Chapter IV: Part 4

Well, Mary died about five years afterwards, and was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth, who was at first a Catholic, but shortly turned Protestant. Now the second Act of this Queen, (i. Eliz. chap. 2.) brought back again, this prayer-book. In Mary's reign these very men, had abolished this very prayer-book, as schismatical, they now recall this common prayer-book, and inflict the most severe penalties, upon all, who will not use it, in the public service. For the first offence, it was now enacted, the clergy were to forfeit a year's income, and be imprisoned for a year; for the second offence, they were to forfeit all their incomes, and be imprisoned for life, for refusing to use this common prayer-book, in the public service. The people also, were compelled on Sundays, and holydays, to attend the Church, and to use this common prayer-book, under various penalties, and in failure of paying these penalties, they were to be imprisoned. Bishops, Archdeacons, and other Ordinaries, were to have power, to inflict these punishments. Really the conduct of these men, is, so inconsistent and monstrous, that if we had not Acts of Parliament for it, I should have been afraid to state it, upon any other authority. In the reign of Edward, these very men make the common prayer-book, and declare it a work of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God; then, in about seven years afterwards, in the reign of Mary, they declare this book to be schismatical, and contrary to true religion, although in the former reign, they had asserted, it was a work of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God; and then in about five years afterwards, these very men recant again, recall this prayer-book, and inflict the most severe pains, and penalties, both on clergy and laity, who refuse the use of it. Most Reverend Gentlemen, may I ask you, what kind of a prayer-book, must that be, which was made by these inconsistent, and monstrous men? and yet, such is your Protestant prayer-book, of the Church of England as by Law established.

But some of you reverends, will perhaps reply, really, Sir, it is too bad of you, thus to lower our Protestant Prayer-book, for we Protestants all know, how many beautiful, and admirable parts there are in that Church Prayer-book. Most Reverend Gentlemen, before I answer this objection, we must quietly trace back our steps to the Spanish chemist. Of course, I have forbidden myself the application of his wonderful, chemical operations to your Church. But then, you yourselves can apply them, and judge whether there really is, any analogy or not, between his chemical operations, and the spiritual works of your scriptural Church. Well, then, I have shewn you, what a beautiful Church God and Jesus Christ first built; and I have shown you the sure, and infallible foundation of that Church, which was to be perpetuated from age to age, with the world for its boundaries, and time for its duration. I have shewn you, how, in the sixteenth century, arose a body of men, the most audacious, and strange spiritual chemists, that the world ever beheld, whether you consider the spiritual instructor of some of them, or whether you consider the strange doctrines they advanced, and the barefaced manner, in which they defended, and propagated their new-fangled ideas. I have shewn you, how these strange spiritual chemists, wished to demolish God's infallible Church, how they cut it into pieces of universal and damnable idolatry, how then, they put these various parts into the sublimatory glass of falsification, and mutilation of God's word. You then saw, how these spiritual chemists, and their followers, have been trying in vain, for these three hundred years at least, to collect, and unite, and form these various parts of Christ's Church (which according to their bare assertion, had fallen into error), into a more perfect, and durable form, than that which God had first given it. You have seen, how these Protestant children of the Reformation, honoured England with a Protestant Prayer-book, the formation of which, almost defies all the power of credibility; and were there not Acts of Parliament to show this, it would be an insult to any Englishman, to assert such a thing in his presence. Now with all these facts before you, is there not a great analogy, between the outrageous conduct of your Church, and that of the Spanish chemist, who destroyed his master, with the design of raising him, to a more perfect and durable state, than that which God had first given him?

I ask you, most Reverend Gentlemen, with all these awful and incontestible facts before you, will your Protestant Church, ever be able to raise Christ's Church, to as perfect and as durable a state, as she _is now_, and _was then_, when you withdrew from her? Your Protestant Church has been trying her hand, at this work of reformation, for more than three hundred years, and still she is something like the Irishman's wife: Pat got married, and in about three months after, went to the priest, and said, "Plaise your reverince, you didn't marry me and my wife rightly." "Well," asked the clergyman, "how did I marry you wrongly?" "Plaise your reverince, didn't you say, I was to take my wife for better, and for worse?" "Certainly," replied the priest. "Now, plaise your reverince, she's all worse, and no better." Really, how justly may we apply this to your Church of England as by law established. In short, this country, the wonder of the world in commerce, in the arts and sciences, in the extent of her navy, and the power of her army, this wonderful nation, presents, in point of religion, a confused medley of every sort, and of every form of worship, a perfect chaos of doctrines, in which every one plunges, and tosses, dogmatizing as fancy or feeling directs. In consequence of this confusion of religious opinions, men know not, to whom to listen, what to believe, or what to do. This confusion of religious opinions, and doctrines, commenced with the Reformation, and has continued, and daily increased ever since. O how justly did a chief of the savages, address, near Boston, a missionary, who had gone with his Bible, to convert the pagans of that country. "How," asked this chief, "can _your_ religion be the _true_ one, since you _white_ men do not _all_ profess the _same_? Agree among _yourselves_ in this point, and _then_ we will attend to you." (Phil. Gaz. Nov. 1817.)

But some of you reverends, will ask again: Really, sir, do you pretend to assert, that our Common Prayer-book, and that our Protestant Church, do not contain _any_ spiritual treasures? I answer, that in all counterfeit coin, which is well executed, the gold is often laid on the base metal rather thickly, and with great ingenuity. Now, this is the case with your counterfeit prayer-book, and with your counterfeit religion. Whoever will take the pains to examine carefully, the strange mixture of good, and of evil, which is to be found in your Protestant Prayer-book, and in your Protestant religion, will, at first, stand astonished, but his astonishment will soon cease, when he finds that the little good which is in them, flows from the Church of Jesus Christ, which you formerly left, and that the evils with which they abound, flow from the inventions and the ingenuity of man.

Allow me to give you a few instances of this. In the Apostles' creed (and in your Thirty-nine Articles you admit this creed as the word of God), you profess to believe, in the Holy Catholic Church. Now, this is the real word of God, which your Church admits; but then, you also solemnly declare, that you believe in your hearts, and from your soul, that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is idolatrous. Now this is the mere human invention of your Protestant Church. Now when these two doctrines, the one from God, and the other from man, are brought in contact, let us see what sad consequences they make with you, and your scriptural Church. You profess to believe, in the Catholic Church; but Catholic, means universal, and as the Roman Catholics form the greatest body of Christians, their Church only, can be the Catholic, or universal Church; for Catholic, and universal, mean the _same_ thing. But mind, you destroy this Catholic or universal Church. How? Why you swear, that her doctrine is idolatrous. How, then, can she be holy? Thus, you see, by joining in religion the word of God, with the inventions of man, you destroy (though perhaps without intending it) the holy Catholic Church, in which you profess to believe.

I will now give you another instance. At the end of the Communion Service of your Common Prayer-book, I find these words: "It is hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine, there bodily received, or to any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread and wine, remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore, may not be adored, for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians." Of course, the plain meaning of these words is, that Jesus Christ is not present in the Lord's Supper, and therefore, it would be a great crime to there adore him. But, what does your Church Catechism (which is in your prayer-book) teach children on this subject? Why, it asks them, "What is the inward part, or the thing signified?" Your Church Catechism answers: "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are _verily_ and _indeed taken_, and _received_ by the faithful, in the _Lord's Supper_." Now this declares, that our Saviour, is _really_ present in the _Lord's Supper_, for how can you _really_, and indeed _take_ Him, and _receive_ Him, if He is not _really_ there? Thus, in _one_ part of your prayer-book, you solemnly declare, that our Saviour is _not_ present, in the _Lord's Supper_, and therefore it would be idolatry there to adore him; but in _another_ part of the _same_ prayer-book, you teach children that He is _present_; and that they _verily_ and _indeed take_ Him and _receive_ Him in the _Lord's Supper_. The Act of Parliament of Edward VI., for the making of this Common Prayer-book, declares it to be a work of the Holy Ghost; but I hope you will excuse me for saying, that I think it was a very curious Holy Ghost, and whether it was black, or white, really I have not sufficient of the prophet in me to divine. But how was this _manifest_ contradiction, introduced into your prayer-book? Why, I will tell you; the doctrine of the _real_ presence of our Saviour in the Blessed Sacrament, had been believed by the great body of Christians, ever since the time of our Saviour, until the Reformation. Luther and Zuinglius, indeed, as you know, were convinced _by the devil_, that our Saviour was _not_ present in the Blessed Sacrament, and that, therefore, it would be idolatry to believe it; but then, how were they to manage to substitute their new-fangled opinions, for the constant belief of all former christian ages? Why, they made flesh and fish of them; they mixed together again the word of God with the inventions of man, and then, thought that the people's orthodox stomachs, would _swallow better_ their new-fangled religious ideas.

But, what has often amused me the most, in your scriptural Church, is this; you solemnly declare, that the doctrine of Catholics, is idolatrous; but, should any of these poor Catholic sinners, condescend to lay their idolatrous bones, in any of your churchyards; what do you _then_ declare? Why, that you commit to the dust, this Catholic, (who according to you during life has been a most idolatrous sinner,) "in the sure, and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ;" for you would thus pray: "O merciful God, we meekly beseech Thee, that when we shall depart this life, we may rest in Him (Christ) as our hope is, this our brother doth." Thus you tell us, that during life, we Catholics live in the horrible sin of idolatry, and then, after death, you are willing to commit us, _for a comfortable fee_, "to the dust, in the sure, and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Again, you often warn the people, against the idolatrous practice of praying to the Saints, and 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.

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 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."