has, in fact, very little to do with religion; the utmost that it can
effect is to predispose the mind, or to serve as a pretext to timid,
interested, or indifferent persons, to justify their external
adherence to a form of worship in which their hearts do not unite.
As our Saviour declares to his disciple Peter, it is not flesh or
blood that can make known to us the true God, the Creator, Preserver,
and Saviour of men. Faith, through which alone we can become children
of God, and true members of the church of Christ, is a gift of the
Holy Spirit, and by no means transmitted to us with our existence
by our parents. St. John teaches us this when he says, "As many as
received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John, 1:
12, 13.
Thus you see that we are neither Catholics nor Protestants by birth;
and it is a great error for any one to feel himself bound to either
church, because he has been born within its pale. Religion, like every
thing else, must be studied and examined; and no one is truly a member
of a church, further than as he understands and acknowledges its
doctrines. His adherence on any other ground only proves him
credulous, ignorant, and superstitious; the slave of prejudice and
habit.
As for me, my children, although born in the Romish church, I can
assure you that I never participated in its belief. It would be
foreign to the end I have in view, to relate here the various
circumstances of my childhood and youth, which preserved me from being
brought into the bosom of the Catholic church by the usual rites
and ceremonies. God so ordered it, that I made no vow by which _I
might_[5] have afterwards felt myself bound to the church of Rome.
[Footnote 5: "_I might have_," but I am far from supposing that I
_ought_ to have fell myself indissolubly tied to the Roman Catholic
church by any sacrament that I might have received, or by any
engagement that I might have entered into: on the contrary, I lay it
down as an incontestable principle, that every vow and every oath are
null, and neither can nor ought to bind any one to a church in which
he has discovered errors, or doctrines and habits opposed to the word
of God, and contrary to his own conscience. Truth alone, and the full
conviction of truth, constitute a tie which can inviolably connect
us with any church whatever. From the moment that this conviction no
longer exists, and that error is discovered, it is an imperative duty
to abandon a mode of worship which does not accord with our true
sentiments; and he who perseveres against this conviction becomes a
hypocrite, contemptible in the eyes of men, and condemned before God.]
Unknown to me, that is, at an age when I could have no idea of what
was done to me, I was doubtless received into the church by the
usual ceremony; but as this act was performed without any consent or
co-operation on my part, I have never regarded it in the light of an
engagement to the Catholic church.
With regard to what is called "the first communion," (which is
considered as the public ratification and confirmation of the vow of
my parents,) this I never received in the Romish church, nor did I
receive what is called the Sacrament of confirmation.
Before I could be united by the sacred bond of marriage to your
virtuous and beloved mother, it was necessary that I should confess.
This I did with extreme reluctance, feeling that nothing could be at
once more absurd, more tyrannical, or more degrading, than to oblige a
man to prostrate himself at the feet of a priest, a mortal, a sinner,
a child of corruption like himself, and there to make confessions to
him, which offended Deity alone could have a right to require: and to
receive absolution from him for faults with which he had no concern.
I could not, however, marry without confession, and therefore I was
obliged to submit; but no power on earth could have constrained me to
go further. The Sacrament, as the Roman Catholics receive it, had,
from infancy, excited in me feelings of disgust. My mind had always
revolted at the idea, that the great God of heaven could allow himself
to be _eaten_ by his creatures in the form of a little flour. Under
various pretences, therefore, I contrived to avoid the ceremony, and
obtained the nuptial benediction without it.
The Lord, who never leaves himself without the witness of his numerous
mercies to us, even when we are offending him in so many ways, was
pleased to bless our marriage. Your birth, my dear children, crowned
our joy, and left us nothing to wish but to see you grow and prosper,
and to devote ourselves to your happiness. Alas! little did we
suspect, whilst thus delightfully engaged, that this joy was to be so
soon disturbed, and that death would deprive us of her who had given
you birth. But our great God, whose ways and whose designs, though
often inscrutable, are always full of wisdom, saw good to separate
us; you from a tender and excellent mother, and me from a beloved
companion and inestimable friend. She died February 11, 1821, after a
few days' illness, leaving me in a state of affliction which it would
be in vain to attempt to describe.
Nevertheless, terrible as was the stroke, and heart-rending as was the
separation, I can now acknowledge, my children, that it was a salutary
chastisement, sent by sovereign love; and one of the links of that
chain of Providence by which the Lord saw good to deliver me from the
miserable state in which I was then living; and to lead me to the
fountain of grace and true peace.
In fact, the death of your poor mother gave rise to a train of
circumstances, which, by drawing my attention to subjects that I had
hitherto totally disregarded, and by exciting in my mind a degree of
energy of which I could not have supposed myself capable, ended by
engaging me most unexpectedly in the serious study of religion. The
particulars I am about to give you respecting these things, will
convince you that God can overrule the wickedness of men for good, and
will show you that a Romish priest was the means of directing me to
_the way_, (I mean the perusal and free examination of the word of
God,) which led me, eventually, to the Protestant church.
Your mother's funeral was conducted with Catholic ceremonies, and,
according to my means, I spared nothing to honour her remains. I
likewise consented, either from conformity to custom, or from a wish
to please my relatives, who were influenced by the fear of purgatory,
or perhaps from participating myself in the false notion that bought
prayers can mitigate the sufferings of the dead--from one or all of
these causes, aggravated by the sorrow which filled my heart and
inflamed my imagination, I consented to the performance of the nine
customary masses for the rest of the soul.
The priest to whom I first went, told me that he was too busy to
undertake the whole, but that I might depend upon him for three. From
him I went to another, who engaged to say the remaining six, and did
so without delay. Sunday after Sunday, for a considerable time, I went
to the first, to inquire whether my three masses would be said in the
following week. He always found some excuse, saying that "there were
others more urgent than myself--that he was previously engaged--that
he had undertaken more than was in his power to perform,". From
February to June, I was thus put off under various pretexts. Worn out,
at length, by so many fruitless efforts, I resolved to put an end to
them, and mentioned the subject to your aunt, your mother's sister,
expressing to her my extreme annoyance. She asked me if I had offered
the priest the amount of the masses which he had promised to say?
"No," I said, "the idea never occurred to me; but even if it had, I
should not have dared to do it, for fear of offending him. It is not
usual", I added scornfully, "to pay before one is served. No one ever
pays me for a saddle before I make it." "No matter," replied your
aunt, "my advice to you is to return to the priest, and offer to pay
for the masses which you have ordered."
I did as she advised me, and this time my request was favourably
received. The priest seized the six-franc piece which I laid on the
table, looked at me and said, "Do you wish me to say six?" "No,"
I replied, with a feeling of indignation which I could hardly
repress--"No, sir, I only want three. Return to me the rest of the
money; poor folks cannot afford to spend so much at once."
I left the priest, thoroughly ashamed of having contributed to gratify
his cupidity, and very much disposed to think the religion we were
taught was nothing but a tissue of fables and impostures, to which the
thirst of gold and silver had given birth. I cannot tell you all the
sad and painful reflections that occupied my mind during the remainder
of that day; I was overcome by them, and rejoiced to see the night,
hoping to find relief in sleep. I went to bed, but could not close my
eyes. Still haunted by the remembrance of what had so disgusted me,
a multitude of thoughts crowded on my imagination. I knew that the
priests claimed the word of God as their authority for all their
doctrines and ceremonies, which word I also knew was contained in the
Old and New Testaments, although, to my misfortune, I did not then
regard them as a divine revelation. In fact, I believed no more in
the Holy Bible _as the word of God_, than I did in the doctrine of
purgatory; still I felt a desire to search and to ascertain whether
this _lucrative_ doctrine was contained in the Gospel, and in what
manner it was there established: at the same moment I recollected that
there was, on the chimney-piece of my room, a New Testament, in which
I had learnt to read, but which I had never opened since I was nine
or ten years old. I jumped out of bed, and hastily dressing myself,
resolved to begin, without delay, my researches on the subject of
purgatory.
With this sole object in view, I read through the Gospels, the Acts of
the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Revelation of St. John; confining
my attention exclusively to those points that tended either to
establish or controvert this doctrine. This perusal of the New
Testament, which, from my eagerness to satisfy my curiosity and
resolve my doubts, I accomplished without once stopping, except for
refreshment, proved to me that the doctrine of purgatory was not to
be found in the Gospel, but must have been derived from some other
source.
Indeed, my dear children, I did not find a single passage which
established it, either directly or indirectly: on the contrary, I was
struck with many declarations completely opposed to it. Thus I read in
St. Matthew: "The wicked shall go away into everlasting punishment,
but the righteous into life eternal." Matt. 25:46. This absolutely
destroys the idea of any intermediate abode between heaven and hell.
I read the song of Simeon, by which it clearly appears that the good
old man had no idea that he was to stop in the road to heaven, or that
he would have to undergo any _purging fire_ before he could get there;
for he exclaims, holding the infant Jesus in his arms, "Lord, now
lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy
salvation." &c. Luke, 2:29, 30.
I read the promises which Jesus made to the thief on the cross, when
he said to him, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
Luke, 23:42, 43. If there were such a place as purgatory, and if any
one were likely to be subjected to its fires, surely it would have
been this malefactor, condemned by human, laws, and probably guilty
of many crimes: yet our Saviour replies, "Verily, I say unto thee,
_to-day_ thou shalt be with me in Paradise."
I read in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, that "there is now
_no_ condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." Rom. 8:1. A
doctrine altogether opposed to that of purgatory, which teaches that
Christians are, after this life, subjected to a process of torments
before they are free from condemnation.
I read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that "it is appointed to men
once to die, but after this the judgment," Heb. 9: 27, which clearly
proves that the destiny, both of the bad and good, is irrevocably
fixed from the moment of their death; and that there is no purgatory,
from which masses, prayers, or rather gold and silver, can deliver any
one.
I read also in the first Epistle of St. John, that "the blood of Jesus
Christ," the Son of God, "cleanseth us from _all_ sin," 1 John,
1:7, which excludes all other kinds of purification, and formally
contradicts the doctrine of purgatory. Finally, I read in the book of
Revelation, that "blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from
henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their
labours, and their works do follow them."
Here is another declaration which confirms what the preceding and
many other passages establish in so convincing a manner. Not having
discovered a single text of the New Testament which told in favour
of purgatory; but, on the contrary, having observed and meditated on
those which I have quoted, and many other equally opposed to this
doctrine, I was fully persuaded that it never had been thought of by
the writers of the Gospel. You may easily believe, my dear children,
that this discovery in no way tended to strengthen the bonds which
held me to the Romish church, nor to confirm me in their faith.
Still, however, I was dissatisfied, and still longed to know
positively _from whence_ the priests had derived their vain system.
This desire filled my mind for some days, and at last it struck me
that _the Pope_ must have been the inventor of it. I then naturally
began to wish to discover _who_ the Pope was, and what right he had
to impose such a doctrine. I had often read and heard, both in
conversation and from the pulpit, that St. Peter was the chief and
head of the Apostles; that he had been the first pope at Rome; and
that all succeeding popes had inherited his rights and prerogatives.
I conceived a wish to know what the New Testament said upon this
subject, and I immediately undertook a second perusal of it; in the
same state of mind as before, that is to say, absorbed by one sole
object, and having nothing in view but to find out whether St. Peter
had really been set over all the other apostles, and placed at Rome as
head of all the churches.
This examination, which was pursued with a degree of attention of
which I should now be scarcely capable, ended in convincing me that
the supremacy of St. Peter was no better established by the New
Testament than the first doctrine which I had sought for, and that
undoubtedly the papacy was without scriptural authority.
I found in St. Matthew the _calling of_ Simon, who was afterwards
called Peter; Matt. 4:18, 19,20; but it did not appear to me to differ
from that addressed to Andrew his brother, and all the other apostles.
In the tenth chapter of the same Gospel, I also observed that the
first _mission_ which Jesus Christ gave to his apostles, was given
to all, without any particular prerogative to Peter. It is true that
Peter is the first named, but this is merely an accidental priority,
which implies neither distinction nor superiority; one must have been
mentioned first. I made the same observation on the last mission which
they received on the day of their Master's ascension, and which is
related by St. Matthew, 28:19, 20; by St. Mark, 16:15; and in the Acts
of the Apostles, 1:8. This mission, though variously expressed in the
three places, is the same in substance. It is given indiscriminately
to all; the promises by which it is accompanied are for all; and on
all, the same powers are, equally conferred.
The 18th and 19th verses of chapter 16 of St. Matthew, where it is
said, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,"
startled me for a moment, and I was on the point of mistaking the true
meaning of this declaration. But having reflected that Jesus Christ
asked the question in the 15th verse, of _all_ his disciples, and that
Peter expressed the sentiment of _all_ in his animated reply in the
16th verse, I considered that the words which Christ addressed to
Peter, were applicable to all disciples; and that no supremacy could
be attributed to him from this passage, more than from any of the
preceding.
I was confirmed in this opinion, when I read in the Gospel of St.
John, that Jesus, _speaking to all_ had made them nearly the same
promise: "Whose so ever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them,
and whose so ever sins ye retain, they are retained," (John, 20:23;)
and also by what St. Paul says to the Ephesians, "Ye are built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed
together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." Ephes. 2:20, 21.
I was still more strengthened, when I found in the Revelation, that
St. John says, "the wall of the city had _twelve foundations_, and in
them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Rev. 21:14.
By these passages, and many others which I think it unnecessary to
quote, I discerned that Jesus Christ is the true _foundation_, the
_corner stone_ on which the Christian church rests: that all the
apostles and prophets are indeed mentioned as its foundation, but only
because all their doctrines refer to Him; and I was convinced that St.
Peter was in no degree more distinguished or more elevated than his
fellow-labourers. Although I did not then understand, at least not so
fully as I do now, the evangelical meaning of the 18th and 19th verses
of chapter 16 of St. Matthew, yet I was persuaded that the papacy or
sovereignty of St. Peter could not reasonably be deduced from them
Finally my conviction that St. Peter was not above the other apostles,
was completed by observing what he says himself in his first epistle,
"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am _also an elder_" 1
Pet. 5:1; by what St. Paul says to the Corinthians, "I was not a whit
behind the very chiefest apostles," 2 Cor. 11:5; by noticing that
St. Paul, according to his own account, "withstood him to the face,
because he was to be blamed;" Gal. 2:11; and that he severely and
publicly reprehended him, because "he constrained the Gentiles to be
circumcised;" by seeing how the common disciples of the church of
Jerusalem made no scruple of reproving Peter, because "he went in
unto men uncircumcised, and did eat with them," Acts, 11:3; how they
required from him an explanation of his conduct, and how the apostle
hastened to justify himself, by relating to them exactly how the thing
had happened. Finally, by observing that "when the apostles which were
at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, _they
sent_ unto them Peter and John." Acts, 8:14.
"There can be no doubt," thought I, as I perused and re-perused all
these testimonies, "that Peter was in every respect equal to the other
apostles; that he had no superiority nor jurisdiction over them. Had
he been, had he thought himself, or had others thought him, the prince
of the apostles and sovereign pastor of the church, would he have
called himself an elder like unto the other elders? Is it possible
that St. Paul would have declared himself to be 'not a whit behind
him;' that he would have 'withstood him to his face,' and blamed him
publicly? Is it probable that mere believers, common members of the
church, should have ventured to dispute with him, to require an
explanation of his conduct, or that he should have thought it
necessary to satisfy them by giving one?[6] Is it likely that he would
have been sent by the other apostles, or have received their orders,
when it would have been his part, had he been their chief, to command
and to send them?"
[Footnote 6: The popes, his pretended successors, have not been so
obliging; they have been always solicitous to make their authority
felt.]
I needed no more evidence to be thoroughly convinced that all which is
taught by the Romish church of the supremacy of St. Peter, and of
the sovereignty of the popes, his pretended successors, was a fable
destitute of the slightest foundation; at all events, a doctrine no
more to be found in the Gospel than that of purgatory.
If I were surprised at this, I was no less so when I observed, that in
the whole New Testament there was not one word which gave reason to
imagine that St. Peter had ever preached, or had even ever been, at
Rome, where the Roman Catholics assert, and believe as an article of
faith, that he was the first pope. The Acts of the Apostles maintains
the most profound silence on this subject, and affords no ground
whatever for the supposition. All the Epistles leave it equally in
darkness. Those of St. Paul to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the
Philippians, to the Colossians, the second to Timothy, and the Epistle
to Philemon, all written from Rome at different periods, and that to
the Hebrews, written from Italy, make no mention of Peter's being
there. In the last four, the apostle speaks of his companions in
suffering, in labour, and in the work of the Lord, but says not a word
of Peter as being with him. Undoubtedly he would have mentioned him,
as he mentions Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Demas, Prudens,
Livius, Claudia, &c. had he been at Rome; but neither his name, nor
any allusion to his abode in the capital of the world, is to be
discovered in any part of St. Paul's Epistles. In my opinion, there is
no proof of his ever having been there, much less of his having held
the bishopric. Finally, his own two Epistles furnish no evidence for
such a supposition: the first, and in all probability, the second
also, is written from Babylon, 1 Peter, 5:13, and addressed, not to
the Romans, but "to the strangers (that is to say, the converted Jews)
scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,"
1 Peter, 1:1, countries where, it would appear, that he exercised
his ministry, after having for some years preached to the church at
Antioch.
Thus, my children, I discovered that these two primary doctrines of
the Romish church, viz. purgatory and the supremacy of St. Peter, had
not, at any rate, been inculcated by the writers of the Gospel. I
cannot tell you what interest I felt in the new ideas I had acquired.
The New Testament, which I was still far from regarding as a divine
revelation, appeared to me a collection of precious documents, in
whose authority I then began to feel some degree of confidence. Though
I found this study novel and difficult to a poor uneducated artisan
like myself, it was at the same time so attractive to me, that I was
induced to continue my researches.
I have already mentioned to you, my dear children, the invincible
repugnance which I had always felt to receiving the sacrament as
administered in the Romish church. I have said that nothing in the
world could have forced me to this act, by which it is profanely
pretended that the _creature_ EATS _his Creator_!! I could never even
think of it without shuddering. This doctrine, which asserts that
Jesus Christ is present, in body and in spirit, in the consecrated
wafer, and that every communicant is actually nourished by his flesh
and blood, is, of all the tenets of popery, that which contributed the
most to alienate me from the Christian religion, to which I attached
it, and to drive me to infidelity.
This, therefore, now attracted all my attention; and again I began to
read the New Testament, entirely occupied, as previously, by the one
object which I had in view.