The Project Gutenberg eBook of Auricular Confession and Popish Nunneries
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Auricular Confession and Popish Nunneries

Author: William Hogan

Release date: October 10, 2011 [eBook #37695]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by David Widger


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AURICULAR CONFESSION AND POPISH NUNNERIES ***




Produced by David Widger






AURICULAR CONFESSION and POPISH NUNNERIES

By William Hogan

A Roman Catholic Priest

Volume I. (of II.)

1854.





AURICULAR CONFESSION and POPISH NUNNERIES, Volume I.



TO THE PUBLIC.

The readers of the following work, who have not any acquaintance with
the author, may wish to know who he is, in order to enable them to
ascertain what degree of credit is due to his statements. We are
permitted to publish the following documents, which show that the author
is a member of the Georgia bar, and that his standing among his brethren
is that of a moral, upright, and honorable gentleman. This is a high
character--as high as any man can produce, or any American citizen
require--and entitles Mr. Hogan's statements to full credit, in the
estimation of every honest man and impartial reader of this work.

[Certificate from Judge Wayne.] State of Georgia. At a Superior Court
holden in and for the County of Effingham, in November Term, 1827. Know
all men by these presents, that, at the present sitting of this Court.
William Hogan made his application for leave to plead and practise in
the several Courts of Law and Equity in this State: Whereupon, the
said William Hogan having given satisfactory evidence of good moral
character, and having been examined in open Court, and being found well
acquainted and skilled in the laws, he was admitted by the court to all
the privileges of an Attorney Solicitor and Counsellor, in the several
Courts of law and Equity in this State.

In Testimony whereof the presiding Judge has hereunto set [L. S.] his
hand, with his seal annexed, (there being no Seal of Court,) this first
day of November, 1827. Jno. Chas. Ston, Clerk. James M. Wayne.

[Certificate from Judge Law.] I hereby certify that the within named
William Hogan, has been at the bar of the Eastern Circuit of Georgia,
since November Term, 1827, the date of his admission, and that he has
conducted himself, during my acquaintance with him at this bar, as
an Attorney and Counsellor at Law, with uprightness and integrity of
character.

William Law, Judge Sup. Courts, East District, Georgia, Savannah, 25th
June, 1832.



Savannah, 25th June, 1832.

Dear Sir,--Understanding from you that it is your intention to leave
the State, with a view to the practice of the law elsewhere; it will,
I apprehend, be necessary that the certificate of admission to our bar,
furnished you by the Clerk, should be accompanied by a certificate from
myself as the presiding Judge of the Court in which you were admitted.
This is necessary to give it authenticity in another State. It will
afford me pleasure to append that verification to it, if you will be
pleased to send me the certificate.

Permit me, as you are about to leave us, to offer you my humble
testimony to your correct and upright deportment as an advocate at the
bar of the Superior Courts of the Eastern District of Georgia, since
your admission to the practice of the law in the same.

Wishing you success and prosperity wherever you may settle, I am, dear
sir, very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

William Law.

[Recommendation from the Georgia Bar.]

Savannah, June, 1832. We, the undersigned members of the bar of
Savannah, having been informed that Wm. Hogan, Esq., in consequence of
ill health, is about removing to a northern climate, take leave to
state that he has been admitted to practise as Attorney, Solicitor and
Counsellor in all the Courts of Law and Equity in this State.

Mr. Hogan has been a resident of this city for some years, during
which time, we further feel a pleasure in stating that his professional
standing among us, has been that of a moral and honorable gentleman, and
as such, recommend him to the professional attentions of the Honorable
the Judges and members of the bar generally, wherever his health may
induce him to locate himself.

Thos. U. P. Charlton, Jno. C Nicoll, W. W. Gordon, Rich. W. Habersham,
K. R. Cutler, Levi S. D'Lyon.




INTRODUCTION.

"Three score years and ten," and those often full of care and anxiety,
seem to constitute the space of human life. So it is said in that
venerable volume, which never has been, and never can be equalled, in
beauty of truth, wisdom, and instruction. This, it would seem, ought to
check all the vain and inordinate aspirations of poor, weak man; yet it
has not, and probably never will do so. To a reflecting mind, nothing
can Appear stranger than this. Notwithstanding this solemn truth, such
is the presumption of man, that lie has often dared,--and does so at
this moment,--to set himself up as the viceroyal or vicegerent of the
King of Heaven; and fancies himself sent upon this earth for the purpose
of rectifying or correcting any mi? takes or defects which might have
escaped the vigilance of the great I Am, in the organization and fitness
of things This is truly a serious and melancholy reflection.

The population of this world of ours is supposed to amount to
812,553,712. Of this vast number, 137,000,000 are Roman Catholics, who
now, on the 19th of July, 1845., bend the knee and bow down in homage
to a weak, helpless, and worthless being, the Pope of Rome; and thus, if
history does not deceive us, proving themselves conspirators against the
happiness of the human race.

To meliorate the condition of this almost countless multitude of our
fellow-creatures, is among the first duties of every good man. No one
is exempted from it; not the king nor the peasant; not the sage nor the
philosopher; not the priest nor the layman; for there are as many modes
of discharging this duty, as there are grades in the social system.

As a member of the human family, and being once an instructor myself,
I feel that I have too long neglected this common duty. Many suns, and
many shades, too, have passed over me, without doing much in the great
work of promoting the happiness of my fellow-beings; and if I can make
any atonement for this omission, by devoting the necessarily short
period of the remnant of my life for the benefit of others, I shall
retire to my eternal home with feelings of happiness which I have not
enjoyed for years.

With a clear and full view of my duty, I have recently written a work
entitled, "_A Synopsis of Popery as it was, and as it is._" It has been
well received; it awakened Americans to a proper sense of their duty.
Until then they saw not, they felt not, they dreamed not of the dangers
which threatened their religion and their civil rights from the stealthy
movements of the Church of Rome, and her priests and bishops, in this
country. Americans have now a steady and watchful eye upon them. This
was necessary, and so far, I have done my duty. The Popish presses,
which, until then, had lulled Americans into fatal repose by their
misrepresentations, have been, in a measure, silenced. No one, before
me, dared to encounter their scurrilous abuse. I resolved to silence
them; and I have done so. The very mention of my name is a terror to
them now; though, until the appearance of my book, there was not a
Popish press in the United States, which did not weekly, almost daily,
abuse me in the most scurrilous manner; and in my apprehension, a
stronger evidence cannot be given of the iniquity of Popish priests and
bishops who edit those presses, than this very fact.

Protestant writers in the United States have long been kept in check by
the bullying and vaporing of Popish priests, when some resolution and
a little tact, might at all times have silenced them. I found no
difficulty in muzzling the whole body; and the mode of doing it was
suggested to me by a little incident in my own life. Will the reader
allow me to relate it?

As soon as I was admitted to the practice of law, I went into
partnership with a Mr. Gray, a young gentleman of promising talents and
gentlemanly manners. Our office was in one of the upper districts of
South Carolina, separated only by a narrow river, from the State of
Georgia, where I have resided ever since. There was at the back of
our office, a swamp, containing,--if we may judge from the noise they
made,--myriads of frogs, ugly and filthy as the slime from which they
sprung. As soon as the sun of heaven retired to its home in the west,
and darkness covered the face of the earth and the waters, these frogs
set up a most hideous chorus,--just as Papists have done for more than
twenty years, against myself. The noise became a perfect nuisance to
me. I felt at a loss how to silence these filthy frogs. I purchased and
borrowed every work I could get upon frogs, to see if any remedy had
been discovered to abate this nuisance; but all to no purpose. On they
went, night after night; nothing could be heard but croak, croak, croak.
Finally, I became impatient, when necessity, which is properly called,
"the mother of invention," suggested to me the following remedy, which,
I believe, might have been tried before. I procured a well-lighted
lantern, concealed it under a thick overcoat, went down to the pond, sat
patiently on its bank until the frogs commenced their evening chorus;
but just as they were upon their highest notes, I uncovered my lantern,
and threw its full blaze of light over the whole surface of the pond.
Instantly, as if by magic,

     "Every frog was at rest,
     And I heard not a sound."

It occurred to me, that a similar experiment might, with equal
advantage, be made upon Popish priests and confessors. I knew no other
living animal or creeping thing, so closely resembling these frogs in
repulsiveness, as a Romish priest or bishop who hears confessions. I
resolved to throw light upon them, and show them to each, other and to
the world, in their native deformity. I published my book on Popery;
I threw the light-of my experience as a Popish priest, upon the whole
body. The result has been entirely satisfactory. Never, since then,
has a Popish priest, Popish bishop, or Popish press, published a single
sentence against me. How truly is it said in holy writ, "Resist the
devil, and he will flee from you." I have resisted Popish priests; they
have fled from me; and if the reader will do me the honor of perusing
the following pages, he will see that 1 am still pursuing them in full
chase; nor do I feel disposed to abandon my pursuit, until they renounce
allegiance to the Pope of Rome, and become true, peaceable, moral, and
well-behaved citizens of the United States.

WILLIAM HOGAN.




AURICULAR CONFESSION AND POPISH NUNNERIES.

When a writer acknowledges, in advance, that he cannot relate the whole
truth, his position is far from being enviable. It augurs badly for what
he writes, and so far plages him in a disadvantageous light before the
public. This is, however, precisely the condition in which I now find
myself. Such is the nature of the subject on which I feel it my duty to
write, that I shrink with native abhorrence from relating, at least,
the whole truth. It is repugnant to my feelings, to my taste, and at
variance with the general tone of my conversation, ever since the God
of purity enabled me to disentangle myself from the society of Romish
priests and bishops,--men whose private lives and conversation with each
other and with their _penitents_ in the confessional, breathe nothing
but the grossest licentiousness and foetid impurities.

I do not wantonly and without provocation make any expose of the
iniquities of Popery. My entire life, since I left them, is evidence
of this; but they have pursued me with such persevering malignity
and demoniac malice, that further silence would be criminal
and disrespectful to my Protestant fellow-citizens, from whom,
notwithstanding the malice of papists towards me, I have always
experienced kind attentions and hospitality. Nor should I, even now,
allow the subject of Popery to occupy my mind, or taint the current of
my thoughts, if I did not see it striding with fearful rapidity over
the fair face of this my adopted country, infusing itself into every
political nerve and artery of our government, while its members are
asleep and dreaming of its future glories.

It is not pleasant to me to contend with papists, who look upon it as
a matter of duty, and as a fundamental article of their faith, to
persecute myself and all other heretics. That they should dislike me, is
not a matter of surprise; that men whose confessions I have heard, and
who have heard mine, should even dread me, is not to be wondered at.
Many of these men deserve (I speak of bishops and priests exclusively)
not only public censure, but the gibbet, the dungeon and the gallows. I
cannot blame men, under these circumstances, for detesting my very name.
They are in my power--they tremble in my presence--and were I to blame
them for some degree of opposition and dislike to me, I should be
quarrelling with that instinct which teaches the profligate and
debauchee to shun the society of a virtuous and upright man. While I
live among papists they are naturally afraid that I should lift the
veil, which conceals from the eyes of Americans the deformities of
Popery. They are in momentary fear that I shall show to their _American
converts_, which Bishop Fenwick of Boston says he "is daily making from
the first families," the _Old Lady_ of Rome in her _dishabille_. They
have long hidden from them her shrivelled, diseased, distorted, and
disgusting proportions, and they are unwilling that this painted harlot
should be now seen by Americans. This is good policy, and hence much of
their opposition to me. A curse seems to have rested upon Rome since its
very foundation. Pagan, as well as modern Rome, seemed always to delight
in deeds of darkness.

We are told in history of a singular practice illustrative of this in
ancient Rome. I mention it merely to show the apparent natural fondness
of Romanists, ancient as well as modern, for deeds of darkness. It is
trifling in itself, and may be deemed, perhaps, irrelevant; but it may
be interesting to the historian, whose curiosity extends further than
that of theologians or moralists.

The ancient Romans were epicures. Some say they were greater gluttons
than those of the present day. Poultry, of all kinds, was a favorite
dish with them, and how to fatten fowl most expeditiously, became a
question of vital importance with the philosophers of the Eternal City.
After several experiments, it was found that the best plan was to close
up the eyes of geese, turkeys, ducks, and all other kinds of poultry,
and, in that condition, cram and stuff them with food. This succeeded
admirably. The fowls fattened in less than half the time.

It seems that man was always, as well as now, a progressive animal, and
accordingly, as soon as Popery fixed its head-quarters at Rome or at
Antioch, no matter which for the present, popish bishops commenced
a similar experiment upon man. Anxious for his conversion to the
infallible church, they determined to close his eyes and compel him to
receive from themselves, as so many turkeys and geese would from their
feeders, such food as they pleased to give them. They were not to
question its quality, but, like so many blinded geese, swallow-all that
was given them. The practice continues to the present day in the Romish
church; even American converts to Romanism are not to question the
quality of the food, or spiritual instructions, which popish priests
please to give them. _Blind obedience_ is a necessary article of
spiritual diet for a convert to Popery; and whether his priest tells him
that he must worship God, the Virgin Mary, St. Peter and St. Paul, or
the wafer which he carries in his pocket and calls the body and blood of
Christ, he must obey without murmur or inquiry.

This unreasonable, unscriptural, and impious doctrine, is inculcated
especially in the confessional. No man, not even a papist, dare preach
in public such a dogma as blind obedience in anything, or to any man. I
have always been instructed, while a Catholic priest, never to intimate
in public that the Romish church ever required unconditional submission
to her will, unless I was morally certain that all my hearers were by
birth and education Roman Catholics; but my orders were positive,
and under pain of losing my sacerdotal faculties, never to lose an
opportunity of inculcating this in the confessional. There and there
alone do Romish priests teach and fasten upon the minds of their
penitents all the iniquities which the church of Rome sanctions.

If I can satisfy Americans that _Auricular Confession_ is dangerous to
their liberties; if I can show them that it is the source and fountain
of many, if not all, those treasons, debaucheries, and other evils,
which are now flooding this country, I shall feel that I have done an
acceptable work, and _some service to the State_. I fear, however, that
I shall fail in this; not because what I state is not true, and even
admitted to be so, but because Americans seem determined,--I would
almost say fated,--to political and moral destruction.

For twenty years I have warned them of approaching danger, but their
politicians were deaf, and their Protestant theologians remained
religiously coiled up in fancied security, overrating their own powers
and undervaluing that of Papists. Even though they see and feel, and
often blush at the logical triumph, which popish controversialists have
gained, and are gaining over them in every intellectual combat in
which they engage; yet such is their love of ease or love of money, or
something else, that they cannot be roused until the enemy falls
upon them with an annihilating force. It is painful to me to see this
indifference upon their part. They are better able than I am to contend
with Papists. They possess more talents, and have more friends than I
have to sustain them. This is the land of their birth. It is not
mine, but not the less dear to me. The religion of this country is the
religion of their forefathers, and of the Bible; it is peculiarly their
duty to defend both.

Nothing could induce me to undertake the present work but the universal
approbation which my recent book on Popery has received from the
journals of the country. I should leave it to be done by Protestant
theologians. The notices which my book on Popery received were
flattering. They gave me credit for talents, candor, and frankness. But
I am in reality entitled to no credit for that book. The utterance of
the truths contained in it was a spontaneous emotion. It was, if I may
use such language, but the breaking up of some moral iceberg, which for
years lay heavily on my soul. It was a sort of inspiration fanned into
a blaze by an irresistible consciousness that I had too long neglected
a duty which I owed to my adopted country. But I now feel relieved and
willing to enlist in the cause of moral and civil rights.

The following pages, I apprehend, will appear to some of a rather random
and fugitive character. It will be said that much of the matter is
irrelevant--that I fly too rapidly from one subject to another. To
such men I will say, that they know very little of Romish intellectual
tactics. A well trained reverend Romish soldier cares little about
the polish of his armor, or whether he aims his blows according to the
system of this or that commander. He steps into the battle arena in his
lightest armor, and with his sharpest weapon. A Protestant theologian
meets him, with a face as solemn as if he was accompanying to the grave
all that was dear to him, wearing his heaviest coat of mail, and armed
with claymores and battle-axes. While the latter is wasting his strength
upon "the desert air," and aiming his harmless blows at every spot but
the right one, the Papist goads him to death, and seldom fails to obtain
the crown of victory from the spectators. Many Protestants who are in
the habit of contending with Papists in this manner will disapprove of
this book; but I trust that in differing from them in my mode of warfare
with Papists, they will on reflection see that, although they may be
right, I am not wrong. I shall, therefore, beg leave to pursue my own
course. I will give my ideas to the public just as they strike me,
fresh from my own mind, with no regard whatever to style, ornament, or
criticism; and I am vain enough to wish that all controversialists, and
even all Protestant and Popish writers should pursue a similar course.
We should then have more truth in controversy; more soul and more
sterling morality in religion. All that is pedantic would be exploded,
and truth, fresh and warm from the heart, would be substituted in their
place.

As I have stated, every crime which the Romish church sanctions,
and almost all the immoralities of its members, either originate in
Auricular Confession, or have some connection with it In order to
explain this to my readers, it will be necessary for me to go back and
state the causes which first induced me to doubt the infallibility of
the Romish Church.

I have been often asked the following questions: Why did you leave
the Roman Catholic Church? Before I answer this question, I may well
exclaim, in the language of the ancient poet, omitting only one word,
"_Oh! nefandum, jubes, renovare dolorem_" But however painful the
relation may be--however offensive to the ears of the virtuous and
chaste--however disgusting to the pious and moral portion of our
community--however at variance with the elegancies and formalities of
private life--however heavily such a narrative may fall upon Romish
priests and bishops, and however disreputable it may be to Nuns and
Nunneries, I will answer the above question so often made.

Several causes have contributed to induce me to doubt the infallibility
of the Popish church, and to renounce its ministry altogether. Among the
first was the following:

When quite young and but just emerging from childhood, I became
acquainted with a Protestant family living in the neighborhood of
my birthplace. It consisted of a mother (a widow lady) and three
interesting children, two sons and one daughter. The mother was a widow,
a lady of great beauty and rare accomplishments. The husband, who had
but recently died, one of the many victims of what is falsely called
honor, left her, as he found her, in the possession of a large fortune,
and, as far as worldly goods could make her so, in the enjoyment of
perfect happiness. But his premature death threw a gloom over her future
life, which neither riches nor wealth, nor all worldly comforts combined
together, could effectually dissipate. Her only pleasure seemed to be
placed in that of her children. They appeared--and I believe they really
were--the centre and circumference of her earthly happiness.

In the course of time the sons grew up, and their guardian purchased
for both, in compliance with their wishes, and to gratify their youthful
ambition, commissions in the army. The parting of these children, the
breaking up of this fond trio of brothers and sister, was to the widowed
mother another source of grief, and tended to concentrate, if possible,
more closely all the fond affections of the mother upon her daughter.
She became the joy of her heart. Her education while a child was an
object of great solicitude, and having a fortune at her command, no
expense was spared to render it suitable for that station in life, in
which her high connections entitled her to move when she should become
of age. The whole family were members of the Protestant church, as the
Episcopal church is called in that country. As soon as the sons
left home to join their respective regiments, which were then on the
continent, the mother and daughter were much alone, so much so, that the
fond mother soon discovered that her too great affection for her child
and the indulgence given to her were rather impeding than otherwise her
education. She accordingly determined to remove her governess, who up
to this period was her sole instructress, under the watchful eye of the
fond and accomplished mother herself, and send her to a _fashionable
school for young ladies_. There was then in the neighborhood, only about
twenty miles from this family, a _Nunnery_ of the order of Jesuits. To
this nunnery was attached a school superintended by nuns of that order.
The school was one of the most fashionable in the country. The nuns
who presided over it, were said to be the most accomplished teachers in
Europe. The expenses of an education in it were extravagantly high,
but not beyond the reach of wealth and fashion. The mother, though a
Protestant, and strict and conscientious in the discharge of all the
duties of her church, and not without a struggle in parting with her
child and consigning her to the charge of Jesuits, yielded in this case
to the malign influence of _fashion_, as many a fond mother does even
in this our own land of equal rights and far-famed, though mock
equality--sent her beautiful daughter, her earthly idol, to the school
of these nuns. Let the result speak for itself.

Up to the departure of the sons for the army, and this daughter for the
nunnery, I had been ever from my infancy acquainted with this family,
and had for them the highest respect and warmest attachment. The elder
brother was about my own age, and only a few years between the eldest
and the youngest child.

Soon after the daughter was sent to school, I entered the College of
Maynooth as a theological student, and in due time was ordained a Roman
Catholic priest by particular _dispensation_, being two years under
the canonical age. An interval of some years passed before I had an
opportunity of meeting my young friend again; our interview was under
peculiar circumstances. I was ordained a Romish priest, and located
where she happened to be on a visit. There was a large party given, at
which, among many others, I happened to be present; and there meeting
with my friend and interchanging the usual courtesies upon such
occasions, she--sportively, as I then imagined--asked me whether I would
preach her _reception sermon_, as she intended becoming a nun and taking
the _white veil_. Not even dreaming of such an event, I replied in the
affirmative. I heard no more of the affair for about two months, when
I received a note from her designating the chapel, the day and the hour
she expected me to preach. I was then but a short time in the ministry,
but sufficiently long to know that up to the hour of my commencing
to read Popish theology, especially that of _Dens_ and _Antoine de
Peccatis_, I knew nothing of the iniquities taught and practised by
Romish priests and bishops.

On the receipt of my friend's note, a cold chill crept over me; I
anticipated, I feared, I trembled, I felt there must be foul play
somewhere. However, I went according to promise, preached her
reception sermon at the request of the young lady, and with the special
approbation of the _Bishop_, whom I had to consult on such occasions.

The concourse of people that assembled on this occasion was very great.
The interest created by the apparent voluntary retirement from the
world of one so young, so wealthy and so beautiful, was intense, and
accordingly the chapel in which 1 preached was filled to overflowing
with the nobility and fashionables of that section of the country. Many
and large were the tears which were shed, when this beautiful young lady
cut off her rich and flowing tresses of hair. Reader, have you ever seen
the description which Eugene Sue, in his Wandering Jew, gives of
the lustrous, luxurious and rich head of hair worn by Charlotte De
Cardoville, and shorn from her head by Jesuits, under the pretence that
she was insane? If you have not, take the Wandering Jew, turn over its
pages till you find it, and you will see a more accurate description of
that shorn from the head of the young lady to whom I allude, than I can
possibly give.

Turn back to the picture given by this same Eugene Sue, of the personal
beauty, piety, charity, and many virtues of Mademoiselle De Cardoville,
and you will have a correct portrait of this young lady of whom I speak.
You may therefore easily judge, from her immolation upon the altar of
fanaticism, or, more properly speaking, her personal sacrifice to the
idol of Popish and Jesuit lust, the nature of that feeling which such an
event must have produced in the mind of every Christian believer.

Having no clerical connection with the convent in which she was immured,
I had not seen her for three months following. At the expiration of that
time, one of the _lay sisters_ of the convent delivered to me a note. I
knew it contained something startling.

These lay sisters among Jesuits, are spies belonging to that order,
but are sometimes bribed by the nuns for certain purposes. As soon as I
reached my apartments, I found that my young friend expressed a wish to
see me _on something important_. I, of course, lost no time in calling
on her, and being a priest, I was immediately admitted; but never have
I forgot, nor can I forget, the melancholy picture of lost beauty and
fallen humanity, which met my astonished gaze in the person of my once
beautiful and virtuous friend. I had been then about eighteen months a
Romish priest, and was not without some knowledge of their profligate
lives; and therefore I was the better prepared for and could more easily
anticipate what was to come. After such preliminary conversation as may
be expected upon occasions of this kind, the young lady spoke to me to
the following effect, if not literally so. I say _literally_, because so
deep, and strong, and lasting was the impression made upon my mind, that
I believe I have not forgotten one letter of her words.

"I sent for you, my friend, to see you once more before my death. I have
insulted my God, and disgraced my family; I am in the _family way_, and
I must die." After a good deal of conversation, which it is needless to
repeat, I discovered from her confession the parent of this pregnancy,
and that the _mother abbess_ of the convent advised her to take medicine
which would effect abortion; but that she knew from the lay sister
who delivered me the note, and who was a confidential servant in the
convent, that the medicine which the mother abbess would give her should
contain poison, and that the procuring abortion was a mere pretext. I
gave her such advice as I could in the capacity of a Romish priest. I
advised her to send for the bishop and consult him. "I cannot do it,"
said she. "My destroyer is my confessor." I was silent I had no more
to say. I was bound by oath to be true to him. In vain did the noble
sentiment even of the Pagan occur to me; a sentiment sanctioned almost
by inspiration itself. It fled from my mind as smoke before the wind. I
was one of the priests of the _infallible church_, and what was honor,
what was honesty to me, where the honor of that infallible church was
concerned? They were of no account; not worthy the consideration of a
Romish priest for a second. The almost heavenly sentiment of the noble
Pagan, "_Fiat justitia, mat coelum_," let justice be done even if the
heavens were to fall, fled from my mind. I retired, leaving my friend to
her fate, but promising, at her request, to return in a fortnight.

According to promise, I did return in a fortnight, but the foul deed was
done. She was no more. The cold clay contained in its dread embrace all
that now remained of that being, which, but a few months before, lived,
and moved in all the beauty and symmetry of proportion; and that soul,
once pure and spotless as the dew-drop of heaven, ere its contact with
the impurities of earth, which a fond mother confided to the care
of Jesuit nims, had been driven in its guilt and pollution into the
presence of a just but merciful God. All, all, the work of Jesuits and
Nuns!

This was the first check my Popish enthusiasm met with; and now for the
first time did a doubt of the infallibility of the church of Rome enter
my mind. After witnessing these events I could not help asking myself,
can a church which sanctions and countenances such flagitious iniquities
as I have just witnessed, be a Christian church? Can a body of men, who
individually practise such deeds of blood, treachery and crime as those
which I have seen, be, collectively, _infallible?_ Are these the men
whom the Saviour commissioned, in a particular manner, to preach the
gospel to every creature? Are these the men, as a body, with whom he
promised to be always, even to the consummation of the world? Are
these the men who collectively constitute an infallible church? If so,
unprofitable indeed has been my life. It is high time to come out from
among them; and if I cannot live the life of luxury and ease, of sin and
crime which a Romish priest can live, let me, at least, live that of an
honorable man, and a useful member of society.

These were some of my reflections; and accordingly, that evening, I
called on the Right Reverend Protestant bishop of--------, with a view
of making a public recantation of my belief in the doctrine of the Roman
Catholic church. But as chance would have it, he was out of town that
week, and when next I made an effort to see him I found that effort in
vain. I had not properly weighed the chains that bound me to Popery.
I knew not their length, nor their strength. They were stronger than
adamant, than steel. They were chains woven for me, in some measure, by
beings that I loved. They were thrown around me and fastened to me by
hands that I reverenced. They were the chains of early education. I
could not break them; they were too strong for me. The force which alone
could do this was the grace of God. This I had not. Until then I went
about without faith in the world. I soon fell back, in a measure, into
my former belief, but not without a resolution to examine more fully the
nature of Popery itself, and the practices of its priests. It is well
said, a drowning man will catch at straws. It occurred to me that,
perhaps, all the crimes and iniquities committed by popes, priests and
bishops, and sanctioned by the church of Rome, might be confined only
to the old countries, where "use makes law," and that by leaving the old
and coming to the new world, where the people made their own laws, and
the human mind had its full swing, and thought is only bounded by its
own interminable extent, I might find a different state of things.
I fancied, at any rate, that man might worship God according to the
dictates of his own conscience, without the interference, let or
hindrance, save the inherent power and sovereignty of the people. I
little supposed that a pure and enlightened people, such as Americans
boast themselves, would sanction such institutions as those in which the
young friend of whom I have spoken, lost her virtue, her honor and her
life. But alas! how sadly have I been disappointed.

Europe is not the only portion of the world that contains legalized
Sodoms. Its people are not the only people that support them. Its
lawgivers are not the only men, nor its lawmakers the only ones, that
make laws for them and give them charters. Its people are not the only
people who contribute their time, their lands, their moneys, and who
take almost from the necessaries of life, to support monk houses and
nunneries, Jesuits and Dominicans. No, no. The new world, the new
people, if I may say so, who boast of being the most enlightened people
on the face of the earth,--these are the people who, in proportion
to their number, contribute most to the support of Popish brothels,
modestly called nunneries.

But it will be said that the young lady to whom 1 have alluded, has
given no evidence of her being virtuous. As far as you tell us, she has
made no resistance, and it is scarcely possible that one whom you have
placed upon so high a prominence of virtue, could have so suddenly
fallen into the depths of vice. This is all very plausible, and
naturally to be expected from those who know nothing of _auricular
confession_,--a Popish institution, one of the most ingenious devices
ever invented by the great enemy of man, for the destruction of the
human soul.

I am personally acquainted with several respectable Protestant
Americans, both male and female, whose ideas of confession in the Romish
church have often amused me, though not unaccompanied with feelings of
grief and sorrow, at their unacquaintance with this, what may be called
mantrap, or rather woman-trap in the Romish church.

American Protestants suppose that Popish confession means little more
than that public confession of sin, which is made in all Protestant
churches, or that which we individually make to Almighty God in our
private chambers. Such may well inquire how this apparent sudden fall
could have taken place. These inquiries will cease when I state that the
young lady became a convert to Popery, and give my readers some idea of
what _auricular confession_ is, and how it is made. Every Roman Catholic
believes that priests have power to forgive sins, by virtue of which
power any crime, however heinous, may be remitted. But in order to
effect this, the sinner must confess to a priest each and every sin,
whether of thought, word or deed, with all the circumstances leading
to it, or following from it; and every priest who hears confessions, is
allowed to put such questions as he pleases to his _penitent_, whether
male or female, and he or she is bound to answer under pain of _eternal
damnation_.

It is very difficult, I admit, to suppose that the daughter of a
virtuous mother, and that mother a protestant too, brought up in the
elegances of life, from her birth, breathing in no other atmosphere than
that of the purest domestic morality, should be precipitated, in the
short space of a year or two, from a state of unsullied virtue and
innocence, to the veriest depth of crime; and it is a melancholy
reflection to suppose a state of society, in which, by any combination
of human events, the fond mother of a virtuous child could be made the
instrument of that child's ruin. Such an event is scarcely possible in
the eyes of Protestant Americans, and I feel a pride in believing, from
my acquaintance with many of them, that if American mothers were aware
of the existence of a society among them, whose object was to demoralize
their children, shut out from them the noonday light of the gospel, and
ultimately decoy them into the lecherous embraces of Romish priests and
Jesuits; they would, to a woman, rise in their appropriate strength, and
deliver our land from those legalized Sodoms called nunneries.

I will here take the liberty of showing them how the young friend to
whom I have alluded, was debauched. The nunnery to which she was sent,
as I have heretofore stated, had attached to it a _fashionable school_;
all nunneries have such. The nuns who instruct in those schools in
Europe, are generally advanced in years, descendants from the first
families, and highly accomplished. Most, if not all of them, at an early
period of life met with some disappointment or other. One perhaps
was the daughter of some decayed noble family, reduced by political
revolutions to comparative poverty, and now having nothing but the pride
of birth, retired to a convent. She could not work, and she would not
beg. Another, perhaps, was disappointed in love; the companion of her
own choice was refused to her by some unfeeling, aristocratic parent. No
alternative was left but to unite her young person with the remains of
some broken-down debauchee of the nobility. She prefers going into a
convent with such means as she had in her own right. Another, perhaps,
like my young friend,--and this is the case with most of them,--was
seduced, by some profligate priest while at school, degraded in her
own eyes, unfitted even in her own mind to become the companion of an
honorable man; seeing no alternative but death or dishonor, she goes
into a convent. These ladies, when properly disciplined by Jesuits and
priests, become the best teachers. But before they are allowed to teach,
there is no art, no craft, no species of cunning, no refinement in
private personal indulgences, or no modes or means of seduction, in
which they are not thoroughly initiated; and I may say with safety, and
from my own personal knowledge through the confessional, that there
is scarcely one of them who has not _been herself debauched by her
confessor_. The reader will understand that every nun has a confessor;
and here I may as well add, for the truth must be told at once, that
every confessor has a concubine, and there are very few of them who have
not several. Let any American mother imagine her young daughter among
these semi-reverend crones, called nuns, and she will have no difficulty
in seeing the possibility of her immediate ruin. When your daughter
comes among those women, they pretend to be the happiest set of beings
upon earth. They would not exchange their situation for any other this
side of heaven. They will pray. So do the devils. They will sing. So
will the devils, for aught I know. Their language, their acts, their
gestures, their whole conduct while in presence of thee scholars, or
their visitors, is irreproachable.

The mother abbess, or superior of the convent, who invariably is the
deepest in sin of the whole, and who, from her age and long practice, is
almost constitutionally a hypocrite, appears in public the most _meek_,
the most bland, the most courteous, and the most _humble_ Christian.

She is peculiarly attentive to those who have any money in their own
right: she tells them they are beautiful, fascinating, that they look
like angels, that this world is not a fit residence for them, that they
are too good for it, that they ought to become nuns, in order to
fit them for a higher and better station in heaven. Nothing more is
necessary than to become a Roman Catholic and go to confession. Such is
the apparent happiness, cheerfulness, and unalloyed beatitudes of the
nuns, that strangers are pleased with them. They invariably make a
favorable impression on the minds of their visitors. The inference is
that they must be truly pious and really virtuous.

I had recently the honor of a conversation with a lady, who is herself
one of the most accomplished and elegant women in the country, and who
a few weeks previously had paid a visit to the Roman Catholic nunnery
at--------, D. C. She spoke of the institution in the highest terms of
commendation and was struck with the seeming content and cheerfulness
of the lady managers, and could scarcely see why it was not a good place
for the education of young ladies; but I will venture the assertion,
that had this interesting lady known, as I do, the heartlessness with
which crime was committed within its walls, she would fly from it,
as from a den of thieves, or a city of plague. A peculiar coldness, a
heartlessness not to be found elsewhere, nor under other circumstances,
exists in Jesuit convents, to which order that of---------belongs.
Nothing like it can be traced out in the records of the world's doings.
And had I the talent to point it out,--could I fix it in a position, so
as to stand out solitary and alone in its naked deformity, before
heaven and before men,--instead of meriting the commendation of the
accomplished mothers and daughters of our land, they would soon be left
without support, and crumble to dust amid the brutalities which their
silent walls alone have witnessed, and would proclaim to the world, had
not the inanimate materials of which they are composed forbidden it.

When crimes are committed in open day, there is some palliation for
them; but when committed in the dark, and in recesses ostensibly
dedicated to virtue, they are marked with an atrocity, which God, or
man, or woman cannot witness without shudders of horror. Such are those
committed in Jesuit nunneries, and by those very Jesuit nuns who appear
so happy, and so chaste, not only in the nunnery in--------, but in
every nunnery throughout the world.

This it will be said, and has often been said, even by Christian mothers
and Christian daughters, cannot be. They suppose that a sinner can
never be happy, or even appear so. How little these people know of
human nature! How perfectly unacquainted they are with the power of
discipline, or force of education! Yet it would seem as if they should
know better than to conclude hastily, that because nuns are cheerful and
happy in appearance, they must be also chaste and virtuous. Many ol
our American ladies have been in the East; some of them have been in
Constantinople. I believe that one or two have visited the harem of the
Emperor of Constantinople, and might have seen there numbers of ladies,
accomplished in their own way, covered with crime and sin, yet cheerful
and apparently happy. But show me the Christian lady, who ever witnessed
this, that will not weep at the bare mention of the fact, that will not
sigh for the conversion of the Turk and Mahomedan, who will not mourn
the fate of her sisters--for sisters they are of the same family--thus
degraded and still content:--all the result of circumstances, education
and want of pure religion.

But these sympathizers with Turks, Mahomedans and Pagans have not a tear
to spare for their sisters of the United States. Not a sigh escapes them
for their relief. Not a dollar can they give to remove from our land
that accursed thing, Popery--the primary and sole cause of all those
evils. On the contrary, if Jesuits want to build a _nunnery_, the
husband has no peace from his wife, the father from the daughter, the
brother from the sister, the lover from his betrothed, until they make
up money to build a nunnery for the _poor nuns_. Well, indeed, may
I apply to such individuals the language of the Jesuit Rodin, in the
Wandering Jew:--"_Fools, dolts, double dolts_." But Rodin was wrong. He
was entirely premature in the use of these expressions; and I am not at
all pleased with his depriving me of the opportunity of being first to
apply those sweet-sounding terms to American Protestants,--a people who
have done, and are still doing, more to merit them, than any other of
the past or present age.

I find, though I have not the merit of intending it, that I am strictly
performing my promise to my readers, viz., that I will go entirely upon
my own hook, pay no attention to order, style, or to what critics may
say, but give them my ideas at random of things and facts, just as I saw
them, and precisely as they struck me at the time. This, I must confess,
is rather a Tristramshandish mode of writing, particularly to Americans,
who are a most precise, systematic and business people; but it is a
free country, and, as the poet said, "_Cur ego invidior si pauca querere
possim_" &c.

But to return to the causes which induced me to leave the Romish church.

The young lady of whom I have spoken in a previous page, was sent to
school, as I have stated, to a Popish nunnery. She was a Protestant when
she entered; so are many young ladies in this country when they enter
similar schools. The nuns immediately set about her _conversion_. The
process by which such things are done is sometimes slow, but always
sure. It is often tedious, but never fails; though the knowledge
European Protestants have of such institutions, renders the process
of conversion more tedious than in this land of freedom and Popish
humbuggery. The work of her conversion proceeded with the usual success,
until she finally joined the Romish church. The next step, in such
cases, is to choose a _confessor_. This is done for the young convert
by the mother abbess of the nuns; and now commences the ruin of the soul
and the body of the hitherto guileless, guiltless scholar, and convert
from Protestant _heresy_. She goes to confession; and recollect,
American reader, that what I here state is "_Mutata fabula de te ipso
narratur_." Every word of what I am about to state is applicable to
you. This confession is, literally speaking, nothing but a systematic
preparation for her ruin. It is said that there is, among the creeping
things of this earth, a certain noxious and destructive animal, called
Anaconda. It is recorded of this animal, foul, filthy and ugly as he is,
that when he is hungry, and seizes upon an object which he desires to
destroy and subsequently devour, he takes it with him carefully to his
den, or place of retreat. There, at his ease, unseen and alone with his
prey, he is said to cover it over with slime, and then and there swallow
it. I now declare, most solemnly and sincerely, that after living
twenty-five years in full communion with the Roman Catholic church,
and officiating as a Romish priest, hearing confessions, and confessing
myself, I know not another reptile in all animal nature so filthy, so
much to be shunned, and loathed, and dreaded by females, both married
and single, as a Roman Catholic priest, or bishop, who practises the
degrading and demoralizing office of _auricular confession_.

Let me give American Protestant mothers just a twilight glance at
the questions which a Romish priest puts to those females, who go to
confession to him, and they will bear in mind that there is no poetry
in what I say. It contains no undulations of a roving fancy; there is
nothing dreaming, nothing imaginative about it; it is only a part of a
drama in which I have acted myself. I may truly say of all that occurs
in Popish confession, "_Quorum magna pars fui_."

[Illustration: A young lady confessing to a priest p265]

The following is as fair a sketch as I can, with due regard to
_decency_, give of the questions which a Romish priest puts to a young
female, who goes to confession to him. It is, however, but a very brief
synopsis. But first let the reader figure to himself, or herself, a
young lady, between the age of from twelve to twenty, on her knees, with
her lips nearly close pressed to the cheeks of the priest, who, in all
probability, is not over twenty-five or thirty years old--for here it is
worthy of remark, that these young priests are extremely zealous in the
discharge of their sacerdotal duties, especially in hearing confessions,
which all Roman Catholics are bound to make under pain of eternal
damnation. When priest and penitent are placed in the above attitude,
let us suppose the following conversation taking place between them,
and unless my readers are more dull of apprehension than I am willing to
believe, they will have some idea of the _beauties of Popery_.

Confessor. What sins have you committed?

Penitent. I don't know any, sir.

Con. Are you sure you did nothing wrong? Examine yourself well

Pen. Yes; I do recollect that I did wrong I made faces at school at
Lucy A.

Con. Nothing else?

Pen. Yes; I told mother that I hated Lucy A. and that she was an ugly
thing.

Con. (Scarcely able to suppress a smile in finding the girl perfectly
innocent) Have you had any immodest thoughts?

Pen. What is that, sir?

Con. Have you not been thinking about men?

Pen. Why, yes, sir.

Con. Are you fond of any of them?

Pen. Why, yes; I like cousin A. or R. greatly.

Con. Did you ever like to sleep with him?

Pen. Oh, no.

Con. How long did these thoughts about men continue?

Pen. Not very long.

Con. Had you these thoughts by day, or by night?

Pen. By----!!!!!

In this strain does this reptile confessor proceed till his now
half-gained prey is filled with ideas and thoughts, to which she has
been hitherto a stranger. He tells her that she must come to-morrow
again. She accordingly comes, and he gives another twist to the screw,
which he has now firmly fixed upon the soul and body of his penitent.
Day after day, week after week, and month after month does this hapless
girl come to confession, until this wretch has worked up her passions to
a tension almost snapping, and then becomes his easy prey. I cannot as
I before stated, detail the whole process by which a Romish confessor
debauches his victims in the confessional, but if curiosity, or any
other motive creates in the public mind a desire to know all the
particulars about it, I refer them to Antoine's Moral Theology, which I
have read in the college of Maynooth, or to Den's treatise,
"De _Peccatis_" which I have read in the same college, and in the same
class with _some of the Romish priests now in this country_, hearing
confessions perhaps at the moment I write, and debauching their
penitents, aye even in New England, the land of the pilgrims! In those
books I have mentioned, they will find the obscene questions which are
put by priests and bishops of the Romish church, to all women, young and
old, married or single; and if any married man, or father, or brother,
will, after the perusal of these questions, allow his wife, his
daughter, or his sister, ever again to go to confession, I will only say
that his ideas of morality are more vague and loose than those of the
heathen or the Turk. Christian he should not be called, who permits
these deeds in our midst. I beg here to lay before my readers an extract
from a work, recently published in Paris, entitled, "Auricular
Confession and Direction." The work is written by M. Michelet, one of
the most distinguished writers in France. It has been noticed in the
last number of the Foreign Quarterly Review, and in that admirably
conducted press, the Boston Courier.

The following is given as the mysterious opening of the book:!!!!!

"The family is in question;

'That home where we would all fain repose, alter so many useless
efforts, so many illusions destroyed.

'We return home very wearied--do we find repose there?

'We must not dissimulate--we must frankly confess to ourselves the real
state of things. There exists in the bosom of society--in the family
circle--a serious dissension, nay, the most serious of all dissensions.

'We may talk with our mothers, our wives or our daughters, on all those
matters about which we talk with our acquaintances: on business, on
the news of the day, but not at all on matters nearest the heart, on
religion, on God, on the soul.

'Take the instant when you would fain find yourself united with your
family in one common feeling, in the repose of the evening, round the
family table; there, in your home, at your own hearth, venture to utter
a word on these matters; your mother sadly shakes her head, your wife
contradicts you, your daughter, although silent, disapproves. They are
on one side of the table, you on the other, alone.

'It would seem as if in the midst of them, opposite to you, sat an
invisible man to contradict what you say.'

"The invisible enemy here spoken of, is the priest. The reviewer
proceeds!!!!!

'The priest, as confessor, possesses the secret of a woman's soul; he
knows every half-formed hope, every dim desire, every thwarted feeling.
The priest, as spiritual director, animates that woman with his own
ideas, moves her with his own will, fashions her according to his own
fancy. And this priest is doomed to celibacy. He is a man, but is bound
to pluck from his heart the feelings of a man. If he is without faith,
he makes desperate use of his power over those confiding in him. If he
is sincerely devout, he has to struggle with his passions, and there
is a perilous chance of his being defeated in that struggle. And even
should he come off victorious, still the mischief done is incalculable
and irreparable. The woman's virtue has been preserved by an accident,
by a power extraneous to herself. She was wax in her spiritual
director's hands; she has ceased to be a _person_, and is become a
_thing_.'

"There is something diabolical in the institution of celibacy
accompanying confession. Paul Louis Courrier has painted a fearful
picture of the priest's position as an unmarried confessor; and as
Courrier's works are far less read than they deserve to be, we make no
scruple of transferring his powerful sentences to our pages.

'What a life, what a condition is that of our priests'? Love is
forbidden them, marriage especially; women are given up to them. They
may not have one of their own, and yet live familiarly with all, nay, in
the confidential, intimate privity of their hidden actions, of all their
thoughts. An innocent girl first hears the priest under her mother's
wing; he then calls her to him, speaks alone with her, and is the first
to talk of sin to her, before she can have known it. When instructed,
she marries; when married, he still confesses and governs her. He has
preceded the husband in her affections, and will always maintain himself
in them. What she would not venture to confide to her mother, or confess
to her husband, he, a priest, must know it, asks it, hears it, and yet
shall not be her lover. How could he, indeed? is he not _tonsured?_
He hears whispered in his ear, by a young woman, her faults, passions,
desires, weaknesses, receives her sighs without feeling agitated, and he
is five-and-twenty!

'To confess a woman! imagine what that is. At the end of the church a
species of closet or sentry-box is erected against the wall, where the
priest awaits in the evening, after vespers, his young penitent whom
he loves, and who knows it; love cannot be concealed from the beloved
person. You will stop me there: his character of priest, his education,
his vow.... I reply that there is no vow which holds good, that every
village _cure_ just come from the seminary, healthy, robust, and
vigorous, doubtless loves one of his parishioners. It cannot be
otherwise; and if you contest this, I will say more still, and that is,
that he loves them _all_, those at least of his own age; out he prefers
one, who appears to him, if not more beautiful than the others, more
modest and wiser, and whom he would marry; he would make her a virtuous,
pious wife, if it were not for the Pope. He sees her daily, and meets
her at church or elsewhere, and sitting opposite her in the winter
evenings, he imbibes, imprudent man! the poison of her eyes!

'Now, I ask you, when he hears that one coming the next day, and
approaching the confessional, and when he recognizes her footsteps, and
can say, 'It is she;' what is passing in the mind of the poor confessor?
Honesty, duty, wise resolutions, are here of little use, without
peculiarly heavenly grace. I will suppose him a saint: unable to fly, he
apparently groans, sighs, recommends himself to God; but if he is only a
man, he shudders, desires, and already unwillingly, without knowing it,
perhaps, he hopes. She arrives, kneels down at his knees, before him
whose heart leaps and palpitates. You are young, sir, or you have been
so; between ourselves, what do you think of such a situation? Alone
most of the time, and having these walls, these vaulted roofs, as sole
witnesses, they talk; of what? alas! of all that is not innocent They
talk, or rather murmur, in low voice, and their lips approach each
other, and their breaths mingle. This lasts for an hour or more, and is
often renewed.

'Do not think I invent. This scene takes place such as I describe it; is
renewed daily by forty thousand young priests, with as many young girls
whom they love, because they are men, whom they confess in this manner,
entirely _tete-a-tete_, and visit, because they are priests, and whom
they do not marry, because the Pope is opposed to it.'

*****

"The priest has the spiritual care of her he loves; her soul is in his
hands. He is connected with her by the most sacred ties; his interest in
her he disguises to himself under the cloak of spiritual anxiety. He
can always quiet the voice of conscience by an equivoque. The mystic
language of love is also the mystic language of religion, and what guilt
is shrouded under this equivoque, the history of priestcraft may show.
_Parler l'amour c'est faire l'amour_, is a profound truth. From the love
of God, it is easy to descend to the love of man; especially when this
man is a priest, that is to say, a mediator between the woman and God,
one who says, 'God hears you through me; through me he will reply.'
This man whom she has seen at the altar, and there invested with all the
sacred robes and sacred associations of his office; whom she has visited
in the confessional, and there laid bare her soul to him; whose visits
she has received in her _boudoir_, and there submitted to his direction;
this man, whom she worships, is supposed to be an idea, a priest; no one
supposing him to be a man, with a man's passions!

"M. Michelet's book contains the proofs of what I have just said; but
they are too numerous to quote. I shall only borrow from his work the
passages he gives from an unexceptionable authority, Llorente."

'Llorente, a contemporary, relates (t. hi., ch. 28. article 2, ed. 1817)
that when he was secretary to the Inquisition, a capuchin was brought
before that tribunal, who directed a community of _beguines_, and
had seduced nearly all of them, by persuading them that they were not
leaving the road to perfection. He told each of them in the confessional
that he had received from God a singular favor: "Our Lord," he said,
"has deigned to show himself to me in the Sacrament, and has said to me,
Almost all the souls that thou dost direct here are pleasing to me, but
especially such a one, (_the capuchin named her to whom he spoke_.)
She is already so perfect, that she has conquered every passion, except
carnal desire, which torments her very much. Therefore, wishing virtue
to have its reward, and that she should serve me tranquilly, I charge
thee to give her a dispensation, but only to be made use of with thee;
she need speak of it to no confessor; that would be useless, as with
such a dispensation she cannot sin." Out of seventeen _beguines_,
of which the community was composed, the intrepid capuchin gave the
dispensation to thirteen, who were discreet for some length of time; one
of them, however, fell ill, expected to die, and discovered everything,
declaring that she had never been able to believe in the dispensation,
but that she had profited by it.

'I remember,' said Llorente, 'having said to him: "But, father, is it
not astonishing that this singular virtue should have belonged exactly
to the thirteen young and handsome ones, and not at all to the other
four, who were ugly or old?" He coolly replied, "The Holy Spirit
inspires where it listeth."

'The same author, in the same chapter, while reproaching the Protestants
with having exaggerated the corruption of confessors, avows that,
"In the sixteenth century, the Inquisition had imposed on women the
obligation of denouncing guilty confessors, but the denunciations
were so numerous, that the penitents were declared dispensed from
denouncing."'

I should not have laid the above extract before the public, were I not
well aware that such is the extraordinary infatuation of Americans
on the subject of Popery and confession, that they may suspect my
statements of exaggeration. This alone could induce me to give more
than my own assertion for the truth of my statements, as no writer
upon Popery knows more, or can relate more of _Auricular Confession
and Direction_, than I can myself, of my own knowledge, and from my own
personal experience. I shall not, however, ask American Protestants
to take my naked word for anything which I may say on Popery. I shall
substantiate all I assert by proofs from history.

The title of Christian land should not be given to this country, nor to
any country, which legalizes institutions where deeds of darkness are
sanctioned, and the foul debauchers of our youth, of our wives and our
sisters, find a shelter.

Shall the cowl shelter the adulterous monk in this land of freedom?
Are the sons of freemen required to countenance, nay, asked to build
impassable walls around a licentious, lecherous, profligate horde of
foreign monks and priests, who choose to come among us, and erect little
_fortifications_, which they call nunneries, for their protection? Shall
they own by law and by charter places where to bury, hidden from the
public eye, the victims of their lust, and the murdered offspring of
their concupiscence? Beware, Americans! There are bounds, beyond which
sinners cannot go. Bear in mind the fact that the same God who can limit
the sphere of an individual's crimes, can also limit those of a nation.
You have flourished. Take heed lest you begin to decay before you come
to full maturity; and I regret to say, that symptoms of this are now
apparent. Already can I see the hectic flush of moral consumption upon
the fair face of America. Already can I see a demon bird of ill omen
plunging its poisoned beak into the very vitals of your national
existence, stopping here, and stopping there only to dip his wings
in the life streams of your national existence, with the sole view of
giving its spread more momentum, until it encompasses the whole length
and breadth, centre and circumference of your country.

Infidelity is now fast careering and sporting over the whole face of
our land, and if history has not deceived us, and our own personal
experience has not been vain, it never moves, it never travels, it
never exists, unaccompanied by political as well as moral death. Look at
ancient Rome, how it fell in its pride! Look at France--how often it
has tottered and stumbled in its beauty! Look at England at the present
moment,--see how she trembles even in her strength. Think you that all
these things were brought about by the causes to which the world would
attribute them? What signifies the Texas question in the sight of God?
What the Oregon difficulties? what the trade with China? what the repeal
brawlings? Such things would have happened if our "mother's cat had but
kittened, and we ourselves had ne'er been born."

The decay of nations, the fall of thrones, are brought about by
infidelity, by national insults to the God of nations, by the sins of
the people against the King of glory; and how can this country, deeply
steeped as it is, and darkly stained as it is, with the crime of aiding
Popery, idolatry, and auricular confession; how can it expect, I repeat
the words, that the moral breezes of heaven should breathe upon her,
and restore to her again that strong and healthy constitution, which her
ancestors have left to her sons? No, no. It cannot be. You must, as the
lawyers would say, stand "rectus in _curia_," before your God. Withdraw
your countenance and your support from Popery. Touch not the unclean
thing. Then, and not until then, can you raise clean hands and pure
hearts to the throne of God, and ask for a blessing upon the United
States and its territories.

But it may be replied, all you say of Popery in the _old_ countries may
be true, but it is a different thing altogether in the United States.
This is a great error on the part of Americans, and I feel it my duty
to correct it if possible. I am not surprised that, Americans should
entertain ideas of this kind. I was once partly of that opinion myself,
and, as I stated in a former page, I determined to visit this new and
free country, in the hope--alas! it was a vain one--of finding true
religion, and purity of life, even in the Roman Catholic church. I
remember well, having consulted a friend on the propriety of such a
course, he strongly dissuaded me from it, assuring me that I would
find Popery here essentially the same that it was in Europe, with
this difference only, that the crimes and private lives of priests
and bishops were more grossly immoral, and, though indirectly, more
effectually sanctioned by the laws of the land. This, however, did not
satisfy me, and accordingly, having received from my then ecclesiastical
superior, what in church parlance is called _an Exeat_, (the document
is in my possession, if any one wishes to see it,) or, as American
theologians would term it, "a regular dismission" from the church where
I officiated, I arrived in New York, in Nov., 18----. But the reader may
well judge of my disappointment, when I found, on my arrival there, not
altogether such Romish priests and bishops as I had left behind me,--for
many of them were gentlemen by birth, and paid some regard to public
decency, even in their profligacies; but a set of coarse, vulgar, half
educated, I may say, half civilized, Irish and French brutes, most of
whom might be seen daily lolling in grog-shops, and electioneering among
the lowest dregs of society. I have met but one exception to this, and
that was the Reverend Wm. Taylor, who was then in New York.

Having stated to Taylor my object in coming over, I shall never forget
the sad and sorrowful smile which but dimly lit up his naturally kind
and cheerful countenance. "My friend," said he, "all your hopes in
coming to this country will be disappointed. You must not stay in this
city. Go into the country. Go to Albany; you may there see less of those
scenes from which you have fled; and as I perceive your introductions
from Europe to De Witt Clinton, are numerous and of the best kind, you
will find much pleasure in the society of that excellent gentleman, and
make up your mind either to leave this country, or to retire from the
Romish church altogether. The latter I will do myself, but not without
an effort to correct the abuses of Popery." This effort he has made, as
I have stated in my _Synopsis of Popery, as it was and as it is_; but he
lacked moral as well as physical courage to carry it through.

I lost no time in retiring to Albany. The legislature of the State of
New York was then commencing its annual session, and though an entire
stranger, so high were my testimonials, both from the Romish bishops,
as a priest, and from private individuals, as a man of honor and correct
deportment, that I was unanimously elected chaplain to the legislature,
without any application on my part for such an appointment. I will not
allude to the flattering attentions which were paid to me by the people
of Albany, during my residence among them, which was only about six
months. The public presses in that city, while I was there, bear
witness to the fact. Even the Roman Catholics, some of whom were native
Americans, left nothing undone to render me happy. My salary was more
than I desired, and more than I wanted of them. As a body, I have no
complaint to make against them, so far as money was concerned. Why then,
it will be said, did you leave them? This too is a sad tale. But, as
some of them are now living, justice even to them demands that I should
state the cause which forced me to leave them.

The Roman Catholics of Albany had, during about two years previous to
my arrival among them, three Irish priests alternately with them,
occasionally preaching, but always hearing confessions. I know the names
of these men; one of them is dead, the other two living, and now in
full communion in the Roman church, still saying mass and hearing
confessions. As soon as I got settled in Albany, I had of course to
attend to the duty of _auricular confession_, and in less than two
months found that those three priests, during the time they were there,
were the fathers of between sixty and one hundred children, besides
having debauched many who had left the place previous to their
confinement. Many of these children were by married women, who were
among the most zealous supporters of those vagabond priests, and whose
brothers and relatives were ready to wade, if necessary, knee deep in
blood for the holy, _immaculate infallible church of Rome_. There is
a circumstance connected with this, that renders the conduct of these
priests almost frightfully atrocious. There are in many of the Roman
Catholic churches, things, as Michelet properly calls them, like
sentry-boxes, called confessionals. These are generally situated in the
body of the church, and priests hear confessions in them, though the
priest and lady penitent are only separated by a sliding board, which
can be moved in any direction the confessor pleases, leaving him and the
penitent ear to ear, breath to breath, eye to eye, and lip to lip, if
he pleases. There were none of these in the Romish church of Albany, and
those priests had to hear confessions in the _sacristy_ of the church.
This is a small room back of the altar, in which the Eucharist,
containing, according to the Romish belief, the real body and blood of
Jesus Christ, is kept, while mass is not celebrating in the chapel. This
room is always fastened by a lock and key of the best workmanship, and
the key kept by the priest day and night. This sacristy, containing
the wafer, which the priests blasphemously adore, was used by them as a
place to hear confessions, and here they committed habitually those acts
of immorality and crime of which I have spoken.

These details must be unpleasant to the reader; but not more so than
they are to me. I see not, however, any other mode in which I can give
Americans anything like a correct idea of that state of society which
must be expected in this country, should the period ever arrive when
Popery and Popish priests shall be in the ascendant. There are portions
of Europe, and of South America, where parents well know that the
children, who take their name, whom they are obliged to support,
are only their legalized, but not their legitimate offspring; but so
entirely brutalized are their feelings and notions of morality by the
predominance of Popery among them, that these things are considered
matters of little moment. I saw an instance of this very recently at
a place called Hailappa, in Mexico. I met there a gentleman, a man of
wealth, some distinction, and one who had travelled a good deal. Knowing
that I intended leaving the place next day, he said he would introduce
me to two Dominican friars, who were going to Vera Cruz, and were
to travel in the same stage with me. In the course of conversation I
observed to him, that the reputation of Dominican friars and Jesuits for
morality, was not good in some parts of Europe which I had visited, and
I wished very much to know how it stood in Mexico. He frankly replied,
in very good Latin,--a language more familiar to me than the Spanish, or
perhaps any other,--"they are not considered as a body very moral men in
Mexico, but these reverend gentlemen to whom I will introduce you, bear
a high character for morality. They do not trouble their neighbors'
wives and daughters; they have for years kept their _female friends_,
and provided for their children." "Are they married, sir?" said I;
though I of course knew the reverse from the fact of their being
priests. "Oh no, sir," replied my Mexican acquaintance; "our _holy
church_ does not allow that, but they are _chaste_ men." "What do you
mean by chastity?" said I. "Living an _unmarried_ life," answered
he promptly. In the course of that evening, I met with a respectable
American citizen, a native of New Jersey; I asked him whether he knew
these priests, naming them. He told me he did; that one of them kept
_three sisters_, the eldest not over twenty-five years old, and that _he
had children by each of them_, but was still reputed a good priest, and
was, as far as he could discover, one of the best of them. The next day
I obtained an introduction to these worthies, and travelled with them to
Vera Cruz. They were dressed in their appropriate garb of sanctity,
the crown of their heads being shaved close, and bearing marks of
sanctimoniousness. It is well known that in the city of Mexico, and
throughout that sham republic, Romish priests live habitually and
publicly with the mother and daughter at the same time.

These are the men, and their code of moral law is that which Americans
are fostering and encouraging, by contributing their money to the
building of convents and Romish chapels throughout the United States.

Previous to my leaving Albany, many overtures were made to me by Roman
Catholics to continue among them; but I peremptorily declined. The
reader may well imagine the awkwardness of my position, and state of
my feelings on this occasion. I could give the people no reason for my
leaving them; my lips were sealed, my hands were bound, my voice was
silent. I saw many worthy families on the brink of ruin, and I could not
put forth a hand to save them. I saw their children almost in the jaws
of the lion, but I dared not warn them of their danger. I saw their
foes, in the garb of friends and moral guides, leading them into the
recesses of guilt and crime, and I dared not utter a warning cry. I knew
all in the _confessional_, and of course I was silent. The only resource
left me was to leave these scenes, where the occurrences which I have
stated had taken place; and I accordingly decided to make another trial
of Popery, by proceeding on to Philadelphia, a city which, at that
time, was preeminently distinguished for the virtues and morality of its
people.

I expected that in a community so remarkably distinguished for the
observance of all law, human and divine, as the city of Penn was, that
even Papist priests and Jesuits might, at least, observe the externals
of correct deportment; and, full of better hopes and brighter
prospects, I hastened among them, and was received with a cordiality and
hospitality truly flattering. Fortunately for this people, they had no
bishop for some time previous to my arrival. The diocese was under the
superintendence of a Vicar-general, a Jesuit, I think from Switzerland,
named De Barth. This reverend gentleman had been settled in the interior
of the State; and having there a _housekeeper and some nieces_, to whom
he was _attached_, he visited the city of Philadelphia but seldom; owing
to this circumstance, and to the fact that three or four friars and one
Irish curate, who was in the city, had their own way in everything, the
Popish congregation was comparatively quiet. American Protestants knew
nothing of their private lives, knew nothing of the plans and schemes
which they were laying to entrap their children, by suppressing the
reading of the Bible, to perpetuate amongst them the seeds of moral
death. Here, at least, I expected to find Popery as I fancied it
before I was ordained a priest. Notwithstanding what I had witnessed
immediately after my ordination in Europe; and though the death-knell,
which announced the departure to the grave of a young and virtuous
friend, had scarcely ceased to reverberate in my ears; though the
knowledge that a human soul was launched into eternity by Jesuit lust
and poison, and that within the walls of a nunnery, was yet fresh in
my mind; though all that occurred in Albany, under my own eye, and
witnessed by the testimony of my own senses, the one twentieth of which
I have not even alluded to; I still expected that I might find Popery
what my early education represented to me, or, at least, that I might
contribute to render it so, in this free country, by casting to the
winds the legends and silly traditions of the Romish holy fathers, and
substituting in their place the Word of God.

I little thought that there lived a Romish priest or bishop, who, in a
land of free thought and noble deeds, such as this was then, would dare
prohibit the circulation of the Word of God. I little dreamed that the
first opposition I should meet in my efforts to circulate the Bible
should be in Philadelphia. Who could even fancy that Papists were
so devoid of prudence, or so utterly reckless of consequences, as to
proclaim, in the city of Penn, we will have no Bible? Though I knew well
that Popery boasts of being always the same, that it never changes, I
also knew that the _infallible church_ always yielded to _expediency_;
and I thought, as a matter of course, ===that Americans were too
courageous, and too virtuous a people, to permit Papists to proceed
so far, at that early period of American history, as to close up the
fountain and the source even of their political existence as a nation,
and consequently that I should meet with no opposition from Papists
in any effort which might bear upon the face of it any evidence of my
intention to advance the cause of morals. But I was mistaken. Americans
were not then free. They are, not free now. They had, it is true,
shaken off the yoke of foreign dominion, but even then they were tamely
harnessing themselves in stronger chains to a heavier yoke; even then
they were passively submitting to the dictation of Rome, and to the
insolent bravado of Irish priests and bishops. I repeat it; they were
not free then. They made their country free, as we are told by history,
but it was not for themselves they made it free. It was done for
foreigners; it was done for Papists, for Jesuits, for Dominicans, and
their courtesans, Popish nuns. The day is not far distant,--I may not
live to see it, nor do I desire to witness it,--when some historian may
well apply to Americans that sentence in Virgil, which that beautiful
pastoral poet applied to the yoked oxen: "_Sic vos non vobis jujum
feratis boves_" Well indeed may this be applied to Americans; they have
borne the yoke, they have toiled with it upon their necks in cultivating
their fair fields of freedom, but, like the poet's oxen, the crop is not
theirs. It belongs to foreign Papists and their _lord_, the Pope, King
of Rome. Nor should I be in the least surprised, if, in less than
thirty years, that thing called the Host, made of flour and water, and
converted, by the mumbling of a few Latin words by a priest, into the
God of glory, should be conveyed through that city, under a canopy of
satin, supported by Popish priests, and guarded by a file of Popish
dragoons, preceded by a trumpeter, announcing its approach, in order
that the populace may uncover their heads, and fall upon their knees to
adore this god of Popish manufacture. Base idolatry! And history will
say of Protestant Americans,--Base people, to tolerate such profanations
among you!

But, on reflection, why blame Americans? They knew little or nothing of
Popery, except from history, and, in some histories, the picture given
had two sides to it. One was fair and seductive; the other was stern and
true. The former was exhibited with industry and care. It was sought for
and gazed at with pleasure. The latter had comparatively but few worldly
attractions, had no admirers but the votaries of truth, and, alas!
they were but few. Under these circumstances, how were Americans to be
blamed? Knowing them well, I cannot become their accuser, but I can,
without any disrespect towards them, pity them, and mourn over the
delusion under which they labor, even though that delusion should be in
part well earned.

How, for instance, could it be expected that American Protestants should
believe what is related of the capuchin friar by Michelet, whom I have
quoted in one of the preceding pages? Can an American Protestant suppose
it possible that a Romish priest could _persuade all the nuns_ in
a convent that he had a revelation from God, commissioning him,
especially, to tell those nuns individually, that it was their duty to
have a criminal connexion with himself, under pain of eternal damnation?
Such a thing would only excite the risible faculties of an American
Protestant; even the male portion of Roman Catholics will not believe
such a thing possible. There was a period when I would not believe
it myself, and when the idea of a Popish priest seducing a nun, or
administering poison to get possession of a man's wife, or his daughter,
or his property, was impossible, though history informed me of such
things being done in the Romish church; and, had I not become a Roman
Catholic priest, and been myself a confessor, I should, until this day,
turn a deaf ear to the relation of such facts. I should look upon Popish
priests and bishops, who were charged with them, as persecuted men,
and probably extend to them that sympathy and support, which Protestant
Americans are now doing throughout this country.

Were any one to come to me before I was a Romish priest and confessor,
and tell me that the Protestant young lady to whom I have so often
alluded, should go to a school kept by Popish nuns,--that they would
convert her from the religion of her birth, make her a Papist, cause her
to go to confession,--that the confessor would seduce her, and that
the superior mother abbess would cause her death in trying to procure
abortion,--I would not have believed him. I should have looked upon
him as some fanatic, or some evil-disposed person, actuated by malice
against Romish priests and nunneries; but after becoming a priest
myself, and a confessor, I not only believed such a thing possible, but
witnessed it. And though I could weep, I could not prevent it, such was
the nature of my sacerdotal oath of secresy; such were my obligations to
support the Pope and the honor of his _infallible church_.

Poisoning is a practice of ancient date in the Romish church: and I tell
you, Americans, it is still in full force, and you will taste of its
fruits before you are aware of it. Let me give you a well authenticated
instance of this. It is related in the fifth volume of Sanuto,
an eminent Popish writer. Pope Alexander the Sixth, _graciously_
condescended to inform one of his cardinals, Adrian de Corneto, that
he intended to visit him at his vineyard, and that he, the Pope, would
bring his supper with him. The cardinal, being himself a priest and a
confessor, suspected that the _holy Pope_ intended to poison him, with
a view of possessing his fortunes and a lovely _sister_ of his. The
cardinal's fortune was great, and the lady in question was beautiful. He
well knew his fate, unless something could be done to avert it, and he
knew of but one way of doing that. He sent for the Pope's carver, and
prevailed upon him to accept and keep, "for his sake," ten thousand
ducats, with large sums beside, which he had not then in cash, but which
he would have in a short time. "You know," said the cardinal to the
carver, "that the Pope has _compassed_ my death by poison at your hand,
wherefore, I beseech you, have pity on me, and spare my life." The
carver, yielding to compassion, promised to save him, and explained the
mode in which the _holy Pope_, the vicegerent of the Lord of Heaven,
and, as some Catholics will have it, not only the infallible, but even
the impeccable head of the church, intended to put him to death.

The carver was instructed by the Pope, to have two boxes of lozenge
confectionary prepared, and to present one to himself and the other
to the cardinal. That to the cardinal was to contain poison. His
_holiness_, the Pope, according to engagement, came to sup with the
cardinal at his vineyard, but matters being arranged between the carver
and the latter, the poison which the Pope intended for the cardinal was
given to himself; he was taken sick and died. This occurrence, which
took place centuries ago, though it may appear incredible to many
readers of this book, is as well authenticated by history, and is as
demonstrable therefrom, as it will be in some future generation,
that such a city as Boston, where this book is written, had ever an
existence. But it will be said, that such things might have existed in
ancient times; that popes might have poisoned cardinals; that cardinals
might have poisoned popes, and that popes might have poisonfed each
other; that priests might have seduced their _penitents_, and then
caused them to be poisoned, to save the honor of the _holy church_;
but that no such thing has ever occurred in these United States. Fatal
delusion, this; and thrice fatal will its consequences be to you,
American Protestants, as well as American Catholics, if you do not give
ear to my statements, and full credit to my word and warning, when I
tell you that such an event has taken place in the city of Philadelphia,
to my own personal knowledge; and that the reverend wretch, who seduced,
and subsequently caused to be poisoned, an innocent and virtuous orphan
daughter of a worthy American citizen, was a few months ago, and is now,
for aught I know, officiating as a Romish priest and confessor in the
city of Dublin, Ireland.

No wonder, I repeat it, that American Protestants should not believe
these things. No wonder that Americans who have joined the Popish
church, should not believe them. No wonder that some honorable and
high-minded young men in the United States, who have been decoyed by the
sophistry, apparent sanctity and _liberality_ of Romish priests, from
the faith of their Protestant forefathers, should disbelieve those
things, and feel indignant against all who advance such accusations.
But let them pause. Let them not be too precipitate in judging of the
motives of others. Some of these young men, like myself, in the days of
my youth, may take it into their heads to become Romish priests, and, I
understand that, even now, there are several of them in Rome preparing
to do so. Let them proceed. They will soon find, as I did, that such
facts as I here relate, horrible and revolting as they seem, are matters
of daily occurrence in the Church of Rome.

During every vicissitude in the history of the Popish church; during
every fluctuation, and every rise and fall of successive popes; during
all the metamorphoses and changes that took place in their lives, and
successive pretensions to power, their iniquitous practices were never
abandoned. Let us raise the veil which hides the past from our eye;
we shall find, if we do not permit ourselves to be misled by faithless
historians, that the only thing in which they never differed, was the
sanctioning of the crimes of plunder and rapacity for the aggrandizement
of the power of Rome, and that murder, rape, and even incest, lost
their atrocity when committed by priests and bishops of the _infallible
church_, who are her sworn and devoted supporters.

The power of the popes has often been shaken, yet they have stood every
shock. Their system of policy is such, that they have kept and are
keeping the nations of the earth engaged in some civil or ecclesiastical
broils among each other, and thus divert their attention from the
stealthy march of Papal power amongst them; and while nations are thus
engaged, they are enveloping the people in ignorance and darkness, so as
to blind them to their own atrocities and crimes.

This country is now a fair field for Popish manoeuvring. Rome has
seen this for the last twenty years, and has made her preparations
accordingly. While this new country was busy in forming her alliances
abroad, regulating her commerce, and making her treaties with foreign
powers; while she was dividing her states, settling her domestic
territorial disputes, regulating their laws, and defining their
boundaries; Rome was awake,--her spies were amongst you. They walked
carefully round the citadel of your freedom; they saw that it was
not sufficiently manned, that it was accessible from many points, and
accordingly, they poured into it platoon after platoon, regiment after
regiment, of the Pope's troops, until they had sufficient force to take
possession whenever they deemed it necessary and they now tell Americans
that the Pope is their legitimate sovereign, and that Americans are
but the "cowardly sons of cowardly pirates." They even go further; they
perpetrate the grossest outrages upon every law, moral and civil, in
utter defiance of American jurisprudence. They keep their _nunneries_,
or rather seraglios, in the very midst of them, surround them with
ramparts, and not only deny to their civil magistrates the right of
entrance, but defy them to do so. This every American citizen knows
to be a fact; at least, it is known in the city of Boston, where I now
write. No one was admitted within the walls of the Ursuline convent,
which an indignant populace reduced to ashes, without special permission
from the mother abbess,--allowing the nuns within to assume the
appearance of decency and propriety before they showed themselves,
however flagrant their conduct might have been. Time was given to them
and to the priests to assume their usual sanctimoni-appearance; but then
all the cells were never seen at the same time. Many were reserved
for hidden and criminal purposes, and when some of those nuns were
apparently cheerful and happy, leaving on the visitor's mind an
impression that nothing but happiness reigned throughout the whole
nunnery, there were probably some of them, unseen and unheard by
strangers, writhing in the agonies of childbirth. This is no fancy
sketch. Read Llorenti's History of the Inquisition, and you will find
that the picture I give is far short of the reality. Such was the
profligacy of friars and nuns, as Llorenti informs us, in the fifteenth
century, that the Pope, from very shame, had to take notice of it. He
had to invest the inquisition with special power to take cognizance of
the matter. The inquisitors, in obedience to orders from their sovereign
Pope, entered immediately upon the discharge of their duties. They
issued, through their immediate superior, a general order, commanding
all women, nuns and lay sisters, married women and single women, without
regard to age, station in life, or any other circumstance, to appear
before them and give information, if any they had, against all priests,
Jesuits, monks, friars and confessors.

The Pope was not fully aware of what he did, when he granted the
aforesaid power to the inquisition. He supposed that the licentiousness
of his priests did not extend beyond women of ill fame; but in this his
_holiness_ was mistaken, as he subsequently discovered. All were obliged
to obey the summons of the inquisition. Disobedience was heresy--it
was death. The number who made their appearance, to lodge information
against the priests and confessors, in the single city of Seville,
in Spain, was so great that the taking of depositions occupied twenty
notaries for thirty days. The inquisitors, worn out with fatigue,
determined on taking a recess, and having done so, they reassembled
and devoted thirty days more to the same purpose; but the depositions
continued to increase so fast, that they saw no use in continuing them,
and they finally resolved to adjourn and quash the inquiry. The city of
Seville was found to be one vast area of pollution. But Americans will
still say, this occurred in the fifteenth century; no such thing can
take place now. The whole social system is different now from what it
was then. I tell you again, Americans, that you are mistaken in your
inference. Priests, nuns and confessors are the same now that they were
then, all over the world. Many of you have visited Paris, and do you not
there see, at the present day, a _lying-in hospital_ attached to every
nunnery in the city? The same is to be seen in Madrid, and the principal
cities of Spain. I have seen them myself in Mexico, and in the city
of Dublin, Ireland. And what is the object of those hospitals? It is
chiefly to provide for the illicit offspring of priests and nuns, and
such other unmarried females as the priests can seduce through the
confessional. But it will be said, there are no lying-in hospitals
attached to nunneries in this country. True, there are not; but I say,
of my own knowledge and from my own experience through the confessional,
that it would be well if there were; there would be fewer abortions,
there would be fewer infants strangled and murdered. It is not generally
known to Americans, that the crime of procuring abortion,--a crime which
our laws pronounce to be felony,--is a common every-day crime in Popish
nunneries. It is not known to Americans,--but let it henceforward be
known to them,--that strangling and putting to death infants, is common
in nunneries throughout this country. It is not known that this is done
systematically and methodically, according to Popish instructions. The
_modus operandi_ is this. The _infallible church_ teaches that without
baptism even infants cannot go to heaven. The holy church, not caring
much now the aforesaid infants may come into this world, but anxious
that they should go from it according to the ritual of the church,
insists that the infant shall be baptized. This being done, and its soul
being thus fitted for heaven, the mother abbess gently takes between
her holy fingers the nostrils of the infant, and in the name of the
infallible church consigns it to the care of the Almighty; and I beg
here to state, from my own knowledge through the confessional, that the
father is, in nearly all cases, the individual who baptizes it; thus
literally verifying what Erasmus has said in sheer irony,--"_Patres
vacantur et Sepe sunt_." I desire to assert nothing, of a character so
frightful and disgusting as this, on my own unsupported authority. I
could give numberless instances of the truth of my assertions, but let
one suffice.

[Illustration: The Mother Abess Strangling the Infant p295]

Llorenti, in his History of the Inquisition,--and the reader will
bear in mind, that Llorenti is good authority with all Roman
Catholics,--relates the following fact. There was among the Carmelite
nuns of Lerma, a mother abbess, called mother Agueda. (All the nunneries
in the United States have a mother abbess, like the nuns of Lerma.)
Agueda was accounted a saint. People came to her, from all the
neighboring country, to be cured of their respective diseases. Her mode
of curing all diseases was this. She had in her possession a number of
small stones, of which she said she was delivered, in all the pains of
childbirth. She was delivered of them periodically, for the space of
twenty years, according to her own statement and that of her biographer,
and by the application of those stones to any diseased person, he was
forthwith cured. Rumor, however, got abroad that the _mother abbess_
"was no better than she ought to be," and that, in place of bringing
forth stones, she and the other nuns of the convent were bringing forth
children for the friars of the Carmelite order, who arranged all her
miracles for her, and enabled her for twenty-years to impose upon
the public, as the lady prioress of a nunnery and fashionable
boarding-school. Whenever she was _confined_ and delivered of a child,
the _holy nuns_ strangled it and buried it. All the other nuns did
likewise, and probably would have continued to do so to this day,
through their successors in office, had not a niece of the mother abbess
and _saint_, in a moment of anger, arising from maltreatment, let
fall some observations which excited the suspicions of the public
authorities. The burying-ground of the nuns was examined, the spot where
the strangled infants were buried was pointed out by the niece of the
mother abbess, and the bodies found.

This fact is as well authenticated, as that such a place as Lerma has
had existence, or that such a wretch as Mother Agueda has ever been
born; and I will hazard the assertion, that if the burying-grounds of
the nunneries in the United States were dug open, hundreds of the bodies
of strangled infants, the offspring of nuns and Popish priests, may
be found in them, though it is said they have discovered some chemical
process, by which the bones, as well as the flesh of infants, are
reduced, in a little time, almost to perfect annihilation.

Virtuous ladies, into whose hands this book by chance may fall, will
exclaim, on reading the above, This cannot be true. I will not believe
it. Such a thing is impossible. If even nuns had witnessed such things,
however depraved they may be, they would fly from such scenes; or at all
events, no _nun_, who has ever been once guilty of such crimes, would
commit them a second time.--Here, again, we see how little Americans
know of Popery, and of the practices of its priests and nuns.

The fact is, Roman Catholic laymen know almost as little of Popery as
Protestants. They are not aware, that, when a female goes to confession,
she virtually binds herself to answer every question which her confessor
proposes, and that the concealment of any thought or deed, which she
committed, was a _mortal sin_, sufficient of itself to consign her soul
to hell. She believes that the priest sits in the confessional, not as
man, but as God. Attend, fellow-citizens, to what I here state to you,
and you will easily conceive the possibility, nay, even the probability,
nay, even further, the truth of every word I relate to you in relation
to the crimes of nuns and priests, within the walls of nunneries.

The woman who goes to confession to a priest, whether a nun or a
lay-sister, whether married or single, believes, that while in the
_sacred tribunal_ of the confessional, he is divested of his humanity,
and acts, not as man, but as God. Nothing, then, is easier, if he
has the least fancy for the penitent, than to persuade her that he is
_divinely_ commissioned to--------. She does not doubt this, and yields
to his wishes. There have been instances,--and there are now thousands
of them in Europe, and even in this country,--where a priest tells every
good-looking woman who goes to confession to him, that it is her duty
to have children by him! Be not startled, American husbands. I make
not these statements to hurt or outrage your feelings. I make it in
compassion for you, and to prevent you, if possible from permitting
your wives or your daughters to go in future to these dens of vice,
called _confessionals_.

I can easily fancy one of you saying to your neighbor, who is also
a Roman Catholic, and whose wife, as well as yours, goes to
confession,--"Well, Mr. A., I care not what may be said against _our_
priest, or against _auricular confession_. My wife goes regularly to
confession, and if she heard or saw anything bad on the part of the
priests, I should soon know it. I have no doubt of it, says Mr. B.
My wife goes also, and so does my daughter, and I suppose nobody will
pretend to say that a priest could do anything wrong to _them_. _They_
know better than to be imposed upon. There is no better woman in the
world than _my_ wife; come over and dine with me. My wife just told me
that she asked the priest to dine with us, and you must come." I can
not only fancy this, but I have seen such meetings. I have seen husbands
unsuspiciously and hospitably entertaining the very priest who seduced
their wives in the confessional, and was the parent of some of the
children who sat at the same table with them, each of the wives
unconscious of the other's guilt, and the husbands of both, not even
suspecting them. The husband of her who goes to confession has no hold
upon her affections. If he claims a right to her confidence, he claims
what he can never receive; he claims what she has not to give. She has
long since given it to her confessor, and he can never recover it. She
looks to her confessor for advice in everything. She may appear to be
fond of her husband; it is even possible that she may be so in reality.
She may be gentle, meek, and obedient to her husband,--her confessor
will advise her to be so; but she will not give him her confidence; she
cannot,--that is already in the hands of her confessor. He stands an
incarnate fiend between man and wife, mother and daughter. All the
ties of domestic happiness and reciprocal duties are thus violated with
impunity through the instrumentality of _auricular confession_.

Would to God I had never entered that _tribunal_ myself! Would to God it
was never in my power to relate as facts what I have now put to paper!
But no such happiness was intended for me! It was the will of Providence
that I was reserved to witness and relate those deeds of darkness
and crime committed under the mask of Popish religion, from which my
feelings and disposition shrink with horror. Voltaire, Rousseau, Raynal,
Price, Priestley, Paine, Diderot, and others, have done evil by
their infidel writings. Evils, great and heavy evils, have been the
consequence of their introduction into the United States; but ten-fold
greater have been the evils which the introduction of Popery and
auricular confession amongst us have brought in their train.

The writings of these infidels have in them, it is true, many of the
most exceptionable passages, but, as far as we know, their private lives
were generally good. Even in their writings, there was much that was
good. They advocated the cause of civil liberty; they pleaded, and
pleaded strongly and eloquently, the cause of human rights, and the
liberties of man. These were redeeming qualities. These were noble
doctrines, and nobly pleaded. But what has Popery brought amongst
us? What have Popish priests introduced into this country? Idolatry,
debauchery in every shape, and of every hue. Yet Americans will cast
into the fire the works of those infidels,--they will not allow their
children to read them, lest they may corrupt their morals, though the
authors are cold in their graves. But they will send them to Popish
schools,--they will allow them to drink lessons of depravity from the
eyes of licentious nuns, and hear them from the lips of Popish priests.
Strange inconsistency, this! Infidels in theory are shunned as plagues,
while practical infidels are cherished amongst us. It is well known to
Protestants even in the United States, that it is a common practice of
Romish priests to seduce females in the _confessional_, and it is,
or should be equally well known that these very priests hear the
confessions of the very females whom they seduce. It is an article of
faith in the Roman Catholic church, that the crimes of a priest do not
disqualify him from _forgiving the sins of his penitent_, and hence it
is that their opportunities of demoralizing every community, where they
are in the ascendant, almost exceed conception. Persuade a woman that if
she sins, you can forgive her as thoroughly and effectually as Almighty
God could forgive her, and you take away every check from vice. All
restraint is removed. The voice of true religion is silenced, and sin
prevails.

The iniquity of Romish priests in the confessional can scarcely be
imagined. There is nothing else like it; it is a thing by itself; there
is a chasm between itself and other crimes, which human depravity cannot
pass. Could I state them all, as I have known them, my readers would
feel themselves almost insulated; an ocean and a sea of wonders, and
waters of grief and sadness for fallen humanity would ebb and flow
around them. Just fancy an innocent female on her knees before an
artful, unbelieving priest! But why is she there? Why does not instinct
warn her off? Why does not conscious innocence tell her to fly from him?
How often do we thank God that we are endowed with reason? How often
do we sing his praises, and glorify his name, because he has "made us a
little lower than the angels," giving us reason for our guide, and thus
raising us above all things that are created? Would it not appear as if
things were not so; as if the God of heaven were more bountiful to the
beasts of the field, and the birds of the air, than to man? Would it not
appear that the poet was mistaken, when he said, in the fulness of his
heart, and depth of his belief in revelation,!!!!!

"And to be innocent is nature's wisdom; The fledge-dove knows the
prowlers of the air, Feared soon as seen, and flatters back to shelter;
And the young steed recoils upon his haunches The never-yet-seen adder's
hiss first heard. O surer than suspicion's hundred eyes Is that fine
sense, which, to the pure in heart, By mere oppugnancy of their own
goodness. Reveals the approach of evil."

Would it not seem from this that the gift of reason was no bounty in
reality to man? as if instinct was something superior to it? Why does
not innocence,--native, conscious innocence,--if, in reality, there is
such a thing,--teach woman to flee from those incarnate demons, Romish
confessors? Why will they entrust themselves, alone and unprotected
by father or mother, brother or honorable lover, with these scheming,
artful seducers? Why will mothers, married women, go to confession to
these men, or why will husbands be such inconceivable dupes as to permit
it? Have husbands any idea of the questions which a confessor puts to
their wives? They have not even the remotest. Let me give them a few
of these questions, and I assure them, as I have more than once done
before, that I state nothing but what I know of my own knowledge. The
following are a few of them. 1st. Have you been guilty of adultery or
fornication, and how often? 2d. Have you desired to commit either, and
how often? 3d. Have you ever intended to commit fornication or adultery?
4th. Have you ever taken pleasure in thinking upon these subjects? 5th.
Have you dwelt upon them for any length of time? 6th. Have you ever
endeavored to excite your own passions? 7th. Have you ever taken
indecent liberties with yourself, or with your husband?

Does any husband really know that when his wife goes to confession,--and
probably she leans on his arm while she is going there,--that the above
questions are put to her? Assuredly, he does not. Otherwise, we must
suppose him a man of base principles in permitting such a thing. But
even should he suspect it, and ask his wife whether they were put to
her; should he call upon the priest, and bring him and the wife face to
face; should he ask them severally whether such interrogatories were put
by the priest to the wife, they will jointly and severally deny it under
oath, if required, and in doing this, they both feel justified; or, to
speak more correctly and plainly, the priest is laughing in his sleeve,
and the wife is his dupe. The reason, however, for the course they
pursue, is this. The _infallible_ church teaches, that when a priest is
in the confessional, he sits there as God, and not as man; and when he
denies under oath that he put such questions, he means that he did not
put the questions as man, but as God; and when the penitent is asked
whether such questions were put to her, she will say on _oath_ they were
not, because it was God, and not man, that asked them. I am well aware
that this will appear strange to Americans, but it is not the less true.
I have asked such questions, and given such reasons over and over
again, while acting as a Romish priest. I have asked them, till my
soul sickened with disgust. Every priest in Boston asks those questions
daily; there is not a priest in the United States who does not
ask them. No, not one,--from Aroostook to Oregon, nor from Maine to
Louisiana. Judge, then, of the moral waste and wilderness which Romish
priests are effecting by hewing and clearing down everything that blooms
or bears the fruit of virtue and holiness.

But can such things exist in a civilized country? It is all the result
of education,--of bad, vicious, and corrupt education. Let us suppose
that a married man has a neighbor whom he believes to be honorable
upright, and correct in all his dealings, so much so, that he never had
occasion to doubt his word, and would trust him with thousands, nay,
millions if he had it. Suppose his wife had the reputation of a good and
virtuous woman. Suppose she was considered so by the pious members of
her own and every other church in this city. Suppose this individual, to
whom I have alluded, should discover that his wife was in the habit of
meeting his neighbor very frequently in some retired nook or corner, and
holding long and confidential conversation with him,--think you he would
not suspect something wrong? Suppose he were to ask his wife what they
were talking about, and she should say that he was giving her spiritual
counsel,--think you that this would be satisfactory to him? Would he
permit those interviews to continue? Surely not. But why distrust the
well-known prudence of his wife, and the honor of a man he has known for
years? Is it wise in him to suspect a worthy man? It is not only wise,
but it is proper. It would even be criminal not to do so. The man who
would not forbid these interviews, would be considered a low-spirited
wretch, unworthy the society of all honorable men. He would sink even
in his own estimation; and how comes it, then, that this very man, so
sensitive, so distrustful of the virtue of an honorable neighbor,
will permit the same wife to hold _private_ meetings, and _private_
conversations in confessionals and in private rooms, with Romish
priests,--strangers, some of them, and foreigners,--notorious for the
profligacies of the orders of monks and Jesuits to which they belong,
and the countries from which they came. This, I will frankly confess, is
a paradox, which my limited powers of ratiocination do not enable me
to solve. I will not say that some of those married ladies, who go to
confession, are not virtuous women, but I will unhesitatingly say,
that many of them have been ruined in the confessional, that they run
a fearful risk in going there at all, and as it is truly said, "he that
loves the danger, shall perish therein."

Let not married men, or married women, who belong to the Roman Catholic
church, suppose that I mean to be disrespectful to them in what I have
said or what I may say hereafter. The reverse is the fact To them I have
no personal enmity, but I have for them the most sincere compassion. I
would rescue them, if I could, from those wolves in sheep's clothing,
Romish priests. It is my duty to do so as their fellow-citizen, and it
is peculiarly incumbent on me to do so, as I feel that I am the only
man in the United States, whose personal knowledge of facts fits him
for such a task, and whose peculiar circumstances enable him to do so
without bias or prejudice. I am aware they will raise a fresh hue and
cry against me; Popish priests and bishops will give tongue, and the
whole Romish pack, young and old, married and single, widows and maids,
will follow in full chorus. They can do no more than they have done.
There is scarcely a law of this land which they have not accused me
of violating, ever since I presumed to say that the Bible should be
circulated among the poor Roman Catholics, and that the holy mother
church was not infallible. The accusations against Luther, Zuingle and
Calvin, were not greater or much more numerous, than those which Papists
have brought against me, month after month, and year after year, ever
since I left them. They have indicted me for assault and battery, for
disturbing public worship, by which they meant the crime of worshiping
God otherwise than the Pope directed. They have indicted me for
rape--keep your countenance, reader--those chaste, moral priests of
the Romish church have indicted me for rape. Is not that a high idea,
Americans?--scarcely anything equal to it to be found in antiquity,
except, perhaps it may be in the conduct of Claudius, the Roman
emperor, who, like the priests of the Romish church, had a very _great
abhorrence_ of everything that was in the least degree unchaste.
Claudius, as the reader must know, succeeded the emperor Caligula, and
that notorious wag, though elegant poet and satirist, Juvenal, tells us
that he was much in the habit of accusing his subjects of the crime of
adultery. "Claudius accusat macchos," says Juvenal; whether he spoke
ironically or not, those who know the life of Claudius as well as I do
the lives of Romish priests, can tell best. But this is not all. They
have accused me of robberies, sending and receiving challenges to fight
duels, having two wives--I know not but more--at the same time. In all
cases, true bills of indictment have been found; Papists appeared
before the grand juries in all cases, and swore like true sons of the
_infallible church_, and as long as they had no one to contradict them,
the holy church triumphed. In this country, however, there happens, as
yet, to be no inquisition, and there are several who doubt not only the
infallibility of the Romish church, but even the impeccability of
some of her beloved children; and hence it happened that all their
indictments evaporated into thin air. These Protestant Americans,
"cowards," as Papists call them, "and _sons of cowards and pirates_"
have no faith in the infallible church, and doubted the veracity of her
pious children, even upon oath The consequence was that I am left to
write the history of my venerable but guilty mother, the infallible
church, and am not without hope that I shall lead her back to the paths
of virtue, from which, in very wantonness of crime, idolatry, brutality
and wickedness she has long since departed.

It would be really amusing to see a correct list of the various
accusations which Papists have made against me, with the various names
and legal titles which they bore. The infallible church alone could
properly classify them. There is euphony in the very sound of them;
there is a variety, nothing short of oriental, in them. But to be
serious; I never did, nor do I now, fear the persecution of Papists,
while in the discharge of a duty which I owe to my Maker and Preserver.
I could always say with sincerity and with humble gratitude, and I can
say so now:!!!!!

     "Let then, earth, sea and sky
     Make war against me! On my heart I show
     Their mighty Master's seal. In vain they try
     To end my life, that can but end its woe.
     Is that a death-bed where a Christian dies?
     Yes! but not his--'t is death itself there dies."

But to return to the subject from which I have digressed, without even
the formality of taking leave of my reader; married ladies, who are
members of the Roman Catholic church, will bear with me a little longer,
I cannot consent to leave them without farther warning; and should their
husbands and myself ever meet--which probably cannot be, till we meet
in heaven--they will thank, in place of blaming me, for cautioning them
against the seductive wiles and wicked intrigues of Romish confessors.
It is probable the wearisome repetitions in my statements may give the
reader a distaste to following them out, and accompanying me through
them. It will, I fear, enfeeble the interest, which he might otherwise
take in the result. Besides, a higher tone of thought, of literary
taste, and intellectual feeling, would undoubtedly be much more pleasant
to him. The nature of the subject will not admit of it, and I cannot
help, in speaking upon a gross and indelicate subject, doing so in
a language as unpalatable to my own taste, as to that of the reader.
Besides, I am not master of any other words in the English vocabulary,
better calculated to convey to those for whom this book is intended, the
full meaning and purport of the statements which I make.

There is taught in the Romish church, and it prevails to an extent broad
and long as the land we live in, a doctrine which I feel it my duty to
explain to Americans, whether they are Protestants or converts to the
church of Rome. When I say that it prevails over the extent of this
country, I believe I should qualify the assertion, as I know not fully
and exclusively of my own knowledge, that American converts to the
Romish church are aware that such a doctrine exists; but I know that
European Catholic women, especially the Irish, are taught it by their
priests, and believe it as firmly as they do that their church is
infallible. It is a doctrine frightful even to think upon. I know
nothing, in ancient or modern times, in heathen, pagan, or Mahomedan
creeds, of equal turpitude. It is calculated to overturn all laws, human
and divine. It aims a fatal and deadly blow at the root of the whole
social system. It snaps, it shatters, it tears into shreds, every cord
that binds community to community, man to man, wife to husband, and
child to parent. It is this. Married women, who have no children and
never had any, are taught by Romish priests that, in case they have no
children, the church has the power of giving them fecundity, and thus
enabling them to "comply with the great object of their creation," viz.,
"to increase and multiply." The holy church, in her wisdom, or rather
in her craft and deep knowledge of human nature, knows full well that
married ladies, especially those who have property, are often unhappy
because they have no children; and the priests, looking upon this as
a fine opportunity not only to indulge their own passions but to make
money, tell such women, in the confessional, that they have the power,
specially delegated to them from Almighty God, of giving them those
children for which they are so anxious. I well recollect an instance
of this Romish infatuation--this worse than hellish belief. It proved
a source of much trouble to myself in after life, and I believe I may
partly trace to it the very origin of my difficulties with the Popish
priests in this country.

While officiating as a Roman Catholic priest in---------, I became
acquainted with a Roman Catholic lady and gentleman, of good character
and considerable wealth. The husband stood well in society, and so did
the wife, and I believe both deserved it. There was but one barrier, to
all appearance, in the way of their happiness. They had no children; and
having no blood or family alliances in the country, this seemed a source
of distress to the wife, though I could not help remarking that they
were an extremely fond couple. Not very long after my acquaintance
with them, the wife called on me, told me her grievance in not having
children, and asked me how much it would cost her to purchase from
the church, her interference in the matter and the blessing of having
children. I forgot my usual caution. Indignation took the place of
policy; I forgot, for a moment, that I was bound to keep the secrets of
the Pope and the infallible church, and to defend them both, right or
wrong. I replied indignantly, "Madam, you are the dupe of priestcraft.
There is no power in the church to countervail the will of God."
The lady retired; and I cannot give the reader a better idea of the
infatuation of Papist women, or the consummate villany of Romish priests
in the confessional, than by relating what followed. She called upon me
the day following, stated to me that since she saw me, she called on
the reverend Mr.--------, a Franciscan friar, who lived only a few doors
from me, and having told him what I said to her, he raised his hands in
pious astonishment, and told her that he expected nothing better from
me; that he suspected me of _heresy_ for some time past, and had now a
proof of it, and that I should be cast out of the pale of the church, as
fit society only for the devils; and accordingly in a few months after,
this holy friar and the holy Romish bishop of the diocese, solemnly
cursed me from the head to the toe-nails, casting me into _hell_ for
such damnable heresies. I understand that the lady of whom I have spoken
is now blessed with an interesting family of children, and the husband
one of the happiest _fathers_ in the world. The friar is an exemplary
and reverend servant of the _infallible_ church, still hearing
confessions, while I am a wicked heretic, with no human chance of
salvation. "_Sic transit gloria mundi_" Thus are the streams of domestic
happiness and social life polluted in our very midst by Romish priests;
and yet they are encouraged, they are fed, they are sustained, they are
received into society by the very men whose wives and daughters they
have ruined, and with whose happiness they have sported and gambled. I
say sported, because I know of my own knowledge, that nothing affords
the reverend young Yahoos of the Romish church, especially those who
come from Europe, more pleasure in-their private conversation, than
speaking of the _gullible Yankee heretics_, who fancy themselves a
match for priests in the infallible church. Could Americans witness the
carousals of these infidel and idolatrous priests at their expense, it
would have a better effect upon them than all I can say or write; but
as time atone can effect this, I must content myself with entreating my
fellow-citizens to be upon their guard with Romish bishops and priests,
or they will one day rue the consequences. Once more do I find myself
far from the path in which I commenced these pages. I intimated to the
reader, somewhere in the beginning of this book, that I intended to give
my reasons for leaving the Romish church; but it would seem as if I
had forgotten it; at any rate, I have as yet but little more than half
fulfilled it. I have, however, the satisfaction to believe, that the few
I have given, up to the time of my arrival in Philadelphia, are amply
sufficient. Fresh proofs have there been given to me, that the Popish
church was not infallible, and that I could not, consistently with
a correct sense of duty, support her doctrines or countenance the
practices of her priests; but, even there, notwithstanding all I had
seen and witnessed, such were the prejudices of education, that I still
tried to persuade myself that Popery was religion; though I tried to
circulate the Scriptures, and believed in the necessity of so doing:
during four years that I spent in the college of Maynooth, they formed
no portion of the education of the students. It is my firm conviction,
that out of the large number of students who received their education
there for the ministry, there was not one who read the four gospels
through, nor any portion of them, except such as were found in detached
passages, in works of controversy between Catholics and Protestants.
Until I went to college, I scarcely ever heard of a Bible. I know not of
one in any parish in Munster, except it may be a Latin, one, which each
priest may or may not have, as he pleased. But I studied closely the
holy fathers of the church; so did most of the students. We were taught
to rely upon them as our sole guide in morals, and the only correct
interpreters of the Bible. A right of private judgment was entirely
denied to us, and represented as the source of multifarious errors. The
Bible, in fact, we had no veneration for. It was, in truth, but a dead
letter in our college; it was a sealed book to us; though there was not
an equal number of students who were obliged to study more closely the
sayings, the sophistry, the metaphysics and mystic doctrines of those
raving dreamers, called holy fathers, many of whom, if now living, would
be deemed mad men and dealt with accordingly. I looked back again to
those fathers for proofs of the infallibility of the Romish church, and
for some evidence to satisfy me that I had no right to the exercise
of my private judgment, either in reading or interpreting the
Scriptures,--but I looked in vain. The fathers themselves were extremely
obscure. I found them often inconsistent and at variance with each other
upon many of the _fundamental_ articles, as they are termed, of the
Popish creed. On a re-perusal of those fathers, I have found them often
contradict each other. Nay, more; such frequently were the theological
vagaries of these semi-deranged though well meaning men, that a
careful reader will often find the same father contradicting himself.
Chrysostom, whom the Papists worship as a saint, and Tertullian,
another saint of theirs, flatly contradict themselves. Chrysostom says,
in speaking of the _real presence_ in the eucharist that Christ gives
himself bodily to be eaten, and that those who receive him, that is,
the consecrated wafer, made of flour and water by a priest, may see him,
touch him, and if they wish, fix _their teeth in his flesh_. In another
place he says, that "the nature of the bread is not changed at all,
though it is worthy to be called the Lord's body." Tertullian in one
place maintains the same doctrine in relation to the _real presence_,
but in another place, he tells us, "that the meaning of the Scripture
phrase, _this is my body_, is, _this is the representation_ of my body."
If these men were to live now,--if Jerome and Chrysostom and Tertullian
were to utter such rhapsodical nonsense, what should we think of them
or their followers? Yet the Romish church requires that the present
generation shall forfeit all its advantages of education, science, and
all the progressive advancement and expansion of intellect, and take the
writings of those men as the only correct interpretation of the Word of
God. It occurred to me, therefore, on a second perusal of these works,
that I should reject them unconditionally. I knew full well, from my
intimacy with the Romish church, that it was a maxim with the fathers,
and expressly defended by them, as it is now by modern Papists, that
"fraud was sometimes justifiable for a holy end, and that falsehoods
were valuable auxiliaries to truth!" This doctrine is now avowed, or at
least taught in the _confessional_, and in Catholic countries out of the
confessional, as well as in every Popish college in the universe.

From these I turned to my neglected Bible, and in it I discovered no
such maxims as were taught by the holy fathers, and are now inculcated
by the priests. I have not found that any of the evangelists ever even
intimated "that fraud was justifiable, or that it was ever lawful to do
evil that good may come." Apart from all this, it appeared to me not
at all unlikely that the inspired men who wrote the Scriptures, knew as
well how to convey their own ideas to the world, as the holy fathers
or the _infallible_ church did; nor could I see anything heterodox, in
supposing that if there was anything unintelligible or obscure in their
language, they would leave us some record or note of the fact. They
wrote by command, and under the direct inspiration of God; they wrote
to instruct and enlighten the world; and with all due deference to the
infallible church, and her holy fathers, I think it is fairly to be
presumed, that their writings are less obscure, and more entitled to
universal credence, than the rhapsodies of fathers and monks, one
half of whom were as crazy as so many Millerites. It occurred to me,
naturally, as 1 think it would to any man who was not clean daft, that
I might, without presumption, invoke the aid of the Holy Spirit, take up
the Bible, read it prayerfully, and interpret it honestly, according
to the best of my judgment, the opinion of the holy fathers and the
infallible church to the contrary notwithstanding.

Up to this very moment I was negotiating with the holy church, and the
holy church negotiating with me, through Bishop England, of Charleston,
and a very reverend divine now in New York, for an arrangement of our
_misunderstanding_. But we could not agree. There was now a barrier
between us, which I could not pass. It was now with me, not a question
of church or salaries, of location or domestic associations. The
controversy now between me and the Romish church assumed a grave
character: it was now a question with me of light or darkness, of life
or death. I might have gone to Rome, fallen upon my knees, kissed the
Pope's toe, and obtained the blessing of that poor old man. I might have
acknowledged the _holy fathers_ were better authority and were safer
guides in matters of faith, and in all things that concerned eternal
life, than the holy Scriptures. It was an easy matter for me, so far
as human effort was necessary, to cast aside the Bible altogether, and
substitute in its place the sayings and opinions of the holy fathers,
whose vanity often led them to suppose themselves inspired. Nothing was
easier for me than to reject the Bible as a rule of faith, and permit
myself to be governed by the babblings of popes and churchmen. This
language, perhaps, may be deemed disrespectful, but it is not so. I
cannot apprehend how anything I say can be deemed disrespectful, while
I confine myself within the limits which the example of South, Jeremy
Taylor and others have prescribed. No theologian, no one acquainted with
history, sacred or profane, or with the eminent Dr. Robert South, one of
the most learned divines of the seventeenth century, would accuse him
of any intention to disparage the memory of the early Christians, who
deserve to be honored, nor any of the doctrines which they maintained,
unless they were universally admitted to be so absurd, that no man of
common sense could sustain them. Yet this eminent man, speaking of
the doctrine of _transubstantiation_, as taught by Chrysostom and
Tertullian, calls it "_the most stupendous piece of nonsense, that ever
was owned before a rational world_."

Dr. Jeremy Taylor, a distinguished Irish theologian, speaking of
transubstantiation, as taught by the holy fathers, says, "_By this
doctrine, the same thing stays in a place and goes away from it; it
removes from itself and yet abides close by itself and in itself and out
of itself; it is brought from heaven to earth, and yet is nowhere in
the way, nor ever stirs out of heaven. It makes a thing contained bigger
than that which contains it, and all Christ's body to go into a part
of the body; his whole head into his own mouth, if he did eat the
eucharist, as it is probable that he did., and certain that he might
have done._" But the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ
was not the only nonsense which these holy fathers taught. They believed
largely in the doctrine of miracles.

Ambrose, who was Bishop of Milan about the year 350, has been always,
and is now, considered by the Popish church one of her best authorities.
Papists tell us, that while he lay an infant in his cradle, a swarm of
bees settled upon his lips as a presage of his future eloquence; and I
believe it is generally admit ted, that if any of the fathers quoted
by Papists is good authority in matters of faith, he is among the best.
During my doubts whether I should take the fathers of the Romish church,
or the holy Bible for my guide, I was led especially to the examination
of the doctrines maintained by St. Ambrose and those taught in the
Bible, and never before did I see that common, though vulgar saying,
"comparisons are odious," more strictly fulfilled. I will take one, for
example.

Among the many rhapsodies taught by St. Ambrose, a belief in Popish
miracles was the most prominent He taught, as I have stated above, that
the wafer which a Romish priest gives to a communicant, was the solid
_flesh_ of Christ, and so solid, that he who received it might _stick
his teeth into the flesh_.

The following is another specimen of the miracles in which he believed.
The Empress Justina asked St. Ambrose for one of the Romish churches
for the use of the Arian sect. He refused her, and was then about to
consecrate that sumptuous basilic, afterwards called St. Ambrose's
church. The people, as we are told, were anxious to deposit in the
edifice the relics of some martyr,--relics were used by the holy father
Ambrose then, as they are now by Popish priests,--to cure all diseases.
The people insisted upon having them, and accordingly the holy father
promised that they should be procured. Paulinus and Augustine tell us
that "he was favored with a vision of two martyrs, who were never before
heard of, named Gervusius and Protusius, who, hearing in heaven of the
holy father's design to build a Popish church, instantly fled from
their place of repose, and told him that they were murdered by infidel
heretics in such a place, and on such a day; that if he would send men
with spades and shovels to the place designated, they would find their
bones, and to have them removed and deposited in the new church." The
holy saint, in compliance with this glorious information, which he
received in a vision, sent a number of men with spades, shovels,
pickaxes, &c., and they soon found the "bodies of two men of wonderful
stature." The heads were separate from the bodies, and the ground all
round was soaked with blood. I use the language of the holy fathers
themselves, translated into English, which, considering that all the
flesh had already disappeared, may be considered a complication of
miracles, unless it can be supposed, as the relator wickedly observes,
"that it may be new created." As the workmen proceeded down towards the
martyrs' resting-place, "their skeletons began to bestir themselves
in such powerful sort, that an urn was thrown with violence from its
pedestal, and rolled to the sacred spot; and some of the _possessed_,
who had been brought upon such a promising occasion to be exorcised,
began to howl and scream in the most lamentable ways, thus giving
attestation to the power of glorious martyrs." "The relics, blood and
bones were carefully removed to the new basilica, and on the road many
miracles were wrought on diseased persons, who were so happy as to touch
them; such was their virtue, that even to touch the pall which covered
them was sufficient." Among others, a butcher, who had been a long time
blind, was restored to sight. The blood of these martyrs was worked up
into paste, and distributed all over Christendom, as an antidote against
all diseases.

The writings of the _holy_ fathers abound with legends of this kind.
We are told by them, that one of the Romish saints in Egypt, named Apia
Till, suffered martyrdom, after being cut to pieces ten times each day,
for ten successive days, by the tyrant, Maximin, and was every night put
together by the angel Gabriel. Another tells us, that he has a bottle
in which are corked up carefully some of the "rays of the star of
Bethlehem, handed down to posterity by one of the wise men who went in
search of the new-born Saviour." Another of those _infallible_ lunatics
tells us, "that he has sealed up in perfect preservation some of the
sounds of the bells used at Solomon's Temple."

Among the innumerable miracles in which the holy fathers of the Romish
church believed, or pretended to believe, there are some so ridiculously
incredible, that humanity itself, in the lowest depths of degradation,
into which it has fallen, blushes at their repetition. It is gravely
related by a Roman Catholic divine,--and no Roman Catholic in the United
States disbelieves it,--that the sacrament of the _Eucharist_, or, to
make it more intelligible to my readers, the wafer which the priest
gives to the sick, and elevates to the people while saying mass, was
conveyed into a bee-hive. In all probability, it dropped out of the
pocket of some priest. The bees were found dead, and in the midst of
them the wafer became an infant Christ, looking like other infants, but
more beautiful. (See Peter Cluniac, first book, first chapter.) It is
related by another Romish writer, that a hive of bees was once heard
singing most harmoniously. A devout priest, passing by, happened to look
in, and saw among them the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, to which
they were singing glory and praise.

There is scarcely an American traveller, of any note, who has not
visited Naples. There are now in that city of worse than Pagan idolatry,
some of those _converts_, which Bishop Penwick says he has made from the
"_most_ respectable Protestant families in Boston." The bishop was
right in one thing. The families to which he alluded, are highly and
deservedly respectable; their children are respectable, and these
parents can have no objection that I should appeal to them for the truth
of any assertion I make. I appeal to those _American converts_ now in
Italy, whether it is not believed there, that Saint Januarius, on a
certain day, is invoked to be "propitious to the people." During this
invocation, in which the whole city, and thousands upon thousands from
the neighboring country, unite, certain ceremonies are performed, bells
are rung, every one goes to _confession_, masses are said, incense
offered, _holy water_ is sprinkled profusely, beads are counted relics
are kissed, and when all this is over, a priest comes forth from the
sacristy of the church, preceded and followed by an immense train of
boys, bearing lights, &c., &c. The priest holds in his hand some of the
_blood_ of St. Januarius, formed into a hard _crust_. He calls upon
the saint to be _propitious_, and to grant his prayer. If the saint is
willing to be _propitious_, the crust of the saint's blood, which the
priest holds in his hand, bubbles into a red liquid. For a true account
of this, I refer the general reader to Dr. Moore's Tour. The doctor was
the father of Sir John Moore, and was an eye-witness of this mummery;
but I will refer those _respectable Protest-ant families_, from whom the
Jesuit Bishop Fenwick says he has made so many converts, to their own
children, now in Naples, and who have been seduced by these arrant and
designing knaves,--Popish priests and bishops,--to abandon their homes,
their country, and their civil rights, and give them in exchange for
such degrading mummeries as they are now witnessing in Italy. Their
children will tell them that what I state is correct. Let these parents
reflect, that probably they themselves are the cause of the errors into
which their children have been decoyed. It was recently observed by an
eminent divine of Boston, that the great prosperity of this country may
be the cause of the many evils which threaten our people. The sentiment
appears strange to many, but the eloquent gentleman was right. The
downfall of nations might always be traced to their superabundant wealth
and prosperity. The same may be applied to individuals. Reader, did you
ever see infidelity in a cottage? Never, where the Bible has found its
way. Misery you will find there, but that you will find in palaces. The
poor love the name and the religion of Christ. The puritan fathers of
the nabobs of this land loved them, and they had reason to do so.
To religion and to the Bible they are indebted for all their worldly
comfort, their liberty, and their civil rights; and the parents who
permit their children to be seduced from their tender care by Jesuits,
notorious for centuries for nothing but fraud, deception, seduction and
avarice, have a long account to settle with their Eternal Master. Let
them take heed, lest their wealth be the cause of the temporal and
spiritual poverty of their beloved children.

Be not startled, reader, if I inform you that a miracle, more incredible
than that of the blood of Januarius, has been wrought in these United
States only a few years ago, if we are to believe a Roman Catholic
bishop, who was reputed to be one of the most talented men in the Romish
church.

Who is it, that does not recollect the notorious Prince Hohenloe, who, a
few years ago, played so many "fantastic tricks before high Heaven,"
and who, if we are correctly informed by his Popish biographers, wrought
more miracles in one month, than the Saviour of mankind did during the
whole course of his ministerial life?

It appears that the Popish priests and nuns of the United States have
been for several years expecting, or, at least, pretending to expect,
some miraculous evidence of divine favor in their behalf. The nuns and
_sisters of charity_ in the convents of Emmetsburg and Georgetown
felt jealous that their _brothers_ and _sisters_ in Europe should be
empowered to work and witness miracles almost daily, and thereby enrich
their convents, while they themselves had not a single miracle among
them,--at least, of their own manufacture. Up to that time, as far as
I know, no miracle was performed or witnessed by Popish nuns and lay
sisters in the United States. This was deemed a serious calamity. It was
even a loss of revenue, and this the priests and nuns knew full well.
Something must be done; revenue must be had from some source; and the
unprincipled priests and bishops of this country, understanding well the
weaknesses and imperfections of humanity, knowing that human nature
is the same in all nations and among all people, and seeing the vast
benefits, which, in a pecuniary point of view, their church derived from
the belief of their people in miracles, resolved to try an experiment,
upon a small scale, upon _brother Jonathan_. Accordingly, about the
year 1828, when _St. Hohenloe_ was in all his glory, his _divine_ power
shining in full blaze, the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic
church resolved upon having a miracle of their own, instanter. The
following was their modus operandi:

A _lay sister_ in the nunnery of Emmetsburg or Georgetown, I forget
which, was taken ill. She bore her indisposition, which was attended
with _excruciating pains?--"risum tenia tis"--with angelic resignation_.
The best medical aid was always at hand, but she grew worse and worse
every day, until her case became hopeless. Her recovery was pronounced
impossible. Medical aid could do no more; her whole time was devoted
to prayer; but,--_miribile dictu_,--one night, as she lay in momentary
expectation of death, the spirit of Prince Hohenloe paid her a visit,
bid her be of good cheer, and directed her to have _mass_ said for her
in her room on a certain day, and at a certain hour,--naming both,--and
that, when the priest raised up the wafer at mass, she should look at
it, and would see the infant Saviour in his hands, body and blood, soul
and divinity, and in shape and form like other infants. She communicated
this visit from the saint to her _confessor_. He, as is usual in these
cases, did not believe it at first; but the saint visited him, too, and
reprimanded him for his incredulity. Bishop England, of Charleston, was
immediately sent for. The circumstance of the saint's visit was related
to him; he pretended to disbelieve it also for a while, but was finally
convinced of its truth, and consented to say mass on the appointed
day and hour in the lay sister's sick room, and, almost incredible to
relate, this Bishop England, a man of talent, and a man of sense,
though the slave of the Pope of Rome, touches in a letter to the public,
through the _Catholic Miscellany,_ which he himself then edited, that
the whole of this lay sister's falderal was true,--that the saint
visited her,--that he said mass according to his instructions, and that
she saw in his hands, not a little wafer, made of flour and water, but a
full grown infant, in all the natural proportions of humanity.

I regret extremely that I have not the Catholic Miscellany, containing
an account of this transaction by Bishop England himself, as it is
hardly to be expected that Americans can otherwise believe it; but
undoubtedly Bishop Hughs, of New York, and Bishop Fenwick, of Boston,
must have files of the Miscellany, containing an account of this
miraculous event.

Is this not enough of itself to deter any man, endowed with the faculty
of reason, from holding any communion whatever with Roman Catholic
bishops and priests? A degradation of the understanding like this, and
among a people like ours, cannot exist, unaccompanied with depravity
of heart. The intellect cannot be darkened, when the heart is pure and
bright, and such a heart cannot be possessed by a Papist who remains so
after a thorough knowledge of Popish iniquities, which all priests and
bishops are supposed to have. I declare it as my solemn conviction, and
from my perfect knowledge of Popery, that a thoroughly educated Popish
priest, I mean thoroughly educated in Popery, can no longer retain
the image of the Deity, which the God of nature has stamped upon every
created mind, undefiled or undebased, while he has any connection with
the church of Rome. That church is and ever has been the curse of the
earth, the scourge of all good governments, and the greatest obstacle to
the Divine Will. Under this conviction, I have addressed myself to the
public in this book. Under this conviction I have taken the liberty
of appealing to Protestant families, and cautioning them against
the intrigues of priests. It was this conviction that induced me to
disregard that ancient aphorism which says, "If the people will be
deceived, let them be deceived." I felt that the people had no chance *
to escape deception, unless the truth were known and fairly explained
to them. When dust is thrown into the eyes of the people, or even into
those of private families, it is the duty of every man, and mine as well
as that of others, to remove and clear it away; otherwise, I should be
undeserving of the blessings and privileges secured to me by the laws
of this country. Could I rest supinely and see a body of men prevail by
artifice, who hate the very name of liberty, without resisting them as
far as in me lay, I should be acting criminally. It is bad enough to
tolerate amongst us miracle-mongers and convicted idolaters; but to
allow them to continue in the practice and propagation of such deeds,
without warning our people and cautioning them against being drawn
into the whirlpool of Popish corruption, which now foams and boils and
bubbles over our land, would show in me an ingratitude towards this
country, to which I owe everything I am, and which gives me as good a
right as others to expect much more.

It is strange that we should have amongst us a society called Puseyites,
who believe as firmly as Papists do in the long-exploded doctrine of
miracles,--a doctrine upon which age after age has pronounced an
unqualified verdict of censure and reprobation. Yet so it is. Allow me
to give you an example of the long list of miracles in which they
believe.

"Sixty confessors were made prisoners by Humeric, the tyrant king of the
African Vandals, in the 4th century. He ordered their tongues to be cut
out, even to the roots, inclusively; but notwithstanding this loss of
their tongues, roots and all, they lived many years after, and spoke
more plainly than ever."

The reverend Mr. Ward, a distinguished friend of Puseyism, now living in
England, and looked upon by the Puseyites in the United States as one
of the most able advocates of their wild doctrine, assures us with great
gravity, and on the authority of the holy fathers of the middle ages,
that the above fact is true, and as much entitled to credit as anything
related in the holy Scriptures. He even tells us that "to attribute
anything like idolatry, or anything approaching it, to such men as
related the above and similar facts, was a _fearful approximation to
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost_."

The Mr. Ward to whom I allude is well known to many literary men in this
country, as the author of a work recently published, and called _Wards
Ideal of a Christian Church_, The name of the work is assuredly an
appropriate one. His church must be ideal indeed. It is something
invisible, intangible, hitherto unknown and never heard of before.
either in scriptural or church history; and where he found the
materials, out of which he formed this ideal of a Christian church, must
be known only to himself. But Mr. Ward is a philosopher,--so say the
Puseyites,--and philosophers now-a-days have some strange dreams. They
had such in all times and in all ages of the Christian, as well as the
heathen world. "Oh! there is a husk and shell, Yorick, which grows up
with learning, which their un-skilfulness knows not how to fling away.
Sciences may be learned by rote, said my father to Yorick. Yorick
thought my father inspired."

Whether Puseyites think Mr. Ward inspired or not, I am at a loss to
know; nor am I a judge; but that he is a philosopher, is beyond doubt.
Nor do I feel the least hesitancy in saying that he will have, one day
or another, his name inscribed in the same niche, and his ashes rest in
the same urn, with such distinguished men as Joe Smith, Hiram Smith and
O. Brownson, all conspicuously eminent philosophers. The fact of my not
understanding one word these eminent philosophers have uttered, is no
argument against their ideal churches, or their ideal theories.

"I will enter into obligations this moment, said my father, to lay out
all my Aunt Dinah's legacy in charitable uses, if the corporal has any
one determinate idea, annexed to any one word he has repeated." Thus
spoke the learned author of the Tristrapedia to Trim; but it by no means
followed, that Trim was not a philosopher, no more than it does that Mr.
Ward and other Puseyite doctors are not philosophers, though not one of
them has any one determinate idea annexed to any one word they have said
or written.

Thrice honored, then, be Monks, Mormonites, Millerites and Brownsonites.
All will have their day, and so will common sense.

I am apprehensive that some will accuse me of levity in my manner of
alluding to Puseyism. Others will say that I should have mentioned
no names, or, if I did, I should have treated them with respect and
kindness. Far be it from me to treat a grave subject lightly; but when
I see the whole Christian world represented as profligate and the Popish
world alone represented as sinless and pure, by the authors of Puseyism,
I can scarcely treat such a false representation and perversion of truth
otherwise than with contempt and irony; and when I bring before the
public the names of some of the individuals who have merited this,
by exhibiting themselves as the authors and abettors of these gross
outrages upon all that is sacred among men and among nations, I only do
them justice. Are acts alone, and not their consequences, to be noticed?
Are we to take cognizance of effects, and pass by in silence their
causes? Are we to wage a seven years' war against Ward's _Ideal of a
Christian Church_, and against other ideals of moonstricken dreamers,
and say not a word of the dreamers themselves, or the consequences
that follow from them? Suppose we had here in Boston, or New York, the
hydrophobia; suppose a citizen were in pursuit of the mad dog which
introduced it; would any of my readers say to the citizen, never mind
the dog, let him go but take care of the hydrophobia? Assuredly not
the name, the color, the appearance of the dog, and the symptoms of his
madness, should be proclaimed to the public, lest he might scatter the
hydrophobia still further amongst them. Suppose an incendiary was
seen on the streets of one of our large and populous cities, say, for
instance, Boston or New York, and that our police officers were in
pursuit of him; let us fancy a crowd of sympathizers interfering and
saying to the officers, let that man alone; pursue him no farther;
do not even mention that he is an incendiary; it may be the cause of
sending him to gaol, or, perhaps, to the state prison for life; say
nothing to any one against him,--but take care of fires. See well to it
that the city is not burned. What, under these circumstances would be
thought of the sympathizers? Who would feel for them if the city was
reduced to ashes? Who would feel for them if their homes were rendered
desolate, and their wives and children made houseless. I would not check
the generous or natural flow of human sympathy, but I do not know that I
should do wrong in saying, that such men deserved no commiseration.

Under these circumstances, why should I be accused of treating a grave
subject lightly or ironically? Never did the witty Lord Shaftsbury
utter a plainer truth than when he said, that ridicule is one of those
principal lights or natural mediums by which things are to be viewed, in
order to a thorough recognition.

I am aware that there are many objections to the use of ridicule and
irony, in speaking on grave subjects; but, as Fielding very properly
observes, there can be no objection to making use of its assistance in
expelling and banishing all falsehood and imposture when once fairly
detected; and as this method is for my present purpose unexceptionable,
I think it will also prove efficacious.

Having perused the dreams, or, if the reader prefers it, opinions of
the holy fathers, and taken a glance at those of a new sect amongst us
called Puseyites,--which is but another name for Popery,--I could
see no reason why I should believe them of higher authority than the
Scriptures, or why I should not prefer the latter for my rule of faith.
The holy fathers of the church of Rome, and her unbaptized children,
Puseyites, seem to me of equal authority. I say unbaptized, because I
know not that their reputed parents, the Pope and his spouse, the church
of Rome, ever thought of such a thing as Puseyite. I am rather inclined
to think that the venerable couple are, up to this moment, unconscious
of having any paternity whatever in Puseyism. At any rate, their holy
fathers, such as Mr. Ward, Newman and others, appear to me as _demented
and clean daft_ as any that ever existed in the middle ages. The "Knight
of Cervantes," as a late number of the London Quarterly expresses it,
"never abandoned himself to delirious musings, on the faded glories of
chivalry, more madly than these sentimentalists to visions of Popish
powers, and the glories of the saints."

The Bible was with them a matter of minor consideration. I knew by
experience that it was so; and I know that it is so at the present day,
with every priest and bishop of the Romish church. I was aware then, as
I am now, that it was perfectly useless to attempt reasoning with them,
and I had, of course, no alternative left but to cast from me their
writings and doctrines, as the veriest trash that ever was written, and
seek from the Bible, the fountain of truth, instructions for my future
life. I looked upon the majority of the holy fathers either as notorious
blockheads or dishonest knaves. There is no alternative. There is not
even a medium.

But to return to the subject, from which I have so widely, though
unconsciously deviated.

Soon after my arrival in Philadelphia, I became acquainted with a
Protestant family. I had the pleasure of dining occasionally with them,
and could not help noticing a seemingly delicate young man who
waited at the table. There was something in the countenance and whole
appearance of this individual which struck me as singular. I could see
no indication of positive wickedness or signal depravity in the external
configuration of the young man's head. The expression of the eye
indicated meekness, humility, and habitual obedience, rather than
anything else; but I could see, nevertheless, in the closely-compressed
lips and furtive glance, which I could only occasionally catch,--and
even then by a sort of stealth,--something that puzzled me. I know not
why, but I could not like him. There was no cause, as far as I could
see, why I should dislike the young man. Constitutionally, I was myself
rather fearless than otherwise. I cannot recollect that, with equal
means of defence, I ever before feared any one, I do not desire to be
considered a braggadocio, nor do I make this assertion with any such
view. I have not in my composition,--if I know myself,--a single
particle of bravery, neither do I covet its possession. I have often
seen men of bravery tremble at the roaring of a lion, caged up and
strongly chained in a menagerie. I have often seen and heard a brave man
whistle as he passed through a church-yard; a brave man will shudder
and quail at the very sight of his own shadow. A bully, a cut throat,
a highway robber, a Jesuit, or a traitor, may be brave; conspirators
against the peace and prosperity of their country may be, and have been,
brave men. I desire not to belong to this class; but I desire sincerely
to merit the high distinction of being considered a man of courage. To
this class all sincere Christians belong. To this class all who
were distinguished for virtue and morality, even among the heathens,
belonged. Witness the conduct of Cicero. He sought to shelter himself
against the violent assaults and personal attacks of the conspirator
Catiline; he wished no unnecessary, uncalled-for collision with this
blood-thirsty villain, when no good could follow, and his duty did not
require it. But when the good of his country demanded it, and the voice
of conscience called upon him, Cicero came forth, alone, and met the
conspirator, Catiline, in the presence of the whole senate of Rome,
and charged him, face to face, with his crimes, his treason, and his
conspiracy. Cicero was not a brave man, according to the acceptation of
the word bravery among the assassins and stiletto-bearers of his day,
nor would he be considered so in the acceptation of the word among the
brawling _repealers_ O'Connellites, traitors and conspirators of the
present day; but he was a man of courage.

There is a wide difference between a brave man, and a man of courage.
A brave man may stand at the mouth of the cannon, while under the
influence of some animal emotion, and quail even at an imaginary danger;
but a courageous man smiles at all such things, and calmly prepares,
and is always ready to meet those that are real. A man may be brave, and
fear the whistling of the wind; but a courageous man fears nothing, not
even the whistling of the cannon's ball.

Luther was not a brave man, in the modern acceptation of that term. He
rushed not among his foes; they hunted him like a wild beast, but they
turned him not from his path. He met them face to face. He unfurled the
standard of Christianity; he took his stand, and met them, and fought
them under that glorious banner. He was not brave, but he was a man of
courage.

These are the men I should like to imitate, and their courage,--"_Sic
magna com parvis componere solebam_"--is that which Popish priests and
Jesuits, traitors to their God and this country of my adoption, will
find I possess, as far as my limited powers of mind or body will permit.

Cicero looked Catiline in the face, and told him he was a conspirator
and a traitor. Luther looked the miracle and indulgence mongers of
Germany in the face, and told them they were base idolaters; and I tell
the minions of the Pope in the United States, that they are worthless
idolaters, traitors and conspirators against the peace of this country,
and that their sovereign lord, the Pope of Rome, should be made to feel
that his bulls and insolent interference in the affairs of the United
States, shall soon meet that chastisement which is due to treason and
its abettors.

But to return. I could never find the eye of this man fixed upon me
without an involuntary feeling of dread. I met him often in the
streets; he always seemed neat and tidy in his person; he was civil and
respectful in his deportment; never seemed to forget that society had
its grades, and that circumstances had clearly designated his own. With
that he seemed well contented; never, as far as I could see, seeming
to feel the least desire of intruding upon that of others. This being
rather a rare case in the United States, twenty years ago, at any rate,
when it was difficult to get servants who knew their places, struck me
as another singular feature in his manner and character, and did not at
all tend to remove the unpleasant impressions which his appearance made
upon my mind. Not long after this, a messenger called at my rooms to say
that "Theodore------" was taken ill, and wished to see me. I was then
officiating as a Romish priest, and calling to see him, was shown up
stairs to the door of a garret room, into which, after a loud rap
and announcing my name, I was admitted to the sick young man. He
had returned to his bed before I entered, and was wrapped in a large
overcloak. I asked him whether he wanted to see me, and for what
purpose. He deliberately turned out of his bed, locked the door again,
very respectfully handed me a chair, and asked me to sit down, as he
had something very important to tell me. He wrapped himself again in his
cloak, lay on the outside of the bed, and spoke to me in a firm, decided
tone to the following effect:

"Sir, you have taken me for a young man, but you are mistaken. I am a
girl, but not so young as 1 appeared to you in my boy's dress. I sent
for you, because I want to get a _character_, and confess to you before
I leave the city." I answered, "You must explain yourself more fully
before you do either." I moved my chair further from the bed, and
tightened my grasp upon a sword-cane which I carried in my hand.
"Feel no alarm," said this now young woman; "I am as well armed as you
are,"--taking from under her jacket an elegant poignard,--"I will not
hurt you. I am a _lay sister_ belonging to the order of Jesuits in
Stonyhurst, England, and I wear this dagger to protect myself." There
was no longer any mystery in the matter. I knew now where I was, and the
character of the being that stood before me. I discovered from her that
she arrived in New. Orleans, some time previous, with all necessary
recommendations to the priests and nuns of that city. She had the
necessary "Shibboleth" from the Jesuits of Stonyhurst, to their brothers
and sisters, who were then, and are now, numerous in that city. They
received her with all due caution, as far as could be seen by the
public; but privately in the warmest manner. Jesuits are active and
diligent in the discharge of their duties to their superiors, and of
course, this _sister_, who was chosen from among many for her zeal and
craft, lost no time in entering on her mission. The _Sisters of
Charity_ in New Orleans took immediate charge of her, recommended her
as chambermaid to one of the most respectable Protestant families in the
city; and having clothed her in an appropriate dress, she entered upon
her employment. She was active, diligent and very competent. The young
ladies of the family were delighted with her; she appeared extremely
pious, but not ostentatiously so. She seemed desirous to please in
all things; talked but seldom of religion, but took good care that her
devotional exercises should be noticed, though she seemed to avoid
such a thing. Her conduct was in every way unexceptionable. So great a
favorite did she become in the family, that in a short time she became
acquainted with all the circumstances and secrets, from those of the
father down to those of the youngest child.

According to a custom universally in vogue among the Jesuit spies, she
kept notes of every occurrence which may tend to elucidate the character
of the family, never carrying them about her, but depositing them for
safe keeping with the mother abbess, especially deputed to take charge
of them. She soon left this family under some pretext or other, obtained
from them an unqualified recommendation for honesty and competency,
which, with the previous and secret arrangements of the _Sisters of
Charity_, obtained for her without delay a place in another Protestant
family. Here, too, she was without fault, active, honest and
industrious, to all appearance. Little did these families, know that
while they and their children were quietly reposing in the arms of
sleep, this apparently innocent waitingmaid or chambermaid was, perhaps,
in the dead hour of night, reducing to paper their conversation of the
day previous, and preparing it, at least as much of it as could answer
any Jesuitical purpose, to be recorded among the secret archives of the
Jesuit college of Stonyhurst, from which they were to be transcopied to
those of the parent college in Rome.

Thus did this lay sister continue to go from place to place, from family
to family, until she became better acquainted with the politics, the
pecuniary means, religious opinions, and whether favorable or not to the
propagation of Popery in this country, than even the very individuals
with whom she resided. No one suspected her; all believed her innocent
and industrious; the only fault they could find with her, was that she
seemed too fond of going from one place to another. For this, however,
the _Sisters of Charity_ had some salvo or other.

This was not the best of the joke, if joke it may be called. This
excellent chambermaid, or another lay Jesuit sister, wished to leave New
Organs and come north to a better climate; and how-do you think, reader,
the means were raised to defray the expenses of travelling? There was
no difficulty in the matter. Americans can be gulled at all times. The
_Sisters of Charity_ have always some friend in readiness to supply them
with the means of performing _corporal works of mercy_. This friend went
round to these American families where this chambermaid lived from time
to time; told them that she wanted to come on as far as Baltimore; that
it was a pity to have her travel as a steerage passenger; a person of
her virtue and correct deportment should not be placed in a situation
where she might be liable to insult or rude treatment. A cabin passage
should be procured for her: she should be introduced to some respectable
family who were going north, and would take charge of her. The necessary
funds were immediately collected for her; the generous Protestants
with whom she lived, pitying the poor girl, told her she might want the
little she had earned to support herself in the north, until she could
get a place. A handsome purse was soon made up, a cabin passage was
engaged, and the young ladies on whom she waited made her presents of
every article of dress necessary for her comfort or convenience. She was
the depository of all their love-stories,--she knew the names of their
lovers, she heard their love-sighs, and probably witnessed many of their
tears; at all events, if there were secrets among them, they were known
to her; and having made herself acquainted with the state of things in
New Orleans, she started for Baltimore, laughing in her sleeves at the
success of her mission so far, and at the credulity of American _dolts_,
as Jesuits very properly term them.

On arriving in Baltimore, she, of course, called upon the nuns of that
city, who were prepared for her reception, and had already a situation
engaged for a "chambermaid whom they expected from New Orleans, and
who was coming highly recommended by some of the first families in
that city." She took possession of a place as soon as convenient, spent
several months in that city, discharging all her duties faithfully, no
one finding any fault with her, except her restlessness in not staying
long with any family. Having now become acquainted with the secrets and
circumstances of almost every Protestant family of note in Baltimore,
and made her report to the mother abbess of the nunnery of her order in
that city, she retired to the District of Columbia, and after advising
with the mother abbess of the convent, she determined to change her
apparent character and appearance.

By advice of _that venerable lady, the holy prioress_, on whom many of
the wives of our national representatives, and even grave senators, look
as an example of piety and chastity, she cut short her hair, dressed
herself in a smart-looking waiter's jacket' and trowsers, and, with
the best recommendations for intelligence and capacity, she, in her new
dress, applied for a situation as waiter at Gadsby's Hotel in Washington
city. This smart and tidy-looking young man got instant employment;
and now we have the lay sister in quite a different character. His
intelligent countenance,--we must not say her in future,--soon attracted
the notice of some of our most eloquent statesmen. He appeared so
humble, so obedient and so unattentive to anything but his own business,
that those senators on whom he waited, not suspecting that he had the
ordinary curiosity of servants in general, were entirely thrown off
their guard, and in their conversations with one another seemed to
forget their usual caution. Such in a short time was their confidence in
him, that their most important papers and letters were left loose upon
their tables, satisfied with saying, as they were going out, "Theodore,
take care of my room and papers."

Now the Jesuit was in her glory. Now the lay sister had an opportunity
of knowing many of our national secrets, as well as the private
characters of some of our eminent statesmen. Now it was known whether
Henry Clay was a gambler; whether Daniel Webster was a libertine;
whether John C. Calhoun was an honorable but credulous man. Now it was
known what value was put upon Popish influence in this country, and what
were the hopes of Papist foreigners in the United States. In fact, this
lay sister in male uniform, and but a waiter in Gadsby's Hotel, was thus
enabled to give more correct information of the actual state of things
in this country, through the General of the Jesuit Order in Rome, than
the whole corps diplomatic from foreign countries then resident at our
seat of government.

After relating to me in her sick room,--as the family in which she lived
fancied it was,--all these circumstances, she deliberately said to me,
"I want a written character from you. You must state in it that I have
complied with my duty; and as it is necessary that I should wear a cap
for a while, having cut off my hair, you must say that you visited me in
my sick room, that I confessed to you, received the _viaticum_ and
had just recovered from a violent fever in which I lost my hair. My
business is not done yet," said she. "I must go to New York, where the
Sisters of Charity will find a place for me as waiting-maid." It is
needless to say with what reluctance any man could comply with such a
request as this; and my having done so, is a stronger evidence than I
have heretofore given of the indomitable strength of early education.

The conduct of this emissary of Satan, was the embodyment of all that
was iniquitous and dishonorable; it was a violation of every tie that
holds society together; it was a part of a system of social, political,
moral, public and private treachery, which no other being than a devil
or a Jesuit could devise. Yet I was a Popish priest. My education, my
profession, my oath, compelled me to sanction it; and I did sanction it.
The lay sister retired to New York, put on her female dress, and
during some months following, acted as a chambermaid in several of
the wealthiest Protestant families in that city. A few weeks after she
obtained from me this character, the Rev. Mr.---------, (I will give
his name in full if necessary,) President of the Jesuit college in
Stonyhurst, to which I have alluded, and where this demon, now in
petticoats, was a lay sister, called on me in Philadelphia. We were old
acquaintances, he being Vice President of the college of Maynooth for
about twelve months.

The misunderstanding between myself and the acting superior of the
diocese of Pennsylvania, had just commenced, and my friend, the Jesuit,
thought it his duty to call upon me. He hoped that I would abandon my
schismatic course,--I was not then a heretic,--and cease to circulate
the Bible among the people. He never alluded to the lay sister during
our whole conversation, though he was the very man who caused her to
be sent out to this country, and the one who first procured her the
situation of lay sister at Stonyhurst Both were relatives, and both
natives of Dublin, in Ireland.

Whether the relation of this circumstance will have the effect of
putting Americans on their guard against Jesuits and nuns, I know not;
and in truth, such is their apathy on the general subject of Popery,
that I am tempted to say, I care not. My impression is, that until some
attack is made upon an American's purse, and Popery becomes a question
of dollars and cents, Jonathan will never be roused from his apathy. So
far as I know Americans, as the antagonists of Popery, they will listen
to no argument upon the subject, either in their national councils or
in their pulpits, except to the one great argument, the "_Argumentum ad
crumonam._" I will only say, "_Qui vult descipatur_."

It is unnecessary, I presume, to remark here, that the conduct of the
modern fathers of the Popish church, in sending to this country the
lay sister of whom I have been speaking, and encouraging her as a spy
amongst our citizens, did not tend much to diminish my doubts about the
veracity of the ancient fathers.

Providentially, however, another circumstance occurred, which finally
decided me. It is of so atrocious a character, that if there were
not several now living, who witnessed the whole transaction, I would
scarcely mention it; or if I did, it could be with little or no hope of
being believed by Americans, although some money is mixed up with the
affair.

There lived in Philadelphia, about the year 1822 or 1823, a gentleman
of high character as a sea captain and otherwise. He commanded an
East-Indiaman, belonging to one of the wealthiest houses in that city.
One of the firm now lives there, though at an advanced period of life.
This captain of whom I speak, was in the habit of visiting Baltimore,
whenever he returned from the East Indies. He was a remarkably
fine-looking man, and believed to be worth from one hundred and fifty to
two hundred thousand dollars. He shipped largely upon his own account,
and was successful.

While in Baltimore, he formed an attachment for a Roman Catholic lady of
beauty, but no fortune.

The Reverend Mr. K------, the Stonyhurst Jesuit, whom I mentioned,
happened to be there during one of the captain's visits to that city, to
see this lady. The Jesuit having discovered who the captain was, what
he was, and how much money he was worth, obtained an introduction to him
from this Roman Catholic lady. He soon found that, like most men whose
lives have been spent upon the sea, he was a frank, open-hearted man. A
little further intimacy satisfied him, that he was deeply in love with
this Popish lady. His course was now clear. The Jesuit serpent saw
plainly that his prey was within striking distance; that he need only
coil himself into a proper attitude and spring upon it at his leisure.
He represented to the captain, that the lady to whom he was paying his
attentions was one of the most amiable and excellent of her sex; highly
approved of the captain's taste and judgment; with many other such
observations. The captain was more and more pleased with the object of
his affections, and urged his suit with increased assiduity. The Jesuit
in the mean time was not idle; his eye rested with a serpent-like
fascinating gaze upon the movements and money of the captain. He had
private interviews with the lady. He contrived to have her become his
_penitent_, and go to confession to him. 15

His control over her in future was boundless. She lost her identity as a
member of society. She almost ceased to be a human being; a rational
one she could not be. She became a thing, a mere thing to be shaped and
moulded as her holy father the Jesuit directed. He spoke to her of the
captain, of his great attachment to her, and recommended to her to marry
him, but on condition that he should become a Roman Catholic. He
talked eloquently of the awful consequences of having a member of the
_infallible_ church unite herself to a heretic, whom she knew to be
excommunicated and damned by the Pope and the holy church, as all
heretics are, and finally obtained from the young lady a solemn promise
that she should never marry her suitor, until he became a member of the
church of Rome.

When the captain next called to see her, the lady told him that she had
one objection, and only one, to marrying him; unless that was removed,
she could never consent to do so; and stated to him what that objection
was. The unsuspecting and frank sailor, not being a professor of any
religion, and caring very little to what church he might go, replied,
that he would as soon be a Roman Catholic as anything else. All things
were now arranged, except the formality of uniting with the Popish
church. The Jesuit was sent for, and it was agreed that the marriage
should take place in a few weeks, during which time the captain, under
the direction of the Jesuit, was to prepare himself for confession; a
necessary preliminary for joining the Popish church.

It is a custom with Jesuits, and almost with all priests of the Romish
church, to require of those who are about uniting with them, to go into
what they call a retreat; viz. to enter into some retired or secluded
place, where they will have an opportunity of communing with themselves,
without interruption from the world or its busy citizens. The
Jesuit recommended to his unfortunate dupe, the captain, to retire
to--------convent, where he might be alone as much as he pleased, and
where he would hear nothing but songs of praise to the Most High God,
from _blessed monks and nuns_.

The captain, according to orders, entered upon his retreat. Before
I proceed further, I will observe that this captain, of whom I am
speaking, had a remarkably beautiful set of teeth, of which it was
said he was extremely vain. He was not many days upon his retreat, when
symptoms of derangement became evident; and one day, while under the
influence of some natural or artificial cause--the reader may guess
which--the unfortunate gentleman went down to Alexandria, called upon a
dentist in that city or neighborhood, and insisted that he should pull
out seven teeth from each jaw. In vain did the dentist remonstrate; out
they must come, and out they did come.

The Jesuit hastened to Baltimore, called upon the lady who was engaged
to be married, told her the captain was insane, beyond recovery,
and that she should be thankful to the Virgin Mary, who caused this
visitation in time to prevent her from being married to a madman. Judge
you, Americans, of the feelings of this lady on that occasion, and say
what ought to be the punishment of the incarnate fiend who occasioned
them. The poor captain, though considerably recovered, continued to be
partially deranged; but it assumed a character of religious gloom and
melancholy. The Jesuit returned to--------, seeming to do all in his
power to lighten the spiritual load which lay upon the captain's soul.
He became his confessor, and soon persuaded him that the only way of
saving his soul, was to convey to the order of Jesuits what property he
possessed, and to become a Popish priest; that he had a visit from the
Virgin Mary, who ordered him to tell him--the captain--that he must take
holy orders; that there was a grand field opened for him to promote
the cause of religion and the saints; that he must go forthwith to
Philadelphia, where an infamous heretic called Hogan was spreading most
damnable heresies. Will you believe it, Americans? It is drawing almost
too heavily upon you to do so. He did come to Philadelphia, and preached
against the heretic Hogan and Hoganism, a fact which fifty thousand
people now living there can attest. But _quantum mutatus!_ When he left
it some time before, he was a happy, honorable and fine-looking man. He
was wealthy, and he obtained his wealth by honest industry. But how was
he now, the distorted shadow of what he was; penniless, toothless, and a
senseless fanatic, drugged into madness, and by whom?--by nuns, who act
in the treble capacity of cooks, teachers, and prostitutes for Jesuits.
This is harsh language indeed. Call it gross, if you please, reader; but
if you will figure to yourself for a moment an honorable man, a native
of these United States, a fine specimen of manly proportions and manly
beauty, and then conceive this individual reduced to the condition to
which I and thousands now living have seen this noble-hearted sailor of
whom I have spoken, reduced, my language will appear neither harsh nor
coarse.

What! must we call Jesuit assassins reverend gentlemen? Must we call
robbers honest men? Must we call their accessories--nuns--ladies of
virtue? Sympathizers may do so; but I do not write for them alone.
I write for men of sense; I write for lovers of their God and their
country; I write not for advocates of Puseyism, or such exploded
fooleries as they believe in. Whatever I say, is intended for those
alone who have the capacity of distinguishing between common sense and
mental vagaries, and who have the honesty to call things by their proper
names.

The first sermon which this unfortunate man preached against me in
Philadelphia, was attended by crowds. Many had known him before he went
to Baltimore. He was then universally popular, and on his return
among them he was well received. His friends saw the change--the fatal
change--which had taken place in his whole external configuration;
but they knew not by what means it was effected. Some attributed it to
self-denial, others to fanaticism, but none to the right cause. This was
known only in the confessional; and under all these circumstances,
it may be easily supposed that his discourses against me, however
unconnected they may be, however fugitive and irrelevant as a whole, had
a powerful effect upon the public mind.

Public sentiment, which up to this period sustained me in my opposition
to Popery, and in my efforts to circulate the Bible, now began to flag.
Popish priests and bishops went about industriously representing that
this reverend convert to Popery was inspired; reported that he had
visits from saints and angels, attesting the fact of his inspiration.
There was no difficulty in persuading a man of his shattered
constitution and now weak mind, that such was the fact; and he redoubled
his efforts in trying to persuade those who attended my church, and who
were becoming readers of the Bible, never to do so again. His disordered
mind often "saw me in hell, side by side with Luther, and the blessed
Virgin spitting in our face." "He often saw me with Ignatius Loyola,
who was breaking me on the rack as a punishment for my heresies." The
utterance of those wild rhapsodies were not without their effect; almost
all the poor Irish Papists believed them; and it required from me more
bodily and mental labor than I was able to endure, to counteract the
effects of this madman's rhapsodizing.

I am now so well acquainted with the character of American Protestants,
and even with American converts to the Romish church, that I know it is
difficult to persuade them that the Romish priests of Philadelphia,
or other parts of the United States, were so utterly abandoned to
degeneracy, as to give credence to these Visions or visits from saints,
which I have just spoken of. But let them recollect that practices upon
popular credulity are now carried on, and were then carried on, upon as
large a scale, as at any period in the existence of the Romish church.
Such impositions are encouraged all over the world, even at the present
day. The wildest extravagances of intellect have circulated freely for
the last thirty years in the world. Read Eugene Sue. He tells us of
numerous instances of the kind. Read the last edition of Genin, page 82,
and you will find an account of the Medal of the _Immaculate Conception
of the Virgin Mary_, struck only the other day, 1838. Over _two hundred
thousand copies_ of this medal have been already sold. The story
is this, as now vouched for by the most eminent holy fathers of the
infallible church:--That the Virgin Mary showed herself to one of the
_Sisters of Charity_ in France, a branch of which holy sisterhood we
have in this city of Boston, the capital of New England, and revealed
to her the pattern of a medal to be struck for her; the dress she was to
appear in, and the kind of rings she was to wear.

This medal has cured, and is now curing, according to the accounts
we receive from the holy fathers, all manner of diseases, such as
paralysis, epilepsy, cancer, and, according to the belief of some
Puseyite moral philosophers, it causes the blind to see, the dumb to
speak, and the lame to walk. A capital story is related of the potency
of this medal. It is too good to be omitted, especially as many of
my Puseyite friends believe it, and no doubt will be glad to hear it
repeated.

A Sister of Charity got acquainted with a married couple. The wife was
a Papist of the most exemplary character, obedient to holy Mother the
church, and her confessor, in all things. The husband had no faith,
especially in his wife's confessor. He drank, cursed and swore, "like
all possessed." The holy Sister of Charity, seeing him at the point of
death, and wishing to rescue his soul from hell, called to see him, and
slipped one of these medals between the sheets of this wicked man's bed,
and the next morning he gets up as well as ever and goes to confession.
Another miracle which was performed by this medal in 1838, deserves
notice, and may prove invaluable, if it finds its way into this country.
One Marie Laboissiere, aided by her lover, murdered her husband, and
forced her son to take part in the murder, to prevent him from being
witness against her. The lady and her lover were, however, arrested,
tried, and found guilty of the murder. They appealed to a higher
tribunal. During the interval between the sitting of the higher and
lower courts, one of the Sisters of Charity threw a medal round Marie's
neck, and though the court and all saw that she was guilty, and ought to
be judicially declared so, they could not do it. The medal would not
let them, but obliged them to acquit her. If the reader will take into
consideration that such visions as the Rev. Captain fancied he had, were
matters of every-day occurrence with pious Papists, and that a belief
in them is encouraged and enforced by Popish priests and bishops
everywhere, they will cease to be surprised that a man tortured into
madness, as my reverend antagonist was, should have visions such
as those ascribed to him; nor will they wonder at the effect of his
preaching, upon a congregation principally composed of Irish and French
Papists.

I was alone, without a clerical friend; not a Protestant preacher, with
the exception of one, raised his hand or his voice in my support.
They seemed to like the fun, as some of them expressed it, amongst the
Papists,--I suppose they considered me one then,--but they came not to
my aid. They appeared to me pretty much like the wife when she saw her
husband fighting with a bear, and was expected to interfere, but very
coolly replied, "I don't care which of them gets licked."

Under these circumstances, I felt discouraged; became utterly disgusted
with Popery and its infamous practices, with the holy fathers and their
fooleries, and resolved in future to have no more to do with Popery. I
collected such volumes as I had of the holy fathers, piled them up into
one heap, added to them the lives of the saints, and placing on the top
of the pile the Pope's bull of excommunication, which the poor old man
thought would frighten me out of my wits, I consigned them, book by
book, volume by volume, together with the aforesaid bull, to the warm
embraces of a good hickory fire. I knew the day was not far distant,
when Americans would see something besides fun in Popish quarrels;
and in the mean time, I determined to employ myself in the study of
Blackstone, Chitty, &c.; a much more profitable employment, in
a pecuniary point of view, than fighting in the cause of American
Protestants with European Papists.

It was said of Erasmus, that he laid the egg of the reformation, and
that Luther hatched it. I trust it will not be deemed vanity in me to
say that I have done as much for American Protestants, as Erasmus did in
his day. At least, I have done all I could; but whether they or any of
them will do as Luther has done, time alone can decide.

In this connection, it is not improper for me to state the ultimate
fate of this reverend convert to the Romish church. After I retired
from Philadelphia, and Hoganism was put down, the Jesuits measurably
neglected their convert; a thing very unusual with them, to do them
justice. He felt the loneliness of his situation. With a mind enfeebled
by drugs, a correct view of his situation could only strike him by
glances; but they were terrible and fearful. He saw himself robbed of
the one beloved object of all his earthly affections; plundered of a
fortune, the fruit of honorable toil and industry. He saw in himself
but the mutilated skeleton of what he once was, and the dupe of crafty
Jesuits and licentious nuns. He shrunk from the view, and as if God, in
his mercy, wished to hide it from him' by means which may appear to
us incomprehensible, he fell into fits of real madness, from which he
recovered but occasionally. The last I have heard of him was that he was
arrested somewhere near Newcastle, Delaware, for attempting to commit a
rape on a child nine years old; but the poor maniac was acquitted on
the ground of insanity. Several priests were called as witnesses in his
behalf; and well they may be witnesses. It was they that caused him to
be what he was; it was they that maddened him.

Those who are not familiar with crime, whose hands are unstained by
blood, and whose consciences have not been seared and discolored by the
blackness of guilt, may hesitate to give credence to these disgusting
details. Comparatively short as our national existence is, and though
brief the period since we cut loose as a nation from what we deemed the
polluted governments of Europe, still there was a time, even in these
United States, when such deeds as I have related would not and could not
be believed amongst us. There was a time when the ancient Romans did
not think that there existed such a crime as patricide; and hence it is.
that there was no law against it. There was actually no punishment known
to their laws for the commission of such a crime; and why, reader? Did
the ancient Romans encourage their children to kill their parents, or
to commit patricide? No. Far from it. No people in the world venerated
their parents more than the Roman children of the day to which I allude.
They had no law against the crime, because they did not believe it
possible that such a crime could be committed. Nor is it to be wondered
now, that many Americans should consider it almost impossible that
such deeds as I have laid to the charge of Jesuits and nuns, should be
perpetrated amongst us. But time, that exponent of all things, will
soon satisfy our people--as it did the Romans before us--that there is
nothing impossible, or even beyond the range of Jesuitical iniquity. The
archives of Jesuitical intrigue are now in a measure being thrown open
to the world. The diffusion of literature is so general, and human
curiosity, at the present period, so great, that nothing can escape its
searching inquiries. It is therefore to be hoped that our people will
not be much longer in ignorance of the iniquities of Jesuits. Americans
can now learn from historical evidence, which admits of no doubt, that
Jesuits have been expelled, successively, from thirty-nine different
governments; they can also learn, that by intrigue, deception, perjury
and poison, they have survived each and every one of those expulsions.
They may see,--if they can see anything but money,--that the Jesuits are
now making a final struggle for a settlement in this country; and if
they are not so stupid as not to see that similar causes must produce
similar events, they will infer that Jesuits, who have successively
and effectually introduced disunion, discord, and disorganization into
thirty-nine governments, cannot fail to do the same in ours. If by
poison and assassination they have dethroned the rulers of other
countries; if by debauchery and superstition in the confessional, they
have seduced their wives and daughters, can it be supposed that
our rulers shall escape, our government be secure, or our wives and
daughters safe from the daggers or subtle poisons of these notorious
fiends?

Let any American take the "Wandering Jew,"--let him read it attentively,
and reflect that the writer, Eugene Sue, is a Roman Catholic now living
in France,--and say whether there is any crime too daring for a Romish
priest or Jesuit. If he doubts what I relate of a young lady in the
beginning of this book, who was debauched by a Romish priest, and
poisoned by a nun, the mother abbess of a Jesuit seminary of learning,
to get rid of her illicit offspring; let him see the history of
Charlotte De Cordoville, in the Wandering Jew. He will see in the
history of that young lady, distinguished though she was for fortune,
beauty and charity, how she was reduced to misery and unhappiness, by
the intrigues of Jesuits. You will see how her own aunt was made the
instrument of all her misfortunes; but the aunt was first made a Jesuit,
and in that capacity she disregarded honor, truth, the relationship of
blood, and all the alliances of natural friendship. She caused her to be
imprisoned and maltreated. She and her associate Jesuits caused herself
and her lover to be poisoned or drugged into an insane stupor;--all for
the glory of the infallible church, and with a view of adding to its
ill-gotten treasures. For a full account of this transaction, see Eugene
Sue.

But Romish priests will not permit their people to read Eugene Sue; it
is a forbidden book; his royal holiness, the Pope, has cursed the book
and all who read it. He has cursed all who presume to discuss fairly the
merits of Popery; but even this will scarcely be believed by Americans.
Strange infatuation! Will Americans read a report made to the French
Chambers in Paris, by the Duke de Broglie, on the subject of public
instruction and Jesuitism? Will they further read a small work written
by Messrs. Michelet and Quinet, professors in the French national
college? If they do, it may open their eyes to consequences which may be
apprehended from even tolerating Jesuits amongst us. They will see that
Jesuits are the avowed enemies of liberal education, and that they are
sustained in their opposition to it by the curses of the Pope.

Professors Michelet and Quinet, in 1843, were discussing, in public, the
influence of the different religious orders. They had, as we are told,
commented upon that of the Templars, and were speaking of the society
of Jesuits, its origin and its interference in political affairs; and
though the professors themselves were Roman Catholics, though they
lectured in a Roman Catholic country and to Roman Catholic people, under
the sanction of a law of the land, yet Jesuits attempted to disturb
those lectures, by creating an uproar among the audience; just what
they are doing in this country. But what renders their conduct on this
occasion more strange, is the fact, that the very existence of Jesuits,
as a society is illegal in France. There is a law in France against
secret associations, and under this law they cannot exist. How pregnant
with instructions to Americans is this single historical fact! A few
years ago, Charles X. and his family had to fly from France, because,
under the influence of Jesuitism he violated his faith, he broke his
royal word and oath to the people. The people of France hunted him and
the Jesuits out of that country, as they would so many wild beasts. Such
then was the indignation of Popish France against that infernal
society, the Jesuits, that not one of them dared ta show his face in
the streets of Paris, without trembling for his life. Like dastardly
cowards, as all dishonorable and bad men are,--I never knew an
exception,--these wretches moved about like beasts of chase, "stealing
from one cover to another;" the representatives of all that was base
and dishonorable; the embodiment of all that was vile, false and
treacherous; the incarnation, the sentiment and the sediment of all that
was odious in fallen humanity. But see them now, in 1843 and '44, and
see the conduct of these very French people towards them. Though the
law forbids their existence, they have the hardihood to interrupt the
legitimate professors of the college of France, in their inquiries
into the spirit and influence of Jesuitism; and they are supported by a
portion of the very people, who, but a few years ago, pelted them
with rotten eggs and dead cats, through the streets of Paris. And what
effected this extraordinary change in popular sentiment? It is accounted
for in various ways; but I contend that the only fair solution of the
problem is to be found in the fact, that republican, democratic North
America hats opened her hospitable doors, and without suspicion, or
without dreaming that she was entertaining her deadliest foe, has spread
her tables to feed, and opened her purse to build asylums for these
scapegoats of the human family.

In 1830, Jesuits were crushed in France; they fled to the United States,
collected together their broken phalanxes, told brother Jonathan they
were a persecuted people, prevailed on him to build colleges for them,
and they have risen again, not only in this land of the brave, but even
in France, under the present king, Louis Philippe.

But notwithstanding these truths, the inquiry is sometimes made,--the
question has often been put even to myself,--"Are there really any
Jesuits in the United States?" "Do you believe that females are seduced
into nunneries?" "Do you believe they attempt to tamper with our
children or our wives?" I allude to the subject of privately tampering
with the wives and daughters of Americans thus frequently, because I
think it is all-important that they should thoroughly understand the
dangers to be apprehended from having any intercourse whatever with
Jesuits and nuns. Many a man asks this question, who accompanies it with
saying, the nunnery to which my daughter goes to school is not a Jesuit
nunnery. The priest to whom my wife confesses is not a Jesuit. The
priest to whom my daughter and servants go to confession is not, and
never was, a Jesuit; and consequently there is no danger from this
source. Many a man asks this question, and states these circumstances
in good faith, and feels secure that all is right, as nothing in his
opinion is to be feared but from Jesuits. This is a delusion. This
man's wife is already-governed by Jesuits through her confessor. It even
happens sometimes that the confessor himself is unconscious of the
part he is acting. The confessor acts under the immediate advice of his
bishop, to whom alone, in most cases, the Jesuits will entrust their
plans, unless the confessor is personally known to them; and unless the
confessor professes and solemnly swears to observe,--I use the words
of the oath,--"obedience, courage, secrecy, patience, craft, audacity,
perfect union among ourselves, having for our country, the world; for
our family, our order; for our queen, Rome."

Few of the confessors in this country, except the bishops, are entrusted
with the plans of the Jesuits; perhaps not ten, except they are of the
Jesuit order. It is through those confessors, that many of our American
youth, both male and female, are seduced into Popish schools, where
they become, with few exceptions, spiritless, false, slaves of abject
superstition, and the victims of a superficial education. No time is
given, no room left, as a modern writer expresses it, for the energies
of the mind to develop themselves. No sustenance is provided to nourish
the finer feelings of the heart. The intellect is checked, the flow of
imagination is stemmed, and all the warm and generous affections of the
soul are poisoned in their very bud.

For an instance of the fatal consequence of such an education as this, I
would call the attention of Americans, once more, to the Wandering Jew.
See the effects of a Jesuitical education upon the noble and generous
mind of Gabriel, the adopted son of the honest Dagoberth. What could be
more lovely than the disposition of this young man. His sentiments were
as upright and as chaste as fallen humanity would permit. But the Jesuit
society laid its impure hands upon him at an early period of life; they
persuaded his guileless adopted mother to go to confession,--not to a
Jesuit,--but to a _Cure_ of another order of priests; and the bishop of
this Cure gave him his instructions how to manage the mother of Gabriel.
The bishop knew that this adopted son of the virtuous and craftless wife
of Dagoberth, was one among other heirs of an immense estate, and he
directed the Cure to prevail upon this simple woman, while at confession
with him, to send Gabriel to a Jesuit school, and have him become a
Jesuit priest. Americans, read the sequel, and in that you will find a
warning, stronger and louder than I can give you, never to send a
child of yours to a Jesuit seminary. Let mothers read the history of
Dagoberth's wife, and if, after careful and honest perusal of it, they
will again commit their daughters to the care of a nurse who goes to
confession, I must only conclude that they are either infidels or
mad, or both. "_Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat_." Gabriel,--the
virtuous and good Gabriel,--was nursed by Dagoberth's wife. From his
infancy, it seems he had no inclination to become a Jesuit; he appeared
to have an innate aversion to the order of Jesuits; he struggled against
uniting himself with them, as far as a sense of gratitude and a feeling
of affection for his adopted mother, the nurse of his childhood, would
permit. But all to no purpose; the mother was the dupe of her confessor.
He was instructed to win over the youth by any and every means; and,
with the advice and cooperation of Jesuits, the confessor of this really
honest, but deluded woman, succeeded, by perseverance and increased
fondness for her adopted child, in neutralizing his aversion towards
Jesuit priests.

In an evil hour he joined them; their traps were too well laid, and
without being seen in the business themselves, they accomplished their
iniquitous purposes through the instrumentality of this affectionate
and charitable woman. All was done through the confessional. How many
similar cases have I witnessed myself, in the course of my life, but
particularly while acting as a Romish priest in the confessional! How
often have I known some of the best of women, belonging to the Roman
Catholic church, unconsciously made the dupes of priests! How often have
I seen women, who, had they been properly educated, and under different
circumstances, would be an honor to any religious denomination, made the
instruments of all that was vile and flagitious, by Popish confessors!
How often have I seen Roman Catholic servant-maids in Protestant
families, inveigled by their _ghostly fathers_, in the confessional,
into treachery, deception and ingratitude, towards their employers and
benefactors! How often, as I have stated in my book on Popery, have
these Roman Catholic servants stolen the infants from their Protestant
mothers, and brought them to myself to be baptized!

There is now, in the state of Massachusetts, a young Protestant
clergyman, distinguished for his talents and piety, an honor to
his profession as a minister of the gospel, and to the state of
Massachusetts as a republican citizen, who was baptized by myself in
Philadelphia, when acting as a Roman Catholic priest. The name of the
gentleman and the date of his baptism were duly registered by me; but
the clerical Goths and Vandals, who succeeded me in St. Mary's church in
that city, _expunged_ the register which I kept, not deeming it safe to
leave in existence, if possible, any records of the iniquities taught or
practised in the Romish church.

There are in all bodies and in all denominations of clergymen, certain
individuals by whom it becomes fashionable to get married and baptized;
and during my residence in Philadelphia, I held rather a conspicuous
place among them. The congregation of St. Mary's church was a large
one. Notwithstanding my _schismatic_ doctrines,--I was not then deemed
a heretic,--crowds attended the church, and I believe,--though I cannot
tell the exact number,--that I baptized more children than any
clergyman in the city. Among these there were hundreds of Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, Methodists and Baptists, brought to me for that purpose,
by their Roman Catholic nurses, without the knowledge or consent of
their Protestant mothers.

This has ever been the treacherous practice of the Romish church, from
the days of Hildebrand down to the present moment. Dagoberth's wife is
not a solitary instance of the undue influence which Romish priests have
over those women who go to confession to them. Show me the house of a
Protestant family in the United States where there is a Roman Catholic,
male or female, who goes to confession and communion in the Romish
church, and I will show you a watch, a spy upon every act and deed and
movement of that family. There is not a letter that comes into such a
family, that is not watched by Popish servants. They soon know from whom
it comes, or whether anything is to be gained by intercepting it. The
confessor is immediately consulted, and it is ascertained, from some
servant in the house where it was written or where it was received, what
was its purport, or what it contained.

This practice of domestic _espionage_, we all know, is common in every
country where auricular confession is taught and practised; but it is
carried on more generally here, in proportion to the number of Roman
Catholics, than in any other country in the world; and the reason
is obvious. It is said that Jews never cheat each other; this is not
because they will not cheat as well as others. The reason is, they will
not trust each other. They are always on the watch, or, as Yankees would
express it, on the "look-out" for each other. Neither is it because
other countries or other people are less disposed to indulge in this
species of espionage than we are, that they have less of it: it is
because Catholic countries and Catholics will not trust each other. They
are on the _qui vive_ in all matters of intrigue, whether in domestic or
national affairs, whether in morals or politics. But poor Jonathan, with
all his smartness and all his cleverness, is probably the most gullible
biped that crawls upon this earth. I have known some poor servant-maids
and servant-men, who did not seem to have an idea beyond a Hottentot,
who, after one month's proper training in the confessional by a Romish
priest, could wheedle them out of all they possessed, except their
money; and never have I known a Romish confessor, not even the simplest
Reverend Yahoo from the bogs of Ireland or flats of Holland, who could
not filch from them whatever money he wanted for any given purpose.

The cunning of Americans, their knowledge of human nature and of things
in general, cannot be mentioned in the same category with the craft and
knowledge of man which Jesuit priests and confessors possess. This is
exemplified even in the case of American missionaries. Send an American
missionary to France, to Spain, or to any Catholic country, and without
aid from home he will starve. He has no Roman Catholic to come to
confession to him, to give him money to build a church for him; he has
no servant-maid or servant-man, through whom he can persuade, to give
him ten or twelve dollars for saying mass; no dying man or woman will
send for him, and pay him well for taking out of his pockets a set of
_oil stocks_, for the purpose of greasing them over, commencing on the
forehead, the tip of the nose, eyelids, the lips, the breast, the loins
and the soles of the feet. He has no one to send for him and pay highly,
for putting his hand in his breeches pocket and pulling out a box full
of _gods_, viz., wafers made of flower and water, and giving him one of
them. No. He has none, of these resources; he starves amongst them
until bread is sent to him from home. Talk of Yankee cunning! He is a
simpleton compared with a Jesuit. A Jesuit comes amongst us, or he
goes to any Protestant country, without a dollar, but he never travels
without his jackals, male and female. He brings with him his lay sisters
and his lay brothers; they soon scent out prey for him; they hire
themselves, as servant men and women, to Protestant Yankees, and the
first intimation we have of a Jesuit missionary amongst us, is the alarm
of some rich-toned bell, which we hear from the steeple of a church
built for him by Protestant Yankees. In place of sending home for
money to support him, as the American missionary has to do, a Jesuit
is sending home money to pay the passage of others to come out and
help him. He is purchasing some of the most valuable real estate that
Protestant Yankees own, with Yankee money, and writes home to his
royal holiness, the Pope, that Americans are a simple, gullible people.
"Persevere," says the Jesuit in America to his Pope; "already have
you three millions of faithful troops from your own faithful allies of
France and Spain and other Roman Catholic friendly governments, among
them. Besides this, holy father, your holiness will bear in mind that
many of those American heretics, are deserting their own churches and
joining us; and above all, most holy father, you will remember,--and
I pray you will graciously condescend to take note of it,--that these
Americans are all politicians, all fond of offices and would kiss
your----!!!!! as well as your toe, if your subjects will only aid them
in keeping their offices, which, I am happy to inform your holiness, we
are very willing to do, until we have numerical strength enough to
turn all the heretical wretches out, and fill up their places with your
faithful subjects. This, with the aid of the blessed Virgin Mary, we
shall be able to accomplish in a very few years. Press on, most holy
father; your subjects are coming in thousands per day. Send dispatches
to your royal brothers of Austria, Prussia and Spain; urge upon them to
send us help, and the glorious cause of your holy spouse, the infallible
church, the Queen of heaven, will triumph.

"Write to the greatest layman living, Daniel O'Connell, whom your
holiness intends shall receive from your hands a crown as king of
Ireland; urge upon him the necessity of sending over to the United
States all the repealers he can spare. Let him persuade the Irish, that
the union was the cause of all their grievances,--that they would
have nothing to complain of, if the union were repealed. Let not your
faithful son, D. O'Connell, ever allude to the fact,--the poor Irish
would never dream of it,--that the union is not quite fifty years old,
and that, for seven hundred years before its existence, the Irish were
much more quarrelsome, clamorous, litigious than they are now. It won't
do to let them know this; repeal would lose all its charms, and the
greatest layman living, would become,--between you and myself and the
holy Virgin Mary,--what he really is, the greatest scoundrel and the
biggest poltroon living. These heretical Americans are trying to cause
a division between your son Daniel O'Connell and your subjects. Poor
dolts! How little they know about us. We know what we are about Your
son need only go regularly to confession, and attend mass in some public
place, such as at a mass meeting of repealers, and nothing can separate
your subjects from him. I trust the move which we made the other day in
New York, through your faithful subject Lord Bishop Hughs, was highly
satisfactory to your holiness. Your royal holiness will be graciously
pleased to remember, that the first murmurings of repeal thunder,
proceeded from the city of New York, through that humble, pious and
zealous servant of the infallible church, the Lord Bishop Hughs. He
was among the first to call the people together, and, under pretence
of desiring repeal in Ireland, he told them to organize, to weigh well
their own power and influence in the political balance. He advised them
to give their support to no man but a repealer, and very judiciously
instructed his confessors in private, that it should be given only to
those who were most favorable to your holiness' spouse, the infallible
church. He succeeded well. The American heretics swallowed the bait;
the President of the United States for the time being, was the first
political gudgeon he caught. Next followed two young spawns of his. They
shouted repeal throughout the country. Your subjects promised to
elect the three of them presidents in succession; but when the hour of
election came, as in duty and by oath of allegiance to your holiness
bound, we acted as we thought would best serve the interest of our holy
church."

This may all seem like romance; but is it so? Do not facts within the
knowledge and almost view of my readers, prove that it is the very
reverse? Who is there that does not know, that does not recollect, or
that can forget the events and circumstances of the last election for
President of the United States? Who is there that does not recollect the
part, which repealers played in that election? Can any man who has paid
the least attention to passing events, forget the conduct of Bishop
Hughs of New York or of Bishop Fenwick of Boston, or of any other
bishop (Romish bishops) of the United States, during the last political
eventful year? Who ordered the Irish Catholics to turn out with a banner
bearing upon it the treasonable inscription, "Americans shan't rule
us"? Bishop Hughs of New York. Did not a band of traitorous repealers,
calling themselves democrats, parade the streets of New York, Buffalo
and other cities, under the jurisdiction of the Lord Bishop Hughs,
shaking this banner in the very faces of American citizens, hurraing
for Daniel O'Connell and repeal? Did not this bishop Hughs order several
hundred stands of fire-arms to be placed in the Roman Catholic churches
of New York, with a view of firing upon the citizens should they even
dare to show any dissatisfaction, at these traitorous proceedings? Has
not this Bishop Hughs been in close correspondence with the traitor
O'Connell, ever since he sounded the first note of repeal? And is
not this demagogue Hughs at this very moment corresponding with the
confessors of Daniel O'Connell, and the other leaders of repeal in
Ireland? Yes, I assert it,--he is. There is a continuous line of
correspondence, as I have stated in my recent book on Popery, between
the Propaganda in Rome, the Romish bishops of Ireland, Daniel O'Connell,
and the Romish bishops of the United States. The Propaganda of Rome is
the muddy and polluted source from which the various streams of treason,
which are inundating our country, have proceeded. Their course is a
sinuous one; their gyrations are intricate in the extreme. It takes
in France, Austria, Russia, Switzerland, the Netherlands; in fact all
civilized Europe, besides South America and Mexico; its fountain in
Rome, and emptying itself in the United States. Yet we now hear
this Lord Bishop Hughs telling his subjects in New York and
elsewhere,--telling what, my readers?--will you believe it, should I
inform you? Or will you not think me trifling with you, and sporting
with a grave subject? He tells his subjects now, after doing all the
mischief he could, after exciting family against family, after
creating disunion, dissension and discord, after exciting peaceable
fellow-citizens to imbrue their hands in each other's blood, that
he entirely disapproves of Daniel O'Connell; that he believes him
a _monarchist_, and that it is the duty of Papists to stand by the
government that protected them. This is unquestionably the boldest
piece of impudence, and the most clumsy attempt at imposition upon the
credulity of Americans, that has ever been attempted in this country.
It has no parallel in the history of Popery in the United States; and
if ever there was a time or an occasion which calls upon Americans
to vindicate their honor, and fling from them with indignation the
imputation of being credulous dupes, now is the day and now is the hour.
What is this insolent upstart Hughs,--who but the other day as
another expresses it, "was pitchforked from the potato-field into a
palace,"--that he dares thus insult the common sense of the free-born
citizens of America? He, a foreigner, a foundling for aught we know,
nursed and fed by Jesuits into manhood, their slave and their tool, how
dare he insult the very country that gives him an asylum? how dare he
outrage the feelings of the very people that give him bread to eat, and
clothes to his back? I will give you, Americans, some idea of who he is,
and who his brethren of the Popish mitre are. They are individuals--and
the Lord Bishop Hughs is preeminently conspicuous among them,--who,
stript of the false splendor which circumstances and place throw around
them; who, if deprived of the drapery and mimic glories of Popery, in
which holy mother, the church, has enveloped them, would appear among
the meanest and most despicable members of society. Such men may be
borne with, while they abstain from insulting the common sense of
the people; but when their arrogance, insolence and vanity presume to
trample upon the rights of the people, and ridicule the understanding of
the community, they deserve something more than commiseration.

When, in the plenitude of their vanity, they cease to be content with
the profits of office and the free exercise of their religion, and dare
insinuate aught disrespectful to the understanding of their benefactors,
they cease to be objects even of toleration. In ages of ignorance, the
trappings of Popery may strike with awe. Those ages are gone by; and
if Americans are true to themselves, they will never revive in this
country, notwithstanding the insolent efforts of this Lord Bishop Hughs.
This reverend bully has long bid defiance to the unarmed arguments of
Americans. He will not condescend to listen to the American theologian,
who brings into the arena of religious controversy, truth without a
sword, and fair argument unbacked by bowie-knives and clubs; he will
not stoop to such a mode of warfare. No. This clerical rake would, if
he could, Gothicize this nation of freemen. He would extinguish, if he
could, among Americans, the light of learning and philosophy. Nay,
he would, and he has been trying to, raise from the putrid pools of
ignorance and superstition, fogs and evaporations, and clouds and mists,
sufficiently thick to hide from the eyes of Americans the pure, the
brilliant, and the glorious light even of the Bible itself. It is not
enough for him that his subjects should consider him their official
superior; it is not enough that some poor foreigners,--and I blush to
own it,--even Americans, should look upon him and his brethren as their
superiors in the church, but they are required also to consider them
their superiors in wisdom and virtue, though they know them to be
Jesuits. Papists, whether foreigners or Americans, are, even in the
United States, little better than living automatons and self-acting
tools, for the corrupt agents of his royal holiness, the Pope.

Can this be? the reader will say. Can it be, that man, created a free
agent, living in a free country, and governed by equal laws,---can he
be made to obey the word of command given by ja Popish bishop, as a wild
beast would the lash or the whip of the keeper of a menagerie? It is
so, reader; and particularly with every human being, male or female, who
goes to confession. I care not how intelligent he may appear to be, or
what his acquirements or accomplishments may be; if he is weak enough,
fool enough, or hypocrite enough and mean enough to go to confession to
a Romish priest, he deserves not the name of a freeman. He who bends the
knee to a Romish priest, and asks him to forgive his sins, submitting to
such restrictions or discipline as the priests may be pleased to impose
upon him, becomes a degenerate being. Take, for instance, a bird, one of
the feathered citizens of the open air; take a lion, a proud denizen of
the boundless forest; compare him with one of those tamed, broken-down
and whipped into obedience, by the keeper of a menagerie, and how
strongly, how painfully marked is the contrast. Their very looks bespeak
their degradation. How great is the contrast between those who have
broken loose from obedience to nature's laws, to the degrading servitude
of obedience to man. But the contrast is not greater nor their fall more
humiliating, than that of the man or woman, who exchanges that obedience
which he or she owes to reason, to pure religion, and the divine law
of the gospel, for the degraded servitude required from them by Popish
priests and confessors.

Let us suppose a whole people thus tamed, thus broken, thus snaffled,
bitted and bridled by skilful Popish riders and Jesuit jockeys, will
they not soon lose all ideas of liberty, morals and individual man
liness? Will they not soon be ready to exclaim, in the language of
inspiration, "Why died I not from the womb?"

But let us return to the Lord Bishop Hughs, of New York, and his sudden
conversion from repeal and O'Connellism. As I have stated before, it is
the boldest stroke that ever has been made to deceive a whole nation.
Nothing equal to it, that I know of, in modern history, except perhaps,
it may be that of the Jesuit Rodin, which we find related in the
Wandering Jew. The only difference between the Jesuit Hughs and the
Jesuit Rodin, is this,--that Rodin's audacity, hypocrisy and treachery,
were practised on a small scale, when compared with that of this modern
Jesuit, Lord Bishop of New York.

There is, however, a strong similitude between these two illustrious
individuals. I need not inform my readers,--as I believe they have all
read the Wandering Jew,--that Rodin was a Jesuit, commissioned by the
society of Jesuits in Rome, to act as its agent, ES with full powers
to secure for the society of Jesus, it is nicknamed by them, an immense
estate, belonging, in law and in justice, to a French family of the name
of Rennepont. He was empowered to secure this property to the society,
but he must use no violence. It must be done solely by the play of
action, hypocrisy and deception. The reader will remember, as we are
informed in the Wandering Jew, that the Rennepont family had to fly from
France, after the king of that country, at the instigation of the Pope,
and by a violation of the most solemn compact, had broken the edict of
Nantz, which secured to the Protestants the quiet possession of their
property. After fighting their way through blood and Popish butcheries,
this noble family, with thousands of others, had to fly from their
homes, friendless and pennyless. Only a few escaped the bloodhounds of
Popery. Their wives and daughters were dishonored, and, as we were told
upon good authority, their helpless infants were dashed against the
corners of houses, and their brains scattered upon the pavements.
Nothing was left them. They had to seek refuge in distant lands; they
went east and west, north and south. Many of their descendants are now
living in some of the Southern States of this confederacy.

The general of the Jesuit order in Rome discovered that some of the
descendants of the Rennepont family had survived the disasters of the
times, and held in their possession proofs sufficient to establish
claims to their patrimonial rights. The Jesuits determined to defeat
them, and if the reader's curiosity induces him to learn by what means
they endeavored to do so, and what agents they employed to effect it,
let him read the account given of the whole transaction in the Wandering
Jew, by that inimitable writer, Eugene Sue. They will find in that
work proofs of the wickedness of Jesuits. They will find that auricular
confession is something even worse than I have described it. I have not
talent to give a sufficiently accurate picture of this diabolical Popish
invention.

Lord Bishop Hughs has been for several years lecturing through the State
of New York, as every man who has read the leading newspapers of the
country must know; he has represented O'Connell as one of the greatest
and best men of the day, and one of the most persecuted of men by the
British government. O'Connell and genuine Popery are almost synonymous
terms with this lord bishop. As I have stated above, he tried to
enlist,--and has actually succeeded,--all foreign Papists, and a vast
number even of Americans, in the cause of O'Connell and Irish repeal.
Wherever this lord bishop went, dissension and anarchy followed in his
train; but mark him now. Mark the course of this Bishop Hughs for the
last few years, and you will be struck with the exact similitude which
in every feature exists between itself and that of Rodin. The readers
of the Wandering Jew will recollect that Rodin established a press in
Paris, for the ostensible purpose of inculcating truth, and advancing
the public good. The title of this press was, "Love your neighbor."
The editor was one Nini-Moulin, a notorious drunkard, ignorant and
profligate in the extreme, and, personally, irresponsible, either in
a pecuniary or moral point of view. If sued for any libellous matter
contained in this press, nothing could be recovered from him, because he
had nothing. If thrown into jail for the immorality of the act, he
could not suffer in his reputation, because he had none to lose; he may
continue editor still, and all that was necessary, was that Rodin should
supply him with something to eat and drink. For the amusement of my
readers, I beg to give a brief description of the editor of Rodin's
paper. 1 take it from that given by one who knew him, who was the
mistress kept by this editor of Rodin's paper, one Rose-Pompon. She thus
describes the editor--"A face as red as a glass of red wine, and a nose
all covered with pimples, like a strawberry." Rodin, describing him,
gives a different character altogether. He says that "Nini-Moulin is a
very worthy man, though, perhaps, a little fond of pleasure" Here is
a precious specimen of Jesuitism and Popish morality; a man living
notoriously with a woman of the town, bearing upon his face the marks
of drunkenness and profligacy, is pronounced by a Romish priest to be a
very worthy man, though perhaps a little fond of pleasure.

Suppose Rodin and Nini-Moulin were amongst us here, in the city of
Boston, or in the city of New York,--who is there that would not shrink
from a contact with either? The Jesuit Bishop Hughs, of New York, and
his brother Fenwick, of Boston, have presses in each of those cities,
and the wretches who ostensibly conduct them, are, in point of fact, of
no higher or more worthy character than Rodin's editor, Nini-Moulin. No
man, who opposed Jesuitism in Paris, or who was even suspected of
being inimical to it, escaped the abuse of Rodin's journal. The fairest
characters were blasted by it; it defamed and bespattered with its
scurrility, some of the most honorable and high-minded citizens, while
the artful and cowardly hypocrite himself was hidden from observation.
Is it not so with Hughs, of New York, Fenwick, of Boston, and the whole
tribe of Popish bishops throughout the United States'? No man is safe,
no character is spared from the virulence of the presses which they own.
Witness the Truth Teller, of New York, owned by Bishop Hughs,--though,
like Rodin, he denies the ownership of it,--what can be more vile than
the language of that press? It declares that "Americans shan't rule
us--Papists" It has for years been spewing forth its malicious tirades
against Protestant Americans, while the real author of this scurrility,
Bishop Hughs, is skulking behind the bush.

But I will tear off that masquerade dress which nides the moral
deformities of this man; and I trust that all Protestants will sustain
and pardon me, in holding him, and not the Nini-Moulins who conduct
his press, responsible for its contents. Let no Protestant notice the
miserable beings who are the reputed editors of the Truth Teller, Bishop
Hughs' organ; let the bishop himself be held responsible.

The Jesuit bishop of Boston, Fenwick, another Rodin, has also a
press called the _Pilot_, apparently edited by a silly-looking, Irish
jackanape. Let not Bostonians notice the abuse which this paper has
heaped upon them for years; or if they do, let them hold Bishop Fenwick
responsible for it; he is the real author of its contents, and not the
little brainless gander, its reputed editor.

I might quote a thousand instances of the similarity of thought and
deeds which governed, and which now govern, the whole body of Romish
priests. But enough. It is time that Americans should vindicate their
honor.

Having done all the mischief he could, having inflicted upon the peace
of our country a wound, which, in all probability, can never be healed,
he adroitly turns round,--just as the hypocritical villain Rodin,
the Jesuit, did,--and tells Americans that he was wrong in supporting
O'Connell; that he can support him no longer, because the said O'Connell
is a monarchist Let us try and reconcile this with the solemn oath of
this vaporing Jesuit and canting patriot, Hughs. The following is an
extract from the oath which, as a Popish bishop and a Jesuit, he took at
his ordination and consecration:

"Therefore, to the utmost of my power, I shall and will defend this
doctrine, and his holiness' rights and customs, against all usurpers of
heretical or Protestant authority whatsoever; especially against the now
pretended authority and Church of England, and all adherents, in regard
that they and she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred mother
church of Rome. I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any
heretical king, prince, or state named Protestant, or obedience to any
of their inferior magistrates or officers, I do further declare the
doctrine of the Church of England, and of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and
of other of the name Protestants, to be damnable, and they themselves
are damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do
further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all, or any of his
holiness' agents in any place, wherever I shall be, in England, Scotland
and Ireland, or in any other territory or kingdom, I shall come to; and
do my utmost to extirpate the heretical _Protestants' doctrine, and to
destroy all their pretending powers, regal or otherwise_. I do further
promise and declare, that notwithstanding; I am dispensed with to
assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the mother church's
interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels from time
to time, as they intrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly,
by word, writing, or circumstance whatsoever, but to execute all that
shall be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me, by you my
ghostly father, or by any of his sacred convent. All which, I, A. B., do
swear by the blessed Trinity, and blessed Sacrament, which I am now to
receive, to perform, and on my part to keep inviolably; and do call
all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real
intentions to keep this my oath."

Now, Mr. Bishop, suppose you and I reason together for a moment. Either
this oath is binding upon your lordship or it is not. If the former,
assuredly you can have no reasonable objection to supporting O'Connell,
either as a monarchist, or as, your ally in defending the rights and
prerogatives of his royal holiness the Pope. If the latter, that is, if
it is not binding on you,--if you will not defend the Pope's power, his
throne and his prerogatives,--say so like an honest man. Until you do
this, we must look upon your denunciations against O'Connell, as the
veriest farce that ever was enacted by the veriest mountebank scoundrel
that ever filched a dollar from the pockets of Americans. Will you dare
stand before me, and tell me that the Pope of Rome it not himself a
monarch? Will you dare look me in the face, and say that you would not
support him? Will you dare look me in the eye, and say that you would
not support his government? Recollect that I understand the mysteries
of Popery as well as you do; remember that I have studied its doctrines
more deeply than ever you had an opportunity of doing; and I experience
not the least emotion of vanity, when 1 assure your Jesuit lordship that
I am a much better general scholar than you are. You will therefore
be cautious in future; I will watch you in your ecclesiastical and
political gyrations, and whenever you assert what is false in morals, or
dangerous to the institutions of my adopted country, I will check
you, and that with no gentle hand; though I shall do unto you and your
brethren, but that which you and your brethren have done unto me. The
truth is, Mr. Bishop, you are an overrated man, an inflated humbug, and
probably you would have passed for a learned one, had you not, without
provocation, interfered with me. You, a Popish bishop, tell Americans,
that you cannot support a monarchist! Have you ever read the works of
Salmeron, a Jesuit like yourself, but a theologian of learning, which
you are not? Either he was a liar, or you are one. Listen to what he
says of his monarch, the Pope. "The Pope has supreme power over all the
earth; over all kings and governments, and if they resist he must punish
them." Salmeron was a native of Toledo, and was so thoroughly orthodox
in Popish belief, that he wrote several commentaries on the Scriptures,
which were approved of by the infallible church. He died only about
two hundred years ago. Can you blush, my Lord Bishop? Either you think
Americans an extremely ignorant people, and unable to discern between
flippancy, repeal gab, and solid historical information, or you
must blush at your attempt to impose upon them. The veriest child in
knowledge of ecclesiastical history, knows that the Pope is king and
monarch of Rome, and that you are sworn, by the most fearful oath, to
support him and his government in opposition to all others; and yet,
forsooth, you cannot support O'Connell because he is a monarchist.

Have you, my Lord Bishop Hughs, ever read the life of Pope Adrian?
Was he not a monarch? Was he not, to use his holiness' own words, the
monarch "of all the islands upon which the sun hath shone?" Are you
ignorant of this fact, Mr. Bishop? I beg leave to instruct you upon the
subject, by submitting to your lordship and to the poor, unfortunate
Irish Catholics, whom you are leading blindly by the nose in every
species of mischief and error, the following bull sent by the
aforesaid Pope Adrian, to Henry the II., in the year eleven hundred and
fifty-four. You will see from this bull, that Pope Adrian was a monarch,
and I believe it is not usual with you or your brother bishops, to
admit that there was ever any change in the power or prerogatives of the
Popes, from the days of St. Peter down to the present moment.

"Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearest son
in Christ, the illustrious king of England, health and apostolical
benediction. Full laudably and profitably hath your magnificence
conceived the desire of propagating your glorious renown on earth and
completing your reward of eternal happiness in heaven, while, as a
Catholic prince, you are intent on enlarging the borders of the church,
instructing the rude and ignorant in the truth of the Christian faith,
exterminating vice from the vineyard of the Lord; and for the more
convenient execution of this purpose, requiring the counsel and favor of
the apostolic See.

"There is indeed no doubt, as your highness also doth acknowledge, that
Ireland and all the islands upon which Christ, the sun of righteousness,
hath shone, do belong to the patrimony of St. Peter and the holy Roman
church. Therefore are we the more solicitous to propagate in that land
the godly scion of faith.

"You, then, most dear son in Christ, have signified to us your desire to
enter that land of Ireland, in order to reduce the people to obedience
unto laws and extirpate the seeds of vice. You have also declared that
you are willing to pay for each house a yearly pension of one penny to
St. Peter.

"We, therefore, with that grace and acceptance suited to your pious and
praiseworthy design, and favorable assenting to your petition, do hold
it right and good, that, for the extension of the borders of the church,
the restraining of vice, the correction of manners, the planting of
virtue and increase of religion, you enter the said island and execute
therein whatever shall pertain to the honor of God and the welfare of
the land; and that the people of said land receive you honorably and
reverence you as their lord.

"If, then, you be resolved to carry this design into effectual
execution, study to form the nation to virtuous manners; and labor, by
yourself and by others whom you may judge meet for the work, in faith,
word and action, that the church may be there exalted, the Christian
faith planted, and all things so ordered for the honor of God and the
salvation of souls, that you may be entitled to a fulness of reward in
heaven, and on earth to a glorious renown throughout all ages."

Does it not appear, Mr. Bishop, from the above bull, that Pope Adrian
was a monarch? And do you dare condemn your predecessors in office for
supporting him as such, or for being themselves monarchists? I opine you
would not.

Pope Adrian was an Englishman, and the only one who ever filled the
office of Pope. The successor of Adrian in the popedom was a native of
Sienna, and a temporal monarch as well as Adrian. He gave away kingdoms
and crowns, as did all preceding and successive popes; and yet your
lordship will not pretend to say that they did wrong. You dare not do
it. It would cost you your mitre, and the other paraphernalia with which
the holy church has befooled and bedizened your sacred person. Let me
give you an instance of the manner in which some of the holy popes
have disposed of whole kingdoms. I might give many, but I shall content
myself with one for your special edification, and that of your deluded
followers, the Irish in particular. The following is the bull of Pope
Alexander, the successor of Adrian, confirming his transfer of the
kingdom and people of Ireland to Henry the 'second, king of England, in
the year 1555.

"Alexander, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his dearly
beloved son, the noble king of England, health, grace and apostolical
benediction. Forasmuch as things given and granted upon good reason by
our predecessors are to be well allowed of, ratified and confirmed,
we, well pondering and considering the grant and privilege for and
concerning the dominion of the land of Ireland to us appertaining and
lately given by our predecessor, Adrian, do in like manner confirm,
ratify and allow the same; provided there be reserved and paid to St.
Peter, and to the church of Rome, the yearly pension of one penny out
of every house both in England and in Ireland; provided, also, that _the
barbarous people of Ireland_ be by your means reformed from their
filthy life and abominable manners, that, as in name so in conduct and
conversation, they may become Chris-' tians; provided, further, that
that rude and disordered church being by you reformed, the whole nation
may, together with the profession of the laith, be in act and deed
followers of the same."

The above bulls are recorded in the archives of the Roman Church,1 in
Ireland. They were publicly read at a Roman Catholic Synod held in the
Cathedral of Cashal, in Ireland, Anno Domini 1171, and are now to be
found in almost every history of Ireland, that has ever been written
since. But notwithstanding these historical facts, the poor Irish
are told that they are indebted to the church of Rome, even for their
nationality. We have in this very city of Boston, a poor moonstricken
changeling, and would-be philosopher, who has recently been hired by
the Jesuit Bishop Fenwick, to make such an assertion, and the Irish
Catholics to a man believe him. Unfortunate people! How long will you
remain the dupes of popes, bishops, priests and their agents?

Come out from among them; fly from the darkness of Popery; "come out of
that deadly shade, and seat yourselves with us in God's own sunlight."

The Lord Bishop Hughs of New York, finding that it would not answer his
purpose to support O'Con-nell any longer, and feeling that he made his
spring too violently and too soon; knowing that he fell far short of his
leap, he turns round, like the Jesuit Rodin, and tells Americans that he
was altogether mistaken in the course he pursued, and that he was truly
their friend; that they should rule, and by right ought to rule, and
that he and his subjects would be the first to aid them against England,
or O'Connell. Well done, Mr. Bishop. Impudent and barefaced as your
assertion is, more treacherous and false than even the Jesuit Rodin as
you are, I have not the least doubt but you will succeed.

It is curious to observe the similarity of sentiment and action
which govern Jesuits, however far apart they may be. We know from the
Wandering Jew, that the Jesuit Rodin, for several years, never ceased to
pursue and persecute the orphan descendants of the Rennepont family.
He commenced his persecution of them in Siberia; he scented their track
with the keenness of a bloodhound, from that to Dresden. In Dresden,
as we are told, he had a fresh pack of bloodhounds, who fell upon the
innocent twin orphans of an exiled father, and protected only by a
faithful French trooper. It is impossible to read the account given
by Sue, of the ill-treatment which these children and their protector
received from a ferocious brute, named Morok, a lay Jesuit brother
during the time they remained at the "White Falcon Inn," without strong
emotions of pity and commiseration. From this they were pursued by the
Jesuit Rodin, by different agents and by different means, which the
reader will find beautifully delineated in the Wandering Jew, until
their arrival in Paris.

Here, it will be seen, that new plots were formed, and new schemes
devised, to defeat their just claims to their paternal inheritance,
by keeping them in total ignorance that any such claims were ever in
existence. Unfeeling, indeed, and cold as the marble slab which covers
the house of the dead, must be the heart of that man or woman, who
could unmoved witness the sufferings of these helpless orphans and the
faithful servant, Dagoberth, while in the city of Paris; all brought
upon them by Jesuit priests and Jesuit nuns,--fiends, vipers, vampires
in human shape, All their movements were watched and betrayed, through
the confessional. But the eye of the Lord seemed to rest upon them in
a most extraordinary manner. It would be wrong to diminish, by
anticipation, the pleasure which my readers may find in reading for
themselves this part of the Wandering Jew. Let us, therefore, pass on to
Rodin, the Jesuit, and prototype of the Lord Bishop Hughs of New York.
Rodin, finding that all his plans and schemes, in trying to possess the
vast estates of the Rennepont family, were likely to fail, and would
inevitably be frustrated, unless some new scheme were devised, retired
within his own room, deliberated on what was best to be done, and
suddenly springing from his chair, thus soliloquized with himself:

"Never have I had better hopes of success, than at this moment;
the stronger reason for neglecting nothing. A new thought struck me
yesterday. We will act here in concert. I have it,--an ultra Catholic
journal, called 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' It will be deemed
the organ of Rome. 'I will originate the question of the liberty of
teaching. The common liberals will support us,--the idiots. They admit
us to common rights, when our privileges, our immunities, our influence
through the confessional, our obedience to Rome,--all put us beyond
the pale of common rights, of the very advantage which we enjoy. Double
idiots! They fancy us disarmed, because they know themselves to be
disarmed towards us. That is as I would have it?'"

This is precisely the course which the Jesuit Hughs, of New York, has
pursued towards Americans. Rodin immediately acted upon the new idea
which occurred to him; he wrote to the general of the Jesuit order in
Rome, who immediately advised him to cease apparently from further
persecuting the heirs of the Rennepont inheritance; to avow himself
their warmest friend, and to denounce all those who attempted to injure
them in any way, as plotters against their rights and their happiness.
Having a previous understanding with his co-laborers in iniquity, he
denounced every one of them, and by this act of apparent friendship and
justice, he wormed himself into the undivided confidence of all who
heretofore looked upon him with fearful suspicion. Just so is Bishop
Hughs trying to worm himself into the confidence of Americans, by
assuring them that he disapproves of the treachery of O'Connell, and by
recommending to his subjects and his dupes, in New York and elsewhere,
to assemble in public, and declare that they are opposed to O'Connell's
movements in Ireland, and that they are the friends, of the United
States; and accordingly we find that on Monday, the 16th of the present
month, June, 1845, a meeting was called by the tools of the aforesaid
Bishop Hughs, for the ostensible purpose of expressing their
disapprobation of O'Connell, the Pope's tool, in Ireland. The bishop,
knowing that the bitterest feelings have been aroused in the bosoms of
Americans, at seeing Papists forming associations throughout the length
and breadth of this land, and collecting vast sums of money, to be
transmitted to Ireland, not for the purpose of feeding the half-starved
population of that unfortunate country; not to clothe the almost naked
peasantry of that unhappy land; not to relieve from bondage and worse
than Siberian slavery, a people naturally brave and generous, but to
pamper and to forward the plans of a roaring, brawling demagogue and
coward, Daniel O'Connell.

The least observant among us, is aware that the scenes of bloodshed,
which have been witnessed in this country, may be traced to those
associations, which that Irish Jesuit, Bishop Hughs, has fanned into
existence, by his inflammatory appeals to the worst passions in
the hearts of his people, and now, alas! too late,--even if he were
serious,--he attempts to extinguish the flame which he has kindled.
But I tell you, Americans, he is not serious. If you depend upon His
professions, you will be deceived. He is sworn, on the most fearful
oath, to support the power, the kingdom and the jurisdiction of the Pope
of Rome, over all kings, potentates, states and magistrates. Neither
are his subjects in this country sincere; and that very Bishop Hughs,--I
accuse him of it in the face of the world,--I accuse him of it on the
authority of the Roman Catholic church, of which I have been a priest
myself,--teaches those very people, that any oath of allegiance which
they have sworn to this government, is null, void and of no effect. When
I was a Roman Catholic priest, it was my duty to absolve from their oath
of allegiance, all those who came to confession to me. While a priest, I
instructed the Irish to swear allegiance to the heretical government
of the United States; but with a mental reservation, that the first
allegiance was due to the Pope of Rome. Every Roman Catholic, who goes
to confession to a Romish priest, is a mere political automaton, not
to be trusted by a Protestant, or Protestant government, further than
either would trust the priest to whom he con-fosses; and how far a
Romish priest merits the confidence of an American Protestant, time will
tell.

The tools of Bishop Hughs, of New York, at Tammany Hall, June 16th,
1845, passed the following resolution:

"Resolved, That there are thousands in this country, (meaning Papists,)
who would bare their breasts to any power, (meaning English,) that may
invade this country." It was also resolved, at the same meeting, "that
they would defend the American claims to Oregon and to Texas." It was
further resolved by these self-same repealers, the sworn subjects of
Bishop Hughs and the Pope, "that the American eagle shall not be impeded
by natives of Ireland in this country."

If there was not something diabolically treacherous beneath the surface
of those resolutions; if a viper were not hidden and concealed under the
fair and verdant foliage of these words, they would be to me, as well as
others, a source of pleasure. But let us remove the leaves and brambles,
the blossoms and roses, which conceal the subtle and fatal poison, and
they are calculated to chill and to freeze those sympathies which,
under other circumstances, Americans would feel for those people.
Irish Papists bare their breasts in defence of the rights of Protestant
Americans,--and that by the advice and with the consent of a Popish
Jesuit bishop! Monstrous insolence, to impose thus upon hospitable and
generous Americans. The resolution, in truth, amounts to this: Resolved,
That as our Bishop Hughs is permitted by the infallible church, to act
the hypocrite, we, as professors of the same creed, are entitled to do
the same. Resolved, That, as our bishops and priests are permitted
to keep no faith with Protestant Americans, we shall pursue the same
course, until we gain entire possession of this Protestant land.

The idea of foreign Papists "baring their breasts to English bayonets,
in defence of the rights of Protestant Americans," to Oregon or Texas,
is laughable; it is farcical. Ireland contains nearly ten millions of
souls,--I should have said slaves,--and they will not bare their breasts
to the trifling number of sixteen thousand troops, which England deems
fully sufficient to keep them in perfect subjection. But I will tell
you, Americans, what those Popish heroes will do, and have been doing,
ever since the year sixteen hundred and forty-nine, when the ruling
Pope sent Monsignor Gio. Batista Rinuccini, Archbishop of Fermo, as his
nuncio and minister plenipotentiary to Ireland, almost two hundred years
ago. They will bare their------to be kicked, whenever John Bull may take
a fancy to exercise his clumsy feet in that favorite amusement of
his. Such slaves as these talk of "baring their breasts" in defence of
American rights; who, numbering ten millions, still permit themselves
to be kicked, cuffed, buffeted and spit upon by sixteen thousand British
soldiers! Pshaw! Where is the American, who will not indignantly say,
in the language of a Roman writer, "_Non tali auxilio nec defensoribtis
istis_." Bishop Hughs and his myrmidons, talk of defending the rights
of Texas! Poor priest-ridden, pope-ridden dupes! The Texans would spurn
your aid; they do not want you; they would not have your aid. The Texans
had not a thousand effective men when they declared their independence
of Mexico, which was then able to raise an army of two hundred thousand
men. But that army was an army of priest-ridden slaves, like yourselves,
and the gallant little band of Protestant Texas, composed chiefly of
Americans, defied their power; declared themselves independent, banished
from among them the treacherous Spanish priests, who were in Texas; they
fought for their freedom and they won it.

Irish repealers, the slaves of O'Connell and the scheming Jesuit Hughs
of New York, resolve to defend the rights of Texas! The thing is too
ludicrous. I shall not dwell upon it.

Let it not be inferred, from what I have stated above, that I believe
the Irish Papists to be naturally cowards. I will not do them this or
any other injustice. They are naturally a brave people. Unsubdued and
untampered with by their profligate priests and Popish superstition,
there is not a braver or more generous people in the world, and the
chains which now bind them to British slavery, would be snapped in six
months,--ay, I repeat it, Ireland would be free in six months, were it
not for the ulterior designs of the Pope and his agents, in urging upon
them abject submission to a power which, by a single effort of their
native strength, they could crush never to rise again. Well does the
Pope know, well do Jesuits and priests understand that if the Irish
nation freed itself from English rule, by its native arm, as the United
States did, they would also free themselves from the dominion of his
royal holiness the Pope, and the trammels of Jesuitism and priestcraft;
and hence arise the scruples of O'Connell, about violating the
British constitution. Hence the exhortation of Irish priests to their
downtrodden Irish slaves, to do everything constitutionally\ which means
nothing more or less than this:--let us priests, bishops and pope, act
for you; we are afraid to risk our own precious necks; we will negotiate
matters for you. You must feel indebted to us for everything you
possess; in the mean time come to confession to us regularly, bring us
every dollar you earn, and we will take care of your political as well
as your spiritual interest. Your bodies and souls shall be taken care
of by us.--I can assure the Irish Papists in this country and elsewhere,
that Daniel O'Connell and the Jesuit Bishops Hughs, Fenwick, and their
brethren in this country, have no more idea of emancipating them, than
they have of renouncing the Pope, unless with the view of making them
still greater slaves to the Pope and the infallible church; and it is
with this view they are now forbidding the use of the Bible, knowing
full well that the free perusal of its sacred pages would enlighten them
not only on the subject of their everlasting, but also on that of their
civil rights. Well indeed may we apply to the Pope, and to the Lord
Bishop Hughs, and each of his brethern the words of the poet,

     "Loyal his heart, and church and Pope his past;
     He for religion might not warmly feel;
     But for the church he had abounding zeal."

We might well fancy these right reverend gentlemen addressing us in the
following words of the same poet. They do so, in fact, every day.

     "Why send you Bibles all the world about;
     That men may read amiss and learn to doubt?
     Why teach the children of the poor to read;
     That a new race of doubters may succeed?
     Now can you scarcely lull the stubborn crew;
     And what if they should know as much as you?"

There is not in history one solitary instance to be found, where the
court of Rome, or Romish priests as a body, afforded aid to any people
struggling for freedom, unless with the ulterior view of subjecting them
to their own dominion,--a dominion far more despotic in its principles
and tyrannic in its exactions, than any that has before been devised by
human ingenuity; because that, and that alone, enslaves the soul as well
as the body.

Many instances might be quoted of the truth of this, but I shall only
refer to one of a recent date. While Poland was struggling for her
liberty, as we are told by a modern and beautiful French writer,
Lamennais, (Affaires de Rome, p. 110. Paguerre, 1844,) and the success
of the Russians remained a doubt, the official Journal of Rome, did not
contain a word which could offend the victorious in so many combats;
but scarcely had they, the Poles, fallen,--scarcely had the atrocious
vengeance of the Czar begun the long punishment of a nation devoted to
the sword, to exile and to slavery,--when the same journal could find no
terms sufficiently injurious, wherewith to stigmatize those, the noble
Poles, who had fallen victims to fortune. Cowardly Rome trembled before
the Czar. He said to Rome, would you live yet, place yourself beside the
scaffold to which I have consigned those rebellious Poles, who had the
audacity to attempt to free themselves from my government, and while
they pass on their way to the gallows, curse you the victims;--and Rome
did curse the Poles.

Atrocious, revolting as the conduct of the Czar has been towards the
suffering Poles, yet there is something noble, something majestic in
his treatment of Rome. He pays no regard to the insolent ecclesiastic
of Rome, who would be lord of the universe. The Czar does not comprehend
the meaning of those cabalistic words, spiritual supremacy. Let us
contrast the conduct of this sovereign of Russia, with that of the
sovereigns or executives of the United States, and the contrast cannot
fail to make a forcible impression upon our minds. That of the Autocrat
of all the Russians is so far truly independent; while that of one
of our executives, in relation to the Pope, is truly spiritless and
sycophantic. Witness the following letter of Mr. Van Buren, to the
American consul at Rome, dated, Department of State, Washington, July
the 20th, 1830.


"Your letters of the 11th of April and 5th of May, the first
anticipating the favorable sentiments of his holiness the Pope, towards
the government and people of the United States, and the last confirming
your anticipations, have been received at this department, and submitted
to the president; by whom I am directed to tender his holiness, through
the same channel, an assurance of the satisfaction which he derives from
this communication of the frank and liberal opinions entertained by the
apostolic see towards the government and the people, and of the policy
which you likewise state his holiness has adopted, and which is so
worthy of the head of a great and Christian church, assiduously to
cultivate, in his intercourse with foreign nations, the relations of
amity and good will, and sedulously to abstain from all interference in
their occasional difficulties with each other, except with the benign
view of effecting reconciliations between them.

"You will accordingly seek an early opportunity to make known to the
Pope, in terms and manner best suited to the occasion, the light in
which the president views the communication referred to, and likewise
you will assure him that the president reciprocates, in their full
extent and spirit, the friendly and liberal sentiments entertained by
his holiness towards the government of the apostolic see, and the people
of the states of the church; and it is the president's wish that you
should, upon the same occasion, offer his congratulations to the holy
father, upon his recent succession to the Tiara, not from any hereditary
claim on his part, but from a preponderating influence, which a just
estimation of his talents and private virtues naturally had upon the
enlightened councils by which that high distinction was conferred;
and which affords the pledge that his pontificate will be a wise and
beneficent one.

"You will take care, likewise, to assure his holiness, in reference
to the paternal solicitude which he expresses in behalf of the Roman
Catholics of the United States, that all our citizens professing that
religion, stand upon the same elevated ground which citizens of all
other religious denominations occupy, in regard to the rights
of conscience, that of perfect liberty, contradistinguished from
toleration; that they enjoy an entire exemption from coercion in every
possible shape, upon the score of religious faith, and that they are
free, in common with their fellow-citizens of all other sects, to adhere
to, or adopt the creeds and practise the worship best adapted to their
reason, or prejudices; and that there exists a perfect unity of faith
in the United States amongst religionists of all professions, as to the
wisdom and policy of that cardinal feature of all our constitutions and
forms of government, those of the United States and separate states of
the union, by which this inestimable right is formally recognized, and
the enjoyment of it inviolably secured.

"M. Van Buren."


I would especially invite the attention of my readers to the above
letter. A proper understanding of this correspondence between the
executive of this country and the Pope, through their representatives,
will set at rest a question long mooted in every section of the United
States, viz., whether the Pope is a temporal or spiritual potentate. If
the former, Mr. Van Buren and the President of the United States did but
their duty in giving the assurances contained in the above letter. This
was due to him as an independent sovereign. As king of Rome, he was as
well entitled to it as any of the sovereigns of Europe; and so far from
blaming Mr. Van Buren, for the respectful and courteous manner in which
lie addressed his royal holiness, I should be among the first to
award him just praise. The numerical weakness of a foreign potentate's
subjects, the paucity of their numbers, or their intellectual
degradation, is, now-a-days, no argument against the legitimacy of their
independent sovereignty. But if the latter,--if the Pope of Rome, is
not an independent and sovereign potentate,--if his sovereignty is only
spiritual, as the Jesuit Hughs and all Romish priests and bishops in the
United States would persuade us, then I contend, that Mr. Van Buren, the
President of the United States, or any other man who with his sanction,
writes such a letter as the above is a conspirator against this
government, and should be prosecuted as such.

Among the foreign powers known to this government, no such power as
a spiritual one is enumerated. The constitution of the United States
recognizes no spiritual power, either at home or abroad; and if Mr. Van
Buren, as the representative of this government, has corresponded with a
foreign spiritual potentate, he did that which he was not authorized
to do by our national charter, and which the executive of the United
States, had no more right to order him to do, than I had. If the cabinet
of his holiness, the king of Rome, have half the intelligence, tact and
management for which they get credit, they must have felt highly amused
at the simplicity and sycophancy of Mr. Van Buren's letter. If the power
of the Pope, in these United States, be only spiritual, what has he to
do with this government, or this government with him? The constitution
of the United States, and the various constitutions of the respective
States, recognize no spiritual power whatever. No court of law nor
equity, from one end of this country to the other, understands what
a spiritual power is; nor have they made any provision to maintain or
enforce it What, then, is it? Where is it to be found? Is it visible? Is
there any record of it? Is it tangible? In whom is it centred? No trace
of it can be found among us, and yet we are told it exists; and three
millions of Papists in the United States, are bound to obey this
invisible and intangible thing, or whatever it is.

We are told by Bishop Hughs, that the Pope claims only spiritual
jurisdiction over this country. I explained, in my recent work on
Popery, what Papists mean by spiritual jurisdiction and spiritual power.
It would be a loss of time to refer to it again. The legerdemain and
humbuggery of the whole affair are too transparent to deceive any eye
but that of a credulous American. Without this doctrine of spiritual
allegiance to the Pope of Rome, Popish priests could raise no money for
his holiness, in the United States, and they dare not openly claim for
him any civil allegiance. Without it, repealers could raise no money for
that champion of Popery, Daniel O'Connell.

Had the Romanists of the present day the spirit of the ancient Romans,
they would spurn this shameful exaction upon their credulity, but
especially upon their purse. It is base to submit to it; even a Pagan
Romanist would spurn at it. He did so once before, and if his Pagan
spirit was not broken by worse than Paganism,--Popery,--he would do
so again. "For I," said Brutus "Can raise no money by vile means: By
heavens, I had rather coin my heart And drop my blood for drachmas,
than to wring From the hard hands of peasants their vile trash By any
indirection!"

Yes, even a Pagan would spurn and scorn the deception, cupidity and
hypocrisy of Popish Jesuits and priests.

Was there ever upon the Papal throne, since the days of Hildebrand,
a Pope who did not claim sovereign and temporal jurisdiction over the
kingdoms of the earth? Do the annals of mankind record so dispassionate
and so solemn an act of treachery, or so glaring an evidence of temporal
power and despotism, as that of Hildebrand, known as Gregory, over the
Emperor of Germany? The universal monarchy and sovereign power, which he
and Rome wrung from a bleeding world, was never more absolute than that
which the Popes of Rome wrung from the superstitions of mankind, in
almost every age of the world; and now, in the nineteenth century,
in 1845, the present Pope has the unparalleled insolence, through his
agents in New York, Boston, and elsewhere, to fasten upon our necks a
yoke more galling than that which heathenism imposed upon the Romans.

This they cannot do by argument, because, to use argument with effect,
man must be in the right; but to make the best possible use of bad
arguments, may be, nevertheless, the privilege of genius, craft, and
intrigue. Hence the introduction of auricular confession. Hence it
is, that Romish bishops and priests persuade their people to go to
confession, where they have the complete mastery over then feelings,
passions, and judgment. They know if they can debauch and seduce one
female in a family, the whole of the household is at their mercy. It is
in that accursed tribunal that they persuade the people, first, "that it
is abominable to maintain that men can work out their salvation, under
any form of creed whatever, provided their morals are pure." Second,
"that it is odious and absurd, to grant to the people liberty of
conscience." Third, "that it is impossible to hold the liberty of
the press in too great detestation." Every Papist is compelled in the
confessional, to subscribe to these degrading concessions. He must
swear solemnly, that these propositions are orthodox, and that every
government should be compelled to acknowledge them as such. No man can
die in the faith of the Romish church, until he acknowledges that these
propositions are true. No individual can be confirmed as a member of the
Romish church, at least in Catholic countries, until he assents to them.
No one can be ordained a Roman Catholic priest, until he solemnly swears
to maintain them.

They familiarize the human mind to these infamous axioms of theirs, from
their very infancy; and thus when they arrive at the age at which they
are permitted to go to confession, which is generally from eight to
twelve, there is no difficulty in confirming their people in the belief
of these horrid principles.

The following passage may be found in the _encyclic letter_, addressed
by the actual Pope, to all the bishops of France, in 1832, in order
that they might conform, they and their flocks, to these instructions,
although they are in direct opposition to the laws of the country, and
the rights of its citizens. Is it necessary to say that M. Lamennais
protested, with all the powers of his great soul, against such odious
maxims as these, stated in all their ultramontane candor?

"We now come," says the holy father, "to another cause by which we
lament to see the church afflicted at this moment. To wit: to that
indifference or perverse opinion, which has spread itself abroad on all
sides, by the artifices of evil men, and in accordance to which, men may
attain everlasting SALVATION BY THE PROFESSION OF ANY CREED, PROVIDED
THAT THEIR MORALS ARE PURE. It will not be difficult for you, in a
matter so clear and evident, to repel an error, so fatal as this for the
people."

Is this clear enough? A word to those of our number, who are intrusted
to the care of these pastors. So here is an Italian monk, the
ultramontane head of our bishops, who annuls, at a single dash of his
pen, one of our most sacred rights, a right, the maintenance of which
has cost the country torrents of bloodshed in the religious wars, like
water.

"From this corrupt course of indifference," proceeds the holy father,
"originates that absurd and erroneous opinion, or madness rather, which
asserts that the liberty of conscience must be secured and guarantied
to every one, whomsoever. The way is being cleared for this pernicious
error by the liberty of opinions, full and unbounded, which spreads
itself fai and wide, to the ruin of civil and religious society."

It is evident, that the holy father commands our bishops to inspire
their flocks with a horror of one of the fundamental laws of our
society. Let us conclude with an attack by the same holy father, by no
means less violent, or less conclusive, against the dragon of the press.

"With this is connected that fatal liberty, of which we cannot but stand
in awe, the liberty of libraries to publish any writing whatsoever; a
liberty which some persons still dare to solicit and extend with as much
noise as ardor."

"Pope Gregory the XVIth, had scarcely ascended the pontifical throne,
when he heard of the revolt of Bologna. His first movement was to summon
the Austrians, and excite the _Sanfedistes_. The Cardinal Albani beat
the liberals at Cesena; his soldiers pillaged the churches, sacked the
town, ravished the women. At Forli, the bands committed assassinations
in cold blood. In 1832, the Sanfedisles showed themselves in broad day,
wearing medals, with effigies of the Duke of Modena, and of the holy
father, letters patent, in the name of the apostolical congregation,
privileges and indulgences: The Sanfedistes took the following oath
liberally: '_I swear to elevate the altar and the throne upon the bones
of the infamous liberals, and to exterminate them without pity for the
cries of their children, the tears of their old men and women._' The
disorders committed by these brigands, passed all bounds; the court
of Rome made anarchy regular, organized the Sanfedistes into bands of
volunteers, and granted to these bands extraordinary privileges."--The
Revolution and Revolutionists of Italy. Review of the Two Worlds,
November 15, 1844.

This is a specimen of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, as taught
in this country; and thus, Americans, would they erect altars upon
your bones, "heedless of the cries of your old men and your old women,"
should the Pope's spiritual power ever gain the ascendancy over your
strong arms,--or should his priests, by intrigue and by a play of
passions, (as Rodin expresses it,) and excitement, obtain the control of
your hitherto clear intellects. Pause, Americans. Hesitate for a
moment, you young men and young ladies, who, under the influence of some
momentary excitement, may be tempted to unite yourselves with the Romish
church, or to go into their nunneries.

The first advance you make, the very first step you take to effect this,
is in itself utterly degrading to you. It is the abandonment of your
whole selves, bodies and souls, judgment, intellect, understanding,
mind, liberty and all, to the guidance of a body of men whose political
intrigues, and public and private immoralities, have blackened the pages
of history for the last sixteen hundred years.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Strasburg, in a letter to the Paris
Constitutionnel, has denied that such doctrines as those contained in
the three propositions which I have quoted above, are taught in Popish
colleges. He pledges his honor in support of this assertion. I have
quoted from the _Casuists_, a work written by the fathers of the Jesuit
Society. The bishop does not deny the doctrines positively, but says
that the work from which the quotations are made, was written, not by
Jesuits, but by a Rev. Dr. Moulet, a secular priest. If any other proof
were necessary, to show the iniquity of Jesuit doctrines, and the truth
of every word I have said, and others before me have said, against
Jesuit intrigue and tergiversation, this admission of the Bishop of
Strasburg, would be sufficient.

What is the difference between a Jesuit father, and a secular priest?
It is simply this. Jesuits are limited in the sphere of their duties, by
the general of their order; and whenever a Jesuit makes his appearance
in the diocese of any Popish bishop, he is subject, while there, to the
said bishop.

The Strasburg professor may succeed in imposing upon those who know not
the difference between a secular priest and a Jesuit. The matter is
not mended, or the difficulty removed, by having the book written by
a secular priest; it is so much the worse. An evil deed, for instance
treason, when committed by a servant, is bad enough; but it is much
worse when committed by his master. An act of perfidy or immorality
committed by a priest, under the jurisdiction of a bishop, merits
execration, and should receive it; but if committed by the bishop
himself, would become still more execrable.

I presume that when the Bishop of Strasburg pledged his honor that the
crimes imputed by others, as well as myself, to him and his tools, were
not sanctioned in his college, or by the writings of Jesuits, he had
Brother Jonathan in view. His letter to the Paris Constitutionnel was
intended exclusively for Americans, whom Jesuits know by the name of
"_dolts, double dolts_."

Let us now see how far the word and honor of this Jesuit Strasburg
bishop are entitled to credit. It is proper to do so, as his letter has
found its way into several of our presses in the western country.

I pronounce the Bishop of Strasburg's assertion an unqualified,
deliberate, and unmitigated falsehood. An issue is now made between
myself and the bishop. The question is one of veracity, between us; and
I am willing to leave the decision to a jury of the public. The bishop
is a Jesuit, and bound, by his oath of allegiance to the Pope, to
support him and the doctrines of his church, at the expense of all
Protestant governments. He is bound by his oath to "hold no faith with
heretics." He is bound by his oath "to destroy them." He is no citizen
of this country. He has nothing in common with Americans, but the
external configurations of humanity. He is not personally known to any
American, as far as I am acquainted; and under these circumstances, he
comes before the American public with the naked, unsupported assertion,
that what history has handed down, and I, a fellow-citizen of their own,
have confirmed and declared to be true, is false. Is he to be believed
in preference to me, even if history was silent?

I have lived in this country more than twenty-five years, and though a
foreigner by birth, I will venture the assertion, that no Roman Catholic
priest ever came to America with higher recommendations than I did. Some
of them are from Roman Catholic bishops, and are now in my possession;
but I will not ask Americans to give them any credit, because a Romish
bishop or Jesuit would recommend the devil himself, who takes the
necessary oath of allegiance to Rome, and swears to overthrow, by all
possible means, the heretical government of the United States, which
sanctions,--I use the very words of the Pope,--"that _fatal liberty of
the press of which we cannot but stand in awe, the liberty of
libraries to publish any writing whatsoever; a liberty which
some--Americans--dare_ to solicit with noise and ardor."

I will not insult Americans by asking them to give me credit for
veracity on the strength of recommendations from Popish bishops in
Europe, men who are the sworn enemies of everything dear to freemen.
I brought with me, from other sources, testimonials of the highest
respectability, not as a Popish priest, but as a man. Among them were
introductions to that eminent patriot, De Witt Clinton of New York, who
immediately, on my arrival at his hospitable residence in Albany, and
during the session of the Legis-ture, had me appointed chaplain to the
senate. But I will not ask Americans to give me credit for veracity on
account of any connections or acquaintances which I formed while I was
a Popish priest The very fact of my being a priest was in itself
contamination. It should disqualify a man from being considered anything
that was candid, frank or virtuous. But I will ask Americans to credit
me, in preference to the Bishop of Strasburg, or any other Jesuit
priest, upon the testimony of American citizens, men known to
themselves, men of honor, probity and patriotism.

I have been a member of the bar of the States of South Carolina and
Georgia, for nearly twenty years, until ill health obliged me to change
my residence temporarily; and I value the following letter which has
been sent to me by William Law, Esq., then judge of the superior
court of Georgia, more highly than all the documents, testimonials and
recommendations, which the Pope of Rome, or the whole college of his
cardinals and Jesuits, could furnish.

"Savannah, 25th June, 1832.

"Dear Sir,--Understanding from you that it is your intention to leave
the State, with a view to the practice of law elsewhere, it will I
apprehend be necessary that the certificate of admission to our bar
furnished you by the clerk, should be accompanied with a certificate
from myself, as the presiding judge of the court in which you were
admitted. This is necessary to give it authenticity in another State. It
will afford me pleasure to append that verification to it, if you will be
pleased to send me the certificate.

"Permit me, as you are about to leave us, to offer you my humble
testimony to your correct, upright deportment as an advocate at the bar
of the superior courts of the eastern district of Georgia, since your
admission to the practice of law in the same.

"Wishing you success and prosperity wherever you may settle, I am, dear
sir, very respectfully,

"Your obedient servant,

"William Law."

Judge Law resides now in Savannah. He has retired from the bench, and
practises law in copartnership with senator Berrien, of Georgia. I need
not say who Judge Law is. He is well known, as one of the most eloquent
and learned advocates of the American bar; nor is he more distinguished
for his legal knowledge, than for his Christian virtues and exemplary
life. He is at present, and has been for many years, an elder of the
Presbyterian church, in that city. I believe that I have the honor
and the friendship of this worthy man, up to the moment I write. Every
earthly interest I have is in this country. Its prosperity will advance
mine. The overthrow of its government would bury in its ruins all I
have to support me. Who then is to be believed by Americans,--the Jesuit
bishop of Strasburg, whose country is the world, whose queen is the
Popish church, and whose kindred are monks and Romish priests? Am I
unreasonable, under these circumstances, in asking a jury of Americans
for a verdict in favor of my veracity, my word and my honor, in
preference to the honor of a foreign Jesuit bishop of Strasburg, or any
other Popish priest or bishop in the United States? You, Americans, are
the best judges. In addition to these facts and circumstances, I will
take the liberty of stating that nearly the whole delegation to Congress
from the State of Georgia, where I have so long resided, have borne
testimony to my correct conduct, by recommending me to high and
lucrative offices under this government. Among these were the names of
the Hon. J. M'Pherson Berrien, then a next door neighbor of mine, the
Hon. Thomas Butler King, William C. Dawson, and the lamented Richard W.
Habersham, of Savannah. This last named gentleman is no more, but he has
not left behind him one whose confidence and friendship I valued more.
He was, indeed, the noblest work of God, an honest man. His name is
now revered in Georgia, and will be there venerated as long as she has
records to preserve it. I have in my possession the most friendly and
affectionate letters from this Christian patriot up to within a few
weeks of his death, which occurred about two years since. I may further
add to these distinguished names, that of the Hon. Wm. C. Preston, of
South Carolina, the Hon. Isaac Holmes, of the same State, and the Hon.
Judge Wayne, of Savannah, one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the
United States. I have evidence in my possession, up to a few weeks ago,
of the personal friendship of that elegant and accomplished gentleman
Judge Wayne. I have studied law more than twenty years ago with the
Hon. Mr. Holmes, and never since has his friendship towards me been
interrupted. As a literary man and finished classical scholar Mr. Holmes
has scarcely a superior in the country. With such testimonials as these
of my Americanism, honor and veracity, I dread not the verdict of an
American jury in the case now pending between me and the Jesuit bishop
of Strasburg.

But before you make up your verdict, I beg to submit to you the
following sketch of a debate, which took place the 5th of last March,
in the Swiss Diet in Switzerland, on the subject of Jesuits in
that country. It is taken from a speech of the Hon. Mr. Neuhaus, a
representative from Berne. The debate commenced by the chancellor laying
before the assembly petitions from the people of Switzerland, signed by
120,000 persons, praying that the Jesuits might be expelled from that
country.

Neuhaus said that the question of the Jesuits, which was raised last
year, had made great progress since that time, and its importance might
be estimated by the impression which it had produced on the population,
the anxiety with which the result of the deliberations of the diet was
looked forward to, and the care taken by all the great councils of the
cantons to have their opinions duly represented. * * According to the
eighth article of the federal compact, the diet took all the measures
necessary for the internal and external safety of Switzerland. That
right on the part of the diet was incontestable, and had been put in
force on former occasions within memory. The question, therefore, was
not whether the diet had a right to take steps against the Jesuits, but
whether the Jesuits had compromised and were compromising the safety of
Switzerland. It was therefore the question of fact only that he would
approach. Were the Jesuits dangerous or not? Were they particularly
dangerous as respected Switzerland? Yes, the Jesuits were dangerous.

1. Because of their morality. They taught the people to commit, without
remorse of conscience, the most culpable actions. Their morality
necessarily exercised on those exposed to their influence a deleterious
effect; and a writer of the eighteenth century had said, with great
truth, that he detested the Jesuits because they were an order
_aboutissant_. But in republics morality was wanted above all things.

2. The Jesuits were dangerous because they made use of the
ecclesiastical character to carry disorder into families, and to divide
the members of them, in order the more easily to govern them. Examples
abounded, and, if necessary, he could cite many.

3. They were dangerous because the order required of all its members
a blind obedience, an absolute submission. He who was a member of the
society, whether he were a Jesuit properly so called, or merely belonged
to the order under another denomination, could no longer have either
opinions or will. As soon as the leaders gave orders, those who were
enrolled in that militia were obliged to obey, without examination; and
if the chief ordered the members and their associates to work in secret
to subvert republican governments, they were obliged to obey, without
examination, whether they thought it right or wrong. But what was
necessary to the people of Switzerland, if they wished to maintain their
independence, was the sentiment of liberty and moral force, and that
sentiment the Jesuits annihilated.

4. The Jesuits were dangerous because they had neither family nor
country. As soon as a Swiss citizen entered the order of the Jesuits,
he only belonged to that body. On this account the governments of the
cantons would do well to make a law that any one entering the order of
the Jesuits should lose his natural rights. When a man was obliged to
lay aside his feelings of family, to disown his cantonal as well as
federal country, he was no longer a Swiss; he as nothing but a Jesuit
and a stranger to every country. 5. The Jesuits were dangerous because
they endeavored everywhere to seize upon power. In despotic and
monarchical governments, where the head was invested with extended
authority, they might be tempted to make use of the Jesuits as
auxiliaries. As long as the Jesuits did not dominate, they would consent
to serve a master; but when they had attained their end, they took
advantage of services which they had rendered to establish then
domination over those who had recourse to them. This was what made
all the governments of Europe banish them from their states. They
were dangerous to monarchies, and still more to republics, where the
authorities did not possess the elements necessary to counterbalance
their pernicious influence. 6. They were especially dangerous to
Switzerland, because one of the principal ends of the order was to
extirpate Protestantism. Without doubt, the Swiss Catholics had a
right that their Protestant brethren should respect their religious
convictions; but the Protestants had also rights which should be
respected by the Catholics; and the deputies of the canton of Berne
would demand, if those Catholic cantons which tolerated, and even
invited into their bosoms an order, the object of which is the
extirpation of Protestantism, conducted themselves like good
confederates towards the reformed cantons; if they fulfilled the federal
duties, and if those states had not the right to say to the states which
received the Jesuits, 'We have no congregation which labors for
the extirpation of Catholicism, and we ask of you not to tolerate a
corporation so hostile to us as the Society of Jesus.' These were the
principal reasons which made the canton of Berne consider the Jesuits
as dangerous; but there were many others which he could state, and among
others, the recent events in the country were a strong proof of the
danger of the Jesuits. The only legal way to settle the question was,
by taking the opinions of the cantons in the diet, and if twelve of the
cantons voted that the Jesuits were dangerous, the others must submit.
M. Neuhaus concluded by reading his instructions from his canton, which
were to demand a decree for the expulsion of the Jesuits from every part
of Switzerland.

"The action of the diet is already known." The reader may see from the
above, proofs almost positive of the truth of every crime with which I
have charged Popish Jesuits. The Hon. M. Neuhaus, a representative from
a people proverbially generous, distinguished as a nation for honesty
and simply integrity. Switzerland and chivalry are almost synonymous
since the days of William Tell. Switzerland, honesty, virtue and
piety are understood to be almost one and the same thing. Even among
ourselves, in the United States, a Swiss Protestant emigrant needs
no recommendation but a certificate of his nativity. We trust him; we
confide in him, because he is honest; we believe him because he is truth
himself. All the finer qualities of uncorrupted humanity seem to be his
by birthright. One hundred and twenty thousand of these honorable men
petitioned their Legislature to pass a law for the expulsion of Jesuits
from their country, and their representative, M. Neuhaus, the embodiment
of their virtue and integrity, supports the prayer of their petition,
charging those Jesuits to their teeth, proving from the history of their
past and present lives, that they are collectively and individually
immoral and treacherous men, the sworn enemies of freedom and disturbers
of the peace. He accuses them of being leagued together, and bound by
the most awful oaths, to overthrow the government and exterminate
the Protestants of Germany. He accuses them of maintaining spies in
Protestant families, of tampering with their children, and introducing
disobedience and disorder amongst them.

I regret extremely that I have not his whole speech, but if there is a
file of the Swiss papers in the city, it will be found in those of last
March.

I am ready now, fellow-citizens, for your verdict. I submit the case
between the Jesuit Bishop of Strasburg and myself, to you without
further argument.

If I am correct in my charges against Jesuits; if the various crimes,
with which Eugene Sue charges them, be well founded,--and I declare, on
the honor of an American citizen and a member of the American bar, that
they are,--I ask my fellow-citizens of the United States for a verdict
in my favor.

But it will be said, for the hundreth time, that the constitution of
this country protects our people against dangers from Jesuits, or any
other foreign source; and that our representatives will never betray the
trust which the people repose in them; or even if they did betray it,
the constitution provides for such a contingency. True, it does. But let
me observe, that our constitution never supposed nor made any provision
for such a contingency as that the people would betray themselves;
and still this case is as plain to me as the noon-day. It is not only
possible that the people of this country could betray themselves, but
they are actually doing it at the present moment.

I will admit that a courageous people, such as our citizens are, can be
neither cozened nor bullied out of their liberty; but it must be also
admitted, that an intelligent and generous people may cease to be
such; they may abet and admit amongst them the sworn enemies of their
constitution, under false ideas of toleration and liberty; they may want
the wisdom and judgment necessary to discern their danger in time;
and in the necessarily downward progress of degeneracy, it is not even
impossible,--such things have been before now,--that they may want
courage to ward off the evil when it stares them in the face.

Look back, Americans, to the history of by-gone days. The Tarquins were
expelled, and Rome resumed her liberty. Caesar was murdered, and his
whole race exterminated; but Rome remained in bondage. In the days of
Tarquin, the Roman people were not entirely corrupt; in the days of
Caesar, they were thoroughly so. You, Americans, may be betrayed, though
perhaps you may never betray yourselves voluntarily. But take heed, I
entreat you, of Jesuits. Our constitution makes it difficult, if not
impossible, to destroy our liberty by any sudden outbreak of popular
fury, or even by the treachery of a few. But if you, as a people, or
the majority of you, will concur with the few; if you will deliberately
suffer them to acquire a majority, your constitution is nothing better
than "a piece of parchment, with a bit of red sealing-wax dangling from
it." It ceases to be yours; it becomes the constitution of foreigners;
it is the property of Jesuits and Popish priests, the moment they get
the majority of voters; you, Americans, have nothing to do with it It
secures no rights for you, nor should it be longer called the American
constitution. Recollect that ten or fifteen years will give Papists a
majority of voters in the United States, nor should I be surprised if,
within half a century, the Pope of Rome was seen in New York or the city
of Boston, as he is now in Rome, on Palm Sunday, mounted upon an ass, in
blasphemous imitation of the Saviour entering Jerusalem, with thousands
and tens of thousands of Papists spreading palms upon the streets, and
shouting Hosanna to "our Lord God, the Pope."

This subject, Americans, is worthy of your serious consideration, to say
the least of it. You are jealous of your charters and your privileges;
perhaps sufficiently so. But you seem indifferent to the peril with
which your liberty is threatened by Romish priests, inculcating treason
in their confessionals, up to your very beards. What avail your laws
against treason, implied treason and constructive treason? What avail
your bills of rights, either national or state, when a priest, at your
very door, aye, under your very roofs, is insidiously instilling
into the ears of his penitents at the confessional, treachery to your
government, to your laws, to your religion, and even to each other? What
avails your trial by jury, when oaths lose their sanctity, and a Jesuit
teaches his penitent that no faith is to be held with Protestants; while
there are amongst you nearly three millions of people, who are taught
to disregard your laws, whose rulers,--the priests,--connive at its
infringement, and refuse themselves to be amenable to your civil or
criminal courts? Do not be startled at my telling you that they refuse
to be amenable to your courts. This is probably new to many of you; but
as I make no statement which I cannot prove, I refer you to the case of
the Romish priest, Carbury, in New York. It occurred some years ago, and
is duly reported.

This priest, Carbury, peremptorily refused answering, while on the stand
as a witness, any questions put to him by the court, in a case of great
importance affecting the government of the State of New York. He defied
the judge on the bench, the sheriff, and all other officers of the court
He contended that the constitution of the United States guarantied to
him the free exercise of his religion, and, by implication, the right
of hearing confession, and giving and receiving in the confessional such
counsel and advice as his church required of him to give. And such was
the sway which foreign Papists had in New York at that time, that the
court did not and dare not commit him to prison for contempt; though,
under similar circumstances, the officers of the court would drag an
American citizen to jail, as they would a common felon. But the priest
Carbury did no more than he was ordered to do by his church.

The Popish council of Lateran declares "it unlawful for a civil
magistrate to require any oath from a Roman Catholic priest." A work,
called the _Corpus Juris Canonici_, containing all the revised statutes
of the Council of Trent, the last held in the Popish church, has issued
the following proclamation to all monks, priests, bishops, and Jesuits:
"We declare it unlawful for civil magistrates to require any oath of
the clergy, and we forbid all priests from taking any such oath." The
Council of Lat-eran declares and announces to the Popish priesthood, as
well as to the whole world, "that all magistrates, who interpose against
priests in any criminal cause, whether it be for murder or high treason,
shall be excommunicated; and if he condemn any priest for murder, or any
other crime, he shall be excommunicated."

Thus we see that in our very midst, a Romish priest has but to go into
his confessional, and there he may become accessory before or after the
fact, to treason, arson, murder, or other crimes, and hold our laws and
our magistrates in utter contempt and utter defiance. This they have
done before, in the neighboring city of New York, and this they will do
again, whenever it suits their plans and purposes.

Pour in amongst us a few more millions of a people who believe and
sanction this doctrine; flood our country with a population subject to
a priesthood maintaining such doctrine as this, and what must be the
consequence? Vice, ignorance and laziness; just what it is in every
country where Romish priests are permitted to exist and exercise their
pernicious principles. There is a defect of moral principle and moral
honesty wherever the Popish confessional is to be found. I know the
reverse of this is believed by Americans, and not without some apparent
reason. Here I do not blame them. They are deceived, and often have
I wished, often and often have I resolved to undeceive them in this
particular.

Many and many a time have I resolved to be no longer a party to this
shameful imposition upon Americans. Many and many a time, have I
determined shake off from my soul any participation, directly or
indirectly, in fastening upon the minds of American Protestants that the
Romish confessional was the means of making Roman Catholic laborers
and servants more honest than they otherwise would be. It is not
so. Protestants know not the plans or schemes of Popish priests, in
anything. Fraud and imposition are reduced to a science in the Romish
church. Let me explain how the impression has got among Protestants,
that confessing sins to the priests is a very good thing "for the
ignorant Irish." "It keeps them honest." I can scarcely refrain from
laughing, when I hear this observation. It has been made to me by some
of the most amiable, benevolent, and charitable ladies and gentlemen
in this city of Boston, and elsewhere; and though I understood the
deception played upon them, I felt almost unwilling to remove so
charitable but delusive a dream. There is an old proverb, "it is better
late than never." Let me do so now. Justice to Protestants, and even to
the Roman Catholic laborers and domestics themselves, requires this at
my hands.

The _modus operandi_ of Romish priests is as follows: When a Popish
or Jesuit priest settles in a city or town, he looks about him and
ascertains what the character, circumstances, politics and religion
of the different families are. If he discovers that any particular
Protestant family is wealthy, entirely unacquainted with Popery, and
liberally disposed, he takes a note of the fact, and determines, by some
means, to form an acquaintance with the head of that family. This
is sometimes not easily done. It is not often that men of wealth are
desirous of the personal acquaintance of clergymen of any denomination.
They know that, pretty generally speaking, there is little to be gained,
so far as worldly goods are concerned, from a personal intimacy with
them. Of this Romish priests are well aware, and act accordingly.
When one of them desires an acquaintance with the head of a family,
he unceremoniously calls upon him, hands him some money,--more or less
according to circumstances,--and without any explanation tells him it is
his, and seems no way desirous of further conversation. The gentleman or
lady, who receives the money, of course, detains the priest or Jesuit,
and asks what he wishes him or her to do with this money; whether he
deposited it for safe-keeping, or whether he wished it paid over to some
one. The answer of the Jesuit is, sir, or madam, "the money is yours. I
received it in the discharge of my duty as a priest," and he departs.

The result of this piece of Jesuit acting is obvious. The gentleman
mentions the circumstance to his family, the merchant to his neighboring
merchants, the mother mentions it to her children, and to every mother
on her list of visitors, and all finally come to the conclusion that
the money has been received in the _confessional_; that some poor Roman
Catholic in their employment had stolen it, and that the priest in the
confessional caused restitution to be made; that, after all, this "going
to confessional was a good thing,--it kept the Catholic servants honest;
and if it were not for it, there would be no safety in giving them
employment." The husband tells his wife to throw no obstacles in the way
of her domestics going to confession, as he believed it was a check upon
their dishonesty, and makes up his mind that it is at least good policy
to sustain Popery and Popish priests. He calls upon the Jesuit bishop
or priest, touches his hat for him should he meet him upon the streets,
tells him he would be happy to see him at his house; and thus, by this
tedious, though sure process, does a reverend Jesuit priest gain his
end. The family is now at his mercy; and the best recommendation a
domestic can bring to this family, or any of their acquaintances, is
that of a scheming deceitful Popish priest or bishop, with whom, if
properly known, no respectable man would be seen walking the streets.
Often have I done this while a Romish priest.

This process, by which Popish priests and Jesuits often insinuate
themselves into the confidence of some of our most respectable
Protestant families, has in it something ineffably mean, contemptible
and wicked. There is something worm-like and vampire-like in the whole
process. The bold robber is an honorable man, compared with a skulking
Jesuit priest. The robber runs some risk in gaining possession of his
booty; he has, at least, the redeeming quality of personal bravery. The
eagle, which takes his prey to the very pinnacle of the loftiest rock,
though that prey should be the infant of the fondest mother, and there
devours it before the eyes of its agonized parent, must claim more or
less admiration for its boldness. There is a majesty in its flight which
diminishes the atrocity of the act: by one bound the noble bird gains
his point But the Jesuit, like the worm, like the loathsome reptile,
gains his by beginning at the root, at the base of domestic happiness
and virtue, and creeps and gnaws his way until he reaches its summit,
and then laughs as he sees it mouldering under his feet. But this is not
all. The Protestant family with whom he forms an acquaintance by these
dishonorable means, are not the only sufferers. Injustice is done to
the Catholic domestics in Protestant families. A palpable imputation of
dishonesty is thrown upon the whole body of them. An implied impression
is left upon the minds of Protestants that they are all dishonest,--that
they would all rob, pilfer and steal, if they were not forbidden and
compelled to make restitution in the confessional. But what signifies it
to a Jesuit priest, what Protestants think of poor Roman Catholics? If
they only believe that priests and Jesuits are saints, that is all they
care for. If priests can only manage to cause Protestants to attribute
the honesty of Papists to themselves, and can cause the Catholics to
hate and despise Protestants for suspecting them of dishonesty, their
point is gained, though at the expense of injustice both to Protestant
and Catholic. It is peculiarly unjust towards Catholic domestics, who
are really as honest as other people, if their priests will let them be,
and who might be as good citizens as others, were it not for priests
and Jesuits. Do away with the supremacy of the Pope and auricular
confession, and the foreigners who come among us from Ireland and other
Catholic countries, would be as peaceable, as industrious and as
worthy citizens as any we have, but never can these poor people enjoy the
blessings of freedom here or elsewhere, while they have any connection
with priests, confessionals, or popes. Americans are not inimical to
foreigners who conduct themselves with propriety, and pay a due respect
to the laws of their country; but they are inimical,--and it is their
duty to be so,--to all who traitorously interfere with their civil
rights; and it is not a little jugular, that among the millions of
foreigners which have fled to this land of freedom, none but Papists
have interfered with their laws, their institutions, or their customs.
I have resided in the United States for thirty years or thereabouts,
and never have 1 heard a Protestant say that he has been ill-treated or
unkindly dealt with by Americans, on account of his foreign birth; and
I can declare, with equal sincerity, that I have never known a Roman
Catholic satisfied with our republican form of government, and who did
not avow,--when he could do so without being heard by Protestants,--that
he wished a Raman Catholic government established in its place. It is
a strange circumstance, but nevertheless true, that Americans have no
difficulties with any foreigners amongst them except the Roman Catholics
There are various denominations of foreigners in the United States,
but all others enjoy the blessings of liberty, quietly and thankfully.
Papists alone are dissatisfied; they alone refuse to hear to reason,
and seem inclined to govern by force. No Protestant priest in the United
States has ever been known to be controlled in the discharge of his duty
by a foreign potentate. None of them were ever known to harangue their
flocks and march them through American cities, with banners bearing the
treasonable motto, written in conspicuous letters, "Americans shan't
rule us" Popish bishops and Papists alone, have dared to do this.

I have always been, and I trust I am now, the advocate of peace; but I
will confess, that I am at a loss to know whether there is to be found
in any code of political, or even moral ethics, a single passage which
can justify Americans in permitting this outrage upon their laws and
upon their national character. It may be a salutary inconsistency, a
laudable apostasy, on the part of Americans, to permit this insult to
their country and to the memory of their noble and patriotic ancestors;
but if these ancestors, who now sleep in their graves, were living, and
saw this Popish flag with this Popish motto, paraded by foreign Papists
over their graves, I will only say, the insult should never be repeated;
there would be no one left to bear the standard.

I do not believe, that, from the days of Cain to the days of Bishop
Hughs, of New York, there has ever been witnessed so insolent, or so
inflated a condensation of treason, as was contained in that solitary
Popish motto, "Americans shan't rule us;" and it Americans were not a
people of singular forbearance, they would have levelled to the ground
every Popish church, and put to the sword every Popish priest and bishop
in the country.

The poor Irish Papists who marched through our cities, waving in the
very face of Americans, the flag which bore this treasonable motto to
which I have alluded, are not so much to be blamed; a majority of them
are but the children of impulse, whose passions are played upon by
designing priests. I repeat it,--and again and again I have repeated
it,--the Irish are naturally a well-disposed people. They would be true
to this country, and faithful to its laws and constitution, if their
priests and church would let them. This is evident in the contrast which
is visible between the Papists and Protestants of Ireland. There are
not in this country better men or more faithful citizens than the
Protestants of Ireland. Where can we find a man who values character
more highly than an Irish Protestant? Where is there to be found a man,
who contributes more, by his own example and that of his family, to the
preservation of virtue and morality, than a Protestant Irishman, in the
United States? I can say from my own knowledge of Protestant Irishmen
in particular, that they are temperate, frugal, industrious, and
eminently sincere in their professions and attachments. I mean not any
invidious comparison when I say there is no finer character than a
Protestant Irishman. He is in earnest in everything, in his words and in
his actions.

Americans, give him the hand of friendship; give him your confidence; he
will not betray you. In the hour of danger, he will stand by yourselves,
your laws, and your constitution. He will defend them with his strong
arm and brave heart; his religion teaches him to do so. But not so the
Irish Papist. Trust him not at least until he renounces his religion,
which tells him that you are heretics, and should be extirpated, and
that your constitution shall not rule him.

I am little inclined to moralize, but it is to me a sad reflection, to
see this contrast between the Protestant and Roman Catholic Irish; all
occasioned by that accursed thing called Popery.

Even the Christian League, so grossly abused by Papists, seem to
entertain no other feelings than those of hospitality towards them; but
in truth nothing is to be feared by Papists from that association. As
far as I know them by reputation, they are men of zeal, piety, and fine
talents; but they are no match for the trained bands of the Popish army.
They want discipline. It is true I know-nothing of them but through
their speeches, some of which have been published in our leading
religious journals. These I have read, and the League itself could
not give me credit for taste or judgment, did 1 not pronounce them
pointless, pithless, powerless, almost useless. They evidently overrate
themselves or undervalue the force of their opponents. The latter I have
reason to know is the fact.

It is true his holiness has condescended to curse them. He sent recently
a bull formally excommunicating them as a set of damned heretics. I am
glad of this. It may arouse them to a greater concert of action.

But what if this League should succeed in that which seems to be after
all their leading object, the circulation of the Bible in Italy? Suppose
they even succeeded in suppressing Jesuitism altogether in that country,
what then? Would Popery cease to exist? Or has the _Christian League_
counted the cost at which this may be done? Have they reflected that
while they are mowing down the withered weeds of Popery in the morally
barren fields of Italy, that Jesuits are carefully collecting its seeds
and roots, and planting them in the new and rich fields of their own
country, where, in the homely but expressive language of our farmers,
one acre will produce more than ten in Italy? The whole course of this
League, as far as I am able to judge, is injudicious, and for the one
moral good that will be the consequence, fifty evil ones must follow.
Not a single member of this learned association would apply their rule
of action, in relation to Italy, to the management of any other
transaction in life. What farmer, for instance, would waste his time in
cultivating a sandy barren field on his farm, and leave uncultivated a
rich, loamy and productive one? Or would he try to cultivate both
without sufficient hands to do either well? Assuredly, no judicious man
would do so; or if he did, a failure and poverty would be the necessary
consequence. If the League desire success, they must strike at the root
of the evil of which they complain. Who, for instance, that had a tree
in his garden, whose fruit and blossoms were poisonous, would spend his
time, every spring and autumn, in plucking off those blossoms and
gathering up this fruit, with a view of getting rid of this troublesome
and destructive tree? Would you, gentlemen of the Christian League, not
smile at the individual whom you saw thus employed? Would you not, in
charity, say to him,--sir, you should root out that tree altogether from
your garden; but especially should you take care that if any of its
seeds has found its way into a richer garden or more valuable soil of
yours, to extirpate the latter first, as the poison which that will emit
will be much more rank, subtle and to greater quantity.

If Jesuitism were now confined to Italy alone, the members of the
_Christian alliance_ may, perhaps, be right. If there was but one tree in
the farmer's garden, and its seeds had not taken root in any of his
more valuable domains, he might take his own time in removing the tree,
either by cutting it down, or by gathering up its fruits and blossoms
to suit his taste, fancy or eccentricity. But when the seed of this tree
has taken root and begins to flourish luxuriantly, in the only spot
of land from which he expected support for himself and family, he is a
thriftless farmer that would not extirpate this tree root and branch,
fruit and blossom, from this valuable spot on which his own support and
that of a numerous family depended.

Let this rule be applied to the individual members of the Christian
alliance, or rather let each member apply it to himself. He cannot but
see that the poisonous seed of Popery has found its way to this country,
and taken deep root in some of its most verdant fields. I am aware that
these gentlemen will pay but little attention to my remonstrances or
warnings. Men entrenched behind the pride of opinion will seldom yield
to the summons of reason. For more than twenty years I have warned
Protestants, but to no effect, of an approaching foundation of Popish
priests and Jesuit principles. Suppose a fire should rage through one
of our most populous cities; suppose it should have extended to the
very middle of its lengthiest streets; would it be wise to go and try
to check its progress by seeking for the spot where it began? The whole
force of the fire companies and citizens should be concentrate it the
extreme point at which it extended; every effort should be made to
prevent its progressing together. Palaces, houses, hovels, goods, all
should be pulled down at every risk of individual property to stop the
conflagration. Suppose a prairie were on fire; suppose that prairie
belonged to the _Christian alliance_; suppose the loss of it involved
their own ruin and the ruin of their posterity,--would they, or any one
of them, go to look for the spot where the fire originated? Not they.
It would be madness to do so. Each and every one of them would turn up
their sleeves and never cease to labor until they cut a ditch deep and
wide enough to prevent the progress of the flames.

Why do they not pursue the same course in relation to Popery? They see
Popery burning, blazing, whizzing, and devastating this whole land, and
in place of cutting a ditch, or throwing up such a barrier as will check
its further advance, they go by a sort of retro-progressive movement,
back to Italy, to begin this work. Pardon me, fellow-citizens. Though
I disapprove of the course of your proceedings in trying to prevent the
further spread of Popery, I am willing to acknowledge that in talents,
zeal, piety, and general learning, you infinitely excel me; but I
believe I am not vain in saying that in the knowledge of Popery and
Jesuit intrigue, I am not inferior to you. You are evidently in the dark
in practical acquaintance with Popery, and I hesitate not to tell
you now, that until you unite with me heart and hand in my efforts to
extirpate it from this country, you will be laughed at by every Romish
priest and Bishop in the United States; well knowing, as they do,
that while you are converting one Italian to Protestantism, they are
converting five hundred Americans to Popery; and that while you are
distributing one little tract, which one Italian in a thousand,--even
if he could, would not read,--they are building one hundred colleges,
nunneries, and monk houses, in your very midst, and at your very doors.
You will find, by-and-by, that this very country of yours, this very
land of freedom, will supply even Italy with Jesuits and priests enough
to drive you, your Bibles and tracts, beyond their boundaries. Stand
upon your own soil; let Americans never engage in any foreign religious
or political war. You have not now the moral power to wage an offensive
religious war; that day is gone by. I warned you of it twenty-five years
ago, but you heeded me not; you were deaf. You have quite enough to do
now to defend your own soil, and much more, I fear, than you will be
able to accomplish, with all your zeal and talents.

One of the members of the Christian League, at its late convention in
Boston, has stated, if I am not mistaken, that the Pope read one of its
tracts, and looked very sad. For the word sad, should be substituted
glad. If he read the tract at all, which I doubt, it must have been
extremely gratifying to him. It showed him clearly that he had succeeded
in humbugging Americans even farther than he expected; and with due
deference to each and every member of the League, I must say, that this
is the only inference which any man, versed in a knowledge of Popery, or
even of human nature, would or could draw from that circumstance.

The Romish church has a vast interest in this country; an interest so
deep that no line can sound it; an interest of such magnitude, that the
power of numbers can scarcely calculate it, and of such altitude, that it
scarcely admits of a measurement; and the Pope's object is to divert the
attention of the Christian League, and all other American Protestants,
from this country to Italy, which, if given to us with all its relics,
Jesuits, monks and nuns, would not enrich us much in a pecuniary point
of view, and would be only the means of flooding us with infidelity and
immorality.

It is sound policy in the Pope, to attract the attention of American
Protestants to Italy. He knows well, that the citadel of our liberties
can never be taken, without this or some other similar plot. Let him
but succeed in turning the eyes of Americans from the altar of our own
liberty, on which the God of freedom sits enthroned, to Italy, and
pour in upon us his vassals at the rate of two thousand in forty-eight
hours,--we are told was done in New York, last week,--and freedom's God
will soon be dishonored, and the image of some Popish vagabond, called
saint, will be seated in its place.

The whole country must form itself into one Protestant alliance, and
swear upon the altar of freedom, that no man shall be admitted to
the rights of an American citizen, until he forswears all allegiance,
spiritual and temporal, civil and religious, without mental reservation
or equivocation, to the Pope of Rome Every appeal to the Pope of Rome,
from the citizens of this country, or from any man living within its
limits, for the purpose of settling any difficulties between them about
church rights, civil rights, or any other rights whatever, should be
considered treason; and the individual or individuals who shall make
such appeals, whether a Popish archbishop, bishop, priests, Jesuits,
or laymen, should be prosecuted as felons, and subjected to the most
ignominious punishment known to our laws.

This, and this alone, can effectually arrest the progress of Popery in
these United States. No Papists can complain of this, and no honest man
will object to it. Such a law is not at variance with our constitution;
it prevents no man from worshipping God according to the dictates of his
own conscience. On the contrary, it only guaranties even to the Papist,
in still stronger terms than our constitution now does, the right of
worshipping God as he pleases, and relieves him from the degrading
obligation of being obliged to worship him according to the dictates of
the conscience of a foreign tyrant, the Pope of Rome, and his insolent
minions in this country.

I believe there is not even an Irish Catholic in this country who will
not support such a law. A little reflection will satisfy them that
nearly all the evils they suffer, and have borne patiently for centuries
back, have been brought upon them by the Church of Rome. They will soon
perceive, if they only take the trouble of examining the question, that
there is not, and never was, such a system of general, permanent, and
unlimited slavery, as that to which the Romish church has reduced them.
It is irreconcilable with happiness, good order, public and private
tranquillity; and there cannot possibly exist a more singular anomaly,
than to see a whole people willing to Submit to such a system, and
preferring it to the rational freedom which they enjoy in this country.

Far be it from me, and foreign indeed is it from ray thoughts, to say,
or do, or write anything that may injure the true welfare of the
poor Irish Catholics. I would serve them, and, in the full flow of my
affection for them, I would beg of them to pause and look seriously into
their condition. The year before last, 1843, the Irish people paid to
O'Connell twenty-eight thousand pounds. This was called the O'Connell
tribute. In the same year, they paid _repeal rent_, amounting to the
enormous sum of seventy-eight thousand five hundred pounds sterling;
amounting in all, to one hundred and six thousand five hundred pounds
British money. The above, I take from the accounts and estimates of the
repeal journals. Let us add to the above sum the amount which the Irish
in the United States have sent over to Ireland, and some idea may be
formed of the grinding tyranny which the Romish church and her agents
exercise over their deluded victims here and elsewhere.

Under these circumstances, is it not my duty, is it not the duty of
every friend of humanity, to appeal to the good sense of the Irish,
to their "sober second thought," and ask them, why submit to such
imposition as this? Why not resist these tyrannical exactions of the
Church of Rome? For they know well, that it is not _Irish repeal_ or
American repeal, that the Pope and his priests have in view; but church
repeal. What have the Irish received in exchange for the vast sums which
they have given, and the blood which they have shed, to effect this
Irish, or rather church repeal, and the loss of that confidence and
esteem, which they might otherwise have from Americans? Nothing.
Emphatically nothing. Suppose they succeeded in overthrowing the
constitution; suppose they reduced to sad reality the words of their
daring and treasonable motto, "Americans shan't rule us" and the
American constitution were trampled under their feet; suppose the
"Protestant heretics of the United States" were extirpated and
exterminated, _qui bono_, whose advantage would it be? Would it be
yours, poor, warm-hearted, but deluded Irish Catholics? Would your new
Popish rulers give you a better constitution? Would your new Popish
signers to your constitution be men of more piety, liberality, or
patriotism, than the signers of the Declaration of the Independence
of these United States? Let the civilized world answer the question. I
shall not record it. It should be registered only in heaven.

Poor Papists! You are not only slaves, but you are denied the privilege
of choosing your own master. Your task-master, the Pope, and his
overseers the bishops, will not even allow you to choose your own
teachers, or have priests of your choice. They will not even give you
a voice in the choice of your pastors. Do you call this freedom of
conscience? A bishop, some insolent tool of the pope, tells you to build
a church; puts his hand in your pockets, takes out the last dollar some
of you have, builds a magnificent chapel, and when you want a priest,
whom you believe most competent to instruct yourselves and your
children, you cannot have him; and if you insist upon your just right
to choose him, you are told by your tyrant overseer, the bishop, to
be silent, or he will lock up the church, and curse you, and every one
belonging to you. Call you this freedom of conscience? Call you this
the right of worshipping God according to the dictates of your own
conscience? Yes. Such is your infatuation. I ask you, Irish Papists,
whether I am exaggerating or even discoloring the truth, in what I here
state?

About the year 1818, the Roman Catholics of Norfolk, Virginia, had for
their priest a man supposed by them to be among the best of the order.
They wished him continued among them; but their bishop would not allow
it; and when they murmured, he threatened to curse them; they sent a
remonstrance to the Pope of Rome, but he did not deign to notice it;
they had to submit. Here was liberty of conscience with a vengeance! The
Roman Catholics of Philadelphia, New Orleans, Charleston, and New York,
sent similar remonstrances to his royal holiness, the Pope; but in place
of redress, he reprimanded them for their insolence, and threatened to
curse them, if they exhibited any further symptoms of contumacy; and
they crouched like so many whipped spaniels, perfectly content with the
privilege of paying out their money and building magnificent churches
for the Pope's agents.

A similar case occurred in this city of Boston, if I am correctly
informed, only a short time ago. A large majority of one of the most
respectable Roman Catholic congregations in this city, wished to have
x for their pastor, a priest whom they believed to be a man of talents;
but their Bishop, Fenwick,--a practical Jesuit, with talents below
mediocrity, but possessing all the craft, cunning and intrigue of his
order,--had the unparalleled assurance to tell them that _they should
not have the pastor of their choice; that they had no voice in the
matter_; that he was the church within the limits of his diocese;
that they who did not hear the church "were worse than heathens and
publicans;" and that if they did not shut up their mouths, he would shut
up their church at once, and curse them if they became contumacious. Is
this freedom of conscience? And yet we hear this very majority,--this
insulted, downtrodden majority,--talk of the right of worshipping God
according to the dictates of their own conscience. Shameful proceedings
these, in a free country! Base tyranny over a generous people! Why not
say to this would-be despot, Fenwick, we acknowledge you our bishop; we
will hear to any objections which you have to make against the pastor of
our choice; but if you have none to make, we shall have him; the church
is our property; and you and your interdicts, curses and all such
"raw-heads and bloody-bones," may go to Rome; we want you not in a
free-country. No longer shall we submit in blind obedience to you, or to
a foreign Pope.

The great mass, of Irish Catholics, on whom the arts of delusion and
chicanery are chiefly practised, do not understand the meaning of the
word freedom. They are taught by priest and Jesuits in the confessional,
to misapply that term altogether. Freedom or liberty means in its
true sense, a faithful and conscientious adherence to law and the
constitution of the country in which we live, and of which we are
members. It is the obedience of duty, and anticipates compulsion. It is
not a blind obedience, such as that taught by Popish priests, and which
favors the extension of their power. Priests and bishops would, if they
could, limit the comprehensive term, liberty, to the privilege of
bowing to his holiness the Pope, and building churches for him. But even
Papists are beginning to doubt the legitimacy of this application of the
term, and I am much mistaken if there are not, even now, thousands of
them in the city of Boston, New York, and elsewhere, who will unite with
Americans in petitioning Congress to pass a law, making it treason, in
any man in the United States, whether native or foreigner, to hold any
correspondence, or to avow any allegiance of any kind or under any name
or title, spiritual or temporal, with the Pope of Rome, knowing as they
do that he is a temporal potentate. Let the whole people, Christian
League, Natives, Odd-fellows, Freemasons, Whigs, Democrats,
Conservatives, and all unite in one great, national petition to the
Congress of the United States, and in one fervent and loud prayer to the
God of mercy, that he may give the said Congress a correct view of
their duty, and cause them to hear and grant our prayer. This, with such
improvements as wiser heads may suggest, is the course I would advise to
be pursued in the present posture of our national and moral condition.
The time seems propitious; our executive is said to be a Christian. God
send he may prove so, and that the blandishments of office may not blind
him to a sense of his duty to God and his country!




DESTRUCTION OF THE INQUISITION IN SPAIN.

In 1809, Col. Lehmanowsky was attached to the part of Napoleon's army
which was stationed in Madrid. And while in that city, said Col. L., I
used to speak freely among the people what I thought of the Priests
and Jesuits, and of the Inquisition. It had been decreed by the Emperor
Napoleon that the Inquisition and Monasteries should be suppressed, but
the decree, he said, like some of the laws enacted in this country, was
not executed. Months had passed away, and the prisons of the Inquisition
had not been opened. One night, about 10 or 11 o'clock, as he was
walking one of the streets of Madrid, two armed men sprang upon him from
an alley, and made a furious attack. He instantly drew his sword, put
himself in a posture of defence, and while struggling with them, he saw
at a distance, the lights of the patroles,--French soldiers mounted, who
carried lanterns, and who rode through the streets of the city at all
hours of the night, to preserve order. He called to them in French, and,
as they hastened to his assistance, the assailants took to their heels
and escaped, not however before he saw by their dress that they belonged
to the guards of the Inquisition.

He went immediately to Marshal Soult, then Governor of Madrid, told him
what had taken place, and reminded him of the decree to suppress this
institution. Marshal Soult replied that he might go and destroy it. Col.
L. told him that his regiment (the 9th of the Polish Lancers) was not
sufficient for such a service, but if he would give him two additional
regiments,--the 117th, and another, which he named, he would undertake
the work. The 117th regiment was under the command of Col. De Lile,
who is now, like Col. L., a minister of the gospel, and pastor of an
evangelical church in Marseilles, France. The troops required were
granted, and I proceeded (said Col. L.) to the Inquisition, which was
situated about five miles from the city. It was surrounded with a
wall of great strength, and defended by a company of soldiers. When we
arrived at the walls, I addressed one of the sentinels, and summoned the
holy fathers to surrender to the imperial army, and open the gates of
the Inquisition. The sentinel, who was standing on the wall, appeared to
enter into conversation for a moment with some one within, at the close
of which he presented his musket, and shot one of my men. This was
the signal of attack, and I ordered my troops to fire upon those who
appeared on the walls.

It was soon obvious that it was an unequal warfare. The walls of the
Inquisition were covered with the soldiers of the holy office; there was
also a breast work upon the wall, behind which they partially exposed
themselves as they discharged their muskets. Our troops were in the open
plain, and exposed to a destructive fire. We had no cannon, nor could
we scale the walls, and the gates successfully resisted all attempts at
forcing them. I could not retire and send for cannon to break through
the walls without giving them time to lay a train for blowing us up.
I saw that it was necessary to change the mode of attack, and directed
some trees to be cut down and trimmed, to be used as battering rams. Two
of these were taken up by detachments of men, as numerous as could work
to advantage, and brought to bear upon the walls with all the power
which they could exert, while the troops kept up a fire to protect them
from the fire poured upon them from the walls. Presently the walls began
to tremble, a breach was made, and the imperial troops rushed into the
Inquisition. Here we met with an incident, which nothing but Jesuitical
effrontery is equal to. The inquisitor general, followed by the father
confessors in their priestly robes, all came out of their rooms, as we
were making our way into the interior of the Inquisition, and with long
faces, and their arms crossed over their breasts, their fingers resting
on their shoulders, as though they had been deaf to all the noise of
the attack and defence, and had just learned what was going on, they
addressed themselves in the language of rebuke to their own soldiers,
saying, "_Why do you fight our friends, the French?_"

Their intention, no doubt, was to make us think that this defence was
wholly unauthorized by them, hoping, if they could make us believe
that they were friendly, they should have a better opportunity, in the
confusion of the moment, to escape. Their artifice was too shallow, and
did not succeed. I caused them to be placed under guard, and all
the soldiers of the Inquisition to be secured as prisoners. We then
proceeded to examine all the rooms of the stately edifice. We passed
through room after room; found all perfectly in order, richly furnished,
with altars and crucifixes, and wax candles in abundance, but could
discover no evidences of iniquity being practised there, nothing of
those peculiar features which we expected to find in an Inquisition.
We found splendid paintings, and a rich and extensive library. Here was
beauty and splendor, and the most perfect order on which my eyes had
ever rested. The architecture, the proportions were perfect. The ceiling
and floors of wood were scoured and highly polished. The marble floors
were arranged with a strict regard to order. There was everything to
please the eye and gratify a cultivated taste; but where were those
horrid instruments of torture of which we had been told, and where those
dungeons in which human beings were said to be buried alive? We searched
in vain. The holy father assured us that they had been belied; that we
had seen all; and I was prepared to give up the search, convinced that
this Inquisition was different from others of which I had heard.

But Col. De Lile was not so ready as myself to give up the search, and
said to me, "Colonel, you are commander to-day, and as you say, so it
must be; but if you will be advised by me, let this marble floor be
examined. Let water be brought and poured upon it, and we will watch
and see if there is any place through which it passes more freely than
others." I replied to him, "Do as you please, colonel," and ordered
water to be brought accordingly. The slabs of marble were large and
beautifully polished. When the water had been poured over the floor,
much to the dissatisfaction of the inquisitors, a careful examination
was made of every seam in the floor, to see if the water passed through.
Presently Col. De Lile exclaimed that he had found it. By the side of
one of these marble slabs the water passed through fast, as though
there was an opening beneath. All hands were now at work for further
discovery; the officers with their swords, and the soldiers with their
bayonets, seeking to clear out the seam and pry up the slab; others with
the butts of their muskets striking the slab with all their might to
break it, while the priests remonstrated against our desecrating
their holy and beautiful house. While thus engaged, a soldier, who was
striking with the butt of his musket, struck a spring, and the marble
slab flew up. Then the faces of the inquisitors grew pale as Belshazzar,
when the handwriting appeared on the wall; they trembled all over.
Beneath the marble slab, now partly up, there was a stair-case. I
stepped to the altar, and took from the candlestick one of the candles
four feet in length, which was burning, that I might explore the room
below. As I was doing this, I was arrested by one of the inquisitors,
who laid his hand gently on my arm, and with a very demure and holy look
said, "My son, you must not take those lights with your bloody hands,
they are holy."--"Well," I said, "I will take a holy thing to shed light
on iniquity; I will bear the responsibility!" I took the candle, and
proceeded down the staircase. As we reached the foot of the stairs we
entered a large square room, which was called the Hall of Judgment. In
the centre of it was a large block, and a chain fastened to it. On this
they had been accustomed to place the accused, chained to his seat.
On one side of the room was one elevated seat called the Throne of
Judgment. This the Inquisitor General occupied, and on either side were
seats less elevated, for the holy fathers when engaged in the solemn
business of the Holy Inquisition.

From this room we proceeded to the right, and obtained access to small
cells, extending the entire length of the edifice; and here such sights
were presented as we hoped never to see again.

These cells were places of solitary confinement, where the wretched
objects of inquisitorial hate were confined year after year, till
death released them from their sufferings, and there their bodies were
suffered to remain until they were entirely decayed, and the rooms had
become fit for others to occupy. To prevent this being offensive to
those who occupied the inquisition, there were flues or tubes extending
to the open air, sufficiently capacious to carry off the odor. In these
cells we found the remains of some who had paid the debt of nature;
some of them had been dead apparently but a short time, while of others
nothing remained but their bones, still chained to the floor of their
dungeon.

In other cells we found living sufferers of both sexes and of every age,
from three score years and ten down to fourteen or fifteen years--all
naked as when born into the world! and all in chains! Here were old men
and aged women, who had been shut up for many years. Here, too, were the
middle aged, and the young man and the maiden of fourteen years old. The
soldiers immediately went to work to release these captives from
their chains, and took from their knapsacks their overcoats and
other clothing, which they gave to cover their nakedness. They were
exceedingly anxious to bring them out to the light of day; but Col.
L., aware of the danger, had food given them, and then brought them
gradually to the light, as they were able to bear it.

We then proceeded, said Col. L., to explore another room on the left.
Here we found the instruments of torture, of every kind which the
ingenuity of men or devils could invent. Col. L. here described four of
these horrid instruments. The first was a machine by which the victim
was confined, and then, beginning with the fingers, every joint in the
hands, arms, and body, were broken or drawn one after another, until
the victim died. The second was a box, in which the head and neck of the
victim were so closely confined by a screw that he could not move in any
way. Over the box was a vessel, from which one drop of water a second
fell upon the head of the victim--every successive drop falling upon
precisely the same place on the head, suspended the circulation in a few
moments, and put the sufferer in the most excruciating agony. The third
was an infernal machine, laid horizontally, to which the victim was
bound; the machine then being placed between two beams, in which were
scores of knives so fixed that, by turning the machine with a crank, the
flesh of the sufferer was torn from his limbs all in small pieces. The
fourth surpassed the others in fiendish ingenuity. Its exterior was
a beautiful woman, or large doll, richly dressed, with arms extended,
ready to embrace its victim. Around her feet a semi-circle was drawn.
The victim who passed over this fatal mark, touched a spring, which
caused the diabolical engine to open; its arms clasped him, and a
thousand knives cut him into as many pieces in the deadly embrace.

Col. L. said that the sight of these engines of infernal cruelty kindled
the rage of the soldiers to fury. They declared that every inquisitor
and soldier of the inquisition should be put to the torture. Their rage
was ungovernable. Col. L. did not oppose them; they might have turned
their arms against him, if he had attempted to arrest their work. They
began with the holy fathers. The first they put to death in the machine
for breaking joints. The torture of the inquisitor put to death by the
dropping of water on his head was most excruciating. The poor man cried
out in agony to be taken from the fatal machine. The inquisitor general
was brought before the infernal engine called "The Virgin." He begs to
be excused. "No," said they "you have caused others to kiss her, and
now you must do it." They interlocked their bayonets so as to form large
forks, and with these pushed him over the deadly circle. The beautiful
image instantly prepared for the embrace, clasped him in its arms, and
he was cut into innumerable pieces. Col. L. said, that he witnessed the
torture of four of them--his heart sickened at the awful scene--and he
left the soldiers to wreak their vengeance on the last guilty inmate of
that prison-house of hell.

In the mean time it was reported through Madrid that the prisons of the
Inquisition were broken open, and multitudes hastened to the fatal spot.
And oh, what a meeting was there! It was like a resurrection! About a
hundred who had been buried for many years were now restored to life.
There were fathers who found their long lost daughters; wives were
restored to their husbands, sisters to their brothers, and parents to
their children; and there were some who could recognize no friend among
the multitude. The scene was such as no tongue can describe.

When the multitude had retired, Col. L. caused the library, paintings,
furniture, &c., to be removed, and having sent to the city for a wagon
load of powder, he deposited a large quantity in the vaults beneath
the building, and placed a slow match in connection with it. All had
withdrawn at a distance, and in a few moments there was a most joyful
sight to thousands. The walls and turrets of the massive structure rose
majestically towards the heavens, impelled by the tremendous explosion,
and fell back to the earth an immense heap of ruins. The Inquisition was
no more!--_Phil Christ. Obs_.






AURICULAR CONFESSION and POPISH NUNNERIES, Volume II.

By William Hogan

1854.




PREFACE TO THE SECOND VOLUME.

A close observer of the past and present religious and political
condition of this country, cannot fail to see an evident and manifest
change in both, especially during the last ten or twenty years. It may
not appear as plain to those who have always resided upon the soil,
as it does to others, who have only been naturalized or incorporated
amongst them. This is not to be wondered at It is almost natural that
it should be so. A parent, who is accustomed to see his child every day,
and perhaps every hour in the day, cannot always perceive how fast
he grows in height and size. A stranger, who only sees him at distant
intervals, will perceive the change much sooner. The child will grow,
and acquire almost the attitudes and proportions of manhood, before the
parents can realize the fact that he is no longer a child, but a full
grown man. It is undoubtedly upon some similar principle, we can
account for the fact that Americans do not see, as soon as others among
them, the fatal change which is progressively, but steadily and surely,
taking place in the political and religious condition of this country.

If I am correct in my own observations upon events as they whirl past
me with almost dazzling rapidity, there is something wrong amongst
us,--something is "rotten in Denmark,"--some cogs are out of place, or
out of proportion, in the machinery of our moral and political systems.
Some foreign elements must have been surreptitiously thrown in and mixed
up with them, which have deranged all their operations.

It is, in my apprehension, the duty of every man who values freedom
of thought, freedom of speech, and the free exercise of religion, to
examine and see what is the cause of this derangement, which retards and
disturbs our happiness, as Christians and as citizens. What has swelled
and rendered turgent and muddy those sweet and gently-flowing streams of
peace and brotherly love, on the banks of which, the early settlers
of this country used to sit for days undisturbed, singing praises and
hallelujahs to Jehovah, who delivered them, in his great mercy, from
lands of bondage, tyranny, and idolatry.

I have looked into the subject; I have examined, with all the care and
diligence in my power, the reasons and causes why free-born Americans
were not advancing more rapidly both in political science and practical
piety; and the result of my most anxious, diligent, and impartial
inquiry is, that it is attributable solely to the introduction of Popery
among them, and the consequent direct and indirect interference of the
Court of Rome with our government The royal Pope of Rome, (as I have
heretofore demonstrated to the satisfaction of every man whose eyes and
ears were not closed against truth,) claims jurisdiction, spiritual
and temporal, over the kingdoms of this world; and his untiring and
obstinate efforts to obtain an universal acknowledgment of this mad and
presumptuous claim, has occasioned, and is now producing, (even in this
country,) more strife, and contributes more to the decay of religious
and even political ethics, than any other circumstance recorded in the
history of the human race.

There have been but few, if any, on the long list of Popes and
Anti-Popes, who were not themselves dabblers and traffickers in
politics; and there is scarcely one among them whose private history
does not show him to be an abettor and an accomplice in the vilest
crimes and immoralities; so much and so deeply so, that we are astounded
at the single inquiry how such characters could ever have obtained
influence over any portion of their fellow-beings. This, however, is
not a matter of surprise to me, nor does such an inquiry form any
considerable portion of the following pages; but what more than astounds
me, is, how Romish Popes and priests could, by any species of jugglery
or legerdemain, deceive and impose upon the cool, reflecting, and
calculating citizens of the United States: but reflection might have
taught me better.

So expert and versed in moral and political jugglery are Popes, bishops,
and priests, that they must be closely watched, otherwise their artful
practices will deceive the most intelligent spectators; unless there may
be amongst them, perchance, some individual who has been trained himself
to a knowledge of their arts. A Popish juggler cannot deceive me. I
understand the whole of his operations, as well as he does himself.
He may astonish the natives by his "wonderful feats," but with all his
legerdemain he cannot deceive me in any of his movements.

Under these circumstances, I felt it my duty to raise the curtain behind
which I knew were concealed those secret springs by which the machinery
of Popery is moved in these United States. The most complicated part of
the whole machine,--and the part most difficult to be understood,--is
that which is called _Auricular Confession_. His Royal Holiness of Rome
has obtained a patent, or something like it, for this particular wheel
within a wheel of the machine. In almost all Catholic countries, no one
dare examine or take a model from it. If he does, he incurs the penalty
of being cursed by the Pope. An awful excommunication is immediately
issued against him. Every thing the Pope does is awful If he gives
his blessing, it is awful; his curse is awful; his person is awful;
he cannot be approached unless with profound reverence. His big toe
is awful; no one can kiss it, unless on bended knees, and after the
performance of sundry puerilities, as Bishop Eastburn, of Boston, very
properly calls all such fooleries.

It does not appear as yet, that his Holiness has taken out any patent
for _Auricular Confession_ in this country; and as I know not how soon
he may gull American heretics to grant him one, I have taken the liberty
of exhibiting a model of it, for public inspection. There are parts of
this model which may appear revolting to the delicate sensibilities of
my readers; but let them reflect that the original is formed and put
together by the sacred hands of His Holiness the Pope and his pious
priests. I act only in the capacity of an artist, or a sculptor, who
is permitted, event by the rules of good taste and delicacy, to give
likenesses, in painting and statuary, of the most deformed and unsightly
objects. They are only required to be true and faithful to nature and
the originals from which the likenesses are taken. I have done no more
than this, in the model or picture which I have drawn of Auricular
Confession; and those who do not choose to examine it, are, of course,
at perfect liberty to pass it by unnoticed. The day is not far distant
when it will be found in every family in the United States.

I have the honor to remain the public's humble servant,

WILLIAM HOGAN.




AURICULAR CONFESSION AND POPISH NUNNERIES.

It has been observed by an eminent writer, that "book-making is
something like pouring water from one vessel into another, and then
pouring it back again." There is much truth in the observation; this is
obvious to every general reader. There is scarcely a work issued from
the press, which is not substantially a copy of something that has been
written before upon the same subject The old water-casks, which have
been as it were fixtures for centuries, are now being dug out of their
places, and the waters contained in them are changed into new casks,
having a more sightly appearance, and a more polished exterior. This,
however, is more apt to be the case in the writings of theologians, than
in those of any other body of men. Limited as my own reading has been, I
do not recollect ever having perused a volume upon theology, especially
from the pen of an American theologian, which I had not seen or read
(at least in part) before. How to account for this I know not. Assuredly
this land of freedom has among its theologians and controversialists men
of the finest minds--minds like their own rivers, overflowing with the
deepest, the clearest, most limpid and purest streams of thought--minds
in which the ever-rolling ocean of time has had, as yet, scarcely an
opportunity of depositing much of its accumulated impurities--minds
which, if their great powers were evolved and brought to bear on the
moral and civil condition of our fellow citizens, would give us a new
era or a new world of thought and morals--strong, permanent, diffusive,
progressive--and as different from those of olden times, as our new
and beautiful republic is from some of the aged, faded, sickly and
consumptive governments of former days.

It is difficult; I own, to form a new system of any kind, especially
a new system of thought or morals; but still such a thing is not
impossible. There never was, and never will be, a system constructed
without having to encounter great and almost insuperable obstacles;
first, in its formation, and secondly, in its application and various
bearings.

It was difficult, for instance, to form our own system of civil
government. Its very conception was for some time looked upon as a
wild theory. Such a thing was not dreamed of in any work upon political
ethics taught in our seminaries or schools, in the days of its founders,
yet the system was established, and has hitherto fully answered all the
expectations of its friends; but even if our comparatively new form or
system of government did not entirely succeed--if it even failed and
tumbled to atoms, that would not be a sufficient argument against making
the experiment, for even in its ruins, fragments may be found which may
be useful to posterity. Yes, as the poet beautifully expresses it,

     "You may break--you may ruin the vase, if you will,
     But the scent of the roses will hang round it still."

The failure of any system, as I have observed, is not a sufficient
argument against its practicability, or its ultimate usefulness; and
hence it appears to me strange that American minds, so fertile in all
expedients to advance the temporal interests of man, should be so barren
and unproductive of any system of thought or morals exclusively their
own, and entirely independent of the corrupt and vitiated systems which
have bewildered Europe and its moral philosophers for so many centuries.
It is passing strange that the theologians and professors of moral
theology in this New World of ours--if they can do no better--do not
unite upon some plan to exclude from among them institutions which all
admit to be calculated to demoralize the rising generation.

I am happy to find that there is now a system of thought and morals, or
something like it, to be found amongst us, which is peculiarly
American; it is denominated or called the _Christian League_. Let me be
understood, when I use the term system. By system I mean an arrangement
of objects or purposes so as to make them agree and unite. The Christian
League I believe may be called a system; its members are united in the
accomplishment of given objects. But if not strictly speaking a system
itself, it has within it materials out of which a noble one of thought
and morals can be formed. It is yet in its chrysalis, but the sun of
righteousness, which I trust the dark clouds of superstition that now
portentously hang over us shall never be permitted to hide from our
view, will soon warm it into maturity, and give it wings to fly and
carry with it wherever it goeth, glad tidings of salvation. I do not
agree with the leading members of the Christian League, in their modus
operandi. I have taken the liberty of suggesting to them a different
course of action from that which they have been pleased to adopt; but I
am with them, heart and soul. I shall support their measures, as far
as I find them calculated to check the progress of Popery in the United
States. If I cannot agree with them in their plan to effect this, I
shall only say--and I say it with the utmost respect to each and every
member of the Christian League!!!!!

     "If a better system thine,
     Impart it frankly, or make use of mine."

I have suggested to the members of the Christian League, to throw away
from amongst them all appearance of sectarianism; but I know not that
they have done so; the name or the society would indicate that they had;
but do facts warrant such an inference? The very reverse is the case.
Their prominent speakers all belong to one denomination; there may be
a few exceptions, but there are not many; the public presses which
advocate the proceedings of the League, are generally supported by those
of a particular creed. What is the inference? It is this: either other
presses and other denominations of Christians are indifferent about the
success of the League, or the members of the League are unwilling to
hold any communion with them. The former cannot be the case; the latter
must be, of course. This is not right, and if persevered in, must
ultimately neutralize all the measures of an association which, if
properly conducted, might evolve and mature one of the finest systems
of thought and moral government that has ever been discovered. I have
suggested to the members of the Christian League, that they should have
but one base, or one great moral trunk. I have advised them to partition
this trunk; and divide it into branches, to be spread equally among all
the followers of the law of God, and all the friends of civil rights.
Then let every man do his duty; let no man fancy that because of
his elevation in the Church, or higher salary, his nature has been
metamorphosed, or refined by any chemical process; let him not suppose
himself sublimated by the sunshine of personal popularity, which is
fleeting as the wind; let each individual suppose--and history, as well
as my own personal experience, enables me to assure him that he may do
so without injustice--that the cause of morals and civil rights has one
common enemy in the United States, which must be not only defeated,
but annihilated--yes, annihilated. While that enemy lives, the cause
of morality cannot flourish, and the civil rights of man are in danger.
Need I tell the reader who or what that enemy is? It is Popery. A
healthy state of morals, and Popery cannot exist in any country, any
kingdom, or any clime; the air which gives vitality to Popery, and
sustains its existence, is death to morality--aye, that very morality
which, as Americans, we boast of, and consider to be the very
incarnation even of our civil rights. It is true, that under the
guidance of reason, several forms of government have been established,
but all have been imperfect and unsatisfactory to man in the various
stages and mutations of the social system. If we look back and examine
the history, the nature and character of those improvements which have
been made in society ever since its genesis, we shall find that the
finger of religion, ever true to its purpose, invariably pointed and
invited the attention of man to them; we shall find also that whenever
or wherever this has not been the case, the people have not prospered;
we find in every thing truly valuable to man, whether in his social or
individual capacity, the hand of religion, and the almost omnipotency of
moral principle. This is eminently conspicuous at the present day, and
perhaps as much so in this as any country in the world, and hence it
is that we should be peculiarly grateful and vigilant in removing from
among us any and every cause which may directly or indirectly have a
tendency to injure the morals of our people; for amid the ruin of our
morals shall surely be found the elements of our national downfall.

I have alluded to this subject heretofore, in my books on Popery. I did
not expect that all would approve of those books. I was aware that many,
even among Protestants, would find fault with several of the expressions
used in the small volume which I have recently written, entitled
_Auricular Confession_ to which these pages are a sequel. That Papists
should find fault with all that I have written, does not at all surprise
me; but that Protestants should find any--though I am happy to find that
very few have found any--is a matter of some surprise to me. It must be
owing to the fact that they know not and understand not what auricular
confession is, or how it is made. That Americans in general should know
nothing upon this subject, and be horrified at the bare relation of
its iniquitous details, is a fact which can be easily understood and
explained. They have never made auricular confession the subject of
their study, and hence the horror they feel at its iniquitous and
private abominations. I must frankly confess, however, that it is a
matter of surprise that American theologians should be so entirely
unacquainted with the writings of popish doctors and popish priests, as
not to find all the apparently objectionable expressions in my books in
common use among them. There is not to be found a single volume
among the writers of the Popish Church, on the subject of auricular
confession, in which my statements are not corroborated, and that
in language far more objectionable than mine--language so gross and
indelicate that I could not in justice to public taste and delicacy
introduce it into my books. Those who have read my book on auricular
confession, may recollect the questions which I have accused Popish
bishops and priests of putting to their young female penitents, and
which some liberal Protestants say could not have been the case. I
now assert, without any qualification whatever, and without any mental
reservation or equivocation, that there is not in the United States a
priest nor bishop, who has heard the confessions of married or single
women, without asking them such questions as I have given in my book. I
ask Bishop Fenwick of this city, or any other Roman Catholic priest or
bishop living, to contradict me if he can. I challenge those females,
young or old, who have ever been in the habit of confessing their sins
to priests, to come forward and say, We have been at confession, and
such questions as those contained in Hogan's book have never been put to
us.

The charges I have made against Romish priests are of a serious
character. If false they can be refuted. I am alone; there are nearly
three millions of Roman Catholics in the United States, and if there
is among this vast multitude, an individual who can say and give such
evidence of the truth of his statement, as will satisfy any Court of
Equity, that I have done injustice to popes, priests or bishops,
in charging them with tampering with their female penitents in the
confessional, in order the more easily to debauch them, I will publicly
acknowledge that I am guilty of slander, and have wronged them. I trust
that after this, Protestant theologians will take more pains in reading
the works of Popish moralists, with which, as far as I have the honor
of their acquaintance, they are lamentably unacquainted. I saw a strong
instance of this the other evening. I chanced to meet at the house of a
mutual friend, with one of the most learned and pious theologians of the
Presbyterian Church in this or any other country in the world. He very
courteously observed that he did not question my veracity, but that it
appeared incredible to him that Popish priests or bishops, would put
such questions to married or single women while confessing to them as I
have accused them of. I listened in silent wonder to this great and good
man; for the moment I knew not what to say.

Here was a venerable American theologian--himself a living, moving
theological library--the embodiment of American Protestant theology,
doubting, or at least hesitating to credit the fact, that Romish
bishops and priests put to their female penitents the gross, licentious,
libidinous questions contained in my book on confession. The past,
the present and the future, seemed to rise and rush before me in
imagination, and I could not help exclaiming in my own mind, woe be to
this land of my adoption, woe be to its generous and hospitable people,
if even its patriarchs and wise men, such as he who now stands before
me, and whose life has been a beautiful comment upon the purity and
simplicity of the Christian religion, cannot fully understand, even
at this late period, the corruptions which the drag nets of Popery are
bringing amongst us and strewing on the paths of our hitherto virtuous
mothers and chaste daughters.

It is impossible to find a work on confession written by a Popish priest
in full communion with his church, which does not contain almost the
very language I have used. I finally satisfied my learned friend that I
was correct in all my statements; I explained to him the position of a
Romish priest in the confessional, and that of a young lady confessing
to him, and never shall I forget the remarks of the venerable gentleman
on that occasion. "If," said he, "my wife or daughter were dressed in
the finest silk, and then put into a hogshead of mud and rolled down a
hill, I should as soon expect to find their dresses without a stain, as
find their minds and morals pure and chaste, after going any length of
time to confession to a Romish priest." And he was right; the principles
of popery, as taught in Romish confessional, and those of purity, are
antagonist principles.

We are supposed to have about thirty-six millions of papists--as I have
heretofore stated--in the world. Look, American Protestants, at the
condition of these your brethren, and tremble lest their present
condition be yours at some future period; look over the world, boundless
almost as it is, and great, and glorious, and moral as its inhabitants
might be; what is it now, when it seems to be undergoing, as it were,
a process of self regeneration,--when its hitherto hidden treasures,
almost impatient of restraint, seem to leap and bound into existence,
to offer themselves to the uses and purposes of man, at the mere bid and
beck of science? What is the condition of man in this glorious world or
ours, under the influence of popery? The largest, the widest, and most
fertile portion of the globe is under Popish influence; the soil of
these countries which Papists inhabit is rich, their fields are fair,
and their valleys beautiful; all the products of nature thrive in them;
the sun of heaven shines over them in all its luminous magnificence;
every thing seems to be sent from heaven, for man's use; every thing
seems to aspire to heaven and to be happy. Man alone decays in these
Popish countries; man alone is unhappy; the longings and heavenward
aspirations of his immortal soul are checked, and he withers and
degenerates into a being less happy than the beast of the field, and far
more degraded, because acquired and superinduced inferiority, is
much more degrading than that which is native and original The moral
degeneracy which we see in those countries where Popery, with its
confessions, extreme unctions, and other debasing fooleries, prevail,
is not to be attributed to any decay in the natural vigor of the human
mind. We have no reason to suppose that the mind was created in a less
vigorous state in countries where Popery prevails, than in others where
it does not I have frequently conversed with anatomists of distinguished
eminence, who have visited all the countries inhabited by Catholics, as
well as those inhabited by Protestants, and I have learned from all that
there is no difference in the anatomical construction of their hearts
and brains; still, it is evident to all, at least to every man of
science and observation, that there is a difference in the mental
faculties of those who are born and live under Popish domination, and
those who are born and live under a free government of civil rights. Let
us, for instance, take a Papist fresh from Italy, Spain, Mexico, or
even Ireland; place him in the same condition with a free-born American
Protestant, and see the difference between them; the latter is active,
quick, intelligent, full of thought, full of life and enterprise; the
former in nine cases out of ten, is inactive, of sluggish mind, and
rarely aspires to excellence in any thing really useful. See, for
instance, a Papist when he lands upon our shores; so tame and so
accustomed to Popish tyranny has he been, that he crouches beneath the
nod or frown of a priest the moment he sees him. Fear, of course, must
become the predominant passion of all people and countries where Popery
prevails, and yet, unaccountable as it may appear, this new world of
ours is not only admitting but inviting Popery and its adherents into
it, and offers them the rights of freemen, with a full knowledge of the
fact that they are the subjects of a foreign king,--the Pope of Rome.
Popery--that sink of the universe, as an elegant writer, who is himself
a Roman Catholic, expresses it,--is invited into the United States, and
its votaries cherished by a free, generous, but unsuspecting people. I
have often conversed with American Protestants of distinction upon this
subject, and regret finding that many of them--especially those of the
Unitarian creed--are strong advocates of Popery, and in favor of its
introduction among our people. Their arguments are plausible, and no
doubt appear to the superficial reader worthy of all consideration.
Whatever, say Unitarians, or liberal Christians, have been the vices,
profligacies, or ambition, of Popes and Papists in former ages, they
should be overlooked, in consideration of the great and grand objects
which they had in view, and the vast and mighty interests which were
then at stake. Religion--the Christian religion--say the liberals of the
present day, was then in its infancy, without any other protection save
that which its own god-like purity threw around it; it was committed to
the care of early fathers or papas--from which the word Pope takes its
origin--of the church; the struggle between them and the priests of
Paganism was fierce; it was terrible; and well did the former do their
duty--nobly and faithfully did they struggle for the ascendancy of
Christianity, and its establishment among the nations of the north. To
do this effectually, and to establish a hierarchy exclusively their own,
independent of any other, was indispensable. To effect this, was one of
the most momentous and grandest projects that ever entered the mind
of man at that early period of society. We all know from history, the
difficulties which the early Papas or Popes--not of the Romish church,
but of the Christian church--had to encounter, in their contest with
Paganism. We also know--and no man who believes in the Christian
religion doubts it--that great credit is due to them, for what they have
done against the Turks. They have left on record many evidences of their
ardent zeal, sincere piety, and deep humility. But does it follow,
that because the fathers of the Christian church have done so much for
Christianity, by being the depositories of its principles, and active
defenders of its faith---does it follow, I say, that Romish Popes
or Romish Papas, are equally entitled to our respect, support, and
confidence?

Do these liberal Christians know that there is as wide a difference
between the Papas of the early Christian church, and those of the modern
Romish church, as there is between the notorious Himes, of the Millerite
church, and the learned Dr. Gannett, of the Unitarian society? Is it
sound logic to infer that because the fathers of the Christian church
were good men, and should be welcomed wherever they went, that the
present fathers of the Romish Church are also good men and must be
received into this country, with their interminable retinue of monks,
nuns, friars, and other mock reverend and semi-reverend male and female
vagabonds, who precede and follow them?

Liberal Christians will pardon me when I say, that nothing but a total
unacquaintance with history, with man's nature, with man's rights, and
unacquaintance with all that tends to promote human happiness, and
to elevate man in the scale of creation, could force them to such a
conclusion.

The inference is not to be found in the premises; It is bad logic; it is
not warranted by facts, or by history, sacred or profane; indeed, I much
fear, that he who knows any thing of the history of Popery in ancient
or modern times, and yet encourages its growth in this country, might
without uncharitable-ness, or any sectarian prejudice, be classed with
infidels and traitors. The man who, with the pages of history open
before him, can encourage a system nicknamed religion, and embodying
within its fundamental articles of faith, the duty of auricular
confession as essential to salvation, has no claim to the name of
Christian; nor can he who would cheer on the mad followers of Popery
to rend this union to pieces, and substitute in its stead a Popish
monarchy, be a true patriot. He is a traitor, in the broadest, fullest,
and most unqualified sense of the word.

I have shown, in the first volume of this book, that Popery does those
things to which I have just alluded; the accusations which I have
brought against Popery, have been of such serious magnitude and
traitorous character, that Americans could scarcely credit them,
and some have looked upon them as only ebullitions of anger, which
reflection would mitigate; and that reason, the legitimate monarch of
all the intellectual faculties, would in due time restrain them within
proper bounds; but I again reiterate the charges, and assure my readers
that all I have said against Popery, as a corrupt system of policy and
morals, is not only true, as we see in history, but falls short of what
I know of my own knowledge, and which I believe with the certainty of
faith.

I have patiently, laboriously, and diligently, examined the doctrines
and practices of the Popish Church, especially since the days of
Hildebrand, and the result of my serious inquiries has been, that the
church and its bishops have been, up to this day, abusing the credulity
of mankind, and trying how they could best play upon the passions and
degrade the human intellect.

History hands down to us the names of about three hundred popes and
anti-popes, and I would challenge even that morbid liberalism, which
seems to be gaining ground, and is now ycleped philosophy, whether
Paganism in its darkest days, or its history in its vilest pages, ever
exhibited to its followers any system of religion or morals so revolting
as that which each of those Popes has in succession endeavored to
enforce and impose upon mankind. It will be said by some of those
philosophers to whom I allude, that I have gone too far in my writings
against the Popish church and Popish priests---that I proved too much,
and, according to that well received action---"quod nimis probat nihil
probat?"--proved nothing; that I have colored my landscape too highly,
&c. The reverse is the case; I have not seen Popery at a distance, as
these liberalists have, nor as a traveller might see a landscape. The
latter may be deceived, he may see or fancy that he sees a brilliant
hue upon the summit of a distant mountain, just as the liberalists see
Popery at a distance; but upon a nearer approach and closer examination,
he will find that no such thing exists, but that it is produced perhaps
by the reflection of the sun, which gives it some unreal appearance.
That mountain top, which at a distance may seem to the traveller so
sublimely beautiful, often on examination is found to be but a vast
crater, frightful to look at, emitting nothing but some disgusting
substance which carries with it death, destruction, and sorrow, wherever
it goes. Will the liberalists, philosophers,--or whatever else they must
be called--please to recollect, in their comments upon my books, that I
have not viewed Popery at a distance; I have seen It in its roseate as
well as in its darkest colors; the former I found unreal and transient
as that with which a beautiful setting sun invests the mountain's cold
snow-top; the latter I found to be true in every color, even to the
minute touch. Will these philosophers examine Popery as I have done:
let them stand upon its summit as I have done, and then look into that
unfathomable crater, the court of Rome, from which it vomits and spews
forth its corruptions, its confessions, its indulgences, its penances,
its masses, its purgatories, its pilgrimages, its transubstantiations,
its beads, its Jesuits, its treasons, its poisons, its recipes for
compounding the best and most subtle poisons, its modes of procuring
abortion and checking female fecundity--let him keep a close watch on
the movements of Popish bishops in this country, especially Hughes of
New York, and Fen-wick of Boston, and others, as I have done for years,
and they shall find that, frightful as is the picture which I have given
of Popery, it falls short--far short of the reality. I have scarcely
touched upon those features of Romanism, which are most abhorrent to the
morals, and dangerous to the civil rights of our citizens; but it is not
too late; it can be done yet; I owe them much, and if God spares me I
will pay them by instalments; I have enlisted without bounty or service
money into the ranks of the Christian opponents of Popery--not for any
given time, but during the war, or for life. While I live, Popery has in
me an opponent, who can neither be bribed nor intimidated; but I regret
to see that there are many who call themselves Protestant Christians,
exhibiting a wavering and craven spirit, in this general war against
Popery which has at length commenced--afraid to come out openly against
Popish doctrines, and yet feeling it their duty to do so. I pity such
men--from my soul I pity them; church honors and church distinctions
seem to be more sought for now, than those of heaven. Hundreds of
Protestant clergymen are daily bedizening themselves with D. D.'s and
other such fooleries, while the great enemy of religion and civil rights
is surrounding them, and ready, when the Pope of Rome gives the word of
command, to fall upon them with destructive slaughter.

Already I find myself (sicut meus est mos) imperceptibly drifting from
the point I set sail for, nor have I the least doubt that I shall find
myself out of my reckoning frequently, before I arrive at the end of my
voyage. This, however, will only have the effect of rendering it more
tedious, but I trust it will add some value to my observations and
discoveries during my voyage.

I commenced this second volume with the single view of defining more
clearly, the iniquities practised in the Romish church, under cover of
auricular confession, and within the walls of Popish nunneries. I would
now resume the subject, and show my fellow citizens, that the crimes and
profligacies which 1 have imputed to the Romish church, have not been
peculiar to any epoch or age of its existence--that it has been always
corrupt--is now while I write corrupt, that its very elements are
founded on corruption, and that any contact with it, or between itself
and our citizens, cannot fail to be ruinous to the morals and interests
of our people. I have a double object in pursuing this course. The first
is this: Papists admit that there have been corruptions in the Romish
church, but say that they were only local, and never sanctioned by the
church authoritatively; secondly, they assert that my books on Popery
are all old lies, culled from ancient heretical writers, and that
such deeds as I have imputed to their holy and infallible church, and
immaculate bishops and priests in this country, have never taken place.

I will here show, in a few words, that the evil deeds and corruptions,
with which I have charged the Popish church, were not local, but
general; and secondly, I propose to show that they were not peculiar
to any age in the church, but have always existed and do exist at the
present moment, not only in Europe and elsewhere, but in these United
States.

That Papists and myself may understand each other clearly, and that the
public may understand both of us, I propose to the Papist to name any
age of the Church he pleases, or any Pope he pleases, and I will show
him that in that very age, and under that very Pope, nearly all the
iniquities of which I have accused his Church, were justly charged,
and sanctioned _authoritatively_ by her then ruling _executive_, or
infallible head, just as she pleased to call it, whether that infallible
head was a Pope or a General Council I say Pope, or General Council,
because the question is not yet settled between Popish theologians,
whether their boasted infallibility be invested in the Pope, speaking
_ex cathedra_, or in a General Council legitimately--according to their
understanding of the term--convened.

Come on, Mr. Popish Bishop or Priest; advance, Mr. Bishop Hughes, of
Jesuit and intrigue notoriety; hold up your head, thou demure, plotting
dunce, Bishop Fenwick, of Boston. Let us select the latter end of the
eleventh, and beginning of the twelfth centuries. This is as favorable
an epoch in the Infallible Church as you can possibly choose, to
show the purity, loveliness, morality, and chastity, of her Popes and
bishops.

You recollect, right reverend and immaculate gentlemen, that Lothair
Conti, afterwards called Innocent III., was then Pope; now, gentlemen, I
ask you, and I pray you may answer me fairly and honestly, whether your
infallible church was, even in that age, exempt from the abominations
of which I have accused her? Be honest, for once in your life; let me be
able to record, in my future writings, one instance of truth being found
among Jesuits and Popish priests, when speaking upon church affairs.

Are you prepared to deny the fact that your church was then filled with
the grossest abominations, and that every one of those abominations were
sanctioned by Pope Innocent III.? If you are prepared to deny this fact,
I am prepared to brand upon the forehead of each of you, in letters
which can never be erased, the words wilful and deliberate liar. You
both, right reverend gentlemen, already know that I do nothing by
halves; and if I convict you of falsehood, you may rely upon it, that
the iron with which I will brand you with the above letters, shall be
heated to the very point of fusion, so that you shall be known as the
sworn enemies of truth, religion, and the rights of man. Innocent III.
is looked upon in the Roman Church, and by you, of course, as a perfect
model of what a Popish bishop or priest ought to be; any deviation from
the faith which he professed, or example which he gave, in morals or
politics, would be, and is now considered, by every true son of the
Infallible Church, as heresy and treason against Popery. Let us now see
what the faith of this inimitable model was; we can best judge of it by
his works; "the tree is known by its fruits." A very beautiful modern
writer gives us the true character of Innocent III. It is fair to judge
of all the Popes as this man has been judged; he is a correct model of
the whole, and I doubt not but, taking him all and all, he is the best
model that has been given of a Romish Pope. His greatest admirers admit
its correctness; the picture is true to the life, and if that ancient
axiom, "_ex ano disce omnes"_ be true, that is, if we can judge of all
by one, a precious model of morals and policy is this Pope Innocent III.

I call the attention of my readers to the character of this man, or if
Papists will have it so, of this god Pope, as given by an elegant writer
of the present age:

"In his actions, principles, and the effects produced by both, we
scarcely recognize a human being. He takes a stand wholly above that
class of figures which form the ordinary pattern of history. The
circumstances of his time, and the faculties of his nature, make us seek
rather for his resemblance in one of those wanderers from some higher
star, or spirit dropped by accident among us, and in the garb of a man
allowed to follow his original propensities, and to do evil which throws
human malignity into the shade, by some power which in all cases exceeds
the dimensions of human nature. _Without charging the Pope with being
altogether a devil_, it must be acknowledged, that in many of his
actions he nearly resembles that character."

The pontificate of Innocent III., which we can find, upon examination,,
closely resembles that of all other Popes, is worthy the serious
attention of statesmen of this country. Here our presidents, cabinets,
senators, representatives, and governors, may learn how temporal power
and Popish functions may be united together; they will see the nature,
and understand better what is meant by that spiritual allegiance which
Papists, even in this country, swear to the Pope of Rome, and which for
twenty odd years I have been appealing to Americans to crush; or deprive
of the rights of citizenship, or punish as traitors every man who
avowed such allegiance to a foreign king, which the Pope of Rome is
acknowledged to be. Will Americans hear to the definition which Pope
Innocent III. gives of a Romish Pope? It is admitted to be a correct
definition, by every Roman Catholic, whether bishop, priest, or
layman, in the United States. Hear you, then, Americans! listen, you
republicans--whigs, democrats, and all--and know ye henceforth, that a
Pope is defined to be the _vicegerent of Christ_. If less than God, he
is greater than man; the luminary of day; the civil authority being only
the pale orb of night How would you, Americans, like to have such a man
at your head? Take heed--there are three millions now of his subjects
amongst you, and about thirty-three millions besides all over the world.
Ask yourselves whether it is not at least possible that they may gain an
ascendency in these United States, and wrest from you and your posterity
the inheritance which your forefathers left you? Do not forget--I
entreat of you never to forget--the alarming fact that during the last
sixteen years, 731,380 foreigners have arrived at the port of New York
alone. Three-fourths of these may be presumed to be Papists, and sworn
to maintain the supremacy of their king, the Pope.

Let it not be forgotten by American statesmen, that Papists have been at
the bottom of every crusade that has ever been formed against the civil
rights of men. Was it not a Pope, and that Pope no less a personage than
Innocent III., that tried to dethrone King John of England? Was it not
a Pope that fomented a crusade against the Hungarians, and endeavored to
overthrow the King of Norway? And finally, was it not a Pope, and that
Pope the infallible Innocent III.--whom Bishops Hughes, Fenwick, and
myself, have agreed upon as a fair sample from about three hundred
Popes, who preceded and succeeded him--that waged a war of extermination
against the unoffending and blameless Waldenses? Was it not a Pope,
and that Pope Innocent III., who in one year, by virtue of his divine
authority, gave away three royal crowns? This Innocent III. employed
the infernal inquisition against the Albigenses. Will Americans take
all these historical truths into consideration. Let them read my books
again, and then say whether I have done the Pope, bishops, and priests
of the Romish Church any injustice. I declare, in the language of
another, that there is not to be found in the whole range of history,
any body of men, who have inflicted upon humanity a greater amount of
evil, than the Popes of Rome and their allies: and the grand instrument
which enabled them to accomplish all this with impunity, and without
detection, was the infamous and diabolical practice of auricular
confession. "To rivet the chains of slavery," as another expresses it,
"on souls as well as the bodied of men, too firmly to be thrown off,
private, or as it is called, auricular confession of sins to a priest,
was made an imperative duty of all Papists, at certain seasons of
the year." "Of all the practices of the Romish Church," says the same
writer, "this is the one which has proved most injurious; and if it be
regarded in connection with the celibacy of the clergy, will explain
why the cause of morals is always worse in Popish than in Protestant
countries. The uses of conscience were at an end, when given for safe
keeping to a Romish confessor; actions were no longer measured by the
standard of right and wrong, but by a casuistry and a pernicious process
of reasoning, by which it was intended to make man satisfied with
himself. The result of this has been, and is at the present moment, even
in these United States, that law is the only restraint upon a Papist; he
is taught to believe that by confessing his crimes to a Romish priest,
he can obtain pardon. The blackest murderer, if he can escape the
hangman or the penitentiary, is no farther concerned about the deed; he
believes his priest can forgive him, and all is at rest."

This was a doctrine which Pope Innocent tried with all his might to
enforce upon his people. The reader has now a fair specimen of a Romish
Pope. "Voila Rome." Look, Americans, and examine this faultless
picture of a Pope, and perfect model of a Romish priest! Do you desire
that an engraving should be made of it, and scattered through the land?
Do you desire to establish in your midst, colleges and schools for the
purpose of bringing up your children in the faith and practices of Pope
Innocent? I tell you, if you do, the rising generation will be without
religion or morals, and this glorious republic will die in the arms of
despotism. I am aware that Americans will say--at least it will be said
by a portion of them, who are not Christians indeed--that such a man as
Innocent III. could not live in this country; that he would be plunged
into the next river, if he dared to interfere in the administration of
our laws. Facts do not warrant Americans in jumping at this conclusion.
Who, at least in Boston, forgets the destruction of the Ursuline
Convent? Did not Bishop Fenwick and his nuns publicly boast that they
had "twenty thousand stout Papists ready at their beck, to reek their
vengeance on the peaceable citizens of Boston?" Might not the Pope's
agent--had he not crouched before a superior force--have said to this
twenty thousand madmen, as Innocent III. said to his French followers,
when they landed in England, "Sword, sword, leap from thy scabbard!
sword, whet thyself for vengeance!" and would not those men have obeyed
him, had he not had the prudence to see their comparative weakness, and
advise them to keep the peace, under pain of being cursed by him? Had
there been force enough upon the spot to have put to the torture and to
death every Protestant in Boston, it would have been done. And why,
or for what? Merely because the people thought proper to pull down a
legalized house of prostitution, surreptitiously erected in their midst!
Will it be said that I am also incorrect in my charges against the
Ursuline nuns of Charlestown, Massachusetts?

Bishop Fenwick represents them as models of purity and chastity, and
recently assures his Holiness the Pope, that he is making converts from
the first families of Boston to the religion and pure faith of these
nuns. I have something to say of two, at least, of those nuns, who were
in that convent when an indignant people leveled it to the ground. I
knew two of those nuns personally, and I knew them both far advanced
in the family way, in their own country, when I left it. They were both
seduced, and their _seducer was their confessor_,--a Roman Catholic
priest of the order of St. Augustine. That priest is now living, and
those ladies whom he seduced, and who fled from their native country
to the Ursuline Convent in Charlestown, are now living, I believe, in
Quebec Do those sympathizing ladies in Boston, some of whom have been
educated by these two sisters--not of charity, but of crime--wilful,
constant, persevering crimes--wish to hear their names? I am tempted to
give them, and I would do so, if I thought it might have the effect of
opening the eyes of Protestant mothers, and prove a warning to them not
to send their daughters, in future, to be educated in a Popish nunnery,
or to confession to a Popish priest But to return: Protestants have no
mercy to expect from Papists. A true Catholic is not allowed to hold any
communion with a Protestant, nor will his bishop or priest permit him to
be buried in the same ground with a Protestant He is not allowed to
go to the funeral of a Protestant: and if he does go, he commits a
sin which the priest is not allowed to forgive him, without a special
license from the Church. In the technical language of the Romish Church,
the case of a man who attends a Protestant funeral is a reserved case;
that is, a case or a crime which no ordinary priest can forgive, without
a particular license to do so. Going into a Protestant church, and
hearing a Protestant minister preach, is another reserved case. Saluting
or speaking to a Protestant, or heretic, is also among the reserved
cases. Speaking, for instance, to Eugene Sue, the author of the
Wandering Jew, whom--"_horribile dictu_"--the Roman Catholic Bishop of
Lyons, in France, has excommunicated, is another reserved case, which
no one except the aforesaid Bishop of Lyons, or some person delegated
by him, can pardon or forgive. Speaking to any member of the Christian
League--that arch heretic, Rev. Mr. Kirk, for instance--is a reserved
case, which no priest in Boston, except Bishop Fenwick, or some one
delegated by him, can pardon or forgive; for be it known to all the
inhabitants of the world, that he, and his brother colleagues of the
Christian League, have been excommunicated by the present Pope. It is
a reserved case to speak to me. Speaking to me is a crime of peculiar
atrocity, and can be forgiven by no power, save the Pope of the
Infallible Church. I have accused the Pope of sin, of folly, and
depravity. This is altogether inadmissible, and deserves eternal
damnation; the idea that a Pope of Rome can commit sin, or can do
wrong, is inconsistent and incompatible with true religion, as Papists
understand that term.

The Pope of Rome, according to Papists, cannot sin; he is not
only _infallible_, as the most eminent Popish writers assert, but
_impeccable_; see Belarmine, a standard writer in the Popish Church.
But I will no longer detain the reader on this particular subject of
reserved cases, and Popish follies of ancient times. Bishop Fenwick, and
the rest of the right reverend brethren: of the Popish Church, will
say that my statements are all "old lies;" that the holy Roman Catholic
Church never did, nor does it now, prevent her subjects from speaking to
heretics, or those who differ from her in their belief. I will venture
the assertion, that if any Protestant theologian call upon any Roman
Catholic bishop in the United States, he will deny this fact, or give
an equivocal answer, though there is not to be found a solitary work on
Popery in any library in the United States, or elsewhere, which does not
sustain me in the assertions I have made. But we will not go to ancient
times for authority. I will state to the reader a case to the point,
which occurred about the year 1822, and to the truth of which thousands
of our fellow citizens in Philadelphia can bear testimony. When I first
opposed Popery in that city, by recommending that the Bible should be
circulated among the people, and that the children of the poor Catholic
Irish should be sent to school to be educated in its pure and unsullied
doctrines, the Roman Catholic Bishop of that city, a poor, little,
irritable Irishman, by the name of Conwell, prohibited his people, or
his subjects, as he called them, from speaking to me, the heretic Hogan,
or his followers, Hoganites; and the most amusing part of it was, that
by way of giving his subjects good example, whenever we passed each
other, even on opposite sides of the street, his lordship took off his
hat and crossed himself, repeating the AVE MARIA! This he never failed
to do, wherever we passed, much to the amusement of the Protestant
inhabitants of that city, and to the great edification of the Papists.
It may appear exceedingly strange or amusing to Bostonians, should
I tell them that a similar belief in the criminality of speaking to
heretics is taught in Boston, the capital of New England; but this is a
fact, and if Papists term it a new "lie," it cannot be helped, for what
I am about to state occurred only the other day. I chanced to meet, in
a book store in Washington street, a convert to Popery, just fresh from
the hand of Bishop Fenwick. I had never seen the gentleman but once
before, and he was then, as well as during most of his previous life,
one of those men in whose faith I had not the least confidence. I did
not know that he was present when I entered the store, and was in the
act of inquiring for a vile thing, called Brownson's Quarterly Review,
which he published in the month of July, 1840. During my inquiries for
this Review, the author, Brownson, addressed me, as nearly as I can
recollect, in the following words: "I know you, sir; you once owned a
whig press in Savannah; you criticized my Review. I marked you--but I am
not allowed by my Church to speak to a heretic." I looked around me in
some astonishment I did not expect to hear such language on the land of
the Puritans; but sure enough, there stood Brownson, a Roman Catholic,
fresh from the anvil of Popery! There he stood, _totus teres adque
rotundus_, full-blooded and fully developed; the very Brownson himself,
who has been consistent in nothing but infidelity and unbelief, now a
good Roman Catholic; the very Brownson who has never been true to either
his Maker or to his church, now a good Roman Catholic, whose church
and whose conscience would not allow him to speak to a heretic! I never
noticed the man much before, but now I fixed my eye upon him, and I
shall not easily forget his countenance. On first intuition, I could
scarcely imagine it was the Rev. Mr. Brownson who stood before me. My
imagination presented to me a different character. I could not suppose
that one who was once a clergyman would entertain the sentiments which
I had the misfortune of subsequently hearing him utter. I was, however,
mistaken. It was the Rev. gentleman. He strongly reminded me of
characters between whom and himself there existed a strange similitude;
but comparisons might offend the delicate sensibilities of some of my
readers.

I looked at him a second time, and I could not restrain the involuntary
exclamation--Popery, thou child of sin, treachery, and intrigue, bad as
thou art, is it come to this--that thou must take by the hand as thine
advocate and supporter this wretched being, who for thirty years
has been sporting with the attributes of the great God, alternately
extolling and ridiculing them, as best suited the ungovernable bent of
his unstable mind, which thou mightest read in the demoniac-looking
face of this man? But this is one of the secrets by which Popery spreads
itself all over the United States. The Popish Church will admit any men
or women, be they saints or devils, into full communion with them, if
they swear allegiance to the Pope of Rome. This is one of the grand
causes of the success of Jesuitism in this country. How different is
it in some of the Protestant Churches! It requires some tact and church
generalship in any man who has not been brought up a Protestant,
to obtain admission into them upon any terms. Far be it from me to
insinuate that Protestants should follow the example of the Papists, in
admitting such things as Brownson into communion with their Churches:
Nor should I mention the fact of the admission of Brownson at all,
into the Romish Church, if I did not look upon this circumstance as a
prominent instance of the corrupt evils of its infamous practices, and
an irrefragable argument against its alleged good. But Brownson has been
purified from all his sins by some Popish chemical process; he has gone
to confession, is no longer a sinner, and therefore he is too pure, too
immaculate, and too strong in the faith of the Popish Church, to render
it otherwise than sinful in him to speak to a heretic! It is said
that the Pope has recently given his subjects in the United States
a dispensation, by which they are allowed to transact business
with heretics, and speak to them in case of necessity. Wonderful
condescension this!

Such statements as I here make, must appear incredible to American
Protestants. Many will suppose that I am dealing in fables--that such
rigmarole and such silly pretences as I have charged the Papists with,
have never been countenanced in any age or among any people, much less
American freemen; but let us see what are the facts in the case. I would
not ask the reader to take my word for it. In 1555, Pope Paul IV, in his
famous bull against heretics, supports me in every assertion I make;
charging Papists with deeming it unlawful and criminal, to hold any
intercourse with Protestants. Will the reader be pleased to attend to
what this infallible Pope says, and that, only between three and four
hundred years ago? I call upon our civil authorities to ponder and weigh
well the import of his words, and never to forget, that there is no
Catholic in this country or elsewhere, who will dare to say that the
decretals and commands of Paul IV., are of less force or less
binding upon them than those of the present Pope. "All heretics, viz.
Protestants, be they kings or subjects, are accursed." Mind that, Mr.
Polk, President of the United States! attend to it, you Governors and
Magistrates! you are each and every one of you accursed, and none of our
citizens are allowed to speak to you 21 without a dispensation from the
present Pope. That identical Pope, Innocent III.,--of whom I have just
been speaking, and who has, without any objection from either party,
been selected, by Bishops Hughes, and Fenwick, and myself, out of about
three hundred Popes, as a fair sample of a good Pope,--has declared
it to be unlawful for any Protestant Executive, | whether King or
President, to require any allegiance from a Roman Catholic. Take heed,
Mr. President Polk! it is said you are a Presbyterian; ask no allegiance
from a Roman Catholic; he is not allowed by the present Pope,--who of
course follows in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessors, Paul
IV. and Innocent III.,--even to speak to you without a dispensation. It
is utterly useless to multiply cases of this kind. No article of the
Romish faith is better established, than that which teaches them to hold
no communion with heretics, and try by every means in their power to
overthrow all Protestant governments. Will this statement too be called
an old lie? If it is a lie, it is assuredly a very old one, and a very
new one too. Will the reader go back with me, to the history of ancient
times? It will afford me pleasure if he does. The source of truth is as
open and accessible to him as to me, and if he thirsts for it sincerely
and honestly, he can slake it to his heart's content at its very
fountain.

The general reader knows that at a very early period of Christianity, a
considerable number of native Christians was found in the Peninsula of
India; I believe they were first discovered by the Portuguese. They have
been represented as harmless, guileless, and gentle in the extreme.
They professed the pure doctrines of the bible. Even the Portuguese who
discovered them, admitted that their lives were blameless, and that they
were true Christians in every respect, except that they did not believe
in the infallibility of the Pope and the supremacy of the Romish church.
Here was an opportunity for the Romish church, of showing her charity,
if she or her pioneers had any. These native Indians never did them
any harm; they never before heard of a Pope or a Romish church; they
believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and in the all-sufficiency of his
atonement for the sins of man, but never heard of a Pope; such a word
was not found in their simple, native vocabulary; this was a crime not
to be forgiven by their ignorant Popish discoverers; and how were these
simple people treated by them? I refer the reader to that admirable
work, written by Lacroze, for a full account of the manner in which they
were treated by these jackals who discovered them. Suffice it to say
that they were at once reduced to obedience to the Pope of Rome, to
acknowledge the Pope's church as infallible, and compelled to worship
the images of a set of vagabonds called saints and virgins, who if
living now-a-days amongst us, should be considered fit subjects for our
penitentiaries and work houses. The reader will also see an account of
the condition and character of this people in Buchanan's Researches.

I refer to the case of those primitive Christians as corroborative of
my charges against Popery, and to show that her corrupt and persecuting
spirit has always been the same, and that nothing better could be
expected from the great changelings Brownson, or any other convert to
her dogmas, than a compliance with all her injunctions. Unfortunate
Brownson! while you tried to support yourself and family, by alternately
lecturing and publishing your sceptical and unintelligible theories, the
community in which you lived, and who knew your circumstances, felt a
kind and deep sympathy for you. They knew--and every man knows--that
theoretical scepticism, and some sentiments of honor, are not always
incompatible. A man may be a sceptic and not entirely destitute of
honor. A man may be a sceptic and yet an honest man. Your fellow
citizens imagined that you might have been among that class of people;
but now they know you. They know that for twenty or thirty years, you
have not only been a sceptic in theory, but a practical doubter, saying
yes to one thing, and again yes to the contrary. You must not, of
course, be surprised at seeing yourself sink in morals and principles,
until you lose all claims to the sympathies of society. If any
individual should think it an object worth his notice or time, to
satirize or lampoon you, the best and bitterest way would be, to bind up
into one volume, all the twattle you have written upon religion, morals
and metaphysics, and send it to you. I could with sincerity reproach
myself for having thus deviated from the subject of these pages, to
notice this unhappy individual, Brownson, for I believe there is not
a well-informed gentleman in the United States, who does not know that
there never was a period in the history of Popery, when the Pope and
Papists were not the implacable enemies of Protestants. Even Papists
themselves offer no defence against this charge, but that
Stale and hackneyed falsehood, Popery is not now what it was in old
times; this seems plausible to Americans, but let us see what are the
facts in the case. Let us inquire whether Popery is, at all different
now, from what it was in the days of Paul IV. and Innocent III. Is its
persecuting spirit the same? Are its tenets more liberal, its doctrines
more mild, and its Popes, from the last century up to the present
moment, less ambitious and more tolerant? Papists say they are; Bishop
Hughes of New York, and Bishop Fen-wick of Boston, say they are; and
their Corporal Trim, Brownson of Boston, touches his hat and nods his
head. I say they are not We are now at issue. The question between us
is one of veracity. The Bishops and Trim are liars, or I am one, in
this matter. How are the public to know which? There is but one mode of
ascertaining this. Let us appeal to history, and to facts. One of the
best and I believe the most recent authorities to which we both can
appeal, is a work recently written by Wm. S. Gilli, D. D., and published
in London. I call it one of the best authorities, because many of the
truths which he gives us, confirm my assertion, and are matters of
profane history, and connected, indirectly, with national treaties,
with which we are all more or less acquainted. This connexion throws
an additional light on, and gives more force to the statements of Dr.
Gilli; besides, it gives a strength and momentum to my charges against
Popery, which no Popish casuistry can check. The work which I allude to,
is entitled "The _Waldensian Researches._" This excellent work
commands great and deserved popularity among all parties, religious and
political, in Europe. It is a matter of historical truth, that as early
as 1690, and on the 20th of October of that year, a treaty was made
between Holland and England,--then the two-great Protestant powers of
Europe,--securing to the Vaudois, or Waldenses, the free exercise of
their religion and safe enjoyment of their property, This treaty was
assented to by all the powers of Europe. The Vaudois were a small
community of Christians, living in the valleys at the foot of the Alps,
whose origin is involved in some obscurity. They give us, themselves, no
record of their antiquity, prior to the ninth century, but are supposed
by antiquarians to have been the descendants of a band of Apostolic
Christians, who fled from Italy to escape the fury of barbarians, which
had overrun that country during the decline of the Roman empire, and who
sought for shelter in the secluded valleys of the Alps, in the western
part of Piedmont; though, as far as we know, they have in a measure
escaped the mad and bloody fury of the northern barbarian, in their
lonely valleys, they had not been able to escape that of a still more
bloody barbarian, the Pope of Rome. All Europe, who had any knowledge of
this people in their lonely valleys, felt great sympathy for them. They
were comparatively few in number, their wants few and easily supplied
by their own industry; their valleys were to them a second paradise, but
they were not long so, when the great serpent of Rome entered it, and
brought upon them such an amount of misery, hardships and persecutions,
as probably never were heard of before in the annals of history. I will
refer to this hereafter. Let us first see what becomes of the treaty to
which I have alluded. It was solemnly made and formally sanctioned;
they were promised full protection, by his royal holiness the Pope, only
about one hundred and forty years ago. How did the Pope act? How did he
keep his faith with this poor harmless people? History tells the tale.
He summoned the Inquisition, and threatened Victor Amadeus, a good Roman
Catholic, with excommunication, if he did not violate his treaty in
favor of the Vaudois, and renounce all treaties which he had ever made
with the heretics; and he called upon his subjects, that is, upon all
Catholics, Bishops and Inquisitors, to proceed against heretics, and
look upon all compacts and treaties made with heretics as null and void.
Passing over, for the present, the sufferings of the Waldenses in former
times, let us see what their condition is now. This will satisfy the
reader that the church still persecutes heretics, and refuses to hold
any communion with them. It proves also that Popish bishops, who assert
that Popery is different now from what it was formerly, and that Hughes
and Fenwick, of New York and Boston, together with their Corporal Trim,
Brownson, have deliberately misstated facts. Hear to what Mr. Gilli says
of the spirit of Popery as it existed the other day.

"The son of a Waldenesean soldier, who served under the conscription
of Napoleon, being born in a garrison where there was no Protestant
minister, was baptized by a Roman Catholic Priest. He was shortly
afterwards brought home to the valleys, was educated as a Protestant,
in the communion of his forefathers, attended Protestant worship and
received the sacrament in a Waldensean Church. He was married to a
Waldensean woman, by a Waldensean pastor, but this marriage is now
called a mixed marriage, under the allegation that he is an apostate
Roman Catholic, and a process with all its penalties hangs over the
family." (Grievances, p. 13.) Now Messrs. Bishops Hughes and Fenwick, do
you approve of the manner in which your Popish church has treated this
Waldensean soldier? Do you see any difference manifested here towards
heretics, and that which the Popes have always shown towards them? Would
you not, if you could, persecute every heretic in the United States? Do
you not believe that every marriage between Catholics and Protestants in
the United States and elsewhere, is invalid and not binding in the sight
of God? Does not your Pope, your church, and do you not, yourselves,
teach that the parties in such marriages are living in a state of
adultery? Do you not teach that if a Catholic lady marries a Protestant,
without a dispensation from your church, she is an adulteress and ought
to be treated accordingly by your church, which, in the plenitude of her
mildness, consigns her body to the holy inquisition, to be broken on
the rack, and her soul to hell to perish everlastingly. Do I state the
truth, reverend gentlemen? Will either of you contradict me? If you do,
I will lay before you Antoine's Moral Theology, _De Matrimonio_, which
some of your priests and myself studied in the same class, in the
college of Maynooth, Ireland. Is this persecuting heretics or not? Did
Paul IV., or Innocent III., ever show an instance of greater intolerance
than you do, under your present Pope, even in these United States? But
what would you do had you the power? The past history of your
predecessors can best answer this question. Look at yourselves, you
impostors of the present day; view yourselves in the mirror of truth,
and if you are not too far gone in falsehood and hypocrisy, you must
blush at the deceptions and impositions which you are trying to practise
upon the citizens and government in this country. You will perhaps say
that in 1794, all the edicts in force against the Vaudois, or Waldenses,
were repealed by the king of Sardinia. It is more than probable that the
soft-headed and brainless minister now at that court from the United
States, may inform you, if you have not the fact from any other source,
that the Vaudois have full liberty of conscience in the full exercise of
their religion and the education of their children.

Our present minister, Wm. H. Stiles, Georgia, at that court, who is
nothing better than a living libel upon diplomacy, was elected to
Congress by the votes of Irish Papists. He had just tact enough--no
fool is without more or less of it--to ingratiate himself with President
Polk, and obtain the appointment of Charge to Sardinia, In him you have
a pliant tool, who will tell you the king of Sardinia has issued orders
to prevent the taking away children, with a view of obliging them to
embrace the Catholic religion, and requiring also, that those children
which have been taken away, shall be restored. This proves two important
facts which cannot be doubted, as the King of Sardinia cannot even be
suspected of any want of allegiance or respect for his royal brother,
the Pope of Rome. It proves, in the first place, that the Roman church
has authorized its members to go into the Alpine valleys, and steal
from their Protestant brethren their beloved children, with a view of
proselytizing them to the infamous-doctrines of Popery. It shows, in
the second place, that the cries of their bereaved parents for their
restoration, have been disregarded by those Popish robbers, otherwise
the royal order for their restoration need not have been issued.

In spite of these edicts, children are now taken away, as Gilli informs
us, under pretence of their being illegitimate. Two lamentable and
heart-rending cases occurred in the year, 1828. Mind, take notice,
Messrs. Bishops, of the date. This is not an old lie, as you have been
pleased to call many of the statements in my books. If it be a lie
at all, it is a new one. The case I refer to is this. A Popish priest
demanded from a poor Protestant woman, her infant child, in order
that it might be brought up in the faith of the infallible church. She
refused, of course, to do so, but clung to it the more closely, pressing
it to her bosom with a fondness such as a mother only can feel or
describe, and fled to the mountains, preferring to perish with it there,
rather than to have it brought up in the idolatries of Popery. And what
was the consequence? I blush to relate it, for the honor of humanity.
This Popish priest, in obedience to the commands of his holy church,
did precisely what any Popish priest in the United States would do under
similar circumstances. He ordered a small guard of carabineers to pursue
her, and bring her, that she might be dealt with according to Popish
laws. For many weeks she lived a miserable life, flying from place to
place, until the sufferings of the mother and child excited the pity of
the Popish monsters who issued the order for her apprehension. The order
was withdrawn, but not revoked, and the woman's fears and anxieties
continue, while she remains exposed to the same severity. Will you,
Messrs. Bishops, after this, presume to say that the Popish church does
not sanction the persecution of heretics? will you dare assert that she
does not sanction their total extirpation? You cannot do so, and I risk
nothing in saying, that you, Messrs. Fenwick and Hughes, would be the
first to strike the blow, should a favorable opportunity offer.

In 1840, as Gilli tells us, a fraternity of eight missionaries, of the
order of St. Morris and St Lazare, was instituted at Latorre, one of the
largest towns of the Vaudois. The object of this institution is to go
about making proselytes. To this, as the London Review very properly
remarks, there can be no objection. We admit missionaries into the
United States. The Popish jackals are among our own valleys, as well as
on the tops of our mountains. No American citizen can go many miles from
his home, without finding himself in the vicinity of one of those
Popish dens called monk-houses, or nunneries. This we cannot, nor are we
disposed to prevent; our Constitution allows it; we recognize the right
of Papists to send missionaries among us; but it might be questioned
still, whether we ourselves are right, or whether the framers of our
Constitution have not committed a great error, In the mode of wording
that part of our Constitution, granting any right or privilege to any
nation, or people, or government, or religion, which was not founded on
strict reciprocity. Did it ever occur to Jefferson, Washington, Madison,
or the other eminent men who framed our Constitution, that in giving
to a Roman Catholic sovereign, king, or potentate, the right of sending
missionaries into the United States, they forgot the securing to the
United States a reciprocal right? The Papist is allowed to invade our
country; but are we allowed to invade Papal States, and build churches
there for divine worship, as the Papists are in the United States? The
Catholic priest can come here from Rome and build a church, teach a
school, and preach whatever and whenever he pleases; but if an American
citizen and Protestant freeman go to the city of Rome, or any strictly
Catholic country, he is under a legal disability to build his church, or
teach or preach. Is this fair? Is there any thing reciprocal in this? Is
it not rather a disgrace, and a lasting lampoon upon American freedom,
to tolerate this violation of the first principles of reciprocal rights?
Let our people take this matter into their own hands; let them call upon
their representatives, and demand from them an immediate redress for
this national humiliation, which has been entailed upon us by some
unaccountable want of foresight on the part of the framers of our
Constitution. But, say the Popish bishops in this country, our church
never persecutes, she never disturbs heretics, she loves Protestants
as brethren, and is willing to pay the most implicit obedience to their
laws and institutions. This is the language of that notorious demagogue
and disturber of the peace, Bishop Hughes of New York; this is the
language of Bishop Fenwick, of Boston, to which Brownson, his Corporal
Trim, invariably says yes. These are the men whom I have accused of
falsehood--wilful and deliberate falsehood. Have I satisfied my readers
that I have stated the truth, and, though not the whole truth,--nothing
but the truth? Have I satisfied them that the Popish Church and Papists
have ever been the sworn enemies of Protestants? They admit themselves,
that great cruelties have, in ancient times, been inflicted by Roman
Catholics upon Protestants; but in order to deceive Americans, they very
blandly assert that those times have gone by, and that such cruelties do
not now exist. Is the reader satisfied yet that this is not correct,
and that the only object of these men is further deceit and deeper
treachery? Let me again call the reader's attention to another passage
from Gilli; it will show more clearly, if possible, than it has hitherto
been done, that the malignant hatred of Popery towards Protestants burns
now as brightly as it did at any period of Christian history. "They
are," says Gilli, speaking of the Protestant Waldenses, "absolutely
forbidden by Roman Catholics to exert their parental authority over
their own children, if these children, (girls above ten, and boys above
twelve years,) are tempted to forsake their faith. In 1836, a child was
taken from a family at Lucerne, and in 1842, another from a family
at St. Germain, upon the pretext of an inclination expressed by those
children to turn Roman Catholics, there being no difficulty in tempting
a poor, half-starved boy of twelve, or a girl of ten, to receive
instruction offered with a crucifix in one hand, and a loaf or a fish
in the other. Thus the parent's heart is to be doubly pierced; first, by
encouraging a pretended exercise of judgment on the part of his child,
before the understanding is matured; and secondly, by a legalized
abduction of the child so tampered with. On the 2d of May, 1839, the
child of Jaques Dalmais de David, and Margarite his wife, having been
torn from them on the pretence of being illegitimate, was sent to the
foundling hospital at Pignerol, although the parents were both natives
of Vaudois, born in the commune and parish of Villar Bobi, and lawfully
married in that parish, by the pastor thereof. Upon the first abduction,
the father took away the infant from the nurse to whose charge it had
been committed previously to its being carried to the hospital; and for
his refusal to attend the summons of the commandant of the province, he
and his wife were thrown into prison, and there remained several days.
The child, however, was restored to its parents, after an investigation
which lasted many months; the legitimacy of its birth having been fully
proved.

In the month of August, 1842, the Prefect of Pignerol ordered a Bible
lecture and prayer meeting which was held in a school room at Latour, on
Sunday afternoon, to be discontinued.

On the 18th of January, of the following year, a similar order had
been issued by the Intendent of the province. The order appeared in the
following words: 'The Royal Secretary of State for the Interior, having
been informed that every Sunday some Waldenses, Protestants, held
congregations in a school house, and that many persons of every age and
sex met together to sing psalms aloud, the said Royal Secretary of
State has communicated to me that the places being appointed wherein the
Waldenses shall worship, no innovation, or increase of the number of the
same, can be admitted, and they must be enjoined to discontinue those
meetings, or in case of contumacy, the government will adopt measures to
prevent them.' Accordingly the Sunday services were discontinued. This
is a cruel state of things; and it may well be asked, whether Protestant
communities were, or ought to be, considered the friends of civil
rights? Ought they not to interfere in correcting such a state of
things? And is it not the duty of this country in particular, to be
the very first to do so? Shall it be said by any future historian, that
republican America shall be outdone in philanthropy and sympathy for the
oppressed, by the despots of Europe? Shall it be said that England, in
almost every reign, has done more for the advancement of free principles
and religious toleration, than republican America? Even Cromwell,
despot as he is represented to have been, interfered in behalf of the
persecuted Protestants of Vaudois. George I. of England also interfered
in their behalf. Cromwell told the Pope, through his ambassador at
Rome, that if he did not silence his canons in the valleys of Piedmont,
against the Protestant inhabitants thereof, he would silence them
himself by his own brass cannons at the gates of the Vatican. And shall
it be said that the freemen of America shall witness the oppressions of
their Protestant brethren without a word or a threat in their behalf?
The following petition or memorial, in behalf of the Protestants, the
Vaudois, was sent, in 1842, by a committee appointed in London, for
their relief. The Archbishop of Canterbury has immortalized his name by
being at the head of this committee. It reads in the following words:

To the Earl of Aberdeen, Her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs.

Winchester House, St. James Square,

April 9th, 1842. My Lord,

We the undersigned, members of the London Committee, instituted in
1825, for the relief of the Vaudois of Piedmont, earnestly entreat your
Lordship to submit to Her Majesty the Queen our humble entreaty that
Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to intercede in behalf of that
ancient community, with their sovereign, the King of Sardinia. The
sufferings of Vaudois have often excited the sympathy of this nation,
and our sovereigns have, from time to time, been pleased to exercise
their beneficent offices in the privileges and rights of the Vaudois
Church, which have been threatened; and this they have done out of
compassion for the afflicted.

Among other aggrievances, it has been represented to us that the Vaudois
have now to complain that children are taken from their parents by the
priests and local authorities, when one of the parents is said to be a
Roman Catholic, under pretence of their being illegitimate; that their
religious services are interrupted; that their intercourse and traffic
with their fellow countrymen, beyond certain limits, are placed under
grievous restrictions; that some of them are deprived of the means of
their subsistence, being forbidden to purchase, to farm, or to cultivate
lands, except within boundaries too narrow for their population; and
that others, to their great disadvantage and detriment, have been
ordered to sell property which they have legally acquired beyond the
territories to which they are confined.

If these alleged severities were inflicted on the Vaudois for acts of
turbulence or dangerous fanaticism, we should not presume to entreat Her
Majesty's gracious interposition. But it does not appear that any
thing can be laid to their charge, _except the profession of religion
differing from that of the Roman Catholic Church_, and similar, in many
particulars of faith and discipline, to the reformed churches in Europe,
&c.

This petition has been signed by the following gentlemen: W. Cantuar, W.
R. Hamilton, C. T. London, Wm. Cotton, C. R. Winton, T. D. Acland, Geo.
H. Rose, W. S. Gilly. R. H. Inglis.

England, as a Christian nation and a Christian people, has done well on
this occasion. She has given the world evidence that whatever may have
been the crimes or errors of her former rulers, she still retains within
the breasts of her people some sense of that great commandment, "Love
thy neighbor as thyself." What have we, American citizens, done for our
Protestant brethren in the Alpine valleys? We see and know them to
be oppressed and ground to the dust--for what? Because they are
Protestants. Is there any things else laid to their charge! Nothing. Was
there _ever_ any thing else laid to their charge, in justification of
the cruelties which, century after century, the Pope of Rome and the
blood-hounds of his church have inflicted upon them! I have diligently
examined the history of this people. I was induced to do so at an
early age, believing it almost impossible that humanity was capable of
enduring such sufferings as history informs us were inflicted upon them
by the Romish Church; and I am compelled to say, in truth and honesty,
that I cannot discover any reason or any cause for their persecution by
Roman Catholics, except that they did not believe in the supremacy of
the Pope, and the abominations of the Romish Church. And why, under
these circumstances, are not Protestant Americans doing something for
these their brethren? It is in the power of this country to do much in
any just cause. Such an advocate as this government might prove itself
to be against the spirit of Popery, even in the Piedmont valleys, would
carry gladness to the hearts of many an oppressed brother among them. We
have money, which we are throwing away in charity to those who have but
few claims upon us; we have genius, which we are scattering all over
the country in ranting and ravings and metaphysical discussions,
unproductive of any thing useful to man. Why not employ this in
espousing the cause of liberty and of our oppressed brethren
the Vaudois,--a poor people, who have no standing armies, no
treasury,--nothing but their Protestant religion and a good cause to
support them. Why is not the genius of our people--why have not their
fine minds and fine talents been employed in holding up before the broad
light of heaven the villainies, iniquities, abominations and corruptions
of the Romish Church? Why are not such imposors and deceivers of the
public as the Roman Catholic Bishops of New York and Boston, together
with their man Trim Brownson--singled out from among our people? Why
does not public opinion write in italics on the countenance-of each of
these men, the words deceiver and traitor, that our children may avoid
them when they see them in the streets? Why do we not teach even our
little ones to pray that the Lord may rescue our brethren the Vaudois
from the cruelties of Popery? Why does not every Christian teach his
child to exclaim, in the beautiful language of the immortal poet of
England, who was himself a true friend of the Vaudois,

     "Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
     Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold;--
     Even them who kept thy truth so pure, of old,
     When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones, Forget not."

Why do Americans allow their children to go to the schools, kept
professedly for the propagation of such doctrines as those taught and
practised by the Romish church? I myself tremble lest there may
be something wrong in the construction of the social system in our
republican government. Assuredly, nothing else could induce us to
violate the first law of nature, which is self-preservation. Our
natural affections, and sympathy with each other, are the sweetest
ingredients---and perhaps the only sweet ones which Providence has
thrown into the cup of life, undoubtedly for the holy purpose of
rendering it at all palate-able. Take them away and life would be bitter
indeed.

A state of society, such as the Popish church, through her agents
in this country, desires to introduce amongst us, tends to no better
purpose, than to divest man of humanity itself. It would harden his
heart and swell him with the morbid humors of vanity, ambition, bigotry,
and persecution. It would increase i our natural misery, and leave us no
anodyne, but that | filthy and abominable one, auricular confession and
I Popish pardons. Does not this deserve the execration of the virtuous
and pious of all denominations? And are you prepared, fellow citizens,
for such a state of things? I am aware that there are some amongst us,
ready to tear from their bosoms, for base and selfish purposes, every
thing good, which the God of glory through the merits of his Son, has
planted there. There is nothing so absurd that pride and selfishness
will not adopt and maintain it. It is said that Alexander did really
believe himself to be a god. The vilest and most profligate of the
Cæsars demanded Divine honors. Some of the Popes of the Romish church,
even when rotting and dropping to pieces, from the effects of disease,
brought upon them by licentiousness and dissipation, would have the
world believe that they were infallible, and even impeccable; so says
Balarmine, an authority not to be disregarded by Papists.

Bishop Hughes tells us that in this country, we cannot prosper as a
people, unless we adopt the religion of the Pope, and encourage the
Pope's subjects to overthrow this government, and not to be ruled by
its laws or its people. _Americans shant rule us_, is a Popish motto now
borne aloft by Papists through the streets of New York, and other cities
in the Union. Such language as the above resembles rather the ravings of
some poor lunatic, than that of a sober, honest republican, and appears
to be more like that of a maniac, sitting in some desolate cell, with
a crown of straw, swaying a sceptre of the same material, and fancying
himself an Emperor, than any thing else; but to me there is nothing
inconsistent and strange in such language or such conduct; I know
the pride of a Popish Bishop. I have been too long among them, not to
understand well their vanity and arrogant pretensions; and though their
conduct may not be such as to fit them for a lunatic asylum, still it
never fails to unfit them for all the uses and purposes of civil life,
and renders them dangerous citizens. There is nothing extraordinary
in this; it seems to be the natural consequence even of the physical
organization of man. Inordinate ambition and false pride, are said by
anatomists to have a powerful effect in turning the brains of man; but
it is truly strange that, shocking as madness is in itself, and terrible
as are its consequences, it sometimes affects people in such a manner as
to turn our pity into laughter. We have an instance of this,--and a very
prominent one,--in the case of the unfortunate changeling, Brownson,
who, but the other day, was admitted by Bishop Fenwick into full
communion with the Popish church. But nothing else could be expected by
those who understand Popery, and see the broad difference between its
system of morality, and that of pure Christianity. Modern Popery is made
up from the philosophy of the ancient Pagans, and some German writers.
It has man attractions in the eyes of superficial Christians; has many
aspects, and some of them of an attractive character. Unsophisticated
people, such as many American theologians are, see, in the morality of
Popery, apparently, much philanthropy and practical Christianity, and
these so judiciously blended together by Popish cunning and Jesuitical
craft, that its true character--nay even the deeds themselves--are
entirely forgotten, in their admiration of the brilliant though false
light, in which they appear.

For instance, to take that miserable man, Brownson, by the hand, and
raise him from a state of utter destitution, to which his own follies
and imprudence reduced him, had in it much apparent philanthropy and
practical Christianity; the Popish Fenwick found him in great want,
every religious society shunned him, as if the brand of Cain were upon
him. There was not even to be found a political party that would
have any thing to do with him; he betrayed and left them all in rapid
succession, and they in turn left him alone and unaided All the powers
of his mind (it is said that he once possessed some) were broken and
crushed; there was no peace, no resting place for him. Both theologians
and politicians raised their hands and pointed at him the finger of
scorn--the former, as a rebel against the King of Glory--the latter, as
a traitor to the puny king of their respective parties.

Such was the condition in which the Jesuit Bishop, Fenwick, found
him here in Boston; and what, to all appearance, could be more
philanthropic, what more practically Christian--what more benevolent
deed could the Pope's agent do, _for effect_--than take this man by the
hand and supply him with the necessaries of life. And what, under these
circumstances, could be expected from the changeling, Brownson, than
that he would devote all his mind to the justification of any falsehood
or any errors, which his benefactors might desire to propagate. I
find no fault with Bishop Fen-wick for relieving the temporal wants of
Brownson; on the contrary, I freely admit, that the act is, in itself,
and abstractedly considered, an act of benevolence and charity. We are
bound to recognize in every human creature and every human face, the
features of a brother and a neighbor. I would not, willingly, even
question the motives of the Bishop; they are known only to his God.
It would not be fair nor judicious in a physician, to take a body
apparently sound and in health, and dissect it, for the purpose of
ascertaining whether there were any hidden disease in it He should take
it for granted--as a general rule--that when all appearances were good
and healthy, there existed no physical defect; and I think and believe
it the duty of Christians to take it for granted, that, generally
speaking, the motives of a brother are good, when his actions bear upon
their face no indication of being otherwise. But when any man or any
church, holds up to the view of a whole people or nation, one who has
been for years and years an advocate of moral evil, as an object not
only of pity and pardon, but of admiration--as Bishop Fenwick does the
infidel, Brownson--every true Christian must tremble, and every true
lover of civil rights must shudder, lest each sound that he hears should
prove to be the death-knell of our religion and the civil rights of man.
Unfortunate Brownson! why prostitute thyself to the base purposes
of Popery? Thou mightest have been in want; Protestants might have
neglected thee; but what of that? What of the sufferings of this
transitory and fleeting world? Let me tell you, and let the sound of my
words ring forever in your ears, that,

     "Life can but little more supply
     Than just to look about us and to die."

The above beautiful sentiment of the poet, has, I fear, but seldom
occurred to you; assuredly it has made no lasting impression on your
mind. It is probable that the following stanza, part of a famous monkish
ditty, has in it beauties and substantial sentiments, far more congenial
to your tastes and thoughts:

     "Hang up sorrow, banish care;
     The Pope is bound to find me."

But a truce with poor Brownson, for a moment; his days will soon be
over. Like the great Mr. Shandy, he has been so long "dancing his white
bear forward, that he must soon commence dancing him back again." He has
already professed all the religious creeds in this country, and it is
fairly to be presumed that he will profess all of them back again; and
thus afford himself fresh and full room, for displaying, in connection
with them, any additional political or religious vagaries which may
spring up in his moonstricken imagination. He may address himself to his
patron, parson Fenwick, as Mr. Shandy did Parson Yorrick. "Yorrick, said
Mr. Shandy, you see that by this means--that is by going backwards
and forwards--every thesis and hypothesis have an offspring of
propositions--and each proposition has its consequences and conclusions;
every one of which leads the mind back again, into fresh tracks of
inquiries and doubtings. The force of this engine--observed Mr. Shandy,
in great triumph--is incredible, in opening heads. Brother Shandy, said
my Uncle Toby, it is enough to burst them into splinters."

Had Brownson, in the Jesuit parson, Fenwick, a guide, simple, sinless,
and guileless, as Parson Yorrick or my uncle Toby, there might be some
hopes that he could yet be brought to see and feel the full force of
truth. But Brownson will stick to the Jesuit as long as he gives him
bread, and the Jesuit appreciates his value too highly not to supply
him plentifully. The Jesuit knows well, that the little smattering of
theology, which Brownson possesses, can be made useful to him. It is of
the German School. The Germans are wild in their theories upon morals
and theology, and yet they carry with them the appearance of much honest
and persevering research, and never fail--unless in very unskilful
hands--to make a strong and terrible impression wherever they are
preached or inculcated. Brownson, though, in truth and reality, no
scholar, knows enough of this theology, and of Popish Quietism, such
as was taught by raving monks and nuns in the sixteenth century, to see
that by working them up together, and declaiming this undigested and
22 acrid mass, before an audience unprepared to analyze it, that he
can produce just such an effect upon the public mind as Popish priests
desire. It helps to create infidelity, and, of course, adds to the
number of Papists in our country.

There is a great similitude between the modern German, and the Popish
moral philosophy. A popular writer very truly and very beautifully says,
"in each we find the same senseless, useless, and aimless encouragement
of the mixed produce of the natural mind--the same indiscriminate
worship of the good and bad it may please to throw up--every lawless
thought, every idle dream, every dangerous imagination suffered to run
their unhealthy course, to end in folly and in impurity--piety professed
without religion, and virtue without principle--the dictates of their
respective creeds, their theory; and the dictates of their hearts, their
practice; and wild work between them."

Brownson has some vague notion of this compound philosophy; he has,
beside, taken great pains to make himself acquainted with those
_sesquipidalia_, or long-legged words--if I may use such a term--which
most mixed audiences mistake for learning. The Jesuit, Hughes, soon
measured Brownson; he looked into his past life and soon found him
treacherous to every party and to every principle. This is the man for
me, says the Jesuit--the Holy Church must have him, though we should be
obliged to feed and clothe him for life. The infidel soon closed with
the Jesuit,--a bargain was instantly made; but my observations upon
human nature have been very unprofitable to me, if the Jesuit does not
soon find that he has made a bad trade, as a Yankee would express it;
that Brownson is not the man he took him for, nor the scholar he
took him for; that he is but an unprincipled infidel, and a kind of
monomaniac rhapsodist on subjects which he does not understand himself;
in a word, he will find out in time that he can make nothing of him. Can
the Jesuit, Hughes, "make any thing else than what it is?" can he "make
the lily a rose, or the rose a lily?" can he "make the oak a vine, or
the vine an oak?" When he can do those things, and not a second before,
can he make a hardened infidel an humble Christian, or a treacherous
politician a safe citizen.

I find myself, once more, not only drifting from my destined port,
but, it would seem, that I had turned from it altogether. I intended
to devote these pages, almost exclusively, to giving an expose of the
abominations of auricular confessions and Popish nunneries, but
having by some accident or another, come athwart the great changeling,
Brownson, who now acts as trumpeter to Bishop Fenwick of Boston, and
is recognized by him and the Popish Church of the United States, as an
authorized expounder of their sentiments and doctrines, I felt it my
duty to notice him briefly. This man, Brownson, is now sent as a Popish
missionary or lecturer throughout the United States; and speaks upon all
subjects connected with Popery, _ex authoritate_.

I find in the January number of Brownson's Review, of the present year,
the following effusion, which, for effrontery and shameless falsehood,
equals any thing I have ever seen. "We dare affirm," says Brownson, in
his Review, January, 1845, page 12, "that no period in the history of
our race, of equal length, can be pointed out, so remarkable for its
intellectual and literary activity, as the thousand years, dating from
the beginning of the sixth century, and extending to the commencement of
the sixteenth. Now," continues Brownson, "in order to judge fairly,
what the church has done for the human race; whether in reference to
religion, morals, literature, or science, we must ascertain what it
actually effected. She (that is the church) at the beginning of the
sixth century, sets to work to establish schools, the great monasterial
schools, cathedral or episcopal schools. In the beginning of the sixth
century, arose the cathedral schools, in Spain. All the great, renowned
universities, were founded prior to the Reformation. Nearly all the
monasteries were graced and enriched by valuable libraries. In each
monastery was a _scriptorium_, and a number of monks employed in copying
and binding manuscripts." There is much plausibility in the language of
Brownson, now the jackal of Popery in the United States. I am willing
to admit that a vast number of colleges and renowned universities, were
established before the Reformation, in Rome, Italy and even England.
I would also admit that there were scriptoriums and that monks
were employed in copying manuscripts and binding books; but has the
illustrious changeling, Brownson, told us for what purposes these great
universities were established, prior to the Reformation? Far be it from
me to deny their existence, that would indeed show that I was but a poor
historian, and that I knew but very little of the corruptions of
the Romish Church. Sixtus IV., one of the infallible Popes of Rome,
established whole colleges at once, and much as I have said against
Popery and its corruptions, I have not, as yet, exhibited so flagrant an
instance of Popish turpitude, baseness and avarice, as Pope Sixtus IV.
leaves on record, by the single act of building these universities. He
established offices and titles in each college, which were put up for
sale by him, and were sold for sums, varying from one hundred, to
one thousand and twenty thousand ducats. It was this illustrious and
infallible Pope, Sixtus IV.,--and I pray you will bear it in mind, thou
great changeling,--that established a college of a hundred janizaries,
and nominated these janizaries for the trifling sum of one hundred
thousand ducats. And how, think you, reader, did he pay them their
salaries? Was it out of the bonus of a hundred thousand ducats, which he
received for chartering or sanctioning the college? Far from it. He paid
them some trifling compensation, derived from the proceeds of the
sales of bulls. These janizaries were subsequently suppressed. Innocent
III.,--and you will recollect, Mr. Brownson, that he was Pope of Rome
between the sixth and sixteenth centuries,--founded a university for a
bonus of sixty thousand scudi; (a scudi, I believe, is a fraction less
than a dollar.) The reader may form some idea of the magnitude and
splendor of this university, when I inform him, that this college had
twenty-six secretaries, and a proportionable number of other officers;
every one of whom paid in proportion to his means, for the office he
held.

Pope Alexander VI., who, as you know, was born between the sixth and
sixteenth centuries, and whom the changeling's friend Daniel O'Connell,
would call a _broth of a boy_, established a university, and to showed
his zeal for the great cause of learning and advancement of morals, he
nominated eighty writers of Popish briefs, each of whom had to pay eight
hundred and fifty scudi for his appointment. This very Pope, Alexander
VI., was one of the greatest debauchees of his age, and died by poison
administered by the hand of his own son. Pope Julius II., who also lived
between the sixth and sixteenth centuries, added to these offices one
hundred writers or copyists of archives, each of whom had also to pay
seven hundred and fifty scudi. I have taken Brownson at his word. He
affirms that no period in the history of our race, of equal length, can
be pointed out, so remarkable for intellectual activity, as that which
occurred between the sixth and sixteenth centuries. I have and do hereby
affirm, that there has been no period, in the history of Christianity,
so remarkable for intellectual depravity and Popish ignorance, as
that very self-same period. I have appealed to history and proved
my assertion by facts, not taken from prejudiced writers, but facts
recorded and gloried in by Popes themselves and Popish writers.

It is said by Papists and authoritatively asserted by their mouth-piece
in the United States, that the colleges and universities built by
Papists, in the interval between the sixth and sixteenth centuries, were
pulled down by the Protestants, Goths and Vandals, who have lived since
that period. Admitting that they have been, what then, Mr. Brownson?
What man or what people, in their sober senses, would tolerate the
colleges established by Pope Sixtus in 1482, where offices were put up
at auction, and that under the sacred name of religion; where nothing
was taught but the grossest idolatry, and nothing practised but simony
and immorality, almost as bad as that of the heathens. Would any man
at the present day, with the fear of God before his eyes, or who duly
appreciated the blessings of civil liberty, tolerate amongst ourselves,
a university such as one of those over which Popes Paul and Sixtus
presided, even in the palmiest days of Christianity? According to
Brownson, himself, assuredly not. We should pull it down were it amongst
us; we should scatter to the winds these Popish brief s, decretals and
bulk, which thousands of monks were employed in copying and binding. We
should vest in some factory, those thousands and hundreds of thousands
of scudi, which were given to Popes for chartering universities
of learning--don't laugh, reader--yes, reader, they were called
universities of learning--and we would send the lazy, crazy monks, who
were by thousands employed in them, to work on our fields or in our
factories.

It was between the sixth and sixteenth centuries, that Alexander III.,
presiding in his official capacity over a synod held at Tours, in 1167,
pronounced the Protestant religion of the Vaudois "_a damnable heresy
of long standing_." Do you call this any evidence of the _great mental
activity_ which the Popish Church displayed, and for which she and her
members were so remarkable, prior to the sixteenth century? There was
another synod at Lavoux, in the same year, where the Pope gives another
instance of the remarkable intellectual and literary activity of the
thousand years between the sixth and sixteenth centuries. The Popish
Senate at Lavoux sent a memorial to the reigning Pope, to exterminate
the Vaudois, "_an heretical pest, generated in olden times, of enormous
growth and great antiquity_." I believe it was in 1536--recollect,
Mr. Brownson, it is within your period of that thousand years, when,
according to yourself, Popery flourished in the full blaze of her glory
and love of literature--that the poor Protestants, the Vaudois, sent a
number of petitions to Francis I., praying that he would tolerate them,
and allow them to worship God as they pleased. Francis I. consulted the
Pope's legate, who was then at his court, and immediately returned for
answer to these poor Protestants, "I am not burning heretics in France,
to foster them among the Alps." Remarkable instance of the literary
activity of the Popish Church! We have another strong instance of that
intellectual and literary activity of which Brownson speaks, in
Philip II. of Spain, who, to show his zeal for the holy Catholic faith,
determined--with a view, I presume, of leaving some evidence of his
Popish literary activity of mind--to despatch an army, under the command
of one D'Oppede, with instructions to put to the sword every Protestant
man, woman and child whom he might find in the Vaudois valley; and
faithfully did he discharge his duty. He has left us, as the changeling
Brownson would term it a remarkable instance of Popish intellectual
activity* Not a man, woman, or child, was spared by this Popish army.
Anquetil, a Roman Catholic himself and in full communion with the
Popish Church, gives us a vivid picture of the remarkable intellectual
activity of this D'Oppede, and his Popish army. The reader will pardon
me for quoting the passage in the writings of Anquetil, containing
this picture; it certainly shows a remarkable intellectual and literary
activity of Popish minds, during Brownson's thousand years of their
unsullied fame as scholars. "After the King of France granted permission
to his Roman Catholic General D'Oppede, and his soldiers, to take arms
against the Vaudois," says Anquetil, "twenty-two towns and villages were
burned or pillaged, with an inhumanity of which the history of the most
barbarous nations scarcely affords an example. The wretched inhabitants,
surprised in the night, and hunted from rock to rock by the light of the
flames which were consuming their habitations, frequently escaped one
snare only to fall into another. The pitiful cries of the aged, the
women and the children, instead of softening the hearts of the
soldiers,--maddened with rage, like their leaders,--only served to guide
them in the pursuit of the fugitives, and to indicate the points against
which to direct their fury. Voluntary surrender did not exempt the men
from slaughter, nor the women from brutal outrages at which nature
revolts."

It was forbidden under pain of death to afford them harbor or succor.
In one town alone, more than seven hundred men were butchered in cold
blood; and the women who had remained in their houses, were shut up in
a barn containing a great quantity of straw, which was set on fire, and
those who endeavored to escape from the windows, were driven back
by swords and pikes. According to orders, these specimens of Popish
intellectual literary activity demolished all the houses, cut down the
wood, uprooted the fruit-trees, and left nothing behind them but an
uninhabited waste. The war-cry of the Papists, as this Roman Catholic
writer, whose authority no Papist will question, asserts, was, "Kill!
kill!" Dr. Gilli relates an instance of great heroism in one of those
poor Protestants, who was among the persecuted. One Aymond De La Voye
went through the villages, exhorting his brethren to stand firm in the
faith of their forefathers. He was soon discovered by the members of
the Inquisition. The first question put to him was, "Who are your
associates?" "My associates," he answered, "are those who know and
do the will of my Heavenly Father, whether they be nobles, merchants,
peasants, or in any other condition." Let it not be forgotten, that this
occurred before the sixteenth century, and before the Goths and Vandals
of the Reformation, as Brownson calls them, had any existence. One of
the Councillors of the Holy Inquisition asked this intrepid man
and pious Christian Protestant, "Who is the head of the Church?" He
answered, "Jesus Christ" "Is not the Pope the head of the church?"
inquired the inquisitor. "No," was the answer. "Is not the Pope the
successor of St. Peter?" "Yes," answered La Voye, "if he is like St.
Peter, but not else." But such was the remarkable intellectual activity
of the infallible Church, that no other questions were deemed necessary,
and he was immediately consigned to a tormenting death. But the
persecutions of these Protestant Christians did not stop here. So
remarkable was the intellectual and literary activity of Papists,
between the sixth and sixteenth centuries,--that golden age of
Popery,--in dispensing its blessing all over the world, that while
enormities like those I have related were being perpetrated on the
western side of the Alps, a fresh storm was brewing over their brethren
of Piedmont.

Will the reader think me tedious, if I give him a more explicit account,
taken from Moreland's history of those people, than I myself can give? I
take it from Gilli's appendix.

"There is a certain valley in the county of Piedmont, within five or six
miles of Mount Vesulo, which, from the town of Lucerna, is called
the valley of Lucerna; and in it there is a little valley, which, from
Angrogna, a small river running through it, is called the valley
Angrogna. Next adjoining to this are two other valleys; that is to say,
the valley of Perosa, so called from the town of that name, and the
valley of S. Martino. In these there lie divers little towns and
villages, whose inhabitants, assisted by the ministers of God's word, do
make open profession of the gospel.

"Moreover, I suppose that there are near eight thousand faithful souls
inhabiting in this place. But among the men, who are bred up to endure
labor, seeing they have from their childhood been inured to husbandry,
you will find very few who know how to engage in combat. From hence it
comes to pass that very few of them are ready upon any urgent occasion
to defend themselves against public injuries. Yea, and the valleys
themselves lie so remote from each other, that they cannot help one
another till it be too late. And although these towns and villages have
their counts or lords, yet the Duke of Savoy is lord over them all.

"This duke, before he came from Nice into Piedmont, diligently took
order with those counts and lords of places, that they should admonish
the inhabitants to submit to him and the Pope; that is, that, casting
off their ministers, they should admit Popish preachers and the
abominable mass. Whereupon our people sent petitions unto the prince,
beseeching him that he would take it in good part if they were resolved
rather to die than to lose the true religion of Jesus Christ.... but
they shall be ready to amend their errors, if any there were, in case it
should be manifested to them out of the word of God, to which alone
they are to submit in this business; and as to what concerneth them in
matters of behavior and tributes, and other things due both to him and
their other lords, that he would send and make diligent inquiry whether
they have at any time committed any offence, that so due punishment may
be inflicted on them, because he should assuredly know they are willing
to approve themselves with due reverence most obedient to him in all
things.

"These petitions came to the hand of the prince, but availed nothing
with him, who was become a sworn enemy with Antichrist against Christ.
Thereupon he sent forth edicts, declaring that those who should be
present at the sermons of the ministers of the valley?, if but once,
should be fined at one hundred crowns, and if a second time, then they
should be condemned to the galleys forever. Orders also were given to
a certain judge to ride circuit up and down to put the penalties in
execution, and to bind Christians and imprison them. The lords also and
magistrates of places had the same power given them, and at length the
godly were by this most impotent prince utterly given up to be plundered
by all sorts of villains, and afflicted with most grievous calamities.

"He sent also a certain collateral judge of his own, first to Carignan,
there to act inhuman butchery upon the faithful ones of Christ;
whereupon he caused one Marcellinus, and Joan his wife, he being a
Frenchman, but she a woman of Carignan, to be burnt alive with fire,
four days after they had been apprehended. But in this woman God was
pleased to manifest an admirable example of constancy; for, as she
was led to execution, she exhorted her husband, saying, 'Well done, my
brother, be of good courage; this day doubtless we shall enter
together into the joys of heaven.' Some few days after this, there was
apprehended also one John Carthignan, an honest, plain man, and truly
religious, who, after three days of imprisonment, endured the torments
of fire with very great constancy. Who is able to reckon up the several
incursions, slaughters, plunders and innumerable miseries, wherewith
this most savage generation of men did daily afflict all pious men,
because, being exhorted by their ministers to patience, they took no
course to defend themselves against injuries! Not long after also they
apprehended one John, a Frenchman, and a minister, at a town called St.
Germano, and, carrying him to a certain abbey near Pinerolo, there burnt
him alive, who left a noble example of Christian constancy. The like was
done also to the minister of the town of Maine, who was put to death at
Susa by a slow fire, while he in the mean time stood as it were
immovable, and not being touched with any sense of so incredible a
cruelty, having his eyes fixed upon heaven, breathed out his happy soul.

"Therefore, when things were come to this pass, and these miseries were
increased every day more and more, and seeing that the patience and
extreme misery of our people could not in any measure allay the fury and
rage of these most merciless brutes, they at length resolved by force,
as well as they could, to free themselves and their wives and children
from that barbarous usage. And although some of our ministers declared
it was not well done, yet no admonitions could keep the people from
resolving to defend themselves by arms. Hereupon it came to pass that,
several encounters falling out, there fell within a few days about
sixty of the plunderers. When news hereof was brought to the tyrant, he
commanded his men to forbear, and sent two of his noblemen that so they
might bring matters to an accommodation with our people; but when it was
perceived that all their drift was that our ministers might be cast
out and the Pope received, the people would by no means yield to it
Wherefore, when the prince came into Piedmont, and resided at Versello,
about the kalends of November, 1660, with intent to destroy all in the
valleys by fire and sword, he sent an army of about four thousand foot
and two hundred horse, under the command of the duke [count] de la
Trinite."

The writer then relates the submissions made by certain deputies whom
the Vaudois sent to the duke.

"These false brethren, in design to serve their own private ends,
persuaded the people, though almost all the ministers cried out against
it, that too easily giving credit to the most false promises of their
enemies, laying down their arms, and sending deputies to the prince to
promise obedience, they might, for sixteen thousand crowns, redeem both
themselves and their religion. As soon as all these things were yielded
to and promised by the too credulous people, through a vain hope of
obtaining peace and religion, and when our deputies arrived at Versello,
they were thence carried by the Lord de la Trinite to a certain
cloister, there to abide for two months' space, (to the end there might
be time for collecting the moneys,) and at length, casting themselves
down at the feet of the prince and of the Pope's legate, (who were both
there, attended by a great number of the nobility, and men of inferior
rank,) they were constrained to supplicate the prince first, then the
Pope's legate, that they would take pity on the people from whom they
were sent, and to promise them, by an oath, that they would be ready to
do all things that should be commanded by them.

"The prince therefore growing confident upon this most solemn promise,
immediately sent persons to command our people to receive and embrace
that horrid idol of the mass; whereupon, considering the inconstancy of
their deputies, and the deceit or rather extreme perfidiousness of
the tyrants being discovered, they plainly refused to yield that
those things should be ratified which their deputies had unadvisedly
transacted, through their own levity, not with the consent of people....
Then the tyrant, as soon as he came to understand this, was much more
inflamed than ever before with anger, or rather outrageous fury, against
our people; and, collecting a rabble of an army, he gave command to the
Lord de la Trinite to waste and destroy all by fire and sword, without
any regard of sex or age. Hereupon houses were every where set on fire,
nor is there any kind of mischief which was not acted by those most
wretched villains; by which means they forced our people, with their
wives and children, to have recourse to the more craggy places of the
mountains; a thing very lamentable to be seen. For, at the very first
assault, they were in a manner astonished, because, being spoiled both
of their arms and goods, living in extreme want of all things, they
did not see by what means they might be able to undergo so great and
troublesome a war.

"But at length, taking heart and trusting in the mercy and help of God,
of the goodness of their cause, and being confident, because of the
impiety and treachery of their adversaries, they resolved once again
to defend themselves. To this end they appointed their guards and
garrisons, fortified several places, blocked up passages, and were
wholly resolute upon this point, to die rather than they would in any
measure obey a perfidious and wicked prince in so abominable a matter.
But what need many words? Things were come to such a pass, that in
several fights above nine hundred of the enemy were slain, whereas, on
our side, hardly fifteen were wanting."

Such was the spirit of Popery during Brownson's thousand years of
remarkable intellectual and literary activity! Do you, Americans, wish
that the next thousand years of your existence as a nation should be
distinguished by a similar intellectual preeminence in mental activity
and Christian literature? But, continues Brownson, in his Review of
January, 1845, all these things were altered. What things does Brownson
mean? The universities? or the remarkable activity of Popish minds
between the sixth and sixteenth centuries? Who denies the former? No
one who is acquainted with history, or who knows that the world, a large
portion of which was then under Popish dominion, needed to be purified
from the idolatrous and disastrous doctrines of Popery. The insolence
of Brownson is assuredly unequalled. Either that, or his ignorance of
history, is unpardonable. "At the period of the English Revolution,"
says this consummate hypocrite, Brownson, "_the mass of the English
people were buried in the grossest ignorance. Even long after, when the
Wesleys first started, they talked of the ignorance even of the people
of London, as they would of the South Sea Islanders_." This, as we say
up here in New Hampshire, beats all. Was it not about this very period
that the world gave birth to the illustrious Milton? Was it not at
this period that Dryden was born? Was it not at this period that the
brightest lights of literature that ever illumined the world were
shining in all their glory? I might here give as many names of
illustrious men and illustrious minds as ever adorned humanity; men
whose lives were an honor, not only to science, but to religion, to
Christianity, and true piety. Did not Erasmus live before the English
Reformation? Was he grossly ignorant? Did not Luther live before
the Reformation? Neither of those were Papists, but they knew Papist
doctrines so well as to break loose from them and appeal to the
Christian world to rise as one man and pull down and raze to the ground
Popish universities and colleges, as calculated only to cover the world
with darkness, by substituting the legends of monks for true science,
and the decretals of Popes for the Word of God.

"From the eleventh century," says Brownson, "down to the sixteenth,
literature and science received no check." Review of 1845, Jan. No. p.
17. Hear, reader, to this modern Esau, According to him, literature
received no check from the years 1100 to 1600. This assertion is made
without any qualification or exception. Does this Brownson believe that
his readers are all a parcel of ignoramuses? It cannot be so; he must
be aware that he states an untruth, and no man who has ever read history
can think otherwise. It would be difficult, I apprehend, to meet a
school boy in the United States--I may venture the assertion, that it
would be impossible to find a child in America, over the age of ten or
twelve years,--who does not know that the illustrious Galileo was born
during that very period, and who could not tell, that his glorious
discovery of the motion of the earth, not only met with opposition
from the Church of Rome, but, that the ruling Pope countenaced his
incarceration in the dungeons of the inquisition. Did not the Romish
Church claim and enjoy the exclusive honor of striking the first blow at
a man and a mind such as the world never saw before? Did not Pope Urban
VIII., in 1623, declare and pronounce the motion of the earth to be
perverse in the highest degree? It was about this time, as a living
writer observes, that the whole Catholic Church looked upon all the
earth as a condemned world. This absurdity was rejected by Galileo. He
established an equality between heaven and earth. He showed that the
latter is subject to the same laws and floats in the same splendor as
the former; he put serenity and life in the place of mystical theory.
For this he was opposed by Popish priests, the sworn enemies of science
and literature. See, as the same writer observes, this venerable man,
Galileo,--this good man, seventy years old, on his knees, barefooted and
stripped to his shirt, before the officers of the holy inquisition;
and for what? He tells you himself, in a letter to one of his friends.
"They--the inquisitors--look upon my book as more abominable and
pernicious to the Church than the writings of Luther." Look at him! you
Brownson, thou contemptible cat's-paw of Popery, and say--if your heart
has not been seared against the truth with something hotter than the
hottest iron--whether literature and science did not receive a check, in
the persecutions which your infallible church inflicted upon this great
man? "The four hundred years which preceded the Reformation," says
Brown-son, "were ages of prodigious activity. In them we meet with
the great name of Abelard, under whom Heloisa studied philosophy." Mr.
Brownson forgot, I presume, to inform us that he also taught Heloisa
moral philosophy. In this latter science she was eminently skilful,
and left the world some evidence, at least, of her not being an inapt
scholar in the doctrines of genuine Popery. The great changeling,
Brownson, could not give more illustrative examples of the beauties of
Popery and of the advantages to be derived from a course of education
at their schools, than that of Abelard and Heloisa; but he need not have
gone so far from home for examples of this kind. There are hundreds of
them to be found in the United States. We have schools, such as that
which Abelard kept, and to which, Brownson tells us, "great flocks fled
for education." One of these schools, my readers may recollect, recently
flourished on Mount Benedict, Charlestown, Mass. Abelard, as every
reader must recollect, lived in the twelfth century--at the very period,
when, according to the great changeling--the Popish Church displayed
her remarkable activity of mind in science and literature. Abelard was a
learned doctor in the Church of Rome. He was, of course, a confessor; he
boarded in the house of a Popish canon in Paris, whose name was Fulbert.
This canon had a niece called Heloisa, whom he was anxious to send to
a fashionable school and bring up in the doctrines of the infallible
Church of Rome. Accordingly he sent Heloisa to attend the lectures of
the pious and God-like Abelard, just as many of our American mothers,
with the advice and consent of their lords and masters, send their
children in this country to be educated, to Popish seminaries, kept
by pious priests and saint-like nuns. Heloisa had not gone long to
confession, when Abelard, her confessor, seduced her and prevailed upon
the poor unthinking girl to become his mistress. In order to conceal
this atrocious conduct and finding his dupe likely to become a mother,
he sent her to a sister of his who lived at a considerable distance,
where she was delivered of a son. It is said, that to appease Fulbert,
the uncle of this victim of seduction and priestcraft, Abelard consented
to marry his victim privately; but no sooner was he married and the
anger of the uncle partially appeased, than he sent her to a monastery
or nunnery and compelled her to take a religious habit; thus adding
treachery to crime and requiting a pure and simple-minded girl's love,
by additional ingratitude and villany. But the poor girl had many
friends besides the uncle, who, seeing the cruel manner in which Abelard
treated her, determined upon revenge, and they had it They surrounded
his chamber at night, and took from his bed this man whom Brownson
would hold up to Americans as a model teacher of morality, and had him
emasculated. All this was done in the twelfth century. This was one
of the great men whom the church produced in Brownson's golden age of
Popery.

But what else could be expected of this Brownson? What else could be
expected from any man who would hold and profess such sentiments as the
following, which we find in his Review of 1840. "For our part," says
the great changeling, Brownson, "we yield to none, in our reverence
for science and religion; but we confess that we look not for the
regeneration of the race from priests and pedagogues." Very respectful
language, especially from one who has been a priest and pedagogue
himself! "They,--the priests," continues Brownson--"have had a fair
trial. They,--the priests--cannot construct the temple of God. They--the
priests--cannot conceive its plan. They--the priests--know not how to
build it They--the priests--daub with untempered mortar, and the walls
they erect tumble down if so much as a fox attempt to go up thereon. We
have no faith in priests and pedagogues," says Brownson; "they merely
cry peace, when there is no peace and there can be none." Again the same
traitor to God and religion, thus spews forth his Popish hatred to pure
Christianity. "One might as well undertake to dip the ocean dry with
a clam shell, as to undertake to cure the evils of the social state by
converting men to Christianity." "For our part," continues Brownson, in
another page of his Review, "we are disposed to seek the cause of the
inequality of the conditions of which we speak, in religion, and to
charge it to the priesthood. Rarely do we find, in any age or country, a
man feeling himself commissioned to labor for a social reform, who does
not feel that he must begin it by making war upon the priesthood. Indeed
it is felt at once, that no reform can be effected without resisting
the priests and emancipating the people from their power. Historical
research, we apprehend, will be found to justify this instinct, and
to authorize eternal hostility to the priesthood. Again, when once the
class--that is, the class of priests--has become somewhat numerous, it
labors to secure to itself distinction, and increases them. Hence the
establishment of priesthoods or sacerdotal corporations, such as the
Egyptian, the Braminical, the Ethiopian, the Jewish, the Scandinavian,
the Druidical, the Mexican and Peruvian." Fie! fie! Mr. Brownson, the
Mexicans belong to the Infallible Church, and like yourself, are strict
members thereof. "These sacerdotal corporations," continues Brownson,
"are variously organized, but everywhere organized for the purpose of
monopolizing power and profit. The real idea at the bottom of these
institutions, is only to enslave the mass of the people to the priests,
who, by pretending, honestly or not, to possess the secret of rendering
the gods propitious, are able to reduce the people to the most wretched
subjection, and keep them there, at least for a time." At page 384,
of Brownson's Review, of July, 1840, we find the following sweeping
anathema against the Christian priesthood--not in the United States
alone, but all over the world--and I would defy the most learned
historian or impatient infidel upon earth, to produce any thing more
blasphemous or more calculated to disturb the peace of man or the good
order of society. "But, having traced the inequality we complain of, to
its origin, we proceed to ask again, what is the remedy? The remedy is
first to be sought in the destruction of the priest. The bad must be
removed before the good can be introduced--conviction and repentance
precede regeneration; Christianity is the sublimest protest against the
priesthood ever uttered, either by God or man. In the person of Jesus,
both God and man protest against the priesthood. What was the mission
of Jesus but a solemn summons to judgment, and of the human race
to freedom. He--Jesus--instituted himself no priesthood, no form
of religions worship. He recognized no priest but a holy life, and
commanded the construction of no temple but that of a pure heart." Take
care, Brownson! don't let the Pope hear you. "He---Jesus--preached no
form of religion." Take heed again! Did he not preach the religion of
the Romish Church, think you? Have a care! you will commit yourself, unless
I occasionally caution you. "He--Jesus--enjoined no creed." What, sir!
not even that of the Pope of Rome? "He--Jesus--set apart no day for
religious worship." Not a single one of those numerous holy days which
the Infallible Church sanctions? "The priest is universally a tyrant,
universally the enslaver of his brethren, and therefore it is that
Christianity condemns them. Christianity could not prevent the
establishment of a hierarchy, but it prepared for its ultimate
destruction by insisting on the celibacy of the clergy." Really, friend
Brownson, I am beginning to tremble for your safety in the Popish
Church. "Again," says Brownson, in his Review of the same year, page
336, "we insist upon it"--remember, reader, that Brownson is the
mouth-piece to Popery in the United States,--"that the complete and
final destruction of the priestly order in every practical sense of
the word priest, is the first step to be taken towards elevating 'the
laboring' classes" Pray, Mr. Brownson, what shall we do with the ten
thousand Romish priests which are to be found at the present time in the
city of Mexico alone? Has the infallible Church concluded to ship them
to our western States? "Priests," says Brownson, "are necessary enemies
to freedom; all reason demonstrates this, and all history proves it."
Look out, sir! you 're committing yourself again. Where are all those
colleges you speak of as having been established between the sixth and
sixteenth centuries, and in which you say was displayed a remarkable
activity in science and literature? Nothing better than asylums or
schools, for the education of men in such sciences as were calculated to
overthrow the freedom of man. I told you so a while ago, and proved it
too. All reason demonstrates this and all history proves it.

Again, Brownson says, in the same page of his Review, "There must be
no class of men set apart and authorized, either by law or fashion, to
speak to us in the name of God, or to be the interpreters of the word of
God." Is it so, indeed, Mr. Brownson? I thought the Pope was authorized
to do so, and that he and his church were especially empowered, to the
exclusion of all, without distinction, to interpret the word of God. The
word of God, you say again, "never drops from the priest's lips." What!
do you mean to say that the word of God never drops from the Pope's
lips? Rest assured, my worthy friend, that if you repeat that again to
Bishop Fenwick, he will put you on short allowance. "The priests were
always a let and hindrance to the spread of truth." Assuredly you cannot
mean the Romish priests. You tell us, in your Review of this year,
that the four hundred years which preceded the Reformation were ages
of prodigious activity, and that during that time Abelard, St Bernard,
Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas, were remarkable men. All these
were priests; yet you say that priests have always been the enemies of
freedom, and a let and hindrance to the spread of truth. You thought,
the other day, that these were good men and learned men, especially
Abelard. What do you think of them, now that you have become a Roman
Catholic? You believe all of them to be saints, and you know many of
them have been canonized. We have not your opinion of them since July,
1840. Let us hear what you thought of them then. We quote from page 387
of your Quarterly of that year. You ask the following question yourself,
and you also answer it. Here are your words, viz: "What are the priests
of Christendom, as they now are? Miserable panders to the prejudices
of the age; loud in condemning sins nobody is guilty of, but miserable
cowards when it is necessary to speak out for God. They are dumb dogs;
as a body, they never preach a truth till there is no one whom it will
indict; the imbecility of an organized priesthood, and its power to
demoralize the people, is beginning to be seen; we have had enough
of Christianity" Have you, indeed, Mr. Brown-son? Well, we have not;
therein you and I differ. "Christianity," says Brownson, in the next
line, "is powerless for good, but by no means powerless for evil; it now
unmans us, and hinders the growth of God's kingdom." It is high time,
brother Fenwick, that I should wish you joy. You have an acquisition to
your church, in the great changeling Brownson, and you show a depth of
wisdom rarely to-be found now-a-days, except among Jesuits, in sending
your convert Brownson all over this country, to preach the pure and
unsullied doctrines of your Infallible Church; your apostle Brownson is
assuredly a fit man for your purposes. History does not inform us that
there is a solitary instance since the establishment of your church, of
any government having escaped its machinations; and worse than purblind
indeed must that mail be, who cannot see at a glance that the primary
object which Popish bishops have in commissioning this heartless,
unprincipled infidel Brownson to go abroad lecturing among the happy
people of this country, is to disturb the present order of society, and
finally to overthrow this government, and erect upon its ruins the Papal
throne.

This Brownson is unquestionably an object of great pity, or well-merited
contempt I could turn from the bare mention of his name with nausea
and disgust It is but a few months since that he represented the whole
system of Christianity as a gross imposition upon mankind, and our holy
religion one of the blackest impositions that ever was practised upon
our race. But now he has become a Roman Catholic. Now that he is in
the pay of the Pope and his Jesuits, like another Esau he turns round,
betraying everything that he ever professed, and pretends to discover
that in the Church of Rome are to be found all the elements of pure
Christianity; that her priests are an exception to the great body of
those priests against whom he pronounced his anathema a while ago.

How many months is it, Mr. Brownson, since you became a Papist, and
found out that you had been all your life a victim of delusion and
Protestant priestcraft? Ten, twelve, or eighteen, is it? Well, suppose
it is. Is that enough to give you a thorough knowledge of Popery, and to
satisfy you that the Popish Church is composed of purer materials than
any of those numerous churches in which you have believed successively
and alternately for the last thirty years, and from each of which you
have been successively expelled and excommunicated? For, as you tell us
yourself, in your Quarterly Review, so infamous and infidel were your
principles, that even the Universalists could not tolerate you amongst
them, and excommunicated you from their communion without one dissenting
voice. So notoriously profligate and abandoned did they consider you,
in mind, sentiment, thought, and language, that although their doctrine
teaches them that Christ died for all, and that all are to be saved
through him, they excepted you, and you alone, as far as I am aware.
Wide as the range of that belief is, all-comprehensive as their charity
is, and all-sufficient for the salvation of man as they believe the
death of Christ to be, yet they could not believe that you were entitled
to any benefit from it, and accordingly they formally excommunicated
you. I can tell you, Mr. Brownson, that you have taken a false step,
in your last move; you have plunged thoughtlessly into the labyrinth
of Popery, without knowing any thing of its intricacies, certainly
not enough to say much for or against. As yet you have scarcely been
admitted behind the curtain of this vast theatre in which you have
engaged to play a character. And believe me when I assure you that if
you have undertaken any other part than that of a buffoon, you will be
hissed off the boards before long. You may, perhaps, soon be let into
the green room of the vast Popish theatre where you have made a short
engagement, and there some of the machinery of Popery may be opened
to your view. But mind what I tell you; when you see the hidden and
concealed springs, the wheel within wheel, and the dirty workmen who
set them in motion, you will behold sights and experience a stench which
will strike you with an offensiveness as loathing and disgusting as if
you had put your head into a common sewer. Nothing will you see there
but covetous-ness, the weakest vanity, and the most unrestrained
indulgence of the vilest passions--one general system of artifice and
intrigue for power and opportunities for debauching females. Never
before could I realize the belief that man was so entirely and totally
corrupt as he is, until I was admitted as a Popish priest into the
theatre and great machine-shop of Popery.

I have already given to the public some of those scenes which were
witnessed by me in the Romish Church. They were new to some, and--as
I expected--incredible to many Americans: but Americans--at least the
well-informed amongst them--ought to know that I have related nothing
new, or at least very little. My revelations have had, in point of fact
and substantially, full publicity many years before my birth. The
very facts I have stated had long been registered in the archives of
literature, and might have been found on the shelves of the libraries
of our own country. Some of them have been published by me with the sole
view of scattering them amid our people in such form and at such a price
as may be acceptable and accessible to all. Many of my statements might
have seemed dark and cloudy, but truth and justice compel me to say that
they were nothing in comparison with those which are to come. They
bear no more likeness to what I shall give hereafter, than the fleeting
clouds which we see floating here and there, denoting the approach of a
storm, bear to the storm itself. But alas! I fear that it is perfectly
useless for me to attempt to awaken the American mind to a due sense of
the dangers to be apprehended from the introduction of Popery among us.
The general answer which I receive to all my warnings is, "We care not
for what Papists can do; we are a free people." It would be useless to
reply to such childish argument as this, nor shall I attempt it; but I
feel really humiliated at seeing such a people as the free citizens of
the United States permitting themselves to be deluded, and the minds of
their children poisoned by such doctrines as are preached by the infidel
Brownson, now employed by the Pope of Rome, as the apostle of Popery
in this country. It is also a source of deep regret to me to see Roman
Catholics, especially the poor Irish, who owe this country more than any
other people in the world, become its deadliest foes, and ready at
the beck of their tyrant priests and bishops to trample under foot its
glorious constitution, which guarantees to them what they never had
before, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal rights.
"_Americans shant rule us_," say this poor, misguided people, the Irish.
This drives me, _nolens volens_, to a farther exposure of some of the
deceptions practised upon them and upon mankind in general, by faithless
Romish priests, trusting, in the mercy of Providence, that if I can show
them that they are deceived in one way by their priests, it may put them
on their guard in future against further deception.

I will now return to, or rather resume the consideration of, the
doctrine of _auricular confession_, which formed in part the subject of
the first volume of this work.

Before I enter on the disgusting subject of auricular confession, let me
give the reader an idea of how it is made. And lest it may be questioned
whether the form I herein give is correct, I shall give it first in
Latin, and then in English, and appeal to any Roman Catholic priest or
bishop in the world, whether so far I misstate or misrepresent facts.
The following is the form:

"Confiteor Deo omnipotenti beatas Marias semper Virgini, beato Michaeli
Archangelo, beato Johanni Baptistæ, Sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo,
omnibus Sanctis et (tibi Pater) quia peccavi nimis cogitatione verbo
et opere (pectus) mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor
beatam Mariam semper Virginem, beatum Michaelum Archangelum, beatum
Johannem Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Paulum, omnes sanctos et
(Pater) orane pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum."

Translation of the Above:

"I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever virgin, to blessed
Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles
Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, father, that I have
sinned exceedingly, both in thought, in word, and deed, through my
fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I
beseech the blessed Mary ever virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel,
blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the
saints, and you father, to pray to our Lord God for me."

Such is the form of confession made by every Roman Catholic who goes
into a confessional box, or who in any other place confesses to a
priest.

It is not my intention here, to show that no such form of confession
as the above was ever used in the Christian Church for more than half a
century after its establishment. The whole prayer of this confession is
an innovation unknown to the early Christians. It is an impure deposit
in the sacred fountains of Christianity, thrown into them and mixed up
with them, by the unclean hands of the Romish Popes and priests. Who
or which of the primitive Christians, was ever known to pray to saints?
Name him, Papists, and I will give you credit for the discovery. You
contradict yourselves and some of your most fundamental doctrines
in praying to saints. Even the Council of Trent, which you consider
infallible, goes no farther than to say,--"It is good and profitable
to invoke the prayers of the saints." And how do you, Popish priests,
justify yourselves in imposing on your deluded people, the idolatrous
practice of praying to saints? Answer the question yourselves. As I
stated before, it is not my intention here, to enter into the merits
or demerits of your form of confession. I shall confine myself, almost
exclusively, to pointing out some of the fatal consequences to society,
of introducing such a practice as that of auricular confession,
amongst any people. The reader will pardon me, if I quote largely from
Michellet, an admirable writer of the present day, and which cannot fail
to be very satisfactory to the reader, from the fact, that he is a Roman
Catholic and, of course, entitled to credit, as it is not to be presumed
that any man will bear witness against himself or against the doctrines
which he avowedly professes. The language of Michellet is beautiful,
as the Protestant Quarterly Review expresses it He gives a graphic
portraiture of a French wife. The reader will keep in mind that
Michellet is a Frenchman, that he looks upon France as the world and
that therefore his portraiture of a French wife, is a portraiture of any
woman in the same position. The fact that Michellet's work is approved
of by the Quarterly Review, of the American Protestant Association, is
the highest encomium that can be passed upon it. The Review is edited by
the Rev. Rufus Griswold, one of the most elegant, chaste and beautiful
writers of the day, and whose commendation Michellet's work could not
have, were it not eminently entitled to it We have few such writers
among our American controversialists as the Rev. Mr. Griswold, and I
know not that I am hazarding truth, when I say, that we have not a more
patriotic citizen, a more accomplished scholar, nor a more humble and
devoted Christian. I shall here quote from Mr. Griswold's translation of
Michellet, page 287 of the Quarterly Review of the American Protestant
Association.

"When I think of all that is contained in the words _confession,
direction_,--those little words, that great power, the most complete in
the world,--when I essay to analyze all that is in it,--I am alarmed.
It appears to me that I am descending by an infinite spiral line, a deep
and dark mine. I have had pity heretofore for the priest; now, I dread
him. We must not be alarmed, we must look it in the face. Let us frame
with simplicity the language of the confessor." The reader must suppose
here, a priest sitting in the confessional with a young lady kneeling
by his side, 2 whose lips almost press his. I know by experience, having
often myself heard confessions, that this is the exact position of
the parties. The lady is supposed, by Michelet--and he supposes so
correctly--to be addressed by the priest in the following words. 'God
hears thee; hears thee through me; by me God will reply to thee; but
thou tremblest, thou darest not tell to this terrible God thy weak and
childish acts.' (The reader will not forget here, that the young lady
penitent and the priest are both young.) 'Well, then, tell them to
thy father, a father has a right to know the secrets of his child,--an
indulgent father who wishes to know them in order to absolve them. He is
a sinner, like thyself; has he the right then to be severe? Come then,
child, come and speak. That which thou hast never dared to whisper in
thy mother's ear, tell me; who will ever know it?' Then, among sighs
from the swelling, throbbing breast, the fatal word mounts the lips;
it escapes and is concealed. He who has heard it has acquired a great
advantage, which he will preserve. God grant that he does not abuse it
He who has heard it--be careful--is not wood, the black oak of the old
confessional; he is a man of flesh and blood. And this man now knows of
this woman what the husband has never known in the long outpouring
of the heart by night and day. That which a mother does not know--who
believes that she knows her entirely, having held her so often naked on
her knees--this man knows; he will know. Do not fear that he forgets; if
the avowal is in good hands so much the better, for it is forever. She
also knows well that she has a master over her inmost thoughts. She will
never pass before that man without lowering her eyes. The day on
which this mystery was made common, he was very near her; she felt
his presence. Seated above her, he weighed her down by an invisible
ascendancy. A magnetic force conquered her, for she did not wish to
speak, and yet she spoke in spite of herself. She was fascinated, like
the bird before the serpent.

Up to this point there was, perhaps, no art on the side of the priest.
The force of things did all; that of the religious institution and that
of nature. As a priest he received her at his knees, at the listening
box. Then, master of her secret, of her thought,--of the thought of
a woman,--he was discovered himself to be a man; and without wishing
it--without perhaps knowing it--he has placed on her, feeble and
disarmed, the heavy hand of a man. And the family now! the husband! who
will dare to say that his situation is the same as before? Every one who
reflects, knows very well, that thought is, in a person, that which
most controls him. The master of the thoughts is he to whom the person
belongs. The priest holds the soul as soon as he has the dangerous gauge
of the first secrets, and he will hold it faster and firmer. An entire
division is made between the husband and wife, for now there are two;
the one has the soul, the other the body. Note, that in this division,
one of the two has everything; the other, if he keeps anything, keeps
it by grace. Thought, from its very nature, is dominant, absorbing. The
master of the thought, in the natural progress of his sway, will go on
constantly subjecting the part which remains to the other.

It will be already much, if the husband, widowed of the soul, reserves
the involuntary, inert, and dead possession.

Humiliating thing, only to obtain your own but by permission and
indulgence! to be seen, followed into the most intimate intimacy, by an
invisible witness, who regulates you, and assigns to you your part--to
meet in the street a man who knows better than yourself your most secret
acts and weakness,--who humbly salutes you, turns aside and laughs.

Who can read the above extract from Michelet on auricular confession,
without fancying that it is nothing more than one of those effusions
with which rich fancies like his frequently abound? Men unacquainted
with anything but the ordinary business of life, cannot fancy, much less
realize, truth in the above. Is there even a Roman Catholic to be found,
who can realize or believe the fact, that while he supposes himself the
only possessor of his wife,--that she is his own--heart and soul--whole
and undivided, yet is not so? It is well perhaps for those who have the
misfortune to be Roman Catholics themselves, or equally unfortunate in
having Roman Catholic wives, that they have no idea of the influence
which a Roman Catholic Confessor has over woman. Could any man live in
happiness or enjoy the pure blessings of matrimony, if he knew that
all the intimacies and secrets, which existed between him and his wife,
were far better known to the priest to whom the wife confesses, than to
himself? It is well then perhaps, after all, that while such reptiles
as Popish confessors are allowed a place in society, that the secrets of
the confessional should be confined to themselves alone.

But there is no untruth in the beautiful extract which I have taken
from Michelet The picture which he gives is neither over-drawn or
over-colored. The wife who goes to confession, is, in reality, more the
wife of the priest than the wife of her married husband. Her soul is the
priest's, her thoughts are the priest's, and the priest controls all
her actions. How beautifully has Michelet expressed the priest's control
over her "He has placed on her, feeble and disarmed, the heavy hand of a
man."

Many instances of the influence which the priest exercises over married
women in the confessional have come to my own knowledge, while I was
a Popish confessor. The reader will bear with me while I relate one or
two, from hundreds, which I have witnessed in the course of my life.

In the year 1822, and in the city of Philadelphia, an elegant carriage,
with servants in livery, drove up to my door, in Fourth street, between
Walnut and Spruce, where I then lived; and a lady, dressed in the
extreme of fashion, unceremoniously stepped up to my door and opened it
without rapping, announcing herself a stranger who wished to see me on
particular business. I knew, almost by intuition, what this particular
business was. I asked no questions and of course received no answers.
The lady, however, said she wanted to confess and get absolution. My
duty was plain, I was a Popish priest But you have not the worst of
it yet, reader; so far, there was nothing evil in the matter save the
infatuation of the lady in believing that a man could forgive her sins,
and my worse than infatuation and weakness in believing that
I had such power. The substance of this confession was the following,
which fully verifies the truth of Michelet's statement This lady had
been in the habit of going to confession to a Popish bishop, who lived
in a neighboring state, and frequently had criminal intercourse with
him, going to his room whenever he directed her, under pretence of going
to confession, though at the time she was a married woman. It will be
asked why she came to me. The reason was this: her paramour being a
bishop, was unwilling to have his crimes known to any priest in his
own diocese, and directed her to come to another; and believing, as all
Catholics do, that one priest can forgive sins as well as another, she
selected me, as I was then comparatively a stranger in the country.
But the worst of the tale is not told yet. That part of it which
corroborates the statement of Michelet remains still to be heard.

Soon after the departure of this lady from my house, an English
gentleman, with whom I had the pleasure of an acquaintance some years
previously in London, and with whom I occasionally dined at a well-known
and fashionable boarding-house, not far from my own house, called on
me and insisted that I should dine with him that day, holding out as
a particular inducement the pleasure of introducing me to a lady and
gentleman of the highest respectability, whom I should meet at dinner.
I accordingly went to dine; and the reader may imagine my surprise at
finding the very identical lady who had been at confession with me a
few hours before, and her husband--the respectable lady and gentleman to
whom my friend promised an introduction. Respectable they truly Were, as
far as this world is capable of appreciating respectability; and happy
they were also, to all appearance; but was not Michelet right in saying
of a woman who goes to confession to a priest, "_She will never pass
before that man without lowering' her eyes?_" Could that lady pass
before me without lowering her eyes? or could I, if hardened in the
iniquitous practice of hearing confession much longer than I was then,
pass that lady without lowering mine? Did I not, as Michelet expresses
it, "hold the soul" of that lady? Did I not, were I iniquitously
disposed, as her bishop was, hold her body also? But when I looked at
the husband of this lady--the elegant, accomplished, and gentlemanly
husband--when I reflected on his humiliating position--when I reflected
that this elegant man was widowed, not only of the soul, but partly of
the body, of his beautiful, and as I can easily fancy, once innocent and
virtuous wife, by a Popish bishop in the confessional, I could almost
have cursed the hour that gave me birth in a land of Popery. My very
soul froze within me, and I almost regretted that God in his mercy had
not made me something else than a being who could have broken the cords
of that pure and unmingled love between that elegant man who sat before
me, and his once elegant and virtuous wife. Humiliating indeed, as
Michelet said, must be the condition of that man whose wife goes to the
confessional. When he walks the streets, he is met by the confessor of
his wife, who, as Michelet properly says again, "salutes him humbly,
turns aside, and laughs." O, how true this is! and would to God I could
brand it upon the heart of every man whose wife goes to confession. Is
it true that God lives? is it true that the earth moves? is it true that
man has a soul? is it true that mind is not matter? is it true that the
sun rises and sets? O! it is still more true, if possible, that there
are such things as Popish priests--saints in appearance, but demons in
practice,--who laugh at the ruin and division they have made between man
and wife. I do not know that I was ever so lost to every feeling of
honor, when a Romish priest, as, when I passed through the streets, to
laugh at the husband whose wife was persuaded and fascinated away from
him in the confessional; but I have often walked the streets with Romish
priests, in Europe especially, where Popery predominates, and there is
no sort of amusement upon those occasions which they enjoy more than
calling each other's attention to some of their neighbors, as they pass
along, and whispering into each other's ears, "Look at that gentleman;
how fond he seems, of his wife. It was yesterday she was at the
confessional with me; poor fool!" This chit-chat terminates in a hearty
laugh, all at the expense of the husband. The reader, I trust, will not
think me tedious, if I give him another instance of the evils of Popish
confession. It will be borne in mind that the fact which I am about to
state is not taken from history, though history abounds with similar
cases. It is one within my own knowledge.

A short time previous to my coming to this country, and soon after my
being installed as confessor in the Romish Church, I became intimately
acquainted with a Popish family of great respectability. This family
consisted of a widowed father and two daughters and never in my life
have I met two more interesting young ladies than the daughters were.
These ladies lived not far from the church where I officiated, and were
frequently in the habit of going to mass to my church, and calling upon
me when service was over, to take breakfast with them at their father's
house. This custom of having young ladies call upon Roman Catholic
clergymen to accompany them home to breakfast after mass is over, is
very prevalent in Europe, among the most fashionable members of the
Popish Church; it is particularly so in the city of------, where I then
officiated, and where the melancholy circumstance which I am about to
relate took place. The father of the two young ladies to whom I have
alluded, was a gentleman of about the age of fifty-five, distinguished
for his charity and benevolence. He was wealthy; and whenever any object
which might advance the good of his fellow beings was suggested or
proposed, he was among the first to advocate and support it. His
influence and his money were never wanting, when either could promote
the happiness of his fellow beings. It may easily be imagined that the
daughters of such a gentleman were well educated and accomplished.
It may also be supposed that their home, being a home of plenty and
abundance, was one of peace, happiness, charity, and domestic love. It
was truly so, when I had the honor of first knowing the family. But the
serpent found its way into this little garden of happiness.

In less than two months after my first visit to this family, at their
peaceful and hospitable breakfast table, I observed the chair which had
been usually occupied by the elder of the two sisters, occupied by the
younger, and that of the latter vacant I inquired the cause, and was
informed by the father that he had just accompanied her to the coach
which left that morning for Dublin, and that she went on a visit to the
sister of the Rev. B. K. I, of course, made no further observations,
but I suspected that something was wrong; I also knew full well, that
whatever the cause was, I should learn the particulars of it in my
capacity as confessor. As time advanced, I made the usual inquiries for
this young lady, who was then only about eighteen years old. The
answers were such as any one acquainted with the world might expect,
and entirely satisfactory to all who knew nothing of the iniquitous
practices encouraged and fostered in the Romish confessional.

I will here pass over an interval of about three months. A detail of
the private occurrences in any particular family can have no general
interest. At or about the expiration of that period, the younger sister
complained of indisposition, and it was found necessary to send her also
on a visit to Dublin.

Now the whole truth broke upon me at once. I knew there was foul play
somewhere, and soon enough did the fact in all its particulars come to
my ear. It seems that both the daughters of whom I have spoken, went to
a school attached to the Ursuline Nunnery in the city of--------. The
confessor, whose duty it was to hear the confessions of the pupils of
this institution, was one Rev. Mr. B. K., a friar of the Franciscan
order, who, as soon as his plans were properly laid, and circumstances
rendered matters ripe for execution, seduced the elder lady; and finding
that the fact could no longer be concealed, arranged matters with a
friend in Dublin, so that the victim of his iniquity might be concealed
and privately supplied with all the usual attendants which her situation
required.

She was confined at the house of his friend, and her illicit offspring
given to the managers of the Foundling Hospital in Dublin.

But the most horrible part of the story remains yet to be told. No
sooner was this elder lady provided for, than this incarnate demon,
B. K., commenced the seduction of the younger lady. He succeeded, and
ruined her, too. But there was no difficulty in providing for them; both
became nuns. And here, you people of Massachusetts in particular, be it
known to you, fathers and mothers, who have sent your daughters to be
educated in the Ursuline Convent, Charlestown, Massachusetts--I mean
that which you felt it your duty to pull down, a few years ago, and
which was situated upon Mount Benedict--that both these nuns held high
stations in the convent which you pulled down, and that at the very
period of its destruction. Pools, "dolts, double dolts," as the Jesuit
Rodin calls all who contribute to the support of Popish nunneries, are
you not ashamed of yourselves? Are females who have been the prostitutes
of priests in foreign countries, and who in nine cases out of ten
continue to be so here, the only teachers competent to instruct your
daughters? Are there no American ladies--no Protestant ladies--capable
of teaching your children? Must American parents go to Europe, and
take from the 546 purlieus of Popish convents, instructors for their
children? A poor compliment to American Protestant ladies, and a sad
commentary it is upon the total ignorance of American theologians
respecting Popish morals in Europe.

Here we have a case in point This is not an old lie, as Popish priests
and their supporters call all accusations against them; it is a new one,
if a lie at all; it is one which I know myself, and can prove. I
knew these nuns personally, before they came to this country. I was
acquainted with them before they became nuns. I saw them in the convent
at Mount Benedict. They were great favorites of Bishop Fenwick.

They were spoken of by some of the first families in the city of
Boston, as models of piety; and to my own knowledge, two or three
young ladies--and these the daughters of New England Protestants--were
counselled by their mothers to take particular notice of the manners of
those two nuns in particular, and imitate them, as nearly as possible.
Nor can any one be surprised or scandalized, if I acknowledge my
weakness in stating that I could not resist an involuntary impulse to
laugh at them "in my sleeve." Does Bishop Fenwick desire the names of
these two nuns? It is true, they might be Magdalens, but "_credat Judeas
Apella, sed non ego_."

When these things are permitted in the very centre of New England--when
they are permitted to exist in the enlightened city of Boston--the
capitol of a State whose people, as a body, I may venture to say,
are not equalled in the world, for intelligence and general
information--what can save the people of the United States from
corruption, and from gradually declining into its very depth? When the
impure waters of Popery are permitted to flow into our lakes and fresh
streams, must not all be contaminated, in time? Must not the atmosphere
of our freedom be impregnated with immorality, disease, and final death?
What, under these circumstances, can save us? God alone may do it
He alone can do it, and he will do it; but we must ask him for his
interposition; we must humbly pray that he would save us, for he has
promised us nothing without asking for it And so sure as we ask him in
a proper spirit, we shall receive. He has himself made us this
promise--the word of the Great I AM is pledged--He will redeem it.

It is with great reluctance that I dwell any longer on these impure
subjects, but a sense of duty compels me to do so. It is useless to
do otherwise; "the impurities of Popery must be known;" they have been
comparatively hidden in this country--they have been long buried in the
_cells, pits, and caves_, of the Romish Church--they must be dug up,
even if the whole superstructure of the nation should be undermined
thereby; for what is a nation without morals? Who, if he had a house
partly built, and only then discovered that the foundation was not a
secure one,--who, I say, under these circumstances, would not arrest the
progress of the workmen thereon, and order them to undo what they had
already done? No prudent man would hesitate in such a case, even at the
expense of levelling to the ground what he had already accomplished.
And why should a nation act differently from an individual, in many
circumstances, at least?

An eminent philosopher of olden times exclaimed, and not without much
indignation, "_Quid leges sine moribus?_" and might we not say with
equal propriety, _Quid republica sine moribus?_ If our Republic, or any
part of it, is based upon a hollow or unsafe foundation, or if there
be any part of that foundation defective, or likely to give way, to
the imminent danger of the superstructure, should not that defect be
entirely removed? Undoubtedly; prudence and economy would require it;
and when worldly prudence and all temporal concerns require such a
course, should not the great moral interests of the country require it
at the hands of the people as a duty, to lay their foundation on nothing
but what is sound, and to allow no substance to be introduced into any
portion of the superstructure, which may be in any way defective, or in
any way endanger its permanency?

Popery now seems to form an ingredient, if not a part of our national
structure of morals, and until that rotten and defective part is
removed, the superstructure can never be raised with safety to its
proper and legitimate height. This is the only consideration which
induces me to dwell longer, or even so long as I have done, upon the
obscene subject of auricular confession. All I have said on the subject
might have been comprised within a more narrow space than I have
allotted to it, and thus many disgusting sights might have been hidden
from the eye of the reader. There are some, I am aware, who wish to hear
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; but even among
those, I find many who, though they admit the truth of my statements,
still contend that the cases I have stated are isolated, and endeavor
to show that I draw general conclusions from particular premises. Even
Popish priests admit--because they cannot do otherwise--that many of my
statements cannot be questioned, but contend that though these may be
true, it does not follow that Popish priests or nuns can, as a body, be
accused of immorality. "_A particalari ad generate non valit conclusion_"
say these profound logicians. But suppose I admit that thus far they are
right, and that there are exceptions to the sweeping accusations which I
have made against them as a body; does this prove any thing for them?
Is the general rule or general principle to be denied because there are
exceptions to either? Surely not; were there a thousand exceptions to
a general rule; were there a million of exceptions, to one single and
general principle, it would not falsify the rule itself, or invalidate
the principle. Papists are doing much to justify their doctrines. That
unfortunate Brownson, to whom I have alluded heretofore, is recognized
by them as their apostle and the expounder of their faith in the United
States; but the crowd of words which he uses in his discourses and
lectures, in justification of Popery and on the morality of its priests
and nuns, is too thick and too dense for a single idea, much less a
single fact, to be dragged from it, and it so happens that he does
more harm than good. Nor can it be otherwise; a net woven too thick
is useless to the fishermen; a tree with too many leaves and blossoms
seldom has any fruit, and is unproductive to the husbandman; so it is
with the lectures and teachings of Papists and their apostle. They are
made up of words meaning nothing, proving nothing, and in reality aiming
at nothing but deception, which ultimately must fail, for we are told
upon high authority, and every man's experience adds force to the
saying, "truth must prevail."

It is therefore my duty to state facts generally true, no matter how
numerous the exceptions may be. I therefore hesitate not to reiterate
the general charge, that Popish priests and nuns are corrupt and immoral
almost beyond conception.

I must ask the reader's indulgence once more. He will, I trust, not
feel fatigued or impatient, while I relate to him another instance of
immorality perpetrated by a Popish priest, and sanctioned, at least, by
three of the most respectable Popish bishops in the United States,
and by the whole body of an order of nuns in the United States, called
_sisters of charity_. The case which I am about to relate is one which
I give not upon hearsay, nor even upon the positive testimony of others;
it is one within my own knowledge; I know the parties to this whole
transaction; I have known them for years back; they are now living, and
if Bishop Hughes or Fenwick has the least curiosity upon the subject, I
will furnish him with the names of the principal actors in this tragedy.

Would that I could write so that what I write should become visible to
the eye, and musical to the ear! O! that I could only leave behind me
a correct picture of what I have known of Popery! Could I scatter it
before me, dash it around me, and fling it behind me--would Protestants
aid me, so as to place it where no one could miss seeing it--Americans
would shrink from it as they would from a frozen corpse.

But as I cannot do all that I should wish to do, and as Americans seem
so wrapped up in their present wants as to care but little for their
posterity, I must only do what I can under existing circumstances, and
leave the event in the hands of Providence.

Soon after my arrival in Philadelphia, and just about the time that
Papists disapproved of my endeavors to circulate the Bible among the
poor, a Roman Catholic priest of the name of O. S. called on me,
and showed me letters of recommendation which he had from Bishop T.
of--------, Ireland, and countersigned by the Roman. Catholic Bishop of
New York, to Bishop England, of South Carolina, He stated to me that
he was in want of money and clothing, and asked me to lend him fifty
dollars and pay his passage to Charleston, South Carolina, assuring me
that he would immediately remit me any amount that I might expend on his
account, by the first opportunity. I took him with me to my tailor's and
gave him an order for such clothes as he might want, amounting, cloak
and all, to one hundred and ten dollars. From that I took him down to
one of the packets which then ran betwixt Philadelphia and Charleston,
and commanded, I think, by Captain Crofts; paid fifty dollars for his
passage, and bespoke the kind attentions of the worthy Captain, who,
I understood afterwards, left nothing undone to render the voyage as
comfortable as possible. He arrived in Charleston in due time, and was
well received by Bishop England, who, to do him justice, possessed many
of the kindest feelings of the human heart, and exhibited through life
one of the strangest mixtures of religion and infidelity, of charity and
bigotry, of republicanism and toryism, of Christianity and idolatry,
and of humility and intolerance, that perhaps ever existed in the Popish
Church in this country. But, "_nihil de mortuis nisi bonum_" he and I
have had some severe sparring at each other; we were friends in
private, but enemies in public; he knew I was right, but was afraid to
acknowledge it; he wished me well, but dared not avow it; he loved his
mitre, but I despised it, and though I would cherish the head that wore
it, I would kick in the dust the Popish gewgaw itself. But, "_adrem_"
Bishop England, soon after the arrival of the priest O. S., advised him
to enter on a _retreat_, in order to prepare himself for the mission
on which he was about to send him. He did so; and after a due course
of instruction upon the arduous and delicate duties of a confessor, he
appointed him parish priest of--------, in one of the Stales over which
he, as he modestly termed it, had spiritual jurisdiction.

There lived in the parish to which this now Rev. confessor was
appointed, a gentleman of respectability and wealth. Bishop England
supplied this new missionary with strong letters of introduction to
this gentleman, advising him to place his children under his charge, and
assuring him that they should be brought up in the fear of God and love
of religion. The family was large,--there were several daughters, some
partly grown up, and others quite young. Those alone who know the joyous
and happy life of a planter's family, in good circumstances, can form
any adequate idea of the bliss and happiness that reigned among these
children.

------ MISSING PAGES ---- 553-554 ------

His conscience would not permit him to call upon me. I had just
renounced the Pope of Rome as the beast spoken of in the scriptures. I
was a heretic, and no good Popish Christian was permitted even to pay
me my just debts. He passed on, and what, think you, Americans, were
the fruits of his mission? He prevailed upon the eldest daughter of the
respectable gentleman to whom he was introduced, to go to confession to
him, and the next I heard of him was, that he had been seen passing
at full speed, in a light sulky, through the village where I kept my
office; and what, think you, was the cause of this speed? what drove him
in such haste from his parochial residence? Do you not know reader? can
you not anticipate? Has not the insight which I have given you into
the immorality of Popish priests, already suggested to you that this
individual was a fugitive from some crime, and that its avenger was in
pursuit of him? It was so, reader.

[ILLUSTRATION: The Father in pursuit of the Priest p566]

This Reverend Popish wretch seduced the eldest daughter of his
benefactor, and the father, becoming aware of the fact, armed himself
with a case of pistols and determined to shoot the seducer. But there
was in the house a good Catholic servant, who advised the seducer to
fly. He did so, in the manner I have stated, with the insulted father in
full pursuit of him; but the fugitive was in time to take steam and thus
eluded his pursuer. He soon arrived in Charleston, the Right Reverend
Bishop understood his case, advised him to go to _confession, absolved
him from his sin_, and having washed him white and immaculate as
a snow-drop, sent him on to New York to preach _morality_ to the
Gothamites, who enjoy the superlative beatitude of being under the
_spiritual jurisdiction_ of Bishop Hughes.

But this is only the beginning of the tale, and distasteful as it
must be to you, Right Reverend guardians of the morality of the Popish
Church, you must sit still awhile. I am well aware of your impatience:
you dislike control of any kind; so do all people of rude manners,
narrow intellects, and sour tempers, such as all Popish bishops, with
whom I have been acquainted, possess. One single happy recollection of
the past, a single grateful feeling, has never elevated nor sweetened
the life of a Popish bishop, as far as I have ever known; and it is
perhaps requiring too much of you, my beloved brethren,--brethren you
know we are, in spite of what heretics can do,--to ask you to sit down
patiently and hear me out You will have to do it though, and I trust it
may be for your benefit hereafter.

As soon as your erring brother disgraced and debauched the daughter
of an American citizen, and obtained remission for so doing from his
ghostly father, in the confessional, his victim, after a little time,
having given birth to a fine boy, goes to confession herself and sends
her child of sin to the Sisters of Charity residing in --------, to be
taken care of as '_nullius filius!_.' As soon as this child was able to
walk, a Roman Catholic lady, who knew the whole transaction, adopted
the child as her own; and states now, as she has done all along, to her
acquaintances, that it was a poor unknown orphan whom she found in the
streets, without father or mother to claim it. But the very gist of the
story is to come yet. The real mother of the child soon after removed to
the city of--------, told the whole transaction in _confession_, to the
Roman Catholic Bishop of--------, who, knowing that she had a handsome
property, introduced her to a highly respectable Protestant gentleman,
who soon after married her. Nor is this all the kind Bishop has done.
He soon after introduced to this gentleman the sister of charity who
had provided for the illicit offspring of this priest, concealing its
parentage and representing it as having no father nor mother living.
The gentleman was pleased with the boy,' and the holy Bishop finally
prevailed upon him and his wife to adopt the child as their own. Here
is a pretty specimen of Jesuitism! The boy is the child of a priest,
the wife is the mother of the child, and the husband is the dupe of the
Bishop, adopting as his own child that of a priest by his _own_ wife.
Here is a pretty specimen of a Jesuit web. Would that I had the talent
of a Eugene Sue to unravel it and stretch it from one end of this
country to the other. Look at the affair yourselves, Americans; examine
it in all its atrocious bearings, from beginning to end, and say if
you have ever heard or read of a more brutal outrage upon morality
and domestic happiness. A Popish bishop sends one of his priests on a
mission, with the ostensible view of converting American citizens from
the evil of their ways, and the errors of their Protestant doctrines.
Americans receive him hospitably; he selects from among them one of
their most fascinating daughters; seduces her in the _confessional_,
the _Infallible Church_ makes provision for the illicit offspring of
the seduction; the crime and the consequence are both concealed by
the bishop. He induces a respectable man to marry this prostitute, and
contrives, by the secret machinery of Popery, to dupe him still farther,
by prevailing on him to adopt the offspring of his prostituted wife as
his own son; and the whole of this is effected, at least so far as the
adoption of the child is concerned, through the instrumentality of a
_sister of charity_ now living and residing in the city of--------.
The mother knew at the time, that the child whom her deceived husband
adopted as a destitute orphan was her own. The husband is now living, a
worthy and respectable man, and the scoundrel priest, who brought sorrow
into the house of his father-in-law and sent him prematurely to his
grave, has been frequently a guest at his table.

Do Bishops Hughes and Fenwick desire the names of the parties to this
tragic and villanous outrage upon American credulity? They are known to
me personally. The seduction took place about eighteen years ago, and
the Reverend Popish seducer has been, not long since, and perhaps is
now, located somewhere in the vicinity of Worcester, Mass.

_Dolts, double dolts_, as the Jesuit Rodin, of Eugene Sue notoriety,
observed of all who are the dupes of Papists,--how long will you permit
yourselves to be the dupes of Popish priests and Jesuits? You are now
building a college--aye, a _Jesuit college_--in the very centre of New
England,--Worcester, Mass. You do not wish, I presume, that the race
of Jesuits should be extinct amongst you; and if you cannot obtain them
otherwise than by importation, you are naturally fearful that such may
be the case; hence it is, perhaps, that you are liberally contributing
your money to build colleges for the education of priests, and schools
for _sisters of Charity_. Your great anxiety for encouraging domestic
manufactures might have influenced you in this respect, and you may rest
assured--or even take my word for it--that as long as you have Popish
colleges and Popish nunneries side by side, your semi-annual dividends
of Jesuits and nuns, amongst the States of the Union, will be entirely
satisfactory to you. But, to be serious, if Popery be studied as it
should be by Americans, it will prove a useful lesson to the rising
generation.

For twenty years this country has been more imposed upon than any other,
for the same length of time, by Popish priestcraft; so much so that the
people are now become accustomed to the repetition of their enormous
frauds, and are no longer surprised at them. I confess that it is
the gross impostures which I saw practised upon Americans, that first
prompted me to expose them. I have tried, and am now trying, to give
some rational account of the extraordinary phemomenon that Popery should
predominate among a people almost proverbial for their intelligence and
inquiring disposition. I thought, and do now think, that nothing can
be more acceptable and valuable to Americans, than a well-authenticated
statement of some of the practices adopted by Papists to impose upon the
Protestants of this country; nor did I see any other manner of removing
the almost national insanity of our citizens, in relation to the Romish
Church, than by laying before them facts and acts, to many of which I
have been myself an eye-witness. How American Protestants could continue
for any length of time--even for a month or week--ignorant of the
schemes of the Church of Rome, or her de* signs for the overthrow of
this republic, has often been to me a matter of no little surprise; it
can only be accounted for by a supposition almost as extravagant,
viz., that Popery has never been properly studied by Americans. I have
proposed all along, and I now repeat the proposal to Americans, to
accompany me in the study of Popery. If the Romish Church be studied as
it ought to be, by the young and the old of our citizens, it will prove
a useful lesson to the present and coming generations,--but that lesson
must be studied well. It must not be run over carelessly; its elements
must be examined in order to understand the whole machinery of Popery;
the whole plan of it must be remodelled; and in order to effect this,
it must be taken to pieces, and every piece carefully and separately
examined. It has been long hidden from the public eye; it has been along
time considered a treasure exclusively belonging to the Popish priests.
They have buried it for safe keeping in the dark and dreary vaults of
corrupt Rome. These vaults must be opened, the gilded columns with which
they are surrounded must be torn down, and all must be laid bare to
the naked eye. The divine laws or systems of morality, intended for the
government of man, should be always open to his inspection, and nothing
short of the steady effort of our people can effect this or rescue
ourselves or our country from the evils with which we are now threatened
by the machinations of the Popish Church. The crimes and immoralities of
Romish priests have long been crying to heaven for vengeance; they now
cry for it from every quarter of the globe. I have said that they have
been crying for vengeance, for centuries back. I have proved the fact
to the satisfaction of any man who is not wilfully blind to truth. But
I shall not rest here; I will give you other proofs. Cardinal Campaggio,
who was sent to England to arrange the divorce of Queen Catharine,
informs us--every English historian knows this fact--"that a priest, who
marries, commits a greater sin than if he kept many concubines." Here
is a specimen of pure Popish morality, promulgated by a Cardinal, a man
next in office to the Pope himself with the full sanction of the said
Pope, and the whole conclave of Cardinals of which he was a member;
and yet the religion of this man, and that of Bishop Hughes, and Bishop
Fenwick, is the very religion which Americans are now endeavoring to
introduce into this country, and fasten upon the souls and consciences
of our people.

Let us now see what St Bernard says,--and here I entreat the reader,
to keep in mind the fact, that St Bernard lived between the sixth and
sixteenth centuries; that very time, at which the Popish Church in the
United States tells us, through its apostle Brownson, that it displayed
a remarkable degree of activity. St Bernard lived in the twelfth
century, and as Bishop Hughes, Bishop Fenwick, and their mouthpiece, the
infidel Brownson, inform us, was one of the greatest and best men of the
age. There was no appeal, in his day, from the opinion of St. Bernard;
he was looked up to by the whole Romish Church, as a model for the
imitation of the Romish clergy, and it is not at all likely that he
would calumniate, traduce, or do any injustice to a body of men of which
he was himself a member. What does St Bernard say of the priests of his
day? Hear it, Americans! hear it, you sympathisers! you who can scarcely
read my accusations against the priests of the United States. Listen!
all you who bow the knee, and kiss the hands, the rings, the robes and
the other gewgaws worn by these angels, Hughes and Fen wick; listen! all
of you, to what St. Bernard says. "Priests commit such acts of turpitude
in secret as it would be scandalous to express." Chamancis, a Romish
priest and an orthodox writer, well known to Bishops Hughes and
Fenwick--if they know any thing besides political intriguing--declares,
and calls the attention of his readers to the fact, that the _adultery,
impiety, and obscenity of priests_ [Romish] is beyond description, "They
crowd," says he, "into houses of ill fame; in gambling and in dancing,
they are seen to pass from the company of infamous women, from the altar
to the mass. To veil a woman in these convents," continues Chamancis,
"is synonymous with prostituting her,_" This distinguished writer, and
virtuous reprover of the Popish priesthood, died about the middle of the
fourteenth century, just at the period when, according to Popish writers
in the United States, Popery flourished in all its glory. Mezerey, a
French historian, and as good authority as Papists can desire, he being
a Papist himself, assures us, that before the English Reformation, the
whole body of the Romish priesthood were fornicators_.

What say the sympathisers of Popery to this? Has Mezerey told an old
lie? Has Chamancis told an old lie in telling us that it was a common
practice in Popish countries, for Catholic bishops and priests to pass
from houses of ill fame, and from the company of infamous women, to the
altar and to the mass.

This will not be believed in the United States. "There is not a word of
truth in it," says the professed infidel. "I will not believe a word of
it," says the busy Puseyite, Prude; "it cannot be that the dear priests
would be guilty of such things." I will frankly confess that it is
difficult to believe statements so entirely abhorrent to human nature as
those given by Popish priests against their own brethren, and I will
not deny, that it took me a long time, before I could yield more than
a reluctant assent to many of them; nor did I ever fully give them
sanction until I had made a personal examination into their truth. But,
now that I have made that examination, I declare most solemnly, upon the
honor of a man, that, as Chamancis expresses it, it is a common practice
for priests, in all the Roman Catholic countries in which I have been,
to go direct from houses of ill fame to the altar and to the mass. This
I have seen and witnessed myself.

But it will be asked, "how do you know? you must have been in those
places yourself." I plead guilty to the charge, if charge the enemy
of morality will make of it. While in the cities of Mexico and Havana,
about two years ago, at considerable personal expense, I visited many
of the dens frequented by Popish priests, especially in, the city of
Mexico. 1 went there for the benefit and better information of my fellow
beings. I did not then, neither do I now, accuse myself of any violation
of the first principles of morality; I believe, on the contrary, that
I am entitled to some degree of commendation from my Protestant fellow
citizens, for the efforts which I have made, in Mexico and Havana, to
ascertain the truth or falsehood of those complaints which we daily hear
against the immoralities of Popish bishops, priests, and nuns. How many
have we seen plunging themselves into the midst of disease, contagion,
and death, for the good of their fellow beings, and for the sole purpose
of advancing the science of medicine! and is nothing to be done, or
shall nothing be done for the science of morals? Must we stand and fold
our arms while the malaria of Popery is stalking all over our land,
carrying death and disease with it wherever it goes? Paralyzed be that
arm which would fold itself in such a case!

I have often seen men who were ornaments to society, who were the pride,
the comfort, and perhaps the sole support of their wives and children,
whom they loved and almost adored, plunging themselves into the midst of
yellow fever, or perhaps Asiatic Cholera, for the benefit of mankind
and almost at the certain peril of their own lives; and shall a man who
loves religion and the cause of morals, do nothing to exalt, to glorify
the great cause of salvation? shall he not risk something, to confirm
the statements which are crowding upon us day after day, in relation to
the immorality of Popish priests?

During my residence in Mexico, the following circumstance occurred, to
my own knowledge: an English gentleman, then, and I believe now residing
in Mexico, met me by appointment, at my hotel, soon after dusk in the
evening. The object of his calling upon me was to comply with a request,
which I had previously made, that he would accompany me to one of the
most fashionable houses of ill fame and gambling, where he knew the
higher orders and dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church were in the
habit of visiting, and making assignations, with the wives and daughters
of the members of their respective congregations. He stated that an
entrance to the house where he was going to carry me would cost me a
doubloon, and that if I wished to become thoroughly acquainted with the
mysteries of the place and obtain access to it in future, I should spend
two or three more doubloons at the game of Monte, a favorite game of
priests and women of loose habits in Mexico. Chamancis immediately
occurred to me; I recollected the account which he had given of the
priests of the Romish Church. Here was an opportunity of testing the
accuracy of his statements; here was a chance of knowing, from the
testimony of my own senses, whether Popish priests were or were not
the incarnate demons which he and others represented them to be; and
I determined to avail myself of an opportunity which might never again
occur. Accordingly I accompanied my friend, and, by his advice, took
notes of the transactions of that evening of my life. It will not be
expected, I presume, that I should give here, a transcript of those
notes; it would be improper to do so; delicacy forbids it; it probably
might do more harm than good. There is such a thing as driving a screw
too far; it may be forced so as to split the timber it was designed to
secure. I shall avoid this, if possible, but there is a circumstance
which it is my duty to mention, and which shows in a clearer light
than any other I could adduce, the utter degradation, and worse than
idolatry, of those unfortunate beings who are strictly educated in the
practices of Popery, but particularly in Popish confession.

Let the reader fancy to himself one of the most splendid residences in
the city of Mexico; let him further place himself in imagination in a
gorgeously furnished suit of rooms, occupied by a number of the most
lascivious-looking females, most of them wearing veils. Let him further
fancy a Romish priest entering those rooms, and one of those women
advancing to meet him, and then prostrating herself on her knees to ask
his blessing and kiss the hem of his garment Let him further fancy this
debased wretch of a priest imparting his blessing to this daughter
of sin and error, and he will form a better idea of the immorality of
Popish priests, and the incalculable evils which, under the mask of
sanctity, they are capable of doing, than it is in my power to give him.
Let the reader, if he will, fill up the space between the entrance
of this solemn-looking villain into the synagogue of Satan, and his
departure from it, and then say whether Chamancis exaggerated the
enormities of those sins and hidden crimes committed and sanctioned by
Popish priests. I kept my eye upon one of those priests, from the moment
he entered this house of ill fame until twelve o'clock at night. At the
moment the clock struck twelve, he and I were drinking champagne, and
I sat with him from that until four o'clock in the morning, when I
accompanied him to mass. He had no idea of my being a Protestant; and
believing me to be a Roman Catholic, all restraint was laid aside, and
thus I enjoyed the sorrowful pleasure, if I may so say, of witnessing
Popery in "_puris naturalibus_." Revolting and repugnant as the scene
which I witnessed appeared to me, there was still something in it
which struck at my heart a heavier blow than that which met my eye.
Ignorance--Popish ignorance--was at the bottom of all this. What but
ignorance--ignorance of her rights--of nature's rights--ignorance of
all that tends to elevate nature, could induce those women to go and
prostrate themselves before a common partner in their guilt, and ask his
blessing? Oh! the sceptre which Popish ignorance sways over mankind
is an iron sceptre. Popery sways it over some of the finest regions
inhabited by man. Witness-Mexico. Under its icy influence there can
arise no generous, no daring spirit of adventure in the cause of God;
subjection and fear soon become the predominant passions of humanity;
all the noble faculties of man are chilled and frozen. Robe ignorance in
purple, as it is in the Romish Church, and everything must wither before
its march; there can be no contemplative delights or pleasures where
Popery rules. There can be nothing pure, nothing intellectual, to raise
man from the mire of sensuality to any degree of excellence, dignity, or
honor; all must be reduced to that state in which we now find the people
and priests in Mexico. Without knowledge or the means of obtaining
it, the mind of man necessarily falls into a state of weakness and
imbecility. Education, and that the education of the Bible, is to the
mind of man what food is to the body. Have you ever observed, reader,
that a mind destitute of a Bible education invariably acquires a sort of
low cunning? It is intent upon no higher purpose than something mean and
selfish. Is it not so in the whole population of Mexico? and I ask the
candid historian if it is not so in every country where Popery prevails?

A degradation of the understanding, and an ignorance like that which
we now see in Mexico, among the poor Irish, and among the poor of all
Catholic countries, is in all cases accompanied by what is worse than
ignorance, if possible,--great wickedness and depravity of heart. They
are not able in Mexico, or in those other countries under Popish sway,
to occupy themselves in the energies of thought, in honorable action,
in refined manners and conversation, in trade, in learning, in national
improvements, in navigation, manufactures, canals, and railroads.
No; the very reverse is the fact I appeal to history to sustain the
assertion. The dupes of Popery in Mexico, Spain, Ireland, Italy, and
elsewhere, are engaged in mischievous trifles, wanton habits, and
wickedness, which render them the most useless and troublesome citizens
in the whole circle of society.

Fallen indeed they are, from what they ought to be. Who can
recognize--notwithstanding their external configuration--in the Papists
of the present day, their lineal descent from the Egyptians, Grecians,
Romans, and Maletians,--the glory of their times, the instructors of the
world, and the benefactors of humanity. God stamped his image upon these
men. He stamped it upon every created being at the hour of his birth. He
created man in little less than the angels; but the glorious image seems
obliterated; the divine stamp seems to have been broken, and man can
scarcely now be known by his resemblance to his Maker. Popery, that
curse of the earth, that scourge of mankind, that source of moral evil
and fountain of death and sin, has been allowed to flow in upon us, and
thus the great land-marks of humanity have been removed,--the divine
stamp almost ceases to be visible.

Popery has in its spirit something malignant, something hateful and
hostile to all who profess a different creed. All acquainted with the
history of Popery, can bear testimony to the fact that there is an
undying hope and wish in the mind of all Catholics, that the Protestant
religion should be entirely extirpated. There may be, and there
undoubtedly are, exceptions to this rule; so there are to every other
rule; but there is no denying the general truth, that the extirpation of
the Protestant religion, and of the whole Protestant race, together
with the confiscation of Protestant property, and the overthrow of
all Protestant governments, are among the fondest hopes of the Popish
Church. This cannot be disguised, at least from those who have been
educated in the doctrines of the Popish church. Many Catholics there
are, I admit, who would be glad, and who even endeavor to disguise
this from themselves; but they cannot do it; it is a truth as well
established as any other; it is as plain as the sun in the heavens,
however they may try to conceal it This, like other truths, will be
denied in the United States; but it is perfectly useless to conceal
the fact from our people. Watch the progress of Popery in a neighboring
country; see the efforts which O'Connell is making in Ireland, under
the immediate sanction of the Pope of Rome, to overthrow the Protestant
government of England, and to reduce that country to obedience to the
court of Rome; look at the proceedings of the bishops of the Romish
Church in this country, and ask yourselves what they are aiming at.
"Ireland for the Irish," says O'Connell, the Pope's agent at the other
side of the Channel. "Americans shant rule us," say the Pope's agents
in the United States. Can language be plainer than this? Can treason be
expressed in stronger or more emphatic language? O'Connell means Ireland
for the Pope. Bishop Hughes of New York, and the other Popish agents in
this country, clearly mean, and wish to be understood so--the United
States for the Pope. I ask any man whether the language of O'Connell
and the Pope's agents in this country, is even susceptible of any
other interpretation? What meaning can we attach to the words of Bishop
Hughes, who is the Pope's organ in the Empire State of New York, except
that which is plain and obvious--Americans shant rule us. Who, then,
does this Popish agent want to rule them? Obviously the Pope of Rome. I
can scarcely suppose him or his brother bishops subject to such lunacy
as to fancy for a moment that he could bring this great nation into
subjection to the Pope of Rome; but must we not admit, at the same
time, that his language, and the entire political course of his Popish
brethren, during the last year or two, have looked very much like it.
Have not Papists all over the world, during the last few years, assumed
a more daring and menacing attitude? Have not their language
and measures, even in this country, become more turbulent and
insurrectional? Let Americans ponder well upon this. It is not long
since O'Connell, the Pope's mouth-piece for this country, as well as
Ireland, addressed the deluded Irish in the following language; and
remember, Americans, that I tell you Bishop Hughes of New York, and
every other Popish bishop in the United States, will soon make use of
similar words to their respective flocks in this country: "Force and
violence are not to be used. If the time for using them were to come,
there is one here will tell you that the time has come." You will also
recollect, Americans, that I tell you that they will receive for answer
that which the Pope's agent received in Ireland--"we will follow"
Popish bishops and priests will preach peace to their people, but let
not Americans forget that they have confessionals, where they can infuse
into their minds the poison of rebellion and treason. When a Popish
bishop preaches peace, he means it not; he means war to the knife with
heretics and heresy. Robespierre, shortly before the French Revolution,
delivered a series of lectures against capital punishment; and sooner
should I trust him for sincerity, than I would a Popish priest when he
cries peace with heretics. That blood-thirsty and sanguinary villain,
Robespierre, exhorted his followers not to confiscate the property of
those who might be found guilty of opposition to the people; but much
safer should I consider the property or estate of him who incurred the
displeasure of Robespierre, than I should that of an American Protestant
citizen who fell into the hands of the Pope's agent and executioner in
the United States.

Murat, a character well known to the readers of the history of the
French Revolution, lectured loudly against capital punishment; but what
was his conduct? He consigned more to the guillotine than any other man
in France. His hands were stained with blood; but bloody as his hands
were, and thirsty for more blood as his heart was, much sooner would
I have trusted myself to him, and much safer should a Protestant feel
himself in such hands, than in those of a Popish bishop or priest. But
it is not my present purpose to expatiate upon the cruelties of Popery;
I will only state incidentally that the Protestant citizens of this
country have much to fear from the influx of Papists amongst them, not
only in a moral, but a political point of view. Nearly the whole body
of Irish Roman Catholics have resolved to migrate to this country. They
will do so, if that treacherous disturber of their peace and happiness,
Daniel O'Connell, does not succeed in overthrowing the Protestant
government in England. Extensive preparations are already being made in
this country for their reception, together with their leader, if they
can effect his escape from the gallows. The Catholic population of
Ireland is at present 6,620,000. This immense body are united, to a
man, in that abominable belief. _Heretici destraindi sunt_. This is a
fundamental article of Popish faith.

No faith is to be kept with heretics. It is firmly believed by the
six millions and upward of Irish Roman Catholics, that the Pope is the
lawful head of their church. Disguise this as they may, entangle it as
they can, in Popish sophistry, the fact is not the less true. Assuming
it to be so, Americans can easily fancy the inevitable danger of
admitting Catholics among them without strong and safe restrictions.

Many there are, and those, too, men of great moral worth, who do not
deem it necessary or proper to impose any restrictions whatever on the
admission of Papists amongst us; they seem to think, and maintain their
opinion with some show of reason, that Popery may now, as in former
times, prove advantageous to society. These philanthropists evidently
mistake Popery for Christianity. I have had occasionally many
interesting conversations with some of my fellow citizens, on the
subject, and have found that not a few of them have taken up the
strange idea, that because Popery, or rather Christianity, was greatly
instrumental in checking the first inroads of martial power and
barbarity upon civil society and Christian peace, its progress in this
country, comparatively new, must be accompanied by similar blessings.
Papists frequently and tauntingly ask Protestants "Where would be your
Bible, were it not for our Church?" and let it be understood, that they
invariably mean, by our Church, the Church of Christ. Many of the
poor followers of the Pope are sincere in asking this question; and so
totally ignorant are they of the very elements of Christianity, that
they really believe the Bible could not exist, if their church were
overthrown.

It is questioned by statesmen, and by many political philosophers,
whether it is good policy to disturb thia delusion. European statesmen
contend that it is not, and it is much to be regretted that many of
our American statesmen seem to incline to the same opinion. The French
philosophers--at least their political philosophers--seem all of one
mind upon the subject, and contend, with great plausibility, that
opinions which have stood the test of time for a given number of years,
had better be left undisturbed.

Many have gone even so far as to say that "ignorance is bliss;" but this
sentiment, and such philosophy, is too stale for the present generation.
It has had its day; Popery lent to it its powerful aid in the middle
ages, and bitter indeed were its fruits. The Popish church, too, has had
its day; so had the Jewish church, and much is due to both for the good
which they have done. Many in both those churches, and during their
respective influence, could see no farther than that "ignorance was
bliss" to the savage hordes who first formed the nucleus of social and
civil society. Did they know in their savage state the extent of their
animal power, without mind to direct its force and capability of evil,
the consequences would be, not social order or distributive justice,
but universal chaos and general confusion. Ignorance may be said to
have been bliss to these unlettered hordes and savages; science and
literature, had they blazed upon them in their full noon brilliancy,
would not have been appreciated by them, they would only have dazzled and
confounded them still more. It would be dangerous to place within the
reach of a thirsty savage a bowl of Prussic acid; he might drain to the
dregs the fatal poison, and thus that which, in the hands of science,
might have been useful and legitimate, would become the instrument of
death.

It would be unsafe to place a lighted torch in the hand of a sportive
child, and send him to play with it in a powder magazine; the
consequence might be death to him and to all around him. It was probably
so at one time with science and learning. It was perhaps, in a great
measure, bliss to be without them, until the human mind was prepared
to make a proper use of both; it is so even in the animal and vegetable
world, and why should it not be so in the world of mind and thought?
Who, for instance, would place on a horse a harness which youth and want
of exercise did not enable it to carry? Who would sow wheat in a soil
unprepared to receive it? No prudent man would do either; and certainly
much credit is due to those early Christians, and even to Jews and
Papists, for what they have done, and for anything they have effected
in preparing the minds, especially those of northern barbarians, for the
reception of the sciences, but particularly the glorious science of the
Christian religion, with all its saving truths and holy principles.

Infinite indeed are the obligations under which our ancestors have
placed us, in opening our minds and preparing them for the reception
of so many moral and scientific truths; and if the Popish church has
contributed in any measure to this, I am as willing to thank her and
give her full credit for all she has done, as the most hypocritical
Jesuit that ever lived, or the most liberal Christian that practically
denies human 25 depravity. But are there no more truths to be evolved,
ether in moral or civil science, than those which have seen open to our
view in the infancy of the Romish church, and for which I, for one, am
willing to give her credit in all that she has done? Were there not many
sources opened, even in the days of the glories of the Jewish Church,
and Romish Church, too, which lave been closed up, and must remain
closed forever? Was not the Jewish religion, when it first dawned
upon that devoted people, like the early beams of some fresh morning,
fragrant and cheering to the captive in his cell? But that religion has
passed away. It was glorious in its time; but does it follow, did it
follow, or can it follow, that we should now embrace it? Must we hug the
shadow, when the substance ceases to exist?

The outward form of the Romish church was once attractive and beautiful
in the extreme; its gorgeous ceremonies, its high masses, the vestments
of its priests, its music, its processions, its indulgences, its
semi-pagan, or rather worse than pagan, idolatries, had in them much
that was imposing, and well suited to their times; they were calculated
to overawe northern barbarians,--then the enemies of Christianity and of
civil rights. The Church of Rome did much to prevent the few among these
barbarians from trampling to the dust the rights of their serfs, who
constituted a vast majority of the people, and for this I am as willing
as any other to give her credit; but the Church of Rome has done her
work long since; her days of glory are numbered--her sun has long since
set-not in triumph, but in blood--not in victory, but in death.

But Popery seems now to be gathering up her energies--at least she is
endeavoring to do so--and looks upon this new country as a proper field
to make the experiment; and there are serious doubts upon the minds of
some, whether she will not succeed, at least in a measure, in partially
re-establishing her ancient power in this new country. She is disposed
to struggle hard for it Already has the tocsin of war been sounded along
her lines--her recruiting officers are abroad--she has her depots
here and there and everywhere--her paymasters and spiritual recruiting
sergeants are to be met with at all points. Go to the woods of
Oregon,--travel along its meandering and fertilizing streams,--and you
will find them there, preaching freedom, liberty of conscience, and
equal rights. Go into the swamps of Texas, and you find them there, too,
advocating civil rights, liberty of conscience, and perpetual slavery.
In Oregon and New England we find Papists shouting O'Connell, the Pope,
and the abolition of slavery. In the Southern States of the Union and in
Texas, they hurrah for slavery--slavery not for a day, for a year, or
a term of years--but forever! In the Northern States they brand the
slaveholders with the epithets--robbers, slave-breeders, and stealers
of men. In the South and in Texas, they denounce the Northerners as
fanatics, pirates, and sons of pirates. How long Americans will tolerate
these wolves in sheep's clothing among them, it is difficult to say;
but one thing I fear is certain, that as long as they have oats, and
Americans countenance among them Barn-burners, But-Enderst Repealers,
and Empire Clubs, under the popular name of Democrats, the evil to which
I allude will continue.

It is said that Popery is on the increase in the United States, and
there are not wanting some arguments to prove it. But though 1 have
taken some pains, and perhaps as much as any other man in the country,
to ascertain the truth of this assertion, I am still unconvinced on the
subject It is also asserted that Popery is on the increase all over the
world, and must continue to increase. Upon this, too, I have doubts; I
even believe that the contrary is the fact.

If by the increase of Popery is meant the number of square miles, or the
extent of country which they own or occupy, it may be said, with some
propriety, that if Popery is not advancing, it is not retrograding;
but if by the increase of Popery is meant that its creed and idolatrous
doctrines are gaining ground, I flatly deny the assertion. As another
expresses it, a system that degrades can never advance. And that the
doctrines of the Church of Rome do degrade, I think I have already
proved. The Romish Church and its doctrines have crushed the spirit, and
deadened the life of every country, and every people, that ever believed
or maintained it; and shall our free spirits and bold intellects, in
the nineteenth century, be broken and bowed down like those in Popish
countries? It can never be. But this is not the question, exactly. The
question is, or ought to be, Is the Popish religion on the increase?
Does it gain upon the Protestant religion, or is it going ahead of it,
as some even in these United States will have it? This question can
be easily answered; and for that answer, which I am about to give, I
acknowledge myself much indebted to an anonymous but elegant writer in
the Protestant Quarterly Review for the month of January, 1846. "Ask
yourselves which religion,--Protestant or Popish,--will spread widest in
an age of science and knowledge--which is best fitted to the growth of
the human mind? In all Protestant countries, wealth, intelligence, and
a high civilization! are everywhere seen; in all Catholic countries,
dead-ness and decay rest upon everything which nature made beautiful.
Under Protestantism, every department of science has made rapid
progress. The very spirit of freedom breathes through the Newtonian and
Baconian philosophy. Everywhere, from the harsh, barren soil of northern
nations, sprang up life and light England, Scotland, Prussia, in men
of strong intellect, are superior to any of the older nations, in any
preceding age. Mathematics, natural philosophy, metaphysics, ethics,
commerce, agriculture, legislation--the whole extent of modern
civilization--date from the Reformation, and exist only in Protestant
countries. And those nations of Europe which caught but a glimmer of
liberal opinions, but which in the Catholic or Popish reaction were
again subjected to Rome, are far in advance of those countries,
beautiful as they are, in the South of Europe, which never saw
Protestantism. A single glance into the history of modern science,
literature, and politics, will fully convince any candid mind of this.
The entire spirit of northern institutions, their great progress, their
growing intelligence, are all owing to Protestantism. They date their
birth from it, they are thoroughly imbued with its spirit, they must
live still in its spirit Firm governments and wise laws; just and
liberal rulers; free and intelligent people; nobler views of man; nobler
views of God; more knowledge; more liberty; more faith;--these have the
genius of Protestantism imparted, and in their ever-growing life it
will live. How different from this is the condition of the old Catholic
States! The noble palaces of Italy are deserted; banditti infest the
beautiful shores of Campania. The Dantes, the Petrarchs, the Tassos, are
gone forever. The poetry, the chivalry, the bright southern romance,
the fiery southern valor, have passed away; miserable want and beggary,
vagabond recklessness, and sullen, obstinate, threadbare pride, are the
remains of fair Italy. Ireland with her poetry and merriment is silent
and desponding; her laughter has mournfully died away; her sweet
melodies, equally beautiful, whether sung sadly or gaily, are chanted by
lips quivering with emotion and parched by hunger and thirst Popery has
degraded and saddened her very soul.

"Austria, tyrannous and bigoted,--an enemy to all freedom, whether
of thought or action,--with her degrading institutions, and decaying
principles, is rather worse than poor Ireland. It is better to die than
to kill Spain, the birth-place of Loyola; the valiant opponent of the
crescent and turban, for near eight hundred years; the land of brave
knights and fair ladies; of song and dance; of literature, refinement,
and elegant culture,--is wretched indeed. Squalid, seditious, fiercely
proud and cruel, it now excites little compassion, still less of hate or
fear.

"How are we to account for this immeasurable difference between the
realms of Protestantism and those of Catholicism? Are the Italians
inferior by nature to the Scotsmen, or the Spanish to the Danes? We
cannot admit this; all history and philosophy disprove it. Yet now, in
their degradation, they can scarcely appreciate their ancient grandeur;
while the heavy nations of the north, have suddenly leaped far beyond
their utmost limit The only cause which can be assigned for this, is
the vast difference in the genius of the two religious influences:
Catholicism has blighted, Protestantism has advanced and strengthened.
Can this ever be undone? Has all modern science been preaching a lie?
Have the last three centuries been pushing forward in the face of
truth, and acting out the lie? Can the onward sweep of civilization be
retarded? and must the work pause, and wait till the huge car of Rome
can rumble slowly up and bear it onward into the caves of night again?
Forbid it Heaven, I cannot believe it."

But the Papist will say, "it is evident, from the recent course of
events in France, Spain, Italy, Ireland, nay, to some extent, in the
United States, that Popery is gaining ground and making extraordinary
efforts to insure ultimate success." Be it so. Even admitting that they
are attempting and strenuously trying to advance, that does not insure
victory or final success, There are two broad and undeniable facts,
which forbid this result. One is, that from the beginning of the
world to the present hour, man has steadily advanced in progressive
intelligence; and the other is, that the roman mind has never been
known to run backwards. Papists will say, and it is now said from their
pulpits, in these United States, "that Popery can accommodate, and will
suit itself to the advancing acquirements of man, and finally conform to
our free institutions." Let us look at this question, and fairly examine
its truth or falsehood. Upon a correct understanding of this subject,
and upon it alone, can be founded a correct estimate or view of the
ultimate fate of Popery in the United States. I flatter myself that I
have proved, to the satisfaction of all Americans who have done me the
honor of reading my books, that Popery has not changed in its doctrine
or discipline; or, that if any change has been effected in either, it
is decidedly for the worse. A recent French writer, well known to the
readers of history--La Mennais--has tested the doctrines of Popery by
the principles of intellectual advancement. He proved that Popery and
civil rights were incompatible with each other, and could not co-exist
under any government nor under any form or state of society. No argument
could be more beautiful, more eloquent, or more convincing, than that
by which he demonstrated to the world that human liberty and Christian
liberty are antagonistic to Popery. He required no more from the Church
of Rome than to conform to the simple principles of Christian freedom.
His works are now extant, and I believe are to be had in all well
furnished libraries in the United States. They can be seen and read by
our fellow citizens, and they will find in perusing them that what I
state is correct The writings of La Mennais soon came to the ears of the
Pope and his Inquisitors, and they were not long in discovering that
if the principles contended for by La Mennais were admitted, the Popish
Church must fall. There was no medium; either that, or every other
doctrine must be denied, and all arguments in favor of the civil rights
of man had no foundation in fact. How did his Holiness, the Pope, act
on this occasion? I do not allude here, to any Pope of ancient times,
I allude to the Pope who now lives, and presides over the Infallible
Church. He cursed La Mennais; he damned him and his writings. He
insisted that La Mennais should write no more on the subject, and I
blush for the honor of humanity, of mind, of talents, of genius, and
liberty of thought, to state that La Mennais submitted to this tyrant
Pope, and that only the other day, in 1833, though he declared to his
friends, that, while he bowed to the Pope's, supremacy, he felt that he
was putting his name to the blasphemous admission that the Pope was God.

The Popish bishops of this country have the hardihood to say, that
Popery is the friend and advocate of pure democracy, and that miserable
tool of theirs, Brownson, says amen. They depute him to lecture upon
this subject in almost all the large cities throughout the Union. He may
do some injury to the morals of our people, but his reign cannot be of
long duration; such is the character of the man, that whatever he says
cannot fructify. He is, among our fellow citizens, what the ant is among
a heap of corn; it takes it to its winter store house to feed itself
alone, but whoever will carefully examine the grain or corn which it
takes from others, will find that it has no bud; it destroys that, and
thus selfishly and mischievously prevents 25* the grain from fructifying
and enlarging. Brownson takes with him, and appropriates to himself,
many plausible arguments from the works of eminent men, but the
slightest contact, on his part, with the purest characters, is
sufficient to destroy their vitality. If he were even to carry with him
into the pulpit, the soundest principles of morality, his very presence,
and past infidel life, would destroy their force; and a correct
examination of them would show the Christian who might examine them,
that they had no bud or vital principle within them and could produce no
fruit It is said that some men come into this world with two left hands,
two crooked eyes, a good deal of brains, and little or no organization
of its faculties. Brown-son is one of those characters. He has two left
hands, and was never known to do anything right; whatever he touches
he is sure to despoil and disfigure. Both his eyes are crooked; he has
never yet been known to see anything straight; so crooked are they, that
he sees things only through the eyes of others. Hence it is, perhaps,
that he never writes anything which is his own, but upon all subjects
gives us the views of others, and as no two think alike, in general,
Brown-son's writings invariably contradict themselves. Add to this that
great defect of order in his brain, and we cannot apprehend that his
lectures will do much permanent injury. This Brownson has appeared
to me, during the short time I have been noticing his movements and
opinions, to be, in reality, a shallow-pated bombastic pretender to
science and literature. He seems to know books just as some people know
great men, they only learn their names, and then boast of an intimate
acquaintance with them. He talks very fluently about his intimacy with
Tasso, Dante, Petrarch, Boccacio, and others. He and Boccacio seem to
be as intimate as pickpockets (to use a common though vulgar phrase.)
I wonder if Mr. Brownson recollects any of those anecdotes related by
Boccacio about certain nuns, who lived in the vicinity of his lather's
residence? Will the illustrious changeling permit me to bring one or
two to his recollection? One probably will be enough, as my readers
may already have had sufficient information concerning the amusements
practised by nuns and sisters of Charity in their convents.

It seems there was a large establishment of nuns in the neighborhood
were Boccacio resided. The mother Abbess was of noble descent, a fine
fair-haired girl, young and beautiful. There happened to be, adjoining
the nunnery, a friary; among these friars, as Boccacio tells us, in a
work of his, which has since been suppressed by the Popes, was a young
man of fine personal appearance, and who possessed, in a remarkable
degree, the power of assuming any character he pleased. He was, besides,
a ventriloquist, and could thus personate and imitate any character or
any voice he chose. The mother Abbess took an extraordinary fancy to
this young friar, and tried by every means in her power to have him
appointed confessor and spiritual guide to the nuns. But the Superior of
the friary was not easily deceived. He peremptorily refused to listen to
the most pious entreaties of the mother Abbess, and positively declined
giving the friar faculties to hear her confession.

What was to be done in this case? The holy nun soon hit upon an
expedient. She sent for the friar, who always had admission to an iron
grating in the wall, which separated these holy nuns from this sinful
world! She told the friar that her establishment was much in want of
a gardener, and advised him to change his whole appearance, assume the
character of a very old and feeble man, imitate his voice, and come the
next day, with his spade on his shoulder, to apply for the situation
of gardener to the nunnery. He accordingly came the next morning,
thoroughly-metamorphosed, and in the most doleful and piteous tones of
distress and want, begged of the holy mother Abbess, for the love she
bore the blessed virgin Mary, to give him employment, whereby he might
support himself and his poor half-starved and bed-ridden wife. The
holy nun moved by charity, and nothing else, of course, employed him as
gardener; and moved by compassion for the weak and feeble old man, she
occasionally sent for him to her cell to nourish him with some wine and
water. _Verbum sat_. The Protestant reader will not forget that Boccacio
was a Roman Catholic and is quoted by Brownson, in his Review, as one of
those luminaries which adorned the Popish Church between the sixth and
sixteenth centuries.

There was another, among the luminaries who flourished "betwixt the
sixth and sixteenth centuries," named Rabalais. I am rather surprised
that Brownson has not quoted him, as a model of a Christian bishop. He
was a Roman Catholic bishop, and died in full communion with the Romish
Church. He was laid in his coffin dressed in his episcopal robes.
The works of Rabalais are very little read now-a-days, nor could I
conscientiously recommend them to the attention of any Christian reader;
I allude to him with the sole view of giving Popish advocates the full
advantage of the testimony and example of a Roman Catholic bishop in
their favor.

There was not, perhaps, in all France, a more obscene writer than
Rabalais. He was remarkable however for the depth and keenness of his
satire. He felt the degradation of his position as a Popish bishop, but
he wanted moral courage enough to renounce so advantageous a position
in society as that which the Romish Church assigned him. The only
alternative left him, under these circumstances, was to try to effect
some reform in his Church and the morals of its priests. He turned
against them the arrows of his ridicule, and though the wounds and
scars, which they left behind them, were broad and painful, yet there
was so much justice in all his statements, that the Infallible Church
dared not raise a finger against him. I refer Bishops Hughes, Fenwick,
and their corporal, Brownson, to his writings. They may, in all
probability, find some similitude between themselves, their Popes, and
other bishops, to those illustrious characters, Carragantua, Pantagruel,
Trippet, and others so conspicuously alluded to in the works of
Rabalais. I expect nothing else than censure for the bare mention of
some of those writers to whom I have referred-It seems to have become
quite fashionable now-a days with pulpit orators, to censure anything
like gen-real reading; at any rate, no fault must be found with the sins
of the times. I have seldom heard a discourse or lecture, from infidels
of the present day, where they have not found fault with all those
writings in which sin and immorality are denounced in plain scriptural
language. There are, among our modern Liberal Christians, many who seem
shocked at the idea that Eugene Sue, for instance, should have dared to
satirize Popery, or that Guinet, or Michelet, should presume to denounce
Jesuitism or warn mankind against giving it any encouragement amongst
them. The argument used by these Liberal Christians or philosophers--for
they are all philosophers, every one of them--is this; if evangelical
Christians should succeed in suppressing Popery, we philosophic, and
Liberal Christians, shall be their next victims; _ergo_, Eugene
Sue, Michelet, Gui-net, and all who write against Popery, deserve no
encouragement from us. Admirable logicians, these Liberal Christians!
Profound and deep historians, these modern philosophers! Evangelical
Christians have never persecuted Liberal Christians. I would challenge
them to produce an instance where they have ever acted upon the
offensive. Let them analyze the creed of evangelical Christians; let
them dissect it; let them break it up, word by word, and cut each word
into the most minute fractions; and if they can show me, among those
words or fractions, a solitary particle, or an isolated idea, which
teaches them to persecute any man on account of his religious opinions,
I will acknowledge that Liberal Christians are right in preferring the
ascendancy of Popery to that of evangelical Christianity. But how is it
in the Popish creed? Let these Liberal Christians turn back to the pages
of history, and they will find that the creed and canons of Popery, as
well as the decretals of its Church, all teach that Liberal Christians
are to be dealt with by civil law, and that by civil law is to be
understood the Inquisitorial law, which consigns every one of them to
the sword, fire, and faggot. Do these gentlemen recollect the fate of
Arius and his followers? Do they forget thar the disciples of Arius
were all Liberal Christians, and numbered, at one time, a vast and large
portion of those who professed any belief in the doctrines of Christ,
either as God or man? Pause, gentlemen, I entreat of you,--recollect
that the reason why Papists are silent in relation to your doctrines,
is simply this: they look upon you as damned, beyond a possibility of
salvation. They place you and the Jews on the same level, and consider
both as blasphemers of the name of Christ, and as altogether beneath
the notice of all men who profess the Christian religion in any form
whatever; and rely upon it, when I assure you, that I myself, who have
been a Popish priest, have studied the doctrines of that Church to
little purpose, if you are not the very first whom Papists will destroy,
and whose property they will confiscate to the use of their Infallible
Church, should they ever have the power to do so.

It is a question with me, whether many of the lecturers of the present
day, in their unqualified _anathemas_ against modern literature and
general reading, are not doing more harm than good. Assuredly they
are injuring, more or less, the cause of liberty, and giving all the
advantages they possess, to arbitrary power; especially to the factious,
despotic, and violent power of the tyrant court of Rome. Those lecturers
who denounce the writings of Eugene Sue, Guinet, and others, against
the Popish Church, are bringing upon this country--unconsciously, I
believe--all the evils of foreign tyranny, without any consolation. They
are helping to destroy themselves, and must be destroyed in time by a
superior power. Charity obliges me to suppose these lecturers sincere,
and if they were equally discreet, might be useful auxiliaries in
promoting the moral and political interests of our country. They are the
instruments of cool-headed, dispassionate politicians, who see nothing,
and care to see nothing, but their own private interests.

Besides all this, these declaimers against modern literature and general
reading are injuring the cause of science. He who from his pulpit, or in
a lyceum hall, disapproves of the writings of Eugene Sue against Popish
domination, merely because he relates many facts and circumstances which
are not proper to be seen or read by some of his hearers,--aims his
blows at many of the noblest sciences which God has permitted man to
study, and for reasons which could scarcely be satisfactory to a child,
viz: because "some passages in his writings are rather indelicate." This
is certainly as strong a reason as Dr. Sangrado, of Quixotic notoriety,
gave to his patient, when asked why he did not prescribe cold water; "I
have," said the Doctor, "already prescribed hot water." The reason given
for not reading Eugene Sue may apply with equal force against the study
of surgery; and I should not be in the least surprised, if before long
some of those gentlemen denounced and forbade the study of the noble and
almost heavenly science of anatomy. Assuredly, beautiful, symmetrical,
and lovely as the human frame is externally, it presents to the human
eye, when dissected and exposed, in its native and naked proportions, no
very pleasing object to contemplate. But does it follow that the science
of anatomy should not be studied? Does it follow that works upon that
science should not be read? Certainly not; and he who would contend for
the contrary would be well suited by assigning to him an abode in some
lunatic asylum.

I admit that there are some passages in the writings of Eugene Sue,
Guinet, and others, against Popery, that seem rather indelicate. But
is that a reason why the moral anatomy and structure of the body Papal
should not be dissected? The external body of Popery, like the human
body, may be fair to the eye, lovely to the senses, and beautiful to the
imagination; but like the human body, it has its deformities, and I
see no reason why its defects should not be anatomized, studied, and
exposed, if necessary to the moral welfare of the human family. How can
the evils of Popery be known, unless they are exposed to public view,
and seen by those who are competent to judge of their evil tendencies?
And who are more competent to form a correct estimate of their nature
and character, than such men as Eugene Sue, Guinet, and others, who have
studied Popery? Guinet and Michelet are now living. They are both Roman
Catholics by birth and education. They understand the doctrines of
Popery thoroughly. It is idle--it is worse than idle--for American
Protestant writers to attempt to prevent the circulation of Michelet's
works, or those of Eugene Sue, in the United States. But it will be
said, and it is said, that there is much romance about them, and that
many passages are to be found, in Guinet especially, savoring strongly
of infidelity. Admitting even this to be the case, it does not follow,
by any means, that the enemies of Popery, which some Protestant journals
and lecturers pretend to be, should reject and censure the many and
undeniable truths which they contain on the subject of Popery. The fact
is--and I regret that it is so--many of the journals which come out
with flaming notices of their determination to stand by the Protestant
religion, and oppose the introduction of Popery into this country, are
not always sincere in their professions. Many of them are theorists.
I may add here, _en passant_, that few of those "heroes of discussion
meetings," and editors of newspapers, are at all qualified for the task
which they undertake. It is, however, a source of consolation to
me, that there axe some public lecturers and editors of Protestant
newspapers, who are sincere and disinterested in their opposition to
Popery; who see its destructive fruits now springing up in the fairest
fields of our Republic; who know that Popery is corrupt in itself, that
corruption of mind and morals is the natural result to be expected from
its prevalence amongst our people These worthy men and well-informed
editors of many of our presses, are determined, cost what it will, that
Popery shall be fully understood in this country: that it shall no
longer be hid in a corner, and that those Jesuit wolves who profess it
shall no longer be permitted to appear in sheep's clothing.

Among the presses which now boldly stand forth in defence of the
Protestant religion and the civil rights of man, I am happy to enumerate
the Boston Recorder, the Olive Branch, and others, among the various
presses in the city of Boston. There are also many among the political
presses in our country, which are doing good service to the cause of
Protestantism and the civil rights of man. J. T. Buckingham, of the
Boston Courier, has generously and disinterestedly thrown himself and
his fine talents between the intrigues of Papists and their designs upon
our institutions, and the civil rights of his countrymen. These presses
have not blushed to quote largely from Eugene Sue; they have not
tried to hide from their readers, nor prevented them from reading, the
faithful _expose_ which Eugene Sue, Guinet, La Manais, Michelet, and
others, have given of the iniquities and treasonable designs of Popish
priests and Jesuits against Protestant governments and the civil rights
of man. These presses have not put their hands to the plow and looked
back. They love their God and their country too well to crouch before
the _puerilities_--as the learned Bishop Eastburn of Boston expresses
it--or the treasonable designs of Jesuits. The reader will here indulge
me, and I trust the editors of the Boston Recorder will pardon me, for
quoting largely from their paper of January 15th, 1846. "M. Pascal, a
devoted member of the Romish Church, has set forth in his provincial
letters the opinions of several distinguished Jesuits, as to the duty of
loving God, and especially in answer to the question, 'When and at what
time is a man obliged to have an actual love or affection for God?' One
Jesuit, Saurez, says, 'It is enough if we love him a little before we
die, without fixing any time.' Another, Vasquez, says that 'it is enough
to love him at the point of death.' We marvel at such answers. But this
is Jesuitism seeking to relieve itself of the painful obligation of
loving God. No order of men,--no society that ever existed, has been
so universally execrated as that of the Jesuits. Everywhere intriguing,
plotting, and dangerous, they have been everywhere dreaded, hated, and
opposed. And not by Protestants alone. The society of Jesuits has been
at different periods expelled from all the States of Europe; and last of
all, France has denounced and rejected it The order, as every one knows,
began with Loyola, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was
intended as a spiritual crusade against heresy; the particular heresy
aimed at being the Reformation, under Luther, who was contemporary with
Loyola. In 1773, the institution of the Jesuits was suppressed by a bull
of Clement XIV. They were accused of 'too great avidity of terrestrial
goods,' of 'criminal plots,' of having in their favor only the exterior
of regularity, disgraced in their maxims, and to render themselves more
powerful, given up to commerce, stock-jobbing, and politics.'

"But the time came when Rome needed the arms of the Jesuits, and their
society was re-established in 1814. The Romish Church still defends the
Jesuits, and stands before the world as their accomplice." The Recorder
continues, and indirectly severely censures those presses and those
timid and irresolute editors who seem to think that they cannot
conscientiously read, or permit their readers to receive into their
houses, the writings of Eugene Sue or Michelet, against the degrading
and traitorous doctrines of Popery.

"The attempt of the Jesuits," continues the pious and talented editor of
the Recorder, "to get the control of education in France, aroused some
powerful spirits, among whom the most distinguished were Michelet and
Guinet, Professors in the College of France. These men are Catholics,
but too excellent and conscientious to receive the appellation in
its bad sense. They are high authority, and we quote a few of their
opinions, publicly uttered in college lectures within the last year or
two." What think you of the above language, you editors of the would-be
evangelical Protestant presses?--you who have pledged your sacred honor
and fortunes to stand by the Church and the Gospel of Christ, and still
censure Michelet, Guinet, and even my own humble efforts to oppose the
spread of Popery among mankind. "Michelet," continues the Recorder,
"calls the spirit of Jesuits the spirit of intrigue--of holy detraction.
God give us, he says, political tyranny, military tyranny, and all other
tyrannies, ten times over, rather than that such a police--that of the
Jesuits--should sully our France." Will the reader permit me to add my
petition to this, and will he join me in beseeching the Throne of Grace
to receive it graciously? God give us, American citizens, political
tyranny, military tyranny, and all other tyrannies, ten times over,
rather than that Jesuitism should disfigure the fair face of our
beautiful Republic The Recorder continues his observations on the
writings of Michelet. "He (Michelet) challenges men to study, and tells
them that at the end of ten years they will find in the history of
Jesuits but one meaning--_the death of liberty_." "This bold lecturer,"
(Michelet) continues the Recorder still, "bounds in passages like the
following: 'What is the nature of the Jesuit? He has none; he is fit for
everything. The Jesuits are a formidable machine for war, invented for
the most vile combat in the sixteenth century. The simple and natural
means which have generally succeeded with the Jesuits is to _catch
wild birds by means of tame ones?_" "I speak," says Michelet, "of
Jesuitesses, polished and gentle, adroit and charming, who always, going
before the Jesuits, put everywhere oil and honey, smoothing the way."
How true this is; and is it not strange, beyond account, that Americans
cannot see it? When Jesuits first came into Boston, they sent before
them Jesuitesses, young, polished, gentle, and charming. These tame
Popish birds were not long amongst us, when they caught whole flocks of
our wild Yankee birds, and are now catching them in almost every State
in the Union. But the Yankee, with all his cuteness, cleverness, and
supposed cunning, will be caught He is no match for the Jesuit. "The
Jesuits," says Michelet, again, "have employed the instrument of which
Jerome speaks--poor little women, all covered with sins." He alludes
to the Sisters of Charity, the Ladies of the Sacred Heart, the Mother
Abbesses, &c., all which are directed and governed by the Jesuits.

Was there ever a truer picture of the operations of Jesuits than this?
And the Americans who cannot see its truth and fidelity, must be blinder
than the bats which flutter in the caves and caverns of their mountains.
Had we not, the other day, on Mount Benedict, in the vicinity of Boston,
the capital of New England, some of those _poor little women, covered
with sins_--meek, and gentle, and angelic-looking little beings? Sweet
little innocents! They had a nunnery there, too. They had a fashionable
school attached to it. And our Protestant Jonathans--poor dolts--sent
their daughters to these poor little women--these Sisters of Charity--to
be educated in the principles of Christianity! True it is that none are
so blind as those who will not see.

The reader will bear with me in quoting a few more passages, which the
Boston Recorder selects from the writings of Guinet, on the subject of
Jesuitism. "The nations which are sickest in Europe, those which have
least credit and authority, are those in which the society of Jesuits
has its hearth. The mission of Jesuitism, in the sixteenth century, was
to destroy the Reformation; the mission of Jesuitism, in the nineteenth
century, is to destroy the Revolution, which supposes, includes, and
envelopes, the Reformation. What cannot fail to strike you, is the
rapidity with which this society has degenerated. Where shall we find
any thing like it in any other order? The public voice has been raised
against it from its very cradle. Already the society was driven out from
a part of Spain in 1565, from the Low Countries and Portugal in 1578,
from all France in 1594, from Venice in 1606, from the Kingdom of Naples
in 1622. I speak only of Catholic countries. We may add, that France
condemned the Jesuits in 1762, and actually drove them from the kingdom,
and that she has since repeated her sentence of reprobation in 1845."

"Now let it be considered," says the Recorder--and I look upon that
venerable journal, and its editors, as high authority--"that these very
Jesuits, dreaded and loathed, in the old countries, looked upon as the
offscouring of all things, the dregs even of Catholic states, are coming
to this country by hundreds, [The Recorder might have said by hundreds
of thousands] seeking here a field for their horrid operations,
determined to regain all and more than they have? lost at home. It is
well understood that the Catholic officials who profane our soil, are
of the Jesuit order,--desperate men, 'fit for everything,' whose very
breath is the 'death of liberty.' Their mission is to deceive and
victimize the American people. The people, therefore, ought to be aware
of their character and operations.

"Some will say," continues the Recorder, farther, "it is not so,--there
is no danger--these priests are a very harmless people. In this
provoking stupidity lies our danger. Before they get their eyes open,
the language of Michelet will be applicable. *Are these Jesuits? A man
asks this question, whose wife they already govern by a confessor of
their own--the wife the house, table, hearth, bed. To-morrow they will
have her child.' There is little reason to suppose that Jesuits will
be forcibly expelled from this country. So much the greater is the
necessity that they should be watched, exposed, and resisted. Their
movements here, are of special moment to Americans. We are called upon
to watch around the 'altar of our liberty.' The Jesuits and the Pope,
would rejoice to see us directing our attention to Italy,--to draw
our attention there, even while they are choosing and fortifying their
position here. Mr. Hogan may be right in suggesting that this is their
'plot.' If so, while they are plotting, let the Americans be adopting
vigorous means of self-protection--such means especially, as religion
and education can best furnish." Thus speaks that truly evangelical and
independent press, the Boston Recorder, of Jesuitism, and the writings
of Sue, Michelet, and Gurnet. And it is to me a source of consolation
and cheering encouragement, to find that it does not disapprove of
my own humble efforts upon the same subject, nor of any of those
authorities which I have called to my aid.

I fully agree with the Recorder, that education--biblical education--is
the best means and defence we can make against the intrigues of
Jesuitism in this country. Our sole and only hope of success against
them, is the general diffusion of education, and that education must be
of a scriptural character. Until the people can read, they cannot
think; and until they can think, they cannot reason, nor consequently
distinguish between error and truth. A vast number of the citizens
of this country are foreigners, from Popish countries, who have no
education but such as they received from their priests; and the history
of the world informs us of the wretched character of that instruction
which they have received from that source. We all can see the condition
of the poor Irish, who for centuries back, have been walking by the
light of some 'magic lantern, held by their priests.' We can see how
prevalent the influence of Popish priests has been, in the education--or
rather want of education of the Irish,--by referring to a _Report of
Commissioners appointed to take the census of Great Britain and Ireland
in 1841_. I here quote from the London Quarterly Review for June, 1845.
"On the present state of Irish education, and its previous progress,
the Commissioners have taken great pains to collect and communicate
information, of which the result is, that the diminution of ignorants,
that is, of persons unable to read and write, is, during the last fifty
years, from forty-eight to thirty-five per cent, of males, and from
sixty to forty-five per cent, of females." What must have been the
condition of this poor people previous to the last fifty years, when
they were educated exclusively by bishops, priests, monks, and nuns? And
how grateful should they feel to the Protestants of Great Britain and
elsewhere for the great diminution which has since taken place in the
number of males and females who could then neither read nor write. It
is creditable to government--the Protestant government of Great
Britain--that out of the number of Irish, which are now in the military
service of Great Britain, sixty per cent, of those between the ages
of sixteen and twenty-five can both read and write. How is this to be
accounted for? Popish priests have nothing to do with the education of
the children of those who are in the service of Great Britain. They
are indebted to Protestant teachers, and Protestant officers, for the
blessings of education which they enjoy. How are the people educated in
Popish France? We can learn from the lectures of Michelet, Professor of
Literature in the College of France; it is wretched in the extreme.
But some of our sympathizers and mawkish journalists may question the
authority of the gentleman. I would refer them to other authority M.
Boulay tells us that more than half the population of France can
neither read nor write. He assures us this is a fixed fact--and he is no
contemptible authority. What does Bishop Fenwick's Corporal Trim think
of this? He assured us, the other day, on his honor and consistency,
that the inhabitants of Catholic countries were the best educated people
in the world Ah! Corporal, thou shalt never die while imposture and
Popery live in the United States. Let us compare the condition of the
Irish, who are educated by Popish priests and Jesuits, with that of
Americans, who have received their education from Protestant teachers,
and we shall see--as the London Quarterly Review expresses it--in
strong contrast, the effect of an almost total, and a very partial Papal
eclipse. Taking the whites--in America--as the analogous population, we
find that persons above the age of twenty years, who can neither read
nor write, are not quite four per cent (3.87.) To make this, however,
a fair subject of comparison, we must consider that the numbers under
twenty are not half the whites, (1.38,) so that we must reckon the
ignorants to be eight pet cent, of the whole. How different this from
the forty per cent of the Irish Papists, and the fifty or sixty per cent
of the French Papists, all of whom are educated by Jesuits and Papists!
What becomes here, of Corporal Brownson's assertion, that "the people
are better educated, in general, in Popish than Protestant countries"?
The fact is, my friend Brownson, you had better shut up shop; you are
a man of no bottom; you possess no solid and useful information;
and easily humbugged, as you and your brethren the Jesuits think the
American people to be, no man can retain long among them, the character
of a learned and honest man, if he have not some solid bottom of his own
to stand upon. It is a bold attempt on the part of Jesuits, to try to
persuade the American people, by means of their agent Brownson, that
the mass of Papists are better educated than Protestants. But, as the
learned Dr. South expresses it, "there is, in the effort to do what is
glaringly false, such a mixture of the fool, as quite spoils the project
of the knave." And I am much mistaken if the knavish Jesuits who infest
this country, do not soon find that the observation of Dr. South is
correct.

Jesuits and their agents in the United States, have taken and are now
taking, great pains to persuade our Protestant citizens, that Papists
are not only better educated than Protestants, but better provided
for in every other respect They have always charged Protestants with
neglecting the poor, and over-working them in every department of labor.
Some of the _Puseyite philosophers_ of the present day, unite with
Jesuits in urging this charge against Protestants. This is peculiarly
worthy of the attention of the Americans, and shows as clearly as any
other circumstance can, the extent and depth of Jesuit intrigue amongst
us. The great mass of the people, in every country, is composed of the
laboring classes, or, as we term them, operatives. And Jesuits know full
well that if they can persuade the great body of Americans, that Popery
gives more encouragement to labor, and requires less of it for a given
price, than those who profess Protestantism, it is an important point
gained; in truth, if this be admitted,--if the Popish Church gives more
encouragement and better pay to laborers, than the Protestant Church,
I, for one, would not and could not withhold from her my full and
hearty commendation thus far. If it be true,--as that great Idealist and
Puseyite, Mr. Ward, of England, contends,--that the poor and neglected
and oppressed, in those countries where Protestant government prevails,
are much better provided for under Popish governments, the fact ought
to be well understood, and in place of wishing to overthrow these
governments and prevent the farther growth of Popery, we should pause,
and look seriously into the question.

But is it true that labor is more encouraged and better paid, under
Catholic than Protestant governments? Is it true that operatives--say
for instance those who work in factories--are more humanely dealt with,
better paid, and not required to work as many hours, under Popish
as under Protestant governments? I call the attention of American
Protestants to this question. It is one of vital importance.

Both Puseyites and Jesuits allege this as positive, We have them here
on the platform of unequivocal allegation of fact. "We have them on the
hip." I am now willing to grapple with Jesuits and Puseyites upon this
question. It cannot be evaded by them. It must be yes or no. Jesuit
sophistry can avail them nothing, and if I can show our operatives, and
laborers in our factories, that those Jesuits and Puseyites who are now
overspreading our Republic, are trying to deceive them and reduce them
to farther hardships, I trust they will rise as a body, men, women,
children, and all, and hoot them from our shores. It is wrong to deceive
any one; and no honest man or true Christian will do so; but it is cruel
to deceive the poor laborer or operative, who lives by the sweat of his
brow.

If the reader will accompany me across the Atlantic, I will show him
the condition of the operatives in some of those countries where the
government is Popish, and where the religion of the people is that of
Jesuits and priests. Let us visit France, a Catholic country. Let us
examine a Report made by M. Delambre, the head of the department of
Manufactures, in the office of the Minister of Commerce, in 1838. From
that Report it appears, that the actual work of children, in factories,
is never less than twelve hours, and extends from that minimum amount,
to fourteen hours, in the twenty-four. It is also stated by him, that
in the chief manufactories, it is not unusual with them to work all
Saturday night and Sunday morning. So much for Popish clemency and
Jesuit lenity to the poor operative. Let us cross over the Channel to
England, a Protestant government and a Protestant country. How is it
with operatives and children in factories there? I refer the reader, for
an answer, to Horner on the Employment of Children in Factories, page
28. "In England, under a Protestant government, no child under thirteen
can be employed for more than eight hours a day; nor can any young
person, just emerged from childhood, be employed more than twelve hours
a day." On Saturday the hours of work were only nine, when Mr. Horner
wrote, and I am informed by the London Quarterly Review, of January,
1845, to which I am indebted for much of the information which I here
give on the subject of factory laborers,--that a new Act of Parliament,
fixing the maximum of labor, for children, at six and a half hours per
day, has recently been passed. What becomes, now, of the assertions of
Puseyites and Jesuits on the subject of Popish charity and humanity to
the poor? The truth is, that I may challenge them to show me mankind, in
any condition or any situation, or any clime or country, under Catholic
or Protestant government, where they are not more oppressed, more
degraded, more abused, and more ignorant under Catholic than Protestant
governments. How then can it be, with this fact before their eyes, that
Americans--Protestant Americans--give any countenance to Popery and
Jesuits in the United States? or how can we account for the still more
extraordinary fact, that one of the most learned Christian Associations
that ever have been established in this country--_The Christian
League_---does not devote its whole and undivided energies to the
removal of Jesuits and Jesuitism from amongst us. I cannot account for
the fact I have conversed with a learned member of this Association, a
gentleman of distinguished talents and deserved popularity. I asked him
why the Association did not spread its forces, extend its lines, and
devote its funds of intellect, as well as of money, exclusively to the
removal of Jesuitism from our happy country. His answer was, "we do not
deem it prudent to do so; we cannot fail to kill Jesuitism in Italy, and
there will be an end of it."

Gendemen of the Christian League! I once before entreated you to
withdraw your troops from Italy. You can do no good in that country. But
suppose you did kill Popery in Italy--suppose that Jesuitism was dead
and buried in that ill-fated country--I tell you that it will rise in
this, and that in the shape of a tremendous, unformed spectre, in a far
more terrific guise than ever before overpowered the imagination of man.
I may not live to see it; many of you may not live to witness it; but
that does not alter the truth of my prediction.

I have deviated far and wide from the point for which I set out at the
commencement of this book. As usual, I have paid no attention to order,
literary style, or argumentative consecutiveness. Let this, however,
not be attributed to any want, on my part, of due respect for the good
opinion of my readers. My sole object in writing this book was to state
facts, a knowledge of which I deemed necessary and useful to my fellow
citizens; and as I knew full well that it was perfectly immaterial to
the majority of them, how or in what manner these facts were stated,
provided they were true, I have given them at random, just as they
occurred to me--_currente calamo_. Besides this, I am pretty much of the
opinion of Swift, and value not the rules of art as high as others do:

"Nature, I thought, performed too mean a part, Forming her movements to
the rules of art."

I will now return to the subject of auricular confession, and the gross
immorality practised by priests in the Popish confessionals. But I must
say, as I have often done before, that it is impossible to prove to the
Protestant inhabitants of the United States all, or even many of the
particulars of those various accusations which I have advanced against
Popish bishops and priests. The system of confession itself, and the
manner in which it is made, render the thing impossible. No one can
understand the doctrine of Popish confession, except those who have been
Popish priests, and have acted themselves in the capacity of confessors.
The man who has not been a Free Mason, for instance, may accuse that
ancient society of Free and Accepted Masons of sanctioning, or even
perpetrating crimes, but all his accusations will go for nothing, if he
has not been a Mason himself, for the very obvious reason that he knows
nothing, and could know nothing of Masonry, from his own knowledge; and
hence it is that we find Jesuit priests and Popish presses turning
into ridicule, and not without some cause, many Protestant writers and
Protestant newspapers for accusing them of things they know nothing at
all about. Here I have had the advantage of Popish priests and Popish
presses, and hence it probably is that my books against Popery have
had such extensive circulation, and have silenced, as it were by magic,
almost every Roman Catholic Press in the United States. And let it not
be deemed vanity in me, should I recommend to those editors who have
established presses with the avowed intention of exposing Popery, to be
cautious in their charges against the Papists, for one unfounded charge
is apt to destroy the weight of a thousand which may be true; and I am
sorry to see that many such charges are made by pious men, and even
by learned men on other subjects, but who seem far in advance of their
prudence. No man can detect a flaw in an argument sooner than a Jesuit,
and no press can turn it into more bitter ridicule than a Jesuit press.
No matter who the reputed editor of the press may be, every article in
it is revised and corrected by a Jesuit bishop or his deputy, before it
meets the public eye; and hence, perhaps, arises much of the popularity
of my books. I have never advanced a charge against Jesuits or Popish
priests, which I did not know to be true; I have never accused them, as
a body, of being guilty of a crime in the confessional, which I did
not know, of my own knowledge, to be undeniably true; and to do them
justice, they have never denied it.

That the Romish confessionals are sinks of unparalleled corruption,
seduction, and the most revolting impurities, is but too well understood
in Papal countries. Michelet understands it in France, so does Eugene
Sue; but still far better does John Ronge understand it in Switzerland,
because he has been, but the other day, a Roman Catholic priest himself.
The Catholic priests in almost all Germany understand this, and seem
now determined, through their fearless champion Ronge, to lay before
the view of mankind the wicked impurities practised in the Romish
confessional; and indeed it is a matter of astonishment that any people
should sanction amongst them the practice of sending young females to
confession to priests who are taught and commanded by their church to
question them on subjects so indelicate and gross that of necessity
impure thoughts must arise in their young minds. I can of my own
knowledge say, that if it had been the intention of any body of men to
corrupt the morals of the human race, to habituate the children of
both sexes to impurity, filth and profligacy, it would be impossible to
devise a scheme more completely adapted to produce that effect than
the practice of confessing to priests, and the establishment of Popish
nunneries amongst them. The common sense of mankind, the ordinary
feelings of morality, would have made it impossible to carry into effect
such a project, unless it had assumed the mask of a religious duty to
God.

It is said in the United States that if priests were so immoral as I
have represented them to be, and in the habit of taking such liberty
with females at the confessional as I have accused them of,
that virtuous females--and there must be some such among Roman
Catholics--would not continue long to go to confession to those priests
who take indelicate liberties with them. One would suppose that such
females would leave the church altogether. How little--I repeat it for
the hundredth time--do Americans know of the wheels within wheels in the
great machine of Popery! guilty priests who have made attempts to seduce
virtuous females at the confessional, and found that they could not
succeed, understand how to manage their case well. The church, in her
infallible wisdom, has made provision for such events. It is well known
in Europe, and let it be henceforward known in the United States, that
there are two distinct and separate orders of priests--seculars and
regulars. The secular order is composed chiefly of parish priests
and their curates, whose duty it is to hear the confessions of their
parishioners. The order of regulars is composed of friars, who are
sub-divided into several minor orders, and who have no parochial duties
to discharge, unless especially deputed to do so by the Bishop or his
deputy of the diocese in which they may be located. It is so arranged
by the secular priests, that whenever they fail in seducing their
penitents, and are detected by them, that one of these friars shall
immediately be at hand to hear the confessions of all such females, and
forgive them their sins _on condition that they shall never reveal to
mortal being the thoughtless peccadillo of their parish priest, who for
the moment forgot himself and whose tears of repentance now moisten the
ground on which he walks!_

Let me make this more plain by supposing a case or two, by way of
illustration. Suppose the Popish bishop of New York were a young,
athletic, amorous man; suppose he fixed his eye upon a young married
woman, or some fascinating lady of his flock--the supposition is a
very wild one, I admit--suppose he try to seduce one or either at the
confessional, and she reject his criminal overtures,--how would his
Popish _lordship_ act on this occasion? He always has at his elbow some
friar, and that friar a foreigner, whom he directs to go, instanter, and
hear the confession of those ladies. The friar knows his duty too well
to disobey the orders of the Pope's viceroy in New York, and the whole
affair is hushed up, perfectly to the satisfaction of the ladies, who
are absolved from their sins, and entirely to that of his lordship, who
Knows full well that the affair will never be heard of again. This friar
is a sort of spiritual rover, and as soon as he has done his business in
New York, is despatched to Boston, or elsewhere, until he visits perhaps
every diocese in the Union. He then returns home to Rome, never to visit
this country again. Another is sent in his place, and thus the work
of seduction and immorality goes on, from year to year, in Popish
confessionals, and almost under our very eyes, without our knowledge,
while the guilty monsters, priests and bishops, are rioting at our
hospitable tables, feasting upon our richest viands, and sipping our
oldest wines. Things are so arranged in the Popish church, that the
crimes of the priests in or out of the confessional, are seldom known to
the great mass of the people. Such are the means adopted by the church
of Rome to cloak and conceal from the public eye the profligacies of
her priests and bishops, that it is almost impossible to detect these
culprits and bring them to legal punishment. If, for instance, a priest
commit a crime in Boston, which the representative of the Popish church
in that city thinks may, by possibility, come to light, and throw any
discredit upon the church, or diminish his own personal influence in
that city, funds are placed in his hands by the church, to meet the
expenses of removing him to any part of the world he chooses, and the
guilty priest needs only what is technically called an _exeat_, to
insure him a warm reception from any Popish bishop in the universe. It
is a general practice of the bishops in the Romish church, to exchange
guilty priests with each other; they are very punctual in reciprocating
such favors. When nuns or Roman Catholic females commit crimes in
convents, which can no longer be concealed, the holy and infallible
church provides means for their instant removal to a different diocese.
But should they still persevere in their iniquities, and should it be
found impossible to prevent further illicit intercourse between them
and their confessors, means are provided to send them to some foreign
country. We have now several foreign nuns in the United States. By
foreign nuns I do not mean foreigners who became nuns in this country. I
mean those who became nuns in foreign countries, and who have been
sent amongst us as such, for the purpose of educating our children,
and educating them in the doctrines of _their pure religion_. And I
positively assert, to the best of my own belief, and partly of my
own personal knowledge, that there is not to be found among them an
individual, much of whose previous life has not been spent in criminal
intercourse and illicit connexion with their confessors and priests.
This is no random assertion of mine. I make the allegation with shame
and sorrow, but the cause of truth demands it; and justice to my fellow
citizens who are in the habit of sending their children to school to
these consummate hypocrites, renders it imperative upon me that I should
declare the truth, however unpalatable it may be.

Will the reader indulge me, while I quote a passage or two from the
London Quarterly Review, for June, 1844? The editors of that periodical
are gentlemen of great respectability, and men of well-established
veracity, whose statements confirm some of my assertions. "The heads
of the Church themselves, admit the liability of abuse through the
confessional, and frequent exhortations are published, desiring all
women, who have improper _solicitations_ made to them there, to denounce
the confessor; but a moment's consideration will show the inutility of
this exhortation; and one instance, which we shall give, must suffice
for all. An Italian gentleman of our acquaintance, removed with his
family, from the place of his nativity, to a town in another State; soon
after their arrival the wife went to the confessional, in the parish
church, where improper proposals were made to her; she ran home and
acquainted her husband; he made a formal complaint to the proper
authorities, in her name; a day was appointed for the examination of
the charge; and when the time arrived, the lady naturally declined to
appear. It is obvious that just in proportion as the person offended, is
delicate, and the offence gross, there will be the greater difficulty in
inducing the complainant to come forward." The truth of this is obvious
to all, and here lies one great security against detecting a licentious
and criminal priest. Were it not for this, our citizens would hoot at
them as they walked our streets. Were it not for this, Popish priests
and confessors would never be admitted into their houses, or occupy a
seat at the table of any decent or virtuous family. I know so well, of
my own knowledge, the nature of those questions and solicitations, that
are offered by Popish priests to women in the confessional, that I
can scarcely believe any woman could be found, who would appear in the
presence of men, or before any tribunal, civil or ecclesiastical, and
repeat the language by which her ears have been insulted.

Popish priests understand human nature well; they know the timid and
shrinking disposition of a virtuous woman. They feel that they are safe
from public prosecution, so long as their solicitations and criminal
overtures are known only to women of reputation. If it were not for
this, our criminal courts could not contain the number of those reverend
wretches, among Popish priests, who should appear before our criminal
tribunals. Even Roman Catholic laymen, of rank and intelligence, have no
idea of the enormities committed by their priests. Effectual means
are taken, by the Church of Rome, to conceal their enormities from the
public eye. The extent of immorality is so great in Catholic countries,
in Germany, France, and, _sub rosa_, in Ireland, that it is considered
an evidence of prudence, in a priest, to keep a mistress, rather than
be a public scandal. It is thought by the Irish that their priests are
peculiarly chaste and virtuous; they boast of this. I know the Irish
priests as well as any other man living; I have lived among them; I
was one of them; I acted as a confessor among them, and held in that
capacity a higher position than any of my age in the country; and I
solemnly declare, that I never knew a chaste man among them. Every
parish priest that ever I knew in Ireland, kept a mistress whom he
called a _housekeeper_, or some female whose duty or whose apparent
business it seemed to be, to superintend his wardrobe or some such
thing; but such is the credulity of the poor Irish, and such their
idolatrous veneration for their priests, that I really believe, if they
detected one of them in _flagranti crimine_, they would not credit
the testimony of their own senses. It occurs, sometimes,--though very
seldom,--that one of those Irish priests is detected; the punishment,
in that case, is simply his removal to another parish. I have known
immoralities committed in the houses of Irish parish priests, so heinous
that they cannot be put to paper; and yet the poor Irish Catholics, who
seem fated to be the victims of every species of delusion and imposture,
look upon their priests as perfect models of piety-; and consider their
agent, Daniel O'Connell,--that enemy of peace and happiness,--as one of
the most perfect specimens of patriotism that ever basked in the
pure air of freedom. The poor Irish believe, most implicitly, in the
necessity of Auricular Confession; and such is their delusion, that many
of them, even in this country, will not be persuaded, at this day,
that their priests take any pay for absolving them from their sins and
forgiving their crimes. It is not many days ago since a respectable
physician in Boston told me that an Irish Roman Catholic, in that city,
offered to bet him five hundred dollars that Roman Catholic priests
demanded no pay for pardoning sins. Can this be delusion, or
infatuation, or is it a species of witchery that thus deceives,
enchains, and blinds a people, in all other respects of quick
imagination and natural talents? I am free to confess, that I know not
how to account for it myself. I am perfectly at a loss what to call it;
but there it is, strange as it may appear.

I would ask that gentleman who offered to make the above bet, or any
other Roman Catholic who ever lived in Ireland, whether he has heard of
such a thing as _stations of confession_, which are held two or three
times a year by every parish priest in Ireland; or whether he has ever
heard of such a thing as the _Viaticum_, which is given to the sick,
after confession, and in _arliculo mortis_. I cannot suppose that there
is, in this country, an Irish Roman Catholic who has not seen and
heard of both, and who does not know that these are modes and practices
adopted by Irish priests for the purpose of collecting payment for
the pardon of sins. There are regulations published in each diocese
in Ireland, and put forth among the priests, by episcopal authority,
regulating _clerical dues_. Specific sums are laid down for mass, and
for auricular confession,--which the Church of Rome calls a sacrament,
by the name of _penance_,--for marriage, for baptism, extreme
unction, &c. The parish priest selects two or more houses in each
parish,--invariably those the most wealthy among the farmers,--and gives
notice from the altar, the Sunday previous, that on a certain day, of
the coming week, he will hold a _station of confession_ at the house of
A--------; this notice is equivalent to saying,--and is understood in no
other sense, _all of you who have not come to confession for a certain
time, or who wish to go to confession now, come forward and pay me my
dues_. The wily priest never says, come and pay me for pardoning your
sins; that would never do. Protestants may hear it, and it would surely
go abroad that Irish priests were not entirely disinterested, and that
they could no more live by prayer alone than other people. I have, by
order of the parish priest, for whom I acted as curate during a short
time, held many of those _stations of confession_, and never did a
Yankee pedler drive a harder bargain with his customers, than I was
compelled to make with those who came to confession to me, for
payment for pardoning their sins; 'crediti amici,' however strange the
declaration may appear to you; I have been ordered by the same Popish
priest, in Ireland, to administer what is called, in Popish parlance,
the _Sacrament of Extreme Unction_, and to give to the dying patient the
_Viaticum_; I have done so hundreds of times, but never until, by order
of the same priest, payment was made to me in advance, whenever there
was the least doubt of the ability of the patient or his friends to pay.
Before the _Viaticum_ is given, or permitted to be given by the Irish
bishops, it is required that the dying sinner should confess; for be
it known, the poor Irish Catholic is persuaded, that this _Viaticum_ or
wafer, made of flour and water, is the great God himself. The _Viaticum_
is contained in a small box, called a _pixis_, and large enough to
contain from ten to fifty of these wafers or Gods, and is carried in the
breeches pocket of the priest. Do not laugh, American Protestants, or
imagine that I am dealing in fables; I have gone, hundreds of times, to
hear the confessions of dying Irish Papists, and given them one of these
Viaticums or Gods, fifty or sixty of which, I have often carried at
a time in my pocket My orders were, upon all occasions, never to give
absolution or the Viaticum, to any one, until payment was first insured
to me; otherwise I had to pay the parish priest out of my own funds.
Scenes which take place on such occasions, are truly heart-rending. The
poor sick and simple Irish Catholic, believes that he shall be damned to
all eternity, if he is not anointed and forgiven his sins by the priest.
He would cheerfully pay him if he had the means; he would cheerfully
sell the blanket that shelters him from the cold blasts of winter, to
pay the hard-hearted priest; but the blanket is often worth nothing, is
often but a filthy, lousy rag, such as no American can form the least
conception of, though the well-fed priest lives in luxury. I have known
some curates in Ireland, who had no means of their own, to take the
chickens, the ducks, or turkeys of poor men whom they _anointed_, and
who had no money to pay the priest for pardoning their sins, and tie the
legs of those fowls together, throwing them across their saddles, and
carrying them home to pay the parish priest The poor curate perhaps was
not worth a dollar, and dare not return to the priest without bringing
with him his dues.

It is extremely unpleasant to dwell upon the disgusting scenes which are
daily witnessed in the sick rooms of the Irish peasantry. The idea of
dying without obtaining _absolution_ and extreme unction from a Roman
Catholic priest, is agonizing and intolerable to a poor Irish Papist,
and it is considered as an everlasting stigma even upon his posterity.
Every effort is therefore made to procure a _shilling_, which is the
minimum charge made by a priest for administering extreme unction. Any
man may judge of the feelings and mental distress of a dying man who
believes that he has not an hour longer to live, and that his eternal
salvation depends upon the absolution of his sins and the application
of extreme unction, or _blessed oil_, by his priest. But the dying
individual is not the only one who suffers; the wife, the children,
and grandchildren, participate in his mental sufferings; and those
warm-hearted creatures would give, and do give, the last potato from
their table, or the last basket of turf in their possession, to a
priest, rather than witness any longer the sufferings of the dying
parent. It must seem strange that this people should not make some
effort to shake off the chains with which their priests have bound
them to the car of Popery; but they will not. Such is the influence of
superstition over their minds, that they will suffer on forever, unless
Protestant Christians do something to relieve them. The Protestant
government of Great Britain would willingly break those chains which
bind this generous and warm-hearted people to Popery, but they will not
have them broken. The Popish bishops of Ireland have recently refused
to accept the provision which the Protestant government of Great Britain
seems willing to make for the support of the Roman Catholic church and
priests in Ireland. That demon in human shape--that traitor in the guise
of a patriot and Christian--Daniel O'Connell, advises the Roman Catholic
bishops of Ireland not to accept the state provision which Great Britain
is willing to make for the priests of the Irish Catholic church. This
man's drafts upon the credulity of mankind are very large--so large
that I believe they cannot be honored much longer. Why do Irish priests
refuse the state provision which Great Britain is willing to make for
them? Why do they not accept it from that source, rather than drag it
from the poor, in shillings, in chickens, ducks, turkies, barrels of
potatoes, pounds of butter, cishes of turf, &c. &c.? Why does Daniel
O'Connell advise them, in his traitorous harangues, not to receive the
liberal provision which the British government seems willing to make for
them? The reason is plain to the most careless and superficial thinker.
The traitor knows very well that the ultimate success of all his
ambitious designs depends upon the cooperation of the Popish church and
its priests in Ireland. He knows full well that if the priests were paid
by the State, they would lose their influence with the people, and that
he would lose the cooperation of both in his treacherous designs to
overthrow Protestant governments and Protestant religion in England and
elsewhere. Disguise it as he may, cover it over with Jesuitical varnish
of what thickness or depth be pleases, it is evident that the overthrow
of Protestantism in Church and State is the grand object which O'Connell
and the Popish church have in view, in their present movements, both in
Ireland and in the United States. The Popish bishops and O'Connell are
aware that the moment the parish priests and curates of Ireland were
paid their dues, they (the bishops and O'Connell) must lose their
influence with the great mass of the people. This is evident to
myself. But what sort of influence would they lose? Must they lose that
influence which a Christian minister of the gospel would like to possess
over his flock, and which every good man likes to see in all evangelical
religions? I answer in the negative, and I challenge fair contradiction.
They could lose nothing which a pious Christian or a good citizen would
desire to retain. They could only lose their influence as rebels to God
and traitors to the rights of man.

Will Americans reflect for a moment that we have about three millions of
the disciples of O'Connell and Popish bishops in this country? Let every
lover of our constitution ponder seriously upon this fact.

How do Popish bishops persuade their people to blind submission to their
will, and to the will of the traitor O'Connell? It is done through the
confessional.

That is the channel through which the poison of treason and idolatry
is infused into the minds of Papists. But let that O'Connell take heed,
lest the fate of Dante, once as good a Roman Catholic as himself, should
overtake him. Apropos, Corporal Brownson, Bishop Fenwick's mouth-piece
in Boston, makes a boast of the fact that Dante was a Roman Catholic,
and assures us that he was an honor to the Popish Church. I wonder
whether the Corporal has ever read Dante's poem on Hell? If he has,
I would advise him to have written on the door of every Popish
confessional, that caution which Dante recommended to be posted on
its portals. I have not a copy of Dante in my possession, but it was
something to this effect, "_Pause before you enter this gate_" This
caution should be written in large letters upon the door of every Romish
confessional in the civilized world. I can assure those who enter that
accursed tribunal, that they may as well enter the hell described by
Dante. I owe an apology to the public for the frequent mention of the
name of Brownson, in these pages; but he has proved to me so great and
prolific a source of mixed sadness and merriment, that I could not avoid
frequent allusion to his name. I verily believe that were it not for
him, I could scarcely write the present volume.

"Without thee [Corporal Browson ] nothing lofty could I sing; Come,
then, and with thyself thy genius bring."

The Corporal, I understand, is now lecturing in Philadelphia, on the
_infallibility_ of the Romish church,--and the simple purity of its
_democratic form of government_.

According to Brownson, who never utters a word until it is first
approved by the Roman Catholic bishops in the United States, no form
of government should be allowed, but such as that now established and
sanctioned by the Pope of Rome. The Pope's subjects, and they alone, as
Brownson assures us, are fit to bear aloft the standard of liberty. No
hands should be permitted to touch or embroider the flag of freedom, but
those of chaste nuns and sisters of charity in the Popish church; and
no arms should be allowed the honor of defending that flag, but the
valorous ones of those who have been pardoned their sins at the holy
tribunal of confession. Is this really the state of things? If so,
thrice welcome the sisters of charity amongst us, and ten thousand
welcomes to those Popish patriots who have confessed their sins and been
pardoned by their priests. But what if the government of the Court of
Rome should be found not to be, in reality, all that our Popish bishops
recommend, and all that Brownson represents it? What if it should be
found that the Pope is not an angel, and that his government is far
from being perfect? How would it be if his Royal Holiness the Pope, were
proved to be a weak and licentious old profligate, unable to rule, and
unwilling to obey? What if his government were proved to be one of the
most corrupt, avaricious, tyrannical, that ever existed upon earth? This
would entirely change the position of affairs, and could not fail to
tinge with a blush the cheeks of our citizens who are weak enough to
listen to the ranting declamations of the hired infidel Brownson. I have
before me the last number of the Westminster Review, a work of
great talent and popularity, widely differing in tone and style, and
respectability, from a thing called Brownson's Democratic Review. The
reader will easily pardon me for quoting a few extracts from it,
which will tend to throw some light on the beauties of that Popish
republicanism which the bishops of the Catholic church are desirous of
introducing into the United States. I beg the particular attention of my
readers to it. There is more of good sense, sound judgment, truth, and
good taste, in it, than in all the _clishmaclaver_ which has been issued
from the Popish presses and Jesuit quarterly reviews in the United
States, during the last half century. "We are not here to treat of the
Pope, that nominal head of the State--all-powerful for evil--absolutely
impotent for 27 good. As a general rule, he may be set down as an old
imbecile, thrust into power by a faction of the Cardinals, who share
among them the spoils; or as a veteran trafficer in ambition, who
settles with his electors the price of his elevation to the Papacy, and
who is compelled, at the risk of his life, to observe the conditions of
the compact. The real chief is the Secretary of State--_Sacretario di
Stado_--this is he who is the leader of the faction in the conclave. He
stands above all authority. He is supposed to receive the responses of
the Papal oracle, and to utter them in the name of laws. A few strokes
of the pen, forwarded to a tribunal, enable him to annihilate, without
publicity, statutory enactments." How would our Western citizens,
Wolverines, Suckers, Hoosiers, and Squatters, like such a Secretary
of State? How would the citizens of Tennessee, and Illinois, like such
gentlemen, as Secretaries for their respective States? How many votes,
reader, do you suppose such a man would receive, were he a candidate
for re-election as Secretary of State, in Vermont or New Hampshire?
Very few, I apprehend; and yet the infidel Brownson, who is a native of
Vermont--if I am correctly informed--is trying to establish amongst us
a religion which would force upon us the duty of supporting such
characters for the highest offices in our government.

"Next to the Secretary of State," continues the Westminster Review,
"comes a Cardinal. His titles confer upon him the Presidency of the
Apostolic Chamber, and the management of the customs and the mint....
His titles would lead one to infer that the general direction of the
postal department was intrusted to him, though he has nothing to do with
it The posts are under a separate and independent jurisdiction.... More
definite in duty, but equally unaccountable as to performance, is the
Treasurer General, who completes a supreme triumvirate of the Papal
States. He is the real minister of finance, though with the usual rule
of misrule, several branches of that head are entirely independent He
attends to the collection of the revenue, and appoints the provincial
receivers; he contracts loans, and orders the sale of public property.
_He never gives account to any one of his administration, nor of the
distribution of the funds that enter the treasury; neither has any one a
right to demand an account_. He can only be dismissed from his office by
being promoted to the office of Cardinal; he then leaves on his desk a
key, supposed to be that of the treasury, being the only formality that
is indispensable." This is taking the responsibility, with a vengeance!
The reason why the Popish Church gives this unlimited power to the
secretary of her treasury, deserves peculiar notice. Americans should
view it closely. All Protestant governments and Protestant countries
should examine it attentively. The Pope and his government are aware
that if their Secretary of the Treasury were compelled to give a correct
account of the monies he received, and the uses for which they were
appropriated, their plans, their bribes, their subornation of
witnesses, their intrigues, and various modes of overthrowing Protestant
governments and Protestant churches, could not fail to be discovered,
and then the Unanimous voice of mankind would cry aloud, Down v with
Popery! down with the Beast! down with the old harlot of Rome! If
the Pope's treasurer were compelled to account for the millions upon
millions which Jesuits and Popish priests wring from the hard earnings
of mankind, the Romish church could not exist an hour longer, and there
is not a Protestant government upon earth, that would allow within its
jurisdiction a Popish college, bishop, seminary, nunnery, or monk-house.
Were the treasurer of the Romish church obliged to give a fair account
of the uses to which he appropriated the funds received and expended by
him, Americans could soon know where Bishop Hughes of New York receives
the vast sums of money which he has been expending for several years
back, in erecting colleges and nunneries, into which he may decoy the
children of Protestant Americans. It would then be known where Bishop
Purcel of Ohio, obtained the funds with which he clandestinely, and
without giving them any notice, purchased the buildings occupied by the
Misses Beecher and others, in the city of Cincinnati, as a seminary
for the education of young ladies. The Popish Bishop Hughes of New York
never owned a dollar of his own; it is but a few years since he was
employed as a gardener in the college of Georgetown or Emmetsburg, I
forget which. Bishop Purcel of Ohio was equally poor and destitute; but
now these right reverend Jesuits have at their command any amount of
money which they in their judgment may deem necessary to proselytize
American heretics, and overthrow their republican form of government.

Could we but know how the treasurer of the Pope disposed of the funds of
his church, the Jesuit Bishop Fenwick of Boston, could no longer conceal
from the citizens of Massachusetts, where he found means to build a
Popish college at Worcester; to which, I understand, he soon intends
adding an extensive nunnery and a Foundling' Hospital, in which
fatherless orphans, or rather the bastard children of Jesuits, are to be
provided for.

It is sound policy, in the Popish Church, not to require from the Pope's
treasurer, any account of the mode or manner in which he disposes of
the funds entrusted to his charge. And I cannot withhold from them due
credit for this admirable stroke of policy, wicked and demoralizing as
it is in reality.

"Yet lower, beneath the class of principals and subalterns, swarms, as
reptiles in filth, a hideous race, not to be hinted at in good society,
but whose abnormal existence must be proclaimed in our effort to
make intelligible the nature of papal government--a race of varlets,
parasites, prostitutes, trafficers in vice, legions of familiar demons,
who crawl from the basement to the very summit of the edifice. The
celibacy of the clergy,--the occupiers of every avenue to power,--is the
source of their influence....... For ages past, the interior corruption,
and the power exercised at Rome by domestics and women of gallantry, has
been notorious; but before the time of Pius VI. (Pius died only about
fifty years ago) the profligacy of the priests, though more brazen,
had not, in general at least, stained the family hearth. The natural
children of Popes Cardinals, and Bishops, impudently recognized, by
their elevation to the highest dignities, were not the offspring of
their neighbors' wives.... At a later period, the depravity general in
Europe, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the examples set
by Cardinals Richlieu, Mazarin, and Alberoni, and the morale of theology
disseminated by Jesuits,--masters in the art of inciting the human
passions, to turn them in the end to their own account, and of fostering
covert infamy, to lord it over their penitents by the possession of
their secrets (in the confessional,)--taught, by Roman Cardinals and
Bishops, that it was more convenient, and less scandalous, to insinuate
their seduction, where it was the interest of all parties to conceal
it," The Westminster Review is good authority upon any subject; but I
have adopted a general rule, in my controversy with Papists, never
to quote from Protestant authorities, except when I know, of my own
knowledge, that the facts stated by them are true, and susceptible of
proof. This is not--as the reader may easily imagine--because I doubt
the veracity of Protestant writers, but because Jesuits will persuade
their followers, that my statements are only a repetition of _old lies_,
fabricated by heretics. I have unqualifiedly accused the Roman Catholic
priests and bishops of this country, and elsewhere, of using the
confessional for the infamous purpose of seducing, females. I have
charged upon nunneries, that they were nothing better than legalized
houses of prostitution, and established among us, by the Pope of
Rome and his bishops, for the sole purpose of affording them better
opportunities and greater security in their immoralities and high-handed
profligacies; and I appeal to Americans, of all denominations, whether
I have or have not established my charges against them. I ask any
well-read American, who is acquainted with the private history of
Cardinal Richlieu, whether he was not one of the greatest profligates of
his day? Is it not well known, that Cardinal Mazarin was so notorious a
profligate, that no man's wife was safe in his society, or proof against
his political influence and extravagant expenditures. He was Prime
Minister to Louis XIV. of France; he had, in his gift, nearly all the
offices under the government; and it was well understood, throughout
all France, that it was perfectly useless for any man whose wife was
not young and beautiful, to apply to him for office. There is not to
be found, a well informed man, who has not read the life of Cardinal De
Retz, and who does not know that his house, and his soirees, were places
of rendezvous for gay women, and especially for that portion of them
whose character for chastity was not the best Let it be observed
here, that the parish priests and cures were all in the pay of these
Cardinals, and employed to procure and select for them, through the
confessional, the most beautiful and desirable women in Paris; and
faithfully did these Popish _pimps_ discharge their commissions.
But still, the Jesuits of this country, and that miserable outcast
mouth-piece of theirs, Brownson, talk of the _infallibility_ of the
Romish Church, and the superior beauties of its democratic form of
government. Can it be possible that the enlightened Republicans of the
United States, have patience to listen to the diatribes of this man
against Protestant governments and Protestant Churches? Yet so it is;
and I have not the least doubt, that many of the indignant expressions,
which I make use of in speaking of him and Jesuits, will be found fault
with, as they have been before, by many of the mawkish sympathizers with
Popery, in the United States.

There are to be found, among the good and virtuous of our Protestant
people, many who think that I should use milder language than much of
that contained in my books,--that some of it is too harsh,--that it
shows a bad spirit, a bad temper, and is--_pro tanto_--an indirect
evidence, that I possess not a Christian feeling towards Popery or its
advocates. That I am not what a Christian ought to be, in thought, word,
and deed, 1 will freely admit. But those sympathizers, whether Infidels
or Christians, who think that I should use milder language in my
controversy with Papists, know but very little--as I have often told
them before--of the spirit and elements of Popery, or the mode of
warfare adopted by its Jesuits; and hence it is, that whenever they
themselves enter the lists of controversy with Popish priests, and
Jesuit presses, they are invariably and ingloriously defeated. I would
ask these gentlemen, who find fault with the apparent asperity of my
language, whether they could, collectively or individually, silence
the howlings of a northeast storm by softly whistling Yankee Doodle, or
humming Hail Columbia? When they can do this--but I doubt much if it can
be done sooner--then they can silence scurrilous Jesuits in their abuse
of Protestant religion, and check the efforts of the Popish presses in
the United States, by using mild, charitable, and gentlemanly language,
in all controversies with them. The fact is, Protestants and Protestant
theologians too, must alter their mode of warfare with Papists.

The Popish press in the United States, has always endeavored, and never
failed in the attempt--as far as I know--to place our Protestant presses
in a position of defence. A single thrust from their journals, inflicts
a wound which requires months to heal; the prescription alone, which
is necessary for a cure, occupies whole columns of our presses and
periodicals, and thus they have a great advantage over their Protestant
opponents. I have never given them this advantage, and until my
Protestant fellow laborers in the glorious cause of religion and civil
rights, follow my example, in their controversies with Papists, they may
as well 'pile arms' at once, and retire from the arena. I have carried
the war with Papists, into Africa, but not until all overtures for peace
proved ineffectual. I have inflicted upon them wounds, which it will
require some time to heal. The result has shown the policy of my
course towards them. It is scarcely twelve months, since _repeal
meetings_,--which in reality were meetings held for the ill-disguised
purpose of overthrowing the Protestant Church and government in this
country,--were held in every hall and place of public meeting in our
cities. I have exposed the covert intentions of those meetings, in pure
Saxon language. I have called the priests and Jesuits who encouraged
them, as well as the presses which advocated them,--traitors, and
enemies to religion and the civil rights of our people. What has been
the consequence? We scarcely hear now, of a _repeal 27* meeting_. Its
advocates have been silenced, and they are obliged to abandon the cause,
or support it under some other name or title, which I understand they
are doing now, in Boston, under the infamous disguise of taking up
contributions for the starving Irish. The Popish bishops, finding
me rather a troublesome customer, and well versed in Jesuitical
fencing,--parrying and thrusting with as much skill and precision as
they themselves, having been taught in the same school with them, and
by the same masters,--have come to the wise conclusion, that they had
better let me alone, and tacitly admit the truth of every accusation
which I have brought against them. They seem, however, resolved to die
hard, and recently commissioned the notorious infidel Brownson to defend
them, and, if possible, to exculpate them from the enormous and vile
crimes of seduction and treason, which I have brought against them.
I fondly hoped that when this Brownson took the field in defence
of Popery, some of those meek, bashful theologians, and editors of
religious journals, who think my language too harsh, would come against
him and his Jesuit masters. There is not a scurrilous epithet in the
English vocabulary, which Brownson and his Jesuit masters, have not
applied to Protestants and Protestant presses. He has encouraged, by
advice of Jesuits, treason to this government, by recommending the
government of the Pope, as a better and more republican system; and
still, I find--much to my regret--that there-is not a single Protestant
divine in the country, or a single Protestant periodical--as far as I
can discover--willing to raise his voice or publish an article against
him. They all seem alive to the paramount necessity of finding fault and
condemning what they term cheap literature, as calculated to demoralize
the community. Eugene Sue, and Michelet, are special objects of their
censure. It was only the other day, that an orthodox clergyman, who
holds a high station and receives a high salary from his church,
delivered, in New York, a philippic of nearly two hours' length, against
Eugene Sue's "Wandering Jew," and concluded with a Jeremiad, bemoaning
that so many copies of it should have been distributed in the book
stores in New York. "The work,"--observed this learned but mistaken
lecturer,--"is flooding the country." Very true, it is flooding
the country; but is not Popery flooding the country? Are not Jesuits
flooding the country? Are not Popish concubines, denominated nuns and
sisters ters of charity, flooding the country? Is not Brownson, the
Pope's Agent, flooding the country with infidel principles and treason
against our government? Which of these floods does the reverend
gentleman to whom I allude, prefer? He is now fairly between Scylla and
Charybdis; he must fall upon one; and which does he choose? The Popish
flood, which Eugene Sue is trying to dam, or the flood occasioned by
the sale of the Wandering Jew in New York and elsewhere? The former is a
torrent which flows forever; the latter--even if it were destructive for
the moment, is but a land flood, that may cover the meadows to-day, but
disappear on the morrow. _Utrum horam mavis accipe_. Let the reverend
lecturer, and those who maintain similar opinions of modern and
anti-Popish writers, take their choice.

There is no proportion, I apprehend, to be found between the zeal of
those lecturers and their knowledge of human nature. The fact is, that
very few of them have travelled far into the regions of general science;
each seems to be confined within the circle of his own creed, and many
of them vainly endeavor to lay the foundations of morality much higher
than the existence of moral agency itself. They resemble, in a great
measure, some of those ancient philosophers who supposed that the
essences of things existed before the things themselves made their
appearance, or could assume any shape or form. For instance, they
imagined the essence of black and white, red, blue, pink, &c., had
existence before there was any such thing as color. There were many
philosophers who supposed that the essence of square and circle existed
before there was any such thing as form. Many of our modern moralists
and lecturers upon morality are little less extravagant in their ideas;
and if they do not check their imaginations and unmeaning deviations
from common sense, in some of their public lectures, they must soon
share the fate of those ancient dreamers to whom I have alluded.
Lecturers now-a-days must recollect that men are permitted to
exercise--and that freely--their own judgment. We find it very difficult
to accompany many of our speakers in their extraordinary flights to the
regions of morality, in which the common sense and sound doctrine of
moral agency, are entirely lost sight of. The lecturer who would condemn
the efforts of Eugene Sue to arrest the progress of Jesuitism, shows
but a very limited knowledge of this world, and impliedly denies the
efficacy of human agency. He will soon find that his own efforts to
impede the progress of Popery will prove ineffectual; they will be lost
in those regions of fanciful perfection which his own imagination has
created. Theologians of all denominations are peculiarly apt to run into
extremes; many of them take certain standards of morality, which cannot
be defended, and which need not be sustained, and they are very apt to
pronounce all who differ from them to be in error, when in fact charity
and good sense demand from them a frank acknowledgment, that though
they themselves may be right, it does not follow that others are wrong.
Eugene Sue condemns not only the religious doctrines of Jesuits, but
severely censures their political creed. He holds the latter up to the
world as dangerous and destructive to the happiness of the human kind.
He knows man, in every state of society, and he writes to convince him
in each. He is well versed in the elements of political government,
and knows that it is upon the preservation and maintenance of it in a
healthy form, that the happiness of man, in this world, depends. It is
therefore perfectly idle, and worse than idle, for those lecturers who
perhaps have no other ideas of the moral and political duties of man
than those which they have learned from Baxter's Saint's Rest, Four Fold
State, or his Crook in the Lot, to declaim against Eugene Sue, or any
other man, whose better experience in the world teaches him to pursue a
different course in trying to accomplish the same object. Let it not
be supposed that I mean to speak disrespectfully of Baxter, or that a
thorough knowledge of his works and writ* ings would prove useless to
any one; but no man of sense or prudence could suppose for a moment,
that he was a match for Jesuits, or that a knowledge of his and similar
works would enable any lecturer to encounter Jesuits on the field of
controversy.

The policy which Jesuits would introduce into this country, and force
upon us, by the authority of their church, could not long fail to divide
this Union into fragmentary sections, and embroil our citizens in scenes
of blood and slaughter, such as never have been witnessed before. We
should soon have State armed against State; and in place of one united
army and one commander-in-chief, we should have twenty? eight armies,
and as many generals-in-chief. This is precisely what the Jesuits and
the Popish church are aiming at This would give them, united, a superior
power, and to them we should have to appeal for the settlement of our
difficulties. The policy of the Popish church has always been a curious
combination of ecclesiastical and democratic pretensions. In theory, it
is democratic enough for our most rabid Locofocos; but in practice,
it requires from man the most thorough subjection. Let us look back to
history, and the truth of this will appear evident Any opposition to the
Pope of Rome, from any sovereign, or any other authority whatever, is
considered by the Popish church as treason against God and man.

Every historian will recollect the murder of the Guises in France. The
disturbances of the times, and the causes which led to them, are well
known to the readers of history; and let it not be forgotten, that the
Popish doctrines and Popish republicanism which then existed in France,
are now covertly and treacherously taught in these United States. In
1589, some of the French people entertained scruples whether it was
lawful or not to depose a legitimate sovereign, or put him to death,
after swearing allegiance to him. The question was one of great anxiety
among the people, and something was to be done to quiet it Meetings were
called in different places, and it was finally determined by them to lay
the subject before the Popish theological faculty of the University of
Paris: This faculty had full power from his Holiness the Pope, to give
judgment in the case, and the Catholics of France were bound to obey
it. Accordingly, on the 7th of January, 1589, the great, and holy, and
infallible doctors of Popish divinity in the College of Sorbonne met,
by authority, and pronounced the following decision: "Having heard the
nature and free counsels of the Magistri, and after many and divers
arguments heard, drawn, for the most part, verbatim from holy writ, the
canon law, and the Papal ordinances, it has been concluded, by the Dean
of the faculty, without any dissenting voice, first, that the people are
absolved from the oath of fidelity and allegiance sworn by them to the
King. Furthermore, that the said people may, without any scruple of
conscience, combine together, arm themselves, and collect money, for the
maintenance of the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion, against a king."
This is republicanism, as taught by Jesuits and Papists. This is the
republicanism which they teach through the confessional in the United
States, and this is the democracy which they have commissioned the
infidel Brownson to spread over our country. This is the republicanism
which Eugene Sue is cautioning mankind against introducing amongst them,
and Eugene Sue is the man whose writings many of our philanthropic, but
mistaken lecturers, are trying to suppress. Eugene Sue has done more to
stem the torrent of Popish democracy in this country, than any man who
has written against Papists. He has attacked it in its very bud. He knew
where it germinated. Our Protestant lecturers know not the source from
which it springs, and therefore they had perhaps better let it alone
altogether, until they become thoroughly acquainted with the principle
that gave it birth, and the influences that sustain it. Eugene Sue knew
full well that the Popish confessional was the source and substance of
all Jesuit treasons, immoralities, plots, and murders. He is a man of
the world, and knows that licentiousness and despotism are more closely
allied than is imagined by our simple-minded and pious lecturers; he
knows that both are inconsistent with liberty,--which should be the true
end of all governments,--and he has therefore deemed it prudent to bring
all his energies to bear against the Popish confessional, knowing full
well that if that were destroyed, together with the supremacy of the
Pope of Rome, mankind could not fail to be benefited. He has attacked
that confessional, not by whining over the immoralities of the times,
or the romance of modern literature,--this any old woman can do,--but he
has fallen upon it with the club of Hercules, whose well-aimed blows
I pray heaven no lecturer may weaken. It is far from my intention to
be disrespectful to any well-meaning lecturer against Popery, and it is
still much further from my mind to be uncourteous towards any of those
Protestant divines who disagree with me in regard to the anti-Popish
writings of Eugene Sue; but I must do my duty, as I understand it
myself. I am not unmindful that there was a time when general knowledge
was a scarce article among the people, and when the clergy engrossed the
largest portion of it; and I doubt whether it is not a great misfortune
that many of our lecturer derive most of their knowledge of mankind from
the study of works written in those times. Hence much of their unfitness
to criticise the writings of men of the world. It is, however, an
easy matter to condemn the writings of any man; but when a Protestant
theologian publicly finds fault with Eugene Sue, or any other writer
against Popery, it is reasonable to expect him to supply something
better of his own. A good anecdote is told of Margaret, Governess of
the Netherlands. When Luther first commenced writing against Popery, he
handled the Pope and his Jesuit priests rather roughly; he knew them of
his own knowledge, just as I do myself. Margaret upon one occasion had
around her some of her courtiers, who were chatting most politely and
courteously, and commenting on the inelegance and uncourtliness of many
of the expressions used by Luther in his writings. Margaret, suddenly
turning round, asked one of the most garrulous and verbose amongst them,
"Who is this Martin Luther?" "He is," replied the courtier, "a rough and
uncouth man," and from the "coarseness of his language, I should suppose
he was an ignorant man." "Yes, he is," exclaimed the whole circle of
exquisite theologians and fashionables. "I am glad of it," replied
Margaret. "You are learned men, possessing refined minds, and no doubt
you will give us something better than he has written. I wish you would
do so as soon as possible, and furnish me a copy of your production."
Can the sapient critics to whom I have been alluding take a hint? Eugene
Sue understands much better the strength and power he has to contend
with, than our American theologians do. If I estimate them correctly,
or if it be proper to judge of all by any one of them, I would say they
know nothing whatever of the strength of Popery. I recollect having
recently seen and read a speech delivered by a distinguished member of
the Christian Alliance, at a meeting held in Boston, and the following
passage in that speech made so vivid an impression on my mind, that
I have not forgotten it since; nor could I help inferring that if the
speaker were a fair sample of the whole, they formed a very incorrect
estimate of the power of that wily enemy to civil rights, the Pope of
Rome. The following are literally the words of the speaker to which I
allude: "I thought the Pope was a man of learning, but he aint; he's
a granny." This sentiment, and the mode of expressing it, may be
satisfactory to the learned gentleman who uttered it, but to one who may
be entirely indifferent, it is a much stronger evidence of the grannyism
of the speaker, than of the Pope. I refer to this with no other view
than to show how unacquainted some American theologians are with Popery,
in every shape and form. This gentleman should know that if the Pope
were a granny, it would be no argument against Popery, or any preventive
of the evils with which it threatens us. Suppose a meeting of citizens
were held, on the subject of our difficulties with Great Britain, we can
easily fancy some spouter to rise in his place and say, "We have nothing
to dread from that nation; the Queen is but a silly woman; she is but
a mere granny." Would not any sensible man at the meeting advise this
spouter to sit down, and no longer intrude upon their time by such
nonsense? It might be known to the meeting, that the government of
England was not managed by the Queen, but by her Cabinet, composed of
men well versed in the science of diplomacy and government intrigues.
It is immaterial whether the sovereign of England is in her cradle,
flirting at a ball, or in her dotage--the power of England is not the
less to be dreaded.

Had our American theologians as much worldly tact, and knowledge, as
they have of single mindedness and true piety, they might easily know,
that it is a matter of perfect indifference,--so far as the power of
Rome is concerned,--whether the Pope be a granny or a sage. The affairs
of his court are managed by unprincipled, crafty, and licentious men,
who thirst for power and patronage. They are not without friends in this
country. Many fear them, politicians sympathize with them, and they are
gaining ground, in spite of the friends of liberty in the United States.
But let not the friends of freedom or of religion despair. Popish
influence cannot long prevail over the good sense and cool reflection of
our Protestant people. No man has ever measured the strength and dangers
of Popery more accurately that Eugene Sue. He knows that Popery has
in view, not exclusively the propagation of its religion, but also the
increase of its wealth and temporal dominion. It is accomplishing both,
in the United States, while it is losing the latter, in every other
country in the world; and it is my deliberate opinion, that if Eugene
Sue and Michelet, were put into the hands of every American who can
read, they would do more towards shutting up the floodgates of Popery,
which are now open upon this country, than any other means we
could adopt towards effecting so desirable an object. Americans may
suppose--and it will be extremely difficult to persuade them to the
contrary--that however the Popish Church may succeed in propagating her
religion amongst them, she can never get possession--at least to
any extent--of their property or temporal power. In this they are
mistaken--egregiously mistaken.

I beg leave to lay before my readers one instance--and let this one
suffice for all--of the secret and fraudulent manner, in which the
Church of Rome, through her agents, is gaining power and acquiring
property in the United States.

I had the honor, a few weeks ago, of receiving a letter from the
Hon.--------, an eminent and distinguished member of the Philadelphia
Bar, of which the following is a copy:


Philadelphia, Nov. 14th, 1845. To Wm. Hogan, Esq.

I make no apology for troubling you with this communication, having read
your books and thereby perceived that you are willing to serve the cause
of truth and justice.

A suit has been instituted against the county of Philadelphia, by a
Society calling themselves "the Brothers of the Order of Hermits of St.
Augustine," to recover damages--laid in the declaration, at one hundred
thousand dollars--for the destruction of the church of St. Augustine of
this city. The Act of Assembly, upon which the suit is founded, gives
the remedy to the owners of the property, and it is a part of my duty,
in defending this suit, to see that the suit is brought by the rightful
persons, as a recovery by the wrong ones, would not bar those justly
entitled, in a second action. You perceive, therefore, that it becomes
important to know who these Brothers are. I have searched the records
of their enrolment in vain for their charter and deeds. None are to be
found, and indeed everything in relation to them is involved in such
mystery that it is difficult to get along.

As you resided a long time in the city and were, doubtless, intimate
with some of the parties, would you do me the favor to enlighten me on
the following points?

1. Who are the Brothers of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine? by
whom instituted? are they enabled to hold property?

2. What property and estate do they hold? I perceive that, in 1820,
they were composed of the following persons; Michael Hurley; Prince
Galligzen, Catholic pastor at Bedford, Pennsylvania; Lewis Debarth,
pastor of St. Mary's Philadelphia; Patrick Kenney, pastor at Coffee Run,
Chester county, Pennsylvania; and J. B. Holland, pastor at Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.

Did any of these churches belong to this Order? and if so, which of
them?

3. It has been often said that the Pope was the real owner of the
Catholic churches in the United States. Is that true? and if so, how
shall I be able to prove this upon the trial of the cause?

4. It has been confidently asserted, that this Order of Hermits, is
confined to ecclesiastical duties, and is prohibited from holding real
estate. Is this true, and if so, how shall I be able to prove it?
An early answer, if it suits your convenience, will much oblige
yours,------!!!!!


We see, from the above letter, the _modus operandi_ of the Romish Church
in acquiring temporal power in this country. It is an axiom, and one
as well understood by Americans as any other people in the world, that
"money is power," and Papists understand it equally well. These artful
encroachers upon liberty, are not deceived in the effects which must
result from the possession of property. Give them money, give them real
estate, give them space and room for their followers, and they will ask
no more from Americans,--the rest they will have in spite of them.

I would call the attention of any intelligent American, to the above
letter. I wish he would sit down with me and calculate, for a moment,
the probable amount of property which the Popish Church now owns in the
United States. In Philadelphia, one church possessed by an individual
member of a comparatively obscure order of friars, is estimated to be
worth one hundred thousand dollars. Let us suppose that this order of
friars owns or claims ownership to fifty such churches in the single
State of Pennsylvania. That would give the Order of Hermits of St.
Augustine five million dollars' worth of property in Pennsylvania alone,
without even taking into consideration the appurtenances and real estate
belonging to these churches; and if we admit that the "Brothers of the
Order of Hermits," own far themselves, or as the Pope's agents, property
worth five millions of dollars in Pennsylvania, what must be the amount
owned by other different orders of friars, priests, and Jesuits, in
that State? The amount, if correctly estimated, would baffle my limited
powers of calculation. But Pennsylvania is not the only state in the
Union where Popish friars and priests are getting possession of real
estate. They own millions upon millions' worth of property in almost
every slate in the Union, but especially in Maryland, Louisiana, South
Carolina, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts. But it will be said, and I
have heard it said in Boston, that the Popish Church cannot possibly
own much property without the knowledge of our citizens, and can
consequently acquire no influence of any amount from that source. There
again Americans are deceived, and literally, as we term it, gulled by
the Church of Rome. This is exemplified in the case alluded to in the
above letter. There were but few in Philadelphia,--if any besides Popish
priests,--who knew even of the existence of such an Order as that of
the "Brothers of St. Augustine." I have searched in vain, says my
correspondent, "for an enrolment of their charter." There was no record
of it to be found; yet the Order exists, and lays claim to damages
amounting to one hundred thousand dollars, for the burning of a church,
which forms but a fraction of that property which they allege to be
their own. In vain do we examine our tax books, to ascertain the amount
of property claimed as belonging to the Popish Church. We may look them
over till the day of judgment and not be the wiser. Millions are now
owned in the single city of Boston by the Popish Church, of which the
Bostonians, with all their shrewdness, have not the remotest idea. It
is owned under cover, under fictitious names, and otherwise. It may be
regularly appraised; its taxes may be regularly paid, but who it belongs
to, or who has the beneficial interest of it, is what cannot be known
until the arrival of the time when the law requires, and imperatively
demands, that a legal ownership should be established, as happens to be
the case in Philadelphia.

It will be asked what reply I have made to my correspondent in
Philadelphia. I answer none at all; at least I have made none to the
questions propounded to me. It may farther be asked, why not? It is
for the very reason which my correspondent assigns for propounding his
questions to me. I wish to serve the cause of truth and justice, but I
have no desire to interfere in party questions, except in the way of
my profession, on the emolument of which I am chiefly dependent for the
means of subsistence. Were I to pause, in the course of my opposition to
Popery, and turn aside to interfere in particular cases of controversy,
I should soon lose the influence which I may now have in advancing the
moral interest of the community at large. I should soon be considered,
not the friend of abstract "truth and justice," but a party barrator,
unworthy the confidence and respect of my fellow citizens. There is,
besides, another reason for not yielding to the wishes of my respected
correspondent I have resided, as he himself states, "for some years in
Philadelphia," and never have I ceased, during that time, to warn its
inhabitants against the encroachments of Popery amongst them. But they
heeded not my warning, and permitted the Papists of that city to heap
upon me the grossest abuse that man ever endured. I have, over and over
again, appealed to the Protestant inhabitants of Philadelphia, to come
to my aid in my efforts to guard their religion and civil rights against
the rapacious and impious efforts of the Court of Rome to destroy and
rob them of both. I have offered them my personal services gratis for
five years, if they would supply me with a church or pulpit, where
I could preach and protest against the following doctrines; viz.,
Auricular Confessions, the Supremacy of the Pope of Rome, the Popish
Latin Mass, and the idolatrous doctrine of Transubstantiation. I made
this offer through one or two of the public presses in Philadelphia, but
the offer was entirely rejected by some, and coldly received by
others. Here I must state--though with great regret--that not a
single Protestant clergyman, of any denomination whatever, either in
Philadelphia or elsewhere in the United States, offered me his pulpit,
his aid, or his counsel. The doctrines, which I was willing to maintain
then, were precisely those which John Ronge is disseminating in Germany;
and there is not a Protestant clergyman in that country, who would
withhold from him the use of his pulpit, or his influence, in so holy
a cause as that in which he is engaged. But I can see a shade of
difference, and not a very slight one, between German and American
Protestants. The heart of a German Protestant can be approached,
through the medium of his understanding and conceptions of his moral
obligations; that of an American Protestant, in many instances, can be
touched only through his pocket. There is a sort of magnetic
communication, or something else, between gold and the souls of some
American Protestants. Solomon says that money can do all things; and had
he alluded to this country alone, the saying of the wise man would have
been doubly true.

But happily a change seems to have come over the spirits of our
Protestant Christians. They are coming up to the work of gospel labor
with a noble zeal. There is but one voice among them on the subject of
Popery, and may that voice be heard throughout the four corners of the
globe. Down with the Pope Down with Popery! and may the God of mercy
save and convert the poor deluded Papists. I believe I am safe in
saying that there is not at present an evangelical clergyman in the
United States, who would refuse the use of his pulpit or church to any
individual, properly qualified to expose the errors and idolatries of
the Popish church. I have had, myself, applications from some of the
most eminent men in the Orthodox church in this country, to preach and
lecture from their pulpits, and should most cordially have accepted
the friendly offer, if my feeble state for the last few months, had not
entirely forbidden it. The same cause also at present forbids it.

I have here digressed from the purpose of this volume. But the Subject
towards which the digression is made, is of too much importance to be
fairly discussed within the limits of any digression, however wide
or extensive it may be. It is one which must soon occupy the serious
attention of our most talented and best informed Christian writers. It
demands the consideration of all who understand the blasting influence
of Popery upon the morals of the rising genera-. tion. Protestant
theologians must come up to the work; they must open their churches, and
pulpits, and lend their influence and their talents to put down Popery,
or Popery will put them down. Nor let them suppose that when I charge
them with apathy in this good cause, I am indulging any feelings of
personal disappointment, or moved by any fitful, fretful, or angry
thoughts towards them. On the contrary, it is because I entertain no
such sentiments, that I speak with freedom of things as they once struck
me. I should be as silent as the grave on the subject, were it in the
power of any man living to attribute to me pecuniary or interested
motives.

But to return to the point from which we have, in a measure, digressed.
Such is the deception practised upon Roman Catholics, through the
confessional, by their church, priests and their agents, that they (the
Catholics) will not believe the plainest truths, unless sanctioned by
them. I have often known them to discredit the testimony of their own
senses, and I have now before me a case in point, confirming this almost
incredible assertion. It appears that some time ago, when much anxiety
was manifested in England and elsewhere, in regard to the alleged
destitute condition of the Irish tenantry, the London Times accused
O'Connell, the Pope's agent in Ireland, of being himself one of the
most oppressive landlords, and reducing his tenants to the most wretched
condition. This was a serious charge against the Pope's vicegerent
It could not, it must not be admitted. It will be recollected by the
reader, that O'Connell and the Popish priests of Ireland have been for
years, without any intermission whatever, accusing Protestant landlords
and Protestant clergymen of oppressing their tenants, and reducing them
to the very extreme of want and penury. The proprietors of the London
Times, aided by several philanthropic Protestant gentlemen, resolved to
send over to Ireland a few gentlemen of known veracity, to ascertain the
truth or falsehood of this serious accusation. They accordingly entered
upon the discharge of their duty, proceeded forthwith to Ireland, and
reported the condition of affairs just as they found them. According to
their report, the charge against Protestant landlords had no foundation
in fact, and was pronounced in the Times to be utterly groundless. No
sooner had the Times reached the Island of Saints, than the whole body
of saints, angeles, and archangels--by whom we are to understand Popish
priests, bishops, and archbishops--rose in a body, together with their
presses, pamphleteers, periodicals, &c, and pronounced the statement
of the commissioners a base falsehood, and the Times itself a vile and
scurrilous press. The proprietors of the Times and their friends were
not, however, to be put down by this bullying; they were not to be put
down by this shameless beggar, inflated gascon and traitor, O'Connell.
They proposed to O'Connell to send over six gentlemen, to meet any six
whom he and his Popish friends might appoint, to examine the condition
of the tenants upon O'Connell's own estate, taking that as a fair and
most impartial specimen of the condition of the Irish tenantry. Nothing
fairer than this could be offered. Surely, if all the misery of the
Irish tenantry were fairly to be attributed to the Protestant church and
Protestant landlords, no portion of it could be found on those estates
owned and held by Roman Catholics. But what was the course of O'Connell
upon this occasion? He called a meeting of the saints, angels, and
archangels, and laid before them the proposal of the Times; but lo! and
behold! he and they shrank from the proposition. On the receipt of their
refusal, a competent individual was sent from the Times' office, to
accompany the commissioners back to Ireland, and to take note of what
they saw in presence of Mr. O'Connell, or any of his friends whom
he might appoint. The commissioners proceeded to the estate of Mr.
O'Connell, in the county of Kerry, Ireland. They spent three days
walking over it, going into every cottage and making personal inquiries.
The result was published in the Times of December 25th, 1845. It speaks
for itself, and cannot fail to be satisfactory to any man of truth and
honor. The first day, the commissioners were accompanied by an agent of
Mr. Hartop, under whom Mr. O'Connell holds some lands as a middleman.
The second day they were accompanied from Valentia by Mr. O'Conner's own
steward, throughout the whole of their inspection. The third day they
were accompanied by one of O'Connell's sons, Morris O'Connell. They
inspected his father's estates from Waterville to Derrynane Beg. At
Ardcara,--a town land which Mr. O'Connell holds on a lease of his
own life, and sublets to a middleman,--the condition of the huts was
perfectly horrible. The commissioners thus conclude their report upon
the condition of the poor tenantry on the lands of Daniel O'Connell, the
great liberator of Ireland--he who is sacrificing his time, his
fortune, for the amelioration of the condition of mankind at large, but
especially the Irish. It is with difficulty I can restrain a tear of
sorrow, while I read the report which is given of the poor creatures who
are the tenants of this cold-blooded hypocrite, O'Connell. I can already
fancy the impatience of my readers to hear the conclusion of it Here
it is. Listen to it, I pray you, American Protestants. Hear it, you
simple-hearted Irishmen in the United States, who have contributed
thousands and tens of thousands to support in luxury this heartless
impostor, O'Connell. "We have?" say the commissioners, "been all over
England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and we declare solemnly, that
in no part of the United Kingdom is such neglected wretchedness, such
filth, such squalor, such misery of every kind, to be seen, as we saw on
Mr. O' Connell's estate, in the presence of his son, Morris O'Connell."

There was a law among the Athenians, which provided that he who
accused another of crime, and failed to substantiate or make good the
accusation, should forfeit his head. Some doubted the wisdom of this
law; but there was one good in it which no man can question. It showed
that he who accused another justly, was a man of principle, bold and
intrepid in the cause of truth and justice. It showed, besides, that the
crime of false swearing, or falsely accusing another, was looked upon as
a crime hateful in its character, and of the utmost magnitude.

If this old Athenian law were in force in Ireland, where now would be
the head of O'Connell? Just where it ought to be, on the point of a
spear at the top of some steeple, where the passer-by might point at it
and say, there is the head of Daniel O'Connell, the false accuser of his
Protestant countrymen. Where would be the heads of the Roman Catholic
Bishops and Archbishops of Ireland? Where would be the heads of Bishops
Hughes of New York, Fenwick of Boston, Purcel of Cincinnati, and the
other Popish bishops of this country, who accuse American Protestants,
and their clergymen, of persecuting Roman Catholics? They might be found
rolling in the dust.

We should thank Heaven that no such law is to be found under the
sanction of our free Constitution. But, though these men do not legally
forfeit their heads, they lose all claim to the respect and confidence
of every man of veracity and honor in any country. What now must be
thought of the veracity of O'Connell, the would-be Liberator of Ireland?
What must an American Christian think of those Popish bishops, who vouch
for the truth of O'Connell's statements? I know not, but my mind has
long since been formed and long since frankly expressed. They may not,
perhaps, be worse than others similarly situated, but the position
of these men, in this country at least, renders them, morally and
politically, iniquitous, and Americans should keep a watchful eye on
them. Americans are not a very suspicious people; freemen are seldom so.
But let not even freemen ever forget, that the world is governed by
men, and that men are governed by their passions and interests. It is
peculiarly the duty of the citizens of the United States, to observe
closely, the movements of O'Connell and Irish priests among them.

There are many of the latter mixed up with Americans, and exercising a
mighty influence over their political destinies; and it is the business
of our laws to restrain them. Inquiries are now being made, to ascertain
how far the governments of Europe are interfering with our Republican
Institutions. Some movements to that effect have recently been made in
Congress, and I beg to assure him who has originated this inquiry, that
if he perseveres and carries it through, he will find that there is not
in Europe, a monarchical power, or a Popish power, under whatever name
it may appear, that is not engaged in endeavoring to overthrow this
Republic They have been planning this for years, and finding that all
other means were likely to prove inefficacious, they have concluded to
introduce a Trojan horse into the citadel of our liberties, taking good
care to fill it with Popish traitors fully armed and equipped.

The limits of this volume do not permit me to dwell farther on this
subject, but _graviora manent_.








*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AURICULAR CONFESSION AND POPISH NUNNERIES ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.