¦^- :^'.

'*^:

.%\\'.i

•i'-i

K¥*.

I foi-'piie.fpiiitiia^ tf:,a,_.C'olligfl^^^0ifBk§f

>ftt*.A.»^a^^^¦jWJaJ.i,W^*^«J^.^y.>^^^

Gift of
George L. Fox

LIFE INSIDE
THE CHURCH OF ROME

M. FRANCIS CLARE CUSACK
{"THE NUN OF KENMARE"

^.

TSS'EYf YORK:
G, IV, Dillingham, Publisher,
Successor to G. W. Carleton & Co.
MDCCCXC.

Copyright, 1889, by
M. FRANCIS CLARE CUSACK

M

Y^\ 7 'o

)
C95I

TROWS
PRINTINQ AND BOOKBINOINQ COMPANY,
NEW YORK.

PREFACE,
' I ^HIS book will be characterised by plain speaking,
•*- and contain a record of plain facts. I hesitated
long and thought much before I began this work,
because I knew how great its importance would be,
and I did not forget that I shall have to answer to
God for what I have written. I know that all the
treachery and deceit of which I have been made
the subject is the common, ordinary practice of the
Church of Rome ; and if my sufferings have been
great, and if the treatment which I have received
has been cruel, it has simply been because I was at
the mercy of a power which knows no mercy, and
which makes persecution a dogma of her Church.
As I shall have occasion to mention my autobio
graphy several times in the course of this work, I
may at once refer the reader to the end of this volume
for particulars of its contents. It may be well to
state here that any one who reads Roman Catholic
lives of Roman Catholic canonized saints, will find
in them ample evidence of the persecuting spirit
of the Roman Catholic Church. Every one of those

iv PREFACE.
" saints " whom the Roman Church now honours sc
highly, was in his or her lifetime made the subject
of the bitterest opposition, and the victim of the
most cruel persecution. Rome hated her own saints
while they were living, but canonised them when
they were dead.
Rome need not boast of the good works which
have been done in her Church, because they have
been accomplished, for the most part, not because of
the help of the Church, but in spite of its opposition.
Would to God that the eyes of all mankind
could be opened to see Rome as she is ! It has the
power in many countries to trample on and crush
the weak, because it flatters and bribes the strong to
act as its ally in evil, until the strong also become
weak ; and then they, too, learn what are the tender
mercies of this professedly Christian Church.
Rome, or rather the Pope, sits in the temple of
God, showing himself to be God, for he claims the
very authority of God to add to the commands of
God at his pleasure. I shall show that Rome is a
Church which has always tolerated, if it has not
encouraged, immorality ; and I shall show this from
facts which cannot be disputed. I beg of my dear
Roman Catholic friends to read patiently before they
condemn. It is a man's own loss if he lives in
wilful ignorance. Truth remains ; facts are there all
the time, whether we believe or disbelieve them.
It is no wonder that Rome is afraid of history, of
education, and of truth. If Rome was not afraid of

PREFACE, V
truth, why should she persecute those who declare
it ? Jllagna est Veritas ct prevalabit — " Great is truth
and it shall prevail." If a man is denied all know
ledge of facts, if he must not read the history of past
ages in which he will find the history of the Popes,
how can he know that they were too often the most
corrupt and immoral men, even in an age when
corruption was common ? What advantage is it to
him to be ignorant of facts .' How does he know
that the Roman (so called) Catholic Church is a
system which depends on ignorance for its perpetua
tion, and for its existence .' In order to be a " good
Catholic " you must be an ignorant man. You must
not know that Popes committed incest, that they
committed unnatural crimes. You must believe
that they were saints, all good and holy men, with
perhaps, when the evil cannot altogether be denied,
a few exceptions ; for it will be admitted that " a few
Popes " were not as good as they should have been.
You must not know that they committed the most
fearful crimes to advance their illegitimate children :
and that they even had their mistresses in the very
Vatican palace, where you go to kneel with such
reverence, and from whence you take your orders
not only as to your religious belief, but as to your
political conduct.
I do not ask you to take my word for these
things, but I do ask you to read later, in this book,
the facts of history as told even by Roman Catholic
historians. I ask you to consider facts, and I shall

PREFACE,

give you the opportunity of ascertaining that these
facts are well founded, by placing before you the
sources from which they are derived.
If the facts which I shall bring forward shock
you, amaze you, startle you, the question is not
whether they are very dreadful, but whether they are
true. Some of these awful disclosures were made
by a Roman Catholic bishop still living and
ministering in the Roman Catholic Church. Your
reason is a gift which God has given you, and for
the use of which He will most certainly hold you
accountable. Do you not know the parable of the
talents ? Do you not know that God condemned
the man who hid the one talent which God had
given him, and cast him into outer darkness because
he had not used it }
Where and when has God told you that you are
not to use the talent of reason, which He Himself has
given you .? If that talent was withdrawn from you,
what would you be ? If you had not reason, you
would be no better than the beasts of the field, and
a man who refuses to use his reason will be classed
hereafter as a beast, as one unworthy of this sublime
and best of God's gifts. No wonder the Roman
Catholic is forbidden, except with a special license,
to read the Bible. If he did he would become too
wise, he would become wise unto salvation. Now
and then the Church of Rome makes a great show
of permitting or advising the Roman Catholic to read
" parts " of the Bible, as Cardinal Gibbons has done

PREFACE,

lately. But if he may read parts to his advantage.,
why not read all } Is it not all God's word .¦' Where
does God say read " parts " of the Bible } No ; He
says, " search the Scriptures ; " not a part of them,
but all of them, so that you may know what God
wishes you to believe. And what man shall dare for
bid you to do what God Himself has told you to do .'
Why, the inspired Apostle Paul says that even if
an angel from heaven should preach another Gospel
than that which he preached, let him be accursed.
Hence the Church of Rome actually curses herself
when she preaches to you that you may not " search
the Scriptures," since it is the very command of God
in the Bible that you should do so.
Few Protestants have the least idea how entirely
ignorant even the best educated Roman Catholics
are of the Bible. I was often surprised to find that
very few ofthe sisters knew anything of the Scriptures.
They knew nothing of them, in fact, except the
short extracts from the New Testament to be found
in the Prayer Books they are allowed to use.
It is wise to keep people in ignorance when you
desire to deceive them.
I have been often asked how it was that I re
mained so many years in the Roman Church, when
I ought to have known that it was a corrupt Church.
The question is a fair one, and it has direct reference
to what I am now saying. It was because I was
kept in ignorance. I had read history as most
people read it, in a general way. I was well informed

PREFACE,

as to the history of England, of Ireland, of Scotland,
of ancient Rome, of Greece, of Eastern, and of
pagan nations ; but I had not read the history of
Rome under the Popes. Possibly it was thought, if
the subject was considered at all, that the study was
an unfit one for a young girl. Here, then, is another
example of the danger of ignorance. If, in my early
years, I thought at all about the Popes, it was to
suppose that they were much like other princes, and
that their personal history was a matter of Httle
importance. So ignorant are Roman Catholics of
the true history of their own Church, that it comes to
them as an overwhelming shock when they first hear
that many of the Popes were bad men. They are
indignant with their informant ; they will not believe
him ; all of which shows how wise the teachers of
their Church are in keeping them in ignorance. And
their indignation is equally great when they are
shown the plain teaching of the Scripture from their
own Douay Bible, which, notwithstanding all the
corrections of its translation the Roman Church has
given it in this nineteenth century, is so plainly
Protestant. Surely it is time for people of intelligence to ask
themselves what kind of religion is this which
depends for its existence on the ignorance of its
followers '>. Why is it, if this religion is Divine, that
it fears the light of history, of the Bible, or even of
every-day facts.' If the Church is so sure of her
infallibility, why does she take so many, and even

PREFACE.

such violent means to prevent her claims from being
fairly questioned or canvassed .'
I was long in the Roman Church before I knew
anything of the evil lives of priests or Popes, and, I
may add, of the priests and the Popes of the present
day. Some years since I wrote a life of Pius IX,,
who, I then believed, was a persecuted saint. I
believed this because I was told so, and because I
had no means whatever of knowing the contrary.
See again the great importance of keeping people in
ignorance. No books are allowed to be read, no
papers are allowed to be seen, above all in convents
or colleges, where the young are educated (,''), which
will give the least idea of the facts of daily life, if
those facts are supposed to be in any way adverse
to the Roman claims. And this is religion. The
priests of Greece and ancient Rome have been the
models of the priests of to-day in this and other
respects. Keep the people ignorant, and they will
believe. What 1 will they believe truth .' No ; for
they must at all hazards be prevented from knowing
it. Again, we ask, if the teaching of the Roman
Church is so true, and so Divine, why is it that the
priests are so afraid lest the people should know
anything to its disadvantage .'
What a strange religion ! It boasts of its Divine
origin, yet strives to conceal all damaging facts, in
order that it may retain its hold upon the people.
It boasts that it was founded by Christ Himself, and

PREFACE,

yet it will not allow the plain commands of Christ
to be obeyed. It " teaches for doctrines the com
mandments of men," a thing expressly forbidden in
the Bible.
But to return to my own case. I believed that
Pius IX. was a persecuted saint until I learned
later, that his own people, who certainly ought to
have known him best, could not support his tyranny
and oppressions, which may have been foreign to
his own nature, but which he was obliged to carry
out in submission to the Jesuits who ruled his court,
and ruined his life.
Later in this work I shall tell of my experience in
Rome, and show that the old proverb is but too true,
— " The nearer to Rome the farther from God." If
Rome is not pure, rather we should say if Rome
is corrupt, what can the Church under the rule of
Rome be ? I learned, even before I went to Rome,
that Pius IX. had for his dearest friend and guide,
a man whose immoralities were so well known in
Rome, that even after his death no one was surprised
when one of his illegitimate children went to law
with the Papal authorities for a share of his immense
property. How could a man be a saint if his chosen
friend was one who violated not only the law of
God, but what is of far more importance to the
Roman Catholic, the laws of his Church, which
requires, nominally at least, purity in its ministers ?
And we may well ask, if, in this so-called enlightened
nineteenth century. Cardinals can retain their para-

PREFACE.

mours and concubines unreproved, what may not
have been done by the Cardinals of past ages >
We live in startling times, in which the prophecies
of Scripture are being rapidly fulfilled. For our
selves and for our children it behoves us to " know
the signs of the times," and to study them carefully.
If we fail to do this, we are without excuse, and
we must take the consequences of our indifference
or our folly. I shall show in this book that Rome
is the true " mystery of iniquity," from facts within
my own personal knowledge, and which cannot be
controverted. I shall even use Roman Catholic
authorities to prove this ; for there is a vast and
almost unknown field of information on such subjects
which, as far as possible, has been sternly repressed
by Romanists, but which exists all the same. In
this field may be found statements of facts of the
most startling character, which have been published
(despite the Inquisition), and clearly prove the utter
corruption of the Roman Church, not only in
centuries past, but even in the present day. These
damnatory facts are vouched for — not by Protestants,
but by Roman Catholic (so called) saints ; so that
Rome has approved these condemnations of herself,
and, therefore, out of her own lips she is judged
and condemned.
What a terrible, what an amazing fact this is,
and how seriously it should be considered by
Protestants, especially by those who are so liberal to
the enemy which would, and is bound, according

PREFACE.

to her most solemn teaching, to burn them at the
stake, if she only had the power. Who is there who
would sign his own death warrant, and hand it to
his enemy for execution .? Surely such an one
would be either a fool or a lunatic ; and yet men
who help Rome to obtain the political power for
which she clamours incessantly, are committing this
very folly.
The prophecies must be fulfilled. They are a
part of the inspired word of God, and in view of
this undeniable fact, it is amazing how those who
profess to love and believe in the Scriptures should
be blinded to its plain predictions. It is this in
difference which gives Rome its power, — indifference
which cloaks itself under the name of a false charity,
and which is a crime against God and man. How
can the true Christian be indifferent to the interests
of the Kingdom of God .' How can he be in
different to the true interests of his fellow-men,
for whom Jesus died .'' Oh, fatal folly 1 oh, fatal
blindness ! which can for one moment approve, even
by silent toleration, that which God Himself has
condemned. I think that there will be evidence of a satis
factory character found in this book, that there is at
present a great stir in the Roman Catholic Church,
Romanism is practically dead in France and Italy ;
and except for its political power it would have been
dead long since in Spain. In Ireland the power of
the Pope is shaken as it has never been before, by the

PREFACE. Xli!

conduct of the present Pope, his political interfer
ence, and his many political vacillations, which have
not increased the respect of the Irish people for his
decisions. As it is of importance that proof of this
should be on record, and available at any moment,
I have gone into the subject fully. In England
the directly spiritual — but not the political — power
of Rome is decreasing, and would soon be a dead
letter if Protestants were true to their principles,
and stood up with courage for the right of every
man to a free Bible, and to liberty of conscience.
In America and in Canada the political power of
the Pope is daily increasing, and I believe it will
increase until it becomes so strong, with the usual
result of being more and more intolerant, that at
last the mass of the people will rise, and once for
all claim freedom. At present the outlook is
deplorable. Secret societies are permitted to do
their evil work of assassination and demoralisation,
because they are principally manned by Roman
Catholics and Irish, and the politician finds their
help necessary, and therefore buys it, though at
the expense of principle. Roman Catholics of the
upper class are received in society, and courted
because of their enormous wealth and political influ
ence. The wealth of the American and Canadian
bishops, priests, and sisters, gives them the power
which wealth will always give. Proof of all this
will be found, on evidence which cannot be disputed,
in the present work. The demoralisation and

xiv PREFACE.
degradation of the lower class of Roman Catholics
will also be described. Lamentable and indisputable
facts will be given to prove all that is advanced on
these subjects. I shall feel, great as my sufferings
have been at the hands of men who profess to be
holy, and demand the veneration, if not the worship
of their followers, that it has not been in vain if I
have stirred up Protestants, and thinking men of all
denominations, to realise the evil and to promptly
seek a remedy.
In concluding this Preface it may be well to say
something of the painful experiences which I have
had, since I wrote my autobiography, of the treachery
and deceitfulness practised in the Roman Church.
For myself it matters little, but it matters a great
deal for others. What has been done to me may
be done in a future time, and with far greater severity,
to others. My case, if people would only consider it,
is simply a carrying out of the practices of persecu
tion, which never have ceased, and never will cease,
as long as Rome has power to persecute. It is
amazing that men should be found who are willing
to place the rod of persecution in the hands of those
who have never failed to use it. Rome sometimes
finds it convenient to say she does not persecute; and
there are liberal Protestants, who are so indifferent
to the peace and happiness of the next generation
that they care little for the certain results whith must
follow their present Hberality to Rome. If they
think that Rome does not persecute now, what have

PREFACE. XV
they to say to my case, and to that of Dr. McGlynn .'
The matter is too serious to pass it over lightly.
In the case of Dr. McGlynn, it may be said that
the Church had a right to excommunicate him, as
he had disobeyed the Church. Granted that this is
so, but the question arises. Why does Rome ex
communicate at all, when she declares that she no
longer upholds persecution or penalty .¦¦ All that,
she tells those who will believe her, belongs to a
past age. But if Rome excommunicates, will she
not carry out the consequence of excommunication .'
If she excommunicates Dr. McGlynn would she not,
if she could, take the next step, and hand him over
to the civil power for execution .? for the execution
of the excommunicated person is the duty of the
State when the State is under the control of the
Pope. The torture and the execution of every
excommunicated person is a duty of the Roman
Church ; and it is a duty in which it never fails
when there is the least chance of success. But let
it be remembered that every insult and indignity
possible was shown to Dr. McGlynn by this so-called
Christian Church. His persecutors were devoid of
even one thought of mercy, or of justice. How any
one could study the facts connected with his case,
and read of the gratuitous insults to which he was
subject, and yet believe that Rome has changed
from, or abandoned her policy of persecution, is
incomprehensible. It may be the duty of a judge to pass sentence,

xvi PREFACE.
and of the executioner to inflict the sentence ; but
there never was a criminal executed in New York
who was treated with the open insult and exultation
over his fate, which was shown to this blameless
priest. I have given some details on this subject
in the present work, to which I ask attention.
As regards my own case, the very law of the
land has been set at defiance in order to heap
injuries on me ; and so strong is the power of Rome,
that I have appealed in vain for protection. I warn
the public that what has been done to me is a mere
triQe to what will be done later when Rome has
all the political power she is seeking for. When
we are not touched personally, we are very often
indifferent to what happens to others ; but the con
sequences of giving power to those who know
neither justice nor mercy, will make themselves felt
in the end.
I only wish the reader could have had personal
knowledge of the difference between the way in which
I acted towards the sisters, and the way in which the
sisters were compelled to act towards me. I say the
way in which they were compelled to act, because I
can prove from their letters to me that they would
have acted very differently if they had been left to
their own sense of justice and aff"ection. I took
every care that nothing should be done which would
cause them, I will not say any loss, but even the
lea.st inconvenience. It should be remembered that
I was the founder of the Order ; and I may truly say

PREFACE.

that it was my personal influence which made it
a success, so far as a success could be made in the
face of the opposition of priests and bishops, who
were too ignorant to realise how much the work
was needed for working-girls, and who had so little
respect for the Pope himself as to pay not even the
slightest attention to his approbation.
For years I had a very large correspondence all
over, I might say, the world, especially in Amercia,
England, and Ireland. Many comparatively poor
persons had contributed to the work which I had
begun, and I was anxious to show them that I had
not given it up from any caprice, or without grave
cause. I wrote to the sisters to send me the book in
which I had kept the addresses of all my corre
spondents, but it was refused ; and the sister who
refused to send to it me, said that she had consulted
the priest, as of course she was bound to do, and that
it would be against her conscience to give it to me.
The Kenmare sisters had done the very same thing,
without even this excuse. They refused to send me my
address book ; and when at last I compelled them to
give me a list of the names in it, they only sent a
few. Their object was to prevent me from telling
any of my numerous correspondents that I had left
Kenmare, as they knew well that very little money
would be sent there when it was known that I had left.
Their conduct was specially reprehensible, because
there was not even the excuse of religious motives.
Their motive was simply selfish. What made their
c

xviii PREFACE.
conduct inexcusable was that the name of Kenmare
would never have been well known beyond the county
Kerry if it had not happened that the large circu
lation of ray writings had brought it into notice
everywhere. My name brought, and still brings,
large sums of money to the Kenmare sisters, which
they enjoy, but without one word of even the
commonest thanks to the one who procured it for
them. On the contrary, they have left nothing
undone to calumniate and injure me ; and this is
religion according to Rome. Thank God it is not
religion according to the Gospel.
I need not say that the Kenmare sisters and the
priests and bishops, whose treacherous conduct, I
have proved from their own letters, was the cause of
the failure of my efforts to do what even the Pope
had authorised me to do, were in great fear that the
truth about their treatment of me should be publicly
known. Rome ever dreads the light; and this is one
of the greatest proofs that her deeds are evil. If these
bishops had done nothing wrong they would not have
been afraid of my having the addresses of those per
sons to whom I had been writing for so many years.
But this is not all. I notified to the postmaster of
, where my letters were to be sent after I
left the sisters, but not one was sent. I know that a
number of letters were addressed to me at the convent,
but not one did I receive. From this it will be seen
that the post-office in the United States is not free
,from the control of the Papacy ; for it is the Pope

PREFACE.

who governs when such injustice can be accomplished
at the demand of sisters or priests.
I recently received a letter from a gentleman who
lives in Pittsburg, to say that he had written to me
a letter addressed to the convent, but as he had not
received a reply, he suspected that I had not re
ceived it. He wiif, quite a stranger, but he wanted
to tell me how truly and sincerely he sympathised
with me in my efforts to work for the poor, and in
the trials which I had undergone in the Roman
Catholic Church. I told him that I had not received
his letter nor any others addressed to me since I
left the sisters, and he at once wrote to them, and
threatened them with public exposure if his letter
was not sent back to him at once. By return mail
they sent him the letter, dirty, torn, and of course
opened. Would to God that Protestants realised
from these things that Rome will do all the injustice
which she dares; and that it is only want of power,
and not v/ant of inclination, which restrains her.
Even the law of the land will not protect me from
such injustices, for I never even received a reply from
the postmaster at Washington, when I appealed to
him. Most ofthe public officials in the United States,
no matter what their private religious opinions may
be, feel it safest to have Rome on their side, and they
act accordingly. Perhaps their children will not
arise and call them blessed when they have to feel
the power of that Rome rule which their parents
have helped to establish.

PREFACE.

Again I ask, if the bishops and others who per
secuted me, as I have said and proved in my book,
were not afraid that the truth would be known, why
did they take so many and such dishonest pre
cautions to prevent me from stating my case >. I
considered that the public had a right to know the
facts ; and most assuredly, especially after I had left
the Roman Catholic Church, no one in it had a right
to prevent me from justifiying my action ; but I know
that hundreds of those whom I wished to have
communicated with will never know the truth, and I
am sure that hundreds are longing for a letter from
me. It would of course have been impossible for
me to remember so many names and addresses. If
this book should fall into the hands of any of those
who were my old and constant correspondents, they
will now know the cause of my silence. But we may
well ask if we are living in a free country, or in the
nineteenth century ; when a person can be deprived
of the means of communicating with her friends by
the priests of Rome, and when the subjects of the
Pope can thus interfere with private correspondence
and the acts of public officials.
I observe that some Irish Member of Parliament
is making a great noise because he says that a letter
addressed to him from Washington was tampered
with. But no one will trouble himself when the
Roman Catholics take possession of my private
correspondence, I have had to bear yet another injustice. Not only

PREFACE.

are my letters kept from me, but I am also deprived
of all means of support, and obliged at my advanced
age to earn my own living, notwithstanding all
the property which I have left in the Church of
Rome. If I starved it would matter little to those
who are now living in comfort, on an income which
should have been mine. I know so well how Rome
hardens the heart and destroys all natural affection,
and I may truly say all Christian charity, that I
believe it would be a subject of rejoicing, even to
those whom I have benefited so much, if I had to
endure all possible privations. Such is the teaching
of Rome. Burn, but if you cannot burn the heretic,
inflict all the sufferings possible. And yet Rome
claims to be a Christian religion !
I may add that those who wish for special infor
mation can always reach me by letter, by addressing
their communications to the publisher of this work,
who will take care that they shall all be forwarded
to me promptly.
M. F. CUSACK
(" The Nun of Kenmare ").

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. PAGE
THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY ..,.,. I

CHAPTER II.
THE MORAL EFFECTS OF THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY
OF THE PAST AND IN THE PRESENT . . . -34
CHAPTER III.
THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES . .51
CHAPTER IV.
THE OUTSIDE TEACHING AND THE INSIDE PRACTICE OF THE
CHURCH OF ROME  63
CHAPTER V.
IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY . . . .77
CHAPTER VI.
THE FALLIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY ..... 102
CHAPTER VII.
THE HISTORICAL FRAUDS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH I16

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VIII. PAGE
HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE IN THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY.  ^4°
CHAPTER IX,
THE TEACHING OF l-HE BIBLE AND THE TEACHING OF THE
CHURCH  183
CHAPTER X.
CONVENT LIFE  211
CHAPTER XI,
" BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM " . . 248
CHAPTER XII.
SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES WHICH PROTESTANTS SHOULD
CONSIDER  279
CHAPTER XIII.
PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF ROMAN CATHOLIC FAILURES . 3OI
CHAPTER XIV.
THE EFFECTS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING— ROMAN
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES AND HIGHER EDUCATION . , 323
CHAPTER XV.
THE CONFESSIONAL AND THE LIVES OF THE POPES , . 366
CHAPTER XVI.
ROMAN CATHOLIC LITERATURE AND ROMAN CATHOLIC
HIGHER EDUCATION  387

APPENDIX

399

CHAPTER I.
THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.
"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife." — I Tim. iii, 2,
IHA\^E been convinced for many years that the
celibacy of the Roman Catholic clergy is the source
of nearly all the moral evil in the Roman Church. If
this unchristian observance was aboliahed, the moral
tone of the whole Church of Rome would at once be
raised and purified. The enforced celibacy of the
Roman priesthood has been, and is at present, the
fruitful source of much crime.
It has been fraught with the greatest moral danger
to Rome, while the doctrine of the infallibility of the
Church has proved the greatest spiritual danger. The
enforced ceUbacy of the priesthood would long since
have been abolished if it was not found to be necessary
for the support of the Church, no matter what the moral
evil which it causes. The laity would long since have
risen up against it, and have forbidden it, if the Roman
Catholic Church had not kept them in such ignorance
of Scripture and of history. Where shall we find a
Roman Catholic, no matter how well educated, who
is conversant with the teaching of Scripture on this
subject ? Where shall we find a Roman Catholic who
knows anything of the history of celibacy in the Roman
Church ?
As for Scripture, the fact that St. Peter was a

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

married man, and that our Divine Lord had so special
an interest in his family as to have made the healing of
his mother-in-law one of His recorded miracles, should
be in itself sufficient for every Christian. We have in
this an evidence which cannot be disputed, that vows
of celibacy are not of Divine institution for the Christian
priesthood ; and Rome acts wisely in keeping, as far as
possible, the Bible from her followers, lest they should
ascertain for themselves even the one fact, that he who
they claim to be the first infallible head of their Church
was a married man.
It is quite true that St. Paul speaks of the celibate
state as a higher state ; but it should be well noted that
he draws a marked line in this matter. He says truly,
that for those to whom God has given the call to vir
ginity, the life of virgin love and devotion to God is the
higher ; but he makes, almost prophetically, the plain
statement, that he had "no commandment of the Lord"
(i Cor. vii. 25) on this subject ; and in fact so plain is all
Scripture teaching on this point, that the Roman Church
in enforcing ceUbacy on her priesthood has been
obliged to fall back on her infalUbility as her only
justification for requiring this vow from her priests.
The other texts of Scripture which deal with this
subject are so plain, and so well known to Protestants
that it would not be necessary to call attention to them
here, if it were not that this work is iritended, amongst
other objects, to be a handy manual of explanation for
controversial purposes ; and it may be well for even
Protestants to have at hand all the help possible on
any point of discussion with Rome. It is also most
important that children should be carefully instructed
on such subjects, and armed for future trials. We are
apt to read Scripture mechanically, or even when

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 3
studj'ing it to pass over the significance of certain
texts; and we do not realise all their value in dis
puted subjects, as I know now myself to my grievous
cost. In considering St. Paul's recommendation of celibacy
it should be remembered that he is speaking to the
whole Church, and that there is not even the remotest
hint that he is speaking only to priests. If, therefore, his
recommendation has any present value, it is of equal
importance to all Christian people. I knew personally
a Roman Catholic bishop, the late Dr. McCarthy of
Kerry, who told me himself that he thought St. Paul's
recommendation was intended to be of universal appli
cation, and that no one should marry. This opinion,
like many others more or less sensible, he took care
not to express in public, as it is dangerous for the
clergy of the Roman Church to ventilate any opinion,
no matter how well considered, on that subject. Such
is the miserable want of charity in that Church, that
there are always m.en on the watch to take hold of
anything which may serve to disgrace or discredit a
" brother," especially if that brother is a person of an}'
prominence, when jealousy finds an easy way to gratify
itself I shall retum to this point later, when entering
on some recent developments of dispute in the Roman
Church ; and I have given evidence in my autobio
graphy • of the way in which the good works in which
I was engaged were frustrated by the petty jealousy of
ecclesiastics. The good bishop was once asked what was to become
of the world if, by common consent, all men and women
remained celibate ? He smiled, and replied that he did
* "The Nun of Kenmare." An Autobiography. With Por
trait. Crown Svo, cloth, ys, (td. London : Hodder & Stoughton.

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

not think it would be much loss to the world if it
came to an end. But there was a reason for St. Paul's
recommendation of celibacy which does not exist at
present. The early Christians, and the apostles, were
looking for a speedy termination of this life, by the
second coming of their Lord. To them this world
mattered so little, and the world to come mattered so
much. To us, absorbed as we are in the things of
time, all is different, and we are more inclined to ask,
" Where are the signs of His coming ? " than to expect
it. To us it seems as if all things go on as they ever
have done, and as if there had been no changes since
the fathers fell asleep. To the Christians of St. Paul's
day, wrongly interpreting, as we know they did, certain
of our Lord's words, it seemed as if at any moment the
things of time might pass into the things of eternity.
They did not ask, " Where is the promise of His com
ing ? " for at every moment they expected that coming.
Why, then, should they not sit loose to the things of
time and sense ? Why should they sow when they did
not expect to reap ? Why should they concern them
selves, or embarrass themselves with wives or children,
when they daily and hourly expected the opening of the
gates of the City where there is neither marrying nor
giving in marriage ?
But to the hapless Roman Catholic of the present
day, who is kept in wilful and deliberate ignorance of
the Scriptures, the real meaning of St. Paul's advice
on the subject of marriage is unknown. He knows
only just so much of the letter as may " kill," but he
knows nothing of the spirit which quickens. St. Paul
clearly bases his advice, or rather his suggestion, on the
subject of marriage, on the ground of the shortness of
time, — alluding evidently to the popular hope and ex-

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.

pectation of the immediate coming of the Lord. " The
time is short ; " and doubtless this sense of the nearness
of the second coming of the Lord was of no little help
to the early Christian, surrounded as he was with
temptations and persecutions. We should remember,
too, that the expectation of martyrdom was hourly
before the mind of the Christian of St. Paul's time as
an ever-present hope, and that it was a hope constantly
reaUsed. The man or the woman who was freed from
v/orldly ties, however blessed they might be under
other circumstances, was much more likely to suffer
generously than one who was bound by ties of flesh
and blood. But as we have said, how can the poor
Roman CathoUc of to-day know this ? He is only
allowed to know that St. Paul recommended virginity
in the strongest terms, he is not allowed to know the
circumstances ; nor indeed, if he came to know them,
would it avail him, for he is bound to interpret the Bible
only as the Church allows. Nor may he know that in
the very next chapter St. Paul claims for himself the
right to marry, as St. Peter had done, if he pleases.
The words are well worth noting. He says, " Have
we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as
other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and
Cephas?" (i Cor. ix. 5). Here we find the very fact
of St. Peter having a wife brought forward, not as a
reproach, but as a fact, and one which could be used
as an argument why "other Apostles" might do the
same thing.
But this argument would scarcely be needed if the
facts of history were better known. The Roman
Church had made its claims to supremacy for several
centuries before any attempt was made to enforce the
celibacy of the clergy. And the history of the lives of

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

the clergy after this enactment was put in force is at
once the best proof of its miserable results, and that
the Roman Church, of all others, has the least claim to
be called " holy."
I shall give from Roman Catholic authorities only
some of the statements on this subject made in synods
and councils of the Roman Church.
There is no doubt that the canon of the Roman
Church which bound its priests to celibacy was a
masterpiece of human diplomacy. If it was a Divine
necessity it would have been proclaimed as such by
the Founder of Christianity. Admitting even that it
was a counsel of perfection, that it was a higher degree
in the Christian life to be a virgin than to marry, it is
perfectly clear from the very words of Christ, and from
the teaching of St. Paul, that it was not a counsel
intended for all. We have St. Paul's distinct statement,
that the Apostles, Uke St. Peter, had a right to have a
wife if they so desired ; and let it be noted that a right
which is merely a toleration, or to which any penalty
or discredit is attached, is not a right in the sense
evidently intended here.
An unmarried clergy might be a support to the
Church in a time of persecution. A married clergy, for
whom special counsel is given in the Gospel, is the
normal condition of the Church, and intended to be an
example and a strength to the Church in times of peace.
Where is the priest who dares to preach on the words
of St. Paul to Timothy, in which he so expressly
states the duties of the Christian priesthood as regards
their wives ? How any Church caUing itself Christian
could forbid the marriage of its clergy, with the
Scriptures and especially the instructions of St. Paul in
regard to the family life of the ministers of the Gospel

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 7
is a mystery of the perversity of human nature, and
like all attempts to be wiser than God, it has ended in
disastrous failure. The bishop, says St. Paul, "must
be blameless, the husband of one wife." What word
could be plainer ? And then the plain practical inference
is drawn to make the edification to be derived from
marriage yet more clear. " For if a man know not how
to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the
Church of God ? " (i Tim. in. 5). Words could not
express more clearly or more wisely the duty of a
Christian minister, and we shall see presently how this
enforced and unchristian law of celibacy has acted, just
as the Scriptures imply it would act. The priest of
the Church of Rome, not having a household of his own
to rule, has " not known how to rule the Church of
God." Instead of becoming the father of his people,
he is the tyrant of his people. It was not long before
I left the Church of Rome that a priest high in the
Roman Church in New York said to me, " The bishops
tyrannise over us, and we in turn tyrannise over the
people." He spoke these w ords in all sober truth, and
in sad earnestness. And those who know anything
of the inside life of the Roman Church at the present
day, know but too well the truth of these words, while
the past history of the Roman Church is simply one
long cry for power at the expense of Gospel truth.
Let us look at the position of the unmarried priest.
He is a man with all the God-given passions of a man.
The first instinct of man is to propagate his species.
To this end God has given him the desire to do so, a
gift of infinite love, the results of which are ofthe highest
benefit to the human race. This was God's precept in
the Jewish dispensation, approved in the Christian
dispensation, and sanctified in it to a degree unknown

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

before Apostolic days. The priest, being a man,
has these God-given instincts. He desires to propa
gate his species, but he is told that to do this by
marriage is to commit a deadly sin. How awful is
his case ! God has given him certain instincts, lav
ful. Divine, because God-given, and man says, " The
shalt not profit by them. I, the human head of the
Church, forbid you to do what God, the Founder of the
Church, has permitted you to do." For, let it be well
noted, even the Roman Church has not ventured to say
that this forbidding to marry is a Divine command. No,
it is a command only of the " Church," which claims
a right, and — oh, the pity of it ! — is allowed power,
through the folly and sin of man, to do exactly what
God has forbidden to be done.
Again, is it not St. Paul himself who has said, " The
Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith" (i Tim. iv. i) ? and has
he not said that one of the signs of this departure from
the faith is "forbidding to marry" (verse 3)? and is
there any Christian Church to which this accusation
applies except to the Church of Rome ?
The man, then, who is for ever at war with his God-
given nature, and with the instincts which his God
has given him, is not fit to be a leader of men ; and
this is, above all, what a priest should be, and what
God intended him to be. If he keeps his vow of
enforced celibacy he is for ever in the misery of fear,
lest he should be tempted to break it. His very vow
far from helping him, is a most terrible hindrance to
him. The teaching of the Roman Church that his
vow will protect him in temptation is a fallacy, as all
history, even history according to Roman Catholic
historians, goes to prove. How can a vow help, when

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.

it is a vow to do what God has said shall not be done ?
He makes a vow which pledges him not to have the
very opportunity of doing just the very thing which
an inspired Apostle declares a minister of the Gospel
should do. How can he fulfil the Scripture precept
of "ruling" his family well, as the first step towards
ruUng well the Church of God, when he has no family
to rule ? How can he have " faithful children," when
the only children he may have are the fruit of his own
unfaithfulness to a most solemn vow? No wonder
that the priest, in his despair and his loneliness, takes
refuge in drink, and tries to forget his misery in dis
sipation and sin.
The fatal and diabolical policy of his Church deprives
him of all Divinely sanctioned privileges, and drives him
to the indulgence of unholy gratification, binding him
by unnatural vows to an unnatural life. One of two
things must happen; either he keeps his vow, or he
breaks it. If he keeps it, his life is one long misery
of fear and self-repression. Far be it from me to say
that all priests break their vow of chastity ; and it may
be said that there are some men, as there are certainly
many women, who are not desirous of married life.
To such, remaining by choice, or a providential neces
sity, in a state of virginity, the grace of God is an
all-sufficient protection against sin. But such cases
are the exception and not the rule ; and there can be
no possible comparison between the case of such
persons and the case of a minister of the Christian
dispensation who takes a vow that he will not marry.
when the Bible, the source of Christianity, and of
instruction for Christian people, has given express
directions not that priests should remain unmarried,
but how they can fulfil the end for which God insti-

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

tuted marriage, to the edification of the Church to
which they have been called to minister.
He would be a bold man who would deny that
priests are intemperate as a class. It is true that
there are honourable exceptions ; but the Church of
Rome looks with toleration on the sin of intemperance,
hence its half-hearted efforts in the cause of tem.perance.
There has probably never been a more urgent
advocate of temperance than Cardinal Manning, and
to myself he said, on one occasion, when I was
deploring the intemperate habits of Irish priests, " I
need temperance for my priests more than for my
people;" nor did I take this to mean a reflection
on the priests of his own diocese more than others.
It was a statement of an incontrovertible fact, that
intemperance is the besetting sin of the priest every
where. It is curious how this evil is condoned by
Roman Catholics. If a word is said to imply that a
priest does not keep his vow of chastity, no matter
how flagrant the case of his fall may be, the Roman
Catholic is excited to the wildest anger. It seems a
little matter whether he knows the accusation to be
true or not. It is the accusation and not the doing
of the evil which angers him. And this is because
the vow of the priest to remain celibate is one of the
great sources of power in the Roman Church ; and the
Roman Catholic from childhood has been taught to
consider this vow so sacred, that he looks upon a
breach of it as the greatest scandal which can befall
a priest. It is a source of power in more waj's than
is generally supposed. Hence it is that when a priest
leaves the Church of Rome, every effort is made to
disgrace him in the eyes of Roman Catholics, by saying
that he wants to break his vow and get married. The

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.

persistence with which false charges are continued,
despite all proof to the contrary, is one and not the
least serious evidence that this Church needs falsehood
and slander for its support. No amount of profligacy
which a priest could com.mit in the " Church " would
shock a Roman Catholic so much, or at all, in com
parison with an honest following of God's law, and
the Apostle's advice, to become the husband of one
wife. It needs a personal and intimate knowledge of
Roman Catholics to understand this strange perver
sion of right and wrong, which has been instilled into
them from childhood. I cannot easily forget the horror
of a well-educated Roman Catholic to whom I was
speaking of a priest who had left the Roman Church,
as so many have done of late years, and who had
m.arried some years afterwards. It could not be said
of him that he had left the Roman Church to marry,
though of course the falsehood of a charge against one
who leaves Rome never hinders a Roman Catholic
from making it.
It was many years after he had done so that he
took a wife ; but when I pointed out to her that he had
only followed the example of St. Peter, whom Roman
CathoUcs claim as the head of their Church, though
they are so very unwiUing to imitate his example, her
astonishment was unlimited, and her perplexity was
so great, that I trust it may lead her to inquire in how
many other things Roman Catholics have failed to
;ollow the example and the precepts of the great
Apostle for whom they profess so much honour
Qaiming his headship as they do, they might at least
do him the respect to follow his example.
The confessional, as practised in the Roman Church,

12 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
is a cesspool of iniquity for the temptation of the priest.
It is all very well, and true, to say that the laity may
escape danger, but most certainly the priest cannot do
so. He is obUged, by the most sacred obligations of
his office, to probe to the bottom of every evil thought
as well as to the end of every act. Those who have
not been guilty of gross sins may think the priest has
only to hear a few of the little faults of which they
have been guilty.
In this case it may be said, as in the case of the
celibacy of the clergy, that if it was of Divine ordinance,
God would protect the priest from the evil ; but no fair-
minded man who has read, I will not say the Bible,
but the " Fathers," of whom the Roman Church boasts
so much, can assert that they ever inculcated or
practised confession as it is practised to-day in the
Church of Rome. I do not myself think that there
is so much harm done at present to the young in the
confessional as some would suppose. Of course there
are priests so evil-minded as to ask young women
questions on subjects on which they are, and should
be, absolutely ignorant. I know that an English con
vert priest, since dead in the odour of sanctity, gave
a young girl her first knowledge of evil in the con
fessional ; but from what she told me, I think that he
did not know the fearful harm he was doing. But he
should have known it; and I know that it was long
years before that lady recovered from the shock which
she received. It must be remembered that aU this,
and even worse, far from being made a reproach to a
priest by his Church, would be considered a matter of
duty. A priest is like a man who is always handUhg
inflammable materials. He knows theoretically that he
may be blown up some day, and that he may, by the

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 13
least want of caution, cause fearful injury to others.
Using explosive material has led to practical indifference
to danger, and too often he paj'S the penalty, or makes
others pay it. So it is in the confessional. A priest
may not be personally evil or inclined to evil, but he
is handling inflammable material all the time, and the
result in the spiritual life is even more likely to be
fatal than in the temporal.
I must confess for myself that the wonder to me is
not that there are so many priests who drown their
misery in drink, but that any escape. Hour after hour,
for long weary hours, they are seated in the con
fessional listening to tales either of the most con
temptible petty squabbles and scruples, or to sins of
the blackest hue. Hour after hour they have to give
the same mechanical absolution, and the same stereo
typed advice. Hour after hour they have to sit in a
constrained position, often productive of terrible disease,
and to inhale the breath of the drunken, the dissolute,
and the diseased. Often, too, these hours have to be
spent fasting altogether from food, as in many places
the priest has to "hear" his penitents before saying
mass, and of course while he is fasting. With an
unnaturally weakened body, there must be an un
naturally weakened mind. Where, then, is the wonder
if there is a faU? Where is the wonder that the
Roman Church is sickened with the bodies of the
slain, who have made shipwreck in this stream of
pollution? Wearied, worn in body and mind, the
priest goes to his cheerless home, if home it can be
called ; and what comfort does he find there ? Often
he has a long office to say before he retires for the
night, which must be said still fasting, as at the late
hour when he leaves the confessional there is no one

14 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
to give him a meal, and often the obligation of a fast
day would forbid its being taken. What m.ore natural
than that he should drink to obtain a temporary reUef
from his terrible burden, and that at last drink should
become a habit ? What wonder if, craving human
sympathy, and having none that is lawful for him
to seek, he should have recourse to that which is
unlawful. The housekeeper, the niece, is at hand, with
the natural compassion of woman, and with the added
reverence of a Romanist for the " priest." A little
famiharity, a little affectionate sympathy, and the end
is not far to seek ; and when the priest falls, he falls,
like Lucifer, never to rise again.
Sometimes, too often, it is the schoolmistress who
is the victim, and I speak of what I know. It was my
infinitely sad lot to have been asked by an English
bishop, and by an English cardinal, to take charge of
a mission where the priest had ruined four of his
schoolmistresses, one after the other. His last victim
had a child whom she could not support, and so her
pitiful story carae out. The priest was sent, not into
banishment, as would have been done if he had com
mitted any sin " against the Church," or offended his
bishop. As he had only sinned against God, he was
simply removed from one diocese to another, where he
retained his rank and his honours. If such things
are done in the green tree, what has been done in
the dry ? If such deeds as these are done, and even
condoned in England to-day, what will be done in
England when the Church has the power to shield
evildoers ? And I have reason, to know that this is not
an uncommon case. I have heard the sad tale of many
girls, teachers, who are under the absolute control of
the priest, who have been led on step by step to evil

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. iJ
and no hand was stretched out to save them, because
none dared to interfere with the priest who led them
to ruin. I have heard their weary story of shame and
sin, and how they were consoled and silenced in the
confessional ; for with the infatuation of Roman Catholic
teaching they would, even in their misery, seek absolu
tion from the very authors of their shame. Could the
horrors of Pagan rites afford more terrible instances of
depravity ? And aU this is happening in the England,
and in the America, of to-day, and all must be hidden
at the peril of the ruined woman, because the sinner
is " a priest," and because the " Church" teaches, by
example and custom, that it is a far greater sin to
accuse a priest of sin, than to sin with a priest.
I know that it will be said indignantly by Roman
Catholics that the Church does not sanction these
evils, but what use denials, when facts are all the
other way ? No one can possibly be intimate with
Roman Catholics in private life without knowing how
they fear and silence the least word of scandal where a
priest is concerned. A Church which finds it necessary
to hide or deny evU which is well known to exist, must
rest on a very insecure foundation. And it is a curious
circumstance, that while Roman Catholics will talk
quite freely about priests who are guilty of intem
perance, and seem to think it a matter of very little
consequence, they will shrink with horror from con
necting the name of a priest with immorality. Yet the
one sin is most assuredly the parent of the other.
I might fiU a volume if I related the many instances
which I have known of priests who drank to excess,
and still remained honoured members of the Church
More than one bishop and priest are at present in
lunatic asylums in the United States, who have been

i6 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

the victims of this crime, and of Still greater crime. I
do not ask that my word shaU be taken for these
statements. It is not so long since the whole world
was made aware of the moral condition of one diocese
in America by the highest possible authority in the
•diocese, the bishop himself.
The  Republican of June20th, 1887, printed
a letter from Bishop  , of the Roman Catholic
diocese of  , which was brought out in
court, and was never intended for publication ; but it
reveals a sad state of affairs. In June, 1887, the
Bishop had placed a German priest over an Irish con
gregation. The Irish people were indignant at this
proceeding; and, as we shall show later, from Roman
Catholic sources, there is no small fear on the part of
certain American ecclesiastics lest there should be an
open rupture between the German and Irish element
in the Romian Catholic Church in the United States,
where the Church is far from being in the condition
of religious harmony which the rulers of the Papacy
would Uke the world to suppose. At last a gentleman
interfered in the interests of peace, and the bishop was
obliged, or at least thought it wise, to justify himself.
His defence was that the priests of his diocese were
such a drunken lot that he was compelled to supply
the parish as he did. He then gives a list hy name
of twenty-two priests who were received into his
diocese from 1869 to 1876, but whom he was compelled
to dismiss on account of immorality and drunkenness.
Some of them are described as " constantly drunk • "
one is " now going around from city to city a drunken
wreck." The Bishop wrote : —
"The constant shamefiil pubhc and sacrilepious
drunkenness of the three last-mentioned priests who

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY, I7

were by my side at the cathedral determined me to
put them and their kind out of my jurisdiction. One,
after repeated drunkenness, went on a spree for a week
in my house ; while in my house broke out at night,
got into a house of disreputable women in his drunken
ness, and was thrown out into the street, picked up
drunk, recognised, and taken into a house and made
sober, and put into a carriage and taken back to my
house. That evening two others were told by
me to prepare for the proper celebration of the Feast
of the Patronage of  for Easter Sunday.
On Saturday night they stajed up all night drinking,
carousing, and shouting. One fell down, blackened,
and almost broke his face in falling. Of course the two
sacrilegious priests said Mass the next day ; and one
went into the pulpit and preached with his blackened
and bruised face to the people of the cathedral. This
was on the Feast of the Patron of the Diocese and of
the Universal Church. It was time for me to begin
a reformation." From personal knowledge of several dioceses I must
add that this state of things is far from uncommon.
In the western states of America the conditions of life
are freer, and priests are more careless in their public
conduct. I can only say that -the very same condition
of things, I have reason to beUeve, exists in other
places, but hidden from public view.
Since my arrival in America priests have often come
to beg from me while they were in a state of intoxica
tion, saying, that they came because it was well known
I never refused a priest anything. This was true
untU I found out how my kindness was imposed upon.
A priest who had treated both myself and the sisters
most shamefully in England, was sent with a high
2

i8 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

character to America by his bishop, who wanted to get
rid of him, and he also came to beg from me. I know
that there are priests who are living by their wits in
every part of the world; the wretched victims of drink
and immoraUty, diseased beyond description, and
supported by the poorest of the people, who have
a superstitious respect for a priest, no matter how
degraded. And the above is the condition of a large and"
important diocese in the United States, where we
hear, ad nauseam, that the Roman Catholic Church is
making rapid advances. Certainly if building immense
Churches, and not paying for them, notwithstanding the
millions of money yearly wrung from the poor, isa sign
of advancement, it is advancing. Certainly if building
and establishing Roman Catholic convent schools,
which are principally filled by Protestant children, is
a sign of advancement, the Church is advancing. In
one sisters' school in Toronto, Canada, there are sixty
Protestant pupils against forty Roman Catholics, and
it is much the same everywhere.
There are Roman CathoUcs who will not trust their
children to convent teaching, but Protestants supply
the deficiency. In Roman Catholic nations the Roman
Catholic Church is deprived of all temporal power. In
Protestant countries it rides triumphant. No wonder
that the Pope boasts that he rules America, and that an
American bishop boasts that if the pecjple of America
are not yet all Catholics, they are Papists in their love
of the Pope, and in obedience to his orders.
If Bishop Hogan had not spoken out about the con
dition of his diocese it might have been pointed out
as a model diocese, where sin was unknown. Who
can suppose for a moment that these priests, abandoned

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 19
as they were to intemperance, were not also abandoned
to immorality ? Would to God that the Roman
Catholic laity, and especially men, — for it is their
duty to act and protect the weaker sex, — inquired for
themselves as to the real moral condition of the
Roman CathoUc priesthood. I have met many Roman
CathoUc men, both before and since I left the Church
of Rome, who quite frankly avowed that the priests of
their Church were, as a class, drunkards. It certainly
seems amazing that they cannot see the inevitable
consequences. Even according to the very lax teaching
of the Roman Church drunkenness is a sin, though
it is only venial v.hen men do not drink to the un
consciousness of complete intoxication. What, then,
even according to Roman Catholic theology, is the
condition of a priest who drinks habitually ? Is he not
already fallen ? Will he make nice distinction about
crime, or think it more sinful to break one command
ment than another ? Will he be in a state of mind
to resist and avoid evil, and above all an evil which
needs all the grace or the resolution which he possesses,
even when he is in what his Church would consider
a state of grace ? And does not the priest know well
how safely he may sin ? The laity are so terrorised
into silence, that it is but very rarely they dare say one
word, no matter how flagrant his offence may be.
As I have said, I was asked to take sisters to a
parish in England, where it was well and publicly
known that the priest lived in sin with his school
mistress for many years. As the evil was too notorious
to be concealed, the people at last lost all faith in
religion, and left the Church, so that scarcely more
than five or six famiUes remained in communion with
it. To get them back was the one object of the bishop

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

of the diocese, who seemed to me to concern himseU
very little about the character of the priest, so that the
Church did not suffer numerically from his sin. I
made it a condition of going to this place that the
priest should leave before I brought sisters there.
And here I have a right to say, that if Protestants
choose to listen to the petty sneers that priests have to
say about me it is their own loss. It was but yesterday
that a Protestant gentleman said to me, "Oh, the
priests say that you always wanted your own v/ay
v/hen you were a sister, and that when you could
not get it you left the Church." I am sorry for
Protestants who can be so easily deceived. The charge,
in one sense, is true. No priest can say with truth
that I ever did any one act while I was in the Roman
Catholic Church contrary to the orders, or even the
known wishes of those who were then my superiors.
If I had done this, Protestants may be very sure that
the world would have heard of it again and again.
But there were some points on which I was firm ;
and as they happened to be points on which no
objection could be raised, for very shame, the bishops
concerned did not oppose me, though it is convenient
now to make it appear as if I was always in opposition
to their wishes. Certainly I objected to go to this
place or to bring young sisters there until the priest
was removed. I knew that the bishop considered me
a little fastidious, and I know my action in this and
many other matters did not improve my position in
the Church, and was the cause of much of the unmanl;y
persecution which I endured. Still my action in these
matters could not by any possibility be construed as
being that of one who wished to place herself in
opposition to her ecclesiastical superiors. But long

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY, 21
experience has shown me how very easy it is to
deceive Protestants, and how slow they often are, to
their own loss, to reaUse the truth as to the deliberate
deceit and treachery which is practised in the Church
of Rome. If they only knew how much amusement
is given to Roman Catholics when they accept their
version of affairs, it would not help to increase their
respect for that Church, or even for their own wisdom
in such ready belief
I was perfectly within my rights, and within the
line of duty as a good Catholic, in refusing to take this
mission until the priest was removed. But, as I have
said, my action in this and similar matters was not
one which was likely to make me very acceptable to
ecclesiastical authority, and of course in all such cases
I was the person to be blamed. In this case I must
give the bishop in question the due credit of not having
made any opposition to my wishes. But I was desired
by him, as the case was an important one, to listen to
all that I could hear when I went on the mission. In
fact, the bishop did not expect much thanks from Rome
for his interference. It is the policy of Rome to
prevent the only thing which passes as " scandal " in
that Church, the exposure of the fault of a priest, as
much as possible. The fault, if it can be hidden, is
not considered a scandal. I had indeed a difficult
position. This priest was a person of great influence
in the town which was the scene of his disgrace.
Protestants only laughed, but there was one Catholic
family where the matter was taken seriously. The
last of his victims had been engaged to a young man
of good position, and whose friends were old residents
of the town. I beUeve he sincerely and truly loved
the erring girl. It may be well beUeved that hia

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

indignation knew no bounds. If he had been a " good
Catholic " he might have married her, and saved the
Church. But great as his love had been, he was not
a Catholic of the type which will shield the priest at
his own expense. He spoke out plainly, refused to
have anything to do with the girl, and threatened
summary chastisement even on the priest. His
courage, however, fell short of actually inflicting it.
To strike a priest, no matter what the aggravation, is
a crime too terrible for a Roman Catholic even to
contemplate. Public opinion was well roused, as the young man
did not see that he was bound to keep silence on a
subject on which every one was but too well informed.
I had to Usten to a flood of recrimination and scandal
when at last I arrived. I did my best as peace
maker, and tried to bring the people back to the almost
deserted church. I had also orders from the bishop,
who was in deadly fear as to the view which Rome
might take in regard to his interference with so
influential an ecclesiastic, to ascertain all the particulars
and gain all the proof I could of the criminality of the
priest. The deserted church was built by a convert
who had left it free of all debt, a marvel for a Roman
Catholic church; for notwithstanding its enormous
wealth, there are few churches which are free from
debt, — a curious commentary on the great boast which
is made of reverence for the altar.
The young man never returned to the Roman Church.
He and his parents joined some body of Protestants,
which, I do not remember. The rest of the congrega
tion stayed at home. I was told by " good Catholics "
that this priest said Mass during his every-day career
of evil, and left his paramour in his room when he

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 23
descended to offer up the sacrifice, which, according
to the teaching of the Church, is of so sublime a
character, that angels might fear to approach it.
These good people did not know that the Roman
Church before now has sanctioned the profligacy of
her ministers, and that, as I shall show in the history
of celibacy in the Roman Church, every sin against
chastity which a priest can commit is provided for by
a regular scale of indulgence. But this history of my
experience, miserable as it is, does not end here. I
was staying with some of the sisters waiting until
 should be removed to another diocese, where
he was received with all the honours due to his
position in the Church, and naturally I was anxious as
to who would be appointed to take his place. That
also v/as soon provided for. I was introduced to a
priest who was certainly more kind and considerate
in his manner than the generality of priests are to
sisters. I hoped we had found one who would give
us some peace after our long experience of, I must say,
brutaUty and unchristian conduct. I expressed to the
sisters my satisfaction.
Unhappily, it did not last long. We were in the
act of preparing for our departure when Canon 
rushed into my room, and asked me if I knew the
kind of priest the bishop was sending to take the
place of the priest who had been so quietly removed.
1 was amazed at his excitement, Uttle knowing the
cause. " Why," he said, " this man is not long out of gaol.
He was arrested in the streets, and locked up there
for being drunk and disorderly;" and he added signifi
cantly, " he has a housekeeper." I only wish that those
persons, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics, who

2| INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
are anxious to criticise my conduct whfle in the
Church of Rome, had been placed in my position for
one hour.
What to do I knew not. It seemed as if I was
destined to suffer from priests, and then to be blamed
as if I had been the cause of the trouble. I knew
priests so well by this time, that I had not a doubt
that the object of this communication was to get me
into trouble with the bishop, who would certainly have
been very angry if I had complained of his arrange
ments. I felt that the bishop had acted very badly
to me, to say the least, in not having put me on my
guard as to the person to whom he was sending me;
but I knew too well that the very priests who were
trying to make me have a disagreement with the
bishop would be the very first to blame me and not
him. I say again it is simply impossible for any one
who has not some such experience as mine to have
even the least idea of the wickedness and misery of
the inner lives of priests and sisters ; and I can well
understand how those who have not had such an
experience may be slow to believe that such things
can be.
My distress and despair can be well imagined by
any Christian heart. I had left Knock, hunted out, as
I have told in my autobiography, by the injustice of
priests, and people acting under the permission and
under the control of priests. I had come to England
hoping, or rather feeling sure, that here at least there
would be some spiritual good, some true religion. I
soon found, what a wider experience has since con
firmed, that the Roman Catholic Church is every
where the same. How can it be otherwise when it
never admits the necessity for reform, and when there

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 25
never was a Church wherein reform was so sorely
needed, as its indisputable history proves too well.
A few moments' reflection made me consider what
could be Canon  's object in this sudden com
munication. I was well aware that he knew, for at
least a week previous, that this priest to whom he
gave such a bad character, was to take the place of
the gentle and honourable exiled " canon." " Why,
I asked myself, " did he not speak before ? Why did
he give such solemn injunctions ' not to tell the bishop '
that he had spoken to me ? Why, if he was so zealous
for our welfare, did he not speak to the bishop him
self?" All these thoughts flashed through my mind
with unhappy rapidity, and still I did not see my way
to act. I saw at once that if I said a word of objec
tion, the bishop would be sure to ask who was my
informant ; and I never could bring myself to adopt
the Roman Catholic custom of betraying others, after
the most solemn promises of secrecy. In fact, a great
deal of my trouble in the Roman Church arose from
my having different ideas of truth and honour from
those who were opposed to me.
An honest man is a poor match for a rogue, even
when he suspects the rogue; and it was very long
before I learned to suspect priests. I thought also
that it was very unmanly of Canon  to come
and tell me all this under a pledge of secrecy, and not
to go himself to the bishop, and speak to him on the
subject. But I knew that it was always a dangerous
thing for a priest to make any representation to a
bishop, no matter how grave the case might be. I
can only say that I went to  only to find that
the canon was right. The good-natured priest had
been in gaol for public disturbance and drunkenness a

26 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

short time previous, and as priests are always well
posted on each other's affairs, I found the whole story
was true, even to the existence of a " housekeeper."
The pr-est was Irish, and had been all over the world ;
but as the bishop said afterwards, and as many
American bishops have said, if a bishop is too par
ticular, what is he to do for priests ? He must take
them as they come.
The result was what might have been expected. I was
at last obliged to write to the bishop, and tell him that
the whole town knew of the previous character of the
priest, who had been sent to minister to a people who
already had almost lost faith in God and man, in con
sequence of the scandalous conduct of his predecessor,
and that the " housekeeper " was evidently an institu
tion, as she had lived with him for years. I heard,
to her credit, that she tried all she could to keep bim
from drink. But — alas for me ! — here was another flagrant
instance of " my inability to agree with my ecclesias
tical superiors." Very little was thought of the dis
creditable conduct of the priest. I had seen him
intoxicated on the altar, but admit cheerfully that he
was one of the very few priests I ever met who had
a kind word for me, except when I had plenty of money
to give them. If I had consulted my own peace of
mind I should have let things go just as they were;
but unfortunately I thought that such men ought not
to be allowed to administer the Sacraments. He also
was " honourably removed " to a country place, where
it was supposed his delinquencies would be less noticed,
especially if he kept out of debt ; and for all I know he
may be there still.
Before 1 pass to other instances of the same unhappy
kind, I may say that the priest sent to take his place

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY, 27

was a youth just come from college, whose ignorance
was such as might be expected from the way in which
he had been advanced beyond his station, and the
small amount of brains which he had to balance his
advancement. He was sober as far as I knew, but
the secret life of a priest gives them so many oppor
tunities for intemperance, that it is difficult to know
who abstains and who exceeds. I was also informed
by the same " canon " who had warned me about his
predecessor, that he had been a servant in the bishop's
house in  , and that the bishop had taken a
fancy to him, as he had shown considerable aptitude
for ceremonies. Some bishops will make any sacrifice
to promote such men, as these things attract Protest
ants to their churches, and make converts of people
who have not intellect enough to discern the difference
between show and reaUty.
This boy, for he was little else, thought he could
add to his dignity by treating me with contempt,
which at least was a proof that he was not a gentle
man even by education, as he might have been, if he
was not such by birth. I soon found that there was
little difference among the priests. Our new "pastor "
left nothing undone to annoy the sisters ; and I could
occupy pages with their letters of complaints, all but
too well founded, written to me after my arrival in
America. For petty annoyances and petty persecu
tion, as a general rule, priests are unequalled. What
else can be expected when the life they lead is con
sidered ? This boy's father was Irish, and had been a
common soldier ; yet he was so ashamed of his nation
ality that he made the most ridiculous attempts to hide
it, as well as to conceal the humble origin of his father.
There was another priest who lived in the neighbour-

28 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
hood to whom I showed many kindnesses. He repaid
me by giving me all the annoyance in his power. At
length he got so deeply in debt, and the bishop had
so many complaints of him, that he was shipped off
to America, the refuge of priests who cannot be got
rid of at home. I heard that the bishop gave him the
highest testimonials. I know that he had the coolness
to come to me in Jersey city, and to ask me to pay
his expenses to Canada. I refused even to see him ;
and no doubt he has said all he can against me in
consequence. I must admit, however, that I was amused
at the coolness with which he came to me for money,
after the way in which he had treated me and the
sisters in England. But priests are so much in the
habit of having their sins overlooked, that probably he
considered he paid me an honour in asking my help.
God help those to whose spiritual necessities he has
gone to minister !
I could give many more instances of the profligacy
and tyrannical character of priests ; but I wiU only
mention two other cases in which evil was actually
going on before my very eyes, and I did not see it.
One of these was the case of the officious canon
who was so anxious to warn me against the bishop's
favourites. I did many kindnesses for him, but the
influence of his housekeeper was against me. This
woman went by the name of the "canoness." A great
deal has been said by Roman CathoUcs about the wives
of Protestant clergymen interfering in the affairs of
their husbands' parishes; but it would need another
Anthony TroUope to describe the feats of the
"canoness" in this line. Whenever the canon was
absent the "canoness" took his place, and did every
thing but say Mass. The curates rebelled again and

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY, 29
again against her tyrannical rule. She dictated the
hour of rising and rest ; and if they did not please her
by telling her all the affairs of the parish, spiritual and
temporal, she had a handy way of punishing them by
cutting off the food supplies. As for her interference
with the sisters, her attempts in this direction were
ludicrous, and would have been mischievous, if they
had not kept her, in some degree, in her place. At last
the young priests rose in rebellion. The sisters wrote
to me that the bishop, worn out with ceaseless com
plaints of the " canoness' " interference, gave the
canon his choice between parting with the " canoness "
or dividing his parish, so that he would not need a
curate. The canon kept the " canoness," and sub
mitted, with as good a grace as he could, to the loss
of the greater part of his parish.
If only one-half of the affairs of this sort, which are
of daily occurrence in the "Holy" Roman Catholic
Church, were known to the world at large, what a
revolution there would be. But such things are kept
secret. Sisters know a great deal of the inside life of
priests, but they find it best to be silent; and it can
easily be seen that they could do no good by speaking.
The Church alone can reform the Church, and that is
the last thing which she can or will do, embar
rassed as she is by her own infallibiUty. To her
may well be applied the reproach made to the Church
of the Laodiceans, " Because thou sayest, I am rich,
and increased with goods, and have need of nothing,
and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable,
and poor, and blind, and naked : I counsel thee to buy
of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich;
and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and
that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear ; and

30 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see "
(Rev. in. 17, 18).
When I had but just entered the Roman Church, I
was equally shocked and surprised by the way in which
a young French lady spoke of the Jesuit who was the
parish priest of the mission to which we were then
attached. She talked of certain familiarities which
she resented, and of a very pretty girl who was a great
deal at the priest's house, helping the priest's house
keeper, and who I believed, on that account, to be above
all suspicion. The girl was certainly very like the
priest, who was a very good-looking man. The remarks
of the French governess were not taken in good part
by the ladies whose ears they reached. For myself I
was too shocked, at what I supposed to be French
lightness, to believe one word the young lady said ; and
the matter ended in her being dismissed from her situa
tion as a gossip and a detractor. At that time I supposed
that the French were a devoted Catholic people, and
wondered much at a French lady criticising the character
of a priest, and above all of a Jesuit. I soon dismissed
the subject from my mind. It was pleasanter to believe
that the girl was accusing the priest falsely, than to
suppose that he had done wrong ; for Uke all con
verts, I believed that priests were immaculate, and
that it was a sin even to suppose them otherwise. It
took a long experience to undeceive me ; and that fact
has made me understand how so many Roman CathoUcs
have formed an ideal of a priest quite different from
the reaUty, and how they will shut their eyes to any
thing which threatens to break the charm.
On the day of my reception into Newry convent, a
young priest, who I learned long years after was a
confirmed drunkard, acted very strangely. So high

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.

was my reverence for a priest, that it never even
entered my head that he was not sober on the solemn
occasion. Even when I heard his sister lamenting,
as she did loudly and periodically, the misery of a
priest who had fallen from grace, I never suspected
that her own brother was the source of her trouble,
and I fear that the disgrace of the family was a great
deal more felt by her than the sin against God.
And what has been gained to the world, or to the
Church, by enforcing this law of celibacy ? It is one
of those burdens grievous to be borne, which has most
certainly caused more sin than sanctity. We know,
on indisputable historical authority, that the result in the
ages when Rome had all the power which she craved,
was that the Church which would not allow or bless
the honest wedlock of the priests was driven to permit
concubinage. Could there be possibly a more terrible
charge against any Christian body ? Surely one would
think that the results of this " infallible " interference
with the laws of nature, and with the express direction
of Scripture, as to the manner of Ufe by which God's
priests should be distinguished, would have been suffi
cient to condemn Rome for ever.
Rome is ever craving for power to enforce all her
demands. It would be well if those who are anxious
to increase her power would ask what has she done
when she has had all the power she craved ?
What was the state of Italy in the Middle Ages ?
We hear a great deal at the present day of the injustice
done to the Pope in depriving him of temporal
dominion, but how did the Popes live when they were
free to rule as they pleased ? Did they benefit hu
manity ? Did they preach the Gospel? Did they
even live good moral lives ? Did they reform their

32 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

clergy ? Rather, we may ask, were their priests good
men, who lived for their God and for His poor ? Alas !
aU history proves that they were a curse rather than a
blessing. And what ofthe efiects produced by the celibacy ofthe
clergy at the present day ? What is its effect on the
Church at large ? It is just what might be expected.
An unmarried clergy must inevitably be a selfish clergy.
It is supposed that celibacy lifts a man to heaven, and
detaches him from the things of earth. Can any one
who knows the clergy of the Romish Church say that
their vow has had this effect ? Is it not weU known
that they are grasping, avaricious, oppressive to the
poor, whose cries do not reach the ear of the world,
but nevertheless do reach the ear of God ? Is it not
well known that they often leave large sums of money
to relatives, all of which has been obtained from God's
poor, who, worshipping the ideal of the priest, know
little of the reality. Even with all the precautions which
Rome uses, and with all the secrecy which she can
command, she is not able to hide altogether, as she
could have hidden in earlier ages, the demoralised
condition of so many of her priests. It is true that
very little comes before the public, for the press is
under a control which compels silence, but facts are told
in private which one day will be remembered, and told
in public. It is true that this careful guarding of the
press has left the so-called upper class-in utter ignorance
of the true state of affairs, and consequently they give all
the weight of their influence to uphold a system which
they would denounce unsparingly if they knew it as it
is. They see the priest on the altar and in society,
where he is on his guard, and they do not know him as
he is elsewhere. They see his zeal for the Church, but

THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 33
they do not know that he has had his hours of agony,
and of deep and bitter despair, which he has drowned
in drink, or driven away as best he could in active work
for the Church which has been the cause of all his
misery, but from which he sees no escape.

CHAPTER n.
THE MORAL EFFECTS OF THE CELIBACY OF THE
CLERGY IN THE PAST AND IN THE PRESENT.
"After my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you,
not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise,
speaking perverse things." — Acts xx. 29, 30.
IT must never be forgotten that the Church of Rome
makes her holiness a special ground on which she
claims a divinely given authority. She claims not only
to be " holy," but to be " the " holy CathoUc Church.
And people are so apt to take her, as they so often take
others, at her own valuation. Rome says she is
" holy," and the world, too lazy, or too ignorant to test
her claims, acquiesces, and is duly impressed.
Perhaps there was never a greater fraud practised on
the credulity of mankind than this. Probably of all
Christian Churches there is not one Church which has
so little to show of the fruits of the Spirit as Rome ; and
yet she is believed by millions to be the one Church
which has an extraordinary record of good works. If
only Roman Catholics were allowed to read history,
and if only Protestants would read its pages (and they
can read them), what a revelation they would find of
the supposed sanctity of Rome. We shaU return to
this subject later. Here we are chiefly concerned with
evidence on one point only viz., that Rome is very far

MORAL EFFECTS OF CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 35
from being a holy Chuich. The chief ground for this
claim of pre-eminent holiness is, that her celibate priest
hood are, of all those who minister at God's altars, the
most perfect in their conduct, and the most self-sacrificing
in their lives. And at the first glance it looks as if
this claim was well founded. Here we have men who
certainly make a vow which deprives them of all the
comforts of family Ufe. Here we have men who are,
to all appearance, leading a life of superhuman
self-sacrifice. And from time to time events occur
which appear to verify this claim of Rome to a self-
sacrificing priesthood. We need not go beyond the
current news of the day for an example, and a fair
one, of the way in which Rome establishes and per
petuates her claim to an exceptionally holy priesthood.
Who has not heard of Father Damien, the priest who
has so nobly sacrificed his life in the sacred cause of
humanity ? The admiring Protestant gives his sacrifice
the meed of praise it deserves ; but the admiring
Protestant does not stop to think, or does not know,
that the noble deed which Father Damien has done is
being done every day in the year, and was done long
before he ever thought of following the example of the
Protestant ladies who first devoted themselves to the
leper. For many years there has been an institution
for lepers outside the walls of Jerusalem, attended by
German Protestant deaconesses, who have called no
special attention to their work, but have gone on the
even tenor of their way, year after year, being infected
by the horrible disease, and dying by inches in its
loathsome tortures. We do not say this as any depre
ciation of Father Damien's work. But the " capital "
(there is no other word for it) which Roman Catholic
papers acquire out of such things makes it incumbent on

36 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
Protestants, or rather I should say on all who value
truth, to make the truth known. Let us give-honour to
Father Damien; but all the honours do not belong to
him. And yet Roman Catholic papers, and to my know
ledge one under the special patronage of Archbishop
Corrigan, edited by the late dynamiter. Ford, breaks
into wild cries of childish anger because a New York
paper ventured to allude to this fact.
The New York paper will no doubt be more careful
in the future how it offends Roman Catholic sensibilities,
by stating any fact which, however true, seems to
lessen the glory of a priest. The simple stating of this
fact about these German deaconesses is called by this
(late) dynamite advocate " a mean fling at the dead hero."
It is ever thus that the Church of Rome supports her
claim of exceptional holiness by false pretences. It is
a crime, to be punished with the most severe penalties,
if one word is said either in public or in private of
the fault of a priest, or of the oppressive conduct of a
bishop. New York society was ringing with suppressed
laughter at the " ten dollars or ten days," joke, made
on the way in which Archbishop Corrigan punished an
unfortunate priest who had dared to say one word of
fact as to the way in which Dr. McGlynn was treated
by the orders of his ecclesiastical superior. But the
laughter had to be low, for even Protestants could be
made to feel the weight of episcopal displeasure, if the
echo of their mirth reached the archiepiscopal ear.
And in the case of any priest whose name can be
brought forward in the cause of science or humanity,
aU the glory must be given to the "Church" as the
source of his inspiration. It matters Uttle that the
deed or the discovery for which he is honoured is
common to many others. Even the least hint that

MORAL EFFECTS OF CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 37

the glory does not belong exclusively to Rome is
treated as an injustice to that much-belauded Church.
A hundred deaconesses who may have sacrificed their
lives in the cause of the leper are as a mere nothing
in comparison with the one priest who has only followed
their example. And, as 1 have said, the world takes
the Church at her own valuation. I do not deny that
the unnatural life of a priest is a true martyrdom ; but
there are many men, and many missionaries amongst
Protestant denominations, who live quite as hard a
life, as far as privation of the comforts of life is con
cerned, and there have been many Protestant ministers
who have sacrificed their lives in time of pestilence as
freely as any priest of the Roman Church.
It is so also in the case of sisters. I do not deny
that the life of a sister is often one of great privation,
but there are many sisters who Uve far more comfortably
in the convents than they ever lived in their own homes.
This, however, does not, to my mind, detract from the
reality of their suffering, for they surrender their
liberty, which makes all else of little value to them.
But the Church of Rome is ever making " capital,"
especiaUy for the benefit of Protestants, out of the
self-sacrificing lives of the sisters, while there are
many women who live quite as great a Ufe of self-
sacrifice who never saw the interior of a convent.
The secrecy and romance of the life of a nun prepares
Protestants to give unUmited credit to any claim that
may be made for the admiration of sisters ; and, as in
the case of Father Damien, they do not stop to think
how many self-sacrificing lives are spent in their own
denominations. There are many ministers' wives who
not only bring up their little ones in the love and
fear of their Creator, but who spend, and are spent,

38 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
day after day in the service of the poor ; and yet there
is never a demand for praise of their self-sacrifice. It
is time that all this claim to exceptional sanctity, in the
Church of Rome, on the ground of the exclusive practice
of good works, should be disproved and silenced for ever.
I know not whether to think it a providence, or to
call it a peculiar coincidence, but I have had occasion to
see a friend, the wife of a Methodist minister, between
writing the last sentence and that on which I am now
engaged. I had not been speaking to her on any
matter connected with the Roman Church, but our
conversation led accidentally to the subject of the
indifference of sisters to the poor. She then told me
of a case within her own personal knowledge. She
had a servant, an orphan girl, who had been educated
by sisters. When they found out that the poor girl
was in a miserable state of health, the sisters would
neither take her back, nor send her where she could
have care and rest. One morning the girl was unable
to rise, and my friend saw that she was dying. At
the request of the girl she sent for the priest and the
sisters. She begged the sisters to remain with her,
or to send some one to remain with her until she died ;
but they said the superior would not allow them to do
so. Mrs. H  was very willing to do all she could
for the girl ; but she had a baby of her own to care for,
besides all the additional work which the girl's illness
threw on her. The sisters were perfectly indifferent.
The girl died, and they would not even watch by her
remains, or send any one to do so. Next day an
undertaker was sent by some poor friend of this
friendless girl, and she was buried from the Methodist
minister's house ; for the sisters would not even allow
the coffin to be brought to their convent, or concern

MORAL EFFECTS OF CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 39
themselves in any way about their former pupil. Not
even a candle was sent to burn by her lonely coffin ;
and Roman Catholics will know from this what indif
ference was shown. How different, said my friend,
would their conduct have been if the girl had not been
utterly destitute.
It was because I saw so many evidences of heart
lessness on the part of sisters to the poor, and neglect
of their most sacred duties to orphans, that I was
anxious to found an order of sisters whose exclusive
work should be for the poor. With a few honourable
exceptions, the sisters who commenced by working for
the poor have ended by caring for the rich. Certainly
the rich can, and do repay them well in this world;
but I shall return to this subject later.
What could be more sublime than the Roman
Catholic ideal of a celibate clergy and an unmarried
sisterhood, whose Uves are devoted wholly to God and
to the saving of souls? Even the human ambitions
of churchmen may be made to look holy when it is
claimed that their desire is the advancement of the
Church, and the glory of God. How little is it known
that the glory of God too often proves an excuse for
the glorification of man, and that schemes for the
advancement of the Church are too often invented for
the glorification of the individual. One thing is certain;
if the celibacy of the clergy is not a Divine institution
it is impossible for it to benefit the world. It would
need aU the grace that God could bestow to enable a
man to live the life of a celibate with his human
instincts and desires quickened to a degree far beyond
what is ordinary. One might say that the very virtue
of a celibate priest actually invites temptation, and
incites to crime. But our present purpose is to con-

40 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
sider the result of this vow. Has this celibacy of the
clergy proved a blessing to the Roman Church and to
humanity ? I can show that far from being a blessing
it has proved a curse. I have already given some
specimens of how men live who are vowed to celibacy.
The fact that all breaches of this vow can be so easily
concealed is one of the greatest dangers to the
tempted priest. The superstitious terror which Rome
inculcates, and which is so much used to prevent a
word being said of any ill deed of a priest, is at once
their temporal protection and their spiritual ruin.
Fear of exposure is one of the greatest preventives
of crime, whether that fear is a dread of public opinion
or of penal consequences. From this fear the priest
is absolutely free. The bishop is the only person with
whom the priest has to account. The bishop does not
know everything, and the bishop is also human, and
knows the history of his Church well, and that there
is nothing new (in clerical incontinency) under the
sun. I have seen a " canon " of the Church, who stood
weU with his bishop and his brethren, sitting with
the grown-up child of his housekeeper in his lap, and
the child embracing him as a child would embrace a
father. Who shall say whether simple affection, or
something very different, prompted the caresses he
lavished on her, or whether what was done by a child^
I should say rather by a girl of twelve— would not
continue to be done by the woman ? No priest with
a real respect for the vows of his office would have
allowed these familiarities. But how few priests have
such a respect. I might multiply instances of this
kind. I might quote from letters which I have seen
from a penitent to a priest, in which there were
allusions to such familiarities as these passing between

MORAL EFFECTS OF CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 41
them as an ordinary affair ; but I have no wish to write
on these subjects beyond what is of absolute necessity.
The great question is how did this rule of celibacy
work when Rome had unlimited freedom in the Middle
Ages ? I think the world at large would be surprised
if they knew what has been the result of the Church's
free permission to her priests to have concubines, and
of her stern prohibition of lawful marriage. Human
nature is the same in all ages of the world and of the
Church. History repeats itself The question to be
asked is. How do certain rules work under all con
ditions, and not how do they work under exceptional
conditions ? It is amazing that people cannot see for
themselves that Rome has failed as a Christian religion.
Take it on this one point of clerical celibacy, and what
has been the result ? He would be a bold man who
denied, in the face of every-day facts, that the Roman
Catholic clergy, as a class, are given to intemperance.
That they are given to immorality is not so well known,
because that sin is easier of concealment. Still there
is quite enough evidence before the world to show that
there is good ground for believing that, if hidden matters
were revealed, a great deal of wickedness would see the
light for the first time.
A priest at present on the mission, as it is called, —
that is, a priest who is pastor of a large and influential
parish, but whose relations with his ecclesiastical
superiors are rather strained, and would probably snap
if it were not that he is immensely wealthy, independ
ently of his ecclesiastcial income, — told me that his
archbishop employed a private detective for some time
to watch him, as he was anxious to prove that he was
in the habit of going to certain houses, so that he
might have him in his power. A lady told me that

42 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
the priests of a religious order, supposed by a credu
lous public to be so .full of the odour of sanctity that
they can work miracles, were in the habit of taking
her husband at night to places where she would rather
they had taken some one else's husband. She had no
reason for disliking these priests, nor had she ever had
any disagreement with any of them. The matter was
only mentioned to me as an unpleasant fact. Nor did
this in the least weaken her faith in the Church, so
strange is the infatuation of Romanists where their
priests are concerned. And yet we have the authority
of Scripture for judging a tree by its fruits.
There are few persons of any intelligence who do
not know the deplorable state of the Roman Church in
Mexico, where for years it had full sway, until the
people rose up at last against the iniquities practised,
and screened in the name of religion. It is now some
years since I saw a letter written to a lady in Ireland
by her brother, who had gone to Mexico as a superin
tendent of some mines. He had married a Protestant,
and had taken her with him. He told his sister that
he had no hope of his wife's conversion now, as she had
seen too much of the evil lives of the priests there, who
lived in shameless concubinage, and kept their women
and children openly in their houses. And Rome, tied
by her infallibility, to which she must hold at any
cost, tolerates all this ; and by tolerating it proves that
she prefers sin to virtue.
It is well known in Rome that it was the lives of the
priests which first turned the people against the Church.
A whole nation does not turn against the Church with
out cause, above all when the nation is as conservative
and superstitious as the Italians, Surely it should
strike thinking minds that so superstitious a nation

MORAL EFFECTS OF CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 43
must have had some great cause for uch a stupendous
change. It was not the caprice of an hour which
made the Italians infidels and free thinkers. They
saw, at first with grief, at last with contempt, that
those who professed to be priests of the "Holy"
Catholic Church were leading lives the very reverse
of holy ; and losing their faith in the Church as incap
able of producing good fruit, these Italians soon lost
their faith in God, of whom they knew so Uttle. The
knife of persecution has no doubt been of service in
Rome, and greater care is taken in morals. But there
is stUl ample room for reform. How striking a com
mentary on the boasted hoUness of the Roman Church
it is that the fewer the priests in any country the purer
are their lives.
A circumstance with which I became personally
acquainted while in Rome, showed me that opportunity
only was wanted to enable priests to live the guilty and
sinful lives which every ecclesiastical history, written
by niembers of their own Church, admits to have been"^
the normal condition of the Roman Catholic Church in
past ages. A young lady was visiting Rome with her
brother in the early part of the year 1884. I was at
that time in Rome, and I was asked to go and see her.
She was in very delicate health, and at that period was
confined to her bed. She was apparently alone in the
world, having no relative except a young brother to
whom she was guardian, and who appeared to have
every confidence in her, and the tenderest affection for
her. She was also a person of great wealth.
Miss D  was attended with unremitting care by
two priests, who seemed to be rivals in their devotion.
Both were well known in Rome, and were superiors of
religious orders. I easily accounted for their attention

4^ INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
to this lady, on account of her wealth and her devotion to
the Church. So closely did they watch her, that they
never left her apartments. If one was absent for a
few hours the other remained on guard. As her state
of health was not so dangerous as to require such
close watching, it seemed strange to me that they
should have guarded her so closely. She had also the
paid services of a sister belonging to a nursing order
of sisters. I could not help thinking that the young
and very pretty sister who had the care of the invalid
day and night, would have been better employed work
ing for the poor, and a great deal safer.
The poor sister, when she could get a moment free,
which was seldom indeed, used to come to my rooms,
which were close by, and throw herself on the bed
utterly worn out. I thought that her superior would
have a good deal to answer for, as certainly she was
cruelly overworked, and in a most dangerous position.
It was pitiful to see the broken-down look on her face,
and to note her depression and utter prostration, and
all this was done for a lady who could well afford to
have the best of nurses in Rome at her service. I
failed to see where the charity came in, or what one
who professed to devote her life to the work of a
spouse of Christ, could have to do with the service of
the rich. In fact, this poor sister worked harder than
any servant. Though she did not complain, I could
see that she felt the indifference of her superior to her
sufferings. In fact, this superior was too full of her
imaginary revelations and of plans to trick the bishop,
whom she had left in England, to concern herself about
so trivial a matter as the health of a sister. Sorae one,
I do not know who, suggested that I should see Miss
D  , and a day was appointed for me to call on her.

MORAL EFFECTS OF CELIBACY OF TUE CLERGY. 45
She was in bed, and certainly looked very ill, but I saw
in a moment that there was a great deal more the
matter than mere bodily suffering. The poor lady
seem.ed very pleased to see me, and begged me most
earnestly to come again soon. I did not ask for her
confidence as, though I saw she was ready to give it
to me, I thought it would be better not to press her at
the time. Even yet, I was not prepared for all the
duplicity and deceit which a priest will practise to gain
an end. In a day or two, I asked the sister when she
thought Miss D  would like to see me again. She
put me off with some excuse, which did not arouse my
unsuspicious nature.
These excuses were repeated whenever I asked the
same question, till at last even my suspicions were
aroused, and I thought that her superior did not like
me to get intimate with Miss D  , as of course all
were looking to benefit by her money, " for the greater
glory of God and the Church." I soon discovered that
these suspicions were well founded. I was deter
mined to see the matter through, as I did not think it
likely that Miss D  had changed her mind about
wishing to see me. At last the sister told me plainly
that the two priests were very angry indeed when they
found that she had allowed me to see Miss D  , and
that they had given her the most positive orders, which
it is needless to say she dared not disobey, that I was
never to be allowed to see her again. Such is the
tyranny of priests, and such their power. Even in her
own house this poor dying lady was not allowed to be
mistress. The young brother, who was greatly to be pitied,
was treated with indifferent contempt by aU parties.
He was very gentle and unassuming, full of Irish

46 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
veneration for priests, and too innocent in his own life
to suspect evil. I knew too weU that it would be
worse than useless to make any effort to see Miss
D  again, or to try and help her in any way. It
need not be said that the priests offered her all the
" consolations of reUgion." Mass was said in her room
every day, special blessings were obtained from, and
special indulgences asked, and granted by the Pope.
At last came a grand climax. The priests, anxious to
outdo themselves in their efforts to win her affections
and her money, proposed that she should be carried
on a Utter to the Pope himself, and obtain his blessing
personally. So with all possible pomp and circum
stances poor Miss D  was carried to the Vatican,
guarded zealously, or jealously, by the priests.
But a few days passed when Rome was startled with
a cry of horror. It was discovered that Miss D 
had given birth to an illegitimate child, and murdered
it. An intolerable stench in her rooms betrayed the
guilty secret. How the affair escaped the knowledge
of the sister no one can tell. Miss D  had arranged
to be conveyed to a villa outside the walls of Rome,
from whence she expected to be able to make her
escape to some distant place. But the priests, fearful
of losing their prey if she went too far from them,
urged the delay till it was too late. The unhappy
woman, without a single friend, committed the crime
in the room where Mass was said day after day. At
last the people of the house discovered the ghastly
secret, and the police were called in. I heard that the
superior of the nursing sisters used som.e very plain
language about the folly of the priests in keeping me
from Miss D  , as probably if they had allowed me
to see her she would have told me her state ; and as

MORAL EFFECTS OF CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. 47
she knew that I had an extensive experience in dealing
with painful cases, she might have asked my advice, and
I could have had her quietly removed to a country place
before the child of shame was born. But the priests were
too eager to secure their prize ; and they knew well that
a priest can soon reinstate himself, no matter what he
does, if he has not committed any sin against the
" Church." Sin against the law of God is a matter of
comparatively little moment. As for the public, one
sensation soon effaces the memory of another.
I heard that the Pope was exceedingly angry when
the affair came to his ears, as well he might be. These
self-same priests had made a great deal of capital out
of their zeal for reUgion in obtaining the favour of an
extraordinary audience for Miss D  . Protestants
were duly impressed with the great care which the
Church has for the souls of her suffering children,
and were not likely to notice specially that this care
is most lavishly bestowed on the children who have
most money. Even some few Catholics were shocked
at the undeniable fact that the priests said Mass daily
in Miss D  's room, and of course heard her con
fession, and knew all the particulars of her state.
Her young brother was truly to be pitied. He had
revered his sister almost as a saint ; and as I have said,
he was a young man of sensitive mind, and I belie-i/e
of truly good life. I heard that he remained for hours
without eating or moving from the one spot, where he
had sunk down in an agony of shame. As for the
priests, they took the matter coolly. They were expelled
from Rome for a time in deference to public opinion.
The police guarded Miss D  in her house until
her death, which took place in a few days after the
discovery of her ruin. I never could ascertain what

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

became of her great wealth, or of her poor brother. I
heard that he left Rome the day of her funeral and
went to England.
The Popolo Romano and other Italian papers had
full details of the whole affair, with portraits of the
actors. It scarcely increased the love of the people
for the Roman Church or the respect of the public for
priests. But there are, and always will be, a certain
class of people so infatuated with a system, no matter
what its evils may be, that nothing will lessen their
confidence in it. And no doubt there were Catholics
who sympathised with the priests when they were
obUged to leave Rome, even in " honourable " exile.
To a thoughtful mind it was a marked evidence of how
Rome works. Here was a young lady of education
and good family, availing herself of all the sacraments
of the Church, receiving the highest favour which the
Pope could confer on her, and living in sin all the
time. It is this faith that the Church can save the
soul, no matter what the life of the sinner may be, that
has been the ruin of thousands. It may be said that
the Roman Catholic Church does not teach this doctrine.
Certainly it does not teach it in plain words. But it
teaches it practically ; and it is by its works it should
be judged in this world, and by its works it will most
assuredly be judged in the next.
It might be supposed that these two priests would
have been disgraced for ever. But such is far from
being the case. I can scarcely say how shocked
I was when I heard a short time since that one of
them was in New York, received, of course, with all
honour by the ecclesiastical authorities there. Such
honour and such reception was denied to me, though
I had the good fortune to have the Pope's recom-

MORAL EfFECTS OF CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY, 49
rcendation, which nevertheless I was told was of no
use. The more fortunate priest had come to beg
for a new Church in Rome. Once more I could not
but admire the skiU and craft of the priesthood. There
are numerous churches in Rome, as every traveller
well knov.s, and one of them would hold nearly all
the church-goers of that city. But what matter ? To
build a new church, whether wanted or not, is con
sidered so meritorious a work, that it will cover any
number of sins. Thus it was that the mediaeval
baron used to wipe away the stain of a life of crime,
by donating to the Church, when he had no more use
for them, the lands which he had plundered from
some one weaker than himself The priest wanted
to get back to Rome. It is a pleasanter place than
exile, and has much to interest the resident. Besides,
he wanted to wipe out the recollection of his adventure,
and to win back the Pope's favour. But it was neces
sary, before he could build the Church, to get the money
to build it. The plan which he hit on was certainly a
masterpiece of diplomacy.
It is what is called in England "bringing coals to
Newcastle " to build a church in Rome. Of course the
Papal authorities would be pleased ; but, as I have said,
they would not supply the money. Who was to do it ?
The priest was not at a loss. The Irish are always
ready to be plundered, and an appeal to their piety or
patriotism never fails. There was not a church in all
Rome dedicated to St. Patrick. This was easily repre
sented as a great injustice to the Irish nation. With
the hundreds of churches there, somehow St. Patrick
was overlooked. It was quite too shocking. It did
not occur to the ever-credulous Irish that they were
asked to give themselves a present ; but what matter ?
4

so INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
The priest got back to Rome. It did not matter that
the church might never be built. The plan to do it, and
the money to do it, was all that was necessary. It did
not matter that there was already a church in Rome
where there was an Irish community, and where for
many centuries the feast of St. Patrick was kept with
all pomp and solemnity, and that the long-established
custom of calUng this the " Irish Church " made it
unlikely that a new church would attract its worship
pers, few as they were.
The priest wanted to get back to Rome and to the
favour of the Pope, and he accomplished his object.

CHAPTER in.
THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY IN THE
MIDDLE AGES,
" Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep
your own tradition," — Mark vii. 9.
THERE is no question whatever that the priests of
the Catholic Church, in the first ages ofthe Church's
history, were allowed to marry. There was no law,
human or Divine, against the marriage of the clergy.
We have shown what cannot be disputed, that the
Holy Scripture, in its express teaching, approves, and
we might almost say expects, the marriage of the clergy.
Why should such particular instructions be given as to
how the minister was to bring up and rule his family,
if it was unlawful to have a family, or even if it was
more perfect for him to remain a celibate ? The question
seems one of common sense. We now proceed to show
from Roman Catholic sources the origin of the unscrip
tural command to abstain from marriage, and the fatal
result of being wiser than the God who made us.
The arguments made by Roman Catholic theologians
to defend the enforced celibacy of the clergy are amusing.
They may satisfy the ignorant, but they will never con
vince those Romanists and Protestants who have the
facts of history before their eyes, as written by Papal

52 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

historians and theologians. I shall refer the reader to
three indisputable Roman Catholic authorities on this
subject. I will first mention St. Augustine, who was
one of the early Fathers. I may remark in passing that
it was very necessary for the Roman Catholic Church
to put some portions of St. Augustine's works on the
Index of expurgated books, for ' there are so many
anti-Roman Catholic statements in the writings of this
great author, that he might have proved a danger
ous antagonist. As regards St. Augustine, I need do
no more than to mention his name. With regard to
other authorities, though they are all well known to
the learned, those who have not had special oppor
tunities of study may not be famiUar with their names
or writings; and as I am anxious to make this book
available as an authority to all, I give some informa
tion as to the others from whose works I quote.
Gratian belonged to the learned Order of Benedictines,
and lived in the twelfth century. He occupied twenty-
four years in compiling an abridgment of the canon law
of the Roman Church, and this is known as " Gratian's
Decretals." He freely admitted that the clergy were
allowed to marry in the early Church, and indeed no
one can deny this. Thomas Aquinas, a canonised saint,
whose name need only be mentioned, so weU is he known
as the great theologian of Rome, admits, as freely, that
ceUbacy was not a law of the early Church ; and in this
connection he uses a curious argument well worth
noting. He says (Summa II. u.) that the early Chris
tians were so much holier than their (Roman Catholic)
descendants, that it was not necessary to enforce a law
of celibacy on the clergy. This is a curious and
valuable admission. It is an evidence that, in the
opinion of this great divine, who certainly ought to

CELIBACY OF CLERGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES. S3
have known the social and moral state of his Church
well, it had sorely degenerated. The fact was simply
that the Roman Catholic clergy lived, in his day, such
grossly immoral lives, under a law of enforced celibacy,
that they had corrupted the Church, and as a neces
sary consequence demoralised the world. There is
indeed an overwhelming consensus of Roman Catholic
evidence to prove that clerical celibacy was simply a
rule of the Roman Church, and that it was not a rule
of theGospeL In 1564 Pope Pius IV., in an encyclical
letter to the German princes, explains the enforced
celibacy of the clergy as a necessity of the age.
An evidence which is important from two points of
view may be quoted here. The Bishop of Portus
denounced Pope Calixtus for admitting men to the
priesthood who had married twice. This shows that
the abject submission to Rome of the bishops of modern
tim^es was then unknown, and it shows also that there
was nothing against the marriage of priests. So common
was the marriage of the clergy, or rather so little was it
against the rule or custom ofthe Church, that in a.d. 414
we find Pope Innocent I. complaining that many bishops
were married to widows. The fact was that the early
Christians were undoubtedly influenced by Pagan ideas
in more respects than would have been supposed possible.
When the Jesuits went to evangelise India, they were
surprised to find so close a resemblance between the rites
and ceremonies of the Pagans, whom they had come to
convert, and their own. They were at a loss to under
stand this, and were divided in opinion as to whether
the devil, who is generally fathered with the inexplicable,
had parodied the Christian religion, or whether it was
the traditions of a pre-existing knowledge of the Catholic
faith.

S4 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
It is remarkable that while marriage was respected
and encouraged both amongst priests and people in the
Jewish Church, it was forbidden in many countries to
those who were dedicated to the service of false gods.
As far as the " Fathers " of the Church are concerned,
they differed with each other, and even with themselves,
so constantly, that their testimony on disputed points is
really of little value. It may be remarked here, in this
connection, that Pope Leo the Great, who is the first
Pope whose writings have been preserved, excommuni
cated every one who received the sacrament in one kind
only. The Manichaean heresy was then rife ; and one
of the tenets of this half-Pagan sect was that the cup
should be given only to the priesthood.
It would require a volume, or rather several volumes,
to give a full history of the introduction of sacerdotal
celibacy into the Roman Church ; but we are more con
cerned with the results of this observance than with
the origin of it. There are a multitude of records of
local synods, and enactments of pastorals and of local
councils, all tending in the same direction, and all having
the same object. This was unquestionably to make the
Church more powerful, by making the clergy a distinct
class, by detaching them from all secular (personal)
interests, and by concentrating their energies, as well as
their interests, on the one grand object. The one ques
tion for us, and for all believers in the Gospel of Christ,
is, not how this regulation worked for the increased
power of the Church, but how far it tended to the
increased holiness of its members ?
As I purpose in another chapter to give some account
of the lives of the Popes, who according to the Roman
Catholic Church have held the most awful and respon
sible power which God ever gave to man, I shall say

CELIBACY OF CLERGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 55
but little of them at present. Popes, emperors, princes,
and some few prelates tried again and again, to stem
the torrent of corruption, which was ever growing in
the Roman Church, as the inevitable outcome of the
effort to enforce celibacy. In the fifteenth century the
Rector of the University of Paris, who was also the
private secretary of Pope Benedict XIIL, declared that
the vices of the clergy were so universal, that there was
little faith left in the virtue of any ecclesiastic. In the
same century Gerson recommended an organised system
of concubinage, as preferable to the gross immoralities of
the " celibate " clergy. The very fact that such a pro
position should be seriously made, is in itself an evidence
of the evil which is inevitable, when man tries to be
wiser than God in regulating human affairs.
Nor were the priests alone guilty. Gerson, whose
authority cannot be questioned, since he is one of the
shining lights of the Church of Rome, says that the nuns
in the fourteenth century were as guilty as the priests
and friars. He says the nunneries of his time were
"houses of prostitution, the monasteries were only used
for purposes of trade and amusement, while the priests,
at best, were keepers of concubines." His writings are
weU known, and their authenticity has never been "
questioned, while his position, for many years, a^ the
Chancellor of the University of Paris, gave him ample
opportunity for acquiring correct information. He took
a leading part in the Council of Constance, and lived
and died in full communion with the Roman Church.
Nicolas de Clemanges, already mentioned as the secre
tary of Pope Benedict XIIL, says, "that to take the
veil was simply to become a public prostitute."
The plea of modern bishops, that it is better to have
intemperate priests than not to have any, which is

56 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
acted on every day in the present century by bishops,
who dare not inflict too heavy a censure on priests who
are guilty of drunkenness, had its counterpart in this
age, when it was declared openly by the Chancellor of
the University of Paris, that it was better to tolerate
incontinent priests than to have none. Theodric a
Niem, who wrote a history of the Council of Constance,
declared, merely as a matter of fact, and without making
it a reproach, that some bishops carried their concubines
with them when they went to make their pastoral
visitations ; and indeed many bishops made a consider
able income by demanding large fees from their clergy
for the permission to keep concubines.
The state of the Church was such at the time of the
Council of Constance, that the three honest men who
gave themselves to the work of reform were well nigh
in despair. These were the men already mentioned.
After the Council had sat for two years, Clemanges
declared that as the members of this "general" Council
themselves " considered reform the greatest evil which
could befall them," they were not very likely to make
any effort in that direction. The contemporary accounts
of this Council, and be it remembered that all these
writers were Roman Catholics, inform us that crowds
of people flocked to this meeting of the heads of the
Roman Catholic Church. The number of " courtesans "
ran well up into thousands, and the jugglers and play
actors were nearly as numerous.
Every effort was made to purify the Church by
the few reformers. Even the Papal privileges were
sharply assailed. It had been made a law of the
Church that the children of priests should not be
allowed ecclesiastical preferment; but infallible Popes
were constantly giving (for a consideration, of course)

CELIBACY OF CLERGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 57
exemptions from this rule. It was now sought, but
uselessly, to cut oft" this papal prerogative. The eccle
siastics of Italy and Germany were equaUy immoral,
and equaUy unwilling to reform. Cardinal Branda,
who was sent by Pope Martin V. to preach a crusade
against the Hussites, has left his testimony on record.
He says concubinage, simony, gambling, drinking,
and fighting were the occupations of the priests of
the "holy" Roman Church. In 1428 the bishops of
Anglers declared that licentiousness had become so
habitual amongst the clergy that it was no longer
considered a sin. The Archdeacon of Paris says, that
he attributes to enforced celibacy and the great wealth
of the Church, all the crimes which had made the clergy
so odious in the sight of the laity.
This miserable condition of the " holy " Roman
Catholic Church was universal. How little Roman
Catholics, who live in the fond delusion that their
Church has been always holy, know of its real history.
To try to enUghten them seems almost a hopeless task,
so deeply are they imbued with the false teaching of
those whose very existence depends on concealment of
evil. The same causes which worked the ruin of the
Church of Rome in those countries where she was able
to sin unreproved, are always at work, and sooner or
later, every country where Rome gains unrestrained
power will know the truth when it is too late.
From time to time some earnest souls spoke out,
and denounced the wickedness of ecclesiastics in high
places. Martyrdom was the usual reward of their
fearlessness. Rome does not tolerate reformers. A
Church which can burn or destroy any one who dares
to reprove the evil in it is safe for a time. But the
hour of retribution will surely come. In the year

SS INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
14 14, Henry V. had a series of articles prepared with
a view to the reformation of the Church in England.
This monarch preceded the Reformers in the work of
trying to reclaim what was past redemption. In these
articles the undisguised profligacy of the priests is
fully described, and deplored. So terrible was the
evil, and so injurious to public morals, that public
chastisement was proposed to be inflicted on those
priests who persisted in open fornication, the
pecuniary fine, which had been the only penalty
hitherto adopted, not being of the least avail to check
the ever-growing evil.
But of what use were aU efforts at reform, when the
court of Rome made merchandise of souls ? Even
when she denounced the evil she "reserved" special
cases, which would bring her increased wealth; and
thereby she sanctioned the continuance of sin in her
own priesthood, and what was, if possible, still worse,
she made sin a matter of trade.
The following facts are taken from one of the most
important books which has ever been published on
the Roman controversy. The title of the work is,
"An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy." One
great value of this work is that its author, Mr. Lea,
shuns polemics. There is not one word of contro
versy, or of anything approaching to it, in the whole
work from end to end. It is simply an historical
resume of facts bearing on the question of the celibacy
of the clergy.
In the second place, the work has been compiled
from authentic documents, which, though they are
scarce, are nevertheless known to scholars, and are
accessible in such libraries as make a speciality of
rare works. In every case the reference is given to

CELIBACY OF CLERGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 55
the authority from which each statement is taken.
Roman Catholics have not even attempted to answer
this book. In fact, silence in regard to it is their best
policy, as all the statements are taken from Roman
Catholic sources, and many of them from the published
decrees of episcopal synods in all ages of the Church.
How any honest man could read this book, and still
call the Roman Church " holy," is past comprehension.
But it need scarcely be said that books like this,
written for the student, are not easily accessible to
the general public, the price and other causes limiting
the circulation ; and it must be borne in mind that if a
priest discovered that any Romanist had been studying
Mr. Lea's book he would certainly give him a severe
penance, and strictly forbid him to read another
word of the volume. The truth about the Roman
Church, whether historical or social, is the last thing
which the Church can afford to have known. There is
a curious little tract, printed in Cologne in 1505, with
the approbation of the faculty, which is directed against
concubinage in general, but particularly against that
of the priests. Its laborious accumulation of authorities
to prove that licentiousness is a sin is abundant
evidence of the existing demoralisation, while the
practices which it combats of gn^ilty ecclesiastics
who were in the habit of granting absolution to each
other, shows how easily the safeguards with which the
Church had sought to surround her ministers were
eluded. The degradation of the priesthood, indeed, can
easily be measured when, in the little town of Hof, in
Vogtland, three priests could be found defiUng the
sacredness of Ash Wednesday by fiercely fighting
over a courtesan in a house of iU-fame, or when

6o INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Leo. X., in a feeble effort at reform, was obliged to
argue that systematic licentiousness was not rendered
excusable because its prevalence amounted to a custom,
or because it was openly tolerated by those whose
duty it was to repress the evil. In fact, a clause in the
Concordat with Francis I. in 15 16, renewing and en
hancing the former punishments for public concubinage,
would almost justify the presumption that the principal
result of the rule of celibacy was to afford to the officials
a regular revenue derived from the sale of licenses to
sin. The old abuse, which rises before us in every age
from the time of Damiani to Hildebrand, and which,
since John XXII. had framed the tariff of absolutions for
crime, now well known as the " Taxes of the Apostolic
Penitentiary," had the authority of the papacy itself to
justify it. In this curious document we find that a con-
cubinary priest could procure absolution for less than a
ducat, "in spite of all provincial and synodal constitu
tions;" while half a ducat was sufficient to absolve for
incest committed with a mother or a sister.
That no concealment was thought necessary, and
that sensual indulgence was not deemed derogatory
in any way to the character of a Christian prelate, may
be reasonably deduced from the panegyric of Gerard
of Nimeguen on Philip of Burgundy, grand-uncle of
Charles V., a learned and accompUshed man, who
filled the important see of Utrecht from 15 17 to 1524.
Geiard alludes to the amorous propensities and
I romiscuous intrigues of his patron without reserve ;
and as his book was dedicated to the Archduchess
Margaret, sister of Charles V., it is evident that he
did not feel his remarks to be defamatory. The good
prelate, too, no doubt represented the convictions of a
large portion of his class, when he was wont to smile

CELIBACY OF CLERGY IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 6i
at those who urged the propriety of celibacy, and to
declare his beUef in the impossibility of chastity among
men who, like the clergy, "were pampered with high
living and tempted by indolence." Those who pro
fessed to keep their vows inviolate he denounced as
hypocrites of the worst description ; and he deemed
tlem far worse than their brethren, v.'ho sought to avoid
unnecessary scandal by keeping their concubines at
home. Even this reticence, however, was considered un
necessary by a large portion of the clergy. In 15 12,
the Bishop of Ratisbon issued a series of canons, in
which, after quoting the Basilian regulations, he adds
that many of his ecclesiastics maintain their concubines
so openly that it would appear as though they saw
neither sin nor scandal in such conduct, and that their
evil example was the efficient cause of corrupting the
faithful. In Switzerland the same abuses were quite
as prevalent, if we may believe a memorial presented
in 1533 by the citizens of Lausanne, complaining of
the conduct of their clergy. They rebuked the incon
tinence of the priests, whose numerous children were
accustomed to earn a living by beggary in the streets ;
but the canons were the subject of their especial
objurgation. The dean of the chapter had defied an
excommunication launched at him for buying a house
near the church in which to keep his mistress ; others
of the canons had taken to themselves the wives of
citizens and refused to give them up ; but the quaintest
grievance of which they had been guilty was the injury
which their competition inflicted on the public brothel
of the town. What was the condition of clerical
morality in Italy may be gathered from the stories of
Bishop Bandello, who, as a Dominican and a prelate,

62 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
may fairly be deemed to represent the tone of the
thinking and educated classes of society. The cynical
levity with which he relates scandalous tales about
monks and priests, shows that in the public mind
sacerdotal immorality was regarded almost as a matter
of course.

CHAPTER IV.
THE OUTSIDE TEACHING AND THE INSIDE
PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.
" In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the command
ments of men." — Mark vii. 7.
IT can scarcely be a matter of surprise that the
members of a Church which at least discourages the
study of history, and which forbids the unrestrained
reading of the Bible, should be in ignorance of the true
history of the Church to which they belong. But this
ignorance is by no means confined to members of this
Church, which has so much reason to dread the light of
truth. There are very few persons who make a careful
and exhaustive study of any subject, unless compelled to
do so by special circumstances ; and to the vast multi
tude, books, v/hich would give the information necessary
to form an unbiassed opinion, are not easily accessible,
even if the general public had the leisure to peruse them.
But this need not be a hindrance to the most accurate
knowledge of the past history of this strange world of
ours. Compendiums of history or of general informa
tion may be had, and are within reach of the purse
and the leisure of all ; nor is it by any means difficult
for the ordinary reader to judge as to the veracity of
the compiler. A general honesty or dishonesty of
purpose makes itself apparent at the first glance to an

64 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
intelligent mind. Prejudice defeats itself by its very
manifestation. After reading a few pages of any work
of importance the reader would do well to ask himself.
Is this writer worthy of my confidence ? There are
certain names which are a guarantee for honour and
honesty, and there are men on whose statements we
may rely with every confidence. But there is one plain
and obvious test of accuracy.
If a well-known Protestant writer quotes from recog
nised authorities, we may be sure that a respect for
his own reputation will make his quotations accurate, and
therefore reliable. We have used the word Protestant,
not without consideration. Unhappily, Roman Catholic
writers, as we shall prove later, are on many points
absolutely unreliable, and persist in historical mis
quotations, and in the use of authorities long since
discarded as forgeries, even by some of their own
writers. We have, then, in the works of reliable
authors, a ready means of obtaining correct knowledge
of any subject of which they treat ; and we may enjoy,
at their expense of brain and labour, what we could
not otherwise obtain for ourselves.
I am very well aware that Roman Catholics will
deny that their Church discourages the study of history,
and forbids the indiscriminate reading of the Bible.
But I shall prove, from their own ecclesiastical enact
ments, that such is the case.
It is dishonest, and unworthy of a man of common
intellect to contradict, or try to explain away, the plain
statements of the heads of his Church. If a Roman
Catholic denies or tries to explain away the doctrines of
his Church he is simply a Protestant, and he does this
either because he is ashamed of these doctrines, or
because he is ignorant of them. There are, in fact.

OUTSIDE TEACHING AND INSIDE PRACTICE. 65
more Protestants in this sense of the word in the
Roman Church than is generally supposed. The truth
is, that some of the doctrines and practices of the
Church of Rome are so monstrous, that when Roman
Catholics of intelligence are brought face to face with
them, and their necessary consequences, they are
aghast with shame and amazement, and have no re
source but denial of their own creed. For example,
the Roman Catholic Church teaches plainly and un
deniably in her catechisms that all Protestants, except
in cases of " invincible ignorance," will be damned, no
matter how good their lives may be. A Romanist
brought face to face with this monstrous doctrine is
heartily ashamed of it, and denies it. A priest who
is faced with it by a Protestant inquirer or controver-
siaUst tries to minimise it. But of what use ? The
fact remains the same.
The doctrinal teaching of the catechism cannot be
altered, even to deceive Protestants or anxious inquirers.
The decrees of the Church and the decisions of Councils
remain. But there are so many people in the world
who are too lazy to investigate for themselves, and
who take their information at second hand, with little
inquiry as to the source from which it has come, that
they are easily deceived. The Romanist will tell his
Protestant friend that he has " asked the priest," and
that the priest has assured him "it is all a mistake;"
and the Protestant friend goes to his better enUghtened
friend, and assures him that "the priest ought to know
best, and that he has said that the Roman Church does
not teach that all Protestants wiU be damned." And so
the matter ends. The Protestant is thoroughly and de
Uberately deceived, not having access to Roman Catholic
catechisms or theologians which teach this doctrine. 5

66 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
When Galileo was compelled by the infallible Church
to swear to what he knew was a lie, he did so, and
let us pity him while we blame; but he had, for aU
that, his " mental reservation," a resource aUowed and
indeed approved by Jesuit theology, as we shall see
presently from their own writings.
Condemned as he was to lie, not only in the name
of God, but in the name also of the blessed Virgin, or
to bear punishment for teUing the truth, he did what
thousands have done before and since ; he believed in
truth, but submitted to brute force.
When Pius IX., or, as he might well be called, Pius
the ambitious, got himself proclaimed "infaUible," in
spite of the " infallible " teachings to the contrary of
his infallible predecessors, there were many bishops,
and thousands of the laity, who revolted against this
new doctrine, which had not been " delivered to the
saints," and which clearly came under the Apostolic ban,
since St. Paul has declared that if even an angel from
heaven should preach any other Gospel to the world,
than that which he had preached, he would be accursed.
It is indeed marveUous how many curses this Church
of Rome, which is the Church of cursing for others,
has brought on herself in her, let us hope, unconscious
impiety. When the doctrine of the personal infallibility of
the Popes past, present, and to come, was proclaimed
as being as obligatory on the belief of all Romanists
as the doctrine of the existence of God Himself, there
were, as I have said, thousands of men who would
have none of it. These men were, by birth and by
education, Roman Catholics ; they had all the attach
ment to their creed and to their religion which is the
natural consequence of inheriting it as a birthright.

OUTSIDE TEACHING AND INSIDE PRACTICE. 67

A choice had to be made between accepting a new
article of faith, and the abandonment of the Church of
Rome. These men could scarcely be expected to
understand that if they opposed the dogma, it was
the Church which had left them, and not they who
had left the Church. But that Church, with a wisdom
which can scarcely be called Divine, considering the
use which is made of it, solved the difficult problem
in her usual convenient fashion. Confessors were told
not to ask troublesome questions, but to give absolution
to aU who might ask it, if they did not positively
declare their refusal to accept the new creed ; and so
the difficulty was wisely, if not honestly, tided over for
the time.
If Rome had the temporal power for which she so
ardently craves, these recalcitrant children of the
Church would have had a short shrift and a fiery
grave ; but it was deemed, above all things, advisable
to have an appearance of unanimity in acceptance of
this new departure from the faith once delivered to
the saints. It matters little to Rome whether this
unanimity is secured by force or fraud, so that it is
obtained. The eyes of Europe were on the Vatican
Council at that moment to note every difficulty. The
ubiquitous and inquisitive nineteenth century reporter
was abroad in the land. An open declaration of revolt
or objection was, above all things, to be dreaded and
avoided ; and it was avoided. Future generations will
read with great edification of the " marvellous unani
mity " of acceptance which greeted this proclamation of
the Pope's infallibility ; and this " fact " will be appealed
to as another note of the Church's unity, and as another
proof of its Divine character, and, above all, of the
wiydam of the Pontiff, and his special enlightenment by

68 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
the Holy Ghost, in proclaiming this new departure in
faith. The young men who will be educated in Roman
Catholic colleges, and young women educated by
Roman Catholic sisters in coming years, will not be
allowed to read any history of the times which has
not been carefully expurgated of those facts which refute
Papal Infallibility ; and so the lie will continue to be
believed, and will be handed down to posterity, in the
name and for the honour of the God of Eternal Truth.
Silence as to the existence of known evil has always
been, and always will be, the price of peace in the
Roman Church. It is not unjust to that Church to
say this, because it is true ; and it can never be
unjust to make the truth known in such cases, for
eternal justice demands it. Why should evil be con
doned and concealed ? Do we not become participators
in evil when we conceal the evildoer from the just
punishment of his crime? What government on the
face of the earth would demand from its subjects
that evildoers should be protected in their crime by
silence ? What government would condemn the ex-
poser of evil, and let the doer go free ? And yet this
is done every day, and has been done for centuries by
the Church of Rome. A careful study of history will
prove that this, sad as it is, is an indisputable historical
fact. A little knowledge of the inside life of the Roman
Church will prove it to be an every-day occurrence.
My own history proves it. If I had been sUent as to
the commission of evil, I might stiU be an honoured
member of the Church of Rome, but I should be this
at the cost of self-respect and conscience.
I have seen a priest drunk at the altar; I have
seen a priest who had been guilty of the ruin of four

OUTSIDE TEACHING AND INSIDE PRACTICE. 69

of his school-teachers removed to another diocese, but
only to be welcomed there, and never the worse thought
of for his sin, or the scandal he gave, public as it
was. But if one dared to speak of it publicly, that
indeed was a crime too terrible for forgiveness.
My experience of the Church of Rome is, that the
only sin for which there is no forgiveness is to condemn
evil, and the only fault for which there is no pardon is
to try to work for the good of the poor and suffering,
unless this work is done in a way which wUl bring
temporal advantage to ecclesiastics. Has not Dr.
McGlynn boldly and publicly stated that the priest who
puts the largest sum of money in the bishop's Prayer
Book when he comes to the priest's house, is the best
beloved of those men who profess to be the only true
foUowers of Him who had not where to lay His head ?
I have seen a priest in Kenmare lay himself full
length on a convent lounge, and put his head in the lap
of a sister who was sitting on it, and who dared not
condemn the outrage, because of the position which
the priest held. She could only express her unutter
able disgust and loathing of his drunken familiarities
by her expression of contempt and hatred, and by
not paying the very least attention to him as he lay
there. I do not say that such scenes are common in
convents, but I know such things are not altogether
uncommon, though I have said many times in public,
and say again, that as far as my experience goes,
sisters are moral, and few priests would dare to
approach them for immoral purposes.
The irresponsible power of the bishop over the
priest, and the irresponsible power of the superior
of the convent over the sisters, is the source of fearful
e-vil. The sister to whom this outrage was offered, for

Vo INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
I can only call it an outrage, had already felt the
weight of the tyrannical rule of an evil-tempered and
cruel superior ; and she knew well that? if she said one
word of the conduct of a favourite, her position, which
was already harder than she could bear, would have
been made intolerable. It is certainly very convenient
for the doers of evil to feel sure that their deeds of
darkness will be concealed ; and we may add that this
compulsory system of concealment, though it may for a
time appear to be a strength to the Church, becomes
eventually the cause of its decay.
There is another source of temporary strength as
well as of eventual weakness in the Roman Church,
arid this is found in a servile press, which dares not
even mention the shortcomings of priests, unless they
are so extremely notorious as to compel attention;
and even then the subject is dropped with an alacrity
which should at least arouse the suspicions of those
who are not aware of the motive for this suppression.
If the Roman Church herself denounced and punished
the sin of her priests or of her subjects, there would
not be so much cause for blame. But this is far from
being the case. Evil is weighed not by its real sinful
ness, but by its effects on the "Church." Have we
not daUy examples of this ? Does not the whole world
know that the present Duke of Aosta obtained the Pope's
permission to commit incest by marrying his niece ?
This was at the time a matter of public notoriety ¦
but I doubt if there was one newspaper in the United
States of America which would have dared to pubUsh
a criticism on this Papal permission to sin, such
is the power of the Church to protect evil. PubUc
opinion, which is in all governments the great safeguard
of Uberty, and the great protection of good government,

OUTSIDE TEACHING AND INSIDE PRACTICE. 71
is non-existent wherever the Church of Rome has
power. The cesspool of evil must not be stirred ; the
festering sore must not be probed ; and the inevitable
result is rottenness and corruption. In fact, the idea
that a priest cannot sin was at one time so firmly
believed in Ireland, the only country in the civilised
world which held far into this century to papal super
stitions, that no matter what a priest did he was
exempt from criticism. No matter how sinful the deed
might be, it was supposed that the fact that the sinner
was a priest excused it ; and the crime of accusing a
priest of a sin, no matter how plain the evidence might
be, was made to appear so terrible that he would be a
brave man indeed who would peril his eternal interest
by even a passing remark, and it may be added, that
his temporal interests would not fail to suffer also.
Instead of sin being considered more sinful if the
defilement was in the sanctuary, it was held practically
to be just the reverse. There are certainly some things
in which Rome keeps to her proud boast of never
changing. Burdened with the incubus of her infalli
biUty, she must perish sooner than save herself by
reform ; and for all practical purposes she has perished
in every European country where she once reigned as
a queen, save only in unhappy Ireland. Yet even in
Ireland there are symptoms that her power is not what
it was, and even there she must temporise to rule. It
was the proud boast of Pius IX. that America was the
only country where he could be a king, and the boast
unhappily is but too Vi^ell founded. But America will find
out, though it may be through loss of her liberties, what
Rome, and Italy, and France have discovered long since
— that Rome and freedom cannot exist in the same

72 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
state. The reins of ecclesiastical government are held
loosely at present in the United States, and the whip
of persecution is hidden away under the flatteries of
a priesthood trained to diplomacy; but the time for
tightening the reins will come, and the time for using
the whip will follow. Let it be said once more, Rome
cannot change. Her very existence is bound up in
her infaUibility. When the Romish hierarchy has
anything to gain by flattery and diplomacy, when she
cannot persecute because she cannot command the
secular power to do her bidding as she did in the
days when she burned Joan of Arc at the stake, for
the love of God, and burned Bruno at the stake, in
Rome, to show her appreciation of intellectual freedom,
then she speaks softly to the confiding heretic. She
throws the dust of her flatteries in his eyes, until she
can place the fetters of her power on his hands. And
she finds fools who will listen to her, some for love of
that political power which she claims a right to exercise,
by right of the position she claims of supreme ruler
of aU the affairs of human life. The greedy politician
accepts the help, which, appreciating his greed, she
offers so graciously. Why should he not use her for
his purpose ? Why, indeed ? But in his infatuated
blindness he fails to see that she is using him for
her purposes, until she can crush him at her pleasure.
Men who care for neither politics nor science, but
who are impressed by power and position, are the
easy prey of this powerful Church. They are freely
applauded for their " liberality " by a Church which
will deprive them of liberty the very hour in which
she has attained, through false liberality, the power
to crush all liberty except that of those who submit
abjectly to her ruling in all matters temporal and

OUTSIDE TEACHING AND INSIDE PRACTICE. 73
spiritual. The struggle between the human race and
the power of Rome has never ceased since she took
on herself to proclaim to a subservient world that her
rights were quite as much temporal as spiritual, the
words of her Divine Master, of Him whom she claims to
be her Master, notwithstanding. She claims a power
which Christ Himself has expressly declared that His
Church should not exercise. In aU the plenitude of her
rule in the Middle Ages, when Popes made and unmade
kings and emperors, in aU the poverty of her decadence,
when even her own subjects would have none of her
rule, the Popes continued the same cry, " My kingdom
must be of this world." Our Divine Lord sent forth
His disciples without scrip or staff; the Popes cannot
maintain the power which they profess to derive from
Him without crowns and palaces. How ghastly the
contrast between Christ poor and humble, and the
Popes crowned and enthroned. If there was no other
evidence against the Roman Church but only her failure
in following the Master whom she professes to serve,
this alone should be sufficient.
And what has been the result of aU this demand for
earthly power, and pomp, and authority? Let the
history of the Popes of Rome tell the miserable tale.
It is no wonder that Rome is afraid of history, that
Cardinal Manning, a churchman of churchmen, has
uttered these memorable words : " An appeal to history
is a treason to the Church." What, are we to abandon
our very senses, as weU as our God-given reason, to
the Church ? And what does this Church offer us in
return ? A certainty of salvation, if we can only bring
ourselves to beUeve that her contradictory creed is
divinely inspired, that the faith once deUvered to the
saints may be added to at the convenience and caprice

74 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
of " infallible " sinners, whose lives were too often a
disgrace to our common humanity.
I am about to show that the lives of these infaUible
Popes, who have taken on themselves to remodel the
Gospel, to abridge the commandments, to retain or to
hold the soul from bliss or woe, have been so scanda
lous, that the much-decried Henry VIII. was a very
model of virtue in comparison. But even as the earth
moved in its divinely appointed course despite the oppo
sition of ignorant Cardinals and jealous Popes, so also
the facts of history remain to confound the pride of a
Church which claims to sit as the queen of virtue, and
desires that all shall call her holy despite her utter
corruption, and her persistence in denying it. Of her
truly it may be said, " Thou sayest I am rich, and
increased with goods, and have need of nothing, and
knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and
poor, and blind, and naked." In vain have the very
saints of the Church of Rome, who have been saints
not because they belonged to her, but because they
abhorred her iniquities, called on her to repent. In
vain did a Francis reproach the Church with her love
of riches, or a Catherine of Siena cry out against the
corruption of her priests and Popes. All has been in
vain, and will be so until she has fulfilled the measure
of her crimes, and ended the term of the Divine patience
towards her iniquities.
I am very weU aware that these words of truth
and soberness will not be acceptable to those whose
evil deeds are denounced, nor to those who desire
peace at the cost of principle. Such people are the
curse of humanity. Under the cloak of charity they
are guilty of the most serious breach of charity. Those
who support the evUdoer, whether by silence when

OUTSIDE TEACHING AND INSIDE PRACTICE. 75
speech is a duty, or by assent which lies perilously
near consent, are alike guilty.
It needs somiC moral courage to stand for the right
when all the powers of evil are prepared to make us
suffer for it. Why should Rome be so afraid of facts ?
Why should she be so afraid of knowledge ? Why, if
her cause is so sure and so Divine, should she be so
afraid of the least criticism, or the least independent
inquiry ? It is a noteworthy fact that Roman Catholics
are the only religious body who get angry when the
tenets of their Church are made the subject of discus
sion. Other reUgious denominations can discuss their
respective creeds without excitement or acrimony. But
one word of disapproval sets the Romanist in a flame
of anger and excitement, and leaves no hope of calm
and judicial investigation.
And the same anger and excitement may be observed
in the discussion of any scandal which may arise. The
members of other Churches will quietly discuss the
circumstances of any discreditable conduct on the part
of a minister of their creed. But their creed does not
depend for its acceptance on the personal infallibility of
any individual. It is not so in the Roman Church. If
the most trifling event is commented upon in which a
priest or bishop has acted, even unwisely, though the
action may not have been criminal, the person who
dares even to allude to the matter is at once denounced
as an enemy of the Church. It would be amusing,
if it were not sad, to observe the conduct of Roman
ecclesiastics in regard to those who leave their Church.
They may be pardoned for condemning them to eternal
perdition, as their creed teaches them to do this ; but
where is the tender charity bf Christ towards those
whom they beUeve to be in error? Where is the

76 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
desire to reclaim the fallen ? Where is the hand of
the Shepherd stretched out to recall the wandering
sheep ? Where, I may rather ask, is the Christianity ?
There is no convert who has left the Roman Church
v/ho has not been the victim of the most outrageous
reviling, and often of the most carefully elaborated
calumnies. Where does Christianity come in when
such is the regular practice of Rome ? What claim
has a Church to be called the " Holy " Church when
it acts as if it could not exist without the support of
lying and defamation ?

CHAPTER V.
IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY.
" Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious : and he
that believeth on Him shall not be confounded," — I Peter ii, 6.
CHRIST is the chief corner stone of the Christian
Church. The dogma of the infallibility of the
Church of Rome is its sole support. Deprived of
this doctrine the whole fabric falls to the ground. If
Rome is not infallible she descends at once to the level
of the sects above which she exalts herself, and which
do not profess to be infallible in the sense in which
Rome claims infallibility. Nothing is ever gained for
the cause of truth by mistaking or misrepresenting the
case of an adversary. Rome does this without hesi
tation, as when she teaches that Protestants are infidels,
and have no reUgion ; and that she does teach this I
shall give proof from her own mouth.
But in order to understand the subject thoroughly,
and to realise its immense controversial importance, we
must ask what Rome means by her claim of infallibility,
and how she exercises this claim. We shall give the
very words of the Roman catechism as taught by the
authorities of the Roman Church; and she cannot
certainly refuse to accept her own authorised teaching.
We find in a Catechism of Christian Doctrine (note

78 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
the exact expression), published with the special appro
bation of Cardinal Gibbons, and approved January 3rd,
1888, that the following definition of the Pope's infalli
bility is given : —
" Q. What power had St. Peter as supreme head of
the Church ?
" A. Peter had the power to govern the whole Church
of Christ, the pastors, and the faithful, make laws for
them, and enforce these laws.
" Q. What special gift did Christ ask of His heavenly
Father for St. Peter, as the teacher of His whole
Church ?
" A. Christ asked of His heavenly Father to bestow
upon St. Peter the special gift of teaching infalUbly
His whole doctrine. ' I have prayed for thee,' said our
Divine Saviour to St. Peter, 'that thy faith fail not;
and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren '
(Luke xxu. 32)."
Now for a sample of special pleading this is certainly
unique. Everything is taken for granted; nothing is
proved ; the word " confirm " is used instead of the
word "strengthen," another evidence of how Rome,
when she appeals to Scripture, changes its meaning to
serve her purpose. But even as the text is quoted
by Rome, there is not one word in it to support the
monstrous assertion that " Christ asked for Peter the
special gift of teaching infallibly His whole doctrine."
There is not even anything approaching such an ex
pression ; but Roman Catholic children who are taught
this Catechism are not aUowed to reason or discuss
the matter. Their duty begins and ends with learning
the words of the Catechism, and also, let it be weU

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. 79
noted, of believing that whatever interpretation is put
on the words of Scripture, must be accepted as the true
interpretation. Rome says that in these words Christ
asked His heavenly Father to bestow the gift of infallible
teaching on St. Peter, the words not bearing the least
proof of this notwithstanding.
But there is yet more. It remained to be proved
that the successors of St. Peter were infallible also.
But this could not be difficult to an infallible Church.
No attempt is made to find Scripture for this doctrine.
A Council, which was not held until 1438, is fathered
with the responsibility ; so that, according to this cate
chism, it took the Church fourteen hundred years to
find out that the successors of St. Peter were infallible.
Here is the question and answer.
" Q- Who is the lawful successor of St. Peter ?
" A. The lawful successor of St. Peter is the Pope or
Bishop of Rome." {Council of Florence, 1438.)
Such an important matter having been thus proved
past all question to the hapless and ignorant learner,
the next statement is easy,- -shall we say the next step
in deceit ? — and in the most cruel of all deceit, the
deceit of the young is accompUshed.
"Q. What power has the Pope as the lawful suc
cessor of St, Peter ?
" A. As lawful successor of St. Peter, the Pope has
the same gift and power of infallibility that St. Peter
had from Christ."
The cool assurance is amusing of thus " proving "
a doctrine on the authority of a text which does not
even allude to the subject of St. Peter's infalUbUity,
and then asserting, without a shadow of proof, that the

So INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Pope is also infaUible. And all this is taught to children
who have not, and who are deliberately prevented from
ever having, any proof that it is mere assertion. Let
it even be supposed that Christ did pray that St. Peter
might be personally infallible, where is there one word,
or even one inference, that his successors were to be
so ? What an awful account these men will have to
give at the last great day for the way in which they
have deceived the ignorant ; and above all for the
blasphemy with which they have invented words for
Christ which He never said, and then used them for
the destruction of the world. What a stupendous
fabric of deceit has been thus built up, and what untold
misery has been the result.
If, notwithstanding the prayer and presence of Christ
Himself, Peter denied his Master with oaths and curses,
how can the successors of St. Peter, even if he had
successors, hope to be more secure ?
It is certainly a matter of no small moment for the
Protestants of the whole Christian world to know what
is taught, by the express authority of the Church, to
the young, who will have the fate of empires and states
in their control in a few short years. Now on the
page which contains the episcopal and Papal appro
bation for these Catechisms (for this is one of a series
prepared for use in parochial schools), a long list is
given of Roman dignitaries who have expressed their
great admiration of this system of Christian doctrine,
and last, but not least, in the estimation of pious Roman
Catholics, and in importance to us, is the approbation
of Rome itself of the use of this catechism, pro scholis
parochiaUbus (for parochial schools).
Before proceeding further I desire to call attention to
the title "Christian doctrine," and to show how very

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. %\
misleading Rome can be — perhaps I might say how very
deceptive, — and wilfully so. A Protestant minister, who
was so Uberal of God's truth as to take the part of the
Roman Church on the school question, wrote a letter
to the Boston press, in which he said that all the Roman
Catholics wished to teach their children was " Christian
doctrine;" and he was shocked that there should be
any opposition to such a good work. He, for his part,
approved this truly reUgious teaching.
All this was very well, if he and his Roman clients
had meant the same thing by the same words. But to
him "Christian doctrine" meant the religion of the
Bible, to them it meant the religion of the Pope. He
believed in the religion of Christ, and in the Bible as
the source from which it should be obtained. They
believed that the Pope, and the Pope alone, had a right
to define what was Christian doctrine and what was not.
Now there are two points to b,e observed in connec
tion with this claim to infallibility, laying aside for
a moment the curious fact that it is an entirely new
doctrine of the Roman Church. First, it should be
noted that the Catechism appeals to Scripture to prove
that St. Peter was appointed the visible head and chief
pastor of the Church by Christ Himself. It is added,
further, that St. Peter had " power to govern, to teach,
and to make laws, and that Christ obtained for St.
Peter the special gift of infaUible teaching when He
prayed for him " (Luke xxu. 32).
Of course the necessary sequel is that the Pope is the
successor of St. Peter, and as such has the same power.
But how very remarkable it is that the Pope's infalli
bility was not discovered until the year of grace 1870.
Previous to that time it was taught in Roman Catholic
actechisms and books of theology, that the doctrine of
6

82 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
the Pope was infaUible, was no article of the Roman
CathoUc faith Such are the inconsistencies of the
Roman Church.
In the Rev. Stephen Keenan's " Controversal Cate
chism " (which was taught to Roman Catholic chUdren,
and to aU who needed instruction), in all editions
printed before the Vatican Council, there was the
following question and answer : —
" Q. Must not Catholics beUeve the Pope himself to
be infaUible ?
"A. This is a Protestant invention, it is no article of
the Catholic faith ; no decision of his can bind on pain
of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the
teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church."
In all editions printed since the Vatican Council this
question and answer is omitted, and without a word of
explanation. This Catechism had the approbation of
the late Archbishop Hughes of New York, and was in
general use. And yet Romanists will tell those whom
they can deceive that the teaching of the Roman Catholic
Church never changes. Here certainly is a change, and
a stupendous one, when what was once condemned as
" a Protestant invention'' is now the received doctrine
of the Church of Rome, and one moreover which Roman
Catholics are obliged to believe under pain of sin, as
much as the doctrine of the Trinity.
To-day we are told that the temporal power of the
Pope is a doctrine which Roman Catholics ought to
accept. " The Pope," says the author of this approved
Catechism, "is a temporal prince, but not by Divine
right." How long wiU it be before this doctrine will
be made an article of faith, and added to the long

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. 83
string of " faiths " which were certainly not delivered
to the saints ?
We have said that nothing is gained to truth by
misrepresentation of error. We leave such misrepresen
tations to those who find it necessary to make them ;
and as there is one point on which Protestants are
sometimes in error as to Roman Catholic behef, I will
explain it here. Although the Roman Church has
made it an article of faith, as obligatory on her people
as a belief in the Blessed Trinity, that the Pope is
infallible, she does not teach that he is " impeccable ; "
in other words, a Pope may be a very wicked man, —
and how wicked some Popes were no one knows
better than Romanist theologians, — and yet he may
be infallible in his teaching. For instance, Pius IX.
might have been as wicked as his friend and adviser
Cardinal Antonelli, whose moral character will not bear
investigation, and yet he might have all the same the
power infallibly to declare what the Church should
believe. Romanists are very triumphant when they
find any mistake made on this point by Protestant
controversialists; and it is very important for the
great cause of truth that there should be no mistakes
on these subjects.
Our Divine Lord distinctly told St. Peter, after the
very interview in which the Popes of Rome claim that
Pie conferred infallibiUty on him and his successors,
that he was " Satan," and that he savoured not of the
things of God, but of the things of men. Certainly if
the Popes of Rome claim the honours of Peter, they
should also claim the reproof of Peter ; and how well
they have followed him in " savouring of the things of
men" all history can tell. How many of them have
been an offence to Christ, no matter how the Church

84 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
may try to conceal their festering sores of worldliness
and vice ? St. Paul, far from yielding deference to St.
Peter as the head of the Church, declares that he was
himself the one to whom the Gospel of the uncircum
cision was committed, and that the Gospel of the
circumcision was given to Peter. This remarkable
statement, which is left on record in the Holy Scrip
tures, and which cannot therefore be disputed, has not
received the attention which it deserves. St. Paul's
testimony is one which cannot be disputed ; and here
the statement is made in the plainest language, that
by the Divine appointment he, and not St. Peter, was
the person chosen by God to preach the Gospel to
the Gentiles, while St. Peter's mission was to the Jews;
and we find, on the indisputable evidence of the Bible,
that St. Paul founded the Church of Rome, while there
is no reliable historical evidence to show that St. Peter
ever spent a day in that city. St. Paul, in his Epistle
to the Romans, reminds them of his claim on them
as the founder of their Church ; for as he says, he
"never built on another man's foundation." (St. Paul's
Epistle to the Romans xv. 20.) It is noteworthy also,
that while St. Paul took charge of the spiritual instruc
tion of the Roman Church, St. Peter, following his
divinely inspired vocation, devoted himself to the Jews
as we find in the Acts of the Apostles. If St. Peter
had been endowed with the powers which Romanists
now claim for the Pope, it is strange that he never
claimed this authority, and that, far from its having
been known to the other Apostles, they actually dis
puted points of discipUne with him, in a way which
would have made a modern Pope shower down excom
munications, and call down upon them the vengeance
of his infallible condemnation.

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY, 85
In the Epistle to the Galatians St. Paul says " they
all saw," that is, the whole Church saw, " that the gospel
of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the
gospel of the circumcision was to Peter." True, the
whole Christian Church saw this, as well as the
Apostles and their disciples ; and no one else saw any
other plan of Church government, until the ambition
of the bishops of Rome to follow St. Peter in his fall,
led them to " savour of the things which be of men."
Would to God that they had followed St. Peter in his
repentance for his fall. Would to God also that an
apostle could be found in the present day who would
imitate St. Paul in his stern rebuke of St. Peter, and
tell these im.itators of Peter's worldly vacillations that
they should cease their " dissimulations," and begin to
"walk according to the truth of the gospel." (Gal.
ii. 11-14.) If St. Peter had been made head of the
Church, as the Pope claims to be, how could St. Paul
have dared to say that he was to be " withstood," or
to accuse him of not "walking according to the truth of
the gospel " ? What would the Popes of to-day say if
such a charge were made against them by a brother
bishop ? His excommunication would be only a matter
of time. These infallible " Peters " would have sent
St. Paul to the stake, if he had reproved them in those
ages when the Popes had that temporal power which
gave them the liberty to persecute as they pleased.
The question in dispute was no mere matter of opinion ;
it was a vital question, and it was most certainly related
to a matter of faith. But if there is not one word in
Scripture to show that the Apostles submitted to Peter, —
and they certainly must have known it, if he was the
head of the infant Church, — and if there is a great deal
to show that his alleged supremacy was not recog-

86 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
nised, where is there even one word to prove that he
was to have an infallible successor? Even if Peter
was the rock on which the Church was to be built,
and if Christ was not the rock, — for certainly there could
not be two foundations, and if Peter was the rock,
Christ was not, — even if all this is admitted, where,
we ask, is the proof that Peter was to be followed by a
series of infallible successors ?
All this is most important at the present day. If
Protestants who are in constant contact with Roman
Catholics do not understand the Roman question from
all points of view, how can they convince their oppo
nents, or save themselves from falling into the snares
of Rome ? It is well worth expending time and careful
consideration on all these subjects, for the time has
come when the Christian needs to be armed at all
points. We ask again, for the question is of the
greatest importance, where is there one text in Scrip
ture which proves that St. Peter's successors were to
be endowed with the gift of infaUibility ? The texts
of Scripture which Romanists bring forward to prove
that the Popes are not merely the successors of
Peter, but are also his infallible successors, are as
absurd and as misleading as their quotations from
history. First, they quote the words of our Divine Lord to St.
Peter : " I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,
and thou, being converted, strengthen thy brethren."
Surely no one with common sense can take this text to
mean, either, that St. Peter should be able to declare in-
faUibly what was to be believed as of faith, much less can
it be made to mean that St. Peter's successors, if he had
any, should be also infaUible. Rome, with her usual
policy of accommodation, has, as I have already stated,

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. 87
mistranslated the text by using the word " confirm "
instead of " strengthen," because the word " confirm "
implies authority, whereas the word " strengthen " \t,
not so helpful to their case. But allowing Rome all
the advantage of her mistranslations, where does the
authority come in declaring St. Peter infaUible, or
declaring that he should have infallible successors ?
In fact, if Christ at this time and by these words made
St. Peter infaUible, he very soon gave painful evidence
of his fallibility. For it was not many hours after ere
he had denied his Lord. What a tremendous failure
for a newly-appointed infallible teacher !
The calm way in which Romanists announce the
fictions of their own invention, as if they were well-
known and indisputable facts, would be amusing if the
subject was not so serious. Texts of Scripture must
be interpreted according to the opinion of the Church,
and it is made a grievous sin to interpret them in
any other way. How easy is it, then, to establish any
theory? Statements are made as to the opinions of
the Fathers, given with all the assurance of an
infallible Church, which are either garbled extracts
or deliberate forgeries, and the hapless victims of
priestly fraud are not allowed, under pain of sin, to
question, nor dare they follow the Apostle's advice to
" prove all things." What would be said to a teacher
of science or history who should forbid his disciples
to read any books except those which he had written,
or to inquire into the truth of, or investigate any
theory which he had not previously approved ? And
yet this is just what the Church of Rome requires^
The result of this teaching is very convenient for the
infallible teacher. When no inquiries are made there
can be no disputes. When there are no discussions

88 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
there is a dead level of calm, which is declared to be
an evidence of unity, and so the farce goes on.
I think it would be difficult for Protestants to believe
the gross ignorance of even fairly educated Romanists
as to the doctrines of their Church. They believe, but
they certainly have not an intelligent belief; and can
this be called belief? It is true indeed that once
infallibility is accepted, there is no further need for
thought. We might as well at once shut ourselves up in
lunatic asylums, or cease to think at all on the subject
of religion. Of what use is it to think, when we are
forbidden to reason under pain of the loss of all
that is most dear to us ? We ask, and ask in vain,
for one word of Scripture which says in plain lan
guage that St. Peter was to have an infallible suc
cessor. To say that the promise of our Lord to be
with His Church to the end of time, was a promise
that St. Peter's alleged successors should be at Uberty
to infallibly change, or proclaim, any doctrine which
they pleased, is almost too absurd for common sense.
It certainly requires an infallible Church to make
out such a meaning to require us to believe that our
Lord's prayer for St. Peter that his faith might not
fail was a promise of personal infallibiUty. The very fact
of our Lord's having prayed that his faith might not fail,
is sufficient proof that there was fear of failure. But
when the Roman controversialist is driven to a corner
with Scripture texts, he has prompt recourse to the
wide and fertile pasture of the Fathers. And here his
skiU in denying what opposes his theory, and in proving
and arranging what suits it, is in its full glory.
Now it is self-evident that if the Scriptures have
not taught the doctrine of the personal and particular
infallibility of St. Peter's successors, no amount of

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. 89.
quotations from the Fathers can be of the least value.
But as these quotations are being continually brought
forward, it is as well, for the good of those who are
anxious to meet Romanists on grounds of solid infor
mation, to have the facts before them.
In the first place, it may be well to note that the
Fathers were divided on almost every subject under
discussion. It is clear to the impartial student of
history, that if they had believed the Popes to have
been the infallible successors of St. Peter, they would
have appealed to him, and his judgment on this point
would have been accepted as final. It was not till long
centuries after the death of St. Peter that the claim
was put forward by the Church of Rome of being the
only true representative of St. Peter. First, it assumed,
without one particle of evidence, that St. Peter spent
five-and-twenty years in Rome. Nov/, so far from this
assertion being true, it is so evidently false, that it could
only have been made by a Church which requires its
foUowers to believe whatever it says, without any time
being lost in proving the point. In fact, the Church
acts on the simple plan of first declaring herself in
fallible, and then saying you must accept her decisions
because she is infallible.
It is very important for Protestants to know just
what are the arguments, if they can be dignified by that
name, which are used by Romanists in stating their
beliefs to the people. A book was published in England
caUed "Catholic Belief," which deals in this style
of assertion without p/oof Another book has been
published in this country (America), written by Cardinal
Gibbons, which is just in the same style. The circu
lation of both of these books has been very large,
partly because they are issued in a popular form.

go INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
but chiefly because the names attached to them have
insured an immense sale. The priest who could be
reported to "his Eminence" as having sold hundreds
of his books is sure of a warm place in the episcopal
remembrance. In " CathoUc Belief" we are told quite
calmly, as a simple matter of fact, — so much a matter of
fact that it is not worth proving, — that " St. Peter became
Pope on the ascension of Jesus Christ, and Bishop of
Rome in 42, where he died martyr in the year 6j"
One scarcely knows whether to describe this as
ignorance or cool impudence. But note well the
cleverness of the trick. No Roman Catholic will dare
to question this statement, nor will he have any oppor
tunity to examine for himself as to the veracity of the
writer. He must swaUow the whole story without
inquiry, and without question. To question a book
approved by the infallible Church would, indeed, be
too grievous a sin ! And so day after day and year
after year the miserable delusion goes on. Mark the
use of the familiar word " Pope." Think well of the
impression on the young. Those whom the child has
been taught to revere, and almost to worship as gods,
tell him in his earliest and most impressionable years
that St. Peter was " Pope of Rome." Could there be
a surer way to make him believe that there always
was a Pope ?
I have alluded to the gross ignorance of Romanists
as to their own religion. Why should they trouble
themselves to understand it, when it is not necessary
for them to do anything but to believe what they are
told to believe ? I was conversing one day with a well-
educated intelligent lady, who had held a good position
as a teacher in a national school in Ireland, or, as il
would be called in America, a parochial school. I was

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. 91
teUing her of the immense change in the doctrine of
the Church which had been made since I entered it,
and that I did not see why I, or any other rational
being, should be called on to change their belief because
the Pope chose to make new articles of faith at his
pleasure. I found, to my amazement, that this teacher,
who had for years taught the Roman Catholic Cate
chism, was not aware that what is now the most fun
damental doctrine of the Roman Church was added to
her faith within living memory, and she would scarcely
believe me until I ga\'e her Roman Catholic evidence
of the fact.
When I entered the Church of Rome I was told that
it was a " Protestant calumny " on the Roman creed
to say the Pope was infaUible ; that infallibility could
not reside in a person, but that it resided in the collec
tive voice of the Church. I remember the shock that
it was to me, to find that a Church which I had believed
could not change its creed, had added to it in a matter
of such immense importance. What a stupendous
change of beUef ! What a strange mystery that even
St. Peter had not taught the personal infallibiUty of his
successors, and that it should be reserved to a very
falUble Pope in the nineteenth century, whose chief
favourite was a man of notoriously immoral character,
to discover a doctrine of which all his predecessors
were ignorant.
It is but a short time since I met a gentleman, a
former pupil of a so-called CathoUc College in Canada,
who calmly told me that the Pope was the " Paraclete"
whom Christ had promised to His Church. I had
found many absurd beUefs among educated as well as
amongst ignorant Romanists, but this exceeded all. I
asked him did he not know that the Paraclete was the

92 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
word used in the Roman Catholic version of the Bible
for the Holy Ghost ? But it was useless. He admitted
that Christ had promised to send the Holy Spirit to His
disciples, but he was still very sure that He had also
promised to send the " Paraclete," which was the Pope.
I begged of him to read a Roman Catholic Bible, and
see for himself that he was wrong, and that Jesus Christ
had never promised to send the Pope, but it was little
use; he seemed greatly startled and surprised, but as
far as I know that was the end of it.
Nor can I easily forget the surprise of a well-edu
cated Roman Catholic girl to whom, by accident, I made
some remark about St. Peter's wife. Her amazement
was most amusing, and the shock to her faith in the
teaching of the Church was considerable. She had quite
sense enough to see that if St. Peter had a wife, and if
our Lord showed His approval of it by curing his wife's
mother when she was ill of a fever, it could not be such
a wicked thing for priests, or even for Popes, to marry.
When the famous Robert College was established
in Constantinople the Bible question loomed up as the
• great difficulty. If men would only pause to think,
and then to realise how absurd it is that the very book
which is the source of information on the subject of our
faith should be denied to us, as it is by Rome, there
would certainly be a change in public opinion. We
have to face the great fact that the Bible has been given
for our information and guidance by the Founder of
our religion, and yet one-half of the so-called Christian
world considers the free study of this book a danger to
religion. It is certainly dangerous to those who do not
wish to have the reUgion which it teaches known to all
men. But how it can be dangerous in any other light
is a proposition so absurd that it refutes itself

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. 93
What right has any human being to come between
the creature and the Creator ? What authority has
any Church to say " You shall not " when God has
said " You shall " ? He has said to all His creatures,
" Search the Scriptures ; " and how dare any creature
say, " Thou shalt not search them, except in so far
as I permit you " ? Yet this is what Rome does.
It is very important in reasoning with Roman
Catholics to realise their complete ignorance of the
Scriptures, and copsequently of Gospel truth. If we
desire to enUghten them we must do so by a careful
consideration of their prejudices, and a clear compre
hension of their ignorance, and of its causes. It is no
use to employ an argument which they cannot under
stand, nor to bring forward statements which they
have no means of verifying. Show them in the Douay
Bible the plain command of God as to reading the
Bible. This command the Roman Church has not
dared to change or omit. The work of keeping the
people in ignorance can be accomplished quite as easily,
and far more safely, by telling them they must obey
the Church, and that the Church, in her wisdom, desires
them not to read the Bible, except with a special license.
I was not a little amused, on one occasion, at the
extreme ignorance of the commonest truths of Chris
tianity, on the part of a Roman Catholic girl, who
attacked me in the streets of Toronto, Canada, for my
apostasy, as she had been told to call it by the priest,
and used the most violent and ignorant language to
me. Like the gentleman who firmly beUeved that the
Pope was the Paraclete which Christ had promised to
send, she as firmly believed that there were a number
of different Bibles which the Protestants had made up,
and which had originated in the time of Luther, with

94 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
whose name all Roman Catholics are familiar, as he is
a good stalking horse for all the supposed sins of
Protestants, in forsaking the " true " Church.
The following specimen of the kind of teaching
which is given to Roman Catholics, not only of the
poorer class, but of all classes, will show the source ot
their deplorable ignorance. The extracts are not taken
frcm a Protestant source, they are from the Roman
Catholic Catechism from which I have already quoted ;
and as I have said, it is not only authorised by
Cardinal Gibbons, but it is also highly approved by
the Pope; and what is of equal importance, it is the
very Catechism which all sisters and monks and priests
are obliged to teach to the young.
" Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ ?
" A. They never had.
" Q. Why not ?
"A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they
imagine and believe in.
" Q. In what kind of a Christ do they believe ?
" A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar,
with impunity, whose doctrine they can interpret as
they please, and who does not care what a man believes,
provided he be an honest man before the public.
" Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protest
ants ?
"A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.
" Q. What will Christ say to them on the Day of
Judgment ?
"A. I know you not, because you never knew
Me. " Q. Are Protestants willing to confess their sins to
a Catholic bishop or priest, who alone has power from

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. 95
Christ to forgive sins ? ' Whose sins you shall forgive
they are forgiven them.'
" A. No ; for they generally have an utter aversion to
confession, and therefore their sins will not be forgiven
throughout all eternity.
" Q. What follows from this ?
"A. That they die in their sins, and are damned."
If Protestants, after reading this, and knowing that
it is taught in every parochial school, help to support
such teaching, they will certainly be responsible for the
results. Let it be distinctly and clearly understood
that this is the authoritative teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church throughout the world, and that it is the
proud and true boast of Rome that she never changes
her teaching. On such points as these she certainly
never changes, though she has changed her " infallible
opinions " on other subjects a good many times.
There is another subject on which she never changes,
and that is as to her duty to burn and destroy
" heretics ; " but she does not carry out this part of her
creed unless she has sufficient temporal power to do it
safely, and she is wisely silent on the subject when she
cannot act.
There are no doubt thousands of Protestants in the
United States who will give their money and their
influence towards the support of the new Roman
Catholic University in Washington, where all this
doctrine wiU be taught, but their chUdren, and their
children's children will be the sufferers, when Rome
has obtained sufficient temporal power in America to
estabUsh the Inquisition ; and in view of the immense
political support given to Romanists by the American
people, this is only a question of time.

96 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
It is true, indeed, that the revised statutes of the
United States declare, " The alien seeking citizenship
must take an oath to renounce for ever all allegiance
and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty, in particular that to which he has been
subject." But what use is this when we have to deal
with a Church which claims the power to absolve the
subjects of any government from their oaths of aUegi
ance, and even makes it a meritorious act for them
to break their most solemn vows at the bidding of
the Pope ? Nor is this at all inconsistent with Roman
Catholic teaching. Once admit an infallible Church,
and your only duty is obedience to all its dictates.
Again, observe how the infallibiUty of the Church is
the corner stone of the whole building. It is little
wonder that Rome holds to it as she does. And it
may be well noted here that there is no reason why the
aspirations of Rome should be limited in the United
States, when in Canada the Pope's vicegerent has
claimed, and has been given, the next place to the
Queen in the Dominion Parliament. It is no wonder
that Roman Catholics are proud of their Church, and
mistake its temporal success for spiritual gain. The
unthinking multitude, impressed like children with the
rapid advancement of the temporal power of Rome,
and by her splendid shows and ceremonies, look no
further, and do not know that the advance of the
temporal power of Rome is the first sign of her decay.
There is an account in " Our Day " of how the Rev.
Cyrus Hamlin, late President of Robert CoUege, Con
stantinople, kept the Bible in the coUege under the
usual opposition on the part even of Christians to
God's Word, which is worth careful study at the
present crisis. He says : —

UXDERSTA.XDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. 97
" In the formation of Robert College in Constanti
nople, an institution designed for students of from
eight to ten nationalities, and from six to eight different
forms of religion, the question arose. What place shall
the Bible have in the institution ? It was said by
many, ' It cannot be introduced, because you expect to
have Catholics, Armenians of the old Gregorian Church,
Greeks of the ancient Greek Church, and persons from
all forms of Protestantism and Judaism.' I had to decide
the question, and send forth the programme of the col
lege, which I did in seven different languages, stating
that the Bible would be read morning and evening,
and that prayer would be offered, that there would be
worship on the Sabbath, and that the preaching would
be on the basis of the Bible ; that the Bible was also to
be taught as a text-book to Bible classes on the Sabbath
day in the different languages of the students, that is, in
English, French, Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, etc., but
that absolute religious freedom would reign throughout
the institution ; that when parents should request it that
students would be permitted to attend the worship of
his Church on their sacred day, that is, the Moslem on
Friday, the Jew on Saturday, and the members of the
different Christian Churches on their Sunday ; but that
all the other students would be required to attend the
religious services of the college.
" It was honestly supposed by many that this arrange
ment was absurd, that non-Protestant parents would
not send their children to an institution where the
Bible would have such a place. The first year we had
but few non-Protestant students; the second year we
had quite a number ; the third year the non-Protestant
pupils outnumbered the Protestants ; and ever since the
non-Protestant students have outnumbered the Protest-
7

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

ants three to one. When a parent, father or mother,
requested that a son should be allowed to go to his
Church on his sacred day we allowed it, and there was
always a number who were thus sent to their Churches.
But how long ? I never knew a student in that college
go five times to his Church. Why ? Because the
worship was in an unknown tongue to him — in the
Roman Church in the Latin ; in the Greek Church
the ancient Greek; in the Armenian Church the
ancient Armenian; and they found that the services
in the college were in the language they could under
stand, and they chose to attend them. Now if we
had refused to let them attend their Churches they
would have gone, but as we allowed them to go
they did not care to go. They did not go after a
time. " In the Bible classes we had no difficulty, because
no sectarianism was taught. Nothing was said about
Judaism or Islam or any form of Protestantism or
Roman Catholicism, or Orientalism of any kind. The
Bible was taught, and that was all. There was no
trouble about versions. I think we had as many
as six or eight versions in the college. We had the
King James Version, the Douay Version, the Septua
gint, the ancient Armenian Version, and the modern
Armenian Version, and the Bulgarian. We cared not
what version of the Bible the pupils had ; there was no
trouble on that point whatever. But our plan had this
good effect, that many of the students expressed their
wonder that the Protestant Version was so almost
exactly like their Version ; and many compared the
Douay Version with the Protestant, and were surprised
to find that in effect the same truths were in both, and
wherever there was a difference it led them to inquire

UNDERSTANDING INFALLIBILITY CLEARLY. 99
into the difference. We never taught them on that
point, but left it to their own inquiries.
" This freedom of the Bible and of the pupUs com
manded the respect of the pupils and of their parents.
After some five or six years, perhaps it was in the
seventh year, a combination was formed against this
plan. The opposition had its origin outside the col
lege. There was a party determined that the Bible
should be taken out of Robert College, or that students
should be withdrawn ; and a real conspiracy was got
up against the Bible, and finally the definite ultim.atum
was given us, ' You take out the Bible, or we shall take
out the scholars.' We replied to that, ' The doors of
Robert College swing both ways, and as easily one way
as another,' — which was the fact materially, — 'and any
student who wishes to go, is as free to go as any other
student is to come.' In point of fact, only seventeen
students left. They were students we were very sorry
to lose ; they were connected with high and influential
families, and many of them were ardent hard-working
students. They left. But in two weeks, one after
another, twelve of them returned, and within three
weeks fifteen of the seventeen returned, and the other
two called privately at the college to say that they were
immensely sorry that they could not come back, but that
the pride of their fathers would not aUow them to come.
Since that time, sir, there has been no demand for taking
the Bible out of Robert CoUege. And I have had in
telligent men, non -Protestant, but very inteUigent Greek
merchants, say to me, ' If you should take the Bible out
of the college it would ruin it. What we Greeks need
is more Bible and less ritualism.'
"This question of the Bible in the schools requires
only a little more courage. Stand by the Bible, and

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

the Bible will stand by you. Stand by the Bible in
the schools, and the schools will flourish."
" Stand by the Bible, and the Bible will stand by
you." Words to be deeply weighed by every one
calling himself Christian. Nay, the wonder is that
there should be any difficulty on such a subject, and
that it should be necessary to urge upon Christians the
duty and necessity of reading God's Word, or of helping
others to read it. I say fearlessly that I have no doubt
that it was my early knowledge of the Bible which
saved me from despair in the Church of Rome, and
which was eventually the happy cause of my leaving it.
Long years of experience of Rome has left no doubt
on my mind of the wisdom of the Roman Church in
limiting to the utmost the reading of God's Word by her
people. It has also convinced me that the one way to
enlighten those who are kept in deliberate darkness is
to give them the light of the Bible.

CHAPTER VI.
THE FALLIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY,
"Thou hast made us unto our God kings and priests." — Rev. v. lo.
jNE of the great attractions of the Roman Church,
to the educated as well as to the uneducated, is
the assurance she gives to all men who will believe
her that she has always taught the same doctrine.
What, Rome to teach one thing to-day, and to teach
the opposite to-morrow ? Perish the thought. Now it
is very easy to defend a case and to prove a statement
if those concerned are positively forbidden to hear the
ether side of the question. We have seen in the last
chapter how Rome teaches the young deliberate lies
about the Protestant religion, and if she teaches
deliberate lies on one subject, why should she hesitate
to teach deliberate lies on every subject ?
Those persons who have been in France, and above
all in Italy or Spain, — for the darkness is darkest in
those countries where the light of the Gospel has the
least access, — will remember how the poorer classes
always speak of Protestants as heathen or Pagan, and
this not in a controversial manner, or as any reproach.
It is mentioned as a simple fact, about which there can
be no doubt. Certainly there is no doubt in the minds
of the people. Any one who is not a Roman CathoUc
is not a Christian, and, like my ignorant accuser in

THE FALLIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY. 103
Toronto, they simply believe what they have been told
by their priests, whom they have been taught to look
upon as gods, and whom — God help them ! — they think
could not possibly deceive. And what shall be said
of those who knowingly and v/ilfuUy " love and make
a lie" ? There is but one doom for them ; it is a doom
pronounced by God Himself, and no Pope or priest
can turn aside the vials of His wrath.
When children are deliberately taught in these free
countries that Protestants " never had any faith in
Christ," some are tempted to smile at the absurdity
of the charge, while others profess to feel very sure
that the Roman Catholic Church does not teach such
an absurdity. But the fact remains all the same,
whether we believe it or not, and the evidence is before
the whole world. Who wUl believe that Cardinal
Gibbons, who appears before the American public as
the very incarnation of humiUty and liberality, has
commanded his sisters and his priests to teach that
all Protestants die in their sins and are damned, and
that "they believe in a Christ whom they can make
a liar with impunity " ? Such are some of the specimens
of Roman Catholic truthfulness and charity in repre
senting the doctrine of Protestants of all denominations.
Even the Episcopal Church, some of whose members
have such deep sympathy with Rome — unless when
Rome interferes with her plans for securing public
property, — even this Church is not excluded from this
fell condemnation.
But if Rome was as open in her popular statements
as she is in her creeds and in her authorised teachings,
the world would be alarmed, and the result would be
that she would be known as she really is, and this
is the very last thing which that Church can afford.

104 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
For this reason, from time to time she proclaims her
liberality of doctrine, at the expense of her solemn
professions of an unchangeable creed.
When Protestants have to listen to liberal sentiments,
coming from the lips of Romanists, they would do well
to bear in mind the candid warning which was given,
on this important subject, by the Roman Catholic Ram
bler, pubUshed in England, September, 1851. "Believe
us not," said that magazine, " Protestants of England
and Ireland, for an instant, when you see us pouring
forth our Liberalisms. When you hear a Catholic
orator at some public assemblage declaring solemnly
that ' this is the most humiliating day of his life, when
he is called upon to defend once more the glorious
principle of reUgious freedom' (especially if he says
anything about the Emancipation Act, and the ' tolera
tion' it conceded to Catholics) — be not too simple in
your credulity. These are brave words, but they mean
nothing." The world at large was lost in admiration at the
liberality of Rome when she permitted the circulation
of the Bible in France, when M. Lassere issued his
household edition of the Scriptures. But the world at
large had not long to wait before the reading of it was
forbidden, and the unfortunate author was compelled
to call in the whole edition, as it was condemned when
the circulation became too great, although the work
had been previously sanctioned.
Protestants and Roman Catholics can never meet on
equal terms in controversy. The average Protestant,
accustomed to say what he means, especially on
religious subjects, — and what need has he of conceal
ment? — is no match for the Romanist in the art of
dissimulation. The Romanist is in the position of a

THE FALLIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY. 105

man who is fencing with truth, and who, knowing
perfectly well that his arguments are based on equivo
cation, or on positively false statements, equivocates
boldly while his Protestant friend thinks he is teUing
the pure truth. The other resource is perhaps as
pitiable ; it is the resource of honest ignorance, and
the amount of honest ignorance in the Church of
Rome has alone saved it from utter destruction on the
part of its own followers. If I reiterate my statements
on these, or kindred points, it is because I have long
seen the great necessity for doing so. It is so difficult
for the ordinary honest Protestant, who is not driven
to make out a case for his Church, who knows the
evidence for what he believes, and has sifted it for him
self, to understand either the duplicity or the ignorance
of the Roman Catholic.
When Protestant children are instructed, they are
sent to the Word of God to prove all things ; with the
Roman Catholic child the very reverse is the case.
The Roman CathoUc child is told what he must believe,
and he is told that he must believe it because the
Church (represented to him by the priests) says so.
There is no explanation, no argument worthy ot the
name ; and it is a terrible thing to say to the impres
sionable mind of a child that eternal damnation will be
the penalty of not accepting implicitly all this unproved
teaching. Even should an intelligent child faU to find
in the expression "Thou art Peter, and on this rock
I will build My Church," a convincing proof that
Peter and all his successors were at the same moment
pronounced infallible, he dare not say so. Such a
thought wonld be a " sin," to be confessed as a mortal
sin, not against God, but rgainst that mysterious entity
" the Church," which first faintly points to Scripture

io6 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
as the warrant for its being, and then tells its subjects
that they must not accept Scripture except as explained
by itself; and that this same Scripture is a dangerous
study for the unlearned, including in that category all
who are not priests, no matter what their education
and intellectual attainments may be. Who does not
see in this method of educating the young the source
of the superstitious belief of the masses ? A child is
at the mercy of its teachers. First impressions are all
but ineradicable. A child who is taught to believe a
certain thing by priests, to whom its parents teach it to
look up to with awe as more than mortal, a child who
is taught to believe that its hopes of future happiness
depend solely on believing without question what it is
taught by its priests, is prepared in later life to cling
to its early teaching as the shipwrecked mariner clings
to the wreck from which he expects salvation.
One who has been taught as a chUd that it is a sin
to question what he is told, and on whom this cruel
perversion of truth has been impressed with all the
force of a Church which compensates, by appeals to
the senses, for what it refuses in appeal to the reason,
is safe to remain in ignorance of all that might prove
the deception practised on it by its early teachers.
Take, for example, the teaching of the Roman
Catechism for children on the question of infaUibility.
Where in the Bible is there one word to prove that
St. Peter's successors were declared by our Divine
Lord personally infaUible? But this matters Uttle
to infaUible Rome. If you think the texts are not
sufficient proof of this stupendous claim it is your fault.
The Church that you are bound to believe says that
they prove it, and you have nothing to do but believe
against the evidence of your senses. In fact, according

THE FALLIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY. 107
to the Church of Rome, your senses have been given
you for the sole purpose of beUeving not their evidence,
but the evidence which this Church says you must
believe. Vvhen the Roman Church finds the testimony of the
Bible against her she turns with wonderful composure
to the Fathers. Now if the Fathers had anything Uke
a general agreement on all, or even on any one, of the
points in dispute, it would be of some value to her to
appeal to their testimony. But the very reverse is the
case. There is scarcely a subject of controversy on
which the Fathers agree. Disputes on grace, on pre
destination, on free will, on Church government, and on
every theological subject, were as rife in the centuries
immediately after the first preaching of the Gospel
as at the present day. Disputes were rife even in
apostolic times ; and Scripture tells us that, at the first
Council of Jerusalem, St. Peter was not the infallible
decider of these matters, and that at Antioch he was
the very one who was decided against. But how can a
Roman Catholic know this when he is not allowed to
read the Bible which would tell him this plain truth ?
No Roman Catholic book or catechism will tell him what
the Bible tells him, that St. Paul "withstood" St. Peter
to the face, because he was to "be blamed." Imagine
the fate of a bishop to-day who should foUow the
example of St. Paul and dare to blame a Pope. It is
true he would only be excommunicated at the present
day, but he would escape death merely because it would
not be possible for the head of his Church to burn
him alive.
Moreover, this rebuke of Peter was made in the most
public manner possible. It was made, St. Paul himsell
tells us, "before them all" (Gal. U. 14,) Before th-

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

whole Church assembled at Antioch St, Paul denounced
St. Peter. It would seem indeed very plain that the
great fault of St. Peter was, at that time, dissimulation,
a curious coincidence in view of all the dissimulations
ofthe Church of Rome which claims him as it.'? founder.
He said one thing before the Jews, and another thing
before the Gentiles. The Church of Rome has followed
him in his dissimulations, but, alas ! not in his
repentance. St. Paul knew better. Ever bold and brave for truth,
what a clean sweep he would have made of the ter
giversations of the Roman Church of to-day. Were
he in the flesh there would be no mental reservations,
or false quotations of Scripture, or of the much-maligned
Fathers. And St. Paul it is who says plainly that he,
and not St. Peter, was the divinely-appointed Apostle
ofthe Gentiles, while no plainer language could be used
than that which he has used in Holy Scripture to
prove that the divinely-appointed mission of St. Peter
was to the Jews. (Gal, ii. 7, 8.)
The testimony of the Fathers all goes to show that
the claim of the Church of Rome to the " Chair of
Peter " was a comparatively modern one, and that they
were divided in their interpretation of those very texts
in regard to which the Church of Rome claims that
they were in perfect and harmonious agreement.
The bare-faced tergiversations of Roman contro
versialists, and the way in which they quote and
misquote the Fathers, has been exposed so often that it
scarcely needs more than a passing aUusion. But the
fraud Uterary or otherwise, is easily concealed from
Roman CathoUcs and from the great mass of mankind.
The Roman controversialist starts into the controversy
with aU the prestige of the infaUibility which his Church

THE FALLIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY, 109
claims. If he quotes Scripture his readers must take
his interpretation of it, no matter how far-fetched or
obscure it may be, because it is the dictate of an in
fallible Church. It is little matter what is the plain
meaning of any text of Scripture; it is the meaning
which is decided by the Church which is of real
account. What would be said of a judge who quoted
from law books with this restriction, that his inter
pretation of the cases was the only one admissible?
Certainly he would be ruled out of any court of common
sense, or common honesty.
The argument of Rome is : "I say it is so, therefore
it is so. You must not, at j'our peril, inquire further.
I do j'Our thinking, and I do it infallibly. What more
do you want? Rest, and be thankful."
Let us now look briefly at some of this ready-
made thinking. It is important if it is also amusing.
Rom.e has artfully mixed up two different subjects — St.
Peter's alleged visit to Rome, and the supposition that
he founded the Church at Rome. The whole history
cf the Bible goes to show that it was St. Paul, and not
St. Peter, who was the Apostle of Rome ; but what d'jesi
this matter, when it is necessary for an infallible
Church to say it is just the other way?
The French have a proverb difficult to translate in all
its freshness. But it may be rendered thus without a
misconstruction of the original, "Lie, but lie boldly;"
and this, in plain English, is what the Church of Rome
does, when the question of her supposed descent from,
and consequent authority as, the successor of St. Peter
comes in. She begins by teaching children, in her
Catechisms and books of instruction, that St, Peter
was the first Pope of Rome, This being received, and
no dispute or discussion allowed on the subject, and

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

being well drilled into children in their early years
as a fact, by those whose word they are so sure must
be true, what can they do but believe the lie, for
it can be called by no other name ? Next, they give
these children a list of Popes who, they say, succeeded
St. Peter in unbroken succession, and never a word is
said to these poor little ones to lead them to inquire
whether all this is gospel fact, or Roman fiction. We
know they are taught, and are as much obliged in
conscience to believe all this fiction, as they are to
believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
Thus it is that Rome fastens the chain of her
forgeries on the young and innocent, and deprives them
at the same time of all means of knowing the truth.
How are they to know of the disputes of the Fathers,
and of their differences of opinion on the most important
points ? Even Protestant authorities are quoted, or
rather, I should say, deliberately misquoted in books
intended for the youthful and ignorant. Surely when
it has been shown over and over again that Roman
Catholics misquote and falsify history, it should be
sufficient to make any honest man refuse them credit.
And yet there are Protestants who do not hesitate to
send their children to such instructors.
A few samples of these perversions of history, which
can easily be verified by any one who has access to a
good library, wiU suffice ; for truly if one began to go
through all the Roman Catholic falsifications of history
and fact, the world would not contain all the books
which might be written. We have already mentioned
two books which are largely circulated among Roman
Catholics, and which are also read by Protestants, many
of whom have no means of refuting their statements,
and who consequently take them for gospel ; and doing

THE FALLIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY. in
so, they are not surprised that the Roman Church
makes all the claims she does, when she has such
apparently strong authorities to support her. If her
quotations and inferences were only true, her case
would be indeed as strong as she tries to make it
appear. An assumption of authority goes a long way with a
great many people. If a statement is only made often
enough, and with sufficient positiveness, it will obtain
acceptance with the multitude. Rome knows this, and
acts upon it. She states boldly that St. Peter was the
" first bishop of Rome," and that he was " Pope."
The dishonest use of this word is naturally accepted by
Roman Catholics, and often by inquiring Protestants,
as quite sufficient proof of the supposed fact that there
were always " Popes." The use of words and expres
sions, which were never heard for long centuries after
the times in which they are alleged to have been in
common use, is not honest, but it answers the purpose
for which it is intended. For skill in what logicians
call suppressio veri, or the concealing of truth to answer
a purpose, Rome is unsurpassable. Here is Pope
Pius IX. 's declaration of his own infallibility, adopted
by the Vatican Council of 1870 : —
"Wherefore faithfuUy adhering to the tradition
received from the beginning of the Christian Faith, for
the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the
Catholic reUgion, and the salvation of the Christian
people. We, the Sacred Council, approving, teach and
define that it is a dogma divinely revealed ; that the
Roman Pontiff, when speaking ex cathedra — that is,
when, discharging the office of Pastor and Teacher of
all Christians, by virtue of his supreme authority, he

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held
by the Universal Church — he, by the Divine assist
ance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed
of that infaUibility with which the Divine Redeemer
willed the Church should be endowed in defining doc
trine regarding Faith or Morals; and that, therefore,
such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable
of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.
But if any one — which may God avert — presume to
contradict this, our definition, let him be anathema."
Pius IX. was elected Pope on the i6th June, 1846.
A few months after his election he issued his first
encyclical. Qui pluribus, in which the theory of his
infallibility was plainly indicated, and the intention to
declare it, in the following terms : —
" And hence so plainly appears in how great error
they are wandering, who, by an abuse of reason, regard
the words of God as if they were a human work. He
condemns those who rashly dare to explain the words
of God and interpret them at their own discretion,
while God Himself has constituted a living authority
which may teach the true and legitimate sense of His
own heavenly revelation, confirm the same, and put an
end to all controversies in matters of faith and morals
by an infaUible judgment, which living and infallible
authority exists in the Church only, which is built by
Christ our Lord upon Peter, Head, Prince, and Shep
herd of the whole Church, whose faith He promised
should never fail ; which always has its lawful Popes,
deriving their origin without intermission from Peter
himself, in whose chair they are seated, and are in-
Leiitors and vindicators of his doctrine, dignity, honour.

THE FALLIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY. 113
and power. And because where Peter is there is the
Church, and Peter speaks by the Roman Pontiflf, and
always lives in his successors."
Now there is one other point worthy of special
note in this connection. If the Pope was " always
infallible " as an individual, and if it did not require
the " consent of the Church " (see above) to make his
decisions infallible, how was it that the consent of the
Church was asked to make him infallible ? If the Pope
was infaUible without the Church, why did he find it
necessary to ask the Church to make him infallible ?
The truth is, that the whole business was the greatest
farce ever enacted in the sacred name of God.
But it was necessary also to make all the dead and
gone Popes " infallible." If sorae of them knew in
the other world the honour which was being paid to
them, if people can be amused in the flames of eternal
torment, some of them must have laughed in the
bitterest derision. Their lives were so vile, and their
deeds so evil, that even Roman Catholics cannot
apologise for them. But all the same they are all
(now) infallible 1 I know very well that the Roman
Church teaches that the evil life of a Pope does not
affect his infallibility; and it is not for us to quarrel
with the decisions of that Church as far as they are
conformed to her own discipline. But there is at least
Scripture for the solemn assertion that a bad tree
does not bring forth good fruit ; and it is difficult for
an ordinary mind to see where the good fruit of good
doctrine can come from when the tree is as hopelessly
rotten as even Romanists are obliged to admit that
some of the trees in the line of their Popes have
been. In fact, Roman casuistry is of such a slippery and
8

114 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
elastic character, that if a Pope issued a solemn decla
ration that there was no God, the Roman Catholic
casuist would make out that he was stUl infallible.
That some Popes were condemned and found guilty
of heresy is simply a matter of history, though it is
an historical fact which Romanists do not like to
admit.
yi^The Council of Constance, in the fifteenth century,
'deposed John XXIII. from the Popedom, because it had
been proved to them, on the evidence of thirty-seven
Roman Catholic witnesses, of whom ten were Bishops,
that, " It was public and notorious, that he (John XXIII.)
hath been, and is still, an incorrigible sinner, guilty of
murder, poisoning, and other great crimes, a declared
practitioner in simony, and an obstinate heretic. That
he had obstinately maintained before persons of honour,
that there is no life after this, nor resurrection, and that
the soul of man dies with the body like that of beasts."
And it was publicly declared, in the eleventh Session
ofthe Council, that John XXIII. was "no better than
a devil incarnate." — (Leufant's History of the Council of
^Constance, voL i., pp. 291, 292.)
The whole system of Popery, and I do not wish to
use the word in an offensive sense, is of comparatively
recent date. It was not until the year 1564 that it
was made an article of faith in the Roman Church,
that it was necessary for salvation to be subject to
the Pope, though Boniface VIIL, who became Pope
A.D. 1294, had, in a formal Bull which can be found
in the Roman Catholic collection of Bulls, declared that
"it is necessary for salvation for every human creature
to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." It is true that
the Bible says that the only thing "necessary for
salvation" is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

THE FALLIBILITY OF INFALLIBILITY, 115
But, and God knows we do not say it as an idle jest,
if the Bible and the Church differ so much the worse
for the Bible, because the " Church " teaches that it
alone can tell us what the Bible means, though to
ordinary intellect the meaning and interpretation may
be as plain as it can be.

CHAPTER VII.
THE HISTORICAL FRAUDS OF THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC CHURCH.
" If any man have an ear, let him hear." — Rev. xiii. 9.
THE outcome of a system which is established on
fraud and ignorance can never be anything but
demoraUsing and deplorable. God is the God of truth
and justice ; and he is a God who abhors a lie, and
has said so in the plainest language in His Word.
Happily we may give the Roman Catholic laity the
benefit of that invincible ignorance of which the
Romanists are sometimes so Uberal to us. But the
only excuse for the Roman Catholic priesthood is that
some of them at least are blinded by the mist of pre
judice in which all that concerns their religion is
enveloped ; and I know well that there are hundreds
of priests who have seen long since through these mists,
and who know but too well all the frauds, historical
and religious, which are necessary to keep up this
system. Yet these unhappy men dare not speak. To say out
boldly " these things are not so " is to insure a con
demnation which will ruin the speaker for Ufe. So, as
one unhappy priest said to me, "Some of us drown
our misery in drink, some of us try to forget that
there is a God, and many of us are simply infidels."

HISTORICAL FRAUDS, 117

And this is the outcome of the claim to infallibility,
for which there is not one word of evidence in the
Bible, and none in the early Fathers of the Church.
Oh, what oceans of blood, what oceans of tears have
been shed, and wiU yet be shed, to satisfy the ambition
of man. It Uttle matters whether this ambition is for
the conquest of worldly kingdoms, or for the capture
of souls. It is all the same human ambition ; and
Rome will yet fill up the measure of her crimes when
she proclaims the temporal power of the Church a
dogma of faith, and there are signs that the hour for
this proclamation is at hand. And yet there are
Protestants, to whom both the Bible and history are
open books, who do aU in their power to forward this
race for evil.
I have said that the early Fathers are far from
teaching or even approving the supremacy of Peter.
Let me give the evidence of a Pope who had sufficient
Christianity to denounce the very doctrine which his
successors have made an article of faith. Gregory I.
was a man of far-reaching views, and what was as
important, he was a man of liberal education. He was
born in Rome about the year 544, so that whatever
evidence he has to give on this subject is the result
of several centuries' experience ; for even then the
bishops of Rome, as might be expected, had taken a
very prominent place in the Christian Church. This
place and this prominence would have been accorded
to them wiUingly by the whole Christian world if they
had not made it subsequently the ground for the most
extravagant pretensions, and for the most preposterous
claim of infalUbility ; though it must be said they waited
for the enlightened nineteenth century to enforce this
claim. Before entering briefly upon the history of

I -.8 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

Gregory, and giving evidence of his denunciation of
any claim on the part of the Bishop of Rome to supreme
rule in the Church, I wish to call attention to a point
which has not received the notice it deserves. It is
often thought that the Popes of Rome could never
have attained the power which they wielded, especially
in the Middle Ages, if they had not had Divine assist
ance. This is as much as to say that success is a
sign of the Divine approval. If this were true, how
many tyrants could claim a Divine right for their
tjTanny ? The simple fact is that the bishops of
Rome came before the world with all the prestige of
the rulers of imperial Rome. Rome was great even in
its decay, and its decay was slow. When Rome ceased
to persecute the Christians she had become in part at
least Christian, and her military power, and her widely
extended rule, gave a civil and social pre-eminence
to the Bishop of Rome. Ambitious churchmen were
not slow to take advantage of all this. At first we
may hope it was a question of advancing the glory
of God ; but like all human undertakings, even when
begun for God, human motives and desires crept in,
and the bishops of Rome soon began to use, for their
own exaltation, the undoubted prestige which their
civil position gave them as bishops in a city of such
eminence In any country the bishop of the chief town
becomes naturally the most prominent bishop.
All this is natural, and there is no reproach to a
Church for placing the highest offices in the most im
portant places. It was thus undoubtedly that the claim
for episcopal pre-eminence began, the opportunity was
given, and human ambition used it. But it would never
do for the Bishop of Rome to claim Divine and exclusive
authority, without showing some ground for it. We

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 119
all know how easy it is to find a reason for what we
are determined to do. The reason was at hand. The
early Fathers, while they differed widely as to the
precise interpretation which should be put on the words
of Christ to Peter, were almost unanimous in their
praise of Peter. There is a very human side to the
character of St. Peter, which wins our affection and
our respect. If he denied Christ he loved Him ; and
he made brave attempts to prove his love by a subse
quent life of devotion. The words addressed to Him
by our Lord seemed capable of several interpretations,
and the bishops of Rome were not slow to take the one
which was the most favourable to themselves, and to
keep the others out of sight. What, indeed, is the use
of being all powerful if we cannot secure something
for our own advantage thereby ? Even if the words
addressed by our Lord to Peter made him the head
of the Church, they do not convey to any rational
mind any idea of succession in this office ; yet this
is the only point of importance to the Roman
Church. One thing is certain. This Pope Gregory I., of whom
we have already spoken, declared emphatically in the
sixth century that the Popes of Rome had no claim
to be exclusive rulers of the Christian Church; and
indeed there was even then a claimant other than
the Bishop of Rome for the title of first Christian
bishop, just as there was in the time of our Divine
Lord a cry amongst the disciples who should be
greatest. The Archbishop of Constantinople had
claimed the title of Universal Bishop, another evidence
that so late as the close of the sixteenth century there
was no general acknowledgment of the Papal supre
macy. The Bishop of Alexandria thereupon wrote to

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

the Bishop of Rome, who was then Gregory I., and
addressed him as Universal Bishop. To this compli
ment the Pope replied in these noble words, which
remain on record to show that there was at least one
" infallible " Pope who did not believe in Papal Supre
macy : —
" If you give to me more than is due, you rob your
self of what is due to you. I choose to be distinguished
by my conduct, and not by titles. Nothing can
redound to my honour that redounds to the dishonour
of my brethren. I place my honour in maintaining
them in theirs. If you call me Universal Pope, you
thereby own yourself to be no Pope. Let no such
titles therefore be mentioned, or even heard amongst
us. Your Holiness says in your letter that I commiand
you. I command you ! I know who you are, and
W.ho I am. In rank you are my brother, by your
conduct my father. I therefore did not command ;
and beg you will henceforth forbear to use the word ;
I only pointed out to you what I thought it right
you should know."
It should be carefully noted that the word Pope
simply means father {papa). Every bishop was a
" Papa " or " Pope " (father) in those ages, and in
Russia every priest to-day is called a "Papa" or
" Pope." So much of the prestige of the Roman
Church is based on false pretences, which easily deceive
the uneducated, that no opportunity should be lost of
giving such explanations. It remained for the "papas"
or Bishops of Rome to claim for themselves exclusively
in later ages the title of " Pope." Who would suppose
that false quotations would be made, authorities cited
v.hich are well known to be worthless, and statements

HISTORICAL FRAUDS.

brought forward as true which have been repeatedly
proved false, so as to influence those who have no op
portunity of knowing whether they are genuine or not ?
Indeed, the history of the Papal claims is so abstruse,
and complicated with so many subjects, that it requires
no ordinary research to understand it thoroughly.
Let it be once more noted that Roman Catholics are
forbidden to make independent research, it being, ac
cording to the great (Roman Catholic) authority of
Cardinal Manning, " a treason to the Church to appeal
to history."
As a matter of fact, it was the emperors who con
vened all the first General CouncUs and not the
Popes, and my authority for this statement is the
well-known Catholic writer Cardinal Baronius (born
1538). Baronius tells us that the second General Council
of Constantinople (a.d, 381) was convened by order
of the Emperor Theodosius, and was held against the
will of the Bishop of Rome (" repugnante Damaso
celebrata"). This Council conferred a precedence of
honour on the Bishop of Rome, but solely on the ground
that Rome was the seat of empire or government.
The third General Council, that of Ephesus (a.d. 431),
was called by the Emperor, Theodosius the Younger.
Leo I. did his utmost to prevent the holding of this
Council, but, having no jurisdiction, he failed in his
attempt. The fourth General Council, Chalcedon
(a.d. 451), was convoked by the Emperor Marcian.
Pope Leo did all he could, even with tears, to persuade
the Emperor not to call this Council. In this he failed.
He then tried to have it held in Italy. In this he also
failed. Having failed to prevent the holding of the
Council of Chalcedon, he was represented at it by two

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

legates, who attempted to prevent the passing of the
famous twenty-eighth Canon, which declared that the
Bishop of Constantinople should enjoy equal ecclesias
tical privUeges with Rome. The legates opposed the
passing of this Canon, but without avail, and rather
than consent they withdrew. On their return they
protested that the bishops had been coerced to sign,
which was denied ; and the Canon was again put to
the vote, and passed unanimously (the legates only
dissenting), the bishops declaring that they had given
their votes freely. That Canon, passed at a General
Council, which was attended by 630 bishops, not only
stands unrepealed, but has been confirmed by subsequent
CouncUs. This twenty-eighth Canon is aU-important.
A literal translation is as follows : — •
" Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy
Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon (which was
lately read) of the 150 bishops most beloved of God,
who were assembled under the Emperor Theodosius
the Great, of pious memory, in the royal city of Con
stantinople, new Rome, we also decree and determine
the same things concerning the privileges of the same
most holy Church of Constantinople, i.e., new Rome.
Because the Fathers rightly accorded privileges to the
See of ancient Rome, inasmuch as that city was the
seat of Empire — moved also by the same consideration,
the 150 bishops, beloved of God, accorded equal
privileges to the most holy See of new Rome, rightly
judging that the city which was honoured by the
Empire and the Senate, should both enjoy equal
privileges with the elder Royal Rome, and also should^
in ecclesiastical affairs, be extoUed and magnified in
no other manner, being second after her. We also

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 123
decree that the Metropolitan of the dioceses of Pontus,
Asia, and Thrace, as also the Bishops of their dioceses,
who are among the barbarians (foreigners), shall be
ordained by the aforesaid most holy See of the most
holy Church of Constantinople. To each of the
Metropolitans also, of the same dioceses, together with
the Bishops of the Province, it is allowed to ordain
bishops, as it is proclaimed by the sacred canons. But
the MetropoUtans of these dioceses, as has been said,
are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople,
after the proper elections have been made according
to custom, and reported to him."
These decisions of General Councils, the acts of
which have been written and recorded by the highest
Roman Catholic authorities, are of great importance,
as they prove that whatever ecclesiastical pre-eminence
Rome may have had in the early Church was due
solely to the fact that Rome was the "seat of
empire." This is a point of supreme importance in the whole
controversy. It is no wonder that Rome claims and
desires secular power, for it has been through the secular
power, and through that alone, that she obtained her
pre-eminence. The secular power is very willing to help religious
authority when it suits her purpose to do so, and she is
quite as ready to put down religious authority when it
has served her purpose and can no longer be of use.
Would to God that the Church had obeyed the precept
of leaving to Caesar the things of Caesar. It is a strange
religion which declares that it must have the power of
the sword to enable it to teach the truths of the
Gospel.

124 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
But the Fathers not only differed with each other,
but they also held different opinions at different
periods of their lives, just as other people who are
equally fallible may do. For example, St. Augustine
says : —
" It appears in many passages of Scripture that
Peter represented the Church, and particularly in that
place where it is said, ' I give to you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven. . . . For did Peter receive those keys,
and did John and James and the other Apostles not
receive them ? . . . What v>?as given to him was given to
the Church. Therefore, Peter represented the Church,
and the Church was the body of Christ." \
In his " Retractations," on the expression -'' the rock "
he writes : —
" I have said in a certain passage respecting the
Apostle Peter, that the Church upon him is founded as
upon a rock. . . . But I know that I have frequently after
wards so expressed myself, that the phrase ' Upon this
rock,' should be understood to be the rock which Peter
confessed. For it was not said to him ' Thou art
petra ' but thou art Pelrus, for the rock was Christ.
I Let the reader select which of these two opinions he
^deems the more probable,"
This is an amount of "private judgment" that the
Church of Rome will not permit. This opinion har
monised with the view taken by Augustine in his great
work, "The City of God," where he tells us that he
and his Church did not believe in Peter, but in Him
in whom Peter believed.
"Ut nos, qui sumus et vocamur Christiani, non

HISTORICAL FRAUDS, "25

in Petrum credimus, sed in quem credidit Petrus."
We do not beUeve in Peter, but in what Peter be
lieved. Again in his 270th sermon : —
" He says to them, ' But whom do ye say I am ? '
and Peter, one for the rest, one for all, says, ' Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' This he
said most rightly and truly ; and he deservedly merited
to receive such an answer : ' Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to you,
but My Father which is in heaven.' ' And I say unto
thee,' because thou hast said this to Me, listen ; thou
hast given me a confession, receive a blessing : there
fore, ' And I say unto thee, thou art Peter ; because I
am petra, a rock, thou art Petrus, Peter ; for petra, the
rock, is not from Petrus, Peter, but Petrus, Peter, is
from petra, the rock ; for Christ is not so called from
the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ' And
upon this rock I will buUd My Church,' not upon
Peter." And in his 13 th sermon he says : —
" Christ was the Rock, Peter figuratively the Christian
people. . . . ' Therefore, He said, ' Thou art Peter,' etc. ;
that is, I wiU build My Church on Myself, the Son of
the living God. I will buUd thee on Myself, not Myself
on Thee. For men willing to build upon men said,
' I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos, and I of Cephas, that
is, Peter.' But others, who were unwilling to be buUt
on Peter, but would be built upon the rock, said, ' But
I am of Christ.' But the Apostle Paul, when he knew
that he was chosen, and Christ contemned, said, ' Is
Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for you, or were

126 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
ye baptised in the name of Paul ? ' Wherefore, as not
in the name of Paul, so not in that of Peter, but on the
name of Christ, that Peter may be built upon the rock,
not the rock on Peter."
In fact, though St. Augustine was the most volumi
nous, as well as the most revered Father of the early
Church, there is not one hint in his writings from end
to end that the Church of Rome had any priority of
rule. In his eyes every bishop was equal ; and when
he wrote his famous work condemning the Donatists
he does not say one word of the necessity, nor does he
even hint at any necessity, for their obeying the Roman
Church. But wUl it be credited that the Church of Rome has
actually placed some of the works of the Fathers on the
index, though she praises them so highly when they
agree with her ?
The audacity of untruth can go no farther. We
proceed to give proof of this. Even St. Augustine has
not escaped the "infaUible" criticism of Rome, although
Maldonatus, a Jesuit writer, has said of him, —
" Augustine is an author of that esteem, that, were
his opinions neither proved by Scriptures, nor reason,
nor any other author, yet the sole reverence of his
person deserves sufficient authority by itself."
Yet there are no writings of the ancient Fathers
which have suffered so much as those of Augustine at the
hands of Romanists themselves. In the index, the con
demned passages, as found in various editions of
Augustine's works, cover eleven closely printed folio
pages, in double columns, from page 54 to page 64,
both inclusive.

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. i^7

In the "Belgian Expurgatory Index" published at
Antwerp, 1^71, at page S, we read: —
"We bear with many errors in the old Catholic
¦writers ; we extenuate them ; we excuse them ; and
by inventing some devised shift, we oftentimes deny
them, and feign some commodious sense for them, when
they are objected to in disputations or conflicts with
our adversaries."
Having expurgated the writings of Augustine of all
supposed heretical teaching, they have taken a bolder
step by publishing his works, from which they have
excluded everything savouring of "heresy," and re
pugnant to what they are pleased to call the " Catholic
Faith." David Clement, in his " Biblioth^que Curieuse His
torique et Critique," refers to the corrupted edition of
Augustine's works, which was printed in Venice in
1570, in the foUowing words : —
" The editor warns us, as an honest man, that he has
removed everything which might infect Catholics with
heresy, or cause them to turn from the orthodox faith."
The same fact is recorded by Le Clerc in his " Biblio
thfeque UniverseUe." Referring to the Venice edition
of I S 70 he says : —
" They inserted in the title that they had exercised
great care to cause to be expunged everything that
might possibly infect the souls of the faithful with any
evil of heresy, or to draw them from the Catholic and
orthodox faith."
We give a very few of the passages or sentences
from the writings of St. Augustine which the " infallible "

128 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
Church of Rome has condemned in her " Expurgatory
Index," published at Madrid in 1667. Their signifi
cance will be obvious.
"God alone is to be adored" (p. 56, col. 2).
" Angels cannot be our mediators " (p. 59, col. 2).
" Saints are unwilling to be adored " (p. 57, col. 2).
"Created beings are not to- be worshipped nor
adored" (p. 61, coi. i).
" There are no mediators between us and God "
(p. 60, col. i).
"The dead have no concern for the living" (p. 59,
col. i).
"No help of mercy can be rendered to the dead"
(p. 59, col. I).
"Saints are to be loved and imitated, but are not
to be worshipped " (p. 59, col. 2).
" Saints are to be honoured with imitation, but not
with adoration " (Ibid.),
"John left a forewarning against the invocation of
.aints " {Ibid.),
" The holy dead, after this life, cannot help" (Ibid.).
" It is a sacrilege to build temples to created beings "
(p. 59, col. I).
" It is wicked for Christians to place images of God
in Churches " (p. 59, col. 2).
" Mary, even in Christ's passion, doubted concerning
Him " (Ibid,),
I " Mary was mother of Christ's humanity, not of His
I divinity" (p. 61, col. i).
" The authority of the Scriptures, and not of Councils,
is to be reUed on " (p. 61, col. i).
" Nothing is to be added to Christ's words " (p. 60,
col. I),

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 129
"That the legends of saints are apocryphal" (p. 59,
col. 2).
I "Confession is not necessary to salvation" (p. 61,
col. i).
"God forgives sins before confession passes the
Ups" (p. 58, col. i).
1 " That the Eucharist is not a sacrifice,, but a memorial
'of a sacrifice " {Ibid.).
" Christ commended to His disciples a figure of His
body and blood " (p. 60, col. i).
" The sacrament of the Eucharist, although visible,
should nevertheless be understood in an invisible and
spiritual manner " (p. 60, col. 2).
" Peter never claimed for himself a primacy. Petrus
primatum sibi nunquam vindicavit" (p. 59, col. l).*
Surely audacity and outrage on the dead could go
no further. Even the opinions of the most distinguished
Father of the Church must be made to harmonise with
the opinions of modern popery. I remember when I
was in England many years since, and when the great
movement Romewards began under the auspices of
Dr. Pusey and the Tractarians, that he published some
works that had been written by Roman Catholics long
since dead. In editing these books. Dr. Pusey thought
proper to leave out any passages of which he did not
approve ; and observed that these dead and gone
saints would no doubt see things in heaven as he saw
them on earth. Only the evident sincerity of Dr. Pusey
could have saved him from the charge of intolerable
pride, or of insufferable self-conceit. For any mortal
* For these facts concerning St, Augustine's writings I acknow
ledge my indebtedness to Mr. C, H. Collette's "St. Augustine''
(London: 1883). 9

no INSIDE HIE CHURCH OF ROME.
man to say that the dead would approve of a change
in their religious opinions, or of alteration in their
writings, is too absurd, except for those who are so
sure of their own infallibility as to assert that no one
else can be right.
I did not even know until some time after I had left
the Roman Catholic Church that this process had also
been gone through by the Roman Church, on the
writings of those very saints whose authority she so
much approves, when she finds anything in it to support
her own doctrine. How mortal man can be so blind
as to cheat himself in this fashion is almost past human
comprehension. A Roman Catholic politician may find
an excuse if he strains a point to gain his end. Pie
at least would gain easy absolution for such conduct
from the very accommodating Jesuits ; but for Christian
men to appeal to the Fathers as their authority for
certain opinions, and then to cut out all the evidence
which is opposed to their wishes, seems too utterly
wicked even for ordinary mortals. What shall it be
termed in the case of those who call on the whole world
to believe that they, and they only, are the true Church,
and the only ambassadors of God ?
But it is not only Augustine who has fared so
treacherously at the hands of these unscrupulous fol
lowers of a God of truth. We give a few extracts
from St. Jerome's teaching, premising that the quotations
which we make are admitted to be portions of his
genuine works, even by Romanists. He says : —
"Peter was an apostle, and John was an apostle;
but Peter was only an apostle, John both an apostle
and evangelist, and also a prophet ; and that I may, in
brief speech, commend many things and show what
privilege belonged to John, yea, virginity in John ; by

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 131
our Lord, a virgin. His mother, the virgin, is com
mended to the virgin disciple."
" In Jerusalem the Church was first founded, whence
all other Churches throughout the world were planted,"
" The Church does not consist of waUs but of true
doctrine, so that wherever the true faith is there is the
Church." " The Church has not gone out of her limits of
the Holy Scripture, and from thence the timber and
materials must be taken with which the house of
wisdom is to be built."
In his Epistle to Evagrius, he said: —
" The Church of Rome is not to be thought one
thing, and that of the whole world another. Gaul,
Britain, Africa, Persia, the East Judea, and all the
foreign nations adore also one Christ, and observe the
same rule of truth. If authority is sought for, the
world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a
bishop, whether at Rome, Eugubium, Constantinople,
Regium, Alexandria, or Tanais, be is of the same
exceUency, of the same episcopate. The power of
wealth or the lowliness of poverty does not make a
bishop either less or greater, for they are all the suc
cessors of the apostles. Why do you urge upon me
?the custom of a single city ? "
Like aU the Fathers, St. Jerome's opinions were an
uncertain quantity, and extracts may be made from his
writings which can be distorted to mean that he looked
upon the chair of Peter as having a certain supremacy ;
but that he only intended a supremacy of position, and
not a supremacy of Divine authority, is almost self-
evident. Yet the edition of his writings pubUshed by

132 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Erasmus, one of the most learned priests of the Church
of Rome, was condemned because he did not omit
the passages which went against Romish claims, and
Erasmus himself was also condemned in no measured
terms, although he lived and died a faithful son of the
Church, and even used his able pen against the
Reformers, so little mercy has Rome even for her most
faithful and noblest sons if they do not submit abjectly
to her least desires.
There is a remarkable statement of Dr. Newman's
to which I would call attention in this connection. It
was published some time before he left the Protestant
Church, and was intended to justify his position against
the Church of Rome. Such a statement, coming from a
man of his intellectual attainments and power of thought,
deserves the most serious consideration. What an
indictment it is against the Church of Rome ; perhaps
a more severe charge never was made against that
Church, considering the person who has made it, and
the circumstances under which it was made. It does
not lessen the force of this indictment that Dr. Newman
has since left the Protestant Church, for he has not
refuted this statement. On the contrary, he has been
obliged to justify his change of opinion by one of the
most remarkable arguments which has ever been offered
to the human intellect for acceptance ; that the Church
has power to " develop " new doctrines which may be,
and certainly are, in direct opposition to those once
delivered to the saints. Any one who can accept this
mode of reasoning can believe at pleasure whatever a
Church may say or do, no matter how contrary to
revealed religion, since this power of "development"
is claimed to be of Divine right, or it would be practicaUy
worthless.

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 133
Dr. Newman, in his Lectures on the Prophetical
Office of the Church, says : —
"The Fathers are only so far of use in the eyes of
Romanists as they prove the Roman doctrines, and in
no sense are allowed to interfere with the conclusions
which their Church has adopted ; they are of authority
when they seem to agree with Rome, of none if they
differ" (p. 53).
" How useless then is it to contend with Romanists,
as if they practically agreed to our foundations, how
ever much they pretend to it. Ours is antiquity, theirs
the existing Church " (p. 85).
"According to the avowed or implied conviction of
their most eminent divines, there is much actually to
censure in the writings of the Fathers, much that is
positively hostile to the Roman system " (p. 97).
" As far as it is Catholic and scriptural, it (Romanism)
appeals to the Fathers ; as far as it is a corruption it
finds it necessary to supersede them " (p. 124).
" Enough has been said to show the hopelessness
of our prospects in the controversy with Rome. We
have her own avowal that the Fathers ought to be
followed, and again, that she does not follow them.
What more can we require than her witness against
herself, which is here supplied us ? If such inconsist
ency is not at once fatal to her claims, which it would
seem to be, at least it is a most encouraging omen in
our C9ntest with her " (p. 99).
In view of the rapid advance of Romanism in the
United States, it is an affair of the deepest consequence
to every Christian — as so many Protestants send their
children to Roman Catholic institutions for education,
and thereby deprive them deliberately of knowing the

134 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
truths of history as well as the true state of the Roman
controversy — it is of supreme importance that such
facts should be fully explained to the public. I shall
now give two proofs of the way in which the young,
and for that part of the matter the old, are deliberately
deceived in books of instruction authorised and ap
proved by the Roman Church. In a work published
in England by Father Bruno, entitled " Catholic BeUef,"
and which boasts of a circulation of half a million, we
find the following statements : —
"In the eleventh year after the Ascension of our
Lord, which was the second year of the reign of the
Roman Emperor Claudius, St. Peter left the Bishopric
of Antioch, which he intrusted to Evodius, and chose
for himself Rome. Before, however, going to Rome,
he first went to Jerusalem. Then it was that Herod
cast him into prison, as related in the Acts of the
Apostles (chap, xu.). But being miraculously delivered
by an angel from prison a second time, he made his
way to Rome."
" St. Peter was the first to preach the Gospel in
Rome." " A CouncU was held, and after sufficient time had
been given to debate, St. Peter, who was then Bishop
of Rome, stood up, and referring to a special revelation
made to him by God, declared that certain Jewish
legalities were not binding on Christians ; which
decision (?) was immediately confirmed by St. James,
Bishop of Jerusalem, and by all the rest. (Acts
XV. 8.)"
Now mark the painful and deliberate dupUcity of
these statements, and remember that every Roman
Catholic reading this is bound to believe it, for it is

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 135
issued with the imprimatur of the authorities of the
" Church." Remember the immense force and power
of early impressions, and that even a Protestant child
brought up in a convent school, and trusting with the
implicit, and I may say holy, trust of childhood in
those who teach her, will accept all this fiction as fact,
and in later life -will be influenced by it to her eternal
injury. How could a child suspect that there would
be deliberate deceit on the part of the priest or the
sister ? And as for the poor sister, she is as ignorant
as the child. She has no means of verifying the
statements placed in her hands, and which she is
ordered to teach. She, too, takes them on the word of
the " Church," in which she also has been taught to
believe in her youth, and which she would think it
treason of the worst kind to doubt. Now let us examine
these statements ; the time will not be lost.
First let it be noted that a certain statement is made
by the highest Roman Catholic authority as a simple
fact, and is therefore accepted as a fact by the reader.
It is said that " Peter made his way to Rome." Now
there is not one single historical proof of this statement,
the object of which is to connect Peter with the Church
in Rome. The Bible teUs us that it was there St. Paul
taught for so many years ; and as he has mentioned
in his Epistles the names of those who preached the
Gospel with him there, it is certain that St. Peter was
not at Rome when St. Paul wrote, as he never mentions
his name. In fact, as the Bible tells us, St. Peter was
occupied for the greater part of his life in preaching to
the circumcision (the Jews), and we are also told this
was the work appointed for him by God Himself (Gal. ii,),
But the plainest statements of the Bible are of as little
account to Rome as the statements ofthe Fathers, which,

136 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
according to Dr. Newman, they use only for their own
purposes. What is the use of being infaUible if you
are obUged to give any proof of what you advance?
The great advantage of infalUbility is that you are above
all arguments.
First, there is no evidence, nor has the Roman Church
produced any evidence, to show that St. Peter was
Bishop of Rome or, for that part of the matter, that he
was bishop anywhere. The apostles had a work of their
own to do, quite different from the work of a bishop ;
and it was their Divine and blessed duty to go round to
all the Churches teaching and strengthening them, as we
find them doing. As the Church of Rome has no proof
whatever of the statement that St. Peter was " Bishop
of Rome" for twent3^-five years, its theologians are
driven to such statements as these — "As it cannot be
supposed that St. Peter had no see during the last
twenty-five years of his life, if he was not Bishop of
Rome, of what other see was he bishop ? "
It is on such suppositions and such childish reason
ing that Rome builds the fabric of the most stupendous
assertions. All this might do very well in a novel,
but it is a poor support for a creed. And once again,
what shall be said of those who put these " supposes "
and "ifs" before the young as undoubted and un
questioned facts ? We are not told, either in Scripture
or history, neither by God nor man, of what place St.
Peter was bishop, or that he was a bishop. We only
know that he was an Apostle.
To the true Catholic and Christian Church all this
is a matter of very little moment, since that Church has
not to maintain a claim of infallibility at the expense
of truth.
If St, Peter was bishop anywhere, all authorities,

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 137
even Roman Catholic, go to show that it was at Antioch.
Indeed, this very writer claims that St. Peter was Bishop
of Antioch " for a time." If so, then Antioch was the
first see which St. Peter founded, and it should, on
Roman Catholic principles, be the head of the Catholic
Church. But the city of Antioch had not the temporal
power of the city of Rome, nor the same worldly
advantages ; hence its claims are quietly ignored. How
many Roman Catholics are aware of this phase of
the controversy ? Everything that would cast even
the least shade on the face of the claim of Rome is
quietly ignored, and the unhappy Romanist is led to
believe that there is nothing to be said on the other
side. I shall never forget my own amazement when I
learned for the first time that there was a Church,
which even the Church of Rome is obliged to admit,
has the very same orders as she has, the same priestly
power, and valid sacraments also. The Greek Church,
with its millions of believers, is as much a "true
Church" as the Church of Rome, even according to
the authorised teaching of the Church of Rome.
If a priest of the Greek Church enters the Church of
Romejie is received as a priest, his orders are acknow
ledged, and he can say Mass at once, without receiving
new orders. I believe it would surprise Romanists
not a little if this fact were generally known, as it
should be. I believe that the great majority of
Romanists would deny this statement with indignation,
and yet it is well known to the world at large, and
cannot be denied by Romanists, though its significance
in the Roman controversy may not be known to
Protestants. Furthermore, the priests of the Greek
Church are all allowed to marry, and are encouraged

138 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
to marry. Rome tries to make the world believe that
she alone has the claim to sacerdotal power. Yet here
is a Church the validity of whose orders and priesthood
she dares not even question, yet which differs from
her in refusing to admit the unscriptural claim of the
Pope to be the head of Christendom.
Certainly Rome does well to keep her people in
ignorance. The entrance of light would dispel too
much darkness. Let Protestants begin to spread the
light. Let them take every opportunity of telling their
Roman Catholic friends, quietly and patiently, some of
the facts of history, and those plain truths which Rome
cannot deny, however seriously they make against her
pretensions. And it should be noted here that the
reason why Rome is so anxious to prevent intercourse
between Protestants and Romanists is, that the truth
about her claims would thereby inevitably come out,
and Romanists, once convinced that they have been
deliberately deceived in one matter, would begin to
lose their faith in aU. Let Protestants never forget
the duty and the privilege which God has bestowed
on thera. Let them, above all, remember the patience
which is necessary with those who have been educated
in darkness, and how terrible is the first awakening to
the long deception which Rome has practised on her
unhappy followers. A word in season, and only a
word, will be of more avail than days and weeks of
noisy argument. I know a case where a Romanist
was led to serious inquiry by the remark that St.
Peter had a wife, and by being shown the passage of
Scripture which proves this in the Douay Bible, and
by calling her attention to the way in which our Lord
showed His approval of St. Peter's marriage by healing
his wife's mother when she was sick of a fever. The

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 139
natural conclusion from this was as it should be — Why
does the Church of Rome forbid her priests to marry ?
A command which leads to the commission of the
grossest sins.
It seems scarcely necessary to point out any more
Roman CathoUc deceptions, but the importance of
having accurate knowledge on these points is of such
moment that I maybe excused bysome, and I hope I may
be of service to many, if I dwell a little longer on this
subject. We may well ask why it was, if St, Peter was
twenty-five years in Rome with St. Paul, whom no one
disputes was there, that St. Paul, writing from Rome,
says, " Only Mark is with me " ? Observe in the
second quotation which I have given from this men
dacious Roman Catholic work, the barefaced statement
that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome when the memorable
CouncU was held at Jerusalem. (Acts xv.) This is
quietly asserted, though there is not one word of proof
given, for the very simple reason that neither Scripture
nor history say one word on this subject. If the
passage is noted carefully it will be seen into what
ridiculous inconsistencies Rome is driven. Let us
admit that " St. Peter was then Bishop of Rome," and
what do we find ? Not that he was asked to settle the
matter in question, as he would have been if our Lord
had made him the head of the Church, but that it was
settled by St. James. As a matter of fact, St. Peter
gave no decision ; for Scripture tells us that he only
gave an opinion as the rest did, including Barnabas
and Paul.
In fact, far from the CouncU being called together to
hear the decision of .St Peter, it was called for the
sensible purpose of having a general discussion on a
most important point; and St. Peter simply gave his

140 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
opinion as the others did. How, in the face of this
narrative, any Pope can claim to do what St. Peter did
not do is marvellous. The circumstance certainly may
be pointed to as an evidence that the whole Church
assembled in Council has a power to decide contro
versies ; but that is a very different matter from saying
that St. Peter had this power exclusively. This modern
claim simply places the Popes above St. Peter in power
and dignity. If St. Peter had the power granted him
by our Divine Lord to give the final decision in matters
of faith, here is a case in which he could, and most
certainly would, have exercised this power; and the
Apostles would have been too well aware of our Lord's
teaching to have opposed His claim if such a claim
had existed.
But here is Scripture testimony to the undeniable
fact that it was St. James, the local bishop, who decided
the important question. The very words used by
St. James are sufficient to settle the matter. He says
"my sentence is." If St. Peter had a right to decide
he would have said most certainly the sentence of St.
Peter is so-and-so ; but there is not one trace of special
deference to his opinion in the whole affair, and this is
the first Council held in the true Catholic Church. How
different in its inception and in its result from the
Councils of the Roman Church, which certainly is not
Catholic in its foUowing of the Apostles. In this
chapter also we find that whatever was decided was
not by Peter but by "the Apostles and elders and
brethren." (Acts xv.) How different this from Papal
rule, which will not even listen to the least suggestion of
the brethren. It should be clearly understood by Protest
ants, and for that matter by Romanists, that the Council
which abandoned the infaUibility of the Church for the

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 141
infalUbility of the Pope a few years since, not only
made the Pope (Pius IX.) infallible, but also made all
the Popes infaUible who had preceded him. It is by
no means clear whether the Pope made himself in
fallible, or whether he got the Council to do the deed.
It is only certain that the deed was done. But it is
difficult for the ordinary mind to understand why, if
the Pope was infallible all the time, it was necessary
to wait till the nineteenth century to discover it, or
why, if he was really infallible, he could not have
said so himself, and arranged the matter without the
Council. One thing is certain. The Council was not at all
unanimous about the same infallibility. It was
necessary, however, for the Pope to compel some
appearance of unanimity before he could avail himself
of the honour which he so greatly coveted. We append
here some extracts from the early Fathers of the Church,
taken from Roman CathoUc writers, which should
for ever silence all dispute as to their opinion on
infallibility, and Roman claims of jurisdiction.
The earliest mention of Peter's name is in that First
Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter v., which is attributed
to Clement. Clement is alleged to have been Bishop of
Rome from a.d. 92 — loi, and by sorae to have been
appointed bishop by Peter hiraself His testimony
is very important. Writing to the Corinthians, he
said, —
" Let us have before our eyes the excellent Apostles.
Peter, through unjust envy, underwent not one or two,
but raany sufferings; and thus'being martyred, went to
the place of glory that was due to him. Through envy
Paul also receives the reward of patience. Seven times

142 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
he was in bonds ; he was whipped and stoned. He
preached in the east and west, leaving behind him the
glorious report of his death ; when, after he had taught
the whole world righteousness, and had come to the
borders of the west, he suffered martyrdom under the
rulers." Clement says little of Peter, but much of Paul. His
mind seems to have been more directed to the mission
of the latter than to that of the former, and he makes
no distinction of rank between them.
Neither Hermes (a.d. 70), Barnabas (a.d. 73), nor
Polycarp (a.d. 108), even mention the name of Peter.
The next writer who naraes Peter is Ignatius
(a.d. 107). Writing from Antioch, he said, " I do not
command you (Romans) as did Peter and Paul ; they
were Apostles, I am a condemned man. They were
free, but I am, even this day, a servant," But no
reliance can be placed on the correctness of the text of
this epistle, for the best critics are agreed that it has
been tampered with. It would seem to imply that
Peter and Paul taught the Romans, but it does not
imply that Peter was Bishop of Rome, any more than
Paul ; and it should be noted that the Epistle is not
addressed to the Bishop of Rome, but to the Christians
at Rome.
We next hear of Peter in a fragment of an Epistle
written by Dionysius of Corinth to Soter, Bishop of
Rome (a.d. 170), preserved by Eusebius : — " So you
also, by an admonition so valuable, have again united
the planting of the Romans and Corinthians, which was
by the hands of Peter and Paul. For both came to
visit Corinth, and planted us, both alike taught, and
alike went to Italy ; and having taught together, they

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 143
gave their testimony about the same time " (Ap. Euseb.,
u. 25).
Irenasus, Bishop of Lyons (a.d. 178-200), tells us
that the Church of Rome was founded by " the two
glorious Apostles Peter and Paul," and the Apostles
having founded and built that Church, coraraitted the
sacred office of the Episcopate to Linus. He enume
rates by name all the bishops to his day — Eleutherius —
whom he reckons as the twelfth bishop, naming Linus
as the first bishop. He therefore excludes both Peter
and Paul in that capacity. But even in this he is
contradicted by TertuUian, who tells us that Peter
appointed Clement as first bishop, another of the
countless proofs that the " Fathers " did not always
agree either in doctrine or chronology.
The "ApostoUc Constitutions" represent Linus as
having been appointed first Bishop of Rome by Paul,
and Clement after the death of Linus by Peter. The
date assigned to these " Constitutions" is a.d. 270.
The writings of Irenaeus are preserved chiefly in a
Latin translation by Eusebius, the ecclesiastical his
torian. Valesius, a learned Roman Catholic com
mentator on this work, observes : " Irenseus, as well as
Eusebius, says that Peter and Paul laid the first foun
dation of the Church which was at Rome ; but these
writers nowhere reckon them among the first bishops
of the Church." He also states that " the Apostles had
a rank peculiar to themselves, nor were they ever
reckoned among the bishops of the Churches."
The works of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (a.d. 250),
have been mutilated ; but though he speaks in eulogistic
terms of Peter he distinctly says : " That the rest of
the Apostles were even the same that Peter was, being
endowed with the Uke fellowship, honour, and power,"

144 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
We meet in the writings of this Father, and particularly
in the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, the
expression " The Chair of Peter." Romanists at once
exclusively appropriate the term to the Church of Rome.
But the designation was equally applied to Antioch
Alexandria, and other cities. Indeed, it can be easily
shown that by the term " chair " doctrine was meant,
and, to repeat the words of Augustine in his great work
on the " Unity of the Church," " We who call ourselves
Christians do not believe in Peter, but in what Peter
taught." There is a remarkable passage in one of the
Epistles of Pope Gregory I., who wrote at the beginning
of the seventh century, addressed to Eulogius, Bishop
of Alexandria. Gregory refers to each branch of what
he termed the triple See of St. Peter — Rome, Alexandria,
and Antioch — as having equal claims with one another
both in honour and authority ; and in the same Epistle
he disclaimed any special honour to himself, inasmuch,
he said, as the Bishop of Alexandria, to whom he was
writing, was himself one of St. Peter's successors.
We now come to Eusebius, " the Father of Ecclesi
astical History " as he is called ; for in his great work,
which he wrote about a.d. 320, he has recorded every
circumstance then extant connected with the history of
the Church. He refers to Peter's alleged visit to Rome,
which he puts down as during the reign of Claudius.
And even here Valesius, his learned Roman Catholic
commentator, says Eusebius must be mistaken as to
time, for the alleged visit during the reign of Claudius
would contradict history, as related in the Acts of the
Apostles. And nowhere dees Eusebius state that Peter
ever was Bishop of Rome, which, if a known fact, he
could not have omitted to state. The heading of the
second chapter of his third book is " the first (protos)

HISTORICAL FRAUDS. 145
that presided over the Church of Rome." " After the
martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first that
was elected to the Bishopric of the Roman See."
Yet we are informed in " Catholic Belief" that Peter
reigned in Rome for twenty-five years. There is, as I
have said, a proverb, " Lie, and lie boldly." How sad
it is that a Church, even nominally Christian, should
carry out such principle.

16

CHAPTER VIII.
HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE IN THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY.
" For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, not
self-willed, not soon angry." — Titus i. 7.
IT is certain, as we have said in the last chapter,
that there was very far from being any real
unanimity in the Vatican Council on the question of
the personal infallibility of the Pope. But what were
the opposition to do ? The bishops were sumraoned
for the purpose of declaring the Pope infallible, and woe
to him who dared to object. We must pause before we
condemn those who wished to do so, and did not. Let it
be remembered that they had all been brought up from
their earliest years in a slavish system of compulsory
obedience, that submission to the Pope had been the
rule of the Church for centuries. We must take into
account the force of multitude, and remeraber that
while the consequences of objection would certainly be
serious in this world, it might also bring suffering in
the next, according to the teachings of the Church ;
yet there were seme who had the courage of their
opinions. The Bishop of Kerry, Dr. Moriarty, was, to my
personal knowledge, one of those who was strongly
opposed to the nev/ decree. I heard from his very
lips the sad announcement that he had voted against

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 147
his conscience, and that to his certain knowledge many
other bishops had done the same. What a specimen
of infallible teaching ! Certainly St. Peter would not
have required this in the Council of Jerusalem. But
this good bishop was not alone in his grief And here,
let it be noted, that remote and careful preparation
was made for the declaration of the Pope's personal
infalUbiUty some time before the Council was convened,
just as reraote and careful preparation is now being
made for proclaiming it an article of faith that the
Pope must be a teraporal sovereign. Well, indeed,
will it be for those who have the wisdom to note these
signs of the tiraes ere it be too late. In August, 1868,
the New York Catholic World, the mouthpiece of the
Romanists in America, in commenting, as in duty —
shall we say bound or obUged? — on the recently issued
Syllabus, declared that every Catholic must yield
obedience to the Pope under pain of sin, when he
administers discipline, or issues orders.
The Roman Catholic press of America is taking
precisely the same tone in regard to the temporal power
of the Pope ; and it is perfectly plain to every unpre
judiced mind that the great battle for the teraporal
supremacy of the Pope wiU be fought out in America.
The foUowing extracts from the Roman Catholic Weekly,
a paper pubUshed with full episcopal approbation in
Albany, New York State, will show the tendency of
Romanists in this direction. It says : —
" Now whilst there may be some difficulty in classi
fying these gentlemen our friends, there is and can be
no difficuky in locating the Catholic Weekly. There is
no crookedness nor trickery in our title or mission.
We are Catholic first, last, and all the time. Our

148 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
career is to enlighten Catholics of every nationality,
and to defend the Church against every comer, no
matter who or what he is. We are not, we humbly
admit, endowed with that intellectual finesse that, like
our friends (?), can draw a hard and fast line between
the Church and the Pope, and put him on one side and
the Church on the other. To our child-like and simple
intellect both are the same. When the Pope speaks,
the Church speaks, and when the Church speaks God
speaks. We have been always trained to think in this
old-fashioned groove, and now that we have grown to
manhood we cannot shake it off. The Church would
be in a sorry plight if it did not live in the Pope (sic).
Like a footbaU, it would be kicked about by every
political tyrant or intellectual crank. We do not even
make the distinctions of the learned between infallible
and non-infallible utterances. We are in such awe of
his name, his office, and his functions, that to us the
least official of his pronouncements is freighted with
the wUl and voice of God.
" To betray him would be the basest of betrayals, to
be disloyal to him is a treachery, the blackest among
men, to err thinking. Every other consideration is
subservient to his authority and the welfare of the
Church. What lies beyond this territory is secondary,
and incidental. Though we love our country dearly, we
love our Church more, and the Pope more. We cannot
recognise any aid which our country may give us to
reach Heaven, and we do not recognise, we cannot reach
that blessed goal without the Church and the Pope."
What miserable, what unchristian words are these :
" The Church would be in a sorry plight if it did not
live in the Pope." One marvels if the man who wrote
these words ever read the Scriptures, which tell us that

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 149
the Apostles gloried in living in Christ. Truly all this
looks but too Uke the great apostasy, when the man of
sin (and many of the Popes have been indeed men of
sin) shall sit in the temple of God, showing himself
that he is God. Remember that there is no quaUfication,
no words to modify this awful — may we not say ? —
blasphemy. The utterances of the Pope, whether
fallible or infallible, are to be considered as the " voice
of God," and to disobey or question is crime. If the
Pope approves of incest we must also approve it. If
Popes in past ages had innumerable illegitimate children,
we must respect their decisions with holy awe when
they appoint these children of sin to the highest places
in the Church, as Popes have done again and again.
Protestants have yet to learn all that is involved in
this claim of infallibility.
A belief in the temporal power of the Pope is not,
I again repeat, an article of the Roman Catholic faith at
present ; but there are thousands of men, like the editor
of the Albany paper, who are ready to receive it at a
moment's notice,and already there are numerous Roman
Catholic publications preparing the way actively for
its acceptance. But what need is there for a formal
proclamation of this doctrine, when it is involved in
the very doctrine already proclaimed ? The claim of
spu-itual infallibility made by the Roman Church must
not be disputed. But as there is no question of
public government, or politics, which cannot be made
a religious question, the Pope is practicaUy, to his fol
lowers, an infallible authority in aU temporal affairs.
He claims to be the judge, and a judge from whose
decisions there is no appeal, as to whether any political
question comes under his jurisdiction or not. What
could the most bigoted Romanist desire more ?

ISO INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
The constitutions of the United States, and the laws
of England, were framed for the general good, and the
protection of every individual. The preamble to the
constitution of the United States says that its laws
were established " in order to form a more perfect
union, to establish justice . . . and to secure the bless
ings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity."
Certainly the framers did not foresee a time when the
permission of the Pope, and not the approval of the laws
of the State, would be necessary even to allow the
existence of a body of men united for the purpose of
advancing the interest of labour. Yet the American
society, known as the Knights of Labour, had to place
their regulations in the hands of Cardinal Gibbons, and
to submit them humbly for approval, not to the govern
ment of the United States, but to the Pope of Rome.
It is certainly amazing how the American people, who
profess to set such a high value on their liberty, can
allow themselves to be quietly made the slaves of
Rome. Dr. Brownson, an eminent writer in the Romish
Church, of whom the same Church had a wholesale
fear during his Ufetime, as he was a man whom they
well knew would not hesitate to strike even Rome,
if Rome offended him, spoke out very plainly, as most
'fanatics wiU do. Authorised by the Church, which
certainly applauded him when he made such utterances,
he declared that it would be " an intolerable tyranny
to be obliged to obey the State, if the State was not
under the control of the Church."
Another important outcome of this claim of political
infallibility in the government of the world, is the
Church's alleged right to punish heretics. The very
politicians who to-day are fawning at the feet of the
Archbishop of New York, and Cardinal Gibbons, may

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 151
yet know, to their cost, how Rome can persecute when
once she has the power. A Protestant paper in New
York expresses its sympathy with Leo Xlll. because
he was insulted "for the sins of Popes who burned
heretics three hundred years ago." Does not the sym
pathiser know that the law which commands the
destruction of heretics, by fire or sword, still exists,
and would be put in force if only the infallible Church
had the power to do so ? This is the extract : —
"Why should this poor old man, who has done
nothing but good, be insulted for the sins of Popes
who burned rebellious friars three hundred years
ago?" It is the false charity of men like the writer in the
New York Churchman which is the great help of the
Roman Church. The claws of the tiger are there, and
they are not blunted. The duty of the Church to
persecute is just the same as it was in the days when
the hapless Bruno was committed to the flames. The
Church of Rome only ceases open persecution because
she cannot do it, — the will is there but not the power ;
but the tirae is fast coming, through the instrumentality,
not of Romanists — for the vast multitude of Romanists
are absolutely indifferent to the Church to which they
nominally belong — but through the instruraentaUty of
" liberal " Protestants, when Rome wiU have the power
to persecute, and then the Liberal Protestant will fare
as badly at the hands of that Church which he has
served so well, as the most ilUberal radical.
It would be weU if Protestants of the extreme " High
Church " type could reaUze how Uttle respect Rome has
for them. The more Roman, or, as they are pleased
to term it, the more " CathoUc " they become, the more

152 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
ridiculous they appear to Romanists. It is true that
Rome sometimes hides her sneers, when there is feai
of offending a millionaire, but she does not on that
account change her real sentiments. An article which
we give below will be amusing to some, and we hope
instructive to those who imagine they are approved
by Rome, because they are imitating her practices.
The Rev. Philip Fletcher, a Roman Catholic priest,
and formerly curate of a Ritualistic Church at Brighton,
writes as follows in the Weekly Register : —
"Some of these AngUcan neighbours have extra
ordinary impudence. Though they don't live in our
house, but have got one of their own, though they
don't even intend to quit their own residence and come
and dwell in one which has foundations, yet they are
for ever poking about our premises, and picking up
v/hat they can find ; and having found something
though it does not belong to them, they carry it off and
stick it in their own garden, though it won't grow
there, or nail it up on their walls, though it doesn't
suit their furniture a bit. Yes, ' his neighbour cometh
and searcheth him.' He does, indeed. Now, if they
came to search us from good motives, we would not
mind. Some of them do, and we are always then glad
to see them. We show them over everywhere, and
explain the whole plan of the Catholic house and
grounds. Such as these come to see if our house is
better than their own. It is not difficult to prove to
them that it is so, for many of us have lived in that
house of theirs, and right glad we are to have got out
of it. Nothing but noise, and quarrelling, and brawling
from morning to night. A regular babel of confusion.
Even those of us who were never inside of it can see

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE, 153
and hear what goes on, for the Anglican walls are
very thin ; and what they see and hear offers them no
temptation to seek shelter under that noisy roof But
there are, as I say, others of these neighbours of ours
who ' come and search ' with no such worthy motive.
No ; but they want to patch up their own turable-down
dweUing with odds and ends from CathoUc sources, in
order to make more short-sighted people imagine that
theirs is the Catholic Church. So they make raids
upon our possessions, and then pass them off as their
own, generally, however, breaking them in the process.
The Ritualist parson, especially one, goes abroad, and
e.g., sees a sacred minister, after a Requiem Mass,
bearing the Processional Cross ; so when he gets home
he has a procession on Sundays, before or after (or
probably both) his Sunday High Celebrations, with a
bearded clergyman in a Dalmatic and a bad temper (at
having to carry what the butcher in a surplice used
to do), bearing the cross in front of a long Une of
processionists. He attends a Pontifical High Mass,
and sees some one in a cope in close attendance at the
altar ; so, on his return, he immediately pops his
master of ceremonies into a cope, who flits about
delighted with his investiture, and orders people about
more commandingly than ever. He sees the red lamp
burning before the tabernacle in every CathoUc Church,
and he thinks, 'How sweet it would be to have the
same thing at home;' but having no tabernacle he
makes up by having seven red lamps instead of one ;
and to make the illusion more perfect, has a sham
tabernacle painted or carved behind his communion
table. He looks into a Roman Missal, and sees thai-
there are no commandments, so he leaves them out
at his ' early celebration ' (like a naughty boy, ' when

154 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
nobody is looking'). He notices 'Secreta,' and
' Canon,' and ' Memento for the Dead,' and ' Post
Comraunions,' which are not in the ' Book of Common
Prayer ; ' but that doesn't matter a bit ; he soon
stitches them in. He happens upon a ' Garden of
t.lie Soul,' and finds warm, stirring soUd devotions,
which are unknown to cold, forraal Anglicanism ; so he
makes up a ' Book of Devotions,' adapted to members
of the Church of England, in which he calmly palms
off as AngUcan devotions what was written by most
Roman and utterly anti-Anglican authors; and in
order to hinder recognition of their true origin, he
mutilates these devotions so as to fit in with Anglican
fads and fancies. And then he glories in being ' so
Roman,' and no doubt thinks he is a very fine bird,
though there are plenty of more knowing birds behind
him who are laughing in their sleeves, and out of them,
at the foolish jackdaw strutting about in feathers not
its own."
I know, and many others know, that the Church
of Rome of to-day persecutes as far as she dares,
shielded and helped by "Uberal" Protestants, who
are 50 very liberal of the lives and liberties of others,
and have so very little sympathy for their sufferings.
Why cannot Protestants be Protestants, and men ?
Why do they lie down and worship at the very feet
of that power which, whatever toleration it may have
for other Protestants, has nothing but words of the
utmost contempt for those who are Protestants without
liberty. Papists without a Pope, and Catholics without
unity ?
" Popular feeling," says a Protestant writer, " is
mostly for the Pope." I was in Rome not long since,

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 155
and I know, for I took the trouble to inquire even
then, Romanist as I was, and I solemnly declare that
"popular feeling" was altogether against the Pope.
Against himself personaUy there was not a bad feeling,
but he represents a system which the Roman and
Italian people know too well has been the curse of
their country, and as the administrator of that system
he is justly hated. " The Pope," says this writer, " has
done nothing but good." Is it then good to show the
whole world how he sympathises with his predecessor
in the burning of heretics ? Need we say more ? A
rebellious friar ! How easy it is to take away cha
racter ! Just so Dr. McGlynn is " a rebeUious friar ; "
and presumably this writer in a first-class paper, repre
senting the opinion of the whole Episcopal Church
of the United States, would like to assist Archbishop
Corrigan in burning him alive also, before the City
HaU in New York, and he would be able to command
the assistance and the sympathy of a considerable
number of men who agree with him in their condolences
with the Pope, because the people of Italy have shown
their respect for a martyr of liberty.
But these ardent " Protestant " sympathisers with
the Pope are the veriest heretics in his eyes, and they
would certainly be led to the stake in short order, after
an exam.ple had been made of Dr. McGlynn and myself,
if it was in the power of Archbishop Corrigan to inflict
it. Nor do I blame him ; he would simply be carrying
out the orders of the infallible Church to which he
belongs. Has he not shown how he would like to
punish, if he dare, when he sentenced a priest to ten
days' imprisonment, and penance in a monastery, and
this in free America, because he said one little word in
disapproval of the way in which Dr. McGlynn was

156 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
treated ? The Archbishop sentenced a sister to Black-
wall's Island as an insane person, because, according
to her statement to myself, she had denounced conduct
which she justly considered shameful between a priest,
and the Lady Superior of the convent where she was
a nun. If men cry, Peace, peace, where there is no
peace, it would matter little if they were the only
victims of their folly, but the danger will not, end with
their lives. It may require another generation of
" liberal Protestants " to secure for Rome the full
power to persecute.
Protestants of this class, and every intelUgent human
being, should know that the Church of Rome requires
every bishop to take a solemn oath at his consecration
to persecute heretics. The oath has been published,
and — to his credit be it said — by a High Churchman,
who has the common sense to see that the Church of
England gains no respect from Rome, nor strength for
herself, by laying herself at the feet of the Pope. *
The editor of the document from which I quote, the
Rev. John M. Davenport, comments thus on the velvet-
paw policy of Rome : —
" The cities just named have bitter experience of this
velvet-paw treachery. They have harboured a religion
all smiles and affability while in low estate ; they have
been flattered into giving it pecuniary and political
aid ; they have with kindly spirit patronised its bazaars
and lotteries ; and yet what is the return ? Exchange
of kindnesses ? Far from it. It combines to plot
* This important document can be obtained from the publisher,
George A. Knodell, St. John, N.B. It can also be seen in the latest
edition of the " Roman Pontifical."

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 157
against and crush its benefactors, and to boycott them
out of office and existence. Boston is the only city "of
the four which has revolted somewhat successfuUy
against the tyranny. New York groans under its
papal fetters, and a press controlled by the Roman
Catholic Church. Quebec has become almost wholly
Roman by the exodus of the rising generation of
English people, not strong enough to withstand the
trade boycott, while the non-Roman population of
Montreal is outnumbered by the Roman in the propor
tion of three to one ; and yet the minority have to pay
more taxes than all the rest put together, as the Roman
Church, though rolling in wealth, has managed to
exempt its vast property from taxation."
In September, 1851, the Rambler, a Roman Catholic
Magazine published in England, wrote thus : —
" A Catholic temporal government^ would be guided
in its treatment of Protestants and other recusants
solely by the rules of expediency. . . . None but an
atheist can uphold the principles of religious liberty. , . .
Shall I hold out hopes to my fellow-countryman that I
will not meddle with his creed if he will not meddle
with mine ? Shall I lead him to think that religion is a
matter of private opinion, and tempt him to forget that
he has no more right to his religious views than he
has to my purse, or my house, or my life-blood ? No.
Catholicism is the most i.itolerant of creeds."
 . A paper published under

the auspices of 
prelate who is feted, or, as a local paper says,
"dined and wined" by aU the leading Protestants of

158 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
 , has published the following pastoral
instruction of  We only wish it could
be read in his presence and in the presence of those
who, by patronising him in society, are helping to
hasten the tirae when he will be able to persecute as
he declares he is bound to do, and as he has sworn in
the oath which he took when he was made bishop that
he will do. Here are his own words : —
" We maintain that the Church of Rome is intolerant,
that is, she uses every means in her power to root out
heresy ; but her intolerance is the result of her infalli
bility. She alone has the right to be intolerant,
because she alone has the right. The Church tolerates
heretics where she is obliged to do so, but she hates
them with a deadly hatred, and uses all her power to
annihilate them. If ever the Roman Catholics in this
land should become a considerable raajority, which in
time will surely be the case . . . then will religious
freedom in the Republic of the United States come to
an end. Our enemies know how the Roman Church
treated heretics in the Middle Ages, and how she
treats them to-day whenever she has the power. We
no more think of denying these historical facts than
we do of blaming the holy God, and the princes of the
Church, for what they have thought it good to do."
The following are the words, in Latin and English,
by which every Rora an Catholic bishop pledges himself
to persecute every Protestant : —
" I WILL, TO THE UTMOST OF MY POWER, PERSECUTE
AND ATTACK HERETICS, SCHISMATICS, AND REBELS AGAINST
THE SAME OUR LORD (tHE POPe) OR HIS AFORESAID
SUCCESSORS."

HOtV THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 159
" Haereticos, schismaticos, et rebelles eidem Domino
nostro, vel Successoribus praedictis pro posse persequar,
et impugnabo."
What would the Roman Catholic Church say if the
ministers of any Protestant denomination were to make
such a vow at their ordination ? What a cry there
would be of bigotry and oppression 1 But because all
this, and a great many other things, are not suspected
by unsuspicious Protestants who, not doing these things
themselves, never dream that they are done by Romanists,
and because the' sarae Romanists very wisely use the
Latin tongue to conceal their deeds of evil, they can
afford to lie about their teachings, and thereby deceive
the world at large. Let it be remembered that it is a part
of the teaching of the Roman Church that faith need not
be kept with Protestants under any circumstance what
ever ; and let Protestants who know these things beware
lest God shall call them to a terrible account, at the last
day, for supporting such a system of lies and imposture.
Again, be it remembered that Roman Catholics are
bound, not by what they raay say in society, or to con
verts who are too often, as I was myself, easily deceived,
having no suspicion of even the possibility of such false
hood. The Roraan priests and bishops are bound by
the dogmatic teaching of their Church, and we have a
right to judge them by that teaching, and by it only.
A man has no right to refuse to be judged or bound
by the laws of the Church to which he belongs, above
all in the case of the Church of Rome.
The subject is one of so much iraportance, that I
give the following extracts from St. Thoraas Aquinas,
and be it reraerabered that he is no obsolete authority,
he is still the "angel of the schools," and the great

i6o INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
authority in all matters of theological teaching in the
Roman Church. What he says, Rome says ; for Rome
has put the seal of her strongest approbation on his
teaching, and the present Pope has especially approved
it. " Though heretics must not be tolerated because they
deserved it, we must bear with thera till, by a second
adraonition, they may be brought back to the faith of
the Church. But those who, after a second admonition,
remain obstinate in their errors, must not only be
excoraraunicated, but they must be delivered to the
secular power to be exterminated." ("St. Thomas
Aquinas," p. 90.)
At p. 91 he says: — "Though heretics who repent
must always be accepted to penance as often as they
have fallen, they raust not, in consequence of that,
alwaysbeperraittedtoenjoy the benefits of this life. . . .
When they fall again they are admitted to repent. . , .
But the sentence of death must not be removed."
Later on in the same article aU dealings with heretics
are positively forbidden.
The Council of Lateran, held in 1215, decreed as
follows : —
" We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy
that exalts itself against the holy orthodox and Catholic
faith, condemning all heretics, by whatever name they
may be known ... for though their faces differ, they are
tied together by their tails. Such as are condemned
are to be delivered over to the existing secular powers
to receive due punishment. If laymen, their goods must
be confiscated ; if priests, they shall be degraded from
their respective orders, and their property applied to the

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. l6l
use of the Church in which they officiated. Secular
powers of all ranks and degrees are to be warned,
induced, and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical
censures to swear that they will exert themselves to the
utmost in defence of the faith, and extirpate all heretics
denounced by the Church who shall be found in their
territories. And whenever any person shall assume
government, whether it be spiritual or temporal, he
shall be bound to abide by this decree.
" If any temporal lord, after having been admonished
and required by the Church, shall neglect to clear his
territory of heretical depravity, the Metropolitan and
Bishop of the province shall unite in excommunicating
him. Should he remain contumacious a whole year
the fact shall be signified to the Supreme Pontiff, who
shall declare his vassals released from their allegiance
fr-om that time, and will bestow his territory on Catholics,
to be occupied by them on the condition of exterminat
ing the heretics, and preserving the said territory in the
faith. " Catholics who shall assume the cross for the exter
mination of heretics shall enjoy the sarae indulgences,
and be protected by the same privileges, as are granted
to those who go to the help of the Holy Land."
And with all these stern realities, and the fact before
the eyes of the whole world, that the present Pope has
endorsed the conduct of his predecessor in burning
heretics, we yet find the following in the New York
World:— " When the Pope of Rome celebrated his jubilee
about a year ago there were sent to him no congratula
tions, from any source, more cordial than many which
II

i63 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
had a Protestant origin. This fact did not indicate any
tendency of Protestantism towards Romanism (?) ; but
it showed that the personal character of the sovereign
Pontiff commanded respect, even affection, from many
Christians who entirely decline to sanction his ecclesias
tical claims. Understood in that sense, a hearty con
currence may be given to what Cardinal Ryan said
at the recent anniversary dinner of the Catholic Club
in Philadelphia, 'Many Protestants who have met
the Pope, while not religiously Catholic, are personally
Papists.' "
If these men who are not "religiously Catholic,"
but are "personally Papists," are not prepared to be
altogether personally, relatively, and absolutely Papists,
they will meet with the same fate as Bruno, as soon as
Rome can inflict it, and all their previous concessions
and liberality will not save them.
But Rome distinguishes "infallibly" in the matter
of secret societies. Why indeed should she not do so,
v/hen she claims that all power has been given to her,
in heaven and in earth ? The world has rung with the
story of the shameful murder of Dr. Cronin. What has
Rome to say about this matter ? It would be wise if
those who are so sure that Rome is the friend of law
and order would read the signs of the times, and see
for themselves the conditions under which she assists
to keep or break the public peace.
The history of the way in which the Knights of
Labour have been and are controlled by the Church
of Rome is well worthy of the consideration of those
who would read the signs of the times. This organisa
tion has no religious or political standing or aims. It
is simply a body of men united for the purpose of mutual

HOW IHE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 163
advantage, and for the protection of their own com
mercial interests. Scarcely had this organisation been
formed when the "Church" interfered. The head of
the organisation, Mr. Powderly, is a more or less devout
Roman Catholic ; and this fact of course gave the Church
the much-desired thin end of the wedge. But it is per
fectly amazing, and it is an undeniable evidence of the
power of the Roman Church in America, that a body of
men who are a non-religious organisation should be
obUged to place themselves slavishly at the feet of the
Pope. If anything could open the eyes of the Pro
testant people of America to the danger to the Republic,
from the aggressions of Rome, this most certainly should
do so.
Although Mr. Powderly had the talent to organise,
and even to control his organisation, he was a child in
the hands of the " Church." To her mandates he was
required to bow down abjectly, and he did bow down.
No doubt he was made aware of the inevitable conse
quences of doing otherwise. Now it should be again
observed that the Knights of Labour are not a Roman
Catholic organisation ; at least they were not, and were
never intended to be such in their inception. A large
minority, if not a fair majority, are Protestants. What
matter? They also must bow to Rome, and they
have done so. The inner secret of the power of Rome
over this organisation will probably never be known,
but quite enough has been made public. Possibly Mr.
Powderly was threatened with the loss of his power
in the organisation if he did not obey orders. Rome
has more ways of enforcing her commands than men
suppose, who do not know her inner workings. She
can make herself felt from the throne to the hovel, and
she does make herself felt. Not for the Welfare of

i64 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
ihe people — for what people have ever prospered under
her rule ? — but for the supposed advancement of the
Church. Not for the advancement of the kingdom of
Christ, for He has distinctly condemned her in advance,
when He said, " My kingdom is not of this world ; " and
her whole desire is to rule the kingdoms of the world.
Whatever may have been the raotive or cause of
Mr. Powderly's degrading submission, there is no doubt
about the fact. It is possible to understand his action in
the matter, but how can we account for the submission
of a large body of men who are not Roman Catholics ?
The heads of the Church of Rome in America, in view
of this, and many such evidences of their power, raay
well boast in Rome that they have the people of
America under their feet. Iraagine for one moment a
body of English working men submitting the rules of
their organisation to the Pope for his approval, and
waiting in abject submission tUl he was pleased to set
the seal of his approval on them. It was said at the
time, and I believe with truth, that if Powderly had
held out and refused to submit the rules of the society,
Rome would have succumbed. She always knows just
how far she can go, and she very seldom risks going
farther. She has on her side American men of capital
who work for her, and with her, in the fond delusion
that she will protect the millionaire, her kingdom and
interests being like his, of the world. But the
millionaire, if he took time to read history, would soon
learn that the expected protection will be withdrawn
when the Church of Rome becomes strong enough to
crush him, as well as the working man. Millionaires
are generally willing to give a tithe of their wealth to
protect the rest ; and no doubt the rich employers of
America are only too well pleased to have the working

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 165
men who belong to the Knights of Labour under the
control of Rome.
As the matter is of such importance, we give the
facts from a Roman Catholic paper, the New York
Freeman's foumal, which now dispenses the dynamite
of the Church under the editorship of Pat Ford, whose
name has become notorious as the advocate of material
dynamite. The following is the letter of the Cardinal Prefect
of the sacred congregation to Cardinal Gibbons, em
bodying its decree in regard to the American Knights
of Labour : — " Rome, August zr^th, 1888.
" Most Eminent and Most Rev. Lord, — I have to
inform your Eminence that the fresh documents relative
to the society of the Knights of Labour, which have
been laid before the Sacred Congregation, were ex
amined at its meeting held on Thursday, August i6th,
of the current year.
" Having carefully studied these docuraents, the
Sacred Congregation orders that this reply be made : —
That, judging by all that has hitherto been proposed
to it, the Knights of Labour may for the present be
tolerated. The Sacred Congregation only requires that
the necessary corrections be made in the statutes of the
organisation, in order to explain what might otherwise
appear to be obscure, or be interpreted in a wrong
sense. The modifications should especially be made in
those passages of the preamble of the rules which refer
to local association ; the words which in these passages
savour of socialism and communism must be corrected
in such a manner as to make them express simply the
right given by God to man, or rather to mankind, to

1 66 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
acquire by legitimate means, respecting always the
rights of property enjoyed by every one.
"I am happy to be able to inform your Eminence
that the Sacred Congregation has praised highly the
resolve of the Bishops of the United States to take
heed, in concert with itself, lest there creep into the
society of the Knights of Labour, and other simUar
organisations, anything contrary to justice and honesty,
or not in conformity with the instructions given as tc
the Masonic sect.
" In confirming and supporting you in this excellent
project, in the name of the Sacred Congregation I pray
you to accept the assurance of our respectful and
devoted sentiraents.
" Your Eminence's very humble servant,
" John Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect.
"To His Erainence Cardinal James Gibbons, Arch
bishop of Baltimore"
The New York Sun published the condemnation, by
the Tribunal of the Roman Inquisition, of the doctrine
proposed by Mr. Henry George, abolishing private
property in land, and giving the further direction that,
if the Society of the Knights of Labour would be toler
ated by the Roman Catholic Church, they raust correct
any expression of agreement with the views of Mr.
George. The following letter from Cardinal Gibbons
to Archbishop Elder of Cincinnati was the result : —
" Cardinal's Residence,
" 408, N. Charles St., Baltimore, September z^th.
" Your Grace, — On receipt of the letter of which the
enclosed is a copy, I wrote to Mr. Powderly requesting
him to come and see me. He came on the 24th inst

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 167
in compUance with my invitation, and cheerfully
promised to make the emendations required by the
Holy Office, and expressed his readiness to comply at
all times with the wishes of the ecclesiastical authorities,
Very faithfully your friend in Christ. "J. Card. Gibbons.
" Most Rev. Dr. Elder, Abp., Cincinnati."
But this is not all. Would it be believed that a set
of Roman Cardinals, not one of whom, as I can testify
from my own personal knowledge, can read one word
of English, could have the impertinence to tell the
EngUsh-speaking and English-thinking men of the
great American Republic that their organisation " raay
be tolerated for the present " ? Nothing can be done
until certain words, of which these Cardinals do not
understand one single sentence in the language in
which they are written, are altered to suit their pleasure.
And this in the nineteenth century I If such things
can be done now, no statement of the claims of the
Church, or of the abject submission of the people to it
in the Middle Ages, should surprise us. Indeed there
was a good deal more resistance to Rome then than
now. Talk of the exaction and tyrannies of Imperial
Rome towards her colonies; they were as nothing
compared to the demands and exactions of modern
Papal Rome. The Inquisition is practically established
now in America, as Cardinal Gibbons plainly states, for
the " Holy Office," to which he refers in the above
letter, is one of the names of the Inquisition. For
the present it "tolerates;" it wiU burn whenever it
wUl be safe to burn. It should be observed that in
aU this business of regulating American affairs there is
not one word of reference to the opinions of the people

i68 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
of America. As for the Government, it is simply
ignored. It is a matter of no account.
But if Rome exercises her power over the govern
ment of America, and dictates to the American working
man just how far he may go in claiming his rights, and
just what words he may use in his charters of incorpo
ration, there are Societies with which Rome does not
interfere, partly because she dare not, partly because
she knows that the time may come when she can make
use of these societies for her own advancement.
The Clan-na-Gael goes on her murderous way with
the full approval and blessing of the "holy" Roman
Catholic Church. Certainly it is a very blessed thing
for this world to be a " faithful child " of holy Churcli.
If you have private or public grudges, and want to
avenge them, you need not fear, if you submit to the
Church in essentials, that you will find any interference
with your plans in such trivial matters. I am serious ;
the subject is far too serious for jest. I am stating facts ;
and the fact that these facts are startUng, should not
blind us to them or to their consequences. I do not
ask any one to take my word for these assertions. The
case is before the public. When has the Church of Rome
said one word, in America, to censure the Clan-na-Gael,
or any other Irish secret assassination society? If
anything has been said it has been in so low a whisper
tliat no one has caught the sound.
The truth is, that Rome dare not interfere with the
secret societies of the Irish people. It is only Pro
testant societies which she rules and regulates. The
determined attitude which the Irish have taken against
any interference of Rome in their political affairs has
had its due effect. Rome cannot do without Ireland ;
above all, it cannot do without the Irish people in

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 169
America, and Rome acts accordingly. The facts are
before the public. I do no more than to draw public
attention to what already exists.
A short time since. Father Murphy of Kilmeen,
Ireland, was sentenced to four months imprisonment
for violating the law, in connection with the eviction
of one of his parishioners. He appealed against the
sentence, and after a long and careful hearing the case
was fully proved against him. The magistrate, anxious
not to offend the " priest " (an easy offence to commit,
the consequences of which are well known to all those
who administer justice in Ireland), offered to remit the
penalty if the priest would apologise, and promise to
refrain from such conduct in the future. But the priest
would do nothing of the kind. He knew too well the
value of an imprisonment, and the capital it would make
for him when his sentence was ended. But what of
the Pope ? Never a word is said in approval, no matter
how mUd, of all this ; it is only the Protestant institu-
tons of America which come under the personal control
of Rome, and whose members must submit to have
even the very wording of their rules criticised and
altered as the Pope pleases.
The very idea of denouncing in any way the Clan-na-
Gael murders has been laughed to scorn by Archbishop
Corrigan's organ, the New York Freeman's Journal,
I give the very words of the paper : —
" For real cheek and presumption, evidently begotten
of ignorance, we commend the editorial of the New
York Press, in which the Catholic Church is asked to
thunder from its pulpits against its miscreants guilty of
the deed."
Of course it would not do to approve too openly ofthe
assassination of Dr. Cronin, who seems to have been the

170 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
only practical Catholic of the lot, and who from that point
of view should have had some claim to the sympathy,
if not the protection of his Cljurch. But the Clan-na-
Gael are too powerful a body to be offended, and too
many of its members are implicated in this disgraceful
affair, to admit of the condemnation of the society as a
whole. But let it be supposed for a moment that the
Knights of Labour had assassinated a member of that
body, and above all if that member had been a Romanist,
what torrents of righteous indignation would have been
poured forth on the leaders, and on every member of
the organisation. Rome is fine at virtuous indignation
when the shortcomings of other people are concerned,
or when there is political capital to be made out of the
condemnation of her own chUdren.
Rome is wiser in her generation than the children of
Ught. Why should not the Papal Church "thunder
from her pulpits " against the evildoers who are her
children ? But see how gently these men are spoken
of; they are only " miscreants." Perhaps these very
" miscreants " have sat at the feet of the editor of this
paper, and learned from him the doctrine of spreading
the lurid light of assassination. "Spread the light."
Send dynamite to blow up the "English enemy." KiU ;
destroy. Let innocent men be murdered with the so-
called guilty; no matter. The innocent must suffer
sometimes, even in legalised war. This was the teach
ing of the " Spread the Light " paper, stUl, we believe,
owned by the editor and proprietor of the New York
Freeman's Journal, the leading Roman Catholic paper
in that city. No wonder the editor treats the Chicago
murderers as men and brothers ; they are merely " mis
creants," a mUd word, which may be used in jest even
to describe some boyish freak. Why should the Catho-

HOW IHE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 171
lie Church be asked to denounce these devoted sons of
Ireland and of Rome ? One Cronin more or less ; what
matter, when the thousands who are left have to be
considered, and the political influence which they wield ?
Truly of such are tlie kingdom of earth ; what matter
about the kingdom of heaven ? Here is the opinion of
Archbishop Corrigan, for no paper under his authority
would dare make any statement contrary to his
will. We give another paragraph from this official organ
of the Roman Church, and let there be no mistake on
these subjects. If the Pope with one word could stop
the circulation of the Bible in France, he could as easily
have stopped the circulation of the dynamite Irish
World in New York. It is easy to prevent the circu
lation of the Bible, but to say a word to the editor of a
powerful paper, like the New York Freeman's Journal,
is quite another matter.
"The Chicago Clan-na-Gael revelations is a bad
business for all concerned, as well as for the cause in
whose name the actors are supposed to have worked ;
but there may be some good in the lesson taught by it,
that will compensate for the chagrin which all true
friends of Ireland must feel over the sad affair."
All true friends of Ireland must feel " chagrined,"
and it is a " sad affair ; " and this is all the holy Catholic
Church, as represented by Archbishop Corrigan, has to
say of a foul and brutal murder. It is not unfair to
suggest that the " chagrin " (a curious word to use in
describing the utter abhorrence which every true
Christian should have for such deeds) may be, not
because the murder was committed, but because it
was found out; and it is worthy of note that the
writer thinks that " the good in the lesson " will com-

172 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
pensate for the sad little affair of the murder. What
words are these for Christian men to use unreproved,
and in the name of the Roman Church, which claims
such exceptional holiness !
But there are many reasons for the quiet condone-
ment of any evil which the Clan-na-Gael may do. The
Clan-na-Gael is rich, and Rome has a supreme respect
for wealth. She craves money as no other Christian
community ever craved it, and she works for it as no
other Christian community ever has worked for it.
She is far too wise to risk the loss of money, or of the
friendship and support of those who have it, and who
may find it to their interest to have the shield of her
protection thrown over their evil deeds. Here is a state
ment worth the careful attention of those who may wish
to know just how the Roman Catholic Church stands
in this matter : —
" F. W. Dunne, a leading Chicago Irishman, who was
expelled from Camp No. i6, Clan-na-gael, for charging
Alexander SuUivan in 1882 with using ^85,000 of the
funds of the organisation in paying his debts, is out
with a statement. He says : —
" ' The present strength of the organisation is
22,000, and it has been in existence for twenty-two
years. To estimate the numerical strength of the
organisation one-half its present strength will be
moderate. Yearly dues, 1 1,000 raen at $6, $66,000 ; for twenty-
two years  |i, 542,000
Initiation fees, 1 1,000 men at $2 . . . . 22,000
New raembers, to fill vacancies, 2 1, ooo per annum,
at %2 each  42,000
Special calls, twenty-two years, say five calls, aver
aging 5:5 per head, or 55,000 for each call . . 275,000

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE, 173
Brought forward $1,881,000
Annual picnics, say $40,000 per annum, or $100 for
4C0 camps, for twenty-two years . , . 880,000
Sltirmishing fund, obtained by Ford and Rossa . 103,000

Total 2,864,000

Deduct hall rent, say 400 camps at $100 per year,
for twenty-two years  880,000

Total $1,984,000
" ' You will see,' continued Mr. Dunne, ' what a haul
the Triangle has had. I content myself with making
this statement. I challenge Alexander Sullivan, or
Father Dorney, to disapprove anything I say. The
courts are open to the forraer if I libel him. As a
Catholic, I wUl appear before the Archbishop to prove
everjrthing I say against Maurice J. Dorney as a
priest.' " Father Dorney, the associate of SuUivan and Egan,
is being denounced on all sides. It will be remembered
that he was appointed to examine Sullivan's accounts,
and he pronounced them all straight, after the money
had disappeared. And now the Clan-na-Gael demands
his ' removal ' (not as Cronin was removed, however)
by the Archbishop. A telegram from Chicago says :
'Clan-na-Gael, Camp No 52, United Brotherhood, held
a special meeting on Saturday night, at Forty-Second
and Halsted Streets. It was an important meeting in
many respects. The object was to discuss the part
taken by the Rev. Father Dorney in the Cronin matter,
and also his denial of the fact that he is a Clan-na-Gael,
and that he was, if he is not now, a member of Camp 16.
When these charges were first made against Alexander
Sullivan by Dr. Cronin, Camp No. 17, which then met
at Fourty-Fourth and Halsted Streets in the Town of

174 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
Lake, demanded an investigation. Dorney acquitted
Sullivan of aU sharp practice.' "
If a Protestant clergyman of any denomination had
even been named in such a connection, what an outcry
there would have been in every Roman Catholic paper
all over the world.
The Pope has certainly denounced assassinations
and outrages now and then in Ireland, under pressure
from the English Government. But he changed the
subject, with a promptness which would be amusing
if the matter was not so serious, when he found that
the Irish people would cut off the supplies if they were
interfered with. All the world knows that it has taken
all Archbishop Walsh's tact and popularity to keep the
peace between the " faithful " Irish and the Pope.
Indeed nothing could well be more undignified than the
Papal proceedings in this matter. But to interfere with
the free right of the Irish American, to assassinate
any one who is pleased to denounce fraud, is quite
another affair. And yet there are Protestants, and
Protestant capitalists, who think that the Church of
Rome will protect them from the " mob " if they extend
their protection to the Pope's representatives in America.
When the Pope has not been able or has not been
wUling, to protect Irish men of honour like Dr. Cronin
of his own communion, and Irish landlords, Protestant
or Romanist, from assassination, the American millionaire
might know that he will find himself deserted when he
most needs help.
It is interesting and instructive to observe who the
men are whom Rome delights to honour. The New
York World, a paper which cannot be charged with
any anti-Romanist sympathies, has the following

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 17?
paragraph. It might have added one more to the " two
great" and good men, all devoted Roman CatholicS, of
whom America is so justly (?) proud, and who are so
much honoured by the Roman Church. Sullivan, the
iceman, who is accused of the Cronin murder, has been
no doubt accidentally omitted.

"The United States of America has two great
Sullivans. One knocked a man down, and shot him
dead as he was rising. An American judge held that,
having been knocked down, the man would naturally be
angry, and might desire to injure Sullivan ; therefore
the shooting was done in self-defence.

The same paper adds significantly : —
" Labouchere says Sullivan had nothing to do with
the Cronin murder. Davitt says the same thing, and
Pat Ford says ditto. How do they know ? If they
are positive that Sullivan had nothing to do with it, it
may not be too much to say that they must know who
had." Pat Ford, it will be remembered, is the — we had
almost said infallible — successor of the late Dr.
Brownson, and of Mr. Egan (not the dynamiter, but
a namesake), promoted to Chili regions, who is now
teaching the young idea how to — well, suppose we say
shoot, in one ol the many Roman Catholic "Uni-

176 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
versities " in this happy land. But what matter ?
Are they not all faithful sons of the '" Church " ? And if
they are not prepared to live for it, they will be ready,
when called on, to fight for it, which is of far more
consequence. Decent men like Cronin could only
live for their faith, and are not worth counting or
encouraging. After all, it is far 'better, in the Church of Rome, to
be a murderer than a heretic. There is no chance for
the heretic, but for the murderer there is every hope,
especially if he belongs to any powerful body of men
who cannot be interfered with without dangerous con
sequences. Bishop Foley thus disposes of heretics : —
On the 31st of December, 1869, Right Rev. Bishop
Foley of Chicago swore before the civil court at
Kankakee, that the following sentence was an exact
translation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome, as
taught to-day in all the- Roman Catholic seminaries,
colleges, and universities, through the " Summa Theolo
gica " of Thomas Aquinas (vol. iv., p. 90) : — " Though
heretics must not be tolerated because they deserve it,
we must bear with them, till by a second admonition
they may be brought back to the faith of the Church.
But those who, after a second admonition, remain
obstinate to their errors, must not only be excommuni
cated, but they must be delivered to the secular power
to be exterminated."
A priest in New York diocese was threatened with
all sorts of ecclesiastical pains and penalties, if he
assisted rae in any way in my efforts to help emigrant
girls, though the work had been specially approved by
the Pope. But to be a Sullivan, and a slogger, is quite
aiiother affair. Priests are quite at liberty to follow

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. \11
their inclinations, and to show all honour to the " big
fellow." We are informed in the New York World
that :—
" Father Bonlow, the pastor of the little Roman
Catholic Church in Belfast, is about the only regular
visitor. He doesn't bother the boys talking about
theological matters, and Muldoon gives him $100 a
year for the Church, and they call it square. The
priest likes to go over in the lounging room Muldoon
has fitted up in the stable, where John L  pounds
the bags, wrestles, has his baths and is rubbed down.
Slogging, wrestling, and episodes of the ring generally
are the favourite topics of conversation, and Father
Bonlow can give points to many sportsmen on these
subjects." It is indeed difficult to know what the " Church "
will not "square " if the money to square with is only
forthcoming. Happy Sullivan to fight under such
blessed auspices 1 But we are also told that his
pugilistic opponent, Kilrain, was by no means behind
in the race for priestly favour. He, too, had the
"special blessing" of the Holy Catholic Church. And
Sullivan was met and blessed by priests on his way
to the brutal exhibition, where he did such honour to
his faith and country, as a prize fighter.
In a report from Ottawa, published in the New York
World, the Deputy Minister of Justice says : —
" The American people are now beginning to realize
the dangerous element they have among them in the
Clan-na-Gael society, the influence of which society
defeated the Extradition Bill in the United States
Senate, The Dominion Government has evidence that
12

178 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
this society a year or so ago had planned the destruction
of the Parliament buildings here and the assassination
of Lord Lansdowne, then Governor-General. We
discovered the plot, and frustrated their murderous
designs ; and it is hardly to be wondered that any
member of the society against whom there are strong
evidences of complicity in murder should not expect
much leniency from the executive at Ottawa."
It is strange if the Government at Ottawa is aware
of the guilt of the Clan-na-Gael, and knows what a
menace it is to society, that the Roman Church should
have such warm supporters in that country.
Here is the history of another good Catholic, with
whose career the Church seeras quite satisfied. Is it
any wonder that Roman Catholic young men with any
self-respect are beginning to be asharaed of their
Church, as a writer in the (Roman Catholic) Richmond
Visitor declares ? The editor of that paper says : —
"The want of due respect for the clergy is very
noticeable among our young people. Among the boys
especially is this lack of courtesy most marked.
Young men fail or refuse to recognise their own pastor
on the street. Young boys will hide and seek to avoid
meeting with their parish priest. This is not right.
It could not fail to discourage the most sanguine priest
were such a thing possible. It must certainly render
his work less pleasant, to feel that those in whom he is
most interested, endeavour to shun him on the streets.
It is all foolishness to think that the priest does not
know them. He has nothing else to think of but those
entrusted to his care. Young people, respect your
clergy ; by so doing you will respect yourselves."
The bishop of the diocese where there is such a

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. 179
lamentable state of things as that described above is
the right Rev. Dr. Keane, the present Rector of the
new Roman Catholic university in Washington. It
¦will be interesting to see if he will be able to secure all
the respect he desires, from the young men whom he
expects to graduate in his university. If he could not
obtain for himself and his priests even the common
courtesies of life in his own diocese, and when they
were under his own pastoral control, and taught in his
own schools, it is scarcely to be expected that he will
fare better with others. But what a revelation this is
of the inner life of the Roman Church.
The Roman Church professes to rule for God ; the
result of her rule shows that she rules for the devil.
Everywhere that she has obtained power there is the
same record of violence and crime. Look at Ireland.
Look at New York and Chicago. In these places Rome
has more power than in any other country in the world;
and what is the result? As regards Ireland, I will
speak later and give facts which cannot be disputed.
As regards New York, the records of the police courts
ought to make every honest Romanist blush for shame.
Gangs of ruffians with Irish naraes, which tell their
nationality, and with medals or scapulars which tell
their creed, make certain parts of New York hideous
with crime. And what does the Church of Rome do
for their improvement? An Irish judge has stated
lately that he sentences from ten to fifteen thousand
criminals every year in New York, and there are few
indeed of these who are not members of the "holy'
Catholic Church. God help thera! I do not here say
one word of reproach to the Irish for Irish crime ; but
I do say, in the words of the late Dr. Moriarty, that
eternity wiU not be long enough, nor hell hot enough.

i8o INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
to punish those who have deliberately deceived these
unhappy people.
I might fill the present work and volumes more if I
gave anything like a history of Irish crime in New York,
simply taking the facts from the daily papers. I have
a personal knowledge of the workings of some of the
Roman Catholic institutions in New York. Protestants
who do not inquire into details, and who do not know
facts, are lost in amazement at the number of charitable
institutions which are supported (as they think) by the
Roman Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, they are
supported to a great extent by Protestants, who are
taxed — and obliged to pay the tax, too — for the support
of these institutions ; whose existence would not be
necessary if the poor Roman Catholics were taught to
believe in the Gospel, instead of the Papal Church.
Sometimes these men commit murder too openly to be
shielded by the Church, or by the saloon keepers, who
are in such high favour with the Romish bishops.
The Roman Catholic Church obtained her great foot
hold in the United States after the civil war. However
priests may quarrel with each other, and even with
their bishops, they always unite in the most extravagant
laudations of their Church. During the war the sisters
did good service with other ladies in nursing the sick.
The Roman Church, wise as the serpent, has kept before
the public, and worked it for all it was worth. The
Americans are a generous people, and they responded
to the appeals which were made after the war, on behalf
of the sisters, promptly and largely. The thin edge of
the wedge was got in well, and Rome knows how to
keep it there. It was made to appear a crime of the
first magnitude to refuse a " sister " anything, and the
charm has worked till to-day. It has become now a

HOW THE POPE WAS MADE INFALLIBLE. i8i
political necessity. At Washington no politician, no
matter who is President of the United States, dares
to refuse the tax which the sisters go round to collect
every month, or oftener. Picture to yourself sisters
being allowed to visit the British Museum, WhitehaU,
the Houses of Parliament, and all the public and
private offices of London every month, and demana
money, and then you can understand the state of
affairs in " free Araerica." In fact, the country is very
far from being free in many respects, and it is a mere
question of time when it will be bound hand and foot
by Rome.
But why are all these public appeals necessary?
The sisters who educate are well provided for. They
charge very large fees for educating the rich, and they
are splendidly paid for educathig the poor. The
amount of public money which is bestowed on the
Roman Catholic convents in Araerica would hardly be
credited ; and what is the result ? Far from decreasing
crime it increases. Here is a case. Lizzie Ahearn
comes from Ireland, and is living out in New York.
She has a child ; she gets ill, and cannot provide for it.
It is taken from her to the New York Roman Catholic
FoundUng Asylum, which is a favourite institution with
the New York Archbishop, who is loud in his praise
of the foundress. Sister Irene. I tried to establish
institutions to prevent crime, but that was a crime, and
I was pursued by all sorts of ecclesiastical opposition.
But to establish a place where crime can be rewarded,
and where it can be practicaUy encouraged, is a great
virtue ; and the sister who undertook to care for the
Ulegitimate chUdren of New York Roman CathoUcs, has
a high place in the estimation of Archbishop Corrigan
and his clergy, and no doubt they do well to be grateful

i82 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

To me it seemed that to have looked after this friend
less emigrant girl, and to have protected her on her
arrival in this country, would have been a far more
meritorious work than to have provided for her when
she fell.

CHAPTER IX.
THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE TEACHING
OF THE CHURCH.
" Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of raen, that
tum from the truth." — ^Titus i. 14.
THE vital difference between the Roman Catholic
reUgion and the Protestant is simply this. The
Protestant relies on the Scripture as the first, and the
last, court of appeal in deciding controversy. The
Romanist, on the contrary, looks to the Church as the
only court of appeal. The Romanist justifies his exclu
sive appeal to the Church on the ground that the
Church has been appointed by Divine commission to
teach all nations, and therefore if there is a difference
between the Church and the Bible, the Church must
decide, as it is above the Bible, And the Romanists
enforce their claim on the ground that Protestants
have so many different opinions, all taken from the
Bible, that obviously the Bible cannot be intended
to teach us what to believe, as its meaning may be so
variously interpreted.
This argument, like many similar ones, looks very
plausible until it is thoroughly sifted. In the first
place, Protestants are all agreed on the plan of salva
tion, which rests on Christ alone. Roman Catholics have
many plans of salvation, which rest on many sources
and saviours. It is very much to be regretted that

i84 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
Protestants in their controversies with Romanists do
not know what a large latitude is given to the Church
in the matter of truth. Priests who are trained to
evasion make statements — I had almost said uncon
sciously — without due regard for truth. The Roman
Catholic laity know very little about their own religion,
and they know worse than nothing about the Protestant
reUgion; hence arises one great difficulty in arguing
with a Romanist. Its chief value is to make him
think, which is certainly a great gain.
A Romanist who has been taught to believe that a
Protestant has no real religion is amazed when he comes
into contact with Protestants, and finds that they are
Christians, and that far from not believing in God, they
only desire that their Roman Catholic brethren should
believe in Him aright. Once a Romanist is convinced
that he has been deceived, the way is opened for his
further enlightenment ; but it is difficult indeed to make
him doubt the sincerity or the honesty of his teachers,
a point which should never be forgotten.
Protestants, then, should remember that the Roman
Catholic laity, when discussing religion with them, are
honest as far as they know ; but they should remember
also that Roraan CathoUcs are deceived themselves on
the most iniportant points. Take, for example, the per
mission to read the Bible. The Romanists, in controversy
with a Protestant friend, will declare most positively
that the Church does not forbid the unrestrained
reading of the Bible, and the Protestant who is
sincere himself, will not suspect that the Romanist is
himself ignorant ofthe true teaching of his Church. Yet
such is the case. There has been an evidence of this
quite recently on an important subject.
A French Roman Catholic gentleman, very famous

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 185
as the author of a work on Lourdes, where an apparition
of the Blessed Virgin was said to have taken place
some years since, published a French translation of the
Bible. It was certainly a bold step to commence such
a work, but his position seemed almost unassailable.
He obtained the highest approval from the Pope in
writing, as well as from his own ecclesiastical superiors.
The book was selling by hundreds of thousands, when
all at once the crash came without previous warning.
The book was forbidden by the same infallible
authority which had so lately commended and ap
proved it. Certainly it is a great thing to be a Pope,
for a Pope, and a Pope alone, has the privilege of having
half-a-dozen infallible minds, all equally warranted to
be the truest, and each is looked upon, by his deluded
followers, as inspired by the Holy Ghost. If the
consequences of this to millions of the human race
were not so infinitely sad it would be very amusing.
As it is, it is too near tears for laughter. How any one
with common sense, which is even approaching sound
and sane, can fail to see the folly of all this, can only be
explained on the Scripture statement that God sends
some persons a strong delusion, so that they will
believe a lie. It is noteworthy, too, that those who so
easily accept the lies of Rome are too often of the very
class on whora this judgment of believing a lie is
predicted. They are those who have " pleasure in un
righteousness," men who bow down to Rome because
she fosters their pride by promising them wealth,
political distinction, and social advancement.
It is, as we have said, quite necessary for the Pope
to be infallible, and it is extremely convenient. No
matter what he teaches it is right ; it is, so he vainly
thinks, the voice of God which speaks. At one moment

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

this voice may sanction incest, and at the next moment
reprove it. One day he may permit the circulation of
the Bible, and at the next he may forbid its circulation.
What an easy time a Pope has ! So infallible are his
utterances, that no matter how often he may change
his opinions, no one dare say that he is mistaken.
And let it be remembered that this is no fancy picture,
or exaggerated statement of mine.
What a contrast between the teaching of the Apostles
and the teaching of Rome. The modern successor of
the Apostles gives his most powerful support to the
circulation of a book of miracles written in honour of
the Blessed Virgin. The people may read this, but the
book which contains the history of the miracles and
the Gospel of Christ is forbidden. Ought not this fact,
which is too public for denial, to convince the world of
the unchristian character of the teaching of the Church
of Rome ? But it is necessary that Protestants at least
should be deceived as to the real teaching of Rome.
This is not a difficult matter. They meet a Cardinal
in society ; to them he is all courtesy and affability. He
seems such a " nice fellow," no nonsense about him.
They do not doubt his sincerity. Why should he say
one thing to them, and say another in private ? Why,
indeed, except that the Church to which he belongs
finds it convenient to deceive you, and even prevent
you from having the least suspicion that you are
being deceived ?
There has been a considerable stir made about
this sudden and very decided suppression of the Bible
in France. People say, " Here is another evidence
that the Church of Rome will not allow the Bible to
be read," so it is necessary to prepare a little nice
ecclesiastical dust to throw in the eyes of the public ;

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 187
and who is better fitted to do this than the courtly
mannered, if humbly born, Cardinal of Baltimore ? He
will be believed, and Ustened to, if others are not. But
how little his hearers know that when the Cardinal goes
into the pulpit in his cathedral, and tells every one to
read the Bible, he leaves the ink scarcely dry on the
paperwhereon he has written for publication these words :
"God never intended the Bible to be the Christian
rule of faith, independently of the living authority of the
Church " (Cardinal Gibbons' " Faith of our Fathers ").
In this work, which has been written not only for
Roman Catholics but for Protestants, there is one
entire chapter devoted to the uselessness of the Bible.
In fact, according to this veracious Cardinal, the Bible
was only written to be a snare to us, and the less we
have to do with it the better. Certainly it is a dangerous
book when it is used to oppose Rome, for it is very
plainly against her claims. It would seem that instead
of the Holy Scriptures having been written to make us
wise unto salvation (2 Tim. iii. 4), they are likely to
become a trap to ensnare our souls. The Cardinal's
contention in his book is briefly this. The Jews did
not consult their Scriptures in order to make them wise
unto salvation ; they referred, not to the Scriptures,
but to the high-priests for decisions. In proof of this
statement the Cardinal quotes Deut. xvii. 8, a passage
which clearly refers to ordinary events, or rather to the
extraordinary events of life, in which case the Jews
were told to apply for advice to the priests. The Jews,
he said, did not want the Scriptures, and why should
Christians want them ?
It does seem as if there must be a strong motive
in this constant depreciation of Scripture. It does not
seem to matter that St. Paul commended Timothy for

1 88 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
studying the Holy Scriptures from the time he was a
child. The Cardinal asserts that " Jesus himself never
wrote a word of Scripture." To reply to this blas
phemous insinuation would seem alraost unnecessary.
It is quite true that Jesus did not write any part of the
Bible, but we know that the Bible contains His very
words ; and it is alraost too horrible to find a man who
professes the Christian religion quibbling over such
statements. Alas ! the words of Jesus, we must fear,
are of very little moment to this dignitary of the
Roman Church in comparison with the words of his
Church. In an age of agnosticism and doubt the very
words of Jesus Christ Himself are treated as of no
moment, and that by one who professes to be a Chris
tian, and who is constantly denouncing Protestants for
inconsistency. The outcome of his whole argument is the utter
worthlessness of the Bible. If it is only to be inter
preted by the Church, and if the laity are not capable,
no matter whether ignorant or learned, of understand
ing it, one wonders why it was written. As a fact, the
Church has never given an infallible explanation of a
single chapter of the Bible. After this we cannot be
surprised that so m.any of the nations, over whom the
Church of Rome once had unlimited control, have
become infidel. I can only marvel that this chapter
in Cardinal Gibbons' " Faith of our Fathers " has not
been made use of by infidels as the strongest argument
ever penned against the Christian religion. What a
farce religion would be if the Bible was the utterly
useless, and decidedly mis'eading, book which he would
have us believe ! And what a sneer at the very
preaching of Jesus recorded therein is contained in
the way in which His words are so spoken of ! If aU

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 189
Scripture is to be understood by the interpretation ol
the Church, are we, then, to place Jesus Christ Himself
at the feet of the Pope, and require that He shall submit
the meaning of His own words to men who have been
amongst the vilest breakers of His commandments ?
Truly the Son of raan is crucified afresh in the Church
of Rome century after century.
But this is not all. In this same book we find the
statement that the words of our Divine Lord in John
v. 39 do not mean what they say. Cardinal Gibbons
admits that there is such a passage in the Bible as
" Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have
etemal life; and they are they which testify of Me."
He says this is triumphantly quoted in favour of private
interpretation of the Bible, "but it proves nothing of
the kind." It is almost useless to controvert this asser
tion. Those who have Bibles can see for themselves,
by reading the whole passage, how cleverly the denial
is framed. In the last verse of this very chapter
our Lord reproaches the Jews with not believing the
writings of Moses ; and yet this poor Cardinal Would
have us believe that our Lord did not mean what He
said when He gave the command to search the
Scriptures. It is pitiful to see the subterfuges, the
evasions, the explanations which explain nothing, to
which the Cardinal is driven to uphold the unscriptural
teaching of his Church.
But let us suppose for a moment that he is right, and
that the Bible is of no use except as a mere record of
fact — if indeed it is of use even so far, since the plainest
and most sacred facts, the very recorded words of
our Lord, may be made to mean whatever the Church
pleases — what ground has the Church for its authority ?
Take, say, the Bible — if it is as worthless to the world

190 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
as the Cardinal would have us believe — and what have
we left ? Nothing but " tradition " and the Fathers.
Now this is an important point in the controversy.
It is evident, even to the cool self-assertion of Roman
controversialists, that the Pope cannot stand like
Mahomet's coffin, between heaven and earth. Even an
infallible Pope must have some ground on which to
place his infallibility. He cannot come forward and say,
" I am infallible ; you must believe me, because I say
so." Practically this is what Rome does say, but it is
delicately modified. Rome declares that the Bible says
that St. Peter was the head of the Church, the rock
on which the Church was founded. Now we let pass
the bare assertion which this claim makes. It is true
that Rome says so, but it is also true that a large
nuraber of the Fathers of the Church say that this is
not the true interpretation of the passage in question.
But let that pass also. Where, we ask, is there in
the whole of Scripture one solitary word which says,
or even impUes, that St. Peter was to have for his
successors a series of infallible Popes ? Let Rome
prove this, and the case is ended. The only text on
which Rome attempts to base this claira is the one
in which our Lord proralses to be with His Church
to the end ol the world. This text is worth careful
expmination, in view of the use which has been made
of it. (Matt, xxviu. 19, 20.) " Go ye therefore, and
teach aU nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have com
manded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the world." Now where is there one
word in this text which even infers that St. Peter
should have successors who should be infaUible ? The

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. I9>

inference which Rome draws from this text is simply
absurd. The Apostles were to teach all things which Christ
commanded them ; but St. Paul teUs us that if an angel
from heaven should preach any other gospel to them
than that which he had preached he should be accursed.
Now how were the disciples to judge of this, unless
they used their own reason ? We find also that there
were such serious differences of opinion between the
Apostles themselves, that most certainly no one Apostle
had the exclusive power to decide aU matters of con
troversy ; and if St. Peter had not this power — and the
Bible narrative plainly shows that he had not — how
could the Pope have what St. Peter had not ?
But there is a deeper depth of unbelief — and shall
1 say blasphemy ? — into which the Cardinal has fallen.
He says plainly that though " most Christians pray to
the Holy Ghost, the practice is nowhere to be found in
the Bible." If he believes the Holy Ghost to be God,
why should he make any such remark ? We shall be told
next that the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Ghost
is not declared in the Bible, and that it remained for the
Church, which does so many wonderful things, to declare
the Holy Ghost to be God. He says that " fools rush
in where angels fear to tread," and we agree with him.
His description of the exact value of the Bible as an
authority is of a piece with his declaration about the
Holy Ghost ; and, by the way, it should be noted that if
the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Ghost is not in
the Bible, as Cardinal Gibbons implies, that Church, and
that Church alone, has the power to declare the Holy
Ghost God. Yet such is the unconscious absurdity of
the argument, that the Roman Catholic Church bases
all her claims on the supposed exceptional gifts to her

192 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
of the Holy Ghost. So she first declares the Holy
Ghost Divine, and then declares that she is inspired
by the Holy Ghost. This chapter ends with a stupen
dous falsehood. The Cardinal writes : —
"After his ordination every priest is obliged in
conscience to devote upwards of an hour each day to
the perusal of the Word of God. I am not aware that
clergymen of other denominations are bound by the
same duty."
I do trust that some minister of the Gospel, whose
public position will prevent the Cardinal from refusing
a reply to, or trifling with him, wiU ask him to state
where the authority is to be found for this assertion.
When, where, and under what circumstances are
priests obliged to spend an hour every day in the
perusal of God's Word ? They are certainly obliged to
read the Breviary, as the Roman CathoUc prayer-book
for priests is called, but there is little indeed in this book
of the word of God. Every Protestant who reads the
Cardinal's book will conclude that his statement is true ;
but how far it is from being even approximately true
no one knows better than the very reverend falsifier.
It is a time when plain words are best. I have heard
priests complain again and again of the tissue of lies
and legends which they are obliged to recite daily from
their Breviary, which contains besides only a few texts
of Scripture and a few psalms.
We have remarked that when the Bible published in
France by M. Lassarre was forbidden by the Pope, after
it had been approved by him, there was a great outcry,
especially in this country. After the Protestant press
had got hold of the facts they could not well be denied,
and even the Roman-controlled press in America could

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 193

not be induced to hush up the scandal altogether.
Something had to be done, and the veracious Cardinal
was just the one to do it. Accordingly he preached a
sermon in hi? cathedral at Baltimore, in which he uttered
more heresy than he could do penance for in the course
of ten lifetimes. But what matter ? It was aU for the
Church. And had not the Church given him its highest
honours, and might he not even yet aspire to the highest
honour of all ?
Now in his book, from which we have made some
extracts, he has said in plain terms that the Bible is of
very little use to any one. Here are his own words :
"It was by preaching alone that Christ intended to convert
the nations ... no nation has ever yet been converted
by the agency of Bible associations." Further he says
on the same page that " Christ never commanded His
Apostles to write a Une of Scripture." But some one
who knew the Bible better than this Roman Cardinal
must have called his attention to the inexpediency of
allowing this flagrant falsehood to continue in print, for
he has added in a footnote, " except when He directed
St. John to write the Apocalypse ; " as if there could be
exceptions, as if the one great fact that aU Scripture was
given expressly for our instruction was not sufficient
evidence that we should have it placed on record. The
New Testament writers were moved to write by God
the Holy Ghost, and surely that is sufficient for any
ordinary Christian. In the eagerness of the Cardinal to
clear his Church of the blarae and sharae of suppress
ing the Bible, he has let himself run into heresy, and
if he ever becomes Pope, it will be a curious question
whether he can validly hold the infaUible throne after
such a lapse.
There are two things which the Roman Catholic
13

194 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Church has always found necessary for its existence,
and these are the power to persecute and the power to
curse. She cannot persecute unless she has temporal
power, which will enable her to torture, or imprison, or
kill those against v;hom she has any cause of complaint ;
Lence her great desire to obtain temporal power. But
she is free to anathematise and curse; and a careful
glance at the history of the Church of Rome will show
that she only restrains herself from these weapons
when she is afraid of public opinion being too strongly
against her.
But in the matter of cursing she is not restricted
to the cursing of individuals. She curses the holders
of certain opinions, and she pronounces the opinions
accursed as well as the persons who hold them. This
is a subject little thought of, or understood. As the
Church of Rome has found that the reading of the Bible
is a great hindrance to the success of the Roman Catholic
religion, she has at different times cursed the readers of
the Bible, and the reading of the Bible also. This of
course she denies; but look at her official documents,
and the case is proved against her. Cardinal Gibbons
has written and published a book on the Roman
Catholic religion, a chapter of which is, as I have said,
occupied in showing what a useless and mischievous
book the Bible is, and he has also preached a sermon
in which he has praised the Bible, and advised people
to read it. Now, as the matter is very important, we
place here side by side a series of propositions which
the Pope has cursed, in his " infaUible " Bull Unigenitus,
and a series of extracts from the sermon of Cardinal
Gibbons, which will show that he has deserved the
curse of his own Church, for he has actually declared
to be true what his Church has affirmed to be accursed.

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 195

The condemned and accursed propositions wUl be
found on the left-hand side of the page, and the cardinal's
propositions facing them on the right-hand side.

PROPOSITIONS CONDEMNED
BY THE BULL Utiigenitus.
" It is useful at all times and
in all places and to all sorts of
folli to study the Scriptures, to
understand their spirit, and the
piety and the mysteries they
teach. " This study of Holy Writ . . .
is for all the world.
" The sacred obscurity of the
word of God furnishes no ex
cuse even to laymen for neg
lecting to read the same.
"The Lord's Day should be
hallowed by pious reading,
especially of the Holy Scrip
tures. " To forbid the reading ofthe
Scriptures, more particularly of
the Gospel, to Christians is to
interdict for children of the
light the use of light."

PROPOSITIONS AFFIRMED BY
CARDINAL GIBBONS.
" I strongly exhort you to
sanctify this season of Lent by
studying the Bible at least ten
or fifteen minutes every day,
especially the New Testament
and the Psalms.
" The Scriptures ought to be
the garden of the priest, as said
St. CharlesBorromeo, and of the
laity as well. What is good for
the one is good for the other.
"You can study and ponder
over it in your homes till it
impresses itself upon your
heart. No other agency has
produced such a revolution in
society as the Bible.
" We should be always ready
when temptation comes with
the Scriptures in our hearts, for
they are the best antidote for

But there is, if possible, a deeper depth. The official
organ of the cardinal, published in Baltimore, chimes
in with the amazing assertion that the reading of the
Bible is ihe cause of modern paganism. What a terrible
state of things when the sacred book of the Christian
has become such a menace to Christianity. It is curious
how Romanists overlook the fact that it is in Roman
Catholic countries, where tradition and the Church is
put before the Word of God, that infidelity most of all
flourishes. It is because people do not believe the

196 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Bible, and not because they read it, that infidelity in
creases. As the matter is so serious, we give the very
words of the Catholic Mirror, the Cardinal's organ : —
"The development of the modern paganism that is
spreading on every hand among non-Catholics is the
logical result of an open Bible as the sole rule of faith.
CathoUcs have never been dependent upon it for
authority in the practice of their religion."
But there is yet the consideration that the Fathers
do not agree among themselves. By the Third Article
of Pope Pius' Creed every Roman Catholic priest must
" promise, vow, and swear most constantly to hold and
profess " as follows : —
" I also admit the Scriptures, according to the sense
which the holy Mother Church has held and does hold,
to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and inter
pretation of the Scriptures ; nor will I ever take and
interpret them otherwise than according to the unani
mous consent of the Fathers."
And now let us see what was the teaching of the
Fathers on this subject. The article, like many others
from the same source, is anything but clear. First, the
Church is held to be the true and only interpreter of
Scripture, and then the Fathers are declared to be the
interpreters. At the fourth session of the Council of
Trent, held April 1546, a decree was passed in which
it is enacted, " that in order to restrain petulant spirits,
no one relying on his own skill shall in matters of
faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of
Christian practice, wresting the sacred Scriptures to
his own sense, dare to interpret them contrary to the
unanimous agreement of the Fathers."

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 197
Now if there is one enactment of the Church by
which the Roman Catholic is more bound than another
it is by the decrees of the Council of Trent. The
decree on the subject of the authority of Scripture is
one which deserves special notice. The circumstances
under which it was enacted should also be recalled.
This Council was convened for the purpose of checking
the advance of liberality of thought then inaugurated,
under the pressure of the Protestant Reformation.
Every care was taken as to the very words in which
its decisions were made. Rome was seriously alarmed
at the appeal to Scripture raade by the Reformers, and
at the spread of Gospel light.
It should be observed that there is a great difference
between the tradition which is purely oral and the
tradition which is written. The first decree on tradition
was passed in the Fir.=t Canon of the Fourth Council
of Constantinople, a.d. 869, reputed the Eighth General
Council ; but this Canon clearly pointed out a tradition
presented in the records of the Church, and handed
down by a succession of witnesses, and not the oral
tradition now claimed by the Roman Church. Of
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (a.d. 70), the historian
Eusebius said : " He exhorted them (the Churches) to
adhere firmly to the tradition of the Apostle, which for
the sake of greater security he deemed it necessary to
attest by committing it to writing."
The earliest Latin Father, TertuUian, an African
(a.d. 194), while he set great value on custom and tradi
tion, appealed to the Scriptures alone as of authority.
In arguing with the heretics he demanded from them
proofs from Scripture.
" If it is not written, let him fear the curse aUotted to
such as add or diminish."

igS INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
The passages from the early Christian writers which
insist on the Scriptures as alone of authority in matters
of doctrine are so numerous, and so well known, that
it is at the present day almost labour and time lost to
repeat them ; they are to be found in almost every
Protestant controversial work. I shall nevertheless
transcribe a few of them merely as illustrations.
What could be more striking than the words delivered
at the First General Council of Nice (a.d. 325) by
Eusebius, Bishop of Csesarea, in the name of the three
hundred and eighteen bishops then assembled ? He
says : —
" Believe the things that are written ; the things that
are not written neither think upon nor inquire into.''
Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (a.d 379), says : —
" Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone
which has the seal of the written testimony." And
again he wrote : " Forasmuch as this is supported by
no testimony of Scripture, we will reject it as false."
And Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (a.d. 356), places
the matter very clearly before us. He says : —
" Not even the least of the Divine and holy raysteries
of the faith ought to be handed down without the
Divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me
while I am speaking these words to you; have the
proofs of what I say from the Holy Word ; for the
security and preservation of our faith are not supported
by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the sacred
Scriptures." Jerome, a Presbyter of Rome (a.d. 382), says : —
" The Church of Christ, which has Churches in the
whole world, is united by the unity of the Spirit, and

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. ic,9
has the cities of the Law, the Prophets, the Gospel,
and the Apostles ; she has not gone forth from her
boundaries, that is, from the Holy Scriptures."
" Let not these words be heard between us, I say,
or. You say, but rather let us hear ' Thus saith the
Lord;' for there are certain books of the Lord in
whose authority both sides acquiesce. There let us
seek the Church ; there let us judge our cause. Take
away therefore all those things which each alleges
against the other, and which are derived from any
other source than the canonical books of Holy Scrip
ture. But perhaps some will ask, Why take away such
authorities ? Because I would have the holy Church
proved not by human documents but by the Word of
God. The New York Churchman, the organ of the Episco
pal Church in America, writing on this subject, says : —
" The Cardinal has probably a ' dispensation ' to say
what he chooses to the unutterably gullible Americans ;
because nothing is easier than to make him recant and
withdraw when these concessions have served their
purpose." Mr. C. H. CoUette, in his valuable pamphlet, " Is Dr.
Manning a Loyal EngUshraan ? " gives quotations from
the essays of Dr. Doyle, well known as a controversialist
and bishop of the Roman Catholic Church in the early
part of the present century, which show how very little
opinion he had of the infallible utterances of the Popes
on Scripture interpretation : —
"As to the arguments from Scripture or tradition
adduced by him (Pope Gregory VIL), or by any of his
successors, in support of their temporal claim, they
are such as wUl amuse, or rather excite the pity of

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

a serious mind. One (Pope Boniface VIII.) wisely
observed that because an apostle said to our Lord,
'Behold there are two swords here,' the Popes have
a right to depose kings. Such an inference might
appear plausible to him who was already resolved
on an usurpation of right ; but a Christian is forced
to blush at such a profanation of the Word of God.
Gregory . . . quotes from St. Paul to the Corinthians.
(i Cor. vi. 3.) ' Know you not that we shall judge
angels themselves ? how much more worldly things ? '
and from this passage he claims to be invested with
power of invading the rights of kings and emperors,
nay, of remodelling the state of society throughout the
world , . . but to offer arguments against such theories
is too huraiUating to the common sense of men."
With one raore evidence of the small respect which
the Church of Rome has for the Scriptures, and of the
way in which she mutilates the Bible to serve her own
purposes, we shall conclude this part of our subject.
If there is one subject more sacred than another, and
with which it might be supposed that Rome would
not tamper, it is the commandments of God. I had
often heard, when young, that the Roraan Catholic
Church in her catechisms left out part of the ten com
mandments. When I was considering the question of
entering the Roman Catholic Church, I asked the priest
to whom I went for instruction if this was true. He
denied it indignantly, and of course I believed him.
I had yet to learn that you cannot depend on the truth
of one single word which a Roman Catholic may say,
when controversy is in question. I know that this
statement will shock many Romanists, but, as in other
cases, the question is not whether the statement is
very shocking, but whether it is true. Romanists have

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 201
been again and again detected in false quotations, and
in the most barefaced forgeries, and when detected
they have simply gone on repeating the same falsehoods
as if they were facts.
There is of course always an object to be gained in
all this, but the object is not truth. It seems utterly
araazing that any man should wish to deceive others,
or lend himself to such deliberate lying that it is very
difficult for honest men to believe it exists, even when the
evidence is plainly before their eyes ; and it is to this
unwiUingness of honest men to beUeve others capable
of a barefaced deceit, of which respectable and self-
respecting heathen would be ashamed, that Romanists
owe the toleration which their religion has received
from Protestants.
Would to God that Roman Catholics examined for
themselves the foundations of their reUgion. The
Roman Catholic Church is like a family with a bad
reputation, which requires concealment. It cannot
bear the light because its deeds are evil. Honest
men are not afraid to meet facts, or to have them
known. When a Roman Cardinal can write about
the Bible, as Cardinal Gibbons has done, it is all over
with Rome. When so many shifts and evasions are
necessary to prove that the Bible was not intended for
ordinary use, there must be a deep reason for this
evasion. There is a very grave difference between
St. Paul and Cardinal Gibbons on this subject, and
I for one must admit that I prefer to be guided by
St. PauL (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.) "AU Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

202 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Plainer words could not be used than these. Th?
miserable subterfuge by which Cardinal Gibbons and
men of his class try to make it appear as if the Scrip
tures of the Old Testament only were referred to is
beneath criticism, and should be condemned, as it
deserves, by every Christian. The words of the Apostle
are " all Scripture." The words of the Apostle are that
the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God ; and yet
this Cardinal tells his poor people, who are not even
allowed to test the truth of his statements, that they
are merely on a level with the pastoral letters of
bishops (" Faith of our Fathers," p. 102), and adds the
false testimony against the Apostles that they never
circulated the Scriptures, and yet these words of St.
Paul to Timothy must be well known to him.
Yes, they are known to hira, they are known to God,
but they are not known to the poor Romanists, who
would not for one moment suppose that a " Cardinal "
of their holy Church would be guilty of deliberate
deceit. If this does not come under the Bible condem
nation pronounced on those who add to, or take from,
the Word of God, Scripture has no meaning.
The worship of idols, or of deceased persons, is so
plainly condemned in the Bible, and so openly practised
in the Roman Church, that it is no wonder that Rome
is driven to hide the evidence against herself, and this
she does by mutilating the coramandments. I repeat
again, that when I was solemnly assured by a Jesuit
Father that the Roman Church did not mutilate the
commandments I believed hira. I have got wiser since.
Facts are the best of all arguments, and here are the
facts. Now the first thing which the Romish Church had
to do was to make the translation of the first command-

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 203
ment suit the teaching of the Church. An honest
Church would have suited her teaching to the com
mandments. The words on which so much depend
are these : " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
image . . . thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor
ferve them." The Romanists alter the word "image"
to the word " thing." I cannot see what is gained by
this, for the conclusion is all the same, and that con
clusion Rome has not dared to deny. The words of
the Bible are too plain. The circumstances under
which the coramandment was given are quite sufficient
to decide the question, even if it was more complicated
than it appears. God is a jealous God ; He will not
share His glory with another. Indeed, if He did, we
might say with all reverence that He would not be
God. The Jews of old were quite as much incUned as
the Romanists of to-day to worship anything except
God. And no doubt another Roman Catholic reason for
forbidding the reading of the Bible, and trying to
explain away its value, is that it contains such clear
denunciations of the idolatry into which the Jews fell,
and records the terrible punishraents inflicted on them
for their lapses into idolatry. A clear knowledge of
this might raise inquiries in the minds of Roraan
Catholics, which the Church raight not find it convenient
to answer. Those who engage in controversy with
Rome should ask for plain answers to plain questions,
even if it takes many hours to make a Romish priest give
one. Subterfuge, evasion, deceit, are the weapons of
Rome. Protestants have no need of such weapons,
but let us see that we are not fooled by those who are
adepts in the use of them.
The catechism used, and in Ireland used exclusivel;.'.

204 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
commonly known as Butler's Catechism, has the com
mandments in the following form : —
" I am the Lord thy God ; thou shalt not have
strange Gods before Me.
" 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy
God in vain.
" 3. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
*****
" 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
" 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods."
How awful a deceit to practise on poor helpless
children to deprive them of the knowledge of the com
raandraents of God by thus mutilating them. It may
perhaps be remembered that in quoting from the cate
chism used in Araerica, which has been approved
by Rorae itself, as well as by Cardinal Gibbons, the
answer cited to the question, " Can any one be saved
out of the Roman Catholic Church ? " has these words
as part of the reply : " Those v/ho do not seek their
salvation in the Roraan Catholic Church cannot hope
to be saved in a religion of their own make." Now
if there ever was a religion to which these words could
be appUed in real earnest it is the Roman Catholic,
for it has been obliged to use all sorts of shifts and
evasions to prop up the " religion of its own make."
The very commandments have to be altered and
omitted. Twenty-nine Roman Catholic catechisms —
being those used in England and foreign countries —
were examined by Mr. C. H. CoUette, the well-known
author, and he found that in twenty-seven the second
coramandment was omitted entirely, while in the
remaining two it was mutilated. If this is not a
reUgion of human " make " it is difficult to know what

TEACHING OF THR BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 205
else deserves the term. And why, it should be asked,
is there the necessity for this mutilation and sup
pression of the very word of God ? It is done simply
and solely to support a system which, if it was founded
on the Word of God, if it was Divine, as it clairas
to be, would certainly not need to conceal from the
world the words of the very authority on which it
claims to be founded. What should we think of the
governor of a province who claimed the right to govern,
and yet mutilated and suppressed the very charter of
the king under whose authority he professed to act ?
The perversion of huraan nature is the ground of all
this evil. Man has always shown a preference for
false gods, and strange forms of worship. We see this
in the history of the Jewish Church. Rorae is only
following the course of huraan nature. In the early
Church we find the same temptation to turn frora God to
idols, and yet there is nothing more sternly reprobated in
Scripture. The writings of the Fathers of the Church,
far from endorsing Rome's modern doctrine of saint
worship, denounce it most sternly, as sternly as did the
prophets of old. If the confusion of teaching, and the
metaphysical subtleties of the Romish Church, were
placed before the public, there is no doubt that it would
prove strange reading to many. Romanists make a
great boast of their unity, and unfortunately the general
public take them at their own valuation. Every
doctrine of the Romish Church has been the subject
at one time or another of the most acrimonious dispute.
The way in which Rome preserves her exterior unity —
and her unity is only exterior— raay do very well for
children, or for those who take all that she says
without question, but it will not convince men who
use their God-given reason.

ao6 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
The custom of praying to the departed unquestionably
had its origin in the custom of praying /or the departed.
It is curious and instructive, in view of Rome's departure
from the faith once delivered to the saints, to note the
progress of Roman Catholic error and invention.
Roman Catholics admit that the saints cannot hear our
prayers unless they are in heaven, and the Church does
not allow, or says that she does not allow, persons to be
prayed to publicly unless she has canonised them, or,
as we may say, declared officially that they are in
heaven. Nor has the Roman Church ever declared
how the saints hear us. As they are not themselves
omniscient or omnipotent, it is clear that, if they hear
us at all, there must be some way, apart from their own
faculties, by which they can know what is said to
them on earth ; and Roman theologians differ on these
subjects as they do on so many others.
It is curious, and should be observed, that Cyril of
Jerusalem, and other early Fathers who are quoted
by the Romanists as authority for praying for the
dead, pray for the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, and
others to whom the Church of Rome prays to-day. If
these Fathers were not sure, or had not a reasonable
hope that certain souls were in heaven, how can the
modern Church of Rome be supposed to know better ?
So true is this and so undeniable, that Cardinal Wiseman
was obliged to admit in his published lectures, that " there
is no doubt" that the saints are prayed for in the
ancient liturgies, as well as all the other faithful departed.
This is a frank adraission, and we may be sure it would
never have been made if there was the least hope of
denying it, because its consequences tell so strongly
against the Roman theory. But he explains this, which
is a clear condemnation of modern saint worship, by

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 207
 / 
saying that it was done before the Church had pro
claimed them "to belong to a happier order." The
early Christians did not invoke the saints, or even the
Virgin Mary. They prayed for the repose of their
souls, thus proving that they did not consider them
holier than others ; and the Roman Catholic Church,
according to Cardinal Wiseman and other Romish
theologians, had to canonise the saints before they
could be invoked. In other words, the Romish Church
had to anticipate the day of judgraent, and do what
God Himself had not done.
There is no trace of prayers to saints in the services
of the primitive Church, though there are prayers for
the dead — a very different matter. But if there are not
prayers to the saints, there is very clear and plain
condemnation of the worship of saints. In the edition
of the works of St. Ignatius, published by the Bene
dictines, there is a very remarkable passage, which
should set all disputes at rest as lo the teaching of the
early Church on the invocation of saints and angels.
St. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons, and was martyred
in A.D. 165. He says : —
" The Church throughout the whole world does
nothing by invocation of angels, nor by incantations, nor
by other depraved and curious means, but with cleanli
ness, purity, and openness, directing prayers to the Lord
who made all things , and, calUng upon the name of
Jesus Christ our Lord, it exercises its powers for the
benefit and not for the seducing of raankind."
So strongly does this passage condemn invocation cf
angels and saints, that the Roman Church is driven, as
usual, to explain away facts for the benefit ofthe faithful,
by saying that Ireneeus is speaking of the invocation of

2o8 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
evil spirits. Now the passage itself is the best refuta
tion of this misrepresentation, for it forbids plainly the
" invocation of angels ; " and to make the matter still
plainer, the reason for forbidding this practice is stated,
and this reason applies equally to the invocation of
saints. The invocation of angels is forbidden because
it is only "to the Lord who made all things " that we
should pray, and it is only on the "name of Jesus
Christ our Lord" we should call. Thus we see the
doctrine of the early Christian Church was exactly the
same as the doctrine of the Bible Christian Church of
to-day. And I may call all denominations of Christians
the Bible Christian Church, for they look to the Bible,
and the Bible alone, for their doctrine, while the Roman
Church practically refuses to be guided by the Bible,
and looks to the Church alone, as Cardinal Gibbons has
declared plainly. But there is yet more and equally
iraportant evidence as to the opinions of the early
Christians. In the year 366 a sect called Angelites was founded,
who were so called because they dedicated chapels to
St. Michael. A Council assembled at Laodicea con
demned them, and decreed that raen " ought not to
leave the Church of God and invoke angels." But what
avrJls such plain statements when Rome can teach
V hat she pleases ? This decree being far too plain to
suit a Church which appeals to antiquity when antiquity
agrees with her, and corrects antiquity when it does
not agree with her, in some Roman Catholic editions
of the acts of this Council the passage was altered to
read "angles" instead of "angels." The siUiness and
absurdity of this change did not matter when Rome
had a point to gain. St. Augustine says : —
" Let not our religion be the worship of dead men.

TEACHING OF THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH. 209
because if they lived piously they are not disposed to
seek such honours ; but they wish Hira to be worshipped
by us by whom, being enlightened, they rejoice that we
are deemed worthy of being partakers with them. They
are to be honoured, then, on the ground of imitation, not
to be adored on the ground of religion ; and if they
lived ill, wherever they be they must not be worshipped.
This also we raay believe, that the most perfect angels
themselves and the most excellent servants of God
wish that we, with themselves, should worship God, in
the contemplation of whom they are blessed. . . .
Therefore we honour them [Angels] with love not with
service. Nor do we build temples to them ; for they
are unwilling to be so honoured by us, because they
know that when we are good we are temples of the
Most High God. Well therefore is it written that a
man was forbidden by an angel to adore him."
It should be said that this passage is given in the
Roman Catholic (Benedictine) edition of St. Augustine's
works. We may add here a few passages from the undis
puted writings of the Fathers, showing what their
teaching was on the important subject of the reading
of the Scriptures.
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in the name of the 318
bishops assembled at the first General Council of Nice
(a.d. 325), said : —
" Believe the things that are written ; the things that
are not written neither think upon nor inquire into."
Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (a.d. 379), says : —
" Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone
which has the seal of the written testimony." H

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

And again he wrote : — " Forasmuch as this is sup
ported by no testimony of Scripture we will reject it
as false."
And Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (a.d. 356), places the
matter very clearly before us. He says : —
" Not even the least of the Divine and holy mysteries
of the faith ought to be handed down without the
Divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me
while I am speaking these words to you ; have the
proofs of what I say from the holy word ; for the
security and preservation of our faith are not supported
by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the sacred
Scriptures." Jerome, a Presbyter of Rome (a.d. 382), says : —
" The Church of Christ, which has Churches in the
whole world, is united by the unity of the spirit, and
has the cities of the Law, the Prophets, the Gospel, and
the Apostles ; she has not gone forth from her boun
daries, that is, from the Holy Scriptures.
" In them (the Scriptures) we have learned Christ, in
them we have learned the Church.

CHAPTER X.
CONVENT LIFE
" I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children,
guide the house," — I Tim, v, 14,
THERE are few subjects of greater interest to the
world at large than that of convent life. A
certain mystery surrounds it, and it is not only the
young who are attracted by mystery. Is it true, people
ask, that these poor sisters are shut up for ever from
their friends ? that they are cruelly treated ? that they
live immoral lives ? that they are half starved ? that
they are unhappy ? that — but there is no end to the
questions that are asked on this subject, and very often
people who only wish to know what is true are sorely
perplexed to know what to believe, because they hear
such contradictory statements.
The subject is one of great importance, and deserves
the most careful investigation. As far as I am
personaUy concerned, I can only say that I have had
thirty years' experience of convent life, and that what
ever I say, good or bad, for or against, is the result of
this long experience. It is no wonder that there is
so much perplexity and misunderstanding. So many
Protestant parents send their children to convent
schools, where they are happy and well treated, that an
idea has spread naturaUy that sisters have been very

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

much maligned and misrepresented, and that the life of
a sister is quite different from what has been supposed
by Protestants of a past generation.
Young people respond naturally and quickly to
aff'ectionate treatment, and certainly the children of the
upper class receive nothing else from the sisters.
Quick as children are to make observations, their ira
pressions are limited to what comes very plainly and
directly under their eyes. Their observations are natu
rally superficial, and they have all the self-confidence
and ignorance of childhood. The parents often do not
look beyond the surface. The sisters are kind to the
chUdren, and that is quite enough to win the parent's
heart. And so the evil goes on year after year ; and
some day, when the parents find the result has been
that the child is so won by the sisters that she cares no
longer for home or friends, and that she too desires
to live the life which has been pictured to her as so
beautiful, in the days when impressions are so easily
made, they are amazed and angry, and denounce the
sisters, and the Church, and their own child also, for
what, after all, is but the natural consequence of their
own action, a consequence which it was simply their
own fault that they did not foresee. Perhaps experi
enced friends, perhaps a faithful minister, had warned
them long since of the risk which they were running
in placing their children under such influences, but all
had been in vain. It was so "convenient" to send
the child to the sisters. Other children might be in
fluenced to their hurt, but their child would be surely
safe. These parents did not realize that it is dangerous
to play with fire. It was so much cheaper to send
their child to the convent school ; it was cheaper for
time, but what about etemity? But they found, to

CONVENT LIFE, 213

their cost, to their lifelong sorrow, the fatal mistake
which they made. They placed their child deliberately
in danger, and when the harm was done they blamed
every one, except theraselves.
But even v/hen this result does not follow, other
results must ensue, which are scarcely less dangerous,
scarcely less fatal. As we have said, it is but natural
that children sent to convent schools should love the
sisters. And what is the result ? We are very slow to
think evil of those whom we love, or from whom we
have received any benefit. Impressions are often far
stronger than arguments, and the impressions of child
hood, being unreasoning, are more difficult to eradicate
than those which are tempered by experience in later
years. Besides, the child, when she comes to reflect in
after Ufe, will say : "Well, I was so many years in a
convent school, and met the sisters every day, and I
saw nothing wrong, therefore all these stories about
them must be untrue." When grown up she does not
reflect on the very important fact that anything which
might have scandalised her was necessarily and carefully
kept from her knowledge. So she is worse than igno
rant. A person who never was in a convent school,
who never associated with sisters, would not have any
prejudice in favour of convents, and would not therefore
be so likely to listen to the seductions of Romanism.
For in truth it is a religion full of seductions. There
is such an apparent sanctity of Ufe. There is such an
apparent sanctity of practice. There are such seductive
appeals to the senses, for it is a religion of the senses
There is such an apparent, though not real, unity ot
religious belief
Why is it that Christian men and women, who profess
to believe the Gospel, sanction and even help a Church

214 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
which proves its anti-Christianity so plainly by its
worldliness ? You have an open Bible and know that
the Word of God has a greater value than a "pastoral
letter '' of Pope or bishop. You who have the law and
the testimony, why do not you ask yourselves plainly.
Is this a Christian Church ? It is not a question of
what man says, but of what God says. Understand
plainly, and once for all, that Rome has abandoned the
Bible as the sole rule of faith. There are too many
things in the Bible plainly against Rome for Rome to
allow it to be read freely.
Ask yourself the plain question. What is this Church
founded on, if it is not founded on the Word of God ?
We read in the Bible that in the last days perilous
tiraes shall come, that the cry will be, " Here is Christ,
and there is Christ." Even the very elect may be
deceived for a time. If this is so— and it must be so,
because God says it, and we at least wiU not yet
abandon God for the Pope or any man — what care
should we not take that we may not also be deceived ?
If we once abandon the Bible, where will the matter
end ? Keep to the one plain fact. Remember the
teaching of the Church of Rome is unchangeable, and
that it has said plainly that the Bible alone is not
sufficient for our salvation. No matter what specious
arguments may be used to enforce this claim, we know
it is directly against the plain teaching of Scripture
itself This may seem a digression from the subject of the
present chapter, but it is far from being so. Our object
is to show the danger of Roman Catholic schools for
Protestant children, and not the least danger is the
absence of all religious teaching. One of two things
the sisters must do. Either they must break their

CONVENT LIFE. 215

solemn promises to the parents of the children com
mitted to their charge, and teach these children the
Roman Catholic religion, or they raust teach them no
reUgion. Roman Catholics are very fond of denouncing
public schools as " Godless schools," but the real
Godless schools are Roman Catholic.
No educated Roman Catholic wUl deny that it is a
mortal sin, that it is a sin which, if not repented of, will
consign the person who has coraraitted it to eternal
damnation, to teach any child, be he Romanist or Pro
testant, any religion but that which is taught, aUowed,
and approved by the Roman Church. This very
subject was the cause of the fiercest debate in Ireland
within living memory.
The English Government was very properly anxious
that the rising generation of the Irish nation should
have the benefit of a liberal and thorough education.
But how to accomplish this most desirable object, with
out raising a storm which could not be easily quelled,
was a problem which statesraen had to decide. At last
a plan was arranged which it was hoped would cora-
bine piety and patriotisra, and satisfy all. National
schools were established wherein the Irish children
were to be taught everything, except their own religion,
and the history of their own country. The national
schools are now an accomplished fact, and it is not a
little curious to note how the excitements of one gene
ration are forgotten in those of the next. Those
national schools were warmly supported by the far-
seeing Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Whately.
After fierce contention on both sides, a compromise
was agreed upon, and a Concordat was arranged, the
terms of which were that no religion whatever was
to be taught in the schools during the regular school

2i6 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
hours. But certain short times were fixed during the
day, in which reUgious instruction could be given to
those whose parents wished them to receive it ; and a
strict rule was made and enforced, that children were
not to be present in the room when instruction was
given to other chUdren of a different denomination.
There was, in fact, a conscience clause, which was more
or less strictly observed.
Now it is to the working of this conscience clause
that I wish to call particular attention, and I may add
here that I speak on these subjects from years of
personal knowledge and experience. The great con
tention of Romanists on the school question is that
religion should enter into every study, or rather, that
every subject should be taught according to the Roman
Catholic view of such subjects. For instance, to take
an historical example. A Roman Catholic who was
teaching history in the fifteenth century would have
been obliged by the Church to teach that Joan of Arc
was a very wicked woman, who had been justly con
demned by the Church for her many crimes, and for
trying to save her country in consequence of certain
supernatural revelations, all of which were delusions.
A Roman Catholic teaching history to-day would be
obliged to teach that this same unfortunate woman,
who was burned alive by the inhuman cruelty of the
ecclesiastics of the fifteenth century, was a great saint,
for whose canonisation every effort should be made,
and that her revelations should at least be treated with
respect. Hence what is right to be taught even on
historical subjects must vary with the varying opinions
of those who for the tirae being represent the " infallible"
and unchanging Church.
The same holds good in religious matters. In the

CONVENT LIFE. 217
Irish national schools, during the school hours, except for
a very brief space of time, the schools are " godless " as
far as they well can be, for every sign and symbol of a
religious nature is removed or carefully hidden. During
the entire of the school hours, with a very brief exception,
no religion of any kind is allowed to be taught. The
amount of lying, deceit, and "pious fraud" which is
committed to evade this rule and to do away with the
obligations of this miscalled "conscience clause," would
be impossible to a respectable heathen, or to any one
except a Roman Catholic priest, who, whatever may be
said to the contrary, certainly practises the axiom that
the end justifies the means.
The much-enduring Inspectors of these national
schools, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, are
obliged, or are supposed to be obliged, to see that the
"conscience clause" is strictly enforced. But what can
they do ? The National Board, as the governing body
is called, is entirely under the control of the Roman
Catholic bishops. The position of Inspector is much
desired, and there is short shrift for the man who has
the courage to object to any arrangement that has the
approval of the parish priest.
It should be remembered that a very large proportion
of the Irish national schools are under the care of
sisters, or, as they are called in Ireland, nuns ; and it
would be considered absolutely profane, and too horrible
to be endured, if the Inspector should say one word of
disapproval of anything which these sisters may do.
Therefore all kinds of pious frauds are carried on freely,
and the children who know the rules weU are habitually
taught lessons in deceit. I cannot see that it is any
less deceit because it is done for the greater honour and
glory — shall I say of God, or of the Roman Catholic

2i8 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
religion ? Statues of the Blessed Virgin are kept covered
up, or in presses. The sign of the cross is made when
the Inspector is not present, and is not made, or only
made surreptitiously, when he is on the premises. And
worse still, the children are taught to consider their
religion persecuted, because these things cannot be
done openly during school hours.
If this kind of education is not godless it is certainly
most demoraUsing. I doubt if anything could be more so;
and yet we find American Protestants in full sympathy
with Roman Catholics in their opposition to the pubhc
schools of the United States, in which at least open
deceit and lying is not taught. Do Protestants realise
that if Roman Catholics had schools of their own in
America, under nominal Government control, the very
same system of deceit which exists in Ireland would
be taught in some form or other, and that American
citizens would soon become as demoralised as Europe
has become ?
It is indeed very much to be regretted that Protestants
do not know more about the inside life of the
Roman coraraunion. Even most Roman Catholics are
deplorably ignorant both of the doctrines and the
practices of their own Church. As this may seem, and
indeed is a strong statement, I give a brief explanation.
As for the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church,
Roman Catholics are so sternly forbidden to reason or
argue, or even think for one moment, that they simply
learn the catechism, and believe what it teaches without
the least inquiry as to its meaning What is the use of
reasoning when reasoning is sinful ? You are told so-
and-so, and you are to believe so-and-so, or to take the
choice of eternal damnation, and so the matter ends.
It is just the same with regard to Roman Catholic

CONVENT LIFE. 219

practices ; if the Church says it is right to evade the
rules of an institution, or to violate the laws of the
State, it is your Roman Catholic duty to obey, and so
the matter ends. Roman Catholic sisters and Roman
Catholic children are therefore irresponsible beings,
who have to do what they are told.
I shall show first that the system of Roman CathoUc
teaching in Ireland, and especially in convent schools,
is godless even for Roman Catholic children, because
it does not teach them any religion.
There are two kinds of godless schools, and it is
difficult to say which is more dangerous to the rising
generation. There are schools in which no religion
is taught, and there are schools in which religion is
taught, but in which certain practices are either taught
by word of mouth or by exaraple (the most powerful
of all teaching), which are contrary to Christian morals.
I propose to show that both these kinds of teaching
are usual in schools under Roman Catholic control.
When the national schools were first put under the
charge of sisters this practical deceit was quite a
common occurrence. On several occasions the In
spectors, who are supposed to make " surprise visits,"
came unexpectedly into convent schools, and found
statues of the Blessed Virgin and the saints exhibited
openly for the devotion of the children. They were, of
course very slow to expostulate. Expostulation might
mean prompt dismissal from their situations, through
the influence of the priests ; but eventually they had
to speak, and the sisters obeyed the rules in fear of
a withdrawal of the grant which they receive, but not
without many lamentations over the " persecution " to
which they were subjected.
It would require more space than can be given to

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

this subject at present to enter into the character of
the religious teaching given in the sisters' schools
in Ireland, and the parochial schools, whether under
sisters or lay teachers in America. But I say at once
and boldly, that it is not Christian teaching. Protest
ants, who would shrink with horror from the very
idea of making the Bible a forbidden book to their
own children, are quite easy in their minds when their
children are deprived of this grace, as they are when
placed for education in convent schools or colleges.
The command to " Search the Scriptures " is as
universal as the command to "hear the Church," of
which the Roman Catholic makes such capital. But
St. Paul tells us that if even an angel carae from heaven
to preach another gospel than that which he had
preached he was not to get a hearing. If we are to
take the Bible at all as a rule of life and as a creed, we
must take it as it is, and not select some parts for belief
and calmly lay others aside.
Yet this is what the Roraan Catholic Church does.
She takes a plain sentence such as the command to
" hear the Church " ; she says she is the Church, and you
have got to hear her or be damned ; but she fights very
shy of the command to " Search the Scriptures," which
is quite as plain as the other. Now if children are not
allowed, not to say if they are restrained, from obeying
a plain command of Christ Himself, the religion which
teaches them to do this is not a Christian religion, no
matter what name it may call itself, and children who
are taught in this fashion are not receiving a Christian
education. It may be said that I have written too much and too
strongly on the subject of the Bible in schools, but I
know both sides of this question frora practical experi-

CONVENT LIFE.

ence. I know what it is to be of the household of
faith, where the Bible was the household book and
guide, and to be of the household where the Bible
was, for all practical purposes, a dead letter. It is no
answer to the argument against the constant reading
of the Bible, that some of those who read the Bible do
not live up to its precepts. The question for us is
simply this : Are we to deprive our children of free
access to the Bible ? How many conversions late in
life are known to have been caused mainly, if not
altogether, by the recollection of the Bible readings of
early years ; and does not the inspired Apostle himself
congratulate Timothy on having been familiar with
Holy Scripture from a child ?
A knowledge of the Bible may not prevent those
who have had that advantage in early life frora being
ensnared by Rome in later years, but when this happens
it will be found, as a general rule, that the person so en
snared was ignorant of the true teaching of the Church
of Rome, or had not received an intelligent Bible
teaching. The Roman Church is wiser than the
children of light. She takes good care that her cate
chisms shall be taught to children at the most impres
sionable age, and what is then learned is seldom
forgotten, and is rarely questioned in later life. The
system of deliberate deceit which is taught to children
in convent schools, and to boys in Roman Catholic
colleges, is a crying evil, and it is one which is
absolutely inseparable from Roman Catholic education.
There has been a great deal of misrepresentation on
this subject, and a great deal of useless debate. No
one need expect any Romanist to adrait that such
a doctrine as that the end justifies the means is
taught by his Church, In fact, Romanists will not

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

admit anything adverse to their Church, and they are
quite keen enough to know what is considered so.
Nor will you find in any theological book in plain
words that the end justifies the means. Rome, above
all things, avoids plain speaking ; but if it can be shown
that certain acts are allowed and applauded, when
these acts are for the advancement of the Church,
though they are contrary to truth or justice, then the
fact is proved past dispute that Rome allows that an
evil action may be done, if the object to be attained is
what she is pleased to call a good one. Facts are of
more importance than the way in which the per
mission to do them is expressed. We have shown
that in the Irish national schools there is a constant
system of evasion of rules, which must weaken the
respect of the child for authority. All this is justi
fied by those who do it on the pretext that they are
allowed by the Church to do these things, and that the
Church is above the law of the land, which they are
only bound to obey when the Church approves of it.
I do not think that anything can more seriously
deteriorate the moral character of a child, than seeing
deceit practised habituallj- by those to whom the child
should look for the highest example of truth. Every
Protestant mother who sends a child to a convent
school for education, whether as a boarder or as a day
scholar, places her child in danger of becoming a
deliberate deceiver. Remember, once again, that the
danger is all the greater because the sisters have not
an idea that they are dr>ing wrong or teaching deceit.
They are only acting on the great principle of their
Church, that there is no salvation out of that Church.
They say, " The parents of this child are ignorant of the
true religion ; if they knew it they would wish their child

CONVENT LIFE. 223
to be taught it. When the parents die they wUl thank
us for saving the soul of their child ; besides, as the
parents knew that we could not teach the child any
other religion than the Roman Catholic when they
placed her with us, we are not doing anything wrong."
In most cases the sisters do not reason at all ; they
simply act on the principle that the Roman Catholic
religion being the only one in which the soul can be
saved, they are fulfilling a sacred duty by teaching the
child as much as they can of that religion. Even if not
one word is said to the child, she is surrounded by in
fluences which all tend in the one direction. All the
attractiveness of Rome is ever before her, without a
word of warning or explanation. The child soon learns
to hide from her parents anything which might in the
least alarm them as to what she sees or hears at the
convent school, for it attracts and pleases her, and she
fears that if the truth were known that she would be
removed. A little hint can be given to her to that effect
by the sisters, or by some of the Roman Catholic
children, who are very sharp when Protestant children
are in question ; and then comes the first want of
confidence between mother and child, and the way is
paved for the eternal ruin of the little one.
As for the intellectual training given to children in
convent schools, it is so inferior that Roman Catholic
parents would much prefer to send their children to
Protestant schools if they dared. The sisters may be
good teachers of music and languages, of fancy work
which is pronounced " so beautiful," and which is gene
rally so utterly useless in the after life of those who
spend so much time learning it, but a solid English
education is rarely given.
Take, for example, the teaching of history. It should

224 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
be remembered that there are subjects which sisters
cannot teach honestly or consistently with their
religious belief A child educated in a convent school
will not be taught the Bible, except in little historical
extracts. Not only this, but it will be taught the Ten
Comraandraents in an abridged form, in which all refer
ence to image worship is carefully omitted. No child
wiU be allowed to know that Rome has seen fit to
remove from the writings of the Fathers passages
which tell against her modern creed. But this is not
all. Even history as it is will not be taught, but altered
to suit the claims of this " infallible " Church. Truly
those Protestants who send their children to receive
such an education have a grave account to give to God
of their stewardship.
I could fill not one, but several volumes if I quoted
all the condemnations which Roman Catholic editors
of papers, and other Romanists have pronounced on
their own schools. Now and then the truth comes
out, and when it does appear it is worth hearing.
It is not long since the Roman Catholic Freeman's
Journal, of New York, published a scathing article on
the tricks which sisters play on the children in the
matter of giving prizes. I have heard again and again
the very same complaints made by parents and children.
Prizes are given to those who pay best, and whose
influence is of most value in the schools. What an
example for children ! As to the class-books used in
Roman CathoUc schools, we need not go beyond the
condemnation of them pronounced in a very recent
number of the same paper. In an article headed " A
Convention of Catholic Teachers," the writer says : —
" The manufacture and sale of Catholic text-books,

CONVENT LIFE.

since it has grown to an enormous business, has been
almost as fruitful of scandalous jobs as has that of text
books for the public schools. Parochial schools in
diflerent localities, and in charge of different teaching
bodies, have long been open to bid for a supply of text
books. A dozen rival publishers compete. One cuts
out another by offering the lowest terms for the intro
duction of his series. For twelve successive years
each publisher takes his turn in the cut-throat introduc
tion rates, which are sometimes less than half the
regular rates, and often below the cost of well-made
books. Parents are surprised that their children have
to change their books every year for others that seem
about the same, but they do not understand that the
teachers change in order to make the large profits on
introduction prices."
The teachers who thus deliberately defraud the poor,
are " sisters," " brothers," and " priests."
The millions of dollars thus unnecessarily extorted
from the poor Roman Catholic parents of America are
not the worst evils of this method. The continual
change of text-books clouds and confuses the minds
of the children, who are kept perpetually going over
the same grounds of knowledge, by different and often
opposite methods. No real training of the intellect
can be secured iu this way. But a deeper evil has
grown out of this system. "So sharp," says this
Roman CathoUc newspaper, " has this competition
become at times, and so careless have teachers grown
over everything except the prices, that certain pub
lishers have actually foisted off editions of school
books purporting to be Catholic, but really printed
from the discarded plates of venomous anti-catholic 15

226 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
text-books, which the publishers bought cheap in the
junk shops. Som.e of these publishers made a pretext
of altering these plates, but others deemed it best not
to go even to that poor expense."
If a Protestant paper had exposed the worthlessness
of Roman Catholic education and books as this Roraan
Catholic paper has done, and the system of deceit and
trickery which is here recorded, what an outcry there
would have been. And it is probable that the tren
chant article I have just quoted, true as it is, would
never have been written if the editor of the paper in
which it appeared had not some personal object to
serve. Now and then the truth comes out as to the
inside workings of the Roman Church, but whenever
light is let in we may be sure that there is a motive
for it, and that it is done by some one with whom
it is not safe for the higher ecclesiastical powers to
interfere. My Autobiography shows how badly I was
treated by Roman Catholic publishers, and how they
were perfectly safe in doing it, as they had the Arch
bishop of Dublin to protect them. And this is the
system which the public is asked to support in place
of the public schools, which are open to public inspec
tion. No matter what Roman Catholic schools may
teach, or how they may teach, no one dare interfere
unless the bishop chooses to give him permission to do
so ; and he often finds very golden reasons for silence
besides the general Roman Catholic indifference to
education. The following extracts from another Roraan Catholic
paper will prove the truth of what I have stated here,
and will also show that the alleged harmony in the
Roman Church is not so perfect as its advocates try to
make the world suppose.

CONVENT LIFE. 227
" O'Shea's books are literally taken from the
Montreal (Lavelle) books. And the editor of the
Freeman's Journal might have taken the trouble of
finding this out before taking a brief to defend them.
It is very suspicious to see an editor palpably fighting
for a class of publishers whose works are notoriously
the dearest and the poorest in the market. Has the
question of advertising anything to do with it ? Most
of the school books printed by Catholic publishers are
made from old plates.
" As to the question of advertising, any journalistic
expert will inform our Philadelphia correspondent that
more advertising can be secured from non-Catholic
publishing houses than from CathoUc ones. And the
resources of the non-Catholic houses are so great that
they can well afford to advertise liberally at all times.
If the Freeman's Journal allowed considerations of
advertising to influence its editorial opinions it would
be foolish to antagonise the secular publishers of school
books. It needs no elaborate argument to prove this.
" The field of the Catholic publisher of school books
is very limited. Hitherto it was more liraited. While
the secular publisher has had the magnificent patronage
of the pubUc school boards to depend on, the Catholic
publisher has had to compete with him in the quaUty of
his text-books, and at the same tirae to look entirely to
the parochial schools for support. It is only of late
that the secular publishers, the ' syndicate ' publishers
who control the public school book trade, have con
sidered it worth their while to turn their attention
towards the Catholic schools. But it has become
worth their while, and from the letters of protest we
have received we judge that it has become verj- much
worth their while."

228 INSIDE THE CHUR'CH OF ROME.
Catholics, especially in England, are given on occa
sion to loud talking about " Catholic literature." Most
assuredly if it were not for the efforts of a few perverts
" Catholic literature," even such as it is, would not be
known to the public. Now and then an article of average
merit finds its way into a Roman Catholic magazine ;
but I shall let Romanists themselves teU the tale of
the failure of their Church in this matter, as well as in
education. With Lady G. FuUerton (a pervert) began
and ended the last attempt at Roman Catholic works
of fiction.
The one and openly avowed object of the Roman
Catholic Church is to secure the absolute control of the
education of the young. The question is one of such
supreme importance that it is almost impossible to say
too much on this subject. What do Romanists propose
to teach the young ? We have seen what they will
not allow them to be taught. Let us say once more,
the rising generation must not be taught the Bible,
lest it should make them wise unto salvation according
to Jesus Christ; lest the reading of it should show
them the impossibility of salvation through the saints
and angels. The young must learn the Ten Com
mandments according to the abridged editions of the
"Church, and they must not know that one of the
Ten Commandments given by God forbids the making
of images or of any graven thing for purposes of
worship. The rising generation, above all, must not
be allowed to read history according to fact ; they must
learn it according to Rome, which is quite a different
matter. " The education of the people," exclaimed the
Cardinal Archbishop of MaUnes recently, in the course
of a public address, " is the field upon which will take

CONVENT LIFE. 229
place the mighty struggle between error and truth,
between good and evil."
In Austria, after twenty years of a modified form of
so-called "liberal education," the exigencies of parlia-
raentarisra have necessitated within the past few weeks
a partial, if not complete, restoration of the supremacy
of the Church in all matters pertaining to education.
The leaders of the clerical faction, including Prince
Aloys Liechtenstein and others, took advantage of the
autonomous and home-rule aspirations of the various
nationalist groups in the Austrian Parliament to pur
chase their support in all educational and ecclesiastical
matters by promises of assistance in their struggle for
national autonomy ; and thus Count Taafe's Cabinet
has been forced to yield, and to perpetuate a retrograde
movement, which cannot fail to exercise a disastrous
effect on the complicated fortunes of Austria. The
new law revives all the forraer compulsory religious
instruction, and provides that the same shall be im
parted by priests, whose authority over the pupils shall
be equal, if not superior, to that of the masters. School
inspectors are no longer to be chosen from among the
professors, but from among the clergy, who obtain
almost the complete control over the public schools in
villages and sraall towns. Moreover, communal schools
are to be closed wherever the Church schools are
deemed sufficient for the local needs. This of course
involves the abolition of a number of national schools,
and will result in the multiplication of those of a pro
fessional nature.
A writer in the New York Times says : —
" Within the past three months the synod of Catholic
Archbishops and Bishops of the kingdom of Bavaria
have drawn up and presented to the Royal Government

230 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
a kind of ultimatum, embodying the foUowing conces
sions, to which they claim that tbe Church is entitled
under the terms of the Concordat of 1818. In the
first place, they insist that all Government supervision
of the religious and doctrinal instruction in educational
institutions should at once cease; second, that the
' simultanschule,' or schools for children of non-
Catholic parents in which all doctrinal instruction is
avoided, should be immediately abolished; third, that
Freemasons and 'enemies of Christianism,' ergo
heretics, should be legally disqualified, and debarred
from teaching in any public or private schools, colleges,
or universities ; fourth, that all normal and primary
schools in the kingdora, and all public libraries, should
be subjected to the absolute and exclusive control of
the clergy ; fifth, that the supervision and control of all
doctrinal and theological instruction in the national
universities be confided to the Catholic episcopacy;
sixth, that the Govemraent refuse any longer its
official recognition of the sect known as ' Old Catho
lics;' and lastly, that the internal adrainistration of
the Church in Bavaria, as well as its teachings
and doctrines, be entirely freed from all further inter
ference, supervision, and control on the part of the
Government. " Now although Prime Minister Von Lutz failed at
the time to return an altogether satisfactory response
to these demands, yet it must be borne in mind that his
hesitation and reluctance to comply therewith will be
speedily overruled. For not only are his relations with
the Prince Regent, who is an exceedingly devout
Catholic, much strained, but moreover, he is confronted
in ParUament by an overwhelming Ultramontane
majority. Indeed, his continued presence at the head

CONVENT LIFE. 231

of the Administration, in view of the fact that his
adherents form an insignificant minority in the Chamber,
is not only entirely unconstitutional, but is a direct
violation of the terms of the Magna Charta of the
kingdom. Moreover, it is well to bear in mind the fact
that of the 5,500,000 inhabitants of Bavaria at least
4,250,000 are bigoted Catholics. Under the circum
stances, therefore, the prospects of the early realisation
of the demands of the Bavarian bishops may be said to
be assured."
I have drawn particular attention to the above-
mentioned ultimatum of the Bavarian episcopacy for
the reason that it displays, in all its brutal nudity, the
goal and object which the Papacy is striving to attain
in every country in the world. In some portions of
Europe these demands are more diplomatically veiled
than at Munich, but the ulterior aira is always the
same. And lest any doubt should remain as to the fact that
they or^nate directly from the Vatican, and represent
the views of the Papacy, it may be of advantage to add
that Leo XIIL, in a papal brief dated April 29th, 1889,
and addressed to the Bavarian Primate Archbishop of
Munich, explicitly indorses every one of the demands
put forward by the prelates in question. Nay, the
Pope even goes beyond them, and declares that the
commands and instructions issued by the Pontiff or
his representatives are entitled to the most unquestion
ing and blind obedience on the part of all Catholics,
even in cases where they happen to have failed
to receive the sanction of the Government of the
land. The Pope further claims that the behests and
commands of the Vatican, not only in spiritual but

232 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
also in temporal m.alters, must be obeyed to the letter,
even if they happen to be in contradiction to the
laws of the land. " The Divine doctrine founded by
our Saviour," says the Pontiff in his brief, " provides
for the preference of the decisions of the Church,
over and above the prescriptions of the civil power
and law. If that were not the case the fundamental
laws governing humanity would be exposed to disas
trous modification by each individual man, monarch, or
Government." The Pontiff therefore explicitly exacts that the laws
enacted by the Curia of Italian prelates at Rorae .'should
be preferred, by all good Catholics, to the laws of the
land to which they may happen to belong. Patriotism
and the duties of citizenship are expected to take a back
seat wherever the Church is concerned.
There is a subject in connection with convents which
I would have thankfully passed by if I had not felt it a
sacred duty to write of it here. I am frequently asked
if there is iraraorality in convents, and I know that I
have suffered considerably in public estimation from
certain persons by my denial. I must add, too, as a
specimen of the usual uncharitable style of Roman
Catholic papers, that a third — or I might say a twenty-
third-rate Roman Catholic paper, which receives the
approbation of the Romanist Bishop of London, Ont.,
far from appreciating my truthfulness in this matter,
merely notices it with a sneer, saying that I would come
to that later.
There is no such thing as honour, conscience, or
refined feeling in the Roman Catholic Church. I should
rather say there is no Christianity, There may be a
veneer of something which will pass for it with the

CONVENT LIFE. 233

unthinking and the uneducated, two classes who are
the chief support of Rome ; but when the touchstone
of the supposed interests of the Church is applied,
coarseness and brutality reign supreme. As for myself,
it has long ceased to be a matter of the slightest concern
to me whether I have had blame or praise from any
one. My mission is to speak truth as I know it, and
that done, it matters little who blames or praises. The
coarseness and rage with which Romanists attack every
one who leaves their coraraunion is one of the many
proofs which exist of its utterly unchristian character.
There is no grief for the supposed loss to the person's
soul. All is simply rage because there is another
evidence that Rome cannot keep her hold on every
one who enters her pale.
There are, I regret to say, some Protestants who
do not appreciate statements of fact as they should,
and are disappointed when they do not find sensation.
For such I do not write. I speak of facts as I know
them. As for the facts of others I have had no oppor
tunity of investigating them. I say nothing for or
against them. There wiU be always some few persons
who seem to be — if I may say so — born frauds, and
Protestants should be on their guard against them.
There are also persons who never have been Romanists,
and who must necessarily take their facts second-hand.
No doubt such persons are honest in their desire to
spread the Light of Truth, but when there are two
persons to give evidence, one who has been for many
years a member of the Roman Church, as either a priest
or a sister, most assuredly it is the part of wisdom to
give the most credit to their statements. Further, there
are, and always will be, adventurers whose sole object
is to make a living out of disclosures. Such persons

234 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
should not be accepted without very careful investiga
tion. I have found a case of this kind lately.
A woman, who had been an inmate of a Roman
CathoUc refuge for fallen women in England, actually
represented herself as the daughter of a distinguished
Roman Catholic family, described her magnificent
dresses, her jewels, her high life, and last, not least,
declared that she had escaped from a convent in
England. Her whole story from end to end was a lie.
She was siraply a very clever adventuress. When I
read this woraan's statements, having so many years'
experience with sisters and nuns, I saw at once that
she had never been a sister or an inmate of a convent,
except as a fallen woman. But it was in vain that I
pointed out this to those whom she had deceived, and
I got very little thanks for speaking.
I had opportunity afterwards of ascertaining that
everything which I suspected was exactly what had
happened. The woman averted suspicion by her
cautious way of writing of the sisters. All she wanted
was the advantage of appearing before the public, at
a time of great excitement, as a person of a distinguished
family, who had made immense sacrifices for religion.
Her persistent refusal to tell where she came from
should at once have awakened the suspicion of those
whom she so cleverly deceived. I dwell on her case
because Protestants cannot overestimate the importance
of ascertaining who such people are. The injury which
they do to true religion is difficult to undo. I have
given a full account in my Autobiography of how I was
deceived myself by a Roman Catholic, who pretended
she was a Protestant, and obtained entrance to and
help from many convents, on the plea of wanting to
change her reUgion.

CONVENT LIFE. 235

Another and a very serious evil which arises from
taking up persons of this class is that it is a great
triumph to Rome. Rome wUl have raore to say about
one adventurer than about a hundred honest men or
women who have left the Church. Such persons, too,
cannot but feel deeply discouraged when they see
adventurers preferred to them ; and it is a still greater
and more serious discouragement to those who are yet
in the Church of Rome and wish to leave it. All this
trouble could be saved so easily if Protestants would
insist on knowing the previous history of those who
come to them from the Church of Rome. There cannot
be any reason for concealment. Any one who comes
before the public has a right to satisfy the public as
to his or her identity. Excuses are siraply cloaks to
shield fraud, and should never be accepted. No possible
injury could be done to a sister or convert frora the
Church of Rome, or to her friends, by her name being
known, or the name of the convent frora which she
came. The only case in which concealment raight be
necessary would be in the case of a person inquiring
who had not decided to leave the Church of Rome.
In such a case the greatest secrecy might be necessary ;
but this would be only a form of prudence, which is a
very different thing from the secrecy of fraud.
It is indeed lamentable when the fact of being
deceived by such persons leads to coldness or indifference
towards sincere converts. For such as these Protestants
cannot do too much. They have trials and sufferings
which an adventuress never knows.
It is with great regret I am obliged to say that, al
though I have no personal knowledge of immorality in
convents, I do not question for one moment the statements
which have been made by others on this subject. It

236 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
must be remembered that Rome does what she dares.
It should never be forgotten that her principles never
change, and that her practice is modified to suit all
circumstances. In countries where Rome is safe from
the open Ught of public opinion her dark deeds are
done. It is terrible to have to say such things of a
Church which calls herself Christian, but history, and
history written by Romanists, gives but too positive
proofs of her evil deeds.
With regard to Maria Monk's much-talked-of book,
it was written many years since, when Romanism in
Canada was free to do as Rome pleased. What Maria
Monk has alleged against the sisters in Montreal is
simply what Roman Catholic historians admit to have
been a common practice in the Middle Ages, and even
later. It will be remembered that Gerson, the great
Roraan Catholic divine and theologian of the fourteenth
century, declared that concubinage was a necessary
evil, as it might prevent greater evils. For fuU and
reliable information on this and other subjects Mr.
Lea's work " History of Sacerdotal Celibacy," is in
valuable. The Franciscans had their " Marthas," and
were condemned by a Council held in Magdeburg
(1403) for their dissolute lives. So general was the
evil that the Franciscans attacked the Carmelites for
betraying women. It is not to be supposed that when
such was the state of the priesthood women conse
crated to God should escape pollution.
"There is no injustice," says Mr. Lea, "in holding
the Church responsible for the lax morality of the
laity. It had assumed the right to regulate the con
sciences of men, and to make them account for every
action and even for every thought. When it promptly

CONVENT LIFE. 237

caused the burning of those who ventured on any
dissidence in doctrinal opinion or in matters of pure
speculation, it could not plead lack of authority to
control them in practical virtue. Its machinery was
all-pervading, and its power autocratic. It had taught
that the priest was to be venerated as the representative
of God, and that his commands were to be implicitly
obeyed. It had armed him with the fearful weapon
of the confessional, and by authorising him to grant
absolution and to pronounce excommunication, it had
delegated to him the keys of heaven and hell. By
removing him from the jurisdiction of the secular
courts, it had proclaimed him as superior to all tem
poral authority. Through ages of faith the populations
had humbly received these teachings, and bowed to
these assumptions, until they entered into the texture
of the daily life of every man. While thus grasping
supremacy, and using it to the utmost possibUity of
worldly advantage, the Church therefore could not
absolve itself from the responsibilities inseparably con
nected with power; and chief among these responsi
bilities is to be numbered the moral training of the
nations thus subjected to its wiU" (p. 355, 2nd ed.).
When the Church had unrestrained power in the
world, and used it so persistently for evil, how much
more power had it in the cloister, and how much easier
was it to use it there for the worst purposes ? The
crime was not for a priest to be unchaste, but for him to
marry. For centuries of the Church's history there is
evidence which no sane man can deny, that the lives of
the priests were a scandal to the whole world, and
that the lives of the sisters were little better. In a
BuU of Alexander IV. (1259) he declares that the

238 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
people were corrupted by the priests, instead of being
reformed by them. In 742 such was the corruption of
nuns that enactments were raade by Pope Zachary for
their punishment, when found guilty of adultery with
priests. In 125 1 in England the Bishop of Lincoln
made enactments to test the virtue of nuns, of such a
degrading character that I cannot repeat thera here. The
licentiousness of nunneries must have been fearful to
have compelled a bishop to use such drastic measures.
And it may here be observed, in connection with the
license lately given to the Duke of Aosta, by the present
Pope, to commit incest for the sum of fifty thousand
dollars, that the writers of the political and other baUads
of the day allude severely to the " making and unmaking
of matrimony" for money, which seems to have been
the unvarying custom of the Roman Church for cen
turies. In IIOI Paschal II. was obliged to send an
epistle to the ecclesiastical authorities in Spain on the
subject of the cohabitation of priests and nuns. In 1394
a petition was presented to the English Parliament for
the reform of the Church, and especially for the reform
of nuns. In 1536 an effort was actually made by a
commission of Cardinals to abolish the whole monastic
system, such was the scandalous state of convents and
nunneries. Awork was published called " TheConsilium
de emendanda ecclesia." One of the ecclesiastics con
cerned in this good work was subsequently raised to
the papal throne as Paul IV. But instead of carrying
out the work which he had inaugurated before his eleva
tion he quietly placed this book on the Index. Perhaps
there has seldom been a clearer evidence of the character
and aim of " infallible " Popes.
One thing is certain, that while "heresy" was
punished with death, torture, and all the penalties which

CONVENT LIFE. 239

the cruelty of the human heart could devise, there was
but very slight punishment for the open sins of priests
and nuns. I shall only say here that so serious was
the corruption of the spouses of Christ at this period,
that numberless cases are reported by Llorente, the
Roman Catholic historian of the Inquisition. He says
the children of nuns and priests were openly acknow
ledged by their parents, if not without shame, at least
without serious reproof. In Provence the scandal was
open and horrible. In England Dr. Geddes, a Roraan
Catholic priest, who wrote and published, at the com
mencement of the present century, a book advocating
the celibacy of the clergy, was suspended for this, and
for publishing a new translation of the Bible. With
two more quotations from Mr. Lea's work I close this
painful subject.
" When the Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany under
took to reform the monasteries of his dominions, and to
put an end, if possible, to the abuse of the confessional,
it led to a long diplomatic correspondence with the papal
curia as to the jurisdiction over such cases. A public
document ofthe year 1763 had already stated that the
special crime in question had becorae less frequent, and
attributed this improvement to the exceeding laxity or
morals everywhere present, for few confessors could be
so foolish as to atterapt seduction in the confessional,
when there was so little risk in doing the same thing
elsewhere. Specious as this reasoning might seem, the
facts on which it was based were hardly borne out by
the investigations of Leopold shortly after into the
morals of the monastic establishments. Nothing more
scandalous is to be found in the visitations ofthe religious
houses of England, under Morton and CromweU. The

240 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
spiritual directors of the nunneries had converted them
virtually into harems ; and such of the sisters as were
proof against seduction, armed with the powers of con
fession and absolution, suffered every species of perse
cution. It was rare for them to venture on complaint,
but when they did so they received no attention from
their ecclesiastical superiors, and only the protection of
the grand-ducal authority at length emboldened them
to reveal the truth. The prioress of S. Caterina di
Pistoia declared that, with three or four exceptions, aU
the monks and confessors whom she had met in her long
career were alike ; that they treated the nuns as wives,
and taught them that God had made man for woman
and woman for man; and that the visitations of the
bishops amounted to nought, even though they were
aware of what occurred, for the mouths of the victims
were sealed by the dread of excommunication threatened
by their spiritual directors. When it is considered that
the convents thus converted into dens of prostitution
were the favourite schools to which the girls of the
higher classes were sent for training and education, it
can be readily imagined what were their moral influences,
thence radiating throughout society at large; and we
can appreciate the argument above referred to as to the
ease with which the clergy could procure sexual indulg
ence without recourse to the confessional " (p. 5 86).
" Rome itself was no better than its dependent
provinces, despite the high personal character of sorae of
the pontiffs. When the too early death of Clement XIV.,
in 1774, cut short the hopes which had been excited
by his enlightened rule, St. Alphonso Liguori addressed
to the conclave assembled for the election of his suc
cessor a letter urging them to make such a choice as

CONVENT LIFE. 241

would afford reasonable prospect of accompUshing the
much-needed reform. The saint did not hesitate to
characterise the discipline of the secular clergy as most
grievously lax, and to proclaim that a general reform of
the ecclesiastical body was the only way to remove the
fearful corruption of the morals of the laity. When we
hear, about this time, of two Carmelite convents at Rome,
one male and the other female, which had to be pulled
down because underground passages had been esta
bUshed between them, by means of which the monks and
nuns lived in indiscriminate licentiousness, and when
we read the scandalous stories which were current in
Roman society about prelates high in the Church, we
can readily appreciate the denunciations of St. Alphonso.
A curious glimpse at the interior of conventual life is
furnished by a manual for Inquisitors, written about
this period by an official of the Holy Office of Rorae.
In a chapter on nuns he describes the scandals which
often cause them to fall within the jurisdiction of the
Inquisition, and prescribes the course to be pursued
with regard to the several offences. Among those who
were forced to take the veil, despair frequently led to
the denial of God, of heaven, and of heU; feminine
enmity caused accusations of sorcery and witchcraft,
which threw not only the nunneries, but whole cities,
into confusion ; vain-glory of sanctity suggested pre?
tended revelations and visions ; and these latter were;
also not infrequently caused by licentiousness ; for ir^
these utterances were sometimes taught doctrines
utterly subversive of moraUty, of which godless con
fessors took advantage to teach their spiritual daughter^
that there was no sin in sexual intercourse. As in
Spain, it was the practice of the Roman Inquisitiop to
treat the offenders mildly, partly ip consideration of the

242 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
temptations to which they were exposed, and partly to
avoid scandal." (pp. 587, 588.)
When such was the state of the "holy" Roman
Catholic Church when she had full control, and had
no Protestants to hinder her liberty of action, as she
so often complains at the present day, why should
narratives such as those of Maria Monk, and of Father
Chiniquy, be questioned ? They only say what Rome
herself has said, over and over again for centuries, in
those feeble efforts to purify the Church which were
made from time to time, when the state of its morals
was such as to threaten its final dissolution. The
book of Maria Monk was written many years since,
when Rome had uncontrolled power in Canada. Such
outrages on humanity, as she describes, would be
impossible at the present day, and therefbre would
not be attempted ; but let Rome again attain the same
power, and the same results will follow.
But Rome has not changed. The case of Bruno,
so recently before the public, should convince any
one who does not wish to be deceived, or who does
not deceive himself deliberately, that Rome has not
changed. She would be immoral now as openly
as she was for centuries, yes, and as openly as she
is to-day in Mexico, if she did not fear public
opinion. It is quite clear that if Rome can control
American Protestant organisations like the Knights of
Labour, and interfere in the government of nations, she
could also, if she wished to do so, control and reform
the morals of, her own priests. When the bishop of
a large diocese in the United States gives to the public
such a horrible account of the demoralisation of his
priests, as that which I have already quoted from the

CONVENT LIFE. 243

pen of Bishop Hogan, what must there be under the
surface which will never be known untU the day of
doom ? When Cardinal Manning cannot keep all his
priests from drink and immorality, what is the state of
the Roman Church in England, with all its advantages ?
And yet she boasts that she, and she alone, is the
"holy" Church; and in all ages and all times she
has found men who are fools enough to take her at her
own valuation.
The superhuman skill with which Rome hides the
iniquities of her priesthood is a matter of admiration
for all men. She would have been wrecked long since
by the sheer weight of her own vileness, if that vileness
had not been hidden by threats of present and future
penalties, hurled at those who wished to speak publicly
of her sins. Roman Catholic gentlemen in New York
have been heard to relate tales of the vileness of the
priests of their acquaintance which I could not record
on these pages, and yet these gentlemen still remain in
nominal communion with the Church of Rome. It suits
their political interests to do so, and as for religion they
have none. The rising generation of American Roman
Catholic men are going in precisely the same path as
the men of Italy, of France, of Spain, and of every
country where the Roraan Church has had unliraited
power. They first learn to despise their ecclesiastics,
who teach one thing and practise another. Then they
learn to hate them, and revolt against all religious
authority soon follows. Yet with these facts before their
very eyes Protestants wUI do all they can to support a
system with which those who know it best will have
nothing to do. Was ever infatuation so fatal or so
foolish ?
I am well aware that it is not love for Rome which

244 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
makes the American millionaire fall at the feet of the
Cardinal of Baltimore, and the Archbishop of New York.
They curse the necessity which obliges them to pay
homage to these men, and, let me add, they imagine the
I necessity. The Roman Church poses before an easily
gulled public as the guardian of law and order. The
" I^ope says, " 1 am the only person, and my religion is the
only reUgion, which will keep the king on his throne, or
enable the rich man to hold his wealth secure ; " and the
king and the rich man, looking in these troubled times
for a power which will protect them, turn to Rome,
and Rome finds occasion to appear as if she, and she
alone, could control the hungry multitude. " See," she
cries, "how I have brought these troublesome Knights of
Labour to my feet. You feared they would revolutionise
labour, you feared they would wring from you some of
that capital to which for the present I recognise your
right, without making any curious inquiry as to how it
has been accumulated. Trust to me, and I will protect
you." But why does not the too confiding millionaire
and the anxious statesman ask. Why have you not suc
ceeded in your own country ? Why has your power
been overthrown wherever you had temporal rule?
Why do you not control the assassination societies in
your own Church ? Why do you not pacify Ireland ?
No ; the shallow politician, and the unscrupulous poli
tician, and the selfish millionaire grasp at the present
good, and care little for the future evil. " After me the
deluge. If I can hold my own now let the future take
care of itself" And how the future will take care of
itself let the past history of the effects of Roman rule
tell. If there is no prostitution in convents to-day, let it be
remembered that it is so because a strong public opinion

CONVENT LIFE. 245

will not allow it in countries where Rome has not yet
all the power she so ardently desires. I know how a
Romanist shrinks with horror from the very idea of the
spouses of Christ being even named with outcasts, but
sentiment will not alter fact. There is too much
historical evidence that the spouses of Christ could fall,
as well as others of their own sex. No matter what we
may feel or how we may shrink with horror, the facts
remain, and our true wisdom is to prevent the recur
rence of evils which are so terrible. When Rome
not only tolerated but encouraged the concubinage of
priests rather than allow them to enter upon the sacred
ties of marriage, what may she not have allowed in the
cloister ?
For myself, no one could have heard of such narratives
as that of Maria Monk with greater horror than I did.
No one could have expressed greater indignation, or a
more burning desire of vengeance on those whom I
supposed had Ued deliberately. I lived many years of
my life with sisters who were as good and as pure
as women could be, as far as their moral character is
concerned. Naturally I believed that aU the spouses of
Christ were alike. As for priests, I believed that they
were as near angels as mortal men could be. I was as
indignant as the most devoted Romanists if I heard
the least aspersion on the character of a priest. I had
under my very eyes a case of the most lamentable
depravity on the part of a priest ; but so imbued was 1
with the idea that it was not possible for a priest to
sin, that I did not see what, if I had been less sus
picious, I certainly should have seen. It was not till I
found not only that priests could ruin girls, but that
very little was thought of it when they did so, that my
eyes were opened.

245 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
I saw enough to open my eyes to the possibility of
evil in convent life if I had even the least suspicion that
such a thing was possible. I believe that the shock
which is given to sensitive and spiritual minds when
they find that there is evil, or when anything comes
before them which even hints at it, is one cause why
evil is so easily perpetuated. The power of the con
fessional is another great protection to the evildoer.
If any Roman Catholic sees, or knows, of evil done by
a priest or a sister, they are in duty bound to speak of it
in the confessional, and here at once all further mention
of it will be forbidden. However priests may abuse
each other in private, they are at least loyal in protecting
each other's — shall I say characters, or sins, in public ?
If, for example, I had mentioned in the confessional, as
I ought to have done, that I had seen a sister and a priest
in an improper position in a certain Irish convent, I
would have had a more miserable Ufe than I had, which
is saying a good deal. It would have been the part of
common charity and common prudence to have warned
the sisters that this priest was a drunkard, a class with
whom no woman is ever safe, yet for many reasons he
was the very last person whom I would have ever
suspected of drink, though others knew his real
character. I remember the late Dr. Moriarty, when Bishop of
Kerry, talking to me one day of the strange " fancies "
which sisters sometimes took, and teUing me that a
sister in one of his convents told him every time he
came that the priests and the Rev. Mother were too
familiar. I felt annoyed at his telling me this, as all
Roman Catholics feel when they hear anything against
their Church, and not the less so because he always
seemed to think it was a good joke. While I was in

CONVENT LIFE, 247

Kenmare the superioress of a large French religious
order in Texas came there several times to look for
young girls to go out with her as sisters. The way I
was sought and visited there I know was one cause of
my many troubles, for it excited the jealousy of the
sisters, and especially of those who were natives of
Kenmare, who, with one exception, were of that low and
ignorant class who cannot bear to see any one noticed
except themselves, and who have not sufficient intellect —
shaU I say common sense ? — to appreciate the possibUity
of another having what God has not given them. This
superioress told me stories of drunken priests which
horrified me, and of the trouble she had with priests
and sisters. I could not disbelieve her, but it was the
first revelation to me of what I learned later was but
too common in reUgious houses or convents where the
Church of Rome is free from Protestant observation.
Later I learned that the further Rome gets from an
open Bible the greater danger there is. Texas is not
far from Mexico. In the remote and western States of
America, as in Mexico, priests will live lives which they
dare not Uve in the States, where public sentiment is to
some degree controlled by Protestant opinion.

CHAPTER XI.
"BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM."
"Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit." — Matt, vii. 17.
WE have shown in the last chapter, on the undeni
able evidence of the Roman CathoUc editor of
the New York Freeman's Journal, that sisters, to get
a little money, deliberately deprive their pupils of the
educational advantages which they are in duty bound
to give them. If such a charge had been made against
convent schools by Protestants it would be indignantly
denied, and would be attributed to Protestant malice
and bigotry. But this is not all. The editor says that
the Roraan Catholic poor, who can so ill afford it, are
deprived yearly of " millions of dollars.'' But yet even
this is not all. The same paper has the raost caustic
and cutting attack on the raorality of the sisters, in the
matter of their distribution of prizes. Nor can this
be considered as of sraall raoraent. Only those who
have been familiar for many years with convent schools
and their workings can form an idea of the terrible
shock which is given to the moral perceptions of
chUdren by any failure of justice on the part of those
whom they are taught to revere so highly.
Let it be remerabered that the children are taught to
look up to the sisters as something superhuman, that

BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 249
the eyes and ears of these little ones are sharp, and
criticising, though unconsciously to themselves, and that
a defect, much more a serious fault, in a sister, is to
them a terrible crime, and makes an indelible impres
sion. 1 can quite endorse the criticism of the editor of
the Freeman' s Journal, but if I had accused sisters of
the gross injustice as well as of the deliberate fraud
of which he accuses them, it would be at once denied,
and attributed to every motive but the true one. Here
is what this Roman Catholic gentleman says of the
way in which sisters' schools are conducted. The
article is headed " The Reverse of the Medal."
" The medal nuisance reigns merrily in these days.
Medals raay be good for boys. They are very bad for
girls and worse for girls' mothers. The heartburnings,
the envy, the anger, the rash judgment evoked by
these little bits of gilded metal leave traces for many
years. Schools are injured by the competition for
medals, friends separated, and priests and religious
accused of all sorts of meanness in the height of the
medal season.
" If Mary Scholastica Jones is to have the medal for
useless industry, a branch very much affected in sorae
schools, Mary Angela Smith's mother puts on her war
paint. The Joneses 1 Everybody knows how old
Jones made his money. And there are things about
the Joneses that she could tell. As for Sister Mary
Paul, who was obliged, poor woman, to invent a new
study in order to give a new medal, it's as clear as
daylight that if her mother wasn't a fourth cousin of
Mary Jones' stepmother that medal would never have
gone where it went. It is hinted, too, that if the
Joneses had not given an extra donation to the organ

250 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
fund the medal for useless industry would have adorned
the deserving neck of Mary Angela Smith.
" The recent tribulations of sorae good religious in a
neighbouring town will illustrate the troubles of those
who give medals. They were to have a drama played
by the elite of their classes. Intense excitement.
White frocks. Curtain ready to rise. Good sisters
charmed with the rehearsal of the Long Lost Child,
who was also to be the Violet in an afterpiece, sing a
French song later on, and play the Boulanger March
(six hands) at the end. Applause on the other side
of the curtain. But where is the Long Lost Child?
She appears with her mother, who announces that
there shall be no Long Lost Child that night if her
Jane is not to get a medal. Then follow three other
mothers with three other children, who have just dis
covered that they are to have no medals. The drama
cannot possibly go on without these three, because one
is Queen Esther, the other is a Hebrew Shepherd, and
the third a Gipsy Maiden ; and besides, they are
down for 'Silvery Waves' on the programme. The
consequence is that the curtain stays down. There is
no drama, and four mothers return swearing vengeance
against the school, and filling the air with taunts and
insinuations.'' Now it is certain that the mothers in question were
also educated at convent schools, and this is the fruit
of such training.
A novel was published some years since, in which
the absurdities and the frauds of convent education
were thoroughly exposed ; and any one who knows
anything personally of convents knows that "Hogan
M.P." was true to the life. I have myself seen the

"BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 251

bitterest jealousy and heartburning which has followed
a public exhibition in English and Irish convent
schools, and in the " commencements " in the United
States, so graphically described in the above extract.
What do the children think of the conduct of sisters
who can stoop, and do stoop, to the meanest devices
to gain the good word of the rich ?
I heard the following account from the very Ups of
the sister concerned. The " Ladies of the Sacred
Heart " (a curious name for those who take for their
patron the lowly heart of Jesus) concern themselves
very little with the poor. Their work is all for the
rich ; and it siraply deprives the respectable and
struggling Roraan Catholic girl of one chance of earning
her living. Roraan Catholic girls have no chance of
earning their bread by teaching except in poor schools ;
and even in these they are anticipated by sisters. The
extent to which the sisters deprive both the Protestant
and Roman Catholic working classes of a means of
living is a subject which has never received the con
sideration it deserves. The Ladies of the Sacred Heart,
however, have generally a few poor children in a
separate school, to make some little show of care for the
poor. The lady of whom I have spoken had charge
of these children. On one occasion the Rev. Mother's
Feast day came round, and of course she ought to
receive a costly present. This system of making
presents to superiors is one which is obviously a source
cf such heartburnings that in my own case I posi
tively forbade it. The custom, however, is general. It
happened that the young ladies of this school had been
so heavily taxed for gifts and donations, that they
were known to be absolutely penniless. The sister
who had to coUect the money for the present was in a

252 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
sad dilemma. Just as it is considered an act of " dis
loyalty to the Church " when a priest faUs to subscribe
to a testimonial to a bishop, for whom he may have no
real regard, so it is considered " disrespect" for a sister to
fail in the accustomed marks of attention to a superior.
The money had to be got soraehow, so the sister
went to the sister who told me the fact, and said she
must get the money from the poor children. The
sister to whom this command was given had been
a member of the order for many years, and had raade
her final vows, but she had not lost all heart and con
science. She positively refused to do this act of
injustice, and declared that the poor children needed the
money far more than the Rev. Mother, or any one else in
the order. As these same sisters have recently refused
four hundred thousand dollars for a small plot of land
near New York which they own, some idea of their
enormous wealth may be formed. This seems to have
been the last drop in the cup offered to this sister.
She had again and again been required to do things
which she felt were against her conscience, and un
happily, or happily for herself, she could not invariably
practise the " blind obedience " which is required from
religious. The end was that she left the order, and
is now living at home, though she still belongs to the
Roman Catholic Church.
There were annual examinations held while I was in
Kenmare, at which a much-edified but very ignorant
public were surprised by the ready way in which the
children answered questions which were, apparently,
put to them for the first time at these examinations.
This farce was, and I suppose is still, solemnly played
out. The questions were all carefuUy prepared some
time before the examinations, and the answers were

"BY THEIR FRUITS ]E SHALL KNOW THEM." 2Si
also written out. The teacher asked the questions
extemporaneously, and the children answered the ques
tions, which they had been taught with much pains
and labour, to all appearance in the same extempo
raneous manner. On one occasion I was sitting next
to the late Dr. Morriarty, their bishop. I saw that he
was impressed, and I asked hira what he was thinking
of He replied, " I am marvelling at the memory of
that girl who is asking the questions." I knew then
that the bishop at least was not iraposed upon.
One must have lived in a convent to know all the
little and the great frauds practised therein in the name
of reUgion ; and the worst evil is that it is made a sin
not to do this evil, or even to conderan it.
A young lady, belonging to the upper " four hun
dred," who had been for a short tirae at one of the
convents ofthe Sacred Heart, told me the following story.
Here, if anywhere, we might suppose that humility
would reign supreme ; but this is far from being the
case. The young ladies who are educated in these con
vents are the daughters of very wealthy parents, and
are treated accordingly, and distinctions are made which
produce incessant jealousy. This young lady told me
she got into considerable trouble, and was eventually
removed, at the request of the nuns, for asking questions
when she should have held her tongue. One of her
questions was sufficiently amusing. She had been
told that whenever she met a sister she should make
a profound bow to her, and stand on one side until the
sister passed. She asked why tliis was required, and
was told it was not intended to pay any homage to the
sister, but that it was a reverence to the guardian angel
of the sister.
One of the strange anom.aUes of convent life is the

254 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
existence of a class called " lay " sisters. These
sisters are treated as inferior beings, and yet, according
to the teaching of the Roman Church, they are as
much spouses of Christ as the choir sisters, and
should hold just the same rank. I may add that I had
such a strong feeling as to the incongruity of the lay
sister element in convents, that I decided not to have
lay sisters in my own institutions, and therefore we
were all equal. In America the idea of a "lay"
sister is quite contrary to the spirit of the RepubUc.
The young lady I have just mentioned thought that
the lay sister should be treated the same as the other
sisters, and acted accordingly in perfect good faith.
But she was told that this was not right, that, on the
contrary, the lay sisters should step aside for her,
and bow to her when she passed. The girl asked if
the lay sister had not a guardian angel also, and with
the result that for this and other inconvenient inquiries,
she was sent home as one likely to corrupt the morals
of her companions.
I have seen the lives of some of the best sisters in
Kenmare made perfectly miserable by the petty jealousy
of others who were their inferiors in virtue, and in
education. As the superioress was an uneducated
person, she was entirely at the mercy of the sisters who
understood the national system of education, and every
one had to suffer in consequence. Two or three sisters
who had never left the viUage of Kenmare, and had all
the conceit of a very limited education, of which they
thought a great deal, because they knew nothing better,
ruled the house, and the children of the convent schools
were not slow to see the state of things and to comment
on it. Since my arrival in America I have met some of
the children of the schools, who told me they often felt

'•BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEAI." 255
incUned to rise in rebellion against the insolent treat
ment which Sister Agatha, a very gentle sister who
conducted the higher classes, received from Sister
Joseph. So great was the insolence of this sister to
myself (1 regret to use the word, but I do not know
how I can describe her conduct by any other term),
that on one occasion I was on the point of leaving the
convent, and taking shelter with a Protestant gentleman
from her violence, in which she was encouraged by
Bishop Higgins. I was some years her senior, and
that circumstance alone restrained her.
If those who imagine a convent to be a place of repose
and sanctity spent even a few weeks in one, they
would soon be undeceived. Jealousy of each other,
jealousy of superiors, jealousy of confessors, — these and
many other things, which are inseparable from human
nature when placed in certain positions, are the miser
able result of convent life all over the world.
Those who only see sisters in the parlour or in
the street are easily and sadly deceived. Sisters are
prudent enough to conceal their animosities, and to
hide their griefs from the public. I know it is difficult
for those who have had no experience of convent life
to understand why sisters conceal their troubles. But
how many a wife is there who bears wrongs and suffer
ings in silence for years? Her pride or her self-respect
keep her from open complaint. It is just the same with
sisters. They know too weU the uselessness of com
plaint, and that although it cannot help them in any
way, it wUl most assuredly make their sufferings far
greater. I have seen a sister nearly faint after spend
ing hours rubbing the hands of a priest, who fancied
this treatment, and required this d,iid other services
from the oisters.

256 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
I have seen the sisters day after day occupied for
a considerable time bathing a priest's feet in the convent
parlour, after he had been digging in the garden for
his amuseraent, and in his awkwardness had hurt
himself slightly. The man was undoubtedly a little
erratic in his behaviour, and his meanness in requiring
such services from women was a curious contrast to
his high professions of sanctity, and of respect for
the religious life. He died a bishop, and I presume in
the odour of sanctity. I believe that his persistent
persecution of myself arose from his keen suspicion that
I had the most utter conterapt for his pretensions of
sanctity, and for his conduct in such matters. As for
the sisters, the way in which they knelt at his feet to
perform this unnecessary service, which if he had had
a spark of manhood he would never have required,
was sufficient to show their character.
The supei-ioress of the Texas convent told me that
on one occasion she and the sisters had to cut
down a priest who was trying to hang himself, a victim
of drink ; but she seemed to think drink too common
an occurrence to trouble much about it. She told me
also that she had to keep a sharp watch over the
young sisters and the priests. It is impossible for
Protestants to understand how it is that a Roman
Catholic, knowing all these things, can yet reraain a
Roraan Catholic. Yet it is so.
I shall never forget the first tirae I saw anything
like open quarrelUng in a convent. It was soon after
I entered the convent in Newry. There was a Sister
Joseph there, also an unfortunate name as far as my
experience went, for the saint, after whom she was
named, whatever else he might do for his clients, did
not make them amiable. Miss O'Hagan, as I have

"BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 257
said in my Autobiography, had just been made superior,
to the intense annoyance of most of the older sisters.
She was herself a good woman, anxious to do her duty
according to her light ; but it can be easily understood
that being very much younger than the sisters subject
to her, she was looked down upon by them. Sister
Joseph, I must say, lost no opportunity of annoy
ing her, and this in a way which could not be
complained of as a direct disobedience or fault. I
could hardly suppress my astonishment at seeing this
sister, and indeed many others, going day after day
to receive the Sacrament of the altar, and yet day
after day quarrelling with each other and with their
superior, in a way of which any ordinary Christian
would have been ashamed.
The choir was a subject of perpetual and disgraceful
quarrelling. Those who know anything of how
quarrels abound in Church choirs, Protestant as well
as Roman Catholic, may form some idea of the trouble
in a convent, though all its members are supposed
to live the lives of saints.
In convents where young ladies are educated, and
especially in the Loretto convents, it is the custom
for a sister to chose or be chosen by each pupil as her
confidant. The misery and heartburning to which
this foolish custom gives rise could be scarcely under
stood outside the walls of a convent. A book has been
published lately in England by a gentleman who spent
some time in a monastery in that country, and who left
it in utter disgust with the puerilities with which the
monks occupied theraselves, though it does not appear
as if he had left the Roraan Church. In a review of
this book in an " Anglican " paper the writer states
that he is sure the " Cowley Fathers " live a very

258 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
different life. I can assure him, or others interested
in these matters, that bad as convent life is in the
Church of Rome, it is peace itself compared with the
Ufe of Anglican sisters. The want of charity, the
quarrelUng, and the pettiness which reigns supreme
in these institutions is below contempt.
It was the misfortune of a friend of mine to pass a day
and night, or part of a night, in one of these Ritualistic
institutions in New York, under circumstances which
should have secured her every kindness, but only to meet
with conduct of which a respectable heathen would not
have been guilty. Scarcely had she arrived when she
was told that one of the three sisters who formed the
whole community (for these ladies are very seldom
able to get or keep many members, no matter how
great their wealth) was jealous, and in a temper,
because she had not been consulted about the visitor.
The " Lady " superior was absent, and the sister who
took her place went to her room and locked herself up,
and left the amiable nuraber three to do as she pleased.
The lady who had asked the hospitality of these "sisters"
had been recommended to them by a bishop, and
a near relative of this bishop made all the arrange
ments, and was to have called for the lady the next"
morning. She was treated from the first with the
utmost rudeness. The "Lady" superior arrived in the
night, and next morning at daybreak came to the room
which the lady in question occupied, and ordered her
out of the house, with an insolence of tone and manner
which no lady would have used to a servant. Nor
was there even the shadow of an excuse for her
violence. Heaven help the poor penitents who are
consigned to the care of such " sisters."
An enormous sum of money is now being expended

"BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 259
on building a larger institution for these three woraen,
and with the assistance of plenty of servants they will
manage to carry on some kind of reformatory work.
My friend suggested that if they commenced reformatory
work amongst themselves it would be no harm. No
doubt there may be some Anglican convents where
Roman Catholic practices are not closely copied, and
where consequently there is more peace and charity.
To me the awful part of all this is the high profession
of reUgion made by those who are daily and hourly
guilty of such sins against charity.
It seems to be forgotten, in estimating the work of the
so-called religious orders in the Roman Catholic Church,
that it is our duty to judge the work by its results.
In doing this I shall confine myself exclusively to
Roman Catholic statements ; and it is indeed amazing
that Roman Catholics do not see for themselves how
utterly their Church has failed as an educator, or aa
an elevator of the people. Here is what the North
Western Chronicle, the official organ of Bishop Ireland,
of St. Paul's, Minnesota, has to say on this question.
And yet this bishop has done his best to bring thousands
of unfortunate Irish to his diocese to incur the same
unhappy fate. But when I asked permission to do a
work approved even by the Pope, to save these poor
children, I only met an insulting refusal. It is absurd
for bishops and priests to complain, as they do con
tinually, when Protestants corae forward and try to
save the offspring of their unhappy followers, while
they will not use the least efforts themselves to save
them. " From the number of destitute Catholic children,"
says this paper, "that we see immediately surrounding

26o INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
ourselves, whom we cannot send to charitable institu
tions because they have no means to keep them ; from
the number of Catholic children in non-Catholic institu
tions throughout the country ; from the number we see
at large, thrown on a cold, selfish, and heartless world
to seek their daUy bread; and from the newspaper
reports of distress in towns and cities, we are forced to
believe that at the present time in the United States
there are more destitute Catholic children exposed to
the certain corruption of faith and morals than there
were Catholics in this country nearly a century ago,
when the Holy Father, Pius VI., appointed Right Rev.
John Carroll to watch over, direct, and govern the.
American Church. What a terrible thing it would be
if the Pope had then left the CathoUc people of this
country exposed to the loss of faith I And are not the
souls of so many children of the Church who to-day are
positively exposed to corruption, as precious in the sight
of God, and as deserving of care ? That there are many
thousands, through exposure and destitution, on the
way to apostasy is too patent to be denied. Perhaps
never before in any other country has there been such
an exposure of the children of the Church to apostasy
and immorality, as here at the present time.
" The officials of a Protestant Benevolent Association
have informed us that in twenty-one years they have
sent to the West over 30,000 children, of whom at least
20,000 were Catholics ; and still the train goes regularly
once a month with from 130 to 1 50 children for distribu
tion. We know several other societies, five hundred
and more Protestant societies, that have in the West
established agencies to which they are continually
sending Catholic children. It is sometimes said that
these societies kidnap the little ones, but we can hardly

•BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 26)

credit such reports. They can find plenty in destitu
tion without stealing any. If the Protestant societies
do steal Catholic children it is very disreputable for
them. Yet we think it is more disreputable for Catholics
to let so many go unheeded, and then complain of the
few that are stolen.
" Last December we visited two Protestant schools,
not the so-called common schools, but Protestant free
mission schools ; nor do they belong to the society that
took care of the twenty thousand and consigned them
to Protestantism. In both these schools there are about
500 Catholic children. They have been run for over
twenty years with the same class of pupils, who also
attend Sabbath School on Sundays. . . . Twenty-two
years ago two priests were passing alorg the sidewalk
as the children were coming out, and one of the priests
said to the other, ' What a pity it is that we have no
place to send these children, where they could be brought
up in their own religion.' And to this day we have
no place to send them. It is an undeniable fact that
a large percentage of the children provided for by
Protestant Societies were once inmates of Catholic
institutions. " A few days since a gentleman told us that on the
15th of last May (1879) he was at Kankakee, IU,, and
saw two cartloads of children arrive from New York.
They were quickly distributed to farmers and others
who had been forewarned of their coraing. Frora the
children's Celtic features, he judged the majority of
them were CathoUcs. And he inquired, ' Is there
no way of stopping their (the Protestants) infamous
practice of stealing Catholic children ? ' "
What a disgraceful confession this is, above all, when

262 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
one thinks of the enorraous sums of money in the
hands of the Church of Rome.
The Catholic 'Visitor, Richraond, Virginia, a paper
pubUshed under the Episcopal approbation of Bishop
Keane, gives the following account of the state of the
Holy Roraan Catholic Church in his diocese. It is no
wonder that infidelty is the result of Roman Catholic
education, and that this bishop, when made head of the
Roman Catholic University at Washington, was obUged
to go to Europe for professors.
"The greatest enemies of the CathoUc Church are
Catholics. The genius of this great country will never
perhaps admit of a persecution of the Church. Yet the
persecution will and does take place. Who are the
persecutors ? They are bad Catholics. It is a grand
thing to be blessed with the faith, but to practise its
maxiras is necessary. We must not close our eyes to
the great fact that the worst enemies of our faith and
native land are Irish. There is a class of grovelUng
politicians who float' themselves upon their Irish and
Catholic naraes, and yet are in their lives a contradiction
to everything that is sacred and grand in the Irish
character. These are to be found in almost every
village and city of the country. The Irishman who
ignores the sacred obligations of his Church denies his
God, and becoraes the greatest enemy of his race and
creed. We are in this country losing more by the in
fidelity of Catholics than we are gaining. The Catholic
who neglects to assist at Mass on Sundays, or to ap
proach the sacraments as commanded, is a living scandal,
especially to the little ones. As soon as one command
of the Church is ignored grace is lost, and the end no
man knows. We need practical CathoUcs to-day."

••BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM:' 263
Another Roman Catholic writer says, in an article
headed, " Drink, Destitution, and Apostasy " : —
"An immense amount of the preaching and writing
among us this last half century has been, and still is,
on the necessity of the Catholic faith. There is also
some exposition of the ' doings of the drink,' ' economic-
aUy, socially, and morally,' as the standard report is.
That is all very good. But what seems to be commonly
overlooked by the preachers and the denouncers of
the drink is that the drink's injury to the faith almost
countervails the benefits of the preaching. And this
not merely, not chiefly, because the drink, in its con
spicuous effects upon certain of the faithful, brings
discredit to the Catholic faith, where otherwise it would
be considered and embraced, but because it casts it out
of where it was infused by the Holy Ghost. For it
. raakes Catholic parents to leave their children destitute,
and so they get reared, hundreds and thousands of
them, in non-Catholic institutions, and in homes not
only indifferent, but bitterly hateful toward the Church.
Only for the drink, the few Catholic chUdren that
would be left orphans would find an abundance of
happy CathoUc homes qualified and glad to receive
them." As to the State of New York, where the wealth of
the Church of Rome is almost unUmited, and where
the archbishop makes and unmakes the chief magis
trates at his sole will and pleasure, it is simply a
disgrace to humanity. It is only necessary to read
the records of the police courts to see the naraes,
nationality, and religion of the criminals.
Philadelphia also supplies her share of Roman Catholic
criminals.

264 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
The last report of the Presbyterian Hospital in New
York shows that Irish and Roman Catholics are a very
large majority of the cases treated ; and yet these
Protestant institutions, and all connected with them, are
the subject of constant abuse by priests, while they
grossly neglect their own people. I am acquainted
with a hospital in Washington built right opposite a
Roraan Catholic Church, which the priest will not take
the trouble to cross the road to visit, and where a
Protestant gentleman reads prayers and Scripture every
Sunday for the inmates. I could mention a hospital
in New York similarly situated, where the inmates,
Roman Catholic and Protestant, have to look to a
Protestant minister for spiritual care, unless the priest
is sent for specially.
The London (England) Tablet is full of complaints
of the neglect of English Romanists to care for their
Churches and their poor, and of loud and noisy
lamentations at the zeal shown by Protestants in look
ing after those who are going on the downward path to
ruin, uncared for by the Church of Rome, untU it is dis
covered that Protestants are providing for them, when
there is an outcry against proselytism, and a call for
money, which seeras to be the panacea for all the ills of
Rome. Yet none of it is used effectively to lessen the
torrent of evU. Priests die almost millionaires, but
leave their churches in debt and their money to their
relatives. A niece of a recently deceased priest was
the happy recipient of $50,000, and other members
of his family shared in proportion. The New York
Mail and Express gives the following statistics : —
" The amounts appropriated to Catholic benevolent
and charitable institutions since 1869 foots up in the

•'BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 265
aggregate nearly $20,000,000, the sums in individual
instances being as high as |2,ooo,ooo, whUe a number
of grants for several hundred thousand dollars are
registered. Considering that the Roman Catholics are
believed to pay only about one-tenth of the taxes, one
would say that they had their full share of corn from
the public crib. It is true that some of the Protestant
denominations have received sirailar grants at times,
but the amounts are quite inconsiderable, and the great
bulk of Protestants are opposed to the principle."
The Mail and Express also states that $4,200,000 of
New York city property is under control of Roman
Catholics, who pay simply a nominal tax while agree
ing to use the grounds and buildings for charitable
purposes. But if the Roraan Church is so holy, and is doing
her duty to her spiritual children, why should this state
of demoralisation exist, which gives Protestants the
opportunity to proselytise ? The truth is, that Rome,
weighted down with her own infallibility, cannot purge
herself from evil. She can only utter querulous cries
of complaint against those who are trying to save her
lost sheep.
In England, in America, in Europe, it is still the
same. The Rev. T. Regan writes to the London,
Tablet:— " St. Charles, Ogle Street, October VSth, i888.
" My dear Everard Green, — You will be sorry to,
hear that the resources of this mission have diminished
to such an extent as to threaten it with absolute
extinction, unless timely help be forthcoming. I am
up to the neck in debt, in sipite of the cheese-paring
economy which I am constantly practising."

266 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
The Rev. Charles Boardman writes : —
" Promising candidates for the priesthood are yearly
rejected, because there is no one to supply them with
inteUectual food. Mass is said in outhouses for want
of a few hundred pounds to raise a respectable buUding
for the Lord of Hosts. And this in wealthy England.
" Well, perhaps the reader wiU ask ifhe reads so much
of my letter. What do you want ? I want more gene
rosity on the part of the well-to-do. I want them, as
the saying is, to come out strong, I want them to
assist, and to assist with a strong lever, those whose
shoulders are overburdened. I am not living in a
college myself, so I can speak dispassionately. I am
living in a sraall country mission, where I have leamt that
God helps those who help themselves ; but I have been
in colleges, and have seen what I have here portrayed.
I fear we are losing souls from a famine of intellectual
Catholic food. " I am, sir, your obedient servant,
"Charles Boardman, D.D.
" LoNGRiDGE, October 25th, 1886,"
Bishop Cosgrove, of Davenport, Iowa, speaking of
Catholic papers, says : —
" We find that abqut one Catholic in forty is a sub
scriber to one of them. We find the combined circula
tion of all the CathoUc papers of the country to be less
than that of some single issues of the Police Gazette,
we find it less by thousands than that of the journal
published by another single establishment, the Methodist
Book Concern. Protestant exchanges charge that our
people are ignorant, that they lack intelligence, and
usually they have decidedly the best of the argument,
for the facts are very stern and hard to face."

••BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 267
This indictment of Romanists for not supporting
their own journals is significant.
The complaints of Roman CathoUc papers — English,
Irish, and American —of the utter incapacity of the
Jesuits, the brothers, and the sisters, who teach the
rising generation of Roman Catholics, are worth study
ing. And yet we are told incessantly that if the
" Church " had only all the power she wants the world
at large would be converted. Is it unjust to ask first
for a little fruit from aU the power which that Church
possesses at present ? The following, all from Roman
Catholic papers, show the present state of Roman
CathoUc education. —
The New York Tablet says : —
" Sisters have not had the training indispensable for
the efficient and honest carrying out of their duties.
A religious vocation is not a certificate to instruct others,
either unto righteousness or learning. When a com
plaint of this incompetency was made to a parish priest
without obtaining a hearing, and when the matter was
referred to higher authority, we were informed that the
authority of the parish priest is complete and exclusive.
" We have no means of testing the truth of these
averments, but our informant, while petulant and
irritated, is reliable and conscientious. We draw the
attention of pastors and superiors to his statements.
He also draws attention to the fact, which is not dis
puted, that since the religious in France have been
required to submit to the examination to which secular
teachers are subjected, the schools conducted by the
religious have greatly increased in value, and risen in
the esteem of the Catholic people.

268 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
"We propose to say a few plain truths about our
Catholic academies.
"The complaint is oftenest made by Catholic parents
that they cannot send their children to Catholic schools
because the latter must be prepared to make tlieir own
way in life, and the public schools are better conducted
for qualifying them for it. This is not absolutely and
universally true. But it is true in many cases. What
is the reason ? Or are there more reasons than one ?
"Perhaps there is an atom of truth in the fol
lowing letter, of which we print only the pertinent
paragraph. " ' Will you undertake to defend schools whose
teachers never pass an examination before assuming
the functions of the teacher, and who a day before,
being clothed in the gowns of religious, of ' sisters ' of
one community or another, are theraselves pupils, and
not scholars in any sense ? Is it not a cruel iraposition
upon our working Catholic people that incompetency
is thrust upon their children in the name of God, and
that they are thus robbed, in a great raeasure, of the
attainments and the training with which their Pro
testant corapanions set out in life ? Is it not notorious
that the discipline of Catholic schools is so lax that
boys and girls come out of thera utterly incapable of
self-control ? '
" These are serious questions, and they imply grave
accusations. We do not propose to defend anything
merely because it is Catholic, but we do propose to
censure without reserve or fear anything avowedly
Catholic which ought to be censured. Our corre
spondent claims in the body of his letter, which is not
all in a spirit to justify its pubUcation, that the teacher--.
in some CathoUc schools are notoriously incompetent.''

"BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 269
Even religious instruction is neglected, as the follow
ing letter, published in the North Western Chronicle,
shows : —
" Sir, — How very sad and even humiliating it is to
look around, and within a very small radius, and
see the number of young people, young men especially,
who ought to be Catholics, and are never seen at
church any more. Who is to blame, they or the
parents ? Have they got instruction enough to make
them firm in their belief in the Catholic Church ? Or
have they been sent to catechism a few times, and
perhaps to a priest who could hardly speak a word
of English, and then expected to be good Catholics?
They may continue going there while under their
parents' control ; but have their parents any reason for
expecting they will continue in it once they get away
from home, and if they do not, I repeat, whose fault is
it ? They got no instructions to make them believe in
the right Church. Here is a ripe field for any Pro
testant. If Catholics would only take as much interest
in their religion as Protestants do, there would not be
so many going from the Church. Surely Protestant
lay people are missionaries as well as their ministers,
and sometimes a great deal more zealous. Anything
relating to Church matters interests them at once, and
they always keep up such an interest in conducting
their Sunday School, while, alas I how true it is that the
Catholics not only will not take hold and do nothing
themselves, but will not even co-operate with the priest
in anything for the promotion of their holy religion."
The Italian Romanists of New York, we are told,
will not support their Churches, and their priests have
to look to the Irish to do this for them. The editor of

270 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
a New York paper had an article recently about an
Italian priest who he says " died for his flock." He
writes ; —
" Father Kirner died for his flock, and yet at his
Month's Mind there were many Irish faces, but scarcely
an Italian one. At the great function of St. Anthony's
the other Sunday there was hardly an Italian face
visible, though St. Anthony'.s is understood to be an
Italian stronghold."
The editor of another paper says : —
" Italians are never counted on to support their own
Churches, or their own priests, in this country. They
give nothing for marriages, christenings, or other
ceremonies that in the churches of every other denomi
nation call for acknowledgment. Their churches are
built by the people of other nationalities, Irish most
often, and maintained by them, and the Italian priests
cannot look for sustenance to their Italian congregations,
In fact, the pennies put into the poor box are often
surrendered to the same Italian who, next moment, will
revile the Church because it does not think it incumbent
on it to^give him a salary when out of work, or return
him to Italy with the price of a vineyard in his
pockets." So much for Italian devotion to the Church of Rome.
As for the statement that Father Kirner died a
" martyr," it is on a level with the boasts about poor
Father Damien. The latter went to the Roman
Catholic lepers, who had been utterly neglected in a
station where there were many missionaries to care
for the leper Protestants. And yet from the way in
which he has been mentioned it would be supposed that

••BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 271
no one had ever attended to the leper settlement until
he went there. Instead of boasting, the Church of
Rome should be ashamed of her previous neglect of her
own people — a neglect which was only remedied when
Protestant attention was called to it. Father Kirner's
case would be better described as suicide. He was
warned again and again of the risk he ran in being his
own architect, and when his Church fell the authorities
were about to take action to protect the lives which his
folly or ignorance had endangered ; and yet he is called
a "martyr." If it had been said that he had caused the death of
many of his flock it would have been the truth. It
was weU known in New York at the time that he
would have been prosecuted before the fatal result, if
it had not been for the power which the Roraan Church
has there, which makes it dangerous to cross a priest
in anything, unless the ecclesiastical authorities are
against him. No doubt in time to come Father Kirner
wiU be quoted as actually having died for his flock, and
perhaps he will be canonised, so easy is it for Rome to
deceive the world.
" Inspector Martin," says a writer in the New York
World, "who was dismissed for negligence, states that
he warned Father Kirner, but he knew that Father
Kirner had influence enough to get the permit (to
endanger the lives of the builders, and his own). It
is hinted that it is easier to get such permits one way
than another."
Surely the sacrifice of so many valuable lives should
deprive Father Kirner of the title of "martyr," unless
he has earned it by causing the martyrdom of honest
labourers, whose interests he should have been the
first to protect. The inspector is made the victim to

272 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
public opinion, but if the priest had lived no one would
have dared to blame him ; and the inspector knew well
what the consequences would have been if he had
interfered with the priest. Such is the result of the
power of the Church when unrestrained.
As for the Italians, their religious instruction is
utterly neglected in Italy. Strange that the Pope, who
claims that he can govern the world, is so careless
about his own flock. If " an enemy " had written this
what an outcry there would have been.
A New York Roman Catholic writer was very angry,
when the truth was pubUshed in the Roman Catholic
papers about the state of Italy. He says : —
"Was there then any need of bringing before the
public the following indictraent against the Italian
clergy for crirainal dereliction of duty, in order to
explain the reUgious ignorance of some of the Italians
in New York ? The duty of even rudimentary instruc
tion and training in the principles and practices of the
Christian religion has been grossly neglected by large
numbers of parish priests ; the state of ignorance araong
this people cannot otherwise be accounted for.
" There are thousands of Italians in this city who do
not know the Apostles' Creed. Multitudes of raen and
women of this people do not know the elementary
truths of reUgion such as the Trinity, the Incarnation,
and the Redemption.
" Mr. Lynch takes it for granted that the clergy have
fixed revenues. It is hard to see how the poverty of the
people can explain their ignorance. The apathy of the
clergy in instructing the people is sometimes explained
by the fact that they have fixed revenues, independent
of the people, and fixity of tenure for life. They would be

BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM." 273
more energetic in imparting religious knowledge if they
drew their income from the people, and their positions
or promotions depended on their exertions.
" What, then, has been their religious life at home ?
Some peculiar kind of spiritual condition, fed on the
luxuries of reUgion without its substantials. Devotions,
pilgrimages, shrines, miraculous pictures and images —
indulgences they have been accustomed to, together
with, in aU too many cases, an almost total ignorance
of the great truths which can alone make such aids
to reUgion profitable."
In other words, the religious life of these Italians,
in their own country, was rank superstition, and their
priests and bishops are responsible for it.
By all means, then, if an American or Irish priest, or
Mr. Lynch hiraself, cannot go and instruct those who
are yet across the water and are apt to remain, let a
pious Methodist preacher and his wife be sent to
Naples at once to instruct them. For Methodism is
assuredly preferable to this " kind of spiritual condition,
fed on the luxuries of religion without its substantials."
The benighted people will at least be taught that in
God there are Three Divine Persons, and that One of
them became man to redeem us. They will also learn
the Apostles' Creed, and no longer receive the sacraments
invalidly, as they seem to be doing now, because they
" are not well instructed enough to receive them."
The New York Freeman's Journal is very angry at
Father Lynch for exposing the state of the holy
Roman Catholic priesthood. It says : —
" Certainly Mr. Lynch must have told some home
truths when he could excite all this indignation." 18

274 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
The London (England) Tablet has the following very
logical statement about the condition of the Roman
Catholic world before the Reformation ; but what has
it to say to the above (Roman Catholic) account of the
state of the Pope's own clergy at the present day ?
" It is quite true that there was stUl much irregularity
and wickedness at the opening of the sixteenth century ;
otherwise the so-called reformation movement, begun in
violation of self-imposed vows in robbery, sacrilege, and
violence, could not have had so many ready and willing
adherents. But judging by the principles and the
practice of those old religious orders, by what they did
and what they atterapted to do, it is fair to conclude
that the world has those orders to thank, that. in spite
of the weakness of poor human nature the ' Reformers,'
after all, were not able to accomplish as much harm as
they might have done otherwise."
The Roman Catholic Tablet prints the following
criticism, from one of its correspondents, on Roman
Catholic schools, lay or religious. And it is just
because conscientious parents know well that their
children will never get a thorough education under
Roraan Catholic teachers that they even dare episcopal
wrath, and send them to the public schools.
" Most persons find that at this age (fifteen or sixteen)
their boys have acquired a smattering of classics, a
superficial knowledge of mathematics, and a vast fund
of conceit, none of which is of the slightest use to them
in starting life. I have asked the question of a great
many masters, and certainly of a greater number of
parents, and aU agree that the majority of their boys

••BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEAI." 275
leave college before they are sixteen ; and I think, there
fore, that I am quite right in assuming that the heads
of most of our colleges are officiaUy aware that the
boys will have to go into business, and wUl be withdrawn
from college life before they reach this age. Yet, sir,
knowing this, not one of the great colleges, such as
Ushaw, Stonyhurst, Beauraont, Oscott, or others has
a system of education calculated to prepare a boy for
a commercial career.
" It passes my understanding how the Jesuits, for
instance, who have beautiful colleges, coraplete with
every comfort, equipped with all that the love of our
holy religion, the love of science, the cultivation and
knowledge of art and music can produce, deliberately
pursue a system of teaching of which three-fourths of
their scholars never remain long enough to obtain the
full benefit. They learn Latin and Greek, but within
six months of their leaving college they have com
pletely forgotten them. Had they learnt French,
German, book-keeping by double entry, shorthand, and
a good deal of arithmetic, they would at once, upon
entering an office, be found most useful to their em
ployers, and rapidly obtain a position of tmst. Did not
the report of the London Chamber of Commerce, which
was published and commented upon lately, fully point
out how it was that young clerks of German, Dutch,
and other nationalities, receive comparatively large
salaries, and occupy all over the United Kingdom
positions of responsibility in commercial houses, while
young Englishmen, for want of familiarity with modern
languages, and ignorance of moneys, weights, manners,
and customs of foreign trading, have either to be con
tent with subordinate positions, or have to emigrate to
the colonies."

276 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
The Richraond Catholic Visitor says : —
" It is really a measure of disgrace to the Catholics of
this city that they show so Uttle interest in societies
connected with their Church, but especially one of the
nature of the Catholic Union. Just view what has
been done for the Young Men's Christian Association,
and no doubt among the contributors are many Catholics,
who do absolutely nothing for the societies connected
with their own Church. It is a sharae, and it is as little
as such.can do to encourage this society by an occasional
visit to the rooms, especially on literary evenings."
The Catholic Citizen says : —
" There is a great similarity in the Catholic type in
all our cities. The education of the young has been
such that a cheap ' hop ' is their greatest attraction, and
their nearest approach to the ' literary ' is a taste for
variety amateur theatricals. As for the older heads,
they are often too modest to be worth mentioning.
' Put money in thy purse,' and evince no public spirit,
are among their rules of conduct."
No wonder that educated converts complain thus of
Roman Catholic ignorance.
"It is a pitiable fact that we have no Catholic histori
cal associations, and that the works of our CathoUc
ancestors which as such belong to us, are pubUshed
by Protestant societies — the Surtees Society, and the
Camden Society, for example; and it is stUl more
pitiable that in the list of members of these societies
scarcely a CathoUc name is to be met with. It would
really be interesting to know in how many Catholic
colleges and seminaries, not to speak of the libraries

•'BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEAI." 277
of either clergy, convents, or laity, the works of Catholic
historians are to be found."
The following statistics are gathered from the
census. In proportion to every 10,000 inhabitants in
the United States : — Illiterates. Paupers. Criminals.
By pubhc schools of State of Massachusetts 71 69 11
By public schools of 21 States . . 350 170 75
By Roman Catholic schools . . 1,400 410 160
In the state of New York the Roman Catholic
parochial school system turns out three and a half
times as many paupers as the public school system.
No wonder that Macaulay says of Ultramontane edu
cation, that under its power the loveliest and most
fertUe provinces of Europe have been sunk in poverty,
political servitude, and intellectual torpor.
The Catholic Review of April 1871 thus explains the
reasons why this Church does not provide even the
simplest elements of education : —
" We do not indeed prize as highly as some of our
countrymen appear to do, the abiUty to read, write,
and cipher. Some men are born to be leaders, and the
rest are born to be led."
This is certainly true. The only pity is that so
many Protestants try to support the pretensions of
Rome. A recent public speaker, Chancellor Henry
R. Pierson, of Albany, delivered an address at the
commencement exercises of St. John Jesuit College,
Fordham. He said, with a gush which has caused his
speech to be copied into every Roman Catholic paper,
and which will cause it to be republished and commented
upon for years to come : —
" Though I am a Protestant, I can thank God that

278 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROAIE.
there is a Catholic Church. You have nothing of
which to be asharaed in the Catholic Church, and much
of which you ought to be proud. I, a Protestant, tell
you that you need to stick up boldly for your religion,
and the people with whom you come in contact will
like you all the more. That, in substance, is the feeling
of every honest and candid Protestant."
ChanceUor Pierson will no doubt be flattered very
much by the Romanists, as " an honest and candid
Protestant," and when there is a question of voting for
any office which he may desire, he will be sure to have
all their " honest " votes. But one cannot help wonder
ing if the chancellor is honestly ignorant of Rome as she
is, or if he is wilfully blind.
One would like to know what Chancellor Pierson
thinks, not of the education of a few young men in a
Jesuit College, but of the Roman Catholic population of
the slums of New York, and indeed of its aldermen,
and other Roman CathoUc officials. Is he proud of
them?

CHAPTER XIL
SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES WHICH PROTESTANTS
SHOULD CONSIDER.
"Who comforteth us in'all our tribulation, that we may be able to
comfort them which are in any trouble." — 2 Cor. i. 4.
THERE is at present a deep stirring of thought
among Roman Catholic laymen, which is none the
less earnest because, for obvious reasons, it cannot
make itself heard in public. It should be distinctly
remembered that public expression of opinion, unless
it absolutely coincides, either from policy or from
conviction, with the governing powers of the Roman
CathoUc Church, is absolutely prohibited.
Hence Protestants naturally think that a pale reflex
of harmonious belief exists in the Roman Catholic
Church, with a placid acquiescence in Papal infallibility.
Never was there a more lamentable and disastrous
conclusion. The Protestant who can speak his mind
socially, poUtically, and morally, cannot realize how
utterly impossible it is for a Roman Catholic, be he
priest or layman, to say what he really thinks. A
curious and very interesting evidence of this was given
quite recently by Archbishop Walsh, in connection with
the recent Papal pronouncement on Irish affairs.
He said that while Protestants were obliged to decide
on such matters (he referred to the last Papal pro-

28o INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
nouncement) according to their conscience, Roman
CathoUcs were bound to obey the voice of God as made
known by the Pope, and were not aUowed the exercise
of a private conscience. " Happy Protestants," a
Roraan Catholic friend of the writer's exclaimed with
some emphasis ; " they are allowed to have a conscience,
and informed that it is their duty to use it, whereas
we Catholics are denied a conscience practically, since
we are not to use that which we possess." In fact, it is
the plain teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that
the conscience, once submitted to Rome, must remain
for ever submitted. How deeply the Papal questions
of the hour are trying men's souls wiU never be known
untU the Day of Account.
Ancient upheavals of thought in the Roman Catholic
Church should at least satisfy the world that there
never has been a dead level of belief or opinion in that
Church. What anguish of heart and soul there must
have been in the ages of Luther and of Savonarola;
what heart agonies in the time when the " poor men
of Lyons " and the Waldenses suffered " loss of all
things," for what they believed to be a purer gospel
teaching. We hear only of the great warriors, the
giants of the battle, the leaders in the fight, men whose
thoughts set the world on fire ; we hear little and think
little of the rank and file ; and yet they also thought
and suffered anguish in their desire to obtain an
answer to the stupendous question — What is truth ?
How could missions of reform have been accomplished,
if there had not been vast multitudes of thinking men
to follow the reformer and leader ? One hand may
light the beacon fire of truth ; it needs many hands to
feed the flame and keep it burning.
There is as deep an agitation in the Roman Church

SOME ROAIAN DIFFICULTIES. 28i
to-day as there has ever been. The fire smoulders ;
when and where the flames will break forth God only
knoweth. But for those who desire truth to prevail
there is a terrible responsibUity if they "break the
bruised reed, or quench the smoking flax."
It is unhappily the case in America that there is a
very strong feeUng amongst some Protestants against
any change of religious opinion ; and this feeling
naturally finds an outcome on individuals who change.
It is also an unhappy fact, undeniably and infinitely
harmful, that some of the priests who have abandoned
the Roman Catholic Church are of immoral character
and degraded habits. Men of honour and self-respect
do not -wish to be classed with such men, and would
endure any sufferings sooner than have the name of
being one with them even in sympathy. Hence an
immense and crushing difficulty Ues in the way of
those who see many evils in the Roman Catholic
Church. They are powerless to reform it from within,
and equally powerless to reform it from without. Men
do not ask the cause of this miserable degradation of
so many priests. They do not inquire why they came
to be outcasts ; they only see a painful fact, and draw
natural but false conclusions.
Any other body of men may effect a reform in the
discipline of their Church, or may leave it without
reproach, if they beUeve that their conscience prompts
them to do so. But it is not so with the Roman
Catholic, be he priest or layman, be he ever so honour
able, be his career ever so blameless, be his convictions
ever so strong. He is maligned, sneered at, and
persecuted by the Church he was striving to reform,
and for the prosperity of which he would have given his
life blood ; and he is sometimes discouraged by Pro-

282 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROAIE.
testants, who denounce this Church for refusing liberty
of conscience to her children, and yet, such is human
nature, discourage those who act on this principle.
Let us suppose the case of a pervert to the Roman
CathoUc faith, who entered the Church before the
personal infallibility of the Pope was made an article
of faith, as I did ; let it also be remerabered that if a
Roman Catholic doubts the personal infallibility of the
Pope he is as surely consigned to hell for ever as if he
doubted the Trinity. A pervert, then, is received into
the Roman Catholic Church ; he is taught that it is de
fide to believe in the infallibility of the Church. There
is no mistake about the matter; it is plain. The Church
is infallible ; its living voice is heard through the
Councils, and through thera only. The idea harmonises
with his previous thoughts, for such men have generally
been recruited from the ranks of advanced Anglicans,
who, looking for certainty of belief in the multiplied
confusion of opinion, have flung themselves in despair
into the arms of what they believed would prove a
happy certainty.
There was a certain grandeur, a commanding dignity
about the infallibiUty of the Church as a body. The
decrees of dogma came from the united voices of great
and reverend men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and
saying with the Apostles, " It seems good to the Holy
Ghost and to us." In every congregation of raen there
must be a governing body. The decrees of the Fathers
of the undivided Church demanded the respect of
Christendom, and the obedience of the early Church.
All this the pervert believed, but suddenly, and with
little warning, came the decree of the Vatican Council,
that the Pope should be declared personally infallible.
Was it to be wondered at if men wept at this terrible

SOME RO,MAN DIFFICULTIES. 28 j
change, wept as the men of Israel wept when the glory
of the first temple was recalled by the pale reflex of
it in the second ?
As no other ceremony, or condition, or sacrament of
the Church was changed, the great multitude of Roman
Catholic people concerned themselves very little about
the matter. They had always been told what they
were to beUeve, and now they were told to believe
something else, and they were too indifferent, or too
ignorant, to inquire further. But there were men who
felt, men who thought, men who wept tears of agony
in sUence ; for who dare trust his fellow in a Church
where the least utterance of opinion is foUowed by
condign punishment ?
A letter by Bishop Strossmayer, published in the
Kslnische Zeitung soon after the Vatican CouncU, puts
this fact very clearly : —
" The Vatican Council was wanting in that freedom
which was necessary to make it a real Council, and to
justify it in making decrees calculated to bind the con
sciences of the whole Catholic world. . . . Everything
which could resemble a guarantee for the Uberty of
discussion was carefully excluded. . . . And as though
all this did not suffice, there was added a public violation
of the ancient Catholic principle : Quod semper quod
ubique quod ab omnibus. The most hideous and naked
exercise of Papal infallibility was necessary before that
infallibility could be elevated into a dogma. If to all
this be added that the Council was not regularly con
stituted ; that the Italian bishops, prelates, and officials
were in a monstrously predominating majority; that
the Apostolic Vicars were dominated by the Propaganda
in the most scandalous manner; that the whole

284 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
apparatus of that political power which the Pope then
exercised in Rome contributed to intimidate and repress
all free utterances, you can easily conceive what sort of
liberty, that essential attribute of all Councils, was
displayed at Rome."
How many thousands, how many millions sank into
the depths of despair in consequence of this decision
can never be known this side of eternity. It is only
now, when the personal power and personal claim of the
Pope to exercise that power in politics is being enforced,
that the multitude has begun to realize what was done
in the Vatican Council. Thought is stirred, action is
sure to follow.
No doubt Emerson's saying is true, "Tell the truth,
and the world will come to see it at last." But the
world is soraetimes long in coming, and the prophets
of truth are very apt to have a good deal more respect
shown to their sepulchres than to themselves.
Yet it is strange why a man's change of reUgious
opinion should not be respected, as much as his change
of opinion in matters of science. Men of science are
obliged from time to tirae, in consequence of further
reflection or of further knowledge, to change, to modify,
or perhaps to abandon completely, preconceived opinions
which they once firmly held. Yet they are not
reproached for this. Truth is unchangeable, else it
would not be truth. But do we always see truth
clearly, and may there not be causes quite outside of
our own control, or conscience, which may cause us to
see more or less clearly at different periods of life?
Does not reason develop with exercise ? Does not
our power of intellectual exercise increase with practice?
And though the Roman Catholic Church forbids its

SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES. 285
members the use of reason in matters of faith, and
practically forbids the exercise of conscience, yet
changes have been developing, either for good or evil^
in the Roman CathoUc Church ever since its founda
tion, which give evidence that some of its members
have used their power of reasoning with unconscious
disobedience. Irish politicians, like many of their countrymen, often
inherit their reUgion from their mothers and preserve
it through their wives ; and as its numerical strength
is the great point made by Catholics when they wish
to impress on their own minds, or on the minds of
others, the great power of the Church in this country,
the numerical strength of the Roraan Catholics in
America has told, and has told beyond all doubt, in
politics. But what is the real — rather we should say
what is the spiritual value of this preponderating
influence ? Does it lessen crime ? Does it lessen
suffering? Has it elevated the moral or inteUectual
condition of the masses in New York ? He would be
a bold man who dared to say, in the face of facts,
that the Roman Catholic Church has been a powerful
influence for good in that city. And yet was there
ever a body so boastful of its own virtue ? It is time
that some one cried out and awakened the rulers of the
Church of Rorae from their drearas of self-complacent
security. If the shepherd sleeps, what shaU become
of the hapless flock ?
Building churches, buUding schools, establishing
colleges, publishing panegyrics on ecclesiastics which
should make any self-respecting man sink into the
earth with shame, that he should be the subject of such
gross flattery ; is this a sign of real solid Divine life ?
A very amusing instance of this abject flattery of

286 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
ecclesiastics occurred lately. A poem was written by
a priest, in which Cardinal Gibbons was glorified in
metre, and out of it, with the grossest adulation. Each
verse had the refrain, "Loved Cardinal, Great Cardinal; "
but the poet suddenly burst into French, and finished
by declaring that the Holy Father had given the
cardinal the coup de grace, when he elevated him to that
dignity. Look at New York ; it should be pre-eminently a
Romish city. The mass of the Roman Catholic popula
tion is Irish, or of direct Irish descent, and of the most
faithful CathoUc nation on earth; but who will dare
to deny the miserably social and religious condition of
the mass of the Irish population ? Look at the exterior
and social aspect. It is true that New York is crowded
with costly churches, rich vestments, much singing and
show, which attract the multitude even as the flame
attracts the moth. But what solid foundation lies
underneath ? The churches are magnificent and costly,
and heavily burdened with debt ; but few are conse
crated, though they have been built for many years.
Is this creditable to ecclesiastical management, or to
religion ? The poor are heavily — I might almost say
cruelly — taxed to pay the debts, or rather, the heavy
mortgage on these churches, and with Uttle hope of
reprieve. We have before us a report made by the Rev. Father
Colton in regard to St. Stephen's Church, lately occupied
by the Rev. Dr. McGlynn. He announces a strawberry
festival, to last through a whole week, for the benefit of
the church. He urges the congregation to send him
in contributions for an immense bazaar, and makes the
astounding announcement that although the debt of
the Church amounts to $140,000, he is about to

SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES. 287
increase it by $60,000 more. It is said in the report
that much sympathy is felt for Father Colton at being
obliged to increase so much the heavy debt, but that
he will obey the mandate of the Council of Baltimore
to the very letter, by building schools. The old build
ings now occupied by the primary schools are to be
destroyed, and handsome new structures are to be
erected in their place. The Catholic Review, Archbishop
Corrigan's organ, sympathises with Father Colton, but
it does not sympathise with the people who are again
to be taxed so heavily.
We have already shown, on Roman Catholic
authority, the kind of education which Roman Catholic
children will get in return for all this expenditure.
The subject is of such great importance, in view of the
unceasing efforts which Rome is making to control
education, that I give here additional evidence from
Roman Catholic sources of the utter incapacity of
Romish teachers. The New York Tablet says : —
" But the fact remains that our Catholic schools must
equip their pupils for getting on in the world. In
some of them, especially in some girls' academies, the
course of study is framed upon the fundamental idea
that there is no world, or that there is to be no
laborious getting on in it for the fortunate inmates of
such institutions.
" This spurious standard of education is imported from
the decayed courts of the Continent, and from the
despicable and depressing circles of 'gentility' in
Ireland and England. It has no proper place in the
United States. Every child, boy or girl, should be
equipped to make a livelihood; and should be given
the most practical as well as the most refined and

288 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
learned education which the circumstances of his
parents enable him or her to acquire. The twin
notion that there is a class in this country of ' superior '
persons, ought to be driven in disgrace from our
Catholic schools. The other day, a young miss attend
ing an academy in the interior of a certain State was
asked if there were any day scholars at it. ' Oh no,'
she answered, with polite disdain ; ' except some little
peasant children from the village.' "
The truth is, that sisters, from the very nature of
their mode of life, are the very last persons who are
fit to train youth. They may prepare children for the
other world, according to Roraan Catholic ideas of
preparation, but they certainly have failed to prepare
them for this world, according to the testimony of
an inmiense number of Roman Catholic parents of aU
nationalities. The amount of money obtained from the Roman
Catholic poor will never be known in this world, and
is very little suspected. A priest, at his own will and
pleasure, announces that a certain sum of money will be
required weekly or monthly frora each person; and
woe to the unhappy individual if the demand is not met
promptly. We know churches where three different
collections are demanded and obtained at each Mass
on Sunday, from a patient, though often indignant
people. As in the case of Dr. McGlynn's successor, each new
priest must do some new work to get credit for his zeal.
But aU this is done at the expense of the poor of his
parish. The priests get all the honour, and the poor
get all the burden.
The New York Freeman's Journal, which expended so
much red-hot shot on Dr. McGlynn for the debt which

SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES. 289
he left on his church, is lost in admiration of Father
Colton for his zeal in increasing and probably doubling
it. Father Colton, it says, is "quite cheerful" about
it ; and he well may be, considering that not one penny
of the expense will come out of his own pocket, and
that he will get all sorts of ecclesiastical and episcopal
honours and glory for collecting other people's money.
The statement of the editor of the Freeman's Journal
is amusing in more ways than one, and we give it here.
He says : —
" St. Joseph is a rich and powerful friend, who has
often proved himself a benefactor to others even in darker
hours than now, frequently causing magnificent churches,
convents, and other institutions to rise seemingly out
of nothing, as in the case of the splendid building
erected by the late Rev. Father Dromgoole in this city
(known as the Mission of the Immaculate Virgin, but
erected by the St. Joseph's Union through the medium
of twenty-five cent subscriptions), at a cost of over
$300,000, not including the property on Staten Island,
which with other expenditures would bring the total cost
up to about half a million of dollars. . . . Would it not
be well to try some special devotion to St. Joseph with
the above intention, such, for instance, as keeping a light
burning constantly before his statue until the debt
is paid ? "
Well, if burning candles to St. Joseph will pay the
debt, by aU means let them be burned. But we fear
the poor Irish servant girls of the parish will have a
good deal more to do with thepa3'ment than St Joseph,
and that it will remain for another priest to increase
their burdens.
And here it may be well to ask if St. Joseph can do
19

290 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

all these wonders, why do not Roman Catholics ask
him to put down the Uquor traffic, which is causing such
ruin to souls ? While I write this there are five men
under sentence of death in New York alone, who can
trace their ruin to drink.
There is an utter recklessness in the way in which
buildings are demolished, which certainly could be very
well made to serve the purposes for which the new
ones are intended, and handsome new structures are
erected without the slightest regard to cost, because
they are buUt at the expense of a long-suffering people,
and though the vast mass of these hapless Romanists
are suffering untold misery, not always from their own
fault, but too often from the neglect of those who should
be their guides.
There is but little money to spare for helping the
honest poor, because splendid schools, and lofty spires,
and magnificent colleges are supposed to be the great
needs of the nineteenth century, and the Irish bear the
burden of aU. It was lately announced in the New
York World that St. Anthony's Church, which is
situated in one of the poorest parts of New York, and
was especially set apart for Italians, is chiefly supported
by Irish Catholics, though the congregation and the
pastor are all Italians. We may well ask what is to
become of the Roman Catholic Church in America if
the Irish people are alienated from it, as the Catholic
people of Italy, and France, and Germany, have
become ? The Italians will neither build nor support
their own churches, and it is left to the Irish to attend
to their spiritual welfare.
Reports will be sent to Rome of the devotion and
care of the Archbishop of New York for the Italians of
his diocese ; but will even one word be said of their real

SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES. 29!
benefactors ? Will they receive even a passing meed
of praise ? And in this connection I may ask, will
one word be said or known in Rome of the thousands
of Italians in New York who paid honour to Garibaldi's
statue, and who never enter a church ? Here is a
people who, of all others, should be devoted to their
Church, and yet who have either abandoned it
altogether, or do not care enough for it to give a few
cents for its support. And it is well known, also that
it is the Irish chiefly, if not exclusively, who build and
support the French and German churches.
Romish papers are absolutely under the control of
the bishop of the diocese in which they are published,
and thej' are guilty of sycophancy to an extent that is
simply nauseating. In the Roman Catholic Church as, at
present governed, everything centres round the bishop ;
and for all practical purposes he is his ovm Pope, and
the Pope of the people. Hence the profound deference
that is paid to him, and which he accepts as a religious
duty from every individual in his diocese. He is the
local head of the Church, and a number of small deities
who have to be pleased are more dangerous to society
than one great autocratic ruler. A Protestant bishop
would siraply be ashamed to accept the fulsome flatteries,
which are not only acceptable, but which are — ^must be
— offered, to secure the patronage of the Roman Catholic
bishop. No more deadly injury could have been done
to the Roman Catholic Church than the maintaining of
this practice ; and it will be kept up until some noble
bishop rises in his might, and forbids and denounces it
for ever.
One favourite way of laying on this flattery well
and wisely is to write an article on the great increase
of Catholicity in the diocese, and attribute it all to the

292 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

master mind, and financial abUity of the bishop. No
doubt a good bishop can do a great deal, but even a
bishop needs help, both in the shape of mind and
money. In fact, the bishop needs a people to govern
quite as much as a people need the bishop. To praise
one to the exclusion of the other is unjust ; and in
justice advances no cause.
A moment's consideration will show how very false
these boastings are. The numerical strength of the
Roman Catholic Church has certainly increased enor
mously of late years, but how and where ? It has
increased in the large American cities in consequence of
Irish, German, and Italian emigration. We will let the
Germans and Italians pass ; the whole world knows
how very Uttle Italians care for their Church. The
Germans are undoubtedly a religious people. If they
do not give liberally to the Church, they know how
to assert themselves, and are doing so.
But the Irish Roman CathoUc is the great support
of the Roman Catholic Church in America, and let us
see what is his social condition. A few millionaires,
a host of politicians, and a vast population of shiftless,
thriftless, ill-cared-for people. Better, a thousand times
better, that these people should be back in the bogs of
Connemara, with their pure, fresh air, and their pure,
fresh life, than in the crime-haunted liquor saloons
of New York and Boston. Millions of Irish Romanists
have fled to America; and when one thinks of their
misreable state in this country, it is hard to feel that
the head of their Church, whom they support so loyally,
has not one word to say to stop this bleeding of the
nation, this destroying of a people who have loved him,
one might dare to say, not wisely, but too weU.
They have increased and multipUed in the land of

SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES. 293
their adoption, but what has become of the descendants
of the first Irish emigrants ? Are they now the stay
and support of the Roman Catholic Church ? Far
from it.
In all Southern States, in every town, you find names
which are unquestionably Irish. " The voice is the
voice of Jacob," but they do not represent the Church
to which, by their nationaUty, you would suppose they
naturally belonged. Roman Catholic people have in
creased and multiplied in America, but they have not
multiplied as Romanists, and no one knows that better
than the ecclesiastics of their Church.
Of course the number of Romanists and Roman
Catholic institutions has increased immensely in the
last few years ; but certainly thousands upon thousands
of them have lost their faith, and either have no
religion, or have joined other religious bodies, because
of the gross neglect of those who should have been
their shepherds, but are now their task-masters.
Once the principle is admitted that the Pope has
a Divine and infallible right to decide on questions
of morals, no man can deny his right to decide questions
of politics, since many political questions obviously
involve questions of morals ; and if this is not apparent
at the first glance, it is not difficult, with a little
casuistry, to make it apparent.
But if it is admitted that the Pope's decrees on such
questions are infaUible, there is a corollary to the pro
position which is the key to the whole question. The
Pope being infallible, he has the right to decide when
a question of politics is also a question of morals. In
plain words, according to the teaching and authority
of the Roman Catholic Church, as at present organised,
any infaUible Pope — and we know that they are all

294 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

said to have been infallible — can decide infallibly when
a question of politics is a question of morals, and no
Roman Catholic dare gainsay him, under pain of eternal
damnation. Let us suppose, for example, there was a question of
the election of a President of the United States, or of
a mayor of New York. The Roman Catholic might be
infallibly deprived of his liberty to vote. The Pope
might make it a question of morals for whom he
should give his vote. If, for example, Monseigneur
Preston nominated for mayor his friend Joseph J.
O'Donohue, in whose favour he has already issued
a poUtical announcement, and let us suppose, merely by
way of example, that Henry George would make a better
chief magistrate, since the nominee of a body of ecclesi
astics would not be altogether a free agent, yet Roman
Catholics would be compelled to vote for O'Donohue,
though they might be certain that the other candidate
would prove more efficient.
One cause, and I believe the principal cause, of the
failure of the Roman Catholic Church to maintain a
continued hold of the love and devotion of the people
of any country has been the complete isolation of the
interests of the laity.
The Roman Catholic papers, as we have shown, are
full of complaints of the indifference of the laity to
the interests of their Church. If these papers are to be
taken as true witnesses in their own case, this indiffer
ence exists to an extraordinary extent, even in the
United States, and it is not a " note " of ecclesiastical
advancement. The Pope has shown by acts, if not always in
words, that he claims a Divine authority to rule and
direct the temporal as well as the spiritual affairs of

SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES. 295
the whole world. He is the final court of appeal, not
merely in dogma but in diplomacy. Now what is true
of the general public, and the influence of the Pope on
national politics, is true of the power and influence of
every bishop and priest in local politics. As members
of an infallible body they are practically, though not in
theory, infaUible; as members of the most powerful
combination on earth, their power to control the laity
is unlimited. If the commands of the Pope must be
obeyed by all nations and rulers at the risk of eternal
loss, the comraands of the priests are practically, if not
equally binding, or, for all practical purposes, quite as
effectually binding. Hence if the Pope can change the
policy or purpose of a king or eraperor, the bishop
can change the policy and purposes of the mayor or
alderman. The Roman Catholic laity have come to know this
very well, hence their marked unwillingness to interfere
in any affair whatever, which is in any way under
ecclesiastical control. Nor are they wiUing to place
themselves in any position where they may be made
to feel the weight of the ecclesiastical arm. A priest,
consciously or unconsciously, uses his spiritual powers
to attain his teraporal ends ; if he did not he would be
more than human.
Now, notwithstanding all the efforts which are made
by Papal ecclesiastics to prevent the true state of
Catholic affairs from being known, facts will sometimes
be told, even through the Protestant press of New York,
though it is more under Roman Catholic influence,
probably from poUtical motives, than is generally
supposed. The Polish National Alliance is a political as well as
a benevolent organisation. It has a large membership.

296 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

The Polish priests have been recently denouncing this
alliance in Chicago ; they proclaim it to be more political
than benevolent. The members of the Alliance are
nuraerous and active ; and have sent a petition to
Rome, in which they say : —
" The priests want to control the private as well as
the religious affairs of their parishioners, and render
them virtually slaves to do their bidding, and failing in
this, the priests have maligned members of the Alliance,
and sought to create prejudice against them. The
petitioners represent that they are true CathoUcs, do
not belong to any socialistic, nihilistic, or anarchistic
organisation, and in everything have deported them
selves as true sons of the Church."
This incident is worth noting, and shows why the
Roman Catholic laity are unwiUing to act with the
Church. They find that they are only allowed to be a
Greek chorus to the bishops. They are to obey the
Pope, to accept all decisions, even when they are against
their own interests and judgment, sometimes, it is to
be feared, when they are against their own conscience.
Is it a wonder that the Roraan Catholic laity speak
with anxiety for the future of their Church ; and that
the Roman Catholic journals have lately published
very strong appeals to the laity to support their Church
actively ?
A southern gentleraan, the editoi of an influential
paper, whose opinion would command extraordinary
respect if I could give his name, said to me not long
since : —
"We (the laity) have given up all interest in Church
affairs. We do whatever we believe to be necessary tc

SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES. 297

save our souls, and we attend to our own business.
Several times when we have tried to interest the bishop
in plans which we beUeved would greatly benefit the
Church and advance the interest of religion, we found
our suggestions were not taken in good part, and were,
in fact, considered as irapertinent intrusion, and we
heard so much of humUity and obedience that we deter
mined for the future to withdraw altogether from
Church affairs. The Roman Catholic Church in the
South," he continued, " is dying of dry rot. We have
indifferent bishops, who are scarcely ever seen by their
people, and who do not care in the least to consider
any plan which they have not suggested themselves,
and who only express an interest in the laity when
they want to get money."
It was weU known in the South that the Roman
Catholic laity there did not want Cardinal Gibbons to
organise an immigration scheme; its immediate object
and its probable result are too plain. The Cardinal
likes to come before the world as a man of affairs, and
there is no reason why he should not do so ; but the
consequences are of immense importance. His pre
sence on public occasions, and the singular respect
which is paid him, are all used to make the Pope and
Propaganda believe that he has all America at his feet.
Americans believe that from political reasons their
Presidents must honour Roman Catholic public func
tions with their presence, and that they must ask men
like Cardinal Gibbons to public ceremonies. But in
Rome aU this is taken to mean that in a very short
time America will become Roman Catholic ; and that
as her prelates arc treated with such distinction there,
they will soon be able to govern the country at the

298 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
pleasure of the Vatican. But with aU this effort to spread
the Romish faith in the Southern States, what is the truth
as to its real position there ? Even Roraan Catholic
authorities declare that it is falUng away. We know
from the lips of a Jesuit Father how true such statements
are. Roman Catholic schools for higher education
have only two or three pupils where they used to have
a hundred, though the names of these institutions still
remain on the Roman Catholic directory as prosperous.
Sisters cannot find vocations araong the few Southern
Catholics, and their sisterhoods are dying out. With
regard to the coloured people the Catholic Review
says : —
" Since the war thousands of negroes, so we have
been reliably told, have fallen away from the truth, and
to-day Methodists and Baptists have strong footholds
among the blacks, where formerly they were unknown.
To-day the faithful among the coloured people frequent
the parochial churches, while, parodoxically as it seems,
their children have separate schools and institutions."
The fact is, that Romanists have very little interest in
each other. In Protestant Churches each member, if"
there is any life in the Church, looks on every stranger
as an individual who might be won to Christ, and
knows no way of winning him so good as that of
Christian courtesy. The very nature and aim of the
Roman Church produces a precisely opposite course.
It is to the priest's sacerdotal influence everything is to
be attributed ; hence the people as individuals are of
very little account.
At High Mass on Sundays halls and doorways are
often so crowded as to make it appear as if the congre
gation was imraense, when the half of the seat accom-

SOME ROMAN DIFFICULTIES. 299
modation is unoccupied, being left for those who have
rented the pews. No doubt they have a right to the
pews, but we are not here speaking of rights or wrongs,
but of Christian charity.
The tenement-house evil is the evil of New York.
What is the Roraan CathoUc Church doing with all its
wealth to remedy this evil ? " The policeman's club,"
says a recent writer, " keeps order, and the courts shove
men and women into prisons and children into institu
tions." New York and Naples afford abundant evidence of
the utter faUure of Rome to Christianise the masses.
When will the world realize that the Gospel, and the
Gospel alone, can touch, purify, and elevate the human
heart ? In these two cities, where Rome has had almost
supreme power, the result, as far as civilisation and
decency are concerned, has been the sarae. Naples has
been the reproach of Christendom during centuries of
Rome rule, in consequence of the dirt and degradation
of its people, and this with every advantage of climate,
and of the reUgion professed by the people.
The children of the poor in Naples were left to
swarm in the gutters, to be fed as best they raight, and
to learn to v/orship or curse the Madonna, as their
inclination led. They blessed her, and burnt tapers in
her honour if she complied with their requests. They
abused, and threatened their puny wrath on her, if she
did not answer their prayers. I speak of what I know,
for I have turned with horror from the travesty of
religion, which the Church of Rome not only permits,
but encourages, amongst these unhappy people. I have
visited the Roman Catholic Churches in Naples, and
turned away horrified with the mockery of reUgion I
beheld — immense figures, named at pleasure after some

300 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
saint, dressed in gaudy rags, and worshipped. I have
already given extracts from the article written by Mr.
Lynch, which tells of the neglect of Italian priests to
teach their people even the 'commonest rudiments of
religion. And yet the Pope asks permission to teach
and rule the world at large. Surely he should at least
begin his rule at home, and give some proof of his
ability to Christianise his own flock before he offers his
services to others.
And what of New York, where certainly the Roman
Church has all the power and all the wealth which the
world can give ? Archbishop Corrigan has only to ask
and to have all that he pleases for the temporal or the
spiritual advantage of his people. And yet Who fills
the police courts, the gaols, the workhouses, the lunatic
asylums ? Who are the most corrupt of officials, and
who does the Church delight to honour ? Is it not the
very men who are a disgrace to their reUgion, and to
their nationality ? We are constantly informed in the
public press that the prayers of sisters are offered for
the acquittal of men who have been notorious criminals,
because they have given large donations to the Church.
And this is the morality which we are asked to admire,
and which we are told is the religion of Christ. I have
kept a list of those men for whom the Church has such
a tender interest, and for whose acquittal she has
prayed. It shows that Rome has not changed, and that
to give money to the Church is the test of holiness,
rather than the giving of a good life to God.

CHAPTER Xin,
PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF ROMAN CATHOLIC
FAILURES
'' Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,
and that ye receive not of her plagues." — Rev. xviii. 4.
ONE of the strangest mysteries of the day is that
the Roman Catholic Church should be supported,
as it is, by Protestants. The political support of the
Roman Catholic Church in America is, however, quite
comprehensible. There the Irish vote counts for so
much that no politican can afford to risk it. And what
ever Irishmen may say or write about their religion,
their nationality is their real religion, and any man who
stands to the '' National " cause will have their support.
Besides, the great majority of active politicians in
America are Irish and Roman Catholic. They are not
always a credit to their religion or to their nationality,
but they have power ; and that is all that is needed to
enable them to control the destinies of their adopted
country. The power of the liquor saloon in politics is supreme
in America, and the liquor saloon is controlled by the
Irish, and the Irish are controlled by the priests. A
man aspiring to the highest offices in New York, who
has the support of the liquor saloon business, is sure
of success. The " boss of the ward " and the proprietor

302 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
of the largest liquor saloon in the ward, are one and the
same person, and a power which makes itself felt.
The " boss " can do a good many things not apparently
connected with politics. He can send the children of
the unfortunate parents who have been ruined in his
Uquor saloon by drink to sorae Catholic reformatory,
out of which they emerge in a few years' tirae to walk
in the footsteps of their fathers, to shout for Ireland,
to uphold the holy Catholic Church in every way pos
sible, except by giving a good exaraple. But what do I
say ? The kind of example which we Protestants con
sider good, is not the kind which passes as such in the
estimation of the rulers of their Church. It matters
very little how immoral the life of a Roman Catholic
may be if he has " kept to his Church." It matters
not how honestly he may have lived, if he has not paid
all his dues to the Church, and if he has shown the
least sympathy with Protestants, as the following will
show : — (By telegraph to the " Herald,")
" Boston, March loth, 1889."
" Mrs. Mary O'NeU, an elderly communicant of Father
Brosnahan's Church in Waltham, was buried to-day
without a Church funeral, because the preparation of
the body, and the arrangements for the funeral, had been
committed to a Protestant undertaker."
And this is no uncommon occurrence. Even to have
the services of a Protestant undertaker deprives a Roman
Catholic of Christian burial, as effectually as if he have
Ustened to a lecture by Dr. McGlynn before the Church
of Rome had deprived him of the right to minister at
her altars.
There is also one point on which a greal deal depends.

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES. 303
No matter what a priest may do or say, there must
be silence as regards his faults. The priest has the
singular privilege of having his character protected by
the Church, not that the Church cares very much
about the matter as far as the priest is personally
concerned ; if she did, she would have better men to
minister at her altars to-day, but she must look weU
before the world. The evil is there, and she knows it,
and the cause of it. She cannot remove the cause by
any attempt to reform the priest, as the circumstances
would be sure to become known to the pubhc ; and,
weighted down as she is by her own infallibility, she
cannot admit that wrong has been done.
The editor of Le National, published in Plattsburg,
New York, August 20th, 1888, says : —
"It is a fundamental principle of ecclesiastical law
that the clergy ought not to be arraigned before the
incompetent tribunal of public opinion."
It does not surely need much discernment or know
ledge of human nature, to see what power this gives
the higher clergy in dealing with the lower clergy. The
bishop claims the Divine right to be judge in his own
cause, and the world at large is required to submit in
silent acquiescence,
Rome cries out in undignified rage because she is
not allowed to burn her modern Bruno, and her
modern Joan of Arc, and calls on the world to sympa
thise with her because her own nation has made a
grand and dignified protest against ecclesiastical tyranny.
If Rome was not prepared to re-enact such scenes, why
does she complain ? Why does she ask for secular
power, but to enable her to repeat her persecuting
history? Rome has had a splendid opportunity for

304 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
repentance, repentance which would have strengthened
her hands. Even suppose that she condemned Bruno
as an infidel, could she not still continue her condem
nation, whUe expressing her regret for the inhumanity
of his punishraent ? The Inquisition has failed to
Christianise, or even to Romanise the world, though
Rome slew and spared not. Why will she not now
try a different way of doing the work of Him whom
she claims as her Master ?
Karl Blind, writing in the Nineteenth Century, says : —
" What were Bruno's sufferings in the darkness of
the dungeon in which the Inquisition kept him ? 'What
ferocious attempts were made to bend and break the
energy of the highly-cultured unfrocked friar, whose
mind was nourished with the love of antiquity? If,
as a prisoner, he had a moment of faltering, the answer
has been given in the words, ' How can you expect
that torture, even though applied for hours, should,
prevail against a whole life of study and inquiry ? ' "
Carapanella, who, after Bruno, was kept in prison for
twenty-seven years, said of his own sufferings : "The
last time I was tortured it was for forty hours. I was
fettered with cords which cut to the very bones ; I
was hung up with hands tied back, a most sharp piece
of wood being used, which cut out large parts of my
flesh, and produced a vast loss of blood."
Perhaps some day, when the archives of the Vatican
become fully accessible, we shall learn a little more of
Bruno's last years of torment. On being informed of
his doom he, in the face of a horrible death, heroically
said to his inhuman judges : " Perhaps you pronounce
your sentence with greater fear than that with which
I receive it." Among those who formed the tribunal

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES. 305
was Cardinal Bellarmine, the same who later on forced
Galilei to an apparent recantation, and Cardinal San-
severina, who had called the massacre of the night of
St. Bartholomew " a splendid day, most pleasant to
Catholics." The sentence against Bruno was, as usual,
to be carried out " without the spilling of blood." In
the bandit language of the Inquisition, as Herman
Brunnhofer expresses it, this signified burning at the
stake. Before the victim of priestcraft was sacrificed
his tongue was tom with pincers. But it still speaks
to posterity in powerful accents.
More and more it is seen that a great deal of that
which in this country Darwin, Huxley, Tyndall, Lyell,
Lubbock, and others have by their masterly and suc
cessful researches raade the coramon intellectual property
of all educated people, had been divined in some
measure by the prescient genius of Bruno. Unaided
by exact science, he anticipated, in a general way, the
scientific results of ages to come. The struggle against
obscurantism has still to be carried on. While I am
writing this numerous voices of the Ultramontane
press come in from abroad, which speak in tones of
inquisitorial fury of the " Bruno scandal," and urging a
crusade for the restoration of the temporal power of
the Papacy. Some of these papers go the length of
justifying the burning of the ItaUan thinker by " the
necessity of guarding the Church against dangerous
heresies.'' The Salzburger Chronik says : —
"He that will not listen and obey, must be made to
feel. In order to save the good, the evil must be
annihilated. This doctrine is the very basis of the
penal law and of the Divine command, which punish

3o6 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
murder, and which therefore must all the more punish
the murder of souls. This is in accordance with
human conscience and with justice."
Bruno himself foresaw an age of enlightenment, a
coming century of progress, when the powers of dark
ness would sink down to the nether world, and the
hearts of men be fiUed with truth and justice. To this
prediction refers the proud inscription on his monument :
— " To Giordano Bruno this memorial has been raised
by the century prophesied by him on the very spot
where his pile burned." It may be open to doubt
whether this nineteenth century has fulfilled yet all
that which Bruno foretold. But whether Galilei's
often-quoted word was spoken or not on the famous
occasion when the Papal Church fancied it could stop
the rotation of the world by bringing him down on his
knees, the truth of his saying in more than one sense
becomes ever apparent : —
" Eppur si muove," " And yet it moves."
And here it may be said that the present demorali
sation of the Roman CathoUc Church in America is
deep and grievous, to every one who has even the
least respect for truth and virtue. The tremendous
power which has fallen into the hands of an ignorant
class of men has had the usual consequences. An
educated priesthood may be a dangerous priesthood,
but an uneducated priesthood is capable of acts of
tyranny which are only equalled in their exercise of
rresponsible power by the Herods and Caligulas of old.
It is the old story of man dressed in a little brief
authority ; and when the man so dressed is ignorant,
uneducated, and either a bigot, or what O'Connell well
described as a pious fool, the consequences are deplorable,
and in the Roman Catholic Church they are irreparable.

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES, 307
What a miserable condition of things was revealed
by the McGlynn affair. Many Protestants have sided
with Archbishop Corrigan from political motives, and
from the delusion so common in Araerica, that the
Roraan Catholic Church is the protector of property
and the guardian of law and order. Even Chicago will
not open the eyes of those who are wilfully blind. I
have carefully preserved all the documents connected
with the McGlynn case, but they would require more
space than can be given to the subject in the present
work. Some of the points, however, are too important
to be passed over altogether. Protestants who do not
care, Uke Gallio, about these things, were loud in their
condemnation of McGlynn, and yet his best friends
were and are Roman Catholics.
It was made to appear as if he was forsaken by
every one except a few women. Yet some of the best
men in his late parish have defied all ecclesiastical
censures, and held to him through all opposition. It
should make Protestants pause, and ask, " Are these
things so ? " when they see such an influential move
ment in the very heart of the Roman Church. But that
Church works well and wisely for herself She has the
absolute control of the press in America, with some few
exceptions, and can act accordingly. Paragraphs are
carefully prepared for the benefit of the public, which
insinuate that the doctor's cause is failing, that he
himself is faiUng. It would be amusing, if the subject
was not so serious, to note the way in which efforts are
made from time to time to depreciate his work, and to
leave the impression on the minds of the pubUc that it
is a thing of the past, and that the movement which
he has inaugurated will soon die out.
It will never die out. I know, from my own personal

3o8 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
knowledge, that Dr. McGlynn has the sincere sympathy,
and I believe the financial help, of some of the best
priests in Archbishop Corrigan's diocese, and that the
opinion of many of the best members of the priesthood
in New York is that he was shamefully treated, and
yet such paragraphs as the foUowing are going the
rounds of the press : —
{Special despatch to the Boston "Sunday Herald."')
"New York, August 25th, 1888.
" Dr. McGlynn, the eloquent head of the Anti-Poverty
Society, is threateningly ill. His health seems generally
shattered, and his friends fear that some fatal disease
will be developed by his bad mental and physical con
dition. He is now undertaking to open a "vigorous
campaign for the so-called Labour Party, and it was on
Sunday last that he made his first speech. The famous
series of Sunday evening meetings in the Academy of
Music, which for awhile had drawn so many people
ready to pay for admission that the spacious house
would not hold half of them, fell off" in popularity greatly
before they were suspended in May."
Later still the foUowing appeared : —
" There is no question that the Roman CathoUc
Church has devoted all its influence in New York to a
quiet but very effective destruction of Father McGlynn's
popularity. Archbishop Corrigan early and openly
directed all priests to refuse absolution to persons who
attended the anti-poverty meetings. Three priests,-
sympathetic with his moveraent, have been reraoved to
out-of-town charges. The wonderful power of the
Roraan Catholic clergy over its people has been exera-
plified, and Father McGlynn is wrecked in every way.

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES. 309
It is said that he wUl now take a trip to Europe in the
hope of recuperating his health."
While there are so many Roraan Catholic reporters
on the New York press, it is very easy to send such
special despatches all over the country. As a matter
of fact, it would have been no wonder if Dr. McGlynn
was taken sick ; but to the grief of his enemies he is
more vigorous than ever, and more successful as a
lecturer. The ink had scarcely been dry on the excommunica
tion which Archbishop Corrigan forced from Rome, ere
Dr. McGlynn's house was, 1 had almost said, broken into
by a belligerent priest ; and if there was no other act of
tyranny and injustice to complain of in the New York
diocese, this should have merited the scorn and con
tempt of honest men. Some good, however, generally
comes out of evil ; and the good in this case has been
to show the world, if the world is wise enough to see
what is plainly before it, that there was a good deal
more of personal animosity in the case, than love of God
or zeal for religion. It should be noted that not long
before this occurred Archbishop Corrigan had made use
of the popularity of Dr. McGlynn to obtain an appoint
ment for General Newton, and had sent the forraer
to Washington for that purpose, another evidence, if
evidence was needed, that the Church of Rome rules
Washington. There were great jubilations in the
Roman Catholic papers over this appointment, and
General Newton was held up to pubUc admiration as.
another man of scientific attainments, who was an
honour to the Church. In his case, however, and in
many others, the appointments have been a failure, and
the General has disappeared from office, and no longer

3IO INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
receives the praise of the Roman Church, for reasons
best known to the parties concerned.
The way in which Dr. McGlynn was treated by his
brother priests, or at least a considerable number of
thera, is instructive. Like carrion crows they fell upon
the man whom they believed practically dead, and tore
him to pieces, as only ecclesiastics can rend each other.
Certainly he had a few faithful friends, and all honour
to them. It is the fierce and successful policy of Rome
to crush utterly, when she cannot burn alive. Happily
for Dr. McGlynn it was not possible to burn him as
Bruno was burned ; it was only possible to break his
heart. His popularity had been a sore thorn in the side
of those priests who had failed to win the love of their
own people. Then there was the usual cry of loyalty to
" the Church," in the person of Archbishop Corrigan ;
and great was the zeal to prove the devotion of these
priests to the higher power, all of course from the most
sublime motives. It was a state of things which would
have rejoiced the inquistors of the Middle Ages.
There are two great pillars of the Church in New
York. One was sent to evict Dr. McGlynn. He
did so. He went to Dr. McGlynn's house, and demanded
adraission. He did more ; he went to Dr. McGlynn's
room, and took possession. It was in vain that the other
priests offered to give him any room he pleased in the
house, so as to allow the doctor time to remove his
books and clothing. No, the cup was to be made as bitter
as possible. The doctor was to be made feel the full
weight of episcopal displeasure, and his priest persecu
tors were to show their " loyalty " to the Church, in the
person of their archbishop, by heaping indignities on
their brother priest. All that I now write was the

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES, 311
theme of discussion in the public press of New York
for months.
A servant girl in Dr. McGlynn's house, not under
standing this form of Christianity, and thinking that
even if he had done wrong, he should at least be treated
with ordinary courtesy, — for even the criminal has some
pity shown to him by his executioners, — expostulated
with  , a man from whom, if she
had known him better, she need not have expected even
ordinary good manners under any circumstances. His
only reply was to divest himself of all the garments which
he could remove with the commonest decency, and then
fling himself on Dr. McGlynn's bed. A Roraan Catholic
paper now before rae describes  .  ¦
as " a man of brutal manners." There was a priest, also
a doctor of divinity, who was sincerely attached to Dr.
McGlynn, and he wrote a letter to the press, in which he
used some very plain language about this matter. He
had let his affection and his sense of justice outrun his
discretion. But he was made to suffer. No priest, or
for that matter no Roman Catholic, is allowed to write or
say anything publicly about his ecclesiastical superiors,
except his language is couched in the terms of the
highest eulogy. He may write and publish verses of
which a third-form boy would be ashamed. He may
use French to complete the praise of those who' live
on praise, and make the subject of his adulation and
himself ridiculous, as the ecclesiastic did, who said that
Archbishop Gibbons had received his coup de grace from
the Pope, when he was made a cardinal. But to say
one word that even might bear the faintest semblance
of blame, that is not permitted. So Father Curran
had to be made an example of, and duly punished.
There was very strong feeling among Roman

312 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Catholics in New York, as to the gross injustice with
which Dr. McGlynn had been treated. There were
a great many priests who sympathised with him, and
a great many who hated their ecclesiastical superior,
and on that account were prepared to give very
substantial tokens of their sympathy to the suspended
priest. News of this was going to Rome, and there
were public rumours that aU was not serene in the
diocese. Something had to be done for the archbishop
by his sympathisers, and soraething was done. But it
only made matters worse in the eyes of all sensible
and thinking people.
It told in Rome, however, and that was all that could
be desired. Of what avail was it for the New York
Herald to advise the Pope to make Archbishop Corrigan
a Cardinal, and to declare openly and without contradic
tion that the same paper had been chiefly instrumental
in obtaining that much-coveted distinction for the late
Cardinal. A document, which would be signed unani
mously by the priests of the diocese, was necessary,
for it was rumoured in Rorae that there were a good
many of the best and most popular priests in that
city who were not well affected to the archbishop's
rule. A carefully-worded document was prepared, the
object of which was to show that the priests of New
York were one and all agreed that Dr. McGlynn had
deserved his excomraunication, and that one and all
were in full agreement with their archbishop. But as
the question is a grave one, I shall give the evidence,
as it was published in a Roman Catholic paper. I
must premise that I have in my possession a mass of
documents which show that the state of things which
exists in New York has its counterpart in every diocese

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES. 313
in America, and yet the Church of Rome talks of its
unity, and the world believes her.
I heard a student of the archbishop's seminary declare
that he believed that such a system of tyranny never
before existed, as that which was then the normal state of
the diocese ; that the students were afraid to open their
lips to each other except on the most commonplace
subjects, and even then with due caution, through dread
of the system of espionage. A priest, the rector of
a very large parish in Jersey, called his bishop a "little
puppy" again and again in my hearing, and informed
me that he was so called generally by the priests of his
diocese. What a state of things in a Church, which
those who know nothing of her inner life imagine to
be so perfect.
The Roman Catholic paper to which I have referred
(the Catholic News) had the foUowing account of the
McGlynn business : —
" Holy week of 1887 is come and gone, and we are safe
in saying that never in the history pf the Church in
New York was there a sadder one, or one less calculated
to inspire devotion. The CathoUcs of this city tried to
forget the burning question that for months has agitated
all Christendom, and to follow in spirit the ' Man of
Calvary ; ' but in sorrow it must be said, that not since
October last has there been so exciting a week, such
a casting of fuel into a furious fire, To tfie credit of
the parishioners of St. Stephen's, it must be said
that they restrained themselves adrairably, bearing in
patience and quiet, and with all the equanimity they
could command, the insulting innuendoes against their
pastor, and the unjust discipUne of his friends. Doctor
Curran, the faithful disciple, was not forgotten at the

314 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
Hoboken Monastery, for great crowds went to see him,
and to all he spoke freely of why he was there. It
seems that the first report of his transfer to EUenvUle
was untrue, for a later report, coming also from the
cathedral, said that he was removed on account of his
devotion to Dr. McGlynn. This denotes two things
very clearly.
" First, that any of the clergy sympathising with
Dr. McGlynn are marked men, and sure of official dis
pleasure. Second, that we cannot always depend on
the utterances of certain people, that they are unreliable.
As Dr. Curran's interview with one of the daUy papers
is of much interest we give it in full.
" ' I am not doing penance, for I do not consider that
I have done wrong. This retreat means nothing more
than a voluntary retreat. My time is my own. I shaU
use it for study and reading and for reUgious exercises.
I said Mass this moming in one of the little chapels,
and I am sure there is nothing in this little stay here
the least bit disagreeable. It is a punishment certainly.
I am sent here to give me a chance to reflect on my
conduct, and I have always tried to be a good priest
and to do my duty. I wiUingly obeyed the order to
come here, but it is a question whether the archbishop
can be justified in ordering me here. The question is
one that has a broader application in the case of Dr.
McGlynn, and how it wUl be settled I don't know. I
was sent to St, Patrick's in Mulberry Street, and I was
happy there, and tried to do my duty. Father Kearney,
and aU the clergy there were, I thought, very kind to
me. " ' One evening, it was March 25 th, Father Kearney
met me in the hall and said the archbishop wanted to
see me. " Very well," I said, and I told him I would go

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES. 315
up to the archbishop's house that evening, and I did.
The archbishop came down and greeted me pleasantly,
and surprised me by saying that he heard that I did
not get along well with Father Kearney. " That is a
revelation to me," I replied. " He says you are away
from the house too much to attend to your duties,"
said the archbishop. " That is a lie," I said, with just
as much emphasis as I say it now. Father Kearney
had never said a word to me about his dissatisfaction. I
could think of only one thing that could justify Father
Kearney in his assertion. He has a rule which I think
is not in use in other churches, that the outside doors
shall be fastened at 10.30 every night. He has an
immense key which locks the door, then a great bolt
is pushed, and to cap it all, a great chain is drawn
across and hooked. When I was in nights and heard
that bolt and chain grate and rattle I felt as if I were
in the tombs. I admitted that I had subjected myself
to the accusation of being out after the doors were
locked, but I am a secular priest, not a monk, and am
considerably over twenty-one years of age, and know
of no rule that would require me to be in every night
at 10.30.
" ' Well, the archbishop thought that so long as they
were the rules I should have obeyed them. The arch
bishop said it would not be pleasant for me to go back
to St. Patrick's, anyway. He also referred to my
appearing at Jones' Woods on St. Patrick's day. He
told me to go up to EUenvUle for a whUe, and I suppose
it was a sort of punishment to be sent up to the country,
but I had a very pleasant time.'
" Where the good doctor will be sent next, or if the
' ten days ' wiU be extended, we cannot at this time of
writing conjecture."

3i6 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
A reporter of a Brooklyn paper called on Father
Malone, a distinguished priest ofthe diocese of Brooklyn,
who had just returned from New York, where he heard
of Dr. Curran's punishment, and the venerable priest
was not slow to express his views. He was present
at Dr. McGlynn's great speech, and when the reporter
asked him if he had been warned against supporting
him, he replied, " Oh, that is nonsense." Then after a
pause, in which his face showed agitation, he exclaimed,
" Are we in Russia ? Can't a man attend a meeting
without being sized and ' disciplined ' ? If this were
the first day of April instead of the second I should say
this whole affair was an 'April fool.' I have never
agreed with Archbishop Corrigan's methods, but I can
not understand him now. His behaviour is tyrannically
inhuman, and totally without reason or excuse. What
has young Father Curran done that he should be put
on a diet of bread and water ? Father Curran had
been with Dr. McGlynn for eleven years. He had seen
him for hours at his private devotions, and knew many
of the secrets of his godly life. Why should he forsake
him now ? If I found a poor friend in the gutter and
did not help him, would I be acting like a Christian ?
And now this young man, for simply attending this
lecture by his old friend and co-labourer in God's work,
is 'disciplined.' It is a crime. Father Curran came
from my parish. I baptized him, and know that he is
an inteUigent, honest priest of the Church.
" It is the work of a madman," he said. " Archbishop
Corrigan is so excited that he is no longer to be
reasoned with. Nothing but the power at Rome can
touch him. There are a hundred thousand Catholics in
New York who hate the Uttle archbishop. His useful
ness is practically gone. The very idea of attacking

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES. 317
Dr. McGlynn's position in 1S82, for lending his voice to
the famishing people of Ireland. In this whole matter
the archbishop has been wrong as wrong can be. I
think it will end in his removal. The priests ought to
have the courage to take sides on this question, and
send to Rome their opinions for or against the arch
bishop's position. But they lack independence."
"Do you think Dr. Mc. Glynn should go to Rome?"
" Why, no ; why should he ? He is not accused of
any fault as a priest. He is not accountable to Rome
for his opinions op political economy. He believes in
a tax on land; but what reason is there in that to
subject him to a call to Rome ? Dr. McGlynn has been
faithful to his Church, his God, and his country. He
will, if need be, suffer unto death. If he yielded to the
efforts to establish one-man power in New York, how
do you think we could answer such antagonists as Dr.
Fulton ? He must stand as the champion of the Church.
The placing of  , a man of brutal
manners, in his place at St. Stephen's was a sad mis
take ; but it may have been for the best in one sense,
as it crystallised the sentiment in the parish quickly.
I understand that this latest action of the archbishop
has caused the greatest exciteraent yet known in Dr.
McGlynn's old parish, and that even those who place
pence on the plate are to be boycotted. It is a sad state
of affairs."
Quite recently two of the clergymen of New "t'orR
proposed that a paper or testimonial should be got
up testifying to the loyalty of the clergy of the arch
diocese to its spiritual head. It was to have been pre
sented to the archbishop on his return from Bermuda.
For this purpose a meeting was called at the house of
a sympathising priest, but no one responded to the

INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

call save the tv/o proraoters of the scheme. It failed,
only, it appears, to be revived in another form. Here
is what the Daily Herald has to say on the matter : —
" A reporter was assured recently that Dr. McGlynn's
opponents were carrying out a scherae to make it
appear that the deposed pastor of St. Stephen's had no
sympathisers. An interview with a liberal-minded
Catholic layman, who is known to alraost every priest
in New York, revealed the fact that a docuraent was
really in circulation among the clergy calling for their
indorsement of Archbishop Corrigan.
" ' It is an attempt,' said this gentleman, ' to coerce
the priests whose comfort and freedom are largely at
the mercy of the archbishop. It was a friend of mine
who notified the Herald of this dodge on Thursday.'
" ' Is it really the suggestion of the archbishop ? '
asked the reporter.
" ' I will not be positive of that,' was the reply.
' But here are the names of the priests who are engineer
ing the affair, Monsignor Preston, of St. Ann's ; Father
Lynch, of the Church of Transfiguration, in Mott Street ;
Father Kearney, of St. Patrick's Cathedral, in Mulberry
Street ; Father McGean, of St. Peter's, in Barclay Street ;
and Dr. Brann, of St. Elizabeth's, Washington Heights.
Monsignor Preston's hostility to Dr. McGlynn is well
known. Father Lynch is also very hostile. He was
once an assistant to Dr. McGlynn at St. Stephen's, and
Dr. McGlynn had good reason to cause his removal.
Father Lynch then went to Father Preston's Church,
where you may be sure his dislike to Dr. McGlynn
was not suffered to diminish. He is one of the most
active circulators of the coercion document.'
" ' Have you a copy of that paper Mr. O'Donoghue ?'

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES. 319
(The reporter had asked permission of the gentleman
to let him call him Mr. O'Donoghue.)
" ' No ; I do not think there are more than three
in existence. When one of the emissaries brings a copy
to a priest for his signature, if he finds it necessary
to leave it for a time, he exacts a promise from the
buU-dozed one that he shall not give it away, divulge
its contents, or make a copy of it. I have seen it,
however, and it is to this effect : —
" ' " That the priests of this archdiocese desire to
assure His Grace that they heartily approve of his con
duct in the troubles now existing in the diocese. Espe
cially do they approve of your conduct toward Edward
McGlynn, whose disobedience to your authority has
been a source of great scandal not only to us but to
the clergy and to the laity."
" ' The docuraent then goes on to say that Dr.
McGlynn's disobedience has been aggravated by his
subsequent conduct toward even the holy Father, and
that his motives have been dictated by a spirit of vanity
and vindictiveness, and not by a regard for law and
religion. It has this quotation from Proverbs : —
" ' " He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity, and
the rod of his anger shall fail."
" ' Observe,' continued Mr. O'Donoghue, ' that this
document, in referring to the recent pastor of St.
Stephens, drops all title, and merely calls him " Edward
McGlynn." There are numbers of poor priests who
have signed this under protest, feeling that if they did
not they would be marked men. As a Catholic, I must
say that this is a scheme unworthy of Catholic gentle
men, whether they be priests or laymen.'
"The reporter then went and interviewed several

320 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
clergymen. One said, ' I am not in fuU sympathy with
Dr. McGlynn, but why should I be compeUed to attri
bute vanity and vindictiveness to Dr. McGlynn, whose
whole life has been that of an honourable and an
upright man, and an exemplary priest ? '
" A third : ' It was sprung upon me suddenly, and
I was asked which side I was on. I signed it under
protest.' " A fourth : ' It is bull-dozing pure and simple. The
paper is going to Rome to create a false impression, and
eventually all our names are to be published. I feel
I have done something I shall regret. A man never
knows when it may come his turn to suffer next.'
" Many other priests spoke in a similar strain."
The Rev. Dr. Curran wrote the following manly
letter in reply to the inquisition made on him to sign
the address, praising the archbishop and condemning
Dr. McGlynn : —
" Rev. and Dear Sirs, — I have received from you
a circular letter requesting my signature to a printed
address to our archbishop. I cannot conscientiously
comply with your request.
" I regret that you and other priests of this diocese
find it necessary to express in a public document your
loyalty to authority. I should feel guilty of a calumny
if I should sign the paper sent to me, containing, as
it does, these words : ' We desire on this occasion to
record our emphatic disapproval and reprobation of the
act of disobedience and disloyalty to your authority of
which a certain member of our body has made himself
guUty, an act of disloyalty aggravated by his subsequent
course.' It is not disloyalty to act according to sub
mitted principles of Catholic theology. These principles

PROTESTANT SUPPORT OF CATHOLIC FAILURES. 321
teach us that every Catholic is free to adhere to an
opinion until it shall have been condemned by the one
legitimate authority.
" You speak of a certain member of our body as ' dis
obedient and disloyal.' I know of none such. The
priest to whom I am told you refer in your address has
declared again and again that if the doctrine, for refusing
to abandon which he is still suspended from his pastoral
office, should be condemned by the only authority we
all recognise in such matters, he would, as a Catholic,
repudiate it. And I know with certainty, that that
authority, so far from condemning, has never even
examined the doctrine. I am entirely at a loss to know
what ' aggravation ' of his alleged disloyalty you are
able to find in what you call his ' subsequent course.'
Is it not true, on the contrary, that Dr. McGlynn has
maintained a discreet silence, broken only by a state
ment made necessary to supplement the incomplete
presentation of his case in an authoritative document ?
Moreover, I shall feel guilty of a pharisaic hypocrisy, if,
after seeming, by my signature, to approve that portion
of your address which 1 have just said I could not sign
without feeling guilty of calumny, I should join with
you in saying: 'We have been patiently hoping and
praying that our dear brother would change his mind
and return to his Father's house.' It would seem to me
mockery to call one 'my dear brother' at a moment
when I knew I was calumniating him ; and while phari
saically praying for the return of the ' dear brother ' to
his Father's house, I should be conscious that I was
calumniating him by implying that he had ever aban
doned his Father's house. This calumny would be all
the more unpardonable since the 'dear brother' has
several times publicly asseverated, with the greatest
21

322 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
emphasis and solemnity, that he never has and never
will abandon what you must mean by his Father's house,
the holy Catholic Church."
I regret that it is not possible to give the entire
history of Dr. McGlynn's case in the present work. It
is one of the greatest importance in all its bearings.
It is a proof, if proof were needed, that Rome has not
ceased to persecute, and that she is limited in the
expression of her displeasure only by the exigencies of
the present times, which do not allow of the public
execution of heretics, or of those who from any cause
have offended her.
The spirit of vengeance, and of what can only be
caUed petty spite, on the part of Dr. McGlynn's brother
clergy, shows how little mercy they would have for
each other, if power was placed in their hands to act as
they pleased. It shows that there is very Uttle of the
spirit of Christ left in the Church of Rome, and that
the persecuting spirit of ages supposed to be past,
needs only opportunity to revive.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE EFFECTS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING-
ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES AND HIGHER
EDUCATION.
"The fear ofthe Lord is the beginning of wisdom." — Prov. ix. lo.
SOME remarkable admissions which have been
published, on the subject of the effects of Roman
Catholic teaching, in the Tablet, the leading organ of
English Roman Catholic opinion, are, in view of present
discussions, well worth consideration.
The Roman Catholic religion has had every advan
tage in England. It has been fashionable. It has had
political prestige. The fashionable perverts to this
faith, if they have not increased in numbers, have not
decreased in power. The Roman Catholic episcopacy
are not slow to see all that can be made of social posi
tion ; and as, by means of their influential friends, they
can gain access to famiUes which they might not other
wise have entered easily, they know well how social
position affects the prosperity of Romanism. And in
the meantime, what of the English perverts, and the
Roman Catholic Church in England ? What of the
vast multitude of the English people ? Are they being
won over to the Roman faith ? What of the English
priests and the English missions ? Are the distin
guished perverts caring for them ?
If the accounts published in recent copies of the

324 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROAIE.

Tablet are true, a considerable number of these unfortu
nate priests are half starving. One priest writes that
he is living on porridge only, because if he did not do
so he would not have the money to keep up his schools.
Another priest says, "I beg for a few shUUngs or
sixpences." Another writes a piteous appeal to a
gentleraan in London, which this gentleraan publishes
in the Tablet. He says that one of the largest Churches
in London is so seriously embarrassed and in debt,
that he fears it will be unable to meet its ordinary
expenses. A priest has a sensational and pathetic
advertisement, which commences thus : " help, help,
MY CHURCH IS FALLING," and Continues, " For the love of
Mary, help me to rebuild her church at Lynn." It is
to this that the Roman Catholic Church has come in
England ; and these almost despairing cries for help are
repeated day after day in the English papers, and
apparently there is none to heed them.
A rem.arkable appeal was made in these papers in the
year 1888, which was curiously pathetic in its character.
A priest wrote a letter, which was purported to be
written by a gentleman who had just died, addressed to
his wife. Its object was to draw the attention of this
lady to the difference revealed to him in purgatory
between the luxurious appointments of his own house,
and the poverty and misery of the house of God. He
describes in glowing language the feeUngs of shame
and grief which he experienced at the contrast between
the two. It certainly was a plain hint to her to do
something for the Church.
In mediaeval ages the priest would have had a vision,
and would have informed the bereaved widow that her
late husband had commanded her to make certain
offerings for the release of his soul, I do not know

EFFECTS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING. 325
whether this lady took the hint thus cleverly conveyed,
but however this may be, it shows how little Roman
Catholic teaching has been able to do in England, with
all its advantages of a share in the public government,
and with perfect liberty to teach as it will.
But it is not only as to the results of Roraan CathoUc
teaching, as far as devotion to the Church is concerned,
that we are enlightened by this writer, or rather by
these writers; for the contributors to the Tablet are
nuraerous, and among the most influential of English-
speaking Roman CathoUcs. The whole question of
education is discussed with a freedom which would be
surprising, if we did not realize that English Roraan
Catholics have always found their opinions respected
by the Court of Rome.
There is no other religious body which fears the least
breath of criticism as they do, and this has been the
cause of great trouble in England. The perverts, who
form the only educated portion of the Roraan flock, are
very much alive to the advantages of higher education,
and greatly desire it for their children. The priests,
and in some cases even the convent priests, are of
another opinion. At first a compromise was hoped for,
when the experiment of establishing a Roman Catholic
university was made in Ireland, and the name of
Newman was used to charm. It was supposed that
the Irish people would be won over by the compliment
of this selection of their own country as the location
of the university, which was to be so famous, just
as the astute Bishop of Richmond hopes to captivate
the people of Araerica by the selection of Washington
for the American Roman Catholic university.
It was confidently expected that the name of
Newman would have secured the interest and patronage

326 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
of English Roman Catholics, and that the chronic feud
between English and Irish Roman Catholics would have
died a natural death. But, alas for huraan hopes and
plans I Even Newraan's name did not heal internal
dissensions and jealousies, which seem to exist with
special intensity between those who love their faith so
much, and their religious brethren so little. The Irish
Roman Catholic university proved a miserable failure,
although money was poured out on it like water.
The next effort and the next failure was in connection
with the plan to establish a Roman Catholic university
in London. Again money was poured forth like water.
All that ecclesiastical power could do was done, only to
add another failure to the list. It was next proposed
to have a Roraan Catholic college in Oxford, and this
plan raight have been carried out if it had not struck
terror into the hearts of the higher clergy, who opposed
it resolutely, fearing lest the close communication which
must necessarily arise between the Roman Catholic and
the Protestant students would result in loss of faith to
the former. Those who wished for higher education for
their children were obliged to yield, but they were not
satisfied, nor were they silenced.
The London University has been the literary refuge
of the hapless Roman Catholic youth, who knev/ that
his own colleges could give hira no diploma which
the world would recognise or respect. It was a poor
substitute for a greatly desired good ; and now the
Roman Catholic papers are full of the complaints of
heads of families who have discovered that this supposed
good is not only useless, but that it is even injurious.
A gentleman writing in the Tablet, and signing himself
Bernard Whelan, says : —
" There should be no attempt to pass students at the

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 327
London University. The whole system is one for the
manufacture of probable prigs. As the years go on
we want reasons, and we have none. With inteUigent
beings surely reason is the dominant faculty. Why
should it not be cultivated as much as the memory or
the imagination even from childhood ? "
Why the reasoning powers are not sufficiently culti
vated in the Roman CathoUc Church is told very plainly
in the same paper.
Attempts are made from time to time by English
Roman Catholics to promote the circulation of Roman
Catholic literature, but these attempts have always ended
in a miserable failure. A "Catholic Truth Society"
(so-called) was established in England some time since,
and is only kept alive by spasmodic efforts. In report
ing a meeting of this society the editor of the Tablet
laments the good old time when ignorance was bliss,
and there was no need for teaching the people anything.
Now they will argue, and must have a reason for what
they beUeve. The editor says : " A generation ago,
when children had thoroughly learned the truths of the
catechism, and had happened to be placed in a settled
home life, there was less reason to fear." To fear
what? Plainly that the poor Roman Catholic would
leam to know or read anything beyond his catechism.
Colonel R. Chichester, an ardent and educated Roman
Catholic, is so little satisfied with the Roman Catholic
school system in England that he says : " It is the
duty of parents to find out the educational power of
each school. Every boy and girl should be obliged to
pass an tonual examination at the hands of a State
official." After all, Roman Catholics themselves are the best

328 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

evidence of the failure of their own system of priestly
interference in the affairs of life.
What has been the result of the establishment of
Roman Catholic universities ? Such establishments
have simply been utter failures, socially, religiously,
and financially. This is a bold assertion, but I give
proof of it from Catholic sources, and from personal
knowledge. And first we may consider the condition of the
Roman Catholic University of Dublin. A more miser
able fiasco is hardly on record. It may be said that
the exceptional conditions of that country made failure
inevitable. But there is one point on which success
is always sure for any Catholic undertaking, engineered
by a few Catholic bishops, and that is financial success.
Success in that direction has been more easily obtained
in America than in Ireland. Urgent as were the demands
of the Irish priests under episcopal compulsion, the funds
so obtained for the Catholic university in Dublin fell
very far short of the desires of its promoters. In
Araerica the case has been different. While hundreds
of thousands of hapless children and long-suffering
girls are left to the tender mercies of public officials
and institutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars are
poured forth like water to build and endow an insti
tution, on which some, even of the Roman Catholic
episcopacy, look with no favourable eye.
An article on the Irish Catholic university appeared
in the Dublin Review, for October 1887. This quarterly,
¦;<oor as it is in literary merit, is the only serial of the
kind to which British Catholics can lay claim. Let us
1 ok, then, at the Irish Catholic university, and see
vvhat has been said of it by Catholics, and what has
been the result of all this lavish expenditure, princi-

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 329
pally of the money of the poor. If the Irish Catholic
university proved a disastrous failure, what hope is
there for the success of an American Catholic university,
which has only the one additional advantage of being
able to secure enormous sums of money, but which
wants the many special advantages of the Dublin insti
tution. The article referred to in the Dublin Review
opens thus : —
"The project of a Catholic university for Ireland,
started by the Synod of Thurles in 1850, has had such
scanty measure of success, while on the other hand,
centres of the higher instruction, such as Cardiff,
Bangor, Liverpool, etc., based on the principle that
very probably there is no God, have prospered as soon
as founded, as if they met a clear want of the tirae,
that there is abundant reason why a Catholic should
examine the matter very earnestly and very closely."
The writer of this article in the Dublin Review, who
is well known, and who describes hiraself correctly as
" one of the old staff," declares what the object of the
Dublin Catholic University was : —
"It is no use," he says, "indulging in generalities and
fine words. What practical result did the Thurles Synod
and their lay supporters look for ? By establishing a
Catholic seat of learning they hoped ultimately to secure
tills ; that if an Irishraan in any part of Ireland, or of
the world for that matter, wished to know what were
the latest theories and the most iraportant books on
early Roman history, or on Turanian philology or
Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions, or quaternions, or the
doctrine of probability, or the correlation of forces, or
the Elizabethan dramatists ; in short, upon any one
whatsoever of the subjects of higher or more difficult

33° INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
inquiry with which the human mind is at present
engaged, he should be sure of finding some learned
scholar or savant in Dublin capable of giving him all
the information he required, and of showing him all
the books, apparatus, specimens, experiments, etc.,
necessary to guide his judgment."
This, then, was the object to be attained, possibly
because no other object was attainable. The Dublin
Catholic university was not to be a university of students ;
it was to be a university of professors, a sort of living
encyclopedia of general information. Anything more
absurd could scarcely be imagined. , Anything more
certain to fail could scarcely be devised. But no matter,
the bishops willed it ; and as they obtained the Pope's
approval no one dared say a word against it. If the
laity objected, so much the worse for the laity. It is
their duty to give their money, promptly and humbly,
but not their advice. The bishops do not certainly
claim personaUy infallibiUty, but they claim obedience
to their mandates all the same ; and the unhappy man
who dares to even discuss them is denounced as
"disobedient to the Church," which practically and
very effectively places him under a ban spiritual and
teraporal ; and he consequently soon finds out that the
game is not worth the candle. If he is honest and
outspoken he may burn his fingers once or twice, but
he eventually subsides. And if he is poor — and eccle
siastical support is necessary for his advancement in
life, as it very often is in America as well as in Ireland
— he shuts his teeth hard, and pays the tax of sub
mission necessary for success.
This is not a fancy picture. It might be drawn a
good deal stronger from personal knowledge. The cry

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 331
of the victim is not heard, or if heard is not heeded as
long as he submits, and his grievance is not made in
public. It does not seem to have occurred to these learned
bishops that the staff of professors required for this
" Inquire Within " institution could not always be found.
They hoped indeed that sooner or later there would be
no lack of students ; but the students were not forth
coming, either sooner or later, and once again the
Catholic bishops proved by a public failure their utter
inability to manage affairs. Once again they attributed
failure to every cause except their own incapacity.
How then could they be mistaken ? And indeed he
would be a bold man who dared to say that they failed,
even if he clothed the stern assertion in the most flatter
ing attire, and hinted rather than spoke out. For do not
these bishops denounce and discipline their Galileis ?
And then when Galilei is found, either in past or present
ages, to have been unjustly denounced and cruelly dis
ciplined for knowing more than his masters knew, they
retire gracefully, and even with new laurels, because they
only imprisoned and boycotted where they might have
excommunicated. And even if the poor Galilei turns
out to have been condemned wrongfully, he should have
had more patience, and submission, and loyalty to his
Church — i.e., to some obtuse ecclesiastic — and not have
spoken till he had permission ; and then there will be
gentle insinuations that the ecclesiastical superior
knew these scientific truths as well as the irrepressible
Galilei, but was waiting the proper time to disclose his
knowledge. This, then, says " one of the staff," was the object
of the Irish Catholic university. This, then, was the
object, not to provide lectures and opportunities of

332 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROAIE.
distinction for clever young men, but to found a seat of
learning. To open the walks of the higher education
to the Irish youth was also an object, but it was
secondary. So a university was established purely, if
not exclusively, at the expense of the Irish peasantry,
to support a staff of EngUsh professors.
A very gentlemanly class of professors was provided,
but it does not appear to have occurred to the governing
body of Irish bishops that they could not live for ever,
that a university could only be kept up by obtaining
recruits for its professional chairs from the ranks of
its students, and that the professors, whether present
or to come, could not be permanently supported by
the poorest people on earth, even if the support was
demanded and enforced by episcopal authority.
There is one marked difference, however, between
the Irish Catholic university and the American
CathoUc university. The gifted and youthful prelate
who has obtained the rectorship of the Catholic univer
sity at Washington has stated plainly that it is intended
principally, if not exclusively, for priests.
The Dublin Catholic university was exclusively for
the laity. The reason of the difference is obvious. Their
is no Maynooth in America with its great prestige.
The establishment of an American Maynooth, which is
the secret object of the CathoUc university in Washing
ton, would certainly be an immense support to the
Roman Catholic Church in America. And let it be said
that the Roman Catholic bishops in America have
a much larger range of experience than Paul CuUen or
Cardinal McCabe possessed.
The friction of a new country has not been lost on
them. They will have their Maynooth, but it wfll be
a nineteenth century Maynooth, with a good show of

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 333
liberality, but not one whit more liberal in its views or
useful in its literary character than the old Maynooth
of Ireland.
But it wiU be a Maynooth well-endowed by the miUions
of the miUionaire, although already the proraoters have
begun to ask for the pence of the poor. Later, indeed,
the poor wUl be compelled to take more than their share
of the burden. But the American Catholic working man
is not so docile, or so easily controlled as the Irishman,
and there may be difficulties in obtaining funds for this
new institution which did not exist in Ireland, and
which the founders are too sanguine to anticipate.
And has not Archbishop Corrigan already arranged for
a private Maynooth, for which he deraands another four
hundred thousand dollars ? Certainly the future priests
of America will be well provided for. It is said that
there was some jealousy as to the location of the
university. How easily such affairs are arranged in
the Roman Catholic Church, where a bishop has only
to speak in order to obtain all his desires.
But there is an inner side to this history of failure.
The Irish Catholic university was opened on Whit-
Sunday, June 4th, 1854, by the solemn instaUation of
Cardinal, then Dr. Nev/man, as rector. Nothing could
have been grander than the coraraencement, and nothing
less anticipated by the promoters than the disastrous
finale. The only wonder is that a man of Dr. Newman's
acute perceptions should not have anticipated what
he soon realized, that the whole affair was bound to
collapse. When Newman consented, the question of rectorship
was easily settled. He was then at the very zenith of
his inteUectual power and fame. If a one-man univer
sity could be a success, the one man to make it such

334 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
had certainly been found. What need to say more ?
The name of Newman is of world-wide fame. Nor was
there any serious difficulty about the selection of
professors, except, indeed, the one of nationality. A
few Oxford men of more or less intellectual calibre had
quite lately been perverted, and were consequently left
destitute, or nearly so. It was certainly an anomalous
arrangement that an Irish Catholic university should be
governed by an English rector, and taught by English
professors. But what will you have ? Are not Irish
affairs always anomalous ? None of these men were
particularly brilliant, but they were English, and for
that reason they were specially acceptable to the pro-
English Cardinal Cullen. Then it was a grand boast
for the world at large to say, "Here are gentlemen
who have left your English Protestant colleges, with all
their prestige. We will show that we are not behind
hand in establishing such institutions."
There is one subject, and a very important one, on
which we are no longer left in doubt regarding the new
American Roman Catholic university. For the present
it is only to " teach " theology. To ordinary beings
this seems somewhat absurd ; but the Roman Catholic
Church in some of its late decrees is nothing if not
contradictory ; and thinking men, hearing of new dog
matic moral and theological controversies, ask them
selves, some in fear and some in grievous distress,
" What next ? " In the meantime what is the object ?
What work is to be done in this university, where
" teaching " will be conspicuous by its absence ? A
great many compliments are paid to the Bishop of
Peoria for having " broken the ground," and now we
shall say a word of the inner workings of the institution.
He certainly broke ground, and he did a great deal

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 335

more, by inducing his niece, Miss CaldweU, to devote
to it the trifling sum of $300,000. The new episcopal
rector of this university tells about the money he has
got, with great empressement and gratulation. He has
on hand $700,000, he is " sure " (happy man I) of
Si 00,000 more.
The divinity building, which cost $175,000, is "ready
to be paid for." By this we presume that the learned
prelate has the money in hand. The grararaatical
construction of the sentence is poor for the head of
a university. There is to be a " really splendid
chapel," and we know what a "really splendid chapel"
means in the Roman Catholic sense of the term. It
means that gold, and silver, and silk, and ornaments,
and costly carvings, and paintings, and statues pro
cured from foreign countries, and which a king might
envy, are to be placed in it, and paid for, generally,
by the poor, and all for the honour and glory of Him
who said, " Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air
have nests ; but the Son of man hath not where to lay
His head."
The divinity department, we are told, is a " success."
Eight divinity chairs for professors, who are only to
teach theology, and presumably for students who are to
learn nothing else, are already provided for.
There seems to be only one little difficulty, only one
drawback, and that is, how to secure a supply of
students. But the new rector is sanguine, as well he
may be with all this money in hand, and a joyful
assurance of millions more. He says he will begin
with ecclesiastical students, and that arrangements are
to be made to "stimulate" a supply of such students.
To the ordinary mind it is quite as difficult to under
stand how students can be " stimulated," as it is to

336 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
understand the use of a university which is not
to teach anything but theology. It may be well,
however, to say that the student " stimulation " scheme
consists of the endowment of divinity scholarships " in
perpetuity ; " and the rector is quite sanguine that he
will get the institution filled, "or nearly so," as the
respective clergy of the country will have to secure
for their respective dioceses scholarships enough " par
tially, if not fully," to fiU the institution. Yet the
"promising young students," who are to come when
duly " stimulated," are told that they must pay all
the same, the enormous endowments notwithstanding.
As a passing trifle, scarcely worth noticing, the rector
says he will require about $100,000 more for a divinity
library, and to commence the " beautification " of the
grounds. How enormous must be the wealth of the Roman
Catholic Church in America we have further evidence
of in this remarkable statement. He says, for example,
that ten days' work in the city of Philadelphia by him
self and the archbishop of that city, secured $96,000,
and he did not go beyond the limit of two parishes.
The reader can see that, as he says, " the real resources
of the country are as yet untouched." But Bishop
Keane is well aware, for no shrewder bishop lives,
that his non-teaching and money-requiring institution
is not popular with all his brother bishops. And
with becoming candour, and knowing their dislike to
the establishment of a university at Washington, he
says : —
"It is late in the day either to make or answer
objections to the university. The two main difficulties
have been the feasibility of raising the necessary funds.

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 337
and the choice of the city of Washington as the site.
We think that the first objection is amply met in this
article. As to the second, an opportune and competent
witness is at hand."
And then he brings for his second competent witness
as to the desirableness of Washington, the late Presi
dent of Cornell University. It is very remarkable how
Roman Catholic prelates, and even Popes, defer to
Protestant opinion when it suits their purpose. But
it is whispered — indeed, it is an open secret — that it
is not altogether unnecessary for Bishop Keane to fall
back on the support of Protestant opinion, as to the
desirableness of Washington as a locality for the uni
versity. A note of disunion has even reached the Pope,
and it wUl be a curious investigation for the historian
of the future to ascertain from secret despatches just
how their " Graces " of New York and Baltimore, and
their " lordships " of Peoria and Richmond, managed to
reconcUe their differences, and to satisfy their respective
ambitions. The Catholic Mirror, of Baltimore, which is the quasi-
organ of Cardinal Gibbons and Bishop Keane, in a
report of an audience granted to the heads of the
Roman Catholic colleges and serainaries, March 2 1st,
1888, says t}iat "the Catholic university of America
was specially uppermost in the thoughts of th§ Holy
Father." It is quite wonderful how sorae writers and
sorae bishops know exactly what the Pope thinks,
and what he ought to say, <'He spoke," says the
editor, " with emotion " (as indeed he well might,
knowing the serious differences among the American
Roman Catholic hierarchy), about the university at
Washington. "It is my desire," he said, " that all the
22

338 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
bishops should work together with unity and amity.
It would greatly grieve me if there should be any want
of agreement in regard to it."
The editor of the Catholic Mirror says : —
" These are rousing words from the Vicar of Christ,
and they must scatter any lurking evidence of a hesitating
doubt." "Leo XIII.," he continues boldly, "shall not
be disappointed." Which means that Cardinal Gibbons
and Bishop Keane are determined to have their own
way. So far so good ; but here is the reverse of the
medal. The New York Freeman's Journal is the paper
which Archbishop Corrigan delights to honour, and
it reciprocates his good wiU by constantly expressing
admiration of himself and his works. Its late editor
was a power in the Church, principally on account of
his fine gifts of sarcasm, and utter indifference to the
feelings of ecclesiastics. They were, in fact, terribly
afraid of him, and respected him accordingly.
Here is what Archbishop Corrigan's organ in New
York has to say of the CathoUc university in Wash
ington, on which such enormous sums of money have
been and wUl be expended : " The Catholic university,"
says the Freeman's Journal, "wUl in a short time
perhaps realize the hopes of its projectors." Why
Washington was chosen as the site remains a mys
tery, and why the particular place in which the corner
stone was laid should have been marked out for the
great future edifice is a greater mystery. A more
eligible site could easily have been found.
But this is of no moment to a Roman Catholic
bishop, who has this infinite consolation in his difficul
ties, that he has only to will and to have. One bishop
wills to have the university at Washington. And

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 339
although there is one already established there by the
Jesuits, on a scale of splendour which is envied by our
first American public schools — what matter ? A bishop
desires it ; an obedient clergy and laity have but to
submit. But another tlieological university is desired at New
York. If Archbishop Corrigan is disappointed, it only
remains for him to have a university of his own, and
he has sent out his orders for its establishment. It
wiU cost, to begin with, $400,000. But what will you
have, when a prelate has only to speak in order to be
obeyed, when he has no care for results, and when he
can throw the blame of failure on others, and take all
the credit of success to hiraself, though all the share
he has in making the success is to issue an order for
money on a patient people?
We are told that in four years' time this university
in Washington will open its doors to lay students.
The New York Freeman's Journal, indeed, says that " it
is more difficult to get men than to buUd colleges."
We beUeve this significant assertion ; and with the
example of the Dublin Catholic university before the
projectors, we might suppose that it would be taken
into account. But no. The young rector calculates
that there will be assembled at the national capital a
large body of lay students, enjoying the advantages of
" the highest education which can be offered by the
scientists of the nineteenth century." The lawyer, the
physician, the poUtician, the merchant, the journalist, the
man of elegant leisure is expected there, and is expected
to learn how to hold his own among the men of these
critical times. He says the divinity department will
need a "grand total" of $1,000,000; the other depart
ments will require a simUar amount each.

34° INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
A letter has been published lately in the Dublin
Freeman's Journal, which is a very different paper
from the New York paper »f the same name. The
letter is written by Mr. Charles Dawson, an eminent
Irish Catholic gentleman, and the subject is the bribe
which England always offers to Irish Catholic bishops,
in the shape of endowraent for their dying Catholic
university. Of this university he declares that " not
withstanding aU papal benedictions and coramands, the
Irish people would have nothing to do with it ; " and
he adds : —
" The upper class of Irish Catholics never gave the
university a helping hand. It matters little to them
that it was established by Pius IX. These Catholics
studiously absented themselves at the laying of the foun
dation stone, at which twenty-four bishops attended;
they fled from its walls to those of Trinity and the god
less colleges. These are the persons who are so anxious
for the interference of the Holy. See in Irish affairs."
The men who were educated in this Irish Roman
Catholic university are Nationalists, like Dillon, Kenny,
and Cox.
The moral of all this is simple. Roman Catholics wiU
give their money to endow Roman Catholic universities
and schools, — there are political reasons for doing so, 
but they will be very slow to go to them themselves, or
to send their children as students. The prestige of a
Protestant institution wiU always tell.
Here is another and equally important and recent
evidence on the same subject. Mr. Arthur Cleary, also
a distinguished Irish Catholic gentleman, at a public
meeting has declared that when he was auditor ofthe
DubUn CathoUc Historical Society, he went to ask the

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 341
late Judge O'Brien, a Catholic, to attend at the opening
meeting, and he absolutely refused to do so, or to have
anything to do with the Irish CathoUc university. Later
he was sent on an expedition by Cardinal McCabe to
ask the EngUsh Government to interfere with the Italian
Government to obtain some favour for ecclesiastics.
He went from one Catholic to another to get up
petitions, and eventually had to fall back on Protestants
for assistance.
In the June number of the New York Catholic World,
Bishop Keane had one of his many articles on his
favourite subject ; and what does he prove ? Simply
that the Catholic universities of France have been total
faUures. They had money, they had bishops, they
had the influence of the Holy Father ; but Catholic
students would have nothing to do with them. We
doubt if the young rector would have brought this
subject forward if he had not had a purpose of his
own in doing so. He wants to show that too many
universities may be established at the same time,
though he admits that they were required by the
immense population of France. One of these universi
ties, he says, is " languishing to death," and those of
Paris and Lyons are kept up only by heroic efforts.
The whole article is amusing when read between the
lines. In order to conciUate the other bishops, he says :
" The extent of our country " (America) " will assuredly
call for several Catholic universities eventually, but
that the success of one " (his own) " must be made sure
before starting others." It would appear indeed, from
this article, that ecclesiastical students were the only
persons to be found m the one French university which
has proved anything like a success.
One word more, and it is a w ord of very great impot-

342 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
ance to the American people. The rector says he expects
eventually to have CathoUc laymen in his university —
men who are to be lawyers, physicians, politicians,
journalists, and " men of elegant leisure," who are to
learn how to " hold their own among the men of these
critical times."
Now it would not be fair to judge of the institutions
and mental calibre of an enslaved race immediately
after it had obtained freedom. But the Roman Catholic
Church in America has had freedom, and enorraous
wealth, and every advantage for at least a quarter of
a century, and what has been the result ?
Look at New York, the stronghold of Roraan Catho
licism in America, where the public press is manned by
Catholic journalists, where many politicians, bankers, and
tradesmen are of the same religion. What is to be said
of the politicians who have been educated by the Catholic
Church ? What is to be said of the lawyers ? What
is to be said of the journalists who defend or write for
its cause ? What are the names and religion of the men
who have plundered and robbed their country and the
poor, some of whom are in gaol, and some of whom have
fled to Canada, and who will help the Jesuit cause
there ? By whom were they educated ? Do the people
of America wish to have Washington turned into
another New York, where the votes of the country are
openly bought and sold in the liquor saloons, where
vice, and vanity, and degradation reign supreme in the
very class from which those students came who are to
teach the country ?
Wherever the carcase is there will the eagles be
gathered together. The man came with the need, and
the man was Mr. Patrick Ford. I believe that it is of
the greatest moment that the power of the Church of

ROAIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 343
Rome in politics should be clearly understood, and the
cause and effect of that power; and certainly Mr. Patrick
Ford has nothing, from a Romanist's standpoint, of
which he need be ashamed. He has simply acted as a
"good Catholic," and why should he not have his reward ?
The history of his case is very instructive, and it is also
amusing. Indeed, it was raade the subject of a ballad,
which the comic press of New York was afraid to pubUsh,
but which nevertheless was privately circulated in that
city, to the intense enjoyment of a select circle. We
give it at the end of this chapter.
Mr. Patrick Ford's career is very well known in the
United States ; and if his antecedents were somewhat
anti-clerical, what matter ? All is forgotten and forgiven,
and he is a man honoris causa, whom the great Arch
bishop of New York deUghts to honour. Why should
he not, since Mr. Ford came to his rescue when he was
in the direst strait of his life ? Mr. Ford was, as I
have already stated, for some years the editor of the
Irish World, a paper openly published in the interests
of dynamite, yet strangely, it did not fall under eccle
siastical censure until Mr. Ford, in an unhappy
moment, so far forgot himself as a "good CathoUc,"
as to write a pungent article on the style of living
which the late Archbishop of New York affected, and
which he sternly denounced. It was a matter easily
passed over if he collected enormous suras of money for
dynamite, though he made no secret of the manner in
which it was to be used ; but when he dared to touch
the " Lord's anointed " it was quite another affair.
To propose the murder of an Irish landlord, or to
blow up a pubUc building with hundreds of innocent
people in it, was a trifle not worth noticing, but to
hint, no matter how delicately, that the Church of

34t INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

Rome might prosper better if it looked a little more to
the poor, and a little less to the rich ; if it used its
enormous wealth to teach the ignorant, to prevent sin
rather than erect costly cathedrals, and enable its
ministers to live delicately, was considered by the
Roman Catholic Church a crime which could not be
tolerated for a moment. So Mr. Patrick Ford was
denounced, with the usual result. The circulation of
his paper fell at once, and he was nearly ruined —
another evidence both of the power of the Roman
Church, and of the way in which it exercises its
power. But Mr. Ford saw his opportunity to regain
what he had lost, and he was not the man to lose so
splendid a chance. Dr. McGlynn was denounced ; and
it is so easy and so pleasant to be on the side of
power, and it is also, in the Roman Church, so virtuous.
Why should he not gain the appreciation of those who
nold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the keys
of the kingdom of earth also ? Why not secure both
worlds, when it can be done with so little trouble ?
Sometimes these men forget that Rome can be un
grateful if they are not sufficiently subservient, or if
they do not submit to the commands of superiors at
any sacrifice of feeling or principle. Witness the case
of Herr Windhorst. Even if the subject is a momen
tary digression from the present one, it may be well
to call the attention of the reader to the facts of his
case, as it has an important bearing on the question
which we are considering.
We cannot by any possibiUty imagine St. Peter writ
ing to Rome to dictate a special line of politics to his
followers, or St. Paul sending Timothy to obtain a
higher miUtary appointment for the faithful centurion.
V/hen the Papacy was a temporal power it was neces-

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 34S
sarily involved in temporal affairs, but when Providence
changed its condition, — and if we believe in Providence
we must recognise its restraints as well as its action, —
then a happier state of existence was opened to the
rulers of the Church. Happy indeed would it have
been if this condition had been accepted. As indivi
duals, Romanists should have been left to their indivi
dual inclinations in public affairs, while their Church, as
a body, could have held a strict neutrality of action.
The sight of a coalition between Bismarck and Leo
XIII. might make apostles weep. Most assuredly it has
tried the faith not only of German Catholics, but of
their GaUic neighbours. The object of this singular
episode is not difficult to discern. It is a positive
interference in poUtics, and one that can be sharply
criticised, because the motive is so apparent. There is
no doubt that the Papal homage recently paid to
Bismarck, though with an utter disregard of the wishes
and the national aspirations of the Romanists of
Germany, is the beginning of an end, the results of
which no man can foresee.
The tone of the Papal correspondence concerning
German poUtical affairs should be observed carefully.
Italians, as diplomatists, have no equals, and cardinals
have a record for diplomacy not easily surpassed. In
the Jacobini letters care is taken not to give any com
mand from the Pope, and it is stated several times that
the object of Papal interference is to promote peace,
and to avert a continental war. But the real object
comes out at the end of the cardinal's second letter : —
"The Holy See," he writes, "in the advice it gave
regarding the Septennate, wishes to bring about a new
opportunity of making itself agreeable to the German

346 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Kaiser and Prince Bismarck. Apart from this the
Holy See, from the standpoint of its own interests,
which are identical with the interests of Catholics, can
not allow an occasion to pass for favourably disposing
the powerful German empire to the end of improving
its position."
It will be noted that it is said many times that
the Pope merely expresses his " wishes." But royal
wishes are commands, and here is precisely where
the political mjustice comes in. Italian cardinals are
as Roman as the Celt is Irish. Their intense and
galling bitterness against the court of Victor Emanuel
should be known to be understood. Hence no means
will be left unused to regain the lost temporal possessions
of the Papacy. There are men in the Curia who
would agree with Mr. Preston of New York, in making
individual souls or feelings of no account, men who to
attain their end would crush the hearts and the souls
of thousands. But while might may be victorious for
a time, it is not always so, and acts of injustice recoil
with terrible force on the perpetrators.
The case between Bismarck and the Vatican is con
temporary history, which may have results as important
as were the differences between Leo X. and the electors
of Saxony. How bitter was the quarrel, how keen the
open threats, how sharp the denouncements ! The
German Catholics, a strong and resolute body, as events
have shown, were urged in every term of entreaty and
affection to stand true to their faith and the chair of
Peter. Herr Windhorst was their leader. He whose
lifted hands were blessed and praised by the Pope,
was appointed to deliver his people from Bismarck, and
in good truth he did deliver them.

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 34)
This marvellous man is honoured even by his
enemies. One who has seen him for the first time
rising to speak after Bismarck, smiles at the idea of such
an insignificant person following the man of blood and
iron. But Windhorst, if small in person, is great in
speech. A few plain statements of facts, a few statistics,
followed by keen cutting sarcasm, and you listen and
forget all save his eloquence and the subject When
the Kulturkampf raged in its fury Windhorst was at
the very height of his power, and even the heart of
Bismarck yielded for a moment to his impassioned
appeals for liberty of conscience for his fellow-Catholics.
And now, when Windhorst's head is white with the
snows of over seventy winters, when he has spent his
life and his energies in defence of what he considered
the reUgious liberties of his fellow-Catholics, he reaps
his reward.
Bismarck, who has oppressed the Church of Rome,
is now honoured and courted by the head of that Church,
and Windhorst received, with scant courtesy, an advice,
amounting to an order, to change his whole policy, and
submit to the dictates of the man whom he has so long
considered not only his personal enemy, but the enemy
ofthe ecclesiastical superior who has uttered this strange
mandate. Herr Windhorst may well ask. Is life worth
living ?
But German Catholics are made of sterner mould than
'hose of other nationalities, and how the battle between
hsmarck and the Pope and the German people will end
Jiod alone knows. One thing is certain ; it will lessen
the faith of French Catholics quite as much as it will
lessen their respect for Germans.
The interference of the advisers of Leo XIII. between
the English Govemment and the Irish bishops was a

348 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
mere passing breeze in coraparison with the storm which
this affair has occasioned. The Irish bishops were not
slow to use very plain language to His Holiness. The
Irish people took the very simple and effective line of
stopping the supplies. But there is very little credit
due to the Irish people for this independence. They
had the full and earnest support of the Irish hierarchy,
with four well-marked exceptions. If the Irish bishops
and the Irish people had taken opposite sides in their
views of their duty of submission to the Papal decisions
on the Parnellite question, the result v/ould have been
very different. In Germany there is no question of
religion ; it is a question of politics pure and siraple.
Herr Windhorst may be a Catholic first and a Gerraan
after, but he is a Gerraan, and he is bound by every
tie of religion and of honour to vote and to use his
influence in favo-ur of the policy which he considered
to be for the general good. If there had been any
question of religion or morals the case would have been
different. It is policy pure and simple. But there is
more. PoUtical — shall I say ? — feeling, or animosity,
runs high in the German Senate. Windhorst has been
the opponent of Bismarck, and now indeed he is called
on not merely to submit to a policy which he con
demns, but to submit hiraself absolutely to his ancient
enemy. All the world knows that the man of blood and iron
is like all such men of imperious will, and not over
scrupulous as to the means by which he attains his
ends in the Reichstag, or elsewhere. He will accept
as his ally his arch-enemy the Pope, and he would be
more than human if he did not rejoice in the discom
fiture of Windhorst ; but it is quite another question
how far he will respect those who have inaugurated

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVER:>ITIES, 349
this policy. There has been no concern expressed for
the coercion and degradation inflicted on the faithful
Roman Catholic Germans and their champions.
To return to Mr. Ford. There is another noteworthy
matter in his career, whfle he was editor of the Irish
World, and publishing it with very great success,
as a money-making institution. Mr. McMaster was
then editor of the Freeman's Journal. If report does not
belie both parties, Mr. Ford is credited with having
spent a day following Mr. McMaster round New York
from one liquor store to another, and publishing after
wards the result of his investigations. Mr. McMaster
died the honoured death of all good Catholics, and
Mr. Ford, by the grace of the archbishop, is now the
honoured editor and proprietor of the same Freeman's
Journal. But there is more yet. Mr. Ford is credited
with some political transactions in the interest of the
Church, and in his own interests. The editor of the
Boston American is my authority for the following : —
" At a great Irish-American jubilee in New York
last December to celebrate the Republican victory, it
was openly declared that the victors owed their success
to Pat Ford and his crowd. No one mentioned the
notorious fact, though it was well known at that time
that Alexander Sullivan had raade a deliberate salt to
Blaine, Elkins, & Co. His followers were to call them
selves ' Irish-American Protectionists.' "
It will be remembered that Alexander Sullivan, with
the connivance of Egan and Ford, sold the Clan-na-Gael
to the Republican party, the price being a certain amount
of cash, and several fat offices, including a consulship
for Egan, and a cabinet position for Sullivan. The
following are a few of the florid expressions of the

350 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
enthusiastic gentlemen who either spoke at the meeting
or forwarded their sentiments in writing. Herbert
Radclyffe, secretary of the Home Market Club, Boston,
said : —
" The Home Market Club sends cordial greetings to
those true sons of Ireland and America who turned
their backs upon false leaders, and foUowed you, the
Irish World, and other noble patriots, in the glorious
path of Americanism, and all that it stands for."
Congressman R. T. Davis, of Fall River, said : —
" Irish-Americans who have broken party shackles,
and voted to protect American industries, have proved
their loyalty to the land which shelters them. You are
the leader of this moveraent, and entitled to the grati
tude of the American people."
Hon. George F. Hoar said : —
" Heartiest congratulations to the noble Irish-Ameri
can protectionists."
Senator Palmer of Michigan said : —
" All hail to the loyal Irish-Americans whose love
for their native land intensifies their devotion to the
land of their adoption."
James G. Blaine said : —
"The Irish-American protectionists were a very
potential element in securing the election of Presidenf
Harrison." But Mr. Ford was not always as affectionate to Mr,
Blaine as he is now, and he found it as convenient to

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 351

change his political opinions as he did to change his
religious views. A Roman Catholic writer says : —
" Patrick Ford was here, there, and everywhere
during the week, running around excitedly, pausing
every now and then to make sure that the Irish vote
didn't jump out of his pocket and escape, until he got
into the presence of ' the greatest living American,'
Pat Ford excepted.
" ' You are welcome home,' said Pat Ford to Blaine.
The man from Maine has a good memory, and remem
bered that not many years ago this same Mr. Ford, in
his paper, the Irish World, called him a ' demagogue,'
when he presided at an Irish- American banquet. Patrick
Ford then said : —
" ' Mr. Blaine is reported as having presidential
aspirations. As Blaine is a thorough demagogue, he
thinks perhaps that he may succeed in winning some
Irish-American votes by figuring as one of the orators
at a St. Patrick's night banquet. He forgets that his
presence at such a meeting after what he has done is
an insult to every inteUigent Irishraan present.'
" Blaine must have thought Ford an arrant hypocrite
when he called to mind what that gentleman said of
him on another occasion. Said Ford in his Irish
World:— " ' Does James G. Blaine for a moment suppose that
American citizens, with Irish blood in their veins, will
ever forget that when he was Secretary of State, he
aUowed American citizens residing in Ireland to be
arrested and imprisoned on mere suspicion, without his
calling the British Govemment to account for this viola
tion of international law, as he was in duty bound to
do?

352 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
" But Ford himself seems to forget it, although he
never thought he would, when he denounced Blaine for
leaving Irish-American citizens at the mercy of the
British Government.
" It is notoriously true that Patrick Ford has not the
general good will of Irishmen. He belongs to the
rationalist body in New York, and has never been
identified with any Irish movement that had not the
success of the Irish World in view. He has not the
confidence of American working men, and the so-called
labour demonstration in New York city was a meeting
of th'e Ford family, nothing more, and no representative
of organised labour was on the platform. Labour men
who were invited ignored the invitation, and stayed
away. The reviewing stand was filled with Irish
World employees and with Fords. When an acquaint
ance of one of the latter called out, ' He's there. Ford,'
about one-quarter of the crowd turned round and said
in unison, 'Who called me?' In the throng that
gathered in front of the platform there was not a single
banner of a trade's organisation. Not even a delega
tion from a union appeared, nor even a ' strikers '
labour organisation appeared upon the scene. Instead,
there was the same old-fashioned Republican crowd, who
always cheer the bloody shirt and the protectionist
chestnut around election times. This gathering was
swollen by the crowds of pedestrians who usually
frequent the thoroughfares near the square at that hour
of night, and who were no doubt attracted by the
novelty of the scene."
The New York Catholic News says :—
" Master's death was in my opinion hastened by the
responsibiUty of managing a paper into which he had

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 353
all his life been putting money, without getting it out
again. The mental state of an honourable man who
always paid his bills, and when subscribers were not
careful to pay theirs to him, may be easily conceived
by any Catholic editor who does the same thing ; and
it was a strange thing that some of the old friends of
the Freeman's Journal in New York, who knew of Mr.
McMaster's difficulty, showed no particular concern
about it."
When the conduct of superiors becomes the subject
of street baUads we are within measurable distance of
a revolution, and this has been the case in New York.
It must be remembered that all Dr. McGlynn's
foUowers were Roman Catholics, and most of them, like
himself, still belong to that Church, while they freely
denounce the evUs which they are powerless to
remedy. " Ten dollars and ten days " became a standing joke
in New York after the archbishop had sentenced Dr,
Curran to ten days' imprisonment in a monastery, for
his temerity in speaking the truth about the way in
which Dr. McGljmn was treated. But it is significant
that the sentence of excommunication, far from having
the effect which was anticipated by those who procured
it, was m.ade the subject of a most ridiculous street
ballad. This baUad was headed " Corrigan's Curse," and
was published in Henry George's paper, the Standard,
besides being circulated in ballad form all over the
country. We only give a specimen verse here, though
it is important that the manner in which the excom
munication was received amongst the Roman Catho
lics of America should be known everywhere. It was
headed — 23

354 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
(" With apologies to the ' King of the Cannibal Islands.') Take
notice, friends of Dr. McGlynn, WE've excommunicated him.
" Ipso facto et nominatim. That's Latin for ' let him down aisy.'
" Ye'U understand we might do worse, but the law says a dollar
for iv'ry curse.
Too much of a hole in an archbishop's purse ; so we let the man
down aisy.
Chorus. — For Justice Duffy might do worse than fine us a
dollar for iv'ry curse
'Twould make a hole inithe Corrigan purse, so we'll
let the man down aisy.
" So me and old Eyetalian Sim, we've excommunicated him.
Ipso facto et nominati?n. (The Latin'U send ye crazy.)
And that's to make ye understand that this is now a Christian
land.
And divil a Yank can raise his hand widout our high permis
sion ;
'Twas Simmyony made the plan, that wonderful great Eye-
ta-li-an ;
'Tis notice sarved on iv'ry man, yez all have changed condition."
(Chorus as Above.)
But if some of his clergy failed the archbishop in his
hour of need, it was not so with politicians.
The New York Freeman's Journal says : 
" A correspondent asks for a definition of genius and
friendship. Nothing is harder than to adequately
define words which mean so much. While apologising
for inability to do it, permit us to offer Cardinal
Newman's admirable definition of the word friend : 
" ' But give me for my friend one who wUl unite heart
and hand with me, who wiU throw himself into my
cause and interest, who will take part when I am
attacked, who wUl be sure beforehand that I am in the

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 355
right, and if he is critical, as he may have cause to be,
toward a being of sin and imperfection, will be so from
very love and loyalty, and a wish that others should love
me as heartily as he."
"A circular was sent last evening to the Herald
which purports to be the text of an amended declaration
of loyalty to Archbishop Corrigan. It is introduced in
very vigorous language, and is described as a ' New
Coercion BiU.' The amendment is said to be the
omission of Dr. McGlynn's name from the original
document, although the reference to the former pastor
of St. Stephen's indicates him as plainly as if his name
were mentioned. This new circular is said to have
been sent out on Tuesday or Wednesday of last week,
accompanied by a letter from Father Lynch as ' secre
tary.' Father Lynch, according to the correspondent
who sends the document to the Herald, disclosed its real
purpose by a frank statement to several of the clergy,
that ' it was for use at Rome against the efforts of
Cardinal Gibbons and Bishop Keane.'
" The following is the docuraent : —
" ' Most Reverend Archbishop, we, the priests of the
archdiocese of New York, corae before you to express
our sincere attachment to you, and our unfeigned and
cheerful loyalty to your authority. We recognise in
you our ecclesiastical superior, who, being in full com
munion with the head of the Catholic Church, the
successor of St Peter, lawfully rule, teach, and judge
this portion of the flock of Christ, the archdiocese of
New York.
'"Conformably to the exhortation of St. Paul, we look
up to you as our prelate, who speaks to us the Word of
God, whose faith we follow. And pondering the grave
injunction of the same Apostle, " Obey your prelates,

3S6 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

and be subject to them ; for they watch as having to
render an account of your souls, that they may do this
with joy and not with grief; for this is not expedient
for you" (Heb. xiu. 17). We desire also on this
occasion to record our emphatic disapproval and re
probation of the act of disobedience and disloyalty to
your authority of which a certain member of our body
has made himself guilty, an act of disloyalty aggravated
by his subsequent course. We have been patiently
hoping and praying that our dear brother would change
his mind and return to his Father's house; but observing
that our charitable silence is construed into acquiescence
in and approval of disobedience, and that it causes
some surprise both here and abroad, learning, moreover,
that it is publicly asserted that he is believed to uphold
the cause of the clergy, in general we feel it our duty
to make this solemn declaration to you, that the clergy
of the archdiocese of New York utterly condemn all
disobedience to lawfully constituted authority, especially
to the authority of the Church, and can have no sym
pathy with the efforts of those who in any way set
that authority aside. Our motto shall always be : " An
obedient man shall speak of victory " (Prov. xxi. 28) ' "
It may be well here to give the history of some more
of the men whom the Roman Catholic Church deUghts
to honour, as it has honoured the dynamiter Ford.
The Chicago Herald, a Democratic paper, says : —
" It would seem, from the present view of Dr. Cronin's
assassination, that all the Clan-na-Gael professionals,
the mysterious individuals, the Number Ones, the
dynamiters, the treasurers, without a treasury, the
blunderers, without a pause, are citizens of the United
States only so far as theur votes are needed for the

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 357
RepubUcan party. If we catch an Irish patriot who
is too near the assassination, do we not catch a Jim
Blaine Republican ?
" Egan was made minister to Chili by the Secretary
of State ; Austin E. Ford, a nephew of the editor of
the Irish American, is a candidate for Surveyor of the
Port of New York, his principal backers being Patrick
Ford and James G. Blaine ; John F. Finnerty, of
Chicago, is stated to be Mr. Blaine's candidate for
Sub-treasurer at that city ; the man Maloney, arrested
and released in New York as an accessory to Cronin's
murder, is a Blaine candidate for a Custom House
position. These are all Clan-na-Gael professional
patriots. " But chief of them all is Mr. Alexander Sullivan, who
it was currently stated at the time was to enter the
Cabinet as the representative of the Irish-American
vote, in the event of Mr. Blaine's election in 1884."
The Boston Advertiser says : —
" This man SuUivan, who as head of the Clan-na-Gael
secret society is under arrest for compUcity in the
murder of Cronin, is a man whose name has been
foremost for some years among the gentry who have
figured as chief recipients of the money wrung from
sympathetic Irishmen to help the Irish cause. . , , He
is forty-eight years old, son of an English sergeant
stationed in Canada. . , . In 1869 he was made
Collector of Internal Revenue in New Mexico, and in
a few months a shortage in his accounts caused his
removal. While there he shot and wounded Judge
Hough, but soon after leaving his first place became,
through the influence of S, B. Elkins (Mr. Blaine's
chief lieutenant), postmaster."

358 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
" Thence," says the Advertiser, " he fled to Chicago,
became Secretary of the Board of Works, a bankrupt,
then the slayer of one Hanford, for whose murder on
the second trial he escaped conviction, ' by the secret
use of his influence in the Irish organisation.'
" In 1884 SuUivan was at the head of the so-caUed
Irish moveraent in aid of Blaine, from which much was
expected, and practically nothing came. He was in
the employ of the Republican managers, who were
deceived by his statements, and the supposed influence
that he had with the Irish. He was handsomely paid
during the campaign, and an expensive headquarters
was run by him in New York city. He charged for
speeches never delivered, and promised thousands of
votes which were afterwards cast for Cleveland."
But there is other and even more direct testimony
regarding the character of this English, Irish-American,
Roman Catholic patriot, and coadjutor of Mr. Blaine
and Mr. Egan. In a letter from certain prominent
members of the Irish-American Club to the New York
World, it is asked, "Does not he" (Michael Davitt)
"know that Sullivan was adjudged bankrupt in court,
yet when afterwards elected President of the League
spent f 100,000 in speculation?" The St, Louis
Republic's Washington correspondent, in a despatch
to that journal, says : —
" Now that the coroner's jury has declared that the
Clan-na-Gael is not in harmony with and is injurious
to American institutions, and that Alexander SuUivan
is behind the bars accused of being the leading spirit
in the conspiracy for murder, Mr. Blaine is far from
happy. It discredits entirely Blaine's Irish Roman
Catholic supporters before the country, in fact, before

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 359
the world. Egan has been rewarded with an important
diplomatic position, although he is even now high up
in the councils of the Clan-na-Gael, if not actually one
of the famous, or rather infamous, ' triangle.' It also
was brought out during the investigation, and no doubt
will be brought out plainer during Sullivan's trial,
that Sullivan and Ford speculated with the funds of
organisation contributed by patriotic Irish people for
what they considered to be patriotic purposes. It was
shown also that Sullivan and Egan, as comraanders of
the Clan-na-Gael, sent men to Gieat Britain to blow up
buildings with dynamite, and murder not only men
but woraen and children.
" Can anybody imagine any other single Secretary of
State, from the first of them to Mr. Bayard inclusive,
having such friends and allies as the Egans, Fords, and
Sullivans ? Is it possible to think of Jefferson, Randolph
Pickering, Marshall, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Clay,
Livingstone, Webster, Buchanan, Calhoun, Everett,
Marcy, Cass, Black, Seward, Fish, Frelinghuysen,
sleeping in the same political bed with such a crew ?
It is not Mr. Blaine, not Mr. Harrison only, who suffers,
or who suffers most from such associations or connec
tions near or remote with it. It is the good fame of
the country that suffers most of all. It is the country
that is dishonoured, shamed aU the world over by the
selection of plotters and dynamiters to places of honour
at home and abroad, and who are selected solely be
cause they are able or pretend to be able, to control
the vote of a secret society, whose purposes are
abhorrent to civilisation, and dangerous to the institu-
ions of the country."
It is well for Americans, it is well for all EngUsh-

36o INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

speaking people to know what is the true character of
the men who govern America. They are good Roman
Catholics certainly. They will never be excommuni
cated Uke McGlynn, or refused Christian burial like
John McGlynn, yet do not think they deserve endorse
ment as good Christians.
But there is yet another, and if possible, more serious
evil connected with the political power of the Pope.
It is the utter demoralisation of the masses ofthe people.
The politicians of America must cater to the liquor
saloon interests — in fact, as I have said elsewhere, the
liquor saloon-keeper is the boss of the ward, and is
respected accordingly ; but what shall be said when
priests who should say with their Master, " My kingdom
is not of this world," use the means which others do,
and degrade themselves and their office accordingly ?
The liquor saloon-keeper is, with rare exceptions, " a
Catholic and an Irishman." He has all the supersti
tion of his race and of his religion. The victims of his
saloons die beautiful and holy deaths, attended to the
scaffold by Sisters of Mercy and priests, after they
have repented more or less in gaol for brutal murders.
To have saved them from so terrible a fate, and from
the need of such a late repentance, would seem to some
of us to have been a greater mercy. Then the power
of the liquor-saloon keeper is invoked to help their un
fortunate and destitute children ; but would it not have
been better to have tried the power of the Church to
keep the husband and father from drink and crime ?
Then the sisters, already well paid by Government (the
politicians see to this), go to beg in the same liquor
saloons which ruined the father, taking with them
these little orphan children, who, later in life, will
remember how they were brought to these places by

ROAIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. Z&i
sisters, and received liberal support from the generous
dram-seller. Besides this, they collect ceaselessly from
the poorest of the poor, always more ready than the
rich to help thera, and yet they are not satisfied.
A few priests have dared to speak out on this subject,
and to denounce the liquor saloons, but they generally
suffer for their zeal. The liquor saloons not only
provide for the Church, but they also supply priests to
the Church. The fathei of Archbishop Corrigan was a
liquor saloon-keeper, who, if report does not belie him,
dropped dead in his own store on Sunday after he had
defied his priest, and insisted on his right to keep it
open every day in the week.
Mr. Skinner, writing to the American Citizen, Boston,
says : —
"The type of nobUity and morality in the Romish
Church of to-day is but little better than that of three
hundred years ago.
" The following escapade of a prominent Irish Roman
priest occurred in  early in May last,
and was published at the time in the New York
Herald,  , in charge of the Roraan CathoUc
Church of the Sacred Heart, was arrested and committed
on a charge of brutal assault upon an amiable, intelli
gent, and respectable young lady of fifteen. She was
the daughter of an ex-mayor, a well-known Romanist.
"We could easily go on multiplying these cases of
brutality and immorality into hundreds if necessary.
These are the men who have been, and are still, before
the masses of Europe and America as the spiritual
teachers and moral educators of the people. These are
the men whom the great raass of Roman Catholics
reverence and fear as their spiritual fathers, and as

362 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
having the power to grant absolution for sin for money.
These are the kind of nobility that the Church of Rome
has ever produced, some of whom have been its repre
sentative men. These are the men with whom corrupt
and arabitious politicians fraternise, because in many
instances they can control a large number of Romanist
votes in the municipal and state elections. These are
the men, including Alexander Sullivan, the murderer
of the superintendent of schools, Hanford of Chicago,
who manipulate and control, to an alarming extent, the
associated press of this country, suppressing important
facts and news items as they please, or whenever the
interests of the Clan-na-Gael demand it. These are
the men who, because they have been in many instances
ward politicians, and recognised leaders in important
political campaigns, claim that they should be sent to
Congress or to State Senate, or as ministers to Chili or
Mexico or some other country. These are the men
who arrogate to themselves the right to supervise the
education of our boys, who are to be the future citizens
of America, and would, had they the power to do so,
destroy our colleges, academies, and state institutions,
and build upon their ruins a Roraan hierarchy that would
wither and blast every free institution of this Republic."
Even men like Ford may find that they have leaned
on a broken reed, or we may rather say that they have
served a serpent which will sting when they least
expect it. The word gratitude is unknown to Rome.
We have quoted the case of Windhorst. When Rome,
to serve her own purposes, could throw aside a man
Uke him who had served her so long and so faithfully,
to please an enemy Uke Bismarot, what may others
expect ? The Pope would sacrifice a hectacomb of

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 363
Windhorsts without a moment's thought to gain a
political object. The Church is the Baal to which
every knee must bow ; yet even those who have bowed
the knee to her will often find that all their sacrifices
have been in vain.
But the great and important fact remains, that Rome
cares but little what weapons she uses to gain her end.
Whatever Mr. Ford's political or moral character may
have been, he is now the favoured journalist of the
head of the Roman Catholic Church in America. He
is penitent for his past offences against the Church,
though he may not have recanted his dynamite sins.
He came to the defence of his ecclesiastical superior
by issuing a special edition of his paper to glorify him,
and to denounce one of the best, most moral, and
charitable priests who ever lived in the Roman Catholic
Church in America, and he has (for the present at all
events) his reward. Whether it will pay better to be the
apostle of Archbishop Corrigan, than to be the apostle
of dynamite, remains to be proved. The Archbishop
of New York has the poUtical patronage of that city at
his disposal, and can reward in many ways.
The foUowing is the ballad referred to in this chapter.
Part of it was published in a New York paper at the
time.
YE LAMENT OF YE PENITENT, F  D.
Patrick knelt in the penitent's chair
(Many a better man has been there).
At one side his grace, and at one side a friar;
And they said, " Repent, and you may aspire
To anything short of the President's place.
For we rule this land through the Church and our race.''
And Patrick he murmured soft and slow —
" My circulation is gone low, low."

364 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
"And in order to keep up the Church and our rule,
We intend to bring to the penitent's stool.
Without any other preamble or fuss,
Any bad politician who differs from Us.
It is ours to rule and theirs to obey,
And we've done for George and McGlynn trom to-day."
And Patrick he murmured soft and slow,
" It is mine to obey when the way you show.
My circulation, alas ! is slow.''
His grace he asked for his bell and liis book.
And solemnly cursed, by hook and by crook,
Every man, and woman, and worthless child.
That would not obey his rule so mild.
" Alas ! " murmured Patrick, " I had no sense
When I used to write against Peter's pence,
And tell the people who read my paper,
Even if cursed with bell, book, and taper.
To keep their money till Rome would learn
To feel the want of hard cash, and turn
From the rich and the great, to the poor and the lowly,
And make matters up, and live more holy.
" Mea culpa," he softly said ;
" Mea culpa," he bowed his head,
And great tears ran down his furrowed cheek —
" Never again will I hard words speak.
If a bishop rides in a carriage and pair.
Or takes the good things of life galore."
And he paused, and he wept, and he softly said,
" My circulation is nearly dead."
" Never again will I stop Peter's peno;,
No matter how great is the Pope's offence ;
Never again will I dynamite fling.
Though I thought it once a holy thing.
I confess I denounced the political ways
Of Mgr. P — t — ^n in my simple days.
Will this noble and kind and holy priest
Accept me a prodigal late at the feast.
Of political plenty spread at his board.
And let me share the good things he has stored ?

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES. 365
For, alas ! and alack a day he said,
" My circulation is nearly dead."
" I wrote — I know I was guilty then —
Of those holy, and saintly, and blessed men,
The EngUsh landlords of ancient Erin,
Who wished the people were more God-fearin',
Who went to the Pope with hearts sincere.
And who had only one thought and only one fear.
Oh, blessed friar 1 O Lord and grace !
A blush comes over my agdd face
When I think how I questioned their motives pure,
In driving their tenants out from the door ;
Sure, they only wanted to make them obey
Their gentle rule, and their fatherly sway.
Once, alas ! from that green land I'd have had them swept,
With dynamite fires (for my sin how I've wept !),
But now I know, when they spoke to the Pope,
It was with the pure and holy hope
That they would reform the Irish race.
And bring them back (to pay rents) and grace.
" And as for the case of Dr. McGlynn,
I wanted to see which side would win
(And sure and certain that' was no sin^,
Ere I lent the aid of my dynamite paper
To spread the light of your holy taper.
But father, and grace," he said soft and low,
" Even you sometimes look how the wind will blow,"
And he sobbed and he cried, and he softly said—
" My circulation is nearly dead."

CHAPTER XV.
THE CONFESSIONAL AND THE LIVES OF THE
POPES,
AS Rome claims above all things to be a " holy "
Church, we cannot be reproached for dwelling on
this aspect of her case, above all, as on that alleged
holiness she founds her principal claim to the obedience
and respect of mankind. We propose to consider only
two of what she claims to be the sources of her holi
ness and doctrine. In the first place, she lays great
stress on the confessional as a source of holiness, and
as a means of preserving it. She is certainly unfor
tunate in offering us this evidence, for the current
history and statistics of the present day, as well as that
of past ages, show that Rome, as a Church, has no right
whatever to claim exceptional holiness, that is, if we
judge her claim by the light of Gospel teaching.
I admit that Rorae can claim, as no other Church can,
the submission of her followers to all her commands,
but it is easy to show that the commands of Rome are
obedience to herself, which is a very different thing
from obedience to the Gospel. In fact, the commands
of that Church are unhappily too often opposed to the
Gospel. We, then, are looking at things from very
different standpoints. If the "hoUness" ofthe Roman
Church is to be judged by the obedience of Roman
Catholics to her commands, we have no more to say.

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES. 367
But even in this case, how little the world at large is
aware at what a cost of misery, and of unspoken, but
none the less real rebeUion, Rome maintains her exterior
submission. A distinguished Roman Catholic and Italian bishop
pubUshed a paraphlet recently, in which he criticised the
attitude of the Pope towards the ItaUan Government;
but he did this with all the expressions of deference and
abject submission which Rome exacts from her subjects.
StUl he criticised. But no matter how abject the flattery,
or how humble the tone, it was an unpardonable and
deadly sin. Now let this case be considered for a
moment. Here is an educated and intelligent Roman
Catholic bishop, a lover of his own country, a man who
might even, according to the teaching of the Romish
Church, be supposed to know, above all others, the needs
of the country, a man who had its welfare at heart.
And how the Italians love their native land we who
have lived with them, and know them so well, can tell.
Yet even he must not dare utter one word, or express
even the most deferently framed opinion as to the best
way to govern the land of his nativity and his affec
tion. How monstrous ! The organ of the Pope, the
Osservatore Romano, announces that this bishop has
" publicly confessed his sorrow for the views which he
had advanced," and had announced "his complete sub
mission to the wiU of the Pope," and thereby gained
the honour of being once more a "holy" member of
the holy Catholic Church. In the same way any one
who was rash enough to pass even the least remark on
the dispensation given by the Pope to Prince Amadeus
to commit incest, should either make an abject apology
for his fault, or cease to be considered a "holy"
Catholic,

368 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

No doubt the Pope looks on this bishop as siding
with his enemies, and with the usurpers of his throne.
But even if Victor Emmanuel was a usurper he had the
nation with him; and surely a nation has a right to
choose its rulers.
I have this bishop's noble work before me while I
write. It proves at least that there is some education
amongst the Italian clergy, and some thought. He
describes the state of the Roman Catholic press in Italy
as miserable. A few journals edited by men who are
too ignorant to know that the people have forsaken the
Church of Rome, and will have none of it in temporal
affairs, no matter what wailing there may be over their
defection. Men who are too stupid or too much blinded
by prejudice to realize facts that lie straight before
them, are, alas ! the guides of a minority, who, taking
their literary and religious teaching from them, are their
equals in ignorance and prejudice.
The temporal power of the Pope exists no longer save
in Papal fond imaginings. The bishop speaks of the
temporal power as "morto per sempre." He says it is
so dead that no one thinks of speaking of it. And yet at
this very moment the Pope would not hesitate to shed
the blood of miUions of Catholics, or to embroil the
whole of Europe in civil war, if by so doing he could
win back the crown of temporal sovereignty.
But we are more concerned at present with the fact
that at this period of the world's history — and in face of
all the boasted toleration of Rome, and its professions
of allowing liberty of conscience — a Roman Catholic
bishop is subject to the deepest humiliation, and is
punished publicly, because he has dared to say that the
temporal power of the Pope, being a thing of the past,

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES. 369
should not be allowed to become a cause of trouble in
tlie present. The bishop very carefully refrains from
expressing an opinion as to the wisdom of the Papal
claim for temporal power. This is noteworthy. As it
is more than probable that belief in the temporal power
wiU be made a dogma of the Church of Rome, which all
CathoUcs must accept under pain of eternal damnation,
he is wise. Whatever may be his pri\-ate opinions, he is
very careful indeed to state that he does not even wish
to hint a word against the claims of Peter's successor to
the sword of earthly power, as well as to the keys of
heaven. But his argument is simply a common sense
one. A certain state of things exists — there is no hope
of change — should we not make the best of existing cir
cumstances? And for saying this he must do abject
penance. If he had lived in the days when the Pope
had temporal power, how easy it would have been to
have erected a scaffold before the Vatican Palace, and
put an end to his troublesome theories by consigning
him to the flames ! Rome has an easy way of ending
aU controversy. Whether it is a Christian way or not
is another matter.
This bishop might be a drunkard or live an immoral
Ufe, and no word would be said ; such faults, which are
only against the law of God, are easily passed over.
But to express an opinion which differs from that held
by the Pope is a sin which requires the severest
punishment. Now let us consider the moral result of all this, and
we can better understand why nations have been
demoralized, and have sunk so low in the social scale
wherever Rome has had absolute power. Is, it likely
that this bishop would have ventured to express himself
50 openly if he had not formed very strong opinions on
24

370 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

this subject ? Would he have dared Papal displeasure —
and he weU knew what he dared — for a mere opinion
that could be changed or modified at pleasure ? What
a terrible demoralization this man has suffered ! We
cannot for a moment suppose that his carefully formed
opinions have changed, but all the same he is obliged
to lie or to die, at least ecclesiastically. He is obliged to
declare his regret for having said what he believes to
be true. He is obliged to express his abject sorrow for
having made a statement which he knows to be true.
He must express himself and accept punishment as
one who had committed a terrible crime. And why ?
Simply because he has said what thousands of his
fellow-countrymen, and probably a vast majority of
his fellow-ecclesiastics, know to be a fact — that there
is not the least hope of restoring the temporal power.
It is not a question of heresy, though he is treated
as a heretic. He must submit to the Pope's political
opinions, or be denounced as an unworthy child of the
Church. At present the Roman Church would pro
bably say that it was a "Protestant lie" if we said
that Roman Catholics were obliged to believe in the
temporal power of the Pope as an article of faith. But
what are the facts ? We have them here plainly before
us. Any one who dares to say that there is no hope of
the restoration of the Pope's temporal power, and that
this being so it is a question of common sense to make
the best of the situation, is treated as a rebel and is
punished accordingly. It is no wonder that the Pope
resented the erection of the Bruno statue so bitterly;
it was a public declaration that whatever punishment
he might inflict in the future on those who differed from
him, he could not silence them by death or torture.
Now what must be the mental state of men, like the

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES, 37 J
Bishop of Verona ? He knows perfectly well that the
Pope is wrong, and that he is right. But you will say
that he cannot be a good Catholic unless he believes
the Pope to be always right in everything. This is
the theory of obedience in the Roman Church. But
how does it work ? Is it not evident that it is per
fectly impossible for a man to give up his carefully-
formed opinions ? He may be silent, but he cannot
alter his judgment. Besides, this is not a question at
present of infallibUity, and here is a point to be noted.
When I entered the Roman Church, the immense
latitude which is allowed (on paper) by the Church in
matters of opinion, was pointed out to me ; and I was
assured over and over again that the Church only asked
submission of the mind and judgment on matters
strictly defined to be of faith by the whole Church.
But how very different is the real state of the case.
Now the Church has abandoned her ancient faith in
herself . she is no longer infallible, her divinely given
power is abandoned, and handed over to an individual.
And see the disastrous result : every political opinion
of a Pope is made a subject of infallible decisions, and
woe to him who controverts them. Practically, the
temporal power of the Pope is as much a doctrine ofthe
Romish Church as the personal infallibUity. In fact,
we may say that the one is logically involved in the
other. If the pope is infaUible in all his pronounce
ments, why should not he be infallible in his political
pronouncements? In fact, while the Roman Church
denies that she interferes in politics, despite ample proof
to the contrary, she nevertheless admits that when
poUtical questions come within the domain of morals,
she has a divine right to make an infallible pro
nouncement. And note it well, she and not you, or even

372 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

her most faithful bishops, is the judge of the circum
stances in which her political decisions are infallible.
Was there ever such a tremendous claim to power, so
well concealed, and so surely acted upon ?
Rome demoralizes her subjects by crushing every
aspiration, and by involving the conscience in ceaseless
difficulties and doubts. The divinely inspired voice of
conscience speaks all the time by the will of God. A
man may submit from fear to a decision which he knows
to be wrong, but his conscience revolts all the same.
He may resist God to obey man, but for a time at
least, the power of God works against the power of
man ; and demoralization at last ensues when, the voice
of God in the conscience being more or less deliber
ately disobeyed, the man ceases to respect himself
How can a man respect himself when he has violated
his conscience ? He falls lower and lower even in his
own estimation. Some men fall into reckless, mental
demoralization, and becorae eventually infidels ; others
fall into moral demoralization, and seek in the gratifi
cation of their passions a relief for the suppression of
their reason.
The unhappy bishop having acknowledged in public
that he has committed a sin, when he knows that he
has merely expressed himself on political questions, must
now express the same contrition, and do the same
penance in the confessional, as if he had committed
murder. If he had been a layman indeed he might
have easily obtained permission from the Pope to have
broken the law of God, but priest or layman he could
never obtain permission to differ in poUtics from the
infallible head of his Church. To such inconsistencies
are men driven when they hand over their God-given
reason to a mortal like themselves.

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES, yji
The confessional is indeed a system of sinning made
easy. It is useless to deny in the face of recent events
that Rome does not grant indulgences for a consideration.
The facts of such grants are before the public. But it
does not need much study to know that the confessional
is a ready resource for the free commission of crime at
pleasure. Roman Catholic moral theology is simply a
sort of intellectual sleight of hand in which he who
shows how the most sin can be committed with the
least penalty, is the most successful student. I am
aware that I am making a statement which, if it were
incapable of proof, would be a very wicked one. I
might give my personal experience, and I have a right
to do so. I shall never forget the shock which I
received when I was told by a priest the casuistry
of the Church of Rome on the subject of — shall I
say truth, or lying ? I was assured by an eminent
theologian that you could tell any lie you pleased, if
you made a mental reservation to the contrary. For
example, if you were asked if you had a book, or any
thing else, you could reply boldly No, without telling
a lie, because, though you had it, you had not got it
for the person to whom you spoke.
But I give proof from the books used by the Roman
Church for the instruction of her priests. Just as
I have quoted from the officially approved catechism of
the Church of Rome, on the question of the real teaching
of that Church, and have begged those who may be in
controversy with Rome to make their opponents keep
to their own authorized statements, so now I say it is
just, both to us and to Rome, that we should judge her
system of moral theology by her books of moral theology.
It is the proud boast of Rome that she never changes.

374 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

That she does change her religious belief all history
proves, but we take her at her word, and therefore we
are justified in quoting from her books of moral theology,
ancient and modern. The fact is, that she has been
obliged to change her theology, and therefore to change
the teaching in her catechisms, and public opinion has
obliged her to modify some of the statements in her
manuals of moral theology. For example, her famous
" Dens Theology" has been practically withdrawn, be
cause of its too explicit stateraents, and other manuals
have been substituted which teach the very same doctrine
in a more discreet form.
A religion which does not inculcate the great virtue
of truth, is a poor sample of Christianity, and Rorae
has sharaefuUy and persistently persevered in teaching
moral theology in which the necessity for truthfulness
is conspicuous by its absence. In " Dens Theology " it
is plainly stated that the person who wishes to deceive
another can do so without sinning, by mental reser
vation. If you are asked, " Have you seen Peter ? " you
can say you have not seen him, although you saw him
a short time before, because you did not see him at the
moment when you were asked. In fact, the whole
system of Roman Catholic theology on the subject of
truth gives the greatest latitude for lying, and carried
out to its plain end would destroy all confidence
between man and his fellows. As for equivocation it is
explained, approved of, and allowed in the plainest terms,
and you may safely equivocate even on oath. If, when
you take an oath, you use an expression which bears two
meanings, and you apply your own meaning to the
expression, though you know that your questioner will
apply a totally different one, you do not lie. In fact, the

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES. 375
theology of the Roman Church amounts to this : You
may lie at any time or place, above all you may lie
under oath, if you do so in such a way as not to be
found out,
I must confess that until I had studied " Dens Theo
logy," which is the great text book and officially approved
authority, of the Irish priesthood especially, I often
wondered how it was that men about to be executed,
who had most certainly committed murder, could die
after denying with their last breath that they were
guUty, whUe the priest who had heard their confession
and knew their guUt, approved the act by his pres
ence. But Roman Catholic theology teaches that a man
may deny his guilt and not lie. For instance (this
is the example given in " Dens Theology "), a man
may deny that he has kUled another by saying, " I
have not killed him," if he understands secretly that
he is not obliged to say to the questioner that he has
done so. In plain EngUsh a man cannot lie to a priest
without sin, because he is bound to tell the truth to
the priest, but he may lie to anyone else, because he
is not absolutely bound to tell the truth to any one else.
It would be waste of time to go further into the
refinements of lying authorized by the Roman Church,
but we must say a word of the teaching of the Jesuits
on this subject, both because they are experts in the
matter of skilful equivocation, and because their moral
theology has the full approval of the Church of Rome.
The Provincial Letters of Pascal are too well known
by name to need much explanation as to their object.
As for the facts contained in them, as all the statements
are taken from the highest authorities in the Jesuit
Society, there can be no dispute as to their accuracy.
One of the most extraordinary assertions of Jesuit

376 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

casuistry is in regard to the necessity of loving God,
or rather as to the needlessness of loving Him, for in
fact, the teaching of Jesuit theologians amounts to this :
that we need not love God if we avoid hating Hira.
As a matter of precaution it may be as well to love
God, Suarez says, a " Uttle previous to the hour of
death." This easy theology of the Jesuits, has made
them the favourite confessors of young men and woraen
who wish to enjoy the pleasures of this life, and secure
the joys of the next. Nor is this easy theology for the
laity alone. A monk may, without sin, leave off his
habit if he wishes to frequent iraraoral houses, to dance,
or to steal. Indeed the study of the Jesuit theology of
several hundred years ago is at once the best evidence
of the necessity for the suppression of the society, as
well as the best evidence of the utter deraoralization of
society when it was under the absolute control of the
Roraan Church. Priests and friars according to this
theology are allowed to kill, not only an eneray, but
even one whora they may have reason to suspect may
attack their society, or speak what they consider evil
of it.
But the great modern theologian of the Jesuit order
is the Rev. Father Gury, a priest but lately deceased.
His moral theology is open to all the world, and it
v/ould be impossible for any honest man or woman to
read it without saying, " Here indeed is the mystery of
iniquity." If ever a work was written to make sinning
easy for the rich, and reparation by the poor unnecessary,
this book bears off the palm of wickedness. All that
is needed is to have a good " intention," and you are
told with great care how you may make a bad action
good and permissible by the most ingenious arrange
ment. And this is religion ! This " sinning made

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES. 377
easy " is the great grace which a Church professing to
have been founded by a God who abhors sin offers to
her followers.
There was a famous apparition some years since in
France, about which there was considerable dispute
amongst Romanists. The girl who claimed to have seen
the apparition was called Melanie. Whether she was
deceived or a deceiver matters little to the point to
which I wish to draw attention. In her letters she
speaks again and again of the corruption and the evil
and immoral lives of the Roman Catholic priests of
France. In one of these letters she says, "France
has been ruined because the clergy fear man more
than God." Then she speaks of how she has been
denounced by the priests because she has told the
tmth about their neglect of the poor, and their love
of money. In another "letter she says, " The sins of
priests cry for vengeance, and vengeance is suspended
over their heads." This is certainly very plain lan
guage. In fact, according to her account, the priests
of France lived grossly immoral Uves. In this same
book there are some letters written by St. Francis of
Paula who lived several centuries ago. He too speaks
of and condemns the evU Uves of the priests of his
day. Indeed it is a noteworthy fact that, in every
age of the Church, we find that those very men and
women who were afterwards canonized by the Romish
Church, denounced the priests of their times as the
great cause of the evils of their day. It is remark
able, as an evidence of the fear of episcopal censure
for saying anything which might be disparaging to
the priesthood, that in several cases the words which
denounce the priests and specify their crimes, are put
in cabalistic language, while in other cases the places

378 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
where the passages come in, wherein priests are cen
sured, are put in a condensed form in brackets, though
denunciations of princes and others are given in full.
A very reraarkable work has been published recently
in France, called " Necessary Reforms in the Church of
France." It is published anonymously, but the author
ship is well known. What a reflection it is on the
holiness of the Romish Church that no priest or bishop,
no matter how illustrious by his virtues, dare pubUsh,
over his own signature, one word of the most necessary
criticism of the grossest evils. How this reminds us
ofthe charges made in the inspired Scriptures against
the Church of the Laodiceans which boasted that it
had need of nothing, while it was miserable, and poor,
and blind. Surely if ever a Church was blind, and
wilfully blind, that Church is the Church of Rome.
Like the fabled ostrich she hides her head in the mantle
of her infallibility, and refuses to see until the judg
ments of God come upon her for her crimes.
The writer of this work uses very plain language.
" We see every day," he cries out, " our people for
saking their churches and deserting our services, and
we know not how to recall them. Impiety and indiffer
ence increase day by day. Let us tell the truth : the
laity hate us.'' What a fearful avowal ! " Our people,"
he continues, " wish for religion, but they do not wish
for priests."
Could there be a greater evidence of the utter failure
of the Roman Catholic Church to evangelize the world ?
France cries out for the bread of the Gospel, and the
" Church " gives her the stones of forms and ceremonies.
"Society hates us, it defies us, it declares that priests
are hypocrites." It is tempting to multiply quotations
from this work. But they are all in one strain : the

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES. 379
writer has not dared to enter on the subject of the moral
reform of the clergy, he keeps solely to the fact that
the priests are tyrannized over by the bishops, and
that the education which they receive is so defective
that they cannot hold their own in any fairly educated
society. All this is no doubt true, but he does not
touch on equally important matters, because he dare
not. His risk has been sufficiently great in speaking
of the tyranny of bishops, and the ignorance of his
feUow-priests. If he touched on their moral degra
dation as he has touched on their mental inferiority,
he might be sure his anonymous cloak would soon be
torn from his shoulders, and that he would suffer the
penalty of his daring as long as his life should endure.
Here are some of the expressions which he uses in
regard to the educational status of his fellow-priests.
"Is it not too true that we are ignorant not only of
science and profane studies, which indeed we have
never learned, but even of theology, which we have
only learned imperfectly ? Do we not consider a man
who has some knowledge of history, or who knows a
Uttle Greek, or even a little Latin, quite a marvel of
leaming ? Is not this our own fault ? We are far
inferior to the laity even in the rudiments of learning.
Yes, it is our own fault. I wiU dare to say more : it is
the fault of our bishops. And those who study and
have some knowledge — are they not made the sub
ject of ridicule and contempt amongst their brethren ? "
Then he complains that there is no inspection, no exa
mination of those appointed to professors' chairs. The
nomination of the bishop is the all-sufficient test
of fitness ; the pupils, he says, become attached to the
professors, and even if they were capable of judging
of their capacity would be blinded by affection.

38o INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
This too honest priest teUs how a professor of
English was appointed in a college, who did not under
stand one word of English. Have I not already said
that the affairs of the English-speaking world are
arranged in Rome by men who do not know one
word of the English language — who are as ignorant of
political economy as they are of history, and even of
geography ?
The writer of this remarkable work shows how the
very enactments of the Council of Trent are set at
naught by the bishops, who profess such veneration
for the Church. Such is the tyranny of these sarae
bishops towards their priests, that, he says, they ask
themselves sometimes, Are they m Russia, or in Turkey ?
Jealousy reigns supreme : both on the part of bishops,
who relegate any studious or earnest priests to remote
places, where they may eat out their hearts in solitude ;
and on the part of the other clergy who make their
inferiority felt by their exhibitions of petty spite. And
this is a Roman Catholic account of the " Holy " Roman
Catholic Church in France, whence we hear from time
to time such grievous laraentations as to the defection
of the laity from the Church. What wonder — when the
laity have left the priests so far behind in education,
and even in morals !
Rome is a wrecked and ruined Church, holding her
position, such as it is, not by the upholding arms of
faithful children, but by the sword of political powers,
who hate her even while for political reasons they
support her. Even Ireland, long faithful in spite of all
rebuffs and sUghts, has at last woke up to the true state
of the case ; and has declared in plain terms that she
wiU no longer submit to the poUtical dictation of Rome.
The Rev. T. Connellan has given an account of the

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES. 381
demoralized state of the Irish priests which is horrible.
This priest, who has recently left the Roman Catholic
Church, says : —
"When I was a boy, engaged in birdnesting, or
watching the speckled trout as they plunged in the
crystal stream beside my home, I went daily to the
same village school with two families, and every one
in the locality regarded them as the offspring of two
priests. They may not have been — I do not state they
were — I merely state what was believed and publicly
stated by those competent to judge ; believed, too, by
a people who to this day would expose themselves to
any risk in order to shield a priest or cloak his failings.
Now this parish, I presume, was a type of a great
many more. Indeed I am aware that a very much
worse state of things prevailed in others. Several
years ago a priest, who was my own contemporary in
college, was stationed in a remote district where his
nearest neighbour was a lady of some taste and refine
ment I do not write these words to hold him up to
odium, but for the purpose of exposing the system to
which he fell a -victim — a system introduced by a
fanatic in the Middle Ages, and afterwards made a part
of the Church's polity. WeU, a great intimacy was
apparent between this pastor and his favourite lamb.
After some months the lamb was obliged to beat rather
a hasty retreat to DubUn. Her flight was too late,
however. An accouchement took place in a small town
en route, and believing herself dying she revealed all
to the parish priest of the place. The seal of confession
did not prevent him — Roman theology specially pro
vides for such cases — from making the fact known to
the erring priest's bishop. Of course the modern

382 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
Abelard was put under ecclesiastical censure, but my
readers will be happy to hear that he is now engaged
in propagating Roman Catholicism under the Southern
Cross. At the only Irish wedding at which I have
ever been present the parish priest was drunk when
performing the marriage ceremony. He had afterwards
to retire to a bedroom, where his housekeeper, quite
as drunk as he, kept him company. The family of the
house charitably drew a veil over the scene by locking
the door, and withdrawing the key. Indeed I might
cover pages with facts like those first mentioned, but I
have said enough for my purpose. Then the vices of
gambling and drunkenness were almost universal among
the Roman Catholic clergy of my acquaintance. Six
tumblers of strong punch at a sitting was not considered
much of a feat. 'Spoil five' and 'unlimited loo ' were the
favourite games. I have known them to be protracted
until the rays of the morning sun had penetrated the
room. Then those engaged went off to their several
districts, some to celebrate Mass at station-houses and
denounce such vices as drunkenness and gambling with
an eloquence which drew ejaculations of horror from
the old women present."
But when the head is corrupt what can be expected
from the branches? Even Roman Catholic historians
of the lives of the Popes cannot deny that many were
corrupt, and but few good. And how corrupt the many
were cannot be told in these pages, except in brief.
What shall be said of the Papacy from 1378 to 1417,
during which period there were constantly two or three
rival Popes ? Can a ship with two or three captains
even proceed on its course — to say nothing of its en
gaging an enemy ? Of Pope Alexander VI., 1492, we

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES. 383
read : — " The undisguised licentiousnesses displayed
during the late pontificates were now carried to a
monstrous excess : for the first time the bastards of
a Pope being brought forward as his acknowledged
chUdren." The terrible Caesar Borgia and the in
famous beauty Lucretia Borgia, whom it is impossible
to vindicate from murder and licentiousness, were of
the number of the children of Alexander VI. It may
here be noted that from 141 7 the so-called Papal Suc
cession ceased. Originally the Bishop of Rome was
elected by the clergy and people of Rome. In 1059
election by cardinals was initiated. In 1417, no regu
lar cardinals remaining, the Council itself elected
Martin V. Never in the history of any civilized na
tion has the sovereign authority sunk to greater dep'ih
of infamy than did the occupants of the Papal throne
from the beginning of the tenth century to the end
of the fifteenth — thus : Pope Boniface VII., 894, hav
ing plundered the Basilica, and converted the booty
into coin at Constantinople, returning, murdered Pope
John XIV.
Pope Leo V., 903, was deposed and imprisoned by
Pope Christopher. But this may be regarded as a
mere prelude to the following : — In 904 began the
ascendency of the two Theodoras and Marozia — three
strongly depraved women — who for upwards of fifty
years held the disposal of the Papacy, which they
secured for their paramours, their children, and their
grandchildren. Pope Sergius III., "a master of
rapacity, lust, and cmelty," Uved in acknowledged
concubinage with Marozia. Pope John X., 914, lover
of Theodora, who governed Rome as queen, through
her influence secured the Papacy. After fourteen years
he was starved or suffocated, his brother having been

384 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
murdered in his very presence. Pope John XI., 931,
is said to have been a bastard son of Pope Sergius
and the infamous Marozia. Pope John XIII, 955,
deposed Pope Leo VIII., in 964, and annulled aU his
ordinations. The absurdity of infaUibility is here
curiously manifest, for Leo VIIL, after being reinstated,,
degraded Pope Benedict, reducing him to the rank of
deacon. Pope Innocent XIIL, 1484, is said to have
had seven illegitimate chUdren by as many mothers.
Baronius argues that when the Papacy was filled by
a succession of " human monsters, most vile in life,
most abandoned in morals, even to the utmost extent
of infamy," its continuance — unlike other governments
in which vice is followed by ruin — must be a token of
special Divine patience.
Other most necessary depositions were those by King
Henry and the Council of Lutri near Rome; "three
devils," as Benzo terms them, being then deposed.
The -dissolute Pope Benedict IX., 1044, being twice
driven from Rome, was succeeded by Sylvester III.
After three months he found himself opposed by the
exiled Benedict. The latter having sold his title to
Gregory VL, finding himself disappointed, resumed his
pretensions to the Papacy ; so Rome found itself divided
between them. But in 1046, all three were deposed,
Sylvester being imprisoned for Ufe. Pope John XXIIL,
1415, who so treacherously violated the iraperial safe-
conduct in the case of John Huss ; and who was told to
his face by HaUara, Bishop of Salisbury, that a General
Council was superior to the Pope ; was commonly
styled the " Devil Incarnate." Von der Hardt gives
the fifty-four accusations preferred against him in the
Council of Constance. As Pope he was charged with
every conceivable crime, Vv^as thereupon deposed. May

THE CONFESSIONAL AND LIVES OF THE POPES. 385
29th, and was condemned to be kept in custody, the
further disposal of him being left to the new Pope.
In July following, this Council of Constance also deposed
Pope Gregory XII. Two years later it deposed Pope
Benedict XXIII. for perjury, schism, and heresy — this
deposition being proclaimed with sound of trumpets
throughout the streets of Constance. The CouncU of
Pisa, 1409, had before this declared these two deposed
and excommunicated. Another notable instance of the
deposition of a Pope is that of Eu genius IV., by the
CouncU of Basle, 1439, as incorrigible, schismatic,
and obstinately heretical ; its decrees being confirmed
ten years later by Pope Nicholas V.
We may also note the charge of heresy against Pope
John XXIL, 1333, as to the " Beatific Vision," con
demned by the doctors of the Sorbonne, and only
retracted on his deathbed, this condemnation being
formaUy decreed by his successor Benedict XIL,
January 29th, 1336,
As to this latter decision, Raynaldus and others say :
" Some thought this decree heretical." So here are two
Popes whose ex-cathedra pronouncements are in direct
conflict, neither escaping the imputation of heresy.
Plere also may be mentioned the action of Boniface VIIL,
1294, rescinding all the acts of Pope Celestine, and
confining him in the Rock of Fumorn, where, after ten
months, he died.
Pope Stephen VI,, 891, caused the body of Pope
Formosus to be dragged from its tomb, and placed for trial
in the Papal chair, a deacon being assigned as advocate.
A councU having assembled, Formosus was accordingly
condemned, the ordinations conferred by him were
annuUed ; his corpse stripped of the pontifical robes ;
the fingers used in Benediction were cut off; and the

386 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
body, after having been dragged about the streets, was
cast "into the Tiber." Surely in all this there was
nothing lacking of the ex-cathedra " or official pro
cedure ! And certainly the imprisonment, poisoning,
and strangling which terminated the career of this
Stephen were richly merited.
But StUl more of "ex-cathedra" action complicates
this affair, for Pope John IX., 898, rescinded the
condemnation of Pope Formosus, and stigmatized the
proceedings of the councU under Pope Stephen.

CHAPTER XVI.
ROMAN CATHOLIC LITERATURE AND ROMAN
CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION.
AGAIN we take the test of Roman CathoUc state
ments of facts in regard to Roman Catholic
Uterature and Roman Catholic education.
It is noteworthy that Roman Catholics who make
the loudest complaints, when they dare, on these sub
jects, are the very first to denounce Protestants when
they call attention to the absence of a Roman Catholic
Uterature worthy of the name, or to the failure of
Roman CathoUc education.
Whenever a Protestant makes any observation on
the subject of Roman Catholic literature, he finds a long
list of names hurled at his head as speciraens of the
love which Rome has for intellectual progress. Just
in the same way Protestants who complain of the evil
Uves of the Popes, are confronted with the names of the
canonized saints. If only those who are thus deceived
knew the facts in each case how different would be the
verdict ! But Rome possesses the immense advantage
of not only being able to make dogma, but she can also
make history and biography. And then she has the
additional advantage over all other historians and
biographers that she can compel her readers to accept
what she says without doubt or inquiry.
With regard to the present state of Roman CathoUc

383 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,

literature, a glance at the serials and newspapers of the
Roman Catholic Church should be quite sufficient to
establish their character for utter inefficiency. The
English Roman Catholic Press is certainly very superior
to that of America, but the former has had the advan
tage of the editorship of men who did not owe their
education to Rome. It is the same with regard tc
serial literature. Rome could not produce anything
worth reading until the stream of perverts who came
into her fold, and many of whom are leaving it of late,
gave a literary and higher tone to her Press. It needs
only to compare the Roman Catholic papers with those
of other denominations to be at once convinced of the
great inferiority of the former. I had at one time
intended to take these papers one by one, or at least
to take several of them to compare with the papers
published by different denominations, but it would be
simple waste of tirae ; I will rather let Roman Catholics
speak for themselves.
And it is easy to see why literature of the higher
class can never flourish under Roman Catholic control.
Any popular writer can be crushed easily and flnally
by a jealous inferior, and this is of frequent occurrence.
And what man with a mind will be willing to occupy
himself in intellectual research, when his sole reward
may be to be silenced, as he cannot be burned ! The
Roman Catholic Press seems to exist only to applaud
whatever the Pope or the local bishop says, to publish
his many enactments, to find a reason to approve what
ever he does, whether it is allowing incest, or permit
ting money given for Masses to be turned to other
uses. The editor of a Roman Catholic paper, having
expressed his regret that the Pope should have per
mitted the incestuous marriage of a royal uncle and

LITERATURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION. z%
niece, says that a recent editorial in the Baltimore
Mirror defending such a marriage " has done more
to injure Catholicism in this country than we wish to
state. We have been guided by the Holy Father and
the highest authorities in the Church in our defence of
the truth. . . . Will not our Memphis brother smother
his gloomy feelings in the matter, and obligingly state
just how much Catholicity has been injured by our
support of the act of the Sovereign Pontiff? Our
esteemed contemporary, the Baltimore Mirror, unques
tionably one of the ablest expounders of Catholicity
among the papers published in America, stands on
the basis of ecclesiastical law in defending the recent
marriage, by special dispensation, of a titled European
vmcle and niece, and asks the Memphis Catholic Journal
wherein it errs in so doing. We deem it almost un
necessary to inform the Mirror that there are some
things that in sorrow the Church permits, but will not
bless or approve. This is one of them ; and the less
frequently they occur, and the less said about them the
better, for the laws of established society, under which
Americans live. What might not have been considered
unique in bygone ages is looked upon in a different
light at the present time. What the Church does
through the agency of the Holy Father, Catholics need
not be afraid or ashamed to acknowledge at all times."
And it is to such puerile defence of what they know
well is utterly indefensible, that thinking men are com
peUed by the terrible necessity of defending the
unscriptural doctrine of the Pope's infaUibiUty. Some
swallow aU infallible pronouncements with a grimace.
What matter ? They are not responsible for the doings
of the Pope ! He is infaUible 1 their only duty is to
insist on his infaUibility and uphold it, no matter what

35° INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
he does. Some, whose consciences are not yet drugged
to death by years of silent subraission to evil, utter
faint cries of pain and shame, but they are at once
silenced by their bishops, who tremble lest it should be
known at Rome that any publication under their con
trol should have said one word other than of praise of
the Pope, who has made them, and can unmake them
in more ways than one.
One Roman Catholic writer, the editor of the Mil
waukee Catholic Citizen, commenting on the Freeman's
Journal editorial on burial abuses has dared to say :
"What is a Catholic paper for? Is it to be a mere
court journal, filling its columns with inane flattery, and
monotonous laudations of everything to which the name
of Catholic is attached ? Must it play the cowardly
parasite to its readers, picturing them as inchoate angels,
shutting its eyes to evils that afflict them, and venturing
to assail nobody nearer to them than the Mormons ?
There is such a thing as Catholic public opinion,
whose influence must be brought into play in advancing
the social, moral, and religious condition of the Catholic
community. Unless Catholic public opinion is coura
geous enough to perceive and admit evils over which
it has control and responsibility, no progress will ever
be made. We shall go on electing saloon-keepers to
office ; filling the prisons and almshouses with an
undue proportion of our race and creed; tolerating
scandals which write us down among our fellow-
citizens, and submitting to many other evils."
Another Roman CathoUc paper declares that the test
of a " good Catholic " is to take a Catholic paper,
while yet other papers complain bitterly that Catholics
will not purchase or support their own papers. The

LITERATURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION. 391

paper mentioned also says, in an article headed "A
Good Catholic : "—
"The matter of Catholicity in good standing," says
the Western Chronicle, "is determined by the test
questions : —
" (i) Does he pay for a seat in the Church ?
"(2) Does he send his children to the Catholic school?
"The cases are numerous, where these tests are
inapplicable, but for general use they will do. We
might further add — not as essential questions — but as
standards which go far to determining the quality of a
man's CathoUcity : —
"(3) Does he belong to a Church society?
" (4) Does he take a Catholic paper ?
"Certainly, if an affirmative answer is returned to all
four questions, there can be Uttle doubt of the sterling
Catholicity of the man. He is a supporter of. the
Church. That is weU, but we know that many merely
nominal CathoUcs rent a pew for their families. These
'Catholics' also may send their children to the
parochial school. But the further tests rule them out.
They do not belong to a CathoUc society, or they do
not subscribe to a Catholic paper."
Complaints of the state of Catholic literature are far
more outspoken in England than in America. Partly
because the Englishman is given to speak out his mind
plainly. Pope or no Pope ; and partly because English
Roman Catholics, who interest themselves in these
matters, are generally educated perverts. A "martyr
of history '' is the narae used by a recent writer in the
London Tablet, to describe the Roraan CathoUc historian
Mr. Burke. He says : —
" We can furnish a further instance of the indiffer-

392 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME,
ence of Catholics for their literature. At this moment
we are publishing a translation of Professor John
Janssen's ' History of the German People from the End
of the Middle Ages,' a work upon whose paramount
importance you have already dwelt, and which is,
indeed, a splendid apology for Catholicism. From
amongst the hundreds of circulars and letters which
have been sent to our co-religionists, we have not
succeeded in securing one Catholic subscriber, and
were it not for the help and support of our Protestant
fellow-countrymen, we should never have been able to
publish this work. Now we ask. Do Catholics read ?
Do they read history ? What is the cause of their
culpable indifference for historical works ?
" Mr. Burke's works well deserve to have merited
for their author a literary pension, but where is the
Catholic who has sufficient patronage to get it ? They
should have brought him through their publisher a
handsome remuneration for his pains, had Catholics
the zest for, or did they take the trouble to read, history.
Strange to say his writings, trenchant though they are
against Protestantism, have been more sought after by
Protestants themselves than by his co-religionists, and
could merit an encomium from Mr. Gladstone, while by
leading Catholics they have been simply ignored.
" Seldom have an historian's merits been recognised in
his day, and Mr. Burke's, I fear, will prove no exception
to the rule. If Dr. Lingard was slighted by his own,
and his merits not acknowledged till pointed out by his
opponents, so, too, must our present living historian
suffer. Still, as he lives in my parish, I must in duty
raise my voice in his behalf. In the last stage of
poverty, his clothes in pawn, rent unpaid for months,
and saved only from starvation by the Uttle the priests

UTERATURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION.

393

can give, Mr. Burke's career must soon close, unless
something be done to make his increasing years more
comfortable, and stave off the end of a life which has
already shed some considerable lustre on Catholic
hterature. "Several valuable historical works still remain in
manuscript, because the authors — men distinguished
for their literary abilities and laborious research —
are unable to encounter the ruinous cost of publication.
As an instance in point, I may cite a fact which has
just come to my knowledge. In the July of last year
a work, combining both biography and history, was
published by a weU-known Catholic author, which has
been most favourably noticed by the Tablet, and by its
contemporary the Weekly Register, as well as by the
Month and the Dublin Review. The book was published
partly by subscription, yet at the present date only
half the number of subscribers have paid for their
copies, leaving the author burdened with a heavy
deficit" It should also be noticed that nearly all Cardinal
Manning's works, and I think all of Cardinal Newman's,
have been issued by Protestant publishers. My own
experience in these matters, with an account of the
injustices to which I was subjected by priests in con
nection with my literary work, wiU be found in my
Autobiography. A writer in the New York Catholic Review says : —
"The narrow views of some Catholics shock in
teUigent converts, and they provoke the thought that
sometimes jealousy of the talents of certain converts
has something to do with their harsh criticism. Did
those persons know that the greater number of con-

394 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
verts endure a martyrdom of the heart, their charity
would induce them to spare and aid them, rather than
disturb them."
Yet it is not for want of money that Roman Catholic
literature has failed. The Tablet, of March 3rd, 1888,
says : —
"We have seen a calculation, according to which
the jubilee gifts of the Holy Father include no less
than 800 episcopal rings, 9,000 chalices, 30,000 stoles,
100,000 pectoral crosses, 50,000 vestments for Mass,
and 40,000 albs ! And yet cases are daily arriving
and being unpacked. With reference to the marvellous
stole presented by the ladies of Bogota, the capital of
Colombia, it is affirmed to contain 14,800 pearls, 800
emeralds, and 340 diamonds."
The above list however does not include the
enormous sums of money given to the Pope on this
occasion, nor the gifts of other precious stones and
valuables. Yet with aU this wealth, the cry is still
for more. Why, we may well ask, is not some of it
used for the advancement of the Church ? Why is it
not used to teach the ignorant Italians of the Pope's
own country, when even the editor of the Roman
Catholic Freeman's Journal, says (sarcastically, it is
true, but the admission is of value) that it would be
better even to send out Methodist ministers to Italy to
teach the people, than to have them in the state of
ignorance of aU reUgion, which Mr. Lynch describes
in the leading and only Roman Catholic magazine
of which America can boast. But whenever Rome is
attacked for her saint-worship, and told that her religion
is a religion of forms and cereraonies, her unvarying
reply is, that she, and she alone, has the sacrament oj

LITERATURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION. 39S

the altar, and her strong point as she thinks, is her
altar. And what of this ? How does she show her
respect and reverence for it ? Is it not by lavish
expenditure, whenever it will win the attention of the
world at large, and by utter neglect whenever there are
only the poor to consider.
The Tabernacle Society attached to the Convent of
Notre Dame, Philadelphia, reports that it has exhausted
its funds in supplying poor churches, and poor priests,
with the things needful for the decorous worship of
Our Lord. The Society needs material, silk, satin,
velvet for the adornment of the Altar of God, and for
the vestments of His priests. One priest writes from
a lonely mission in Colorado : " I had to say Mass in
vestments of old silk darned by my own hands, and
always ready to faU to pieces until the Tabernacle
Society sent me what I needed. If they know how
bare the altars are in some of our poor missions, they
would redouble their charity." Even in Ireland the
condition of some country churches is wretched, though
the coUection for the Pope, in Archbishop Croke's
dioce.se alone, exceeded by far the entire collection from
the whole of England.
We might multiply such instances. We may add that
" converts " who are charmed and fascinated by the
exterior attractions of the Roman Church, know but
Uttle of its real state, or of the neglect and indifference
of that Church where such neglect and indifference does
not attract public attention. Even the wine used in the
service of the altar, and sold by Roman Catholics, is
sometimes of such a quaUty that a priest writes a
protest on the subject to the North-western Chronicle,
Pardon me, if I again call attention to the fact that
this is a Roman Catholic paper, and the organ of the

396 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.

Archbishop of St. Paul's, Minn., who has been so active
in emigrating the Irish to a climate for which they were
utterly unfitted. This priest says that he recently
ordered some wine, warranted to be perfectly pure for
altar use — and let it be remembered that not only is
wine which is not pure forbidden for altar use, but that
its use renders the sacrifice absolutely invalid. — The
dealer, he says, was a Catholic ; the wine bore all the
usual episcopal recommendations ; yet on testing it,
he found that it was not only grossly adulterated, but
that it was " not wine at aU." Now it is quite certain
that this Catholic dealer must have known perfectly
well the quality of what he sold, and worse still, he
must have known that he actually made every offering
of the Mass with this wine invaUd and sacrilegious.
Truly it is only when one comes to know the terrible
irreverence and habitual unbelief of many professing
Catholics, that we can understand the state of countries
where the Roman Catholic Church has substituted
the teaching of the Church for the teaching of the
Scriptures. Nothing could be easier for a wine merchant than to
secure the approbation of any number of bishops for
his altar wine, by an easy assurance that it was all
right, and a present of a supply for his lordship's use,
at the altar or the table. Certainly some ecclesiastics
were guilty of the greatest neglect in a matter which
the Church professes to respect above life itself, when
such a state of things could be. And we may be sure
that the conscientious priest wiU suffer, sooner or later,
for his interference with the episcopal recommendations
of a favourite wine-seller. Probably he is yet young,
and will be wiser in time. Indeed, when we consider
all the requirements which Rome makes (on paper) in

LITERATURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION. 397

licr regulations for the service of the altar, and aU the
omissions, or commissions, which will completely in
validate her sacraments, it is a wonder if she ever has
a valid sacrament at aU. A great deal, certainly, has to
be taken on trust, even under the best auspices. And
yet according to her theology how tremendous are the
issues 1 If one sacrament is invalid from even the
carelessness of an official, a bishop may not have been
consecrated, though he appears to be so. The faithful
may be worshipping bread, where they think they are
worshipping the tmly consecrated host, and they may
not have the benefit of Mass, though they have spent
large sums of money in pious zeal for the repose of the
faithful departed. Even in the matter of Masses, the
Pope can dispense with the obligation of saying them
at all, paid for or not paid for, as recent events have
shown.

APPENDIX.

THE Rev. M. F. Foley, of De Land, California, writing
on "The Progress of the Church in America," in
the Catholic Mirror, remarks : —
" Catholics hear much on this subject It is a favourite
theme with some ot our speakers and writers. It gives
them a fair field for the exhibition of profound statistic
knowledge, and for the display of lofty flights of eloquence.
It is, too, a popular, a ' catching,' subject ; it pleases all, and
hurts nobody's feelings. It is not, then, to be wondered
at that a Catholic mutual admiration society has come into
being, the principal duty of whose members is to felicitate
each other on ' our progress,' and to keep as far aloof as
possible any rough men or rough things whose incoming
might tend to mar the existing serenity.
" We are often told ofthe marvellous growth of the Church
in this country ; seldom are we put face to face with the
truth that our gain has been to a great extent Europe's loss.
Again, when we are told how immigration swells our
numbers, seldom are we told that thousands of Catholic
immigrants lose the faith here, who might under other
circumstances have preserved it in the old world. Often is
the great natural increase in our numbers pointed out, the
fecundity of our healthy, virtuous matrons alluded to, yet
rarely is it noted that tens of thousands of the children
born in this country to Catholic parents are for one cause
or other lost irrevocably lost to the Church. Much is said

400 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
of converts, little of perverts. Our gains are often counted,
our losses seldom reckoned. Some statisticians say that
the Catholics in this country number eight millions. Are
we eight millions ? If we are, how many in this vast multi
tude are Catholics in little else than name ? Our panegyrists
are apt to measure the glory of the Church by her wealth
in gold and silver, in buildings and lands, forgetting that her
true glory lies not in these; forgetting that her Divine
Founder had not whereon to rest His head, and that the
Church was glorious even in the day when the prince of
Apostles could say, ' Silver and gold I have none.'
" Our eulogists are fond too of measuring the glory of the
Church by the honours showered upon her rulers ; by pro
cession, banquet, or reception ; by those gatherings whither
too often the time-servers flock, and where many times
fulsome flattery is poured out as water.
"Why the silence of some pulpits on the temperance
question ? Why when drunkenness is denounced is the
drunkard-maker so often left unscathed? Why in sorae
great city parishes where drunkenness runs riot are there
no temperance societies worthy of the name? I await the
answer " The liquor-seller may head subscription Usts ; he may
have the first place at feasts, and the first chair in the
synagogue ; he may sit at the right hand of the mighty ; but
the angel of the Lord, who marches at the head of the
Catholic total abstinence legions, has pointed at him the
finger of contempt, and said to him in withering tones :
' Thou art the man.'
" Go into our prisons, our reformatories, our almshouses;
go into our great asylums where numbers of children are
being reared, in what must necessarily be a hot-house.
atmosphere, to face the storms of life. Go into the crowded
tenements of our great cities, into their lowest dens and
dives ; see the misery, the squalor, reigning there ; see the
men and women low and besotted, see the little ones dying

APPENDIX. 401

as flies in the fetid air — or, worse, living, to poison the nation's
moral atmosphere : in a word see degradation in its most
repulsive forms. In these abodes of crime, of poverty, of
misery, you will find thousands of Catholics. Ask what has
brought to prison and almshouse, to reformatory and orphan
age, to dive and brothel, so many children of the Church.
Trumpet-toned comes back the answer : ' Drink drink.'
" What is the attitude of Roman Catholic young men on
the temperance question ? This is important, as the future
of America is in their hands — one of such grave importance
that I give the following statement : — ' The following resolu
tion was twice voted down by the Catholic Young Men's
National Union, which held a convention recently in Phila
delphia : Resolved — That the Catholic Young Men's National
Union, viewing the saloon as pre-eminently the source of
evil to young men, use its utmost influence, and urge upon
the societies connected with it to use their utmost efforts, to
prevent Catholic young men from visiting saloons. And
also to discountenance by all means possible the drinking
customs of society.'
" The C.Y.M.N.U. refused to warn its members against
frequenting saloons or to * discountenance the drinking
customs of society.' It did that deliberately and decisively.
It twice had the report read, it twice had the vote taken on
it. It twice voted down, decidedly and promptly, the recom
mendation. " It is all very pretty to go on orating about our Catholic
young men, their capacity for good, the value of their
societies, their development ; to ask the blessing of the Pope,
to speak about our ' zealous and devoted clergy ' and to
load down official positions with them, to show how attached
they are to our ' Holy Mother the Church.' But in this
day of Catholic total abstinence extension and prosperity
with the council adding to the odium of the saloon, no so-
called Catholic Union can afford to wilfully, deliberately,
positively, and decidedly vote down a resolution, merely

26

402 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
recommending Catholic young men not to frequent saloons, and
to discountenance the drinking customs of society.
" It is all very religious and devotional to urge attendance
at Holy Communion on the annual day, and to boast of the
thousands who answered the Union's call to be thus faith
ful ; but how revolting to Catholic thought, and repulsive to
Catholic instincts, is the action of the convention in sustain
ing the saloon. How it made Catholics shudder, to read in
the daily report that such a resolution, offered in a Catholic
convention, devoted professedly to the Catholic young men's
interest, spiritual and temporal, met with 'considerable
opposition.' " Think, too, that not a word was spoken in favour of the
resolution ; though there were many there, of course, in
favour of it. It was not through inattention. For attention
was requested by the Rev. President to the second reading.
The vote on being taken was largely in the negative ; it was
again put to a vote — again voted down.
" Had we not been there and especially interested in this
question, and seen the thing done, it would not be thought
probable. But our readers know it is a fact when the
Journal declares if.
" The majority of the delegates to the last convention were
no doubt exemplary Catholics, actuated with true Christian
sentiments ; but it was plain to any close observer that there
were many also who lacked the first qualifications for such
important work. For instance, the vote on the proposition
' Is the saloon dangerous to our Catholic young men ? ' was
simply disgraceful. At least five-eighths of these Catholic
delegates to a Catholic convention voted No — that is, they
voted in favour of the saloon."
Yet the writer goes on to show by some curious manipu
lation, by no means uncommon when Roman Catholic
priests have the management of affairs, that it was made to
appear in the report as if the resolution had been voted. It

APPENDIX. 403

is not possible to give here all that might be said on this,
or indeed on any one of the subjects which are treated of
in the present work; but I must refer to a place in my
Autobiography where an account will be found of a priest,
still an honoured member of Archbishop Ryan's diocese,
who not only breaks his temperance pledge himself, but
did his best to induce a young lawyer just rising in his
profession in Philadelphia to break his also. I had the
account from the very lips of the gentleman in question.
If the priest had succeeded, what ruin would have followed !
A career which was begun in honour and sobriety would
have ended in misery, and perhaps in guilt, and a large
family would have been sooner or later thrown on the
public for support. Yet such is the hold which Romanism
has on its votaries that this young lawyer is still, and is
likely to remain, a "devoted son of the Church." This fact
should explain to many Protestants why it is that so many
remain in the Roman Church, who know but too well that
it is a state of utter and hopeless corruption, while many
will even deny the evil which they know exists. All this
is possible, because the Church of Rome is a political
sj'stem and not a religious system. It promises temporal
as well as spiritual good for adhesion to its cause, and it
has just enough Christianity to satisfy minds which do not
look below the surface.
At a recent Roman CathoUc Total Abstinence convention
Father Hogan declared that it was " Protestant " to denounce
men who went to the sacraments, even if they kept liquor-
saloons; yet a preceding speaker (Father Eliot) said :
" It is from the door of the saloon that the bloodstained
footsteps are tracked which lead down to the destruction of
the family ; it is the trail from the saloons to the low caucus,
and from the low caucus back again to the saloons, that reeks
with the deadliest venom that poisons our poUtics."
This just proves what we have been repeating so often :
the Church does not consider the kind of lives her mem

404 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
bers live, she only asks if they have given proof exterior
of belonging to the Church by receiving " the sacraments,"
and she regulates her scale of sins as pardonable or un
pardonable according to their obedience to her rules, rather
than obedience to the commands of God.
It is the power of the saloon in politics which is at the
root of the evil, but it is also because the priest is himself
so often intemperate that he cannot condemn intemperance
in his people.
We now give extracts from an article, taken from the
New York Herald, April 29/A, 1888, headed : —
THE SALOON IN POLITICS.
New York Liquor-Dealers claim to control Forty
Thousand Votes.
May nominate a Mayor.
If necessary $100,000 will be raised for the next
campaign.
" You don't know what a force the liquor interest will be
in politics this year," said the vice-president of the Liquor-
Dealers' Central Association to the Herald reporter yester
day. " If it were not for the fact that we don't want to
hurt the Democratic party in the Presidential year, we would
run a candidate of our own for mayor. We have got to
do it soon, and not until we do will the great parties
recognise us as a distinct factor in politics, a factor that
cannot be omitted in any calculation. We carried New
York last year, and we will carry it this year too."
" I don't see how," said the reporter.
" Well, let me tell you. It will interest lots ot people,
and open some folk's eyes. Last fall we organized in
election districts, entirely separate from any other party.
At each polling-place there was a liquor-dealer all day long
whose business it was to see that our votes were cast in

APPENDIX. 405

the right way. At the very lowest estimate every liquor-
dealer in New York can cast five votes whichever way he likes.
Of course the average is much higher, but calculate on the
smallest number. As there are over eight thousand saloon
keepers in the city, that means forty thousand votes absolute
ly at our disposal. It is sufficient to decide any election."
Political Power of the Saloon.
" So great is our power that I know a saloon-keeper, in
whose whole election district only six votes were cast
against the candidate he favoured."
We conclude this subject with another specimen of the
demoralization, which is caused and materially encouraged
by Roman Catholic patronage of the liquor interest from
political motives. But what an unholy alliance this is 1 It
is an alUance which gives a present strength to the Church
of Rome, but it wiU eventually prove its ruin, as such alliances
must always do. In so far as the Roman Catholic religion
is Christian it is an aUiance between Christ and Antichrist
Antichrist may prevail for a time, but Christ is stronger,
and Rome vrill one day reap in tears of blood what she has
sown in the crime of drink.
The liquor-saloon is a present strength to Rome ; mutual
interests keep the ecclesiastic and the liquor-selling together.
One tolerates, and the other pays heavily for the toleration,
and -will do so until he finds that he no longer needs the
support of the Church. But what of the hapless victims
of all this crime? What of the unhappy children for
whom Rome also provides ; and whom she is educating
without Christian principles in her schools, in her sister
hoods, and in her public institutions, to run the same course
as their unhappy parents ?
We give from another New York paper the fruits of the
saloon in politics.
" Over one hundred prisoners passed in procession before

4o6 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Justice Duffy in Essex Market Police Court to-day. The
following are a few of the excuses given and their reception
by the ' Little Judge : ' —
" ' Mary Shannon, you were intoxicated and sitting down
on the sidewalk.' ' I had only taken a dose of bromide.'
' It was a dose of whisky, not bromide. I have seen you
before, Mary ; it is not the first case of bromide you have
had. Ten days to ponder upon your offence.'
'"Daniel Shay, you were found drunk on the street' 'I
have been sick with pleurisy, and only took a couple of
drinks.' ' I have seen you before. Five days.'
" ' Daniel C. Flynn, what have you to say to the charge of
drunkenness ? ' ' I am in the dry-goods business, and have
never been drunk before.' ' Pay $2 for your load, and go
on your way rejoicing.'
" ' David Fitzgerald, you were unable to take care of your
self; you are disgracing an historical name.' ' I am a
journeyman plasterer, and was working in a saloon. I
took a Uttle beer, and it went to my head.' ' Can you turn
a cornice?' 'Yes, sir; and 1 have five chUdren and a
wife.' ' Instead of buying whisky you should buy bread ;
but I will let you go.'
" ' Katie Brick, you were drunk and making a noise on the
street ; and collecting a crowd.' 'I was just going back to
Brooklyn.' * We have enough noisy women in New York
without importing them from Brooklyn. Are you married
or single? ' ' I'm a widow.' ' Ever drunk before ? ' ' Only
once.' ' Five days.'
"'Mary Hart, were you drunk?' 'It was the only
time, your honour. I work for the Mutual Life Insurance
Company in Nassau Street,' 'What do they pay you?'
'Ten dollars every two weeks.' 'Go home and don't drink
any more,"
"Justice Hogan is the Tammany boss in the First
Assembly District. John Cantlon, a liquor-dealer of No. 16,
Morris Street, and 'Liverpool Jack's' friend, is on the

APPENDIX. 407
General Committee. , Sunday last Cantlon called Policeman
Tiernan ofthe Second Precinct into his place; and instead of
arresting Cantlon for keeping his liquor-saloon open, the
policeman at the Tammanyite's behest arrested his eleven-
year-old nephew Edward. They hurried to the Tombs
where Caution's countenance suddenly fell.
'"By Jupiter!' he exclaimed, 'Paterson's on the bench.
I thought Hogan was to be here.'
" As is the custom the policeman reported the case to
Agent Becker, of President Gerry's society, on his entrance
to court.
'"Can't you lock up the boy until Paterson gets off the
bench ? ' Cantlon inquired of the agent. ' I want the boy
sent to the Catholic Protectory. Paterson will make me
pay $2 a week and Hogan won't. I can't afford to pay.'
" As Cantlon is on the bond of ' Liverpool Jack ' his claim
of poverty was scarcely credited. The case was submitted,
but Justice Paterson ordered Cantlon out of court, being
convinced, as only the most trivial offences had been charged,
that it was simply an attempt to get rid of the lad at the
city's expense.
" But the friend of the mancatcher turned up at the
Tombs yesterday with the boy. Justice Hogan was on the
bench. Cantlon didn't take his turn in Une. He went
ahead of all and Justice Hogan promptly took up the case.
Cantlon repeated the same story on which Justice Paterson
had refused commitment. Justice Hogan nevertheless
committed the lad to the Catholic Protectory, and in doing
so disregarded a rule which is observed by every other
Justice. It is to hold the lad for an examination pendinganin-
vestigation made by Mr. Gerry's officers. The lad's parents
are dead. Cantlon had promised to take care of him."
Some of the "Whyo" gang, recently hung for murder
after a career of brutal crime and a hfe of drunkenness,
certainly died in the odour of (Roman Catholic) sanctity,
and were attended and comforted in their last moments by

408 INSIDE THE CHURCH OF ROAIE.
sisters and priests. But what of their unhappy offspring ?
Sentenced or sent to Roman Catholic institutions, where, to
my personal knowledge, both their spiritual and temporal
interests are utterly neglected, in consequence of the ignor
ance and indifference of the sisters. They are brought up
to follow in the footsteps of their parents, with wrong
ideas of virtue and vice. They are brought up according
to the ideas of sisters and priests, and the future of these
children proves plainly that neither sisters nor priests are
fit to educate the young. Dirt, disease, and ignorance, are
a poor help to health of body and mind.
Why should sisters or others, who receive money from
the State, object to inspection by the State? I am well
convinced that if Roman Catholic institutions were inspected
by the State, unless indeed the inspectors were under the
control of that Church, a great good would be gained
for the poor children under their charge. I know an
institution where, from gross ignorance, and that carelessness
which is the natural outcome of uninspected independence,
the children are constantly losing both their eyesight, and such
poor health as they had when they entered the institution.
But it is considered a crime even to suggest that a " sister "
could fail in the least matter, either in the education of
the young or in anything else. If Protestants could only
know how this feeling prevails, and the unworthy motives
from which it is kept up, they would be wiser than they
are, and would look a little more sharply after the expendi
ture of public money in such institutions. Why should
sisters be exempted more than others from giving an account
of their stewardship, above all when the results of their
system of education gives so much evidence of failure ?

1148

he/>^.