praying to the Saints, and assure the people, there is _only one_
mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, on Sundays, you have no
difficulty, in recommending the sick, to the prayers of the faithful.
But, why should _you_ do _this_, when according _to you_, there is _only
one_ mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ? If _you_ can thus ask the prayers
of the faithful, without injuring the mediation of our Saviour; why
cannot the _Catholic_, ask the prayers of the Saints, without injuring
the mediation of Jesus Christ? O! but you will say, the Saints, and
Angels cannot hear our prayers. Well but does not the Scripture tell us,
"that the devil goes about, like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may
devour," and does not our Saviour say, "there is more joy in heaven, over
one sinner doing penance, than over ninety-nine just?" It appears,
therefore, the devils know, and hear what is passing upon earth, and why
should not the saints and angels of God? Nay, it is evident, they _must_
know and hear things, which are passing upon earth, otherwise how could
they rejoice _in heaven_, on the conversion of sinners _on earth_?
But, as you boast so much of the admirable, spiritual treasures of your
prayer-book, and of your scriptural Church, just tell me, most Reverend
Gentlemen, why they have never yet, been able to produce a single saint?
The Scripture, tells us, that a tree, may be known from _its fruit_. And
yet, among all the rich spiritual treasures, of your prayer-book, and of
your scriptural Church, for these three hundred years, you have _never_
yet produced a person, who, on account of his virtue and piety, has been
honoured by posterity with the name of _saint_. Nay, so great is your
poverty in _this respect_, that your Church, has been obliged to _steal
Catholic_ Saints, and barefacedly insert _them_, in your _Protestant_
calendar. Really most Reverend Gentlemen, your scriptural Church, is of a
very strange texture. I have shewn you above, how remarkable she has
always been for forgery; I have also shewn you, how she unjustly robbed
the poor of their just rights, and how, she has endeavoured, by all means
possible, to rob us of the honourable name of Catholic; and how, she has
stolen many of our great Catholic Saints, and presumptuously inserted
_them_ in her _Protestant_ calendar. Really, Gentlemen, may I not exclaim
with the poet--
"Can such things be,
And overcome us like a summer's cloud,
Without our special wonder!"
But, Sir, if the Protestant prayer-book, and the Protestant religion, be
such a monstrous compound of inconsistencies and errors, as you would
fain lead us to suppose, pray tell us, why England, was so foolish, as to
renounce the Catholic, and embrace the Protestant faith? The answer to
this objection I would most willingly waive, as it would lead me into a
field of persecution, and _cruelty_, over which my feelings would not
wish to travel. But as the answer to the above objection, has been so
ably given, by a _Protestant_ member of Parliament, to a _Protestant_
Lord, I think I cannot do _better_, than give it in his own words. And
_mind_, when you read this letter, you must not imagine, that you are
reading the _mere_ opinions of _this_ writer; no, the opinions which he
there states, are _incontestible facts_, which stand, almost as large as
life, in our English Statute-Book; and are there, recorded so plainly,
that no man in his senses, can have the presumption to deny them. I beg
leave, therefore, to lay before you, the following letter, of a
_Protestant_ member of Parliament, to a _Protestant_ lord, on the present
subject; and I am sure, that the incontestible facts, _facts of our own
English Statute-book_, there stated, will convince you, how England once
Catholic, was brought over to Protestantism.
A LETTER TO LORD TENTERDEN,
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND.
_April 6th, 1829._
"MY LORD,
"I have read the report of your Lordship's speech, made on the
4th instant, on the second reading of the Catholic Bill, and
there is one passage of it on which I think it my duty thus
publicly to remark. The passage to which I allude relates to
the character of the _Law-established Church_, and also to the
probable fate that will, in consequence of this bill, attend
her in Ireland.[O]
"Now, with very sincere respect for your Lordship, I do think
it my duty to the people of this country, to show that the
character which you have given to the Church of England as by
_law_ established, is not correct; to show that she is not, and
never has been, _tolerant in matters of religion_; and is not,
and never has been, _favourable to civil liberty_. In short,
with most sincere respect for your Lordship, with greater
respect for you than I have ever had for any public functionary
in England, and with the greatest admiration of your conduct in
your high and important office, with all these, I think it my
duty _flatly to contradict_ your Lordship with regard to the
character of this Church, and especially in the two particulars
mentioned by you. I do not charge you with insincerity: for why
should you not be in error as to this matter, when I know that
_twenty or thirty years ago_ I myself should, in a similar
case, have said just what you have now said on this subject?
Nevertheless, it being error, and gross error too, and I
_knowing it to be error_, I am bound, in duty to my readers, to
expose the error; and I am the more strictly bound, because
this error coming from you, is the more likely to be widely
spread.
"First, then, my Lord, let us take your proposition, 'that
there is no Church so tolerant as this.' I am sure your
Lordship has never read her history; I am sure you have not; if
you had, you never would have uttered these words. Not being
content to deal in general terms, I will _not_ say that she has
been, and was from her outset, the most intolerant Church that
the world ever saw; that she started at first, armed with
halters, ripping-knives, axes, and racks; that her footsteps
were marked with the blood, while her back bent under the
plunder of her innumerable innocent victims; and that for
refinement in cruelty, and extent of rapacity, she never had an
equal, whether corporate or sole. I will not thus speak of her
in general terms, but will lay before your Lordship some
historical _facts_, to make good that _contradiction_ which I
have given to your words. I assert that this LAW-CHURCH is the
most INTOLERANT Church I ever read or heard of; and this
assertion I now proceed to make good.
"This Church began to _exist_ in 1547, and in the reign of
Edward VI. Until now the religion of the country had been for
several years under the tyrant Henry VIII. a sort of mongrel;
but now it became wholly Protestant by LAW. The Articles of
Religion and the Common Prayer-book were now drawn up, and were
established by Acts of Parliament. The Catholic altars were
pulled down in all the Churches; the priests, on pain of ouster
and fine, were compelled to teach the new religion, that is to
say, to be apostates; and the people who had been born and bred
Catholics were not only punished if they heard mass, but were
also punished if they did not go to hear the new parsons; that
is to say, if they refused to become apostates. The people,
smarting under this tyranny, rose in insurrection in several
parts, and, indeed, all over the country. They complained that
they had been robbed of their religion, and of the relief to
the poor which the old Church gave; and they demanded that the
mass and the monasteries should be restored, and that the
priests should not be allowed to marry. And how were they
answered? The bullet and bayonet at the hand of German troops
slaughtered a part, caused another part to be hanged, another
part to be imprisoned and flogged, and the remainder to submit,
outwardly at least, to the LAW-CHURCH; (and now mark this
tolerant and merciful Church,) many of the old monastics and
priests, who had been expelled from their convents and livings,
were compelled to beg their bread about the country, and they
thus found subsistence among the pious Catholics. This was an
eye-sore to the LAW-CHURCH, who deemed the very existence of
these men who had refused to apostatize, a libel on her.
Therefore, in company, actually in company with the law that
founded the new Church, came forth a law to punish beggars, by
burning them in the face with a red-hot iron, and by making
them slaves for two years, with power in their masters to make
them wear an iron collar. Your Lordship must have read this Act
of Parliament, passed in the first year of the first Protestant
reign, and coming forth in company with the Common Prayer-book.
This was tolerant work, to be sure; and fine proof we have here
of this Church being "favourable to civil and religious
liberty." Not content with stripping these faithful Catholic
priests of their livings; not content with turning them out
upon the wide world, this tolerant Church must cause them to
perish with hunger, or to be branded slaves.
"Such was the tolerant spirit of this Church when she was
young. As to her burnings under Cranmer (who made the
Prayer-book), they are hardly worthy of particular notice, when
we have before us the sweeping cruelties of this first
Protestant reign, during which, short as it was, the people of
England suffered so much that the suffering actually thinned
their numbers; it was a people partly destroyed, and that too
in the space of about six years; and this is acknowledged even
in Acts of Parliament of that day. But this LAW-CHURCH was
established in reality during the reign of Old Bess, which
lasted forty-five years; that is, from 1558 to 1603; and though
this Church has always kept up its character, even to the
present day, its deeds during this long reign are the most
remarkable.
"Bess (the shorter the name the better), established what she
called a _court of high commission_, consisting chiefly of
_bishops_ of your Lordship's '_most tolerant_ Church,' in order
to punish all who did not conform to her religious creed, she
being '_the head of the Church_.' This commission were
empowered to have control over the _opinions_ of all men, and
to punish all men according to their _discretion short of
death_. They had power to extort evidence by the _prison_ or by
the rack. They had power to compel a man (_on oath_) to _reveal
his thoughts_, and to _accuse himself, his friend, brother,
parent, wife, or child_; and this, too, on _pain of death_.
These monsters, in order to _discover priests_, and to crush
the old religion, _fined, imprisoned, racked_, and did such
things as would have made Nero shudder to think of. They sent
hundreds to the _rack_ in order to get from them confessions,
_on which confessions many of them were put to death_.
"I have not room to make even an enumeration of the deeds of
religious persecution of this long and bloody reign; but I will
state a few of them.
"1. It was _death_ to make a new Catholic priest within the
kingdom.--2. It was _death_ for a Catholic priest to come into
the kingdom from abroad.--3. It was _death_ to harbour a
Catholic priest coming from abroad.--4. It was _death_ to
confess to such a priest.--5. It was _death_ for any priest to
say mass. 6. It was _death_ for any one to hear mass. 7. It was
_death_ to _deny_ or _not to swear_, if called on, that this
woman was the head of the Church of Christ.--8. It was an
offence (punishable by heavy fine) _not to go to the Protestant
Church_. This fine was L20 _a lunar month_, or L250 a-year, and
of our present money, L3,250 a year. Thousands upon thousands
refused to go to the Law-Church; and thus the head of the
Church sacked thousands upon thousands of estates! The poor
conscientious Catholics who refused to go to the 'most
tolerant' Church, and who had no money to pay fines, were
crammed into the gaols, until the counties petitioned to be
relieved from the expense of keeping them. They were then
discharged, being first publicly whipped, and having their ears
bored with a red-hot iron. But this very great 'toleration' not
answering the purpose, an act was passed to banish for life all
these non-goers to Church, if they were not worth twenty
pounds; and, in case of return, they were to be punished with
death.
"I am, my Lord, not making loose assertions here; I am all
along stating from Acts of Parliament, and the above form a
small sample of the whole; and this your Lordship must know
well. I am not declaiming, but relating undeniable facts; and
with facts of the same character, with a _bare list_, made in
the above manner, I could fill a considerable volume. The names
of the persons put to death merely for _being Catholics_,
during this long and bloody reign, would, especially if it were
to include Ireland, form a list ten times as long as that of
_our_ army and navy, both taken together. The usual mode of
inflicting death was to hang the victim for a short time, just
to benumb his or her faculties; then cut down and instantly rip
open the belly, and _tear out the heart_, and hold it up, fling
the bowels into a fire, then chop off the head, and cut the
body into quarters, then _boil_ the head and quarters, and then
hang them up at the gates of cities, or other conspicuous
places. This was done, including Ireland, to many hundreds of
persons, merely for adhering to the Church in which they had
been born and bred. There were ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN
_ripped up and boiled_ in England in the years from 1577 to
1603; that is to say, in the last twenty-six years of Bess's
reign; and these might all have been spared if they would have
agreed to go to Church and _hear_ the Common Prayer! All, or
nearly all, of them were racked before they were put to death;
and the cruelties in prison, and the manner of execution, were
the most horrible that can be conceived. They were flung into
dungeons, and kept in their filth, and fed on bullock's liver,
boiled but unwashed tripe, and such things as dogs are fed
upon. Edward Genings, a priest, detected in saying _mass_ in
Holborn, was after sentence of death offered his pardon if he
would go to Church, but having refused to do this, and having
at the place of execution boldly said, that he would die a
thousand deaths rather than acknowledge the Queen to be the
spiritual _head_ of the Church, Topliffe, the attorney-general,
ordered the rope to be cut the moment the victim was turned
off, 'so that' (says the historian) 'the priest, being little
or nothing stunned, stood on his feet, casting his eyes towards
heaven, till the hangman tripped up his heels, and flung him on
the block, where he was ripped up and quartered.' He was so
much alive, even after the bowelling, that he cried with a loud
voice, 'Oh! it smarts!' And then he exclaimed, '_Sancte
Gregorie, ora pro me_:' while the hangman having sworn a most
wicked oath, cried, 'Zounds! his heart is in my hand, and yet
Gregory is in his mouth!'
"The tolerance of the Law-Church was shown towards women as
well as towards men. There was a Mrs. Ward, who, for assisting
a priest to escape from prison (the crime of that priest being
saying mass), was imprisoned, flogged, racked, and finally
hanged, ripped up, and quartered. She was executed at Tyburn,
on the 30th of August, 1588. At her trial the judges asked if
she had done the thing laid to her charge. She said 'Yes!' and
that she was happy to reflect that she had been the means of
'delivering that innocent lamb from the hands of those bloody
wolves.' They in vain endeavoured to terrify her into a
confession relative to the place whither the priest was gone;
and when they found threats unavailing, they promised her
pardon if she would go to Church; but she answered, that she
would lose many lives if she had them, rather than acknowledge
the heretical Church. They, therefore, treated her very
savagely, ripped her up while in her senses, and made a mockery
of her naked quarters.
"There was a Mrs. Clithero pressed to death at York, in the
year 1586. She was a lady of good family, and her crime was
relieving and harbouring priests. She refused to plead, that
she might not tell a lie, nor expose others to danger. She was,
therefore, pressed to death, in the following manner. She was
laid on the floor, on her back. Her hands and feet were bound
down as close as possible. Then a great door was laid upon her,
and many hundred weights placed upon that door. Sharp stones
were put under her back, and the weights pressing upon her
body, first broke her ribs, and finally, though by no means
quickly, extinguished life. Before she was laid on the floor,
Fawcett, the sheriff, commanded her to be stripped naked, when
she, with four women who accompanied her, requested him, on
their knees, for the honour of womanhood, that this might be
dispensed with; but he refused. Her husband was forced to flee
the country; her little children who wept for their dear and
good mother, were taken up, and being questioned concerning
their religious belief, and answering as they had been taught
by her, were severely whipped, and the eldest, who was but
twelve years old, was cast into prison.
"Need I go on, my Lord? Twenty large volumes, allotting only
one page to each case, would not, if we were to include
Ireland, contain an account of those who have fallen victims to
their refusal to conform to this 'most tolerant Church in the
world.' Nay, a hundred volumes, each volume being 500 pages,
and one page allowed to each victim, would not suffice for the
holding of this bloody record. Short of death by ripping up,
there were, _death_ by martial law, _death_ in prison, and this
in cases without number, banishment and loss of estate. Doctor
Bridgewater, in a table published by him at the end of the
_Concertatio Ecclesiae Catholicae_, gives the names of about
twelve hundred who had suffered in this way, before the year
1588; that is to say, before the great heat of the 'tolerance.'
In this list there are 21 bishops, 120 monastics, 13 deans, 14
archdeacons, 60 prebendaries, 530 priests, 49 doctors of
divinity, 18 doctors of law, 15 masters of colleges, 8 earls,
10 barons, 26 knights, 326 gentlemen, 60 ladies and
gentlewomen. Many of all those, and, indeed, the greater part
of them, died in prison, and several of them died while under
sentence of death.
"There, my Lord, I do not think that you will question the
truth of this statement: and if you cannot, I hope you will
allow, that no lover of truth and justice ought to be silent
while reports of speeches are circulating, calling this 'the
_most tolerant_ Church in the world.' But, my Lord, why need I,
in addressing myself to you on this subject, do more than refer
you to the cruel, the savage, the bloody penal code? Leaving
poor half-murdered Ireland out of the question, what have I to
do, in answer to your praises of this Church, and your
assertion as to its tolerance, but to request you to remember
the enactments in the following Acts of Old Bess, the head and
the establisher of this Church? Stat. i. chap. 1 and 2; Stat.
v. chap. 1; Stat. xii. chap. 2; Stat. xxiii. chap. 1; Stat.
xxvii. chap. 2; Stat. xxix. chap. 6; Stat. xxxv. chap. 1; Stat.
xxxv. chap. 2? What have I to do, my Lord, but to request you
to look at, or rather to call to mind those laws of plunder and
of blood; _fine, fine, fine_; _banish, banish, banish_; or
_death, death, death_ in every line? Your Lordship knows that
this is true: you know that all these horrors, all this hellish
tyranny, that the whole arose out of a desire to make this
Protestant Church predominant. How, then, can this Protestant
Church be called 'the most tolerant in the world?' I have here
given a mere sample of the doings of this Law-Church. I have
not taken your Lordship to Ireland, half-murdered Ireland; nor
have I even hinted at many acts done in England during Bess's
reign, each of which would have excited the indignation of
every virtuous man on earth; but I must not omit to mention two
traits of tolerance in this Church: FIRST, Edward VI. was
advised to _bring his sister Mary to trial_, and, of course to
punishment, for not conforming to the Law-Church; and she was
saved only by the menaces of her cousin, the Emperor Charles V.
SECOND, when Mary, Queen of Scotland, had been condemned to
die, she, though she earnestly sued for it, WAS NOT ALLOWED TO
HAVE A PRIEST TO PERFORM THE RELIGIOUS OFFICES DEEMED SO
NECESSARY IN SUCH CASES. They brought the Protestant Dean of
Peterborough to pray by or with her; but she would not hear
him. When her head fell from the block the Dean exclaimed, 'So
let our Queen's enemies perish!' And the Earl of Kent responded
'Amen.' Baker in his Chronicle, p. 273, says, that the death of
this Queen was earnestly desired, because 'that if she lived,
the religion received in England could not subsist.'
"This Church has been no _changeling_; she has been of the same
character from the day of her establishment to the present
hour; in Ireland her deeds have surpassed those of Mahomet; but
it would take a large volume to put down a bare list of her
intolerant deeds. She at last, however, seems to be nearly at
the end of her tether; the nation has always been making
sacrifices to her haughty predominance. Boulogne and Calais
were the first sacrifices; _poor-rates_, and an _enormous
debt_, and a _standing army_, and a _civil list_ have followed;
all, yea all, to be ascribed to the predominance of this
Church, and her haughty spirit of ascendancy. But now the
nation has made so many and such great sacrifices to her, that
_it can make no more_. It cannot venture on _another civil war_
(about the _twentieth_), in order to support the ascendancy of
this Church; and be you assured, my Lord, that that hierarchy
in Ireland, to uphold which you seem so very anxious, is not
much longer to be upheld by any power on earth, seeing that all
the miseries of Ireland, all of them, without a single
exception, are to be traced directly to that hierarchy: and in
these miseries _England sees terrific danger_.
"The case is very plain. The opponents of the Catholic Bill
say, We dislike it, because it exposes the Church, and
especially the _Irish Church_, to imminent _danger_. The answer
of the Duke is, I cannot prevent this danger without _risking a
civil war_; and the State _cannot afford that_. The Law-Church
might reply, Why there have been many, many civil wars carried
on for the purpose of upholding my ascendancy; but to that the
Duke might rejoin, Very true; but we have now a
paper-money-system (also made to uphold you) _which cannot live
in civil war_, and the death of which may produce that of the
State itself; and, therefore, you must be now left to support
your ascendancy by your talents, piety, zeal, charity,
humility, and sound doctrine. This is the true state of the
case, my Lord, and, therefore, unless the Church can support
itself by these means, it is manifestly destined to fall.
"I am your Lordship's most humble and most obedient Servant,
"WM. COBBETT."
Most Reverend Gentlemen, after reading the above letter, (and mind, the
writer informs you, that what he there asserts, is proved by acts of
parliament,) after reading the above letter, can it for a moment be
thought strange, that England should have left the Catholic, and embraced
the Protestant faith? Nay, is it not more strange, with all the above
_incontestible_ facts before us, is it not, I repeat, more strange, that
there should have been left, a single Catholic, or a single fibre of
Catholicity, in this country? And had it not been for the providence of
God, this would certainly have been the case; but the Scripture
beautifully informs us, "that to them, who love God, all things work
together unto good." (_Rom._ viii., 28.)
But, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I have ranged over so much spiritual
ground, and have been so busily occupied in bagging black game, that I
have nearly forgotten the famous text, "extraordinary and presumptuous
movement," which your meeting were so kind as to give me to preach from.
Really, I must not forget _my text_, otherwise you will begin to
conclude, I must be a very _bungling_ preacher. Let us, then, now return
to my famous text. I think, that you must have been already convinced,
from what I have stated, in the first part of this address to you Clergy,
that your scriptural Church, has been for a long time, making a most
"extraordinary and presumptuous movement," on the _pockets_ of
Englishmen. By _now_ recapitulating what I have just said in the latter
part of this address, I think it will be also plain, that your Church has
been making, for a long time, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous
movement" on the _intellects_ of Englishmen.