"A marvellous project, (is) i'faith, and a merry jest withal!"
Most Reverend Gentlemen,
You cannot be surprised, that I have not taken
my text from the Scripture, for many of you tell the people, that
we Catholic Clergymen wish to conceal from the people that
sacred volume. To have, therefore, taken my text from the
Scripture for the sake of the people, would be like falsifying
your words, and to have quoted it for your instructions, would
have been most presumptuous on my part, as every one knows
you are masters of Israel, both in word and deed, in the knowledge
of that sacred volume. Had I, therefore, been so presumptuous
as to have quoted Scripture for your information, you
might have perhaps addressed me in the words of the Poet—
"Ye Popish blockheads, mitred Cambridge cries,
Begone; I and my friends alone are wise,
Rich with the spoils of Babylon, 'tis fit
That we should claim monopoly of wit."
Well, among the great diffusion of biblical knowledge, which
has been so gloriously spread among the people by your Scriptural
Church, as by Law established, I happened one day fortunately
to hear, that you Reverends often told the people, that
there was a golden and heavenly rule in the Scriptures, viz.:—that
they were never to do unto others, what they would not wish others
to do unto them. Now we cannot for a moment suppose, that
like spiritual guide-posts, you would wish to inculcate this
golden rule to others, and not follow it yourselves. Well then,
you have been lately trying to arouse the indignation of the
people, by informing them in the most dignified manner, that
the Pope of Rome has just made a most "extraordinary, and presumptuous
movement" on the Protestants of England. Now
what shall we say, if it turn out, that you and your Reverend
Protestant ancestors, have for a long time been making a "most
extraordinary, and presumptuous movement" on the pockets, and
on the intellects of Englishmen?
Let us then proceed to examine coolly, and calmly, the above
points. I will endeavour, most Reverend Gentlemen, to discuss
these points with as much temper, and forbearance as I possibly
can. But, you must remember, that you and many of your
Reverend body, have been endeavouring to convict, without
ceremony, the numerous and respectable Catholic body of
England, of the crimes of wishing to extend their popish spiritual
and temporal domination over the Protestants of England.
For this purpose, your zealous and Reverend body have, with
pious industry, raked together the filth of ancient controversy,
and poured it without mercy on the heads of Catholics, and on
that Church, of which it is my pride to be a minister. Now,
Reverend Gentlemen, you, who deal so copiously in hard words,
certainly ought not to complain, if you should happen sometimes,
to meet with them in return. If you demand respect
from others, you ought certainly to respect a more numerous
body of Christians, (I mean the Catholic Christian world,) who
have no reason to think themselves, your inferiors in talent,
learning, or judgment. Well then, let us now proceed to the
discussion of the above two points.
Most Reverend Gentlemen, in a book (but mind not the
Scripture) called the extraordinary Black Book, published in
London in the year 1831, by Effingham Wilson, Royal
Exchange, I find the following statement of the income of the
Church of England as by Law established. Of course, I am
aware, that certain changes have been made by Government
(since the publication of the above book) as to the amount of
individual incomes, but the aggregate sum is still absorbed by
the Protestant Church, as by Law established. Well then, in
the above-mentioned, extraordinary Black Book, I find the
various incomes of the Church of England there stated, and
would you believe it! they form a sum of money, TO THE TUNE
of nine millions, four hundred and fifty-two thousands, five hundred
and sixty-five pounds per annum.
Now let us see, how well the Bishops, and Archbishops of the
Reformation, have thriven on the above spiritual food. The following
is an extract from the probate duty returns, and of
course, must be real testimony as to the worth of these poor in
spirit children, when they awoke "in that undiscovered country,
from whose bourne no traveller returns."
EXTRACT FROM PROBATE OF WILLS.
| |
£ |
| Stopford, Bishop of Cork, left his family | 25,000 |
| Percy, Bishop of Dromore | 40,000 |
| Cleaver, Bishop of Ferns | 50,000 |
| Bernard, Bishop of Limerick | 60,000 |
| Knox, Bishop of Killaloe | 100,000 |
| Fowler, Archbishop of Dublin | 150,000 |
| Beresford, Archbishop of Tuam | 250,000 |
| Porter, Bishop of Clogher | 250,000 |
| Hawkins, Bishop of Raphoe | 250,000 |
| Agur, Archbishop of Cashel | 400,000 |
| Bishop Warburton | 500,000 |
Now just add up the above items, and then, you will see that
these Protestant Bishops and Archbishops, after maintaining
themselves, their wives and families, left behind them, according
to the probate duty returns, no less than the enormous sum of
two millions and seventy-five thousand pounds sterling. Really,
when these mammon-godly souls entered the gates of heaven,
with all these paraphernalia of gold, how amazed must the celestial
inmates have been! They would wonder whence these
golden spirits came, but of this they would be convinced, that
they must have come from the land of the living, and had certainly
piously reformed the words of the Scripture, "Blessed
are the poor in spirit," and really verified the words of my text,
"What a marvellous project is faith, and a merry jest
withal!"
So far, Reverend Gentlemen, I think the people will begin to
conclude, that your Reverend body has, for some time, been
making a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on
the pockets of Englishmen, and would to heaven! I could stop
here. But I must now show the people of England, that your
Protestant Church as by Law established, is receiving more
money by four hundred and fifty-three thousands, five hundred
and sixty-five pounds, than all the other Christian churches in the
whole world. The above extraordinary Black Book, gives a
scale of the comparative expenses of the Church of England, and
of all the other Christian churches in the whole world. Now by this
scale, it is shown that the total income of all the Christian
churches in the various parts of the world, is eight millions
nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand pounds; and the above
scale shows, that the income of the Church of England, is nine
millions, four hundred and fifty-two thousands, five hundred and
sixty-five pounds. Now, if you will just place the smaller of these
under the larger number, and subtract the one from the other,
you will see that the income of the Protestant Church in England,
exceeds the total income of all the other Christian churches
in the whole world, by four hundred and fifty-three thousands, five
hundred and sixty-five pounds. Oh, mighty England! thou boastest,
and justly, that thy majestic fleet rides on the waves, the triumphant
mistress of the seas; and thou mayest also as truly, but
not so justly, boast, that thy Scriptural Church, as by Law
established, rides triumphant on the golden waves of mammon,
and that she is really mistress of the world, in point of mammon;
she is truly the grand and golden emporium of clerical
incomes. Oh, how justly may the ministers of this Church,
address her, as their golden calf, in these words of the Scripture,
"Where thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will
lodge; and thy people shall be my people." (Ruth i. 16.) "Yea!
and we will kill the fatted calf, and slay the rams, and make
merry." (Prov. v. 9.)
But you will reply, we got all this money from you papists.
Yes, courteous clerks, to the honour of the Catholic Church be
it said, that all this money was left by our charitable ancestors;
and I will now judge you from your own mouths. Mind and
mark it well, that in the Catholic times of old England, the
above sums of money were divided into three parts: one for
the maintenance of the clergy, the second for the repair of the
churches, and the third for the support of the poor. In those
good old Catholic times, there were no church-rates, nor poor-rates.
But your god-like church as by law established, thought
it more just, or at least convenient, to pocket herself the whole
of the above sum, and to leave to the public the charitable office,
of providing for the other two purposes. Really, Most Reverend
Gentlemen, I candidly appeal to you, if this was not "a
most extraordinary and presumptuous movement" of your
clerical ancestors on the pockets of the people; and really, must
not people of the present day think it "a most extraordinary
and presumptuous movement" on the part of you Reverend
Gentlemen, to continue these pious frauds, and godly practices of
your ancestors? In this, at least, you fully observe the commands
of the Scripture, "Remove not the landmark of thy
forefathers." Oh ye poor! (whom I sincerely love for the sake
of my Saviour,) when I enter your hovels, where sickness,
misery, and want meet together, and witness the scenes of
distress that are passing there;—when I see a few handfuls of
dying embers, that are calculated rather to starve you, than
afford you the necessary comforts of warmth;—when I see the
bed of wretchedness, on which you cast your wearied limbs;—when
I view the tattered clothes, which scarcely cover you
decently, much less protect you from the inclemency of the
weather;—when I behold your pale and sickly countenances,
that bespeak the poorness and scarcity of your food;—when I
view your poor little children, begging in vain, with tears of
artless innocence, a morsel of bread to satisfy the cravings of
hunger;—when I witness scenes of this heart-rending description,
(scenes which are not very uncommon now-a-days), the
charity of our Catholic ancestors, and the inhumanity of your
Church as by law established, rush vividly on my mind, and call
to my recollection the words of our Saviour, "Come, ye blessed
of My Father, possess ye the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me
to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink. I was a
stranger, and you took me in; naked, and you covered me;
sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand:
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which was
prepared for the devil, and his angels. For I was hungry,
and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me not
to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in; naked,
and you covered me not; sick and in prison, and you did not
visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when
did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or
sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall
answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it
not to one of these least," (namely the poor), "neither did you
do it to me." (St. Matt. xxv. 34 to 45.) Oh how strikingly does
the first part of this sacred passage apply to our charitable
Catholic ancestors? But shall I apply the second part to you,
or your Protestant ancestors? Oh! heaven forbid I should!
I say with the great St. Paul, I judge no man; but charity for
you, and the poor, induce me to entreat of you, and to ask of God
to give you His grace, to commence a real reform in your church
property, for the sake of the poor, and to restore to the poor,
what your Protestant ancestors so unjustly took from them.
But you will perhaps reply, that all this church property, has
been justly given to your Protestant Church, by the law of the
land; for as the law of the land, justly secures to the landlord,
his rents, so the law of the land, justly secures to your church,
the tithes. I answer, in the first place, that by no law, either
human, or divine, can property be justly applied to any other
purpose, than to that for which the intention of the testator left
it. Now one-third of this church property, was left by our
Catholic ancestors, for the support of the poor; and as long as
this property, was in the hands of the Catholic Church, the poor
always received their just share. Hence, among all the calumnies
against the Catholic Church, even her basest enemies,
could never accuse her of injustice to the poor. I answer
secondly, the law of the land, as to landlords, is a good law,
because the landlord gives to his tenant value (viz., the use of
the land) for what he (the landlord) receives; whereas the law
of tithes is a bad law, because it often exacts tithes, where the
payer has never received, one farthing of value from the parson.
Now in this case, it does appear to me (and I am sure it must to
many others) most unjust to demand it from persons, who never
received a pin's-worth of good, from your ministry in their lives.
Nay, perhaps the only return they got, for the payment of their
tithes was, to hear their religion abused, and to be held up before
the public, as guilty of those very crimes, which these reverends
themselves were really committing, either by their robbing the
poor of their just share, or by unjustly exacting from others
money, for which the payers had never received one farthing of
value.[H]
And now, most Reverend Gentlemen, I must just let the people
see, how you contrive to blind them, by throwing popish dust
into their eyes. All the noise, which you make, about the pope's
bulls, and about popish spiritual and temporal domination, is a
mere ruse de guerre of many of you, (some of you indeed, I
believe, are sincere in your motives, and actions,) to divert
public attention, from the great temporalities of the established
Church. You call, and hold your public and glorious meetings.
With upturned hands and eyes, with high-souled strains of
devotional eloquence, with cordial community of feeling, got up
between the established Church, and those whom you indeed
honour with your lips by the title of reverends, but whom, in
your hearts, you deem mere phantoms of ministers, with silvery
tones, and well-turned periods, of rag-tag and bob-tail inspirations;
you excite the breathless attention of your audience, and profess
the most sanctified attachment to your godly Church, and to
your glorious Constitution, under the protection of whose wing,
you are slyly basking in the sunshine of godly mammon, and
worldly wealth. Should any poor Catholic, or charitable dissenter,
(who wishes you to do to others as you would be done
by,) obtrude himself on the notice of your meeting, a thundering
philippic is instantly raised against popery, and gaining strength
and speed, and loudness in its progress, rumbles onward, until
at last, it bursts forth into a tremendous elemental roar, increased
by the zealous acclamations of an enraptured and fanatical
audience. Oh, most Reverend Gentlemen, this is really a glorious,
and very profitable humbug. As long as you can manage,
to keep the people in this feverish state of excitement, the gulls
will think more of discussing pope's bulls, Guy Fawkes's, and
Gunpowder Plots, than of questioning the moral basis of the
law, which entitles you to take from the poor, their just share of
Church property, left by our charitable ancestors, and of exacting
tithes and Church-rates from those, who do not belong to
your flock, and for whom you do nothing in return. Thus, you
successfully stave off the discussion of Church property, professing
all the while, the most devotional concern for the spiritual
welfare of the gulls, on whose pockets, you are making a most
'extraordinary, and presumptuous movement.' Thus you reap the
profits, and laugh at the fools, who are cajoled by your grand
displays. Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, this extraordinary
and presumptuous conduct, does, in my humble opinion, beat all
the powers of impudence.[I]
Most Reverend Gentlemen, I have now proved "the extraordinary
and presumptuous movement," which your scriptural
Church as by law established, has been making for a long time
on the pockets of Englishmen. I must now proceed to show,
what "a most extraordinary and presumptuous movement" she
has been making for a long time, on the intellects of Englishmen.
Would to God that occasion had never been given to me to
touch on this subject! But remember, that many of your
reverend body, have been publicly advancing the most pretty, and
polite things against us Catholics. The newspapers, will bear
ample testimony to the strange, and horrid things, which many
of your reverends, have lately uttered against the Catholic
Church. Now, what they have in general uttered against us,
is, unfortunately, not founded on truth; but mind, what I shall
advance is really true, although most awful, nay almost incredible,
had not your Protestant testimonies borne ample witness
to it. Remember, also, that although Our Saviour was the most
meek, and kind creature that the world ever beheld, still, when
the honour of His Heavenly Father was insulted and outraged,
He cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple. Now, some
of your reverend body, have, in my ideas, lately used all their
endeavours to insult, and outrage the Catholic Church, which, I
consider, the Temple of God. Pardon me, therefore, if I should
with the spiritual arms of truth, (and I hope of charity,) cast
them out of that temple, and show the world, they had better
have been in their own temple, and have tried to have reformed
it, before they had endeavoured to turn masters of Israel, in
their neighbours' temple.
But this, Reverend Gentlemen, I must say, that if the Catholic
Church, had no better foundation than declamation against the
Protestant Church, I would not be either a minister, or a member
of it for a single day. But mind, the Catholic Church has both
a good foundation, and can also show the flimsy texture of the
Protestant Church, when Protestant ministers are so imprudent
as to attack her.
Most Reverend Gentlemen, I can only say, had you remained
quiet, I should have been innocent of the disagreeable task, of
having to state the following awful facts. But as you have not,
I can only add, I am innocent of the consequences, look you to
them. I will not indeed exclaim, with the Scripture, "Its blood
be upon you, and upon your children;" but I will rather say, in
the spirit of charity, may it bring you, and your followers, to a
serious consideration, and to a sense of duty. But some of you
reverends will perhaps infer, from the awful truths which I shall
advance, that I must believe that all, who are not of our communion,
must go to hell. Appalling sentence! Christ certainly
has said, that he that will not hear the Church, is to be to us as
a heathen and a publican (that is, excluded from our spiritual
communion.) But Christ does not say, he will go to hell, much
less, therefore, ought I to rashly condemn him. St. Paul, also,
warns us to judge no man, for this good reason, because we, also
shall have to stand before the tribunal of Christ. Far, therefore,
be it from me to open the flood-gates of damnation, even
on a single individual, much less on the whole body of our
Protestant brethren. Although, therefore, I shall shortly advance
truths, most awful, and almost incredible, still, let no one
imagine, I mean anything PERSONAL. Oh, no, I will say with the
poet—
"Let not this weak unknowing hand,
Presume thy bolts to throw,
Or deal damnation round the land,
On all I judge thy foe."
Well, then, let it be remembered, that I shall advance only
undeniable facts, without intending to deal damnation on you,
or on the whole Protestant body.
"I (shall) only speak right on,
Yes, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my friends, and that they know full well,
Who gave me public cause to speak the truth.
I'll tell you that, which you yourselves might know."
A certain Spanish chemist, thought that God's formation of
his master, had not been executed in the most perfect, and durable
manner; and this chemist had the audacious presumption
to imagine, that if he demolished his master, he could raise him
to life again, to a more perfect, and durable specimen of workmanship,
than he was, when God first made him. For this
purpose, this audacious chemist cut his master into pieces, and
put the various parts into his sublimatory glass, with the design
of raising his master again, by chemical operation, to a more
durable, and perfect state of life than he was, when he was the
handiwork of God's formation. Now, Most Reverend Gentlemen,
I will not apply this to your Church, but this I will do, I
will show you what the Church was, and is, which the fathers of
the Reformation wished first to demolish, on account of her
imperfections, and then, to raise her again to a more perfect
specimen of spiritual life; I will show the characters of these
spiritual chemists; I will show you the wonderful works of their
spiritual chemistry, and the wonderful spiritual works of their
scriptural hands; and then, I will leave you, and others to judge,
whether these first reformers, and these new soul menders, did,
or did not, really imitate the strange, and presumptuous conduct
of this Spanish chemist.
When God first created man, He imprinted on his heart the
light of reason, which (whether aided by revelation or not, it is
not necessary here to enquire) taught him his duty to his God,
to his neighbour, and to himself. This light was also imprinted
on the hearts of his descendants; but as man fell from God by
sin, the light of this natural law was greatly impaired, both in
the hearts of our first parents, and of all their descendants.
The light of this natural law, though much impaired by Adam's
fall, is, and ever has been, imprinted on the hearts of all,
and is, and ever has been, the foundation of all moral rectitude.
The imperfection of this natural law was, before our Saviour
came, supplied by the aid of revelation, which Almighty God
communicated to mankind, at various times, through His chosen
servants. But at last, the Almighty was pleased to send His
only Son from heaven to earth, to supply the deficiency of this
natural law, and to teach mankind, in the most perfect manner,
their duty to God, to their neighbour, and to themselves.
Hence our Saviour beautifully says, "He came not to destroy
the law, but to fulfil it," that is, He came to supply the imperfections
of the natural law, caused by Adam's fall, and to teach
us, in the most perfect manner, our duty to our God, to our
neighbour, and to ourselves. Hence, for this purpose He became
man, and united our humanity to His divinity. In this
God-man, were concentrated all the treasures of divine wisdom
and knowledge; and to this God-man, were given all power in
heaven, and on earth. It is plain, therefore, as our Saviour
beautifully says, He came to be the way, the truth, and the life
to all mankind; that is, He came to be the way, by showing us
the true way of heaven, which had been darkened, and obscured
by the sin of our first parents; He came to be the truth, by
revealing to us those supernatural truths, which the natural law
did not reveal, and by revealing to us more clearly those truths,
which the natural law revealed only obscurely; and lastly, He
came to be our life, by communicating to mankind His graces,
by which they were enabled to practise the truths, which this
divine law taught, and thus, by the knowledge, and faithful
practice of this divine law, to arrive at last at the kingdom of
heaven. Hence, fully sensible of this truth, the Apostles are
continually in the Scriptures reminding us, on the one hand, of
man's fall, and the sad consequences of that fall; and on the other
hand, of our liberation from sin, and of the abundant blessings
we have received, by redemption through Jesus Christ.
Now, that mankind in every age, might be partakers of these
abundant, and spiritual blessings, Jesus Christ was pleased to
found a Church, and to invest this Church with the same spiritual
powers, which He had received from His heavenly Father.
This Church, through Jesus Christ, was to be the infallible
source of all spiritual knowledge, and of all spiritual grace; in
short, it was to be the visible, the infallible, and the incorruptible
Church of all ages, with the world for its boundaries, and
time for its duration.
I will now, give you a short description of this Church of
Christ; attend, and I will tell you, in as few words as I can,
what this Church always was, and really is. Catholicity, or
Christ's Church, began with our Saviour, received her mission,
her powers, and her doctrine, from Jesus Christ. She has been
distinguished in every age, for the unity of her faith, and the
sanctity of her doctrine, for the universality of her extent, and
the apostolicity of her origin. No earthly consideration, could
ever induce her, to swerve one iota from the sacred deposit, and
unity of faith, delivered to her by Jesus Christ. Hence, whenever
she found any in her communion, either layman, priest, or
bishop, or even a whole nation, wishing to change, or add to, or
diminish one tittle of the faith, delivered by her heavenly
founder, she at first, like a tender mother, expostulated with
them, appealed to the grounds and truth of her faith, and traced
it to the mouth, either of our Saviour or His Apostles; but if
they disregarded her tender expostulations, she then, as St. Paul
did the incestuous Corinthian, cut them off from her communion,
and showed them, when her faith was at stake, she feared
neither the frowns of individuals, nor the strength of nations.
Every article of her faith is so holy in itself, and so conducive
to true holiness, that she challenges her greatest adversaries, to
show the smallest stain in any part of what she really teaches,
and the most convincing proof of their being unable to do so, is,
that not daring to attack her true doctrine, they, by calumny
and misrepresentation, lay things to her charge which she even
detests and condemns.[J] And then, after combating a phantom
of their own creation, exult in an easy and decisive victory.
From the dawn of Christianity to the present day, there has not
been a nation converted to Christianity, but what was converted
by her zealous exertions, nor is there a religion under the sun
except hers, that can prove that any of her members, were ever
honoured on account of their virtues, and sanctity, with the name
of saint. She can look back through eighteen centuries, and
shew that the unity and sanctity of her doctrine, are the very
same in the nineteenth century, as they were in the first century.
She can trace a long succession of popes, even to the first pope,
who was St. Peter. She can present you a long catalogue of
learned and polite nations, of scholars, philosophers, and divines,
of generals, statesmen, and princes, of saints, martyrs, and confessors,
who looked upon her faith as their best inheritance, a
treasure which they held more dear than life itself. In short,
she can prove, that she is now that Church, which our Saviour
first founded on a rock, against which, He promised, that the
gates of hell should never prevail, and that He, and His Holy
Spirit, should remain with it, teaching it all truth, until the end
of the world. Hence, she has passed through the stormy trials
of eighteen centuries, which would have long since shivered
any human institution into atoms, and now stands forth, ever
fresh and vigorous, in all her pristine strength, but silvered with
the venerable hoar of ages.
This is a short description of the visible, infallible, and incorruptible
Catholic Church of Christ; I will now show you how
this Church was formed, and how it was to be perpetuated, from
age to age, with the world for its boundaries, and time for its
duration. The Prophet Daniel foresaw this Church, when he
said (Dan. c. ii.), "The God of heaven should set up a kingdom,
which should never be destroyed." And our Saviour (Matt. xvi.)
informs us, that He is the maker and builder of this Church.
Hence He assures us, that as He Himself was sent by His
Heavenly Father to preach the Gospel (Luke iv. 18.), so He, also,
sent His Apostles: as My Father hath sent Me, I also send you.
(John xx. 21.) For this purpose He revealed to His Apostles all
the divine truths which He had received. "All things," says
He, "whatsoever I have heard of My Father, I have made known
to you." (John xv. 15.) He then gave them a commission, to
teach all these truths to all nations. "All power," says He, "is
given to me in heaven and on earth: go ye, therefore, and teach
all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days, even
to the end of the world." (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.) But when our
Saviour gave these commands to His Apostles, He at the same
time, imposed upon mankind a strict obligation, to hear and learn
His gospel from the Apostles. Hence He says to His Apostles,
"He that heareth you, heareth Me, and he that despiseth you,
despiseth Me, and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that
sent me." (Luke x. 16.) But whilst our Saviour, imposes upon
mankind the necessity of hearing His Apostles, he pledged His
infallible word, that they should never lead the people astray, or
teach any false doctrine. For this reason, He promises that He
will send down His Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, to teach them
all truth, that He and His Holy Spirit will remain with them
for ever, teaching them all truth, and that the gates of hell shall
not prevail against them. (John xv. Matt. xvi.)
That this absolute, and infallible authority of preaching and
teaching, was not to be limited merely to the persons of the
Apostles, nor merely to the period of their ministry, but was
also to extend to their successors in office, and to all future ages,
I will now prove. Our Saviour tells His Apostles, that they are
to go, and teach all nations, and that He will be with them, even
until the end of the world; and that the Spirit of truth, shall
remain with them for ever. Now, as the Apostles, did not teach
all nations, in their own persons, and were not to continue on
earth, until the end of the world, it was manifest, that the commission
was not to be confined to their persons, but was to be
given to their office, that is, to them and their successors in
office, who shall continue until the end of the world, to complete
the great work of teaching all nations, which the Apostles first
began. That this was actually the intention of our divine
Saviour, we learn in positive, and distinct terms, from these words
of St. Paul: "And He gave some apostles, and some prophets,
and other some pastors, and doctors for the perfecting of the
saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body
of Christ." "That henceforth we may be no more children,
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine,
by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they
lie in wait to deceive." (iv. 11, 14.) Such is, most Reverend
Gentlemen, and such always was, the visible, the infallible, and
incorruptible Church of Christ, which was to be perpetuated
from age to age, with time for its duration, and the world for its
boundaries.
Oh, but you will reply, this Church once fell into error, at
least so say the first Reformers. If, most Reverend Gentlemen,
I were to assert that you all once committed murder, you would
very sharply ask, when, where, and how? And if I could not
prove when, where, and how, I think you would deem me (and
justly too) a very near relation to the father of lies. Now, your
first Reformers said, indeed, that the Catholic Church once fell,
but most unfortunately, they forgot to prove when, where, and
how. As, therefore, these first Reformers, forgot to prove these
most essential circumstances, you must excuse us Catholics, if
we prefer God's infallible word, to the mere ipse dixit of these
first celestial lights of the Reformation. You know God says,
heaven and earth, shall pass away, but His word shall not pass
away.
But you will, perhaps, answer, really they must have been
strange beings to have asserted, that God's infallible Church had
fallen, and not to have been able, or at least to have forgotten,
to prove such a bold assertion. Do you know, I was just thinking
the same; and, therefore, I beg to introduce a few of these
beings to your notice: and I know none, that has a greater claim
to our first notice, than Martin Luther, both for the originality
of his spiritual doctrines, and for the sublimity of the celestial
revelations, with which he was honoured. And mind, had not
Luther and his disciples, left the most incontestible testimony of
what I am about to advance, it would really have outraged and
defied all credibility.
Well, then, know, and never forget, that Martin Luther, the
first luminary of the Reformation, had a conference with the
devil, in which Martin assures us, that he was convinced by the
devil's powerful argumentation, that the Popish Mass was a
heap of idolatry. The following are the words of this angel of
light on this subject: "Being awakened at midnight, the devil
began to dispute with me, according to his custom. "Listen to
me, Master Doctor," said he: "do you consider that, for fifteen
years, you have said mass almost every day? What, if all this
while, you have been guilty of idolatry, and, instead of adoring
the body and blood of Christ, have adored only bread and wine?"
I answered him, that I was a priest lawfully ordained by the
bishop; and that having, from a principle of obedience, discharged
my ministry with a sincere intention of consecrating, I
saw no reason to doubt the validity of the consecration. "True,"
replied Satan; "but in the Churches of Turks and Heathens, is
not everything done in an orderly manner, and in the spirit of
obedience? Does that authorize their worship as orthodox, and
perfectly correct? What, if your ordination were null, and your
consecration as vain and useless as that of Turkish priests, in
the exercise of their ministry, or of the false prophets under
Jeroboam?" Here (adds Luther) I was seized with a violent
sweat, and my heart began to beat in a strange manner. The
devil is very artful in adjusting his reasoning, and he also pushes
his arguments with great force; he has a voice, strong and
rough, and is so pressing in his objections, one after another, as
scarcely to allow you time to breathe. Hence, I can conceive,
how it has repeatedly happened, that persons have, in the morning,
been found dead in their beds. In the first place, he may
suffocate them; he may also, by his method of disputing, cause
such a trouble in the soul as to render her unable to make any
further resistance, and thus she may be compelled instantly to
leave the body; which has nearly been my own case, more than
once."
After this preface, Luther mentions five reasons which the
devil alleged against the sacrifice of the mass; reasons extremely
frivolous in themselves, but which Luther considered of sufficient
weight to justify his yielding to them, saying to those who
might blame his conduct, that "if they had heard the devil
reasoning in the same forcible manner as he had done, they
would take care not to appeal from his arguments to the practice
of the Church, and the usages of antiquity, which would
never satisfy them." This conference may be seen in three
different editions of Luther's works, printed by the care of his
disciples, viz., (Wittemberg, T. 7, p. 479. Jenæ, Ed. Germ. per
Thomas, p. 82. Attenberg, T. 6. p. 86.)
Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, this is a very strange history.
Certain, however, it is, that Luther omits nothing to persuade
us of its truth: for he mentions the very words which the
devil used, the tone of his voice, the nature of his arguments,
the impression which the conference made on his body and soul,
which sometimes follow from debating with this king of the
lower regions.
After the death of Luther, his disciples, and especially
Melancton, took care to insert the conference in the collection of
Luther's works, printed in Latin at Wittemberg, and the writers
of the Luthern and Calvinistic party agree, that it was certainly
the production of Luther.[K] (Hospinian, par. 2. Hist. Sacramentariæ,
p. 26, et. p. 131.)
Now Luther either had or had not this conference with
the master of lies. If he really had, Luther ought to have
known, that such a master was not very likely, to teach him
anything very good, and that he was not a very fit person, to
convince him of the idolatry of the mass. For if the mass,
had really been idolatry, I think the devil, would rather have
encouraged, than tried to overturn it. But if Luther had not
this conference, then the ambition of Luther, for having wished to
appear connected with so bad a master, indicates so strange and
exotic a genius, so depraved and bad a taste, that it reflects
almost as much dishonour on Luther, as if this conference had
really taken place.
You will perhaps object "that Luther is nothing to us."
Most Reverend Gentlemen, I have not quoted him to insult you,
or to throw any disrespect on you; for you are certainly not to
be answerable for Luther's deeds. But I have quoted him to let
you see, what kind of a genius, this father of the Reformation was,
and I must now candidly ask, if you think he was a fit person, to
reform Christ's Church. Had he indeed begun, by endeavouring
to reform the devil himself, we might have pardoned his religious
enthusiasm; but for him to tell us, that the infallible Church of
Christ, had fallen into error, and that he had come to reform it,
under the instructions, and guidance of the master of lies, is
really most outrageous, and cannot be equalled by any thing,
that I have either heard, or read on this side the grave. That
the human mind, should be capable of falling into such dreadful
delusion, would appear almost incredible, had not the Holy Ghost
assured us, that God abandons to a reprobate sense, those who
wish to change truth into falsehood. (Romans i. 25-26.)
Zuinglius, another bright son of the Reformation, professes to
have learnt his main argument against the Real Presence from a
spirit, which appeared to him in the night, but whether it was a
black, or white spirit he does not remember. However, he made
great account, of this nightly instruction of his unknown friend;
read the place of Exodus, which had been pointed out to him by
his unknown friend, and afterwards preached before the whole
congregation, on the subject of this wonderful discovery. (Hosp.
ii. p. 25-26.) Luther was positive and sure, that the devil, whom
Œcolampadius, (another reformer,) employed, strangled him
during the night in his bed. "This is the excellent master,"
continues Luther, "who taught Œcolampadius that there are
contradictions in the Scripture. See," says Luther, "to what
satan brings learned men." (De Miss. Priv. Luth.)
Such were the nocturnal revelations, with which some of the
first reformers were honoured, and I think now, you will not be
surprised at the following character, which is given them, and
the other reformers, even by Protestant testimony. Zanchius,
the celebrated Protestant professor, thus complains of the conduct
of his reforming Protestant colleagues: "I am indignant,
when I consider the manner, in which most of us defend our
cause. The true state of the question we often, on set purpose,
involve in darkness, that it may not be understood; we have the
impudence, to deny things the most evident: we assert what is
visibly false: the most impious doctrines, we force on the people
as the first principles of faith, and orthodox (true) opinions, we
condemn as heretical: we torture the Scriptures, until they agree
with our own fancies, and boast of being the disciples of the
fathers, while we refuse to follow their doctrines: to deceive, to
calumniate, to abuse, is our familiar practice: nor do we care
for anything, provided we can defend our cause, good or bad,
right or wrong. Oh what times! what manners! (Zanchius
ad Stormium, tome viii. col. 828.)
"But forgery—I blush for the honour of Protestantism while
I write it—seems to have been peculiar to the reformed * * *
and I look in vain, for one of these accursed outrages of imposition,
among the disciples of Popery." "But forgery, appears to
have been the peculiar disease of Protestantism."—(Vindication
of Mary, Queen of Scots, vol. iii. p. 2 and 53. By the Rev. John
Whitaker, B.D., Rector of Ruan Langhorne, Cornwall.)
You have now seen, who was the instructor of some of the first
Reformers, and the two above passages (mind, from Protestants,)
must convince you, that they and their reforming Protestant
colleagues, appear to have been apt scholars of this master of
lies. Well, I have shown you now, the character of the spiritual
chemists of the Reformation. I will now show you, some of
the wonderful spiritual works, of some of their supernatural, and
chemical hands.
Among these, I must rank as first and foremost, the wonderful
spiritual deeds, of your Scriptural Church as by Law
established. Most Reverend Gentlemen, The Thirty-nine
Articles, are the fundamental Articles of your Protestant Creed.
Now, in the Thirty-fifth of those Articles, I find, that your
Scriptural Church professes to believe, in the Protestant homilies
there named. Among which I find the second is, "against
peril of idolatry." Now, the following, are the words of your
Protestant homily against idolatry. Its words are these: "The
preaching of God's word, most sincere in the beginning, by process
of time became less and less pure, and afterwards corrupt,
and last of all, altogether laid down and left off, &c. Not only
the unlearned and simple, but the learned and wise; not the
people only, but the bishops; not the sheep, but also the shepherds
themselves, being blinded by the bewitchery of images, as
blind guides of the blind, fell both into the pit of damnable
idolatry; in which all the world, as it were drowned, continued
unto our age for the space of eight hundred years; unspoken
against in a manner, so that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned,
of all ages and sexes and degrees, of men and women and
children of whole Christendom, (an horrible thing to think,) have
been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices
most detested by God, and damnable to men, and that for the
space of eight hundred years together. And to this end has
come that beginning of setting up of images in churches, then
judged harmless, in experience proved not only harmful, but
exitious and pestilential, and to the destruction of all good
religion universally." Thus far, your Protestant homily.
Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, if in my comments on the
above passage, I have often to use the word damnable, you must
really pardon me, for you see, I have just been taught this
pretty word, by your Scriptural Church, and you know, she is
master in Israel. Pray, most Reverend Gentlemen, where was
your Protestant Scriptural Church, during this eight hundred
years of damnable idolatry? If it was a member of no Church,
then, it was not a member, or part of Christ's Church. But if
it was a member, or part of any one Church in all Christendom,
then, it was utterly drowned in abominable, and damnable
idolatry. I wonder how your Scriptural Church, can extricate
herself out of this spiritual labyrinth.
Well, then, here we have, according to your Scriptural
Church, a universal apostacy. The true Church decayed, the
whole of Christendom drowned in damnable idolatry, and all
good religion destroyed universally, and that, for eight hundred
years; and we have also your Scriptural Church either not
existing, or buried in this universal spiritual destruction.
Really, your Scriptural Church, Sampson-like, not only
demolished the whole spiritual fabric of Christendom, but also
perished herself under the ruins of this universal spiritual
destruction; but the strangest thing of all is, whilst with one
hand, she was endeavouring with her spiritual power, to hurl the
Catholic Church, into the vortex of this universal spiritual
destruction, she, with the other hand, charitably saves us
Catholics (as Moses was saved from the waters) from this deluge
of universal spiritual idolatry; and I will now show you how;
for your Scriptural Church, in her sixth article of the Thirty-nine
Articles, teaches that, "Holy Scripture containeth all
things necessary to salvation." Now, this very Scripture, (the
book of salvation,) declares (as I have already shown in my
above description of the Catholic Church,) that, the Catholic
Church should never err, and of course, could never fall into
idolatry. And, therefore, in obedience to your Scriptural
Church, and to the Scripture itself, we believe that the Catholic
Church, never has fallen, and never will fall into idolatry. For
the Scripture says, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
God's word, shall not pass away." Really, your Scriptural
Church, is very kind to us in this respect, and I almost begin to
think, she must be a worthy descendant of Pharo's daughter,
who saved Moses from the waters of the Nile.
Well, Most Reverend Gentlemen, you see your scriptural
Church, has now hurled the whole of Christendom, into the
vortex of universal, abominable, and damnable idolatry, and
either involved herself, in this sweeping deluge of abominations,
or committed suicidical destruction on herself; but, strange to
say, she has charitably saved us benighted Papists, from these
abominable, and universal waters of idolatry, as Pharo's daughter,
kindly saved Moses from the waters of the Nile. Now, how
your scriptural Church as by law established will contrive to
gather together again, and unite all the various parts of this
universal, spiritual edifice, just destroyed by her hands, I am at
a loss to determine. If she really can collect, unite, and form
these various spiritual parts, into a more perfect, and durable
edifice, than God Himself had made it, I shall then begin to
think, that she is invested with powers, which even God Himself
does not possess. But by what spiritual art of chemistry, is she
to perform this wonderful, and superhuman operation? If she
has recourse to the Scriptures, she will there learn, that God
had built this spiritual edifice on an imperishable, infallible,
and incorruptible foundation. And surely, for her sake, God
will not contradict Himself; and if she has recourse to her
thirty-nine articles, they have already annihilated her. O poor
scriptural Church! thou hast often made sad work with other
Churches; but at last, alas! thou art in sad straits thyself.
O! how thou remindest me of the man, who
"Halting on crutches of unequal size,—
One leg by truth supported, one by lies,
Thus saddled to the goal, with awkward pace,
Secure of nothing but to lose the race."
Well, but you will say, this immense spiritual edifice must
for the sake of the salvation of mankind, be re-built. Should I
offer my officious services, to assist in this pious work of reconstruction,
your scriptural Church might perhaps say, I destroyed
more than I built. Well, she could not, even then, justly
complain of this; for she has just cut into pieces, demolished,
and annihilated the whole of Christendom, with her destructive
weapons of universal, abominable, and damnable idolatry.
In all material edifices, it is considered of the greatest importance
that the foundation should be firm, safe, and substantial.
Of course, we have reason to expect these requisites in the foundation
of all spiritual edifices; and of course, we may naturally
expect them, in the new erection of God's work which your
Church has just destroyed, but which she is now going to re-construct
into a more perfect and durable form than God had made
it. Now, upon what foundation will your Church reconstruct
this demolished spiritual edifice? In her twenty-first article of
her thirty-nine articles, (and mind, she has sworn to these
articles as God's truth,) I find the following words: "General
councils may not be gathered together without the commandment,
and will of princes. And when they be gathered together,
(forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not
governed by the Spirit, and word of God,) they may err, and
sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God."
Now, please tell me, Most Reverend Gentlemen, of what is
your new spiritual Church to be built? Surely not of brick and
mortar! but of course, it is to be erected, on the testimony of
man, or of some body of men. But your article says, men may
err, and have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Therefore,
your council, or councils, of your new Church may err, and
therefore, how will you build upon these fallible men an infallible
foundation?
But you will indignantly reply, the article intimates, that they
may err unless governed by the Spirit, and word of God. Well,
Most Reverend Gentlemen, is it likely God will give them his
Spirit, and unerring word to reconstruct a new Church, when
they have just destroyed the infallible, and beautiful work of
God's own hands? Is it in the nature of things, that God
should contradict Himself, to second the BABEL ideas, of your
scriptural Church, yet to be formed?
Really, Sir, some of you Reverends will exclaim, how you are
garbling that twenty-first article! Why have you slyly omitted
to quote the last part of that article?—Well, as you have called,
for the last part of this article, I will now quote it; and as your
Church (first, indeed, unfortunately destroying herself) has just
so charitably saved us, benighted papists, from the waters of
idolatry, I do sincerely hope this last part of your article, may
enable you, to rebuild a godly and spiritual edifice. Well, then,
now for the last part of this twenty-first article, which you say, I
have slyly omitted. It runs thus verbatim: "Wherefore, things
ordained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither
strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they be
taken out of Holy Scripture." Now, Most Reverend Gentlemen,
as you have just asked me a question, allow me to ask you
another. If any of you, were wishful to purchase an estate,
would you not first, have the title deeds of that estate, carefully
examined by some eminent and respectable lawyers, to be sure
that the title deeds, were perfectly good, and satisfactory, before
you advanced the money? Now we have just learnt, from the
last part of your twenty-first article, that the Scriptures, properly
speaking, are the deeds of a Christian, by which he is to
obtain a good title to salvation. Of course, therefore, we may
naturally suppose, that your scriptural Church would hand down
to her followers the Scriptures, in the most perfect and unmutilated
state.
Well, we will now see whether she has done this, and then we
shall be able to determine, if she can rebuild her godly, and
spiritual edifice on so heavenly a foundation. We will now consider
how she got the sacred Scriptures, after her shipwreck amid
the perils of idolatry, and whether, after she got them, she handed
them down to her followers in the perfect and unmutilated state,
in which she first received them from the Catholic Church. Luther,
the father of the Reformation, even after he had left the Catholic
Church, candidly says, in his Commentary on the 16th chapter
of St. John's Gospel: "We are obliged to yield many things to
the Papists, that with them is the word of God, which we
received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at
all about it." And, in his book against the Anabaptists, he
makes the following confession: "Under Papacy are many
good things, yea, everything that is good in Christianity. I say
moreover," continues he, "under Papacy is true Christianity,
even the very kernel of Christianity." From these two passages
of Luther, it is evident, that your scriptural Church, first received
the Scriptures from the hand of the Catholic Church, and that
she received them, in a perfect and unmutilated state; otherwise,
how could Luther's words be true, (and mind, he uttered these
words after he had left the Catholic Church) when he assures us,
that under Papacy is "true Christianity, yea, everything that is
good in Christianity, nay, the very kernel of Christianity."
Now let us see how your scriptural Church, corrupted and
mutilated the sacred volumes which she had received from
the Catholic Church in a perfect and unmutilated state.
Luther was the first, after the Reformation, who put out a
Protestant translation of the Scriptures, which was immediately
condemned by Osiander, Rickerman, and Zuinglius. Of this
translation of Luther, Zuinglius says, (Lib. de Sacra.) "Luther
was a foul corrupter, and horrible falsifier of God's word. One,
who followed the Marcionites and Arians, that razed out such
places of Holy Writ, as were against him. Thou dost," says he
to Luther, "corrupt the word of God. Thou art seen to be a
manifest, and common corrupter, and perverter of the holy Scriptures.
How much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto
esteemed thee!" But Luther not only falsified, but he also
added, to the texts of the Scripture. "I know well," says
Luther, "that this word, alone, (which he added to St. Paul's
words, Rom. iii.) is not found in the text of St. Paul, but should
a Papist, annoy you upon it, tell him at once, without hesitation,
that Dr. Martin Luther, would have it so, and that a papist, and
an ass, are synonymous." (Tom. 5, Jena Edit. p. 141, 144.)
But Luther, soon had an opportunity of retaliating, on his disciple
Zuinglius. When Proscheverus, the Zuinglian printer of
Zurich, sent him a copy of the Zuinglian translation, Luther rejected
it, and sent it back to him, calling at the same time the
Zuinglian divines, in matters of divinity, "fools, asses, anti-christs,
deceivers, and of an ass-like understanding." (See
Zuing. tom. 2, ad Luth. Lib. de Sacr. fol. 338.)
Of the translation set forth by Œcolampadius, Beza says, that
it "is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the
mind of the Holy Ghost." And he also condemns that of Castalio,
as being sacrilegious, wicked, and heathenish. (In Respons.
ad Defens. and Respons. Castal.)
We should naturally expect that Beza, after thus reproving
the translations of Œcolampadius and of Castalio, would himself
have produced an immaculate one; but the learned Molineus
observes of his translation, that "he (Beza) actually changes the
text, of which Molineus gives several instances." (In sua Translat.
Nov. Testi. part 20.)
Castalio wrote a whole book against Beza's corruptions of the
Scriptures, and yet, he adds, "I will not note all his (Beza's)
corruptions, for that would require too large a volume." (In
Defens. Transl.)
Of Calvin's translation the learned Molinæus thus speaks:
"Calvin, in his harmony, makes the text of the Gospel to leap
up and down. He uses violence to the letter of the Gospel; and
besides this, adds to the text." (In sua Translat. Nov. Test.
part 12.)
Here, then, you have Zuinglius and others against Luther's
translation, and Luther against Zuinglius's translation, Beza
against Œcolampadius and Castilio's translation, and Castilio
against Beza's translation, and Molinæus against Calvin's translation.
Now, which of all these false translations was your
scriptural Church to adopt as her only rule of faith and for that
of the people? Why, you Reverends will reply, she was to
adopt her own English translations.
Well, then we had better examine, and see whether they were
any better than any of the above translations, Carlile, in his
treatise on Christ's descent into hell, says of the English translators,
that they have "depraved the sense, obscured the sense,
obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many
places, they do detort the scriptures from the right sense, and
that they show themselves to love darkness more than light,
falsehood more than truth." And in an abridgment which the
ministers of the diocese of Lincoln delivered to King James, they
denominated the English translation, "A translation that taketh
away from the text, that addeth to the text, and that sometime
to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost;
a translation which is absurd and senseless, perverting, in many
places, the meaning of the Holy Ghost." Burges, in his Apology,
sec. 6, exclaims, "How shall I approve under my hand a translation,
which hath so many omissions, many additions, which
sometimes obscures, sometimes perverts the sense, being sometimes
senseless, sometimes contrary?" And Broughton, in his
letter to the Lords of the Council, gives this reason for requiring
a new translation without delay, that "That which is now in
England is full of errors." And, in his Advertisement of Corruptions,
he tells the bishops, "That their public translations of
Scriptures into English is such, as that it perverts the texts of
the Old Testament, in eight hundred and forty-eight places;
and that it causes millions of millions to reject the New Testament,
and to run to eternal flames."
But some of you Reverends may reply, those were the Protestant
translations of earlier times; but we have got better
translations now. Well, then we must now examine the truth
of your assertion. In November, 1822, the Irish Protestant
Society passed the following condemnatory resolution of the
Irish translators: "Resolved, that, after a full enquiry, the
members of this society feel satisfied, that material and very
numerous errors, exist in the version of the New Testament,
edited by the British and Foreign Bible Society." According
to Mr. Platt, thirty-five variations were discovered in the first
ten pages, of which seven were considered to be material.
"This proportion in a Testament of four hundred pages," says
the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Percival, "gives fourteen hundred
variations, and two hundred and eighty material errors in a
single volume." We find in the Monthly London Review, page
220, "That in April, 1832, a memorial was addressed on the
subject, to the vice-chancellors of the Universities of Cambridge
and of Oxford, and the other delegates of the Clarendon press."
It was signed by the following gentlemen:
- T. Bennet, D.D.
- T. Blackburn.
- George Collinson.
- F. A. Cox, L.L.D.
- Thomas Curtis.
- T. Fletcher, D.D.
- E. Henderson.
- J. P. Smith, D.D.
- T. Townley, D.D.
- R. Winter, D.D.
The names, attached to this memorial, are too respectable not
to communicate a great degree of importance, to any statement
to which they are affixed. This memorial states, "That the
modern Bibles, issued from the press of the University of Oxford,
abounded with deviations from the authorized version of King
James the First. That, though some of these errors were merely
typographical, yet of those that were intentional, the number was
of a serious amount. That in the Book of Genesis, there were
upwards of eight hundred errors; in the Psalms, six hundred;
in the Gospel of St. Matthew, four hundred and sixteen; and in
about the fourth part of the Bible, an aggregate of two thousand,
nine hundred and thirty-one."
The same Monthly London Review, for February, 1833, speaking
of the pamphlet of Thomas Curtis, of Grove House, Islington,
on his discoveries of the falsification of the Bible, says: "In this
comparatively brief pamphlet, we find the exposition of one of
the most singular deceptions, to which the world has yet been
exposed. The imposition, is nothing short of a downright falsification
of the text of Scripture. Need we add a syllable more, to
rouse the attention of the thinking community?" In the same
pamphlet Mr. Curtis remarks: "About twenty years ago, an
intelligent reader at one of the printing offices, where the Bible
was in a course of printing, took the trouble of drawing up a
specification of a number of gross errors, which he found in the
very copy, that had been selected by the proper authorities, as the
standard of correctness to which he was to adhere. The errors
pointed out by the penetrating reader, amounted to no less, than
seven hundred and thirty-one, and these occurred in the various
chapters, from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of Jeremiah."
Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, it is plain from what I have
stated (and where is the person who can contradict what I have
stated), that the first Protestant foreign Reformers, corrupted and
falsified the sacred Scriptures, that your English Protestant
Reformers, did also the same, and that even at the present day,
your English Protestant translations of that sacred volume, are
in a most awful and corrupt state. And would to heaven I could
stop here!
But what will the English people say, when they learn, that
your Protestant scriptural Church, has not only falsified and
corrupted the Scriptures, but that she has had the audacity, to
expunge from the canon of the Scripture many books, which are
as much canonical (that is, as much the inspired word of God)
as those, which she still retains in her present Protestant canon.
I will now prove this. The Protestant Church, received at first
(as Luther truly informs us) the Scriptures from the Catholic
Church. The Catholic Church, therefore, must be good authority
in this respect, otherwise how can the Protestant Church
be, sure that her first Scriptures, were the real word of God?
Now, the Catholic Church has ranked, for at least fourteen
hundred years, many books as canonical, which your Protestant
Church rejects as uncanonical. In the year 397, a Catholic
council was held at Carthage, at which the learned and pious
St. Augustine assisted. In that council, the canon of the Scripture,
was satisfactorily determined; and in that very council,
many books were declared to be canonical (that is, the inspired
word of God,) which your Church, has had the audacity to tell
the people, are not canonical, that is, they are not to be considered
the inspired word of God. But what reason had your
scriptural Church, to assume the audacious power, to condemn as
uncanonical, books, which were declared by this illustrious,
numerous, and learned body of Christians, to be canonical, (that
is, the inspired word of God?) I ask you, what reason had your
scriptural Church for this audacious step? I answer, none. O
but I fancy I hear some of your reverends exclaiming, You are
wrong for once, old papish botheration. Look at the passage
in the sixth of our articles, between our canonical and uncanonical
books, and there you will find a good reason for your
popish question.
Thank you, courteous clerks; I will now quote the passage,
and give your scriptural Church the benefit of it. "And the
other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read, for example
of life, and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply
them to establish any doctrine." (Art. 6, Ch. Eng. P. Book.)
Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, truth and falsehood are in this
passage, mixed up together to a nicety. In the first part, your
scriptural Church tells the people that she, like Hierom (and
mind, St. Hierom was a great Catholic Saint), reads her uncanonical
books, for example of life and instruction of manners.
Well, her object for reading these books, as far as it goes, is
very good; but then, your scriptural Church slyly adds, "but
yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine:" an artful
inuendo that St. Hierom did the same. Now St. Hierom wished,
indeed, the Catholic Church to read these books, for example of
life, and instruction of manners; but St. Hierom, at the same
time, included in the Catholic canon all the books, which had
been ranked in the Catholic canon by antiquity. Now, if your
scriptural Church, quoted St. Hierom's authority in confirmation
of the first part of this passage, why does she slyly intimate, to
follow him in the second part, where she contradicts St. Hierom,
by asserting that certain books of the Scripture, are uncanonical,
which St. Hierom believed, and taught were really canonical?
Come, Reverend Gentlemen, your Church must have had some
sly reason, for this contradictory conduct. Now, do tell us what
this reason was. Well, if you will not tell, I must.
You have seen, how the first reformers falsified the Scriptures,
to make the sacred text, harmonize with their reformed ideas;
but what puzzled them most was, they found there were certain
books, which they could not possibly tune to their new ideas.
They durst not indeed, entirely reject these sacred books; for
they knew in what veneration, they had been always held by
antiquity; but on the other hand, they durst not admit them as
canonical; for then, the testimony of these books, would upset
their new-fangled ideas; they thought, therefore, the most convenient
method, was to make flesh and fish of them, and then,
they could either admit, or contradict them, according to their
own spiritual convenience.
And that I am speaking the truth, I will give you one single
instance, and from this one, you will be able to judge of the rest,
of their sly method, of squaring the scripture to their new, and
reforming ideas. Of all the tenets of the Catholic creed, there is
none, that has been more lustily inveighed against, and accordingly,
none that sound so awfully, to an English Protestant ear,
as Purgatory, and Prayers for the dead. (O keep your seats,
Most Reverend Gentlemen, I am not going to put you into Purgatory,
although you may imagine it smells very strongly of it
on this side the grave.)[L] Well, mind this doctrine of Purgatory,
and of Prayers for the dead, was the belief of the Jews, and of
all the first Christians, and continued even to the time of the
Reformation. Now in the book of Machabees, this doctrine is so
plainly laid down, that no man in his senses, can contradict it.
Read the following passage, and tell me, if I am not speaking
the truth. "And making a gathering, he (Judas Machabeus)
sent 1200 drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice, to be
offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well, and religiously,
concerning their resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that
they that were slain, should rise again, it would have seemed
superfluous, and vain to pray for the dead.) And, because, he
considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had
great grace laid up for them. It is, therefore, a holy and
wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed
from sins." II. Mac. xii. 43-46.
Now this passage was so clear, and positive a proof of purgatory,
and of prayers for the dead, that the first Reformers found, that
they could not get rid of it, without denying the divine authority
of the book. Accordingly, these new soul-menders, told the people
that the two Books of Machabees, were not included in the Jewish
Canon, but unfortunately, they forgot to tell the world the
reason, (viz.,) because the Jewish Canon was compiled by Esdras,
long before the Books of Machabees were written. And now,
you may understand the sly words of your sixth article, "but
yet it doth not apply them (these books) to establish any doctrine,"
viz., to establish the Catholic doctrine, and to overturn
their new-fangled ideas.
Now, Gentlemen, is it not plain that your Church, hath both
corrupted the Scriptures, and expunged from her Protestant
Canon, many of the inspired books of those sacred volumes?
And now, allow me to quote the first part of the sixth Article
of your Church, and then, tell me what the people are to do, to
save their souls, and how your Scriptural Church, is ever to be
raised again, to a new spiritual life. "Holy Scripture containeth
all things necessary to salvation: so that, whatsoever is
not read therein, nor may be approved thereby, is not to be
required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of
the Faith, or to be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those
Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose
authority was never any doubt in the Church."
Now this part of your Article, assures us, in the strongest manner,
that the Holy Scriptures, contain all things necessary for salvation,
that they are the sure palladium of a Christian, and his
title-deeds to eternal life; and it also says, that in this sacred
volume, are to be included all the books of whose authority, was
never any doubt in the Church. Now, it is also plain from
what I have advanced, (and find me a person who can overturn
by solid argument what I have advanced,) it is plain, I repeat it,
that your Church has both falsified the text of the Scripture,
and expunged from her Protestant Canon, many books, whose
authority and divine inspiration, were held by antiquity in the
greatest veneration. Now, most Reverend Gentlemen, do tell
me what the people are to do. On the one hand, your Church tells
the people, there is no salvation without the Scripture: and on
the other hand, your Church has falsified the text, and also
expunged from her Protestant Canon, many inspired Books of
the Scripture. Really, can you obtain the possession of property
by corrupt and mutilated title-deeds? Certainly not. How,
then, are your people to obtain eternal life by your false, and
mutilated title-deeds of the Scripture? Really, most Reverend
Gentlemen, if the prejudices of my popish education do not
strongly deceive me, your Protestant mutilation of the Scripture,
and your Sixth Article, are pregnant with the most paradoxical
consequences. O how justly may I apply to your Scriptural
Church, the observations which a distinguished minister of the
Church of England, applied to the operations of the Bible
Society; these are his words: "Surely, it is enough to make a
Christian's blood run cold, to think of the sacrilegious presumption
of a Society, which dares thus to tamper, and trifle with the
revelation of the Almighty, and dares publish to the heathen,
and attempt to pawn upon its credulous supporters, these schoolboy
exercises of its agents, as the Sacred Word of God! It is
the circulation of such translations as these, that, more than
once, at the meetings of this Society, have been blasphemously
compared to the miraculous gift of tongues. And such a system
is supported, and such comparisons applauded by many, who, on
other occasions, lay claim, and justly, to the characters of piety
and intelligence."[M] O how justly might he have applied these
observations to his own Church.[N]
We have now seen, most Reverend Gentlemen, the falsification,
and mutilation of the Sacred Scriptures, by the Protestant
Reformers. Your Sixth Article tells the people, that the Scriptures
are the only means of salvation; but of course, she must
mean correct copies, and authenticated translations of those sacred
volumes. Now, what are the people to do for eternal life,
placed as they are, on the one hand, between your falsified, corrupt,
and mutilated Scriptures, and on the other hand, the absolute
necessity (according to your Sixth Article) of culling their
religion from the Scriptures? But, as there is no hope of salvation,
for the people in this awful fix, do you think, you could
raise a church for the people, instead of these falsified scriptures?
But then, it is evident, that you cannot raise that
church, on the frail foundation of these falsified, and mutilated
scriptures. Really I am sorry, that I declined the assistance of
the Spanish chemist, as he might, perhaps, have thrown some
new light, on this subject by his wonderful chemical operations.
O! but a very bright idea, has just popped into my mind, that
your Protestant prayer-book, was first made 'by the aid of the
Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God.' Surely, we shall now
succeed, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the noble object
of God's honour. Well, then, we will now see, how this prayer-book,
was first made by men, 'aided by the Holy Ghost, and for
the honour of God;' we will then see, how these very men who at
first declare, that this prayer-book, which was made by the aid
of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God, afterwards most
solemnly swear, that all these inspirations of the Holy Ghost
were heretical, and contrary to true religion, and then, how they
bring back this prayer-book, and enact the most severe penalties
on all, who will not adopt its use.
In the reign of Henry the Eighth, the faith of Protestantism,
and defection from the Catholic faith, first partially began. In
the reign of his son, Edward VI., Protestantism, made a-head,
and Catholicism, rapidly declined. It was in the reign of this
youth Edward VI., (only eleven years of age,) that the Protestant
prayer-book, was made by Act of Parliament. In the preamble
of this Act (i. & ii. Edward VI.) we are informed that Edward
(only eleven years of age) appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and others, who, "aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the
honour of God," made this prayer-book. Take notice that this
Act (i. & ii. Edward VI.) declares, that this Protestant prayer-book,
was made by these men, "aided by the Holy Ghost, and
for the honour of God." This Act of Parliament, provided also,
that if any clergyman, refused to use this prayer-book, in the
public service, he should, for the first offence, forfeit to the King
one year's income of his benefice, and be imprisoned for six
months; for the second, he should be deprived of the whole of
his benefice, and be imprisoned for one year; and for the third
offence, he should be imprisoned for his whole life. But this
Act, was not confined merely to the clergy, it extended also to
the laity. It enacted, that if any layman, should by interludes,
plays, songs, rhymes, or by other open words, declare, or speak
anything to the derogation of the said common prayer-book,
penalty after penalty, was to follow, until he had forfeited all
his goods, and chattels to the King, and to be imprisoned for
life. Such, was the first formation, of your Protestant prayer-book,
as the Act of Parliament, (i. & ii. Edward VI.) plainly
shews.
Now, let us see the result, in the next reign. Edward died
seven years afterwards, and was succeeded by his sister, Mary,
who was a Catholic. Almost, as soon as Mary had ascended
the throne, the very men repeal the whole of the famous Act,
for making the common prayer-book, and that too, on the
grounds that this prayer-book, was contrary to true religion,
although, in the former reign, they had solemnly declared, they
had been assisted, "by the Holy Ghost" in the making of this
prayer-book; they also abolished all the pains, and penalties,
which they had enacted, in the former reign, against the clergy,
and laity, for not using this common prayer-book, and this too,
on the express ground, that they had been for years, wandering
in error, and schism, although, they had had the barefacedness to
assert, in the previous reign, that the Holy Ghost, had assisted
them in the formation of this common prayer-book.
Well, Mary died about five years afterwards, and was succeeded
by her sister Elizabeth, who was at first a Catholic, but
shortly turned Protestant. Now the second Act of this Queen,
(i. Eliz. chap. 2.) brought back again, this prayer-book. In
Mary's reign these very men, had abolished this very prayer-book,
as schismatical, they now recall this common prayer-book,
and inflict the most severe penalties, upon all, who will not use
it, in the public service. For the first offence, it was now
enacted, the clergy were to forfeit a year's income, and be
imprisoned for a year; for the second offence, they were to forfeit
all their incomes, and be imprisoned for life, for refusing to
use this common prayer-book, in the public service. The people
also, were compelled on Sundays, and holydays, to attend the
Church, and to use this common prayer-book, under various
penalties, and in failure of paying these penalties, they were to
be imprisoned. Bishops, Archdeacons, and other Ordinaries,
were to have power, to inflict these punishments. Really the
conduct of these men, is, so inconsistent and monstrous, that if
we had not Acts of Parliament for it, I should have been afraid
to state it, upon any other authority. In the reign of Edward,
these very men make the common prayer-book, and declare it a
work of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God; then, in
about seven years afterwards, in the reign of Mary, they declare
this book to be schismatical, and contrary to true religion,
although in the former reign, they had asserted, it was a work
of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God; and then in
about five years afterwards, these very men recant again, recall
this prayer-book, and inflict the most severe pains, and penalties,
both on clergy and laity, who refuse the use of it. Most
Reverend Gentlemen, may I ask you, what kind of a prayer-book,
must that be, which was made by these inconsistent, and
monstrous men? and yet, such is your Protestant prayer-book, of
the Church of England as by Law established.
But some of you reverends, will perhaps reply, really, Sir, it
is too bad of you, thus to lower our Protestant Prayer-book, for
we Protestants all know, how many beautiful, and admirable
parts there are in that Church Prayer-book. Most Reverend
Gentlemen, before I answer this objection, we must quietly trace
back our steps to the Spanish chemist. Of course, I have forbidden
myself the application of his wonderful, chemical operations
to your Church. But then, you yourselves can apply
them, and judge whether there really is, any analogy or not,
between his chemical operations, and the spiritual works of your
scriptural Church. Well, then, I have shewn you, what a beautiful
Church God and Jesus Christ first built; and I have shown
you the sure, and infallible foundation of that Church, which
was to be perpetuated from age to age, with the world for its boundaries,
and time for its duration. I have shewn you, how, in
the sixteenth century, arose a body of men, the most audacious,
and strange spiritual chemists, that the world ever beheld,
whether you consider the spiritual instructor of some of them, or
whether you consider the strange doctrines they advanced, and the
barefaced manner, in which they defended, and propagated their
new-fangled ideas. I have shewn you, how these strange spiritual
chemists, wished to demolish God's infallible Church, how
they cut it into pieces of universal and damnable idolatry, how
then, they put these various parts into the sublimatory glass of
falsification, and mutilation of God's word. You then saw, how
these spiritual chemists, and their followers, have been trying in
vain, for these three hundred years at least, to collect, and unite,
and form these various parts of Christ's Church (which according
to their bare assertion, had fallen into error), into a more
perfect, and durable form, than that which God had first given
it. You have seen, how these Protestant children of the Reformation,
honoured England with a Protestant Prayer-book,
the formation of which, almost defies all the power of credibility;
and were there not Acts of Parliament to show this, it would be
an insult to any Englishman, to assert such a thing in his
presence. Now with all these facts before you, is there not a
great analogy, between the outrageous conduct of your Church,
and that of the Spanish chemist, who destroyed his master, with
the design of raising him, to a more perfect and durable state,
than that which God had first given him?
I ask you, most Reverend Gentlemen, with all these awful and
incontestible facts before you, will your Protestant Church, ever
be able to raise Christ's Church, to as perfect and as durable a
state, as she is now, and was then, when you withdrew from her?
Your Protestant Church has been trying her hand, at this work
of reformation, for more than three hundred years, and still she
is something like the Irishman's wife: Pat got married, and in
about three months after, went to the priest, and said, "Plaise
your reverince, you didn't marry me and my wife rightly."
"Well," asked the clergyman, "how did I marry you wrongly?"
"Plaise your reverince, didn't you say, I was to take my wife
for better, and for worse?" "Certainly," replied the priest.
"Now, plaise your reverince, she's all worse, and no better."
Really, how justly may we apply this to your Church of England
as by law established. In short, this country, the wonder of the
world in commerce, in the arts and sciences, in the extent of her
navy, and the power of her army, this wonderful nation, presents,
in point of religion, a confused medley of every sort, and
of every form of worship, a perfect chaos of doctrines, in which
every one plunges, and tosses, dogmatizing as fancy or feeling
directs. In consequence of this confusion of religious opinions,
men know not, to whom to listen, what to believe, or what to do.
This confusion of religious opinions, and doctrines, commenced
with the Reformation, and has continued, and daily increased
ever since. O how justly did a chief of the savages, address,
near Boston, a missionary, who had gone with his Bible, to convert
the pagans of that country. "How," asked this chief, "can
your religion be the true one, since you white men do not all
profess the same? Agree among yourselves in this point, and then
we will attend to you." (Phil. Gaz. Nov. 1817.)
But some of you reverends, will ask again: Really, sir, do
you pretend to assert, that our Common Prayer-book, and that
our Protestant Church, do not contain any spiritual treasures?
I answer, that in all counterfeit coin, which is well executed,
the gold is often laid on the base metal rather thickly, and with
great ingenuity. Now, this is the case with your counterfeit
prayer-book, and with your counterfeit religion. Whoever will
take the pains to examine carefully, the strange mixture of good,
and of evil, which is to be found in your Protestant Prayer-book,
and in your Protestant religion, will, at first, stand astonished,
but his astonishment will soon cease, when he finds that the
little good which is in them, flows from the Church of Jesus
Christ, which you formerly left, and that the evils with which
they abound, flow from the inventions and the ingenuity of man.
Allow me to give you a few instances of this. In the Apostles'
creed (and in your Thirty-nine Articles you admit this creed as
the word of God), you profess to believe, in the Holy Catholic
Church. Now, this is the real word of God, which your Church
admits; but then, you also solemnly declare, that you believe in
your hearts, and from your soul, that the doctrine of the Roman
Catholic Church is idolatrous. Now this is the mere human invention
of your Protestant Church. Now when these two doctrines,
the one from God, and the other from man, are brought
in contact, let us see what sad consequences they make with
you, and your scriptural Church. You profess to believe, in the
Catholic Church; but Catholic, means universal, and as the
Roman Catholics form the greatest body of Christians, their
Church only, can be the Catholic, or universal Church; for
Catholic, and universal, mean the same thing. But mind, you
destroy this Catholic or universal Church. How? Why you
swear, that her doctrine is idolatrous. How, then, can she be
holy? Thus, you see, by joining in religion the word of God,
with the inventions of man, you destroy (though perhaps without
intending it) the holy Catholic Church, in which you profess to
believe.
I will now give you another instance. At the end of the
Communion Service of your Common Prayer-book, I find these
words: "It is hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is
intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread
or wine, there bodily received, or to any corporal presence of
Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread
and wine, remain still in their very natural substances, and
therefore, may not be adored, for that were idolatry, to be abhorred
of all faithful Christians." Of course, the plain meaning
of these words is, that Jesus Christ is not present in the Lord's
Supper, and therefore, it would be a great crime to there adore
him. But, what does your Church Catechism (which is in your
prayer-book) teach children on this subject? Why, it asks
them, "What is the inward part, or the thing signified?" Your
Church Catechism answers: "The Body and Blood of Christ,
which are verily and indeed taken, and received by the faithful, in
the Lord's Supper." Now this declares, that our Saviour, is
really present in the Lord's Supper, for how can you really, and
indeed take Him, and receive Him, if He is not really there? Thus,
in one part of your prayer-book, you solemnly declare, that our
Saviour is not present, in the Lord's Supper, and therefore it
would be idolatry there to adore him; but in another part of the
same prayer-book, you teach children that He is present; and that
they verily and indeed take Him and receive Him in the Lord's
Supper. The Act of Parliament of Edward VI., for the making
of this Common Prayer-book, declares it to be a work of the
Holy Ghost; but I hope you will excuse me for saying, that I
think it was a very curious Holy Ghost, and whether it was
black, or white, really I have not sufficient of the prophet in me
to divine. But how was this manifest contradiction, introduced
into your prayer-book? Why, I will tell you; the doctrine of
the real presence of our Saviour in the Blessed Sacrament, had
been believed by the great body of Christians, ever since the
time of our Saviour, until the Reformation. Luther and Zuinglius,
indeed, as you know, were convinced by the devil, that our
Saviour was not present in the Blessed Sacrament, and that,
therefore, it would be idolatry to believe it; but then, how were
they to manage to substitute their new-fangled opinions, for the
constant belief of all former christian ages? Why, they made
flesh and fish of them; they mixed together again the word of
God with the inventions of man, and then, thought that the
people's orthodox stomachs, would swallow better their new-fangled
religious ideas.
But, what has often amused me the most, in your scriptural
Church, is this; you solemnly declare, that the doctrine of
Catholics, is idolatrous; but, should any of these poor Catholic
sinners, condescend to lay their idolatrous bones, in any of your
churchyards; what do you then declare? Why, that you commit
to the dust, this Catholic, (who according to you during life
has been a most idolatrous sinner,) "in the sure, and certain
hope of resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus
Christ;" for you would thus pray: "O merciful God, we meekly
beseech Thee, that when we shall depart this life, we may rest
in Him (Christ) as our hope is, this our brother doth." Thus
you tell us, that during life, we Catholics live in the horrible sin
of idolatry, and then, after death, you are willing to commit us,
for a comfortable fee, "to the dust, in the sure, and certain hope
of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus
Christ."
Again, you often warn the people, against the idolatrous practice
of praying to the Saints, and assure the people, there is
only one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, on Sundays,
you have no difficulty, in recommending the sick, to the prayers
of the faithful. But, why should you do this, when according to
you, there is only one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ? If you
can thus ask the prayers of the faithful, without injuring the
mediation of our Saviour; why cannot the Catholic, ask the
prayers of the Saints, without injuring the mediation of Jesus
Christ? O! but you will say, the Saints, and Angels cannot
hear our prayers. Well but does not the Scripture tell us, "that
the devil goes about, like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may
devour," and does not our Saviour say, "there is more joy in
heaven, over one sinner doing penance, than over ninety-nine
just?" It appears, therefore, the devils know, and hear what
is passing upon earth, and why should not the saints and
angels of God? Nay, it is evident, they must know and hear
things, which are passing upon earth, otherwise how could they
rejoice in heaven, on the conversion of sinners on earth?
But, as you boast so much of the admirable, spiritual treasures
of your prayer-book, and of your scriptural Church, just
tell me, most Reverend Gentlemen, why they have never yet,
been able to produce a single saint? The Scripture, tells us,
that a tree, may be known from its fruit. And yet, among all
the rich spiritual treasures, of your prayer-book, and of your
scriptural Church, for these three hundred years, you have
never yet produced a person, who, on account of his virtue and
piety, has been honoured by posterity with the name of saint.
Nay, so great is your poverty in this respect, that your Church,
has been obliged to steal Catholic Saints, and barefacedly insert
them, in your Protestant calendar. Really most Reverend Gentlemen,
your scriptural Church, is of a very strange texture. I
have shewn you above, how remarkable she has always been for
forgery; I have also shewn you, how she unjustly robbed the
poor of their just rights, and how, she has endeavoured, by all
means possible, to rob us of the honourable name of Catholic;
and how, she has stolen many of our great Catholic Saints, and
presumptuously inserted them in her Protestant calendar. Really,
Gentlemen, may I not exclaim with the poet—
"Can such things be,
And overcome us like a summer's cloud,
Without our special wonder!"
But, Sir, if the Protestant prayer-book, and the Protestant
religion, be such a monstrous compound of inconsistencies and
errors, as you would fain lead us to suppose, pray tell us, why
England, was so foolish, as to renounce the Catholic, and embrace
the Protestant faith? The answer to this objection I would
most willingly waive, as it would lead me into a field of persecution,
and cruelty, over which my feelings would not wish to
travel. But as the answer to the above objection, has been so
ably given, by a Protestant member of Parliament, to a Protestant
Lord, I think I cannot do better, than give it in his own words.
And mind, when you read this letter, you must not imagine, that
you are reading the mere opinions of this writer; no, the opinions
which he there states, are incontestible facts, which stand, almost
as large as life, in our English Statute-Book; and are there,
recorded so plainly, that no man in his senses, can have the presumption
to deny them. I beg leave, therefore, to lay before
you, the following letter, of a Protestant member of Parliament,
to a Protestant lord, on the present subject; and I am sure, that
the incontestible facts, facts of our own English Statute-book, there
stated, will convince you, how England once Catholic, was
brought over to Protestantism.
A LETTER TO LORD TENTERDEN,
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND.
April 6th, 1829.
"My Lord,
"I have read the report of your Lordship's speech, made on the 4th instant,
on the second reading of the Catholic Bill, and there is one passage of it on
which I think it my duty thus publicly to remark. The passage to which I
allude relates to the character of the Law-established Church, and also to the
probable fate that will, in consequence of this bill, attend her in Ireland.[O]
"Now, with very sincere respect for your Lordship, I do think it my duty
to the people of this country, to show that the character which you have
given to the Church of England as by law established, is not correct; to show
that she is not, and never has been, tolerant in matters of religion; and is not,
and never has been, favourable to civil liberty. In short, with most sincere
respect for your Lordship, with greater respect for you than I have ever had
for any public functionary in England, and with the greatest admiration of
your conduct in your high and important office, with all these, I think it my
duty flatly to contradict your Lordship with regard to the character of this
Church, and especially in the two particulars mentioned by you. I do not
charge you with insincerity: for why should you not be in error as to this
matter, when I know that twenty or thirty years ago I myself should, in a
similar case, have said just what you have now said on this subject? Nevertheless,
it being error, and gross error too, and I knowing it to be error, I am
bound, in duty to my readers, to expose the error; and I am the more strictly
bound, because this error coming from you, is the more likely to be widely
spread.
"First, then, my Lord, let us take your proposition, 'that there is no
Church so tolerant as this.' I am sure your Lordship has never read her
history; I am sure you have not; if you had, you never would have uttered
these words. Not being content to deal in general terms, I will not say that
she has been, and was from her outset, the most intolerant Church that the
world ever saw; that she started at first, armed with halters, ripping-knives,
axes, and racks; that her footsteps were marked with the blood, while her
back bent under the plunder of her innumerable innocent victims; and that
for refinement in cruelty, and extent of rapacity, she never had an equal,
whether corporate or sole. I will not thus speak of her in general terms, but
will lay before your Lordship some historical facts, to make good that contradiction
which I have given to your words. I assert that this Law-Church is
the most INTOLERANT Church I ever read or heard of; and this assertion I now
proceed to make good.
"This Church began to exist in 1547, and in the reign of Edward VI. Until
now the religion of the country had been for several years under the tyrant
Henry VIII. a sort of mongrel; but now it became wholly Protestant by
LAW. The Articles of Religion and the Common Prayer-book were now
drawn up, and were established by Acts of Parliament. The Catholic altars
were pulled down in all the Churches; the priests, on pain of ouster and fine,
were compelled to teach the new religion, that is to say, to be apostates; and
the people who had been born and bred Catholics were not only punished if
they heard mass, but were also punished if they did not go to hear the new
parsons; that is to say, if they refused to become apostates. The people,
smarting under this tyranny, rose in insurrection in several parts, and, indeed,
all over the country. They complained that they had been robbed of their
religion, and of the relief to the poor which the old Church gave; and they
demanded that the mass and the monasteries should be restored, and that the
priests should not be allowed to marry. And how were they answered? The
bullet and bayonet at the hand of German troops slaughtered a part, caused
another part to be hanged, another part to be imprisoned and flogged, and
the remainder to submit, outwardly at least, to the Law-Church; (and now
mark this tolerant and merciful Church,) many of the old monastics and
priests, who had been expelled from their convents and livings, were compelled
to beg their bread about the country, and they thus found subsistence
among the pious Catholics. This was an eye-sore to the Law-Church, who
deemed the very existence of these men who had refused to apostatize, a libel
on her. Therefore, in company, actually in company with the law that
founded the new Church, came forth a law to punish beggars, by burning
them in the face with a red-hot iron, and by making them slaves for two
years, with power in their masters to make them wear an iron collar. Your
Lordship must have read this Act of Parliament, passed in the first year of the
first Protestant reign, and coming forth in company with the Common Prayer-book.
This was tolerant work, to be sure; and fine proof we have here of
this Church being "favourable to civil and religious liberty." Not content
with stripping these faithful Catholic priests of their livings; not content with
turning them out upon the wide world, this tolerant Church must cause them
to perish with hunger, or to be branded slaves.
"Such was the tolerant spirit of this Church when she was young. As to
her burnings under Cranmer (who made the Prayer-book), they are hardly
worthy of particular notice, when we have before us the sweeping cruelties
of this first Protestant reign, during which, short as it was, the people of
England suffered so much that the suffering actually thinned their numbers;
it was a people partly destroyed, and that too in the space of about six years;
and this is acknowledged even in Acts of Parliament of that day. But this
Law-church was established in reality during the reign of Old Bess, which
lasted forty-five years; that is, from 1558 to 1603; and though this Church has
always kept up its character, even to the present day, its deeds during this
long reign are the most remarkable.
"Bess (the shorter the name the better), established what she called a court of
high commission, consisting chiefly of bishops of your Lordship's 'most tolerant
Church,' in order to punish all who did not conform to her religious creed, she
being 'the head of the Church.' This commission were empowered to have control
over the opinions of all men, and to punish all men according to their discretion
short of death. They had power to extort evidence by the prison or by the
rack. They had power to compel a man (on oath) to reveal his thoughts, and to
accuse himself, his friend, brother, parent, wife, or child; and this, too, on pain
of death. These monsters, in order to discover priests, and to crush the old
religion, fined, imprisoned, racked, and did such things as would have made
Nero shudder to think of. They sent hundreds to the rack in order to get
from them confessions, on which confessions many of them were put to death.
"I have not room to make even an enumeration of the deeds of religious
persecution of this long and bloody reign; but I will state a few of them.
"1. It was death to make a new Catholic priest within the kingdom.—2. It
was death for a Catholic priest to come into the kingdom from abroad.—3. It
was death to harbour a Catholic priest coming from abroad.—4. It was death
to confess to such a priest.—5. It was death for any priest to say mass. 6. It
was death for any one to hear mass. 7. It was death to deny or not to swear,
if called on, that this woman was the head of the Church of Christ.—8. It was
an offence (punishable by heavy fine) not to go to the Protestant Church. This
fine was £20 a lunar month, or £250 a-year, and of our present money, £3,250
a year. Thousands upon thousands refused to go to the Law-Church; and
thus the head of the Church sacked thousands upon thousands of estates!
The poor conscientious Catholics who refused to go to the 'most tolerant'
Church, and who had no money to pay fines, were crammed into the gaols,
until the counties petitioned to be relieved from the expense of keeping
them. They were then discharged, being first publicly whipped, and having
their ears bored with a red-hot iron. But this very great 'toleration' not
answering the purpose, an act was passed to banish for life all these non-goers
to Church, if they were not worth twenty pounds; and, in case of return, they
were to be punished with death.
"I am, my Lord, not making loose assertions here; I am all along stating
from Acts of Parliament, and the above form a small sample of the whole; and
this your Lordship must know well. I am not declaiming, but relating undeniable
facts; and with facts of the same character, with a bare list, made in the above
manner, I could fill a considerable volume. The names of the persons put to
death merely for being Catholics, during this long and bloody reign, would,
especially if it were to include Ireland, form a list ten times as long as that of
our army and navy, both taken together. The usual mode of inflicting death
was to hang the victim for a short time, just to benumb his or her faculties;
then cut down and instantly rip open the belly, and tear out the heart, and
hold it up, fling the bowels into a fire, then chop off the head, and cut the
body into quarters, then boil the head and quarters, and then hang them up
at the gates of cities, or other conspicuous places. This was done, including
Ireland, to many hundreds of persons, merely for adhering to the Church in
which they had been born and bred. There were ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN
ripped up and boiled in England in the years from 1577 to 1603; that is
to say, in the last twenty-six years of Bess's reign; and these might all have
been spared if they would have agreed to go to Church and hear the Common
Prayer! All, or nearly all, of them were racked before they were put to
death; and the cruelties in prison, and the manner of execution, were the
most horrible that can be conceived. They were flung into dungeons, and
kept in their filth, and fed on bullock's liver, boiled but unwashed tripe, and
such things as dogs are fed upon. Edward Genings, a priest, detected in saying
mass in Holborn, was after sentence of death offered his pardon if he
would go to Church, but having refused to do this, and having at the place of
execution boldly said, that he would die a thousand deaths rather than acknowledge
the Queen to be the spiritual head of the Church, Topliffe, the
attorney-general, ordered the rope to be cut the moment the victim was
turned off, 'so that' (says the historian) 'the priest, being little or nothing
stunned, stood on his feet, casting his eyes towards heaven, till the hangman
tripped up his heels, and flung him on the block, where he was ripped
up and quartered.' He was so much alive, even after the bowelling, that he
cried with a loud voice, 'Oh! it smarts!' And then he exclaimed, 'Sancte
Gregorie, ora pro me:' while the hangman having sworn a most wicked oath,
cried, 'Zounds! his heart is in my hand, and yet Gregory is in his mouth!'
"The tolerance of the Law-Church was shown towards women as well as
towards men. There was a Mrs. Ward, who, for assisting a priest to escape
from prison (the crime of that priest being saying mass), was imprisoned,
flogged, racked, and finally hanged, ripped up, and quartered. She was executed
at Tyburn, on the 30th of August, 1588. At her trial the judges asked
if she had done the thing laid to her charge. She said 'Yes!' and that she
was happy to reflect that she had been the means of 'delivering that innocent
lamb from the hands of those bloody wolves.' They in vain endeavoured
to terrify her into a confession relative to the place whither the
priest was gone; and when they found threats unavailing, they promised her
pardon if she would go to Church; but she answered, that she would lose
many lives if she had them, rather than acknowledge the heretical Church.
They, therefore, treated her very savagely, ripped her up while in her senses,
and made a mockery of her naked quarters.
"There was a Mrs. Clithero pressed to death at York, in the year 1586.
She was a lady of good family, and her crime was relieving and harbouring
priests. She refused to plead, that she might not tell a lie, nor expose others
to danger. She was, therefore, pressed to death, in the following manner.
She was laid on the floor, on her back. Her hands and feet were bound
down as close as possible. Then a great door was laid upon her, and many
hundred weights placed upon that door. Sharp stones were put under her
back, and the weights pressing upon her body, first broke her ribs, and
finally, though by no means quickly, extinguished life. Before she was laid
on the floor, Fawcett, the sheriff, commanded her to be stripped naked,
when she, with four women who accompanied her, requested him, on their
knees, for the honour of womanhood, that this might be dispensed with; but
he refused. Her husband was forced to flee the country; her little children
who wept for their dear and good mother, were taken up, and being questioned
concerning their religious belief, and answering as they had been
taught by her, were severely whipped, and the eldest, who was but twelve
years old, was cast into prison.
"Need I go on, my Lord? Twenty large volumes, allotting only one page
to each case, would not, if we were to include Ireland, contain an account of
those who have fallen victims to their refusal to conform to this 'most tolerant
Church in the world.' Nay, a hundred volumes, each volume being 500
pages, and one page allowed to each victim, would not suffice for the holding
of this bloody record. Short of death by ripping up, there were, death by
martial law, death in prison, and this in cases without number, banishment
and loss of estate. Doctor Bridgewater, in a table published by him at the
end of the Concertatio Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, gives the names of about twelve
hundred who had suffered in this way, before the year 1588; that is to say,
before the great heat of the 'tolerance.' In this list there are 21 bishops, 120
monastics, 13 deans, 14 archdeacons, 60 prebendaries, 530 priests, 49 doctors
of divinity, 18 doctors of law, 15 masters of colleges, 8 earls, 10 barons, 26
knights, 326 gentlemen, 60 ladies and gentlewomen. Many of all those, and,
indeed, the greater part of them, died in prison, and several of them died
while under sentence of death.
"There, my Lord, I do not think that you will question the truth of this
statement: and if you cannot, I hope you will allow, that no lover of truth
and justice ought to be silent while reports of speeches are circulating, calling
this 'the most tolerant Church in the world.' But, my Lord, why need I, in
addressing myself to you on this subject, do more than refer you to the cruel,
the savage, the bloody penal code? Leaving poor half-murdered Ireland out
of the question, what have I to do, in answer to your praises of this Church,
and your assertion as to its tolerance, but to request you to remember the
enactments in the following Acts of Old Bess, the head and the establisher of
this Church? Stat. i. chap. 1 and 2; Stat. v. chap. 1; Stat. xii. chap. 2; Stat.
xxiii. chap. 1; Stat. xxvii. chap. 2; Stat. xxix. chap. 6; Stat. xxxv. chap. 1;
Stat. xxxv. chap. 2? What have I to do, my Lord, but to request you to look
at, or rather to call to mind those laws of plunder and of blood; fine, fine, fine;
banish, banish, banish; or death, death, death in every line? Your Lordship
knows that this is true: you know that all these horrors, all this hellish
tyranny, that the whole arose out of a desire to make this Protestant Church
predominant. How, then, can this Protestant Church be called 'the most
tolerant in the world?' I have here given a mere sample of the doings of
this Law-Church. I have not taken your Lordship to Ireland, half-murdered
Ireland; nor have I even hinted at many acts done in England during Bess's
reign, each of which would have excited the indignation of every virtuous
man on earth; but I must not omit to mention two traits of tolerance in this
Church: First, Edward VI. was advised to bring his sister Mary to trial, and,
of course to punishment, for not conforming to the Law-Church; and she was
saved only by the menaces of her cousin, the Emperor Charles V. Second,
when Mary, Queen of Scotland, had been condemned to die, she, though she
earnestly sued for it, WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A PRIEST TO PERFORM THE
RELIGIOUS OFFICES DEEMED SO NECESSARY IN SUCH CASES. They brought the
Protestant Dean of Peterborough to pray by or with her; but she would not
hear him. When her head fell from the block the Dean exclaimed, 'So let
our Queen's enemies perish!' And the Earl of Kent responded 'Amen.'
Baker in his Chronicle, p. 273, says, that the death of this Queen was earnestly
desired, because 'that if she lived, the religion received in England
could not subsist.'
"This Church has been no changeling; she has been of the same character
from the day of her establishment to the present hour; in Ireland her deeds
have surpassed those of Mahomet; but it would take a large volume to put
down a bare list of her intolerant deeds. She at last, however, seems to be
nearly at the end of her tether; the nation has always been making sacrifices
to her haughty predominance. Boulogne and Calais were the first sacrifices;
poor-rates, and an enormous debt, and a standing army, and a civil list have followed;
all, yea all, to be ascribed to the predominance of this Church, and
her haughty spirit of ascendancy. But now the nation has made so many
and such great sacrifices to her, that it can make no more. It cannot venture
on another civil war (about the twentieth), in order to support the ascendancy
of this Church; and be you assured, my Lord, that that hierarchy in Ireland,
to uphold which you seem so very anxious, is not much longer to be upheld
by any power on earth, seeing that all the miseries of Ireland, all of them,
without a single exception, are to be traced directly to that hierarchy: and in
these miseries England sees terrific danger.
"The case is very plain. The opponents of the Catholic Bill say, We dislike
it, because it exposes the Church, and especially the Irish Church, to imminent
danger. The answer of the Duke is, I cannot prevent this danger without
risking a civil war; and the State cannot afford that. The Law-Church
might reply, Why there have been many, many civil wars carried on for the
purpose of upholding my ascendancy; but to that the Duke might rejoin,
Very true; but we have now a paper-money-system (also made to uphold you)
which cannot live in civil war, and the death of which may produce that of the
State itself; and, therefore, you must be now left to support your ascendancy
by your talents, piety, zeal, charity, humility, and sound doctrine. This is
the true state of the case, my Lord, and, therefore, unless the Church can
support itself by these means, it is manifestly destined to fall.
"I am your Lordship's most humble and most obedient Servant,
"Wm. Cobbett."
Most Reverend Gentlemen, after reading the above letter,
(and mind, the writer informs you, that what he there asserts, is
proved by acts of parliament,) after reading the above letter, can
it for a moment be thought strange, that England should have
left the Catholic, and embraced the Protestant faith? Nay, is it
not more strange, with all the above incontestible facts before us,
is it not, I repeat, more strange, that there should have been
left, a single Catholic, or a single fibre of Catholicity, in this
country? And had it not been for the providence of God, this
would certainly have been the case; but the Scripture beautifully
informs us, "that to them, who love God, all things work
together unto good." (Rom. viii., 28.)
But, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I have ranged over so much
spiritual ground, and have been so busily occupied in bagging
black game, that I have nearly forgotten the famous text,
"extraordinary and presumptuous movement," which your
meeting were so kind as to give me to preach from. Really, I
must not forget my text, otherwise you will begin to conclude, I
must be a very bungling preacher. Let us, then, now return to
my famous text. I think, that you must have been already convinced,
from what I have stated, in the first part of this address
to you Clergy, that your scriptural Church, has been for a long
time, making a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement,"
on the pockets of Englishmen. By now recapitulating
what I have just said in the latter part of this address, I think
it will be also plain, that your Church has been making, for a
long time, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement"
on the intellects of Englishmen.
I have shown you, as above, what a beautiful Church Christ
built, which, erected on an infallible and imperishable foundation,
was to be the Church of all ages, with the world for its
boundaries, and time for its duration. I have shown you, how
your first Reformers, and your Protestant scriptural Church, had
the barefacedness to assert, that this Church of Christ once fell
into error, although God had pledged his solemn word, that this
Church never should err; I have also shown you, how this assertion
of Christ's Church falling into error, was the mere ipse dixit
of the first Reformers, and of your scriptural Church; and that
they had both unfortunately forgotten to prove, when, where, and
how, this infallible Church of Christ had fallen into error. Now,
I appeal to you, if this was not, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous
movement," of your scriptural Church, on the intellects
of Englishmen. I have also shown you, the characters of
the first Reformers, who the spiritual instructor of some of them
was, and what strange, paradoxical, and new ideas, they
advanced, and how, by forgery and lies, they contrived to palm
their new-fangled religious ideas, on the minds of the people.
Really, Gentlemen, was not this, a most "extraordinary and
presumptuous movement," of these Reformers, and of your
scriptural Church, on the intellects of Englishmen? I have likewise
shown you, how your scriptural Church, assures her people,
in her Thirty-nine Articles, that the Scriptures are the only
means of their salvation; and I have also shown you, how the first
Reformers and your scriptural Church, have falsified, and mutilated,
those sacred volumes. On the one hand, it is declared, that
the Scriptures are the only means of salvation, and on the other
hand, it is plain, that these sacred volumes, have been falsified,
and mutilated. What, then, are the people to do in this awful fix?
Really, Gentlemen, is not this, another most "extraordinary and
presumptuous movement" of your scriptural Church, on the
intellects of Englishmen? I have shown you, also, with what
kind of a book of Common Prayer, your Church honoured the
people. I have shown you, how, at first it was declared, to be
the work of the Holy Ghost; how then, it is declared not to be
the work of the Holy Ghost, but the work of schism; how it is
then recalled, and adopted, as a most fit means of devotion for
the people. I have shown you, how artfully God's holy Word,
and man's human inventions, are there mixed up together; and
that, when they come in contact with each other, in what strange
and paradoxical situations they place your scriptural Church.
Really, Gentlemen, is not this also a most "extraordinary and presumptuous
movement" of your scriptural Church, on the intellects
of Englishmen? Our Saviour declared, that his kingdom was not
of this world; and hence, neither he, nor his apostles, endeavoured
to propagate, and support his doctrine, by force, cruelty,
and persecution. But does not the above letter, and do not acts
of Parliament prove, that it was by bribery among the great
ones, and by force, and cruelty, and persecution, and death, on
the middle and lower classes, that your scriptural Reformation
was introduced, and forced on England? Really, Gentlemen,
was not this, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement"
of your scriptural Church, on the consciences, and on the
intellects of Englishmen?
Now, most Reverend Gentlemen, you and many of your
reverend body, have been lately calling public meetings, in
which you have unjustly endeavoured, to rouse the indignation
of the people, against the Pope for making, "an extraordinary
and presumptuous movement" on the Protestants of England.
Now I have plainly proved, in my first address, that the Pope
has not made an "extraordinary and presumptuous movement"
on the Protestants of England; for, by the spirit of the English
law, as I have shown, the Pope is perfectly justified in all he has
done. But Gentlemen, is your Protestant Church, justified in
all the "extraordinary and presumptuous movements," which, I
have shown, she has been making so long on the pockets, and on
the intellects of Englishmen? Certainly not. Thus you see, you
have unfortunately thrown your Scriptural Church (which feeds
you so well with more than nine millions a-year) into the very
grave, which you have been so charitably, and officiously,
unjustly digging for the poor Pope. Really, most Reverend
Gentlemen, I think every one, will conclude, that this is a most
extraordinary and presumptuous movement, of you and your
reverend body, on your good, and kind mother the Church.
May they not justly apply to you, the words of the old proverb,
"Physicians, cure yourselves?" Most Reverend Gentlemen, to
those clergymen, who have adopted the above inconsistent
conduct, I can only say, I may applaud their intentions, but I
must condemn their bigotry. They may indeed, be friends to
their Church in their hearts, but their mouths, and pens, are her
most dangerous enemies.
Before I conclude, I beg leave to say a few words about the
Puseyites, a few words to the dissenters, and a few words to the
English people; and then, I must drop the curtain, and beg
leave to retire for the present.
There is a circumstance, connected with the Whitby meeting,
upon which I have as yet made no remark. You came
together, on that occasion, both ministers and people, obedient
to the trumpet call of Lord John Russell. Now, that trumpet
blew two blasts, which gave "no uncertain sound." The first,
was to denounce the papal aggression; the second, was to warn
you of "a danger, which alarmed him (Lord John Russell) much
more than any aggression of a foreign sovereign; alarmed him
more, than Pope and Cardinal Archbishop, and territorial titles
put together, more than the hierarchy, with all its mapping,
and parcelling out of the land, nay, more to be dreaded, than
an invasion of England, by the fleets and armies of any earthly
power!" In the name of all that is terrible, what is this danger,
that is impending over us? He says that it is a danger,
"already within the gates." What does he mean? Why,
Gentlemen, he means (and you all know it) Puseyism, and
Popery, which have long been spreading, in the very bosom of the
Protestant Church of England. Lord John proclaims to you,
this latter danger, even more loudly than the former; and yet,
upon this latter "extraordinary and presumptuous movement,"
you were silent at your meeting, each and all; you heard him
proclaiming, that the abomination of desolation, had got possession
of the holy place; and that the bewitching fascination,
of the Harlot of Rome, had reduced even some of the Protestant
Bishops, into dalliance with her; and yet, not one word, from
any minister among you, Protestant, Independent, or Wesleyan,
not one word either to deny the existence of the danger, or to
propose means to ward it off. You readily flocked together, to
repel the lesser danger, but, the much more alarming danger,
(according to Lord John) the danger "within the gates," it
seemed touched you not at all. Really, in this you appear, to be
worthy disciples of Lord John Russell, who sat nearly seven
years, under the Rev. Mr. Bennett, with all this danger staring
him in the face, and yet, blew not then a single blast of his warning
trumpet. Really, Gentlemen, what was the cause of your
silence, on this occasion? Was it lack of zeal, or lack of
courage on your part? We shall, perhaps, be better able to
judge of this, when I have told you, what sort of Puseyite enormities,
Lord John has detected in the Church, and how, he
takes upon himself, to chastise and correct them. Never, since
the days of Cromwell, the Vicar-General of Henry VIII., has
any layman, or churchman either, dared to play such tricks,
or brandish such a rod, in the face of the Church of England,
as this imperious minister has done! Mark, how this leader of
the House of Commons, this lay Metropolitan of all England, superseding
both York and Canterbury, see, how he calls to account his
venerable brother, the Bishop of Durham. "Clergymen of our
Church, who have subscribed the thirty-nine articles, and acknowledged
the Queen's supremacy, have been the most forward, to
lead their flocks, step by step, to the very verge of the precipice."
Well, sad shepherds these, to lead their flocks, to the very verge of
the precipice, and sadder still, that one thousand, eight hundred of
these Church of England Clergymen, have signed a protest,
against the Queen's supremacy as recently exercised; thus rebelling,
against the acknowledged, and sworn head of their Church.
Well, Lord John thus describes the danger, "within the gates."
(1.) The honour paid to saints; (2.) the claim of infallibility
for the Church; (3.) the superstitious use of the sign of the
cross; (4.) the muttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the
language, in which it is written; (5.) the recommendation of
auricular confession; (6.) the administration of penance, and
(7.) absolution.
All these things, are pointed out by certain clergymen of the
Church of England, as worthy of adoption! Here, according to
Lord John Russell, is the "enemy within the gates." Here, are
seven enormous errors, pointed out by a layman, as corrupting,
and disfiguring the pure, the Scriptural, the reformed Church of
England. I will make a few remarks on each, marking the
number of each, as I proceed.
(1st. The honour paid to saints.) So certain Reverend Gentlemen
of the Church of England, are no longer to honour the
saints, as they have done; the Whig prime minister, will not
permit it. But can it be, that Lord John here intimates, that
these Protestant Clergymen, have been paying divine honour to
the saints? Why, this would be idolatry! "Thou that abhorrest
idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?" Catholics, indeed, honour
the saints, but a true Catholic, would sooner die, than give
divine honour to any saint, or to all the saints in bliss. But,
whether you Reverend Protestant Gentlemen, are to honour
them at all, or with what sort of honour, or with what degree of
it; all this you will learn, perhaps, from Lord John Russell, or
from some of his Bishops. In the meantime, you had better
observe the Protestant Church doctrine, as to holy angels, laid
down in your Protestant collect, on the feast of St. Michael, where
your scriptural Church, prays, that "the holy angels, may, by
God's appointment, succour and defend us on earth." (Coll. of
St. Mich. Ch. Eng. Prayer Book.) Surely, this doctrine of your
Church of England prayer book, will not alarm Lord John Russell,
and surely, the Bishop of London, will not openly reprehend
this, in his next charge, to the clergy of his diocese; although,
in my humble opinion, it smells very strongly of the popish doctrine
of angels, and saints, and looks very like, leading the people,
step by step, to the very verge of that precipice.
(2ndly. The claim of infallibility for the Church.) It seems,
some of you, Reverend Gentlemen, have had the temerity to
preach up, the infallibility of the Church. This, is to be "put
down." You are not to claim infallibility for your Church.
Infallibility belongs to the Catholic Church, which is "built upon
a rock," which is the "pillar and ground of truth," "formed
upon the prophets, and apostles, having Christ for its chief corner
stone," with which Church Christ has promised, "to abide
all days, even to the end of the world." Such is the Catholic
Church, according to the Scriptures. But, as regards your
Church, Reverend Gentlemen, you are to be diligent in teaching,
that your Church is not infallible, is not built upon a rock, not
founded upon the prophets and apostles,—has not Christ for its
chief corner stone,—for if she had, she would assuredly be infallible.
But above all, you are to teach, either that Christ did not
promise, to be always with His Church, or that, even his abiding
presence, with the Church, is not sufficient to make her infallible;
at all events, you are to teach (if you teach anything) that your
Church, has no claims to infallibility, and that she may be
involved in the grossest errors, and may be altogether, misleading
and deluding, both you and your flocks. This shows, what
a cuckoo cry, that was, which the vicar of Leeds, was sometime
ago, sounding with such iteration, from the housetops, crying,
"HEAR THE CHURCH." This cry, has died away, and I suspect,
Dr. Hook will not renew it, with the return of spring. For why,
in the name of common sense, should we hear, or follow the
guidance of this Church of England, which does not pretend, to
be a sure and infallible guide? Or where indeed, shall we find the
Church? In convocation? that has been extinguished. In
synod? She is not permitted to hold one. On the bench of
Bishops? The Bishops, are notoriously at sixes and sevens, all
over the land, both on matters of faith, discipline, and ceremonies.
Yours, Reverend Gentlemen, is a hard lot! I know nothing to
equal to it. You glory in liberty of conscience, and are the bound
slaves of a fallible Church, as if she were infallible. The Bible, and
the Bible alone, is your rule of faith, and yet, you are remorselessly
compelled, to subscribe to the thirty-nine Articles, which have been
added to the Scriptures, and which are in part self-contradictory,
and in part, impossible to be understood.[P] You exult in freedom
of thought, and in the privilege of private interpretation, but if
you dare to exercise either, you are dragged to the ecclesiastical
courts, to answer for your temerity, at the bar of a Lay Judge.
Ah! Reverend Gentlemen, Cranmer, and Latimer, and Ridley,
did an evil thing; they bowed their own necks, and prepared for
your necks, a galling yoke, when to rid themselves of the supremacy,
of the divinely appointed head of the Church, they cried
out, "we have no king but Cæsar." From that day to this, Parliament,
and Parliamentary leaders, have lorded it, over your
inheritance, both spiritual and temporal. You must either submit
to Lay tribunals, or there are no loaves and fishes for you.
How beautifully is your Church thus described by the poet,—
"For she was of that stubborn crew
Of errant saints, whom all men grant,
To be the true Church militant:
Such as do build their faith upon,
The holy text of pike and gun;
Decide all controversies by
Infallible artillery;
And prove their doctrines orthodox
By apostolic blows and knocks;
Which always must be going on,
And still be doing, never done:
As if religion were intended,
For nothing else, but to be mended."
(3rdly. The superstitious use of the sign of the cross.) The
true Catholic, knows that the Son of God, obtained the salvation
of the world, by dying on a cross, for all mankind; and
hence, like the great St. Paul, he glories in the cross of Christ,
and frequently crosses himself, with this holy sign, to remind
himself of Jesus Christ, who obtained so many spiritual blessings
for mankind, by the great sacrifice, which he once consummated
on the cross. Hence the Catholic Church, keeps the
cross, as the sign of the pledge of our redemption, in all her
churches, and chapels, and by this holy sign, reminds the faithful,
that all the blessings, that they either have received, or can
receive, must come through the merits of Jesus Christ. Hence,
in the oblation of her holy sacrifice, in the administration of her
sacraments, and in all her sacred rites, and ceremonies, she is
continually using this holy sign, to remind both herself, and the
faithful, that it is by the cross, that is, by the merits of our
Saviour's death, and passion, that she, and all other faithful, are
to triumph over the world, the flesh, and the devil. Hence, this
sign was used by antiquity with the greatest veneration. Thus,
Tertullian beautifully says, "We sign ourselves with the sign of
the cross, on the forehead, whenever we go from home, or return,
when we put on our clothes, or our shoes, when we go to the
bath, or sit down to meat, when we light our candles, when we
lie down, and when we sit." But it appears, that the superstitious
use of the sign of the cross, is offensive to Lord John, and,
that it may lead people, step by step, to the very verge of the
precipice; and therefore, you clergymen, must not make use of
the sign of the cross, but you must keep the lion, and the unicorn,
in your churches, to remind the people, that your church
is the church of men, as by Law established. You may indeed,
bow at the name of Jesus, and kiss the Bible, before you swear
by it, in a court of justice, but, in the house of God, you had
better omit the superstitious use of the sign of the cross,
although, if one of the popish ceremonies be superstitious, it is
manifest that the other two ceremonies, must be also superstitious.
(4thly. The muttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the language,
in which it is written.) Now, what this sentence really
means, I am at a loss to divine; whether, it refers to the indistinct
utterance, of the clergyman's enunciation, or it means,
that some of these Protestant clergymen, have been performing
certain parts, of the Church of England liturgy, like Catholics,
in the Latin tongue, I am at a loss to determine. It is a pity,
when Lord John is finding fault, about muttering, so as to disguise
the language, (and of course the meaning,) of his Church
liturgy, it is really a pity, Lord John did not express himself, in
more intelligible terms; but, perhaps, the obscurity of Lord
John's meaning, may be owing to the blunt acumen of my
popish understanding. I am rather, however, inclined to think,
that Lord John, is here warning his clergy, against the use of
the Latin tongue, in the Church liturgy, and if so, he is perfectly
right. For the English Protestant Church, is a modern church,
its language, therefore, should be modern, that its liturgy, may
announce to posterity the period, in which it was formed. But
the Church of Rome, is an ancient Church, and therefore, she
preserves her ancient liturgy, the language of which, remounts to
the origin of Christianity. I do not believe, that history, can
furnish an instance of a people, who ever changed the language
of their liturgy, and who did not, at the same time, change their
religion. But are the Catholics of the Latin Church, singular
in the use of an ancient tongue, in their service? Certainly not.
The Greeks, Russians, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Ethiopians,
Georgians, and the other Christians of the East, all retain the
liturgies, which they received from the fathers of their faith,
and which are written in languages, unintelligible to the common
people. The same, was the discipline of the Jews, after
their captivity; and we do not find, that it was ever blamed by
Our Saviour. But is it true, that the modern Church of England,
has always held in such abhorrence, the celebration of her
liturgy, in an unknown tongue? certainly not: for, in the year
1560, an act was passed, for the introduction of the English
Protestant Common Prayer Book, among the natives of Ireland,
who were compelled, by the severest penalties, to assist at the
celebration of the English liturgy; though these poor Irish, were
utterly unacquainted, with the English language. Hence, Dr.
Heylin, in his History of the Protestant Reformation, (Eliz. p.
128.) says, "The people, by that statute, are required under
severe penalties, to frequent their churches, and to be frequent,
at the reading of the English liturgy, which they understand, no
more than they do the Mass." * * * "By which," continues
this Protestant writer, "we have furnished the Papists, with an
excellent argument against ourselves, for having the divine service
celebrated in such a language, as the people do not understand."
But is the adoption of the Latin tongue, peculiar only to
some of the Protestant Clergymen, of the present day? I
answer no; for in the Act of Uniformity, the Protestant minister
in Ireland, if he could not read the English, was permitted
to read a Latin translation, which was, no doubt, equally unintelligible
to the most of his parishioners. (See Dr. Heylin's
Hist., as above.) In the same year, the Universities of Oxford,
and Cambridge, and the Colleges of Eton, and Winchester,
obtained permission from the head of their Church, to perform
the divine service in the language of Rome. (Wilk. Conc. Tom.
iv., p. 217.) Thus you see, that the muttering of the Liturgy,
so as to disguise the language, in which it was written, is not (if
I understand rightly Lord John's meaning,) is not peculiar only
to some of you Protestant ministers of the present day; for it
was claimed and exercised by some of your Protestant ancestors.
But then, we all know, Lord John is a consistent and
straight-forward man, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you,
to adopt in your Liturgy, a modern language, significant of
the modern origin of your Church, and therefore, he may perhaps
wish you to show, by the language of your Liturgy, that
your Church, is so many hundred years too late, to be the Church
of Christ.
But if the muttering of the Liturgy, &c., by the Clergy,
be a great crime, is it not a far greater crime, for the Protestant
Bishops, and clergymen, so to mutter the tenets of their
creed, as to disguise the language, and the meaning of them, by
their perpetual disunions, and contradictions? Is it not a notorious
fact, that in one Protestant Church, you are taught to
believe in ecclesiastical infallibility, in another, in the all-sufficiency
of the Scriptures; in one Protestant parish, you have a
sacrificial, mediatorial priest, in another, one of an opposite, and
contrary opinion; in one Protestant Church, you have an altar,
in another, you have a communion table; in one Bishop's See,
the Protestant prelate rigorously insists, on the necessity of spiritual
regeneration by baptism, in another Bishop's See, it is acknowledged
to be an unnecessary act of religion; in Pimlico
Protestant Church, you have auricular confession insisted on, in
a Liverpool Protestant Church, you have the punishment of death,
recommended as a penalty for such a practice; in short, is it
not notorious (as I said before) that the Protestant Bishops, and
Clergymen, are at sixes, and sevens, all over the land, about
their articles of faith, matters of discipline and ceremonies? Really,
what are the people to do, amidst all this disunion, and dissension
about their religion, so as to disguise, and confound the
sense, and meaning of its tenets? Had not Lord John Russell,
better have called his bishops, and Clergy to an account, on this
Babel muttering of religion, before he chastised them, for the
muttering of the Liturgy? The building of the mighty tower of
Babel, was arrested, and demolished by the confusion of tongues;
and be assured, most Reverend Gentlemen, unless your Scriptural
Church, changes this muttering, and confusion of tongues, of
her weathercock, and Babel faith, and doctrines, she must also
be demolished. For does not the Scripture, plainly tell us, that
"a house divided against itself, cannot stand?" and the rains
(of fallibility, and of muttering the Liturgy, &c.) fell, and the
floods (of clerical protestant dissensions) came, and the winds
(of disunion among the bishops, about the necessity of baptismal
regeneration) blew; and they beat upon that house, (the Protestant,
fallible, Babel, Church,) and it fell; and great was the
golden fall thereof, for it was built, not upon the rock of God's
infallible word, but upon the mere fallible inventions, and pecuniary
conveniences of men.
(5th. The recommendation of Auricular Confession, to which,
I beg to add (the 7th) Absolution.)
Every well-instructed Catholic, knows that no man, as man,
can forgive sins; but at the same time, he knows, that God can
forgive sins, and that God, can give that power to man; for the
Apostles were men, and yet, Jesus Christ (as I shall shortly
shew) gave his Apostles, a power to forgive sins. You know,
that our Saviour, was both God and man, and that he acted,
sometimes as God, and sometimes, as man. Now, if you will
read the ninth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, you will find,
that our Saviour worked a miracle, to prove that He as man,
(but mind assisted by his heavenly Father) had power to forgive
sins, even on earth. Now, he gave this power, also to his Apostles,
for we read in St. John's Gospel, (chap. xx. 22,) He
"breathed upon them," and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
whose sins, you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins
you shall retain, they are retained." Now, why was not this
power of forgiving sins, to extend also to future ages? Are not
God, and Jesus Christ, as good and as kind, now, as they were,
in the time of the Apostles; and are there not, as many sinners
now, as there were then? If therefore, God, and Jesus Christ,
in their infinite mercy, gave this power of forgiving sins, to the
Apostles, for the good of mankind then, and if there are, as many
sinners now, as there were then, in the name of common sense,
why was not this power of God, given to the Apostles for the
benefit of mankind then, why was it not, to extend also to all
future ages, for the benefit of mankind afterwards? No such
things, cries out the Lay Metropolitan of England. Such doctrine,
would lead the people, step by step, to the very verge of
the precipice. But of what precipice? Would you believe it?
to the recommendation of Auricular Confession, and Absolution,
as laid down, in the Church of England Prayer-book.
In the Church of England form of Ordination, the Bishop
says, to the candidate for the priesthood: "Receive ye the Holy
Ghost: whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose
sins ye shall retain, they are retained." These words, most
Reverend Gentlemen, were said over each of you, by your
Bishops, when you presented yourselves candidates, for ordination.
Now, did you receive any spiritual power, or was this a
mere form? If you answer, it was a mere form, you then have
no more power, in this respect, than a mere layman; but if you
answer, you did receive a power, it must have been, either a
declaratory, or a judicial power to forgive sins; if it was only a
declaratory power, viz., to declare, that the sinner, would obtain
forgiveness if he truly repented, then, any layman, possesses this
power without ordination; for any layman, can confidently
declare, that penitent sinners are pardoned; but if you received
a judicial power, to forgive sins, then, this is popish doctrine,
and this would lead you, and your flock, step by step, to the
very verge of the precipice. But to the verge of what precipice?
Why your Protestant common prayer-book, shall now tell you.
Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, I am afraid of quoting this
passage, from your prayer-book; for it will not merely lead you
to the verge, but it will hurl you, all headlong, down the precipice
of the popish doctrine, of Auricular Confession, and
Absolution.
But we had better, go step by step, and therefore, I will quote
a choice piece, that occurs in your Protestant common prayer-book,
just before the recommendation of Auricular Confession,
and Absolution. Your godly prayer-book, says, in the visitation
of the sick, "the ministers shall not omit, earnestly to move,
such sick persons, as are of ability, to be liberal to the poor." It is
a pity, O godly Church, that thou didst not give this advice to
thyself, at the Reformation, when thou stolest, so much money
from the poor, and then, made the nation make up, by church-rates
and poor-rates, for what thou hadst stolen. Thou art
really a very disinterested spiritual physician, for thou art most
solicitous about thy children, practising the virtue of charity
themselves, but as for thyself, thou will practise charity, as soon
as it is convenient, or as soon as the spirit moves thee, or the
nation makes thee.
But what comes next, in your godly prayer-book? Why,
rank, and downright Popish doctrine, of auricular confession,
and absolution. In the visitation of the sick, your prayer-book
thus says; "Here shall the sick person be moved to make a
SPECIAL confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience, troubled
with any weighty matter. After which confession, the Priest
shall absolve him (if he humbly and earnestly desire it) after
this sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His
Church, to absolve all sinners, who truly repent, and believe in
Him; of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences: and by
His authority COMMITTED TO ME, I absolve thee from all thy sins,
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Amen." Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, if all this,
is not rank popish, auricular confession, and absolution, I know
not what is; and mind, standing as large as life, in your Church
of England, Common Prayer-book, which was made by act of
parliament, by "the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour
of God." Really, what are you, and Lord John Russell to do
now, when your Protestant godly Prayer-book, has not only led
you to the verge, but hurled you all headlong down to the very
bottom, of popish Auricular Confession, and absolution? Why,
you must either renounce your Protestant prayer-book, and
declare, it is not a work of the Holy Ghost, nor made for the
honour of God; or your orthodox stomachs, must swallow, by
wholesale, this abomination of desolation, of popish auricular
confession, and absolution; and thus, allow the dreadful enemy,
to remain "within your gates," an enemy more terrible than an
hostile invasion by foreign powers.
(6th. The administration of Penance.) This, most Reverend
Gentlemen, is the sixth error, in Lord John Russell's catalogue,
of seven errors, but the last, which I have to answer, as I have
already, included the seventh, in the fifth error. If Lord John,
wishes to intimate, that Catholics teach works of penance, to be
of themselves a sufficient compensation for sin, Lord John has yet,
to learn, the first rudiments of the Catholic creed; but if he
means, that Catholics consider the works of penance, as one of
the conditions, on which our Saviour, is willing to communicate
the merits of His death and passion, to the soul of the sinner,
Lord John's meaning is just. But does Lord John, seriously
condemn this doctrine, founded, as it is, on the plainest evidence
of scripture, and confirmed by the practice of the earliest ages?
If I understand Lord John rightly, he certainly does. Lord
John, is perhaps the zealous champion of the all-sufficiency of
Christ, and in his opinion, to do penance for sin, after the great
sacrifice consummated on the cross, is to lead the people, step
by step, to the verge of an awful precipice. If this, is Lord
John's creed, it must, at least, be a very consoling one.
Indulge your passions, it exclaims, to the sinner, indulge your
passions, and cease to sin, when you can sin no longer; fear not
the rigours of penance; to weep and pray, to fast and give
alms, to repent in sackcloth and ashes, are external ceremonies,
which are confined to the popish creed; but to practise them, in
our new dispensation of free grace, as by law established, would be,
to lead the people, to the very verge of the popish precipice. It
is curious to observe, how Lord John's liberation from penance (if
I understand him rightly,) has improved, on the rough sketch,
which was delivered by our forefathers. St. Paul, was accustomed
to keep under his body, and to bring it under subjection
by acts of penance; and I have no doubt, he thought he was
acting in a manner, pleasing to Christ, and yet, we learn from
Lord John's doctrine, (if I understand it rightly,) this great
apostle, was leading the people, step by step, to the very verge,
of the awful precipice of penance. The penitents in ancient
times, often spent whole years in works of penance; they fasted
and prayed, they lay prostrate at the porch of the Church, they
solicited the intercession of their less guilty brethren. By these
penitential austerities, they hoped, they were fulfilling the will
of the Redeemer, and yet, alas! according to Lord John's
doctrine (if I understand it rightly) they were going, step by
step, to the very verge of the awful precipice of penance. Even
the learned men, who compiled the Church of England, Common
Prayer-book, appear to have been involved in this awful error.
"There was formerly," they tell us, "a godly discipline, that at
the beginning of Lent, such persons, as stood convicted of notorious
sins, were put to open penance, and punished here, that
their souls, might be saved at the day of the Lord; and it were
much to be wished, that this said discipline, may be restored."
(Church Eng. Com. Pray. book.) Little did they imagine, that this
godly discipline of penance, by means of which the souls of
sinners, were to be saved in the day of the Lord, would be
reproved by a Protestant layman, as an error, which would lead
people, step by step, to the verge of an awful precipice. Yet so
(if I understand his meaning) says Lord John Russell, and he is
lay Metropolitan of all England.
I think I cannot better take leave of Lord John, than by
addressing him in the words of the Reverend Mr. Bennett,
under whose Puseyite teaching, he sat for some time. "If my
course was insidious, (Lord John), why did you take part in that
course? If I so muttered the liturgy, as to disguise its language,
why did you join in so glaring a profaneness, for nearly
seven years? If I practised 'mummeries and superstition,'
why did you, come to join in them, for nearly seven years?
Why did you so far and so deeply join, as to receive at my
hands, so late as Ash Wednesday, 1849, the holy Eucharist,
yourself and your family? If I were one, of those designated in
your letter, as bringing a greater danger, than the Pope, why
then, my lord, was it, that you said not all this before?" (Rev.
Mr. Bennett's Letter to Lord John Russell.)
In conclusion, I can only say, that I am afraid Lord John
Russell's letter, has been a most unfortunate one for himself;
and as such, I regret it exceedingly. It has certainly placed
him, in the opinion of sensible Englishmen, in a very ridiculous
point of view; and how it will be received by future ages, it is
not for me to divine.
My dissenting Brethren, to you who have honourably come
forward, and assisted us Catholics, in the late hurricane of
bigotry, and of insults, I return you my mead of sincere thanks.
Your conduct shows, that you have acted the part of consistent
men, that you are true supporters of civil and religious liberty,
and that you have not forgotten the former noble, and disinterested
exertions of the late Daniel O'Connell, in your cause. You
cannot but remember, that the late Daniel O'Connell, nobly and
disinterestedly, battled for your rights and privileges, on the
field of civil and religious liberty, even before he had gained those
rights, either for the English Catholics, or for his dear country,
poor Ireland.[Q]
But what shall I say of those dissenters, who have joined with
the Protestant Church, in the late fury and tirade against
us Catholics? Can I call them consistent men? Consistent men
indeed! Do not all the dissenters, the Presbyterians, Methodists,
Independents, Baptists, Unitarians, and Quakers, do not all
these dissenters deny, as well as we Catholics, the spiritual
supremacy of the Queen? Nay, do not all these dissenters,
claim their spiritual rights and authority, independent of the
Queen? Why, therefore, will you refuse the exercise of their
spiritual rights, to your Catholic fellow creatures? Why will you
unjustly deprive them of those privileges, which are the birth-right
of every Englishman; nay, of every human creature in the
world? Does not the scripture, which you so often extol, tell
you, "that you ought not to do unto others, that which you do
not wish others to do unto you?" What, then, are we to say of
those dissenting ministers, or minister, who on one day are seen
claiming the power to give spiritual ordination to others, then,
shortly after, attending an Anti-Protestant Church meeting; and,
lastly, see them or him, arranged by the side of the Protestant
Church, for the express purpose, of refusing to the Catholic
Church, the exercise of those spiritual rights, which they, or he,
had not long before deemed it their, or his right to assume?
Nay, what is still worse, he had even wished to refuse them the
rights of a base criminal, viz., that a charitable dissenter should
not be allowed to speak, or merely ask a question, in defence of the
Pope, and of the benighted papists. Really, was not this, a most
inconsistent, "extraordinary and presumptuous movement," of
this dissenting minister? Well, I can only say, if the religious
creed of this minister, be not more consistent than his political
creed, I really envy him not the possession of it, and I think I
cannot do better, than address him in the words of the poet:
"His notions fitted things so well
That, which was which, he could not tell,
But oftentimes, mistook the one
For t'other, as great clerks have done."
I must now say a few words to the English, in general, and
make a few remarks on the unjust manner, in which the Catholic
religion, has in general been hitherto, treated and abused.
That you may the better understand this, I will make use of the
following supposition. Let us suppose, for a moment, that we
were in a court of justice, that a person was going to be tried,
that some of you were witnesses against him, that the rest of
you, were to form the jury, and that I was to be the judge.
Now, if we were to examine, only the witnesses who were against
the accused, and not allow a single individual to speak for him,
if we were not, to allow the poor man to speak a word in his
own defence, and were the jury, and the judge, then to pronounce
him guilty, do you think, we should treat that man
fairly? However innocent he might be, he was sure to be brought
in guilty. And why? Because the witnesses were against him,
the jury was against him, and the judge was against him; and
not a single word was allowed to be spoken in his defence.
Now, ye honest men of England, would you not think that man
was treated very unfairly? Would you not feel for such a man?
And would you not pity his case? I am sure you would, and
all with one voice exclaim, "Let the poor man have fair play,
and let us 'do to him, as we would be done by.'"
Now, my friends, let us apply this example, to the Catholic
religion. Have you not read books, that gave you the most
horrible account of the Catholic religion, have you not heard
people, tell the most infamous things against this religion, and
have you not, even in places of worship, heard this religion, most
cruelly called, and abused? But did you ever ask yourselves,
whether all that you then read or heard, was really true? Did
you consider, that abuse, is no argument, declamation, no evidence,
accusation, no verdict? Did you examine the witnesses
on the other side? Did you read any Catholic book, or consult
any well-instructed Catholic layman, or minister on these subjects?
Did you not condemn the poor Catholics, unheard, and
without giving them a fair trial? But mind, I am not blaming
you, nor the public in general, for this ignorance of our religion,
nor am I surprised at it. No, considering what has been the
state of things, I cannot conceive how it could have been otherwise.
For these misrepresentations, and false statements against
our religion, have been often made by very respectable persons,
and often repeated to the people, either from the pulpit, where
nothing but the truth, should be spoken, or in tracts, and books,
which either are, or profess to be written by learned and sincere
members of society. Thus hearing these statements, and accusations,
from these sources, the people very natural enough conclude,
that all that is said against the poor benighted Papists,
must be true. But my friends, I beg of you that in future, you
will always remember, that the law of England, strictly forbids
any one, even the basest criminal, to be condemned before, he has
had a fair trial, that it is an excellent maxim in life, "hear both
sides before you judge," and the Scripture expressly says: "Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Why should
not then the same principles, be adopted in judging of the Catholic
religion? When then, in future your hear any abuse, or accusation
against the Catholic religion, I beg of you to ask yourselves
two questions: First, am I certain that the Catholic Church
maintains such doctrine? and secondly, if it does, have I heard
the proofs, which may be advanced, in confirmation of that doctrine?
Oh! would only all Englishmen, grant the Catholics
this common boon of justice! how soon would that dark, and
heavy cloud of prejudice and misrepresentation, which has so
long hung over our religion, immediately burst, and as the sun,
after having been shrouded in clouded majesty, amidst the terrific
storm, bursts forth with more transcendent brightness, so
would the Catholic faith, after having been so long darkened
with the mist of false representation, burst forth, with a lustre
and brightness, which could not help attracting the eye of every
sensible, and thinking mind.
One or two more remarks to you Englishmen, and then, I
really must for the present bid you farewell. You cannot be
ignorant of the many Protestant clergyman, who, are either
returning in many respects to the Catholic faith, or who have
already, publicly renounced the Protestant, and embraced the
Catholic faith. Now, with all these venerable examples before
you, ought not you laity, to begin to think, that you also, have a
right, nay, that it is your duty, to examine how religious affairs,
stand in England? You cannot read, without feelings of
interest, and surprise, the account of the numerous conversions,
of these Protestant clergymen, to the ancient Catholic. Although
you may condemn the change, still you cannot but admire the
singleness of their purpose, and the strength of their minds.
The Catholic Church, has no earthly treasures (for the Protestant
Church got all these long since) to offer these ministers for
the great sacrifice of wealth, of friendship, and other worldly
interests, which they have to forfeit, for renouncing the Protestant,
and embracing the Catholic faith. On the other hand,
your rich, but poor in spirit Church, lays before them golden
prospects, some of the best, and highest preferments of your
Church. But, they have turned their backs upon them all,
either to accept the lowly charge of a Catholic Priest, or to sink
into some despised, and humble situation in life. To many of
you, these sacrifices may appear folly; but remember these converts,
have lately studied in the school of St. Paul, who "suffered
the loss of all things, and accounted them as dung, that
he might gain Christ." (Phil. iii.) Thus, they have cheerfully
renounced the riches, and honours of this world, to associate
themselves in faith, and worship, with those holy, and illustrious
members of the Catholic faith, who, in every age, and clime,
have made it their aim, and glory, to bring their dear, but erring
brethren, to this one fold, of the one Shepherd, Jesus Christ.
I can only say it appears to me strange, passing strange,
that if Catholicity be such a monster, as some would gladly
persuade the world, it appears very strange, that there
should be such an inclination in England, of late years, to
return to this ancient faith. Every one must acknowledge, that
the march of intellect in England, during these late years, has
been immense; but if Catholicity be such a monster, as our
enemies charitably represent it, what is the reason, so many are
beginning to enter into its fold, and what is the reason, Catholicity
in England is so much in the increase? This great
increase, is acknowledged even by our enemies. One would
reasonably think, that if Catholicity be such a monster, the
march of intellect would have naturally guarded the people
against it. It surely will not be said, that the people have not
been sufficiently warned against it. What! not sufficiently
warned against it! Have they not been warned against it, these
three hundred years at least? Have they not been warned
against it, in books of all descriptions, from the large folio to the
penny tract? Have they not been warned against it, in almost
every pulpit (except Catholic) in England? Have they not
been warned against it, again, and again, in the House of Lords
and Commons? Have they not been warned against it, in
almost every rank of society? In short, have they not been
warned against it by every means, that human ingenuity could
devise? But surely, we shall not be told, that this inclination
to Catholicity, is owing to the want of scriptural knowledge in
England? Want of scriptural knowledge indeed in England!
Have not millions of money, been subscribed for the printing of
the scriptures, have not millions of bibles, been printed and circulated
in England? In short has not almost every one a bible,
to which he confidently appeals as his word of life? And yet
notwithstanding all this warning against Catholicity, notwithstanding
this immense diffusion of bibles in England, Catholicity
is rapidly increasing, to the great dismay and "horrification"
of our enemies. What then, can be the reason of this late
increase of Catholicity in England? Why, I will tell you, the
people of England, can now most of them read, and the march of
intellect is abroad, and by these means the people begin to find
out, that their Catholic fellow creatures, have been long, an
unjustly abused, a shamefully treated, and basely calumniated
body of Christians. The people, therefore, naturally begin to
feel for them, and are now unwilling to be deceived, by the idle
rant of those misinformed, but positive writers and preachers,
who
"Without the care of knowing right from wrong,
Always appear, decisive, clear, and strong,
Where others, toil with philosophic force,
Their nimble nonsense, takes a shorter course,
Flings at your head, conviction in a lump,
And gains remote conclusions at a jump."
It is related in the Anglo-Saxon history, that when the Catholic
missionaries came from abroad, to announce the truths of
the Gospel to our pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors, it is related that
an aged and venerable, but unconverted Thane thus addressed
his pagan prince on the subject. "When," said he, "O King,
you and your ministers are seated at table in the depth of
winter, and the cheerful fire blazes on the hearth in the middle
of the hall, a sparrow perhaps, chased by the wind and snow,
enters at one door of the apartment, and escapes by the other.
During the moment of its passage, it enjoys the warmth; when
it is once departed, it is seen no more. Such is the nature of
man. During a few years his existence is visible: but what has
preceded, or what will follow it, is concealed from the view of
mortals. If the new religion, offer any information on subjects
so mysterious and important, it must be worthy of our attention."
(Ling. His. Anglo-Sax. vol. i. pp. 29-30.) Happy shall
I consider myself, O Englishmen, if in the above pages, I have
advanced anything, that may be thought worthy of your attention
on the subject of religion. Our lives, as this pagan, but
aged and venerable Thane justly observes, are beautifully pictured
by the short flight of a sparrow, flying through the narrow
space of a hall, with a door open at each end. But after this
short passage of life, there is something most awful, and mysterious
awaiting us, and the true religion of God, only can unfold
to us, how we may best prepare ourselves for the revelation of
those awful moments, when time shall end, and eternity begin.
Surely then, the sincere search after the true religion, must be
a subject worthy of your information, of your attention, and of
your frequent consideration. Happy, again I repeat it, shall I
consider myself, if anything that I may have said, shall tend to
assist you in the above important, and essential investigation.
Refer, however, the glory and honour, not to me, but to the holy
Catholic Church, under whose guidance I have been instructed.
O holy Church, the pillar of truth and the child of Jesus Christ,
if I stray from thine unerring word, I shall soon (a weak and
frail child of Adam) fall down the awful precipice of spiritual
inconsistencies, contradictions, and errors. Should I have
advanced anything contrary to any article of thy holy faith, I
am ready publicly to recall it. Under the safe shelter of thy
unerring authority, I will fix my resting-place, and there, fear
neither the scoffs of the infidel, nor the flimsy reasoning of those,
who have unfortunately strayed from thy secure paths. O Englishmen,
if you would only seriously, and conscientiously examine
the real merits of the Catholic Church, you would soon find that
she is built upon the pillar of truth, and that she is the admirable
work of that wise builder, Jesus Christ, who built His
house upon a firm foundation. "And the rains fell, and the
floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat on that house,
but it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock." (St. Matt.
vii. 25.)
ERRATA.
FIRST ADDRESS.
Page 1, line 23, for "rights" read "rites."
8, note line 6, for "Gospels" read "Gospel."
PRINTED BY RICHARDSON AND SON, DERBY.
TRANSCRIBERS' NOTES
Introduction
Page iv: Latern as in the original
First address
Page 1: goverment corrected to government after "The clergy, and the head of the"
Page 2: intolerence corrected to intolerance after "before this whirlwind of Protestant"
Page 6: descendents as in the original
Page 9: addres corrected to address after "would tempt me to"
Page 12: te corrected to to after "But it manifestly allows us"
Page 12: " added before "as to preventing persons"
Page 14: Torento corrected to Toronto after "Kingston, Byetown,"
Page 14: Irvinites as in the original
Page 15: freeborn standardised to free-born
Page 15: diocess corrected to diocese after "and assigned to it a"
Page 15: Caldea corrected to Chaldea after "jurisdiction over Syria,"
Page 18: Portestant corrected to Protestant after "If therefore the orthodox"
Page 19: " added after "limitation of the crown"
Page 21: ancesters corrected to ancestors after "having to suffer, what our Catholic"
Page 25: villany as in the original
Page 26: distintinguished corrected to distinguished after "I am sure (says this"
Footnote A: Anglo Saxon corrected to Anglo-Saxon
Footnote D: pourtrayed as in the original
Footnote D: shillalah as in the original
Footnote D: floodgates standardised to flood-gates
Second address
Page 9: phillippic corrected to philippic after "meeting, a thundering"
Page 14: he standardised to He after "mankind; that is,"
Page 19: ' changed to " after "prophets under Jeroboam?"
Page 20: Luthern as in the original
Page 23: apostacy as in the original
Page 24: Pharo's as in the original
Page 24: suicidical as in the original
Page 28, 29: variable spelling of Molineus/Molinæus as in original
Page 29: " ( added before "In Defens. Transl.)"
Page 29: detort as in the original
Page 30: " added after "delegates of the Clarendon press."
Page 31: " added after "to the end of Jeremiah."
Page 42: . added after Gaz
Page 56: heirarchy corrected to hierarchy after "put together, more than the"
Page 56: " added after "of any earthly power!"
Page 66: " added after "liberal to the poor."
Footnote H: " removed before "our bishops, though deprived"
Footnote J: phillippic corrected to philippic after "immediately commenced a"
Footnote N: " added after "and even idiots."
Footnote Q: collossal corrected to colossal after "rash judgments, and may thy"
General: Errata applied to text.
General: Spelling of inuendo, inuendoes as in the original