Lima, 12th April 1824

Lima,12th April, 1824.[1]

 You have, more than once, requested me to state to you any interesting conversations I might have at times with individuals of this country, upon the sub­ject of religion. I have not, I believe, been very communicative in my letters to you on this subject. I believe such details might, in many cases, be in­teresting, but generally speaking, the questions and answers upon these matters are so nearly what we might expect them to be before hand, under the given circumstances, that little of what can be called solid information is derived therefrom; be­sides, I understand you print some of my letters, and there is some delicacy and caution to be used under such a consideration, more especially as I have never seen any of your printed accounts, and am thus unable to judge of the freedom you use in such matters. I hope in your selections for the press, you will be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

I shall now detail to you a conversation which I had a few days ago, with a particular friend, upon the subject of religion, and more particularly upon the Catholic and Protestant controversy. The gentleman, with whom I had the conversation, is a man of superior education and abilities, and holds an important situation in one of our colleges. We have been acquainted with each other ever since I arrived in this city. We have visited each other occasionally during that time, and have talked upon religious subjects, but almost always upon those things in which we were agreed. A few days ago I had a visit from him, and we entered almost immediately into a close conversation or controversy upon some of the points of the Catholic religion. I had lying on the table one of the Pope's bulls, which a young man had brought me a day or two before, as I had expressed to him a desire to see it. I en­quired of my friend, where I could obtain a set of these bulls, as I wished to see each of them, in order to ascertain their nature, and what it was they promised to those who should purchase them.

 After he had informed me where this article was to be found, I told him that I understood that those who purchased one of these bulls at a certain price, namely, eight dollars and a half, were assured that they would get out of purgatory in two or three days after death. He said it was so as I had stated. Do you then really believe, said I, that the Pope can thus pardon the sins of men, and that men can obtain the pardon of their sins by means of expending such a sum of money in the purchase of this bull.—He said he believed the forgiveness of sins could be obtained in the way mentioned, and that the Pope had such authority in virtue of being the successor of the prince of the apostles, to whom Jesus Christ had granted the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and power to remit or to retain the sins of men. It is to be supposed, however, continued he, that confession of sins is to be made in order to [obtain] this forgiveness. And in con­fession to whom can the penitent go but to the minister of Christ, in order that they may instruct him in the nature of repentance? To prevent him from deceiving himself, and believing he has re­pented when he has not, it is necessary to show him what are the signs of a sincere repentance; and when the priest finds the penitent as he ought to be, then in virtue of the power given by Christ to his ministers, they absolve him from his sins.—In answer to what he said, I told him that I considered it to be the duty of man to confess his sins unto God, as it is with him alone we have to do, and not with one another; and that the Scripture assures us, that if we humbly and sincerely confess our sins unto him, and beg forgiveness through the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall obtain the mercy we ask for. I then said, that I believed none could forgive sins but God only; and that as to the power given to the apostle Peter, and also to the other apostles to for­give the sins of men or to retain them, I conceived it to be a power of doing this only in a certain way, namely, in the way corresponding to the instructions which they had received from their divine Master.

 I illustrated this by the case of an ambassador sent by his sovereign with terms of peace to a neighbouring prince. The Ambassador, I said, is authorized to make peace between the two nations, that is, to put an end to the war or to continue it. He is not, however, at liberty to do this in any way he chooses, but only in that way which the instructions of his sovereign authorize. So was it, I continued, with the ambassadors whom the Lord Jesus sent into the world; they were sent to proclaim and to celebrate a peace between God and man, but they were to do so only in one way, that is, in the way prescribed to them, and of which, I observed, we shall presently speak. As to the su­periority of the Apostle Peter, said I, to which you refer, or to speak more properly, the superior honour conferred upon him, it is easy to see in what it con­sisted, and how far it extended. To him were pro­mised the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and also the power of remitting and retaining sins; this latter power was also conferred upon the other Apostles, so that the difference, or the superior honour conferred upon Peter, consisted in having the keys put into his hands. Keys are for the unlocking of doors, that a free entrance may be had to a place inaccessible before the gates were opened. Now, said I, the Apostle Peter was honoured by his Lord, to open the gates of the kingdom of heaven, in the first place unto the Jews, and which he accordingly did in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, and by which means three thousand entered the church of God at one rush.  The same individual was afterwards honoured to open the door of faith unto the Gentiles, by a special commission from heaven to that effect. Having thus opened the gates of the kingdom of heaven unto the Jews, and also  unto the Gentiles, there was no farther use for these keys.

 The Apostles of our Lord, in regard to authority in the church, were exactly upon a level, none was superior and none was inferior. And now, I continued, with regard to what we were speaking of before, namely, the forgiveness of sins, I conceive the Apostles could do it only by making known the message of peace and reconciliation to their fellow sinners, and by de­claring, in the name of their Master, to those who believed their testimony, the remission of sins con­sequent upon their belief; and on the other hand, they retained the sins of men, by declaring unto those  who disbelieved their testimony, that the wrath of God  remained upon them. Further, I said, regarding the successors of the Apostles, I conceived that strictly speaking they had none, nor were there any required. In their life time they exercised their authority, and fulfilled their commission in the way I have stated. And knowing that they were not to continue long upon the earth, and being desirous that these sacred truths which they preached unto men should always  be held in remembrance, they committed them to writing, and these writings, through the blessing of God, remain unto this day. The Apostles, therefore, have made their own writings their successors, and thus, through them, they continue still to speak to man­kind; they still publish the message of reconciliation, and whose sins soever they remit, they are remitted, and whose soever sins they retain, they are retained. I remarked a little before, I continued, that it was at their peril that the Apostles acted in any other way in the forgiving and retaining of sins, and I now add, that it is at the peril of men to receive the remission of sins in any other way than in that which the Apostles taught. The great and eventful day that awaits us all, will declare on what au­thority and foundation we have enjoyed peace in this weighty affair. The precious stones, the gold and the silver will stand the fire which is to try them, but the wood, the hay, and the stubble shall be burned up.

 When I had finished the observations which I have now mentioned, my friend took his turn to speak, and stated his mind upon these topics with great clearnesss and eloquence to the following effect:—My dear Sir, in regard to the explanation of the passage on which you have now given your opinion, and also with regard to the explanation of the Scriptures in general, I conceive our best and surest plan is to have recourse to the uniform explanation and judgment of the church. If everyone is at liberty to form his own opinion of the meaning of Scripture, there will be nearly as many opinions as  there are individuals. Wit­ness the divisions which exist among the  Protestants, in consequence of this liberty which  they take   of explaining the Scripture, everyone as appears best to him. One believes a certain thing, another denies it,  and a third believes something different from both.  Every truth in the Scripture has thus been defended and opposed, and torn in pieces by this principle, of every one explaining according to his own judgment and fancy. Under these circumstances, what a consolation it is to have an authority to which we can in all cases recur, and in whose decision we can rest fully satisfied. This authority is the church,—which Jesus Christ has invested with full power on all these points. In consequence  of this, the noble  truths of our religion continue as they were in the beginning. The judgment of the church has never varied upon them as it has done among the Protestants, neither can it vary. We have the promise of Jesus Christ that he will be with his church to the end of the world, and that whatsoever shall be bound by its judgment upon earth, shall  be bound also in  hea­ven, and that whatsoever shall be loosed by it on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. My dear friend, here is our foundation, here is our authority and consolation.

 The Catholic church has continued since the days of the Apostles, and has had an unin­terrupted succession of Bishops, from St. Peter until  the present day. The  Protestants cannot  plead such a succession. They are but a sect which left the church a century or two ago, and still occupy a small portion of the world; whereas the Catholic church, descending from the Apostles, has spread on every side, and its doctrines have continued pure and uncorrupted from the beginning until now, yea, and they will continue so until the end of the world, for Jesus Christ has promised it. Here, my friend, is firm footing, and all else, be assured, is quicksand and uncertainty. I was born a Catholic, and I adhere to the religion of my country, and in which I was educated. It is not, however, from the circumstance of being brought up in this religion that I now adhere to it. No, Sir, on the contrary, when I came of age I began to entertain doubts about our religion. Upon this, I set myself to examine the subject with diligence and attention, and the result was a thorough per­suasion of its firm and unalterable foundation, and of the beauty and grandeur of the structure. I look upon the Catholic religion, therefore, with great de­light and confidence. It appears to me like a great and majestic river running through an extensive con­tinent. On one hand it makes its way, tumbling over rocks, yet uninterrupted in its course by such impediments; again, it meets in its course with shelves and dykes, and after being retarded a little by these hindrances it breaks its way over, and then holds its noble and majestic course until it reaches the ocean, enriching and beautifying every place through which it flows. Such is our religion, and I clasp it to my bosom and esteem it my best and only treasure.

 When he had finished, I observed to him, that the plan of the Church explaining all doubts and difficulties regarding the meaning of every part of Scripture, and of our resting  in that decision, had the appearance of possessing many advantages. How desirable is it that we should be able to set our minds at rest on subjects of such importance, and wherein a mistake or an error might be at­tended with very serious consequences. But there appears to me, I said, a great difficulty to be got over, before we can allow our minds to enjoy the ease and confidence referred to, by resting in an infallible interpreter. The difficulty I speak of is this: How shall I know that the church has indeed the authority you speak of? If I were fully satisfied that the church possesses this authority, I would, I assure you, fully confide in it. You remember that, in a former conversation, you promised to prove your positions regarding the Ca­tholic Church with evidence as satisfactory as the proof, that the three interior angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. Now, I continued to observe, I cannot see evidence for believing that the church has the power in question, and I can­not receive it as a doctrine until I be convinced. On what then do you build this doctrine?

 I build this doctrine, said he, in the first place, on the promises of Jesus Christ to his church, which are those: "whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained; whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and again, I will be with you always even unto the end of the world." In the second place, said he, from the considera­tion that the promises of Jesus to his church, must necessarily have been fulfilled, I maintain that the church has been guided by the Spirit in the manner I have stated, and in consequence thereof, she has held the same doctrine from the days of the Apostles until the present time.

 I differ from you, I replied, regarding the mean­ing and application of the passages you have quoted from the Scriptures. But as you will have the church to explain them, and as the church does actually explain them as you have stated, we cannot there­fore meet each other here, on open ground.

 Let us then pass on to the other fundamental principle which you hold, namely, the fulfilling of this promise in the way you have explained it. How then do you prove to me, that the church has never varied in her doctrines?—I prove, said he, the constancy and stability of the church by the uniform voice of ecclesiastical writers, from the days of the Apostles until now. No sooner did any pastor or bishop broach any new doctrine, than his own flock, and the whole body of Christians, everywhere raised the cry against him. Errors now and then arose, continued he, and errors too of great consequence, but in this manner they were publicly reprobated, and the individuals who had erred were thereby brought to repentance, or else expelled the church.—As I wished to drive this sub­ject to its proper issue, and to fix upon the very point upon which we differed, and which point it was necessary to settle before we could proceed farther with any advantage, I put this question to him: Do you maintain that the writers upon ecclesi­astical affairs, from the days of the Apostles down­ward, have all held the same opinions regarding the interpretation of Scripture?

Not exactly so, said he, for there have been differences among them re­garding the interpretation of several passages of Scrip­ture; and he here instanced several opinions of St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, &c. But so far, continued he, as respects what are strictly and properly called the doctrines of the church, I maintain that there is no difference among them, although in points of discipline they are not all agreed. You hold then, said I, do you, that so far as the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are concerned, the writers we speak of do not vary? I expected he would here give an answer at once in the affirmative, but he with­drew a little farther, and said that he would not affirm to the question I had put, as to all that these writers had said; but so far only, as they had given their testimony to the doctrines in question as existing among them, he wished to speak, and not as to their own opinions of these doctrines. He here stated some opinions of the fathers, and said, that so far as they acted as witnesses to what existed among them, and in the ages previous to their time, thus far and no farther were their writings to be considered respecting the argument in hand. I here reminded him by the way, of what I had before urged, but which he did not concede, namely, that there were a great variety of opinions among the Catholics as well us among the Protestants. I stated, at the same time, that I did not urge this particularly as an objection to their system, but merely as a coun­terpart to his objection to the Protestants, arising from  their differences.

 I then put the question : Do you maintain then, that so far as ecclesiastical writers have given testimony to the doctrines of the church, they do not vary, nor can vary ?—Yes, said he, I do maintain that position.—I then replied, I am glad we have come at length to this one definite point, and I am glad, also, that you have excluded the opinions of the writers on these subjects, and that you rest solely on them as witnesses.   I now see the point you maintain, and here we will come to issue. My answer, for the present, shall be short. This position which you maintain, is a position which I believe to be insupportable, and which, in con­sequence, I deny. Here, then, let the subject for the present rest; we have got a great length in seeing the very line which divides us, and we have now the matter free of mystery. It is reduced to a mere historical question. We shall, therefore, de­cide it as such on some future occasion, when I shall take in hand to prove that the church has varied.

 We have now seen, said I, the very point in which we differ, let us also see wherein we agree. I believe, said I, that all mankind are sinners, and stand in need of a Saviour. I believe that God pitied our race, and sent his only begotten Son to seek and to save the lost. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the true Mediator and Saviour of mankind, and that there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved. I do sincerely believe, I continued, in the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and my Redeemer; and, I trust, also that I desire to know all his precepts and instructions, and to conform my thoughts, and words, and actions thereunto.—I then said to him, is not this exactly what you believe?—He said it was so. Well then, I replied, may not we look upon each other as fellow disciples, and may not we each expect, if we hold on, that the Lord will give unto us both that crown of righteousness which he hath promised to them that love him? He here seemed to hesitate, and did not give a direct reply. You see that I was here touching upon the point of there being no salvation out of their church,—He said that what I had stated regarding my faith was well, but that there was something farther necessary, and upon saying so, he seemed to digress a little, or, at least, not to speak directly to the point in hand.

 My dear Sir, said I, pray let us settle this point. Have the goodness to speak your mind freely; speak out, what do I still want, what more must I believe, than what I have stated, in order to obtain eternal life. Did not the Lord Jesus himself concede eternal life to those who believed what I have told you in my belief? And did not the Apostles, according to the power invested in them, remit the sins of those who believed and acted in the manner I have stated? He then said some­thing about the necessity of believing the church, in order to salvation.—Can I not look for salvation without this? said I.—Take care that you do not put obstacles in the way to heaven, which the God of our salvation has not put. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, pray then, do not with stumbling blocks fill up this narrow way. Let the Lord Jesus and his Apostles guide us in this, and in all matters that concern the kingdom of God.

Upon arriving here we found our time was gone, and that we had been upwards of two hours in a very close conversation. As my friend could stop no longer, we broke up our conversation at this point, he still stating it as necessary to salvation, that I should believe the church. When we thus dropped our disputation, he arose, and as I accom­panied him out, he threw his arms around me, and said, "We shall yet, I trust, be united together, and companions in our Lord Jesus Christ."

 I have lengthened my account of this interview, perhaps unnecessarily, and it may be till I have tired you. By way of excuse, I would say that I felt real interest in the conversation, and my endeavour has been to make you participate with me, as I believe what interests and pleases one of us is not unpleasing, nor without interest, to the other. It often happens, however, that what interests us in a conversation or narrative loses its effect upon others by the imperfect way in which we repeat it. In the present instance, this is very likely the case, but I leave you to judge.

I have only to remark, before I conclude, that the point in dispute between us is now reduced to narrow limits; and it was my main endeavour to bring it to this bearing, nor was he averse to it.

 He is, as I said at the outset, a man of good talents, and reasons clearly. I do not promise to you that we shall be able to set the subject at rest in our  next conference, notwithstanding all the accuracy and honesty  of my good friend. You know there are many things which prevent such an anticipation. I shall, however, endeavour to prove to him, in the first place, that the church at Rome, and other churches in the  days of the Apostles, held the doctrines and followed the practices which are contained in the New Testament. With these doctrines I shall then compare the doctrines of the church of Rome in the present day;  and if I can show a disparity between them, I think impartiality should give the judgment, in  my favour, even with­out entering- upon ecclesiastical history; as I shall thus have proved that the church has varied, and hence that those passages he referred to, must be misinterpreted by Romish writers, and that they do not apply to their church, whose  infallibility must, of course, fall to the ground, agreeably to the principles stated in the preceding conversation. Should, however, justice not speak out in my favour, I shall pass on to show, from ecclesiastical writers, that the doctrines of the Church of Rome differ in the present day from what they were in the first and second centuries, and even later.

 By this means I hope to arrive at the same conclusion, as in the way before mentioned, and thus to disprove my friend's position of  the church  never having varied, by the very means by which he maintains it. This, I conceive, is the only way of managing the controversy between the Catholic and the Pro­testant.  Until you settle this point about the au­thority of the church,  you can do  nothing effec­tually. If you cite, for instance, a  passage of Scripture to disprove any one of the doctrines of the Catholic church, you are met immediately with the interpretation which the church puts upon that passage, and there is an end of it. If you should allege that the passage plainly and evidently means something very different from such interpretation, then you are reminded that our judgment is weak and erring, and that the judgment of the church is infallible. So that to whatever hand you turn, you never can get out of this circle. It is there­fore necessary to demolish this outwork entirely. What I have said of course applies chiefly to the mode of reasoning with those who are thorough­paced in their theological arguments; but with regard to others, you can attack them in any par­ticular part, and carry your argument forward on the principles of common sense, and by the doc­trines of Scripture taken in their plain and obvious meaning.

 [1] James Thomson. Letters on the Moral and Religious State of South America. (London: James Nisbet, 1827), pp. 130-146.