“Having constantly in view the removal of error and the preservation
of the purity of the gospel in the church, which gospel promised
before by the prophets in the sacred scriptures, was first orally
published by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who afterwards
commanded it to be preached by his Apostles to every creature, as the
source of all saving truth and discipline, and perceiving that this
truth and discipline are contained both in written books and
unwritten traditions which have come down to us, either received by
the Apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or transmitted by the
hands of the same Apostles under the direction of the Holy Spirit,
following the example of the orthodox fathers, this Council doth
receive and reverence, _with equal piety and veneration_, all the
books, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, the same God being
the author of both; _and also the aforesaid traditions_, pertaining
both to faith and manners, whether received from Christ himself, or
dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by
continual succession.”
Thank God for the contrast which we can present between Rome and our
Protestant Church! What then is the language of our own Church?—“Holy
Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith,
or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”—ARTICLE vi. And then
again in the XXth Article she says—“The Church hath power to decree rites
or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,”—(the word
“authority” is rendered in the Latin Articles not by a word signifying
_imperial_, _absolute_, authority, but _weight_, _influence_,)—“and yet
it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to
God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture,
that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a
witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree
anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce
anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.”
Men and Brethren beloved! let this be distinctly impressed upon your
minds—that the universal right of the laity—yes, of the uneducated part
of the laity—to the Word of God, in their own tongue, is a distinctive
principle of the blessed Reformation. As it was the Bible which
contributed mainly to enlighten and emancipate the mind of the great
Luther, so have the translation and circulation of the Bible in the
vulgar tongue been co-extensive with the progress of true religion in
this country, since the Reformation. From the time when the large Bible
stood in the Parish Church, with its chain to secure it; when the
multitudes who wanted to read the Word of God had to flock there and to
wait in turns to get to the sacred treasure, or one had to be the reader
for the rest; from that time down to the present, when the Christian
Knowledge Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and other
Institutions have successively given their aid, the Word of the Lord has
had free course and been glorified.
And now I submit that I have proved, my case against the Church of Rome.
I have shown that the act which, notwithstanding the explanation of the
Priests, has excited the astonishment and indignation of Protestants
throughout this town, does not stand alone. And more, that even the
version which is authorised by the Romish Church is not permitted to be
generally read, without the permission of a Priest or authorised person.
Without saying one word which is not entirely consistent with Christian
charity, I now ask of you, whether that Church is more in accordance with
the will of God, which tells you that, before you read his Word in
private, you must have the written permission of the Priest—or that
Church which, without exception or reserve, puts into the hand of her
every member the written Word of God? What, I would ask, was the
language of David? He was not a Priest—“O how love I thy law! it is my
meditation all the day.” The poor Romanist, unless he has the written
permission of his Priest cannot, amid his troubles and his sorrows, say
with David, “Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my
pilgrimage.”—(PSALM cxix. 54.) Remember too what is said of the Bereans,
when they heard Paul preach—“These were more noble than those in
Thessolonica, in that they received the word with all gladness of mind,
and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, whether these things were so.”—(ACTS
xvii. 11.) No Romanist will assert that his Priest is superior to St.
Paul. But what did the Bereans do when Paul preached to them? They
“SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY” to see whether he was preaching truth.
And I tell you that if St. Paul himself, yea, if an angel were to preach
to me, I would do the same. But what would be said to a poor Irishman
who should go to his Priest and say “I have been looking to my Bible to
see what is said there about what you told us yesterday, and I find that
what you taught us is not according to the Word of God?” And what does
St. Paul say when warning Timothy in his second Epistle (iii. 14, 17)
against “perilous times” and evil men? “All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that”—_Who_? the
priest?—the scholar?—No!—“That the MAN OF GOD”—whether priest or layman,
whether scholar or no scholar—“may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
all good works.” And contrast his language to Timothy with the case of
the little girl from the Industrial School—“From a child thou hast known
the holy scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation,
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”—There were no Bible-burners in
St. Paul’s days. The little girl in Birmingham receives a Testament, and
it is not only taken away, but is burnt by the Priest. We read in the
Epistle for this morning’s service “Whatsoever things were written
aforetime _were written for our learning_, that we through patience, and
comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” It is evident therefore that
they were not written to be kept back from the people, but that they were
“_written for their learning_.” {15} Yet the Church of Rome which
arrogates to itself the title of the only true Church puts the Bible into
the Index of prohibited books. One more example which the Scriptures
furnish—the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch. (Acts viii. 27, &c.) He was
sitting in his carriage, reading his Bible, and God sent his minister to
him saying—“Understandest thou what thou readest?” Beautiful
illustration of a minister’s place! It is to explain the Scriptures. He
did not say “You cannot understand them—You ought not to be reading
Esaias the prophet.” If he took it out of his hands, it was not to throw
it either into the fire or into the water, but he took the book from him
and “_began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus_.” And
this is our office now, not to stand between the people and the Bible,
but to open up the Bible to them, grounding our every sermon, our every
lecture, our every lesson, upon it.
I proceed, Brethren beloved, to draw from this mournful occurrence
practical lessons, and, in doing so, I trust I shall not violate the rule
which, in perfect sincerity, I laid down at the commencement. Of course,
the Romanist will think I am violating it, as will some latitudinarian
Protestants.
But, I urge, learn from this transaction in our town the _true unaltered
character of Popery_. Yes—though many haply do not like that statement,
I repeat it—_the true unaltered character of Popery_. We are _bigots_
forsooth! which was the bigot?—the man that gave the _Bible_ or he that
burnt it?
Mark the published statement of the Priests. I am to be told that, put
as I am, in some measure, at least, in charge (in accordance with the
laws of this country,) over the souls of the people in my parish without
exception, I am not to go into the houses of some of my parishioners; or,
if I do so, I am to be treated with _scurrility_ and _insult_! Let me
ask you, does any man or woman here believe that there is a Protestant
Clergyman or a Dissenting Minister who would have said that if any Romish
Priest came into the house of one of his people he was to be treated with
_scurrility_ and _insult_? I can only say from the depth of my heart
that I should be utterly ashamed of any Protestant Clergyman who so
disgraced himself. We are told however by the Priest that if we venture
to pass the door of a Roman Catholic we shall be treated with
“_scurrility_ and _insult_”—I repeat the words because I was careful to
ask the Incumbent of St. Peter’s for _the very words_ employed. But are
we to receive this doctrine? is there any man in this country except the
owner of the house or tenement—be it among the humble tenements of London
’Prentice-street, or the villas of Edgbaston—who has the power to say to
me that I shall not enter that house? Is it come to this, that, in these
days of freedom, in the 19th century, I am not to be at liberty to enter
the house of one of my parishioners, whether he be a Roman Catholic or
Protestant, (so long as the householder permits my visit) without
receiving scurrility and insult at the instance of a Priest! I, for one,
unhesitatingly declare, and I believe I shall be supported in the
declaration by the body of my brethren, that I do not mean to abide by
any such rule.
But the Priest was provoked, forsooth, by the conduct of certain
Protestant Clergymen and their agents who enter the house of the poor
Romanist, to pervert his faith! The charge is that we are making
proselytes. If by this it be meant that we are trying to get people over
from one Church to another, I demur to it. It is my object, with God’s
assistance, to make them Christians, to draw them to Christ, but I wish
to make them _converts_ and not _proselytes_. I wish indeed to see them
Church of England Christians, because I believe that my own dear Church
exhibits Christ in her Articles and formularies, and is a truly
Scriptural Church. But I confess that I was almost provoked to a smile
when I read of _the complaints of Rome_ that we are seeking to
proselytise! Rome which is literally setting wife against husband,
daughter against father, by the most insidious artifices; perverting
Protestants, and even the children of Protestant Clergymen, by artifices
the most subtle! Rome which is not content with contesting the ground
with us in our own land but in heathen countries also, as well as in our
colonies! The charge of proselytising comes with a very bad grace from
the Church of Rome! Let me however say that though I do not wish to
_proselytize_ but to _convert_, I will not undertake to keep my Scripture
Readers out of any house at the dictation of Priest or Pope. I will not
undertake to leave men in error and darkness. Let us use lawful, open
handed, means, let us not have recourse to subtle artifice. Let us have
all as open as the day, and I have no fear for the ultimate progress of
the truth. And we ask all members of the Church of Rome to confine
themselves to honourable, straightforward, proceedings.
It will perhaps be said that in what I am now about to urge I am
trenching on party politics. I appeal to my two years’ ministrations in
this town, whether I have at any time been guilty of advancing anything
in the shape of party politics. But there are some questions in which
politics and religion are so intimately blended, that I hold it to be
false delicacy to abstain from the bold avowal of our sentiments. I put
it to you—are we prepared to pay money to the Romish Priests for burning
Bibles in Ireland or in England, without a manful, constitutional,
struggle? I know that if you deviate from the simple ground of
principle, and begin to talk of _expediency_, a strong case may readily
be made. On grounds of expediency, I myself should be disposed to yield,
but _as a sworn minister of the Church of England_, _I have proclaimed
Rome to be_ IDOLATROUS; _and if you are ashamed of your Church_, I AM
NOT; and I will not consent, either directly or indirectly, to support
idolatry—I will not consent to pay money for a Priest who goes into
London ’Prentice-street or into Ireland to burn the Word of God.
But bear with me awhile, while I advance my _second_ lesson. _Be
thankful for the Protestant Reformed Church of England_. We are not half
thankful enough for the Church of England. And though some of our
Dissenting enemies desire to pull her down, they little know how much
they risk. They little know what a protective position the Church of
England occupies between them and the tyranny of Rome. {18} Whatever the
Church of England may have been in times gone by, and I do not say that
the bitter weed of bigotry is entirely eradicated, yet she is now
practically a tolerant Church.
But it is the fashion of the day to decry _Protestantism_, “Protestantism
is a mere negation!” We do not mean to say that Protestantism will take
a man to heaven. But we _do_ say that it is the glory of our Church
that, when the truth of God had been overlaid with error and corruption,
she came out of the corruption herself, and made a bold protest against
it. Let us not be ashamed of the name Protestant. We want not
Protestantism as a mere toast at a jovial dinner—as the mere shibboleth
of a party. Our Protestantism is a _holy_ thing. It is a protest
against the corruption of the truth of God. And, if you love
Protestantism, _dally_ not with _Popery_. Don’t go to Roman Catholic
Chapels to hear the pretty music! Don’t let your children have tales and
novels which contain poison, simply because they are nicely got up and
illustrated. A man may drink poison out of a golden cup; but it is
poison still. Your only safety is to have nothing to do with it. Touch
not the unclean thing.
Thirdly.—_Circulate the Scriptures_. If you cannot do it by your own
individual exertions, join those Institutions which are established for
this purpose. Join the Christian Knowledge Society; join the British and
Foreign Bible Society. Support our Parish Scripture Readers’ fund; and
if the emissaries of Rome are going up and down in our town, let us at
least be equally diligent; and ask whether we ought not to determine to
have an enlarged band of Scripture Readers to counteract their efforts.
Fourthly.—Remember the solemn privilege and responsibility of possessing
the Bible. It is a privilege to possess the Bible; but that privilege
entails an awful responsibility. For when the Lord Jesus shall come a
second time, to judge the world, he will demand an account, not merely
from the Priest who burns the Bible, but the Protestant who neglects it.
A neglected Bible is as bad as a burnt Bible. At the last day, it would
be better for us to have been members of a Church which withheld the Word
of God from its people, than, having the Word, to have neglected and
despised it. All you that have the Scriptures in your houses, first
given perhaps by some affectionate parent, now no more—Servants, to whom
some kind and pious Mistress has given a copy of the Word of God, which
you have left unread—you little Children who have received a copy of this
Holy Book in the Sunday or the National School—beware lest the Word of
God neglected and despised should rise up against you at the last great
day. Beware, lest, being Protestants in name, ye be wanting in Bible
faith, Bible hope, Bible lives.
Before I sit down, I desire to address another portion of the
congregation to-night.
My Roman Catholic hearers, you have not often listened to a Protestant
preacher. Perhaps you may never listen to another. And perhaps from
what you have read of speeches and sermons against Romanism, you think
that we are one and all fire-brands, cherishing and indulging bitter
animosity against you.
I am free to acknowledge, and I say it with all honesty, that I much
regret the way in which some persons talk about Romanists. I believe
that a great many rash and bitter words have been employed; much that is
inconsistent in the sight of God with Christian charity. I admit this,
but let me also say that you must learn to distinguish between language
against _your system_ and language against _yourselves_. We _do_ believe
your system to be idolatrous. We _do_ believe it to be opposed in many
essential points to the Word of God. And though there be some traitors
in our camp who eat our bread and want to fraternize with you, we tell
you that the great body of the Protestant Churchmen of England have no
sympathy with these traitors. But I earnestly invite your candid
attention while I solemnly ask you one question. _Does your Church
circulate the Word of God_? I do not say does your Church, in some
particular cases, withhold her objection? but as a Church is it a
_Bible-circulating_ Church? I am dealing with fellow immortals, fellow
sinners. Let me a moment put aside the distinctions of Protestant and
Romanist. Let us, my Roman Catholic hearers, recollect that we are both
poor worms of the earth—with immortal souls—passing into an awful
eternity—an eternity into which you and I may be plunged speedily. I say
unto you then, as dying men and fellow sinners, that all is not right, if
your Church or your Priests stand between you and the Word of God. I say
to you, though the Pope himself preach to you, “_Search the Scriptures_”
for yourselves; assert the right of examining the Word of God. I do not
say to you “Become a Protestant,” “Become this, become the other;” all I
now say is “_Search the Scriptures_” with honest, hearty, humble,
childlike prayer. Search them “_daily_.” They will enable you to test
the rules and doctrines of the Church of Rome.
When you turn to your Bibles, you will find the _Virgin Mary_ there. You
will find her there as “highly favoured” and blessed among women—but you
will _not_ find her as a mediator between yourself and her Incarnate Son;
you will _not_ find her as the object in any sense or measure, of
religious worship. And when you turn to your Bibles, you will find
_Confession_ there—but you will _not_ find confession to your priest
necessarily enjoined; you will _not_ find that, in order to absolution,
you are bound to open to a fellow man all the secrets of your inmost
soul. On Calvary alone, and at the foot of the cross, must you confess
your sins. And when you turn to your Bibles, you will find _Good Works_
there—but you will not find good works to have in any measure an atoning
efficacy—but that we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
And when you turn to your Bibles, you will find in them the blessed truth
that the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross for sinners—but you will
_not_ find the doctrine of the mass there. “Christ was _once_ offered to
bear the sins of many.”—“By _one_ offering he hath _perfected for ever_
them that are sanctified;” and that offering is never to be, and never
can be, repeated. When you turn to your Bibles you will find that in the
Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper we do, in a _spiritual_ sense, by faith,
eat the body and drink the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ—but you will
_not_ find that by the prayer of the Priest, common sense is
contradicted, and the bread, and the juice of the vine, turned into the
body and blood of the Son of Man.
Beloved, all I ask of you is to test these things by Scripture, and when
you have done this, compare the Church of England with that of Rome, and
may the Spirit of God be with you as your helper and your guide!
This congregation is now about to separate. The Roman Catholic who is
here, will perhaps never more set foot within these walls. But remember
we shall meet again at the last great day. On that solemn day no priest
can stand in your stead; no Church doctrines or dogmas can be put in as
your plea or excuse before your Judge. You will stand in the presence of
Him who made you and hath redeemed you. And if I have seemed to speak
bitterly, believe me, in these last words, it is my soul’s inmost prayer
for every Romanist here present to-night, that, if he be not brought out
of that Church before that solemn hour when the wood and hay and stubble
shall be burnt up by the judgment-fires, he may yet, spite of his
Romanism, be so found on the ONE FOUNDATION—even Jesus—as that we may
meet in the Church in glory!
* * * * *
* * * * *