Page images

is wisely modified, but her heart, like her laws, we fear is the same. Look at her victims, the meek and harmless Madiai, pining in her dungeons or working in chains ; mark, too, her recent persecutions of Matimoros and Alhama, in Spain, and hear her furious anathemas still thundering against the King of Italy. Has Rome renounced her infallibility ? Renounced it ? she will not allow it to be questioned; and so long as she claims infallibity it is not possible for her either to change her sentiments or repent of her foulest deeds. The continued assumption of infallibility perpetuates all her errors, sanctions all her crimes, and echoes from age to age a deliberate approval of all her sanguinary atrocities. All that she has done was right and is still right in her own eyes, and she virtually says she would repeat every past atrocity if she had the same opportunity and the same power. Yet this is the Church which men call by soft names, and address with tender eulogies. Infatuated men call her "holy," the Scriptures designate her " the mystery of iniquity;" men call her “ our venerable mother," the Scriptures call her “the great whore of Babylon, drunk with the blood of saints.” Recreant Protestants sigh for union with her ; the Scriptures cry, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Rev. xviii. 4). It is high time that Englishmen removed the films from their vision, and beheld this odious caricature of religion in a Scriptural aspect. Tenderness to Rome as a system is ingratitude to our martyrs, treason to truth, and cruelty to posterity.


We are


2. For more than thirty years we have not only altered our nomenclature in reference to Rome, but have favoured her aggressions by legislation. Let us not, however, be mistaken. advocates for persecution. We would not abridge one jot of the religious freedom of any Romanist. Though Popery refuses to allow us a site for a church in Rome, we would allow her land in London for as many as she chooses to build. Though she forbids us to assemble to worship God or to bury our dead in Rome, we would freely allow her to do both on any part of our soil. Though she will not allow us to distribute Bibles in Rome, we would allow her to circulate her missals in any place as freely as she likes. We would fetter no man's conscience; we would restrain no man in his religious opinions. Nor would we curtail any man's civil freedom in any point in which his principles do not restrict our own liberties, or come in collision with the constitution of the realm.

But the Church of Rome is not merely a religious institution, she is a political organization, and assumes political prerogatives, and prerogatives, too, above all other powers. She claims absolutism and supremacy, and claims to exercise them in other kingdoms as well as in She comes between the subject and the sovereign, and assumes the right to depose the one from the throne, and release the other from allegiance; and the prerogative she thus assumes she has often exercised, and determines still to exercise whenever she thinks proper so to do, and to give it effect by stratagem and blood. Now we say that the man who gives his allegiance to the Pope can yield but a subordinate and conditional allegiance to a Protestant sovereign. He is by principle intolerant in respect to Protestant liberties, and thereby disqualifies himself for power to legislate for Protestants in a Protestant state. The great Milton, whose majestic intellect commands the veneration of the wise and the good in all realms, said emphatically that “Popery should not be tolerated, as it aims to extirpate all religious and civil supremacies.” John Locke, whose able work on toleration has long been a high authority with liberal statesmen, speaking of Romanists who maintain that “faith is not to be kept with heretics," and that kings excommunicated by Popes “ forfeit their crowns and kingdoms,” expressly says—“These I say have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither these that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may, and are ready upon any occasion, to seize the government, and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow-subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?” So spake these sagacious and liberal expounders of human rights. How remarkably have recent facts sustained and justified these sentiments! When once there is a collision between allegiance to the Queen and the Pope, and between obedience to British law, and obedience to the law of the Pope, Romanists tell us plainly they do not hesitate to spurn the Queen, trample on British law, and display their fealty to the Pope. When Lord Truro asked with an air of incredulous amazement, “Is it to be said that the Roman Catholics of Ireland will not obey the law ?” the Tablet, a leading Popish journal, boldly replied, “We answer with the most perfect frankness, neither in England nor in Ireland will the Roman Catholics obey the law, that is, the law of the Imperial Parliament.” And the Catholic Vindicator says, “Rather than that our loyalty to the holy apostolic see should be in the least degree tarnished, let ten thousand kings and queens (and Victoria included) perish (as such), that is, let them be deposed from their thrones. When the Pope and the Queen are placed in antagonism to each other, as has been done lately, and it is intimated that her Majesty will not accept a divided allegiance, we are compelled to say plainly which allegiance we consider the most important; and we would not hesitate to tell the Queen to her face, that she must either be content with this divided allegiance, or none at all, so far as Catholics are con

her own.

This is plain speaking, and it has been audaciously carried out lately in several instances by practice. We ask, Are men of such principles fit to be our legislators; to make our laws, and mould the destinies of our country, sworn as they are to root out and destroy heretics, abrogate every law which defends our liberties as Protestants, and to overturn the throne itself if it stands in the way of Papal dominion ? And yet we have by Act of Parliament opened wide the doors of our legislature for their admission; and not only so, we have winked at “Papal aggression,” which defies the authority of the crown and tramples under foot British law. We timidly passed an Act called “The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill," and then still more timidly we allowed it virtually to become defunct. We have, indeed, in some instances been more indulgent to the arrogant assumptions of Popery than Papist monarchies are on the Continent; for, despite the law, we have allowed the land to be thickly studded with monastic institutions, though Italy has abolished them. We have even exempted those institutions from salutary inspection, and left the hidden abominations of the system to work without legal control. We have repealed the law against the publication of Papal Bulls, which France and even Spain have refused to allow in their dominions without examination and approval by the State; and while facilitating the spread of Popery by these legislative proceedings, we have further truckled to Papal demands by abolishing those elements of the Parliamentary oath which disclaimed the Pope's authority against the prerogatives of the Queen, thus relieving “honourable gentlemen” from certain qualms of conscience in their obeying the dicta of pope or priest when in collision with the authority of the throne, and the fundamental principles of the constitution. Men call this liberal, and liberal it is to Papal stratagems and purposes, though it is forging chains for ourselves and posterity, preparing the way step by step for Papal ascendancy, and for abrogating the precious privileges for which the noblest blood of England was shed. Meanwhile no concessions satisfy, but each in its turn becomes a precedent for further demands; and the leaders of the Papal faction tell us plainly they shall never rest until the Romanist can rise to the office of Lord Chancellor, and become the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland : nay, more, until the oath of supremacy be abolished, the existing prince be allowed to marry a Catholic, and the throne itself may be mounted by a Romanist.* This once attained, what will follow? May God avert from our nation the horrors of Papal ascendancy !

3. Such is our infatuation that we not only legislate for Popery, but actually endow it from the national treasury and local taxation.

* See the principles laid down by the “Catholic Defence Association” at a monster meeting held in the Rotunda at Dublin, August 19, 1851.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

We began with annual grants to Maynooth, which in 1815 were changed into a permanent endowment from the Consolidated Fund, and which endowment has risen to nearly £30,000 a year. Yet this sum the “Catholic Defence Association” calls but “a small instalment of justice from a legislature which has robbed the church of millions.” The Maynooth institution is a college for the manufacture of priests of the highest Popish school, educated in the most absolute tenets of the Jesuits, and fitted in the most consummate degree to form a succession of effective tools for the aggressive purposes of Rome.

Since the endowment of Maynooth we have proceeded to endow and subsidize other institutions and agencies of Popery, and that with a bountiful hand. In 1863 the Treasury grants to Roman Catholic schools were £35,195; and the total of these grants from 1839 to 1861 were £215,000. To Romish reformatory schools in Great Britain we gave £15,156; to national schools in Ireland (proportionate part to Romanists), £205,000; to Romish chaplains in Irish prisons and workhouses, £10,000; to Romish reformatory schools in Ireland, £50,000. In India and our colonies Popery had £10,000. These, with other grants, make a grand total of £384,409, paid by Government in one year for the support of Popery. Verily the times are changed. Our forefathers abhorred Popery; we cherish and support it. The Parliament in the days of the Reformation protected the nation against its sinister designs and its future aggressions; we deal out our gold by hundreds of thousands for its support. Nor are we, it is said, to stop here, for now an opinion is setting in with some parties, at least, and those high in legislative authority, that the Romish Church must be dealt with more generously still ; that, in fact, her hierarchy and her priesthood must be maintained from the national treasury, or by transferring the revenues of the Established Church in Ireland to her maintenance. Are not these things enough to make our martyrs rise from the dead and rebuke our incipient apostacy ? Englishmen, will you supinely allow the taxes, wrung from the sweat of your brow, to be applied to support the Man of Sin, and bring back to your country the dark days of a perverted faith, with the ignominy and the horrors of Papal domination? Forbid it, patriotism ; forbid it, religion; forbid it, God!

4. But after all the leanings towards Popery by the nation, and the support of it by legislative enactments and state endowments, there is yet to be named another source of influence, far more humiliating and far more formidable than all the rest, and that is Popery in the Protestant Church itself—that Church which once so resolutely threw off the Papal yoke, so ably defended the great principles of the Reformation, and gave her holy martyrs to die for the truth. About thirty-three years ago this new element of evil showed itself in the “ Tracts for the Times,” issuing from the seats of

learning in Oxford, and now so fully developed under the names of Puseyism and Ritualism. In those tracts almost every vital truth of the Gospel is assailed, almost every Popish error is advocated, and almost every priestly assumption held by Rome is contended for. Thether this movement was at first the work of Jesuits who, under the guise of a Protestant profession, found their way to the seats of learning in that venerable pile, we know not; but the effects have been most disastrous to the Church of England, and to the cause of Evangelical truth in general.

What is the spectacle we now behold? The clergy calling themselves priests, adopting the gaudy vestments, and mimicking the postures, the genuflexions, and processions of the priests of Rome, with lighted candles on the altar, with burning incense, with crosses, crucifixes, and various ceremonies, conforming the simple worship of God as much as they dare to the elaborate, gorgeous, and idolatrous worship performed in the mass-houses of Rome. Nor is this all. The doctrines of the Bible, so clearly set forth in the Articles, and Homilies, and services of the Church of England, are partly denied, partly explained away, and partly by an ingenious, but unprincipled sophistry, so twisted and perverted as to speak the language of Popery. In the “ Tracts for the Times” it is maintained that the Scriptures are not a sufficient rule of faith and practice, but that we are to be guided by ancient tradition and the writings of the Fathers, which are placed on equal authority with the Bible, and are expressly called " The Oracles of Truth.”* This is in direct contradiction to the Church of England, but precisely the doctrine of Rome. It is maintained that, in virtue of an unbroken succession from the apostles, the episcopal clergy are exclusively God's ambassadors. This, again, is precisely the doctrine of Rome. Seven sacraments are contended for-namely, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme taction--as well as baptism and the Supper of our Lord. This, again, is diametrically opposed to the Church of England, but is identical with Rome. The merit of good works is affirmed,ß which is totally antagonistic to the Protestant Church, but openly maintained, and, with a curse on dissentients, defended by the Church of Rome. The real miraculous presence of Christ in the bread and wine, after consecration by the priest, is openly enjoined by the Puseyites. This, though flatly contradicted by the Church of England, is a fundamental dogma of Rome, for the denial of which many a holy Protestant has died at the stake. That the Sacrament is a real sacrifice, which the priest offers to God for the quick and the dead, is another dogma held by both Puseyite and Papist, though denounced by the Protestant Church. In a word, the doctrines of purgatory, prayers for the dead,

* See Tract No. 90, pp. 8–11; and “Lyra Apostolica.”
† Tract No. 4, p. 11. # Tract No. 90, pp. 43–46. § Froude, 246.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »