erected on an infallible and imperishable foundation, was to be the
Church of all ages, with the world for its boundaries, and time for its
duration. I have shown you, how your first Reformers, and your Protestant
scriptural Church, had the barefacedness to assert, that this Church of
Christ once fell into error, although _God_ had pledged his solemn word,
that this Church _never should err_; I have also shown you, how this
assertion of Christ's Church falling into error, was the _mere_ ipse
dixit of the _first_ Reformers, and of your scriptural Church; and that
they had both unfortunately forgotten to prove, _when_, _where_, and
_how_, this _infallible_ Church of Christ had fallen _into error_. Now, I
appeal to you, if this was not, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous
movement," of your scriptural Church, on the _intellects_ of Englishmen.
I have also shown you, the characters of the first Reformers, who the
spiritual instructor of some of them was, and what strange, paradoxical,
and new ideas, they advanced, and how, by forgery and lies, they
contrived to palm their new-fangled religious ideas, on the minds of the
people. Really, Gentlemen, was not this, a most "extraordinary and
presumptuous movement," of these Reformers, and of your scriptural
Church, on the _intellects_ of Englishmen? I have likewise shown you, how
your scriptural Church, assures her people, in her Thirty-nine Articles,
that the Scriptures are the only means of their salvation; and I have
also shown you, how the first Reformers and your scriptural Church, have
falsified, and mutilated, those sacred volumes. On the one hand, it is
declared, that the Scriptures are the _only_ means of salvation, and on
the other hand, it is plain, that these sacred volumes, have been
falsified, and mutilated. What, then, are the people to do in this awful
fix? Really, Gentlemen, is not this, another most "extraordinary and
presumptuous movement" of your scriptural Church, on the _intellects_ of
Englishmen? I have shown you, also, with what kind of a book of Common
Prayer, your Church honoured the people. I have shown you, how, _at
first_ it was declared, to be the work of the Holy Ghost; how then, it is
declared _not_ to be the work of the _Holy Ghost_, but the work of
_schism_; how it is then recalled, and adopted, as a most fit means of
devotion for the people. I have shown you, how artfully God's holy Word,
and man's human inventions, are there mixed up together; and that, when
they come in contact with each other, in what strange and paradoxical
situations they place your scriptural Church. Really, Gentlemen, is not
this also a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" of your
scriptural Church, on the _intellects_ of Englishmen? Our Saviour
declared, that his kingdom was not of _this_ world; and hence, neither
he, nor his apostles, endeavoured to propagate, and support his doctrine,
by force, cruelty, and persecution. But does not the above letter, and do
not acts of Parliament prove, that it was by bribery among the great
ones, and by force, and cruelty, and persecution, and death, on the
middle and lower classes, that your scriptural Reformation was
introduced, and forced on England? Really, Gentlemen, was not this, a
most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" of your scriptural Church,
on the _consciences_, and on the _intellects_ of Englishmen?
Now, most Reverend Gentlemen, you and many of your reverend body, have
been lately calling public meetings, in which you have unjustly
endeavoured, to rouse the indignation of the people, against the Pope for
making, "an extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the Protestants
of England. Now I have plainly proved, in my first address, that the Pope
has _not_ made an "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the
Protestants of England; for, by the spirit of the English law, as I have
shown, the Pope is _perfectly justified in all he has done_. But
Gentlemen, is your Protestant Church, justified _in all_ the
"extraordinary and presumptuous movements," which, I have shown, she has
been making so long on _the pockets_, and on _the intellects_ of
Englishmen? Certainly not. Thus you see, you have unfortunately thrown
your Scriptural Church (which feeds you so well with more than nine
millions a-year) into the very grave, which you have been so charitably,
and officiously, unjustly digging for the poor Pope. Really, most
Reverend Gentlemen, I think every one, will conclude, that this is a most
extraordinary and presumptuous movement, of _you_ and _your_ reverend
body, on your good, and kind mother the Church. May they not justly apply
to you, the words of the old proverb, "Physicians, cure yourselves?" Most
Reverend Gentlemen, to those clergymen, who have adopted the above
inconsistent conduct, I can only say, I may applaud their intentions, but
I must condemn their bigotry. They may indeed, be friends to their Church
in their hearts, but their mouths, and pens, are her most dangerous
enemies.
Before I conclude, I beg leave to say a few words about the Puseyites, a
few words to the dissenters, and a few words to the English people; and
then, I must drop the curtain, and beg leave to retire for the present.
There is a circumstance, connected with the Whitby meeting, upon which I
have as yet made no remark. You came together, on that occasion, both
ministers and people, obedient to the trumpet call of Lord John Russell.
Now, that trumpet blew two blasts, which gave "no uncertain sound." The
_first_, was to denounce the papal aggression; the _second_, was to warn
you of "a danger, which alarmed him (Lord John Russell) much more than
any aggression of a foreign sovereign; alarmed him more, than Pope and
Cardinal Archbishop, and territorial titles put together, more than the
hierarchy, with all its mapping, and parcelling out of the land, nay,
more to be dreaded, than an invasion of England, by the fleets and armies
of any earthly power!" In the name of all that is terrible, what is this
danger, that is impending over us? He says that it is a danger, "_already
within the gates_." What does he mean? Why, Gentlemen, he means (and you
all know it) Puseyism, and Popery, which have long been spreading, in the
_very bosom_ of the _Protestant_ Church of England. Lord John proclaims
to you, _this latter_ danger, even more loudly than _the former_; and
yet, upon _this latter_ "extraordinary and presumptuous movement," _you_
were silent at _your_ meeting, _each_ and _all_; you heard him
proclaiming, that the abomination of desolation, had got possession of
the holy place; and that the bewitching fascination, of the Harlot of
Rome, had reduced even some of the Protestant Bishops, into dalliance
with her; and yet, _not one_ word, from _any_ minister among _you_,
Protestant, Independent, or Wesleyan, _not one word_ either _to deny_ the
existence of the danger, or to propose means to _ward_ it off. You
_readily_ flocked together, to repel the _lesser_ danger, but, the _much
more_ alarming danger, (according to Lord John) the danger "within the
gates," it seemed touched _you not at all_. Really, _in this_ you appear,
to be worthy disciples of Lord John Russell, who sat nearly seven years,
under the Rev. Mr. Bennett, with all this danger staring him in the face,
and yet, blew not _then_ a _single_ blast of his _warning_ trumpet.
Really, Gentlemen, what was the cause of your silence, on this occasion?
Was it lack of zeal, or lack of courage on your part? We shall, perhaps,
be better able to judge of this, when I have told you, what sort of
Puseyite enormities, Lord John has detected in the Church, and how, he
takes upon himself, to chastise and correct them. Never, since the days
of Cromwell, the Vicar-General of Henry VIII., has any layman, or
churchman either, dared to play such tricks, or brandish such a rod, in
the face of the Church of England, as this imperious minister has done!
Mark, how this leader of the House of Commons, this lay Metropolitan of
all England, superseding both York and Canterbury, see, how he calls to
account his venerable brother, the Bishop of Durham. "Clergymen of our
Church, who have subscribed the thirty-nine articles, and acknowledged
the Queen's supremacy, have been the most forward, to lead their flocks,
step by step, to the very verge of the precipice." Well, sad shepherds
these, to lead their flocks, to the very verge of the precipice, and
_sadder still_, that one thousand, eight hundred of these Church of
England Clergymen, have signed a protest, _against the Queen's supremacy
as recently_ exercised; thus rebelling, against the acknowledged, and
sworn head of their Church. Well, Lord John thus describes the danger,
"within the gates."
(1.) The honour paid to saints; (2.) the claim of infallibility for the
Church; (3.) the superstitious use of the sign of the cross; (4.) the
muttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in which it is
written; (5.) the recommendation of auricular confession; (6.) the
administration of penance, and (7.) absolution.
All these things, are pointed out by _certain_ clergymen of the _Church_
of _England_, as worthy of adoption! Here, according to Lord John
Russell, is the "enemy within the gates." Here, are seven enormous
errors, pointed out by a layman, as corrupting, and disfiguring the pure,
the Scriptural, the reformed Church of England. I will make a few remarks
on each, marking the number of each, as I proceed.
(1st. The honour paid to saints.) So certain Reverend Gentlemen of the
Church of England, are no longer to honour the saints, as they have done;
the Whig prime minister, will not permit it. But can it be, that Lord
John here intimates, that these Protestant Clergymen, have been paying
_divine_ honour to the saints? Why, this would be idolatry! "Thou that
abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?" Catholics, indeed, honour
the saints, but a true Catholic, would sooner die, than give _divine_
honour to any saint, or to all the saints in bliss. But, whether you
Reverend Protestant Gentlemen, are to honour them at all, or with what
sort of honour, or with what degree of it; all this you will learn,
perhaps, from Lord John Russell, or from some of his Bishops. In the
meantime, you had better observe the _Protestant_ Church doctrine, as to
holy angels, laid down in your _Protestant_ collect, on the feast of St.
Michael, where your scriptural Church, prays, that "the holy angels, may,
by God's appointment, succour and defend us on earth." (Coll. of St.
Mich. Ch. Eng. Prayer Book.) Surely, this doctrine of your Church of
England prayer book, will not alarm Lord John Russell, and surely, the
Bishop of London, will not openly reprehend this, in his next charge, to
the clergy of his diocese; although, in my humble opinion, it smells very
strongly of the popish doctrine of angels, and saints, and looks very
like, leading the people, step by step, to the very verge of that
precipice.
(2ndly. The claim of infallibility for the Church.) It seems, some of
you, Reverend Gentlemen, have had the _temerity_ to preach up, the
infallibility of the Church. _This_, is to be "put down." _You_ are not
to claim _infallibility_ for _your_ Church. Infallibility belongs to the
_Catholic_ Church, which is "built upon a rock," which is the "pillar and
ground of truth," "formed upon the prophets, and apostles, having Christ
for its chief corner stone," with which Church Christ has promised, "to
abide all days, even to the end of the world." Such is the Catholic
Church, according to the _Scriptures_. But, as regards _your Church_,
Reverend Gentlemen, you are to be diligent in teaching, that your Church
is _not_ infallible, is not built upon a rock, _not_ founded upon the
prophets and apostles,--has not Christ for its chief corner stone,--for
if _she had_, she would _assuredly_ be _infallible_. But above all, you
are to teach, either that Christ did _not_ promise, to be always with His
Church, or that, even his abiding presence, with the Church, is _not_
sufficient to make _her_ infallible; at all events, you are to teach (if
you teach anything) that _your_ Church, has _no claims_ to infallibility,
and that she may be involved in the grossest errors, and may be
altogether, misleading and deluding, both you and your flocks. This
shows, what a cuckoo cry, that was, which the vicar of Leeds, was
sometime ago, sounding with _such iteration_, from the housetops, crying,
"HEAR THE CHURCH." This cry, has died away, and I suspect, Dr. Hook will
not _renew_ it, with the return of spring. For why, in the name of common
sense, should we hear, or follow the guidance of this Church of England,
which does not pretend, to be a _sure_ and _infallible_ guide? Or where
indeed, shall we find the Church? In convocation? that has been
extinguished. In synod? She is not permitted to hold one. On the bench of
Bishops? The Bishops, are _notoriously_ at sixes and sevens, all over the
land, both on matters of _faith_, _discipline_, and _ceremonies_.
Yours, Reverend Gentlemen, is a _hard_ lot! I know nothing to equal to
it. You glory in liberty of conscience, and are the bound slaves of a
_fallible_ Church, as if she were _infallible_. The Bible, and the Bible
alone, is your rule of faith, and yet, you are remorselessly compelled,
to subscribe to the thirty-nine Articles, which have been _added_ to the
Scriptures, and which are in part self-contradictory, and in part,
impossible to be understood.[P] You exult in freedom of thought, and in
the privilege of private interpretation, but if you _dare_ to exercise
_either_, you are dragged to the ecclesiastical courts, to answer for
your temerity, at the bar of a Lay Judge. Ah! Reverend Gentlemen,
Cranmer, and Latimer, and Ridley, did an _evil_ thing; they bowed their
_own_ necks, and prepared for _your_ necks, a galling yoke, when to rid
themselves of the supremacy, of the divinely appointed head of the
Church, they cried out, "we have no king but Caesar." From _that_ day to
_this_, Parliament, and Parliamentary leaders, have lorded it, over your
inheritance, both _spiritual_ and _temporal_. You _must_ either submit to
_Lay_ tribunals, or there are _no loaves_ and _fishes_ for _you_.
How beautifully is your Church thus described by the poet,--
"For she was of that stubborn crew
Of errant saints, whom all men grant,
To be the true Church militant:
Such as do build their faith upon,
The holy text of pike and gun;
Decide all controversies by
Infallible artillery;
And prove their doctrines orthodox
By apostolic blows and knocks;
Which always must be going on,
And still be doing, never done:
As if religion were intended,
For nothing else, but to be mended."
(3rdly. The superstitious use of the sign of the cross.) The true
Catholic, knows that the Son of God, obtained the salvation of the world,
by dying _on a cross_, for all mankind; and hence, like the great St.
Paul, he glories in the cross of Christ, and frequently crosses himself,
with this holy sign, to remind himself of Jesus Christ, who obtained so
many spiritual blessings for mankind, by the great sacrifice, which he
once consummated _on the cross_. Hence the Catholic Church, keeps the
cross, as the sign of the pledge of our redemption, in all her churches,
and chapels, and by this holy sign, reminds the faithful, that all the
blessings, that they either _have_ received, or _can_ receive, _must_
come through the _merits_ of Jesus Christ. Hence, in the oblation of her
holy sacrifice, in the administration of her sacraments, and in all her
sacred rites, and ceremonies, she is continually using this holy sign, to
remind both herself, and the faithful, that it is by the cross, that is,
by the merits of our Saviour's death, and passion, that she, and all
other faithful, are to triumph over the world, the flesh, and the devil.
Hence, this sign was used by antiquity with the greatest veneration.
Thus, Tertullian beautifully says, "We sign ourselves with the sign of
the cross, on the forehead, whenever we go from home, or return, when we
put on our clothes, or our shoes, when we go to the bath, or sit down to
meat, when we light our candles, when we lie down, and when we sit." But
it appears, that the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, is
offensive to Lord John, and, that it may lead people, step by step, to
the very verge of the precipice; and therefore, you clergymen, must not
make use of the sign of the cross, but you must keep the lion, and the
unicorn, in _your_ churches, to remind the people, that _your_ church is
the church of men, as by Law established. You may indeed, bow at the name
of Jesus, and kiss the Bible, before you swear by it, in a court of
justice, but, in the house of God, you had better omit the superstitious
use of the sign of the cross, although, if _one_ of the popish ceremonies
be _superstitious_, it is manifest that the _other two_ ceremonies, must
be _also superstitious_.
(4thly. The muttering of the liturgy, so as to disguise the language, in
which it is written.) Now, what this sentence really means, I am at a
loss to divine; whether, it refers to the indistinct utterance, of the
clergyman's enunciation, or it means, that some of these Protestant
clergymen, have been performing certain parts, of the Church of England
liturgy, like Catholics, in the Latin tongue, I am at a loss to
determine. It is a pity, when Lord John is finding fault, about
muttering, so as to disguise the language, (and of course the meaning,)
of his Church liturgy, it is really a pity, Lord John did not express
himself, in more intelligible terms; but, perhaps, the obscurity of Lord
John's meaning, may be owing to the blunt acumen of my popish
understanding. I am rather, however, inclined to think, that Lord John,
is here warning his clergy, against the use of the Latin tongue, in the
Church liturgy, and if so, he is perfectly right. For the English
Protestant Church, is a _modern_ church, its _language_, therefore,
should be _modern_, that its _liturgy_, may announce to posterity the
period, in which it was formed. But the Church of Rome, is an _ancient_
Church, and therefore, _she_ preserves her _ancient_ liturgy, the
language of which, remounts to the _origin_ of Christianity. I do not
believe, that history, can furnish an instance of a people, who ever
changed the language of their liturgy, and who did not, at the same time,
change their religion. But are the Catholics of the Latin Church,
singular in the use of an ancient tongue, in their service? Certainly
not. The Greeks, Russians, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Ethiopians,
Georgians, and the other Christians of the East, all retain the
liturgies, which they received from the fathers of their faith, and which
are written in languages, unintelligible to the common people. The same,
was the discipline of the Jews, after their captivity; and we do not
find, that it was ever blamed by Our Saviour. But is it true, that the
modern Church of England, has always held in such abhorrence, the
celebration of her liturgy, in an unknown tongue? certainly not: for, in
the year 1560, an act was passed, for the introduction of the English
Protestant Common Prayer Book, among the natives of Ireland, who were
compelled, by the severest penalties, to assist at the celebration of the
English liturgy; though these poor Irish, were _utterly_ unacquainted,
with the English language. Hence, Dr. Heylin, in his History of the
Protestant Reformation, (Eliz. p. 128.) says, "The people, by that
statute, are required under severe penalties, to frequent their churches,
and to be frequent, at the reading of the _English_ liturgy, which they
understand, _no more_ than they do the Mass." * * * "By which," continues
this Protestant writer, "we have furnished the 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 assured, most Reverend Gentlemen, unless your
Scriptural Church, changes this muttering, and confusion of tongues, of
her weathercock, and Babel faith, and doctrines, she must also be
demolished. For does not the Scripture, plainly tell us, that "a house
divided against itself, cannot stand?" and the rains (of fallibility, and
of muttering the Liturgy, &c.) fell, and the floods (of clerical
protestant dissensions) came, and the winds (of disunion among the
bishops, about the necessity of baptismal regeneration) blew; and they
beat upon that house, (the Protestant, fallible, Babel, Church,) and it
fell; and great was the _golden_ fall thereof, for it was built, _not_
upon the rock of God's _infallible_ word, but upon the mere _fallible
inventions_, and _pecuniary conveniences_ of men.
(5th. The recommendation of Auricular Confession, to which, I beg to add
(the 7th) Absolution.)