This unreasonable, unscriptural, and impious doctrine, is inculcated especially in the confessional. No man, not even a papist, dare preach in public such a dogma as blind obedience in anything, or to any man. I have always been instructed, while a Catholic priest, never to intimate in public that the Romish church ever required unconditional submission to her will, unless I was morally certain that all my hearers were by birth

The next Romish authority is no less a person than, (he who has been designated by the Papists,) the Most Rev. Dr. James Butler, who in a catechism, which has been recommended by the four Romish Archbishops of Ireland, as a general text book for the whole kingdom, states in the form of question and answer, in Lesson 11th, thus:

Q.-Why do you call the Church Roman ?

A. Because the visible head of the Church is the Bishop of Rome, and because St. Peter and his successors fixed their see in Rome.

Q-Who is the visible head of the Church?

A, The Pope who is Christ's Vicar on earth and the supreme visible head

of the Church.

Q.-To whom does the Pope succeed as supreme visible head of the Church?

A.-To St. Peter, who was chief of the apostles, Christ's vicar on earth, and first Pope or Bishop of Rome.

Q. When was St. Peter made Pope, or head of the Church? A.-Chiefly when Christ said to him, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" "And I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; "Feed my Lambs; Sheep."

Q. What do these texts of Scripture prove?

"Feed my

A.-That Christ committed to St. Peter, and to his lawful successors, the care of his whole flock-that is of the whole Church, both

pastors and people.

Q.-Who succeeded to the other Apostles?

A. The Bishops of the holy Catholic Church.

Q. Can the Church err in what it teaches?

A.-No; because Christ promised to the pastors of his Church, “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the world."

Q-What other advantage have we in the true Church?

A. We have true faith, with the communion of Saints, and the forgiveness of sins, Apostles' Creed.

Q. What means the forgiveness of Sins ?

A.-That Christ left to the pastors of the Church the power of forgiving Sins.

In reference to the passages quoted in the above specimen of blind submission to human authority, it is evident when taken in connexion with other passages of Holy Writ, that no such meaning was intended to be attached to them, as papistical commentators would zealously persuade their too-blinded

and education Roman Catholics; but my orders were positive, and under pain of losing my sacerdotal faculties, never to lose an opportunity of inculcating this in the confessional. There and there alone do Romish priests teach and fasten upon the minds of their penitents, all the iniquities which the church of Rome sanctions.

If I can satisfy Americans that Auricular Confession is dangerous to their liberties; if I can show them that

On this

and ignorant followers. The Rock spoken of was Christ himself. argument is truly unnecessary, as the whole tenor of God's will to man makes reference to Christ alone as the "Rock " upon which the fabric of christianity was to be erected. It is only needful for the reflecting Protestant, or the Catholic in search of truth, to compare the following passages.—1 Cor. xi. 3; Ephes. v. 23; Gen. xlix. 24; Deut. xxxii, 15; Psalms cxviii. 22 ; Isaiah xxviii. 16; xxxii. 2; 1 Cor. x. 4; Matt. xxi. 42, 44.

The language and statements of Peter in reference to Christ, is alone quite sufficient to overthrow the dogmatic assumption of Romish blind-folders of deluded men.

Again, it is abundantly evident that the other Apostles did not recognise Peter's authority or supremacy over them, but acted towards him as a brother and fellow-labourer in the Lord's work; for we find them sending him along with John to teach and preach as joint labourers, and bringing him before them to give an account of his mission to the Gentiles; and rebuking him sharply for dissimulation.-Acts viii. 14; xi. 18; Gal. ii. 9, 14.

It is needless to add one word as to the illogical deduction attempted to be thrust down the intellectual throats of Romanists in the catechetical specimen quoted as to the Mothership of the Christian Church; but as matter of historical fact we state the following:

The mother Church was the Church at Jerusalem, which was formed soon after the ascension of Christ; next was formed the Church at Samaria, Acts viii., about a .D. 34; and then the Churches at Cyprus, Phoenicia, and at Antioch, by those Christians who were dispersed in consequence of the persecution that arose about the time of Stephen's death at Jerusalem. There is no evidence whatever that the Church of Rome was formed by Peter, as the Romanists assign or affirm, or by the joint labours of Peter and Paul. In the first Council held at Nice, all other Christian Churches were on an equality with that at Rome; and in the fourth General Council (held at Chalcedon) it was declared, that the Church at Constantinople should have equal privileges with that at Rome; because the seat of imperial government was there. Catholic or Universal the Roman Church never was nor is ; for ecclesiastical bistory attests, that both the Asiatic and African Churches formerly rejected her authority; and also that the Eastern Churches to this day dispise her pride and affectation of supremacy. The Waldenses of Piedmont never acknowledged the Pope's supremacy; and all the reformed Churches deny his supremacy till this day. This supremacy is a novelty of the seventh century. Thus, the Church of Rome never was the true and entire Church and Spouse of Christ as her only Head, Husband and Lord.

I

it is the source and fountain of many, if not all, those treasons, debaucheries, and other evils, which are now flooding this country, I shall feel that I have done an acceptable work, and some service to the State. fear, however, that I shall fail in this; not because what I say is not true, and even admitted to be so, but because Americans seem determined,—I would almost say fated, to political and moral destruction.

For twenty years I have warned them of approaching danger, but their politicians were deaf, and their Protestant theologians remained religiously coiled up in fancied security, overrating their own powers and undervaluing that of Papists. Even though they see and feel, and often blush at the logical triumph, which popish controversialists have gained, and are gaining over them in every intellectual combat in which they engage; yet such is their love of ease or love of money, or something else, that they cannot be roused until the enemy falls upon them with an annihilating force. It is painful to me to see this indifference upon their part. They are better able than I am to contend with Papists. They possess more talents, and have more friends than I have to sustain them. This is the land of their birth. It is not mine, but not the less dear to me. The religion of this country is the religion of their forefathers, and of the Bible; it is peculiarly their duty to defend both.

Nothing could induce me to undertake the present work, but the universal approbation which my recent book on Popery has received from the political and religious journals of the country. I should leave it to be done by Protestant theologians. The notices which my book on Popery has received were flattering. They gave me credit for talents, candour and frankness. But I am in reality entitled to no credit for that book. The utterance of the truths contained in it, was a spontaneous emotion. It was (if I may use such language) but the breaking loose of some moral iceberg, which for years lay heavily on my soul. It was a sort of inspiration fanned into a blaze, by an irresistible conscious

ness that I had too long neglected a duty which I owed to my God and my adopted country. But I now feel relieved, and willing to enlist in the cause of morals and civil rights.

The following pages, I apprehend, will appear to some of rather a random and fugitive character. It will be said that much of the matter is irrelevant-that I fly too rapidly from one subject to another. To such men I will say, that they know very little of Romish intellectual tactics. A well trained reverend Romish soldier cares little about the polish of his armour, or whether he aims his blows according to the system of this or that commander. He steps into the battle arena in his lightest armour, and with his sharpest weapon. A Protestant theologian meets him, with a face as solemn as if he was accompanying to the grave all that was dear to him, wearing his heaviest coat of mail, and armed with claymores and battle-axes. While the latter is wasting his strength upon the desert air, and aiming his harmless blows at every spot out the right one, the papist goads him to death, and seldom fails to obtain the crown of victory from the spectators. Many Protestants who are in the habit of contending with Papists in this manner, will disapprove of this book; but I trust that in differing from them in my mode of warfare with Papists, they will, on reflection, see that, although they may be right, I am not wrong. I shall therefore beg leave to pursue my own course. I will give my ideas to the public just as they strike me, fresh from my own mind, with no regard whatever to style, ornament or criticism; and I am vain enough to wish that all controversialists, and even all Protestant and Popish writers, should pursue a similar course. We should then have more truth in controversy, more soul, and more sterling morality in religion. All that is artistical and pedantic would be exploded, and truth, fresh and warm from the heart, would be substituted in their place.

B

Every crime, as I have stated before, which the Romish church sanctions, and almost all the immoralities of its members, either originate in, or have some connection with, Auricular Confession; and in order to explain this to my readers, it will be necessary for me to go back and state the causes which first induced me to doubt the infallibility of the Romish church.

I have been often asked the following questions:Why did you leave the Roman Catholic church? Before I answer this question, I may well exclaim, in the language of the ancient poet, omitting only one word, "Oh! nefandum, jubes, renovare dolorem." But however painful the relation may be; however offensive to the ears of the virtuous and chaste; however disgusting to the pious and moral portion of our community; however at variance with the elegances and formalities of private life; however heavily such a narrative may fall upon Roman priests and bishops, and disreputable it may be to Nuns and Nunneries, I will answer the above question, so often and so frankly put to me by many even of my personal friends.

Several causes have contributed to induce me to doubt the infallibility of the Popish church, and to renounce its ministry altogether. Among the first was the following.

When quite young, and but just emerging from childhood, I became acquainted with a Protestant family living in the neighbourhood of my birthplace. It consisted of a mother (a widow lady) and three interesting children, two sons and one daughter. The mother was a widow, a lady of great beauty and rare accomplishments. The husband, who had but recently died, one of the many victims of what is falsely called honor, left her as he found her, in the possession of a large fortune, and, as far as worldly goods could make her so, in the enjoyment of perfect happiness. But his premature death threw a gloom over her future life, which neither riches nor wealth, nor all worldly comforts combined together, could effectually dissipate.