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."