' till 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 
 
 it:';. 
 
 HI 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 Ml 
 
 lilWl 
 
 llliillli 
 
Columbia tHniberfiitp 
 
 in t\}t Citp of iSetn gorfe 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 RT. REV. JOHN HUGHES, 
 
 flOMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NEW YORK. 
 
 BY 
 
 EIEST SERIES. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION, 
 
 NO. 265 CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
PKOM THE LIBUAPvY 
 / OF 
 
 PROFESSOR IIE^:T7V A. TOnn 
 
 WOV 2 5 1925. 
 
 Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1851, 
 
 By a. "W. Mitchell, M. D. 
 
 In the Office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern 
 
 District of Pennsylvania- 
 
 ' O 
 
 dGS 
 
CONTEJS^TS. 
 
 Page 
 Introductory Note .... , . 5 
 
 LETTER l.,\ 
 The writer's respects to the Bishop 7 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Canses of early misgivings — Priestly miracles — Purgatory — Praying to 
 saiata . . . , t3 
 
 LETTER in. 
 
 OnTJses of early misgivings, continued — Ck>nfession — Holy wdls — Pro- 
 hibiting the Bible — An incidet'. 19 
 
 LETTER IV 
 
 Transition from Papery to Infidelity — Inquiry awakened — Abstinence 
 from meats — The Mass — Confession — Transubstantiation — Religion 
 vanishes 30 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Popery makes the masses superstitions, the intelligent infidels — Who go 
 to confession 1 — Ireland — France — Other countries — Reasons why 
 Popery debases — The days of Popery numbered ... 37 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Popery has degraded Ireland — Evidences of its degradation — Absen- 
 teeism — Sub-letting — Tithes — The priest's cry for money . . 45 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Reasons for not returning to the papa! church — Prohibition of the 
 Scriptures — The way and manner of papal worship — Ceremonial law 
 of popery — Obstructions raised between God and the soul . . 53 
 
17 CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Farther reasons for not returning to the papal chnrch — Celibacy of tha 
 clergy — Auricular confessions — A call on Irish papists to assert their 
 rights 61 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Reasons which prevent from returning to the papal church, continned 
 — Purgatory — Transubstantiation , . 69 
 
 LETTER X. 
 Is the Church of Rome a Church of Christ ? 78 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 The effects of Popery on Liberty, Knowledge, Happines*, Tree re- 
 ligion 89 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 GoDclostoii of the whole roottx .96 
 
INTRODUCTOKY NOTE. 
 
 The pages that follow were written in the form 
 of letters to Bishop Hughes, that they might readily 
 gain the attention of those for whose benefit they 
 are designed. The writer is a gentleman who has 
 never taken any part in the Romish controversy, 
 but having been educated in the Church of Rome, 
 by parents of that faith, and having remained in 
 that communion until mature years and patient 
 thought enabled him to judge for himself, he be- 
 came calmly but decidedly convinced that he must 
 leave it, and seek the religion of the Bible among 
 Protestants. 
 
 In these pages, the result of his own experience 
 and observation, he gives the reasons that compelled 
 him to abandon the church of his fathers, and the 
 reasons why he cannot return to her embrace. The 
 letters are written with great courtesy, frankness 
 and ability, with the sprightly humour of an Irish- 
 man to an Irishman, and with an eloquence and 
 earnestness that often remind us of some of the most 
 celebrated passages from the Irish bar. They were 
 
 1* 
 
6 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 first published in the New-York Ohserver, and were 
 thence widely copied into other papers. They have 
 been extensi\ely sought for by Catholics who are 
 beginning to inquire after the truth, and by others 
 who wish to put them into the hands of those who 
 are willing to read. 
 
 The temper of the letters commends them to a 
 candid perusal, and the clearness of the argument 
 and illustration will carry conviction to the minds 
 of those who have the independence to decide for 
 themselves by the light of the Bible and common 
 sense. 
 
 The letters were furnished to me under an in- 
 junction of secrecy as to the Author's name, and 
 having been requested by many individuals and 
 societies to give them to the public in a form for 
 preservation and further circulation, it is proper to 
 say that the writer's character is an abundant 
 guarantee for the fidelity of all the matters of fact 
 here stated, and that he is prepared to maintain 
 them if they should ever be called in question. 
 
 SAMUEL I. PRIME 
 
KIRWAK'S LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 RIGHT REV. JOHN HUGHES, 
 
 BISHOP OF NEW YORK. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 My dear Sir, — Although an entire stranger to 
 you, I have felt for many years greatly interested 
 in your history and doings ; and for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 You are the chief pastor of a very important por- 
 tion of the Roman Catholic Church in this country; 
 and your ecclesiastical position makes you empha- 
 tically a public man. If a bishop in Mexico or 
 Missouri, like many mitred priests, you might live 
 unknown to fame ; but as the papal bishop of the 
 C*ommercial Metropolis of the Western world, and 
 of the most populous and wealthy diocese of your 
 church in the United States, this could not be ex- 
 pected. Position, you know, has much to do with 
 our public character. 
 
 But in addition to your position, which is one of 
 high influence, you possess the requisite qualifica* 
 
8 kirwan's letters 
 
 tions to fill ii. This is confessed by your most 
 ardent opponents. By your genius, learning, and 
 eloquence — by your sleepless devotion to the duties 
 of your calling, you have obtained a position in the 
 very first rank of the ecclesiastics of your church. 
 
 Besides, at whatever odds, you have fought like 
 a man with all your opponents. In controversies 
 religious and political, you have not shunned the 
 hall of debate, nor discussion through the press. 
 You have taken your positions adroitly, and you 
 have defended them with remarkable skill. And 
 even when convinced of the utter fallacy of your 
 positions and defences, I have yet sympathized with 
 your manly firmness. It is in human nature to 
 respect the man that with an earnest soul contends 
 for what he esteems right. And I must confess 
 that as to some things, when the public voice was 
 against you, your course met with my approbation. 
 
 Besides, if public rumour is worthy of belief, you 
 have forced yourself into your present position by 
 the force of your talents and character, from a 
 social position comparatively humble. To me this 
 is not the least of the reasons why I have felt in- 
 terested in your career. The men of our race have 
 been what is commonly called, self-made men. The 
 heroes in history have been nearly all such. It 
 requires high attributes both of mind and soul to 
 rise above the disadvantages of family and fortune ; 
 and to take precedence of those who would fain 
 believe that birth and wealth give a patent-right to 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. . 9 
 
 the high places of influence. Your past history, 
 unless I misunderstand it, must have had a liberaliz- 
 ing influence upon you. You must look at things 
 on a larger and wider scale, and through a clearer 
 medium, than if you had been cradled in crimson, 
 and educated in a convent. You know the dis- 
 tinction between prejudice and principle — between 
 what is entitled to belief, and what we have been 
 educatea to believe — between what is truly reason- 
 able, and what is only ecclesiastically so. And I 
 therefore address myself to you with a confidence 
 far stronger that what I shall say kindly and truly, 
 will be kmdly and truly weighed, than if I ad- 
 dressed myself to a priest from Maynooth or St. 
 Omers, educated merely in the literature of legends 
 and liturgies, and whose mind only possessed what 
 was distilled into it from others. I shall address 
 you not merely as a priest or bishop ; but as a 
 high-minded and well-educated gentleman. 
 
 Permit me to say that there is yet another /eason 
 why 1 have felt interested in your career. You 
 were born in Ireland, that land of noble spiiits and 
 of warm hearts — that sweetest isle of the ocean. 
 And so was I. We are natives of the same soil. 
 And although in principle, by education, and in all 
 my feelings, thoroughly American, yet I take a 
 great pride in tne high achievements of native 
 Irishmen. America has had its Montgomerys, its 
 Clintons, its Emmetts, its Porters, from Ireland. Its 
 sons have adorned the bar, the bench, the pulpit, 
 
10 kirwan's letters 
 
 the army, the navy, the legislatures, the Congress 
 of these United States. That there are multitudes 
 from Ireland who are no loss to their own country, 
 nor any advantage to this, cannot be denied. The 
 reasons for this I may examine hereafter. But yet 
 we have many fine illustrations of Irish genius, 
 character and valour, all along our history. And I 
 have regarded yourself as one of them, so far forth 
 as genius and force of character are concerned. 
 And I have often pointed you out as an illustration 
 of the high respectability which Irish character is 
 capable of attaining when relieved from the burdens 
 that oppress and debase it. Hence I have regarded 
 as your eulogy the sneers of those who have ad- 
 dressed you as " John Hughes the Gardener." 
 Such taunts come not from true men. 
 
 Having said so much in reference to you, permit 
 me now to say a word in reference to myself. I 
 have just statea that I was born in Ireland. I may 
 say to you in addition, that I was bom of Roman 
 Catholic parents, and received my early education 
 in the full faith of that church at whose altars you 
 now serve with such distinguished ability. I was 
 baptized by a priest — I was confirmed by a bishop 
 — I often went to confession — I have worn my 
 amulets, — and I have said my Pater Nosters and 
 my Hail Marys, more times than I can now enu- 
 merate. When a youth none excelled me in my 
 attention to Mass, nor in the performance of the 
 penances enjoined by the Father confessor. And 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 1\ 
 
 whatever were my occasional mental misgivings, 
 1 remained a true son of the church until I had 
 nearly reached the years of manhood. Then, on 
 as full an examination of the subject as I could 
 give it, I came to the conclusion that I could not 
 remain a Roman Catholic. I first became an in- 
 fidel. Knowing nothing of religion but that which 
 was taught me by parents and priests, and thinking 
 that that was the sum of it, when that was rejected, 
 infidelity became my only alternative. Subse- 
 quently, by the reading of the Bible, and by the 
 grace of God, I was led to embrace the religion of 
 the Gospel. That religion I have now for many 
 years professed, and in connection with a Protestant 
 church. Unlike many who have left your commu- 
 nion, I have never bitterly assailed it. I am utterly 
 unknown in the list of the champions of Protestant- 
 ism versus Popery. But yet some recent occur- 
 rences have induced me to break a long silence, 
 and to state in a series of letters addressed to your 
 Right Reverence, the reasons which induced me 
 to leave the Roman Catholic Church, and which 
 prevent me from returning to it. Of these letters, 
 this is the first. I ask of you for them a kind and 
 candid perusal. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
12 kirwan's letters 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Oanses of sarly misgivings — Priestly miracles — Purgatory — Praying to sninta. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last letter I stated to you 
 that I was born of Roman Catholic parents — that I 
 was baptized and confimed in your communion — and 
 that for many years I have been in connection with a 
 Protestant church. I stated that, whatever were my 
 occasional mental misgivings, I remained a true son 
 of the church until I had nearly attained the years 
 of manhood ; and that, then, on as full an examina- 
 tion of the subject as I could give it, I came to the 
 conclusion that I could not remain a Roman Catholic. 
 Permit me in the present letter to state to you the 
 causes of my early misgivings as to yours being a 
 true church, and as to its holding the true faith. 
 
 You know very well the common belief among 
 the Irish peasantry that Papal priests can work mira^ 
 cles. Whatever may be the teaching of the priests 
 themselves upon the point, such is the belief of the 
 people, a belief strongly encoui'aged by the conduct 
 of their spiritual leaders. Hence in diseases, the 
 people resort, not so much to the. physician, as to the 
 priest — they depend less upon the power of medi- 
 cine than upon that of priestly charms. Although 
 the son of intelligent parents, and educated from my 
 youth for the mercantile profession, the miraculous 
 power of the priest is yet associated with my earliest 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 13 
 
 recollections of him. And, as you know full well, 
 fJie belief that this power is possessed by their priests. 
 Is one of the leading causes why the Papal Irish 
 l)ow with such entire and unmanly submission to 
 them. 
 
 In my youth there were two things which greatly 
 shook my faith in the possession of this power. There 
 resided not far from- my parental residence a priest, 
 whose fame as a miracle- worker was known all over 
 the county in which he resided. The road to his 
 house (called in that country a bridle road) went by 
 our door. I frequently saw, in the morning, indi- 
 viduals riding by, with a little keg resting before 
 them on the saddle, or a jug hanging by the horse's 
 side. I often asked who they were, and where they 
 were going ? I was told that they were going to 
 Father C.'s to ^et some of their sick cured. I asked 
 what was in the keg, or jug ? I was told that it was 
 Irish whiskey to pay the priest for his cures. I 
 asked why they went so early in the morning ? I 
 was answered that unless they went early they would 
 not find him sober. 
 
 In one of the large interior towns of Ireland where 
 I resided, the bishop of the diocese met his priests, 
 or a part of them, once a year. This meeting was 
 always held in the house where I resided, and ever 
 the store in which I was then a clerk. Among the 
 priests that always met the Bishop was a Father B., 
 whose fame as a miracle-worker was extensive. 
 He had also a reputation for learning and eloquence ; 
 
 2 
 
14 KIRWAN S LETTERS 
 
 and because of his connection with an old and 
 wealthy family, exerted a wide social influence. He 
 always staid with us when he came to town. About 
 ten o'clock one niglit, after one of those meetings 
 of bishop and priests, I went out to shut up the store 
 windows ; and hearing a singular noise in the gut- 
 ter, I went forward, and assisted a man out of the 
 mire. I soon recognized it to be Father B. the mira- 
 cle worker. Running in, I announced with some 
 excitement to the lady of the house that Father B. 
 was drunk in the street. I received for my pains a 
 stunning slap on the side of the face, with this ad- 
 monition, " never say again that a priest is drunk." 
 I staggered under the blov/, — I assisted in cleaning 
 off his R,everence. I gave him his brandy next 
 morning. And young as I was, my faith in miracle- 
 working priests was effectually shaken. Although 
 fearing to draw the conclusion, I felt it, that God 
 would not bestow miraculous power upon those who 
 lived a life, not of occasional, but of habitual intem- 
 perance. And I would ask you, sir, whether all 
 this pretension to miraculous power by your priests 
 is not a gross imposition upon the people for the 
 double purpose of keeping them in awe, and getting 
 their money ? Let the Bishop be silent, and tlie 
 man of sense speak, and I have no fear as to the 
 answer. 
 
 The doctrine of Purgatory, you know, sir, is one 
 of the peculiar and most cherished doctrines of your 
 church. Indeed I do not know how your church 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 15 
 
 could get along without it. My object now is net to 
 reason with you about it, nor to controvert it ; but 
 to state to you a few facts in reference to it that 
 made, in early life, a strong impression on my mind. 
 You know that, in Ireland, the custom of the priest 
 is, at a certain point in the service of the mass, to 
 turn his back to the altar, and his face to the people, 
 and to read a long list of the names of deceased 
 persons whose souls are in purgatory, and to offer 
 up a prayer for their deliverance from it. This is 
 done, or used to be done, in the chapels on every 
 Sabbath. To obtain the name of a deceased rela- 
 tive on that magic list, the priest must be paid so 
 much a year, varying, I believe, with the ability of 
 the friends to pay. If the yearly payment is not 
 made when due, the name of the person is erased 
 from the list. A circumstance arising out of this 
 custom of your church, occurring in my boyhood, is 
 distinctly before me. A respectable nian in our 
 parish died in mid-life, leaving a widow and a large 
 family of children to mourn his loss. True to her 
 religious principles, and to her generous instincts, 
 the widow had her husband's name placed on that 
 list, and heard, with pious gratitude, his name read 
 over from Sabbath to Sabbath, with a prayer offered 
 for the deliverance of his soul from purgatory. 
 After the lapse of two or three years, on a certain 
 Sabbath, the name of her husband was omitted from 
 the list. The fact filled her with mingled joy and 
 fear ; joy, thinking that her husband had escaped 
 
18 kirwan's letters 
 
 from purgatory ; and fear, lest she had done some- 
 thing to olTend liie priest. On timid inquiry, she 
 learned that his soul was yet in purgatory, but that 
 she had forgotten to send in the yearly tax at the 
 time it was due. The tax was promptly paid, and 
 the name was restored on the next Sabbath. With 
 this fact, sir, I am entirely conversant; for that 
 widow was my own mother, who sought the release 
 of the soul of my father from purgatory. Can you 
 wonder, sir, that this incident made a deep impres- 
 sion upon my youthful mind, or that it shook my 
 faith in your whole system ? And, as far as memory 
 serves me. Father M. was an amiable man, and 
 above the ordinary level of the men of liis calling. 
 Another fact which early impressed me in refer- 
 ence to purgatory was this. Your church makes a 
 distinction between mortal and venial sinners. The 
 former go to hell for ever — the latter go to purgatory, 
 *' whence they are taken by the prayers and alms 
 offered for them, and principally by the holy sacri- 
 fice of the m.ass." Now I always saw that the 
 most mortal sinners, that every body would say went 
 to liell, could always have masses said for them as 
 if they went to purgatory ; provided their friends 
 could pay ; and that less mortal sinners, that people 
 would say went to purgatory, were sent to hell, if 
 their friends could not pay for masses for them. 
 And their souls were kept in purgatory for a long 
 while when their friends paid promptly every year ; 
 but their souls were soon prayed out whose friends 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 17 
 
 could not pay long for them. Facts like these, sir, 
 very early impressed my mind, and shook my faith 
 in the religion of my parents and priests. And 
 when, in maturer years, I could more fully consider 
 them, they led me to reject religion as a fable cun- 
 ningly devised by priests. 
 
 Again ; to pray to angels and saints is a doctrine 
 of your church. I am quite familiar with your ex- 
 planations of it ; with the distinctions which your 
 writers make to free it from idolatry. It is precisely 
 the distinction which the heathen make to get rid of 
 the same charge. Perhaps ere these letters are con- 
 cluded I may return to this subject; I have only to 
 do now with some of my early impressions in refer- 
 ence to it. In our parish chapel there were a great 
 many pictures of saints. Wliose picture-s they were 
 I do not remember. But on Sabbath morning, an 
 hour before mass, I have often seen the poor people, 
 and even some more wealthy and refined, going on 
 their knees from the one picture to the other, ahd 
 counting their beads, and bowing before them with 
 external acts of the most profound and sincere wor- 
 ship. Although, then, I thought differently, I have 
 not now a doubt but that it was idolatry. But the 
 idea that struck me was this : here are some pray- 
 ing to Peter, or Paul, or John ; the same pictures 
 are hung up in ten thousand chapels all over the 
 world, and in all these chapels persons are praying 
 to them. Can these good saints hear but in one 
 place, or can they hear all ? If they can hear all, 
 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 then they are omnipresent, — if omnipresent, they 
 are gods. Thus we have as many gods as saints. 
 But if they hear but in one place, then nine thou- 
 sand nine hundred and ninety-nine out of the tea 
 tJioueand are praying to an absent saint ! This one 
 tliought, reverend sir, very early in life impressed 
 my mind, and was not the least powerful among 
 the causes which led me, eventually, to reject the 
 autliority of your church. More of these causes in 
 my next. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Caoscs of early misgivings, continued — Confession — Holy wells — Prohibit- 
 ing the Bible — An incident. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last letter I commenced a 
 statement to you of the causes which, in early life, 
 caused my misgivings and distrust as to yours 
 being a true church, and as to its hoklinsr the true 
 faith. I referred to some incidents connected with 
 the claims of your piiests to miraculous power, with 
 the doctrine of purgatory, and with praying to tho 
 saints. I shall now proceed with a statement of 
 some more of those causes. 
 
 The doctrirs of Confession is one of the primary 
 ■ioctrines of your church. It requires every good 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 19 
 
 papist to confess his si.is to a priest at least once a 
 year. If any sins are concealed, none are forgiven. 
 This doctrine makes the bosom of the priest the 
 repository of all the sins of all the sinners of his 
 parish, who make a conscience of Confession. And 
 this is one of the sources of the fearful power which 
 your priests have over your people. And with this 
 doctrine of Confession, is connected the power of 
 the Father Confessor to grant Absolution to the con- 
 fessing penitent. It is sometimes affirmed, and 
 then denied, to suit circumstances, that the priest 
 claims such power. But Dr. Challoner in his 
 *' Catholic Christian Instructed," Chap. 9th, asserts 
 this power, and on what he deems scriptural autho- 
 rity. And I never knew an individual who came 
 from Confession, with the privilege of partaking of 
 the Communion, who did not feel and believe that 
 his sins were forgiven him. And if they were not 
 immediately forgiven, they would be on the per- 
 formance of the prescribed penances. You, sir, 
 will not say, that I either misstate or misrepresent 
 the doctrine. 
 
 Now for some of my early impressions upon this 
 subject. Father M. held frequently his confessions 
 at our house. He sat in a dark room up stairs with 
 one or more candles on a table before him. Those 
 going to Confession followed each other on their 
 knees from the front door, through the hall, up the 
 stairs, and to the door of the room. When on© 
 
30 kirwan's letters 
 
 came out of the confessing-room another entered. 
 My turn came — I entered the room, from which the 
 light of day was excluded, and howed myself before 
 the priest. He made over me the sign of the cross, 
 and after saying something in Latin, he ordered me 
 to commence the detail of my sins. Sucn was my 
 fright that my memory soon failed in bringing up 
 past delinquencies. He would prompt me, and 
 ask, did you do this thing, or that thing ? I would 
 answer yes, or no. And when I could say no more 
 he would wave his hand over me and again utter 
 some words in Latin, and dismiss me. Through 
 this process I often went, and never without feeling 
 that my sins were forgiven. Sins that burdened 
 me before, were now disregarded. The load of 
 guilt was gonQ. And I often felt, when prompted 
 to sin, that I could commit it with impunity, as I 
 could soon confess it and secure its pardon. And 
 this, sir, is the fearful and fatal effect of your doc- 
 trine of Confession and Absolution upon millions of 
 minds. 
 
 The questions however often came up — Why does 
 the priest go into a dark room in the daytime ? 
 Why not speak to me in English, and not in Latin ? 
 How can he forgive sin ? What, if my sins, after 
 all, are not forgiven ? And I always found that { 
 could play my pranks better after confession than 
 before, for I could go at them with a lighter heart. 
 Very early in life my confidence in this doctrine 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES 21 
 
 of Confession was shaken ; and at a later period I 
 came to the conclusion that it was a priestly device 
 to ensnare the conscience, and to enslave men. 
 
 Another thing which made early a deep impres- 
 sion on my mind was tliis. On my first remem- 
 bered journey to Dublin we passed by a place, 
 called, unless I mistake, St. John's Well. It is, as 
 you know, one of the " Holy Wells," of Ireland. 
 There was a vast crowd of poor-looking and dis- 
 eased people around it. Some were praying, some 
 shouting ; many were up in the trees which sur- 
 rounded it. All these trees were laden, in all their 
 branches, with shreds of cloth of every possible 
 variety and colour. I inquired what all this meant. 
 I was told : " This is St. John's Well, and these 
 people come here to get cured." But what do 
 those rags mean, hanging on the trees ? I was told, 
 that the people who were not immediately cured, 
 tied a piece of their garments on some limb of the 
 trees, to keep the good Saint of the Well in mind 
 of their application. And judging from the number 
 of pieces tied on the trees, I inferred that the number 
 that went away cured were veiy few. I had pre- 
 viously read some travels in Africa describing some 
 of the religious rites of the sable sons of that con- 
 tinent ; and the thought that those performed around 
 St. John's Well were just like them, occurred to 
 me. I have no doubt but that the rites witnessed 
 in my youth are performed there yet — that the rags 
 of diseased persons are now streaming from those 
 
22 kirwan's letters 
 
 trees to remind the Saint of the requests of those 
 who suspended them. There was always a priest 
 present to hear confovssions, dud to receive the 
 pennies of the poor pilgrims. And the impression 
 then made upon my mind was, that it was a piece 
 of paganism. And the rites and ceremonies about 
 this Well, I learn, are nothing in comparison with 
 those performed at the Wells of Saint Patrick in the 
 County Down. I will here insert an account of a 
 festival at St. Patrick's Well as given by an eye- 
 witness. 
 
 " When or how the custom which I shall describe 
 originated, I know not, nor is it necessary to inquire ; 
 but every midsummer eve thousands of Roman 
 Catholics, many from distant parts of the country, 
 resort to these celebrated holy wells to cleanse their 
 souls from sin, and clear their mortal bodies of dis- 
 eases. The influx of people of ditferent ranks, for 
 some nights before the one in which alone, during 
 the whole year, these wells possess this power (for 
 on all other days and nights in the year they rank 
 not above common draw-wells), is prodigious : and 
 their attendants, hordes of beggars, whose ragged 
 garments, if once taken off, could not be put on 
 again by the ingenuity of man, infest the streets and 
 lanes, and choose their jodgings in the highways and 
 hedges. Having been previously informed of I he 
 approach of this miraculous night, and having made 
 ourselves acquainted with the locality of the wells, 
 early in the evening we repaired to the spot : we 
 had been told that we should see something quite 
 new to us, and we met with what scarcely was credi- 
 ble on ocular evidence. The spot on which this 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 23 
 
 scene of superstitious folly was exhibited, was admi- 
 rably adapted to heighten every attendant circum- 
 stance of it ; the wonderful wells, of which there 
 are four, being situated in a square or patch of 
 ground, surrounded by steep rocks, which reverbe- 
 rated every sound, and redoubled all the confusion. 
 The couD d'oBii of the square on our approach pre- 
 sented a tioating mass of various coloured heads, and 
 our ears were astonished with contused and mingled 
 sounds of mirth and sorrow, of frantic, enthusiastic 
 joy, and deep desponding ravings. On descending 
 into the square we found ourselves immediately in 
 the midst of innumerable groups of these fanatics, 
 running in all directions, confusedly, in appearance, 
 but methodically, as we afterwards found in reality ; 
 — the men and the women were barefooted, and the 
 heads of all were bound round with handkerchiefs. 
 Some were running in circles, some were kneeling 
 in groups, some were singing in wild concert, some 
 were jumping about like maniacs at the end of an 
 old building, which, we were told, was the ruins of 
 a chapel erected, with several adjacent buildings, in 
 one miraculous midsummer's night by the tutelary 
 saint of the wells, of whose talent as a mason they 
 give, it must be confessed, no very exalted opinion. 
 When we had somewhat recovered from the first 
 surprise which the (to us) unaccountably fantastic 
 actions of the crowd had given us, we endeavoured 
 to trace the progress of some of these deluded vota- 
 ries through all the mazes of their mystic penance. 
 The first object of them all appeared to be the ascent 
 of the steepest and most rugged part of the rock, up 
 which both men and women crawled their painful 
 way on their hands and bare knees. The men's 
 clothes were all made so as to accommodate their 
 
C4 kirwan's letters 
 
 knees with all the sharpness of the pointed rock ; 
 and the poor women, many of them young and beau- 
 tiful, took incredible pains to prevent their petticoats 
 from affording any defence against its torturing as- 
 perities. Covered with dust and perspiration, and 
 blood, they at last reached the summit of the rock, 
 where, in a rude sort of chair hewn out of tl e stone, 
 sat an old man, probably one of their priesthood, 
 who seemed to be the representative of St. Patrick, 
 and the high-priest of this religious frenzy. In his 
 hat each of the penitents deposited a half-penny, al\er 
 which he turned them round a certain number of times, 
 listened to the long catalogue of their offences, and 
 dictated to them the penance they were to undergo 
 ar perform. Then they descended the rock by 
 another path, but in the same manner and posture, 
 equally careful to be cut by the flints, and to suffei 
 as much as possible : this was, perhaps, more painful 
 travelling than the ascent had been — the suffering 
 knees were rubbed another way — every step threat- 
 ened a tumble ; and if any thing could have been 
 lively there, the ridiculous attitudes of these de- 
 scenders would have made us so. When they 
 gained the foot of the hill they (most of them) be- 
 stowed a small donation of charity on some miserable 
 groups of supplicants who were stationed there. 
 One beggar, a cripple, sat on the ground, at one 
 moment addressing the crowd behind him, and 
 swearing that all the Protestants ought to be burnt 
 out of the country, and, in the same breath, begging 
 the penitents to give him one half-penny for the love 
 of ^ swate blessed Jasus.^ The penitents now re- 
 turned to the use of their feet, and commenced a 
 running sort of Irish jiggish walk round several 
 calms or heaps of stones erected at different spaces : 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES 25 
 
 this lasted for some time. Suddenly they would 
 prostrate themselves before the cairn and ejaculate 
 Rome hasty prayers, as suddenly they would rise and 
 resume their mill-horse circumrotation. Their eyes 
 were fixed ; their looks spoke anxiety, almost despair ; 
 and the operation of their faculties seemed totally 
 suspended. They then proceeded to one end of the 
 old chapel, and seemed to believe that there was a 
 virtue, unknown to us heretics, in one particular 
 stone of the building, which every one was careful 
 to touch with the right hand ; those who were tall 
 did it easily ; those who were less, left no mode of 
 jumping unpractised to accomplish it. But the most 
 remarkable, and doubtless the most efficient of the 
 ceremonies, was reserved for the last ; and surely 
 nothing was ever devised by man which more for- 
 cibly evinced how low our nature can descend. 
 Around the largest of the wells, which was in a 
 building very much, to common eyes, like a stable, 
 all those who had per.'Drmed their penances were 
 assembled, some dressing, some undressing, many 
 stark naked. A certain number of them were ad- 
 mitted at a time into this holy well, and there men 
 and women of every age bathed promiscuously 
 without any covering. They undressed betbre bath- 
 ing, and performed the whole business of the toilet 
 afterwards in the open air, in the midst of the crowd, 
 without appearing sensible of the observations of 
 lookers-on, perfectly regardless of decency, perfectly 
 dead to all natural sensations. This was a strange 
 sight, but so nearly resembling the feast of lunatics, 
 that even the voluptuary would have beheld it with- 
 out any emotions but those of dejection. The pen- 
 ance having terminated in this marvellous ablution, 
 the penitents then adjourned either to booths and 
 
f^ KIRWAN^S LETTERS 
 
 tents to drink, or join their friends. The air then 
 rang with musical monotonous singing, which be- 
 came louder with every glass of whisky, finishing 
 in frolicsome debauch, and laying, in all probability 
 the foundation for future penances and more thorough 
 ablutions. No pen can describe all the confusion, no 
 description can give a just idea of the noise and dis- 
 order which filled this hal/oived square, this theatre 
 of fanaticism, this temple of superstition, of which 
 the rites rival all that we are told of in the East. The 
 minor parts of the spectacle were filled up with 
 credulous mothers, half drowning their poor children 
 to cure their sore eyes ; with cripples who exhibited 
 every thing that has yet been discovered in de- 
 formity, expecting to be washed straight, ai.- to 
 walk away nimble and comely. 
 
 " The experience of years had not shaken their 
 faith ; and though nobody was cured, nobody went 
 away doubting. Shouting and howling and swear- 
 ing and carousings filled up every pause, and ' threw 
 o'er this spot of earth the air of hell.' 1 was never 
 more shocked and struck wdth horror ; and perceiv- 
 ing many of them intoxicated with religious fervour 
 and all-potent whisky, and warming into violence 
 before midnight, at which time the distraction was 
 at its climax, I left this scene of human degradation 
 in a state of mind not easily to be described. The 
 whole road from the wells to the neighbouring town 
 was crowded with such supplicants as preferred 
 mortal half-pence to holy penance. The country 
 around was illuminated with watch-fires ; the de- 
 mons of discord and fear were abroad in the air ; 
 the pursuits of the world, and the occupations of 
 the peaceful, appeared put a stop to by the per- 
 formance of ceremonies, disgraceful when applied 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 27 
 
 to propitiate an all-compassionate Divinity, whon\ 
 these religionists were determined and taught to con- 
 sider jealous rather than merciful. I wish it were in 
 my power, without insincerity, to pay a compliment 
 to the Irish Catholic clergy. On this occasion they 
 were the mad priests of these Bacchanalian orgies ; 
 ihe fomenters of fury ; the setters-on to strife ; the 
 mischievous ministers of the debasement of their 
 people, lending their aid to plunge their credulous 
 congregations in ceremonious horrors."* 
 
 Now, sir, can you, as a man of high intelligence, 
 regard these things in any other light than as the 
 merest impostures to delude the ignorant ? And 
 what epithet sufficiently expressive of abhorrence 
 can we apply to the priesthood who thus impose upon 
 a credulous people ? 
 
 I well remember yet another of these impostures. 
 When a boy I often heard that on the morning of 
 Easter Sunday, the sun miirht be seen dancing: in 
 the heavens and in the chapels, to express its joy on 
 the anniversary of the resurrection of Christ. And 
 I often wished to be where I could witness the phe- 
 nomenon. It took place in a certain chapel, and in 
 the presence of many pious and admiring beholders. 
 An unbeliever in priestly miracles was present, who 
 traced up the dancing of the sunbeams through the 
 chapel to an individual managing concealed mirrors, 
 so as to produce the wonderful effect ! Of this 1 
 heard ; and although it seemed incredible, yet it 
 
 • McGavin's Protestant, p. 403 
 
88 kirwan's letters 
 
 made an impression on my mind. The probability 
 of the imposture cannot be doubted by those who 
 know that the earth which covers the grave of Father 
 Sheely (who was convicted of treason, and hung in 
 the County of Tipperary), when boiled in milk, 
 cures a variety of diseases. 
 
 The Bible, with all its notes and glosses, as pub- 
 lished by the authority of your own church, is de- 
 nied by you to be a complete rule of faith. On this 
 question I will not now enter, only so far as to say 
 that this denial holds a very intimate connexion with 
 its virtual withholding from the people. If not a 
 complete rule, it may lead astray ; and as it is capa- 
 ble of opposite interpretations, in some of its passa- 
 ges, the souls of the people must not be endangered 
 by its general circulation. It is better to know 
 nothing of the Bible, than in some particulars to mis- 
 interpret it ! Your infallible church teaches both 
 ways on a variety of subjects, and among the rest, 
 on the circulation of the Bible. It allows it in Pro- 
 testant countries, with some stringent regulations ; 
 it virtually forbids it in purely Papal countries. 
 How many Bibles could your Reverence procure in 
 Spain, Portugal, Naples, or Italy ? How many 
 Spaniards or Italians have ever read a Bible through ? 
 How many of the Irish peasantry that can read and 
 write have ever read ten chapters of it ? Now, sir, 
 for years together I sat daily at table with a Catholic 
 priest, who was a member of the family, and the 
 curate of the parish ; and I never saw a Bible used 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 29 
 
 in the family. I never heard at table, or in the 
 morning, or in the evening, a religious service. 
 The numbers of the Douay Bible published by sub- 
 scription in Folio, were taken in the family, but never 
 read. And not only so, but I never heard a sermon 
 preached in a Catholic chapel in Ireland ; nor a 
 word of explanation on a single Christian topic, doc- 
 trine, or duty. And before I was sixteen years of 
 age I never read a chapter in the word of God, 
 whilst in other respects my education was not neg- 
 lected. I often asked the meaning of this thino- and 
 the other ; but there was no explanation. Nor can 
 one out of one thousand, in Papal countries, give a 
 single reason for one of your peculiar doctrines or 
 duties. And since in the maturity of my judgment 
 I have examined this matter, I have greatly com- 
 mended your wisdom in withholding the Bible from 
 the people ; if I were a bishop or a priest of your 
 church I would do the same. I heard a man who 
 lived near the Canada line, in Vermont, during the 
 last war with Great Britain, tell the following story. 
 " There was," said he, " much smuffo-lino; o-oino; on. 
 Whenever we met a traveller with a pack of any 
 kind, we ordered it to be searched. Honest men 
 always said, ' search and welcome.' But whenever 
 a man refused, or made any fuss about it, we always 
 suspected that there were contraband goods in the 
 pack ; and we were never mistaken." You have 
 brought contraband goods into the house of God, and 
 
 the Bible tells the people so. Hence it is forbidden. 
 3* 
 
so KIR WAN's LETTERS 
 
 Light is the sure death of darkness. The circula- 
 tion of the Bible will be the death of popery. 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
 LETTER lY. 
 
 Transition from Popery to Infidelity — Inquiry awakened — Abstinence from 
 Meats — The Mass — Confession — Transubstantiatiou — ReKgion vanishes. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last two letters I have 
 stated to you some of the causes of my early mis- 
 givings as to yours being a true church, and as to 
 its holding the true faith. These causes I might 
 multiply indefinitely ; for you well know it to be a 
 law of the human mind that when its confidence is 
 once shaken, it sees causes of suspicion even in 
 things true and honest. In my first letter I stated 
 to you that when I deliberately rejected the autho- 
 rity and teachings of your church, I became an 
 infidel. And my object in the present letter is to 
 reveal to you the process through which my mind 
 passed, in its transition from popery to infidelity. I 
 believe that your Reverence will pronounce it a 
 very natural one. 
 
 On reaching the years of maturity my mind was 
 
 a perfect blank as to all religious instruction. And 
 
 if such instruction is ever given by your church or 
 
 priests, my advantages were peculiarly good for 
 
 fceiving it. Indeed I was even talked of as a 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 31 
 
 candidate for Maynooth. Whilst my mind was 
 filled with superstitious notions concerning meats 
 and penances, and external observances, and legends, 
 it was utterly ignorant of the Bible. With my 
 Missal I was somewhat familiar: I said the Cate- 
 chism when I was confirmed at the age of nine or 
 ten ; and that was the amount of my religious edu- 
 cation. At the age of eighteen years the Catechism 
 was forgotten, and the Missal was neglected ; and 
 as my conscience was uneducated, and my mind 
 unfurnished with religious principles, the only test 
 of truth left me was my common sense. I then 
 became the associate of companions of Protestant 
 education, who would sometimes ask me my reason 
 for this and that observance ; and not being able to 
 give any, as none were ever given me, I was fre- 
 quently put to the blush. I candidly state to you 
 that it was in this way I was first led to bring to the 
 test of my common sense, then my only standard, 
 some of the doctrines and rites of your church. 
 And this reveals the reason why your priesthood is 
 so intensely concerned that Catholic children snould 
 be guarded from all contact with those of Protestant 
 education. The spirit of inquiry is contagious ; and 
 pope, bishops, and priests fear it worse than the 
 plague. Its indulgence, you know, either is, or 
 leads to, mortal sin. Let me briefly state lo you 
 Bome of the effects of this spirit of inquiry upon me. 
 From my youth up I was taught to abstain from 
 all meats on Fridays and Saturdays. Why on these 
 
32 kirwan's letters 
 
 days more than any other, 1 was never told. And 
 if by mistake I was involved in the violation of this 
 law, I felt a burden upon my conscience, of which 
 confession could only relieve me. Circumstances 
 led me to inquire into this matter. I saw good 
 papists eating eggs, and fish, and getting drunk on 
 these days ; but this was no violation of the law 
 of the Church ! Yet if these persons should eat 
 meat of any kind ; or use gravy in any way, their 
 consciences were troubled, and they must perform 
 penance ! This led me to ask. Is this reasonable ? 
 If I may eat meat on Thursday, why not on Friday ? 
 Can God, in things of this kind, make that to be a 
 sin at one time which is not on another? I saw 
 also persons, for whose moral worth I had the 
 highest regard, eating meats on those days, and 
 without any injury ! And I came to the conclusion 
 that your regulations upon this matter were un- 
 reasonable, and rejected them. And, as far as I 
 now remember, this was my first step towards light 
 and freedom. 
 
 Whether our course is upwards, towards the 
 region of light, or downwards, towards that of dark- 
 ness, one step always prepares for another. De- 
 voted to reading at this period of my life, I perused, 
 without discrimination, every thing that came in 
 my way. Some book or tract, now forgotten, gave 
 rise to some inquiries as to the Mass. I asked. What 
 does it mean ? I could not tell, though for years a 
 Tegular attendant upon it. Why does the priest 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 33 
 
 dress so ? What book does he read from, when 
 carried now to his right, and now to his left ? What 
 mean those candles burning at noonday ? Why do 
 I say prayers in Latin, which I understand not? 
 Should I not know what I am saying when address- 
 ing my Maker '? Why bow down, and strike my 
 breast, when the little bell rings ? What does it 
 all mean ? The darkness of Egypt rested upon 
 these questions. I thus reasoned with myself; 
 God is a spiritual and intelligent being, and he 
 requires an intelligent worship. What worship I 
 render him in the Mass, I know not. My intel- 
 ligent worship only is acceptable to him, and is 
 beneficial to me. I am a rational being, and 1 
 degrade my nature, and insult my Maker, by offer- 
 ing to Him a worship in which neither my reason, 
 nor His intelligence is consulted. Having come to 
 this conclusion, I gave up the Mass as a form of 
 worship well enough fitted for an idol, but unfitted 
 to be rendered by a rational being to the infinitely 
 intelligent Jehovah. I have never been to Mass 
 since, save out of curiosity to see how an ignorant 
 people can be edified by what seems to me the 
 most unmeaning and farcical of all the rites that 
 ever man has devised. And you know, sir, that 
 with all devotion and honesty a Catholic may wait 
 on your Masses until his locks are as white as your 
 surplice, and then pass into eternity without one 
 single spiritual idea upon the subject of religion ; 
 resolving it all into external observances. 
 
34 kirwan's letters. 
 
 When I came to the above conclusion on the 
 subject of the Mass, I experienced no great diffi- 
 culty as to other matters which passed rapidly in 
 review before me. Must I go to Confession ? My 
 prejudices said, Yes. My reason said, No. And 
 my logic was simply as follows : — If I truly repent 
 of my sins God will forgive me ; if I do not, the 
 priest cannot absolve me. And I spurned as un- 
 reasonable, and as an insult to my common sense, 
 your terrible doctrine that " Every Christian is 
 bound, under pain of damnation, to confess to a 
 priest all his mortal sins, which after diligent exa- 
 mination he can possibly remember ; yea even his 
 most secret sins ; his very thoughts ; yea and all 
 the circumstances of them which are of any mo- 
 ment." I ask you, sir, if this dogma of the Council 
 of Trent is not a horrible dogma ? It suspends upon 
 confessing 1o a priest, what the Bible suspends on 
 believing in Christ ! Do you, sir, believe it ? Can 
 you believe it ? 
 
 With yet greater abhorrence, I gave up the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation. As explained by 
 Dr. Challoner,' in his "Catholic Christian In- 
 structed," Chap. 5, it means " that the bread and 
 wine are changed by the consecration into the 
 body and blood of Christ ; and are so changed that 
 Christ himself, true God, and true man, is truly, 
 really, and substantially present, in the sacrament." 
 With this doctrine in view, I went to witness the 
 administration of the Eucharist, as you call it. I 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 35 
 
 went to Saint Peter's in Barclay-street. The com- 
 municants drew around the altar upon their knees. 
 With a little box in his hand the priest passed from 
 one to the other, taking a wafer, smaller than that 
 used in sealing a letter, from the box, and placing 
 it upon the extended tongue of the communicant. 
 I was always taught that the teeth must not touch 
 the wafer; — ^that it must melt upon the tongue. 
 This I find to be the law of your church. I wit- 
 nessed the ceremony, as I had often done before. I 
 retired from the scene, asking these questions : Is 
 that little wafer the real body and blood of Christ? 
 Does the priest, in that little box, not as large as a 
 snuff-box, carry two or three hundred real bodies of 
 Christ ? Do these communicants, each in their 
 turn, eat the real body and blood of Christ ? My 
 dear sir, I cannot express to you the violence with 
 which my mind rejected the absurdity. Look at it 
 in what light you may, it is abhorrent to our common 
 reason — it gives the lie to every sense with which 
 God has endowed us. It is a wicked imposition. 
 
 Having gone through this process, not with a light 
 and trifling, but with a serious mind, my prejudices 
 rising in stormy rebellion against my convictions, I 
 raised up my eyes, and behold, my religion was 
 gone ! The priest was a juggler, and his religion a 
 fable ! Every thing that I had ever learned from 
 parent and priest to e?teem as religion, was now 
 rejected aus fultje ; and «« k:?7owii!ig but that this waa 
 
36 
 
 all of religion that was in the world, I had no alter- 
 native but infidelity. I had no test of truth but my 
 reason, and when I brought your system to that, I 
 was compelled to reject it, not only as false, but as 
 a monstrous absurdity, and with it, all religion. 
 
 Nor have I, dear sir, any hesitation in saying that 
 the process of my own mind from popery to infi- 
 delity, is that through which multitudes of minds 
 have passed, and are now passing. To an inquiring 
 mind, which knows nothing of the Bible, infidelity 
 is the fruit of popery. Hence in papal countries, 
 whilst the masses are superstitious, the intelligent 
 and educated are infidel. If they sustain the vul- 
 gar religion, it is for reasons of state. Hence, the 
 infidelity of France, of Spain, of Italy. At the 
 present hour the mind of these countries is more 
 infidel than papal. And this is true of every coun- 
 try on the globe where your religion prevails. It 
 makes the masses superstitious, and the intelligent, 
 infidels. 
 
 And permit me tO say, m^ dear sir, in reference 
 to yourself, that I have far too high a regard for 
 your intelligence to admit for a moment that you 
 believe in the absurd doctrines which your church 
 teaches. Like the ancient priests of Egypt, you 
 must have one class of opinions for the people, and 
 another for yourself. Will you say that this is 
 harsh and uncharitable ? None knows better than 
 yourself that history affirms it of popes, cardinals, 
 
TO BISHOr HUGHES. 37 
 
 and bishops that have lived before you. On no 
 other ground can I possibly account for your remain- 
 ing an hour in the Roman Catholic Church. 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Dopery makes the masses superstitions, the intelligent infidels — Who go to 
 confession ? — Ireland — France — Other countries — Reasons why Popery 
 debases — The days of Popery numbered. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last letter, in v/hich I stated 
 to you the process of my mind in its transition from 
 Popery to Infidelity, I asserted that the effect of your 
 religion is, to make the masses superstitious, and the 
 intelligent infidels, in all the countries where it pre- 
 dominates. Although the truth of this assertion is 
 self-evident to the well-read mind, the briefest con- 
 sideration will make its truth apparent to all. 
 
 How stands the matter in our own country ? Who 
 attend your Confessional, and your Masses in New- 
 York ? How many of the educated Irish, French, 
 or Germans, ever whisper at your knees their sins, 
 or ever bow at your altars to receive your wafers 
 on their tongues, believing them to " be Jesus Christ 
 himself, true God and true man," and believing that 
 he is " truly, really and substantially present " in 
 them ? How many of these go to your churches ? 
 Let any body, wishing to know, stand at the door of 
 4 
 
38 kirwan's letters 
 
 St. Peter's or St. Patrick's, on the Sabbath, and ex- 
 amine the multitudes who attend these places, and 
 they will soon learn. And even when an intelli- 
 gent person is seen mixing with those who attend on 
 your masses, he goes merely through the force of 
 liabit, or to wait upon a female relative. Permit 
 me to say that, with an acquaintance somewhat 
 extended in our country, I knoAv not a single lay- 
 man, of any repute for learning or science, who 
 believes in your distinguishing doctrines. There 
 are some, I allow, of high standing and character 
 who are nominally Catholics, but who, I learn on 
 inquiry, are but nominally so. And the nominally 
 Catholic is really an infidel. 
 
 And how stands the case as to Ireland, the land 
 of our birth, where seven of her nine millions of 
 people are Roman Catholics ? Whilst its masses 
 are with your church, is not its mind in opposition 
 to it ? And what has kept the mind of Ireland from 
 being infidel, but the fact that the religion of the 
 Bible stands out there with a greater or less degree 
 of prominence in opposition to the religion of the 
 priest ? Thank God the Irish massacre did not 
 exterminate Protestantism in the " fairest isle of the 
 ocean." 
 
 And how stands the case in France, wheie your 
 church, Nero-like, extinguisVied the lights of truth, 
 and caused the blood of the Huguenots to run like 
 water ? Popery has managed France in its own 
 way, without any let or hinderance, and what has 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 3^ 
 
 been the result ? It legislated God out of existence 
 —decreed religion to be a fable, and death to be an 
 eternal sleep. Knowing, nothing of religion but 
 what it learned through the unmeaning rites of your 
 church, and by the carnal policy of your priests, it 
 sought to erase every trace of it from existence. 
 And although France has recovered from the intoxi- 
 cation of the maddening bowl, and has risen to 
 order from the wild chaos into which Popery plunged 
 it, its mind is yet infidel. Voltaire is the pope of the 
 mind of France, and Sue is the high priest of the 
 people. Your dumb show of imposing ceremony is 
 there esteemed, not as solemn, but farcical ; and 
 upon your rites but few attend save the peasantry 
 and the women. And the world should hold the 
 Papal church accountable for all the horrors of the 
 French Revolution. 
 
 What is thus true of France is yet more true of 
 the other Papal countries of Europe. If the no- 
 bility of Spain, Portugal, Austria, or Italy, are less 
 infidel than in France, it is because they are less 
 educated. Their masses are superstitious — their 
 educated men, including many of their clergy, are 
 infidels — and their men of fortune and spirit live 
 without any moral restraint. Popery brings no 
 strong moral influence to bear upon the mind and 
 conscience of any people. In the proportion that 
 its influence is strong, do people and nations sink in 
 the intellectual, social, and moral scale. 
 
 That you yourself, dear sir, may see this, sit down 
 
40 kirwan's letters 
 
 and candidly compare Connaught and Ulster, in Ire- 
 land. In the one, Popery almost exclusively prevails ; 
 in the other. Protestantism is in the ascendency. 
 What a difference between them ! Compare Ireland 
 and Scotland — and although the land of St. Patrick 
 is far richer than that of St. Andrew, yet how heaven- 
 wide the difference between them ! Compare Spain 
 with England — Italy with Prussia — Rome with 
 Edinburgh — Belfast with Cork : how wide the dif- 
 ference ! Come across the Atlantic, and continue 
 the comparison on our own Western continent. 
 Compare Mexico to New England — Brazil to these 
 United States — the city of Mexico to that of Boston, 
 or New-York, or Cincinnati ! How great the con- 
 trast ! Come yet nearer home : compare the wor- 
 shippers at St. Peter's in Barclay-street with those 
 at St. Paul's in Broadway ; — compare the attendants 
 on your own ministry at St. Patrick's with those who 
 worship God at the Brick Church, or at La Fayette 
 Place, or at University Place. How wide the dif- 
 ference intellectually, socially, morally ! And why 
 is it that Papal countries and communities thus suf- 
 fer, and so sadly suffer, when contrasted with other 
 communities where there is an unshackled con- 
 science and an open Bible ? There must be some 
 general law or cause in operation to produce results 
 so uniform. What is that law or cause ? Sir, it is 
 the influence of that system of religion which you 
 are seeking with so much zeal and ability to extend. 
 The traveller in Europe need not be told when he 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 41 
 
 crosses the lines that separate Papal from Protestant 
 states ; the obvious marks of higher civilization de- 
 clare the transition with almost as much plainness 
 as would a broad river or a chain of mountains. 
 Popery, with infallible certainty, degrades man. 
 Do you ask how ? In this wise. 
 
 It takes from him the Bible, the revealed will of 
 God, with all its clear light, with all its high mo- 
 tives to excite the soul to high and holy action ; and 
 without which neither civilization nor religion can 
 be long maintained. Papal countries are countries 
 without the Bible. 
 
 It withholds from the people all right moral in- 
 struction. It suppresses the preaching of the gospel, 
 and substitutes for it the dumb show of the Mass. 
 The Apostles turned the world upside down by 
 preaching : but in Papal countries there is generally 
 no preaching. I venture the assertion that there 
 are multitudes of Catholic churches in Catholic 
 countries where a sermon would be as great a rarity 
 as would be the saying of mass in a Scottish kirk ? 
 And is it not one of the seven wonders of the day, 
 that the present Pope, the pretended successor of 
 that warm-hearted preacher, Peter, has preached a 
 sermon, the first preached by a Pope in three hundred 
 years ! ! Could Peter return to Rome, unless his 
 long absence from the body has cooled his generous 
 but impetuous spirit, I am afraid he would treat his 
 pretended successors as roughly as he once did 
 
 Malchus. 
 
 4* 
 
42 KIR WAN's LETTERS 
 
 It withholds from the people the benign influences 
 of Christianity, the great element in the develop, 
 ment of civilization. It withholds the Bible ; — the 
 sermon ; — it has instituted a worship which wants 
 nothing of heathenism but the name ; — that worship 
 is performed in a language now unspoken by any 
 living people ; — it excludes all reading from the 
 people but such as the priest permits ; — acting on 
 the principle that ignorance is the mother of devo- 
 tion, it erects no schools for the instruction of the 
 common mind ; — it substitutes the feast day for the 
 Sabbath, — the saints and the Virgin Mary for the 
 Saviour ; — confessions and penances, for faith in 
 Christ ; — and reverence for places, unmeaning rites, 
 relics, for the fear of God. Sir, I say it with deep 
 sorrow, Popery is not Christianity. It is a fearful per- 
 version of the relisfion of God : and for the evidence 
 of these assertions I again point you to its influence 
 upon the people where there is nothing to counteract 
 it. It has degraded the once noble Castilian until 
 there is no'V none so mean as to do him reverence ; 
 — Italy, once the seat of empire, it has reduced to 
 feebleness ; — and the once chivalrous Italian, who 
 carried the eagles of his country to the extremes 
 of the world, to an ignoble slave. And it has ren- 
 dered our noble-hearted, noble-minded, impulsive 
 countrymen, the hewers of wood and the drawers 
 of water in all the countries to which they emigrate. 
 The degradation of Ireland, which has made it a by- 
 word, I charge upon Popery. If the priests of Ire- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 43 
 
 land would give the quarter of what they receive 
 for praying souls out of Purgatory, to the sustaining 
 of common schools among the people, there might be 
 tnree or more such schools sustained in every parish 
 in that bleeding, famishing, yet noble country ; and 
 its sons would have an opportunity of rising to that 
 position to which their native wit, eloquence, and 
 genius entitle them. 
 
 These, sir, are, in brief, my reasons for asserting 
 that the effect of your religion is to make the masses 
 of your people superstitious. They have no intel- 
 .igent views of God. They know nothing about 
 the plan of salvation. Sacraments and ceremonies 
 exert an undefined, mysterious influence. The 
 priest exerts a ghostly, fearful power, before which 
 tlie ignorant believer slavishly crouches, and of 
 which ne stands far more in awe than he does of the 
 God who has made him. 
 
 And the very causes which renier the masses 
 superstitious, operate in an opposite direction upon 
 the intelligent, and drive them into infidelity. They 
 reason about your doctrines as the Earl of Mulgrave 
 is said to have done with a priest who was sent to 
 him by James II. of England, to convert him to Po- 
 pery. " Sir," said he, " I have convinced myself 
 by much reflection that God made man ; but I can 
 not believe that man can make God." 
 
 My dear sir, the days of Popery are numbered. 
 The Bible is against it. Civilization is against it. 
 The mind of the world is against it. Good people 
 
kirwan's letters 
 
 now pray for its downfall as earnestly as they do 
 for that of Mahometanism. It may live through 
 centuries yet to come ; but it will be as Judaism 
 now lives ; or as Paganism lived in many dark cor- 
 ners of the Roman world long after its conversion to 
 the Christian faith. But my own fear is that the 
 Papal world, both as to its mind and its masses, will 
 become suddenly infidel, as in France, and then 
 pour down its legions upon the church of God, to 
 blot it out of existence. The Romish church is one 
 of the " gates of hell " which has poured forth ar- 
 mies of the aliens in opposition to the church of 
 Christ ; but it has never, nor will it ever, prevail 
 against it. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KrawAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 45 
 
 LETTER YI. 
 
 Popery has degraded Ireland — Evidences of its degradation — Absenteeism— 
 Sub-letting — Tithesj — The priest's cry for money. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last letter, in which I 
 sought to illustrate that the influence of Popery is 
 to make the masses superstitious, and the intelligent, 
 infidels, in all the countries where it predominates^ 
 1 made the following assertion : "it has rendered 
 our noble- hearted, noble-minded, imptflsive country- 
 m.en, the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, 
 in all the countries to which they emigrate. The 
 degradation of Ireland which has made it a by-word, 
 I charge upon Popery." To some of the evidences 
 of the truth of these assertions I wish to call your 
 attention in the present letter. Perhaps the present 
 state of feeling in our country towards famine- 
 stricken Ireland may secure for what I shall say to 
 you some attention. 
 
 That Ireland is a degraded country, as to its 
 masses, with all our pride of country, neither you 
 nor I can deny. Its general poverty, its pervading 
 ignorance, its mud hovels, its innumerable beggars, 
 its insubordination, are the sad and tangible proofs 
 of its degradation. They lie upon the surface of 
 the country, where every traveller can behold them. 
 And the untravelled American has the evidences of 
 
46 kirwan's letters 
 
 this degradation brought to his own door. He sees 
 it in the perfect ignorance of his Irish servant — in 
 the squalid appearance of the Irish beggar — in the 
 deep-rooted superstition of the Irish papist — in the 
 Irish brawls in low tippling-houses — in the furious 
 passions of an Irish mob — in the large proportion of 
 Irish convicts in our prisons, and of vicious Irish in 
 our places of moral reform. It is, my dear sir, 
 with feelings of regret and shame that I make this 
 statement. My love of country has never forsaken 
 me for an hour. With all its faults, I love Ireland 
 still ; and in the lowest depths of their degradation 
 its children manifest a sensibility and a nobility that 
 would honor those in the highest ranks of civiliza- 
 tion, and that evince what they would be under a 
 right development of their social and moral nature. 
 What are the causes of this degradation ? 
 
 I will not, I cannot omit from the list of causes 
 what is technically called Absenteeism : the lordly 
 proprietors of the land living in foreign countries, 
 and expending abroad the hard earnings of their 
 tenants at home. This is one of the grievous curses 
 of Ireland. 
 
 Nor can I omit the system of letting and sub- 
 letting, or renting and sub-renting of the land, by 
 the richer to the less rich, until between the owner 
 and the actual cultivaior there may be six to twelve 
 landlords, each living upon those below him ; and 
 the actual tillers of the land supporting them all ! 
 This is infusing into the curse of absenteeism an 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 47 
 
 ingredient which multiplies its bitterness by ten. It 
 gives rise to a class of landlords as unpitying aa 
 famine. 
 
 Nor can I omit the system of tithes for the sup- 
 port of the Established Church of Ireland. An 
 Episcopal priest is placed in every parish in Ire- 
 land ; and if he has not one single parishioner to 
 wait on his ministrations, he is yet entitled to his 
 tithes from the parish. And these tithes are drawn 
 from the actual cultivators of the soil, the poor 
 tenants. And these tithes are usually let and sub- 
 let, as is the land ; and their collection usually falls 
 into the hands of men as rapacious as vultures. 
 Yes, and the priest for whose support these tithes 
 are paid may never have made the impress of his 
 foot upon the soil of his parish ! Yes, and when 
 the tither calls upon the poor man to pay his tithes 
 for the support of a minister he has never seen, and 
 for the maintenance of a religion which his soul ab- 
 hors, unless he is ready to pay, his only cow, more 
 than one half the support of his family, is driven to 
 the market and there sold for half her value ! And 
 if that does not pay, his pig is driven and sold in 
 the same way ' Such is the system of tithes in Ire- 
 land ! I have no language, my dear sir, in which 
 to express my abhorrence of it. The support of 
 such a system is a disgrace to the Protestant name ; 
 it is a deep, dark, direful stain upon the equity of 
 British legislation. It is a public protest before 
 heaven and earth against the church that sanctions 
 
48 kirwak's letters 
 
 it, and against the craven-hearted, earthly-minded 
 clergy that can submit to be thus supported ! Out 
 of your own church, sir, I know of no ecclesiastical 
 nuisance so utterly offensive as that of the Estab. 
 lished Church of Ireland ! And yet the very up- 
 holders of these schemes of robbery, yes, and some 
 of the very individuals that pocket the plunder thus 
 legally and ecclesiastically filched from the poor 
 people, write to us about public faith and honesty, 
 and lecture us upon the subject of slavery as if they 
 were spotless as Gabriel ! Of all this I can say, as 
 Talleyrand is reported to have said of a lady that 
 frequently annoyed him ; " Madam," said he, " you 
 have byt one fault." " Pray, sir," said she, " what 
 is it ?" " It is," said he, " that you are perfectly 
 insufferable." Nor have I seen, among the various 
 plans suggested by Lord John Russell for the relief 
 of Ireland, a hint at the abolition of this nefarious 
 system of tithes. 
 
 Bad, my dear sir, as I think of these causes, and 
 much as they have contributed to the degradation 
 and impoverishing of Ireland, they are but as the 
 dust of the balance when compared with the influ- 
 ences of Popery. And that yourself may see this, 
 hear me to the cbse, calmly, and. without prejudice. 
 
 Why this Absenteeism, of which we so bitterly 
 and justly complain ? I am not about to excuse it ; 
 but one of its reasons is the opposition of the priest 
 to the efforts of the land proprietor to elevate his 
 tenantry, and the fierce jealousies which the priest 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 49 
 
 excites in the minds of the people. There is but 
 little Absenteeism in Scotland ; why is it so general 
 in Ireland ? The cause we find in the difference of 
 the religion of the two people. If the parish priest 
 of Ireland was like the parish minister of Scotland, 
 the Marquis of Sligo would have as pleasant a home 
 upon his estate as the Duke of Buccleugh, or the 
 Marquis of Broadalbane. 
 
 Popery does nothing for the education of the peo- 
 ple of Ireland. With the wealth of the middling 
 classes under its control, and almost at its beck, 
 where are its schools and its colleges for the educa- 
 tion of its people ? You send to Ireland for money 
 to establish them here ; why erect none there ? 
 Connaught, where your church has complete con- 
 trol, is an almost unbroken mass of ignorance. And 
 Munster is precisely like it. And these are the 
 portions of it where the famine is now raging. Ig- 
 norance brutalizes, and sensualizes, and renders 
 men improvident. It places our higher in subjec- 
 tion to our lower nature ; and in withnoiding educa- 
 tion from the people popery has degraded Ireland. 
 And wherever its children are carried bv the tide 
 of emigration, their want of education places them 
 in the lowest grade of society : and they are more 
 dreaded as a burden, than hailed as an accession. 
 Without the high aspirations which knowledge im- 
 parts, and without the self-respect which it creates, 
 they are satisfied with being menials where they 
 might be masters — to be carriers of mortar, where 
 5 
 
M kirwan's letters 
 
 they might be chief builders on the wall. If the 
 ignorance of Ireland has any thing to do with the 
 degradation of Ireland, I charge that ignorance upon 
 Fopery. 
 
 And if Absenteeism, and sub-letting, and the tithe 
 system do much to impoverish the people, Popery 
 does yet more. It meets them at the cradle, and 
 dogs them to the grave, and beyond it, with its de- 
 mands for money. When the child is baptized, the 
 priest must have money. When the mother is 
 churched, the priest must have money. When the 
 boy is confirmed, the bishop must have money. 
 When he goes to confession, the priest must have 
 money. W^hen he partakes of the Eucharist, the 
 priest must have money. When visited in sickness, 
 the priest must have money. If he wants a charm 
 against sickness or the witches, he must pay for it 
 money. When he is buried, his friends must pay 
 money. After mass is said over his remains, a 
 plate is placed on the coffin, and the people collected 
 together on the occasion are expected to deposit their 
 contribution on the plate. Then the priest pockets 
 the money, and the people take the body to the 
 grave. And then, however good the person, his 
 soul hcis gone to Purgatory ; and however bad, his 
 soul may have stopped there. And then comes the 
 money for prayers and masses for deliverance from 
 purgatory, which prayers and masses are continued 
 as long as the money continues to be paid. Now 
 when we remember that seven out of the nine mil- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 51 
 
 lions of the people of Ireland are papists, and of the 
 most bigoted stamp ; and that this horse-leech pro* 
 cess of collecting money, whose ceaseless cry is 
 ^^ give, give,'''' is in operation in every parish ; and 
 that as far as possible every mdividual is subjected 
 to it, can we wonder at the poverty and the degra- 
 dation of Ireland ? Can we wonder that its noble- 
 hearted, noble-minded people, are every where hew- 
 ers of wood and drawers of water ? Shame, shame, 
 upon your church, that it treats a people so con- 
 fiding and faithful so basely ! Shame, shame upon 
 it, that it does so little to elevate a people that con- 
 tribute so freely to its support ! O, Popery, thou 
 hast debased my country — thou hast impoverished 
 its people — thou hast enslaved its mind ! From the 
 hodman on the ladder — from the digger of the canal 
 - — from the ostler in the stable — from the unlettered 
 cook in the kitchen, and the maid in the parlor — 
 from the rioter in the street — from the culprit at the 
 bar — from the state prisoner in his lonely dungeon 
 — from the victim of a righteous law stepping into 
 eternity from the gallows, for a murder committed 
 under the delirium of passion or whisky, I hear a 
 protest against thee as the great cause of the deep 
 degradation of as noble a people as any upon which 
 the sun shines in the circuit of its glorious way ! 
 
 My dear sir, your religion is for the benefit of the 
 priest, and not that of the people. Its object is not 
 to spread light, but darkness, — not to advance civ- 
 ilization but to retard it, — not to elevate but to de- 
 
62 kirwan's letters 
 
 press man, that he may the more readily be brought 
 under your influence. And we have in Ireland a 
 type of what our happy land will be when the priest 
 wields the power here which he wields there. 
 
 I own, dear sir, that I have digressed a little from 
 my original object in these letters. But in my next 
 I shall commence with the reasons which on tlie 
 most mature reflection yet prevent me from return- 
 ing to the pale of your church. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KlRWAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 53 
 
 LETTER YII. 
 
 ■Reasons for not returning to the papal chnrch — Prohibition of the Scrip 
 tnres — The way and manner of papal worship — Ceremonial law of pope- 
 ry- -Obstructions raised between God and the soul 
 
 My dear Sir, — Agreeably to the promise made to 
 you in my last letter^ I now commence a statement 
 of the reasons which, on the most mature reflection, 
 yet prevent me from returning to the pale of your 
 church. I wish to avoid prolixity of statement, and 
 minuteness of detail ; as I feel that I am addressing 
 one who can see the point, and weigh the force of 
 an argument, without either. 
 
 When, in the kind providence of God, my mind 
 became interested to know what God would have 
 me to do, I cast around for a true guide to the solu- 
 tion of the question. Where could I find such an 
 one ? Books are written by fallible men — priests 
 had already imposed on my understanding — fond 
 parents, deceived themselves, taught me superstition 
 for religion — all men are liable to err. I felt there 
 was a God, and that I was bound to obey him ; but 
 where is the rule of my obedience ? This was the 
 question. I was told of the Bible, but of that I 
 knew nothing ; and, then, I knew the Bible to be by 
 your church a prohibited book, or to be read only 
 by priestly permission. I sought the Bible, and 
 read it. I found it to be the true, and only guide to 
 
 5* 
 
54 KIRWAN S LETTERS 
 
 the right solution of the question as to what God 
 would have me to do. And without the fear of the 
 Pope, or of the anathemas of the Council of Trent, 
 and without a line of license from prelate or priest, 
 I have continued to read it for years. And the vir- 
 tual prohibition of the unfettered reading of the Bi- 
 ble by your church, is one of the main reasons why 
 I cannot return to it. That your restrictions amount 
 to a virtual prohibition your candor, will not for a 
 moment deny. 
 
 And let me ask you, dear sir, why this virtual 
 prohibition ? Who has given you authority to say 
 that I must not read what God has given to direct 
 me into all the ways of faith and obedience ? God 
 has commanded me to "Search the Scriptures;" 
 who has given you authority to forhid me ? What 
 right have you to forbid me, more than I have to 
 forbid you ? Produce your credentials ! Where 
 does God place his Revealed Will in the keeping of 
 pope, prelate or priest, to be doled out to his erring 
 children in such ways and parcels as they may 
 deem best ? He has no more placed the Bible under 
 your control, or that of your church, than he has 
 the sun in heaven, or the vital air. Nor can I con- 
 ceive of any principle that can possibly induce you 
 to withhold it from the people, without gloss or com- 
 ment, save one : " Every one that doeth evil hateth 
 the light, neither cometh to light, lest his deeds 
 should be reproved." It is said that Herod, when 
 convinced that he was not of the royal line of the 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 55 
 
 Jews, burned their genealogies and records, that his 
 false pretences might not be confuted by them. Is 
 it for a similar reason that your church withholds 
 the Bible from the people ? The Bible lays the axe 
 at the root of the Upas tree of Popery ; is this the 
 reason why it is withheld ? 
 
 Another of the reasons which prevent me from 
 returning to your church is the way and the manner 
 of your public worship of God. On reading the 
 New Testament, I find that Jesus Christ embraced 
 every opportunity of declaring the will of God. 
 After his ascension and the descent of the Spirit, 
 the Apostles went every where preaching the gospel 
 of the Kingdom. The worship of God as taught us 
 in the New Testament, consists in prayer, praise, 
 and the preaching of his word for the instruction 
 and edification of his people. To the instruction 
 and edification of the saints every thing in the 
 church of Christ is made subservient. Is it so in 
 the church of Rome ? Do your Masses convey any 
 instruction to the common or the uncommon mind ? 
 Do they ever give, have they ever given, one true 
 idea of God, or of religion, to a human soul ? If so 
 I should like to know it. May not individuals 
 attend upon them from youth to gray hairs, and yet 
 know not the first principles of the doctrines of 
 Christ ? I have attended recently, sir, a High Mass 
 at one of your Cathedrals. It was on the last Christ* 
 mas day. I bore the unmeaning pageant for three 
 
56 kirwan's letters 
 
 nours together. There was the bishcp in his robes, 
 with his cap, his crook and his crosier — there were 
 priests, in numbers, moving about, making their 
 crosses, obeisances and genuflexions — when the 
 bishop rose, the cross and crosier moved before him, 
 and the priests, as waiters, went behind him — the 
 book was shifted from side to side, and was read and 
 chanted in ways that no mortal hearer could compre- 
 hend — there was the raising of the Host, and the 
 bowing down of the people — the incense, and all 
 the other usual accompaniments of such a service ; 
 and it struck me as one of the most farcical panto- 
 mines that I ever witnessed. I left the house with- 
 out receiving a solitary religious suggestion, and 
 puzzled and confounded for a solution to the ques- 
 tion, how intelJigent men could possibly submit to 
 act such a farce, and to pass it off upon a crowd of 
 poor looking people for the solemn worship of God ? 
 And if your Mass, when thus performed with all the 
 splendor and pomp of your ritual, is thus unmean- 
 ing, how insipid must it be when performed in your 
 country chapels by ignorant priests, who hunt up 
 the sheep only to shear off their wool ! God, my 
 dear sir, is an intelligent God, he has given me in- 
 telligence with which to worship him. For the 
 intelligence within me, either as to its increase or 
 exercise, your church makes no provision in its 
 public worship. I must not, then, return to your 
 churchy and seek to have my soul, made for the in- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 57 
 
 habitation of the Spirit, satisfied with the mummery 
 of your muttered Masses, in the public worship of 
 my God. 
 
 Another of the reasons which prevent me from 
 returning to your church is, the burdens which it 
 places on my conscience, which crush, without cor- 
 recting it. It institutes a kind of a ceremonial law 
 which restricts where God has given liberty ; and 
 which licenses where God has prohibited indul- 
 gence. With your Fast and Feast days, who can 
 keep up without an almanac in his hand ? A nd 
 how many of your people can read it ? Should 1 
 blunder in counting the days of the week, and, mis- 
 taking Friday for Thursday, eat meat, my con- 
 science is wounded. If in performing penance 1 
 miscount my beads, and say a less number of Pater 
 Nosters than required, my conscience again suffers. 
 If, ignorant of the " Laws of Lent " which have 
 been just published by you, I should eat three meals 
 on a day between " Ash Wednesday and Easter 
 Sunday," or should eat meat on the "Thursday 
 next after Ash Wednesday," or on " any day in the 
 Holy Week," my conscience would be again bur- 
 dened. And these are but specimens of the thou- 
 sand and one ceremonial regulations of your church, 
 as burdensome as they are unmeaning, which fret 
 and crush the conscience without directing or 
 strencrthenincr it. And whilst thus restricted ia 
 things indifferent, 1 am freely indulged in things 
 which the divine law prohibits. 
 
58 
 
 Now, sir, who has given you authority to n\ake 
 laws where God has made none ? Where is the 
 law in the Statute Book for your Lents, your Feast 
 days, your Fast days, your Easter days ? Why 
 fust or feast at one time more than another ? Who 
 has given you authority to say what I shall eat, or 
 how often, in any one day of the year ? What un- 
 utterable arroG-ance to tell me I cannot eat fish and 
 flesh at the same meal ; what priestly intolerance 
 to tell me, with my Bible open before me, that if I 
 transgress these laws I sin against my God ! You 
 know that the gospel is a law of liberty, you know 
 that if a man eat meat he is not the worse, and that 
 if he refrain he is not the better — you know that 
 tlie Bible teaches that man is defiled, not by that 
 which entereth into him, but by that which cometh 
 out of him. And why burden souls and fetter con- 
 sciences by silly enactments about things in them- 
 selves indifferent, and about which God has made 
 no regulations ? O, sir, like the Scribes and the 
 Pharisees of old, you are busied about the mint, the 
 annis and the cumin, forgetful of the weightier 
 matters of the law. And I deeply regret that a 
 man who has forced himself up to station and influ- 
 ence against so many adverse circumstances, had 
 not force enough left to break the chains of early 
 religious prejudice, to rise up to the region of mtel- 
 lectual, and moral, and religious freedom ! You 
 are too much of a man to stoop to such nonsense. 
 I would leave such things to those who know no 
 better. 
 
TO BISHOP HTJGHES. 59 
 
 On these subjects, dear sir, your church must re-" 
 turn to the standard of the Bible, and of common 
 sense, before I can return to it. 
 
 Another of the reasons which prevent my return 
 is, the obstructions which your church raises be- 
 tween me and my God. My Bible, that hated book 
 by pope, prelate, priest and papal peasant, teaches 
 me that if any man sin he has an Advocate with 
 the Father — Jesus Christ. It every where teaches 
 me, that I may have free access to God through 
 Jesus Christ, that if I sin, I may go for pardon 
 directly to the throne of God, through the mediation 
 of his Son. And this is a precious privilege ; a 
 privilege which may be enjoyed by all, ''tviihout 
 money and without j^rice.'^ Now what do you ask 
 of me to do in order to receive the forgiveness of 
 sin, and to be restored to the favor of God ? You 
 send me to Peter or Paul, or some other saint on the 
 catalogue, who may have never known me ; and 
 who may never hear me, if I pray unto them. Or 
 you send me to Mary, whom you blasphemously 
 call the Mother of God, to ask her to intercede for 
 me. Nor will this suffice. I must go to your Con- 
 fessional, and tell you all my sins ; incurring the 
 fearful penalty of refusal of pardon if I withhold 
 one. Thus you take from me the privilege of go- 
 ing to God for myself, a privilege purchased for me 
 by the death of Christ. You tell me I must go to 
 ^e priest ; and from the priest to the saint, or to the 
 Virgin ; and the Saint or Virgin will go for me to 
 
60 kirwan's letters 
 
 the Saviour ; and he will go for me to the Fathei ! 
 And then when pardon is granted, it goes from the 
 Father to the Son — from him to the Saint or Virgin 
 — from him or her to the priest ; and when in the 
 hands of the priest, he will give me ahsolution, if I 
 pay for it / Will you say, dare you say, that this 
 is a caricature of your teachings upon this matter ? 
 Would to God you could, with truth ! Why send 
 me to the saints to ask them to intercede for me, if 
 this is untrue 1 That I am a sinner, I know and 
 feel. That there is pardon for me through the 
 atonement of Jesus Christ, on my repentance and 
 faith, is a precious doctrine of the Bible, and of my 
 creed. That pardon I receive the moment I sin- 
 cerely exercise the graces of repentance and faith ; 
 — yes, and not a M^hit the less freely, if all of you, 
 pope, patriarchs, prelates and priests, were with 
 Pharaoh and his chariots. 
 
 And why turn me away from the door of mercy, 
 and compel me to speak to miy heavenly Father by 
 proxy ? Why call me away from the cross, and 
 send me to a priest, or a saint, or a virgin, to ask 
 them to do for me what I can better do for myself? 
 Where has my Saviour taught me that I can only 
 address him through a priestly attorney, that I must 
 fee, however poor, for his services ? O, ask me to 
 do any thing — to bale the ocean — to tame the hurri- 
 cane — to arrest the sun — rather than ask me to re- 
 turn to your church, until every thing is removed 
 which forbids the free access of my soul to my God, 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 61 
 
 — which suspends my salvation on any thing else 
 than repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord 
 Jesus Cnrist. You must pull down your toll-gates 
 on the way of life, before you see me back. 
 
 The statement of a few additional reasons I hope 
 to give you in my next. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
 LETTER YIII. 
 
 Farther reasons for not returning to the papal church — Cehbacy of the cler- 
 gy — Auricular confessions — A call on Irish papists to assert their rights. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last letter I entered on the 
 statement of the reasons which yet prevent me from 
 returning to the pale of your church. I adverted 
 only to four : your virtual prohibition of the Bible ; 
 the way and manner of your public worship of 
 God ; — your ceremonial law, which burdens and 
 crushes, without instructing or correcting the con- 
 science ; and the obstructions which you erect be- 
 tween my soul and my God. These, or either of 
 them, would be reason sufficient not merely to ex- 
 cuse, but to forbid, my ever returning to your com- 
 munion. For me to give farther reasons would 
 seem to be a little like your doctrine of Supereroga- 
 tion, which is not among the least of the absurd 
 errors of your infallible church ; but as the argu- 
 
 6 
 
62 kirwan's letters 
 
 ment is cumulative, you will bear with me whilst I 
 proceed to the statement of a few others. 
 
 I cannot return to your church, until you cease 
 teaching for doctrines the commandments ol men 
 Permit me here to say, dear sir, that, without a soli- 
 tary exception, the things which are peculiar to 
 your church, — the things which m.ake it distinctively 
 what it is, are the commandments of men, either in 
 direct opposition to the teachings of the Bible, or 
 based upon the most gross perversion of its mean- 
 ing. In as brief a manner as possible, permit me 
 to illustrate this position. 
 
 Your church teaches and enjoins the celibacy of 
 its clergy, in language the most pointed and posi- 
 tive ; and the Council of Trent hurls its anathemas 
 against all who would assert the contrary doctrine, 
 or who would admit the lawfulness of the marriage 
 of a priest. Thus you forbid the priest to marry — 
 you damn him if he does marry — and you anathe- 
 matize all who think or say that in marrying he 
 sinned not against God or man. All this, you ad- 
 mit, is so. Now, then, I ask your authority for so 
 teaching. I ask not your ecclesiastical, but your 
 scriptural authority. Did not the Jewish priests 
 marry ? Was not Peter your first pope ? This 
 you assert. And was not Peter's wife's mother sick 
 of a fever ? Matt. 8 : 14. Pope Peter, then, had a 
 wife. Why would it be a mortal sin in pope Piua 
 IX. to have one also ? Would he be the less pious 
 or moral on that account ? You, «ir, are a bishop. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 63 
 
 How far you are a scriptural bishop, is not now the 
 inquiry. But Paul in writing to Timothy says, " A 
 bishop must be the husband of one wife .... having 
 his children in subjection with all gravity." And 
 even poor " deacons," the lowest order of your min- 
 istry, are thus instructed by Paul, " Let the deacons 
 be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children 
 and their own houses well." 1 Tim, 3 : 12. 
 
 Now, dear sir, put these things together, and see 
 in what a position they place you ! Peter, your first 
 pope, had a wife ; and you damn to the depths of 
 perdition any pope that would, in this respect, follow 
 pope Peter ! Challoner says that he had no com- 
 merce with his wife after he was made an apostle ! ? 
 Will you tell me how Challoner found that out ? 
 Deacons and bishops are commanded, or at least per- 
 mitted to have wives, and you would empty the 
 seven vials of your wrath, and pour all the anathe- 
 mas of Trent upon the head of the priest or bishop 
 that, in obeying God, would disobey your church ! 
 Is it possible for you and the Bible to be in more 
 direct opposition ? Is it wrong to conclude that, in 
 thus forbidding to marry, your church gives at least 
 one evidence that it is the Antichrist ? Will you 
 favor me, dear sir, with a common -sense exposition 
 of the meaning of Paul, 1 Tim. 4 : 3, where he 
 brands " forbidding to marry " as a doctrine of 
 " devils ? " If half as literal in the exposition of 
 Paul, as in your exposition of, " this is my ]x)dy,** 
 
04 kirwan's letters 
 
 *Uhis is my blood," how will you avoid the infer- 
 ence that you are a devil ? 
 
 Again ; your church enpins confession, under the 
 most stringent rules- To this I have already ad- 
 verted in former letters. I advert to it again to 
 illustrate how you leach for doctrines the command- 
 ments of men. The Council of Trent teaches that 
 *' it is the duty of every man who hath fallen after 
 baptism to confess his sins at least once a year to a 
 priest." It teaches that " this confession of sin is to 
 be secret, for public confession is neither commanded 
 nor expedient." It teaches that " this confession of 
 sin must be very exact and particular, together with 
 all circumstances, and that it extend to the most 
 secret sins, even of thought or against the 9th or 10th 
 Commandment." You know you omit the 2nd 
 Commandment which forbids your bowing to pic- 
 tures and images, and divide the 10th into two, so as 
 to make up the 9th and 10th, and thus complete the 
 number. On receiving confession as thus ordained, 
 the priest pronounces absolution upon the penitent, 
 *' not conditional or declarative only, but absolute 
 and judicial." When I remember the use which 
 your church has made of this doctrine, and the fearful 
 power which it gives the priest over the people, my 
 heart swells with emotion as I pen these lines ; and, 
 like the angel of Manoah's sacrifice, my thanksgiv- 
 ings ascend to hea ^en, that I have escaped the snare 
 of the fowler. 
 
 r 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 65 
 
 Now, Sir, let me again turn querist and ask you 
 where in the Bible do you find your doctrine of con- 
 fession taught ? With me the teachings of all youf 
 Councils weigh not a feather ; give me, if you can, 
 Bible authority. Is there one text from Genesis to 
 Revelation, which you, as a scholar, will say teaches 
 it ? I put this question to you, not as a bishop, but 
 as a scholar. A priest from Maynooth, taught there 
 only to mumble the Missal ; or a poor unlettered 
 peasant from Mayo or Galway, into whose lips words 
 are put, as into the mouth of a parrot, might quote 
 to me James v. 16, which says, "Confess your 
 faults one to another ;" but will you do it ? They 
 might tell me that the Pharisees were baptized of 
 John Baptist, " confessing their sins" — that at Ephe- 
 sus, " many that believed came and confessed, 
 and showed their deeds" — but will you do it ? If 
 James is your authority, are not you bound to con- 
 fess to me, if I am to you ? " Confess your faults 
 one to another j'^ — if this text teaches auricular con- 
 fession, I hold you to it. When did you put the 
 poor Irishman, who whispered his sins into your ears, 
 in your seat in the Confessional, and kneeling down 
 outside, whisper through the little square hole cut 
 in its side, your sins into his ear ? This would be 
 confessing your sins one to another. Did you ever 
 do this, Sir '? Never, never. I ask you again, not 
 as a bishop, but as a scholar, whether a single text 
 quoted by Challoner, or Butler, or Hay, gives a sha- 
 dow of countenance to your doctrine of confession ? 
 
 6* 
 
66 KIRWAN S LETTERS 
 
 Lay aside your mitre, your crosier, your crook, and 
 your canonicals, and look at those texts as simple 
 John Hughes, and then answer my question. How 
 can you account to man or to God for the erection 
 of such an awful institution as Auricular Confession, 
 upon the merest perversion of Scripture, a perver- 
 sion which has neither sense nor wit to excuse it, 
 and without a solitary text or example in the Bible 
 to sustain it? O, why will you do as a priest, 
 what you would not do as a scholar, or as a man ? 
 
 And, then, what aggravates the whole matter is, 
 that every man who is made a priest, no matter how 
 ignorant or wicked, feels himself divinely appointed 
 of heaven to confess sinners, and to absolve them 
 from their sins ! No matter if he is a Judas, he has 
 the same authority to confess and absolve as Peter ! 
 A priest, Sir, under your own jurisdiction, and I am 
 sorry to say, an Irishman also, was heard thus to 
 address the ostler of the hotel at which he boarded, 
 on returning from Mass on Sabbath afternoon, 
 ** Pat, get up my horse, I have to go and confess a 
 poor devil who is dying five or six miles out in the 
 country." I would not say this wretch is a fair sam- 
 ple of all your priests : I hope otherwise. But there 
 are too many like him ! And he has the same 
 power to confess and absolve that you have, against 
 w hose character I know nothing, save that you sus- 
 tain a system which you must know to be as false 
 as the Koran. 
 
 I would implore you, my dear sir, to review this 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 67 
 
 doctrine of your church. As to the word of God it 
 is baseless as the fabric of a vision. It was un- 
 known in the Jewish church ; it is untaught in the 
 Christian Scriptures. It crept into your church 
 during the dark ages. It was nailed upon it at 
 Trent. It is clearly a device of man, and in terri- 
 ble opposition to some of the plainest precepts of 
 God's word. It gives power to the priest, and en- 
 slaves the people. It has been to your church, in 
 every land, a fearful source of corruption. Every 
 thing is beneath you but the truth. Reject the lie, 
 however long it may have been told, and however 
 it may increase your income and influence. No 
 longer prostitute your fine talents and education in 
 maintaining this religious juggle, but send the sin- 
 ner to the cross, telling him that whosoever shall 
 there confess and forsake his sin, shall find mercy. 
 In this thing show yourself a man ; and the bless- 
 ings of unborn generations will be upon you. 
 
 And could I address myself to every papist upon 
 whom the sun shines. I would say to them all, and 
 especially to those of your country and mine, tJw, 
 doctrine of confession, is a 'priestly device to gain an 
 absolute authority over your consciences. You are 
 no more bound to confess to a priest, than he is to 
 confess to you. And as to the doctrine of Absolu- 
 tion, connected with Confession, it is simply blasphe- 
 my. God only can forgive sin. And were it not 
 for the fees connected with your Confession and Ab- 
 solution, there is not a priest upon the face of the 
 
€8 kirwan's letters 
 
 earth that would care a straw about your Confes- 
 sion, or that would commit the blasphemy of for- 
 giving your sins. If bishops or priests will not, in 
 this day of light, cut in pieces the net wove in the 
 dark ages to confine and trammel you, it is in youi 
 power to rise and tear it in pieces. Irish Roman 
 Catholics ! our fathers fought and bled and died, to 
 obtain for themselves and for us civil liberty. Their 
 blood shed by British bayonets in these struggles for 
 their civil rights, have crimsoned every stream and 
 fattened every field of Ireland. And will you, their 
 sons, bow your necks to a priestly tyranny, which 
 debases you mentally and morally '? Will you give 
 yourselves to be led, and rode, and robbed, by priests 
 who come to you pretending that the keys of heaven 
 hang by their girdle, and that it is with them to let 
 you in, or shut you out at pleasure ? No man can 
 be a slave whilst his soul is free ; nor can any man 
 be free, whilst his soul is in bondage. 
 
 There is, Rev. sir, one confession which I freely 
 make to you ; my spirit waxes warm when I think 
 or write upon the absurdities of your church — upon 
 its flagrant perversions of the Scriptures — upon its 
 shameful impositions upon the ignorant and credu- 
 lous — upon the unblushing effrontery with which it 
 teaches for divine doctrines the commandments of 
 men. And I assure you that my warmth of feeling 
 is not diminished when I consider that a man of 
 your character and country, could consent to be a 
 chief workman in this bad business. Irishmen have 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 69 
 
 their faults ; but they are not usually those of du- 
 plicity, or perversion of the truth. And, hence, 
 whilst they may make good papists, they make bad 
 lesuits. 
 
 I regret to find that I must end this letter without 
 ending my illustrations of the way and manner in 
 which you teach for doctrines the commandments 
 of men. This I hope to do in my next. 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
 LETTEE IX. 
 
 Reas<Nis which prevent from returning to the papal church continued — Pur- 
 gatory — Transubstantiation. 
 
 My dear Sir, — I will proceed with the statement 
 of the reasons which prevent me from returning to 
 the pale of your church. I have reached my fifth 
 reason ; your teaching for doctrines of divine au- 
 thority the commandments of men. I entered upon 
 the illustration of the way in which you do this in 
 my last, and without ending my illustrations ended 
 my letter. Permit me to state a few more, for your 
 candid consideration. 
 
 The doctrine of Purgatory is one of the peculiar 
 doctrines of your church. You teach that nearly 
 all Christians when they die are " neither so per- 
 fectly pure and clean as to exempt them from the 
 least spot or stain; nor yet so unhappy as to die 
 
70 kirwan's letters 
 
 under the guilt of unrepented deadly sin." Il is 
 for these middling Christians that you make a pur- 
 gatory, where they remain until they make full 
 satisfaction for sin ; and then they go to heaven. 
 And the " Profession of Faith " of Pius IV. tells us 
 " that the souls therein detained are helped by the 
 suffrages of the faithful ; that is, by the prayers 
 and the alms offered for them, and principally by 
 the holy sacrifice of the Mass." And the doctrine 
 of your church is so expounded upon this matter 
 that but few, if any, die, however good, without 
 needing purgatorial purification ; and that but few 
 are so bad but that they may be there fitted for 
 heaven. This you will admit is a fair statement. 
 The more you get into purgatory, the more you will 
 receive of the " suffrages of the faithful," that is, of 
 their money. 
 
 I have already told you my estimate of this doc- 
 trine. It is that by which your church traffics in 
 the souls of men ; and an amazingly profitable traffic 
 it makes of it. It has placed in your possession 
 riches far exceeding in value the mines of Peru. 
 And because of the value of this doctrine you seek 
 in all possible ways to sustain it. With me the au- 
 thority of your popes and councils is not worth a 
 penny. 1 would rather have one text of Scripture 
 bearing upon the point than the teachings of as 
 many such as you could string between here and 
 Jupiter. Let us then look at the chief texts adduced 
 to sustain a purgatory. 
 
TO 3ISH0? HUGHES. 71 
 
 One of these texts is Matt. 12 : 32 : " Whosoever 
 speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be for- 
 given him, neither in this world, neither in the world 
 to come." Matt. 5 : 26 is another: "Verily I say 
 unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence 
 till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." Both 
 these, you say, refer to purgatory. From the one 
 you conclude that sins may be forgiven in the next 
 world — from the other, that none can get out of pur- 
 gatory till the last farthing is paid. Now, dear sir, 
 let me ask you, how you put these texts together ? 
 If sins are forgiven, how or why is payment also 
 required to the last farthing ? Can I forgive a debt 
 and yet require its payment ? Look at the first text 
 again ; you find purgatory in it, but how ? In this 
 way; because there is a sin which will not be for- 
 given in this world nor in the world to come, therefore 
 there is a sin that will be forgiven in the world to 
 come ! ! Such is the lo2;ic of infallible Rome ! Bo- 
 cause a certain sin is not to be forgiven here or 
 hereafter, therefore many sins will be forgiven here- 
 after ! And because " this world" and " the world 
 to come" is inclusive of all time and place, Popery 
 builds up a place which belongs neither to this 
 world nor to the world to come, and fills it with fire, 
 a?.d calls it Purgatory ! Like Mahomet's coffin, it 
 floats somewhere between heaven and heil. Into 
 this world of fire you drive the souls of men as 
 they leave the body, and let them out only on the 
 reception of " the suffrages of the faithful" — that 
 
72 KIR WAN's LETTERS 
 
 is, their money .' Now, sir, what do you say U) all 
 this? 
 
 But, you ask, are there not other texts quoted by 
 our writers to sustain Purgatory as a Scriptural in- 
 stitution ? O yes, but they are as far from the poi^it 
 as the most vivid imaginatiot. can well conceive. 
 They are by the diameter of the heavens farther 
 from the point, than those just quoted. Let any 
 intelligent man read chapter xiv. of Challoner's 
 " Catholic Christian," and he will rise from it with 
 amazement that God could ever leave men to the 
 folly of so perverting Scripture ; or that even the 
 devil could permit them so absurdly to misapply it. 
 Permit me to quote an instance by way of illustra- 
 tion. We are taught in Matt. 12 : 36, that we must 
 give an account for every idle word in the day of 
 judgment. Now how does this text prove a Purga- 
 tory ? In this wise : " No one can think that God 
 will condemn a soul to hell for every idle word ; 
 therefore there must be a purgatory to punish those 
 guilty of these little transgressions." If you or any 
 mortal man, think I am joking, let him turn to the 
 chapter. Let me quote the answer in full to the 
 question, Are not souls in Purgatory capable of 
 relief in that state? "Yes, they, are, but not for 
 any thing that they can do for themselves, but from 
 the prayers, alms, and other siif rages offered to God 
 for them by the faithful upon earth, which God in 
 his mercy is pleased to accept of, by reason of that 
 communion which we have with them, by being 
 
TO BISHOP hughes; 73 
 
 fellow members of the same body of the Church, 
 under the same head, which is Jesus Christ." 
 Now, sir, if in this answer you substitute the word 
 "priest" for "God," then we come to the facts in 
 tlie case. The "ahus" and the other "suffrages of 
 T the faithful," are pocketed by the priest. And 
 purgatory was invented for the special purpose of 
 securing these alms, and other suffrages of the faith- 
 ful, to pope, prelates, and priests. 
 
 Now, sir, let me ask you a few questions. Per- 
 haps I have asked you too many already ; but you 
 will bear with a fellow-countryman, anxious, not so 
 much to embarrass you, as to bring out the truth. 
 What has the blood of Christ, which cleanses from 
 all sin, to do with the venial sins of those middling 
 Christians who die, not good enough to go to heaven, 
 nor bad enough to go to hell ? What has the blood 
 of Christ, his atonement, his finished work, at all to 
 do, on your plan, with the saving of the sinner ? 
 If my child should die and go to purgatory, would 
 a thousand dollars given to you at once, have the 
 same effect as a hundred dollars a year for ten 
 years ? How can you tell when enough is given 
 to get the soul out ; or has your purse no bottom ? 
 As souls are spirits without bodies, how can you 
 tell one soul from another as they issue from 
 tlie gates of purgatory ? In the prayer " Hail 
 Mary," we are made to utteT at its conclusion, the 
 following petition : " Holy Mary, Mother of God, 
 pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our 
 
 7 
 
74 KIRWAN S LETTERS 
 
 death ;" why not solicit her to pray for us after our 
 death, to get us out of purgatory ? Is it because 
 you are afraid the good woman would get us out 
 before the priests had gotten enough of the " alms 
 and suffrages of the faithful ?" 
 
 My dear sir, the absurdities connected with your 
 doctrine of purgatory are sickening. It is based on 
 the love of money. The bishop of Air candidly 
 confesses that it is not revealed in the Scriptures. 
 It came into the church in the seventh century, it 
 was affirmed in the twelfth ; — it was stereotyped at 
 Trent ; and fearful anathemas are hurled at all who 
 deny it. It puts away the work of Jesus Christ, 
 and sends the sinner, not to " the blood of sprin- 
 kling," but to the fire of purgatory, in order to 
 secure a meetness for heaven. And why this parody 
 — this caricature of the religion of God 1 Simply 
 to put " the alms and the suffrages of the faithful" 
 in the pockets of your priests ! What an outrage 
 upon the common sense of the world to have men, 
 dressed up in canonicals, teaching things as true, 
 of which the beast that Balaam rode might well be 
 ashamed ! 
 
 I entreat you, my dear sir, to review this doctrine 
 of your church. You, surely, must see its ab- 
 surdity. Neither in the word of God, nor in the 
 common reason of man, is there the shadow of an 
 argument to sustain it. Nor is there a class of 
 men upon the face of the earth who deserve a pur- 
 gatory from which " the alms and other suffrages of 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 75 
 
 the faithful " would never release them, as do those 
 who preach up a purgatory and its fearful torments, 
 for the sake of filthy lucre. But, as Father O'Leary 
 said to Canning, '' I am afraid many of them will 
 go farther and fare worse." My high respect for 
 you renders me solicitous that you should not he of 
 the number. I wish you not to be one of the dumb 
 herd who hold the truth in unrighteousness, and be- 
 lieve a lie that they may be damned. 
 
 Transubstantiation is another of the peculiar doc- 
 trines of your church. By this you teach, that, in 
 the Lord's Supper, the bread and the wine are con- 
 verted into the real body and blood of Christ, by the 
 consecration of the priest. The thing is so absurd 
 as to confute itself; and as, therefore, to require 
 from me but a brief statement. Challoner, Chap. V., 
 thus states the doctrine : " The bread and wine are 
 changed by the consecration into the body and blood 
 of Christ." " Is it then the belief of the Church 
 that Jesus Christ himself, true God and true man, is 
 truly, really, and substantially present in the blessed 
 sacrament ? It is, for where the body and blood of 
 Christ are, there his soul also and his divinity needs 
 be. And consequently there must be whole Christ, 
 God and man : there is no taking him to pieces-" 
 And all this is proven to demonstration by ihe 
 quoting of the words of Christ at the institution cf 
 the Supper, " This is my body," " This is my blood." 
 
 Now, sir, if you and your church had only the 
 common sense to look for the true meaning of the 
 
76 kirwan's letters 
 
 two little words "is" and "this" in the above sen- 
 tences of the Saviour, it would have saved you a 
 world of trouble. Look at one or two similar pas- 
 sages : " The seven good kine are seven years— 
 and the seven good ears are seven years." — Gen. 41 : 
 26. " The seven stars are the angels of the seven 
 churches." — Rev. 1 : 20. " The seven heads are 
 the seven mountains." — Rev. 17: 9. The sense is 
 plain here. They signify those things. So the 
 word " is " may mean to signify. Now for the 
 'word '^'this." It obviously refers to the bread. I 
 will have none of your nonsense about " the sub- 
 stance contained under the species." It is darken- 
 ing counsel by words without knowledge. So that 
 the simple, natural, reasonable, scriptural sense is : 
 " This bread signifies or represents my body " — 
 " This wine signifies or represents my blood." 
 Just see how a little common sense simplifies every 
 thing! 
 
 Now, turning back to your interpretation, permit 
 me in view of it to ask you a few questions : Did 
 the apostles at the first institution of the Supper, eat 
 the real body and blood of Christ ? So your church 
 must and does teach ! What power have you, more 
 than I have, to work such a miracle as to change a 
 little wafer into the real body and blood of Christ ? 
 If you stickle so much for the letter in your inter- 
 pretation of " Tins is my body," " This is my blood," 
 why withhold the wine from all but the priests ? 
 Why give up the bread for a wafer ? If some wag 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 77 
 
 should mix arsenic with the wafer before consecra- 
 "iHon, would you be willing .o take it after you had 
 changed it into the real body and blood of Christ ? 
 You place great dependence on John 6 : 56. You 
 take it literally. Will you take the whole connec- 
 tion literally ? Then he that eateth this bread shall 
 live for ever. He that eats this bread will never hun- 
 ger. All that you have to do, if your principle is 
 true, is to give your wafer to the poor, famishing 
 Irish, and thev huno^er no more ! 
 
 But the thing is too outrageously absurd to dwell 
 upon ! Nothing equals it in absurdity in all pagan- 
 ism. If a man should mumble a few words over a 
 stone, and tell you it was converted by these words 
 into bread, what would you say to him ? If, against 
 all the evidences of your senses, he should seriously 
 assert that it was bread; — and if, in addition, he 
 should seriously assert that unless you believed that 
 stone to be bread you must be damned, would you 
 not be for putting him in a strait jacket ? 
 
 But I must bring this letter to a close. These 
 are but a few of the illustrations of the way and 
 manner in which you teach for doctrines the com- 
 mandments of men. And without at all exhausting 
 tlie subject, I must here close my statement of the 
 reasons which forbid me to return lo the pale of 
 your church. When I give up my Bible for the 
 conunandments of men, they must have learning, 
 or genius, or wit, or something to recommend them. 
 
78 kirwan's letters 
 
 They must be, at least, good nonsense, which, you 
 know, to an Irishman is quite interesting. 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Is the Church of Rome a Church of Christ » 
 
 My DEAR Sir, — I have with all frankness and hon- 
 esty stated to you the reasons which yet prevent me 
 from returning to the pale of your church. And al- 
 though I have stated but five, which are scarcely a 
 tithe of those that press themselves forward for 
 utterance, yet, if not to you, they are to myself and 
 I think are to all unbiassed minds entirely sufficient. 
 I have even the faith to believe that you yourself 
 will deem them sufficient ; and that were it not for 
 the peculiarity of your position, and your plighted 
 oath, to sustain your church, right or wrong, that 
 they would have the same effect upon your mind 
 and conduct that they have upon mine. 
 
 Whilst reviewing and weighing these reasons, the 
 questions have arisen before my mind. Is the Roman 
 Catholic, a church of Christ ? Has it so far depart- 
 ed from the truth, or so grie'^-ously perverted it, as to 
 forfeit all claim to that title ^ These are questions of 
 grave import, which I will not undertake to decide. 
 But I wish to state to you in the present letter, how 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 79 
 
 some things bearing on these questions strike nme, 
 and then 1 will submit the decision of them to your- 
 self. To this, surely, you will make no objection. 
 
 The external organization of your church is ob- 
 viously not that taught by Christ and his Apostles. 
 As to this matter, every Jiing in the Bible is simple. 
 The kinojdom of Christ is not of outward observation — 
 its seat is in the hearts and affections of men — its ele- 
 ments are righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost. The great object of the Apostles and first 
 preachers of the doctrines of Christ was to win men 
 to the belief and to the practice of the truth. When 
 men believed the truth, they were baptized, and were 
 thus introduced into the communion of the saints ; and 
 not a word is said about popes, patriarchs, cardinals, 
 m.etropolitans, prelates, or of the duty of implicit 
 obedience to their authority. There is a government 
 enjoined, but it is as free and as simple as one can 
 well conceive ; whilst yours is as desputic, and as 
 absurdly pompous as one can well imagine. As 
 your external organization is not taught in the Bible, 
 where did you get it ? 
 
 The answer to this question to my mind is plain. 
 As the early Church advanced in numbers, influence, 
 and wealth, it gradually lost the martyr spirit of its 
 founders. Its ministers became corrupt, secular, and 
 ambitious. By degrees, bishops, from<an office, be- 
 came an order. As Rome was tiie metropolis of the 
 world, and it was there that the greatest number of 
 martyrs had shed their blood, the bishop of the metro- 
 
80 kirwan's letters 
 
 politan city soon became pre-eminent among his 
 brethren. Now the State sought the influence of the 
 church to assist in maintaining its authority ; and the 
 church sought the influence of the State to assist in 
 building up its ghostly dominion. Each yielded to 
 the request of the other. The church rapidly ex- 
 tended ; and the ambition of priests conceived the 
 idea of governing it after the model of the state. 
 Rome must be the centre of ecclesiastical as of civil 
 power. The State had its Csesar, — the church musl 
 have its pope. Ca3sar had his governors of prov in- 
 ces, — the pope must have his patriarchs. The gov- 
 ernors had their subordinates; and these again theirs, 
 down to the very lowest office ; so that the patriarchs 
 had their archbishops ; these their bishops ; and these 
 their priests ; and so down to the very lowest office in 
 the church. As in the State all civil authority ema- 
 nated from Csesar, and all disputes were finally re- 
 ferable to him ; so in the church all ecclesiastical 
 authority emanated from the pope, and he was made 
 the final judge of all disputes. Here, sir, is the origin 
 of your ecclesiastical government. And did the lim- 
 its of a letter permit, I could run out this parallel 
 into some details which even to you would be striking 
 and confounding. Your ecclesiastical organization 
 has just the same divine warrant that that of Ma- 
 hometanism, or Hindooism has, — God permits it. The 
 Roman Empire has passed away ; ages ago its 
 mangled limbs were strewn over the earth. But in that 
 ecclesiastical organization called Popery, we have 
 
TO BISHOr HUGHES. 81 
 
 the living model of that form of government by 
 which the Caesars bound the nations of the earth to 
 their thrones ; and by which they were enabled to 
 crush, at the extremes of the world, every effort to 
 break the yoke of servitude. 
 
 How far all this bears upon the question, whether 
 yours is a church of Christ, I submit to your candid 
 decision. When weighing this matter, I would entreat 
 you not to jeopardize your standing as a scholar and 
 as a man of sense, by any reference to, " Thou art 
 Peter, and upon this rock I build my church.'' 
 Leave that thing to the boys from Maynooth, with 
 long coats and short brains. 
 
 The forms and method of your public worship are 
 obviously not those taught us in the Bible. I enter 
 3''our church. Saint Patrick's, to worship God. I am 
 required to sprinkle myself with Holy Water, and to 
 make on myself the sign of the cross. And why, or 
 for what purpose ? That I may be defended from 
 unclean spirits ! I look around me, and I see a for- 
 est of candles burning upon the altar. And for what 
 purpose ? where is this commanded ? I see people 
 counting their beads, and praying before pictures. 
 Where is ihis taught? Now comes out a priest in 
 his robes exubroidered with crosses. Did Peter or 
 Paul wear such things when teaching Jews and Gen- 
 tiles the faith of Christ ? He says nothing to ihe 
 people, but goes through the Mass in Latin, of 
 which I may know nothing. Was this the way Peter 
 and Paul did ? Then come out boys in white frocks, 
 
82 kirwan's letters 
 
 with their censers, offering incense to the priest, and 
 filling the church with the odour. Were Peter and 
 Paul thus incensed ? The priest goes through the 
 service, bowing, and kissing the altar, now lifting up 
 his hands, now his eyes ; now speaking in a whisper, 
 now in full voice, according to the rules laid down. 
 Now, Sir, where did you get these things ? And after 
 the ceremony is over, I again cross myself with Holy 
 Water and retire. This is your public worship of 
 God every where, and from age to age ; save, that 
 in this country there is a sermon, on sticking to 
 Mother Church, sometimes added. Have you the 
 most distant idea that it was in this way the first 
 Christians worshipped God ? The manner of your 
 public worship is not scriptural, or Christian ; it is 
 heathen, and was originally adopted for the seducing 
 of the heathen to Christianity. If Peter or Paul 
 could be introduced to Saint Patrick's when you 
 were going through High Mass, and were told that 
 you were one of their successors, what would be 
 their astonishment ! What ! you a successor of the 
 men who lived by catching fish, and mending nets, 
 and making tents ! ! And that farce in which you 
 are a chief actor every Sabbath, the exact counter- 
 part of the worship instituted by the apostles ! ! Your 
 manner of public worship is not only unscriptural, 
 but in direct opposition to scripture ; — it wants 
 nothing of heathenism but the name. And how far 
 all this bears upon the question, whether yours is a 
 church of Christ, I submit to your candid decision. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 83 
 
 The Bible is God's revealed will to teach us what 
 we should oelieve, and do. This Bible your church 
 has corrupted, and labours to suppress. You mix up 
 with the pure word of God, the Apocrypha, which 
 lays no claim to inspiration, and whose internal evi- 
 dences are fatal to such a claim. I need here only 
 mention the recommendation of the Angel, in Tobit, 
 io make smoke out of the heart and liver of a fish, to 
 scare devils out of men ! And yet this Apocrypha is 
 of more use to you than all the Bible besides ! You 
 mutilate the ten Commandments written on stone b/ 
 the finger of God ! You mistranslate the Scriptures 
 in passages innumerable, to bring out your peculiar 
 doctrines ; or to conceal its testimony against them. 
 And where the point of Scripture cannot be broken 
 or blunted, you put a note at the bottom in explana- 
 tion. And what notes ! To,ke the following as an 
 illustration, appended to Rom. 4. 7. " Blessed are 
 they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins 
 are covered." " That is, blessed are those who, by 
 doing penance have obtained pardon and remission of 
 their sins, and also are covered ; that is, newly cov- 
 ered with the habit of grace, and vested with the stole 
 of charity." Nor is the work of corruption yet done. 
 You superadd to all this your traditions, which like 
 a piece of Indian rut ber you can stretch or contract 
 to suit your purpose. Nor can the Bible, when all 
 this is done, be put into promiscuous circulation, l(;st, 
 with all these additions and corruptions, some might 
 understand it as teaching some things in opposition to 
 
84 kirwan's letters 
 
 popery ! You tell the poor Irishman that hi-s spade 
 and hod are better suited to him than the Bible ; and 
 the poor Irish woman that she had better keep at her 
 broom, and wash-tub, than trouble herself about the 
 Gospels ' When you corrupt the Bible to the extent 
 of your ability ; when you add to it every thing you 
 can, or dare : — even then you keep it from the people ! 
 Why thus fearful of the Bible ? 
 
 Now, sir, how far all this bears upon the question 
 whether yours is a church of Christ, I submit to 
 your own decision. As far as you can, you strive 
 to supplant the Bible as the only rule of faith ; and 
 as far as I am concerned, I would as soon strive to 
 grope my way to heaven by the Koran, as by that 
 which you give me as a substitute for the Bible. 
 But I wish not to forestall your decision. 
 
 The Sacraments, instituted in condescension to 
 our weakness, are outward and sensible signs of in- 
 ward and spiritual grace. These, like the Bible, 
 you have enlarged and corrupted. Christ and his 
 Apostles left us but two ; — you multiply them by 
 three, and carry one. I only wonder how your in- 
 genuity permitted you to stop at seven. Here you 
 have allowed a Dr. Deacon, a dull Englishman, and, 
 I believe, a Protectant in the bargain, to surpass you ! 
 He adds, exorcism, the white garment, a taste of milk 
 and honey, &c. How easily you might have gone 
 on to seven, or even seventy times seven ! But in 
 addition to multiplying, you have most grievously 
 corrupted the two that are taught us in the New 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 85 
 
 Testament. In baptism you dip or pour three 
 times ; where is this taught ? Ordinarily you per- 
 mit it only to be administered in churches which 
 have fonts, the water of which is to be blessed every 
 year on the vigils of Easter and Whit Sunday ! 
 Where do you get this ? Where is your warrant 
 for the absurd practice of godfathers and godmo- 
 thers ? The priest blows three times upon the face 
 of the person to be baptized, saying, " Depart out 
 of him or her, O unclean spirit, and give place to 
 the Holy Ghost" ; — where did you get this ? He 
 then puts a grain of blessed salt into the mouth ; — 
 then he exorcises the unclean spirit, because the 
 devil must go out, before the person is introduced 
 into the church ! Then he wets his finger with his 
 spittle, and touches, first, the ears, saying, " Eph- 
 phatha" — then his nostrils, saying, " unto the odour 
 of sweetness." "Be thou put to flight, O Devil!" 
 And when baptized, a white cloth is put on his head, 
 and a candle in his hand. Now whence all these 
 things ? Is this a heathen ceremony, or Christian 
 baptism ? 
 
 • Bad as all this is, it is strong common sense when 
 compared with your corruption of the Lord's Sup- 
 per. The bread and wine are rejected for a wafer 
 — tliat wafer is converted into God — the wafer God 
 is first worshipped, and then eaten ! And to believe 
 all this shows great exaltation of faith and piety ! 
 Some things would appear very pious were they not 
 so absurd and ludicrous. 
 
 8 
 
86 kirwan's letters 
 
 Now, sir, how far this multiplication and corrup- 
 lion of the sacraments of the Christian religion en- 
 ters into the question, whether or not yours is a 
 church of Christ, I submit again to your own deci- 
 sion. 
 
 Nor have you permitted a single leading doctrine 
 of the Bible to escape your efforts to pervert them. 
 
 The Bible holds up one God as the sole object of 
 religious worship. You teach us to worship the 
 Virgin — the host — the cross ; and to adore angels — 
 departed saints — relics — and even pictures. 
 
 The Bible teaches that our only access to God is 
 through a Redeemer, Jesus Christ, who is made unto 
 us of God, wisdom and righteousness and sanctifica- 
 tion, and redemption, and that through faith in his 
 name we are made partakers of the blessings of his 
 work of redemption. You teach that there are 
 other intercessors to whom we must apply — that our 
 own works are efficacious to save us — that the sacra- 
 ments have inherent power to save — that faith in 
 Christ is not the true method of justification. 
 
 The Bible teaches that we must be born again, 
 created anew by the Holy Ghost. This you de- 
 nounce as a false and accursed doctrine, and teach 
 us that we are regenerated by baptism, and kept in 
 a state of salvation by confirmation, confession, pen- 
 ance, fasts and alms. 
 
 The Bible plainly teaches that when we die we 
 go to heaven or to hell, like Lazarus and the rich 
 man, that our probation is confined to the present 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 67 
 
 state. You teach us that there is a third state, Pur- 
 gatory, where souls are purified from the stains of 
 venial sins, and thus prepared for heaven. And so 
 CD to the end of the chapter. 
 
 Such, Reverend sir, is the way in which some 
 things strike me, bearing on the question whether 
 yours is, or is not, a church of Christ. That there 
 are m.any papists truly pious, I believe. But 
 whether a church fashioned as is yours, as to its ex- 
 ternal organization, after the Roman state when gov- 
 erned by military despots — departing, in its public 
 worship, in every essential particular, from that 
 taught in the Scriptures ; whether a church which 
 corrupts and suppresses the Bible — which corrupts 
 its sacraments and its doctrines, is a church of 
 Christ ; this, this, is the grave question which I now 
 submit to your decision. It is said that a question 
 involving a vast amount of property was once sub- 
 'mitted to Sir Matthew Hale. Before giving his 
 opinion he was approached by ihe lordly defendant 
 in the case with a bribe. He repulsed him with 
 great indignation. His lordship complained of him 
 to the king ; and the reply of his majesty was : 
 " Sir Matthew makes his decisions without fear or 
 favour ; he would treat me in the same way." 
 
 All I ask of you is to decide the above question 
 with the honesty of Sir Matthew. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
68 kirwan's letters 
 
 LETTER XL 
 
 The effects of Popery on Liberty, Knowledge, Happiness, True religiOD. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last letter, I submitted to 
 your decision the question, whether or not the Ro- 
 man Catholic is a church of Christ, after briefly 
 stating to you how some things bearing on its truth- 
 ful decision strike me. I design the present lettei 
 to have no very remote bearing upon the same ques- 
 tion ; and would ask you to give it the degree of 
 consideration to which, in candour, you may deem 
 its statements entitled. 
 
 In reading the prophecies of the Old Testament, 
 I find that they all speak with the most glowing an- 
 ticipations of the yet future Kingdom ot Messiah. 
 That kingdom was to produce the civil, moral, and 
 spiritual renovation of the world. When I turn 
 over to the New Testament, I find that on the birth 
 of Messiah, the Angel of the Lord stated to the 
 shepherds that he came to bring them good tidings 
 of great joy which should be to all people. And 
 having announced the birth of the Saviour in the 
 city of David, he was suddenly joined by a multi- 
 tude of angels, singing, " Glory to God in the high- 
 est, and on earth peace, good will toward men." 
 The Old Testament and the New, — patriarchs, 
 prophets, and apostles, all unite in teaching us that 
 ihe effect of Christianity upon our world would be 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 89 
 
 to restore it to its primeval state, and to re-instamp 
 upon the heart of man the lost image of his Creator. 
 Ndw, how far has Popery fulfilled these predictions, 
 and the reasonable expectations of the faithful, 
 founded on them ? In other words, what are the 
 fruits of Popery 1 Our Saviour tells us that a good 
 tree yields good fruit, — a bad tree, bad fruit. And 
 with this test in view, my object in the present letter 
 is to state to you how some things strike me. 
 
 What has been the effect of Popery upon human 
 liberty ? Permit me to use the word " liberty '" in 
 its widest sense. As to civil liberty, it has been its 
 unchanging enemy. It has never permitted a spark 
 of liberty to glow for an hour when it could ex- 
 tinguish it. There is not in Europe, at the present 
 hour, — perhaps not on earth, — a greater civil despot 
 than the Pope. The man that, in Italy, writes a 
 page, or makes a speech in favour of liberty, must 
 fly the kingdom, or be dragged to a dungeon. And 
 we are to judge of Popery, not by its pliability 
 where it cannot rule, but by the way which it shows 
 its heart where it can do so without let or hinderance. 
 Kings as well as people have groaned under its 
 tyranny. Heniy IV. of Germany was made by the 
 Pope to stand three days in the open air, with bare 
 head and feet. Frederic I. was made to hold his 
 stirrup. He caused Heniy II. of England to be 
 scourged on the tomb of Thomas a-Becket. And 
 the present state of Spain, Austria, Italy, show the 
 effects of Popery on civil liberty. 
 
 8* 
 
90 
 
 It is equally the foe of mental liberty. The Bible 
 is without any authority, save what your church 
 gives it. And the Bible must teach nothing save 
 what your church allows. And man must believe 
 nothing save what the priest permits. And philoso- 
 phy must teach nolhing save what the church sane- 
 tions. You know that for this last offence Galileo 
 w^as sent to study astronomy in prison. Pure popery 
 and real liberty, never have breathed, and never can, 
 the same atmosphere. The principle of your church 
 is to allow nothing that bows not to its yoke. 
 
 What has been the effect of popery upon human 
 knowledge ? When Christianity like a new sun rose 
 upon the world, there was much that might be called 
 education in the Roman Empire. The obvious 
 effect of Christianity was to extend it. After the 
 lapse of some ages, popery by gradual stages crept, 
 serpent-like, to the high places of power. How 
 soon afterwards the lights of learning go out ; how 
 soon the dark ages commence, and roll on as if they 
 were never to end ! And those centuries of dark- 
 ness form the golden age of your church. And 
 what spirit did it manifest on the revival of learning 
 in England after the sacking of Constantinople, and 
 at the Reformation ? Leo X. prohibited every book 
 translated from the Greek and Hebrew. This blow 
 was aimed at the Bible. He forbade the readins^ of 
 every book published by the Reformers. He excom- 
 municated all who read an heretical work. The 
 Liquisitors prohibited every book published by sixty- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 91 
 
 two different printers ; and all books printed by any 
 printer who had ever published a book of heresy ! 
 Nor has one of these prohibitions been ever recalled. 
 At this hour, the noblest products of human genius 
 are under the ban of your church ; and the Index 
 Expurgatorius is in full operation at Rome ! 
 
 And what has been the effect of all this upon 
 human knowledge ? Look into the countries, for 
 an answer, where your church rules undisturbed. 
 The nobles and the people, in Spain, Portugal, 
 Austria, Sardinia, Sicily, are sunk into almost the 
 same state of ignorance. Upon the intellectual de- 
 gradation of Catholic Ireland I have already dwelt. 
 The Book of books which the Lamb died to unseal, 
 your church has re-sealed, ; it has laid an embargo 
 upon human knowledge ; it allows the people to 
 read only what it permits ; and it permits only what 
 tends to rivet its chains, and to perpetuate the dark- 
 ness which is its natural element. When the Re- 
 formation occurred, the retrograde movement of the 
 World towards ignorance, and barbarism, and idola- 
 try, had ahnost been completed. Had it not occur- 
 red, a radiance might continue to gild the high 
 placed of the earth after the gospel sun had set — a 
 twilight might be protracted for a few ages, in which 
 a few might grope their way t > heaven — but each 
 age would have come wrapped in a deeper, and yet 
 deeper gloom, until impenetrable darkness had fallen 
 on the world. Even the degree of knowledge which 
 has obtained in the papal world, it owes to the Re- 
 formation. 
 
92 kirwan's letters 
 
 And what has been the effect of popery upon the 
 liaiypiness of our race ? This is a question of wide 
 bearing, yet I can do little more than glance at it. 
 Has it ever laid out its energies for the promotion of 
 human happiness ? If so, when and where ? Has 
 it not, on the other hand, set itself in opposition to 
 every thing calculated to promote it ? Does general 
 intelligence promote it ? — Your church has always 
 opposed it. Does the free circulation of the Word 
 of God promote it ? — You have opposed this, also. 
 Does the inculcation of pure religion promote it ? — 
 You have poisoned, or closed up all its fountains. 
 Does advancing civilization promote it? — Your ef- 
 forts are untirinsr to reverse its wheels and to roll us 
 back to the darkness of the dark ages, whose very 
 light was darkness. But what can I say more ? for 
 the time would fail me to tell of your monasteries 
 and nunneries — of the wars which popery has ex- 
 cited — of its crusades — of the bitter jealousies it has 
 sown between states — of the oceans of blood it has 
 shed to obtain its objects—of the Inquisitions it has 
 erected to torture the unbelieving — and of the way 
 and manner in which it has caused those of whom 
 the world was not worthy, to have trial of 'cruel 
 mockings and scourgings ; yea, moreover of bonds 
 and imprisonment : how it caused them to be stoned, 
 to be sawn asunder, to be slain with the sword ; to 
 wander about in deserts and in mountains," in dens 
 and caves of the earth. O ! Sir, the pathway of 
 popery through the world is marked by the blood 
 and bones of its victims. It has gone into the earth 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 93 
 
 feeling that Joshua's commission on entering Canaan 
 was in its pocket ; and that all who questioned its 
 authority were Hittites and Amorites*. And almost 
 without a figure of speech it can be said, that the 
 nations which it found as the garden of the Lord, it 
 converted into a howling wilderness. I know not 
 that human happiness has ever had a more deter- 
 mined foe than popery. 
 
 What is the influence of popery as to the exercise 
 of Christian charity ? By charity I mean not alms- 
 giving, nor yet the love of God which the Spirit in- 
 spires in the soul, but that grace which induces love 
 to those who differ from us, and to cast a mantle over 
 their defects. The Bible teaches us to do good to 
 all as we find opportunity — to love our enemies — to 
 treat with kindness those who despitefuily persecute 
 us. How does your church obey these injunctions 
 of Christ the Lord ? Let your inquisitions — your 
 auto da fe's — your Bartholomew's day — your Irish 
 massacre — your yearly anathemas against heretics 
 — your consigning to perdition all beyond the pale 
 of your church, answer. All non-papists you place 
 beyond the pale of mercy — you refuse their bodies 
 Christian burial, if such your burial can be called 
 — you convert into the bitterest enemies of the man 
 that becomes a Bible Christian, those of his own 
 household — you make the poor Irish servant to fee) 
 that his master, and her mistress are the enemies of 
 God, however pious, whose reading of tne Bible, 
 and whose prayers to heaven cannot be heard with- 
 
94 KIR WAN's LETTERS 
 
 out committing great sin — you enact a ccremonia. 
 law, and proclaim that all who submit not to it are 
 speckled with plague spots. And, hence, your 
 priests, wherever located in Protestant communities, 
 instead of going about, as men, to piomote the gen- 
 eral welfare, move about as spectres, as if afraid of 
 the light of day ; here abstracting a child from a 
 Sunday school ; there burning a Bible ; here poi- 
 soning the mind of a servant against his master, and 
 there that of a maid against her mistress ; — and 
 seeking to place all save his own unlettered fol- 
 lowers, like the lepers of Samaria, without the city 
 of God. Does this look like the spirit of Christ ? 
 
 What is the influence of popery on true religion ? 
 To this point I have already spoken. I have told 
 you, sir, how it has corrupted our Rule of Faith, 
 and the sacraments, and the doctrines of the Bible. 
 This is but the theory of the matter ; — O, how can 
 I speak of its practical effects ? The religion of 
 Christ it has converted into a system of idolatry in 
 which God and witches — the Bible, and traditions, 
 canons, decretals — the worship of God and of saints 
 — the mediation of Christ and of Mary — prayer and 
 scourging — pious deeds, penances and processions, 
 are all of like authority, and like efficacy ! 
 
 The mind of the poor papist it fills, not with light 
 and love, but Avith darkness and fear. It closes to 
 him the way to heaven through the blood of Christ, 
 and opens it through the fires of purgatory. Leav- 
 ing him in doubt as to where he will succeed best, 
 
TO BISHOP HTJGHES. 95 
 
 he ROW prays for pardon to God — now to the Virgin 
 now to Peter or Paul — now before some old picture 
 almost obliterated by age — believing alike the truths 
 of scripture, and the absurdities of your system, and 
 knowing little of either. 
 
 It impresses the poor papist with the idea that re- 
 ligion consists, not in love to God and man, but in 
 external submission to rites and forms. Hence, 
 the Spaniard will go to confession with his dagger 
 under his mantle — and the poor, generous Irishman, 
 will go from the Mass and Missal to the pot-house. 
 And your inquisitors have gone out from your eu- 
 charist to kindle the fires which consumed your 
 heretics and our martyrs, and which illumined their 
 pathway to glory ! 
 
 But I must stop, lest my emotions swell beyond 
 due bounds. 
 
 These, Rev. sir, are some, and but some of the 
 fruits of your system. How do they appear to yon 
 when thus brought together ? Is the tree which 
 bears these fruits good, or bad ? Has popery, in 
 any one particular, in any one country, or in any 
 age, ever produced the results which prophets and 
 apostles have told us the religion of Messiah would 
 produce % If not, are not popery and Christianity, 
 not only iifierent, but antagonist systems ? 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
96 kirwan's letters 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 Conclusion of the whole matter. 
 
 Mr DEAR Sir, — The letters which I have liad 
 the honour of addressing to you, I must now bring 
 to a close. I have stated to you, with all frankness 
 and sincerity, my reasons for leaving the church in 
 which I was born, baptized, and confirmed ; and 
 which, on the most mature deliberation, yet prevent 
 me from returning to it. I can assure you, on the 
 word of an Irishman, and which is far more, on the 
 word of a Christian, that I have had no end in view 
 but the exposure of error, and the development of 
 the truth. Thirty years have almost run their 
 course since I left your church ; and although not 
 utterly unknown to the men of our age, nor unsoli- 
 cited, these letters form my first appearance on 
 popery. Unless some unexpected ripple is excited 
 on the current of my feelings, they will, probably, 
 form my last. 
 
 Now, dear sir, what think you of these reasons ? 
 Are they, or are they not, sufficient to excuse, to 
 forbid my return to your church ? Had I an eai 
 sufficiently acute to hear the decision of your con- 
 science, I believe in my soul that it pronounces them 
 sufficient. Yes, I believe, that were it not for your 
 sad doctrine of Infallibility, which stereotypes and 
 Derpetuates every absurdity, you and multitudes like 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 97 
 
 you, men of sense and education, would rise and 
 cast a fire-brand amid the rubbish which ignorance 
 and wickedness have, in the progress of ages, col- 
 lected around your church, and send its smoke 
 heavenward li^e the smoke of a furnace. But, Sir, 
 I am not ignorant of the slow progress of truth 
 against bigotry — of the great difficulty of exchang- 
 ing bad opinions and customs, hallowed by usage, 
 for better ones. Nor have I read history so inatten- 
 tively as not to learn from it the great difficulty of 
 converting high ecclesiastics to the knowledge of the 
 truth. The mitre has shielded many a head from 
 the weapons of sense and logic ; and under the sur- 
 plice many a conscience has gone to rest thai, with- 
 out it, would have contended to the death for the 
 faith once delivered to the saints. I must not forget 
 that it was the high priest who occupied Moses' seat 
 that put our Lord to death ; nor can I forget that 
 those claiming to be the successors of Peter, and the 
 vicegerents of Christ, have been the greatest perse- 
 cutors of the saints. They have shed Christian 
 blood enough for pope and cardinals to swim in. 
 Would to God that you could see things as I see them ; 
 your influence would be strong in freeing our fellow- 
 countrymen from that bondage of the soul which 
 ^ most degrades them. But despairing of this, I turn 
 from you to the victims of your system. Roman 
 Catholics, and especially Irish Roman Catholics, 
 to you I now turn. From your bishop, whom, 
 with you, I respect as a man, though I oppose 
 
98 
 
 his religious principles, I appeal to you. With 
 you is the power to bring to a perpetual end that 
 system of ghostly tyranny the most oppressive that 
 man has ever felt. Subjects and sceptres depart 
 together ; the farce of the Mass will soon end when 
 there are none to witness it, — and popes, bishops, 
 and priests will soon seek an honest calling when 
 there are none to be edified by their jugglery, — 
 when "the alms and the suffrages of the faithful" 
 cease to flow. 
 
 Will you give an honest perusal to these letters : 
 and candidly weigh the reasons and the arguments 
 which they contain ? That I was born in Ireland, 
 is my pride. My sympathies are all with Ireland 
 in its civil, social, and moral degradation. The 
 blood of my kindred, shed to defend it against 
 English oppression, mingles with its soil. Your pre 
 sent feelings as to your church, I have had, and in 
 all their force. I can entirely appreciate them. 1 
 have cordially hated Protestantism and Protestants ; 
 and I have seen the time when I regarded the man 
 as my personal enemy who would utter a word 
 against my religion. But those were the days of 
 my youth, and of my ignorance. When I became 
 a man, I put away childish things. And my reasons 
 for so doing are spread out before you in these letters; 
 and all I ask of you is, kindly and candidly to con- 
 sider them, and then to act accordingly. If they 
 are not sufficiently cogent to cause you, as they have 
 caused me, tr leave the Church of Rome, then you 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 99 
 
 will have my entire consent to be oppressed, fleeced, 
 and ridden by your priests, as long as you live. 
 
 Yet permit me to entreat you to give to the sub- 
 ject of these letters the attention which it demands. 
 I know that many of you are sincere ; but this is no 
 test of truth. I know many of you to be devout ; 
 but so are Mahometans and pagans. I know that 
 many of you are prepared to make any sacrifice 
 which religion demands. But we may give all our 
 goods to feed the poor, and our bodies to be burned, 
 and yet be strangers to the only true religion. My 
 heart is deeply affected in view of your state. A 
 noble people, you are shut out from the joys to which 
 God invites you. You are hoodwinked and manacled 
 by a system of the grossest fraud and delusion ; 
 you are denied the common birthright of a citizen 
 of the world — seeing with your own eyes and hear- 
 ing with your own ears. You are robbed of the 
 only volume that can guide you — and are forbidden 
 to enter the way of life, save through the gate which 
 is guarded by your priests. O ! suffer the entreaties 
 of one who suffered as you now do under the galling 
 chains of papal tyranny. Break the fetters which 
 priests have forged, and in which they have bound 
 you. You are now in a land where you may laugh 
 at the excommunications and anathemas of popes, 
 prelates, and priests. God has given you his word ; 
 let no man filch it from you. God has given you a 
 mind, to think for yourselves ; let no man usurp the 
 
100 kirwan's letters 
 
 power of thinking for you. God invites you to him- 
 self, to receive at his own hand pardon and forgive- 
 ness. O ! submit not to go and pay for these, and 
 on your knees, to a priest. Go to the Bible for your 
 religion. Receive nothing as religious truth, which 
 is not there taught ; and your mental, social, and 
 moral regeneration is commenced. 
 
 But you meet this appeal with the objection, that 
 I am a deserter from your church ; and that I am 
 not, therefore, to be heard. If your priests take any 
 notice at all of these letters, I know well the 
 changes they will ring upon this idea. But was not 
 Peter a deserter from the Jewish church ; and must 
 he not be heard on that account ? Must a man who 
 renounces error never be heard by those who con- 
 tinue in it ? And what think you of the persecution 
 by your church of those who renounce its authority ? 
 To say the least of it, it is in bad company. The 
 Jews put Christ to death for deserting the faith of 
 Moses. The Mahometans put to death any man of 
 their number who rejects the Koran for Christ. The 
 Hindoos expel from their society all who reject their 
 religion for ours. And popery has shed, in rivers, 
 the blood of those who could not but reject its follies 
 and absurdities. In this happy land, the bull of a 
 pope is as harmless as a lamb— and the thunders 
 of the Vatican have no lightning that injures. 
 Priests may prejudice you against these letters, but 
 they are the interested party, — their craft is in 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 101 
 
 danger. And all I ask of you is, to give my rea- 
 sons the candid consideration which you owe to 
 yourself, and which their importance requires. 
 
 But you may ask, What ! do you wish me to give 
 up my religion ? Is not mine the oldest religion 1 
 Here, I well know, is the invincible argument with 
 many of you ; but has it any weight ? Are the 
 oldest things always the best ? If so, then the Jews 
 were right in resisting Christianity ; and the pagans 
 are right in clinging to their false systems — and you 
 do wrong in ever exchanging an old garment or an 
 old house for a new one. But is popery the oldest 
 religion ? O, no ; Christianity is older. Popery 
 and Mahometanism arose at the same time, and cen- 
 turies after the establishment of Christianity. They 
 are alike corruptions of the religion of Jesus, though 
 the prophet has apostatized farther than the pope. 
 They both appeal to the senses, and are both idola- 
 trous. If the pope has his holy water, the prophet 
 has his holy well. If the one has his holy bones, and 
 coats, and relics, the other has his holy pieces of 
 tapestry from the temple of Mecca. They have 
 alike their pilgrimages — their senseless repetition of 
 prayers — their Lents — their penances, and their ex- 
 ternal symbols which alike adorn the church and 
 the mosque. And if the papist can object to Chris- 
 tianity, saying, Is not mine the oldest religion ? then 
 can the Mahometan do the same. 
 
 But yours is not the oldest religion. I could here 
 
 give you the time^ did the limits of a letter permit, 
 
 9* 
 
102 KIR WAN's LETTERS 
 
 wlien the distinguishing doctrines of your church 
 were introduced. The celibacy of the clergy came 
 into the church in the Fourth Century ; purgatory 
 appeared in the Seventh, and was affirmed in the 
 Twelfth ; auricular confessions, and the worship of 
 the Host, in the Thirteenth ; and so on to the end of 
 the chapter. And instead of wishing you to give 
 up the oldest religion, we wish you only to give up 
 popery for Christianity ; — to give up the new, and 
 to return to the old. All that I have done myself 
 and all that I desire you to do is, to lay aside every 
 thing that pope, bishops, and priests have added to 
 the religion of Jesus, and to embrace that religion 
 just as it is taught in the Bible. 
 
 Convinced that you have been deceived by those 
 to whom you have been looking for guidance — that 
 priests have sought your money more than your sal- 
 vation — that instead of bread they have given you 
 stones, and for eggs, serpents — that they have sought 
 to brutalize, instead of enlightening you — to enslave 
 instead of elevating you to the liberty with which 
 Christ makes his people free ; do any of you inquire 
 as to the course best for you to pursue ? If you 
 will take the advice of one that has gone before you 
 in the way, it is cheerfully given. Think not of 
 giving up all religion because of the deceptions of 
 popery. This was one of my mistakes. Take the 
 Bible for your guide ; — that will not deceive you. 
 It teaches you that you are a sinner ; this you should 
 believe and feel. It teaches you that Christ died for 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 103 
 
 sinners ; and that his* blood cleanses from all sin ; 
 and that to escape the wrath and curse of God due 
 to you for sin, the great and the only prerequisites 
 are repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. Give up your missal for the Bible — 
 confess your sins not to your priests but to God — 
 look for pardon and meetness for heaven, not to 
 priestly ablutions, and eating wafers, and extreme 
 unctions, but to the righteousness of Jesus Christ, 
 received by faith ; and in spite of popes, prelates, 
 and priests, life, eternal life, is yours. 
 
 Wishing and praying for you all, that deliverance 
 from popish thraldom in which I rejoice, and that 
 gospel hope of future blessedness which is my stay 
 and comfort in this vale of tears, 
 
 I am, with great respect, yours. 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 RT. EEV. JOHN HUGHES, 
 
 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NEW YORK. 
 
 BY 
 
 SECOND SERIES. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION, 
 
 NO. 26d CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 bfTRODDCTlON TO THE SECOND SERIES, 5 
 
 LETTER I. 
 Reasons for this Second Series — Why addressed to Bishop Hughes- 
 Evil days have come upon Popery, ....... 9 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Extreme Unction — Its meaning — The way of administering it — James 
 T, 14, 15. —it enriches the Cliurch — An Incident, . , . .16 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Penance — Tlie pretended Sacrament oescribed — No Scripture warrant 
 fof it — Its absurdities — A personal inquiry . . . . .34 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Miracles — Milner's vindication — Many examples — Legends of the saints 
 — A miracle of my own working — Why so few miracles since the 
 Reformation, .34 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Marks of the Papal being the true Church considered — Unity — Sanc- 
 tity — Catholicity — Apostolicity — Infallibility, 43 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Relics — Relics the parent of miracles — The importance of relics — Speci- 
 mens of relics — The abuses of relics — Indulgences — To whom and 
 by w^hom granted — Their fearful effects, 54 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Unmeaningness of Romish Doctrines and Cereiwjnies : — Baptbm— 
 The Mass — Penance — Extreme Unction— Holy Watei — Prayers to 
 tiie Saints — Withholding the Scriptures, M 
 
4 CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 The destiny of the Papacy — Its growth — Its history not yet writte»^ 
 The Reformation — Reasons for the extinction of popery — 1. Incapa- 
 ble of reformation — 2. Its reformation impossible — 3. Ojiposed by the 
 intelligence of the world — 4. By its piety — 5. The causes which 
 gave it origin passing away — 6. Its extinction ordained — 7. How it 
 is to be done, .... 74 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 To ail, and especially to American, Roman Catholics, ... 85 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Conclusion. The Indian devotee— Faith in Christ saves— The dying 
 thief— Peter at the feast of Pentecost— The plan of Salvation— The 
 Gosoel and Papal way of Salvation contrasted — A call upon Irish 
 Roman Catholics, . . ... ... 95 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND SERIES. 
 
 The Letters in the New-York Observer addressed to 
 Bishop Hughes, under the signature of " Kirwan," pro- 
 duced, as might have been expected, an extraordinary 
 sensation. They were read, not by the Bishop only, nor 
 by Protestants only, but by many in the bosom of the 
 Church of Rome, who were thus led to see the absurdity 
 of much which they had been taught to believe. One 
 edition followed another in rapid succession : they were 
 translated into the German language, and published for the 
 thousands flocking to our shores and speaking that tongue ; 
 they were reprinted in England, and circulated among the 
 Roman Catholics there and in Ireland, with what effect Ave 
 have yet to learn. 
 
 But the Author, in assigning to Bishop Hughes the 
 reasons that prevent his return to the church in which he 
 wa> bom, baptized, and confirmed, had by no means ex- 
 hausted the catalogue, and he was repeatedly called upon 
 to complete the work. 
 
 Of these calls, the following published in tlie Observer 
 is a fair indication of the estimate in which the forraei 
 
6 INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND SERIES. 
 
 eeries was held, and of the public desire that Kinvan 
 would resume his pen. 
 
 To the author of the, letter s on Romanism^ lately addressed 
 
 to Bishop Hughes through the New York Observer, over 
 
 the signature of Kinvan : 
 
 Sir, — Though you have chosen hitherto to keep in the 
 shade in reference to the authorship of these letters, I sup- 
 pose you are not buried in so deep obscurity as not to have 
 some knowledge of what is passing in the world around 
 you. But lest you should chance to be less knowing than 
 might be presumed, I beg to state to you through your 
 own channel of communication, that the letters to which 1 
 refer have been read by the religious community at large, 
 with a degree of interest that has rarely been felt in refer- 
 ence to any similar publication. If I mistake not, the 
 judgment of the world is that they are characterized by a 
 simplicity and perspicuity that bring them fairly within the 
 scope of any comprehension ; by a force of thought and 
 expression which no reflecting and impartial mind will find 
 it easy to resist ; by an amount of good nature and Chris- 
 tian charity which must prevent any reasonable opponent 
 from taking oifence ; and last, though not least, by an un- 
 wonted pungency, which is likely, ere this, to have vibrated 
 in a note of terror to the innermost heart of Rome. I 
 believe, in common with a multitude of wiser and better 
 men, that these letters have, as yet, only begun to fulfil 
 their mission ; and that those who live at the ends of the 
 earth, and who are destined to live in coming years, will 
 look upon them as having had much to do in lifting from 
 the world one of its heaviest curses. 
 
 But my object in addressing you is something more than 
 to inform you of that of which, I dare say, you need no 
 information. You are aware that it is only a portion of 
 the ground of the Romish controversy which your letters 
 ha\'e occupied. There are many points of equal moment 
 with those already discussed, which you have left un- 
 touched. Allow me to say, yours is the hand to sweep 
 through this whole domain of error. It would be an oc- 
 casion o*" deep regret if you should not cany forward to 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND SERIIIS. 7 
 
 its completion a work which you have so happily begun. 
 The Christian public expect, may I not say, demand it of 
 you. The multitude who are yet in the same spiritual 
 thraldom from which you have escaped, demand it. Your 
 country, whose political as well as religious interests 
 are threatened with deadly invasion, demands it. The 
 cause of an enlightened Christianity, of a sound and evan- 
 gelical Protestantism, demands it. There is a requisition 
 upon you, Kirwan, which I am sure you cannot resist 
 without offending against the mercy that hath taken your 
 own feet out of the miry clay, and established your goings. 
 May the Head of the church enable you suitably to appre- 
 ciate your obligations and responsibilities. Keep in the 
 dark if you will : only lead others into the light of life 
 and into the hberty wherewith Christ makes his disciples 
 free. Be assured that in making these suggestions, I am 
 
 One of Many. 
 
 Obedient to these calls, and impelled by a sense of duty 
 to his kinsmen according to the flesh, his countrymen and 
 brethren, he has prepared this second series, in the same 
 courteous and conciliatory style of the former : breathing 
 the same national sympathy with Irishmen, and fall of the 
 humor that betrays the author's nativity, while it secures 
 the attention of the reader. 
 
 Placed in the hands of those yet in the faith of Bishop 
 Hughes, these letters will be read without prejudice, and 
 followed, as I trust they will be, with the enlightening and 
 convincing Spirit, they will work mightily in opening the 
 eyes of those new wandering in error, and leading them 
 to the knowledge of the truth. 
 
 SAMUEL IREN^US PRIME. 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 RIGHT REV. JOHN HUGHES, 
 
 BISHOP OF NEW-YORK. 
 
 Sccont) Scries. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Refksons for this Second Series — Why addressed to Bkhop Hughes — Bvfl 
 days have come upon Popery. 
 
 My dear Sir, — When I closed the letters I had 
 the honour of addressing to you during the last 
 spring, I fondly hoped that my part in the thicken- 
 ing controversy on Romanism in our country, had 
 closed also. As those letters formed my first, I de- 
 signed that they should also form my last appearance 
 before the public on that topic. So I expressed my- 
 self to you in my closing letter. But the unexpect- 
 ed " ripple " has been " excited on the current of 
 my feelings," and whether wise or otherwise, I have 
 concluded again to address you. 
 
 My reasons for so doing, and thus departing from 
 my original resolution, are briefly these : The pub- 
 
10 
 
 lie, who have so kindly received, and so widely cir- 
 culated my " Letters," have called for another 
 series, embracing the reasons which I have omitted 
 to state ; and which, together with those stated, for- 
 bid my return to your church. At least one of the 
 papers devoted to the interests of Popery in this 
 country, calls upon me, in a semi-serious manner, 
 to give my views on certain points which it raises , 
 individuals of your communion, who have given my 
 letters a candid perusal, have asked what Kirwan 
 had to say upon this and that point not considered 
 by me ; and last, though not least, is a desire to put 
 into the hands of every inquiring Roman Catholic, a 
 complete manual of my objections to your church, 
 candidly and kindly considered. These, Rev. Sir, 
 are the reasons and motives, and not a love of con- 
 troversy for its own sake, which induce me again to 
 address you. 
 
 While yielding to these reasons and motives, I yet 
 confess to you that I deem the present series of let- 
 ters, which will be brief, a work of supererogation. 
 If you have never performed such a work, you knoAV 
 what it means. My conviction is, that the reasons 
 given in my former letters for refusing to return to 
 your church, are sufficient ; sufficient to induce any 
 sane mind to withhold its faith from your teachings, 
 and every sane man to abandon your church. This, 
 you will say, is a partial decision ; it may be so. 
 But as a tree may be held in its place by a few 
 weak roots after the main ligaments that bound it 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 11 
 
 to the earth are cut, and when the weakest wind 
 that blows may cause it to totter ; so a mind, when 
 the power of an ancient superstition over it is broken, 
 may yet retain a connexion with it, influenced by 
 reasons which seem unworthy of consideration. I 
 know this to be the case. The belief in " witches 
 and warls " was early impressed on the mind of 
 Hume ; and it is said of him. that, after "he reasoned 
 matter and mind out of existence, he could not hear 
 the rustling of a leaf, after dark, without starting as 
 if a witch were upon him. The taste and smell of 
 a sour liquid remain long in the emptied cask. 
 And if any mind, rejecting the great outlines of your 
 system, is yet held to it by some reasons which I 
 have not considered, and whose absurdity I may be 
 able to expose, I feel anxious to relieve it. I must 
 not withhold from you my deep conviction that Po- 
 pery is an evil tree ; that its fruits are only evil. I 
 believe it to be a falling tree. Its branches are 
 withering in the air, and the axe, wielded by an 
 Almighty hand, is cutting its roots. And if I can 
 assist in cutting a few more of its roots, and thus 
 hastening its fall, I feel that I will be conferring a 
 benefit upon our race, and contributing to the eman- 
 cipation of millions of men from a slavery, in com- 
 parison with which that of the Pharoahs was freedom. 
 Hence these additional letters. And all I intend 
 doing, is to state to you some farther reasons which 
 forbid my return to your church. 
 
 Before entering upon a statement of these rea- 
 
IS kirwan's letters 
 
 sons, permit me to say a few things which I can 
 better say in this preliminary letter than any where 
 else. 
 
 The question has, doubtless, suggested itself to 
 your mind, and to the minds of others, why do I ad- 
 dress these letters to you ? Some of my reasons I 
 have already given you. I believe you to be a man 
 of sense, of learning, and of fair character, which 
 cannot be said of all papal priests. You are put 
 forth, now that Bishop England, also one of our 
 countrymen, is no more, as the Achilles of your 
 party in these United States. If any man in the 
 country can refute my reasoning and obviate my 
 (Ejections, you can do it. And as my sole object 
 and aim is the truth, I have selected the man, in my 
 opinion, best fitted to correct me when in error ; 
 when false, to show me the fallacy of my reason- 
 ing, — and if he should reply, who would reply as a 
 scholar and a gentleman. If you cannot confute 
 me, no man of your church in these United States 
 can. Nor will I consent to notice what may be said 
 in the way of reply to, or abuse of these letters by 
 any man, save yourself. I have, as they say, a 
 drawing towards you as an Irishman — I respect 
 your open and manly bearing, and, sadly as, in my 
 opinion, you prostitute your talents, I have a high 
 respect for them. Hence I pass through the ranks 
 of soldiers, and by inferior officers, and go up to 
 Achilles himself. 
 
 But you have not answered my former letters ) 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 13 
 
 I confess to you, sir, that I had no expectation in 
 writing them, that you would answer them, and for 
 these reasons : First, because they are anonymous. 
 And as I like not myself to contend with a masked 
 opponent, so I judged of you. The text is capable 
 of wide application, " as face answereth to face in 
 water, so the heart of man to man." I prefer, for 
 the present, to stand behind the curtain ; and for 
 this, among other reasons, that you and all men may 
 decide upon what I say, simply upon the merits of 
 my statements and arguments ; and for the addi- 
 tional reason, to prevent a personal controversy. It 
 is an old trick of your church to leave the argu. 
 ment for the man. And, secondly, because of their 
 matter. I speak to you of what my eyes have 
 seen ; of what my ears have heard ; of what my 
 heart has felt. Facts are stubborn things. How 
 can you make a man believe that to be sweet, which 
 from actual taste he knows to be sour ? It is hard 
 to reason against a man's experience. On these 
 grounds I expected from you no reply. And al- 
 though, unless I mistake you, not one of the little 
 men who seek to put the more abundant honour on 
 the part that lacketh by a mock dignity, by an as- 
 sumed superiority, yet you know when to be wisely 
 silent. If, sir, without compromising your crosier, — 
 if, during some hours of leisure from your varied 
 and manifold duties, you would consent to answer 
 some of the reasons and considerations which I have 
 stated, and will state in the following letters, which 
 
 2 
 
14 kirwan's letters 
 
 forbid my return to your church, there is one, at 
 least, that will read your reply with great pleasure. 
 I am not, sir, among those who impute your silence 
 to your inability to reply to my statements ; but if I 
 can only gain access to the public ear, if I can 
 only obtain from candid Roman Catholics a careful 
 consideration of what I say, your silence will give 
 but little trouble. My object will be attained. 
 
 Permit me to make one other remark before clos- 
 ing this letter. Evil days have come upon the sys. 
 tern of which you are so able an advocate. Once 
 you could silence inquiry by church authority ; but, 
 in this country especially, that day has passed 
 away. It is passing away even under the shadow 
 of the dome of St. Peter's. There are those, yet, in 
 this country and in the old countries of Europe, who, 
 like that useless bird of sable wing, called the jack- 
 daw, which you and I have seen in our youth, love 
 the narrow window, and the toppling tower, and the 
 mantling ivy, who hover about whatever is ancient, 
 however worthless or truthless ; but their number is 
 small, and is daily diminishing. The great inquiry 
 now is after the true, the scriptural, the reasonable. 
 The day for the trial of all things has come. Mere 
 authority in philosophy, in morals, in religion, is 
 valueless. When man appeals from the Cnurch to 
 the Scriptures, it is of no avail to say to him, " be- 
 lieve the Church." No appeal is admitted from the 
 Scriptures to the Fathers — from the teachings of 
 Paul to the decisions of Councils. Old things, if 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 15 
 
 absurd, are passing away ; and their wrinkles only 
 hasten their burial. Nor is there in the physical or 
 moral sciences, nor in the science of government, 
 nor in the theory of religion, a single principle that 
 is not tried and sifted as if never tried before. At 
 this treatment, hoary error may lift up its hands in 
 holy horror, and fall back aghast as did Saul be- 
 fore the ghost of Samuel ; but it cannot be helped. 
 There may be, and doubtless is, a reckless specula- 
 tion — a profane tampering with sacred things ; but 
 nothing will eventually suffer but the truthless. And 
 what will become of Popery when proof and Scrip- 
 ture supplant authority and credulity ? 
 
 It becomes you, then, sir, to buckle on the bar- 
 ness. The battle has but begun between truth and 
 error. In your soul and in mine there should not 
 be a desire but for the triumph of the truth. Let 
 any opinion that I hold be proved unscriptural and 
 unreasonable, and I will cheerfully give it to the 
 hottest furnace you can heat to consume it. Let 
 the truth of God triumph, whatever human systems 
 perish. Will you join me in this aspiration ? 
 
 In my next I shall proceed with my statement of 
 some of the additional reasons which prevent me 
 from returning to your church. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN, 
 
16 kirwan's letters 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Extreme Unction — Its meaning — The way of administering it — James T. 
 14, 15. —It enriches the Church — An Incident. 
 
 My dear Sir, — Agreeably to the promise made 
 to you in closing my last letter, I now proceed to a 
 statement of the additional reasons which yet pre- 
 vent my return to the pale of your church, in which 
 I was born, baptized, and confirmed. I shall begin 
 with your sacrament of Extreme Unction. As but 
 few of your own people, and yet fewer Protestants, 
 understand it, I hope you and my readers will bear 
 with me even if 1 should occupy this letter with its 
 consideration. When rightly understood, it is a ter- 
 rible sacrament. I will strive so to explain it as to 
 bring it to the level of every mind, and from your 
 own standard authors which lie before me. 
 
 The name of the sacrament explains it ; it is 
 anointing by holy oil of a sick person when recovery 
 is extremely doubtful. This, and the fact that it is 
 supposed to be the last act of religion, give it its 
 name. The object of this anointing is thus explain- 
 ed by the doctors of Trent : " The devil is always 
 busy in seeking to destroy the souls of men ; yet it 
 is at the hour of death that he most vehemently ex- 
 erts all his power ; and the object of this anointing 
 by holy oil is to fortify the soul in the dying hour 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. it 
 
 against the violent attacks of its spiritual enemies, 
 and to enable it to make a holy death, and to secure 
 a happy eternity." 
 
 The only person who can administer this sacra- 
 ment is a bishop or priest. You admit a midwife, 
 or a layman, to baptize ; but a priest only can ad- 
 minister Extreme Unction. The reasons for this 
 will appear in the sequel. 
 
 The oil used in this sacrament must not be com- 
 mon oil. That the effects intended may be pro- 
 duced, it must be oil of olives, " solemnly blessed by 
 the bishop every year on Maunday-Thursday." I 
 quote from Challoner ; the sentence leaves it doubt- 
 ful whether the efficacy of the bishop's blessing con- 
 tinues only a year, or whether the oil used must be 
 blessed on that day. It has what is called in rheto- 
 ric, a squinting construction. As the bishop is paid 
 for blessing it, it is probable he blesses but little at 
 once, and that he gives it efficacy but for a limited 
 time. 
 
 The effects and fruits of this anointing are these : 
 it remits sins, at least such as are venial : it heals 
 the soul of its infirmity and weakness ; and helps to 
 remove the debt of punishment due to past sins ; it 
 strengthens the soul to bear the illness of the body, 
 and to repel its spiritual enemies ; and " if it he ex- 
 pedient for the good of the soul, it often restores the 
 health of the hody.'^ I wish you, Sir, and my read- 
 ers, to ponder the sentence in italics. Its meaning 
 is this : if the person is restored, it is a miracle 
 
 2* 
 
18 kirwan's letters 
 
 wrought by extreme unction ; if he dies, restoration 
 would not conduce to the health of his soul ! ! 
 
 The manner of administering this sacrament is 
 as follows : If tlie time permits, certain prescribed 
 prayers are said — the Confiteor is repeated, and ab- 
 solution is granted — then the priest, making thrice 
 the sign of the cross, says, " In the name of the Fa- 
 ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, may all 
 the power of the devil be extinguished in thee, by 
 the laying on of our hands, and the invocation of the 
 holy angels, archangels," &c. Then dipping his 
 thumb in the holy oil, he anoints the sick person in 
 the form of a cross, upon the eyes, the ears, the 
 nose, the mouth, the hands, and feet ; at each anoint- 
 ing making use of this form of prayer : '' Through 
 this holy unction and his own most tender mercy, 
 may the Lord pardon thee whatever sin thou hast 
 committed by thy sight. Amen." And the same 
 prayer is repeated, adapting the form to the several 
 senses. 
 
 The requisite dispositions in the receiver are, 
 faith in the sacrament — a pure desire for the health 
 of his soul, and of his body if expedient — resigna- 
 tion — repentance — devotion. 
 
 In case of recovery and relapse, it may be repeat- 
 ed, and as often as the person relapses. 
 
 And your scriptural authority for all this you find 
 in James v. 14, 15. which you thus translate : "Is 
 any sick among you ? Let him bring in the priests 
 of the Church, and let them pray over him, anoint 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 19 
 
 ing him with oil in the name of the Lord ; and the 
 prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord 
 will lift him up : and if he be in sin, his sins will be 
 forgiven him." 
 
 Such is your Extreme Unction, as described by 
 the Council of Trent, Challoner, and the Poor Man's 
 Catechism. Although abridged, you, at least, will 
 say that it is a perfectly fair abridgement. Let us 
 now examine it in the light of Scripture and reason. 
 
 I ask you to look at your Greek Testament, and 
 then to answer me on what authority you thus trans- 
 late a portion of the 14th verse of James v. ; "let 
 him bring in the priests of the Church ? Ah ! the 
 priests, the priests ; this sacrament is for their bene- 
 fit ; and by a mis-translation, the power of anointing 
 and praying must be confined to them ! 
 
 But does the text afford the shadow of a support 
 to the sacrament ? No, not even the shadow. You 
 utterly pervert the meaning of the apostle. The 
 anointing and prayer of James is for the life of the 
 sick ; your anointing is for their death, and is never 
 administered whilst there is any hope of life. The 
 anointing of James is for the cure of the body ; — 
 yours is for the cure of the soul, in reference to 
 which the text gives no direction. The saving of 
 the sick, and the forgiveness of sins, are in conse- 
 quence of the prayer of faith. Can none but a 
 priest offer that prayer ? The anointing of JanKjg 
 and the prayers to be offered were to be followed 
 with miraculous recovery ; yours are to be followed 
 
20 kirwan's letters 
 
 with speedy death. The cures wrought by the 
 anointing of James, were for the establishment of 
 the claims of the Gospel ; — yours, for the purpose 
 of establishing the ghostly authority of your priest 
 hood. That text above quoted is confessedly the only 
 one on which you build your sacrament ; and that 
 text must be mistranslated, and utterly tortured out 
 of its sense, and meaning, and end, even to afford a 
 pretext to the use which you make of it. And this 
 is but one of the many instances in which your 
 church has changed and perverted the original 
 meaning of the Scriptures, and forged them into 
 chains to bind men to your system of delusion. 
 
 Having thus swept from your extreme unction 
 the only scriptural authority claimed for it, and 
 hung it up as a commandment of men, I have a few 
 questions to ask in reference to it. 
 
 Is it so that God's people need the oil of olives, 
 blessed on Maunday-Thursday, to be placed upon 
 their eyes, and nose, and ears, and tongue, and 
 hands, and feet, to secure the remission of their sins ; 
 and to heal the maladies of their souls, and to ena- 
 ble them to repel their spiritual enemies ? If this 
 oil can do it, what need is there of the blood of 
 Christ ? If the blood of Christ, and the presence of 
 his Spirit can do it, what is the need of this olive oil ? 
 
 But again ; you require in the receiver of this 
 sacrament, the dispositions stated above. Those are 
 truly Christian dispositions, bating a few things in 
 your manner of stating ihem. If these dispositions 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 21 
 
 are possessed, will not the soul of the person be sav- 
 ed without your olive oil ? If not possessed, will 
 your olive oil save them ? 
 
 Again ; among the effects of this sacrament, as 
 stated in the Poor Man's Catechism, p. 329, is this : 
 "it brings him (the sick man) in safety to the port 
 of eternal happiness." Now, Sir, does extreme 
 unction save from purgatory ? This you will not 
 say. If not, then it only takes him to the port of 
 eternal happiness. From the port he is turned into 
 purgatory. And your priests get paid for the olive 
 oil by which he slips safely to the port of eternal 
 happiness — and then they get paid for the masses by 
 which they get him out of purgatorial fires into hea- 
 ven ! So that extreme unction is simply a device to 
 increase " the alms and the suffrages of the faithful." 
 
 Again ; what a low and sad view of the religion 
 of God does this sacrament give to a dying man ! 
 It is administered to all that seek it on a dying bed. 
 Let us suppose a case, which, no doubt, often oc- 
 curs. There is a papist in the article of death. To 
 this hour he has lived in sin. Feeling that death is 
 upon him, he sends for his priest. He thinks now 
 of nothing but confession — the eucharist, and ex- 
 treme unction. The priest appears in his robes. If 
 the sick man is able, he confesses. If not able, the 
 anointing commences, and proceeds in the way al- 
 ready stated. He is crossed and anointed on his 
 eyes, his nose, his tongue, his ears, his hands, and 
 feet, and the prescribed prayers are said. The man 
 
JJ2 kirwan's letters 
 
 now dies in peace, feeling that his sins are remit- 
 ted — that his soul is healed of its infirmities — that 
 his spiritual enemies are all subdued, through the 
 efficacy of olive oil, blessed on Maunday-Tliursday ! 
 Not a thought of the dying man is directed to the 
 cross of Jesus Christ, or to the efficacy of his atone- 
 ment ! So that extreme unction is a papal incanta- 
 tion, by which the priest makes a deluded people to 
 believe that the keys of heaven and hell hang by his 
 girdle — that by his olive oil he can procure for them 
 all that the Bible suspends on faith in Jesus Christ ! 
 Esteem me not harsh. Rev. Sir, when I declare it 
 as my deep conviction, that by your sacrament of 
 extreme unction, your church is deluding and damn- 
 ing multitudes of souls, and from year to year. It 
 is a wicked substitution of olive oil for the blood of 
 Christ at the dying hour, and simply and only for 
 the benefit of your priests. 
 
 And what a tremendous use your church has 
 made of it. Gaining access to the dying beds of 
 kings, princes, and barons, in past days, with your 
 olive oil, you ha^ e extorted millions of money from 
 those who believed in your ghostly power. You 
 have thus enriched the church and impoverished 
 the people. You have built palaces for your bish- 
 ops, and reduced the people to beggary. What will" 
 a dying sinner witlihold from a man who, he believes, 
 has the power to lock him up in hell ; or by a little 
 olive oil rubbed on with his thumb, can conduct him 
 to the port of eternal happiness ? 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 23 
 
 The. man yet lives who narrates the following 
 scene, of which he was an eye and ear witness. 
 The chief of one of our Indian tribes, a man of great 
 sagacity and decision, was on his dying bed. Manv 
 of his people, by a French Jesuit, were converted 
 to the faith of your church. He knew the wiles of 
 your missionary, and forbade him admission to his 
 dying bed. The priest came with his olive oil, and 
 pressed so hard for admission to him, that it was 
 granted. " Stay," said the dying chief to the man 
 who relates the story, " stay outside the door, and 
 if I knock, come in." The priest entered, and the 
 door was closed. Soon a violent knock is heard, 
 and the man enters the room. " Take him out,'' 
 said the dying chief; " take him out — land — land- 
 give me land." The priest would put on the olive 
 oil, but wanted first a grant of land. 
 
 Rev. Sir, your church must annul this sacrament 
 of extreme unction, before I can return to its em- 
 brace. To my mind it is extreme nonsense. Should 
 not incantations over dying men be left to Hotten- 
 tots ? 1 implore you to seek some other market for 
 your olive oil, than the chambers of the dying. 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
24 kirwan's letters 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 PENANCE. 
 
 The pretended Sacrament described — No Scriptnre warrant for it — Its »l^ 
 
 surdities — A personal inquiry. 
 
 My Dear Sir : — With your leave, I will proceed 
 with my statement of the reasons which prevent my 
 return to the embraces of your church. Permit me 
 to ask, in the present letter, your consideration of 
 the reason which I deduce from your sacrament of 
 Penance. It presents an objection as strong as your 
 sacrament of Extreme Unction, which, without 
 meaning to be irreverent, I have already pronounced 
 Extreme Nonsense. 
 
 As but few, even of your own people, understand 
 this sacrament, I will give a brief statement of it, 
 and from your own authors. 
 
 Penance is a sacrament by which the sins com- 
 mitted after baptism are forgiven. Your doctrine is, 
 that original sin is washed away in baptism ; and 
 that penance secures the forgiveness of all sins com- 
 mitted after baptism ! Where is this distinction 
 taught in the Bible ? 
 
 On the part of the penitent, penance consists in 
 contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Contrition is 
 n hearty sorrow for sin, with a resolution to sin no 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 25 
 
 more ; confession is a full and sincere declaration of 
 all our sins to a priest ; satisfaction is a faithful per- 
 formance of the prayers and good works enjoined by 
 the confessor. So far for the penitent. 
 
 On the part of the priest, it consists in the absolu- 
 tion which he pronounces by the authority of Jesus 
 Christ. The form of absolution is in these words : 
 " I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 The effects of this sacrament are thus stated in 
 the "Poor Man's Catechism:" "It remits all the 
 sins of the penitent without exception — restores him 
 to the grace he had forfeited — replenishes his soul 
 with the greatest peace, tranquillity, and spiritual 
 delights, and reinstates him again in the friendship 
 of God, as the prodigal son, after his return, was re- 
 stored to his former honours in the house of his fa- 
 ther." Wonderful results from such causes ! May 
 I ask here, if the parable of the prodigal son is meant 
 to represent the way of return of a sinner to God, 
 where did he stop to make confession and receive 
 absolution ? 
 
 None but a priest can grant absolution; and 
 the power of the priest to absolve, you draw from 
 John XX. 22, 23 : " And when he had said, this, he 
 breathed on them, and said unto them. Receive ye 
 the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they 
 are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins yo 
 retain, they are retained," and from Matt. xvi. 15-li5. 
 
 Such, Sir, hi brief, is your sacrament of penance. 
 
 a 
 
26 kirwan's letters 
 
 Let us now look at it in the light of Scripture and 
 reason. 
 
 And let me first ask you, how do you make a sac- 
 rament of penance ? Look at Chaloner's definition 
 of a sacrament : " It is an outward sign or ceremony 
 of Christ's institution, by which grace is given to the 
 soul of the worthy receiver." Now, what is the 
 outward sign of penance ? It has no outward sign, 
 no external ceremony. It is not a sacrament, ac- 
 cording to your own rules. Your absolution is a 
 different thing from your penance. 
 
 Again, two of the constituent elements of penance, 
 confession and absolution, have no foundation in 
 Scripture. Of confession I have already spoken. I 
 have shown it to be a priestly device of the most fa- 
 tal influence upon human liberty : its tendency to 
 the corruption of morals is acknowledged. There is 
 on my table a book, called " The Garden of the 
 Soul," bearing on its title page your own name ; and 
 such a garden ! Now, conceive yourself sitting in 
 your confessional, and whispering through the little 
 hole in its side, in the ears of a modest or immodest 
 young girl of eighteen, or an amiable young wife of 
 twenty-one years, the questions on pages 212 and 
 214 ! Sir, I dare not quote them here. I strove to 
 read them to a friend a few days since, and before I 
 got half through he cried out, "Stop, I can hear no 
 more." The polluting confessional is a part of your 
 sacrament of penance. Of absolution I shall speak 
 in the sequel. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 27 
 
 Look at tne texts, for a moment, which yort quote 
 as teaching your power of absolution. It seen*s to 
 me that if the)'' were capable of any other interpre- 
 tation than that which you give them, you would 
 prefer it, in order to get rid of the monstrous power 
 with which it clothes your priests. But alas ! it is 
 for the sake of that power that you pervert them. 
 As there were various opinions entertained as to who 
 Christ was, we hear him, in Matt. xvi. 15, asking 
 his disciples, " Whom say ye that I am ? " Peter 
 replies, " Thou art Christ the Son of the living God." 
 Jesus replies, " Upon this rock," that is, the confes- 
 sion of Peter that he was the Son of the living God, 
 " I will build my Church." How simple and com- 
 mon sense ! 
 
 Addressing Peter, and through him the other dis- 
 ciples, he says, " I will give thee the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven." Need I tell you, Sir, that by 
 " the kingdom of heaven," here is meant the Church 
 of Christ. Can such a master in Israel as you are 
 be ignorant of this ? This being so, " the keys of 
 the kingdom " simply means, the power of admitting 
 proper persons to the Church, and excluding impro- 
 per persons from it. Keys, you know, were the an- 
 cient emblems of authority. How simple and com- 
 mon sense is all this. 
 
 Continuing to address Peter, and through him the 
 other disciples, he says, " Whatsoever thou shalt 
 bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and what- 
 soever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in 
 
28 
 
 heaven." To bind and to loose here are equivalent 
 to bidding and forbidding, to granting and refusing, 
 to declaring lawful or unlawful. The apostles were 
 endued with the Holy Ghost, that they might infal- 
 libly declare the will of God to mankind, and deter- 
 mine what was, or was not, binding on the con- 
 science — to show what persons ought, or ought not, to 
 be admitted to the Church — and to decide on the 
 characters of those whose sins were, or were not, 
 forgiven. And whatever in these, or similar things, 
 they bound or loosed on earth, would be bound or 
 loosed in heaven. This is also the meaning of John 
 XX. 22, 23, already quoted. This, Sir, I believe to 
 be the common sense, the fair and just interpreta- 
 tion, of a passage on which your church has built up 
 a priestly power, that has overshadowed the earth 
 and enslaved nations. Where now. Sir, is your su- 
 premacy of Peter — your power of the keys — your 
 power of absolution ? Gone, like the morning cloud 
 before the sun. Blessed be God, you have not yet 
 turned your keys upon the common sense of the 
 world ! 
 
 Now, Sir, look for a moment at some of the absur- 
 dities connected with your interpretations of the 
 above texts. They are sufficiently startling. 
 
 Your church is built upon Peter. " Thou art Pe- 
 ter, and Jjpon this rock I build my church." So that 
 your church is built upon the person of Peter ; ours 
 is built upon the truth declared by Peter. Is, Sir, 
 yonr rock as our rock f 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES, 29 
 
 Is your church built upon Peter ? Now turn from 
 the 19th verse of the 18th of Matthew, which we 
 have been considering, to the 22d and 23d verses of 
 the same chapter. Peter is represented as rebuking 
 his Lord, for the intimations he had given of his ap- 
 proaching death. But the Master, turning upon 
 Peter, thus addressed him : " Get thee behind me, 
 Satan." So that, on your principles of interpreta- 
 tion, your church must be built upon Satan ! 
 
 What your priests, however profane or wicked, 
 bind or loose upon earth, is bound or loosed in hea- 
 ven. Now, here is a wicked man absolved by a 
 priest ; does he go to heaven ? Here is a good man 
 bound by a priest ; does he go to hell ? It must be 
 so, on your principles. But you say he must be a 
 sincere penitent, to gain any benefit from absolution. 
 But if truly contrite, he can get to heaven without 
 your absolution. 
 
 Take another case : the man bound by the curate 
 may be loosed by the parish priest. I take the fol- 
 lowing illustration from a book before me : A peni- 
 tent is enjoined to abstain from breakfast every 
 morning, until his next confession. Christmas day 
 intervenes, and he eats breakfast ; not thinking that 
 that day could be included. On confessing this at 
 his next confession, the curate drove him from his 
 knee, declaring that he would have no more t3 do 
 with a person that so trifled with his commands. On 
 the borders of despair, he went to the parish priest, 
 toiling him the whole story. " Do not mind it, my 
 
 3* 
 
so 
 
 child/' said the kind-liearted father, " I will confess 
 you." He did so, and absolved him. Here one 
 priest binds sin on his soul, and another unbinds it. 
 He dies in this state. What becomes of him ? Does 
 the binding of the curate send him to hell, or does 
 the loosing of the parish priest send him to heaven ? 
 What becomes of him ? Is he suspended somewhere 
 between heaven and hell ? 
 
 But let us look at the satisfaction, which is a part of 
 the sacrament of penance. " It consists in a faithful 
 performance of the penance enjoined by the priest to 
 whom we confess, whether as to restitution, or pray- 
 ers, or alms-deeds, or fasting, to make some repara- 
 tion, by these eminent good works, for the injury 
 done to God." The penance enjoined by the priest 
 is an " exchange which God makes of eternal pun- 
 ishment which we have deserved by sin, into these 
 small penitential works." I quote from Chaloner. 
 And without satisfaction like this, the sinner cannot 
 be saved. 
 
 Now, Sir, will you tell me where this is taught in 
 the Scriptures ? Where are we told that the bloo<l 
 of Christ is not sufficient to cleanse from all sin ? 
 Where is authority given to ministers or priests to 
 exchange " eternal punishment for small penitential 
 works ? " Where does the Bible make a difference 
 between ante-baptism and post-baptism sins ? 
 
 Take another view of this thing. Penance means 
 punishment. And " prayers, fasting, and alms," are 
 enjoined by the priests as penance ; that is, as pua- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 31 
 
 ishment. So that your church mal«!S prayers a pun- 
 ishment to atone for sins ! What the Bible makes a 
 privilege, you make a punishment ! The fasting 
 which is beneficial, is that to which we are led by a 
 sense of our sins : you enjoin it as a punishment ! 
 And can alms-giving be a punishment, save to the 
 worshipper of money ? What are the prayers or 
 alms worth that are offered or given as a punishment ? 
 The penance enjoined, and the austerities volun- 
 tarily practised, are sometimes very singular, when 
 considered in the light of making atonement for sins. 
 Sometimes they consist in a set number of " Our Fa- 
 thers " and " Hail Marys,"" counted on the beads or 
 fingers, once or oftener a day, for so many days ; 
 sometimes in fasting for a given time, on given days, 
 from meat, eggs, &c.; sometimes in a short pilgrim- 
 age to St. John's well, or St. Patrick's ; sometimes, 
 in Ireland, in going to the Seven Stations, and walk- 
 ing on bare knees on the ground from one station to 
 another. The penances enjoined by the priest are 
 optional and multiform, and are modified according 
 to his own prejudices and the dignity of the confess- 
 ing penitent. Some of the voluntary austerities are 
 curious enough. St. Dominick, when a child, would 
 leave his cradle and lie upon the cold ground. I 
 have seen many an urchin do this whose name is not 
 yet, and is not likely to be, in the calendar. St. 
 Francis used to call his body, Brother Ass, and whip 
 it as badly as Balaam did his. St. Francis Loyola 
 put on iron chains and a hair shirt, and flogged him- 
 
8^ kirwan's letters 
 
 self thrice a day. He deserved it all. St. Macarius 
 went naked six months in a desert, sufierini; himself 
 to be stung with flies, to atone for the sin of having 
 killed a flea. Now, is it not a wicked burlesque upon 
 the religion of God, to make ignorant people believe 
 that in these and similar ways they secure an ex- 
 Cihange of eternal punishment? Language supplies 
 no words in which I can express to you my deep 
 abhorrence of your sacrament of penance. 
 
 Picture to yourself. Rev. Sir, this whole thing. 
 There is a papist who has sinned grievously after 
 baptism. How can he get to heaven ? Through the 
 sacrament of penance. It is not sufficient that he 
 repent of it ; no, he must confess to you ; then he 
 must perform all the austerities that you enjoin •, then 
 you absolve him ; and then, taking up the key that 
 hangs by your girdle, you open to him the kingdom 
 of heaven. So, then, it is in your power to say who 
 shall and who shall not enter heaven. What blas- 
 phemous assumption, when the divine Saviour tells 
 me, and proclaims to all men, that " he that believ- 
 eth on the Son hath life." Such assumptions are 
 only worthy of tne world's scorn. 
 
 It is amazing how men, pretending to be religious, 
 could contrive such a sacrament. It is amazing 
 liow rational men can believe it. But it is not amaz- 
 ing how men believing it, and in the power with 
 which it clothes you, should fawn at your feet as 
 spaniels. It is no wonder that they pour their trea- 
 sures inio your cotTers as water. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 3d 
 
 f believe in repentance, and hope I am not a stran- 
 ger to it. I reject penance, as a priestly device to 
 rob the people of their money and ruin their souls. 
 Your church must lay aside this terrible sacrament 
 before I return to her embrace. 
 
 Before closing, let me ask you one question. Do 
 you believe that none go to heaven from New- York 
 but those to whom you and your priests, with your 
 keys, open its gates ? It takes a hard heart and a 
 soft head to believe this. I charge you with neither. 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
84 kirwan's lette-rs 
 
 LETTER lY. 
 
 Miracles — Milner's vindication — Many examples — Legends of tne saints— • 
 A miracle of my own working — Why so few miracles since the Refurm»- 
 
 tiOD. 
 
 My Dear Sir : — Another reason which prevents 
 my return to the bosom of your church, I draw from 
 the miraculous 'power claimed for your saints and 
 clergy. I have felt disposed to say nothing on this 
 subject, because of the extravagance of the claim 
 itself; and because of my reluctance to state the 
 absurdities which crowd the legends of your saints, 
 and which your church has palmed, and yet palms 
 on the world as miracles. 1 feel afraid that some 
 candid papist will conclude that I have at last com- 
 menced drawing on my imagination, and that the 
 influence of my former reasoning with him will be 
 weakened, by the utter, the intense absurdity of the 
 miracles claimed for your saints, which I shall quote. 
 But, pledging myself to fairness of statement, I will 
 risk the consequences. 
 
 Milner, as you know, devotes his 23d letter to vin- 
 dicate the possession of this power by your church. 
 He says, " the Catholic Church being always the 
 beloved spouse of Christ, and continuing at all times 
 to bring forth children of heroic sanctity, God fails 
 not in this,' any more than in past ages, to illustrate 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 35 
 
 her and them by unquestionable miracles : accord- 
 ingly, in those processes which are constantly going 
 on at the apostolical see, for the canonization of new 
 saints, fresh miracles of a recent date continue to be 
 proved, with the highest degree of evidence, as I can 
 testify, from having perused, on the spot, the official 
 printed account of some of them." And miraculous 
 power is claimed by all your writers, and is put forth 
 as an evidence of yours being the true church ; and 
 its absence from Protestant churches is considered 
 by you a conclusive evidence against them. 
 
 Milner not only claims this power for your church, 
 but gives the following miracles that were perform- 
 ed, to his own certain knowledge and belief: Twen- 
 ty years before it happened, a nun predicted the fate 
 of the king and queen of France, Louis XVI. and his 
 consort, who were beheaded. In 1814, Joseph Lamb 
 fell from a hay-rick and injured his spine. At Gars- 
 wood, in England, is preserved the hand of one Ar- 
 rowsmith, a priest, who was put to death at Lancas- 
 ter, in the reio;n of Charles I. Lamb was siorned on 
 the back by this hand, with the sign of the cross, and 
 was mstantly healed ! In 1809, Mary Wood, in 
 striving to open a window, greatly injured her arm, 
 so as almost to lose the use of it. She employed phy- 
 sicians in vain. She finally had recourse to God, 
 through St. Winfred, by a Novena — that is, prayers 
 ofiered for nine days. She put a piece of moss from 
 the Saint's well on her arm, and it was instantly re- 
 siored ! Miss Winifred White, for some time dis- 
 
80 kirwan's letters 
 
 eased with a curvature of the spine, was healed in 
 an instant of time, by bathing in Holywell ! Mil- 
 ner was not a witness of any of these miracles ; but 
 they were proved true to his satisfaction ! Marvel- 
 lous marvels ! 
 
 Now, Sir, permit me to add to these miracles a 
 few others from the Legends of the Saints, and no 
 doubt equally well attested as those adduced by the 
 learned Milner. As I have but few of these legends 
 belbre me, I will quote from a recent review of the 
 " Lives of the English Saints," now in a course of 
 publication by those marvellous men, the Oxford di- 
 vines, worthy of a place in the museum as Protest- 
 ant curiosities. 
 
 Somewhere near York, St. Augustine restored a 
 blind man to his sight. St. Sulpicius, when a mere 
 child, drove away, with the sign of the cross, two 
 black demons who strove to scare him from his de- 
 votions. St. Amatus miraculously stopped a lofty 
 rock in the midst of its descent, with which a fiend 
 hought to crush him in his cell. The father of St. 
 Furceus contracted a clandestine marriage with a 
 king's daughter. When the king found that she was 
 likely to be a mother, he ordered her to be burned. 
 She shed such a flood of tears as to put out the fire. 
 Finding he could not burn, he banished her, and Fur- 
 ceus was born in a foreign land. St. Mochua had to 
 call the stags from the forest to feed the multitude of 
 his followers. He ordered their picked bones to be 
 placed in their skins, and by an incantation over the 
 
TO BISHOP :iUGHES. 37 
 
 skins arid bones the stags were brought to life, jump. 
 ed up, and ran back to the woods. St. Euchadius 
 did the same with an old favorite crow, that he had 
 to kill to provide meat for his guests. The piety of 
 St. Fechin was so fervent, that when he bathed him- 
 self in cold water the water became almost boiling 
 hot. When St. Mochua wanted a fire in his cell, he 
 called down a fire from heaven to light it. St. Goar 
 of Treves, wanting a beam to hang up his cape, hung 
 it on a sunbeam, where it remained until he took it 
 down. St. Columbanus miraculously kept the grubs 
 from his cabbage. When St. Mael was in want of 
 fishes, he caught them on dry ground ; and St. Be- 
 rach, when in want of fruit, made willows to bear 
 apples. St. Fechin, when hungry, turned acorns 
 into pork. In travelling he was stopped by a large 
 tree which fell across his road : he commanded it to 
 make way, and it instantly rose to its place. He 
 built a mill on a hill top : being asked about the wa- 
 ter, he went to a lake, a mile distant, into which he 
 threw his stick ; the stick followed him on his re- 
 turn, and the water after it, and the mill worked 
 finely. Some thievish crows carried away some 
 of the thatch of St. Cuthbert's hut to build their nests : 
 at his rebuke they not only made an apology, but 
 they brought him a piece of hog's lard to make 
 amends for the injury. To this miracle Bede testi- 
 fies. A raven plucked out the eye of an ass of Stc 
 James of Tarentaise : the saint made a hasty invo- 
 cation, and the raven immediately returned and put 
 
 4 
 
88 kirwan's letters 
 
 the eye in its place, without the least injury to the 
 ass. St. Augustine was treated with insults in a cer- 
 tain town in England — the fishmongers being espe- 
 cially active in the bad work, hanging the tails of 
 fish upon his garments and those of his followers. 
 For generations afterwards the children of that place 
 were born with tails. 
 
 Your legends narrate miracles like these to any 
 amount ; and they are now reproduced from the 
 French and English press, for the purpose of encour- 
 aging the faith of the pious. Wonderful as these 
 are, they are by no means as wonderful as many 
 others that the limits of a letter forbid me to quote. 
 
 And some of the saints wrought a profusion of mi- 
 racles. St. Fechin was a wonderful hand at them. 
 St. Francis far surpassed the Saviour himself. 
 Christ was transfigured but once — St. Francis more 
 than twenty times. St. Francis and his disciples 
 restored more than a thousand blind to sight — and 
 more than a thousand lame to the use of their limbs 
 — and more than a thousand dead to life ! 
 
 Now, sir, whilst these things are gravely narrat- 
 ed in your legends, and are read by your common 
 people from your own books with the most pious be- 
 lief in their truth, it is more than probable that this 
 statement of them will be denounced as a bundle cf 
 Protestant lies ! When a boy I read a life of St. 
 Francis Xavier, which narrated miracles wrought 
 by him far surpassing any here cited. 
 
 But why go to the miracles of the legends ; you 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 39 
 
 are daily performing miracles which come up to any 
 of them. Your daily changing of a wafer into the 
 real body of Christ, and then eating him, beats any 
 thing St. Fechin ever did. Your preparing an old 
 sinner for heaven by rubbing him with olive oil, and 
 then opening its gates to him by the keys which are 
 only in your possession, far surpasses Fechin's turn- 
 ing acorns to pork. We believe the swine them- 
 selves are constantly doing this in our western woods. 
 And in Ireland your priests are constantly perform- 
 ing miraculous cures on men and cattle. Even 
 your common people there work miracles. When 
 a thunder storm is raging, they kindle a fire, and 
 heat the tongs red hot. This preserves their cattle 
 from the lightning. If they are killed notwithstand- 
 ing, it is in chastisement for some sins not confessed, 
 or some penances not rightly performed. Perhaps, 
 Sir, it may astonish you when I tell you that I my- 
 self, whilst yet in your faith, wrought two or three. 
 Near my father's residence was a wood in which a 
 man was once killed. His ghost was regularly seen 
 after dark. I never passed through that wood with- 
 out crossing myself, and saying Hail Mary. And I 
 assure you I never saw the ghost. After dusk, in 
 the spring of the year, I wat sent on an errand to a 
 neighbor's house, which was separated from ours by 
 two or three fields. As I ran along I saw through 
 the magnifying twilight what was obviously an evil 
 spirit. I stopped suddenly, and the sweat com- 
 menced pouring. Naturally of a resolute spirit, 1 
 
40 kirwan's letters 
 
 thus reasoned : if I run back he can catch me ; if 1 
 go forward he can but catch me. So after saying 
 my Hail Mary, and crossing myself, I went forward 
 with a trembling step. As I advanced the horns (»f 
 the fiend became perfectly obvious. Almost dead 
 with fear I rushed forward and caught hold of them. 
 And marvellous to narrate, those fiendish horns 
 were instantly turned into the handles of a plough ! 
 Now I submit it to you, sir, whether these miracles 
 wrought by myself, are not as great as those wrought 
 by St. Mochua, or St. Columbanus. And yet I fear 
 my chance for canonization is exceedingly small. 
 
 But considering the grave effects which have fol- 
 lowed this claim of yours, it ought not, perhaps, to 
 be treated lightly. And yet it is difficult to treat it 
 otherwise. 
 
 Now, sir, will you say that the miracles adduced 
 by Milner are worthy of a moment's consideration ? 
 Look at them again. A man hurt his back by fall- 
 ing from a hay-rick, and is cured by a dead man's 
 hand ! A girl in opening a window cut her arm, 
 and felt difficulty in using it ; she puts on a piece 
 of moss and her arm gets well. Another girl has a 
 diseased spine ; she is cured by bathing in Holy- 
 well. Are these proofs to any mind that your church 
 possesses miraculous power ? If these are not, can 
 the miracles selected from the legends of the middle 
 ages be ? 
 
 Can you, for a moment, place any of your mira- 
 cles on an equality with those wrought by the Sa* 
 
TO EISHOP HL'GHES. 41' 
 
 vioiir and his apostles ? Milner does it, sad I am to 
 say. but will you, John Hughes, do it, and in the 
 city of New- York ? What ! place these marvels 
 of lying legends, the productions of infamous monks 
 of the dark ages, who made saints of necromancers, 
 and miracles of witch stories, on the same founda- 
 tion as the miracles of Christ ! Will you gravely 
 tell us, that if we deny the one we must deny the 
 other ? If I deny that the fervor of the piety of St. 
 Fechin almost made the cold water to boil in which 
 he bathed, must I also deny that Christ raised Laza- 
 rus from the grave ? Will you, claiming to be a 
 bishop in the church of God, say that these miracles 
 are sustained by evidence equally conclusive as 
 those of the Scriptures ? This I will only believe 
 when you say so. 
 
 Compare the object of scriptural and popish mira- 
 cles. The one are divine attestations to the truth ; 
 the other, to yours being the true church. How 
 different these objects ! And they are no more dif- 
 ferent than the miracles. And in point of force and 
 evidence, Milner's miracles cannot be compared to 
 those of Irving, or of our own Mormons. 
 
 If } our church possesses miraculous power, why 
 so sparma; of its use since the Reformation ? If they 
 are not all impostures, why so many in Ireland, 
 whilst tnere are none in Scotland ; why so many 
 in France and Spain, and so few in New- York ? 
 Come out in the opeu view of some intelligent Prot- 
 estants, and cure a man that was born blind, or raise 
 
 4* 
 
43 kirwan's letters 
 
 ono from the grave that lay there until putrefaction 
 commenced, and, then, we will ask you to excuse 
 the utter scorn with which, until then, we must treat 
 your impostures. My dear Sir, the world will not 
 forget the history of Hohenlohe, the modern St. 
 Fechin. He was forbidden to work his miracles 
 save in the presence of some commissioners and 
 physicians ; he appealed to the pope. The holy 
 father enjoined him to conform. From that hour 
 his miracles have ceased. 
 
 " Ghosts prudently withdraw at peep of day." 
 
 Miracles were vouchsafed by God divinely to at- 
 test the truth of the Gospel. This power was vouch- 
 safed to the Apostles, and was continued in the 
 church until the truth of the Gospel was established. 
 Then it was withdrawn. Since the rise of popery 
 there has been no miracle wrought. The nearest 
 approach to one, that I now remember, for fourteen 
 hundred years, is the fact that your church could 
 gain such a general credence for its absurdities, and 
 make men believe that she could work miracles. 
 ] You must give up your lying legends and your 
 claim to miraculous power, before I can return to 
 your fold. I feel as did our fellow-countryman with 
 the bad asthma, who exclaimed, " If once I can get 
 this troublesome breath out of my body, I'll take 
 good care it shall never get in again." 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KrEWAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 4S^ 
 
 LETTER V, 
 
 Marks of the Papal being the true Church considered. Unity- Sanctity- 
 Catholicity — ApostoHcity — Infallibility. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, — In the present letter, I wish 
 to place before you another of my reasons for not 
 returning to the church of my fathers, drawn from 
 the exclusive claims of your church — claims which, 
 if well-founded, consign to eternal damnation all 
 who refuse to believe its doctrines, or to submit to 
 its authority. That these claims are put forth, you 
 will not deny. You glory in them. Milner and 
 Butler assert them, and seek to sustain them by . 
 Scripture and reason. " The Poor Man's Cate- 
 chism," from which I like to quote, because it is the 
 channel through which you seek to impress the 
 common mind, says, " those who submit not to the 
 doctrine and authority of the Holy Catholic Church, 
 are all out of her communion ; as pagans, infidels, 
 Turks, Jews, heretics and schismatics." And by 
 the Holy Catholic Church is meant, that church 
 ivhose head is the pope. This is sufficiently expli- 
 cit. So that in your estimation, and in that of your 
 church, the Protestant churches around you are no 
 better than Jewish synagogues, or pagan temples ; 
 the people that worship in them, are no bt tter thaa 
 
44 kirwan's letters 
 
 Turks or pagans ; and such men as the late excel- 
 lent Milnor, as Spring, Knox, Bangs, Williams, 
 Wainright, Skinner, your cotemporaries, and equals, 
 and fellow citizens, are no better than Hume, Vol- 
 taire, Gibbon ; or at least, than Jewish Rabbles, 
 Turkish Mufties, or Hindoo Priests, who mingle 
 their blood with their sacrifices. That such is your 
 belief is apparent in your conduct. You and your 
 priests so treat them. The belief of your people is, 
 that all beyond the pale of your church are devoted 
 to destruction. I remember the day when I had no 
 more doubt of it than of my own existence. If there 
 are papists who believe otherwise, and who exercise 
 a charitable hope as to the salvation of Protestants, 
 as I believe there are many, so far forth they are 
 not papists. 
 
 The process by which you reach this terrible dog- 
 ma is a very short one. There is no salvation out 
 of the true church — the Roman Catholic is the true 
 church — therefore, there is no salvation out of 
 the Roman Catholic Church. Here is your logical 
 and theological guillotine, by which you sever the 
 hopes which bind millions of your race to God and 
 heaven ; who serve the one, and deserve the other, 
 at least, as well as you do. And, then, the marks 
 of yours oeing the true cnurch, you parade before 
 us with as much confidence as if they were true ; 
 and with as much assurance as if they were never, 
 instead of being a thousand times, refuted. Permit 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 49 
 
 me, in the briefest manner, to consider each of thess 
 marks. They are Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, 
 Apostolicity, and Infallibility. 
 
 Your first mark is Unity. Has your church this 
 mark ? In what one thing are you united 1 Not in 
 the head of the church. You have a pope ; — some 
 say, others deny, that he is the head. One goes for 
 the pope, — another for a general council, — a third 
 for both united. Is this unity 1 But if we admit 
 your unity, what follows ? Does the agreement of 
 numbers in maintaining error and superstition, prove 
 that in which they are united true ? Then Pagan- 
 ism, and Mahometanism, and Budhism, may be 
 proved divine. These systems have more followers 
 than you can boast. 
 
 You are not agreed as to the authoritative coun- 
 cils of your church. You are yet agitated by corv- 
 troversies on the subject. Nor are you agreed in 
 the doctrines of the Bible. Never were Arminians 
 and Calvinists more widely separated on these mat- 
 ters than you are. Look at the fierce contentions 
 of your Jansenists and Jesuits, unsettled to the pre- 
 sent hour. If united, what meant the fierce contro- 
 versies of your Scotists and Thomists — of your Can- 
 onists and Schoolmen — of your Nominalists and 
 Realists. But I cannot weary you or my readers 
 on this matter. You talk about the differences 
 among Protestants ; — they are not to be compared to 
 those among papists. You put into my hand Bos- 
 suet's " Variations of Protestants ;" I put into yours, 
 
46 
 
 " Edgar's Variations of Poper3^" Where Protest" 
 ants difTer in one point, papists differ in five, — where 
 they differ in minor matters, you differ in the veriest 
 essentials. Protestants agree as to the Head of the 
 church, Christ ; — and as to the rule of the church, 
 the Bible. You differ as to both. 
 
 True, you have an apparent external unity. But 
 how have you gotten it ? What is it worth ? You 
 set up monstrous claims, and all who do not admit 
 them you cast off. Milner's "Apostolical Tree," 
 shows how the work of lopping off has progressed. 
 You have laid the axe upon every green and fruit- 
 ful branch ; and the old stump and withered branch- 
 es remain, a unity ! And what is your unity 
 worth ? If 1 return to your church, " I must be- 
 lieve whatever the Holy Catholic Church believes 
 and teaches." This I must do without knowing, 
 and without ever being able to know, all that 
 she believes and teaches. I must put myself 
 into your hands, and give you power to think for 
 me, and to believe for me ; and then I must believe, 
 and swear to, what you thus think and believe for 
 me, at the peril of being cut off and cast into the 
 fire. Sir, this is horrible slavery. Do you think 
 men will long submit to it ? 
 
 Your boasted unity is a fable — your apparent 
 unity, is slavery. You present a united front in 
 vour opposition to Protestants ; but never were the 
 bowels of the victim of the Asiatic cholera more ter- 
 ribly convulsed, than is the bosom of your church 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 47 
 
 by distracting controversies. Your priests and 
 bishops and people may fight as they may, but they 
 are a unity as long as they remain within the same 
 ©rganization. If one of them secedes, if you can- 
 not kill him, you damn him, for the sake of unity. 
 Your next mark is Sanctity. I admit that sanc- 
 tity, or holiness, is a mark of a true disciple, and of 
 a true church. The people and church of Christ 
 should be holy in all manner of conversation. 
 Sanctity you claim for your church as one of its dis- 
 tino-uishino^ marks. But in what is it manifested ? 
 You reply, first, in her doctrines. But what doc- 
 trine of the Bible has not your church corrupted ? 
 What institution has it not perverted ? And so con- 
 scious is your church of this, that it withholds the 
 unadulterated word from the people. You reply, 
 again, in the means of holiness. By these you mean 
 the sacraments. But you have grievously perverted 
 the only two sacraments instituted by Christ ; and 
 you have added to them five which have no divine 
 authority, and whose only object is to give you pow- 
 er, and to obtain for you " the alms and the suffrages 
 of the faithful." You reply again, in her fruits of 
 holiness. By these you mean the virtues practised 
 by papists. I could not, for a moment, deny the 
 true piety of many papists, the exalted piety of 
 some ; but will you, Sir, assert that the piety and 
 virtues of your people are so much more resplen- 
 dent than those of any, or all other people, as to 
 mark yours as the true church ? If so, it seems to 
 
48 kirwan's letters 
 
 me that you would assert that Jupiter surpasses the 
 moon, and the moon the sun, in bi'ightncss. The 
 evidences to the contrary are no more apparent in 
 the one case than in the other. Look at the mass 
 of your clergy in the sunniest days of your church, 
 and what were their fruits of holiness ? Your own 
 historians being witnesses, what were the fruits of 
 your nunneries, your monasteries, your monks, and 
 your other orders, when there were no Protestants 
 to unveil their enormities ? What are now the fruits 
 of your religion in the states of South America? 
 Have you seen the testimony of Mr. Thompson, our 
 late minister to Mexico, as to the papal clergy of 
 that country ? As to the fruits of holiness, compare 
 Spain, Italy, with Scotland or New England. 
 
 But I will not proceed with the comparison farther 
 than to ask you to compare the Protestant ministry 
 of New-York with the papal — the congregation of 
 St. Patrick's with any large and wealthy Protestant 
 congregation in the city, as to the fruits of holiness, 
 and you yourself will be astonished at the difference. 
 The general rule is, that purely papal countries are 
 those most debased and immoral, and purely Prot- 
 estant countries are those most enlightened, and most 
 abounding in every good work. The tenth century, 
 the noonday of popery, was the midnight of our 
 race. Nor does the history of the world present 
 such evidences of unbridled, overgrown depravity, 
 as does the history of your church. 
 
 Your next mark is Catholicity. You claim this 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 49 
 
 title for your church as to time, persons, and places. 
 As to time, your church rose upon the ruins of that 
 founded by Christ and his apostles, and centuries 
 after their death. Tlie peculiar doctrines and cere- 
 monies of popery are derived from the heathen, and 
 were engrafted on Christianity. Instead of your 
 church, as you claim, being identical with that of 
 Christ and his apostles, there is not an essential 
 particular, in which it is not in opposition to it. I 
 admit, as to persons, that yours is a very numerous 
 church ; but it never formed a third part of Chris- 
 tendom. Is the standard of truth the numbers that 
 profess it ? Then Christianity was a lie whilst in 
 the minority ; — and so it is a lie yet, because, taking 
 our whole race together, vastly in the minority. 
 So I admit, as to places, that popery is very widely 
 diffused. But is not Protestantism also ? Where 
 has a papist gained foothold where there is not a 
 Protestant ? So that your claim to this mark is as 
 absurd as it is groundless. Your catholicity is a 
 vain and empty boast. There is a Catholic Church, 
 but it is not yours. 
 
 Your next mark is Apostolicity — that is, a regular 
 succession from the Apostles in the chair of St. Pe- 
 ter. Now, Sir, this claim is put forth by other 
 churches as strongly as yours, and on foundations 
 even stronger than yours. I now refer to the Ar- 
 menian, Nestorian, and Syriac churches, which 
 were founded before the Gospel was preached at 
 Rome. It is beyond the power of man to establish 
 
 & 
 
50 kirwan's letters 
 
 this claim. If established, must wo receive as a 
 true minister every man coming to us in the regular 
 line, whatever be his doctrines or morals ? What 
 is the test of apostolicity ? Is it succession, or doc- 
 trines? Most obviously doctrines. "If there come 
 any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him 
 not into your house, neither bid him God speed." 
 Standing upon this one text, I would turn you away 
 from my door, even had I seen the hands of all the 
 apostles upon your head, unless you preached their 
 doctrines. Why, the strong language of Paul would 
 even warrant me to curse you, coming to me with 
 your claim of succession, without apostolical doctrme. 
 Read it : — " But though we, or an angel from hea- 
 ven, preach any other Gospel unto you, than that 
 we have preached, let him be accursed." Sir, if I 
 try your succession by your doctrine, the true test of 
 succession, I could soon place you among those who 
 said they were apostles and were not. From what 
 Apostle, save Judas, many are descended, who are 
 ciying out, Apostolical succession, apostolical suc- 
 cession ! I cannot conceive. 
 
 Your next mark is InfallihiJify. Under all the 
 circumstances of the case, this claim is truly ludi- 
 crous. Where is the seat of infallibility ? Some 
 say it resides in the pope. But how is he made in- 
 fallible ? The pope dies ; an election for a new one 
 is ordered. He is to be elected from the cardinals — 
 all fallible men, if no worse. After endless intrigue, 
 and boundless corruption, and numerous ballotings, 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 51 
 
 the lot falls upon a fallible cardinal. Will 5'-ou tell 
 me how such an election makes him infallible ? But 
 others say, that the pope is not infallible, and that 
 he may be deposed for heresy. So that here you 
 are divided. 
 
 Some say the seat of infallibility is a general 
 council. But how is this ? Here are three hun- 
 dred fallible men assembled in general council ; 
 how do they become infallible ? Will you tell me 
 the process ? How do finites make an infinite ? 
 Heap them up as you may, are they not a heap of 
 finites ? And crowd together as many fallible men 
 as you may, are they any thing else than a crowd 
 of fallibles ? But by what chemical or alchemical 
 process can you deduce the infallible from the fal- 
 lible ? 
 
 Nor is this the worst. We find one general 
 council denouncing another — the church of one 
 age contradicting the church of another. The 
 seat of infallibility is thus undetermined by you ; 
 whilst the proofs of your church's fallibility fill 
 the world. It is infallibly certain that your church 
 is fallible. 
 
 Thus is your church, utterly destitute of every 
 mark of being the true church, which you claim for 
 it. Its unity is discord, or slavery — its sanctity is 
 corruption — its catholicity is assumption — its aposto- 
 licity and infallibility each a lie. Could I speak of 
 your church in the masculine and feminine gender, 
 as do some of your writers, instead of admitting her 
 
52 kirwan's letters 
 
 to be the one, holy, catholic, apostolical, and infalli- 
 ble church, I would call her the mother of harlots, 
 and the father of lies ; the man of sin fully revealed^ 
 with " powers, and signs, and lying wonders." 
 
 And yet, whilst common sense rejects your claims, 
 and common reason disproves them, and the Bible 
 denies them, unless in the case of invincible igno- 
 rance, you cut off all beyond your pale from all 
 communion with God — from all hope of heaven ! I 
 regard this as simply wicked. To gain your point, 
 you rob the Father of us all of his goodness ; man 
 you drive to despair, and you convert God into a 
 tyrant. If a boat were as rotten as I believe your 
 church to be, I would not trust it to cany me 
 across the North river. And yet it claims the entire 
 monopoly of carrying to heaven all the souls that 
 ever enter it, and for no reason, human or divine, 
 that I can see, unless it be for the freight. 
 
 My Bible tells me, Sir, that whosoever believeth 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. The sin. 
 cere believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether in 
 your church or other churches, or in no church, 
 form a part of that church which Christ will present 
 to the Father, without spot or wrinkle or any such 
 thing. By setting up its claim to be the only true 
 church — by den} ing salvation to all but your own 
 members, with the exception of the invincibly igno- 
 rant, you deny this doctrine of the Bible and of my 
 faith — you lay down a principle, unsustained by 
 sense or Scripture, from which the mind of the world 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 83 
 
 revolts, and from which my soul turns away, as from 
 a thing the most offensive. Your exclusive claims 
 must be proved, or abandoned, from their Alpha to 
 their Omega, before I can return to your church. 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 Kjewan. 
 
54 kirwan's letters 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Relics — Relics the parent of miracles — Tlie importance of relics — Specimem 
 of relics — The abuses of relics — Indulgence — To whom and by whom 
 granted — Their fearful effects 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir : — Permit me to ask your 
 kind attention, in the present letter, to two more ob- 
 jections which prevent my return to your church, 
 drawn from your use of relics and indulgences. The 
 importance which you attach to these things, and the 
 evils which flow from them, demand a letter for the 
 due consideration of each ; but I will consider them 
 both in one, and, as I trust, without weakening the 
 force of my objections. 
 
 " Relics are the dead bodies or bones of saints, 
 and whatever helonged to them in their mortal life,'^ 
 The clause I place in italics enables you to multiply 
 them indefinitely. These relics are honored with 
 an inferior and relative^ but not with divine honor. 
 And they are honored, 1st, because they were the 
 temples of God ; 2dly, because they are to be raised 
 from the dead ; 3dly, because of their miraculous 
 power ; 4thly, because they encourage the faithful 
 to imitate their virtues. This is Challoner's account 
 of them, with which that of Milner agrees. 
 
 This doctrine of relics is intimately connected 
 with that of miracles — it flows from it. The man 
 who performed miracles, when living, should be, after 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 55 
 
 death, highly honored ; his bones may perform them 
 after death ; and, as in many cases they do perform 
 them, their relics should be honored with an infe- 
 rior and relative, but not with a divine honor. Here 
 is the link which connects your doctrine of relics 
 with your miracles. 
 
 Relics are matters of immense importance to 
 Rome. They are to your churches what the ark of 
 the covenant, and the pot of manna, and Aaron's 
 rod that budded, were to the Jewish temple. Hence 
 the prodigious efforts of past ages to obtain relics, 
 and the enormous prices paid for them, in order to 
 place them in churches, and the sleepless vigilance 
 with which they have been guarded, lest they should 
 be stolen for the adorning of new churches by their 
 virtues. They have been more than mines of wealth 
 to Holy Mother, as they have brought her the gold 
 and the silver, without the trouble of mining, smelt- 
 ing, or coining it. 
 
 If a bone or a relic of a saint could be secured for 
 a new church, the church was called by his name, 
 and placed under his guardianship. This is the ori- 
 gin of calling churches after the names of saints. 
 And thus nations were placed under the guardian- 
 ship of saints — as Ireland under that of St. Patrick — 
 Scotland under that of St. Andrew — England under 
 that of St. George. So also cities were placed un- 
 der the care of saints, and their relics were esteem- 
 ed as imparting far greater security against assault 
 than cannon, walls, or bulwarks. Constantiue, you 
 
56 
 
 know, defended the town of Nisibis with the dead 
 body of St. James ; and when the Emperor Leo de- 
 sired to secure the relics of Simon the Sty lite from 
 Antioch, for the purposes of defence, the prudent 
 citizens replied, " Our city has no walls, and we 
 have brought here the holy body of Simon, that it 
 might serve us in the stead of walls and bulwarks." 
 And so individuals are placed under a guardian 
 saint, or they select one for themselves. I remem- 
 ber, when a boy, I had one myself; but his name I 
 am utterly unable to recall. I have no doubt but 
 that you will say he took bad care of me. 
 
 There is, I learn, an authentic list of the relics, 
 deemed true, possessed and published by your 
 church. I have never seen it. It must be a very 
 curious book. In the absence of your catalogue, I 
 select a few of the relics greatly venerated by pa- 
 pists, from books of authority that lie before me. 
 They are almost as amusing as your miracles. I 
 will omit those too offensive to be named, out of re- 
 spect for you, my readers, and myself. ; 
 
 The arms, legs, fingers, toes of the saints are 
 greatly multiplied. There are eight arms of St. 
 Matthew, three of St. John, and almost any number 
 of St. Thomas a-Becket. There are in the Church 
 of Lateran, the ark made by Moses in the wilder- 
 ness, the rod of Moses, and the table on which the 
 last supper was instituted by the Saviour. The ta- 
 ble is entirely at Rome ; but there are many pieces 
 of it in other places. On the altar of the Lateran, 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 57 
 
 are the heads of Peter and Paul entire ; but there 
 are pieces of them in Bilboa, greatly honored by the 
 monks. St. Peter's Church is blessed with the cross 
 of the penitent thief; with the lantern of Judas ; 
 with the dice used by the soldiers in casting lots for 
 the Saviour's garments ; with the tail of Balaam's 
 ass ; and with the axe, saw, and hammer of St. Jo- 
 seph. Different churches are enriched with pieces 
 of the wood of the cross ; and wei'e the pieces ail 
 brought together, they would make a hundred cross- 
 es. In one church is some of the manna in the wil- 
 derness ; in another some blossoms from Aaron's 
 rod ; in another an arm of St. Simon ; in another 
 the picture of the Virgin, painted by Luke — in an- 
 other one of her combs ; in another the combs of the 
 apostles, but little used ; in another a part of the 
 body of St. Lazarus, that smells ; in another a part 
 of the Gospel of Mark, in his own handwriting ; in 
 another a finger of St. Ann, the Virgin's sister ; in 
 another St. Patrick's stick, with which he drove 
 venomous reptiles from Ireland ; in another some of 
 St. Joseph's breath, caught by an angel in a vial ; 
 in another a piece of the rope with which Judas hung 
 himself; in another some of the Virgin's hair — in 
 another some of her milk. And the monks once 
 showed among their relics the spear and shield with 
 which iMichael encountered the dragon of Revela- 
 tion ; and some relic-monger had a feather from the 
 wing of the Holy Spirit, when taking the form of a 
 dove he abode upon Christ at his baptism ! On the 
 
58 kirivan's letters 
 
 miracles wrouglit by the relics of the saints I have 
 already sufliciontly dwelt. They are various, and 
 very numerous. 
 
 I will not, I cannot, here dwell upon the awful 
 abuses of your doctrine of relics ; on the robbery of 
 all kinds of graves in Palestine, and the hawking of i 
 pilfered bones all over Europe ; on the selling of 
 old wood, sufficient to warm a small town through 
 the winter, as pieces of the cross ; on the selling of 
 hands and feet of particular saints, until the proof is 
 positive that some of the favored ones had as many 
 hands as Briareus, and as many feet as the crawling 
 worm we call the centipede. I turn from the abuse 
 to the doctrine. 
 
 Now, Sir, where is the origin of your doctrine of 
 relics ? Can you find a trace of it in the New Tes- 
 tament ? Will you, for a moment, compare the sham 
 miracles wrought at the tombs of some of your saints 
 with that wrought by the bones of a prophet of Is- 
 rael ? Will you dare to say that the curing of a 
 sore throat, by a dead man's hand, is to be placed on 
 the same ground with the miraculous cures of the 
 apostles ? I venerate the names, I would even de- 
 corate the tombs of the good ; but what virtue is 
 there in a bone from the body of Paul or Peter ? or 
 in a slip of wood from the cross ? or in a strand 
 from the rope with which Judas hung himself? or in 
 eome haiis from the tail of the beast which Balaam 
 whipped. 
 
 If relics ever performed miracles, why do they 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 59 
 
 not perform some now ? Is the virtue of all your 
 old bones exhausted ? Where is the holy coat of 
 Treves ? Where now are the pilgrims to the bones 
 of Becket ? Where is your shop in New- York for 
 the sale of holy teeth, and holy fingers, and holy 
 bones, taken from the graves of the saints ? Sir, the 
 whole matter is one of the vilest impositions ever 
 practised upon the credulity of man. I do not charge 
 you with believing a word of it. I could almost as 
 soon believe in the virtue of the paring of the toe- 
 nails of some of your saints, as admit that a man of 
 your high sense can believe in these things. 
 
 But I must hasten to a brief consideration of your 
 doctrine of indulgence. And how shall I character- 
 ize it ? 
 
 Your church teaches that sins of a certain char- 
 acter deserve temporal and eternal punishment. 
 Penance secures the remission of the latter ; indul- 
 gence releases from the former. So that indulgences 
 secure a release from the debt of temporal punish- 
 ment. 
 
 No person but a lineal descendant of St. Peter can 
 grant an indulgence. And that all such have the 
 power of granting them, is clearly proved, by the 
 fact that the Saviour gave the keys to Peter, and told 
 Iiim that whatsoever he bound or loosed on earth 
 should be bound or loosed in heaven. 
 
 Indulgences can be only granted to those who 
 have, by penance, secured the remission of eternal 
 .punishment ; and they can be granted even to such 
 
60 kirwan's letters 
 
 only for a good cause or motive. Unless the cause 
 or motive is a good one, heaven does not loose what 
 the bishop looses. The causes or motives deemed 
 good are, " the doing of great works for the glory of 
 God and the public benefit of the church, such as the 
 propagation of the catholic faith, building churches, 
 alms, &c." And the way in which the bishop se- 
 cures the remission of the temporal punishment of 
 the indulged one, — he draws upon the satisfaction of 
 Christ and his saints, called " the treasure of the 
 church,'"' and offers the draft to God, as an equiva- 
 lent for the punishment due to the individual ! I do 
 think that some heated controversialists have distort- 
 ed this doctrine of your church ; but you will not 
 say that this is a distortion of it. It is taken, almost 
 literally, from Challoner and Milner. 
 
 The illustration of Milner, of the working of the 
 thing, is a curiosity in its way. It is drawn from 
 2 Sam., 12th chapter. David, by the murder of 
 Uriah, and by adultery with his wife, incurred both 
 eternal and temporal punishment. He confessed to 
 Nathan and did penance, and eternal punishment 
 was remitted. The temporal 3'et remained, and he 
 suffered it all. And why ? There was no priest 
 or bishop to grant him indulgence ! 
 
 Such, Sir, is your doctrine of indulgence. Per- 
 mit me to give you my thoughts in reference to it. 
 
 There is not a shadow of authority for it in the 
 Scriptures. The church has authority to receive 
 .hose she deems worthy of membership, and to cast 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 61 
 
 out offenders. And when offenders, cast out from 
 her bosom, have given due evidence of repentance, 
 she has the power of again receiving them ; she is 
 bound to do so. Upon this simple scriptural posi- 
 tion your church has erected the sacrament of pen- 
 ance, and the doctrine of indulgence ! 
 
 Nor have you a shadow of authority for prescrib- 
 ing a meritorious satisfaction to God, in lieu of the 
 penalty annexed to his law, and pronounced against 
 sin. I have already examined and exploded your 
 claims as to the power of the keys, and as to binding 
 and loosing. So unreasonable, I may say, so foolish 
 are they, that their assertion only exposes you to 
 ridicule. Let us suppose that David were now king 
 of the State of New- York, with the sins of the mat- 
 ter of Uriah fresh upon him : could you go to him 
 and say, " May it please your majesty, I John 
 Hughes, by the power of binding and loosing trans- 
 ferred to me by Peter, will grant you indulgence 
 from the temporal punishment due to your sins ; and 
 that child born to you by the wife of Uriah shall live, 
 by virtue of my indulgence, if you only build for me 
 a splendid cruciform church, and endow it with re- 
 gal magnificence ? " Should yuu do this, would not 
 your conduct be branded, not only as revoltingly ar- 
 rogant, but as blasphemous ? And is not this the 
 way that many of your churches were built and 
 endowed ? 
 
 But you now lower your tone, and say, that indul- 
 gences only remit the temporal punishment inflicted 
 
 6 
 
62 kirwan's letters 
 
 by the church. But how does this mend the matter ? 
 By your poM'er of binding or loosing, you can send 
 a man to hell or to heaven ; you can inflict any pun- 
 ishment you see fit ; and you can demand of the pen- 
 itent, for indulgence, any "good works" you see 
 fit. Here, sir, i« the key which unlocks a chamber 
 in your church filled with rottenness and putrefac- 
 tion, more foul and filthy than the world has ever 
 seen. Need I revert to the traffic in indulgences so 
 jealously promoted by your popes in past days ? 
 Need I point you to their wholesale manufacture by 
 your popes — to their selling them by wholesale to 
 tribes of vagabond monks, who hawked them all over 
 Europe at prices to suit purchasers ? The pope drove 
 as good a bargain as he could with the monks, and 
 the monks with the people. For the indulgence 
 which a poor peasant could purchase for a few pen- 
 nies, a prince must pay pounds. The common sense 
 of the world was insulted ; the yoke of Rome became 
 too heavy for the nations longer to bear ; a poor 
 monk discovered a copy of the Bible, and its truths 
 filled his mind and his soul ; strong in the Lord, he 
 went out from his dark cell with the lamp of life in 
 his hand; the Reformation follows. And for the 
 exposure of her frauds and wickedness, your church 
 has sent that poor monk to a place where the effi- 
 cacy of seven sacraments — of all masses— of all in- 
 dulgences—can never reach him. 
 
 But you will say all this was the abuse of the 
 thing. My dear Sir, your doctrines of relics and in- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 63 
 
 dulgences have no use — they are all abuse. Guard 
 them as you may in your Catechisms and books, 
 practically they are all abuse. Millions have prayed 
 at the tombs of your saints, who never offered an in- 
 telligent prayer to God through his Son. Millions 
 have worshipped your relics, who never worshipped 
 God in spirit and in truth. And millions have sought 
 deliverance from sin by your penances, and extreme 
 unctions, and indulgences, who never sought it 
 through the blood of Jesus Christ. And at this hour 
 many of your churches in Rome are nothing but spi- 
 ritual shops for the sale of indulgences. 
 
 The frauds which j'our church has practised on 
 the world, by her relics and indulgences are enor- 
 mous. If practised by the merchants of New- York, 
 in their commercial transactions, they would send 
 every man of them to State Prison. 
 
 By your doctrine of relics you lead the people into 
 idolatry on the one hand — by your doctrine of indul- 
 gence you give them a license to commit sin on the 
 other. At least this is their practical effect. It is 
 said of the holy Sturme, the disciple of St. Wmfrid, 
 that in passing a horde of unconverted Germans, as 
 they were bathing in a stream, he was so overpow- 
 ered by the intolerable stench of sin that arose from 
 them, he nearly fainted away. Similar is the effect 
 of the odor of your relics and indulgences upon me. 
 Your church must abandon them utterly before I 
 can return to her communion. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
64 kirwan's letters 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Unmeaningness of Romish Doctrines and Ceremonies . — Baptism — The 
 Mass — Penance — Extreme Unction — Holy Water — Prayers to the SainU 
 —Withholding the Scrijitures. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir : — I ask your attention in the 
 present letter, to the consideration of another objec- 
 tion, which, mountain-like, opposes my return to 
 your church, drawn from the utter unmeaningness 
 of your j)eculiar doctrines and ceremonies. If I coin 
 a new word to express my meaning, surely you will 
 forgive me, a bishop in a church which has coined 
 doctrines, and sacraments, and ceremonies, without 
 meaning, and without end. 
 
 When I look into the New Testament, every thing 
 there is plain and simple. True, there are some 
 doctrines there taught, which are above my entire 
 comprehension ; but yet they are plainly taught. 
 Having settled the divine authority of the Scriptures, 
 I never question what they plainly teach. Its most 
 mysterious truths are not opposed to my reason; 
 they are only above it. When I look at the wor- 
 ship, and ceremonies there enjoined, they all seem 
 to me perfectly simple and expressive. And so are 
 the worship and ceremonies of almost all the Prot- 
 estant churches with which I am acquainted. So 
 far as they deviate from simplicity and expressive- 
 aess, do they deviate from the apostolical model. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 65 
 
 Bat when I turn to your church — the church of my 
 fathers, — every thing peculiar to it wears a contrary 
 aspect, and to my mind seems utterly unmeaning, 
 and frequently absurd. Permit me to illustrate what 
 I mean. And even should I occupy this letter with 
 my illustrations, my only excuse to you and my read- 
 ers is, the importance of the subject. 
 1 I begin with your sacrament of Baptism. This 
 we all admit to be a sacrament ; but I have now to 
 do with the power and significancy which you give 
 It, and the ceremonies you connect with it. 
 
 The effects of baptism when duly administered, as 
 stated by Challoner, are these : — It washes away 
 original sin — it remits all actual sin — it infuses the 
 habit of divine grace into the soul — it gives a right 
 and title to heaven — it makes us children and mem- 
 bers of the church. Now. Sir, I have no sense by 
 which I can perceive how the application of water 
 by a priest, or a minister, or a laic, or a midwife, 
 can accomplish all this, whilst testimony to the con- 
 trary addresses itself to all my senses. Christ died 
 for the sins of all that believe in him — it is faith in 
 Clirist that secures the washing away of original and 
 actual sin — and faith is the exercise of a heart re- 
 newed by the Holy Ghost. Being justified by faith, 
 we have peace with God and a title to heaven. All 
 this I can understand ; but how your dipping three 
 times in water can do all this, I see not. What the 
 Bible attributes to the Holy Spirit, and to the exercise 
 of true faith, you claim for the sacrament of baptism 
 
 6* 
 
66 kirwan's letters 
 
 If your doctrine of baptismal regeneration is true, 
 what a singular commentary we have of it in the 
 lives of your people ! What singular manifestations 
 of the habits of divine grace which your baptism in- 
 fuses into the soul, you see daily among your peo- 
 ple ! I only wonder that the facts in the case have 
 not long since exploded your doctrine, and led you 
 back to the simplicity of the sacrament as taught in 
 the Bible ! The apostles administered baptism to 
 those who confessed faith in Jesus Christ ; and 
 tlirough this sacrament we obtain a place and a 
 name in the visible church. This all men can un- 
 derstand ; but how you, or any mortal man, by the 
 application of water in any or all ways, can wash 
 away the original and actual sins of the sinner, — 
 infuse into his soul the habits of grace, and give him 
 a title to heaven, I cannot comprehend. If your 
 baptism could only do this, it would wonderfully 
 mend the habits of many of your people, and save 
 some of the criminal courts of New-York a world 
 of trouble ! 
 
 And the i)ower you claim for it is no more un- 
 meaning than the ceremonies you connect with it. 
 This sacrament, ordinarily, must be administered in 
 churches with fonts, whose water must be blessed 
 " on the vigils of Easter and Whitsunday." There 
 must be godfathers and godmothers. The priest 
 blows in the face of the subject of baptism thrice, to 
 drive Satan out of him ! Then blessed salt is put 
 in his mouth ! Then exorcism is performed to drive 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 67 
 
 the devil out of him ! T'lis is all done in the porch 
 of the church. Then he is introduced into the 
 church, where prayers are said. Then the priest 
 puts his spittle on his ears and nose. Then he is 
 anointed with holy oil, " blessed on Maunday-Thurs- 
 day." And then he is baptized. Then he is 
 anointed on the top of the head with holy chrism. 
 Then a white linen cloth is placed on his head. 
 Then a lighted candle is put in his hand ! Then 
 the ceremony is ended, and the person is dismissed, 
 his sins all washed away — the habits of grace in- 
 fused into his soul, and his title to heaven in his 
 pocket ! 
 
 Now, sir, excite my wits as I may, I cannot un- 
 derstand all this. It is addressed to my ignorance. 
 
 The whole ceremony of your 3Iass is yet more 
 unmeaning to me. Often as I have witnessed it, I 
 never gleaned one intelligent idea from it — nor does 
 one out of one million of your people. I have just 
 read through the laboured explanation of it by Bishop 
 England ; and it is truly painful to see so noble a 
 mind expending its powers in the vain attempt to 
 give meaning to every thread of such a gossamer 
 web ; — to give sense and significance to what is so 
 utterly nonsensical. 
 
 " In the Mass," says Dr. England, " Christ is the 
 victim ; he is produced by the consecration, which, 
 by the power of God, and the institution of the Re- 
 deemer, and the act of the priest, place the body and 
 blood of Christ, under the appearance of bread and 
 
68 kirwan's letters 
 
 wine, upon the altar ; then the priest makes an ob- 
 lation of this Victim to the Eternal Father on behalf 
 of the people, and the victim undergoes a destructive 
 change, showing forth the death of the Redeemer, 
 and making commemoration thereof, by the exhibi- 
 tion of the apparent separation of the body from the 
 blood ; the former being under the appearance of 
 bread, and the latter under the appearance of wine, 
 and by the consumption of both by the priest." This 
 is, on the whole, the clearest account of the mass that 
 I have ever seen from the pen of a priest ; and yet what 
 mind can understand it ? Sir, do you understand 
 it ? Christ produced from some bread and wine 
 by a priest — this produced Christ is laid upon the 
 altar by the priest — an oblation of this produced 
 Christ is made to the Eternal Father by the priest — 
 the produced Christ undergoes a destructive change 
 in the act of oblation — this oblation of the produced 
 Christ is offered for the people — and then this pro- 
 duced, offered Christ, and after he has undergone a 
 destructive change, is eaten by the priest ! Sir, all 
 this is as umeaning to me as i>ie leaves which the 
 fabled sybil scattered on the winds. And this un- 
 meaning Mass, a greater mass of absurdity than ever 
 heathen ingenuity or depravity invented, is the chief 
 source of edification to the nine-tenths of the papal ^ 
 world ! If it were merely unmeaning, without be- 
 ing blasphemous and wicked, I could extend to it 
 some toleration. 
 
 And the absurdity of the whole thing is increased 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. G9 
 
 to intensity by the fact that the pantomime is per. 
 fbroied in Latin ! Pray, Sir, how many of your 
 worshippers at St. Patriclv's understand English, not. 
 to say Latin ? Why use a language, now no longer 
 spoken by any nation or people, which is now sim- 
 ply a medium of intercourse among scholars ? The 
 answer given to this question by Challoner, is one 
 of the most cool insults that I have ever known of- 
 fered to the common sense of the world. Here it 
 is : — 1. Because it is her ancient language . . . and 
 the church, which hates novelty, desires to celebrate 
 her liturgy in the same language ; — 2. For a great- 
 er uniformity in public worship ; that a papist, 
 wherever he wanders, may witness the ceremonies 
 of the mass in the same language ; — 3. To avoid 
 the changes to which all vulgar languages are ex- 
 posed. He also tells us that it is unnecessary to 
 understand what we are saying, if our hearts are 
 only sincere ! Sir, I see not how men who offer, or 
 receive such statements as reasons, can have the 
 faculty of understanding a reason. Because the 
 ritual of the Mass was first formed in Latin ; be- 
 cause Mass was first said in Latin at Rome, the ha- 
 tred of your church to novelty forbids her to change 
 the lan2;uafre of her ritual, when there is not a con- 
 gregation on earth that can understand it ! And it 
 ' is not necessary to understand the language in which 
 we address ourselves to God, if we only intend to 
 worship him ! And such is the excuse you make 
 for the man who may be worshipping a false relic 
 
70 kirwan's letters 
 
 for a true one. If he only means to honour the true 
 relic, it makes no difference ! If he mistakes the 
 thigh of Barabbas fcr that of Barnabas ; or the finger 
 of Pilate for that of Peter ; or the hair rf Jezebel 
 for that of Mary ; or the head of Ba'aanr s ass for 
 that of Paul, it is all the same, if he only means to 
 worship the true relic ! And I suppose the differ- 
 ence. Sir, is very little. 
 
 These things may be very clear to you and to 
 your priests, and people ; but to me they are utterly 
 without meaning, save a meaning that insults my 
 common sense. 
 
 And such is the fact as to your doctrine of Pen- 
 ance, and Extreme Unction, which I have already 
 examined. I am a sinner. To obtain forgiveness, 
 you tell me that I must confess to you — that I must 
 perform the penances you enjoin — that I must secure 
 absolution from you — and that until all this is done, 
 I cannot procure forgiveness. Now I cannot un- 
 derstand how this process secures for me what I de- 
 sire. I readily understand how, if I confess my sins 
 to God, and forsake them, and rest with true faith 
 on his Son, I can obtain forgiveness. But your 
 doctrine of penance, and its reputed efficacy, are as 
 difficult for me to understand as they are contrary 
 to the Bible. 
 
 And so as to your Extreme Unction. I am in a 
 dying state. The sands in my glass are almost run. 
 You come to my dying bed with your little cup of 
 olive oil, blessed on Maunday-Thursday. Dipping 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 7l 
 
 your thumb in the box, you cross and anoint my 
 eyes, my nose, m.y tongue, my ears, my hands, my 
 feet, and when the crossing and anointing is over, I 
 am prepared for " the port of eternal happiness. '* 
 Now, Sir, after every effort, I cannot understand 
 how olive oil produces those effects, if rubbed on 
 with both your thumbs, and with all your fingers. 
 1 can readily see how the blood of Christ applied to 
 my soul in the dying hour by the Holy Spirit, fits it 
 for its departure ; but how olive oil, or any other 
 oil, rubbed on by your thumb, or poured upon me 
 in a deluge, can effect this, is a mystery utterly be- 
 yond my power of solving. 
 
 And to whichspever of your peculiar doctrines 
 or ceremonies I turn, I find the same unmeanins:- 
 ness in them all. 
 
 I go into your church, St. Patrick's. I go with 
 the multitude to the stone basin containing the holy 
 water, and dipping my fingers into it, I cross myself 
 with the water. This water is made holy by being 
 exorcised by the priest, mixed with salt, and then 
 prayed over. And I cross myself with it that it 
 may defend me from the power of the devil ! Now, 
 Sir, all this I cannot understand. The devil is cast 
 out of the water — then the water is salted — then it 
 is consecrated — and then I am required to sprinkle 
 myself with it in order to keep off the devil. I can 
 readily see how salt will keep the water from be- 
 coming putrid, but how you get Satan out of the wa- 
 ter, and how the water can keep Satan away from 
 
72 
 
 me, is beyond my comprehension. And where do 
 you get this rite of holy water ? I remember, when 
 a boy, seeing the priest on Sunday passing through 
 a densely crowded chapel, with two boys carrying 
 a tub of holy water before him, and he sprinkling it 
 upon the people with something which I then thought 
 was a cow's tail. And if that water drove the devil 
 out of some of them that I well remember, I would 
 like to know how they acted when he was in them. 
 If holy water would only produce the effects which 
 you attribute to it, I would wish you to give many 
 of our countrymen a pretty thorough sprinkling. 
 
 I find the same difficulty in your doctrine which 
 teaches me to pray to the Saints. How Paul or Pe- 
 ter can hear me in New-York, and another in Cork, 
 praying to them at the same time, passes my com- 
 prehension. I am sure poor Mary must have her 
 hands full if she attends to all who supplicate her 
 favor. I have no doubt that, in the papal world, 
 ten pray to her, where one prays to God. 
 
 Nor can I comprehend why, or for what purpose, 
 you withhold from me the free use of the Scriptures. 
 They are a revelation from God to man — not to 
 priests only, but to the race. They are the chart of 
 the way to life, and all men are commanded to 
 search them. Why not permit, command all men 
 to search them ? The shipping merchant furnishes 
 his captains with charts of all the seas over which 
 they are to sail, and enjoins a constant use of them ; 
 and you take from me the chart which God has giv- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 73 
 
 en me to direct me across the ocean of life, and to a 
 safe anchorage beneath the shelter of the Rock of 
 Ages. Why is this ? 
 
 My dear Sir, God has given me a mind to under- 
 stand his will ; and in revealing his will to me he 
 has consulted the intelligence with which he has 
 endowed me. He asks of me an intelligent service 
 and worship. He requires all men to worship him 
 in spirit and in truth. — Your church requires me to 
 deny the testimony of my senses — to go contrary to 
 the decisions of my reason — to believe, not only 
 without, but against, evidence, — to believe in doc- 
 trines as true, which common reason pronounces 
 absurd, and to submit to ceremonies which would 
 seem solemn were they not so ludicrous and farci- 
 cal. I believe it is Thomas Aquinas, who proves 
 the duty of inferiors to submit to superiors in the 
 church, from the very pertinent passage in Job, 
 " the oxen were ploughing and the asses feeding be- 
 side them." And whilst I have no objection to your 
 bishops and priests considering themselves oxen, I 
 prefer, on the whole, a religion, to believe and prac- 
 tice which, does not require me to be turned into a 
 donkey. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 K1BW.IN. 
 7 
 
74 kirv.'an's letters 
 
 LETTER YIII. 
 
 The destiny of the Papacy — Its growth — lu history not yet written — The 
 Keformation — Reasons tor the extinction of popery — 1. Incapable of re- 
 formation — 2. Its reformation impossible — 3. Opposed by the inteili 
 gence of the world — 4. By its piety. — 5. The causes which gave it origin 
 passing away — 6. Its extinction ordained — 7. How it is to be done. 
 
 My Dear Sir : — In my last letter I brought to a 
 close the chief objections which prevent my return 
 to your church. As they bear, at least, upon my 
 own mind, you and all men will say that they are 
 insurmountable. If I have misstated any of your 
 doctrines — if I have »iagnified any of their absurdi 
 ties — I have done it ignorantly. And if I have uttered 
 a sentence that could have been avoided in tlie discus- 
 sion, and that can be interpreted as personally offen- 
 sive or disrespectful to yourself, I regret it. I feel 
 proud of you as a countryman ; I sincerely respect 
 your character ; and the only feeling in my soul in 
 reference to you is, one of deep, I might almost say, 
 agonizing regret, that you should lend your talents, 
 character, and influence to the sustaining of such a 
 system of delusion as is popery, which I deem equal- 
 ly at war with the Bible and with the conmion sense 
 and best interests of men. However much or little 
 value you place on this avowal, it is made in sincer- 
 ity. In the present letter, which will close those 
 addressed to you perspnally, I will ask your attea- 
 
KIR WAN's LETTERS 75 
 
 tion to some considerations hearing on the uUlmaie 
 destiny of your church. 
 
 The growth of your church has been like that of 
 the mustard seed — small in its beginning, but grad- 
 ually unfolding, until its branches overshadowed the 
 world. It took centuries, and generations of men 
 endowed with all the deceivableness of an unright- 
 eous policy, to perfect its despotic unity. Corrup- 
 tion was introduced so graduallv as to create no 
 general alarm. And the truth of God was so mixed 
 up with the traditions of men, as to take away the 
 power of the truth, and as to I'ivet upon the M'orld 
 the traditions of men as the commandments of God ; 
 and the whole system was so adapted to the tenden- 
 cies of our fallen nature, as to gain easy access for 
 it into barbarous and semi-civilized states. From 
 being an ally of the state, it rose to the government 
 of the state. It put out, first, the lights of civil, and 
 then of religious liberty. By it kings reigned, and 
 princes decreed judgment. And by the silent and 
 gradual deposit of corruption and power, your church 
 rose, a vast form and complicated, of superstition-^ 
 error, and tyranny, shutting out the light of heaven 
 from the mind, and the hope of heaven from the soul, 
 and filling the world with the gloom and terror of its 
 despotism. O, Sir, the history of your church, from 
 the se\enth to the seventeenth century, is yet un- 
 written. Much has been revealed, but the one-half 
 has not been told us. Nor will man ever know, un- 
 til the day of final revealing, a tithe of the miseries 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 
 
 and woes which it has inflicted on our race. When 
 the pall of darkness which now conceals them will 
 be drawn aside, and when in all their crimson hues 
 they will be exposed to the gaze of a collected uni- 
 verse — when the martyrs from the " Alpine Moun- 
 tains cold " — and from the vales of Piedmont — and 
 from the dungeons of the Inquisitions — when the Hu- 
 guenots of France, and slaughtered Protestants of the 
 isles and the continents shall all rise up and testify 
 against her, where can popes, prelates, and priests 
 then find a hiding place ? The rocks and mountains, 
 disregarding their cries, will not fall upon them, nor 
 hide them from the face of an angry God. 
 > The world bore the burden of the despotism of 
 your church until it could be borne no longer. The 
 Reformation ensued ; and because God was in it, the 
 combined efforts of popes, emperors, kings, and pre- 
 lates failed to arrest it. All the elements of super- 
 stition, and depravity, and selfishness, and cupidity, 
 and of civil and ecclesiastical power, were moved to 
 their deep foundations, and were combined with un- 
 sui'passed skill to suppress it, but in vain. The na- 
 tions broke the heavy yoke which your church had 
 placed upon their necks, and indignantly cast it 
 away. And from that day until this, the conflict 
 has continued between Protestantism and Popery — 
 between the law of Christian liberty and of Papal 
 thraldom — between the principles of an open Bible, 
 and the free access of the soul to God through a Me- 
 diator, and of a closed Bible, and the religion of sac- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 77 
 
 rarnents, and ceremonies, and priestly interferences 
 without meaning, measure, or end. It must be con- 
 fessed, that in this conflict your church has retained 
 its ground with great art and skill, and that after 
 three hundred years of hard fighting it yet is in the 
 field, and with a fearful array. But what is her des- 
 tiny ? Is she to rise again to her former power, and 
 to tread out the liberty of the world, and to send us 
 all to school again to muttering monks, and to open 
 hell to all who decline her authority, and to admit to 
 heaven only those whose great faith or great igno- 
 rance receives all that she teaches ? Sir, I have no 
 fear of this. I am most firmly persuaded that your 
 church is destined to total extinction. And permit 
 me, in the briefest manner, to state to you a few of 
 the reasons which sustain me in this belief. 
 
 1. Your church is incapable of reformation. 
 What may be reformed may be preserved : but the 
 diseased body that allows no purgatives to remove 
 its fever, and no stimulants to quicken its decaying 
 organs, must die. And your church is just such a 
 body. Because infallible, it has never fallen into 
 error in doctrine or in practice. So that what it once 
 believes and commands is always true^ and is always 
 binding. Infallibility forbids reformation. Here, 
 then, is the position which it holds before the world — 
 an infallible church — its sense and nonsense equally 
 true and important — and because infallible, incapa- 
 ble of reformation ! And, in my opinion, it is well 
 it is so. This very position will hasten its overthrow. 
 
 7* 
 
78 KIKTVAN^S LETTERS 
 
 How soon were the waters of the sea made the wind- 
 ing-sheet of the Pharaoh that, amid the wonders 
 which were wrouglit around him, refused to lessen 
 the burdens of Jacob and to let Israel go ! Old Bax- 
 ter was in the habit of saying, " What will not bend 
 must be broken." 
 
 2. Even if the doctrine of your church permitted 
 reformation, any reformation is impossible, save that 
 which ends in its extinction. I refer, of course, to a 
 reformation of your system, and not to that of indi- 
 viduals. How can your doctrine as to the pope's 
 supremacy be reformed, save by its utter abandon- 
 ment ? How reform your transubstantiation — your 
 purgatory — your penance — your extreme unction — 
 your praying to dead men and women — your relic 
 worship ? No reformation of these things is possible. 
 How can they be re-formed 1 If they cannot be. 
 they must be abandoned ; and if abandoned, where 
 is your church 1 Gone, like the fabric of a vision, 
 which leaves not a wreck behind. And again, I say, 
 it is well that it is so ; these things will hasten its 
 overthrow. 
 
 3. The intelligence of the world is in opposition 
 to your church. The mind of man, wherever en- 
 lightened, and permitted to act freely, is opposed to 
 it. The m.ost enlightened, the most commercial na- 
 tions, are anti-papal. The literature of the world is 
 against it. The genius of history is revealing its 
 past wickedness ; the genius of romance is holding 
 it up to ridicule by its magic creations ; the genius 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. ?& 
 
 of poetry is rehearsing its cruelties in undying song. 
 Nor do 1 now remember a living apologist for popery 
 out of the ranks of your priesthood, worth naming, 
 save Chateaubriand, whose eloquent work, "■ Genie 
 du Christianisme," is much more of a romance than 
 a serious apology for your system. And all this 
 whilst the historian — the poet — the novelist — the es- 
 sayist — the penny-a-liner — the grave quarterly — the 
 lighter monthly — the laughing weekly, are out in 
 apposition to it. 
 
 4. The prayers and the piety of the world aie 
 ao:ainst it. I assert this as a rule which has its ex- 
 ceptions — exceptions within the pale of your own 
 church, where, I believe, in spite of your system, 
 there are some of whom the world is not worthy. 
 But from tens of thousands of hearts, in every land 
 upon which the sun shines, the prayer is daily as- 
 cending to heaven that popish superstition may come 
 to a perpetual end. And God is a prayer-hearing 
 God. 
 
 5. The causes which gave rise to your church 
 are rapidly passing away. Popery, you know, for 
 the most part, rose in times of great ignorance. As 
 the art of printing was unknown, the Bible was but 
 little circulated. It required almost a lifetime to 
 transcribe it, and a large fortune to purchase it. 
 Hence your priests could teach almost any thing for 
 divine truth, because the people had no Bible by 
 which to test their teaching-. And havinoj enormous- 
 ly multiplied, for doctrines, the commandments of 
 
80 
 
 men, it became your settled policy, as far as possi- 
 ble, to suppress the free use of the Bible. This is 
 all over with you ; and the Bible will be soon in 
 every living language and among all people. And 
 the ignorance of those ages in which the foundations 
 of your church were laid is passing away. The 
 schoolmaster is going into all the earth ; and, with 
 an instructed mind and an open Bible, the priest will 
 not be long endured as a substitute for the preacher, 
 nor the saying of mass for the proclamation of the 
 glorious gospel of salvation. Despotic governments, 
 too, which lent the power of the state to the priest, 
 to assist him in riveting the chains of bondage on 
 the people, are becoming more free. In many na- 
 tions they have passed, in many more they are pass- 
 ing, away. The old feudal system and popery form- 
 ed the upper and the nether millstone, in the mill 
 in which the people were ground down to the state 
 requisite to suit your purposes. One of these stones, 
 the feudal system, is broken. It will require all 
 your wits to go on grinding with the other. 
 
 In addition to all this, intercourse among the na- 
 tions is rapidly increasing. By the power of steam 
 the most distant people are made neighbors ; and 
 by the application of magnetism the thoughts of men 
 are made to travel round the earth, with a velocity 
 far surpassing that of the sun. That stagnation of 
 mind, and of the mass, which is the true element of 
 popery, as of all superstition, is broken up ; and at 
 the prospect of a steam engine whistling through 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. Sl 
 
 Italy on a railway, the papal world is alarmed. And 
 thus the causes which gave rise to your church, and 
 whose continuance for so many ages enabled it to 
 maintain its fearful pre-eminence, are rapidly pass- 
 ing away. It would seem as if, for the last four hun- 
 dred years, every thing vv^as operating against her. 
 The sacking of Constantinople — the discovery of the 
 art of printing, and of the mariner's compass, and of 
 this new world — the Reformation by Luther — the 
 firmness and the weakness of princes — the periods 
 of war and peace — the passing' away of old and the 
 rise of new dynasties — the virtues and the vices of 
 popes, prelates, and priests — their learning and their 
 ignorance — bloody and bloodless revolutions — ^the 
 pragmatic sanction of Charles VII. — the revocation 
 of the Edict of Nantz, by Louis XIV. — the irrup- 
 tions of infidelity, and the revivals of true religion, 
 all, all have been directed by the hand of God, so as 
 to weaken the foundations, and as to hasten the de- 
 sired period of her final fall. 
 
 6. And more than all this, it is my strong convic- 
 don that God has ordained the total extinction of your 
 church. I will not detain you. Sir, nor my readers, 
 with any dissertations upon the prophecies bearing 
 on this point — this would be aside from my object. 
 John, when wrapt in vision in Patmos, informs us 
 that Babylon " shall be utterly burned with fire," 
 and calls upon God's people to " come oat of her," 
 that they might not be partakers of hei sins, nor re- 
 ceive of her plagues. And Paul tells us that the 
 
6t kirwan's letters 
 
 Lord shall consume " that wicked " with the spirit 
 of his mouth, and destroy him with the brightness of 
 his rising. And by " Babylon," and " that wicked," 
 I believe Paul and John mean the papal church. It 
 has already lost its civil power. Once she could 
 dethrone kings, and absolve subjects from their alle- 
 giance : now, in a civil point of view, there is no 
 weaker power upon earth. Metternich can send his 
 Austrian troops into the States of the Church without 
 fearing the least injury from the successor of Greg- 
 ory the Great ! How is the miglity fallen ! Ronge 
 in Germany, excited to opposition by the impositions 
 of the holy coat of Treves, has led out one hundred 
 thousand from the yoke of your church ; and all that 
 his Holiness can do is, to bear it. Even in the city 
 of New-York, the resolute Germans are flocking out 
 from the care of Holy Mother ; and all that you can 
 do is, to flourish your crook, your keys, and your 
 crosier around the altar of St. Patrick's, without the 
 least power to stop one of the wandering sheep. The 
 temporal power of your church is gone; the spirit- 
 ual is fast going after it. And the time will soon be 
 here, when the pen of the historian will write. The 
 Church of Rome was, but is not. 
 
 How this is to be done, is a question of some im- 
 portance, and upon which I have my own opinions, 
 A careful looking at past providences may cast some 
 light upon the future, and inspire hope or fear, ac- 
 cording to the relation we sustain to God and his 
 church. You know, Sir, the way in which God 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 83 
 
 treated Pharaoh, and the Canaanites, and how he 
 blotted out the nations that opposed the progress of 
 his people. You know the way and manner in 
 which he broke up the Jewish church and state, for 
 their opposition to Christ and his church! You 
 know how the Reformation progressed, from small 
 beginnings, until it opened a new epoch in the world's 
 History — from what was considered a little ecclesias- 
 tical gladiatorship, until kingdoms were shaken — 
 until thrones, cemented by ages, were convulsed and 
 tottered to their base — until hostile armies met in 
 deadly combat, and fattened the earth with the blood 
 of the Papist and the Protestant. God has the con- 
 trol of all agencies to accomplish his will. Much 
 will be done for the extinction of your church by 
 education — much by the general influence of learn- 
 ing — much, very much by ihe circulation of the 
 Bible — much more by the simple and fervent preach- 
 ing of the gospel to the masses, as did Luther — and 
 much by the direct agency of Him, in whose sight 
 the nations are as a drop in the bucket, and who will 
 overturn and overturn, until He shall come whose 
 right it is to reign. 
 
 These, Rev. Sir, are in brief my reasons for be- 
 believing that your church is destined to utter ex- 
 tinction. No reasons can be drawn for its future 
 continuance, from its continuance until now. If 
 your people had not been papists, they might have 
 been pagans or infidels. The Canaanites remained 
 a long time in the land to perplex the Jews. Pagan- 
 
kirwan's letters 
 
 ism continued for ages in the Roman world, after its 
 conversion to Christianity. Yet both became ex- 
 tinct, save as paganism has been perpetuated by your 
 people. Nor can any argument be drawn from the 
 occasional conversions to your communion which 
 are now occurring. You know that in ages past 
 some Christian ministers relapsed into idolatry ; and 
 that during the French Revolution some of your 
 bishops, and many of your priests, went over to in- 
 fidelity. You must lay no flattering unction to your 
 soul from arguments like these. Your church is 
 opposed to the truth of God — to the people of God — 
 to the will of God. The shed blood of the martyrs 
 is crying to heaven against it. Its extinction is cer- 
 tain ; and may God hasten it, in his own time and 
 way. 
 
 With the most sincere prayers for your temporal 
 and eternal welfare, I remain, with great respect, 
 Your fellow-countryman and fellow-sinner, 
 
 Kir WAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 85 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 To all, and especially to American, Roman Catholics : 
 
 My DEAR Friends, — Having addressed a series 
 of letters to one of your most celebrated and excel- 
 lent bishops in this country, the Right Reverend 
 John Hughes, of New York, candidly stating the 
 reasons which induced me to abandon the Roman 
 Catholic Church, and which prevent my return to 
 it, I desire, before I lay aside my pen, perhaps never 
 to be resumed on this subject, to address myself to 
 you. And I turn from the bishop to you, for vari- 
 ous reasons, some of which I desire in the briefest 
 manner to state. 
 
 1. Whilst entirely honest, I believe you to be a 
 people deluded by your priests. They have taken 
 from you the Bible — they forbid you to reason on 
 the subject of religion — they have filled your minds 
 with prejudices against all who resist or question 
 their authority — they have imposed upon you for 
 doctrines the commandments of men — and they have 
 impressed upon you the belief that with them is the 
 power to admit or to exclude you from heaven. In 
 stating these things I say what I do know, and what 
 you know. With me it is no theory, for I have felt 
 it all. 
 
 2. 1 believe you to be a people impoverished and 
 
 6 
 
86 kirwan's letters 
 
 degraded by your pmsts. The reasons for my 
 opinion on this subject are stated in the preceding 
 letters. Ignorance being the parent of papal devo- 
 tion, the priests have shut out from you the light of 
 knowledge. Ignorance begets vice, and vice is the 
 parent of poverty. Or if ignorance begets not vice, 
 it is the rank soil in which superstition attains its 
 most magnificent growth. And which most de- 
 grades a people, vice or superstition, it is not worth 
 the while to inquire. I verily believe it impossible 
 to be a true papist without sinking the man. 
 
 3. I believe that the papal world need look for 
 no redress of grievances, for no true reformation, 
 from its prelates or priests. The history of the 
 world, and the history of the church, and the prir>. 
 ciples of human nature, forbid us to entertain the 
 idea. How few and far between, the instances in 
 which despotic kings, or rulers, of their own accord, 
 retrenched their expenditures to relieve the burdens 
 of their subjects, or yielded their usurped rights to 
 increase the liberty of their people. And what of 
 civil liberty the nations possess, has cost the people 
 ages of contest with tyrants, and rivers of blood. 
 
 And when have high ecclesiastics ever led the 
 way in salutary reformation ? Not at the advent of 
 Jesus Christ. It was the High Priest that sat in 
 Moses' seat, and his subordinates that nailed to the 
 cross the Lord of glory. It was the commission of 
 the high priest to persecute the dissenters at Damas- 
 cus from the order established at Jerusalem, that 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 87 
 
 Saul of Tarsus carried in his pocket, when he was 
 arrested by heaven. The Reformers of the six- 
 teenth century, whom your priests delight to dis- 
 honor, but yet who have given civil and religious 
 liberty to the world, were hunted, as by bloodhounds, 
 by the high ecclesiastics of their day. Every religious 
 reform of permanent utility, and in every land upon 
 which the sun shines, has been in consequence of 
 the united action of the people. There occurs not 
 to me now an instance to the contrary. 
 
 It is not in human nature to surrender power once 
 possessed — nor to give up a gainful traffic — nor, for 
 the sake of benefitinor or enriching the mass, to 
 yield up privileges. Grace leads to many sacrifices 
 to do good to men ; but nature holds on to the privi- 
 leges of order, station, cast, however they may bear 
 upon the people ; and if ever the people are freed 
 from them, it must be by their own acts. Roman 
 Catholics ! you have nothing to expect from your 
 priests, but the perpetuation of their bad dominion 
 over your mind and conscience ; and their vigilant 
 and united efforts to crush every man, and every 
 influence, that would weaken it. The principles 
 of your church forbid its reformation — a true refor- 
 mation would be the end of it — there is no alterna- 
 tive for you but to abandon it. 
 
 These are the reasons, Roman Catholics, why I 
 turn to you, and why I would implore you, by all 
 that is to be desired in a mind free to think, — in a 
 soul free to love and to act, — free in its access to 
 
88 kirwan's letters 
 
 God without priestly taxes and interferences ; — by 
 all that is to be desired in the social and religious 
 elevation of your children, and in the moral regen- 
 eration of your race, to rise, and to fling from 
 around you the chains forged in the dark ages, and 
 with which priests would bind you to their footstools 
 in this age of light. 
 
 You must ren ember that your position in these 
 United States is very different from what is that of 
 those yet living in the papal countries of Europe. 
 Here you are free to think, and act for yourselves. 
 In Ireland you might be afraid of the priest's whip, 
 or of his cursing you from the altar. I have seen 
 myself a priest whip a man in the street ; and I 
 have heard the same priest curse the same man from 
 the altar. But, here, his whip has no terror, and 
 his curses are harmless. 
 
 And, then, as to those of you from Ireland, you 
 are in a very different position, as to the Protestant 
 community, from what you were at home. Protes- 
 tants here are your friends. You are not taxed 
 to support a religion you hate. Your cow or your 
 pig are not driven from your door to pay your tithes. 
 There is nothing here to chafe your mind, or to irri- 
 tate your feelings, or to give cause to your priests 
 for fiery appeals to your passions. Whatever may 
 be the feelings of wicked men towards you, there is 
 no", a pious Protestant in the land that would not do 
 you good, and that would not interpose to protect 
 you from wrong. So that the hostile feelings to- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 89 
 
 wards Protestants which had an excuse in Ireland, 
 have 10 excuse here. If you wish to think for 
 yourselves there are thousands to defend you ; — and 
 if, on examination, you think as I do about popery, 
 and quit the church, you have nothing to fear from 
 priestly anathemas hurled at you, or after you, from 
 the altar ; nor from an ignorant rabble that would 
 persecute you as an apostate. 
 
 There is one point, my friends, to which I would 
 direct your special attention. From your cradle 
 you have been taught to regard your priests as pos- 
 sessing peculiar spiritual powers which you resist at 
 your peril. And in every way and form they seek 
 to impress you with the belief that they possess such 
 powers, and that their communication with heaven 
 is beyond that of ordinary mortals. Now this is an 
 old device, and one that is practiced very widely 
 for the purpose of awing the common and vulgar 
 mind. Thus did the ancient priests of Egypt, who 
 taught the people to worship the sun, the cow, the 
 cat, and the snake. Thus do the priests of Brahma 
 at the present day. Some of them, by their pre- 
 tended intercourse with heaven, have become so holy 
 that the people consider the water in which they 
 wash their feet holy, and seek to be sprinkled with 
 it with intense earnestness. The Calmucs believe 
 in a priesthood, all of which is united in Lama, who 
 is absorbed in deity. Tie old Romans had their 
 priests, and their oracles, that were regarded as 
 knowing and declaring the mind of the gods. Their 
 
 8* 
 
90 
 
 power over the people was immense. And when 
 pagan Rome became papal it was a point greatly 
 desired to retain the power of the pagan priest over 
 the people in the hands of the papal. It was 
 attained ; and it has been retained. And the power 
 claimed by your priests for the better subjecting you 
 to their yoke, is the power claimed by all the priests 
 of heathenism and Mahometanism, and for the very 
 same purpose. It is the claim of fanatics and im- 
 postors in all climes and among all people. And 
 whether set up on the banks of the Ganges, or of 
 the Tiber ; — on the shores of the Bosphorus, or on 
 the banks of the Hudson, its object is to exalt tlie 
 priest that he may govern the people. Your priests 
 have no more power with God than any good man 
 in the land, — nor as much, unless they are equally 
 pious. If not pious and sincere, they are simply 
 impostors, who make a living by their traffic in 
 your souls. 
 
 Once secure a just and scriptural view of the 
 character of a true minister of Christ, and of the 
 great end of a gospel ministry, and the whole frame- 
 work of popery vanishes. The end of the gospel 
 ministry is, to hold up a crucified Christ as God'% 
 great remedy for the sins, and guilt, and woes of our 
 race, and so to expound the moral state of the sin- 
 ner, and the adaptedness of the work of Christ to 
 that state, as to lead him to see that his only hope of 
 life is in the cross, and then to beseech him, in Christ's 
 stead, to be reconciled to God. This being the end 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 91 
 
 of the ministry, a true minister is one, who, with the 
 love of God and of the salvation of men filling his 
 soul, goes out into all the ways v-'hich providence 
 opens before him, preaching every where, as did 
 Peter and Paul, " repentance towards God, and faith 
 in our Lord Jesus Christ." He has only one ob- 
 ject — to lead ?nen to the knowledge of the truth. He 
 carries no wafers to convert into Christs ; he makes 
 no pretensions to the power of regenerating souls by 
 baptizing them ; he calls not upon men to confess to 
 him, but to God ; he has no unmeaning masses to 
 mutter ; no relics to sell ; no unmeaning rites to en- 
 join ; no olive oil, or holy salt, or holy water, to drive 
 away demons. He goes out, wearing no sacerdotal 
 garments to astonish the vulgar, with an open Bible 
 to expound it, praying that the Holy Ghost may so 
 apply its truths to the hearts of his hearers that they 
 may be created anew in Christ Jesus unto good 
 works. To those who believe, he administers the 
 rite of baptism ; and as God gives him opportunity, 
 he administers the Lord's supper to the faithful, for 
 the purpose of commemorating the death of Christ, 
 until he comes the second time, without sin, unto 
 salvation. Such were the ministers of Christ before 
 the rise of popery ; and such only are the true min- 
 isters of Christ now. If so, will you bear the impo- 
 sitions of your priests an hour longer ? 
 
 There is one other point to which I would direct 
 your special attention, because it is one upon which 
 you have been greatly deceived : 1 mean the church. 
 
03 kirwan's letters 
 
 Every GfTort has been put forth by your priests to 
 mystify this topic, and to deceive you in reference 
 to it. All who truly believe in Jesus Christ, and 
 practice the precepts of his word, are reconciled to 
 God. They are adopted into the family of God— 
 they are the sons and daughters of the Lord AL 
 mighty. A connexion of such with any branch of 
 the visible church, does not interfere with their coiv 
 nexion with the family of God. No good man is lost, 
 and no bad man is saved, because of their connexion 
 with any church. As a man may be a true Papist 
 and be a Jesuit, or a Jansenist, or a monk of La 
 Trappe, or a shorn friar, so he may be a true Chris- 
 tian, and a member both of the visible and invisible 
 church, and be a Protestant or a Papist, and a mem- 
 ber of any of the sects into which they are both di- 
 vided, which hold to the true atonement of Jesus 
 Christ. But you will ask, Have you no preference 
 for one branch of the church above another ? I have. 
 You ask again. What branch is it ? That in which 
 the most truth and the least error, the most simpli- 
 city and the least pompousness, exist. Of course, 
 the very last branch I would select would be, the 
 papal ; and in the Protestant church, the very last 
 branch I would select is, that which is most like the 
 papal The true unity of the church is unity in the 
 truth, and union to Christ. 
 
 Rip-ht views of the ministry of Christ, and of the 
 church of Christ, in one hour, blow the whole fabric 
 of popery into the air. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 93 
 
 In this appeal to you, Roman Catholics, I am no 
 interested party. It would not be a cent in my 
 pocket if every man of you were to abandon the 
 pope to-morrow ; nor will it be a cent out of it if 
 every man of you continue to believe that your 
 priests can turn a wafer into Christ — and regenerate 
 you by baptism — and absolve you from your sins — 
 and get you admission to heaven, by rubbing you 
 with olive oil, when dying. Can Bishop Hughes, or 
 your priests say this ? Why, then, you ask, this so- 
 licitude about us ? On these accounts : I know you 
 to be deceived, and I desire you to be undeceived. 
 I know that you are led to place dependence on rites 
 and ceremonies, for a preparation for the life to 
 come, which give no such preparation. I know that 
 you are robbed of your money, for services that only 
 tend to degrade you — that you are deprived of the 
 dearest rights of man, an open Bible, and free ac- 
 cess to God, for yourselves, without any saintly or 
 priestly attorneys to plead for you. I see you ham- 
 pered and fettered on every hand. By telling the 
 priest every thing you do, you put your peace and 
 liberty into his hands. You cannot I'ead the Bible 
 without his license, and be a good Catholic. You 
 cannot retain your standing, and read any book 
 which he prohibits, or fail in any duty which he en- 
 joins. You cannot bow your knee before God, with 
 a Protestant, around his family altar, without the 
 terror of a severe penance when you next go to con- 
 fession. I see you freemen, in a land of freedom. 
 
M KIRWAN S LETTERS 
 
 and yet the veriest slaves that tread the soil, because 
 your minds and souls are in fetters. I see you a 
 noble people, yielding a degrading homage to men 
 that deceive you, and sustaining, even in your pov- 
 erty, with a princely liberality, institutions that de- 
 grade you. And I desire, with an irrepressible 
 desire, to see you the subjects of the perfect law of 
 liberty with which Christ makes his people free. 
 These, my friends, are the reasons of my solicitude 
 about you. 
 
 However I feel towards the system of popery, or 
 towards the priests of the system, there is but one 
 feeling and one desire in my heart towards you : 
 that feeling is one of affection and interest — and that 
 desire is, that you may be emancipated from a sys- 
 tem of superstition and spiritual despotism, as de- 
 grading and grinding as any that God has ever per- 
 mitted to exist. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 95 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Conclusion. The Indian devotee — Faith in Christ saves — The dying thief 
 — Peter at the feast of Pentecost — The plan of Salvation — The Gospel 
 and Papal way of Salvation contrasted — A call upon Irish Roman Cath- 
 olics. 
 
 My dear Friends, — But a few years since a 
 Christian minister in India, in the pursuit of the 
 objects of his holy mission, met with a Hindoo 
 devotee. A noonday sun was pouring its burning 
 rays from a burning sky, upon the burning sands 
 on which the meeting took place. From its heat the 
 devotee had no protection save the piece of cloth 
 which hung around his loins. He wore a pair of 
 sandals pierced with iron nails, which, at every step, 
 penetrated the muscles and nerves which are so 
 wonderfully collected and interwoven in the soles of 
 the feet. His sandals were filled with his blood, 
 which marked his every footstep. He was an object 
 frightful to behold — his body blistered by the sun, 
 his hair clotted with filth hanging around his head, 
 his feet swollen, bleeding and painful, almost re- 
 fusing to move. The missionary asked him why 
 he wore those sandals, and why he subjected him- 
 6elf to such intense suffering? He replied, that he 
 had committed great sins which were greatly offen- 
 sive to the gods, and that in order to secure the for- 
 giveness of those sins he wore those sandals, and 
 cheerfully submitted to all his sufferings. 
 
96 
 
 Filled with compassion for the deluded man, the 
 minister of God told him that he could show him a 
 way in which he could secure the forgiveness of 
 his great sins without those sandals, and without 
 subjecting himself to such terrible sufferings. " Is 
 there such a way, and if so, what is it ?" exclaimed 
 the devotee, with the most intense interest. " There 
 is such a way," replied the missionary; and taking 
 his Bible, he read to him and expounded the follow- 
 ing passage : " For God so loved the world that he 
 gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
 in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 
 John 3 : 16. He told the poor deluded man of the 
 sins of men — of the love of God in giving his Son 
 to die for the sins of those who should believe on 
 nim — of the birth, and sufferings, and death, of 
 Jesus Christ — and he especially dwelt upon this one, 
 great, glorious, and scriptural idea, that he that be- 
 lieves on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved. The 
 devotee heard with amazement. He believed. He 
 rejected the false religion of his fathers, though 
 sanctioned by a thousand ages. He renounced sub- 
 jection to his priests and their traditions. He flung 
 from him his nailed and bloody sandals, by walking 
 in which he supposed he was saving his soul by the 
 tortures of his body. He received Christian bap- 
 tism at the hands of the man of God that taught 
 him the more excellent way, and lived and died in 
 the faith and hope of the Gospel. 
 
 In many respects your circumstances, Roman 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 97 
 
 Catholics, widely differ from what were those ci" this 
 Hindoo devotee. You live in a land, and in an age 
 of light. You form parts of a great community, 
 which is penetrated in every direction by moral and 
 religious influences. And yet in many respects 
 your circumstances are like unto his. You are de- 
 luded by priests — you believe in their ghostly power, 
 and your soul submits to it — you are looking to your 
 confessions, and penances, and austerities, for salva- 
 tion — you are excluded from the light of the Bible 
 —with all simplicity and honesty you pray to saints, 
 and to the virgin ; and perform all that is laid upon 
 you by your father confessor, and in this way, 
 through the religion of the priest, and not through 
 the religion of the gospel, you hope to get to heaven. 
 But you are deceived. Your hopes are honest, but 
 they are built upon a wrong foundation. It is not 
 by doing, or suffering, but by heUeving, that we can 
 attain unto the salvation of the soul. " He that be- 
 lieveth on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved, and 
 he that believeth not shall be damned." " He that 
 believeth on the Son hath life." Roman Catholics! 
 my brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh, 
 follow, then, the example of the Hindoo devotee. 
 Give up your beads, and your Agnus Dei — your 
 penances and ritual observances — your crosses, 
 your confessions to men, and your holy water ; and 
 go to your Bibles and to the Saviour of the Bible. 
 What all your rites and observances can never 
 accomplish, simple faith in Jesus Christ accona- 
 
 9 
 
98 
 
 plishes, and in the moment faith fixes itself upon a 
 crucified Christ. 
 
 That you may see this clearly, permit me to state 
 to you another incident. When our Lord was put 
 to death, the wicked Jews, the more deeply to de- 
 grade him, caused him to be crucified between two 
 thieves. One of these saw, in the convulsions of 
 nature around him, the evidences of the divinity of 
 Him who was hanging by his side on the cross ; and 
 whilst his companion in wickedness derided and blas- 
 phemed, he cried out from the depths of a convicted 
 and believing soul unto Jesus, " Lord, remember me 
 when thou comest in thy kingdom." The following 
 is the reply of the Saviour : " To-day shalt thou be 
 with me in paradise." Here, you see, my friends, 
 are no penances — no prayers to saints — no holy wa- 
 ter — no olive oil, blessed on Maunday-Thursday— 
 no purgatory ; it is simply failh in Jesus Christ, then 
 death, and then paradise, which is only another name 
 for heaven ! What was it that opened heaven to this 
 dying thief, and gave him admission to its happy 
 mansions, as one of the redeemed of the Lord ? It 
 was simply faith in Jesus Christ. " He that believ- 
 eth in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved." And 
 the faith which opened heaven to the dying thief, 
 will open it to you. Faith is the key which opens hea- 
 ven to your souls, and not baptism, nor the eucharist, 
 nor penance, nor extreme unction. Give up, then, 
 your crosses and your pictures, and your depend- 
 ence upon saints and sacraments, and go to Jesus 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 99 
 
 Christ for yourselves — with true hearts say, " Lord, 
 I believe, help thou my unbelief," and life, eternal 
 life is yours. 
 
 That you may see this clearly, permit me to state 
 yet another incident. The Apostle Peter never said 
 a mass in his life — he never changed a wafer into 
 the body and blood of Christ — he never sent a poor 
 sinner to pray to a saint or virgin — he never went 
 into a little box, or a dark room, to hear confession. 
 He was a simple, warm-hearted preacher, and, in 
 his day, labored to impress upon the minds of men 
 these two truths — that Jesus Christ was the promised 
 Messiah, and that all that believed in him would be 
 saved. Now, we learn from the second chapter of 
 the Acts of the Apostles, that Peter preached to the 
 multitudes assembled at Jerusalem to keep the feast 
 of Pentecost, with great power. He mightily con- 
 vinced them, from the Scriptures, that God had 
 made the Jesus whom they crucified both Lord and 
 Christ. Convicted of their deep sinfulness, by his 
 powerful preaching, and by the Holy Spirit, multi- 
 tudes crowd around him, asking, " What shall we 
 do to be saved ?" What does he say in reply ? 
 Does he tell them to go to confession — or to do pen- 
 ance — or to fast on Lent, or on Fridays ? Does he 
 send them to the saints, to ask their intercession I 
 Nothing like this. What, then, does he say ? " Re- 
 pent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name 
 of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
 receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." They obeyed ; 
 
100 KIRWAN S LETTERS 
 
 that is, they forsook their sins — they believed in Je- 
 sus Christ — they were baptized in his name — and 
 on that occasion three thousand souls were added to 
 the church. 
 
 My dear Roman Catho.ic friends, I once suffered 
 just as you now do, because of my utter ignorance 
 as to the way of forgiveness with God. I was taught 
 all about confession, and confirmation, and penance, 
 and saints' days, and fastings, and holy water, and 
 saying " Hail Mary." I looked upon the priest as 
 the door-keeper of heaven, without whose permission 
 there was no admittance. But I knew nothing about 
 the Bible, and was taught nothing about the work of 
 Christ for the sinner, nor about the work of the Spi- 
 rit in him. In great mercy, and in the way stated 
 in my letters to Bishop Hughes, I became a reader 
 of the Bible ; and to my utter amazement, I found 
 there taught, with perfect plainness, the way of sal- 
 vation, which the priest had wrapped up in mystery 
 inextricable. The wayfaring man, though a fool, 
 may understand the way in which a soul may be 
 saved, as taught in the Bible — it is beyond the com- 
 prehension of Gabriel, as taught by your priests. Do 
 any of you ask, as did the heathen jailer of Philippi, 
 when terrified by the effects of the crashing earth- 
 quake, " What shall I do to be saved ?" Permit 
 me, as a friend, who has no object in view but your 
 temporal and eternal good, to place before you what 
 I regard as the scripf.ural answer to tPiis momentous 
 question. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 101 
 
 1. You must feel that you are a sinner, exceed- 
 ingly, in the sight of God. The Bible teaches us 
 that we are sinners by nature and by practice. It 
 is one thing to believe this — it is another to feel it. 
 You must feel it. No man ever sends for a physi- 
 cian until he feels that he is sick. The people to 
 whom Peter preached never asked what they should 
 do to be saved, until " they were pricked in their 
 heart." 
 
 2. You must feel and know that there is no way 
 of securing the pardon of your sins, but through the 
 redemption there is in Christ Jesus. We are ex- 
 pressly taught, " there is no other name under hea- 
 ven given among men whereby we must be saved." 
 Acts iv. 12. This is an idea that your mind must 
 grasp with all its powers ; and which you are in 
 danger of letting slip, because of the way and man- 
 ner in which you have been instructed, as to the 
 efficacy of sacraments, and priestly manipulations, 
 and ritual observances. 
 
 3. You must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 This is the end and the sum of all the instructions of 
 the New Testament to sinners. This is the com- 
 mandment of God, that ye believe in the name of his 
 Son. Faith brings you into a living union with 
 Christ, for whose sake alone you are accepted and 
 saved. 
 
 Here, then, we have the trvie answer to the ques- 
 tion, " What shall I do to be saved ? " You must feel 
 that you are a sinner ; and you must feel that none 
 
 9* 
 
102 EIR WAN's LETTERS 
 
 but Christ can save you ; and in heart and s<iul you 
 must cordially receive him, as made unto you of 
 God wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, 
 and redemption. A sense of sin will induce you to 
 seek for its remedy. Christ crucified, bearing the 
 sins of his people in his own body on the tree, is 
 God's remedy for sin. And believing in Christ is 
 the application of the remedy. And believing in 
 Christ, should you die the very next hour, your soul 
 would go, cleansed by his atoning blood, to join the 
 general assembly and church of the first-born in 
 heaven. 
 
 Need I stop, ere I close this letter, to place in con- 
 trast before you the gospel plan of salvation with the 
 plan of your priests ? Must not the contrast strike 
 yourselves, as you read and ponder ? You ask 
 what you must do to be saved ? The priest tells 
 you to confess — to do penance — to pray to the 
 saints — to keep Lent — to eat no meat on stated days 
 — to go. to mass — to torture your body. And when 
 all this is done, when you come to die you must be 
 anointed with olive oil, blessed on Maunday-Thurs- 
 day. Nor will this do. You have then to go to 
 purgatory, to atone for your venial sins by your own 
 suffering, unless you are bought out by the alms and 
 suffrages of the faithful, in paying for masses for 
 your deliverance ! What a long, and complicated, 
 and expensive process ! And after all, there is no 
 telling the time when the suffrages of the faithful, or 
 the masses of the priests, will secure vour deliver- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 103 
 
 ance from purgatorial fires ! What a dark and fear- 
 ful process ! 
 
 In the face of all this, the gospel declares to you 
 that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin ; and 
 that whosoever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ 
 shall be saved. It offers you a free, a full, a perfect 
 salvation, and without any priestly interferences, 
 and " without money and without price." 
 
 Can you hesitate a moment between the plan of 
 the priest and the plan of the gospel ? The one de- 
 bases you as a man — makes you the slave of the 
 priest, and cheats you of heaven : the other addresses 
 you as a moral and intellectual being — sends you to 
 the cross for yourself — gives you free access to God, 
 and secures for you eternal life. 
 
 Irish Roman Catholics ! would that I could induce 
 you to look at this great subject in the light of the 
 Bible. It is intimately connected with your tempo- 
 ral and eternal interests, and with the interests of 
 unborn generations. When a boy, I often heard, 
 and never but with burning indignation, of the ma- 
 gistrate, the tool of British power, entering the houses 
 of the Irish suspected of disaffection, and tearing 
 from its frame the speech of Emmet, made in reply 
 to the question of the blood-thirsty judge that tried 
 him, " What he had to say, why the sentence of 
 death should not be passed against him according to 
 law ? " The British ministry felt that that speech 
 fostered the spirit of freedom in the Irish bosom, and 
 made every man that read it to resolve, at whatever 
 
104 kirwan's letters 
 
 expense, to be free ; and they destroyed every copy 
 of it that could be found, and forbad its publication. 
 As my kindred were among the disaffected ones, I 
 felt it to the quick, and so feel it yet. And what, 
 fhink you, must be my feelings now, in the vigor of 
 my manhood, when I see, in this free land, the de- 
 scendants of those who fought at Vinegar Hill, and 
 at Tara, permitting individuals calling themselves 
 the priests of the religion of God, to enter their 
 houses and take away their Bibles, and to forbid them, 
 by the terrors of eternity, to think for themselves, 
 on the most important of all subjects connected with 
 their being ! It is the very feeling that prompted the 
 Ri'itish spies to destroy the speech of Emmet, that 
 now prompts your priests to destroy your Bibles, 
 The one fostered the spirit of civil, the other of reli- 
 gious freedom. The British ministry wished to 
 suppress the breathing of your fathers after civil 
 liberty : your priests wish to suppress the breathings 
 of you, their children, after religious freedom. And 
 will you, the sons of noble sires, submit, in a land 
 of freedom, to wear the galling chains of spiritual 
 bondage ? Will you submit to have these chains 
 clanking around you to the grave— and when you 
 die to have them bound upon your children, and for 
 no earthly purpose but to sustain a priesthood and a 
 hierarchy, for whose utter overthrow the civil and 
 religious interests of the nations, and the temporal 
 and eternal interests of our race, are calling aloud 
 lo heaven ? 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 105 
 
 If SO, with a slight variation, mine will be the lan- 
 guage of the pious Jeremiah, who had the civil and 
 the religious welfare of his people equally at heart : 
 O that ray head were waters, and mine eyes a foun- 
 tain of tears, that I might weep day and night for 
 the blindness and folly of my people. 
 
 My letters are ended. T commit them to you, 
 Roman Catholics, and to the blessing of Almighty 
 God. 
 
 With great respect, yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
BISHOP HUGHES CONFUTED. 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 RT. REV. JOHN HUGHES, 
 
 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NEW YORK. 
 
 BY 
 
 THIRD SERIES. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION, 
 
 NO. 265 CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 rAOB 
 ISTRODUOTORY NoT . . • t . • • • 5 
 
 LETTER I. 
 Introduction — Free discussion important — Bp. Hughes conuxiencmg 
 answering before reading Kirwan — Excuse for the charge of insin- 
 eerity — Other accounts settled — Controversy on Romanism among 
 the people — Object of these letters ..«..<. 7 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Bishop Hughes' letters characterized — Coolness of their statement*— 
 Their argument one enforcing despotism — The principle that the Bi- 
 ble has no authority but what the church gives it, and that it mast 
 be undersood as the cbarch interprets it, examined . 17 
 
 LETTER HL 
 Examination of Chaicb interpretation continued . • • • • 27 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 Examination of Church interpretation continued — its destructive coa- 
 sequences — It is • monstrous assumption 36 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 The Papal Church theory — A mistake in selecting Peter for the tiara 
 —The prayer of Christ for Peter realized, for him and all his suo- 
 oessors — The question, Was Peter pope ? examined . . ♦ . 44 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 Was Peter pope 1 examination continued — But two arguments that 
 cannot be answered — Tillotsou's opinion ...••• 53 
 
4 COWTtrJTS. 
 
 LETTER VII 
 Papal claim to infallibility examined, and refuted «... 90 
 
 LETTER Vin. 
 
 The assertion that there are but two principles, authority and reason, for 
 the determining of Uie meaning of Scripture, examined and coafoted 71 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 The Bishop's six letters to Kirwan reviewed . .... €8 
 
 LETTER X. 
 Ao appeal to all Roman Catholics *.•••., OS 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 When I ended my First Series of letters to 
 Bishop Hughes, I hoped and thought that my part in 
 the Romish controversy was also ended. Appeals, 
 however, were made to me that I could not resist, 
 for a new series, in the manner and spirit of tlie 
 first. I yielded ; and hence the Second Series. 
 Pledging myself not to reply to any attacks made 
 upon my letters, save by him to whom they were 
 addressed, and feeling, for reasons stated, that he 
 would not reply, I again supposed my work ended. 
 But contrary to my expectations, the bishop twice 
 attempted a reply, and with what spirit and success 
 I need not inform the public. His first letters are 
 as feeble as could be desired ; his second are in the 
 very worst spirit even of Popery, whose very best 
 >;pirit has but little to recommend it. The feeble- 
 ness of the first letters to Dear Reader, and the low 
 |)ersonalities, not to say vulgarities of those addressed 
 to Kirwan, reveal the true character of the author. 
 They might be published by Protestants in a sepa- 
 rate volume, which might be truly entitled, " Bishop 
 Hughes Unmasked." Those letters are reviewed 
 in the following pages. 
 
 1* 
 
6 INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 My objections to the system of Popery are stated 
 in my first and second series. They have not been 
 answered ; nor will they soon be. The bishop's rea- 
 sons for adherence to the Catholic Church are re- 
 viewed and confuted in the present series. The 
 present series pulls up the Upas tree by the roots ; 
 the former series lopped off its baleful branches; 
 together they lay down the rootless, branchless 
 trunk upon the earth to rot. 
 
 The arguments of these letters are not, of course, 
 new. All that I have attempted to do is to strip the 
 controversy of its learned heaviness ; by recasting 
 and simplifying, to bring it down to the comprehen- 
 sion of the common mind, and thus to prepare a 
 Manual on the subject adapted to universal circula- 
 tion. Such a manual, unless I mistake, was greatly 
 needed by Papists and Protestants, 
 
 I commit these letters to the kind care of God. 
 May His Spirit accompany their circulation, and 
 render them instrumental " in lifting up from the 
 world one of its heaviest curses." 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 NeiD-York, Septeir\ber, 1848. 
 
KIRWAK'S REPLY 
 
 TO TEE 
 
 RIGHT REV. JOHN HUGHES, 
 
 BISHOP OF NEW-YORK. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 iQtrodaction — Free discussion important — Bp. Hughes commencing answeiv 
 ing before reading Kirwan — Excuse for the charge of insincerity — Other 
 accounts settled — Controversy on Romanism among tiie people — Object 
 of these letters. 
 
 My dear Sir, — Contrary to all my expectations, 
 an'd in the face of the excuses which I made for 
 your silence, you have resolved, at length, to notice 
 the " Letters " which I have addressed to you. The 
 fact gives me unfeigned pleasure. It is hailed by 
 all those interested in the development of truth, and 
 in the exposure of error and imposture, as an omen 
 of good. Had you been silent on the subject of those 
 letters so would I have been. They were assailed 
 by some of your papers and priests throughout the 
 country, in a manner at once low and rude ; but I 
 made no reply. I was pledged to suffer the assaults of 
 such assailants to pass unnoticed. You, sir, well 
 
8 kirwan's reply 
 
 know that by multitudes who wear the garments of 
 religion, there are no manifestations of its grace, — 
 that many, in religious controversy, esteem vulgar 
 weapons the most effectual ; and that many treat an 
 opponent whose arguments they cannot refute, as 
 did the Jews the Saviour in the palace of the High 
 Priest, who " spit in his face, and buffeted him, and 
 smote him with the palms of their hands." In argu- 
 ments like these, your priests, especially those im- 
 ported from Ireland, are well versed. Nor would it 
 be any serious disadvantage to the cause of Protest- 
 antism if such arguments were confined to them. 
 Separating yourself from the priests over whom you 
 flourish your crook as chief shepherd, 1 stated in one 
 of my letters that should you reply, you " would 
 reply as a scholar and a gentleman." In the same 
 letter I also stated to you, that if you could secure 
 time enough from your varied occupations to reply 
 to some of my objections which forbid my return to 
 your church, " there was one at least that would 
 read your reply with great pleasure." And whilst 
 disappointed at the want of scholar-like and gentle- 
 manly bearing of your letters, I have yet hailed them 
 and read them with pleasure. 
 
 The history of the world, and of the progress of 
 truth, clearly prove the exceeding importance of free 
 discussion. From such discussion, conducted in a 
 right spirit, nothing can suffer but error and impos- 
 ture. This Protestantism courts, and Popery con- 
 demns where the power is in her hands. If you and 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 9 
 
 I, sir, lived in Austria, Spain, Sicily, or in the 
 States of the Church, your reply to my letters might 
 come, not in the Freeman's Journal, but in the way 
 of a warrant through the civil magistrate for my 
 imprisonment or banishment as a heretic. But here 
 we can have free discussion to the full ; and how- 
 ever you or your people may feel on the subject, I 
 am persuaded that Protestants are resolved to use 
 their privilege. And could your people think, and 
 read, and believe, and act for themselves, without 
 any of the terrors or trammels which your system 
 casts around them, I feel persuaded that two gener- 
 ations would reduce the spiritual power of the pope 
 your master to a yet lower point than that to which 
 his temporal power has fallen. Hence I hail your 
 letters as an advance toward free discussion, which 
 has ever been the desire of Protestants, because of 
 its tendency to the development of truth. 
 
 Permit me, in the briefest manner, and before I 
 proceed to other statements, to allude to a few things 
 in your introductory letter. Some of them to me, 
 and to many of your readers, appear singular 
 enough. 
 
 You begin by saying that 3^ou have " seen a 
 certain work announced and much lauded in the 
 papers, entitled " Kirwan's Letters to Bishop Hughes. 
 I have not read these letters, though I have twice 
 attempted to do so." And yet in the subsequent 
 paragraphs of this letter you seem to know that 
 Kirwan has treated you with personal respect — that 
 
10 
 
 he imputes to you a want of sincerity in the pro- 
 fession of the Catholic faith — that his letters have 
 attracted attention " by a sprightliness of style in 
 assailino; the doctrines of the Catholic Church, which 
 renders them a pleasing contrast to the filthy vo- 
 lumes that have been written on the same side, and 
 on the same subject," — you seem to know " the 
 great topics which Kirwan has discussed," and that 
 " he has published reasons for having left the Catho- 
 lic Church and for refusing to return." And for 
 these letters, which you so well understand without 
 having ever read them, you resolve to put forth an 
 antidote ! Now, sir, you either read Kirwan's Let- 
 ters, or you did not read them ; if you read them 
 why deny it ? if you did not read them, how caine 
 you by such an accurate knowledge of their con- 
 tents, and of their spirit ? And has the world ever 
 heard or read of a man seriously undertaking to 
 reply to a book which he has not read ? For your 
 own sake, sir, I wish all your assumed carelessness 
 here had more of an air of truthfulness ; for there 
 is not a man in or out of your church who reads, 
 your letter who will not say that you either read 
 Kirwan's Letters, or that you had them read to you. 
 And there was no need of exposing yourself to such 
 an imputation for the unworthy purpose of express- 
 ino- your contempt. I disclaim every thing person- 
 ally offensive to yourself when I say that, as to 
 truthfulness, papal priests have but little capital on 
 which to trade, and that they should be very spar- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 11 
 
 ing of what the}^ have. They are already trem- 
 blmg on the verge of bankruptcy. 
 
 You also complain that I do you great mjustice 
 by imputing to you a want of sincerity in your pro- 
 fession of belief in the Catholic faith. 1 felt when 
 I made it. and now feel, that the imputation is a 
 serious one. And yet I knew not how to withhold it ; 
 nor do I know now how to withdraw it. I can make 
 vast allowances for ignorance ; but you are not an 
 ignorant man. So I can make great allowance for 
 the prejudices of early training, and for the in- 
 fluences of a narrow and bigoted education when 
 so conducted as to fill the mind, not with knowledge, 
 but with error and superstition. But thus, unless 
 tl am misinformed, you have not been trained or 
 educated. I can also make allowance for well edu- 
 cated and well disciplined minds that have always 
 been excluded from contact with minds holding op- 
 posite sentiments ; and that are unaccustomed to 
 hear questioned the truth of their opinions ; but this 
 is not your case. You are no stranger to polite 
 society — to the company of educated men. You 
 well know that the doctrines peculiar to your church 
 are rejecied as not only unscriptural, but as unrea- 
 sonable, and as absurd, by the great mass of the 
 educated mind of our world. And how to account 
 for your professed belief in them I knew not, and 
 now know not. The thing came up before my 
 mind in this wise : Does Bishop Hughes believe 
 that a mass mumbled over, for half a dollar, will 
 
12 kirwan's reply 
 
 avail in getting a soul out of purgatory ? docs he 
 believe that a little wafer made of flour is converted 
 into the real l)ody and blood of Christ, by his conse- 
 cration of it ? Does he believe that he can send a 
 man to heaven by rubbing him with a little olive oil 
 when dying ? If he believes in these things he is a 
 dunce ; but he is not a dunce ; therefore he does 
 not believe them. This, sir, I frankly tell you, was 
 the train of thought which led me to the conclusion 
 of which you complain as an injurious imputation. 
 There was no alternative for me but to question 
 your sense or your sincerity ; and I preferred the 
 latter as on the whole the most pleasing to yourself. 
 I do not know that there is a livins; man who would 
 not prefer to be called a knave rather than a fool. 
 The first simply implies a sinful misdirection of his 
 sense, and may be the imputation of selfishness or 
 malice ; the other is a denial that he has any sense. 
 So that the imputation, instead of " betraying the 
 evil effects of my Presbyterian training," exhibits 
 rather " the generous instincts of my Irish nature " 
 in making for you the best apology that the case 
 would admit. 
 
 I think, sir, your friends will regret the whole 
 tone of your introductory letter, considering the 
 courtesy which I observed towards you. It exhi- 
 bits a spirit unworthy of a bishop. You could con- 
 tinue in silence without any one having a right to 
 impugn your motives ; but when you came forward 
 to reply you should have exhibited less irritation. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 13 
 
 I am sorry that my letters vexed if they failed to 
 convert you. Your conjecture and mistake, as to 
 my name, might have been omitted. Your regretg 
 over my Irish birth are ludicrous ; your saying 
 that you would rather I had been any body else'a 
 countryman than yours is probably among the 
 ti'uest things you have said. You know not why 
 I directed my letters to you ; this is owing to the 
 fact that you commenced answering before reading 
 them. You assert, as far as you know, that the 
 public never asked for my reasons for leaving your 
 church. Had I recently gone to confession to you, 
 you might think differently. You say it is a matter 
 of the least importance to Catholics whether I re- 
 turn or not. It is very likely that the sun would 
 rise and set without either of us ; it certainly did 
 so before we were born, and may continue to do 
 so after we are dead. It is not wise, even for a 
 bishop, to indulge the conceit that the sun rises in 
 his mouth and sets at his feet. But all this, sir, is 
 aside from the great object of my letters ; it is the 
 argumentum ad invidiam, and is unworthy of you 
 and of me. If my object in my letters to you — or 
 your object in the letters of which you make mine 
 the occasion — i)r the object of these letters in reply 
 to yours, is obtained, ^Ye must omit personalities, 
 and seek solely and only the truth. The truth 
 only is worthy the pursuit of high-minded and 
 Christian men. 
 
 You say, and truly, that the public mind is 
 2 
 
14 kirwan's reply 
 
 awake to the relative positions of the Catholic and 
 Protestant churches. This is emphatically so. Con- 
 troversies which hitherto have been confined to 
 universities and ecclesiastics are now down among 
 the people. Even the Italian mind, which the evil 
 influences of your church have almost extinguished, 
 is questioning the truth of your dogmas and forms, 
 and is breathing after emancipation from them. 
 Catholic Germany is in agitation, and the aid of 
 princes is invoked to prevent the people from be- 
 coming Protestant. The entire Catholic world is 
 in commotion, seeking to break the fetters wiih 
 which your popes and priests have bound it for 
 ages. In this land of our adoption all minds are 
 using the privilege of thinking freely secured to 
 them ; and where there is one Protestant that 
 passes over to your church, there are fifty Papists 
 who become Protestants. Your people begin to 
 feel that they have permitted their mercenary 
 priests to think for them long enough ; they now 
 commence thinking for themselves. And I am 
 pleased to inform you that even Kirwan's Letters 
 have been eagerly sought for by many of them, 
 and have been blessed to the hopeful conversion of 
 not a few. You say the Catholic religion is now 
 looked upon with less disfavor than formerly. I 
 am persuaded, sir, that you mistake upon this sub- 
 ject. Controversy has assumed a kinder tone, and 
 efforts are put forth in a more quiet and Christian 
 way than formerly ; but the mind of the world and 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 15 
 
 its piety were never more intently engaged for the 
 overthrow of Popery, than at the present hour. 
 You, sir, are regarded as at the head of a political 
 party — you are regarded as carrying the vote of 
 the papal Irish in your pocket. Papists, even here, 
 are regarded as so wedded to the pope, as to be 
 willing to cast their vote for the party that praises 
 him loudest. These, sir, are the reasons why you 
 misread the attentions which are paid yourself, and 
 the eulogies which are pronounced on the pope. 
 Some of the very men that flatter you in public, 
 and that applaud the pope in the Tabernacle, con- 
 temn you in their hearts, and pray at their family 
 altars that popish superstition may come to a per- 
 petual end. And you well know it all. 
 
 Yet, sir, there is an excitement on the public 
 mind which will secure a readins; for what vou or 
 I may say, kindly and intelligently, as to Popery or 
 Protestantism. I have stated my objections to your 
 church. It is a matter of public regret that you 
 Lave not resolved to meet and obviate them. You 
 have marked out, however, your own course ; you 
 have attempted to show the reasons why no Catho- 
 lic should forsake his church, and why all Pro- 
 testants should seek her communion as soon as 
 possible. It will be my pleasure to follow you step 
 by step, and to show the utter truthlessness of every 
 argument you have adduced to show that yours is 
 the one, holy, catholic and apostolical church, out 
 of whose communion there is no salvation. This 
 
16 kirwan's reply 
 
 no man has ever yet succeeded in doing. Can you 
 hope to be successful where others, more learned, 
 more acute, and less burdened with duties, have 
 failed ? 
 
 My objections to your church are before the 
 world. They stand there, abused, but unanswered. 
 This is one point gained. It will be gaining an- 
 other if 1 can show the baselessness of every argu- 
 ment you use to bind your people to it, and to 
 induce others to enter it. To do this will be my 
 objject in the following letters. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 17 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Bishop Hughes' letters characterized — Coolness of their statements — Their 
 argument one enforcing despotism — The principle that the Bible has no 
 authority but what the church gives it, and that it must be undersood as 
 the church interprets it, examined. 
 
 My dear Sir, — I now proceed to the examina- 
 tion of the letters which you have addressed to a 
 " Dear Reader," and of which mine to you have 
 been the occasion. I have taken the stand point 
 outside your church which you requested your 
 " Reader " to take, and there I have considered 
 and inwardly digested them. My views in refer- 
 ence to them I will now frankly and candidly give 
 to you and to the public. And if a word or senti- 
 ment shall escape me, not essential to my main 
 object, that will give you pain, I beg you to charge 
 it to the account of that frailty of our common 
 natures from which alas ! neither Peter nor his suc- 
 cessors were, or are exempt. 
 
 These letters give the old statement about the 
 papal being the only true church, and in the old 
 way ; a statement which has been better made 
 very many times. There is an utter absence from 
 it of freshness ; it is a mere distillation from other 
 
 2* 
 
IS kirwan's reply 
 
 minds wonderfully weakened in the process. Out 
 of the old beaten track of Christ appointing apostles 
 and making Peter their pope — of giving to them, 
 and especially to him, the keys of the kingdom, 
 you seem unable to take a step. And you present 
 the argument, if it can be so called, in the weakest 
 and dullest form that I have yet seen it. How to 
 account for this — whether on the ground of an 
 over-estimate of your talents, or that you are rea- 
 soning against your own interior convictions — I 
 know not. Although comparatively unknown, and 
 with but little general reputation at stake, I would 
 not be the author of them for your crook, keys, 
 and mitre. 
 
 A remarkable feature of these letters is the cool- 
 ness and confidence with which their statements 
 are made. These statements have been logically 
 and theologically refuted very many times ; and 
 yet you reproduce them with as much composure as 
 if they were the utterance of the divine Spirit ; as 
 if they were not the merest, and some of them the 
 most foolish assumptions. The argument of asser- 
 tion is one in which your church is very powerful, 
 because with a certain order of mind it is so potent. 
 With many it is sufficient to know that the pope, 
 the bishop or the priest says so. And it is diffi- 
 cult to conjecture what those may not say who 
 affirm that they can change a little wafer made of 
 flour into the real body and blood of Christ. But 
 you, sir, should know that you live not in the age 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 19 
 
 of Thomas Aquinas, and that you are read by in- 
 creasing multitudes in your own church, with whon\ 
 assertion is simply assertion. 
 
 The argument of these letters is one maintaining 
 and enforcing ecclesiastical despotism. Christ ap- 
 pointed apostles — over the twelve he placed Peter 
 as pope — to these and their successors he gave the 
 government of the church in all ages and countries ; 
 — and the power of the keys to admit or to exclude, 
 to bind or to loose, as they might deem meet. And 
 all who submit not to this external arrangement 
 which you call " the body of the Church," must be 
 both to God and to the church as heathen and pub- 
 licans. If this argument is true then there is not a 
 man on earth who can be saved, however he may 
 submit to the yoke of Christ, unless, in addition, he 
 puts on the yoke of the pope. And yet the gospel 
 is called a " law of liberty ;" and the generous and 
 warm-hearted Peter, who, although according to 
 your showing the first pope, yet wore no shackles, 
 declares, " of a truth I perceive that God is no 
 respecter of persons, but in every nation he that 
 feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted 
 of him." Sir, the monstrous conclusion to which 
 it leads proves your argument to be a monstrous 
 one ; and that argument is put forth at a time when 
 the divine right of kings and priests to enslave the 
 nations, civilly and spiritually, is passing away like 
 the foam upon the waters, before the indignant 
 scorn of the world ! The fate of the doctrine 
 
20 kirwjin's reply 
 
 of divine right to hold in bondage the bodies and 
 souls of men, as held by kings and papal priests, 
 reached this country about the commencement of 
 last Lent, when your letters died. I have some- 
 times thought that a coroner's jury empanneled to 
 investigate the cause of the death of your letters 
 would render the following verdict : " Died because 
 of the gracious visitation of Almighty God upon the 
 doctrine of divine right, as held by kings and popes 
 and bishops and other inferior clergy, which has 
 recently taken place in Europe." 
 
 But I pass from the general impressions made by 
 the perusal of your lettei's to the consideration of 
 their statements. You will remember that my 
 work is not to prove any thing save the utter truth- 
 lessness of your positions. Your numbered para- 
 graphs are like stones in a pile, in contact, but 
 without any logical arrangement or connection. I 
 will cull from them your main principles, and will 
 seek to show you that they are the merest papal 
 assumptions. In doing this I will not confine myself 
 to your arrangement, nor yet to your language or 
 method of argumentation. I will even give to your 
 principles the advantage of the better statement 
 made of them by standard papal authors ; as I truly 
 believe that nothing is finally lost by fairness. 
 
 1. You assert that the Bible has no authority save 
 what your church gives it, and that it must he under- 
 stood and received as your church interprets it. And 
 you flout private interpretation as the root of all 
 
TO BISHOP HUGFES. 21 
 
 heresy, and of all evil. Although this is not among 
 your first postulates, I select it as the first for exa- 
 mination, because of its fundamental importance. 
 If I have no right to read, or interpret the Bible, or 
 to deduce from a single passage of it a meaning 
 differing from that which your church puts upon it, 
 then controversy is ended. I am shut up either to 
 return to holy mother or to go to hell. Now, sir, 
 as by the grace of God I intend to do neither the 
 one or the other, I will show you that the principle 
 above asserted is a false assumption. To be sure 
 it is not yours, nor Milner's, nor Hay's merely, it 
 is asserted by the Council of Trent, and all are 
 cursed who refuse to receive it. 
 
 The first question 1 wish to ask is, where is the 
 authority you claim for your church, given her ? 
 Upon this point I must have proof beyond question. 
 Do you assert the need of an infallible interpreter 
 of the will of God ? Such an one would be con- 
 venient ; — but where is such need asserted ? — where 
 is such an interpreter appointed ? If you point me 
 to a passage of Scripture you admit my right of 
 pivate interpretation, for I must exercise my judg- 
 ment to decide whether it is or is not to the point. 
 If you tell me that uniform tradition asserts the 
 possession of this authority by the church, how do 
 I know that your tradition is true ? Your church 
 has corrupted the written words ; — hence I may 
 infer, that if there is any such thing as unwritten 
 tradition she has corrupted that also. 
 
22 kirwan's reply 
 
 The Scriptures, you say (No. 10), owe to your 
 church their character for authenticity and inspira- 
 tion. How is this ? The Old Testament was com- 
 pleted, and was in use hundreds of years before the 
 coming of Christ; — the Evangelists and Apostles 
 who wrote the New Testament were inspired so to 
 do by the Holy Ghost. These things are capable 
 of the fullest proof — nor would their proof be 
 weakened a hair, if the whole papal church were 
 swallowed up with the company of " Core." Why 
 is the Bible more tliaii any other ancient book in- 
 debted to your church for its character ? Do we 
 not prove the Apocryphal books uninspired which 
 your church places in the Canon ? — and with equal 
 facility could we not prove the Epistles of Paul to 
 be inspired if your church had taught otherwise ? 
 Do we not, with the utmost facility, show all your 
 corruptions of Christianity and of the Scriptures, 
 and separate the false from the true as easily as 
 does the husbandman the chaff from the wheat ? 
 
 The Scriptures, as we possess them, existed be- 
 fore the rise of your church — before a general coun- 
 cil ever commenced — before a declaration was ever 
 made by a council as to the canon of Scripture. 
 Any such declaration must be founded on antece- 
 dent evidence. And unless such evidence existed 
 previous to the declaration of it — the declaration it- 
 self is a falsehood. Let it then be granted that we 
 have no evidence of the truth of Scripture save what 
 the Church of Rome gives us, and the whole fabric 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 23 
 
 of Christianity totters to its base. Are you prepared 
 for this result ? or would you rather sustain Popery 
 than Christianity ? 
 
 Truth is the great object proposed by God to our 
 belief. Religious differs from other truth only in 
 its superior importance. All truths in the universe 
 are connected together, and make an harmonious 
 whole. They strengthen and fortify each other. 
 And as God proposes truth to our belief, he has en- 
 dowed us with minds capable of examining the 
 claims of all things soliciting our belief, and has 
 surrounded us with motives ever impelling us to 
 seek and to love the truth. We have in the works 
 of God the evidences of his eternal power and God- 
 head — we have in his word the more full revelation 
 of his will. And he has so formed us that we can- 
 not believe without proof, and that we cannot reject 
 with. At least I know of no way of doing other- 
 wise save by turning Papist. Now why should the 
 Bible be exempted from the general law which rules 
 my acceptance of all truth ? Whilst permitted to 
 think for myself on all other subjects, why should I 
 be forbidden to investigate the Scriptures for my- 
 self ? Why bound up to believe them only as your 
 church interprets them ? Sir, there must be some 
 priestly device at the bottom of all this. As reason- 
 ably might your church forbid me to believe any 
 thing in asti'onomy, or in physical or moral philoso- 
 phy, contrary to her teaching, as forbid me to receive 
 the Bible save in the sense which she gives it. And 
 
24 kirwan's reply 
 
 you remember she sent Galileo to prison for teach- 
 ins that the earth moves around the sun. 
 
 I must believe the Scriptures only in the sense of 
 your church — " holy mother !" But who is she ? 
 where is her residence ? You define her, in a con- 
 troversy with a late distinguished divine, to be " the 
 visible society of Christians, composed of the people 
 who are taught and the pastors who teach, by vir- 
 tue of a certain divine commission recorded in the 
 28th of Matthew, addressed to the Apostles and their 
 legitimate successors until the end of the world." 
 So that the people and their pastors constitute " holy 
 mother church;" and " holy mother " is the rule 
 of faith. So that " holy mother " is the rule of 
 *' holy mother ;" that is, the venerable and fretful 
 old lady wills as she wishes, and does as she wills ! 
 Has not this been very much so ? 
 
 But the people and their pastors form the church, 
 and the church is the rule of faith ! And yet the 
 people and their true pastors, those who daily labor 
 among them, visiting their sick, and burying their 
 dead, have nothing to do with the rule. The au- 
 thoritative meaning of Scripture is declared by your 
 bishops, and even of these not one in ten has any 
 thinjT to do with it. What, for instance, have vou 
 to do with it ? Practically it is in the hands of the 
 pope and his cardinals. So that " holy mother,'' the 
 rule of faith, is made up of a few holy fathers, many 
 of whom as to sense are the merest drivelers, and 
 as to morals the merest debauchees ! Now, sir, if 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 25 
 
 I go to these holy fathers y who, individually, are 
 men, but who, unitedly, are " holy mother,'" for the 
 sense of Scripture, must not my religion be based 
 upon man ? And from building upon such men I 
 am compelled to cry out in the language of the Li- 
 tany, " may the good Lord deliver me." 
 
 But admitting, for the sake of the argument, that 
 I am bound to receive the Scriptures as your church 
 interprets them, then will you answer me a few 
 questions ? How am I to obtain her sense of them ? 
 On the greater part of the Scriptures she has given 
 forth no binding interpretation. At what period of 
 the life of holy mother am I most likely to get a 
 true interpretation ? Is it when she was Arian with 
 Pope Liberius ? or when she was pagan with Mar- 
 eellinus ? or when she was Pelagian with Pope 
 Clement XI ? or when she was infidel with Leo X ? 
 or when strumpets were her waiting maids with 
 John XII and Alexander ? or is it when she was 
 drunk with the blood of the martyrs ? or when rival 
 popes were tearing out each other's bowels ? or is it 
 when in the height of her charity she was thunder- 
 ing her curses from Trent against all who refused 
 to say Amen to her decisions 1 These, sir, are very 
 important questions to be answered, as I may be 
 Arian, Pelagian, or infidel, a Calvinist, or an Armi- 
 nian, according to the time I seek from holy mother 
 her interpretations of the word of God. Perhaps 
 my reverence for the venerable old lady, now in her 
 WTinkles and dotage, might be greater than it is, 
 
 3 
 
26 kirwan's reply 
 
 were it not for my sense of her dissolute and change- 
 ful life. 
 
 But I find I have finished a letter without finish- 
 ing my analysis of the principle under examination. 
 1 will resume it in my next. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. .27 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Examination of Church interpretation continued. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last letter I commenced, 
 without concluding, an examination of the principle, 
 that the Bible has no authority save what your church 
 gives it, and that it must he understood and received 
 as your church interprets it. Upon this principle, 
 sufficiently disproved by the considerations already 
 presented, I have a few things more to say. 
 
 I must receive the Scriptures in the sense and 
 meaning which your church gives them ! God is 
 my father, and Jesus Christ is my Saviour as well as 
 yours. His word is a revelation of his will to me as 
 well as to you, or as to any body of men upon earth. 
 " God at sundry times and in divers manners spake 
 in times past to the prophets, and in these last days 
 he has spoken to us by his Son." So that notwith- 
 standing the puerile distinction, unworthy of a man 
 of sense, you make (No. 40), God does speak to me 
 through the prophets, and his Son, in his word. 
 And yet I must not hear him, — nor consider his say- 
 ings as possessing any authority or meaning, until 
 holy mother gives his sayings to me authority and 
 meaning ! That is, 1 must hear God only when he 
 
28 KIRWAN S REPLY 
 
 uses the lips of holy mother ; lips wliich have blis- 
 tered under the curses which she has been pronoun- 
 cing against me for ages ! Holy mother, sir, in the 
 bloom of her youth, and in the maturity of her years, 
 " lived deliciously and courted kings to her couch." 
 But hers has been a dissolute life. She has made 
 the earth drunk with the wine of her fornication. 
 And although in her wrinkles and dotage, you now 
 tell me that I can hear God only through her ; and 
 that I must bow my ear to the stream of her fetid 
 breath, and at the risk of all your curses, learn God's 
 will only as she expounds it ! If such a claim, calmly 
 put forth, is not a proof of dotage, what can be ? 
 Bishop Hughes, how old are you ? 
 
 But why bind me to receive the Scriptures only 
 in the sense which your church gives them ? How 
 can I know that she gives them a correct sense ? 
 Or must I take this for granted ? The popes are 
 admitted to be infallible. So are the bishops ; and 
 so are general councils. Pope has contradicted 
 pope — bishop, bishop — and council, council. Hov^r 
 then can I confide in their interpretation of Scripture ? 
 How can I be infallibly assured that any other man, 
 or body of men, is infallibly qualified to guide me 
 into the meaning of the Scriptures ? If I, Kirwan, 
 reject my own prayerfully received sense of Scrip- 
 ture for yours, John Hughes, then are not you above 
 the Scriptures to me ? And do not I virtually reject 
 what God says^ for what you say, who can now and 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 29 
 
 then turn a sharp comer and leave the truth behind 
 you ? And if ihis is not infidelity, what is it ? 
 
 But to this you reply that I must not look to your 
 interpretation, but, as says the creed of Pius IV, to 
 *•' the unanimous consent of the Fathers." But here 
 again, the " private reasoner " has some important 
 questions to ask. Who are the Fathers? Where 
 or with whom do they begin or end ? This is an 
 unsettled question. Were they not uninspired men 
 and fallible ? This is admitted. Origen, among 
 other errors, taught Universalism. Augustine re- 
 tracted his errors. Tertullian was a Montanist. 
 And can fallible men make an infallible rule ? 
 
 Besides, the early fathers wrote but little in the 
 way of Scriptural interpretation. If any thing, we 
 have scarcely any thing from the Fathers before the 
 middle of the second century ; and but little, save 
 fragments, of the first three centuries, and these cor- 
 rupted. And what we have from those early times 
 serves no purpose in settling the points in controversy. 
 They differed widely among themselves, — some of 
 them condemn your Apocrypha — some of them your 
 absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. And yet 
 whilst these fathers were fallible, and differed among 
 themselves — whilst they pointedly condemn in some 
 things the teachings of your church, and wrote but 
 little in the way of Scriptural interpretation, yet we 
 must receive the Scriptures " according to the unan- 
 imous consent of the Fathers." Is not this prepos- 
 
30 ktrwan's reply 
 
 terous ? Have you not excommunicatec your com- 
 moir sense and reason ? 
 
 But, for the sake of the argument, let us admit 
 that these erring and contending fathers were unaii- 
 imous in their support of the distinguishing doctrines 
 of your church. What, then, does this avail ? If 
 unanimous in teaching what the Scriptures do not, 
 their teaching cannot be received; ifin what the 
 Scriptures do teach, we receive that without them. 
 Nor is unity any evidence of truth, in itself. Men 
 in multitudes have been united, for ages, in support- 
 ing a lie. And union is in the inverse ratio of 
 knowledge. The more perfect the ignorance, other 
 things being equal, the more perfect the union. 
 When the blind lead the blind they cling very close 
 together. Individuals in full vision often select dif- 
 ferent roads to the same place ; but the blind crowd 
 along the same road, and cling to one another like 
 swarming bees, even on the brink of the precipice. 
 Hence the proverb, " if the blind lead the blind both 
 will fall into the ditch." And if the successors of 
 Moses, who sat in his seat, and boasted that they 
 were his ecclesiastical descendants, were blind lead- 
 ers of the blind ; may it not be possible that the 
 same may be the case as to the descendants of 
 Peter ? Your letters, now before me, give the 
 plainest evidence that the eyes of your mind stand 
 in great neea of couching. O that you might apply 
 to them the eye-salve spoken of in Revelation. 
 
 But you reply, this is forbidden by the fact that 
 
TO BISHO? HUGHES. 31 
 
 your bishops are the descendants of Peter, and that 
 they have the promise of divine guidance. But 
 they are no more the descendants of Peter, than were 
 the Jewish priests the descendants of Moses and 
 Aaron. So that reasoning from the one to the other 
 this plea avails nothing. " We be Abraham's seed," 
 said the Jews. " If ye were Abraham's children ye 
 would do his works," replied the Saviour. " We 
 be Moses' disciples," cried the Pharisees. " Had ye 
 believed Moses ye would have believed me," says 
 Christ. And it is surprising that a man, like you, 
 professing to be a master in Israel, and a chief pas- 
 tor in the church of God, could for a moment lose 
 sight of the palpable truth that the true evidence of 
 apostolical succession is apostolical faith and prac- 
 tice. In your fourth letter, (No. 41,) you speak of 
 Joanna Southcote, Joe Smith, and father Miller with 
 a sneer ; but, sir, the most absurd absurdity of Joe 
 Smith was clever sense when compared with your 
 principle of making fallible men infallible expound- 
 ers of God's revealed will, and sending all to perdi- 
 tion who do not receive their unanimous consent as 
 its true meaning, when no such consent was ever 
 given, or can be found ! Sir, Joe Smith was much 
 more of a pope than you imagine. He damned, 
 as unblushingly as you or holy mother, all that did 
 no* deem him and his cardinals infallible, and that 
 rejected his Mormon tradition. And if as a " private 
 reasoner " I were compelled to select Joe Smith or 
 John Hughes as my chief Rabbi, notvvithstandmg 
 
32 KIR WAN's REPLY 
 
 " the sympathies of my Irish nature," I would not 
 iong hesitate between them. I have no great relish 
 for the nonsense of either of you, but I could swal- 
 low his with far less difficulty and grimace, than I 
 could yours ; and I would sooner get through. My 
 throat would not have to be stretched, almost to the 
 cracking of its skin, every day of my life, for the 
 purpose of taking down some monstrous absurdity. 
 
 But you plead the need of receiving the Scrip, 
 tures in the sense ^iven them by your church, to 
 save the ch.^i^h and the world from the divisions 
 and schisms ? hich are the necessary result of pri- 
 vate i.iterpr'.tation. It is to be regretted, on the 
 whole, thftt those who reject church interpretation 
 are ar much divided among themselves. But it is 
 diffiii'Jt to form any machinery, however perfect, 
 without some friction. Like all other good things, 
 the right of private judgment has been abused. But 
 what, sir, has been so awfully abused as the doc- 
 trines of church interpretation and sacramental 
 grace, two of the prime doctrines of holy mother ? 
 Diversity of opinion is necessarily connected with 
 the exercise of the right of private judgment ; as 
 God has no more made minds to think alike than he 
 has faces to look alike, or temperaments to act alike. 
 God and nature abhor dead levels. Uniformity 
 with diversity seems to be the great law of Jehovah. 
 And whether to surrender our right of private judg- * 
 ment in religious things for the sake of a level uni- 
 formity, or to retain it with the variety of opinions 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 33 
 
 which may spring from it, is the question which 
 here divides the Papist from the Protestant. To my 
 mind it is like the question whether we shall have a 
 free open sea, with its ceaseless sounding, its ever 
 heaving bosom, and its billows occasionally rolled to 
 the sky by the tempest, or a sea bound in fetters, with 
 an unruffled bosom, stagnating by day and by night, 
 and sending over earth and air its putrid exhala- 
 tions. 
 
 Whilst I deplore the divisions among Protestants 
 and feel that they are unnecessary, evincing less 
 forbearance than passion, yet, sir, does holy mother 
 exclude them from her pale by her stringent rule 
 of church interpretation ? Has she had no schisms 
 in her bosom ? Among her numerous progeny have 
 there been no Mother Ann Lees, no Joe Smiths, no 
 Father Millers ? Perhaps, sir, you forget that the 
 fathers of Protestantism have contended, in every 
 age, with all forms of fanaticism ; and have used 
 all weapons against them, save those potent ones of 
 your church, fire and faggot. Has your church 
 done so ? Has not your priesthood, in every age, 
 fostered fanaticism and absurdity ? Liberius pa- 
 tronized Arianism, a branch of Socinianism. Mon- 
 tanus, more than a rival for Svvedenborg, was patron- 
 ized by his cotemporary pope. And the fanaticism 
 of Mother Lee, and of Joanna, go out as do the stars 
 amid the effulgence of the sun, when compared with 
 the fanaticism of Beata of Cuenza, who, teaching 
 that her body was transubstantiated into our Lord's 
 
34 kirwan's reply 
 
 body, was conducted with processions to the churches 
 where she was adored, as you now adore the host ; 
 or with that of Clara of Madrid, who claimed, and 
 was allowed, to be a prophetess ; or of sister Nati- 
 vite, who saw on one occasion in the hands of the 
 ofTiciating priest, at the consecration of the wafer, a 
 little child, living and clothed with light. The 
 child, eager to be eaten, spoke with an infantile 
 voice and desired to be swallowed ! And you, sir, 
 a bishop in a church whose history is crowded with 
 the feats of such fanatics, and whose bishops and 
 popes have been their patrons, will quote against 
 Protestants the examples of a few fanatics that we 
 have ever opposed, to prove to us the mischief of 
 interpreting the Bible for ourselves ! Bishop Hughes ! 
 Bishop Hughes ! ! O Bishop Hughes ! ! ! 
 
 Nor is this all. You dwell upon our divisions 
 and schisms as proof to demonstration against our 
 private interpretation ; forgetting that if strong 
 against us, it is equally strong against church in- 
 terpretation. Have you never read of, or have you 
 conveniently forgotten^ the western schism which 
 rent the bosom of holy mother ? Have you forgot- 
 ten the feuds between the Jansenists and the Jesuits, 
 and those -caused by the Augustines and the Domi- 
 nicans ? Have you never read of the Scotists and 
 Thomists — of ihe war about the immaculate con- 
 ception of the Virgin Mary between the Franciscans 
 and Dominicans — of the feud between the Francis- 
 cans and Pope John ? Through every century of 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 35 
 
 her existence the bosom of holy mother has been 
 rent by internal feuds such as have never cursed 
 the Protestant world. And at this very hour her 
 bosom is like the bowels of Etna when on the eve 
 of an eruption. 
 
 Sir, it would have been well for you had you 
 made yourself better acquainted with the annals 
 of Popery and Protestantism, to use your own clas- 
 sical and dignified language, " before you had 
 launched your shallow bark on the ocean of eccle- 
 siastical history." 
 
 I will recur again to this subject in my next. 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
36 kirwan's reply 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Examination of Church interpretation aontinued — Its destnictive conse- 
 quences — It is a monstrous assumption. 
 
 My dear Sir, — At the close of my last letter I 
 was considering your argument for church inter- 
 pretation drawn from the divisions and schisms 
 which prevail among Protestants. Although I have 
 shown that the argument against private, is equally 
 strong against church interpretation, I have a few 
 things more to say in reference to it. As it is your 
 talcing argument with weak minds, it requires more 
 attention than its merits deserve. Like almost all 
 taking arguments, it is a weak one. 
 
 I have already shown how grievously, in every 
 age, your church has been rent by schism, and dis- 
 graced by fanaticism. I would now ask why the 
 distinction you set up between doctrine, and diS' 
 dphne and morals ? The church is infallible in 
 'doctrine, but not in discipline or morals ! And 
 when we compare the things in which she is in- 
 fallible, with those in which she is not, the latter 
 far outnumber the former. Now why the distinc- 
 tion ? The few things in which you agree are 
 called doctrine ; and the many in which you do 
 not agree are called discipline and morals ! So 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES.* 37 
 
 that the distinction is made to excuse the infinite 
 diversity of opinion that exists among you ; and 
 also to excuse the shocking enormities committed 
 by your church as mere matters of discipline and 
 morals ! And yet, singular to state, your church 
 pronounces equally heavy curses against those who 
 reject her discipline and morals, on which she has 
 made no infallible decision, as against those who 
 reject her doctrines, on which she has ! 
 
 Now, sir, if the above distinction between doc- 
 trines, and discipline and morals, is a true one, 
 which I utterly deny ; — if a people may be con- 
 sidered a unity who unite in a few radical doctrines 
 however they may disagree on things pertaining to 
 discipline and morals, I am prepared to show that 
 the unity of the Protestant world far, veiy far sur- 
 passes that of the Papal. The things in which we 
 agree are more numerous and more important than 
 are your infallible doctrines, and the things in 
 which we disao;ree are less numerous and less im- 
 portant than are your matters of discipline and 
 morals. And yet you come near waxing eloquent, 
 and becoming interesting on our diversity, when 
 contrasted with your unity ! But, I suppose we 
 must excuse you on the ground that you are writing 
 for Roman Catholics, who, poor creatures, are ex- 
 eluded from the ranks of " private " or public 
 " reasoners." Nothinj? saves this ar^rument from 
 derision, but my unwillingness to offend against 
 decorum. 
 
 4 
 
38 * KIR WAN's REPLY 
 
 " The church gives authority and meaning to the 
 Scriptures, and we must receive them as the church 
 interprets them." The Scriptures, the Apocrypha, 
 the unanimous consent of the fathers, the sacred 
 canons, the decisions of councils, and oral traditions, 
 form your rule of faith. And as these, like the 
 Bible, which you seem as much disposed to ridicule 
 as to eulogize, are made up of paper, types and ink, 
 and are silent when you ask them any questions, 
 tliey need a living interpreter. And to avail, he or 
 she must be infallible. This living, infallible inter- 
 preter is your church. That is, as I have already 
 shown, the church is the rule of the church. To 
 him who is infallible all faith and practice are 
 equally true. The truth of principles changes as 
 he changes. Infallibility prevents the correction of 
 error — makes principles however opposite equally 
 true — obliges the infallible one when he goes wrong 
 to defend the wrong, and to stay wrong for ever. 
 Thus, as your church has been on all sides of 
 almost all questions, because infallible, she makes 
 the opposite sides equally true ; and thus lays the 
 axe at the root of all true principles and of ail true 
 morals. And the facts in the case prove the truth 
 of my inference. What truer sons of your ch. rch 
 has the earth ever borne than the Jesuits ? And 
 what class of men have so undermined the founda- 
 tions of all true principles and morals ! Have you 
 read Pascal's Letters ? So that it may be laid 
 down as a principle equally true of men and of 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 39 
 
 nations, the more entirely papal, the more entire 
 the absence of sound principles and sound morals. 
 The maximum of the one is always in connection 
 with the minimum of the other. 
 
 I think, sir, that if you do not, all " pji'ivate rea- 
 soners " will agree that I have shown your prin- 
 ciple, that "the Bible has no authority but wha^ 
 your church gives it, and that we must receive it as 
 your church interprets it," is the merest assump- 
 tion. It is a principle unworthy of you as a man ; 
 more unworthy of you as a minister of the God of 
 truth ; and deserving only the scornful rejection of 
 all intelligent and thinking men. But as Lhe desti- 
 nies of this ruined world and of the true church 
 of God are bound up in the principle, let us look at 
 its effects when carried out. 
 
 " The interpretation of the church ;" this is your 
 great principle, and your catholicon for all divisions 
 and heresies. The Jewish church was infallible, as 
 your chief writers assert. And the Jewish people 
 were bound to receive the Scriptures as interpreted 
 by those who sat in Moses' seat. And yet this in- 
 fallible church, by its infallible teachers, put to death 
 the Lord of glory. Jesus Christ, then, fell a victim 
 to the very principle which you assert — the princi- 
 ple of church interpretation. And how many of the 
 most devoted followers jf Jesus Christ have fallen 
 victims to the same principle, we are not to know 
 until the day of final revealing. 
 
 Church interpretation is exclusive cf private judg- 
 
40 KIRWAN S REPLY 
 
 merit. If true it ■would have forever prevented the 
 ereclion of the Christian church. It would have 
 bound all Jews to remain Jews forever, and all othor 
 men to become Jews in belief, in order to enter hea- 
 ven. Like your church the Jewish made void the 
 law of God by traditions. Their traditions and 
 church interpretation of the Scriptures were all 
 against Jesus Christ ; how then, on your principles, 
 could the foundations of the church of Christ be 
 laid ? They never could be. How were they laid ? 
 By those who rejected church interpretation, and 
 who for themselves examined the Scriptures, and 
 considered the evidences which proved to them that 
 Jesus was the Messiah. You, sir, as a minister, owe 
 your standing in the church of Jesus Christ to the 
 rejection of the very principle which you assert, 
 and, with so much flimsy sophistry, enforce ; and 
 to the adoption of the principle of private interpre- 
 tation which, in seeking to vilify, you only expose 
 yourself to scorn. Your argument is contemptible, 
 and makes j^ou ridiculous. 
 
 Nor is this all. If we carry out your principles 
 how can you expect us to return to your church ? 
 Lei me make the case my own to give point and 
 directness to what I say. I am an unbeliever, b.it 
 sincerely inquiring after the true church ; and I 
 go to your residence to have my inquiries answered. 
 You state to me the marks of the true church, be- 
 ginning with that of unity j and quote some Scripture 
 ji confirmation. But what must I do ? for I am for- 
 
TO BISHOP HTTGHES. 41 
 
 bidden the exercise of my private judgment. If I 
 say the mark is a true one, and is based on Scrip- 
 ture, that is a private judgment which I have no 
 right to exercise ; if I deny it, and the relevancy of 
 the texts quoted, it is again a rejection of your prin- 
 ciple. You pass on to the next mark, sanctity, and 
 dwell upon your holiness of doctrine. To be satis- 
 fied of this being a true mark, I must compare your 
 doctrines with those of the Scriptures ; if I come to 
 the conclusion the mark is a true one, 1 reject your 
 rule ; if to the opposite conclusion I yet reject it. 
 Our conversation ends, and I retire either impressed 
 by your arguments, or bewildered by your sophis- 
 try. In a few days I return, saying, " Well, Bishop 
 Hughes. I have deeply considered your statements, 
 and I have concluded that they are true, and that 
 yours is the true church ; and I wish to connect 
 myself with it." Would you receive me? Gladly. 
 And yet by receiving me you deny the truth of your 
 own rule, and admit that a man on his private judg- 
 ment can " make an act of faith." If converts can- 
 not be made in this way to Popery how can they 
 be 1 If made in this way where is the force or ths 
 truth of your denunciations of private judgment 1 
 If men have no right to road or to judge of the 
 Scriptures for themselves — no right to form an opi- 
 nion as to the clashing claims for the true church, 
 why the series of letters before me, in which bold 
 assertion, a little truth, much sophistry, perverted 
 
 texts of Scripture, and no little arrogance, are mixed 
 
 4 * 
 
42 
 
 and mingled together to prove that yours is the true 
 church, and to induce all to flee to her fold who 
 wish to escape perdition ? Sir, your doctrine is a 
 suicidal one ; your church cannot live with it, nor 
 can it live without. It is gotten up for babes in in- 
 tellect, and not for men. 
 
 But let us admit the full truth of the doctrine, 
 and that it is binding on eveiy mortal ; what fol- 
 lows ? I must give up my Bible and lock up my 
 private judgment. Wishing to know what meaning 
 tlie church gives John 5 : 39, I apply to my neigh- 
 boring priest. But he has not read the fathers, nor 
 the canon law, nor the decrees of councils, nor the 
 bulls of the pope, nor the Scriptures. He applies 
 to you his bishop ; nor have you read them. You 
 apply to the archbishop ; nor has he read them. He 
 applies to the cardinals ; nor have they read them. 
 They apply to the pope ; nor has he read them. I 
 here venture the assertion that there is not a living 
 man who has read your rule of faith. How can I 
 know then what the church teaches ? Even if her 
 teachings were harmonious, there is no knowing. 
 But, for the argument, I grant that the pope and his 
 cardinals, who virtually compose " holy mother,'' 
 do know the rule. They tell the archbishop, he 
 tells you, you tell the priest, and the priest tells me. 
 And however my common sense revolts against it, 
 I must receive it, as a good son of the church ! 
 
 See .hen the position to which your doctrine re- 
 duces every thinking and thoughtless man. It 
 
' TO BISHOP HUGHES. 43 
 
 brings us all on our knees before your priests, mul- 
 litudes of whom are as unprincipled and wicked as 
 they are ignorant ; deprives us of the right of private 
 judgment, and compels us to open our minds and 
 souls to whatever nonsense, concocted in Italy, they 
 might see fit to ladle into them. 
 
 These, sir, are the considerations which prove 
 the principle I have been considering not only a 
 mere but a monstrous assumption ; a principle which, 
 whether true or untrue, is equally fatal to the claims 
 of your church. I deeply regret that any clever 
 son of old Ireland, after breathino; so lonor the air of 
 freedom, should lend himself to the support of such 
 a monstrous principle. The logical power which 
 you display in its support gives you high claims to 
 the chair of logic in the university of Heliopolis ! 
 
 How pleasant it is to turn from such a rule to the 
 simple and pure word of God, given to be a lamp to 
 our feet and a light to our paths. If with that lamp, 
 we wander from the wa}'', the fault is in ourselves. 
 It is not because of the obscurity with which God 
 has revealed his will, but because our foolish minds 
 are darkened by reason of sin. But I must not 
 forget that my only object is to show the utter faU 
 lacy of your principles. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 KmwAN. 
 
44 KIR WAN's REPLY 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 The Papa] Church theory — A mistake in selecting Peter for the tiara — The 
 prayer of Christ for Peter realized, for him and all his successors — The 
 question, Was Peter pope? examined. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last letter I concluded my 
 analysis of the principle you assert, that the Bible 
 has no authority save what your church gives it, 
 and that it must be understood and received as your 
 church interprets it. A principle more untrue, more 
 absurd, more suicidal, has never been asserted. It 
 cannot be more absurd, but it is infinitely more 
 dangerous, than your doctrine of transubstantiation. 
 Although the refutation of that principle saps the 
 foundation of all that you have written, yet there 
 are ether principles mixed up with your postulates 
 that require notice. Among these is the principle 
 involved in your theory of the church. As the para- 
 graph which you mark 5, contains the great out- 
 line of your church theory, I will here quote it 
 entire. 
 
 " 5. But twelve Apostles, invested with equaf 
 authority, might disturb the order and defeat the 
 object, which their Lord had appointed them to 
 establish and secure. His kingdom was to be one; 
 united in itself. His sheep were to bo comprised 
 
TO BISHOP HrCHES. 45 
 
 in ' ojie fold,^ under ' one shepherd,^ and not under 
 twelve. Accordingly, out of the twelve, being all 
 Apostles, and as such equal in dignity and au- 
 thority, He selected one, Peter ; and in addition to 
 the Apostleship, which he enjoyed like the others, 
 conferred on him special, singular, and individual 
 prerogative and power, which had not been con- 
 ferred on the other eleven, either singularly or col- 
 lectively ; and, as our Lord had said many things 
 to the multitude, at large, and some things to the 
 Apostles alone, so, also, He addressed many in- 
 structions to the Apostles as such, including Feler, 
 and sofne things to Pete?' alone, in which the others 
 had no direct lot or part. Satan, he said, desired 
 them (all), that he might sift them as wheat, but 
 He prayed for Peter, that his faith might not fail ; 
 and that he, being once converted, should confimi 
 his brethren. The efficacy of this prayer of the 
 Man-God, has been realized in His church, from 
 the days of Cephas himself, through the whole line 
 of his successors, down to the exercise of the chief 
 Apostleship, in our own times, by the great and 
 illustrious Pius IX." 
 
 The great papal idea here asserted is the placing 
 of Peter over the other Apostles as their superior, 
 and as the " Vicar of Christ," and as the head of 
 the church, and the perpetuation of this office in his 
 successors, down to the present day. Do you not 
 know, sir, that these claims set up in behalf of 
 Peter have been proven, very many times, to be 
 without the shadow of a foundation ? And yet you 
 assert them as confidently as if they had never been 
 questioned, and quote Scripture to prove them, jusl 
 
46 kirwan's heply 
 
 as if we had a :ight to form any opinion adverse 
 to yours on the subject ! Before attempting to Fhow, 
 what has been so often shown before, that poor Peter 
 was never made pope, there are one or two ideas I 
 wish to suggest just here. 
 
 Do you not think that your church made a mis- 
 take in selecting Peter for the tiara ? Would you not 
 have succeeded better with some of the other Apos- 
 tles, one of the " sons of thunder," for instance ? 
 And how papal would be the idea, — a son of 
 thunder, " thundering from the Vatican !" Would 
 you not have succeeded with John better than with 
 Peter 1 You could have urged in his behalf that 
 he was the beloved disciple — that he was often in 
 the bosom of his Lord — that Peter on a certain 
 occasion sent him to ask of the Saviour a question 
 which he feared to ask himself — that he did higher 
 service to the church by his writings, which form 
 so large a part of the New Testament — that he out- 
 ran Peter, and reached first the sepulchre — that he 
 outlived all the other Apostles ! And this would 
 save you all questions about John the beloved dis- 
 ciple, the inspired Apostle, the lovely evangelist, 
 being subject to a successor of Peter who probably 
 had never seen Christ, nor, perhaps, Peter. If John 
 were your candidate you could not say so much 
 about " this rock," nor about " the keys;" but then 
 you would not be as pressed as now about " get 
 thee behind me, Satan," about Peter's swearing so, 
 and denying his Master. My opinion is, but I am a 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 47 
 
 " private reasoner," that you would have succeeded 
 better with John. I would advise you to correct 
 tradition, for I have no doubt she has erred, and 
 substitute John for Peter. You will find it a won- 
 derful relief. 
 
 The use you make of the text you quote in the 
 above paragraph strikes me very singularly. Satan 
 desired the Apostles, as he once did Job, that he 
 might sift them as wheat. Knowing Peter to be 
 most in danger of them all, he prayed especially 
 for him ; and from this passage, whose only object 
 is to show that poor Peter was more in danger of 
 falling under the influence of the devil than any 
 of his brethren, you deduce an argument for his 
 supremacy ! I have no doubt, if hard pressed, that 
 like some astute critics of former days, you could 
 find the history of the children of Israel in the Iliad 
 of Homer ! What bounds can confine the power 
 of a man who can create God out of a wafer ? 
 
 Consider well the following sentence in the above 
 paragraph ; " the efficacy of this prayer of the Man- 
 God, has been realized in his church, from the days 
 of Cephas himself, through the whole line of his 
 successors . . . down to the great and illustrious 
 Pius IX." Considerincr all tliino;s this is a most 
 extraordinary assertion. That is, Peter's faith 
 never failed ; nor has the faith of a single pope 
 from Peter to Pius ! Notwithstanding the prayer 
 of his Master, Satan sifted Peter. In the hour of 
 severe trial his faith failed. When accused in the 
 
48 kirwan's reply 
 
 palace of Pilate of being one of the disciples, *' he 
 began to curse and to swear, saying, 1 know not the 
 man." And is it in this way that the efficacy of 
 that prayer " has been realized through the whole 
 line of his successors ?" And yet, sir, Peter, 
 cursing and swearing, was an angel, in comparison 
 with many in " the line of his successors." I 
 know not how you could make an assertion more 
 historically false ; and the truth of which your own 
 writers, yes, and John Hughes himself, deny. 
 
 But tlie question returns. Was Peter made pope, 
 to exercise supreme authority in the church ; and 
 was the power thus conferred upon him hereditary, 
 to descend to all his successors in the See of Rome ? 
 This is a doctrine, or principle, with which your 
 church stands or falls. The pope is the centre of 
 unity, and to be separated from him, according to 
 your showing, is to be cast out among heathens and 
 publicans. This principle, involving the existence 
 of your church, and my salvation, I deny, and put 
 you on the proof. 
 
 If called to prove this principle in a court of 
 justice, how would you proceed ? Would you call 
 upon tradition to give her testimony 1 But tradi- 
 tion has been in the keeping of the pope ; and this 
 would be like calling upon the pope to testify to his 
 own supremacy, which, in view of the power and 
 emoluments of his office, 1 have no doubt he would 
 be willing to do. But would his testimony be re- 
 ceived ? Would you invoke the aid of the Scrip- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 49 
 
 lures ? But this would be giving up one of your 
 fundamental principles ; as the Scriptures to us 
 have no sense but what the church, which is vir- 
 tually the pope, gives them. This would be again 
 calling on the pope to testify to his own supremacy, 
 which could not be admitted. But supposing you 
 admit the common sense meaning of the Scriptures 
 to bear on the case, which every body not a Papist 
 is willing to do, where would you commence ? 
 
 Would you cite the very pertinent passage in 
 Luke (xxii. 24 — 30), where the Saviour so sharply 
 rebukes his disciples, because there was a strife 
 amongst them as to which of them should be 
 greatest ? or that of Mark (ix. 34), where, again 
 reproving them for their contention about pre- 
 eminence, he says : " If any man desire to be the 
 first, the same shall be last of all and servant of 
 all." Would not the judge say, " Bishop Hughes, 
 these texts are not to the point ; for if Peter were 
 placed over the disciples, why contention among 
 them for pre-eminence ? Would not Christ have 
 settled the matter at once, and say, contend no 
 more, I have made Peter your pope ?" 
 
 Driven thence, would you next cite the passage 
 in Ephesians (iv. 11), where Paul enumerates the 
 various kinds of teachers which Christ on his as- 
 cension gave to the church, as apostles, prophets, 
 evangelists, pastors, teachers for the perfecting of 
 the saints, — and the parallel passage in 1 Corinthi- 
 ans (xii. 28) ? Would not the judge again say, 
 
 5 
 
50 kirwan's reply 
 
 " Bishap Hughes, those are not to the point, ay 
 they say nothing about a pope, nor a word about 
 the supremacy of Peter." 
 
 Foiled again here, would you next cite the passage 
 (1 Cor. i. 12) which informs us of pastors in the 
 church of Corinth, one claiming to be of Paul, ano- 
 ther of Apollos, and another of Peter ? and then 
 would you turn to the passage in Galatians (ii. 14), 
 where Paul most sliarpjy rebukes Peter for his dis- 
 simulation ? Would not the j jdge reply, " Bishop 
 Hughes, what do you mean ? If Peter were pope, 
 why did he not excommunicate the parties of Paul 
 and Apollos at Corinth, those early protestants 
 against his supremacy ? If he were pope, why for 
 a moment permit Paul at Antioch to dispute his 
 right to dissemble when circumstances required him 
 so to do ? These passages, sir, are against you, in- 
 stead of proving the position you assert." 
 
 Foiled again, would you cite the passage in Acts 
 (viii. 14), where the apostles in Jerusalem sent 
 Peter and John to Samaria to assist in carrying 
 on the good work there ; and that other passage in 
 the 15th chapter of Acts, where James declares the 
 decision of the council at Jerusalem, called to con- 
 sider some ceremonial questions started among the 
 churches of the Gentiles by Judaizing teachero ? 
 The judge would again reply, " These passages are 
 not to the point ; for if Peter were pope, would he 
 bear to be sent by those beneath him to Samaria ? 
 Would he permit James to preside in Jerusalem, at 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 51 
 
 that first council, and to declare its will ; duties 
 which devolved on him by right of office? These 
 passages, sir, are sadly against you." 
 
 You now, with some little excitement created by 
 these repulses, quote the passage in Matthew (xvi. 
 18, 19) : " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
 build my church ; I will give unto thee the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven." This you do with an air 
 of assurance, feeling that you have trapped the judge 
 at last. But he replies, being ai once a Christian 
 and a sound lawyer, " Bishop Hughes, these are dis- 
 puted texts as to their true import ; and the point 
 that you wish to establish, being one of transcendent 
 importance, should have something to sustain it bo- 
 sides texts of controverted meaning. You so explain 
 this text as to make Peter the foundation of the 
 church ; but Peter himself denies this, by asserting 
 that Christ is its foundation (1 Peter, 2d chap). 
 Paul also denies it when he says that Christ Jesus 
 is the only foundation that has been, or can be laid 
 (1 Cor. iii. 11) ; and when he represents Jesus 
 Christ himself as the chief corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20). 
 And Jerome, Chrysostom, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, 
 Augustine, make " the rock " to mean, not Peter, 
 but the faith, or confession of Peter. And as to the 
 gift of the keys, that avails you notliing as to the 
 supremacy of Peter, for they were given equally to 
 the other apostles as to him. And besides, I do not 
 see what could be gained by placing the church 
 upon Peter ; as, for all interests concerned, it is 
 better that it should be built upon Christ." 
 
52 
 
 Thus repulsed on every hand, T hear you ask, in 
 an excited tone, rather warm for a bishop, " If these 
 evidences are rejected, what will your honor admit 
 as bearing upon the point?" With the calmness 
 becoming a judge, he replies, " Bishop Hughes, I 
 want proof, beyond question, that Jesus Christ made 
 Peter pope. I want clear proof of the fact that he 
 ever exercised the power of the pope in any one 
 case. I want proof that ever one of the apostles or 
 any other contemporary ever referred to him, or ap- 
 plied to him as pope. And as your object is to 
 prove the perpetuity of the popedom, if you prove 
 that Peter was mvested with supremacy over the 
 other apostles, I want you then to prove that that 
 supremacy was not to end with his death, but that 
 it was to be held in fee for his successor for ever. 
 When, sir, these points are proved, and not before, 
 you may look for a decision in your favor. Have 
 you proof as to these points ?" 
 
 Looking upon a judge with disdain who thus re- 
 quires you to make brick without straw, and to 
 prove what so many ages have taken for granted, 
 you collect your papers and make your exit. 
 
 Sir, your assertion of the supremacy of Cephas is 
 the merest assumption, and I think you must see it 
 to be so. You would not claim the possession of an 
 acre of land in an Irish bog if you could advance no 
 better claim to it than you put forth for the su- 
 premacy of Peter. But the end is not yet. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 53 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Was Peter pope 1 examination continaed — But two arguments that cannot 
 be answered — Tiilotson's opinion. 
 
 My dear Sir, — In my last letter I entered upon 
 an examination of the claims of the pope to suprem- 
 acy without concluding it. I showed you that in 
 the testing of these claims, the testimony of tradition 
 was inadmissible ; and that the teaching, the facts, 
 and the tenor of the New Testament, are directly in 
 opposition to them. But as a man of spirit, greatly 
 unwilling that a mere " private reasoner " should 
 have even the appearance of victory over you, you 
 appear again in court to prove, by other evidence, 
 that Peter was clothed by Christ with supremacy, 
 and that he was first pope of Rome. The judge 
 having already decided against the testimony ad- 
 duced to prove the first point, and having called for 
 evidence which you cannot adduce, you address 
 yourself to the second, to prove that Peter was the 
 first pope of Rome. You state the point, and his 
 honor calls for the testimony. And with an air of 
 triumph you adduce the early records of the church, 
 from its foundation to the fifth century, auiong which 
 are the books of the New Testament. The judge 
 
 5* 
 
64 kirwan's reply 
 
 says, " Well, Bishop Hughes, we will commence 
 with these documents, and examine them in their or 
 der." The proposition is a fair one, and you consent. 
 
 " Mark," says the judge, " was a friend and fol 
 lower of Peter. He wrote his gospel at Rome, 
 about thirty years after the ascension of Christ. 
 Some of the fathers even say that it was revised by 
 Peter. Does he say any thing about Peter being 
 pope of Rome ?" You reply, '■ No, Mark is silent 
 on the subject." So that document is laid aside. 
 
 " Here are Peter's own letters," says the judge, 
 " written but a short time previous to his death, 
 thirty years at least after his alleged investiture with 
 the supremacy. Do they say any thing upon the 
 subject ?" " No," you reply, " it would not be 
 modest in him to say any thing about the matter." 
 So these are laid aside, the judge remarking in an 
 under tone, " It would have been well if the suc- 
 cessors of Peter had imitated his modesty, who, after 
 being nearly forty years pope, in two letters to the 
 churches says not a word about his supremacy." 
 
 " Next are the letters of Paul," says the judge, 
 " written from Rome, and to the Romans ; do they 
 bear any testimony to the point to be proved ? His 
 letter to the Romans was written several years after 
 Peter was made Pope there ; does he say any thing 
 about pope Peter ? At the close of the letter he 
 sends his affectionate salutations to upwards of 
 twenty persons ; does he mention pope Peter ? 
 When, according to your showing, Peter was ia 
 
T<^ BISHOP HUGHES. 55 
 
 the plenitude of his power at Rome, Paul was taken 
 there as a D^'isoner, Whilst there he wrote several 
 of these epistles, -is Peter alluded to in them as 
 pope ? is he named at all ? If he was there, Bishop 
 Hughes, how do you account for what Paul writes 
 to Timothy (2d Tim. i v. 16), " At my first answer 
 .... all men forsook me ?" Does Peter play 
 again, in the court of Csesar, the part he played in 
 the palace of Pilate ? Could Paul be a prisoner in 
 Rome for two or more years, and pope Peter never 
 do him any kindness ? Could he have done him 
 any kindness, and yet Paul never speak of it to his 
 friends ? How is all this ?" 
 
 Vexed to the quick by these questions, for even 
 bishops have feelings, and plainly perceiving that 
 his honor is a " private reasoner," you reply, "we 
 will lay aside, if you please, those documents which 
 form the New Testament, and pass on to the next 
 in order. They have always been wrested by 
 ' private reasoners ' to their own destruction, who 
 are incapable of * making an act of faith.' '* *' But 
 before we lay them aside," says the judge, " do you 
 admit, bishop, that they give no testimony to the 
 point before the court ?" You give a reluctant as- 
 sent. He again asks, •' How do you account for the 
 fact that they give no testimony, considering the pe- 
 culiar circumstances under which they were writ- 
 ten ?" You bite your lips, but are speechless. 
 
 After waiting a few minutes for a reply, the judge 
 says, " We will proceed to the next document ; what 
 
56 kirwan's reply 
 
 is it ? what does it say ?" " Here," you say, " is 
 Jerome, who says that Peter went to Rome in the 
 second year of Claudius, and was bishop there 
 twenty-five years." " But," says the judge, " Je- 
 rome wrote about the year 400, and how did he 
 know ? where did he get the fact ? In the 12th 
 year of Claudius, Paul went to Jerusalem and found 
 Peter there. Did he run away from Rome ? Do 
 popes now go from Rome to Jerusalem ? or was he 
 like some bishops in our day, who love the fleece 
 more than the flock, a non-resident ? In the reign 
 of Nero, who succeeded Claudius, Paul went to 
 Rome, and found the people there quite uninformed 
 as to the faith of Christ (Acts xxviii. 17-24). If 
 Peter was pope there for so many years previous, 
 what was he about ? Besides, the apostles were 
 ministers at large ; their duty was, not to abide in 
 any city, not to demit their general for a local aui 
 thority, but to go into all the earth, and preach the 
 gospel to every creature. So that if these docu- 
 ments are true, they show that Peter, at least, was 
 disobedient to the ascendinn; command of his Lord, 
 by locating himself at Rome, instead of laboring to 
 extend the gospel to every creature. So that if 
 these papers are true, and if they establish the point 
 you press so earnestly, they will simply prove the 
 unfaithfulness of Peter. If not true, vour cause is 
 lost ; if true, Peter was a disobedient apostle, and 
 ought to be condemned, instead of being followed and 
 eulogized, for seeking his own ease instead of obey- 
 ing his Master's command." 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 57 
 
 As the judge, seeking only the truth, places you 
 in tills sad dilemma, I see your Irish heart swelling 
 with emotions. You seize your crook and your 
 keys, and glance a wrathful look at the " private 
 reasoner," so unfit to wear the ermine. But your 
 sober second thoughts return, and you ask, with a 
 tone of smothered indignation, '• Wliat proof does 
 your honor want that Peter was bishop of Rome ? 
 What proof will you admit that the popes of our 
 church are his true successors V 
 
 His honor replies calmly but decidedly, "Bishop 
 Hughes, the point you wish to prove is one of vital 
 importance. It is the hinge upon which many 
 grave questions turn, which deeply concern the des- 
 tinies of our race. So you and T believe. To prove 
 it I demand of you, not old wives' fables, but testi- 
 mony so clear and direct, as to place it beyond a 
 doubt. As to his being bishop of Rome, or being 
 ever at Rome, the Scriptures are silent ; and that 
 they are silent, to you must be very embarrassing. 
 And not only so, but upon this vital point the apos- 
 tolic men who conversed with the apostles are 
 equally silent as the Scriptures. Clemens, Barna 
 has, Flermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, say not a word 
 upon the subject. At about the close of the second 
 century Irenaeus records it as a tradition received 
 from one Papias, and is followed by your other au- 
 thorities. But who Papias was, whilst there are 
 various conjectures, nobody knows. And Eusebius 
 speaks of the matter as a doubtful tradition. Here, 
 
58 kirwan's reply 
 
 sir, is the amount of your testimony ; it resolves it- 
 self into the truth or falsehood of a prattling Papias, 
 who told Irenosus that somebody told him that Peter 
 was pope at Rome !" 
 
 " Now, sir, the evidence I require is, first, that he 
 was ever at Rome ; and secondly, that if there, he 
 was pope of the universal church. And upon these 
 points I will admit the testimony of the Scriptures, 
 the apostles, or any competent cotemporary. If you 
 have any such testimony produce it." You reply, 
 " This is asking too much of an infallible church, 
 whose unwritten tradition is of equal authority with 
 the written word." His honor replies, "Bishop 
 Hughes, it is asking a little too much to ask us to 
 believe without evidence." 
 
 " You ask," continues the judge, " what evidence 
 I will admit to prove that the popes are the suc- 
 cessors of Peter ? I want you, first, to prove that 
 Peter was pope ; if he was not he has no successors. 
 If he was pope, I then wish you to explain why he 
 was made pope, whilst he was set apart as the 
 Apostle of the circumcision. You send him. to the 
 Gentiles whilst his peculiar vocation was to the Jews. 
 " I wish you also to explain, why make him pope of 
 Rome, instead of Antioch, where we know he la- 
 bored with great success ; or instead of Jerusalem, 
 where the Spirit was poured out, and where he 
 preached with such remarkable power ? Is it not 
 probable that tradition has again misled you as to 
 ♦he location of the chair of Saint Peter." 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 59 
 
 " When you have proved and explainei these 
 things, then I wish you to tell by what body of men 
 Peter was made pope at Rome, and how he was 
 elected ; for his successors must be so appointed 
 and elected. I wish you to state how Peter was 
 inaugurated at Rome, and what were the limits of 
 his authority ; for so his successors must be inau- 
 gurated and limited. I wish you to prove the duties 
 devolved upor. Peter, and his manner of discharging 
 them ; for such are the duties of his successors, and 
 such must be their manner of discharo;ing them. I 
 wish you to prove the doctrines and morals preached 
 and practised by Peter ; as his successors must 
 preach and practice the same doctrines and morals. 
 Peter had a wife ; have your popes ? Peter called 
 himself an elder ; do your popes ? Peter exercised 
 no temporal power ; is it so as to your popes ? Pe- 
 ter devoted himself to preaching the gospel ; do your 
 popes ? Peter was a man of no parade, though im- 
 pulsive, and never asked any mortal to kiss his foot 
 or his toe ; is it so with your popes ?" 
 
 Swelling with indignation you rise, and interrupt- 
 ing the judge, you exclaim, " Enough, enough ; I 
 see that your honor is a ' private reasoner,' inca- 
 pable of ' making an act of faith,' and of course 
 no better than a heathen or a publican. You are 
 unfitted to sit upon such questions or to decide upon 
 them." And collecting again your napers you leave 
 the court, muttering in an under tone as you go, that 
 if you had his Honor in Italy under the shaxlow of, 
 
60 
 
 the sceptre of the illustrious Pius IX, you would 
 teach him what was the true evidence a judge should 
 require upon such points. 
 
 Thus, sir, in the form of a judicial investigation I 
 have examined the testimony which your church 
 adduces to prove that Peter was clothed by Jesua 
 Christ with supremacy over the apostles — that he 
 was the first pope of Rome — and that the popes of 
 Rome are his legitimate successors. There is not 
 a particle of reliable proof as to either of these posi- 
 tions — whilst the evidence is overwhelming that they 
 are the merest and silliest papal assumptions. And 
 yet upon assumptions based upon clouds which dis- 
 appear before the light of investigation, you base the 
 very existence and perpetuity of the church of God ! 
 It seems incredible that a man of sense, and an 
 Irishman too, should suspend my salvation upon my 
 church connection with men called popes, whose 
 ignorance, and profligacy, and cruelty, and false- 
 hood, have stamped their name with infamy — and 
 tell me that my submission to God and his Son is 
 of no avail unless I submit to these men, some of 
 whom were devils in canonicals. 
 
 There are two items of proof in favor of the su- 
 premacy of Peter adduced by your church to which 
 I have not alluded ; I will state them to note my 
 omission and for the information of our readers. 
 The first is the passage in Luke (5 : 3-10), where 
 Jesus entered into the ship of Peter, in preference 
 to that of James and John, and taught the people 
 
TO BISHOP HrGHES. 61 
 
 out of it. In the view of Milner it is a strong proof 
 of the supremacy of Peter ! ! The other is the story 
 about Simon Magus, the magician. By his juggling 
 miracles he made many followers, and greatly pre- 
 judiced the people against the gospel. He pro- 
 claimed that at Rome he was going to fly in the air ; 
 and Peter was there to oppose him. By the aid of 
 the devil he absolutely got up in the air ; but Peter 
 knelt down and prayed so earnestly that the devil 
 fled away and lef^^poor Simon to shift for himself — 
 he fell to the earth and broke both his legs. And 
 the impressions of the apostle's knees upon the stones 
 in Rome are shown to this day ! These are the 
 most unanswerable arguments upon the subject 
 which I have seen. I could get round all the others, 
 but these I give up ! 
 
 " The pope's supremacy," said Tillotson, " is not 
 only an indefensible, but also an impudent cause ; 
 there is not one tolerable argument for it, and there 
 are a thousand invincible reasons against it." 
 
 I have now, sir, sapped two of your main princi- 
 ples ; the supremacy of Peter and his successors, 
 and that the Bible must be understood and received 
 as your church interprets it. The taking away of 
 these two principles brings your whole superstruc- 
 ture tumbling around you. Here I might leave you 
 striving to escape from the falling masses ; but " the 
 sympathies of my Irish nature " compel me to say, 
 the end is not yet. 
 
 Yours, KiRWAN. 
 
 6 
 
"68 KIR WAN's IlEPLY 
 
 LETTER YIL 
 
 Papal claim to inrallibilit.y examined, and refuted. 
 
 My dear Sir, — Although the infaUihiUty of your 
 church is involved and confuted in my previous let- 
 ters ; yet as you place so much stress upon it, and 
 make it one of your fundamental principles, I have 
 supposed it worthy of a separate and independent 
 consideration. I will subject it to examination in 
 the present letter. 
 
 In letter III, chap. 25, you say, " The Author of 
 revelation identified Himself with his appointed wit- 
 ness, the church, in such a manner that the authori- 
 ty of the one is essentially implied and exercised in 
 the authority of the other." That is, the church 
 has the same authority and infallibility that Christ 
 had. This is a plain, though bold assertion. 
 
 In letter V, chap. 54, you say, " Whether the 
 words had ever been put on record or not (that is, 
 whether the Scriptures lad ever been written or 
 not) she (the church) would have been equally in 
 possession of that prerogative, namely, the vicarious 
 authority to teach unerringly . . . until the end 
 ot the world, the doctrines of Christ .... What 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 69 
 
 is the meaning of those passages if it be not to in. 
 vest the official teachers of the Christian religion 
 with the necessary portion of in-errancy, in other 
 words, of infallibility, by its Divine author." 
 
 But there is no need of calling evidence to con- 
 vict you of teaching the dogma, the infallibility of 
 the papal church. It is one which your church has 
 ever boldly and strenuously asserted ; but the maxi- 
 mum of her bold and confident assertion is always 
 in connection with the minimum of truth. To ex- 
 pose the utter truthlessness of the claim a few 
 considerations will suffice. 
 
 1. How do you prove her infallibility ? Tradition 
 is inadmissible ; because that has been, you say, in 
 her keeping. It is, then, either a bribed, corrupted, 
 or partial witness. The Scriptures, on your ground, 
 are inadmissible, because the church must give 
 them meaning ; and a meaning which we are bound 
 to receive. The church, you say, was before the 
 Scriptures, and gives them credibility and meaning. 
 Where is, then, the testimony to her infallibility ? 
 It is simply and only her oivn assertion of it. 
 
 2. But where is the seat of her infallibility ? Is 
 it in the pope ? But this some popes deny, as Gala- 
 sius, Innocent, Eugenius, Adrian, and Paul ; whilst 
 it is asserted by others. And those who assert it 
 differ as to its extent. Whilst some popes deny their 
 infallibility, the Jesuits say that " the pope is as 
 unerring as the Son of God." Is this, sir, less than 
 blasphemy, when you consider who some of your 
 popes were ? 
 
64 KIRWAJJ'S REPLY 
 
 Is it in a general council ? Such is the system 
 of the French school, and of some popes, and of 
 some councils, as of Constance, Pisa, and Basil, 
 which deposed some popes for high crimes. But 
 in this the council of Lateran contradicts that of 
 Basil. 
 
 Is it in a general council headed hy the pope ? 
 This some positively affirm. But this is opposed by 
 the two former parties, because denying the princi- 
 ple of each. 
 
 Is it in the church universal, consisting of pastors 
 and people ? So some assert, and among them, 
 Panormitan and Mirandula. " Ecclesia universalis 
 non potest errare," says Panormitan. This how- 
 ever is a small party opposing all, and opposed by 
 all the others. 
 
 Now, sir, when you differ about the seat of infal- 
 libility so widely and bitterly, what can you expect 
 better from a " private reasoner " than that he 
 should ask you the impertinent questions. If your 
 church is infallible, why does she not determine 
 where her infallibility is located ? What is her 
 infallibility worth, if she never knows where to 
 find it ? 
 
 3. The infallibility of your church is too limitea 
 in extent. Because she has no tradition upon them, 
 she gives no interpretation to many portions of the 
 Scripture ; and she forbids me interpreting them for 
 myself! What are these portions worth ? Might 
 they not be as well omitted ? She has no tradition 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 65 
 
 and cannot interpret them, and I must not ! Here 
 is a large portion of the Bible shut up from the 
 world, as if never revealed ! And yet Paul tells me 
 that " all Scripture is profitable." Can that be an 
 infallible church that knows nothing, and will per- 
 mit me to know nothing, about a large portion of 
 God's word ? 
 
 Her infallibility covers only the field of doctrine 
 and morals, and extends not to discipline and opi- 
 nions. Now a list of the doctrines and morals on 
 which she infallibly decides, and of the discipline 
 and opinions on which she makes no such decision, 
 and a narrative of her conduct in reference to them, 
 would be a most curious paper. Will you favor 
 the world with it, if you can ? In matters of doc- 
 trine, in which your church is infallible, a man may 
 believe as he desires, if he only clings to holy mo- 
 ther ; but in matters of discipline and opinion, on 
 which she has made no decision, if he acts out his 
 honest convictions, he will have emptied on him the 
 seven vials of papal wrath. For instance, the celi- 
 bacy of the clergy, communion in one kind, are 
 matters of discipline, and yet if you. Bishop Hughes, 
 like Peter, should marry a wife — and a good one 
 would be a great comfort to you, and would entitle 
 you more fully to the title of bishop — or if after the 
 example of Christ you should administer the supper 
 in the way it was instituted, you would soon be cast 
 out as an apostate. Practically her infallible doc- 
 trines arc minor matters, whilst those embraced 
 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 under discipline and opinions are matters on which 
 she has covered the earth with the blood and bones 
 of murdered men. What is the judge worth who 
 is unable to decide on all questions fairly brought 
 before him arising under the laws ? — and what 13 
 the infallibilit)' of your church worth when unable 
 to decide on the simplest questions as to discipline 
 and opinions, and when she yet sends to perdition 
 all those who deviate from her practice in these 
 things ? Paley tells us of a fish which, when pur- 
 sued by its enemy, casts forth a liquid that muddles 
 the water and blinds the eyes of its pursuer ; — such 
 is the object of your distinction between doctrines 
 and discipline, but it has not the effect of screening 
 your absurd dogma from being hunted down as an 
 impertinent and wicked assumption. 
 
 4. If pope contradicted pope, council, council, if 
 your chu^'ch has taught and denied in one age what 
 were denied and taught in another, as has been 
 shown a thousand times, and as you may see in 
 Barrow, Faber, and Edgar, where is her infallibi- 
 lity ? But let me ask your attention to a few con- 
 siderations bearing on the reasonableness of the 
 thing, 
 
 Man in his best estate is fallible. The history of 
 your own church teaches this beyond any other un- 
 inspired history extant. How can you make the 
 fallible infallible ? Can a whole be greater than its 
 parts ? Does the coming together of three hundred 
 fallible men make them infallible ? 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 67 
 
 If any of the bodies for which infallibility 13 
 claimed by your church were infallible, how ac- 
 count for their awful wickedness and grievous 
 errors ? If it inheres in the pope, were John, Bene- 
 dict, and Alexander infallible ; men born, as it 
 would seem, to show how far human nature may 
 sink in degeneracy ? Were the popes raised to the 
 chair of Peter by the courtezans Marozia and Theo- 
 dora, infallible ? Genebrand says that for one hun- 
 dred ahd fifty years they were apostatical rather 
 than Apostolical, and yet were they infallible ? 
 What say you, Bishop Hughes ? Yes, or no. 
 
 But perhaps infallibility was in the councils. 
 What does the noble Saint Gregory say of these ? 
 He compares their dissension and wrangling to the 
 quarrels of geese and cranes gabbling and contend- 
 ing in confusion — and represents them as demorali2^ 
 ing instead of reforming. That of Byzantine, Nazi- 
 anzen describes as a cabal of wretches fit for the 
 house of correction. Cardinal Huiro thus addressed 
 the council of Lyons on the Avithdrawal of the pope ; 
 " Friends," said he, " we have effected a work of 
 great utility and charity in this city. When we 
 came to Lyons we found only three or four brothels 
 in it ; we ;eave at our departure only one ; but that 
 extends from the eastern to the western gate of the 
 city.'"' For other details as to the councils, I refer 
 you to Edgar, where papal authorities for these 
 Btatetnents are fully cited. And yet were these 
 councils, canonically convened, infallible ? Does 
 
68 KIR WAN's REPLY 
 
 consecration by your church render a ruffian in- 
 fallible ? " The"^Holy Spirit," said Cardinal Man- 
 drucio at Trent, " will not dwell in men who are 
 vessels of impurity, and from such, therefore, no 
 right judgment can be expected on questions of 
 faith." 
 
 Can there be doctrinal without moral infallibility ? 
 Is not moral apostasy as culpable as doctrinal? 
 Can there be infallibility without inspiration, without 
 the special interposition of heaven in each case ? 
 Can it be transferred from pope to pope, from coun- 
 cil to council ? That your people may not err, does 
 not your doctrine require infallible bishops to explain 
 the decrees of popes or councils — and infallible 
 priests to explain them to the people, and the people 
 to be infallible so as not to misinterpret the priest ? 
 Where does the thing find an end ? It is vain that 
 councils send forth their decrees unless there is 
 some infallible way of reaching their infallible 
 meaning ; and if their meaning is left to be devel- 
 oped by the " private reasoner," what better are 
 you off than if you permitted him to read and to de- 
 velop the meaning of the Scriptures for himself? 
 Do you not know that Soto, a Dominican, and Vega, 
 a Franciscan, gave contradictory interpretations to 
 the decisions of the Council of Trent on Original 
 Sin, the last council " that blessed the world by its 
 orthodoxy, or cursed it by its nonsense ?" Can it 
 be possible that your claim for infallibility can have 
 any thing to sustain it save " old wives' fables ?" 
 
TO BISHOP HU-GHES. 69 
 
 The assertion of it would seem to argue either idiocy 
 or insanity ; or a pious knavery which would seek 
 to entrap men by logical meshes woven out of as- 
 sertion, falsehood, and imposture. 
 
 Nor, sir, have we yet reached the oottom of the 
 absurdit} . Your infallible church has set itself in 
 opposition to the inspired word of God, and to cor- 
 rect its plainest principles. As I have illustrated 
 this idea in some of my former letters, I can only 
 now allude to it. The Bible makes God the only 
 object of worship ; you set men to worship the Vir- 
 gin, the host, the cross, relics, pictures, and images. 
 The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the only in- 
 tercessor between God and man ; you make as 
 many intercessors as there are angels, apostles, mar- 
 tyrs, and saints, and send sinners to Mary more fre- 
 quently than to her Son. The Bible teaches that 
 nothing is sinful but a want of conformity to the law 
 of God ; vou make the violation of vour ceremonial 
 laws sinful, and damnable, whilst the violation of 
 the laws of God is a venial offence. The Bible 
 teaches that to serve God aright we must be regen- 
 erated by the Spirit of God ; you pronounce this a 
 false and accursed doctrine, and teach that we are 
 regenerated by baptism, and kept in a state of sal- 
 vation by other sacraments and ceremonies which 
 you have instituted. But I will not proceed in the 
 sickening detail which proves, beyond doubt, that 
 your infallible church has devised and is now seek- 
 ing to propagate the merest caricature of Christian- 
 
70 kirwan's reply 
 
 ity ; — which demonstrates that there is the same 
 difTcrence between the religion of Jesus Christ and 
 the religion of Rome, that there is between a sensibhv. 
 well formed, well bred, well behaved gentleman, 
 and a harlequin covered with gewgaws, seeking to 
 amuse the people by his dress and his tricks. 
 
 Now, sir, in view of all these things, will you not 
 bear with the infirmities of a " private reasoner," 
 which compel him to pronounce your doctrine of 
 infallibility the merest assumption, whose only object 
 is to make serfs of the people, and tyrants of the 
 priests ? Instead of being infallible, your church is 
 not credible ; her testimony is not to be relied on, 
 save when substantiated by other witnesses. This 
 you will say is an awful proof of my apostasy. Be 
 it 90. Nor have I any idea that your faith in the 
 doctrine is a whit stronger than mine. Cardinal 
 Perron, you know, when dying, pronounced tran- 
 substantiation a monster ; and some priests told 
 Bishop Usher, that the chief part of their confession 
 was iheir injideUty in the doctrines which they 
 taught, and for which they mutually absolved one 
 another. Is there nothing like this now going on in 
 New- York ? Have you never made, or heard such 
 confessions ? , 
 
 Yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 71 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 The assertion that there are but two principles, author'Ay s.nd reason, fof 
 the determinina of the meaniug of Sciipture, examined and confuted. 
 
 My dear Sir, — Having shown how utterly base- 
 less and false are the main positions of your letters, 
 and exposed their utter weakness and folly, as I 
 fondly hope even to yourself, 1 might now let them 
 rest. " The sympathies of my Irish nature " incline 
 me to do so, as I fear your nervous system must be 
 already sufficiently excited ; but my love for the 
 race surmounts those sympathies, and compels me 
 to notice what you say about " private reasoners." 
 And as it gives room for new and curious illustra- 
 tion, I will devote to it the present letter. 
 
 In paragraph 25, you say that there are but two 
 principles, " authority and reason," by which we 
 can truly determine the doctrines of revelation. 
 " Authority " is the principle of the papist ; " rea- 
 son " is that of all not papists. The principle of 
 " authority " leads into all trutn ; that of " reascm " 
 into all error. The reasoner cannot " make an act 
 of faith " — the highest aspiration of his mind or heart 
 is simply an " opinion." And, you say, " there is 
 not a single expression of Holy Writ that can war- 
 
72 kirwan's reply 
 
 rant the private reasoners of any age, whether past 
 or present, to believe that they can be saved, so long 
 as they trust to their own individual opinions for the 
 attainment of the truth, and the means of spiritual 
 life and participation in Christ." And all who now 
 reject the authority of your church which now exer- 
 cises the precise authority which Christ did whilst 
 upon earth, you denounce as " private reasoners," 
 incapable of faith, and as " necessarily out of the 
 way which leads to eternal life." This, sir, is not 
 speaking in Latin, as you do when you mumble 
 masses ; your English is more than usually plain 
 here ; and so will mine be, in examining the prac- 
 tical bearing of this cool assumption of your church 
 to think for every body ; of this cool exclusion from 
 eternal life of all who will not permit you to think 
 for them, and who dare to think for themselves. 
 
 The first idea suggested by all your dribble on the 
 subject through half a dozen of letters is, that you 
 seem to regret that God has endowed any body, save 
 bishops and the inferior clergy, with the faculty of 
 reason. The exercise of it on the subject of reli- 
 gion is denounced by you in every form as leading 
 to schism, heresy, and hell. Now, sir, if the exer- 
 cise of my reason is abstractedly so dangerous ; if, 
 in fact, when exercised, it leads to such awful re- 
 sults, how can you account for it that the Lord has 
 endowed me with reason at all ? On your princi- 
 ples would it not be better that I should have been 
 born with a razor in my hand to cut my throat, than 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 73 
 
 with reason in my mind which compels me to think 
 on the subject of religion ? Would it not be better 
 for all your purposes that I should have no reason ? 
 And do you not daily find the simple facts that God 
 has endowed man with reason, and with an awful 
 bias to exercise it, greatly embarrassing to you ? 
 Do not these facts give rise to nearly all the difficul- 
 ties with which you have to contend in the discharge 
 of your apostolical duties ? If men never turned 
 " private reasoners," yours would be an easy and a 
 most lucrative task ! 
 
 With your theory fully carried out, and all " pri- 
 vate reasoning " fully suppressed, and all " private 
 reasoners" killed off, after the manner of the exter- 
 mination of the Huguenots in France, by the author- 
 ity of your church, earth would present to your re- 
 joicing eyes an Arcadian scene such as the sun has 
 not yet illumined. The people would be all sheep 
 — yes, literal sheep — the pope would be the chief 
 shepherd — you, John Hughes, and your other Right 
 Reverend brethren would be his watch-doo;s. If 
 one of tlie poor sheep should ever think of straying 
 from your stagnant waters after a clear rivulet flow- 
 ing cool from under the rock at which to quench his 
 thirst, if a bark would not terrify him back to his 
 place, he would be soon torn to pieces as a warnin^j 
 lo all the flock not to imitate his example. And 
 then the chief shepherd and his dogs would have all 
 the flock to themselves, from Jie wool to the fat, and 
 from horn to hoof. And nothing prevents your get- 
 
 7 
 
74 KIRWAN^S REPLY 
 
 ting out from such a purgatory of clashing opinions 
 as that in which you are now placed, and rising up 
 to such a paradise as I have here sketched, but that 
 wicked and depraved disposition of men to question 
 your authority, and to use their " private reason." 
 Considering that this abominable abomination " pri- 
 vate reason " thus excludes you from the paradise 
 you desire, and shuts you up in a purgatory from 
 which neither the efficacy of masses, nor " all the 
 alms nor suffrages of the faithful " can deliver you, 
 you have by no means sufficiently denounced it. 
 There is no hope for you until it is put down ! But 
 I would advise you to strike at the fountain or cause 
 of the evil, which is God, who endowed man with 
 reason and knowledge — who has given him such a 
 depraved disposition to use them, and who has com- 
 manded him to give " to every man a reason for the 
 hope that is in him " — and who thus invites all men, 
 " Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord." 
 Go up, like a man, to the cause of the evil which 
 you deplore, and you are at once in conflict with 
 your Creator. 
 
 The next idea suggested by what you say about 
 " private reason " is the utter inutility of the Bible. 
 There are but two principles " authority and rea- 
 son " by which we can know its meaning. Au- 
 thority is in the hands of your church to be exercised 
 as she wills : to read the Bible and reason about it 
 'eads to hell. Where, then, is the need of the Bible 
 at all, save a (ew copies for the Bishops and inferior 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 75 
 
 clergy which they may occasionally consult for the 
 purpose of finding out chapter and verss of such 
 texts as these : " Thou art Peter," " Confess your 
 sins one to another." Sir, on your principles there 
 is no need of it ; and, hence, in purely Catholic 
 countries you dispense with it. Do you remember 
 how many Bibles Borrow could find in Spain ? 
 How many, think you, could be purchased in the 
 bookstores of Rome '? How many, think you, could 
 be found among the peasantry of Munster and Con- 
 naught, who yet wear the yoke of your church ? 
 If all collected, I think they would not add mate- 
 rially to the weight of the bag in which you pack 
 your vestments when going forth on some of your 
 episcopal visitations. You talk about the Protestant 
 translation as false — and as defective. But that is 
 all in the air. The cause of your opposition to the 
 Bible is bound up with your principle — " authority." 
 What men read they will use their private reason 
 about. And if the hidden man of your heart were 
 known, it would be seen that you hate the circula- 
 tion of the. Bible as much as you hate Kirwan's 
 Letters, as the one is the cause of the other. Sir, 
 there is no possibility of sustaining " authority " 
 versus " private reason," with a Bible circulated in 
 whole or in part. So awfully fearful are you upon 
 this point that many of your inferior clergy never 
 see a copy of the Bible, lest they should become 
 "private reasoners." Not long since I received a 
 visit from a priest who acted as curate in Ireland, 
 
76 kirwan's repl"? 
 
 and who told me that all of the Bible he ever saw, 
 whilst in your church, were the small portions scat- 
 tered, like angel's visits, through the Mass Book. 
 Sir, your doctrine of " authority " supersedes the 
 Bible ; and its circulation leads to mortal sin be. 
 cause it makes men " private reasoners." What 
 a pity the Bible was ever written ! Would not this 
 world of ours be a clover field for your priests, if 
 the Bible, like your traditions, had only been left 
 unwritten and unprinted 1 No wpnder that the 
 thunders of the Vatican are hurled at our Bible 
 Societies, which are so awfully multiplying " pri- 
 vate reasoners." But mere thunder, though noisy, 
 is harmless. 
 
 There is yet another idea connected with what 
 you say about " authority " and " reason," which 
 in this country at least must strike one as singular. 
 I have no doubt it will so strike yourself. When 
 two clever men get into difficulty, they consent to 
 have it fairly adjudicated, and to abide the decision 
 of an impartial tribunal. If one declines such a 
 reference, and insists on having it his own way, the 
 fair inference would be that he was conscious of be- 
 ing in the wrong. Between the intelligent men of 
 our race and your cliurch there is a difficulty. 
 Your church asserts the right of thinking for them, 
 a nd damns them unless they permit her to do so ; 
 they deny that right. How i& the question to be 
 settled ? They are an interested party, because 
 their civil and spiritual freedom are involved ; and 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 77 
 
 SO is your church, because if decided against her, 
 she is ever afterwards deprived of " the alms and 
 suffrages of the faithful." If your claim is true, 
 they are slaves ; if false, they are free, and youi 
 craft is ended. How is this matter to be decided ? 
 Your church replies, " With me is the authority to 
 bind or to loose ; it must be referred to me as the 
 only competent authority." 'But they say, " No ; 
 you are an interested party — you have millions at 
 stake — your character and standing before heaven 
 and earth are at stake — your decision must be par- 
 tial. But we will abide the decision of any tribunal 
 save that which you set up." But your church 
 says, " No, you must abide hj my decision or he 
 damned.''^ Sir, were men in conflict but for a dol- 
 lar, this would wear knavery on the face of it ; can 
 it wear less when the points at issue are. whether 
 your priests shall be despots, and the human race 
 their pliant serfs ? 
 
 There is yet another principle connected with 
 your doctrine of" authority " and " private reason." 
 The man that believes all you tell him " makes an 
 act of faith ;" but the poor " private reasoner " that 
 goes to the Bible for himself can form only an 
 " opinion " upon any subject. To illustrate. When 
 you tell a poor papist who believes you, that Christ 
 Jesus is co-equal with the Father, his belief of what 
 you say is " an act of faUh ;" when I learn the same 
 truth from the Bible and believe it, with me it is only 
 an "opinion !" He believes on " authority " and I 
 
 7* 
 
78 kirwan's reply 
 
 am a " private reasoner." His " act of faith " savet 
 him ; my " opinion " damns me ; when his belief 
 and mine are the same, with only this difference, he 
 gets his " faith " from you ; I, my " opinion " from 
 the Bible ! Sir, this is something more than drivel- 
 ing nonsense. It is contemptible blasphemy. 
 
 But let us try this scheme in its application to 
 some texts and truths, 'that we may see how it works. 
 
 " Bishop Hughes," says John Murphy, " what is 
 the meaning of that text (James 5 : 16), " Confess 
 your faults one to another, and pray ybr one another." 
 " Why, John," you reply, " it means confess your 
 sins to the priest, and ask the priest to pray for you." 
 John believes, and makes an act of faith. I, a little 
 more cautious, look at the text, and thus reason 
 about it. " One to another " — that looks very much 
 like the priest confessing to me, if I confess to the 
 priest, and I praying for the priest, if the priest 
 prays for me. I look a little farther after " one an- 
 other " or " one to another." I find in Heb. 3 : 13, 
 the following words, " exhort one another." Does 
 this mean that the priest must exhort me, but not I 
 the priest ? Very well. I find the following words 
 in Eph. 4 : 32, " Be kind one to another, tender- 
 tiearted, forgiving one another." Does this mean 
 that the priest must be kind and tender-hearted to 
 me, and not I to the priest ? that he must forgive 
 me, but not I him ? What say you, Bishop Hughes ? 
 Yet John Murph)" believes you and makes an act 
 of faith, and goes to confession and pays you and 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 79 
 
 goes to heaven ; I, a " private reasoner " conclude 
 you pervert the Scriptures to make a gain of godli- 
 ness, confess my sins to God, and for my opinion go 
 to hell ! 
 
 John Murphy again asks, " Bishop, what is the 
 meaning of Mat. 26 : 26, 27 V You reply, " Why, 
 John, it means, that Christ transubstantiated the bread 
 and the wine into his own body and blood, and that 
 then he multiplied himself into twelve, and that then 
 he gave himself to be eaten to each of the apostles, 
 and after he was thus eaten, he was not eaten ; he 
 was yet alive and spoke to them." With his eyes 
 wonderfully dilated, he asks, " Bishop, is this done 
 now ?" " O yes, John," you reply, " daily in the 
 mass." He again asks, " Bishop, why not give the 
 bread and the wine now to the people V " The 
 reason, John, is," you reply, " that as the wafer is 
 changed into the real body and blood of Christ, 
 there is no need of it, for if we eat the whole body, 
 we of course eat the blood with it." John is satis- 
 fied, makes an act of faith, and is saved ; I, looking 
 a little farther into the Scriptures, soon conclude that 
 the passage means, that the broken bread repre- 
 sented his body broken, and the wine in the cup his 
 blood poured out. John Murphy for his act of faith 
 is saved ; and I, poor Kirwan, for my opinion am 
 damned ! ! 
 
 Such, sir, is the way your rule works as to texts. 
 Let us now see how it works as to some important 
 truths. 
 
80 kirwan's reply 
 
 John Murphy again approaches you and asks, 
 " Bishop, how can I be saved ?" " Wliy, John," 
 you reply, " the church makes that very plain ; 
 you must be baptized, and go to mass, and perform 
 penance — you must go regularly to confession ; 
 when dying you must receive extreme unction ; 
 then you must go to purgatory, from which you are 
 to be delivered by the efficacy of masses, and by the 
 alms and the suffrages of the faithful ; and then you 
 go to heaven," Amazed at the process, poor John 
 makes an act of faith and is saved : I turn to the 
 Scriptures, and preferring the word of God to yours, 
 believe that " he that believeth in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ shall be saved." John Murphy believes you. 
 and is saved ; I believe God and am damned. And 
 so on to the end of the chapter. Why, Bishop 
 Hughes, all this has not even the redeeming quality 
 of being good nonsense : an article in whose pro- 
 duction our countrymen are not usually deficient, 
 even when their power as private reasoners is at 
 low water mark. 
 
 Here, sir, I will close my reWew of your reasons 
 for adherence to the Roman Catholic church as 
 given in your ten letters to Dear Reader. Never 
 were reasons more baseless, or weaker, presented 
 to the human mind to justify either opinions or con- 
 duct. The way in which you state them obviously 
 shows that you never examined them — that you re- 
 ceived them as true as a good son of the church, 
 without ever asking why or wherefore in reference 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 81 
 
 to them. Your reception of them was obviously an 
 act of faith, and not an opinion formed in the usual 
 process of a private reasoner. And to ask me, or 
 any sensible, thinking man, to believe in the Catho- 
 lic church for the reasons presented in your letters, 
 is on a par with asking me to believe that the little 
 wafer made of flour, which you lay upon the tongue 
 of a papist bowing before your altar, is transub- 
 stantiated by a miserably mumbled ceremony into 
 the real body and blood of Christ. 
 
 Balaam's ass would never have had a name or a 
 place on the page of history were it not for the whip- 
 ping which his master gave him ; and were it not 
 for that whipping never would hairs from his tail 
 have been preserved amid the sacred relics of Rome. 
 Similar, I fear, will be the effect of this review in 
 bringing up to public notice letters, which have nei- 
 ther sense, truth, wit, logic, or even " clever scur- 
 rility " to recommend them, and which if let alone 
 might have reached the very depths of oblivion by 
 the massive weight of their dullness. 
 
 But, sir, although through with your ten letters, 
 the end is not yet. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
KIRWAN S REPLY 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 The Bishop's six letters to Kirwan, reviewed. 
 
 My dear Sir, — I wish in the present epistle to 
 notice, in the briefest way, those last and curious 
 productions of your pen, your six letters to Kirwan. 
 If your papal assumptions and papal logic made 
 your ten letters to " Dear Reader ^' intolerably dull, 
 you have cast into these so much low personality, 
 so much Episcopal impertinence, and such a strong 
 spice of Irish ill humor, as to make them quite in- 
 teresting. They are certainly readable produc- 
 tions, and give us new revelations both as to your 
 Jine taste, and wonderful good nature. You cannot 
 expect that I will permit you to raise new issues 
 between you and myself, so as to divert the public 
 mind from the points to which I have solicited its 
 and your attention ; — nor can you expect that I 
 could, for a moment, descend to the low level along 
 which in those letters you have seen fit to move. 
 Yet I would respectfully call your attention to a 
 few remarks in reference to them. And this I will 
 do, after the manner of some old preachers, under 
 a few heads. 
 
TO EIciHOP HUGHES. 83 
 
 1. Your letters give us an amusing view of the 
 manner in which you keep your promises. In 
 your first series you say, " I propose to publish a 
 series of letters on the same great topics which 
 Kirwan has discussed." These letters drew "their 
 slow length along," until they reached No. 10, and 
 the '' great topics which Kirwan has discussed " 
 were left untouched. Feeling that you could not 
 write such letters upon fish and eggs, you dropped 
 them at the commencement of Lent ; they have 
 never since been resumed. In your second series, 
 you say, " Your letters purport to explain the 
 reasons why you left the Roman Catholic Church ; 
 . . . the object of mine will be to review those 
 reasons." And yet in your six letters there is not 
 the most remote allusion to '- those reasons !" Is 
 this owing, sir, to a want of memory, or to the 
 want of ability ? Or is it a sample of the way in 
 which you generally meet your promises ? The 
 facts certainly show that you are a most protnising 
 man. 
 
 2. Your letters give us an interesting view of 
 your moral courage. When you commenced your 
 first scries we Protestants certainly felt, and said, 
 " Now we are ijoinu: to have a tract for the times, 
 
 CO ' 
 
 and worthy of the controversy." But the little 
 spice of the first letter was not found in any other 
 of the series, and they became utterly insipid, and 
 died at the sight of Lent ! When the second series 
 commenced, we all said, and the papers, political 
 
84 kirwan's reply 
 
 and religious, said, " Now we are going to have a 
 racy and manly discussion." Six letters are pub- 
 lishnd without touching a single topic in contro- 
 versy, and again you retire ! And almost before 
 your quill was dry, you were off for Halifax ! 
 And when we now inquire after your Right Rev- 
 erence, the only reply we receive is, " He is gone 
 to Halifax !" If you compare my desertion of the 
 Catholic church when a boy to the desertion of our 
 flag by some of our soldiers in Mexico, to what can 
 we liken your desertion of her in her present exi- 
 gencies ? For a mere stripling recruit to run away 
 in a time of peace, is a small matter ; but for the 
 General in Command to flee to Halifax in the very 
 midst of the battle, is a very different affair! I 
 hope you can satisfy " the illustrious Pope Pius IX" 
 as to all this ! 
 
 3. Your letters furnish a very nice illustration 
 of an easy way of getting out of a difficulty. You 
 expected to make short work of Kirwan's Letters 
 when you commenced ansv/ering without reading 
 them. But as you read on, you found the nuts 
 were a little harder to crack than you had antici- 
 pated ; and you made the commencement of Lent 
 an excuse for dropping them. But this displeased 
 your priests and people, and, as the Freeman's 
 Journal testifies, you were called upon to give to 
 the letters of Kirwan a direct answer. This Pa- 
 pists and Protestants alike desired, and demanded. 
 As there was no way of evasion, in an evil hour 
 
TO EISHOP HUGHES. 85 
 
 you consented to comply with the demand ; and, 
 hence, those six unfortunate letters which have so 
 widely excited a smile at your expense. In these 
 it is obvious that you have read Kirwan. Your 
 temper and your quotations are proof of this. 
 Again you find the nuts too hard to crack ; and 
 seeing that instead of crushing them you were cover- 
 ing your own fingers with blood and bruises, you 
 cry out at the close of the sixth letter, " You wish 
 me to dispute with you on matters of general con- 
 troversy ; I must beg leave to decline the proposed 
 honor ; I cannot consent to dispute with any man 
 for whom I feel no respect." And after bowing 
 me *' for the present, farewell," you are ofi* foi 
 Halifax ! That is, after laboring through three 
 months of the last winter, and sweltering through 
 six weeks of the present summer, to confute me, in 
 vain, you find out that you have no respect for me, 
 decline further controversy, and flee to Halifax ! 
 So that when a man is fairly worsted, he has only 
 to find out that he has no respect for his antagonist, 
 and then he can retire crowned with laurels from 
 the controversy ! How easily, according to this 
 rule, could the dastardly Santa Anna have gained 
 a complete victory over the gallant Scott ; and even 
 after the Yankees were reveling in the Halls of the 
 Montezumas ! He had only to find out that he had 
 no respect for him . 
 
 Now, sir, I shrewdly conjecture that this way of 
 getting out of a difficult v is borrowed from " old 
 
 8 
 
86 
 
 Ireland." Did you ever go to school in Ireland ; 
 or were those awful laws, of wliich you speak in 
 your last letter, in force, until after your emigration ? 
 Perhaps if you did you may remember that Irish 
 boys are very fond of fighting after school. A 
 very odd scene, which was acted one evening, is 
 now before my mind, as if it transpired but yes- 
 terday. There was a large clumsy fellow, that by 
 his boasting and violent gesticulations kept all the 
 boys for some weeks in dread of him ; and there was 
 a thin but muscular boy, who at length resolved to 
 meet him in a fair boxing-match. Those of us in the 
 secret retired to a secluded spot and formed a ring ; 
 and the fight commenced. It was soon apparent, 
 to the joy of us all, that the thin muscular boy was 
 an overmatch for his opponent. In every round he 
 had signally the advantage. After nearly as many 
 rounds as you have written letters to and about 
 Kirwan, the large clumsy fellow, with his eyes 
 swelled up, and his nose and mouth streaming blood, 
 and scai'cely able to stand up, thus addressed the boy 
 that almost pounded him to jelly, " You are a mean, 
 dirty blackguard for whom I have no respect, and I 
 will fight no more with you." Feeling this an ad- 
 ditional insult, his antagonist bared his arms for an- 
 other round, but the beaten boy fled blubbering from 
 the ring ; but whither he fled I have no means of 
 knowing. Perhaps your Reverence may find him 
 in Halifax. So you see your way of getting out of 
 a difficulty, although ingenious, is not new. And 
 
' TO BISHOP HUGHES. 87 
 
 both you and the public know it is not the true 
 reason. 
 
 4. Your letters reveal what may be regarded as 
 a compound estimate of those which I have address- 
 ed to you. In your first series you speak of them 
 as " possessing a sprightliness of style which ren- 
 ders them a pleasing contrast to the filthy volumes 
 that have been written on the same side ;'"' — and not 
 long afterwards you speak of them as containing only 
 " clever scurrility." In your six letters, you say 
 of mine, that " so far as regards the grammatical 
 construction of phrases, and a correct and almost 
 elegant use of Anglo-Saxon words, they are not un- 
 worthy of the country which produced a Dean Swift, 
 or a Goldsmith." This, from a competent critic 
 would be high praise ; and even from jIdu, it shows 
 that your miserably exclusive and debasing reli- 
 gious system has not suppressed all the generous 
 pulsations of your Irish heart. But then you speak 
 of them afterwards as written in the " true wind- 
 bag style." Now, sir, how to reconcile these things, 
 I know not, save on the ground that the " wind- 
 bag " is yours, and that Kirwan's Letters have 
 pricked it, until it has fallen into a state of collapse 
 beyond the power of a rew inflation. 
 
 5. They reveal a great dishonesty in evading the 
 point of a statement. The Editor of the Observer 
 has already exposed your miserable and truthless 
 perversion of the scene at the Confessional, and, as 
 you well know, drawn by me to the life. The ex- 
 
88 kirwan's reply 
 
 posure of that single perversion is enough to brand 
 you for life as an unfair man. 1 say no more about 
 it. So you evade the point of the statement as to 
 the priest reading a dead list from the altar for so 
 much a head per year to pray them out of purgatory. 
 Do you deny that such a list is read, and that unless 
 the priest is paid he drops the names ? That is the 
 point of the statement. The fact you deny is, a fact 
 not questioned by me, that any priest ever decides 
 when any soul leaves purgatory f I have no doubt 
 they will keep souls there as long as they can gel 
 money to say mass for them, if it were until St. 
 Tibb's eve, which is the eve after the final consum- 
 mation. 
 
 So you evade the point of the facts as to the 
 drunken priests. You say, and truly, that such 
 facts form no argument against religion, or any form 
 of it ; and that you have seen Protestant ministers 
 in state prison for worse sins than drunkenness. 
 But the point of the statement is, that these drunken 
 worthless wretches, whether deposed or recti in ec- 
 clesia, were miracle workers, and were daily resorted 
 to for miraculous cures both as to men and cattle, 
 and for which they were paid in money and Irish 
 whisky ! That, sir, is the point. Have you ever 
 seen a Protestant minister deposed for drunkenness, 
 or in a state prison for a criminal offence, resorted 
 to by Protestants for miraculous cures, and paid for 
 them in money or whisky ? If not, where is the 
 point of your parallel ? And so as to " St. John's 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 89 
 
 Well." You say that you " know nofhing about it,^'^ 
 and yet you pronounce the story a fabrication ! If 
 you know nothing about i^, what right have you to 
 say it is untrue, when millions of living witnesses 
 misjht be collected in Ireland to the truth of the 
 statement — when the well is there to testify for it- 
 self ! Sir, is the story about St. Patrick's Well in 
 the County Down a fabrication, whose orgies are a 
 disgrace to the civilized world ? Are the Seven 
 Stations at or near Athlone a fabrication, where 
 feats of superstition are yearly performed, which 
 cast into the shade those of the Hindoo fakiers ? It 
 is no wonder you are ashamed and vexed when 
 the deep degradation to which popery has reduced 
 our unhappy country, is exposed to the indignant 
 scorn of free and intelligent American citizens ; — it 
 is no wonder when you seek, in any way, to escape 
 from the obloquy to which the upholding of such a 
 system subjects you. 
 
 6. Your letters exhibit a great dislike for the 
 reduciio ad ahsurdum. And no wonder, when your 
 system offers so many and such strong temptations 
 to use it. And yet, you know, that it is a legiti- 
 mate way of reasoning. I hope you cannot say of 
 this, as of St. John's Well, that you know nothing 
 about it. I am striving to show the absurdity of 
 literal interpretation as you use it to prove certain 
 papal tenets ; and I ask how, ly your rule, you 
 escape the inference of being a devil whilst uphold- 
 ing the doctrine of clerical celibacy which Paul 
 
 8* 
 
90 kirwan's reply 
 
 pronounces a doctrine of devils ? My object is to 
 show the absurdity of your rule, and yet you seein 
 as vexed about it as if the budding horns had 
 already appeared upon your temples ! So as to 
 the text, " he that eateth this bread shall never 
 hunger." The object is to show the unspeakable 
 absurdity of your rule. If that rule is true, then 
 all that you have to do is to give your wafer to the 
 poor famishing Irish, and they hunger no more. 
 This you pronounce " a horrible pun on the words 
 of the Saviour;" you mistake, — it is a horrible 
 blow at your ridiculous interpretation of " this is 
 my body." And because the blow is so heavy, it 
 is immediately big with "impiety and inhumanity.'* 
 Now, sir, the way for you to get rid of all that kind 
 of argument is, to withdraw the premises on which 
 it is built ; or when you see tliat your premises 
 lead to such absurd consequences, to reject them. 
 It will do you no good to get vexed about it. 
 
 7. Your letters also exhibit wonderfully cogent 
 proofs of my infidelity. True, all we Protestants 
 are pronounced infidels by you because we are un- 
 able " to make an act of faith ;" but the proofs of 
 my infidelity are extra, and are furnished by my 
 letters. The first is, I appeal to " common sense " 
 very often. The second is, I eat meat on Friday, 
 and think it neither injures the bodies nor the souls 
 of men. The third is, I believe that intelligent 
 "Worship is only acceptable to God nor beneficial to 
 me. The fourth is, I do not believe that you can 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 91 
 
 make God out of a flour wafer. The fifth is, I 
 do not believe that Mary was the mother of God. 
 The sixth is, I do not sufficiently reverence Mary, 
 only speaking of her as " a good woman." The 
 seventh is, I do not highly enough value the lubri- 
 cation of an old sinner, when dying, with olive oil. 
 The eighth is, I believe it is as acceptable an act 
 to God to worshio the head of Balaam's ass, as a 
 human skull said to be that of the Apostle Paul. 
 And all these specifications are melted down and 
 moulded into oiie great and grand charge, " my in- 
 sult to the mysteries of the Catholic faith." Well, 
 sir, if these are proofs of my infidelity, I plead 
 guilty. But let me inform you that I draw a dis- 
 tinction between Bible and papal mysteries ; — the 
 first I receive as inscrutable and adorable ; the 
 second 1 reject as the m^/steries of iniquity. Per- 
 haps my letters are too much pervaded by what 
 you are pleased to call " a silvery thread of wit 
 which is unmistakably Irish," but I have long ago 
 concluded that the scaly hide of the Beast was im- 
 pervious to reason and argumentation, and that the 
 time has come for Wit and Ridicule and Carica- 
 ture to empty upon the monster their quiver of 
 arrows. There are some thin2:s too absurd to waste 
 reason upon ; there is a point beyond which to 
 reason is casting pearls before swine, and where 
 we must answer focls according to their folly. I 
 do not wonder that a mind so seemingly supersti- 
 tious as is yours, should pronounce me occasionally 
 
92 kirwam's reply 
 
 profane ; but perhaps you may remember the story 
 of Diodorus about the Roman who madvertently 
 killed a cat in Egypt, one of the gods of the land. 
 So exasperated were the populace that they ran in 
 frenzy to his house, and neither the files of soldiers 
 drawn up for his protection, nor the terror of the 
 Roman name could save him from being torn to 
 pieces. In times of famine the Egyptians would 
 kill and eat one another before they would kill an 
 ox, a dog, an ibis, or a cat ! These were their 
 gods, and to treat them otherwise than with the 
 most profound reverence was unpardonable pro- 
 fanity ! ! 
 
 1 accept, sir, most cheerfully, the offer which you 
 make to prove one of my statements, which you 
 question, a fabrication, by a formal investigation, on 
 one condition, which I hope you will have the sense 
 and courage to grant. The condition is this. You 
 say that you do transubstantiate a little wafer into 
 tlie real and true body and blood of Christ, and that 
 you do this whenever and wherever you say mass. 
 Now " 1 am willing to go to any reasonable expense 
 to prove this a fabrication, if either you or any other 
 bishop or priest have the courage to meet me in a 
 formal investigation." This will incur but little 
 expense — it can be done at St. Patrick's, or at St. 
 Peter's, or at your own house. You can select 
 three out of the five judges. We will first take the 
 wafer and examine it. You may then say high and 
 low mass over it, and take it through all the required 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 93 
 
 lliftings and lowerings needful to transubstantiate it, 
 and if it is not the identical wafer it was when we 
 put it into your hands then we will submit to be 
 branded as blasphemers ; but if it is, we will let 
 you off, without any brand, simply as an impostor. 
 The offer which you make would lead to a sea voy- 
 age, and would require the raising of the dead, and 
 would lead to some expense ; but this can be done 
 in a day, and I will agree to pay the bill. 
 
 If you reject this form of the condition, I will 
 make another. Your olive oil, blessed on Maunday 
 Thursday, you represent as possessing wonderful 
 efficacy, when rubbed on a dying sinner according 
 to law. " I am willing to go to any reasonable ex- 
 pense to prove this a fabrication ;" and that your 
 olive oil, under these circumstances, has not a whit 
 greater efficacy than whale oil, or bear's oil, or 
 goose grease. And again, I will leave to you the 
 selection of three out of five judges. When these 
 offers are accepted, and these questions are settled, 
 then we will make the required arrangements to 
 meet the challenge which you throw out to myself 
 or Mr. Prime. May I hope to hear from you as 
 soon as it will meet your convenience after your re- 
 turn from Halifax ? 
 
 In case you should resume this controversy, for 
 the third time, permit me, as your friend, to give 
 you a few words of advice. 
 
 1. Keep your temper. A bishop should be no 
 brawler. Good nature is the very air of a good 
 
94 kirwan's reply 
 
 mind, the sign of a large and generous soul, and tlie 
 soil in which virtue prospers. 
 
 2. Remember that rude assaults upon an oppo- 
 nent do not refute his arguments. You grievously 
 complain of them in your own case ; can they be 
 right as to me ? If I were all you say of me, and 
 as much beyond that as that is beyond the truth, 
 that would not prove true the absurdities of Roman- 
 ism — that would not prove that you can create God, 
 and forgive sin, — or that your religion is any thing 
 else but a peacock religion, which has nothing use- 
 ful or attractive about it save its glittering plumage. 
 
 3. Remember that what you write may possibly 
 live after you are dead ; and that your office as a 
 bishop gives not the weight of a feather to your weak 
 arguments, whilst it renders your vulgarity doubly 
 vulgar. In this country no man is sustained by his 
 station ; unless he graces it, he disgraces himself. 
 The person who raises himself to station, name, and 
 influence, is worthy of double honor ; but in case 
 such a person should rise from a cabbage garden to 
 a mitre, he ought to know that the line of conduct 
 which would not particularly dishonor the hoe or 
 the spade, would reflect no enduring reputation upon 
 the crook and the crosier. 
 
 Adherence to this advice, if it corrects not your 
 principles, will have, at least, a benign influence on 
 your manners. Farewell. May you be brought to 
 the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 95 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 AN APPEAL TO ALL ROMAN CATHOLICS. 
 
 My dear Friends, — In closing these letters, as 
 with the two series hitherto published, I turn from 
 Bishop Hughes to you. Many of you have not been 
 uninterested readers of my letters ; nor of the con- 
 troversy, so far as it has assumed that character, 
 between Bishop Hughes and myself. And whilst 
 the prejudices of education, and your respect for 
 official station, would naturally lead you to take 
 sides with him, I am thankful to know that the gen- 
 erous impulses of many of you, and your desire to 
 know the truth, have led you to resolve that I should 
 have fair play. I have appeared before you with 
 no crosses before my name — with no ecclesiastical 
 titles after it — making no flourish of trumpets from 
 the places of brief authority, and with the one sim- 
 ple desire to unfold before your eyes the religious 
 system which has oppressed your fathers, and which 
 in its ceremonial exactions has become too heavy for 
 the earth any longer jo bear. And I am thankful 
 that so many, educated as you and I were in our 
 youth, have been led by these letters to seek the re- 
 
96 kirwan's reply 
 
 ligion of Christ and of the Bible among Protestants, 
 And whilst there are many of you whose micds, 
 through priestly interferences, have been so imbued 
 with prejudices as to repel all approach to you, how- 
 ever kind, with the lamp of life and light, yet this is 
 by no means the case with you all. To this latter 
 class, the intelligent and candid of your nuniber, who, 
 in this free land, are determined to think for your- 
 selves, I now appeal. 
 
 The history of my " Letters to Bishop Hughes " 
 is a very short one. Whilst yet in my minority, 
 and nearly thirty years ago, I left the Rcwnan Cath- 
 olic Church. Motives that I now need not detail, 
 led me to write those letters in which I have stated 
 the reasons which induced me to give up the reli- 
 gion of the priest for that of the Bible. To these 
 letters Bishop Hughes attempted an indirect reply 
 in ten letters ; and broke down in the midst of the 
 discussion at the commencement of last Lent. As 
 these had nothing in them to answer my objections, 
 or to satisfy your inquiries, you asked for something 
 else. Hence the six letters entitled " Kirwan Un- 
 masked," in which, after abuse without stint or 
 sense, and without answering one solitary objection, 
 he again breaks down at the close of the sixth, and 
 flees to Halifax. And this, my third series, which 
 I now bring to a close, is designed as a reply to those 
 addressed by him to " Dear Reader," and to me, 
 Kirwan. 
 
 The history of the Bishop in the concern is about 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 97 
 
 as short. When my letters first appeared, he could 
 not condescend to answer them ! He then com- 
 menced answering, without reading them ! and 
 without meeting an objection stated by me, he broke 
 down with the tenth letter. When goaded by Cath- 
 olics and Protestants, until he could stand it no 
 longer, he resolved on a direct answer to my objec- 
 tions ; and again he broke down at the close of the 
 sixth letter, without answering one of them. 
 Thinking that it would answer all his purposes with 
 you to abuse me, he writes his six wonderful letters, 
 which deserve a place in the museum as a speci- 
 men of the controversial taste and ability of popish 
 priests, and again breaks down, and flees beyond 
 seas to hide the shame of his wickedness ! How 
 high his calculations on the strength of your preju- 
 dices, and on the weakness of your common sense ! 
 Having usurped the power of thinking for you, he 
 takes for granted that any kind of episcopal non- 
 sense will satisfy you ! But he is mistaken ; as 
 multitudes of you declare that his silence would be 
 far better than what he has said, and would have 
 inflicted less injury on Popery in this country. 
 
 Such being the history of the letters, look for a 
 moment at the state of the controversy. There, in 
 my first and second series, lie my objections to tlie 
 Roman Catholic Church, abused from Maine to 
 Mexico, but unanswered. Arid I defy Bishop 
 Hughes, and all his mitred brethren on this continent y 
 to answer them on Scriptural and common sense prin- 
 
 9 
 
96 kirwan's keplt 
 
 ciples, to the satisfaction of any reasonahle man. 
 The bishop has published ten letters giving his rea- 
 sons for adherence to the Roman Catholic Church, 
 out of whose pale there is no salvation. These rea- 
 sons I have shown to be mere and miserable as- 
 sumptions, and utterly insufficient to justify the 
 faith or the practice of any living man. Bishop 
 Hughes would not ask vour note for a do! la", had 
 he no stroncrer reasons for askinirit than those which 
 he has given to bind you to the Catholic Church ; 
 and if he should so impose upon you as to secure 
 your note for no stronger reasons, you might sue 
 him for taking from you your money under false 
 pretences, and send him, if not to purgatory, at least 
 to state prison, to atone for his crime. 
 
 Such, then, is the state of this controversy. 
 There lie my objections to popery unanswered. 
 Let Bishop Hughes ansioer them, if he can. There 
 are his reasons for adherence to the Catholic Church 
 confuted. Let him reconstruct his argument if he 
 can. And all that he has yet done is, to abuse me 
 in a way unbecoming a bishop, for first riddling his 
 building? and then takirg awav its foundations. 
 And because the hopes of his gain are gone, he and 
 his priests, were it in their power, would serve me 
 as Paul and Silas were served in Philippi by the 
 masters of the damsel out of whom they cast the 
 spirit of divination. But we are in a free country. 
 
 Roman Catholics, from this man and his miser- 
 able system; I now turn to you. Read the ten 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 99 
 
 letters which I have reviewed, and see how weak 
 are the arguments for popery ! Read the sLx letters 
 addressed to me, and see how low your bishop 
 can descend ! If John Huo-hes is the Achilles of 
 popery in our country, what must the soldiers under 
 him be ! ! And will you longer sustain a religion 
 the strong objections to which he cannot meet ; and 
 the reasons for adherence to vvhich, as given by 
 himself, are not strong enough to hold up ihe 
 spider's most attenuated web ? Behold him twice 
 coming to the rescue of your church, and twice 
 turning his back without even an effort to spike a 
 single gun aimed at its vitals ! Can the system 
 which he. cannot defend be worthy of your support ? 
 Can the captain who deserts his post in the heat of 
 battle, be worthy of the commission he bears ? 
 
 Read his ten letters, if their dullness will permit 
 you, and examine their principles. What an argu- 
 ment for a religious despotism of the most grinding 
 and enduring character ! The pope is the succes- 
 sor of Peter, and you have no hope of heaven but 
 in connection with the pope ! Be as good, as pious, 
 as charitable, as Godlike as you may, you are out 
 of the way of life unless you submit to the pope, 
 and then to all his subalterns ! You have no right 
 to form a.i opinion of your own ; tlie pope, bishops, 
 and priests are appointed to think for you ! With- 
 out a license, such as they give in Ireland for sell- 
 ing whisky, you have no riglit to read the Bible ; 
 the priests will do thai for you, and tell you what 
 
100 kirwan's reply 
 
 is in it that concerns you ! To God your Father 
 you have no riglit to go save through a priestly in- 
 tercessor, vi'ho, for a fee to suit your circumstances, 
 will transact all your business at the Court of 
 Heaven ! All you do you must tell the priest ; 
 and thus you give him a power over you by which 
 he can whip you into the traces whenever you dare 
 to think for yourselves ! If the letters of Bishop 
 Hughes are true, then the priests of the papal 
 church are a close corporation with the pope at 
 their head, with the keys of life and death in their 
 hands, and through whom alone God exercises 
 spiritual dominion in our world ! What a fearful 
 despotism is this, infinitely more oppressive than 
 any civil despotism which has ever cursed the 
 world ! It meets you at your entrance into life — 
 it dogs you through every step of your earthly pil- 
 grimage — it stands by you at the bed of death, 
 claiming the power of opening heaven to your soul 
 when it escapes from its clay tabernacle, or of 
 locking it up in hell ! From the cradle to the 
 grave you must only do as it ordains at the risk of 
 all the vials of its wrath ! And this is popery ; — 
 yes, popery as advocated and practised in the city 
 of New- York by Bishop Hughes ! With what 
 noble consistency can he raise his voice in Vaux- 
 hall against the oppression of Ireleind by England, 
 and subscribe his money to buy a shield for the 
 back of the sham-patriots, who, by their shameful 
 blustering and cowardly conduct, have made Irish 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 101 
 
 patriotism a subject of merriment throughout the 
 world : — and then vindicate a code of religious 
 despotism in comparison with which that of Russia 
 is freedom ; — and then filch from the pockets of the 
 poor, ignorant, credulous, but noble-hearted and 
 generous Irish, the money they have earned with 
 the sweat of their brow, to purchase for them 
 chains, and to pay priests for riveting them oa 
 their limbs ! Roman Catholics, will you submit to 
 a despotism which thus degrades, dupes, and robs 
 you ? Irish Roman Catholics, so eager to burst the 
 cliains with which England has bound the land of 
 our fathers, will you submit to wear a yoke like 
 this ? Sons of noble sires, whose blood and bones 
 fatten and whiten every field in Ireland by strug- 
 gles to break the British yoke, will you, in a land 
 of light and freedom, like Russian serfs, wear a 
 yoke like this ? Will you permit a close priestly 
 corporation, without any sufficient motive save to 
 increase their corporate property, to assume over 
 you the power of God — and to bind to their girdle 
 the keys of heaven — to enter your family and to 
 regulate your meat and your drink — if a servant in 
 a Protestant family, to place you there as a spy, 
 and to forbid you enjoying its religious privileges — 
 to think for you — on every hand to surround you 
 with infinitely ramified and potent influences, which 
 are sleepless in their efforts to keep around your 
 neck the yoke of servitude, and to prevent your 
 emancipation into that liberty with which Christ 
 
 9* 
 
102 kirwan's heply 
 
 makes his people free ? Thousands in this land, 
 and tens of thousands through all the earth, are 
 casting it aside as too heavy longer to be borne ; 
 will not all of you do the same ? Will you be con- 
 tent to be slaves in a country of freedom, — slaves 
 to papal priests, the most degrading of all slavery — 
 when it is only for you firmly to resolve and you 
 are at once spiritually as you are civilly free ? 
 Fling the flag of your spiritual freedom to the free 
 winds of heaven, and let your watchwords be God, 
 the Bible, Liberty, and unborn generations will 
 rise and call you blessed. 
 
 Irish Roman Catholics, I am not so destitute of 
 all sympathies with you, and with our fatherland 
 beyond the waves of the Atlantic, as Bishop Hughes 
 would make you believe. I sympathize with you 
 here in that degradation to which tlie religion of the 
 priest has reduced you. I deeply sympathize with 
 our lovely country at home and our noble country- 
 men, so deeply degraded, and mainly by the same 
 cause. I renewedly charge upon popery the low 
 social level to which Ireland has been reduced, and 
 the social degradation of her children in all the 
 lands of their dispersion. It is popery that has 
 made her sons and daughters, in so many instances, 
 hewers of wood and drawers of water. And my 
 sympathies with you and for you, more than all 
 other causes, have given existence to these letters. 
 As I early predicted, the bishop rings changes on 
 my apostacy — charges me with desertion — leaves 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 103 
 
 the argument for the man — and in every way, save 
 by reason and argument, seeks to vilify my name, 
 so as to diminish my influence with you. In this 
 he is joined by his priests. But this is simply the 
 conspiracy of the wolves, ravening the fold to induce 
 the sheep to turn a deaf ear to the voice of the shep- 
 herd who sounds the alarm. Their craft is in dan- 
 ger, and hence their wrath. I here assert before 
 heaven and earth, that you are grievously imposed 
 upon by your priests — that for the sake of your 
 money they daily practice upon you impositions such 
 as should brand them as impostors — that they traffic 
 in souls, and make a gain of godliness, and that instead 
 of your veneration they are worthy only of your re- 
 jection. And for the evidence of all this I need only 
 point you to the moneys which they draw from you 
 by their senseless masses, by their extreme unctions, 
 by their charms, and relics, and penances, and pur- 
 gatorial deliverances, and by the thousand and one 
 ways in which they show their sympathy for the 
 sheep by fleecing them of their wool. And hence 
 the hue and cry against me by your priests, because 
 I plainly and fearlessly tell you of these things. 
 
 Nor am I, Roman Catholics, the profane infidel 
 which your bishop would make me out to be. If 
 there were no alternative for me but to believe what 
 he teaches, I would be again compelled to shoot the 
 gulf of infidelity, and to build my hopes for the fu. 
 ture upon the dim twilight instructions of natural 
 religion. What would I not believe sooner than 
 
104 kirwan's reply 
 
 that man can create God ! But even were I an in- 
 fidel, vulgar as Paine, bitter as Voltaire, plausible as 
 Gibbon, would that be any reason why my objec- 
 tions to popery should not be answered ? Did not 
 Porteus answer Paine ? Did not Campbell confute 
 Hume ? And even if an infidel, why should not 
 Bishop Hughes answer my objections ? The rea- 
 son is not in my infidelity, but in his inability. He 
 is unable to answer them. But I am not an in- 
 fidel. I believe in the Bible. I believe in the reli- 
 gion of Jesus Christ. It is the source of my comforts 
 here, and the foundation of all my hopes for tne 
 future. I believe in the divinity, the vicarious atone- 
 ment of Jesus Christ ; and in the efiicacy of that 
 atonement to save all, without money and without 
 price, who rest solely upon it. " He that believetb 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ," if there was not a pope 
 or priest upon earth, " shall be saved." This is 
 my faith ; and it is to this simple, efficacious faith — 
 the faith of the prophets, apostles, martyrs, fathers, 
 confessors of all ages and of all countries — of the 
 true Catholic church in all its ministers and mem- 
 bers, that, in my soul, I desire to win you. 
 
 Truth, and not mitres, crosses, unmeaning cere- 
 monies, priestly vestments, solemn farces, is the 
 only thing worthy of your love and reverence. Buy 
 the truth and sell it not. Dig for it as for hid trea- 
 sures. This is the pearl of great price ; and, if 
 necessary, sell all that you possess to purchase it. 
 Popery is the religion of children, of low civiliza- 
 
TO BISHOP HUGHES. 105 
 
 tion— Christianity is the religion of men, and of 
 high civilization, where the virtues and graces most 
 flourish. Dare to be Christians. Your attachment 
 to popery only benefits the priest ; Christianity will 
 enrich yourselves. Dare to be Christians. The 
 night is far spent ; the day is at hand. O be chil- 
 dren of the day. Fear God, and the-n the wrath of 
 the pnest inspires no more terror than do the gentle 
 whisperings of the evening zephyr. 
 
 Praying with all prayer for your deliverance 
 from the degrading and grinding despotism of popery, 
 and for your full emancipation into the glorious 
 liberty of the gospel, I am, with all the sympathies 
 of my Irish nature, 
 
 Yours, 
 
 KiRWAN. 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 0035519223 
 
 -^^ 
 
 W 
 
 '^r#^^ 
 
 w# 
 
 ^•*W 
 
 .//!V 
 
 MM I A ino^ 
 

 1^'