AURICULAR CONFESSION AND POPISH NUNNERIES. WHEN a writer acknowledges, in advance, that he cannot relate the whole truth, his position is far from being enviable. It augurs badly for what he writes and so far places him in a disadvantageous light before. the public. This is, however, precisely the condition in which I now find myself. Such is the nature of the subject on which I feel it my duty to write, that I shrink with native abhorrence from relating at least, the whole truth. It is repugnant to my feelings, to my taste, and at variance with the general tone of my conversation, ever since the God of purity enabled me to disentangle myself from the society of Romish priests and bishops, -men whose private lives and conversation with each other and with their penitents in the confessional, breathe nothing but the grossest licentiousness and foetid impurities. I do not wantonly and without provocation make any exposé of the iniquities of Popery. My entire life, since I left them, is evidence of this; but they have pursued me with such persevering malignity and demoniac malice, that further silence would be criminal and disrespectful to my Protestant fellow-citizens from whom, notwithstanding the malice of papists towards me, I have always experienced kind attentions and hospitality. Nor should I, even now, allow the subject of Popery to occupy my mind, or taint the current of my thoughts, if I did not see it striding with fearful rapidity over the fair face of this my adopted country, infusing itself into every political nerve and artery of our government, while its members are asleep and dreaming of its future glories. It is not pleasant for me to contend with papists, who look upon it as a matter of duty, and as a fundamental article of their faith, to persecute myself and all other heretics. That they should dislike me, is not a matter of surprise; that men whose confessions I have heard, and who have heard mine, should even dread me, is not to be wondered at Many of these men deserve (I speak of bishops and priests exclusively) not only public censure, but the gibbet, the dungeon and the gallows. I cannot blame men, under these circumstances, for detesting my very name. They are in my power-they tremble in my presence-and were I to blame them for some degree of opposition and dislike to me, I should be quarrelling with that instinct which teaches the profligate and debauchee to shun the society of a virtuous and upright man. While I live among papists they are naturally afraid that I should lift the veil, which conceals from the eyes of Americans the deformities of Popery. They are in momentary fear that I should show to their American converts, which Bishop Fenwick of Boston says he "is daily making from the first families," the Old Lady of Rome in her dishabille. They have long hidden from them her shrivelled, diseased, distorted, and disgusting proportions, and they are unwilling that this painted harlot should be now seen by Americans. This is good policy, and hence much of their opposition to me. A curse seems to have rested upon Rome since its very foundation. Pagan, as well as modern Rome, seemed always to delight in deeds of darkness. We are told in history of a singular practice illustrative of this in ancient Rome. I mention it merely to show the apparent natural fondness of Romanists, ancient as well as modern, for deeds of darkness. It is trifling in itself, and may be deemed, perhaps irrelevant; but it may be interesting to the historian, whose curiosity extends further than that of theologians or moralists. The ancient Romans were epicures. Some say they were greater gluttons than those of the present day. Poultry, of all kinds, was a favourite dish with them, and how to fatten fowl most expeditiously, became a question of vital importance with the philosophers of the Eternal City. After several experiments, it was found that the best plan was to close up the eyes of geese, turkeys, ducks, and all other kinds of poultry, and, in that condition, cram and stuff them with food. This succeeded admirably. The fowls fattened in less than half the time. It seems that man was always, as well as now, a progressive animal, and accordingly, as soon as Popery fixed its head-quarters at Rome or at Antioch, no matter which for the present, popish bishops commenced a similar experiment upon man. Anxious for his conversion to the infallible church, they determined to close his eyes and compel him to receive from themselves, as so many turkeys and geese would from their feeders, such food as they pleased to give them. They were not to question its quality, but, like so many blinded geese swallow all that was given them. The practice continues to the present day in the Romish church; even American Converts to Romanism are not to question the quality of the food, or spiritual instructions, which popish priests please to give them. Blind obedience is a necessary article of spiritual diet for a convert to Popery; and whether his priest tells him that he must worship God, the Virgin Mary, St. Peter and St. Paul, or the wafer which he carries in his pocket, and calls the body and blood of Christ, he must obey without murmer or inquiry.* *Here are illustrations of the stuffing process of blind obedience, from Romish authorities. By quoting themselves, the impossibility of cavilling, or a charge of misrepresentation is completely removed. "I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and I promise to swear true obedience to the Pope of Rome, who is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ."-Creed of Pius IV. Art. 11. 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? 4,-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? "Thou art Peter, and upon this "And I will give to thee the Keys "Feed my Lambs; 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. |