"Can such things be,And overcome us like a summer's cloud,Without our special wonder!"
"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, andcruelty, over which my feelings would not wish to travel. But as the answer to the above objection, has been so ably given, by aProtestantmember of Parliament, to aProtestantLord, I think I cannot dobetter, than give it in his own words. Andmind, when you read this letter, you must not imagine, thatyou are reading themereopinions ofthiswriter; no, the opinions which he there states, areincontestible 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 aProtestantmember of Parliament, to aProtestantlord, 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 theLaw-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 bylawestablished, 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 dutyflatly to contradictyour 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 thattwenty or thirty years agoI 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 Iknowing 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 willnotsay that she has been, and was from her outset, the most intolerant Church that theworld 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 historicalfacts, to make good thatcontradictionwhich I have given to your words. I assert that thisLaw-Churchis the mostINTOLERANTChurch I ever read or heard of; and this assertion I now proceed to make good."This Church began toexistin 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 byLAW. 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 theLaw-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 theLaw-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 thisLaw-churchwas 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 acourt of high commission, consisting chiefly ofbishopsof your Lordship's 'most tolerantChurch,' 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 theopinionsof all men, and to punish all men according to theirdiscretion short of death. They had power to extort evidence by theprisonor by the rack. They had power to compel a man (on oath) toreveal his thoughts, and toaccuse himself, his friend, brother, parent, wife, or child; and this, too, onpain of death. These monsters, in order todiscover 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 therackin 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 wasdeathto make a new Catholic priest within the kingdom.—2. It wasdeathfor a Catholic priest to come into the kingdom from abroad.—3. It wasdeathto harbour a Catholic priest coming from abroad.—4. It wasdeathto confess to such a priest.—5. It wasdeathfor any priest to say mass. 6. It wasdeathfor any one to hear mass. 7. It wasdeathtodenyornot 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 £20a 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 abare list, made in the above manner, I could fill a considerable volume. The names of the persons put to death merely forbeing Catholics, during this long and bloody reign, would, especially if it were to include Ireland, form a list ten times as long as that ofourarmy 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, andtear out the heart, and hold it up, fling the bowels into a fire, then chop off the head, and cut thebody into quarters, thenboilthe 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 wereONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVENripped up and boiledin 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 andhearthe 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 sayingmassin 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 spiritualheadof 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,deathby martial law,deathin prison, and this in cases without number, banishment and loss of estate. Doctor Bridgewater, in a table published by him at the end of theConcertatio 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 'themost tolerantChurch 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; ordeath, death, deathin 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 tobring 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 nochangeling; 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 anenormous debt, and astanding army, and acivil listhave 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, thatit can make no more. It cannot venture onanother civil war(about thetwentieth), 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 miseriesEngland 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 theIrish Church, to imminentdanger. The answer of the Duke is, I cannot prevent this danger withoutrisking a civil war; and the Statecannot 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."
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 theLaw-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 bylawestablished, 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 dutyflatly to contradictyour 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 thattwenty or thirty years agoI 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 Iknowing 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 willnotsay that she has been, and was from her outset, the most intolerant Church that theworld 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 historicalfacts, to make good thatcontradictionwhich I have given to your words. I assert that thisLaw-Churchis the mostINTOLERANTChurch I ever read or heard of; and this assertion I now proceed to make good.
"This Church began toexistin 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 byLAW. 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 theLaw-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 theLaw-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 thisLaw-churchwas 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 acourt of high commission, consisting chiefly ofbishopsof your Lordship's 'most tolerantChurch,' 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 theopinionsof all men, and to punish all men according to theirdiscretion short of death. They had power to extort evidence by theprisonor by the rack. They had power to compel a man (on oath) toreveal his thoughts, and toaccuse himself, his friend, brother, parent, wife, or child; and this, too, onpain of death. These monsters, in order todiscover 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 therackin 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 wasdeathto make a new Catholic priest within the kingdom.—2. It wasdeathfor a Catholic priest to come into the kingdom from abroad.—3. It wasdeathto harbour a Catholic priest coming from abroad.—4. It wasdeathto confess to such a priest.—5. It wasdeathfor any priest to say mass. 6. It wasdeathfor any one to hear mass. 7. It wasdeathtodenyornot 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 £20a 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 abare list, made in the above manner, I could fill a considerable volume. The names of the persons put to death merely forbeing Catholics, during this long and bloody reign, would, especially if it were to include Ireland, form a list ten times as long as that ofourarmy 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, andtear out the heart, and hold it up, fling the bowels into a fire, then chop off the head, and cut thebody into quarters, thenboilthe 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 wereONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVENripped up and boiledin 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 andhearthe 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 sayingmassin 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 spiritualheadof 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,deathby martial law,deathin prison, and this in cases without number, banishment and loss of estate. Doctor Bridgewater, in a table published by him at the end of theConcertatio 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 'themost tolerantChurch 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; ordeath, death, deathin 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 tobring 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 nochangeling; 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 anenormous debt, and astanding army, and acivil listhave 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, thatit can make no more. It cannot venture onanother civil war(about thetwentieth), 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 miseriesEngland 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 theIrish Church, to imminentdanger. The answer of the Duke is, I cannot prevent this danger withoutrisking a civil war; and the Statecannot 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 aboveincontestiblefacts 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 forgetmy text, otherwise you will begin to conclude, I must be a verybunglingpreacher. 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 thepocketsof Englishmen. Bynowrecapitulating 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 theintellectsof 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, althoughGodhad pledged his solemn word, that this Churchnever should err; I have also shown you, how this assertion of Christ's Church falling into error, was themereipse dixit of thefirstReformers, and of your scriptural Church; and that they had both unfortunately forgotten to prove,when,where, andhow, thisinfallibleChurch of Christ had falleninto error. Now, I appeal to you, if this was not, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement," of your scriptural Church, on theintellectsof Englishmen. I have also shown you, the characters ofthe 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 theintellectsof 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 theonlymeans 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 theintellectsof 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 firstit was declared, to be the work of the Holy Ghost; how then, it is declarednotto be the work of theHoly Ghost, but the work ofschism; 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 theintellectsof Englishmen? Our Saviour declared, that his kingdom was not ofthisworld; 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 theconsciences, and on theintellectsof 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 hasnotmade an "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the Protestants of England; for, by the spirit of the English law, as I have shown, the Pope isperfectly justified in all he has done. But Gentlemen, is your Protestant Church, justifiedin allthe "extraordinary and presumptuous movements," which, I have shown, she has been making so long onthe pockets, and onthe intellectsof 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, ofyouandyourreverend 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, obedientto the trumpet call of Lord John Russell. Now, that trumpet blew two blasts, which gave "no uncertain sound." Thefirst, was to denounce the papal aggression; thesecond, 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 thevery bosomof theProtestantChurch of England. Lord John proclaims to you,this latterdanger, even more loudly thanthe former; and yet, uponthis latter"extraordinary and presumptuous movement,"youwere silent atyourmeeting,eachandall; 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 oneword, fromanyminister amongyou, Protestant, Independent, or Wesleyan,not one wordeitherto denythe existence of the danger, or to propose means towardit off. Youreadilyflocked together, to repel thelesserdanger, but, themuch morealarming danger, (according to Lord John) the danger "within the gates," it seemed touchedyou not at all. Really,in thisyou 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 notthenasingleblast of hiswarningtrumpet. 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, sincethe 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, andsadder still, that one thousand, eight hundred of these Church of England Clergymen, have signed a protest,against the Queen's supremacy as recentlyexercised; 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 bycertainclergymen of theChurchofEngland, 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 payingdivinehonour 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 givedivinehonour 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 theProtestantChurch doctrine, as to holy angels, laid down in yourProtestantcollect, 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 thetemerityto preach up, the infallibility of the Church.This, is to be "put down."Youare not to claiminfallibilityforyourChurch. Infallibility belongs to theCatholicChurch, 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 theScriptures. But, as regardsyour Church, Reverend Gentlemen, you are to be diligent in teaching, that your Church isnotinfallible, is not built upon a rock,notfounded upon the prophets and apostles,—has not Christ for its chief corner stone,—for ifshe had, she wouldassuredlybeinfallible. But above all, you are to teach, either that Christ didnotpromise, to be always with His Church, or that, even his abiding presence, with the Church, isnotsufficient to makeherinfallible; at all events, you are to teach (if you teach anything) thatyourChurch, hasno claimsto 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, whata cuckoo cry, that was, which the vicar of Leeds, was sometime ago, sounding withsuch iteration, from the housetops, crying, "HEAR THE CHURCH." This cry, has died away, and I suspect, Dr. Hook will notrenewit, 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 asureandinfallibleguide? 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, arenotoriouslyat sixes and sevens, all over the land, both on matters offaith,discipline, andceremonies.
Yours, Reverend Gentlemen, is ahardlot! I know nothing to equal to it. You glory in liberty of conscience, and are the bound slaves of afallibleChurch, as if she wereinfallible. 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 beenaddedto 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 ifyoudareto exerciseeither, 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 anevilthing; they bowed theirownnecks, and prepared foryournecks, 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." Fromthatday tothis, Parliament, and Parliamentary leaders, have lorded it, over your inheritance, bothspiritualandtemporal. Youmusteither submit toLaytribunals, or there areno loavesandfishesforyou.
How beautifully is your Church thus described by the poet,—
"For she was of that stubborn crewOf 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 byInfallible artillery;And prove their doctrines orthodoxBy 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."
"For she was of that stubborn crewOf 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 byInfallible artillery;And prove their doctrines orthodoxBy 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 dyingon 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 consummatedon 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 eitherhavereceived, orcanreceive,mustcome through themeritsof 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 thefaithful, 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, inyourchurches, to remind the people, thatyourchurch 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, ifoneof the popish ceremonies besuperstitious, it is manifest that theother twoceremonies, must bealso 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 amodernchurch,itslanguage, therefore, should bemodern, that itsliturgy, may announce to posterity the period, in which it was formed. But the Church of Rome, is anancientChurch, and therefore,shepreserves herancientliturgy, the language of which, remounts to theoriginof 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, wereutterlyunacquainted, 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 theEnglishliturgy, which they understand,no morethan 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 insucha language, as the people donotunderstand."
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 theEnglish, was permitted to read aLatintranslation, which was, no doubt, equallyunintelligibleto 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, amodernlanguage, significant of themodernorigin of your Church, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you to show, by the language of your Liturgy, that your Church, isso manyhundred yearstoo 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 anotoriousfact, that inoneProtestant Church, you are taught to believe in ecclesiastical infallibility, inanother, in the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures; inoneProtestant parish, you have a sacrificial, mediatorial priest, inanother, one of an opposite, and contrary opinion; inoneProtestant Church, you have an altar, inanother, you have a communion table; inoneBishop's See, the Protestant prelaterigorouslyinsists, on thenecessityof spiritual regeneration by baptism, inanotherBishop's See, it is acknowledged to be anunnecessaryact of religion; in Pimlico Protestant Church, you have auricular confessioninsisted on, in a Liverpool Protestant Church, you have thepunishment of death, recommended as apenaltyfor such a practice; in short, is it notnotorious(as I said before) that the Protestant Bishops, and Clergymen, are at sixes, and sevens, all over the land, abouttheir articles of faith,matters of disciplineandceremonies? 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, onthisBabel muttering of religion, before he chastised them, for the muttering ofthe 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 thegoldenfall thereof, for it was built,notupon the rock of God'sinfallibleword, but upon the merefallible inventions, andpecuniary conveniencesof 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, thatGodcan forgive sins, and that God,cangive that power toman; 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 thispower of forgiving sins, to extend also tofutureages? Are not God, and Jesus Christ, as good and as kind,now, as they were, in thetimeof the Apostles; and are there not, as many sinnersnow, as there werethen? 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 sinnersnow, as there werethen, in the name of common sense, why was not this power of God, given to the Apostles for the benefit of mankindthen, why was it not, to extend also to allfutureages, for the benefit of mankindafterwards? 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 theChurch 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 adeclaratory, or ajudicialpower to forgive sins; if it was only adeclaratorypower, viz., to declare, that the sinner, would obtain forgiveness if he truly repented, then,any layman, possesses this powerwithout ordination; for any layman, can confidently declare, thatpenitentsinners are pardoned; but if you received ajudicialpower, 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 notmerely leadyou tothe verge, but it willhurlyou, 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 achoice 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 ofcharity themselves, but as forthyself, 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 aSPECIALconfession ofhis sins, if he feel his conscience, troubled with any weighty matter. After whichconfession, 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 authorityCOMMITTED TO ME, Iabsolvethee 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; andmind, standing as large as life, inyourChurch 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 donow, when your Protestant godly Prayer-book, has not onlyledyou tothe verge, buthurledyou all headlong down to theverybottom, of popish Auricular Confession, and absolution? Why, you must either renounce your Protestant prayer-book, and declare, it isnota 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 ofthemselvesasufficientcompensation for sin, Lord John has yet, to learn, thefirstrudiments 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 ournewdispensation offreegrace,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 didyoujoin in so glaring a profaneness, for nearly seven years? If I practised 'mummeries and superstition,' why didyou, come to join in them, for nearly seven years? Why didyouso 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, thatyousaid 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 mostunfortunate 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 foryourrights and privileges, on the field of civil and religious liberty,even beforehe 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 callthem consistentmen? Consistent men indeed! Do not all the dissenters, the Presbyterians, Methodists, Independents, Baptists, Unitarians, and Quakers, do not allthese dissenters deny, as well as we Catholics, the spiritual supremacy of the Queen? Nay, do not all these dissenters, claimtheirspiritual rights and authority,independent of the Queen? Why, therefore, will you refuse the exercise of their spiritual rights, to yourCatholicfellow creatures? Why will youunjustly deprivethemof those privileges, which are thebirth-rightofeveryEnglishman; 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 theProtestantChurch, for the express purpose, of refusing to theCatholicChurch, 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 hadevenwished 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 notthis, a most inconsistent, "extraordinary and presumptuous movement," of this dissenting minister? Well, I can only say, if thereligiouscreed of this minister, be notmore consistentthan hispoliticalcreed, 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: