



Produced by Brownfox and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet Archive)









TWO ADDRESSES:

ONE,

TO THE GENTLEMEN

OF WHITBY,

WHO SIGNED THE REQUISITION, CALLING A MEETING
TO ADDRESS THE QUEEN, ON THE LATE (SO
CALLED) AGGRESSION OF THE POPE:

AND THE OTHER, TO

THE PROTESTANT CLERGY.

BY

The Catholic Priest of Ugthorp.

    "I would you had been there to see
    How the light blazed up so gloriously."

            "And then in naked majesty,
    With brow serene, and beaming placid light,
    Came truth."

WHITBY:

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HORNE AND RICHARDSON:
SOLD BY RICHARDSON & SONS, LONDON AND DERBY.

ONE SHILLING.

1851.




DEDICATION.


_The following pages are humbly, and gratefully Dedicated, to the
    Catholic Noblemen and Gentlemen of Yorkshire, by the Catholic
    Priest at Ugthorp._

NOBLEMEN AND GENTLEMEN,

Many of you, lately appeared boldly, and manfully on the platform at
York, in defence of our holy religion. Conscious of the justice and
innocence of our cause, you feared neither the sneers, nor the insults,
nor the shouts, nor the threats of its enemies, but, like your
illustrious ancestors, shewed that you considered your religion, as your
best inheritance, and held it more dear than life itself; whilst, on the
other hand, like your illustrious ancestors, you shewed that you yielded
_to none_, in _your loyal allegiance_ to your _temporal_ sovereign, and
to the state. Now it would be ungrateful, nay even base, in us Catholic
clergymen, not to second your manly, and zealous exertions in defence of
our ancient, and holy faith. To you, therefore, I most humbly, and
gratefully dedicate the following pages. I hope you will find, that I
have not advanced in them, anything that is inconsistent with the
principles of truth, of justice, and of honour. To have acted otherwise,
would, I am sure (for I have the honour to be personally acquainted with
most of you), be most insulting to your noble, and liberal feelings, and
would only have served, to confirm the hostility of the Protestant, and
to loosen the attachment of the Catholic, to that cause, which I had
undertaken to defend.

Noblemen, and Gentlemen, when the Catholic looks back on the _past_, he
will learn to hope well of the _future_. He will observe, that the
irritating objections of former times, are now almost shamed out of
Parliament, and can hardly support their credit, even among the most
suspicious, and least informed Protestants. He will see, that our
opponents have uniformly been compelled, to shift their ground from
position to position, and after pertinaciously defending each, have ended
by abandoning _it_, and retreating to _another_. At first, the Catholics
were accused of favouring the claims of the Stuarts, but the extinction
of that family, has put an end to that charge. We were then told, that
the Catholics, could not be bound _by oath_, though _oaths_, had been
wisely devised as the _best safeguards_, against their supposed perfidy.
Next, the fathers of the great Council of Latern, were marshalled against
us; as if men were to be punished at the _present_ day, because
Protestants will not understand the regulations of feudal Princes, and
feudal Prelates _six centuries ago_. Afterwards, we were reproached with
the deposing powers, and temporal pretensions of the Pope; these were set
at rest at _that time_ (and we had hoped _for ever_,) by the answers of
the foreign Universities. Lastly, came the Coronation Oath, men, however,
could not be persuaded that the Sovereign, by promising to maintain the
liberties of the Protestant Church, was bound to deprive of their civil
rights all those, who might dissent from the spiritual creed of that
Church. Each of these arguments in its day, was deemed _unanswerable_,
but _each_ has _yielded to discussion_. _Past_ advantages, therefore,
Noblemen and Gentlemen, are an earnest to the Catholic of _future_
success; and after the hour of the late excitement, about the Pope's
temporal and spiritual power, has passed away, I am sure, all sensible,
and unbiassed Englishmen will see, that the late hubbub, has been an
_ignus fatuus_ of imaginations distorted with fear, and alarm, which had
well nigh, misled the whole nation, into a quagmire of inconsistency,
illiberality and revolution.

  _Catholic Chapel House, Ugthorp, near Whitby,
             January 21st, 1851._




TO THE READER.


Reader, that you may the better understand the two following addresses,
you ought _first_, to read the copy of the requisition for the meeting,
&c., which is placed before these two addresses, and you ought also, to
read the little address which here follows, and which I published to
announce, that the following pages would shortly appear in print. In the
notice of the requisition for the public meeting, &c., you will find
these words, "extraordinary and presumptuous movement on the part of the
Pope." Now, reader, you must remember, that these memorable words are my
grand text, in the two following addresses. I here beg to offer my
sincere thanks to the gentlemen, who signed the requisition, for I am
sure, if they had studied from the deluge until now, they could not have
given me, a more suitable text for the Catholic cause, and a more
destructive one to the Protestant Church. But, reader, you will be able
to judge of this yourself, after reading the following pages. Read first
then, the following little address, and then read the notice calling the
public meeting.

       *       *       *       *       *

_In the press, and in the course of a few weeks will be published, an
    Address to the Gentlemen who signed the late Requisition to the
    Magistrates of Whitby, to call a Public Meeting to address the
    Queen on the late extraordinary and presumptuous movement on the
    part of the Bishop of Rome._

TO THE INHABITANTS OF WHITBY AND OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.

INHABITANTS,

I have been lately often asked, why I did not attend the above meeting? I
reply, read my address when it is published, and you will there find an
answer to your question. It is a common observation of sailors, "only
give the ship plenty of sea-room in a storm, and then she will live."
Now, inhabitants of Whitby, and of the neighbourhood, if you will give
the Catholic Church (or, if you please, the Roman Catholic Church) only
the sea-room of fair play, you will, perhaps, find that the bottom and
sides of this spiritual ship, are well coppered with the solid, and
impenetrable metal of good reasons, and solid arguments, and that, full
rigged as she is, with the sails of truth, of justice, and of honour, she
can gallantly brave the hurricanes of her enemies, and ride triumphantly,
amid the storms of spiritual and temporal agitation, which have lately
threatened to shipwreck, and to sink her.

When my address appears, I hope you will find in it, nothing that is
inconsistent with principles of truth, of justice, and of honour. To have
used any other weapons of defence would, in my humble opinion, have
served only to strengthen the Protestant hostility, and to loosen the
Catholic attachment, to that cause, which I had undertaken to defend.
You will, of course, expect a little of the comic, as coming from my pen,
well, as the poet says,

        Ridentum dicere verum
    Quid vetat?

Or, that I may not speak in a foreign tongue, "What forbids us to tell
the truth, with a smile?"

Of course you will perhaps expect a little innocent stir, among the
Reverends in my address, and _perhaps_, you may not be mistaken. If you
remember, an _illuminated_ Cambridge Divine, some years ago, came to
Lythe, to make an "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the
consciences of us Romanists, (as he politely styled us), and learnedly
informed us, that we Romanists, were a set of spiritual chickens just
hatching, and that he came to break our spiritual shells, that he might
save the young birds, from being thrown into the scorching flames of
Purgatory in the next world, but while the courteous Clerk, was
performing this charitable office, to the benighted Romanists, _he_,
_himself_, unfortunately, even in this world, fell into the flames of
purgatory, which on this side the grave are made to burn, for those who
bear false witness, against their neighbour; and it is generally
believed, that he has never as yet been able to raise, from public
opinion, as much money as will free him, from those torturing purgatorial
flames. Oh, but you will naturally say, this is an old song, what has it
to do with the present subject? Why, it has a great deal to do with it.
Certain Reverends have been lately telling you, that the Pope of Rome,
has just made a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement," on the
Protestants of England. Now you will perhaps find, from my Address, when
published, that even _these_ very Reverends themselves have been making,
for a long time, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the
pockets and on the intellects of Englishmen; and have thus, like the
_illuminated_ Cambridge divine, unfortunately fallen into the very pit,
which they have been so very charitably, and officiously digging for the
_poor_ Pope.

Sensible Englishmen, when these Reverends, would uncharitably excite you
against your long much injured, and unjustly abused Catholic fellow
creatures, just say to them, "Reverend gentlemen, you tell us that the
Scripture (the book of eternal life and of truth), teaches CHARITY TO ALL
MEN! why, therefore, should you wish us to exclude the _Catholics_ from a
share of that _universal_ Charity?" And in the next place tell them, "the
Pope and all his spiritual crew are either from God or not: if they are
not from God, all their human, and popish inventions will come of
themselves to naught, and why, therefore, should you wish us Protestants,
to break our charitable heads about _them_. But if they are from God, how
can either you or we fight against them, unless you arrogantly presume,
that you can conquer the Almighty! At least, so teaches the sacred
Scripture, for does it not thus plainly, and emphatically say, 'And now
therefore I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone, for
if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to naught; but if it
be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to
fight against God.'" (Acts v. 38, 39.)

As I have been obliged to range in my address, over an extensive
_spiritual_ and _temporal_ moor, and as I have had to bring down, and bag
so much black game, of course my Address, will be of rather an extensive
nature. It is, indeed, now in the press, but of course its appearance
will, in some measure, depend upon the expedition of the printer, but I
will promise you, that it shall be got out of the printer's hands _as
soon as possible_, and then, it must appeal to the judgments of sensible
and unbiassed minds, as to its merits, and demerits. In the mean time, as
Englishmen always wish to know the text, I will give you the two texts,
which I have chosen for the titlepage of my Address.

    "I would you had been there to see
    How the light blazed up so gloriously."

          "And then in naked Majesty,
    With brow serene, and beaming placid light,
    Came truth."

Inhabitants, in conclusion, I confidently appeal to you, if you ever knew
me do an ungenteel act to any Protestant in point of religion. I have
always wished equal rights and equal justice for all, both for
Protestants and Dissenters; I have always wished to live in peace and
charity with all; in short, I have always endeavoured to observe, as far
as my human weakness would allow, that heavenly precept of our divine
Saviour, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have
love for one another;" and I can confidently appeal to the public, if
this has not always been the tenor of my conduct. I assure you, that it
is very contrary to my wishes, to have to appear before you, with my pen
on these occasions. Among the Protestants I have many sincere friends,
and of course, what I shall have to advance in my Address, may not be
very agreeable to their feelings. But as I really know, and
conscientiously believe, that the Church, of which I have the honour to
be a minister, is really the true Church of Christ, to shrink from its
defence for the sake of private feelings, and private interests, would,
in my ideas, be a most base and an unchristian act on my part. I exclaim
with the poet,

    "A day, an hour of virtuous liberty,
    Is worth a whole eternity in bondage."

Farewell, inhabitants, for the present, and if, when my Address appears
before the public, you would like to have a little _innocent_ merriment,
and to hear some plain homely truths, I hope you will not be disappointed
if you purchase my Address.

  _Catholic Chapel, Ugthorp, Dec. 21st, 1850._




COPY OF A NOTICE


_To the Worshipful the Magistrates for the Division of Whitby, in the
North Riding of the County of York._

     We, the undersigned Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood
     of Whitby, feeling deeply the propriety of presenting an
     address to Her Majesty, on the late extraordinary and
     presumptuous movement on the part of the Bishop of Rome, and
     expressive of our loyalty and attachment to Her Majesty's
     person, authority, and government, do request that you will be
     pleased to convene a Meeting for these purposes, to be held at
     an early day, in some convenient place in the town of Whitby.

     Dated, November 21st, 1850.

     James Davidson, Minister,
     John Fox, Minister,
     Joseph Hughes, Minister,
     Francis Simpson,
     John Cass Potter, Independent
     Minister,
     Henry Belcher,
     William John Bullivant, Wesleyan
     Minister,
     Thomas William Belcher,
     Thomas Richardson,
     John Blanchard,
     Appleton Stephenson,
     James Walker,
     John Chapman,
     G. H. Holtby,
     Gideon Smales,
     William Jameson,
     Henry Barrick,
     Henry Simpson,
     John Brewster,
     John Rickinson,
     George Clarkson,
     James Wilkinson,  }
     Charles Fisher,   }Churchwardens
     William Frankland,}
     Thomas Broderick Simpson,
     Henry Simpson,
     William Cavalier,
     John Corner, jun.
     James Brown,
     Charles Prudom,
     John Brown Nicholson,
     R. M. Woodwark,
     William Taylor,
     Francis Kildale Robinson,
     Robert Kirby,
     Robert Swales,
     John Green,
     Charles Bartindale,
     William Clarkson,
     John Gaskell,
     William Frankland, jun.

     We, the undersigned Magistrates, present at a Petty Session,
     held at the Justice Room, Whitby, this 23rd day of November,
     1850, do hereby give notice, that a Public Meeting of the
     Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Whitby, will be
     held, in compliance with the above Requisition, in the Town
     Hall, at Whitby, on Thursday, the 28th instant, at Twelve
     o'clock at noon.

     JOHN CHAPMAN,
     CHRISTOPHER RICHARDSON, New Buildings.




THE ADDRESS.


GENTLEMEN,

The copy of a notice on the preceding page, shows that you thought proper
to call a public meeting, for the purposes expressed in that bill. Now do
not suppose for one moment, that I wish to question either the right, or
the propriety of calling such a meeting. If our Protestant countrymen
choose to call, and hold meetings for the purpose of expressing their
sentiments on any public question, they have certainly, a right to do so,
and also a right to the free expression of their sentiments on those
occasions. But, gentlemen, have not _we Catholics_ also an _equal_ right,
to express _our_ sentiments on those subjects. That a regular opposition
to the Catholics, has been lately organized, must be evident to the most
inattentive observer. The clergy, and the head of the government, have
been placed in the front of the battle, and with cry of danger to the
_Church_, has been coupled that of danger to the _Constitution_. In aid
of these efforts, the press also, has been put in requisition, and the
labours of anti-catholic journalists, and the diffusion of anti-catholic
tracts, published in every shape, and adapted to every understanding,
bear ample testimony to the zeal, and activity of those, who assume the
lead in this anti-catholic crusade. We are doomed to hear daily, our
religion traduced, our spiritual but illustrious Head, bespattered with
the most vile abuse, our civil liberty menaced, our Clergy threatened
with pains, and penalties, our most sacred rites most contumaciously
designated by the first minister of the Crown as mummeries, and the Lord
High Chancellor vaunting his readiness to trample, on the mitres of our
bishops. Gentlemen, I think it cannot be expected that we Catholics,
should remain _silent_, and humble our heads before this whirlwind of
Protestant intolerance, and that, imitating the stupidity of the Ostrich,
we should endeavour to escape our hunters, by concealing our heads. But,
gentlemen, you may perhaps ask, why did you not attend our public
meeting? I reply, I did not hear of your meeting until a day after it had
been held, but if I had _heard_ of it _before_, I should not have
attended for the following reasons. Meetings that are convened by one
party, are generally _packed_ meetings, called under the excitement of
the moment, and the audience in general are unwilling to listen to fair
play, or to the arguments of their opponents. This was evident from your
meeting, for had it not been for the honest, and liberal conduct of your
chairman, Christopher Richardson, Esq., Mr. Taylerson, though not a
Catholic, would not have obtained a hearing, and how were his sensible
questions answered? By shouts, and hisses. But, gentlemen, I have another
reason for not attending. Each nation, like each individual, has a
certain character, and temperament. Now, whoever will deliberately
consider the character, and temperament of Englishmen, will find, that
when they are once roused, and excited, they are then unwilling to
listen, either to reason or argumentation, but let the heat of excitement
pass away, and let the cooler moments of reflection return, and _then_,
you may appeal to them with propriety, and advantage. It is very
imprudent and foolish for a wife to expostulate, and argue with her
drunken husband, but let the moments of sobriety return, and then, her
reasonable, and prudent expostulations, may be attended with salutary
effects. For these reasons, gentlemen, I did not attend your public
meeting.

But you will say, why do you address us in particular? Why, gentlemen, I
cannot for a moment suppose that when you are cool, and unexcited, you
are so wedded to your own opinions, and so deaf to the claims of fair
play, as to be unwilling to listen to the arguments of the _accused_.
Surely you do not wish to trample down the accused, _unheard!_ If you do,
I really think it is a very "extraordinary, and presumptuous movement" on
your part, and I am sure every sensible and honest Englishman will think
the same.

Well, then, gentlemen, let us now come to the point in question. I begin
by asking the very sensible, and rational question, which Mr. Taylerson
put to your meeting. What aggression have the Pope and Dr. Wiseman
committed? What English Law have they transgressed? If any, why not let
the law be calmly and quietly enforced against them? But if they have
broken no law, why all this fury, and tirade against them as if they had?
Oh, but, replied a certain influential gentleman, at your meeting, "If
there is not a law, there must be one made." I answer, that the principle
of self-defence will, in cases of real danger, authorize the adoption of
lawful precautions, I am not disposed to deny; but, then, those
precautions must be founded _on equity_; they must be such as _reason_
will justify, or _necessity_ excuse. You are not to invade the rights or
privileges of others, on the _bare suspicion_ of _future_ danger or the
_mere_ possibility of a possibility. You are not to cane a man at
Lady-day, because he may affront you at Midsummer. If you think the
contrary, I must, gentlemen, candidly tell you, it is a very
"extraordinary, and presumptuous movement" on your part, against the
rights and privileges of your fellow creatures, and if any Magistrate,
were to advance such extraordinary opinions, in a court of justice, I
feel confident, every sensible and honest Englishman would deeply feel
the propriety, of presenting an address to Her Majesty, or to Her
Ministers, on so "extraordinary, and presumptuous a movement" on the part
of that Magistrate, against the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's
subjects.

Gentlemen, before we proceed any further, I think it requisite to call
your attention to two points. First, that your _Protestant_ ancestors,
_really_ did to our _Catholic_ ancestors, what you now merely _fancy_,
without any grounds, that the _Catholics_ of the present day, are wishful
to do _to you_. Now, upon this point, I shall thus argue: Your Protestant
ancestors did these things either _justly_, or _unjustly_ to our Catholic
ancestors. If your Protestant ancestors did these things _justly_, why
should you Protestants make such a row, at the _mere shadow_ of these
things being done again? But if your Protestant ancestors, did these
things _unjustly_, then you must acknowledge, that the Church of England,
owes its first foundation to acts of injustice. The second point which I
wish to settle, before I proceed any further, is that the spiritual
members of the Church of Rome, have the most just, and the only claim, to
the honourable name of Catholic. Let us now hasten to the first of these
points.

Gentlemen, the following facts, as _historical_ facts, are _undeniable_,
and whoever has the temerity to deny them as _historical_ facts, I
certainly envy not his knowledge of, nor his veracity for, historical
testimony. MARK WELL, I am not going to talk about the soundness, or
unsoundness of the following opinions, but I merely wish you to bear it
in mind, that it is an _indisputable historical_ fact, that these
opinions were really, and conscientiously believed by the Christian world
in former ages. Well, then, the following are undeniable historical
facts: That, in former ages, the Christian world believed that the
Catholic Church, was the first Christian Church, and began with our
Saviour, that St. Peter was appointed, by divine authority, to be the
Head of this Church, that the Popes of Rome were the true successors of
St. Peter, by divine authority, and that they were always considered, the
one Shepherd, to whom all Christendom owed spiritual obedience. All
Christendom, in former ages, with here and there an exception, held these
opinions, and when the Christian religion, was introduced into England
(which was effectually done about six hundred years after our Saviour),
these opinions prevailed in England, as well as in all other Christian
countries. The Pope was the Spiritual Head of the Church here, as well as
in all the Christian world. He exercised His Spiritual authority, without
any co-partnership with, or dependence upon the State. The Catholic
Church then also claimed to hold its possessions in the most independent
manner, it claimed a prescriptive right to all its possessions; in short,
it claimed to hold these possessions as firmly, and as justly, as a man
claims the rightful possession of his life, and his free will. Now, mark
well, I am not talking, as I just now observed, about the soundness or
unsoundness of these opinions, all that I am contending for at present,
is, that it is an indisputable historical fact, that these opinions
_then_ prevailed in all Christian countries, and that they prevailed in
England, for at least nine hundred years, for England was, at the very
least, nine hundred years a Catholic nation. During the prevalence of
these opinions in England, arose churches, parishes, cathedrals, and
bishops' sees, monasteries, and many of our universities, and colleges,
_then_ Catholic, but _now_ Protestant.

Now, it is an historical fact recorded in the English Statute Book, that
your Protestant ancestors took from the Pope, his spiritual power in
England (for he never had any temporal power here, as these pages will
shortly prove to you), and your Protestant ancestors took from the
Catholics all the rich possessions which belonged, in their estimation,
by the strongest titles, to the Catholic Church; and, _mind_, they did
this after the Pope had exercised his spiritual power in England, for at
least nine hundred years, and after the Catholics had held this church
property for at least nine hundred years. But, oh, you will reply, our
Protestant ancestors did this by Act of Parliament! I grant it, and
surely you will not think it unjust in me, to judge you now by your own
acknowledgments. Now, your Protestant ancestors did this _justly_, or
_unjustly_. If they did it _justly_, by act of Parliament, why cannot the
same thing be done again _justly_, by Act of Parliament? Divide the
population of England into two parts, and if you number accurately, you
will find, that the Catholics and the Dissenters form, in my humble
opinion, the greater half. Should, therefore, the Catholics and
Dissenters, obtain an Act of Parliament, to take this church property
from you Protestants, what reasonable arguments could you advance against
it? Turn the question up, or down, you could not possibly escape. If you
allege that you have had possession for three hundred years, the
Catholics and Dissenters will reply, the Catholics had held it for at
least nine hundred years. If you argue it was given by Act of Parliament
to your Protestant Church, the Catholics and Dissenters will reply, the
Catholics held it, by the sanction of Government, for nine hundred years
at least. In short, turn the argument as you please, you are in a
_regular fix_. Oh, what a powerful, and unanswerable argument, have you
forced me to put into the mouths of the Dissenters, against _your_ church
property, even if you got it justly! Allow me then to ask you, why all
this tirade and fury about the _mere fancy_ of a thing being done to you,
which you assert, your ancestors did _justly_ to the Catholics. But if
you took this property _unjustly_ from the Catholics, then it is as plain
as the noon-day sun, that the Protestant Church, was first founded upon
acts of _injustice_.

But some will perhaps imagine, we really wish to take the church property
from the Protestants. In the Catholic times of England, the church
property was divided into three parts, one was for the support of the
clergy, another was for the repair of the churches, and the third was for
the support of the poor, and this third was always administered to the
poor with the most scrupulous exactness.[A] Hence, among all the
barefaced calumnies, which have been uttered against the Catholics, even
her bitterest enemies, could never say that she was unjust to the poor.
But the Protestant _reformed_ Church thought it would be the least
trouble, to put these _three parts_ into _one whole_ sum, and apply the
_whole_ of that sum to _themselves_, and then, leave the nation to supply
the other two parts, by _Church rates_, and _Poor rates_. Now, let the
Protestant Church, only give back to the poor, that part which she
unjustly took from them, and as for the rest, I can only say, God speed
them with it, and long may they enjoy it.

Some of you gentlemen certainly appear, to be _worthy_ descendents of
your Protestant ancestors, for _they_ took from us our church
possessions, _you_ are now enjoying these church possessions, but not
content with our possessions, you wish to deprive us, even of our _very
name_; for you are endeavouring, by every artifice, to deceive the
people, and make them believe--_you_ and not _we_ are the real Catholics.
You remind me of the words of the Poet,

    "Who steals my purse, steals trash,
    'Twas mine, tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
    But he who filches from me my good name,
    Robs me of that which not enriches him, but makes me poor indeed."

You tell the people we <DW7>s are Roman Catholics, but _you_
Protestants, are the _real_ Catholics. Let us then, take up the
Dictionary, and _see_ what is the real meaning of the word, _Catholic_.
According to the Dictionary, the word (Catholic) means universal. Of
course, then, when the word (Catholic) is applied to a Church, it must
mean the Universal Church. Let us then now see _which_ is the Universal
Christian Church, and then we shall be able to judge, who have the
greatest right to the honourable name of Catholic. The testimony which I
shall cite to prove, that we are the most numerous body of Christians, is
that of Macaulay, a celebrated Protestant historian of the present day,
and whose historical pages have been quoted against us, in many of the
late public meetings, that have been held. Of course, if his testimony is
worthy of belief when _against_, it must also be so when _for_ us.
Speaking of the great body of the Roman Catholic Church, Macaulay says,
"The numbers of her communion are certainly not _fewer_ than 150,000,000,
and it will be difficult to shew that all the other Christian sects
_united_ amount to 120,000,000."[B] (Ed. Rev., Oct. 1840, p. 228.) You
here see, that Macaulay tells you, that the Roman Catholics amount to _at
least_ 150,000,000, whilst all other Christian sects _united_ into one
body, scarcely form 120,000,000. As therefore the Roman Catholics form
the greatest body of Christians, they must be the Universal Church. But
the Dictionary tells us, that the word Catholic means Universal,
therefore the Church of Rome is alone both Universal and Catholic, and
consequently has the most just and only claim to the ancient and
honourable name of Catholic.

I thought, gentlemen, before we proceeded to the main subjects in
discussion, we had better settle the two above points. For after you had
seen, that your Protestant ancestors had _really_ and _actually_ done to
the Catholics, what you _merely fancy_ the Pope and the Catholics are
wishful at present to do to you, you would not think it _unreasonable_ in
us, to claim your attention, whilst we shewed you the unreasonable
grounds of your _present_ fears and alarms, and that, after you had seen,
that _we_ have the _only_ just claim to the honourable name of
Catholic,[C] you would not be startled, at hearing so often in these
pages, that ancient name applied to the Spiritual members of the Pope in
these realms.

Let us now, gentlemen, proceed to the subject which has so lately alarmed
you, and many other Englishmen. There is nothing, that shews a man to be
so little, as to bluster, and talk about a subject, which he does not
understand. Now, gentlemen, had you been asked at the meeting, what the
Pope's Bull was? or, what the Catholic Hierarchy meant? what a poser it
would have been to the limbs of the law, or even to the limbs of the
Church, who attended your meeting; for they either understood these
subjects, or they did not. If they really understood them, I am sure
these pages will shew every sensible person, they had no reason to
consider the conduct of the Pope, either "extraordinary or presumptuous,"
and if they did not understand them, I really think it a very
"extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on their part, to talk against
their fellow Christians on subjects, of which they were ignorant. Had I
done so, would they not have been tempted to apply to me the words of the
Poet?

    "A shallow brain beyond a serious mask,
    An Oracle within an empty cask."

For your information therefore, I will state in short, what we Catholics
mean by the Hierarchy, and the Pope's Bull. We all know, that good
_temporal_ government, consists in having all the various rights of its
members, properly understood, and justly protected. Thus the Queen, the
Peers, the Commoners, the Magistrates, in short, the higher classes, the
middle classes, and the lower classes, have all their rights properly
defined, and their several interests justly attended to in a good
temporal government. Now reason tells us, that this ought to be the case
in a good _spiritual_ government, and we Catholics maintain, that these
objects are best attained by the means of a spiritual Hierarchy; and, at
the same time we believe, that this spiritual Hierarchy, can be
established only by the spiritual power of the Pope. When the Pope
therefore thinks, that either the number of his spiritual members, or
their spiritual necessities, require the establishment of the Hierarchy,
in any part of the world, he issues his spiritual Bull, or decrees to
that effect; and all the Archbishops, and Bishops, and Clergy, and laity,
to whom this spiritual government is extended, receive it as a spiritual
boon, and fully understand and believe, that it has regard _only_ to
_spiritual_ matters. They all know, and believe, that it has nothing to
do with any _temporal_ matters whatever, in any shape or form, directly
or indirectly, and if any person, after this explanation, was so impudent
as to maintain, that the Hierarchy, or the Pope's Bull, had any reference
to any _temporal_ matters, either directly, or indirectly, affecting the
_temporal_ power of Her Majesty, over Her Catholic subjects, and the
_temporal_ allegiance which they owe to Her Majesty, my loyalty for our
gracious Queen, and my feelings of honour, would tempt me to address him
in the words of the Poet,

        "A lie, an odious lie,
    Upon my word, a lie, a wicked lie."

Gentlemen, after this short explanation of the Hierarchy, and of the
Pope's Bull, I appeal to you as free-born Englishmen, whether there can
be any English law, or statute against it? If there be, where is our
vaunted boast, of "liberty of conscience _to all_?" Now MARK, whether
there be any law in the Statute Book against it, I do not pretend to have
sufficient of the lawyer in me to determine, but _this_, I will shew you,
that the acts of the Pope, in establishing the spiritual Hierarchy in
this kingdom, by his Bull, or spiritual decrees, are in keeping with the
spirit, upon which the English law has acted during these late years.

By the spirit of the English law, we, Catholics, are allowed to maintain
the Pope's supremacy in ecclesiastical, and religious matters; we are
also allowed to be governed by Catholic Bishops, and of course, we are
allowed to be governed by them, according to the proper and perfect form
of Episcopal government, and there is no English law, to prevent these
Catholic Bishops from taking the titles of any place, provided they are
not titles of places, held by the Anglican Hierarchy. Now, these
conditions have been observed, in the late establishment of the Catholic
Hierarchy in these realms.

And that it is in keeping with the spirit of the English Law, Lord John
Russell's own words, will convince you. In the House of Commons, August
6th, 1846, he said, "There is another offence of introducing a Bull of
the Pope into the country, the question is, whether it is desirable to
keep up that, or any other penalty, for such an offence. It does appear
to me, that we cannot possibly attempt, to prevent the introduction of
the Pope's Bulls into this country. There are certain Bulls of the Pope,
which are _absolutely necessary_, for the appointment of Bishops and
Pastors, belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. It would be quite
_impossible_, to prevent the introduction of such Bulls." (Hansard, vol.
lxxxviii., p. 362.) Again, what said Lord Lyndhurst, speaking, in the
House of Lords. "You tolerate the Catholic Prelates, and you know, that
these Prelates cannot carry on, their Church Establishment, without
holding communication with the Pope of Rome. If the laws allow the
doctrine, and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, it (the Roman
Catholic Church) ought to be permitted, to be carried on _perfectly_ and
_properly_." (Hansard, vol. lxxxv., p. 1261.) So you see, that this Noble
Lord proclaims, that to pretend to _tolerate_ the Catholic Religion as we
do; and _yet_, _prevent_ the Catholics from holding _free_ communication
with the Pope, would be a mere nullity. The Catholics, says he, should be
allowed to carry out the organization of their Church _perfectly_ and
_properly_. Now, _this_ cannot be done without the _Hierarchy_.
Accordingly, all the penal laws in question were, then and there, torn
from the statute book.

Also Joseph Hume, Esq., who may be justly styled, the father of the
present House of Commons, and who, in that House, has been so long the
promoter, the pillar, and the bulwark of civil and religious liberty,
honourably, and openly, tells the world, that the Pope is warranted, in
all he has done, by the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel's government.
These are the words of the noble champion of civil and religious
liberty--"Your view of the subject, will be adopted as soon as the
thinking part of the public, get their eyes opened to the real merits of
the alleged innovation. I say alleged, because Mr. C. C. Grenville has
shewn, that the Pope is warranted in all he has done, by the proceedings
of Sir Robert Peel's government, which were not at the time objected to
by any person, except by Sir Robert Inglis, and his limited
class."--(Joseph Hume, to the Editor of the _Hull Advertiser_, Nov. 18th,
1850.)

There was a time, when the Protestant Bishops were excluded, for some
time, from the House of Lords. In 1661, a motion was made to restore
these Protestant Prelates to their seats, and _mind_, six and twenty
Catholic Peers voted in favour of these Protestant Bishops. But such is
the illiberality of the present time, that now, the Catholics find the
most determined and eager opposition on the Bishop's bench. There are,
however, exceptions; few, indeed, but on that account, more entitled to
our gratitude. Long will the name of the late Bishop of Norwich, be
cherished in the remembrance of every sincere Catholic. And happy am I to
observe, another Protestant Prelate, willing to walk in his charitable
footsteps. I mean the sensible, the pious, and the learned present
Protestant Bishop of St. Davids. This illustrious Protestant Prelate,
liberally and candidly, told the Archbishop of Canterbury, that in his
humble opinion, "the provision cited from the Act of Elizabeth, has been
virtually repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act * * * * And it was
equally set 'at defiance,' by the appointment of Vicars Apostolic, who
have so long exercised their functions without complaint or molestation.
And it seems unreasonable, to charge the Pope with defying a law which,
has been so long permitted to sleep." For these and other reasons, this
most liberal minded Protestant Prelate, lately refused to sign the
address of the other Protestant Bishops to the Queen. (Bishop of St.
Davids to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Nov. 26th, 1850.) Well I cannot
but gratefully, address this generous Prelate in the words of the poet--

                      ----"I quit you now,
    But peradventure I may come again!
    Your bounteous kindness ne'er shall be forgot,
    While beats this warm heart within my bosom."

Certainly, you will say, these are high, and weighty authorities on the
Catholic side, and clearly demonstrate, that there can be nothing wrong,
on the Pope's sending his _Bulls_, into _this_ country. But, perhaps, the
_greatest_ grievance lies in _this_, that the _Catholic_ Bishops, have
assumed _English_ titles, calling themselves Bishops of Hexham, of
Beverley, &c. _This_, you hear it said, is _contrary to all_ law and
decency. Now, _mark_, gentlemen, how soon I shall prove to you, that it
is neither against law, nor decency. I observe that the law as it regards
Catholics, _forbids only one_ thing, it forbids _Catholic_ Bishops, to
assume the titles of _Protestant_ sees. Thus it forbids us, to have an
Archbishop of _Canterbury_, or a Bishop of _London_, of _Durham_, &c. And
why so? Because there are _Protestant_ Bishops of _these_ places. But it
_manifestly_ allows us to take the titles of _those_ places, in which,
there are no Protestant Bishops. For, if the law meant, to exclude us
from _all_ places and _all_ titles _whatsoever_, why did it _not say so_?
But, it says _no such_ thing. It excludes us _only_ from places where
there are _Protestant_ Bishops. Well, this restrictive law, the _only_
law, that there is upon the question, has been most _scrupulously_
observed in _every_ instance by the Catholics. Not _one_ of their
Bishops, has assumed the title of any _Protestant_ see. For who ever
heard of a _Protestant_ Bishop of Hexham, of Beverley, or of Liverpool.
How then can it be contrary to law? But I have yet, more to say on this
subject. Lord John Russell is an advocate for the repeal of _even_ this
_restrictive_ law, which he considers, an absurdity in a land of
religious liberty. Nay, he considers it _childish_ to hold the Catholics
under such restrictions. "I believe," said he (in July 19th, 1845,
speaking in the House of Commons,) "I believe we may repeal, those
insulting clauses, which prevent a Roman Catholic assuming a title held,
by a Bishop of the Established Church. I can conceive _no good_ grounds,
for the continuance of this restriction." (Hansard, vol. lxxxii., p.
290.) And again on February 5, 1846, "as to preventing persons assuming
_particular_ titles, nothing can be more _absurd_ and _puerile_, than to
keep up _such_ a distinction." (Hansard, vol. lxxxiii., p. 502.) Now,
gentlemen, _this_ was spoken in the _House of Commons_, and by the
_first_ Minister of the Crown. You see, _he_ vindicates for the
Catholics, _greater_ liberty than _they_ have either _exercised_, or
_demanded_; the liberty to have Catholic Bishops, _side_ by _side_, with
the _Protestant_ Bishops _throughout_ the land. And yet, let me ask, did
the then Member for _Whitby_, or indeed _any_, of the thirty and more
members, who represent this great county of York, raise a _voice_ against
_these_ opinions and views? Did they cry out, that _this_, would be _an
innovation_ of the _Royal_ prerogative, and an _encroachment_ upon the
_spiritual_, or _civil_ liberties of this realm. No, _not they_, not
_one_ of them. Both the _Parliament_ and the _Public_ heard _all_ this,
either with _approbation_, or with _indifference_. Judge, then, with what
scorn the Catholics, hear themselves charged with insidiousness, and
aggression. Insidiousness! Why, the leaders of the two great portions, in
the state (for who stood _higher_ with the _Tories_ than _Lord
Lyndhurst_, and among the _Whigs_, than _Lord John Russell_), and yet,
these _two_ leaders, _actually_ encouraged, and invited the Catholics _to
do_, what they _have_ done. I repeat, they not only claimed for the
Catholics the _right to do_ them, but _encouraged_ them _to do_ them.
After the Catholics had _thus_ been encouraged, and backed by two of the
first leaders, _one_ of the Whigs, and _one_ of the _Tories_, after they
had received the sanction of the _public_ by its silence, or indifference
on these points, the Catholics at last received the Hierarchy from the
Pope's hands; when lo! Lord John Russell, immediately writes a flaming
philippic on the subject, suddenly and unjustly rouses the indignation of
the people; and the Protestant clergy immediately head the crusade
against the Catholics, for _doing_, what they had been encouraged, and
invited _to do_ by two of the first ministers of the land, and _for
doing_, what the English _public_ had _already_ sanctioned, by its
silence, or by its indifference. Really, gentlemen, was not this a "most
extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the _rights_ of your Catholic
fellow subjects? And, _this_, in the _nineteenth_ century, when the march
of intellect, and of civil, and religious liberty, have been making such
rapid progress in the British Empire. But what have I to say to Lord John
Russell's late letter? I answer, it is not _my_ business to reconcile
Lord John Russell's _former_ declarations, with _his present late_
proceedings, they are as _marvellous_ and _unaccountable_ in the _eyes_
of the _public_, as they are in _mine_. He will shortly have to give an
account of his stewardship, before the Parliament, in whose _presence_,
he made the _declarations_, which I have _quoted_. If he _means_ to
continue a _Champion_ of _civil_ and _religious_ liberty, he must
_retrace_ his steps--but if he chooses to _abandon_ the _sacred_ cause,
_then_, he will dwindle into a _most insignificant_, and _contemptible_
statesman: and will not be _permitted long to direct_ the government of a
_free_ and _liberal_ people.

Thus you see, gentlemen, that the words of Lord John Russell, and of Lord
Lyndhurst, the opinion of Joseph Hume, Esq., and that of the learned
Protestant Bishop of St. Davids, plainly shew, that the late acts of the
Pope, have been in keeping, with the present spirit of the English law.

Hence in Ireland, the Catholic Hierarchy, has not only been recognised,
but royally honoured; and the same form of Ecclesiastical Government, has
been gradually extended, to the greater part of our Colonies. Australia
was the first, which obtained this spiritual advantage, and this was
_openly_ done, and was _publicly_ known, and yet, no remonstrance was
ever made against it. The Catholic Prelates of Australia, in every
document, are addressed by their titles, and are acknowledged, and
salaried, as Archbishops and Bishops, respectively, and this not by one,
but by successive English governments. Our North American possessions,
were the next, to receive this spiritual government, Kingston, Byetown,
Toronto, and Halifax, have been erected into dioceses by the Holy See,
and the titles of their respective Bishops, are acknowledged by their
local governments. The Holy See, has also formed a new ecclesiastical
province in the West Indies, where several Vicars Apostolic, have been
appointed with titles, and with all the spiritual powers, allowed by the
Hierarchy. Now, gentlemen, if the Catholics of _Ireland_, and the
Catholics of our _English_ Colonies, are thus allowed by Government, to
enjoy the spiritual benefits of the Hierarchy, do you not think it
unreasonable, that the Catholics _of England_, should be refused the same
spiritual blessings? Do not the Dissenters also, enjoy in England, the
free exercise of _their_ spiritual powers? Dr. Dillon, assumed the power,
and ordained, what he called Presbyters, and no Englishman thought
proper, to call him to account, for assuming those spiritual powers. The
Moravians, and the Irvinites or the Apostolicals, have their Bishops in
England, and yet, they are not taxed with illegality. The Scotch Kirk,
the Baptists, the Methodists, the Quakers, the Independents, the
Presbyterians, and all other Dissenters, appoint their Ministers for
themselves, and mark the limits of the separate districts, in which they
are to exercise their spiritual authority, and yet, no one has the
presumption, to question the legality of their exercising such authority
in England. If therefore, all these various dissenting sects are allowed
these spiritual privileges, why should the English free-born Catholics,
be debarred from them?

Her present Majesty was advised to erect, and did erect, (5 Vic. cap. 6.)
a Bishopric of Jerusalem, and assigned to it a diocese, in which the
three great Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, were
formed into one See, which had episcopal jurisdiction over Syria,
Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia, and subject to further limitations, or
alterations at the Royal Will. Now do any of these possessions belong to
Her Majesty? No. But you may reply, there are in some, and may be in
others, British Protestants, and therefore, the Queen thought proper, to
extend Her spiritual blessings to them. Granted. Why therefore, has not
the Pope, an equal right to extend _his_ spiritual blessings to the
Catholics of England? It is plain then, that the Irish Catholics, and the
Catholics of many of our Colonies, are allowed to exercise _their_
spiritual rights unmolested, it is plain that all other dissenting sects,
are allowed to enjoy in England the same spiritual privileges, and it is
plain likewise, that the Queen assumes and exercises abroad, in the most
independent manner, Her spiritual powers, tell me then, in the name of
common sense, by what law, either human, or divine, you wish to deprive
the English Catholics of the free exercise of _their_ spiritual rights?

Oh, but you will object, "the Pope has assumed a right over us
Protestants, he has parcelled out the land of England, he has named
Archbishops and Bishops, and appointed them to rule over _us_, whom he
impudently styles heretics." To this objection, gentlemen, I reply, Do
the Catholics in England acknowledge the Queen's supremacy in _spiritual_
matters? Do the Dissenters of England acknowledge Her supremacy in
_spiritual_ matters? No. Now divide the English population into two
parts, and if you calculate accurately, you will find, that the greater
half of the English population, consists of Catholics and Dissenters, who
do not acknowledge the Queen's _spiritual_ supremacy. But when the Queen
issues Her Spiritual Instruments, or if you please, Bulls, does she not
parcel out the land of England? Does she not name Archbishops, and
Bishops, and _apparently_ appoint them to rule over _us Catholics_ and
_Dissenters_, in short, does _She_ not in those Spiritual Instruments, or
Bulls, _apparently_ assume over _us_ Catholics and Dissenters, the very
same spiritual power, which the Pope appears to assume, in His Bulls,
over Protestant Englishmen? But do you ever hear of us Catholics, or
Dissenters, styling this an extraordinary movement on the part of the
Queen? No. Because we have the common sense to know, that such parcelling
out of the land, and such extension of Her _Spiritual_ Authority to her
Archbishops, and Bishops, regard only the _real_ Protestants of the land,
and that they have no more to do with us and the Dissenters, in a
_spiritual_ point of view, than they have with the inhabitants of Turkey.

If you would likewise ask some of the limbs of the law, who attended your
meeting, they would inform you, that in Acts of Parliament, that in
deeds, and in the drawing up almost all the various instruments of the
law, there are certain forms, which to _us_ appear most ridiculous, and
outrageous, and if you questioned them on these points, and asked them,
about all this strange rigmarole of words and of phraseology, they would
tell you, it is only a certain necessary form in law, and that although
it may appear strange _to other_ people, still, it is perfectly
understood _by all_, who are versed in the laws of the land.[D] Why
cannot these gentlemen, therefore, have the good sense to extend this
explanation to the Pope's Bull, and then they would find this parcelling
out the land by the Pope's Bull, and this delegation of spiritual power,
of Archbishops, and Bishops, as if extending to Protestants, was a mere
phantom of their own imagination, and that in reality, it regarded
_none_, but the _spiritual_ subjects of the _Pope_ in this kingdom, and
that it did not regard _even them_, only in a _spiritual_, and _not_ in a
_temporal_ point of view, either directly or indirectly.

I observe, in your public notice for your meeting, two Dissenting
Ministers, put their names to the requisition. Now, although the
Protestant Church may _honour_ these gentlemen, with the name of
_Reverend_, does it consider them to be ministers? It certainly does
not.[E] And I will prove it to you. If these Ministers were to go over to
the _Protestant_ Church, it would ordain them, and by that act, tell them
that _before_, they were mere _phantoms_ of Ministers, and that they had
_never_ had any spiritual power, or jurisdiction whatever. If therefore
the orthodox Protestant gentleman, whose name stands so conspicuously
between these two Dissenting Reverends, were to be asked, why he styled
them Reverends, when his own Church, considers them as mere phantoms of
Ministers, what would he say? Of course he would tell us, it was a mere
matter of courtesy, for he was obliged to agree with his Church, that
they were mere phantoms of Ministers. Now, gentlemen, just apply this to
the Pope's Bull in _your_ regard. You read the Pope's Bull, and
erroneously imagine that the spiritual powers, which it asserts, really
regards (or is to regard) you Protestants. Whereas you ought to consider
it, as a _mere phantom_ of _spiritual_ power in _your_ regard, and I
moreover add, you ought to consider it, as a mere phantom in any
_temporal_ point of view, even as it regards _the Catholics_. Do this,
gentlemen, and then, you will perceive, that the idea of it extending to
_you_ Protestants, either in any _spiritual_, or _temporal_ point of
view, whatever, is a mere chimera of your own imaginations.

But after all, I know many of you will _still_ urge, that the Pope may
_gradually_ extend his _spiritual_ power over you, and then, by degrees
extend his _temporal_ power over you, until at last, he has completely
established over you his spiritual and temporal domination. Gentlemen, I
will answer this argument shortly indeed, but I hope satisfactorily, and
I feel confident that, unless you are as the poet says,

    "Convince a man against his will,
    He'll hold the same opinion still,"

you will be convinced, from what I shall advance, that the above
objection, is another chimera of your own imaginations.

True and genuine religion, must be founded on the free, and spontaneous
consent of the heart. If therefore, you Protestants ever allow the Pope,
to extend his spiritual power over you, _without_ having _first_
sincerely, and deliberately considered the _real_ grounds of the Catholic
Faith, and of the Pope's title to spiritual supremacy, and without your
having _first_ given your _free_, and _spontaneous_ consent to them, I
hope you will forgive me, if I politely tell you, I should consider you
as a set of religious donkeys, and that you ought not to be allowed to
_bray_ in this free country.

But you will object, it will be _you_ Catholics headed by the Pope, that
will make us renounce the _Protestant_, and embrace the _Catholic_ faith.
To this objection I answer. First, the Catholics of England have promised
to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of their power, the
succession to the crown. Now, this succession, by an act entitled, "an
act for the further limitation of the crown", is, and stands limited to
the Princess Sophia, Electress, Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and to the
heirs of her Body, _being Protestants_. Such are the very terms of the
oath, which we Catholics have taken; as long therefore, as the
Established Church is secure of having a Protestant Sovereign, it cannot
be in any danger of subversion.

Secondly. The Irish Catholics have gone still further, and to silence
even the predictions of their enemies, have disclaimed, disavowed, and
solemnly abjured every intention, to subvert the present Church
Establishment, for the purpose of substituting a Catholic Establishment
in its stead, and have solemnly sworn, that they will not exercise any
privilege, to which they are, or may be entitled, to disturb, or weaken
the Protestant religion in that kingdom.

Thirdly. But I will suppose for a moment, that the Catholics were at last
to determine to perjure themselves, and to violate the promises, to
which they are so solemnly pledged, let us see the obstacles, they would
have to surmount. First, there would be the Sovereign, the head of the
Protestant Church, with the immense patronage of the Crown at her (or
his) disposal; secondly, there would be all the spiritual Peers, and with
the exception of a few Catholics, all the temporal Peers; thirdly, there
would be the great majority in the House of Commons, in proportion to at
least, ten Protestants to one Catholic. Now, by what spirit of magic, are
a _few_ Catholic Peers, to become the _majority_ of the House of Lords,
or is _one_ Catholic Commoner, to outvote _ten_ Protestants. By what
miracle, is the Queen (or King) to abandon the defence of _that_ Church,
of which she (or he) is by conviction a member, and by law, supreme head?
By what manoeuvres, are the Catholics so to blind the confidence of the
Sovereign, as to worm themselves into the possession of all places, of
power, and trust? Before the Catholics can aid the Pope to extend his
temporal or spiritual power over you Protestants, they will have to
surmount all the above obstacles. But by what human power can they ever
surmount the above obstacles? Really, gentlemen, is it not childish to
talk either about Catholics forcing you to become Catholics, or their
wishing to aid the Pope, to extend his spiritual or temporal domination
over you Protestants, with all the above obstacles staring you in the
face.

But, gentlemen, if on the other hand, you should think proper to
seriously, and conscientiously, examine the _real_ grounds of the
Catholic religion, and if you should think proper, to examine
_seriously_, and _conscientiously_, whether the Pope, is the _real_
successor of Saint Peter, and of course in that case, the _real_
spiritual head of Christ's Church, if you should ask yourselves the
reason, why the Catholic Faith, has been the belief of the most
extensive, and enlightened nations of Europe, and of the most illustrious
characters, that ever did honour to the name of man,[F] if upon careful
investigation, you should find that the Catholic Faith, was the faith of
those, who built our Cathedrals, who erected our Universities, who laid
the foundation of our envied Constitution, and who secured the great
charter of our rights at Runnymede, in short, if you should find that the
members of this creed, have in every age, stood forth the champions of
liberty, and at the same time remained faithful worshippers of God, if
after the most careful, and impartial investigation, you should find all
these things to be real, and undeniable facts, _then_ I would address you
in the words, with which St. Paul addressed King Agrippa, "I would to
God, that both in little, and in much, not only thou, but also, all that
hear me this day, should become such as I also am, except these bonds."
(Acts, ch. xxvi., v. 28.) Yes, gentlemen, I repeat it, if after the most
serious, and minute investigation, you should find the above things
_real_, and _undeniable_ facts, _then_, gentlemen, the sincere wish of my
heart would be, that you might all become Catholics, and the _spiritual_
children of the head of our Church, but, _mind_, without our bonds, that
is, without having to suffer, what our Catholic ancestors had to suffer
for their faith,[G] a faith, which they conscientiously held as their
best inheritance, and which, they held more dear, than life itself.

I would also address you in the words, in which Gamaliel, a doctor of the
law, addressed the Jewish Council respecting the Apostles, who were
unjustly cast into prison. "And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain
from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel, or this work, be
of men, it will come to nought; but if it be of God, you cannot overthrow
it, lest perhaps, even you be found to fight against God." (Acts, ch. 5,
v. 38, 39.) Gentlemen, if the Catholic Faith, be an invention of _human_
counsel, and a work of _human_ policy, rest assured, it will of _itself_
crumble into nought, but if it be _of God_, and if it be the _will of
God_, that England should return to her ancient faith, you cannot
overthrow it, and you cannot fight against God, for as the wise man says,
"there is no wisdom, there is no prudence, there is no counsel against
the Lord." (Prov. ch. xxi., v. 30.)

Gentlemen, I think you must acknowledge, that I have answered, shortly
indeed, but I hope satisfactorily, your objection, as to the Pope's
gradually extending his _spiritual_, and temporal domination over you
Protestants. Gentlemen, I am not aware, that any one at your meeting, was
so uncourteous as to throw in the face of Catholics, either the
Gunpowder, or Oates' plots. Still, you are aware, that it has been done
at _many_ of the late meetings, and in many places of England, to the
injustice of Catholics. Allow me, to solicit your attention, whilst I say
a few words respecting each of these plots, and whilst I show you, it is
most unjust to throw those diabolical plots in the face of Catholics,
either of the present, or of former ages.

The Guy Fawkes plot, or as it is usually termed, the Gunpowder Plot, is
often sneeringly, and insultingly thrown in the face of Catholics. Now
let it be remembered, that the original conspirators were only eight in
number, that they were also of the most abandoned character, and that
some of them, years before, had abjured the Catholic faith, and let it
also be remembered, that this plot was disclosed even by a Catholic, Lord
Monteagle, and that the Pope in a letter expressed his detestation of it,
and ordered the Catholic clergy, to prevent by all means in their power,
all similar conspiracies, and to exhort the people to patience and
obedience. Now I ask, is it reasonable, that the wicked deeds of these
few and abandoned conspirators, should be thrown in the face of the whole
body of Catholics; as well might you upbraid our Saviour with the crimes
of Judas. The plot was unknown to all good Catholics, they had nothing
whatever to do with it, and it, and all other plotting whatever, were
condemned and forbidden in the most severe manner, by the Clergy and the
Pope. What could Catholics do more? Why, therefore, are the Catholics of
the present times to be condemned for a plot with which they had no more
to do, than the Protestants of the present day? But I will suppose for a
moment, this diabolical plot was concocted by real Catholics. Can it be
unreasonably urged, against the Catholics of the present day? If you
answer, yes, I will then prove that the Ministers who attended your
meeting, were cursers, murderers, and deserters of Christ. For if you ask
each of them, if he is a minister of Christ, he will answer, certainly.
Well, then, one of the Apostles betrayed our Saviour, another by oaths
and curses, denied him, and all deserted him on the night of his passion.
Now, if the above line of argumentation, against Catholics be valid, then
I may conclude, that the Ministers who attended your meeting, were
murderers, cursers, deniers, and deserters of Christ. Really, if I were
to adopt this mode of argumentation against them, you would think, and
justly, the _upper stories_ of my intellect were of a very strange
structure. How can persons, therefore, have the barefacedness to apply
such reasoning to the Catholics of the present day, respecting the
Gunpowder Plot.

Whoever will read the history of Titus Oates's Plot, will find that it
was concocted against the Catholics, by some of the brightest characters
for rascality, and perjury, and infamy, and cruelty, that the world ever
beheld. Oates' plot consisted in this, that he accused the Catholics, and
Jesuits in particular, of a plot, to murder King Charles the II., (1678),
to transfer the sovereignty of the realm to the Pope, and to extirpate
the Protestant religion from the land. But was not Titus Oates himself a
_Jesuit_, or at least, a _Catholic_? You shall hear who Titus Oates was,
from the _pen_ of _Protestant_ Historians.

"Oates, the former of this dreadful plot, was himself the most infamous
of mankind. He was the son of an Anabaptist preacher, took orders in the
Church of England, became chaplain on board the fleet, and was dismissed
for some unnatural practices, not fit to be named." (See Hume's History.)
You shall hear too, who his accomplices were; "Bedloe, a man, if
_possible_, more infamous than Oates himself;" (See Hume's History.) And
these were soon backed by others. "A wretch, named Carstairs led the way,
and soon, from all the brothels, gambling houses, and spunging houses of
London, _false witnesses_ poured in, to swear away the lives of Roman
Catholics." (See Macaulay's History of England.) And yet, on the
barefaced testimony, of these abandoned, and infamous wretches, the
Catholic Noblemen and Gentlemen, were, with the exception of the Duke of
York, expelled from their seats in Parliament. Some of them, (although as
innocent of the crimes of which they were accused, as the new-born babe),
were tried, and executed on the false, and contradictory evidence, of
these base wretches. All of them, died protesting their innocence; and
many of them, embraced the opportunity to declare their abhorrence, of
the doctrines so commonly, but so unjustly, attributed to Catholics.
Their speeches at the place of execution, are still on record. (See "A
Remonstrance of Piety and Innocence," 1683. Dodd's History, vol. iii., p.
356.) And if ever a man, may be believed to speak with sincerity, it is
when, in the full possession of his senses, he stands on the brink of
eternity, and expects the next moment, to be presented before an
Omniscient Judge. One of them, Lord Stafford, referred the Peers, at his
trial, for an account of his religious creed, to a small tract, entitled
"Catholic Principles." This small tract has often been printed, and was
then, and is still, considered to convey an accurate notion of the
Catholic faith. Well may Hume say, that "this Popish plot, is an
incident, which, for the credit of the nation, it were better to bury in
eternal oblivion, but which it is necessary to perpetuate, both for the
truth of history, and to warn, if possible, their posterity, and all
mankind, never again to fall into so _shameful_, so _barbarous_ a
_delusion_." (See Hume's History.) And yet Oates was rewarded with
appointments in the Royal Palace, and had L1200 a year assigned him, as
the wages of his iniquity, and Bedloe L500: and Oates was called "the
Saviour of the nation."

But how did these wretches come off at last? You shall hear again, from
Mr. Macaulay. About seven years later, when the madness, and the delusion
of the people, had passed away, it was resolved, to bring these
wretches, who had spilled so much blood, to their _own_ trial. "Some of
the wretches," (says Macaulay) "were already beyond the reach of justice.
Bedloe had died in his wickedness, without one sign of remorse or shame.
Dugdale had followed him to the grave, driven mad by the furies of an
evil conscience, and with loud shrieks, imploring those, who stood around
his bed, to take away Lord Stafford. (A Catholic Lord, whose life he had
sworn away, seven years ago.) Carstairs, too, was gone. His end, was all
horror, and despair, and with his last breath, he told his attendants to
throw him into a ditch, like a dog, for that he was not fit, to sleep in
Christian burial ground." Mr. Macaulay thus describes Oates' appearance,
at _his_ trial. "A few years earlier, his short neck, his legs uneven, as
those of a badger, his forehead low, as that of a baboon, his purple
cheeks, and monstrous length of chin, had been familiar to all, who
frequented the courts of law. He had been the idol of the nation--men had
uncovered their heads to him, and called him, the deliverer of his
country. They _now shuddered_ at the sight of the _hideous_ features, on
which _villany_ seemed to be written, by the _hand of God_." (See
Macaulay's History of England.) Horrible as were the sufferings of Oates,
they did not equal his crimes. Such, gentlemen, is a short, but true
account of Titus Oates's Plot, and of his abandoned, and perjured
accomplices. And yet, some have the audacity to throw this infamous plot,
in the face of the Catholics, even at the present day. To such I would
say, "you are either ignorant of history, or not; if you are ignorant of
history, it is the part of a simpleton, to talk on subjects which he does
not understand." But if you are acquainted with history, I beg to address
you in the words of the poet--

    "A moral, sensible, and well bred man,
    Will not offend me, and no other can."

Gentlemen, I now appeal to you, if it is not evident from what I have
advanced in the preceding pages, that the late crusade against Catholics,
has been most unjust, and most cruel. If you will seriously, and coolly,
and impartially consider what has been advanced, you must be convinced,
that all your alarms, and those of many other Englishmen, are mere
chimeras of your own imaginations. But if, to some of you, the above
reasoning does not appear satisfactory, I am sure it will to every
sensible and unbiased Englishman. Englishmen, indeed, like all other
nations, have _their faults_, and _their perfections_. In times of
general excitement, and of public panic, nothing is too absurd, for their
credulity. In the hour of excitement, and of public panic, _pigmies_,
appear _giants_ to them, and _mole-hills_, swell into _mountains_.
Witness the late railway mania. This mania, spread like wildfire, through
the higher, the middle, and even the lower classes, and threw the whole
nation, into a fever of excitement. Before their excited imaginations,
rose the golden dreams of their _six_, and _eight_, and _ten_ per cent.,
of railways, as the _best_ and _surest_ investment for their property, in
short, as the easiest and most direct means, of turning their mole-hills
of money into mountains of gold. _In vain_, were Englishmen warned, and
cautioned by _sensible_, and _thinking_ persons, _against_ these _golden_
prospects of their excited imaginations. Convinced, they either _would
not_, or _could not_ be. But lo! the mighty bubble burst, and then, to
their loss, and sorrow, they both _saw_, and _acknowledged_ the _folly_
of their former excitement, of their _railway golden dreams_.

Again, I say, when Englishmen return to their _cooler_ moments, and
_seriously_ reflect, on all the _late hubbub_, about _Pope's Bulls_, and
_Guy Fawkes_, and _Gunpowder Plots_, and _Catholic Mummeries and
Superstitions_, I feel confident, they will verify the words of Dr.
Hughes, the Catholic Prelate of New York, who lately preached in London,
on his way to Rome. "I am sure (says this distinguished Prelate,) that
this great, and liberal nation, (England) _will_, after this _temporary_
excitement is _over_, _be ashamed_ of their _present_ conduct, and will
be _astonished_, how they could _ever think_, of proposing any steps,
which tended to _abridge_, the _liberty_ of _any_ portion, of their
countrymen, and violate that freedom in religion, which _is their boast_.
The (English) Ministry _cannot_ go _one_ step back, upon the track of
_persecutions_, if they make but _one_ step, in _that_ direction, they
will be _condemned_, by _every liberal_ minded man, and will be looked
upon, with _contempt_ by the _rest_ of the nations of the _world_." (Dr.
Hughes' Sermon. London, December 1st, 1850.)

Hence we find, that _most_, of the _great_ and _enlightened_ statesmen of
_England_, always _boldly_, and _freely_, advocated the freedom, and
liberties of the _Catholics_. _As long_, as we retain _any_ respect for
genius, and discernment, for Parliamentary eloquence, and political
wisdom, the names of Pitt, and of Fox, of Burke, and of Windham, of
Canning, and of Peel, will stand _foremost_, in the _public_ estimation.
These eminent statesmen, however they might _differ_ on _other_ subjects,
concurred in supporting the _cause_ of the _Catholics_. _Their's_ was the
conviction of _liberal_, and _enlightened_ minds, who forgot the
distinctions of _party_, in their _zeal_, to serve the cause of
_justice_, and of _freedom_. Yes, they _well knew_, that the _British_
Constitution, was _not_ a constitution of _restraints_, and _penalties_,
that it was _framed_ to preserve the rights of _freemen_, that it was
formed, for the _whole_, not for a _part_, and that it was destined, like
the sun, to shed its benign influence _upon all_. And _hence_, they knew,
that they could not _better_ consult its _prosperity_ and _stability_,
than by fearlessly, and manfully battling, for _equal_ rights, and
_equal_ justice _to all_.

Gentlemen, I must now beg leave to retire, as my presence is required, in
a _more august_ assembly. You know, your address to the Magistrates for
calling a meeting, &c., was _headed_ by certain Protestant Ministers, and
you know also, that most of their fellow labourers in the vineyard, of
the Protestant Church, have been most _active_, and _zealous_ in the
_late_ crusade against the _Catholics_. Now, to pass over these reverend
gentlemen with _silent_ contempt, would be, in my humble opinion, an act
of great _incivility_, and _disrespect_ on _my_ part; and which, _they_
might perhaps consider, _a most extraordinary_, and _presumptuous
movement_, on _my_ part; I beg leave, gentlemen, therefore, to adjourn to
this _august_ assembly, and as I shall have to show these reverend
gentlemen, what "an extraordinary and presumptuous movement," _their
Protestant_ Church, has been making, _for a long time_, on the _pockets_,
and on the _intellects_ of Englishmen, I shall be very glad, if you will
accompany me, and see verified the poetical words of my two texts,
annexed to my first _little_ address to you--

    "I would you had been there to see
    How the light blazed up so gloriously."

          "And then in naked majesty,
    With brow serene, and beaming placid light,
    Came truth."

FOOTNOTES:

[A] Lingard's Anglo-Saxon, vol. 1, p. 189, 190.

[B] Macaulay, tells us, that the number of Roman Catholics is not fewer
than 150,000,000, and that it would be difficult to shew that all the
other Christian sects united, amount, to 120,000,000. I quite agree with
his words, "not fewer," and "it would be difficult to shew;" for upon an
accurate calculation, it would be found that the Catholics amount nearer
to 200,000,000, than to 150,000,000, and that all the other Christian
sects, united into one body, are nearer 100,000,000, than 120,000,000.
However, Macaulay's statement is quite sufficient to prove what we have
cited it for, viz:--that the Roman Catholics are the greatest body of
Christians, and therefore have the best title to the ancient and
honourable name of Catholic.

[C] In the Apostle's Creed, _we all_ profess to believe in the _Holy
Catholic_ Church. Now, if this is not _our_ Church, I would ask, what
Church _is it_? Is it the collection of sects which have sprung from the
Reformation? But, then, it would not be _Catholic_, for as they are the
smaller number, they cannot claim universality. Is it the Theological
hodge-podge, the farrago of all the religions, which believe in the
Gospel? Then it cannot be _Holy_, for we should form the _principal_ part
of it, and you know, the immaculate Church of England tells us, our
doctrines are idolatrous. I really think, people had better leave us in
the _quiet_ possession of our old inheritance, the honourable and ancient
name of Catholic, and _then_ they would avoid the above ridiculous
consequences.

[D] I have sometimes been asked, and the question has sometimes been
slyly popped to me, and to others, by certain limbs of the law, if I was
a _Jesuit_? I answer first, that I have not the honour to belong to that
learned, and much calumniated body, the Jesuits. I answer secondly, I
perfectly understood the _sly_ drift of these _questions_, and
_inuendoes_. It was as good as to say, "Jesuitism is a strange compound
of all kinds of tricks and quirks, and of mental reservations, and
deceptions. Now this little spectacle fellow, is one of them, and
therefore, he is up to all the Jesuitical trade, and is a perfect
specimen of it. Nay, I believe, that he could slyly board us with his
Jesuitical tricks, _even_ while we were looking on." Well, one good turn
certainly deserves another. And now, I must as politely as I can, tell
these limbs of the law, that if I am to judge of the law from the little,
that I have really seen, and know about _them_, and that if Jesuitism be
_really_, what they _imagine_ it is, and if the whole of England ever
became Catholic, and then, from Catholicism jumped to Jesuitism, in this
case, I certainly think that these limbs of the law, will not have to
study, the celestial arts of Jesuitism, as pourtrayed in their own
imagination; for they will be _already_, perfectly dubbed masters of
Israel in that art, and they will certainly occupy distinguished places,
in the various departments of _mental reservations_, pious frauds, and
charitable tricks and quirks upon their neighbour's pockets. Really this
reminds me of Paddy, who had just arrived from Ireland, and was
_sneeringly_ asked by a _busy_ Englishman, what kind of a crop of
Murphies, they had had in Ireland? Pat had a shillalah in his hand, he up
with it, knocked down the Englishman, and said; "And sure your honour, we
have had a very good crop of Murphies, and you may know it by the feel,
for that is the stalk of one." Now, I hope these limbs of the law, will
not be offended at me for taking up my spectacle shillalah, and just
politely flooring them, for their _Jesuitical inuendoes_ and _mental
reservations_ in my regard. I hope they will not be offended, at my
defending myself, for their own profession will teach them, that every
one is allowed fair play, whether he be a metamorphosed calumniated
Jesuit, or a limb of the law in the body of a man's pocket. But far be it
from me to adopt their extensive, and sweeping mode of argumentation,
viz., the law of the land is a heap of deceptions, and tricks, now such a
man is a lawyer, therefore he must be a sleight-of-hand gentleman in that
art. Before I make this sweeping conclusion, I ought _first_, to examine
seriously, and carefully, if the law _really is_, this strange compound
of deceptions, and I ought then, to examine and really know, that this
lawyer has really acted according to this deception, I ought to do this,
before I condemn him personally, or open the flood-gates of condemnation
on the whole respectable body of lawyers. This is the argumentation which
reason and justice tell me I ought to adopt. Now just let these limbs of
the law, adopt this line of argumentation with regard to Jesuitism and
Jesuits, and then, they will be both limbs of the law, and limbs of fair
play.

[E] But some one will perhaps inquire, does the Protestant Church
consider _your_ Catholic Ministers _really_ ordained? I reply she does,
for were any Catholic Priest to go over to the Protestant Church, she
would not ordain him. And why? Because the Protestant Church got her
ordinations (if she has any) from us, and to question _our_ ordination,
would be to strike at the foundation of _her own_.

[F] "Catholicity, which has been this night, the subject of so much
abuse, has been the belief of the most extensive, and enlightened nations
in Europe, and of the most illustrious characters, that ever did honour
to the name of man."--(Speech of Lord Hutchinson in the House of Lords,
May 10th, 1805.)

[G] The following are the words of Mr. Cobbett, a protestant, writer
respecting the introduction of the Protestant religion into these realms.
"The Queen (Elizabeth) reigned for forty five years, and these forty-five
years, were spent in deeds of such cruelty, as the world had never heard
of, or read of before; and all for the purpose of compelling her people,
to submit to this established (Protestant) Church. With regard to the
cruelties of this monster, in woman's shape, her butcherings, her
rippings up, her tearing out of the bowels of her subjects, her torments
of every description, in which she was always cordially supported, by the
lawgiving makers of the (Protestant) prayer book, I must refer the
reader, to my history of the Protestant reformation; suffice it to say
(here), that in these forty-five years, which were employed in the
establishing of this Church, there were more cruelty, more bloodshed,
more suffering, than ever were witnessed in the world, in any other
country in a like period of time." (Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons, p. 38.)




AN ADDRESS

TO THE

CLERGYMEN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

"A marvellous project, (is) i'faith, and a merry jest withal!"


MOST REVEREND GENTLEMEN,

You cannot be _surprised_, that I have _not_ taken my text from the
_Scripture_, for many of you tell the people, that we _Catholic_
Clergymen wish to conceal from the people that sacred volume. To have,
therefore, taken my text from the _Scripture_ for the _sake_ of the
_people_, would be like falsifying your words, and to have quoted it for
your instructions, would have been most presumptuous on my part, as every
one knows you are masters of Israel, both in word and deed, in the
knowledge of that sacred volume. Had I, therefore, been so presumptuous
as to have quoted Scripture for _your_ information, you might have
perhaps addressed me in the words of the Poet--

    "Ye Popish blockheads, mitred Cambridge cries,
    Begone; I and my friends alone are wise,
    Rich with the spoils of Babylon, 'tis fit
    That _we_ should claim monopoly of wit."

Well, among the great diffusion of biblical knowledge, which has been so
_gloriously_ spread among the people by your Scriptural Church, as by Law
established, I happened one day _fortunately_ to hear, that you
Reverends often told the people, that there was a golden and heavenly
rule in the Scriptures, viz.:--_that they were never to do unto others,
what they would not wish others to do unto them_. Now we cannot for a
moment suppose, that like spiritual guide-posts, _you_ would wish to
inculcate this golden rule to _others_, and not follow it _yourselves_.
Well then, you have been _lately_ trying to arouse the indignation of the
people, by informing them in the most _dignified_ manner, that the Pope
of Rome has just made a most "extraordinary, and presumptuous movement"
on the Protestants of England. Now what shall we say, if it turn out,
that you and _your Reverend_ Protestant ancestors, have for a long time
been making a "most extraordinary, and presumptuous movement" on the
_pockets_, and on the _intellects_ of Englishmen?

Let us then proceed to examine _coolly_, and _calmly_, the above points.
I will endeavour, most Reverend Gentlemen, to discuss these points with
as much temper, and forbearance as I possibly can. But, you must
remember, that _you_ and many of _your_ Reverend body, have been
endeavouring to convict, _without ceremony_, the _numerous_ and
_respectable_ Catholic body of England, of the crimes of wishing to
extend their _popish spiritual_ and _temporal_ domination over the
Protestants of England. For this purpose, your zealous and Reverend body
have, with pious industry, raked together the filth of ancient
controversy, and poured it _without mercy_ on the heads of Catholics, and
on that Church, of which it is my pride to be a minister. Now, Reverend
Gentlemen, _you_, who deal so copiously in hard words, certainly ought
not to complain, if you should happen sometimes, to meet with them in
return. If _you_ demand respect from _others_, you ought certainly to
respect a _more numerous body_ of Christians, (I mean the Catholic
Christian world,) who have no reason to think themselves, your inferiors
in talent, learning, or judgment. Well then, let us now proceed to the
discussion of the above two points.

Most Reverend Gentlemen, in a book (but _mind_ not the _Scripture_)
called the _extraordinary_ Black Book, published in London in the year
1831, by Effingham Wilson, Royal Exchange, I find the following
statement of the income of the Church of England as by Law established.
Of course, I am aware, that certain changes have been made by Government
(since the publication of the above book) as to the amount of individual
incomes, but the _aggregate_ sum is still absorbed by the Protestant
Church, as by Law established. Well then, in the above-mentioned,
extraordinary Black Book, I find the various incomes of the Church of
England there stated, and would you believe it! they form a sum of money,
TO THE TUNE _of nine millions, four hundred and fifty-two thousands, five
hundred and sixty-five pounds per annum_.

Now let us see, how well the Bishops, and Archbishops of the Reformation,
have thriven on the above _spiritual_ food. The following is an extract
from the probate duty returns, and of course, must be _real_ testimony as
to the _worth_ of these _poor in spirit_ children, when they awoke "in
that undiscovered country, from whose bourne no traveller returns."

  EXTRACT FROM PROBATE OF WILLS.

                                                      L
  Stopford, Bishop of Cork, left his family        25,000
  Percy, Bishop of Dromore                         40,000
  Cleaver, Bishop of Ferns                         50,000
  Bernard, Bishop of Limerick                      60,000
  Knox, Bishop of Killaloe                        100,000
  Fowler, Archbishop of Dublin                    150,000
  Beresford, Archbishop of Tuam                   250,000
  Porter, Bishop of Clogher                       250,000
  Hawkins, Bishop of Raphoe                       250,000
  Agur, Archbishop of Cashel                      400,000
  Bishop Warburton                                500,000

Now just add up the above items, and then, you will see that these
_Protestant_ Bishops and Archbishops, _after_ maintaining themselves,
their wives and families, left _behind_ them, according to the probate
duty returns, _no less than the enormous sum of two millions and
seventy-five thousand pounds sterling_. Really, when these _mammon-godly_
souls entered the gates of heaven, with all these paraphernalia of gold,
how amazed must the celestial inmates have been! They would wonder
whence these _golden_ spirits came, but of this they would be convinced,
that they must have come from the land of the _living_, and had certainly
_piously_ reformed the words of the Scripture, "Blessed are the poor in
spirit," and really verified the words of my text, "What a _marvellous_
project is faith, and a _merry_ jest withal!"

So far, Reverend Gentlemen, I think the people will begin to conclude,
that your Reverend body has, for some time, been making a most
"extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the _pockets_ of Englishmen,
and would to heaven! I could stop here. But I must _now_ show the people
of England, that _your Protestant_ Church as by Law established, is
receiving more money by _four hundred and fifty-three thousands, five
hundred and sixty-five pounds_, than all the other Christian churches in
the _whole_ world. The above _extraordinary_ Black Book, gives a scale of
the _comparative_ expenses of the Church of _England_, and of all the
other _Christian_ churches in the _whole_ world. Now by this scale, it is
shown that the _total_ income of all the Christian churches in the
various parts of the world, is eight millions nine hundred and
ninety-nine thousand pounds; and the above scale shows, that the income
of the Church of _England_, is nine millions, four hundred and fifty-two
thousands, five hundred and sixty-five pounds. Now, if you will just
place the _smaller_ of these under the _larger_ number, and subtract the
one from the other, you will see that the _income_ of the Protestant
Church _in England_, exceeds the total income of _all_ the other
_Christian_ churches in the whole world, by _four hundred and fifty-three
thousands, five hundred and sixty-five pounds_. Oh, mighty England! thou
boastest, _and justly_, that thy majestic fleet rides on the waves, the
triumphant mistress of the seas; and thou mayest also _as truly_, but not
_so justly_, boast, that thy _Scriptural_ Church, as by Law
_established_, rides triumphant on the _golden_ waves of _mammon_, and
that she is _really mistress_ of the world, _in point of mammon_; she is
_truly_ the _grand_ and _golden_ emporium of _clerical_ incomes. Oh, how
justly may the ministers of this Church, address her, as their golden
calf, in these words of the Scripture, "Where _thou_ goest, _I_ will go;
and where _thou_ lodgest, _I_ will lodge; and _thy_ people shall be _my_
people." (Ruth i. 16.) "Yea! and we will kill the fatted calf, and slay
the rams, and make _merry_." (Prov. v. 9.)

But you will reply, we got all this money from _you papists_. Yes,
courteous clerks, to the _honour_ of the Catholic Church be it said, that
all this money was left by our _charitable_ ancestors; and I will now
judge you from _your own_ mouths. _Mind_ and _mark it well_, that in the
_Catholic_ times of old England, the above sums of money were divided
into _three_ parts: _one_ for the maintenance of the clergy, the _second_
for the repair of the churches, and the _third_ for the support of the
_poor_. In those good old _Catholic_ times, there were no church-rates,
nor poor-rates. But your _god-like_ church as by law established, thought
it more just, or at least _convenient_, to pocket _herself_ the _whole_
of the above sum, and to leave to the _public_ the charitable office, of
providing for the other _two_ purposes. Really, Most Reverend Gentlemen,
I candidly appeal to you, if this was not "a most extraordinary and
presumptuous movement" of your clerical ancestors on the _pockets_ of the
people; and _really_, must not people of the _present_ day think it "a
most extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the part of you Reverend
Gentlemen, to continue these _pious_ frauds, and _godly_ practices of
your ancestors? In _this_, at least, you _fully_ observe the commands of
the _Scripture_, "Remove not the landmark of thy forefathers." Oh ye
poor! (whom I sincerely love for the sake of my Saviour,) when I enter
your hovels, where sickness, misery, and want meet together, and witness
the scenes of distress that are passing there;--when I see a few handfuls
of dying embers, that are calculated rather to starve you, than afford
you the necessary comforts of warmth;--when I see the bed of
wretchedness, on which you cast your wearied limbs;--when I view the
tattered clothes, which scarcely cover you decently, much less protect
you from the inclemency of the weather;--when I behold your pale and
sickly countenances, that bespeak the poorness and scarcity of your
food;--when I view your poor little children, begging in vain, with tears
of artless innocence, a morsel of bread to satisfy the cravings of
hunger;--when I witness scenes of this heart-rending description, (scenes
which are not very uncommon now-a-days), the _charity_ of our _Catholic_
ancestors, and the _inhumanity_ of _your_ Church as by law established,
rush vividly on my mind, and call to my recollection the words of our
Saviour, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, possess ye the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave
me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink. I was a stranger, and
you took me in; naked, and you covered me; sick, and you visited me; I
was in prison, and you came to me. Then he shall say to them also that
shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting
fire, which was prepared for the devil, and his angels. For I was hungry,
and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink.
I was a stranger, and you took me not in; naked, and you covered me not;
sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer
him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a
stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee?
Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did
it not to one of these least," (namely the poor), "neither did you do it
to me." (St. Matt. xxv. 34 to 45.) Oh how _strikingly_ does the _first_
part of this sacred passage apply to _our charitable_ Catholic ancestors?
But shall I apply the second part to _you_, or _your_ Protestant
ancestors? Oh! heaven forbid I should! I say with the great St. Paul, I
judge no man; but charity for you, and the poor, induce me to entreat of
you, and to ask of God to give you His grace, to commence a real reform
in your _church property_, for the _sake_ of the _poor_, and to restore
to the _poor_, what your Protestant ancestors so _unjustly_ took from
them.

But you will perhaps reply, that all this church property, has been
_justly_ given to your Protestant Church, by the _law_ of the _land_; for
as the law of the land, _justly_ secures _to the landlord, his rents_, so
the law of the land, _justly_ secures to _your church, the tithes_. I
answer, in the first place, that by no law, either human, or divine, can
property be _justly_ applied to any _other_ purpose, than to _that_ for
which the _intention_ of the testator left it. Now one-third of this
church property, was left by our _Catholic_ ancestors, for the support of
the _poor_; and _as long_ as this property, was in the hands of the
_Catholic Church_, the poor always received _their just_ share. Hence,
among _all_ the calumnies against the _Catholic_ Church, even her
_basest_ enemies, could _never_ accuse her of _injustice to the poor_. I
answer secondly, the law of the land, as to _landlords_, is a _good_ law,
because the landlord gives to his tenant _value_ (viz., the use of the
land) for what he (the landlord) receives; whereas the law of tithes is a
_bad_ law, because it often exacts tithes, where the payer has never
received, _one farthing_ of value from the _parson_. Now in this case, it
does appear to me (and I am sure it must to many others) most unjust to
demand it _from persons_, who never received a _pin's-worth_ of good,
from _your_ ministry in their lives. Nay, perhaps the _only return_ they
got, for the payment of their tithes was, to hear their religion
_abused_, and to be held up before the public, as guilty of those _very_
crimes, which _these_ reverends _themselves_ were _really_ committing,
either by their robbing the poor of their just share, or by unjustly
exacting from _others_ money, for which the _payers_ had never received
one farthing of value.[H]

And now, most Reverend Gentlemen, I must just let the people see, how you
contrive to blind them, by throwing _popish_ dust into their eyes. All
the noise, which you make, _about the pope's bulls, and about popish
spiritual and temporal domination_, is a mere _ruse de guerre_ of _many_
of you, (some of you indeed, I believe, are sincere in your motives, and
actions,) to divert _public_ attention, from the _great temporalities_
of the established Church. You call, and hold your public and glorious
meetings. With upturned hands and eyes, with high-_souled_ strains of
_devotional_ eloquence, with cordial community of feeling, got up between
the _established_ Church, and _those_ whom you indeed honour _with your
lips_ by the title of reverends, but whom, _in your hearts_, you deem
_mere phantoms_ of ministers, with silvery tones, and well-turned
periods, of _rag-tag_ and _bob-tail_ inspirations; you excite the
breathless attention of your audience, and profess the _most sanctified_
attachment to your _godly_ Church, and to your glorious Constitution,
under the protection of whose wing, _you_ are _slyly_ basking in the
sunshine of _godly_ mammon, and _worldly_ wealth. Should any poor
_Catholic_, or _charitable dissenter_, (who wishes _you_ to _do_ to
_others_ as _you_ would be _done_ by,) obtrude himself on the notice of
your meeting, a thundering philippic is _instantly_ raised against
_popery_, and gaining strength and speed, and loudness in its progress,
rumbles onward, until at last, it bursts forth into a _tremendous_
elemental roar, increased by the zealous acclamations of an enraptured
and fanatical audience. Oh, most Reverend Gentlemen, this is really a
_glorious_, and _very profitable_ humbug. _As long_ as _you_ can manage,
to keep the people in _this feverish state of excitement_, the gulls will
think more of _discussing pope's_ bulls, _Guy Fawkes's, and Gunpowder
Plots_, than of _questioning_ the _moral_ basis of the law, which
entitles _you_ to take from _the poor_, their _just_ share of _Church_
property, left by _our charitable_ ancestors, and of exacting tithes and
Church-rates from _those_, who do not belong to _your_ flock, and _for
whom you do nothing in return_. Thus, you _successfully_ stave off the
_discussion of Church_ property, professing all the while, the most
_devotional_ concern for the _spiritual_ welfare of _the gulls_, on whose
_pockets_, you are making a most 'extraordinary, and presumptuous
movement.' Thus _you_ reap the _profits_, and _laugh_ at the _fools_, who
are _cajoled_ by _your grand_ displays. Really, most Reverend Gentlemen,
this extraordinary and presumptuous conduct, does, in my humble opinion,
_beat all the powers of impudence_.[I]

Most Reverend Gentlemen, I have now proved "the extraordinary and
presumptuous movement," which _your scriptural_ Church as by law
established, has been making for a long time on the _pockets_ of
Englishmen. I must now proceed to show, what "a most extraordinary and
presumptuous movement" she has been making for a long time, on the
_intellects_ of Englishmen. Would to God that occasion had never been
given to me to touch on _this_ subject! But remember, that _many_ of your
_reverend_ body, have been _publicly_ advancing the most _pretty_, and
_polite_ things against _us Catholics_. The newspapers, will bear ample
testimony to the _strange_, and _horrid_ things, which _many_ of your
_reverends_, have _lately_ uttered against the Catholic Church. Now, what
they have in general uttered against us, is, _unfortunately_, _not_
founded on _truth_; but mind, what I shall advance is _really true_,
although _most awful_, nay _almost_ incredible, had not your _Protestant_
testimonies borne _ample_ witness _to it_. Remember, also, that although
Our Saviour was the _most_ meek, and kind creature that the world _ever_
beheld, _still_, when the _honour_ of His Heavenly Father was _insulted_
and _outraged_, He cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple. Now,
some of your reverend body, have, in my ideas, lately used all their
endeavours to insult, and outrage the Catholic Church, which, I consider,
the Temple of God. Pardon me, therefore, if I should with the spiritual
arms of _truth_, (and I hope of _charity_,) cast _them_ out of that
temple, and show the world, they had _better_ have been in _their own_
temple, and have tried to have _re_formed _it_, _before_ they had
endeavoured to turn masters of Israel, in their _neighbours'_ temple.

But _this_, Reverend Gentlemen, I must say, that if the Catholic Church,
had _no better_ foundation than _declamation_ against the _Protestant_
Church, I would not be either a _minister_, or a _member_ of it for a
_single_ day. But mind, the Catholic Church has both a _good_ foundation,
and can also show the _flimsy_ texture of the _Protestant_ Church, when
Protestant ministers are so _imprudent_ as to attack her.

Most Reverend Gentlemen, I can only say, had _you_ remained quiet, _I_
should have been _innocent_ of the disagreeable task, of having to state
the following _awful_ facts. But as _you_ have not, I can only add, I am
_innocent_ of the consequences, look _you_ to them. I will not indeed
exclaim, with the Scripture, "Its blood be upon you, and upon your
children;" but I will rather say, in the spirit of charity, may it bring
you, and your followers, to a serious consideration, and to a sense of
duty. But some of you reverends will _perhaps_ infer, from the awful
truths which I shall advance, that I must believe that all, who are not
of _our_ communion, must go to hell. _Appalling sentence!_ Christ
certainly has said, that he that will not hear the Church, is to be to
us as a heathen and a publican (that is, excluded from our spiritual
communion.) But Christ does not say, he will _go to hell_, much less,
therefore, ought _I_ to _rashly_ condemn him. St. Paul, also, warns us to
judge _no man_, for this good reason, because _we, also_ shall have to
stand before the tribunal of Christ. Far, therefore, be it from me to
open the flood-gates of damnation, even on a _single_ individual, much
less on the _whole_ body of our Protestant brethren. Although, therefore,
I shall shortly advance truths, most awful, and almost incredible, still,
let no one imagine, I mean anything PERSONAL. Oh, no, I will say with the
poet--

    "Let not this weak unknowing hand,
      Presume thy bolts to throw,
    Or deal damnation round the land,
      On all I judge thy foe."

Well, then, let it be remembered, that I shall advance only undeniable
facts, without intending to deal damnation _on you_, or on the _whole_
Protestant body.

                      "I (shall) only speak right on,
    Yes, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
    That love my friends, and that they know full well,
    Who gave me public cause to speak the truth.
    I'll tell you _that_, which you yourselves _might_ know."

A certain Spanish chemist, thought that _God's_ formation of his master,
had not been executed in the most perfect, and durable manner; and this
chemist had the audacious presumption to imagine, that if he demolished
his master, he could raise him to life again, to a more perfect, and
durable specimen of workmanship, than he was, when God first made him.
For this purpose, this audacious chemist cut his master into pieces, and
put the various parts into his sublimatory glass, with the design of
raising his master again, by chemical operation, to a more durable, and
perfect state of life than he was, when he was the handiwork of _God's_
formation. Now, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I will not apply this to your
Church, but _this_ I will do, I will show you what the Church _was_, and
_is_, which the fathers of the Reformation wished first to demolish, on
account of her imperfections, and then, to raise her again to a more
perfect specimen of spiritual life; I will show the characters of these
spiritual chemists; I will show you the wonderful works of their
spiritual chemistry, and the wonderful spiritual works of their
scriptural hands; and then, I will leave you, and others to judge,
whether these first reformers, and these new soul menders, _did, or did
not_, really imitate the strange, and presumptuous conduct of this
Spanish chemist.

When God first created man, He imprinted on his heart the light of
reason, which (whether aided by revelation or not, it is not necessary
here to enquire) taught him his duty to his God, to his neighbour, and to
himself. This light was also imprinted on the hearts of his descendants;
but as man fell from God by sin, the light of this natural law was
greatly impaired, both in the hearts of our _first_ parents, and of all
_their_ descendants. The light of this natural law, though much impaired
by Adam's fall, is, and ever has been, imprinted on the hearts of all,
and is, and ever has been, the foundation of all moral rectitude. The
imperfection of this natural law was, before our Saviour came, supplied
by the aid of revelation, which Almighty God communicated to mankind, at
various times, through His chosen servants. But at _last_, the Almighty
was pleased to send His only Son from heaven to earth, to supply the
deficiency of this natural law, and to teach mankind, in the most perfect
manner, their duty to God, to their neighbour, and to themselves. Hence
our Saviour beautifully says, "He came _not_ to destroy the law, but to
fulfil it," that is, He came to supply the imperfections of the natural
law, caused by Adam's fall, and to teach us, in the most perfect manner,
our duty to our God, to our neighbour, and to ourselves. Hence, for this
purpose He became man, and united our humanity to His divinity. In this
God-man, were concentrated all the treasures of divine wisdom and
knowledge; and to this God-man, were given all power in heaven, and on
earth. It is plain, therefore, as our Saviour beautifully says, He came
to be the way, the truth, and the life to all mankind; that is, He came
to be the way, by showing us the true way of heaven, which had been
darkened, and obscured by the sin of our first parents; He came to be the
truth, by revealing to us those supernatural truths, which the natural
law did not reveal, and by revealing to us more clearly those truths,
which the natural law revealed only obscurely; and lastly, He came to be
our life, by communicating to mankind His graces, by which they were
enabled to _practise_ the truths, which this divine law _taught_, and
thus, by the _knowledge_, and _faithful practice_ of this divine law, to
arrive at last at the kingdom of heaven. Hence, fully sensible of this
truth, the Apostles are continually in the Scriptures reminding us, on
_the one hand_, of man's fall, and the sad consequences of that fall; and
_on the other hand_, of our liberation from sin, and of the abundant
blessings we have received, by redemption through Jesus Christ.

Now, that mankind _in every age_, might be partakers of these abundant,
and spiritual blessings, Jesus Christ was pleased to found a Church, and
to invest this Church with the same spiritual powers, which He had
received from His heavenly Father. This Church, _through Jesus Christ_,
was to be the _infallible_ source of all spiritual knowledge, and of all
spiritual grace; in short, it was to be the _visible_, the _infallible_,
and _the incorruptible_ Church of all ages, with the world for its
boundaries, and time for its duration.

I will now, give you a short description of this Church of Christ;
attend, and I will tell you, in as few words as I can, what this Church
always _was_, and really _is_. Catholicity, or Christ's Church, began
with our Saviour, received her mission, her powers, and her doctrine,
from Jesus Christ. She has been distinguished in every age, for the unity
of her faith, and the sanctity of her doctrine, for the universality of
her extent, and the apostolicity of her origin. No _earthly_
consideration, could ever induce her, to swerve _one iota_ from the
sacred deposit, and unity of faith, delivered to her by Jesus Christ.
Hence, whenever she found any in her communion, either layman, priest, or
bishop, or _even a whole nation_, wishing to _change_, or _add to_, or
diminish _one tittle_ of the _faith_, delivered by her heavenly founder,
she _at first_, like a tender mother, expostulated with them, appealed to
the grounds and truth of her faith, and traced it to the mouth, either of
our Saviour or His Apostles; but if they disregarded her tender
expostulations, she then, as St. Paul did the incestuous Corinthian, cut
them off from her communion, and showed them, when _her faith_ was at
stake, she feared neither the _frowns_ of individuals, nor the _strength_
of nations. Every article of her faith is so holy in itself, and so
conducive to true holiness, that she challenges her greatest adversaries,
to show the _smallest stain_ in any part of what she _really_ teaches,
and the most convincing proof of their being _unable_ to do so, is, that
not daring to attack her _true_ doctrine, they, by calumny and
misrepresentation, lay things to her charge which she even _detests_ and
_condemns_.[J] And then, after combating a _phantom_ of their _own_
creation, exult in an easy and decisive victory. From the dawn of
Christianity to the present day, there has not been a nation converted to
Christianity, but what was converted by her zealous exertions, nor is
there a religion under the sun except hers, that can prove that any of
her members, were ever honoured on account of their virtues, and
sanctity, with the name of saint. She can look back through eighteen
centuries, and shew that the unity and sanctity of her doctrine, are the
_very same_ in the _nineteenth_ century, as they were in the _first_
century. She can trace a long succession of popes, even to the first
pope, who was St. Peter. She can present you a long catalogue of learned
and polite nations, of scholars, philosophers, and divines, of generals,
statesmen, and princes, of saints, martyrs, and confessors, who looked
upon her faith as their best inheritance, a treasure which they held more
dear than life itself. In short, she can prove, that she is _now_ that
Church, which _our Saviour first_ founded on a rock, against which, He
promised, that the gates of hell should never prevail, and that He, and
His Holy Spirit, should remain with it, teaching it all truth, _until the
end of the world_. Hence, she has passed through the stormy trials of
_eighteen_ centuries, which would have long since shivered any _human_
institution into atoms, and now stands forth, ever fresh and vigorous, in
all her pristine strength, but silvered with the venerable hoar of ages.

This is a short description of the visible, infallible, and incorruptible
Catholic Church of Christ; I will now show you how this Church was
formed, and how it was to be perpetuated, _from age to age_, with the
world for its boundaries, and time for its duration. The Prophet Daniel
foresaw this Church, when he said (Dan. c. ii.), "The God of heaven
should set up a kingdom, which should _never_ be destroyed." And our
Saviour (Matt. xvi.) informs us, that He is the maker and builder of this
Church. Hence He assures us, that as He Himself was sent by His Heavenly
Father to preach the Gospel (Luke iv. 18.), so He, also, sent His
Apostles: as My Father hath sent Me, I also send you. (John xx. 21.) For
this purpose He revealed to His Apostles _all_ the divine truths which
_He_ had received. "All things," says He, "whatsoever I have heard of My
Father, I have made known to you." (John xv. 15.) He then gave them a
commission, to teach _all_ these truths to _all_ nations. "All power,"
says He, "is given to me in heaven and on earth: go ye, therefore, and
teach all nations, teaching them to observe _all_ things whatsoever _I_
have commanded you; and behold I am with you _all days, even to the end
of the world_." (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.) But when our Saviour gave these
commands to His Apostles, He at the same time, imposed upon mankind a
strict obligation, _to hear_ and _learn_ His gospel from the Apostles.
Hence He says to His Apostles, "He that heareth _you_, heareth _Me_, and
he that despiseth _you_, despiseth _Me_, and he that despiseth _Me_,
despiseth _Him_ that sent me." (Luke x. 16.) But whilst our Saviour,
imposes upon mankind the necessity of _hearing_ His Apostles, he pledged
His _infallible_ word, that they should _never_ lead _the people_ astray,
or teach any false doctrine. For this reason, He promises that He will
send down His Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, to teach them all truth,
that He and His Holy Spirit will remain with them _for ever_, teaching
them all truth, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against
them. (John xv. Matt. xvi.)

That this _absolute_, and _infallible_ authority of preaching and
teaching, was not to be limited merely to the _persons_ of the Apostles,
nor merely to the _period_ of their ministry, but was also to extend to
_their_ successors in office, and _to all future ages_, I will now prove.
Our Saviour tells His Apostles, that they are to go, and teach _all
nations_, and that He will be with them, _even until the end of the
world_; and that the Spirit of truth, shall remain with them _for ever_.
Now, as the Apostles, _did not_ teach _all nations_, in their _own_
persons, and were not to continue on earth, until _the end of the world_,
it was manifest, that the commission was not to be confined to _their
persons_, but was to be given to _their office_, that is, to them and
their successors _in office_, who shall continue _until the end of the
world_, to _complete_ the great work of teaching all nations, which the
Apostles _first began_. That this was _actually_ the intention of _our
divine Saviour_, we learn in positive, and distinct terms, from these
words of St. Paul: "And He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and
other some pastors, and doctors for the perfecting of the saints, for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." "That
henceforth we may be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning
craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." (iv. 11, 14.) _Such
is_, most Reverend Gentlemen, and _such always was, the visible, the
infallible, and incorruptible_ Church of Christ, which was to be
perpetuated _from age to age_, with time for its duration, and the world
for its boundaries.

Oh, but you will reply, this Church once fell into error, at least so say
the first Reformers. If, most Reverend Gentlemen, I were to assert that
_you_ all once committed _murder_, you would very sharply ask, _when_,
_where_, and _how_? And if I could not prove _when_, _where_, and _how_,
I think you would deem me (and justly too) a very near relation to the
father of lies. Now, your first Reformers _said_, indeed, that the
Catholic Church once fell, but _most unfortunately_, they _forgot_ to
prove _when_, _where_, and _how_. As, therefore, these first Reformers,
forgot to prove these _most essential_ circumstances, you must excuse _us
Catholics_, if we prefer _God's infallible_ word, to the _mere ipse
dixit_ of these _first celestial_ lights of the Reformation. You know God
says, heaven and earth, _shall_ pass away, but His word _shall not_ pass
away.

But you will, perhaps, answer, really they must have been _strange_
beings to have _asserted_, that _God's infallible_ Church had fallen, and
_not_ to have been able, or at least to have _forgotten, to prove_ such a
bold assertion. Do you know, I was just thinking the same; and,
therefore, I beg to introduce a few of these beings to your notice: and I
know _none_, that has a greater claim to our first notice, than Martin
Luther, _both_ for the _originality_ of his spiritual doctrines, and for
the _sublimity_ of the _celestial_ revelations, with which he was
honoured. And _mind_, had not Luther and his disciples, left the most
_incontestible_ testimony of what I am about to advance, it would really
have outraged and defied _all credibility_.

Well, then, know, and _never forget_, that Martin Luther, the first
luminary of the Reformation, had a conference _with the devil_, in which
Martin assures us, that he was convinced by the _devil's powerful_
argumentation, that the Popish Mass was a heap of idolatry. The following
are the words of this angel of _light_ on this subject: "Being awakened
at midnight, the devil began to dispute with me, according to his custom.
"Listen to me, Master Doctor," said he: "do you consider that, for
fifteen years, you have said mass almost every day? What, if all this
while, you have been guilty of idolatry, and, instead of adoring the body
and blood of Christ, have adored only bread and wine?" I answered him,
that I was a priest lawfully ordained by the bishop; and that having,
from a principle of obedience, discharged my ministry with a sincere
intention of consecrating, I saw no reason to doubt the validity of the
consecration. "True," replied Satan; "but in the Churches of Turks and
Heathens, is not everything done in an orderly manner, and in the spirit
of obedience? Does that authorize their worship as orthodox, and
perfectly correct? What, if your ordination were null, and your
consecration as vain and useless as that of Turkish priests, in the
exercise of their ministry, or of the false prophets under Jeroboam?"
Here (adds Luther) I was seized with a violent sweat, and my heart began
to beat in a strange manner. The devil is very artful in adjusting his
reasoning, and he also pushes his arguments with great force; he has a
voice, strong and rough, and is so pressing in his objections, one after
another, as scarcely to allow you time to breathe. Hence, I can conceive,
how it has repeatedly happened, that persons have, in the morning, been
found dead in their beds. In the first place, he may suffocate them; he
may also, by his method of disputing, cause such a trouble in the soul as
to render her unable to make any further resistance, and thus she may be
compelled instantly to leave the body; which has nearly been my own case,
more than once."

After this preface, Luther mentions five reasons which the devil alleged
against the sacrifice of the mass; reasons extremely frivolous in
themselves, but which Luther considered of sufficient weight to justify
his yielding to them, saying to those who might blame his conduct, that
"if _they_ had heard the devil reasoning in the same forcible manner as
_he_ had done, they would take care not to appeal from his arguments to
the practice of the Church, and the usages of antiquity, which would
never satisfy them." This conference may be seen in three different
editions of Luther's works, printed by the care of his disciples, viz.,
(Wittemberg, T. 7, p. 479. Jenae, Ed. Germ. per Thomas, p. 82. Attenberg,
T. 6. p. 86.)

Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, this is a very strange history.
_Certain_, however, _it is_, that _Luther_ omits _nothing_ to persuade us
of its truth: for he mentions the very words which the devil used, the
tone of his voice, the nature of his arguments, the impression which the
conference made on his body and soul, which sometimes follow from
debating with this king of the lower regions.

After the death of Luther, his disciples, and especially Melancton, took
care to insert the conference in the collection of Luther's works,
printed in Latin at Wittemberg, and the writers of the Luthern and
Calvinistic party agree, that it was _certainly the production of
Luther_.[K] (Hospinian, par. 2. Hist. Sacramentariae, p. 26, et. p. 131.)

Now Luther either _had_ or _had not_ this conference with the master of
lies. If he _really had_, Luther ought to have known, that _such_ a
master was not very likely, to teach him anything _very good_, and that
he was not a very _fit_ person, to convince him of the idolatry of the
mass. For if the mass, had _really_ been idolatry, I think the devil,
would _rather_ have encouraged, _than_ tried to overturn it. But if
Luther _had not_ this conference, then the ambition of Luther, for having
wished to appear connected with so bad a master, indicates so strange
and exotic a genius, so depraved and bad a taste, that it reflects
_almost_ as much dishonour on Luther, as if this conference had really
taken place.

You will perhaps object "that Luther is nothing to us." Most Reverend
Gentlemen, I have not quoted him to insult you, or to throw any
disrespect on you; for _you_ are certainly not to be _answerable_ for
Luther's _deeds_. But I have quoted him to let you see, what kind of a
genius, this father of the Reformation was, and I must now candidly ask,
if you think he was _a fit_ person, to reform Christ's Church. Had he
indeed begun, by endeavouring to _reform_ the devil himself, we might
have pardoned his religious enthusiasm; but for him to tell us, that the
_infallible_ Church of Christ, had fallen into error, and that he had
come to reform it, under the instructions, and guidance of the master of
lies, is _really_ most outrageous, and cannot be equalled by any thing,
that I have either heard, or read on this side the grave. That the human
mind, should be capable of falling into such dreadful delusion, would
appear almost incredible, had not the Holy Ghost assured us, that God
abandons to a reprobate sense, those who wish to change _truth_ into
_falsehood_. (Romans i. 25-26.)

Zuinglius, another bright son of the Reformation, professes to have
learnt his main argument against the Real Presence from a spirit, which
appeared to him in the night, but whether it was a _black_, or _white_
spirit he does not remember. However, he made great account, of this
nightly instruction of his _unknown_ friend; read the place of Exodus,
which had been pointed out to him by his _unknown_ friend, and afterwards
preached before the whole congregation, on the subject of this
_wonderful_ discovery. (Hosp. ii. p. 25-26.) Luther was positive and
sure, that the devil, whom Oecolampadius, (another reformer,) employed,
strangled him during the night in his bed. "This is the excellent
master," continues Luther, "who taught Oecolampadius that there are
contradictions in the Scripture. See," says Luther, "to what satan brings
learned men." (De Miss. Priv. Luth.)

Such were the nocturnal revelations, with which some of the first
reformers were honoured, and I think now, you will not be surprised at
the following character, which is given _them_, and the _other_
reformers, _even_ by _Protestant_ testimony. Zanchius, the celebrated
Protestant professor, thus complains of the conduct of his _reforming
Protestant_ colleagues: "I am indignant, when I consider the manner, in
which most of us defend our cause. The _true_ state of the question we
often, on _set_ purpose, involve in _darkness_, that it may not be
_understood_; we have the impudence, to _deny_ things the _most evident_:
we _assert_ what is _visibly_ false: the most _impious_ doctrines, we
_force_ on the people as the _first_ principles of _faith_, and
_orthodox_ (true) opinions, we condemn as _heretical_: we _torture_ the
Scriptures, until they agree with our _own_ fancies, and boast of being
the _disciples_ of the _fathers_, while we refuse _to follow their_
doctrines: _to deceive_, _to calumniate_, _to abuse_, is our _familiar_
practice: nor do we care for anything, _provided_ we can defend our
cause, _good_ or _bad_, _right_ or _wrong_. Oh what times! what manners!
(Zanchius ad Stormium, tome viii. col. 828.)

"But _forgery_--I blush for the _honour_ of Protestantism while I write
it--seems to have been _peculiar_ to the _reformed_ * * * and I look _in
vain_, _for one_ of these accursed outrages of imposition, among _the
disciples_ of Popery." "But _forgery_, appears to have been the
_peculiar_ disease of _Protestantism_."--(_Vindication of Mary, Queen of
Scots_, vol. iii. p. 2 and 53. _By the Rev. John Whitaker, B.D., Rector
of Ruan Langhorne, Cornwall._)

You have now seen, who was the instructor of _some_ of the first
Reformers, and the two above passages (_mind, from Protestants_,) must
convince you, that _they_ and _their_ reforming Protestant colleagues,
appear to have been apt scholars of this master of lies. Well, I have
shown you now, the character of the spiritual chemists of the
Reformation. I will now show you, some of the wonderful _spiritual_
works, of some of their _supernatural_, and chemical hands.

Among these, I must rank as _first_ and foremost, the wonderful spiritual
deeds, of your Scriptural Church as by Law established. Most Reverend
Gentlemen, The Thirty-nine Articles, are the fundamental Articles of your
Protestant Creed. Now, in the Thirty-fifth of those Articles, I find,
that your Scriptural Church professes to believe, in the Protestant
homilies there named. Among which I find the second is, "against peril of
idolatry." Now, the following, are the words of your Protestant homily
against idolatry. Its words are these: "The preaching of God's word, most
sincere in the beginning, by process of time became less and less pure,
and afterwards corrupt, and last of all, altogether laid down and left
off, &c. Not only the unlearned and simple, but the learned and wise; not
the people only, but the bishops; not the sheep, but also the shepherds
themselves, being blinded by the bewitchery of images, as blind guides of
the blind, fell both into the _pit of damnable idolatry_; in which all
the world, as it were drowned, continued unto our age for the space of
eight hundred years; unspoken against in a manner, so that laity and
clergy, learned and unlearned, of all ages and sexes and degrees, of men
and women and children of whole Christendom, (an horrible thing to
think,) have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other
vices most detested by God, and damnable to men, and that for the space
of eight hundred years together. And to this end has come that beginning
of setting up of images in churches, then judged harmless, in experience
proved not only harmful, but exitious and pestilential, and to the
_destruction of all good religion universally_." Thus far, your
Protestant homily.

Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, if in my comments on the above passage,
I have often to use the word _damnable_, you must really _pardon_ me, for
you see, I have just been taught this _pretty_ word, by your Scriptural
Church, and you know, she is master in Israel. Pray, most Reverend
Gentlemen, where was your Protestant Scriptural Church, during this
_eight_ hundred years of damnable idolatry? If it was a member of _no_
Church, then, it was not a member, or part of _Christ's_ Church. But if
it was a member, or part of any _one_ Church in _all_ Christendom, then,
it was utterly drowned in abominable, and damnable idolatry. I wonder how
your Scriptural Church, can extricate herself out of this spiritual
labyrinth.

Well, then, here we have, _according_ to _your_ Scriptural Church, a
universal apostacy. The true Church decayed, the whole of Christendom
drowned in damnable idolatry, and all good religion destroyed
_universally_, and _that_, for eight hundred years; and we have also
_your_ Scriptural Church either not existing, or buried in this universal
spiritual destruction. Really, your Scriptural Church, Sampson-like, not
only demolished the _whole_ spiritual fabric of Christendom, but also
perished _herself_ under the ruins of this universal spiritual
destruction; but the strangest thing of all is, whilst with _one_ hand,
she was endeavouring with her spiritual power, to hurl the Catholic
Church, into the vortex of this universal spiritual destruction, she,
with _the other_ hand, charitably saves _us_ Catholics (as Moses was
saved from the waters) from this deluge of universal spiritual idolatry;
and I will now show you how; for your Scriptural Church, in her sixth
article of the Thirty-nine Articles, teaches that, "Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation." Now, this very Scripture,
(the book of salvation,) declares (as I have already shown in my above
description of the Catholic Church,) that, the Catholic Church should
_never_ err, and of course, could _never_ fall into idolatry. And,
therefore, in obedience to your Scriptural Church, and to the Scripture
itself, we believe that the Catholic Church, _never_ has fallen, and
_never will_ fall into idolatry. For the Scripture says, "Heaven and
earth _shall_ pass away, but God's word, _shall not_ pass away." Really,
your Scriptural Church, is very kind to us in this respect, and I almost
begin to think, she must be a worthy descendant of Pharo's daughter, who
saved Moses from the waters of the Nile.

Well, Most Reverend Gentlemen, you see your scriptural Church, has now
hurled the whole of Christendom, into the vortex of universal,
abominable, and damnable idolatry, and either involved herself, in this
sweeping deluge of abominations, or committed suicidical destruction on
herself; but, _strange_ to say, she has _charitably_ saved us benighted
<DW7>s, from these abominable, and universal waters of idolatry, as
Pharo's daughter, kindly saved Moses from the waters of the Nile. Now,
_how_ your scriptural Church as by law established will contrive to
gather together again, and unite all the various parts of this
universal, spiritual edifice, just destroyed by her hands, I am at a loss
to determine. If _she really can_ collect, unite, and form these various
spiritual parts, into a _more_ perfect, and durable edifice, than _God
Himself_ had made it, I shall _then_ begin to think, that she is invested
with powers, which _even God Himself_ does not possess. But by _what_
spiritual art of chemistry, is she to perform this wonderful, and
_superhuman_ operation? If she has recourse to _the Scriptures_, she will
_there_ learn, that God had built this spiritual edifice on an
_imperishable_, infallible, and incorruptible foundation. And surely, for
her sake, God will not _contradict_ Himself; and if she has recourse to
her thirty-nine articles, they have already annihilated her. O poor
scriptural Church! thou hast often made _sad_ work with _other_ Churches;
but _at last_, alas! thou art in _sad_ straits thyself. O! how thou
remindest me of the man, who

    "Halting on crutches of unequal size,--
    One leg by truth supported, one by lies,
    Thus saddled to the goal, with awkward pace,
    Secure of nothing but to lose the race."

Well, but you will say, this immense spiritual edifice _must_ for the
sake of the _salvation_ of mankind, be _re_-built. Should I offer _my
officious_ services, to assist in this pious work of reconstruction, your
scriptural Church might perhaps say, I destroyed _more_ than I built.
Well, she could not, even then, justly complain of this; for _she_ has
_just_ cut into pieces, demolished, and annihilated the _whole_ of
Christendom, with her destructive weapons of universal, abominable, and
damnable idolatry.

In all _material_ edifices, it is considered of the greatest importance
that the _foundation_ should be _firm_, _safe_, and substantial. Of
course, we have reason to expect _these_ requisites in the foundation of
all _spiritual_ edifices; and of course, we may _naturally_ expect them,
in the new erection of God's work which your Church has just destroyed,
but which she is _now_ going to re-construct into a _more_ perfect and
durable form than _God_ had made it. Now, upon _what_ foundation will
your Church _re_construct this demolished spiritual edifice? In her
twenty-first article of her thirty-nine articles, (and mind, she has
sworn to these articles as God's truth,) I find the following words:
"General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment,
and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as
they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed by the Spirit,
and word of God,) they _may err_, and _sometimes have erred, even in
things pertaining unto God_."

Now, please tell me, Most Reverend Gentlemen, of _what_ is your new
spiritual Church to be built? Surely not of brick and mortar! but of
course, it is to be erected, on the testimony of man, or of some body of
men. But your article says, men may err, and _have_ erred, _even in
things pertaining to God_. Therefore, your council, or councils, of your
new Church _may err_, and therefore, how will you build upon these
_fallible_ men an _infallible_ foundation?

But you will indignantly reply, the article intimates, that they may err
_unless_ governed by the _Spirit_, and word of God. Well, Most Reverend
Gentlemen, is it likely God will give _them_ his Spirit, and unerring
word to _re_construct a new Church, when they have just destroyed the
infallible, and beautiful work of _God's own hands_? Is it in the nature
of things, that _God_ should _contradict_ Himself, to second the BABEL
ideas, of your scriptural Church, yet to be formed?

Really, Sir, some of you Reverends will exclaim, _how_ you are _garbling_
that twenty-first article! Why have you _slyly_ omitted to quote the
_last_ part of that article?--Well, as you have called, for the _last_
part of this article, I will now quote it; and as your Church (_first_,
indeed, unfortunately destroying herself) has just so charitably saved
us, benighted <DW7>s, from the waters of idolatry, I do sincerely hope
this _last_ part of your article, may enable you, to _re_build a godly
and spiritual edifice. Well, then, now for the _last_ part of this
twenty-first article, which you say, I have _slyly omitted_. It runs thus
verbatim: "Wherefore, things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation,
have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they
be taken out of Holy Scripture." Now, Most Reverend Gentlemen, as you
have just asked _me_ a question, allow _me_ to ask _you another_. If any
of you, were wishful to purchase an estate, would you not _first_, have
the title deeds of that estate, _carefully_ examined by some eminent and
respectable lawyers, _to be sure_ that the title deeds, were perfectly
good, and satisfactory, _before_ you advanced the money? Now we have just
learnt, from the _last_ part of your twenty-first article, that the
Scriptures, properly speaking, are the deeds of a _Christian_, by which
he is to obtain a _good_ title to salvation. Of course, therefore, we may
_naturally_ suppose, that your scriptural Church would hand down to her
followers the Scriptures, in the _most perfect_ and _unmutilated_ state.

Well, we will now see whether she _has_ done _this_, and _then_ we shall
be able to determine, if she can _re_build her godly, and spiritual
edifice on so heavenly a foundation. We will now consider how she got the
sacred Scriptures, after her shipwreck amid the perils of idolatry, and
whether, _after_ she got them, she handed them down to her followers in
the perfect and unmutilated state, in which she _first_ received them
from the _Catholic Church_. Luther, the father of the Reformation, even
after he had left the Catholic Church, candidly says, in his Commentary
on the 16th chapter of St. John's Gospel: "We are obliged to yield many
things to the <DW7>s, that with them is the word of God, which _we_
received from _them_, otherwise we should have known _nothing at all
about it_." And, in his book against the Anabaptists, he makes the
following confession: "Under Papacy are many good things, yea,
_everything_ that is _good_ in _Christianity_. I say moreover," continues
he, "under Papacy is _true_ Christianity, even the _very kernel_ of
Christianity." From these two passages of Luther, it is evident, that
your scriptural Church, _first_ received the Scriptures from the _hand_
of the _Catholic_ Church, and that she received them, in a _perfect_ and
_unmutilated_ state; otherwise, how could Luther's words be true, (and
_mind_, he uttered these words _after_ he had left the Catholic Church)
when he assures us, that under Papacy is "true Christianity, yea,
everything that is good in Christianity, nay, the _very kernel_ of
Christianity."

Now let us see _how_ your scriptural Church, corrupted and mutilated the
sacred volumes which she had received from the Catholic Church in a
_perfect_ and _unmutilated_ state.

Luther was the first, after the Reformation, who put out a Protestant
translation of the Scriptures, which was _immediately_ condemned by
Osiander, Rickerman, and Zuinglius. Of this translation of Luther,
Zuinglius says, (Lib. de Sacra.) "Luther was a foul corrupter, and
horrible falsifier of God's word. One, who followed the Marcionites and
Arians, that razed out such places of Holy Writ, as were against him.
Thou dost," says he to Luther, "corrupt the word of God. Thou art seen to
be a manifest, and common corrupter, and perverter of the holy
Scriptures. How much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed
thee!" But Luther not only falsified, but he also added, to the texts of
the Scripture. "I know well," says Luther, "that this word, alone, (which
he added to St. Paul's words, Rom. iii.) is not found in the text of St.
Paul, but should a <DW7>, annoy you upon it, tell him at once, without
hesitation, that Dr. Martin Luther, would have it so, and that a <DW7>,
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 Oecolampadius, 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 Oecolampadius and of Castalio, would _himself_ have
produced an immaculate one; but the learned Molineus observes of his
translation, that "he (Beza) actually changes the text, of which Molineus
gives several instances." (In sua Translat. Nov. Testi. part 20.)

Castalio wrote a whole book against Beza's corruptions of the Scriptures,
and yet, he adds, "I will not note all his (Beza's) corruptions, for
that would require too large a volume." (In Defens. Transl.)

Of Calvin's translation the learned Molinaeus 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 Oecolampadius
and Castilio's translation, and Castilio against Beza's translation, and
Molinaeus against Calvin's translation. Now, which of all these false
translations was your scriptural Church to adopt as her only rule of
faith and for that of the people? Why, you Reverends will reply, she was
to adopt her _own_ English translations.

Well, then we had better examine, and see whether they were any better
than _any_ of the above translations, Carlile, in his treatise on
Christ's descent into hell, says of the English translators, that they
have "depraved the sense, obscured the sense, obscured the truth, and
deceived the ignorant; that in _many_ places, they do detort the
scriptures from the _right_ sense, and that they show themselves to love
darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth." And in an
abridgment which the ministers of the diocese of Lincoln delivered to
King James, they denominated the English translation, "A translation that
taketh away from the text, that addeth to the text, and that sometime to
the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost; a
translation which is absurd and senseless, perverting, in many places,
the meaning of the Holy Ghost." Burges, in his Apology, sec. 6, exclaims,
"How shall I approve under my hand a translation, which hath so many
omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscures, sometimes perverts
the sense, being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary?" And Broughton,
in his letter to the Lords of the Council, gives this reason for
requiring a new translation without delay, that "That which is now in
England is full of errors." And, in his Advertisement of Corruptions, he
tells the bishops, "That their public translations of Scriptures into
English is such, as that it perverts the texts of the Old Testament, in
eight hundred and forty-eight places; and that it causes millions of
millions to reject the New Testament, and to run to eternal flames."

But some of you Reverends may reply, those were the Protestant
translations of _earlier_ times; but we have got _better_ translations
now. Well, then we must now examine the truth of your assertion. In
November, 1822, the Irish Protestant Society passed the following
condemnatory resolution of the Irish translators: "Resolved, that, after
a full enquiry, the members of this society feel satisfied, that material
and very numerous errors, exist in the version of the New Testament,
edited by the British and Foreign Bible Society." According to Mr. Platt,
thirty-five variations were discovered in the first ten pages, of which
seven were considered to be material. "This proportion in a Testament of
four hundred pages," says the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Percival, "gives fourteen
hundred variations, and two hundred and eighty material errors in a
single volume." We find in the Monthly London Review, page 220, "That in
April, 1832, a memorial was addressed on the subject, to the
vice-chancellors of the Universities of Cambridge and of Oxford, and the
other delegates of the Clarendon press." It was signed by the following
gentlemen:

    T. Bennet, D.D.
    T. Blackburn.
    George Collinson.
    F. A. Cox, L.L.D.
    Thomas Curtis.
    T. Fletcher, D.D.
    E. Henderson.
    J. P. Smith, D.D.
    T. Townley, D.D.
    R. Winter, D.D.

The names, attached to this memorial, are too respectable not to
communicate a great degree of importance, to any statement to which they
are affixed. This memorial states, "That the modern Bibles, issued from
the press of the University of Oxford, abounded with deviations from the
authorized version of King James the First. That, though some of these
errors were merely typographical, yet of those that were intentional, the
number was of a serious amount. That in the Book of Genesis, there were
upwards of eight hundred errors; in the Psalms, six hundred; in the
Gospel of St. Matthew, four hundred and sixteen; and in about the fourth
part of the Bible, an aggregate of two thousand, nine hundred and
thirty-one."

The same Monthly London Review, for February, 1833, speaking of the
pamphlet of Thomas Curtis, of Grove House, Islington, on his discoveries
of the falsification of the Bible, says: "In this comparatively brief
pamphlet, we find the exposition of one of the most singular deceptions,
to which the world has yet been exposed. The imposition, is nothing short
of a downright falsification of the text of Scripture. Need we add a
syllable more, to rouse the attention of the thinking community?" In the
same pamphlet Mr. Curtis remarks: "About twenty years ago, an intelligent
reader at one of the printing offices, where the Bible was in a course of
printing, took the trouble of drawing up a specification of a number of
gross errors, which he found in the very copy, _that had been selected by
the proper authorities_, as the _standard_ of correctness to which he was
to adhere. The errors pointed out by the penetrating reader, amounted to
no less, than seven hundred and thirty-one, and these occurred in the
various chapters, from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of Jeremiah."

Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, it is plain from what I have stated (and
where is the person who can contradict what I have stated), that the
_first_ Protestant foreign Reformers, corrupted and falsified the sacred
Scriptures, that your English Protestant Reformers, did also the same,
and that even at the present day, your English Protestant translations of
that sacred volume, are in a most awful and corrupt state. And would to
heaven I could stop here!

But what will the English people say, when they learn, that your
Protestant scriptural Church, has _not only_ falsified and corrupted the
Scriptures, but that she has had the audacity, to expunge from the canon
of the Scripture many books, which are _as much canonical_ (that is, as
much the inspired word of God) as those, which she still retains in her
present Protestant canon. I will now prove this. The Protestant Church,
received at first (as Luther truly informs us) the Scriptures from the
Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, therefore, must be good authority
in this respect, otherwise how can the Protestant Church be, sure that
her first Scriptures, were the real word of God? Now, the Catholic Church
has ranked, for at least fourteen hundred years, many books as
_canonical_, which _your_ Protestant Church rejects as _uncanonical_. In
the year 397, a Catholic council was held at Carthage, at which the
learned and pious St. Augustine assisted. In that council, the canon of
the Scripture, was satisfactorily determined; and in that very council,
many books were declared to be _canonical_ (that is, the inspired word of
God,) which your Church, has had the audacity to tell the people, are
_not canonical_, that is, they are not to be considered the inspired word
of God. But _what_ reason had your scriptural Church, to assume the
audacious power, to condemn as _uncanonical_, books, which were declared
by this illustrious, numerous, and learned body of Christians, _to be
canonical_, (that is, the inspired word of God?) I ask you, _what_ reason
had your scriptural Church for this _audacious_ step? I answer, none. O
but I fancy I hear some of your reverends exclaiming, You are wrong _for
once_, old papish botheration. Look at the passage in the sixth of our
articles, between _our canonical_ and _un_canonical books, and there you
will find a good reason for your _popish_ question.

Thank you, courteous clerks; I will now quote the passage, and give
_your_ scriptural Church the benefit of it. "And the other books (as
Hierome saith) the Church doth read, for example of life, and instruction
of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."
(Art. 6, Ch. Eng. P. Book.) Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, _truth_ and
_falsehood_ are in this passage, mixed up together _to a nicety_. In the
first part, your scriptural Church tells the people that she, like Hierom
(and mind, St. Hierom was a great Catholic Saint), reads her
_un_canonical books, for example of life and instruction of manners.
Well, _her object_ for reading these books, as far as it goes, is very
good; but then, your scriptural Church _slyly_ adds, "but yet doth it not
apply them _to establish_ any doctrine:" an artful inuendo that St.
Hierom did the same. Now St. Hierom wished, indeed, the Catholic Church
to read these books, for example of life, and instruction of manners; but
St. Hierom, at the same time, included in the Catholic canon _all_ the
books, which had been ranked in the Catholic canon by antiquity. Now, if
your scriptural Church, quoted St. Hierom's authority in confirmation of
the _first_ part of this passage, why does she slyly intimate, to follow
him in the _second_ part, where she contradicts St. Hierom, by asserting
that certain books of the Scripture, are _uncanonical_, which St. Hierom
believed, and taught were _really canonical_? Come, Reverend Gentlemen,
your Church _must_ have had some _sly_ reason, for this _contradictory_
conduct. Now, _do_ tell us _what this_ reason was. Well, if _you_ will
not tell, _I_ must.

You have seen, how the first reformers _falsified_ the Scriptures, to
make the sacred text, harmonize with their _reformed_ ideas; but _what
puzzled_ them _most_ was, they found there were certain books, which they
could not _possibly tune_ to _their new_ ideas. They _durst_ not indeed,
_entirely_ reject these sacred books; for they knew in _what_ veneration,
they had been _always_ held by _antiquity_; but on the _other_ hand, they
_durst_ not admit them as _canonical_; for _then_, the _testimony_ of
_these_ books, would upset _their new-fangled_ ideas; they thought,
therefore, the _most convenient_ method, was to make _flesh_ and _fish_
of them, and _then_, they could either _admit_, or _contradict_ them,
according to their _own spiritual convenience_.

And that I am speaking the truth, I will give you _one single_ instance,
and from this _one_, you will be able to judge of _the rest_, of their
sly method, of squaring the scripture to their _new_, and _re_forming
ideas. Of all the tenets of the Catholic creed, there is _none_, that has
been _more lustily_ inveighed against, and accordingly, _none_ that sound
_so awfully_, to an _English Protestant_ ear, as Purgatory, and Prayers
for the dead. (_O keep your seats, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I am not
going to put you into Purgatory, although you may imagine it smells very
strongly of it on this side the grave._)[L] Well, mind this doctrine of
Purgatory, and of Prayers for the dead, was the belief of the Jews, and
of all the first Christians, and continued even to the time of the
Reformation. Now in the book of _Machabees_, this doctrine is so
_plainly_ laid down, that no man in his senses, can contradict it. Read
the following passage, and tell me, if I am not speaking the truth. "And
making a gathering, he (Judas Machabeus) sent 1200 drachms of silver to
Jerusalem for sacrifice, to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking
well, and religiously, concerning their resurrection. (For if he had not
hoped that they that were slain, should rise again, it would have seemed
superfluous, and vain to pray for the dead.) And, because, he considered
that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up
for them. It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the
dead, that they may be loosed from sins." II. Mac. xii. 43-46.

Now this passage was so _clear_, and _positive_ a proof of purgatory, and
of prayers for the dead, that the first Reformers found, that they could
not get rid of it, _without denying the divine_ authority of the book.
_Accordingly_, these new soul-menders, told the people that the two Books
of Machabees, were not included in the Jewish Canon, but _unfortunately_,
they _forgot_ to tell the world _the reason_, (viz.,) because the Jewish
Canon was compiled by Esdras, _long before_ the Books of Machabees were
written. And now, you may understand the _sly_ words of your sixth
article, "but yet it doth not apply them (these books) to _establish any
doctrine_," viz., to establish the _Catholic_ doctrine, and to _overturn
their new-fangled_ ideas.

Now, Gentlemen, is it not plain that your _Church_, hath _both corrupted_
the Scriptures, and expunged from her _Protestant_ Canon, many of the
_inspired_ books of those sacred volumes?

And now, allow me to quote the _first_ part of the sixth Article of your
Church, and then, tell me _what_ the _people_ are to do, to save their
souls, and how your Scriptural Church, _is ever_ to be raised again, to a
new spiritual life. "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to
salvation: so that, whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be approved
thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as
an Article of the Faith, or to be thought requisite or necessary to
salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those
Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was
never any doubt in the Church."

Now this part of your Article, assures us, in the strongest manner, that
the Holy Scriptures, contain all things necessary for salvation, that
they are the sure palladium of a Christian, and his title-deeds to
eternal life; and it also says, that in this sacred volume, are to be
included all the books of whose authority, was never any doubt in the
Church. Now, it is also plain from what I have advanced, (and find me a
person who can overturn by _solid_ argument what I have advanced,) it is
plain, I repeat it, that your Church has _both_ falsified the text of the
Scripture, and expunged from her _Protestant_ Canon, many books, whose
authority and divine inspiration, were held by antiquity in the greatest
veneration. Now, most Reverend Gentlemen, do tell me what the people are
to do. On the _one_ hand, your Church tells the people, there _is no_
salvation _without_ the Scripture: and on the _other_ hand, your Church
has falsified the text, and also expunged from her _Protestant_ Canon,
many _inspired_ Books of the Scripture. Really, can you obtain the
possession of property by _corrupt_ and mutilated title-deeds? Certainly
not. How, _then_, are your people to obtain eternal life by your _false_,
and mutilated title-deeds of the Scripture? Really, most Reverend
Gentlemen, if the prejudices of my popish education do not strongly
deceive me, your Protestant mutilation of the Scripture, and your Sixth
Article, are pregnant with the most _paradoxical_ consequences. O how
justly may I apply to _your_ Scriptural Church, the observations which a
distinguished minister of the Church _of England_, applied to the
operations of the Bible Society; these are his words: "Surely, it is
enough to make a Christian's blood run cold, to think of the sacrilegious
presumption of a Society, which dares thus to tamper, and trifle with the
revelation of the Almighty, and dares publish to the heathen, and attempt
to pawn upon its credulous supporters, these schoolboy exercises of its
agents, as the Sacred Word of God! It is the circulation of such
translations as these, that, more than once, at the meetings of this
Society, have been blasphemously compared to the miraculous gift of
tongues. And such a system is supported, and such comparisons applauded
by many, who, on other occasions, lay claim, and justly, to the
characters of piety and intelligence."[M] O how justly might he have
applied these observations to his own Church.[N]

We have now seen, most Reverend Gentlemen, the falsification, and
mutilation of the Sacred Scriptures, by the Protestant Reformers. Your
Sixth Article tells the people, that the Scriptures are the only means of
salvation; but of course, she must mean _correct_ copies, and
_authenticated_ translations of those sacred volumes. Now, what are the
people to do for eternal life, placed as they are, on the one hand,
between your falsified, corrupt, and mutilated Scriptures, and on the
other hand, the absolute necessity (according to your Sixth Article) of
culling their religion from the Scriptures? But, as there is no hope of
salvation, for the people in this awful fix, do you think, you could
raise a church for the people, instead of these falsified scriptures? But
then, it is evident, that you cannot raise that church, on the frail
foundation of these falsified, and mutilated scriptures. Really I am
sorry, that I declined the assistance of the Spanish chemist, as he
might, perhaps, have thrown some new light, on this subject by his
wonderful chemical operations. O! but a very bright idea, has just popped
into my mind, that your Protestant prayer-book, was first made 'by the
aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God.' Surely, we shall now
succeed, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the noble object of God's
honour. Well, then, we will now see, how this prayer-book, was first made
by men, 'aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God;' we will
then see, how these very men who at first declare, that this prayer-book,
which was made by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God,
afterwards most solemnly swear, that all these inspirations of the Holy
Ghost were heretical, and contrary to true religion, and then, how they
bring back this prayer-book, and enact the most severe penalties on all,
who will not adopt its use.

In the reign of Henry the Eighth, the faith of Protestantism, and
defection from the Catholic faith, first partially began. In the reign of
his son, Edward VI., Protestantism, made a-head, and Catholicism, rapidly
declined. It was in the reign of this youth Edward VI., (only eleven
years of age,) that the Protestant prayer-book, was made by Act of
Parliament. In the preamble of this Act (i. & ii. Edward VI.) we are
informed that Edward (only eleven years of age) appointed the Archbishop
of Canterbury, and others, who, "aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the
honour of God," made this prayer-book. Take notice that this Act (i. &
ii. Edward VI.) declares, that this Protestant prayer-book, was made by
these men, "aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God." This Act
of Parliament, provided also, that if any clergyman, refused to use this
prayer-book, in the public service, he should, for the first offence,
forfeit to the King one year's income of his benefice, and be imprisoned
for six months; for the second, he should be deprived of the whole of his
benefice, and be imprisoned for one year; and for the third offence, he
should be imprisoned for his whole life. But this Act, was not confined
merely to the clergy, it extended also to the laity. It enacted, that if
any layman, should by interludes, plays, songs, rhymes, or by other open
words, declare, or speak anything to the derogation of the said common
prayer-book, penalty after penalty, was to follow, until he had forfeited
all his goods, and chattels to the King, and to be imprisoned for life.
Such, was the first formation, of your Protestant prayer-book, as the Act
of Parliament, (i. & ii. Edward VI.) plainly shews.

Now, let us see the result, in the next reign. Edward died seven years
afterwards, and was succeeded by his sister, Mary, who was a Catholic.
Almost, as soon as Mary had ascended the throne, the very men repeal the
whole of the famous Act, for making the common prayer-book, and that too,
on the grounds that this prayer-book, was contrary to true religion,
although, in the former reign, they had solemnly declared, they had been
assisted, "by the Holy Ghost" in the making of this prayer-book; they
also abolished all the pains, and penalties, which they had enacted, in
the former reign, against the clergy, and laity, for not using this
common prayer-book, and this too, on the express ground, that they had
been for years, wandering in error, and schism, although, they had had
the barefacedness to assert, in the previous reign, that the Holy Ghost,
had assisted them in the formation of this common prayer-book.

Well, Mary died about five years afterwards, and was succeeded by her
sister Elizabeth, who was at first a Catholic, but shortly turned
Protestant. Now the second Act of this Queen, (i. Eliz. chap. 2.) brought
back again, this prayer-book. In Mary's reign these very men, had
abolished this very prayer-book, as schismatical, they now recall this
common prayer-book, and inflict the most severe penalties, upon all, who
will not use it, in the public service. For the first offence, it was now
enacted, the clergy were to forfeit a year's income, and be imprisoned
for a year; for the second offence, they were to forfeit all their
incomes, and be imprisoned for life, for refusing to use this common
prayer-book, in the public service. The people also, were compelled on
Sundays, and holydays, to attend the Church, and to use this common
prayer-book, under various penalties, and in failure of paying these
penalties, they were to be imprisoned. Bishops, Archdeacons, and other
Ordinaries, were to have power, to inflict these punishments. Really the
conduct of these men, is, so inconsistent and monstrous, that if we had
not Acts of Parliament for it, I should have been afraid to state it,
upon any other authority. In the reign of Edward, these very men make the
common prayer-book, and declare it a work of the Holy Ghost, and for the
honour of God; then, in about seven years afterwards, in the reign of
Mary, they declare this book to be schismatical, and contrary to true
religion, although in the former reign, they had asserted, it was a work
of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God; and then in about five
years afterwards, these very men recant again, recall this prayer-book,
and inflict the most severe pains, and penalties, both on clergy and
laity, who refuse the use of it. Most Reverend Gentlemen, may I ask you,
what kind of a prayer-book, must that be, which was made by these
inconsistent, and monstrous men? and yet, such is your Protestant
prayer-book, of the Church of England as by Law established.

But some of you reverends, will perhaps reply, really, Sir, it is too bad
of you, thus to lower our Protestant Prayer-book, for we Protestants all
know, how many beautiful, and admirable parts there are in that Church
Prayer-book. Most Reverend Gentlemen, before I answer this objection, we
must quietly trace back our steps to the Spanish chemist. Of course, I
have forbidden myself the application of his wonderful, chemical
operations to your Church. But then, you yourselves can apply them, and
judge whether there really is, any analogy or not, between his chemical
operations, and the spiritual works of your scriptural Church. Well,
then, I have shewn you, what a beautiful Church God and Jesus Christ
first built; and I have shown you the sure, and infallible foundation of
that Church, which was to be perpetuated from age to age, with the world
for its boundaries, and time for its duration. I have shewn you, how, in
the sixteenth century, arose a body of men, the most audacious, and
strange spiritual chemists, that the world ever beheld, whether you
consider the spiritual instructor of some of them, or whether you
consider the strange doctrines they advanced, and the barefaced manner,
in which they defended, and propagated their new-fangled ideas. I have
shewn you, how these strange spiritual chemists, wished to demolish God's
infallible Church, how they cut it into pieces of universal and damnable
idolatry, how then, they put these various parts into the sublimatory
glass of falsification, and mutilation of God's word. You then saw, how
these spiritual chemists, and their followers, have been trying in vain,
for these three hundred years at least, to collect, and unite, and form
these various parts of Christ's Church (which according to their bare
assertion, had fallen into error), into a more perfect, and durable form,
than that which God had first given it. You have seen, how these
Protestant children of the Reformation, honoured England with a
Protestant Prayer-book, the formation of which, almost defies all the
power of credibility; and were there not Acts of Parliament to show
this, it would be an insult to any Englishman, to assert such a thing in
his presence. Now with all these facts before you, is there not a great
analogy, between the outrageous conduct of your Church, and that of the
Spanish chemist, who destroyed his master, with the design of raising
him, to a more perfect and durable state, than that which God had first
given him?

I ask you, most Reverend Gentlemen, with all these awful and
incontestible facts before you, will your Protestant Church, ever be able
to raise Christ's Church, to as perfect and as durable a state, as she
_is now_, and _was then_, when you withdrew from her? Your Protestant
Church has been trying her hand, at this work of reformation, for more
than three hundred years, and still she is something like the Irishman's
wife: Pat got married, and in about three months after, went to the
priest, and said, "Plaise your reverince, you didn't marry me and my wife
rightly." "Well," asked the clergyman, "how did I marry you wrongly?"
"Plaise your reverince, didn't you say, I was to take my wife for better,
and for worse?" "Certainly," replied the priest. "Now, plaise your
reverince, she's all worse, and no better." Really, how justly may we
apply this to your Church of England as by law established. In short,
this country, the wonder of the world in commerce, in the arts and
sciences, in the extent of her navy, and the power of her army, this
wonderful nation, presents, in point of religion, a confused medley of
every sort, and of every form of worship, a perfect chaos of doctrines,
in which every one plunges, and tosses, dogmatizing as fancy or feeling
directs. In consequence of this confusion of religious opinions, men know
not, to whom to listen, what to believe, or what to do. This confusion of
religious opinions, and doctrines, commenced with the Reformation, and
has continued, and daily increased ever since. O how justly did a chief
of the savages, address, near Boston, a missionary, who had gone with his
Bible, to convert the pagans of that country. "How," asked this chief,
"can _your_ religion be the _true_ one, since you _white_ men do not
_all_ profess the _same_? Agree among _yourselves_ in this point, and
_then_ we will attend to you." (Phil. Gaz. Nov. 1817.)

But some of you reverends, will ask again: Really, sir, do you pretend to
assert, that our Common Prayer-book, and that our Protestant Church, do
not contain _any_ spiritual treasures? I answer, that in all counterfeit
coin, which is well executed, the gold is often laid on the base metal
rather thickly, and with great ingenuity. Now, this is the case with your
counterfeit prayer-book, and with your counterfeit religion. Whoever will
take the pains to examine carefully, the strange mixture of good, and of
evil, which is to be found in your Protestant Prayer-book, and in your
Protestant religion, will, at first, stand astonished, but his
astonishment will soon cease, when he finds that the little good which is
in them, flows from the Church of Jesus Christ, which you formerly left,
and that the evils with which they abound, flow from the inventions and
the ingenuity of man.

Allow me to give you a few instances of this. In the Apostles' creed (and
in your Thirty-nine Articles you admit this creed as the word of God),
you profess to believe, in the Holy Catholic Church. Now, this is the
real word of God, which your Church admits; but then, you also solemnly
declare, that you believe in your hearts, and from your soul, that the
doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is idolatrous. Now this is the mere
human invention of your Protestant Church. Now when these two doctrines,
the one from God, and the other from man, are brought in contact, let us
see what sad consequences they make with you, and your scriptural Church.
You profess to believe, in the Catholic Church; but Catholic, means
universal, and as the Roman Catholics form the greatest body of
Christians, their Church only, can be the Catholic, or universal Church;
for Catholic, and universal, mean the _same_ thing. But mind, you destroy
this Catholic or universal Church. How? Why you swear, that her doctrine
is idolatrous. How, then, can she be holy? Thus, you see, by joining in
religion the word of God, with the inventions of man, you destroy (though
perhaps without intending it) the holy Catholic Church, in which you
profess to believe.

I will now give you another instance. At the end of the Communion Service
of your Common Prayer-book, I find these words: "It is hereby declared,
that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto
the sacramental bread or wine, there bodily received, or to any corporal
presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread
and wine, remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore,
may not be adored, for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful
Christians." Of course, the plain meaning of these words is, that Jesus
Christ is not present in the Lord's Supper, and therefore, it would be a
great crime to there adore him. But, what does your Church Catechism
(which is in your prayer-book) teach children on this subject? Why, it
asks them, "What is the inward part, or the thing signified?" Your Church
Catechism answers: "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are _verily_ and
_indeed taken_, and _received_ by the faithful, in the _Lord's Supper_."
Now this declares, that our Saviour, is _really_ present in the _Lord's
Supper_, for how can you _really_, and indeed _take_ Him, and _receive_
Him, if He is not _really_ there? Thus, in _one_ part of your
prayer-book, you solemnly declare, that our Saviour is _not_ present, in
the _Lord's Supper_, and therefore it would be idolatry there to adore
him; but in _another_ part of the _same_ prayer-book, you teach children
that He is _present_; and that they _verily_ and _indeed take_ Him and
_receive_ Him in the _Lord's Supper_. The Act of Parliament of Edward
VI., for the making of this Common Prayer-book, declares it to be a work
of the Holy Ghost; but I hope you will excuse me for saying, that I think
it was a very curious Holy Ghost, and whether it was black, or white,
really I have not sufficient of the prophet in me to divine. But how was
this _manifest_ contradiction, introduced into your prayer-book? Why, I
will tell you; the doctrine of the _real_ presence of our Saviour in the
Blessed Sacrament, had been believed by the great body of Christians,
ever since the time of our Saviour, until the Reformation. Luther and
Zuinglius, indeed, as you know, were convinced _by the devil_, that our
Saviour was _not_ present in the Blessed Sacrament, and that, therefore,
it would be idolatry to believe it; but then, how were they to manage to
substitute their new-fangled opinions, for the constant belief of all
former christian ages? Why, they made flesh and fish of them; they mixed
together again the word of God with the inventions of man, and then,
thought that the people's orthodox stomachs, would _swallow better_ their
new-fangled religious ideas.

But, what has often amused me the most, in your scriptural Church, is
this; you solemnly declare, that the doctrine of Catholics, is
idolatrous; but, should any of these poor Catholic sinners, condescend to
lay their idolatrous bones, in any of your churchyards; what do you
_then_ declare? Why, that you commit to the dust, this Catholic, (who
according to you during life has been a most idolatrous sinner,) "in the
sure, and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord
Jesus Christ;" for you would thus pray: "O merciful God, we meekly
beseech Thee, that when we shall depart this life, we may rest in Him
(Christ) as our hope is, this our brother doth." Thus you tell us, that
during life, we Catholics live in the horrible sin of idolatry, and then,
after death, you are willing to commit us, _for a comfortable fee_, "to
the dust, in the sure, and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal
life, through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Again, you often warn the people, against the idolatrous practice of
praying to the Saints, and assure the people, there is _only one_
mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, on Sundays, you have no
difficulty, in recommending the sick, to the prayers of the faithful.
But, why should _you_ do _this_, when according _to you_, there is _only
one_ mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ? If _you_ can thus ask the prayers
of the faithful, without injuring the mediation of our Saviour; why
cannot the _Catholic_, ask the prayers of the Saints, without injuring
the mediation of Jesus Christ? O! but you will say, the Saints, and
Angels cannot hear our prayers. Well but does not the Scripture tell us,
"that the devil goes about, like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may
devour," and does not our Saviour say, "there is more joy in heaven, over
one sinner doing penance, than over ninety-nine just?" It appears,
therefore, the devils know, and hear what is passing upon earth, and why
should not the saints and angels of God? Nay, it is evident, they _must_
know and hear things, which are passing upon earth, otherwise how could
they rejoice _in heaven_, on the conversion of sinners _on earth_?

But, as you boast so much of the admirable, spiritual treasures of your
prayer-book, and of your scriptural Church, just tell me, most Reverend
Gentlemen, why they have never yet, been able to produce a single saint?
The Scripture, tells us, that a tree, may be known from _its fruit_. And
yet, among all the rich spiritual treasures, of your prayer-book, and of
your scriptural Church, for these three hundred years, you have _never_
yet produced a person, who, on account of his virtue and piety, has been
honoured by posterity with the name of _saint_. Nay, so great is your
poverty in _this respect_, that your Church, has been obliged to _steal
Catholic_ Saints, and barefacedly insert _them_, in your _Protestant_
calendar. Really most Reverend Gentlemen, your scriptural Church, is of a
very strange texture. I have shewn you above, how remarkable she has
always been for forgery; I have also shewn you, how she unjustly robbed
the poor of their just rights, and how, she has endeavoured, by all means
possible, to rob us of the honourable name of Catholic; and how, she has
stolen many of our great Catholic Saints, and presumptuously inserted
_them_ in her _Protestant_ calendar. Really, Gentlemen, may I not exclaim
with the poet--

                  "Can such things be,
    And overcome us like a summer's cloud,
    Without our special wonder!"

But, Sir, if the Protestant prayer-book, and the Protestant religion, be
such a monstrous compound of inconsistencies and errors, as you would
fain lead us to suppose, pray tell us, why England, was so foolish, as to
renounce the Catholic, and embrace the Protestant faith? The answer to
this objection I would most willingly waive, as it would lead me into a
field of persecution, and _cruelty_, over which my feelings would not
wish to travel. But as the answer to the above objection, has been so
ably given, by a _Protestant_ member of Parliament, to a _Protestant_
Lord, I think I cannot do _better_, than give it in his own words. And
_mind_, when you read this letter, you must not imagine, that you are
reading the _mere_ opinions of _this_ writer; no, the opinions which he
there states, are _incontestible facts_, which stand, almost as large as
life, in our English Statute-Book; and are there, recorded so plainly,
that no man in his senses, can have the presumption to deny them. I beg
leave, therefore, to lay before you, the following letter, of a
_Protestant_ member of Parliament, to a _Protestant_ lord, on the present
subject; and I am sure, that the incontestible facts, _facts of our own
English Statute-book_, there stated, will convince you, how England once
Catholic, was brought over to Protestantism.

     A LETTER TO LORD TENTERDEN,

     LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND.

                                                  _April 6th, 1829._

       "MY LORD,

     "I have read the report of your Lordship's speech, made on the
     4th instant, on the second reading of the Catholic Bill, and
     there is one passage of it on which I think it my duty thus
     publicly to remark. The passage to which I allude relates to
     the character of the _Law-established Church_, and also to the
     probable fate that will, in consequence of this bill, attend
     her in Ireland.[O]

     "Now, with very sincere respect for your Lordship, I do think
     it my duty to the people of this country, to show that the
     character which you have given to the Church of England as by
     _law_ established, is not correct; to show that she is not, and
     never has been, _tolerant in matters of religion_; and is not,
     and never has been, _favourable to civil liberty_. In short,
     with most sincere respect for your Lordship, with greater
     respect for you than I have ever had for any public functionary
     in England, and with the greatest admiration of your conduct in
     your high and important office, with all these, I think it my
     duty _flatly to contradict_ your Lordship with regard to the
     character of this Church, and especially in the two particulars
     mentioned by you. I do not charge you with insincerity: for why
     should you not be in error as to this matter, when I know that
     _twenty or thirty years ago_ I myself should, in a similar
     case, have said just what you have now said on this subject?
     Nevertheless, it being error, and gross error too, and I
     _knowing it to be error_, I am bound, in duty to my readers, to
     expose the error; and I am the more strictly bound, because
     this error coming from you, is the more likely to be widely
     spread.

     "First, then, my Lord, let us take your proposition, 'that
     there is no Church so tolerant as this.' I am sure your
     Lordship has never read her history; I am sure you have not; if
     you had, you never would have uttered these words. Not being
     content to deal in general terms, I will _not_ say that she has
     been, and was from her outset, the most intolerant Church that
     the world ever saw; that she started at first, armed with
     halters, ripping-knives, axes, and racks; that her footsteps
     were marked with the blood, while her back bent under the
     plunder of her innumerable innocent victims; and that for
     refinement in cruelty, and extent of rapacity, she never had an
     equal, whether corporate or sole. I will not thus speak of her
     in general terms, but will lay before your Lordship some
     historical _facts_, to make good that _contradiction_ which I
     have given to your words. I assert that this LAW-CHURCH is the
     most INTOLERANT Church I ever read or heard of; and this
     assertion I now proceed to make good.

     "This Church began to _exist_ in 1547, and in the reign of
     Edward VI. Until now the religion of the country had been for
     several years under the tyrant Henry VIII. a sort of mongrel;
     but now it became wholly Protestant by LAW. The Articles of
     Religion and the Common Prayer-book were now drawn up, and were
     established by Acts of Parliament. The Catholic altars were
     pulled down in all the Churches; the priests, on pain of ouster
     and fine, were compelled to teach the new religion, that is to
     say, to be apostates; and the people who had been born and bred
     Catholics were not only punished if they heard mass, but were
     also punished if they did not go to hear the new parsons; that
     is to say, if they refused to become apostates. The people,
     smarting under this tyranny, rose in insurrection in several
     parts, and, indeed, all over the country. They complained that
     they had been robbed of their religion, and of the relief to
     the poor which the old Church gave; and they demanded that the
     mass and the monasteries should be restored, and that the
     priests should not be allowed to marry. And how were they
     answered? The bullet and bayonet at the hand of German troops
     slaughtered a part, caused another part to be hanged, another
     part to be imprisoned and flogged, and the remainder to submit,
     outwardly at least, to the LAW-CHURCH; (and now mark this
     tolerant and merciful Church,) many of the old monastics and
     priests, who had been expelled from their convents and livings,
     were compelled to beg their bread about the country, and they
     thus found subsistence among the pious Catholics. This was an
     eye-sore to the LAW-CHURCH, who deemed the very existence of
     these men who had refused to apostatize, a libel on her.
     Therefore, in company, actually in company with the law that
     founded the new Church, came forth a law to punish beggars, by
     burning them in the face with a red-hot iron, and by making
     them slaves for two years, with power in their masters to make
     them wear an iron collar. Your Lordship must have read this Act
     of Parliament, passed in the first year of the first Protestant
     reign, and coming forth in company with the Common Prayer-book.
     This was tolerant work, to be sure; and fine proof we have here
     of this Church being "favourable to civil and religious
     liberty." Not content with stripping these faithful Catholic
     priests of their livings; not content with turning them out
     upon the wide world, this tolerant Church must cause them to
     perish with hunger, or to be branded slaves.

     "Such was the tolerant spirit of this Church when she was
     young. As to her burnings under Cranmer (who made the
     Prayer-book), they are hardly worthy of particular notice, when
     we have before us the sweeping cruelties of this first
     Protestant reign, during which, short as it was, the people of
     England suffered so much that the suffering actually thinned
     their numbers; it was a people partly destroyed, and that too
     in the space of about six years; and this is acknowledged even
     in Acts of Parliament of that day. But this LAW-CHURCH was
     established in reality during the reign of Old Bess, which
     lasted forty-five years; that is, from 1558 to 1603; and though
     this Church has always kept up its character, even to the
     present day, its deeds during this long reign are the most
     remarkable.

     "Bess (the shorter the name the better), established what she
     called a _court of high commission_, consisting chiefly of
     _bishops_ of your Lordship's '_most tolerant_ Church,' in order
     to punish all who did not conform to her religious creed, she
     being '_the head of the Church_.' This commission were
     empowered to have control over the _opinions_ of all men, and
     to punish all men according to their _discretion short of
     death_. They had power to extort evidence by the _prison_ or by
     the rack. They had power to compel a man (_on oath_) to _reveal
     his thoughts_, and to _accuse himself, his friend, brother,
     parent, wife, or child_; and this, too, on _pain of death_.
     These monsters, in order to _discover priests_, and to crush
     the old religion, _fined, imprisoned, racked_, and did such
     things as would have made Nero shudder to think of. They sent
     hundreds to the _rack_ in order to get from them confessions,
     _on which confessions many of them were put to death_.

     "I have not room to make even an enumeration of the deeds of
     religious persecution of this long and bloody reign; but I will
     state a few of them.

     "1. It was _death_ to make a new Catholic priest within the
     kingdom.--2. It was _death_ for a Catholic priest to come into
     the kingdom from abroad.--3. It was _death_ to harbour a
     Catholic priest coming from abroad.--4. It was _death_ to
     confess to such a priest.--5. It was _death_ for any priest to
     say mass. 6. It was _death_ for any one to hear mass. 7. It was
     _death_ to _deny_ or _not to swear_, if called on, that this
     woman was the head of the Church of Christ.--8. It was an
     offence (punishable by heavy fine) _not to go to the Protestant
     Church_. This fine was L20 _a lunar month_, or L250 a-year, and
     of our present money, L3,250 a year. Thousands upon thousands
     refused to go to the Law-Church; and thus the head of the
     Church sacked thousands upon thousands of estates! The poor
     conscientious Catholics who refused to go to the 'most
     tolerant' Church, and who had no money to pay fines, were
     crammed into the gaols, until the counties petitioned to be
     relieved from the expense of keeping them. They were then
     discharged, being first publicly whipped, and having their ears
     bored with a red-hot iron. But this very great 'toleration' not
     answering the purpose, an act was passed to banish for life all
     these non-goers to Church, if they were not worth twenty
     pounds; and, in case of return, they were to be punished with
     death.

     "I am, my Lord, not making loose assertions here; I am all
     along stating from Acts of Parliament, and the above form a
     small sample of the whole; and this your Lordship must know
     well. I am not declaiming, but relating undeniable facts; and
     with facts of the same character, with a _bare list_, made in
     the above manner, I could fill a considerable volume. The names
     of the persons put to death merely for _being Catholics_,
     during this long and bloody reign, would, especially if it were
     to include Ireland, form a list ten times as long as that of
     _our_ army and navy, both taken together. The usual mode of
     inflicting death was to hang the victim for a short time, just
     to benumb his or her faculties; then cut down and instantly rip
     open the belly, and _tear out the heart_, and hold it up, fling
     the bowels into a fire, then chop off the head, and cut the
     body into quarters, then _boil_ the head and quarters, and then
     hang them up at the gates of cities, or other conspicuous
     places. This was done, including Ireland, to many hundreds of
     persons, merely for adhering to the Church in which they had
     been born and bred. There were ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN
     _ripped up and boiled_ in England in the years from 1577 to
     1603; that is to say, in the last twenty-six years of Bess's
     reign; and these might all have been spared if they would have
     agreed to go to Church and _hear_ the Common Prayer! All, or
     nearly all, of them were racked before they were put to death;
     and the cruelties in prison, and the manner of execution, were
     the most horrible that can be conceived. They were flung into
     dungeons, and kept in their filth, and fed on bullock's liver,
     boiled but unwashed tripe, and such things as dogs are fed
     upon. Edward Genings, a priest, detected in saying _mass_ in
     Holborn, was after sentence of death offered his pardon if he
     would go to Church, but having refused to do this, and having
     at the place of execution boldly said, that he would die a
     thousand deaths rather than acknowledge the Queen to be the
     spiritual _head_ of the Church, Topliffe, the attorney-general,
     ordered the rope to be cut the moment the victim was turned
     off, 'so that' (says the historian) 'the priest, being little
     or nothing stunned, stood on his feet, casting his eyes towards
     heaven, till the hangman tripped up his heels, and flung him on
     the block, where he was ripped up and quartered.' He was so
     much alive, even after the bowelling, that he cried with a loud
     voice, 'Oh! it smarts!' And then he exclaimed, '_Sancte
     Gregorie, ora pro me_:' while the hangman having sworn a most
     wicked oath, cried, 'Zounds! his heart is in my hand, and yet
     Gregory is in his mouth!'

     "The tolerance of the Law-Church was shown towards women as
     well as towards men. There was a Mrs. Ward, who, for assisting
     a priest to escape from prison (the crime of that priest being
     saying mass), was imprisoned, flogged, racked, and finally
     hanged, ripped up, and quartered. She was executed at Tyburn,
     on the 30th of August, 1588. At her trial the judges asked if
     she had done the thing laid to her charge. She said 'Yes!' and
     that she was happy to reflect that she had been the means of
     'delivering that innocent lamb from the hands of those bloody
     wolves.' They in vain endeavoured to terrify her into a
     confession relative to the place whither the priest was gone;
     and when they found threats unavailing, they promised her
     pardon if she would go to Church; but she answered, that she
     would lose many lives if she had them, rather than acknowledge
     the heretical Church. They, therefore, treated her very
     savagely, ripped her up while in her senses, and made a mockery
     of her naked quarters.

     "There was a Mrs. Clithero pressed to death at York, in the
     year 1586. She was a lady of good family, and her crime was
     relieving and harbouring priests. She refused to plead, that
     she might not tell a lie, nor expose others to danger. She was,
     therefore, pressed to death, in the following manner. She was
     laid on the floor, on her back. Her hands and feet were bound
     down as close as possible. Then a great door was laid upon her,
     and many hundred weights placed upon that door. Sharp stones
     were put under her back, and the weights pressing upon her
     body, first broke her ribs, and finally, though by no means
     quickly, extinguished life. Before she was laid on the floor,
     Fawcett, the sheriff, commanded her to be stripped naked, when
     she, with four women who accompanied her, requested him, on
     their knees, for the honour of womanhood, that this might be
     dispensed with; but he refused. Her husband was forced to flee
     the country; her little children who wept for their dear and
     good mother, were taken up, and being questioned concerning
     their religious belief, and answering as they had been taught
     by her, were severely whipped, and the eldest, who was but
     twelve years old, was cast into prison.

     "Need I go on, my Lord? Twenty large volumes, allotting only
     one page to each case, would not, if we were to include
     Ireland, contain an account of those who have fallen victims to
     their refusal to conform to this 'most tolerant Church in the
     world.' Nay, a hundred volumes, each volume being 500 pages,
     and one page allowed to each victim, would not suffice for the
     holding of this bloody record. Short of death by ripping up,
     there were, _death_ by martial law, _death_ in prison, and this
     in cases without number, banishment and loss of estate. Doctor
     Bridgewater, in a table published by him at the end of the
     _Concertatio Ecclesiae Catholicae_, gives the names of about
     twelve hundred who had suffered in this way, before the year
     1588; that is to say, before the great heat of the 'tolerance.'
     In this list there are 21 bishops, 120 monastics, 13 deans, 14
     archdeacons, 60 prebendaries, 530 priests, 49 doctors of
     divinity, 18 doctors of law, 15 masters of colleges, 8 earls,
     10 barons, 26 knights, 326 gentlemen, 60 ladies and
     gentlewomen. Many of all those, and, indeed, the greater part
     of them, died in prison, and several of them died while under
     sentence of death.

     "There, my Lord, I do not think that you will question the
     truth of this statement: and if you cannot, I hope you will
     allow, that no lover of truth and justice ought to be silent
     while reports of speeches are circulating, calling this 'the
     _most tolerant_ Church in the world.' But, my Lord, why need I,
     in addressing myself to you on this subject, do more than refer
     you to the cruel, the savage, the bloody penal code? Leaving
     poor half-murdered Ireland out of the question, what have I to
     do, in answer to your praises of this Church, and your
     assertion as to its tolerance, but to request you to remember
     the enactments in the following Acts of Old Bess, the head and
     the establisher of this Church? Stat. i. chap. 1 and 2; Stat.
     v. chap. 1; Stat. xii. chap. 2; Stat. xxiii. chap. 1; Stat.
     xxvii. chap. 2; Stat. xxix. chap. 6; Stat. xxxv. chap. 1; Stat.
     xxxv. chap. 2? What have I to do, my Lord, but to request you
     to look at, or rather to call to mind those laws of plunder and
     of blood; _fine, fine, fine_; _banish, banish, banish_; or
     _death, death, death_ in every line? Your Lordship knows that
     this is true: you know that all these horrors, all this hellish
     tyranny, that the whole arose out of a desire to make this
     Protestant Church predominant. How, then, can this Protestant
     Church be called 'the most tolerant in the world?' I have here
     given a mere sample of the doings of this Law-Church. I have
     not taken your Lordship to Ireland, half-murdered Ireland; nor
     have I even hinted at many acts done in England during Bess's
     reign, each of which would have excited the indignation of
     every virtuous man on earth; but I must not omit to mention two
     traits of tolerance in this Church: FIRST, Edward VI. was
     advised to _bring his sister Mary to trial_, and, of course to
     punishment, for not conforming to the Law-Church; and she was
     saved only by the menaces of her cousin, the Emperor Charles V.
     SECOND, when Mary, Queen of Scotland, had been condemned to
     die, she, though she earnestly sued for it, WAS NOT ALLOWED TO
     HAVE A PRIEST TO PERFORM THE RELIGIOUS OFFICES DEEMED SO
     NECESSARY IN SUCH CASES. They brought the Protestant Dean of
     Peterborough to pray by or with her; but she would not hear
     him. When her head fell from the block the Dean exclaimed, 'So
     let our Queen's enemies perish!' And the Earl of Kent responded
     'Amen.' Baker in his Chronicle, p. 273, says, that the death of
     this Queen was earnestly desired, because 'that if she lived,
     the religion received in England could not subsist.'

     "This Church has been no _changeling_; she has been of the same
     character from the day of her establishment to the present
     hour; in Ireland her deeds have surpassed those of Mahomet; but
     it would take a large volume to put down a bare list of her
     intolerant deeds. She at last, however, seems to be nearly at
     the end of her tether; the nation has always been making
     sacrifices to her haughty predominance. Boulogne and Calais
     were the first sacrifices; _poor-rates_, and an _enormous
     debt_, and a _standing army_, and a _civil list_ have followed;
     all, yea all, to be ascribed to the predominance of this
     Church, and her haughty spirit of ascendancy. But now the
     nation has made so many and such great sacrifices to her, that
     _it can make no more_. It cannot venture on _another civil war_
     (about the _twentieth_), in order to support the ascendancy of
     this Church; and be you assured, my Lord, that that hierarchy
     in Ireland, to uphold which you seem so very anxious, is not
     much longer to be upheld by any power on earth, seeing that all
     the miseries of Ireland, all of them, without a single
     exception, are to be traced directly to that hierarchy: and in
     these miseries _England sees terrific danger_.

     "The case is very plain. The opponents of the Catholic Bill
     say, We dislike it, because it exposes the Church, and
     especially the _Irish Church_, to imminent _danger_. The answer
     of the Duke is, I cannot prevent this danger without _risking a
     civil war_; and the State _cannot afford that_. The Law-Church
     might reply, Why there have been many, many civil wars carried
     on for the purpose of upholding my ascendancy; but to that the
     Duke might rejoin, Very true; but we have now a
     paper-money-system (also made to uphold you) _which cannot live
     in civil war_, and the death of which may produce that of the
     State itself; and, therefore, you must be now left to support
     your ascendancy by your talents, piety, zeal, charity,
     humility, and sound doctrine. This is the true state of the
     case, my Lord, and, therefore, unless the Church can support
     itself by these means, it is manifestly destined to fall.

       "I am your Lordship's most humble and most obedient Servant,

                                            "WM. COBBETT."

Most Reverend Gentlemen, after reading the above letter, (and mind, the
writer informs you, that what he there asserts, is proved by acts of
parliament,) after reading the above letter, can it for a moment be
thought strange, that England should have left the Catholic, and embraced
the Protestant faith? Nay, is it not more strange, with all the above
_incontestible_ facts before us, is it not, I repeat, more strange, that
there should have been left, a single Catholic, or a single fibre of
Catholicity, in this country? And had it not been for the providence of
God, this would certainly have been the case; but the Scripture
beautifully informs us, "that to them, who love God, all things work
together unto good." (_Rom._ viii., 28.)

But, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I have ranged over so much spiritual
ground, and have been so busily occupied in bagging black game, that I
have nearly forgotten the famous text, "extraordinary and presumptuous
movement," which your meeting were so kind as to give me to preach from.
Really, I must not forget _my text_, otherwise you will begin to
conclude, I must be a very _bungling_ preacher. Let us, then, now return
to my famous text. I think, that you must have been already convinced,
from what I have stated, in the first part of this address to you Clergy,
that your scriptural Church, has been for a long time, making a most
"extraordinary and presumptuous movement," on the _pockets_ of
Englishmen. By _now_ recapitulating what I have just said in the latter
part of this address, I think it will be also plain, that your Church has
been making, for a long time, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous
movement" on the _intellects_ of Englishmen.

I have shown you, as above, what a beautiful Church Christ built, which,
erected on an infallible and imperishable foundation, was to be the
Church of all ages, with the world for its boundaries, and time for its
duration. I have shown you, how your first Reformers, and your Protestant
scriptural Church, had the barefacedness to assert, that this Church of
Christ once fell into error, although _God_ had pledged his solemn word,
that this Church _never should err_; I have also shown you, how this
assertion of Christ's Church falling into error, was the _mere_ ipse
dixit of the _first_ Reformers, and of your scriptural Church; and that
they had both unfortunately forgotten to prove, _when_, _where_, and
_how_, this _infallible_ Church of Christ had fallen _into error_. Now, I
appeal to you, if this was not, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous
movement," of your scriptural Church, on the _intellects_ of Englishmen.
I have also shown you, the characters of the first Reformers, who the
spiritual instructor of some of them was, and what strange, paradoxical,
and new ideas, they advanced, and how, by forgery and lies, they
contrived to palm their new-fangled religious ideas, on the minds of the
people. Really, Gentlemen, was not this, a most "extraordinary and
presumptuous movement," of these Reformers, and of your scriptural
Church, on the _intellects_ of Englishmen? I have likewise shown you, how
your scriptural Church, assures her people, in her Thirty-nine Articles,
that the Scriptures are the only means of their salvation; and I have
also shown you, how the first Reformers and your scriptural Church, have
falsified, and mutilated, those sacred volumes. On the one hand, it is
declared, that the Scriptures are the _only_ means of salvation, and on
the other hand, it is plain, that these sacred volumes, have been
falsified, and mutilated. What, then, are the people to do in this awful
fix? Really, Gentlemen, is not this, another most "extraordinary and
presumptuous movement" of your scriptural Church, on the _intellects_ of
Englishmen? I have shown you, also, with what kind of a book of Common
Prayer, your Church honoured the people. I have shown you, how, _at
first_ it was declared, to be the work of the Holy Ghost; how then, it is
declared _not_ to be the work of the _Holy Ghost_, but the work of
_schism_; how it is then recalled, and adopted, as a most fit means of
devotion for the people. I have shown you, how artfully God's holy Word,
and man's human inventions, are there mixed up together; and that, when
they come in contact with each other, in what strange and paradoxical
situations they place your scriptural Church. Really, Gentlemen, is not
this also a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" of your
scriptural Church, on the _intellects_ of Englishmen? Our Saviour
declared, that his kingdom was not of _this_ world; and hence, neither
he, nor his apostles, endeavoured to propagate, and support his doctrine,
by force, cruelty, and persecution. But does not the above letter, and do
not acts of Parliament prove, that it was by bribery among the great
ones, and by force, and cruelty, and persecution, and death, on the
middle and lower classes, that your scriptural Reformation was
introduced, and forced on England? Really, Gentlemen, was not this, a
most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" of your scriptural Church,
on the _consciences_, and on the _intellects_ of Englishmen?

Now, most Reverend Gentlemen, you and many of your reverend body, have
been lately calling public meetings, in which you have unjustly
endeavoured, to rouse the indignation of the people, against the Pope for
making, "an extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the Protestants
of England. Now I have plainly proved, in my first address, that the Pope
has _not_ made an "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the
Protestants of England; for, by the spirit of the English law, as I have
shown, the Pope is _perfectly justified in all he has done_. But
Gentlemen, is your Protestant Church, justified _in all_ the
"extraordinary and presumptuous movements," which, I have shown, she has
been making so long on _the pockets_, and on _the intellects_ of
Englishmen? Certainly not. Thus you see, you have unfortunately thrown
your Scriptural Church (which feeds you so well with more than nine
millions a-year) into the very grave, which you have been so charitably,
and officiously, unjustly digging for the poor Pope. Really, most
Reverend Gentlemen, I think every one, will conclude, that this is a most
extraordinary and presumptuous movement, of _you_ and _your_ reverend
body, on your good, and kind mother the Church. May they not justly apply
to you, the words of the old proverb, "Physicians, cure yourselves?" Most
Reverend Gentlemen, to those clergymen, who have adopted the above
inconsistent conduct, I can only say, I may applaud their intentions, but
I must condemn their bigotry. They may indeed, be friends to their Church
in their hearts, but their mouths, and pens, are her most dangerous
enemies.

Before I conclude, I beg leave to say a few words about the Puseyites, a
few words to the dissenters, and a few words to the English people; and
then, I must drop the curtain, and beg leave to retire for the present.

There is a circumstance, connected with the Whitby meeting, upon which I
have as yet made no remark. You came together, on that occasion, both
ministers and people, obedient to the trumpet call of Lord John Russell.
Now, that trumpet blew two blasts, which gave "no uncertain sound." The
_first_, was to denounce the papal aggression; the _second_, was to warn
you of "a danger, which alarmed him (Lord John Russell) much more than
any aggression of a foreign sovereign; alarmed him more, than Pope and
Cardinal Archbishop, and territorial titles put together, more than the
hierarchy, with all its mapping, and parcelling out of the land, nay,
more to be dreaded, than an invasion of England, by the fleets and armies
of any earthly power!" In the name of all that is terrible, what is this
danger, that is impending over us? He says that it is a danger, "_already
within the gates_." What does he mean? Why, Gentlemen, he means (and you
all know it) Puseyism, and Popery, which have long been spreading, in the
_very bosom_ of the _Protestant_ Church of England. Lord John proclaims
to you, _this latter_ danger, even more loudly than _the former_; and
yet, upon _this latter_ "extraordinary and presumptuous movement," _you_
were silent at _your_ meeting, _each_ and _all_; you heard him
proclaiming, that the abomination of desolation, had got possession of
the holy place; and that the bewitching fascination, of the Harlot of
Rome, had reduced even some of the Protestant Bishops, into dalliance
with her; and yet, _not one_ word, from _any_ minister among _you_,
Protestant, Independent, or Wesleyan, _not one word_ either _to deny_ the
existence of the danger, or to propose means to _ward_ it off. You
_readily_ flocked together, to repel the _lesser_ danger, but, the _much
more_ alarming danger, (according to Lord John) the danger "within the
gates," it seemed touched _you not at all_. Really, _in this_ you appear,
to be worthy disciples of Lord John Russell, who sat nearly seven years,
under the Rev. Mr. Bennett, with all this danger staring him in the face,
and yet, blew not _then_ a _single_ blast of his _warning_ trumpet.
Really, Gentlemen, what was the cause of your silence, on this occasion?
Was it lack of zeal, or lack of courage on your part? We shall, perhaps,
be better able to judge of this, when I have told you, what sort of
Puseyite enormities, Lord John has detected in the Church, and how, he
takes upon himself, to chastise and correct them. Never, since the days
of Cromwell, the Vicar-General of Henry VIII., has any layman, or
churchman either, dared to play such tricks, or brandish such a rod, in
the face of the Church of England, as this imperious minister has done!
Mark, how this leader of the House of Commons, this lay Metropolitan of
all England, superseding both York and Canterbury, see, how he calls to
account his venerable brother, the Bishop of Durham. "Clergymen of our
Church, who have subscribed the thirty-nine articles, and acknowledged
the Queen's supremacy, have been the most forward, to lead their flocks,
step by step, to the very verge of the precipice." Well, sad shepherds
these, to lead their flocks, to the very verge of the precipice, and
_sadder still_, that one thousand, eight hundred of these Church of
England Clergymen, have signed a protest, _against the Queen's supremacy
as recently_ exercised; thus rebelling, against the acknowledged, and
sworn head of their Church. Well, Lord John thus describes the danger,
"within the gates."

(1.) The honour paid to saints; (2.) the claim of infallibility for the
Church; (3.) the superstitious use of the sign of the cross; (4.) the
muttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in which it is
written; (5.) the recommendation of auricular confession; (6.) the
administration of penance, and (7.) absolution.

All these things, are pointed out by _certain_ clergymen of the _Church_
of _England_, as worthy of adoption! Here, according to Lord John
Russell, is the "enemy within the gates." Here, are seven enormous
errors, pointed out by a layman, as corrupting, and disfiguring the pure,
the Scriptural, the reformed Church of England. I will make a few remarks
on each, marking the number of each, as I proceed.

(1st. The honour paid to saints.) So certain Reverend Gentlemen of the
Church of England, are no longer to honour the saints, as they have done;
the Whig prime minister, will not permit it. But can it be, that Lord
John here intimates, that these Protestant Clergymen, have been paying
_divine_ honour to the saints? Why, this would be idolatry! "Thou that
abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?" Catholics, indeed, honour
the saints, but a true Catholic, would sooner die, than give _divine_
honour to any saint, or to all the saints in bliss. But, whether you
Reverend Protestant Gentlemen, are to honour them at all, or with what
sort of honour, or with what degree of it; all this you will learn,
perhaps, from Lord John Russell, or from some of his Bishops. In the
meantime, you had better observe the _Protestant_ Church doctrine, as to
holy angels, laid down in your _Protestant_ collect, on the feast of St.
Michael, where your scriptural Church, prays, that "the holy angels, may,
by God's appointment, succour and defend us on earth." (Coll. of St.
Mich. Ch. Eng. Prayer Book.) Surely, this doctrine of your Church of
England prayer book, will not alarm Lord John Russell, and surely, the
Bishop of London, will not openly reprehend this, in his next charge, to
the clergy of his diocese; although, in my humble opinion, it smells very
strongly of the popish doctrine of angels, and saints, and looks very
like, leading the people, step by step, to the very verge of that
precipice.

(2ndly. The claim of infallibility for the Church.) It seems, some of
you, Reverend Gentlemen, have had the _temerity_ to preach up, the
infallibility of the Church. _This_, is to be "put down." _You_ are not
to claim _infallibility_ for _your_ Church. Infallibility belongs to the
_Catholic_ Church, which is "built upon a rock," which is the "pillar and
ground of truth," "formed upon the prophets, and apostles, having Christ
for its chief corner stone," with which Church Christ has promised, "to
abide all days, even to the end of the world." Such is the Catholic
Church, according to the _Scriptures_. But, as regards _your Church_,
Reverend Gentlemen, you are to be diligent in teaching, that your Church
is _not_ infallible, is not built upon a rock, _not_ founded upon the
prophets and apostles,--has not Christ for its chief corner stone,--for
if _she had_, she would _assuredly_ be _infallible_. But above all, you
are to teach, either that Christ did _not_ promise, to be always with His
Church, or that, even his abiding presence, with the Church, is _not_
sufficient to make _her_ infallible; at all events, you are to teach (if
you teach anything) that _your_ Church, has _no claims_ to infallibility,
and that she may be involved in the grossest errors, and may be
altogether, misleading and deluding, both you and your flocks. This
shows, what a cuckoo cry, that was, which the vicar of Leeds, was
sometime ago, sounding with _such iteration_, from the housetops, crying,
"HEAR THE CHURCH." This cry, has died away, and I suspect, Dr. Hook will
not _renew_ it, with the return of spring. For why, in the name of common
sense, should we hear, or follow the guidance of this Church of England,
which does not pretend, to be a _sure_ and _infallible_ guide? Or where
indeed, shall we find the Church? In convocation? that has been
extinguished. In synod? She is not permitted to hold one. On the bench of
Bishops? The Bishops, are _notoriously_ at sixes and sevens, all over the
land, both on matters of _faith_, _discipline_, and _ceremonies_.

Yours, Reverend Gentlemen, is a _hard_ lot! I know nothing to equal to
it. You glory in liberty of conscience, and are the bound slaves of a
_fallible_ Church, as if she were _infallible_. The Bible, and the Bible
alone, is your rule of faith, and yet, you are remorselessly compelled,
to subscribe to the thirty-nine Articles, which have been _added_ to the
Scriptures, and which are in part self-contradictory, and in part,
impossible to be understood.[P] You exult in freedom of thought, and in
the privilege of private interpretation, but if you _dare_ to exercise
_either_, you are dragged to the ecclesiastical courts, to answer for
your temerity, at the bar of a Lay Judge. Ah! Reverend Gentlemen,
Cranmer, and Latimer, and Ridley, did an _evil_ thing; they bowed their
_own_ necks, and prepared for _your_ necks, a galling yoke, when to rid
themselves of the supremacy, of the divinely appointed head of the
Church, they cried out, "we have no king but Caesar." From _that_ day to
_this_, Parliament, and Parliamentary leaders, have lorded it, over your
inheritance, both _spiritual_ and _temporal_. You _must_ either submit to
_Lay_ tribunals, or there are _no loaves_ and _fishes_ for _you_.

How beautifully is your Church thus described by the poet,--

    "For she was of that stubborn crew
    Of errant saints, whom all men grant,
    To be the true Church militant:
    Such as do build their faith upon,
    The holy text of pike and gun;
    Decide all controversies by
    Infallible artillery;
    And prove their doctrines orthodox
    By apostolic blows and knocks;
    Which always must be going on,
    And still be doing, never done:
    As if religion were intended,
    For nothing else, but to be mended."

(3rdly. The superstitious use of the sign of the cross.) The true
Catholic, knows that the Son of God, obtained the salvation of the world,
by dying _on a cross_, for all mankind; and hence, like the great St.
Paul, he glories in the cross of Christ, and frequently crosses himself,
with this holy sign, to remind himself of Jesus Christ, who obtained so
many spiritual blessings for mankind, by the great sacrifice, which he
once consummated _on the cross_. Hence the Catholic Church, keeps the
cross, as the sign of the pledge of our redemption, in all her churches,
and chapels, and by this holy sign, reminds the faithful, that all the
blessings, that they either _have_ received, or _can_ receive, _must_
come through the _merits_ of Jesus Christ. Hence, in the oblation of her
holy sacrifice, in the administration of her sacraments, and in all her
sacred rites, and ceremonies, she is continually using this holy sign, to
remind both herself, and the faithful, that it is by the cross, that is,
by the merits of our Saviour's death, and passion, that she, and all
other faithful, are to triumph over the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Hence, this sign was used by antiquity with the greatest veneration.
Thus, Tertullian beautifully says, "We sign ourselves with the sign of
the cross, on the forehead, whenever we go from home, or return, when we
put on our clothes, or our shoes, when we go to the bath, or sit down to
meat, when we light our candles, when we lie down, and when we sit." But
it appears, that the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, is
offensive to Lord John, and, that it may lead people, step by step, to
the very verge of the precipice; and therefore, you clergymen, must not
make use of the sign of the cross, but you must keep the lion, and the
unicorn, in _your_ churches, to remind the people, that _your_ church is
the church of men, as by Law established. You may indeed, bow at the name
of Jesus, and kiss the Bible, before you swear by it, in a court of
justice, but, in the house of God, you had better omit the superstitious
use of the sign of the cross, although, if _one_ of the popish ceremonies
be _superstitious_, it is manifest that the _other two_ ceremonies, must
be _also superstitious_.

(4thly. The muttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in
which it is written.) Now, what this sentence really means, I am at a
loss to divine; whether, it refers to the indistinct utterance, of the
clergyman's enunciation, or it means, that some of these Protestant
clergymen, have been performing certain parts, of the Church of England
liturgy, like Catholics, in the Latin tongue, I am at a loss to
determine. It is a pity, when Lord John is finding fault, about
muttering, so as to disguise the language, (and of course the meaning,)
of his Church liturgy, it is really a pity, Lord John did not express
himself, in more intelligible terms; but, perhaps, the obscurity of Lord
John's meaning, may be owing to the blunt acumen of my popish
understanding. I am rather, however, inclined to think, that Lord John,
is here warning his clergy, against the use of the Latin tongue, in the
Church liturgy, and if so, he is perfectly right. For the English
Protestant Church, is a _modern_ church, its _language_, therefore,
should be _modern_, that its _liturgy_, may announce to posterity the
period, in which it was formed. But the Church of Rome, is an _ancient_
Church, and therefore, _she_ preserves her _ancient_ liturgy, the
language of which, remounts to the _origin_ of Christianity. I do not
believe, that history, can furnish an instance of a people, who ever
changed the language of their liturgy, and who did not, at the same time,
change their religion. But are the Catholics of the Latin Church,
singular in the use of an ancient tongue, in their service? Certainly
not. The Greeks, Russians, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Ethiopians,
Georgians, and the other Christians of the East, all retain the
liturgies, which they received from the fathers of their faith, and which
are written in languages, unintelligible to the common people. The same,
was the discipline of the Jews, after their captivity; and we do not
find, that it was ever blamed by Our Saviour. But is it true, that the
modern Church of England, has always held in such abhorrence, the
celebration of her liturgy, in an unknown tongue? certainly not: for, in
the year 1560, an act was passed, for the introduction of the English
Protestant Common Prayer Book, among the natives of Ireland, who were
compelled, by the severest penalties, to assist at the celebration of the
English liturgy; though these poor Irish, were _utterly_ unacquainted,
with the English language. Hence, Dr. Heylin, in his History of the
Protestant Reformation, (Eliz. p. 128.) says, "The people, by that
statute, are required under severe penalties, to frequent their churches,
and to be frequent, at the reading of the _English_ liturgy, which they
understand, _no more_ than they do the Mass." * * * "By which," continues
this Protestant writer, "we have furnished the <DW7>s, with an excellent
argument against ourselves, for having the divine service celebrated in
_such_ a language, as the people do _not_ understand."

But is the adoption of the Latin tongue, peculiar only to some of the
Protestant Clergymen, of the present day? I answer no; for in the Act of
Uniformity, the Protestant minister in Ireland, if he could not read the
_English_, was permitted to read a _Latin_ translation, which was, no
doubt, equally _unintelligible_ to the most of his parishioners. (See
Dr. Heylin's Hist., as above.) In the same year, the Universities of
Oxford, and Cambridge, and the Colleges of Eton, and Winchester, obtained
permission from the head of their Church, to perform the divine service
in the language of Rome. (Wilk. Conc. Tom. iv., p. 217.) Thus you see,
that the muttering of the Liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in
which it was written, is not (if I understand rightly Lord John's
meaning,) is not peculiar only to some of you Protestant ministers of the
present day; for it was claimed and exercised by some of your Protestant
ancestors. But then, we all know, Lord John is a consistent and
straight-forward man, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you, to adopt in
your Liturgy, a _modern_ language, significant of the _modern_ origin of
your Church, and therefore, he may perhaps wish you to show, by the
language of your Liturgy, that your Church, is _so many_ hundred years
_too late, to be the Church of Christ_.

But if the muttering of the Liturgy, &c., by the Clergy, be a great
crime, is it not a far greater crime, for the Protestant Bishops, and
clergymen, so to mutter the tenets of their creed, as to disguise the
language, and the meaning of them, by their perpetual disunions, and
contradictions? Is it not a _notorious_ fact, that in _one_ Protestant
Church, you are taught to believe in ecclesiastical infallibility, in
_another_, in the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures; in _one_ Protestant
parish, you have a sacrificial, mediatorial priest, in _another_, one of
an opposite, and contrary opinion; in _one_ Protestant Church, you have
an altar, in _another_, you have a communion table; in _one_ Bishop's
See, the Protestant prelate _rigorously_ insists, on the _necessity_ of
spiritual regeneration by baptism, in _another_ Bishop's See, it is
acknowledged to be an _unnecessary_ act of religion; in Pimlico
Protestant Church, you have auricular confession _insisted on_, in a
Liverpool Protestant Church, you have the _punishment of death_,
recommended as a _penalty_ for such a practice; in short, is it not
_notorious_ (as I said before) that the Protestant Bishops, and
Clergymen, are at sixes, and sevens, all over the land, about _their
articles of faith_, _matters of discipline_ and _ceremonies_? Really,
what are the people to do, amidst all this disunion, and dissension about
their religion, so as to disguise, and confound the sense, and meaning of
its tenets? Had not Lord John Russell, better have called his bishops,
and Clergy to an account, on _this_ Babel muttering of religion, before
he chastised them, for the muttering of _the Liturgy_? The building of
the mighty tower of Babel, was arrested, and demolished by the confusion
of tongues; and be assured, most Reverend Gentlemen, unless your
Scriptural Church, changes this muttering, and confusion of tongues, of
her weathercock, and Babel faith, and doctrines, she must also be
demolished. For does not the Scripture, plainly tell us, that "a house
divided against itself, cannot stand?" and the rains (of fallibility, and
of muttering the Liturgy, &c.) fell, and the floods (of clerical
protestant dissensions) came, and the winds (of disunion among the
bishops, about the necessity of baptismal regeneration) blew; and they
beat upon that house, (the Protestant, fallible, Babel, Church,) and it
fell; and great was the _golden_ fall thereof, for it was built, _not_
upon the rock of God's _infallible_ word, but upon the mere _fallible
inventions_, and _pecuniary conveniences_ of men.

(5th. The recommendation of Auricular Confession, to which, I beg to add
(the 7th) Absolution.)

Every well-instructed Catholic, knows that no man, _as man_, can forgive
sins; but at the same time, he knows, that _God_ can forgive sins, and
that God, _can_ give that power to _man_; for the Apostles were men, and
yet, Jesus Christ (as I shall shortly shew) gave his Apostles, a power to
forgive sins. You know, that our Saviour, was both God and man, and that
he acted, sometimes as God, and sometimes, as man. Now, if you will read
the ninth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, you will find, that our
Saviour worked a miracle, to prove that He as man, (but mind assisted by
his heavenly Father) had power to forgive sins, even on earth. Now, he
gave this power, also to his Apostles, for we read in St. John's Gospel,
(chap. xx. 22,) He "breathed upon them," and said, "Receive ye the Holy
Ghost: whose sins, you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins
you shall retain, they are retained." Now, why was not this power of
forgiving sins, to extend also to _future_ ages? Are not God, and Jesus
Christ, as good and as kind, _now_, as they were, in the _time_ of the
Apostles; and are there not, as many sinners _now_, as there were _then_?
If therefore, God, and Jesus Christ, in their infinite mercy, gave this
power of forgiving sins, _to the Apostles_, for the good of mankind then,
and if there are, as many sinners _now_, as there were _then_, in the
name of common sense, why was not this power of God, given to the
Apostles for the benefit of mankind _then_, why was it not, to extend
also to all _future_ ages, for the benefit of mankind _afterwards_? No
such things, cries out the Lay Metropolitan of England. Such doctrine,
would lead the people, step by step, to the very verge of the precipice.
But of what precipice? Would you believe it? to the recommendation of
Auricular Confession, and Absolution, as laid down, in the _Church of
England Prayer-book_.

In the Church of England form of Ordination, the Bishop says, to the
candidate for the priesthood: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye
shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins ye shall retain, they
are retained." These words, most Reverend Gentlemen, were said over each
of you, by your Bishops, when you presented yourselves candidates, for
ordination. Now, did you receive any spiritual power, or was this a mere
form? If you answer, it was a mere form, you then have no more power, in
this respect, than a mere layman; but if you answer, you did receive a
power, it must have been, either a _declaratory_, or a _judicial_ power
to forgive sins; if it was only a _declaratory_ power, viz., to declare,
that the sinner, would obtain forgiveness if he truly repented, then,
_any layman_, possesses this power _without ordination_; for any layman,
can confidently declare, that _penitent_ sinners are pardoned; but if you
received a _judicial_ power, to forgive sins, then, this is popish
doctrine, and this would lead you, and your flock, step by step, to the
very verge of the precipice. But to the verge of what precipice? Why your
Protestant common prayer-book, shall now tell you. Really, most Reverend
Gentlemen, I am afraid of quoting this passage, from your prayer-book;
for it will not _merely lead_ you to _the verge_, but it will _hurl_ you,
all headlong, down the precipice of the popish doctrine, of Auricular
Confession, and Absolution.

But we had better, go step by step, and therefore, I will quote a _choice
piece_, that occurs in your Protestant common prayer-book, just before
the recommendation of Auricular Confession, and Absolution. Your godly
prayer-book, says, in the visitation of the sick, "the ministers shall
not omit, earnestly to move, such sick persons, as are of ability, _to be
liberal to the poor_." It is a pity, O godly Church, that thou didst not
give this advice to thyself, at the Reformation, when thou stolest, so
much money from the poor, and then, made the nation make up, by
church-rates and poor-rates, for what thou hadst stolen. Thou art really
a very disinterested spiritual physician, for thou art most solicitous
about thy children, practising the virtue of _charity themselves_, but as
for _thyself_, thou will practise charity, as soon as it is convenient,
or as soon as the spirit moves thee, or the nation makes thee.

But what comes next, in your godly prayer-book? Why, rank, and downright
Popish doctrine, of auricular confession, and absolution. In the
visitation of the sick, your prayer-book thus says; "Here shall the sick
person be moved to make a SPECIAL confession of _his sins_, if he feel
his conscience, troubled with any weighty matter. After which
_confession_, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and earnestly
desire it) after this sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to
His Church, to absolve all sinners, who truly repent, and believe in Him;
of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences: and by His authority
COMMITTED TO ME, I _absolve_ thee from all thy sins, in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Really, most
Reverend Gentlemen, if all this, is not rank popish, auricular
confession, and absolution, I know not what is; and _mind_, standing as
large as life, in _your_ Church of England, Common Prayer-book, which was
made by act of parliament, by "the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the
honour of God." Really, what are you, and Lord John Russell to do _now_,
when your Protestant godly Prayer-book, has not only _led_ you to _the
verge_, but _hurled_ you all headlong down to the _very_ bottom, of
popish Auricular Confession, and absolution? Why, you must either
renounce your Protestant prayer-book, and declare, it is _not_ a work of
the Holy Ghost, nor made for the honour of God; or your orthodox
stomachs, must swallow, by wholesale, _this abomination of desolation_,
of popish auricular confession, and absolution; and thus, allow the
dreadful enemy, to remain "within your gates," an enemy more terrible
than an hostile invasion by foreign powers.

(6th. The administration of Penance.) This, most Reverend Gentlemen, is
the sixth error, in Lord John Russell's catalogue, of seven errors, but
the last, which I have to answer, as I have already, included the
seventh, in the fifth error. If Lord John, wishes to intimate, that
Catholics teach works of penance, to be of _themselves_ a _sufficient_
compensation for sin, Lord John has yet, to learn, the _first_ rudiments
of the Catholic creed; but if he means, that Catholics consider the works
of penance, as one of the conditions, on which our Saviour, is willing to
communicate the merits of His death and passion, to the soul of the
sinner, Lord John's meaning is just. But does Lord John, seriously
condemn this doctrine, founded, as it is, on the plainest evidence of
scripture, and confirmed by the practice of the earliest ages? If I
understand Lord John rightly, he certainly does. Lord John, is perhaps
the zealous champion of the all-sufficiency of Christ, and in his
opinion, to do penance for sin, after the great sacrifice consummated on
the cross, is to lead the people, step by step, to the verge of an awful
precipice. If this, is Lord John's creed, it must, at least, be a very
consoling one. Indulge your passions, it exclaims, to the sinner, indulge
your passions, and cease to sin, when you can sin no longer; fear not the
rigours of penance; to weep and pray, to fast and give alms, to repent in
sackcloth and ashes, are external ceremonies, which are confined to the
popish creed; but to practise them, in our _new_ dispensation of _free_
grace, _as by law established_, would be, to lead the people, to the very
verge of the popish precipice. It is curious to observe, how Lord John's
liberation from penance (if I understand him rightly,) has improved, on
the rough sketch, which was delivered by our forefathers. St. Paul, was
accustomed to keep under his body, and to bring it under subjection by
acts of penance; and I have no doubt, he thought he was acting in a
manner, pleasing to Christ, and yet, we learn from Lord John's doctrine,
(if I understand it rightly,) this great apostle, was leading the people,
step by step, to the very verge, of the awful precipice of penance. The
penitents in ancient times, often spent whole years in works of penance;
they fasted and prayed, they lay prostrate at the porch of the Church,
they solicited the intercession of their less guilty brethren. By these
penitential austerities, they hoped, they were fulfilling the will of the
Redeemer, and yet, alas! according to Lord John's doctrine (if I
understand it rightly) they were going, step by step, to the very verge
of the awful precipice of penance. Even the learned men, who compiled the
Church of England, Common Prayer-book, appear to have been involved in
this awful error. "There was formerly," they tell us, "a godly
discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such persons, as stood
convicted of notorious sins, were put to open penance, and punished here,
that their souls, might be saved at the day of the Lord; and it were much
to be wished, that this said discipline, may be restored." (Church Eng.
Com. Pray. book.) Little did they imagine, that this godly discipline of
penance, by means of which the souls of sinners, were to be saved in the
day of the Lord, would be reproved by a Protestant layman, as an error,
which would lead people, step by step, to the verge of an awful
precipice. Yet so (if I understand his meaning) says Lord John Russell,
and he is lay Metropolitan of all England.

I think I cannot better take leave of Lord John, than by addressing him
in the words of the Reverend Mr. Bennett, under whose Puseyite teaching,
he sat for some time. "If my course was insidious, (Lord John), why did
you take part in that course? If I so muttered the liturgy, as to
disguise its language, why did _you_ join in so glaring a profaneness,
for nearly seven years? If I practised 'mummeries and superstition,' why
did _you_, come to join in them, for nearly seven years? Why did _you_ so
far and so deeply join, as to receive at my hands, so late as Ash
Wednesday, 1849, the holy Eucharist, yourself and your family? If I were
one, of those designated in your letter, as bringing a greater danger,
than the Pope, why then, my lord, was it, that _you_ said not all this
before?" (Rev. Mr. Bennett's Letter to Lord John Russell.)

In conclusion, I can only say, that I am afraid Lord John Russell's
letter, has been a most _unfortunate one for himself_; and as such, I
regret it exceedingly. It has certainly placed him, in the opinion of
sensible Englishmen, in a very ridiculous point of view; and how it will
be received by future ages, it is not for me to divine.

My dissenting Brethren, to you who have honourably come forward, and
assisted us Catholics, in the late hurricane of bigotry, and of insults,
I return you my mead of sincere thanks. Your conduct shows, that you have
acted the part of consistent men, that you are true supporters of civil
and religious liberty, and that you have not forgotten the former noble,
and disinterested exertions of the late Daniel O'Connell, in your cause.
You cannot but remember, that the late Daniel O'Connell, nobly and
disinterestedly, battled for _your_ rights and privileges, on the field
of civil and religious liberty, _even before_ he had gained those rights,
either for the English Catholics, or for his dear country, poor
Ireland.[Q]

But what shall I say of those dissenters, who have joined with the
Protestant Church, in the late fury and tirade against us Catholics? Can
I call _them consistent_ men? Consistent men indeed! Do not all the
dissenters, the Presbyterians, Methodists, Independents, Baptists,
Unitarians, and Quakers, do not all these dissenters deny, as well as we
Catholics, the spiritual supremacy of the Queen? Nay, do not all these
dissenters, claim _their_ spiritual rights and authority, _independent of
the Queen_? Why, therefore, will you refuse the exercise of their
spiritual rights, to your _Catholic_ fellow creatures? Why will you
unjustly deprive _them_ of those privileges, which are the _birth-right_
of _every_ Englishman; nay, of every human creature in the world? Does
not the scripture, which you so often extol, tell you, "that you ought
not to do unto others, that which you do not wish others to do unto you?"
What, then, are we to say of those dissenting ministers, or minister, who
on one day are seen claiming the power to give spiritual ordination to
others, then, shortly after, attending an Anti-Protestant Church meeting;
and, lastly, see them or him, arranged by the side of the _Protestant_
Church, for the express purpose, of refusing to the _Catholic_ Church,
the exercise of those spiritual rights, which they, or he, had not long
before deemed it their, or his right to assume? Nay, what is still worse,
he had _even_ wished to refuse them the rights of a base criminal, viz.,
that a charitable dissenter should not be allowed to speak, or merely ask
a question, in defence of the Pope, and of the benighted <DW7>s. Really,
was not _this_, a most inconsistent, "extraordinary and presumptuous
movement," of this dissenting minister? Well, I can only say, if the
_religious_ creed of this minister, be not _more consistent_ than his
_political_ creed, I really envy him not the possession of it, and I
think I cannot do better, than address him in the words of the poet:

    "His notions fitted things so well
    That, which was which, he could not tell,
    But oftentimes, mistook the one
    For t'other, as great clerks have done."

I must now say a few words to the English, in general, and make a few
remarks on the unjust manner, in which the Catholic religion, has in
general been hitherto, treated and abused. That you may the better
understand this, I will make use of the following supposition. Let us
suppose, for a moment, that we were in a court of justice, that a person
was going to be tried, that some of you were witnesses against him, that
the rest of you, were to form the jury, and that I was to be the judge.
Now, if we were to examine, _only_ the witnesses who were _against_ the
accused, and _not_ allow a _single_ individual to speak for him, if we
were not, to allow the poor man to speak a word in his _own_ defence, and
were the jury, and the judge, then to pronounce him guilty, do you think,
we should treat that man _fairly_? _However innocent_ he might be, he was
sure to be brought in _guilty_. And why? Because the witnesses were
against him, the jury was against him, and the judge was against him; and
not a single word was allowed to be spoken in his defence. Now, ye honest
men of England, would you not think that man was treated very _unfairly_?
Would you not feel for such a man? And would you not pity his case? I am
sure you would, and all with one voice exclaim, "Let the poor man have
_fair play_, and let _us_ 'do to _him_, as _we_ would be done by.'"

Now, my friends, let us apply this example, to the Catholic religion.
Have you not read books, that gave you the most horrible account of the
Catholic religion, have you not heard people, tell the most infamous
things against this religion, and have you not, _even_ in places of
_worship_, heard this religion, most _cruelly_ called, and abused? But
did you ever ask yourselves, whether all that you then read or heard, was
_really_ true? Did you consider, that abuse, is no argument, declamation,
no evidence, accusation, no verdict? Did you examine the witnesses on the
_other_ side? Did you read any _Catholic_ book, or consult any
well-instructed _Catholic_ layman, or minister on these subjects? Did you
not condemn the poor Catholics, _unheard_, and without giving them a
_fair_ trial? But mind, I am not blaming _you_, nor the _public in
general_, for this ignorance of our religion, nor am I surprised at it.
No, considering what has been the state of things, I cannot conceive how
it could have been otherwise. For these misrepresentations, and false
statements against our religion, have been often made by very
_respectable_ persons, and often repeated to the people, either from _the
pulpit, where_ nothing but the _truth_, should be spoken, or in tracts,
and books, which either _are_, or _profess to be_ written by _learned_
and _sincere_ members of society. Thus hearing these statements, and
accusations, from _these_ sources, the people very natural enough
conclude, that all that is said against the poor _benighted_ <DW7>s,
_must be true_. But my friends, I beg of you that _in future_, you will
always remember, that the law of England, strictly forbids any one, even
the _basest criminal_, to be condemned _before_, he has had a _fair_
trial, that it is an excellent maxim in life, "hear _both_ sides _before_
you _judge_," and the Scripture expressly says: "Thou shalt not bear
_false_ witness against _thy_ neighbour." Why should not then the _same_
principles, be adopted in _judging_ of the _Catholic_ religion? When
then, in future your hear any abuse, or accusation against the Catholic
religion, I beg of you to ask yourselves two questions: _First, am I
certain_ that the _Catholic_ Church maintains _such_ doctrine? and
_secondly, if it does_, have I heard the _proofs_, which may be advanced,
_in confirmation_ of _that_ doctrine? Oh! would only all Englishmen,
grant the Catholics this common boon of justice! how soon would that
dark, and heavy cloud of prejudice and misrepresentation, which has so
long hung over our religion, immediately burst, and as the sun, after
having been shrouded in clouded majesty, amidst the terrific storm,
bursts forth with more transcendent brightness, so would the Catholic
faith, after having been so long darkened with the mist of false
representation, burst forth, with a lustre and brightness, which could
not help attracting the eye of every sensible, and thinking mind.

One or two more remarks to you Englishmen, and then, I really must for
the present bid you farewell. You cannot be ignorant of the many
Protestant clergyman, who, are either returning in _many_ respects to the
Catholic faith, or who have _already, publicly_ renounced the
_Protestant_, and embraced the _Catholic_ faith. Now, with all these
venerable examples before _you_, ought not _you laity_, to begin to
think, that _you also_, have a right, nay, that it is _your duty_, to
examine how religious affairs, stand in England? You cannot read, without
feelings of interest, and surprise, the account of the _numerous_
conversions, of these _Protestant_ clergymen, to the _ancient Catholic_.
Although you may condemn the change, still you cannot but admire the
singleness of their purpose, and the strength of their minds. The
Catholic Church, has no _earthly_ treasures (for the Protestant Church
got all these long since) to offer these ministers for the great
sacrifice of wealth, of friendship, and other worldly interests, which
they have to forfeit, for _renouncing_ the _Protestant_, and _embracing_
the _Catholic_ faith. On the other hand, your rich, but poor in spirit
Church, lays before them _golden_ prospects, some of the best, and
highest preferments of your Church. But, they have turned their backs
upon them all, either to accept the lowly charge of a Catholic Priest, or
to sink into some despised, and humble situation in life. To many of you,
these sacrifices may appear folly; but remember these converts, have
lately studied in the school of St. Paul, who "suffered the loss of all
things, and accounted them as dung, that he might gain Christ." (Phil.
iii.) Thus, they have cheerfully renounced the riches, and honours of
this world, to associate themselves in faith, and worship, with those
holy, and illustrious members of the Catholic faith, who, in every age,
and clime, have made it their aim, and glory, to bring their dear, but
erring brethren, to this one fold, of the one Shepherd, Jesus Christ.

I can only say it appears to me strange, passing strange, that if
Catholicity be such a monster, as some would gladly persuade the world,
it appears very strange, that there should be such an inclination in
England, of late years, to return to this ancient faith. Every one must
acknowledge, that the march of intellect in England, during these late
years, has been immense; but if Catholicity be such a monster, as our
enemies _charitably_ represent it, what is the reason, so many are
beginning to enter into its fold, and what is the reason, Catholicity in
England is so much in the increase? This great increase, is acknowledged
even by our enemies. One would _reasonably_ think, that if Catholicity be
such a monster, the march of intellect would have _naturally_ guarded the
people against it. It surely will not be said, that the people have not
been sufficiently warned against it. What! not sufficiently warned
against it! Have they not been warned against it, these three hundred
years at least? Have they not been warned against it, in books of all
descriptions, from the large folio to the penny tract? Have they not been
warned against it, in almost every pulpit (except Catholic) in England?
Have they not been warned against it, again, and again, in the House of
Lords and Commons? Have they not been warned against it, in almost every
rank of society? In short, have they not been warned against it by every
means, that human ingenuity could devise? But surely, we shall not be
told, that this inclination to Catholicity, is owing to the want of
scriptural knowledge in England? Want of scriptural knowledge indeed in
England! Have not millions of money, been subscribed for the printing of
the scriptures, have not millions of bibles, been printed and circulated
in England? In short has not almost every one a bible, to which he
confidently appeals as his word of life? And yet notwithstanding all this
_warning_ against Catholicity, notwithstanding this immense diffusion of
bibles in England, Catholicity is rapidly increasing, to the great dismay
and "horrification" of our enemies. What then, can be the reason of this
late increase of Catholicity in England? Why, I will tell you, the people
of England, can now most of them read, and the march of intellect is
abroad, and by these means the people begin to find out, that their
Catholic fellow creatures, have been long, an unjustly abused, a
shamefully treated, and basely calumniated body of Christians. The
people, therefore, naturally begin to feel for them, and are now
unwilling to be deceived, by the idle rant of those misinformed, but
positive writers and preachers, who

    "Without the care of knowing right from wrong,
    Always appear, decisive, clear, and strong,
    Where others, toil with philosophic force,
    Their nimble nonsense, takes a shorter course,
    Flings at your head, conviction in a lump,
    And gains remote conclusions at a jump."

It is related in the Anglo-Saxon history, that when the Catholic
missionaries came from abroad, to announce the truths of the Gospel to
our pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors, it is related that an aged and
venerable, but unconverted Thane thus addressed his pagan prince on the
subject. "When," said he, "O King, you and your ministers are seated at
table in the depth of winter, and the cheerful fire blazes on the hearth
in the middle of the hall, a sparrow perhaps, chased by the wind and
snow, enters at one door of the apartment, and escapes by the other.
During the moment of its passage, it enjoys the warmth; when it is once
departed, it is seen no more. Such is the nature of man. During a few
years his existence is visible: but what has preceded, or what will
follow it, is concealed from the view of mortals. If the new religion,
offer any information on subjects so mysterious and important, it must be
worthy of our attention." (Ling. His. Anglo-Sax. vol. i. pp. 29-30.)
Happy shall I consider myself, O Englishmen, if in the above pages, I
have advanced anything, that may be thought worthy of your attention on
the subject of religion. Our lives, as this pagan, but aged and venerable
Thane justly observes, are beautifully pictured by the short flight of a
sparrow, flying through the narrow space of a hall, with a door open at
each end. But after this short passage of life, there is something most
awful, and mysterious awaiting us, and the true religion of God, only can
unfold to us, how we may best prepare ourselves for the revelation of
those awful moments, when time shall end, and eternity begin. Surely
then, the sincere search after the true religion, must be a subject
worthy of your information, of your attention, and of your frequent
consideration. Happy, again I repeat it, shall I consider myself, if
anything that I may have said, shall tend to assist you in the above
important, and essential investigation. Refer, however, the glory and
honour, not to me, but to the holy Catholic Church, under whose guidance
I have been instructed. O holy Church, the pillar of truth and the child
of Jesus Christ, if I stray from thine unerring word, I shall soon (a
weak and frail child of Adam) fall down the awful precipice of spiritual
inconsistencies, contradictions, and errors. Should I have advanced
anything contrary to any article of thy holy faith, I am ready publicly
to recall it. Under the safe shelter of thy unerring authority, I will
fix my resting-place, and there, fear neither the scoffs of the infidel,
nor the flimsy reasoning of those, who have unfortunately strayed from
thy secure paths. O Englishmen, if you would only seriously, and
conscientiously examine the _real_ merits of the Catholic Church, you
would soon find that she is built upon the pillar of truth, and that she
is the admirable work of that wise builder, Jesus Christ, who built His
house upon a firm foundation. "And the rains fell, and the floods came,
and the winds blew, and they beat on that house, but it fell not, for it
was founded upon a rock." (St. Matt. vii. 25.)


ERRATA.

FIRST ADDRESS.

Page 1, line 23, for "rights" read "rites."
     8, note line 6, for "Gospels" read "Gospel."


PRINTED BY RICHARDSON AND SON, DERBY.

FOOTNOTES:

[H] In the preceding pages, I have asserted, that the Protestant Church,
is unjust, in taking from the poor their portion of church property,
which was left them by our charitable Catholic ancestors; nay, that it is
also unjust, to exact tithes from those, who do not belong to the
Protestant Church of England. Now this bold assertion against the
Protestant Church, certainly requires a little explanation. A law may be
considered in _two_ points of view, as a law of the _land_, and as a law
of _God_. Now as the law of tithes in the Protestant Church, is
sanctioned by act of parliament, of course the Protestant Church, is
justified in exacting these tithes, for it has the law of the land at
_its back in this respect_. But then, the Protestant law of tithes,
considered in a _moral_ point of view, is certainly an unjust law. And
why? Because it takes from the poor, what was _justly_ left them by our
charitable ancestors, and it exacts money from the Catholics and
dissenters, without doing any thing to them _in return_ for this money.
Thus you see, that the law of _man_ and the law of _God_, sometimes
_contradict_ each other; and this is _often_ the case, in your scriptural
Church as by law established. But is not _God_ _always_ above _man_?
Certainly; and therefore the _law_ of _God_, ought _always_ to have the
preference to the _law_ of _man_. But this subject of Church tithes,
reminds me of the famous Dr. Hook of Leeds, who is _often writing_
against the Roman Catholic Church, but slyly _never_ condescends to
_answer_ any of her replies. Now, _mark well_, I am going to prove, _even
to a demonstration_, from the words of Dr. Hook, that the Roman Catholic
Church, is _really_ the _true_ Church of _Christ_ in _these realms_.
Well, you will say, if you _can_ do _that_, Dr. Hook must be a _very
strange_ and _inconsistent_ doctor of our Church. Really, do you know, I
was just thinking the same. In the year 1832, the Somerset County Gazette
informed the public, that Dr. Hook, in a sermon which he preached _before
the Queen_, uttered the following _remarkable_ words: "Were all
connection between church and state, at this very moment to cease, the
church (that is, the Protestant Church) would remain _precisely_ as she
_now_ is; that is to say, our bishops, though deprived of _temporal_
rank, would still exercise all those _spiritual_ functions which,
conferred by higher than human authority, no human authority can take
away; still to vacant sees they would consecrate new bishops, still
ordain the clergy, still confirm the baptized, still govern the church."
Such are the famous words of Dr. Hook, in his sermon before the Queen.
Now let us see how _nicely_, they _prove_ the _Roman Catholic Church_, to
be the _true_ Church of Christ in these realms. Whether this prophecy of
Dr. Hook respecting the _Protestant_ Church, would be _really_ verified,
were his church to be _separated_ from the state, I will not here
enquire; but _this_ I will say, it has been already really verified with
regard to the _Catholic_ Church _in England_. For although at the
Reformation, the _Catholic_ Church was deprived of all aid from the
state, although she was unjustly spoiled of those temporal riches left by
her charitable children, and although the exercise of her faith,
subjected her followers to the most _severe pains_ and _penalties_,
(which must be for ever a disgrace to this country), still, Catholicity
could not be extinguished in these kingdoms; for her bishops "_still
continued_ to exercise all those _spiritual_ functions, which, conferred
by _higher_ than _human_ authority, no human authority can take away,
_still_, to _vacant_ sees, they consecrated new bishops, _still_ ordained
the clergy, _still_ confirmed the baptized, _still_ governed the church."
And hence this _Catholic_ Church, notwithstanding all the _stormy
trials_, which she has undergone _in England_, exists now, and is exactly
the same in spiritual power, as she was before the time of the
Reformation. If, therefore, Dr. Hook considers that _this_ would be a
_mark_ of the _true_ Church of Christ, were it to be _verified_ with
regard to his _Protestant_ Church, we may _justly_ infer, according to
the _Doctor's_ principle, that the _Roman Catholic_ Church, is the _true_
Church _of Christ in these realms_. And why? Because the doctor's
principle, has been _already really verified_, with regard to _this_
church in these kingdoms. Really, I begin to think that the _famous_ Dr.
Hook of Leeds, must be some relation to Martin Luther; for Martin, _even_
after he had left the Catholic Church, proves, in the following words,
that the _Roman_ Catholic Church, was the _true_ Church of _Christ_. In
his book against the Anabaptists, he makes the following _candid_
confession: "Under Papacy are many good things; yea, _everything_ that is
_good_ in Christianity. I say, moreover," continues he, "under Papacy is
_true_ christianity even the _very kernel_ of christianity." Here we have
two doctors of the Protestant Church, leaving, _even after_ they had
strained every nerve to _overturn_ this Catholic Church, we have, I
repeat, these two Protestant doctors, leaving in their writings to
posterity, _one_ by his line of _argumentation_, and the _other_ by his
_own_ words, the most incontestible proofs that the Roman Catholic
Church, is _really_ the _true_ Church of _Christ_, and that her fabric,
is adorned with all the rich treasures of christianity. O how true is the
declaration of the wise man! (Prov. xxi. 30,) "there is no wisdom, there
is no prudence, there is no counsel against the Lord."

[I] Joseph Hume, Esq., is, or nearly I believe, the oldest member of the
present House of Commons, and it may be _truly_ said, that, perhaps, no
one in that House has acted with _greater_ consistency, and more
_disinterested_ zeal, for the promotion of the welfare of his country. He
has _always_ been a staunch advocate for reform, a patriot for the rights
of the poor, and a manly defender of civil, and religious liberty _to
all_. Hence, poor Dan. O'Connell, was sensible of the _distinguished_
political merits of this _great_, and consistent statesman; and hence,
when an _English_ constituency rejected this worthy member from a seat in
the House, Dan. _honourably_ obtained in _Ireland_ a seat for _this
useful and consistent_ member. Now, I am glad to find, that the _remarks_
which I have just made, agree with the opinion of _this eminent_
statesman, _respecting the loaves and fishes of the protestant clergy_.
The following, are the words which Joseph Hume, Esq. has _just_ uttered
on this subject: "but their zeal (that is, the zeal of the protestant
clergy,) against the Catholics, looks to me, to originate from _fear_ of
the _loaves_ and _fishes_, which they now so _largely_ enjoy for doing
_little_, and in _many_ cases _nothing_ of public duty." (Joseph Hume's,
Esq., letter to W. J. Cole, Esq., Lechdale, Gloucestershire, 24th Dec.,
1850.)

[J] I cannot help relating here a circumstance (I hope it is not foreign
to the purpose) that happened to one of my acquaintance. He was
travelling in a coach, in which were three other respectable passengers.
Among other subjects, the conversation (as is often the case) turned on
Catholics. One of the gentlemen, immediately commenced a philippic
against the Catholics, and called them idolaters, superstitious,
murderers, and many other _pretty_ names. My acquaintance allowed the
gentleman, to pour out his abuse for some time _without interruption_,
and appeared much amused by his bold assertions, and flaming descriptions
of the poor _deluded_ <DW7>s. During the conversation, a person in
liquor, rode up to the coach window, and began to annoy the passengers,
by his yells and impertinent behaviour. My acquaintance immediately said
to the gentleman, who was telling such pretty things about the Catholics,
let us have this drunken man taken up, he has murdered two or three
people. The gentleman replied, "Are you, Sir, _certain_ that he _has_
murdered two or three people? Can you _prove it_? Because it would be
very _unjust_ to take the man up, unless you could _prove_ the crimes
which you mention." "No," answered my acquaintance, "I am not certain.
And let me ask you, if _you_ are _certain_, that all the charges, which
you have just brought against the _Catholics_ are _true_? I am a
Catholic, and must tell you they are _false_, and if _you_ would only
follow the advice, which you have just given _me_ about this man, you
would find the truth of what I say. If _you_ would not wish _me_ to
accuse this man of a crime, which I am not certain he _has_ committed, I
beg that _you_, for the future, will _never_ accuse the _Catholics_ of
charges, which _you_ cannot _prove_ to be true, and which, if you would
only take the trouble to examine, you would find to be _absolutely
false_." The gentleman looked _much perplexed_, and was so ashamed of
himself, that he never spoke another word until they parted. The other
two gentlemen _enjoyed the joke wonderfully, and laughed most heartily_.

[K] We read of the ancient prophets, whom God sent to reform the Jews
that they began their prophecies by admonishing the people, that the Lord
had spoken to them: "Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the
Lord hath spoken." Isai, c. i. v. 2. Whereas God has permitted that the
doctrine of the Reformation, should have been originally announced to the
world, by a man of insupportable pride, who disclaimed the authority, and
doctrine of all Churches then upon the earth; who made no difficulty of
acknowledging, that it was from _the devil_, he learned _one_ of the
principal articles of the Reformation, and who might therefore, have said
to his followers, "Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the
_devil_ hath spoken."

[L] But some will perhaps ask, why did the _first_ reformers inveigh _so
much_ against _Purgatory_ and _Prayers for the dead_? Why the first
reformers liked _spiritual_ commerce, _without_ duty if they could only
contrive it. Now, as a remuneration for Prayers for the dead, our
charitable ancestors had left certain handsome sums of money; now these
reformers liked the _money_, but _not_ the _obligation_ of the Prayers;
and, therefore, they inveighed _right lustily against_ the Prayers, but
took care to slyly pocket the money. But when this spiritual commerce
could _not_ be carried on unless the duty was _performed_, they very
kindly retained the popish practice, and thus secured the money; witness
the tolling of the bell for persons _just_ dead, the churching of
females, and of burying the dead. These and other are in reality the
remnants of popish ceremonies, and the performance of them inspire on the
_Catholic_ mind _devotional_ feelings; but by Protestants are, _in
general_, looked upon very lightly, in a _spiritual_ point of view. But
then take away these popish ceremonies, and off flies the fee. Will the
fee for baptism be now demanded, as baptism has been _lately_ declared to
be an unnecessary act of religion in the Protestant Church? Our Saviour
said to His Apostles, "Go, teach all nations, _baptizing_ them," (that
is, all nations,) but the Protestant Church says to her ministers, "Go
teach all nations," but as to the _absolute necessity_ of baptism, our
Saviour _must_ have been wrong, and, therefore, go please yourselves
about it.

[M] Appendix to "Reasons why I am not a member of the Bible Society. By
the Hon. Arthur Philip Percival, B.C.L. Chaplain in Ordinary to His
Majesty."--Fifth Edition.

[N] Would my Lord Harewood, who _lately_ figured so conspicuously on the
platform in York, as the advocate for the pure and unadulterated Word of
God, without note or comment, point out to the people _the sure guide_,
which they are to follow, amidst this _awful Protestant_ falsification,
and mutilation of the Sacred Scriptures? The Spanish chemist (as related
above) cut his master into pieces, and put the pieces into his
sublimatory glass, with the hope of raising his master, to a more
perfect state than he enjoyed, when God made him. Now, my Lord, from
what I have said above, has not the Protestant Church, cut the
Scriptures into pieces, and put them into the sublimatory glass of
falsification and mutilation? but, my Lord, will she be ever able to
raise them again, to as perfect a state as they were in, when God made
them, or when your Protestant Church received them, from the hands of
the Catholic Church? I am sure, my Lord, she will be here at _fault_.
Another remark or two, my Lord, and I have done. The man, who embraces a
religious opinion from conviction, has undoubtedly the right to maintain
it by argument. But truth will be his first and principal object, and
the champion of truth, will disdain the petty artifices of substituting
assertion for truth, and misrepresentation for fact. He will never
condescend to swell the crowd of idle disputants, whose ingenuity first,
frames a creed for the Church of Rome, and then, after combatting a
phantom of its own creation, exults in an easy and a decisive victory.
My Lord, just adopt this advice in all your _future_ observations on the
creed of Catholics, and then, you will escape two ridiculous
consequences; of exalting the Scriptures on the one hand, and of
transgressing on the other, one of the golden precepts of that sacred
volume, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." But
far be it from me, my Lord, to _assert_ that you have _already done_
this. I merely wish to guard your Lordship, against the above ridiculous
consequences. Now, as your ideas, with regard to the _Catholic_ doctrine
on the Scriptures, appear to be rather vague, I will just state, in
short, our doctrine on that subject. Our Saviour commanded his apostles
to go and preach his gospel, and after they had done this for a certain
time, he then inspired some of them to write certain books, for the
fuller instruction of those persons on certain points, which they either
did not perfectly understand, or of which they were ignorant. For, as
the apostles were absent from these persons, (for twelve men could not
be in many places at the same time,) they found it necessary to
communicate by their pens, certain instructions which these persons
required. Now, as what the apostles _wrote_, as well as what they
_preached_, was _equally_ the inspired Word of God, the Catholic Church,
afterwards, carefully collected those sacred books, which were written
by some of these inspired men, gave to the whole of these sacred books
thus collected, the name of the New Testament, and presented this volume
to the people as the inspired Word of God, and has handed it down as
such to her faithful in every age, in as perfect a manner as possible.
And in the distribution of it to her faithful in every age, she has
followed the example of the apostles. For she orders her ministers to go
_first_, to preach and teach the gospel to the people, and _afterwards_,
for their further instruction, she puts the sacred Scriptures into the
hands of the faithful. But mind, as your Protestant Reformers have
_shamefully_ corrupted and mutilated the sacred Scriptures, she rejects
your human and metamorphosed translations, forbids the use of your
incorrect, corrupt, and mutilated translations, and puts into their
hands, _well-authenticated_ copies of that sacred volume. Hence, on
account of her _great anxiety_, for the distribution of _correct_, and
_well-authenticated_ copies among her faithful, certain Protestants have
the _audacity_ to assert, that the Catholic Church, forbids the use of
the Scripture to her people, or at least, will not let them read the
pure word of God without note or comment. Do I impeach the veracity of
these Protestants! Of some indeed I do, but not of all. But this I will
say, most of them might know better, if they would only seek information
from proper sources. I hope, this short explanation of the _Catholic_
doctrine on the Scripture, will satisfy Lord Harewood, and caution him
never to speak on matters, which _essentially_ concern _his neighbour's_
interest, _unless_ he _first_ perfectly understands them.

One word more, and I have done. I once heard, that a Noble Lord,
attending a great County Meeting, in the York Castle-yard, had achieved
for himself a lasting notoriety, by declaring, that in his opinion, "the
Bible ought to be read by all men, and women, and children, and _even
idiots_." And scarcely had the merriment excited by this memorable burst
of sound sense subsided, before his Lordship was heard thus resuming his
exhilarating eloquence. "Yes, even by idiots. I myself have derived great
advantage from that book." The effect upon the meeting was electric. The
noble advocate of the unfortunate idiots, had so completely identified
himself with his clients, that laughter became irresistible, and to what
class of intelligent beings, his Lordship belonged, most evident. I
believe this is the only instance on record, of a Noble Earl,
establishing his religious opinions, at the expense of his understanding.

[O] Here follows a long extract from Lord Tenterden's Speech, which it is
unnecessary to reprint.

[P] By the fundamental rule of Protestantism, every individual, possesses
the right of private judgment, and of course, is allowed to interpret the
Bible, as his reason, or his feelings, suggest; and yet, _mark_ the
contradiction, he is _not_ allowed, to interpret the _thirty-nine
Articles_. For in the declaration prefixed to this singular code, it is
said: "His Majesty, prohibits his loving subjects, the least difference
from them, or putting their _own_ sense upon them; but requires them, to
be taken in _their literal_, and _grammatical_ sense." Now, Dr. Paley
says, that "the Thirty-nine Articles, will be found, on dissection, to
contain about two hundred and forty _distinct_, and independent
propositions; many of them, inconsistent with _each_ other." In fact, few
of the English Clergy subscribe the articles in the literal, and
grammatical sense; "and Burnet says, that in his own times, the greater
part of the clergy, subscribed the Articles, _without examining them_,"
and that others do it, because they _must_ do it, _though they can hardly
satisfy their consciences_, about some things in them. Dr. Balguy says,
that "the Thirty-nine Articles impose upon us doctrines of dark, and
ignorant ages." How just, then, must the observation of Gibbon be, "that
the great body of the English Clergy, sign the Thirty-nine Articles, with
a _sigh_, or a _smile_." Really, to require that men, should take these
Articles, in their literal, and grammatical sense, whilst many of them,
have _no literal_, or _grammatical_ sense, nay, moreover, to oblige men,
to swear that they believe them, is, in my humble opinion, a violation of
common sense, and of decency. In all this, there may be some degree of
political wisdom, but it is surely, an act of very gross, religious
inconsistency.

[Q] The name of Ireland, brings to my mind, the great O'Connell, the
pride of his country, the wonder of England, and the admiration of the
world. When I read the direful grievances of that ill-treated nation, I
wish, for the sake of England, (which I dearly love) that those
grievances had never been written, either on the pages of history, or on
the records of heaven. Oh, Ireland, how thou remindest me of the
sufferings of my Saviour! "a man of sorrow, and the outcast of the
people." Had not _his_ divine example been continually before _thy eyes_,
thou never couldst have endured thy load of miseries, of sorrows, and of
persecution, and so nobly have proved thy loyal allegiance to thy
sovereign, even amidst a deluge of insults, and of wrongs, and of
injustices, that would have maddened any other nation, into a whirlwind
of fury, and revenge, and rebellion; but thou rememberedst the words of
thy Saviour, "love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and
persecute you." But thy days of sufferings and of sorrow are, I hope,
hastening to a close; but perhaps, the time of retribution for England
has yet to come. Oh, may Heaven avert this dreadful day of reckoning for
my dear country! But, Oh, Ireland, I must not forget the pride of thy
heart--the great O'Connell--the much-abused and calumniated Dan. He is
now, indeed, beyond this land of misery; but alas, he died a beggar! Yes,
HE whom the newspapers _formerly_ held up, as a _most base knave_, a
_deceiver_, and a _money-hunter_, _even he_ at last, died a beggar, for
the _love_ of his country. He nobly sacrificed his, from ten to fourteen
thousand a year, which he was making by his profession, and in lieu,
accepted the comparatively small and precarious offerings of his
countrymen, every farthing of which he spent in promoting their welfare;
he blasted all the patrimonial prospects of his own family, and at last,
died a martyr and a beggar, for his country; and yet, there is not one
English Protestant newspaper to do him common justice, by _even hinting_
at these _heroic_ actions. Oh, how justly may I address them in the
severe words of the poet:

    "You all did hate him once, but without cause,
    What cause withholds you, then, to mourn for him?
    Oh, judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts!
    And men have lost their reason."

But, Oh immortal Dan! their praises or censures to thee are equally
worthless, for thy colossal deeds during life, and thy heroic death, have
immortalized thy name. But of all thy sorrows, the _stab_ that _burst_
thy generous soul, was the "_unkindest cut of all_;" for when some of thy
countrymen, whom thou hadst _raised and honoured_, wished to take into
their hands the maddening weapons of injustice, revenge, and rebellion,
and wished to bury thy dear country in the ruins of bloodshed and
revolution, thou,

    "Then rushing out of doors, to be resolved,
    If these men so unkindly knocked, or no,
    Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
    Quite vanquished thee, then burst thy noble heart!"

On which was engraved, in vivid characters, love for thy religion,
patriotism for thy country, loyal and sincere allegiance to thy Queen,
and a burning desire for civil and religious liberty for all mankind. Oh,
how justly may we apply to thee, the words of the poet,

    "Thou art the ruins, of the noblest man,
    That ever lived, in the tide of times."

I, formerly, like many other Englishmen, thought only very lightly of thy
actions; but thy noble deeds convinced me of my _rash_ judgment; and as
some little retribution, I have paid this small tribute to thy memory.
Oh, may God forgive me for my rash judgments, and may thy colossal soul
rest in peace.

But can I here forget "the finest Protestant (as the immortal Dan. justly
observed) that Ireland ever saw?" O no! I know indeed, some will sneer at
it, and call it the voice of flattery, but in the eyes of poor Ireland,
it will be regarded as a just act of gratitude, to remember the liberal,
the high-minded, and chivalrous nobleman, the Marquis of Normanby. When
this kind hearted, and enlightened statesman, first placed his foot on
the shores of Ireland, "the cauldron" (of political discords) as Lord
Plunkett had said, "was boiling over, and the polemic (religious) contest
was thrown in as an ingredient." But as soon as the Marquis of Normanby,
hoisted in Ireland his political flag of truth, of justice, and of
honour, then the cauldron (of political discord,) gradually cooled, and
the polemic (religious) contest gradually subsided, into the more
congenial calm of peace, of union, and of charity. Hence, might be seen
the noble Marquis of Normanby, and his charitable marchioness, gracing,
and gladdening by their presence the streets of Dublin, unattended by
military escorts, but _safely_ guarded, by the generous hearts, and
faithful loyalty of a grateful people. To have touched even a single hair
of their heads, or to have offered the least insult to these noble, and
generous creatures, would have instantly brought down on the base
offender, the indignation and fury of the people. There the noble
Marquis, without any detriment to his political dignity, walked without
guards, surrounded by the hearts of the people, an honour to England, a
just representative of our most gracious, liberal, and well-beloved
Queen, the idol of the people, and the saviour of Ireland. But why
mention merely Ireland? His _whole_ political career, has been a
consistent course of truth, of justice, and of honour. When only young,
the golden prospect of Tory promotion, the inheritance of his noble
father's political influence, a seat in Parliament already obtained by a
Tory constituency, were all laid before him; when lo! his penetrating
though youthful mind, saw that his dear country required reform, and
therefore, sacrificing all the above golden prospects, he disinterestedly
ranked himself, under the banner of reform. Afterwards a sinecure, but
profitable office under Government, was offered him by the Whig ministry;
but his political creed, was reform and consistency, and therefore, he
politely declined the tempting offer. He is afterwards honoured with the
government of Jamaica, and there shews himself the sincere friend of the
slave, and on one occasion, generously and manfully exposed even his own
life, to vindicate and obtain their just rights: and how dearly he was
there beloved, the sorrowful and sincere lamentations, that bade him the
last farewell, can best tell. He is honoured also, with the government of
Ireland, and gradually peace, contentment, and union, begun to smile on
that long agitated, and mis-ruled land. But in all his political
promotions, to his honour be it remembered, that he never solicits nor
asks of Government any places of office for his relations. Such has been
the consistent and even tenor of his political career. Long, will the
name of Normanby, be dearly cherished, in the heart of every sincere
Catholic, of every grateful Irishman, and of every true English reformer;
and he will be handed down to posterity, as a worthy descendant of the
Mulgrave family, whose character has always been distinguished, for their
acts of justice, liberality, and charity to all, _without any distinction
of religious creeds_. Well then might the immortal Dan declare, that "The
Marquis of Normanby, was the finest Protestant, that Ireland ever saw."




  TRANSCRIBERS' NOTES


  Introduction

  Page iv: Latern as in the original

  First address

  Page 1: goverment corrected to government after "The clergy, and the
    head of the"
  Page 2: intolerence corrected to intolerance after "before this
    whirlwind of Protestant"
  Page 6: descendents as in the original
  Page 9: addres corrected to address after "would tempt me to"
  Page 12: te corrected to to after "But it manifestly allows us"
  Page 12: " added before "as to preventing persons"
  Page 14: Torento corrected to Toronto after "Kingston, Byetown,"
  Page 14: Irvinites as in the original
  Page 15: freeborn standardised to free-born
  Page 15: diocess corrected to diocese after "and assigned to it a"
  Page 15: Caldea corrected to Chaldea after "jurisdiction over Syria,"
  Page 18: Portestant corrected to Protestant after "If therefore the
    orthodox"
  Page 19: " added after "limitation of the crown"
  Page 21: ancesters corrected to ancestors after "having to suffer, what
    our Catholic"
  Page 25: villany as in the original
  Page 26: distintinguished corrected to distinguished after "I am sure
    (says this"
  Footnote A: Anglo Saxon corrected to Anglo-Saxon
  Footnote D: pourtrayed as in the original
  Footnote D: shillalah as in the original
  Footnote D: floodgates standardised to flood-gates

  Second address

  Page 9: phillippic corrected to philippic after "meeting, a thundering"
  Page 14: he standardised to He after "mankind; that is,"
  Page 19: ' changed to " after "prophets under Jeroboam?"
  Page 20: Luthern as in the original
  Page 23: apostacy as in the original
  Page 24: Pharo's as in the original
  Page 24: suicidical as in the original
  Page 28, 29: variable spelling of Molineus/Molinaeus as in original
  Page 29: " ( added before "In Defens. Transl.)"
  Page 29: detort as in the original
  Page 30: " added after "delegates of the Clarendon press."
  Page 31: " added after "to the end of Jeremiah."
  Page 42: . added after Gaz
  Page 56: heirarchy corrected to hierarchy after "put together, more than
    the"
  Page 56: " added after "of any earthly power!"
  Page 66: " added after "liberal to the poor_."
  Footnote H: " removed before "our bishops, though deprived"
  Footnote J: phillippic corrected to philippic after "immediately
    commenced a"
  Footnote N: " added after "and _even idiots_."
  Footnote Q: collossal corrected to colossal after "rash judgments, and
    may thy"

  General: Errata applied to text.
  General: Spelling of inuendo, inuendoes as in the original





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Two Addresses, by Nicholas Rigby

*** 