Chapter 3

"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 damnationon you, or on thewholeProtestant 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 youthat, which you yourselvesmightknow."

A certain Spanish chemist, thought thatGod'sformation 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 ofGod'sformation. Now, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I will not apply this to your Church, butthisI will do, I will show you what the Churchwas, andis, 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 ourfirstparents, and of alltheirdescendants. 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 atlast, 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 camenotto 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 Saviourbeautifully 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 topractisethe truths, which this divine lawtaught, and thus, by theknowledge, andfaithful practiceof 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, onthe one hand, of man's fall, and the sad consequences of that fall; andon the other hand, of our liberation from sin, and of the abundant blessings we have received, by redemption through Jesus Christ.

Now, that mankindin 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 theinfalliblesource of all spiritual knowledge, and of all spiritual grace; in short, it was to be thevisible, theinfallible, andthe incorruptibleChurch 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 alwayswas, and reallyis. 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. Noearthlyconsideration, could ever induce her, to swerveone iotafrom 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, oreven a whole nation, wishing tochange, oradd to, ordiminishone tittleof thefaith, delivered by her heavenly founder, sheat 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, whenher faithwas at stake, she feared neither thefrownsof individuals, nor thestrengthof 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 thesmallest stainin any part of what shereallyteaches, and the most convincing proof of their beingunableto do so, is, that not daring to attack hertruedoctrine, they, by calumny and misrepresentation, lay things to her charge which she evendetestsandcondemns.[J]And then, after combating aphantomof theirowncreation, 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 thevery samein thenineteenthcentury, as they were in thefirstcentury. 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 isnowthat Church, whichour Saviour firstfounded 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 ofeighteencenturies, which would have long since shivered anyhumaninstitution 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 shouldneverbe 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 Apostlesallthe divine truths whichHehad received. "All things," saysHe, "whatsoever I have heard of My Father, I have made known to you." (John xv. 15.) He then gave them a commission, to teachallthese truths toallnations. "All power," says He, "is given to me in heaven and on earth: go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, teaching them to observeallthings whatsoeverIhave commanded you; and behold I am with youall 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 hearandlearnHis gospel from the Apostles. Hence He says to His Apostles, "He that hearethyou, hearethMe, and he that despisethyou, despisethMe, and he that despisethMe, despisethHimthat sent me." (Luke x. 16.) But whilst our Saviour, imposes upon mankind the necessity ofhearingHis Apostles, he pledged Hisinfallibleword, that they shouldneverleadthe peopleastray, 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 themfor ever, teaching them all truth, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. (John xv. Matt. xvi.)

That thisabsolute, andinfallibleauthority of preaching and teaching, was not to be limited merely to thepersonsof the Apostles, nor merely to theperiodof their ministry, but was also to extend totheirsuccessors in office, andto all future ages, I will now prove. Our Saviour tells His Apostles, that they are to go, and teachall nations, and that He will be with them,even until the end of the world; and that the Spirit of truth, shall remain with themfor ever. Now, as the Apostles,did notteachall nations, in theirownpersons, and were not to continue on earth, untilthe end of the world, it was manifest, that the commission was not to be confined totheir persons, but was to be given totheir office, that is, to them and their successorsin office, who shall continueuntil the end of the world, tocompletethe great work of teaching all nations, which the Apostlesfirst began. That this wasactuallythe intention ofour 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, andsuch always was, the visible, the infallible, and incorruptibleChurch of Christ, which was to be perpetuatedfrom 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 thatyouall once committedmurder, you would very sharply ask,when,where, andhow? And if I could not provewhen,where, andhow, I think you would deem me (and justly too) a very near relation to the father of lies. Now, your first Reformerssaid, indeed, that the Catholic Church once fell, butmost unfortunately, theyforgotto provewhen,where, andhow. As, therefore, these first Reformers, forgot to prove thesemost essentialcircumstances, you must excuseus Catholics, if we preferGod's infallibleword, to themere ipse dixitof thesefirst celestiallights of the Reformation. You know God says, heaven and earth,shallpass away, but His wordshall notpass away.

But you will, perhaps, answer, really they must have beenstrangebeings to haveasserted, thatGod's infallibleChurch had fallen, andnotto have been able, or at least to haveforgotten, to provesuch 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 knownone, that has a greater claim to our first notice, than Martin Luther,bothfor theoriginalityof his spiritual doctrines, and for thesublimityof thecelestialrevelations, with which he was honoured. Andmind, had not Luther and his disciples, left the mostincontestibletestimony of what I am about to advance, it would really have outraged and defiedall credibility.

Well, then, know, andnever forget, that Martin Luther, thefirst luminary of the Reformation, had a conferencewith the devil, in which Martin assures us, that he was convinced by thedevil's powerfulargumentation, that the Popish Mass was a heap of idolatry. The following are the words of this angel oflighton 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 whomight blame his conduct, that "iftheyhad heard the devil reasoning in the same forcible manner ashehad 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, thatLutheromitsnothingto 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 wascertainly the production of Luther.[K](Hospinian, par. 2. Hist. Sacramentariæ, p. 26, et. p. 131.)

Now Luther eitherhadorhad notthis conference with the master of lies. If hereally had, Luther ought to have known, thatsucha master was not very likely, to teach him anythingvery good, and that he was not a veryfitperson, to convince him of the idolatry of the mass. For if the mass, hadreallybeen idolatry, I think the devil, wouldratherhave encouraged,thantried to overturn it. But if Lutherhad notthis conference, then the ambition of Luther, for having wished toappear connected with so bad a master, indicates so strange and exotic a genius, so depraved and bad a taste, that it reflectsalmostas 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; foryouare certainly not to beanswerablefor Luther'sdeeds. 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 wasa fitperson, to reform Christ's Church. Had he indeed begun, by endeavouring toreformthe devil himself, we might have pardoned his religious enthusiasm; but for him to tell us, that theinfallibleChurch of Christ, had fallen into error, and that he had come to reform it, under the instructions, and guidance of the master of lies, isreallymost 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 changetruthintofalsehood. (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 ablack, orwhitespirit he does not remember. However, he made great account, of this nightly instruction of hisunknownfriend; read the place of Exodus, which had been pointed out to him by hisunknownfriend, and afterwards preached before the whole congregation, on the subject of thiswonderfuldiscovery. (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 besurprised at the following character, which is giventhem, and theotherreformers,evenbyProtestanttestimony. Zanchius, the celebrated Protestant professor, thus complains of the conduct of hisreforming Protestantcolleagues: "I am indignant, when I consider the manner, in which most of us defend our cause. Thetruestate of the question we often, onsetpurpose, involve indarkness, that it may not beunderstood; we have the impudence, todenythings themost evident: weassertwhat isvisiblyfalse: the mostimpiousdoctrines, weforceon the people as thefirstprinciples offaith, andorthodox(true) opinions, we condemn asheretical: wetorturethe Scriptures, until they agree with ourownfancies, and boast of being thedisciplesof thefathers, while we refuseto follow theirdoctrines:to deceive,to calumniate,to abuse, is ourfamiliarpractice: nor do we care for anything,providedwe can defend our cause,goodorbad,rightorwrong. Oh what times! what manners! (Zanchius ad Stormium, tome viii. col. 828.)

"Butforgery—I blush for thehonourof Protestantism while I write it—seems to have beenpeculiarto thereformed* * * and I lookin vain,for oneof these accursed outrages of imposition, amongthe disciplesof Popery." "Butforgery, appears to have been thepeculiardisease ofProtestantism."—(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 ofsomeof the first Reformers, and the two above passages (mind, from Protestants,) must convince you, thattheyandtheirreforming 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 wonderfulspiritualworks, of some of theirsupernatural, and chemical hands.

Among these, I must rank asfirstand 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 yourScriptural 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 thepit 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 thedestruction 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 worddamnable, you must reallypardonme, for you see, I have just been taught thisprettyword, by your Scriptural Church, and you know, she is master in Israel. Pray, most Reverend Gentlemen, where was your Protestant Scriptural Church, during thiseighthundred years of damnable idolatry? If it was a member ofnoChurch, then, it was not a member, or part ofChrist'sChurch. But if it was a member, or part of anyoneChurch inallChristendom, 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,accordingtoyourScriptural Church, a universal apostacy. The true Church decayed, thewhole of Christendom drowned in damnable idolatry, and all good religion destroyeduniversally, andthat, for eight hundred years; and we have alsoyourScriptural Church either not existing, or buried in this universal spiritual destruction. Really, your Scriptural Church, Sampson-like, not only demolished thewholespiritual fabric of Christendom, but also perishedherselfunder the ruins of this universal spiritual destruction; but the strangest thing of all is, whilst withonehand, she was endeavouring with her spiritual power, to hurl the Catholic Church, into the vortex of this universal spiritual destruction, she, withthe otherhand, charitably savesusCatholics (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 shouldnevererr, and of course, couldneverfall into idolatry. And, therefore, in obedience to your Scriptural Church, and to the Scripture itself, we believe that the Catholic Church,neverhas fallen, andnever willfall into idolatry. For the Scripture says, "Heaven and earthshallpass away, but God's word,shall notpass 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,strangeto say, she hascharitablysaved 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,howyour scriptural Church as by law established will contrive to gather together again, and unite all the various parts of thisuniversal, spiritual edifice, just destroyed by her hands, I am at a loss to determine. Ifshe really cancollect, unite, and form these various spiritual parts, into amoreperfect, and durable edifice, thanGod Himselfhad made it, I shallthenbegin to think, that she is invested with powers, whicheven God Himselfdoes not possess. But bywhatspiritual art of chemistry, is she to perform this wonderful, andsuperhumanoperation? If she has recourse tothe Scriptures, she willtherelearn, that God had built this spiritual edifice on animperishable, infallible, and incorruptible foundation. And surely, for her sake, God will notcontradictHimself; and if she has recourse to her thirty-nine articles, they have already annihilated her. O poor scriptural Church! thou hast often madesadwork withotherChurches; butat last, alas! thou art insadstraits 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 edificemustfor the sake of thesalvationof mankind, bere-built. Should I offermy officiousservices, to assist in this pious work of reconstruction, your scriptural Church might perhaps say, I destroyedmorethan I built. Well, she could not, even then, justly complain of this; forshehasjustcut into pieces, demolished, and annihilated thewholeof Christendom, with her destructive weapons of universal, abominable, and damnable idolatry.

In allmaterialedifices, it is considered of the greatest importance that thefoundationshould befirm,safe, and substantial. Of course, we have reason to expecttheserequisites in the foundation of allspiritualedifices; and of course, we maynaturallyexpect them, in the new erection of God's work which your Church has just destroyed, but which she isnowgoing to re-construct into amoreperfect and durable form thanGodhad made it. Now, uponwhatfoundation will your Churchreconstruct this demolished spiritual edifice? In her twenty-first article of her thirty-nine articles, (and mind, she has sworn to thesearticles 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,) theymay err, andsometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God."

Now, please tell me, Most Reverend Gentlemen, ofwhatis 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, andhaveerred,even in things pertaining to God. Therefore, your council, or councils, of your new Churchmay err, and therefore, how will you build upon thesefalliblemen aninfalliblefoundation?

But you will indignantly reply, the article intimates, that they may errunlessgoverned by theSpirit, and word of God. Well, Most Reverend Gentlemen, is it likely God will givethemhis Spirit, and unerring word toreconstruct a new Church, when they have just destroyed the infallible, and beautiful work ofGod's own hands? Is it in the nature of things, thatGodshouldcontradictHimself, to second the BABEL ideas, of your scriptural Church, yet to be formed?

Really, Sir, some of you Reverends will exclaim,howyou aregarblingthat twenty-first article! Why have youslylyomitted to quote thelastpart of that article?—Well, as you have called, for thelastpart 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 thislastpart of your article, may enable you, torebuild a godly and spiritual edifice. Well, then, now for thelastpart of this twenty-first article, which you say, I haveslyly 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 askedmea question, allowmeto askyou another. If any of you, were wishful to purchase an estate,would you notfirst, have the title deeds of that estate,carefullyexamined by some eminent and respectable lawyers,to be surethat the title deeds, were perfectly good, and satisfactory,beforeyou advanced the money? Now we have just learnt, from thelastpart of your twenty-first article, that the Scriptures, properly speaking, are the deeds of aChristian, by which he is to obtain agoodtitle to salvation. Of course, therefore, we maynaturallysuppose, that your scriptural Church would hand down to her followers the Scriptures, in themost perfectandunmutilatedstate.

Well, we will now see whether shehasdonethis, andthenwe shall be able to determine, if she canrebuild 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,aftershe got them, she handed them down to her followers in the perfect and unmutilated state, in which shefirstreceived them from theCatholic 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, whichwereceived fromthem, otherwise we should have knownnothing at all about it." And, in his book against the Anabaptists, he makes the following confession: "Under Papacy are many good things, yea,everythingthat isgoodinChristianity. I say moreover," continues he, "under Papacy istrueChristianity, even thevery kernelof Christianity." From these two passages of Luther, it is evident, that your scriptural Church,firstreceived the Scriptures from thehandof theCatholicChurch, and that she received them, in aperfectandunmutilatedstate; otherwise, how could Luther's words be true, (andmind, he uttered these wordsafterhe had left the Catholic Church) when he assures us, that under Papacy is "true Christianity, yea, everything that is good in Christianity, nay, thevery kernelof Christianity."

Now let us seehowyour scriptural Church, corrupted and mutilated the sacred volumes which she had received from the Catholic Church in aperfectandunmutilatedstate.

Luther was the first, after the Reformation, who put out a Protestant translation of the Scriptures, which wasimmediatelycondemned 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, wouldhimselfhave 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 herownEnglish translations.

Well, then we had better examine, and see whether they were any better thananyof 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 inmanyplaces, they do detort the scriptures from therightsense, 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 ofScriptures 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 ofearliertimes; but we have gotbettertranslations 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:

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 wereupwards 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 thestandardof 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 thefirstProtestant 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, hasnot onlyfalsified and corrupted the Scriptures, but that she has had the audacity, to expunge from the canon of the Scripture many books, which areas 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 CatholicChurch. 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 ascanonical, whichyourProtestant Church rejects asuncanonical. 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 becanonical(that is, the inspired word of God,) which your Church, has had the audacity to tell the people, arenot canonical, that is, they are not to be considered the inspired word of God. Butwhatreason had your scriptural Church, to assume the audacious power, to condemn asuncanonical, 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,whatreason had your scriptural Church for thisaudaciousstep? I answer, none. O but I fancy I hear some of your reverends exclaiming, You are wrongfor once, old papish botheration. Look at the passage in the sixth of our articles, betweenour canonicalanduncanonical books, and there you will find a good reason for yourpopishquestion.

Thank you, courteous clerks; I will now quote the passage, and giveyourscriptural 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,truthandfalsehoodare in this passage, mixed up togetherto 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 heruncanonical books, for example of life and instruction of manners. Well,her objectfor reading these books, as far as it goes, is very good; but then, your scriptural Churchslylyadds, "but yet doth it not apply themto establishany 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 canonallthe books, which had been ranked in the Catholic canon by antiquity. Now, if your scriptural Church, quoted St. Hierom's authority in confirmation of thefirstpart of this passage, why does she slyly intimate, to follow him in thesecondpart, where she contradicts St. Hierom, by asserting that certain books of the Scripture, areuncanonical, which St. Hierom believed, and taught werereally canonical? Come, Reverend Gentlemen, your Churchmusthave had someslyreason, for thiscontradictoryconduct. Now,dotell uswhat thisreason was. Well, ifyouwill not tell,Imust.

You have seen, how the first reformersfalsifiedthe Scriptures, to make the sacred text, harmonize with theirreformedideas; butwhat puzzledthemmostwas, they found there were certain books, which they could notpossibly tunetotheir newideas. Theydurstnot indeed,entirelyreject these sacred books; for they knew inwhatveneration, they had beenalwaysheld byantiquity; but on theotherhand, theydurstnot admit them ascanonical; forthen, thetestimonyofthesebooks, would upsettheir new-fangledideas; they thought, therefore, themost convenientmethod, was to makefleshandfishof them, andthen, they could eitheradmit, orcontradictthem, according to theirown spiritual convenience.

And that I am speaking the truth, I will give youone singleinstance, and from thisone, you will be able to judge ofthe rest, of their sly method, of squaring the scripture to theirnew, andreforming ideas. Of all the tenets of the Catholic creed, there isnone, that has beenmore lustilyinveighed against, and accordingly,nonethat soundso awfully, to anEnglish Protestantear, 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 ofMachabees, this doctrine is soplainlylaid 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 soclear, andpositivea 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 divineauthority of the book.Accordingly, these new soul-menders, told the people that the two Books of Machabees, were not included in the Jewish Canon, butunfortunately, theyforgotto tell the worldthe reason, (viz.,) because the Jewish Canon was compiled by Esdras,long beforethe Books of Machabees were written. And now,you may understand theslywords of your sixth article, "but yet it doth not apply them (these books) toestablish any doctrine," viz., to establish theCatholicdoctrine, and tooverturn their new-fangledideas.

Now, Gentlemen, is it not plain that yourChurch, hathboth corruptedthe Scriptures, and expunged from herProtestantCanon, many of theinspiredbooks of those sacred volumes?

And now, allow me to quote thefirstpart of the sixth Article of your Church, and then, tell mewhatthepeopleare to do, to save their souls, and how your Scriptural Church,is everto 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 bysolidargument what I have advanced,) it is plain, I repeat it, that your Church hasbothfalsified the text of the Scripture, and expunged from herProtestantCanon, 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 theonehand, your Church tells the people, thereis nosalvationwithoutthe Scripture: and on theotherhand, your Church has falsified the text, and also expunged from herProtestantCanon, manyinspiredBooks of the Scripture. Really, can you obtain the possession of property bycorruptand mutilated title-deeds? Certainly not. How,then, are your people to obtain eternal life by yourfalse, andmutilated 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 mostparadoxicalconsequences. O how justly may I apply toyourScriptural Church, the observations which a distinguished minister of the Churchof 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 meancorrectcopies, andauthenticatedtranslations 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 theybring 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, theyhad 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. MostReverend 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 sheis now, andwas 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, "canyourreligion be thetrueone, since youwhitemen do notallprofess thesame? Agree amongyourselvesin this point, andthenwe 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 containanyspiritual 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 thesamething. 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 thesewords: "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 areverilyandindeed taken, andreceivedby the faithful, in theLord's Supper." Now this declares, that our Saviour, isreallypresent in theLord's Supper, for how can youreally, and indeedtakeHim, andreceiveHim, if He is notreallythere? Thus, inonepart of your prayer-book, you solemnly declare, that our Saviour isnotpresent, in theLord's Supper, and therefore it would be idolatry there to adore him; but inanotherpart of thesameprayer-book, you teach children that He ispresent; and that theyverilyandindeed takeHim andreceiveHim in theLord'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 thismanifestcontradiction, introduced into your prayer-book? Why, I will tell you; the doctrine of therealpresence 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 convincedby the devil, that our Saviour wasnotpresent 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 madeflesh 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, wouldswallow bettertheir 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 youthendeclare? 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 isonly onemediator, our Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, on Sundays, you have no difficulty, in recommending the sick, to the prayers of the faithful. But, why shouldyoudothis, when accordingto you, there isonly onemediator, our Lord Jesus Christ? Ifyoucan thus ask the prayers of the faithful, without injuring the mediation of our Saviour; why cannot theCatholic, 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, theymustknow and hearthings, which are passing upon earth, otherwise how could they rejoicein heaven, on the conversion of sinnerson 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 fromits fruit. And yet, among all the rich spiritual treasures, of your prayer-book, and of your scriptural Church, for these three hundred years, you haveneveryet produced a person, who, on account of his virtue and piety, has been honoured by posterity with the name ofsaint. Nay, so great is your poverty inthis respect, that your Church, has been obliged tosteal CatholicSaints, and barefacedly insertthem, in yourProtestantcalendar. 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 insertedthemin herProtestantcalendar. Really, Gentlemen, may I not exclaim with the poet—

Back to Index Next