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."