IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET {MT-3)
1.0
I.I
11.25
■iillM 12.5
|50 "^ m^
1^ 1^ 12.2
- 12^ i—
2.0
m
'A^
V
Photographic
Sciences
Corporation
23 WEST MAIN STRKT
WEBSTH.N.Y. I4S80
(716) 872-4503
fV
^^
N>
O^
it.
6^
CiHM/ICMH
Microfiche
Series.
CIHIVI/ICJVIH
Collection de
microfiches.
Canadian institute for Historicai IMicroreproductions
institut Canadian da microraproductions hiatoriquaa
1980
■
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques
The InstitMie hat attempted to obtain the beet
original copy available for filming. Feature* of this
copy which may be bibliographicaily unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.
D
D
D
D
D
Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur
I I Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagie
Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurto et/ou pelliculAe
I I Cover title missing/
□
Le titre de couverture manque
I I Coloured maps/
Cartes giographiques en couleur
Coloured init (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire)
□ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur
□ Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents
Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/
La reiiure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion ie long de la marge intirieure
Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans ie texte,
mais, iorsque ceia 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 fiimies.
Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires:
L'institut a microfilm* le meiiieur exemplaire
qu'il iul a At* possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du
point de vut!; bibliographique, qui pauvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m6thode normaie de filmage
sont indiquAs ci-dessous.
I I Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur
Pages damaged/
Pages endommag6es
I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/
El
Pages restauries et/ou peliiculdes
Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages dicoiortos, tachetdes ou piquies
□ Pages detached/
Pages d^tachdes
[Zl
Showthrough/
Transparence
r~~| Quality of print varies/
D
Quality iinigale de I'impression
Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire
Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible
Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totaiement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuiliet d'errata, une pelure,
etc.. ont M fiimdes d nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meiiieure image possible.
This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ce document est film* au taux d9 rMuction indiquA ci-dessous.
idX 14X 18X 22X
26X
30X
J
12X
16X
20X
24X
28X
32X
The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:
National Library of Canada
L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grflce A la
ginirosit^ de:
BibliothAque nationale du Canada
The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.
Las images suivantes ont AtA reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettett de rexemplaire filmi, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.
Original copi'ts in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and eiiiaing on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.
Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont filmte en commen9ant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la
premiAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.
The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol -^^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.
Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". le
symbols V signifie "FIN".
Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:
Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
filmte A des taux de reduction diffirents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seui cliche, ii est fiimi A partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droite,
et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre
d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la m6thode.
' ^
1
2
3
6
m
r
«^
MASKINONGfi.
LETTERS
From two Priests, a Lawyer, a Notary and
a Nun,
A>D
THE ANSWERS TO THESE LETTERS.
BT
PROTESTANT MISSIONARIES.
(Translated from the French. )
Published by the Orande Ligne Mission, Province of Quebec^
Canada,
MAY, 18 93.
,m
n
iBontreal:
D. BnruT ft Co., PaiRnB*. 1746 Nona Dami Strkr.
;Wf
•■■fi
*t8
■-♦11
/nBti
PREFACE.
-ne-
The following pamphlet contains letters which were
addressed to different persons in Maskinong^ with a view to
winning them back to the Roman Catholic Church, from
which they had severed their connection. It also contains
the replies to these letters, which were by request written by
missionaries of the Grande Ligne Mission, and a resume of
the whole correspondence by Rev. T. Lafleur.
For prudential reasons, we abstain from publishing the
names of the writers, but should anyone doubt the authen-
ticity of the letters contained in this little book, he could
satisfy his mind on this matter by applying to the Secretary
of the Grande Ligne Mission, Mr. Lafleur, who holds on file
the original letters, or certified copies of them.
It is only fair to say that no more than three or four of
the letters were written with a view to publication. "We
have nevertheless thought it best to alter neither their form
nor matter, although we felt that both could be much im-
proved.
mm
4
In one of the last letters written by one of the priests
there is a lengthy argument in favor of Matthias' apostloship,
to which argument no answer was made, The reason for
this is the fact that the discussion dwelt so long on the question
of authority, and having been suddenly interrupted by the
priest, no time was givea the other side to take up that point
again.
We desire to have it understood that in order to prciserve
as much as possible, the spirit of the letters and their true
" inwardness," we have retained many expressions which can
hardly be accepted as good English.
A. L. THERRTEN.
Montreal, December, 1892.
INTRODUCTION.
It may be well to give here a word of explanation as to
the origin of the difficulties which resulted in a schism among
the Roman Catholics of Maskinongf^, and which occasioned
the work of religious reform which followed it. The parish of
Maskinong^ is situated about 75 miles from Montreal in the
diocese of Three Rivers, and is traversed by the branch of the
Canadian Pacific Railway, running between Montreal and
Quebec. The centre of population in that parish having
shifted from the old to the new village, situated on the banks
of^the Maskinong^ river, it was, after years of deliberation,
resolved to build a new church in the latter village, a mile
and a half from the old one, in which has stood for generations
and still stands the old parish Church.
But on what side of the river was the new Church to be
built? Such was the vexing question. The Bishop, the
parish Priest, and the Church Wardens oscillated in their
decision. Fmally, however, it was decided that the church
should be built on the North-east side of the river, and the
Bishop accordingly planted a cross and consecrated the ground
on that side, declaring solemnly that the church would be
built there and no-where else.
For reasons better known to themselves than to us,
however, the Bishop, the Priest and the Marguilliera changed
■«
6
their mind, and began to build on the other side of the river,
Whereupon, several of the parishoners, on the North side,
unwilling to attend church across the river, and believing
that they had been unfairly dealt with, began to build at their
own expense a wooden chapel, with the expectation of obtain-
ing when it was finished, the service of a priest, and to thus
form a separate parish. They were however, disappointed in
this, for the Bishop positively refused to grant them a priest.
They, nevertheless resolved to meet in their chapel on church
days at the ordinary hour to say their prayers and sing hymns.
A certain Bedemptorist father, with more zeal than
wisdom, undertook to put a stop to this state of things by an
attempt to frighten the rebellious, as they were called, into
humble submission to the ecclesiastical authority. On a
beautiful June Sunday morning, he entered the chapel while
the people were assembled for worship, and exhorted them to
follow him to the old church where he was holding special
services. On their refusing to obey his orders, he very
dramatically, with uplifted crucifix, cursed the chapel in the
nai%e of God and the Holy Catholic Church. Contrary to his
expectations, however, a goodly number, though not as many
as before, continued to assemble themselves in the Chapelle
Matidite (cursed chapel) as it has since been called.
In this emergency. Rev. Adam Burwash, then laboring
under the auspices of the Baptist Home Mission and Grande
Ligne Mission Societies, visited these people who were thus
defying the authority of the church. He told them they
could rest tleir resistance on a firmer basis than that of
" '
clerical injustice, even on the Gospel of Christ, and offered to
explain it to them. They at first refused to listen to him,
saying they were Roman Catholics and wished to remain so.
But a few weeks later, they themselves invited him to read
and explain the Gospel to them at the usual Sunday morning
gathering in their chapel.
Since then the Grande Ligne Missionaries have preached
in the chapel every Sunday, save one, to a congregation
varying in number from about 20 to 100. A number of those
who thus attended the meetings having accepted the truth of
the Gospel, on the 25th August, 1892, in the presence of a large
congregation mostly composed of Roman Catholics,, eleven
(ten men and one woman) made a public confession of their
new faith by baptism. This produced a very deep sensation
throughout the country, many lifting their hands in holy horror
on hearing of this, to them, most sad and sacriligious act on
the part of heretofore'good and honorable Catholics. It is
to these converts that the following letters were addressed.
8
Correspondence between a Nun and her Brother.
476 Champlain St., Detroit, Mich., Sept. 5th, 1892.
My dear and beloved Brother,
In a Canadian pappy which came to me, I read with a
depth of sorrow which soon found vent in a burst of tears
and sobs, the account of the sad and frightful events of the
35th August in Maskinongd. Alas ! among the deluded ones
who then renounced their faith to accept the Protestant re-
ligion I was forced to recognise the name of my beloved
brother, so dear to my heart. Seeing you had gone so far
as to voluntarily renounce the religion of your fathers and to
sever your connection with the Catholic church, I thought
it would be useless to write to you, that you would hardly
deign to read my letter. But I find it impossible to remain
silent any longer. The thought of you haunts me all the day
long, it keeps me awake nights, and when I do sleep you ap-
pear to me in dreams. This proves to you, my dear Peter, how
much I love you, and how bitterly I regret the sort of baptism
you have received. I know you do not at all believe in the
teachings of Protestanism, and that stubbornness only has
led you to take the step you have taken. I am sure that
when you seriously think upon it, you are far from being
approved by your conscience. If others older than yourself
had not encouraged you by their counsels, their unfaitTiful-
ness and their example, never would your brave heart so
profoundly Catholic have weakened and refused to suffer in-
justice for God's sake. Pray tell me, where are those who
do not suffer here on earth ? A few months, a few weeks,
perhaps a few days only, and you will find by the remorse of
9
conscience you are sure to experience that we Catholics are
not, after all, the most unhappy people.
Let me ask you a great favor. It is to write to me soon
and promise me sincerely that you will do nothing to entice
Elzi^ar. The confidence I place in you leads me to believe
you will prevent him from going to your chapel. He is young
and what a sad life would be his should he become an unbe-
liever. Counsel him rather to live and to die a fervent Catholic,
notwithstanding the troubles which arise from divergent views
in parochial affairs. It would be a great relief to me should
I learn that you do not wish your brother, nor your wife, nor
your dear children to follow you.
Believe me, my dear Peter, do as I ask you to, and God
will perhaps reward you by putting it in your heart to leave
the parish, even the diocese, to go far from your friends
where you eventually would return to that religion which you
have heretofore so sincerely professed. I pray niuch for you,
for although you have gone deep into error, I am not alto-
gether discouraged. But how I do long to know through a
letter from you how you feel about these matters.
Are the troubles in the Parish subsiding ? Do you foresee
a reconcilliation between the two parties.
Much love from me to your wife, and to my dear mother.
Tell Anna to write often.
Your loving sister.
Sister M. Esther.
10
u
Maskinong^, September, 1899.
My dear Sister, —
One would need to have a hard heart not to have
been touched by the words of solicitude and tenderness con-
tained in your letter of i8th inst. It is not so long since I
shared your ideas and sentiments that I should now find it
difficult to see things from your point of view, and to under-
stand the sorrow you experience from your knowledge that I
have abandoned the religion in which we were both brought
up. I can scarcely expect to convince you by one letter of
my sincerity in taking the step I have taken. Let me assure
you nevertheless, that I have acted intelligently and in loyalty
to my conscience and the truth of Jesus Christ.
No one could be more suprised than I was in reading the
New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ not to find in it the
teachings of the Catholic Church, but to find, on the contrary^
the teachings of those Protestants whom I had been taught
from my infancy to despise and regard as heretics.
My dear sister, believe me, I have not forsaken God, nor
Christ, nor the commandments of God, nor have I turned my
back on any of the Christian graces which Christ has taught
us to acquire and bidden us to exhibit in our lives. There
are many things taught in the Roman Catholic Church which
I still retain because I believe them to be true. But the
teachings of that Church on the fundamental doctrines of
salvation are so much at variance with the teachings of God's
Word, that in loyalty to my conscience, and to assure the
salvation of my soul, I have felt compelled to leave that
Church. By so doing, I have only followed the example of
the Apostles, and the millions of their followers who left the
religion of their fathers to embrace Christianity. Like them
11
r
n
I have left a corrupt form of religion to adopt Christianity in
its purity and primitive form.
I am sorry to see in your letter the following words : "I
know you do not at all believe in the teachings of Protestants,
and that stubbornness only has led you to take the step you
have taken, etc." My dear sister, have you ever known me
as deceitful, dishonest and hypocritical ? How can you be-
lieve me capable of an act as evil as would be that which you
allude to, had I not been influenced by honest and sincere
convictions ? Banish such a thought from your mind, my dear
sister, it can but work mischief in you, and it is profoundly
unjust towards your brother, who loves you nevertheless.
Believe in my sincerity, believe also that I am happy, for I
can assure you before God that I never was as happy, and
never before enjoyed the communion of my Savior, as now.
I know it will be difficult for you to believe this, but it is
none the less true.
The misdeeds of the clergy, it is true, have to a certain ex-
tent, opened my eyes, but they were by no means the immed-
iate cause of my leaving the Roman-Catholic Church. The
real cause is the study of the Bible and the preaching of the
Gospel. These have brought to me a light the existence of
which I had never suspected.
My dear sister, you speak of remorse of conscience which
you think I am sure to experience sooner or latter on account
of the step I have taken. But I am sure that if you knew
what I know you would never have expressed such a thought.
How can one experience regret for making sacrifices for the
love of truth ? It is true that in my ignorance I was strongly
attached to the Church with which you are connected, but in
leaving it I have only followed the dictates of my conscience
enlightened by the Word of God. On him I have founded
V]
•:
12
my hope, to him I look, His law I endeavor to obey, and for
Him I desire to live and die.
In regard to our brother Elz^ar, I can say that I have
done nothing to influence him. The new sentiment he has,
he obtained from the same source that I did mine. He also
reads the Word of God, and very largely shares my views,
but he can testify to the fact that he has not imbided these
views from me^ though I would be far from thinking I had
done wrong if that were the case. As to his plans for the
future, he expects to go West and join our brother there.
I thank you, dear sister, for your prayers on my behalf,
and I assure you, you are not forgotton in mine. My prayer
is that you may come to know the way of salvation as it is
revealed to us in God's Word, and that you may cease to
place your confidence in things which can be of no help to
you, and place it in Him who is " the way, the truth and the
life," and who said, " None cometh unto the Father but by
me."
Regarding the division in the parish, \t has ceased to
occupy my thoughts. I have something far more important
to think of now. Since you ask me about it, however, I may
say that the wounds are far from being healed.
God bless you, dear sister, and grant you His " peace
which passeth all understanding."
Your loving brother,
P. Desserres.
13
Correspondence between an officious Notary and
Mr. I, Marchand of Maskinonge^ P. Q.
I. Marchand, Esq.,
Maskinong^, Q.
Dear Sir, —
Would you kindly tell me what extraordinary reasons you
may have had for leaving the Catholic Church — the piinciple
reason ? "^
I am very much interested in you.
Your brother in Christ,
St. £., August 29th, 1892.
Dear Sir,-
Maskinong6, P. Q.
In answer to your letter of August 29th, allow me to say
that under the " extraordinary " directions of Providence
and by the Grace of God, I was led to read the Holy Scrip-
tures, and that through these I became convinced that the
priests of the Roman Catholic Church do not teach the truth
of the Gospel. I discovered that their doctrines are, most of
them, doctrines of men and not of Christ. Moreover, through
this blessed book, I have found peace with God, and the
assurance of salvation through Jesus Christ, our only and per-
fect Saviour (Acts 4, 12.) This peace and this blessed as-
surance I never experienced as long as I was in the Roman
Catholic Church.
B
r-i'
, I' '
11
! I
14
Such Sir, is my principal reason for leaving the Church of
Rome, to unite with the true Catholic Church, the Church of
Christ composed of all true believers in Him.
When I shall have learned who you are, and should you
desire it, I shall be glad to give you more information on this
subject.
Yours truly,
I. Marchand.
, M
h
li
!l
I. Marchand, Esq.,
Maskinonge, Q.
Dear Sir,
I received your letter of the ^rd instant, and I gladly
answer it, but rest assured that in doing so, I h?ve no other
purpose save that of doing you good.
1. You say that under the extraordinary directions of Provi-
dence and through the Grace of God you were led to read
the Holy Scriptures.
2. That the priests of the Church of Rome do not teach
the truth of the Gospel.
3. That you have found peace with God, and assurance of
salvation.
Those are the principal reasons for your abjuring the
Catholic faith. On the first point, let me say that I am sur-
prised to hear you say that it is through the providence and
grace of God you were led to read the Scriptures. The
15
Catholic Church does not prohibit the reading of the Bible,
on the contrary, she teaches it, and it is the foundation of our
religion.
It is absurd, however, to claim that every man can read the
Bible and interpret it for himself, and thus to make his own
religion. As you claim to have read the Scriptures assid-
uously of late, you must have discovered through them, that
neither Providence nor the Grace of God lias led you to read
them. Our Lord has distinctly said to His Apostles, " Go
and preach the Gospel, he who heareth you heareth me, he
vyho despiseth you despiseth me." He does not say, Go and
read the Gospel. How can you then venture to affirm th it
Providence and God's Grace have led you to do contrary to
the command of Christ ?
On the second point, let me remind you that our Lord
said : " Go and preach the Gospel, and lo I am with you
always, even unto the end of the world." If the Lord is with
His Apostles, they must of necessity teach nothing but the
truth of the Church of Christ. It is absurd, therefore, to seei
laymen with no divinely authorized mission to fulfil, no special
grace to help them, assume the right to question the teachings
of the priests, to correct the Church founded by Jesus Christ,
and beiicv^ that they can substitute for it a better institution.
To the third point, I answer that as the foundation on
which you build is chimerical, your position connot withstand
the breath of fair discussion. Your peace and your assurance
are another and still more fatal chimera. You apprehend no
danger because you are like a blind man walking on the verge
of a precipice. Moreover, your peace and your assurance
are not worth discussing, and the reasons you give for your
new faith are such as to lead one to suspect their genuineness.
You may rest assured that I shall seek for fuller information.
^
16
■111!-
if
I
. Ij
I thank you for what you have given me. I asked for your
principal reason, and you gave it to me. I am convinced, as
I was beforehand, that you had no good reasons to give, and
there cannot be any.
As for me I am proud to be an earnest member'^of the
Church of God. I only wish that on the day of the great
call we might all be prepared to meet our Savior, and to]live
with Him for ever.
As to the name " Catholic," which you deny the Church
of Rome, to appropriate it to yourself, I do not think it worth
while discussing for I do not believe you are in earnest on
this matter. But if you desire it, I can give you the precise
date of your church's foundation. I should not say " your
church " for there is but one church. I mean your religion.
Long had our Lord gone from the earth when you thought
of beginning your reformation. It has, therefore, not been
established by Him, since His mission upon earth had then
long been fulfilled.
Be not aggrieved with me, my friend, but reflect seriously,
and if I can help you as a brother, I shall be too glad to do
so, and shall count it as one of the best actions of my life.
Yours truly,
-i
■ i
St. E., Napierville Co., Sept. 9th, 1892.
!:i
17
Maskinonge, Sept 20th, 1892.
Mr. D.-
St. E. Q.
Dear Sir, —
I thank you for your letter of Sept. 9th. It contains things
I have heard time and again, which I once believed myself,
but the falsity of which has been revealed to me since I open-
ed my eyes to the light of the Gospel. The position you take,
and that of the Church of Rome in general, is exactly that in
which stood the Jewish Church, the Sanhedrim, which claimed
to be the infallible religious authority, having come down in
direct line from Moses and the Prophets, and which execrated
the common people because they refused to be guided by the
doctors of the law, and because using the faculties God had
given them they judged for themselves the teachings of Christ.
** This generation is cursed not knowing the law," said the
priests in those days. And that because the said " generation"
believed in Christ and followed Him. The priests of our
days manifest exactly the same spirit towards those who
refuse to accept human traditions, and endeavor to follow the
teachings of Christ, as set forth in the New Testament.
Seeing the common people turning away from the eccles-
iastical authority which " lorded it over God's heritage " at
Jerusalem, to accept His teachings, Jesus said, "I thank thee,
O heavenly Father, that thou hast hidden these things from
the wise and prudent, and has revealed them unto babes."
You compare me to a blind man walking on the verge of a
precipice, and through arguments which, to my mind, " could
not bear the breath of fair discussion," you attempt to per-
suade me that the peace and assurance I enjoy are nothing
but " fatal chimeras."
\
! ■)
ill
18
Well, my dear sir, permit me to say that I also see my like-
ness in a blind man, but that of the 9th chapter of John, the
m in born blind, whose eyes Jesus opened. Read this chapter
and you will see that the Jews and Pharisees manifested to-
wards this man and towards Jesus the same spirit which we
see manifested by the priests of our days towards those who
read the words of Christ, and accept them for their rule of
faith. Say what you please in regard to my j)eace and my
assurance, dear sir, I say like the man born blind, " One
think I know, whereas I was blind now I see." Neither you,
sir, notwithstanding the regard I owe you for your good in-
tentions, neither the pretentious authority of your Church
(which, I may say, is voi " the only true church of Christ "
nor any human argument, can persuade me that the eyes of
my soul have not been opened to the light of heaven. All
arguments used to convince me to the contrary I regard as
mere sophisms.
Allow me now to answer hastily some of the points I find
in your letter.
I am always suprised, since I opened my eyes to the light,
to see the blindness of otherwise we'' educated men, and to
hear their absurd reasonmg on the subject of religion. Your
letter furnishes me with another example of this. Time does
not permit me to answer all the points you touch in it. I
will confine myself to some of them.
I. " Our Lord clearly said, ' Go and preach the Gospel,
who heareth you heareth me,* etc. He does not say to his
Disciples, Go and read the Gospel." It is not the first time I
have met this strange argument, but I am surprised to see an
intelligent and educated man using it. Because Christ told
his Apostles to go and preach, etc., you conclude therefrom
that he does not encourage the reading of the Bible. And
^ ^
19
yet " you say that your Church recommends it. If these things
be true, it follows that your Church and Christ are at variance
on this subject. That the teachings of Christ in the times
of the Apostles should have been continued orally by men
who had lived with Him, and who had received on the day
of Pentecost a miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit, is per-
fectly rational. But that this oral teaching was to be con-
tinued after them by men who never heard Christ, and who
never received this miraculous effusion of the Spirit, " to
guide them into all truth," and that this oral teaching should
be considered authoritative and infallible, is a very different
thing. It is also a thing which is not in harmony with good
sense and with the historical facts in the case. Christ knew
the imperfection of the human mind, its inability without an
ever recurring miracle to preserve intact the truth through
oral teaching only. He, therefore, in His wisdom, moved
the " holy men of old " to write out the things He had
taught personally and through His Apostles, and thus give
fixedness to His teachings. Instead then of resting upon the
the shifting sands of human tradition, the truth rests upon
solid rock of divire inspiration. And since Christ caused His
words to be written, it must be that He also desired them to
be read.
But we do not have to rely upon mere conjectures as to this,
we have the express words of God Himself. See Psalm i, 2.
Isa. 34, 12. ; Matt. 4, 4. ; John
other passages.
5, 39. ; Acts 17, II ; and
rom
.nd
You say that the Church of Rome does not prohibit the
reading of the Holy Scriptures. In a sense perhaps she does
not, although it can be shown she has done so by decrees of
councils. But in another sense, she does forbid the reading
of them, for she places all possible obstacles in the way of
^r
ii
'I I
! I. i
hi I
!■ i
20
those who wish to become acquainted with them. Does she
encourage their reading? If you answer in the affirmative, I
ask, why are our Roman Catholic people, and even our priests
themselves in Canada, save rare exceptions, still in such
ignorance of the Holy Scriptures ? How is it that I, faithful
Catholic as I was, should have arrived at the age of 65 with-
out knowing the very elements of the Gospel ? I have learned
more of it in the last nine months than I had learned through-
out my entire previous life. You must be aware that the
Catholic Church do^s not encourage the reading of the Holy
Scriptures, and that the most she does is to tolerate it. You
must also know that one of the principal objects for which
the tribunal of Inquisition was established by Pope Innocent
III, in 1225, was the prevention of the reading of the Scrip-
tures, and that two successive councils, those of Toulouse in
1229, and of Taragone in 1234, declared as heretics and de-
livered over to the inquisitors, any laymen in whose hands
the Scriptures were found.
You say, " It is absurd for any man to claim the right of
reading and interpreting the Bible for himself, and thus to
make his own religion." This remark is specious enough,
but there is no weight in it. For example : you will acknow-
ledge that a purely traditional faith cannot be a saving faith.
The faith that saves must be personal, the fruit of personal
conviction. These convictions, it is evident, each man must
form for himself, or else they could not be his own. In order
to form them, he must use his intelligence, his judgment, and
his conscience. It is true, that left to himself alone, he could
not arrive at the knowledge of saving truth, but with the Will
of God revealed to him in the Bible, and assisted by the
Holy Spirit, promised to " every one that asketh," he can. It
is not necessary that he should have a full knowledge of all
truths. " This is eternal life that they should know th^e,
i
21
.1''
i'
It
all
the only true God, and Jesus-Christ whom thou hast sent,"
said Jesus. To know Jesus by faith, then, is to have eternal
life. But, you will say perhaps, " The Church alone has the
right to teach us, and we ought not to come directly to the
Holy Scriptures, for we cannot understand them." If I
cannot understand Jesus and the Apostles who speak to me
in the Gospel, can I better understand the Church ? More-
over, inasmuch as the bishops and priests are not infallible,
as they themselves acknowledge, how can they teach me the
truth in an infallible manner ? And inasmuch as I must after
all receive the truth through my own mind and heart, whether
it comes to me from the Church or from the Bible, it seems
to me far better to look for it in the Bible, which is acknow-
ledged by Catholics as well as Protestants as the Word of
God.
Secondly, the fact that those who accept the Bible as their
authority in things pertaining to morals and religion are
agreed on the great fundamental doctrines of salvation^
proves that one can arrive by this means at practical unity,
and the further fact, which you will hardly deny, I think, that
there are thousands at least of Protestants, whose piety can-
not be doubted, whose faith is full of good works, whose
devotion never was surpassed by that of the " saints " of any
church, and whose character is formed after the pattern of
our divine Master, shows that that which the priest of Mas-
kinong^ said two weeks ago from his pulpit cannot be true,
viz : that all those who are out of the Roman Catholic
Church are " dammed." It proves also that by reading the
Scriptures one can arrive at such a knowledge of the truth as
will regenerate and sanctify his soul. " A bad tree cannot
bear good fruit," said Jesus.
Dear Sir, there are other things I should like to say, but
my letter is already too long. Should another opportunity be
■j:\
22
m
I'll »
i!^i''ii '
.-■!
i:'h
given me, I should be too happy to take up the other points
which I find in your letter and to consider them in the light
of Scripture. As for me, I hereafter wish to be guided by
the Word of God only, and I believe with St. Paul that " the
Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that
believeth." (Romans i, i6.)
I. Marchand, Esq.,
Maskinonge, Q.
Dear Sir, —
Your letter of Sept 26th was duly received. On reading it
I notice the oft repeated affirmation that the unsoundness of
my arguments was disclosed to you by the Holy Scripture,
but I would have liked to have had you quote texts in opposi-
tion to those I quoted if you could do so. If you can prove
that I am wrong, why have you not done so ? You merely
say that the unsoundness of my arguments was revealed to
you through the light you received from the Bible. This
method of discussion is clever but not convincing.
Who can say that you have, or have not, received super-
natural light ? This does not deserve to be discussed. You,
at any rate do not act like the generality of persons who have
received new revelations from heaven. Instead of boasting
of their privilege as you do, they rather blush when spoken to
about it; whilst those who erroneously arrogate to themselves
this privilege, are apt to do as you do. There.fore, I suspect
that the light you claim to have received is only an illusion
and a snare, for you do not manifest the spirit of one divinely
enlightened.
«'•
23
As to the rest of your letter, after sifting out that which is
meaningless, and of ro account in a discussion like this, I
found that what remained reduced itself to zero. I will there-
fore not take the trouble of answering it.
Moreover, Mr. Marchand, I do not believe that it was you
who answered my letter. It is impossible that in nine months
time you should have sunk so deep into error. Were it so,
I should certainly despair of saving you. The person who
wrote that letter must be one who would deceive others out
of material interest, but I have too much confidence in your
intelligence and honesty to believe you capable of such an act.
You must still hold in remembrance the teachings you re-
ceived on your mother's knees, the good advice of your father,
the beautiful day of your first communion, the advice your
parents gave you on their death bed, the day when you followed
their remains to their last resting place, the prayers which were
said for the repose of their soul, etc. Now will you venture
to mark out for yourself a new path, and walk in an opposite
direction ? Will you dare to turn your back upon your an-
cestors, your religion, and the Church of your fathers ? Will
you dare to separate yourself now from them ? Do you not
fear you will hear their sobs reproaching you for your conduct ?
Could you look them in the face should they appear to you ?
Are you not afraid that the separation you now place between
them and yourself may be eternal ?
I must close, hoping you and your associates will soon in-
vite roe to attend the joyful celebration of your return to the
Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. I pray God that
this may be soon. I can give you no better advice than that
of reading the copy of the letter you favored me with, dated
i&
24
M
Sept 26th. I am sure you will see yourself that it is a tissue
of falsehoods, and that you cam lOt too soon, leave a way so
pernicious. Pardon me if I write somewhat ;>everely, and
rest assured I have no other object in view than your own
personal good.
Yours truly,
October 3rd, 1892.
%
Mr.
I
Hi ■■
HI' i
iinii
Pi^i
■i'll
;
!' '
liijij <
ilii'i
iill-'
ii:!!ti
St. E., p. Q.
Dear Sir,
You must have misread my answer to your letter previous
to your last, for you reproach me for not quoting texts in sup-
port of my reasons, when I know I have quoted several very
much to the point.
You say that the question of one's enlightenment by the
Holy Spirit through the Scripture? is unworthy of notice, and
that my claim to have been so enlightened is " an illusion
and a snare." I am surprised that you should treat so lightly,
so serious a question, and so sacred a reality. What ! you
consider as rashness the honest belief that one can read and
savingly understand the words of Christ reported by the
first Christians and by some of the Apostles, and also the
letters of these same Apostles ! The same words that Christ
addressed to the multitudes, and the same letters written by
the Apostles to great churches composed mostly of the com-
25
mon people ! And why ? Because I have not with me a priest
authorized to explain them ? Why these words explain them-
selves, and ultimately I should have to understand the
priest's explanation. I do not see the light through his eyes,
nor do I hear music through his ears, I have to understand
with my own intelligence.
You say that I speak boastingly of the light I received
from the Gospel. No sir, I do not boast, but I am profoundly
grateful to God for sending me this light. I cannot say,
however, that I am grateful to the priests of Rome who have
so long kept me in ignorance of this blessed treasute of
spiritual truth.
You do not believe the letter I sent you is my own, that
the nine months which have elapsed since my separation
from the Church of Rome cannot have sunk me so deeply
into error.
What if it is another who wrote my thoughts, and ex-
pressed my convictions better than I could have done my-
self? The letter is none the less mine inasmuch as I approve
of its contents ; after reading it, and sign it with my own
hand. If, as you say, I am intelligent and honest, that
which I sign must carry a certain weight and convince you
that I have not entered thoughtlessly this new way, nor
without good reasons acted as I have, against all my tem-
poral interests.
You would feign have me return to the religion of my in-
fancy. But, sir, the religion of my infancy was not my own,
it had been imposed upon me by my parents. That of my
maturer years, on the contrary, is that which I have intelli-
gently chosen for myself, as Mary at Jesus' feet chose the
good part which was never to be taken away from her. (Luke
10, 42).
26
lllil^
\m:
iliiii
li! I'-
ll:
■*ll';
I'i!
In changing my church connection as a consequence of a
change in my convictions, I have not acted differently
from the Apostles who forsook the religion of their fathers
to become christians. If my good parents had known the
Gospel which the Church of Rome kept hidden from them
under the rubbish of human tradition, they would also have
followed that Gospel Honest as they were in their con-
victions, they would have done as I have done, • I am not
afraid to meet them on the day of judgment by the Son of
•God, before whom will tremble those who have hidden His
words. It was He who reproved the doctors of the law of
his own time for taking away the key of knowledge, who
entered not in themselves and hindered those that were en-
tering. (Luke II, 52). Read those passages carefully, Sir,
and no longer cherish the hope of ever bringing me back to
that Church which has proved unfaithful to the teachings of
Christ and His Apostles. Although you seem to have little
faith in the work of the Holy Spirit in the souls of men, you
may, nevertheless, be also enlightened and change your man-
ner of reasoning.
Yours truly,
I. MARCHAND.
I
Correspondence between a Priest and his Father,
Sept 2nd, 92.
My dear Father, —
I send you an article from Le Trifluvien^ which informed
me of the state of affairs in M a&kinong^. If the account it
gives is correct, allow me to say that the new baptism you
received has not nullified the first, and that this new baptism
|lil::r'
27
instead of being on you ** the mark of the christian " is on
the contrary a stain on your brow. It seems to me that an
old man with snowy locks, heretofore a sincere Catholic, and
having always shown so good an example to his children,
might have spared them this grief, and avoided a scandal
which calls for the vengeance of heaven. Wrath, stubborn-
ness, and the lack of prudence are at the bottom of it all I
know, but you are none the less guilty for all that I love
you still, but I cannot approve you and I loathe the act of
which you are guilty. Do reflect, and go no farther in the
error of your ways. Should you persist, however, let me say
to you, that we shall meet in the next world when God will
reveal to your son who loves you, that you have not done
that action from your heart, but out of revenge only. Do
not expect to see me again. Perhaps you will be just as well
pleased that I keep away ; but to me, it will be a great sacri-
fice.
May you live long to repent of your sin, and to save your
soul. This is the only and last wish which your son, as a
priest, can offer you.
Your son,
Maskinong^, P. Q., Sept. 8th, 1892.
My dear Son, —
I cannot tell you how deep is the grief which your letter has
caused me, especially the lack of respect which characterises
it, and the liberty you take of judging me spiritually, a right
which belongs to no man. You speak of the grief I have
caused my family. I easily understand their grief, when I
m
!!!'■!
I : !
1
I
!!!:■
''Pi'
Ijlli
li :':'!;
PUP
' 11'
m
ii;
28
remember their ignorance of the faith I profess. But, I can
say that I also greive, though for a very different reason. It
is because I have not had the privilege of bringing up my
dear family in the knowledge of the truth, and in th<it faith
I have now embraced, which faith has brought me so much
peace, and solid comfort. I am grateful to God, that two of
my sons at least have also embraced the truth as it is in
Jesus.
You speak of my baptism as being *'a. stain on my brow ",
instead of " the christian's mark". I would like to ask you
if you really think that my having received the baptism which
Christ received (Matt. 3, 12, 14), and the same which he ad-
ministered through his Apostles in.Judea \John 3, 22, 26),
and which, after his departure, His Apostles administered to
believers only (Acts 8, 5, 12, 35, 39,) is " a stain on my
brow". If you desire to convince yourself that immersion
was the primitive mode of baptism, see the commentary by
Bishop Baillargeon on Romans VI, 4., also the notes in the
Manuel du Chritien^ on the same passage.
Let me say to you, my son, that this remark of yours is
entirely out of place. If there is a baptism which can be a
stain on anyone's brow, it must be that which is of human in-
vention, of which no trace can be found in the New Testa-
ment, and which was administered to me when I was an un-
conscious babe. With regard to the *' scandal " you speak
of, which as you say " calls for the vengeance of heaven,"
I may say that I can understand how the step I have taken
may seem to certain persons, especially to the Roman
Catholic clergy, a " scandal," but in the sight of God, it is a
very different thing, for it is written: "There is joy in
heaven over one sinner that repenteth," (Luke 11, 7, 16) Do
you consider it a " scandal " for one to put his trust in God, to
29
obey his commands, accept Christ as his perfect Saviour,
and to be also ready to make great sacrifices for his name-
sake. This is what I am doing. Do you believe that St.
Paul, St. Peter, and the other Apostles committed a scan-
dalous act when they left the religion of their fathers to em-
brace the religion of Christ ? The Jewish priests did think
the Apostles and Christ himself had been guilty of a " scandal"
which " called for the vengeance of heaven," and they acted
accordingly ; but Christ said to those same priests : " Ye do
make void the commandments of God by your traditions '*
(Matt IS, 3 , Mark 8, 9, 73).
Again, my son, do you think that leaving the church, which
instead of following the Word of God hides it from the people,
to join one which not only makes of that Word a rule of faith,
but which also makes sacrifices to send it to those who have
it not, it is so wicked a thing, and that to leave human in*
stitutions, and the Commandments of men, to unite with the
people of God and to obey His commandments is a crime ?
Whatever you and the priests of Rome in general may think
of my action, my son, I am convinced that in that better
world in which you say we shall meet, it will be made mani-
fest to you, that your father has not acted against his con-
victions, but in loyalty to his conscience and the teachings of
Christ. It will also appear then that what seemed to you *' a
scandal which calls for the vengeance of heaven," was an
action which called for the vengeance of Rome only.
By what principle do you claim to know what God will
tell you about your father on that day when we shall appear
before the Judgment Seat ? It might be well for you to read
the following, words : " Therefore judge nothing before the
time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the
hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels
IW
I UK''' I
III.:-
■:
ife
'
f|:
1
'1,:! '
il
ii I
■^
30
of the heart, and then shall every man have praise of God."
(i. Cor, 4, 5)
Let me tell you again that I have done the action which
so much horrifies you with my eyes open and with a clear
conscience, and because I had come to know Christ as my
personal Saviour, and to enjoy His " peace which passeth
all understanding."
Your only and last wish that I may live long " to repent of
my sin and save my soul " is an evidence that you do not
understand the fundamental question which pertains to the
soul's salvation. According to the Scriptures, my son, we
cannot save our own soul, God alone saves us through the
sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ. I have entrusted my soul
into His hands, I know whom I have believed, and I am at
rest.
Allow me, in closing, a word of advice. Take the Word of
God, read it attentively and prayerfully, follow its teachings,
thus obeying your and my only Master, Jesus Christ. And
having learned from Him the truth for yourself, preach it to
others in its purity and simplicity, and, according to His
promise, God will be with you. (Matt, XXVHI, 19, 20)
Your father,
Sept. iSth. 1892.
- if ; ty dear Father,—
Sept. 8th, 1892,
You have been obedient to the Roman Catholic Church
for at least 60 years. Has it ever wronged you f Do
you not wish to respect it ? Can you treat all those
iiin
i
31
belonging to it as lacking in intelligence ? Can you accuse
of lunacy all those who do not follow your example ? Has
this Mr. Therrien told you the truth ? Has he not apos-
tatized himself, and for what reasons ? If you have no faith
in a priest, though he is not exempt from sin, why should
you have more faith in another man who as much as a priest
is subject to sin ? If he has the right to baptize, as every-
body has, cannot the priest make use of this right also ? I
would follow your example, were I convinced that you are
doing right. But, never ! do you understand ? never t
Make enquiries as to who your minister is, and what he was
before he became a minister. I do not need a reply on this,
as I already know. Let every man wash himself with that
which suits him best, with liquor or with water.
Your son according to the flesh,
September, 1892.
Dear Father, —
You say that " we do not save our souls, but that Christ
has saved them." Then why have you received another
baptism ? The first baptism being considered valueless you
by no means needed to receive a second, if as you say, we
cannot save our own souls, but that Jesus-Christ has saved
them. There is contradiction in what you say. According
to this, there is no need of a minister to guide you, no need
of reading the Bible, since your soul is already saved. The
Apostles would have been very glad, and very happy, to have
found so easy a religion ; they might have avoided martyrdom.
I wonder if Protestant ministers have ever suffered martytdom
for the defense of their doctrines and their faith. This is
lii;!;M
|l -i
32
iiilu
liiii
indeed a curious fact. According to you, the priests have
never done anything worth doing. In matters of doctrine,
they are nothing but inovators. The sacrament of marriage
is not a sacrament, your marriage ceremony with mother
was worthless since it was performed by a priest, and your
children are therefore illegitimate. Are you so ignorant of
the Catholic doctrine as not to know that the priests also
administer baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit ? Everybody knows this, and there is no
need of a Protestant minister, nor any Protestant, to teach it
to us. The Protestant ministers came into the world long
after the Apostles. I mean the Protestant religion. You
say you believe in the doctrine, he, Mr. Therrien, teaches ;
but I say you do not believe in it, and that he believes in
your purse. A small city composed of five thousand souls
has just been converted to Catholicism. Seeing that they are
not Baptists, it must be that they are fools.
Your son who reads the Bible as well as you— Reason
that reasoneth becomes unreasonable.
m
W- '
KW
l||i
'!'"'
^l.
Maskinonge, Sept. 20th, 1892.
My dear Son, —
Your two letters were duly received, and I hasten to answer
them.
You ask me if the Catholic Church, during the 60 years I
was one of its members, has ever wronged me ? I grant that
the wrong she has done me is not as great as it might have
been. I cannot, however, give her credit for this, for I do,
not owe it to her that I have not died without knowing the
truih savingly. The wrong she has done me is the same she
33
is doing her many adherents by keeping them in comparative
ignorance of God's Word, and by directing their faith towards
things that do not save, nor give peace of mind, instead of
leading them to Christ, '" the way the truth and the life," " the
only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved,"
** the one mediator between God and man," " He who
openeth and no man shuteth, who shuteth and no man
openeih."
You will perhaps say that the Roman Catholic Church
teaches these snme things. In reply I would say, she
has done with them as with most every truth of the Gospel,
that is^ perverted them, and covered them over with supersti-
tions and errors so that it is now almost impossible to recognize
them. I never understood them as I understand them now. .
I can sincerely say that they have brought me more peace
and joy than I have ever experienced before I came to know
them as I do now. Quoting the beautiful words of David,
and applying them to myself, I can say : " The Lord has
brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the mirery
clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and estnblished my goings.
And He hath put a new song into my mouth, even praise
unto God Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord
His trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn
aside tc lies" (Psalm XL, 2, 4)
You also ask me if I consider as ignoramuses all those
who belong to the Roman Catholic Church ? I do not. I
know that there are many great, intelligent, and learned men
in her ranks. But I remember that there are intelligent and
learned men among the Jews, the Mohamedans, and the
Heathen also. I also remember that on one occasion Jesus
said : " I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and of earth,
that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent.
m
34
and hast revealed them unto babes, even so Father for so it
seemed good in thy sight/' (Luke X, 21.)
The words of Paul to the Corinthians also come to my
mind : " For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many
wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble
are called. For God hath chosen the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise, and God has chosen the weak
things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.*'
(i Cor, 1,26, 27)
You ask ; " Has that Mr. Therrien told you the truth, has
he not apostatized himself? And for what reasons ?
Enquire who is your minister, and what he was before he be-
came a minister. I need not answer this. Let each man
wash himself with what suits him best, with liquor or with
water."
I quote these words from your letter because they are char-
acteristic. It is customary with most priests (and I am sorry
to see that my son is not one of theexceptions) to insult, villify,
and to calumninate those who do not shire their ideas, or their
religious belief. Your uncharitable insinuations are entirely
without foundation, for the Mr. Therrien who has preached
to us has never apostatized, has never taken a glass of liquor
as a beverage, and has never asked me for ic ent. He can
furnish you with references from Rom in Catholics, yea, from
the priest of the parish in which he was brought up even, to
prove his respectability. He has, it is true, received in his
infancy the Roman Catholic baptism, but he was only seven
years of age when his parents left the Church of Rome, so
that he has never communed, nor has he been confirmed in
that church. He was educated in the Protestant school of
Grande Ligne, ordained to the Christian minstry at St. Pie,
Bagot Co.| in 1870, at the age of 22. You see that you are
■ ii.: I
35
so
in
of
'ie,
ire
very wrong in accusing, as you do, a man unknown to you,
and of whose antecedents you know absolutely nothing.
Besides, my son, let me tell you, that I no longer entrust
the salvation of my soul into the hands of any man. My trust
is in God, whose will I find revealed in His Word, which I
now read for myself. The prophet Jeremiah said ; " Thus
saith the Lord, cursed be the man that trusteth in man and
maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the
Lord Blessed is the man who trusteth in the Lord,
and whose hope the Lord is" .... Too long have I placed
my trust in men, I shall henceforth place it in God alone,
and look to Him through His Word for guidance, relying for
the right understanding of that Word upon the assistance of
the Holy Spirit promised " to overyone that asketh."
In preaching the Gospel to us, Mr. Therrien exhorted us
to do as the Bereans did (Acts XVII, ii) viz : "They
searched, the Scriptures daily whether those things were so."
Would to God the priests of your church did the same.
You ask me if the priests of Rome have not the right to
baptise as well as any minister ? They would certainly have
that right did they conform with the command of Christ in
the great commission, (Matt 28, 19, 20), which command was
that they should preach the Gospel and baptize believers.
But they have certainly no right to preach human traditions
and to change the ordinances of the Lord. You say again;
"Your first baptism being worthless, there was no need of
your receiving another, inasmuch as w? cannot save our souls,
as you say, but Christ saves them, there is a contradiction
here,** .
It is precisely because my first baptism was worthless that
I needed to receive the baptism which Jesus Christ ordained.
IliiP;
illlt
liil
1)
36
And the things which, on account of your unscriptural ideas
on the sacraments, seem to you contradictory, are not so to
the mind of anyone acquainted with the teachings of the New
I'estament. That we cannot save ourselves, my dear son,
and that it is God who saves us, is clearly taught in the New
Testament. Paul says ; " For by grace are we saved
through faith, and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God ;
not of works, lest any man should boast, for we are His
workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
wl.ich God hath before ordained, that we should walk in
them " (Eph. II, 8, lo,)
Is it not plai from these words that salvation is a free
gift, and that God saves 'us first and afterwards gives us
grace to walk in good works ? Life first, afterwards the
manifestations of that life. This law holds good in the
spiritual even as in the natural life. Christ saves us by His
grace when we receive him by faith, and when saved He
calls us to loving obedience, so that we serve Him not like
slaves, but like children. Confessing him by baptism is the
first public act of obedience He requires of us. We work
out in our daily life the salvation we received from Him.
And he who from all eternity had devised the glorious plan
of salvation through His son, has among other parts of that
plan ordained that we should do good works, and thus both
glorify Him and develop our own spiritual life. Our works
are therefore not the ground but the fruits of our salvation
through faith in Christ. This is sensible and scriptural.
There is then need of our being baptized, of our reading the
word of God, but not to obtain salvation through these
things ; rather to work out that which is in us, viz, spiritual
and eternal life.
** I wonder if Protestant ministers have ever suffered
martyrdom to maintain their doctrine," you say again.
37
It must be that you have not read history, or if you have,
you must have read a mutilated and falsified history, other-
wise you could not have written the above sentence. Do
read the history of the Huguenots of France, by an impartial
author. I am sure you will And therein things which will
open your eyes on this question. Or read the history of the
Waldenses, or of the Reformers before the Reformation.
Read the history of Protestant Missions, and you will learn
what true devotion means, what a great number of martyrs
there have been among Protestant ministers, or Protestant
christians in general.
You seem to think that the religion of Jesus Christ as pro-
fessed by Protestants is what sometimes is called " an easy
religion," a religion which winks at the sins of men. This
also is a grave error on your part, and unfortunately on the
part of most Roman Catholics. If renouncing sin under all
its forms to live holy lives according to the requirements of
the Gospel is easy, then our religion is an easy religion.
If you mean to say that Evangelical Christians cast aside the
yoke of bondage, made up of futile ceremonies and human
ordiances, which your Church imposes upon its adherents,
you are right. But while we cast away this yoke, we take
upon ourselves the yoke of Chsist who saves us to sanctify
us, and " make us partakers of the inheritance of the saints
in light."
What you say on the question of marriage is an evidence
of the erroneousness of your ideas on that subject, also.
First of all, according to the Gospel, marriage though a holy
and divine institution, is not a sacrament. Christ ordained
only two sacraments, viz, Baptism and the Lord's Supper,
which are not means of salvation, but symblols of divine
grace. Marriage is essentially the lighted faith before God
D
r
i
I III
I i
liifeli
38
of two hearts which unite for life, and with the view of carry-
ing out the divine intention of that institution. The marriage
ceremony, whether it be performed by a priest or a minister,
adds nothing to the act of marriage itself, except from a civil
point of viev/, so that with us, such ceremony is equally and
essentially valid whether performed by a priest or a minister.
But, according to Roman Catholic belief, marriages perform-
ed by Protestant ministers are worthless, and those who
enter such alliances live in adulteryi According to these
notions, all Protestant miiriages, not excepting that of the
Queen of England, and the President of the United States,
are mere concubinages. To be consistent, Roman Catholics
should have nothing to do with such people. The Pope
never ought to have accepted a present from the Queen, on
the occasion of his jubille. But, happily, Roman Catholics,
as a rule, are at heart better than their religious ideas, many
of which cannot stand the light of reason nor of God's word.
. I had no intention of writing so long a letter, but I could
hardly say less in answer to yours. I even feel I have not
said all I want to say.
Your Father,
October 5th, 1892,
My Dear Father, —
If Jesus had ever intended having His religion learnt from
a book. He would Himself have written this book ; but He
, has never written anything Himself, perhaps the sins of the
Pharisees, which he wrote with his finger on the sand. More-
' over, Jesus never commanded his- apostles to write.
39
St. Matthew wrote his Gospel by the request of christians
in Palestine, and St. Mark wrote his to meet the desires of
christians at Rome. St. Luke addressed his Gospel to one
man, Theophilus, having done so, said he, because " it
seemed good to me to write unto thee." St. John wrote his
and the last of the Gospels, by request of the clergy and the
people of Asia Minor, to prove the divinity of Christ,
which Cerinthe and other heretics denied. No doubt the
evangelists were inspired by the Holy Spirit in writing the
Gospels, but even in these Gospels, there is nothing to in-
dictate that they contained a complete detailed and clear
statement of Christ's religion. Lincoln, a Protestant bishop,
said : " We should not consider the Holy Scriptures as a
regular treatise on the christian religion.
A celebrated man has said ; " It would be better to live
without laws at all, than to have laws that everyone can
interpret according to his own opinion and interests."
Another has said, it is natural for error to be constantly
changing. Walton, a Protestant bishop, said, " The Word
of God does not consist in the written or printed letter, but
in its true sense.
Read the first pages of the Old and New Testaments, and
tell me candidly if there be nothing in them that you cannot
understand. If you say there is not, I will answer that you
must be privileged of God above all others as to intelligence.
Read the whole of Acts 17, and you will be convinced that
Paul told them to read the Old Testament, and that they
would therein learn all things concerning Jesus. The Gospels
of St. Matthew etc., were not yet written. They were written
several years after the death of our Saviour. What do you
make of all the people who lived and served God acceptably
before the New Testament was written ?
1 ll!'i
40
mUi]
ii'itii!
lii;! ■%'■■■
ri«':'V:=
St Jime?, Chapter V, 14 and 15, mentions a sacrament, a
duty which every priest performs even at the peril of his life.
Find me one single Protestant minister who in times of pes-
tilence, for example, would risk his life to minister to the
dying ? The reason is that they are conscious of being in
error, and do not dare to profane that sacrament. They do
not want to be called at any hour of the day, or of the night,
to give this consolation to the dying. You will perhaps say
that the epistle of James is not in your Bible. I should not
be surprised if you did, for there are many Protestant sects
who reject the epistle of James, because it does not suit
their purpose.
In Paul's epistle to the Hebrews XIII ; 17, we read :
•* Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your-
selves" etc.
Grotius, a celebrated Protestant, said : •* The Apostles in
writing their epistles had no intention of unfolding fully all
the doctrines necessary to salvation. They wrote them in-
cidentally, on such questions as presented themselves to their
minds." Lessingsaid, ** Christianity was already widespread
before the evangelists began to write the life of Christ."
Does your minister know these men ?
Christ commanded His Apostles, and their successors, to
preach His doctrine. This is the substance of the whole
matter. These Apostles thought it wise to put in writing
some of their own teachings, and some of the most striking
facts in the life of Christ. And these writings compose the
New Testament.
Jesus has never commanded anyone to write. Prove that
He did« Prove that Jesus said ; " Read the Gospels, or the
Bible, in order to be saved." Jesus preached during three
bh!*,:
41
years. The Apostles heard His preaching during this time,
and yet, they never wrote anything while tie was living.
Luther, the father of Protestantism, said : " I have tried my
very best to do away with the real presence of Christ in the
Eucharist, but I cannot succeed, the texts of the Gospels are
so clear on this point that one cannot mistake their meaning,
and it is evident from them that the body and the blood of
Christ are really in the bread, and in the wine, though their
substance remain unchanged." Protestant ministers doubt-
less say that Jesus spoke figuratively. They say the same
of all sacraments.
Tradition— St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Chapter I, 15,
*' Keep the traditions," etc.
St. John XXI, 25 ; " There are also many other things
which Jesus did, which i*" they should be written, everyone, I
suppose that even the world itself could not contain the
books which should be written." " Though I have many
other things to write, I will not do so with paper and ink,
hoping to see you soon face to face."
" Sign of the Cross " Milner, a Protestant minister and a
distinguished writer, declares that the sign of the cross was
universally used during the first five centuries of the Church.
Molheim says the same thing. Not one Protestant makes
the sign of the cross.
I cannot write any more, as I am much hurried, having to
oversee the building of the new church in my parish.
Farewell, if you will yield to the truth, I will write to you
from time to time.
Your Son,
iree
ill
m.
42
Maskinong^ Bridge, Canada,
October, 1892.
My dear Son, —
I am very glad indeed to notice a marked progress in the
tone and tenor of your letters. Your last is a decided im-
provement upon those which preceded it.
You touch in a cursery manner upon a number of ques-
tions, which it is impossible to answer with any degree of
thoroughness without going beyond the proper limits of a
letter; so that if in answering them, I do not accumulate argu-
ment upon argument, and proof upon proof, you will, I trust,
ascribe the reason for this to no other cause than that of lack
of time and space.
You say that Jesus *• never wrote anything, and never
commanded His Apostles to write." Well, let us see.
This is what he told His disciples before leaving them :
" Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth has come, he will
guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself,
but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak .... and he
will show you things to come ..,.., He shall glorify me,
for he shall receive of mine and shall show it into you."
On the day of Penticost, Jesus, according to his promise,
sent the Holy-Spiiit to His Apostles, and as you yourself
declaic, they wrote under the inspiration of this Holy Spirit
which they had received. Is it not, then, Jesus who as a
matter of fact, wrote through His Apostles ? In John II, i.,
we are told that Jesus baptized more disciples than John the
Baptist, and the next verse informs us, that " Jesus baptized
not himself, but his disciples." The first statement is made
on the basis that any action done through another, is to all
|i:t/.':
43
intents and purposes, as if done by the person himself. This
being so, it is not therefore conformable with facts to affirm
that " Jesus never wrote anything, nor has he commanded
his disciples to write." But, there remains the fact that in
one instance at least, Jesus did command one of His apostles
to write; for we read, Rev. I, ii., that Jesus appearing to
John in the island of Patmos said to him, — " What thou
seest write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches
which are in Asia."
Now, if Christ caused the inspired writers to put in writing
the substance of His and their own teachings, was it not His
intention, and His expectation that these writings should be
read? And, inasmuch as He siid. Rev. 1:3: " Blessed is
he that readeth and they that hear the words of this prophesy,
and keep those things that are written therein," words which
composed of all the books of the Bible the most difficult to
understand, does it not follow that whosoever reads the other
books also, which are not only far easier to understand, but
which treat of the great fundamental questions pertaining to
salvation, will also be " blessed"? What of it if, as you say,
quoting the words of a Protestant Bishop (probably a prelate
of the Hight Church of England, so nearly related to the
Roman Catholic Church,) " The Holy Scriptures should
not be considered as regular treatises on religion," ? Inas-
much as in these same Scriptures are found numerous pass-
ages urging every man to read them, ought we not therefore,
in obedience to these commands of God, to read them and
take them for what they claim to be, viz, the source of true
wisdom and of divine truth ? Nature is not a regular treatise
on science, and yet is she not the source of all true science ?
Here are passages of Scripture which show clearly that it was
God's will we should seek in His written Word, the truths
necessary for salvation, and which are to be the foundation
44
M
ll
of true christian character," The law of the Lord is perfect
converting the soul^ the testimony of the Lord is sure making
wise the simple. The commandment of the Lord is pure en-
lightening the eyes. Blessed is the man who delighteth in the
law of the Lord, and doth meditate therein day and night.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of Godj and is prof table
for doctrine, for reprojffor correction, for instruction in right
eousness that the m%n of God may be perfect, throughly fur-
nished unto all good works" (Ps. XIX, 7, 8/ Ps, I, 2., 2
Tim. Ill, 16, 17'
If the Word ci - n make a man " perfect " what better
can we do than to " read, mark and inwardly digest " its teach-
ings? Not wish ;: o bmd'^^n this letter with this subject, I
will stop here, but will ^end ;or i tract by an ex-priest on
this question. It will more fully unfold my own thoughts
and convictions.
I now come to the great question of interpretation. You
quote Walton who says, " The word of God does not
consist in the written or printed letter, but in its true sense."
With all due respect to Walton, I may remark that it is
nevertheless the written letter which is the word of God,
although as every mm must know, it is the "true sense " of
the letter, or of the written word, which expresses God's
thoughts. But who is going to give us this " true sense " of
the Scriptures ? Ah ! this is the great battle field where
many a battle has been fought between Roman Catholics
and Protestants. It would require a volume to exhaust this
question, and yet I must confine myself to a few lines.
Let me remark, first, that it is not necessary for one to
become acquainted with all the teachings of Scriptures to find
in them the way of salvation. This way is so plainly taught,
that any min may find it. The converted thief on the cross
45
knew very little of Scripture, much less of theology, and yet
Christ said to him : " To-day shalt thou be with me in para-
dise." Where is the man who could not understand this
beautiful verse of John III, i6 ? " God so loved the worlds
that he gave His only begotten son^ that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish^ but have everlasting life" This
single text may lead a man to God and to Heaven. In fact,
many have thus been led by it.
Secondly, the words of the New Testament are the same
which Jesus and the Apostles addressed to the common
people of their time, Jesus preached to the multitudes, and it
is the substance of these same discourses which we have
to-day. The Apostles addressed their epistles to the
" faithful " in general, and not to the clergy only. If the
common people understood them then, why should we not
now ?
Thirdly, if I cannot understand Christ ^nd the Apostles
when they speak to me, shall I better understand when men
who are not inspired of God speak to me ? Does the fact
that a man is inspired of God make his language less in-
telligible ?
Fourthly, everywhere in Scriptures, the reading of them
is recommended, but nowhere do we find an allusion to an
" infalliable tribunal " to interpret them. The Holy Spirit
is the only authority and guide promised in the search of
spiritual truth through the Word of God.
Moreover, this so called '* infalliable tribunal " of Rome,
when shall it ever give us an official interpretation of the
Bible ? Nearly 1,900 years have elapsed and it has not yet
done so. How then shall we be enabled to follow the ex-
hortations of this Holy Book which urges us to read its con-
tents for our edification and salvation ?
11?
i'-MV
lit
P
V'
'1!.
JipiHiIii'";*' ■
iiiii!
li'&ii
i^
M
46
Fifthly, if in order to be saved, it is absolutely necessary
that I should receive the truth through an infallible channel,
which according to your church is none else than the Pope
himself, I find myself in a difficult position ; for I am told that
neither the bishops, nor the priests, to whom alone 1 have
access are infalliable. As to the Pope, I can never expect to
be instructed by him personally. It follows that the teach-
ings of the Catholic Church ^omes to me through a fallible
channel ; I am therefore not at all certain that I receive it in
its purity. Again, were I so highly privileged as to be in-
structed by the Pope personally, inasmuch as I am not myself
infallible, I could not be certain that I understood the Pope
in an infallible manner. For, after ail, it is / that must
understand. It follows therefore, and this is what I was
coming at, that I must after all receive thi; truth as best I
can with my own faculties, aided and enlightened by such
light as God may see fit to grant me through His Holy Spirit.
And I think it wiser, and surer to seek the truth in the Word
of God, rather than in the teachings of men who have not
more than myself the monopoly of the Holy Spirit. I am
convinced that even if I should not interpret all the texts of
the Scriptures infallibly, as long as I find therein truths which
regenerate my heart, sanctify my life, which cause me to hate
evil, to love God and my neighbor, and especially to find in
Christ a perfect Saviour, I feel quite at rest. One could not
find as much, I am convinced, in the Church of Rome, where
everything is vague and uncertain, and nothing gives true
satisfaction to the soul.
You ask me to read the 17th Chapter of Acts. Well, I
have read it again, and find, as I did before, that the Bereans
are praised for searching the Scriptures in order to see whether
or not what the Apostle Paul taught was in harmony with
47
them. I conclude therefore, that we should do the same,
that when a man, or a church whatsoever, teaches us certain
things which he, or she, claims to come from God, we are to
judge of them in the light of Scripture.
Luther did not believe in transubstantiation as your letter
infers, but in consubstantiation, which is quite another thing.
However, he was on this point still in error. Had he been
so wicked a man as your church represents him, he would not
have scrupled to rejecte consubstantiation as well as transub-
stantiation and other Romish doctrines. His continuance in
a doctrine partly Romish shows that notwithstanding his im-
perfections, inherent to human nature, he was nevertheless,
honest and sincere. Be this as it may, neither Luther nor
any other man is our master in religious matters. Christ
alone is our master.
The passages which you quote for the support of your
Romish doctrine of tradition, are not at all convincing. 2
Thess. II, 15, shows that the word "tradition" was not
used by the Apostles in the sense in which the Roman
Catholic Church uses it, for the Apostle speaks of a tradition,
which ye have learned either by words or by letter." These
letters to which he refers form a part of the New Testament,
and nothing proves that he did not embody in them the
" words " to which he alludes, for these letters were written
at a later date. At all events, it is evident that the word
•' tradition " is here used, as it had oflener than otherwise
been used by the writers of the first centuries, in the sense of
** teaching,'* whether this teaching was written, or oral.
It is well to note that there is a great difference between the
teaching of an Apostle who had received his knowledge
directly from Christ, and the teaching of men living 18 cen-
turies later, which teaching, in many cases, does not harmonise
48
! ' i'
IPI't *'J'
with that of the New Testament. John XX, 30, 31 proves
that " the other things " spoken of in John XX, 25 are not
necessary to salvation, inasmuch as those things which he
wrote about are written " that ye might believe and have life
through His name"
Hebrews xiii, 15 teaches that we should respect those
who are appointed to instruct us in religious things, but
that text does not at all mean that these teachers may exercise
authority and dominion over the people as do the priests,
the bishops, and especially the Pope; for Jesus told His
disciples explicitly : "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles
exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise
authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you "
etc., Matth, XX, 25, 26.
James V., 14, 15, makes no mention of the doctrine of
extreme unction, since the Apostle there speaks of the heal-
ing of the sick, whereas, as its name indicates, your sacra-
ment of extreme unction is given only in extremis^ with
a view to preparing the sick for death. Moreover, Christ
has never instituted that sacrament. He has never said a
word about it, nor His Apostles ; whilst in the New Tes-
tament, mention is repeatedly made of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper.
As to the sign of the cross, there is nothing in the New
Testament about it either. As a sign to recognise one
another when the primitive christians were obliged, in certain
circumstances, to hide their faith in order to escape death,
this sign may have been of some use to them ; although even
this is doubtful, for it may have been a temptation for them
to place their light " under a bushel." But to-day, this sign
is certainly nothing but a useless and childish form. God
does not look to outward forms, much less to gestures, but
m^^:'i:
49
to the sentiments of the heart. Unfortunately, the Church
of Rome cultivates a great deal too much, among the ignorant
people especially, that superstitious spirit which attaches
virtue to exterior forms and ceremonies, to amuUttes^ such
as scapularies, medals, holy water, etc. These things, helas !
too often take the place of " faith, hope, and charity," and
of other christian graces. This superstitious worship which
often amounts to idolatry, is far from being that of which
Christ spoke to the Samaritan woman, when he said : ** God
is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in
Spirit and in truth," (John 4, 24.) This is the way in which
I desire henceforth to worship him.
Your father who prays for you,
Correspondence between a Montreal Roman Catholic
Lawyer and his Protestant cousin of Maskinongi.
Montreal, Sept. 23rd., 1892.
My Dear Cousin, —
We both bear an honorable name, we are of the same age^
and related to one another. For these considerations, you
will pardon me if I take the liberty to write to you on a sub-
ject which from the two fold points of view of faith and
family honor I consider of great importance.
You already suspect that I am alluding to your outward
repudiation of your religion, which has been wrenched from
you, and of the false baptism which you have accepted
E
;{■ •;■
ra^
;-!?
SE i
60
from the hands of Apostasy, in a religion foreign to our
Catholic faith and our family traditions. Be assured, how-
ever, that I am not going to address you in bitter words.
Divine things, and things which are of the heart's experiences
are too sacred, too pure, and too serious, to be exposed to
the contact of the impure passions of men.
My only desire is to converse calmly with you as I so often
•do by my fire side with my wife and the two children which
we both worship, on the important affairs of life. I wish to
open my heart to you, and to let it speak to you alone.
Well my dear cousin, have you seriously thought upon the
extreme gravity of what you have done, and the fearful re-
sponsibility which now rests on your soul and conscience ?
It is not my desire to discuss the circumstances which have
led to the building of the chapel at Maskinongd. I know
that you will speak of violated promises, of injustice, of un-
fortunate provocations, etc, etc. I admit all this, and with-
but any discussion. But this injustice, however great it may
have been, could not furnish you a sufficient reason, not even
a plausible pretext, to trouble as you did your own conscience,
bring disorder into your own soul, break the bonds of family
and religious tradition, rain your happiness for life and for
eternity.
You^ wish to revenge yourself, but against whom ?, against
your bishop ? against your priest ? and this is why you forsake
your religion? Who, then, will you punish through this
revenge ? Yourself and yourself only. " To ruin one's self
in revenging one's self is to secure no real satisfaction*"
But before going further, my dear cousin, I must tell you
that I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the ministers
of the Protestant faith, however wily they may be, have
really succeeded in destroying in your heart the remembrance
Blur': V
iil;i^.'
61
of your Catholic life. Such sacred things can never be for-
gotten. They possess the characteristic permanency of
Baptism.
Pray tell me, do you not indeed love to recall to your
mind the sweet and pure joys of your first communion ?
Morning and evening, do you not find in your heart, and
upon your lips, those blessed words of prayer addressed to
our Father in heaven, and to the Mother of God and the
Saints, which you have learned in your younger days, on the
knees of your good and pious mother ? Do you not still
think of those pious exercises of the rosary said in the family
circle every evening of the year, and especially in the beautiful
month of Mary, and that other month dt oted to prayers for
the dead ? Tell me frankly, do you not find it to-day as in
former days, a blessed and consoling thing to pray for the
dead, for your friends, for your relatives, and for your
own children ? Do you not feel called upon to ask Mary,
the tender and powerful mother of the afflicted, to implore
upon these dear departed ones, the clemency and the mercy
of God her Son ?
In a word, is it not true that the sweet and consoling
beliefs of the Roman Catholic faith are still living in your
soul, and that you are still filled with the happiness and
the joys which flow from sources so abundant and so pure ?
No, I cannot believe it, no one has succeeded in wrenching
from your heart the blessed hope of salvation which these
things have impressed upon your Catholic soul. Notwith-
standing the vulgar mask of Apostacy which has been placed
upon your face, you still remain my brother in the faith,
as you are my brother by the ties of flesh and blood. I
appeal to your own heart, how could dutiful children with a
kindly heart in their breast, ever renounce the faith and the
•m
62
traditions received from their parents as a precious heritage
to be transmitted intact to their children, as the sure token of
their eternal salvation.
'^'' ;l:|!l
%m
I ml
You are asked to renounce, to tread under your feet, and
to curse the Catholic religion. But I ask you, my dear
cousin, why should you commit such a crime ? Is it not the
Catholic religion which has blessed you on your entrance
into this life, and which has elevated you to the dignity of a
son of God, and an heir of Jesus Christ ? On the day of
your first communion, the Catholic religion has again bless-
ed you, and in that great festive day of your life (you remem-
ber it as if it were yesterday) impelled by an impulse of
gratitude for the benefits you received from this religion of
love, have you not uttered in your heart freely, audibly, and
with legitimate pride, and the glory that belongs to a valiant
soldier, in the presence of heaven and the purity of your
youthful heart, the sacred and eternal vows of your Catholic
Baptism ?
** On this day, and for my whole life I freely take these
vows upon myself."
This is the hymn you sang with so much enthusiasm,
liappiness, gratitude and love. Have you forgotten these
solemn vows ? Is it not also the Catholic religion which has
blessed your sacred union with the companion of your life,
before the altar of God, under the eyes of angels and the
Blessed Virgin Mary.
And the dear children with whom heaven has blessed your
wedded life, did not the Catholic religion bless them ? And
while the holy water of Baptism streamed on their innocent
faces, did not your heart beat with joy and gratitude ?
§}:,
53
And when death entered your home, and the pale h'ght of
holy candles shone upon the lifeless form of your loved ones,
did not the Catholic religion hasten to bring to you the con-
solation of her prayers, and to bless the mortal remains of
those whom death had robbed from your affections ? No, my
dear cousin, you have not reflected upon these things, other-
wise never could you have been induced to play the part of
an apostate, to insult the sweet and loving religion which, in
the bright days of your past life, you fondly professed, and
to blaspheme against it.
One last word, and I am done. It is a pious and comfort-
ing belief in our religion, that the families of earth are reunited
in heaven. If this be the case, (and why should it not ?) is
it not an excellent reason for us to walk together in the path
of life, on our way to eternity, that path which our own parents
have opened before us ? Will it not be making ourselves
guilty of culpable rashness to undertake so serious a journey
by travelling in untried, unknown, and suspicious paths,
paths which our fathers have never been willing to walk in?
My dear cousin, I felt impelled to write you these things.
I hope you will not be vexed with me, and that you will
pardon the liberty I took of writing to you about that unfor-
tunate affair of August 2Sth. Pardon also the frankness
with which I express to you the pain, the anguish, which my
soul so profoundly Catholic has felt on hearing of the stealthy
entrance of Apostasy in our family circle.
Now, my friend, let us be guilty of weakness, of ingratitude,
I appeal to you in the name of the respect we owe to the
memory of our departed parents, who sleep the long sleep
of death in the cemetery consecrated by the Catholic religion.
November will soon be here, it is the month of the dead, the
Church on earth devotes the whole of that month to the
I) ■
54
memory of the departed ones. She, as a good mother, re-
members her absent children, let us not forget our friends,
our dear departed relatives, who, perhaps, suffer for us in the
flames of Purgatory. Our prayers can help them, and hasten
the longed for day of their deliverance. Let us hold fast to
the faith of our fathers, to the religion of our beloved
mothers, and to the honor of our own name.
Pi!'
I f Uli*
,!. , j.
Believe jne for ever, my cousin,
Your obedient servant.
Maskinong^, 30 Sept., 1893.
My dear Cousin,
I received your letter of the 23rd inst., and I have read it
with both interest and surprise. I admire its intentions and
style; but its contents seem to me, to say the least, very super-
ficial and strange. Although not so well educated as you
are, I am not for all that devoid of common sense and under-
standing. Sentimentality is a good thing in its place, and is
found in all persons of high moral character ; but it seems to
me quite unwise to make of questions pertaining to truth and
conscience, matters of mere sentimentality, as you do in your
letter. Moreover, there is in it, under the guise of moderation,
an accusation of hypocrisy, of which if I were guilty would
render me unworthy of the respect and affection you profess
towards me.
55
You insinuate that I abjured the Roman Catholic faith,
not out of sincere convictions, nor for the love of truth, but
simply through a factious and revengeful spirit.
You are in regard to this, as well as in regard to almost
every point you touch in your letter, utterly in error. With-
out hoping to convince you of this by a single letter, I never-
theless desire to state briefly, why and with what sentiments
I have done what seems to you so abominable.
I have not, my dear cousin, taken that step without reflec
tion, nor without having pondered well all its consequences
both for time and eternity. I acknowledge that the mis-
deeds of the Catholic clergy, have had something to do with
the opening of my eyes to the light of truth. I came to see
that I had entertained an erroneous conception of the char-
acter of the priests. I used to regard every priest as a kind
of demigod ; but it must be acknowledged that late events
are calculated to dispell this illusion ; and my late experience
with the clergy has led me to suspect the character of their
teachings under the influence of which their own character
has been formed. Nevertheless, this would not have sufficed
to make me abandon the religion taught me in my infancy
and in the years of my early manhood. I would have con-
tinued in it, had not God in his love and mercy sent me in an
altogether unexpected manner, the knowledge of the christian
religion as taught by Christ Himself, and his Apostles, and
as understood and practised by the early Christians.
It was the preaching of the Gospel in its sublime simplicity
and purity, joined with the reading of the Holy Scriptures,
which have quite opened my eyes, and persuaded me that in
order to follow their teachings, I had to sever my connection
from a church which has disfigured and materialized christ-
'^:
,4
ii
56
il-'
''if"?.' '
ianity, and which for the divine authority of the Holy Scrip-
tures, has substituted a purely human authority.
That, my dear cousin, is the real question. Direct your
artillery on this point, and I will hear what you have to say ;
but do not attempt to win me back to your faith thrqugh silly
arguments, based on mere sentimentality, and which can
have no influence on thinking men.
If, as your letter infers, it were necessary to remain in the
religion of our fathers, and on account of the associations of
childhood, to remain attached to family and ecclesiastical
traditions, transmitted to us from generation to generation,
it would follow therefrom that missionary enterprise among
the Jews, the Mohamedans and the Heathen would be a
crime against the laws of God. It would also follow that
the apostles and all those who followed their example would
have committed an unpardonable sin by leaving the religion of
their fathers, Judaism, to accept that of Christ, and that
those Protestants who become Catholics would be "renegades "
and "apostates," as you (Catholics) are so fond of calling
those who leave your church to follow the teachings of Christ.
That such puerile reasoning should be indulged in by intelli-
gent men seems very strange to me indeed.
I am anxious to remind you that in leaving the Church of
Rome I have not renounced all its teachings : for, what she
teaches in conformity with the Scriptures I believe, and de-
sire to practise : but that which she has borrowed from Juda-
ism and Paganism, or which she herself has invented and
added to Christian doctrine, and to the simple worship of
the primitive Church, I reject. I do not recognize the right
of any man or church to alter the doctrine of Christ or to
change his ordinances.
ill:
57
Show me in the New Testament, my dear cousin, the
Papacy, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, Auricular Con-
fession, Communion with bread alone. Infant Baptism, the
Invocation of Saints, the Worship of the Virgin Mary, the
use of a foreign tongue in public worship, the Rosery, and
the numberless ceremonies through which superstition is
fostered among the ignorant classes, and infidelity among the
educated — show me those things in the New Testament, and
I shall accept them.
I presume this language of mine shocks you. You con-
sider it the mark of pride and presumption. Well, be it so,
such was the feeling which the Pharisees, the doctors of the
law and the High Priest, in the time of Christ had towards
those who listened to and followed him, when he preached
throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria. Fishermen like
Peter and Andrew, James and John, and tax gatherers as
Matthew, followed Christ without previously consulting the
hierarchy of Jerusalem. That is what made those men who
had " the key of knowledge, and entered not themselves,
but hindered those who would enter," say, " This generation
is cursed not knowing the law." And yet, it was that
" generation " which did know at least the spirit of the law,
and which through a faith produced in them by the Holy
Spirit, accepted Jesus as " The Christ, the Son of the living
God."
!«.!
I am convinced that such is the case today, and that
agrees not only with History which constantly repeats
itself, but also with the words of Christ, who said : " I
thank thee. Father, Lord of Heaven and '^arth, that thou hast
hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed
them unto babes."
I'll!
II'
ill
h-i
■■,11
■If?" ':
•■;;*:i'^.
68
You speak of " Prayers to the Mother of God, and to
the Saints," also of *' Pious recitations of the Rosery, ' and
of " Prayers for the dead." I answer briefly, that the eternal .
and infinite God can have no mother, that in teaching His
disciples to pray, Jesus did not say : " Our Mother who art
in heaven," etc, but " Our Father " etc. Neither Christ nor
His Apostles have ever said a word about praying to any
other but to God himself through Jesus Christ. On the con-
trary they said : *' There is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (i Tim. 2, 5)
As to the Rosery, Christ has condemned it beforehand, when
he said : •* When thou prayest use not vain repetitions as the
heathen do, for they think that they will be heard for their
much speaking " (Matt. 6, 7.)
Regarding the dead, I leave them where Christ and the
apostles left them, viz,, in God's hands, who said in His
word : ** After death, the judgment," and : " The place
where the tree falleth, there it shall be" (Heb. 9, 27, Ecc.
1 1, 3.) Those who die " in Christ " are with Him, and need
not our prayers, and those who die out of Christ have no
need of our prayers either, inasmuch as according to the
Scriptures, their doom is sealed. No where in Scripture are
prayers for the dead commanded or recommended, and I do
not wish to go beyond that which is written, and make myself
wiser than God.
The Church of Rome has invented many rites and ceremon-
ies which are highly esteemed among men, but we should
not forget the words of our Master, who said : " That which
is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight
of God." (Luke XVI ; 15.) And also that. other saying :
*' Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted
shall be rooted up," (Matt. XV, 13.
iif-,
59
Grand ceremonies, superstitious mysticism, and the pomp
of formalism can never take the place of true regeneration
through the Holy Spirit, of " repentr.nce not to be repented
of," of a true and living faith in Christ, and of implicit
obedience to His commands.
You close your letter by exhorting me to hold fast to the
faith of our fathers and to the honor of our name. Pray tell
me, if our fathers have walked in darkness, must we do the
same ? " If the blind lead the blind," said Jesus," they both
shall fall into the ditch." (Matt, XV, 14.) As to the honor of
my name, I consider it a far greater duty to keep it honorable
in the sight of God by obeying Him, than to make it honor-
able among mortal men. Fidelity to God and to conscience,
this is that in which true honor consists. If I be rejected and
despised of men, I take comfort in the thought that Christ
also was " rejected and dispised," and that Paul has said :
" All they that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
persecution, (2 Tim. 3, 12.)
Thanking you for your good intentions, of which I am not
oblivious, and wishing you the same joy I experienced in
following the truth of the Gospel, I remain, dear cousin,
Yours truly,
K:
Montreal, Oct. 15th, 1892.
My dear Cousin, —
Your honored letter of Sept. 30th, reached me on the 5th
instant, I presume the interesting messenger met with some
misfortune on its way, or was detained in the pocket of some
60
,?'!!
.;
idleing post man, for though dated Maskinong^ Sept 30th, it
was posted in Montreal only Oct 4th. You will allow me to
congratulate you on the remarkable progress you have made
in your new religious studies. Having made such progress
in so short a time, you may expect to be ere long proclaimed
a Doctor of Divinity among the doctors of the Baptist circle.
Indeed, you know thoroughly, and have at your fingers'
end, as it were, the whole of the Scriptures.
The Old and New Testaments contain no longer any secrets
for you. It must be ironically that you make an apology for
your letter, which in reality is a well of learning.
You must have read between the lines of my letter, to find
in it accusations of hypocrisy and dishonesty which are cer-
tainly not there in reality. I regret very much that my re
marks should have occasioned so false an interpretation of
my sentiments. Rest assured, my dear cousin, that I had
not the slightest intention of accusing you of such wicked
things. It is not customary for me to use insult, I do not
see why I should use it in addressing one whom I have ever
so many reasons to respect, and esteem.
Moreover, what motive could I have had to grieve you,
inasmuch as I was not writing you to open a controversy,
but nierely as a friend, a relative, a brother, without any
mental reservation ? Far from me, then, the thought of
questioning your sincerity, and the unselfishness of your
motives in your outward acceptance of a new baptism.
So it is, you sincerely believe that your father, your mother,
your children, your wife, your brothers and sisters, and all
your Catholic relatives, are lost in the darkness of perdition.
You believe without a shadow of a doubt that you and your
ten companions are the only ones in Maskinong^ who are
fell I
61
walking in ** the way, the truth, and the life," and that those
blessed rebaptized ones, will alone reach the eternal glory
which God reserves for the elect.
Such is your firm, strong, immovable belief. I profoundly
respect it. For, honest convictions, unalloyed with the im-
purity of evil human passions, I always hold as worthy of
respect. You alone know the real condition of your soul as
to this. You alone can testify to the calm, simple sincerity
of your new religious convictions.
Have therefore, I pray you, no more evil thoughts about
me. Believe, rather, in the sincerity of my good wishes for
your own prosperity, and that of your family.
Your letter is full of spite, of provocations, and of attacks
agiitist the Catholic religion and its ministers. You adopt
this aggressive tone under the pretext of answering what you
call my " trifles." Verily, my dear cousin, you have mis-
understood my letter, and misinterpreted the family spirit,
and the kindly feelings which inspired it. You seem to con-
sider me as an enemy who seeks to do you harm, and to
take advantage of your honesty, rather than like a friend, a
brother, who speaks as a friend and brother.
I have no talent nor taste for religious controversies.
Moreover, as St. Paul says ; ** Are all apostles, are all
doctors " ? I have no desire to discuss either with you or
anyone else. If I had, the many duties of my official life
would prevent me absolutely from realzing that desire. And
as I am neither an apostle, nor a doctor, nor a prophet, nor
the son of a prophet, I acknowledge my unworthiness, and
my inability to assume a part blessed with so much grandeur
and responsibility.
P
&
i'f
m"^
62
I knov— and it suffices me— that faith is the gift of God,
that our fathers possessed the faith of Christ, and the beliefs
of my fathers are all in my heart. Notwithstanding my
numerous faults and failures, I keep this faith, the token of a
future life, to transmit it to those who are dependent upon
me. I therefore, strive to do the works which faith com-
mands me to do. You know how great, vivifying, and full of
■comfort they are for those who p assess the unspeakable gift
of Christ.
i''.rty
t'i-Vr
m
■t '■ !■
■:;;■*.;'■
w
li
'1'5 ■
The Protestant doctrine is too cold, too barren of good
works, of true devotion and sacrifices, to be the religion of
the God of love and charity who died on the cross for us,
and whom we worship. Moreover, the Protestant doctrine
is of human invention and of recent date, judge for yourself.
Protestants exist since 300 years only. They were born in
1518.
For nearly 2,000 years now. Catholics have believed in Jesus
Christ made flesh of us, in the Catholic Church, the com-
munion of saints, the remission of sin, the resurrection of
the flesh and eternal life. Catholics are of the same age as
the God man. They belonged to the apostolic family ;
among our ancestors are found millions of poatiffs, doctors,
martyrs, virgins, and confessors of the faith of Christ. Under
the guidance of the chief of the Apostles, and of His suc-
cessors in the Church, Catholics have now for nearly twenty
centuries followed the teachings of Christ.
I know — and that suffices me — that the Catholic Church
is the only true Church founded on Christ. Our Saviour said :
" There shall be one flock, and one shepherd," (John 10,
16.)
IV
** There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism"' (Eph. 4, 3,)
** By one spirit are we all baptized into one body " (i Cor.
*' So we being many are one body in Christ " (Rom 1 2, 5.)
The one fiock designated by Christ is in my opinion the
Roman Catholic Church. God could not have alluded in
those words to Protestantism, because first, it did not then
exist, and because also since its beginning, Protestantism is
divided into a thousand sects, of different flocks. The only
shepherd for me is the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
It is he whom Christ has constituted the visible head of the
Church here below, when he said to St. Peter : " Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock shall I build my Church, etc.''
" Strengthen thy brethren in the faith, I will give you the
keys of the kingdom."
Luther himself recognized the Pope as Christ's interpreter
in this world : " Your voice, he wrote to Leo X, is the voice
of Christ, I shall not question it." Condemned by the
Bishops of Germany, the universities of France and of Italy,
this apostate monk said to the holy fathers envoy : " There
is another voice to be heard yet, which is worth all other
voices. I beseech you to place this difficulty before our Holy
Father, Leo X." Luther, as you know, was the founder of
Protestantism.
»
•The true baptism for me is the Catholic baptism, which
makes us Christians, children of God, and of the Church.
It is the baptism the Lord commanded his apostles to ad-
minister to all nations (Matt. 28, 19,) and which is necessary
to salvation, (John 8, 5.) " Go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit."
■ft
11!
64
i'
My dear cousin, I cannot believe that those words of our
Saviour have reference to Protestant baptism, inasmuch as
Protestantism did not exist when they were written ; for the
Protestant Church, divided and subdivided into sixty different
and conflicting sects was established 1518 years after the
foundation of the Catholic Church by Jesus Christ.
It suffices me to know also, that before his ascension,
Christ said to His apostles ; " All power is given me in heaven
and in earth, go ye therefore and teach all nations....
teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded
you, and lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world." (Matt. XXVIII ; 19, 20) I deliver into your hands
the power which I receive from my Father." (John XX. :
21.) "He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that de-
spiseth you, despiseth me." Luke X, t6.) " If any man
heareth not the church, let him be as a heathen man and a
publican." (Matt. XVIII ; 17.) "The gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. (Mark 15, 18.)
W"
mm-'
1! '«i' .
Common sense tells me that these powers and promises of
immortality were not given to the apostles exclusively, but
also to all their successors in the faith. You will acknowledge
that Jesus was not without knowing that his apostles would
die. If he had intended his powers to be transmitted id
them only, why should he have taken pains to tell thei j
would be with them even unto the end of the world ? hy
should he have said to Peter, that the gates of hell would
hot prevail against the Church ?
Will anyone dare to affirm that those words can be applied
to Protestantism, which was invented 15 18 years later by an
unfrocked and adulterous monk ?
65
P
My faith in the Catholic doctrine rests upon the divine pre-
cepts of Christ transmitted to us by the apostles. I thank
God I believe in the divinity of the Church, in the infallibility,
in matters of faith, of her supreme head upon earth, also in
the necessity of hearing and practicing the teachings of the
Church ; and it is my desire to attain after this life unto the
blessedntsj of the elect.
Among those dogmas and practices, 1 include the sacra-
ments of Baptism, of Penitence, of the Eucharist, of Con-
firmation, of Auricular Confession, the existence of Purgatory,
the efficacy of Prayers for the Dead, and of the worship of
the Virgin Mary, of the Holy Angels, and the Saints. I be-
lieve that all the pious manifestations of exterior worship are
of great utility to the christian, to enable him to walk in the
way which leads to supreme happiness. I could easily quote
words of Christ and of Apostolic teachings in support of these
beliefs, but I have not the time to do so to-day ; and, more-
over, what need is there for me to prove these things to you,
when I know you still believe in the doctrines of the Catholic
Church, which you received on the knees and from the lips
of your good mother, and which you practiced with so much
love before the altars of the " little church at the foot of the
hill."
You are asked, my dear cousin, to deny the beliefs which
we received from our fathers, and in order to succeed in the
accomplishment of this work of destruction, a difficulty, a
moment of public excitement, is taken advantage of. Isolated
fac* the fall of the renegade and sacriligious priest Guilhot
(who has just unfrocked and turned Protestant)* are made
the most of, and the ministers of the false religion leave no
stone unturned to raise doubt in our hearts against the
* This is untiue, and a mere slur on Protestants.
I
h
I fW!
66
Catholic faith, and to cast prejudices in our minds against
Catholic priests.
You are made to say in your letter that the faults you haw
long observed in several Catholic priests have largely contri-
buted to the decrease of your faith in the doctrines which
have formed their character.
Allow me to call your attention to the fact, my dear cousin,
that this is not the way in which should reason one who
claims to have, in the last three months, received his inspira-
tions directly from the Holy Spirit. Speak frankly, and tell
ine if it is not a grain of offended pride rather than the pre-
tended faults of a few priests which have been the principal
cause of the difficulties in Maskinong^ ; and also the cause
of your separation from the Catholic Church ? I have no
reason to believe that any other feeling has influenced your
action and your ideas in this unfortunate circumstance.
If you study the history of the Church, you will see that
the coarsest and lowest passions of the human heart have
been, with pride, the cause of all apostasies, which have
arisen in the Catholic Church from its foundation till now.
Why is it that every day a large number of educated and res-
pectable scismatics abandon Protestant error to embrace
Catholic truth, while none but proud, adulterous, degraded,
and drunken priests become Protestants ? Pride and adultery
have lead the van in the introduction of Protestantism into
the world. This is the unchallenged teaching of history.
My dear cousin, you would not dare to place in your wife's
and children's hands the filthy writings of Luther, Calvin,
Henry VHI, and Chiniquy. And these men are the pro-
genators and propagators of the religion which " after serious
reflection " you have embraced, as you are made to say in
67
your letter. The Catholic religion originated on Golgotha's
Calvary. It has come, as it were, from the heart of Christ,
and has been sprinkled with the blood of martyrs, our fathers
in the faith.
But, let us recur to our observations in relation to the
faults of priests, and the impressions unfavorable to religion
which they have produced upon your mind. Are you sure
you have not greatly exaggerated these faults ? Moreover,
do you know of any man on earth, even in Maskinong6,
who is faultless ? Have you not your faults as I also have
mine ; and do you think that the ministers who teach the
Bible to you are as pure and as white as snow ? Does not
christian charity require you to bear with the faults of others
and to forgive them ?
But let us examine the futility of this reasoning of yours.
When there are weeds in your fields and worms in your
garden, do you conclude from that, that your grain and your
fruit are bad ? Because there are poor artists, will you
maintain that music, painting, sculpture, are vulgar and de-
testable arts ? Because angels have fallen in heaven, will
you dare to say that the heavenly hosts are all agencies of
corruption, pestilence, and pride ? Should one of your
children bring dishonor to your family, would you, on that
account, consider your whole family accursed and unworthy
of all respect and confidence ? Is not the fall of the angels
rather the evidence of the justice of God, who hurled those
proud rebels into eternal flames ? Do not the faults, the
baseness, even the crimes of a few prevaricating priests, who
forget and degrade themselves, only prove the weakness and
perversity of the human heart ? Do they not set in a more
resplendent light the powerful protection which God exer-
cises over His church on earth ?
n;
68
I
Indeed, my dear cousin, long ago would the failures and.
the faults of many of her ministers have destroyed the
Catholic church, had she not been of divine origin, and
blessed with the constant protection of God. But she has
the promises of the Holy Spirit's guiding light, and of the
help of Him before whom all knees must bow, of things in
earth, in heaven, and under the earth. The God of all truth,
of all righteousness, and of all power has taken her under his
guard. And from the time of the apostles unto this day, she,
through this divine help, has coufounded all heresies, and
triumphed over all her persecutors. " Go into all the world,'*
said our Lord to His Apostles," teach all nations, and lo I
am with you, even unto the end of the world." Such is the
universal mission of the Church and the promise of her im-
mortality.
Pardon me, my dear cousin, for having written you such a
long letter, upon things which you are so well acquainted
with, and which until very recently brought so much joy to
your own heart.
Why should I have discoursed at such length about the
Catholic Church, the home of our faith and the mother of
our souls ? Can a true patriot ever forget his country, can a
child forget and deny his mother ? Pardon me once more,
and be kind enough to accept my best wishes for the pros-
perity of your family to which I desire to be remembered.
Believe me, as ever,
Your cousin.
69
Maskinong^, Nov. 8th, 1892.
My dear Cousin,
I thank you for your letter of the 15th instant which I
hasten to answer. My last would have reached you in due
.-tithe had you given me your full address.
I thought it unnecessary to tell you that it was not I
personally who wrote you. The witty remarks, therefore, with
which you commence your letter do not appear to me to be
quite to the point. In reading over again your first letter, I
see in it, without reading between the lines, the same things
I saw before, and I am suie you can see nothing else your-
self, if you take pains to read it again. If your letter does
not contain indirect accusations of dishonesty and hypocrisy,
then words have no meaning. If your pen ran away with
you, and the blame is to be attached to it and not to you, I
am glad to know it ; but let me advise you to change your
pen since that which you use plays such tricks on you. It is
evident that in your last letter again you have lost control
over it ; for notwithstanding my declarations to the contrary,
it persists in affirming that I am still at heart a Roman
Catholic. Well, let your pen have the benefit of this belief;
it may be a consolation to the pen, and will do me no great
harm. Your letter reminds me of a character in Moliere
who, while soundly beating his wife, addressed her at the
same time, with the tenderest terms like these : " My dear
little wife, my love, do not be vexed with me, please." But
enough of this.
Your letter raises so many questions that a complete
answer to it would form a volume. The fact is that
" learning " is not all on my side, you see. You have your
70
good share of it. It is to be regretted, however, that such
** learning " should be used for the defense of error. It
seems to me, my dear cousin, that if you should open your
eyes to the light of the Gospel, study it with an unbiased
mind and with prayer, you would soon perceive that the
edifice which you attempt to build in your letters rests on
the shifting sands of human tradition and not on the solid
rock of God's Word.
You quote, to be sure, texts from Scripture to support
your doctrines, but a closer examination of those texts would
convince you, that they are far from having the sense which
you give them.
I admire your anxiety to keep that which has been com-
mitted unto you, but I would like to have you take pains to
find out whether or not, that which you hold as a sacred trust
is really the truth as it is in Jesus. How often has it not
happened that in a moment of cruel illusion, a man has seized
with transports of joy that which he supposed to be a price-
less diamond, and afterwards found it to be nothing but a
worthless stone.
Faith is of God, you say, but there is a kind of faith which
is purely human, unable to save the soul, and to fashion
it after the likeness of God. When I behold a believer in
Christ, one in whom I see reflected the Master's likeness,
animated with His Spirit, and winking in the ways of holiness,
I say to myself : There is a faith which is of God. Though
young in the faith of the Gospel, I have seen this in persons
who are Christians without being Roman Catholics.
You say that the doctrine of Protestants is too dry and
barren for you. Have you thought that perhaps you were
not sufficiently acquainted with it, and still less with its fruits ?
71
How is it that these same Protestants who do not make of
good works the ground of their salvation, have, nevertheless,
the reputation, even among the Roman Catholics, of being
more generous, more charitable, and generally more honest
than Roman Catholics themselves, who make of good works
the ground of their salvation ? If you could lay aside your
Roman Catholic spectacles, see Protestant Christians as they
are, live for a while with them, become acquainted with their
life and their belief, you would undoubtedly make discoveries
which would greatly astonish you. As regards myself, I can
assure you in all sincerity that I have never felt such nearness
to God, so earnest a desire to observe His law as I have felt
since I have come to understand the doctrine of salvation as
held by these Evangelical Christians.
You say that " the doctrine of Protestants is of human
origin and of recent date," and further on you say : " For
nearly twenty centuries, Catholics have believed in Jesus
Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, the Remission of sin, the
Resurrection of the flesh, and Eternal Life." How then do
you explain the fact that this is exactly a summary of the
Protestant faith, which you say is of recent date ? Does not
the fact that Protestants accept the Apostles Creed (with the
exception of the word " Roman," which is a late interpola-
tion) prove that their faith is not of recent date, but that it
originated in the times previous to those in which corruption
entered the church through the Roman hierarchy ?
Be so kind as to tell me how long it is since Roman Catho-
lics accept as articles of faith, the Infallibility of the Pope,
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Auricular
Confession, the Celebacy of the Clergy, Purgatory, etc., etc.
Do we not know from Church History that these dogmas are
of comparatively recent dates, and some of them very recent ?
r 'IP''?
i 1 ' v''
72
It must be from ignorance, or from prejudice, or lack of hon-
esty, that you so frequently repeat that the religion of Protes-
tants dates from 1 518. If you have read History written by
impartial authors, you must be aware of the fact that during
the centuries through which the Church of Rome departed
gradually from the truth, there always were, even in her own
ranks, Christians who opposed her innovations, and strove to
maintain Christian faith and practice in their purity. You must
also be aware of the fact that the Reformation of the 15th
centuary was not the foundation of a new religion, but the
return by a great part of Christendom, to the purity of that
religion which Christ and His Apostles had left us. Had
you not studied History written by unscrupulous authors so
as to make it match with Roman ideas and practices, and in
such a way as to alA^ays justify the Church of Rome, and
throw contempt on those who do not accept her tennets, you
would have found out that notwithstanding certain faults,
which, as you say yourself, are inherent in human nature, the
Reformers were, as to "^virtue and real piety, far above the
ordinary level of the Clergy of those days, not excepting the
Popes. I should think it very strange should you deny the
fact that the most shameful calumnies have been used against
the Reformers in order to weaken their influence. By repeat-
ing ad infinitum and ad nauseam^ as you do in your letter,
such misleading statements as the one you make regarding
the date of Protestantism, your historians came to make
themselves believe, no doubt, such falsities. Had not the
Papacy persued and destroyed like wild beasts those Chris-
tians which opposed her downgrade course, and who refused
to submit to her authority, there would have been, doubtless,
no need of such a convulsive movement as that of the Refor-
mation in the i6th century. The work of reform would have
been accomplished in a more quiet way, as it is today. But,
m,„lwii'
73
after the experience of past ages, and through the interposing
hand of God, such a movement became a natural reaction
against Romish autocracy and tyranny.
You say again : " Under the infallible guidance of the
chief of the apostles, and his successors in the Church,
Catholics for nearly twenty centuries, followed the teachings
of our Saviour."
This, my dear cousin, is one of those phrases in grand
eloquent style which serves to throw dust in the eyes of the
uneducated, uninformed or misinformed, people. For,
nothing can be more clearly shown from the teachings of
the New Testament than that Jesus never appointed a
** visible," " infallible," and earthly head of His Church.
Such doctrine exists only in the imagination of Roman
Catholics who are satisfied with an array of misquoted and
misinterpreted texts. These words of Christ alone suffice
to scatter to the four winds so pretentious a claim. " But
Jesus called them (the Apostles^ unto him and said, Ye
know that the princes of the nations exercise dominion over
them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
But it shall not be so among you ; but whosoever shall be
great among you, let him be your minister, and whosoever
will be chief (not in authority but in influence) let him be the
servant of all." (Matt. XX. 25, 27.) By referring to Luke
XXII : 23, we see that Jesus addressed these same words to
His Apostles, when they disputed among themselves as to
who would be the greatest. Had Jesus appointed Peter
to be head of the Church, would he not have told His Dis-
ciples then, and settled this subject of dispute ?
How is it that the basis of your ecclesiastical system,
which you constantly confound with the spiritual Church of
Christ, rests not on His explicit words but on tardy and
G
i'" /
In
III: :lt%|*'
74
obscure tradition?, and upon a few texts selected here and
there, which have an entirely different meaning from that
which you give them ? Did not Jesus say : " And call no
man your Father " (in religious matters) '* upon the earth,
for one is your Father which is in heaven." " Neither be ye
called master, for one is your master, even Christ," (Matt
23, 9, 10.) How does that harmonize with the titles given
to popes and bishops such as, " Holy Father," " My Lord "?
And do those words harmonize with the idea that Peter was
made the Pope— Papa, Father, — of Christians, — the universal
doctor, or master, " the prince of the Apostles ? *'
" Thou art Peter and on this rock I shall build my church"
etc." This text which you quote, and which you think so
convincingly in favor of your theory of the Papacy, is not to
be found either in Mark, Luke or John. This is all the more
noteworthy, inasmuch as Mark and Luke relate the incident
which gave occasion to those words. They also relate the
greatest part of the conversation, and while doing so, they
both stop short, when they come to the words themselves,
which have been made the great war-horse for the defense
of Peter's supremacy. If Christ had by those words appoint-
ed Peter his successor, if they had the remotest relation to
the foundation of the Church upon Peter as her head and
infallible guide, could these named evangelists have
omitted them ? Could their silence on so important a ques
tion be explained ? How much more reasonable, is it not ?
to see in those words, highly figurative as they are, the mere
sanction of the faith of the Apostle, who was the first to
confess that Jesus was "the Christ, the Son of the living
God." It is on account of this faith that Jesus lays this first
stone, Peter, in the edifice, he is Himself building. The
other Apostles will come after Him as foundation stones, and
75
then also all those who will henceforth exercise the same faith ;
so that Peter himself, will later on, write these words : " Ye
also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by
Jesus Christ."
But, Christ spoke thus, also, because he had chosen Peter
to open his kingdom on earth ; not that he was to reign over
that kingdom, but to introduce it in the world. He was to
be a leader in the work, and in that sense a foundation stone.
The words which follow indicate that : " I will give you the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven." Note that the symbol of
authority is not a key^ but a sceptre. It is therefore not a
primacy of authority which Christ confers upon Peter, but a
primacy of leadership and of initiation in the work of estab-
lishing His Kingdom. With the key of the Gospel, and
through the preaching of this Gospel, Peter is going to open
the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth. He will first do so at
Jerusalem among the Jews, on the Day of Pentecost, and
afterwards at Cesarea in Cornelius' house, among the
Gentiles, (Acts, Chapters II and X. This is very different from
constituting him head of the Church, the Prince of Apostles,
the vicar of Christ.
Allow me to make a quotation which I ask you to read
carefully.
" The Lord says : * Go and teach all nations.' You see in
this the institution of the priesthood. The Lord says : " I
am with you." You see in those words the promise of infalli-
bility. The Lord says : ** I will build my church." And at
once you imagine a great religious association with a regular
organization, with priests, bishops and popes, with sacra-
mental and judiciary powers ; in a word, the Roman
Catholic Church as you know it. That is to say, in order to
76
11
Ivi
1.!':..
lili'-'.
interpret each of those passages, you begin by putting in the
texts, that which you desire to draw from then).
" As for me, I cannot think that any unprejudiced man, who
did not yet know Catholicism, could ever find the notion of
this religious system in the passages I have quoted. He
would rather, and quite naturally, think of a church founded
on a voluntary confession of Christian truth, of the obligation
for all to spread the Gospel according to their ability ; lastly,
of that divine help promised to all, and which purifies the
heart from error by purifying it from sin.
" In your estimation, Christianity does not only rest on the
Church, but the Church is the object of the Christian revela-
tion, and Jesus came into this world especially to establish this
Church, the repository of truth, the channel of all graces, the
only means of salvation. You do not admit that there can
be any faith or any gospel outside of the Roman Catholic
Church. This shows the importance of the Church idea in
the Catholic system. Everything springs from it, and every-
thing centres in it. According to this idea, we must expect to
see the Church occupy in Christ's discourses, and in the
Apostle's writings, a place proportionate with the rank which,
according to that idea, it occupies in the Christian economy.
If Christ intended the existence of the Roman Catholic
Church, if he instituted it, he doubtless expressed that inten-
tion repeatedly, or, at least, in explict terms. He showed
that ' the question,' as Dellarmin says, * is that of a society
as palpable as the Kingdom of France, or the Republic of
Venice,' he distinguished the laity from the clergy, he indi-
cated plainly that the Apostles were to have successors, and
that these successors were to be bishops; he defined the
mysterious virtue of Ordination ; he designated the degrees
of the hierarchy ; he provided for unity ; he made known
77
where the seat of infallibility, is to be found. You know with '
what care the Moasic law dealt with the Israelitish priesthood,
with its functions, with its rights. Nothing is more minute
than its ordinances. Some of them even prescribe rules for
the use of sacred vestments.
" How much more explicit would not the New Testament
have been in regard to the new priesthood ? How full and
exact its statements when the question will be the joining of
the Christian priest to the Jewish priest. How it will clearly
define the respective powers of the Pope, of Episcopacy,
and of Councils. How it will insist upon the duty of the
faithful to submit to their bishops. In what admirable light
will it not set the unity and the infallibility of the ecclesias-
tical organization. The very conditions of existence of
Christianity in the world, and the conditions of the individual's
salvation upon earth are in question. Necessarily, every-
thing will be clear, positive, evident. I am not writing a
satire. It is not my fault if I seem to be doing that. It
seems to me that according to the Catholic notion of the
Church, the New Testament should be full of it.
" You perhaps think I am asking too much.
" Very well then, I will be satisfied with one passage, pro-
viding it be positive. But, instead of that, what am I offer-
ed ? Three or four verses in which the Romish system is
found only by dint of adroitness and forced construction.
According to your theologians' ideas, Jesus would have been
wont to speak enigmatically instead of expressing his will
clearly on a subject of such extreme importance. He would
have taken great pains to hide his wDl in the matter. He
would have spoken so as not to be understood. Who will
affirm that the sense given by your church to the passages in
question is evident ? And what would you think of a human
r
m
'II
78
m>:
SI"'!!
(i!
jAt"'
legislator who would have so worded his laws, oi of a politi-
cal constitution which would rely upon so ambiguous a
charter?"
The above quotation, my dear cousin, is from one of the
greatest intellects which France has ever produced. It de-
serves your serious attention.
Although I have written you at great length, I cannot close
without answering you briefly on three or four points in your
letter.
The efficacy which you attach to Baptism, really belongs to
the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the passages you quote
in support of your idea of the saving efficacy of Baptism are
among those in which the virtue of the symbol is meta-
phorically attributed to the ihing symbolized. For example,
it is said ; " The Roman eagles conquered Gaul." And yet
everyone understands by this that not the eagles, but Ceasar's
armies, of which the eagles were the ensigns, conquered Gaul.
Read the New Testament attentively, and you will find that
Baptism is to be administered to the penitent and the be-
liever, and not to new born children.
The guilt of original sin was taken away by the sacrifice
of Christ " who tasted death for all ; " so that there is no
need of Baptism to do that. As to the sinful nature, it re-
mains in the baptized child as well as in the unbaptized.
The subsequent life of that child proves this. Baptism,
therefore, does not take away this sinful nature. We trust
God's Spirit who, like the wind, " bloweth where it listeth,"
to regenerate the innocent child which dies without having
committed sin, and we securely leave in His loving hands the
millions of innocent children, who throughout the world die
in innocency and without being baptized. We know that
..■i»
79
" Christ came to destroy the works of the devil," and that
God, through the work of Christ, has saved these innocent
children. Were Baptism necessary to salvation, as you
affirm, it would follow that the penitent thief on the cross
could not have been saved, as he never was baptized. And
yet, Christ said to him : "To day shalt thou be with me in
paradise." The saints of the Old Testament never were
baptized either. When John the Baptist administered this
ordinance, he did so as a " sign of repentence " on the part
of those who received it ; and the Apostles baptized those
who repented and believed, no others. As you must be
aware, during the first centuries of Christianity, Baptism, as
the word itself indicates, was administered by immersion.
It was a symbol of the christian's death to sin and to the
world, and of his resurrection to a new life of faith and hol-
iness.
You say that Protestants " take advantage of a time of
trouble, and of isolated faults of renegade and sacriligious
priests, like Guilhot, to arouse doubt in the mind of the
people, etc." My dear cousin, Protestant missionaries, in
obedience to their Master's commission, do their best to
preach the Gospel wherever there are souls desirious of hear-
ing it. If I told you that the faults of priests had had some-
thing to do with my conversion to the truth of the Gospel, I
was very particular to say also that those things alone would
not have sufficed to make me abandon the Roman Catholic
Church. Your lengthy, and more or less sensible, remarks
about that, are, therefore, not to the point. But allow me one
remark on this matter.
The ever increasing scandals among the priests must be
laid at the door of your church. Thinking herself wiser than
God, she has laid aside, so far as her clergy is concerned, the
80
divine law of marriage instituted when God created man,
and she has substituted for it the law of celibacy, which is in
opposition, not only to natural laws, but also to a divine and
specific institution, designed to be permanent and universal.
Would to God that the Guilhot scandal were an isolated
case. Can it be, my dear cousin, that you go through this
world with your eyes shut, and your ears stopped ? Unless
there be measures adopted to put a stop to certain liberties
too frequently taken by a goodly number of ecclesiastical
celebates, you and your masters will ere long be forced to
open your eyes and to unstop your ears. Certain things
heretofore tolerated will not much longer go unrebuked.
The world moves, and our people are being enlightened.
Rome will have to change her policy and her laws, and some
way or other, purify herself. The light of education, and
especially of the Gospel, will compel all night birds to retire
to their retreats, and the long enslaved peoples of the earth
will obtain " the glorious liberty of the sons of God."
You speak of frequent conversions to Catholicism, and
you speak insultingly of those who leave Romanism. My
dear cousin, I had reason to expect more moderation and
impartiality from you. Why have you nothing to say about
the ten millions of Catholics which, according to public
utterances of some of your bishops, you have lost in the
United States alone ? Why not speak of the forty thousand
French Canadians, who in the last forty years, have renounced
Romanism to accept the religion of Christ? Do you count
as nothing, and as vile, as your letter woii'd infer, Protestant
countries like Great Britain, Germany, Norway, Holland, Wales,
nearly half of Switzerland, the United States, and six of the
Provinces of our Dominion ? Those are countries which have
renounced Rominism. Because there are a few ritualists
81
which enter your ranks, you count those conversions as of
great significance and of every day occurence. Nonsense !
I must close. Receive, dear cousin, my kind regards.
Yours truly,
Correspondence betiveen a Roman Catholic Priest and
his Protestant Cousin.
Sept. 4th, 1892.
My dear Cousin,
On my return from Maskinong6, I wrote a letter to my
uncle Desir^, your father. This letter did not require an an-
swer, nevertheless, a few words in reply would have pleased me.
Later on, I heard through the papers that the minister, Mr.
Therrien, had rebaptized several persons, who have thereby
completely deserted the Catholic Church. To make sure of
this I wrote to Mr. Le Cure for information. A reply came,
but it was short and unsatisfactory. He says that you are
still dissatisfied, although you received him kindly when he
went to se'*- ycu with my letter. But he does not state clearly
whether or uct you were among those who received a second
baptism.
My dear cousin, words fail me to express my grief in
seeing you enter so dangerous a path. My dear cousin,
believe me, I am as well informed on the subject of religion
as any Protestant minister. I have made the Bible a study
for twelve years, and it has taught me that the religion of
82
Christ is the one which you heretofore professed and which
you are now leaving, viz : the Roman Catholic Religion, in
which you have lived now for forty years.
My dear cousin, come back then to the religion of your
childhood; do not allow yourself to be led astray by false
prophets. These Protestant ministers are false prophets. In
whose name do they preach ? They are not sent by Christ.
To them may be applied the terrible words of Christ, found
in Matt. VII, 21, 23.
Your devoted cousin
Maskinonge, Sept. 22nd, 1892.
My Dear Cousin, —
I will now answer your letter received several days ago,
to which I ought to have replied sooner.
Let me say just here, that it is indeed so : I am one of
those who, a few weeks ago, entirely left the Roman Catholic
Church to unite with the holy Catholic Evangelical and
Apostlic Church. I am also one of those who, by Baptism,
made a public profession of their faith in Christ, as their
only Saviour, with a firm resolution to die to the world and
to sin, to follow Christ as he has taught us to do in His
Word. The Baptism we then received is the same which
Christ himself received. See Matt. Ill, 13, 17. The same
that he administered in Judea through the Apostles. See
83
John III, 22, IV, 1-2. The same he commanded the disciples
to administer to all believers, Mark XVI, 15.
It is also the same Baptism the Apostles themselves ad-
ministered to believers, after Christ's departure (Acts VIII,
36-39), and the same practiced by the Primitive Church, and
even by the Roman Church before its wandering away from
the teachings of Christ and of the Apostles. As a proof of
this, see Bishop Baillargeon's version of the New Testament,
and his commentary on Romans VI, 4. Also notes on the
same passage in the Manuel du Chretien..
Let me also tell you that the step we have taken has been
taken with our whole heart, with joy and gladness, and that
we experience peace and the blessed hope of salvation through
Jesus Christ, whom we desire to love, and to serve better
than we have ever done before.
You say that you have studied the Bible for twelve years,
and that you have found in it the religion of Christ as set
forth in the Roman Catholic Church. I am glad to know
that you have for so long a time made the Bible a study.
Your privilege has been far greater than mine, and that of
most of our countrymen, but I am surprised at the results of
so long a study. My dear cousin, have you studied the
Word of God carefully and prayerfully, asking the Holy Spirit
for help and guidance ? Have you studied it with the same
spirit as did the Bereans in Paul's time (Acts XVII, 11),
viz. to see if what had been taught you were in accordance
with the Holy Scriptures, and to learn if that which you were
yourself teaching to others agreed with that which Christ
and his Apostles taught ?
Again, have you for twelve years studied with che one de-
sire of feeding upon the Word of God, and of meditating
f^
i#'
84
Ill
m
upon the law and the teaching of our Saviour, Psalm I, 1-2,
and to find therein the way of eternal life for yourself and for
those who daily receive your instruction ? (John. V, 39.)
My dear cousin, if your study has been characterized by such
motives as I have just mentioned, you are a happy man ;
but I greatly fear that it has not been thus, for if you had
studied the Word of God impelled with the one desire to
know the teachings f Christ, and to see as did those " noble "
christians of Berea, if what you had been taught was in keep-
ing with the Gospel, you would long ago have been where I
am to-day. You would have discovered that the doctrines
of Purgatory, of Indulgences, of the Mass, of the Invocation
of Saints, of the Immaculate Conception, of Auricular Con-
fession, and many other things, are not taught in the Holy
Scriptures.
M'^h
m
Nevertheless, if in your twelve years' study of the Word of
God, you have found the above mentioned doctrines clearly
set forth, and practiced by the Apostles, and if you will take
the trouble to show them to me, I will willingly return to the
Roman Catholic Church ; for my great desire is to follow
the teachings of God's Word, and nothing else. You ask :
" In whose name are Protestant ministers preaching ? " All
those I have heard preach, have done so in the name of the
Lord-Jesus. You ask me again : " By whom are they sent" ?
To this I reply ; it is God through His Word who sends
them. For proof, read Romans XII, 6-8, where Paul says
that those who have "the gift of the ministry" are to apply
themselves to this ministry. And in Romans XV: 14, where
he says, the brethren can " admonish," or instruct, one an-
other. We read in i Cor. XIV, 31 : *\For ye may all
prophecy." In the New Testament, the word ''prophecy,"
^nd the word preach are synonymous.
85
Moreover, we find in the Bible striking examples showing
that it is God who calls His ministers, and who commisions
them to preach. In Acts 1 : 23, -26, we have an example of
this, when the Apostles chose another to replace Judas the
traitor. Let ma ask if their choice was acknowledged and
approved of Christ, and if Matthias was in reality the twelfth
Apostle ?
In reading the 9th chapter of Acts, you will see that Christ
chose himself an Apostle tp take the place of Judas; other-
wise, there would have been thirteen Apostles, whereas in
Revelation, XXI : 14, we see that there are but twelve.
And yet, Paul was truly an Apostle, as he declared himself
to be in many passages of his epistles. Moreover, the New
Testament, has nothing to say about Matthias, except what
is said of him when chosen by the Apostles before they had re-
ceived the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, before they had the
promise of his special guidance. If Jesus did not ratify the
choice of the man made by the Apostles, why should he
necessarily do so now, when the choice is made by men far
inferior in spirituality ? Are the bishops greater than the
Apostles ? It might be said, that they are, many of them,
more presumptuous.
Again, Peter said to those christians who were scattered
over different countries, which he names : " Ye are a royal
priesthood, that ye should show forth the praises uf him who
has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light,"
ist Peter, II : 9. And in Acts VIII : 1-4, we read that all
the members of the Jerusalem Church who were scattered
abroad "went everywhere preaching ChriHt." They had not
of necessity received ordination from r bishop, and yet llu'y
preached Christ.
It
r^
86
tl ^ •';?;
They were of the laity. The Apostles were not even with
them. But, you will say, how do you know that ministers
have authority to preach ? I answer, that the New Testa-
ment tells me. In John III : 34, it is said : " He whom God
has sent speaketh the Words of God," not those of men.
When a man comes to me with the Word of God, with the
Gospel that never faileth, I know that God approves of his
teachings.
Your position and that of your Church is exactly that of
the Jewish priest and the Sanhedrim which claimed religious
authority at Jerusalem. They claimed to have descended
directly from Moses and the Prophets, and they called the
common people accursed because these people used the
faculties which God had given them, and listened to the young
prophet, Jesus of Nazareth. The priests to-day do exactly
the same thing towards those who also use their God given
faculties in searching for the truth and who reject human
traditions to follow the teachings of Christ.
In closing, I will refer briefly, to the passage you quote at
the end of your letter. You say that the solemn words of
Christ in Matt. VII : 21, 23., apply to Protestant ministers.
What are the words in that text which can be applied to min-
isters ? I would be glad to have you show them to me. I read
, that text attentively, and I must say that those words can be
very properly applied to the Roman Catholic clergy : " Lord,
Lord, have we not worked many miracles in thy name." It
seems clear that these words will be addressed, on the last
day, to those who will have claimed the power of working
miracles. Who are those ? The Protestant ministers, or the
Roman Catholic priests ? You know very well. Along with
these words, I advise you to read Matt. XXIV : 23-26, and 2
Thess. II : 7-1 1.
87
My dear cousin, allow me to tell you once more that I
experience much happiness in following the Gospel of Christ,
and from having had through that Gospel my eyes opened to
the light of truth. I can say with all sincerity what the man
born blind said to the Pharisees after Christ had restored
his sight : " One thing I know, that whereas I was blind
now I see :" John 9-25.
My prayer for you, dear cousin, is that God may grant you
to see the light of the Gospel, which is the power of God unto
salvation," Roman I; 16, and to give you peace through
Jesus Christ, whose blood cleanseth from all sin, i John I ; 7.
Your devoted cousin.
»
September 29th, '92.
My dear Cousin, —
I studied God's Word with the view of perfecting myself,
and of becoming a true worshipper of God. This has been
my object all through my studies. Enquire of those who know
me, they will bear favourable testimony to your cousin. It
was not to make a fortune. If you wish to know what salary
I am getting at the college, here it is. Besides a frugal board,
I receive $110 a year. My board being worth $150, my
salpry is therefore $260. Is there a Protestant minister who
earns as little as this ? If so, I do not see how he can have
a wife and children, and play the gentleman. I do not under-
stand why you attribute to me unworthy motives. You may
i
^m
>.:
;•
1
!i
^1 1
Irrl*-
mm
88
believe me when I say I am not an imposter. After twelve
year's study of God's Word, after examining the whole of the
Roman Catholic doctrine, and the objections of Protestants
against it from the time of Luther, their father, I have re-
mained with this faith and wiih this conviction, viz, the
Roman Church is the only Catholic and Apostolic Church,
the only true Church of Christ. And the Protestant sects,
whatever the name with which they adorn themselves, are
adulterous, that is false and deceiving Churches. And more
than ever have I been confirmed in my faith in the Roman
Catholic Church. I accept its doctrine 9s that of Christ. I
believe in Purgatory, in Indulgences, in Auricular Confession,
in the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Invocation of Saints, in
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
With time, I shall prove that all must be accepted (we accept
those doctrines from the teachings of the Bible and tradition.)
When I shall have proved one doctrine, you will doubtless
answer as you did when we met at our uncle's, where I proved
to you the doctrine of Peter's supremacy, and his successors
the popes. You said : " I am not educated enough to an-
swer you." It is very encouraging to discuss this way.
My dear cousin, in attempting to prove the legitimacy of
your ministers, you make an affirmation which is simply blas-
phemous. St Peter, with the hundred and twenty disciples,
unitedly proceed to the election of the twelfth Apostle,
Matthias. St. Peter and the Apostles declare him an apostle,
and as chosen of God. The church at Jerusalem, which was
then the whole Church accepted him as such. And yet,
you say : No, he was not an Apostle, God did not ratify that
election. Paul became the twelfth apostle. The Church and
the apostles must have erred then. They believed Matthias
to be the twelfth apostle ; they believed this after having
89
asked God's intervention. But they were mistaken ; hence
the Church has fallen in error. She had scarcely been founded
when the gates of hell prevailed against her. Bhsphemy !
We, Roman Catholics, teach that Matthias was the twelfth
apostle, that there were only twelve apostles, which form the
Apostolic College as Jesus had appointed it to be the twelve
foundation stones of his Church. We teach that those twelve
were composed of the eleven which remained of the first twelve,
and of Matthias who took the place of Judas. We teach
that Paul was an educated apostle, commissioned by Christ,
but that he became, as it were, an auxilliary apostle, gre iter
than Barnabas who also in Scripture, is called an apostle.
(Acts XIV; 13). We teach that Paul was, among the Apostles,
the most renowned perhaps, and with St. Peter, he became
for us, Gentiles, our particular apostle. And you know how
much we honor him in the Roman Catholic Church. With
regard to the rest of your argument to prove the calling of
your ministers, you quote, to support it, certain texts which
you misinterpret. Act VIII ; i to 5. Remember that the
Disciples of Christ who were scattered, and went abroad
preaching the Word, were deacons, priests, and bishops ; in a
word the members of the priesthood. They were not the
laity, much less the women. For if you take that text as it
reads, you will be compelled to conclude that all preached :
priests, laymen, men and women. The text is indefinite.
" All were scattered abroad, except the Apostles " ; and
further on, " They that were scattered abroad went every
where preaching the Word."
Here is the meaning of the text in Peter : " You are a
Royal priesthood."
Through Baptism, christians are united to Christ and form
His mystical body. Now, it is the purpose of Christ to offer
i
m"^
90
for the glory of God, the sacrifice of his mystical body as He
offered his real body. But He cannot do so without our
consent. If we give our consent, we in communion with Him,
offer our own bodies which form His mystical body, as a
sacrifice. We immolate them through penitence and mortifi-
cation, and we thus exercise a kind of priesthood (a particular,
private, and personal priesthood) such as Jesus exercised in
offering His body on the cross. But there is another priest-
hood, in which those who have received the holy sacrament
of Orders alone have the right to minister. It is the public,
official priesthood of the Church of God ; the Church as a
society : and this priesthood, of which the victime is the offer-
ing, is the sacrifice of the Mass. Luther and your ministers,
having wrongly abolished Mass, had, in order to be consistent,
to abolish this public priesthood. They have thus instituted
a religion, with neither priest, nor altar, nor sacrifice. As
such a religion is absurd, they endeavor to evade this absurd-
ity by crying loudly : " Our priest is Christ," who is no longer
on the earth : " Our sacrifice is the cross of Calvary," which
no longer exists. " Once offered, this sacrifice was sufficient."
To this we answer. Yes, to be sure, that sacrifice once
offered sufficed, as the Bible says, to take away sin, and to
make us worthy of heaven ; but we must apply to ourselves
this sacrifice, if we desire to reap those benefits from it. And
to do that, we must do what Christ has commanded us to do,
viz : renew this sacrifice through the offering of the Holy
Eucharist. After offering himself under the symbols of bread
and wine, Christ says : " Do this in rememberance of me."
But here again, it would be necessary to undertake a long
discussion on the Sacrifice of the Mass. But it seems to me I
have said enough to make you understand how St. Peter could
say : " Ye are a royal priesthood," and to show you how^
91
»
skillful ministers are in misinterpreting texts, and in making
sophisms which the uneducated are unable to discover.
As to your comparison of the Sanhedrim with the Papacy.
In a future letter, I will show you that if the Sandhedrim is
anywhere, it is among Protestant sects. They are a body of
presumptious laymen like the Pharisees, who having received
neither vocation, nor the gift of infallibility, claim the power
of explaining infaillibly the Holy Scriptures. We recognise
the Pope, the only successor to Peter, as alone infallible, and
we prove, the Holy Scriptures in hand, that for the unity of
the Church, it was God's will that there should be but one
head, an infallible head, and that this head should be Peter,
and those who inherited the Apostolic See, and with that See,
its prerogatives.
But I must close. If you will accept my teachings, we will
proceed methodically, we will begin at the beginning. On
your next letter, please tell me — and be sure that you express
the views of your minister and your church : —
First, when did the first Church become corrupt, and in be-
coming so, when has it disappeared ?
Second, when has it reappeared ? For, after all, you claim
that your Church is the true Church, and I see by history that
it did not exist before Luther. We must conclude that the
first, the true Church, after its disappearance, has again ap-
peared, and I want to know when it disappeared, and when
it appeared again ?
Third, who is the founder of your Church ? Who, con-
sequently, was the restorer of the primitive and true Church ?
On the Holy Scriptures, tell me : —
First, where does your Bible come from ? Is it a trans-
lation from the Latin ? If so. where does this Latin Bible
..^...
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
10
tti |2^ 1 2.5
•^ 1^ 12.2
I.I
! •- i^
m
1.25
||M ^
^
^;.
y
/A
Photographic
Sciences
Corporaiiun
23 WEST MAIN STREET
WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SS0
(716)872-4503
<r'4p.
^
92
coin 3 from ? Finally, how has the Bible been preserved to
you?
Second, do you believe the Bible, all the Bible, and nothing
but the Bible ?
If I prove to you that your Church has misled you on one
point, that ought to suffice to convince you that it is not the
true Church. The true Church cannot mislead, nor be mis-
led. You will then have to abandon your Church.
Your cousin,
if
Maskinong^, P. Q.
My Dear Cousin, —
In answering your letter, I desire to call your attention for
today upon the first point treated in it, only.
You say : "After studying for twelve years, the Word of
God I have been left with this belief and conviction
that the Church of Rome is the only Church of Christ,
etc."
Come now, my dear cousin, do not attempt in this way to
throw dust in my eyes. You know very well that if you are
a Catholic, you have never seriously studied the Bible. You
know very well that the Church of Rome allows her priests
to read the Bible only on condition that they interpret it as
the Church herself wishes to have it interpreted. Now do
you call this a study ? To study without having the right to
mt
93
use one's judgment, to examine freely and to accept that
which, with all data taken into account, seems true, is that
what you call studying ? It is not surprising that all those
^ho study the Bible in that manner should remain Roman
Catholics, and that, as you say, we should see so few priests
apostatize. It is not surprising th^^t you should, after that,
And in the Bible, as you say you did, the Infallibility of the '
Church, and of the Pope, the Mass, Purgatory etc., in short
all those things you pretend to have found in it.
You do not really find these things, but you think you do.
And you find them, not because they are really in the Bible, but
because your Church tells you that it is absolutely necessary
that they should be in it, and because you believe before-
hand your Church infallible. You would fmd just as much
in the Bible if you were never to open it in your life. This
is very near what many priests do, and they really are the
most consistent for that.
You, then, see that at the outset of this discussion, you have
to accept the Protestant principle of private judgement, or free
investigation, or remain shut up in a vicious circle. You be-
lieve in the Bible on the authority of the Church, and in the
Church on the authority of the Bible, and you call that resting
on a solid foundation !
Be so kind as to tell me, first, which of these two things,
viz : the Church and the Bible, you believe to be the first ?
Second. On what authority do you base your faith ?
W nwg shall have settled this poini^ we shall be in a pcsi-
lioHf ^ hope^ to settle the others^ otherwise^ it cannot be done.
Your devoted cousin
04
October 33rd, 1892.
11^
"My dear Cousin, —
I received your letter, and I desire to answer it. Before
your letter, I had received some tracts written by an ex-priest
named Gr^goire. What superb ignorance is his. Do you
believe, my dear cousin, that I was not acquainted with those
objections this poor Gr^goiri: raised against our religion, and
which he has copied from Protestant ministers, compared with
whom he is of little account.
But let me now speak of your own observations and answer
your questions.
First, the vicious circle of which you speak does not belong
to us. " I do not believe in the Bible on the authority of the
Church and in the Church on the authority of the Bible." I
believe in the Bible on the authority of the Church, but I be*
lieve in the Ciiurch not on the authority of the Bible, but for
other reasons, and here are those reasons, for which I believe
the Roman Catholic Church to be the true Church of Christ.
I am persuaded of this.
First, by the testimony of miracles.
Second, by the testimony of prophecy.
Third, by the supernatural conversion of the heathen world.
Fourth, by the triumphs of the Church over all persecu-
tions throughout these centuries.
These are facts I consider superhuman.
But as your letter places the discussion on a different
ground than that on which we first stood, I cannot develop
the meaning of the foregoing reasons in detail. My enun*
Oo
ciation of them should be enough to convince you that the
vicious circle which you attribute to us exists in the imagina-
tion of your ministers only.
That which has led you to fall into this error is the fact that
when we, Catholics, discuss with you, Protestants, we prove the
authority of the Church through the Holy Scriptures. But
then, that is not making a vicious circle, as you will under-
stand presently.
Listen, I say : ** You do not believe in the Roman Catho-
lic Church," and you answer. " No :— no." — Then I say :
" Do you believe in what the Bible teaches ?"
•
And you answer : " Why yes, the Bible, all the Bible, and
nothing but the Bible."
Then I say : " Very well, you yourself admit the authority
of the Bible, so that it is not necessary for me to establish it."
Very well then, the Bible (the authority of which I will not
prove by the Church, inasmuch as you do not require it), the
Bible, I say, teaches that which you reject, that is, that the
Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ. And
this is my argument. According to the Gospel, the Church
of Christ rests on Peter as its foundation. " Thou art Peter
and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it." Consequently the Church
that has not Peter for foundation is not the Church of
Christ. Where, then, is this Church now, which is founded on
Petei ? Is it not the Roman Catholic Church of which the
centre and the See are the foundation thereof, and which
See is that of Peter in Rome ? Therefore, the Roman Catholic
Church is the Church of Christ.
iu
96
Can the Protestant sect to which you unfortunately have
given your adherence boast of being founded on Peter ?
Consequently, can it boast of being the Church of Christ ?
Tell me, my dear cousin, how can you accuse me of making
a vicious circle when I reason thus. For in this reasoning, I
prove the authority of the Church by that of the Bible^ but I
have not proved the authority of the Bible by that of the
Church. Why no, I have not, you yourself have acknow-
ledged that you did not want this proof, that you believe in
the Bible more than I do. All this is only a summary of
what I had to say. My intention was to make you under-
stand that I do not make a vicious circle, when arguing on
the authority of the Bible with Protestants who themselves
believe in the Bible. To establish this fact I have said more
than enough, it seems to me.
Now for your questions.
" First, which of these two things, viz : the Church or the
Bible, do you believe to be the first " ?
"Second, on what authority is your belief founded"?
In answer to the first question. I believe, first, in the
Church, and then, on the authority of the Church, I believe
in the authority of the Bible.
As to your second question. I believe in the Church not
because of the authority of the Bible, (that would be making
a vicious circle), but I believe in the Church because its
divinity, that is to say, the divinity of its institution, is de>
dared and confirmed by several proofs.
First, the miracles ; secondly, the prophecies ; thirdly, the
conversion of the heathen ; fourthly, the preservation of the
Church in spite of bloody persecutions, heresies, etc.
97
Ask your minister if God can perform miracles to confirm
a lie, or an error. If he replies that he can, then I say God
deceives us : therefore, he is a liar, and a blasphemer. If
your minister says he caqnot, then I say, the Church in favor
o^ which he performs miracles, must be the only true Church,
and this is evidently the Roman Catholic Church. The four
reasons given above to establish the dinnity of the Church
are divine facts, especially the miracles, which, as you know,
are multiplied in every century. There are wonderful miracles
performed even now at Lourdes, at Ste Anne de Beaupr^,
and elsewhere.
Now, let us examine the Protestant principle of private
judgment, or free inquiry.
I will prove you that this principle is both absurd and false,
and that, consequently, the Church that teaches it is in error,
and cannot be the Church of Christ which never errs. I
prove this by four different reasons.
First, it is false, because it is not the Lord Jesus Christ who
ga^ it to the world. Indeed, our Saviour never wrote any-
thing Himself, and therefore, never gave to any one His written
word, obliging him to read and to interpret it, in order to
know God and His religion. Our Saviour never commanded
his Disciples to do what He would not do Himself, that is to
write Bibles, to distribute them, and to enjoin the duty of
interpreting them. He said : " Go and teach," not, go write,
and distribute Bibles.
And we see that the Apostles understood their duty, for
out of twelve Apostles, two only wrote the life of Jesus, His
works and His teachings, and that not fully, but in a frag-
mentary manner only, so incomplete, in fact, that the Apostle
John felt it his duty to warn us of this. See John XXI ; 25.
K
08
It was only right that he should do so, for the Lord had coiA
nianded to teach and that Apostle had written only in part
It was not through Bibles, or anything written that the
Apostles were to '* preach Christ and Him crucified," bnt,
through oral teaching, or tradition. We see also that after
His departure, the Apostles, the Disciples, and their succes-
sors, did not act otherwise. No one, in the first centuries,,
taught that Bibles must be distributed among the people and
that the right was given them to read and to interpret these
bibles, each for himself. Nowhere do I see Bible distribution,
tesorted to, but on the contrary, I see among Christian
doctors and missionaries to the heathen, teachers resorting,
aot^to the written Bible, but to oral teaching only.
What our Lord came to teach was a religion which we must
know and accept. He gave a medium whereby this religion
may be known; and yet, neither His Apostles, nor His Dis*.
tuples, knew anything of this medium ! And this medium
was revealed 1500 years after Christ ! And to such a man
as Martin Luther ! A man the writings of whom make him
known as one who has broken his vows made to God, when
(he Scriptures teaches the inviolabilty of these vows ! A man'
who utters falsehood, and who falsifies the Scripture in trans-
lating it ! A man who, representing himself as a messenger'
from God, permits his protector, the Landgrave of Hesse, to
have two wives at the same time ! Great God, can there be
anything more false, and more absurd ?
Secondly, the principle is absurd, because it is impracticable.
Impracticable, first, because as long as there was no print-
ing press, the mass of the people could not read, and manu-
scripts of the Bible cost too much money and labor to have
it published in numerous copies. The mass of Christians,
t*.ierefore, could neither read nor even see the Bible —
(Pli'
1^
99
1
If God gives us a religion to save us, He must also give us
9. means whereby we may know this religion ; otherwise, He
would be asking us an impossibility. But for the above
reasons, millions of Christians could neither see nor read the
Bible. It follows, therefore, that the principle of personal
and free inquiry rendered salvation impossible, and, conse-
•quently, cannot be from the Lord.
Even to.day, it is impracticable even for those who can
read. You can read French, but the Word of God was not
written in French, it was written in the Greek ancl the Chal-
•dean languages. You cannot, therefore, either read or inter-
pret the Bible for yourself, since you know neither Greek nor
Chaldean. You are, therefore, obliged to believe not the Bible
simply, but the translated Bible, that is, interpreted by Mr.
So and So.
As for me, I believe the Bible translated and interpreted
by the whole Church of which the Pope is the head. Which
of us two is the wisest ?
The principle of free inquiry is absurd, thirdly, because it
Is an impossibility.
Indeed, the Bible contains a great many passages difficult
to explain. St. Peter says himself, in his second epistles,
, III : 1 6, that there are in the Scriptures, that is in the Epistles
of Paul, " Things hard to be understood, which they that
are unlearned and unstable rest to their own destruction."
He says in this same Epistle, Chap. II : 20, that the Scrip-
ture is not of private interpretation, that is, not to be inter-
preted by private judgment.
Experience proves that this interpretation is difficult, and
even impossible to the scholars, much more so to the un-
learned. What does experience really teach us ? It teaches
100
111
I'^f 'i'
' I' .;'i:
'! Ill:
US that the men of learning read the Scriptures, but do not
agree on their interpretation. For example, take the text^
** This is my body."
Catholics give their interpretation, when Luther cries out :
** You are mistaken and know nothing about it" ; and then
he gives his own interpretation. " Not so," cries Calvin,
'* you yourself do not understand, O ignorant Luther ;" and
Calvin gives Ais interpretation. They, likewise, disagree on
many other, texts. This is why there are so many Protestant
sects. What will the poor people do who understand noth-
ing ? What will they do when scholars are thus divided ?
Which of the interpretations will they accept ? There are
only two alternatives ; they will either reject all interpretations
or accept one of them. If they do not accept any, then they
will thereby be refusing to believe a text which is in the Bible,
and, consequently, they will be left with a garbled Bible. If
they receive one of these interpretations, then they do not
believe in the Bible simply, but in the Bible interpreted by
Mr. A. or Mr. B.
But the general conclusion of this point is that the Bible
is difficult, impossible to understand, and consequently the
Protestant principle is absurd which says. Let each one take
his Bible, read and interpret.
Fourth, before believing in the Bible, one must believe in
Tradition, that is in the authority of some one, or of the
Church, or of some scholars. In fact, you have a Bible in
your hand, that which you have received, and in which you
believe— I say to you : " Do you believe it is the Word of
God, which is contained in that book." ? You answer ; " Yes,
certainly, this Bible is the Word of God." I say ; " But who
told you that this Book is really St. Matthew's book, or St.
101
John's etc."? Who told you that St. Matthew and St. John
were truly apostles, aild faithful apostles? Who told you
that it is quite true that Jesus is really God, who as a man
was a Jiew, that he really existed, that he is not an imagin-
ary or allegorical personage, that he really lived amongst us,
and that he actually said, and did, that which the evangelists
narrate? Is that proved by the Bible? No indeed, that
is proved by the testimonies of men who were contempor-
aneous with Jesus and His apostles, and these, after having^
seen and heard declared what they had seen and heard to
their descendants, whether by the living voice or in writing.
The latter declare the same to their sons, and so on in suc-
cession, the testimony, oral, or written, is declared till it comes
even unto us.
Before believing in the Bible then, you must believe in this
testimony of' man, that is, in this Tradition. If you have no
confidence in this testimony, in this Tradition, if you believe
that those who bore this testimony were deceived, or that they
wished to deceive you, how will you believe in the Book, in
the Bible, which they put in your hand, saying this is the
Word of God ? Therefore, before believing in the authority
of the Bible you must believe in the authority of this testi-
mony, or of this Tradition ; otherwise, you cannot believe, and
believe only in the Bible. It is an impossibility. It is nec-
essary to believe first in men, who in giving you the Bible
attest, " This is the Word of God."
As to us, it is not in men, but in the divine instruction of the
Church that we believe first. That is why I say, we Catholics
believe in the authority of this testimony, of this Tradition,
that is in the Church, this witness, before believing in the
Bible ; and that is why we say we believe not only in the
Bible, but also in the Church, and first in the Church.
HI
'4
$4
-i
102
And it is the Church which Christ established as a witness
to His Wo/d ; and as that Word is difficult to understand,
and a source of many false interpretations, He has established
her (the Church) also as an interpreter of that Word.
My dear cousin, I am very lengthy, and I fear you may not
have the courage to read this letter and meditate upon it. I
must stop then, and yet, I have many more things to say on
this subject. At any rate, we shall not leave this question before
you have heard all the arguments, if more are needed. It
seems to me, however, that the four reasons given above
prove the absurdity of the Protestant principle, and con-
sequently its error.
My dear cousin, if you discuss only for the sake of dis
cussing, we might write for a long time, and to no profit.
Faith is a gift of God, and he that * ♦ * * ♦
(The rest of this letter containing but a few lines has been
lost and could not be found.)
Maskinong^, P. Q. November, '92.
ir
t^rU
My dear Cousin, —
I received your letter of October 23rd. I must tell you
right away, that I think you do not speak in a very sensible
manner of that Mr. Gregoire, whom all Protestants respect,
and whose writings you have the right to answer, provided
you do not do so with insult, which, to my mind, is an evidence
that you are conscious of the weakness of your cause.
103
ice
Let us now proceed to the examination of your argumen-
tationr
You say ; "I do not believe in the Bible on the authority
of the Church, and in the Church on the authority of the
Bible. I believe in the Church not on the authority of the
Bible, but on other motives. Here are the reasons for which
I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of
Christ, etc. etc."
But what does that mean, my dear cousin ? You believe in
ycur Church for certain motives, or reasons. Y^ have there-
fore searched, considered, examined, reasoned, judged, before
believing. And if I am to believe you, you have done all
this freely. You believe like me then, my dear cousin, in the
Protestant principle of free inquiry ? You differ with me on
one thing only, viz, while you claim the right of using this
principle, or your private judgment, only to find the true
Church, and you believe that after you have found it, you
must cast this principle aside, I believe we must act freely
and reasonably always. I ask you then, who of us is the
most reasonable ? You claim to have found in the Roman
Catholic Church an infallible guide which dispenses you from
all exercise of your private judgment, and to which you must
blindly obey. Blind obedience ! Such is for you, as for
Rodiguez and all Roman Catholics, the highest point of
christian perfection, is it not? I say that our obedience
must, not only in the beginning, but unto the end of oiir re-
searches, be conformable with reason, — "Rationale (sit) obse-
quim vestrum," as Paul says.
You see, my dear cousin, that coming out of your vicious
circle can only be by giving up at the same time your claim
to infallibility. In other words, you, for certain reasons, cer-
tain motives, judge that your Church is infallible^ but it isyatt^
f^r
104
1^!.
■ 'i i
■1.5 ■^^
' " 1 ■
Mm ■
who judges. Now. are you infallible ? Those " miracles,"
that " prophecy," that " supernatural conversion pf the
heathen world," that "triumph of the Church," upon which
your reason relies to believe your Church as being the only
true Church of Christ, who tells you that they are divine tes-
timonies of the truth of your religion, and that you rightly
understand them, if it is not your reason which, as you admit,
is human and consequently fallible ? You see, dear cousin,
that you are not after all a particle more infallibly founded
on truth than I am.
•
Do what you please, you believe after all nothing more,
or toothing less, than that which you think you ought to
believe, and it is the same with me also. I say this sup-
posing all the time that it is your desire to act, and exercise
faith, as a rational being ; for it is evident that if you believe
^Undly, you may believe anything.
Briefly, our discussion on this point comes to this ; accord-
ing to >'tf«r judgment, you believe that the Roman Catholic
Church is the Church of Christ, while according to my
judgment, aided by all the means which are at my disposal,
(let it be well understood) I believe, on the contrary, that
your Roman Catholic Church is an old decayed, worm-eaten
branch of the Church of Christ.
It remains to be known who of us two is the better
enlightened and inspired.
One word now in answer to your objections against the
right of private judgment.
You say : " I am going to prove you that this principle is
absurd and false, because it was not the Lord Jesus Christ
who gave it to the world, and because neither the apostles,
nor his disciples knew this principle."
105
iple is
Ihrist
>stles»
Come now, my dear cousin, you seem to be sadly ignorant
of, or to have sadly forgotten, the contents of your Bible.
This, for a man who has studied it during twelve years, is
surprising. Has not Christ constantly appealed to the in-
telligence and private judgment of those whom he addressed
in order to convince them that he was the promised Messiah ?
Yes, to their private judgment, aided by the light of Scripture,
as we Protestants believe he still commands us to do.
*^ Search the Scriptures," said he to the Jews, " for in them
ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify
of me," John V : 39. And again he says : " For, had ye
believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote
of me." John V : 46. I ask you, my dear cousin, what
would have become of the Christian Faith, if the Jews, instead
of believing in Christ on the testimony of Scripture interpreted
by private judgment, had said as you do : ** Oh, no, it is not
for us who are of the laity to interpret the Scriptures, we are
going to see what our priests, our scribes, and our pharisees
have to say about it. Would not those Jev/s, as a natural
consequence, have joined themselves to their priests to crucify
the Lord ? Well then, what St Peter, the other apostles, and
the first Christians did is precisely what we Protestants of
Mashinong^^ are doing to-day. " We search the Scriptures "
to see whether it is our ministers, or our former teachers, the
priests, who teach the truth to us ?
We have seen what Christ said, let us now see what His
Apostles, and his Disciples taught on this subject of the right
of private judgment.
In I Cor. X : 15, St. Paul says : "I speak as to wise men,
judge ye what I say." In i Thess. V : 21, he says : " Prove
all things, hold fast to that which is good." These exhort-
ations are addressed, not to the clergy only but to the laity as
106
veil. Now, thisis exactly what the Protestantsof Maskinohg^,
and your own cousin with them, are doing today. But you,
on the contrary, would have me " prove " nothing, but swallow
without examining the stupidities which the priests think fit to
tell us, were those stupidities as large as camels. This would
just suit the priest who would shear us as sheep, and trample
us under their feet in the dust of ignorance and abject sub-
mission.
If you are not yet convinced on this point, please open the
New Testament at St. John IV : i. " Beloved, believe not
€very spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God,
because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
This is again what we are doing at Maskinong^, my dear
cousin. Many false prophets had arisen among us ; among
others, the Bishop of Three Rivers and his nephew, whom
he had given us as curate. In trying the spirits by means of
the Spirit of God who is in us, and by means of the reading
of the Bible, we have discovered that the aforesaid bishop
and his nephew, and, as to that perhaps, the majority of
priests and of Roman Catholic bishops, without excepting
the Pope, exhibit too often a spirit of pride, of avarice and
of falsehood ; a spirit altogether contrary to the Spirit of
Christ and His Gospel, and we have courageously decided to
flee from the influence of such spirits.
Have you enough on this subject, my dear cousin ? or
do you wish me to come down to the testimony of the
Fathers of the Church, to prove to you that those fathers,
instead of forbidding the reading of the Bible by the people,
encouraged them strongly, on the contrary, to make use of it
as the most efficacious, and even absolutely necessary, means to
keep one's self in the way of Godliness and in the true faith ;
and to shut the dobr against abuses and heresies. " You
P;i
107
have read the Scriptures," said St. Clement of Rome, a dis-
ciple of St. Paul, and accordiitg to your Church, Pop2,** and
you are well instructed in them ; preserve them in your
memory, and recall them often to your mind. Apply yourself
diligently to the Scriptures, which are the true oracles of the
Holy Spirit." (Clement Epist. ad Corr. I, 2.) " I have this
confidence in you," says St. Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle
John, " that you make of the Scriptures a constant study, and
that nothing in them is hidden from you." (Ign. £pis. ad a
Philad.) " Fathers," says St. Ignatius, another of St. John's
disciples," bring up your children in: the admonition of the'
Lord, teaching them the Holy Scriptures." (Ign. Epis. Ad.^
Phil.) " When we attempt to convince heretics by the
Scriptures," says St. Irenaeus, a disciple of St. Polycarp,"
they turn against the Scriptures themselves, to find fault with
them, as though they were inexact, or lacking in authority,
or uncertain, and as if one could not find the truth in them
without knowing tradition, and that under the pretext that
the latter had been given viva voce^ and-not in writing. The
Scriptures are perfect, for they are the Word of God, dictated
by His Spirit. They are the Apostolic Tradition made
known to the whole world, and which are clearly addressed
to whomsoever wishes to hear the truth." (Iren. Ad. Hares,
lib. 3.)
Do you recognise yourself in this picture, my dear cousin,
which Irenaeus draws of heretics ? *' Heretics," he says "are
those who turn against the reading of the Holy Scriptures,
as if the truth could not be found in them without the aid of
tradition, and that under the pretext that the truth was at
first given viva voce, and not in writing," (as if the truth
which was first given through the living voice ceased to be the
truth as soon as it was put in writing). St. Irenaeus, as early as
Pi
m
108
Im ' ,1
ft 'I
Til", I
<
1 -.
<! .
the second century, tells us that we must rely on the Holy
Scriptures only, and not on 'the tradition, as heretics do.
How much more should we not, eighteen hundred years after
Christ, trust to the Scriptures only, and not to tradition ? Is
not the mere fact that the Holy Spirit moved the Apostles to
write a sufficient proof that he did not consider oral tradition
as capable of being for a long time a sure rule of faith ?
This simple truth, which everyone should understand, was
well understood by the Apostles and the Fathers of the
Church, hence it is that St. Irenaeus calls you, beforehand,
heretics, you Catholics, who teach that the Holy Scriptures
without tradition are not a sufficient revelation of truth. *' The
Scriptures," says St. Irenaeus, *' are perfect " " they con-
tain the Apostolic Tradition." With them, we have no need
of other tradition, whether Jewish, Heathen, Greek or
Roman. Moreover, those Scriptures, contrary to what here-
tics, especially the Roman Catholic heretics, say to us, ''are
clearly addressed," says Irenaeus, ** to whoever wishes to
know the truth." Wiho are you, then, who dares to say
differently ? Are you, perchance, greater than Irciia^us ?
But let us see further what the Fathers have to say.
Tertullien, in the second century, said ; " That which is
primitive is the truth, and that only is truly Catholic, that
which is more recent is error. I adore the fulness of Scrip-
ture, and I admit nothing without its testimony. Let him
who adds to the written Word fear this Word : Woe is
uttered against whoever adds to the Holy Scriptures
Heretics are those who are afraid of the light of Scriptures
(Lucifergae scripturerum) who now add to them, now pervert
them to suit their eriors."
(Tertull, Adv, Prax. I, Contra Hermog, sec, 12, de praescr.
8, 14 etc.)
109
((
St. Athanasius, in the fifth century, said : " Cease to advance
that which is not written. The divine books are sufficient
for the acquiring of all truth, they alone are the school of true
Godliness, and we have no desire to hear, or to cite anything
save what they teach '* (Athan, de incar, christi, Epist, Fest ;
39.) St. Cyprian, in the third century, said ; " Whence this
pretended Tradition ? God declares that that which is written
is that which we should do? (Cypriani Epist 74.)
St Basilius, in the fourth century, said : " It is right and
necessary that each one should know the divinely insj i.ed
Scriptures, that which is useful to grow in grace, and not to
be carried away by the flood of human traditions That
which seems obscure in certain parts of Scripture is explained
by other passages more clearly worded," (Basil. Reg. Brio,
resw 95., Homel in psalm i., Basil in ascet. resp. 267.)
St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrosius, St. Theodoret, St.
Isidore, Gregory the Great, pope, all say the same thing.
There would be no end to it, should I undertake to quote
you all that the Fathers of the Church have said on this sub-
ject, to convince you that the claims of your Church regarding
Tradition, and its anxiety to hide the Scriptures, from the
people, are exactly those of the heretics of the first centuries.
My dear cousin, if you will not study the Bible, do at least
study the Fathers of the Church, and you may then become
as good a Catholic as some were in the times of the Fathers,
that is, we could then generally accept you as a good Pro-
testant, believing among other things first, in the rational and
christian principle of the right of private judgment, and,
second, in the insufficiency of Tradition, for a rule of faith,
which Tradition is not based on the testimony of Scriptures.
Finally, my dear cousin, you ask me if I am not myself
obliged to believe in the Bible on the testimony of the Church
L
1
II :
I '
110
which has preserved for me and translated the Bible ? To
this I answer : I believe in the Bible on the testimony of the
Churchy as the Samaritans believed in Christ on the testimony
of the woman who said : '* Come, see a man which told me
all things that ever I did, is this not the Christ ? " On the
fallible but believable testimony of certain men, I open the
Bible, and, by studying it with the Spirit of God who is in
me, I recognise in it the Spirit and the Word of God. Then
I say to the Church as did the Samaritans to the woman of
their city ; " Now, we believe, not because of thy saying, for
we have heard him ourselves and know that this is indeed
the Christ, the Saviour of the world," (John 4, 29-42.) We
say the same of the Bible, which, from personal acquaintance
with it, we have proved to be the Word of God.
Good bye, my dear cousin, I hope that the next time I
hear from you I shall hear that you have become a good
Protestant,
Your devoted cousin
'\
Rlt:SUM6 OF THE DISCUSSION.
Several of the foregoing letters and of the replies made to
them were, through the very nature of the circumstances,
written in some haste ; and consequently, though they in a
general way reflect the ideas and opinions of the various cor-
respondents, as regards form and precision of expression
they must be, in a certain measure wanting.
Replying to the letters that provoked the discussion was a
•difficult task, not indeed, because of the strength of the
attack, or the cogency of the arguments, or the impregnable
nature of the proofs adduced ; but quite the contrary. It
was in consequence of the incoherency and want of order in
thought, of numberless assertions boldly laid down as indis-
putable assertions and of constant reiteration.
Any man who, by dint of reading and thinking, has reached
his intellectual majority is astounded at the sight of such
productions. He does not know how to set about replying
to such ignorant presumptions and unproved assertions,
which imply both naiviii and pride in the writers. Fancy
an astronomer with a science based entirely on exact data,
attempting to demonstrate how the earth turns in the vastness
of the heavens, who is met from the outset with the objection
that, if this were so, wells would be emptied and chimney-
pots would fall to the ground. What is to be done agiinst
such a mass of ignorance and prejudice fostered in child*
hood and encouraged century after century ?
If such statements cams from unlettered persons, whos6
sight has never strayed beyond their own village steeple, it
|i|.
h\ I
.;ii!li
!<)■ i'
pr .SI i
-V'lii :
I i
112
might be regrettable enough, if at the same time readily com-
prehensible : but that priests who are supposed to have
completed a course of study, and journalists who are not
ashamed to sign newspaper articles, should wriU and repeat
such worn out sophisms passes all bound.
Let us sum up. To begin with : " One must never change
dnc's religion.'* Who is it that repeats this extraordinary
formula ad nauseam ? Priests, bishops, professors of history,
and their parrot taught pupils— mere men (if they were angels,
the declaration might be allowed) — who announce themselves
as the sole successors of the apostles, all of whom changed
their religion from Judaism to Christianity. And these very
priests, monks, bishops, and cardinals are incessantly striving
to bring protestants and pagans over to their own Church.
But when driven to bay, they attempt an explanation in
this wise :— " One must not change one's religion, when one
possesses the right and true religion." Granted. If, after a
mature examination, one has gained this conviction, assuredly
one will not change.
', But, say they; "It is we alone who possess the right
and true religion." This, however, is but an assertion, not
a proof. It often assumes the colour of a simple assump-
tion and shows the most profound ignorance of this serious
question. Laid down in this way, it is nothing more than a
petitis principH, boldly taken for granted as an axiomatic
truth. You alone possess the right, true, and divine religion,
you have full knowledge and absolute possession of the only
absolute religion. That is precisely the point in dispute —
the veiry thing you are required to prove. The same thing is
declared, in precisely the same terms, by both Mohammedans
and Buddhists.
113
We Christians of the Reformation are a trifle more modest.
We believe just as you do, that Christianity is the sole truly
divine religion, but we also believe that in some branches
of Christendom spiritual life is rarer, and fruits are less divine
than in others. We grant thit there are degrees in regard
to the possession and knowledge of divine truth, and we m lin-
tain that in this respect the Church of Rome standi at the very
foot of the scale, unless their position be occupied by the
Greek Church, her next of kin. Notwithstanding the hirdi-
hood of her declarations, the papil Church is fir from being
a faithful representative of the religion taught by Christ and
his apostles. What she teaches and practices is by no means
in every instance harmonious with the true developements of
this essential christian Church.
On the other hand we maintain that the Reformed Churches
have a clearer understanding, convey a purer teaching, and
carry out a more faithful practice of the religion of Christ-
ianity — than is the case in the Roman Church. That was
our reason for leaving the latter, and our inspiration in en-
deavoring to induce others also to leave it. This however,
does not blind us to the truth as to the existence ~of the sole
true Church, which is composed of all the true faithful; the
mystical body of Christ, comprehended in all its members
by Him alone. The other, including Christendom, is but the
apparent or evident Church, which is not altogether the real
Church. It is our conviction that there are in the Church of
Rome a far greater number of apparent msmbers than of real
ones. On similar ground, we conclude, after a careful exam-
ination of the respective situations, that there exists compar-
atively more real members in the Churches of reformed
Christianity. ■
'■(
I' .
'Ill '
.1
m . :,
114
. In the second place : —
The letters written to the seceders of Maskinong^ repeated-
ly assert that the Church of Rome has been alone in giving
martyrs to the cause of Christianity, thus striking out in a
single clause all the Christian martyrs who lived before the
Church of Rome, all those whom the latter put to death, dur-
ing the time when she was almost universal in her power
over the world, all the saints of the reformed Church executed
by her in France under Catherine de Medici and Louis the
Fourteenth, who, in spite of their scandalous lives, were con-
sidered as her beloved children. Likewise they desire to
overlook all the missionary martyrs of our Protestant denomi-
nations, who have sacrificed their lives on foreign shores,
more especially in this century and even in our own day.
And yet these facts are known to all who take the slightest
trouble to read what is going on in the world at the present
time. There can thus be no way of accounting for such as-
sertions except on the supposition either of patent bad faith
or of inconceivable ignorance.
^1
l! i
Thirdly :—
These aggressive letters vie with one another in reiterating
an assertion, from which are deduced, as though by migic,
a number of absurd conclusions that support the ignorance
encouraged by the Romish hierarchy. In this case the
mountain has given birth to the mouse. Thus it stands : —
"Jesus said to his disciples, " Go and preach the Gospel to
every creature." He did not say, " write books and tracts ;
scatter Bibles and New Testaments, and so forth, and conse-
quently the spreading of the Christian religion is not to be
carried on after the fashion of the Protestants." We shall
begin by answering that Protestant ministers preach the
Gospel oftener and better than the priests of the Church of
115
Rome. Further : Jesus did not instruct his apostles in this
wise — " Build Churches, hospitals, convents, monasteries,
and confessionals ; manufacture chaplets, print breviaries ;
issue bulls and pastoral letters." And yet, all these things are
done by the Romish clergy. After all, one must make up
one's mind to explain matters as elementary as these in order
to show that the clergy and their pupils strive to bring con*
fusion into questions that are clear and reasonable.
Jesus of Nazareth was too wise and too full of the Divine
spirit to recommend the doing of things which his disciples
would naturally and necessarily carry out of themselves. He
does not enjoin the reading and distributing of a book not
yet written ; but he certainly advises the perusal and study
of a book which he himself was wont to read, namely, the
Old Testament which speaks of Him and says : ** Search
the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; and
they are they which testify of me." (John V. 39.)
Every one who has some knowledge of the beginning of
the Christian Church after the time of Christ is aware that
Jesus had promised his Disciples the Holy Ghost as a guide
to all truth ; that he had bidden them await in Jerusalem the
fulfilment of this divine promise. And thus in a marvellous
manner the Holy Ghost, on the day of Pentecost, illumined
and inspired them, together with all other religious souls.
Thence ^'isued a large number of the faithful of different
nationalities for the purpose of announcing the Gospel ; and
of this band the Apostles were selected as leaders. At first,
as was natural, they confined themselves to oral teaching.
Probably during a quarter of a century, very little was
written concerning the religion of Jesus Christ, while a great
deal was spoken about it.
1
i
K
5'
m
ri
W
1
1; 1
l|i :
|| ;
i'l!'
Pgl 1
B^'J
'1 1
Pi
1
11
1 i
i
; 1
1
; (
El ^
■ i'''
i
i 1
1*
j
116
Meanwhile, the great apostles Peter, John, and especially
Paul, began to write letters, of which a few (such for example
as the First Epistle of St. Peter and that of St. Paul to the
Romans) contain the whole substance of the Gospel. Next,
some of the Disci[)les, such as Matthew, Marie and Luke,
proceeded to write down the current Christian traditions. It
W9S already felt that oral tradition was on the point of
becoming corrupt.
•
Now, who wrote these Gospels and fragments of Christian
truth ? Apostles and Christians of the primitive and
apostolic Church. Neither heretics nor protestants were they
— ^not even Roman Christians, — but Christians of other
Churches, from Jerusalem, Antioch or Ephesus. This met
with the approval of the whole Christiin Church. The
Word, when written, quite naturally superceded the authority
of spoken words, according to the principle that the written will
of the upright, just and kind father reflects,and takes the place
of, preceding talks conducted in intimacy ; for that, in short,
is the true expression of his thought.
These manuscripts were disseminated as far as possible
throughout the Churches ; and when, at the Council of
Nicaea, the Christian Church was required through its
representatives to sift the enormous mass of apostolic,
pseudo-apostolic, apocryphal and other writings, the Church
of Rome had by no means the upper hand in this weighty
matter ; her preponderating influence was of a later
time. After two or three centuries, having become steeped
in pagan influences left behind by the turbid tide of the bar-
barian invasion, she gained strength enough to commmd the
World, and did so with such an accumulation of heathen
traditions and anti-scriptural doctrines as to deserve the
reproach, formerly made by Jesus to the Jews, of des-
117
pecially
xample
1 to the
Next,
1 Luke,
ons. It
)oint of
hristian
^e and
;re they
f other
his met
I. The
uthority
tten will
le place
n short,
possible
incil of
igh its
ostolic,
Church
weighty
later
steeped
he bar-
nd the
leathen
ve the
of des-
troying, and rendering null and void, the Word of God
(which they held) by means of their human traditions :
Mark VII., 5 : Matt. XV., 8, etc.
To this category belong the following : — The tradition of
spiritujl regeneration through the water of l)aptism; the
tradition of auricular confession for the remission of sins ;
the tradition of transubstaniiation — that is, the changing of
the bread and wine of Communion into the body and blood,
and the living, divine personality of Jesus Christ ; the
tradition of mariolatry or worship of the " Mother of God,"
which could have no existence two thousand years ago ; the
tradition of purgatory with its infernal fires ; the tradition of
celibacy among the ministers of the Word ; the tradtion of
infallible primacy centred in the episcopate of Rome ; and
so forth. All those matters called loudly for reform. Several
times during the course of centuries did Evangelical Christians
attempt the introduction of reforms into Christendom,
but they were immediately crushed by numbers and material
power ; they were persecuted, hunted and driven to death.
Not alone philosophers like Giordano, Bruno, and patriots
like Savonarola, were burned at the stake, but saints like
John Huss and Jerome of Prague. The light from the stake
at which these two men suffered, at last shed a light over the
whole of Europe, and showed the way for the great Reform-
ation of the sixteenth century. This is still going on, and it
will never stop, for it is now running with the speed of the
printing-press, of steam and electricity.
Every letter addressed to the converts of Maskinong^ asks
the following question : — " Where was your religion before
the time of Luther ? "
This is supposed to be so unanswerable, so crushing for
Protestants, that one of the letters, evidently the composition
118
I'
it
; ■ I
of a priest, actually raps it out four times. We ought to feel
pulverised.
Sirs, our religion was where the stream of relrgious truth
always is — above the foul and turbid current poisoned by
your treacheiy. It was in the Gospel that your ecclesiastics
could hardly be said to know, and of which their flocks had
a still more slender knowledge. There it remains to-day,
notwithstanding all that has been done by your senseless
teaching and superstitious practices towards making sceptics
of educated men. Lamartine has written the following
^rand and beautiful words :
" Man has not Bucceeded in soiling Thy law of truth ;
Ignorance has dalled Thy light sublime ;
Hatred has confounded Tby virtues with our crimes ;
Flatterers have made with tyrant»a traffic of Thy word ;
But Thy law remains the emblem of jubtice, love and freedom."
Thanks to God, we can read. We might, perhaps, be
•wanting in this privilege if it had depended on priests alone.
Neither have we to thank the priests for the Gospel, of which
St. Paul preached the everlasting substance, and of which he
said : — " If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost,
in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them
which believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ,
who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II. Cor.,
IV., 3, 4). Luther, who has been so bitterly calumniated by
the Jesuits on account of his table-talk, which echoed the
common language of the time, is the great sinner, because,
through the mightiness of his sou), he was enabled to snatch
millions of other souls from the grasp of Rome. The few
errors he may have retained were due to his imperfect
separation from Roman doctrines, to his failure in completely
ascending the stream.
i--|f
119
to feel
! truth
ed by
iiastics
ks had
to-day,
nseless
ceptics
lowing
1
dom."
ips, be
alone,
which
ich he
re lost,
»f them
Christ,
Cor.,
ted by
ed the
cause,
snatch
e few
erfect
pletely
Now, upon what did he and other reformers rely for the
justification of the work of reform ? On "those very holy
documents, collected and preserved by the primitive Church
before the establishment of the Roman prelacy and her
temporal, papal and anti-Christian rule. By what right did
they so ? By the right that every human being has to with-
stand another when the latter arrogates to himself the power
of unjustly lording it over him in the name of religion
(Coloss. II., 16-18). Those documents are the testament of
the primitive Church ; any Christian has an equal right to
them with any other. The evident truths they contain are
his rightful inheritance just as well as the priests ; the
still obscure portions are as inexplicable to bishops as
to the educated laymen. In spite of their presumption and
their old habits of tyranny in the province of Quebec, the
priests and their seminaries have no monopoly of science, of
history, or of the Holy Writ, of interpretation, or of the
Holy Ghost. As a general rule, our schools, universities,
and Protestant theological colleges, give belter teaching than
they do. The only exception is perhaps that of the law-
school. Our people ought, by this time, to cast aside that
puppet of clerical superiority, maintaining its position only
by its effrontery, or by its influence over people who have not
the courage to think for themselves.
One point more than any other is insisted on, with a
certain display of emotion, by all the correspondents ; and
that if:, that one ought always to come back to the belief of one's
childhood, to the religion learned at the mother's knees and
at the time of first Communion. What, pray, could we learn
of religion at our mother's knees, since m my of them did not
even know how to read, thanks to their bringing-up in the
heart of Roman Catholic Christendom? The religion of
120
h
my childhood ? To this you would bring me back ? No,
Sirs ; the religion of childhood is the childhood of religion,
namely ignorance, superstition and total want of reason.
We have no wish, in spite of all your exhortations, to be
men, and yet children ; we prefer the condition of grown up
men whose reason and whose consciences have been enlighten-
ed and trained, and who can when the opportunity offtrs, point
out the childish and puerile absurdity of your religious
teaching. A great apostle who bore the name of St. Paul
wrote to the Church of Corinth ; — " When I was a child, I
spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a
child ; but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
We too are doing as he did ; we are leaving the childishness
and puerility of clerical teaching, which were thrust upon us
before we were fit to judge. We are quite aware that the
clergy would willingly keep our whole population in a state
of perpetual childhood. We have full knowledge of the
efforts that are being made, under the guise of giving a trifle
of education, to keep mind and conscience in the swaddling-
clothes of medieval theology. We can see what the priests
are everywhere doing to frustrate the emancipation of a
people they profess to love. Is love shown to a child by
stunting his growth and his thought ? by fostering and
wheedling his moral indolence ? by paralyzing his conscience
in the confessional ? Alas, the truth is that they are afraid
to fashion men who may not perhaps think on all points as
they do ; they prefer running the risk of hatching rebels.
But of such they have no fear, for the process of enervating
consciences and mutilating religious sentiment has been so
long and thorough, that they feel they have completely
mastered the unmanly consciences that surround them !
121
ick ? No,
of religion,
eason.
ions, to be
grown up
I enlightsn-
(ffers, point
r religious
of St. Paul
i a child, I
ought as a
ish things."
tiildishness
St upon us
re that the
I in a state
ge of the
ing a trifle
swaddling-
the priests
ition of a
a child by
ering and
conscience
are afraid
1 points as
ng rebels,
enervating
is been so
completely
hem !
We desire to have it understood that if some points made
in the two last letters on the Roman Catholic side have not
been answered, it is only because the correspondence was
interrupted before the time had come around to take them
up. The one who answered those letters was anxious to have
the questions of authority and free inquiry fully discussed
before taking up other points, which were of a secondary,
and some of them of little importance. However, the reader
must have noticed that several of these points have come up
in previous letters and were there satisfactorily dealt with,
and are also virtually answered in our present Rhutni.
But in case some of those points especially presented in
the form of captious questions by the priest correspondent,
of the long letter of the 29th of September, should seem to
Protestant readers embarrassing, because not accustomed to
such specious presentation of errors, we shall take up a few
of them, the principal ones, on the question of authority
and liberty of private interpretation, having been answered in
a masterly way, by our own correspondent.
After having laid great stress on what they call the sacrifice
of the Mass, that cold ecclesiastical comedy, as the continu-
ation of the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and as
the Epistle to the Hebrews, IX, 25-28, says : " Once for all
time" touching again on the necessity of having an infaillible
head to explain the Holy Scriptures, and Peter being that
head established by Christ, and now sitting at Rome in his
representative, to judge of our discussions, the writer says :
** But now I close, if you will (my cousin) accept my teaching
we will proceed with order," etc.
On the Church. — i. " When did the first Church become
depraved, and when, having become so, did it disappear ?" In
answer to the first part of this question^ we will say that we
M •
122
have never seen it mentioned by any minister, theologian
or Church that the primitive Church, and later on the Roman
Catholic Church, had ever entirely become depraved, this is
a gratuitous charge. This also answers the second part. If
not entirely depraved it did not entirely disappear. There
certainly were many who departed from the faith, "the mystery
of lawlessness was already at work " in St. Paul's time. —
II Thess. I : 7. There was also a sifting process at work,
and as the Lord had said to Peter himself that he had prayed
for him that his faith fail not, he certainly did so for his
whole Church. And though there came over the primitive
Church, and over the Church of Rome later, a deep eclipse,
there still remained a large number of faithful christians.
The Lord could say as of Israel of old to Elijah : " I have
reserved to myself seven thousand who have not bowed their
knee to Baal. — Roman XI. 4.
If entirely depraved, it could not have been reformed.
Reformers of all times as Paul, Agustine, Ambrose,
Hildebrand and Luther, while denouncing the errors and the
sins of external Christianity of their time, have always recog-
nised the faithful remnant as a nucleus for their work.
Thus is also answered the second question. We have said
that it is a captious one, because it would force us to give
exact dates of appearance and disappearance. We only
know of a tree by its fruits, and not by its roots. And, when
what was once a good tree decays, every one sees it.
3rd. " Who is the founder of your Church ? Who was the
restorer of the Christian Church, the true one ?"
The founder of the Christian Church to which we claim to
belong, and the architect, master-builder, and continual
restorer, is Jesus Christ, who hath said : "I shall build my
£:buich"— (Matt. XVI.^ 18.) "I shall be with you always, even
123
unto the end of the world"— -(Matt. XVIIL, 20). In building,
and repairin^j, and reforming, He may use some of the
materials and workers offered to Him by the pope of Rome,
but His spirit choses some and rejects others. St. Paul
says : " I became an apostle, not by men's calling or
ordination" — (Gal. I., i). We have all known many priests,
and others, sent by other men, and who have been not
builders, but destroyers, in the Christian Church.
" On the Holy Scriptures" — Whence does your Bible come
from ? Is it a translation from the Latin ? If so, this Latin
Bible, where did it come from ? Finally, how was the Word
of God preserved to you ?
2nd. Do you believe the Bible alone, all the Bible, and
nothing but the Bible ?
If we did not know that those questions are put by a priest,
we would say that they were written by a sneering infidel, who
is not in search ot truth, but amusing himself by making
simple Christians uneasy about their belief. No, Mr. I'Abbe,
our Bible is not a translation of your imperfect Latin trans-
lation, the Vulgate ; our Protestant translations of the
scriptures of the Old and New Testament are made directly
from the originals of the Hebrew for the Old Testament, and
of the Greek, in particular, for the New Testament. And here,
allow me to affirm, sir, that for the finding, for the deciphering,
for the translation of the manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures
until now found, the Protestant linguists and translators and
theologians are far ahead of those of your Church. And
that is natural enough / they supremely love those Scrip-
tures which teach of the religion of God and of Jesus Christ,
whilst your theologians love more the teachings of their
Church. We have already said how, in particular, the scrip-
tures of the New Testament have been gathered by the
J
T^
124
III' '■,..,
**
^1^ .«!)-■
-«
primitive Church — aod if the last question is intended to
make us look to the Roman Church as the custodian of those
Scriptures to hand them down to us, we must declare that she
has been a very unfaithful guardian, as so few manuscripts
are to be found at the time when she was all but almighty.
So that the few sacred copies Christendom has it owes
more to the providence of God than to the unfaithful, wordly,
half-barbarous Church of Rome.
2nd. " Do you believe in the Bible alone, etc. ?"
We do, indeed, believe the Bible to be a book from God
— not the religion of Protestants, as it has been broadly and
improperly said (a book is never a religion), — but a book
containing the documents of a divine religion, of revelations
from God, culminating in the life of Jesus Christ. In
religion, we believe nothing that is contrary to the spirit
of the Bible, and in the Christian religion, we accept
nothing which is not in harmony with the letter and the
spirit of the New Testament. In order to justify her pre-
tentions and peculiar doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church
herself appeals to those very documents. That at once im-
plies that the documents are authoritative and subject to
interpretation. Well, no possible interpretation of the
Bible can convince us Protestants that auricular confession,
the enforced celibacy of the priesthood, the sacrifice of
Christ in the Mass, the real body of Christ in the Host, the
mariolatry, the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, etc., are
in perfect harmony with the teaching of Jesus Christ.
The JVbfa Bone : " If I can prove to you that your Church
bas misled you on onepoint,it will be sufficient to establish that
i is not the true Church. The true Church must not fall in
error, nor lead into error. Then your duty is to leave that
Church."
125
ided to
)f those
hat she
jscripts
mighty.
it owes
wordly,
►m God
dly and
1 book
elations
ist. In
le spirit
accept
nd the
ler pre-
Church
ice im-
ject to
)f the
'ession,
fice of
)st, the
tc, are
That kind of reasoning on absolute postulates leads
to absolute nonsense. St. Peter fell into grievous error after
having been made the first apostle. Hence, the duty of the
writer and of all "St. Peter's Church adherents" to vacate it
We know what the lingering idea is in the Abbe's mind : "Christ
promised the Holy Spirit to his disciples to lead them into all
the truth, at once, in the full light." That is the question —
and the question is answered by the preceding words of the
Master : " I have still many things to sjiy unto you, but you
cannot bear them now" — (Gospel of John XVI, i-z-ij). That
is, you will still be in the dark, liable to error. But in
time, after many faltering and false steps, you will reach, with
divine help, all divine truth. We have clearly proven so
many points of error in the Church of Rome that wo have
felt it our duty to come out of it with a feeling of perfect
safety and a good conscience.
Dhurch
ish that
: fall in
ve that
PASTORAL LETTER OF THE BISHOP.
Ill
W'
Our summing up might have ended with the immediately
preceding paragraph, but for the pastoral letter of the Bishops
of the Province of Quebec, which has again aroused discussion
and given it a wider scope. Since the bishops abandon their
principle, which is, according to their own words, founded
on the command of Jesus Christ, to speak and not to 7vn/€ ;
since instead of confining themselves to oral preaching, they
turn to writing and scatter letters broadcast, they must
expect some reply. This last document is, as regards its
tone, singularly out cf keeping with the actual state of affairs.
One might reasonably 'have expected a little modesty, and
even humility after the mortifying slights experienced by the
clergy at the hands of several of their members. Nothing
of the kind ; the overbearing and arrogant accent is sfill
there, demanding submission of those who have every right
to deny it and give voice to their protests, and who, with a
little more courage, possibly with a deeper sense of religious
need, would show their complete adherence to Protestantism.
But after all, something has been gained ; the time is over
for the blind submission of parishioners to priests, and of
diocesans to bishops. The bishops of the Province of
Quebec, it seems, are not of this opinion, or they are putting
on a bold face, for they have the audacity to write ;— " We
tell you to love and respect your priests ; in the first place,
because they are worthy of that love and respect ; in the
next place, because right and the welfare of religion require
it." To us, it appears that this is the very point under
discussion. Those who have so sadly misconducted
127
themselves of late are worthy neither of love nor of respect ;
and those who stand up for them are in danger of losing both
love and respect by so doing. " The Church," proceeds the
letter, "has, like the family and civil society, its lawfully
appointed heads. Their characters, names, abilities, and
qualities are matters of small moment." What? little
importance is to be attached to their characters and their
worth ? This, at least, is clear proof that the Church of
Rome, which loftily resists divorce, here openly proclaims
the worst of all divorces, the separation of morality and
religion. After such a declaration we can feel no surprise
on reading the following firm and threatening words in a city
newspaper ; — " If depraved, drunken and sodomite priests
are still forced upon us, anything is to be expected ; schism
and even murder."
Still another quotation ; — " In all matters concerning piety,
morality and discipline, they will have none of other men's
opinions." So, they are gods — they frequently apply to their
own case the words of the LXXXI Psalm in the vulgate ;
Egodixi dii estis; et Jtlii excelsi omnes." — gods who aie not to
be judged even by their works.
" In short, our Lord established various prerogatives and
rights in the Church, and divided its members into two
peiiectly distinct classes, clerical and lay — authority and the
mass of the people, the rulers and the ruled." Nothing
could be ihore in contradiction with the thought and words
of Christ, and the practice of the Apostolic Church than this
unbending distinction ; but it is quite enough to show that
the bishops would eagerly restore the ecclesiastical tribunal,
independent of the civil tribunals. It was extremely con-
venient for the clergy. The judges were compassionate,
there were comfortable loopholes of escape, not uncomfortable
128
« i
M
iflJ i
m\ ;
li'i
prisons or retreats. But God knows what would be the sad
fate of the unfortunate layman if the ecclesiastical court had,
as of yore, precedence over the civil court.
" Our Lord," you declare, " established these distinctions."
Yours, possibly ; not Our Lord, not the Lord of Christen-
dom ; certainly not He whom the Gospel reveals unto us,
for he declared to his Apostles when they were enquiring
among themselves, as to which one of them should rule over
the others; — **The Kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship
over them ; and they that exercise authority upon them are
called benefactors. But ye shall not be so : but he that is
greatest among you, let him be as the younger : and he that
is chief, as he that doth serve." (Luke, XXII, 25-26).
Peter, the first of the Apostles, writes in his first Epistle
general (V: 1-2-3); — "The elders which are among you I exhort,
who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of
Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the over-
sight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly ; not for filthy
lucre, but of a ready mind ; neither as being Lords over God's
heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."
Now, as in every properly ordered society there are direct-
ing members, the christian Church was to be no exception in
this respect ; but it was a society of brethreti^ in which the.
director was but the first among his equals {priums inter
pares). There was nothing of the harsh distinction between
laity and clergy, governors and governed, mentioned in the
bishop's haughty pastoral letter. As for laymen, the Apostolic
Church, built as it was, by such men as Stephen, the first
martyr, by Luke, a physician, has no knowledge of the
distinction and difference drawn by our modern bishops.
129
Paul of Tarsus, by his vocation, his mighty apostleship, and
his open resistance to St. Peter in a council of christians at
Antioch, shattered once and for all times the principle of
Romish hierarchy. Our Lord said unto his disciples, dwing
the time of his visible sojourn among men ; " Beware of
false prophets." (Matt, vii 15.) Theirs was consequently
the right, the duty, and the capacity of perceiving the true
Shepherd. They were to judge of the tree by its fruit.
When St. Paul bade farewell to the pastors of EphesuF,
(Acts XX 30) he warns them ih2Afrom their very midst would
come ravening wolves that would not spare the flock.
If, then, the christians of the Apostolic Church were
already counselled to be on their guard against evil shepherds,
still more is it, in our day, the duty of the members of the
flock, since their knowledge is greater, to watch, point out,
and judge.
You, bishops, declare that the frightful scandals that have
been exposed (and there are many others that are still
concealed) ought not to do away with the respect owed by
the faithful to their religious leaders, or to shake their con-
fidence in their morality. This is unquestionably a serious
demand in the present state of affairs. The reason of this is not
that priests are naturally worse than other men, but precisely
because they are like other men ; and because their artificial
and unnatural education can neither unmake them nor
remake them entirely anew. A double error and danger
lurks in the combination of the Romish system of compulsory
celibacy with the confessional. "Et ne nos inducas in
tentatione." It is too late to remember this and tell it to
God when on the point of entering the confessional ; it
should have been borne in mind before inventing the con-
fessional at all, for this was a snare of the devil held out to
#
■m
B^ :'*.
130
the priest and his women penitents. The confessional is an
unhealthy, corrupting, and unnatural invention ; it is contrary
to the Gospel, for no one will ever blot out the pages that
tell of the marriage of St. Peter and other apostles ; and no
one can ever prove the Apostles practised confession.
We know full well the wiles of the clergy, which attempt
to clothe about with poetry and the idea of sacrifice, the lives
of men and women who are declared to be above nature.
God gave them their nature ; and Jesus Christ, the creator
of the Christian religion, never recommended celibacy to
anyone. In a passage which need not bo quoted, he declared
that some arr "ncapable of that virtue, if indeed it be a virtue.
Tempt neither God, nor man. Let us once and ever recall
the word of the celibate Pascal, who was both hero and
saint ; — " Man is neither an angel nor a beast ; it is unfor*
tunate that when he seeks to play the angel, he becomes a
beast."
You reply : — " Vows are efficacious, and also grace obtained
through sacrament." We rejoin that nature makes light of
your vows and sacraments, and that the grace of God is
nowhere promised to become a gushing stream of cold water
to him who casts himself into the fiames.
Notwithstanding the adage ; opportunity does not make a
man a thief ; still the opportunity is a great assistance in
shewing him up as he really is.
. Apostolic Christianity, to which we must always return, if
we would dwell in the tradition of Christianity, had some
married bishops and some unmarried ones. To call upon
all ministers of worship to remain in celibacy, is to demand
all of them to be heroes and martyrs. Some few resist, as
we know, but they are not the stuff of which most ecclesiastics
131
are made. It would be wiser, safer and more the Christian plan
to come back to apostolic example, in this direction as well as
in many others. If even under the purest evangelical doctrine
it is hard to obtain a blameless ministry, how can you expect
it to be otherwise when you keep up an ecclesiastical invention
which offers a constant snare to the weakness of the flesh, or,
if you will have it so, to excessive animality ?
Since the clergy persist in their unwillingness to make
either change or reform in essential matters, trifling alterations
on the surface will possibly be made for the sake of saving
appearances. (This sentence was written several weeks
before the bishops had abolished three important fHes
d^obligation for catholics. It was formerly a mortal sin to
neglect any one of them. God's laws do not change thus,
but in abolishing them the clergy ones again assert their
divine authority). They must prepare themselves to see
on this vast continent which is more Protestant than Roman
Catholic, a number of educated, honest, and thoroughly
religious laymen taking such reform into their own hands,
in the name of everything most sacred to the fr.mily, to
humanity, and to the Church of Jesus Christ.
THEODORE LAFLEUR,
Secretary of the Grande-Ligne Mission.