Homcmism in Jltmco:

BEING A REPLY

TO AN ARTICLE B.Y THE REV, MR. VEROT,

MAYER'S MEXICO,

In the U. S. Catholic JHagqiue, for illardj, 1844.

BY JOHN SMITH, JR.

"Among the evils suffered by the Indians which have been a source of unhappiness to
"them, as well as to all South America, is the Roman Catholic .Religion, which was
"introduced among them by the Spaniards. This Religion, in countries where it pre
dominates or is connected with the government, is widely different from the same Reli-
"gion as it appears in the United States of North America. Instead of being employed as
''all religions ought to be, in directing the morals, purifying the hearts and restraining the
"vices of the people, — it is so prostituted in Spanish countries, that it has become nothing
"but a mass of superstitious ceremonies, and the instrument of avarice and oppression."
Letters on the United Provinces of South America^ by Don Vincente Pazoso

BALTIMORE:
TUBLISHED BY D. B RUNNER,
WOODS & CRANE, PRINTERS.
1S44.

h ye 5-oo
M3 I
i w

INTRODUCTION.

An Article — the authorship of which is attributed to the Rev.
Mr. Verot, a distinguished clergyman of the Roman Catholic
Church,— appeared in the U. S. Catholic Magazine for March,
1844, attacking the work by Mr. Brantz Mayer, entitled
"Mexico as it was and as it is." This review (together
with an article by Mr. Verot in the Saturday Visiter) is chiefly
directed against the portions of Mr. Mayer's book which treat of
Religion in the adjoining Republic ; and may be considered : —
1st. As an apology for the "practices" of Catholicity in Mexico.
2d. As a vindication of the Character of Cortes and his Con
quest, and
3d. As a defence of the Mexican priesthood and church pro
perty. The following letters, by John Smith, Jr., are in reply to the
production of Mr. Verot, and constitute — in the opinion of all who
have read them — a severe and triumphant argument against the
positions of the Reverend Reviewer.
The subscriber has republished these papers with some trifling
additions, under the belief, — from the eagerness with which they
have been sought for, — that the public desired them in a more
permanent form than on the pages of the newspaper, in which
they originally appeared. THE PUBLISHER.
Baltimobe, April 20, 1844.

ROMANISM IN MEXICO,

LETTER No. 1.
Reverend and Dear Sir —
Any one who is acquainted with the English language and the dia
lectics of your church, might easily have resolved in his own mind that
you were a. foreigner and a priest; but your vanity at the achievement of
what you conceived to be a "good thing" has not put the world to the trou
ble of guessing your name or calling, and I, therefore, take the liberty of
addressing you by a title of mingled respect and affection.
You will, therefore, I am confident, readily pardon me for commencing
this note with a regret that you have lost your temper. You have evidently
wrought yourself into a most ecclesiastical passion, the only result of which
may be the impairing of that capital digestion for which your cloth is said
to be remarkable. Let me recommend to you the early adoption of a deple
tory system, and a speedy recourse to that salutary abstinence with which
no doubt you humble yourself, occasionally, in penitential reverence.
My object, however, in addressing you in this manner is less to provide
for the comfort and entertainment of your carnal body, than to endeavor, if
possible, to teach you a lesson which may prove beneficial to your character.
I wish, Rev. and Dear Sir, to minister to your spirit, and to make you here
after, as a Christian divine, more charitable to your adversaries, and less
inclined to sacrifice the retiring humility and gentle virtues of the priestly
character, for the vulgar reputation of a hot disputant and ecclesiastical
gladiator. I intend, at present, to notice but slightly the review in the Catholic
Magazine of March, but I desire to make some comments upon your reply
to the article of Dr. Snodgrass, the Editor, in his Visiter of the 9th instant.
In this reply you charge Mr. Mayer with slander — reviling — selfish bigotry —
and blasphemy, — grievous charges against the vilest malefactor, but still
more grievous, surely, against a citizen who has not forfeited the respect of
his countrymen wherever he is known.
I have read Mr. Mayer's book, Reverend Sir, with considerable attention,
and I have perused, with equal care, both your review and answer to the
editor of the Visiter. The whole of your attack upon this author appears to
be based upon his description of the Roman Catholic ceremonies which he
witnessed in Mexico, and his detail of certain legends of the church, by
which images, exposed in its temples, are alleged to be of miraculous ori
gin. These, together with Mr. Mayer's recommendation of the distribution
of about $80,000,000 out of 90,000,000 of property, belonging to about 5200
priests and monks, and 2000 nuns throughout Mexico, seem to constitute
the staple of your argument and the essence of your indignation.
You have no where attempted to question the veracity of the author of
"Mexico as it was and as it is." That you have left untouched, although
you have seen fit to stigmatize him as a blasphemer,a bigot, and a slanderer.

Let us now see how far you are entitled to credit with this public, as a fair
disputant and an honest critic. I shall satisfy the public, if I fail to pene
trate the crust of your own heart, that you are neither the one nor the other.
You say, that — "JLs long as persons only are concerned,not tenets, dogmas,
and religious parties, you will readily observe the maxim not to revile when
you are reviled," of course intending to revile, most heartily, whenever
"tenets, dogmas, and religious parties" are concerned ; an intention which
you have effected in an eminent degree, in the article under discussion.
Now, sir, it is easy to shew that Mr.. Mayer has attacked neither "tenets,
dogmas, or religious parties," and that you have consequently proved yourself
to be a reviler without the only cause which you think can justify it, although,
even in this instance, you are unfortunate enough to differ from the author of
our Christian religion.
As a summary mode of sustaining the charges you make against Mr.
Mayer, you desire the editor of the Visiter to read Mr. M's chapter on the
Virgin of Remedios. Sir, I have done so, and why, pray, did not you insert
it in your review 1 The statement of your case by yourself is one thing—
the statement of the story by the autlwr is another. Now, what is this
story of the Virgin of Remedios 1 A little doll was found after the defeat of
Cortes in the capital, on the night when he fled for safety to the hills west
of Tacuba; and, subsequently, when he came back as conqueror — a temple
was erected on the spot, — the doll considered a miraculous image, — adorned
with millions worth of gems, — hailed the Virgin of remedies — and let out by
its guardians at thousands per day in times of drought, scarcity and disease
in the capital. In other words,the priests have been in the habit of making
a rich revenue out of the efficacious prayers directed to the Virgin as figured
in this image.*
Mr. Mayer visited the church on the day of the annual festival, and found
it crowded with Indians, who were worshipping with what apparently struck
him to be heathenish rites.
"We sallied forth from the chapel as mass commenced, (says Mr. M.)
Gradually the church began to fill with the half-naked Indian crowd. De
putations of natives from the different villages next arrived, bearing their
offerings of flowers and wax candles to the Virgin, headed by a band of
Indian musicians, with their tom-tom drum and flageolets, making a low
monotonous music. The offerings were taken to the altar, under banners made
of flowers ; and after a wild dance of the Indians to their music before the
image, they were deposited in the sacristy. A constant succession of these
oblations poured in until near two o'clock, when, the morning services
being finished, the image was taken from the tabernacle and placed under a
canopy, whilst a priest bore the consecrated wafer, and the procession began its
march. All heads were at once uncovered, and I went to the upper story
of the church, to have a better view of the ceremony. Jit ihe door of the
church stood a ragged Indian, with a large firework on his head, made in the
shape of a Iwrse, surrounded with squibs and rockets ; behind him were five
•For proof of these statements the reader is referred to Madame Calderon's Mex
ico, p. 226, vol. 1 : Latrobe's Rambler in Mexico, p. 102; Humbold Essai Pol.
vol. 2, p. 221, note.
"On one occasion," says Latrobe, "it was settled that she should pass the night
in town, as the weather was unfriendly, and a suitable lodging was provided ; but
when morning dawned she had vanished. The fact was, that nothing could keep
her away from her own flock at los Remedios, where, accordingly, she was found
at dawn in her usual place ; covered with mud, however, with having walked a num
ber of leagues in a dark and rainy night. And this miracle is believed ! Alas !
poor human nature !"

men and a woman from one of the villages, neatly dressed, their heads being
covered with red silk or cotton handkerchiefs. The men bore thin staves in
their hands, and small coops, made of cane, were strapped on their backs. The
woman held a covered basket before her, and one of the men thrummed a guitar,
giving forth the same monotonous tune of the flageolets and drum. Jis soon as
the procession reached the portal, the whole crowd knelt, and a number of small
rockets and cannon were fired by the Indians. The huge flowers — which I
have before described as ascending and descending on ropes from tlie church
tower lo the gate — were pulled open by a secret spring, and a shower of rose
leaves fell from them over the passing priests and images. Juan Diego's* knees
were bent by some equally secret machinery, and he continued on his slack-rope
pilgrimage through the air. The flageolet and the drum were once more put
in requisition, and the Indian with the horse-firework, accompanied by six
others, began retreating in a trotting dance as tlie holy image approached —
whirling and hopping to the barbarous music, ever careful to keep their faces
to the Virgin. Suddenly, an Indian stole behind the one wlio bore aloft the
firework, and touched its match. At this moment the bells began to chime, —
and thus, amid their clang, the detonation of squibs, cannons and rockets,
and the loud cracking of the exploding horse, the procession sallied from the
court yard to the village, to make a tour of the plaza among the gamblers,
pulque shops and fruit sellers, all of whom suspended their operations for
a moment, and knelt to the sacred figure."
Now, Rev'd and Dear Sir, what is there in this description which "ridi
cules" the ''tenets, dogmas or religious persons" of the Catholic church 1
I confess that I have searched in vain for any thing admitting of controversy.
Mr. Mayer simply recounts to his readers a scene he witnessed, and unless
the undisputed pacts he tells us are "slander" — "blasphemy" — "reviling"
or "bigotry," I am at a loss to know where those new elements of Mr.
Mayer's character are to be discovered. Perhaps, Rev'd Sir, you have
lately varied the tenor of your religious studies by a dip into the English
laws, and have there learned that in some places the doctrine is held that
"the greater the truth — the greater the libel !"
You have alleged, Sir, that this description given by Mr. Mayer is insult
ing to Catholics all the world over, because "Catholicity, as far as tenets,
principles and practices are concerned, is the same in Mexico and in Bal
timore — the same in the old as in the new world," — Indeed ? Are you not
in error, are you not slightly mistaken 1 Nay, Reverend Sir, do you not
positively know the contrary 1
If you had contented yourself with declaring that the "tenets" of
Catholicity where the same everywhere, I might not perhaps have disputed
your declaration — but to declare that its "practices" are identical all the
world over, is a little too much to require even from the stoutest believer.
Have you ever seen a "practice" like the one described by Mr. Mayer in
any part of the United States'? Pray, what do you think of an exhibtion
of the same sort in our city of Baltimore? Let us imagine the scene!
The image of the Virgin Mary, (not the true mark, but a substituted
one,f) borne aloft under a canopy ; a priest carrying the consecrated wafer ; a
* Juan Diego, — the Indian to whom was given the miraculous portrait of the Vir
gin, of which I shall speak hereafter.
f The original of tbis statue, "doll," or imager is now in the Cathedral of the city
of Mexico, to which it was removed for greater security.
"The image is a wooden doll," says Madame Calderon, "about a foot high, hold
ing in its arms an infant Jesus, both faces evidently carved with a rude pen-knife ;
two holes for eyes, and another for the mouth. This doll was dressed in blue satin
and pearls, with a crown upon its head and a quantity of hair fastened on to the
crown. — No Indian idol could be much uglier.''

8
procession bearing banners ; a motley crowd following — and, as the t™n
reaches the portal of one of your churches, it is met by a person— yourself for
instance, — with a huge firework on your head, and half a dozen acolytes
behind you dressed as described by Mr. Mayer. The moment the procession
has left the church you tuck the tail of your cassock under your arm,— a
flageolet and tom-tom drum are put in requisition, and you, with your fire
work, accompanied by your six associates, commence retreating in a trotting
dance, as the holy image approaches, whirling and hopping to the barbarous
music, ever careful to keep your faces to the image ! Suddenly an Indian
steals behind you and touches the match of your firework, and amid the
clang of bells, the detonation of squibs, cannons and rockets, and the loud
cracking of your exploding horse, you continue your clerical gyrations whilst
the procession makes the tour of the neighboring squares !
Now, Rev'd and Dear Sir, such is a "practice" of the church of Mexico
—such is not a "practice" of the church of the United States— such, you
know is not its "practice," and such you, Reverend and Dear Sir, would be
the last man in this community to recommend for its adoption !
Let me in this connection call your attention to page 153, of Mr. Mayer's
book, to read the following description :
"As I entered from the front door of this edifice, the first thing- that attract
ed my notice was a side altar converted into an arbor, in the centre of which
was a well, with Christ and the woman of Samaria beside it. The lady bad
been fitted out by a most fashionable mantuamaker, in a costume of blue satin
picked out with pink, and while she leaned gracefully on a silver pitcher, rest
ing on the side of the well, our Saviour stood opposite in a mantle of purple
velvet, embroidered with gold, and covered with a Guayaquil sombrero!" ;
Will you be kind enough to inform me if you ever saw a "practice" like
this in the Metropolitan church of Baltimore ? Did you ever see any one in
this country attempt to caricature our Lord by putting him in a South Ameri
can sun bonnet? I give you credit by believing that had you seen it
you would have made a precipitate retreat from the church in Mexico where
it was exhibited in order to indulge in one of those hearty cachinnations
with which you are known to unbend occasionally from more austere
pursuits. Again, whilst commenting on the legends of the Virgin related by Mr.
Mayer, why did you not afford the readers of your review the pleasure of pe
rusing the one given by him at p. 65 ?
Mr. Mayer translates this from a sermon of the Cardinal de Lorenzano,
Archbishop of Mexico, preached by him in tlie Collegiate Church in 1760.
"In the year 1531," says the Cardinal, "ten years and four months after
the conquest of Mexico, the Holy Virgin of Guadalupe appeared on the
mountain of Tepeyac. The matter occurred thus : On the 9th of Decem
ber of that year the adventurous Indian, Juan Diego a native of Cluatititlan,
went to Tlaltelolco to study the Christian doctrine, inasmuch as it was there
taught by certain holy Franciscan monks. Passing by the mountain, the
Most Holy Virgin appeared, and told him to go, in her name, to the Illus
trious Bishop Don Francisco Juan de Zummarraga, and say that she desired
him to come and worship on that spot. On the 10th of the same month
Juan Diego returned to the mountain, and the Holy Virgin again appeared,
asking him the result of his commission. Diego replied, that notwithstanding
his efforts, he could not obtain admission to the Bishop. Then, — the Virgin
answered, — 'Return and tell him that I, Mary, the Mother of God, have sent
you !' Juan Diego carefully executed the order, but the Senor Zummarraga
refused him credence ; his only reply being, that he must have some token
to satisfy him of the verity of the annunciation. Again Juan Diego returned

9
to the mountain with this message of the Bishop, and delivered it to the
Holy Virgin, who appeared to him on the 12th of December for the third
time. She ordered him then to ascend the mountain of Tepeyac, cut roses,
and bring them to her. The humble and happy messenger went, notwith
standing he knew full well that on the mountain there were not only no
roses, but no vegetation of any kind. Nevertheless, lie found the flowers and
brought them to Mary ! She threw them in the tilma (a part of Indian dress)
and said to him, 'Return once more to the Bishop and tell him that these
flowers are the credentials of your mission.' Accordingly, Juan Diego im
mediately departed for the episcopal residence, which, it is said, was then
in the house called the Hospital del Amor de Dios; and when he found
himself in the presence of the prelate, he unfolded his tilma to present the
roses, when, lo ! there appeared on the rude garment that blessed picture of the
Virgin, which now after centuries still exists, without having suffered the
slightest injury! Then the illustrious Bishop took the image, and placed it
in his oratory. It is now in this Collegiate church. The Virgin appeared
again, a fourth time, to the Indian. She then restored to health his uncle,
named Juan Bernardino, and told Diego — 'Tlie image on thy tilma I wish
called the Virgin of Guadalupe!' "
Such is the story given of the sacred portrait, the original of which pre
sides over the destinies of Mexico; — whose name — "Maria de Guadalupe" —
is given to one-half the females of the Republic, and whose shrine is one of
the wealthiest in the world. A copy of this picture is hung in every dwell
ing in Mexico, a household god, as dearly cherished as the little clay images
were by the ancient Indians. The motto beneath, "JYon fecit taliter omni
JYationi," is full of pride and consolation." *
This story is corroborated by Madame Calderon's book on Mexico, a work
to which you refer as authority in your article in the March No. of the Ca
tholic Magazine.
Now, permit me to draw your attention, again, to Mr. Mayer's book, on
page 69 of which, you will find a Spanish sonnet addressed to the Virgin and
an account of Indulgences granted in her honor.
After stating several indulgences of five hundred days and two hundred
days which certain Bishops have offered, the paragraph concludes, at the
bottom of the page, with these remarkable words: — "Otros tantos dias con
cede por cada cuarto de hora en que se espongan las Efigies en los balcones,
"The "measure of the Virgin's hands" is marked on a strip of red ribbon and sold
in the church of Guadalupe, at Mexico, for a rial,— (twelve and a half cents.)
At Naples, in Italy, in the church of San Gennaro de i Poveri, there is hung up
near the altar a frame containing a representation of the "measure of the Virgin's
foot." An engraving of it is sold at Naples containing an inscription in Italian, —
of which the following is a translation: —
"The exact measure of the foot of the most blessed mother of God drawn from
"her tkue shoe which is preserved with the greatest devotion in a monastery of
"Spain. Pope John XXII granted 300 years indulgence to every one who shall
"kiss this measure three times and shull recite three Jive Marias: and this was con-
"firmed by Pope Clement VIII in the year of our redemption 1603.
"This Indulgence, not having any prescription as to number, may be obtained
"as often as the devotees of ihe most holy Virgin shall please; it may also be applied
"to souls in purgatory; and, for the greater glory of the Queen or Heaven, it is
"permitted to draw from this measure other similar measures which shall have
"the same indulgence ! !"
This measure makes the foot of the Virgin rather more than 7 inches long, —
whilst the Mexican measure gives five inches and three-quarters for the length
of her hand!
See Home and Jarvis' "Mariolalry" page 94.

10
ventanas e puertas /)«ra la adoraoion publico." Which may be rendered
into English — thus: — "And as many days indulgence are granted for every
quarter of an hour during which the images (of the Virgin) are exposed in
the balconies, windows and doors for public adoration."
Your acquaintance with the Spanish and English languages no doubt
makes you familiar with the meaning of the word "adoracion" both in the
original and translation. Walker says, "to adore — is to worship with ex
ternal homage," and, consequently, that an "adorer" is "a worshipper" —
From all of which the conclusion seems to be inevitable that one of the
"practices," sanctioned by IUustrious Bishops of the Church, is to "worship"
¦Images of the Virgin Mary, notwithstanding the emphatic declaration of the
Bible that "thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, or the like
ness of any thing that is in heaven above, or the earth beneath, or in the waters
under the earth — thou shalt not bow down to them or worship them !"
Now, Rev'd and Dear Sir, such is another of the Mexican "practices;" —
it is needless for me to ask whether such is a practice of the Church in this
Union. Again ; — allow me to refer you to the work of Madame Calderon, — an au
thority you have sanctioned by referring to it yourself in your review in the
U. S. Catholic Magazine. At page 408 of her 1st vol. of "Life in Mexico,"
in giving an account of a public penance — she says :
"Suddenly a terrible voice in the dark cried — 'My brothers ! — when Christ
was fastened to the pillars by the Jews, he was scourged!' At these words
the bright figure disappeared and the darkness became total. Suddenly we
heard the sound of hundreds of scourges descending upon the bare flesh. I
cannot conceive any thing more horrible. Before ten minutes had passed
the sound became splashing from the blood that was flowing!
""At the end of half an hour, a little bell rang and the voice of a monk was
heard calling upon them to desist ; but such was their enthusiasm that the
horrible lashing continued louder and fiercer than ever. In vain he entreated
them not to kill themselves, and assured them that Heaven would be satisfied,
and that human nature could not endure beyond a certain point. No answer
but the loud sound of the scourges, which are many of them of iron with
sharp points that enter the flesh. At length, as if they were perfectly exhausted,
the sound grew fainter, and little by little it ceased altogether.
"They say that the church floor is frequently covered with blood after one
of these penances and that a man died the other day in consequence of his
wounds." Mr. Norman, in his Rambles in Yucatan, page 60, — gives a similar rela
tion, and I refer you to it without quoting the passages.
This scene, sir, is another of the Mexican "practices" which is not iden
tical with any of the "practices" of your Church in this country, and one,
I feel confident in which, you, yourself, have rarely or never indulged
either in public or private. Let me beg you to contrast this description,
given by Madame Calderon, — the wife of a Catholic Spanish Minister to
Mexico, — with your own unworthy sneers on the Methodists in America,
and to paint for us, with your best rhetoric, the immeasurable superiority
in the sight of God and man of the brutal infliction of corporal punishment !
Again; — Let me refer you, Dear and Reverend Sir, to the work of the
traveller last quoted, (Norman,) at pages 32 and 91. He is giving an ac
count, in these two places, of the festivals of Christmas and of the "Purifi
cation of the blessed Virgin." "The people," says he, "testify their respect
for those festival days (for such they are denominated) by processions and

11
such amusements as are suited to their taste. Notwithstanding the acknow
ledged debasing effects of their sports and pastimes, which wholly consist of
bidl bailing, cock fighting and gambling, they are not disgraced by any riot-
ousness or drunkenness.
"The priests give countenance to these recreations, if they may be so
called, both by their presence and participation, (p. 32.)
"  in a few moments I was in aprocession in honor of the 'Purifica
tion of the Holy 'Virgin,' " &.c. &c.
# # #'# % * # # #
"The men, women and children, as soon as they had concluded their
"ceremonies here, started in a body, with a revolting precipitation, to the
"gaming tables, which had been set forth in the ruins of an old convent, ad-
" joining the sanctuary where the procession had just been dissolved ! Here we
"found all classes of society, male and female. The highest ecclesiastical
"and civil dignitaries were there, hob and nob with the most common of
"the multitude ! "—(p. 91 .)
Such is another "practice" of the Mexican priesthood and "ecclesiastical
dignitaries." Need I ask you whether it is a "practice" here ? Whether it is
your habit to engage in "gambling" — to indulge in "bull baiting," or to
luxuriate in the tempting fascinations of a "chicken dispute"— as it is now
most fashionably called ?*
Again, Reverend and Dear Sir, one more picture from your authority,
Madame Calderon, and I have done. Be good enough to turn to page 214
of her second volume : —
"Alas!" (exclaims she, speaking of the Conde de Revillagigedo and the
reform he introduced among the Mexican Monks,) "Alas ! could his Excel
lency have lived in these our degenerate days, and beheld certain Monks of
a certain order drinking pulque and otherwise disporting themselves ! nay,
seen one, as we but just now did from our window, strolling along the street
by lamp-light, with an Indian girl tucked under his arm!" 
And then, Sir, turn to page 1 15 of Stephens' second volume of Travels in
Yucatan, and read the following : —
"Without further preface, then," says Mr. S., "I mention, but only for
the private ear of the reader, that except at Merida and Campeachy, where
they are more immediately under the eyes of the bishop, the padres through
out Yucatan, to relieve the tedium of convent life, have compagncras, or, as
they are sometimes called, hermanas politicas or sisters in law."
# # # # * * * # #
"Some look on this arrangement as a little irregular, but, in general, it is
regarded only as an amiable weakness, and I am safe in saying that it is con
sidered a recommendation to a village padre, as it is supposed to give him
settled habits, as marriage does with laymen ; and, to give my own honest
opinion, which I did not intend to do, it is less injurious to good morals than
the by no means uncommon consequences of celibacy which are found in
some other Catholic countries. The padre in Yucatan stands in the posi
tion of a married man, and performs all the duties pertaining to the head of
a family. Persons of what is considered a respectable standing in a village,
do not shun left hand marriages with a padre. Still it was to us always a
matter of regret to meet with individuals of worth, and whom we could not
?Instances of these "practices," without number, might be multiplied from the
works of Madame Calderon, Stephens, Norman, and every traveller, nearly, in Spa
nish America.

12
help esteeming, standing in what could not but be considered a false position.
To return to the case with which I set out : — the padre in question was uni
versally spoken of as a man of good conduct, a sort of pattern padre for cor
rect, steady habits ; sedate, grave and middle aged, and apparently the last
man to have an eye for such a pretty compagnera !"
Here, Sir, you have a picture of another Mexican "practice" of the priest
hood, for which I confess myself at a loss to find a parallel in our country —
or in Enrope. Celibacy is enjoined by your holy orders, and as far as the
world is informed on the subject, you or your associates have never been
seen strolling home by sentimental moonlight, "with an Indian girl, or any
other girl, tucked under your arm" — neither are you believed to be a "mar
ried man and to perform all the duties pertaining to the head of a family" — ,
nor is our city aware of the fact of your having ever offered to enjoy a "left
hand marriage with a person of respectable standing!" Upon the whole,
you are certainly a "pattern padre, of correct and steady habits ; sedate, grave
and middle aged, and apparently the last man to have an eye for a pretty
compagnera!" *********
"It is related, says Mr. Mayer, that Hidalgo, the celebrated priestly leader
of the revolutionary movement, was accustomed to travel from village to
village preaching a crusade against the Spaniards, exciting the Creoles and
Indians. One of his most effective tricks is said to have been the following :
Although he had thrown off the cassock for the military coat, he wore a
figure of the Virgin Mary suspended by a chain around his neck. After
haranguing the mob on such occasions, he would suddenly break off, and
looking down at his breast, address himself to the holy image, after the fol
lowing fashion: — 'Mary! Mother of God! Holy Virgin! Patron of Mexico !
behold our country, — behold our wrongs, — behold our sufferings ! — dost thou
not wish they should be changed? that we should be delivered from our
tyrants ? that we should be free ? that we should slay the Gauchupines ! that
we should kill the Spaniards V
"The image had a moveable head fastened to a spring, which he jerked
by a cord concealed beneath his coat, and, of course the Virgin responded
with a nod ! The effect was immense — and the air was filled with Indian
shouts of obedience to the present miracle."
Do you recollect, my dear Sir, how you answered and accounted for this
noble "practice" of the priestly insurgent ? Let me quote from your review :
"As the manner," you say, "in which the jugglery was practised is re
lated, as well as the jugglery itself, is it not plain that the circumstance is
simply an amusing fiction, or that if it happened, the Indian spectators, in
stead of shouting to a miracle, merely applauded in a vociferous man
ner, the Ingenious and pleasing method of the stump orator in en
forcing his VIEWS?"
Your reply, Reverend Sir, is as amusing as it is unanswerable ! I think
I behold you, — not content with dancing with the horse firework on your
head ! Suddenly you are transformed into a politician, an ability for which
you have so conclusively shown in your arguments on public law. You
take a vast interest in public affairs — and lo! you turn stump orator!
A meeting is called in Monument Square, and it is trumpeted throughout
the town that our Reverend opponent is to address it. You come on
the stand— you pound the boards for an hour, and, after having sucked
dry the argumentative well of your noble intellect, you suddenly turn
to a little figure of the Virgin, which is dangling round your neck :
"Blessed Mary — Holy Virgin— Patron of Maryland," you exclaim, "Dost
thou not wish that we should succeed ? that we should conquer our enemies ?

13
that our wrongs should be avenged? that we should be delivered from our
tyrants? that we should beat John Tyler? that we should elect Martin Van!"
Suddenly you jerk a little cord beneath your cassock and the Virgin answers
with a nod!
How prodigious would be the effect of this Mexican "Practice." How
miraculous the intimation of the will of heaven ! Yet this, recollect my
Reverend friend, is no "blasphemy," because, (as YOU say,) it would be
merely the ingenious and PLEASING method of a stump orator, in en
forcing his views!
* * * * * # # * #
Yet, Rev'd and Dear Sir, knowing all these follies, like an unfair and
unjust controversialist, who has been schooled in the mustiest volumes of
obsolete casuistry, you have ventured to attack the book of a fellow-citizen,
who disavowed most emphatically, at the very commencement of his work,
any disposition to interfere with your Religion.
"In the remarks which will be found herein upon certain ceremonies in
the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico," says Mr. Mayer in his preface,
"I beg that my purpose may not be misconstrued ; I do not attack the faith or
the institutions of that venerable society ;" — here you disingenuously stop ; let
me finish the quotation for you and the reader :
"I speak not of men's creeds — they rest between
Man and his Maker ;'' —
Continues Mr. Mayer, — "but I have confined myself exclusively to those
painful exhibitions which cannot fail to strike a stranger as disadvantageous
both to intellectual progress and the pure and spiritual adoration of God.
The mixture of antique barbaric show — and Indian rites, may have served to
attract the native population at the first settlement of the country ; but their
continuance is in keeping neither with the spirit of the age nor the necessities of
a Republic. While the priesthood has contrived, in the course of centuries,
to attract the wealth of multitudes, and to make itself, in various ways, the
richest proprietor of the nation, the people have grown poor and continued
ignorant. It has, therefore, appeared to me, that in a republic like Mexico,
where the Roman Church is the only one tolerated by the Constitution, it
was the duty of that establishment voluntarily to unfetter its wealth, to re
form its ritual, to sweep into the public coffers the useless jewels that adorn
the altars and statues — yet do not glorify the Almighty ; and to imitate the
virtues, resolution and self-denial of its ministers in our country, who, while
blending themselves in politics and public spirit most effectually with the masses,
have devoted their lives to the education of people of all creeds and classes for
support and independence."
Such, Sir, were the sentiments of Mr. Mayer, — clearly stated by him — and
unquestionably read but purposely omitted by you. You did so because
you knew that Mr. Mayer had attacked nothing that was vital in your creed
— or sacred upon authority. You knew that he dealt alone with the cor
ruptions and errors that had crept into a remote and lonely branch of your
church. You know that his object was to treat solely of those "practices"
which are peculiar to Spanish America — but which you now for the first
time allege are "the same every where." You know that his purpose was
to awake public sentiment among those who might introduce gradually such
improvements in Mexican usages as would tend to the spiritual and intel
lectual advancement of the Indians. You knew that he set up Catholicity
in this country as a model for the imitation of that of Mexico, and of course
defended it from the very censure you have imputed. And knowing all
these things you have ventured to omit the concluding part of a sentence

14
which would have given a different colouring and contrast to Mr. Mayer's
opinion of your Church in Mexico — and in this Union. The logic of a pro
fessor cannot fail to teach you to what name a disputant is entitled who is
proved to be guilty of disengenuousness like this.
As long as you kept within the walls of your own church by confining
your attacks on Mr. Mayer's Mexico to the pages of the Catholic Magazine,
I should have preserved a silence congenial to the obscurity of the field you
selected for your logical swordsmanship, where, with almost the impunity
of the pulpit, you could hurl your priestly spear at the shadows raised by
your prurient fancy. But you have come out from the sanctuary into the
public arena, — a mark for all tilters, — and I have, therefore, not forborne to
cross a layman's lance with your godly weapon.
I now beg leave to bid you adieu for the present, and may, probably, on
another occasion, pay my respects to the aspersions you have cast upon the
respectable society of Methodists, by placing them in the same category
with Mexican Indians. May you live a thousand years!
JOHN SMITH, Jr.

LETTER No. II.
Reverend and Dear Sir :
On reading again the production with which you have favoured
our community, on the subject of Mexico and her church, in the Catholic
Magazine for March, I have thought it my duty to rebuke and expose
at length some of the shameless doctrines with which it is filled. I have
been led to do so by the fact that you are a clergyman and a professor, and,
possessing thus a character for peculiarly sanctified and scrupulous learning,
your assertions might have, with society, a degree of weight to which they
are entitled neither by their accuracy nor their soundness. The world, my
Dear Sir, is often betrayed by the solemnity of a priestly garb and induced to
believe the most enormous errors when detailed by the sanctimonious mouth
of one whose life ought to be devoted to the cultivation of truth and virtue
alone. I regret that I must lay bare some of your vicious doctrines, and I trust,
that you will, therefore, excuse me for the freedom I have taken in disturb
ing your equanimity.
Your review of Mr. Mayer may be classed under three heads, to wit :
1st, the practices of Catholicity; 2nd, the character of Cortes, and the
question of the conquest of Mexico ; and 3rd, a defence of Mexican church
property and character.
I have dealt with the first of these subjects in my previous letter, and, if
time is allowed me, I shall dispose of the two last in the present.
First, then, in regard to the character of Cortes and the Mexican con
quest. You ask us with a mingled air of insulted feeling and of triumph : —
"How could Mr. Mayer assert that Cortes was at best but a great pirate ?
(p. 138.) — How can he represent him as a bigoted soldier who slew thou
sands for the acquisition of gold, empire, and a new altar for the holy cross ?
(p. 97.) How can he, in the face of history, tell us of "the avarice and
relentlessness of an unknightly heart, urging him onward to the destruction
of a civilized and unoffending people ?" (p. 36.) It is well known that the
views of Cortes, on his entering Mexico, where far from being hostile to

15
the natives. The first object that he proposed to himself in his adventurous
expedition, was the establishment of a friendly communication and friendly
intercourse with the nations which he visited ; and had the aborigines evinced
any willingness to treat with him according to the custom of civilized people
and the first principles of the law of nations, which consider all the individuals
of the human race as forming but one family, he would have abstained from
violent measures (.') in fact, the small number of soldiers who accompanied
him, must alone have disposed him to accomplish his ends more by concil
iatory means than by a resort to coercion. This is plain from the fact, that
in the many contests which he carried on he was never the aggressor, and in
many instances, he acted only as an ally and protector of an oppressed
people." These are startling questions, Reverend and Dear Sir, and startling allega
tions, coming, as I said before, from a scholar whose life has been divided
between science and religion. Nevertheless, my dear friend, I am compel
led, reluctantly, to believe either that you have perverted the truth — that
you have misspent your time in historical researches — or, that your reading
has been confined to authors who have not mastered the topics that engaged
their pens. I was, at first, inclined (nay, 1 still am) to the latter opinion;
but I find, on reading a note at page 7 of your review, that you refer to
Prescott (passim*) and I suppose, Rev'd and Dear Sir, that as you quote
him "everywhere," you have read him thoroughly, and, consequently, adopt
him as your authority. I confess that I am not a little astonished at this fact,
seeing the singularly anti-Catholic doctrines he has promulgated on many
of his eloquent pages ! Perhaps he is held to be authority only when he
suits you, though he may be exceedingly heretical whenever he disagrees ;—
a historical pliancy that is useful, at least, if it is nothing else !f But let us
proceed with our subject.
"Cortes," says Mr. Mayer, "was, at best, but a great pirate." I beg
leave, Reverend Sir, to agree with him. What is a pirate? I will reply to
you, and honestly, too. A pirate, according to the usage of the word by the
best writers, is an individual, who, casting off the restraints of authority,
undertakes to make war on his own account, or to perform acts of an ag
gressive character against persons who have neither attacked him, or given
his sovereign just cause for hostilities.
Now let us apply, Reverend Sir, the true history of the original attacks of
Cortes upon the Mexicans to this definition, and let us see whether he does
not merit the title bestowed by Mr. Mayer. In order lo satisfy you, particu
larly, I refer to Prescott's History of the Conquest, vol. 1, 245, 250, and the
following pages, where you will find, in detail, the origin of his expedition,
which I will briefly and honestly recount without a full quotation from our
author. Cortes was a soldier of fortune in the Islands, and, after a variety of ad-
* I regret that so fastidious a purist as yourself should have introduced a Latin
¦word in your review ! By the way, if you will look into Walker, you will find
that "etui," the use of which you censure in Mr. Mayer, In your review, is an
English word ; and you will also find that "morccaw" is sanctioned by the adoption
of our best writers. These words are naturalized amongst us, like "rosbif" and
"bifstik" are in Paris. An ignorance of these facts, however, is very pardonable
in a foreigner like yourself.
f In a reply to this article in the "Clipper," the reverend reviewer says : "But,
sirj allow me to tell you, that when I quote to you a Protestant author, it is well
understood ti/at I quote him only for the thing which I mention." This is a "sliding
scale" of logic, which would be remarkable in the dialectics of any one but a Ro
man priest.

16
ventures, of singular character, he was employed by Governor Velasquez
as the Captain General of an armada to be devoted to discoveries. It is be
lieved, with good reason, that this expedition was mainly equipped at the
cost and charge of Velasquez, and that the instructions he gave to Cortes
were not cramped by any mean or sordid feeling.
From a variety of causes (the justice or injustice of which it is not neces
sary for us to enquire,) Velasquez secretly resolved, before the departure of the
Armada, to change its commander. But the intention of the Governor was
revealed to Cortes, who, displaying on this occasion the promptness and
resolution for which the whole of his future career was remarkable — imme
diately threw himself on board his vessels and sailed on his successful enter
prise before Velasquez had an opportunity to recall formally the powers
with which he had intrusted him. Every subsequent effort to deprive him
of his command was evaded by the daring hero ; and, although, he com
menced his conquest under most dishonorable circumstances, yet no one can
deny that he followed up his advantages with courage, resolution, and emi
nent ability. His chief resource, in all cases, was his own unflinching soul,
which never allowed him to doubt his resources, his objects, or the means to
secure his end. We thus see, that after making way with a fleet, — of the
command of which he knew that he had been virtually deprived, — when
Velasquez sent a band, under the command of Narvaez, to order him to sur
render to the lawful authorities of his country, he not only set it at defiance,
but, with his freebooting troop, actually conquered the person who was sent
to arrest him.
Now, Reverend and Dear Sir, such are precisely the acts and conduct of a
pirate — a freebooter, or a buccaneer ; such conduct would meet a pirate's
fate in this latitude, and in this country, — and such would have been the
end of Cortes if he had come within the grasp of Velasquez.
Let me imagine a case. In a time of profound peace with England, a
governor of Jamaica, for instance, takes a fancy for some of the towns on
the coast of Mexico, — and, let us suppose, that instead of making a religious
vow, you had exhibited, in a red coat, some of the military ardor for the
right of conquest which you have shown on paper. Let us fancy you in
Jamaica, at this auspicious moment, casting about for employment. The
Governor sees you, — is taken by your military port, — your courageous bear
ing, — and all your extraordinary qualifications for so hazardous an enter
prise; — you strike a bargain — he equips a dozen vessels ; mans your fleet
with negroes, and commissions you to conquer the adjacent coasts in the
name of Her Britannic Majesty. Still, however, when on the eve of your
departure, some wicked enemy whispers to him that you are a "slippery
fellow," and that he had better beware of your "enterprising" temperament.
Cunning rogue that you are, however, you get wind of His Excellency's de
sign to displace you, — throw yourself on board your little fleet — reach the
coasts, — and alas ! (dropping here the parallel between the conqueror and
the professor) — instead of adding Vera Cruz, and Tampico to the British
crown, you are soundly beaten and taken prisoner! What would be the
consequence? An appeal to England would not justify you ! England
would cast you off as an unworthy subject, and you would be hung mn.i
unmercifully, Dear and Reverend Sir, as a pirate, in terrorem to all future
leaders of such enthusiastic adventures !
Such, my reverend friend, was not the fate of Cortes only because he
proved successful, and attacked a nation which was not Roman Catholic
at that period. Success is an astonishing purifier of men's motives in this
-world — and, 1 believe, the doctrine is not unknown lo certain orclers in your
church that the "end will often justify the means!"

17
That Cortes, was inhuman in the prosecution of his warfare is equally
undeniable with the first allegation of Mr. Mayer. To prove this I will not
refer you to Prescott ("passim") as you have done ; but I shall request you
to read his '^History of the Conquest of Mexico," vol. 1, p. 462-3, for an ac-.
count of the brutal .mutilation of Tlascalan spies : vol. 2d, p. 23-4, for the
story of an unjustifiable massacre of Cholulans, by which from 3000 to 6000
persons lost their lives : vol. 2d, p. 161, and 172, for an account of his cfuel
and treacherous seizure of Montezuma, who had received him in the capi
tal of his empire like sPfriendly sovereign : and Vol. 2d, pages 281, 282, 283,
to, prove. that it was by the "aggressive" act of the Spaniards' themselves,
under Alvarado, that the final overthrow of the Aztec empire was accom
plished; and, as a necessary consequence, that Cortes is directly responsi
ble for all the ruin and destruction that ensued. What that ruin and de
struction were is so. much better described by an eye witness of high autho
rity that I will quote his sentences for your especial edification:
"What I am going fo say is truth, and I swear, and say Amen to it!"
(exclaims Bernal Diaz del Castillo, in bis quaint style:) "I have read of
the destruction of Jerusalem, but. I cannot conceive that the mortality there
exceeded that of Mexico ; for all the people from the distant provinces, which
belonged to this Empire, had, concentrated themselves here, where they
mostly died. The streets, and squares, and houses, and the courts of the Tla-
telolco were covered with dead bodies; ice could not step without treading on
them; the lake1 and canals were filled with them, and thestench was intolerable.
"When all those who had been able, quitted the city, we went to examine
jt, which was as I have described; and some poor creatures were crawling
about in different stages of the most offensive disorders, the consequences of
famine' and improper food. There was no water; the ground had been torn
up and the roots gnawed. The very, trees were stripped of their bark ; yet,
notwithstanding they usually devoured their prisoners, no instance occurred
when, amidst all the famine arid starvation of thissiege, they preyed upon
each other. The remnant of the population went, at the request of the con
quered Guatimozin, to the neighboring villages, until the town could be
purified and the dead removed. Cortes affirms that more tlmn fifty thousand
perished f." ¦
And yet, such, Reverend and Dear Sir, you would have us believe, was
a justifiable slaughter in order to put down idolatry and human sacrifi
ces; — or in other words, that Cortes had a perfect right to make one Teat
sacrifice in order to put an end to human sacrifices, by instalments, forever
after ! — It is but necessary to unmask your doctrine, in order to demonstrate
its wickedness.* Nor was this all:
"It is a notorious fact (you say) that the Spaniards, when they invaded
the Indian territory,. did not drive the inhabitants from the soil, but shared
* I state for the benefit of the reader who may not be acquainted with the law,
that the modern and received doctrine on the right of levying war is as follows:
"The foundation or cause pf every just war must be an injury, either al
ready done, or, with which we are evidently menaced." Vattel, book
3, chap, iii, §26.
"The law of nations being the same amongst civil societies with the law of na
ture among individuals, nothing but what is strictly or properly an injury will jus
tify a public war. From whence it follows — that where a nation makes war upon
another only on account of some neglect, or, refusal of what is matter of favor, or,
of courtesy, or even of humanity, such war is contrary to the law of nations.
The false religion, lUcewise, of a nation, can be no otherwise just cause of making war
upon it, than as this religion has actually produced some real and proper injury, or
some attempt to do such yhjury" — (of course, to the nation that wages the war.) Ru-
therfoith's Institutes, book 2, chap, ix, § 11.
3

18
it with them: they did not enslave the people, but respected the rights of hu
manity, and considered the conquered race as their equals."
Here, again, you are most careless, most ignorant, or most false, in your
examination of Mr. Prescott. Have the goodness to turn to page 261 of his
3d volume. "In the distribution of the soil among the conquerors," says
he, "Cortes adopted the vicious system of repartimientos, universally prac
tised among his countrymen. In a letter to the Emperor he states that the
superior capacity of the Indians of new Spain had made him regard it as
a grievous thing to condemn them to servitude, as ^iad been done in the
Islands. But on further trial he had found the Spaniards so much harrassed
and impoverished that they could, not hope to maintain themselves without en
forcing the services of the natives, and for- this reason he had at length waived
his own scruples in compliance with their repeated remonstrances, This was
the wretched pretext used on like occasions by his countrymen to cover up
this flagrant act of injustice." '¦ ¦
Do you not know, Reverend and Dear Sir, that many grave and worthy
historians have charged Cortes with the murder of his wife? Do you not
positively know that whilst that wife was living in -the Islands he contract
ed a Mason with Donna Marina,, an Indian girl, who became his friend, his
spouse, his counsellor, his guardian, his interpreter, through the whole of
the campaigns of the conquest ; and, without whose aid and influence he never
would have achieved it ? ¦ Do you recollect the sequel of her story ? What
become of her? Your "knightly?' hero, after using her for years, — malting
her the mother of his child, — and owing to her fidelity the brightest jewel
of his fame,— "gave her away," [says Prescott at p. 292, of vol. 3d,] "to a
Castiilian knight,— and, from this time, her name disappears from the*
page of history ?" *
I think, therefore^ Reverend and Dear Sir, when you combine all these
facts, that you cannot fail to coincide with me that the enterprise of Cortes
was piratical in its- inception, — that he prosecuted it with cruelty, — and,
finally, that with an "unknightly" heart, — (false to his best and most con
fiding Indian friends Montezuma and Marina,)— he destroyed the empire of
a "civilized and unoffending people.''' f
* To prove that the Priests of that day added by their pious "practices" to the
destruction of Mexico, I will append, by way of note, the following historical
passage from Prescott, vol. 1, p. 101:
"At the time of the arrival of the Spaniards, great quantities of manuscripts
(Aztec) were treasured up in the country. Numerous persons were employed in,
painting, and the dexterity of their operations excited the astonishment of the
conquerors. Unfortunately, this was mingled with other and unworthy feelings.
The strange, unknown , Characters inscribed on them excited suspicion. They
were looked on as magic scrolls; and were regarde.d in the same light with idols
and temples, as the symbols of a pestilent superstition that must be extirpated.
The first Archbishop of Mexico, Don Juan de Zumarraga, — a name that
should be as immortal as that of Omar, — collected these paintings from every quarter,
especially from Tezcuco, the most cultivated capital of Jlnahuac^md the great deposi
tory of the national archives. He then caused them to be piled upin a 'mountain heap,'
as it i3 called by the Spanish writers themselves, in the imarket-place of Tlaltelolco,
and reduced them all to ashes! His great countryman, Archbishop
Ximenes, had celebrated a similar auto-da-fe of Arabic manuscripts, in Granada,
some twenty years before. Never did fanaticism achieve two more signal triumphs
than by the annihilation of so many curious monuments of human ingenuity and learn
ing !"
Zumarraga became Archbishop of Mexico within the first ten years after the
conquest. t That the "avarice" of the conquerors was fully gratified may be judged fronj
the fact that the treasure given by Montezuma to Cortes and the conquerors, toi

19
This brings me, Dear Sir, to the second branch of my subject, to wit: —
your extraordinary doctrines as to the right of conquest. In order to state
your proposition fairly, let me quote your own words :
" JVe might go farther and maintain that Cortes had a right to invade Mexico,
and we could easily establish this point by the testimony of the most ap
proved casuists, and the most learned jurists, as Grotius, Puffendorff, Mon
tesquieu and others, wlw assume that war may he justly 'declared against those
who violate the sacred rights of humanity, so far as to immolate human victims
in considerable ' numbers. > Monsters of this description violate the compact of
nations, and may be lawfully compelled to pursue a course more in conforma
tion to the dictates of reason, justice and humanity. * * *
To us then it appears incontestible, independently of the autlwrity of publicists
and jurists, that Cortes had an undoubted right to redress this state of things;
and that at first he should have attempted a reformation by mild and con
ciliatory means; but iftliese proved useless, or excited the other party to take up
arms, he was justifiable in repelling force by force. Such was really the case,
and as he conducted the war against the Mexicans with a strict regard to
principle and law, he may be said to have conquered Mexico without having
violated an^ national right." — (Review p. 7.)
Notable discovery ! Cortes a Crusader ! The Conquest of Mexico a holy
war! — Admirable apologist ! — Profound publicist 1— How luckless for the
British race that your lot was not cast on the shores of the "sea-girt isle,"
that you might have been afforded an opportunity to defend, with a Briton's
fervor, her conquests in China — her massacres of Afghanistan — her tri
umphs of Scinde! — What mingled emotions of Christianity and gun-pow
der, — of opium and civilization, — of chivalry and dry goods — are conjured
up by the mere thought of your abilities !
The doctrine you state, Reverend Sir, stripped of the scantling of rhetorick
with which it is surrounded, is nothing more nor less than this: — The
Mexicans were civihzed to a degree ;— they worshipped according to their
knowledge ; — but they were infidels and permitted human sacrifices ; — and,
consequently, were amenable to all punishments and even war and conquest,
in order to purge them of their sins. In other words, — they were heretics
and ought to have their damnable doctrines burned and bled out of them !
This, Reverend and Dear Sir, is your doctrine, — fairly skinned. I confess,
that 1 had1 read of such things, and knewi^independently of the authority
the Bull of Pope Alexander the VI. by which the islands and main were
f ranted to the sovereigns of Spain in 1493,*) that principles, like yours, had
een. entertained and acted on in the 1 5th century; — but, I also confess, that
I was not prepared, nor, do I think any parttof this public, (Catholic or
Protestant,) is prepared to receive them at this period of the nineteenth. I
thought, Reverend Sir, that this theory was buried among the mouldy lum
ber of an illiterate and bigoted age,never to berevived in modern civilization ;
— but alas ! I have been grievously mistaken ; — and, to the Judgments of
Oleron, in which it is declared — "That any one may attack pirates, skimmers
of the sea, Turks, ahd all other enemies of our Catholic faith, — like dogs,
and despoil them of their property and wealth without punishment ! "t — may
now be added the high authority of a priest and publicist in Baltimore,
whose only demerit unfortunately is, that this is his virgin effort in the doc
trines of International law ! i
which was added that of Axayacatl, amounted to about six million three hundred
thousand dollars, according to Prescott, vol. 2, p. 203. Cortes died in possession of
great personal wealth, and extensive estates in New Spain. If his war had been
only a holy one — why did he either take this land — or participate in the spoils ?
• See Peter Martyr, p. 167 — ed. London 1555.
t Judgments of Oleron, article 45.

20
Let us see, Reverend and dear Sir, how your principles would succeed in
practice — and, as you are fond of regular logic, let us try them syllogistically,
thus : —
If a man is not a christian, you have a right to argue him, by "mild and
conciliatory means,"* into Christianity.
If, in consequence of this argument, he loses his tempor, and gets into a
quarrelsome moodj "or is excited to arms,"* you have a right to . quarrel
with him.
If he strike you, you have a right to strike him back again — "to repel
force by force"*-^aye, and to "beat" him soundly, if you can.t
Ergo, Rev'd and Dear Sir, you have an unquestionable right to whip a
man into Christianity! That Cortes coincided in your opinion, there can
be no doubt, from the order he gave that "on Sundays and holydays all
should attend, under pain of a certain number of stripes, to the expounding
of the Scriptures !" That such, also, was a "doctrine of Catholicity," I am
informed moreover by reference to a Synopsis of Den's Moral Theology —
(Philadelphia edition of 1842, page 117.) After Stating that heretics are de
servedly visited with penalties, of exile, imprisonment, &c.,_this author asks :
"Are heretics rightly punished with death?" "St. Thomas answers (2. 2
quest, xi. art. 3, in corp.j — Yes, because forgers of money or other disturbers
of the state are justly punished with death ; — therefore, also, heretics, who
are forgers of the faith, and, as experience shows, grievously disturb the
state." An edition of the work containing these monstfous doctrines was
published in Mechlin, as late as the year 18§8.
Allow me, however, my Reverend friend, to carry you a step further in
this argument. The doctrine was held, according to Prescott, (your own
authority, remember,) in the 15th century, that '^religious infidelity, at
this period, and till a much later, was regarded— ho matter whether founded
on ignorance or education, whether hereditary or acquired, heretical or
pagan— as a sin to be punished with fire and faggot in this world, and eternal
suffering in the next. ,
# # # * * # # # *
"Under this code, the territory of the heathen, wherever found, was regarded
as a sort of religious waif, which, in default of a legal proprietor, was claimed
and taken possession of by the Holy See, and as such was freely given away by
the head of the church to any temporal potentate wliom lut pleased, that would
assume the burden of conquest. I
Now, let us apply this doctrine : Suppose a Protestant nation of peculiarly
tempting aspect presented itself in this phase of the 19th century to the
desiring gaze of a Roman Catholic sovereign of great power arid ample
means of conquest. Suppose that you, Rev'd Sir, were the Secretary of
State, or Minister of War of such an Empire, and your anxious monarch
were to hint the subjugation of his opulent neighbor. Methinks I see you
•See your review in the Catholic Magazine.
JThe reviewer, in his reply to this, changes his ground somewhat. — He says, "that
if in consequence of this interference, a conflict had arisen, Cortes could repel
force by force, and obtain a right of conquest." Cortes had no original right
of conquest, but he could "obtain a right of conquest !" Felicitous logic!
Delicate dialectic ! I have no right to kill Mr. John Brown, but I desire very
ardently to put the said individual "out of his misery."— How am I to do it ; the
Reverend reviewer tells me: — "interfere with the said Brown, let a conflict arise;
provoke him to use force — "repel force by force," — obtain a right to kill him
by receiving a blow first— and then, shoot him at once .'.'
X See 2d Prescott's Mexico, p. 30 ; and chap. 7, part 2d, of his History of Fer
dinand and Isabella.

21
rub your hands and chuckle over the idea ! How quickly would you argue
in the longing ear of your Imperial Master — thus :
"There is but one true creed, and it is the common duty of all men to
defend it against error and vice."*
"If there is but one true creed, — and that one the Roman Catholic, — then
'all others are false, vicious and heretical.' ,"*
"All heretics are infidels, — or 'unfaithful,' — ergo — according to Oleron,!
and St. Thornas — Most Puissant Prince, you may fall on them 'like dogs,
and despoil them of their wealth and property without punishment ! ' Such,
Sire, was the, doctrine in the conquest of Mexico, — and, as 'the tenets, prin
ciples and practices of Catholicity are every where the same,'* you have
the privilege, in the 19th century, of undertaking to whip these infidels into
Catholicity, which is the equivalent of Christianity ; nay, even of conquer
ing them, if they prove utterly refractory !"
And now, Rev'd Sir, suppose that England had chosen at one period to
select this as the ground for an invasion of Spain, — would not your doctrine
have fully sustained the iniquitous aggression? In what country were
"human sacrifices" so freely offered up as in that unfortunate realm?
For more than two centuries the Inquisition reeked with gore spilled in
the name of Religion, by Tribunals of Churchmen. * Will you define, for
this incredulous age, the difference betwixt "human sacrifices" in the cause
of Religion, and "human sacrifices" for the cause of Religion? Will you
paint for our eager gaze the vital dissimilarity between the stake of the
Dominican and the knife of the Mexican ? And will you then pretend, be
cause those demons held sway over the destinies of Spain, for several
centuries, that, consequently, other nations had the right to "redress their
wrongs," and conquer their nation ? Do you not, at a glance, perceive the
shallowness as well as the wickedness of the casuistry by which you have
attempted to gull your readers and impugn our author ?{
"The ancient Mexicans," says Mr. Prescott, vol. 1, page 83, "had many
"claims to the character of a civilized community. One may, perhaps,
"better understand this anomaly, by reflecting on the condition of some of
* See your letter to the editor of the Visiter of the 16th March.
t This has been made the subject of a witticism by the reviewer, which is about
as stupid as it is far-fetched. The judgments or laws of Oleron were quoted by
me under the title of "Oleron" — precisely as I should quote from the Pandects —
by using the word "Pandects," without ever intimating that Pandects was either
a gentleman or a priest !
JLlorente, in his history of the Inquisition, estimates 31,912 TO HAVE BEEN
BURNED by the holy office ; 17,912 to have been burnt in effigy, and 291,450
to have been condemned to severe penances.
The doctrine by which the defenders of the Inquisition endeavour to escape from
the odium of the tribunal is, that although it found the culprit guilty, it did not
INFLICT the punishment, — which was the act of a civil tribunal. In proof of this,
see Dr. Fredet's (of St. Mary's College, Baltimore,) Modern History, vol. 2. p.
328. "If," says the doctor, "notwithstanding the convincing proofs of bis guilt,
he (the culprit) remained obstinate or impenitent, then, and not until then, was
"he delivered over to the civil power, to be dealt with according to law. Surely
"this was his own fault ; and even then," (!) (Ob, how charitable ') — '-the In
quisitors recommended the wretched individual to the mercy of the secular judge !"
The deduction from this is quite evident, — that if a Protestant heretic fell into the
hands of the Inquisition, and would not abjure his faith, — "it was his own
fault," and, consequently, that the inquisition did not condemn him to be burn
ed, but that he burned himself! A most consolatory view of martyrdom, which
would be refreshing, doubtless, to many a poor fellow who roasted over the faggots
of Romanism!

22
"the polished countries in Europe in the 16th century, after the establish-
"ment of the Inquisition, an institution which yearly destroyed its thousands, by
"o death more painful than the Aztec sacrifices; which armed the hand! of
"brother against brother, and, setting its burning seal upon the lip, did more
"to stay the march of Improvement than any other scheme devised by human
"cunning. ,
"Human sacrifice, however cruel, has nothing in it degrading to its
victim. It may be rather said to ennoble him, by devoting him to the gods.
"Although so terrible with the Aztecs, it Was sometimes voluntarily em-
"braced by them, as the most glorious death, and one that opened a sure
"passage to paradise. The Inquisition, on the other hand, branded its victims
"with infamy in this world, and consigned them to everlasting per-
"dition in the next." Yet such was the terrible religious engine erected
in America, on the ruins of Indian superstition, and such were the minis
ters at its bloody altar whose substituted cruelties are made the subject of
Roman laudation at this period of mercy, refinement and civizilation !
I think, Rev'd and Dear Sir, that I have thus, as briefly as possible, proved
both to yourself and the public, that if in the previous jpart of this letter you
have appeared (from your own authority, Prescott,) to be either ignorant
or a wilful misrepresenter of the history you attempted to criticise. — it is also
quite evident, from the latter part of it, that you are the promulgator of the
most unsound and diabolical dogmas on international law. It is a profound,
consolation to Protestants, and I believe Catholics, in America, that you are
neither our Judge nor our Grand Inquisitor !
Let me recommend to you hereafter, my Dear and Rev'd Friend, to quit
the arid fields of obsolete law for the rhore peaceful pursuits of Christian
morals, by which you will be taught not to make us, sorry heretics, believe,
efther that the "principles, practices and tenets of Catholicity" are identcal
every where, or, that the vile casuistry of the 15th Century is the law and
philosophy of civilized people in our day and generation. I must close
abruptly, without concluding my topics.
May your shadow never be less !
JOHN SMITH, Jr.

LETTER No. III.
Reverend and Dear Sir — \
I feel confident that I have wearied both yourself and the public in this
controversy, but there is another topic upon which I feel compelled to ad
dress you, before I close my correspondence.
In your "Review," s in the Catholic Magazine, you have commented,
with no small acrimony, upon Mr. Mayer's recommendation thatthe church
property should be taken by the Government of Mexico.
"The reader (you say) will be perfectly amazed at all these views of our
author, and as to ourselves, we are entirely at a loss to conceive how an in
dividual, who has undertaken to agitate a financial question (which, under
the direction of some reckless demagogue in Mexico, would stir up all the
elements of civil war,) could ever return to that country with any prospect
of an honorable reception, or even of personal safety."
These remarks seem to indicate that your spirit is greatly annoyed by the
prospect of the spoliation of your cloth, and it is your decided opinion that

23
should Mr. Mayer ever venture again within the boundaries of Mexico, he
must not only be avoided, as a person to whom no respect is due, but that
an indignant clergy ought to endanger his "personal safety" in some veTy
emphatic manner !
I thank God, Reverend Sir, that I have not been educated in a school of
morals, wherein, a person holding the responsible rank of a Christian divine,
would be permitted to utter a doctrine like this, "Which under the direction of
some reckless demagogue" might produce so much harm— and I console my
self by believing that it was only a temporary fit of avarice that urged even
you to pen a sentence which every honorable person must condemn as
vicious in the extreme, ,
Permit me to examine this church question somewhat in detail. There
are in Mexico, according to Mr. Mayer, 2,000 nuns ; 1,700 monks; and
3,500 secular Clergy. The property belonging to the church, under the ad
ministration of these persons, amounts to § 90,000,000, or aljbut eighty-
eight rhillions of dollars less, than it was before the outbreak of the revolution,
when the number of the ecclesiastics amounted to 10,000, in a total popu
lation not as large as it is at present.*
In connexion with this, let us see what our author observes in relation to
the state of educatipn and population.
"The several castes and classes of Mexicans may be rated in the following
manner,"t says Mr. Mayer —
Indians, -  4,000,000
Whites, - - 1,000,000
Negroes, ... . 6,000
All other castes^ T -, - - 2,009,509

> .Total, - ¦ - 7,015,509
A Very respectable and aged resident of Mexico, remarkable for the extent
and accuracy of his observations, estimates, that, of the Indians and negroes,
but two out of every hundred can read and write ; — while out of the other
castes, not more than twenty in the hundred, possess those advantages.
Taking this estimate to be accurate, we shall have :
Indians and Negroes who can read and write, - 80,120
All others, - - - 607,628

Total, able to read, out of 7 millions \ - 687,747
This is a most startling announcement ; but, when we remember that
there are not more than; 1,000,000 of pure whites, out of the whole popula
tion, and that 20 per cent of these, or only 100,000 in all, can read and write,
the enormous neglect or mismanagement of the intellect of the country be
comes at once frightfully apparent. ,
Let us now proceed, Reverend Sir, (with these statistics before us,) to
examine into the efficacy of a priesthood composed of 5,200 persons — to
whom, and to the service of God, the sum of rather more than ninety mil
lions worth of property have been devoted.
At page 14 of your "review," you quote as follows, from the Cone. Mex.
anno 1585, lib. 1 : "It shall be the duty of the secular as well as of the
regular clergy, charged with the care of the Indians, to see to the establish
ment of schools in the towns, villages and neighborhoods where they reside, in
which the Indian children shall be taught the doctrines of Christianity, the
Spanish language, and to read and write." You quote this passage as
* See Mayer's Mexico, p. 329.
t~See Mayer's Mexico, p. 301.

24
showing that the clergy have done their duty from the earliest periods, and
you leave us to infer, because a law was made in 1585 the provisions of
which looked then to the intellectual culture of the Indians, that conse
quently, the Indians of 1843 are really able to read, write, speak Spanish,
and even to argue, no doubt, in relation to the doctrines of Christianity!
That this is a magnificent non sequitw is demonstrated from the statement
of Mr. Mayer, that of the four millions of Indians in the republic, but eighty
thousand, at most, can read and write! And yet, Reverend and Dear Sir,
you have the modest assurance to attempt to make your Catholic readers
believe that this Indian' population were able to read the Spanish translation:
of the Latin services in their prayer books.*'
For your especial entertainment, as well as that of your readers^ permit
me to refer you to Forbes' California, page 215,for an exceedingly edifying
description of the manner in which your brethren in Mexico, teach the "In
dians how to read and write, and the doctrines of Christianity :"
"At a particular period of the year also," we are told by Captain Beechey
and Forbes, "when the Indians can be spared from the agricultural con
cerns of the establishment, many of them are permitted to take the launch
of the mission and make excursions to the Indian territory. On these oc
casions the padres desire them to induce as many of their unconverted
brethren as possible to accompany them back to the mission, of course im
plying that thisis to be done only by persuasion ; but the boat being fur
nished with a cannon and musketry, and in every respect equipped for war,
it too often happens that the neophytes and the gente de razon, who super
intend the direction of the boat, avail themselves of their superiority, with
the desire of ingratiating themselves with their masters and of receiving a
reward. There are, besides, repeated acts of aggression which it is neces
sary to punish, all of which furnish proselytes. Women and children are
generally the first objects of capture; as their husbands and parents some
times voluntarily follow them into captivity.
"One of these proselyting expeditionsin to the Indian territory occurred
during the period of Captain Beeehey's visit in 1826, which ended in a bat
tle, with the loss, in the first instance, of thirty-four of the converted, and
eventually in the gain (by a second expedition sent to avenge the losses of
the first) of forty women and children of the invaded tribes. These were im
mediately enrolled in the list of the mission, and were ne'arly as immedi
ately converted into Christians. The process by which this was effected is
so graphically described by Captain Beechey that it would be doing him in
justice to use any words but his own. < . .
"I happened (he says) to visit the mission about this time add saw'these
unfortunate beings under tuition. l They were clothed in, blankets, and ar
ranged in a row before a blind Indian, who understood their dialect, and
was assisted by_ an alcalde to keep order. Their .tutor began by desiring
them to kneel, informing them that he was going to teach them the names
of the persons composing the Trinity, and that they were to repeat in Spanish '
what he dictated. The neophytes being thus arranged, the speaker began :
"Santissama Trinidad, — Dios, Jesu Christo, Espiritu Santo" — pausing be
tween each name, to listen if the simple Indians, who had never spoken a
Spanish word before, pronounced it correctly or any thing near the mark.
After they had repeated these names satisfactorily, their blind tutor, after a
pause, added "Santos" — and recapitulated the names of a great many saints
which finished the morning's tuition.
"After a few days, no doubt these promising pupils were christened> and
'See your review, p. 12, note..

25
admitted to all the benefits and privileges of Christians and genie de razon.
Indeed, I believe that the act of making the cross and kneeling at proper
times, and other such like mechanical rites, constitute no small part of the
religion of these poor people. The rapidity of the conversion is, however,
frequently stimulated by practices much in accordance with the primary
kidnapping of the subjects. 'If, as not unfrequently happens, any of the
captured Indians show a repugnance to conversion, it is the practice to im
prison them for a few days, and then allow them to breathe a little fresh air
in a walk round the mission, to observe the happy mode of life of their
converted countrymen ; after which they are again shut up, and thus con
tinue incarcerated until they declare their readiness to renounce the religion
of their forefathers.' As might be believed, the ceremonial exercises of the
Roman Catholic religion, occupy a considerable share of the time of these
people. Mass is performed twice, daily, besides high-days and holydays,
when the ceremonies are much grander and of longer duration ; and at all
the performances every Indian is obliged to attend under the penalty of a whip
ping; and the same method of enforcing proper discipline as in kneeling at
proper times, keeping silence, &c, is not excluded from the church service
itself. In the aisles and passages of the church, zealous beadles of the con
verted race are stationed, armed with sundry weapons of potent influence
in effecting silence and attention, and which are not sparingly used on the
refractory or inattentive. These consist of slicks and whips, long goads, SfC.,
and they are not idle in the hands of the officials that sway them. * * *
"The unmarried of both sexes, as well adults as children, are carefully
locked up at night in separate houses, the keys being left in the keeping of
the Fathers ; and when any breach of this rule is detected, the culprits of
both sexes are severely punished by whipping, — the men in public, the women
privately. "It is obvious from all this, that these poor people are in fact slaves under
another name; and it is no wonder that La Perouse found the resemblance
painfully striking between their condition and that of the negro slaves of the
West Indies. Sometimes, although rarely, they- attempt to break their
bonds and escape into their original haunts. But this is of rare occurrence,
as, independently of the difficulty of escaping, they are so simple as to be
lieve that" they have hardly the power lo do so, after being baptised, regard
ing the ceremony of baptism as a sort of spell which could not be broken. Oc
casionally, howeve*, they overcome all imaginary and real obstacles and
effect their escape. In such cases, the runaway is immediately pursued,
and as it is always known to which tribe he belongs, and as, owing to the
enmity subsisting among the tribes, he will not be received by another, he is
almost always found and surrendered to the pursuers by his pusillanimous
countrymen. When brought back to the mission he is always first flogged and
then has an iron clog attached to his legs, which has the effect of preventing his
running away and marking him out, in terrorem, to others.*
* The following extract from Zavala, a Mexican historiographer of the
Revolutions of that country, from 1808 to 1830, will show what the clergy of Mexi
co effected in the intellectual progress of the Indians, during their full sway of
three centuries : .
"They created missionaries, who, by the aid of the soldiery, made prodigious
proselytes. ********
"They prepared catechisms and small formularies in the language of the natives,
not for the perusal of the Indians, who could not read, but in order to repeat
them in their pulpits, and to teach them by rote. There was not a single translation
of the sacred volume in any idiom of the country, and there was not an elementary
work containing the principles of their faith. But how could such works exist
for the Indians, when their conquerors were unable to read them ? What I desire

26
Now, my Reverend Friend, when you contrast this account with the course
which you have pursued yourself in the instruction of youth in this country,
I feel satisfied that you will perfectly agree with me that I have produced
another argument to prove that the "practices of Catholicity" are not identi
cal all the world over, and that your Mexican brethren are singular in their
Missionary mode of disseminating the "Spanish language and the doctrines
of Christianity ! "*
You will say, however, Reverend and Dear Sir, that you admit that they
have not fulfilled their duty in educating the people, and, that after a trial
of 300 years, on the soil of New Spain, they have left the Indians as igno
rant as they found them ; — perishing of wretchedness, filth, dirt, disease,
vice, and abandonment; — but, you will, nevertheless, insist, that all these
facts give the Mexican Government no right to interfere with the "property"
of the Church. Individuals, you will allege, are bad, in all countries;
but individual wickedness does not give the State a control over their estates
or wealth, unless indeed they are forfeited by some infringement of the penal
laws of the nation. I admit the force of your argument; but our cases are
vastly different.
In the first place — the Church is connected, by the Constitution, with the
Republic of Mexico; — it is part of the State; and,
Secondly, the "possessions of that Church," thus united with the govern
ment, are not to be regarded as "property" which is held by the ordinary
members of society. In illustration of what I mean, permit me to refer you
to page 42 of the January number of the United States Catholic Maga
zine, (the same work in which your review appeared two months subsequently,)
where, in speaking of the Reformation in England, the writer remarks that:
"The property of the Churches and Monasteries had been accumulated
during centuries of Catholic charity and liberality. The Church, however,
held it only in trust, for the benefit of the public — and esjiecially of the
poor." Or, in other words, that the Church is not an absolute owner, in fee,
of lands, tenements, and hereditaments, but a Sacred Trustee for public and
pious uses— whose duty it is to seek out the needy and relieve their wants.
I trust this, my Dear Sir, has made clearly evident to you, from your
to prove by this is, that religion was neither taught to the natives, nor were they
persuaded of its divine origin by proof and argument; — the whole foundation of
their faith was the word of their missionaries and the reason^of their belief was the
bayonet of their conquerors ! !
Zavala's Hist. Revolutions of Mexico, from 1808 io 1830, »oZ. I, p. 14.
"The dependence of the people was a sort of slavery, a necessary consequence of
the ignorance in which they were brought up, of the terror with which the troops
and authorities inspired them, of their despotism, and pride, , and, more than all,
of an Inquisition, sustained both by the military and by the religious superstitions
of monks and clergymen whose fanaticism was equal to their ignorance.
* * * * * * * . * *
"The catechism of Padre Ripalda, which contains the maxims of a blind obe
dience to the King and Pope, was the ground-work of their religion ; and their
parents, priests and masters inculcated these doctrines incessantly." — lb. v. 1, p. 35.
These are the opinions of a Native Mexican — brought up in the Catholic faith
It is to be hoped that our Reverend adversary will regard them as authority.
* I beg leave to refer the reader to the appendix to Mr. Mayer's work, page 365,
in order that he may see the diiference between Catholic Missions and Protestant
Missions, in California the missions have been an hundred years in operation,
in the manner described above — and the total number of reclaimed Indians is not
more than 18,683, and even these are generally unable to read^ — whilst in the
Sandwich Islands, where Protestant missions have been in operation only twenty-
five years, there are, already, 17,000 persons in the church, and 18,000 in the
schools! I believe there is not the slightest remnant of paganism in the Islands.

27
own work, sanctioned by the Archbishop of Baltimore, — that "private pro
perty" and "church property" are by no means identical, and that the pious
temper of the founders of Catholicity never permitted individual aggrandize
ment or personal avarice to interfere with the holy devotion of life and for
tune to the public welfare.
With this legal and historical view before you, I regret exceedingly, that
you did not turn to page 330 of Mr. Mayer's book, and read the note at its
bottom from Vattel, — a distinguished Swiss writer, on the Laws of Nations.
Let me call your attention, especially, to his observations:
"The State," says this eminent authority, "has unquestionably, the pow
er to exempt the property of the Church from all imposts, when that pro
perty is not more than adequate to the support of the ecclesiastics. But the
priesthood has no right to this favor except by authority of the State, which
has always the right to revoke it when the public good requires.
"Far from the goods of the Church being exempted because they are
consecrated to God, ir is for that very reason that they should be
THE FIRST TAKEN FOR THE WELFARE OF THE STATE. There is nothing
more agreeable to the common Father of men than to preserve a nation from
destruction. As God has no need of property, the consecration of
goods to him, is their devotion to such purposes as are pleasant to
him. Besides, — the property of the Church, by the confession of
the Clergy themselves, is chiefly destined for the poor. Now,
when the State is m want, it is, doubtless, the first pauper, and
the worthiest of succor. We may extend this reasoning to the most
ordinary cases, and say, that to impose a part of the current expenses on
the Church property, in order to relieve the people to that extent, is really
to give those goods to the poor, according to the spirit of their original des
tination." *
In order to judge whether the political crisis has occurred in Mexi
co, to which Vattel seems to allude when he speaks of "ihe State as tlie first
pauper and the worthiest of succor," I beg you to turn to page 320 of Mayer's
Mexico, for an estimate other financial condition :
Home debt of Mexico, - $18,550,000
Debt to English creditors, 60,000,000
Debt lo United States, say, 2,400,000
Copper to be redeemed, ¦ 2,000,000
Claims for Hilaro, 700,000
Bustamente loan, - 500,000
#84,150,000
The current expenses of the Mexican Government! have probably
amounted during the year 1843, to $12,000,000, to meet which there is a
revenue of not more than the same sum, at the very extreme. That the
credit of Mexico is at a miserable discount, you will observe by reference to
page 321, where it is stated that the "credits, or paper of the Government
were worth 9 per cent, in the market," and that the Mint at Guanajuato
was farmed outfor $71,000 cash, for 14 years — when its nett annual income
was worth sixty thousand dollars! These, Rev'd Sir, would seem to
be facts, so pregnant with the evidences of national insolvency, that I trust
it is not necessary for me to multiply them in order to prove to you, (what
all the world has long since known,) that Mexico, as a government, is most
lamentably bankrupt! * Vattel, book 1, ch. 12, §152.
tSee Mayer, 324.

28
Such, then, Rev'd Sir, being the state of things in our sister Republic, —
it would seem to strike every right judging person, that the hour has come,
when, a holy and devoted Christian priesthood, "holding property, only in
TRUsT,/or the benefit of the public,"*— a. priesthood, who know, according
to Vattel, — that "God has no need of property, and that there is nothing
more agreeable to the common Father of men than to preserve a nation from
destruction,"! — should, (to use the language of Mr. Mayer) — voluntarily
unfetter their wealth — and sweep into the public poffers the useless jewels
that adorn the altars and statues, yet do not glorify the Almighty." And,
Reverend and Dear" Sir, the hour has also come, it would seem, when, if
such a priesthood refrains from the voluntary exercise of this noble duty, it
becomes that State which is united with your Church, to the exclusion
of all others, — to say to it, "if you will not fulfil your pious trusteeship, but,
continue to cling, with a miserly grasp, to the goods which belong in fact
to the people, in their time of misery, — it is our imperious duty to com
pel you to perform your task, in the same manner that the tribunals of any
civilized land would compel a delinquent Trustee to the performance of his.
I confess, my Reverend Friend, I am at a loss to conceive, for an instant,
how 5,200 able-bodied men in Mexico, controlling rather more than ninety
millions worth of property, — can permit their native country to owe eighty-
four millions of dollars — the contracts for which it is obliged to repu
diate — or is forced to pay, either by the most unjust levies, at the point of
the bayonet in domestic broils— or, by the intimidation of foreign powers.
I confess, also, that my surprise is in no degree lessened when I find that
these able-bodied men — are ecclesiastics of a Christian church, — and
that their unrighteous dereliction, finds an advocate in yourself!
Although you had an opportunity of commenting in your review on the
passage from Vattel, quoted by Mr. Mayer, still you ventured, Reverend
Sir, (with your customary unfairness)— never to allude to it, — thereby
leaving your Catholic readers under the impression that our Protestant au
thor possessed not even the semblance of authority for his recommendations,
but was attempting to play the part of a rash demagogue, who could never
return to Mexico "with any prospect of an honorable reception or even of per
sonal safety." I have frequently heard, my Christian Friend, of the
"bitterness of a review;" but, I assure you, this is the first time in which I
have ever seen a critic, (and that one a parson,) openly hint the "taking
off," in a quiet way, of a luckless author!
"Let the country fall," you exclaim, "but save the wealth of the Monks!"
Let the Monks have money to keep their pretty compagneras, as Stephens
says ! Let the Monks have money so that they may "walk home with In
dian girls tucked under their arms," as Madame Calderon says ! Let the
Monks have money in order that they may gamble in Mexico, as Norman
says! Let the Monks have money that they may fight cocks in Mexico!
Let the Monks have money that they may flog the Indians into Christianity
in California, as Forbes says! Let the Monks have money that they may
lead "jolly lives," as Kendall says! Let the Monks have money that the
petticoats of the Virgin may be embroidered with millions of very portable
wealth, in the shape of pearls, emeralds, and diamonds, as Mayer says!
Let all this occur ; but touch not a farthing for the relief or salvation of a
taxed, oppressed, burthened, ruined nation ! Let a whole people go to
utter destruction ; but, for heaven's sake, do not interfere, on any account,
with a gambling, avaricious, profligate, cock-fighting priesthood!
Touch not a gem on a single statue ! The jewels on the image's petti-
•See Catholic Magazine for January 1844, p. 42.
fSee Vattel — ut antea.

29
coat — are alms ! * The acres of sugar cane are— alms ! The lordly con
vents, groaning with carving, gilding and sumptuous fare, are— alms ! The
gemmed dresses of the altar are— alms ! The moneys loaned out at interest
are — alms! "One of the most expressive modes," you say, "of testifying
our regard for an individual is to offer him a valuable present"] — ergo, the
gift of a gem to a saint is adoration of God, — and, jewelry becomes worship!
What eminent piety there is in an amethyst! What meek prayer in an
emerald ! What sacred consolation in a sapphire ! What volumes of de
votion in a diamond !
That such was the opinion of the Reverend gentleman described by Mr.
Mayer at page 74, I have no doubt: "Another dignitary of the church,"
says he, "stood by him, in velvet and lace, with a cross of large diamonds
and topazes hung round his priestly throat by a collar of gems, and, ever and
anon, taking snuff in a manner that displayed a finger which almost blinded by
theflashofits diamonds !" There was, doubtless, a whole cathedral of ejacu
lations, masses, mortifications and humility in each of them!
Puerile and ridiculous as all this seems, my Reverend Friend, still, when
it is proposed to sell these gauds and relieve the nation by the revenue from
rnin, we are gravely asked by you— an American churchman — "will gold
and precious stones glorify the Almighty any better on the breast-pins of Eng
lish dandies, or on the. rings and necklaces of English belles? Will they be
more usefully employed in concealing the ugliness of aristocratic shrews, or
dilating the vanity of noble fops, than in edifying the multitudes assembled
around the altar of God?"
What miraculous edification to a taxed and starving Indian to gaze on
the millions that adorn a doll, in order that the Virgin may be symbolically
worshipped by a wily priesthood and deluded multitude with the light of
flashing gems !
I confess, my Rev'd Friend, that I have paid some, (alas! not enough,)
attention to the Great Book, on which, I have learned to rely for the surest
lessons of religion and wisdom. In that book I have been taught to adore
God — to approach Him directly, without the intervention of a long line
of courtiers, under the name of saints — and to believe that the "meek and
lowly" Saviour of men, was at all times, the support of frail humanity
when implored with the breathings of a contrite heare I have searched
that book, in vain, to see where the commands of the Almighty are laid on
man to build gorgeous temples, or to heap his altars with images and
adorn them with what — in sinning man and woman — you have often, no
doubt, inveighed against as the "pomps and vanities" of a hollow world. —
And let me not be told by the loudest defender of the Roman rubric that the
ejaculations uttered by the Methodist, the Baptist, the Quaker or the Pres
byterian, from his simple pulpit, humble bench or lonely forest church, are
less acceptable to the common Father of us all because uttered to him
directly, than the prayer which ascends to heaven wafted on music and in
cense, from the lips of a gold gowned priest, before his gemmed crucifix — his
marble altar — and his jewelled saints!
*It is pretended by Cobbett, one of the most violent assailersof the Reformation
in England, — that the rental of the Church of Britain, before the seizure of the monas
tic properly, amounted to one-third of that of the entire Kingdom. It is also pretend
ed that this enormous revenue was devoted to the relief of the poor, or, expended in
alms. The boldest defenders of Mexico cannot, however, allege this in favor of
the Church of that country. Mexico swarms with leperos — beggars — and poor. —
We cannot then say, with the writer in the TJ. S. Catholic Magazine, for January,
1844, at page i2,~ "That there is now no pauperism — and no poor laws in" —
Mexico, as there were no poor laws or pauperism in England in the reign of the
eighth Henry !
t See your Review, p. IS.

30
No, Reverend Sir, you have failed in all your doctrines on this subject —
your brotherhood in Mexico have undergone a trial of centuries, and have failed
in every way to do their duty. They have failed to stop the bloodshed which
has soiled that territory for a quarter of a century. They have failed in
three hundred years to educate more than two out of every hundred of the
Indians. They have failed to make the people virtuous, or, to protect the
traveller, even at the distance of a mile from the city, from the dread of as
sassination. They have invalidated, by their gambling and. lustful exam
ples, the lessons they taught from the pulpit; and their missionary efforts,
as shown by Mr. Forbes, are little short of brutality, in California. Yet still
they cling, with the tenacity of a death gripe, to their ponderous coffers.
I submit, now, not only to the public, but to yourself, my Reverend Sir,
in a spirit, I assure you, of sincere expostulation, whether such men are the
faithful administrators of a trust of ninety millions of dollars for public and
private purposes, or whether,, if they will not voluntarily relinquish, it
would not be better for a patriotic government to undertake the manage
ment of this wealth itself, according to its original destination, leaving enough
for the maintenance of the 5200 clergymen and friars, or obliging them to
do as you, and honest men, earn their bread by the industrious and pa
tient application of their intellect to the education of the rising generation?
Believe me, Reverend Sir, that the day is past when error can be con
signed to eternal silence by the solemn ban of the church. That magic
name which at one period was omnipotent to still into death the slightest
whisper of heresy, is now as powerless as an Indian talisman. "The never
sufficiently to be execrated and detested Liberty of the Press,"*
has dispelled the delusions of your boasted power. The grandeur of the
deceit has vanished, and instead of seeing before us a magician, full of the
glories of his art, and almost deceived himself by the splendour of his in
cantations, we behold a pitiful and meagre creature, who, though blind and
palsied, retains the power and mischief of witchcraft.
I pray you, therefore, my Reverend Friend, to employ the remainder of
your life in seeking out the "corruptions" which, I would fain think, your
honest nature will not permit you to believe are festering in the remote or
secluded administrajkms of Romanism. The day has gone by when it was
necessary to adopt^ie symbolism of pagan rights, to trick mankind into
adoration by images, lace, jewelry and smoke. Purify your temple. Expel
the "money changers." Dissolve the spells of superstition. Imbue your
self with the advancing spirit of civilization. Do not permit yourself to be
deceived by the declaration of the Pope — that your church is "not obnoxious
to decay or obscurity, and requires neither restoration nor regeneration." f Do
these things, my Reverend Friend, and (to use your own language) you
# Extracted from the present Pope's Encyclical letter, issued in August, 1832.
t See the same Encyclical letter. Readers who are curious to see this extraor
dinary letter of His Present Holiness, will find a copy of it in the 2d volume of the
Baltimore Literary and Religious Magazine, page 190. The translation is authen
tic because it is given from the ''Laity's Directory of London for 1833, afterwards
published in the Catholic Diary of New York." I quote one of its remarkable
sentences :
"From the polluted fountain of 'indifference' flows that absurd and erroneous
"doctrine, or rather, raving, in favor and in defence, of liberty of conscience,
"for which most pestilential error, the course is opened by that entire and wild
"liberty of opinion which is everywhere attempting the overthrow of religious and
"civil institutions ; and which the unblushing impudence of some has held forth
"as an advantage of religion .'"
If we have proved that the "practices" of Catholicity are not identical every
where, it is to be hoped that "tenets and principles" like these are not also identi
cal in the United States — although they come sanctioned by the lips of an infalli
ble Pope !

31
will be "serviceable" to your church — to mankind — and to your priestly
order. I have, thus, concluded the remarks which I thought it needful to make
in reply to your review of Mr. Mayer, though there are other matters in
which you have done him quite as much injustice as in the passages I have
already exposed. I now, however, take a respectful leave of you, with the
sincere assurance that all I have said in this correspondence has been utter
ed far more in "sorrow than in anger." Reverend and Dear Sir,
I am yours, faithfully and finally,
JOHN SMITH, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllHlllllHIIIII q
3 9002 00752 5570 3

1/BRfW ^S

/