upon us, by the authority of their church, could not long fail to divide
this Union into fragmentary sections, and embroil our citizens in scenes
of blood and slaughter, such as never have been witnessed before. We
should soon have State armed against State; and in place of one united
army and one commander-in-chief, we should have twenty? eight armies,
and as many generals-in-chief. This is precisely what the Jesuits and
the Popish church are aiming at This would give them, united, a superior
power, and to them we should have to appeal for the settlement of our
difficulties. The policy of the Popish church has always been a curious
combination of ecclesiastical and democratic pretensions. In theory, it
is democratic enough for our most rabid Locofocos; but in practice,
it requires from man the most thorough subjection. Let us look back to
history, and the truth of this will appear evident Any opposition to the
Pope of Rome, from any sovereign, or any other authority whatever, is
considered by the Popish church as treason against God and man.
Every historian will recollect the murder of the Guises in France. The
disturbances of the times, and the causes which led to them, are well
known to the readers of history; and let it not be forgotten, that the
Popish doctrines and Popish republicanism which then existed in France,
are now covertly and treacherously taught in these United States. In
1589, some of the French people entertained scruples whether it was
lawful or not to depose a legitimate sovereign, or put him to death,
after swearing allegiance to him. The question was one of great anxiety
among the people, and something was to be done to quiet it Meetings were
called in different places, and it was finally determined by them to lay
the subject before the Popish theological faculty of the University of
Paris: This faculty had full power from his Holiness the Pope, to give
judgment in the case, and the Catholics of France were bound to obey
it. Accordingly, on the 7th of January, 1589, the great, and holy, and
infallible doctors of Popish divinity in the College of Sorbonne met,
by authority, and pronounced the following decision: "Having heard the
nature and free counsels of the Magistri, and after many and divers
arguments heard, drawn, for the most part, verbatim from holy writ, the
canon law, and the Papal ordinances, it has been concluded, by the Dean
of the faculty, without any dissenting voice, first, that the people are
absolved from the oath of fidelity and allegiance sworn by them to the
King. Furthermore, that the said people may, without any scruple of
conscience, combine together, arm themselves, and collect money, for the
maintenance of the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion, against a king."
This is republicanism, as taught by Jesuits and Papists. This is the
republicanism which they teach through the confessional in the United
States, and this is the democracy which they have commissioned the
infidel Brownson to spread over our country. This is the republicanism
which Eugene Sue is cautioning mankind against introducing amongst them,
and Eugene Sue is the man whose writings many of our philanthropic, but
mistaken lecturers, are trying to suppress. Eugene Sue has done more to
stem the torrent of Popish democracy in this country, than any man who
has written against Papists. He has attacked it in its very bud. He knew
where it germinated. Our Protestant lecturers know not the source from
which it springs, and therefore they had perhaps better let it alone
altogether, until they become thoroughly acquainted with the principle
that gave it birth, and the influences that sustain it. Eugene Sue knew
full well that the Popish confessional was the source and substance of
all Jesuit treasons, immoralities, plots, and murders. He is a man of
the world, and knows that licentiousness and despotism are more closely
allied than is imagined by our simple-minded and pious lecturers; he
knows that both are inconsistent with liberty,--which should be the true
end of all governments,--and he has therefore deemed it prudent to bring
all his energies to bear against the Popish confessional, knowing full
well that if that were destroyed, together with the supremacy of the
Pope of Rome, mankind could not fail to be benefited. He has attacked
that confessional, not by whining over the immoralities of the times,
or the romance of modern literature,--this any old woman can do,--but he
has fallen upon it with the club of Hercules, whose well-aimed blows
I pray heaven no lecturer may weaken. It is far from my intention to
be disrespectful to any well-meaning lecturer against Popery, and it is
still much further from my mind to be uncourteous towards any of those
Protestant divines who disagree with me in regard to the anti-Popish
writings of Eugene Sue; but I must do my duty, as I understand it
myself. I am not unmindful that there was a time when general knowledge
was a scarce article among the people, and when the clergy engrossed the
largest portion of it; and I doubt whether it is not a great misfortune
that many of our lecturer derive most of their knowledge of mankind from
the study of works written in those times. Hence much of their unfitness
to criticise the writings of men of the world. It is, however, an
easy matter to condemn the writings of any man; but when a Protestant
theologian publicly finds fault with Eugene Sue, or any other writer
against Popery, it is reasonable to expect him to supply something
better of his own. A good anecdote is told of Margaret, Governess of
the Netherlands. When Luther first commenced writing against Popery, he
handled the Pope and his Jesuit priests rather roughly; he knew them of
his own knowledge, just as I do myself. Margaret upon one occasion had
around her some of her courtiers, who were chatting most politely and
courteously, and commenting on the inelegance and uncourtliness of many
of the expressions used by Luther in his writings. Margaret, suddenly
turning round, asked one of the most garrulous and verbose amongst them,
"Who is this Martin Luther?" "He is," replied the courtier, "a rough and
uncouth man," and from the "coarseness of his language, I should suppose
he was an ignorant man." "Yes, he is," exclaimed the whole circle of
exquisite theologians and fashionables. "I am glad of it," replied
Margaret. "You are learned men, possessing refined minds, and no doubt
you will give us something better than he has written. I wish you would
do so as soon as possible, and furnish me a copy of your production."
Can the sapient critics to whom I have been alluding take a hint? Eugene
Sue understands much better the strength and power he has to contend
with, than our American theologians do. If I estimate them correctly,
or if it be proper to judge of all by any one of them, I would say they
know nothing whatever of the strength of Popery. I recollect having
recently seen and read a speech delivered by a distinguished member of
the Christian Alliance, at a meeting held in Boston, and the following
passage in that speech made so vivid an impression on my mind, that
I have not forgotten it since; nor could I help inferring that if the
speaker were a fair sample of the whole, they formed a very incorrect
estimate of the power of that wily enemy to civil rights, the Pope of
Rome. The following are literally the words of the speaker to which I
allude: "I thought the Pope was a man of learning, but he aint; he's
a granny." This sentiment, and the mode of expressing it, may be
satisfactory to the learned gentleman who uttered it, but to one who may
be entirely indifferent, it is a much stronger evidence of the grannyism
of the speaker, than of the Pope. I refer to this with no other view
than to show how unacquainted some American theologians are with Popery,
in every shape and form. This gentleman should know that if the Pope
were a granny, it would be no argument against Popery, or any preventive
of the evils with which it threatens us. Suppose a meeting of citizens
were held, on the subject of our difficulties with Great Britain, we can
easily fancy some spouter to rise in his place and say, "We have nothing
to dread from that nation; the Queen is but a silly woman; she is but
a mere granny." Would not any sensible man at the meeting advise this
spouter to sit down, and no longer intrude upon their time by such
nonsense? It might be known to the meeting, that the government of
England was not managed by the Queen, but by her Cabinet, composed of
men well versed in the science of diplomacy and government intrigues.
It is immaterial whether the sovereign of England is in her cradle,
flirting at a ball, or in her dotage--the power of England is not the
less to be dreaded.
Had our American theologians as much worldly tact, and knowledge, as
they have of single mindedness and true piety, they might easily know,
that it is a matter of perfect indifference,--so far as the power of
Rome is concerned,--whether the Pope be a granny or a sage. The affairs
of his court are managed by unprincipled, crafty, and licentious men,
who thirst for power and patronage. They are not without friends in this
country. Many fear them, politicians sympathize with them, and they are
gaining ground, in spite of the friends of liberty in the United States.
But let not the friends of freedom or of religion despair. Popish
influence cannot long prevail over the good sense and cool reflection of
our Protestant people. No man has ever measured the strength and dangers
of Popery more accurately that Eugene Sue. He knows that Popery has
in view, not exclusively the propagation of its religion, but also the
increase of its wealth and temporal dominion. It is accomplishing both,
in the United States, while it is losing the latter, in every other
country in the world; and it is my deliberate opinion, that if Eugene
Sue and Michelet, were put into the hands of every American who can
read, they would do more towards shutting up the floodgates of Popery,
which are now open upon this country, than any other means we
could adopt towards effecting so desirable an object. Americans may
suppose--and it will be extremely difficult to persuade them to the
contrary--that however the Popish Church may succeed in propagating her
religion amongst them, she can never get possession--at least to
any extent--of their property or temporal power. In this they are
mistaken--egregiously mistaken.
I beg leave to lay before my readers one instance--and let this one
suffice for all--of the secret and fraudulent manner, in which the
Church of Rome, through her agents, is gaining power and acquiring
property in the United States.
I had the honor, a few weeks ago, of receiving a letter from the
Hon.--------, an eminent and distinguished member of the Philadelphia
Bar, of which the following is a copy:
Philadelphia, Nov. 14th, 1845. To Wm. Hogan, Esq.
I make no apology for troubling you with this communication, having read
your books and thereby perceived that you are willing to serve the cause
of truth and justice.
A suit has been instituted against the county of Philadelphia, by a
Society calling themselves "the Brothers of the Order of Hermits of St.
Augustine," to recover damages--laid in the declaration, at one hundred
thousand dollars--for the destruction of the church of St. Augustine of
this city. The Act of Assembly, upon which the suit is founded, gives
the remedy to the owners of the property, and it is a part of my duty,
in defending this suit, to see that the suit is brought by the rightful
persons, as a recovery by the wrong ones, would not bar those justly
entitled, in a second action. You perceive, therefore, that it becomes
important to know who these Brothers are. I have searched the records
of their enrolment in vain for their charter and deeds. None are to be
found, and indeed everything in relation to them is involved in such
mystery that it is difficult to get along.
As you resided a long time in the city and were, doubtless, intimate
with some of the parties, would you do me the favor to enlighten me on
the following points?
1. Who are the Brothers of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine? by
whom instituted? are they enabled to hold property?
2. What property and estate do they hold? I perceive that, in 1820,
they were composed of the following persons; Michael Hurley; Prince
Galligzen, Catholic pastor at Bedford, Pennsylvania; Lewis Debarth,
pastor of St. Mary's Philadelphia; Patrick Kenney, pastor at Coffee Run,
Chester county, Pennsylvania; and J. B. Holland, pastor at Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.
Did any of these churches belong to this Order? and if so, which of
them?
3. It has been often said that the Pope was the real owner of the
Catholic churches in the United States. Is that true? and if so, how
shall I be able to prove this upon the trial of the cause?
4. It has been confidently asserted, that this Order of Hermits, is
confined to ecclesiastical duties, and is prohibited from holding real
estate. Is this true, and if so, how shall I be able to prove it?
An early answer, if it suits your convenience, will much oblige
yours,------!!!!!
We see, from the above letter, the _modus operandi_ of the Romish Church
in acquiring temporal power in this country. It is an axiom, and one
as well understood by Americans as any other people in the world, that
"money is power," and Papists understand it equally well. These artful
encroachers upon liberty, are not deceived in the effects which must
result from the possession of property. Give them money, give them real
estate, give them space and room for their followers, and they will ask
no more from Americans,--the rest they will have in spite of them.
I would call the attention of any intelligent American, to the above
letter. I wish he would sit down with me and calculate, for a moment,
the probable amount of property which the Popish Church now owns in the
United States. In Philadelphia, one church possessed by an individual
member of a comparatively obscure order of friars, is estimated to be
worth one hundred thousand dollars. Let us suppose that this order of
friars owns or claims ownership to fifty such churches in the single
State of Pennsylvania. That would give the Order of Hermits of St.
Augustine five million dollars' worth of property in Pennsylvania alone,
without even taking into consideration the appurtenances and real estate
belonging to these churches; and if we admit that the "Brothers of the
Order of Hermits," own far themselves, or as the Pope's agents, property
worth five millions of dollars in Pennsylvania, what must be the amount
owned by other different orders of friars, priests, and Jesuits, in
that State? The amount, if correctly estimated, would baffle my limited
powers of calculation. But Pennsylvania is not the only state in the
Union where Popish friars and priests are getting possession of real
estate. They own millions upon millions' worth of property in almost
every slate in the Union, but especially in Maryland, Louisiana, South
Carolina, Ohio, New York, and Massachusetts. But it will be said, and I
have heard it said in Boston, that the Popish Church cannot possibly
own much property without the knowledge of our citizens, and can
consequently acquire no influence of any amount from that source. There
again Americans are deceived, and literally, as we term it, gulled by
the Church of Rome. This is exemplified in the case alluded to in the
above letter. There were but few in Philadelphia,--if any besides Popish
priests,--who knew even of the existence of such an Order as that of
the "Brothers of St. Augustine." I have searched in vain, says my
correspondent, "for an enrolment of their charter." There was no record
of it to be found; yet the Order exists, and lays claim to damages
amounting to one hundred thousand dollars, for the burning of a church,
which forms but a fraction of that property which they allege to be
their own. In vain do we examine our tax books, to ascertain the amount
of property claimed as belonging to the Popish Church. We may look them
over till the day of judgment and not be the wiser. Millions are now
owned in the single city of Boston by the Popish Church, of which the
Bostonians, with all their shrewdness, have not the remotest idea. It
is owned under cover, under fictitious names, and otherwise. It may be
regularly appraised; its taxes may be regularly paid, but who it belongs
to, or who has the beneficial interest of it, is what cannot be known
until the arrival of the time when the law requires, and imperatively
demands, that a legal ownership should be established, as happens to be
the case in Philadelphia.
It will be asked what reply I have made to my correspondent in
Philadelphia. I answer none at all; at least I have made none to the
questions propounded to me. It may farther be asked, why not? It is
for the very reason which my correspondent assigns for propounding his
questions to me. I wish to serve the cause of truth and justice, but I
have no desire to interfere in party questions, except in the way of
my profession, on the emolument of which I am chiefly dependent for the
means of subsistence. Were I to pause, in the course of my opposition to
Popery, and turn aside to interfere in particular cases of controversy,
I should soon lose the influence which I may now have in advancing the
moral interest of the community at large. I should soon be considered,
not the friend of abstract "truth and justice," but a party barrator,
unworthy the confidence and respect of my fellow citizens. There is,
besides, another reason for not yielding to the wishes of my respected
correspondent I have resided, as he himself states, "for some years in
Philadelphia," and never have I ceased, during that time, to warn its
inhabitants against the encroachments of Popery amongst them. But they
heeded not my warning, and permitted the Papists of that city to heap
upon me the grossest abuse that man ever endured. I have, over and over
again, appealed to the Protestant inhabitants of Philadelphia, to come
to my aid in my efforts to guard their religion and civil rights against
the rapacious and impious efforts of the Court of Rome to destroy and
rob them of both. I have offered them my personal services gratis for
five years, if they would supply me with a church or pulpit, where
I could preach and protest against the following doctrines; viz.,
Auricular Confessions, the Supremacy of the Pope of Rome, the Popish
Latin Mass, and the idolatrous doctrine of Transubstantiation. I made
this offer through one or two of the public presses in Philadelphia, but
the offer was entirely rejected by some, and coldly received by
others. Here I must state--though with great regret--that not a
single Protestant clergyman, of any denomination whatever, either in
Philadelphia or elsewhere in the United States, offered me his pulpit,
his aid, or his counsel. The doctrines, which I was willing to maintain
then, were precisely those which John Ronge is disseminating in Germany;
and there is not a Protestant clergyman in that country, who would
withhold from him the use of his pulpit, or his influence, in so holy
a cause as that in which he is engaged. But I can see a shade of
difference, and not a very slight one, between German and American
Protestants. The heart of a German Protestant can be approached,
through the medium of his understanding and conceptions of his moral
obligations; that of an American Protestant, in many instances, can be
touched only through his pocket. There is a sort of magnetic
communication, or something else, between gold and the souls of some
American Protestants. Solomon says that money can do all things; and had
he alluded to this country alone, the saying of the wise man would have
been doubly true.
But happily a change seems to have come over the spirits of our
Protestant Christians. They are coming up to the work of gospel labor
with a noble zeal. There is but one voice among them on the subject of
Popery, and may that voice be heard throughout the four corners of the
globe. Down with the Pope Down with Popery! and may the God of mercy
save and convert the poor deluded Papists. I believe I am safe in
saying that there is not at present an evangelical clergyman in the
United States, who would refuse the use of his pulpit or church to any
individual, properly qualified to expose the errors and idolatries of
the Popish church. I have had, myself, applications from some of the
most eminent men in the Orthodox church in this country, to preach and
lecture from their pulpits, and should most cordially have accepted
the friendly offer, if my feeble state for the last few months, had not
entirely forbidden it. The same cause also at present forbids it.
I have here digressed from the purpose of this volume. But the Subject
towards which the digression is made, is of too much importance to be
fairly discussed within the limits of any digression, however wide
or extensive it may be. It is one which must soon occupy the serious
attention of our most talented and best informed Christian writers. It
demands the consideration of all who understand the blasting influence
of Popery upon the morals of the rising genera-. tion. Protestant
theologians must come up to the work; they must open their churches, and
pulpits, and lend their influence and their talents to put down Popery,
or Popery will put them down. Nor let them suppose that when I charge
them with apathy in this good cause, I am indulging any feelings of
personal disappointment, or moved by any fitful, fretful, or angry
thoughts towards them. On the contrary, it is because I entertain no
such sentiments, that I speak with freedom of things as they once struck
me. I should be as silent as the grave on the subject, were it in the
power of any man living to attribute to me pecuniary or interested
motives.