Two Addresses Part 5

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 a.s.sert, that this Church of Christ once fell into error, although _G.o.d_ had pledged his solemn word, that this Church _never should err_; I have also shown you, how this a.s.sertion 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, a.s.sures 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 G.o.d'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 cla.s.ses, 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 t.i.tles 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 superst.i.tious 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 G.o.d'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 _a.s.suredly_ 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 superst.i.tious use of the sign of the cross.) The true Catholic, knows that the Son of G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sion, 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 superst.i.tious 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 G.o.d, you had better omit the superst.i.tious use of the sign of the cross, although, if _one_ of the popish ceremonies be _superst.i.tious_, it is manifest that the _other two_ ceremonies, must be _also superst.i.tious_.

(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 ac.u.men 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 pa.s.sed, for the introduction of the English Protestant Common Prayer Book, among the natives of Ireland, who were compelled, by the severest penalties, to a.s.sist 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 Ma.s.s." * * * "By which," continues this Protestant writer, "we have furnished the Papists, with an excellent argument against ourselves, for having the divine service celebrated in _such_ a language, as the people do _not_ understand."

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

But if the muttering of the Liturgy, &c., by the Clergy, be a great crime, is it not a far greater crime, for the Protestant Bishops, and clergymen, so to mutter the tenets of their creed, as to disguise the language, and the meaning of them, by their perpetual disunions, and contradictions? Is it not a _notorious_ fact, that in _one_ Protestant Church, you are taught to believe in ecclesiastical infallibility, in _another_, in the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures; in _one_ Protestant parish, you have a sacrificial, mediatorial priest, in _another_, one of an opposite, and contrary opinion; in _one_ Protestant Church, you have an altar, in _another_, you have a communion table; in _one_ Bishop's See, the Protestant prelate _rigorously_ insists, on the _necessity_ of spiritual regeneration by baptism, in _another_ Bishop's See, it is acknowledged to be an _unnecessary_ act of religion; in Pimlico Protestant Church, you have auricular confession _insisted on_, in a Liverpool Protestant Church, you have the _punishment of death_, recommended as a _penalty_ for such a practice; in short, is it not _notorious_ (as I said before) that the Protestant Bishops, and Clergymen, are at sixes, and sevens, all over the land, about _their articles of faith_, _matters of discipline_ and _ceremonies_? Really, what are the people to do, amidst all this disunion, and dissension about their religion, so as to disguise, and confound the sense, and meaning of its tenets? Had not Lord John Russell, better have called his bishops, and Clergy to an account, on _this_ Babel muttering of religion, before he chastised them, for the muttering of _the Liturgy_? The building of the mighty tower of Babel, was arrested, and demolished by the confusion of tongues; and be a.s.sured, most Reverend Gentlemen, unless your Scriptural Church, changes this muttering, and confusion of tongues, of her weatherc.o.c.k, 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 G.o.d'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 _G.o.d_ can forgive sins, and that G.o.d, _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 G.o.d and man, and that he acted, sometimes as G.o.d, 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 a.s.sisted 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 G.o.d, 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, G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sage, 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 G.o.dly 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 G.o.dly 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 G.o.dly 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 G.o.d." Really, what are you, and Lord John Russell to do _now_, when your Protestant G.o.dly 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 G.o.d; 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 pa.s.sion, 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 pa.s.sions, it exclaims, to the sinner, indulge your pa.s.sions, 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 G.o.dly 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 G.o.dly 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 superst.i.tion,' 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 a.s.sisted 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 n.o.ble, and disinterested exertions of the late Daniel O'Connell, in your cause.

You cannot but remember, that the late Daniel O'Connell, n.o.bly 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 a.s.sume? Nay, what is still worse, he had _even_ wished to refuse them the rights of a base criminal, viz., that a charitable dissenter should not be allowed to speak, or merely ask a question, in defence of the Pope, and of the benighted papists. Really, was not _this_, a most inconsistent, "extraordinary and presumptuous movement," of this dissenting minister? Well, I can only say, if the _religious_ creed of this minister, be not _more consistent_ than his _political_ creed, I really envy him not the possession of it, and I think I cannot do better, than address him in the words of the poet:

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

I must now say a few words to the English, in general, and make a few remarks on the unjust manner, in which the Catholic religion, has in general been hitherto, treated and abused. That you may the better understand this, I will make use of the following supposition. Let us suppose, for a moment, that we were in a court of justice, that a person was going to be tried, that some of you were witnesses against him, that the rest of you, were to form the jury, and that I was to be the judge.

Now, if we were to examine, _only_ the witnesses who were _against_ the accused, and _not_ allow a _single_ individual to speak for him, if we were not, to allow the poor man to speak a word in his _own_ defence, and were the jury, and the judge, then to p.r.o.nounce him guilty, do you think, we should treat that man _fairly_? _However innocent_ he might be, he was sure to be brought in _guilty_. And why? Because the witnesses were against him, the jury was against him, and the judge was against him; and not a single word was allowed to be spoken in his defence. Now, ye honest men of England, would you not think that man was treated very _unfairly_?

Would you not feel for such a man? And would you not pity his case? I am sure you would, and all with one voice exclaim, "Let the poor man have _fair play_, and let _us_ 'do to _him_, as _we_ would be done by.'"

Now, my friends, let us apply this example, to the Catholic religion.

Have you not read books, that gave you the most horrible account of the Catholic religion, have you not heard people, tell the most infamous things against this religion, and have you not, _even_ in places of _worship_, heard this religion, most _cruelly_ called, and abused? But did you ever ask yourselves, whether all that you then read or heard, was _really_ true? Did you consider, that abuse, is no argument, declamation, no evidence, accusation, no verdict? Did you examine the witnesses on the _other_ side? Did you read any _Catholic_ book, or consult any well-instructed _Catholic_ layman, or minister on these subjects? Did you not condemn the poor Catholics, _unheard_, and without giving them a _fair_ trial? But mind, I am not blaming _you_, nor the _public in general_, for this ignorance of our religion, nor am I surprised at it.

No, considering what has been the state of things, I cannot conceive how it could have been otherwise. For these misrepresentations, and false statements against our religion, have been often made by very _respectable_ persons, and often repeated to the people, either from _the pulpit, where_ nothing but the _truth_, should be spoken, or in tracts, and books, which either _are_, or _profess to be_ written by _learned_ and _sincere_ members of society. Thus hearing these statements, and accusations, from _these_ sources, the people very natural enough conclude, that all that is said against the poor _benighted_ Papists, _must be true_. But my friends, I beg of you that _in future_, you will always remember, that the law of England, strictly forbids any one, even the _basest criminal_, to be condemned _before_, he has had a _fair_ trial, that it is an excellent maxim in life, "hear _both_ sides _before_ you _judge_," and the Scripture expressly says: "Thou shalt not bear _false_ witness against _thy_ neighbour." Why should not then the _same_ principles, be adopted in _judging_ of the _Catholic_ religion? When then, in future your hear any abuse, or accusation against the Catholic religion, I beg of you to ask yourselves two questions: _First, am I certain_ that the _Catholic_ Church maintains _such_ doctrine? and _secondly, if it does_, have I heard the _proofs_, which may be advanced, _in confirmation_ of _that_ doctrine? Oh! would only all Englishmen, grant the Catholics this common boon of justice! how soon would that dark, and heavy cloud of prejudice and misrepresentation, which has so long hung over our religion, immediately burst, and as the sun, after having been shrouded in clouded majesty, amidst the terrific storm, bursts forth with more transcendent brightness, so would the Catholic faith, after having been so long darkened with the mist of false representation, burst forth, with a l.u.s.tre 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 a.s.sociate themselves in faith, and worship, with those holy, and ill.u.s.trious 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, pa.s.sing 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 pa.s.sage, 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 s.p.a.ce of a hall, with a door open at each end. But after this short pa.s.sage of life, there is something most awful, and mysterious awaiting us, and the true religion of G.o.d, 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 a.s.sist 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.