Two Addresses Part 4

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 l.u.s.tily_ 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 pa.s.sage, 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 G.o.dliness, 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 pa.s.sage 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, a.s.sures 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 t.i.tle-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 t.i.tle-deeds? Certainly not. How, _then_, are your people to obtain eternal life by your _false_, and mutilated t.i.tle-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 p.a.w.n upon its credulous supporters, these schoolboy exercises of its agents, as the Sacred Word of G.o.d! 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 a.s.sistance 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 G.o.d.' Surely, we shall now succeed, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the n.o.ble object of G.o.d'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 G.o.d;' 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d," 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 G.o.d." 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 a.s.sisted, "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 a.s.sert, in the previous reign, that the Holy Ghost, had a.s.sisted 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 G.o.d; 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 a.s.serted, it was a work of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of G.o.d; 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 a.n.a.logy or not, between his chemical operations, and the spiritual works of your scriptural Church. Well, then, I have shewn you, what a beautiful Church G.o.d 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 G.o.d's infallible Church, how they cut it into pieces of universal and d.a.m.nable idolatry, how then, they put these various parts into the sublimatory gla.s.s of falsification, and mutilation of G.o.d'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 a.s.sertion, had fallen into error), into a more perfect, and durable form, than that which G.o.d 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 a.s.sert such a thing in his presence. Now with all these facts before you, is there not a great a.n.a.logy, 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sert, 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 G.o.d), you profess to believe, in the Holy Catholic Church. Now, this is the real word of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 subst.i.tute 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 a.s.sure 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 pa.s.sing upon earth, and why should not the saints and angels of G.o.d? Nay, it is evident, they _must_ know and hear things, which are pa.s.sing 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 pa.s.sage of it on which I think it my duty thus publicly to remark. The pa.s.sage 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 a.s.sert that this LAW-CHURCH is the most INTOLERANT Church I ever read or heard of; and this a.s.sertion 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 ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s 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, pa.s.sed 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 s.p.a.ce 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 ma.s.s. 6. It was _death_ for any one to hear ma.s.s. 7. It was _death_ to _deny_ or _not to swear_, if called on, that this woman was the head of the Church of Christ.--8. It was an offence (punishable by heavy fine) _not to go to the Protestant Church_. This fine was 20 _a lunar month_, or 250 a-year, and of our present money, 3,250 a year. Thousands upon thousands refused to go to the Law-Church; and thus the head of the Church sacked thousands upon thousands of estates! The poor conscientious Catholics who refused to go to the 'most tolerant' Church, and who had no money to pay fines, were crammed into the gaols, until the counties pet.i.tioned 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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sertions 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 _ma.s.s_ 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 a.s.sisting a priest to escape from prison (the crime of that priest being saying ma.s.s), 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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. c.l.i.thero 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 a.s.sertion 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. x.x.xv. chap. 1; Stat.

x.x.xv. 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 h.e.l.lish 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 surpa.s.sed 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 a.s.sured, 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 a.s.serts, 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 G.o.d, this would certainly have been the case; but the Scripture beautifully informs us, "that to them, who love G.o.d, 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.