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.