Chapter V: Part 5

(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.)

Every well-instructed Catholic, knows that no man, _as man_, can forgive sins; but at the same time, he knows, that _God_ can forgive sins, and that God, _can_ give that power to _man_; for the Apostles were men, and yet, Jesus Christ (as I shall shortly shew) gave his Apostles, a power to forgive sins. You know, that our Saviour, was both God and man, and that he acted, sometimes as God, and sometimes, as man. Now, if you will read the ninth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, you will find, that our Saviour worked a miracle, to prove that He as man, (but mind assisted by his heavenly Father) had power to forgive sins, even on earth. Now, he gave this power, also to his Apostles, for we read in St. John's Gospel, (chap. xx. 22,) He "breathed upon them," and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins, you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." Now, why was not this power of forgiving sins, to extend also to _future_ ages? Are not God, and Jesus Christ, as good and as kind, _now_, as they were, in the _time_ of the Apostles; and are there not, as many sinners _now_, as there were _then_? If therefore, God, and Jesus Christ, in their infinite mercy, gave this power of forgiving sins, _to the Apostles_, for the good of mankind then, and if there are, as many sinners _now_, as there were _then_, in the name of common sense, why was not this power of God, given to the Apostles for the benefit of mankind _then_, why was it not, to extend also to all _future_ ages, for the benefit of mankind _afterwards_? No such things, cries out the Lay Metropolitan of England. Such doctrine, would lead the people, step by step, to the very verge of the precipice. But of what precipice? Would you believe it? to the recommendation of Auricular Confession, and Absolution, as laid down, in the _Church of England Prayer-book_.

In the Church of England form of Ordination, the Bishop says, to the candidate for the priesthood: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained." These words, most Reverend Gentlemen, were said over each of you, by your Bishops, when you presented yourselves candidates, for ordination. Now, did you receive any spiritual power, or was this a mere form? If you answer, it was a mere form, you then have no more power, in this respect, than a mere layman; but if you answer, you did receive a power, it must have been, either a _declaratory_, or a _judicial_ power to forgive sins; if it was only a _declaratory_ power, viz., to declare, that the sinner, would obtain forgiveness if he truly repented, then, _any layman_, possesses this power _without ordination_; for any layman, can confidently declare, that _penitent_ sinners are pardoned; but if you received a _judicial_ power, to forgive sins, then, this is popish doctrine, and this would lead you, and your flock, step by step, to the very verge of the precipice. But to the verge of what precipice? Why your Protestant common prayer-book, shall now tell you. Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, I am afraid of quoting this passage, from your prayer-book; for it will not _merely lead_ you to _the verge_, but it will _hurl_ you, all headlong, down the precipice of the popish doctrine, of Auricular Confession, and Absolution.

But we had better, go step by step, and therefore, I will quote a _choice piece_, that occurs in your Protestant common prayer-book, just before the recommendation of Auricular Confession, and Absolution. Your godly prayer-book, says, in the visitation of the sick, "the ministers shall not omit, earnestly to move, such sick persons, as are of ability, _to be liberal to the poor_." It is a pity, O godly Church, that thou didst not give this advice to thyself, at the Reformation, when thou stolest, so much money from the poor, and then, made the nation make up, by church-rates and poor-rates, for what thou hadst stolen. Thou art really a very disinterested spiritual physician, for thou art most solicitous about thy children, practising the virtue of _charity themselves_, but as for _thyself_, thou will practise charity, as soon as it is convenient, or as soon as the spirit moves thee, or the nation makes thee.

But what comes next, in your godly prayer-book? Why, rank, and downright Popish doctrine, of auricular confession, and absolution. In the visitation of the sick, your prayer-book thus says; "Here shall the sick person be moved to make a SPECIAL confession of _his sins_, if he feel his conscience, troubled with any weighty matter. After which _confession_, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and earnestly desire it) after this sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church, to absolve all sinners, who truly repent, and believe in Him; of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences: and by His authority COMMITTED TO ME, I _absolve_ thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, if all this, is not rank popish, auricular confession, and absolution, I know not what is; and _mind_, standing as large as life, in _your_ Church of England, Common Prayer-book, which was made by act of parliament, by "the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God." Really, what are you, and Lord John Russell to do _now_, when your Protestant godly Prayer-book, has not only _led_ you to _the verge_, but _hurled_ you all headlong down to the _very_ bottom, of popish Auricular Confession, and absolution? Why, you must either renounce your Protestant prayer-book, and declare, it is _not_ a work of the Holy Ghost, nor made for the honour of God; or your orthodox stomachs, must swallow, by wholesale, _this abomination of desolation_, of popish auricular confession, and absolution; and thus, allow the dreadful enemy, to remain "within your gates," an enemy more terrible than an hostile invasion by foreign powers.

(6th. The administration of Penance.) This, most Reverend Gentlemen, is the sixth error, in Lord John Russell's catalogue, of seven errors, but the last, which I have to answer, as I have already, included the seventh, in the fifth error. If Lord John, wishes to intimate, that Catholics teach works of penance, to be of _themselves_ a _sufficient_ compensation for sin, Lord John has yet, to learn, the _first_ rudiments of the Catholic creed; but if he means, that Catholics consider the works of penance, as one of the conditions, on which our Saviour, is willing to communicate the merits of His death and passion, to the soul of the sinner, Lord John's meaning is just. But does Lord John, seriously condemn this doctrine, founded, as it is, on the plainest evidence of scripture, and confirmed by the practice of the earliest ages? If I understand Lord John rightly, he certainly does. Lord John, is perhaps the zealous champion of the all-sufficiency of Christ, and in his opinion, to do penance for sin, after the great sacrifice consummated on the cross, is to lead the people, step by step, to the verge of an awful precipice. If this, is Lord John's creed, it must, at least, be a very consoling one. Indulge your passions, it exclaims, to the sinner, indulge your passions, and cease to sin, when you can sin no longer; fear not the rigours of penance; to weep and pray, to fast and give alms, to repent in sackcloth and ashes, are external ceremonies, which are confined to the popish creed; but to practise them, in our _new_ dispensation of _free_ grace, _as by law established_, would be, to lead the people, to the very verge of the popish precipice. It is curious to observe, how Lord John's liberation from penance (if I understand him rightly,) has improved, on the rough sketch, which was delivered by our forefathers. St. Paul, was accustomed to keep under his body, and to bring it under subjection by acts of penance; and I have no doubt, he thought he was acting in a manner, pleasing to Christ, and yet, we learn from Lord John's doctrine, (if I understand it rightly,) this great apostle, was leading the people, step by step, to the very verge, of the awful precipice of penance. The penitents in ancient times, often spent whole years in works of penance; they fasted and prayed, they lay prostrate at the porch of the Church, they solicited the intercession of their less guilty brethren. By these penitential austerities, they hoped, they were fulfilling the will of the Redeemer, and yet, alas! according to Lord John's doctrine (if I understand it rightly) they were going, step by step, to the very verge of the awful precipice of penance. Even the learned men, who compiled the Church of England, Common Prayer-book, appear to have been involved in this awful error. "There was formerly," they tell us, "a godly discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such persons, as stood convicted of notorious sins, were put to open penance, and punished here, that their souls, might be saved at the day of the Lord; and it were much to be wished, that this said discipline, may be restored." (Church Eng. Com. Pray. book.) Little did they imagine, that this godly discipline of penance, by means of which the souls of sinners, were to be saved in the day of the Lord, would be reproved by a Protestant layman, as an error, which would lead people, step by step, to the verge of an awful precipice. Yet so (if I understand his meaning) says Lord John Russell, and he is lay Metropolitan of all England.

I think I cannot better take leave of Lord John, than by addressing him in the words of the Reverend Mr. Bennett, under whose Puseyite teaching, he sat for some time. "If my course was insidious, (Lord John), why did you take part in that course? If I so muttered the liturgy, as to disguise its language, why did _you_ join in so glaring a profaneness, for nearly seven years? If I practised 'mummeries and superstition,' why did _you_, come to join in them, for nearly seven years? Why did _you_ so far and so deeply join, as to receive at my hands, so late as Ash Wednesday, 1849, the holy Eucharist, yourself and your family? If I were one, of those designated in your letter, as bringing a greater danger, than the Pope, why then, my lord, was it, that _you_ said not all this before?" (Rev. Mr. Bennett's Letter to Lord John Russell.)

In conclusion, I can only say, that I am afraid Lord John Russell's letter, has been a most _unfortunate one for himself_; and as such, I regret it exceedingly. It has certainly placed him, in the opinion of sensible Englishmen, in a very ridiculous point of view; and how it will be received by future ages, it is not for me to divine.

My dissenting Brethren, to you who have honourably come forward, and assisted us Catholics, in the late hurricane of bigotry, and of insults, I return you my mead of sincere thanks. Your conduct shows, that you have acted the part of consistent men, that you are true supporters of civil and religious liberty, and that you have not forgotten the former noble, and disinterested exertions of the late Daniel O'Connell, in your cause. You cannot but remember, that the late Daniel O'Connell, nobly and disinterestedly, battled for _your_ rights and privileges, on the field of civil and religious liberty, _even before_ he had gained those rights, either for the English Catholics, or for his dear country, poor Ireland.[Q]

But what shall I say of those dissenters, who have joined with the Protestant Church, in the late fury and tirade against us Catholics? Can I call _them consistent_ men? Consistent men indeed! Do not all the dissenters, the Presbyterians, Methodists, Independents, Baptists, Unitarians, and Quakers, do not all these dissenters deny, as well as we Catholics, the spiritual supremacy of the Queen? Nay, do not all these dissenters, claim _their_ spiritual rights and authority, _independent of the Queen_? Why, therefore, will you refuse the exercise of their spiritual rights, to your _Catholic_ fellow creatures? Why will you unjustly deprive _them_ of those privileges, which are the _birth-right_ of _every_ Englishman; nay, of every human creature in the world? Does not the scripture, which you so often extol, tell you, "that you ought not to do unto others, that which you do not wish others to do unto you?" What, then, are we to say of those dissenting ministers, or minister, who on one day are seen claiming the power to give spiritual ordination to others, then, shortly after, attending an Anti-Protestant Church meeting; and, lastly, see them or him, arranged by the side of the _Protestant_ Church, for the express purpose, of refusing to the _Catholic_ Church, the exercise of those spiritual rights, which they, or he, had not long before deemed it their, or his right to assume? Nay, what is still worse, he had _even_ wished to refuse them the rights of a base criminal, viz., that a charitable dissenter should not be allowed to speak, or merely ask a question, in defence of the Pope, and of the benighted papists. Really, was not _this_, a most inconsistent, "extraordinary and presumptuous movement," of this dissenting minister? Well, I can only say, if the _religious_ creed of this minister, be not _more consistent_ than his _political_ creed, I really envy him not the possession of it, and I think I cannot do better, than address him in the words of the poet:

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

I must now say a few words to the English, in general, and make a few remarks on the unjust manner, in which the Catholic religion, has in general been hitherto, treated and abused. That you may the better understand this, I will make use of the following supposition. Let us suppose, for a moment, that we were in a court of justice, that a person was going to be tried, that some of you were witnesses against him, that the rest of you, were to form the jury, and that I was to be the judge. Now, if we were to examine, _only_ the witnesses who were _against_ the accused, and _not_ allow a _single_ individual to speak for him, if we were not, to allow the poor man to speak a word in his _own_ defence, and were the jury, and the judge, then to pronounce him guilty, do you think, we should treat that man _fairly_? _However innocent_ he might be, he was sure to be brought in _guilty_. And why? Because the witnesses were against him, the jury was against him, and the judge was against him; and not a single word was allowed to be spoken in his defence. Now, ye honest men of England, would you not think that man was treated very _unfairly_? Would you not feel for such a man? And would you not pity his case? I am sure you would, and all with one voice exclaim, "Let the poor man have _fair play_, and let _us_ 'do to _him_, as _we_ would be done by.'"

Now, my friends, let us apply this example, to the Catholic religion. Have you not read books, that gave you the most horrible account of the Catholic religion, have you not heard people, tell the most infamous things against this religion, and have you not, _even_ in places of _worship_, heard this religion, most _cruelly_ called, and abused? But did you ever ask yourselves, whether all that you then read or heard, was _really_ true? Did you consider, that abuse, is no argument, declamation, no evidence, accusation, no verdict? Did you examine the witnesses on the _other_ side? Did you read any _Catholic_ book, or consult any well-instructed _Catholic_ layman, or minister on these subjects? Did you not condemn the poor Catholics, _unheard_, and without giving them a _fair_ trial? But mind, I am not blaming _you_, nor the _public in general_, for this ignorance of our religion, nor am I surprised at it. No, considering what has been the state of things, I cannot conceive how it could have been otherwise. For these misrepresentations, and false statements against our religion, have been often made by very _respectable_ persons, and often repeated to the people, either from _the pulpit, where_ nothing but the _truth_, should be spoken, or in tracts, and books, which either _are_, or _profess to be_ written by _learned_ and _sincere_ members of society. Thus hearing these statements, and accusations, from _these_ sources, the people very natural enough conclude, that all that is said against the poor _benighted_ Papists, _must be true_. But my friends, I beg of you that _in future_, you will always remember, that the law of England, strictly forbids any one, even the _basest criminal_, to be condemned _before_, he has had a _fair_ trial, that it is an excellent maxim in life, "hear _both_ sides _before_ you _judge_," and the Scripture expressly says: "Thou shalt not bear _false_ witness against _thy_ neighbour." Why should not then the _same_ principles, be adopted in _judging_ of the _Catholic_ religion? When then, in future your hear any abuse, or accusation against the Catholic religion, I beg of you to ask yourselves two questions: _First, am I certain_ that the _Catholic_ Church maintains _such_ doctrine? and _secondly, if it does_, have I heard the _proofs_, which may be advanced, _in confirmation_ of _that_ doctrine? Oh! would only all Englishmen, grant the Catholics this common boon of justice! how soon would that dark, and heavy cloud of prejudice and misrepresentation, which has so long hung over our religion, immediately burst, and as the sun, after having been shrouded in clouded majesty, amidst the terrific storm, bursts forth with more transcendent brightness, so would the Catholic faith, after having been so long darkened with the mist of false representation, burst forth, with a lustre and brightness, which could not help attracting the eye of every sensible, and thinking mind.

One or two more remarks to you Englishmen, and then, I really must for the present bid you farewell. You cannot be ignorant of the many Protestant clergyman, who, are either returning in _many_ respects to the Catholic faith, or who have _already, publicly_ renounced the _Protestant_, and embraced the _Catholic_ faith. Now, with all these venerable examples before _you_, ought not _you laity_, to begin to think, that _you also_, have a right, nay, that it is _your duty_, to examine how religious affairs, stand in England? You cannot read, without feelings of interest, and surprise, the account of the _numerous_ conversions, of these _Protestant_ clergymen, to the _ancient Catholic_. Although you may condemn the change, still you cannot but admire the singleness of their purpose, and the strength of their minds. The Catholic Church, has no _earthly_ treasures (for the Protestant Church got all these long since) to offer these ministers for the great sacrifice of wealth, of friendship, and other worldly interests, which they have to forfeit, for _renouncing_ the _Protestant_, and _embracing_ the _Catholic_ faith. On the other hand, your rich, but poor in spirit Church, lays before them _golden_ prospects, some of the best, and highest preferments of your Church. But, they have turned their backs upon them all, either to accept the lowly charge of a Catholic Priest, or to sink into some despised, and humble situation in life. To many of you, these sacrifices may appear folly; but remember these converts, have lately studied in the school of St. Paul, who "suffered the loss of all things, and accounted them as dung, that he might gain Christ." (Phil. iii.) Thus, they have cheerfully renounced the riches, and honours of this world, to associate themselves in faith, and worship, with those holy, and illustrious members of the Catholic faith, who, in every age, and clime, have made it their aim, and glory, to bring their dear, but erring brethren, to this one fold, of the one Shepherd, Jesus Christ.

I can only say it appears to me strange, passing strange, that if Catholicity be such a monster, as some would gladly persuade the world, it appears very strange, that there should be such an inclination in England, of late years, to return to this ancient faith. Every one must acknowledge, that the march of intellect in England, during these late years, has been immense; but if Catholicity be such a monster, as our enemies _charitably_ represent it, what is the reason, so many are beginning to enter into its fold, and what is the reason, Catholicity in England is so much in the increase? This great increase, is acknowledged even by our enemies. One would _reasonably_ think, that if Catholicity be such a monster, the march of intellect would have _naturally_ guarded the people against it. It surely will not be said, that the people have not been sufficiently warned against it. What! not sufficiently warned against it! Have they not been warned against it, these three hundred years at least? Have they not been warned against it, in books of all descriptions, from the large folio to the penny tract? Have they not been warned against it, in almost every pulpit (except Catholic) in England? Have they not been warned against it, again, and again, in the House of Lords and Commons? Have they not been warned against it, in almost every rank of society? In short, have they not been warned against it by every means, that human ingenuity could devise? But surely, we shall not be told, that this inclination to Catholicity, is owing to the want of scriptural knowledge in England? Want of scriptural knowledge indeed in England! Have not millions of money, been subscribed for the printing of the scriptures, have not millions of bibles, been printed and circulated in England? In short has not almost every one a bible, to which he confidently appeals as his word of life? And yet notwithstanding all this _warning_ against Catholicity, notwithstanding this immense diffusion of bibles in England, Catholicity is rapidly increasing, to the great dismay and "horrification" of our enemies. What then, can be the reason of this late increase of Catholicity in England? Why, I will tell you, the people of England, can now most of them read, and the march of intellect is abroad, and by these means the people begin to find out, that their Catholic fellow creatures, have been long, an unjustly abused, a shamefully treated, and basely calumniated body of Christians. The people, therefore, naturally begin to feel for them, and are now unwilling to be deceived, by the idle rant of those misinformed, but positive writers and preachers, who

"Without the care of knowing right from wrong,
Always appear, decisive, clear, and strong,
Where others, toil with philosophic force,
Their nimble nonsense, takes a shorter course,
Flings at your head, conviction in a lump,
And gains remote conclusions at a jump."

It is related in the Anglo-Saxon history, that when the Catholic missionaries came from abroad, to announce the truths of the Gospel to our pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors, it is related that an aged and venerable, but unconverted Thane thus addressed his pagan prince on the subject. "When," said he, "O King, you and your ministers are seated at table in the depth of winter, and the cheerful fire blazes on the hearth in the middle of the hall, a sparrow perhaps, chased by the wind and snow, enters at one door of the apartment, and escapes by the other. During the moment of its passage, it enjoys the warmth; when it is once departed, it is seen no more. Such is the nature of man. During a few years his existence is visible: but what has preceded, or what will follow it, is concealed from the view of mortals. If the new religion, offer any information on subjects so mysterious and important, it must be worthy of our attention." (Ling. His. Anglo-Sax. vol. i. pp. 29-30.) Happy shall I consider myself, O Englishmen, if in the above pages, I have advanced anything, that may be thought worthy of your attention on the subject of religion. Our lives, as this pagan, but aged and venerable Thane justly observes, are beautifully pictured by the short flight of a sparrow, flying through the narrow space of a hall, with a door open at each end. But after this short passage of life, there is something most awful, and mysterious awaiting us, and the true religion of God, only can unfold to us, how we may best prepare ourselves for the revelation of those awful moments, when time shall end, and eternity begin. Surely then, the sincere search after the true religion, must be a subject worthy of your information, of your attention, and of your frequent consideration. Happy, again I repeat it, shall I consider myself, if anything that I may have said, shall tend to assist you in the above important, and essential investigation. Refer, however, the glory and honour, not to me, but to the holy Catholic Church, under whose guidance I have been instructed. O holy Church, the pillar of truth and the child of Jesus Christ, if I stray from thine unerring word, I shall soon (a weak and frail child of Adam) fall down the awful precipice of spiritual inconsistencies, contradictions, and errors. Should I have advanced anything contrary to any article of thy holy faith, I am ready publicly to recall it. Under the safe shelter of thy unerring authority, I will fix my resting-place, and there, fear neither the scoffs of the infidel, nor the flimsy reasoning of those, who have unfortunately strayed from thy secure paths. O Englishmen, if you would only seriously, and conscientiously examine the _real_ merits of the Catholic Church, you would soon find that she is built upon the pillar of truth, and that she is the admirable work of that wise builder, Jesus Christ, who built His house upon a firm foundation. "And the rains fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat on that house, but it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock." (St. Matt. vii. 25.)

ERRATA.

FIRST ADDRESS.

Page 1, line 23, for "rights" read "rites."
8, note line 6, for "Gospels" read "Gospel."

PRINTED BY RICHARDSON AND SON, DERBY.

FOOTNOTES:

[H] In the preceding pages, I have asserted, that the Protestant Church, is unjust, in taking from the poor their portion of church property, which was left them by our charitable Catholic ancestors; nay, that it is also unjust, to exact tithes from those, who do not belong to the Protestant Church of England. Now this bold assertion against the Protestant Church, certainly requires a little explanation. A law may be considered in _two_ points of view, as a law of the _land_, and as a law of _God_. Now as the law of tithes in the Protestant Church, is sanctioned by act of parliament, of course the Protestant Church, is justified in exacting these tithes, for it has the law of the land at _its back in this respect_. But then, the Protestant law of tithes, considered in a _moral_ point of view, is certainly an unjust law. And why? Because it takes from the poor, what was _justly_ left them by our charitable ancestors, and it exacts money from the Catholics and dissenters, without doing any thing to them _in return_ for this money. Thus you see, that the law of _man_ and the law of _God_, sometimes _contradict_ each other; and this is _often_ the case, in your scriptural Church as by law established. But is not _God_ _always_ above _man_? Certainly; and therefore the _law_ of _God_, ought _always_ to have the preference to the _law_ of _man_. But this subject of Church tithes, reminds me of the famous Dr. Hook of Leeds, who is _often writing_ against the Roman Catholic Church, but slyly _never_ condescends to _answer_ any of her replies. Now, _mark well_, I am going to prove, _even to a demonstration_, from the words of Dr. Hook, that the Roman Catholic Church, is _really_ the _true_ Church of _Christ_ in _these realms_. Well, you will say, if you _can_ do _that_, Dr. Hook must be a _very strange_ and _inconsistent_ doctor of our Church. Really, do you know, I was just thinking the same. In the year 1832, the Somerset County Gazette informed the public, that Dr. Hook, in a sermon which he preached _before the Queen_, uttered the following _remarkable_ words: "Were all connection between church and state, at this very moment to cease, the church (that is, the Protestant Church) would remain _precisely_ as she _now_ is; that is to say, our bishops, though deprived of _temporal_ rank, would still exercise all those _spiritual_ functions which, conferred by higher than human authority, no human authority can take away; still to vacant sees they would consecrate new bishops, still ordain the clergy, still confirm the baptized, still govern the church." Such are the famous words of Dr. Hook, in his sermon before the Queen. Now let us see how _nicely_, they _prove_ the _Roman Catholic Church_, to be the _true_ Church of Christ in these realms. Whether this prophecy of Dr. Hook respecting the _Protestant_ Church, would be _really_ verified, were his church to be _separated_ from the state, I will not here enquire; but _this_ I will say, it has been already really verified with regard to the _Catholic_ Church _in England_. For although at the Reformation, the _Catholic_ Church was deprived of all aid from the state, although she was unjustly spoiled of those temporal riches left by her charitable children, and although the exercise of her faith, subjected her followers to the most _severe pains_ and _penalties_, (which must be for ever a disgrace to this country), still, Catholicity could not be extinguished in these kingdoms; for her bishops "_still continued_ to exercise all those _spiritual_ functions, which, conferred by _higher_ than _human_ authority, no human authority can take away, _still_, to _vacant_ sees, they consecrated new bishops, _still_ ordained the clergy, _still_ confirmed the baptized, _still_ governed the church." And hence this _Catholic_ Church, notwithstanding all the _stormy trials_, which she has undergone _in England_, exists now, and is exactly the same in spiritual power, as she was before the time of the Reformation. If, therefore, Dr. Hook considers that _this_ would be a _mark_ of the _true_ Church of Christ, were it to be _verified_ with regard to his _Protestant_ Church, we may _justly_ infer, according to the _Doctor's_ principle, that the _Roman Catholic_ Church, is the _true_ Church _of Christ in these realms_. And why? Because the doctor's principle, has been _already really verified_, with regard to _this_ church in these kingdoms. Really, I begin to think that the _famous_ Dr. Hook of Leeds, must be some relation to Martin Luther; for Martin, _even_ after he had left the Catholic Church, proves, in the following words, that the _Roman_ Catholic Church, was the _true_ Church of _Christ_. In his book against the Anabaptists, he makes the following _candid_ confession: "Under Papacy are many good things; yea, _everything_ that is _good_ in Christianity. I say, moreover," continues he, "under Papacy is _true_ christianity even the _very kernel_ of christianity." Here we have two doctors of the Protestant Church, leaving, _even after_ they had strained every nerve to _overturn_ this Catholic Church, we have, I repeat, these two Protestant doctors, leaving in their writings to posterity, _one_ by his line of _argumentation_, and the _other_ by his _own_ words, the most incontestible proofs that the Roman Catholic Church, is _really_ the _true_ Church of _Christ_, and that her fabric, is adorned with all the rich treasures of christianity. O how true is the declaration of the wise man! (Prov. xxi. 30,) "there is no wisdom, there is no prudence, there is no counsel against the Lord."

[I] Joseph Hume, Esq., is, or nearly I believe, the oldest member of the present House of Commons, and it may be _truly_ said, that, perhaps, no one in that House has acted with _greater_ consistency, and more _disinterested_ zeal, for the promotion of the welfare of his country. He has _always_ been a staunch advocate for reform, a patriot for the rights of the poor, and a manly defender of civil, and religious liberty _to all_. Hence, poor Dan. O'Connell, was sensible of the _distinguished_ political merits of this _great_, and consistent statesman; and hence, when an _English_ constituency rejected this worthy member from a seat in the House, Dan. _honourably_ obtained in _Ireland_ a seat for _this useful and consistent_ member. Now, I am glad to find, that the _remarks_ which I have just made, agree with the opinion of _this eminent_ statesman, _respecting the loaves and fishes of the protestant clergy_. The following, are the words which Joseph Hume, Esq. has _just_ uttered on this subject: "but their zeal (that is, the zeal of the protestant clergy,) against the Catholics, looks to me, to originate from _fear_ of the _loaves_ and _fishes_, which they now so _largely_ enjoy for doing _little_, and in _many_ cases _nothing_ of public duty." (Joseph Hume's, Esq., letter to W. J. Cole, Esq., Lechdale, Gloucestershire, 24th Dec., 1850.)

[J] I cannot help relating here a circumstance (I hope it is not foreign to the purpose) that happened to one of my acquaintance. He was travelling in a coach, in which were three other respectable passengers. Among other subjects, the conversation (as is often the case) turned on Catholics. One of the gentlemen, immediately commenced a philippic against the Catholics, and called them idolaters, superstitious, murderers, and many other _pretty_ names. My acquaintance allowed the gentleman, to pour out his abuse for some time _without interruption_, and appeared much amused by his bold assertions, and flaming descriptions of the poor _deluded_ papists. During the conversation, a person in liquor, rode up to the coach window, and began to annoy the passengers, by his yells and impertinent behaviour. My acquaintance immediately said to the gentleman, who was telling such pretty things about the Catholics, let us have this drunken man taken up, he has murdered two or three people. The gentleman replied, "Are you, Sir, _certain_ that he _has_ murdered two or three people? Can you _prove it_? Because it would be very _unjust_ to take the man up, unless you could _prove_ the crimes which you mention." "No," answered my acquaintance, "I am not certain. And let me ask you, if _you_ are _certain_, that all the charges, which you have just brought against the _Catholics_ are _true_? I am a Catholic, and must tell you they are _false_, and if _you_ would only follow the advice, which you have just given _me_ about this man, you would find the truth of what I say. If _you_ would not wish _me_ to accuse this man of a crime, which I am not certain he _has_ committed, I beg that _you_, for the future, will _never_ accuse the _Catholics_ of charges, which _you_ cannot _prove_ to be true, and which, if you would only take the trouble to examine, you would find to be _absolutely false_." The gentleman looked _much perplexed_, and was so ashamed of himself, that he never spoke another word until they parted. The other two gentlemen _enjoyed the joke wonderfully, and laughed most heartily_.

[K] We read of the ancient prophets, whom God sent to reform the Jews that they began their prophecies by admonishing the people, that the Lord had spoken to them: "Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken." Isai, c. i. v. 2. Whereas God has permitted that the doctrine of the Reformation, should have been originally announced to the world, by a man of insupportable pride, who disclaimed the authority, and doctrine of all Churches then upon the earth; who made no difficulty of acknowledging, that it was from _the devil_, he learned _one_ of the principal articles of the Reformation, and who might therefore, have said to his followers, "Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the _devil_ hath spoken."

[L] But some will perhaps ask, why did the _first_ reformers inveigh _so much_ against _Purgatory_ and _Prayers for the dead_? Why the first reformers liked _spiritual_ commerce, _without_ duty if they could only contrive it. Now, as a remuneration for Prayers for the dead, our charitable ancestors had left certain handsome sums of money; now these reformers liked the _money_, but _not_ the _obligation_ of the Prayers; and, therefore, they inveighed _right lustily against_ the Prayers, but took care to slyly pocket the money. But when this spiritual commerce could _not_ be carried on unless the duty was _performed_, they very kindly retained the popish practice, and thus secured the money; witness the tolling of the bell for persons _just_ dead, the churching of females, and of burying the dead. These and other are in reality the remnants of popish ceremonies, and the performance of them inspire on the _Catholic_ mind _devotional_ feelings; but by Protestants are, _in general_, looked upon very lightly, in a _spiritual_ point of view. But then take away these popish ceremonies, and off flies the fee. Will the fee for baptism be now demanded, as baptism has been _lately_ declared to be an unnecessary act of religion in the Protestant Church? Our Saviour said to His Apostles, "Go, teach all nations, _baptizing_ them," (that is, all nations,) but the Protestant Church says to her ministers, "Go teach all nations," but as to the _absolute necessity_ of baptism, our Saviour _must_ have been wrong, and, therefore, go please yourselves about it.

[M] Appendix to "Reasons why I am not a member of the Bible Society. By the Hon. Arthur Philip Percival, B.C.L. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty."--Fifth Edition.

[N] Would my Lord Harewood, who _lately_ figured so conspicuously on the platform in York, as the advocate for the pure and unadulterated Word of God, without note or comment, point out to the people _the sure guide_, which they are to follow, amidst this _awful Protestant_ falsification, and mutilation of the Sacred Scriptures? The Spanish chemist (as related above) cut his master into pieces, and put the pieces into his sublimatory glass, with the hope of raising his master, to a more perfect state than he enjoyed, when God made him. Now, my Lord, from what I have said above, has not the Protestant Church, cut the Scriptures into pieces, and put them into the sublimatory glass of falsification and mutilation? but, my Lord, will she be ever able to raise them again, to as perfect a state as they were in, when God made them, or when your Protestant Church received them, from the hands of the Catholic Church? I am sure, my Lord, she will be here at _fault_. Another remark or two, my Lord, and I have done. The man, who embraces a religious opinion from conviction, has undoubtedly the right to maintain it by argument. But truth will be his first and principal object, and the champion of truth, will disdain the petty artifices of substituting assertion for truth, and misrepresentation for fact. He will never condescend to swell the crowd of idle disputants, whose ingenuity first, frames a creed for the Church of Rome, and then, after combatting a phantom of its own creation, exults in an easy and a decisive victory. My Lord, just adopt this advice in all your _future_ observations on the creed of Catholics, and then, you will escape two ridiculous consequences; of exalting the Scriptures on the one hand, and of transgressing on the other, one of the golden precepts of that sacred volume, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." But far be it from me, my Lord, to _assert_ that you have _already done_ this. I merely wish to guard your Lordship, against the above ridiculous consequences. Now, as your ideas, with regard to the _Catholic_ doctrine on the Scriptures, appear to be rather vague, I will just state, in short, our doctrine on that subject. Our Saviour commanded his apostles to go and preach his gospel, and after they had done this for a certain time, he then inspired some of them to write certain books, for the fuller instruction of those persons on certain points, which they either did not perfectly understand, or of which they were ignorant. For, as the apostles were absent from these persons, (for twelve men could not be in many places at the same time,) they found it necessary to communicate by their pens, certain instructions which these persons required. Now, as what the apostles _wrote_, as well as what they _preached_, was _equally_ the inspired Word of God, the Catholic Church, afterwards, carefully collected those sacred books, which were written by some of these inspired men, gave to the whole of these sacred books thus collected, the name of the New Testament, and presented this volume to the people as the inspired Word of God, and has handed it down as such to her faithful in every age, in as perfect a manner as possible. And in the distribution of it to her faithful in every age, she has followed the example of the apostles. For she orders her ministers to go _first_, to preach and teach the gospel to the people, and _afterwards_, for their further instruction, she puts the sacred Scriptures into the hands of the faithful. But mind, as your Protestant Reformers have _shamefully_ corrupted and mutilated the sacred Scriptures, she rejects your human and metamorphosed translations, forbids the use of your incorrect, corrupt, and mutilated translations, and puts into their hands, _well-authenticated_ copies of that sacred volume. Hence, on account of her _great anxiety_, for the distribution of _correct_, and _well-authenticated_ copies among her faithful, certain Protestants have the _audacity_ to assert, that the Catholic Church, forbids the use of the Scripture to her people, or at least, will not let them read the pure word of God without note or comment. Do I impeach the veracity of these Protestants! Of some indeed I do, but not of all. But this I will say, most of them might know better, if they would only seek information from proper sources. I hope, this short explanation of the _Catholic_ doctrine on the Scripture, will satisfy Lord Harewood, and caution him never to speak on matters, which _essentially_ concern _his neighbour's_ interest, _unless_ he _first_ perfectly understands them.

One word more, and I have done. I once heard, that a Noble Lord, attending a great County Meeting, in the York Castle-yard, had achieved for himself a lasting notoriety, by declaring, that in his opinion, "the Bible ought to be read by all men, and women, and children, and _even idiots_." And scarcely had the merriment excited by this memorable burst of sound sense subsided, before his Lordship was heard thus resuming his exhilarating eloquence. "Yes, even by idiots. I myself have derived great advantage from that book." The effect upon the meeting was electric. The noble advocate of the unfortunate idiots, had so completely identified himself with his clients, that laughter became irresistible, and to what class of intelligent beings, his Lordship belonged, most evident. I believe this is the only instance on record, of a Noble Earl, establishing his religious opinions, at the expense of his understanding.

[O] Here follows a long extract from Lord Tenterden's Speech, which it is unnecessary to reprint.