Tli6 Head of the Chnrch^ The church is Represented in the Scriptures as a body. Of course, therefore, it must have a head ; and that same blessed book tells us who the head is* And 48 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. who, think you, is the head of the church? Who bul Christ himself? Who else is fit to be its head — its source of influence and government ? I will produce the passages of Scripture in proof of Christ's headship presently. But the Catholics say that the Pope is the head ol the church. Ah, is he 1 Where is the proof that he is ? Now there is nothing which irritates a Catholic so soon as to ask him for proof. " Proof, indeed !" he says. " Do you ask proof of an infallible church ? What is the use of infallibility, if we must prove every thing? These are truly most degenerate days. The time was when nobody demanded proof; but now every little sprig of a Protestant must have reasons to support assertions. He calls for proof. And he must have it from the Bible. He will not believe any thing in religion unless some text can be cited in support of it. Things have come to a pretty pass indeed." It is even so. We plead guilty to the charge. For every thing alleged to be a doctrine of Christianity, we con- fess we do require some proof out of the writings of some evangelist or apostle. And since our Catholic brethren will not gratify us by adducing the scriptural Warrant for believing the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be the head of the church, we will do them the favor of consulting the Scriptures for them. Well, Ave begin with Genesis^ and we go through to Revelation, search^ ing all the way for some proof that the Pope is the head of the church. But so far are we from finding any evidence that he is the head of the church, that we find not a particle of proof that he is that or any things We find no account of any such character as a Pope — not a word about him. The subject of the proposition, THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 49 that is, the Pope, does not seem to be known to that book at all. I really do not wonder that it frets a Ca- tholic v/hen we send him to the Bible for proof that the Pope is the head of the church* But though we discover nothing in the Bible about a Pope, yet we find much about the head of the church. In Ephesians, 1 : 22, 23, Christ is said to be " the head over all things to the church, which is his body." Now, if the church is his body, surely he must, be the head of it, as well as head over all things to it. Will any one say that the Pope of Rome is the head of ChrisVs body ? That is shocking. And yet the Catholics are told that they must believe it ; and seeing they cannot help it, they do somehow or other contrive to believe it. In Eph. 5 : 23, it is explicitly declared that '* Christ is the head of the church." The same is repeated in Col. 1 : 18—" He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church." Our brethren of the Catholic church have long been in the habit of asking where our religion was before the Reformation. They may see where one doctrine of it was fifteen hundred years before the Reformation. One would suppose, from the way they talk, that they supposed the Bible was written a considerable time after the Reformation, and that it was then got up to support the Protestant heresy ! I might ask them, but that they do not like to be asked questions, lest they should not be able to answer them, where their doc- trine of the Pope's headship of the church was when the New Testament was written, i. e. some seventeen hundred and fifty or eighteen hundred years ago. But I will withdraw the question. It may seem unkind to press it. 5 50 THOUGHTS ON POPEllY. Now, Since the Bible says that Christ is the head of the church, if the Pope also is, there must be two heads of the church. But there is only one body. Why should there be two heads? Is the church a monster? Besides, if there had been another head, Christ would have been spoken of in the Scriptures as one of the heads of the church, or as a head of the church. But he is called the head of the church. The article is de- finite, denoting only one. There is not a syllable in the Bible about another head. Indeed the language of the Bible does not admit of there being another. Yet the Catholics say there is another ; and it is their Pope. " Christ being absent, they say, it is necessary there should be a visible human head to represent him on earth." Now the Pope, they say, is this visible head of the church — the head that you can see. But is their assumption correct, that Christ is absent? Is he ab- sent ? Hear : " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." " Where two or three are ga- thered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Was he absent from Paul ? He says : " I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." A visible head ! What do we want of a visible head ? Of what use to us — the part of the body here — is a head a way off at Rome ? It is no better than a caput mortuum to us. But what if we admit the possibility of a visible human head of the church, who made the Pope that head ? Did he inherit this also from St. Peter? Was Peter head of the church? He, more modest than his pretended successors, does not any where claim that title. I know the Catholics hold him to be the rock — i\iQ foundation of the church; but I really did not know THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 51 that they regarded him, whom, however they exalt, they still consider but as a mere man, as capable of being head of the church too. It is not too much to speak of Christ as both the foundation and head of the church, but to speak of Peter, poor Peter, as we are accustomed to call him when we think of the scene of the denial, as both foundation and head of the church, is really carrying the matter rather far. How little Peter thought he was hoth^ when " he went out and wept bitterly !" How little he knew of himself! The Pope the head of the church ! ! Then the church is the Pope's body ! ! Alas for the church ! 15. Tlie Power to Forgive Sius. Seculum modesium I rather suppose will not be the designation by which the 19th century will be distin- guished in history from her sister centuries. I know not whether any age has been more remarkable for cases of unfounded pretension than the present. The case, however, of which I am to take notice, did not originate in the 19th century. It has existed many hundred years. I do not wonder at its surviving the dark ages, but that it should have lived so far into the luminous 19th does somewhat surprise me. The pre- tension to which I allude is that made by the Catholic priesthood. What do you think it is which they pre- tend they can do? Forgive sins. They pretend that they have power over sins, to remit or retain them. 52 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. They claim that the prerogative of pardon is lodged with them. And that is the reason why they receive confessions. Confession to a priest would be a farce, if it was not thought that he could forgive. The first thing that strikes me is the contrariety of this notion to common sense. The idea of being par- doned by any other than the being offended, seems absurd. What ! a fellow-sinner of a priest pardon sins against God ! It is as if of two debtors, one should play the creditor and forgive the other his debt, with- out any consultation with the real creditor. That would be a strange way of getting rid of debts. I al- ways thought he to whom the debt is due ought to have a say in the matter of remitting it. If I had disposed of a debt in that manner I should always be afraid that it would some day or other be exacted — that the real creditor would appear and make his de- mand. Then it would be a poor come off for me to say that my fellow-debtor forgave me the debt. I will tell you what I expect. I expect that a great deal which the priests forgive will be exacted notwith- standing. Catholics talk of going to the priest and getting their old scores wiped off^ just as if it were but a slate and pencil memorandum, which any one can rub out. The sin of man is not thus recorded. It is " written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond." It is not so easily obliterated. But is there not Scripture in support of the priests' claim? See John, 20 : 23. Does not Christ say to his disciples: " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re- mitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained ?" Yes, he says that to his disciples — the apostles. But pray, what right have the priests THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 53 to found a claim of theirs on a grant made to the apos- tles? They do indeed come after the apostles, but they are their successors in no other sense. I should like to know how the priests prove that they inherit the apostolical power of remitting sins. But I forget that they scorn a resort to proof. The power communicated in that grant to the apos- tles was merely ministerial and declarative. It was no less true after than before that grant was made, that none can forgive sins but God only. That the power was declarative merely, that is, that the apostles were empowered to remit and retain sins only as they were authorized and enabled to make a correct statement to mankind of the way and means of salvation, to ex- press the conditions of pardon and condemnation, and to propose the terms of life and death, is clear to me from the fact that the conferring of it was immedi- ately preceded by the Savior's breathing on them, and saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Now, this communication of the Spirit qualified them for the declarative remission and retention of sins. They were thereby inspired to pronounce on what grounds sins are remitted and retained by God. This was the power over sins granted to the apos- tles, and I shall show presently that this declarative power is all they pretend ever lo have exercised. Now, the priests have no right to claim even this power, ex- cept in that subordinate sense in which it is possessed by all who are authorized to preach the Gospel. Did Christ ever breathe on them, and say to them, " Re- ceive ye the Holy Ghost," that they should claim equality with the apostles ? The effect of the inspi- ration is not so manifest in the case of the priests as 5* 54 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. it was in the case of the apostles, if I may be permit- ted to express an opinion. But the priests claim far more than ever entered the thoughts of the apostles. They are not satisfied with the ministerial and declarative power over sins They claim a magisterial and authoritative power to remit and retain them. Consequently they call sinners to come and confess their sins to them. Did Peter and the other apostles, the very men to whom Christ said, "whosesoever sins ye remit," &c. ever do such a thing ? You read in the Acts of the Apos- tles of synagogues and proseuches, or places of prayer, but do you find any thing about confession-boxes there? Does there seem to have been any thing auricular in the transactions of the day of Pentecost ? There is the case of Simon Magus that strikes me as in point. If Peter and John had had the power of forgiving sin, could they not have exercised it in favor of Simon ? But we find Peter addressing him just as any Protestant minister would have done : " Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if per- haps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." How differently the Roman priest would have done ! He would have said, " Well, Simon, and what have you to say for yourself? Ah, that is very bad, very bad. But if you are sorry, Simon, I forgive you. Only I cannot let you off without doing some penance. You must say so many pateT7iosters, and you must not eat meat for so many days." This is the way in which the boasted successors of Peter manage these matters. But, they will say, Simon was not penitent, otherwise perhaps Peter would have pardoned him. But I wonder if pardon would have waited for Peter's THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 65 action in the matter, if there had been penitence in the heart of the sorceror. I suspect not. I suspect the gracious Lord, when he sees contrition in any soul, does not withhold pardon till a priest or even an apostle shall intervene and act in the matter. And when the good angels have ascertained that a sinner has repented, I rather suppose they do not suspend their rejoicing until he has gone to confession, and has got absolution from the priest. What a glorious book the Bible is ! I wish the au- thorities of the Catholic church would condescend to strike it off the list oi prohibited books, and allow the Lord to speak to his creatures. I wish they would let their people, the many thousands that on the Sab- bath crowd their chapels and cathedrals, read, or hear what Jehovah says to " every one " in that wonderful chapter, the 55th of Isaiah. It is indeed a wonderful chapter. But the Catholics don't know any thing about it. No ; and they have never heard of that pre- cious and glorious verse, the 18th of the 1st chapter of Isaiah, in which thus saith the Lord to the sinner, "Come now, and let us" (you and I, sinner !) "rea- son together." And then follows the reasoning, " though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Ask the awakened sinner, or the recently pardoned, what he would take for that pas- sage. He esteems it above all price ; and to the Chris- tian it becomes every day more and more a theme of wonder and delight. But the Catholics don't know that the Lord has ever made any such kind and con- descending proposal to his creatures. They never hear of the call of God to come and reason with him. 56 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. The only " come " they hear is the priest's call. I pity them. But it is no wonder that the priests treat the people as they do, for if they allowed them to know what the Lord says to them, they would be very apt to go di- rectly to God in Christ, and leave the priest out of the question. And then where would be the importance of the priest ? and his emolument, where 7 16. A Catholic Book Revieived. I happened to lay my hand the other day on a little book entitled, " The Christian's Guide to Heaven, a Manual for Catholics," to which was appended some hymns. The book was published in Baltimore by a respectable Catholic bookseller, and under the sanction of the Archbishop. Well, said I to myself, this is good authority. I will look into this book. I know what Protestants say of Catholics. I will see now what Catholics say of themselves. Men cannot complain when we take their own account of themselves ; and I like the way of judging people out of their own mouths, because it shuts their mouths so far as reply is concerned. I resolved that I would compare the statements and doctrines of this book professing to be a guide to heaven, with the statements and doctrines of that bigger book which is the Protestant's guide to heaven. You will know that I mean the Bible. That is our manual — that the guide we consult and follow. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 57 However, if a book agrees with the Bible, that is enough. So I began to read ; and one of the first things that I came to was, " Conditions of plenary indulgences." Indulgences ! thought I. What does a Christian want of indulgences ? He is apt enough to indulge him- self. And how are indulgences to help him to hea- ven? I should rather pronounce self-denial the road. Indulgences not partial^ but plenary ! I should think plenary indulgence on any condition was enough to ruin one. If by indulgence the Catholics mean par- don, they have chosen an unfortunate way to express it. Why not say full 'pardon, instead of plenary in- dulgence ? But I suppose pardon expresses what God exercises, and indulgence what the church grants. I should like to know, however, what right the church has to grant any thing of the kind. Well, the conditions enumerated were four. I took note only of the first, which was in these words : " To confess their sins with a sincere repentance to a priest approved by the bishop." This begins very well, and goes on well for a time. Confession of sin, with sin- cere repentance, is truly a condition of pardon. "If we confess our sins. He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." But what a pity the condition did not stop there, or if any thing was added in regard to the object of the confession, that it did not designate God as the being to whom the sins should be confessed. The sins are all doiie against him, and why should they not be told to him ? I cannot get rid of the no- tion that we ought to confess our sins to God, the be- ing whom we have offended by them. But no, says this guide to heaven, the confession must be made to 58 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. a priest ; it is good for nothing without it. If the pub- lican, of whom we read, had lived now, it would have been quite irregular, according to the Catholic notion, that he should have gone down to his house justified, when he confessed only to God. And the penitent must take care what sort of a priest it is to whom he confesses, else he might as well remain impenitent. It must be a priest approved by -the bishop. Well, now, this is a queer arrangement, that our pardon should be suspended on such a condition — that angels, in other words, must wait before they express any joy that a sinner has repented, until he has gone and told his sins to a priest approved by a bishop ! Who sus- pended it there, I wonder ? Not Isaiah. Read his 55th chapter. Nor Peter, nor Solomon, nor John, nor Paul. Read them and see. There is not a word in the Bible about confessing to a priest. So I found that the two guides did not agree in this matter. The Catholic Manual said the confession must be to a priest ; but the. holy Scriptures insist on no such thing, but direct that the confession be made to God. This thought occurred to me : What if a sinner con- fess his sins with a sincere repentance, though not to a priest, what is to be done with his soul ? Must par- don be denied him, and he be consigned to perdition, because, though he confessed penitently, yet he did it not to a priest ? Really this is making rather too much of the priest. It is making too important a character of him altogether. I do not believe that our salvation is so dependent on the deference we pay the priest. Before the conditions, on one of which I have been remarking, are mentioned, there is this general state- ment: "Plenary indulgences granted to ihe faithful THOUGHTS ON POPERY* 69 thfoughout these states, at the following times s^^ and then follows a specification of nine different seasons when plenary indulgences may be had. I did not know before that pardons were confined to any set times ; I always supposed that they might be had summer and winter, night and day, and at any hour of either — in short, whenever a penitent heart breathes its desire to God» My mistake must have arisen from the fact that I have been in the habit of consulting the Bible on these matters. I never saAV " The Christian's Guide to Heaven " before in my life. I have always used the Bible as a guide, for want of a better. Now that I am on the subject of confession, I may as well make another reference to the manual. There is an article or chapter headed " The Confiteor." In it the person wishing to be guided to heaven makes this confession, from which it will appear that Catho- lics do not confine their confessions to the priest, but extend them to many other beings : '' I confess to Al- mighty God, to blessed Mary, ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints, that I have sinned." Nov/, I do not see the use of naming so many. The confession, I think, should have stopped with the first mentioned — Almighty God. What have the rest to do with it ? How is it any of their business ? The person has not sinned against them. Surely every sinner may say to God, " Against thee, thee only have I sinned," since David could. Besides, this coupling of these creatures with the Creator, as worthy equally with himself to receive our confessions of sin, savors strongly of idolatry. Con- fession is made to them on the same principle that 60 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. prayer is. Each is an act of worship — one of those things which should be confined exclusively to God. I wonder the Catholics will not be satisfied with one great and glorious object of worship, God, the Father, Son, and Spirit. Why will they in their devotions as- sociate creatures with the Creator? The book I am reviewing contains numerous and very offensive ex- amples of it. I shall continue the review in my next 1^. The Review of tHe Catholic Book eontlntied* The next thing that struck me as worthy of notice in the perusal of the book was this— that the devout Catholic is represented as making the following so- lemn declaration concerning the Holy Scriptures : " Neither will I ever take and interpret them other- wise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. '' I smiled when I read this, and I thought within myself, if that is his determination, he will not be likely ever to take them at all. What an intention this, which the Catholic expresses — never to attach any meaning to a passage which he may read in the Bible, until he has first ascertained whether certain ancient persons called the fathers all agreed in any interpretation of it, and if so, what that interpretation is ! What should give such authority and weight to the interpretation of the fathers ? Why cannot we as- certain what the Bible means as well as they could ? What helps had they which we have not ? and why THOUGHTS 0J4 POPERY. 61 require that they be unanimous? What a roundabout method this of finding out what a book means ! First, the reader has got to ascertain who are entitled to be called fathers. He must make out a list of them all. If one is overlooked, it vitiates the interpretation, though all the rest should agree in it. But supposing him to have got a catalogue of the whole number from Bar- nabas to Bernard, the next step in the process is to ascertain how they all interpreted the Bible. For this purpose he must pore over their works. But some of them left ni works behind them. How shall he ever find out what they thought of this and that passage of Scripture ? And yet he must somehow or other ascer- tain their opinions, else how can he compare them with the opinions of the other fathers, and discover their agreement with them ? For you will remember the consent must be unanimous. Others of the fathers left works behind them, but they have not come down to us. How shall the reader of the Bible know what those lost works contained ? Yet he must know what they thought, else how can he be sure that they thought in accordance with the views of those fathers whose works are preserved to us. I cannot see how this dif- ficulty is to be got over, for my part. It is altogether beyond me. But supposing it to be surmounted, there remains the task of comparing the opinions of all these Greek and Latin fathers, to the number of a hundred or two, one with another, to see if they all agree ; for the consent, you know, must be unanimous. Those parts of Scripture in the interpretation of which they did not agree, are to go for nothing. Indeed, if ninety- nine should be found to accord in a particular inter- pretation, it must be rejected if the hundredth father 6 61 THOUGHTS ON POPERV. had a different opinion of its meaning. I cannot helj^ thinking that it is the better, as certainly it is the shorter and easier method, just for every one to take up and " search the Scriptures," and " if any lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally." As the case is, I do not wonder that the Catholics do not read the Bible. They have not come to that yet. They are still among the fathers, searching out and comparing their opinions, so as to know how to take the Bible. By and by, if they live IrTig enough, when they have ascertained what the fatners agreed on, they may go to reading the Scriptures. It seems odd that one cannot, without mottal sin, attach a meaning to such a passage as John, 3 : 16, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," until he has first ascertained what Cypirian, Jerome, Hilary, both the Gregorys, and indeed all the fathers thought of it, and whether they agreed in their interpretation of it. How any one can' read it without understanding it in spite of himself, I cannot see. Ah, but they say the Scriptures are so obscure. And are the fathers so very clear 7 Why cannot we understand the Greek of John and Paul, as well as that of Chrysostom ? The thing which next attracted my observation in the book was the following : " In the Mass there is of- fered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." The Mass ! and what is that ? The BihJe could not tell me. So I had to resort to the dictionary. It is the name which the Catholics give to the sacrament of the Lord's supper \ THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 63 oiv rather to the half o^ it ; for you know they divide it, and giving the bread to the people, do with the wine I cannot tell what. They say that it is "perfect in one kind, and anathematize all who say it is not. Their curse is on me now while I am writing. Neverthe- less I must ask, if it was perfect in one kind, why did Christ institute it in both kinds ? Why did he not stop with the bread, reserving the cup ? Was it to make the sacrament more than perfect ? But this is reasoning. I forget myself. The Catholics don't hold to reasoning. An idea occurs to me here which I beg leave to ex press. If the sacrament is perfect in either kind, why do not the priests sometimes give the people the cup ? Why do they always give them the bread ? And why originally did they withhold the cup rather than the bread? Some persons may imagine a reason, but I will content myself with asking the question. But to proceed. They say that "in the MassZ^ere is offered to God,''"' &c. Why, what do they mean ? There is nothing offered to God. What is offered is to men. Christ says, offering to his disciples the bread, "take, eat," and reaching out the cup, he says, "drink je all of it." There is something offered to men in this sacrament, even the precious memorials of the Savior's propitiatory death ; but every one who reads the account, sees that there is nothing offered to God. Yet the Catholics, leaning on tradition, say there is in it " a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice " offered to God. A sacrifice included in the sacra- ment! How is that? And a propitiatory sacrifice too ! I ahvays supposed that propitiatory sacrifices ceased with the offering up of the Great Sacrifice — 64 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. when the Lamb of God bled and died. Do we not read, that " by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," " now once in the end ot the world hath he ap)eared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself ?" *' Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" — and it is said of his blood that it " cleanseth from all sin." I don't know what we want after this, of those unbloody sacrifices which the Ca- tholics talk of as offered continually in the service of the Mass. What is the use of them, if they are un- bloody^ as they say, since " without shedding of blood is no remission ?" According to the Catholics, it was premature in Christ to say on the cross, " it is finished." They deny that it is finished. They say it is going on still — that Christ is offered whenever Mass is said. Once Christ was offered, the Bible says ; but the Roman church affirms that he is offered many times daily ; whenever and wherever mass is said ! I do really wonder that this religion has lasted so long in the world. How the human mind can enter- tain it for a day, I do not know. See how at every step it conflicts with reason. See in how many points it does violence to common sense. See, in this case, how boldly it contradicts the dying declaration of the Savior. It is a religion unknown to the Bible — and yet still in existence, aye, and they say, making pro- gress^ and that even in this home of freedom ! If it be so, which I question, I blush that I am an American, and am almost ashamed that I am a man. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 65 18. Tl&e Pope an Idolater. It may seem a very uncharitable title I give this ar- ticle. What, some will say, charge tha Pope with be- ing an idolater! What do you mean? I mean just Avhat I say, that this boasted head of the church, and self-styled vicar of Christ, residing at Rome, ascribes divine attributes, and pays divine honors to a creature, even to a human being, a partaker in our mortality and sin ! and if that is not idolatry, I don't know what idolatry is. If that is not idolatry, the worship of the golden calf was not — the worship of the host of hea- ven was not — the worship of the gods of Hindooism is not. What truer definition of idolatry can be given than that it is an ascribing of divine attributes, and a paying of divine honors to a creature ? It does not mat- ter what the creature is, whether it be the angel nearest the throne of God, or an onion that grows in the gar- den, such as they of Egypt once worshiped. It is its being a created thing — it is its being not God. that makes the service done it idolatry. But can I make good this charge against the suc- cessor of St. Peter, as they call him? If I cannot, I sin not merely against charity, but against truth. But I can establish it. Nor will I derive the proof from the Pope's enemies ; nor will I look for it in the his- tories of the Papacy. The Pope himself shall supply me with the proof. Out of his own mouth will I judge him. If his own words do not convict him of idolatry, believe it not. But if they do, away with the objec- tion that it is an offence against charity to speak of such a thing as the Pope's being an idolater. My cha- 6* 66 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. rity " rejoiceth in the truth." The charge can be un- charitable only by being untrue. It is too late in the day, I trust, for idolatry to find an apologist. But to the proof. Perhaps you suppose it is some obscure Pope of the night of times — the dark ages, that I am going to prove an idolater. No, it is a Pope of the nineteenth century — the present reigning Pope, Gre- gory XVI. He is^ the idolater; and here are his own words in proof of it. They are a part of the circular, or e_':cyclical letter, sent forth by him on entering on his office, and addressed to all Patriarchs, Primaies, Archbishops, and Bishops. The letter may be found in the Laity's Directory, 1833, and has been extensive- ly published without any of its statements being con- tradicted. In it the Pope calls upon all the clergy to implore " that she, (the Virgin Mary,) who has been, through every great calamity, our Patroness and Pro- tectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our mind by her heavenly influence, to those counsels which may prove most salutary to Christ's flock !" Is comment necessary ? Observe, he recognizes not God as having been their defence, but her as having been their protectress in past calamities, and directs the clergy to pray to her to continue her watch over them ! As contrast is one of the principles on which ideas are associated, I was reminded in reading this, of the 121st Psalm, in which the writer speaks of the one " that keepeth Israel." It is noishe, according to the Psalmist, but He, the Lord which made heaven and earth, that keepeth Israel. But, according to the Pope, it is the Virgin Mary that keeps Israel ; and he speaks of her as exerting a heavenly influence on the mind. I al- ways thought it was the exclusive prerogative of Je- THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 67 novah to have access to the mind, and to exert an im- mediate influence on it ; and I cannot but think now that the Pope must err in this matter, though he speaks ex cathedra. I cannot believe he vtras exactly infallible when he wrote that letter. But you have not heard the worst of it yet. In the same letter he says : " But that all may have a suc- cessful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys here- sies, who is our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground OF OUR HOPE !" The underscoring is mine, but the words are the Pope'i=. Now, just look at this. Did you ever hear any thing like it ? Observe what Mary is said to be and to do ; and what the clergy are exhorted to do. The Pope's religion cannot be the oldest, as they pretend. It is not the religion of the Psalms. In the 121st Psalm the writer says : " / will Itft up mine eyes unto the hills, from ^jwhence cometh my help. My help cometh from the Lord." And in the 123d, " Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their, masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress ; so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mer- cy upon us." But the Pope says : " Let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary." There is the difference between the Pope and the Psalmist. Pro- testants in this case side with the Psalmist ; and in this particular our religion is not only older than Lu- ther, but older even than the Pope. I would inquire of the reader whether these prayers which the Pope would have the whole church address to the Virgin Mary, are not precisely such as are pro- 68 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. per to be addressed to God, and which others do ad- dress to him ? Do they not ask of her just what oughi to be asked of Him, and what he alone can give? Af- ter asking such things as the Catholics are directed to ask of the Virgin Mary, what remains to be asked of God in prayer? And is not this putting a creature in the place of God? Indeed, is it not putting God quite out of the question? The eyes are raised in prayer to the Virgin, and they are lifted no higher. There they fix. Is not this idolatry ? And you see he /is not satisfied himself with being an idolater, but he wants the entire clergy, and of course the whole Ca- tholic church, to join him in his idolatry ! I wish the Pope had explained how the blessed Vir- gin destroys heresies. He says she does it, and she alone. I should think it rather belonged to " the Spirit of Truth '• to destroy heresies, and to " guide into all truth." But no, says the Pope, the Spirit of Truth has nothing to do with it. It is all done by the blessed Virgin ! She " alone destroys heresies." The Catholics complain that we call their Pope Antichrist. But I would appeal to any one to say if he is not Antichrist, who, overlooking Christ altoge- ther, says of another, that she is " our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope ?" Is not that against Christ ? The Bible speaks of him as " our hope," 1 Tim. 1:1; yea, of him as our only hope ; for " other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11. " Neither is there salva- tion in any other " Acts, 4 : 12. It would seem from this, that Christ is the grou7id of hope. But not so, says the Pope ; the blessed Virgin is " the entire ground of our hope." By the way, I should not be surprised if THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 69 that hope should disappoint its possessor. Now, is not the Pope Antichrist? Well, if he is an idolater and Antichrist, ought he to be adhered to ? What sort of a body must that be, which has such a head ? I think I should not like to be a member of it. And I must confess that I am against such a person having any more power in our free, enlightened, and happy Ame- rica, than he has already. Pray let us not, after hav- ing broken the chains of political thraldom, come in bondage to idolatry. Let us not, after having extri- cated our persons from the power of a king, subject our minds to the spiritual domination of a Pope. 19. Charles X. an Idolater. Having proved his holiness the Pope an idolater, I proceed now to prove " his most Christian majesty" that was, the ex-king of France, an idolater ; which having done, I shall have gone a good way towards proving the whole Catholic church idolatrous, since, as you know, it is their boast that they all think alike, and that there are no such varieties of opinion among ihem as among us unfortunate Protestants ; though, by the way, it is not so strange that they all think alike, when one thinks for all. I proved Gregory an idolater out of his own mouth. I shall do the same in the case of Charles. On the occasion of the baptism (with oil, spittle, &c. an im- provement on the simple water-system of the Bible) 70 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. of his young grand-son, the Duke of Bordeaux, this vas his language : " Let us invoice for him the protection of the mother of God, the queen of the an- gels ; let us implore her to watch over his days, and remove far from his cradle the misfortunes with which it has pleased Providence to afflict his relatives, and to conduct him by a less rugged path than I have had, to eternal felicity." He was anxious that the little boy should have a protector, one to watch over him, and to remove his misfortunes, and to conduct him by an easy path to eternal life. For this purpose, one not educated a Catholic would have supposed that he would apply to the omniscient and almighty God. I do not know who can do those things besides God, But no. 'His majesty" does no more apply to God, than did his holiness in a similar case. I suppose it would have been heresy if he had. They would have thought him going over to Protestantism. His holi- ness and his majesty both make application to the creature rather than to the Creator. Charles does not say, " Let us invoke for him the protection of God," but of a woman, a woman indeed highly favored of the Lord, and of blessed memory, but still a woman. He calls her, according to the custom of his church, " the mother of God." I suppose you know that phrase is not in the Bible. And there is a good reason for it, the idea is not as old as the Bible. The Bible is an old book, almost as old as our religion. Roman Ca- tholicism is comparatively young. I will not remark on the phrase, mother of God, seeing it is not in the Bible, and since it has often been remarked upon by others. But there is another thing the ex-king says of her, on which I will spend a word or two. He calls THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 71 h6t " the queen of the angels." Now we read in the Bible, of Michael, the archangel, or prince of angels, but w6 do not read of the angels having a queen. We read also of a king in heaven, but not a word about a queen. I don't know where he got this idea of a queen of angels. He certainly did not get it out of the Holy Scriptures, and yet these Scriptures, I had always supposed, contain all that we know about the angels. I wish he Would tell us from his retirement where he got the idea, for he speaks very positive about the an- gels having a queen. It is true, we do read in one place in the Bible of a queen of heaven, but the wor- ship of her was so evidently idolatry, that I presume the Catholics will not quote it as authorizing the title they give and the honor they pay to the Virgin Mary. The account is found in Jeremiah, 44. If any one will read the chapter he will see what that prophet thought of those worshipers of the queen of heaven. Now, if the worship of a queen of heaven by the Jews was de- nounced as idolatry, and ruin came on them in con- sequence of it, is not a similar worship performed by Catholics as idolatrous, and as dangerous ? But no matter what he calls her, he asks her to do what only God can do. He treats her precisely as if she were divine. Is it not so — and is not this idolatry ? He ascribes divine perfections to her — omniscience, €lse how could she watch over the child; and omni- potence, else how could she ward off evil from him ; and he speaks of her as the guide of souls to eternal life. The Psalmist considered it was the prerogative of God to do this. He says, " Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me lo glory." But the ex-king looks to Mary to conduct the young 72 THOUGHTS OPi POPERY^ duke to eternal life. What the Psalmist expects from God, the ex-king expects from Mary. Is not this put- ting a creature in the place of God, the Creator? Every one must see that it is shocking idolatry, and that the man who uses such language is as truly an idolater as any devotee of Juggernaut. I do really wonder that the Catholics continue to call their system Christianity. It is by a great misno- mer it is so called. It is not the proper name for it at all. It should be called by some such name as Mari- anism, rather than Christianity. In Christianity the principal figure is Christ ; but he is not the principal figure in the Catholic religion. Mary is. Therefore the religion should be called after her, Marianism, and not after Christ, Christianity. Catholics are not the disciples of Christ, but of Mary; she is their confi- dence and hope. Pope Gregory says she " is our great- est hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope." Now, I think that the religion of such people ought to be called after the one who is their greatest hope ; and I have suggested a name to the Catholics, which I ad- vise them to adopt. Let their religion be called Mari- anism, and let them leave to us the name Christianity, since Christ " is our hope." Having proved his Holiness, and his most Christian Majesty, the two principal characters in the church of Rome, idolaters, I think I may as well stop here. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 73 20* Idolatry near Home. It is wonderful Avhat a propensity there is in fallen men to idolatry. How they do love to worship the creature rather than the Creator ! In a certain church, which need not be named, the blessed virgin, though a mere woman, receives ten, perhaps a hundred times as much religious honor as does the blessed Savior, though he be " the mighty God," deserving of all ho- mage, while she merits barely respectful remembrance. One that has much intercourse with Catholics would suppose the mother to be the Savior of the world, ra- ther than the Son. They make her to be the principal advocate of sinners in heaven. " If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father." Who? St. John says, ^^ Jesus Christ the righteous" — the Catholics say it is Mary ! So they differ — we Protestants side with John. I have lately met with an idolatrous temple, that is, a church or chapel avowedly erected in honor of a creature, and dedicated to a creature. Is not that a temple of idolatry 1 Can there be a more accurate de- finition of such a place ? Well, I have seen one — and I have not been a voyage to India neither. Some think there is no idolatry nearer than India ; and when they hear of an idol-temple they immediately think of Juggernaut. But it is a mistake. I have not been out of the United States of America, and yet I have seen a temple of idolatry. I will state the case, and let every one judge for himself If I am under an erro- neous impression I shall be glad to be corrected. The 7 74 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. case is this : On the Catholic chapel in Annapolis, Maryland, is this inscription, " In honorem Dei Pa- RJE ViRGiNis." It is Latin. The English of it is, " In honor of the Virgin, the mother of God." If I have not rightly translated it, some of those who worship in Latin can correct me. NoAv, what does this mean ? It seems to signify that the chapel was erected, and is continued in ho- nor of, that is, for the worship of the Virgin Mary. The being in whose honor a chapel is erected is wor- shiped in it. If not, how is it in honor of him? The inscription signifies dedication to the Virgin Mary. Now, the being to whom a place of religious worship is dedicated is always the object of the worship there rendered. This is universally understood. Hence Ave dedicate our churches to the Triune God, for him Ave worship in them. They are erected m honor of him. No one mistakes the meaning of these inscriptions. When we read on the Unitarian church in Baltimore this inscription in Greek, " To the only God," we un- derstand that the church is consecrated to the service of the only God, and it is precisely the same as if the inscription had been in the style of that at Annapolis, in honor of the only God. So when Paul found at Athens an altar with this inscription, " To the unknown God," he inferred immediately that worship was in- tended, for he says, " whom therefore ye ignorantly worship :" suppose the inscription had been " in ho- nor of the unknown God," would not the apostle's in- ference have been the same ? Nothing is more clear than that the inscription on which I am remarking, implies that the chapel in question is dedicated to the worship of the Virgin Mary ; and she being a creature, THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 75 this constitutes it a temple of idolatry, and those who worship in it idolaters ! Let no man say that the inscription implies no more than that the chapel is named after Mary. Some Pro- testants name their churches after saints, but the name is not given in any case in honor of the saint. St. Paul's in London was not built in honor of St. Paul. It is simply so denominated. But here we have a chapel in honor of the Virgin, and she is called Mo- ther of God, apparently to justify the worship which the authors of the chapel intend her. If this were th^s only proof that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary, we might overlook it ; but it is only one of many. No one thing is more susceptible of demonstration, less capable of denial, than that Roman Catholics render unto this creature that which is due to God alone, re- ligious worship. See for proof, their own Rhemish Testament with the notes. Therefore they are idola- ters. I am sorry to say it, because I am sorry there is any occasion for saying it. But the time has come to speak out. This religion is threatening America, and it should be known, it should be proclaimed in the ear of every Christian, and every patriot, that it is some- thing worse than mere error. And something more to be dreaded far than tyranny, which also it is, and ever has been, and must be — it is idolatry. It puts another, and a creature, in the place of God ; or if it discards not him, it does what is as offensive to him, it associates other and inferior objects of worship with him — and this his jealousy will not suffer. Whatever this great people are to become, I do hope we shall never be a nation of idolaters — creature-worshipers. We had better be, what God forbid we ever should be, 76 ' THOUGHTS ON POPERY. a nation of slaves. I do verily believe that the Roman Catholic religion has only to be universally adopted to make us both. 31. Praying to Saints. This is one of the numerous points in which Ca- tholics and Protestants differ from each other. They, the Catholics, pray to departed saints. This they ac- knowledge they do, nor are they at all ashamed of the practice, but endeavor to justify it. If any one doubts that they hold to the invocation of saints^ as they ex- press it, let him consult the notes to their own Rhe- mish Testament, or look into their book of prayers, where he will read the very language in which they make their supplication to the saints. We Protestants do oiot pray to saints, and we think we have pretty good reasons for not doing it. We will mention some of them, in the hope that they will ap- pear to be equally good reasons why Catholics should not pray to saints. 1. We do not feel the need of saints to pray to. We have a great and good God to go unto, whose ear is ever open to our cry, and we think that is enough; we do not want any other object of prayer. Whenever we feel the need of any thing, we judge it best to apply directly to our heavenly Father, especially since James, one of the saints, testifies, that " every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights." Others may, THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 77 m their necessity, if they please, apply to the saints, but we choose to ask of the Great Giver of all good. In doing so, we think we are much more likely to re- ceive than if we invoke the saints. It is true, being sinners, we need an advocate with the Father, but we do not need more than one, and him we have, as John, another saint, testifies, in Jesus Christ : " If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." John speaks of only one advocate, and Paul asserts that as there is but one God, so there is but one mediator between God and men. Yet the Catholics will have it, that there are advocates many and mediators many. The notes of the Rhemish translators on 1 Tim. 2 : 5, and 1 John. 2 : 1, assert the doctrine of a plurality of me- diators and advocates. The object of those notes is to show, that if any man sin, he has many advocates with the Father, and that there are more mediators than one between God and men ; the very reverse of what those texts assert ! I am aware that the Catholics say that saints are mediators only in a subordinate sense; but I say they are mediators in no sense. Does the Bible speak of them as mediators in any sense ? Those words, " mediator " and " advocate," are in the Bible sacredly appropriated to Christ. There is but one, and it is he. We come to the Father by him. To him we come immediately. Here we need no daysman. 2. We Protestants have always regarded prayer as a part of worship, as much as praise and confession of sin. Now, our Savior says, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." We dare not, therefore, pray to any other than God. We would not like to be guilty of the idolatry of worship- ing a creature. 7* 78 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 3. If we were disposed to pray to the saints, yet we should not exactly know how to do it. Were we to pray to them generally, without singling any out by name, it would be a kind of praying at random ; and we strongly suspect that our requests would not be at- tended to, for it may be among saints in heaven, as it is among their less perfect brethren on earth, that what is made every body's business comes to be regarded as nobody's. If, on the other hand, we apply to spe- cific saints, and invoke them by name, this supposes that we know just who the saints are. It implies either that we could see into their hearts while they lived, or that we can see into heaven now — both which far outreach our power. We might make some sad mis- take in praying to deceased men who have passed for saints. It is easy enough to ascertain who the church regards as saints, but the canonized may not exactly correspond to the sanctified. But, supposing this diffi- culty removed, and that we know certain individuals, who, having once lived on earth, are now in heaven : the next thing is, to make them hear us, for there is manifestly no use in preferring requests to those who cannot hear them. How is this to be done ? The saints are in heaven — the suppliant sinner is on earth, and the distance between them is great. Saints in heaven are not within call of sinners on earth. Where is the proof of it? If I say, "Peter, pray for me," how is he to know I say it? Peter is not omnipresent. Do they say that God communicates to him the fact ; but where is the proof of that ? Besides, what does it amount to? God, according to this theory, informs Peter that a certain sinner on earth wants him, Peter, to ask him, the Lord, to grant him something. This THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 79 is a roundabout method of getting at the thing. The man had better, a great deal, not trouble Peter, but say at once, " God be merciful to me a sinner." But the Catholics ask with an air of triumph, if we do not request living saints to pray for us. We do, for we have inspired authority for that. But that is not praying to them. There is a wide difference be- tween praying to a saint in heaven, and asking a fel- low-traveler to Zion on earth to pray to God for us. Every one must see that. When a Christian asks his minister or his Christian friend to beseech God for him, he does not consider that he is praying to him or invoking him. Besides, we never ask one to pray for us, unless we know he is within hearing. We should think it very silly to do so. We must have proof of his presence before we think of making any request of him. Yet the Catholics are continually making requests of creatures, of whose presence with them they have not a particle of proof, and who, being crea- tures, it is certain cannot be present with all that call upon them. How many individuals are every day, at the same hour, calling on the blessed Virgin for as- sistance ! It is all folly, unless she be omnipresent — a goddess, Avhich the Bible certainly does not represent her as being. She occupies but one small spot in the universe of God, and it is probably a great way off. She cannot hear, even if she could help. Do you sup- pose, that her calm repose in heaven is suffered to be disturbed by the ten thousand confused voices that cry to her without ceasing from earth? Never. In looking over the Bible, the book which contains the religion of Protestants, and which, being older than the Roman Catholic religion, proves the seni- 80 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. ority of Protestantism over Popery, I find no account of praying to saints. I do not read of Joshua praying to Moses ; or of Elisha invoking Elijah. No, there is not a word of what constitutes so much of the devo- tion of the Catholic in either Testament. We do not find any thing in the Acts or Epistles about praying to the beloved Virgin, whom they call our Lady, in allusion to the phrase our Lord. Those writers say nothing about the another. It is all about the So7i. What heretics Luke and the rest of them were ! How worthy of being excommunicated ! Catholic books are full of the blessed Virgin. The Bible is all about Christ. There is the difference. But I forgot. The New Testament does record one instance of prayer to a departed saint. The record is in Luke, 16. The saint prayed to was Abraham. The supplicant was a rich man in hell, and he made two requests. Here is the Catholic's authority for this doctrine of praying to deceased saints, so far as he gets it out of the Bible. Let him make the most of it. When, however, he takes into consideration that it was offered from hell, and by a man who lived and died in ignorance and neglect of religion, and that it proved totally unavailing, I suspect he will make no more out of it. 33. Specimens of Catliolic Idolatry. I take them from the Catholic book Avhich I have been reviewing, " The Christian's Guide to Heaven." THODGHTS ON POPERY, 81 I did not know, before I read this book, that idolatry was the road to heaven. It did not use to be under the Jewish dispensation. These specimens of Catho- lic idolatry I think the reader will pronounce, Avith me, quite up 'to the average of Pagan idolatry. Here is one. " We fly to thy patronage, O holy mother of God ; despise not our petitions in our neces- sities, but deliver us from all dangers." That is the manner in which devout Catholics in the United States are directed to pray. They fly to Mary, but " God is our refuge." There is the difference. They look to her to deliver them from all dangers. I don't know how she can deliver them from all dangers. I think they had better ascertain the powers of the Vir- gin Mary, before they place such unbounded reliance on her. I should be a very fearful creature, had I none to fly to from danger but her. " What time I am afraid, I will trust in Z^ee," (the Lord.) So says the Psalm- ist, and it is my purpose too. The next specimen is entitled, " The Salve Regi- na," and thus it runs : " Hail ! holy queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee we cry, poor banished sons of Eve; to thee we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thy eyes of mercy tov/ards us, and after this our exile is ended, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O clement, O pious, O sweet Virgin Mary." Now, is it not a farce to call this Christianity ? It is a great deal more like atheism. Here is an authorized Catholic prayer, in which there is no recognition of God whatever ! Then follows a call to devout contemplation, and 82 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. one would suppose that the object of it would be God, or the Savior. But no, it is the Virgin. "Let us, with exultation, contemplate the blessed Virgin Mary sitting in glory at the right hand of her be- loved Son. She is crowned by the heavenly Father queen of heaven and earth, and appointed by Jesus Christ the dispenser of his graces." It is singular that the Catholics, when they look up to heaven, see no object so conspicuous as the blessed Virgin. Now, she was not the most prominent figure in those visions of heaven of which we have account in the Bible. Ste- phen saw "the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God," but he saw no- thing of the Virgin Mary sitting at her Son's right hand. Nor does John, in the history he gives in the book of Revelation of his visions of heaven, make any mention of seeing her. But it seems she is not only visible to the contemplative Catholic, but almost alone conspicuous. They speak of her moreover as crowned universal queen, and appointed dispenser of the graces of Christ. But where did they get that information ? It is too much to expect us to take their word for it, since it is acknowledged that Ave have not the word of God for it. I always supposed Christ to be, through his Spirit, the dispenser of his own graces. I always understood it to be him who " received gifts for men." But it seems, according to the Catholics, that quite a different per- son received and dispenses them. How much novelty there is in the Catholic religion ! It is almost all of it comparatively new doctrine. Ours, the Protestant, is the old religion, after all that is said to the contrary. But the Catholic is so positive in regard to the coro- THOUGHTS ON FOPERY. 83 nation of the blessed Virgin, that we find him using the following thanksgiving, " O Jesus, in union with angels and saints, I bless thee for the glory w4th which thou hast environed thy holy mother, and I give thee thanks from the bottom of my heart, for having given her to me, for my queen, my protec- tress and my mother." Here ends the thanksgiving to Jesus. They soon become weary of addressing him, and fondly return to the mother. " O queen ot angels and men, grant thy powerful intercession to those who are united to honor thee in the confrater- nity of the holy rosary," (I don't know what that means ; it is a mystery that I must leave unexplain- ed,) "and to all thy other servants." Then follows something to which I solicit particular attention. I suspect the author and approvers of the book would be glad to obliterate the sentence I am going to quote, if they could. But it is too late. The words are these : " I consecrate myself entirely to thy service." Here the person wishing to be guided to heaven is directed, under the authority of the archbishop, to con- secrate himself entirely to the service of the Virgin Mary, who is acknowledged on all hands to be a creature. Mark, it is entirely. This excludes God altogether from any share in the person's services. He is to be entirely consecrated to the service of the Virgin. Will any one, who has any regard for his character as an intelligent being, say that this is not idolatry ? There cannot be a plainer case of idolatry made out in any part of the world, or from any portion of history. St. Paul beseeches us to present our bo- dies a living sacrifice to God, which, he says, is our reasonable service ; but this Catholic guide to heaven 84 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. directs us to consecrate ourselves entirely to the ser- vice of the Virgin Mary. Accordingly, the docile Catholic does consecrate himself to Mary, as in the following act of devotion to her, which you may read in the same little book : " O blessed Virgm, I come to offer thee my most humble homage, and to implore the aid of thy pray- ers and protection. Thou art all-powerful with the Almighty. Thou knowest that from my tender years I looked up to thee as my mother, my advocate, and patroness. Thou wert pleased to consider me from that time as one of thy children. I will henceforth serve, honor and love thee. Accept my protestation of fidelity; look favorably on the confidence I have in thee ; obtain for me, of thy dear Son, a lively faith ; a firm hope ; a tender, generous, and constant love, that 1 may experience the power of thy protection at my death." Here you perceive the Catholic says he will do what " the guide " directs him to do. He will serve her; and so doing, he hopes to experience the power of her protection at his death. Poor soul ! I pity him, if he has no better company in death than that. That was not the reason David said, " Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." His reason was, "for Thou (the Lord, his shepherd ) art with me ; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." How can Mary be with every dying Catholic who trusts in her? I should like to know. Do they go so far as to say she is omnipre- sent ? Have they formally deified her, as in fact they have ? The devotee in this prayer uses the following lan- guage to the virgin : " Thou art all-powerful with the THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 85 Almighty." Shall I call this an error ox idi falsehood? It is certain that there is no truth in it. She, a poor sinful creature, like the rest of us, saved by grace, all- powerful with the Almighty in intercession ! Christ is that ; but no other being is ; and to say that any other is, is not only falsehood, but blasphemy. 1 have other specimens of Catholic idolatry, which I mean to give ; but those I have exhibited are suffi- cient to convict that church of idolatry before any court that ever sat, or any jury that was ever impan- neled. / have proved the Catholic church and reli- gion to he idolatrous. I have not merely asserted it; it has been demonstrated^ and the proof has been taken from her own authorized publication. To have said she was idolatrous, would have been uncharita- ble. To have proved it, is not. A man is responsi- ble for the drift of his assertions, but not for the scope of his arguments. Idolatrous ! Yes, she who pretends to be the only church, is convicted, out of her own mouth, of idola- try. She has this millstone about her neck. I won- der she has sioum with it so long. It must sink her presently. I think I see her going doion already, al- though I know many suppose she is rising in the world. 33. More Specimens of Catliolic Idolatry. Why, reader, did you know that the Catholics not only pray to the Virgin Mary, but sing to her ? I was 8 86 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. not aware of it until I got hold of the book I have been reviewing. But it is a fact that they do. At the end of the book 1 find the two following hymns ad- dressed to her. They are both in common metre. Here is the first. You will see that, in point of idolatry, they are fully up to the prayers to her. " O holy mother of our God, " To ihee for help we fly ; " Despise not this our humble prayer, " But all our wants supply. " O glorious virgin, ever blest, " Defend us from our foes; " From threatening dangers set us free, "And terminate our woes." Here is the idolatry of looking to a creature for the supply of all wants ^ and of flying to a creature for help and for defence. There is a curse pronounced in Jeremiah, 17 : 5, on the man " that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." If the person who de- voutly uses this hymn does not make "flesh his arm," I should like to know who does. The other hymn runs thus : "Hail, Mary, queen and virgin pure, " With every grace replete ; "Hail, kind protectress of the poor, " rity our needy state. " O thou who fill'st the highest place, " Next heaven's imperial throne; " Obtain for us each saving grace, '• And make our wants thy own. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 87 " How oft, when trouble filled my breast, " Or sin my conscience pained, " Through thee I sought for peace and rest, " Through thee I peace obtained. " Then hence, in all my pains and cares, "I'll seek for help in thee; *' E'er trusting, through thy powerful prayers, ' To gain eternity." But it seems the blessed Virgin is not the only crea- ture they sing' to. I find in the same book a hymn to St. Joseph, of which the first verse is, ** Holy Patron, thee saluting, " Here Ave meet with hearts sincere; " Blest St. Josej)h, all uniting, " Call on thee to hear our prayer." • Perhaps the reader is aware that the Catholics are not satisfied with praying merely to animated beings, they sometimes supplicate things which have no life. Indeed they seem disposed to worship almost every thing, except it be Him whom alone they should wor- ship. To give but one example, I find in " the Litany of the blessed Sacrament," as they call it, among ma- ny other similar supplications, this one, " O wheat of the elect, have mercy on us." What a prayer this, to be sanctioned by an archbishop, and sent forth from one of the most enlightened cities of America, and that in the nineteenth century too ! It is really too bad. We talk of the progress of things. But here is retro- ccssio7i with a witness. In the Jirst century the rule was, according to the practice of the publican, to pray, " God be merciful to me a sinner ;" but now in the 88. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. nineteenth^ the sinner is directed to say, " O wheat of the elect, have mercy on us !" I think Ave have found, with reference to the Catho- lic religion, what Archimedes could not find when he wanted to move the world. He said he could move it, provided he could have a place to stand on, from which he could with his lever act upon the world. But as no such place could be found for him, the world was not moved. I think, however, that I have discovered a spot from which we can not only move, but utterly subvert the Roman Catholic religion. We pass over her absurdity and her intolerance, and plant ourselves on her idolatry. Here we will stand, and from this place we will carry on our operations against her. If the Roman Catholic church is idolatrous, can she stand ? Must she not fall ? What ! a church that is plainly idolatrous maintain its ground as the chinch of Christ ! It is impossible. It is but for the eyes of mankind to be opened to see her idolatry, and her reign is over. The common sense of the world cannot long brook prayers and hymns to creatures, and sup- plications for mercy to that of which bread is made. 1 would not have it persecuted ; I would not have one of its adherents harmed in the slightest degree ; but there are some things which the enlightened intellect of man cannot tolerate ; and this is the chief of those things which are intolerable to reason. It must go off the stage, even though infidelity should come on and occupy it. The religion that is not of the Bible, and that scoffs at reason, must come to an end. I have no fears of its rising to any higher ascendancy than that it now occupies. My hope is in God; but if it were not, it would be in man. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 89 34:. Image Worsliip. If there be any truth in phrenology, I judge that Catholics must have the organ of veneration very largely developed. There are no people, unless it be some Pagans, v^rho are so inclined to worship. They "worship almost every thing that comes in their way, with scarcely any discrimination. The value of wor- ship with them seems to depend on the variety of ob- jects worshiped. What a pity it is they cannot con- fine their worship within narrower bounds ! What a pity they are not satisfied with one object of religious veneration — the great and glorious God ! But no. Be- sides him, they must have a host of creatures, angels, saints, and what not, as objects of adoration. Nor are they satisfied with these beings themselves. They must have visible representations of them to bow down unto, and worship. They want something to worship which they can see. In the profession of faith which I find in the little book published in Bal- timore under the sanction of the archbishop, from which I have quoted so freely already, and to which I love to appeal, seeing it is published so near home, and there can be no dispute about its authority, I find this paragraph among others : " I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of the saints, ought to be had and re- tained, and that due honor and veneration is to be given them." This doctrine sounds a little different from that proraulged from Sinai, and written with the finger of God on the tables of stone. They look to be at variance, to say the least; and I think I shall be 8* 90 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. able to show presently that they have that aspect to Catholics as Avell as Protestants. The voice that shook the earth, after saying, " Thou shalt have no other gods before me," said, " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above," &c. Now Christ, the virgin, and the saints are in heaven above, unless any choose to surmise that some of those reckoned saints are elsewhere. Consequently no likeness of them may be made. The law proceeds : " Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." But do not Catholics bow down or kneel before likenesses of the saints and others? I ask the question. I know they used to do so, and I suppose I may infer that they do so now, since it is their grand boast that their religion is every where and always the same. The doctrine delivered from Sinai is the old notion on the subject, and it would seem to be against every kind and degree of image worship. But, says the modern "guide to heaven," what the authoritative Council of Trent had said many years before, " the images of Christ, of the mother of God, and also of the saints, ought to be had and retained, and due honor and ve- neration given ihem." Here are Baltimore and Trent against Sinai; or, in other words, the arch- bishop and council on one side, and he who came down on the mountain which burned with fire on the other. My hearers must range themselves on either side, as they see fit. But cannot the two things be reconciled somehow ? Can they not be so explai7ied as to remove all ap- pearance of inconsistency ? Perhaps they can, if one of them be explained aivay, that is, be made so clear THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 91 that you can't see it any longer. This is a new way some have of reconciling things ; but I, as an indivi- dual, do not think much of it. I like the old way of laying things alongside of each other, and then shed- ding as much light as possible on both. If this is done with the two things in question, I fear there is no hope of reconciling them. To this conclusion our Catholic brethren themselves seem to have come ; and seeing that the two things could not be so explained as to appear in harmony, they have most effectually explained one of them away. They have suppressed it. The second commandment has been thrown out of the Decalogue, as I have shown on a former occa- sion. This is a part of the Catholics' " short and easy method with Protestants." It beats Leslie's with the Deists all to nothing. Whether it be as honest and correct a method, as it is short and easy, I refer to the judgment of my readers. One thing is very certain ; the Catholics must think that the old second com- mandment is, or at least looks very much against them, otherwise they would not have meddled with it. Can any other reason be given for the suppres- sion of the second commandment, but that it seems to forbid that use which Catholics make of images in their churches? If any body can imagine another reason, I will thank him to state it. Now, where there can be but one motive impelling to an act, I suppose it is not uncharitable to refer the act to that motive. I believe the reader is aware that, even in the little modern Baltimore book, " the guide to heaven," the second commandment is suppressed. I think I have stated thp.t fact in a former article. It is so. And 92 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. why should it not be ? Why should not the invaria- ble religion be the same here that it is in Ireland or Italy ? Why should American Catholics be bound to keep one more commandment than European Catho- lics? Why should they of the old countries have greater liberty of action than we of the new world ? The circumstances under which the second com- mandment is omitted in "the guide to," &c. are these. An examination, preparatory to confession, is recommended to the devout Catholic, on the ten com- mandments, that he may see, before he goes to the priest to get forgiveness, wherein he has transgressed any of them. Now, he is not directed to examine him- self on the second, but Hcice over on the tenth, so as to make out the full number. Now I acknowledge it would have been awkward to have set the person to examining himself in reference to the second com- mandment. It might have led to a conviction of sins not recognized by his confessor. If he had asked himself, " is there any graven image, or likeness of any thing in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, to which I bow down V himself would have been apt to answer, " Why yes, there is that image of Christ I kneel before — and there is that likeness of the blessed Virgin I bow down to and adore — I am afraid I have broken the second commandment." If then he had gone to the priest with his scruples, you see it would have made work and trouble. It is true, the priest could have said to him, " O, my child, you don't mean any thing by it. You only use the image as a help to devotion. Your worship does not terminate on it. Your worship of it is only relative. Besides, you don't adore the image — you only venerate it — THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 93 and you only give '■^ due honor and veneration" to images — nothing more than that. You should con- sider, my child, the distinction between adoration and veneration — and also between latria and dulia.^^ But this might not have satisfied the person's conscience. Tt might have been all Greek to him. Wherefore it was judged most prudent not to recommend any ex- amination on the commandment about images. Per- haps it was the more prudent course. The policy of the measure I do not dispute. But, say the Catholics, have not Protestants their pictures and statues ? Certainly we have. We do not make war against the fine arts. We can approve of painting and statuary without practicing idolatry. Yes, we have representations of deceased Christians, but we do not kneel before them, nor do we on that account drop the second commandment, as some do. The Catholics make a great many explanations and distinctions on this subject of image worship, some of which I have adverted to above, in what I have supposed the priest to say. But they are substantially the same that the ancient Israelite might have made, and the modern Pagan makes in justification of him- self. Idolaters, when called upon to explain them- selves, have always been in the habit of saying that it was only a relative worship they paid to the visible object, and that the adoration was meant to pass through and terminate on an invisible object beyond. This explanation is not original with the modern Christian idolater. It is as old as Jewish and Paaran idolatry. The worshipers of the golden calf wor- shiped something beyond the calf. The calf was only a help to devotion, and they only paid " due 94 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. honor and veneration " to it. Nevertheless they '^ sin- ned a great sin," and "the Lord plagued the people " on account of it.^ " There fell of the people that day about 3,000." I suppose it would have been just the same had they made ever so many explanations. But their explanations were not waited for. What signi- fies all these explanations and distinctions to the great mass of the Catholic laity ? They do not even under- stand them ; and it seems that if they both understood and regarded them, it would not help the matter. It is this very explained and qualified worship which the commandment forbids. I have nothing more to say about images, but I wish the Archbishop of Baltimore would allow the second commandment to appear in the next edition of " the Guide to Heaven." I wish he would let the publish- er's stereotype plates be altered so as to conform to the tables of stone. I am afraid the people will not get to heaven if they have not respect to all God's com- mandments. The Psalmist seems to have thought that necessary. Ps. 119: 6. It would gratify me much, if the archbishop would permit the Lord to say to his people all he has to say. 25. Relicg. My last was on the subject of images. Here are some more things to which the Catholics, if they do not exactly worship them, pay a respect and venera- tion which is very apt to run into worship. They are THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 9d relics, so called. I have just come from the diction- ary where I went to find the word. I consulted Cru- den's Concordance first, but I found no such word there. That contains only the words which are used in the Bible. Relics came in fashion after the Bible was written. In those old times they were not fn the habit of mutilating the bodies and disturbing the bones of the pious dead. They respected the remains of the departed by letting them alone, as king Josiah ordered the people to do in the case of the bones of the two prophets. They were going to disturb them, but he told them to let them alone, 2 Kings, 23 : 18. This is the way in which Protestants respect the re- mains of the dead. It is rather queer that Catholics, in the lack of other scripture to support their doctrine of relics, appeal to this, and they will have it that Josiah, like themselves, entertained a great respect for relics. The reference to that passage must be on the principle of Incus, a noii hicendo, [light from no light.] I cannot account for it in any other way. By the way, I did not even find relics in the con- cordance to the Apocrypha. But Johnson has it. A dictionary, you know, takes in all words. I find the general signification of the word to be remains. In the Catholic church it is used to designate " the re- mains of the bodies, or clothes, of saints or martyrs, and the instruments by which they were put to death, devoutly preserved, in honor to their memory ; — kissed, revered, and carried in procession." This is the best definition of relics I can any Avhere find. I am indebted for it to the Encyclopedia. But it is not a perfect definition. There are some things preserved and revered as relics which don't exactly fall under 96 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. it ; as, for example, the rope with which Judas hanged himself, and the tail of Balaam's ass, both of which are kept and shown as relics. But it may be asked if relics are not out of date. The inquirer should know that nothing ever gets out of date with the Catholics. Always and every where the same is their boast respecting their religion. Be- sides, in the Baltimore publication, " the Guide to Heaven," notice is taken of relics. It says that the saints are to be honored and invocated, and that their relics are to be respected. Well, and Avhere is the harm of respecting relics ? I might retaliate and ask where is the use — what is the good of it ? They must think that devotion is promoted by these relics. But I cannot see how the spirit of devotion is to be pro- moted by contemplating St. Joseph's axe and saw, or the comb of the Virgin Mary, or even the finger of St, Ann. If a person even knows that he is handling a piece of the identical wood of the cross, it does not occur to me how that is to enkindle the flame of piety in his heart. The ancient method of exciting the glow of devotion was quite different. It was by me- ditation on spiritual subjects. It was while the Psalm- ist was musing, that " the fire burned " within hira. But it seems the Catholics come to the same thing by the aid of their relics. Well, if devotion is kindled by relics, towards whom does it flame ? Towards the saints, to be sure, whose relics they are. These re- mains can only remind them of those to whom they once belonged. So that it is the religious veneration of saints, not the worship of Jehovah, that is promoted by relics. All that can be said for them is, that they serve the cause of idolatry. THODGHTS ON POPERY. 97 But I have been writing as if tliese relics were genuine remains of the saints — the saw they show really St. Joseph's, and the finger St. Ann's. The reader must excuse me for indulging such a supposi- tion. The very idea of such things being preserved, and transmitted through eighteen centuries, is prepos- terous. Their own Avriters acknowledge that many of them are spurious — that bones are often consecrated, which, so far from belonging to saints, probably did not belong to Christians, if indeed to human beings. If this be so, how are we to know which are genuine? There can be no internal evidence to distinguish them. The bones of saints must look just like other bones. I know it is said there is an odor about the genuine relics which does not belong to the remains of the vulgar dead. How that is I cannot say. I understand that, in the failure of the ordinary, external evidence, the Pope takes it on him to pronounce them genuine. This is making short Avork of it. But some of the authorities of the church of Rome go so far as to say that it is not necessary the relics should be genuine. It is enough that the worshiper has an in- tention of honoring the saints whose bones he sup- poses them to be. If this is correct doctrine, churches and chapels may be readily furnished with relics, and the defect in this particular, which Catholics deplore in regard to many of their establishments, be supplied without going farther than the nearest graveyard. If any one should still think that the relics may be genuine, there is a consideration which, if I mistake not, will carry complete conviction to his mind. It is, that there are altogether too many of these relics, so that some of them must be spurious. Fi^^ devout pil- 9 93 TIIOUGIITS ON FOPERY. grims happening to meet on their return from Rome, found, on comparing their notes, that each had been honored with a foot of the very ass upon which Christ rode to Jerusalem. Here were five feet for one ani- mal. Moreover, it is said that there are as many- pieces of the timber of the true cross in different parts of Europe, as would supply a town with fuel for a winter ! But, say they, were not the bones of Joseph pre- served, and afterwards removed to Canaan. Undoubt- edly they were. But they were all kept together in a coffin, and they were removed, not to be worshiped, but to be buried. Joseph, being persuaded that God would visit his people, and bring them out of Egypt into Canaan, enjoined it on them to take his remains along Avith them, for he Avished them to repose in the land of promise. What this has to do with relics I have not the discernment to perceive. How it bears any resemblance to the Catholic practice of disturbing coffins and separating bone from bone, and cherishing them as things to be revered, I cannot see. Yet no less a character than Cardinal Bellarmine appeals to this fact in support of their doctrine of relics. So also they cite the case recorded in 2 Kings, 13: 21, of the dead man that was revived by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha. But how does this favor relics ? The bones of Elisha were quietly reposing in the place where they Avere laid at his death. Not one cf them had been touched. But if relies had been in vogue then, do you suppose the remains of such an eminent saint as Elisha would have been left undis- turbed ? I was surprised to find that Bellarmine refers to THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 99 Deut. 34 : 6, in support of relics. It is that remarka- ble passage in which the Lord is said to have buried Moses in a valley in the land of Moab, and that no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. I sup- pose the cardinal would have us infer from this, that if the place of Moses' body had been known, it would have been dug up and converted into relics. And therefore the Lord took care it should not be known. The devil, it seems, from Jude, 5: 9, contended for it for some such purpose as this, but he was foiled. The reference to this passage strikes me as rather an un- happy one. But Avere not handkerchiefs and aprons brought from the body of Paul, and miracles thereby wrought? Yes, but they were not relics. Paul was living. Be- sides, Avho does not see that those articles of dress were but sig-ns to connect the miracles, in the minds of the people, with the person of God's inspired am- bassador ? Was any honor due to them ? Do we hear of their being preserved and revered? No. I do not find them in any list of relics. They passed again immediately into their former appropriate use as hand- kerchiefs and aprons. Finally, they appeal to the effi- cacy of the shadow of Peter, as related, Acts, 5 : 15, in proof of the virtue of relics. But as there appears to be no substance in this argument, I leave it unanswer- ed ; and have only to add, that I wonder not that infi- dels abound so in Catholic countries, when Christi- anity is held up before them as embracing and even giving prominence to such doctrines as the veneration of relics, the invocation of saints, and many more like them. 100 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 36. Seven Sacraments. What ! Seven ! How is this ? I read in the Bible of only tivo. Whence have they the other Jive ? O, they come from the other source of Christian doctrine, ti^a- dition. They were handed down. It is true, the apos- ties iiyrote of only two sacraments ; but Catholics would have us believe that they -preached and con- versed about five others : and those that heard them spoke of these sacraments to others ; and they to others still ; and so the story passed from lip to lip, until the Council of Trent, I believe it was, concluded that something had better be written about these five extra sacraments. I Avonder that was never thought of be- fore. It is surprising that it never occurred to the apostles, when they were writing their Epistles, to say a syllable about these seven sacraments. It would seem to have been very thoughtless in them. I may be very hard to please, but I cannot help feeling a desire to have Scripture, as well as unwritten tradition, in support of a doctrine or practice called Christian. I like to be able to trace a doctrihe all the Avay back to the Bible, and to find it originating in the very oracles of God themselves. Some think it sufficient, if they can follow a doctrine back as far as the earlier fathers ; and especially if they can trace it to the Epistles of Ignatius. But this does not satisfy me. There are cer- tain other Epistles, rather more ancient, in which I would like to find the doctrine. Ignatius was a very good man, but he did not belong to the days of Paul by any means. Ignatius, Clemens, and all those good fathers, stood on the bank of the stream, but Paul and THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 101 his associates sat around the fountain. These last saw truth in its rise ; the others only saw it in its flow. True, they were near the source, but they were not at it ; and who knows not that a stream may be cor- rupted very near its source ? If I live eighteen or nine- teen miles distant from a certain fountain, whose stream passes by my residence, and I want to know whether its waters have been corrupted, do I trace back the stream until I come within a mile or two of the fountain, and there stop, concluding thai such as the water is there, such it must be at the spring ? Do I not rather go all the way up to the fountain? Which ought I to do ? It strikes me as very strange, that any should suspend their search after truth a century or two this side of the Bible era. I think they should go all the way back to the Bible. But I am wandering from my subject, which is the sacraments. What are those other Jive 7 One is mar- riage. What ! marriage a sacrament ! How does it answer to the definition of sacrament ? What spiritual thing is signified by it ? Marriage is said to be " ho- norable in all," but nothing is said of its being a sa- crament. If it be a sacrament, why are not priests, as well as others, permitted to take this sacrament? Why should the universal clergy be debarred the pri- vilege of this holy thing? Does its sacred character render it unsuitable to those who fill the sacred office ? The other day I was thinking — for, being a Protes- tant, I dare think even on religion — and this thought occurred to me : " Is it possible that God has denied the whole body of the clergy, of all nations and ages, the privilege of knowing how he pitieth them that fear hira; and of approaching to the experimental know- 9* 102 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. ledge of his exceeding readiness to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him — the privilege, in other words, of being able to feel the force of some of the most touching representations which he has made of his dispositions towards his creatures, founded on the p'arental relation ?" I read in the Bible that " like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." Now, can it be sinful for a minister of Jesus Christ to know by experience (the only way in which it can be fully known) how a father pitieth, and how, consequently, the Lord pitieth his people? I think it is man, and not God, that constitutes this a sin. Again, does God make this general appeal to his creatures, " If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him !" — and has he at the same time excluded a large class of his creatures from the privi- lege of ever knowing how well disposed parents are to bestow good things on their children ? And has he laid under this ban the very persons whom he has ap- pointed to represent and testify of him to men ? Has he appealed to the parental feelings of his creatures, and then forbidden a large and important class of them to know what those feelings are ? This is rather more than I can believe. A minister of Jesus Christ may decline the privi- lege of marriage in his own case — he may not use that power, as Paul, in his peculiar circumstances, did not, and as many a Protestant minister does not. This is one thing ; but has God cut off the whole order of the clergy from even the right to marry? That is the question. And that is a very different thing. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 103 27 » Tx-ausubstantiotiou. Because Christ says, in reference to the bread, " This is my body," the Catholics contend that the bread is changed into the body of Christ; and this they call Transubstantiation. And when we say that the pas- sage is not to be interpreted literally, but that the bread is merely indicated as the representative of Christ's body, they reply with wonderful confidence, " Ah, but does he not say it is his body — does he say it represents his body merely — what authority have Protest.ints to bring in a figure here ?" Now let me be heard. I have no disposition to ridicule the doctrine of Transubstantiation, especially as it professes to be founded on Scripture. I would give always a candid hearing to the claims of a doctrine which even seems to be held out of respect to the authority of the Bible. But I must say that the Catholic does not carry his veneration for the Scriptures far enough ; or he is not consistent in his interpretation of them. I think I can show that, to be consistent with himself, he should be- lieve in many more than one Transubstantiation. Let him turn to Luke, 22 : 19, 20. He reads in verse 19, " This is my body." Therefore, he reasons, the bread becomes the body of Christ. Very well. But read verse 20 ; " This cup is the new testament." Here is ano- ther Transubstantiation. The cup or chalice becomes the new testament. It is no longer gold or silver^ but a testament or iinll ! Does not Christ say it is the new testament ? What right have Catholics to bring in d^ figure here ? The cup is a will — Christ says so. To be sure, if it were carried to a probate office, it 104 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. would be thought out of place, and an article for a sil- versmith to prove, rather than a judge of probate. But no matter for that. What if the senses do tell you that it is still a cup, and the body still bread, will you be- lieve those liars, the senses ? But if they are such liars as this would make them out to be, why should I ever believe them — why should I believe them, when they tell me that I see in the Bible those words : " This is my body ?" That testimony of the senses the Catholic believes ; but if they lie about the body, still declaring it is bread, after it has ceased to be any such thing, why may they not lie in regard to the letters which spell '.' this is my body." Under the appeal ance of these letters there may be something quite different, even as, under the appearance of bread in the Eucha- rist, is the body of Christ, as the Catholics affirm ! But these are not the only instances of Transub- stantiation. The Bible is full of them. I find two cases of this change recorded in Revelation, 1 : 20 ; one in which certain stars become angels, and another in which certain candlesticks become churches. Do you doubt if? Read for yourself : "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven can- dlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven churches." The construction here is precisely similar to " this is my body." Christ is the speaker in each case, and he says the stars are angels, and the candlesticks are\ churches. Who has any right to imagine a figure here? Perhaps every body does not Imow that Transub- stantiation is an Old Testament doctrine. But, ac- cording to this mode of interpretation, it is St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 10 : 4, alluding to the rock which Moses THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 105 smote in the wilderness, says, " That rock was Christ" — not it represented^ but it was Christ ! Away with your figures. Many other examples of Transubstantiation might be ffiven from the Old Testament. Let two remark- able cases suffice, of which Ave have an account in Ge- nesis, 41 : 26, 27 : " The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years," &c. Here seven cows and seven ears of corn are changed into seven years of three hundred and sixty -five days each ! I suppose I might find many hundred examples of these Transubstantiations. Now, does the Catholic believe in all of them? He ought, most undoubtedly he ought, on the same reason that he believes in one. Let him then either believe in them all, or else never adduce, " this is my body," in proof of the Transub- stantiation held in his church. I wish Mr. H. or some body else would set me right, if I err in this argument. 38. Half a Sacrament. Half a sacrament ! Who ever heard of such ajhing? A sacrament divided ! Yes, even so. The authorities of the Roman Catholic church. Pope, Council, &c. have divided the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which our Savior instituted the same night in which he was betrayed ; and, ever since the Council of Con- stance, they have allowed the people only half of it. 106 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. They have told them that they must put up with the bread, for that they want the cup for themselves. But did not Christ give the cup, in the original institution of the sacrament, to as many as he gave the bread ? Yes, Christ did. So say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. He took the cup, they tell us, and gave it to them ; and Matthew adds that he said in giving it, " Drink ye all of it." Let not this be omitted by any disciple. It would seem as if Christ foresaw what the Constance Council was going to do, and therefore said, " Drink ye all of it." Rome might with more plausibility have denied her laity the other half of the sacrament — the bread. After the command to take the cup, there fol- lows the reason ; observe it : " For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." Now the Catholics say that only priests were present on that occasion, and that the giv- ing of the cup to them can be no precedent for giving it to the laity. But, though we should admit that they were at that time priests, I want to know if the reason for partaking of the cup does not apj)ly to others be- sides the clergy. Was not the ]jlood shed for the laity as well as for the clergy ? And if this is the reason why any should partake, it is equally a reason why all should for whom the blood was shed. The precept and privilege to drink is co-extensive with the reason an- nexed to it. Now I have not been in the habit of re- garding the propitiatory death of Christ as a part of the benefit of clergy — as one of the peculiar privileges of the priesthood. I object therefore to the restriction of the cup of blessing to the clergy. The symbol ot the blood shed for many, for the remission of sins, I claim to be mv privilege as truly as that of any priest. THOUGHTS Oi\ POPERY. 107 Christ did not shed his blood for the sons of Levi alone. Yes, Christ gave it in both kinds — and what is more, the Catholics themselves acknowledge that he did, and that the primitive church administered it in both kinds, yet {hoc tamen noii obstante are their very words) they appoint that the people shall receive it but in one kind, that is, notwithstanding Christ and the primitive church. And they declare them accursed who teach or practice otherwise. What is this but anathema- tizing Christ ? But surely they must have something to say in justification of their conduct in this respect. To be sure they have. Do you not know that the Pope is the head of the church, and that he is infallible ; or if he is not, yet the firm Pope & Co. are 1 Yes, but there was Pope Gelasiics, who lived a good while be- fore. He having heard of some Manicheans who re- ceived the bread without the wine, decided that such a dividing of one and the same sacrament might not be done without a heinous sacrilege. Was not he head of the church too, and was not he infallible ? If he was not, I wonder how he could transmit infallibility. This withholding of the cup is one of the boldest strokes of that church. I cannot help admiring the courage it manifests. Who would have thought it could have succeeded so well? I wonder they even undertook to carry this point. However, they have done it. There was some murmuring against it, to be sure. Huss and Jerome made a noise about it, but they just burnt them, and they made no more noise about it. But are not Christians followers, that is, imitators of Christ ? O yes. But this withholding of the cup is not doing like Christ. The Catholics say that Christ 108 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. is with their church to the end of time. It strikes me, however, that he could not have been with them at that point in the progress of time when the Council of Constance sat. I do not know what others think, but for my own part I don't believe that any power on earth has a right to limit a grant of Jesus Christ, or, in other words, to take away what he has given. He said of the cup, " drink ye all of it" — and I, for one, will do it, and I think all ought — and if the Catholics will come over to us, they too shall have the cup of salva- tion. O, if I had the ear of the Catholics now, I would not ask .them to confess their sins to me, but there is a thing I would tell them : I would say. My dear Catholic brethren, you never remember Christ in his sacrament. You only half remember him. He said, eat and drink in remembrance of me. You only do one. You do not show the Lord's .death ; for Paul says, " as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death." It is only they who do both that make this exhibition. Christ's death is not shown by the bread merely, but by both the elements. I know your church says that the blood is in the body, and that, in taking one, both are taken, for that "Christ was entire and truly under each kind," as the council decrees. But how came Christ himself to know nothing of this ? Did he do a superfluous thing in giving the cup ? What if the blood is in the body, and the bread being changed into the body, we take the one in taking the other, we want the blood separated from the body, i\ie blood shed. The blood of Christ is not an atone- ment for sin, except as it is shed. Catholics, you THOUGHTS ON POPERY. I09 never celebrate the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's Supper there was a cup. In yours there is none. You hold that the discourse in John, 6, relates to an atonement, and there it is written, " except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Now, according to his own princi- ples, you have no life in you, for you do not drink his blood. The most you can be said to do is, that you eat it in connection with his body ! One thing more. Catholic brethren. There can be no such thing in reality as half a sacrament. To divide a sacrament is to destroy it. What follows then^ but that the whole sacrament is taken from you ! Look at this — just fix your mind five minutes on this subject, and you are, I do not say what, but you are no longer a Catholic. Five minutes. That is all. But you say, I must not doubt ; yet you may think, and God the judge will never condemn you for exercising your mind. 29. Bxtreme Unction* When it looks as if one was going to die, then by all means let the priest be sent for : and when he has come, let him receive the dying man's confession, (but if the priest should be long in coming, I Vv^ould advise him to confess to God. I think it would answer as well. Indeed I prefer that near way to pardon, to the other circuitous route) — and let him then in that ex- tremity anoint him with oil ! This is extreme unction 10 110 tHOUGHTS ON POf£RY. — a sacrament — one of the seven! I think they must have been at a loss to make up the seven, when they pressed this into the service. There don't seem to be a great deal of religion in it; nor indeed any excess of common sense. But to speak of it as constituting a preparation for death is really shocking. What ! a preparation for dying, and for meeting and answering to God, procured by the in- tervention and unction of a human priest— done by oil ! Truly this is an easy way of getting to heaven, particularly where priests are plenty. I do not won- der that the Catholic religion is popular. This is in- deed prophesying smooth things. We Protestants have no such doctrine to preach. When we are called to see a sick person, we candidly acknowledge that there is nothing we can do for him which shall infallibly secure his salvation. We tell him what Jie must do : that he must repent and believe in Christ : and then we ask God to undertake and do for bim. It is only on certain conditions that we can assure him of his salvation. The priests say that they can in- sure the person's salvation ; but to any such power as that we do not pretend. But have not the Catholics plain Scripture for their doctrine of extreme unction ? If they have ; if it is written., and not merely handed dow7i, then I am at once a believer in it. Let us see : they adduce two passages in support of their dogma, Mark, 6 : 13, and James, 5 : 14. The first is historical. It affirms that the apostles " anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them." The other is hortatory. " Is any sick among you 7 let hira call for the* elders of the church ; and let them pray over him, anointing him THOUGHTS ON POPERY. Ill v/ith oil in the name of the Lord," that is, doing what the apostles are represented by Mark as having donej and doing it, as appears from the next verse, with the same end in view, viz. healing. Now, what authority for the sacrament of extreme unction is there here J Here is indeed an anointing with oil by an ecclesias- tic. But who does not see in how many particulars, and how widely this anointing differs from the ex- treme unction of the Catholics ? Their anointing pro- ceeds on the supposition that the person is going to die ; and could his recovery be foreseen, it would be omitted. But the anointing practised by the apostles and elders of the church was in order to the recovery of the person, and was in every case connected with his recovery. Their anointing was the attendant and tol More about Purgatory* What low and unworthy thoughts the Catholics must have of the work of Christ and of the efficacy of his blood, that they should believe that after he has done all he can for a soul, and his blood has exhausted its virtue on it, it has still to be subjected to the action of an intense flame, for no one knows how long, in ordei that the expiation of its sins may be complete, and its salvation perfected ! What a doctrine ! Why, according to this, Christ was premature in saying on the cross, " It is finished." It was not finished. The expiation of sin was only begun on Calvary. It is completed in Purgatory ! O God, I pray thee rid and deliver the mind of man from this dreadful delu- sion, so derogatory to thy dear Son, our blessed Sa- vior ; and so injurious to thee, for it represents thee, who delightest in mercy, as punishing after thou hast pardoned ; as requiring satisfaction from men, after thou hast accepted for them the satisfaction of Christ ! Now I know the reason why Catholics are never happy in the prospect of death — why the dying vota- ries of that religion never exclaim, " O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?". It is because they are expecting to go to a place of tire. Hov7 can they be triumphant in the " certain fearful looking for of judgment and Jiery indignation ?" How can their religion be other than Avhat it is, a religion of fear and foreboding. I have a few more things to say upon this subject ; one of them is this : If there was in the time of Christ and his apostles such a place as Purgatory, it must have been a place of little note and of little use — of tnOUGHTS OK POfERY. 157 little note, for they say nothing about it — and of little Use, because v/e hear of no one going there. Lazarus did not go there, neither did Dives — nor did the thief who was saved from the cross — nor did Judas. Paul speaks of those Christians who are absent from the body, as present with the Lord. Is Christ in Purga- tory ? Is it there that believers go to be ever with him? But hark ! a voice from heaven ! now we shall know how it is : "I heard a voice from heaven," says St. John, " saying unto me, write, blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth ; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors." They that die in the Lord, rest. Then certainly they are not in Purgatory. If Purgatory is full of souls, who are helped by the prayers of the faithful on earth, as Catholics say, why, in the multitude of their exhortations, do the sacred writers never so much as give us a hint about praying for those poor suffering souls ? What a cruel oversight it was in them ! I smile sometimes when I look at this doctrine of Purgatory. But I repress the smile. Ludicrous as the doctrine is, it is still more pernicious. What does it do, that is so bad ? Why, it turns away the atten- tion of the soul from Christ. It says the very opposite of " behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And then it tells men that they may not only live, but die wickedly, and yet entertain the hope of salvation. It proclaims the possibility of a post-mortem repentance and purification from sin. It emboldens men to go out of the world in impeni lence, assuring them that though they do, yet prayers and masses offered for them after death can save 14 158 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. them. It denies that we are to be judged and dealt with according to the deeds done in the body ; wherea-i, the Bible declares that according to these, we are to receive. On the whole, for this doctrine of Purgatory there is neither Scripture, nor reason, nor common sense. This, however, may be said of it. It is a profitable doctrine. Yes, a capital speculation. There is no doctrine which pays so well. You have heard of Pe- ter'' s pence. Here his boasted successors get their pounds. 44. A Strange Thing. I read the other day in a Baltimore newspaper the following article : *' Obsequies. — This day the Prelates and Theologians of the Catholic Provincial Council, now in session in this city, to- gether with several other priests, celebrated the solemn office for the repose of the souls of the Right Rev. Doctor Fenwick, of Cincinnati, and De Neker, of New Orleans. The Right Rev. Doctor Rosati celebrated the High Mass, attended by the pro- per officers. After the Gospel, the Right Rev. Doctor Purcell, Jiishop of Cincinnati, ascended the pulpit and preached a fune- ral Oration; in which he ably portrayed, in accurate and pathetic language, the virtues and services of the deceased jirelates, the former of whom fell a victim to the cholera, after years of laborious and successful exertions; the latter wai taken away in the bloom of youth and in the midst of his labors by the yellow fever. After the Mass, Doctor Rosati perform- ed the usual obsequies." Having finished reading the article, I withdrew the paper from my eye and I said to myself, Where am THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 159 I? I thought I was in the United States of America. But that cannot be. This can be no other than Spain, Portugal, or Italy. And what century is this ? I always thought that I lived in the glorious nineteenth. But I must have made a mistake of nine at the very least. This surely must be the tenth century; the darkest of the dark ages — seculum tenebricosum, as the church historians call it — the midnight of time! this day the Prelates in this city celebrated the solemn of- fice for the repose, &c. Just then it occurred to me that I might have read the paragraph incorrectly. So I resumed the paper ; but still it read the same. Then I threw it down, and I sat and thought : Well now, this is a strange thing — an extraordinary piece of business — praying for the re- pose of deceased saints I — and those, too, prelates of the only true church — and prelates eminent for their "virtues and services" — dead a year, or thereabouts, and yet not at rest! — and this by confession of their own church ! What must become of the less renowned Catholics, if the very best of their bishops are tossing and burning in purgatory a year after having sacrificed their lives in the service of God and their fellow-crea- tures ; and need solemn offices said for the repose of their souls? I always thought that rest to the soul en- sued immediately on the exercise of faith. Paul says, " we Avhich have believed, do enter into rest ;" and Christ says, " come unto me, and I will give you rest ; take my yoke upon you and learn of me and ye shall find rest unto your souls." I always supposed it meant that they should find the rest as soon as they came ; and not after a long life, and along purgatorial period subsequent to that. But above all, I had got the 160 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. impression that, if never before, yet in the grave, good men find rest. I must have contracted that belief, I suppose, by reading what St. John says, " Blessed are the dead which die in the hord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest," &c. or possibly I got it from that other passage, "there the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest^ But it seems I am wrong. Here are two bishops dead, yet not at rest ! If what St. John says is true, here is a dilemma. Either those bishops did not die in the Lord, or they are at rest. Will the prelates say that they did not die in the Lord? I suspect not. Then they must believe that they are at rest. And if so, why celebrate the solemn office for their repose ? Hoping it may not be a mortal sin, (if it be only ve- nial, I will risk it,) I would ask how the Catholics know that these bishops of theirs are not at rest ? Who told them so? Where did they learn it? It seems to me a slander on those men. Bishop Fenwick enjoyed an enviable reputation for goodness. I have often heard him spoken of by Protestants in terms of high commendation ; and the article quoted speaks of " the virtues and services " of both. And now, after they have been dead so long, to tell the world that ihey are not at rest, and that their repose must be prayed for! If Protestants had dared to suggest such a thing about them, we should never have heard the last of it. But it seems not only a slander on those men, but also a reflection on Christ. Hoav imperfectly, accord- ing to the Catholics, he must have done his work ! that even those esteemed his most devoted servants must lie, and toss, and burn, nobody knows how long, THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 161 after death, before the efficacy of his atonement will allow of their being taken to heaven ! And where is the fulfillment of his promise, " Come unto me and I will give you rest. Ye shall find rest to your souls ?" According to the prelates, &c. these bishops have not found it yet. I would dare ask another question. How is it that the priests and prelates can tell with so much accura- cy how long a soul remains in purgatory before it is released ? How do they know just when to stop pray- ing? I will not insinuate that they pray as long as the money holds out, and no longer -, for in the case of the bishops, I suppose they freely give their prayers. I could not help thinking, if they did go first to purga- tory, yet they may not be there so long as this. A year is a long time to be in purgatory. Hours pass slowly away while one is burning. O, is this a part of Christianity ? Can it be ? What an unsatisfactory religion, which will not allow its most eminent exam- ples, its most virtuous votaries, to have repose even in the grave ! Credat qui vult, non ego. 4r5. Canonizing^ Saints. I was a good deal struck the other day in reading, in a Baltimore paper, the following notice : " On Monday, the 17th of March, St. Patrick's day, a so- lemn High Mass will be sung in St. Patrick's church. Fell's Point, and the panegyric of the Saint will be 14* 162 THOUGHTS CTN POPERY. delivered." It suggested some thoughts which I beg leave to communicate. Why should the 17th of March be called St. Pat- rick's day ? How is it his day more than yours or mine ? What property had he in it more than others? He died on that day, it is true. But was he the only one that died on that day. Many thousands must have died on the same day. Does a man's dying on a particular day make it his ? Ah, but he was a saint. How is that ascertained ? Who saw his heart ? I hope he was a good man, and a renewed person. But I think we ought to be cautious how we so positively pronounce our fellow creatures saints. Especially should Catholics, since even Peter himself, thousrh. as they affirm, infallible, did not express himself so confidently, for he says in his first epistle, 5th chap, and 12th verse, of Silvanus, " a faithful brother unto you, as I supposed But what if he was a saint ; every real Christian is a saint. If any one doubts this, let him consult any part of the New Testament, I trust there were many saints on earth at that time ; and I doubt not that other saints died on that day as well as Patrick. I ob- ject altogether to the day being called his. I have no idea that the 365th portion of evAy year belongs pe- culiarly to St. Patrick. I have no notion of this par- celing out the year among the saints, and calling one day St. Patrick's, and another St. Cecilia's, and so on. At this rate we shall have the whole year appro- priated to dead saints. Ah, but you forget that Patrick was canonized. The church made him a saint, and appropriated that day to him. But I have not much opinion of these THOUGHTS OK POPERY. 163 canonized saints — the saints of human manufacture. I like the sanctified ones better. Our Protestant saints are "God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus." But granting the 17th of March to be St. Patrick's day, why is it kept? What have we to do with it, who live so long after ? Patrick died in 493, and here in the 19th century they are keeping his day ! I think it is time to have done grieving for the death of St. Patrick, now that he has been dead more than 1300 years, and especially when he died at the good old age of 120. Really, I think it is time that even the Irish Catholics had wiped up their tears for him. Tears ! why, they do not keep the day in lamentation for him, but in honor and praise of him. High mass is to be swig, as it appears by the advertisement. Now sing- ing expresses praise — and his panegyric is to be pro- nounced. It is wonderful what a disposition there is among the Catholics to multiply the objects of their religious honor. O that they were but satisfied to praise the Lord that made heaven and earth ! But no — they must have creatures to do homage unto — an- gels ; and saints of their own making ; and above all, the blessed Virgin, "our heavenly mother," as some of them call her. It would really seem as if they had rather pay respect to any other being than God ! They cannot be satisfied with the mediation of Jesus. They must have creatures to mediate and intercede for them. They are always doing things, and keeping days in honor of the saints. How much they talk about tute- lar saints and guardian angels. It would appear as if they had rather be under the care of any other beings than God! Now the idea of still eulogizing, panegyrizmg, and 164 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. praising, here in these United States, one St. Patr'ck, who died in Ireland in 493, how absurd! How is piety to be promoted by it, I should like to know ! By the way, what is high mass in distinction from low mass? They differ in several respects. Among the peculiarities of high mass, this, I believe, is one, that it is more exfensive than Ioav mass. If you Avant high mass said for a poor suffering soul in purgatory, you have to pay more than you do if you are content Avitli low mass. And so it should be, for the high mass is worth more. Low mass scarcely makes an impression on a soul in purgatory. It is high mass that does the business effectually and expeditiouslv. As for us Protestants, we have nothing to do with these masses. We do not find any thing said about them in the Bible. The Catholic will pardon me, I hope, for alluding to the Bible. I am aware that it is no good authority with him, except now and then a verse, (entirely misunderstood,) such as that about the rock, which they say was Peter, on whom the church was built, according to them ! Only think now, a man that denied the founder of Christianity three times with profane oaths, himself the foundation of the whole church ! Nothing else for it to rest upon but Peter ! But the beauty of it is that this foundation should have had a long series o{ fundamental succes- sors, down to the present Pope ! I always supposed that when a foundation is laid, there is an end of it, and that all after belongs to the superstructure. But this is a digression. I was speaking of us Protestants, that we reject masses. And so we acknowledge no distinction of days, but the Lord^s day. We keep no saint's days. We keep the Lord's day. It is almos: THOUGHTS ON POPERV. 165 the only day that some Catholics do not keep reli- giously ! They are so busy with their saint's days, that they quite overlook the day which " the Lord hath made." It strikes me that in giving this notice, the priests should have used an easier word than panegyric. I wonder how many of our Irish brethren know what it means. But " ignorance is the mother of devotion," you know, is one of their maxims. What multitudes of them said, on the 17th of March, " blessed St. Pat- rick." Probably many more than said " Hallowed be thy name." And every day how much more respect is paid among them to the mother than to the Son! It is as clear as demonstration can make any thing, that the Catholic religion is idolatrous. Men may say that it is a very uncharitable remark. But if any one will dare to say it is an untrue remark, I am ready to meet him. Let us inquire Jirst^ what is truth. Then we will come to the question, what is charity. And we shall find that charity is something which " rejoices in the truth." 40. Gen. liafayette not at Rest. A few days since I observed the following notice, taken from the Charleston Roman Catholic Miscella- ny : " There will be an office and high mass in the Cathedral on Monday, 30th inst. (June,) for the re- pose of the soul of General Lafayette." Also the 166 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. following, taken from the Catholic Herald: "A so- lemn high mass will be sung on Tuesday next, the 29th inst. (July,) at 10 o'clock, at the church of the Holy Trinity, corner of Sixth and Spruce, for the re- pose of the soul of the late Gen. Lafayette." The General died, it will be remembered, on the 20lh of May. I did not know that he had been heard from since, any more than the rest of the dead. But the Charleston and Philadelphia editors seem to have had accounts of him up to as late a date as the 29th of July. Forty days after his death, according to the one account, and sixty-nine days according to the other, his soul was not at rest ; and they give notice that measures are about to be taken to procure its repose. I don't know where they got it. They do not say through what channel the intelligence came. They are very positive, however, in regard to the fact. I have often been surprised at the confidence with which Catholics make assertions, implying a knowledge of the condition of souls beyond the grave. One would suppose they had a faculty, peculiar to themselves, of seeing into the invisible world. With what positive- ness they speak of this one and that other as saints in glory, and even pray to them as such. I have often thought that many of the prayers of Catholics might be lost from the circumstance of the persons to whom they are addressed not being in heaven. We Protestants do not lose any prayer in that way. We do not pray to any being who we are not certain is-in heaven. We speak with positiveness of the fu- ture condition of characters and classes of men — the righteous and the wicked — believers and unbelievers. The Bible does that. But we do not, we dare not THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 167 speak of the condition of individuals with the same confidence ; and especially dare we not say of this or that person that has died, that his soul is not at rest. We think it better to be silent concerning the spirit that has returned to God who gave it, and wait for the great day to disclose the decision of the eternal mind on its case, and that especially if the person seemed to die in impenitence. We would not usurp the place and prerogative of judgment. What Protestant, even though belonging to the class of Calvinists, as some of us do, would intimate that the soul of such a man as Lafayette is not at rest ? But the Catholics are not so reserved. They pre- tend to know not only who are saints in glory, but what souls are suffering in the fire and restlessness of purgatory. They can tell you the names of the per- sons. They have printed in two of their papers, at least, that the ^ood Lafayette, as our countrymen are wont to speak of him, has not gone to rest. His body rests ; but his soul, they tell us, has as yet found no repose. It has not obtained admittance into that place where "the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest." The General lived a long time Avhere the wicked cease not from troubling ; and much an- noyance received he from them, in the course of his patriotic and useful life ; and many trials and fatigues he underwent for liberty and the rights of man. Now it seems to me the Catholics take a great deal on them, when they say that his soul is still subject to the annoyances and disquiet which were his lot on earth. Yet they do say so. They appoint a day, a good while after his death, to sing high mass for the repose of his soul. Of course they must believe that 168 TUOtGHTS OK fOrERY. up to that day his soul is not in repose, else why seek its repose ? If the person who inserted these notices were living in the papal dominions, or under the influ- ence of Prince Melternich, or the ex-king Charles, I should not wonder at their proclaiming his soul not at rest, for Lafayette was never a favorite at Rome, Vi- enna, or in the court of Charles X. He loved liberty too well for that. But that American Catholics, and, if the reader will not smile at the incongruity of the terms to each other, republican Catholics, should as- sert such a thing of him, I am a little surprised. I almost wonder that the people do not resent it as an insult to the old general, if a Protestant minister should say from the pulpit, or through the press, that Lafayette is not at rest, his church and his person would be hardly safe. But the Catholics do it with impunity. And let them. All the penalty I would have them suffer, is the contempt of every intelligent mind. But why do the Catholics suppose that Lafayette is not at rest ? Is it because none are at rest when they die? Is this their doctrine ? A comfortable religion to be sure ! According to this, how is it " gain to die ?" Who would be "willing rather to be absent from the body 1^ Or how^ can it be said, " O death Avhere is thy sting?" since here it is, and sting enough. But he who wrote, Phil. 1, and 1 Cor. 15, and 2 Cor. 5, was not a Catholic. Or do they conclude Lafayette to be not at rest, because only saints find repose in death, and he was no saint ? I wish all the saints of the church of Rome had been as good men as Lafayette. They have canonized worse men than he. I have never in- quired curiously into the devotional character of the THOUGHTS ON POPERV. 169 general, but I am possessed of no proof that he wag not a Christian. Certainly, I find in his moral history no reason why they should be so positive that he is not at rest. They might have made the appointment conditional, I should think — mass to be said for the re- pose of his soul, provided it be not at rest. But they insert no condition. They are sure he is not at rest. Well, if he is not at rest, how are their masses to give him repose 1 Does the Bible say that they have that efficacy ? I must be excused for being so old- fashioned as to appeal to the Bible. That book, sines it savs nothing about masses, cannot be supposed to say anything of their tranquilizing tendency: I al- V\-ay3 forget that the Catholics have another source of information on religion besides the Bible. Tradition they call it. They mean by it the talk of inspired men, when they had no pen in their hands ; which being heard, Avas reported, and so has come along down by word of mouth. But I, for my part, am satis- fied Vv'ith what they wrote. We, Protestants, cannot join the Roman Catholics in their solemn office for Lafayette. We hope there is no need of praying for the repose of his soul; and we are certain there is no i(se in it. We prayed for him while he v/as living. We did not wait for him to be dead first. Now that his spirit has returned to God who gave it, and the Judge has passed upon it, VsTQ. leave it there. By the way, how do the Catholics know when to stop praying for the repose of a soul ? The Charleston Catholics had their mass for him on the 30th of June. But it seems it was of no avail, for the Philadelphia Catholics are called together Xo sing theirs on the 29th of July. How long is this thing 15 170 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. to go on ? I am writing on the 31st of July. Is he at rest now ? Was the mass of the 29th inst. more efficacious than that of the 30th ult. ? Perhaps the next news from New- York Avill be that mass is to be performed there for the repose of the same soul some day in August. I hope the church is not infallible in regard to Lafayette, as in other matters. I should be sorry to think him all this time not at rest. I remember an old Latin maxim, " Nil de mortuis, nisi bonum," say nothing but good respecting the dead — which, it seems to me, the Catholics have dis- regarded in the case of Lafayette. It is certainly not saying any good of a dead man, to say that he is not at rest. And it is cruel to sing about it. The Phila- delphia mass was sung. Is it kind to treat a sufler- ing soul in purgatory with singing ? It* l*Jrayer8 for tlie FaitSiful Departed. I have taken up again that little book, " The Chris- tian's Guide to Heaven,"* published, as the title page assures us, with the approbation of the most reverend Archbishop of Baltimore. Parts of it I have hereto- fore reviewed, but I have not exhausted its contents. I find on page 198 of my edition, the title of this arti- cle, "Prayers for the Faithful Departed." Faithful, said I to myself; and is it for the faithful dead that they pray ? I was so ignorant as to suppose that it was for wicked Catholics, being dead, they were so THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 171 good 33 to pray. I thought there was no need of praying for deceased Christians — for the f aithful de- parted. I got the notion somewhere, that good peo- ple, when they die, go where there is " fullness oi joy," and "pleasures forevermore." I may have imbibed it from St. Paul, who says that when such are " absent from the body," they are " present with the Lord ;" or perhaps I caught it from St. John, who speaks of the dead that die in the Lord, as " blessed from henceforth," and as resting from their labors. It is more likely, however, that I got the idea from our Saviour, who says to the church in Smyrna, " Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." It was natural that I should take up the idea in reading this, that prayers for the faithful departed were needless, since he says, if they were faithful unto death they should receive a crown of life. We are all liable to mistakes, that is, unless we are infallible. It seems, according to the Catholics, who profess to know all about these matters, that the faithful don't get the crown of life by being faithful unto death. No, they must be faithful a good while after death, before they receive it. That which they get at death is very different from the crown of life. They are a long time absent from the body before they are pre- sent with the Lord. They donH go to heaven, or para- dise. They go to purgatory. This is the Catholic's creed. It don't seem to agree altogether well with the Savior's promise to the Srayrneans. A simple man would suppose that fidelity unto death was im- mediately followed by the crown of life. But they that cannot err tell us otherwise. SomehoAV or other this doctrine of the faithful going 172 THOCGHTS CN POPERY. to purgatory after death, aiicl needing to be prayed out of it, seems to have been always out of the mind of the apostle Paul, when he had his pen in his hand, or was dictating to the amanuensis. He speaks of it as gain to die; but surely, to exchange earth for pur- gatory is no gain. Air, however impure or sultry, is more agreeable than the element of Jire. He tells of his desire to depart and be with Christ, just as if the one immediately followed the other. He overlooked purgatory ; otherwise I think he would not have had the desire to depart. Perhaps he thought he would fare as v/ell as Lazarus, Avho made no stop in pur- gatory ; or as the penitent thief, Avho could not have made a long one, since he was in Paradise the same day he died. It has always appeared to me, that ac- cording to the Catholic system, this man, of all others, should have gone to purgatory. He never did any penance on earth — never bought an indulgence — he repented only a i^ew minutes before he died ; and yet he goes direct to paradise ! Who then may not ? But do they not give us chapter and verse for pray- ing for the dead ! It must be confessed they do. Here it is. " It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosened from their sins." 2 Macb. 12:46. This ZooA-.f like Scripture, though it does not sound much like it. It passes for Scripture with the Catholics ; but it is Apocrypha. It is no more holy Scripture than the Koran is. J knov/ the Catholics contend that it is as good Scripture as any. But ask the Jews if it is Scripture. " Unlo them were committed the oracles of God." Ask them if the books of Maccabees were committed to them. They tell you no. They were not even written in THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 173 Hebrew. The New Testament abounds in quota- tions from the Old Testament Scriptures. I wonder some of the writers of the New Testament had not quoted Maccabees, if it had been Scripture. I woukl ask any one who reads it, if it strikes the ear as Scrip- ture. It certainly does not. Besides, it is not in all cases good sense. The verse quoted in favor of pray- ing for the dead is not good sense. They speak of praying for the dead as a hohj thought^ and of prayer as having an efficacy to loosen them, from their sins. Now any child can see this to be no part of Scripture. But I hasten to the prayer. " A prayer for the suf- fering souls in purgatory." It is a curious prayer. I should like to quote the whole of it. But some speci- mens must suffice. Here is one petition. " Have mercy on those who suffer in purgatory. Look with compassion on the greatness of their torments; they are more keenly devoured by their ardent desire of being united to thee, than by the purging flames wherein they are plunged." Observe, here are spirits m flames; and they are purging flames. Fire may re- fine and purify certain metals, but how it should act in that Vv'ay on souls, is beyond my comprehension. The suffering occasioned by fire is very horrible; but it seems that it is nothing compared with what they suffer from the love of God, or the "ardent desire of being united to him." I wonder, if they have such desires after God, that they are kept in that suffering state. I wonder he does not take them up to himself. Why should they suffer so, since Christ has suffered for them, and they are the faithful who believe on him? Did not Christ suffer enough? But the prayer proceeds: "With them I adore thy 174 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. avenging justice." So it seems the faithful are the objects of God's avenging justice. I always thought that justice exacted its full demand of Christ. I don't know what the Apocrypha says about it, but holy Scripture informs me that God can now be just, and the juslifier of him which believeth in Jesus ; and that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for- give them. Are not the faithful pardoned ; and huw is pardon consistent with vengeance ? The prayer goes on thus: "Remember, O Lord, thou art their Father, and they are thy children. Forget the faults, which, through the frailty of hu- man nature, they have committed against thee." Then a little farther on: '-Remember, O Lord, that they are thy living members, thy faithful followers, thy spouses." Here you see these sufferers art God's children; and they are suffering for mere fcmltf!, which they fell into through frailty. This seems hard. But they are not only God's children ; they are Christ's living members, his faithful followers, his spouses ; and he died for them — and yet there they are burning — pardoned, yet suffering punishment — interested in the satisfaction of Christ, yet making- satisfaction for themselves — paying over again the penalty Avhich the Savior discharged. And this is the Catholic gospel! Is it not '-another gospel?" And yet "not another." It is no gospel. It is a con- tradiction of the good neus. I quote but one more petition : " Deliver them, O most merciful God, from that place of darkness and torture, and call them to a place of refref.hment, licrht and peace." The reader will remember that this prayer is for ihc faithful It is they who, having TH0DGHT3 OM POPERY. 175 been " faithful unto death," go to a place of darkness and torture. There they ''''rest from their labors." I don't know, for my part, what worse can befall VAibe- lievcrs than this. Truly, here is no great encourage- ment to believing. What a consolitary doctrine this to break in the ear of a dying disciple ! Fear not, be of good cheer, thou art but going to the place of '* dark- ness and torture." Can it be Jesus who says this to his faithful followers ? Can this be Christian doc- trine ? It certainly is not well calculated to make dy- ing easy. With such a prospect before them, I do not wonder that Catholics find it hard to die — verily death has a sting, and the grave a victory, if the Ca- tholic doctrine of purgatory be true. £8. An Improvement. I always hail improvements. I am always glad to see things taking a turn for the better, even though the improvement be slight. We must not despise the day of small things. Rome was not built in a day, nor will she be overthrown in a day. A system that it took centuries to introduce, cannot be expected to pass away all at once. Even if the improvement be only in phraseology, I rejoice in it, because words not only signify ideas, but sometimes generate them , so that from using right words, men not unfrequently pass to holding correct ideas on subjects. The improvement to which I refer relates to phra- 176 THOUGHTS ON POPERY, seology merely. The case is this. It is the habis among the Catholics, some few months or so after a considerable character di-es, to open the church and have a service foi' him. This has heretofore been an- nounced thus : " High mass will be said or sung for the repose of the soul of such a one, at such a time'' — not, the reader Vv'ill understand, because the soul is at rest, but that it may be at rest. The service is not eucharistic, but supplicatory. This, I observed, was done in the case of a recent western bishop, and also in the case of Gen. La Fayette, who, some months after he had died, was discovered not to be at rest. Now, a short time ago the Archbishop of Baltimore died ; and v/eeks having passed aw^ay, the time camt to take notice of his soul. Accordingly it was done But I was struck with the alteration in the wording of the notice. It ran thus ; "A funeral service will be performed in the cathedral for the late Most Rev. Archbishop Whitlield." This is certainly better than the old way of announcing it' To be sure, it sounds odd to talk of a funeral service for one who was regu- larly buried some months before. Protestants cannot readily understand it. But waiving this, why the change of phraseology ? The best explanation I can give of it is this : The Catholics see that the public sense of the community, though sufiiciently in tlieir favor, will not tolerate a thing of this kind without a degree of restlessness, not a little annoying to them, and perhaps likely to be injurious to their concern. For see, that reasoning animal, man, who is naturally a logician, and can reason without ever having studied the rules of reasoning, argues something like this : Ei- ther the soul for which the mass is said is at rest, or it THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 177 is not at rest. If it is at rest, it is preposterous to pray for its repose. It is asking that that may be done which has been done already. When a thing is done, lo pray for it is superfluous. Then is the time to give thanks. If, on the other hand, the soul is not at rest, then common sense, which is no fool, asks why they put off the mass so long — why they did not begin to pray for the repose of the soul sooner. It was not kind in them. And common sense, which is also a great querist, inquires how they know the soul did not go immediately to rest ; or if it did not, hoAV they know it is not at rest weeks and months after. Common sense, not finding any thing about it in the Bible, wants toknowhov/ the Catholics get the information. And so, through fear of the investigation of common sense, they change the phraseology of the notice. It is wise. Well may the authorities of the Roman Catholic church stand in dread of common sense. I do not know any more formidable foe of error and im- position. I confidently look forward to the overthrow of the Catholic religion ; and I expect a great deal of the work of its destruction will be done by common sense. I have not the dread, which some have, that this religion is going to overrun our country, and rise to dominion here. There is too much common sense abroad in the length and breadth of the land to allow of such a result. The people of the United States will think, and they have a notion that they have a right to think for themselves, without sending to Rome to knov/ if they may. And they v/ill ask ques- tions on subjects, not omitting religion, and they will insist on having a satisfactory answer. The inhabi- tants of the old world may, if they please, believe on 178 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. the ipse dixit of the Pope, but we of the new, before we yield our assent, require a " Thus saith the Lord," or a " quod erat demonstrandum," or something of that nature. You can never get a majority here to believe in contradiction of the five senses. They will stick to it that a thing is what they see and feel and taste it to be — in other words, that bread is bread. 49. Tlie Biikc of Bi>uns\vick's Fiftictli Reason. A certain Duke of Brunswick, having many years ago abjured Lutheranism, and become a Catholic, thought it necessary to apologize to the world for his change of religion. It needed an apology. So he wrote down Jifty reasons to justify the course he had pursued, and had them printed in a little book, which is entitled " Fifty Reasons why the Roman Catholic religion ought to be preferred to all others." This book the Catholics have free permission to read. O yes — they may read any book but the Bible. There is no objection to their reading books which contain the thoughts of mert ; but the book which contains the thoughts of God is interdicted I Men know how to express themselves. Men can write intelligibly. But ! ! Fifty reasons ! The Duke must have been conscious, I suppose, that his reasons were weal:, otherwise he would have been satisfied with a less number than fifty. Why does a man want fifty reasons for a thing THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 179 when one good reason is sufficient ? / have but one general reason for not being a Catholic, and I consider that enough. It is that the Catholic religion is not the religion of the Bible. It is not the religion which Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, and Peter Avrote about, as any one may see who will compare the Holy Scriptures with the Council of Trent. But you see, the Duke, feeling that he had not one good reason for turning Catholic, gives us fifty poor ones ; thinking to make up for the weakness of his reasons by the number of them ; and calculating that fifty poor reasons would certainly be equivalent to one good one. Fifty reasons ! I shall not now inquire what the forty-imie were. But what do you think the sapient Duke's fiftieth reason was — his closing, crowning reason — that with which he capped the climax — the reason which, having brought out, he rested from very exhaustion, consequent on the amazing effort of mind by Avhich it was excogitated ? The fiftieth reason ! I will give it to you in his own words, which I quote from an edition of his reasons, published by one of the very best Catholics in the land, so that there can be no mistake about it. After going on about something else, he says, " Besides that, the Catholics, to whom I spoke concerning my salva- tion, assured me that, if I were to be damned for em- bracing the Catholic faith, they were ready to answer for me at the Bay of Judgment^ and to take my dam- nation upon themselves ; an assurance I could never extort from the ministers of any sect, in case I should live and die in their rtilgion. From Avhence I infer- red, the Roman Catholic faith was built on a better 180 TiiorcHTs OS roPEHY. foundation than any of those sects that have divided from it." Prodigious! — and there he stops. I think it was time. I do not know whether to make any comment on this reason or not. Sometimes comment is unneces- sary, and even injurious. I wonder the Catholics are not ashamed of this reason. Indeed, I suspect the in- telligent ones among them do blush for it, and wish the Duke had stopped at forty-nine. But let us look at it a minute. It seems the Duke was won over by the generosity of the Catholics. They agreed that if he were to be damned for embracing their faith, (they admit the possibility that he might be j whereas, the Protestant ministers v^^hom he consulted were too well assured of the truth of their religion to allow of the supposition,) they would take his place, and be damned for him. Nowlv/onder the Duke had not reflected — (but there are stupid Dukes — this was a nobleman, but not one of nature's noblemen) — that those very Catholics, who made him this genyrous offer, if their faith was false, would have to be damned for themselves ! That which should leave him with- out a title to heaven, would equally leave them with- out one. I wonder the Duke so readily believed that the substitution would be accepted. What if they Avere willing to suffer perdition in his place ! The Judge might object to the arrangement. What igno- rance and stupidity it manifests, to suppose that one may suffer in hell for another, just as one serves in the army for another! What an idea such persons must have of the nature of future punishment, to sup- pose that it is transferable ! I should like to know lx:r.v one man is to suffer remorse for another. And ITHOUGHTS ON rOPERV. 181 again, what an admirable exemplification of the spirit of Christianity, that one should consent, on any con- dition, to lie in hell, for ever, sinning and blaspheming God ! I am sincerely glad that no Protestant minis- ter could be found to give his consent to an eternity of enmity against God. But the Catholics whom the Duke consulted, they loved the Lord so that they were willing to sin against him for ever and ever, with ever-increasing malignity of opposition, for the sake of saving their noble proselyte ! " FROM WHENCE 1 INFERRED," says the Duke, (but you have no capitals large enough for this conclusion,) " the Ro- man Catholic faith was built on a better foundation than any of those sects that have divided from it." Admirable dialectician! He must be Aristotle him- self, by metempsychosis. I think that those who wish to live and die Catho- lics, had better keep their eyes shut. It is the safer way. If they open them almost any where, they will be in danger. 50. The Dnfee's Seventll Reagoii. The Vukeh fiftieth reason has been the subject of an article. Each of his reasons might be made the subject of one, but that would be giving them too much consequence. I have selected the seventh for some remarks, because I have several times, in con- versation with Catholics, heard it alleged, and some considerable stress laid on it. The drift of it is this :, Protestants acknowledge that some Roman Catholics 36 182 THOUGHTS ON POfERY, may be saved, but Catholics contend that no Protes- tants can be saved. Therefore it is better and safer to be a Catholic, than a Protestant ! But, perhaps, I had better let his Serene Highness speak for himself* He says : " But what still confirmed me in my resolu-- tion of embracing the Roman Catholic faith was this, that the heretics themselves confess Roman Catholics may be saved, whereas, these maintain there is no salvation for such as are out of the Roman Catholic church." Let us examine this reasoning. Catholics say that there is no salvation out of their church, and therefore, by all means, we should belong to it. But does their saying so make it so ? Is this very chari- table doctrine of the Catholics of course true 7 Is it so very clear that none are saved but the greatest bi- gots — none saved but those who affirm, and are ready to swear that none others but themselves can be saved ? Have Roman Catholics never affirmed any thing but what was strictly true, so that from their uniform ve- racity and accuracy, we may infer that they must be correct in this statement ? Let history answer that question- This is more than we claim even for Pro- testants. No salvation except for Catholics ! Ah, and where is the chapter and verse for that. I don't think that even the Apocrapha can supply them. If subse- quent Popes have taught the doctrine, he who is reck- oned by Catholics to have been the first Pope, did not. It is rather unkind, perhaps, to quote Peter against his alleged successors, but a regard to truth compels me to do it. It is true, Peter once thought that a person must be an Israelite to be saved, just as our Catholics hold that a person must be a Cath- olic in order to be saved; but the case of Come- THOUGHTS 0N POPERY. 183 lius cured him of that prejudice. That led him to say as recorded, Acts 10 : 34, 35, " Of a truth I per- ceiv^e that God is no respecter of persons, but in eve- ry nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteous- ness, is accepted Avith him." This sounds a little differ- ent from the Duke's premises. It is a little unlike the language of later Popes. They have not taken their cue from Peter. Peter was a little of a Catholic at first, but he soon got rid of it. Now, if what the Catholics say about there being no salvation out of their church, is not true — if there is no Scripture for it, but much against it — if even Peter controverts it, it certainly does not constitute a very good reason for being a Catholic. Suppose that Protestants should give out to the world that none but themselves can be saved, would that make Protes- tantism any better, or safer, or worthier of adoption ? Would our religion be more entitled to reception, if we should publish that Fenelon was lost forever, and that Pascal was excluded from heaven, and Masillon too, just because they were not Protestants, but in communion with the Church of Rome? I think not. Nor can I think that the Roman Catholic religion is entitled to increased respect and veneration, because Catholics assert as an undoubted verity, that such men as Locke. Nevjton, Leighton, Howard, and many others are beyond all question, in hell, not even ad- mitted to purgatory, because, forsooth, they were not Catholics. But the Duke's inference is from a double premiss. Not only do Catholics say no Protestant can be saved ; but Protestants allow that Catholics may. If Protes- tants were to say that Catholics could not be saved, 184 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. then they would be even with each other, and tnere could be no argument in the case. But since Protes- tants allow that others besides themselves may be saved, Avhile Catholics deny it, therefore the Catholic religion is the safer. See what credit the Catholics give our declarations when they seem to work in their favor. They build a whole argument on one. Why do they not give us equal credence, when we declare that the probability of salvation among Protestants is much greater than among Catholics ? But what is it after all that Protestants allow ? They allow that so7ne Roman Catholics may be sav- ed. They allow that the fact of a person's being ex- ternally related to the Catholic church does not of it- self shut him out from salvation — that if he believes with his heart in the Lord Jesus, and truly repents of his sins, he will be saved, though a Catholic : and that the fact of his being a Catholic, though much against him, does not preclude the possibility of his being a genuine penitent and a true believer. This is the length and breadth of our admission. It admits, as every one must see, not that there is salvation 6y the Catholic religion, but m spite of it, to some who professedly adhere to that religion. If a Catholic holds understandingly to the merit of good works, the insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, the worship of crea- tures, or similar unscriptural doctrines, we do not see how he can be saved ; but we believe many, called Ca- tholics, reject these doctrines in fact, though not per- haps in word, and rely on Christ's atonement alone for salvation. Now if Catholics are so absurd as not to admit in our favor as much as we admit in theirs, we can't help it, and we don't care for it. It is just THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 185 as they please. We shall not take back our admis- sion for the sake of making proselytes to Protestant- ism — and if they can draw off any from us by their exclusive notions, they are welcome to them. But I must call the reader's attention to the extent of the Duke's inference. He infers the perfect safety of the Catholic religion, because Protestants admit that some Catholics may be saved ! But is that a safe spot of which this only can be said that some of the persons occupying it, may possibly escape ? And is it madness to occupy any other spot? The Duke ex- claims, " What a madness then were it, for any man not to go over to the Roman Catholics, who may be saved in the judgment of their adversaries: but to sort himself with these, who, according to Roman Catholics, are out of the way ?" What a madness in- deed, not to join a people who may not all be lost ! O what a madness to continue to be Protestants, when Roman Catholics say that they are out of the way ! What if they do say so? What if every Jesuit mis- sionary has ever so constantly affirmed ? I suppose a Jesuit can say what is not so, as well as any body else. I suppose it is not naturally impossible for one being a Jesuit, I will not say to Zie, but to err. He goes on like a very Aristotle. " Who would not ad- vise a man to take the safest way when he is threat- ened with any evident danger ?" Certainly noble Duke, the safest way ; but not of course tne way which some say is safest. There are a great many safest ways, if all which are said to be safest, are so. But his bigness proceeds : " And does not that way which two opposite parties approve of, promise great- er security than another which one party only recora- 16* 186 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. mends, and which the other condemns ?" But that is not so. The two parties do not approve of it. So far from it that the Protestant declares the Catholic way to be an exceedingly dangerous way, while his own way, though pronounced by the Catholic to be fatal, can claim the most respectable testimony that it is the true and safe way. Then comes an illustration, which like a great many other illustrations, is well con- structed, but happens to be totally inapplicable to the case in hand, " Who, in fine, can doubt, but that a medicine prescribed by two physicians may be taken with more security than another which one of the two judges may be his death ?" How the Duke rolls on his argument ! Just now the Protestant only admitted the possibility of the Catholic's salvation. Then he is represented as approving the Catholic way — and immediately after as prescribing it ! It is easy prov- ing any thing, if one may make facts to suit his pur- pose. I believe it is not true that Protestants pre- scribe the Catholic religion to those who ask them what they shall do to be saved. People must become Catholics, if they please, but I would advise them to look out for better reasons for the change than the Duke of Brunswick's fifty ; and especially than this, his seventh. It is a poor reason for becoming a Catholic that they say they are the people, and haughtily bid all others stand by, because they are holier. I cannot think it so great a recom mendation of a religion, that it denounces, and so fa. as it can, damns all who cannot see their way clea\ to embrace it. THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 187 51. Th.e Duke's Klcventli. Reason. I don't know what is to become of our Protestant religion, with so many reasons against it. I don't know but we shall all have to go back again to the Catholic church, compelled by the cogency of argu- ment. Fifty reasons why the Roman Catholic reli- gion ought to be preferred to all others ! Only think. And some of them that I don't find any answer to in any Protestant writer ! Such a one is the eleventh of the formidable series. In the three preceding rea- sons or considerations, as he calls them, the Duke had been giving us the result of his inquiries. It seems he was quite an investigator. He searched almost every book but the Scriptures. He looked for what he wanted every where but where the thing was. When a man is inquiring after the truth, and consults the philosophers, the fathers, the martyrs, and all the saints, I cannot see where is the harm of just looking into the prophets, the evangelists, and the apostles too. I don't know why they should be treated with such neglect ; I think they are quite as respectable writers as some of the fathers. But be this as it may, the Duke, in his eighth consideration, tells us about his consulting the writings of the an- cient fathers, to find what they would advise him to do, whether to embrace the Roman Catholic faith or no. And he says they all told him to be a Roman Catholic by all means. Then says he in his ninth consideration, "I appealed to the saints of God, and asked them what was the faith they lived in, and by which they arrived at eternal bliss." And they sai4 a88 thoughts on popery. not that they had "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb," in accordance with the account given of some other saints in Rev. 7, but "they all made answer, it was the Roman faith." By the way, the Catholics have an advantage over us Protestants. They know just who are saints, and have a way of consulting them after they are dead. We are not equal to those things. Why, the Duke even tells us the names of those who made an- swer. " Thus," says he, " I was answered by St. Mar- im, St. Nicholas, St. Athanasius, and many more iimong the bishops ; among the religious, by St. Do- mmick (!?) St. Francis, &c. Among the widows, by St. Monica, St. Bridget, St. Elizabeth, &c. Among the virgins, by St. Agatha, St. Lucy, St. Agnes, St. Catharine, &c." I think if a Protestant had had the privilege of cross-examining the above when the Duke consulted them, the result might have been somewhat different. But no Protestant had notice of his intention to carry his inquiries into that quar- ter. The Duke was determined to make thorough work of it. Therefore, in his tenth consideration he tells us : " Then I turned to the holy martyrs, and inquired what faith it was for the truth of which they spilt their blood." They answered it was the Roman Catholic. "This," he says, "I was assured of by thirty-three bishops of Rome, who were crowned with martyrdom ; by the saints Cyprian, Sebastian, Laurence; by St. Agatha, St. Cecily, St. Dorothy, St. Barbara, and an infinite number of other saints." They all told the same story. " Then," says the Duke, " I wound up my argument." But he concluded on the whole, before winding it up, to let it run down a little THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 189 lower. And this brings us to his eleventh reason. The reader will please prepare himself now for a 'prostrating argument. " My next step was in thought to hell, where I found in condemnation to everlasting torments, Simon Magus, Novatus Vigi- lantius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Marcion, &c." May I never be under the necessity of descend- ing so low for an argument ! But the Duke does not say that he actually went to the bad place, but he went in thought. There, having gone in thought, he found so and so. Here is another advantage the Ca- tholics have over us. They know who are in hell. We do not. Perhaps some are not there who we may fear are. We do not hold ourselves qualified to judge in these matters. Well, he found them there. He was quite sure not one of them had repented and been saved. And he asked them how they came there, and they very, civilly answered that "it was for their breaking off from the Roman Catholic church." Now this is the argument that I have not seen answered by any Protestant writer, as far as I can recollect. I don't read of any Protestant who went even in thought to hell to consult the lost on the points in controversy between us and the Catholics. So that the Catholics have the whole of this argu- ment to themselves. The Duke says they told him they were there for not being Catholics, and we have no counter testimony. Protestantism, however, hav- ing so many other "' witnesses on the truth" of her system, can easily do without the testimony of " the spirits in prison." Let that be for the Catholics. But by the way, I wonder that the Duke relied so unhesi- tatingly on the testimony of those persons. How 190 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. does he know they told the truth ? Are not all such called in Scripture " the children of the devil," and does not every body know his character for veracity ? It is certainly an extraordinary answer for one ot them, Simon Magus, to give, considering the time when he lived. How could he say with truth that he was there for breaking off from the Roman Catholic church, when at the date of his apostacy the Gospel had never been preached at Rome 7 There was no Roman church to break off from. I was expecting that the Duke would push his in- quiries yet one step farther, and, seeing he was on the spot, interrogate Satan in regard to the true re- ligion. But he does not seem to have consulted " the father of lying," but only the children. The truth is, the Devil does not wait to be consulted on that sub- ject, but makes his suggestions to " them that dwell on the earth," without being called on so to do. I hope the Reformed religion will be able to stand the shock of this argument, notwithstanding the doubt I expressed in the beginning. 53< Beauties of tlie Iieopold Reports. I have been not a little interested with the extracts recently published from the Reports of the Leopold Society in Austria, and it has struck me that I might do some service, especially to those who have not the time or the patience to read long articles, by calling THOUGHTS ON POPERY. ' 191 the attention of the public to the choice parts of the reports ; for even where all is good, you know, there are generally portions here and thexe of superior ex- cellence. Will you allow me, then, to point out some of the beauties of the reports'? What has struck me with peculiar force, will probably affect others as forcibly. Now I have admired the way in which the report speaks of conversions. It seems that these Catholics ca.u. foresee conversions with as much certainty as we, poor blind Protestants, can look back on them ! F. Baraga writes, under date of March 10, 1832 : " I long for the arrival of spring, when I shall have numerous conversions I !" Now, I am aware that the /ace of na- ture is renewed when spring appears, but I did not know this was as true of the souls of men. It is news to me that conversions can be foreseen with such per- fect accuracy. It is hard to foresee what men will do. But here is a foreseeing of what God will do, unless they deny that conversion is his work ! But what makes our Catholic brother speak so confidently of the conversions that were to take place ? How did he know it ? Why, forsooth, some had promised him that they would be converted in the spring. " There are many pagan Indians," he says, " who promised me last summer and fall, that they would in the spring embrace the Christian religion 1" This beats all. Why, if they were convinced of the truth of the Christian religion, did they not embrace it at once '? Why put it off till after the 1st of March ? But not only had some promised him on their honor that they would be converted, but he says : " From two other counties I have received assurances, that many of the Indians there would be converted to the Christian reli- 192 THOVJGIITG o:\" rOfERVi gion, if I would come and preach the gospel to them P^ You see they had told others, who told Baraga, that they would. It (?ame very straight. He speaks par* ticularly of a Christian Indian who had brought him the intelligence. Now observe, they had never heard a word of the gospel — neither knew what it was, nor how confirmed ! Yet they promised to embrace it- promised to believe, and be converted — to have their hearts changed — to be born again I I know that God promises, " A new heart will I give you," but I never knew before that any man, and especially one who had never heard the gospel, could look ahead and say, " at such a time I will have a new heart." Baraga says, "I cannot describe the joy such assurances give me." We Protestants are not so easily made happy by the promises of the unconverted. Again, I have been struck with the manner in which Baraga speaks of the mother of Jesus, under date of July I, 1832 : "When I decided to be a missiona- ry," he says, " I promised our heavenly mother that I would consecrate to her the first church I should con- secrate among the Indians, for I am convinced she will pray her Son continually for the progress of our missions." Our heavenly mother ! ! Our heavenly Father is a phrase dear to every Christian heart ; but it is the first time I ever heard we had a heavenly mother. O ! O ! Will the reader pause a moment and inquire the meaning of the word idolatry ? Baraga promised her? Where had they the interview when that promise w^as made ? He must have been praying to her. And why was the promise made ? Because "I am convinced she Avill pray her Son." What! •prayer in heaven ! John, in Patmo>, heard praise in THOOGHTS ON POPERY. 193 heaveii, but not prayer. I know there is one advocate in heaven, Jesus Christ the righteous, who over liveth to make intercession. That one is enough. But here we are told of another advocate on high — a. mediatrix. And she prays to her son — mediates between him and sinners. What ! Do we need a mediator between us and Christ ? I always knew we needed a mediator between God and us ; but I supposed we need go di- rectly and immediately to Christ, since he is himself a mediator. Baraga says presently after, " thanks be to Mary, gracious mother, who ever prays for the con- version of the heathen." Now, if all this is not idola- try, I wish some body could tell me what idolatry is. I would as soon undertake to defend the worship of the golden calf as this. Finally, what power these Catholic priests have ! Protestant ministers are only "mighty through God." But the priests can succeed Avithout that help. Father Senderl writes : " Young people of sixteen years, and not unfrequently older persons, have never con- fessed nor communed ; (taken the half sacrament, I suppose he means.) I prepare them for both, and for confirmation." / prepare them ! And another writes concerning Baraga, that he achieves wo7iders of sal- vation among the Ottawas. This is a specimen of the religion which Prince Metternich ^ Co. our Austrian brethren, those dear lovers of liberty, are benevolently contributing to give us here in America. They are afraid that our free institutions will not be permanent unless they help us to prop them up with the Catholic religion ! Timeo Metternich et dona ferentem. [I fear Metternich, evea sending gifts.] 17 194 THOUGHTS OiN POPERY. 53. Beauties of the I method of exciting devotion ? Who ever heard before of noise composing the mind and preparing it for devout exercises? According to this, the fourth of July should be the day of all others in the year most favorable to devotion. And what a ca- lamity deafness now appears to be ; and how to be Thoughts on popery. 215 |)ltied they are who lived before the invention of gun^ powder ! I never knew before that this was among the benefits of that invention, that it inspires devo- tional feelings, and raises hearts on high. But we must live and learn. Well, all hearts being raised as before, " the holy relics (alias, the old bones) were moved towards the ncAV habitation, where they shall enjoy anticipated resurrection— the presence of their God in his holy tabernacle." What this means, the reader must find out for himself. Now, when the relics were moved, the writer tells us what the guns did. " The guns fired a second salute." They could not contain themselves. Neither could the writer. " We felt," says he, " as if the soul of St. Louis was in the sound." A soul in a sound ! Here is more that is new. Then we are told who preached the dedication ser- mon ; and afterwards we are informed, for our edifica- tion, that " during the divine sacrifice, (the Protestant reader, perhaps, does not know what is meant by this phrase, but if the twelve nations continue to send over their priests, we shall know all about it by and by,) two of the military stood with drawn swords, one at each side of the altar ; they belonged to a guard of honor, formed expressly for the occasion. Besides whom, there were detachments from the four militia companies of the city, the Marions, the Greys, the Riflemen, and the Cannoniers from Jefferson Barracks, stationed at convenient distances around the church." The reader will not forget that certain professed am- bassadors of " the Prince of P^ace " were here en- gaged in dedicating a church to his service ; and this is the way they took to do it. If they had been conse- 216 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. crating a temple to Mars^ I don't know how they could have selected more appropriate ceremonies. Here were soldiers, drawn swords, guns, and, as we shall see presently, colors and drums too, all to dedicate a church to the meek and lowly Jesus, and that too on the day of rest ! One more quotation from this glowing description. " When the solemn moment of the consecration ap- proached, and the Son of the living God was going to descend, for the first time, into the new residence of his glory on earth, the drums beat the reveille, three of the star-spangled banners were lowered over the balustrade of the sanctuary, the artillery gave a deaf- ening discharge." All that seems to have been want- ing here was three cheers. Those would have been quite as suitable as the other accompaniments of the service. Reader, is this religion; and are these the things which are pleasing to God 7 I have a word to say about the star-spangled banner. That is an ensign endeared to every American heart. Whether it is as highly esteemed by the twelve na- tions, I cannot say. But a church is not its appro- priate place. There is another banner which should wave there — and that is not stav-sp angled. One soli- tary star distinguishes it — the star — the star of Beth- lehem. Let us keep these things separate : under the one, go to fight the bloodless battles of our Lord — un- der the other, march to meet our country's foes. This is the doctrine of American Protestantism — no union of church and state, and no interchange of their ap- propriate banners. THE END. DATE DUE WSiW GAYLORD PRINTED IN aSA Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 1 1012 01011 3662 g^ngmnmiii^l^^^^^^